Hacking Meeting at my house

[Thorn]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

Sheesh, you act as if you were a cop at one time.

</slides eyes from side to side>

What makes you say that?

I highly recommend that people do ride-alongs in your community. You'd probably be surprised at what you see, and it is a very eye-opening experience to see the daily routine of most LEOs. I've done ride-alongs all over the place, and am continually amazed at the crap police have to put up with on a daily basis. On top of that, they are routinely swamped with paperwork, court appearances, etc. It is not an easy job.

Ride alongs are excellent for both the civilian and the cop, and I highly recommend them. They do tend to focus exclusively on the patrol side of things, but that's where most things start in police work.

[Floydr47]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

I did a ride along once, I didn't see anything that was especially interesting until the officer got me to the drunk tank and took the handcuffs off me...but that is a story for an entirely different topic.

In my area we have a TABC (Texas Alcoholic Beverage Control) officer who is famous (or would it be infamous), for his Friday and Saturday night "bar sweeps". His tactic is that he arrives in the bar accompanied by a couple of uniformed officers, either city police or ECSO (Ector County Sheriff's Office), who station themselves at the exits, while the TABC officer walks around the room picking out people to arrest for public intoxication. Due to the fact that a bar is a public place then anyone who has consumed more than a couple of drinks is subject to arrest. The arrested party is then taken to the Ector County Law Enforcement Center, booked, finger printed, has a mug shot taken, is locked in a holding cell for 4-12 hours, goes before a JP, and is fined $172.50. You do however have the option of having your case heard in court (on Monday or Tuesday), but most people just go ahead and pay the fine so that they don't miss work on Monday because they are sitting in jail waiting for their hearing.

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

Some of the worst offenders are NYPD Blue, and the L&O and the CSI franchises. All are good story telling venues, but are horrid as to police procedure. L&O also has bad lawyering. However, in my mind the CSI group of shows is especially bad, as the have incredibly bad forensic science on top of bad police procedure.

yes, many lawyers have told me that while the drama on L&O can be entertaining, it's nothing at all like that in an actual courtroom... judges would get pissed as hell at counselors making a pageant out of the matter. as for CSI, i've never even tried to watch that. was pretty great to see the segment on the Simpsons once where they made fun of it. "Yeah, that's it," remarks Chief Wiggum after a series of weird camera shots etc, "Lots of flash and no meaning."

In real life, if a suspect says "I want a lawyer" then the questioning stops. Period.

now, see, i have no grounds to disagree with you directly due to your years of exposure to these matters and the fact that i've never been placed under full, custodial arrest and taken downtown. <knock on wood>

however, i've heard from more than one person (and these are people with whom i've been relatively close and don't think they'd be making things totally up. i wouldn't put a little bit of embellishment past them, but outright fabrication i don't see) that when in an interrogation room, the remark "i want a lawyer" was first met with derisive comments for the first half hour to an hour, then the following couple hours they were introduced to numerous officers who would come in and out of the room, each separately trying to engage the person in some discussion. in the end, one person (now, this was in NYC so maybe their police force is different from others) actually had to resort to staring blankly at the opposing wall and repeating the sentence "i have nothing to say... i want a lawyer" for about two to three hours before officers stopped asking him questions and just left him alone back in a holding cell. (it wasn't until the next morning that a lawyer was finally brought in.)

it was my understanding of the law that the police are not obligated to cease questioning entirely (or even immediately) but that, rather, they are supposed to stop investigatory proceedings... they could still talk about, say, fishing or baseball. (in the hopes that the suspect will begin, of his or her own accord, to talk about the matter at hand again)

it's also my understanding that questioning even about the case isn't outright verboten... but that any knowledge gained after a suspect has requested a lawyer is not admissible as evidence. (at least not directly. one could follow up on leads then argue inevitable discovery at a later date)

i hope that those who know more than me will step in and correct my factual errors because legal and police proceedings interest me a great deal but i don't like mixing fact and fiction. help me sort out true details and valid stories from hollywood and fabrication.

[theprez98]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

however, i've heard from more than one person (and these are people with whom i've been relatively close and don't think they'd be making things totally up. i wouldn't put a little bit of embellishment past them, but outright fabrication i don't see) that when in an interrogation room, the remark "i want a lawyer" was first met with derisive comments for the first half hour to an hour, then the following couple hours they were introduced to numerous officers who would come in and out of the room, each separately trying to engage the person in some discussion. in the end, one person (now, this was in NYC so maybe their police force is different from others) actually had to resort to staring blankly at the opposing wall and repeating the sentence "i have nothing to say... i want a lawyer" for about two to three hours before officers stopped asking him questions and just left him alone back in a holding cell. (it wasn't until the next morning that a lawyer was finally brought in.)

it was my understanding of the law that the police are not obligated to cease questioning entirely (or even immediately) but that, rather, they are supposed to stop investigatory proceedings... they could still talk about, say, fishing or baseball. (in the hopes that the suspect will begin, of his or her own accord, to talk about the matter at hand again)

it's also my understanding that questioning even about the case isn't outright verboten... but that any knowledge gained after a suspect has requested a lawyer is not admissible as evidence. (at least not directly. one could follow up on leads then argue inevitable discovery at a later date)

i hope that those who know more than me will step in and correct my factual errors because legal and police proceedings interest me a great deal but i don't like mixing fact and fiction. help me sort out true details and valid stories from hollywood and fabrication.

