"Don't Talk To Cops"

[ghaverkamp]

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.

 

The topic wasn't "What ails the criminal justice system?" The topic was whether or not someone should speak to the police under a custodial interrogation. At least, that was the topic of the videos. Whether or not there are corrupt lawyers has little or nothing to do with whether it is wise to give the government ammunition when they already suspect you of committing a crime.

 

I'm not convinced it's my view that is warped. You and Dave and others are on the other side of an adversarial system, and you seem completely convinced that your adversary is evil and apparently predominately populated by liars, cheats, and child pornographers.

 

On the other hand, I wasn't accusing police of being evil. I accuse police of trying to do their jobs, often with a single-minded focus. And because of that focus, it's my feeling that anyone who decided to talk in a custodial interrogation is a moron. Fortunately for the police, most criminals are morons. Unfortunately, so are some otherwise innocent and honest people.

[ghaverkamp]

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 I wrote earlier, I think it's unfortunate that it wasn't made clearer at the start of the video. It's awfully clear from the content of the video, however, that that was the point.

[ericfoerster]

Shocker.....I really agree with you, Greg.

 

I guess my point is that we are not always trying to hang someone or pin the crime on them. Sometimes it's a fact finding to get the right charge, or to clear someone.

I've always been open in the interview process and almost all are recorded, and have been for many years.

 

I'll also stick with the fact that if we are talking to you there is probably enough probable cause for an arrest, or, we are real close.

 

The smoke filled rooms with dim lighting really went out of style in about 1975.

 

ps..we also don't start our reports with, "On a dark and stormy night a shot rang out."

[ghaverkamp]

I'll also stick with the fact that if we are talking to you there is probably enough probable cause for an arrest, or, we are real close.

 

The issue there is that probable cause is relatively minimal. And if there's probable cause or nearly probable cause, it sure doesn't make much sense for someone to open up.

 

The smoke filled rooms with dim lighting really went out of style in about 1975.

 

I think Jan's concerns hinge on a slippery slope issue. Are we relaxing the protections brought about through the line leading through and from Escobedo and Miranda to the point where those days could return?

 

Between Guantanamo, Padilla, and extraordinary renditions, not to mention the post-Terry decay in protections against seizures, it's not clear where things are headed.

[AZKomet]

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.

 

The topic wasn't "What ails the criminal justice system?" The topic was whether or not someone should speak to the police under a custodial interrogation. At least, that was the topic of the videos. Whether or not there are corrupt lawyers has little or nothing to do with whether it is wise to give the government ammunition when they already suspect you of committing a crime.

 

I'm not convinced it's my view that is warped. You and Dave and others are on the other side of an adversarial system, and you seem completely convinced that your adversary is evil and apparently predominately populated by liars, cheats, and child pornographers.

 

On the other hand, I wasn't accusing police of being evil. I accuse police of trying to do their jobs, often with a single-minded focus. And because of that focus, it's my feeling that anyone who decided to talk in a custodial interrogation is a moron. Fortunately for the police, most criminals are morons. Unfortunately, so are some otherwise innocent and honest people.

 

Now Greg..temper temper!! I am on the other side of the adversarial system for sure. However I have many friends who are lawyers. What the challenge is though is that people who do not understand the process are being bombarded by distorted and convoluted information. Now I know you have been to law school...but have you defended a axe murderer that has actually killed someone? Prolly not. So what if the accused is guilty? If they talk so what?

 

Bottom line is we all have different jobs......I have done it for 29 years and can tell you that I have had people slit another person's throat to the point it was a gruesome mess. Now did this person need an attorney? Yes, did he ask for an attorney? No. He is a lifer and the world is a better place for it.

 

No matter how you slice it criminals and the public are always the victims by the police. Just ask any of the people who I have incarcerated. EVERY trial the LEO is on the hot seat to the point you wonder who is on trial. I love to make defense attorneys shake their head and say: One more time.....no matter what the truth is the truth. Grill me all day long, nothing is gonna change.

 

So for those who don't want to comply with LEO protocols then by all means go ahead. Just b/c you clam up does not buy you a get out of jail free card.

 

I can honestly say that I was an honorable LEO. I did things by the book and sometimes I felt it was not in my best interest to do so. There is a poster on the exit door of my district on the way out ot the patrol cars. It says: "Return with honor" I can say I did so each and every day and will do so until my dying day. Enough said here.

