Don't talk to the police

[Kulindahr]

Thanks to JockBoy87 for this treasure:



People here often deny that we're becoming a police state. The two speakers in this video confirm it with two facts: first, saying anything at all to the police can only harm you; second, the police are entitled to lie to trick you.

Enjoy.

[Orlandude]

Makes one wonder about justice since it is against the law to lie to the police during an investigation, yet they can do anything they want to trick you.

[Kulindahr]

Makes one wonder about justice since it is against the law to lie to the police during an investigation, yet they can do anything they want to trick you.

And if you don't talk, the new trick is to charge you with obstructing an investigation.

[JockBoy87]

We have a long legacy of Supreme Court decisions, comments in dicta, and legal experts who have spoken on this issue. There are a lot of scrumptious quotes in that lecture. Professor James Duane gives a hard hitting lecture on the 5th amendment. One of the best speakers I've heard, I admire his ability to establish ironclad ethos here. He didn't even mention that he graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School.

The 5th amendment is "too often seen as a shelter for wrongdoers," as he quotes the Supreme Court, and goes on, "Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth." Even Scalia says the 5th amendment is primarily important to protect innocent people.

What really burns me about federal rules is that hearsay can be used against you, but not for you. The police cannot, at your attorney's request, repeat something you said that's in your favor, but can put you behind bars because of anything you have ever said to them.

[Kyanimal]

THANK YOU!, Guys!

Every single U.S. Citizen should see that video! Well ... MOST of them, anyway!

Keep smilin'!!
Chaz

[White Eagle]

Thank you for this. I would be one that spilled my guts.

[Kulindahr]

We have a long legacy of Supreme Court decisions, comments in dicta, and legal experts who have spoken on this issue. There are a lot of scrumptious quotes in that lecture. Professor James Duane gives a hard hitting lecture on the 5th amendment. One of the best speakers I've heard, I admire his ability to establish ironclad ethos here. He didn't even mention that he graduated cum laude from Harvard Law School.

The 5th amendment is "too often seen as a shelter for wrongdoers," as he quotes the Supreme Court, and goes on, "Truthful responses of an innocent witness, as well as those of a wrongdoer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speaker’s own mouth." Even Scalia says the 5th amendment is primarily important to protect innocent people.

What really burns me about federal rules is that hearsay can be used against you, but not for you. The police cannot, at your attorney's request, repeat something you said that's in your favor, but can put you behind bars because of anything you have ever said to them.

I'm going to quote it next time any cop has questions for me -- I'll inform him that the United States Supreme Court has advised all citizens to refuse to answer any questions from the police.

Given that the police are public servants, not prosecutor's servants, anything they've heard should be public property. That they are currently defined as on the side of the prosecutor and not of the truth reveals that they are not actually public servants any longer. If any other evidence is needed that our government is something we need protection against, I don't know what it is.

We need a ruling that smashes this anti-people system and decrees that all information possessed by the police belongs equally to both prosecution and defense. I'd say any cop found not following that should get a prison term of three years or what the accused could have gotten, whichever is longer.

[Kulindahr]

Thank you for this. I would be one that spilled my guts.

This will make it easier for me to say no: I was brought up to honor authority, and now I see that the highest authority in the land tells me to not talk to the police.

Although it will risk arrest for obstructing an investigation, around here.

[JayHawk]

If you can spare the time check out this video... it is long but if you listen to a minute or two you will find the basic flow of the entire thing. The California Agri Checkpoint is illegal and they know it yet millions (including myself) voluntarily surrender their rights. If you click to the end of the video you will find after threatening this guy for over an hour they simply let him go because he is correct.



I would like to stipulate that if you watch more of this guys videos he is completely off the reservation. However, just as a broken clock is right twice a day this broke ass dude is correct. We are not required to answer questions at checkpoints. However if you choose that route you will be giving up a valuable hour of your life. Anyone who has traveled the southwest US knows there are these check points all over.

[Kulindahr]

If you can spare the time check out this video... it is long but if you listen to a minute or two you will find the basic flow of the entire thing. The California Agri Checkpoint is illegal and they know it yet millions (including myself) voluntarily surrender their rights. If you click to the end of the video you will find after threatening this guy for over an hour they simply let him go because he is correct.



I would like to stipulate that if you watch more of this guys videos he is completely off the reservation. However, just as a broken clock is right twice a day this broke ass dude is correct. We are not required to answer questions at checkpoints. However if you choose that route you will be giving up a valuable hour of your life. Anyone who has traveled the southwest US knows there are these check points all over.

