What to say in Police and LEO Encounters

Legba · May 19, 2009

imported post

Bull@#$%. My last no-big-deal "Q&A" with the cops landed me in jail. "Cooperation" can land you in jail if you're unwittingly breaking the law, or if and when the laws are badly/vaguely written and capriciously enforced, or even if you're just in the company of someone else breaking the law.

More fundamentally, it is a constitutional right not to submit to arbitrary searches and seizures, and not to be compelled to incriminate yourself. If everything were halaal, the police wouldn't be questioning you in the first place. Liberty is no game I play with The Man, and the Bill of Rights is no "technicality."

The "FlexYourRights smart ass" exists because of abuses of authority. Nobody here is defending criminality on anyone's part, least of all those whose sworn duty is to uphold the law.

-ljp

david.ross · May 19, 2009

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

Now the Police see you, and you may just match the description, They ask you some questions, and you start acting like one of these Flexyourrights smart ass.Honestly what do you think hes going to do? Let you go? :?

Whats the big deal abouta 2min Conversation? It cansave you a huge headache.Give them a break, if you are not up to anything they will be ontheir way. If you want to play games be my guest but it can turn out badly.

This is often NOT the case. In the reverse perspective, the police should not be questioning everyone with a gun, this is NOT 1942 Germany!

You bet I'm going to give an officer a hard time if their voice is out of paranoia or anger. Open carry is a right, one which need not be infringed upon.

TatankaGap · May 19, 2009

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

Wow, i read up to page 3 and dont really have the time to read the rest, but from what I have read is people want to play the silent game when the police want to ask for ID or a few questions.

The responses I read are basic SHUT UP or play the am i being detained game with the police. THIS COULD VERY WELL END UP BADLY!

Think about this scene. Police on patrol get a call.... Car 100 Theres a 5'8 White Male doing some random crime in the area of wherever. Hes wearing a ball cap and jeans possibly armed.

Now the Police see you, and you may just match the description, They ask you some questions, and you start acting like one of these Flexyourrights smart ass.Honestly what do you think hes going to do? Let you go? :?

Whats the big deal abouta 2min Conversation? It cansave you a huge headache.Give them a break, if you are not up to anything they will be ontheir way. If you want to play games be my guest but it can turn out badly.

I also believe that while someone may have a technical right to refuse to ID themselves, that the better practice is to focus on enforcing our 2A rights while demanding respect for our other rights and at the same time taking clear action to minimize any apparent threat that might lead an officer to feel he or she is in jeopardy due to you -

In an open carry situation, my personal preference would be:

Show your hands; voluntarily raise them above your head and offer to ID yourself - after all, as a gun-toting citizen I am proud of my ID as I am legit - go ahead run my numbers -

What if the officer thinks (wrongly) that I was some Mumbai-wanna-be - then the officer would be in jeopardy - I want the officer to know that I am clear, cooperative and compliant and not resisting but verbally and politely assertive of my rights - I want the officer to know that if some Mumbai-wanna-be showed up, he would be best to deputize me and give me orders than anything else -

After things are calmer, time to get the officer's name, badge number, name of superior officer to file complaints if need be -

Different scenario but applicable: I recently had an exchange with TSA over a religious artifact that I carry - they wanted to take it and scan it with the machine - I said "Sure, but listen, this is a religious item and I have my 1st Amendment rights, so I'm trusting you, OK, to respect them." The TSA guy was extra careful, I was extra thankful -

My point being, there's no reason to believe that you can't trust the police to respect your rights once you have demonstrated yourself to not be a threat and if you interact with them in a manner that takes into consideration how dangerous and stressed out their jobs can be - just on a compassionate tip - so maybe,

example: "Officer, I'm exercising my 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, here's my ID, feel free to run my gun's serial number but I assume you're going to give these back to me in a few minutes after they check out."

Circumstances will be different every time - anyway, just my 2 cents ~ FWIW - :dude:

jeremy05 · May 19, 2009

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

jeremy05 wrote:

Now the Police see you, and you may just match the description, They ask you some questions, and you start acting like one of these Flexyourrights smart ass.Honestly what do you think hes going to do? Let you go? :?

