Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nemesis6 on February 08, 2010, 05:03:48 pm
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Warning: 48 minutes long, but this is the kind of info every single person should know, but unfortunately don't.
It's absolutely priceless advice, especially for you Americans. You have more rights than we do here in Europe, so you should appreciate and exercise them, lest you lose them... :sigh:
-
Except that, you know, noone is going to force you to incriminate yourself around here either (here == Germany, for me).
-
Except that, you know, noone is going to force you to incriminate yourself around here either (here == Germany, for me).
Right, because if you don't talk to them, they can't use your words against you. Police don't need to force you to do anything, by the way - They rely on an ill-deserved respect from the public, and global, gigantuous misconception about what police do, which is why people talk to them; people think that talking to the police can help them, when in reality, there is no way it can. The video addresses exactly this point, and sends it crashing down in flames.
-
I have to say I'm inherently suspicious of a blanket statement like that.
-
Except that, you know, noone is going to force you to incriminate yourself around here either (here == Germany, for me).
Right, because if you don't talk to them, they can't use your words against you. Police don't need to force you to do anything, by the way - They rely on an ill-deserved respect from the public, and global, gigantuous misconception about what police do, which is why people talk to them; people think that talking to the police can help them, when in reality, there is no way it can. The video addresses exactly this point, and sends it crashing down in flames.
Or maybe they're not nearly as bad as the paranoid delusions people come up with. :rolleyes:
-
Safer to assume they are. Never know which cop is going to beat you silly for lulz.
-
I have in fact been beaten by a cop.
I fully deserved it, and it was that or taze me.
-
Except that, you know, noone is going to force you to incriminate yourself around here either (here == Germany, for me).
Right, because if you don't talk to them, they can't use your words against you. Police don't need to force you to do anything, by the way - They rely on an ill-deserved respect from the public, and global, gigantuous misconception about what police do, which is why people talk to them; people think that talking to the police can help them, when in reality, there is no way it can. The video addresses exactly this point, and sends it crashing down in flames.
Or maybe they're not nearly as bad as the paranoid delusions people come up with. :rolleyes:
Right, because the police officer who threw me into a car, beat me and threw on the ground for absolutely nothing whatsoever was actually a good guy. Drop the condescending ****, will you? :rolleyes:
I used to think like you, but then I started reading up on all stuff, and sure enough, the exact sentiments I had ridiculed people for, just like you do, I experienced first hand to be true - That the police are psychos.
-
While I'll be the first to agree that things can go horribly wrong with law enforcement, I don't think that 'nothing good can come from talking to cops'.
-
Nothing good has ever come from talking to cops in my experience. I dont doubt most cops were at some point good people. But, power, cliches, etc.
-
Except that, you know, noone is going to force you to incriminate yourself around here either (here == Germany, for me).
Right, because if you don't talk to them, they can't use your words against you. Police don't need to force you to do anything, by the way - They rely on an ill-deserved respect from the public, and global, gigantuous misconception about what police do, which is why people talk to them; people think that talking to the police can help them, when in reality, there is no way it can. The video addresses exactly this point, and sends it crashing down in flames.
Or maybe they're not nearly as bad as the paranoid delusions people come up with. :rolleyes:
Right, because the police officer who threw me into a car, beat me and threw on the ground for absolutely nothing whatsoever was actually a good guy. Drop the condescending ****, will you? :rolleyes:
I used to think like you, but then I started reading up on all stuff, and sure enough, the exact sentiments I had ridiculed people for, just like you do, I experienced first hand to be true - That the police are psychos.
There are definitely some serious problems in law enforcement: the number of people behind bars demonstrate this. However, the idea that all police are out to get you and arrest you, so you should never talk to them is paranoid, silly, and counterproductive to any functional state.
-
Confirmation bias much? Your experience is a) your own only, b) not really applicable outside the US, and c) only your own.
From their reputation, american police are a lot "harder" than the police around here, so I am a bit suspect about that. My personal encounters with the police are limited to one stop-and-search incident involving them suspecting me to have drugs in my pockets (A rather painless incident I was able to talk myself out of because I was, in fact, able to bamboozle the officers with my eloquence and obvious not-drugged-ness).
Now, I am not saying that my experience is in any way applicable to the entirety of all possible encounters one can have with the german police, but there you go.
That being said, deprogramming yourself of the automatic memetically determined reflex to tell the police something when they ask you, is much, much harder than it sounds (example in the vid, where the Officer asked about speeding on the highway).
-
Gah, these quote trains are becoming long now... :nod:
There are definitely some serious problems in law enforcement: the number of people behind bars demonstrate this. However, the idea that all police are out to get you and arrest you, so you should never talk to them is paranoid, silly, and counterproductive to any functional state.
There's definitely a case to be made for the claim that all police are the problem. Initially it seems absurd -- If some police officer does something wrong, that's just ONE guy, right? They're not all like that...?
Think about this: What happened to me was witnessed by all the other officers, who stood idly by right beside me while their psychopath comrade beat me, while I offered absolutely no physical or verbal resistance. This is called the Blue Code of Silence, it's when police refuse to incriminate, or otherwise challenge the decisions of their fellow officers -- One hand washes the other. And this is not some conspiracy or paranoid delusion, this happens every single time a police officer gets out of line - Their colleagues will not report them, and hence become complicit in their crime. In other words, they are part of it.
-
Police are rarely held accountable for their actions. That's the number one reason I don't trust them. I don't know if any particular officer is a good guy or a bad guy, but I do know that if he's a bad guy, I won't really have any recourse, so it's best to avoid him altogether.
-
The Blue Code is a huge problem, and a major issue with police culture.
-
Police robots FTW!
Err, no, wait......
Point being:
As long as we have humans, with all the group behaviour mechanisms that humans have doing the police work, especially with extremely obvious signs segregating "us" and "them", you will get some form of Blue Code.
Designing a perfectly unbiased system to arbitrate disputes is impossible. Not difficult, impossible, given our current understanding of ourselves.
-
global, gigantuous misconception about what police do
They arrest you for breaking the law. If you resist an officer they are allowed to use force to take you into custody.
Therefore don't **** with the cops. If you don't give them a reason, they don't bother you, much like everyone else in life. If they do bother you, do what they say.
-
Well, they can also charge you with resisting arrest when they didn't have a reason to arrest you in the first place. That doesn't strike you as ****ed up?
-
I will clarify my earlier resistance.
I believe that it is a very good idea to approach and cooperate with police when reporting a crime.
If the police approach you, however, I do to a degree agree with nemesis6 that you should not talk to them. I believe this also encompasses NGTM-1R's post, because if the police do approach you, they think they have a reason to give you trouble, and you should do as little as you can to help that happen.
-
I always tell the cops everything. Since I do nothing illegal (oh wait, I do speed sometimes), what's the difference?
If the police are corrupt, it really doesn't matter what I say, does it?
-
I always tell the cops everything. Since I do nothing illegal (oh wait, I do speed sometimes), what's the difference?
If the police are corrupt, it really doesn't matter what I say, does it?
You could try watching the video before commenting. It answers your questions pretty well.
-
I always tell the cops everything. Since I do nothing illegal (oh wait, I do speed sometimes), what's the difference?
If the police are corrupt, it really doesn't matter what I say, does it?
You could try watching the video before commenting. It answers your questions pretty well.
Oh I did, still doesn't change my position.
-
Police don't mind arresting people who haven't done anything illegal.
-
OBAMA IRAQ GITMO HEALTHCARE
sorry just thought i'd get it out of the way
-
It's not that you shouldn't talk to the police; it's that you shouldn't make statements to the police. Important distinction. Talking to law enforcement as a complaintant is absolutely necessary.
Another good recommendation is never to consent to search. If they have the legal grounds for search, they don't need your consent. If they ask for consent, they do not have the grounds. Similarly, if you DO consent, that consent can be withdrawn. Goes for searches and interviews.
I say this as an active member of law enforcement. LE's job (in Common Law countries) is to gather information, and press charges if the accumulation of that information indicates that a crime has been committed. That's what all the political niceties of "protect," "serve," etc boil down to - identify crimes, gather all evidence obtainable, and file charges. This is great if you're a victim; this is not so great if you're under active investigation. Know your Constitutional/Charter rights and obtain legal counsel when you have the right to it, even if you are completely innocent of wrongdoing.
As for the negative anecdotal commentary about police - it's unfortunate that people have these attitudes, and it's unfortunate that a relative few unprofessional officers inspire such hatred in members of the public.
-
I always find that the same people who hate the police are generally the first ones to start whining about wanting the police to help when something happens to them.
The same people with a "Don't talk to the cops" attitude are the first to complain that the cops don't do anything while simultaneously holding an attitude that prevents witnesses coming forwards.
-
I always find that the same people who hate the police are generally the first ones to start whining about wanting the police to help when something happens to them.
The same people with a "Don't talk to the cops" attitude are the first to complain that the cops don't do anything while simultaneously holding an attitude that prevents witnesses coming forwards.
I think everyone wants police to help, but this isn't a fairyland. For example, I was about 11 or so when me and a friend called the police after a guy who drugged out was trying to smash our door in. After they had arrived an hour later after he was gone, the one officer they sent had no real interest in taking witness accounts. Rather, the officer, however, quickly became more interested in whether I was citizen of this country.
