Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

What *Should* We Be Worried About?

<< < (5/6) > >>

Stoic Joker:
But... the more dangerous thing in the article is that silence = guilt.-Renegade (August 16, 2014, 10:57 AM)
--- End quote ---

Ah! Yes... I neglected to close the loop on that one. So working from the above position:

The Fuzz are saying that he is guilty based on his not asking about the poor victims in the other vehicle that he hit (cue the violins..).

I OTOH wish to assert the below:
1. There was no - guilt reaction - reason for him to ask about the condition of the other driver/idiot that caused the accident.
2. He had no way of knowing there were Children-to-think-of in the scant few seconds he was afforded to react when this daffy broad came darting into his path.
3. Even if he did find out about them after, see point 1.
4. It's fairly common knowledge these days that silence is golden when the cops are involved..*

It is frankly unfathomable to me how this got so absurdly turned around. When the reality of it is that since nobody in their right mind should be maniacally careening around corners with their entire family in the car...there was no way in hell it could possible be his fault in the first place. So the fact that the system went completely full zoot into upside-down day by making silence = guilt is almost fitting (in a kangaroo court kind of way) given the backasswards manner in which they decided to attribute guilt.

*Which may actually be the endgame objective if this little shenanigan. The system wants to make people afraid to be wisely/cautiously silent in an attempt to force them to blurt out something/anything that could be usefully incrimination.

Renegade:
(in a kangaroo court kind of way)-Stoic Joker (August 16, 2014, 12:11 PM)
--- End quote ---

Kind of?

I've found a portrait of the judge...



This from Popehat:

Cops, and prosecutors, and other public employees in the criminal justice system have power. It is the nature of power to make people believe that they are better than the rest of us, and entitled to privileges the rest of us do not enjoy.

The question is this: are we so addled by generations of "law and order" and "war on crime" and "thin blue line" rhetoric that we'll accept it?
--- End quote ---

Read the full article here.
-40hz (August 16, 2014, 11:29 AM)
--- End quote ---

Interesting quote. Let me follow that up with another:

http://www.copblock.org



Badges don't grant extra rights.

All police outfits are based on double standards. They are incentivized to be draconian. Cease buying into those those failed ideas and institutions. You Own Yourself. Think, and Govern Yourself.
--- End quote ---

Another thing to worry about - groups of armed thugs that think they're better than everyone else.

Talk to them. Don't talk to them... they'll get you. Because they're better than you.

Stoic Joker:
It just occurred to me that law enforcement is a lot like tech support. As long as you can clear the highest number of calls, quality is irrelevant. Just stick to the script and walk them into a - The House Wins - favorable conclusion.

IainB:
...There is such a right.
And it has been argued in some jurisdictions (and agreed to by certain US judges) that a refusal to speak to police officers may be construed as sufficient grounds for suspicion of wrongdoing that that (by itself) is justification for arresting someone.
On the topic of "remaining silent" look here and here.
______________________
-40hz (August 16, 2014, 11:41 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well, on the basis of that, silence seems to have been judged as a reasonable basis for cause for the police to arrest someone on suspicion, however that does not seem to indicate that it contributed to the proving of their guilt in any subsequent court of law.

40hz:
...There is such a right.
And it has been argued in some jurisdictions (and agreed to by certain US judges) that a refusal to speak to police officers may be construed as sufficient grounds for suspicion of wrongdoing that that (by itself) is justification for arresting someone.
On the topic of "remaining silent" look here and here.
______________________
-40hz (August 16, 2014, 11:41 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well, on the basis of that, silence seems to have been judged as a reasonable basis for cause for the police to arrest someone on suspicion, however that does not seem to indicate that it contributed to the proving of their guilt in any subsequent court of law.
-IainB (August 16, 2014, 07:15 PM)
--- End quote ---

Silence is always your best bet - as in say absolutely nothing other than "I want to speak to an attorney - and I do not consent to any searches.

 8)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page