Don't talk to the police

[JayHawk]

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.

Or perhaps grounded in repetitive reality.....

Terrance Huff Files Lawsuit Against Illinois Police Officer Michael Reichert Over 'Trekkie Traffic Stop'

Did you happen to read above where my family are cops? Know what a great way is to raise your arrest count on a slow month?

While your average 35yo white male cop is walking his beat on predominantly black Vine street you simply toss your steaming cup of white castle coffee in the face of a local.... instantly you have a man angry enough to assault an officer... and you get to beat his ass.

Oh how about this one. Clearing a triple homicide and checking personal property evidence into the station except it has none of the green american cash that it used to have. That was what one of my uncles went down as a Cincinnati cop. Would you like to guess how many different US police forces wanted to hire him after he was finally dismissed? A year of union sponsored lobbying to keep his job but he finally lost and was immediately offered jobs in Indiana, Kentucky, California, Texas.... multiple offers too not simply a few po dunk towns either... Indiana and Kentucky included the state police.

So perhaps your experience has been slightly different than others. Just slightly.

[Kulindahr]

Or perhaps grounded in repetitive reality.....



Did you happen to read above where my family are cops? Know what a great way is to raise your arrest count on a slow month?

While your average 35yo white male cop is walking his beat on predominantly black Vine street you simply toss your steaming cup of white castle coffee in the face of a local.... instantly you have a man angry enough to assault an officer... and you get to beat his ass.

Oh how about this one. Clearing a triple homicide and checking personal property evidence into the station except it has none of the green american cash that it used to have. That was what one of my uncles went down as a Cincinnati cop. Would you like to guess how many different US police forces wanted to hire him after he was finally dismissed? A year of union sponsored lobbying to keep his job but he finally lost and was immediately offered jobs in Indiana, Kentucky, California, Texas.... multiple offers too not simply a few po dunk towns either... Indiana and Kentucky included the state police.

So perhaps your experience has been slightly different than others. Just slightly.

It's rampant. Police, instead of being held to a higher standard as they should be, get away with crap all the time. They read an address wrong, kick a door in, shoot someone, kill the dog, and don't even have to apologize because of immunity laws as long as they're "doing their job".

Police get little respect these days because so many have shown they don't deserve respect. And that makes a vicious circle, because it makes it hard to find trained cops, so any time a cop is in trouble in one jurisdiction for being corrupt, he can find a job somewhere else and often have any investigation dropped because he left. There are officers here who have bounced from sheriff's deputy to fish and wildlife ranger to city cop and finally became a statie elsewhere because there was no place left to shuffle them around here. And the old-time cops, who were trained as peace officers instead of law officers, keep their mouths shut because they want to get their retirement.

[Rolyo85]

Well, Kuli, in Europe some countries might consider police brutality to be a good form of interrogation (any particular countries you have in mind?), and in the US a bunch of states think it's ok to shoot someone on the street because you felt threatened by them walking on the sidewalk. To each their own horror.

[xbuzzerx]

Well, Kuli, in Europe some countries might consider police brutality to be a good form of interrogation (any particular countries you have in mind?), and in the US a bunch of states think it's ok to shoot someone on the street because you felt threatened by them walking on the sidewalk. To each their own horror.

Those laws definitely disturb me WAY more than police corruption-- which I don't deny exists, but which falls WAY short of what's being exaggerated in this thread. I seriously haven't so much as heard of someone randomly arrested and then randomly given some kind of charge. Ever.

[Laufey]

Sounds like they are just trying to put as many people in prison as possible rather than trying to make society safer.

Imprisonment in the US seems to be a growing industry rather than a reasonable tool for the authorities.

[Stardreamer]

Or perhaps grounded in repetitive reality.....



Did you happen to read above where my family are cops? Know what a great way is to raise your arrest count on a slow month?

While your average 35yo white male cop is walking his beat on predominantly black Vine street you simply toss your steaming cup of white castle coffee in the face of a local.... instantly you have a man angry enough to assault an officer... and you get to beat his ass.

Oh how about this one. Clearing a triple homicide and checking personal property evidence into the station except it has none of the green american cash that it used to have. That was what one of my uncles went down as a Cincinnati cop. Would you like to guess how many different US police forces wanted to hire him after he was finally dismissed? A year of union sponsored lobbying to keep his job but he finally lost and was immediately offered jobs in Indiana, Kentucky, California, Texas.... multiple offers too not simply a few po dunk towns either... Indiana and Kentucky included the state police.

