• Irish Girl (unregistered) in reply to Proko

    They're always after me lucky charms :(

  • Edward Royce (unregistered) in reply to Alonzo Turing
    Alonzo Turing:
    This is a bit off topic, but what it is with (I presume) you Americans and your fear of the police? I don't know, but do cops always try to find something against you, no matter if you did it or not? I mean, why was it a WTF that the kid talked to the cops? He did not do anything and they were able to solve the problem quite quick. Should he have gotten himself a lawyer just so everything would have become expensive and tedious for everyone? I thought the police is there to help the society...

    Hmmmm.

    1. In criminal matters, such as murder or drug offenses, the state is required to give you a lawyer if you ask for one.

    2. Nobody talks themself out of a problem with police. If you've got hard evidence then that'll do it. But the reality is that you're far more likely to talk your way into jail than out.

    3. The reason why "I want a lawyer" is a good rule is that this forces the police to back off. Since you have a Constitutional right to a lawyer the police cannot continue questioning you until you do get a lawyer. This gives you time and opportunity to find out wtf is going on.

    4. The police are not your friend. And in the USA the police are legally allowed to lie to you. They can tell you that they've got DNA and fingerprints of you committing a crime and that if you don't confess you'll spend the rest of your life in prison. But if you do confess then the prosecutor will go easier on you.

    End result your confession is used to convict you, even if you're actually innocent. And there are many documented cases of this happening.

  • (cs) in reply to Alonzo Turing
    Alonzo Turing:
    This is a bit off topic, but what it is with (I presume) you Americans and your fear of the police? I don't know, but do cops always try to find something against you, no matter if you did it or not? I mean, why was it a WTF that the kid talked to the cops? He did not do anything and they were able to solve the problem quite quick. Should he have gotten himself a lawyer just so everything would have become expensive and tedious for everyone? I thought the police is there to help the society...

    I've told my wife repeatedly that if anything ever happened to me, to not talk to the cops without a lawyer.

    Sure it's tedious and expensive, but if I was a victim of a random act of violence and she wasn't home, she'd be the #1 suspect, and guilty until proven innocent in the cops eyes.

    Are all cops bad? No, but when we're talking about a criminal investigation and possible jail time, I'll spend money on a lawyer rather than take that risk.

    Don't know about other countries, but the justice system here is a game. The prosecutor wants to get "points" by having a lot of convictions, police want "points" by not having an unsolved case. The defense attorney wants "points" by getting every client off. Justice has little to do with it.

    /Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • Edward Royce (unregistered) in reply to Jens
    Jens:
    One would think that the interrogation of a minor without a lawyer or guardian present would be inadmissable as evidence ...

    Hmmmmm.

    Read the story again. The father gave, stupidly, permission.

  • Jeremy (unregistered) in reply to D2oris

    That might make an entertaining episode of 'Law and Order'...

  • (cs) in reply to katre
    katre:
    Okay, I see two WTFs in this story.
    1. This has never come up before? The cops never saw this fake number in any other investigation and it just happens to come up in a murder investigation? I call BS.

    Your first point here isn't valid, because as the old saying goes, there's a first time for everything. This could easily be the first time it has come up, because there had to be a first time it came up, and the story gives us no idea how long the phone company has been having this problem.

    I do agree with your second point, although as far as I can tell, the story never specifies that Steve's son was a minor. He could easily be 18 and still in high school, in which case the police would be well within their rights to not even let Steve observe the interview.

  • joebob (unregistered) in reply to Schnapple
    Schnapple:
    CRNewsom:
    WTF#1 is that he talked to the cops without a lawyer present.
    But wouldn't it be most people's instinct to just talk to the cops and get whatever it is settled? Also, how many people have a lawyer at the ready at any given point in time? People always say "talk to my lawyer" in television shows but what I've always wanted to know is - how many people have a lawyer they use? I don't - I've never had the need to have a lawyer and don't see myself getting into a situation needing one soon. And it's not like lawyers are interchangeable - if yours specializes in divorce and you got brought up erroneously for murder he wouldn't be much good, right?

