While it's definitely true that you should never talk to a cop, it's not really fair to act like this guy's a pig and the devil for trying to get confessions. That's his job. It's not his job to determine innocence (That's the defense's job), it's his job to prove guilt. He's a cog in a machine, and if the cog isn't doing what it's supposed to do the whole machine gets fucked up.
Professor Duane is mistaken in his conclusion that one should never speak to the police.
Here is an example: see 625 ILCS 5/11-401(b) and People v. Brady, App. 2 Dist.2007, 308 Ill.Dec. 356, People v. Walker, App. 1 Dist.1974, 18 Ill.App.3d 351, People v. Lucus, 41 Ill.2d 370, 372
Delusional cop. There's a manual about getting confessions the cops use. The cops are taught, brainwashed to think they know the soul of the person they're interrogating. They did it to my son and now he's an innocent young man in jail.
@nakohichi Yes, the Reid technique. The part where he agrees with the guy that the victim was totally hot and he understands why he would want her is classic Reid.
I have some awesome Dvds for sale know your rights in court , beat traffic tickets made easy to overstand Copt right your name ! and then let see what they do I have this as well for sale . Contact me @ geminieast77@yahoo.com
the first words you say should be "i refuse to answer any queations!" if they ask you then "do you need a lawyer?" you answer "i want a lawyer" NOT "no, i want one" NOT "yes i need one" or anything else. the only thing you have to tell the police are your name, adresse and age and nothing else!!!
My fear is being interviewed by a cop who's convinced that I'm guilty of something that I'm not guilty of & he's going to use these "tricks", making me speak incorrectly. I'm in a strange place, I have never been arrested, I don't know what my rights are & I'm not going to get that advice from him. The first worlds from my mouth would be " I want to speak to a lawyer". He gets his advice from attorneys, why shouldn't I?
@MrUltraworld That is a completely valid concern. The case of Tim Masters is a perfect example of this, where a delusional cop convinced two DA's and a paid shrink to help him convict a 15 year old boy for a murder he didn't commit. Never talk to a cop, never allow a search without a warrant.
ID yourself, and shut up.
"I'm not answering any questions, or making any statements without a lawyer present. I don't consent to any searches without a warrant."
[con't]... mindset, and that is the fact that under this system, only the small-time, unintelligent criminals who were probably only going to be one-time offenders, are caught. The more crafty, intelligent, intuitive ones who pose an actual threat to society still roam free ...
I'd also like to say that this cop only told stories where he was able to obtain a confession and get the alleged perp ulimately convicted. Notice how he doesnt mention the times he failed. And given the ways he underestimates his opponents, I'm sure he's failed a lot. By thinking ppl are stupid, this cop has set himself up to approach suspects in a very ill-informed way, bc he's assuming they're guilty, they're dumb, and he's gonna get them. There is something fundamentally wrong with this...
[con't] ...and every citizen knows plenty are corrupt, so his word means no more or less than anyone else who takes the stand. And uniforms don't make you special. A mail carrier wears a uniform. This guy's delusional and has a very distorted perception of the judicial system and his role in it. 3. A confession--okay, he got one right. If there is a confession, as a juror, that's one BIG strike against him/her.
This is one of the best informative/protective YT video series on protecting Americans during interrogation. If you only watch pt 2 you will have the impression that it is about an arogant cop mouthing off.
No no
not true.
The point of this series is to educate the average American about the necessity to not speak to the police under any circumstances
They are professional interrogators, - we are not!
@macpduff ummm do you have a strange compulsion to repeat yourself repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly with repetition..over and over again? I did watch part 1. I get the point of the series-- but I still hate the cop.
I can't speak as a lawyer or as a law enforcement officer, but I CAN speak as a juror. In reponse to the part of the video where the cop discusses how, in the mind of a juror, there are 3 strikes against the defendent: 1. The fact that he's sitting next to a defense attorney. *INCORRECT* By that logic, no innocent wo/man ever stood trial. 2. That there's a "uniformed officer" testifying against him. *INCORRECT* Cops are not special. They're just regular people who earn a blue collar living...
What are you, naive? Most jurors are idiots who think that if someone gets arrested, then they "must have done something." They live in a child's fantasy-world where cops are good and only bad people get arrested.
So basically you're guilty until proven innocent.
And of course, poetic justice only comes rarely to those idiots, by getting their own medicine-- i.e. being falsely arrested. Then they act like it's different, and they're special. Childish egocentrism.
@ThomasKrypton thats false, any decent defense attorney know the ins and outs of jury selection. Most people just don't realize the benefit of a private attorney over a public defender.
@ThomasKrypton I think, much like this cop, you are underestimating people in general. A lot of people chosen to be jurors are intelligent and have at least a reasonable knowledge of the judicial system. I think the one who is naive is you, thinking that investigators and DA's can easily pull the wool over the eyes of the "stupid" jurors. Those are the lawyers who lose cases like a bad habit.
11:57 - 13:22 This lecturer disgusts me. I have never seen such blatant disregard for morality and the basic principles which our bill of rights was founded upon. Sickening.
@RedDestiny38 It's unethical but it is legal. They would not get criminal confessions without it. A lot of times what they show on CSI is not true. Police officers are not obligated to tell the truth they said this in the first video. It's not fair but the supreme court doesn't view it like that.
@vze21gwa I live in Scotland, under Scottish Law, not English Law, and under Scottish Rules of Evidence, and here a confession is not evidence. It may be used in support if it contains unique information known only to the perp, but that's exceptional.
Of all the political prisoners in the world how many are held on confession? Torture, by the way, is used to extract confession. As a means of gathering information it's almost useless.
@RedDestiny38 typical cop, unfortunately. We really need to raise our civil service standards... it truly is appalling that most of them think this way. That's why cops can't convict you--on ANYTHING--not even a ticket. You have to plead guilty and pay it...or show up to court and fight it. At which point the cop will be nothing more than a witness. JUDGES know the law, cops just enforce it.......Flawed system indeed.
@MeredithOD Friend. you miss the whole point of this series if you don't start with part 1
this is not about arrogant cops
it's about a skilled defense atty telling Americans how not to be found guilty when they are not! The policeman is a law student who is simply substantiating what the professor has said
ha interregation is too nazi so they change the word so they dont look so nazi that alot better.. thats what these people in law society love to do, changing the deffinition of word so you can further incriminate yourself in court.. yeah nazi is correct thats why hitler never lost the true war, his plans are in full effect.
He's right though. Outside the windows of the classroom is the real world. I too was once an ignorant college kid who thought I was a hotshot because I was in college and I knew everything and could do anything. The real world is nothing like the confines of the university. Don't forget that!
disillusioned cops: if you have ever put someone in jail for a "crime" that did not involve theft or coercion (2 things you do all the time ironically) then you have put an innocent person in jail.
Just because you are paid to commit immoral acts that does not make it ok.
Mind you, the only thing he disagreed with was that he said he doesn't put innocent people in jail, but never said how he's been able to do so if he's using all the tactics aforementioned.
Just because a lawyer charges $300 per hour does not mean they make $300 per hour. GOOD LUCK as a starting lawyer in your own practice finding 40 billable hours per week even if you work 50.
Here in the U.S., statements uttered prior to being warned of your rights are admissible if you hadn't been detained/arrested/taken into custody yet. So are statements that were volunteered rather than being in response to a question. Also, you're required in many states to give your name when asked.
"Don't forget the recent supreme court decision that means you have to EXPLICITLY claim your "right to remain silent", you cannot JUST REMAIN SILENT!"
