|
Post by freedomfighter423 on Feb 8, 2007 14:17:55 GMT -5
(the originalpost) the problem here is that you knowingly gave false information, which is a crime. By doing that you gave him an excuse to get back at you for being cotemptious of his authority. he acted within the letter of the law if not the intent. which is common in the american police culture. your first mistake was admitting anything and trying to work with the officer, you should have handed him your id(becuase you are required by law to ) and waited for him to cite you to court...anything you wanted to say as a defense or even to admit guilt, should have waited till the court room...dont tell officers your name or DOB...let them read it off your ID. the only things you should ever say to a police officer are " am i being charged with a crime?", "am i free to go" and "may i speak with a(my) lawyer?". Now if you dont have an ID...you are required to tell them your name,DOB and address...and they can still detained for up to 72 hours untill proof of your ID can be confirmed. and lastly... demand a jury trial, never a bench trial( in most cases...fines/court costs and potential jail time involved with most modern misdameaners you can claim right to a jury trial under constitutional protections). you dont want a bench trial, for two reasons...one being that judges, considering their background as attournys, are more interested in the LETTER of a law, than the laws original intent(or spirit) and second, most judges are, in practice, predispostitioned to work with law enforcement becuase they work with these individuals on a regular basis and get to know them and their peers in a proffessional relationship, whilst you , as the accused, are a stranger with only a criminal and credit history print off as credentials to your personal good standing. And if you have a criminal history(minor or extensive) your word is next to useless in most bench trials. it is harder for the state to prove to 12 average joe s that a crime has been committed than to one elevated lawyer becuase juries tend to see the law as a guidline to get to the original intent of the act or oridenence that created the law than as an ends of itsself. one last reason to demand a jury trial...its expensive to the state, for more expensive( in time and money) than can be reclaimed even if a conviction is acheived.dont forget..locking you up in jail costs the state and county money as well. thats why the DA will always try to get you to plead guilty instead of going to court( by offering "deals" of probation, smaller fines, or reducing charges) but if you stick to it and demand a jury trial...8 out of 10 times, the DA will end up dropping charges or will put off holding a trial so long that the judge will end dismissing the charges do to due process violation. in short...do not talk to the police...unless you KNOW that the information you give will HELP the police to HELP a person in need(not help the police solve a "crime" or catch a "criminal"), do not answer any questions or offer any explanations...provide ID ( only becuase it is required by law) then refrain from saying anything else to that officer outside of the big three : " am i being charged with a crime?", "am i free to go" and "may i speak with a(my) lawyer?". there is a fourth and fifth statement you may want to use if you are being videotaped or recorded by audio...those are " i do not consent to...(insert what ever is appropriate ie: this search, this line of questioning,etc.) and " i am compelled to do so under duress" when complying with the officers intructions( wether they be getting out of a vehicle, sitting down, standing up, putting your hands up or on the car...or any other order or request.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter423 on Feb 8, 2007 14:17:55 GMT -5
(the originalpost) the problem here is that you knowingly gave false information, which is a crime. By doing that you gave him an excuse to get back at you for being cotemptious of his authority. he acted within the letter of the law if not the intent. which is common in the american police culture. your first mistake was admitting anything and trying to work with the officer, you should have handed him your id(becuase you are required by law to ) and waited for him to cite you to court...anything you wanted to say as a defense or even to admit guilt, should have waited till the court room...dont tell officers your name or DOB...let them read it off your ID. the only things you should ever say to a police officer are " am i being charged with a crime?", "am i free to go" and "may i speak with a(my) lawyer?". Now if you dont have an ID...you are required to tell them your name,DOB and address...and they can still detained for up to 72 hours untill proof of your ID can be confirmed. and lastly... demand a jury trial, never a bench trial( in most cases...fines/court costs and potential jail time involved with most modern misdameaners you can claim right to a jury trial under constitutional protections). you dont want a bench trial, for two reasons...one being that judges, considering their background as attournys, are more interested in the LETTER of a law, than the laws original intent(or spirit) and second, most judges are, in practice, predispostitioned to work with law enforcement becuase they work with these individuals on a regular basis and get to know them and their peers in a proffessional relationship, whilst you , as the accused, are a stranger with only a criminal and credit history print off as credentials to your personal good standing. And if you have a criminal history(minor or extensive) your word is next to useless in most bench trials. it is harder for the state to prove to 12 average joe s that a crime has been committed than to one elevated lawyer becuase juries tend to see the law as a guidline to get to the original intent of the act or oridenence that created the law than as an ends of itsself. one last reason