Never talk to the police , period

[kazaam]

So it seems this thread is split down the middle. Can we get a poll? Is anyone a lawyer or a police officer? I have no idea what to think lol. Confusing.

 

[IndyDave1776]

90% of cops do just that, and so many here hate on every single one of them. I know a number of them. I know of a couple bad ones, but they arent out on the street anymore anyway.

I wonder what kinds of bad experiences you all have personally had to have such a dim view of them. Some people hate because someone else told them to, some do it because they caused a problem and were given grief, and some dont need any reason.
But if you (any of you) havent personally witnessed scores of awful cops, why all the hate?

OK genius, you are telling us that we are not entitled to form conclusions based on our personal experiences. I get it. I just had the bad luck of encountering 10 of the 12 bad cops in the lower 48. On one hand I have a difficult time with mass condemnation with a broad stroke of a wide brush, but then again consistent abysmal results tend to form a lasting impression, which, in my case, is that there a few cops out there who are absolute treasures and the majority are not to be trusted. When you can arrange for my results to be different, I will accept your theory. Until then, don't presume to disparage my choice to accept my results rather than your theory.

 

[Lodogg2221]

As for the person posting, asking the cops what they say can be used against them in courts, well, in trials that I have been to, it has been. Have to say, it was hard to refute the video evidence though. And everything we said was then taken apart, and tried to use against us as well.

If people by now dont know that what you say can be used against you, well, then tough crap I guess.
Not that you were talking about me, but it furthers my point, I was talking about coercion, as others have said does happen, which can NOT be used....does it? Ive not seen it around here, and Im sure it can be, but if said defendant even mentions they were coerced into whatever statement they gave, there will be an investigation. Found true, statement not admissible. Not opinion there, fact. A number of court cases have shown it.

BTW, in Indiana, most statements must be VIDEO taped now, audio recorded isnt enough anymore.

The laws are on our side guys, I just dont know why lots here want to find a bad guy in all this, and act like there is no recourse should they speak.
You will have a harder time proving innocence when you remain mute than otherwise.

And yes, these days, you DO have to prove your innocence, thanks to the media. Ask Zimmerman....

 

[WC Deer Hunter]

OK genius, you are telling us that we are not entitled to form conclusions based on our personal experiences. I get it. I just had the bad luck of encountering 10 of the 12 bad cops in the lower 48. On one hand I have a difficult time with mass condemnation with a broad stroke of a wide brush, but then again consistent abysmal results tend to form a lasting impression, which, in my case, is that there a few cops out there who are absolute treasures and the majority are not to be trusted. When you can arrange for my results to be different, I will accept your theory. Until then, don't presume to disparage my choice to accept my results rather than your theory.

I'd rep you for this and I tried but I must redistribute some first.

 

[Lodogg2221]

OK genius, you are telling us that we are not entitled to form conclusions based on our personal experiences. I get it. I just had the bad luck of encountering 10 of the 12 bad cops in the lower 48. On one hand I have a difficult time with mass condemnation with a broad stroke of a wide brush, but then again consistent abysmal results tend to form a lasting impression, which, in my case, is that there a few cops out there who are absolute treasures and the majority are not to be trusted. When you can arrange for my results to be different, I will accept your theory. Until then, don't presume to disparage my choice to accept my results rather than your theory.

Actually, genius, I said the opposite. Since you like insults,you shouldnt mind this. Reading comprehension isnt a strong suit around here is it?

If you had a bad result yourself, great. I get your views based on your results. Thats EXACTLY my point. How many others had that too, or how many are taking billy joe bobs cousins word for it?

And on that same thought, with all the negative encounters Ive had with LE (traffic stops, and a few "other" things) Ive never had a bad experience other than one with a rather condescending attitude, but that otherwise was fine.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

If people by now dont know that what you say can be used against you, well, then tough crap I guess.
Not that you were talking about me, but it furthers my point, I was talking about coercion, as others have said does happen, which can NOT be used....does it? Ive not seen it around here, and Im sure it can be, but if said defendant even mentions they were coerced into whatever statement they gave, there will be an investigation. Found true, statement not admissible. Not opinion there, fact. A number of court cases have shown it.

