ID?

Venator said:

You didn't watch the video did you?

Click to expand...

This is the first thought that came to my mind once I read his posts.

PALO said:

on case law, the advice is correct that GENERALLY speaking (again, there is major variance state to state) in states where open carry is legal, the cops cannot stop you or demand ID for open carrying

Click to expand...

Correct. For Washington See State Vs Casad

PALO said:

the problem is, if a cop stops you, and you are OC'ing there may be additional reasons why he is stopping you, so he may in fact have a valid reason to demand ID, and you refuse, you will get arrested for obstruction

Click to expand...

This is why the first words out of your mouth should be 'Am I free to go'. If your not free to go, they are detaining you at which point you should ask which RAS or PC they are detaining you for. Only once they have clearly identified the RAS I am only required to identify myself (In WA) when they are arresting, writing a citation or while I am driving. Only under those circumstances would I Identify and only as far as required by law (verbal). No other communication is required and I would opt to exercise my 5th amendment right to remain silent.

PALO said:

IF i had been OCing, and i assumed they were stopping me FOR OCing and refused to comply with demands to keep my hands up, etc. i would quite likely have been shot if i reached

Click to expand...

No where do I recommend not complying with demands such as 'keep hands up' or physically resisting. Nor do I recommend reaching for a weapon when an officer is present. In fact, if this is the case its not the place to fight the encounter. If this happens to me I can guarantee you all they will get from me is my verbal id information after they have arrested me.

PALO said:

and i was also required to give ID since they had RS

Click to expand...

False. In Washington state (where you and I are from), you are under no obligation to identify unless your under arrest, being given a citation or driving a vehicle.

PALO said:

in many cases, it may be civilly actionable, or even criminally actionable

Click to expand...

While it is true that refusing to id in some cases can result in a citation, saying that in many cases is not accurate. Most states only require you identify in specific scenarios. I can count on a hand how many states have the ability to simply ask for Id without conditions being met.

PALO said:

1) i believe that blanket advice to never talk to cops is harmful - to the individual following that advtsice, and to society at large

Click to expand...

Harmful how? Do you have evidence that its harmful? I personally, don't want to indicate myself in a crime or violation of law. My first priority is myself.

PALO said:

i don't assume cop X is a bad guy or the enemy, because a tiny %age of cops ARE.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I have to assume that the officer I am dealing with is one of the bad apples. If I don't then ill find myself in an unprepared situation giving up information and rights to someone that is going to exploit those.

PALO said:

i treat people with respect, regardless of race, creed, religion, ethnicity, or that they are a cop.

Click to expand...

I do as well. However, I am under no obligation to talk to any of them nor be in there presence if I don't feel like it. I am not telling people to go around being a jerk to people.

PALO said:

the ONE time in my life, i had a cop be a jerk towards me, was when i was a jerk towards him FIRST.

Click to expand...

I am not saying to be a jerk toward the cop, I don't think anyone is. Exercising a right and only giving information required by law to a cop is not being a jerk. The officer may think your being a jerk or being difficult but that's his problem, he is perceiving me as being a jerk because he thinks people should just roll over for him like they normally do.

PALO said:

are you honestly saying you don't understand that when a person provides (for example) an alibi, that that (generally) helps them, not hurts them

Click to expand...

I feel that the time and place for an alibi is not at time of contact with an officer. The correct time is after you have been arrested (if they have enough evidence) and after you have talked with your lawyer and only then provided in a court room under oath. By you giving your alibi, that YOU think is going to help you, the officer finds a single piece of your statement that may be suspect in the incidient and it winds up with you being arrested.

I believe if you provide nothing, they already a) have enough evidence to arrest you and will do so anyway or b) don't have enough information and are fishing for more data that can help arrest you. Don't cave to there requests without a lawyer.

PALO said:

address the guy in the parking lot breaking into his girlfriend's car (that he had permission to possess)

that fact is - IF he talks to police, he doesn't go to jail

if he does NOT, he does

Click to expand...

