[removed]
[removed]
Yea that's basically one of various reasons why you don't agree to be in that interview room to begin with
There is no upside
Can you not agree to go in?
Based on my experience, correct you do not have to agree to be interviewed even if arrested
In my understanding, according to my own research this holds quite broadly in the US
I am not a lawyer
Just to add onto this, if the police say that theyâll come toyour defense if you cooroperate and sing for them, or if they promiseto protect you, they are under no legal obligation to hold up their end of what deal they cut you. Police are allowed to lie.
Yeah, they might forget about telling you that.
not forget. They are trash. They will lie.
I think they mean conveniently "forget"
Do they even need to beat around the bush like that though? I think that the other guys point was that they don't even need to conveniently forget, they can just straight up laugh in your face for believing them and legally they are completely in the right.
The police just kind of forgot about the Iron Fleet
Dude, come on; a few bad actors doesn't make an entire organisation bad.
The fact that the few bad actors are never punished is what proves the entire organization is worthlessly hypocritical.
Moreover, the entire organization closes ranks to protect the bad actors more often than not.
It's not a few bad actors. These techniques are literally taught in almost every LEO training academy in the U.S. that teaches interrogation methods. There are a number of unethical techniques they train on, and the U.S. courts have consistently approved those unethical methods, because even judges don't understand science.
I've seen a judge first hand tell a guy that she straight up just didn't believe the CDCs classification of alcoholism as a disease because she thinks alcoholics are just losers. It took everything in me to not scream. Ignoring the unprofessionalism, that level of ignorance should not be tolerated in law.
My God, the rage I get when I hear stories like... Judges are getting older, with their older/more archaic mindsets, and the bench is being packed with people of a certain political persuasion that don't care much for science or anything else beyond ideology. Scary what the next 20 years has in store for us.
It seems like a healthy number of younger people and progressive minds are getting into politics so I have faith that in 20 years things will be better then now. Even if judges and cops don't change (which I doubt they will much in twenty years, the jobs just attract a certain type of person), laws are changing and stripping them of power to do dumb shit with their dumb views.
Man, I hope so! I love your optimism!
They don't even have to be personally bad people (although plenty are). The entire training and process is geared toward presenting the facts in a skewed way to help their case. A lot of it's even so subtle and automatic, they don't even realize they're doing it. But once they decide to make an arrest, they immediately start shading the truth.
I used to practice law, and I've deposed/cross-examined lots of cops, and they are almost never objective about any point that matters.
You tell them sure you'd love to help. But you're going to invoke your right to remain silent until you confer with an attorney.
If they're serious about offering you a deal, it will be done through attorneys. Don't say a fucking thing without a lawyer.
Reminds me of the boarder TV shows in the US they say if they confess and hand over the bigger fish right now they can go easy on you, but if you want to speak to a lawyer the deal is off and they will come after you with the full force of the law.
Same technique used by debt collectors or sales people: 'pay for it this very minute or it'll cost you 10 times more tomorrow'
Hahaha I'll be even more broke tomorrow good luck muhfukkaassss
First rule in life, everybody lies.
Unless you ask them if theyâre a cop. Then they have to tell you. /s
Ask him âwhenâs the last time you took off someoneâs cuffs once they were cuffedâ they usually get the message then.
This depends on the country. Cops in the UK and Australia arenât allowed to lie to you and the laws on what and how they can ask questions are different too. Itâs good advice for Americans and people in countries that have similar laws, but not everywhere. For instance, in Australia if you are found with a small amount of weed and admit it is yours for personal use and you havenât committed any other offenses ( which they are required to tell you about) you are entitled to a caution notice, which does not show up on your criminal record. The same for most offenses as a juvenile (except serious ones like murder and sexual assault). They are also required to tell you the law, and show you if needed, any time they are going to ask you to do anything where you donât have a choice ( like a breath analysis or dna rest when itâs required )
No. They are not allowed to do that. If it is proven this scenario has happened and you have an ethical judge who follows the law, the court case would be dismissed.
Please do not spread false information. What you said can and has happened, but tell the entire truth.. not a partial truth. This is NOT allowed, but unfortunately, it still happens.
Police can definitely lie during an interrogation. I've been trained in civilian interrogation techniques and the instructors frequently explain where the method differs for law enforcement. Mainly is that police can lie to subjects about the existence of things like evidence or witnesses.
I'm sorry, but no. Maybe it's different where you live, but that's not the case here. I went to college for this. Forensic science. Took interview and interrogation. Its unethical and if proven CAN throw the case out the window. That is very much false. There are numerous techniques one can use.. but once you cross over to coercion and lying, absolutely not. You cannot falsely tell someone something in order to get them to confess.
Again, I am speaking directly from what the law is, and if you're dealing with an ethical judge, DA, department or whatever, the case will be dismissed or another route will be taken. I stated initially that this does not mean all officers follow this. Downvoting my comment because you do not agree with it is uncalled for especially when what I said is NOT false.
Police lie to people all the time.
You stating the law but you are forgetting that the police act like they answer to no one.
You sound naive.
I had a cop tell me I can only transport marijuana from the dispensary to my home (lie) and asked me to hand it over. I did, and informed him that my MMJ card was with the weed and can I have it back?
He literally threw my weed at me, called me a "know it all fucker" and wrote me so many bullshit tickets I had to get a lawyer.
That's the story of the time a cop tried to steal my weed. ACAB.
Thatâs shitty.
Iâm so paranoid about BS police stops while transporting my own Medical Marijuana. I always travel with it in my trunk ^justincase
Didn't downvote you bro. But u better get out there and start telling the main LE interrogation training company what the law says cause they don't agree with you.
Edit: now I downvoted you
Give me an example of what you're being told is okay?
https://www.njmoorelaw.com/10-ways-police-can-lie-to-you
https://inpublicsafety.com/2015/12/the-use-of-deception-during-police-interrogations-2/
Now is a good time for you to admit you don't know what you are talking about.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/05/jn
Those are all unethical and if done, can throw a case out. Just because these are things that have been done does not mean it is allowed. Lol. I feel like you guys are not getting that. There is a huge difference between what is being done and what is actually allowed within the ethics and law. An unethical cop or whoever will use shitty techniques like these listed. Does not mean that it is okay. What I am saying is not rocket science.
This thread is a fucking joke. My God.
The point is there are established ways, upheld in the courts, that police can lie during an interrogation. It is inaccurate to say these techniques are illegal, which you are trying to do. Ethically, it's more complicated.
Have police abused this technique to illegally coerce confessions? Have confessions been thrown out in court? Absolutely, and no one is arguing otherwise. But you are trying to hold up exceptions as proof that deception by police is illegal, and that is wrong.
I think you are also assuming I think this state of affairs is ideal, and that's not true either.
I think the major thing you are missing is that, yes, there is a difference between what is done and what is legally allowed. Based on a quick Google search, yeah, the legality of police in the US lying during interrogation is more complicated by "yes"/"no", However, these are facts:
1) just because some isn't lying doesn't mean they're being fully truthful
2) Police are not a neutral party
3) Whether it's legal or not, (and you must agree it is legal to lie about some things, in some cases when police are performing an interrogation), IT HAPPENS ANYWAY
'Ah ha!," You say, "In cases where they've used excessive deception to get a confession - those cases get thrown out!"
Yeah, they can get thtown out IF: 1) IF the person whose rights were just violated is informed of that fact, which given our system is not something we can assume.
2) IF the case doesn't settle and result in a plea deal, before going in front of a judge/jury
2 3/4) (I forgot this one) IF their lawyer is good - again, not a given, especially with our public defender system
3) IF the Judge is ethical - again, not a given
4) IF you can prove it with facts that are legally admissible and convincing in a court of law. Presumably you would be gathering evidence during your interrogation? Not situations where people are known to be performing at their best
5) IF the victim is willing to put years of their life and buckets and buckets of money into it, they can look forward to years of legal battles with POLICE - ie the people with GUNS that can KILL YOU because they "thought the wallet was a gun" or they were "in danger of their life" or whatever legal fig leaves they need to lie and get away with it. And the case might come to nothing anyway.
Most people are taught that police are there to find out the truth of a crime, to protect and serve. Many Americans are privileged, in that they've never had to question that. However, we know for a fact through the work of the Innocence Project and others like it, that people cannot assume that police involvement means the innocent have nothing to fear. "The innocent have everything to fear, especially from people that say things like, 'the innocent have nothing to fear'." (GNU TP)
The fact is people would be better served to always assume that police are not being truthful.
Literally in the second paragraph:
Although police have long been prohibited from using physical force, they are able to use a variety of powerful psychological ploys to extract confessions from criminal suspects, including the use of deception during interrogation
The source also makes a point of noting that the distinction between lawful and unlawful deception (among other psychological ploys) is a big grey area, not nearly as clear cut as you are presenting.
Also, it seems to me that you are reducing the issue to semantics and ignoring a pragmatic approach that may benefit ordinary citizens more. Arguably, even if unethical behaviour in interrogations was in the minority of cases, the cost of unjust prison time is too high for any individual to roll the dice on
Didn't your fancy classes teach you that ethical =/= legal?
Did you fail to read where I've acknowledged that numerous times?
No dude, youâre the joke in this moment.
Police lying to suspects has been a known problem for years. If someone doesnât know their rights they are screwed.
You have this blind faith in a justice system that has been proven countless times to be broken and is in severe need of a total reconstruction.
Time and time again has it been proven that police are humans just like the rest of us and there are some who take the law into their own hands.
Like I said before, you sound naive. You sound like law school graduates fresh out of school.
Ethics violations aren't generally sufficient to have a case dismissed in most US jurisdictions. Only actual and knowing illegality, and the police - deliriously - can always plead ignorance of the law. (As a defendant you don't get to, though.)
Forensic science.
They should rename it to "forensic pseudoscience": http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/nathan-robinson-forensic-pseudoscience-criminal-justice
Ok, dude, it happens so often that lawyers advise their clients never to trust the police who say they will help you. Itâs different if you get it in writing, but I never indicated written deals. Iâm speaking of verbal deals. It even happens to juveniles. There have been reports about it.
What are you talking about?
If it is proven this scenario has happened and you have an ethical judge who follows the law, the court case would be dismissed.
If you are talking about US law, no. Police have broad discretion to lie to you during interrogations and its backed up many times in court (including the Supreme Court), as long as the courts rule they aren't psychologically coercing a confession out of you. They are allowed to lie about things like evidence (e.g., in 1977 SCOTUS held up a confession to murder after cops lied about finding fingerprints during an voluntary interview where suspect wasn't Mirandized). That said, if the police suspect you of a crime, it's safest to assume everything the police tell you is a lie at least until your lawyer gets to see the evidence. Even if they used coercive techniques to elicit a confession out of you, you could still be entangled in prison/the legal system for years while it gets sorted out.