I've played that game. We stopped at the California border once and they insisted that all the fruit we were carrying had to be thrown in the trash. I estimated the value of the fruit and asked for that much in compensation, because the government isn't allowed to seize property without compensation. The officer said they weren't seizing it, they were making us throw it away. I said the law couldn't tell me I had to destroy any of my property. He said we couldn't leave till the fruit was gone.

So we sat and ate it. That little protest caught on -- several other vehicles' people saw us eating our fruit instead of throwing it in the trash, and joined in. We had a bit of a party, with beverages and chips and stuff coming out.

The cops were glad to get rid of us.

[cockbrain]

Thanks for this fascinating video.

And if you don't talk, the new trick is to charge you with obstructing an investigation.

Where have you seen or heard this happen? Seems un-American.

[xbuzzerx]

Makes one wonder about justice since it is against the law to lie to the police during an investigation, yet they can do anything they want to trick you.

And in absolutely any other water cooler discussion everyone is saying how ridiculously difficult it is to get anyone convicted, even for fairly obvious crimes, or how easily those cases wind up being thrown out because of mistrial or technicalities about the process of their arrest or interrogation or trial.

So there's two sides to the story. It's actually pretty difficult to convict someone in our legal system, so people complain about that, and then when police are using tricks to try to get people to contradict their given story or alibi in an interrogation, people complain about that. You can't have both cakes and eat them both. It's a balance.

[frankfrank]

^ It's a form of revenge, and they can get away with it, because when it's in court and it's a cop versus an ordinary schmo, the cop always wins.

[xbuzzerx]

^ It's a form of revenge, and they can get away with it, because when it's in court and it's a cop versus an ordinary schmo, the cop always wins.

I don't disagree that there's some shenanigans within the police, they look out for their own sometimes beyond ethical bounds. That's pretty well known. However this thread says "don't talk to the police." I'm pretty sure the Miranda Rights you are read already tell you to do that the moment you're arrested. So I don't see what this sudden outrage is about.

[JockBoy87]

California apparently has a rather storied history with invasive species.

It's going to be a tall order evoking the 4th amendment right against unreasonable searches in court, especially if the government has compelling scientific evidence of inspection efficacy.

[JockBoy87]

I don't disagree that there's some shenanigans within the police, they look out for their own sometimes beyond ethical bounds. That's pretty well known. However this thread says "don't talk to the police." I'm pretty sure the Miranda Rights you are read already tell you to do that the moment you're arrested. So I don't see what this sudden outrage is about.

The problem is that police statements are unassailable.

If a cop says you said something, it's a fact in the eyes of the law that you said it, whether you did or not.

If you say nothing, there can be no distortion of a statement you never made.

It's actually pretty difficult to convict someone in our legal system, so people complain about that.

Partially true. Over 80% of people confess before trial in federal court, and then it's a cakewalk for the prosecution. Only without confessions is it difficult to convict.

[Sausy]

So our job is to disrespect the police on any grounds....never have dealings with them on ANYTHING? Do I understand there are unethical policemen and practices...am I aware some police officers and officials would do anything to get somebody? Of course, and wherever that happens it has to be met with responses that curtail the abuses and corrruption wherever we can. But there are good officers, good public servants....and it's outrageous that someone promotes this extreme civil libertarian nonsense as something the public should embrace.

Perhaps no one should confess to anything. Appeal every conviction to the end of time. Let's apply the law to ALL society...police and civilian. I want blind justice to the best degree possible to be what we strive for as a society...not support the police over everything or treat them all as corrupt, on the take hacks always looking to get their palms greased or to screw others. Reform where we must,and there is a lot to reform... but this is idiocy as a legal or constitutional stand if taken as an absolute.

[Sausy]

Part of what sets me off on this is that for several years we had police officers as tenants when we had our house. They were great tenants and fine officers...dealt with a lot of crap but didn't succumb to cynicism or corruption as some have. It's insulting that instead of any balanced approach we have something like this nonsense on by some egghead who was a criminal defense lawyer to cast only a negative light to public association with police. I'm sure others here have friends or relatives who have been nvolved in police work. To be clear I will not dismiss the very real abuses and excesses talked about but if this really goes too far.

[JayHawk]

The problem is that police statements are unassailable.

If a cop says you said something, it's a fact in the eyes of the law that you said it, whether you did or not.

