Rights - Law professor speaks on exercising 5th amend rights

[LEO 229]

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

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.

I think the term enforcement is actually the verb described as"to ensure that (a law or decision) is obeyed"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enforce

The Judge does not enforce laws alone as this cannot be done inside a building. He needs someone to observe them and bring them to him. He is part of the system for enforcing but also assigns punishment. The police do not have the same authority to assign punishment.

But back in the day the policewere known to give out wood shampoos and repeat as necessary.

So the police make sure laws are being followed or obeyed. Those who do not are taken before the Judge.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Nelson_Muntz wrote:

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'.

HA!! I was not referring to you.. I knew what you were getting at.

 

[swillden]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

In almost all my interviews I have obtained confessions. So it appears that I brought in the right person the 99% of the time. No innocent people getting screwed over.

That doesn't necessarily follow.

Getting a confession just means that the suspect decided it was in their best interest to confess, it doesn't mean that they were guilty. Many of the people freed by the Innocence Project had confessed.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

swillden wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

In almost all my interviews I have obtained confessions. So it appears that I brought in the right person the 99% of the time. No innocent people getting screwed over.

That doesn't necessarily follow.

Getting a confession just means that the suspect decided it was in their best interest to confess, it doesn't mean that they were guilty. Many of the people freed by the Innocence Project had confessed.

I am aware of people confessing to crimes they did not commit.

Here is my safeguard....

I have to be able to put them there at the scene. They must also have the ability and opportunity to commit the crime.

The biggest check is that I ask them to provide details that only the person responsible would know. This is stuff that nobody else would know. Not details put out in the media.

An example of my last case.... credit card fraud. The person told me the web sites they purchased stuff at and what they bought. The items were for them and everything fit they were responsible.

So unless they were there when a third party ordered the stuff while they watched.... this would make them an accessory in any case.

 

[swillden]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

The biggest check is that I ask them to provide details that only the person responsible would know. This is stuff that nobody else would know. Not details put out in the media.

Sure, given independent confirmation of their stories, details that they could not have reasonably guessed and had no way to learn, then you have EVIDENCE that their confession is valid.

Do you always have such confirmation? And do you regard with suspicion any confession that isn't verifiable this way? Probably not, because that's not your job. As a human being, your inclination is to protect the innocent, but as a police officer your job is to find the guilty, and that skews your perceptions.

I'm not trying to say that you habitually put away innocent people, but history shows pretty convincingly that a confession by itself does very little to assure guilt. And a confession plus circumstantial evidence, such as you mentioned about the suspect's having had opportunity and means, isn't much stronger.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

swillden wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

The biggest check is that I ask them to provide details that only the person responsible would know. This is stuff that nobody else would know. Not details put out in the media.

Sure, given independent confirmation of their stories, details that they could not have reasonably guessed and had no way to learn, then you have EVIDENCE that their confession is valid.

Do you always have such confirmation? And do you regard with suspicion any confession that isn't verifiable this way? Probably not, because that's not your job. As a human being, your inclination is to protect the innocent, but as a police officer your job is to find the guilty, and that skews your perceptions.

I'm not trying to say that you habitually put away innocent people, but history shows pretty convincingly that a confession by itself does very little to assure guilt. And a confession plus circumstantial evidence, such as you mentioned about the suspect's having had opportunity and means, isn't much stronger.

Would it not be totally rotten to be charging a person for a crime when you can prove he was not even there?

So when you can prove means, motive, and opportunity... you have satisfied some of whatis required.

But I also get confirmation to remove all doubt. They need to tell you the details from start to end and it should be convincing.

In most any case you can ask about things that were done that nobody else would know but he guy who was there. Where things were placed, what was taken, how entry was made. Where items were discarded.

I am confident that I have not locked up anyone that was not 100% guilty. I have had cases where I could not prove it or did not have enough and they walked free.

 

[ODA 226]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

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.

I think the term enforcement is actually the verb described as"to ensure that (a law or decision) is obeyed"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enforce

The Judge does not enforce laws alone as this cannot be done inside a building. He needs someone to observe them and bring them to him. He is part of the system for enforcing but also assigns punishment. The police do not have the same authority to assign punishment.

But back in the day the policewere known to give out wood shampoos and repeat as necessary.

So the police make sure laws are being followed or obeyed. Those who do not are taken before the Judge.

So like I said, the judge are the only ones who can ENFORCE the law as they assign punishment. Cops can only bring someone who is ACCUSED before a judge who then ENFORCES the law.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

So like I said, the judge are the only ones who can ENFORCE the law as they assign punishment. Cops can only bring someone who is ACCUSED before a judge who then ENFORCES the law.

Naw.. you are fixed in on something else trying to make a big deal on the word enforcement and how it applies to the Judge only.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/law+enforcement

The act of enforcing; ensuring observance of or obedience to

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l008.htm

LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER - An employee, the duties of whose position are primarily the prevention, investigation, apprehension, or detention of individuals suspected or convicted of offenses against the criminal laws, including an employee engaged in this activity who is transferred to a supervisory or administrative position; or serving as a probation or pretrial services officer. 18 USC

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/LAWENFORCEMENT

1. Ensuring obedience to the laws

There are many areas of law enforcement. It is not confined to the Judge alone and punishment. Law Enforcement involved the police, the courts, and the jail.

