It bears repeating, don't talk to the police....

[Hobie]

I'm going to post this about not talking to the police periodically for the new guys. Everyone needs to pay attention.

As to all you who are LEOs you know that your rep would tell you to shut up as well.

[Pisgah]

Good advice, Hobie. I have a friend who is a retired detective. Once, long ago, I made a more-or-less joke about not being afraid to talk to police if I were innocent. He grabbed my shoulder, spun me to face him, and said, "Look in my eye, and hear what I say. NEVER answer our questions without an attorney present. We WILL get incriminating statements out of you, whether you are guilty or not. We know what we want you to say and how to ask questions so you'll say it, and you don't know squat."

I have never forgotten the moment, or the advice.

[Booger Bill]

I use to work with a friend who retired as a leut of homicide in indyappolis years ago. He pretty much said the same.

[donw]

never, ever...volunteer info...answer ONLY questions asked when a supervisor/attorney is present...

[COSteve]

never, ever...volunteer info...answer ONLY questions asked when a supervisor/attorney is present...

I don't care if it's the Chief of Police or the Attorney General of the Unite States! Don't say a word without an attorney present.

[dr walker]

Great reminder, Thanks for posting.

[tman]

Good advice, Hobie. I have a friend who is a retired detective. Once, long ago, I made a more-or-less joke about not being afraid to talk to police if I were innocent. He grabbed my shoulder, spun me to face him, and said, "Look in my eye, and hear what I say. NEVER answer our questions without an attorney present. We WILL get incriminating statements out of you, whether you are guilty or not. We know what we want you to say and how to ask questions so you'll say it, and you don't know squat."

I have never forgotten the moment, or the advice.

Isn't this trully sad.

[Hobie]

Good advice, Hobie. I have a friend who is a retired detective. Once, long ago, I made a more-or-less joke about not being afraid to talk to police if I were innocent. He grabbed my shoulder, spun me to face him, and said, "Look in my eye, and hear what I say. NEVER answer our questions without an attorney present. We WILL get incriminating statements out of you, whether you are guilty or not. We know what we want you to say and how to ask questions so you'll say it, and you don't know squat."

I have never forgotten the moment, or the advice.

Isn't this trully sad.

Life ain't like TV...

[Old Ironsights]

That's why it's more and more important to get LEOs to look at - and join - Oath Keepers.

[Sarge]

I'm going to post this about not talking to the police periodically for the new guys. Everyone needs to pay attention.

As to all you who are LEOs you know that your rep would tell you to shut up as well.

No, I don't know that at all. If you've got a dead man in your living room and the police are curious as to why, do you think it might be prudent to explain briefly how he got there? Stand there like the cat that ate the canary and you are likely to generate a set of fingerprints that say "Investigation of Homicide" on the bottom of the card. Even if you are exonerated later, that arrest will stay on your record and cause you considerable aggravation simply because it's there.

We WILL get incriminating statements out of you, whether you are guilty or not. We know what we want you to say and how to ask questions so you'll say it, and you don't know squat."

That is horse manure. Any cop who works for me and made that statement would be looking for a job PDQ. Any cop who'd swear out a PC Affidavit against a person against whom he believes innocent, and has no probable cause, needs to be in jail himself.

[Huntermb]

For the Canadians on the board the same bears true here north of the border.

[2ndovc]

My cousin is a Judge in a neighboring county. He told us long ago "Never say anything you don't want to hear in court".
"It will come back on you. "

Say nothing w/O AN ATTORNEY!!!

jb

[Huntermb]

If I have a dead man in my living room I would have three statements.
1> I want that man arrested
2> Please call him medical attention
3> I wish to call my lawyer.
4> Keep mouth shut.

I was given that advice by a retired RCMP sarge. He said never acknowledge the fellow is dead until the police tell you he is, your intent was only to stop, not to kill and the first two statements show that you do not beleive that you killed him.

[Old Ironsights]

... Any cop who works for me and made that statement would be looking for a job PDQ. Any cop who'd swear out a PC Affidavit against a person against whom he believes innocent, and has no probable cause, needs to be in jail himself.

