[SpardaSon21]

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.

[Woolie Wool]

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. 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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[MP-Ryan]

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.

[karajorma]

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?"

[Nemesis6]

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...  

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.

[Nuclear1]

Wow, is this what it's like when I post anti-GOP, Blackwater, fundie threads?

[Scotty]

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.

[Blue Lion]

I get what he's saying, but I don't get what he's saying.

Police are bad aaaaaand?

[Nuclear1]

Yeah, it'd be fantastic if we had at least a proposed solution or something constructive. Otherwise it's just an annoying rant.

[Nemesis6]

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.