The obligatory "IANAL" but:

When a suspect says "I want a lawyer" any questioning after that point is potentially inadmissible. If the police ask a question and even if the suspect answers it, there are certainly grounds for that statement to be thrown out.

As you suggest, it's not that the police have to stop, but that it is in their best interest to stop asking questions because after a lawyer request is made, the answers to any of their questions are not likely to be admissible.

When you start breaking out the "inevitable discovery" you definitely show off your L&O stripes. Then again, I think most exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule are a good thing.

[Thorn]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

now, see, i have no grounds to disagree with you directly due to your years of exposure to these matters and the fact that i've never been placed under full, custodial arrest and taken downtown. <knock on wood>

however, i've heard from more than one person (and these are people with whom i've been relatively close and don't think they'd be making things totally up. i wouldn't put a little bit of embellishment past them, but outright fabrication i don't see) that when in an interrogation room, the remark "i want a lawyer" was first met with derisive comments for the first half hour to an hour, then the following couple hours they were introduced to numerous officers who would come in and out of the room, each separately trying to engage the person in some discussion. in the end, one person (now, this was in NYC so maybe their police force is different from others) actually had to resort to staring blankly at the opposing wall and repeating the sentence "i have nothing to say... i want a lawyer" for about two to three hours before officers stopped asking him questions and just left him alone back in a holding cell. (it wasn't until the next morning that a lawyer was finally brought in.)

it was my understanding of the law that the police are not obligated to cease questioning entirely (or even immediately) but that, rather, they are supposed to stop investigatory proceedings... they could still talk about, say, fishing or baseball. (in the hopes that the suspect will begin, of his or her own accord, to talk about the matter at hand again)

it's also my understanding that questioning even about the case isn't outright verboten... but that any knowledge gained after a suspect has requested a lawyer is not admissible as evidence. (at least not directly. one could follow up on leads then argue inevitable discovery at a later date)

i hope that those who know more than me will step in and correct my factual errors because legal and police proceedings interest me a great deal but i don't like mixing fact and fiction. help me sort out true details and valid stories from hollywood and fabrication.

A confession is, in many ways, a shortcut to finding out what happened, but even the best confessions are usually tainted by the suspect's own viewpoint, justifications, contradictions, omissions, outright lies, and blaming of the victim. On top of that most good defense attorneys can at least cast some doubt (whether reasonable or not) on a confession. While juries find that "I did it" confessions are very compelling, usually there are witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and forensic evidence which when analyzed tell a truer picture of what actually happened.

There is nothing from the courts that states the police can't attempt to talk the suspect out of the decision to talk to a lawyer, and some suspects can easily be talked out of it. However, as an officer you are treading on thin ice to keep pressing the issue. There are those who advocate use of such techniques, and being very aggressive about it, but at some point you cross the line from trying to talk him out of it, to actively denying him counsel. Once the officer has crossed that point, he's opened himself and the department to being civilly sued and to being criminally prosecuted under the US Civil Rights laws.

I've also heard some cops say that 'you aren't doing your job if you don't press such things,' but personally, I never felt that any suspect was worth that kind of risk to your career and liberty. Telling the suspect that he's 'making a mistake to talk to a lawyer' is fair. Not stopping the questioning and actively denying him a lawyer and turning yourself into criminal in the process is stupid. Cops always have another chance with a suspect. Perhaps not with that crime, but suspects will always offend again. It's inevitable.

[lil_freak]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

Maybe LEO are like Hollywood vampires

Only the ones who work the midnight shift

LEO are paid with tax money, and taxes are considered by some as the blood sucking government.

Ahhh, why is it that everyone thinks LEO's pay checks come from tax money? If you had to do a breakout you'd find that depending on which state you live in, only 6% to 9% of taxes make up a local government employee's pay check. The rest of the pay check comes from things like extra-duty, security details, hosting training classes, and so on.

On a side note, don't forget that LEO's pay taxes too.

LEO also train new LEO, so are LEO are "made" from other LEO?

So who trained the first LEO, the egg or the chicken?

Ride alongs are excellent for both the civilian and the cop, and I highly recommend them. They do tend to focus exclusively on the patrol side of things, but that's where most things start in police work.

I agree with Thorn on this. Of course fly-alongs are usually more exciting and at times stomach turning.

[Thorn]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

I agree with Thorn on this. Of course fly-alongs are usually more exciting and at times stomach turning.

JAFO?

[Deviant Ollam]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

When you start breaking out the "inevitable discovery" you definitely show off your L&O stripes.

actually, i learned about inevitable discovery from the works of Joshua Dressler long before i did from the works of Dick Wolf.

