Jump to content

"Don't Talk To Cops"


Joe Frickin' Friday

Recommended Posts

Joe Frickin' Friday

An interesting pair of videos on YouTube:

 

Police officers have a job to do, but you aren't required to help them do it. In this video, a law professor delivers a classroom lecture on the practical application of the fifth amendent, and how easy it is to get yourself in trouble if you're a suspect (or even if you're not) who insists on talking to the police without a lawyer present. Don't fire it up unless you've got some time to kill; it's about 27 minutes long, and IMO very informative.

 

This is the follow-up, in which a veteran police officer explains what he can and can't do when interviewing suspects, and the various ways in which people have unwittingly screwed themselves over during interviews he has conducted over the course of his career. Not quite as long, only 21 minutes, but also very good.

 

 

Link to comment

Great! If your wife, daughter, or other family member were the victim of a crime we'd sure want the suspect to view these.

 

"any sane attorney will advise their client to not speak to the police"

 

Sure....and what is the retainer fee for his service?

 

True, a great many suspects are jailed for their own admissions. I'd also suggest that many of these would be jailed by probable cause alone.

What he fails to tell is the fact that many DA's will offer better deals to these folks. I know several DA's that go for the max when faced with long trials.

 

JMHO

Link to comment

It's just too darn hard for "most" people to keep from telling you stuff though. There must be some primal need in a human being to communicate their involvement in a serious crime...well even petty ones for that matter. We had scenarios at the academy long ago where on a traffic stop , the violator would have NO interaction with the LEO other than providing the requested documents and NOTHING more. Short of exigent circumstances you just can't compel someone to provide much more to accomplish your original intention of issuing a citation or not. Thank heavens 99% of society voluntarliy gives more.

Link to comment

True. Most folks will talk at some point.

 

I think we should raise our kids under this type of "no talk to the cops" rule. Won't life be fun!

Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday
Great! If your wife, daughter, or other family member were the victim of a crime we'd sure want the suspect to view these.

 

I trust you would want your wife, daughter or other family member to view these if they were the suspect in a crime. (please note: "suspect" and "perpetrator" are two different things here).

 

Or are you generally opposed to people being aware of their legal rights?

 

"any sane attorney will advise their client to not speak to the police"

 

Sure....and what is the retainer fee for his service?

 

In your experience as a LEO, is he correct about how easily people can [untintionally] cast suspicion upon themselves during an interview? For example, admitting that they never liked the murder victim...is that enough to establish "motive," or cause the police to more vigorously investigate a suspect?

 

True, a great many suspects are jailed for their own admissions. I'd also suggest that many of these would be jailed by probable cause alone.

 

What he fails to tell is the fact that many DA's will offer better deals to these folks. I know several DA's that go for the max when faced with long trials.

 

For clarity: you are saying they offer better deals to folks who have confessed or otherwise incriminated themselves (prior to trial)?

Link to comment
I trust you would want your wife, daughter or other family member to view these if they were the suspect in a crime. (please note: "suspect" and "perpetrator" are two different things here).

 

Or are you generally opposed to people being aware of their legal rights?

 

No, I'd want them to tell the truth, as soon as possible. I darn sure want to be a good witness to ANY crime. Knowing your rights is fine. Asking for a lawyer is even smart. Spreading his type of hype is pure internet diarrhea....in my opinion.

 

In your experience as a LEO, is he correct about how easily people can [untintionally] cast suspicion upon themselves during an interview? For example, admitting that they never liked the murder victim...is that enough to establish "motive," or cause the police to more vigorously investigate a suspect?

 

Some yes, and some no. It still takes more than that to secure a conviction. There is no such thing as a "vigorous" investigation. They are really all the same. 17 years now in the business and they are all done the same way.

 

 

 

For clarity: you are saying they offer better deals to folks who have confessed or otherwise incriminated themselves (prior to trial)?

 

Sure they do. It happens thousands of times a day. Can you imagine the courts if everything went to trial. Global warning would seem like a Boy Scout project.

