It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

NEVER-EVER Talk To The Police

page: 6
26
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: JDeLattre89

Not if the volunteered information (prior to being read your MRs) is self-incriminating.

It's that whole 5th-amendment thing . . .


No, that 5th amendment thing is . . . "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."

This is referred to as the double-jeopardy amendment. It protects most people (not military) from being prosecuted for the same thing twice. It also protects you from testifying in court against yourself. Thus pleading the fifth. It covers absolutely nothing about self incrimination with the volunteering of information.

The Miranda Rights are from a Supreme Court ruling which dictates that if an LEO BOTH detains & questions someone, then they must read them their Miranda rights prior to the questioning. Otherwise, cops would spend 75% of their time 'reading people their rights'.

Anyone who volunteers incriminating information to the cops unsolicited is an idiot.
edit on 1142016 by JDeLattre89 because: Misquote




posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: seasonal

Yes, I know it's Wikipedia, but I'll let it answer that question:


The circumstances triggering the Miranda safeguards, i.e. Miranda warnings, are "custody" and "interrogation". Custody means formal arrest or the deprivation of freedom to an extent associated with formal arrest. Interrogation means explicit questioning or actions that are reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response. Suspects in "custody" who are about to be interrogated must be properly advised of their Miranda rights—namely, the Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination (and, in furtherance of this right, the right to counsel while in custody). The Fifth Amendment right to counsel means that the suspect has the right to consult with an attorney before questioning begins and have an attorney present during the interrogation. The Fifth Amendment right against compelled self incrimination is the right to remain silent—the right to refuse to answer questions or to otherwise communicate information.

The duty to warn only arises when police officers conduct custodial interrogations. The Constitution does not require that a defendant be advised of the Miranda rights as part of the arrest procedure, or once an officer has probable cause to arrest, or if the defendant has become a suspect of the focus of an investigation. Custody and interrogation are the events that trigger the duty to warn.


Now, with that noted, I know a few LEOs, and there are officers all over America who err on the side of caution and read someone their Miranda Warning prior to any intense questioning, not just an interrogation while someone is officially in police custody.

MUST they do that? Well, no, not according to law, but if they don't want to dick up their investigation and have statements that will be inadmissible in court, they will administer the warning as early in their questioning as possible, even if said questioning is relatively informal at that point.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
Anyone who volunteers incriminating information to the cops unsolicited is an idiot.


I might add that even casual conversation can offer suspicious sounding information if you reveal a greater-than-the-average-bear grasp on relevant bits of the picture.

examples:

Gallant: The guy pulled a gun on me, so I knocked it out of his hand without thinking and popped him one.

Goofus: He trained a sidearm on me a bit too closely, so I palmed the slide and pushed it out of battery, then rotated it against his thumb to break his grip, then pulled it away from him and threw it behind me before giving him a brachial stun. Surprises me that I remember that.

Cop: what branch of military were you in?

g/g: Why do you ask?

One gives pause, one does not.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89

Yes, I understand the SCOTUS ruling, and that the Miranda Warning is named after the Miranda v. Arizona court ruling, but that doesn't mean that the ruling was not based on the 5th amendment (and the 6th, but that wasn't my argument to which you responded). Any simple amount of research will show you that.


...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself...


This is part of the 5th amendment--which you quoted and shared with us--and then claimed that my assessment of the 5th amendment applying to the 'why' behind the Miranda Warning as being wrong. But the reality is that the entire reason that 'we have the right to remain silent' is specifically because of the above quoted portion of the 5th amendment. It does not only protect you while testifying in court. I've spent plenty of my adult life dealing professionally with a court of law and its procedures and evidence, so I'm okay with trusting myself on this one.

I fully understand that, technically, the 5th amendment only protects someone explicitly while in police custody or at legal proceedings, but anything that you say that is self-incriminating to a police officer while not in their custody, and then later deny during an interrogation or court proceeding becomes hearsay, which is inadmissible in court. Period. (yes, unless you are on a recording saying it, or what have you, but I'm speaking in general)

So, while you are technically correct in your claim that the Miranda Warning is ONLY necessary once detained (and, subsequently, interrogated while in custody), the fact still remains that there are myriad successful defenses that can be used if a statement made prior to the warning being given to a defendant/suspect is attempted to be used as evidence in a legal proceeding.