But here's a case where courts ruled the cops lies were patently coercive (and had to be thrown out) (examples from here):
Letâs now consider People v. Adrian Thomas. In that case, police interviewed the defendant for hours. Investigators told Thomas they would pick up his wife if he didn't confess to injuring his son. They also told him 67 times it was an accident, 14 times that he wouldn't be arrested, 8 times that he would be going home and 21 times that disclosure of the circumstances under which he injured his child was essential to assist the doctors attempting to save the child's life (the infant was already brain dead). The court found the interview âpatently coercive.â
Or another one where the police pretended to record an eyewitness to the events who pinned it on the suspect:
In State v. Patton, 362 N.J. Super. 16 (App. Div.) (2003), an officer posing as an eyewitness was "interviewed" on an audiotape that was later played to the defendant who, despite his early denials of involvement, confessed upon hearing the tape. The conviction was reversed on appeal.
You can roughly think of the judgment call for "coercion" is whether you believe an innocent person could choose to confess under the circumstances. (E.g., believing the eyewitness would seal his conviction even though it wasn't him; a husband covering for his wife or believing that confessing to what his wife did would help his infant's medical care; whereas someone innocent may not believe their fingerprints would be found at the scene and could be challenged in court).
Also
https://www.njmoorelaw.com/10-ways-police-can-lie-to-you
(7) The police will try to imply that your refusal to cooperate will be damaging to your case. â "We know what happened, but if you obstruct our investigation the DA will be a lot tougher on you."
The above statement is not a lie- you can be criminally charged for obstructing an investigation (i.e. lying to the police). But the way it is phrased is often interpreted as "you have to talk to us." Refusing to answer questions is not obstruction of justice. Your best defense is always to remain silent and wait for a lawyer. You will not talk yourself out of a jail cell.
What most people don't realize is that the police do not charge you with a crime - only the district attorney can make that decision. The police are just supposed to hold you and get as much information as they can to convict you. That's it... That's their job. It is the DA's job to evaluate the evidence and decide whether to even issue a case. Often, a DA does not know anything about the case until the date of arraignment where they first pick up the file and read a police report. Most DA's don't even get that far, and simply read an interns notes on the file. When a DA reads the file for the first time one of the key pieces of evidence they are looking for is if you made any statements (that is the one thing that makes their job the easiest). United States v. Santos-Garcia (8th Cir.2002) 313 F.3d 1073, 1079 (noting that raised voices and suggestions on how to gain leniency do not render a confession involuntary).
[...]
(9) They will lie about wanting to help you out.
"We know what happened, best thing for you is to tell us how write it up in your favor and we will help you out."
"We have enough evidence to charge you - this is your only opportunity to tell your story."
Police do not "charge" you with a crime. The hardest cases to prosecute are the ones where the Defendant has said NOTHING. The less you say to the Police, the better off you are at avoiding a charge. Talking to police only makes it more likely that charges will be filed.
True Story:
Defendant and his accomplice were wanted for a murder. Officers already had a full confession from defendant's accomplice, who stated the defendant was the killer. Police lied and told the Defendant they have enough evidence to charge him with murder. The defendant told the police his friend actually did the murder. His statements were used against him to place him at the scene of the crime, and as an accomplice. Defendant was ultimately convicted of murder. When the police tell you they will help you out, they are lying. Their only job is to investigate a case. The police will never help a suspect/person do anything but incriminate themselves. People v. Gurule (2002) 28 Cal.4th 557
[deleted]
The Romansâ used to make up a big lie in order for you to confess to the smaller one.
Eg, you stole some bread. The Romansâ could lie and say the shop owner was killed and weâre doing you for murder. Youâd admit to the petty crime in order not to be charged with the bigger one.
Case closed.
Jesus, how did you get HRB approval to do that study?
That is not a very well designed study - there is a big difference between years in prison and a warning in their file - kind of skews the "How seriously should I take this".
Honestly your study does a better job of proving why people accept plea agreements even when they are innocent - because once the prosecutor has stacked and racked 40 years worth of charges, doing a few years in prison seems survivable in comparison - better to take that than risk losing.
Not to mention - its kind of unethical to bring someone in front of their department head without their knowledge and threaten them.
[deleted]
Sure, but a warning in your file isn't the same.
The two choices are long prison vs short prison & expulsion vs warning.
You're comparing the severe consequence in one and saying that you would have preferred that to the easy way out in the other.
Plagirism isn't a warning for my degree, it's an automatic expulsion from the program and unvalidates any past earned credit.
A year of prison, where you can keep doing your thesis really isn't that bad compared to losing 8 years of study
You're seriously missing the point.
There are two scenarios:
Scenario 1: You can admit guilt and get only 3 years in prison or gamble on 30 years.
Scenario 2: You can admit plagarism and get only a warning or gamble on expulsion.
There is no scenario (yet proposed) that would force you to choose between a couple of years in prison versus being expelled.
My only point was that people underestimate how much leverage a dean can have on graduat students, and how much he could get away with
ahh in that case I see your point.
3 years vs 30 years isn't usually what happens.
Usually it's plead to a misdemeanor and time served with a strike on your record, or risk longer jail time.
Do you have some stats to back that up or is it just a gut feeling you have?
97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains, the most recent season of serial was about goings-on in the Cleveland courthouse and in case after case prosecutors and even judges urge people to just take a plea to something that lets them go now and to stop clogging up the system with their insistence on due process.
The setup of the experiment is really an almost a perfect analogy for what frequently actually happens.
Except that information does not remotely support your claim regarding the content of the deals.
I'm aware of the states regarding plea bargains and I made that analogy in the beginning - because it was posted as an example of interrogation and confessions.
97 percent of federal cases and 94 percent of state cases end in plea bargains
Getting people to confess to things they are absolutely no guilty of in order to avoid the risk of a trial on something larger they also know they are not guilty of is a perfect allegory for the US Justice system.
Plenty of judges, prosecutors, and public defenders will tell defendants "If you plea it's just a misdemeanor. I doesn't matter if you did it. Stop clogging up the courts and take the plea. You don't want to piss off the judge by wasting their time. You can't afford bail and if you don't get back to work soon you'll lose your home. Take the plea."
As long as the participants were debriefed then you can use deception in your study. It wouldn't work if they said "hey were going to falsely accuse you of plagiarism for a study"
Yeah that still seems out of line so I decided to look up the ethics rules and wouldn't you know...
(b) Psychologists do not deceive prospective participants about research that is reasonably expected to cause physical pain or severe emotional distress.
It seems to me that it could reasonably be assumed that many people would feel severe emotional distress at the prospect of being expelled from their program of study.
I would be severely pissed if I signed up for a study and they pulled something like this - like wanting to punch them in the face type of pissed (not threatening/advocating violence here just expressing how I would feel).
I don't know what fly by night school you went to but most expell students for plagiarism.
"Warning in their file." The fuck you on about?
told them that they were being investigated for plagiarism, they could be kicked out of college, etc... but if they just confessed and promised not to do it again, theyâd just have a warning put into their file and theyâd be free to go.
They read the comment they replied to which specifically mentioned a "warning", that's what they are on about. They were trying to coerce people to confess by offering a chance at lighter punishment for a crime they never committed.
No half-decent IRB would ever approve a study like that. You can't falsely accuse people of unethical behavior and threaten to kick them out of college. No decent institution would ever expose itself to the legal liability it would incur by doing shit like that to its students.
Yeah they were smart. If someone lies to you/says something stupid and you literally can't reason with them, it may be smart to give them what they want so they leave you alone. Doesn't change how you perceive reality.
Bad study because there is a non zero chance they had plagiarized at one point. Would have been better to coherence them into something more unlikely for them to have actually done.
[deleted]
yeah I would've went straight to a lawyer
that's a fucked up study. like seriously I would've pursued some legal action against the host and the university.
i understand you were only doing it for class credit but come on man have some morals
Few years ago I listened to an interview on NPR explaining this. Dozens of Chicago kids were locked after admitting to crimes they didnât commit. The intense interrogation broke them within a day. They all assumed the justice system would find the facts, instead they would spend years in jail. Insane.
NPR | Beyond Good Cop/Bad Cop: A Look At Real-Life Interrogations
Edit: Misspelling.
Quick story but when I was 18 a close friend was shot and killed during a gang related conflict. After he died (it was on the second day, he'd been in the hospital undergoing surgery) the police asked me to come in and give a statement. I didn't think it was anything more than that.
I was in an interrogation room for many hours eventually only let out bc a friend who'd been with me told someone else who'd told my father who came to the station and flipped out.
My clearest memory of the experience is being in the room and the AC was pumping so hard my fingernails where turning purple. I was shivering uncontrollably and the cop in with me says "Why are you shaking? You must be really nervous..." It's just seemed like the most redic, asshole thing to do / say.
That's fucking mental. Glad your dad showed up
You and me both
And they would have shown a video of you shaking to a jury too. The jury wouldn't know it was freezing cold.
Yup. This was mid September while it was still pretty warm out so iirc I was in shorts and a short sleeved something. Definitely not ready to be north of the wall
I think this is what that show on Netflix might be based on. If you haven't checked it out yet I think it's called when they see us.
I think it's about the Central Park Five, which was in New York. The cops may have used the same techniques though, idk.
It is. The situation was so influential and well executed on the copsâ end that older folks still hold the belief that itâs not safe to be in Central Park after sunset. Iâve never felt unsafe in CP but this one incident had such serious repercussions.
I mean, the five people accused were innocent of the crime, but a woman was beaten and raped there by a serial offender (who later confessed), and other people were also assaulted in the same area. Iâm not saying things are the same now as in 1989, but the idea that it wasnât safe to be there before dawn at the time seems pretty accurate.
But in bangladesh we hate the police unanimously. We don't believe a single word they say. That's why they sometimes find violent means to get forced confession.
Bangladesh.... Islam.
I believe you.
Guantanamo Bay sends its regards
which is why, as a former lawyer, I would always say to clients "give the cops your name and address, ask for your lawyer then STFU". Especially so if you are actually innocent. The police and prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you have done something wrong, I have known a fair few people that have talked themselves into prison.
[deleted]
No the cops have to stop talking to you until youâre appointed an attorney.
Come on man this is a whole thing. âYou have the right to am attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to represent you.â
The cops will tell you how long you have to wait for an attorney, and âcanât we just settle this right now? Like adults?â And then suddenly you say some things that send you to prison.
Fun stuff.
If youâre lucky. The one time I had to talk to police I asked for a lawyer and they literally said no. I sat in an interrogation room for hours. When I complained of course they all said I never asked for one.
Donât kid yourself. The legal system is broken and cops are scum.
Your singular unprovable experience has indeed shown that all cops are scum
If you donât believe him there are hundreds of other news stories that went exactly like this
And for the hundreds of news stories that went exactly like that there are millions and millions of non-stories of cops acting normally, labeling all cops as scum gets upvotes on reddit, but just makes you an idiot in real life
[deleted]
Since cops can lie, is it possible that they send another cop in after a while saying they are the lawyer?