BTW, in Indiana, most statements must be VIDEO taped now, audio recorded isnt enough anymore.

The laws are on our side guys, I just dont know why lots here want to find a bad guy in all this, and act like there is no recourse should they speak.
You will have a harder time proving innocence when you remain mute than otherwise.

And yes, these days, you DO have to prove your innocence, thanks to the media. Ask Zimmerman....

Please quote ONE example where someone in this thread said that coercion was admissible or even permissible! I must have missed it because I would have corrected them post haste.

 

[Lodogg2221]

So it seems this thread is split down the middle. Can we get a poll? Is anyone a lawyer or a police officer? I have no idea what to think lol. Confusing.

Oh, not really, looks a lot more one sided to me, more on the keep quite side.

My advice would be, dont shoot anyone unless you absolutely have to, and you wont have anything to worry about.
If you think you could have something to worry about, then dont shoot them...(since Im a genius, that was easy to come up with).

 

[Lodogg2221]

Please quote ONE example where someone in this thread said that coercion was admissible or even permissible! I must have missed it because I would have corrected them post haste.

Like this one?

you do realize cops can and will lie and use false threats of arrest to intimidate people to give up thier rights? most people are not prepared to deal with that. go watch that video and learn something.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Actually, genius, I said the opposite. Since you like insults,you shouldnt mind this. Reading comprehension isnt a strong suit around here is it?

If you had a bad result yourself, great. I get your views based on your results. Thats EXACTLY my point. How many others had that too, or how many are taking billy joe bobs cousins word for it?

Not so fast. Go back and review your claims. You give the police credit for protecting and serving with only a scant few exceptions. That doesn't come close to reality in my experience.

You said: LEOs can NOT mislead or mis-represent anything. If they do, and it ALWAYS comes out, case over.

Try telling that to some of the f***ing liars in uniform I have encountered (who, of course, are considered gold-standard witness in court if it comes to that).

I would also point out that your response appeared to imply that those who take an unflattering view of a large percentage of police are doing so based on second-hand information rather than as you suggest here (along with taking a swing at my reading comprehension) that you were drawing a division. Had you made such a fair statement, you would not have coupled it with a declaration that the observation is wrong.

Don't make implications and then cry that I have a reading comprehension problem.

If you believe this, you either live in a community with an exceptional police department and don't get out much (I lived in such a community for several years. It does happen.) or you live in a bubble that follows you around.

 

[IndyDave1776]

you do realize cops can and will lie and use false threats of arrest to intimidate people to give up thier rights? most people are not prepared to deal with that. go watch that video and learn something.

Like this one?

Are you going to try to tell us that this doesn't happen? If you are, just stop now. It has been done to me before.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Coercion is defined as forcing someone to do something against their will.

Convincing someone to give up their rights willingly through lying and threats is not the same as coercion.

 

[serpicostraight]

So because I defend them I am one?

Try reading the Constitution some time.
For all the bandying about some do here on how things are their Constitution Rights, Im amazed that people dont realize that everyone is bound by that same Constitution.
Its obvious they read what pertains exclusively to them, and the rest that pertains to everyone else too.
Its not a one way pass, its meant to restrict and allow at the same time, to protect in many ways.

90% of cops do just that, and so many here hate on every single one of them. I know a number of them. I know of a couple bad ones, but they arent out on the street anymore anyway.

I wonder what kinds of bad experiences you all have personally had to have such a dim view of them. Some people hate because someone else told them to, some do it because they caused a problem and were given grief, and some dont need any reason.
But if you (any of you) havent personally witnessed scores of awful cops, why all the hate?

Someone mentioned Zimmerman, and used that as an example of not talking to the cops. Thats ignorant, as an example, because after he talked to them, they LET HIM GO! It was the Attorney General that brought charges.