This is not accurate. The police need to have evidence that he is actually violating the law before they arrest him. They have to prove that he does not have the right to be in the car. In every scenario they will call the registered owner (suspected victim), they will ask if this is there vehicle and ask if they know the suspected subject. The lady will say she knows them and that they have the right to be in the car.

Do you seriously think that the police are going to take his word that he is allowed/given permission to be in the car or in legal possession of that car simply because he says so? I hope not. Talking to the police here, helps you in no way shape or form.

The police must have evidence of a crime you have committed. Talking to them will only help find more evidence so they can arrest you.

----------------------------------

You are being naive if you think talking to the police is a good idea. You seem to try and bring up multiple points around talking to them gets you out of issues that you may have otherwise been arrested or cited for. I disagree with that at its face. If the officers have evidence of a crime or citation they will arrest or cite you no matter what you say or how you act. Talking to them can only provide them with additional information they did not know which they can use against you and not for you. The officers have the burden to prove you violated the law, its not your responsibility to help them.

Fallschirmjäger said:

The logic is quite solid. Remember the warning "anything you say can and will be used against you ..."? Notice where it doesn't say anything you say to clear yourself will be used on your behalf?
Wonder why?

Look at the Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (d)(2)(a)
It defines what is NOT hearsay, so anything that does not meet the definitions listed is by definition hearsay and inadmissible.

Click to expand...

again, you are referring to COURT rules, and i am trying to explain to you that the VAST majority of cases don't GET TO COURT, so you are AGAIN employing selection bias which automatically leads to an invalid result (because it discounts the vast majority of "n")

why is this so difficult to understand?

i will repeat this one more time:

WHEN PEOPLE EXCULPATE THEMSELVES ***IN THE FIELD***, THERE RARELY ***IS*** A COURT CASE, AND THOSE INSTANCES (COP CONTACTS W/O ARREST) MAKE UP THE VAST MAJORITY OF COP CONTACTS.

IF YOU ONLY LOOK AT COURT CASES TO MAKE THESE RULES, YOU ARE LOOKING AT A VERY SMALL SUBSET OF COP ENCOUNTERS AND A SUBSET WITH THE NEGATIVE RESULT FOR THE SUSPECT AND THEN EXTRAPOLATING IT OUTWARDS TO ALL CONTACTS

if you can't see the logical fallacy there. i can't help you.

i've never been arrested. i have on more than one occasion talked to cops and exculpated myself. i was also given warning (open container) for other stuff that i may have been cited for if i didn't talk to them, but i'll never know

NONE of those cases MAKE It to court, so the metric you are using is skewed

also, as an example of GIVING evidence, but not neccesasrily testimonial - consider FST's

i've been pulled over as a dui suspect, did FST's and passed

many people do.

IF not drunk, there are excellent reasons TO DO FST's. iow, cooperate.

another example

slapmonkay said:

This is the first thought that came to my mind once I read his posts.



Correct. For Washington See State Vs Casad



This is why the first words out of your mouth should be 'Am I free to go'. If your not free to go, they are detaining you at which point you should ask which RAS or PC they are detaining you for. Only once they have clearly identified the RAS I am only required to identify myself (In WA) when they are arresting, writing a citation or while I am driving. Only under those circumstances would I Identify and only as far as required by law (verbal). No other communication is required and I would opt to exercise my 5th amendment right to remain silent.


No where do I recommend not complying with demands such as 'keep hands up' or physically resisting. Nor do I recommend reaching for a weapon when an officer is present. In fact, if this is the case its not the place to fight the encounter. If this happens to me I can guarantee you all they will get from me is my verbal id information after they have arrested me.


False. In Washington state (where you and I are from), you are under no obligation to identify unless your under arrest, being given a citation or driving a vehicle.


While it is true that refusing to id in some cases can result in a citation, saying that in many cases is not accurate. Most states only require you identify in specific scenarios. I can count on a hand how many states have the ability to simply ask for Id without conditions being met.