    You are right about the divorce lawyer, however, any lawyer is better than no lawyer, primarily because they will know stuff about the law and procedures that you will not and that can be a major help and reduce any headaches you might get. And if your divorce lawyer is decent they will snag a free associate that specializes in criminal law on the way to your questioning.

  • Edward Royce (unregistered)

    Hmmmm.

    Seriously. I've known a lot of cops here in the USA. Their basic interrogation technique is to hammer away at you, get you to make mistakes that they can later on use against you. The intent isn't to put innocent people into prison. The intent is to help build a legal case against you if it goes to trial.

    When they tell you that everything you say can and will be used against you, they're not kidding. The dumbest thing to do is assume the cops are your friends and are there to help you when they pick you up and take you to the police station. And even worse is if you try being helpful during an interrogation.

    The safest thing possible is to allow a police interrogation only in the presence of a criminal lawyer that represents you.

  • (cs) in reply to akatherder
    akatherder:
    CRNewsom:
    Cop: Sir can we (talk to you about / search your car or residence regarding) <insert police matter here>? Me: Do you have a warrant? / Am I under arrest? Cop: No. Me: Have a nice day.

    Congratulations, you just gave them probable cause. Their theory is why wouldn't you let them search your stuff if you have nothing to hide?

    It's a catch-22.

    lol, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm reasonably certain that not voluntarily giving up your constitutional rights doesn't qualify as probable cause

  • test_subj (unregistered) in reply to Schnapple

    three words for you:

    Free Public Defender.

    better safe than sorry when you're being accused of possession/murder.

  • Pat (unregistered) in reply to katre
    katre:
    Okay, I see two WTFs in this story.

    ...

    1. The main thing that makes me go WTF is the father leaving the room. Sorry, if my kid is involved in a murder investigation, I'm not letting him out of my reach and I'm not answering a single question until they get me my court-approved lawyer. That's the dumbest thing I've read on this site in a while.

    My jaw dropped when I read that. He's a kid. Do you know how easy it would be to badger him into sgning a confession? Just talk softly so daddy can't hear your lies as you convince the kid that it's for the best.

  • (cs) in reply to test_subj
    test_subj:
    three words for you:

    Free Public Defender.

    better safe than sorry when you're being accused of possession/murder.

    Public defender is only free if you are poor. In this case, which is clearly a case of mistaken identity, I would have handled it exactly the same way Steve did. If you get a lawyer the cops will think you have something to hide. And the minimum bill from the lawyer will be $2000. As far as questioning the son, Steve was allowed to watch from the observation room. If the cop places Steve or his son under arrest or the line of questioning gets to a certain point, then by all means get the lawyer, but until then why waste the money?

  • Me (unregistered) in reply to Jens
    Jens:
    If it does get made into a movie, i'll invite the irish girl to go see it.

    Ever since this started I have yet to see an article that does not include a mention of her, even in really good WTFs like this one. We really oughta just make Irish Girl the official WTF mascot or something.

    On topic: I'm not sure if this case would be grounds for a lawsuit, but I'd sure be switching cell companies, and if there was a contract I'm pretty sure gross incompitance like this would be enough to get out of it without paying, if you talk to the right people.

  • (cs) in reply to akatherder
    akatherder:
    CRNewsom:
    Cop: Sir can we (talk to you about / search your car or residence regarding) <insert police matter here>? Me: Do you have a warrant? / Am I under arrest? Cop: No. Me: Have a nice day.

    Congratulations, you just gave them probable cause. Their theory is why wouldn't you let them search your stuff if you have nothing to hide?

    It's a catch-22.

    Good thing that's not probable cause. Probable cause includes observation of behavior before or during a crime, not general "suspicious behavior" after a crime. Of course, they can always beat you down and search anyway, but it won't be legal.