So perhaps your experience has been slightly different than others. Just slightly.

The drug war has been responsible for much of this and allowing police departments to keep and profit from assets seized in an arrest even if there is no conviction is simply idiocy.

[Stardreamer]

Well, Kuli, in Europe some countries might consider police brutality to be a good form of interrogation (any particular countries you have in mind?), and in the US a bunch of states think it's ok to shoot someone on the street because you felt threatened by them walking on the sidewalk. To each their own horror.

Hmmm, we were told in Germany never refuse a blood test request from the Polizei for drunk driving because they would take blood anyway with their nightsticks if we did.

NO state has a law that says you can shoot someone just because you feel threatened by them on the sidewalk, there has to be an actual perceived threat to your life.

[Rolyo85]

And yet a black kid got shot for no reason, just walking on the sidewalk. So yeah, no, sorry. Stand Your Ground > German police brutality.

[tombastep]

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.

Funny, for the 3 times that I can recall right now where I had to deal with Police I have never felt this way and one of these occasions is where someone died at a party and the Police questioned everyone there. And this was at a friends house who were all of age but the owners (friends Parents) were not there, so in "reality" I had every reason to be "scared." They did their job and left, there were literally no problems.

Another time a neighbor came over banging on my window calling me a queer and other derogatory slurs. I buggered him off the first time but then he came over again and I called the Police. They came, I informed them of what happened and they went over and talked to him. Guess what? Neighbor never said a word or even shared a glance with me again.

The other time is when a neighbor physically threatened my roommates and I, we called the Police and they didn't really do anything for us. That is my worst experience with Police.

I really don't buy the paranoia that some people have. Yes, there are corrupt Police or power hungry Police, but the way you speak of them is like they're complete criminals.

[JockBoy87]

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

Spousal privilege against incrimination is a major benefit of marriage in the United States.

[maxpowr9]

Funny I have the exact opposite problem when I deal with police. Maybe it is because many cops in MA (except state police) are so incompetent that they will let you pass with anything.

I've dealt with cops, EMS and the fire department on several occasions and most of the time, they are fine. There will always be those "heavy-handed" people who when you give them a tiny bit of power, they go crazy with it.

I do believe that some cops (in particular Boston cops) get away a lot more than they should due to union protection. There was an incident at a Boston public school where a bunch of cops were sitting in their cars, in uniform, drinking and then they were shooting their cans of beer off the curb. None of the cops lost their jobs. At any other job, they would have been fired and possibly reprimanded.

[JockBoy87]

Funny, for the 3 times that I can recall right now where I had to deal with Police I have never felt this way and one of these occasions is where someone died at a party and the Police questioned everyone there. And this was at a friends house who were all of age but the owners (friends Parents) were not there, so in "reality" I had every reason to be "scared." They did their job and left, there were literally no problems.

Another time a neighbor came over banging on my window calling me a queer and other derogatory slurs. I buggered him off the first time but then he came over again and I called the Police. They came, I informed them of what happened and they went over and talked to him. Guess what? Neighbor never said a word or even shared a glance with me again.

The other time is when a neighbor physically threatened my roommates and I, we called the Police and they didn't really do anything for us. That is my worst experience with Police.

I really don't buy the paranoia that some people have. Yes, there are corrupt Police or power hungry Police, but the way you speak of them is like they're complete criminals.

I don't buy it either, but that's not why I won't talk to the police without immunity.

The US Supreme Court has said on multiple occasions that the 5th amendment primarily protects innocent people, including witnesses, who might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.

[Keeland]

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.

Really, Andy, I'm surprised at your naivety.

[Kulindahr]

Well, Kuli, in Europe some countries might consider police brutality to be a good form of interrogation (any particular countries you have in mind?), and in the US a bunch of states think it's ok to shoot someone on the street because you felt threatened by them walking on the sidewalk. To each their own horror.

Making stuff up again....

unless you mean that the police can shoot someone on the street because they felt threatened by someone walking on the sidewalk -- that's been known to happen.

[Kulindahr]

Those laws definitely disturb me WAY more than police corruption-- which I don't deny exists, but which falls WAY short of what's being exaggerated in this thread. I seriously haven't so much as heard of someone randomly arrested and then randomly given some kind of charge. Ever.

