Like Tree11Likes

"Anything you say will be used _against_ you in the court of law"?

This is a discussion on "Anything you say will be used _against_ you in the court of law"? within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Why couldn't what you say mean that it could be used to defend you? I find this aggressive stature to ...

  1. #1
    UT2004 Addict Kleid-0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    656

    "Anything you say will be used _against_ you in the court of law"?

    Why couldn't what you say mean that it could be used to defend you? I find this aggressive stature to be cruel in this social world. It's as if the government doesn't care and is hell-bent on trying to harm everything you represent.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,706
    I imagine it's because those who are arresting someone thinks they've doing wrong, and are allowed to use anything that person says to help prove that the arrest was legitimate. If they had any interest in defending that person, they probably wouldn't be arresting them in the first place. Being warned of this fact by the arresting officers is probably seen as the "fair" thing to do by the government(s) that use this approach.

    This is of course "in theory", and doesn't take into account the governments that train their police force to actively lie and trick implicit admissions of guilt out the parties, whether those parties actually committed a wrong-doing or not.

  3. #3
    - - - - - - - - oogabooga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,808
    Anyone who talks to the police when there's the slightest possibility that they're under suspicion (and, in essence, there's always that possibility) is an idiot. They always do it on TV as a cheap writing ploy, but in real life SHUT UP! You don't have to say anything. Keep your mouth shut.

    I told my daughter that if she was ever confronted by an authority figure (even a teacher) and accused of something to simply ask them to contact me and sit there and say nothing. Everyone should teach their kids that.

    I have two friends who are "on the job", so I'm not exactly anti-police (although the stories they tell...). And I got to fire automatic weapons at their outdoor range!
    The cost of software maintenance increases with the square of the programmer's creativity. - Robert D. Bliss

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,706
    ...but in real life SHUT UP!

    Everyone should teach their kids that.
    +1 and +1

    There's an organization in America called "flex your rights" that teaches people how to deal with police encounters in this country. It's very illuminating to realize how procedural the tricks of police are, and how ignorant many people are of those tricks.

    One common mistake people make here - when pulled over for speeding, and the police officer asks "do you know how fast you were going?" Many people seem to think being honest will score them points, when in fact, they would be openly admitting to breaking the law, which relieves the burden of proof required by the officer and makes any legal recourse pretty much off the table.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,590
    it's becoming increasingly common for cops to overstep their authority. I've read articles in the last 3 months about a man being shot dead on his front porch because his neighbor called in a "drunk" man next door, and another article where sheriff's deputies went into a house with a warrant and shot a man while he was asleep in his bed. I've read even more articles about police shooting dogs and other pets simply because they were there, even with no aggressive behavior by the animals. The police in Chicago, IL have basically said they will shoot on sight, any person seen to be carrying a firearm, despite the new law in Illinois allowing persons to obtain a permit to carry a firearm. I'm not saying all police are thugs and bullies, but the ones that are call into question the integrity of all the others. I don't trust police. They will do whatever they can to get a conviction, even resorting to dishonest means if the honest methods don't work out.
    Code:
    namespace life
    {
        const bool change = true;
    }

  6. #6
    - - - - - - - - oogabooga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Matticus View Post
    One common mistake people make here - when pulled over for speeding, and the police officer asks "do you know how fast you were going?" Many people seem to think being honest will score them points, when in fact, they would be openly admitting to breaking the law, which relieves the burden of proof required by the officer and makes any legal recourse pretty much off the table.
    The best way to avoid speeding tickets (besides not speeding) is to be a cop. I think one of my police pals speeds all the time. He's been pulled over 3 times when I was with him and they just let him go. I'm not sure if he gets out of radar tickets too, but it's possible.
    The cost of software maintenance increases with the square of the programmer's creativity. - Robert D. Bliss

  7. #7
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,077
    You guys are talking like there aren't any loopholes for criminals in the justice system. Sometimes police sidestep procedure in the name of justice... yes it's scary to think that our fate can be placed in the hands of a cop's suspicions, but I think you'd find that they get criminals off the street better than procedure allows them to. You only really hear about a breach in protocol when it goes wrong.