If you say nothing, there can be no distortion of a statement you never made.



Partially true. Over 80% of people confess before trial in federal court, and then it's a cakewalk for the prosecution. Only without confessions is it difficult to convict.

Not only that but typically the judge you will go in front of has never seen you in all the days of their life... yet they see the Cop every month at least. It is natural for people to trust the personal they know.

This may sound odd but if I ever have to be in a court house I get a lawyer who has an office within a few blocks. The results are usually equalized if the lawyer is good because the judge has a working relationship with the lawyer as well as with the police officer.

To the above commentary from Sausy I agree that it is foolish to simply provoke a situation at all times with police officers. However, some folks go about the world with the view that as long as they tell the truth then justice will prevail. That is horse shit. Ask any over the road truck driver how fair our legal system is and you will come away a different person. There is a reason that among the first one or two mission statement items every police force has the identified goal of increasing revenue through enforcement. In other words there is an incentive of being evaluated favorably if you write lots of tickets that get paid.

[JayHawk]

Sausy roughly half of my relatives and friend are either city or state... so i get ya. I also understand first hand how they manage to rope in people and increase revenue.

[Kyanimal]

Did you watch the entire video, Saucy? Did you hear the police officer in the second half of it?

Nothing personal in it at all. Simply talking about the Legalities ...

[Sausy]

Ky, maybe the steam coming out of my ears prevented a more relaxed approach... call me naive and gullible but it's a position that while not without some merit overall justs gnaws at me. I'm not going to look at cops as a whole as a bunch of irredeemable bad apples. xbuzzerx talked about balance, cops are damned if they do but damned if they don't. Thankfully most people aren't going to be as skewed to the anti police left. It's the tone of the discussions here and in the videos that leave me so pissed... all that's missing is an angry rap anthem "Fuck the Police".

[JayHawk]

The stance and the argument is a bit more nuanced than gansta rap.... for fucks sake.

[Kyanimal]

Some of my good friends are cops, as well as some are prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. And ALL of them would advise you to not talk!

It's about The System! It's not about the individuals involved, on whatever level. Keep in mind, "Justice" is, indeed, Blind!

All the more reasons to ... no matter what ...

Keep smilin'!!
Chaz

(And keep your mouth shut. )

[Sausy]

My view is to challenge the abuse of the system, but it's my own idealistic take on what should be rather than what is. I hear what you are saying, Ky and Jay... I have said here I don't blindly take to the law enforcement side of things either. It's sad though if we allow as in many things those that abuse the purpose of the system to completely prejudice our view on the system should work....and to work to make it fairer.

[JayHawk]

Well the point of the video and the advice is not to pervert the system. It is to give you an informed position so you may employ your constitutional rights. It even demonstrates that by quoting Justices of our Supreme Court giving the advice that you not speak to police.

[Rolyo85]

I am not gonna get into this, because I am not from around here and I haven't had dealings with the police (other than a cop stopping me on my bike on my birthday for not stopping at a stop sign, and then letting me go), but I find the concept of warring with your law enforcement to be more than a bid creepy, whether warranted or not.

[JockBoy87]

My view is to challenge the abuse of the system, but it's my own idealistic take on what should be rather than what is. I hear what you are saying, Ky and Jay... I have said here I don't blindly take to the law enforcement side of things either. It's sad though if we allow as in many things those that abuse the purpose of the system to completely prejudice our view on the system should work....and to work to make it fairer.

The police did not invent our adversarial system or the federal rules of hearsay.

It is not their fault that their testimony of what you say can only be used against you, but not for you.

But it is so, and it is not fair. That's the whole point.

[White Eagle]

This will make it easier for me to say no: I was brought up to honor authority, and now I see that the highest authority in the land tells me to not talk to the police.

Although it will risk arrest for obstructing an investigation, around here.

I would tell them anything. I have connections. My brother is a deputy sheriff but I forget that he hasn't talked to me in 45 years.

[Kulindahr]

Where have you seen or heard this happen? Seems un-American.

About five blocks from here in one direction, about three in another, about twelve in another. Cops use the threat all the time.

[Kulindahr]

And in absolutely any other water cooler discussion everyone is saying how ridiculously difficult it is to get anyone convicted, even for fairly obvious crimes, or how easily those cases wind up being thrown out because of mistrial or technicalities about the process of their arrest or interrogation or trial.

