Fourth Amendment

"Don't talk to law enforcement without consulting [a lawyer] first"

This, from Ken White, a former prosectuor who has seen it all.

|

Davey & Goliath

There's a great shift going on regarding the perception of law enforcement. Gone are the days of Officer Friendly, when folks were disposed to talk to cops whenever and wherever they were asked. Or to come down to the station for this or that reason. Come on, we need your help, that sort of thing.

If the past dozen-plus years of a semi-unrestricted surveillance state have taught us anything, it's that people in a position of power should be treated with respect but also kept within strict boundaries.

And let's be clear: Power is changing throughout our society, with the high-and-the-mighty being leveled with us little people. Priests, professors, politicians, stockbrokers, Indian chiefs, and yes, beat cops have relatively less ability to act however they want or to enforce their diktat. That's due to a lot of different reasons, especially technological advances that spread information and the ability to speak back to power; everything from cell phones to the internet help to create the preconditions for the libertarian moment. When it comes to cops, this relative decline in the ability to act with impunity is sometime cast as a "war on police." In fact, it is simply a long-overdue conversation about police misuse of authority.

Ken White, a former federal prosecutor who blogs at Popehat and is a contributing editor to Reason, is a practicing attorney whose firm runs a lively site. In a recent entry, White implores folks to always get representation when talking to the police.

On television, cops constantly tell suspects "you have to talk now, talk first, or we'll give a deal to your buddy." On television, that proposition is presented as true. But real life isn't like television. In real life, that "now or never" proposition is almost always false. In 21 years practicing criminal law, I have never seen a circumstance where stopping the interview and talking to a lawyer would have destroyed someone's opportunity to talk to law enforcement and resulted in harm to their best interests. There's always been another chance, once the client has talked to a lawyer and taken advantage of competent advice about the situation.

White asks readers to

consider the case of Professor Xi Xiaoxing, a physicist at Temple University. The Department of Justice charged Dr. Xi with leaking sensitive technical information to China. They were wrong — the items in question were not sensitive or protected. The FBI agents and the federal prosecutors assigned to the case didn't understand the science and didn't bother to learn it, so they proceeded based on a false premise. They arrested Dr. Xi, prosecuted him, threatened to put him in jail, threatened to destroy his life based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the facts. Sometimes the government gets complex things wrong like that. Sometimes they get simple things wrong — like when they stubbornly believe an informant who is actually lying. When you talk to law enforcement under those circumstances, their false conclusions put you at peril.

He concludes:

consulting a lawyer before you answer law enforcement questions is like wearing a seat belt when you drive…. Don't talk to law enforcement without consulting qualified counsel first.

Read the whole thing.

Blast from the past! "Lindy: No Knock Raid: A song about the drug war's deadliest tactic"

NEXT: This Underage Teen Lied About Her Age. Should We Lock Up Her Gullible Boyfriend?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I don’t think the lawyer will be of much use against the nightstick, unless he shows up in time to be used as padding.

    1. I’d happily pay $350 an hour to use an attorney as padding. I imagine there are menfolk around here who would pay more, for feminine counsel. as such.

      1. I offer my services as human padding for half that.

        1. I’m already fairly well padded… ladies.

          1. I’m already fairly well padded

            Go on…

            1. Unfortunately he’s talking about having that apple-shaped bod.

              Unless you’re into that sort of thing.

              1. Unless you’re into that sort of thing.

                Uuumm…..

              2. Not like an apple. More like a, i don’t know. A rectangle?

                1. Not like an apple. More like a, i don’t know. A rectangle?

                  Go on….

                  1. A Michelob bottle?

                  2. Aren’t rectangle and rectum derived from the same root word?

      2. It’s amusing that lawyers and escorts have a similar fee structure.

        1. Hourly rates for getting screwed…

        2. Although who is playing pitcher and who is playing catcher is different.

  2. No Knock, the original version

    *proto-proto-proto rap

  3. consulting a lawyer before you answer law enforcement questions is like wearing a seat belt when you drive….

    Is this supposed to be a quote about safety and caution; or the fact that cops will fuck you over for not wearing a seat belt, like they will if you don’t have a lawyer

    1. Both.

      Its a stupid idea to drive without a seatbelt (though its your *right* to make those decisions).