From witness to suspect, at the bat of an eye, and doing this to a pre-teen. This is why I hate police - My first experience was negative, and my second was horrible. I've seen the way they treat people, I know the way they function more like a mafia than a public, accountable instrument of the state, and how they put on PR stunts to pretend that they're somehow accountable, when everyone knows it's a lie. They beat people, mistreat people, and actively subvert justice whenever it suits them and they feel they can get away with it... But we're hypocrites when we advise others not to play into their nazi routines that they pull on innocent people, because at the same time we demand them to do their job in a professional way?
It's Backwards Day in logic-land it seems... :doubt:
-
I think everyone wants police to help, but this isn't a fairyland. For example, I was about 11 or so when me and a friend called the police after a guy who drugged out was trying to smash our door in. After they had arrived an hour later after he was gone, the one officer they sent had no real interest in taking witness accounts. Rather, the officer, however, quickly became more interested in whether I was citizen of this country.
From witness to suspect, at the bat of an eye, and doing this to a pre-teen. This is why I hate police - My first experience was negative, and my second was horrible. I've seen the way they treat people, I know the way they function more like a mafia than a public, accountable instrument of the state, and how they put on PR stunts to pretend that they're somehow accountable, when everyone knows it's a lie. They beat people, mistreat people, and actively subvert justice whenever it suits them and they feel they can get away with it... But we're hypocrites when we advise others not to play into their nazi routines that they pull on innocent people, because at the same time we demand them to do their job in a professional way?
It's Backwards Day in logic-land it seems... :doubt:
It's important to note that it is within the rights of police to see your ID - and determine if you're a US citizen. Otherwise the rights of a citizen don't apply. I don't agree with that, but it's the way the law works.
-
It's also Over-Generalization Day in the real world, it looks like.
You're local police department may not be the shining example of a good department, but that doesn't mean the entire organization is "a mafia."
-
Cops have never been anything but nice to me, even when they pulled me over for speeding.
-
My county has a horrible Sheriff's Department. Part of that can be blamed on the former Sheriff, Michael Carona (recently convicted in federal court for witness tampering), and probably part of it on the fact deputies spend six months in jail duties before they can go out on the streets. I'm guessing those six months color their perceptions somewhat.
-
It's also Over-Generalization Day in the real world, it looks like.
You're local police department may not be the shining example of a good department, but that doesn't mean the entire organization is "a mafia."
But it is. The Mafia has Omertá, and the police have the Blue Code of Silence as I mentioned. This is why I pass judgement on all of them - They are all guilty to some extent because their entire culture is corrupted. In place of a boss, they have the law, which is whatever they want it to be, whenever they want. To be in the right, they need only invoke its paragraphs or its mere name. "In the name of the law", anyone? The only time it's not, is either when the police are taken to court after an absolutely unambiguous slam-dunk case against them, like them slamming some guy's head into plexiglass with four of their own video cameras filming, just because he asked for a complaint form at the front desk(This is a real-case scenario), or when they've failed to destroy any evidence of their own wrongdoing, e.g; smashing mobile phones of people filming them, destroying their own tapes, and dragging the witnesses in for "interrogation", or "interview" as officer James Brook pointed out in the video.
Come to think about it, the blue code of silence can also be compared to how cults work -- Those who speak out against the cult, from within, are admonished and/or shunned, but from the outside, they're a perfectly respectable group, but the story is much different on the inside.
From another perspective, they can also be compared to lobbyists. Watch out, another example coming. Where I live, in Denmark, police previously needed reasonable suspicion to stop and search someone, just like in America. However, after a low-intensity drug-related gang war flared up, this basic right -- Being protected from unreasonable searches, was gone. This was done in such a way that all major population centers were designated as so-called "search zones", where police didn't need any reason to stop and search people. Danish law specifically allows small, precisely defined zones of that kind within cities, like certain bad neighborhoods, parks, or whatever. On the other hand, it also specifically, in no uncertain terms, forbade such zones to be expanded to cover entire cities. So as I said, the law is what the police want it to be, whether by police working to get it changed, or them just making it up on the spot.
-
In place of a boss, they have the law, which is whatever they want it to be, whenever they want.
Bull****. The law is written nowadays, so it doesn't change at the drop of a hat.
To be in the right, they need only invoke its paragraphs or its mere name. "In the name of the law", anyone?
Saying "In the name of the law" means exactly **** unless they can back it up. As stated, you don't have to cooperate unless they have a warrant of some kind. Judges don't just hand out warrants for nothing, either.
Where I live, in Denmark
Okay, stop right there. I'm not exactly sure how you can speak against the entirety of police forces everywhere if you only have Denmark as an example.
this basic right -- Being protected from unreasonable searches, was gone.
Granted, I know you're talking Denmark here, but your rant against all police everywhere falls apart unless you think they can all do this (which they can't ever do in America, without consent or a warrant).
So as I said, the law is what the police want it to be, whether by police working to get it changed, or them just making it up on the spot.
So far, this example only holds water in Denmark, where I'm still not convinced the police determine both what the law is and how to enforce it.
-
But it is. The Mafia has Omertá, and the police have the Blue Code of Silence as I mentioned. This is why I pass judgement on all of them - They are all guilty to some extent because their entire culture is corrupted. In place of a boss, they have the law, which is whatever they want it to be, whenever they want. To be in the right, they need only invoke its paragraphs or its mere name. "In the name of the law", anyone? The only time it's not, is either when the police are taken to court after an absolutely unambiguous slam-dunk case against them, like them slamming some guy's head into plexiglass with four of their own video cameras filming, just because he asked for a complaint form at the front desk(This is a real-case scenario), or when they've failed to destroy any evidence of their own wrongdoing, e.g; smashing mobile phones of people filming them, destroying their own tapes, and dragging the witnesses in for "interrogation", or "interview" as officer James Brook pointed out in the video.
Come to think about it, the blue code of silence can also be compared to how cults work -- Those who speak out against the cult, from within, are admonished and/or shunned, but from the outside, they're a perfectly respectable group, but the story is much different on the inside.
From another perspective, they can also be compared to lobbyists. Watch out, another example coming. Where I live, in Denmark, police previously needed reasonable suspicion to stop and search someone, just like in America. However, after a low-intensity drug-related gang war flared up, this basic right -- Being protected from unreasonable searches, was gone. This was done in such a way that all major population centers were designated as so-called "search zones", where police didn't need any reason to stop and search people. Danish law specifically allows small, precisely defined zones of that kind within cities, like certain bad neighborhoods, parks, or whatever. On the other hand, it also specifically, in no uncertain terms, forbade such zones to be expanded to cover entire cities. So as I said, the law is what the police want it to be, whether by police working to get it changed, or them just making it up on the spot.
Nothing we say will change your mind, because you've already made it up.
You've provided no concrete evidence, and your argument appears overgeneralized and paranoid.
-
I always tell the cops everything. Since I do nothing illegal (oh wait, I do speed sometimes), what's the difference?
If the police are corrupt, it really doesn't matter what I say, does it?
You could try watching the video before commenting. It answers your questions pretty well.
Oh I did, still doesn't change my position.
The general point of the video was that speaking to police (when not reporting something) without a lawyer present cannot possibly help you. The video gives several very good scenarios (which are backed up by an officer right then and there) that prove it.
The general point of your post was that, since you're good, you have nothing to fear from people whose job is to put other people behind bars using any means necessary. Which history shows us is completely wrong.
Cops have never been anything but nice to me, even when they pulled me over for speeding.
For clarification purposes, are they being polite, or nice? Because there's a pretty significant difference between the two.
-
I always tell the cops everything. Since I do nothing illegal (oh wait, I do speed sometimes), what's the difference?
If the police are corrupt, it really doesn't matter what I say, does it?
You could try watching the video before commenting. It answers your questions pretty well.
Oh I did, still doesn't change my position.
The general point of the video was that speaking to police (when not reporting something) without a lawyer present cannot possibly help you. The video gives several very good scenarios (which are backed up by an officer right then and there) that prove it.
The general point of your post was that, since you're good, you have nothing to fear from people whose job is to put other people behind bars using any means necessary. Which history shows us is completely wrong.
Cops have never been anything but nice to me, even when they pulled me over for speeding.
For clarification purposes, are they being polite, or nice? Because there's a pretty significant difference between the two.
Really? How so? To me, polite is nice
-
In place of a boss, they have the law, which is whatever they want it to be, whenever they want.
Bull****. The law is written nowadays, so it doesn't change at the drop of a hat.
To be in the right, they need only invoke its paragraphs or its mere name. "In the name of the law", anyone?
Saying "In the name of the law" means exactly **** unless they can back it up. As stated, you don't have to cooperate unless they have a warrant of some kind. Judges don't just hand out warrants for nothing, either.
Where I live, in Denmark
Okay, stop right there. I'm not exactly sure how you can speak against the entirety of police forces everywhere if you only have Denmark as an example.
this basic right -- Being protected from unreasonable searches, was gone.
Granted, I know you're talking Denmark here, but your rant against all police everywhere falls apart unless you think they can all do this (which they can't ever do in America, without consent or a warrant).