No one else here has, either. Mind addressing what's been said, instead of inventing crap?

[Kulindahr]

The drug war has been responsible for much of this and allowing police departments to keep and profit from assets seized in an arrest even if there is no conviction is simply idiocy.

Yes. Assets seizure laws need overturning. Until then, any proceeds from such seizures should be set against the national debt, not given to the agency that stole seized them.

[xbuzzerx]

Hmmm, we were told in Germany never refuse a blood test request from the Polizei for drunk driving because they would take blood anyway with their nightsticks if we did.

NO state has a law that says you can shoot someone just because you feel threatened by them on the sidewalk, there has to be an actual perceived threat to your life.

And how the heck do you "measure" that? That's entirely someone's personal perception and they can justify almost anything as feeling it was a threat to their life. Apparently unarmed black kids sitting in a car can make some people feel that way.

No one else here has, either. Mind addressing what's been said, instead of inventing crap?

You did, and I'm tired of this crap you're pulling of hiding from your own claims when someone else repeats them and you realize how insane they are.

cops decide to talk to someone, don't like their attitude, so they cuff them, then invent a charge and make up evidence.

[Kulindahr]

Funny, for the 3 times that I can recall right now where I had to deal with Police I have never felt this way and one of these occasions is where someone died at a party and the Police questioned everyone there. And this was at a friends house who were all of age but the owners (friends Parents) were not there, so in "reality" I had every reason to be "scared." They did their job and left, there were literally no problems.

Another time a neighbor came over banging on my window calling me a queer and other derogatory slurs. I buggered him off the first time but then he came over again and I called the Police. They came, I informed them of what happened and they went over and talked to him. Guess what? Neighbor never said a word or even shared a glance with me again.

The other time is when a neighbor physically threatened my roommates and I, we called the Police and they didn't really do anything for us. That is my worst experience with Police.

I really don't buy the paranoia that some people have. Yes, there are corrupt Police or power hungry Police, but the way you speak of them is like they're complete criminals.

I once allowed the cops to search my place in connection with something some kids were alleged to have done. They did hundreds of dollars worth of damage, and despite the fact that witnesses knew otherwise, the police claimed the kids they were investigating had broken in and trashed the place. A guy I knew had his place searched by permission, too, and returned to find the place trashed and property missing, even though there were no signs of forced entry and the landlord had locked the door again immediately after the cops left. I have never known anyone whose place was searched by the cops who didn't report damaged and/or missing property -- once they even tore holes in the walls and left it that way.


I've watched cops cuff kids and make them lie face down on concrete while they went off to the side to discuss things. I've listened to cops blatantly lie to trick people, and to cops using such profanity to abuse and intimidate just the language would give a movie an X rating. I've listened to cops lie about the law, and seen them arrest people for violating laws that don't actually exist. I've heard a judge rebuke a pair of cops for arresting people on specious charges just because they didn't like the way the people were behaving -- with instructions to pass that on to the rest of the department.

And I know of two instances where cops either left and came back later or sat in their vehicles and ignored things while someone got beat up for being gay, only 'officially' arriving once the perpetrators were gone. I know of others where cops falsified a report, calling the injuries to someone "accidental" when they knew it had been an assault... because the victim was gay.

I was brought up to trust the police. It took a lot of corruption shoved in my face to change that.

A young cop lives down the block from here. He used to stop and let his pup play with mine, so I got to know him a little. He could tell I was closed up around him, and admitted that he struggles because so many cops around here give people good cause to not trust cops at all. I just said, "No kidding", and told him about the WWII veteran who said that the system here is what he and friends went to Europe to fight and end.

[chrisrobin]

On the best of days, we have:



If this is not done, your case can be thrown out of court.

[Kulindahr]

You did, and I'm tired of this crap you're pulling of hiding from your own claims when someone else repeats them and you realize how insane they are.

You quoted my words here. But they aren't at all what you stated above.

[xbuzzerx]

You quoted my words here. But they aren't at all what you stated above.

Instead of defending your claim you are going to say my choice of words didn't shave close enough and do semantics.

I'll take that as you realize that taking your claim and basing it to judge the entire institution of police is ridiculous.