      And

      The cops don’t give a damn about your rights and will feth you up if they catch you without one.

    2. I thought it was saying there should be fines for it like not wearing a seatbelt.

  4. So the great libertarian moment involves walking around with a lawyer in your pocket? Good call.

    I don’t suppose there’s any way your going to give up that failed dream.

    1. Ignorance of the law and not being able to afford an interpreter is no excuse.

      1. Mr Prosser: But, Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.

        Arthur: Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything.

        Mr Prosser: But the plans were on display?

        Arthur: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.

        Mr Prosser: That’s the display department.

        Arthur: With a torch.

        Mr Prosser: The lights had probably gone out.

        Arthur: So had the stairs.

        Mr Prosser: But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?

        Arthur: Yes yes I did. It was on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard.

        1. I have a copy of the illustrated Guide tucked away somewhere. Trillian was hot.

          1. Since I read Mostly Harmless first, I always pictured her like Kate Bolduan or some such.

            1. That is bizarre I started with that one, too. Then I found So Long. The library wasn’t very well stocked. It wasn’t until years later that I was gifted the omnibus edition and read it all.

              1. I founds Mostly Harmless in a book exchange bin at school. Then I got the omnibus years later.

    2. And then you get ventillated for the ‘futive movement’ when you go for your lawyer.

    3. The libertarian moment partially involves using the freer flow of information and the legal power at your disposal to push back against law enforcement overreach.

    4. “So the great libertarian moment involves walking around with a lawyer in your pocket? Good call.”

      It involves the population becoming aware of the need for one.

      1. Let me change my statement then.

        So the great libertarian moment involves walking around with a lawyer in your pocket because you know you need one? Good call.

        1. No that’s still wrong. The Libertarian Moment is about information and power dispersal. See Hugh’s comment above.

          1. Alright, let me fix it again.

            So the great libertarian moment involves walking around with a lawyer in your pocket because one day a cop is going to try to screw you over and aren’t you glad you knew you were going to need a lawyer? Good call.

            1. No, you’re still being stupid. The Libertarian Moment is about access to options and knowledge.

              1. And where do the options and knowledge come from? How do you get access to that source?

                1. How?

                  How did you get here? Like that. Ta-da.

                  1. So getting legal advice from the Internet is as good as having a lawyer? Phew, I don’t know any lawyers.

                    1. ^^The Fuck?^^

                    2. Sparky took the whole “Libertarian Moment” really seriously and got burned bad.

                      Now it’s his topic of choice in every conversation thread.

  5. ‘Prosectuor’

    Reason’s Editor in Chief strikes again.

    1. Edit? Edit?

      If the commentariat can’t be arsed to check their work before submission, then there’s no reason the staff should either, bigods.

      1. I’m not being paid to be a snarky crumudgeon, they are.

        1. That sentence really speaks for itself.

          1. Yes, since they are being paid for this, they can make the effort to check their work. Since I’m not being paid, I can’t be arsed to check my work.

            1. They’re required to maintain and calibrate their sarc-ometers on a far more rigorous schedule as well. Truly, it is indeed a hard-knock life.

              1. My Model 82 Sarcasm Detector has been faulty for many years now. It’s too high a voltage for newer midplanes, but incompatable with older components. Sadly, it’s also hard-wired into my brain.

                1. If only you were getting paid in secret Reason Kochbucks, you could install the newest version. And the spellcheck module that Gillespie doesn’t seem to use.

            2. Its one thing to have a typo that spellcheck won’t catch.

              Its another to have one that spellcheck will, and did, catch.

              Bad Editor! Bad! [swats nose with rolled up newspaper]

              1. Y’all’s cisnormative, prescriptivist spelling covnentions are literally Hitler!

                1. You know who else wore a black leather jacket…

                  1. Arnold Ernst Toht?

                    1. +1 red hot amulet

              2. [swats nose with rolled up newspaper]

                You’re doing it wrong, R C.

      2. Reason’s Editor in Chief strikes again.

        It’s the libertarian moment, not minutes. Who has time for editing?

