What are your rights when interacting with the police?

[ShawnD]

http://flexyourrights.org/busted/bt-download.html

It's a video that shows what you should and should not do in certain situations when dealing with the police. It's aimed at Americans but some of the stuff is still salvagable for people in other countries. Laws such as requiring consent to search your stuff are in lots of countries; not just the US.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What gets me is how stupid some of these perpetrators are; on the cop shows anyway. From what little I've seen, most of which I find very offensive, an amazing number of people fess up needlessly. On the other hand, I wonder about how legal some of the busts shown really might be. In one episode, the cops had a guy around the corner playing a loud recording of angry dogs, while the others told the suspect that if he didn't confess, they would turn the dogs loose on him. This done while on camera no less!

We have a bunch of cops in the family. Working in law enforcement often changes people and not for the better. My cousin, a really bad dude who dealt with the Mexican mafia, and who worked with the FBI's anti-terrorism task force, has told stories that would scare the hell out of any law abiding, freedom loving citizen. [edit: although it was handy having him in the family when some local good-ole-boys gave me a bad time]

 

[russ_watters]

What gets me is how stupid some of these perpetrators are; on the cop shows anyway.

Not to be Captain Obvious, but two (stupid and criminal) typically go hand-in-hand.

 

[Grogs]

One of our required classes in school was Military law. We also covered a lot of civilian law too (since it's not all that uncommon for a soldier to get picked up 'out on the town') The answer to the question 'Do you mind if I search you car/whatever?' is always 'yes, I do mind.' Even if I know I haven't done anything wrong, why take the chance that the person who sold me my car left a crack pipe in it somewhere? I have nothing to gain by agreeing to the search.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Not to be Captain Obvious, but two (stupid and criminal) typically go hand-in-hand.

Not always true. Most any cop will tell you that there are some very smart crooks. But as for your average street thug, yes, having lived near Watts for 15 years, I have first hand experience on that count. They are not only stupid, they barely act human; if barely.

 

[russ_watters]

Not always true. Most any cop will tell you that there are some very smart crooks. But as for your average street thug, yes, having lived near Watts for 15 years, I have first hand experience on that count. They are not only stupid, they barely act human; if barely.

Granted - but on shows like "Cops", virtually all of what you see is the "average street thug". That's really what I meant.

 

[Moonbear]

One of our required classes in school was Military law. We also covered a lot of civilian law too (since it's not all that uncommon for a soldier to get picked up 'out on the town') The answer to the question 'Do you mind if I search you car/whatever?' is always 'yes, I do mind.' Even if I know I haven't done anything wrong, why take the chance that the person who sold me my car left a crack pipe in it somewhere? I have nothing to gain by agreeing to the search.

My sister is a probation officer and tells me that most of her cases involve people who were dumb enough to consent to a search when probable cause for getting a search warrant would have been questionable had they not consented. These are often young men stopped for something fairly routine like a traffic violation who just "look suspicious" to a cop, and are then found in possession of drugs or weapons when they consent to a search. A hunch isn't probable cause, but if a cop has a hunch and gets someone to consent, then it's a legal search. These aren't people being pulled over while under the influence or with drugs or weapons sitting out on the front seat, these are people who just fit a certain profile of "street thug."

The flip side is that even if you have nothing to hide, if you consent to the search, then you don't have much recourse to take if your property is damaged as part of the search. There are reasons other than hiding guilt that people should refuse to consent to a search without a warrant and/or probable cause.

 

[Moonbear]

Granted - but on shows like "Cops", virtually all of what you see is the "average street thug". That's really what I meant.

Most of what you see on those shows are alcoholics and drug addicts. Even when they mix it up a bit and show someone being arrested for domestic abuse or disorderly conduct or having a dispute with a neighbor, they still seem to be drunk or high in most of those episodes (well, most of the ones I've seen anyway; it's pretty much same crimes, different city on each episode).

 

[mattmns]

[...] In one episode, the cops had a guy around the corner playing a loud recording of angry dogs, while the others told the suspect that if he didn't confess, they would turn the dogs loose on him. This done while on camera no less!

rofl that is hilarious. I love it when the cops lie to people.

 

[ShawnD]

rofl that is hilarious. I love it when the cops lie to people.

And then wonder why we don't trust them...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And then wonder why we don't trust them...

I think everyone should be shocked and outraged over this abuse of power. But apparently it is not only tolerated, it's entertainment! I consider this sort of thing much more dangerous to the US than any terrorists.

 

[Grogs]

I think everyone should be shocked and outraged over this abuse of power. But apparently it is not only tolerated, it's entertainment! I consider this sort of thing much more dangerous to the US than any terrorists.

Actually, the high speed chases you see on TV make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I saw one the other day where the police were chasing a guy who had pumped gas and then driven off. The chase ended when he ran a stop sign and T-Boned a family of 4 in a mini-van. They then interviewed one of the officers involved in the chase and he said something along the lines of 'I can't believe this guy nearly killed four people over $20 of gas.' My reply (screaming at the TV) was: 'I can't believe you chased the guy over $20 of gas.' It's not like they didn't have his license plate. All they had to do was go to the guy's house later and arrest him. It's one thing when the guy being chased is a serial killer, but putting innocents in danger over a misdemeanor just ticks me off.

