More on "Never talk to cops."

Your location says New Jersey. If this neighbor was in New Jersey I can assure you that if that is what he said he did not confess to a crime. That does not meet the elements of criminal sexual contact. Someone is not telling the truth. I am a SVU detective in New Jersey.

Hindsight and video provide an opportunity to learn and move forward. I am hoping most dopers are aware of the not guilty verdict in the trial of the two Fullerton police officers over the beating death of Kelly Thomas. How does or how could the “never talk to the police” mantra factor into the events shown here on the actual video?

This police encounter resulted in the violent death of a person. Would not talking to the police have affected the outcome?

Warning: this full, unedited video is graphic.

Loach, I’m just relating the story as he told it. I suppose anything is possible. Maybe they just “convinced” him to plead guilty to something.

You and me both, buddy.

I’ve been pulled over a number of times (all decades ago, back when I neglected to update my tags and sped etc.) and I always answered those questions honestly and respectfully, and it never did me any harm. I bet I’d do the same today.

But it does seem odd pulling someone over for tag lights. Are they even required by law in TX? I doubt they are in most states, or if they are, it’s fairly recent.

I treat a traffic stop a bit different than other cases. Perhaps I’m foolish but I doubt I’ll change on that regard, and as I said, it’s served me well (all cases where I was definitely guilty as charged, of speeding or driving with expired plates or whatever.)

The oddest case was at a rest stop between where I worked (Dearborn) and lived (Ann Arbor). It was dark; I was sleeping behind the wheel, as I often napped on the way home rather than pass out on I-94 [again]. I wake up to a blinding light in my face: the cop had pulled up onto the sidewalk to shine his side beam in at me. I blink.

Cop: What are you doing here?
Me: Resting.
Cop: Why here?
Me: (trying hard not to sound flip) It’s a rest area, Officer.
Cop: where from and where to?
(I answer)
Cop: But that’s only 10 or 15 minutes down the road.
Me: (again trying not to be flip) I was falling asleep at the wheel. I worked late.

Turns out I had a warrant out for failure to appear, on an earlier speeding ticket, which he’d found out by calling in all the plates (probably especially older cars) in the lot. So, he busts me, but by this time he’s acting very friendly. He warns me that gays (he used a different term I won’t repeat) come here to hook up, and goes on to brag about how recently he arrested a dozen men for “Gross indecency between males.”

I didn’t bother telling him that I don’t care what sex they are, I’d rather people not have sex in rest area bathrooms.

BTW, the best way not to get pulled over is to be a white man over 40 driving a minivan, or so it seems. Back when I drove beaters, I’d get pulled over as soon as bulb burnt out or anything. Nowadays I can go many months with a headlight out and they don’t say “boo”.

Everyone who thinks not being a criminal will protect them in a police encounter reminds me of some women thinking that since they aren’t “sluts” they are safe from rape.

Just saying.

Really? You think there are women that think because they aren’t “sluts” they are safe from rape.

Just saying.

Yes, I’ve met some. The same kind of psychological defense mechanism is going on in this thread, only X get framed by police and I’m not X so I’m safe so I can talk to police. It is terrifying to realize no matter what you do, you can still be targeted at random.

I don’t really have an answer for the OP either, one crazy detail to mention since Texas was mentioned is that in that state any traffic offense is ARRESTABLE. And cops will not hesitate to use that against you in a traffic stop, you might beat the ticket but you won’t beat the ride and sitting in jail til arraignment.

You are making a huge assumption there, and one that I certainly wouldn’t bet my freedom on. Once cops narrow their focus on a suspect, they get tunnel vision, and often look to make the facts fit. There are not multiple detectives looking at every angle and clue. There is typically one guy (he likely has help, but he’s in charge) who is trying to get an arrest as quickly and easily as possible.

Cops learn very early on how to phrase questions and comments so they sound innocuous. But it isn’t a social encounter when a cop pulls you over or is conducting an investigation. They want to come off as friendly and non-threatening, but the truth is they are trying to get someone to slip up and give them a reason to make an arrest or give a ticket. When a cop asks “do you know why I pulled you over?”, if you answer you were probably going a little too fast or you might have gone over the line, you’ve just admitted to an infraction. Be polite and respectful, but say as little as possible and answer questions with questions. “Where are you heading?”… “Why do you ask, officer?”

I have a couple of friends who are cops. When they tell work tales, I am constantly amazed at what people do and say, incriminating themselves or allowing their pockets or car to be searched. Most people hate confrontation or saying “no”, and cops count on that.

Or maybe he was guilty.

