The Wall Street Journal says: "Never Talk To Cops".

[Anti Federalist]

It's behind a paywall, but the excerpt makes it clear what it's addressing:

USC 1001 prosecutions, where you can be prosecuted for "lying" to feds or LE, even if the "lie" was innocent or simply a statement of an incorrect understanding or made before you were read your rights.

Nothing can be gained by talking to cops or feds or alphabet soup "investigators" until you have consulted competent legal advice.

Until then, exercise your 5th Amendment rights and STFU!



For Feds, 'Lying' Is a Handy Charge .

BY JOHN R. EMSHWILLER AND GARY FIELDS MONTEREY, Calif.—When federal prosecutors can't muster enough evidence to bring charges against a person suspected of a crime, they can still use a controversial law to get a conviction anyway: They charge the person with lying.
The law against lying—known in legal circles simply as "1001"—makes it a crime to knowingly make a material false statement in matters of federal jurisdiction. Critics across the political spectrum argue that 1001, a widely used statute in the federal criminal code, is open to abuse. It is charged hundreds of times a year, according to court records and interviews with lawyers and legal ...

BY JOHN R. EMSHWILLER AND GARY FIELDS
MONTEREY, Calif.—When federal prosecutors can't muster enough evidence to bring charges against a person suspected of a crime, they can still use a controversial law to get a conviction anyway: They charge the person with lying.

The law against lying—known in legal circles simply as "1001"—makes it a crime to knowingly make a material false statement in matters of federal jurisdiction. Critics across the political spectrum argue that 1001, a widely used statute in the federal criminal code, is open to abuse. It is charged hundreds of times a year, according to court records and interviews with lawyers and legal ...

 

[phill4paul]

Note: This includes EVERYTHING you say during a 911 call.

Rarely are any arrests made without a list of aggrievances piled on. This usually allows for a 'plea' deal so if the original charges can't stick the Prosecutors office can chalk it up as a win.

 

[azxd]

Tell this to the victim of a violent crime

STFU rape victim ... YEP, makes perfect sense ... IF talking to cops scares you enough that you will remain silent when violated by a criminal, then STFU.

Logic like this is a failure waiting to happen !!

Did anyone notice the whole article is based on the premise of LYING, and this is why one should remain silent ?

 

[Anti Federalist]

Tell this to the victim of a violent crime

STFU rape victim ... YEP, makes perfect sense ... IF talking to cops scares you enough that you will remain silent when violated by a criminal, then STFU.

Logic like this is a failure waiting to happen !!

Did anyone notice the whole article is based on the premise of LYING, and this is why one should remain silent ?

Many people consider George Zimmerman to be a victim.

How much better off would he have been if he had STFU around cops.

 

[azxd]

Many people consider George Zimmerman to be a victim.

How much better off would he have been if he had STFU around cops.

I'm not a proponent of NEVER talking to the cops

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Tell this to the victim of a violent crime

STFU rape victim ... YEP, makes perfect sense

I seem to recall a certain sheriff doing just that.

EDIT:

Both cases were among more than 400 sex-crimes reported to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office during a three-year period ending in 2007 - including dozens of alleged child molestations - that were inadequately investigated and in some instances were not worked at all, according to current and former police officers familiar with the cases, the Associated Press reports.

"The botched sex-crimes investigations have served as an embarrassment to a department whose sheriff is the self-described 'America's Toughest Sheriff' and a national hero to conservatives on the immigration issue.

Arpaio's office refused several requests over a period of months to answer questions about the investigations and declined a public records request for an internal affairs report, citing potential disciplinary actions.

Brian Sands, a top sheriff's official who is in charge of the potential discipline of any responsible employees, was later made available to talk about the cases.

He declined to say why they weren't investigated. 'There are policy violations that have occurred here,' Sands said. 'It's obvious, but I can't comment on who or what.'

..... El Mirage Detective Jerry Laird, who reviewed some the investigations, learned from a sheriff's summary of 50 to 75 cases files he picked up from Arpaio's office that an overwhelming majority of them hadn't been worked.

That meant there were no follow-up reports, no collection of additional forensic evidence and zero effort made after the initial report of the crime was taken.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ex-crime-child-abuse-cases.html#ixzz1rl5h82Y5

 

[Anti Federalist]

Hmm, and I seem to recall a certain forum member is pals with those guys at the MCSO.