Not unless they want everything to be thrown out in court and get investigated.
False. They are legally allowed to lie about anything except your constitutional rights to get a confession.
A cop cannot pretend to be a lawyer and then use what you say against you in court.
Edit: Also, there are plenty of things a cop cannot lie to you about. For instance, promises of leniency. Like "if you confess you'll get a reduced sentence." Or something of that matter.
and then use what you say against you in court.
They don't have to. They can use parallel construction and deny the whole ruse.
They're not even supposed to talk to you once you declare that you want a lawyer, though. Only the person being interrogated can initiate contact once they say they want a lawyer or when they have the lawyer. Does the police violate this? Absolutely, but they are not supposed to.
Assuming you're American you should really know that you have the right to a lawyer. If you don't have one they have to give you one.
Assuming youâre American you should really know that you have the right to a lawyer. If you donât have one they have to give you one.
Except most people whoâve never been questioned by the police before donât know this. Itâs not generally something people will remember from high school.
I bet most people donât know you have to verbally invoke your right to remain silent because otherwise your silence can be used against you.
How would you invoke your right?
Ahem
"I am invoking my right to remain silent and wish to have my attorney present."
If you don't say this sentence or some variation of this phrase, your silence will be used against you as ruled by the supreme court.
Isnât the phrase âI plead the 5thâ also acceptable, or is that something different?
They have to give you a list of names of lawyers who are interested in the work or a public defender
In India, police tend to use physical torture.
While true, it does not excuse the unethical techniques of the US police across the country.
Yes, definitely not an excuse.
3rd world, what do you want?
His name is _skris
And?
It was a joke based on the structure of the sentence he was replying to.
The structure of this sentence would imply that he was talking to an agent named, "3rd world".
Not saying that the joke was particularly good or bad, just dissecting the Frog.
Jokes are a lot like frogs.
Dissecting is helpful to understand them, but it tends to kill them.
Yes, that was the idiom I was referencing.
Wow, that's an original and powerful comment. Here's some gold kind stranger!
Yeah, I've seen "When They See Us".
And confession tapes.
And Making a Murderer. Poor Brenden Dassy.
Seldomly have I been more demoralised by something that happened to somebody else. From the arguably coerced confession up until the final decision of the courts, what a story of absurdity. Left me in utter disbelief
Came here to mention that show
That's a shame because this can lead to innocent people going to jail and criminals walking free on the streets.
Law enforcement performance is measured in how many cases they win. Not how many crimes they prevent.
When you have a metric to measure performance that's different from the goal of your organisation the metric becomes the new goal.
Can't upvote this enough. I worked for a DA's office where conviction rate was the metric rather than anything related to public safety or justice. So while the city's crime rate was skyrocketing, the DA's office and the various LE agencies were constantly bragging about how their arrest and conviction rates were at all time highs. When asked why their numbers looked good and crime was so bad, they blamed it on Mexicans and African Americans from California.
yeah their compensation and career growth is directly tied to locking people away. if that isn't a conflict of interest...
I recommend a book by Franz Kafka called The trial. The book is about a guy arrested under unknown circumstances that never finds out why he is guilty but over time he starts to belive that he is guilty.
Very Kafkaesque
In Australia the police can only detain you for 8 hours and interview you for four of those hours, unless a magistrate appoints an extension. All interviews are recorded or transcribed.
In the US they can detain you for 72 hours with no charge, and interrogate you for all 72.
Then they can makeup a bogus charge with literally no evidence to detain you for another couple weeks.
This blew my mind. Someone was talking about being held overnight and released and I asked what the charge was, and they were like 'oh no they don't need to charge you'.
So what fucking grounds do they have to hold you?
Damn 72 hours? With no charge? Thatâs insane. Like you could loose your job over something like that and be totally innocent.
Thatâs fucked!
I assume they have to allow you 8 hrs a sleep?
No. They donât. Thatâs part of the problem. After 24 hours in a metal folding chair with no food or sleep, itâs very easy to confess to something you didnât do.
There are four lights!
But you saw 5
Exactly, excellent reference!
Chain of Command Part 2 Star Trek: The Next Generation: Season 6, Episode 11
The hero we need
Storytime.
My dad was accused of a very serious crime a few years ago. He didn't do it, the nature of the crime is such that he'd never do it. After a day in police custody being interrogated, once he left, he was trying to think of all the ways he COULD have done it. As in "If I've been accused of this, there must be a reason. Did I actually do this?" He even started hypothesising bizarre scenarios I'm which he somehow managed to commit the crime without realising. They took forensic evidence from him, confiscated his phone, and even searched his home while he was in custody. He couldn't even call me to let me know what was happening. He turned up at my home a week after the incident, steaming drunk, utterly convinced that the moment he set foot back in the town he lived in that he'd be arrested for coming to visit me (there are no such laws in that country). Nobody had advised him of his rights, so he felt like he had none.
Police interrogation tactics are great if you're trying to catch someone out in a lie. But if you're questioning an innocent person, they make them doubt their own recollections. My dad didn't get a solicitor until about 8 months into the case, because he wanted to show willingness to cooperate. Big fucking mistake. This case, which was clear-cut, dragged on for over a year before going to trial. The nature of it is such that it should have been tried almost immediately (relatively speaking).
The stress of this incident, mostly brought on not by the accusation, but by the police treating him as if he was guilty, meant he had to quit his job due to sickness. Out of work, his health deteriorated much more rapidly. His finances too. He had to declare himself bankrupt. Last year I found out that, not long before he got the solicitor, he tried to kill himself. Fortunately, when he OD'd on pain meds, he still woke up the following day.
He was unanimously acquitted, and even the judge, during trial, thought that the case against my father was utterly laughable. He didn't do it, and none of the evidence pointed towards him doing it. He even reprimanded the prosecution for bringing it to trial when the case against him was so weak.
All for the sake of a case that shouldn't have gone to court based on a crime he never committed, my dad lost the ability to work, his finances went down the shitter, and he tried to kill himself. The worst part of that is that, in general, I knew he was a suicide risk (I didn't know if or when he'd do it, but I knew there was a risk), and I had to decide whether or not to call the police to protect him from himself. I didn't call, and I'm still not sure I made the right decision. But, if I had, I don't think he'd have ever forgiven me.
We're three years on now, and my father is still scared of the police. He gets nervous when he hears sirens. He doesn't feel comfortable in the town he's been living for the past 30 years. The entire thing has made him utterly mistrustful of the establishment, to the point where he's swallowing all the alt-right bullshit Farage, Tommy Robinson, Trump and their ilk are always spouting. The anger and injustice of the whole thing have made him irritable and intolerant, pushing him towards their whole "tear down the broken system" rhetoric, and he's started swallowing the rest of their blarney as well. He's starting to realise some of the flaws in his reasoning, and is getting back to who he really is, but it's been damned hard.
TL:DR- lawyer up immediately, guilty or no. You always lose more than you gain.
This sounds exactly like what my partner and I are going through. Thank you for sharing. About 6 months in and this has totally shaken up our normal (law-abiding!) lives
I am so sorry you're having to go through this. Stand firm, stand your ground, defend yourself with everything you have. Think of everything you can to prove your innocence, even the smallest thing can be definitive.
What ultimately saved my dad was genuinely as simple as the angle of shadows cast on a wall, along with the lack of any corroborating evidence. Basically, the accusation couldn't possibly have been true, because of the shadows, and there was no evidence suggesting he perpetrated the crime.
I wish you and your partner the very best of luck, and hope you get your lives back on track after this. If you haven't already, lawyer up. State-provided lawyer, if you don't have the money. The on-call solicitor is the one who helped my dad.
It's hard to see an end, cause we think "well if they're accusing us of a serious crime we didn't do, what's to say they won't realise they have nothing, and keep the case going for even longer in blind hope". I'm grateful to hear about your dad slowly getting back to himself, as it's hard to picture life after this crazy life event.
I think we'll be fine legally, it's just that we're so damaged mentally. I'm transgender and when I was arrested I was dead named (for the first time in 2+ years!), despite the fact it's been legally changed everywhere for YEARS. They turned up and we'd just got out of the bath, so I was topless, upstairs. Upon hearing them asking for me, I came to the top of the stairs (covering my breasts with my hands) and said I was just finding a top and would be 30 seconds. They begun trying to come upstairs and my boyfriend stopped them, saying "she's transgender, let her get dressed and cover up". I heard this (couldn't find a top in the stress of the moment!) and came to the top of the stairs again to see them bounding up towards me. I cried out "just give me a minute to put a t-shirt on, please". They refused and kept coming towards me to the point where I was crying and eventually said "alright fuck you then, you can see my tits if you want to so bad" (lol) and moved my hands from my chest and just begun looking for a t-shirt or something.
It was a cold January night so I refused to leave in the towel she held against my chest, touching my breast in the process (even the thought makes me shudders six months later). The whole event, plus the ongoing case, has truly shaken us and I know there is an end to it, it's just a waiting game with no end date. We haven't seen a psychiatrist (quite hard here) but medical professionals have referred to us as having "stress disorders" and we hope over the coming years we can begin to heal.
Thank you for your kind words, we have solicitors and doubt it'll go any further than the police anyway. We are trying to stay hopeful that it'll all be over with by the end of the year, before we hit the 1 year mark.
Christ, that's horrific, I'm so sorry.
That's about how long it took for my dad, a year. Not that he was left alone for that year, though. They demanded that he turned up there, first every few weeks, then every month. Every time they basically threatened that things were going to escalate, but they never did. They told him that they'd have the forensics results back, and never did. In the end, it turned out that they'd had them for several months, and just never released them to him. They also refused to release testimonies that had been given against him until he got a solicitor involved.
There IS an end to all this, I promise, no matter how far off it seems right now. The uncertainty is by far the worst part.
They may well keep the case going out of blind hope. It's actually very likely.
I'll tell you what my dad was accused of (you probably guessed already). He was accused, by his extremely young niece (actual niece's daughter's stepdaughter) of assaulting her in the night. His niece, her boyfriend, and the boyfriend's young daughter had stayed the night at his following a football match/party when the team won. Lots of alcohol was consumed. One was asleep on the sofa, another on the floor, and my dad was asleep in his chair. He woke up in his chair with back pain (he was already unwell with pain issues). The young girl was in his bed, in the bedroom, but right up against the wall. Bear in mind, he's treated her as family for the better part of a couple of years by this point, so my dad gets onto the bed, over the covers, on the outer side of the bed, and goes to sleep. Her dad wakes up and goes to the toilet after some time, waking my dad up, at which point he gets up himself, says "good, you're up, now I can go get some proper sleep", and goes back into the living room to sleep on the couch.
The following day, he's arrested for assaulting the young girl.