      3. Who in the hell reads the articles?

        1. I’m just here for the….wait a goddamned minute. We don’t have a cis shitlady hetero woman version of Lobster Girl????

  6. There should be an “Attorney App” for iPhone and Android. When you say, “I need to speak with my attorney” the app is automatically activated. When it is asked any question, it replies, “My client declines to answer.” After six questions it says, “Either charge my client or release him or her”. The app can be a picture of Max Headroom as the attorney.

    1. “Are you licenced to Practice law in the state of statopia?”

      /cop to apptorney

      1. You’re about to get disbarred, don’t let’s make it disbeaten, too.

  7. Are police procedural putting forth “now or never” as the way the law actually works or are they presenting it as a clever tactic to make the guilty bastards talk?

    1. They do that on non-fiction shows like The First 48 in interrogations. It’s standard practice, along with “what you do in this room right now will affect the course of the rest of your life” and “I know you did it, I just want to know why”.

  8. So how does one hire an attorney after being arrested, anyway? Are the cops required to hand you a phone and phone book, or what?

    1. No, if you don’t have private coverage, you get single-payer legal representation.

    2. Well, with any luck you already have a criminal defense attorney that you have chatted with, and have their number in your cell phone.

      1. I think what he’s asking is what happens if aren’t on a first-name basis with any particular member of the shyster species.

  9. During the interview, the officer told internal affairs he believed the device in the decedent’s hand to be one of those “cell phone guns” which have recently flooded the area. In fear for his life, the officer fired when the suspect raised the device. No further action is expected to be taken.
    The officer is now undergoing counseling and is on disability leave.

    1. And if you or I were trying to justify a shooting based on an internet meme, we would be laughed out of court and into jail.

  10. The FBI agents and the federal prosecutors assigned to the case didn’t understand the science and didn’t bother to learn it, so they proceeded based on a false premise.

    “Dammit, Jim, I’m a prosecutor, not a physicist!”

  11. Never talk to the police

    The insights from the police officer are valuable.

  12. Sometimes the government gets complex things wrong like that

    If the law is so complex that the people who are supposed to understand and enforce can’t understand and properly enforce it, then it needs to be done away with. Full stop. Otherwise it’s just arbitrary and capricious.

    1. Otherwise it’s just arbitrary and capricious.

      That’s the point. It’s supposed to be. When the law is so complex that everyone is a criminal, then government agents can bust anyone who they don’t like. Rule of man, not rule of law. And the men who rule us like it that way.

      1. Insert “we want those laws to be broken” quote from Atlas Shrugged.

        1. Dr. Floyd Ferris is the single most self-aware villain in that book and that makes him all the more effective.

    2. *Or* “a reasonable mistake of law”.

    3. Oh c’mon, ignorance of the law is no excuse and all that shit. You can even get it on a tshirt

      http://www.zazzle.com/a_t_shir…..3345986048

      Incidentally, I saw one of these shirts in the wild on a law student. I wanted to beat him with my carryon.

      1. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you’re a cop.

        1. Or Hillary

            1. A million dollars. What are you going to do with it?

              I don’t know. All I know is, I finally got enough money…that I can buy my way out of anything. I can do anything I want when I get my money later. And I won! Finally Big Ern is above the law! Its a great feeling.

              1. Just now, during lunch, I overheard a couple older gentlemen discuss the 2016 race. After disparaging the GOP for a few minutes they began lauding Hillary’s unique competence in handling politics. She’s uniquely qualified for the office because she has the political experience that neither Biden nor Sanders possess. After a few minutes it became obvious that what they really meant is that Hillary can get out of scrapes. That’s it. That’s all these two cared about: the GOP can’t nail her to the wall so she’s they’re gal.

                The party of big ideas.

                1. Overhearing crap like that causes me to need to immediately leave the area. I cannot believe the number of people who have no issues with her ethics.

  13. You’re just going to make the cop madder.

    1. True, but unless he’s going to kill me, I’d rather him be mad without incriminating testimony than happy with it.

  14. Power is changing throughout our society, with the high-and-the-mighty being leveled with us little people.

    Hmm. Not so sure about this. If there’s one thing crony systems do, and do well, its ensure that the H & M are not treated the same as the proles. And our society is increasingly cronyist.