Whats the big deal abouta 2min Conversation? It cansave you a huge headache.Give them a break, if you are not up to anything they will be ontheir way. If you want to play games be my guest but it can turn out badly.

This is often NOT the case. In the reverse perspective, the police should not be questioning everyone with a gun, this is NOT 1942 Germany!

You bet I'm going to give an officer a hard time if their voice is out of paranoia or anger. Open carry is a right, one which need not be infringed upon.

I am talking about the 1% here. I know its not always the case, Im just simply stateing that you ARE "Rolling the Dice"

In the reverse perspective as you state, I agree they should'nt, but like I was saying im talking about that 1% that could get you in trouble and a simple quick conversation could easily avoid. Mistaken Identity happens. If a Officer pulls up to you while you are walking and says "I NEED to ask you a few questions" are you going to be like "..." Im not talking to you! I would assume that officer is going to think " yeah this must be the guy im looking for"

jeremy05 · May 19, 2009

imported post

Tankagap? Guess the quote thing didnt work.

"
Different scenario but applicable: I recently had an exchange with TSA over a religious artifact that I carry - they wanted to take it and scan it with the machine - I said "Sure, but listen, this is a religious item and I have my 1st Amendment rights, so I'm trusting you, OK, to respect them." The TSA guy was extra careful, I was extra thankful -
"

Off topic,

I love flying ever since I got my Creds. The general public has no idea how many people actually carry a handgun on airplanes. When I was getting on my last flight there were six other agents on the plane. All CC. Its nice to walk around the TSA security and up the exit ramp. :celebrateYes I will be carrying my firearm and my 2liter of pepsi with me.

compmanio365 · May 19, 2009

imported post

Oh, we see now. You are part of the privileged class so you get treated extra respectful and therefore expect respect from the lowly citizens beneath you. It all makes sense now. *puke*

jeremy05 · May 19, 2009

imported post

compmanio365 wrote:

Oh, we see now. You are part of the privileged class so you get treated extra respectful and therefore expect respect from the lowly citizens beneath you. It all makes sense now. *puke*

Ah man! Far from! I work with Border Patrol and I work my @$$ off each day running around the desert chasing groups. Hasn't been a day that I haven't been drenched in sweat! I dont deal with USC's unless working a check point or Hi-way ops. Im Very Pro Gun and recommed everyone has one. I belive you get the respect you give. Thats almost always been the case throughout my life.

I Open Carried for awhile, mostly CC due to I believe its more tactical, but thats my opinion. I hated checking my gun into my luggage when I flew, was a pain in the @$$

All I'm saying is find out why hes stopping you before you play the silent card. It may be a justifiable reason. Cut them a break, their job sucks, look at the type of people they have to deal with and the little bit of respect they still get. Its sad.

Citizen · May 19, 2009

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

SNIP Whats the big deal abouta 2min Conversation? It cansave you a huge headache.Give them a break, if you are not up to anything they will be ontheir way. If you want to play games be my guest but it can turn out badly.

No offense, but you should have read the rest and delved into the subject more.

If you do, you'll arrive at the conclusion that the strongest comment you can make is to fully recognize the concerns of the non-cooperativewithout criticizingthem while opting for cooperation for yourself.

This subject has been discussed at vast length on this forum. The only reason the subject got going again is because HanSolo (new guy) brought it up.

The non-cooperative advocates have been over this territory in-depth and at length. We know what we are talking about.

hansolo · May 19, 2009

imported post

Citizen wrote:

This subject has been discussed at vast length on this forum. The only reason the subject got going again is because HanSolo (new guy) brought it up.

[align=center]

[align=left]
[/align][/align]

arentol · May 19, 2009

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

Wow, i read up to page 3 and dont really have the time to read the rest, but from what I have read is people want to play the silent game when the police want to ask for ID or a few questions.

The responses I read are basic SHUT UP or play the am i being detained game with the police. THIS COULD VERY WELL END UP BADLY!

Think about this scene. Police on patrol get a call.... Car 100 Theres a 5'8 White Male doing some random crime in the area of wherever. Hes wearing a ball cap and jeans possibly armed.

Now the Police see you, and you may just match the description, They ask you some questions, and you start acting like one of these Flexyourrights smart ass.Honestly what do you think hes going to do? Let you go? :?