Harmful how? Do you have evidence that its harmful? I personally, don't want to indicate myself in a crime or violation of law. My first priority is myself.


Unfortunately, I have to assume that the officer I am dealing with is one of the bad apples. If I don't then ill find myself in an unprepared situation giving up information and rights to someone that is going to exploit those.


I do as well. However, I am under no obligation to talk to any of them nor be in there presence if I don't feel like it. I am not telling people to go around being a jerk to people.


I am not saying to be a jerk toward the cop, I don't think anyone is. Exercising a right and only giving information required by law to a cop is not being a jerk. The officer may think your being a jerk or being difficult but that's his problem, he is perceiving me as being a jerk because he thinks people should just roll over for him like they normally do.


I feel that the time and place for an alibi is not at time of contact with an officer. The correct time is after you have been arrested (if they have enough evidence) and after you have talked with your lawyer and only then provided in a court room under oath. By you giving your alibi, that YOU think is going to help you, the officer finds a single piece of your statement that may be suspect in the incidient and it winds up with you being arrested.

I believe if you provide nothing, they already a) have enough evidence to arrest you and will do so anyway or b) don't have enough information and are fishing for more data that can help arrest you. Don't cave to there requests without a lawyer.



This is not accurate. The police need to have evidence that he is actually violating the law before they arrest him. They have to prove that he does not have the right to be in the car. In every scenario they will call the registered owner (suspected victim), they will ask if this is there vehicle and ask if they know the suspected subject. The lady will say she knows them and that they have the right to be in the car.

Do you seriously think that the police are going to take his word that he is allowed/given permission to be in the car or in legal possession of that car simply because he says so? I hope not. Talking to the police here, helps you in no way shape or form.

The police must have evidence of a crime you have committed. Talking to them will only help find more evidence so they can arrest you.

----------------------------------

You are being naive if you think talking to the police is a good idea. You seem to try and bring up multiple points around talking to them gets you out of issues that you may have otherwise been arrested or cited for. I disagree with that at its face. If the officers have evidence of a crime or citation they will arrest or cite you no matter what you say or how you act. Talking to them can only provide them with additional information they did not know which they can use against you and not for you. The officers have the burden to prove you violated the law, its not your responsibility to help them.

Click to expand...

everything i have said is correct and logically consistent

to repeat, you cannot draw conclusions about negative conclusions of behavior X (talking to police) by ONLY LOOKING AT COURT CASES. you have to look at ALL cop contacts where people talk with police

the VAST OVERWHELMING MAJORITY DO NOT INVOLVE ANY COURT CASE, AND MOST DON'T INVOLVE ARREST

IF YOU LOOK AT A BIASED SUBSET (COURT CASES ONLY) YOU GET INVALID DATA

an analogy would be if you only look at people who die from taking tylenol (dying being the analogy to being charged) but not the millions of people who take tylenol and live (tylenol is very hepatotoxic in large doses) you would erroneously conclude - DON'T TAKE TYLENOL. IT WILL KILL YOU, THUS IT CAN'T HELP YOU

it can help you. unless you die

looking at only the subset of cases where death occurred leads to erroneous conclusions

PALO said:

again, you are referring to COURT rules, and i am trying to explain to you that the VAST majority of cases don't GET TO COURT, so you are AGAIN employing selection bias which automatically leads to an invalid result (because it discounts the vast majority of "n")

Click to expand...

So, what rules do you suggest I follow, "STREET RULES"?
Street rules says the cop gets to administer a wood shampoo instead of taking a miscreant to court, so that's not bloody likely.

The ONLY rules that are going to help anyone if they go to court are unsurprisingly, COURT RULES. Funny, that a lot of law enforcement and law enforcement sycophants have such hatred and disdain for the Court, isn't it?

i can tell you that in my state, it doesn't matter how many people call the police to report behavior X, if behavior X doesn't somehow rise to the level of reasonable suspicion, then the cops cannot lawfully make a subject stop

Click to expand...

