DON'T TALK TO THE POLICE - a speech I'm doing

Grab an antacid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Va-Ll2vKw

no comments allowed huh?...hmmm

stainless1911 said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62Va-Ll2vKw

no comments allowed huh?...hmmm

Click to expand...

Hmmmm. Whoever the actor was, he sure didn't have any qualms about using that evil gun.

I would avoid making too many of your presentations about the RKBA. Slip a few in here and there, but too many will make folks feel like they are being preached at. When you start your presentation, you don't want them thinking, "Jeez, here comes Schlitz with his guns again!"

eye95 said:

"Jeez, here comes Schlitz with his guns again!"

Click to expand...

Oh eye95, it's too late for that. I'm always dub'd the gun guy. 20 min speech, brady campaign, i'll do my 30 min on the open carry arguement, and my 50 min on gun free zones.

Oh, well. I just fear that you will have passed the point of diminishing returns.

People still listen out of curiosity, and the rest will know who to go to when they have a question.

stainless1911 said:

People still listen out of curiosity, and the rest will know who to go to when they have a question.

Click to expand...

I always get calls from people asking about buying guns and when they're allowed to carry.

most of these conversations go like this

"can I carry in my car?"

me - "in the state of florida you can have a loaded gun in your car as long as it is 'securly encased.' pretty much anything that goes *click*. this is all in accordance with Florida Statues 790"

"oh no thats wrong, my dads friends brothers cousins sister's boyfriend is a cop and he says there is a '3 step rule' and it can't be loaded"

eye95 said:

I think that the most important point from the video (and one you should be sure to include in your 10 minutes) is that anything that you say to the police can be used against you--but cannot be legally repeated in court to help you.

Everything you say to the police is hearsay and is inadmissible. One exception, of course, is a statement against interests, i.e. the stuff that can be used against you!

Click to expand...

That's incorrect. It is not hearsay for the 'speaker' to repeat a statement 'he' made. You cannot repeat a statement someone else made without independent verification, generally that person, but you can repeat anything you said to anyone. And in fact, often do if your account on defense direct differs from the cops on prosecution direct or cross. However, you do not preface it by "I said" or "I told the cop," you make the statement as fact. Example: not "I told the cop the gun was unloaded." but "The gun was unloaded."

The Federal Rules of Evidence, which generally defines hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of a person's assertion, as equivalent to testimony to the fact asserted, unless the assertor is brought to testify in court where he may be placed under oath and cross-examined.

Schlitz said:

I always get calls from people asking about buying guns and when they're allowed to carry.

most of these conversations go like this

"can I carry in my car?"

me - "in the state of florida you can have a loaded gun in your car as long as it is 'securly encased.' pretty much anything that goes *click*. this is all in accordance with Florida Statues 790"

"oh no thats wrong, my dads friends brothers cousins sister's boyfriend is a cop and he says there is a '3 step rule' and it can't be loaded"

Click to expand...

lol, I have similar conversations regularly.

Gunslinger said:

That's incorrect. It is not hearsay for the 'speaker' to repeat a statement 'he' made. You cannot repeat a statement someone else made without independent verification, generally that person, but you can repeat anything you said to anyone. And in fact, often do if your account on defense direct differs from the cops on prosecution direct or cross. However, you do not preface it by "I said" or "I told the cop," you make the statement as fact. Example: not "I told the cop the gun was unloaded." but "The gun was unloaded."

The Federal Rules of Evidence, which generally defines hearsay as a "statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." Historically, the rule against hearsay is aimed at prohibiting the use of a person's assertion, as equivalent to testimony to the fact asserted, unless the assertor is brought to testify in court where he may be placed under oath and cross-examined.

Click to expand...

Watch the video. Listen to the lawyer.

eye95 said:

Watch the video. Listen to the lawyer.

Click to expand...

Ummm. Gunslinger is a lawyer. He has a JD (Juris Doctor) behind his name.

I've only skimmed, but I'll bet the distinction here is the devilish details of how the hearsay rule is really applied. And, don't forget, lawyers have had a very long time to figure out all the little angles, nooks, and crannies.

Remember, Professor Duane only says the cop cannot be called upon by the defense to repeat pro-defense comments made by the defendant to the cop. That is the context of his video--don't talk to police. Duane wasn't teaching a class on the hearsay rule. He was using the hearsay rule to show how even the good stuff you tell a cop can't be gotten out of the cop to help you at trial.

Citizen said:

Ummm. Gunslinger is a lawyer. He has a JD (Juris Doctor) behind his name.

I've only skimmed, but I'll bet the distinction here is the devilish details of how the hearsay rule is really applied. And, don't forget, lawyers have had a very long time to figure out all the little angles, nooks, and crannies.

Remember, Professor Duane only says the cop cannot be called upon by the defense to repeat pro-defense comments made by the defendant to the cop. That is the context of his video--don't talk to police. Duane wasn't teaching a class on the hearsay rule. He was using the hearsay rule to show how even the good stuff you tell a cop can't be gotten out of the cop to help you at trial.

Click to expand...