There is no lesser charge like inappropriate touching. Depending on the type of touching its either sexual assault or criminal sexual contact. Sexual contact is defined as:

“an intentional touching by the victim ,either directly or through clothing, of the victim’s intimate parts for the purpose of degrading or humiliating the victim or sexually arousing or sexually gratifying the actor.”

Unless they convinced him to say that he was touching the child for sexual purposes I don’t know what you think they got him to confess to. If the sexual gratification part of the definition is left out then I would have been guilty of this every time I changed my daughter’s diaper. Without being able to prove it was for sexual purposes there is no charge.

And unless this was decades ago, NJ has probably the strictest rules in the country governing suspect interviews. Except under very specific circumstances all such interviews must be on video. And it is very easy to get confessions thrown out if there are any shenanigans.

As I’ve pointed out many times in other threads, whenever I have said something like “do you know why I pulled you over?” its more of a conversation starter than anything. I don’t really care if you admit to speeding or whatever. But you can talk yourself into getting a ticket by being a dick. Intent is not an element of most traffic statutes. It doesn’t matter if you say “I think I was going a little fast” or “I don’t know.” If brought up in court “I think I was going a little fast” is meaningless. It won’t even be brought up. All that matters is what I observed, if I was properly trained on the equipment and if the calibration on the equipment was up to date. Of course if I say, “Do you know why I pulled you over?” and you reply “Because I just killed a hooker and stuffed her in my trunk?” its a little different.

Loach, you make it sound like there are no unjustified arrests or convictions, that no innocent people are ever found guilty or coerced into a confession or plea. Sorry, I don’t buy that.

I served as a juror on a rape case, and we found the defendant not guilty on a dozen charges in a matter of a couple of hours. There was no case, the burden of proof wasn’t even close to being met. And yet the police and prosecutor charged the guy with a dozen different charges and took the case to court. I forget what all the charges were, but they were redundant and obviously meant to intimidate the defendant and sway the jury. The judge came to see the jury and several of us complained that we didn’t understand why the case ever progressed beyond the investigation stage, and the judge poo-pooed our concerns and said that’s what jury trials are about, and that we did our job by finding the defendant not guilty. I guess we were supposed to ignore the days we missed work, the tens of thousands of dollars the county wasted pursuing the case and the cost and heartache the defendant incurred.

I happened to run into the defense attorney a week or so later and he told me that there is a whole “industry” for sex-related crimes, that there is both political pressure and external funding to prosecute nearly any case, whether there is merit or not. He said it’s typical for defendants to lose their jobs and spend tens of thousands of dollars defending themselves against a woman who is trying to salvage her reputation. Or a 20 year old guy who is ruined because he foolishly dated a 17 year old.

Child abuse cases are a bit different, but you can’t tell me there aren’t counselors and psychologists and prosecutors who coerce or convince kids to say what they want them to say. It seems to me there is a lot of money and political pressure involved with the child abuse “industry”. Certainly a lot is deserved, but I don’t for a minute believe there aren’t innocent people being charged and even convicted.

It is likely the defendant’s lawyer convinced him to take a plea deal, rather than risk going to court. I find people often incorrectly retell these incidents, most people take the plea deal.

Yeah, this is the Aaron Schwartz model of justice.
“We’ve charged you with enough crimes to send you to jail for 35 years for downloading publicly available scientific papers. Your choices are:
(a) take your chance with a tech-ignorant jury, get 35 years
(b) plead guilty and do 6 months
(c) suicide”

Imagine how much less likely the chances of getting off at trial if the case involves little children instead.

Of course he does. You can’t be a cop unless you believe there are no innocent people.

Remember, cops are never on your side. Their #2 motto (#1 being “Get Home Alive By Any Means Necessary”) is: “It doesn’t matter who does the crime, as long as someone does the time!”

References & required viewing:
The Interrogation of Michael Crowe (documentary): 14yo boy is forced into a false confession about murdering his little sister. Found guilty, overturned more than 10 years later. Meanwhile, the true killer walks free.

Paradise Lost (pts. 1-3): The story of the infamous West Memphis Three, all found guilty of murder based on zero evidence beyond the fact they listened to “satanic” heavy metal. All spent nearly 20 years in prison, and were never properly exonerated despite incontrovertible evidence that they were 100% innocent. Again, the true killer walks free.

Indictment: The McMartin Trial: This one’s more about procedural misconduct by the D.A.'s office, as numerous outlandish charges were laid against several innocent schoolteachers during the great “Satanic Pedophile Cult” hysteria of the 80’s. The good news is, since there were no actual crimes, no true molester is walking free. The bad news is, the Buckeys & McMartins spent years in jail and lost their school along with almost everything else they owned.

There’s more examples, I’ll come up with them later.