[ericfoerster]

I think Jan's concerns hinge on a slippery slope issue. Are we relaxing the protections brought about through the line leading through and from Escobedo and Miranda to the point where those days could return?

 

Between Guantanamo, Padilla, and extraordinary renditions, not to mention the post-Terry decay in protections against seizures, it's not clear where things are headed.

 

Greg, I don't think we are seeing a trend that way in local settings.

 

Again, you would be amazed at my stance on Guantanamo and Padilla. I have clear feelings on these issues and they, to me, are not the same. Again, at the local level, I seen no real erosion of civil liberties.

The custodial interviews have really been the same for the past ten years or so. Our case law (5th circuit) has bent very little one way or another.

 

As for Guantanamo, I'll stay refrain from telling my point of view because it will shock some of you. I actually lean a little more left than most would think.

[Whip]

"I actually lean a little more left than most would think."

 

I thought I told ya to keep that to yourself.

 

 

East Texas is not the place for that kinda talk.

 

 

[ericfoerster]

East Texas is not the place for that kinda talk.

 

You ain't just joking

 

I'm not hugging the bunnies, yet!

[Lawman]

"I actually lean a little more left than most would think."

 

I thought I told ya to keep that to yourself.

 

 

East Texas is not the place for that kinda talk.

 

 

 

I'm takin notes here Whip..

[ericfoerster]

I can always jump in the Gulf and swim away if they try to get me

[Twisties]

I'll also stick with the fact that if we are talking to you there is probably enough probable cause for an arrest, or, we are real close.

 

The issue there is that probable cause is relatively minimal. And if there's probable cause or nearly probable cause, it sure doesn't make much sense for someone to open up.

 

The smoke filled rooms with dim lighting really went out of style in about 1975.

 

I think Jan's concerns hinge on a slippery slope issue. Are we relaxing the protections brought about through the line leading through and from Escobedo and Miranda to the point where those days could return?

 

No, I'm under the impression that police can use prolonged questioning, can lie to you, present false evidence to you, and are trained to use sophisticated psychological techniques on you, may intimidate, etc. today. The reference to short of Abu Ghraib was intended to imply they can't actually torture you. That seems to me to be current line. Maybe I'm wrong. These links seem to suggest that is not the case. In fact it the more I look, the more it seems these tactics are routine. The Crowe case involved ten hours of highly coercive interrogation, lies, etc. It's recent and it's scary.

 

If we are doing linkies

 

wiki

 

more

 

 

 

 

[Stir]

 

No, I'm under the impression that police can use prolonged questioning, can lie to you, present false evidence to you, and are trained to use sophisticated psychological techniques on you, may intimidate, etc. today. The reference to short of Abu Ghraib was intended to imply they can't actually torture you. That seems to me to be current line. Maybe I'm wrong. These links seem to suggest that is not the case. In fact it the more I look, the more it seems these tactics are routine. The Crowe case involved ten hours of highly coercive interrogation, lies, etc. It's recent and it's scary.

 

The police CAN and DO lie to get confessions. They told Michael Crowe, just confess to this and you can go home. However, if the "interviewee" lies to the police, you will be charged with hindering the investigation. As far as the bad lawyer comment, Eric, most people aren't involved in the justice system on a day to day basis. We get a lawyer infrequently. How do we know if we get a bad one? Is there a label somewhere? People find themselves needing a lawyer; sometimes after a shoddy police investigation. And then, we are supposed to be experts at picking good lawyers?

[ericfoerster]

Again, you point to several cases. There are thousands of interviews done every day.

Prolonged questioning is really rare. The longest I've seen was about 4 hours and it was broken into to 2, 2 hour sessions.

A majority of questioning is also done by folks with minimal skills beyond basic police training.

Yes we can lie and use tactics, it too is kind of rare these days.

Keep in mind that the suspect can also lie and use and psychological skills as well. Not all your suspects are idiots. Some are brilliant people who made wrong choices.

 

I can assure you that any hint coercive behavior on our part will set a DA off. All the DA's that I've worked with have been very ethical and you better get your statements fairly.

All of this information is available to a jury and you tend to look real bad if pull these kind of stunts.