  • Pat (unregistered)

    I call BS on this story. I think the submitter found a bug and wrote up a nice fable about it. The two cops are blatant stereotypes of the hothead rookie/calm veteran duo. Why did they build up the dramatic tension instead of coming right out with the fact that they had Steve's number? I wasn't aware police cared so much about climaxes. Why would Steve leave his son alone to be interogated? Why was his son escorted from school when there was no reason to believe he was a flight risk, or even knew the cops were looking for him? Why did the rookie suddenly find a wellspring of patience when he was humiliated by the tech support guy? Shouldn't he have screamed at him? Since when do they let suspected murderers use the internet at the police station? The police should have been the ones to querry the records while the son was in holding.

    So much bullshit.

  • (cs) in reply to Schnapple
    Schnapple:
    CRNewsom:
    WTF#1 is that he talked to the cops without a lawyer present.
    But wouldn't it be most people's instinct to just talk to the cops and get whatever it is settled? Also, how many people have a lawyer at the ready at any given point in time? People always say "talk to my lawyer" in television shows but what I've always wanted to know is - how many people have a lawyer they use? I don't - I've never had the need to have a lawyer and don't see myself getting into a situation needing one soon. And it's not like lawyers are interchangeable - if yours specializes in divorce and you got brought up erroneously for murder he wouldn't be much good, right?

    I have a lawyer on retainer. She'll be my first call if I get into trouble. If her specialty isn't in the exact problem I have, there are two key points:

    1. She's better at law than I am, even if whatever problem I have is outside her expertise.

    2. She can call a different lawyer.

    There are three things you should say to a cop:

    1. Yes, officer.
    2. No, officer.
    3. I require a lawyer, officer.

    A seemingly innocuous statement might be a confession. "That's my son's number" could very well mean that the son was going to jail for a LONG time. If he hadn't known how to get the phone records online, then it would have been All Over.

  • (cs) in reply to Me
    Me:
    Rootbeer:
    please tell me after the story ended that Steve got his lawyer and sued the hell out of the phone company?

    Sued them for what?

    The phone company lacked diligence in fixing a known technical issue, but there were no real damages occuring as a result of that failure.

    No, being questioned by police is not 'damages'.

    Um, having the police show up at work and announce that they are taking you downtown for questioning is not damaging? They could have just easily come to his house one evening.

    In any case it'll be irrelevant once Bush and and his Rethuglicans give immunity to the phone companies. This puts a whole other spin on that one, doesn't it.

    I think we need a new Godwin's Law for Republican bashing. It really ruins a thread.

  • (cs) in reply to Brandon
    Brandon:
    You honestly watch "Judging Amy" ? I don't think I'd admit to it if i did.

    Yeah, right, "if you did."

  • whatever (unregistered) in reply to Schnapple
    Schnapple:
    CRNewsom:
    WTF#1 is that he talked to the cops without a lawyer present.
    But wouldn't it be most people's instinct to just talk to the cops and get whatever it is settled? Also, how many people have a lawyer at the ready at any given point in time? People always say "talk to my lawyer" in television shows but what I've always wanted to know is - how many people have a lawyer they use? I don't - I've never had the need to have a lawyer and don't see myself getting into a situation needing one soon. And it's not like lawyers are interchangeable - if yours specializes in divorce and you got brought up erroneously for murder he wouldn't be much good, right?

    That's the joys of having a trial lawyer in the family. Instant retainer when those pesky bodies start showing up at awkward times.

  • Daniel (unregistered)

    Wow that's pretty scary, imagine going into the office the next day, having to explain THAT to your boss.

  • sweavo (unregistered)

    I'm still trying to figure out how Steve and the two cops drove the car from the caged back seat. Extra long chopsticks?

  • sweavo (unregistered) in reply to Daniel
    Daniel:
    Wow that's pretty scary, imagine going into the office the next day, having to explain THAT to your boss.

    I'd say "the pigs was onto me but I gave 'em the slip". If they ask for more I'd say "the less you know, the less they have on you."

  • mister (unregistered) in reply to CRNewsom
    CRNewsom:
    My rule #1 with cops is as follows:

    Cop: Sir can we (talk to you about / search your car or residence regarding) <insert police matter here>? Me: Do you have a warrant? / Am I under arrest? Cop: No. Me: Have a nice day.

    I do something similar, but with jehova's witnesses.

