Talk to the police? Try this on for size.

[CJ]

A traffic accident is a civil matter.

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.


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.


Lawyers can't talk?

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.



Criminal law.


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


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



That's a pretty reasonable perspective.

remember to place nice, you're going to both be in person with guns in your hands in 2 days. And I'll be within shooting range also.

[03trubluGT]

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.

You have no idea what my world is like, and are more than likely incapable of understanding it even if I explained it to you.

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.

You are swallowing the bait the snakes here are throwing out. I never said that I believed someone guilty of something on the mere fact of taking the 5th.

It's an investigators job to investigate. That investigator should not believe the person guilty for just invoking the 5th, but should use the tools of the trade to do a complete and through investigation to come to a logical conclusion.

[03trubluGT]

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

Hey, our resident cowardly smart ass!

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.

Ok, let's go to statistics. In the 20+ years of doing this job, the FIRST thing a guilty person will do is lawyer up. An innocent person at least tries to explain a reason for the conduct.

Let me ask this. To every parent out there, what would you do if you asked your child if they did something you suspected them of and they told you to go fkcu yourself and plead the 5th, what would you do. They are by all means protected by the same thing as a child that you are as an adult. The Constitution gives no age requirements for that protection.

[03trubluGT]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 03trubluGT View Post
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.

He didn't qualify that statement. He just said he would NEVER talk to the police.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 03trubluGT
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.

Again, this just illustrates my point that he should have picked his words better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 03trubluGT
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.

What can I do to change the integrity issue? I've tried to improve the system, but I haven't found a way to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 03trubluGT
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?

Lawyers can not make statements for their clients.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 03trubluGT
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 03trubluGT
Keep in mind most of what this guy is talking about pertains to Federal Law.

Criminal law.

Ok, what is the chances you are going to be prosecuted by the Feds, and what are the chances you will be prosecuted by the State? Hmmmmmm?
I'll say the overwhelming odds are on the State.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 03trubluGT View Post
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.

Man, I'd have to agree with this mostly, but there are some issues with it. If you are truly innocent, the chances of you being charged in the first place are very slim. There are so many steps to keep the innocent free that it's almost like hitting the lottery to be found guilty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 03trubluGT View Post
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.

With no evidence, how are they going to proceed with a trial? The whole reason for an Exclusionary/Suppression Hearing is to see if the evidence will be allowed. If not, then the first thing the defense attorney does is move to have the case dismissed due to lack of evidence.

[stevo]

You are swallowing the bait the snakes here are throwing out.

It is comical that you make a statement like this due to him not agreeing with you...

Stevo

[talisman]

Matt, by all means, elaborate on me being a coward. I would LOOOOOOVE to hear it.

[JamisonFRC]

You are swallowing the bait the snakes here are throwing out. I never said that I believed someone guilty of something on the mere fact of taking the 5th.

It's an investigators job to investigate. That investigator should not believe the person guilty for just invoking the 5th, but should use the tools of the trade to do a complete and through investigation to come to a logical conclusion.

The problem I see with you is that you cannot convey your point without trying to talk down to someone. You don't know me, nor do I know you. I haven't swallowed anything.

So an investigator should not think someone is guilty for envoking their rights but a patrolman should?

And please don't tell me how to investigate. I won't tell you how to be a patrolman.

[talisman]

The problem I see with you is that you cannot convey your point without trying to talk down to someone. You don't know me, nor do I know you. I haven't swallowed anything.

So an investigator should not think someone is guilty for envoking their rights but a patrolman should?

And please don't tell me how to investigate. I won't tell you how to be a patrolman.

[Trip McNeely]

The problem I see with you is that you cannot convey your point without trying to talk down to someone. You don't know me, nor do I know you. I haven't swallowed anything.

So an investigator should not think someone is guilty for envoking their rights but a patrolman should?

And please don't tell me how to investigate. I won't tell you how to be a patrolman.

Bravo. You're a good man.

[ThreeFingerPete]

A traffic accident is a civil matter.