I seem to recall a certain sheriff doing just that.

EDIT:

Both cases were among more than 400 sex-crimes reported to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's office during a three-year period ending in 2007 - including dozens of alleged child molestations - that were inadequately investigated and in some instances were not worked at all, according to current and former police officers familiar with the cases, the Associated Press reports.

"The botched sex-crimes investigations have served as an embarrassment to a department whose sheriff is the self-described 'America's Toughest Sheriff' and a national hero to conservatives on the immigration issue.

Arpaio's office refused several requests over a period of months to answer questions about the investigations and declined a public records request for an internal affairs report, citing potential disciplinary actions.

Brian Sands, a top sheriff's official who is in charge of the potential discipline of any responsible employees, was later made available to talk about the cases.

He declined to say why they weren't investigated. 'There are policy violations that have occurred here,' Sands said. 'It's obvious, but I can't comment on who or what.'

..... El Mirage Detective Jerry Laird, who reviewed some the investigations, learned from a sheriff's summary of 50 to 75 cases files he picked up from Arpaio's office that an overwhelming majority of them hadn't been worked.

That meant there were no follow-up reports, no collection of additional forensic evidence and zero effort made after the initial report of the crime was taken.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ex-crime-child-abuse-cases.html#ixzz1rl5h82Y5

 

[The Free Hornet]

I'm not a proponent of NEVER talking to the cops

I agree - somewhat. When our business alarm company calls them, I would have to be a real dickhead to not talk to the cops since our agent - the alarm company - called them.

Tell this to the victim of a violent crime

STFU rape victim ... YEP, makes perfect sense ... IF talking to cops scares you enough that you will remain silent when violated by a criminal, then STFU.

Logic like this is a failure waiting to happen !!

Did anyone notice the whole article is based on the premise of LYING, and this is why one should remain silent ?

If somebody elected to not report a rape, I wouldn't blame them:

"Woman Raped By Police Officer Says Police Forced Her To Recant"

Unless you have good reason to believe the cops are on your side, why call them?

 

[Luciconsort]

Hmm, and I seem to recall a certain forum member is pals with those guys at the MCSO.

lol epic catch at the wall..... he's out!

 

[BlackTerrel]

Many people consider George Zimmerman to be a victim.

Who? Sean Hannity?

 

[DamianTV]

Tell this to the victim of a violent crime

STFU rape victim ... YEP, makes perfect sense ... IF talking to cops scares you enough that you will remain silent when violated by a criminal, then STFU.

Logic like this is a failure waiting to happen !!

Did anyone notice the whole article is based on the premise of LYING, and this is why one should remain silent ?

(I agree, and longwinded reply isnt directed at you personally)

There are two sides to every story.

Lets say this happens. A person is being physically sexually violated and manages to call 911. When the Police arrive on the scene, unless they know the victim and have met them before, and they come in with their guns drawn, they may not be able to distinguish the victim from the perpetrator. It should be pretty obvious, but once they get there, they have to use their brains and experience to figure out who is who and how to handle the situation. If they feel the need to fire their weapon, it could cost the life of the victim. It could also cost the life of the criminal. It may end in an arrest. We would all like to have the people that do bad shit be held accountable for their actions, including both police and criminals, but in the end, it is all of our responsibility to try to make the best possible outcome happen. We want to try for the victim to see justice brought against the criminal, but it doesnt always happen. Cops are human and do sometimes make mistakes, sometimes they are corrupt, sometimes they take out their frustrations, but our biggest problem with the Cops is that when Cops do make mistakes or are corrupt, they are usually not held accountable what so ever. That makes them very dangerous. "Oops, I shot the victim. Well, guess I get to enjoy my PAID vacation while they burn some time and act like they are investigating what happened and they'll just let me go back to work after a couple weeks or so." If they can correctly assume that they will not be held accountable, what is to stop them from abusing their police powers? "I guess I should make it look like the crook was trying to steal money from this now dead victim, so I'll take all her money and put it in my pocket, they will never know." and for the most part, a Cop that thinks that way would be correct.

