Don't talk to the police!

Citizen said:

(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. )

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Redbaron007 said:

Found this....

Click to expand...

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.

Citizen said:

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! )

Click to expand...

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.

Redbaron007 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thanks. You saw this coming, didn't you? ------> Now, I just want to see the movie.

Citizen said:

Thanks. You saw this coming, didn't you? ------> Now, I just want to see the movie.

Click to expand...

Don't have my glasses on....saw what?

mspgunner said:

http://thegunshowradio.com/defense/...rds-can-or-cant-be-used-against-you-in-court/

Click to expand...

Too bad the web article did not cite the legal sources underlying the book being quoted. Assuming the book did offer cites.

The web article cites the book, but not the legal sources used by the books author.

Dang it.

Dee Wampler, the attorney for the book referenced, is a local defense attorney.....very good at it I might add, who is a very conservative man. He has produced several books. Here's a link to them. I don't see the specific book referenced being available on line.

Redbaron007 said:

Dee Wampler, the attorney for the book referenced, is a local defense attorney.....very good at it I might add, who is a very conservative man. He has produced several books. Here's a link to them. I don't see the specific book referenced being available on line.

Click to expand...

Thanks, that does help.

I'm not being very bright, anyway. I can always wiki the points I'm interested in and follow the cites given there. Wiki may not be totally trustworthy, but their legal articles usually have cites that you can chase to see for yourself. Been a pretty good starting point.

This is perhaps one of the most widley seen video on the subject, very long indeed, but tells a lot about your rights. There is a mess of this stuff on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86XmQra5WMU&feature=related

I've known Dee for 30 years, and went to HS with his daughter, he's a top notch defense lawyer and a fine man.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

Wow claims of disrespect and abuse before I even got here? Someone call Grapeshot and tell him I didn't do it!!!!

One key element that has been left out Cowboy that I would like you to consider.

It is none of the governments business where you are or were, the police officer is indeed requesting that information FOR the government and a possible case against you, NO OTHER REASON.

Now no disrespect at all, you have stated you were at home minding your own business which sounds good. What if the rape or bank robbery he is questioning about was only a block away from your house? You just put yourself NEAR the crime scene that you had no idea had even happened. Now without any regard for your opinion or your innocence, that officer may well have probable cause, will certainly have met RAS to haul you in for additional efforts at proving your guilt.

It is minor things like that while seeming completely unimportant that can put you in a place you do not wish to be. You can ask pretty much any lawyer worth having defend you and you will find 100% of them will tell you not to ever speak to police without them present. It is as simple as having your representative at the discussion just like the government has theirs, the police officer.

LMTD said:

Wow claims of disrespect and abuse before I even got here? Someone call Grapeshot and tell him I didn't do it!!!!

One key element that has been left out Cowboy that I would like you to consider.

It is none of the governments business where you are or were, the police officer is indeed requesting that information FOR the government and a possible case against you, NO OTHER REASON.

Now no disrespect at all, you have stated you were at home minding your own business which sounds good. What if the rape or bank robbery he is questioning about was only a block away from your house? You just put yourself NEAR the crime scene that you had no idea had even happened. Now without any regard for your opinion or your innocence, that officer may well have probable cause, will certainly have met RAS to haul you in for additional efforts at proving your guilt.

It is minor things like that while seeming completely unimportant that can put you in a place you do not wish to be. You can ask pretty much any lawyer worth having defend you and you will find 100% of them will tell you not to ever speak to police without them present. It is as simple as having your representative at the discussion just like the government has theirs, the police officer.

Click to expand...

This is a good point. I like how you put it. Inasmuch as the prosecutor is the top law-enforcement officer, the cop is the prosecutor's representative.

LMTD said:

Wow claims of disrespect and abuse before I even got here? Someone call Grapeshot and tell him I didn't do it!!!!

One key element that has been left out Cowboy that I would like you to consider.

It is none of the governments business where you are or were, the police officer is indeed requesting that information FOR the government and a possible case against you, NO OTHER REASON.