Link to comment
So you you ask for that lawyer only after you've talked to a trained police interviewer?

 

In this case it is really like on TV. We do read you your rights as a reminder.....before questioning.

 

What you do after that is YOUR choice, or right.

Link to comment
An interesting pair of videos on YouTube:

 

Police officers have a job to do, but you aren't required to help them do it. In this video, a law professor delivers a classroom lecture on the practical application of the fifth amendent, and how easy it is to get yourself in trouble if you're a suspect (or even if you're not) who insists on talking to the police without a lawyer present. Don't fire it up unless you've got some time to kill; it's about 27 minutes long, and IMO very informative.

 

This is the follow-up, in which a veteran police officer explains what he can and can't do when interviewing suspects, and the various ways in which people have unwittingly screwed themselves over during interviews he has conducted over the course of his career. Not quite as long, only 21 minutes, but also very good.

 

 

Well, I have always fancied myself a great interviewer and/or interrogator. People will open up with you if you know how to get them to talk. I have had the pleasure (or not) of having some very graphic confessions involving murders, child molests, rapes and other violent crimes. It can be done.....law professor or not. We get what we call in the business "curbside lawyers" who think they know it all. Victims, suspects or bystanders alike. Sometimes (ok, lots of time) they are hilarious to listen to.

 

TV does a huge disservice to the LEO field...nothing like a good COP show to ruin it for the real ones!

Link to comment
In this case it is really like on TV. We do read you your rights as a reminder.....before questioning.

 

What you do after that is YOUR choice, or right.

Understood, but are you saying that any person who believes themselves to be innocent should waive those rights and talk to the police without an attorney?

Link to comment
Understood, but are you saying that one should waive those rights and talk to the police without an attorney?

 

If that is what you wish to do. I've seen interviews go both ways. I've seen non-rep interviews really work out well for people.

 

Like I said before, I really think that most folks will be caught if they are in the position of being interviewed as a suspect.

 

My question is that if you didn't do it, you tell the truth, why not clear your name? I've bever seen an interview held against anyone unless they lied.

Link to comment
I trust you would want your wife, daughter or other family member to view these if they were the suspect in a crime. (please note: "suspect" and "perpetrator" are two different things here).

 

Or are you generally opposed to people being aware of their legal rights?

 

No, I'd want them to tell the truth, as soon as possible. I darn sure want to be a good witness to ANY crime. Knowing your rights is fine. Asking for a lawyer is even smart. Spreading his type of hype is pure internet diarrhea....in my opinion.

 

In your experience as a LEO, is he correct about how easily people can [untintionally] cast suspicion upon themselves during an interview? For example, admitting that they never liked the murder victim...is that enough to establish "motive," or cause the police to more vigorously investigate a suspect?

 

Some yes, and some no. It still takes more than that to secure a conviction. There is no such thing as a "vigorous" investigation. They are really all the same. 17 years now in the business and they are all done the same way.

 

 

 

For clarity: you are saying they offer better deals to folks who have confessed or otherwise incriminated themselves (prior to trial)?

 

Sure they do. It happens thousands of times a day. Can you imagine the courts if everything went to trial. Global warning would seem like a Boy Scout project.

 

 

Truth is only 23% of all REPORTED crimes are solved. And only 7% (or less) of those even make it to trial.

 

Eric is right....the courts would run screaming in the night. And for clarification, not every arrest or detention does not require miranda warnings.

 

It has to do with the free to leave (or not) standards. I love to teach criminal and constitutional law. It is a riot to see what people really think about their rights.

 

Don't get me wrong...I love to protect the freedoms guaranteed to all of us...however, criminals are often not so smart. :lurk:

Link to comment

This just boils down one thing. A person living life honorably would have much less need for an attorney. An honorable man that falls short will keep his honor if he is honest...er ummmm did that make sense?? :eek:

 

and those that seek to deceive, bargain and justify will be their own companion.