@tifforo1 voices.washingtonpost. com/supreme-court/2010/06/supreme_court_rules_in_miranda. ht ml
"The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a criminal suspect must explicitly invoke the right to remain silent during a police interrogation, a decision that dissenting liberal justices said turns the protections of a Miranda warning “upside down.”"
The defendant in that case was told of the right to remain silent, remained silent, then answered a question after three hours of silence. Even Justice Sotomayor's dissenting statement was not meant to say that a person must speak up and say they wish to invoke their right to remain silent in order to remain silent or have a right to do so.
It would definitely suck to have the police subject you to extended questioning in the hopes of pressuring you into saying something that they could use against you. However, your comment seems to be based on the idea that "pestering people" is worse than letting people get away with murder.
If the police had picked him up and he hadn't done something, he probably wouldn't have said he asked for God's forgiveness for gunning someone.
Even an innocent person can be uncooperative by refusing to answer questions that could help the police. It is perfectly understandable why an innocent person might be afraid to say certain things (for reasons explained in part one), but it is also perfectly understandable for the police to strongly desire more information from that person. An innocent suspect is much more likely to be subjected to questioning that lasts for hours if they are uncooperative.
Even if someone has a right to do something or not do something, it can still be unhelpful.
I agree that police should not treat suspects as though they have already been proven guilty. However, I think it is reasonable, once finding evidence and reasons to suspect someone, to take the approach of, "we strongly suspect that you might be guilty, and want you to answer some questions that could help us figure out the truth and that might work as evidence in court if you're guilty."
@CurtHowland "There is nothing legally uncooperative about not answering questions."
In a situation where you're innocent and the police are investigating a crime, and you have knowledge of the crime, isn't it sometimes the case that refusing to answer their questions constitutes obstruction of their investigation? Since you're innocent, the fifth amendment wouldn't apply.
"If the principle is "innocent unless proven guilty" there is no justification even for pestering."
Innocent until proven guilty is a principal of the COURT procedure (along with proof beyond a reasonable doubt), not something to prevent police from suspecting people.
This is why the standard for detaining someone is only reasonable suspicion, the standard for arresting+indicting someone probable cause, and the standard for convicting someone proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Your description of the etymology of the word "commonwealth" is incorrect. Four U.S. states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) are called commonwealths.
Oxford English Dictionary: Commonwealth: 1. Public welfare; general good or advantage. 2. The whole body of people constituting a nation or state, the body politic; a state, an independent community, esp. viewed as a body in which the whole people have a voice or an interest. 3. A republic or democratic state.
1 - Dictionaries publishd by tptb....Oxford, et al. In Spain, the equivalent is the Real Academia...i.e. words and meanngs have been given to the "peasants" by the Rulers.
2 - In the U.S., it's Webster or Merriam-Webster, Noah W. who was part of tptb. He was in a Mason.
3 - Words in the common Eng. dictionary don't hv the same meanng as in the Legal Dictionaries.
They're not tellng us the REAL meanngs of words. I don't trust them.
Go to dictionary (dot) com and see that all five sources they have (including Merriam-Webster's legal dictionary and Etymonline) give effectively the same definition as Oxford's. In any case, you have yet to present a more reliable source for the meaning of the word, or any source supporting any definition..
Historically, one use of the term was to refer to a British authority from 1649 to 1660 that, at least in theory, supported parliamentary supremacy over the monarchy.
No, I'm saying that when the dictionaries all agree with each other about the general definition of a word, and some of them list origins for it, while a Youtube commenter claims it has the exact opposite definition and doesn't list any evidence, I trust the etymology that comes from sources that are actual authorities on word meanings.
". Personally I have no respect for the police force in general, but from a legal standpoint they can coerce and lie suspects into revealing information that can be used to incriminate them."
If police obtain a confession through the threat of force against the person being interviewed, it is inadmissible in court.
He said that he CAN follow someone until they do something, not that that's how he actually does things (although he must have done it once in order to know it's possible). He was NOT saying that following random people until they eventually commit a minor traffic violation is a good way to enforce laws or is his standard way of doing things.
About the "apology letter" thing: the defense can probably point out the circumstances under which the letter was written. If neither side brings up the circumstances under which the apology letter was written, the jury will think it was written out of remorse rather than a desire to get off easy, which will affect their thinking when recommending a sentence.
@UK7BRITISH Its toward people who may have to talk to the cops, guilty or innocent, did you not listen? the point is dont deny or agree to anything. Plead the 5th until you can get ahold of your lawyer.
The thing about pretending to have a video tape was sneaky, but if I was falsely accused of something and then heard that they had found a tape that clearly showed who did it, I would be happy! Even if they had a tape that showed SOMETHING and they still thought I did it, I would know if I was innocent that the worst thing the tape could show is me acting strangely, or driving too fast, or going near the scene, or someone in a disguise. Only the guilty would think a tape could prove their guilt.
Have you or people you know ever been a victim of a crime?
Do you think you or someone you know might be a victim of a crime in the future?
If you are the victim of a crime, do you want people to talk to the police? Do you want the perpetrator to be caught? Do you think the perpetrator is more or less likely to be caught if people are willing to talk to the police?
@tifforo1 , the video does not instruct not to talk to the police at all. It tells that doing it _without an attorney present_, is an unnecessary risk for the talker.
So when someones honest and confesses to what they have done that makes them stupid hmmmm I guess if you have the mentality that a good liar is smart then yea honest people are stupid
@Floridab0y813 - yes, when you are trying to be honest with the party who is dishonest to begin with (the state), yes, this is stupid. The police can lie to you, can cheat, can lie in court, can use jail snitch who will say anything instructed for better terms - all with zero risk for their career or freedom; while you are playing with them fair game betting years of your own freedom or even your life - good like in your game, you do need it.
Oh yes it can. Had an uncle that was arrested and did a year in jail (and a few fingers broken) for putting up posters to draw attention to the plight of farmers who weren't making enough money to survive.
However in Spain under Franco these type of things were not allowed. He was arrested at my grandparents home and taken to jail.
they talk like they are not part of thge people constantly calling the people stupid unless your somekind of lawyer ,most people will own up to breaking the law but they are taking the pish with the stautes thats not breaking laws that contravening a rule cos we are still serfs
Predatory cops! I never learned this, and trusted that cops were honest, reasonable citizens, interested in making intelligent arrests, based on their prey's self-witness. Boy! Was I ever wrong! This video sure tells it like it is with cops! NEVER trust a cop as an honest man, or woman! They are not. Like German Shepherd dogs, cops aggressively seek arrests, at any cost to their prey.
@claudius2u there is a severe difference between a police constable acting under oath and a corporate policy enforcement OFFICER ,,a police constable can use discretion an officer cant ,,they brain wash the cops to swith between the two in a flash,,wee need our police back ,not these corporate statute cops trying to pin a violation on you ,not a crime or when a law is broke ,harm injury or loss is law ,all else is contrctual civil statue legalities
@tifforo1 yeah i know and it hardly being used here aswell but these fucks dont deserve to be called officer ,,,,even the fuck in this vid says if he follows someone long enough then theyll make a mistake ,now that is not law enforcement ,that is a corporate mandate ,,,,these "officers" are not police men enforceing the law ,the are tricking people into thinking legal is lawful ..we need our constabularies back
WHAT ?Did he just say most interviews in Italy and Spain or France start out physically?He couldn't be more off on that ! The USA has one of the most tyrannic cops, in fact I never talked to a cop nor been to a court house and lived all over in Europe. They do not protect nor serve, they simply write out tickets to make their quotas and bully even the victims of crimes like myself to go to court to testify. Never call 911 in the USA, or they will force you to go to court then harass you too !
