- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
2 words...
EPIC FAIL!
Admin
I think they "smelled something fishy" when they found a dead drug dealer. Of COURSE they are going to be interested to follow up a number that was acting abnormally on the day of the death. Or are most murders committed by people who act normal?
Admin
And do those rights count if they happen to be dealing with police in another country? What about a (legitimate, maybe permanent resident or similar) non-US citizen dealing with US police?
Those 'unique' rights must be why most of the paranoid comments on here appear to be from Americans...
Admin
If you don't help cops work, the crime will raise, because will be imposible to imprision criminals withouth people help.
Admin
CRNewsom is right. To allow your child to talk to police about a murder investigation without a lawyer... that really is a WTF.
Most cops are good, and want to know the truth... but some really do get it into their head that you're guilty. It happens all the time that people are incarcerated based on false evidence... and the cops probably THOUGHT they were getting the right guy. His son could have been innocent, but circumstantial evidence (like if he really called the guy for weed) might have made him look less innocent.
Admin
Admin
Admin
Didn't you read the story, the cops were accusing him, and then his son, right from the start. He was well past the point where he needed a lawyer.
And can a lawyer accept a plea deal without the client's consent?
Admin
Hmmmm.
There have been plenty of witch hunts by the liberal left Democrats so I'd suggest not going there. We can amuse ourselves with tech oriented stuff or we can devolve the good natured ribbing into a hammer & tongs political debate.
Your choice.
Admin
Hmmmm.
Your rights do not kick in because someone read you your "rights". You have them at all times.
You cannot be held as a witness without a warrant. No warrant, you walk out. If you're not under arrest then walk out.
You can be held for a short time. But being held for "24-48 hours" is a lot less of a problem than having to defend yourself against charges because you ran your mouth.
If the cops really do want to talk to you then they'll comply with your request for a lawyer.
Admin
The real WTF is that the cops are confident Steve and/or his son is involved in a drug-related murder and he's wondering whether or not he needs a lawyer.
Admin
Wahh? You don't have a lawyer? It's just like having a life insurance or a retirement fund plan. You should try it sometime.
Admin
If you talk to the cops off the cuff, you are on a hiding to nothing, every time. They get something out of it if you're guilty; you get nothing out of it (that you wouldn't have had otherwise anyway) if you're innocent. You should never say a thing to them without having had time to take advice - not even "Good morning" when you pass them in the street.
Admin
Admin
Making an assertion - in writing (text appearing on a screen) - that a particular phone call came from a particular number that belongs to a specific individual, could be libel - but it's a stretch (I am of course not a lawyer).
Admin
My guess is, if they say "Police, open up!", you should answer the door unless you want to be paying for a new door when they kick it in.
Admin
I think that the real problem here is that law enforcement is only human. I have little doubt that most of them are trying to do the right thing, but unfortunately, they, like the rest of us, can get to the point where they just want to get the job done so they can move on to the next. Thus they get lazy, they make mistakes, heck they may even puposfully lie to get a warrant that they need. All so that they can get the guy that they think did it as quickly (and with as little risk to their own lives) as possible. No matter how important your job is, it will eventually just feel like another day, another dollar if you let it.
I do lose a bit of faith when I hear stories of misconduct where an apology is never issued. We all have to do it when we mess up, I don't see why they shouldn't, especially since their blunders cost lives.