The TV show The first 48 hrs ( I think thats the name) shows what real interviews are like. They are nothing like you link to here. These are real interviews done in murder cases. There is only straight forward questioning. This is what I've seen for 17 years.

The cases you point to are very rare. These are not the standards that we work by.

The case you point to here would have never flown here in Texas. At least not by the DA's that I know.

[Twisties]

That's very reassuring Eric.

[DavidEBSmith]

The case you point to here would have never flown here in Texas. At least not by the DA's that I know.

 

Christopher Ochoa?

 

As a prosecutor, I'm always pleased when someone talks without a lawyer. But as a private citizen, were I to be taken into custody and questioned, I would vigorously exercise my constitutional rights. Nuff said.

[MotorinLA]

Is Regent Law School professor James Duane right? "Don’t talk to the police." The over-simplified answer: “Yes.”

 

However, I think this answer needs some qualifiers.

 

In my opinion Professor Duane should have prefaced his lecture by stating that this applies to persons being interviewed about a crime where they are a potential suspect. I think Professor Duane believes his own hype a little too much. It seems to me that his message is that you should never talk to the police for any reason, because “they” may put a case on you. If this is in fact his message, then I can’t unequivocally agree with his statement of “Don’t talk to the police.”

 

However, if you are under arrest, or in custody, and the police want to talk to you, yes, STFU and ask for an attorney, because you can’t make things any better for yourself by talking. If a police officer ever reads you a Miranda Warning before asking you questions, yes, the above applies. It should quickly be clear to most people (unless you’re stupid, as mentioned in the video) if a police officer is asking you about your possible involvement in a crime. If you’re wondering why you're being questioned, ask the officers why and what they want to talk to you about.

 

Professor Duane would like you to believe that you can’t possibly prove your innocence by talking to the police, yet Detective Bruch states that he has in fact let a few suspects go after they talked to him.

 

I think it is sad that so many average people have such a negative opinion about LEOs. It is true that nobody likes to be corrected or punished for something they did wrong, but it is currently the only way our society functions. For those of you who think that the police are making things worse, try to imagine how bad things would be without law enforcement. I think if you look around the world you’ll quickly find the answer to that one.

 

People want a perfect system, but unfortunately no such system exists.

 

[ghaverkamp]

Now Greg..temper temper!!

 

Temper? I think you must have confused my post with Eric's.

 

What the challenge is though is that people who do not understand the process are being bombarded by distorted and convoluted information. Now I know you have been to law school...but have you defended a axe murderer that has actually killed someone? Prolly not. So what if the accused is guilty? If they talk so what?

 

These red herring get a little annoying after a while. Whether someone has defended an axe murderer has nothing to do with the issue of whether it's smart to talk to the police upon arrest.

 

Take the guilty axe murderer as an example. What is the benefit of an the axe murderer confessing to the police as opposed to confessing to his lawyer and letting his lawyer handle negotiations with the prosecutor. Answer? None. The police offer no value in the transaction, other than to make things worse once convicted.

 

Now, from a societal view, that may be fine. But the advice given in the video in this thread wasn't directed at ridding society of its bad people.

 

No matter how you slice it criminals and the public are always the victims by the police. Just ask any of the people who I have incarcerated. EVERY trial the LEO is on the hot seat to the point you wonder who is on trial.

 

Oh, the poor, abused cops. Come on, Dave. They're given more leeway than the average witness. They're typically given more deference than the average witness. Their "expertise" is often assumed even when questionable.

 

Being cross-examined is not being put on trial. It doesn't qualify someone as a victim.

[Bud]

Some of the above conversation reminds me of this old story. Someone asks a DR what percentage of the public is ill. He said 100%, based on the people I see every day.

 

 

[AZKomet]

Now Greg..temper temper!!

 

Temper? I think you must have confused my post with Eric's.

 

What the challenge is though is that people who do not understand the process are being bombarded by distorted and convoluted information. Now I know you have been to law school...but have you defended a axe murderer that has actually killed someone? Prolly not. So what if the accused is guilty? If they talk so what?

 

These red herring get a little annoying after a while. Whether someone has defended an axe murderer has nothing to do with the issue of whether it's smart to talk to the police upon arrest.

