-------------------- News Alert: Supreme Court: Suspects must say they want to be silent 10:24 AM EDT Tuesday, June 1, 2010 -------------------- The Supreme Court says suspects must explicitly tell police they want to be silent to invoke their Miranda protection during interrogations. A right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer are the first of the Miranda rights warnings, which police recite to suspects during arrests and interrogations. But the justices said Tuesday suspects must tell police they are going to remain silent to stop an interrogation, just as they must tell police that they want a lawyer. The ruling comes in a case where a suspect remained mostly silent for a three-hour police interrogation before implicating himself in a murder. He appealed his conviction, saying that he invoked his Miranda right to remain silent by remaining silent. For more information, visit washingtonpost.com: http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/TNGYL1/KDMW0/HSWBB1/9SM34W/VVVLN/6C/t My comments on this are along the lines of this; In accordance with the 5th amendment you are not required to incriminate yourself. Then according to Miranda, and the Supreme Court, you have the right to remain silent and to request a lawyer be provided for you. Additionally, you are supposed to be considered inocent until proven guilty in this country. Unfortunately IMO common sense is no longer common. There are so many stupid and dangerous people out there among us that for the most part the police must feel besieged, for so many quickly become heavy handed and act like storm troopers instead of public servants. This is not meant to be a condemnation of the police, just that .... most of us support you doing your jobs, but when you automatically assume that someone is your perp, and use heavy handed tactics, the citizen is going to be a little disgruntled. . I for one will give accurate testimony as a wittness to most anything if I feel it can help the police, until they ask that one question that sets off an alarm that says to me "this idiot is considering me as a suspect or accompliss", at which time, ... I am done being a wittness and I have nothing further to say. I will not even at that point confirm or deny anything I have previously said. This is just good common sense, and is not cause for arrest or detention. I will not go down to the station to talk about it further unless placed under arrest. It's all BS at that point and I am done. Case closed.
I never thought i would ever hear my true red white and blue self say this: Don't ever talk to police. This is an excellant pair of videos by a law professor and a cop. YouTube - Dont Talk to Police
Yeah: The pendulum is still swinging towards Orwells "ministry of love" I would think merely: "Sir with all due respect I don't want to talk with you I'd like to see my attorney now...( if they can make a case against you more power to them but if you are innocent your attorney would likely be able to shoot down their arguments. as the professor above points out it can not help you.Thats weird thinking for me,but I have to take the "leagle beagle" at his craft. because I'm gonna be the guy inthevideo:"I can talk to the police I'm trained in interview techniques.
Cops, overall, are not particularly bright. In fact, many thousand departments use a form of IQ testing to weed out the intelligent applicants. They hire the average to slightly below average. Then, what passes for training is actually largely programming. On top of that, we all know that power corrupts. Talk about a bad recipe! When a person of marginal intellect (the cop) has enough "training" he thinks he's an expert and remember he has the power to initiate criminal proceedings. Danger abounds. The female cops are even worse. I have two interesting quotes that apply: #1, from my days in the financial world, relaxing with after-dinner drinks in a nice restaurant. The comment is from the Exec. VP/General Counsel of a large insurance company. The Jonbenet Ramsey case came up and while many thought the parents were guilty I observed that it was not at all strange that the head of a publicly-traded company would reflexively involve his lawyer. The VP/GC agreed. His comment was "Damn straight. If a cop is talking to you, you're in danger. DON'T SAY A THING! You NEVER talk to the police - ESPECIALLY if you're innocent." His passion about this was memorable, and a little startling to the wives and girlfriends. Interestingly, the restaurant was Windows on the World. We were by the east windows that night, watching the jets pass by halfway down the building on final for LaGuardia. That was the last time I was there before 9/11. #2, from the same era (but in the parallel world of vintage open wheel racing) from a class competitor who is a death-penalty appeals lawyer: "These (meaning his clients) may not be very good guys, but I figure roughly one fourth of the people we execute are innocent of that particular crime. "Guilty people don't ask for DNA tests on appeal. If they're trying to clear themselves. the ****ing government should sit up and take notice." Then later, on the subject of talking with cops: "More than one of my clients was ultimately executed because he tried to help the police." If a cop is asking you questions about anything, you should be silent and very concerned. (Odds are good they're looking for something to use against you, and they don't mind twisting your words. In fact, they're trained to.) If it's a serious matter, you should be scared s***less. The situation has never arisen, personally, but if a cop wants to talk to me about ANYTHING my response will be "please submit any questions in writing to my attorney" Tango3's videos are superb. I've been recommending them for years. Watch, and take heed.