So as I said, the law is what the police want it to be, whether by police working to get it changed, or them just making it up on the spot.
So far, this example only holds water in Denmark, where I'm still not convinced the police determine both what the law is and how to enforce it.
I think you're misunderstanding me a bit here. When I say that it changes like that, I mean in practice, in situations like "You have to let us in, it's the law!" - "But you don't have a warrant and I don't know what this is about" - "OPEN THE DOOR OR WE WILL FORCE IT OPEN!". That's what I mean when I talk about police making up the law on the spot -- They're calm and composed, relying on people being ignorant. If people are not, they will try to intimidate. The way I see it, and this may be very flawed, the law regarding police is what they want it to be, because they're not held accountable, and that's my biggest, and possibly only real problem with them. If they were held accountable for their actions, all their other problems would be easily fixed. The thing about police not being able to do searches without a warrant, etc, it's all well and good, but you'd be naive to think that police are actually bound by this. They might get busted over it once in a while, but you make it sound like there is absolute adherence to rules like this, and from what I've seen and read about American police in particular, that is not always the case.
As far as the rest of the world goes, I have looked a lot into this actually. In England for example, there was the case of Ian Tomlinson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ
Before that video came out, this lying sack of dung went on TV to lie about the incident, here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4OfBcg9xy0
There's another video out there, showing more of his lies, like that of protesters blocking the ambulance, which was actually done by POLICE. I've spent a lot of time researching this, to question whether this was the case elsewhere. For a lot of examples of British police, check this video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6V3oUoffCE
I can continue to cite examples until the cows come home(that expression doesn't make sense?), but I think you get my point; that the problem is shared by all police forces, and that's why it's best to just not talk to them. There will be good and bad cops, and your right to remain silent is your protection from them both. One thing I noted was Blue Lion's comment, about the cops he's met being nice, because that's another game they can, and do play - Good cop, bad cop.
On a side note, my mind is indeed made up on this issue, but I have based my decision on the experience I have gained from researching the issue. The only compelling argument against it I have heard is "well they're gonna assume that you're a criminal because only someone with something to hide wouldn't talk to the police", and that argument is just so absurd, and the fact that it's true; that this will make police suspicious, supports my case even more in a strange, paradoxical way. If that's how the police thinks, any half-brained moron should be able to work out that the sensible reply would be "thank you but no thank you, officer". A little courtesy goes a long way... Well, it didn't in my case, so apply courtesy at your own discretion. Worst case scenario, you'll feel like an idiot for having been polite to your assailant before he went loco on your ass. ;)
-
AFAIK in the Ian Tomlinson case the possibility of the officer being charged with manslaughter still exists.
-
The thing about police not being able to do searches without a warrant, etc, it's all well and good, but you'd be naive to think that police are actually bound by this. They might get busted over it once in a while, but you make it sound like there is absolute adherence to rules like this, and from what I've seen and read about American police in particular, that is not always the case.
I snipped this little statement to make a point. Point being that you're showing an immense ignorance of the law and legal systems.
There are three types of law: common law (law that is generally understood, having been established since the magna carta, and encompassing general principles of justice; NOT written down), legislation (Acts/Statutes/Regulations; those laws passed by the governing body), and case law (legal precedent established by the judiciary). Countries which operate using all three can be loosely-defined as Common Law countries. These include the United States, Britain, Canada (except Quebec), Australia, etc. In these countries, the judicial system is adversarial, pitting a representative of the state (Prosecutor) versus the defendant in the presence of an impartial fact-finder (judge) and [optionally] jury. This system is distinct from the legal system used in countries such as France, which operate on the Napoleonic Code. There are a variety of other systems, and I can honestly say I'm not sure what configuration Denmark follows. This paragraph is just background.
Common law countries almost universally have a constitutional provision against unreasonable search and seizure - the wording varies, the jist remains the same. "Unreasonable" is not defined in the constitutional documents, but is actually defined in case law - that is, judges define what's reasonable and what isn't. All searches conducted in accordance with a warrant issued by a person legally authorized to do (justice, magistrate, judge) so are considered to be reasonable unless proven otherwise by the defendant. Supreme Courts in the USA, Britain, and Canada have all said that any form of warrantless search is de facto unreasonable unless the representative of the state (prosecutor) can establish a reasonable and legal reason for the search. There are many, many provisions in law that allow persons in authority to conduct searches without a warrant.
Contrary to good old "Law and Order," the main point of contention about the reasonableness of a search comes down to what is called (in Canada) exigent circumstances. All Common Law nations have a variety of laws that allow persons in authority to conduct a search without a warrant if they reasonably believe it to be necessary for a variety of reasons (in Canada, there are four). Who decides their belief was reasonable? That's our friend the judge. What happens if the search is deemed unreasonable? A complex weighing of factors that can result in the exclusion of the evidence obtained by the search from consideration in the case.
Beyond exigent circumstances, many statutes actually have provisions allowing persons in authority to search based on specific reasons without a warrant - in these cases, they must merely establish a reasonable belief that the appropriate section of the statute applies. A good example of this is Customs and Immigration personnel. The criteria for reasonable search by both of these entities in most democratic nations is extremely low - else they could not function effectively. Another example is called "search incident to arrest" - meaning that an officer may search a person immediately incident to their arrest for safety reasons. If other evidence is obtained during the search, other legal provisions allow the officer to preserve that evidence.
I think I've made my point.
Police generally adhere to the rules of search and seizure because they have to - otherwise, you risk loss of evidence and staying/dropping of charges. It's not optional, and judges do not treat police officers who flaunt the law politely; the only protection police have from prosecution themselves is establishing that they have acted in good faith and reasonable belief of accordance with the principles of the law. That said, just because a search was not conducted with a warrant does not mean it wasn't legal and the police simply "get away with it" because they can.
The phrase "a little knowledge can do a lot of harm" comes to mind when I read your comments. You may have done some research, but you clearly lack an understanding of the subject material at its core and it makes your argument look naive and overly-simplistic, based more on emotional anecdotes than fact. I suggest you spend some time establishing what the legal facts are before rushing to judgment. You're painting hundreds of thousands of honest, reasonable professionals with hundreds of different departments and agencies with the same tarnishing brush when all you know is limited anecdotes and a simplistic understanding of the legal systems they work in.
I don't know the Danish system; I admit that up front. But if your grasp of it is as poor as your grasp of the other countries you've supposedly researched, it's time to go back and do a lot of self-education.
-
Instead of making a lengthy post, I'll explain this in short:
Random as*****e 01: "No, police are evil, they beat up my cousin's friend, I don't trust them, won't ever tell anything to them, since I know I'm right, and they're wrong!"
Same Random as*****e 01 after his/her house is robbed: "No, police, heeeeeelp!"
Now, imagine if that said robber gets away with it with lack of people telling the police what they know :p
-
That's basically the point I made SG. It's all very well telling people not to talk to the police but the result is that law and order break down pretty quickly. The police can not do their job on their own.
-
Very long post
My only experience with the law regarding these things is that police generally need a warrant to enter a house, say for example if they're investigating a noise complaint, light stuff like that. If I'm not mistaken here, and I'm pretty sure I'm not, if they knock on your door, and you greet them outside, while shutting the door behind you, you close virtually any possible hole they can use to gain entry without a warrant, like the plain sight rule, and if all they have is a petty complaint from a neighbor, they wouldn't have any legal reason to enter, would they? I'm well aware of the stuff you mentioned about evidence obtained illegally possibly being dismissed in court if they try it, but it's not above police officers to manufacture, plant, and manipulate evidence. Black people with cocaine on their noses and guns in their cold, dead hands would tell you all about that if they could.
In light of what you've said about searches, I'm curious as to your perspective on the video posted, and on these two situations:
1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyokKFIecIo
2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCVnMDy_7nM
Karajorma, I can see where you're coming from with that, but do you really believe that putting this nugget of gold in the heads of all people would cause a break down in society? I think that's silly beyond all belief. As the professor in the video says - The government has thousands of different ways to convict people, and you mean to tell me that the only defense the accused has against these thousands of crimes he could be convicted of, is unfair and shouldn't be used because others could use it? If that caused law and order to break down, the police aren't earning their pay in my opinion. I think the only impact would be police having to work harder, and that's a good thing, because they get paid for that. Let's view this from another angle: What about the innocent people who, had they utilized this defense, wouldn't have been falsely imprisoned or executed today? Is that outweighed by the fact that more criminals have been caught and fried/incarcerated than innocent people? Personally, I don't rationalize stuff like that - Putting an innocent person in jail is not worth 1000 criminals in jail, because the end doesn't justify the means, namely that of making people witnesses against themselves. If you really stand by this, would you support giving criminals bad lawyers to maintain a high conviction rate?
-
Well, they can also charge you with resisting arrest when they didn't have a reason to arrest you in the first place. That doesn't strike you as ****ed up?
Not in the slightest. In attempting to resist the officers of the law you are resisting the law itself. Resistence against the law must carry some form of penalty. Perjury is a crime for the same reasons; obstructing the natural course of the law.
