• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Using Voice Recorder and Interacting With LEOs

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Cerebus, I am citing no case. I am citing the written law. The other poster, the one who is not a lawyer, is claiming to cite a judge's ruling. However, he has yet to post one shred of support for that contention of such a ruling. Meanwhile, a poster who IS a lawyer, has made numerous citations refuting the non-lawyers argument.

Someone put in the position of having to defend not providing all three pieces of information (it won't be me) should try the non-lawyers suggested defense. I just won't put myself in that position because I am fairly well convinced that that argument will fail. Others should not follow the non-lawyers advice by putting themselves in such a situation and having to rely on the unproven argument.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I am sorry you feel that way. Some poor newbie is going to think that the non-lawyer is right about detainees not having to provide all three pieces of information. That person, not the non-lawyer, will suffer the consequences. My goal is to make it clear that the argument is one person's opinion and that there is no record of any judicial support for that opinion. In that I will be unapologetically stubborn. So I suggest that you get over it.

Moving on.

On edit: I see your post as hostile. This post is hostile. Get over it or not. Your choice.
 
Last edited:

JmE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
358
Location
, ,
I'm stubborn. COL is stubborn. You are stubborn. It's not a big deal. No need for hostilities, Eye95... look for the positives in my post, please friend.

You've stated your message clearly in that last post. I agree with you about giving another caveat about opinion and whatnot. For me, I resolved to give all three during an encounter because it's not the hill that I want to die on at the moment. On the other hand, I can clearly see how one could argue the point in court and walk. I think one of the best messages out of this whole exchange is that one might be successfully walk with only giving 1 piece of required information and then again, one might not.

Go in peace, Eye95. As always, I do believe that your intentions are well meaning.
 

Werz

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
301
Location
Northeast Ohio
Werz... well, you're just being Werz. :D
Yes, I tell people the truth, rather than what they want to hear. Shame on me.

And for what it's worth, I ate dinner within ten feet of both color of law and eye95 this summer. No arguments were had. None were necessary. But when I know I'm right, I don't back down.
 

Werz

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
301
Location
Northeast Ohio
The lawyer DID NOT cite any rulings in this thread that demonstrates that the law requires all three! He simply cited a Nevada State Court ruling which cited the Supreme Court ruling in Hiibel, which col had referenced. Hold yourself to the same standards that you required of col.
The Nevada state court ruling was from what is called "the case below." i.e., the decision which was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. That should have been obvious from the fact that the date of the state court ruling was two years before the Supreme Court ruling. I'm certain that color of law would have figured that out. Apparently, you did not.

If you wish to enter in legal arguments in defense of color of law, you should first be sure that you understand the subject matter.
 

HPmatt

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2013
Messages
1,468
Location
Dallas
It looks to me like this thread, starting about the 2nd page of posts, started getting 'into the weeds of legal wrangling.'

In dealing with legal issues, I always am concerned with probabilities and cost. I guess because I was schooled as an Engineer and CPA. Have worked for large public companies, small public companies and private companies. Dealt with litigation - state, SEC, Texas workers comp medical insurance laws, medical malpractice lawsuits, truck accident settlements, mediation, IRS issues, patent litigation, business contract law with Indian nations, Louisiana law, Puerto Rico law, German law, bankruptcy law, US and European venture capital and tax law. In those corporate situations you can take cost and legal planning and litigation planning on a fairly clinical nature - not my money or personal finance at risk - so you look at how much would it cost to avoid, probability if you go this path or another with different potential legal costs and perhaps settlements or royalty costs, tax penalties, jurisdiction preferences and prejudices.

Here we are talking about our personal unalienable rights as spelled out by our founders in the Constitution and its Bill of Rights. And the present day interpretation and court leanings - pro cops, pro citizen, anti gun nut, etc. So using recorders to protect yourself against dishonesty by cops, prosecutors, DAs looking to build a reputation, etc - pretty cheap insurance for normal everyday routine behavior. Using your god-given brain I think you should be cognizant of what improves your odds and defense; what would be asking for trouble - OC of long guns by schools, playgrounds, etc. If you choose to go a more aggressive path, would think you w/b wise to have other folks taping things, additional cost effective ways to support your case - hire an attorney or retired cop to observe, and then budget how much money you plan to spend on legal representation to justify your objective (would think you'd work this plan out with a gun savvy attorney BEFORE you act - much cheaper to pay up front in planning path). Working with lawyers is going t/b a costly proposition - that's how they make their living, so just be wise in choosing your battle, as opposed to being a hot-head and blundering in to situations where you'll have to fold unless you've got money to burn, lots of it, or hope there is a miracle and you find a GOOD lawyer that works cheap or does some pro bono.

So at the end of the day - don't take stupid risks if you can't afford them. Take calculated ones.
 

Werz

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
301
Location
Northeast Ohio
It looks to me like this thread, starting about the 2nd page of posts, started getting 'into the weeds of legal wrangling.'

* * *

So at the end of the day - don't take stupid risks if you can't afford them. Take calculated ones.
Let's talk a little bit about "legal wrangling" in a way that is accessible to lay people. The law recognizes two basic issues: [1] issues of fact, and [2] issues of law. To put it in simpler terms, those issues are: [1] what really happened, and [2] whether a given law can be applied to what really happened.

The original topic was voice recorders. Those are good for establishing what really happened. I have one. However, I prefer the cheap audio/video recorders which are generally obtainable for a small price. If you want to argue issues of fact, recordings are better than eyewitnesses, since they have no bias and are not easily subject to personal interpretation.

However, arguing issues of law is another matter altogether. If you want to engage in activity which is likely in violation of the law, relying on a novel interpretation of that law, or a belief that the law is unconstitutional, you are drawing into an inside straight. There is an outside possibility of winning, but the odds are against you.
 
Last edited:

JmE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Messages
358
Location
, ,
On edit: I see your post as hostile. This post is hostile. Get over it or not. Your choice.

Wow, I just saw your edit. I really can't see how my post was hostile but that is how you took it so, okay, whatever. My opinion of you is changing... not that it really matters to you. IDK what's gotten under your saddle but... moving on.
 
Top