    Look at finance. Massive, galactic-scale frauds committed across multiple markets, and not one person has gone to jail. Even the corporate fines are more “disgorgement” than “punitive”, believe it or not.

    Look at autos. VW harms not a single soul with their emissions gaming, and catches a potentially terminal fine. GM kills a number of people with their ignition switch coverup, and gets a much lesser fine. Because connections.

    1. One of the things that has seemingly facilitated this is that there seems to be less direct internal competition between the “high and mighty” than there used to be. Why do the Republicans not go to the mat to nail Hillary to the wall? Why doesn’t Internal Affairs gleefully nail any cop they can? Why doesn’t the FBI joyfully nail corrupt local cops? Why is jurisdiction practically ignored?

      For whatever reason–probably a realization that they can all be in this position at some point–they are not going after each other as ruthlessly as they used to. They used to actually limit each other through competition (which is a good thing), but seem to do that far less nowadays.

      1. Why don’t they…?
        Because it isn’t as easy as it is made to look on TV.

    2. 1) I have never really seen any solid evidence of massive fraud in the financial sector.

      2) Your post makes the case that America is cronyist, but it doesn’t make the case that it is *increasingly* so. I think the perception of the increase just arises from a greater awareness of the problem, which is the hardest part. Certainly people are more skeptical of cops.

      1. 1) I have never really seen any solid evidence of massive fraud in the financial sector.

        Google “LIBOR price fixing”. And that’s not the only one.

        Plus, there is the fact that “high frequency trading” as generally practiced is fraud, which includes placing orders you don’t intend to honor.

        1. Is price fixing really fraud?

          HFT is highly beneficial to trading. Multiple studies confirm this. The ‘HFT fraud’ story is mostly crock.

          http://business.financialpost……on-markets

          1. making the prices they pay for stocks more accurate and less prone to manipulation than they had been in the past.

            I’d love to know what the author means by “more accurate” stock prices. And HFT is manipulation.

        2. Funny, when I googled it, I found out that about a dozen people got charged in connection with that scandal by both the Justice Department and British authorities, including Tom Hayes, Darrell Read, Daniel Wilkinson, Colin Goodman, and Roger Darin.

  15. On television, cops constantly tell suspects “you have to talk now, talk first, or we’ll give a deal to your buddy.” On television, that proposition is presented as true.

    I’m glad that this is starting to change, at least with some shows (though not network wankfests like CSI and L&O). There are often scenes where it’s clear the cop is fishing for answers and bluffing about what they know or what they can do to the person being questioned.

    I’m a few chapters into Elmore Leonard’s “Raylan,” and so far it’s just Givens making threats of arrest and bluffing that he knows what everyone’s done, when he actually has no clue of what’s going on and is desperately trying to construct some plausible narrative. It’s hilarious.

  16. Pope = Saves Politically Unpopular Announcements for Flight Home

    “Pope Francis said on Monday government officials have a “human right” to refuse to discharge a duty, such as issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals, if they feel it violates their conscience.

    Although the Argentine-born pontiff delved into some of the United States’ thorniest political debates during his visit, he never specifically referred to a controversy over same-sex marriages, which the Church firmly opposes.”

    He has the political courage of an Obama

    1. …by which i mean, he talks tough when there’s no cost to talking tough

      There’s hardly anything more absurd right now than Obama/Putin’s current battle-of-bullshit… although i suppose Obama’s rhetoric is more galling because of his willingness to bomb places like Libya, Syria, and assist doing so in Yemen…while suggesting that the US is some sort of agent for “Reconciliation and Peace” in the region.

      1. Bombing places does not necessarily make one an enemy of peace. Bombing ISIS certainly doesn’t.

        1. your wisdom on these matters has been previously noted

          1. It’s been previously excellent, and is currently excellent, and will continue to be excellent.

            1. Thank you for taking time to slum among us commenters, senator Graham.

              1. BURN THE HERETIC! BURN HIM! /peacenazis

            2. “It’s been previously excellent, and is currently excellent, and will continue to be excellent.'”