In her testimony, she said that she saw his shadow on the wall, and she knew it was him, because she saw his beard in the shadow, and then he started touching her, and she could see the shadow the whole time. First, he didn't have a beard even an inch long. You couldn't possibly see that in a shadow. Second, with the way the light in that room works, be it streetlight or ceiling light (she said ceiling light in her testimony), his shadow does not show on that wall with him in any position by which he could have assaulted her. His arms would need to be six or seven feet long.
There was no forensic evidence of any kind, none of his DNA on her, none of hers on him, no evidence of sexual violence, nothing at all corroborating the incident. They still pushed it to trial, despite there being nothing, and even though the young girl's testimony changed every time she gave it, whereas my dad's remained consistent at every retelling.
Despite knowing that he didn't do anything, the police got him so shat up that he was terrified he'd maybe done something in his sleep.
I know this isn't exactly reassuring, but as long as you know what you did and didn't do, you think your way around the problem, and do everything in your power to show "no, really, this isn't me", you'll hopefully come out on top, even if they do take it to court. The judge at my dad's trial was actually more angered by the girl's family than by anything my dad did, and by the prosecution bothering to bring it to trial.
I'm not going to lie, it will be hard for you and your partner. Even months after my dad was cleared of all charges, I still got worried, forgetting that the trial had happened and that it was fine. He still gets nervous around sirens, and he was still being ultra-careful about everything he did for months, just in case they hauled him back in again. Even after they moved, he still avoids the street they lived on, because going there would have violated his bail. He also avoided going near the police station for a time, meaning he couldn't use the cheapest supermarket for months. I don't know how long it will take for him to heal completely, if he ever will, but he's doing a LOT better. There is hope there. I'm just so sorry it's so incredibly shit in the meantime.
Thankfully I don't have to check in at the station, however they sometimes come to my house for silly little things they could've called about - I think it's to add the element of fear.
After the arrest in January, once a month they'd come and I'd never answer the door (after the arrest my boyfriend and I are very very anxious about knocks at the door!), but they'd post a slip saying, "call me on this number .... , thanks - *name* from police department".
It was always just little things, like single questions, lol. One time was to ask me to take a polygraph test, which my lawyer advised me AGAINST as they're 1) unreliable 2) can't be used in court and 3) even if they could be used in court, they'd only use it if the results went against myself. It seems like the police are out to get you, they want to gather evidence to find you guilty, not the find the truth.
They haven't been in a few months now after the initial few attempts but I just heard a knock 30 minutes ago which is strange as I have no deliveries coming, which sent me into panic mode and takes me back to January - it's horrible. I'm not sure who it was, but nothing was posted, so if it is the police it's even worse what they're doing now as it's clearly not even important enough to write a note about or need to speak to me on the phone about!
From the facts of what happened to your dad it sounds like it shouldn't have made it to court even, I'm so sorry to hear that happened to him. I know the police want to seem like they're 'protecting people' even when they probably knew nothing would happen at court, it's messed up. It's a waste of public money too! They waste soooo much money on the wrong things, yet simple things are amiss â when I was in custody (wet hair from my bath still) and cold as the heating was off, they didn't even have blankets.
Despite everything, as you said I have to remain hopeful that things will be fine as I haven't done what I'm accused of and the truth will prevail, and as I said I doubt it'll even end up getting pushed to the prosecution service, and if it does I doubt it'd go to court once someone outside of the police saw the facts.
Thank you for your kind words at the end, it sounds like we're having a similar experience to your dad in regards, my boyfriend especially get's so badly anxious just from a siren miles away. I hope in a few months I'm coming back to this comment to find you and tell you the good news, haha :)
Your assessment of the situation sounds pretty accurate. Definitely the fear thing.
It's very good you listened to the lawyer on the polygraph thing, because he's 100% right.
I look forward to receiving the news that it's all over and done with for you :)
The entire thing has made him utterly mistrustful of the establishment, to the point where he's swallowing all the alt-right bullshit Farage, Tommy Robinson, Trump
Your dad sounds pretty cool.
Also, what kind of asshole puts a TL;DR at the bottom of a wall of text?
Pretty sure the only valid reasons to talk to police are to report a crime, or give details if you witnessed an accident or something. And even, then be wary of them trying to pin it on you because you happen to be there.
Not without a lawyer. Ever.
1984 comes closer by the day.
Actually 1984 was 35 years ago and counting, it is getting further away
I think he means the book by george orwell my dude
Edit: i done r/wooshed myself
Enjoy life in good humour, dude.
Well that doesn't make sense either, books just sit there, they don't approach people
F
r/wooosh
God this is something I would expect to unironically read in other forums. Thanks, I hate it.
[deleted]
I can't wait for the part where we get shocked into believing 2 + 2 = 5.
Ohh you must have not gotten last night assignment. Everyone else is already there.
I'm currently living in Spain, and I can definetely relate
fly to N. Korea?
Stop ruining Brooklyn 99 for me, im still in season 2 :(
There's a slight perspective to this. From what i know, this differs a bit by country. In USA the interregation method is focused on getting a confession from a suspect. The method used in scandinavian countries is more based on getting as objectivly accurate witness as possible. And i think Britain came up with a "new" method as well a few years ago, but the focus still being getting as accurate witness as possible.
I used to be a police officer in the UK and it's pretty different from the US style interrogations. If we say anything remotely coercive or oppressive in order to extract a confession the whole case can be thrown out. I would definitely agree that getting a lawyer is vital and your lawyer will usually tell you - if you're innocent, talk to them. If guilty - don't talk. But it's recorded (always audio and video is used for serious offences) and transcribed and in the case of minors or other vulnerable people you have to also get an appropriate adult to be present. They can be a family member or a allotted trained professional. We can't interview without giving the caution (like Miranda rights) and can only interview out of the police station if someones life is on the line, i.e. someone has been kidnapped/held hostage and it is extremely time sensitive to find out where they are etc. Even that has to be approved by higher up. I'm always astounded by how US cops have lengthy interviews without arresting people or cautioning them. If I was in the US I'd never ever talk to police.
[deleted]
Especially considering that when cops get into trouble, they almost always invoke the fifth.
Need proof? Check out Brendan Dassey's coerced false confession that led to his incarceration for life by corrupt cops/DA/judges and more...
Lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer lawyer. Lawyer. Keep your mouth shut and get a lawyer.
Even a fish wouldn't get caught if it kept its mouth shut.
I just stick with the age old advice, "Fuck the police."
That's why you do not talk to police. They will lie, not if, not can, WILL. Get a lawyer, you cannot afford not to.
âPeople hate silenceâ is it because our minds get flooded with stories and scenarios about whatâs happening around us? Made me think that mastering one self is to acknowledge that no single moment determines reality and if we witness, in silence, whatâs happening around us maybe we could understand that there is never a rush to fill in âempty spacesâ. Philosophical maybe, but itâs true that we all like to tell our story, we have an innate pressing desire to communicate and to relate, even in this case to police man, who are just looking (however way possible) for a conviction
As a teen I violated a restraining order by leaving a flower on a girlâs doorstep. For the record, we both liked each other but her controlling parents didnât want her dating anyone so they got a restraining order on me, on the basis that they told me to stop talking to their daughter, I didnât, and that qualifies as stalking according to the law. ANYWAYS, I did this mid day on a weekday when most people would be at work, and the deed took 10 seconds. Iâm not saying it was impossible for someone to notice me, but I consider it a slim chance. I figured Iâd be the suspect but with no witnesses they couldnât prove it was me.
The police called me in to question me. They asked if I did it and I said no. Then they said a neighbor saw me do it. My dumbass immediately caved, not realizing this was most likely a trick.
Yeah I've had a cop lie to me about having video evidence of me committing a 'crime' (the crime was being at a party). I just went, 'cool if you've got that then you should use it'.
They also got suspicious about a pot of liquid in my car and called in a sniffer dog. The liquid was tea, and the senior officer could not keep a straight face.
Oh and there were some bottles of alcohol someone had left in the car. One of the cops wanted to charge me with theft because they weren't mine and I couldn't tell them exactly who owned them. He couldn't explain who I was supposed to have stolen them from.
It was a strange night.
I know it's Thursday, but whenever you talk to cops it's Shut the Fuck Up Friday
Omg I love that. Is that a real thing?
Jokes on them, i have like a thousand hours on town of salem. Im used to retards screaming that i did shit i didnt do.
r/townofsalem game for random people's reference
ACAB
When arrested the only word you know is "lawyer"
They got my sister this way.
Anyone doubting this needs to study the facts of the Amanda Knox case. What a fucking nightmare.
"Almost any person" is incorrect and grossly exaggerated. The link you posted says nothing like that.
The actual statistic on false confessions is about 13 percent: https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/False-Confessions-.aspx
The source you yourself are quoting says that that 13% only refers to exonerations since 1989 and that
these exonerations deeply understate the extent of the problem.
There are many people who falsely confess and don't get exonerated. Especially if they're poor.
I feel like you misunderstood. I'm not saying every confession is false - I'm saying that almost every person would agree to make a false confession, eventually, under the circumstances that police are legally allowed to interrogate you.
Overall the false confession rate is low because, generally, most police interrogations involve subjects who are guilty. But they don't all do.
You did not say every confession is false but to suggest that literally almost every person would agree to make a false confession under current legal standards is, with all due respect, a bit much.
There are plenty of people who would never confess to a crime they did not commit just because the cops detained them for a while, pressured them, implied leniency, promises/threats, etc.
If the cops in this country were legally allowed to hold you indefinitely without trial, beat and torture you, lock up your family etc.âthen youâd have a point.
The Innocence Project does good work and calls attention to problems, but they are just as prone to exaggeration as anyone else with an agenda.
You did not say every confession is false but to suggest that literally almost every person would agree to make a false confession under current legal standards is, with all due respect, a bit much.
It's true, though.
There are plenty of people who would never confess to a crime they did not commit just because the cops detained them for a while, pressured them, implied leniency, promises/threats, etc.
No doubt you think you're one of them, but that's my point - you're wrong and you should know that you'll likely falsely confess to crimes under interrogation techniques that police in the United States are legally allowed to use, unless you're able to end the interrogation before you do.
I disagree. People who are educated about their rights would not falsely confess.
People who are educated about their rights would not falsely confess.
You're mistaken. They can and do, as can anyone. It's legal for the police to cause you to doubt your own recollection of events, or, in the more likely case, your non-recollection of the events.
In all of the famous cases of false confessions Iâve read about, the person did not know their rights. There are probably some people who still falsely confess knowing their rights, but it seems to be uncommon. Also, doubting your recollection and confessing to something you didnât do are two separate things.
In all of the famous cases of false confessions Iâve read about, the person did not know their rights.
When three apparent experts are telling you that you're wrong about what your rights are, for hours and hours, your righteous certainty in your rights will disappear.
Also, doubting your recollection and confessing to something you didnât do are two separate things.
Please see the original post where this is addressed; for further research, please look up the Asche Conformity Experiments. It's legal for the police to use interrogation tactics that will actually cause you to manufacture recollection of the events they're trying to get you to confess to, if they succeed in convincing you that you did it but you just don't remember. And it's not very hard to do that.
