More on "Never talk to cops."

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Deeg

Do you recommend that women never talk to a man because that man might rape them?

You know, there’s an obvious problem with this analogy. You can go through life without ever talking to a police officer in uniform. They’re a fairly trivial portion of the population. If I knew that talking to a tiny subset of the population had a very significantly increased risk of severe consequences to me, I’d avoid them.

@Little_Nemo

I’ve used it and it works.

The important point is that it works on getting a confession from a guilty person. If you’re questioning an innocent person it doesn’t work.

Really? Because quite a few of the steps are designed to minimize the issue. Steps 3 and 4 work equally on the guilty and the innocent. Step 7 is actually quite insidious in this regards. In fact, if you look at the wiki article, it quite explicitly says:

Critics of the technique claim it too easily produces false confessions,[4] especially with children.[5][6] The use of the Reid technique on youth is prohibited in several European countries because of the incidence of false confessions and wrongful convictions that result.[7]

In Canada, a Provincial Court judge ruled in 2012 that “stripped to its bare essentials, the Reid Technique is a guilt-presumptive, confrontational, psychologically manipulative procedure whose purpose is to extract a confession.”[8]

So basically, exactly what it looks like on paper.

The basic principle is that rather than trying to get the person to simply admit they committed the crime in question, you offer them an opportunity to explain why they committed the crime. A guilty person committed the crime and presumably had a reason for doing so. They will often take the opportunity to offer their explanation without realizing this is also an admission of guilt - explaining why you killed somebody necessarily includes admitting you killed them.

Of course, what this misses is that the procedure is just as liable to convince an innocent person to explain the circumstances under which they might have committed the crime. Your claim that an innocent person is “immune” is totally wrong.

@Acsenray

Wearing a Google glass is tantamount to surrendering any privacy rights you have to a private company that can do what it wants and anyone else who gets access to the data. It’s kind of ironic that someone wearing a Google glass will somehow then get worried about asserting those rights against the cops.

Well, to be fair, Google can’t take that information and throw me in jail over the weekend. :rolleyes:

Honestly, I don’t know why some people find this discussion difficult. Yeah, it sucks, from a civil standpoint, to be confrontational towards the cops. It sucks to never give them anything. However, the consequences of doing otherwise can be massive. The only situation where I would even consider speaking to an officer in uniform would be if I knew them personally and found them to be good people. The law is an unforgiving, rigid bitch, and given how easy it is to incriminate myself, I’m not taking any risks.

[Saint_Cad]

Comment on the Reid Technique
Mrs Cad is trained in the technique and has used it for many years. I don’t know how it is used by LEOs but in the corporate world the way it is (supposed to be) used is after you gather your evidence and know as an unimpeachable fact that the person is guilty (so in other words, not just suspected) you use it to garner a confession. Why do that if you can already prove they are guilty without a doubt? Because a confession makes life easier when the ex-employee decides to fight you on unemployment or take you to court on some bullshit discrimination lawsuit.

In other words, it was never intended and should not be used to determine IF a suspect is guilty. The Reid Technique presumes guilt a priori.

[DrDeth]

@Raza

As a former LE officer/investigator, my advice would be: if you or a loved one are, or might be, involved in less-than-legal activities, say nothing other than identifying yourself, or possibly inquiring as to the nature of the investigation so that you’ll get information for yourself.

However, let’s look at the big picture, and practicality: there was a burglary yesterday two houses down from you. I show up at your door as Mr. Policeperson, and identify myself appropriately, and say: “There was a burglary yesterday in your neighborhood. Did you see any unusual or suspicious vehicles on the street yesterday afternoon?”

Now, if you adopt the “never say anything to cops” tactic, and don’t say anything even if you did see a weird white van with blacked-out windows, what greater good does that serve?

I think that can be answered safely.

But once you are detained, even if they are asking questions about someone else and even if you think you have never committed a crime in your life (you are wrong in that btw) , you STFU.