If the first words out of their mouth is "Why are you carrying your firearm like that?" then you have an RAS that the firearm is what the stop is about.Therefore they (the cops) cannot lawfully make a subject stop. That means they are behaving unlawfully. I'm now suppose to trust this person and answer questions?

again, you are referring to COURT rules, and i am trying to explain to you that the VAST majority of cases don't GET TO COURT, so you are AGAIN employing selection bias which automatically leads to an invalid result (because it discounts the vast majority of "n")

Click to expand...

Those cases? The ones that never get to court. Those are most likely the ones where the person never talked to the police.

NavyLCDR said:

Exactly!

Click to expand...

exactly false.

what is the basis for your belief?

PALO said:

exactly false.

what is the basis for your belief?

Click to expand...

Nope, you still haven't presented supporting information for YOUR belief. His statement uses the same conclusion basis as yours, and he arrived at a differing outcome.

When Officer Friendly tells you that you should do something that benefits him, but not you; be wary.
When Officer Friendly tells you that you should do something that benefits you, but not him; take note.

PALO said:

exactly false.

what is the basis for your belief?

Click to expand...

If a tree falls and no one is there, does it make a noise? Whether your answer is yes or no, what do you base that belief on? One could logically state that there is no such thing as darkness because there is no measure for darkness. There is however a measure for light and what you have is a lack of light when you say it's dark.

Ya see, one can get really silly with this ****. I'm driving down the road 25 MPH over speed limit (alledgedly) and am clocked at that by an officer. I turn into a park and run over and sit down at a picnic table with a buddy who is already there. Officer turns in and (Not seeing who it was driving) asks: "which one of you was driving that car?" Now we could say "I won't answer any questions officer". In that case there isn't too much he can do. On the other hand if I chose to talk to the police and answer the questions (YOU're not suppose to lie to the police" and say "It was I officer", I get a ticket.

Don't talk no court case. Talk, I'm going to court. Of course those are assumptions based on what ifs. But I wouldn't be speeding anyway cause I never never ever go over the speed limit, even when I do.

William Fisher said:

If a tree falls and no one is there, does it make a noise? Whether your answer is yes or no, what do you base that belief on? One could logically state that there is no such thing as darkness because there is no measure for darkness. There is however a measure for light and what you have is a lack of light when you say it's dark.

Ya see, one can get really silly with this ****. I'm driving down the road 25 MPH over speed limit (alledgedly) and am clocked at that by an officer. I turn into a park and run over and sit down at a picnic table with a buddy who is already there. Officer turns in and (Not seeing who it was driving) asks: "which one of you was driving that car?" Now we could say "I won't answer any questions officer". In that case there isn't too much he can do. On the other hand if I chose to talk to the police and answer the questions (YOU're not suppose to lie to the police" and say "It was I officer", I get a ticket.

Don't talk no court case. Talk, I'm going to court. Of course those are assumptions based on what ifs. But I wouldn't be speeding anyway cause I never never ever go over the speed limit, even when I do.

Click to expand...

one can come up with anecdotal examples where talking helps, and one can talk of examples where talking hurt a person

that is entirely true, and something i am not denying

what i am explaining that a BLANKET PROTOCOL , Not TO TALK, and especially if you are completely innocent is stupid, and USUALLY harmful

remember, there are several steps

given a cop talking to you, there is HIS decision, based on both discretion (cops are only in rare cases required to arrest, or cite, (certain DV offenses they are etc. given PC), and evidence as to whether