Link to comment
My question is that if you didn't do it, you tell the truth, why not clear your name? I've bever seen an interview held against anyone unless they lied.

Well presumably you just watched the presentation but to sum it up again, if I am questioned by the police about a crime for which I am innocent (especially if I am innocent) I'll have little or no information about the circumstances and may make a honest statement that may erroneously implicate me in the eyes of the police. Of course it's true that not talking may look suspicious in itself but the only thing that really matters is what happens in court. Seems better to start making the statements after you and your attorney know all the facts.

 

Unless you feel that an erroneous assumption/rush to judgment/flat simple mistake on the part of police is so minute that it shouldn't be a concern to an innocent party? I'm not trying to be disingenuous and I'm really asking, have you never seen this happen? I'm sure you can understand why someone with no understanding of the criminal justice system (whom you guys seem to like to ridicule), innocent or not, might be a little hesitant to go up against trained professionals who feel that they are guilty or worthy of serious suspicion (or, as you implied, they wouldn't be there)?

 

 

Link to comment

You and your attorney will never know all the facts. This portion, the intial interivew, is done to establish the facts.

 

Most attorneys will ask their clients to tell what they know at some point. I've had several even tell the client over the phone to answer the questions.

 

It is really a good thing to talk ASAP if you are not guilty, or are a witness. You need to eliminate yourself as a suspect, or at least get your story out there. As a witness I'd NEVER seek legal aid before talking. Why would a person need legal aid to tell a story of something they saw?

 

Again, I've never seen a witness or guilty person harmed by giving their side of the story unless it was a lie.

 

I saw the presentation and was not real sure about the "factual" accounts of either the lawyer or the cop.

 

Food for thought. I've seen poor attorneys give some really bad advice to their clients as well. Should I do a video of why I'd never hire an attorney???

 

Having an attorney present is not a failsafe method to assure your freedom. Telling the truth rarely, if ever, has a negative result.

 

FYI....A lawyer will file a discovery motion to obtain the "facts" of the case as well as all evidence and statements gathered, but is much later than the initial interview. At that time we share all of the information of the case and all wit and suspect statements. That is usually when the lawyer and DA work out some kind of deal. If it's a real strong case the DA has the upper hand. If it's less than solid the lawyer then has a better chance of getting a good deal, or a complete dismissal.

I hate to use a poker analogy, but it really is like who has a better hand....and yes, they bluff from time to time!

Link to comment
You and your attorney will never know all the facts. This portion, the intial interivew, is done to establish the facts.

 

Most attorneys will ask their clients to tell what they know at some point. I've had several even tell the client over the phone to answer the questions.

 

It is really a good thing to talk ASAP if you are not guilty, or are a witness. You need to eliminate yourself as a suspect, or at least get your story out there. As a witness I'd NEVER seek legal aid before talking. Why would a person need legal aid to tell a story of something they saw?

 

Again, I've never seen a witness or guilty person harmed by giving their side of the story unless it was a lie.

 

I saw the presentation and was not real sure about the "factual" accounts of either the lawyer or the cop.

 

Food for thought. I've seen poor attorneys give some really bad advice to thier clients as well. Should I do a video of why I'd never hire an attorney???

 

Having an attorney present is not a failsafe method to assure your freedom. Telling the truth rarely, if ever, has a negative result.

 

 

I love it on the cop shows when the attorney walks in to the interview room and says: "We are done here." then attempts to walk out with the perp! HA!

Link to comment

I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide.

 

True, but you have been known to associate with Richard. I'd go against my own advice here and I'd hire an attorney if I were you :rofl:

 

That man has GUILTY written all over him!

Link to comment
Dave McReynolds

My own personal feeling is that if I were interviewed about a crime of violence, I would just freely answer all the questions I was asked, and volunteer all the information I knew. If I were interviewed about a crime of violence, it would probably be either because I was a witness or else knew the victim. Since I don't know anyone I wish violence on, I would have no motive, and so I guess I would just take my chances.

