7Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
My prediction for this thread - you will be flamed and trolled
The Anti Sheepdog
Why I Will Not Speak To The Police With Out A Lawyer In 1991 at Fort Lewis Washington, I was arrested because someone called my barracks and told the C.Q. that there was a bomb somewhere in the building, the battalion dispatch clerk (who didn’t like me) told CID that I did it. Up to this point this is the story of a fairly minor inconvenience. The cop that arrested me refused to tell me what I was being charged (remember that fact because its going to figure back into the story) W/. He also felt that it would be a good idea to make a public spectacle of me by dragging me through the barracks twice in handcuffs.
When I was taken to CID headquarters I was left alone in a room for about an hour still in cuffs. (This is probably when I developed my pathologic fear of being mechanically restrained in any way), then taken to an interrogation room where I was handcuffed to a chair. And then the fun really began. The investigating officer told me that he knew that I was innocent (remember this is the same guy who has now left me hand cuffed for going on three hours) and that I had an excellent service record. (I didn’t know it at the time but my military career ended that night) He then asked me to do him just a little favor, if I would confess to the crime (they still hadn’t told me exactly what I was being charged with.) it would really help him out. In return for my assistance he would release me to my battalion commander with a recommendation that I receive no punishment.
When I refused to confess to a crime that I hadn’t committed, the real interrogation started, I wasn’t physically mistreated. Unless you count the fact that I was handcuffed for a total of 4 hours (and this by a cop who had already told me he knew I was innocent)
When golden boy was done with the mind games he (while I was still cuffed to his chair, probably for my own safety) typed up a transcript of our interview. Oddly enough the part where he professed my innocence disappeared, and a section in which I made a full confession was magically added. When the confes- I mean transcript was handed to me I refused to sign it and finally had enough sense to tell the cop that I wasn’t saying another word until I spoke to a lawyer.
The near term end of the story is that a month or so later after taking two lie detector tests all charges (which I still hadn’t been informed of) were dropped. ETA Actually since i never had a formal article 32 hearing I was actually never formally charged so there shouldn't have been any charges to drop)
Now I’ve drawn attention to the fact that they never told me what the (according to the cop) relatively minor charges they filed against me were, honestly once they were dropped I didn’t care… until I tried to get a security clearance in 2002 and found out that they had been attempting to get me to confess to communication of a terrorist threat against the United States during a time of war. The “relatively minor charge” was still on my record 11 years after all charges were dropped.
I will never , under any circumstance, consent to questioning W/ out a lawyer present ever again
Flip 'em the bird and die like a VIKING
You are cordially invited to join us at gunrightsmedia.com where all the cool kids hang out http://www.gunrightsmedia.com/
| |  |
My prediction for this thread - you will be flamed and trolled
santa
You can NOT be arrested AND convicted for invoking your RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. Most people think Martha Stewart was convicted for a financial crime. The reality is she was convicted for lying to investigators which is a crime, not a financial crime. Had she invoked her 'right to remain silent' then said nothing she would not have gone to jail. The courts have ruled that it is OK if the cops lie to you, but it is a crime to lie to them. A policeman I know says that most people who are questioned or arrested get 'diarrea of the mouth' and the police can, will and do use EVERY word you say against you. Do NOT rely on 'Miranda' as you seen on TV cop shows. At any point anything you say can be used against you, before and after the Miranda rights are given. Police are trained to do whatever it takes to get you to confess, including lying, bullying, threatening, pretending to be your friend(they are not), offering a great deal for you, twisting anything you say into something you did not say, manipulations, saying it will be easier on you if you confess, say they have enough 'evidence' already, the'help me understand then you can go'ruse, or you can leave if you confess, and many many more. How many INNOCENT people have been convicted and sent to jail because of treatment like this. Remember these phrases to say when dealing with police, "Am I free to go?" or "I do NOT consent to be searched", or "Am I being detained?", or "Am I free to go?, or "Officer I do NOT wish to speak with you", and of course "I want to speak with a lawyer". The 'Bill of Rights' was ment to protect all of us against the all powerfull government. It is unfortuneate that most cop shows give the FALSE impression that anybody who exercises his 4th and 5th amendments is guilty. In my opinion the 4th and 5th amendmends are the core of our rights. YOUR RIGHTS USE THEM OR LOSE THEM!
santa
You can NOT be arrested AND convicted for invoking your RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT. Most people think Martha Stewart was convicted for a financial crime. The reality is she was convicted for lying to investigators which is a crime, not a financial crime. Had she invoked her 'right to remain silent' then said nothing she would not have gone to jail. The courts have ruled that it is OK if the cops lie to you, but it is a crime to lie to them. A policeman I know says that most people who are questioned or arrested get 'diarrea of the mouth' and the police can, will and do use EVERY word you say against you. Do NOT rely on 'Miranda' as you seen on TV cop shows. At any point anything you say can be used against you, before and after the Miranda rights are given. Police are trained to do whatever it takes to get you to confess, including lying, bullying, threatening, pretending to be your friend(they are not), offering a great deal for you, twisting anything you say into something you did not say, manipulations, saying it will be easier on you if you confess, say they have enough 'evidence' already, the'help me understand then you can go'ruse, or you can leave if you confess, and many many more. How many INNOCENT people have been convicted and sent to jail because of treatment like this. Remember these phrases to say when dealing with police, "Am I free to go?" or "I do NOT consent to be searched", or "Am I being detained?", or "Am I free to go?, or "Officer I do NOT wish to speak with you", and of course "I want to speak with a lawyer". The 'Bill of Rights' was ment to protect all of us against the all powerfull government. It is unfortuneate that most cop shows give the FALSE impression that anybody who exercises his 4th and 5th amendments is guilty. In my opinion the 4th and 5th amendmends are the core of our rights. YOUR RIGHTS USE THEM OR LOSE THEM!
And, let's not forget about the US Supreme Court:
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
FLORIDA v. ROYER, 460 U.S. 491 (1983)
Second, law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions. See Dunaway v. New York, supra, at 210, n. 12; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 31 , 32-33 (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). Nor would the fact that the officer identifies himself as a police officer, without more, convert the encounter into a seizure requiring some level of objective justification. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 555 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.). The person [460 U.S. 491, 498] approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S., at 32 -33 (Harlan, J., concurring); id., at 34 (WHITE, J., concurring). He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. United States v. Mendenhall, supra, at 556 (opinion of Stewart, J.).
I am not anti-cop, I am pro-Constitution.Originally Posted by Flanmedic51
santa
As you would say NavyLCDR, I am not anti-cop, I am pro-Constitution.
The point of your lawyer is that you never talk. I will never, under any circumstance, consent to questioning, ever...even after my lawyer is present.
I think I saw that episode on NCIS!
KK
Maybe you are on to something!
-Doc
Posting Permissions
