Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: Don't talk to the police!

  1. #1
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966

    Don't talk to the police!

    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  2. #2
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Here's the thing about 'just show them your license and go on with your life'...

    When Officer Friendly conducts a field interview and interrogates a subject (even if the subject isn't actually suspected of a crime At This Time, he's going to write down what he's found because no one can really be expected to remember every tiny detail for weeks and weeks. Since we no longer use quill pens and parchment it's quite likely that this "writing" will be in a portable computer which will remember every teeny detail for months and years.

    Since Officer Friendly cares about his fellow officers and since he never knows what item of minutia will solve the next big case, he's going to share whatever he's found with his fellow officers. That means his "Field Interview Notes" will most likely go to a searchable database.

    Suppose Officer Friendly makes a note that he encountered a gentleman dressed in a white shirt, blue jeans and carrying a Glock .40. Two months down the road a bank is robbed by someone carrying a Glock .40 and dressed in a white shirt and blue jeans. Guess who is now a "Person of Interest"? Conveniently, they have your home address.

    You're in the system, and once you're in you are never, ever, getting out.


    If you are going to carry unnecessary identification when you don't have to (and I only carry mine when purchasing alcohol, buying airline tickets, etc) then I highly recommend everyone get a Passport Card. It's government issued ID and it doesn't reveal anything Officer Friendly doesn't need to know, such as your address.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 11-05-2012 at 10:51 AM.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    LEO... naive...or troll.
    begin rant.
    You sound like a cop ( you have cop hair).
    You sound like you actually believe the "serve and protect" koolaid
    attempted antagonizing.

    Quote Originally Posted by SixGunCowboy View Post
    I can counter that one. Because a person who was never at the scene can't be a "person of interest."Yes you can
    Besides, they could easily use the video evidence to prove that I wasn't there at the time. What video
    Said suspect may be dressed in the same clothes and carrying an identical gun, but be a totally different person. Must be, cause I am not a BG
    Most criminals are dumb these days, and don't even bother to cover their faces when they commit a robbery anyway. They may have my address, but if I am not there, they cannot legally charge me with anything.So you will know they are coming and hide until they are gone
    There are ways that 'criminalistics' can prove or disprove a person's whereabouts at the time of said incident. And you still end up with a gun in the gut

    To carry my I.D. Is also a way Police have to rule me out as an initial suspect. And a way to verify that I don't have a criminal record.
    I am NOT breaking the law. It is the LEOs job to verify I am breaking the law (RAS of a crime). It is unreasonable to expect and Honest Man to have to go around proving he is Honest.
    end rant
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  4. #4
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by SixGunCowboy View Post
    If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the law.
    You really believe no innocent person has ever been imprisoned unjustly?
    Wow. I got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
    Go ahead and voluntarily flush your 4A rights down the toilet. Not me baby!
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  5. #5
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,270
    Times are tough these days and a brief detention/arrest, even wrongly, could have negative affects that the vast majority of citizens will not risk occurring. Who can blame them. If a citizen chooses to submit to extra legal LE demands that is their prerogative. I choose to compel LE to follow the law as it is written.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  6. #6
    Regular Member mspgunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ellisville, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by SixGunCowboy View Post
    But, if you're not doing anything to break the law in the first place, the Police would have NO reason to question you at all anyway. And if they ask for a drivers license, they are simply trying to determine whether a person carrying a weapon has a record or not that they need to be aware of. If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the law.
    Would like to believe this but............ Some would make something up, or trick you into saying something really stupid. You have the right to remain silent, use it. It is you r best defense. Anything you say can and WILL be used against you, nothing you say will be used for your defense.............. say nothing to the police.
    If you pull it, you use it. If you pull it and you don't use it, you've done some thing wrong and you might not get another chance. Think about it before you pack it!
    I worked 24/7 for 2A OC rights! Don't like what I did? Try it yourself, it was my full time job!
    Certified NRA Range Safety Officer - RSO

  7. #7
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    1) I can counter that one. Because a person who was never at the scene can't be a "person of interest."
    2) Besides, they could easily use the video evidence to prove that I wasn't there at the time.
    3) Said suspect may be dressed in the same clothes and carrying an identical gun, but be a totally different person.
    4) Most criminals are dumb these days, and don't even bother to cover their faces when they commit a robbery anyway.
    5) They may have my address, but if I am not there, they cannot legally charge me with anything.
    6) There are ways that 'criminalistics' can prove or disprove a person's whereabouts at the time of said incident.
    7) To carry my I.D. Is also a way Police have to rule me out as an initial suspect. And a way to verify that I don't have a criminal record.