 

[ODA 226]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:
Naw.. you are fixed in on something else trying to make a big deal on the word enforcement and how it applies to the Judge only.

YUP! Except for that something else part.....

 

[sjhipple]

imported post

Judges don't enforce laws. They interpret and apply them. After doing that, they hand the convicted person over to law enforcement to be thrown in jail. The enforcement of the law is the carrying out of the stated penalty and judges don't do that. They state the penalty, not carry it out.

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

I regret not having participated in this thread back on the first page. The link to the lecture on the original post is outstanding, and reinforces everything I have been taught about keeping your pie hole shut.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

I regret not having participated in this thread back on the first page. The link to the lecture on the original post is outstanding, and reinforces everything I have been taught about keeping your pie hole shut.

Why are you always talking about food?

 

[Legba]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

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.

No, I specifically asked andthey made a point of telling me that I was not (officially) under arrest at the time they were handcuffing/searching/Mirandizing me. It was only after their search of my effects that they said I was arrested. They insisted the handcuffing was merely "for officers safety". I understood the situation perfectly.

As for my possibly-overly-broad statement about police availing themselves of legal counsel, I meant that in the particular context of when police are themselves actually arrested. I'm sure they're subjected to internal "interviews" and debriefings and such more routinely than actual arrrests and interrogations. In such cases, I've not heard of an instance where a cop was arrested and didn't say something to the effect of "PBA me ASAP".

-ljp

 

[swillden]

imported post

For yet another reason to avoid talking to the police, see this training video:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=j8RQycYwmFo

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Legba wrote:

No, I specifically asked andthey made a point of telling me that I was not (officially) under arrest at the time they were handcuffing/searching/Mirandizing me. It was only after their search of my effects that they said I was arrested. They insisted the handcuffing was merely "for officers safety". I understood the situation perfectly.

As for my possibly-overly-broad statement about police availing themselves of legal counsel, I meant that in the particular context of when police are themselves actually arrested. I'm sure they're subjected to internal "interviews" and debriefings and such more routinely than actual arrrests and interrogations. In such cases, I've not heard of an instance where a cop was arrested and didn't say something to the effect of "PBA me ASAP".

-ljp

You do not get an attorney when you talk to IA. You are compelled to speak on condition of your employment.

States that allow unions may be different but in Virginia.... we get no official union with any fighting power.

 

[Pointman]

imported post

*

 

[asforme]

imported post

Okay, so I haven't read all 4 pages, but when I skimmed I didn't see any OC related questions addressed.

So if I'm stopped by an officer on a "man with a gun" call, should I simply refuse to speak to the officer? I mean it is possible that I could diffuse the situation by telling him that I am within the law, but it is also possible that he doesn't like me exercising my rights and is fishing for anything he can find.

The video seemed to only really deal with suspects of a crime that is already known to have taken place, but what about something that is more likely to happen to people on the board here?

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

As a LEO.... if you tell me what your doing and what your about will get me off your case much faster.

Many here give advise to say nothing as this may "provide evidence for your arrest" but if you have not broken any laws... it is very unlikely.

It is always your choice to speak or not. Keep in mind that if this is the first time a cop has met an OCer and you do something that is not what the average citizen would do.... (That being carry on a small conversation) you will be remembered and talked about.

Just like you hate cops with an attitude.. cops hate citizens with an attitude. And a citizen OCing with an attitude will be talked about and thus be lumped in a group wrongfully.

Now I am talking about a LEO that is not giving you a ton of attitude.... if that is the case it probably does not matter anyway. But most will simply ask as they do not know.

 

[Doug Huffman]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Just like you hate cops with an attitude.. cops hate citizens with an attitude. And a citizen OCing with an attitude will be talked about and thus be lumped in a group wrongfully.

Either we are equal or we are not. Either 'cops' is citizens or they are not. This is self-hatred http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hatred

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 KMA$$

 

[Legba]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Legba wrote:

No, I specifically asked andthey made a point of telling me that I was not (officially) under arrest at the time they were handcuffing/searching/Mirandizing me. It was only after their search of my effects that they said I was arrested. They insisted the handcuffing was merely "for officers safety". I understood the situation perfectly.

As for my possibly-overly-broad statement about police availing themselves of legal counsel, I meant that in the particular context of when police are themselves actually arrested. I'm sure they're subjected to internal "interviews" and debriefings and such more routinely than actual arrrests and interrogations. In such cases, I've not heard of an instance where a cop was arrested and didn't say something to the effect of "PBA me ASAP".

-ljp

You do not get an attorney when you talk to IA. You are compelled to speak on condition of your employment.

States that allow unions may be different but in Virginia.... we get no official union with any fighting power.

Lousy deal for you lot then.

As for having an "attitude" when dealing with the police, I don't see how standing mute is anything remotely like mouthing off. Just saying "I respectfully decline to submit to any questioning or to consent to any search" ought not to meet with hostility from the police, especially since they sofrequently tell people that they have the right to remain silent.

-ljp