Again, I do not believe that everyone would fall for these tactics. Some people are stubborn and educated.
Again, I do not believe that everyone would fall for these tactics.
Nevertheless, the evidence shows that nearly all of them do, even if they're educated. If that surprises you then you may wish to research it yourself.
What evidence? What you linked in your post does not state what youâre claiming.
Better a thousand innocent men be locked up than 1 guilty man roaming free -dwight schrute
I was just watching till they see us on netflix which highlights this exact issue!!
The Confession Tapes on Netflix is a good watch on this subject with great examples and video of cops coercing false confessions.
This hit hard after just watching When They See Us.
if you find yourself being questioned by police, or (more likely) serving on a jury, viewing evidence relating to a defendant's supposed confession.
Depressing fact. due to the sheer number of cases that are settled with a plea before they ever reach court, you may actually be more likely to be questioned by police than you are to serve on a jury.
Gotta fill the prisons with millions of people and reach the quota. We need a complete reform of the police and justice system.
I'm not aware of the US legal system, can the police there hold you for 12+ hrs just because they suspect you?
They can hold you for as long as they want, since you're under arrest at that point.
wut?
Depends according to jurisdiction, but anyone arrested needs to be brought before a judicial officer (most likely a judge) within 24 to 72 hours.
Of course if you can't make bail, then you are fucked.
There are black site prisons where people disappear for years.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site
The only appropriate way to communicate with police asking questions when you are sans attorney is âI refuse to answer any questions without an attorney.â That is ALL you should be saying. Remember, their job is to use what you say against you. You have the right to remain silent. Exercise it.
I didn't do it!
I was questioned by the OSI. (USAF secret police) when I was a very young enlisted guy. I had absolutely nothing to do with the crime (A property theft).
But I will fucking tell you, I was ready to admit to it after I was grilled. I was doubting my own sanity. I allowed the grilling because of intimidation and the knowledge I had nothing to hide.
Bad fucking idea. I ended up a career officer but never ever ever forgot that. I was a reasonably intelligent guy who was squeaky clean. I also had trouble passing subsequent polygraphs for security clearance.
I completely understand how false confessions happen.
Great example is the Central Park Jogger Case in 1989. A nunch of kids (around 30) went through central park at night and beatup people until cops came and caught 6. 5 spoke without lawyer under interrogation and regreted admitting to somwthing they didnt do.
Police will say just about anything to you even if itâs a lie. When I was 22 I was pulled over at 2:30 in the morning for a tail light that was âalmost out â my boyfriend had gotten home late from Easter with his family . So we went out for a drive. We did smoke weed at the time . When pulled over there was some dutch guts in the back of my car . Of course they separated us and questioned us , even though they had nothing on us . This one younger, thought he was hot stuff , cop talks to me . Calling me hunny blah blah and said itâs okay I smoke weed to, trying to get me to say I was high . It was bs he wa trying to use his âcharmâ on me, didnât work. I donât like cocky douchebags. They let us go with no tickets. .. just stick to yourself and let what they say go in one ear and out the other and remember they will say anything to you to get you to confess
You can go back on any confession, but it is still very damning to a jury
rule number one when talking to the police: SHUT THE FUCK UP
The phrase frequently gets mis-used. It is "Innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW." You are presumed guilty by everyone and anyone you come across, until you are at your trial.
That is why police assume every death is a murder, even when suicide is obvious. Until they absolutely can not prove anyone did it, they will continue to pursue leads.
Most of what I'd want to say has been said already, so I'm just going to leave it at this: ACAB. From personal experience and that of acquaintances, NEVER trust the cops. You can be a victim and they'll still end up putting you through the grinder if they smell an opportunity. Treat them like you would prosecutor in court. Your best interests are rarely in mind for them. Know your rights, good people! Exercising your rights doesn't make you a criminal, despite what the cops like to insist.
Would you question yourself in the first hour? Probably not. By hour 12? You absolutely would.
Yeah, no. I don't believe anything anyone tells me online on otherwise.
Bullshit watch the first 48.
Once you get into the system, even if youâre innocent, it can take a long time to get out! Always ask to speak to a lawyer!!!!!!!
Thereâs a reason the 5th amendment exists
I am sure someone already shared but there is a great mini series on Netflix on the topic.
Watch the confession tapes
Police Interrogations, by the definition of interrogation, are designed to draw out a confession.
Otherwise, you're 'just' being questioned, or 'interviewed'.
Right. They arenât necessarily designed to draw out the truth.
First, say you want a lawyer. Then if they continue trying to speak to you just continue to repeat the word cunt over and over again until they get the picture.
Seems a little exaggerated to say âalmost any personâ...
It's not at all an exaggeration. The Asche Conformity Experiments prove it.
Almost any person is an impulsive moron with double digit IQ, so it's not very surprising.
You should add: âif you are an Americanâ
As a West European it always suprises me how so many americans stand in for such a rigged system.
Yours is rigged too, you just have fewer racial minorities for the rigging to apply to.
My bad, I meant to reply to the top comment: About why nobody should ever talk to the police and the video he/she linked. Around here police exists to help people.
I agree on the use of interrogation techniques, they also use them here.
About the fewer racial minorities to apply the rigged justice system to, i dont think i fully understand what you mean by that.
If you live in China not even lawyer will be able to help you....
I feel like due to police interrogation techniques being so coercive, any evidence gained should be inadmissible in court.
this is what happened in the case with when they see us. disgusting that they did this to minors as well
I heard about this. I found this video to be very informative about the topic: https://youtu.be/p22ZR-CUIw0
NOT related to police but I feel something similar can be seen in some manager-employee relationships, especially when the manager is all too powerful, experienced and dominating - and the employee badly requires to hold on to a job. He ends up eating shit for nearly everything.
The Netflix series âWhen They See Usâ shows a prime example of this. The mini drama series is based on the Central Park 5 case and shows the police brutality and coercion used to make 5 boys falsely admit to the crimes on tape. The whole courtroom case was about that issue in the show. I actually really enjoyed the show myself, and it touches on some very controversial issues.
Iceland has a huge case pending because of this The Gudmundur and Geirfinn case
Unconnected cases that got bundled together and a group of petty criminal teens were made to take the blame
In totally unrelated news the man having an affair with Geirfinns wife moved abroad, uses an alias and moves every time anyone manages to find him. He has lived in Germany for over 30 years now but has not been questioned by police.
I never confessed even when i am guilty
When I was young I was a bit of a shit head. Me and one of my best friends ended up getting picked up for a felony B&E. Now we did in fact commit the crime, there was clear security footage and everything. Plus the police already knew who we were from prior run ins. The split us up into two separate interrogation rooms for questioning and I ended up sitting around for a few hours before anyone showed up. When they finally showed up they had a list of addresses that they said had also been broken into. The detective looked me square in the eye and told my my friend was in the next room with the same list checking off address that I had broken in to. He said with my friends testimony I could be looking at 20plus years with my priors. Now I knew I hadnât broken into any of those locations for a fact. I also knew my homeboy wouldnât turn on me like that. But the detective kept piling on and piling on assuring me he had turned on me. He even brought in a written statement he claims my buddy made. They wanted me to make a similar statement about him and check off some address I thought he had done. I wonât lie after a few hours I was tempted. But I stuck to my guns and pretty much didnât say anything. Turns out my buddy hadnât turned and they were doing the same thing to him. He had the presence of mind to ask for a lawyer much sooner than I did. Turns out the detective was trying to pin a few of their open cases on us. They assumed since they caught us doing one we naturally had done more.
NOThIng tO hIDe nOtHiNG tO FeAr GuYs
I'm a police officer. When I took the interview techniques training, we were warned to be prepared for false confessions. It was a major issue, and something that the instructor was very clear about. If people said they did it, you are obligated to gather evidence to corroborate or disprove the confession.
Further to this, when I tell people that they don't have to talk to me, I truly mean it. My job is to preserve lives, and enforce the law. Your rights are the most important laws. I am doing a job, and have no personal stake in "locking you up," if you aren't gonna talk, it's fine by me.
HEY EVERYONE, POT BROTHERS HERE. WELCOME TO SHUT THE FUCK UP FRIDAY
[removed]
Right! The world with be a much better place if only there were no cops!
That is why we dont really interegate ans we "interview". However you will not see thouse on tv because they are boring but that shit works like black magic.
Just say you did it and then you can go home!
[deleted]
Firstly an interrogation can only be conducted if there is reasonable belief or evidence that the suspect or witness is related to a crime. Secondly, using coercion during an interrogation (or interview, yes thereâs a major difference) without a courts consent, will get the case thrown out of court because interrogation will usually lead to an admission or confession, which violates the personâs right âAgainst Self-Incriminationâ. Any half decent lawyer will question the investigative process and techniques used, because remember, a lawyerâs job isnât to directly defend his client, but to ensure a fair and legal trial and process takes place.
It's trivially easy to find examples of police in the UK and other commonwealth countries completely ignoring all of this. The police get to determine when they have "reasonable suspicion" and it's only subject to review if the defendant challenges it, and then the burden is on the defendant, and even if the police were mistaken you'd have to prove that they knowingly violated the law - good faith action is sufficient in both the US and the UK to shield an officer from prosecution for official acts and to prevent the exclusion of the confession from trial.
What the law defines as "coercive" and what is actually coercive are two different things. There are techniques that can coerce a confession that the law doesn't recognize as being coercive.
Any half decent lawyer will question the investigative process and techniques used, because remember, a lawyerâs job isnât to directly defend his client, but to ensure a fair and legal trial and process takes place.
Many people cannot afford to be represented by even "half-decent" lawyers.
If the interrogator thus uses methods on someone, who there is no reasonable proof or belief of having had involvement in a crime, and the person is coerced into a confession, then boy-o-boy, the courts (yes plural) and lawyers are going to have a field day with the people involved in the interrogation because itâs a direct violation of a personâs basic rights.
Like I said it's trivial to find instances of these rights not being respected in the UK and Australia.
Or just stay out of trouble so the police never roll you up
Great idea. It's a good thing no one has ever been misidentified.
I wouldnât question myself by hour 12 or even day 12. But I might be more willing to say I did something minor than be continually harassed and pressed for something major that I definitely did not do. Iâve taken a plea for Disorderly Conduct to avoid a bullshit charge of Receiving Stolen Property.
Gaslighting is so weird to me. Like, how do you believe another person over your own memory and experiences? I understand that itâs an abuserâs technique but it seems like youâve gotta be a full person to fall for that shit.
Gaslighting is so weird to me. Like, how do you believe another person over your own memory and experiences?
Almost everybody will believe an exterior consensus over their own recollection. We know memory is faulty because memory is mostly self-narrative anyway - the act of recollection is actually the act of telling yourself a story - and we lean on others to correct our memories where they falter. Especially when it's about events you don't recall - and by definition, you have no memory of the crimes you didn't actually commit.