Admin
You mean bad ass-kids? (http://xkcd.com/37/)
Admin
True story from Denver, CO. I have a very good friend, "Big Mike" who is imminently trustworthy. Heart of gold. Doesn't even speed. He was running his dad's printing business after his dad retired. This was in the era when Desktop Publishing was taking over and small printing shops didn't know how to combat the erosion of their business. Mike wasn't the best at running a business either. He had employees to see to the daily functioning. He'd show up for a little while, check on things, and head home. He received a strange call from the police saying they were at the shop and would he come down as there was a problem (The language was suspicious but I don't recall it.) He went down. Once there, they started chatting with him saying that there were drug dealings going on at the shop and proceeded to grill him for information. Turns out, two of his employees were dealing drugs out of the shop. The police were sure that Mike was the kingpin so they wanted to gather as much evidence they could to arrest him. After all, everyone knows what happens at their business and is always there, right? Mike, being VERY trusting sort, offered up as much info as he could to the police. He also trusted his employees and had zero clue it was going on. After being arrested THEN talking to the lawyer, it seems that the "helpful" statements Mike made could have been construed/slightly warped to show that he was guilty. So, to avoid a long trial and conviction with harsh sentence, he pled no contest, served time for a crime he didn't commit, and was released.
So, long story but CRNewsom is right, do NOT talk to cops when they are after you without a lawyer... even a cheap one. (Traffic infractions excluded but watch your tongue!)
Speaking of traffic, heard a story from another friend that someone was pulled over (don't recall the state). Cops asked him to their vehicle so he complied BUT as he was getting out of his car, HE LOCKED IT. The cops felt that without locking the doors, that it was an invitation to search so they tried the door handle. So, lock your car upon exiting. (Wonder what they would do if the windows were down but doors were locked w/ alarm on...?) Oh, were they to search and scatter your stuff all over the ground, you have no recourse.
For the record, I have nothing against cops. They do a risky job that I wouldn't want but will call on them to help. I also know that they are human and not every single one of them follow every law/rule. Cf. YouTube of Cop tasering a speeder. Most do.
Admin
After all, Godwin's law is based on the implicit assumption that the Nazis actually really truely WERE the epitome of all badness and evil, which implies that any comparison to them is almost inevitably pure hyperbole for rhetorical purposes and hence marks the point when the debate has given up on arguing issues and crossed over into ad-hominem name-calling.
So if we had a Godwin's Law for the Republican party, it would basically be an admission that eveything people say about how wicked they are is true.
Like I said, I could go with that.
Admin
Q: What do you get if you cross a Jehovah's Wtness with a Hell's Angel?
A: Someone who comes round and rings your doorbell, and when you answer it HE tells YOU to fuck off!
Admin
Meanwhile in the real world (UK part of it), we've only recently been letting out some of the people we locked up back in the '70s who committed the dreadful crime of thinking like that while being Irish.
Admin
Call yourself a "savvy L&O fan", but you've never even heard of Miranda rights? Consider yourself expelled from the club, with dishonour.
Admin
How dare they persecute the Irish! Look at the the good they are doing in the world by clothing beautiful ginger women wear their shirts.
/The picture of her on the bed on the bustedtees site is the one that makes me drool the most.
Admin
Back to you: this, or the Irish Girl?
Admin
Exactly right. With regards to the previous quotes about whether or not refusal to consent without a warrant or arrest is possible cause or not: Here in Canada, where we have the Charter of Rights and freedoms - as opposed to Consitutional rights - you are guaranteed your right to be told why you are being detained (or other infringment of your person/property). The police must indicate clearly why they want to talk to YOU specifically, or search YOUR premises specifically otherwise you are (in theory anyway) clear to refuse their request.
So, back to the story at hand: the cops did not explicitly link Steve to Big Willie, but rather it was implied "i.e. he's missing, your phone # called his, ergo we assume a link". In any case, Steve could have refused any further involvement claiming that the link to him is tenuous; if the cops had stated "We suspect that you are complicit in /accessory to Big Willies abduction/murder/dissappearance' then thats different.
Admin
Godwin's Law implies nothing of the sort. It suggests that the person in question has entirely run out of rational argument and resorted to name-calling and sloganising. It recognises that in polite (and even impolite) conversation, there is no way back from a statement like "Well, I grant you that they're as fond of shiny boots as the Nazis, but ..." It essentially loads a feeling of guilt on the opposite party, and is thus, as you say, the epitome of an ad hominem argument.
