REFUSING to talk to the police. STUPID.

[Citizen]

Citizen, it also very important to note that they called it a Privilege not a Right... " did not expressly invoke the privilege against self incrimination..."

To me, it sounds like they ate setting up to create the same Right vs Privilege argument they have for the Second Amendment with CC vs OC and such...

I noticed it, but considered it derivative of government's refusal to fully recognize the right in the first place, meaning less important than the point I was making. That's not to say its not a very revealing indication of government's attitude.

Here's a little bit more about the right to silence and why it is a right, not just a privilege. The right to silence carries the same weight, if not greater than, the right against torture. Torture, historically, in England was never used to get a confession. Historically, it was only used to force a person to plead to an indictment, reveal co-conspirators dangerous to the state, or as part of a gruesome execution (although was not really viewed as torture then.)

The right to silence rests on respect for self-preservation: the instinct of self-preservation is the strongest in nature. Forcing someone to make statements he knows will be used against him to his harm is basically forcing him to over-ride the self-preservation instinct. Literally torture of conscience. Any government that says the right against self-incrimination is a privilege is also saying it has the legitimate power to torture your body or conscience; its just graciously withholding itself from doing so by extending you a privilege...for now.

Some might feel that is a little bit of a strong statement. Look up the youtube video Talking to Police by Prof. James Duane of Regent University Law School. The second half of the video is a police detective from VA Beach. Early in his discussion, the detective expressly states that when he was in the Navy (20 years ago?) as a criminal investigator, police interrogations in Spain and Italy started physically. Not verbally. Physically. He says in the video that there is no such thing as police abuse in those countries, meaning it is not considered abuse for cops to beat answers out of a suspect. Those are supposedly civilized countries. It is not at all far-fetched to think that could come back* to our country. Human nature is human nature.


*Read Miranda v Arizona. Early in the opinion SCOTUS makes it clear it knew police beat suspects as late as the 1930's.

 

[OC for ME]

.... It is not at all far-fetched to think that could come back* to our country. Human nature is human nature.


*Read Miranda v Arizona. Early in the opinion SCOTUS makes it clear it knew police beat suspects as late as the 1930's.

...stop resisting!!...

 

[stealthyeliminator]

"By talking to the officers, I will probalby just get myself in trouble". Yes, when you are under arrest, shut your mouth. When you are being detained, shut your mouth. When your in a voluntary contact with an officer and doing nothing illegal, no need to shut your mouth.

The act of remaining silent and declining to engage in conversation is a declination to enter voluntary contact, the voluntary contact requiring voluntary agreement by all parties to establish; therefore, any continued contact by the LEO would in fact be involuntary contact. Once one party declines to engage in any voluntary contact by remaining silent, continued involuntary contact by another other party quickly enters the realm of harassment.

Contact isn't qualified as voluntary just because involuntary contact is unjustified, it actually has to be agreed to and engaged in by all involved parties.

 

[Grapeshot]

The act of remaining silent and declining to engage in conversation is a declination to enter voluntary contact, the voluntary contact requiring voluntary agreement by all parties to establish; therefore, any continued contact by the LEO would in fact be involuntary contact. Once one party declines to engage in any voluntary contact by remaining silent, continued involuntary contact by another other party quickly enters the realm of harassment.

Contact isn't qualified as voluntary just because involuntary contact is unjustified, it actually has to be agreed to and engaged in by all involved parties.

It would appear to not be so simple - even evoking the 5th Amendment will require that you continue to be silent w/o exception or it may be viewed as a voluntary contact. Note that I cannot find the exact cite which I was looking for to substantiate this.
http://www.secondcalldefense.org/self-defense-news/5th-amendment-update-why-silence-no-longer-golden

 

[mynameiscolb]

Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST you, in the court of law.

However, anything you say can not and will not be used FOR you.

 

[Grapeshot]

Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST you, in the court of law.

However, anything you say can not and will not be used FOR you.

We are still entitled to affirmative defense.

Granted that words spoken cannot be wiped away and may well make your legal representative's job much more difficult.
-
You've got the wrong person, I wasn't there, I do not understand..........

Learn and remember KYBMS = "keep your big mouth shut." Advocated/promoted/instructed by my go to guy - Dan Hawes:
http://www.virginialegaldefense.com/

 

[Maverick9]

Why is this thread here?

It has nothing to do with open carry of handguns.

 

[Citizen]

Why is this thread here?

It has nothing to do with open carry of handguns.

Because it was started by a cop, and that's all I can say on that subject.

Additionally, the context includes talking to police when contacted with regard to an OCd gun. Lots and lots of threads discussing interactions between OCers and police.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Why is this thread here?

It has nothing to do with open carry of handguns.

Since a lot of the thread involves cops attempting to interrogate OCers I beg to differ.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

It would appear to not be so simple - even evoking the 5th Amendment will require that you continue to be silent w/o exception or it may be viewed as a voluntary contact. Note that I cannot find the exact cite which I was looking for to substantiate this.
http://www.secondcalldefense.org/self-defense-news/5th-amendment-update-why-silence-no-longer-golden

I was speaking of reality more than of legality

But in any case, I was just trying to point out how odd his statement was. If you are remaining silent (without exception, as you might say) then you are not engaging in a voluntary contact with the officer. If he's standing there talking to you while you are not acknowledging or responding, then there is no "voluntary contact." Therefore, the statement made that "there's no reason to remain silent in a voluntary contact" is quite the odd statement, considering that (in most cases) if you're remaining silent (without exception, as you might say) the contact is not voluntary (or consensual).