So there's two sides to the story. It's actually pretty difficult to convict someone in our legal system, so people complain about that, and then when police are using tricks to try to get people to contradict their given story or alibi in an interrogation, people complain about that. You can't have both cakes and eat them both. It's a balance.

I rarely hear complaints about how hard it is to get anyone convicted. I hear complaints about how cops will arrest someone, then figure out what the charge is; how the cops will arrest someone for X, but then in the first court appearance the charges are X, X', X", Y, Y', and Y"; how someone does one single action wrong but gets charged with four crimes for the one action; how if you've ever once been arrested the cops will look for every opportunity they can find to arrest you for something else (and they don't care if it gets thrown out, because that doesn't affect them, and the arrest goes on your record). The only times I hear the kids of complaints you describe are in high-profile trials with high-paid lawyers.

[Kulindahr]

The problem is that police statements are unassailable.

If a cop says you said something, it's a fact in the eyes of the law that you said it, whether you did or not.

If you say nothing, there can be no distortion of a statement you never made.

Exactly. Cops can lie about what you said, or about what you did, and there are no repercussions unless you have absolute proof they're lying. The moment a cop testifies, you're guilty until proven innocent.

Even if they're caught it may not mean much. A probation & parole officer here caught lying on the stand didn't even get slapped down by the court; he was transferred out of the pro/par division into sheriff's patrol. It was a small step down in pay, but there's not even a black mark on his record.

[Kulindahr]

So our job is to disrespect the police on any grounds....never have dealings with them on ANYTHING? Do I understand there are unethical policemen and practices...am I aware some police officers and officials would do anything to get somebody? Of course, and wherever that happens it has to be met with responses that curtail the abuses and corrruption wherever we can. But there are good officers, good public servants....and it's outrageous that someone promotes this extreme civil libertarian nonsense as something the public should embrace.

Perhaps no one should confess to anything. Appeal every conviction to the end of time. Let's apply the law to ALL society...police and civilian. I want blind justice to the best degree possible to be what we strive for as a society...not support the police over everything or treat them all as corrupt, on the take hacks always looking to get their palms greased or to screw others. Reform where we must,and there is a lot to reform... but this is idiocy as a legal or constitutional stand if taken as an absolute.

Sausy, this seems very naive. Police take classes on how to lie skillfully to get information, on how to manipulate people's emotions to get them to say things without thinking first, on all kinds of perfectly legal tricks to make the reading of the Miranda rights (which isn't even required any longer) meaningless.

Take note of who's actually "promot[ing] this extreme civil libertarian nonsense as something the public should embrace": the United States Supreme Court! He quoted justices both past and present, and not just opinions but from written decisions!

I'll go with the Court.

[Kulindahr]

Part of what sets me off on this is that for several years we had police officers as tenants when we had our house. They were great tenants and fine officers...dealt with a lot of crap but didn't succumb to cynicism or corruption as some have. It's insulting that instead of any balanced approach we have something like this nonsense on by some egghead who was a criminal defense lawyer to cast only a negative light to public association with police. I'm sure others here have friends or relatives who have been nvolved in police work. To be clear I will not dismiss the very real abuses and excesses talked about but if this really goes too far.

I know, it's terrible that wild radicals like Supreme Court justices make this stuff up.

[Kulindahr]

Ky, maybe the steam coming out of my ears prevented a more relaxed approach... call me naive and gullible but it's a position that while not without some merit overall justs gnaws at me. I'm not going to look at cops as a whole as a bunch of irredeemable bad apples. xbuzzerx talked about balance, cops are damned if they do but damned if they don't. Thankfully most people aren't going to be as skewed to the anti police left. It's the tone of the discussions here and in the videos that leave me so pissed... all that's missing is an angry rap anthem "Fuck the Police".

He implicated prosecutors far more than any police.

[Kulindahr]

I am not gonna get into this, because I am not from around here and I haven't had dealings with the police (other than a cop stopping me on my bike on my birthday for not stopping at a stop sign, and then letting me go), but I find the concept of warring with your law enforcement to be more than a bid creepy, whether warranted or not.

Creepier than the fact that in some European countries, hitting suspects is considered legitimate interrogation?

The "war" is because while the law says we're innocent until proven guilty, the system assumes we're guilty the moment we open our mouths, and allows different standards of evidence for prosecution and defense. In a rational system, the police officer would make a complete statement about the incident, and that statement would be equally available to both sides -- but it doesn't work that way. In a rational system, the cops would have to tell the truth -- but in actuality they get training in how to lie and trick people.