WHAT ?Did he just say most interviews in Italy and Spain or France start out physically?He couldn't be more off on that ! The USA has one of the most tyrannic cops, in fact I never talked to a cop nor been to a court house and lived all over in Europe. They do not protect nor serve, they simply write out tickets to make their quotas and bully even the victims of crimes like myself to go to court to testify. Never call 911 in the USA, or they will force you to go to court then harass you too!
He clearly stated that in the Commonwealth of Virginia, only one party to the phone conversation has to know that it is being recorded in order for it to be legal.
Anyone with good legal advice as to how do I stop them to come out to my residence looking for somenone and keep asking me if I know anything and to scare me and my minor son by coming out all the time ? About to move back to my home country !Sick of being harrassed and no longer have a lawyer, though I may have to hire one so they leave me alone.FTR: I'm innocent & they harass me because we have a child in common,they don't leave me alone!HELP if you know what should I do to stop this!
I was thinking about doing that to flex my rights, but trouble is then they harass you even more and they think you have something to hide and then they get a search warrant. If they turn my place upside down and find nothing ( which they will not find anything or anyone here ) who do I sue for damages ? They need to lay off of me, I need a victim's advocate as I was the victim! I want my life back, I did nothing wrong they need to harass someone else , not me and my son !
The book "The Innocent" by John Grisham is an excellent practical illustration of how it all works in reality. There's no police officer who will hesitate one bit to send to the death row anybody they have a slightest chance to, and their innocence will be last of their trouble, and they will exercise any lies and crimes to achieve their goal - and our system makes it all legal.
Did you watch the video? The officer said that someone who confessed to stealing equipment from his employer did not go to jail because the officer felt sorry for him and vouched for him in court. The officer also said that he has let people go because they were innocent. In part one, the defense attorney said that it is hard to find an officer who will lie in court to incriminate someone.
@tifforo1 , yes, I certainly did watch it, and indeed the officer said that, but you also need to sometimes read between the lines. No doubt, among the thousands of "interviews" he conducted, there were a few where he let someone go. No doubt, every rule has exceptions. But visit injusticeeverywhere com for few days, and judge for yourself what's more typical. In fact, it became hard to recruit a jury in cop-related cases, too many say they won't believe a single word from a cop witness.
Its a good thing to know we are paying the police to lie and trick innocent people into a conviction. I dont care if this man says he doesn't try and send innocent people to jail, its still his job to convict people whether they have done anything or not. I have had police lie on a report about my arrest, so when it comes to police, yeah, dont say anything, dont give them the satisfaction of abusing their position.
The lawyer will make out that he/ she is your friend but they are after your cash. Lawyers think their clients are scum just like the cops do, don't be fooled dummies!
@09SRILANKA As long as they keep you out of prison, they can defend you against situations you might find yourself against in. So even if they are heartless assholes, they will do their best to keep you outta there.
@09SRILANKA Well, I like my lawyer and his advice. And up till now, every accusation against me and my family was false and due to ridiculous coincidences.
@Shaolos. Its really strange but none of my family members have ever been in trouble with the cops, we have never been in the wrong place at the wrong time, caught up in something that we didnt cause or have any involvement in, wrongly accused of anything, had the finger pointed at us, caught up in a disturbance etc.. If you need a lawyer or are infront of a judge theres something called evidence that put you there! Enough said....
@09SRILANKA Yes, sure. Enough said, because you think so. Have you ever dealt with a stalker? Someone hating you for no reason?
Have you ever dealth with the police because somebody is in love with your girlfriend and decided to fabricate interesting stories about you and cocaine? Have you ever dealt with a pissed off exgirlfriend that decides to "get you" by crying rape? 40% of all rape charges are FALSE. Have you ever dealt with such a situation? If no, you are as ignorant as possible.
@09SRILANKA Fortunately enough, im not in trouble at all ;)
Neither is my girlfriend or my best buddy.
Partially this is due to my lawyer, who is actually a human and digital rights activist ;)
It is just that having had cases like these makes it difficult for me to understand the notion that "If you have to deal with the police, you are guilty."
The problem with evidence is, that it can be fabricated or wrong. And if you have that kind of problem, I hope your lawyer does an awesome job ;;
@09SRILANKA....If you watched the video the police prosecutor explains your point of view is what's wrong with juries in a courtroom. Everyone assumes the defendants are guilty just because they are there. People like you are the reason innocents are in prison.
I like this cop, he has a bit of an attitude but he seems to really be interested in explaining how his job works. I believe him when he says he doesn't try to convict innocent people, fwiw.
The part where the police officer is saying "I'm sorry what I did..." (to the "guilty" party) sounds a lot like "let me put words in your mouth". Also "I try to only send guilty people to jail" (paraphrased) doesn't make sense with the US legal system's "innocent until proven guilty" motto/standard of lawmaking. NOTE: I'm not well versed in law, I'm just voicing my opinion as a US citizen and potential juror for cases similar to the one described.
"most people are stupid" - that's exactly the mindset that makes a cop thinks he's better than others. Cops are hired because they are good followers - not good leaders.
These were not the ways I was taught. From birth I was always told to talk to the police when question. And I pretty much grew up that way. My dad taught me morals and respect,,,,but nothing about law.. How would I have ever known that I would need that more than anything else that he taught me...???
@billyc2477 Well, if you say to yourself "I'm such an upstanding citizen that I need never fear talking to the police," you'd be wrong. These two guys say several times that it is impossible to go through life without committing crimes, either deliberately or accidentally. You could then say "well, I can take my medicine like a man", but I bet you'd also want some control over your treatment. Next time you face a hefty fine or a jail term, you might think again about this professor's lecture.
Very insightful and will serve me well in the future should I ever have any police run-ins. Not that I plan to but how often do things go according to plan?
@VeggiePower303 I concur. This cop ( thanks for the info though copper) has probably never ever read any books that deal with history and not to mention secret societies and the like. That's why like a good soldier he thinks he's serving to protect when in reality he's the aggressor most of the time. Most people ( with access to the net and uncensored material ) will never ever figure out what is going on even if they lived 1000 years because they are stupid.
smug police officers, nothing to be proud of, making law enforcement and justice a game.
I don't need to be thankful, that our US constitution has parts included to protect citizens from Police abuses. Infact the constitution is there to serve the people, in this country people are to come before the state, the police are the state.
Only in a police state does an officer tell you to be thankful, we do not have police brutality. We do! Police Officers do not personify the words on squad cars.
When I was younger 18-25 I would pull off of the road intentionally if I see a police car behind me or if I knew a cop is going to be behind me in traffic. Everyone would laugh at me saying that if I did nothing wrong I should not be worried. The statement @ 2:02 - 2:19 completely solidifies my reasoning. I don't drive vehicles that are more prone to being pulled over as much lately but, after watching this I will return to better defensive tactics.
You can't really blame the policemen from doing their job. It's their job to find anything possible to incriminate you.
Now, who you should call douchebags are the retards on the jury that say you're guilty with hardly any evidence at all. Because the jury isn't doing their job. You're only supposed to be guilty if the evidence shows that, without a shadow of a doubt, you are guilty. Yet jury's find people guilty with far less evidence than that.