  • (cs)

    The real wtf is that the phone company knew the bug and was "working on it" for enough long to say "that happens sometimes".

    If I was the police officer: "WTF !?!? If each blocked caller id shows the valid number of another customer, that's a huge bug ! fix it RIGHT NOW freaking idiot !!!!"

  • (cs) in reply to mister
    mister:
    I do something similar, but with jehova's witnesses.

    They carry warrants now? :-(

  • Dude (unregistered) in reply to D2oris
    D2oris:
    Best. Story. Ever.

    Is this gonna be made into a movie? Who want to go see it with me?

    Hahaha whatever. This was by far one of the lamest WTf's I've read in a long time!

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to operagost
    operagost:
    Me:
    Rootbeer:
    please tell me after the story ended that Steve got his lawyer and sued the hell out of the phone company?

    Sued them for what?

    The phone company lacked diligence in fixing a known technical issue, but there were no real damages occuring as a result of that failure.

    No, being questioned by police is not 'damages'.

    Um, having the police show up at work and announce that they are taking you downtown for questioning is not damaging? They could have just easily come to his house one evening.

    In any case it'll be irrelevant once Bush and and his Rethuglicans give immunity to the phone companies. This puts a whole other spin on that one, doesn't it.

    I think we need a new Godwin's Law for Republican bashing. It really ruins a thread.

    Funny, looks like everybody ignored it until you decided to drag it up again. Not sure how that was ruining the thread? Ironically, now that I've bought it up for the third time, it might well ruin the thread. So, nobody reply to this!

  • Schnapple (unregistered)

    Two more things about this story jump out at me:

    1. More people should know that the "from" number on Caller ID is easily spoofed and not as reliable as, say, a fingerprint.

    2. Is it just me or does it say something that Steve didn't instantly think "no, it's not something my son had anything to do with" and instead instantly thought his kid might have done it, thought of some other kid to blame the behavior on, went all the way to the end of his kids life in his mind, etc. Yes, it's far from unusual that some parent is out of touch with their kids' life and what their kid is all about, but shouldn't your first instinct as a parent ideally be to defend your kid instead of saying "yeah let's go round him up from school and see who he killed today..."

  • Schnapple (unregistered) in reply to Anon
    Anon:
    operagost:
    Me:
    Rootbeer:
    please tell me after the story ended that Steve got his lawyer and sued the hell out of the phone company?

    Sued them for what?

    The phone company lacked diligence in fixing a known technical issue, but there were no real damages occuring as a result of that failure.

    No, being questioned by police is not 'damages'.

    Um, having the police show up at work and announce that they are taking you downtown for questioning is not damaging? They could have just easily come to his house one evening.

    In any case it'll be irrelevant once Bush and and his Rethuglicans give immunity to the phone companies. This puts a whole other spin on that one, doesn't it.

    I think we need a new Godwin's Law for Republican bashing. It really ruins a thread.

    Funny, looks like everybody ignored it until you decided to drag it up again. Not sure how that was ruining the thread? Ironically, now that I've bought it up for the third time, it might well ruin the thread. So, nobody reply to this!

    In Soviet Russia, threads ruin Republicans...

  • GF (unregistered) in reply to CRNewsom
    My rule #1 with cops is as follows:

    Cop: Sir can we (talk to you about / search your car or residence regarding) <insert police matter here>? Me: Do you have a warrant? / Am I under arrest? Cop: No. Me: Have a nice day.

    Um, why? Is it just for the sake of being a prick? What if it turns out you have information they need to ... you know... do their jobs? Jackass.

  • Haha (unregistered)

    Cue lawsuit against cellphone company in 4..3...2...

  • GF (unregistered) in reply to belzebuth
    The real wtf is that the phone company knew the bug and was "working on it" for enough long to say "that happens sometimes".

    If I was the police officer: "WTF !?!? If each blocked caller id shows the valid number of another customer, that's a huge bug ! fix it RIGHT NOW freaking idiot !!!!

    You're one of those truly remarkable individuals who blames the messenger every time then? 'cause I'm sure that service rep was going to hop right onto the case and get it fixed because you told them to.