  8. #8
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,762
    I don't have the capacity to be this sensitive. I'm not being cavalier about protecting people's rights or their innocence, but I just don't respond to any negativity that "Anything you say can be used against you" might connote. There are worse situations ahead if you actually hear the Miranda warning.
    Elkvis likes this.

  9. #9
    - - - - - - - - oogabooga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,808
    It shouldn't be legal for cops to talk to anyone without a lawyer present. It's unfair that one person ends up in jail for talking whereas another goes free because he kept his mouth shut. The Miranda warning may as well read: "Are you ignorant of your own self-interest?"
    The cost of software maintenance increases with the square of the programmer's creativity. - Robert D. Bliss

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,706
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    You guys are talking like there aren't any loopholes for criminals in the justice system.
    My own perspective comes from the frightening increase in the militarization of police in America. That worries me a lot more than potential criminals finding "loopholes" (of which I acknowledge exist, but pale in comparison to the greater threat of unreasonable police force, IMO).

    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom View Post
    Sometimes police sidestep procedure in the name of justice... yes it's scary to think that our fate can be placed in the hands of a cop's suspicions, but I think you'd find that they get criminals off the street better than procedure allows them to. You only really hear about a breach in protocol when it goes wrong.
    It sounds like you're alright with police breaking the law in the name of enforcing the law? Alright, maybe that's not quite what you're saying. But apart from police bending the rules to apprehend dangerous individuals, there are also instances of police bending the rules to apprehend innocent people. There are definitely many members of law enforcement who have honor and compassion - but there are also members who are abusive meat-heads, drawn by the allure of power they can wield over others. Good and bad, both happen all the time.

    When there are members of society, given the privilege to carry and use deadly weapons, as well as exerting state-granted bondage over people, and the potential ability to put someone they don't like in a cage for months or years - maybe then, the softening of rules should be avoided.

    Every society has to determine how to handle the "necessary evils" associated with policies. For instance, every society that uses motor vehicles has to accept the inevitable deaths associated with them. It's accepted because in that case, the benefits are vastly superior to the potential dangers.

    So with law enforcement, which side should be erred on? Which dangers should be accepted? The dangers of letting some bad people escape the criminal justice system, or the danger of having some good people unjustly caught up in that system?

    Add to this (speaking from an American perspective) the rampant militarization of police and the "privatization" (e.g. profitability) of containing humans in cages, my own opinion should be starkly clear to even the casual observer.
    Last edited by Matticus; 09-03-2013 at 08:23 PM.
    Elkvis and oogabooga like this.

  11. #11
    - - - - - - - - oogabooga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,808
    Nice. However...

    [Automobile deaths are] accepted because in that case, the benefits are vastly superior to the potential dangers.
    When you've had a couple of friends die in car crashes you might not feel that way. I'd say the deaths are accepted for reasons of profit and habit. Imagine a city that looked like a park, with super-efficient public transport for everyone. No roads, driveways, parking lots, gas stations. All the pollution -- air, water, ground, and sound -- and the incredible energy-waste of cars, gone. I for one would enjoy that.

    But it's a pipe dream.
    Maybe I should lay off the pipe....
    The cost of software maintenance increases with the square of the programmer's creativity. - Robert D. Bliss

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,706
    When you've had a couple of friends die in car crashes you might not feel that way.
    I would. I understand the difference between what's good for the individual and what's good for everybody in a society.

    Sometimes, as an individual, you can sympathize with someone pushing for a specific cause (based on a negative experience), even if that cause is selfish and restrictive to the group as a whole. I try to remain focused on the "big picture", and not allow my emotions to influence rational considerations that might affect more people than I personally know and care about.

    But I've found that, as a person who tries to maintain a balanced viewpoint, it's really an unpopular stance in society at large. Fortunately, I care naught for popularity amongst my peers, so I'm satisfied with my convictions.

    --------

    As for your vision - I completely agree. But that's another topic entirely - how we needed dirty energy to get where we are, and how those who profit from the dirty energy aren't going to let it go any time soon.

    I have pipe dreams myself, from time to time.

  13. #13
    - - - - - - - - oogabooga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,808
    I would. I understand the difference between what's good for the individual and what's good for everybody in a society.
    So you say, which is meaningless. I understand the difference between what people say and what people do.

    And how are cars "good for everybody in society"? Why would a proper public transportation system be bad for society?