Alas, it does not apply to the Republican Party, or to any incarnation thereof since the good old days of Abe and Teddy; possibly even Ike (cf "Military-Industrial Complex"). I wish, in a way, that it did. But we're going to have to convince people that they're disgusting immoral filth for all sorts of other reasons.
Admin
I assume GoF is not a reference to (a) Eric Gamma & co -- a rare incursion into tech territory here -- or (b) the Social Democrats in the UK. Taking a wild leap at (c) post-Mao China, may I recommend this pietism to you and all your kind:
"Let a thousand flowers bloom."
Only without the genocide, please.
Admin
Actually, I was just informed by a police officer this past weekend that in Michigan, you are in fact required to carry ID at ALL times, including on the beach, and produce it upon request/demand.
Don't know how accurate that statement was, but there it is.
Admin
You left out 3) You're an adult American, prepared for day to day happenings in our wonderful country.
Lawyers are also just plain useful. If you call your wife, she can't come into the jail and talk to you. If you call your lawyer, he can, and he can call whoever he wants once he knows what's going on. He can make sure that the right people get notified if something goes wrong.
There are so many ways to get hauled off to jail, few of which involve committing a crime, that not having a lawyer on retainer is simply being unprepared for reality.
Admin
Yeah, what a sad, pathetic world we live in with those kinds of values.
Admin
My old logic professor would smack me for this, but it is true nonetheless.
All cops are people. Some people are thugs. Some cops are thugs. All cops have guns and badges. Some cops are thugs with guns and badges.
Admin
if you get called in for a murder you didn't commit, and you're not trying to protect a family member, you get a lawyer involved. even if you sit in a holding tank for a couple days, you don't talk without that lawyer.
the alternative is to play a game you don't understand for infinite stakes against a humongous beuracracy that has at least some evil people in it who just want to "make their numbers."
the right to a lawyer is to protect the innocent. an unfortunate side-effect of that is that they also protect the guilty. i guess it's probably a sign of the health of our system that we think of lawyers primarily being hired by the guilty.
but james madison and all those guys are way smarter than us. and they said innocent folk need lawyers for some reason or other. so you oughta just take their advice on anything worse than a traffic ticket (unless it's some weird edge condition like your kid was kidnapped, they suspect you, and you need to exclude yourself to get them to chase the real villain).
Admin
The Constitution doesn't require you to prove that you are a US Citizen, to afford these fundamental rights, such as Habeas Corpus. To have a privilege to vote, one has to be a Citizen. To have a right of freedom of speech, or a right to retain a councel, one has to be simply on US land, or otherwise under US jurisdiction.
If you think otherwise, you don't actually have any rights. If only a Citizen has these rights, you may simply be denied a right to prove that you are a Citizen.
Admin
(Admittedly this isn't an exact transposition through predicate logic, but I assume you're not trying to pad out the alternative -- "Call a lawyer!" -- with pointless verbiage.)
Call a lawyer. Protecting a family member is also a good idea, although murder less so.
James Madison was a total dick, btw. All those other guys (minus Jefferson, who was also a total dick) rule, mmm'kay?
Admin
Yes, it sucks that they were unfairly treated. But in the end, because they kept their heads, and because the cops were willing to listen to the explanation, it worked out.
I understand that their lives were impacted by the very act of being interviewed in that way, but it could have been worse.
My point is that getting raped by lawyer's fees in addition to this outrage, would only have added insult to injury. Not everyone has hundreds of dollars to toss around! And believe me, the lawyer sure isn't gonna jump right outta his chair and come running down to the precinct, if you're not paying well.
And BTW, one would think that a phone number like that would immediately raise an eyebrow for an experienced investigator. At first, I thought it was a fake number put in to obscure the real one.
Kudos to the kid and the cops for working it out.
Boo to the cops for not doing their homework first AND for telling the guys employer! NOT cool and NOT necessary.