    1) That is so misinformed that it's almost comical, but because forensics is NOT an exact science, because witnesses can be mistaken, and because the police do NOT know who did what until they interrogate all suspects.... anyone, even someone with absolutely no connection to a crime can be a "person of interest." The only legal requirement is 'mere suspicion' a much lower standard than "reasonable suspicion" to detain or "probable cause" to make an arrest.

    2) What video evidence? Not every geographic location in the country has 24/7 video surveillance, and not every video has sufficient resolution to clearly make out facial features.

    3) How do the police know he's a completely different person until they interrogate you? And if they believe they have sufficient evidence, they can make an arrest. You can always be un-arrested and have the charges nolle prossed. You STILL have an arrest record even if it's been expunged. Do you really think the states can tell the Federal Government to expunge it's record of your arrest??

    4) Which means that all they need is a superficial resemblance to some other person. And unless the police take a picture of every person they Field Interview, then a face that looks completely different that yours is completely irrelevant.

    5) You haven't committed any crimes, why should you be expecting the police to come looking for you? What are you gonna do, never go home because the police might be there looking for you because they suspect you of committing a crime you obviously know nothing about because you didn't commit it?

    6) Can you prove where you were between 4:30 and 7:15PM on March 17th of this year? Not everyone has an alibi for their whereabouts 24/7/365.

    7) You have no responsibility to the police to prove your innocence. You have no responsibility to carry identification except for certain specified occasions. You have no responsibility to carry a license unless you are performing a licensed activity.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by SixGunCowboy View Post
    But, if you're not doing anything to break the law in the first place, the Police would have NO reason to question you at all anyway. And if they ask for a drivers license, they are simply trying to determine whether a person carrying a weapon has a record or not that they need to be aware of. If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the law.
    Sixgun, you may wanna take a look at This Thread before making such a blanket statement.

    A detention, an arrest, and 13 hours spent in jail as a result of absolutely No Criminal Conduct.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SixGunCowboy View Post
    But, if you're not doing anything to break the law in the first place, the Police would have NO reason to question you at all anyway. And if they ask for a drivers license, they are simply trying to determine whether a person carrying a weapon has a record or not that they need to be aware of. If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the law.

    1. The Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is intended to protect the innocent. Three cases all say the same thing. They say it in different ways; they elaborate on it differently. But, they all say it expressly or arrive easily at that conclusion: Miranda vs Arizona, Ullman vs US, Ohio vs Reiner. To say otherwise is to say the Founders included the 5A right against self-incrimination only to make it harder for government to do its job with no benefit to good guys.

    2. A non-profit group called the Innocence Project has obtained the exonerations and release from prison of roughly 250 people. Mainly by pushing through for DNA testing with updated technology that wasn't available at the conviction. These are cases where the DNA evidence proves beyond any doubt that these wrongly convicted people could not possibly have committed the crimes for which they were imprisoned. Now, if the DNA evidence proves the accused could not possibly have committed the crime, how on earth did the cops convince themselves they had the right guy? Meaning, what sort of shabby, incomplete, fallacious logic were the police using? What uncertain indications did the police twist into solid certainty to justify caging another human being? Remember, after the updated DNA testing, there is no doubt these people, some of who were on death row, could not possibly have committed the crime.

    3. Professor James Duane of Regent University Law School gives a list of very good reasons not to talk to police in his video. Among other things, under the rules of evidence, nothing you say can be used to help you at trial. If police wrongly conclude you are their target, or you mistakenly committed an offense you didn't realize was an offense, or you broke a malum prohibitum* law intentionally, or even if the cop just doesn't like what you are doing and is out to get you, nothing you tell the cop--nothing--can be used in your favor.

    4. If being investigated, the police are not your friend. They are literally your legal adversary.

    5. The Blue Wall of Silence proves that even good police will protect, and at least enable, the bad ones. You have no way to know whether the cop confronting you is a good cop or a bad cop at the inception of the encounter. And, if you talk to them, you may not find out its a bad cop until it is too late. And, nice-ness and politeness are no sure indicators. Some of us can still recall the police dashcam tape where two cops were oh-so polite to an OCer; but back at the patrol car, one cop said to the other, "There has got to be something we can get him for."