"We don't try to get people convicted unless we know they're guilty". Arrogant ass.
justinwbohner 14 hours ago
I recognise that they have a job to do, but it's hard to watch this cop gloating and hear how he entraps people and not hate the police.
matbroomfield 4 days ago
While it's definitely true that you should never talk to a cop, it's not really fair to act like this guy's a pig and the devil for trying to get confessions. That's his job. It's not his job to determine innocence (That's the defense's job), it's his job to prove guilt. He's a cog in a machine, and if the cog isn't doing what it's supposed to do the whole machine gets fucked up.
enoughtalkhaveatyou 1 week ago
1. "People are inherently honest"
2. "People are stupid"
I wonder if there's a hidden message there...
jadedmajor 1 week ago
This guy just admitted how biased and bigoted cops can be. If that is not enough of a reason not to talk to them I don't know what is.
CelineCarey 1 week ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Professor Duane is mistaken in his conclusion that one should never speak to the police.
Here is an example: see 625 ILCS 5/11-401(b) and People v. Brady, App. 2 Dist.2007, 308 Ill.Dec. 356, People v. Walker, App. 1 Dist.1974, 18 Ill.App.3d 351, People v. Lucus, 41 Ill.2d 370, 372
nothosaur 2 weeks ago
Delusional cop. There's a manual about getting confessions the cops use. The cops are taught, brainwashed to think they know the soul of the person they're interrogating. They did it to my son and now he's an innocent young man in jail.
nakohichi 2 weeks ago
@nakohichi Yes, the Reid technique. The part where he agrees with the guy that the victim was totally hot and he understands why he would want her is classic Reid.
justinwbohner 14 hours ago
I really wish this video didn't end where it did & you could hear the entire class. :(
JacobMcandles 3 weeks ago
I have some awesome Dvds for sale know your rights in court , beat traffic tickets made easy to overstand Copt right your name ! and then let see what they do I have this as well for sale . Contact me @ geminieast77@yahoo.com
geminieast11 3 weeks ago
the first words you say should be "i refuse to answer any queations!" if they ask you then "do you need a lawyer?" you answer "i want a lawyer" NOT "no, i want one" NOT "yes i need one" or anything else. the only thing you have to tell the police are your name, adresse and age and nothing else!!!
TheKampfkeksi 3 weeks ago
Smart cop nice to hear the ins and outs
KILLERKARMA69 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
DekcamsVids 4 weeks ago
@DekcamsVids Idk about smart a great story teller though. I'm not impressed for how little law school has seemed to set in on him for a 3L.
Screwlwork 4 weeks ago
The cop is only playing Devil's Advocate-- and I must say he sure looks the part!
ThomasKrypton 1 month ago
My fear is being interviewed by a cop who's convinced that I'm guilty of something that I'm not guilty of & he's going to use these "tricks", making me speak incorrectly. I'm in a strange place, I have never been arrested, I don't know what my rights are & I'm not going to get that advice from him. The first worlds from my mouth would be " I want to speak to a lawyer". He gets his advice from attorneys, why shouldn't I?
MrUltraworld 1 month ago
@MrUltraworld
Actually the first words should be "I want to CALL my lawyer," because that's the FIRST PERSON you should call.
You should HAVE lawyers who can be reached 24/7, and who will come to spring you; and KNOW THEIR PHONE NUMBER!
If you can't afford a regular lawyer, get prepaid legal insurance, it's only $1/day.
ThomasKrypton 1 month ago
@MrUltraworld That is a completely valid concern. The case of Tim Masters is a perfect example of this, where a delusional cop convinced two DA's and a paid shrink to help him convict a 15 year old boy for a murder he didn't commit. Never talk to a cop, never allow a search without a warrant.
ID yourself, and shut up.
"I'm not answering any questions, or making any statements without a lawyer present. I don't consent to any searches without a warrant."
Memorize that.
Ken4Pyro 2 weeks ago
the first part of this video was great, this part is just another cop with an inflated ego telling everybody how awesome and smart he is.
mchao23 1 month ago
@mchao23 I agree friend, but this is still valuable info.
Ego inflated cops are a fact of life. this video tells us even more info on why we should never talk to the police.
Remember the Jon Benet Ramsey parents?
Everyone was angry at the parents for not cooperating with the police
I had thought that if they were innocent, why wouldn't they talk?
Now I realize they did the right thing
Yes, police are arrogant.
The facts are still that an innocent person can be convicted. Don't talk
macpduff 1 month ago
[con't]... mindset, and that is the fact that under this system, only the small-time, unintelligent criminals who were probably only going to be one-time offenders, are caught. The more crafty, intelligent, intuitive ones who pose an actual threat to society still roam free ...
MeredithOD 1 month ago
@MeredithOD: Well said.
Pafoofnik1 1 month ago
I'd also like to say that this cop only told stories where he was able to obtain a confession and get the alleged perp ulimately convicted. Notice how he doesnt mention the times he failed. And given the ways he underestimates his opponents, I'm sure he's failed a lot. By thinking ppl are stupid, this cop has set himself up to approach suspects in a very ill-informed way, bc he's assuming they're guilty, they're dumb, and he's gonna get them. There is something fundamentally wrong with this...
MeredithOD 1 month ago
@MeredithOD You need to watch pt 1 if you haven't already.
Start with Pt 1
macpduff 1 month ago
[con't] ...and every citizen knows plenty are corrupt, so his word means no more or less than anyone else who takes the stand. And uniforms don't make you special. A mail carrier wears a uniform. This guy's delusional and has a very distorted perception of the judicial system and his role in it. 3. A confession--okay, he got one right. If there is a confession, as a juror, that's one BIG strike against him/her.
MeredithOD 1 month ago
@MeredithOD Freind, watch pt 1
This is one of the best informative/protective YT video series on protecting Americans during interrogation. If you only watch pt 2 you will have the impression that it is about an arogant cop mouthing off.
No no
not true.
The point of this series is to educate the average American about the necessity to not speak to the police under any circumstances
They are professional interrogators, - we are not!
Arrogant or not, - just don't talk
Plead the 5th
macpduff 1 month ago
@macpduff ummm do you have a strange compulsion to repeat yourself repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly with repetition..over and over again? I did watch part 1. I get the point of the series-- but I still hate the cop.
MeredithOD 1 week ago
I can't speak as a lawyer or as a law enforcement officer, but I CAN speak as a juror. In reponse to the part of the video where the cop discusses how, in the mind of a juror, there are 3 strikes against the defendent: 1. The fact that he's sitting next to a defense attorney. *INCORRECT* By that logic, no innocent wo/man ever stood trial. 2. That there's a "uniformed officer" testifying against him. *INCORRECT* Cops are not special. They're just regular people who earn a blue collar living...
MeredithOD 1 month ago
@MeredithOD
What are you, naive? Most jurors are idiots who think that if someone gets arrested, then they "must have done something." They live in a child's fantasy-world where cops are good and only bad people get arrested.
So basically you're guilty until proven innocent.
And of course, poetic justice only comes rarely to those idiots, by getting their own medicine-- i.e. being falsely arrested. Then they act like it's different, and they're special. Childish egocentrism.
ThomasKrypton 1 month ago
@ThomasKrypton thats false, any decent defense attorney know the ins and outs of jury selection. Most people just don't realize the benefit of a private attorney over a public defender.
Screwlwork 4 weeks ago
@ThomasKrypton I think, much like this cop, you are underestimating people in general. A lot of people chosen to be jurors are intelligent and have at least a reasonable knowledge of the judicial system. I think the one who is naive is you, thinking that investigators and DA's can easily pull the wool over the eyes of the "stupid" jurors. Those are the lawyers who lose cases like a bad habit.
