Talk to the police? Try this on for size.

[talisman]

Here's a partial quote from one of the PMs, pay special attention to the part in bold Eric:

Thank you for what you do Sir!

There is no way I could do your job with the additional stress in the back of my mind wondering if it makes to the media how it would play out. And if it is like my job knowing leadership will stand by you but cut your throat to cover their ass no matter if you are right.

Then to come on here and have to put up with a wanna be rat pack of cool kids dragging you in when they don't have anything original to post or say. I find it so funny they have to resort to timing you being away (having a real life) how long it takes to respond to one of their barbs. I can't even imagine the hours they spend on here that they could be out doing real shit. Not just posting empty words that only matter if their target even gives a shit.

Keep on being you dude... You see the anti FTP crowd pop up a lot if you look for it. The FTP crowd are the first ones to bitch when they need your help and something in their small minds does not go right...

Oh, so I'm part of the FTP crowd? I know a couple of officers that would disagree with you. Maybe the FTM crowd, but you earned that all by your lonesome.

[03trubluGT]

I'm done for tonight Eric.

You can have the last word and sit with baited breath until I can respond. I know you will be disappointed that we are done for the evening because your whole life revolves around what you can say on this board to make yourself look important.

I'm privileged to be here as your whipping boy so you can take out your angst on me. Bring it on because words are all you are good for.

[GE]

Don't get yourself into a situation where this happens and you won't have to worry about it.

If you do, then just politely say that I do not want to talk to any agent of law enforcement, and invoke your right to an attorney.

I'm confident that there are still LEOs out there that try to unethically work around the system, but it should not still be happening in 2012.

lol, I know how the system works. I have absolutely zero criminal record or anything or the sort to worry about. The thing that frightens me is the amount of not only false confessions, but also the amount of convictions based purely upon circumstantial evidence. I think a lot of the times, the defendant's own words via statements given to police don't help him out. I know first hand that a lot of LE people do not like the Innocence Project, but I think it's just awful that there are people that have been convicted of crimes that they did not commit. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and ended up doing time for it. They didn't plan to put themselves into those situations but they ultimately paid the price for doing so, and most likely statements given to police helped prosecute them.

[347Mike]

So some guy sexually assaults your wife, the evidence points to the guy, and the guy tells the officer/detective that he will not talk to the police and wants a lawyer.

The officer then says "If you exercise your rights, you're doing the right thing and I support that" and you want to buy that officer a beer?

I'm really LMAO on that one!

I only watched 10 minutes or so of the video posted and understand that is not what was being asked.

[Forever_frost]

I guess you and I define emotional plea differently, but here we go...

What officers and what actions am I trying to justify? Where did I say that it was good police work to use unconstitutional means?

Your last scenario has me wondering what the real question is. Are you asking that someone has a right to council? If that is the question, then yes.

You have done the typical skimming of my posts, gleaned what you want (albeit wrong), and restated my beliefs in a way not consistent to what they really are.

Some of the folks here are delusional and cannot grasp the difference between reality, scenario, and just plain sarcasm.

You asked me if I would want police to treat someone as innocent till proven guilty if it involved my wife getting raped. That's about as emotional plea as you can get. You were trying for an emotional response, as I have a damaged frontal lobe I can tell you 100% of the time, you're not going to get what you were going for, so tell me what you were trying with that one.

[Forever_frost]

Don't get yourself into a situation where this happens and you won't have to worry about it.

If you do, then just politely say that I do not want to talk to any agent of law enforcement, and invoke your right to an attorney.

I'm confident that there are still LEOs out there that try to unethically work around the system, but it should not still be happening in 2012.

However, from your statements, you would immediately that his request for an attorney points to the fact he's guilty.

[talisman]

I'm done for tonight Eric.

You can have the last word and sit with baited breath until I can respond. I know you will be disappointed that we are done for the evening because your whole life revolves around what you can say on this board to make yourself look important.

I'm privileged to be here as your whipping boy so you can take out your angst on me. Bring it on because words are all you are good for.

Actually I'm busy with my internet girlfriend right now any way. She is a model in Fiji. Once she gets off this stupid photo shoot we are finally gonna meet. We've been chatting for 5 months!

[Forever_frost]

The FTP crowd are the first ones to bitch when they need your help and something in their small minds does not go right...[/I]

I've seen this statement quite often yet not one incidence of one of us running to cops if 'something in our small minds' do not go right. Can you provide evidence to your statement?

[Cobraman]

I know you will be disappointed that we are done for the evening because your whole life revolves around what you can say on this board to make yourself look important.

ain't that the motherfucking truth lol

[Broncojohnny]

Well, you might as well follow it up with the volumes of PMs you get supporting your dumbass, from all those stand up citizens that are apparently so proud of you, yet terrified to mention anything in public. It's like a ghost just steals their posts off the board before anyone reads them. Maybe The History Channel could look into it for you?

You forgot to qualify this statement with the stipulation that PMs from Steve don't count.

[46Tbird]

Don't get yourself into a situation where this happens and you won't have to worry about it.

If you do, then just politely say that I do not want to talk to any agent of law enforcement, and invoke your right to an attorney.

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

C'mon man...

[talisman]

Danny, obviously you are "delusional and simply can't grasp the difference between reality, scenario, and just plain sarcasm." It has nothing to do with Matt making circular illogical ramblings. Much like Steve, we just don't get his sense of humor. Any contradictory statements he has ever made within two posts of each other are simply our problem for misunderstanding.

[racrguy]

Fuck me man. Matt with his same shit again and not realizing what the fuck he just said. It's like he's incapable of saying "I fucked up when I said that, here's what I meant." Instead he's got to argue the point in hopes that everyone will go away.

Oh, and LOL @ JamisonFRC. Clearly we can see why one is the investigator and the other rides around in a car all day writing tickets.

[slow06]

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.

I feel like you side stepped a pretty valid point. I noticed you went out to the river, so I'll assume you like to shoot/own guns. Do you consider that "hiding behind" the 2nd amendment? I doubt you would. More than likely you would consider it simply exercising a right. Why is the other any different?

I'm not discounting your experience, I realize you have seen a lot more situations specific to what we are talking about. All I'm saying is that for you to assume that someone exercising a right is guilty is a little short sided in my opinion.

To answer your question I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't protect a child from punishment by their parents. That not withstanding I get your point and yes you are right, I would probably think they are guilty.

I think the problem is you have the mindset of the "arresting officer". Of course the arresting officer is going to say the suspect is guilty, that is why they arrested them in the first place right? Maybe for you assuming innocence is impossible because if you assumed they were innocent you wouldn't have arrested them in the first place (generally speaking)?

I think what I am trying to say is while you clearly have your reasoning for making an arrest or a stop, you have to remember that you could be wrong. Maybe you are only wrong 1 out of 10 or 20 times, but with this attitude it seems that you lump the innocent in with the guilty before either has been proven.

Chances are unless it involves a shooting (I have a CHL) or searching my person/house/car I will talk with an officer and cooperate. Once I know an officer suspects me of doing something illegal that stops. At that point you are collecting evidence, not just talking. I am going to do everything I can to make sure I don't make a mistake and make myself look guilty. You are a pro at your job and I am likely flustered because I am innocent and am being charged with X.

[03trubluGT]

I feel like you side stepped a pretty valid point. I noticed you went out to the river, so I'll assume you like to shoot/own guns. Do you consider that "hiding behind" the 2nd amendment? I doubt you would. More than likely you would consider it simply exercising a right. Why is the other any different?

I'm not discounting your experience, I realize you have seen a lot more situations specific to what we are talking about. All I'm saying is that for you to assume that someone exercising a right is guilty is a little short sided in my opinion.

To answer your question I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't protect a child from punishment by their parents. That not withstanding I get your point and yes you are right, I would probably think they are guilty.

I think the problem is you have the mindset of the "arresting officer". Of course the arresting officer is going to say the suspect is guilty, that is why they arrested them in the first place right? Maybe for you assuming innocence is impossible because if you assumed they were innocent you wouldn't have arrested them in the first place (generally speaking)?

I think what I am trying to say is while you clearly have your reasoning for making an arrest or a stop, you have to remember that you could be wrong. Maybe you are only wrong 1 out of 10 or 20 times, but with this attitude it seems that you lump the innocent in with the guilty before either has been proven.

Chances are unless it involves a shooting (I have a CHL) or searching my person/house/car I will talk with an officer and cooperate. Once I know an officer suspects me of doing something illegal that stops. At that point you are collecting evidence, not just talking. I am going to do everything I can to make sure I don't make a mistake and make myself look guilty. You are a pro at your job and I am likely flustered because I am innocent and am being charged with X.

I think the amendments are apples to oranges comparisons. You are dealing with criminal conduct on one, and not with the other. That's like saying I go to church and hide behind the freedom of religion...

To think a person guilty takes Probable Cause, or at least Reasonable Suspicion for juvenile offenders. There's a lot to consider in a custodial arrest, and you must take into account the totality of the circumstances, not just the fact the person that the investigation points to decides to exercise his right to remain silent.