Maybe I wasn't making myself clear, although after re-reading what I said, it seems pretty clear to me. I did specifically note that I was talking about information being self-incriminating, and that's an important portion of the Miranda Warning and the 5th amendment.



posted on Nov, 4 2016 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker
sounds like good advice to me......now



posted on Nov, 6 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Yes, I agree to an extent. Which is why I stated earlier that if someone does inadvertently say something incriminating, then they should immediately ask for a lawyer (whom if they are good should be able to make said testimony 'go away'). As for hear-say, well today that almost doesn't exist. My recommendation is to always assume you are being recorded both with video and audio when dealing with cops.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89

I can agree with that assumption. And on the flip side, LEOs should assume the same.



posted on Nov, 7 2016 @ 08:31 AM
link   
Yup, and we have the same problem with LEOs as we do with everyone else. There are simply those who either don't listen, don't know, or don't care.



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89

I have a healthy distrust of the system, and police overstepping their formidable amount of power. Unless the police office is your uncle, don't talk to the police.


Yes, I agree to an extent. Which is why I stated earlier that if someone does inadvertently say something incriminating, then they should immediately ask for a lawyer (whom if they are good should be able to make said testimony 'go away'). As for hear-say, well today that almost doesn't exist. My recommendation is to always assume you are being recorded both with video and audio when dealing with cops



posted on Nov, 18 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: seasonal




I have a healthy distrust of the system, and police overstepping their formidable amount of power. Unless the police office is your uncle, don't talk to the police.


That's the idea, let's do exactly what the government wants us to and turn America (a high trust society) into the same type of failed nation state as our enemies' (low trust societies).



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 08:16 AM
link   
a reply to: JDeLattre89

So if you are in the parking lot at your favorite minimart, and a police officer rolls up in his/her patrol car. And says good afternoon, what do you say?

I say, "good after noon"
Cop, "hey how long have you been int the area?"
I say "have a good after noon" and go to my car.

Anything other than a respectful interchange is unexceptionable.



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: JDeLattre89

So if you are in the parking lot at your favorite minimart, and a police officer rolls up in his/her patrol car. And says good afternoon, what do you say?


"Good day to you" is always a good start, followed by "I do not choose to have a voluntary interaction with a LEO at this time, goodbye"



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Very True, always, always be respectful. If need be get pointed, but just enough to let the police know you know your rights and are not afraid to use them.




"Good day to you" is always a good start, followed by "I do not choose to have a voluntary interaction with a LEO at this time, goodbye"



posted on Nov, 19 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Bedlam

Very True, always, always be respectful. If need be get pointed, but just enough to let the police know you know your rights and are not afraid to use them.




"Good day to you" is always a good start, followed by "I do not choose to have a voluntary interaction with a LEO at this time, goodbye"


Truthfully, it sort of depends on the attitude of the cop. I have had many fairly enjoyable interactions with LEOs that went well. When it DOESN'T go well, it's generally because they're acting like authoritative assholes when they have no cause, or they're obviously looking for someone to tag with a problem they've got.

I will cooperate fully and with no bs right up to the point they pop off with an unreasonable demand or a stupid comment that makes it clear they're looking for someone to blame for something. Then it'll get entertaining. I do not brook stupid crap from locals. To be fair, it very rarely happens. To also be fair, I take total advantage when it does. Some snarks are boojums, you see.

eta: Truthfully, it's only got to that twice in my entire life. The other times were either ok, enjoyable, resolvable, or explainable. I don't try to be a butthole. However, I don't suffer fools gladly. That said, "I want your supervisor on scene, and by the way, I require you to verify my identity as a federal officer, here's my badge" generally ends the interaction. Only once did it get past that, and I suspect that culero still has some sore nalgas.

The other mis-interactions were generally understandable, especially if I tried really hard. I have had some jackass try to pop off about me not pulling out in front of an 18 wheeler when he commanded it, or asking why I was at work at 0200, or why I was coming out of a secure installation in the middle of the night, or what have you. I can sort of see them being angsty, but in truth, it's not your business. The only one that really got the blunt end was the one that made us pick up someone's household garbage with our bare hands and then said "I'm the law and I gave you an order, so it's a lawful order", and he regrets that still, I suspect.
edit on 19-11-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
26
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join