Now no disrespect at all, you have stated you were at home minding your own business which sounds good. What if the rape or bank robbery he is questioning about was only a block away from your house? You just put yourself NEAR the crime scene that you had no idea had even happened. Now without any regard for your opinion or your innocence, that officer may well have probable cause, will certainly have met RAS to haul you in for additional efforts at proving your guilt.

It is minor things like that while seeming completely unimportant that can put you in a place you do not wish to be. You can ask pretty much any lawyer worth having defend you and you will find 100% of them will tell you not to ever speak to police without them present. It is as simple as having your representative at the discussion just like the government has theirs, the police officer.

Click to expand...

Just to elaborate, not contradict.

The red quoted comment is related to the argument that talking to police helps them exclude you as a suspect. HA! Cops don't need to exclude anybody as a suspect. The 4th Amendment sets boundaries. If the cop cannot develop reasonable suspicion or probable cause, that is the end of it. He can go on suspecting all he wants. And, there is nothing--nothing--that prevents him from suspecting someone else after his investigation of you is stopped by the 4A and 5A, or his buddies suspecting and investigating someone else while you are busy exercising your rights.

In fact, if you are innocent, ending his investigation of you by politely but firmly exercising your rights is the fastest way to get him freed up for looking elsewhere for his suspect. There is no law of the universe that says the police officer is solely responsible for determining you are not the guilty party, or that you have to help him make that determination. You knowing whether you are innocent is part of the picture. You don't have to prove it to him. Just the opposite. He has to get enough to show reasonable suspicion, or having that, enough to show probable cause: and do it within the confines of the 4A and 5A. Both of which were adopted knowing full well that some criminals getting away is part of the price of freedom.

So, in a nutshell, the argument that says talking to police helps the police exclude you as a suspect and helps them catch the real suspect is really just an attempt to subvert the 4A and 5A.

OC for ME said:

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.

Click to expand...

I sure as hell don't want to show my ID, they find out I'm under 21 suddenly I'm accused of stealing or illegally purchasing my handgun.

Citizen said:

In fact, if you are innocent, ending his investigation of you by politely but firmly exercising your rights is the fastest way to get him freed up for looking elsewhere for his suspect. There is no law of the universe that says the police officer is solely responsible for determining you are not the guilty party, or that you have to help him make that determination.

Click to expand...

Same non-contradiction clause

I travel for work, it takes me to one building that has about 800 folks in it on any given day. only 3% are white and if we assume 50/50 male vs female that leaves it down to 12 white males. The neighborhood is made of a similar demographic so if a white guy does a crime near that building on a given day, from any cop's perspective seeing me on the street, there is about 10% chance I am the criminal he is looking for at the time. If you bump it u[ with over 30, average build average height, it goes up even more, yet I haven't done a thing and the officer is JUST DOING HIS JOB, not being a bad cop.

Engaging in any conversation with him about an activity that I am totally clueless about has perils. Again, the harmless question can be the worst. Cop:"Hey man, where do you get something good to eat around here, I just got assigned to this zone? Me:"well we go to Harry's deli a lot, it is just down a block or two." Cop: Oh, I thought they closed, i went there years ago" Me: Oh no, I was there Friday last week"

Boom harmless until you find out that a girl was raped by a white guy over 30 300 yards from Harry's last Friday. I would have a VERY real legal problem. I have stated I know the area because I go there a lot and I was there on the day it happened. I was being investigated and never even knew it and I may well be on the way to jail if other supporting evidence that has nothing to do with me exist and a good and truthful officer is just doing his job.

instead of continuing to investigate, the entire focus is going to shift to PROVING my guilt instead of searching for the bad guy.

I can claim innocence forever, lots of folks do, including pretty much every bad guy out there and if anyone thinks they can talk themselves out of it, they are mistaken. It ain't tv, the cops do not always win and innocent persons do get themselves into trouble a lot. Even if everything turns out wonderful and I retain my freedom, I am still going to be out 10-30k in coin and have no path what so ever to recover any of it, it is simply the price of talking to the police.

For what it is worth, that last sentence quoted is actually the opposite. By training cops are indeed investigating the WORST until satisfied otherwise. They start with the worst possible and reduce from that point as evidence provides IE a suicide is a murder scene until evidence fails to support it.

wolfgangmob said:

I sure as hell don't want to show my ID, they find out I'm under 21 suddenly I'm accused of stealing or illegally purchasing my handgun.