You're a good Sarge, Sarge. And no doubt you ran a clean Shift.

But I came from Chicago. 'Nuff said eh?

[SFRanger7GP]

Always stay in your "inner circle" when questioned. SERE graduates know what I mean.

[Pisgah]

> Any cop who works for me and made that statement would be looking for a job PDQ. Any cop who'd swear out a PC Affidavit against a person against whom he believes innocent, and has no probable cause, needs to be in jail himself.

As it should be. But, the fact is that there are times when they think they've got the guilty party -- but don't. That's when things can get sticky.

If you are innocent, cooperate fully -- once your lawyer is present. If this is objectionable to a police officer, I'd say he needs other work, too.

[muddydog]

for an American Citizen, there is nothing more legitimate that asking for your Attorney. Nothing more to be said without counsel. It is part of what makes use a free society.

that being said. Tulsa PD is purging right now due to federal indictments, i've heard rumblings here and there of dirt on over 40 officers that could be utilized.

the "good" officers always know who on the force is "questionable" but never do anything about it.

if they target you, they will get you in court.

[J Miller]

I learned at an early age that the old saw; "police are your friend" is a flat out lie. Nothing that's happened since then has proven that wrong.

You have the right to remain silent. Do so.

Joe

[Tycer]

No, I don't know that at all. If you've got a dead man in your living room and the police are curious as to why, do you think it might be prudent to explain briefly how he got there? Stand there like the cat that ate the canary and you are likely to generate a set of fingerprints that say "Investigation of Homicide" on the bottom of the card. Even if you are exonerated later, that arrest will stay on your record and cause you considerable aggravation simply because it's there.

Watch the videos Sarge, he did a great job explaining why and how not to, so did the officer in part 2.

Just because someone pleads the fifth does not mean they have to be a jerk nor completely silent. A polite, conversation stating that one will make a complete statement and cooperate fully through an attorney should not raise the ire of any cop. I'd rather have "investigation" at the bottom of the card than "guilty" of a crime I did not commit.

[jlchucker]

I just got off jury duty. When we prospective jurors were assembled as a group to be panelled, we were briefed by the judge, well before things got started. He specifically stressed, many times during his briefing, that it's the prosecution's job to prove that the defendant is guilty. The defendant, even if he/she doesn't say a word, is not guilty of anything until the prosecution proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. Good to remember. LEO's aren't prosecutors, judges, or juries. From some of the comments about this subject today, it would seem that some may forget that point. A citizen of the US is innocent until proven guilty, and doesn't have to prove innocence or say a word. Are we becoming a society that has watched too much television and taken courtroom dramas as representative of fact? D***n! I'm starting to sound like a liberal here!

[Sarge]

I don't need to watch any videos, Tycer. I've been doing this stuff since 1976. Been on the scene of a number of shootings in that time including the self-defense variety; some for real, and some not. The first order of business is to make the scene secure, then find out what happened. Cops are gonna ask questions and folks are gonna plead the Fifth. No, we don't get mad about that but as I mentioned above, refusing to answer the most basic if questions can result in getting booked until somebody does answer them. My contention, and experience, is that if it's a pure self defense shooting you have nothing to lose by saying "Officer, that *** kicked in my door and I shot him. I really need to talk to my lawyer before I say anything else."

[Gary7]

My contention, and experience, is that if it's a pure self defense shooting you have nothing to lose by saying "Officer, that *** kicked in my door and I shot him. I really need to talk to my lawyer before I say anything else."

That is sound advice. Establish that it was self defense and then refuse to say anything further without an attorney.

And (speaking as an attorney) make sure the attorney you get initially is an experienced criminal defense attorney. Your lawyer who did your will or your divorce is not who you want sitting beside you when the police are questioning you.