1) cite
2) arrest
3) warn
4) investigate further, INCLUDING WHAT YOU TELL HIM and determine there is not in fact PC

as i have given examples, it is often the case that people do , by talking to cops, ensure that there is NOT PC (the breaking into the car example) where there very likely would have been IF they had not (same example given)

the other stuff is more a crapshoot. many cops are more likely to give a break (verbal warning etc.) even WITH PC if the person is honest, etc. for MINOR stuff, but that's ANOTHER issue. the primary issue is the ability of the person to AVOID arrest and/or cite by EXPLAINING away so to speak some suspicious behavior

the SECOND step is that GIVEN a cop referring a case to the prosecutors office (in WA state, ONLY a prosecutor can actually charge. cops can only recommend charges. the ACTUAL charge can only be preferred by a prosecutor), the prosecutor can consider THE EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF HIM. if a suspect failed to give a statement, the prosecutor doesn't hear "his side of the story" which often either vitiates or mitigates PC and makes it less likely the prosecutor WILL charge

i can think of scores of examples i have seen, one was where a guy i questioned regarding a firearms violation (and I did have PC) post miranda, gave an excellent statement explaining why he used the firearm in the manner he did, AND clearly established a bona fide self defense claim. i released him without any booking of course, and because the "victim" was so insistent, i forwarded the entire case to the prosecutor for them to make the decision

the decision was DECLINE and the prosecutor SPECIFICALLY said in the decline notes that the statement OF the suspect clearly established not only reasonable doubt, but actually a very strong case that he was in the right, and thus the proscutor didn't charge. he WOULD have without the suspect's statement because the victim's statement ABSENT rebuttal was compelling

these kinds of things are common

the VAST majority of police encounters do not result in arrest or charges, and in 20+ yrs as an LEO, i have seen literally hundreds if not thousands of times where what a suspect SAID meant either no arrest, no cite, no charges, and in some cases meant the OTHER person ended up getting arrested.

that's actually more common than a lot of people realize. iow, a complainant will call something in as a "victim" and once the cops talk to both sides, the "victim" turns out to be the party in the wrong and gets cited/arrested

again, and this is LOGIC, not opinion, that IF you look at a (by definition biased subset of cases, since cases where people ARE CHARGED iow go to court or hearings by definition - are cases where a case was strong enough to be made against somebody) relatively tiny (court cases vs. police contacts) biased subset of a set (the entire set being police/citizen encounters whree there is some question of possible criminal activity), you cannot get a valid conclusion

an analogy would be looking at ONLY women who got pregnant when a condom broke or was used improperly and concluding "condoms don't work. in every case of pregnancy i look at WHERE a condom was used, the condom didn't work"

well, DUH

you are essentially looking at pregnancies and saying "see, people always get pregnant"

i am saying if you look at all instances where people have sex (even w/o a condom) MOST do not get pregnant

duh

look a a biased sample and receive a false conclusion hth

As long as charges of logical fallacy are flying, I'm gonna knock a couple holes in what PALO has said.

Bottom line. If the cop doesn't have RAS when he approaches you for a social contact* and you don't talk to him, its gonna be really difficult for him to achieve RAS.

If the cop has RAS--real, imagined, invented, false-reported--if you don't talk to him, its going to be really difficult for him to achieve probable cause for an arrest.

If the cop has or develops probable cause, nothing you say is going to get you out of being arrested. See Prof. Duane's video. Basically, if the cop has PC, or if you give it to him by talking with him, down you go.

This is about as logical as it gets. Prof. Duane's video information stands. And, despite cop PALO's (unbiased?) advice, Prof. Duane has several SCOTUS decisions on his side, meaning some saavy lawyers in black robes have expounded on it.

As Prof. Duane mentions, there will be plenty of time to put your cards on the table if the prosecutor moves toward an arrest. And, besides, what on earth is a prosecutor doing moving towards an arrest in the first place? Either the cop gave him probable cause of he didn't. Essentially, PALO seems to be advocating giving the prosecutor your side of the case so he can decide whether you've got enough for a solid defense, making prosecution a losing proposition.

All in all, what we have here in PALO's recent posts is just a different version of the same old cop stance we've heard time and time agian: don't exercise your rights. (yawn) I guess its in their genes or something.

*I love the misleading terms some cops use. Social contact, my a$$. A social contact is; "Hi, nice weather." Or, a citizen meeting a cop in a 7-Eleven on Friday evening and asking, "Hi officer. You boys busy tonight?" That is a social contact. An investigative contact is an entirely different animal. Consensual or not, an investigative contact is not a social contact. But, some cops seem to like word choices that fog up the important distinctions. Cui bono? (Who benefits?)