              You’re a connoisseur of your own brain-farts

              1. It is exceedingly generous of me to share my insights with people that think or just say that American foreign policy is about randomly bombing goat farmers. You can show some fucking gratitude for a change. Others might want to try ‘critical thinking’ some time. Emotionalism isn’t just for the left apparently.

                1. “It is exceedingly generous of me “”

                  You misspelled “presumptuous”

                2. Others might want to try ‘critical thinking’ some time.

                  Because you certainly can’t be bothered to. Man, objectivists sure are some kind of fucked-up crazy.

    2. Did he also say govt shouldn’t give funding to organizations that harvest and sell organs of fetuses it just killed? Because I hear his cult has may have a relevant position on that too.

    3. such as issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals

      Wow, Reuters, I am disappoint.

      The Pope spoke only in general about “conscientious objection.”

      1. Are you suggesting that the media is only supposed to report political prevarications, and not the context of the actual question asked?

        because I seriously don’t expect the pope to be demanding a correction to that report.

    4. Although the Argentine-born pontiff delved into some of the United States’ thorniest political debates during his visit,

      He did?

  17. So did Xi lawyer up or not? I’m not sure what’s proven by his example.

    1. Well, he’s not facing jail time for a sec 1001 violation – so I’d say yes.

    2. What’s proven is that the government is stupid.

  18. Confederate Battle Flag at School Leads to Lockdown

    WARNING: Auto-start.

    Much derp; and some mighty fine journalism: “I think the Principal handled it the right way i don’t want to give him no backlash because it’d be different if he said you know just the white kid go home and not the black kid or vice a versa,” Said Chris High.

    1. My two favorite T-shirts in high-school were this and (something very close to) this

      They would still be my favorite if i actually had them.

    2. And yes, the journalist’s ear for translating unfiltered “local hillbilly” is laudable. Its key to ensure that when you quote people, you don’t just capture their intended statements, but also highlight (if not amplify) the cultural milieu they come from, so that readers can get a small feeling of superiority to cartoonish, toothless yokels.

      1. Most readers are superior to them.

  19. In my mind, this has always been the best explanation of why not to talk to the police

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

    1. NPR did an excellent piece on how simple cognitive breakdowns consistently fuck up our legal system without us really knowing it and/or generally acknowledging it.

      Not that I think everyone convicted is really innocent, but it pretty much convinced me of the trope that’s often trotted out around here about police being wrong or lying until proven otherwise.

  20. “And let’s be clear: Power is changing throughout our society, with the high-and-the-mighty being leveled with us little people.”

    libertarian moment?

    1. Guess I should have read on. Libertarian moment, for sure.

      It’s just the opposite, the ruling elite and their goon squads are behaving more exactly as they’d like to with each passing day.

      1. No they’re probably not. We’re just more aware of what they do.

        1. How long have you lived in the USA? Because you’re just completely 100% wrong about that.

          1. No, I’m not. Police violence has not increased. Reporting of police violence has, thanks to the tools and tech Hugh mentions below.

            1. How do you know that police violence hasn’t increased?

              Just because the reporting of it has increased doesn’t have anything to do with the frequency of misconduct.

              1. Here, lets try again.

                link text

                TL; DR version: the data just doesn’t exist to support the claim that there is a rise in police violence. It may be the case that it was always bad, and now seems more frequent than before due to the proliferation of cell phone cameras.

                The police were plenty brutal back in the ’70s. Didn’t the Philadelphia PD bomb a neighborhood?

        2. Not to mention we have access to better tools and technology to resist or circumvent them.

  21. OT

    Greenwald takes Diane Feinstein and her husband Blum to task for pushing to restrict speech on California campuses.

    http://tinyurl.com/pa4se9f

    One of the most dangerous threats to campus free speech has been emerging at the highest levels of the University of California system, the sprawling collection of 10 campuses that includes UCLA and UC Berkeley. The university’s governing Board of Regents, with the support of University President Janet Napolitano and egged on by the state’s legislature, has been attempting to adopt new speech codes that ? in the name of combating “anti-Semitism” ? would formally ban various forms of Israel criticism and anti-Israel activism.