 

Take the guilty axe murderer as an example. What is the benefit of an the axe murderer confessing to the police as opposed to confessing to his lawyer and letting his lawyer handle negotiations with the prosecutor. Answer? None. The police offer no value in the transaction, other than to make things worse once convicted.

 

Now, from a societal view, that may be fine. But the advice given in the video in this thread wasn't directed at ridding society of its bad people.

 

No matter how you slice it criminals and the public are always the victims by the police. Just ask any of the people who I have incarcerated. EVERY trial the LEO is on the hot seat to the point you wonder who is on trial.

 

Oh, the poor, abused cops. Come on, Dave. They're given more leeway than the average witness. They're typically given more deference than the average witness. Their "expertise" is often assumed even when questionable.

 

Being cross-examined is not being put on trial. It doesn't qualify someone as a victim.

 

 

Never said I was a victim. I often like the court cross scenarios. Fun actually. But talking to the cops has no value? Really? What about the people who we THINK may be involved but are not? Do we as LEO's just hook and book cuz we feel like it? No it is interviews that lead us to who we want. And if NOBODY talked we would scratch our heads and went on limited info then what? That includes the perp. Deals are made ALL THE TIME for those who talk to LEO's and help solve cases. You know that.

 

As a direct connect to the prosecutors we have input as to who said and did what....that includes cooperation or not.

 

And most do not know that prosecutors ask LEO's that all the time...so do the Probation Officers. They ask what sentence do we feel is an appropriate one.

Don't worry Greg...I won't hate you cuz your a lawyer! And BTW I don't like herring.....

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

But talking to the cops has no value? Really? What about the people who we THINK may be involved but are not?

 

Those are the people for whom the videos appear to be intended: innocent folks who have somehow come under official suspicion. The assertion is that, for these folks, keeping quiet won't hurt their position, and volunteering information may hurt.

 

Deals are made ALL THE TIME for those who talk to LEO's and help solve cases.

 

If I'm truly innocent, why would I want a deal? I'd certainly like to help, but my first priority is to make absolutely certain that I will walk free, and my best bet (again, assuming I'm truly innocent) is to not say anything that might somehow be used against me. Being a layperson without a full understanding of what might be used against me (the video is very informative in this regard), my smartest course of action is to consult with a lawyer before consenting to an interview.

 

 

[Husker Red]

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

 

And there we have the problem.

 

 

[AZKomet]

But talking to the cops has no value? Really? What about the people who we THINK may be involved but are not?

 

Those are the people for whom the videos appear to be intended: innocent folks who have somehow come under official suspicion. The assertion is that, for these folks, keeping quiet won't hurt their position, and volunteering information may hurt.

 

Deals are made ALL THE TIME for those who talk to LEO's and help solve cases.

 

If I'm truly innocent, why would I want a deal? I'd certainly like to help, but my first priority is to make absolutely certain that I will walk free, and my best bet (again, assuming I'm truly innocent) is to not say anything that might somehow be used against me. Being a layperson without a full understanding of what might be used against me (the video is very informative in this regard), my smartest course of action is to consult with a lawyer before consenting to an interview.

 

 

 

Well Mr Friday...ya gotta look out for yourself. Once my mother (a teacher) was being questioned about a situation at school. I told her not to talk to the cops. (Who were friends of mine) After listening to the story presented by them my mom talked. She went about her work and the OTHER person was arrested......pretty simple. But I can also tell you that most of all people involved in a CLUSTER $%^# are not innocent.

[AZKomet]

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

 

And there we have the problem.

 

 

Would you rather have me say something like...uuuuuhhh..."I think I got the right guy, but I'm not sure? But hell, I'm going with it" You people! Can't we just all get along??????

[AviP]

I'm in the "Don't talk to police" club because LEO's (or judges or lawyers or enforcement of any kind) seem to enforce the letter of the law as opposed to the essense of the law. Not everything can be spelt out verbatim in a law. Proof: Our constitution has been amended umpteen times. So it's important to understand the essence of the law that was enacted instead of the letter of the law.

 

e.g. Let's say I was driving 5mph over the speed limit and get stopped because of a dead brake light. I get a ticket to fix my light within 7 days. Then I might get asked about my speed. Did he radar me? If I say 5mph over, I might also get a ticket for being 5mph over the speed limit. If I say I had one drink, I might get a sobriety test. I hate it when they stack tickets on you without any sense.