Admin
Case law has consistently supported the privilege of police to require an individual to present identification in relation to a licensed activity (driving, attempting to drive, possessing a firearm, etc.); with favor leaning more towards reasonable likelihood versus actual activity. Taking an extreme example, people have been charged with DUI for merely being drunk and sitting in their car with their key in the ignition without necessarily having the engine running or the vehicle moving (see http://www.duilaws.com/blog/connecticut-dui/guilty-of-dui-while-in-parked-car as an example). Similarly, if the police were to observe a young person walking towards the driver's side of a car with keys in hand, they may assume that he or she is about to operate the vehicle and have suspicions about their age. They may then request the peson to provide a driver's license to establish whether they should be prevented from entering the vehicle and driving away.
In the case presented, the likely driver of the vehicle, based on proximity and orientation, was the drunken man; with the only other likely driver to be the woman. As such, the police could very easily justify requesting identification from both persons to establish:
Admin
Admin
You said it all!
Stupid people think the police will help them clear out the matter (why should they?), everbody else goes with your rule.
Admin
He will be trustworthy in the very near future?
Admin
You're an idiot. Sorry, but you are.
There's a difference between offering witness testimony and talking to the cops who think you're a drug dealing murderer.
Probably wouldn't hold up - the SCOTUS has already ruled that your obligation is to identify yourself, period. If Michigan wants me to carry ID, they can damn well issue it for free.
Admin
A simple, "I'm sorry but I'm not answering any questions without a lawyer present. Am I being held or am I free to go?" usually works pretty well. People forget that the police will only ask you questions in this manner unless they are trying to obtain evidence and in a situation like this, the police are certainly not your friends.
Personally, I wouldn't have answered a single question nor would I have accompanied them to pick up and I certainly wouldn't leave my teenage son alone in a police interrogation room. I don't keep a lawyer on retainer but I'm patient enough to wait for a public defender.
Admin
I don't normally complain about English spoken as a second language; I normally try to understand the meaning. In this case, the meaning appears to be insane.
Any evidence that the crime rate will, ahem, raise in this way? I suspect that it would remain pretty damn close to constant, in the average democracy. The conviction rate, on the other hand, would probably drop. But that's up to the judiciary, to juries, and to due process; not to the absence of some toss-pot claiming that crimes go away when citizens blindly corroborate anything the police say.
Crime also goes away if you implement a perfect totalitarian state. Woo hoo, let's go there.
Admin
We'll see. I sent it to them.
Admin
You have the right to an attorney. If you can not afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
When someone says, "I want to talk to my lawyer" they are provided one, or given the opportunity to find one.
Admin
I have a lawyer, and I've never needed one. In fact, I have more than one in my circle of contacts. You should to. Everyone should in this lawsuit happy society. I was talking with a coworker about some stupid case in Chicago last week where a a mother got arrested for leaving her two-year-old in the car when she and the rest of her kids stepped out of the car to add money to a charity donation bucket of some kind. My buddy remarked that she probably had a lawyer when she went to her arraignment because the charges were dropped. My buddy is also a 2nd Amendment freak, so I asked if she should have had a firearm to defend herself from the tyranny of the local government and the police. Then I remarked that lawyers were the new 2nd amendment.
Admin
Something similiar happend to a university prof in Germany these days. He was arrested at work and they searched his office and his home for child porn. Some weeks later it turned out that a technician of his ISP made an error and exchanged some digits of the IP adress. Imagine that just 2 digits can ruin your entire reputation and your life. Frightening.
Admin
No, that's because the base would have a block of numbers starting with those digits (E.g. xxx-257-0000 to xxx-257-0499) and picked one to be reception ("xxx-257-0000 is easy to remember!") and set that as the caller ID for all outgoing calls. The telco will only require (but probably not check) that the number is one of the ones assigned to them.
Admin
One would hope that the problem has been fixed permanently. Otherwise Steve can expect a repetition of this incident once a week or so...
Admin
What's with all the fiction here lately. Somehow WTF has become a creative writing experiment.