    Some of that “anti-Semitic” activism includes “a series of votes over the past two years on UC campuses on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. In November 2014, UCLA’s student government passed a BDS resolution, and student governments at seven of UC’s 10 campuses have passed similar ones.”

    http://www.jewishjournal.com/c…..ntolerance

    1. You asked for this, leftists. Don’t come crying to me when it bites you in the ass on a topic so dear to your heart.

  22. STOP WEED SMOKING!! ?@ConcernedMom420 29 Jul 2014

    THE DEVIL HAS 5 LETTERS SO DOES WEED IF YOU DONT THINK WEED IS THE DEVIL YOU NEED JESUS

    1. But…but…JESUS HAS FIVE LETTERS!!!

      1. AND WEED HAS FOUR! SEE?!?

        1. Uh…uh…no?

          1. TOP WEED SMOKING!! ?@ConcernedMom420 6 Jan 2014

            Chief Keef was once a children’s movie star in “The Polar Express” before he began snorting marijuanas.

            1. Numerology has always been beyond my grasp, NutraSweet. You know, because it’s retarded. But I see that you get it perfectly. How…unsurprising.

    2. If that was by @ConcernedMom911 I might buy it.

      1. @ConcernedSoccerMom911Helicopter

    3. STOP WEED SMOKING!! ?@ConcernedMom420 May 5

      Cannibals and cannabis both start with same 5 letters. Coincidence? I think not. Weed makes you eat people. What else would “munchies” mean?

      She has a counting problem.

      1. Parody on second thought.

    4. STOP WEED SMOKING!! ?@ConcernedMom420 Jul 13
      It puzzles me why someone would smoke marijuana when it causes AIDS.

    5. STOP WEED SMOKING!! ?@ConcernedMom420 Jul 23
      Don’t inject cocaine into your penis.

      1. This is actually really good advice.

        1. I know it’s fake but that’s my new fav.

        2. Well just where the hell are you supposed to inject your cocaine, smart guy?

          1. Oh Hugh, your naivete is charming. Everyone knows that you inject cocaine into your scrotum, not your penis. Is everyone at this site a total noob?

          2. I want more intra-ocular drugs. Nobody bothers a guy who is injecting shit right into his eyeball.

    6. STOP WEED SMOKING!! ?@ConcernedMom420 Apr 20
      I just took a nap and woke up all dazed and confused. Did someone inject me with marijuana leaves?? Anyone with info please report.

      1. The Devil’s lettuce, lol.

    7. “Thank God I survived yesterday”

      “Do not injfect cocaine into your penis”

      This is great.

      1. I am pretty sure you inject cocaine only into your penis.

        1. Not if you want your sperm to be top swimmers.

      2. injfect cocaine

        That’s a helluva John-o

        1. It almost looks artistic, with the way the j & f are sort of doing an inside-out spooning.

          1. That’s called “scissoring”, Cyto. Probably not allowed in Canadia.

    8. If you enjoy shouting-at-the-moon nonsense on a more general basis, follow @dril:

      wint ?@dril 21h21 hours ago
      pissed off because people are watching their precious football instead of asking me why im pissed off

      wint ?@dril 22h22 hours ago
      looking how to become more cyber

      wint ?@dril Sep 26
      SCreaming while the road workers slowly pave a road on top of me using my own tax dollar

      wint ?@dril Sep 23
      NEWSWEEK: WHat can be said. youre a spectacular brand. like hitler without the racism
      ME: I am exactly indeed like hitler without the racism

      1. I follow Wint on facebook. I get warm fuzzies when that heavily-artifacted Jack Nicholson avatar pops up in my news feed.

  23. Regarding the accompanying picture, I have to say that Davey and Goliath was a very confusing show for me as a kid. It was one of the only “kid’s” shows on Sunday mornings, so I would watch it, but having been raised completely without religion, I didn’t get any of its religious points. I just completely missed them. So I was left going “why is this show so boring? Even the Great Space Coaster would be better.”