 

I have been the victim of racially biased LEOs before and obviously dislike them.

 

If you look at most high profile court cases, you will see the pattern I'm trying to establish. The procecutor will make a case out of anything that might stick. Al Capone did time for tax evasion and not all his really dirty deeds. Yeah, he's a real criminal but the cops can make you feel like one at a routine traffic stop. So why feed the prosecutor all that information.

 

Shut up and don't talk to the police except for very basic information like name, address, destination, etc. "I don't know" is a good answer for all the other stuff.

[PRC]

Ahhh...Brian, you replied before I could pull my post, however we will have said conversation!!!!

 

And see, I let the date infraction fly....that should disqualify the "letter of the law" argument!

[BFish]

what date infraction are u referring to?

[Dave McReynolds]

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

 

And there we have the problem.

 

 

Would you rather have me say something like...uuuuuhhh..."I think I got the right guy, but I'm not sure? But hell, I'm going with it"

 

The attitude you're expressing is exactly why the recommendation was made at the beginning of these posts to consult with an attorney. I don't know of any profession that requires thinking and judgement that doesn't encourage a healthy skepticism about the decisions its practitioners make. Except possibly yours? What is it about law enforcement that requires officers to be so supremely confident, even in the face of making so many mistakes? I, personally, would love it if you would have the attitude of "I think I got the right guy, but I'm not sure," just as I would love the same lack of certainty in my doctor, dentist, attorney, judge or president.

[Stir]

But talking to the cops has no value? Really? What about the people who we THINK may be involved but are not?

 

Those are the people for whom the videos appear to be intended: innocent folks who have somehow come under official suspicion. The assertion is that, for these folks, keeping quiet won't hurt their position, and volunteering information may hurt.

 

Deals are made ALL THE TIME for those who talk to LEO's and help solve cases.

 

If I'm truly innocent, why would I want a deal? I'd certainly like to help, but my first priority is to make absolutely certain that I will walk free, and my best bet (again, assuming I'm truly innocent) is to not say anything that might somehow be used against me. Being a layperson without a full understanding of what might be used against me (the video is very informative in this regard), my smartest course of action is to consult with a lawyer before consenting to an interview.

 

 

BINGO!!!

 

I don't hate cops. I think the system is broken if a person can be interrogated for two 12 hour days without representation. My job is to do what is best for my kids. Telling them not to talk to police if it seems that the police suspect them of a crime is not stupid.

 

If I saw someone get mugged, as long as the police aren't asking me questions that appear to be targeted at me, I'll give them the help they need. But, as soon as they ask, where were you on the night of.... My response to that is, "I'd like to call my lawyer". The response to that is, "If you are innocent, you don't need a lawyer." Me response, "I'm innocent, and I'd like it to stay that way."

[BabyCow]

The pattern that appears to me from some posts is little or no recognition that conversations (incriminating or not) is a small part of an (criminal) investigation. Yes you can search the internet for "stories" of people who are within the legal system on dubious grounds but people are not arrested or become suspects without reason. It may be a dodgy, false, or erroneous reason but there is also a filter to any subsequent charge known as trial by jury. To the persons who would not talk to the Police.....how many of you have been falsely accused of a serious crime or even a minor crime or have been charged for something you did not do? Sure some people have been wrongly charged and less convicted (but there are many more people who have committed crimes and been found not guilty at trial). It is an imperfect system worldwide (well in democratic nations). Here we have a warning that is given to juries on convicting on uncorroborated evidence, and for serious matters interviews are videoed/recorded. Me....I have been charged with something and exercised my right not to say anything (and have been arrested/detained in an African nation for something minor) . A better tactic is to give your version of events (which is easy when you are telling the truth) and then decline to answer any questions as is your right.

I know of dna evidence clearing a male convicted of rape in the US but the victim identifed him as the rapist. If I was innocent of a crime but accused of it (in a western democracy) I would either co-operate fully or give my version and then decline to say anything further. It is a shame that some seem to fear the Police when apart from an occasional traffic stop they have little or no contact with them and seem to form opinions from seeing sensational media stories and searching Google

[bridwell52]

To serious for me

Any body want to go for a ride?

