Praxis: Talking to the Police.
A friend sent me the following links that were posted on the NFAOA "Resources" page several years ago along with this comment:
(I)t is worth resurrecting for a number of reasons. I think the most salient derives from the 2010 article that I've attached, where folks get on lists via (data mining) and classified more or less as criminals without reasonable suspicion being established. Another reason is the profound political discomfort that has resulted from Edward Snowden's disclosures about the extent of domestic spying by the NFA--the fact that the Congress was not aware or read into some of the activities is having repercussions. The reason is that the misuse of "mined" data is a widespread hazard that potentially impacts millions of law-abiding people.
I am taking the time to send you this video AND the attached article, because the latter is highly relevant in view of the Snowden disclosures, and the former is one of the most unusual pieces of work that I have ever seen regarding the issue of talking with the police. Possibly the attorneys on this message won't be surprised by the disclosures in the video, I'm not sure; however, I think they are worth passing along. All this stuff is in the public domain, so feel free to share. And with respect, the video is will worth taking a few minutes to watch.
Introduction from the NFAOA page:
Talking to the Police by Professor James Duane
It is well known that virtually all attorneys will advise their clients not to talk to the police, but it is rare to hear detailed, lengthy explanations why this is advisable by an attorney, and even rare to hear it from a police officer. In this taped video presentation, both a licensed attorney and a sworn police officer discuss why talking with the police isn't advisable, even for people who are wholly innocent of a crime which they may be suspected of committing. This video discusses how the police will seize upon a minor discrepancy or circumstantial fact unrelated to a crime, to ensnare an innocent person into a situation in which the police are able to create doubt of innocence. In these circumstances, the police are not your friend; they want to solve a crime. Anybody who has spent any time (for example) reading the hundreds of analyses of firearms cases by James Bardwell cannot help but be struck by the significant number of times that at the time ATF first approached the now-convicted defendant, the now-convicted defendant didn't have a legal problem. What happened is that the now-convicted defendant couldn't keep his mouth shut and talked himself into a violation of the law.
6 comments:
Speaking of not trusting police, here's what can happen if you slow roll a stop sign in NM:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/05/what-began-as-a-mans-simple-traffic-stop-ended-in-an-unfathomable-12-hour-ordeal-that-is-almost-too-horrific-to-believe/
It should be noted that the affidavit in support of the warrant claimed he had a history of asshole smuggling, so maybe an existing criminal record was the whole reason they stopped him.
Excellent information for today. But,in many parts of the country, law enforcement, at all levels, fail to obey the laws they allegedly are sworn to enforce. This arrogant approach to "policing", is spreading. My bet is, by next year, law enforcement will be nothing but a gang of thugs, with badges, acting in total anarchy. This approach has been and will continue to be approved/sanctioned, from the federal level. The line has been blurred between that which is criminal and national security. One needs only to look at who the government has labeled domestic terrorists, to see that everybody is a suspect. I also believe, local prosecutors are taking their cue from the corruption they see in the U.S. DOJ. Corrupt U.S. Attorneys, engaging in judicial misconduct, are not prosecuted,even when caught. While the DOJ will never admit it, they are sending a message. This WILL NOT change just because a new administration comes into power in 2016. The tracks have been laid and the train is in motion. Many have put the blame on the militarization of police. It is deeper than that. It is an idea, a mindset, a sea change in thought processes, that bring individuals with a Stasi mentality, into the ranks of policing, at every level. New recruits often have no concept of constitutional principles, or honor. We will pay a price for that.
Well said, SWIFT. The future does not bode well.
When I was a cop in the 80's, we were trained to be the protectors of the community. We were taught at even though we had the statutory authority to enforce all the laws, that our primary responsibility was to our community. We were also taught that as officers, we can only provide the policing that our community (those we serve)wanted us to provide. In some areas, citizens demand aggressive police agencies, and some areas want a more relaxed agency.
I have seen our police forces go from being the protectors of the communities, to being the enforces of the law. When I was a cop, I was proud of the "To Protect and To Serve" that was on the door of my prowler car.
Problem is that our society has been brainwashed into believing that if you speak in any way against the government, then you are an enemy of the state. It saddens me how many people really believe in the "if you are not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to worry about" sheeple mentality.
Police are rapidly becoming an out of control coercive arm of the already out of control Government. An occupying force, thinly spread in hostile territory.
A concept doomed to destruction.
The philosophy that Sir Robert Peel developed to define an ethical police force has been abandoned.
1) Every police officer should be issued an identification number, to assure accountability for his actions.
2) Whether the police are effective is not measured on the number of arrests, but on the lack of crime.
3) Above all else, an effective authority figure knows trust and accountability are paramount. Hence, Peel's most often quoted principle that "The police are the public and the public are the police."
Thrown into the dustbin of history!
III
'I have seen our police forces go from being the protectors of the communities, to being the enforces of the law. When I was a cop, I was proud of the "To Protect and To Serve" that was on the door of my prowler car.'
I take a different view. The notion of protection necessarily includes the notion of submission. That is, if we hire others to protect us, we have no choice but to submit to them. Well, if we hire protection in the market, we are of course able to fire as well. But you can't fire a government agency. The very best you can do is beg a self-serving institution to be nicer. Good luck with that.
So, the problem is not some recent rogue development, but came with the initial choice to use a government agency for protection. What is happening now in an inevitable result of that choice made, about a hundred years ago, when police first came into existence.
Post a Comment