• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

2A violation lawsuit

nuc65

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2009
Messages
1,121
Location
Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
I used to think this, too. But, lately I've been wondering.

Rhetorical questions coming. Is it really wise to condone lying in a profession with such power? Is it perhaps too easy for little lies to turn into bigger and bigger lies? Does history not already show that government cannot be trusted to not keep moving the line? Are we really to believe that cops are the only element of government--of mankind, even--to not find themselves one day telling impermissible lies, and then graduating to more and more unacceptable levels of lying?

I read recently where civil asset forfeiture was being heavily abused. Police departments seizing property on mere accusation (by the cops themselves) and using the proceeds to fund budgets. It was almost predictable that some cops would start seizing stuff and keeping it for themselves or selling it and pocketing the money personally. The one naturally follows the other, no? When property may be seized unfairly without due process (trial and conviction), does it not seem likely that for a certain percentage of cops it is just a small step to seizing and keeping it personally?

I'm really starting to wonder about the wisdom of permissible deception.

The old morality question: "if we allow ourselves to stoop to their level, are we any better then them?" I disagree because the line becomes too blurred. The kings men would add a little "pocket" tax to the general kings tax and this in part has helped to fuel many rebellions over the years. Is it any wonder that people come to dislike the police if they are perceived to be no better than the criminals they are charged with catching. There was a time when to serve and protect had meaning, somewhere after the cops became servants 'to' the government and sometime before they were allowed to lie 'in the interest of justice.' IMHO
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
I used to think this, too. But, lately I've been wondering.

Rhetorical questions coming. Is it really wise to condone lying in a profession with such power?

Well, I meant 'I think it should/could be permissible in lieu of outright lying of all kinds'.

One wonders if in recording a LEO encounter and they lied egregiously and this was produced in court if it would be a barrier to conviction. Of course, as we know, getting an amateur audio recording introduced into evidence is probably a lost cause. It might work pre-trial to convince people to drop the matter, IDK.

Thanks for the reply and thoughtful commentary.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
If a cop stops you and wants to talk, and you choose to do so, that's your choice. You don't have to stop, much less talk, unless he uses the magic words, "you're under arrest." Best to take the position of Bartleby the Scrivener, "I prefer not to."

If the cops have probable cause necessary to arrest you, they are going to do so. You have no rights under Miranda v. U.S. unless and until you have been subjected to an arrest. So talking to them prior to an arrest is a waiver of your rights, and you cannot be required to waive your rights. Talking to them will give them probable cause if they don't have it already, and whatever you say can, and will, be used against you in court (though it'll be called "a confession" or "an admission" when you're in court).

Like the old song, "If you see me walkin' down the street... walk on by; just walk on by." If you must say something, let it go with "Good morning, officer, lovely day we're having, isn't it?", except in the one case in which you are challenged with a statement of fact to which one would normally expect a denial (the failure to deny such a statement can, in some situations, be treated as an admission), such as "You used that gun in a murder." Regardless of how long or challenging such a remark might be, the appropriate response is, "hogwash." -- keep walking.

Identification: unless you're engaged in an activity for which licensure is required, and for which the certificate evidencing licensure must be produced upon demand (e.g., fishing, driving, acting as a private investigator, etc.), you never have to produce any documentation showing who you are. There is authority for the proposition that you must inform an appropriate law enforcement officer of your name and address, when you're about in the night-time.

Otherwise, "walk on by."
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Well, I meant 'I think it should/could be permissible in lieu of outright lying of all kinds'.

One wonders if in recording a LEO encounter and they lied egregiously and this was produced in court if it would be a barrier to conviction. ...

Negative. The U.S. Sup. Ct. has ruled that "the police are entitled to their arts, devices, and strategems." This does not authorize illegal conduct, such as pointing a gun at a person who poses no threat ("assault with a deadly weapon" and "brandishing a firearm"), but lying and trickery is not normally illegal.
 

Mtam

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
17
Location
, ,
User, can you provide more detail about the "night time" requierment to provide documents? I always enjoy reading your posts!!
 
Top