MeredithOD 1 week ago
I really do not like this man. However, his arrogance and the fact that he underestimates his opponent will be his downfall.
MeredithOD 1 month ago
@MeredithOD Please watch pt 1
This is not about an arrogant cop showing off
It's about how innocent Americans can be trapped when they don't plead the 5th amendment
Stop concentrating on the policeman. He is now a law student. he is merely trying to show how hopeless a person is when they are being interrogated.
He is speaking to his own law class
macpduff 1 month ago
Asshole cop.
killwize 1 month ago
The 5th ammendment is reason alone for Americans to insist on protecting the Constitution
macpduff 1 month ago in playlist More videos from MarcusP52
I really hate this guy.
ZhoZhaal 1 month ago
What a complete asshole. He obviously didn't learn anything in law school except how to become an even bigger asshole.
SacredSocietyAP 1 month ago
@SacredSocietyAP
Yeah too bad he's RIGHT.
NOTHING GOOD can come of your talking to cops.
ThomasKrypton 1 month ago
@ThomasKrypton I didnt' say he was wrong, but he still has that same shitty attitude from being a street cop.
SacredSocietyAP 1 month ago
"how do you get out of speeding tickets?" "quit speeding" flawless victory
1111Davo1 2 months ago in playlist More videos from MarcusP52
This guy is wrong on several counts and is a complete PUKE!
ThePsalm40 2 months ago
11:57 - 13:22 This lecturer disgusts me. I have never seen such blatant disregard for morality and the basic principles which our bill of rights was founded upon. Sickening.
RedDestiny38 2 months ago
@RedDestiny38 It's unethical but it is legal. They would not get criminal confessions without it. A lot of times what they show on CSI is not true. Police officers are not obligated to tell the truth they said this in the first video. It's not fair but the supreme court doesn't view it like that.
vze21gwa 2 months ago
@vze21gwa I live in Scotland, under Scottish Law, not English Law, and under Scottish Rules of Evidence, and here a confession is not evidence. It may be used in support if it contains unique information known only to the perp, but that's exceptional.
Of all the political prisoners in the world how many are held on confession? Torture, by the way, is used to extract confession. As a means of gathering information it's almost useless.
gamesbok 1 month ago 3
@RedDestiny38 typical cop, unfortunately. We really need to raise our civil service standards... it truly is appalling that most of them think this way. That's why cops can't convict you--on ANYTHING--not even a ticket. You have to plead guilty and pay it...or show up to court and fight it. At which point the cop will be nothing more than a witness. JUDGES know the law, cops just enforce it.......Flawed system indeed.
MeredithOD 1 month ago
@MeredithOD Friend. you miss the whole point of this series if you don't start with part 1
this is not about arrogant cops
it's about a skilled defense atty telling Americans how not to be found guilty when they are not! The policeman is a law student who is simply substantiating what the professor has said
Please - watch pt 1
macpduff 1 month ago
@MeredithOD
Dude, people call me crazy when I try to tell them that we live in a corrupt empire.
Cops know the law, trust me-- as in knowing tricks to get AROUND it.
However they know this, because the city lets their brute-squad bully and harass the "plebian nobodies" who they know can't fight back.
ThomasKrypton 1 month ago
ha interregation is too nazi so they change the word so they dont look so nazi that alot better.. thats what these people in law society love to do, changing the deffinition of word so you can further incriminate yourself in court.. yeah nazi is correct thats why hitler never lost the true war, his plans are in full effect.
ETrainist1 2 months ago 3
at the end of the video he talks about jury by peers.. im a sovereign, so do i have a right to jury by sovereign peers?
ETrainist1 2 months ago
@ETrainist1
im not too sure about the sovereign movement; you can try it. It's probably better to get a judge to choose given how juries are....
Warsie 1 month ago
Great video....what are your thoughts on the above Speeding Solicitor clips?
SpeedingSolicitor 3 months ago
It worked for Casey Anthony...just let the bodies rot.
scarecrow1958 3 months ago
16:43 TRYING TO BE FUNNY FAIL
WICKEDWEST4O8 3 months ago 22
@WICKEDWEST4O8 LOLXXXXXXXXXXX
princess101tube 2 months ago
@WICKEDWEST4O8
He's right though. Outside the windows of the classroom is the real world. I too was once an ignorant college kid who thought I was a hotshot because I was in college and I knew everything and could do anything. The real world is nothing like the confines of the university. Don't forget that!
josh48315 2 weeks ago
disillusioned cops: if you have ever put someone in jail for a "crime" that did not involve theft or coercion (2 things you do all the time ironically) then you have put an innocent person in jail.
Just because you are paid to commit immoral acts that does not make it ok.
karthadastim 3 months ago 15
@karthadastim He's a 3L so it be a a disillusioned law student/cop
Screwlwork 4 weeks ago
Mind you, the only thing he disagreed with was that he said he doesn't put innocent people in jail, but never said how he's been able to do so if he's using all the tactics aforementioned.
BiggCaZ 3 months ago
@BiggCaZ he said he doesn't TRY to put innocent people in jail.
FishandRoaches 3 months ago
@FishandRoaches Sure, because if they were found guilty, then they clearly weren't innocent.
BiggCaZ 3 months ago
@BiggCaZ It's more like, I wasn't trying to rape that little boy - I was playing a game of log jam and the little bastard just got in the way.
FishandRoaches 3 months ago
Interesting fact: my mother made more money when she was a nurse than when she was a prosecutor. This cop makes more than most prosecutors too.
tifforo1 3 months ago
@kinghoho2
Just because a lawyer charges $300 per hour does not mean they make $300 per hour. GOOD LUCK as a starting lawyer in your own practice finding 40 billable hours per week even if you work 50.
tifforo1 3 months ago
@xunatz
Here in the U.S., statements uttered prior to being warned of your rights are admissible if you hadn't been detained/arrested/taken into custody yet. So are statements that were volunteered rather than being in response to a question. Also, you're required in many states to give your name when asked.
tifforo1 3 months ago
@287654321
He said that the tape recording was erased after a secretary wrote down what was on it.
tifforo1 3 months ago
@CurtHowland
"Don't forget the recent supreme court decision that means you have to EXPLICITLY claim your "right to remain silent", you cannot JUST REMAIN SILENT!"
Which decision was that?
tifforo1 3 months ago
@tifforo1 voices.washingtonpost. com/supreme-court/2010/06/supreme_court_rules_in_miranda. ht ml
"The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a criminal suspect must explicitly invoke the right to remain silent during a police interrogation, a decision that dissenting liberal justices said turns the protections of a Miranda warning “upside down.”"
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland
The defendant in that case was told of the right to remain silent, remained silent, then answered a question after three hours of silence. Even Justice Sotomayor's dissenting statement was not meant to say that a person must speak up and say they wish to invoke their right to remain silent in order to remain silent or have a right to do so.
tifforo1 3 months ago
@tifforo1 Then it will remain yet again to be decided in the courts. Again.
What I find surprising is that anyone, at any time, condones the police technique of pestering and pestering and pestering suspects.
It all comes down to the assumption that "He must have done something, or the police would not have picked him up."
I would rather respect people, and have the guilty sometimes go free.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland
It would definitely suck to have the police subject you to extended questioning in the hopes of pressuring you into saying something that they could use against you. However, your comment seems to be based on the idea that "pestering people" is worse than letting people get away with murder.