-
Not in the slightest. In attempting to resist the officers of the law you are resisting the law itself. Resistence against the law must carry some form of penalty. Perjury is a crime for the same reasons; obstructing the natural course of the law.
Granted, you should never resist arrest physically, but I think he's referring more to the fact how they can pull a minor thing out of their ass in order to pin something more serious on you. Taking that example a bit further, imagine shouting, "he's got a gun", and when you run in panic, they shoot you in the back on the grounds that you were "resisting arrest" or "behaving erratic". There was a story about a man in America a while back, he was at a pizza parlor, and the owner thought he was behaving odd, so he called the police, who sent a SWAT unit smashing through the door. The man's reaction to this was diving for cover because he didn't know they were after him. Would it be fair to charge him with obstructing justice, disturbing the peace, and resisting arrest?
-
Shooting a fleeing man in the back gets the policeman fired if not facing criminal charges usually. So stop making **** up.
-
Shooting a fleeing man in the back gets the policeman fired if not facing criminal charges usually. So stop making **** up.
You're right, stupid example. The point is, police are masters at manipulating people into doing things. For example, just hit the suspect or otherwise assault them physically, and then you can stick at least a dozen charges on them when they react. There's a legal word for this, but I can't remember it. It's when police actually cause someone to commit a crime. Resisting arrest, erratic behavior, assaulting an officer... you'd be amazed how many stupid things an otherwise logical person is capable of if a policeman attacks them for no reason.
-
Well, they can also charge you with resisting arrest when they didn't have a reason to arrest you in the first place. That doesn't strike you as ****ed up?
Not in the slightest. In attempting to resist the officers of the law you are resisting the law itself. Resistence against the law must carry some form of penalty. Perjury is a crime for the same reasons; obstructing the natural course of the law.
Oh hell no. Police in too many societies go way too far. Sometimes the things they're doing are just wrong.
At some point the law stops being right.
-
In society, resisting the law MUST have some form of penalty. There's no other way it could work, unless you're working with an enlightened population or something.
-
"Why you should never talk to the police"
That's a pretty bold statement, considering it covers the whole world.
There are places where general population will say otherwise. Like here, for example. It is crazy, foreigners are angry to police because they don't accept bribes.
-
Police robots FTW!
Err, no, wait......
Point being:
As long as we have humans, with all the group behaviour mechanisms that humans have doing the police work, especially with extremely obvious signs segregating "us" and "them", you will get some form of Blue Code.
Designing a perfectly unbiased system to arbitrate disputes is impossible. Not difficult, impossible, given our current understanding of ourselves.
I had the idea of a completely separate government branch devoted entirely to monitoring police behavior and investigating and prosecuting possible police misdeeds. Instead of Internal Affairs, you have an independent agency on a different payroll making sure that the police do not step out of line.
When you've set up a way to monitor somebody, it's a good idea to take the watchers from a different group than the watched to prevent a conflict of interest. A member of this hypothetical "Police Misconduct Prevention Agency" would have no reason not to come down like a ton of bricks if he knew a cop did something wrong.
Although eventually the layers of oversight have to stop somewhere and you still have a big corruption risk from whoever's on top.
My county has a horrible Sheriff's Department. Part of that can be blamed on the former Sheriff, Michael Carona (recently convicted in federal court for witness tampering), and probably part of it on the fact deputies spend six months in jail duties before they can go out on the streets. I'm guessing those six months color their perceptions somewhat.
You bet it does. If the documentaries I've watched are anything to go by, prison guards are callous, cruel, vicious people, and those that aren't quickly become so after a few months on the job in some of the most cutthroat, ruthless places in the world. At least in America, prisons usually don't rehabilitate--rather, they turn situational offenders and rookie guards looking to do a "civic duty" into hardened criminals and violent thugs.
-
To summarize that entire lesson (which I didn't realize the extent of); anything you say CAN and MIGHT be misconstrued against you in a court of law. To actually talk about a crime is, in many ways, a crime in and of itself. As was well stated, saying NOTHING is better in 99.99995% of cases. Now, according to current law, you are allowed to refuse to answer questions. While somewhat suspicious, it demands that you are excluded from the investigation. Unless granted immunity, of course, SOMETHING you say can be misconstrued or is not completely honest or truthful, for whatever reason. Hell, saying "I have a 3.9 GPA" can be incorrect if your GPA is, in fact, 3.87. I'm in total agreement; don't talk to the police except, perhaps, when you are only a witness (for example; a man who appeared drunk and wore a red shirt smashed his beer glass into another man's face). In violent crimes and questions of possession, it's best to remain silent and let the physical evidence tell the story.
To be honest, it's not a real matter of police misdeed. It's more or less jumpy prosecutors and stupid defendants who allow this bull**** to go through.
-
Very long post
My only experience with the law regarding these things is that police generally need a warrant to enter a house, say for example if they're investigating a noise complaint, light stuff like that. If I'm not mistaken here, and I'm pretty sure I'm not, if they knock on your door, and you greet them outside, while shutting the door behind you, you close virtually any possible hole they can use to gain entry without a warrant, like the plain sight rule, and if all they have is a petty complaint from a neighbor, they wouldn't have any legal reason to enter, would they?
The answer is: it depends. In the situation you described (noise complaint from a neighbour), no. If that noise complaint was indicating that they heard shouted threats or sounds of violence, and coupled with how a person responded to the door (say you refused to allow officers to speak to other persons in the home, more yelling could be hear, there was evidence of violence in the person's appearance), an officer may well have reasonable grounds to enter the dwelling based on exigent circumstances. But in that scenario, it's the judge who ultimately decides if it was reasonable AFTER the fact, potentially excluding any evidence obtained.
I'm well aware of the stuff you mentioned about evidence obtained illegally possibly being dismissed in court if they try it, but it's not above police officers to manufacture, plant, and manipulate evidence. Black people with cocaine on their noses and guns in their cold, dead hands would tell you all about that if they could.
It's well beyond the absolute majority of officers of the law to do what you've described; not only is it ethically and morally wrong, it's totally illegal and makes them subject to loss of job, loss of pension, a criminal record, and imprisonment. Are there some willing to take those steps? Yes. Have their been other officers who looked the other way and/or covered for them because they believed the ends justified the means? Yes. Are these individuals representative of all law enforcement? Absolutely not. Standards of enforcement differ from department to department, and legal precedent is constantly evolving. What smaller departments once got away with is no longer possible, and law enforcement in general is experiencing a movement toward education and professionalization.
In light of what you've said about searches, I'm curious as to your perspective on the video posted, and on these two situations:
1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyokKFIecIo
2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCVnMDy_7nM
Aside from some over-dramatization, there's nothing wrong with the responses given by either person. Both established that the know and intend to abide by their legal rights. Even if the officer doesn't like that, there is nothing they can do about it short of an arrest or detention based on reasonable grounds of belief that an offense has occurred. And if they don't have the grounds, they can't arrest or detain - and before you say "some officers do it anyway," those officers that might be tempted risk criminal prosecution themselves.
-
You're right, stupid example. The point is, police are masters at manipulating people into doing things. For example, just hit the suspect or otherwise assault them physically, and then you can stick at least a dozen charges on them when they react. There's a legal word for this, but I can't remember it. It's when police actually cause someone to commit a crime.
Entrapment. But what you've described isn't entrapment. See below:
if a policeman attacks them for no reason.
From the Criminal Code (Canada):
Excessive force
26. Every one who is authorized by law to use force is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess.
If an officer uses a level of force to subdue a subject beyond what is reasonably required, the officer is criminally responsible for the excess use of force. That means if an officer applies force (in any medium) beyond the level reasonably required, as decided by the judge, they are guilty of:
Assault
265. (1) A person commits an assault when
(a) without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to that other person, directly or indirectly;
(b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or a gesture, to apply force to another person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
(c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he accosts or impedes another person or begs.
Application
(2) This section applies to all forms of assault, including sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm and aggravated sexual assault.
Consent
(3) For the purposes of this section, no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of
(a) the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(b) threats or fear of the application of force to the complainant or to a person other than the complainant;
(c) fraud; or
(d) the exercise of authority.
-
The issue in excessive force is a definition of what would be excessive and what would not be.
A burglar breaks into your home. Hearing noise and knowing it's unlikely to be friends or family, you panic, quickly load two rounds of buckshot into your double-barreled shotgun kept in your closet. Rushing out into your den, you face a burglar, faced away shuffling through your cabinet with a knife on the desk.
Would a shot to the head be too much? To the torso? What if that there was damage to a vital organ and they bled to death? What if it didn't but they were left infertile? What if it permanently disabled them? What if it was a misunderstanding? Would a blunt weapon have worked in stead of a gun? Was a blunt weapon available? Was a weapon even required?
And that's in a more-or-less clear cut type of case where there are various responses. Call the cops and hope he doesn't hurt you. Try fighting him barehanded. Try a blunt weapon, such as a baseball bat. Try a sharp weapon, such as a blade. Try a firearm. The levels of response and the degrees of force are not codified. In a case like this, you'd want to grab your attorney and let the police investigate.