[Old Ironsights]

I just got off jury duty. When we prospective jurors were assembled as a group to be panelled, we were briefed by the judge, well before things got started. He specifically stressed, many times during his briefing, that it's the prosecution's job to prove that the defendant is guilty. The defendant, even if he/she doesn't say a word, is not guilty of anything until the prosecution proves it beyond a reasonable doubt. Good to remember. LEO's aren't prosecutors, judges, or juries. From some of the comments about this subject today, it would seem that some may forget that point. A citizen of the US is innocent until proven guilty, and doesn't have to prove innocence or say a word. Are we becoming a society that has watched too much television and taken courtroom dramas as representative of fact? D***n! I'm starting to sound like a liberal here!

No, you are sounding like someone who understands the nature of the Constitution and Freedom.

If it wouldn't (likely) get you thrown off the Jury, I would have suggested you find out whether or not the JUDGE understood the Constitution and asked if he believed that the JURY has a moral/ethical/Constitutional duty to judge not only the Facts, but the Law Itself (Jury Nullification).

I.E. if you find a "Law", like, say, a Gun Control Law (now) or a Jim Crow Law (as was done in the past), to be Unconstitutional, you can Fail to Convict regardless of the "Facts" of the case.

Most Judges will have you thrown off the Jury (and prosecutors declare a mistrial) if you bring that up.

[Tycer]

I don't need to watch any videos, Tycer.

Your loss, they are outstanding videos. I was first shown them by a 20+ year LEO who watched them as part of his dept. continuing ed program.

[JohndeFresno]

1. Not all cops and/or their suprevisors are crooked, lazy, or stupid. Most are not.
2. I certainly went out of my way to be compassionate, fair, and thorough.
3. But like the proverbial box of chocolates, you don't know what you'll get.
As posted above, if there is no shred of doubt as to your innocence, you might be better advised to briefly explain just the elements of what happened to avoid being jailed. Then, ask for a lawyer before answering any more questions. Use good judgement.

Even if a peace officer is not "framing" you, I have seen a few who were a bit lazy and who didn't always dig deeply enough for all of the facts or write a report that covered everything he has learned - it happens.

You can make statements that might be misconstrued, and even though you are found innocent, that can be fuel for a separate lawsuit since all statements can be used in a civil trial.

[quietman]

For those who don't agree with Hobie, you need to watch this from an attorney and LEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[Tycer]

For those who don't agree with Hobie, you need to watch this from an attorney and LEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

That's the video that Hobie posted.

[quietman]

For those who don't agree with Hobie, you need to watch this from an attorney and LEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

That's the video that Hobie posted.

In his blog, but for people that haven't bothered to go to it, I thought I'd post it here

BTW, I'd take garyL's statement about hiring a criminal defense attorney one step farther. Hire someone that knows how to defend INNOCENT people.
See here:
http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/ayo ... ent-people

[JohndeFresno]

Well, I waded through the video. The lawyer made good points, but (typically) he was tricky in how he got his point across, and he failed to mention some facts that would not make his appeal quite as sensational. The cop, sadly, failed my test for what I would either call "integrity" or "training" or "ethics" - you choose. If that's the way cops in his area are trained and view their job, I wouldn't give him the time of day, other than my name - because they can haul you in if you fail to identify yourself.

By the way, that was the flaw with the lawyer's presentation. Typical of lawyers, he twisted a question to the peace officer to prove his point, but not a "truth" - "Has anybody ever argued himself out of being arrested" was the way his question was posed. The lawyer failed to point out that if you don't at least identify yourself, you present an appearance of suspicion by being totally uncooperative; and any first year rookie or veteran officer will be obliged to hold you so that they know who they are speaking to. So the lawyer overstated his case. Let's get a little reasonable about this.

As for the officer, I don't care if he has a 98% conviction rate with over 1,000 interrogations. And, I note, that he vacillated there - so I don't know that we wasn't pulling that out of a hat. Regardless, he made a statement early into his monologue that makes whatever else he says subject to scrutiny, based upon the apparent lack of ethics that he uses in pursuing his job:

Early into his spiel, the police officer said that his only job is to develop probable cause - "that's my job." WRONG. Every California cop (at least in this state) is trained in a POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) certified basic academy that his job is to protect the public, be the finder of facts, and not make assumptions before finding those facts. If a suspect has clearly exculpatory evidence that can clear him, it is the job of the police and prosecutors to look at that information or evidence prior to holding them over for a preliminary hearing.