If the police had picked him up and he hadn't done something, he probably wouldn't have said he asked for God's forgiveness for gunning someone.
tifforo1 3 months ago
@tifforo1 "your comment seems to be based on the idea that "pestering people" is worse than letting people get away with murder."
The difference between pragmatism and principle is "torture is wrong" vs. "torture is ok if it's a really bad crime and if it catches the perp."
If the principle is "innocent unless proven guilty" there is no justification even for pestering.
And yes, murderers go free. They go free now, but the innocent are also convicted.
The ends do not justify the means.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
Comment removed
tifforo1 3 months ago
Comment removed
tifforo1 3 months ago
@tifforo1 And thus the humiliation of suspects, the perception that if the police picked them up they must have done something wrong, etc.
It used to be that "resisting arrest" was when someone actually fought back, not asked questions.
Only in a police state is the job of police easy. Police in the US have it very, very easy indeed.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland
Even an innocent person can be uncooperative by refusing to answer questions that could help the police. It is perfectly understandable why an innocent person might be afraid to say certain things (for reasons explained in part one), but it is also perfectly understandable for the police to strongly desire more information from that person. An innocent suspect is much more likely to be subjected to questioning that lasts for hours if they are uncooperative.
tifforo1 3 months ago
@tifforo1 "Even an innocent person can be uncooperative by refusing to answer questions that could help the police."
I recommend you re-read the 5th Amendment.
There is nothing legally uncooperative about not answering questions. At least in the America that was, rather than is.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland
Even if someone has a right to do something or not do something, it can still be unhelpful.
I agree that police should not treat suspects as though they have already been proven guilty. However, I think it is reasonable, once finding evidence and reasons to suspect someone, to take the approach of, "we strongly suspect that you might be guilty, and want you to answer some questions that could help us figure out the truth and that might work as evidence in court if you're guilty."
tifforo1 3 months ago
@CurtHowland "There is nothing legally uncooperative about not answering questions."
In a situation where you're innocent and the police are investigating a crime, and you have knowledge of the crime, isn't it sometimes the case that refusing to answer their questions constitutes obstruction of their investigation? Since you're innocent, the fifth amendment wouldn't apply.
GrusumGreg 3 months ago
@GrusumGreg "obstruction of their investigation?"
The same thing could be said about the prohibition on torture.
I can understand why govt would prosecute people who did not "cooperate", and make up lots of excuses to do so.
Is it any less "torture" when it's called "enhanced interrogation" instead?
If compelling testimony is legitimate, that justifies torture, mass arrests, imprisonment without charges and any other police abuse I can think of.
Or, compulsion is wrong. I believe it's wrong.
CurtHowland 3 months ago
@CurtHowland
"If the principle is "innocent unless proven guilty" there is no justification even for pestering."
Innocent until proven guilty is a principal of the COURT procedure (along with proof beyond a reasonable doubt), not something to prevent police from suspecting people.
This is why the standard for detaining someone is only reasonable suspicion, the standard for arresting+indicting someone probable cause, and the standard for convicting someone proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
tifforo1 3 months ago
@EarthaKit2
Your description of the etymology of the word "commonwealth" is incorrect. Four U.S. states (Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) are called commonwealths.
Oxford English Dictionary: Commonwealth: 1. Public welfare; general good or advantage. 2. The whole body of people constituting a nation or state, the body politic; a state, an independent community, esp. viewed as a body in which the whole people have a voice or an interest. 3. A republic or democratic state.
tifforo1 3 months ago
@tifforo1
Oooookay!
But remember that you're looking at::
1 - Dictionaries publishd by tptb....Oxford, et al. In Spain, the equivalent is the Real Academia...i.e. words and meanngs have been given to the "peasants" by the Rulers.
2 - In the U.S., it's Webster or Merriam-Webster, Noah W. who was part of tptb. He was in a Mason.
3 - Words in the common Eng. dictionary don't hv the same meanng as in the Legal Dictionaries.
They're not tellng us the REAL meanngs of words. I don't trust them.
EarthaKit2 3 months ago
Comment removed
tifforo1 3 months ago
@EarthaKit2
Go to dictionary (dot) com and see that all five sources they have (including Merriam-Webster's legal dictionary and Etymonline) give effectively the same definition as Oxford's. In any case, you have yet to present a more reliable source for the meaning of the word, or any source supporting any definition..
Historically, one use of the term was to refer to a British authority from 1649 to 1660 that, at least in theory, supported parliamentary supremacy over the monarchy.
tifforo1 3 months ago
@tifforo1
You're insisting that YOU are correct?
Whaaat, you have the only correct answer in the world?
EarthaKit2 3 months ago
@EarthaKit2
No, I'm saying that when the dictionaries all agree with each other about the general definition of a word, and some of them list origins for it, while a Youtube commenter claims it has the exact opposite definition and doesn't list any evidence, I trust the etymology that comes from sources that are actual authorities on word meanings.
tifforo1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ambulanceo
". Personally I have no respect for the police force in general, but from a legal standpoint they can coerce and lie suspects into revealing information that can be used to incriminate them."
If police obtain a confession through the threat of force against the person being interviewed, it is inadmissible in court.
tifforo1 3 months ago
@nikkatnight
He said that he CAN follow someone until they do something, not that that's how he actually does things (although he must have done it once in order to know it's possible). He was NOT saying that following random people until they eventually commit a minor traffic violation is a good way to enforce laws or is his standard way of doing things.
tifforo1 3 months ago
About the "apology letter" thing: the defense can probably point out the circumstances under which the letter was written. If neither side brings up the circumstances under which the apology letter was written, the jury will think it was written out of remorse rather than a desire to get off easy, which will affect their thinking when recommending a sentence.
tifforo1 3 months ago
Is this towards people who are innocent or guilty also??
UK7BRITISH 3 months ago
@UK7BRITISH Its toward people who may have to talk to the cops, guilty or innocent, did you not listen? the point is dont deny or agree to anything. Plead the 5th until you can get ahold of your lawyer.
TheBrodiePayne 3 months ago
1:28 "What are you raising your hands for? I TOLD you..." Hahahahaaa!
Flobbyoiboyz 3 months ago 49
One could argue that law school is far more honorable than the police academy.
TheGreatEnlighted 4 months ago 2
First and only word out of my mouth is LAWYER!
Auntikrist 4 months ago
what happened to the Q & A?
whispers83 4 months ago
The thing about pretending to have a video tape was sneaky, but if I was falsely accused of something and then heard that they had found a tape that clearly showed who did it, I would be happy! Even if they had a tape that showed SOMETHING and they still thought I did it, I would know if I was innocent that the worst thing the tape could show is me acting strangely, or driving too fast, or going near the scene, or someone in a disguise. Only the guilty would think a tape could prove their guilt.
tifforo1 4 months ago
Everyone watching this video:
Have you or people you know ever been a victim of a crime?
Do you think you or someone you know might be a victim of a crime in the future?
If you are the victim of a crime, do you want people to talk to the police? Do you want the perpetrator to be caught? Do you think the perpetrator is more or less likely to be caught if people are willing to talk to the police?
tifforo1 4 months ago
@tifforo1 "If you are the victim of a crime, do you want people to talk to the police?"
