This Is The Most Important Video You May Ever Watch.

imported post

Professor James Duane explains to the everyday citizen why it is essential that you NEVER, for ANY REASON, talk to the police. Never. Ever.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865


(NOTE: If you have seen this video before, may I suggest that you watch it again? This is one of those things along the lines of the 4 Rules; you can never know it too well.)

imported post

It would be good to reduce the lecture to a mnemonic mantra similar to LOADED, MUZZLE, TRIGGER & TARGET that could be repeated until it becomes second nature.

In my work when things got tough then my thought was "back to basics." Then I could slow things down and work through the problem.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

It would be good to reduce the lecture to a mnemonic mantra similar to LOADED, MUZZLE, TRIGGER & TARGET that could be repeated until it becomes second nature.

In my work when things got tough then my thought was "back to basics." Then I could slow things down and work through the problem.

Click to expand...

I agree.

My suggestion: Respectful, Polite, Silent.


Respectful
Be respectful of the officer. He is doing a job. Most likely, the reason you are even talking to him is due diligence on his part. Someone may have called in a "man with gun", and the dispatcher wasn't trained to ask follow-up questions, and dispatched the officer.

Polite
This can be the hard part, because it is normally not part of the next part, Silent. Usually being polite requires one to answer questions posed to them, as long as they are not "unreasonable". The problem lies in the fact that you have to treat all the questions as "unreasonable", because they are being posed by an officer.
The main part of this is being calm, and quiet in your tone when you make the limited statements allowed under SILENT.

Silent
This doesn't mean stare at the officer like you are deaf. It means offer no information, other than what is required of you by law. Some states have "Stop and Identify" laws, which require you give your full legal name to an officer during a "Terry Stop."

The only 5 simple statements you should consider making:

1) "Good morning/afternoon, Officer."

2) "Officer, my full legal name is (your name)." (Check your state laws. Some require you to produce State ID if you have it in your possession.)
OR
2) "Officer, I am not required to provide my name/identification, and choose not to do so." (Check your state laws.)

3) "Officer, I will not answer any questions without my attorney present."

4) "Officer, am I free to go, or am I being detained? If I am being detained, what is the reason?"

5) "Have a good day, Officer. Thank you, and be safe."


EDIT: These 5 are not in any particular order. They are just the only things that you will ever need to say in an interaction with an officer. In regards to 4, if the officer gives you a reason, DO NOT ARGUE THE REASON. Just ask him to state it. Arguing the reason leads into a conversation. Remember, stay SILENT as much as possible. You can use this reason the officer states later, when you file your complaint and lawsuit. Again, don't argue the reason, just get it.

imported post

So, it's GREET, IDENTIFY, RESPOND, DEPART, DETAINED

Respectfully GREET.

If required IDENTIFY.

RESPOND only on advice of personal attorney.

DEPART.

Remain only if DETAINED.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

So, it's GREET, IDENTIFY, RESPOND, DEPART, DETAINED

Respectfully GREET.

If required IDENTIFY.

RESPOND only on advice of personal attorney.

DEPART.

Remain only if DETAINED.

Click to expand...

Hey, you're good at this.

imported post

How many man-years of quibbles went into polishing LOADED, MUZZLE, TRIGGER & TARGET?

There is lots of work to do on GREET, IDENTIFY, RESPOND, DEPART, DETAINED.

Note too that LOADED, MUZZLE, TRIGGER & TARGET refer to the operation of a simple machine, while GREET, IDENTIFY, RESPOND, DEPART, DETAINED are trying to codify a social system of immense complexity.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

How many man-years of quibbles went into polishing LOADED, MUZZLE, TRIGGER & TARGET?

There is lots of work to do on GREET, IDENTIFY, RESPOND, DEPART, DETAINED.

Note too that LOADED, MUZZLE, TRIGGER & TARGET refer to the operation of a simple machine, while GREET, IDENTIFY, RESPOND, DEPART, DETAINED are trying to codify a social system of immense complexity.

Click to expand...

ZzzzZZZZzzzZZzzzz...


*huh?*

Oh, sorry, what?

imported post

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912&hl=en

I tell you what pisses me off about this video is the LEO. The whole damn time he's talking the BS Power Trip is oozing out of his fat head. He's constantly PRAISING himself, and oh let's not forget how much he get's paid for Overtime as if we GIVE A #### !

Slimey Filthy LEO !

counting to 10 now ........

imported post

I saw this on another forum, and I HIGHLY recommend watching this video, and living by it if you ever have any interaction with law enforcement.

Talking to them CANNOT help you, but it can darn sure hurt- a LOT.

imported post

Slayer of Paper wrote:

I saw this on another forum, and I HIGHLY recommend watching this video, and living by it if you ever have any interaction with law enforcement.

Talking to them CANNOT help you, but it can darn sure hurt- a LOT.

Click to expand...

Well, the most difficult thing is switching off that social conditioning that has been pounded into us since childhood.

We are told that the police are our friends. If you get lost, find an officer. If someone tries to hurt you, find an officer.

Television and other media continue this idea. The police on CSI always keep pressing till they find the REAL badguy, not just until someone confesses. If you just tell the cops on NYPD the truth, the real, whole truth, then they will finally believe you, and you will go free.


In reality, cops are just people. They want to do the job the easiest way possible. The reality of the two above images is much more like this:

I mean, who would confess if they didn't do the crime? Case closed...

Well, we can't get you on the original charge we brought you in on, but you just confessed to something else, so we can get you on that. Another bad guy off the street.