He didn't qualify that statement. He just said he would NEVER talk to the police.

That's true, but since he's very apparently talking about criminal instances, it seemed self explanatory. If you want to pick it apart based on facts, then please do, but that's semantics at best.

Again, this just illustrates my point that he should have picked his words better.

Nah man, it honestly doesn't illustrate much. He gave plenty of examples to illustrate his point, the intent of his lecture.

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

Those cops all had wives who love them. For all of them who don't, those people had rough nights. I've seen both sides and *IF* I were involved in an assault that left serious bodily injury, you bet your ass that I'd be nowhere to be found by the time the police got there.

What can I do to change the integrity issue? I've tried to improve the system, but I haven't found a way to do it.

You won't see a measurable difference in behavior until you see stiff (similar to what citizens face for similar acts) penalties for cops going off half-cocked and ruining people's lives. As long as bad cops keep getting slaps on the wrist, they'll never go away. Don't personalize this discussion. It has absolutely nothing to do with your personal actions.

Lawyers can not make statements for their clients.

Lawyers help keep an innocent man from getting his pecker caught in his bicycle spokes. Cops are trained to talk people into corners. Some people aren't good under stress and will mis-speak. This also leaves out the fact that most people can't accurately remember things directly after a stressful event, which means that it's a pretty shitty time to have a chat with an Officer who is writing notes. See below:

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.

Ok, what is the chances you are going to be prosecuted by the Feds, and what are the chances you will be prosecuted by the State? Hmmmmmm?
I'll say the overwhelming odds are on the State.

I'll say that it's overwhelmingly a bad idea strike up a conversation with the police when you're suspected of a crime.

Man, I'd have to agree with this mostly, but there are some issues with it. If you are truly innocent, the chances of you being charged in the first place are very slim. There are so many steps to keep the innocent free that it's almost like hitting the lottery to be found guilty.

More people have been convicted of what they've said, as opposed to what they haven't said. Innocent, guilty or in between. I'm not a betting man, but you've got to play the odds when you're dealing with the rest of your life.

With no evidence, how are they going to proceed with a trial? The whole reason for an Exclusionary/Suppression Hearing is to see if the evidence will be allowed. If not, then the first thing the defense attorney does is move to have the case dismissed due to lack of evidence.

Circumstantial evidence and the words of a cop have put plenty of people in the crossbar motel.

Matt, you're simply not going to convince me that I'm better off talking to Police without consulting a lawyer.


Want me to believe that many cops aren't fuck heads? Tell me why they try so hard to crucify people for DUI/DWI, even if they don't blow over the limit. It's all about the money. Many cops are more than willing to ruin Joe Smith's life with a DUI charge just so he gets a pat on the back at the station. There are plenty of drunks in the world who very apparently shouldn't be on the road. By god or the law of the land, if Officer Diddlesworth thinks you've been drinking, you're getting a DUI and there's nothing you can do about it.

[ELVIS]

anything new happening in here????

god bless.

[ThreeFingerPete]

anything new happening in here????

god bless.

No, but it's not moving into the smackatorium, so I win!

[Forever_frost]

The problem I see with you is that you cannot convey your point without trying to talk down to someone. You don't know me, nor do I know you. I haven't swallowed anything.

So an investigator should not think someone is guilty for envoking their rights but a patrolman should?

And please don't tell me how to investigate. I won't tell you how to be a patrolman.

You know, I like this guy

[stevo]

The problem I see with you is that you cannot convey your point without trying to talk down to someone. You don't know me, nor do I know you. I haven't swallowed anything.

So an investigator should not think someone is guilty for envoking their rights but a patrolman should?

And please don't tell me how to investigate. I won't tell you how to be a patrolman.

Snakes man, you are swallowing them...

I do applaud you for having an opinion of your own, not necessary someone else' opinion or someone else' dissenting opinion. Kudos for stating you own.

Stevo

[Forever_frost]

It's refreshing to hear an officer say "If you exercise your rights, you're doing the right thing and I support that. No You're innocent till proven guilty."

I should buy this man a beer