I'll agree with the "power corrupts" but an institutional program to only hire marginal intellect??? Okay: (People who enter any field may have similar characteristics and psychology.) is there any proof of that (hiring practice)?
Actually there is proof. I think it was in Conn., a candidate for the PD was turned down because he scored too high on the IQ test. He tried to sue for discrimination and lost. METRO NEWS BRIEFS: CONNECTICUT; Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores A Federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit by a man who was barred from the New London police force because he scored too high on an intelligence test. In a ruling made public on Tuesday, Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court in New Haven agreed that the plaintiff, Robert Jordan, was denied an opportunity to interview for a police job because of his high test scores. But he said that that did not mean Mr. Jordan was a victim of discrimination. Judge Dorsey ruled that Mr. Jordan was not denied equal protection because the city of New London applied the same standard to everyone: anyone who scored too high was rejected. Mr. Jordan, 48, who has a bachelor's degree in literature and is an officer with the State Department of Corrections, said he was considering an appeal. ''I was eliminated on the basis of my intellectual makeup,'' he said. ''It's the same as discrimination on the basis of gender or religion or race.'' Dumbed Down Stories Police, Fire, Municipal<HR>U.S. Justice Department Wants "Dumbed Down" Cops (06/13/97) "The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has been pressuring police forces across the country to abandon "cognitive" entrance exams [exams based upon mental ability, reasoning skills, and intelligence], which test for basic reading, writing, memory and reasoning skills. "The Department argues that such tests are illegal because they exclude too many minorities from police ranks. Cognitive test supporters say the tests are needed to assure that officers have the mental skills to make quick decisions about everything from the constitutional rights of suspects to the use of deadly force. "As of 1993, some 83 percent of large city and county police forces used cognitive tests in hiring -- but that may be about to change. After years of pressure from the Justice Department, Nassau County, N.Y., agreed to replace its cognitive-based entrance exam with one that was based on personality -- in which applicants had to score only as well as the bottom 1 (one) percent of current police officers on a reading exam. "Critics charge that the whole effort to achieve "diversity" in police ranks is leading to such absurdities as recruiting on street corners in the poorest neighborhoods, rather than going to the top black colleges for new people. "Justice Department bureaucrats also hopped on officials in Suffolk County, N.Y., claiming that its test allowed too few minorities to get police jobs. It charged that if the test were race neutral, top scorers would have included 249 more new blacks, 170 more Hispanics and 447 fewer whites. "Police officials in other areas of the country are also feeling heat from Justice's civil rights crusaders, critics report. "The Louisiana State Police was forced to water-down its cognitive tests to the point where that portion was "minuscule," leaving the test "no better than chance," according to experts. However the city of Torrance, Cal., fought back after being sued by Justice for not abandoning its cognitive tests and refusing demands that it set up a multi-million dollar fund to compensate alleged victims of its test -- with the result that it won its case, but Justice is now appealing the decision. "One test development company points out that trials are often decided on the basis of the arresting officer's written report or oral testimony, which is "pure, unadulterated mental ability." (Via the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), from Investor's Business Daily, 06/13/97, by David A. Price, "Dumbing Down the Police Force") [Last known link http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm66.html ] <HR>'Dumb cop' rule really smarts (09/11/00) A federal court has determined that in New London, Connecticut, the police were justified in denying employment to an applicant who was too smart to be a policeman. Yep, he was too smart for the New London police force. The Atlanta Mobile Register writes "Police throughout the country should be enraged, because the policy at issue in this case feeds the unfortunate stereotype of the "dumb cop." For that matter, the citizens of New London, Conn., should be enraged, too, because it is their police department that is ensuring that the officers who serve the public are of only average intelligence. The policy is inane. "The case began when Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, applied for the New London police force. When he took the entrance exam, he scored 33 points - which indicates an IQ of about 125. But the department only considers candidates who score between 20 and 27, with 20 representing an IQ of about 100, which is supposed to be average. "The department's theory is that those who score too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after receiving costly training. "Mr. Jordan sued, saying that he was the victim of illegal discrimination. Two federal courts have now refused to uphold his claim, though, saying that because the same standards were applied to all applicants, no illegal discrimination occurred. The courts also ruled that even though the policy might be unwise - we would say flat-out stupid - it was at least arguably a rational way to reduce expensive job turnover." (Based on the story in the Atlanta Mobile Register 09/11/00) [Last known link http://www.al.com/news/mobile/Sep2000/11-a374838a.html ] <HR>Too Smart to Be a Cop (09/08/00) The Associated Press reported the following case from New London, Connecticut: "A man whose bid to become a police officer was rejected after he scored too high on an intelligence test has lost an appeal in his federal lawsuit against the city. "The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld a lower court’s decision that the city did not discriminate against Robert Jordan because the same standards were applied to everyone who took the test." In 1996, Jordan scored 33 points on the police exam which is the equivalent of an IQ of 125 (well above average, but 15 points short of the traditional "genius" cutoff of 140). "But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training." Associated Press reports that the national average for police officers is an IQ of 104, or slightly above average. The U.S. District Court ruled the New London police had a reasonable explanation for their policy of rejecting applicants who were too intelligent -- they might get easily bored and leave the job after receiving costly training. On August 23, 2000 the Second Circuit Court agreed. Robert Jordan has been working as a prison guard since his rejection by New London police. Apparently prison authorities don't care of Jordan is too intelligent for the guard job; or maybe prison guards have to be smarter than police recruits. (Based on the Associated Press story published by ABC News 09/08/00) [Last known link http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/toosmart000908.html ]
OMG.. There it is. well its dumbed down to be more inclusive (affirmitive action). but the end effect is the same.
