Why You Don't Talk To The Police...

[Ladyv]

Great video!
A law school professor and former criminal defense attorney tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police - then an enlightening rebuttal to his lecture by a LEO.

 

[Calixylon]

my father is a lawyer, and from a young age he told me, "never talk to the police"

 

[happy b]

Its the filths job to put you in jail.you dont want to make it easier for them.the police will actually LIE to you or do whatever it takes to get you to tell them what they want to hear.this guy in the video above really covers every reason why you should NEVER talk to police.its all common sense but it would suprise you how many people get themselves the jail by opening theyr mouth wn it shouldv been kept closed.

 

[diamond2.0]

Excellent video post ! This is worth a watch too ....

 

[Ladyv]

Its the filths job to put you in jail.you dont want to make it easier for them.the police will actually LIE to you or do whatever it takes to get you to tell them what they want to hear.this guy in the video above really covers every reason why you should NEVER talk to police.its all common sense but it would suprise you how many people get themselves the jail by opening theyr mouth wn it shouldv been kept closed.

absolutely, a lot of people think cops HAVE to tell the truth, but they don't!

 

[Herb Forester]

Good reminder and first video, bump. The second one (7 hr course) looks very good too, will listen on my ipod at work.

 

[happy b]

Do they fuck.the only thing they HAVE to do is solve crimes by any means possible.80% of convictions are gained through people talking to police.almost ALL theyr evidence comes from people.we do need the cops or ther would be chaos but in my view theres no such thing as an "ok" police.so called ok cops will jail you exact same as the animal cops.theyr ALL FUCKING CUNTS.and so are people who inform on people to lighten theyr own load.im not talking rapes and murders or average joe.im talking about people who would expect you to keep your mouth shut for them but turn in others for whatever they can get in theyr favor.iv heard of people grassing people up after one night in the police cells for nothing more than a cigarette.theyr willing to grass up pals and see them go to prison for nothing more than a stinking smoke.people like that will always get what they deserve though.karmas a bich.

 

[GrowGod]

I've had first hand experience with these ass holes many of times:eek: got pulled over with 8 grand and a gram of weed, this asshole tried telling me to sign a paper saying I was trafficking drugs across state. So they threw me in jail for 24 hours then released and never charged with anything. They did keep my money phone and iPad :mad:

 

[SeaF0ur]

 

[Ladyv]

I've had first hand experience with these ass holes many of times:eek: got pulled over with 8 grand and a gram of weed, this asshole tried telling me to sign a paper saying I was trafficking drugs across state. So they threw me in jail for 24 hours then released and never charged with anything. They did keep my money phone and iPad :mad:

Grrrrr....:mad:..I love my iPad.....

 

[happy b]

I've had first hand experience with these ass holes many of times:eek: got pulled over with 8 grand and a gram of weed, this asshole tried telling me to sign a paper saying I was trafficking drugs across state. So they threw me in jail for 24 hours then released and never charged with anything. They did keep my money phone and iPad :mad:

Motherfuckers!i live in the uk and im no expert on any law never mind US law but i dont think they can just confiscate your cash without charging you.i would look into getting that back grogod,8grands to much money to let the doe nut munching filthy bastards who took it from you split between em for xmas.and if you dont get it back you know they will!

 

[Prime C]

They do that shit all the time and get away with it. No charges just take your shit and leave!

 

[GrowGod]

Motherfuckers!i live in the uk and im no expert on any law never mind US law but i dont think they can just confiscate your cash without charging you.i would look into getting that back grogod,8grands to much money to let the doe nut munching filthy bastards who took it from you split between em for xmas.and if you dont get it back you know they will!

:eek: Makes me fing sick! Then they towed my car and my girl had to fly out to get the car released because it wasn't in my name. They sent me a letter saying they sent my stuff to the Feds where it was easier for them to keep under federal fortifir laws. o_O Crock of shit! I was to scared to fight for it after that.:( After doing research on the net I found out they do this shit all the time!:mad: All part of this game we play when u get on the highway:)

 

[happy b]

Yeah i know wat u mean about being frightened but thats theyr tactics.youv juzt got to be firm but respectful(although in your head your like "lick my balls you fuckin cock space")but be respectful and firm with em.DONT TAKE THEYR SHIT!the reason they do it all the time is because people do nothing about it.(im not having a go grogod.im with u 100%)you have a genuine legal...complaint,for want of a better word.you wernt charged so you wernt sentenced to anything,therfore they have NO LEGAL RIGHT WHATSOVER to take your money,phone ect without giving it back.i think if you went through the proper channels and you could prove that the $$$was legally yours and you could prove you came by it in a legal fashion,that they wpuld have no choice but to give you it back..though perhaps not with an apology.if it happened recently you should look into it buddy.good luck.

 

[jumpincactus]

No indictment for Eric Garner unites the right and the left… for now.

In a way, this is all eerily familiar. The failure of a New York City grand jury to indict a police officer who killed a large African-American man for resisting arrest seems prima facie to be quite similar to the facts of the case which set the town of Ferguson ablaze.

But the similarities end there. The Eric Garner’s killing was captured on camera. He was confronted by a number of NYPD for being suspected of selling loose cigarettes, and for robbing the city of the exorbitant taxes placed on the sale of that product. Thought to be resisting arrest, he was jumped on by several officers – one of whom used a prohibited choke hold on the suspect. Garner, a heavyset man who suffered from pulmonary issues, succumbed and later died as a result of the injuries he incurred in that altercation. While it was not a finding of criminal intent, a coroner later ruled Garner’s death a homicide.