[Kulindahr]

Instead of defending your claim you are going to say my choice of words didn't shave close enough and do semantics.

I'll take that as you realize that taking your claim and basing it to judge the entire institution of police is ridiculous.

It's not semantics -- I stated a limited proposition and you took it to infinity.

And that it happens even once is sufficient to never, ever talk to cops at all. And now we can site the United States Supreme Court as an authority for that.

[xbuzzerx]

It's not semantics -- I stated a limited proposition and you took it to infinity.

And that it happens even once is sufficient to never, ever talk to cops at all. And now we can site the United States Supreme Court as an authority for that.

I agree. As I said in my first post Miranda Rights already tell you this. It's what any prudent person should do. So what is this thread about?

[chrisrobin]

i agree. As i said in my first post miranda rights already tell you this. It's what any prudent person should do. So what is this thread about?

qft ..........

[Telstra]

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 don't have any problems with these check points.
This guy is just a trouble maker for talking about Nazis, robots ... etc.

[JockBoy87]

I agree. As I said in my first post Miranda Rights already tell you this. It's what any prudent person should do. So what is this thread about?

As Officer Bruche stated in his lecture, which you no doubt didn't watch, stated quite clearly that people are "stupid" and do not take the Miranda warning seriously. The danger to one's liberties in talking to the police without immunity must be drilled into people's brains.

[Stardreamer]

And yet a black kid got shot for no reason, just walking on the sidewalk. So yeah, no, sorry. Stand Your Ground > German police brutality.

A massive over-simplification of a very complex situation. If that was all that happened there would be no questions to debate and you know it. The person involved is likely to be found guilty and not protected by Stand Your Ground. And the subject of another thread.

[Stardreamer]

And how the heck do you "measure" that? That's entirely someone's personal perception and they can justify almost anything as feeling it was a threat to their life. Apparently unarmed black kids sitting in a car can make some people feel that way.

The courts use a measure called the "reasonable person test". If a reasonable person would consider the situation to be immediately threatening to their life then the defendant was reasonable in considering their life in danger. Simply shooting an unarmed person (REGARDLESS of race) because you perceive them as threatening does not meet this test. The standards of what the community as a whole considers reasonable is the measure not the individual's view.

[xbuzzerx]

As Officer Bruche stated in his lecture, which you no doubt didn't watch, stated quite clearly that people are "stupid" and do not take the Miranda warning seriously. The danger to one's liberties in talking to the police without immunity must be drilled into people's brains.

This is the reason shampoo bottles tell you not to eat shampoo or pour it into your eyes. Next up an electronic system that shocks you if you try to?

A massive over-simplification of a very complex situation. If that was all that happened there would be no questions to debate and you know it. The person involved is likely to be found guilty and not protected by Stand Your Ground. And the subject of another thread.

It wasn't an oversimplification at all. There's absolutely no ground to say you felt your life was threatened by a teenager sitting in the back seat of a vehicle with no weapon, or one YOU STALKED HOME FROM SEVEN ELEVEN with iced tea and skittles.

Give me a freaking break.

[Stardreamer]

It wasn't an oversimplification at all. There's absolutely no ground to say you felt your life was threatened by a teenager sitting in the back seat of a vehicle with no weapon, or one YOU STALKED HOME FROM SEVEN ELEVEN with iced tea and skittles.

Absolutely positively correct now that you start to include some of the details that you left out of your over simplification. You made it sound like he just whipped out his gun and shot the boy because he felt threatened and that the state's stand your ground law allowed this. He STALKED him, if he felt threatened it was because of an struggle that HE initiated. Stand your ground does not apply and he will go to jail for it. So the state does NOT feel that he was justified or approved of his actions. So what other examples do you have of "in the US a bunch of states think it's ok to shoot someone on the street because you felt threatened by them walking on the sidewalk." This is a false statement, there is no state that thinks such a thing is okay or approves of it.

[xbuzzerx]

Absolutely positively correct now that you start to include some of the details that you left out of your over simplification. You made it sound like he just whipped out his gun and shot the boy because he felt threatened and that the state's stand your ground law allowed this. He STALKED him, if he felt threatened it was because of an struggle that HE initiated. Stand your ground does not apply and he will go to jail for it. So the state does NOT feel that he was justified or approved of his actions. So what other examples do you have of "in the US a bunch of states think it's ok to shoot someone on the street because you felt threatened by them walking on the sidewalk." This is a false statement, there is no state that thinks such a thing is okay or approves of it.