The Spirit of Law is to provide an Incentive to not commit crimes. You rape someone, we chop your balls off. Well what happens if you are the only one enforcing the law in a town of five million people? Sure there are other Cops that work in the city, but many either dont give a shit or are on the take. What about the Citizens? Most citizens dont care either, and not only that, they cant care because they are prohibited from getting involved. If there is no Incentive for a Cop to not break the law, some of them are going to behave irresponsibly. People drive drunk and get people killed because they think they can get away with it. Many times, they are correct. But it takes just one time to hurt someone other than themselves. Arresting Drunk Drivers makes Cops look "good" and creates an Illusion that they are doing their job. Oh, and guess what, a certain number of Cops will be Drunk Drivers as well. If you called 911 for help, and a Drunk Cop showed up to your door, you'd probably be pissed. Meet an off duty drunk cop who is out of uniform and is NOT driving, you might even go so far as to offer them a beer. Why? Why Not? If he isnt driving, his intoxication is not going to cause anyone else injury. But lets say that cop does get in the car and drive, and ends up getting someone killed? Do you think that his sentence will be anywhere close to that of anyone that isnt a Cop? If the only reason that someone may consider not driving drunk is because the punishment issued by law is the ONLY incentive, and the law no longer applies, how long do you think we can go before the behavior reflects that same lack of incentive? If the cops are allowed to LIE in court, and arent charged with Perjury, what is to stop them from Lying? Oh? You mean the arresting officer purposefully misquoted the level of intoxication on the arrest report? Well if the arresting cop of the intoxicated cop (that just killed someone) is allowed to lie in court in order to to further a "favorable" court ruling, what is to stop him from lying to protect his friend?

The level of accountability needs to be the same. The punishment needs to be equally severe for cops as it is for Citizens. If we are going to have Laws, we need to have Equal Laws that apply to everyone Equally, including, but not limited to Cops, Banks, Corporations, Elected Political Officials, and Presidents.

 

[SL89]

"When federal prosecutors can't muster enough evidence to bring charges against a person suspected of a crime, they can still use a controversial law to get a conviction anyway"

This is what gets me. We have all kinds of obscure laws on the books. Prosecution can pull them but a defendant can't. Not only that, in most criminal cases, talking about the constitution is forbidden.

So by this logic I could enforce this law here in Montana. I have a private spread here, owned outright but, surrounded by reservation land.

"Seven or more indians are considered a raiding or war party and it is legal to shoot them." This is law. How much you want to bet I'd be fuked in a court. But, "they" can pull up old laws to screw me. go figure.

 

[azxd]

 

[phill4paul]

Debate fail.

 

[KingNothing]

We are all afraid of being rejected by cops.
Not being arrested, assaulted, tased, shot, or raped. Right.

The situations in which your life is improved by conversing openly with a police offer are limited. The situations in which your life is negatively impacted by interacting with one are almost limitless. So why talk to them unless you have to?

 

[azxd]

Many live with false fear, and are influenced by others to sometimes act stupidly.

 

[tfurrh]

azxd, are all of your 1419 posts in threads that AF started? That's the only time I see you around.

 

[phill4paul]

azxd, are all of your 1419 posts in threads that AF started? That's the only time I see you around.

He's AFRAID of AF.

 

[Anti Federalist]

azxd, are all of your 1419 posts in threads that AF started? That's the only time I see you around.

Well, that, and when he's writing to USA Today's editors:



Having lived in Arizona (home to many speed and red-light cameras) for almost 20 years and being the recipient of several photo radar tickets, I am not opposed to the laws being enforced by whatever means make the most fiscal and legal sense ("Questions cloud red-light camera issue").

If people weren't running red lights, this would not be an issue. The cameras would sit there and quietly monitor their assigned intersection. Are people upset only when they get caught?

The questions to answer simply:

•Is the use of such technology legal according to the state constitution?

•Is running a red light illegal?

•Did you run the red light?

Case closed. Why are we becoming more averse to obeying the laws of the land? If we as a people do not like the laws, change the law, not the enforcement of the law. Why are we as a country turning into a group of whiners?

If the states are making money with red-light cameras, good for them. They need the money. If we want more control over how they spend the money, or we think they are just wasting the money, that is a completely different issue.

Stop whining, and obey the law. It is really just that simple.

Ronald J. DeLong; Mesa, Ariz.


(Please note: this is a gag. I do not know who azxd is, other than to guess that he lives in Arizona and owns a Springfield XD firearm.)

 

[MikeStanart]

DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE


Nothing you tell them will EVER Help you.

PERIOD