I don't understand the advice in this thread. If I am pulled over for speeding I'm supposed to pretend I am mute rather than trying to appeal to the good nature of the cop in hopes of getting off with a warning? Seems to me that I'm almost guaranteed a ticket if I stay mute; if I talk I might get out of it.
I would agree that if you did in fact commit a crime you're probably better off staying silent, unless you have a clean way of pinning it on someone else.
MKE Prosecutor wrote:
Mal Content wrote:
I don't understand Miranda at all. Why hasn't someone challenged the TIMING of reading Miranda Rights? All Miranda Rights do is advise you not to FURTHER incriminate yourself. The horse has already left the barn.
Again, all Miranda Rights do is advise you not to FURTHER incriminate yourself. Key word is - FURTHER.
I have no idea what you are saying here.
Miranda ("You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.") What is complicated about this?
Miranda only needs to be read to you once you are "in custody." If you are not in custody you don't get the warning, but can still assert the 5th.
Miranda rights never have to be read. Less than 10% of people who are arrested are actually read their rights, in custody or not.
Mal Content wrote:
Remember, the police can lie to you legally, but you can't do same. Don't know how that passed Supreme Court????
You can lie to the police. You can't lie to federal investigators, but you can lie to the police.
answerer wrote:
MKE Prosecutor wrote:
I have no idea what you are saying here.
Miranda ("You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.") What is complicated about this?
Miranda only needs to be read to you once you are "in custody." If you are not in custody you don't get the warning, but can still assert the 5th.
Miranda rights never have to be read. Less than 10% of people who are arrested are actually read their rights, in custody or not.
Miranda needs to be given for an in custody statement to be admissible. If a person is not Mirandized, the statement (if an in custody statement) is excluded. If the person is arrested and is not making statements Miranda is not done or needed for anything.
killermike wrote:
Mal Content wrote:
Remember, the police can lie to you legally, but you can't do same. Don't know how that passed Supreme Court????
You can lie to the police. You can't lie to federal investigators, but you can lie to the police.
If you lie to the FBI it will usually be a felony.
It IS illegal to lie to local cops - it is called "obstructing" and is usually only a misdemeanor. For example, it is not illegal to refuse to give a name to the cops, it is illegal to give a false name - ie lie.
Banana Bread wrote:
If they bring you in to be questioned you can't exactly refuse them so this thread doesn't make sense.....
You don't have to go in for questioning. They have to arrest you to bring you in. You still do not have to talk to them. You can ask for a lawyer and he will talk for you. You don't even have to answer questions at your trial.
That said, I'd probably talk to police, until I was guilty.
MKE Prosecutor wrote:
killermike wrote:
You can lie to the police. You can't lie to federal investigators, but you can lie to the police.
If you lie to the FBI it will usually be a felony.
It IS illegal to lie to local cops - it is called "obstructing" and is usually only a misdemeanor. For example, it is not illegal to refuse to give a name to the cops, it is illegal to give a false name - ie lie.
The FBI are federal investigators. The "F" stands for federal, and as I said, you cannot lie to federal investigators.
You can certainly lie to the police in many instances. There are of course cases where you can't lie to the police, but there are many cases where you can. You can't give false identification, for instance. But if you are being investigated for murder, it is not a crime to say "I didn't do it" even if you did.
Man, do not outright lie to anyone. Rather, the phrases "I don't remember" or "it's hard for me to recall" or "I do not recollect" are key. It's impossible to prove whether one is lying when they utter those phrases.
I've always been quite cooperative with police and have never refused to talk with them.
However, if they wanted to improperly accost me and take me in for questioning about some imagined crime that I didn't commit - which is what the topic of this thread is about - then I'd certainly state that I didn't want to do that. There'd be absolutely no good reason to go in and be harassed for hours and hours for something that I didn't do. You could end up being beaten quite badly in a station, or even end up in prison for something that you didn't do and had no clue about. I would refuse to answer any questions, would ask if I was free to leave, and ask to be appointed an attorney if they wanted to proceed. That's never happened though, and hopefully never will. I do everything that I can to stay out of trouble, other than posting on this crazy website. =:-o
killermike wrote:
You can certainly lie to the police in many instances. There are of course cases where you can't lie to the police, but there are many cases where you can. You can't give false identification, for instance. But if you are being investigated for murder, it is not a crime to say "I didn't do it" even if you did.
Actually you technically can't even say "I didn't do it" as a lie and (though I have never seen it charged) could be charged.