  • Walleye (unregistered) in reply to BlueCollarAstronaut
    BlueCollarAstronaut:
    Proko:
    Jens:
    If it does get made into a movie, i'll invite the irish girl to go see it.
    Sorry, she already promised to go with me. But I'm sure you find someone else.

    Irish you two the best

    Given the subject matter of this post I can see where this will eventually get to:

    "Irish Stew in the name of the law"

  • suprynowicz2 (unregistered) in reply to akatherder

    "Congratulations, you just gave them probable cause. Their theory is why wouldn't you let them search your stuff if you have nothing to hide?"

    The Courts have held that not consenting to a search or questioning is NOT probable cause.

    Of course, to real cops it just means you're being a smart ass, and they will get something on you.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Schnapple
    Schnapple:
    CRNewsom:
    WTF#1 is that he talked to the cops without a lawyer present.
    But wouldn't it be most people's instinct to just talk to the cops and get whatever it is settled? Also, how many people have a lawyer at the ready at any given point in time? People always say "talk to my lawyer" in television shows but what I've always wanted to know is - how many people have a lawyer they use? I don't - I've never had the need to have a lawyer and don't see myself getting into a situation needing one soon. And it's not like lawyers are interchangeable - if yours specializes in divorce and you got brought up erroneously for murder he wouldn't be much good, right?

    lawyers.com anyone?

  • (cs) in reply to Me
    Me:
    Alonzo Turing:
    This is a bit off topic, but what it is with (I presume) you Americans and your fear of the police? I don't know, but do cops always try to find something against you, no matter if you did it or not? I mean, why was it a WTF that the kid talked to the cops? He did not do anything and they were able to solve the problem quite quick. Should he have gotten himself a lawyer just so everything would have become expensive and tedious for everyone? I thought the police is there to help the society...

    The problem is that the Cops have already decided you have done it, and it's now up to you to prove otherwise. Given their experience with dealing with and manipulating criminals and evidence to fit their perceived notion of how the murder went down, a lawyer is needed to make sure you don't inadvertently put your neck in a noose, and cause problems for yourself later.

    The cops are allowed to lie to you, and will do so to try and get you to tell them something they can use. It's best to tell them absolutely nothing without legal representation. And DO NOT allow them to search your residence or vehicle without a warrant, no matter what they tell you. They'll say, "Oh, we have to search it because <insert bogus excuse here>".

  • (cs) in reply to campkev
    campkev:
    akatherder:
    CRNewsom:
    Cop: Sir can we (talk to you about / search your car or residence regarding) <insert police matter here>? Me: Do you have a warrant? / Am I under arrest? Cop: No. Me: Have a nice day.

    Congratulations, you just gave them probable cause. Their theory is why wouldn't you let them search your stuff if you have nothing to hide?

    It's a catch-22.

    lol, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm reasonably certain that not voluntarily giving up your constitutional rights doesn't qualify as probable cause

    Think it through. Why would a cop ask if he can search something? Either he has a reason to be suspicious or he just doesn't like your face. Either way, he can just say that he smelled something (marijuana or alcohol) or he thought he saw something and needs to check it out.

    I'm not paranoid enough to think that cops are randomly going to search me for no good reason. They are only going to spend the time when they have a suspicion. If you tell them they can't search, they'll use that to compound their probable cause.

  • (cs) in reply to suprynowicz2
    suprynowicz2:
    "Congratulations, you just gave them probable cause. Their theory is why wouldn't you let them search your stuff if you have nothing to hide?"

    The Courts have held that not consenting to a search or questioning is NOT probable cause.

    Of course, to real cops it just means you're being a smart ass, and they will get something on you.

    Except for the fact that the cop will feel like you are hiding something and challenging his authority. Suddenly he thinks he saw/smelled something and he's going to search you anyway for being belligerent. Like I said, it's a catch-22.

  • sweavo (unregistered) in reply to GF
    GF:
    The real wtf is that the phone company knew the bug and was "working on it" for enough long to say "that happens sometimes".