To make it worse, cops get points for making arrests; it doesn't matter if their arrestees get exonerated over and over, they still get the points.

In other words, the police and prosecutors are not, in fact, public servants.

[xbuzzerx]

I rarely hear complaints about how hard it is to get anyone convicted. I hear complaints about how cops will arrest someone, then figure out what the charge is

Where do you live, Columbia? Myanmar?

I have NEVER heard of this happening... a few cases of things like black guy jogging and gets grabbed because a crime happened nearby and they racistly assume this guy was involved or whatever. But in that case we're talking about a bias that persists across all of society, not just in the police, where everyday people and juries tend towards believing "the black guy did it", and DNA evidence has proven a lot of convicted "black murderers" were innocent.

Where I went to college, cops frequently used this defense for brutality during demonstrations or protests where they would claim a student they beat (in one case they broke a grad student's jaw) was "trying to bite them." Apparently in the law someone trying to bite a police officer warrants a higher level of physical response/violence because it can be treated as assault with a deadly weapon since people could be carrying diseases or whatever else. Basically everytime a student would get beaten by a cop in a protest (and no, we're not talking about out of line protests where buildings were being burned or anything else) you could expect to see the charge of "the cop said the student tried to bite him" in the student paper a day or two later, it was the pretty routine defense. So I am by no means unaware that cops can lie or cops can abuse the law for their advantage. But this concept that people are just walking along on the street and get arrested at random and then randomly assigned a charge is absolute fiction.

[Kulindahr]

Where do you live, Columbia? Myanmar?

I have NEVER heard of this happening... a few cases of things like black guy jogging and gets grabbed because a crime happened nearby and they racistly assume this guy was involved or whatever. But in that case we're talking about a bias that persists across all of society, not just in the police, where everyday people and juries tend towards believing "the black guy did it", and DNA evidence has proven a lot of convicted "black murderers" were innocent.

Where I went to college, cops frequently used this defense for brutality during demonstrations or protests where they would claim a student they beat (in one case they broke a grad student's jaw) was "trying to bite them." Apparently in the law someone trying to bite a police officer warrants a higher level of physical response/violence because it can be treated as assault with a deadly weapon since people could be carrying diseases or whatever else. Basically everytime a student would get beaten by a cop in a protest (and no, we're not talking about out of line protests where buildings were being burned or anything else) you could expect to see the charge of "the cop said the student tried to bite him" in the student paper a day or two later, it was the pretty routine defense. So I am by no means unaware that cops can lie or cops can abuse the law for their advantage. But this concept that people are just walking along on the street and get arrested at random and then randomly assigned a charge is absolute fiction.

Oregon. And the head public defender for the county just over the hill told me it's the biggest headache for his office: cops decide to talk to someone, don't like their attitude, so they cuff them, then invent a charge and make up evidence. The DA knows it goes on, and doesn't care because the more arrests, the more people he can justify having on his staff, and thus the more power and prestige he has.

And it's happened to people I know. It's also happened where my buddy in Indiana lives -- he says it was done to someone who got stopped for a traffic thing when traveling through, the deputies didn't like the guy, so they came up with something to arrest him for... but their real beef with the guy was they thought he was gay.

BTW, your last statement has nothing to do with what I said.

[JayHawk]

I am not gonna get into this, because I am not from around here and I haven't had dealings with the police (other than a cop stopping me on my bike on my birthday for not stopping at a stop sign, and then letting me go), but I find the concept of warring with your law enforcement to be more than a bid creepy, whether warranted or not.

Either you failed to watch or you fail to understand the video. Do you really think a Virginia Beach Detective is advocating "war" with police? That is the guy on the video giving the advice to defense attorney students that clients NOT talk to police. The initial presenter is a Law professor. They are instructing the ignorant masses to invoke their rights because it can result in serious consequences.

This just goes back to the axiom that "Only a fools defends himself" Well your defense starts the moment the state (police) begins to question you. Which is why we have the fifth and also why the SCOTUS ruled the ignorant MUST be informed of their right to remain silent.

Not speaking to police is as American as a free press and a right to bear arms....

[Kulindahr]

Either you failed to watch or you fail to understand the video. Do you really think a Virginia Beach Detective is advocating "war" with police? That is the guy on the video giving the advice to defense attorney students that clients NOT talk to police. The initial presenter is a Law professor. They are instructing the ignorant masses to invoke their rights because it can result in serious consequences.