Depends -- if it was a bikie group involved then probably not..
badpanda84 4 months ago
@tifforo1 , the video does not instruct not to talk to the police at all. It tells that doing it _without an attorney present_, is an unnecessary risk for the talker.
vr228 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vr228
That's not how most people are interpreting it.
tifforo1 4 months ago
Canada's definition of reasonable doubt:
Reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice;
rather, it is based upon reason and common sense;
it is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence;
it does not involve proof to an absolute certainty; it is not proof beyond any doubt nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt; and
more is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty ‑‑ a jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit.
tifforo1 4 months ago
19:45 Because we are allowed to lie in interviews. WHAT THE FUCK
1111Davo1 4 months ago
So when someones honest and confesses to what they have done that makes them stupid hmmmm I guess if you have the mentality that a good liar is smart then yea honest people are stupid
Floridab0y813 4 months ago
@Floridab0y813 - yes, when you are trying to be honest with the party who is dishonest to begin with (the state), yes, this is stupid. The police can lie to you, can cheat, can lie in court, can use jail snitch who will say anything instructed for better terms - all with zero risk for their career or freedom; while you are playing with them fair game betting years of your own freedom or even your life - good like in your game, you do need it.
vr228 4 months ago
@Floridab0y813 the point is they can confess, and they usually do. but why then? why not later and be treated faily.
prede89 4 months ago
No lol, all people are douchebags. Police are just a happy percentage of them.
JonRob2109 4 months ago
can the system be more fucked up than this ?
SInnerMario 5 months ago
@SInnerMario
Oh yes it can. Had an uncle that was arrested and did a year in jail (and a few fingers broken) for putting up posters to draw attention to the plight of farmers who weren't making enough money to survive.
However in Spain under Franco these type of things were not allowed. He was arrested at my grandparents home and taken to jail.
CSATexan 4 months ago
they talk like they are not part of thge people constantly calling the people stupid unless your somekind of lawyer ,most people will own up to breaking the law but they are taking the pish with the stautes thats not breaking laws that contravening a rule cos we are still serfs
reksub10 5 months ago
Predatory cops! I never learned this, and trusted that cops were honest, reasonable citizens, interested in making intelligent arrests, based on their prey's self-witness. Boy! Was I ever wrong! This video sure tells it like it is with cops! NEVER trust a cop as an honest man, or woman! They are not. Like German Shepherd dogs, cops aggressively seek arrests, at any cost to their prey.
claudius2u 5 months ago
@claudius2u there is a severe difference between a police constable acting under oath and a corporate policy enforcement OFFICER ,,a police constable can use discretion an officer cant ,,they brain wash the cops to swith between the two in a flash,,wee need our police back ,not these corporate statute cops trying to pin a violation on you ,not a crime or when a law is broke ,harm injury or loss is law ,all else is contrctual civil statue legalities
reksub10 5 months ago
@reksub10
The term "constable" is mainly used in the U.K.
tifforo1 4 months ago
@tifforo1 yeah i know and it hardly being used here aswell but these fucks dont deserve to be called officer ,,,,even the fuck in this vid says if he follows someone long enough then theyll make a mistake ,now that is not law enforcement ,that is a corporate mandate ,,,,these "officers" are not police men enforceing the law ,the are tricking people into thinking legal is lawful ..we need our constabularies back
reksub10 4 months ago
I don't believe that that law professor didn't talk with this cop in advance about what he was going to say.
tifforo1 5 months ago
I bet the "real" criminals are loving this!
♥♥♥ Marashor ♥♥♥♥
Marashor 5 months ago
"There are two types of people" "Then there's the third type..." 0_o
preston995 5 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT ?Did he just say most interviews in Italy and Spain or France start out physically?He couldn't be more off on that ! The USA has one of the most tyrannic cops, in fact I never talked to a cop nor been to a court house and lived all over in Europe. They do not protect nor serve, they simply write out tickets to make their quotas and bully even the victims of crimes like myself to go to court to testify. Never call 911 in the USA, or they will force you to go to court then harass you too !
TheBlissfulSpirit 5 months ago
WHAT ?Did he just say most interviews in Italy and Spain or France start out physically?He couldn't be more off on that ! The USA has one of the most tyrannic cops, in fact I never talked to a cop nor been to a court house and lived all over in Europe. They do not protect nor serve, they simply write out tickets to make their quotas and bully even the victims of crimes like myself to go to court to testify. Never call 911 in the USA, or they will force you to go to court then harass you too!
TheBlissfulSpirit 5 months ago
That apology letter tactic is pretty low. What a lying bastard.
SuperSpaceMaster 5 months ago
Wait did he just admit to illegally tape-recording phone conversations? Congrats if you use that evidence in court, it is useless.
FreshNapp 5 months ago
@FreshNapp
He clearly stated that in the Commonwealth of Virginia, only one party to the phone conversation has to know that it is being recorded in order for it to be legal.
tifforo1 4 months ago
Anyone with good legal advice as to how do I stop them to come out to my residence looking for somenone and keep asking me if I know anything and to scare me and my minor son by coming out all the time ? About to move back to my home country !Sick of being harrassed and no longer have a lawyer, though I may have to hire one so they leave me alone.FTR: I'm innocent & they harass me because we have a child in common,they don't leave me alone!HELP if you know what should I do to stop this!
TheBlissfulSpirit 5 months ago
@TheBlissfulSpirit: There's nothing that says you have to answer the door. Look out a window. Is it an officer?
Go watch T.V., or read a good book.
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@Pafoofnik1
I was thinking about doing that to flex my rights, but trouble is then they harass you even more and they think you have something to hide and then they get a search warrant. If they turn my place upside down and find nothing ( which they will not find anything or anyone here ) who do I sue for damages ? They need to lay off of me, I need a victim's advocate as I was the victim! I want my life back, I did nothing wrong they need to harass someone else , not me and my son !
TheBlissfulSpirit 5 months ago
America tortures in secret prisons wtf are you talking about _ Thank god we are in america what bullshit
LostFREEDOM 5 months ago
The book "The Innocent" by John Grisham is an excellent practical illustration of how it all works in reality. There's no police officer who will hesitate one bit to send to the death row anybody they have a slightest chance to, and their innocence will be last of their trouble, and they will exercise any lies and crimes to achieve their goal - and our system makes it all legal.
vr228 5 months ago
@vr228
Did you watch the video? The officer said that someone who confessed to stealing equipment from his employer did not go to jail because the officer felt sorry for him and vouched for him in court. The officer also said that he has let people go because they were innocent. In part one, the defense attorney said that it is hard to find an officer who will lie in court to incriminate someone.
tifforo1 4 months ago
@tifforo1 , yes, I certainly did watch it, and indeed the officer said that, but you also need to sometimes read between the lines. No doubt, among the thousands of "interviews" he conducted, there were a few where he let someone go. No doubt, every rule has exceptions. But visit injusticeeverywhere com for few days, and judge for yourself what's more typical. In fact, it became hard to recruit a jury in cop-related cases, too many say they won't believe a single word from a cop witness.
vr228 4 months ago
this guys about as smart as me after a six pack.
tnorrell11 5 months ago
0:40 lol .. that guy obviously wanted to start with a joke.
He's praising US-police for not!! being violent and blaming good "old Europe" !?
It's probably more like the other way around.
TheShadar 5 months ago
@TheShadar Wow, he is a cop and starts his presentation with such a blatant lie?
nipheon 5 months ago
@TheShadar Italian police are bad, but still not as bad as US cops.
brownie1982ad 5 months ago
@TheShadar
He only specifically named Italy and Spain.
tifforo1 4 months ago
Its a good thing to know we are paying the police to lie and trick innocent people into a conviction. I dont care if this man says he doesn't try and send innocent people to jail, its still his job to convict people whether they have done anything or not. I have had police lie on a report about my arrest, so when it comes to police, yeah, dont say anything, dont give them the satisfaction of abusing their position.
eklumt 5 months ago
Comment removed
eklumt 5 months ago
The lawyer will make out that he/ she is your friend but they are after your cash. Lawyers think their clients are scum just like the cops do, don't be fooled dummies!