Saying "I didn't do it" is sometimes called the "exculpatory denial" doctrine. The idea being that a suspect is faced with 3 choices: 1. admit guilt, 2. say nothing or 3. deny he did it and say nothing more. Some courts have toyed with the idea of allowing #3. In my state, the supreme court rejected it and allowed a prosecution to go forward relying on the words of the obstructing statute.
"Exculpatory denial" is AKA as "exculpatory no" fwiw and was also rejected by the US Supreme Court.
https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7007&context=jclc
This thread is a little simplistic.
MKE Prosecutor wrote:
Actually you technically can't even say "I didn't do it" as a lie and (though I have never seen it charged) could be charged.
Saying "I didn't do it" is sometimes called the "exculpatory denial" doctrine. The idea being that a suspect is faced with 3 choices: 1. admit guilt, 2. say nothing or 3. deny he did it and say nothing more. Some courts have toyed with the idea of allowing #3. In my state, the supreme court rejected it and allowed a prosecution to go forward relying on the words of the obstructing statute.
That makes no sense. Can you try to explain it more clearly.
MKE Prosecutor wrote: Miranda only needs to be read to you once you are "in custody." If you are not in custody you don't get the warning, but can still assert the 5th.
This is partially true, but incomplete and a little misleading. Miranda is triggered prior to "custodial interrogation" i.e. when police want to question someone in custody. Some states (Calli - see W&I code sec 625) have laws that require Miranda warnings upon taking custody of juveniles regardless of whether they will be questioned, but assuming an adult is arrested, Miranda is only required if the suspect is in custody and questioned.
No - you can't assert the 5th if you are not in custody because the 5th amendment privilege against self-incrimination and the court contrived Miranda rule that flows from it only applies to those that are in custody (or testifying in court). You can, however, tell the police to take a flying leap, call them pork-like products and otherwise remain silent in or out of custody. Although I discourage insulting the police, especially if you are in custody, remaining silent is almost always your best option.
For the OP - suspects do not "always" talk. A significant # do for the reasons stated in this thread and many, many more. Most of the time, they have a story to tell that they think mitigates their involvement in the crime. Other times, they simply can't help themselves. And some just don't give a F. You would also be surprised at how a good Detective can get someone to trust and talk to him/her regardless of Miranda. It's all a game in the end and if you find yourself on the wrong end of a police interview table, the best thing to do is ask for a lawyer and shut the F up.
Banana Bread wrote:
If they bring you in to be questioned you can't exactly refuse them so this thread doesn't make sense. I was brought in for questioning once for hitting a girl because I was annoyed that she never replied to my messages and I found out she lied about one of her excuses. When I was arrested and brought into the room I just talked as little as possible and just gave a few word answers to each question in as easy a way for them to understand as possible. I said we made mistakes. I was annoyed at hers. I didn't mean for this to escalate. I was having a bad day and a dog attacked me the previous day and I was feeling defensive.
I spent $300 on a refurbished iphone so she would change her mind about suing me and told her she wouldn't see me again. That was the extent of it. If you are going to be questioned by the police it is better to talk less about the details of the apparent offense and tell them the background of why it happened in the first place(in my case I was feeling defensive and angry because I was bitten badly by a dog). Try to make amends with the person who was the victim too.
I don't want to be locked up like a crazy person so won't be making these mistakes anytime soon.
8/10
Threads like this make me realise that the United States is doomed to failure. So many of you pathetic infidels with criminal mentalities.
MohammedAA wrote:
Threads like this make me realise that the United States is doomed to failure. So many of you pathetic infidels with criminal mentalities.
Why are so many citizens killed by American police than in any other "civilized" country? Is it always the fault of the infidel?
.[/quote]
I. If they were gentile and intelligent then that would be a different story but that's not the case.[/quote]
So, you’d talk to the police, provided they weren’t Jewish?
It is just awkward if they are sitting in front of you staring at you and repeatedly asking you questions. It feels threatening like they are trying to bully you so it seems like they will turn more against you if you keep too silent. It is best to talk just a little bit but talk as little as possible about the alleged crime. Talk about the background story or events surrounding the crime. They are more likely to take your side when you tell them that you were lied to through text and that you were involved in a fight/attack with a person/animal close to the time of the crime. They should understand you if you they are good cops. Everyone acts a bit different after they have been involved in a dangerous situation
missilesilo wrote:
If you don't talk, you might walk.
Shut up and let your lawyer provide the correct answers.
Everyone has the right to remain silent.
Few have the ability.
+1
Especially if youre drunk or stoned. They tricked me when i was sooo incapacitated.