 

On the other hand, if I were interviewed about a financial fraud, I would be less likely to cooperate and would probably ask to have an attorney represent me. I don't plan to commit a financial fraud, but those things just get too complicated, and I think it is far more likely that I could be unjustly implicated in a financial fraud than in a crime of violence. Once I was interviewed by the FBI, and although I was happy to offer them any information I had, my attorney met with them first, and only after he was satisfied that I was not a target of their investigation did I agree to be interviewed.

Link to comment

I'm not really trying to take a side here because I'm way out of my depth, and I will say this... in the example given in the presentation where the innocent party was visiting his mother in the Outer Banks and a mistaken witness thought she saw him in Virginia Beach... I'm not sure where the jeopardy would be in telling the police where you were. If you were a suspect you would eventually have to identify where you were at some point in the process and that would conflict with the witness no matter when the statement was made. The conflict will exist no matter what you do so where is the danger in simply stating your whereabouts up front? Seems like that is what a jury would expect an innocent person to do.

 

 

Link to comment

The justice system (civil and criminal) is NOT about seeking the truth. It IS about coming to a resolution (right or wrong) so that society can move on. The individual is better off being concerned with his or her right to remain silent. From a long time (successful) trial attorney . . .

Link to comment

Still trying to see the use for the original post......sorta like the post about the trooper ticketing the prego lady. Seems like some subliminal messages are being sent 'round here.

Link to comment
Still trying to see the use for the original post......sorta like the post about the trooper ticketing the prego lady. Seems like some subliminal messages are being sent 'round here.

 

I don't know about that....

 

Last time I talked to you Pete you wound up w/a pink hat on...

 

There's a reason I don't want to talk to you :rofl:

Link to comment
Seems like some subliminal messages are being sent 'round here.

I don't want to speak for Mitch but that's not really his MO (for you LEO folks.) I just took it as someone posting some interesting subject matter, sans agenda. Admittedly that's rare around here but some manage to do it.

Link to comment
Seems like some subliminal messages are being sent 'round here.

I don't want to speak for Mitch but that's not really his MO (for you LEO folks.) I just took it as someone posting some interesting subject matter, sans agenda. Admittedly that's rare around here but some manage to do it.

 

Nor Tim's for that matter, was just an observation, not a slam...could be wrong, have been before.....

Link to comment
Seems like some subliminal messages are being sent 'round here.

I don't want to speak for Mitch but that's not really his MO (for you LEO folks.) I just took it as someone posting some interesting subject matter, sans agenda. Admittedly that's rare around here but some manage to do it.

 

It's unfortunate that the talks have been titled the way they are, because he never seems to say -- unless I missed it -- that he's not really talking about witnesses; he's really talking about those who may be subjects or targets of an investigation.

 

For those people being targeted for arrest or who have already been arrested, none of this stuff is going to get worked out beneficially for the until the attorneys are the ones doing the talking. Why take the risk of saying anything to the police?

Link to comment
True, but you have been known to associate with Richard. :rofl:

 

Careful, so have you! :wave:

 

That man has GUILTY written all over him!

 

At least he hasn't had the guy spend the night at his house!!! Tank would disagreee with my "guilty looks!"

 

:thumbsup:

Link to comment

Haven't watched the video and don't plan on doing so.

 

Given the number of people wrongly convicted and then DNA shows they didn't do the crime, it seems prudent to have representation. The old "if you didn't do anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about" just doesn't make sense to me given the fact that A VERY FEW not ALL LEO and prosecutors have shown a willingness to be more interested in conviction than the truth.

 

While this is a very small percentage, why take the chance that those kind would be the ones who ended up asking you questions.

 

I'm thankful that we live in a country that guarantees certain individual rights. They are included in our Constitution for a reason. We should remember that folks fought and died so that we can enjoy these rights.

 

If one of my relatives was a victim, I would be very interested that the person who actually committed the crime was the one tried and convicted. How terrible it would be to know that an innocent person was convicted and the guilty person was free.

 

 

 

Link to comment

Interesting discussion.