    If I was the police officer: "WTF !?!? If each blocked caller id shows the valid number of another customer, that's a huge bug ! fix it RIGHT NOW freaking idiot !!!!

    You're one of those truly remarkable individuals who blames the messenger every time then? 'cause I'm sure that service rep was going to hop right onto the case and get it fixed because you told them to.

    Yes, after all there were probably no other bugs, new features, impending releases, customer audits or anything to be getting on with so they should have got out the chopsticks and magnifying glass and taken the drive out of the machine to fix that bug.

  • Joe (unregistered) in reply to relaxing
    relaxing:
    This doesn't belong in the Daily WTF, this belongs in the Risks Digest.

    No, this belongs on Radley Balko's blog. He outlines police related injustices. The difference is that in the real life stories he outlines, Steve and his kid would be at home when a SWAT team burst in unannounced (called a "no knock" warrant), Steve would awaken frantically, see someone unidentified dressed in black bursting into his home, shoot one of the SWAT guys in defense of his kid, then end up on death row. Oh wait, that did happen... to Corey Maye. Nevermind.

    This story is about as lucky as you can get. The cops could've easily dragged this out if the phone company hadn't verified. Or more importantly, if the cops didn't feel like calling the phone company. They could've left it to the defense attorneys. This whole story could've gone wrong in some many ways.

    The Agitator

  • (cs) in reply to DeLos
    DeLos:
    Wow, I hope his son wasn't under the age of 18. With a Lawyer? If he was than this was very inappropriate of the cops. Of course I am just basing this on episodes of Law & Order and Judging Amy I have seen.

    -I don't think the parent being there is enough for it to be admissible but then again read my note on my legal "expertise"

    They're allowed to ask questions at any time...if you insist on a lawyer then you have the right not to answer until you've conferred with an attorney, but that doesn't mean they can't try to ask you questions.

    In the case of a minor, it might be true that the information gathered from those questions would be inadmissable in court, but if that information helped them find other evidence, that evidence would still be valid.

    --Another savvy Law & Order fan, plus I like The Wire...makes me a JD equivalient

  • KG (unregistered)

    I don't understand. I can't believe police are as corrupt as people say. If you're innocent (that is, if you did nothing unethical - not "innocent" by some obscure technicality) and tell the truth, be cooperative, etc... what could they possibly arrest you for?

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to suprynowicz2

    The real catch is that there are so many laws on the books and the laws are so complex and ambiguous that if the police want to give you a hard time, it won't be that hard for them to find some law that you have broken, or that they can plausibly claim that they suspect you might have broken. Like, I recently moved to another state. The law in this state says that I cannot own a gun without having a registration certificate. But I have to be a resident to get a registration certificate. So when I moved here, between the time when the moving van crossed the border and when I got the registration, I was technically in violation. Indeed, I went to the police department a couple of days after moving to get the registration, and they told me that I couldn't do it until after I had my drivers license. But to get a drivers license I have to prove I'm a resident by showing them a utility bill or one of a few similar pieces of paper. Which I won't get until after I've been here a few weeks. It's a catch-22, but in the mean time I was technically guilty of a felony. Would a court really convict me of taking two weeks to get this piece of paper? I'm sure they wouldn't, if they believe I'm basically an honest person trying to understand and comply with the law. But if they decide I'm a suspect in a major crime, suddenly they're going to be looking for anything that they can hold me on while they collect evidence.

    I generally assume that the police are my friends and here to protect me. But if they conclude I'm a criminal, rightly or wrongly, they could give me a very hard time.

  • JD (unregistered) in reply to DeLos
    DeLos:
    Wow, I hope his son wasn't under the age of 18. With a Lawyer? If he was than this was very inappropriate of the cops. Of course I am just basing this on episodes of Law & Order and Judging Amy I have seen.

    That's ok, the author based most of the story on those episodes anyway.

  • Mr. ANI (unregistered)

    No one has mentioned the real WTF... which, of course, is using caller ID to identify a murder suspect -- way too easy to forge.

    Use the ANI, people!