I agree with you that the LAW does not say "you can go up to people, start a fight and you're in the right for shooting them to death." However I feel as do many others that this is obviously what the law is encouraging in some hotheaded, prejudiced people itching for an excuse to get some social justice or teach some mouthy black people their place. The fact that it's even remotely possible that an altercation started by the killer could ever possibly be interpreted as "self defense" under these laws is what's dangerous and reckless about them, and why they're bad laws.

[JockBoy87]

This is the reason shampoo bottles tell you not to eat shampoo or pour it into your eyes. Next up an electronic system that shocks you if you try to?

Shampoo bottles don't sit you down to a steel table in a cold room and play mind tricks on you.

[JayHawk]

I don't have any problems with these check points.
This guy is just a trouble maker for talking about Nazis, robots ... etc.

As a citizen of an unarmed nation I can understand why you would cowtow to your authorities so readily. Here the stop, questioning, and search is unreasonable.

[xbuzzerx]

Shampoo bottles don't sit you down to a steel table in a cold room and play mind tricks on you.

If you want to propose a law to remove police entirely from the interrogation process I would not stand in your way. All I've pointed out in this thread is watch as the great majority complain at how many criminals are going free afterwards.

[Stardreamer]

If you want to propose a law to remove police entirely from the interrogation process I would not stand in your way. All I've pointed out in this thread is watch as the great majority complain at how many criminals are going free afterwards.

That is the rub at the bottom of it, is it not. If you make sure that no innocent is mistakenly punished, you have to let some who are guilty slip free. If you make sure that all who are guilty are punished, some innocent will be falsely punished as well. In an imperfect universe in which we live, it will always be a balancing act between those two extremes. The American ideal though is to favor protecting the innocent over punishing the guilty.

[JockBoy87]

If you want to propose a law to remove police entirely from the interrogation process I would not stand in your way. All I've pointed out in this thread is watch as the great majority complain at how many criminals are going free afterwards.

All I've pointed out is how the great powerhouses of jurisprudence in this country have stacked a preponderant case of legal theory behind the liberal application of the 5th amendment by innocent men.

[Our forefathers] made a judgment and expressed it in our fundamental law, that it were better for an occasional crime to go unpunished than that the prosecution should be free to build up a criminal case, in whole or in part, with the assistance of enforced disclosures by the accused. The privilege against self-incrimination serves as a protection to the innocent, as well as to the guilty, and we have been admonished that it should be given a liberal application.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...0_0422_ZO.html

[Kulindahr]

I agree. As I said in my first post Miranda Rights already tell you this. It's what any prudent person should do. So what is this thread about?

No, they don't. They say anything you say can be used against you. They don't tell you the police can lie to you, they don't tell you the DA is likely to make crap up and is certain to twist every word you say, they don't tell you that nothing you say will ever be used in your favor.

So this thread is about the fact that while many if not most Americans were brought up to trust the police and look on them is friends, when they want to question you they are the exact opposite, because along with the DA they aren't interested in truth, they're interested in getting points for arresting people and in winning regardless of whether their actions are ethical. In other words, when the police want to talk to you, they are the enemy, regardless of whether you're innocent or guilty.

[Kulindahr]

As Officer Bruche stated in his lecture, which you no doubt didn't watch, stated quite clearly that people are "stupid" and do not take the Miranda warning seriously. The danger to one's liberties in talking to the police without immunity must be drilled into people's brains.

There should be a class in high school called "how to deal with the police".

[Kulindahr]

Shampoo bottles don't sit you down to a steel table in a cold room and play mind tricks on you.

Well said!

[Kulindahr]

If you want to propose a law to remove police entirely from the interrogation process I would not stand in your way. All I've pointed out in this thread is watch as the great majority complain at how many criminals are going free afterwards.

That's because the media is so good at stirring emotions over what are actually rather rare cases. It's also because so much of the public doesn't value freedom -- if they did, they'd be asking if we're making sure that no innocent people get punished.

[Kulindahr]

All I've pointed out is how the great powerhouses of jurisprudence in this country have stacked a preponderant case of legal theory behind the liberal application of the 5th amendment by innocent men.

I notice Judge Magruder toned it down from Jefferson's declaration.