Alternatively, there'd be the question of firearm legality and once more question of lethal response being justified. Luckily or not, a corpse can only tell part of a story. Much of the rest can be told by physical evidence; damage to locks or the door, state of the documents, fingerprints or biological matter (or waste), and quite a few other pieces of evidence. Not quite worthy of CSI on TV, but a story none the less. Of course, if you've been burglarized, you'd want to make statements to the police. It's a lot easier for a "victim"'s word to be taken. Alternatively, there have been cases where a burglar is shot or otherwise injured on property and is able to sue for damages. That includes damage they did themselves; punching out a window like a complete moron? Broken hand with glass fragments? Yeah, sue the owner & victim.
-
*snip*
What, in that rambling mess, actually addressed a point? I was responding to Nemesis' assertion that an officer can use unreasonable force on a person in order to elicit a response that the officer can then arrest the person for. None of what you've said even connects to that discussion. You're talking about defence of the person or property (which are covered in different sections of the CC), which is completely unrelated to the discussion at hand.
RIF.
-
A burglar breaks into your home. Hearing noise and knowing it's unlikely to be friends or family, you panic, quickly load two rounds of buckshot into your double-barreled shotgun kept in your closet. Rushing out into your den, you face a burglar, faced away shuffling through your cabinet with a knife on the desk.
Breaking and Entering, Burglary, and the guy has a weapon? He gets one warning. If he doesn't take it, or moves to the knife, he gets two shots. Simple as that.
-
Well looks like we're going to have a Castle law discussion.
In most states, you have the right to use up to deadly force to defend your home, as long as you feel the person breaking in has the capability or intention to cause harm to you or other residents.
Scotty's right in his analysis there. Just shuffling through your things, the burglar poses no physical threat to you--you pose more danger to him. Your best bet is to keep him away from the knife on the table and involve the police. Should the burglar go for the knife or any other weapon, and you believe he's capable of harming you with it, you're legally able to kill or incapacitate him.
This changes in some places where you have a duty to retreat from the danger before you can use deadly force.
-
I conveniently had seen this before it was posted here... I ask you (all the various people arguing here):
Did you actually watched the video? And I mean all of it. Because I find it hard to believe anyone who'd watched the entire video would be arguing against the case it makes.
Also, I think maybe the thread title (what with the word 'never' right there) is not quite in tune with the message of the video...
-
The evidence just keeps rolling in. There was a documentary on local TV here about a case in next-door Sweden, where 12 innocent people -- Children at the time 14 to 15-year-olds -- Who were held in isolation and interrogated for days regarding a series of arson attacks. Some had their lives ruined after the false accusations, courtesy of the police whom we should respect, were published. Here's the sweet part for all you people who talk about how if no-one talked to the police, we wouldn't have functional societies - 8 of the 12 confessed, after days of isolation and interrogation, to a crime they didn't commit. Police had NO evidence, but what the carefully-constructed police nazi routine achieved, as was explained, was gradual bending on their will to fight back. You start by playing off of all the discomfort you impose on the
victim suspect -- Strip them of their own clothes, keep them in the "interview" room for hours on end, lying to them, manipulating them, and keeping them talking in order to bolster your weak case. Then comes the point at which they stop caring whether they're innocent or not, and at that point, it's easy to convince them that if they confess, they'll get to go home. But honestly, six hours with Officer McFriendly just fly by, don't they? Now, some were removed from their parents and some placed in orphanages, foster care, etc, with absolutely no contact allowed to either their family, a lawyer or anything, neither during the interrogation, or afterwards. None of this came before a trial, by the way.
The logic behind trusting/talking to the police reminds me of battered wife syndrome. No, I shouldn't leave him... He beats me because he loves me and that's his duty as a husband to ensure that our relationship works, so I must have done something to make him do it. Oh, that was so my fault -- I should know better than to confuse salt and pepper, no wonder he rubbed salt in my face and beat me.
No, I have to trust the police, there must be a reason they treat my like this, even though I'm not a criminal and have never been in trouble with the law. It was because I didn't want to be a witness against myself -- Yeah, that must be it. By me not incriminating myself, they were well within their right beat me and cover up their crime. Besides, if they didn't do that, our societies would fall apart.
The argument simplified, and in German if you get the reference: Ordnung muss sein!. Or in English: There must be order!
And the police are order. One person mentioned that I had made up my mind, and that's absolutely right and I'm glad I did - Because I ended at the right decision. The issue of talking to the police or not kind of became intertwined with something else on my part in a few of my earlier posts here, and that's the fact that I hate police. Whenever I see them, I will take detours around them because I know what they're like. Whenever I see their cars, I become anxious, expecting them to come out and in some way intimidate and harass me. All of these fears are reinforced by the fact that they have free reign to do any of these things, and I have no legal recourse. This is rob me of some respect from you guys, but I have a hard time distinguish between the uniform and the person. Going even further here, it's like Nazis claiming that they were just following orders, except the police can say no, and afterwards report the entire thing and, if they have any integrity and moral standards, leave the force in disgust. But in the real world, that's not how it works, and that's why I'm amazed at Ryan's unwavering confidence in such utopian principles like a violent police officer actually being punished. Who would tell? The witness, yeah, but seriously, if a victim of police brutality was to take an officer to court, and it was his word against the officer's, we all know what would happen - The policemen are viewed as "expert" witnesses, and all that would be needed would be to get his corrupt partner to deny it, and then it's the victim's word against two "experts" within their field.
There's a reason that the meme about reporting police crimes won't do any good, because it's largely true.
-
Wow, Nazis now. We'll I'm convinced.
It's very simple. The police have never done anything wrong to me and the odds of the police driving up to my house and arresting me for murder are probably exceedingly low. So there is no reason to not talk to them.
-
Hey, Nemesis: people who make blanket statements are morons.
And thanks for invoking battered wife syndrome, asshole. You being roughed up by a cop once is NOT the same as women (or men in quite a few cases) who are emotionally and physically scarred not just by something they're supposed to trust, but that they're in love with. It's not the same thing. Knock it off.
Look, I make extreme accusations all the time, and I have plenty of groups on my ****list. But I can't recall ever saying all conservatives, Republicans, or Christians are evil.
Do some cops betray the public trust and step over their boundaries? Yes, I'm not going to argue that. But saying each and every one of them is simply guilty by association simply screams ignorance and stupidity. There are plenty of good cops out there. I'm sorry you're too blinded by your phobia to see that.
-
Calm down nuclear, let's not have any flaming from either side here.
Nemesis has pretty much Godwin'd himself in that last post anyway.
-
Nemesis has pretty much Godwin'd himself in that last post anyway.
Er.... Where did it go? :nervous:
------------------
It's very simple. The police have never done anything wrong to me and the odds of the police driving up to my house and arresting me for murder are probably exceedingly low. So there is no reason to not talk to them.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/GenoStar/smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif)
Okay. One more time. THERE IS NO WAY THAT DOING THAT CAN HELP YOU. IT CAN ONLY HARM YOU.
Do you disagree with that point? If so, how?
-
You know, my last encounter with the law involved a cop spotting me a quarter for a six pack of monster. When he asked why I was buying it I told him it was for an all day dig and ride session at the local dirt jumps and the conversation went from there. Longish story short, he turned out to be an avid rider himself and later turned up at the (completely illegal) dirt jumps himself, off duty to help dig and ended up sessioning them with us for a while. I'm at a classic cop hating age, break minor laws with alarming regularity and have encountered downright foul members of the police service. That didn't stop me from telling this guy a fair amount about myself and actually having a pretty good time with him later.
I admit to making some blanket statements from time to time and like nuclear have a number of groups on my ****list. Not one police force that I've encountered is on it. Occasionally they may screw up, they may have members that are assholes but all in all, the people that make them up are honest individuals and generally good people. Their purpose is not to screw you over but to keep you safe. The phobia expressed by the creators of this video seems is pretty ridiculous and I honestly can not for the life of me understand it.
@BloodEagle
I disagree with that. Please explain to me, rationally why this would harm you, assuming that your activities on a day to day basis are not breaking major laws and that they have no reason to arrest or otherwise bother you. I can see this doing more harm than good to say, a drug dealer or to a professional car thief but certainly not the average citizen.
-
@BloodEagle
I disagree with that. Please explain to me, rationally why this would harm you, assuming that your activities on a day to day basis are not breaking major laws and that they have no reason to arrest or otherwise bother you. I can see this doing more harm than good to say, a drug dealer or to a professional car thief but certainly not the average citizen.
...you're asking that in a thread which is about a video which explains the reasons. Did you not watch it or did you not find the reasons in it?
-
I find the reasons overly paranoid and destructive for a society. Unless you are accused of a serious crime, there's no REAL reason to not talk to the police.
-
Cops in my country are generally inefficient, but I'd still talk to them.
They're o.k. people and I've never broken any law, so...
This paranoia is redicolous. I could tell a cop anything about myself - what's he's gonna do with that useless knowledge? He can make all the searches he wants, he'll never find anything.
-
You're that sure they won't find the bodies under the patio? :p
-
Had quite a bit of interaction with the cops 'round here, on both sides of the fence.
Never had a problem with the way they've conducted themselves, not even "niggling little annoying problems."
They do their job, they are helpful when they can be too.
Police = <3.
I realise there are a few bad eggs, especially in other countries/areas but Bristols police are awesome.