Whats the big deal abouta 2min Conversation? It cansave you a huge headache.Give them a break, if you are not up to anything they will be ontheir way. If you want to play games be my guest but it can turn out badly.

First, it is not "games", games are what the cops are often playing with you. Refusing to answer questions and playing "games" is actually just choosing not to play the officers game.

As to your scenario....

There are three probable situations:

The officer has no legal cause to stop you because the call was anonymous.
The officer has cause to Terry stop you because there is a known witness, a description you match, and a suspected crime.
The officer has probable cause to stop you because the witness specifically id'ed you and there was a specific and certain (not just MWAG) crime supposedly committed.

Situation one is covered by a SCOTUS decision, J.L. v Florida. Without RAS the officer shouldn't even be approaching you, but sometimes they will do so anyway. In that situation the officer is fishing for information trying to get you to admit to a crime, or otherwise give him RAS. In this situation NOTHING you say can help you. Meet your states legal requirements, and ask if you are free to go. Don't answer any questions, ask your own instead, and try to get the officers information as well. Giving specific information can only harm you, because the officer isn't going to arrest you without more information anyway. Once he realizes he isn't getting anything from you he will have to let you go.

Situation three the officer has all the cause he needs to arrest you regardless of what you say or do. I guarantee if you have a gun on you too there is no way a casual conversation with the officer will get you out of the arrest unless you have definitive proof you are not the guy, which you won't have. If he is arresting you in that situation any additional information you give can only hurt you. Knowing he is already going to arrest you he may try to make things seem casual just to try and get you to drop more information to help his case. For instance, you might tell him what you were doing for the last ten minutes. Since that won't jive with the witness statement he now has you trapped in a lie (in his mind) and both he and the prosecutor will try to use that against you later if you can't produce a witness. You are MUCH better off getting arrested then having your lawyer line up a good witness BEFORE you provide your alibi. Get arrested, get a lawyer, and let your lawyer speak for you.

Situation two the officer is going to be fishing for information just like in situation one, but he will do so more forcefully, including checking you for weapons. In this situation speaking can again only get you in trouble. Ask questions, push for your legal rights, and don't answer any questions. The officer is not very likely to arrest you if you don't tell him something to give him probable cause because if he already HAD probable cause then it would be situation two. What is important about this situation is that you don't have ANY idea what would give him probable cause, so if he catches you in a "lie" like in situation three then you may just have gotten yourself arrested without realizing what you did wrong.

So in one situation it makes no difference what you say, you will be arrested, in the other two chances are good that not offering up information will force the officer to let you go free. My point is that you have NO idea what situation you are in, it could be a "My Cousin Vinnie" situation and EVERY wrong word could come back to haunt you later. Your best bet is to never give a specific answer and get away from the situation as soon as you can.

Besides, if you are in Situation one or two and don't play the "game", and get arrested anyway then you might just be on the good side of a 1983 or other lawsuit.

jeremy05 · May 20, 2009

imported post

arentol wrote:

jeremy05 wrote:

Wow, i read up to page 3 and don't really have the time to read the rest, but from what I have read is people want to play the silent game when the police want to ask for ID or a few questions.

The responses I read are basic SHUT UP or play the am i being detained game with the police. THIS COULD VERY WELL END UP BADLY!

Think about this scene. Police on patrol get a call.... Car 100 Theres a 5'8 White Male doing some random crime in the area of wherever. Hes wearing a ball cap and jeans possibly armed.

Now the Police see you, and you may just match the description, They ask you some questions, and you start acting like one of these Flexyourrights smart ass.Honestly what do you think hes going to do? Let you go? :?

Whats the big deal abouta 2min Conversation? It cansave you a huge headache.Give them a break, if you are not up to anything they will be ontheir way. If you want to play games be my guest but it can turn out badly.

First, it is not "games", games are what the cops are often playing with you. Refusing to answer questions and playing "games" is actually just choosing not to play the officers game.

As to your scenario....

There are three probable situations:

The officer has no legal cause to stop you because the call was anonymous.
The officer has cause to Terry stop you because there is a known witness, a description you match, and a suspected crime.
The officer has probable cause to stop you because the witness specifically id'ed you and there was a specific and certain (not just MWAG) crime supposedly committed.

