Rights - Law professor speaks on exercising 5th amend rights

[Nelson_Muntz]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

An attorney does not want you to EVER talk to the police. This is because it makes his job harderfor HIM to fight for you in court. He must work more to create a plausible way out for you and if you provided detailsthat locks you in to a certain scenario he is limited on the story he can craft.

Having said that..... the attorney is not spending money, being arrested, and having to take time off from work. He is getting paid by YOU and wants his job to be easy so he works little for all he is going to charge you in fees.

Understood all you said in your last post. The quote above however continues to make me think it would be in my best interest to shut up. I want my attorney's job to be easy too, so he does not have to explain any locked in scenario, and hopefully it will mitigate excessive fees. At least in court the only thing being argued would be whatever 'evidence' the prosecution has, and if I did not do something, it should be a simple matter for a defense attorney to dismiss.

 

[UtahRSO]

imported post

The video of the law professor and the officer gives some of the best information I've ever found on this site. I've read many times that if you have to defend yourself, it's wise to say that you are willing to cooperate AFTER you have spoken to your attorney. Then you should shut up. This video confirms that in spades.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Nelson_Muntz wrote:

Understood all you said in your last post. The quote above however continues to make me think it would be in my best interest to shut up. I want my attorney's job to be easy too, so he does not have to explain any locked in scenario, and hopefully it will mitigate excessive fees. At least in court the only thing being argued would be whatever 'evidence' the prosecution has, and if I did not do something, it should be a simple matter for a defense attorney to dismiss.

Well, you can decide at the time you are being interviewed and told what the crime is if you should say anything.

 

[Legba]

imported post

The sequence of events in stops/arrests is not always so straightforward. I was both handcuffed and Mirandized before I was arrested. They just read my rights in the event I said something inculpatory. I "lawyered up" and that was that.

It's worth noting that the police never submit to questioning without an attorney when they get in a jam. They don't make statements, waive rights, or any of the things they routinely ask of others. Follow their example in this and you'll have fewer legal problems in the long run, or at least simpler ones.

-ljp

 

[Jim675]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Innocent people telling the truth are very unlikely to ever bearrested for the crime. Are their cases where you did not do it but said things that put you at the scene and ended up getting you arrested? Sure... these are few and few between.

Sorry, I can't let this one go. How often do you suppose "very unlikely" is?

The Innocence Project (IP) has now proven the innocence of 216 people, nearly all convicted of the most serious crimes.

Do you suppose the bar to wrongfully convict for something (relatively) minor is higher or lower? Even assuming the same ratios seen with the murder/rape cases dealt with by IP and apply that to all types of criminal convictions and I think you'll find that it happens every day.

"Few and far between" hardly counts if you're the one being convicted anyway.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Legba wrote:

The sequence of events in stops/arrests is not always so straightforward. I was both handcuffed and Mirandized before I was arrested. They just read my rights in the event I said something inculpatory. I "lawyered up" and that was that.

It's worth noting that the police never submit to questioning without an attorney when they get in a jam. They don't make statements, waive rights, or any of the things they routinely ask of others. Follow their example in this and you'll have fewer legal problems in the long run, or at least simpler ones.

-ljp

When I was a kid the local Sheriff's department pickedme and a friend up on suspicion that we broke into a house.He finished reading us our Miranda rights and asked "Do you understand these rights?"Three times in a row we jokingly told him "NO!" and had a good laugh.We werein investigative custody only but not cuffed. Miranda made no difference at all.

In your situation.... it sounds like you WERE arrested as you were cuffed and read your Miranda rights. You must not have understood that at the start.

You have made a broad statement. "the police never submit to questioning without an attorney "

Not all police seek an attorney. If you really want us to believe thatplease provide some proof of that.

Not many cops aresuspected of breaking the law and even less are outactually breaking the law. So when they are called in for an interview it is already known they are a cop. This means that EVERYTHING that can be checked out has been.

So getting called in will be serious for a cop. If the officer feels it would be better to show up with an attorney... so be it! Citizens can do the same if they feel it is that important.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Not many cops aresuspected of breaking the law and even less are outactually breaking the law.

Bush'it! Shall I post the DAILY news reports of LEO malfesance? Cop bashing!

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Not many cops aresuspected of breaking the law and even less are outactually breaking the law.

Bush'it! Shall I post the DAILY news reports of LEO malfe[a]sance? Cop bashing!

Out of the 900,000 cops in the US... How many will you find each day that broke the law? Get the ratio and then compare it to the US population breaking the law.

Nobody is saying thata few cops haven't broken the law... Cops are human and a few will probably break the law.

But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about being interviewed.

So Doug... Move along now.... :::Tap Tap Tap::: Nothing to see here!!!

 

[ne1]

imported post

Out of the 900,000 cops in the US... How many will you find each day that broke the law? Get the ratio and then compare it the the US population breaking the law.