And a peace officer is trained to report all known facts in an unbiased manner. A standard impeachment line of questioning used by defense lawyers goes like this - "Officer, isn't it true that you had already been convinced that my client was guilty before you gathered all of the facts?" If a peace officer can be quoted as saying something to the contrary, like - "I don't care what he says - I just know he did it" - then that is brought out in the proceedings and it presents a tough roadblock for the prosecution. It attacks the credibility of the officer due to bias, and the jury is most certainly advised of this by the defense. This is an especially effective defense in cases where a person is a member of a minority community. In fact, the world saw how a racist LAPD Detective, Mark Furman, was torn to shreds on the stand just because of his bigoted statements - it actually helped to free the killer, OJ Simpson - despite the fact that Furman had gathered undeniable blood evidence at the scene.

I didn't see the rest of the video. A cop who is so fatally flawed in the ethics area ("I am only paid to develop probable cause," in effect) is not to be trusted for any of his other testimony. That is in fact part of our CALJIC (California Jury Instruction Code) that is read to the jury before testimonies in a criminal trial: If a witness is found to make statements that are untrue in any part of their testimony, you should consider all of his testimony to be unreliable.

As far as one's resume goes, I would remind the reader that we had a "Rhodes Scholar" for a President that many believe was one of the worst Presidents this nation has ever had. Whether or not the reader is in this camp, you should judge this video by what you believe is right, not what one cop tells you what his job was. Don't think for a minute that he wasn't cherry picked by the lawyer who probably makes a lot of money putting on this dog-and-pony show.

Having said all of that, I mainly object to the crappy image that this apparently misdirected cop relays to the public. I say this as a former deputy sheriff and detective of 20 years and State investigator for another 19 years, several of which I also worked as a POST instructor and in-house instructor in various subjects. When the police officer made the one outrageous statement, I quit listening to him and to the flawed video. That was all I needed to hear. There is good advice out there, but these two presenters raised some questionable issues. But I would still agree that you should give minimal information to a peace officer, especially in the arena of shooting incidents. Sarge (above) gave the correct answer. The officer in the video has apparently never been corrected as to his proper role.

[quietman]

John,

I understand your opinion and your frustration with the attitude of the LEO, and why you think the video is "overboard" when held against your personal ethics.

But there is one glaring question that brings out why this info is put out.

There is obviously a big difference in your ethics and the LEO's on the video. As a citizen, just how are we supposed to know which "kind" of officer we're talking too with 100% accuracy? Both are out there.

I have a friend that's currently a Federal Air Marshal, who was a sheriff's deputy in Texas and has been in law enforcement for over 20 years. He says he's seen plenty of officers with the attitude of the LEO in the video, he's had to work with some of them. I also have 2 students (martial arts) who are sheriffs deputies in Colorado for 10+ years each who say the same thing. Another friend is now a Police Lt in a town in New York. He agrees with the video for the same reasons as the sheriffs do. They don't like LEO's like the one in the video any more than you do, but they have seen this video and consider it excellent advice because of, as one put it, "some of the yahoos I've seen out there".

So, if you have no absolute, fail proof method for a person to determine, in the highly emotionalized state they would be in, how to gauge the ethics of the investigating officer- then discretion is going to be the better approach.

[JohndeFresno]

John,

I understand your opinion and your frustration with the attitude of the LEO, and why you think the video is "overboard" when held against your personal ethics...

Quietman,

With all due respect, you missed my point entirely. Please read the bottom of my previous message that is presented in bold type. And for the record, the above stated is not just my "personal ethics," by a long shot. The ethics as described are codified, standard ethics for every peace officer in my state, and (I know) several other states, if not all of them.