This just goes back to the axiom that "Only a fools defends himself" Well your defense starts the moment the state (police) begins to question you. Which is why we have the fifth and also why the SCOTUS ruled the ignorant MUST be informed of their right to remain silent.

Not speaking to police is as American as a free press and a right to bear arms....

Didn't used to be that way. Cops used to be much more of the peace officer variety rather than law officer -- you could be breaking a law but so long as you weren't hurting anyone else you didn't get arrested. kids around here get arrested for things their dads did when growing up, and it isn't the law that's changed, it's the attitude of the cops.

[JayHawk]

Kuli you miss the point with anecdotal evidence. Tell a black man that cops have changed over time. The video you offered provides opinion through the last century validating the fifth... why you suppose it was necessary for the SCOTUS to validate the fifth?

[Kulindahr]

Kuli you miss the point with anecdotal evidence. Tell a black man that cops have changed over time. The video you offered provides opinion through the last century validating the fifth... why you suppose it was necessary for the SCOTUS to validate the fifth?

Sure there have been the persecuted categories. But all my relatives, from five different states, agree that cops no longer care about people, just about the law, almost like it was a religion.

[JayHawk]

Still anecdotal. My father was beaten and falsely arrested multiple times in multiple states as a young man. Really just depends on the community you are in and if you belong to it. It is much easier to beat down strangers than your neighbors you know and break bread with occasionally. If you want to blame something blame the much more isolated society we live in now that techno connectivity is the thing and many more people are isolated from interaction with other folks.

[andysayshi]

If I refused to talk to police I wouldn't be able to talk in my own home.

[JayHawk]

If I refused to talk to police I wouldn't be able to talk in my own home.

That is some new bondage thingy?! Fifth Amendment sex?

[Keeland]

If I refused to talk to police I wouldn't be able to talk in my own home.

Hire a live-in lawyer.

[JayHawk]

Hmmm instead of house boy... House lawyer.... will he have to clean up things as well?

[frankfrank]

I will say this...there have been times in my life when I've been walking around at night in places like Tijuana, Detroit, and Bedford-Stuyvesant.

And there have been times in my life when I'm stopped by a cop who gives me a warning or a traffic ticket.

Anybody want to guess which circumstances make me feel the most unsafe of these two?

I'm convinced that, often, police officers are carrying cocaine or perhaps even child porn on their person and, if they don't "like" you for some reason, they will ask if they can search your car...and they can say "Oh, look what I found." Incarceration has a very strong profit motive for the Corrections industry, and I have no doubts there are illegal kickbacks given when potential inmates are caught up in the "CRIMINAL" IN-justice system, etc. If they search your person and you're carrying $300 on you or something, there's a chance that they'll use the excuse that "it must be drug proceeds" and of course cocaine or other stuff shows up in trace amounts on most money so their argument can stick. The money is confiscated, never to be seen again.

There is almost NO other circumstance in life when I feel profoundly unsafe, more than when I'm being stopped or questioned by a cop.

Yes, I'm talking about POLICE. The guys who enforce the law. In a perfect world, being in the presence of a policeman should be absolutely the most safe of all circumstances, because (if you're not breaking the law, or if you're breaking the law in a way which is VERY objective and quantifiable such as speeding...and you're not showing an attitude) everything should be entirely up-and-up LEGAL AND SAFE and there should be no danger to you whatsoever.

What is to prevent a cop from lying and testifying that you said something...even if you said NOTHING? It's always their word against yours, and they **ALWAYS** win.

[andysayshi]

I'm astounded by the amount of paranoia and mistrust toward police shown here. Maybe it's because I live with a policeman; maybe it's because I've only lived in urban areas in the US. But I've never, ever had any reason to mistrust a police officer in the US. They have always been polite, professional, decent people to me, in the limited interactions I've had with them. (The worst being asked to get out of town because I had an RV parked in Key West town limits - they aren't allowed to be parked on the street after dark, to prevent the town turning into an RV park.)

I think this mistrust of authority, and an expectation of corruption, is a distinct cultural phenomenon in the US, grounded in tradition more than reality, perhaps.

[xbuzzerx]

Sure there have been the persecuted categories. But all my relatives, from five different states, agree that cops no longer care about people, just about the law, almost like it was a religion.

There are more people in metropolitan Los Angeles than in all of Oregon, and I've never heard of this. So if we're going with anecdotal evidence where does that leave us?

Maybe it's a local corruption problem, in which case broad sweeping claims about the entire institution of police are exaggerated alarmism.