Citizen said:

As long as charges of logical fallacy are flying, I'm gonna knock a couple holes in what PALO has said.

Bottom line. If the cop doesn't have RAS when he approaches you for a social contact* and you don't talk to him, its gonna be really difficult for him to achieve RAS.

If the cop has RAS--real, imagined, invented, false-reported--if you don't talk to him, its going to be really difficult for him to achieve probable cause for an arrest.

If the cop has or develops probable cause, nothing you say is going to get you out of being arrested. See Prof. Duane's video. Basically, if the cop has PC, or if you give it to him by talking with him, down you go.

This is about as logical as it gets. Prof. Duane's video information stands. And, despite cop PALO's (unbiased?) advice, Prof. Duane has several SCOTUS decisions on his side, meaning some saavy lawyers in black robes have expounded on it.

As Prof. Duane mentions, there will be plenty of time to put your cards on the table if the prosecutor moves toward an arrest. And, besides, what on earth is a prosecutor doing moving towards an arrest in the first place? Either the cop gave him probable cause of he didn't. Essentially, PALO seems to be advocating giving the prosecutor your side of the case so he can decide whether you've got enough for a solid defense, making prosecution a losing proposition.

All in all, what we have here in PALO's recent posts is just a different version of the same old cop stance we've heard time and time agian: don't exercise your rights. (yawn) I guess its in their genes or something.

*I love the misleading terms some cops use. Social contact, my a$$. A social contact is; "Hi, nice weather." Or, a citizen meeting a cop in a 7-Eleven on Friday evening and asking, "Hi officer. You boys busy tonight?" That is a social contact. An investigative contact is an entirely different animal. Consensual or not, an investigative contact is not a social contact. But, some cops seem to like word choices that fog up the important distinctions. Cui bono? (Who benefits?)

Click to expand...

your first point is not in conflict with what i said. in fact, in this thread or another, i said one of the first things to ask is "am i being detained or not" and if NOT, and you want to leave - leave.

again, i am not saying to talk to the police or not. i am saying a blanket policy not to, ESPECIALLY if you are innocent is stupid, and often harmful

HUGE difference

the prof. video does not stand, because you still ignore tha logical fallacy

if you want to get into some tangential wank about social contact, knock yourself out. that's a tangent

but again, the VAST majority of cop-person encounters never make it to court, just like the vast majority of times people have sex with a condom don't result in pregnancy

if you look at a sample (court cases) that by definition evidence a RESULT (that there is PC and an arrest/charge was made), then ... well duh... you are going to show that arrest/charging happened, so in practically every one of THOSE cases talking almost certainly did NOT help

if you can't recognize that fallacy, i can't help you

what i can tell you is that my facts are correct, and if you can ACTUALLY refute my dispelling of this logical fallacy then do so

or again, ADDRESS JUST ONE OF MY COUNTEREXAMPLES (AND these are not hypotheticals anyway, but that's a tangent)

address the case where you are entering your GF's car because you locked the key inside.

when the cop asks "what are you doing?" do you remain silent, or do you explain what you are doing, allowing him to verify your story, and maybe even help you (some cops carry slim jims. )

again, address just that ONE example, and tell me how, given that you are entirely innocent and you can prove it, that talking to the cops would be a bad idea

and again, if you are going to claim a blanket policy, iow ALWAYS DO X (in this case - always shut up when questioned), then all it would take is ONE counterexample to disprove the validity of your theory

i've given several

you can be a little sycophant and go "but the guy in the video says it", but that's not AN ARGUMENT

you can't DISCUSS WITH A VIDEO. it's a one way dissemination

you CAN discuss with me

so, again, address the car breaking in incident

if and when you address it, i'll get back to you

and btw, speaking from a game theory perspective AVODING arrest/charging/hearings i nthe first place is a laudable goal.

because even if you win ex-post arrest but pre-trial, or you go to trial and are found not guilty, that STILL has costs. lost time, lost wages, lost freedoms, stress, etc.

while IF you are going to court, it's a good idea to win

it is better to AVOID court in the first place.

but again, i asked a simple question, so i'll await your reply

PALO, you used the fallacious argument of "if you have nothing to hide". That isn't the point and is nothing but a statist tool of distraction. I believe you are not statist in so many other area's and would like you not be biased on this because of your profession. If you are a cop in Kent say hi to Rafael for me (he probably doesn't remember me, but his wife and my wife were good friends at one time).