It's not even just memory. A strongly held consensus of the people around you can actually change how you perceive things in that moment.
Asch conformity experiments
In psychology, the Asch conformity experiments or the Asch paradigm were a series of studies directed by Solomon Asch studying if and how individuals yielded to or defied a majority group and the effect of such influences on beliefs and opinions.Developed in the 1950s, the methodology remains in use by many researchers to the present day. Applications include the study of conformity effects of task importance, age, gender, and culture.
^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
If your not a complete idiot, this will not happen in North America. If you are innocent. You just need to request a lawyer and shut up. I dont understand why people would talk to a police officer willingly when they brought you in for nothing. Just shut up and get a lawyer. You'll be fine majority of the time.
That's why this post is in "You Should Know" and not "Everybody Already Does Know."
Yeah, everyone body acts tough and that they will never talk to the police, once they get arrested they spill the tee even tho they didnât do nothing.
Of course the innocence project if going to say things that support their mission.
Sorry, why is it obvious that they would lie to support their mission?
Not necessarily a lie, but everyone in every industry wants to be successful. Whether itâs a salesman, a cop, a lawyer or whatever, they want to legitimize their existence.
âWhen youâre holding a hammer, everything looks like a nailâ
Everything you just said is, in fact, unethical and would throw a court case out the window. Coercion is not allowed. You are not able to lie, either. You can make deals as long as they are true deals that can be made.
However! This does not mean that interrogators will not use unethical interrogation techniques. BUT If you know what is considered unethical, you can use that to your advantage.
Source: went to school for forensic science, took a course called "interview and interrogation." Learned what is allowed and what is not allowed.
Everything you just said is, in fact, unethical and would throw a court case out the window.
Conduct has to actually be illegal (and be knowingly so), not merely unethical, for it to result in a mistrial in most US jurisdictions. Different states have different laws, so without a statement of what jurisdiction you're speaking in regards to, your comment really isn't very meaningful.
You are not able to lie, either.
Yes, that's correct - it's illegal for me to lie to investigators, but not for them to lie to me.
I don't know where you live, but in the United States police can lie to you to obtain a confession. In fact, there's a Supreme Court case that affirmed this. See Frazier v. Cupp.
When? A lot has changed in a few years.
A short course isn't the same as applying it to a mentally challenged kid.
And if you studied the Reid Technique it's been debunked.
Back to school
Literally just graduated at the end of May. This is VERY recent knowledge. But I'm not gonna continue fighting with reddit know it alls with Google under their belt. đ¤ˇââď¸ again, theres a difference between what happens and what should happen. But I guess were all gonna skim over the fact that I've mentioned that more than a few times. đ
Oh, and I work for the local police department here. Knowledge is also very applicable to my life. But yeah, let me just go tell the heads they're completely wrong on every level. I'll tell my coworkers we should revise our techniques to what reddit wants to believe they are! Thanks! :)
12 hours after a birthday party, it's pretty standard for me to ask "so, um, what happened last night?"
I too have a drinking/blacking out problem
Nice try boys but the gay sex was mutual and the liquor was just water.
I'm a girl and tbh I've never had accidental drunken sex.
I have, however, done some other pretty embarassing stuff.
name checks out... I'll allow it
Bullshit
Nobody cares what some 11-year-old thinks.
Dindus raped that woman in Central Park and robbed and beat up a buncha people.
NEVER talk to the police without a lawyer present. It cannot help you; but can only hurt you. Everyone needs to see this
What people really don't realize is how nervous you can get if you're being questioned by police, and how they use tactics that are meant to put you at ease while getting you to talk more. When I was younger police came to my office, lied to me by saying they were just asking questions about something going on unrelated to me, and sat me down in a private room to ask questions.
I wanted to be helpful so I just answered as honestly as I could, but I'm shit with brand names, and when they asked me if I like gaming and I said yes, and asked me what kind of computer I had, casually and in a pleasant tone, I said "Alienware" instead of "Asus" because both are gaming computers and I just couldn't remember which it was and didn't think it mattered.
Long story short, they came to my house and took my computer. They found no Alienware. Fuck my stupid, friendly, helpful self.
Ultimately I wasn't charged, but it took 6 months to get my stuff back and move on with my life. Never again. I'm a therapist in youth crisis services, so I work with cops on occasion, and most are friendly and professional. It doesn't matter. Outside of what I have to say to them during work, or basic traffic stops or things like that, I'm never talking to cops again. Doesn't matter how friendly they are or how well intentioned, most are just cogs in a machine that does not care about you. And if you happen to get one of the stupid ones or the assholes, chances of your life being ruined just shot up.
And that's exactly how they can get you. Great example, and just shows how knowing (and applying) your rights can protect you from being wrongfully charged or even imprisoned for trying to help.v
What did the wrong brand have to do with anything? Were they looking for an Alienware or something?
It makes him a liar and hurts his credibility. It's a fairly benign example, but there are much worse cases, like if you tell them you were at X place, and they have a witness saying they saw you at Y place.
What you say doesn't even have to be inaccurate to fuck you. Witness at Y place could've confused someone else for you or was thinking of a different night or whatever, and because you're the one who's being accused, you're the liar. Memory is notoriously unreliable and manipulatable, yet eyewitness testimony is still often considered to be major evidence in court.
The simple fact that what he told them didn't quite line up with reality, the police had all the ability to use it as evidence against him
Yeah. When you think about crime dramas its always that one little inaccuracy that ends up blowing the whole case wide open.
We expect innocent people to speak nothing but the truth but in realty most people couldn't give an accurate account of what they had for dinner three days ago.
That may or may not reflect reality-- I'm making no statement here one way or the other-- but I am disturbed by how much of reality people think they know because they assume the fiction they consume is accurate. I'm sure that I am guilty of that, as well: it's a common habit of mind that probably makes it very difficult to accurate gauge how much we actually know about most things.
Couple that with the fact that when a TV show portrays something you know a lot about and it's always inaccurate-- just think about how much of what you think you know is total bullshit.
AND: Cops aren't looking for the truth. They already have a scenario for how the crime happened, and they are looking for evidence that supports their case. They don't have time to be Jessica Fletcher and look for "the truth". They need to find a criminal and close the case. "The truth" is what they say it is.
This was gone over many times from many different experts in the Serial podcast.
and that's a truly disgusting outcome of the for profit prison system.
I remember basically every interaction I've had with police. I've never been in any trouble, live in small communities where the cops know us, etc but it's still scary.
One time I was messing around after work with my then-girlfriend and some other coworkers â just general teenage screwing around before we went home. Anyway, we all get in the car to leave and the entire police force blasts through both exits, surrounds my car, and are blinding me with their spotlights. Yeah, that was fun. They we're just doing their jobs, and asking repeatedly if she was okay was the right call, obviously, but our coworkers were also corroborating that we were just having fun. But someone had driven by and called the police saying I was beating a girl. I've literally never thrown a punch at anyone!
Another time an officer questioned why I was at a ferry dock. Maybe it was the hoodie, I don't know, but I was at the dock...waiting for the ferry to go home. Shocker, right?
But I think the never talk to a police officer advice is really situational. It can be easy to diffuse a situation and be on your way (admittedly, if you're in the right place and are white). If the Cop asked what I was doing there and told him to sod off because it's none of his business, then the rest of that confrontation is not going to go well. The Reddit meme of Am I being detainedâ˝ is another example of that.
But if something is an active investigation, or you're asked in for questioning, then yes you shouldn't talk unless you have an attorney.
Yeah, I was walking home one night at like 2 AM and stopped to rest on the grassy median between streets. Cop car pulls up and asks what I'm doing, I said walking home, and he says to keep walking or he'll arrest me. I was bone tired, but I kept walking. If I'd ignored him I doubt that would have gone well; you're right that it's situational. This applies to traffic stops too.
Lots of cities make it a misdemeanor to sit on side walks on public grassy areas not designated as a park or designated social zones.
I donât think youâre gonna win this one. Redditâs got a raging boner against cops thatâs perpetually fuelled by news sources, viagra and circlejerk.
I don't know. I understand how Reddit can view cops at times, but it's been a day and this is the most negative response I've gotten â and it's only negative about the community, not the actual content of the comment or the ideas.
Seems reasonably well received, because Reddit, like most people, also respects cops. Topics about them come up often and the reality is that most cops are good folks in the daily grind like any of us. Your average local copper isn't throwing people down in choke holds and lobbing dozens of bullets into the victim â they're the first responder who shows up when you call 911 for chest pain.
But there are also plenty of bad apples and the system is fucked. Different people will have different experiences. But they do a job many of us wouldn't and I've got to imagine it's pretty high stress, even in a small town.
I understand that and I agree with all your points - I just have never really seen anyone post something good about the police on Reddit.
If you read through the AMA type threads with cops, there's usually a lot more positivity, because you realize why they do what they do, but also how they feel about the rotten eggs, too.
If you're in the US, and you're Mirandized, STFU immediately and say "I will not answer any further questions without a lawyer present." Period.
Anything you say CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU. Repeat after me: CAN AND WILL.
Right, but for most people any interaction with a police officer isn't something that warrants being mirandized. I've had maybe a dozen interactions with police officers and never once been read my rights because I'm not a suspect in any crimes.
But Reddit makes it out like you should never answer a cop ever. Period. Ever. No questions asked.
But say you're in an auto accident and a cop asks you what happened. Normally, you'd just tell them. But if you're Reddit and just yell Am I being detained?! or refuse to answer their questions you're not doing yourself any favors. I suppose if you're just a witness to one you could refuse to talk with no ill effects, but you could also be doing a disservice to the people involved because you're denying them that potential evidence.
It's totally situational, and I think common sense plays a big role here. If you've been mirandized, you shut your fucking mouth. If you haven't, then you play it by ear. If you're black, that may mean you are more hesitant to cooperate (but not in an antagonistic way).
But at the same time, sometimes cooperating is the easiest way. I mentioned a time I was at a ferry port and a cop questioned me. I was in a hoody and it was probably dark if I had to guess, and he asked what I was doing there. I could have refused to tell him, but where would that have gotten me? It would have made me look super suspicious and I don't really need to give a cop reason to be suspicious of me; I had somewhere to be. So I just told him why I was there: to catch the next ferry, and I was early because it's how the bus schedule panned out.
For some reason some cops thought I was prostituting. They kept asking me if I went into the gas station alone. I answered yes. They asked me again but this time worded it differently âso you came here with someone else?â âNoâ I said. They kept changing the wording of the question and asked me several times. I know it was to get me âslip upâ and answer âyesâ when it should have been ânoâ or vice versa. Fuck those pieces of shit.
Got an accident report once, guy ran a light and I managed to stop to keep from getting t-boned but the guy clipped my bumper and tore up the side of his truck. Cop kept trying to get me to admit I was turning right at the light, I remained very clear about what happened. Cop changed my statement on the report to fit his narrative.