Buy whatever you want. From my point of view you are making a lot of baseless assumptions. I’ll try to answer some of them from my experience. It may look differently from the one case you were involved in. Of course any system run by and designed by humans will be flawed.

I have no idea what you mean by redundant charges. Depending on the court rules sometimes they have to spell out the lesser included charges. Sometimes it is up to the judge to tell the jury they can find the defendant guilty of a lesser charge. I find it easier to present and for the jury to understand the charges if they are all spelled out ahead of time. Sometimes that’s up to a state’s court rules, sometimes its just courtroom strategy. But there is nothing wrong with it. By statute those crimes are included in the more serious offense.

I don’t know the particulars of the case you were a juror on. But I hope you know that multiple studies have shown that the percentage of rape allegations that are false is extremely low. Whenever the subject is brought up around here there is usually a group that complains about how few of these cases are prosecuted. I try to explain how hard it can be to meet the burden of proof. Often prosecutor’s will not go forward with such a case. They are time consuming and expensive. Things are not like TV. Prosecutors try very hard to not argue a losing case. They may have felt confident of the guilt of the defendant and went forward with what they had hoping for the best. You also don’t know what happened behind the scenes. What evidence was suppressed and why. Which witnesses became uncooperative at the last minute etc. Just because you did your duty does not mean you didn’t let a rapist go free. That’s how the system is set up.

What that lawyer supposedly said to you sounds like complete bullshit to me. There is no incentive to bring losing cases to trial. For the prosecutor anyway. Its very lucrative for defense attorneys. A prosecutor who wastes the time and money of the court and the county soon find themselves out of a job. As for the 20 year old dating a 17 year old, that wouldn’t even be close to being illegal here. I know there are a few states with very screwy age of consent laws (which have been discussed here ad nauseam) but most have more thought behind them. For instance here the AoC is 16. Under 16 there has to be a 4 year age difference for there to be a problem.

When it comes to child abuse and sexual assault there were a lot of changes brought about be the hysteria of the 80s. When there is an allegation especially of sexual assault any interview of a child victim can only be done by someone trained in forensic interview techniques. The interviews must be on tape. The methods (which I have often witnessed but I am not trained in) are very specific and must be done precisely. That is to ensure that no memories are implanted or testimony tainted. Here we have what is called a Michaels Hearing or Pre-Trial Taint Hearing in which a judge determines if the police and prosecutors acted properly and did not taint the testimony of the child. No one wants their hard work to be wasted or worse, a guilty party go free, because they screwed up the interview.

I have seen absolutely no evidence of any “child abuse industry.” 99% of all cases come from reports from citizens not counselors or shrinks. Its a very good (but rare) week when I don’t have to do anything but sit back and wait for the next case.

I have no doubt things can be different from state to state. We have very strict rules governed by our own case law and attorney general guidelines. Our rules are generally stricter than what the US Supreme Court has ruled when it comes to searches, interviews etc.

Total and complete bullshit.

Its already been established that he lied to MLS. What he said that he said to the cops would not even be close to being probable cause for that charge. He was not tricked into a confession because if that is what he said it wasn’t a crime. So he is painting it in the most positive manner so his neighbor wouldn’t think of him as a criminal. I can not know what actually happened but I know the laws here. It did not happen the way he said it did.

Loach, the one problem I have with your responses is the fact that while YOU know why you are asking me questions, I don’t. So when you come up to my door and ask, “Did you see anything suspicious around 8pm last night?” I have no clue if you are just looking for information or if I’m a suspect in a burglary two doors down. That knowledge of your motivation is asymmetrical so why should I put myself at risk if I don’t know if I’m a suspect or not?

Take the example of pulling over a speeder. You say it’s just a conversation starter and I believe you. I was once pulled over in California about 10 miles from the Arizona border. The officer ask is I knew why I was being pulled over and I admitted I was speeding. When he wrote the ticket, I asked for it to be assigned to the county seat* and the reply was, “You can’t fight it. I have it on tape that you admitted you were speeding.” So now tell me when YOU pull me over why I should talk to you?

  • California has an interesting law that when stopped for a ticket, you can request for it to be handled at the county seat. It has to be done at the time it is issued and in my case, meant I could go to the courthouse in Riverside (closer to my home) than Indio.

Fair enough, I don’t know anything about that case in particular either.

The trick, as I see it, is to volunteer as little information as possible, but to do it respectfully and cheerfully, and without being confrontational. When I’m pulled over and he asks “Do you know why?”, my answer is always, “I’m not really sure.” Regardless of whether it would count as a “confession”, why should I point out something that he might not be aware of?

If you say that the question is merely a conversation starter, then I believe you. But I’ve never understood “small talk” and I prefer to get to business right away: “Good afternoon. I pulled you over because…”