Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
If there is no cop-bashing on-going then why the defense? It takes two to tango.
If there is no cop-bashing on-going then why the defense? It takes two to tango.
It takes two to tango.If there is no cop-bashing on-going then why the defense? It takes to to tango.
PLUS ONE
When I'm sticking pins in my LEO doll I'm imagining someone just like Officer Bruch. Watch the video. Do not talk to the police. Get your own recording device.
The courts allow the police to lie during interviews so this has nothing to do with department regulations on ethics. The police cannot lie on reports or in court.
So, now, where did you get this magic crystal ball that tells you who is a "bad guy" and who isn't?But it perfectly acceptable to lie during an interview with a bad guy who IS going to lie to you. It keeps things fair.
Think about it this way... if the police had to tell the truth... a bad guy could demand to know what evidence they had on him. The police would be required to tell him the "truth" andwhen he determines what they have he would know they had nothing and walk out.
SNIP If we were interested in keeping things "fair" between police and suspects... Being able to abuse power to psychologically manipulate citizens into confessing or giving up "incriminating" information is unethical, regardless of legality.
LEO 229 wrote:So, now, where did you get this magic crystal ball that tells you who is a "bad guy" and who isn't?But it perfectly acceptable to lie during an interview with a bad guy who IS going to lie to you. It keeps things fair.
Think about it this way... if the police had to tell the truth... a bad guy could demand to know what evidence they had on him. The police would be required to tell him the "truth" andwhen he determines what they have he would know they had nothing and walk out.
I wonder if it's made by the same company making the crystal balls that tell casual gun owners when they're going to need a gun.
And what's so bad about letting the "bad guy" walk out if police have nothing on him? Doesn't it go something like... innocent until proven guilty?
If we were interested in keeping things "fair" between police and suspects, we could start by allowing citizens 24 hours after being notified of a search warrant's being issued, before the police are allowed to begin their search.
Being able to abuse power to psychologically manipulate citizens into confessing or giving up "incriminating" information is unethical, regardless of legality.
Here's the problem: You look at police interviews/interrogations as a fight, so to speak. Argument, debate, whatever you want to call it. And if that were the case, then I would agree with what you are saying. However, that isn't how it works... or isn't how it should work. The police are to find evidence, come up with a suspect, and then present that evidence to an impartial judge or jury to prove the suspect is guilty of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. I look at it as an expedition on the part of the police... not a battle. Yes, it can be difficult if a suspect lies, but it's not the responsibility of him or any other citizen to make things easier. To try to sum it up, investigations are investigations, not a battle of wits.You are the guy who will agree to have a fist fight with a guy and think it will be a clean fight. Then....after he has kicked you in the ball sack, punched you in the mouth with brass knuckles, and stabbed you with an ice pick you will call foul and how scream about howit was not fair. :lol:
When it comes to the police interview.... both parties go in knowing they can lie their ass off. This is a fair fight of the minds. Each person can decide to lie or be truthful.
How do you tell who is the bad guy? There are times when it is rather obvious. The victim points him out or you catch him leaving the scene of the crime described exactly as the victim stated.
There are times when you do not know who the bad guy is. And this is where the interview can help you decide. If the story they givecan be backed up... they are off the hook. But if the story falls apart... you know you may be on the right track.
I had a case where some money turned up missing. It was one of three people.
I interviewed first person and the story was solid and consistent. EXCLUDED!!
I interviewed the second and the story was so-so and I made her cry when I accused her of stealing. Not proud of it.. but it happened. Not excluded but not likely that she did it.
I interviewed the last person and I knew I had the right guy!! Gave off all the clues to tell me he was dirty!! And he was!!
Set him up for the polygraph and he did not show up! Wonder why!! :lol:
He is in prison now on unrelated charges.
EDIT: And search warrants. Do you realize how stupid it is to warn someone that you are going to search their house?
If I am going to search for child porn on your computer tomorrow afternoon you will just remove the hard drive or computer so I will not get it. The whole idea is to be sure that what I am after is going to be there the day I visit.
I read the decision a few years ago and find it quite interesting and enlightening and also recommend it to everyone. I may even re-read it to refresh my memory on some points.imperialism2024 wrote:SNIP If we were interested in keeping things "fair" between police and suspects... Being able to abuse power to psychologically manipulate citizens into confessing or giving up "incriminating" information is unethical, regardless of legality.