Thatâs why dashcams are important
Which is why you read your statement and refuse to sign it before it is fixed.
Never signed anything. Maybe that's not a requirement here. He took his notes and told us they'd forward a copy of the report to our insurance and we could get a copy at the station later. When I went to get a copy the same cop all but refused to give me one and I ended up getting it from my insurance. I'm pretty sure the cop knew the other guy and just covered for him, hence the run around, but I can't prove it. Other than the principle of it, in the end it doesn't really matter, my insurance rates didn't go up and I didn't have enough damage to bother with a claim myself, especially with the cop backing the other guy.
Not entirely on topic, but Iâve been ordered to undergo a breathalyzer without knowing I had a constitutional right to deny it. They shoved it in my face, told me to blow, and then arrested me because I was underaged. Protested in court to no avail because it was a hick county. Fuck Jefferson Co., WI with a caustic hate. They can die of cow kicks to the brain.
At that point you are ending up getting arrested anyway. If you decline the test, they'll arrest you on suspicion, then force you to use the big breathalyzer back at the station or do a blood test. There are pros and cons to declining the test depending on which lawyer you speak to.
At any rate, when youâre an underaged passenger in a vehicle and an officer of the law orders you to blow, you wouldnât deny if it wasnât obvious that you couldnât. Their dept was far too hick to actually have the want and resources to blood test a kid, and they abused our rights in other ways that I wonât discuss here.
In Washington you cant deny a breathalyzer. When you sign for your license you are agreeing to take one if you are ever asked. If you dont, you get arrested and/or license revoked.
I was a passenger in the back seat. Would that change anything there? Just curious
In Washington they might if you offered to drive the car away if the original driver was arrested. In WI I have no idea.
Watch out for basic traffic stops too. Admit nothing ever.
You should read the post I just made. Iâm a probation officer now, but I had a scare 7 years ago when I was in college and was pretty sure I was going to get arrested.
This is one of the reasons why you can't, especially as an immigrant living in America who is a minority, cannot talk about anything in a security context because, even if well intentioned, your words can be used and taken out of context.
And when the police are talking to you in an interview, theyâre never ever there to help you in any way. Theyâre just trying to get statements they can extract and use in the case. Theyâll take things out of context, etc. Thereâs zero benefit to going into an interview with police.
Always refuse to take a polygraph. Ask for a lawyer immediately, and never open your mouth ever.
Polygraphs are junk science machines that do not work. They can't do the one thing they are supposed to do and perfectly innocent poeple appear guilty all the time. Complete trash.
And thatâs why theyâre not admissible in court. Theyâre used to coerce testimony before trial, and it pretty much relies on people believing the polygraph will catch them in a lie guaranteed.
... still used to this day as the basis for handing out some of the highest, most sensitive security clearances in the federal government.
United States court system won't accept it as valid but our intelligence agencies will.
/facepalm
edit: apparently the goals are different between intel and police/courts so it makes sense to use it the way they do. Hmph... TIL.
Intel agencies use polygraphs to see if prospective employees to admit to things under stress. Itâs better for intel agencies to use because if you admit to damning things under stress, you probably shouldnât be working for an intel agency.
Itâs bad for the criminal justice system to use because police use it with a different goal in mind.
that makes sense now.
And is completely inaccurate as far as I'm aware. Getting caught lying about something that wouldn't have disqualified you from a security clearance can get you disqualified. They want honesty, not hidden secrets that foreign agents can blackmail you with. That's why having out-of-control debt also disqualifies you, because that makes you susceptible to bribes.
Polygraphs can be a useful tool, as long as you only use them as a starting point that you follow up on. If you're seeing stress markers regarding a question relating to sex, then you know to dig into their sex life with their references, acquaintances, whatever. Maybe nothing, maybe something.
Thatâs fully in line with the comments Iâve made
Is that true? That sounds like it makes sense on paper but not in reality. How do they know the question was answered only because of duress? Are you suggesting that the questions guy expects the polygraph taker to withhold or lie about information from them?
because intel agencies donât apply the same coercive methods that the cops do, their goals are different. Intel agencies want truth, police departments want an admission of guilt wether or not itâs true.
If you have sensitive information and youâre being interrogated by someone who wants it, the interrogator is working to get the truth out of you, because they want accurate information. Getting you to admit to anything under duress isnât useful for intel/counterintelligence.
In the criminal justice system, the police often just want a confession without much regard for the truth. Itâs two completely different motives.
The âquestions guyâ expects that the employee has been truthful up until that point in the interview process. If you can make someone who may have lied to you through the interview process doubt themselves with a polygraph then why not do it? If the interviewee hasnât lied, then they wonât be pressured to admit to anything disqualifying just because theyâre now taking a polygraph, but if the interviewee lied about something earlier on in their application, they will feel the need to tell the truth under a polygraph examination.
The interviewer isnât grilling you about wether or not you have a cocaine habit, for example. Theyâre not holding you for twelve hours and telling you that they have evidence you have a cocaine habit, theyâre not bringing in other people to tell you you have a cocaine habit. Theyâre not trying to get you to say yes, theyâre trying to get the truth, whereas the cops are trying to get you to say yes. So imagine that youâre taking a polygraph and the intel interviewer asks âdo you have a cocaine habit?â. Youâre under no pressure to say âyesâ if you donât do cocaine.
Ok, I sort of get what you're trying to say. If someone would tell you that they do cocaine during a polygraph when they lied to you about it on their application, then the enemy can easily interrogate them just as you did. They clearly admitted it under stress, because otherwise they wouldn't have lied about it on their application as they would have known it would disqualify them.
However, isn't it a bit backwards that you suggest this tactic is used to disqualify people because of the fact that they admitted it, and not because of the fact that the thing they admitted to also disqualifies them? That's what I'm getting at, you can't ask a question that tests the interviewee's ability to withhold information without the information they're withholding being something that disqualifies them.
Besides... if you somehow secretly know that they're a habitual cocaine user and they lie to you about it isn't that a bit undesirable as well, even if it means they're "good" at keeping secrets? You don't want to hire people that aren't going to entrust you with anything that can be used against them. As someone else said, that cocaine habit might eventually be used to blackmail the person you're polygraphing. If you knew that they had a cocaine habit, then surely some other malevolent force could learn of it as well and use it to bargain with them.
tl;dr I think you are overestimating how much intel people worry about their members getting interrogated versus how much they worry about them becoming a source to the enemy.
also tl;dr you can't really learn if the participant would lie to you without also getting them to disqualify themselves.
They use it as described above effectively
which videro? I can't seem to find it
Stopped in the comments to link to this video. YSK to watch that video link.
Let me stress, WATCH THAT VIDEO LINK.
I just watched the full video and have a follow up question â what if a police office knocks on your door or approaches you as part of a local canvassing effort looking for potential witnesses of some local or nearby crime that was committed theyâre doing door to door investigation for?
Like if theyâre asking you things like âwere you home at X time last night and heard any loud noises?â or âHave you seen any suspicious cars on your street recently?â.. those sorts of questions etc..
In these instances is it okay to speak to the police?
My instinct is yes. But now after watching this video I question that and am confused.
No.the video doesnt say except when.
It was pretty clear from the video to never talk to the police
Almost all the time, and they suspiciously seem to be there at the exact time that when I am walking out the door...
I dont have 45 minutes to watch that video.
Do you know how many more Reddit posts I could skim through in 45 minutes?
Here. I'll give you a summation: Don't speak to the police.
But you should watch the video once.
This is knowledge you can use to your advantage. Try the first few minutes and then decide. It's not boring.
I agree. It it not boring.
I wish I had more professors like the dude in the video. Very engaging.
You can tell he's made this presentation many times. So smooth
All you have to do is spend a hundred thou on a barely accredited university.
Thanks for your comment, it really made a difference. I watched the whole thing when I wouldn't even have clicked otherwise (even if it wasn't 45 minutes.)
You're welcome. It's 45 minutes well spent. Glad you watched.
watch it anyway. i remember many parts of this video years after i first saw it.
I mean, most of the first half is useful more for lawyers and firmly hammers the point down to never talk to police under any circumstances without your lawyer, so if you can take that on blind faith then you've got the core idea down.
How about you just sum it up for us?
Don't talk to the police
But my wife and children are all cops.
Did you go on to become a wrestler too, Gordy?
[deleted]
According to this article, the FBI never found the person. You said they did. Am I missing something?
[deleted]
Something aint adding up
You should make 45 minutes to listen to this video. Itâs as concise as it can be and is super important information if you live in the US
What if you don't? I'm curious but I'd rather not spend 45 minutes if this is somewhat US exclusive
I guess it would depend on where you live and/or how interested you are in the American criminal justice system. If you start watching it youâll know if you want to keep going after a few minutes. It talks about US rights and police abuse
[deleted]
[deleted]
Never talk to cops without a lawyer. That's it.
... something i already knew, yet reddit insists on that 45 minute video đ¤
And there are many people in prison who didnât do whatever they are supposed to have done. Watch it
Did you just skim over my comment? Yes, its important to know your rights but dont start looking down on those who cant watch the video for whatever reason.
And if you watched the video, you would be able to sum it up for those who cant. Its not like i am making excuses or don't "feel like" watching.
Anything can be summed up and you would get all the information you need without using up 45 minutes of your time (not to say its a waste of time, but i would say there are other things i need to do, especially as its this time of year).
You canât really sum up complex legal ideas faster than this guy does it. I guess to put it most simply you could say donât trust cops ever, but the reality is more nuanced than that and takes about 45 minutes for an expert on the topic to very quickly explain
[deleted]
Not at all. Don't assume.
Thats a lie though.
You dont know about peoples lives to say something like that. Try juggling work, school, exams, being a parent, and sleep and you can see how little time you have to yourself.
I do all of those and many more...
Come on its a question of priorities.. But we all got more then an hour of free time each day.
Easy for you to say, because you actually do.
I guess you going to jail thenđ¤ˇđžââď¸
Youre currently in a reddit jail right now đ
TouchĂŠ đđ
Here watch this instead
https://youtu.be/JTurSi0LhJs
Itâs not a joke lol
Then set it to run at 1.5 speed and it won't take 45 minutes.
Neither do I, but we can put it on 2x speed, that'll help.
Good luck understanding him, he talks fast as it is.
Nice try, totally not the police on Reddit.
Eh, guess I'll just save it for later
Thanks to your comment I am watching it now. Just wanted to let you know :)
Only worth a watch when you're american.
No, police everywhere try to close cases with a conviction.
I mean the presentation is based on american law and american cases, that's where I lost interest.
Yes, but the point is broadly applicable to every jurisdiction in the world.
Every adult should watch this video. I watch it like once a year.
Yup, as needed..
Adult American maybe.
I havenât even clicked the link and i know what video it is, everyone and I mean everyone should watch it. I think about this video probably once a week. Seriously, take the time and watch it. Even if youâre innocent this video could save you from false prosecution. Watch it.
