Talk to the police? Try this on for size.

[talisman]

lmao, just gets better and better!

[BlackGT]

Although this is a repost, I'll again make a few counter points.

Say he is involved in a traffic accident, does that mean he won't give the police any information (talk to the police)?

What if someone breaks into his house, binds him up and rapes his wife, will he not talk to the police?


There is a myriad of cases that are self defense that have been dropped because the accused has a reason for his action(s).

If the accused would have not talked to the police, then only one side of the story would have been presented to the DA and there would have been no choice but to pursue charges.

To anyone, keeping quiet and hiding behind an attorney implies guilt.


Keep in mind most of what this guy is talking about pertains to Federal Law.

The bad thing about talking to police in situations such as above is that what you say is open to how they want to interpret and report it vs how it was actually said or meant. And we all know if it comes down to it, the court will take the officers report over anything the accused says. Saying as little as possible until either: A) you have had time to calm down and provide rational thought, or B) you have secured proper legal counsel is the best option more times than not.

[46Tbird]

It was a baited statement, but one that is painfully true. Just pool a jury after a trial and see if it doesn't have an impact. To the common person that sits on any jury, the reluctance for the defendant to make any effort to defend himself speaks volumes.

Go do some research before burning me at the cross of the 5th.

Well, there could be some legitimate reasons for refusing to speak without counsel present, such as a group of hostile interrogators railroading a suspect into an admission of guilt. That's never happened though, right?

[Chili]

Is that kind of like when a cop wants to search your car without PC so you are asked for permission. Then if you decline permission that becomes the PC?

"He refused the search, so obvioulsy he is hiding something".

Lol

[03trubluGT]

The bad thing about talking to police in situations such as above is that what you say is open to how they want to interpret and report it vs how it was actually said or meant. And we all know if it comes down to it, the court will take the officers report over anything the accused says. Saying as little as possible until either: A) you have had time to calm down and provide rational thought, or B) you have secured proper legal counsel is the best option more times than not.

Not so much anymore. Courts just don't take officer testimony as gospel because of the bad actions of officers in the past.

Well, there could be some legitimate reasons for refusing to speak without counsel present, such as a group of hostile interrogators railroading a suspect into an admission of guilt. That's never happened though, right?

Of course. But then it's thrown out due to coercion.

[03trubluGT]

Is that kind of like when a cop wants to search your car without PC so you are asked for permission. Then if you decline permission that becomes the PC?

"He refused the search, so obvioulsy he is hiding something".

Lol

So how far do you think that PC goes? Can you see a search warrant based on that?

Have you ever been to an exclusionary hearing??????

[JamisonFRC]

Wow, you've gone full retard. I'm glad you cops think this, good to know that my assumptions are correct.

"You can talk to me, and I can help you out." LMAO! SURE!!

Please don't lump all of us in with him. The only thing I assume when someone "lawyers up" is that they want an attorney and use their constitutional rights to their advantage.

[Trip McNeely]

Please don't lump all of us in with him. The only thing I assume when someone "lawyers up" is that they want an attorney and use their constitutional rights to their advantage.

I don't. I have known several cops throughout the years, I know there's good ones out there.

[03trubluGT]

Please don't lump all of us in with him. The only thing I assume when someone "lawyers up" is that they want an attorney and use their constitutional rights to their advantage.

What are you saying? "Please don't lump all of us in with him", are you making groups here?

Are you implying that juries actually DON'T suspect people who hide behind the 5th?

[Trip McNeely]

What are you saying? "Please don't lump all of us in with him", are you making groups here?

Are you implying that juries actually DON'T suspect people who hide behind the 5th?

Wow, I can't believe someone with that thought process is actually a street cop. You are a scary individual. In your little fucked up world, it goes GUILTY until proven innocent.

[JamisonFRC]

What are you saying? "Please don't lump all of us in with him", are you making groups here?

Are you implying that juries actually DON'T suspect people who hide behind the 5th?

No, I'm saying that I don't immediately assume someone is guilty if they lawyer up.

I investigated an attempted burglary where the homeowner shot one of the suspects as they were making entry. The homeowner briefly spoke to patrol before we got on scene. When we asked him to provide a statement he refused and asked for an attorney. Did I suspect him of any wrong doing? Not all. He exercised his constitutional right.

[mikec]

Not so much anymore. Courts just don't take officer testimony as gospel because of the bad actions of officers in the past.

Judges do. Heard that exact line literally just last week from an attorney. Which brought about my statement that the judge allows police officers leeway in changing their story. I was told very matter of factly that judges do not care if the popo change their story to differ from the original report as long as "it doesn't change too much". Meaning they can change conversations, events, etc. As long as it "doesn't change too much". Fuck the system, it's rigged to extract revenue.

Jamison sounds cool.

[talisman]

What are you saying? "Please don't lump all of us in with him", are you making groups here?

Are you implying that juries actually DON'T suspect people who hide behind the 5th?

Oh no, someone isn't sticking to the thin blue line! Have that man fired immediately!

[slow06]

What are you saying? "Please don't lump all of us in with him", are you making groups here?

Are you implying that juries actually DON'T suspect people who hide behind the 5th?

Hide behind?

When I speak, am I hiding behind the first amendment? When I go to church, am I hiding behind the first amendment? No, I am simply exercising my rights.

I'm not saying these laws can't be used to hide things, they can and they are used that way, but that doesn't mean everybody who exercises their rights are using them to hide something.

I know you deal with a lot of scum, but there are still plenty of good people out there.

[ThreeFingerPete]

Say he is involved in a traffic accident, does that mean he won't give the police any information (talk to the police)?

A traffic accident is a civil matter.

What if someone breaks into his house, binds him up and rapes his wife, will he not talk to the police?

Did you actually write this? That makes no sense at all. I'm not much of one to call the police (because I've seen first hand how little gets done.) There is a big difference between being the victim of a crime and being accused of a crime. One of which is obviously the point of this thread and the other is a ridiculous argument lobbed into space for no fucking reason.

There is a myriad of cases that are self defense that have been dropped because the accused has a reason for his action(s).

Absolutely. There have also been more than enough cases taken to trial over little more than a shred of evidence and a hungry D.A. You've said time and time again, that you just do your part to the best of your ability. Don't for a moment believe all of your badge wielding brothers have as much integrity.

If the accused would have not talked to the police, then only one side of the story would have been presented to the DA and there would have been no choice but to pursue charges.

Lawyers can't talk?

To anyone, keeping quiet and hiding behind an attorney implies guilt.

I'm inclined to agree with you, but getting tripped up on your own words, police statements and the prosecutors arguments imply guilt a lot more. That happens in most every trial going on in the country today.
I don't argue with mathmeticians about math.

Keep in mind most of what this guy is talking about pertains to Federal Law.

Criminal law.

It was a baited statement, but one that is painfully true. Just pool a jury after a trial and see if it doesn't have an impact. To the common person that sits on any jury, the reluctance for the defendant to make any effort to defend himself speaks volumes.

Go do some research before burning me at the cross of the 5th.

A good lawyer will get you much further than being innocent ever has in the courtroom.

Of course. But then it's thrown out due to coercion.

Yeah, at best it's thrown out. If evidence that it was forced can't be substantiated, good luck on getting it dismissed.

Please don't lump all of us in with him. The only thing I assume when someone "lawyers up" is that they want an attorney and use their constitutional rights to their advantage.

That's a pretty reasonable perspective.