    [I don't] allow my emotions to influence rational considerations that might affect more people than I personally know and care about.
    Which implies that I do allow that. Untrue.

    how we needed dirty energy to get where we are
    Why did we "need dirty energy"? What's so good about "where we are"? We're living in a garbage dump and it's only getting worse.

    I try to remain focused on the "big picture"
    Actually, you're completely missing the big picture. It's entirely driven by the kings, or as we call them today, billionaires. They don't care about people. They're the ones creating the police state you despise. It's all of a piece.

    BTW, I don't mean to be a dick about it. It's just my nature.
    The cost of software maintenance increases with the square of the programmer's creativity. - Robert D. Bliss

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,706
    And how are cars "good for everybody in society"? Why would a proper public transportation system be bad for society?
    I didn't mean to be literal about how car are "good for everybody", but it helps to allow many people in certain areas to quickly travel from their homes or residences to work in places where industries are largely centralized. It can be argued that this is imperative for technological growth.

    How would you define a "proper" public transportation system? Better technology comes after, not before, more basic dirty forms of technology. That's just how it works. We have to crawl before we can run.

    Which implies that I do allow that. Untrue.
    I never meant to imply that about you! I was speaking more to the general public than anyone around here.

    Why did we "need dirty energy"? What's so good about "where we are"? We're living in a garbage dump and it's only getting worse.
    Again, we wouldn't have the technology to create clean energy if we didn't have a backdrop acquired by dirty energy. But I'm not disagreeing with you - we are definitely living in a garbage dump, I'm well aware of that (ever hear of the great Pacific garbage patch?). I didn't mean to imply that everything in the world is peachy. I also didn't mean to imply that "where we are" is a wonderful place, as you seem to be framing my statement. But with the bad (as you've listed) comes some good - technology, a degree of comfort, medicine - maybe or maybe not worth the price, but that was not a point I was trying to make.

    Actually, you're completely missing the big picture. It's entirely driven by the kings, or as we call them today, billionaires. They don't care about people. They're the ones creating the police state you despise. It's all of a piece.
    You've taken my "big picture" statement way out of context. I was referring to the specific instance of how the desires of an individual do not necessarily match the desires of a group of people as a whole. If you want to discuss how the elite control our lives, that's another discussion entirely - one I think we may agree on more heartily than this discussion. In fact, I made a subtle statement along these lines ("...how those who profit from the dirty energy aren't going to let it go any time soon"). Again, though, an entirely different conversation from what I was addressing.

    BTW, I don't mean to be a dick about it. It's just my nature.
    You're not hurting my feelings

    In fact, I enjoy lively discussion where my statements get challenged, and it's rare I get such a chance. Most of the people I know personally shut down when heavy topics are brought up for discussion.
    Last edited by Matticus; 09-03-2013 at 10:54 PM.

  15. #15
    Registered User whiteflags's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by oogabooga View Post
    It shouldn't be legal for cops to talk to anyone without a lawyer present. It's unfair that one person ends up in jail for talking whereas another goes free because he kept his mouth shut. The Miranda warning may as well read: "Are you ignorant of your own self-interest?"
    Forcing the police to remind those in their custody of their rights exactly when they needed those rights is probably one of the fewest things America's ever done completely right. I mean the current process lets you talk to and hire the lawyer you want unless you're flat broke, and you're informed that you deserve one. Making sure this right is invoked by law is probably a good idea, but it could be done so poorly that it should not be someone else's responsibility, or for a new law like that to be construed as a reason to get rid of the warning.

    When it comes down to it, even with a lawyer, the accused is the master of the facts in the case, and has to divulge information to his representation. No matter what, the accused is ultimately responsible for his defense, and any defense starts with education on your rights.
    Last edited by whiteflags; 09-03-2013 at 11:22 PM.
    Elkvis likes this.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-12-2012, 07:17 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-19-2012, 07:15 AM
  3. "itoa"-"_itoa" , "inp"-"_inp", Why some functions have "
    By L.O.K. in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-08-2002, 08:25 AM
  4. "CWnd"-"HWnd","CBitmap"-"HBitmap"...., What is mean by "
    By L.O.K. in forum Windows Programming
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-04-2002, 07:59 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21