[usurper]

It's because we have enough law enforcement types here that need to defend themselves.

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.

[from occupied ga]

If I am interrogating you it means I arrested you for something you did.

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.

[DIRTYSECRET]

*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.*

Very good. I’ve been looking for that.

[Respond Code Three]

Television perpetuates a situation that often does not apply. As a patrolman, I made a lot of probable cause arrests and I didn't read the suspects their rights. I left that up to the investigative detective. If I had read them their rights, and they invoked, it would have made the job of the detectives much harder and they wouldn't have appreciated it.

On the other hand, when I was a detective then it was my responsibility to do the interview. My confessions were obtained after I read them their rights. I didn't try to trick anyone into confessing. Some invoked right away. They were convicted anyway because of the evidence.