  24. So, which one of you guys is @ConcernedMom420? That’s hillarious.

    1. STOP WEED SMOKING!! ?@ConcernedMom420 Apr 14
      Mar[i]juana
      K[i]lls
      OPEN YOUR EYES AMERICA. OPEN YOUR i’s.

      1. Just one hit will make you gay.

  25. My husband and I have given our sons explicit instructions on how to deal with cops. My husband comes from a long line of NYC cops/detectives (he’s not a cop) and has a pretty cynical (and accurate) attitude about their general behavior. I’ve never had a negative interaction with a cop, but here you go.

    Always be polite and cooperate but never answer any but the most basic questions without a parent or attorney present. We have s family friend who’s a criminal defense lawyer and we all keep his number in contacts.

  26. I dont think smack daddy is going to like that at all man.

    http://www.Full-Anon.tk

    1. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH TIGGYFOO??????///?????????/

    2. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH TIGGYFOO??????///?????????/

  27. Things go better for all concerned if you just obey the cop’s orders and politely and calmly answer all his questions. This is their job. They are professionals. And if you assert your basic civil rights he might lose his temper and slam your face into the pavement. Like a professional.

    1. Tony Toni Tone! music was on Rick and Morty last night. I used to like them back in the day.

      Anyways, they’re a far superior Tony to this one.

  28. Is this Reason’s rehab piece after popehat embarrassingly advocated for ending free speech on the internet cuz of that crap UN report that he did not read?

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-g…..he-planet/

    What was less predictable was that Ken White, a.k.a. Popehat ? normally a stickler for detail ? would fall into the same trap.

    In his post, White even cautioned against “shrill and partisan summaries and characterizations”, and urges his readers to “actually read the report.” A case of “do as I say, not as I do” from a preening blogger famous for meandering boreathons about tedious minutiae? Say it ain’t so.

    As the sheer insanity of some of the report’s source material became apparent, White had to do a u-turn. “Further information suggests I was far too benefit-of-the doubt here, which is what happens when you write fast and when you generally despise some of the people involved.”

    “Oh shit Popehat is exposed!!! Circle the wagons!!!”

    1. Fun fact: When you’re 3+ layers deep into analyzing people’s motivations, you’re just as reliable as Freudian Psychoanalysis.

      1. They quote Ken talking about a topic they agree about.
      2. But they could quote anyone else, so this must be done for a reason specific to Ken.
      3. It could be because he covered their own gag order, and quoting him as a source is a small token of gratitude.
      4. But that’s too obvious and doesn’t make me sound clever if I say it. So let’s find something stupid he did and assume that’s the reason they wrote an article.

  29. Does that include when they want to order a Big Mac?

  30. “Officer Friendly?”
    Most of us would consider “Officer Krupke” an improvement.

  31. Re the above article and film,I might have blown my post away, so I’ll give itanother go.

    Concerning speaking with the police and or law enforcement, never forget the following. Words once spoken are the masters.

    Concerning the song and film strip, regarding No Knock Raids, when these exercises “go south”, to use a polite phrase, how often is there real legal action, spelled prosecution, brought against the offending parties and their bosses? Why so seldom, correct me if I’m wrong here.

  32. When taken into custody and told, “if you cooperate things will go better for you” the true meaning is “easier for us.” If you don’t that means they have to PROVE you did something. You have this.. …Fifth Amendment: Due Process. The government may not deprive citizens of “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law. This means that the government has to follow rules and established procedures in everything it does.

    Vicki Henry, Women Against Registry

  33. I know it’s old, but sometimes I just need to say something. I hear quite often how we need to respect police – I believe there is a misunderstanding about what respect is. Ethics are a social contract between people. For instance: not using force on another. Once one party has broken the contract, the contract is void and the other party no longer needs to not use force. Respect is also a social contract that I will honor.
    Now, when dealing with people, we must obviously treat them as individuals. However, once you put a uniform on and become part of a group you are then held to the contracts of the group. When the groups official contracts violate the social contract of respect, like stop and frisk, you are already in breach of contract by wearing that uniform.
    Is there any doubt that ALL police across the country are working under rules that place them in breach of the respect contract? NO, police should not be respected. Don’t confuse respect with fear – I am afraid of them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.