Actually it is more insidious if you think about it. I wonder how far the Elite of the left have spread this...? What if in an effort to total control the Elite of the far left control hiring via testing and unions in other areas. Allowing only right minded high IQ peoples to advance or obtain jobs in areas of importance. Hold down and weaken the intelligent with conservative values. Who will listen to some well meaning poor commoner of no standing of significance? Think about it.
Gives a whole new meaning o stupid cop tricks, doesn't it? It's harmful in a deeper way that you may not have considered, too. In training, our constitutional rights are presented as an impediment to good police work, and students are taught how to get around our rights whenever possible. This is a slippery slope leading to much abuse, such as the all too common lies about confidential informants (the cop version of imaginary friends) on search warrant affidavits. Such lies are standard operating procedure at most larger departments today, and the result is that cops are routinely lying in sworn testimony. (Once you're started lying like that, where does it end?) There's actually someone who is renting houses, rigging them with cameras and sound and stinging cops who lie to get warrants. He's looking for the money to take his show on the road nationwide. I'll try to find the link, but you could always google it. The point of all this is that a brighter cop might get curious and actually read the constitution, which could lead to some uncomfortable questions about how the cops do business. (Can't have that, can we!!) There's another excellent site dedicated to police abuses. I don't remember the URL, but I blogged about it earlier this year on invertebratenation, linked in my sig. It's an entirely self funded effort, but he's using valid statistical analysis and is well aware and quite candid about areas where his statistics are incomplete. Very credible stuff. You can spend an hour or a day reading his citations, which come from all over the country, and you'll come away both angry and depressed. The problem is pervasive, and the cancer is much further along than you'd like. I'll close with the observation that cops these days are very different from cops a generation ago. The young hotshots these days are quite militaristic. They view themselves as part of an elite, and to them we're just "civilians". They have an "us and them" worldview, and have no qualms about escalating to force where force is not at all necessary. They also have an "end justifies the means" attitude about their work that is quite alarming, and which produces astonishingly consistent dishonesty all over the country. These problems are the direct results of low intellect and deliberate training, and they produce a moral climate no free nation can tolerate.
Pathetic, isn't it... That's true everywhere! Note that those numbers don't add up. I think the writer was trying to make them sound better than they are. If a score of 20 represents 100 IQ, that's 5 IQ points per test point (20x5=100) so a score of 33 would represent an IQ of 165. Try again using 25 as equivalent to an average IQ of 100 (as quoted in the report I read years ago) and you get 4 IQ points per test point. With that, you get cops with IQ's ranging from 80 to 108, and Jordan's 33 points makes his IQ 132. This fits much better with observed reality as well, since a lot of cops are clearly not of even average intelligence. That's a crock. They just don't want smart people around, since traits like inquisitiveness, compassion and morality seem to occur in direct correlation with IQ. A smarter cop might question the morality of hiding behind a tree with a radar gun to steal money from reasonable people behaving reasonably, or develop a problem with the daily lying needed to do his job.
RE: "imaginary friends": at least in "our" agency (MY active duty years) (afosi) if a report or warrant affidavit states " "OC-1" a source of proven reliability stated he personally saw a large quantity of white powdery substance in the process of being divided up into individual plastic packages. There is a district source manger with a complete file on exactly who "OC-1" is and his history and relibility.