to demand a jury trial...its expensive to the state, for more expensive( in time and money) than can be reclaimed even if a conviction is acheived.dont forget..locking you up in jail costs the state and county money as well. thats why the DA will always try to get you to plead guilty instead of going to court( by offering "deals" of probation, smaller fines, or reducing charges) but if you stick to it and demand a jury trial...8 out of 10 times, the DA will end up dropping charges or will put off holding a trial so long that the judge will end dismissing the charges do to due process violation. in short...do not talk to the police...unless you KNOW that the information you give will HELP the police to HELP a person in need(not help the police solve a "crime" or catch a "criminal"), do not answer any questions or offer any explanations...provide ID ( only becuase it is required by law) then refrain from saying anything else to that officer outside of the big three : " am i being charged with a crime?", "am i free to go" and "may i speak with a(my) lawyer?". there is a fourth and fifth statement you may want to use if you are being videotaped or recorded by audio...those are " i do not consent to...(insert what ever is appropriate ie: this search, this line of questioning,etc.) and " i am compelled to do so under duress" when complying with the officers intructions( wether they be getting out of a vehicle, sitting down, standing up, putting your hands up or on the car...or any other order or request.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter423 on Feb 1, 2007 13:05:10 GMT -5
streetsweeper, you never smoked it becuase it gave you a headache? how would one know it gave them a headache untill one smoked it? Also potsmokers dont "admit" that they smoke pot to non smokers a general rule, regardless of thier vocation. It is illegal after all and most pot smokers get paranoid about going to jail when around nonsmokers who may or may not be snitches...or in the case of cops...well common sense tells you that, unless that cop is passing the doob to you you, its probably not a good idea to advertise that you partake. factory workers dont tell other factory workerswho dont smoke because they dont wont to get fired, so why would your police buddies "admit" to headacheboy that they smoke. the fact is drug use is rampant in law enforcemet...alcohol being the most abused, followed by prescription pills( hydrocodone,oxycotin,xanax,valium,etc) then cocaine and meth rounding out the list.the fact is, you will be hard pressed to find someone born after 1975 who hasent smoked pot at least once or twice and the majority have used it habitualy at some point in thier life, usualy in thier adolesence.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter423 on Feb 1, 2007 13:05:10 GMT -5
streetsweeper, you never smoked it becuase it gave you a headache? how would one know it gave them a headache untill one smoked it? Also potsmokers dont "admit" that they smoke pot to non smokers a general rule, regardless of thier vocation. It is illegal after all and most pot smokers get paranoid about going to jail when around nonsmokers who may or may not be snitches...or in the case of cops...well common sense tells you that, unless that cop is passing the doob to you you, its probably not a good idea to advertise that you partake. factory workers dont tell other factory workerswho dont smoke because they dont wont to get fired, so why would your police buddies "admit" to headacheboy that they smoke. the fact is drug use is rampant in law enforcemet...alcohol being the most abused, followed by prescription pills( hydrocodone,oxycotin,xanax,valium,etc) then cocaine and meth rounding out the list.the fact is, you will be hard pressed to find someone born after 1975 who hasent smoked pot at least once or twice and the majority have used it habitualy at some point in thier life, usualy in thier adolesence.
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter423 on Feb 1, 2007 13:16:46 GMT -5
the police are scared of most things and people, that is why they carry guns, wear armor and travel in groups. you may have noticed, police officers tend to be polite and nice when they are by themselves dealing with a person or group of people, but as his "backup" arrives his atitude becomes more belligerant and demanding. The larger the group of cops the higher the potential for abuse or homocide. this is becuase of fear, cops are afraid of the citizens so the want to prove their dominance and make the citizens fear them. this is not a theroy it is a police tactic, you are taught in the academy to never deal with suspects(citizens) in a one on one situation if you can in any way prevent it, the ideal ratio is three cops to the one suspect FEAR its what keeps the police in power. Fear, its what makes the police dangerous. 155 cops killed to at least 350 citizens killed in the us in 2005... 2 to 1 kill ratio, that is the result of FEAR
|
|
|
Post by freedomfighter423 on Feb 1, 2007 13:16:46 GMT -5
the police are scared of most things and people, that is why they carry guns, wear armor and travel in groups. you may have noticed, police officers tend to be polite and nice when they are by themselves dealing with a person or group of people, but as his "backup" arrives his atitude becomes more belligerant and demanding. The larger the group of cops the higher the potential for abuse or homocide. this is becuase of fear, cops are afraid of the citizens so the want to prove their dominance and make the citizens fear them. this is not a theroy it is a police tactic, you are taught in the academy to never deal with suspects(citizens) in a one on one situation if you can in any way prevent it, the ideal ratio is three cops to the one suspect FEAR its what keeps the police in power. Fear, its what makes the police dangerous. 155 cops killed to at least 350 citizens killed in the us in 2005... 2 to 1 kill ratio, that is the result of FEAR
|
|