I must admit that as a serviceman I traveled in one Southern state and was accosted by a fat-bellied, stupid and abusive deputy sheriff. He insulted and intimidated my girlfriend after stopping me in a rented car with a smoking tailpipe - something that I had been unaware of. We were there to see my fiancee's brother off after his graduation as an Army officer who was bound for Viet Nam. I was just out of Viet Nam and remember that I literally thought about opening the door into him (he had bad tactics, too) and killing him on the spot in a very dark moment, right after he reached for his billy club and threatened to bash me just for asking him to please not talk to my fiancee in the manner he was using. I recall that he had learned that I was from California; perhaps he hated me for that, or because I was also a serviceman in his largely armed forces populated area. Interestingly enough, this was in the 60's when the highest death toll for peace officers was in a few Southern states, one of which was his. I remember thinking, "Go figure" in so many words. And for years I held a low opinion of Southern cops until I met a few in my job as a fellow law enforcer. That cop should have never carried a badge, but he was not a fair reflection on the fine officers in his county who had the misfortune to be associated with his kind. As a citizen of the Left Coast, I have also run across a few members of my profession that are pitiful examples. Nevertheless, there are jackasses like him who have not yet been removed from authority. The world is not perfect.

There are a few clowns, thieves, idiots and crooks that manage to get into law enforcement. I don't believe for a minute that the "job makes them that way" - what is in their heart comes out with authority, just like with politicians, or people who fall into money, or any number of examples that one can cite.

For the most part, they are removed - at least in my state - when they are found out. I am not at all ashamed to tell you that within my undercover work I managed to remove a few, and helped to send a couple to jail. People make mistakes and bad judgment calls, but a truly bad cop is worse than a crook, in my book.

Having said that, I have seen some peace officers become lawyers (like this one is aspiring to). Some become excellent lawyers, even defense lawyers, who retain their ethics. Some sell out for the money and use law enforcement methods against the system to release bad people back into the population. A few I have known are lawyers who were distrusted, even hated by their fellow officers because of the way their tongue quickly darted in and out of their mouth, allegoricaly speaking. Sure, they are smart enough to pass the bar - but are they trustworthy, moral, considerate? Are they public servants?

Like I said in my rant - use common sense when dealing with police. And because there are a few snakes in law enforcement, and a whole lot of snakes in politics, one needs to protect himself. Here is a brief story; I hope that I am not precise enough to expose myself to lawsuit:

I have a family friend of many years who is a decent, moral individual; but he made a bad move when his company was on the rocks and he evaded some fees that were owed to the government. It came across my desk and I had to recuse myself because I knew him. He knew where I worked, and upon being investigated he called me and asked for advice.

I rue the day that I did this - I told him that since he is an upstanding Christian man who made the wrong choice, the best thing that he can do is to be totally honest with the investigator, as (I believed at the time) he is also a Christian who will do his job but be fair in the way that he pursues it. I cannot get into the facts of the offense, but his was minor compared to many who were doing the same thing, and whom we were already investigating.

He admitted everything, threw himself on the mercy of the investigator, and opened up his books. The result: The idiot fledgling investigator, whom I determined later was merely incompetent and so he had to make an easy mark for his reputation, slammed my dear friend with maximum penalties. My fiend lost his business, sold his cars, and put his house up for sale. I am not sure if he lost his wife, but I know that his marriage was wrecked for a while, at least. There was no plea bargain, which (I verified later) they would have offered if he had been less forthcoming with his own production of incriminating evidence. Don't think for a minute that I am not haunted with that incident. I have never spoken to my friend, since. In fact, perhaps I should try to recontact him as I think of this.

There are a whole lot of good cops out there. There are some vicious and/or stupid ones. And since being a cop implies a Type-A of personality of one who aspires to a job, there are indeed a few major jerks (another, less socially acceptable word could be applied here). Here is a clue as to what a police officer should be - Google the "Police Officer's Creed." If the cops in your neighborhood don't live up to it, then write them off - but don't assume that we are all that way, please.

And please - never take some idiot's statements for granted when he is speaking for money. Some guys will say anything for a fast buck.