I didn't mean to address the legalities of it, only that the statement is really odd, and really, probably intentionally misleading, implying that an officer can continue to make unwanted contact with a person after they've already expressed (perhaps by refusing to address the officer, i.e. silence) that they do not consent to or desire any further contact or conversation, and even implying that such contact would be qualified as "voluntary."

 

[Grapeshot]

Why is this thread here?

It has nothing to do with open carry of handguns.

Direct application - It goes to response when detained by an officer for legal carry of a handgun or exercising RKBA.

 

[Grapeshot]

As my go to legal beagle, Dan Hawes, has said so many times: KYBMS = Keep your big mouth shut!

Dan posts here on OCDO as "user" - his advice is held in high regard.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Police do not engage in random conversation with citizens just to make friends and chit chat. They initiate voluntary/consensual stops to develop enough information to escalate it to a involuntary "detainment". During the detainment they will attempt to gain enough information to establish "probable cause" for an arrest. Don't play their game. Just stop the chain of events at the beginning and refuse consent by just walking away. You can not "out talk" them, its their territory, they have been trained to do it and they do it every day.

And they have pretty much lie, cheat and steal in order to do so. Then claim its constitutional because the courts said so.

 

[davidmcbeth]

As my go to legal beagle, Dan Hawes, has said so many times: KYBMS = Keep your big mouth shut!

Dan posts here on OCDO as "user" - his advice is held in high regard.

Better yet: ask to consult with your attny before engaging in any encounter. Remaining silient can still be used against you but not asking for your attny. Cop says "go ahead, call him" say "thanks, I have his number at home, see ya!"

Case in point....I was arrested several days ago. What for? Who knows. I was let go after they started asking me a bunch of probative questions and I replied "I want my lawyer!". 5 seconds later I was released. And the cop said "don't turn on that video camera" and I turned it immediately on and pointed it right at his face. He did nothing. I'm writing a complaint about the incident.

I visited a state police office seeking to inspect records and the office is really not experienced to a citizen demanding public records as they normally just direct people to another facility, the state police HQ (our FOIA act requires inspection to be available at the place where the records are maintained).

Anywho, I buzzed a buzzer on the main entry door and they directed me around to the back. I did that and was buzzed further into the building, into a small room where I presented by request to the state employee. Two cops were there so, I turned on my video camera and then all heck broke loose, they refused to ID themselves and said I could not record them - I told them to sue me and continued recording and asking for access to records. I was then grabbed and hauled outside under arrest. Only six cops there detaining me and said I could not leave and one went inside and then came out 1/2 hr later and began the "interrogation" that lasted about 1 second before I said "I want my lawyer"etc.

Now I did not get access to the records; but have no fear, I will try again !

So, I am going to write the head of the state police and tell them that I do not consent to any consensual encounters from members of their agency and give them notice that I would consider any approach by a member of the agency towards me as violating the notice. I have filed notice of trespass with great and positive effect. I no longer have any government official coming onto my property.

Why not give notice that you do not consent to any future consensual encounter? A new, novel approach to stop police harassment. Now what they gonna do? They approach...bingo, 4th amendment suit.

 

[Grapeshot]

As my go to legal beagle, Dan Hawes, has said so many times: KYBMS = Keep your big mouth shut!

Dan posts here on OCDO as "user" - his advice is held in high regard.

Better yet: ask to consult with your attny before engaging in any encounter. Remaining silient can still be used against you but not asking for your attny.........
--snipped--
Why not give notice that you do not consent to any future consensual encounter? A new, novel approach to stop police harassment. Now what they gonna do? They approach...bingo, 4th amendment suit.

I understand the ins, outs, and how of remaining silent. OTOH - I do engage in consensual encounters - up to a point. My choice.

Also I shall pay greater attention to what Mr. Hawes has to say regarding the laws and what works in Virginia, but thank you for interest.

 

[1245A Defender]

Wowwie!!!

Hi David,,, thanks for your thoughful post....

I've been missing you!

 

[davidmcbeth]

I understand the ins, outs, and how of remaining silent. OTOH - I do engage in consensual encounters - up to a point. My choice.

Also I shall pay greater attention to what Mr. Hawes has to say regarding the laws and what works in Virginia, but thank you for interest.

I doubt you tell them where Hoffa's body is at LOL (you can PM me though)

Oh man, I forgot ... one of the cops starting to video me on his cell phone ... I said "that's fine but I'll want to see that public record that you just created" .. he shut off his recording immediately and began removing his ID badge (plainclothes). LOL But they signed into a log-in book that was kept in the lobby which I scanned with my handy handscanner. They did not like that action either.

The goofballs took my camera -- but alas, they forgot to turn my camera off until they went to hand it back to me so it recorded all the audio. Lawsuit perfected me thinks.

They did not erase or tamper with my recording/scanning devices. If they did, I would not have been happy...I checked before I actually left the facility...got some looks from cops asking what I was doing to which I promptly told them to piss off and mind their own business.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

I can't wait to see/hear these recordings, David.

 

[skidmark]

I can't wait to see/hear these recordings, David.

I'm bringing the popcorn! Extra butter, right?

stay safe.

 

[Grapeshot]

I'm bringing the popcorn! Extra butter, right?

stay safe.

Go light on the salt and will need plenty of diet Coke.