-
Nemesis has pretty much Godwin'd himself in that last post anyway.
Er.... Where did it go? :nervous:
It's back. If it disappears again there will be....trouble.
-
You're that sure they won't find the bodies under the patio? :p
What kind of a fool you take me for? I have my henchmen cremate the bodies and dump the ashes up on the mountain. :P
EDIT: I care not for Godwins at all. :blah:
-
If you can't make an argument without mentioning Hitler or the Nazis it's usually because you have no argument. :p
-
It's very simple. The police have never done anything wrong to me and the odds of the police driving up to my house and arresting me for murder are probably exceedingly low. So there is no reason to not talk to them.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/GenoStar/smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif)
Okay. One more time. THERE IS NO WAY THAT DOING THAT CAN HELP YOU. IT CAN ONLY HARM YOU.
Do you disagree with that point? If so, how?
I can give a statement to the police about a crime I witnessed. I can give a statement to the police about a crime that happened to me. I can give someone an alibi after they had been charged with a crime that they didn't commit. I can shoot holes through an alibi of someone trying to get out of a crime.
I can talk to the cops about numerous things (and I already do), you know what it least likely to happen? Me being arrested for something based off something I said.
Do you know how worried I am about talking to the cops and being convicted of a crime I didn't commit because I said something that was not a confession? I'm not at all. Zero.
-
It's very simple. The police have never done anything wrong to me and the odds of the police driving up to my house and arresting me for murder are probably exceedingly low. So there is no reason to not talk to them.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/GenoStar/smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif)
Okay. One more time. THERE IS NO WAY THAT DOING THAT CAN HELP YOU. IT CAN ONLY HARM YOU.
Do you disagree with that point? If so, how?
I can give a statement to the police about a crime I witnessed. I can give a statement to the police about a crime that happened to me. I can give someone an alibi after they had been charged with a crime that they didn't commit. I can shoot holes through an alibi of someone trying to get out of a crime.
I can talk to the cops about numerous things (and I already do), you know what it least likely to happen? Me being arrested for something based off something I said.
Do you know how worried I am about talking to the cops and being convicted of a crime I didn't commit because I said something that was not a confession? I'm not at all. Zero.
You failed to answer the question.
-
It's very simple. The police have never done anything wrong to me and the odds of the police driving up to my house and arresting me for murder are probably exceedingly low. So there is no reason to not talk to them.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v74/GenoStar/smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif)
Okay. One more time. THERE IS NO WAY THAT DOING THAT CAN HELP YOU. IT CAN ONLY HARM YOU.
Do you disagree with that point? If so, how?
I can give a statement to the police about a crime I witnessed. I can give a statement to the police about a crime that happened to me. I can give someone an alibi after they had been charged with a crime that they didn't commit. I can shoot holes through an alibi of someone trying to get out of a crime.
I can talk to the cops about numerous things (and I already do), you know what it least likely to happen? Me being arrested for something based off something I said.
Do you know how worried I am about talking to the cops and being convicted of a crime I didn't commit because I said something that was not a confession? I'm not at all. Zero.
<Insert picture of Kyle screaming, here>
You changed the context! Again! Even going so far as to ignore the quoted post, that you made!
In the original context, you never initiated it. We're talking about the police coming up to you, out of the blue, and questioning you.
And I'm pretty sure that, earlier in the thread, I specifically stated 'when not reporting a crime'. ::Yeah, here it is (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=68020.msg1343011#msg1343011)::
----------------
For clarification purposes, are they being polite, or nice? Because there's a pretty significant difference between the two.
Really? How so? To me, polite is nice
That explains a lot, actually.
A complete asshole can be polite. All polite means is that decorum is adhered to. Nice means, well, friendly, among other things.
-
On that specific issue; an officer seemingly being nice or friendly would, in my view, entice me more not to talk to them than them being dicks, and this story here outlines why quite perfectly:
http://www.insurgentamerican.net/2007/05/28/why-people-hate-cops/
In his case, being nice, polite, friendly, etc, were just potent tools for manipulating him.
I find it interesting that people are differentiating between talking to the police as a suspect and as a witness, when the video specifically addresses this at several points, notably at 12:10. But as it also says at another point in the video: The United States Supreme Court, don’t take my word for this, in Ohio vs. Reiner, the supreme court of the United States said quote: one of the Fifth Amendment’s basic functions is to protect innocent men who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances, truthful responses of an innocent witness as well as those of a wrong doer, may provide the government with incriminating evidence from the speakers own mouth.
Also,
We need not tarry long to reiterate our view that, as the two courts below held, no implication of guilt could be drawn from [a person’s] invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege before the grand jury. Recent reexamination of the history and meaning of the Fifth Amendment has emphasized anew that one of the basic functions of the privilege is to protect innocent men. ... " Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege. ... "The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.
It seems pretty clear to me... :doubt:
-
Also,
We need not tarry long to reiterate our view that, as the two courts below held, no implication of guilt could be drawn from [a person’s] invocation of his Fifth Amendment privilege before the grand jury. Recent reexamination of the history and meaning of the Fifth Amendment has emphasized anew that one of the basic functions of the privilege is to protect innocent men. ... " Too many, even those who should be better advised, view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers. They too readily assume that those who invoke it are either guilty of crime or commit perjury in claiming the privilege. ... "The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances.
It seems pretty clear to me... :doubt:
What's your point?
The right to refuse to testify, codified as the Fifth Amendment in the United States and section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and various sections of other nations' Constitutional documents) only exists during court proceedings, and embodies the same principles as the legal right to refuse to make statements which exists prior to court proceedings. You're not making a point by bringing it under discussion, unless you're interpreting it as somehow bolstering your case that all officers of the law are inherently fascists in pursuit of innocent people to harass. Hint: it doesn't.
and that's why I'm amazed at Ryan's unwavering confidence in such utopian principles like a violent police officer actually being punished. Who would tell? The witness, yeah, but seriously, if a victim of police brutality was to take an officer to court, and it was his word against the officer's, we all know what would happen - The policemen are viewed as "expert" witnesses, and all that would be needed would be to get his corrupt partner to deny it, and then it's the victim's word against two "experts" within their field.
Your ignorance knows no bounds.
An expert witness is a person who has significant experience and education in a field such that their credentials can be recognized to give evidence on the technical or scientific aspects of a subject beyond a layperson's understanding. Police officers only meet the criteria of "expert witness" when they have sufficient expertise in a specific area as to be credited experts in it. You cannot, for the court's purposes, be an expert in "policing." Police officers are recognized as expert witnesses very rarely, and typically only outside the scope of their occupation as police officers. So that shoots that whole little theory right out of the water from the start, but let's continue just for the sake of bringing this argument to its sorry conclusion.
- In many jurisdictions, and certainly in all of Canada, incidents involving serious injury and police are now immediately investigated by a separate unit from the moment they happen. This makes it difficult for any sort of cover-up to occur.
- In all incidents, officers take notes on what has occurred from their perspective. In the case of excessive force proceedings against police, those notes are admitted as evidence and the victim has the direct ability to challenge the events as the officer has described them through their own testimony.
- It is extremely difficult to testify contrary to video evidence, and virtually all police cruisers are equipped with cameras.
- Physical evidence of injury is admitted at trial, and experts can and will usually be called to give evidence over the types of injuries sustained. It isn't terribly difficult to tell the difference between injuries suffered as part of unlawful resistance to which an officer has responded with force, or a beating in which the officer used excessive force.
- Officers who lie under oath during testimony risk prosecution, conviction, and loss of their career.
- Judges do not inherently take the word of a police officer over the word of anyone else. It comes down to credibility of the witnesses; officers can be made to look non-credible just as easily as anyone else.
Prosecutions for excessive force and/or assault are fairly rare among police, largely because prosecutors will only proceed if they have sufficient evidence to gain a conviction. In many cases, the charges are simply not founded. In many others, police are charged internally under the Police Act (or its jurisdictional equivalent) and are subject to disciplinary hearings which can impose fines, loss of job, and refer the matter for criminal prosecution should the situation warrant it.
I don't have unwavering confidence in the justice system - it is created and administered by human beings and contains flaws. That said, it generally operates fairly well and the people who work within it are genuinely trying to help - including police officers. I do have unwavering confidence that the problem individuals within the system are few in number, and are completely non-representative of the greater law enforcement community.
For the record, I've worked as an active member of Canadian federal law enforcement in two separate agencies for four years. In that time, I have met hundreds of other law enforcement officers from more than a dozen different agencies. Are a lot of us cynics, who frequently see the worst in people? Absolutely. Do I know a single person who has ethically or legally violated their oaths in the performance of their duties? Absolutely not. The vast majority of law enforcement officers are hardworking, underpaid individuals who do what they do because they are passionate about making a difference despite the public scorn they frequently receive. As a group, these people deserve your respect and appreciation, not scorn and ignorant paranoid delusions.
Legally speaking, there are absolutely circumstances under which a person should exercise their rights to silence and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, but it's not because law enforcement officials are corrupt/evil/Nazis/whatever - it's because those rights exist to protect yourself from an imperfect legal system that requires checks and balances. This does not mean you should never talk to the police. That stance is, frankly, ignorant.