The police are not your friend. Their job is to catch criminals. They see people who no one would expect to commit a crime commit crimes. You apperance, your elequence, none of it will help you...

If you have made it this far in this thread, and not watched the video... WATCH THE VIDEO.

Here is a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=related

imported post

When I was clerking for a federal judge, I saw a veteran law officer solemnly swear to tell the truth, and then lie. He lied so bad the prosecutor consented to a mistrial.

I resolved that day to rest on the Fifth.

imported post

I know most of us have heard about all the cases where someone was convicted because of a confession, then later DNA PROVED that they were not guilty. Sure, it was real horrible that this poor guy had to serve 15 years or whatever for a crime he didn't commit, but I think a lot of people forget about the other side of it.

LEO's may or may not have sympathy for the person that they wrongfully extracted a confession from, and may or may not feel guilt or remorse over that person having to go to prison wrongfully.

However, what they SHOULD feel something about is the crime itself. Once they got that confession, the case was CLOSED. Whoever actually did commit the crime got off scott free because the police simply stopped investigating. In my opinion, THAT'S something they should definitely feel guilt over.

For every person convicted of murder and was later exonerated by physical evidence, there is a criminal out there somewhere that literally got away with murder.

imported post

I was reading about this guy from Arizona, named Harold Fish.

Now, the story is a bit vague as to what really happened. I don't think anyone other than Mr. Fish will ever know.

What I did see is that Mr. Fish "fully co-operated with investigators" during their questioning.

The prosecution then used his faulty recollection, contrasted with forensic evidence, to paint him as dishonest.

And he was convicted of second degree murder.


One must wonder how it would have turned out if he had just shut the hell up?

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

I was reading about this guy from Arizona, named Harold Fish.

Now, the story is a bit vague as to what really happened. I don't think anyone other than Mr. Fish will ever know.

What I did see is that Mr. Fish "fully co-operated with investigators" during their questioning.

The prosecution then used his faulty recollection, contrasted with forensic evidence, to paint him as dishonest.

And he was convicted of second degree murder.


One must wonder how it would have turned out if he had just shut the hell up?

Click to expand...

The prosecutor also railed about the "evil" 10mm round that fish used...I think he would've been screwed either way.

Doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't ever talk to the popo, ever!

imported post

Phoenixphire wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

It would be good to reduce the lecture to a mnemonic mantra similar to LOADED, MUZZLE, TRIGGER & TARGET that could be repeated until it becomes second nature.

In my work when things got tough then my thought was "back to basics." Then I could slow things down and work through the problem.

Click to expand...

I agree.

My suggestion: Respectful, Polite, Silent.


Respectful
Be respectful of the officer. He is doing a job. Most likely, the reason you are even talking to him is due diligence on his part. Someone may have called in a "man with gun", and the dispatcher wasn't trained to ask follow-up questions, and dispatched the officer.

Polite
This can be the hard part, because it is normally not part of the next part, Silent. Usually being polite requires one to answer questions posed to them, as long as they are not "unreasonable". The problem lies in the fact that you have to treat all the questions as "unreasonable", because they are being posed by an officer.
The main part of this is being calm, and quiet in your tone when you make the limited statements allowed under SILENT.

Silent
This doesn't mean stare at the officer like you are deaf. It means offer no information, other than what is required of you by law. Some states have "Stop and Identify" laws, which require you give your full legal name to an officer during a "Terry Stop."

The only 5 simple statements you should consider making:

1) "Good morning/afternoon, Officer."

2) "Officer, my full legal name is (your name)." (Check your state laws. Some require you to produce State ID if you have it in your possession.)
OR
2) "Officer, I am not required to provide my name/identification, and choose not to do so." (Check your state laws.)

3) "Officer, I will not answer any questions with my attorney present."

4) "Officer, am I free to go, or am I being detained? If I am being detained, what is the reason?"

5) "Have a good day, Officer. Thank you, and be safe."


EDIT: These 5 are not in any particular order. They are just the only things that you will ever need to say in an interaction with an officer. In regards to 4, if the officer gives you a reason, DO NOT ARGUE THE REASON. Just ask him to state it. Arguing the reason leads into a conversation. Remember, stay SILENT as much as possible. You can use this reason the officer states later, when you file your complaint and lawsuit. Again, don't argue the reason, just get it.

Click to expand...

I believe # 3 should be, "Officer I will not answer any questions without my attorney being present", unless I am missing something.

imported post

Ha.

Nice.

I will edit it. :lol:

imported post

ACLU Bust card.

http://www.aclu.org/FilesPDFs/dwb bust card7_04.pdf

imported post

MetalChris wrote:

Phoenixphire wrote:

I was reading about this guy from Arizona, named Harold Fish.

Now, the story is a bit vague as to what really happened. I don't think anyone other than Mr. Fish will ever know.

What I did see is that Mr. Fish "fully co-operated with investigators" during their questioning.

The prosecution then used his faulty recollection, contrasted with forensic evidence, to paint him as dishonest.

And he was convicted of second degree murder.


One must wonder how it would have turned out if he had just shut the hell up?

Click to expand...

The prosecutor also railed about the "evil" 10mm round that fish used...I think he would've been screwed either way.

Doesn't change the fact that you shouldn't ever talk to the popo, ever!

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not so sure of that. He could have used a .44 mag and gotten off if he'd had a voice recorder or didn't give conflicting statements.

Just because the prosecutor made a big deal out of the 10mm doesn't mean that's why the guy was convicted. It may have played a part, but then so did being the "good guy" and talking to the cops.