Thread: This is what happens when you dont know the law.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Miranda refers to when a Police Officer HAS to tell you the truth. (when the cuffs go clink)

How exactly does Miranda compel the Police to be truthful? Unless I completely missed it, Miranda refers to a suspect being advised of his rights prior to an interrogation.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Frazier allows Police Deception to occur anywhere to gain a confession.

This I understand. See my previous post regarding the Catch-22 of failing to receive a confession of actual crime versus gaining one versus possibly gaining an untrue confession via coercion.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

The "Interrogation Room" is not the only place were confessions happen.

Yes - I understand that.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

Your Car when they pull you over, Confession to speeding, blam ticket you can't fight. On the street, in front of KFC, in your front lawn.

Should voluntary confessions such as your example be inadmissible? I would think would be more damaging than current practices. The idea being that if you haven't been speeding then you will not confess to speeding without some coercion which is illegal. If you have been speeding and volunteer that information it should be fair to use.

No?

Police don't have the right to lie to you, but as far as my state goes there are no laws against it. Rarely does a police officer have to lie to you, but if he does it can be cited as coercion which is unlawful in most (all?) states. For example, a police officer can't try and talk his way into your house after you denied him entry, but guess what? If he enters the house, or your car, or searches your person and finds his probable cause then that coercion just got changed into a lawful investigation. In the report he is unlikely to write about the conversation in detail, and it becomes his word versus yours.

This guy was lookin' for a confrontation, yeah jaywalking is illegal, but I am sure you have jaywalked once in your life regardless if traffic was not around. Jaywalking is illegal though, and so gives them the ability to ask for your ID to write you a ticket. Now, in most states, or at least in mine, you do not have to carry ID on you if you are simply walking-- nor should you, because nowadays they can just look you up on the system. I don't see why the police responded to the escalation and didn't simply ask for his name, after which yeah, they could just take him in till they got all the info.

Were they within their limits as law enforcement officers? Yes. But to call out and write someone a ticket for jaywalking, just a revenue raising ticket, did they really have to take it so far? Probably not.

Those cops were just as stupid as the jaywalker. They couldn't get those cuffs on him without three shots from a tazer? How did geniuses like them survive before they invented the tazer? Ironically, as soon as the female police officer arrived the cuffs were on in 10 seconds. Maybe she is the only one that paid attention at the police academy.

Originally Posted by space.cowboy

We get it. You don't like cops. The whole "omgallcopsarecorruptfuckdapolice" got blown out of the water, so you take potshots at them having trouble arresting a guy bigger than them. Of course they could have been more physically forceful before pulling the taser out. But then you'd be bitching about them doing that too, I'm sure.

Sounds about right.

Sent via highly charged bolt of electricity.

@space.cowboy - Can't I post my observations without getting personal attacks from you?

What personal attack?