Legal Experts: Even TOTALLY INNOCENT People Should Avoid Talking to Law Enforcement

reply to post by th3dudeabides


The videos were very very good, first was best. Thank you for posting the vid response. I truly never thought that by telling the truth that you could screw yourself. Little did I know! The first vid is definitely a must watch.

reply to post by Eryiedes

I didn`t see anything about him in the article posted. Just a handfull of small-time lawyers that think that people should live in fear of the police. In other words just sensationalism to cause fear of `big gubberment` (caused by the lawyers saying this, not necessarily the Op).

reply to post by g146541

When your working at a gas station or restaruant that gets robbed you really have no choice to talk to the investigating officials otherwise your employer may think you took the money and have you arrested if you don`t make a statement to the police.
Last time I got attacked and robbed on the street the police were actually sympathetic and gave me numbers and pamphlets if I needed for victim support lines as I was VERY scared of fighting back at the time as you always hear of if you defend yourself your attacker will say that YOU attacked THEM (the actual attacker) and the police always taking the attacker`s side as they usually have more dammage on them. Last time that happened they told me that I DID have the right to defend myself, and IF they pull any weapon on you you have the right to defend yourself by ANY means necessary. I always hear about incidents like I was scared of comming from the states mostly though; so it`s probably different over here somewhat for talking to officials.

reply to post by nergalbanda1


Say nothing, or say, "I can't recall, I'm so shaken up right now".
Cops just want a conviction, many don't care if it is the right one.
If you work at a gas station or restaurant the cameras should be able to tell the story quite well without you.
If there are no cameras, tough luck for the cheap owner who didn't invest a measly couple of hundred bucks to protect his or her employees.

nergalbanda1
reply to post by Eryiedes

 

I didn`t see anything about him in the article posted. Just a handfull of small-time lawyers that think that people should live in fear of the police. In other words just sensationalism to cause fear of `big gubberment` (caused by the lawyers saying this, not necessarily the Op).

So what you are trying to say that when the law professor says and I quote:

"Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statements to the police under any circumstances. Watts v. Indiana 338 US 49.59. (1949)"

That this is not Jackson?
Do you not realize that THESE are Justice Robert Jacksons OWN words or are you just trying to troll the thread?

-Peace-

reply to post by g146541

Ah but if the cameras do show what happened and you say `I don`t know` or `I`m too shaken up` they COULD claim that you were willfully withholding evidence from a crimescene and charge you anyways. As with anything just keep your wits about you and your judgement of character about you. Yes do as you stated if you sense that they are going to be pricks; but if there are operating cameras better be ready for police who are like that to come after you anyways BECAUSE of whithholding info; possibly charging you for being an acomplice with the perpetrators.

reply to post by Eryiedes

Ok I must have missed that statement by the professor but that was just in passing and NONE of those videos actually had him (Robert H. Jackson) stating that line in person. From what I gather from that trial when (and if) he actually stated that he ment that actual citizens could not defend themselves in court and therefore needed a lawyer present and no matter the incident was about people would have to pay for a lawyer`s services and was rather self-serving in that way. That is how I understand what he (Jackson) ment.
No I`m not trolling the thread; this is just how I see it.

nergalbanda1
reply to post by Eryiedes

 

Ok I must have missed that statement by the professor but that was just in passing and NONE of those videos actually had him (Robert H. Jackson) stating that line in person. From what I gather from that trial when (and if) he actually stated that he ment that actual citizens could not defend themselves in court and therefore needed a lawyer present and no matter the incident was about people would have to pay for a lawyer`s services and was rather self-serving in that way. That is how I understand what he (Jackson) ment.
No I`m not trolling the thread; this is just how I see it.

Yes and I am beginning to wonder if you even watched the videos at all.
(If you did it was with eyes closed and ears blocked)
You have missed obvious facts with HINTS on multiple occasions.
You wish to turn it into a court issue and not a cop issue?
Now you want to give us your opinion on the facts when they are presented in black & white for all to see.
If you AREN'T trolling you could have fooled me.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes

You are the one who told me to look into that court case and from what I gathered from what he said was that you should`t talk to any police or official without a lawyer present as a self serving means to keep lawyers in business and get paid for every little conversation. You are not even allowed to say hello to an officer without a lawyer present so that they could get their legal fees with every conversation according to his statement which is ridiculous.
Just because someone disagrees with you or your thread is no reason to accuse them of trolling by the way.

Cop: "good morning, its a nice day out isn't it?"