Nobody is saying thata few cops haven't broken the law... Cops are human and a few will probably break the law.

But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about being interviewed.

...and how many cops are protected by the blue wall of silence? Those rare cases that are exposed to the light almost without exception lawyer up and shut up, and then they insist in being presumed innocent after a career of presuming others guilty (even if the cops must lie to prove it). Methinks the knights have difficulty seeing the chinks in their shining armor.

 

[Nelson_Muntz]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Out of the 900,000 cops in the US... How many will you find each day that broke the law? Get the ratio and then compare it the the US population breaking the law.

Nobody is saying thata few cops haven't broken the law... Cops are human and a few will probably break the law.

What's a few? Are 3 guns an arsenal?

I don't think just a 'few' cops have broken the law. I think the ratio is quite a bit higher. I have no evidence, but I do have some kind of experience. And I don't think I have hit the rare jackpot of being in the circle of 'some corrupt' cops.<Let me get this off my chest:>

Maybe it's because I grew up in a sketchy neighborhood in ny. Maybe my step brother was pathologically a bad person. But after a childhood of failing in my footsteps, both in the military and in civilian life, he decided to become one of NYPD's finest in a bid to outdo me for parental affection. Apparently the blue line stopped with him. He and several others of his union were convicted of prostitution and drug trafficing. Knowing that HE could become a police officer and enforce the law as he saw fit did not give me a lot of confidence in the profession. If my father had not had as many political connections in the county, my stepbrother would have fared alot worse in his punishment. I'm sure this skews my feelings about law enforcement, but that is my experience.

I apologize if my questions and wariness seems to paint you all with a broad brush. I don't want it to sound that way.My experience is my experience. I don't feel unjustified being wary of how things go down in the cop shop because of this. I know you all are human. I just don't want to go to Riker's only to fatten a lawman's jacket.

Imperialism2024 said this:

"If a suspect lies, his lies effectively have very little power behind them. On the other hand, when an interrogator lies, his lies are backed by the power of the entire United States' government. A lying suspect is abusing the trust in himself... this may be an inconvenience in an investigation, but the investigators have little to lose. A lying investogator is abusing the trust in government, and the suspect has considerably more at stake when he can't trust that government."


Humans, who have some kind of authority, are scary to those of us humans who are expected to go along, or be beaten and/or incarcerated. The only thing we can depend on are the rights we were given by God, and enshrined by the Constitution, to protect us from any form of tyranny. I hope we all, LEOs included, feel the same.

Just don't hate me (or automatically suspect I'm guilty) 'cause I don't want to talk to you. :?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

ne1 wrote:

Out of the 900,000 cops in the US... How many will you find each day that broke the law? Get the ratio and then compare it the the US population breaking the law.

Nobody is saying thata few cops haven't broken the law... Cops are human and a few will probably break the law.

But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about being interviewed.

...and how many cops are protected by the blue wall of silence? Those rare cases that are exposed to the light almost without exception lawyer up and shut up, and then they insist in being presumed innocent after a career of presuming others guilty (even if the cops must lie to prove it). Methinks the knights have difficulty seeing the chinks in their shining armor.

Not as many as you believe.

Look at that Fairfax County officer that got chargedthe other day.

She had her emergency equipment activated and a car pulled out in front of her and the driver was killed.

No blue wall at work there.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Nelson_Muntz wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Out of the 900,000 cops in the US... How many will you find each day that broke the law? Get the ratio and then compare it the the US population breaking the law.

Nobody is saying thata few cops haven't broken the law... Cops are human and a few will probably break the law.

What's a few? Are 3 guns an arsenal?

...Snipped

People are getting too hung up on words.

Edit... Just like Doug in his next post!!!! :lol:



None, a couple,a few, some, many, most, all.....

What word should I be using? Honestly!!

This is one of the problems with the chat forum is that people get real worked up over words used. Heaven forbid you say civilian over citizen. Or rights over authority..... Oh God!!! We all know what you mean... right??

Look beyond what words are being used and give a little latitude here as we are all raised and work in different areas.

People need to chill....

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Not many cops aresuspected of breaking the law and even less are outactually breaking the law.

Bush'it! Shall I post the DAILY news reports of LEO malfe[a]sance? Cop bashing!

Out of the 900,000 cops in the US... How many will you find each day that broke the law? Get the ratio and then compare it the the US population breaking the law.

Nobody is saying thata few cops haven't broken the law... Cops are human and a few will probably break the law.

But that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about being interviewed.

So Doug... Move along now.... :::Tap Tap Tap::: Nothing to see here!!!

