Posted on 07/18/2024 8:48:17 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
Police officers can and will lie to you. They may claim that an accomplice has already ratted you out. They may claim to have hard evidence against you, such as video footage of you committing the crime. They may give you completely dishonest answers to your questions. Because they're free to lie, it's important to avoid overly trusting their words.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Who talks to the FBI? And, it’s a crime to lie to them, Hah-hah-hah!
“Lawyer”
Since they can lie to you, you will never know, so your answer should be “I don’t answer questions as I am invoking my 5th amendment right.”
Only need one word. LAWYER
Or if they can lie to us, we should be able to lie to them. But if you lie to them that is a separate charge. Fair is fair.
Victim said she had a party and a ring was stolen, valued at 5,000 dollars. She suspected a specific person, but there was no evidence or witness to the theft. She said she only wanted the ring back, no questions asked. So, I called the suspect, and I explained to her that a ring was stolen and we had finger prints (I didn't). I told her that the victim was willing to drop the case with no questions asked if the ring was returned. Then I hung up the phone. About a minute later the phone rang and the victim answered. She hung up and said the caller said "The ring will be returned to you." Victim got the ring back, and no one went to jail.
A store manager told me that 2,000 in lottery cash was missing. He said if the got the money back he wouldn't prosecute. I interviewed several people. One of them was an ex employee who came back and was having a friendly visit with her co workers. She had been in the area where the cash was stolen from. I talked to her and told I had enough to arrest her (I didn't). But, if the money was returned there would be no arrest because the manager didn't want to press charges. She went with me and showed me where she had hidden the money. It was in a alley covered by gardening cuttings. I searched and found 1,800 in hundred dollar bills. I went back to the store and told the manager that 200 dollars was missing. He said that was good enough and he was satisfied. Most of the money was returned and no one went to jail.
A convenience store owner said that the cash from the night drop was missing. All he wanted was to get the money back, and he wouldn't file charges. I watched a video of the clerk who was supposed to make the drop. He stood there a long time, far longer that it took to complete the drop. I called him and told him that I was going to arrest him for suspicion of theft (I couldn't without submitting the case to detectives). But if the money was returned, there would be no prosecution. The money was returned, and no one went to jail.
So, here's a scenario.
A little girl is raped, strangled, and dismembered. The cops have an idea who did it but nothing concrete. A cop sees the guy they think did it walking down the street. He stops and starts talking to the guy. He tells him that they have a witness who positively identified him. He confesses and gives them details that only the suspect would know. A search warrant yields evidence to support his confession. He gets convicted and is executed. Not good?
Knowing that you are an admitted liar, your testimony in court will carry very little weight with me as a juror.
It’s actually worse for you than what I posted above.
Knowing that you are an admitted liar, I can’t (and don’t) trust anything you say, including your posts on FR.
You’ve totally thrown your credibility in the trash.
Congratulations!
The best thing to do is politely tell them you want to speak to a lawyer. It’s best to keep your mouth shut. It doesn’t matter if you’re innocent because they will try to trick you into saying something you didn’t intend to say. Then they will use what you said against you.
DON’T SAY A WORD!
As a retired LEO I have nothing to defend myself for. If I am interrogating you it means I arrested you for something you did.
I can't arrest you if I have not already established probable cause you did something illegal which is a high standard.
So by the time I sit you down and start questioning you, I already have the goods on you. If you refuse to answer and lawyer up, that's ok my case is not predicated on your answers because I'll assume you are lying to me anyway. Except for the DOJ/FBI nobody get prosecuted for lying to cops
A case largely based on a statement even an admission of guilt is week at best because a decent lawyer will get it tossed out anyway.
Guilty people never tell the truth. Knowing this is how I based my questions, expecting them to lie. A perp telling me a series of provable lies is much more helpful to my case than an admission.
That's the real trap, when I question a perp he does not know what I already know or what evidence I already have. By ling to me the perp is killing off any chance he has to refute the allegations because he has already established his testimony can't be trusted.
I never lied to a perp, I never needed to, I already had the goods on them before I arrested them.
If Andy Sipowicz walks into the room, loudly say, “LAWYER!”
The American system, grounded in the British Common Law, has long erred on the side of protecting innocence. Thus we presume an accused person's innocence until they are proven guilty. As the preeminent English jurist William Blackstone wrote,"[B]etter that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer." This principle can also be found in religious texts and in the writings of the American Founders. Benjamin Franklin went further arguing "it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer."*
*From Cato Institute comments on Blackstone's ratio
Ad to what to say name ,rank,date of birth,place of birth,I want a lawyer I invoke my 5 amendment
rights then stfu.
No it means you arrested me for something you THINK I did. You have already given away your thought process in assuming guilt. We all saw how Krause and Binger went after Rittenhouse when they KNEW he was not guilty of anything except self defense. Likewise how law enforcement teamed up with Nifong on the Duke lacrosse team phony prosecution. They wanted to get a conviction EVEN THOUGH THEY KNEW THE LACROSSE PLAYERS WERE INNOCENT.
Once you’ve entered into the legal system you’re pretty much screwed. So this is good advice. Do anything you can not to enter into the system.
That’s all good fun. And for every one of those scenarios, there is one where someone innocent is lied into a confession.
And it also brings to mind the FBI and “Trump is a Russian asset” investigations. They go to people and say “we have the goods on Trump, incontrovertible evidence”, are you going to cooperate or are you maybe involved too?”
Your lies were fun and productive. But they should destroy a criminal case you would try to bring.
“What is your name?”
“Lawyer”
That is the answer to every question.
Easy Peasy.
“It’s best to keep your mouth shut. It doesn’t matter if you’re innocent because they will try to trick you into saying something you didn’t intend to say.”
It’s worse than that. Now if you “lie” to a Fed, I mean ANY Fed, you are going away. That is why Martha Stewart went to prison. They categorize the slightest inaccuracy as a “lie”. You said it was a Tuesday, but it was a Wednesday. You tell the same story twice with the slightest change as normal humans do... and now you lied.
You should never speak to the FBI or any Fed at all, never, not even casually.
And with Police, it should be exceedingly rare and crystal clear that you are not a target. If you saw the car fly off the freeway overpass maybe....
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.