  • IainBanks (unregistered) in reply to GF
    GF:
    My rule #1 with cops is as follows:

    Cop: Sir can we (talk to you about / search your car or residence regarding) <insert police matter here>? Me: Do you have a warrant? / Am I under arrest? Cop: No. Me: Have a nice day.

    Um, why? Is it just for the sake of being a prick? What if it turns out you have information they need to ... you know... do their jobs? Jackass.

    If, for some reason, you happen to have information related to whatever they're investigating then you could be implicated as an accomplice.

    Their job is to find out every little nugget of information about everything then try to put it together for a DA. If, while on a "fishing" expedition they find something else, guess what they'll pursue that as well.

    They do use tactics like "Good Cop/Bad Cop", "I'm your friend", "I'm the only one who can help you". They will try everything from sugar coated statements to flat out yelling in order to get you to admit to something. Yes, they receive training for this.

    There are a thousand reasons not to say anything, and zero for you to open your mouth; even in defense. Any attorney will tell you that.

    If they have questions, and you aren't under arrest, I'm sure your attorney will have the police submit them in writing to allow you time to ponder a well written (and very short) response.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to Schnapple
    Schnapple:
    CRNewsom:
    WTF#1 is that he talked to the cops without a lawyer present.
    But wouldn't it be most people's instinct to just talk to the cops and get whatever it is settled?

    Sure, if you're an idiot. Cops are not your friends, so a lawyer will keep you out of trouble you don't need. I sure as hell wouldn't leave them alone with a kid.

  • Bob N Freely (unregistered) in reply to Schnapple
    Schnapple:
    CRNewsom:
    WTF#1 is that he talked to the cops without a lawyer present.
    But wouldn't it be most people's instinct to just talk to the cops and get whatever it is settled? Also, how many people have a lawyer at the ready at any given point in time? People always say "talk to my lawyer" in television shows but what I've always wanted to know is - how many people have a lawyer they use? I don't - I've never had the need to have a lawyer and don't see myself getting into a situation needing one soon. And it's not like lawyers are interchangeable - if yours specializes in divorce and you got brought up erroneously for murder he wouldn't be much good, right?

    That would be a bad instinct to follow. Always remember that police investigating a major crime have one imperative: find someone they can convict. Whether it's the right person is often of less concern. If they have evidence they think points to you, whether you're guilty or not, they will use every trick they know to get you to say something that will lead to a conviction. They can and will lie to you, withhold information, and do their best to intimidate you into talking. Keeping that in mind, there are a few rights you should be aware of if you are a US citizen:

    1. You are never required to tell the police anything unless you are under court order to do so. Specifically, if you are the one under investigation, the fifth amendment to the US constitution states that you cannot be compelled to provide testimony against yourself.

    2. If you have not been served with an arrest warrant, the police can't hold you against your will. You can leave at any time.

    3. If you are under arrest, you are entitled to have an attorney present during any questioning if you want one. If you don't have your own on retainer, the state must provide one. If you ask for one, the police may not question you further until the attorney arrives.

    That's sort of a detailed version of the Miranda warning that police are required to give to anyone that is under arrest. You know, the whole "You have the right to remain silent..." spiel.

  • Someone (unregistered) in reply to Schnapple

    And this is how the cops catch you... If you ask for a lawyer, they assume you are guilty. If you don't, they'll try to catch you in a lie.

    Most criminals get caught for three reasons:

    1. They are stupid. They are criminals for a reason.
    2. They think they are smarter than the police. And thus, they think they can outsmart them and end up getting tripped up.
    3. They don't ask for a lawyer. The rules (Miranda) are presented to you up front. Don't open you mouth, don't say anything, just ask for a lawyer.
  • A Gould (unregistered) in reply to morry
    morry:
    I'll bet the HR department added that to his "file" anyway. Good luck with a raise there, Steve. Cops show up == Guilty.

    My thought (after justifiable anger at getting hauled out of work for something this stupid) would be to insist on a signed letter from the police department attesting to their mistake. Present to HR to add to your file.

Leave a comment on “You'll Need to Come Downtown”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article