You can do whatever you want, but at the least use facts, not made up BS that you saw on a show somewhere or that some guy you know who knows another guy told you happened to his buddy...

yup your a cop.

 

[Lodogg2221]

Are you going to try to tell us that this doesn't happen? If you are, just stop now. It has been done to me before.

Good Lord. I give up. You didnt understand anything I posted at all.

Did you read what he asked for? I posted what he asked for.

That person implies it happens all the time. I think it happens, and see it happen, but I also see evidence thrown out because of it, and it doesnt happen all the time.
Why do I have to keep clarifying? (Its rhetorical, I already know why)

 

[Ted]

Interesting. The recent self defense homocides in the news have been the exact opposite. Arrest was not made until after a Grand Jury indictment several days/weeks later.

I think it is very unlikely to be formally charged and arrested on the spot. Remember police must have PC to make an arrest and once they do have limited time to build a case against you. They would much rather build a case against you with evidence, witness accounts and crucify you in the media before making their case and arresting you. Then the hard part is over.

Before we start, I did use the word 'nearly' to qualify my statement. Of course not all shootings result in an arrest.....immediate or otherwise. However, it is my belief that both the timing and frequency of arrests for firearms related scenarios, is directly related to the jurisdiction in which they occur. A more gun friendly state would likely not immediately arrest and allow due process to work, while an anti-state would likely work to assure that the suspect is in custody as soon as possible.

As far as the media is concerned with ascertaining and conveying facts, we only hear of the more "newsworthy" incidents. If I have heard of more than a 20 self defense shootings since the beginning of the year, that pales in comparison to Gary Kleck's estimate to the two million defensive gun uses a year by law abiding citizens.

We just can't know, but can surmise that a large percentage of people are immediately arrested, regardless of the media coverage upon the issue. The NRA supports this statement in its many publications and courses upon DGUs.

 

[Lodogg2221]

Coercion is defined as forcing someone to do something against their will.

Convincing someone to give up their rights willingly through lying and threats is not the same as coercion.

Well, Webster doesnt get to court very often these days, but they generally see lying by authorities to get a certain outcome different from one intended by the victim or defendant as the case may be, as the same thing regarding the law.

 

[Lodogg2221]

yup your a cop.

I am? Who knew...

 

[IndyDave1776]

Good Lord. I give up. You didnt understand anything I posted at all.

Did you read what he asked for? I posted what he asked for.

That person implies it happens all the time. I think it happens, and see it happen, but I also see evidence thrown out because of it, and it doesnt happen all the time.
Why do I have to keep clarifying? (Its rhetorical, I already know why)

Yes, I very clearly understood that you said that these things do not happen because they (supposedly) will not hold up on court. Again, your theory and my results are at sharp disagreement.

 

[Ted]

Well, Webster doesnt get to court very often these days, but they generally see lying by authorities to get a certain outcome different from one intended by the victim or defendant as the case may be, as the same thing regarding the law.

It has been upheld in numerous instances, that LE is permitted to deceive pretty much any witness, as a means to investigate criminal matters.

 

[Lodogg2221]

Look, I get it. If someone doesnt agree, IE me, they need facts and a documented history along with documented sources to back up whatever they say contrary to the majority, or the majority posters.
And you could count labeling someone in there too. Regardless if its foolish to do so or not, Im automatically a cop for having a differing opinion? Thats just dumb.

If you agree, you need nothing more than a few words of encouragement.

Since I neither care if you agree or not, Ill leave you all to your thoughts, regardless of how I find them. There isnt a discussion going on here, at least not where Im concerned, and since I cant add to it in a meaningful way, Ill leave it to others to do so.

I just thought it was rather odd that there were the "few" that seem to have a dim view and wanted to know why, and so while I still dont know why, I know they are set in their ways for reasons known to them, and leave it at that.

I will say though, if you were or are wronged by the police, or anyone, and dont fight tooth and nail to correct it, there is only one person to blame there.

 

[Classic Liberal]

you wear a badge by any chance?

Yeah, on his shoulder.