Me: "I'm not legally obligated to answer that question"

reply to post by nergalbanda1


You are most certainly a troll.
You misrepresent the perfectly clear.
You inflate the ridiculous and pose questions which answer themselves.
You wish to obfuscate the truth...go ahead...I for one will not stop you.
You wish to talk to the police...go ahead...I for one will not stop you.
It's obvious by your questions that either you are against the OP, didn't watch the OP or turned it on and then completely ignored it.
Perhaps you mean to tell me you're the ONLY one who watched the and video doesn't get it.
Unlikely unless you have a severe learning disability.
Whatever your justification, feel free to troll here all you wish but I will no longer be feeding you or feuling your legal misrepresentations.

-Enjoy your police state-

reply to post by Eryiedes

Just re-watched the videos (read that: RE-WATCHED) And am still comvinced that anyone advocating this nonsense is advocating cash grabs by lawyers. You want to throw your money at a lawyer just to have a conversation, be my guest.
No I seem to be the only person who these self-serving lawyers have not pulled the wool over my eyes here.
I re-iterate that calliing someone a troll for disagreeing with you is no reason for such an accusation.

reply to post by Eryiedes

Insulting one`s intelligence and accusing them of trolling is a pretty lame fallback for not being able to put any valid point forward.

Morning,

Here we have another liberty minded citizen who knows the law and his rights but this time in Ohio.
EVERYONE should have a card like this on them if they intend to get in a vehicle whether as a passenger or driver...and maybe even if they just intend to walk down a street as is the case with unconstitutional "stop & frisks".



Notice in this video that the cards specific wording (read out in the beginning of the video) stops the officers dead in their tracks. These officers apparently knew the law too and refrained from intimidation tactics as is all too common in these refusal videos.
Not once but twice in the same evening.
At least some out there are finally getting it.
A right not excersized is a right lost.

-Peace-

reply to post by nergalbanda1

Now, reading is a must. The more, the better, and more means a wide range of books, opinions, and writings. First, Ayn Rand posited in her writings, that the government would enact numerous laws. The actual motive was to make you feel, that no matter how innocent your actions and thoughts. You would always feel that you had violated some law and deserved to be punished. Second, Robert A. Heinlein in his posthumous novel For Us The Living offered, in 1939, an amendment to the U. S. Constitution. It forbid the state to enact laws forbidding any citizen from committing acts that did not, in fact, damage other citizens. Corporations were specifically excluded from the definition of citizen. The damage had to be physical and real, not emotional or violation of custom, tradition, etc. Last; Always Question Authority!

reply to post by Brandyjack

Are you refering to actual articles that these authors wrote or are you refering to their fiction? I`d like to take alook at the articles that they wrote if possible (like just provide links or some such) but if it`s their fictional novels, it IS fiction that the wrote of POSSIBLE futures as well as their controversial political stances.

Morning,

As Sonny & Cher once sang: "And the beat goes on..."
Here we have some advice on dealing with the police coming from an ex-NYPD detective.
Take it for what it's worth or ignore it.
The choice, as always, is yours.



His advice?
Don't talk to cops

-Peace-

darkbake
This is not a joke. I'm fighting a legal case right now where the police ended up searching our house because they tricked us into giving them permission, and the warrant that they used to get into the house in the first place was one to arrest one of my room-mates for not turning in paperwork, we think that they were attempting to do a raid on our house, but found hardly anything in it -

My attorney filed for discovery in the case, and the police report had factually incorrect data, some of the evidence the police officers took ended up missing, I was cited for owning contraband that I had never claimed, and the police audio (which by law was supposed to be on) was "off" due to "low battery power."

-----

Not only that, I have been pulled over around 10 times in the past year for strange reasons, one time, I was even given a test to see if I was drunk, which I passed, because I was sober.

-----

My aunt is a defense attorney, and I asked her about the Federal Agencies and State Police being trained to re-write how they got information from roving N.S.A. wire-taps (which violate the 4th amendment because they do not target a specific person or place, and use no warrant to begin with) and she said you have to file for discovery -

However, based on my legal case, the police lie on their discovery reports.

This is not a joke. And at this point, all of us have violated one law or another, as the O.P. stated.Even if we haven't, just because we are on A.T.S. we might be on some kind of watch list.

The police could also quite literally even try to entrap any one of us at any time, when we would much rather be left alone and not be bothered by pesky criminals trying to get us to do illegal things for them so they can arrest us.

edit on 07pmThu, 07 Nov 2013 21:10:12 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

Fine example of how laws can be bent and worked around with the proper knowledge. It happens all the time.

Cops aren't afraid to beat you the faq down first before questioning because they know there are possible ways, reasons and excuses to get out of any situation against them. And there will always be public support for police because police are police.

reply to post by nergalbanda1
Obviously, you have not read Robert A. Heinlein, Grand Master of Science Fiction. Suggest
you start with "For Us The Living," then proceed to the Future History novels and stories such as "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," "Farmer on the Sky," Methuselah Children, for starters. You may be surprise at the ideas and events, he wrote into those stories. Even the Juvenile Fiction is interesting for its background to the adventure.