    6. It took almost half a millenium--roughly 475 years--for the right against self-incrimination to be recognized in English law. I am counting from the roots in King Henry (II?) in the late 1100's to John Lilburne's final aquittal in about 1650. Along the way countless people were imprisoned, fined, exiled, forced out of the clergy for standing on their conscience, and, during the reign of Bloody Mary Tudor a little under 300 people were burned at the stake! This right was very expensive to obtain.

    7. Since the Founding, literally over a million Americans have died defending our rights.


    I am not going to spit on the graves of those Americans, nor the graves of all those who suffered before them, by waiving one of those rights and thereby also place myself in unnecessary legal jeopardy, risking my freedom and finances.

    "No offense officer, I know you're just doing your job, but I don't care to answer any questions without my attorney."

    "You said, 'cooperation', officer? Oh, yes. I am a patriotic American. I will cooperate with you to the full extent required by our laws, sir." [followed by silence]



    The court cases and video mentioned above are linked here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ources-Here!!&


    * Malum prohibitum means bad because it is prohibited. Bad just because government said so. Contrast with malum in se which means bad in itself. For example, theft, murder, and rape are bad in their own right. Whereas criticizing the government was bad just because the government said so under the federalist Sedition Act during John Adams' administration.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    111
    I am afraid many of you have completely misunderstood what I had to say.. Although the Police may have my address which they don't.. But if I was not at the scene of the crime, then I cannot be considered a suspect. I was not meaning to to say that i was not home.. And I AM NO CRIMINAL. I do not have any record that I know of, and have committed no crimes. So, no crime has been committed.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    111
    And for the record, on March 17th of this year, I was at my job. I am a working citizen. I am not a criminal so stop treating me like one.

  12. #12
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Fallschirmjäger View Post
    SNIP Not everyone has an alibi for their whereabouts 24/7/365.
    (chuckle) I hope nobody has an alibi for their whereabouts.

    Alibi means "he was somewhere else". So, if he has an alibi for his whereabouts, it means he wasn't where he was.

    (No offense, I know that was a little unfair because alibi has been misused so much it has basically come to mean something else. But, I still get a chuckle and couldn't resist. )
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by SixGunCowboy View Post
    And for the record, on March 17th of this year, I was at my job. I am a working citizen. I am not a criminal so stop treating me like one.
    Let's suppose that I'm a police detective who suspects you of robbing a bank... Do you Really I'm just gonna take your word that you were at work? Do you have witnesses willing to testify under oath that you were at work? Is there a video recording?
    What were you doing at work on a Sunday?
    Why weren't you in church like all good citizens?

    @Citizen
    Thanks I've been on a police story marathon lately, so I'm using that as my alibi for making the mistake.
    Funny how whenever they have a 'suspect' they seem to wind up breaking in doors in that series. I guess it really IS true that NYPD has a special team dedicated to replacing broken in doors.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 11-05-2012 at 03:17 PM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    111
    I am being truthful. I am not now and have never been a criminal. I will play no more of these hypothetical games since somehow this whole thing got turned around on me.. You all have taught me a new meaning for disrespect in this forum.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,929
    Quote Originally Posted by SixGunCowboy View Post
    But if I was not at the scene of the crime, then I cannot be considered a suspect.
    Yeah, you go ahead and explain that to the cops if they ever investigate you.

    And no one here has accused you of being a criminal, so calm down, sugar.

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by SixGunCowboy View Post
    I am being truthful. I am not now and have never been a criminal. I will play no more of these hypothetical games since somehow this whole thing got turned around on me.. You all have taught me a new meaning for disrespect in this forum.
    I carefully looked over the thread. I cannot see any harsh, or even disrespectful treatment except post #3, "LEO...naive...or troll."

    The thread is just giving out information to counter your position. None even comes close to common internet verbal abuse. Even the comment in post #3 is very, very mild by internet standards. Even this forum for that matter.