I thought that was going to be "Shut the fuck up Friday"
"Tip of the Day"
[deleted]
Good, as a lawyer do you advise not talking to the police even if they are going door to door asking if anyone heard or saw anything unusual last night? Like they are just looking for witnesses?
That's a tough call. You could just choose not to answer the door, I suppose.
Agree 100%.
You just made me go from "I'll talk to them until I feel like I'm the suspect" to "persuant to my 5th amendment rights, I will remain silent."
This is another good one.
https://youtu.be/s4nQ_mFJV4I
I'll definitely check it out. Thanks
This is the truth. Iâm going to paste my anecdotal story below that Iâve shared on Reddit before.
âââââââââââââââââââ
THIS IS THE TRUTH. I'm Law enforcement, but I'm a Probation officer, so I don't investigate crimes per-se, just probation violations. I posted this personal anecdote a while back, because I was once a person of interest in a case. I made the mistake of talking to a detective when I should've gotten an attorney immediately. I was majoring in Justice Administration, my professor had just been the police chief, would could possibly go wrong?
I'm just going to copy and paste what happened. Using throwaway because some people know this story. Law enforcement here. Yep, donât talk to the cops. Iâm a probation and parole officer. Iâm sworn in my state, I make arrests and serve warrants, but do not investigate crimes. TL;DR version is I was accused of receiving stolen property/theft by a detective, and I made the mistake of answering questions which were self-incriminating. I was majoring in criminal justice at the time, and now Iâm a law enforcement officer, myself.
Story:
I incriminated myself by talking to a detective in 2013, while in school for Criminal justice. I knew better, but it happened so fast, and caught me off guard.
I bought a digital keyboard piano on 9/24/12 from a pawn shop near my campus. They had posted it on Craigslist because no one was buying it. It was a Roland RD700. It was banged up, but worked fine. I bought it. In May of 2013, I was getting ready to go to Europe for a summer semester, and I hadnât been using the keyboard, so I put it on craigslist and sold it to have some extra money. Around October, I get a call from a detective. âIs this âBirkenHeadDrill?â-â Me: âyesâ
Detective: âThis is detective so and so, I wanted to ask you some questions.â His next question, he asked me if I sold a keyboard to someone back in May. I immediately said yes, I did. He asked me where I got it. I told him the pawn shop by my college campus. He said the person to whom I sold it, decided he didnât want it any longer and took it to the local guitar center for them to sell on consignment. Guitar center had it on display, and apparently someone from a church 50 miles away came in, recognized the keyboard (it was banged up and I think had a sticker on it), and checked the serial number and confirmed it was the keyboard that had been stolen from the church in early 2012. They never reported it stolen because they didnât think it would be found. So they told guitar center, guitar center gave the police the contact info of the guy that consigned it, and when the police contacted him, he told them he bought it from some guy on Craigslist, still had my number, and gave it to the police. I had no receipt, it had been over a year since I bought it. I paid cash.
The detective became an asshole once I told him I had no receipt. He told me it sounds like I have a big problem then, and that he was tempted to charge me with receiving stolen property, or even theft. At this point, I was in a mild panic. He wanted me to come in. I told him I was good. He told me to just admit that I stole it, and that it would all be over quickly and easier. I said I didnât steal it, and that I bought it. He hung up on me.
He called a few days later, spouting the same things. I had taken a photo of the keyboard while it was on display at the pawn shop, and sent it to my friend. It was geotagged and showed that I took it on 9/24 at that address. I asked him if he wanted the photo. He said that wonât prove anything. Pawn shop said they no longer had record of the purchase. I figured I was screwed. Silly me still had not retained an attorney.
Detective called again, pushing even harder. Thatâs when I told him to not contact me anymore. I said if you had enough to charge me, you wouldâve. I told him to stop harassing me. I really have no clue what happened, because he stopped contacting me. Heâs on the SWAT team now. Iâm sure heâs still an asshole.
I have no doubt people confess to things they didnât do because they get scared, or get pitched the idea of a diversion program where they donât become a convicted felon by completing a probation diversion program. The system is not right. I was lucky. I could have easily been charged, and it wouldâve made my degree useless, and I definitely wouldnât be a probation officer. Hell, Iâd just be getting off probation right now, assuming a five year sentence. Donât talk to the fuzz.
So yeah, by admitting to the detective that I once possessed said keyboard, and that I sold it to the guy on Craigslist that eventually consigned it to Guitar Center, that made him no longer the suspect, and I was the suspect. I couldn't prove where I got it. The officer was hoping I would just confess. He threatened me with being a felon, potential prison time, all kinds of scary things. I have no doubt this kind of thing happens all the time. I have no doubt people on my caseload were possibly innocent, but confessed because a diversion program sounded better than letting a jury decide.
Oof. Always a scary thing to go through. Glad you evaded a false charge too.
[deleted]
The right to remain silent is not universal.
It does apply to Europe though. Or at least to the European Union.
I made my entire family watch this.
So is best to say literally nothing, or do you say "I want a lawyer", "No comment", "I invoke the 5th amendment", etc?
If you're being detained, tell them: "I'm choosing to remain silent and I want to speak to a lawyer."
If you're not being detained and you've already complied with any lawful requests (name in most places, ID in some situations) tell them: "I don't answer questions. Am I free to leave?"
If they say yes, get the fuck out of there. If they don't, assume you're being detained.
How does this hold up in Canada?
Check this
Concise and easy to remember, thanks
Wow that cop came off as evil and racist af wtf. He doesnât seem to view it as a problem at all that cops trick people into incriminating themselves, or that in practice people are treated as guilty until proven innocent. And his comments about âhood ratsâ and âthugsâ and even his own admission that as a white person he canât act âlike thatâ says a lot about how he views people of color - as criminals or criminal adjacent.
Thanks for convincing me to watch this video! As a young white woman Iâve only ever had good experiences with the police, but obviously that could change at any moment! Scary that they are allowed and often encouraged to lie, but if you lie (or even make a mistake) you can go to jail. Terrifying and important insight into our âjusticeâ system.
Worth my time - absolutely. Thank you.
Amazing video that everyone should see with a lot of great information. But I am 10,000% sure this guy is on a fuck ton of Coke.
He has nothing to say on the matter.
Is this video still relevant if you're not in the US?
Even if you're innocent. Even if you want to help the police. Lawyer.
Exactly. The only thing you should ever say to the police is "I want a lawyer" and nothing else.
Does this apply to Australians?
Wanna know this too!!
The most important part of that is that you have a warm body on your side. The fact that it's a lawyer is secondary.
When the lawyer is called for, questions cease. Anyone other than an attorney gets to wait outside.
No. They can continue to question you as long as you're in their presence.
Right. It's just that the lawyer will tell you NOT to answer.
It's a psychological issue. When you have another authority / expert telling you what to do, it's easier to disregard the police officer's orders.
That's an eye opener
This should be pinned by /r/LegalAdvice
Watch it
Can and WILL be used against you. Not maybe, it WILL be used against you. Itâs right there.
\^ this is the only advice you need., 4 words:
"I want a Lawyer".
Also worth checking out the episode of Forensic Files entitles Fishing for the Truth. Basically a shrimp boat in the Gulf of Mexico goes down in a storm, the skipper dies but the deckhand survives and then through the course of I think eight hours of very shitty interrogation techniques the deckhand confesses to killing the skipper. But by some miracle the deckhand comes to be represented by one of the coolest lawyers Iâve ever seen (and my brother is a lawyer so I know a few) who isnât having any of the shit these crooked cops are selling.
The most eye opening thing though is that after multiple experts testified that the interrogation was bullshit, that the cops involved should never be allowed to interrogate anyone ever again until they are retrained, after it was clearly shown that they were DEAD WRONG, they interview Capt. Chris Pelas (Homicide Investigator) the cop mainly involved in the interrogations and he doubles down and says âthatâs just how we do things. How else can we get a confession?â He sees nothing wrong in how he tortured an innocent man, an innocent man with an IQ of around 73 who had just been through the trauma of a shipwreck and losing his friend and skipper.
But the lawyerâs quote at the end is the best. Heâs a big dude, at one point the camera zooms in as if to make a point of the Special Forces t-shirt heâs wearing (and he does look like heâs probably ex-military). He says about Pelas âhe wanted to pick on Alvin, Iâd like to see him come pick on me. And you can print that one. Thatâs how badly I feel about what he did to that man. Heâs a bully and a punk.â
I love this video.
Be respectful, shut the fuck up and then lawyer up, simple rules for life. You will not talk your way out. Be prepared to spend $5k-10k on a lawyer pre trial and upwards of $50k- $100k if you go to trial. Freedom is not free but definitely worth every penny
I as law enforcement also agree. I still have a lawyer on call for my conceal and carry and always invoke my right of silence when I can.
So do you just stay silent or repeat "I'll only talk with a lawyer present"?
I think the weed bois shut the fuck up video is probably quicker to get the necessary info through.
Seriously, EVERYBODY NEEDS TO WATCH THIS! I never use all caps but it's truly that important.
What are your thoughts on "Pre-emptive prosecution" techniques used by the FBI against innocent Muslims living in America?
http://projectsalam.org/ was started by Lynne Jackson, a lawyer who defended her client because her client was not guilty and was setup.
Similar techniques are used against Muslims and POC and other minorities today.
Edit; What insane is the need for those videos to actually EXIST in the first place. Tells you a lot about the current system setup.
TL;DW?
Awww, I'm disappointed that this wasn't "Shut the fuck up Friday"
45 minutes well spent
What about talking to police when you arenât the person of interest? Like, you were just a witness (innocent bystander, more like)? For example: I was with my SIL, her husband, and my BF. She gets into an altercation at a bar and allegedly smashes a glass over a chicks head. The cops are waiting at her house, to arrest her, when we get there. Of course, they separate all of us and question us individually. I tell them that I did not see this happen, I was paying our bill when this supposedly took place. She goes to jail, so on and so forth. A week later I am served, by a police officer, a subpoena to appear in court as a witness, for the prosecution! WTF, Iâm thinking... I didnât see anything! So, I go meet with her lawyer before court, and it turns out the cop that questioned me is saying that I told him, she did it! He completely fabricated my statement and put it in the police report! How do you avoid these kinds of scenarios? Do you have to give statements to the police, if they ask you?
Did you watch the video ? It's clear
Thanks for the Gold kind sir or madam
I literally opened the comments to be sure someone had posted this link. This video could save your life.
!remindme 9 hours
!remindme 9 hours
!remindme 9 hours
I wanna watch this for later so Iâm leaving this comment. Thank you.
And it's almost like it's intentionally hard to plead the 5th.
The government does not like being restricted.
I mean, use your discretion. Depending on the situation and officer it can show that you're willing to work with them, which could result in them letting you off with a warning for whatever happened. It's not always some conspiracy out to get you.