Posted on 03/28/2017 9:52:01 AM PDT by Sopater
You are absolutely right; it is amazing how quickly the police force here in the UK was politicised and made politcally correct using the top-down method. In the ‘olde days’, if you wanted to be police chief (or, for that matter fire chief) then you started at the bottom and had to work your way up. They changed all that with senior officers fast-tracked from university.
PS I only read a couple of lines into your post before I recognised your style!
Not sure I agree with this. I suppose if you’re an idiot and/or the cops you encounter are completely corrupt, then yes, ultimately, you might save yourself a self-incriminated conviction of some sort that you would not have otherwise had. But I would guess that those two scenarios represent a very small fraction of the potential outcomes from cop encounters, and in far more cases, being polite, cordial, and forthcoming in response to questions with short, concise, basic factual responses no more or less than called for by the question will avoid far more stress and violence in your life and the lives of others than unreasonably clamming up would.
I’m sure he did not intend to convey that there are a few percentage of people in jail who are innocent.
He was intentionally trying to paint the picture that there are tons of people in jail who are innocent - even the majority. Who, but a propagandist, would use words like “jail cells are filled with innocent people” to convey the reality that only a few percentage of cells have innocent people? I find that slight-of-hand wording a bit repulsive.
If you were to do a survey, I bet anything that the majority of people, who don’t parse every word, would interpret that statement as “jails being full of innocent people”.
Yep. He does not say many nor most. He just says “prison cells”. So, if there was one cell per prison, in a few prisons scattered throughout the country, that was “filled” with a prisoner that was innocent, the statement would be true.
I’m a binary thinker. This is both a virtue and a vice. It is a virtue in that I can easily parse sentences like his on the fly and get what he’s saying. It’s a vice when someone says, “I could care less” and I respond, “How much less could you care?” - because I literally interpret them to mean that it is something they care about, since that is what they said (but the opposite of what we all should know they meant).
BTW, my wife says this is how I “lie” to people. I will say something that technically means “a”, but I know they will interpret it to mean “b”, and “b” is the answer they wanted and think I meant, but “a” is the truth - and what I actually said.
“(Tongue-in-cheek) Note that there is no qualifier (such as “many” or “most”) to “prison cells”. “2” would make that a true statement. (It’s almost as if I had a Jesuit education - which I didn’t ;-))”
I understand, it’s a sign that he’s a good propagandist and a sophist (am I repeating myself?).
Maybe Goebbels was a Jesuit? :) Like the current pope.
See my post #83.
When you’ve seen cops lie under oath to get false convictions, or seen videos of them planting evidence during traffic stops to make false arrests, you don’t need to be a pothead or “paranoid” in order be wary of falling victim to that kind of thing.
I have rarely had trouble with cops or cause to meet them as an object of suspicion. Then again, I am a law-abiding short, skinny white male with glasses and a friendly, polite manner whose idea of casual is khakis and a dress shirt. And I avoid going out at night or anywhere near “high-crime areas.”
I’m sure he did not intend to convey that there are a few percentage of people in jail who are innocent.
But the bottom line is that it was a statement made to make a point that is real, but can not be proven, for obvious reasons. You have to address it somehow. I thought he did a good job of addressing it. His words should not be “over parsed.” They made the point. It’s a real issue, and it’s really not rare.
He was intentionally trying to paint the picture that there are tons of people in jail who are innocent - even the majority.
I’ve always said that there are just two things you say to a cop who pulls you over.
1. “Yes Sir”
2. “No Sir”
I have more recently added a third one
3. “Lawyer”
“Does that mean you are asking for a lawyer?” (#1) “Yes Sir”
If you were to do a survey, I bet anything that the majority of people, who don’t parse every word, would interpret that statement as “jails being full of innocent people”.
And “money” is not the root of all evil, Rather, THE LOVE OF MONEY is a root of all kinds of evil.
But you would be wrong to blame the bible for people’s incorrect inference from its plain language (as was his).
But the point is really moot. He was not making a Big Fat Claim. He was trying to drive home the point that there are a lot of innocent people in prison who are there because they thought that if they were just honest and shared everything they would be fine.
I may have the advantage of having seen his video at least ten times. I understand clearly his points and am convinced, based on his anecdotal evidence alone, that if I’m being questioned about anything that is of any significance, and criminal, I need to lawyer up before I say a word.
“That may be. But that is their problem for not reading what he clearly says.”
I think he knew what he was doing. He didn’t need to do that to sell his point.
But I do agree that his advice on how to deal with the police in case you ever get stopped is valid and I will take it to heart.
“... if I’m being questioned about anything that is of any significance, and criminal, I need to lawyer up before I say a word.”
That is true, but you had better be damn sure you know the fine line between innocuous and significant.
I agree with you that the - perhaps intended - perception of the casual reader/viewer would be that there are "vast" numbers of innocents in prison. I was just playing the devil's advocate "literally".
As to Goebbels possibly having been a Jesuit (your joke)? - unlikely, but there are parallels, methodically...;-)
You should tell Martha Stewart that. Remember she didn’t go down for insider trading, she went down for lying to investigating officers. The fact of the matter is cops aren’t on your side, and anything you say or they see can be used against you. And it’s surprisingly easy for them to decide you intend to commit a crime. Even if you’re found innocent you still have all that hassle.
And even worse, what she lied about was not against the law. And she said she didn’t lie, but was just mistaken.
then the answer is usually “yeah”
then they go ahead and search. I would get that thrown out so fast... “yeah, I mind” means “NO SEARCH”... well, in my understanding of the English language anyway
That particular phrase has been reverse-engineered and field-tested to skirt the law, and is the standard first request in most levels of law enforcement from coast to coast. Cops are taught that "yes I mind" is not, strictly legally, an outright refusal, even though it would suffice in non-legal discourse. That is the key for him to begin his explanation as to why he will now begin the search.
It's cut from the same cloth as (I am quoting Dunne's book "You Have the Right to Remain Innocent, p.125), for example, "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer", "I think I want a lawyer", and "Could I call my lawyer".
You must explicitly say "I do not consent to a search".
It used to be that this was considered an intolerable abomination by anyone who called himself an American who truly cherished liberty.
Those that look for true Joy are looking under the wrong rock if they expect to find it in ANY country on this planet. The true source is Jesus. Countries are corrupt. Countries come and go. It’s what we do without Jesus.
I think he knew what he was doing. He didn’t need to do that to sell his point.
From my perspective, he said it in a very reasonable way that actually gives the correct impression and, frankly, arguing it is like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. ;-)
That is true, but you had better be damn sure you know the fine line between innocuous and significant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.