Your posts are the perfect example of why people on here say never take legal advise from a cop.

Your example of the car may be RAS and would depend on circumstances and time, . Still not legally enforced here in Washington you have to give ID. Your example of carrying amp (I can't carry mine, it's a marshall 1/2 stack) isn't without other contingencies. Would I volunteer my name in those scenarios, no, I might make the statement I just played a gig and am going home, or my girlfriend locked her keys in the car, and then continue about my business, then whether detained or not, I'd shut the hell up. It has been ruled in Washington that without other circumstances refusing to give name or ID is not obstruction.

[h=1]Washington v. Williams, [/h]

Justia.com Opinion Summary: Petitioner Michael Williams drove away from a car dealership without paying for new tires and wheels. An employee called the police, and officers tracked down Petitioner at his girlfriend’s home. Petitioner admitted that he had driven away, but to avoid discovery of an outstanding warrant against him, Petitioner gave a fake name. Petitioner was convicted of first-degree theft, making false statements to an officer, and for obstructing law enforcement by giving a fake name. Petitioner appealed his obstruction conviction, arguing that legislative history and case law show that the trial court misinterpreted the applicable statute. The appellate court affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, holding that obstruction requires more than just a statement—it requires some conduct in addition to making the statement. The Court vacated Petitioner’s conviction on the obstruction charge alone, but affirmed the lower courts’ decisions in all other respects.

Click to expand...

We all know there are "good cops" but the barrel is rotten PALO. And you continued use of "case law" proves it. Case law has destroyed constitutional restrictions and common law in favor of the state and continually adding to a "police state". It's a shame but I don't buy the "few bad apple" arguments given by cops or statists. I even wrote a rant that became sort of an essay if interested in reading it.

The supreme court has ruled that cops can lie in the course of their investigation. Frazier v. CuppSo rather than take LEO advice I will take the advice of Lawyers and even judges who say don't ever volunteer information to police.

PALO said:

one can come up with anecdotal examples where talking helps, and one can talk of examples where talking hurt a person

that is entirely true, and something i am not denying

what i am explaining that a BLANKET PROTOCOL , Not TO TALK, and especially if you are completely innocent is stupid, and USUALLY harmful

Click to expand...

Yet you do not present any evidence of that, other than it is your opinion.

PALO said:

look a a biased sample and receive a false conclusion hth

Click to expand...

Yet you do that, and accept it as if it were fact.

You have an opinion. Others have a differing opinion.

PALO said:

if you look at a sample (court cases) that by definition evidence a RESULT (that there is PC and an arrest/charge was made), then ... well duh... you are going to show that arrest/charging happened, so in practically every one of THOSE cases talking almost certainly did NOT help

Click to expand...

No, you are falsely assuming that in practally every one of those cases, people talked.

PALO said:

if you can't recognize that fallacy, i can't help you

Click to expand...

To point out the fallacy you feel you see, you have to accept that you also are falling afoul of the SAME FALLACY!

PALO said:

what i can tell you is that my facts are correct, and if you can ACTUALLY refute my dispelling of this logical fallacy then do so

Click to expand...

No, the ONLY thing you can properly claim, is that you have an opinion, and not facts. It is false to claim that a bare opinion is a fact, when you don't present data that supports that opinion.

PALO said:

SNIP but again, i asked a simple question, so i'll await your reply

Click to expand...

Good, god. What a bunch of mess to try to reply to.