Situation one is covered by a SCOTUS decision, J.L. v Florida. Without RAS the officer shouldn't even be approaching you, but sometimes they will do so anyway. In that situation the officer is fishing for information trying to get you to admit to a crime, or otherwise give him RAS. In this situation NOTHING you say can help you. Meet your states legal requirements, and ask if you are free to go. Don't answer any questions, ask your own instead, and try to get the officers information as well. Giving specific information can only harm you, because the officer isn't going to arrest you without more information anyway. Once he realizes he isn't getting anything from you he will have to let you go.

Situation three the officer has all the cause he needs to arrest you regardless of what you say or do. I guarantee if you have a gun on you too there is no way a casual conversation with the officer will get you out of the arrest unless you have definitive proof you are not the guy, which you won't have. If he is arresting you in that situation any additional information you give can only hurt you. Knowing he is already going to arrest you he may try to make things seem casual just to try and get you to drop more information to help his case. For instance, you might tell him what you were doing for the last ten minutes. Since that won't jive with the witness statement he now has you trapped in a lie (in his mind) and both he and the prosecutor will try to use that against you later if you can't produce a witness. You are MUCH better off getting arrested then having your lawyer line up a good witness BEFORE you provide your alibi. Get arrested, get a lawyer, and let your lawyer speak for you.

Situation two the officer is going to be fishing for information just like in situation one, but he will do so more forcefully, including checking you for weapons. In this situation speaking can again only get you in trouble. Ask questions, push for your legal rights, and don't answer any questions. The officer is not very likely to arrest you if you don't tell him something to give him probable cause because if he already HAD probable cause then it would be situation two. What is important about this situation is that you don't have ANY idea what would give him probable cause, so if he catches you in a "lie" like in situation three then you may just have gotten yourself arrested without realizing what you did wrong.

So in one situation it makes no difference what you say, you will be arrested, in the other two chances are good that not offering up information will force the officer to let you go free. My point is that you have NO idea what situation you are in, it could be a "My Cousin Vinnie" situation and EVERY wrong word could come back to haunt you later. Your best bet is to never give a specific answer and get away from the situation as soon as you can.

Besides, if you are in Situation one or two and don't play the "game", and get arrested anyway then you might just be on the good side of a 1983 or other lawsuit.

I am new to the site as well, so sorry I haven't read all the other threads. Anyways It seems people have a " The Cops are out to get me " state of mind. Thats fine and dandy, but I really don't see the harm in finding out why hes talking to you in the first place. He could have a justifiable reason to be talking to you. He may Need your help! I just think while your are being silent keep your ears open. Listen up! Also Giving info up Voluntary gets your in trouble? If you are not doing anything wrong whats the big deal?

There is a case IN FL now that you mention where a anonymous call was given WITH corroborating facts that the police use to get a warrant to search and seize people. So I'm assuming that a call anonymous or not, about a suspicious person would be more than enough for the police to temporally detain you. If you were the criminal would you really want the cops to let you go? What would be justified to hold you in that situation? I get frustrated with laws because it seems to help the criminals more than anything else. Every time a new decision is made it seems that way to me.

Just to clarify Im Very Pro Open Carry, it just seems that people on here are Anti-Police. It is sad that a few bad cops are giving the rest of them a bad name.

buster81 · May 20, 2009

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

I really don't see the harm in finding out why hestalking to you in the first place. He could have a justifiable reason to be talking to you.

Can you provide an example of a justifiable reasonhe might have to be talking to me that is in my best interest?

jeremy05 wrote:

He may Need your help!

With what?

jeremy05 wrote:

I just think while your are being silent keep your ears open. Listen up!

I don't think you have to worry about this. I have no doubt most of the people on here will be listening very closely to what is being said.

jeremy05 wrote:

Also Giving info up Voluntary gets your in trouble? If you are not doing anything wrong whats the big deal?

Yes it can. Can you cite every law on the books that you could possibly be in violation of? Most people cannot. The department of justice cannot even countall the laws. TheBill of Rights was written to protect people that "are not doing anything wrong".

jeremy05 wrote:

It is sad that a few bad cops are giving the rest of them a bad name.