David

[R80RTKen]

In the highly unlikly event that you ARE GUILTY of some misbehaviour, and you do not wish to assist the police and DA in convicting you, a good rule of thumb is to shut up. You have the right not to incriminate yourself. It is possible that if you do not confess, they will not have enough evidence to convict, or you will at least get the chance to confess to some lesser plea bargain.

 

You confess right away, or make up some ill-conceived lie, and you will get caught. Say nothing and get legal advice before giving yourself up.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ericfoerster]

It is a shame that some seem to fear the Police when apart from an occasional traffic stop they have little or no contact with them and seem to form opinions from seeing sensational media stories and searching Google

 

Yes, my thoughts as well.

 

From the inside I can assure you that all the interviews I've seen or be involved in were all above board and done without ethical boundries being crossed.

It's really easy to do if just treat them as you'd want you own family members to be treated.

[AZKomet]

It is a shame that some seem to fear the Police when apart from an occasional traffic stop they have little or no contact with them and seem to form opinions from seeing sensational media stories and searching Google

 

Yes, my thoughts as well.

 

From the inside I can assure you that all the interviews I've seen or be involved in were all above board and done without ethical boundries being crossed.

It's really easy to do if just treat them as you'd want you own family members to be treated.

 

After all of this I'm gonna have a drink! Or two maybe...ya wanna join me Eric???

[tallman]

Be careful Eric.

'Tis but a subterfuge to get you to incriminate yourself.

If you do, remember you have the right to talk all you want to.

[ericfoerster]

After all of this I'm gonna have a drink! Or two maybe...ya wanna join me Eric???

 

Drinks on me Dave. We can sit around and talk about the good ol days and all the people we've locked up

[motorman587]

Glad I stayed away from this one.

[PRC]

After all of this I'm gonna have a drink! Or two maybe...ya wanna join me Eric???

 

Drinks on me Dave. We can sit around and talk about the good ol days and all the people we've locked up

 

I'm IN!!!!!

[BFish]

i don't care what everyone says...i'm gonna talk to both of you at Hucks'. my mouth might be full, but it's the thought that counts.

[Stir]

The pattern that appears to me from some posts is little or no recognition that conversations (incriminating or not) is a small part of an (criminal) investigation. Yes you can search the internet for "stories" of people who are within the legal system on dubious grounds but people are not arrested or become suspects without reason. It may be a dodgy, false, or erroneous ...no contact with them and seem to form opinions from seeing sensational media stories and searching Google

 

I've personally experienced the legal system at it's worst. The people who committed the crime said I did it...so that they would not be charged with it. My lawyer, "There is no way this will go to trial" "This is absurd" to a few months later, "You should plead. They have five witnesses against you." (The individuals who committed the crime.) "But I'm INNOCENT!" "But if you don't, they will throw the book at you for going to trial" I believe him.

 

Those individuals think they got away with it. They haven't. I haven't forgotten.

 

I don't have to go to Google to find anecdotal stories about people. I've experienced it. The bottom line is that the DA does not care about whether you did it or not. They just care about their body count. I stand by what I've told my kids to do. "Keep your mouths shut!"

[ericfoerster]

The bottom line is that the DA does not care about whether you did it or not. They just care about their body count.

 

I have no doubt there are some out there like that. My own experience is that all but a very few that I've worked with could care less about the body count.

Almost all I've worked with have very ethical lines that they do not cross. I am pleased that I could work with each of them.

I am still saying that the bad ones are the exception and not the rule.

 

I've personally experienced the legal system at it's worst. The people who committed the crime said I did it...so that they would not be charged with it. My lawyer, "There is no way this will go to trial" "This is absurd" to a few months later, "You should plead. They have five witnesses against you." (The individuals who committed the crime.) "But I'm INNOCENT!" "But if you don't, they will throw the book at you for going to trial" I believe him.

 

 

Maybe you didn't have a bad DA....you had bad associates?

 

Those individuals think they got away with it. They haven't. I haven't forgotten.

 

 

Maybe not a good post for a public forum. One could construe that as a threat. In Texas retaliation against a victim or witness is a Felony. That means another visit with the crooked DA.

[DavidEBSmith]

The bottom line is that the DA does not care about whether you did it or not. They just care about their body count.

 

I have no doubt there are some out there like that. My own experience is that all but a very few that I've worked with could care less about the body count.