[DrDeth]

Cameron Todd Willingham .

Fresh doubts over a Texas execution

Likely the best and most solid “Innocent man executed” case out there in modern times.

His statements likely caused the Police to consider him the most likely suspect, so they built a bogus case against him.

[DrDeth]

@Little_Nemo

The important point is that it works on getting a confession from a guilty person. If you’re questioning an innocent person it doesn’t work.

An innocent person is relatively immune to this process. They didn’t commit the crime and they didn’t have a reason for committing the crime. So they’re not going to see the need to confess to the crime or explain their reason for doing it. They’ll simply deny both the crime and having a reason.
.

Experts disagree: *"Critics of the technique claim it too easily produces false confessions,[4] especially with children.[5][6] The use of the Reid technique on youth is prohibited in several European countries because of the incidence of false confessions and wrongful convictions that result.[7]

In Canada, a Provincial Court judge ruled in 2012 that “stripped to its bare essentials, the Reid Technique is a guilt-presumptive, confrontational, psychologically manipulative procedure whose purpose is to extract a confession.”*

[md2000]

@DrDeth

Cameron Todd Willingham .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/08/03/fresh-doubts-over-a-texas-execution/

Likely the best and most solid “Innocent man executed” case out there in modern times.

His statements likely caused the Police to consider him the most likely suspect, so they built a bogus case against him.

It strikes me that when the state has to use a “confession to cellmate” as evidence, they have a weak case. And it’s pretty obvious that no cellmate is turning state’s evidence out of the goodness of his heart. They all get a good deal for it and likely will say whatever they are asked to say.

IMHO, any case that rests on a jailhouse informant is a railroad job.

[aruvqan]

@Loach

You didn’tlook very hard. Your opinion sounds a lot like baseless conjuncture. A lot of men “know” that women make false accusations all the time. There is no doubt that a large percentage of sexual assaults are not reported. A small percentage of accusations are false. I have dealt with a few other the years. But it is small.

And those like me don’t report because
Date rape? Doesn’t happen. You went out with the guy, you are just regretting sleeping with him and are reporting it so it wasn’t lie it was your idea to sleep with him.

Assaulted in the library? What were you wearing, jeans and a t-shirt? Must have been skin tight, and you were walking all sexy. You were asking for it.

Yup twice. Regular assault and date rape. Welcome to the life of a college girl in 1983. Though the date rape was a guy I worked with as well.

Reporting it would have gotten those exact two responses as I knew one from work, and the other was on campus. Since it wasn’t some horrible violent gang rape by blacks or hispanics, or bikers it would have been assumed that I encouraged it.
[URL=“http://www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/”]

[Senegoid]

@kayaker

I have a few friends who are/were cops. They are the most strident “don’t talk to cops” advisors I know.

I have a few friends who are medical doctors. They all have advanced directives that are strongly “no life support”.

Just an observation.

And a users’ manual for a certain computer application that I once saw advised:

The prudent user will always keep a back-up file, just in case.*

With a footnote saying:

• This author, having inside information, is a prudent user.

[Senegoid]

I don’t recall anyone in this thread mentioning Popehat yet. The lawyers there, Ken White in particular, have posted quite a number of essays on the advisability of talking to cops (or the other guys’ lawyers, for that matter).

The TL;DR is always the same: JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP!

Here is a compendium of a bunch of such posts.

(ETA: The first post in that list, as of today (9/5/2014) appears to be just a sentence or two with a link that says “More…” – Do click on that; there is quite a lengthy essay there.)

(Note that Mr. White himself, in some of these posts, is speaking in role as the other guy’s lawyer toward whom you should do exactly that!)

[handsomeharry]

@Shodan

I believe the truism is that it is difficult to talk yourself out of being arrested, but much easier to talk yourself into it.

Regards,
Shodan

This is awesome. I had never heard it before. Thanks!