But if you ask him if the defendant said something in his presence he has to answer truthfully. He cannot be directed to not answer.

The point that the man with the "JD behind his name" so conveniently ignored was that the officer could testify to everything that the defendant said as long as it could be used against him. The officer cannot relay anything that the defendant said that could help him--that would be hearsay.

Of course the defendant can say, "I said to the officer..." Duh. Does the man with a "JD behind his name" think that would carry the same weight as the officer relating statements from the defendant that hurt the case for the defense??

There are JDs, and then there are lawyers. I'll take the advice of the lawyer in the video. He is actually giving sound and useful legal advice, not just twisting things to [strike]win[/strike] lawyer an Internet debate.

Moving on.

eye95 said:

Watch the video. Listen to the lawyer.

Click to expand...

Why? I am completely familiar with the rules of evidence and the 34 exceptions to the 'hearsay" objection.

eye95 said:

The point that the man with the "JD behind his name" so conveniently ignored was that the officer could testify to everything that the defendant said as long as it could be used against him. The officer cannot relay anything that the defendant said that could help him--that would be hearsay.

Of course the defendant can say, "I said to the officer..." Duh. Does the man with a "JD behind his name" think that would carry the same weight as the officer relating statements from the defendant that hurt the case for the defense??

There are JDs, and then there are lawyers. I'll take the advice of the lawyer in the video. He is actually giving sound and useful legal advice, not just twisting things to [strike]win[/strike] lawyer an Internet debate.

Moving on.

Click to expand...

I suggest you look up exculpatory evidence before you get into a legal debate with me. As I clearly stated the defendent cannot preface by "I said," but rather by statement of information and belief, if you want to get technical, pursuant to the conversation so long as it is not an assertive statement of fact bearing on the instant charge. Each statement, cop, witness, defendant, carries 'exactly' the same weight in testimony. Anything the cop says on direct can and will be challenged on cross. The jury then decides credibility. As I have said before, I am not a lawyer. I do not practice law. I have a legal education. Do you? If not, then how have you determined the "lawyer' in the video is not full of crap? To be honest, he seemed pretty good, but was not discussing hearsay, as noted above. The prosecution has the legal duty to present exculpatory evidence to the defense. That is the primary point I'm making. If a suspect says X, and the cop goes and finds out X is true and it exonerates the suspect, who is arrested anyway, do you really believe the ignoring of X will stand? Statements against interest are hearsay exceptions. Covering exculpatory evidence is grounds for directed verdict or overturn on appeal. The cop CANNOT sit on evidence which is exculpatory, hearsay notwithstanding.

OldCurlyWolf said:

But if you ask him if the defendant said something in his presence he has to answer truthfully. He cannot be directed to not answer.

Click to expand...

That's correct if it's exculpatory in nature. An objection may be raised, but the question will be allowed by the court.

Folks, I won't continue to argue the point with a poster who purportedly has a "JD behind his name," instead choosing to believe a man who has shared with us his name and image in the video in which he gives his legal advice, making him someone whose bona fides we can verify independently.

I would simply advise you to do likewise: Watch the video. Listen carefully to what you say that can be repeated in court by the officer to whom you say it--and what cannot--as opposed to listening to someone who is playing word games on the Internet to carefully frame a unique set of circumstances so he can establish some sense of superiority and "win" an Internet discussion, rather than simply addressing the quite simple underlying point.

That behavior is the only indicator that the person has legal training. However, there is a world of difference between having legal training and being worthy of being entrusted with one's legal future. I would trust the lawyer in the video. He boldy, without hidden identity, simply states his case.

Its easier to just not talk to the police.

eye95 said:

Folks, I won't continue to argue the point with a poster who purportedly has a "JD behind his name," instead choosing to believe a man who has shared with us his name and image in the video in which he gives his legal advice, making him someone whose bona fides we can verify independently.

I would simply advise you to do likewise: Watch the video. Listen carefully to what you say that can be repeated in court by the officer to whom you say it--and what cannot--as opposed to listening to someone who is playing word games on the Internet to carefully frame a unique set of circumstances so he can establish some sense of superiority and "win" an Internet discussion, rather than simply addressing the quite simple underlying point.

That behavior is the only indicator that the person has legal training. However, there is a world of difference between having legal training and being worthy of being entrusted with one's legal future. I would trust the lawyer in the video. He boldy, without hidden identity, simply states his case.

Click to expand...

Too bad you fail to understand what he's talking about. In fact, I'm surprised you don't do your usual "cops are our friends" and disagree with 'not' talking to them. As you can't refute my posts on hearsay and exculpatory evidence, you give us one of your patented "folks, blah blah blah." Why don't you just "move on" as is your usual practice when your arguments are shown to be specious? "Winning" an internet argument with you is hardly establishing a "sense of superiority." It's like taking candy from a baby.

stainless1911 said:

Its easier to just not talk to the police.

Click to expand...

Which is the 'sole' point the speaker was trying to make. It wasn't about hearsay, rules of evidence, or 801(d)29. It was "don't talk to the police" which was what the op was interested in. Only our "sage" had to put his 2 cents in, which is at what his opinion should be valued.