Despite these facts, a grand jury determined that no criminal indictment could be handed down.

The left is predictably up in arms over this incident. Too many have reflexively determined that Garner’s race had everything to do with both his killing and the failure of a grand jury to indict his killer. That is a statement of faith. There is, however, some consensus forming across the political spectrum that this case was not properly adjudicated.

“He carried no weapons. He did not shove or attack any police officers in such a way to be considered an imminent threat to their health and safety,” The Federalist’s Sean Davis wrote. “No, his apparent crime was selling cigarettes without paying taxes on them. And for that, he was killed.”

New York’s statutes on manslaughter are pretty unequivocal. Just going on the plain language of the law, the police officer who killed Garner certainly appears to be guilty of second-degree manslaughter at the very least:

§ 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
1. He recklessly causes the death of another person; or
2. He commits upon a female an abortional act which causes her death,
unless such abortional act is justifiable pursuant to subdivision three
of section 125.05; or
3. He intentionally causes or aids another person to commit suicide.
Manslaughter in the second degree is a class C felony.

Davis was not alone. Allahpundit has curated a broad swath of opinion on the right, all of which seems to indicate that few are comfortable with this grand jury’s decision. There are ways in which this consensus can lead to a positive outcome but only if the tribal partisans on the right and the left refrain from hurling recriminations toward one another.

While there will be welcome debate about these and other points of agreement, there is a measure of consonance across all political dispositions that some of these conditions need to be addressed. And immediately:

• The use of excessive force by police: This is something which may be addressed by the insistence that law enforcement be required to wear body cameras at all times, a measure which New York City is beginning to implement. While it did not prevent undue force in this case or lead to an indictment when that force was applied, it will nevertheless impose some restraint on officers encountering a similar situations in the future.

• The state-level reformation of the grand jury process: The fact that a grand jury could not find probable cause to go to trial when an illegal hold resulted in a homicide, but could find sufficient evidence to indict the person who filmed this incident (on a gun charge) shouldn’t sit well with anyone. The fact that evidence presented in a grand jury proceeding is not made available to the public unless there is sufficient outcry is a subjective and problematic determination.

• Unrealistic evidentiary burdens: While police should be and are subject to levels of protection for doing their jobs that are not extended to civilians, there are limits. It is possible that the bar for criminality is set a tad too high in some cases, particularly when the circumstantial evidence is as damning as it is in this case.

• Contraband laws and the criminalization of the nonviolent: There is no reason why a person should be subject to arrest for selling loose cigarettes when that same person would only be subject to a ticket for carrying up to two ounces of marijuana. No law enforcement officer can decline to perform his or her job, which was in this case to execute an arrest on a nonviolent offender that went horribly wrong. But should police have to be put in this position?

All of this consensus goes right out the window the minute partisan accusations begin being hurled about. When the right accuses the left of being soft on criminality or defending the practice of resisting arrest, the targets of this criticism will become understandably defensive, and opportunities for cooperation will disappear. Similarly, when the left – as many already are – suggest that police violence is the result of unfalsifiable racial animus which is both condoned and shared by Republicans and conservatives, the right will justifiably circle the wagons.

Here’s hoping that something constructive comes from this horrible incident in which there are no heroes. Unless aggrieved partisans start valuing reform and compromise over point-scoring, it will be next to impossible for anything other than stasis and mistrust to arise out of this regrettable event.

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/...urce=hadaily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

 

[jumpincactus]

Aint this the truth............

 

[NaturalTherapy]

Yeah i know wat u mean about being frightened but thats theyr tactics.youv juzt got to be firm but respectful(although in your head your like "lick my balls you fuckin cock space")but be respectful and firm with em.DONT TAKE THEYR SHIT!the reason they do it all the time is because people do nothing about it.(im not having a go grogod.im with u 100%)you have a genuine legal...complaint,for want of a better word.you wernt charged so you wernt sentenced to anything,therfore they have NO LEGAL RIGHT WHATSOVER to take your money,phone ect without giving it back.i think if you went through the proper channels and you could prove that the $$$was legally yours and you could prove you came by it in a legal fashion,that they wpuld have no choice but to give you it back..though perhaps not with an apology.if it happened recently you should look into it buddy.good luck.

Just having an illegal substance is enough for a cop to claim the money was earned through illicit means- and they put the responsibility on the individual to prove the money was attained legally. It's theft, no doubt, taxation without representation.

 

[NaturalTherapy]

All it really takes to understand why you don't talk to cops is a clear understanding of Miranda rights, which plainly says any law enforcement official "can and will use anything you say against you in a court of law". Plain English, no hiding, no subterfuge. Pay more attention to language of laws and it becomes clear.

 

[jumpincactus]

All it really takes to understand why you don't talk to cops is a clear understanding of Miranda rights, which plainly says any law enforcement official "can and will use anything you say against you in a court of law". Plain English, no hiding, no subterfuge. Pay more attention to language of laws and it becomes clear.

Amen to that. They are NOT your buddy........

 

[happy b]

Im not sure about the US but i hav a criminal record and i hav been to prison once or twice but if the cops did that here they wouldnt have a leg to stand on.having a GRAM of weed does not mean he made his 8 gz selling weed!(though he probably did.lol)but my point is they have no proof of that,a gram of weed does not equal supply.if thats the case then half of the states are dealers.my point is they can legally take the stuff but they hav no legal right that i can think of to not give it back.but you have to ask for it,theyr not going to volunteer it but i dont see how,if he proves the moneys be obtained legally they cant keep it,it really is that simple.