I'm about 2/3 through reading Miranda vs Arizona.
Everybody should read this. It addresses or undercuts the problems giving rise to most of the concerns expressed in the recent posts. The justices see the problem from several angles and handle them. They thoroughly address the psychological angle.
Its lengthy, so I can't post ithere.It is completely worth the time to read.
http://tinyurl.com/5xd2gc
OK, let me just say that you have a warped view on how the system should work. :lol:Here's the problem: You look at police interviews/interrogations as a fight, so to speak. Argument, debate, whatever you want to call it. And if that were the case, then I would agree with what you are saying. However, that isn't how it works... or isn't how it should work. The police are to find evidence, come up with a suspect, and then present that evidence to an impartial judge or jury to prove the suspect is guilty of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. I look at it as an expedition on the part of the police... not a battle. Yes, it can be difficult if a suspect lies, but it's not the responsibility of him or any other citizen to make things easier. To try to sum it up, investigations are investigations, not a battle of wits.
Then there's the issue of abuse of power. If a suspect lies, his lies effectively have very little power behind them. On the other hand, when an interrogator lies, his lies are backed by the power of the entire United States' government. A lying suspect is abusing the trust in himself... this may be an inconvenience in an investigation, but the investigators have little to lose. A lying investogator is abusing the trust in government, and the suspect has considerably more at stake when he can't trust that government.
As for being able to determine a "bad person"... well... I'll just leave that one alone.
As for search warrants, it certainly is ridiculous to give advance warning. I brought it up to compare it to arbitrary arrest and detention. I take issue with arresting someone the police have a hunch might be involved in a crime, and then fishing for sufficient evidence to prove the hunch. If we want to be "fair", then citizens should have as much time to dispose of evidence as the police have to come up with evidence.
It depends on the situation....Just curious LEO, when you have me in the interrogation room and I continue to refuse to speak, answer any questions, or respond to any threats, warnings, deals, etc. what can I expect?
How long do I have to sit and listen to a pissed off detective rant and rave because I refuse to talk to him/her? How long before I get to speak with an attorney as I originally request? Will I be able to use the restroom when necessary or will that be used as a torture device to get me to agree to whatever is proposed? What if I decide I will not piss my pants and instead pee in the corner and accept a minor charge for that? Will I be fed if your detectives become stubborn and keep me in the interrogation room for 6hrs, 8hrs, 12hrs?
How much abuse is 'allowed' when the suspect refuses to cooperate at all?
(No agenda here, really just curious as I've never been in this situation)
Just curious LEO, when you have me in the interrogation room and I continue to refuse to speak, answer any questions, or respond to any threats, warnings, deals, etc. what can I expect?
How long do I have to sit and listen to a pissed off detective rant and rave because I refuse to talk to him/her? How long before I get to speak with an attorney as I originally request? Will I be able to use the restroom when necessary or will that be used as a torture device to get me to agree to whatever is proposed? What if I decide I will not piss my pants and instead pee in the corner and accept a minor charge for that? Will I be fed if your detectives become stubborn and keep me in the interrogation room for 6hrs, 8hrs, 12hrs?
How much abuse is 'allowed' when the suspect refuses to cooperate at all?
The responder is forwarding the same or substantially similar information provided to a suspect, at least prior to 1966, during aninterrogation as a tactic to gain cooperation.SNIP But it sounds like you are telling me I would be pretty much screwed for refusing to talk as I will be assumed guilty and as long asa magistrate agrees, that would be it. This does not jive with what the attorney in the video discussed. I guess it depends on the POV of the speaker on this issue, as well as many others.
Fair enough. Thanks for your POV. I guess I just watched too many bad movies.
But it sounds like you are telling me I would be pretty much screwed for refusing to talk as I will be assumed guilty and as long asa magistrate agrees, that would be it. This does not jive with what the attorney in the video discussed. I guess it depends on the POV of the speaker on this issue, as well as many others.
I think I'll still take my chances by saying nothing. It would be a nightmare to begin with and the stress level of trying to talk your way out of something you didn't do would suck. At least I could blame my attorney if wrongly convicted, but would have no one to blame but myself for trying to be helpful but being misunderstood/tricked/just plain stupid. Just my $1.52 (tax included).