-
<Insert picture of Kyle screaming, here>
You changed the context! Again! Even going so far as to ignore the quoted post, that you made!
In the original context, you never initiated it. We're talking about the police coming up to you, out of the blue, and questioning you.
And I'm pretty sure that, earlier in the thread, I specifically stated 'when not reporting a crime'. ::Yeah, here it is (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=68020.msg1343011#msg1343011)::
And I'll still tell them. If I have information that can lead to them solving a crime, hell yea I'll tell them. If a crime occurred and they want me to tell them what I saw, I'll tell them because I might be the only one who saw anything.
How does them having my information to get a better picture of a crime that they want to solve not help me? That's where I think you're not getting it. I don't care if they come to me or I come to them or what. If they ask if I saw something and I did, I'll tell them. If I didn't, I'll tell them that too.
Telling them nothing doesn't help solve the crime. The chances of them coming to get me for a crime are next to nothing.
I would also like to point out that in the previous post, I never mentioned one going to the other or not. I never said I'll go to the police or they'll come to me. I said i would give statements on things.
That explains a lot, actually.
A complete asshole can be polite. All polite means is that decorum is adhered to. Nice means, well, friendly, among other things.
Explain to me what the difference is between friendly and polite while dealing with the police? He's not my friend, I don't know him. We're gonna talk about the game after he writes me a ticket?
-
If you get burglarized, call the police for help. If a cop just walks up to you on the street, keep your mouth shut and answer his questions in as few words as possible.
-
What's your point?
The right to refuse to testify, codified as the Fifth Amendment in the United States and section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (and various sections of other nations' Constitutional documents) only exists during court proceedings, and embodies the same principles as the legal right to refuse to make statements which exists prior to court proceedings. You're not making a point by bringing it under discussion, unless you're interpreting it as somehow bolstering your case that all officers of the law are inherently fascists in pursuit of innocent people to harass. Hint: it doesn't.
- In many jurisdictions, and certainly in all of Canada, incidents involving serious injury and police are now immediately investigated by a separate unit from the moment they happen. This makes it difficult for any sort of cover-up to occur.
- In all incidents, officers take notes on what has occurred from their perspective. In the case of excessive force proceedings against police, those notes are admitted as evidence and the victim has the direct ability to challenge the events as the officer has described them through their own testimony.
- It is extremely difficult to testify contrary to video evidence, and virtually all police cruisers are equipped with cameras.
- Physical evidence of injury is admitted at trial, and experts can and will usually be called to give evidence over the types of injuries sustained. It isn't terribly difficult to tell the difference between injuries suffered as part of unlawful resistance to which an officer has responded with force, or a beating in which the officer used excessive force.
- Officers who lie under oath during testimony risk prosecution, conviction, and loss of their career.
- Judges do not inherently take the word of a police officer over the word of anyone else. It comes down to credibility of the witnesses; officers can be made to look non-credible just as easily as anyone else.
Prosecutions for excessive force and/or assault are fairly rare among police, largely because prosecutors will only proceed if they have sufficient evidence to gain a conviction. In many cases, the charges are simply not founded. In many others, police are charged internally under the Police Act (or its jurisdictional equivalent) and are subject to disciplinary hearings which can impose fines, loss of job, and refer the matter for criminal prosecution should the situation warrant it.
I don't have unwavering confidence in the justice system - it is created and administered by human beings and contains flaws. That said, it generally operates fairly well and the people who work within it are genuinely trying to help - including police officers. I do have unwavering confidence that the problem individuals within the system are few in number, and are completely non-representative of the greater law enforcement community.
For the record, I've worked as an active member of Canadian federal law enforcement in two separate agencies for four years. In that time, I have met hundreds of other law enforcement officers from more than a dozen different agencies. Are a lot of us cynics, who frequently see the worst in people? Absolutely. Do I know a single person who has ethically or legally violated their oaths in the performance of their duties? Absolutely not. The vast majority of law enforcement officers are hardworking, underpaid individuals who do what they do because they are passionate about making a difference despite the public scorn they frequently receive. As a group, these people deserve your respect and appreciation, not scorn and ignorant paranoid delusions.
Legally speaking, there are absolutely circumstances under which a person should exercise their rights to silence and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, but it's not because law enforcement officials are corrupt/evil/Nazis/whatever - it's because those rights exist to protect yourself from an imperfect legal system that requires checks and balances. This does not mean you should never talk to the police. That stance is, frankly, ignorant.
First of all I need to apologize for one thing - There was no reason for me to claim you having unwavering confidence in the justice system, need to put that out there. Next, the reason I brought those two quotes up was in order to offer some perspective for the people who do the "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" bit in one form or another.
I think we're talking past one another here. Or maybe it's me mixing things up. As I knew the fifth amendment, it related to dealing with the police in all circumstances, but you're saying that this is unrelated to the fifth amendment? If you're right that the fifth amendment only applies in court, and the right to remain silent is indeed a separate one, then that's my mistake.
Regarding your list:
1 - There are two ways it is done in Denmark - Complaining directly to the police, obviously a bad idea. And the second is complaining to the attourney general. To put this last option into perspective, over 500 complaints were sent to his office, regarding police misconduct during police suppression of protests(yes, all protests were deemed illegal and suppressed by police) during the COP15 conference. They were ignored.
1 - That's where they first get the opportunity to fake the story, or skew details, and blame it later on an innocent mistake on their part, should they be called on it by the victim, or a witness. That's another reason not to talk to them: As you say, they're human just like everyone else, and they can easily make a mistake like that. I'd rather make their job as hard as I can, because their job is to build up a case against me, no matter how friendly they might seem. In other words, they're not on my side.
2 - Granted, but not all police encounters happen infront of a squad car, or within it. And a camera being present is no guarantee they won't do it, it's only a slight motivational factor as witnessed in the following case where officers rear ended a car that had stopped suddenly, police charged the driver with all kinds of stuff, even though the driver was maintaining a safe distance, and did nothing wrong. You can see the police's own video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh8lLjtFU9c
3 - As you said, such lawsuits are rarely won, or filed. Violent behavior on the part of the police doesn't neccesarily leave any evidence. When I say police brutality, I use that as an umbrella term for all unneccesary physical violence and intimidation employed against a suspect. Few police officers are stupid enough to beat someone so it actually leaves bruises, apart from the NYPD of course, but I digress. The point is, they just need to make it "light" for accusations of brutality to bounce right off of them.
4 - Historically, though, what usually happens is that they're given paid "administrative leave", or assigned a desk job. There have even been incidents where, after an officer's actions are put in question, it is found out that they have already faced similar charges, of which they were acquitted. It's like they have a fixed amount of days of grace - The first beating we can overlook, the second we can claim we deciplined you for/or dismiss it outright depending on the evidence, but the third... We'll have to rely on the judge for that, if it even to court.
5 - As far as I've seen, the supposed criminal is always the one viewed with scorn, whether by the judge or the jury.
I still maintain that cops, by large, are not accountable for their actions given the examples I've cited. Isolated examples one might claim, but they're indicative of a larger sickness. Even when wrongdoing is found, they are either rarely, minimally, or just not at all punished, and the only solace the victim can seek is monetary compensation, like the prosecution of the murderers of Amadou Diallo - His mother got 3 million dollars in compensation, even though the murderers were acquitted of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment.
-
Police have a major protection in my state derived from a legal case called Copley vs. <insert name>. In the case of police misconduct all records are sealed, and the public has no clue what happened during the investigation and whether or not the officer was even punished. Heck, the public is lucky if they even get the names of the officers involved in the misconduct.
-
The evidence just keeps rolling in. There was a documentary on local TV here about a case in next-door Sweden, where 12 innocent people -- Children at the time 14 to 15-year-olds -- Who were held in isolation and interrogated for days regarding a series of arson attacks. Some had their lives ruined after the false accusations, courtesy of the police whom we should respect, were published. Here's the sweet part for all you people who talk about how if no-one talked to the police, we wouldn't have functional societies - 8 of the 12 confessed, after days of isolation and interrogation, to a crime they didn't commit. Police had NO evidence, but what the carefully-constructed police nazi routine achieved, as was explained, was gradual bending on their will to fight back. You start by playing off of all the discomfort you impose on the victim suspect -- Strip them of their own clothes, keep them in the "interview" room for hours on end, lying to them, manipulating them, and keeping them talking in order to bolster your weak case. Then comes the point at which they stop caring whether they're innocent or not, and at that point, it's easy to convince them that if they confess, they'll get to go home. But honestly, six hours with Officer McFriendly just fly by, don't they? Now, some were removed from their parents and some placed in orphanages, foster care, etc, with absolutely no contact allowed to either their family, a lawyer or anything, neither during the interrogation, or afterwards. None of this came before a trial, by the way.
The logic behind trusting/talking to the police reminds me of battered wife syndrome. No, I shouldn't leave him... He beats me because he loves me and that's his duty as a husband to ensure that our relationship works, so I must have done something to make him do it. Oh, that was so my fault -- I should know better than to confuse salt and pepper, no wonder he rubbed salt in my face and beat me.
No, I have to trust the police, there must be a reason they treat my like this, even though I'm not a criminal and have never been in trouble with the law. It was because I didn't want to be a witness against myself -- Yeah, that must be it. By me not incriminating myself, they were well within their right beat me and cover up their crime. Besides, if they didn't do that, our societies would fall apart.
The argument simplified, and in German if you get the reference: Ordnung muss sein!. Or in English: There must be order!
And the police are order. One person mentioned that I had made up my mind, and that's absolutely right and I'm glad I did - Because I ended at the right decision. The issue of talking to the police or not kind of became intertwined with something else on my part in a few of my earlier posts here, and that's the fact that I hate police. Whenever I see them, I will take detours around them because I know what they're like. Whenever I see their cars, I become anxious, expecting them to come out and in some way intimidate and harass me. All of these fears are reinforced by the fact that they have free reign to do any of these things, and I have no legal recourse. This is rob me of some respect from you guys, but I have a hard time distinguish between the uniform and the person. Going even further here, it's like Nazis claiming that they were just following orders, except the police can say no, and afterwards report the entire thing and, if they have any integrity and moral standards, leave the force in disgust. But in the real world, that's not how it works, and that's why I'm amazed at Ryan's unwavering confidence in such utopian principles like a violent police officer actually being punished. Who would tell? The witness, yeah, but seriously, if a victim of police brutality was to take an officer to court, and it was his word against the officer's, we all know what would happen - The policemen are viewed as "expert" witnesses, and all that would be needed would be to get his corrupt partner to deny it, and then it's the victim's word against two "experts" within their field.
There's a reason that the meme about reporting police crimes won't do any good, because it's largely true.
So what do you have as an alternative to police? Anarchy? We all know how well that works for human rights and dignity. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia) You almost seem to be stating that the police are an outright negative for society, when in fact their existence is necessary and we would be much worse off without them. Are they sometimes corrupt? Yes. Do they sometimes do evil things? Yes. But every association of human beings has a degree of corruption, and human beings do evil all the time. I don't see any reason not to talk to the police as a witness or a whistle-blower unless you have a good reason to think that the defendant or his buddies will do terrible things to you if you do so.
-
I think we're talking past one another here. Or maybe it's me mixing things up. As I knew the fifth amendment, it related to dealing with the police in all circumstances, but you're saying that this is unrelated to the fifth amendment? If you're right that the fifth amendment only applies in court, and the right to remain silent is indeed a separate one, then that's my mistake.
The Fifth Amendment:
Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The principle is the same in most democratic countries; the wording differs slightly. In all cases, this provision exists only during court proceedings. A person has no Fifth Amendment rights in their interactions with law enforcement outside of court testimony. As for invoking this right, the actual procedure varies by country. In the United States, the person does not give evidence (testify) with respect to the material covered by the Fifth Amendment. In Canada, your section 13 invocation is acknowledged by the judge and you must the testify anyway - the caveat is that the evidence you give may not be used directly against you in any criminal proceeding with the exception of perjury.
"The right to remain silent" is a different legal right, which is only afforded to persons under arrest or detention. If you have not been detained or arrest by a law enforcement official, you do NOT have the right to remain silent when asked a question. You may choose to remain so, but if the officer has a legal provision which allows them to 'demand' (a legal term) a response, you must give one. Several pieces of legislation may include these provisions, most frequently laws which govern customs, immigration, and other types of inspectors.
As for the rest of your responses, I'm not going to beat what-ifs to death. I will address one in particular, though:
5 - As far as I've seen, the supposed criminal is always the one viewed with scorn, whether by the judge or the jury.
How many preliminary hearings, trials, voir dires, pre-sentencing hearings, and sentencing hearings have you attended? How many witnesses in general have you seen testify in court proceedings? How many law enforcement officials have you seen testify at court proceedings? How many court transcripts and case judgments (and I don't mean in the media summaries, I mean actual official judgments and transcripts) have you read? Reading a media story about a trial and reading the trial transcript or actually attending it are two very different things. Judges afford witnesses just as much or more credibility as police officer until they're given a reason to view it otherwise.
Suffice it to say that all law enforcement are ultimately accountable to their fellow officers, superiors, the justice system and judiciary, and the public at large, whether you believe them to be or not. Perhaps your country is different and has serious problems with its police force (I honestly don't know), but that doesn't give you the grounds to judge law enforcement the world over by their actions.
-
I should point out that not speaking to the police in the UK could get you into a vast ****load of trouble because you don't actually have the right to silence there.
-
I should point out that not speaking to the police in the UK could get you into a vast ****load of trouble because you don't actually have the right to silence there.
Admittedly I'm not an expert on UK law, but I think your statement isn't entirely accurate. I don't believe the Judges Rules of 1912 were replaced in their entirely by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. [Having spent the better part of 45 minutes searching for a copy of the Judges rules in any of its iterations (1912, 1922, 1934, or 1964) and getting completely skunked, I'm afraid I can't quote them for you. I know that I have a copy lurking in my desk at work that I can dig up if necessary.] The Judges Rules impacted the UK and its Dominions (hence why I'm familiar with them) and codified a practical legal right to silence for accused which, if violated, could result in a judge ruling the evidence given is inadmissible. This generic website (http://www.courtroomadvice.co.uk/your-rights-on-arrest.html) seems to support that in the discussion of the Caution.
Regardless, my [limited] understanding of UK law is that, like all Common Law nations, you have a right to silence upon arrest or detention. Unlike most other Common law nations, failing to give evidence (make statements) to police which you then later attempt to use in court proceedings can be used against your defence. But, as with other countries, specific legislation may override that right to silence in some circumstances. The available writing on the subject that I've been able to find while searching for those blasted Judges Rules seems to universally support that a right to silence does exist in the UK, just not the same way as it does in the USA or Canada.
-
Yeah, I wasn't going to go into the details too far but you seem to have a handle on it. Although you have the right to stay silent, later on in court when you try to present a defence the prosecution is basically allowed to say "If you're so innocent, why the **** didn't you say that earlier?"
-
I just found something interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_technique
The police are good guys, the police are good guys, the police are good guys, the police are good guys... :sigh:
Also, you guys remember the episode where a police officer attacked an innocent cyclist during a rally? In case you don't, here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_xABS6Brho
Can you take a guess as to what the police did? Yes, they lied, and the victim was arrested. The New York times has an excellent article on exactly how they tried to subvert justice and lie about the episode: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/nyregion/30about.html?_r=1&em&ex=1217563200&en=e162726ad1b6d34b&ei=5087%0A
It's hard to pick a favorite bit of this article, but I have to say that mine would be this one:
Later that night, Officer Pogan composed a story of his encounter with Mr. Long. It bore no resemblance to the events seen on the videotape. Based on the sworn complaint, Mr. Long was held for 26 hours on charges of attempted assault and disorderly conduct.
Oh, what the hell, another one for the road... get it? Road?
In another case at the library, a police officer testified that he and three other officers had to carry one protester, Dennis Kyne, by his hands and feet down the library steps. Videotape showed that Mr. Kyne walked down the steps under his own power, and that the officer who testified against him had no role in his arrest. The charges were dismissed; the Manhattan district attorney’s office declined to bring perjury charges against the officer who gave the testimony.
Dozens of complaints were sworn by police officers who said they had witnessed people violating the law on Fulton Street and near Union Square, but later admitted under oath that their only involvement was to process the arrests, and that they had not actually seen the disorderly conduct that was charged.
Police being subject to perjury charges even if the evidence is crystal clear that they're lying? Not gonna happen it seems. Such a serious accusation dismissed even though there's clear evidence that the police did commit perjury. On the plus side, the police officer responsible for the assault -- Patrick Pogan is his name -- was fired. I guess that's a good thing. But think about how much evidence it took to bring this guy down, how it was initially dismissed and the victim was charged, and how hard the police fought to cover up the truth. It's ok if they do it, but not if we do it.
-
Wow, is this what it's like when I post anti-GOP, Blackwater, fundie threads?
-
This is what it's like when anyone posts anything fundie in GD. This is a worse example than most, because he refuses to even be quiet when he's beaten.
-
I get what he's saying, but I don't get what he's saying.
Police are bad aaaaaand?
-
Yeah, it'd be fantastic if we had at least a proposed solution or something constructive. Otherwise it's just an annoying rant.
-
Yeah, it'd be fantastic if we had at least a proposed solution or something constructive. Otherwise it's just an annoying rant.
Personally I love reading rants, but that's just me. I don't have any solution, apart from the standard formula that helps fight corruption in most government agencies: More transparency, less power, and much, much more oversight. It's rare for any police department to meet all, or just one of those criteria. Ryan mentioned that Canada has an independent agency that monitors police misconduct, or police abuse cases, can't remember, and that's the kind of thing I wish police was subject to everywhere - Intense scrutiny with palpable consequences if misconduct is indeed found. You'd assume that any decent government would have that already, but clearly, it's a luxury these days. The way this whole thing works is that most people don't care if they don't see a problem or haven't experienced it for themselves. Hence, of course the politicians don't care, and mostly, they serve to make it worse.
The reason I posted this thread is because civil rights are a big interest of mine. With police often infringing on that, my attention has turned to them. The last post here is not a rebuttal or argument, rather, it's just something I thought would be interesting to share.