Again, read my last sentence in the previous posting, or Sarge's. HOWEVER, the last time I checked with California rulings and civil decisions, unless you can also say that you were trapped and had nowhere to run and that your life was in imminent danger, you may put yourself into the skillet if you just say that you shot a guy who kicked in your door - that's in my state.
1. You must identify yourself or face arrest - that's common sense
2. If you don't say a word, expect to be arrested. You look suspicious.
3. Think, think, think before you speak. If you can safely state that you defended yourself (because you are the only person found at the scene besides the dead guy), then say so. Then politely inform the officer that you don't want to be misunderstood or misquoted, and advise him/her that you need to speak with a lawyer.
4. In California (at least), despite the "Miranda Warning" that says "a lawyer will be appointed to you before any questioning, if you wish one," you will still be arrested if the officer deems it necessary for any reasonable cause. In my state, once you ask for a lawyer, the officer must not ask any more questions. He will just return you to the lockup (if you were arrested) and you will be there either until the Preliminary Hearing on the next court day, most likely, before you see any court appointed attorney. And the coffee that you get in the lockup won't be as good as the stuff that the interrogator offers you, anyway.

And forget about a Public Defender running to your cell to speak to you, in most cases. The first time most incarcerated individuals see a PD is at the Preliminary Hearing. If a fatal shooting is involved, then you are more likely to see one right away - but you won't avoid an arrest just by requesting a lawyer (at least in my state).

I hate to say this, but if there is a shooting, you should plan on having your own established attorney, not a first-year practicing law student with the Public Defender's Office. A private attorney is more likely to get you out of jail on a writ than an overburdened, underpaid and (usually) inexperienced Deputy Public Defender. Remember that you might be found innocent, but unless the lawyer is experienced, a young PD might allow statements in that can cause you to lose your home in a civil lawsuit (where they take the criminal court transcripts into account). More than one crook has managed to successfuly sue a homeowner who defended his household.

[JohndeFresno]

I followed my own advice - and found that there are some pretty sad examples of the Peace Officer's Creed scattered over the Internet. So here is a reprint of the Creed or Code of Ethics that I see exhibited in numerous city, county, State and Federal law enforcement offices in my state, and which is found as a creed with various other departments throughout the U.S. This is in the creed that we are expected to live up to, and by which we are judged by our peers and administrations:

* * * * *

Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all persons to liberty, equality and justice.

I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminal, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession...law enforcement.

* * * * *

In my brief and admittedly interrupted viewing of "Abbott and Costello Explain Interrogations," these bozos trampled all over this creed with their presentation of what apparently goes on in their interrogations and cases. If I were a Private Investigator (as many of my retired buddies are), I would have a field day with the video by sourcing it for any court case where these upstanding presenters were involved. As for the Creed above, I recall holding up my hand more than once and swearing to uphold this (I have belonged to more than one agency). If the person on the video swore to this, then by his own statements on YouTube he must call himself a liar. Is that plain enough?

[El Chivo]

are you familiar with the story of Michael Crowe (brother of Stephanie Crowe, Escondido, CA)?

Stephanie was stabbed in her bedroom in the night, and her brother was taken in for questioning. The interrogators fed him all kinds of suggestions and threats and misinformation and got a sort of confession. They extended this to a circle of his friends and did the same thing to them.

Turned out a homeless guy had entered the home and done the stabbing, and had her blood on his sweatshirt. The cops had the sweatshirt and never checked it. They were too busy railroading the boys.

The story is on DVD now and it's an eye-opener to the tactics of the police once they get you in their sights. Even after they knew the boys were innocent they still kept charging them to save face.

[madman4570]

Even after they knew the boys were innocent they still kept charging them to save face.

Here is a time where maybe they need a additional law that doesnt "protect their butts".

If that case was proven to be true--Those that did the framing of those boys IMO should be "fired" and thrown in a normal (non protected for them )prison for about 20 years!

[JohndeFresno]

Even after they knew the boys were innocent they still kept charging them to save face.

Here is a time where maybe they need a additional law that doesnt "protect their butts".

If that case was proven to be true--Those that did the framing of those boys IMO should be "fired" and thrown in a normal (non protected for them )prison for about 20 years!

+1

[Hobie]

I posted the video as information. I'm not qualified to have a legal opinion and don't. It is not my opinion. Neither is my posting of the video anti-police, it is PRO-freedom.