09SRILANKA 5 months ago
@09SRILANKA As long as they keep you out of prison, they can defend you against situations you might find yourself against in. So even if they are heartless assholes, they will do their best to keep you outta there.
Shaolos 5 months ago
@Shaolos. I think they are as bad as the ass holes they defend. Theres not many innocent folks standing before a judge lets be realistic.
09SRILANKA 5 months ago
@09SRILANKA Well, I like my lawyer and his advice. And up till now, every accusation against me and my family was false and due to ridiculous coincidences.
Shaolos 5 months ago
@Shaolos. Its really strange but none of my family members have ever been in trouble with the cops, we have never been in the wrong place at the wrong time, caught up in something that we didnt cause or have any involvement in, wrongly accused of anything, had the finger pointed at us, caught up in a disturbance etc.. If you need a lawyer or are infront of a judge theres something called evidence that put you there! Enough said....
09SRILANKA 5 months ago
@09SRILANKA Yes, sure. Enough said, because you think so. Have you ever dealt with a stalker? Someone hating you for no reason?
Have you ever dealth with the police because somebody is in love with your girlfriend and decided to fabricate interesting stories about you and cocaine? Have you ever dealt with a pissed off exgirlfriend that decides to "get you" by crying rape? 40% of all rape charges are FALSE. Have you ever dealt with such a situation? If no, you are as ignorant as possible.
Shaolos 5 months ago
@Shaolos. Hey there lil buddy i was just saying, hope all of your troubles clear themselves up.
09SRILANKA 5 months ago
@09SRILANKA Fortunately enough, im not in trouble at all ;)
Neither is my girlfriend or my best buddy.
Partially this is due to my lawyer, who is actually a human and digital rights activist ;)
It is just that having had cases like these makes it difficult for me to understand the notion that "If you have to deal with the police, you are guilty."
The problem with evidence is, that it can be fabricated or wrong. And if you have that kind of problem, I hope your lawyer does an awesome job ;;
Shaolos 5 months ago
@09SRILANKA: Non sequitur
An example: Just because no one in your family has ever seen a peccary, it doesn't mean they don't exist.
Pafoofnik1 5 months ago
@Pafoofnik1. Hey whatever you say i think lawyers are turds!!!!
09SRILANKA 5 months ago
@09SRILANKA....If you watched the video the police prosecutor explains your point of view is what's wrong with juries in a courtroom. Everyone assumes the defendants are guilty just because they are there. People like you are the reason innocents are in prison.
bproducer 5 months ago
@09SRILANKA Who cares if theyre your friend or not as long as they get you off
imacooldude506 5 months ago
@imacooldude506. Ive got a good idea, dont get in trouble and you wont need a lawyer. Criminals and lawyers are the same.
09SRILANKA 5 months ago
The police are not your friends! Don't trust them as far as you can throw them
LOVETROLL69ME 5 months ago
10:26
wtf justice eh? -.-
Vladiniho 6 months ago
dumb ass cop
devilrobrob 6 months ago
I like this cop, he has a bit of an attitude but he seems to really be interested in explaining how his job works. I believe him when he says he doesn't try to convict innocent people, fwiw.
bdrasin 6 months ago
wait. true, right AND correct?!?!?
VolvoCommand 6 months ago
Also, he gives us an excellent example of the ego of most public servants in his profession.
jooni2310 6 months ago
The part where the police officer is saying "I'm sorry what I did..." (to the "guilty" party) sounds a lot like "let me put words in your mouth". Also "I try to only send guilty people to jail" (paraphrased) doesn't make sense with the US legal system's "innocent until proven guilty" motto/standard of lawmaking. NOTE: I'm not well versed in law, I'm just voicing my opinion as a US citizen and potential juror for cases similar to the one described.
001HK0 6 months ago
hood rat? oops, indeed.
LemonPieLoL 6 months ago
bet this guy was the loser in his high school
canadakim1 6 months ago
"most people are stupid" - that's exactly the mindset that makes a cop thinks he's better than others. Cops are hired because they are good followers - not good leaders.
canadakim1 6 months ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
@canadakim1 No.....most people really are stupid.
benaolson 6 months ago
@canadakim1 but it's true...
Roland0314 4 months ago 2
@canadakim1 Most people are stupid. You don't have to be a detective to make that kind of deduction
anzwertree 4 months ago 2
@canadakim1 He said "some people" not "most people." Active listening is required.
CharleneMelania 3 months ago
" people are stupid" while, cops are manipulating liars. We all didn't go to community college and become police officers/pigs.
tampabayismyhome 6 months ago
These were not the ways I was taught. From birth I was always told to talk to the police when question. And I pretty much grew up that way. My dad taught me morals and respect,,,,but nothing about law.. How would I have ever known that I would need that more than anything else that he taught me...???
billyc2477 6 months ago
@billyc2477 Well, if you say to yourself "I'm such an upstanding citizen that I need never fear talking to the police," you'd be wrong. These two guys say several times that it is impossible to go through life without committing crimes, either deliberately or accidentally. You could then say "well, I can take my medicine like a man", but I bet you'd also want some control over your treatment. Next time you face a hefty fine or a jail term, you might think again about this professor's lecture.
LordBifford 6 months ago
Very insightful and will serve me well in the future should I ever have any police run-ins. Not that I plan to but how often do things go according to plan?
MrDubDisciple 6 months ago
You are just a cog in the wheel of this insane machinery called the justice system, where there is no justice at all.
Have you thought about what made those people sooo stupid?
The same system that you work for.
And it is by design.
They are destroying us intentionally.
And you are also just a stupid corporate robot if you don't see that.
Look up theantiterrorist on YouTube!!!
VeggiePower303 6 months ago
@VeggiePower303 I concur. This cop ( thanks for the info though copper) has probably never ever read any books that deal with history and not to mention secret societies and the like. That's why like a good soldier he thinks he's serving to protect when in reality he's the aggressor most of the time. Most people ( with access to the net and uncensored material ) will never ever figure out what is going on even if they lived 1000 years because they are stupid.
uskokpravi 6 months ago
smug police officers, nothing to be proud of, making law enforcement and justice a game.
I don't need to be thankful, that our US constitution has parts included to protect citizens from Police abuses. Infact the constitution is there to serve the people, in this country people are to come before the state, the police are the state.
Only in a police state does an officer tell you to be thankful, we do not have police brutality. We do! Police Officers do not personify the words on squad cars.
crypttonite 6 months ago
When I was younger 18-25 I would pull off of the road intentionally if I see a police car behind me or if I knew a cop is going to be behind me in traffic. Everyone would laugh at me saying that if I did nothing wrong I should not be worried. The statement @ 2:02 - 2:19 completely solidifies my reasoning. I don't drive vehicles that are more prone to being pulled over as much lately but, after watching this I will return to better defensive tactics.
sfwdcivic 6 months ago 12
@unbornchickenvoices
You can't really blame the policemen from doing their job. It's their job to find anything possible to incriminate you.
Now, who you should call douchebags are the retards on the jury that say you're guilty with hardly any evidence at all. Because the jury isn't doing their job. You're only supposed to be guilty if the evidence shows that, without a shadow of a doubt, you are guilty. Yet jury's find people guilty with far less evidence than that.
Yatta317 6 months ago
@Yatta317