So, no. I'm not going to answer a simple question until you ask a simple question, and don't clutter up the discussion with tons of other stuff. Your's is just an attempt to overwhelm either myself or readers.

You want a simple question replied? Ask it. And don't make somebody read a bunch of other stuff in order to try to find it or figure out what it is.

PALO said:

SNIP i am saying a blanket policy not to, ESPECIALLY if you are innocent is stupid, and often harmful

Click to expand...

Oh, ho, ho.

Readers,

Lets just turn 700 hundred years of legal protection and advancement on its head!

According to PALO, the government should no longer be required to prove you are guilty and collect the evidence to do it. Now it is often harmful if you do not explain your innocence to authorities. It is often harmful if you just exercise rights that cost 725 years, burnings, beheadings, maiming, disfigurement, imprisonment, exile, disspossession of property, and two revolutions* to wrest away from government.

I would just love to hear how, who, and which government entities do not respect rights which courts have said the exercise of which cannot be construed to incriminate the exerciser. I do hope he tells us more.


*Three revolutions if you count the Glorious Revolution in 1689 that resulted in the English Declaration of Rights, but that was essentially bloodless, meaning more a revolution in policy than a shooting war. Otherwise:
1. The English Revolution that brought Oliver Cromwell to power and established the temporary English Republic until the Restoration that put Charles II on his father's throne.
2. The American Revolution.

PALO said:

SNIP address the case where you are entering your GF's car because you locked the key inside.

when the cop asks "what are you doing?" do you remain silent, or do you explain what you are doing, allowing him to verify your story, and maybe even help you (some cops carry slim jims. )

Click to expand...

Wait a minute! Is that what this about? A cop who takes what's written here so literally that he thinks we advocate never, ever under any circumstances talking to a cop?

A cop who's apparently never read our posts where we also say a fella has to make his own decisions about the exact cop he's facing, in the exact circumstances he's facing him?

A cop who apparently forgets the context of most of our conversations is OCer encounters with cops, not everybody who happens to encounter a cop while, shall we say getting his keys out of his girlfriend's car?

So, now we have to make really sure to put lots of conditions, limiters, and and so forth, so the cops don't take what is written too literally?

Is that what this last couple pages have really been about? Oh! My! God!

If someone is involved in an or witnesses an incident (Not accident) even a cop has to be very careful of what they say. Especially a cop. Yo sorta get that tunnel vision, your mind is racing and such. If a cop ONE OF THE EVER, EVER SO MANY GOOD ONES has to draw his weapon or lay hands on someone (justifiably) they have to make a report almost emediately afterward. Their mind is clouded and understandablly so. A couple days later they remember things they didn't initially. They think more clearly and add to their statements. A good lawyer or rather a bad lawyer who is doing what lawyers do and nowsuing the cop and police department on behalf of the bad guy will question the officer on why he is now changing his story. Why he originally lied or withheld parts of the story. Even cops have to be careful about talking to the police, sometimes (SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES!.

William Fisher said:

If someone is involved in an or witnesses an incident (Not accident) even a cop has to be very careful of what they say. Especially a cop. Yo sorta get that tunnel vision, your mind is racing and such. If a cop ONE OF THE EVER, EVER SO MANY GOOD ONES has to draw his weapon or lay hands on someone (justifiably) they have to make a report almost emediately afterward. Their mind is clouded and understandablly so. A couple days later they remember things they didn't initially. They think more clearly and add to their statements. A good lawyer or rather a bad lawyer who is doing what lawyers do and nowsuing the cop and police department on behalf of the bad guy will question the officer on why he is now changing his story. Why he originally lied or withheld parts of the story. Even cops have to be careful about talking to the police, sometimes (SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES, SOMETIMES!.

Click to expand...

false.

why do people constantly make declarative statements on things they suspect but don't know?

my agency has NO such policy and we are not required to write a report if we draw our weapon, NOR if we "lay hands" on somebody

period. full stop

SOME agencies do

in fact, many do.

but not all

in some cases, i would and i do. depends on the facts and circs.