Click to expand...

Observing that your location lists St. Louis, I recommend that you carefully read this statute.

While it is not a "stop and ID" law in the truest sense it does give ST. Louis Police and KCPD the ability to stop and ID you. This comment is not intended to reinitiate a "does the cop have RAS" discussion.

The question remains as to whether or not the cop will accept your verbally provided credentials or demand state issued credentials.

LMTD said:

<snip> Engaging in any conversation with him about an activity that I am totally clueless about has perils. Again, the harmless question can be the worst. Cop:"Hey man, where do you get something good to eat around here, I just got assigned to this zone? Me:"well we go to Harry's deli a lot, it is just down a block or two." Cop: Oh, I thought they closed, i went there years ago" Me: Oh no, I was there Friday last week" <snip>

Click to expand...

The above scenario is a difficult situation for the average citizen. We are generally a very accommodating lot and the vast majority of our fellow citizens willfully, and without thinking, assist our fellow citizens. My response to the above is simply....."Harry's Deli." The response to the follow-up question is simply....."No, officer, they are still open."

If the cop engages in further conversation..........just saying.

SixGunCowboy said:

You all have taught me a new meaning for disrespect in this forum.

Click to expand...

welcome to OCDO where most everyone is an internet toughguy bully...

OC for ME said:

Observing that your location lists St. Louis, I recommend that you carefully read this statute.

While it is not a "stop and ID" law in the truest sense it does give ST. Louis Police and KCPD the ability to stop and ID you. This comment is not intended to reinitiate a "does the cop have RAS" discussion.

The question remains as to whether or not the cop will accept your verbally provided credentials or demand state issued credentials.

The above scenario is a difficult situation for the average citizen. We are generally a very accommodating lot and the vast majority of our fellow citizens willfully, and without thinking, assist our fellow citizens. My response to the above is simply....."Harry's Deli." The response to the follow-up question is simply....."No, officer, they are still open."

If the cop engages in further conversation.....View attachment 9514.....just saying.

Click to expand...

I'm rarely back in St. Louis, I'm usually around Rolla most of the year.

6guncowboy said:

They may have my address, but if I am not there, they cannot legally charge me with anything.

Click to expand...

How do you reason that? You can be charged in absentia, a warrant issued for your arrest, then when the police find you you'll be hauled in.

6guncowboy said:

If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear from the law.

Click to expand...

:facepalm: He's been here how many months & is still this naieve?
Starting a year ago today I went through nearly 10 months of extreme stress - being charged with a crime, went through a trial - when I had done nothing wrong.
I was completely innocent of any wrongdoing, yet the police arrested me, made up 'facts' (which were put in their reports & testilied to during trial), held me in jail for more than a day, my property was stolen & held (including them breaking into a locked safe), I was prohibited from possessing firearms (I'm an instructor)...
Plus I had to pay for a lawyer. (Had lots of help from people here.)
Tell me again how I have nothing to fear when I've done nothing wrong?
Thank goodness the jury saw through their lies.

6guncowboy said:

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

Click to expand...

Well, he does have a little bit of common sense.
What you've said is completely correct, yet there are many officers who will harass a LAC simply for being armed. They'd never think to stop, ID, question someone going into a church Sunday morning, but the 2A they think somehow isn't a civil right, so they have to investigate. (Not all officers, no, but one is too many.)

6guncowboy said:

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

Click to expand...

They're trying to gather evidence against you. Use your rights & remain silent. Don't help them convict you of anything.
You don't have to prove you're not a criminal, they have to prove you are.
If they can't articulate a reasonable suspicion that leads them to believe you have, are, or shortly will commit a crime then they can't (legally) even require you to submit to their authority & stop going about your day while they investigate.

6guncowboy said:

if I was not at the scene of the crime, then I cannot be considered a suspect

Click to expand...

Others have explained from several angles why this line of thinking is completely wrong.

We're not really picking on you, we're picking apart your argument.
That's no reason to take your bat & go off home in a huff.

That is how is might look if you must talk to the police