 

I've worked with, and around law enforcement types all my life.

 

Most of the time, an innocent, honest person has nothing to fear from the average law enforcement officer.

 

My only caution is to remember that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

 

Link to comment
Haven't watched the video and don't plan on doing so.

 

Given the number of people wrongly convicted and then DNA shows they didn't do the crime, it seems prudent to have representation. The old "if you didn't do anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about" just doesn't make sense to me given the fact that A VERY FEW not ALL LEO and prosecutors have shown a willingness to be more interested in conviction than the truth.

 

While this is a very small percentage, why take the chance that those kind would be the ones who ended up asking you questions.

 

I'm thankful that we live in a country that guarantees certain individual rights. They are included in our Constitution for a reason. We should remember that folks fought and died so that we can enjoy these rights.

 

If one of my relatives was a victim, I would be very interested that the person who actually committed the crime was the one tried and convicted. How terrible it would be to know that an innocent person was convicted and the guilty person was free.

 

 

 

 

I can say with 100% certainty that all my arrests and convictions are rock solid.

The fact of the matter is that most arrests are not done by DNA evidence. They are an accumulation of evidence that often times does not involve blood or other body fluids. Much of the time it is hard work by the LEO /Detective. We call it "GOYAKOD" or Get off your a$$ and knock on doors.

 

Although there have been some convictions that were overturned by DNA and the like...there are very few of them in the scheme of things. And for all intents and purposes that does not rule out the original suspect from the crime (s). Some rapes are "dry" rapes...no semen by the perp as it is not a crime of passion, but rather power. They cannot fulfill the physical part, but their accomplice can so the DNA clears one of them while the other unsub is still at large .

 

There are much more to the connection of a person to a crime than DNA or fingerprints. All cases of magnitude are complex and tiring.......

 

My wife is one of the reasons that the mass murderer's Alex Garcia and Jonathon Doody were spared the death penalty in the killing of 9 people. There were other murders but this one was the most savage. Yes she is on the opposite side of the fence but we don't throw stones at each other. We all have our passions in life. Mine is mine and hers is well.....never mind. And I too am glad of our constitutional liberties here in the US. Not perfect, but it beats many places I have been to.

 

http://www.apfn.net/dcia/doody93.html

 

Link to comment
Most of the time, an innocent, honest person has nothing to fear from the average law enforcement officer.

 

If an innocent, honest person has been arrested, he has lots of to fear from most any law enforcement officer. That's why that person should shut up and seek counsel.

Link to comment
Haven't watched the video and don't plan on doing so.

 

Given the number of people wrongly convicted and then DNA shows they didn't do the crime, it seems prudent to have representation. The old "if you didn't do anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about" just doesn't make sense to me given the fact that A VERY FEW not ALL LEO and prosecutors have shown a willingness to be more interested in conviction than the truth.

 

While this is a very small percentage, why take the chance that those kind would be the ones who ended up asking you questions.

 

I'm thankful that we live in a country that guarantees certain individual rights. They are included in our Constitution for a reason. We should remember that folks fought and died so that we can enjoy these rights.

 

If one of my relatives was a victim, I would be very interested that the person who actually committed the crime was the one tried and convicted. How terrible it would be to know that an innocent person was convicted and the guilty person was free.

 

 

 

 

I can say with 100% certainty that all my arrests and convictions are rock solid.

The fact of the matter is that most arrests are not done by DNA evidence. They are an accumulation of evidence that often times does not involve blood or other body fluids. Much of the time it is hard work by the LEO /Detective. We call it "GOYAKOD" or Get off your a$$ and knock on doors.

 

Although there have been some convictions that were overturned by DNA and the like...there are very few of them in the scheme of things. And for all intents and purposes that does not rule out the original suspect from the crime (s). Some rapes are "dry" rapes...no semen by the perp as it is not a crime of passion, but rather power. They cannot fulfill the physical part, but their accomplice can so the DNA clears one of them while the other unsub is still at large .

 

There are much more to the connection of a person to a crime than DNA or fingerprints. All cases of magnitude are complex and tiring.......

 

My wife is one of the reasons that the mass murderer's Alex Garcia and Jonathon Doody were spared the death penalty in the killing of 9 people. There were other murders but this one was the most savage. Yes she is on the opposite side of the fence but we don't throw stones at each other. We all have our passions in life. Mine is mine and hers is well.....never mind. And I too am glad of our constitutional liberties here in the US. Not perfect, but it beats many places I have been to.

 

http://www.apfn.net/dcia/doody93.html

 

I appreciate your response.

Link to comment
skinny_tom (aka boney)
I've done nothing wrong and have nothing to hide.

 

True, but you have been known to associate with Richard. I'd go against my own advice here and I'd hire an attorney if I were you :rofl:

 

That man has GUILTY written all over him!

 

When he passed the Sheriff over double yellows, do you think I followed him? :grin:

Link to comment

"If an innocent, honest person has been arrested, he has lots of to fear from most any law enforcement officer."

 

I am interested to know why you think that is the case?

Link to comment
Most of the time, an innocent, honest person has nothing to fear from the average law enforcement officer.

 

If an innocent, honest person has been arrested, he has lots of to fear from most any law enforcement officer. That's why that person should shut up and seek counsel.

 

That's why you should read the last sentence in my post! (this is where the smiley face would be!)

Link to comment
"If an innocent, honest person has been arrested, he has lots of to fear from most any law enforcement officer."

 

I am interested to know why you think that is the case?

 

The most obvious is that the innocent person has to fear losing his liberty. He's already lost a bit, having been arrested. He'll have to report for the rest of his life on various applications that he has been arrested.

 

An honest person will naively believe the cops when they tell him about how he'll only help himself if he's honest. He'll want to help, and he'll likely only dig himself a hole. He's going to be questioned by people who believe he's guilty and want more proof of it than they've already got, not by people who are interested in finding the truth.

 

In short, there's nothing to gain from talking to the cops after being arrested. They aren't going to let the person go. They're going to hear everything through their filters. Anything said could easily be twisted to be used against an honest, innocent person. There's nothing that talking to the cops will provide that can't better be handled by having an attorney talking with the prosecutor.

 

That people continue to talk in spite of the warnings they receive is a testament to the stupidity and/or naivete of most people.

Link to comment
"If an innocent, honest person has been arrested, he has lots of to fear from most any law enforcement officer."

 

I am interested to know why you think that is the case?

 

Because everything depends on if the LEO/DA/official also thinks you are innocent, and even, in some hopefully very rare cases, on whether the LEO/DA/official is more interested in a conviction than truth/justice, e.g. any conviction vs the right conviction.

 

Bottom line, you are at their mercy and judgment and you are subject to their good will. There are simply too many cases where this has been shown to be inadequate.

 

We have had in this country a case in which a coroner was found to have constructed evidence to order in hundreds of cases, even to the point of manufacturing bullet wounds that did not exist and autopsying organs that had been removed by surgery long before death. We have had OJ Simpson in which an evidence chain-of-custody system designed and operated for the purpose of allowing evidence tampering for conviction was exposed, and I won't even mention Illinois, ooops I guess I mentioned it.... that had to suspend it's death penalty because of so many DNA exonerations. And then there is Dallas, where prosecutors are now or were recently reviewing cases due to systematic discrimination against persons of color. Cases of prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence are reasonably common as well.

 

We have a supreme court that has allowed the police to use just about any tactic short of Abu Ghraib: They can lie to you, they can keep you up under interview for hours on end, tag team you, play good cop/bad cop, use jailhouse snitches who work for rewards without disclosing those rewards, and generally subject you to the tactics that have been proven in hundreds of cases to have resulted in false confessions. Some estimates are that a third of confessions are false, as people get to the point where they will say anything to end the questioning.

 

The fact is that in most of this country prosecutors and many of the sheriffs are elected, which means that they want to portray themselves as tough on crime and effective. They want convictions in high profile cases and they can usually bamboozle a jury enough to get one. And that's when they are being relatively honest. My college roommate was a Criminal Justice major so he could be a cop because as he stated repeatedly, he wanted "to beat nigger's heads in" (let me state that I found him and this to be repugnant, to say the least).

 

And, the one thing I agree with AZKomet on, juries are unpredictable and unreliable. People lack critical thinking skills, desire to be tough on crime, tend to trust authority, and don’t understand the application of the law, particularly, “Beyond a reasonable doubt”. Oh, and courtroom rules vary tremendously. Some allow jurors to take notes for instance, while others don’t.

 

It’s a rough and tumble system, and the point of the videos was that when you talk, you are handing up a whole lot of ammo to a group of people who as Scott said, if I may paraphrase, may think you are guilty.

 

Link to comment
True, but you have been known to associate with Richard. :rofl:

 

Careful, so have you! :wave:

 

That man has GUILTY written all over him!

 

At least he hasn't had the guy spend the night at his house!!! Tank would disagreee with my "guilty looks!"

 

:thumbsup:

 

 

I'm Innocent Your Honor and Richard was riding east in Sisters Oregon during that incident, I swear...

Link to comment

My college roommate was a Criminal Justice major so he could be a cop because as he stated repeatedly, he wanted "to beat nigger's heads in" (let me state that I found him and this to be repugnant, to say the least).

 

I just want to puke.

 

Why don't you speak of the vast amount of the drug using/dealing lawyers who sit at their computers all looking a kiddy porn?

I've seen lawyers lie, cheat, and steal as bad as any crook out there. There have been entire fortunes stolen by lawyers who are eaten up with greed and corruption. I’ve seen lawyers fabricate witnesses that did not exist and I’ve seen them buy neutral testimony to get their clients off. Let’s not even go into the “expert witness” list that all the crooked attorneys have.

You need proof of bad lawyers….just look at our nation’s leaders!

It really seems that you and Greg both have an extremely warped since of the justice system. Funny all the bad only comes from the prosecution side of things. I think there is plenty of blame to go on both sides.

 

As for your roommate, I’ve been fortunate that during my entire career I’ve never seen an officer physically abuse a person….NEVER. I’ve seen cops lie, cheat, and steal, but never physically abuse someone. I’ve also NEVER seen evidence fabricated or false statements written. I guess my view is tainted because I come from the “bad” side of things.

 

Some estimates are that a third of confessions are false, as people get to the point where they will say anything to end the questioning

 

Bollocks.......

 

 

 

We have a supreme court that has allowed the police to use just about any tactic short of Abu Ghraib:

 

Hmmmmmmm...are they not lawyers?

Link to comment
True. Most folks will talk at some point.

 

I think we should raise our kids under this type of "no talk to the cops" rule. Won't life be fun!

 

I have instructed my kids to not talk to cops. Period. It is a result of events like this.

 

Michael Crowe

 

Crowe was interogated until he actually believed he had killed his sister. It turned out to be a migrant.

 

7 Teens arrested in hate crimes.

In this case, teens that did not participate, were grouped in with the three individuals that had commited the crimes. The San Diego DA does not care about truth. They only care about convitions. I know this personally. Every once in a while, San Diego gets sick of the crap and we purge the office with another *sshat.

 

Once I was walking to school with a group of guys. I knew one personally, and the others were just smaller groups that merged as one guy in a group recognized a guy in the other group. It wasn't a big deal until one of the guys reaches down, picks up the rock and hurls it at a car. The car crashed. After a few seconds of disbelief, we ran, just like the culprit. Had I been picked up, under the San Diego system, I would have been charged with the crime because of my proximity. And, by the way, I did tell an adult I trusted.

 

Nope, not going to change my view on this. Don't talk to the cops.

 

The kids have been instructed to insist on my precense. When I get there, I'm going to tell them to keep their mouth shut and contact a lawyer. Admit that when you are talking to people, you are gathering evidence.

 

This is not an isolated incident. And, in San Diego, jurors feel that you wouldn't be on trial if you hadn't done anything. Ask Dale Akiki how he feels about the San Diego justice system.

 

I'm sorry, but I've seen enough police abuses to know that if the police are talking to you, you are suspect. I wish it were like my childhood when we were told that the police were our friends, but I don't feel that way.

Link to comment
Why don't you speak of the vast amount of the drug using/dealing lawyers who sit at their computers all looking a kiddy porn?

I've seen lawyers lie, cheat, and steal as bad as any crook out there. There have been entire fortunes stolen by lawyers who are eaten up with greed and corruption. I’ve seen lawyers fabricate witnesses that did not exist and I’ve seen them buy neutral testimony to get their clients off. Let’s not even go into the “expert witness” list that all the crooked attorneys have.

You need proof of bad lawyers….just look at our nation’s leaders!

 

Hey Eric, thanks for pointing that out, that on top of all of the rest of it you are quite likely to get a bad lawyer to help you too.

 

It really seems that you and Greg both have an extremely warped since of the justice system. Funny all the bad only comes from the prosecution side of things. I think there is plenty of blame to go on both sides.

 

Don't be ridiculous. The issue is what you should do if you are being questioned, not blaming sides. The only thing relevant to that issue is what risks and benefits do your create for yourself by talking or staying silent. To that end the only concern is how the authorities might use that info. Evidence of systematic prosecutorial abuse is relevant, evidence of incompetent defense lawyers just adds to the problem.

 

As for your roommate, I’ve been fortunate that during my entire career I’ve never seen an officer physically abuse a person….NEVER. I’ve seen cops lie, cheat, and steal, but never physically abuse someone. I’ve also NEVER seen evidence fabricated or false statements written. I guess my view is tainted because I come from the “bad” side of things.

 

You have been lucky apparently then because these things have been pretty thoroughly documented in so many cases that they seem to be common enough. But my point was simply that not everyone goes into LE for the best reasons or has a suspects interests first in their hearts. Racial disparity in the justice system is indisputably documented and is an example, that's all. I'm not impugning you or any other LEO on this board. In fact I'm still rather looking forward to meeting you :) .

Link to comment

Pretty simple... I advise my clients not to talk to people smarter or more skilled than them when something is under investigation e.g. A few decades ago I started life as an IRS agent. It is not wise to talk to IRS Agent without a tax advisor. I don't think it is wise to talk about a real estate deal without a real estate agent/professional. I don't think it is wise for a tax attorney to try to use his expertise to talk about crime. I don't think it is wise to have a conversation with law enforcement without representation. Why? Well quite frankly law enforcement is trained and wiser at what they are doing than the average citizen is in that dialogue.

 

And I can assure you the old saying is true, A man who represents himself has a fool for a client

 

So I hope for the LEO's on the board, you understand my position is a sign of respect for your qualifications and nothing else. There is no doubt you are better at your profession than I am at your profession.

Link to comment

You have been lucky apparently then because these things have been pretty thoroughly documented in so many cases that they seem to be common enough.

 

No, actually, there are very few. There are hundreds of thousands of contacts daily with the police and a very few end up in the paper or being documented.

 

Racial disparity in the justice system is indisputably documented and is an example, that's all.

 

Yes, I'll agree. OJ walks with a "racial" jury.

Link to comment

"Yes, sir, I saw the car that hit the motorcyclist and fled the scene.

No sir, I won't tell you what I saw.

My momma told me not to talk to cops."

 

I'm glad the man who saw the truck that intentionally hit me and left me for dead was willing to talk to the cops.

 

Somehow in this thread, the line between, witness, answering questions in an investigation, ("were you home when your neighbors house was burning?"), person of interest, suspect, and someone who has been arrested have all blurred together into one type of response.

That's a shame.

For every bad cop, there is a large number of bad citizens who hinder the process, through intentional actions, or by failing to act.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...