Indeed it is!

jeremy05 wrote:

I work with Border Patrol and I work my @$$ off each day running around the desert chasing groups. Hasn't been a day that I haven't been drenched in sweat! I dont deal with USC's unless working a check point or Hi-way ops.

Are these the unconstitutional highway checkpoints that have been happening close to the border? Shame on you!

ET correct my poor grammar!

arentol · May 20, 2009

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

There is a case IN FL now that you mention where a anonymous call was given WITH corroborating facts that the police use to get a warrant to search and seize people. So I'm assuming that a call anonymous or not, about a suspicious person would be more than enough for the police to temporally detain you. If you were the criminal would you really want the cops to let you go? What would be justified to hold you in that situation? I get frustrated with laws because it seems to help the criminals more than anything else. Every time a new decision is made it seems that way to me.

Click to expand...

What you describe in Florida has NOTHING to do with what I am talking about.

J.L. v Florida made it illegal for a police officer to perform a Terry stop on the basis of an anonymous call with insufficent detail to identify anyone in particular and no indication that an actual crime has been committed. The case you describe is ENTIRELY different. Clearly the anonymous caller gave sufficient information for the police to identify a specific individual (or his/her location), and also sufficient evidence that a crime was committed or in progress for a search warrant to be issued.

An entirely anonymous call about a non-specific person performing an action which is not inherently illegal NEVER gives cause for a Terry stop. Read J.L. v Florida please.

If I was the criminal then yes, I would want the police to let me go.

I assume you question about what would be justified to hold me means if I was the criminal. The answer is simple, evidence that I may have committed a crime. Again, this goes back to my point. If I match the description, but that is ALL, then they may or may not arrest me, that is their concern at that time. I don't know what they know or don't know, so I am going to say the minimum required be law so they have to work to find evidence rather than wait for me to hand it to them. If I lie a the criminal they may find evidence to contradict my statement, or I may forget what I said and contradict it myself. Better I never made a statement so they have nothing to work with but what they gather from OTHER sources.

I think you are confusing laws with rights. All we are discussing here is the RIGHT to not incriminate yourself and the RIGHT not to have your property searched and/or seized without SOME KIND OF EVIDENCE of a crime. This has nothing to do with laws except in that certain legal decisions have upheld or harmed these rights.

arentol · May 20, 2009

imported post

jeremy05 wrote:

Also Giving info up Voluntary gets your in trouble? If you are not doing anything wrong whats the big deal?

Click to expand...

This guy (a law professor and former criminal defense attorney) answers that question FAR better than I ever could:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

(watch both parts)

levernut · May 23, 2009

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

jaredbelch wrote:
The cop may have legitimate question. But no.... we will assume he wants to arrest us (for some crime) and so we snub him and try to run away.

Then the cop tells everyone back at the station about this OCer he met that was a real piece of work.

So now, you have the rest of the cops thinking that ALL citizens that OC are probably that way too. I happen to know otherwise form personal experience. I have met people from both sides.

Most are good people! Cops and OCers.

But I also know there are a few that I would not trust. :uhoh:

I can see legitimate concers on both sides of this argument. I also have respect for the police and what they do (my dad was a Philly cop for 30 years). However, I would like to respectfully pose the following scenario to our forum members with experience in LE and see how they think most cops would respond to "friendly" and "routine" encounters with their colleauges in internal affairs:

Scenario- LEO is involved in legitimate stop and arrest of two college students during a global trade protest. The perpetrators violently resist and the LEO is forced to use legitimate force to protect himself and his fellow officer, andsubdue one. Thearrestee files brutality charges claiming the LEO used excessive force in striking him with a baton and cuffing him too tightly. The LEOis standing in line at Dunkin Donuts (sorry, couldn't resist :lol

a few days later and is addressed by someone behind him. He turns to see one of his colleagues whom he knowsworks in IA:

IA officer: So, heard youmade a tougharrest last week.

LEO: Hmm [responds noncommittally].

IAO: Perp resisted and you had to go upside his head withyour Maglite, huh?

LEO: [Ignores factual error regarding instrument used and location of contact] It's all in the report.

IAO: Well, he probably deserved it, right? Although, you have to admit, it does make us look bad on the news when we rough up college students. Wasn't there some other way you could have subdued him? I'm sure you followed department regs to the letter, but, you know, it makes other citizens uncomfortable when we beat on kids-- whether they deserve it or not. Especially when one of them is African American. Don't you think?