    Please try to be a little tougher. Just because people offer counter-arguments does not mean they've turned on you. It just means in this case that a bunch of members have even more information than you used to have and are passing it along to you and other readers. Yes, other readers are part of the equation. If you look at the number of views of pretty much any thread, you will see that a lot more people view the thread than are actually posting. Many of us are posting information for all readers, not just one thread participant.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Quote Originally Posted by SixGunCowboy
    But if I was not at the scene of the crime, then I cannot be considered a suspect.
    Quote Originally Posted by PistolPackingMomma View Post
    Yeah, you go ahead and explain that to the cops if they ever investigate you.
    And no one here has accused you of being a criminal, so calm down, sugar.
    I'm still wondering how (if say, some witness says "I saw Cowboy there"), that the police are supposed to know he wasn't even at the scene of the crime until they interrogate him to find out where he was at the time. The police don't really have 24/7 locations on everyone in the state (despite what you see on TV.)

    Criminals, except for maybe Zorro and the Riddler, usually don't leave calling cards at the scene of their crimes, in fact, they usually attempt to conceal that they were ever at the scene at all. The police don't know who Wasn't at the scene and that's not their job; their job is to determine who Was at the scene and who can't be proven to be somewhere else at the time.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 11-05-2012 at 03:50 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    ....snip....


    * Malum prohibitum means bad because it is prohibited. Bad just because government said so. Contrast with malum in se which means bad in itself. For example, theft, murder, and rape are bad in their own right. Whereas criticizing the government was bad just because the government said so under the federalist Sedition Act during John Adams' administration.
    ^^^
    Wasn't this a conversation in the movie, Legally Blonde?
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Philipsburg, Montana
    Posts
    3,135
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I carefully looked over the thread. I cannot see any harsh, or even disrespectful treatment except post #3, "LEO...naive...or troll."
    That was me. No disrespect meant or intended.
    "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference .When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." -- George Washington

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    ^^^
    Wasn't this a conversation in the movie, Legally Blonde?
    For as much as I admire Reese Witherspoon's work, I never saw the movie. Thus, the joke went right over my head. Elaborate, please.


    (Note that earlier today I couldn't remember then name of the law school professor whose name and video I've cited several dozen times in 5A disussions; but I instantly remembered Reese Witherspoon, who I haven't seen in a film for at least two years, and whose film Legally Blonde I never saw at all! Hey! Maybe I don't need Geritol after all! )
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    (chuckle) I hope nobody has an alibi for their whereabouts.

    Alibi means "he was somewhere else". So, if he has an alibi for his whereabouts, it means he wasn't where he was.

    (No offense, I know that was a little unfair because alibi has been misused so much it has basically come to mean something else. But, I still get a chuckle and couldn't resist. )

    Found this....

    Word Origin & History

    alibi
    1743, "the plea of having been elsewhere when an action tookplace," from L. alibi "elsewhere," locative of alius "(an)other" (seealias).
    The weakened sense of "excuse" is attested since 1912, but technically any proof of innocence that doesn't involve being"elsewhere" is an excuse, not an alibi.




    Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
    Cite This Source



    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  22. #22
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    Thanks for the confirmation.

    I found out about it from an interview with Antonin Scalia. There is a website for law students or something. Several SCOTUS justices gave interviews on legal writing to the website operators. In Scalia's interview he expressed disappointment with lack of writing and vocabulary skill. The example he used was to explain what alibi really means. He made a very good point that the primary tool of the trade for lawyers is words. I wish I knew where to find that interview again; all the interviews were interesting.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  23. #23
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    For as much as I admire Reese Witherspoon's work, I never saw the movie. Thus, the joke went right over my head. Elaborate, please.


    (Note that earlier today I couldn't remember then name of the law school professor whose name and video I've cited several dozen times in 5A disussions; but I instantly remembered Reese Witherspoon, who I haven't seen in a film for at least two years, and whose film Legally Blonde I never saw at all! Hey! Maybe I don't need Geritol after all! )

    One scene, the professor is asking a question of the students in law school, if your client was charged with a Malum prohibitum or malum in se, which one, as an attorney would you rather defend....or something to that extent.
    Last edited by Redbaron007; 11-05-2012 at 04:22 PM.
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

  24. #24
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbaron007 View Post
    One scene, the professor is asking a question of the students in law school, if your client was charged with a Malum prohibitum or malum in se, which one, as an attorney would you rather defend....or something to that extent.
    Thanks. You saw this coming, didn't you? ------> Now, I just want to see the movie.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Redbaron007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,637
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Thanks. You saw this coming, didn't you? ------> Now, I just want to see the movie.
    Don't have my glasses on....saw what?
    "I can live for two weeks on a good compliment."
    ~Mark Twain

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •