Useful Links

frayne · 12-26-2012, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by utrecht

I doubt several things that the cop said:
1) No way he has done 1000s of interviews. At least not in an official capacity or in an interview room type setting.
2) No way hes made 1000s of felony arrests and 2500 misdemeanor arrests. I work in a city of 4000 officers. We can actually look up our entire arrest history and NOBODY on my huge department has that many arrests. He has this whole speech rehearsed and is very smooth but stumbles over his words when he talks about how many arrests hes made. That's a sure sign of someone lying.
3) He said his conviction rate is 98%. I've never heard a single detective who has ever known what his conviction rate is. We don't keep stats like that. Most cases never go to court. They either get plead out or dropped and unless he looked up every single case of his, he would never know what happened.

This cop is a bigger blowhard than the lawyer is and I don't trust either of them as far as I could throw them. Think about someone in your profession that you knew was full of sh*t and you will see how I feel.

Pretty much my take as well.

ERhoosier · 12-26-2012, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

.......

I was a jury member in August on a family assault case and I was impressed that everything that the arresting police officer stated could be, and was, verified by actual voice recordings of the events.......

This should be no surprise. I'll bet my last $ that officer had listened to those tapes many times before giving his testimony in court. Everyone involved in the case prob had access to those tapes before trial (part of discovery process).

Nodak · 12-26-2012, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malcolm2

Nodak's story of the Eagle feather is also a joke, post a link.

Sorry, there is no link, that is not an area of the country with a daily paper or any news gathering organization of any kind. There is a weekly paper but there is no major coverage of anything. For example, a resident of my home town was recently busted for 7 counts of child porn; that warranted a one paragraph article in the paper. I only have the word of the person who had the feather and his neighbors who saw the agents at his house. I know it may be hard to understand for those that live in high density population areas but that is the way things are in a state with an average population density of 9 people per square mile.

Bestwifeever · 12-26-2012, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodak

Sorry, there is no link, that is not an area of the country with a daily paper or any news gathering organization of any kind. There is a weekly paper but there is no major coverage of anything. For example, a resident of my home town was recently busted for 7 counts of child porn; that warranted a one paragraph article in the paper. I only have the word of the person who had the feather and his neighbors who saw the agents at his house.

How did the federal agents even know your friend had this innocently acquired feather?

Nodak · 12-26-2012, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever

How did the federal agents even know your friend had this innocently acquired feather?

That is a question that has bothered me too. I know he had it attached to a hat he wore so I am assuming someone saw and reported it.
Edit to add:
There are several game wardens assigned to that area because of the amount of wildlife so it is possible my friend talked to one of them while wearing his hat with the feather in the hat band.

Original Wally · 12-26-2012, 12:02 PM

As was said... YMMV. There is ANOTHER reason to never talk to a peace officer without an attorney present -the CIVIL side of an issue. Say you ARE involved in "something" and the peace officer is "interviewing" you to determine if your involvement rises to the level of a criminal offense. Of course, the level of proof required for a Criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt" ##HOWEVER##, in a civil case it is merely "the preponderence of the evidence" - more this way than that. SO, anything you say to a peace officer can ALSO be used in a civil case. And THAT has a much lower level of "proof" needed. DO NOT TALK TO ANYONE without an attorney present.

**braumeister** · 12-26-2012, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AWeinel

DO NOT TALK TO ANYONE without an attorney present.

Is it possible we might be going just a bit too far out on the limb here?

haha · 12-26-2012, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister

Is it possible we might be going just a bit too far out on the limb here?

Wife: Honey, I'm feeling kind of affectionate. Ya think you could talk a little sweetness to me and maybe I will do a little something for you?

Husband:Just a minute until I call Bert, my attorney, and have him hurry over. Whatever you have in mind will have to wait wait until he arrives.

Ha

Original Wally · 12-26-2012, 01:59 PM

Shall I edit that to mean.... talk to anyone about any legal matter without having an attorney present

That makes it clearer what I meant. And, YES, that includes family (unless spouses are exempt from being compelled to testify against spouses - of no exemption, then them too). The civil side of the matter is often overlooked. Remember, it was the CIVIL side where OJ was found guilty, not the criminal.

AND... **sometimes** it WOULD be better to have an attorney present when talking to your spouse. Just sayin.

**braumeister** · 12-26-2012, 02:03 PM

And be sure your tinfoil hat is at least two layers thick?

Seriously, I don't think 98% of us would take such an extreme position. And they can't put us ALL in prison.

Original Wally · 12-26-2012, 02:20 PM

respectfully, I don't really care if YOU go to jail, or get sued. I just want to protect myself.

ANd I am not saying that 98% of us WOULD take a position, just that we each SHOULD consider what we say and to whom we say it. You can ALWAYS talk later, but you can NEVER un-talk once you open your mouth.

AS IN ALL matters, YMMV

Koolau · 12-26-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malcolm2

Koolau, I think you watch too much television, Hollywood does not reflect reality.

Guilty as charged Malcolm2. I love L & O and I root for the defendant as often at I root for the cops and the prosecutor. I love "Justified" and Breaking Bad". 95% of the folks portrayed in these shows are "bad" - including several LEOs. It's clear to me that the shows I tend to like have a certain moral ambiguity. I gave up on "black hats" vs "white hats" long ago.

But just because these shows are produced by Hollywood does not mean that the techniques they show (getting confessions, over charging defendants, coercing witnesses, etc.) do not happen. Maybe they don't happen as often as these shows portray, but that doesn't mean that they don't ever happen.

Minor as it may sound both DW and I have experience with LEOs attempting to extract a guilty plea (in these cases, for speeding). They lied and they threatened massive overcharging when they had no proof of speeding. My officer started his "schtick" by saying (exact quote) "There are several things I can 'GET' you for." Full disclosure at least in my case. I WAS doing 40 in a 35. But NO ONE on that stretch of road ever gets pulled over for 40 in a 35. Think what you will of me for "getting away with" 40 in a 35.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malcolm2

Nodak's story of the Eagle feather is also a joke, post a link.

I don't have a reference for you and MAYBE it never happened. But, if the law is on the books, it has either been used against someone or it WILL BE in the future. My point (backed up by the lawyer in the video) NO ONE can be aware of all the possible laws he could possibly break. If law enforcement wants to charge YOU with a crime, they can find a way to do it in today's environment of intricate layers of codified regulations and rules. I don't believe it happens on a massive scale, but an individual never knows when he might innocently fall under suspicion. At that point, law enforcement has a huge arsenal at their disposal to "get" you if they choose to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malcolm2

Honest people (most of you) should just keep being honest. Don't commit a felony. If you do, by all means get a lawyer (a good but honest one) and hope you are one of the criminals that get off.

I think my point is that "honest" people DO commit crimes these days. They don't even know it and they had no intent. But "intent" is not a factor in most crimes (especially environmental, tax, ATF regulations, etc.). As always, YMMV.

utrecht · 12-26-2012, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AWeinel

respectfully, I don't really care if YOU go to jail, or get sued. I just want to protect myself.

ANd I am not saying that 98% of us WOULD take a position, just that we each SHOULD consider what we say and to whom we say it. You can ALWAYS talk later, but you can NEVER un-talk once you open your mouth.

AS IN ALL matters, YMMV

You can get sued for anything. I could sue you right now for making comments on this forum that offend me. Trust me on this one. I actually have been sued for making comments on an internet forum. You cant live your life in fear of lawsuits and / or being falsely accused of a crime. Might as well become a hermit.

Bestwifeever · 12-26-2012, 04:06 PM

There are so many law enforcement officers, so there surely are some bad ones, but who else are you going to call when you come home to your front door being kicked in, your handbag stolen, your car vandalized? A lawyer first and then the police? That won't seem at all suspicious to the police....

And there are so many citizens, so there surely are some bad ones, but most of the rest of us aren't hiding illegal activities or activities that could be manipulated into seeming illegal. And really, why would the police be at all interested in doing that?

When did the police turn into the bad guys?

Original Wally · 12-26-2012, 04:11 PM

Officer utrech - my point WAS and IS minimizing exposure. I heartily agree it cannot be eliminated. I simply do not see the point in adding ADDITIONAL exposure. To the extent that you DID file suit against me for whatever THAT would trigger my response. I am NOT advocating a preemptive exclusion of normal conversation and discussion with folks. But, rather, ONCE a legal matter rears its head, then it is time to recognize that the situation HAS changed and respond accordingly. That's all.

utrecht · 12-26-2012, 06:14 PM

OK, but that the law professor said not to talk to the cops under any circumstances. Remember that when you are the victim of a crime. Calling the cops would be "additional exposure". You wouldn't want that.

This whole discussion about not talking to the cops for any reason is nothing but paranoia. Its about as dumb as me saying I refuse to go to the doctor because I heard about a guy one time whose doctor gave him the wrong medicine and it killed him.

**MichaelB** · 12-26-2012, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever

When did the police turn into the bad guys?

Robber: this is a stick up...
Victim: Help! Help! someone, call call a lawyer!

Nah, that just doesn't do it for me. I'd rather someone call the police.

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister

And be sure your tinfoil hat is at least two layers thick?

Methinks two layers are not going to be enough.

I've dealt with some of those police in other countries, both in the "help!" and "they want to ask me questions" category. I'll talk with police here anytime. Perspective helps.

Original Wally · 12-26-2012, 06:33 PM

I am NOT saying I would not EVER talk to a Peace Office. Merely that I want an attorney present to protect ME. Criminals have sued victims for "defending themselves" And, AGAIN (for, what, the third time

) the CIVIL SIDE is has probably more exposure than the criminal side. Part of it might be that I am here in California, home of Gov MoonBeam. La-la Land. NO FLIPPING WAY would I ever talk without counsel. I am NOT an attorney, and I do NOT want to say somehting inadvertently that will cause ME additional strife.

Re. Officer utrech's comment "when you are the victim of a crime. Calling the cops would be "additional exposure"." That is just silly. The POINT has been to have adequate representation. As a Peace Officer (who I believe take oaths to uphold the Constitution, yes

), wouldn't Office u WANT citizens to exercise their rights

?

Bestwifeever · 12-26-2012, 06:37 PM

Personally I would rather talk with police than with any lawyer who wants to speak for me to the police

(ducking)

This thread is getting sort of funny. Imagine all those kids in the DARE programs and McGruff programs all sitting next to a lawyer as their mouthpieces before they can participate....