<End scenario>

Now tell me honestly: would the LEO in question continue to engage in this "friendly" converation? Would he try to justify his actions to the IAO in the hope of educating him about the realities of police work on the streets, and the unfortunate reality of false brutality charges? Would hecontinue to interact so that the IAO would not depart with a negative opinion of his fellow police officers, and their unfriendliness toward those who work for internal affairs?

Or would he refuse to engage in the conversation, and tell the IAO he will only answer such questions in a formal inquiry with the presence of a lawyer and/or police union representative? Or imagine it is not an IAO, but a DOJ investigator?

I am not trying to be a smart a$$ here, but honestly and truthfully, what do you think would be the response?

Deanimator · May 23, 2009

imported post

levernut wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

jaredbelch wrote:
The cop may have legitimate question. But no.... we will assume he wants to arrest us (for some crime) and so we snub him and try to run away.

Then the cop tells everyone back at the station about this OCer he met that was a real piece of work.

So now, you have the rest of the cops thinking that ALL citizens that OC are probably that way too. I happen to know otherwise form personal experience. I have met people from both sides.

Most are good people! Cops and OCers.

But I also know there are a few that I would not trust. :uhoh:

Click to expand...

I can see legitimate concers on both sides of this argument. I also have respect for the police and what they do (my dad was a Philly cop for 30 years). However, I would like to respectfully pose the following scenario to our forum members with experience in LE and see how they think most cops would respond to "friendly" and "routine" encounters with their colleauges in internal affairs:

Scenario- LEO is involved in legitimate stop and arrest of two college students during a global trade protest. The perpetrators violently resist and the LEO is forced to use legitimate force to protect himself and his fellow officer, andsubdue one. Thearrestee files brutality charges claiming the LEO used excessive force in striking him with a baton and cuffing him too tightly. The LEOis standing in line at Dunkin Donuts (sorry, couldn't resist :lol a few days later and is addressed by someone behind him. He turns to see one of his colleagues whom he knowsworks in IA:

IA officer: So, heard youmade a tougharrest last week.

LEO: Hmm [responds noncommittally].

IAO: Perp resisted and you had to go upside his head withyour Maglite, huh?

LEO: [Ignores factual error regarding instrument used and location of contact] It's all in the report.

IAO: Well, he probably deserved it, right? Although, you have to admit, it does make us look bad on the news when we rough up college students. Wasn't there some other way you could have subdued him? I'm sure you followed department regs to the letter, but, you know, it makes other citizens uncomfortable when we beat on kids-- whether they deserve it or not. Especially when one of them is African American. Don't you think?

<End scenario>

Now tell me honestly: would the LEO in question continue to engage in this "friendly" converation? Would he try to justify his actions to the IAO in the hope of educating him about the realities of police work on the streets, and the unfortunate reality of false brutality charges? Would hecontinue to interact so that the IAO would not depart with a negative opinion of his fellow police officers, and their unfriendliness toward those who work for internal affairs?

Or would he refuse to engage in the conversation, and tell the IAO he will only answer such questions in a formal inquiry with the presence of a lawyer and/or police union representative? Or imagine it is not an IAO, but a DOJ investigator?

I am not trying to be a smart a$$ here, but honestly and truthfully, what do you think would be the response?

I've made exactly the same point. I've never gotten a lucid response from any cop or cop supporter I've posed it to. But then it's very much like the repeated instances I've seen of cops and their supporters mocking the [admittedly stupid] defenses of criminals by their friends and family. They'll instantly jump on some criminal's nitwit family for calling his attempted robbery or murder a "mistake", but in a second will use the EXACT SAME word to describe the savage beating of a woman or a fatal DUI accident perpetrated by a cop.

When you can't tell if it's a cop or a gang member who's said something, it says something about the police.

codename_47 · May 23, 2009

imported post

Then the cop tells everyone back at the station about this OCer he met that was a real piece of work.

Wait till they get a load of me! That cop will go running back to the station warning them all not to F with open carriers as he goes off to his FOP rep to get legal representation for an impending lawsuit.