[Floydr47]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

Between 1973 and 2006 there have been 123 death row inmates exonerated in the US. Those inmates served an average of 9.2 years each on death row. I quote as my source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...scid=6&did=110

Now, given those figures for just death row inmates would cause one to wonder how many other inmates are serving time for lesser crimes that they did not commit. I would also wonder how many others have either been executed for crimes that they didn't commit or died of natural causes in the prison system while serving time for crimes of which they were innocent. That is the very reason for someone in custody to have the right to an attorney. There are many "confessions" that wouldn't hold water if closely examined. Confessions that are obtained by deception, cohersion, or simply due to the fact that the person who is confessing just doesn't have the mental capacity to understand their action by confessing. There are some who will confess to a crime simply to gain attention. A recent example is that of John Mark Karr, who confessed to the killing of Jon Bennet Ramsey.

Ahhh, why is it that everyone thinks LEO's pay checks come from tax money? If you had to do a breakout you'd find that depending on which state you live in, only 6% to 9% of taxes make up a local government employee's pay check. The rest of the pay check comes from things like extra-duty, security details, hosting training classes, and so on.

Sorry, call me ignorant, but that information is new to me...I always believed that LEO's were paid by the government agency that they were employed by and the government agency was funded by tax dollars. I guess I need to sue the government to get back some of my tax dollars that I have overpaid through-out the years...

[TheCotMan]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

Ahhh, why is it that everyone thinks LEO's pay checks come from tax money? If you had to do a breakout you'd find that depending on which state you live in, only 6&#37; to 9% of taxes make up a local government employee's pay check. The rest of the pay check comes from things like extra-duty, security details, hosting training classes, and so on.

Yet another mark for not being vampires, but that doesn't mean they aren't werewolves!

On a side note, don't forget that LEO's pay taxes too.

Vampires in Movies give blood to make other vampires, but again, this doesn't seem to provide us with a useful metaphor suggesting an association between vampires and LEO.

So who trained the first LEO, the egg or the chicken?

Oh. Good question. Who created the first vampire or werewolf, for that matter? I'll have to check out some mythology and compare different people's thoughts on this, or maybe I'll just cite another source, which may include more facts wikipedia says the first police were Greek slaves but no mention of werewolves or vampires... yet.

[Thorn]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

Sorry, call me ignorant, but that information is new to me...I always believed that LEO's were paid by the government agency that they were employed by and the government agency was funded by tax dollars. I guess I need to sue the government to get back some of my tax dollars that I have overpaid through-out the years...

lil_freak hit it right on the head. Aside from what she said, police departments also generate revenue via traffic, parking and other fines. As far as your taxes, here at least, schools still take about 85% of the tax dollar on the statewide average.

The amount of taxes that fund police departments can be very low in some places. In one town I worked in we did an analysis on what portion the average home-owning taxpayer's property taxes went toward police services. It turned out it was about $100 year. This was about 20 years ago, and the average amount of taxes was about $3000 at that time and place.

Back when I was on patrol, I used to love the morons who would start in with the "I pay your salary" line. I'd look them in the eye, and say "Oh, YOU"RE the cheap sonavbitch. I've been looking for YOU!" People never expected it, and it usually shut them up pretty quick.

[theprez98]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

Between 1973 and 2006 there have been 123 death row inmates exonerated in the US. Those inmates served an average of 9.2 years each on death row. I quote as my source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...scid=6&did=110

Doesn't this just prove that the appeals system works (while perhaps a lot slower than it should)?

[Floydr47]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

Back when I was on patrol, I used to love the morons who would start in with the "I pay your salary" line. I'd look them in the eye, and say "Oh, YOU"RE the cheap sonavbitch. I've been looking for YOU!" People never expected it, and it usually shut them up pretty quick.

I like that...with your permission, I'll pass it along to my friend over at ECSO.

Originally Posted by Floydr47
Between 1973 and 2006 there have been 123 death row inmates exonerated in the US. Those inmates served an average of 9.2 years each on death row. I quote as my source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...scid=6&did=110

Doesn't this just prove that the appeals system works (while perhaps a lot slower than it should)?

I agree that it does, but it also proves that with better investigation and less reliance on "confessions" the cost to the taxpayers of some appeals would be saved as would allowing the innocent to sit in a cell while those who are guilty are free to continue commiting crimes.

[theprez98]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

I agree that it does, but it also proves that with better investigation and less reliance on "confessions" the cost to the taxpayers of some appeals would be saved as would allowing the innocent to sit in a cell while those who are guilty are free to continue commiting crimes.

I certainly have no qualms with that.

I often see the "x people exonated" argument used as evidence that our criminal justice system does not work; while I see it as quite the opposite. That's not to suggest that there aren't many needed improvements to make the system better.

More importantly, when is this hacking meeting and where is his house?

[Thorn]

Re: Hacking Meeting at my house

I like that...with your permission, I'll pass it along to my friend over at ECSO.

By all means! It wasn't mine originally, an my old sergeant taught me that line when I was a rookie.