From "not many" to a small fraction, from a numerical difference to a ratio. Innumerate idiot. Close the thread, it's just an apologist ranting.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA LEO FOAD

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

From "not many" to a small fraction, from a numerical difference to a ratio. Innumerate idiot. Close the thread, it's just an apologist ranting.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA LEO FOAD

I said... Move along now.... :::Tap Tap Tap::: Nothing to see here!!! :lol:

You obviously have no valuable input here and we are all aware of your hatred towards me and the police. :lol:

Please exercise your 5th amendment rights!! :celebrate

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

From "not many" to a small fraction, from a numerical difference to a ratio. Innumerate idiot. Close the thread, it's just an apologist ranting.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA LEO FOAD

I said... Move along now.... :::Tap Tap Tap::: Nothing to see here!!! :lol:

You obviously have no valuable input here and we are all aware of your hatred towards me and the police. :lol:

Please exercise your 5th amendment rights!! :celebrate

Yes, you stereotype yourself as 'the police' with your apologist's ranting. Thank Goodness I have experience with the police beyond chickensnot Anony Mouse COP666.

As to the value of my recent contribution, read John Allan Paulos' 'Innumeracy' first, before you remove all doubt.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA LEO FOAD

INNUMERACY - MATHEMATICAL ILLITERACY AND ITS CONSEQUENCES , Farrar, Straus, and Giroux (Hill and Wang division), 1989. Vintage paper, 1990. French, Italian, German, British, Japanese, Spanish, Korean, Chinese, Greek, Hebrew, Dutch, Finnish, and Swedish translations, 1990-1997. New Farrar-Straus edition, 2001. -- INNUMERACY is an examination of some of the consequences in everyday life of mathematical illiteracy. These consequences - confused personal decisions, muddled governmental policies, even an increased susceptibility to pseudoscience - are not as visible as are those of illiteracy or general cultural ignorance. Unlike the latter failings, however, innumeracy often afflicts intelligent, well-educated people, the kind of people who can understand the most complicated of legal discussions, the most nuanced of emotional interchanges, but whose eyes glaze over at the mere mention of a number or a probability. Topics addressed include stock scams, parapsychological claims, medical testing, insurance frauds, sports records, sex discrimination, coincidences and chance encounters. "To combat [innumeracy] John Allen Paulos has concocted the perfect vaccine: this book, which is in many ways better than an entire high school math eductation! Our society would be unimaginably different if the average person truly understood the ideas in this marvelous and important book. It is probably hopelessly optimistic to dream this way, but I hope that Innumeracy might help launch a revolution in math education that would do for innumeracy what Sabin and Salk did for polio." -- Douglas Hofstadter, author of Godel, Escher, and Bach

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

Yes, you stereotype yourself as 'the police' with your apologist's ranting. Thank Goodness I have experience with the police beyond chickensnot Anony Mouse COP666.

As to the value of my recent contribution, read John Allan Paulos' 'Innumeracy' first, before you remove all doubt.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA LEO FOAD
...Snipped

So why do you even respond? :lol:

And the junk you just posted is basically worthless. We all come from different walks of life and educational backgrounds.... Your problem is that you're "too smart" to understand that. You hold everyone to "Doug's educational level" and that is not going to happen.

You have to learn to accept us all for who we are and not for what YOU want us to be. You are free to exercise your 5th amendments rights... and a few of us wish you would. :lol:

Doug... either get alone or get out. We are here to discuss andprovide our thoughts and opinions... You are clearly here to attack and annoy.

OK.. getting back on topic now..... since "INNUMERACY" is not what this thread is about.....

 

[imperialism2024]

imported post

Mmm, I think most of the points I was going to make have already been made...

 

[Nelson_Muntz]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Nelson_Muntz wrote:

What's a few? Are 3 guns an arsenal?

...Snipped

People are getting too hung up on words.

None, a couple,a few, some, many, most, all.....

What word should I be using? Honestly!!

People need to chill....

LOL!!!!!!!! :lol:

You knucklehead. I was just using the first opportunity to use that same phrase you have several times.

I'm chillin'.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

So why do you even respond?

[Removed by moderator]

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA LEO FOAD

 

[ODA 226]

imported post

deepdiver wrote:

It is sad that the world has come to this. It is very sad that any citizen would be afraid to have an honest conversation with a police officer unless they intentionally or knowingly violated the law.

I mentioned this elsewhere on the forum a while back. This is what happens when a basically citizen function becomes overly professionalized. Law enforcement officers at one time were Peace Officers. Their job was to keep the peace, not to necessarily enforce whatever laws the politicians pulled out of their collective rears. We had constables and sheriffs and public safety officers, etc. Now they are all law enforcement officers and the law has become a higher calling than the peace. The peace allows the citizens to function in their lives and conduct commerce and recreation without threat, danger or undo interference, in other words, peacefully. The law as now used allows the government to perpetuate and retain control over the citizens and enforce it's will where it desires in the manner it chooses.

We took a wrong turn somewhere.

That's a great point! In reality, cops are not Law ENFORCEMENT because they CANNOT ENFORCE ANY LAW! Judges ENFORCE the law. Cops merely bring suspects that may have broken a law to the judge.