Don't want any trouble? Stay in your car and don't bother me.

hansolo · May 23, 2009

imported post

levernut wrote:

I can see legitimate concers on both sides of this argument. I also have respect for the police and what they do (my dad was a Philly cop for 30 years). However, I would like to respectfully pose the following scenario to our forum members with experience in LE and see how they think most cops would respond to "friendly" and "routine" encounters with their colleauges in internal affairs:

Scenario- LEO is involved in legitimate stop and arrest of two college students during a global trade protest. The perpetrators violently resist and the LEO is forced to use legitimate force to protect himself and his fellow officer, andsubdue one. Thearrestee files brutality charges claiming the LEO used excessive force in striking him with a baton and cuffing him too tightly. The LEOis standing in line at Dunkin Donuts (sorry, couldn't resist :lol a few days later and is addressed by someone behind him. He turns to see one of his colleagues whom he knowsworks in IA:

IA officer: So, heard youmade a tougharrest last week.

LEO: Hmm [responds noncommittally].

IAO: Perp resisted and you had to go upside his head withyour Maglite, huh?

LEO: [Ignores factual error regarding instrument used and location of contact] It's all in the report.

IAO: Well, he probably deserved it, right? Although, you have to admit, it does make us look bad on the news when we rough up college students. Wasn't there some other way you could have subdued him? I'm sure you followed department regs to the letter, but, you know, it makes other citizens uncomfortable when we beat on kids-- whether they deserve it or not. Especially when one of them is African American. Don't you think?

<End scenario>

Now tell me honestly: would the LEO in question continue to engage in this "friendly" converation? Would he try to justify his actions to the IAO in the hope of educating him about the realities of police work on the streets, and the unfortunate reality of false brutality charges? Would hecontinue to interact so that the IAO would not depart with a negative opinion of his fellow police officers, and their unfriendliness toward those who work for internal affairs?

Or would he refuse to engage in the conversation, and tell the IAO he will only answer such questions in a formal inquiry with the presence of a lawyer and/or police union representative? Or imagine it is not an IAO, but a DOJ investigator?

I am not trying to be a smart a$$ here, but honestly and truthfully, what do you think would be the response?

Interesting point. In this situation, I believe the 5th would be well suited. I would not say anything.

Deanimator · May 23, 2009

imported post

Interesting point. In this situation, I believe the 5th would be well suited. I would not say anything.

Some cops will tell you "That's different.", but won't be able to coherently tell you how it's different, at least without saying or implying that cops should be able to commit crimes and civil torts and citizens shouldn't. When pressed to, they'll fall back on "It's a hard job!" and eventually, "You wanted to be a cop but couldn't."

Too many cops hold themselves to the same standard to which "Tookie" Williams held himself.

TatankaGap · May 23, 2009

imported post

arentol wrote:

jeremy05 wrote:

There is a case IN FL now ...

Click to expand...

<SNIP>

Click to expand...

<SNIP>

J.L. v Florida made it illegal for a police officer to perform a Terry stop on the basis of an anonymous call with insufficent detail to identify anyone in particular and no indication that an actual crime has been committed. ...

<SNIP>

Be careful how much you rely on old cases involving Criminal Procedure - including cases involving stops, searches, exclusionary rule (fruit of poisonous tree) in light of recent and probably forthcoming Supreme Court cases which are and will continue to peel back criminal justice protections plus 'Bama's newly designed 'preventive detention' scheme will play into it -

You could be screaming about the bad "Terry" stop all the way to Supermax if you're not careful - 9 mos later when you get through 'Bama's new fangled "preventive detention" process and a year after when you get your gun back, you might be wishing that you had been a little more cooperative with the initial LEO who might be the one who makes the call re: preventive detention -

This is a very fast and dynamic changing area; all the factors count and there is not instant replay - gotta get it right first time -

IMHO, use all senses and don't go in with too much of your script pre-written as you will have to adapt to the circumstances and play it smart in order to turn a 'stop' from going bad -

The new definition of 'going bad' is possibly way different and worse than the old one which might have involved only some jail time, some legal hassles and even some stitches - the new way of 'going bad' might involve your family having a hard time even finding out the place which 'preventive detention' facility you've been taken too -

I would not think it wise to play a new ball game under the old rules.....:shock:

What to say in Police and LEO Encounters

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

New member

New member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member