[L_Kilkenny]

I don't think Hobie posted this to step on anyone's toes. Most of the LEO's that I've dealt with are stand up guys. But personal experience (recent and past) leaves me with this:

The guy investigating any incident is usually pretty dang good at that job. They don't stick you in a room with a rookie smuck. They now how to lead people around by the nose and are every good at reading people. IF you talk and they want to burn you (rightfully or wrongfully) they can and will do it. Most are that good at interrogation and knowing where the fine lines are at. Some jurisdictions may hand you back your gun and say good shooting on the spot, others look at any gun play as a crime. Hope you live in the first.

LK

[JohndeFresno]

I don't think Hobie posted this to step on anyone's toes. Most of the LEO's that I've dealt with are stand up guys. But personal experience (recent and past) leaves me with this:

The guy investigating any incident is usually pretty dang good at that job. They don't stick you in a room with a rookie smuck. They now how to lead people around by the nose and are every good at reading people. IF you talk and they want to burn you (rightfully or wrongfully) they can and will do it. Most are that good at interrogation and knowing where the fine lines are at. Some jurisdictions may hand you back your gun and say good shooting on the spot, others look at any gun play as a crime. Hope you live in the first.

LK

I think you hit it right on the head. And for the record, I understand and appreciate Hobie's intent on posting this. My tirade was not against him. It comes from many years of pent up anger at our flawed criminal justice system and the minority (I hope) of traitors to the badge and the apparent majority of scoundrels in the court who brag about how they abuse true justice and our freedoms. In all sincerity, I believe it should be a capital offense for a cop or attorney to frame an innocent, or for a defense lawyer to make statements in court knowing that what he is stating is a lie. The phrase, "Hanging is too good for them" applies to my sentiments. Of course, neither scenario will occur.

[Jeff Quinn]

I guess I screwed up bigtime today. I was talking with the Sheriff, and a few minutes later being fingerprinted by a jailer. Six full sets of prints!
However, the prints were for the transfer of three suppressors, and me and the Sheriff were fondling the county's M-14 and AC-556 rifles. Those M-14s sure are sweet! Sheriff got them from the army. I was checking the ACs to try to swap the Sheriff some new full-auto M-16s for them, but they were made in 1987, so the deal could not be done. Would have been a sweet deal, as I had lined up brand new full-auto Stag rifles for $700 each.

Anyway, I like talking to the cops, but like every other group of folks, some are real arrogant idiots, but most are nice people. In fact, I trust cops a lot more than lawyers. Most lawyers will sell your *** down the river to cut a sweeter deal for a friend. The best and nicest lawyer i ever knew turned into a judge, but he is also my gun dealer. I figure i can get a fair deal here in this county, but anywhere else, if something happens, I am not sure that I would be standing around when the police arrive. I once had the unpleasant opportunity of looking down the gun-barrels of five Dade County, Florida deputy's guns. I don't want to do that again.

[madman4570]

Jeff, The Pa State Police up here are actually very good! (I honestly think most are pro-carry)of the ones I talk to.
To really be fair to those guys, probably after about the 1/1000th time someone pulls a fast one on you one might so to speak start to "cop a little attitude"
Their job anymore is getting crazy dangerous.Stii,yep got to be careful talking to any when in a legal situation.
Still,Glad we have them!

[Tumbleweeds II]

Forget the cop, worry about the prosecutor.

The prosecutor is a lawyer and a politician, and I have seen prosecutions go forth for the sole reason that the public wanted a prosecution and there was no information whatsoever as to who committed the crime. I'm talking about a husband and father who came home from an out of town business trip to find his wife and children butchered. No clues, so they charged HIM. He was found not guilty, but it finished wrecking his mind. The only reason he was acquitted was he had a lawyer who was thorough, not tricky, and was able to blow the prosecution "witnesses" out of the water.

"Anything you say will be taken down and may be used against you in a court of law". THINK ABOUT IT.

BTW - I don't care how many years you were a cop. I want to know if you were ever on the receiving end of the "criminal justice" system. It looks very different from the other side.