Almost all I've worked with have very ethical lines that they do not cross. I am pleased that I could work with each of them.

I am still saying that the bad ones are the exception and not the rule.

 

I don't think it's a question of body count, either. The prosecutors I know who are overly concerned with statistics are so risk-averse that they throw out cases that absolutely should go forward. (There are some entire offices that are risk-averse, cough-cough Cook County a-hem).

 

What happens with too many cops and prosecutors is they get locked in to a position and they can't let themselves out. They find somebody who looks like a good suspect and they start mentally sorting the facts, keeping the ones that make the case and discarding the ones that don't make the case. Talking to them and explaining how you didn't do it only digs you in deeper because they see it as trying to create an alibi, rather than an explanation.

 

I've always preferred, in making my case, to make the case for the other side. I look at it from their point of view and find everything I can that shows my case is wrong. Not that I'm ever wrong . . .

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

What happens with too many cops and prosecutors is they get locked in to a position and they can't let themselves out. They find somebody who looks like a good suspect and they start mentally sorting the facts, keeping the ones that make the case and discarding the ones that don't make the case. Talking to them and explaining how you didn't do it only digs you in deeper because they see it as trying to create an alibi, rather than an explanation.

 

Standard confirmation bias; it's a problem in many fields.

 

I have no doubt there are some out there like that. My own experience is that all but a very few that I've worked with could care less about the body count.

Almost all I've worked with have very ethical lines that they do not cross. I am pleased that I could work with each of them.

I am still saying that the bad ones are the exception and not the rule.

 

Your use of the terms "all but a very few" and "almost all" troubles me.

 

What's the best way for an innocent suspect to protect himself from one of those rare DA's who is either sure the suspect is guilty (due to the aforementioned confirmation bias), or doesn't care that the suspect is innocent and just wants another guilty verdict added to his scorecard?

[ericfoerster]

What's the best way for an innocent suspect to protect himself from one of those rare DA's who is either sure the suspect is guilty (due to the aforementioned confirmation bias), or doesn't care that the suspect is innocent and just wants another guilty verdict added to his scorecard?

 

It's pretty easy, actually. Clean living, good friends, eating Kashi cereal in the morning, going to bed early, and just staying out of trouble.

 

Your use of the terms "all but a very few" and "almost all" troubles me.

 

In my own experience the "bad" DA's I've been around actually worked in the bad guys favor. These were too picky in my opinion. I think some were just extremely lazy. Being from Texas I am only too aware of the Dallas DA who did convict at all cost. I am cognizant of the bad ones, so I listed that as "as but a very few."

[Twisties]

eating Kashi cereal in the morning

 

Now that's a little much to ask, don'cha ya' think?

[ericfoerster]

Now that's a little much to ask, don'cha ya' think?

 

 

I'll even go so far as to suggest the honey toasted 7 grain...mmmm

[BeniciaRT_GT]

It's pretty easy, actually. Clean living, good friends, eating Kashi cereal in the morning, going to bed early, and just staying out of trouble.

 

In other words, to make it simple for everyone involved:

 

Just be like me!!!!

[ericfoerster]

You know it, brother

 

Thats what I'm talking about.

[Stir]

Maybe not a good post for a public forum. One could construe that as a threat. In Texas retaliation against a victim or witness is a Felony. That means another visit with the crooked DA.

 

It is not a threat. It is in God's hands. It is just that someday, they may need a kidney and mine might be the only one available. They won't get it no matter what they do.

[BabyCow]

I am not really sure how 5 people who identified you as the offender relates to not talking to the Police. You may or may not wish to talk about what crime it was or whether it was major or minor. However I am interested as to what circumstance put you in a position with five people who you say committed this crime and then were of the character to allege that you did it. It seems to be better advice to choose carefully who you associate with.

[Stir]

I am not really sure how 5 people who identified you as the offender relates to not talking to the Police. You may or may not wish to talk about what crime it was or whether it was major or minor. However I am interested as to what circumstance put you in a position with five people who you say committed this crime and then were of the character to allege that you did it. It seems to be better advice to choose carefully who you associate with.

 

Don't disagree with you. There was no association. I don't have a criminal past...or present for that matter. It was the lack of logic and common sense on the officers' part that make me realize that you don't want to place any faith in them.