 

[franznietzsche]

Actually, the high speed chases you see on TV make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I saw one the other day where the police were chasing a guy who had pumped gas and then driven off. The chase ended when he ran a stop sign and T-Boned a family of 4 in a mini-van. They then interviewed one of the officers involved in the chase and he said something along the lines of 'I can't believe this guy nearly killed four people over $20 of gas.' My reply (screaming at the TV) was: 'I can't believe you chased the guy over $20 of gas.' It's not like they didn't have his license plate. All they had to do was go to the guy's house later and arrest him. It's one thing when the guy being chased is a serial killer, but putting innocents in danger over a misdemeanor just ticks me off.

Is it even possible to do that anymore?

I've never been to gas station where you didn't pay first.

 

[mattmns]

^ Yes it is. Where my grandmother lives, just outside of Denver, there is a station that let's you fill up first and then pay. Whenever anyone steals gas they just write down the license plate number and report it.

 

[ShawnD]

Is it just me or is the sound brutally out of sync?

 

[ShawnD]

Actually, the high speed chases you see on TV make the hair on the back of my neck stand up. I saw one the other day where the police were chasing a guy who had pumped gas and then driven off. The chase ended when he ran a stop sign and T-Boned a family of 4 in a mini-van. They then interviewed one of the officers involved in the chase and he said something along the lines of 'I can't believe this guy nearly killed four people over $20 of gas.' My reply (screaming at the TV) was: 'I can't believe you chased the guy over $20 of gas.' It's not like they didn't have his license plate. All they had to do was go to the guy's house later and arrest him. It's one thing when the guy being chased is a serial killer, but putting innocents in danger over a misdemeanor just ticks me off.

TV cops say crap like that all the time. I remember one specific segment where a robber stopped at a gas station. A pig slammed his car into the suspect, and pushed the suspect's car into the gas pump causing a huge fire that was out of control. The cop then blamed the fire on the criminal.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Admittedly there are cops out there that are not nice people and do things that they ought not do. Really though, not cooperating with a police officer is likely to get you in more trouble than cooperating.
My uncle was a hippie stoner. When he lived around here in Orange County he got pulled over often and always refused to allow the police to search his vehicle. Eventually they got to know him and hasseled him when ever they had the opertunity until the point that he had enough and moved someplace else.

 

[Pengwuino]

Not always true. Most any cop will tell you that there are some very smart crooks. But as for your average street thug, yes, having lived near Watts for 15 years, I have first hand experience on that count. They are not only stupid, they barely act human; if barely.

The smart criminals don't do stuff that will get them shown on Cops lol.

 

[Pengwuino]

TV cops say crap like that all the time. I remember one specific segment where a robber stopped at a gas station. A pig slammed his car into the suspect, and pushed the suspect's car into the gas pump causing a huge fire that was out of control. The cop then blamed the fire on the criminal.

Well if he ran from the cop, yes, yes it is his fault lol.

 

[ShawnD]

Next we'll see suspects running from cops, then cops opening fire on public streets trying to take the suspect down. "He's a madman trying to run away; he killed 4 innocent bystanders"

 

[Pengwuino]

Well in the US, if you shoot at cops and they return fire and kill you, cops can be sued for 'wrongful death'. I think cops are suppose to dodge bullets according to lawyers.

 

[Grogs]

Well in the US, if you shoot at cops and they return fire and kill you, cops can be sued for 'wrongful death'. I think cops are suppose to dodge bullets according to lawyers.

One of the witnesses the prosecution would call to the stand would most likely be an instructor from the police academy. He/she would testify that, in short, the officer should not return fire unless they have a clear line-of-fire, i.e. no bystanders between or behind the suspect. If there are, you take cover and wait until you have a clear shot. I'm not talking about a criminal who's 2 feet away here, obviously. If the choice is shoot or be shot, you do what you have to.

In general though, the policeman is supposed to be the calm one in the situation. While the criminal is panicking/firing wildly/etc he's supposed to remain calm, asses the situation, and take whatever action is in the public's best interest. Sometimes that means letting a criminal get away rather than risking innocent lives in a shoot-out. Nobody ever said it's supposed to be an easy job.

 

[Danger]

Well in the US, if you shoot at cops and they return fire and kill you, cops can be sued for 'wrongful death'.

One useful thing that I was taught in my high school law class was that if you shoot someone, make sure he's dead. His family can still sue, but at least the eye-witness is out of the picture. (They also told us that if we kill someone on our property, drag him into the house before the law shows up. Forensics has progressed enough since then that it probably won't fly, but it might give 'reasonable doubt' about the circumstances.)

 

[selfAdjoint]

One useful thing that I was taught in my high school law class was that if you shoot someone, make sure he's dead. His family can still sue, but at least the eye-witness is out of the picture. (They also told us that if we kill someone on our property, drag him into the house before the law shows up. Forensics has progressed enough since then that it probably won't fly, but it might give 'reasonable doubt' about the circumstances.)

Wow, that was some high school law class! Did you guys need that advice?

 

[FredGarvin]

Danger, where'd you go to high school? South Central L.A.?

 

[Danger]

Danger, where'd you go to high school? South Central L.A.?

A mere stone's throw from Hypatia (not quite literally). 35 SE of Detroit, on our side of the border. High school was only 3 years after the riots, Detroit had the highest murder rate in North America, and occassionally a hood or two would find their way across the line.
(Still remember one Bozo from not long before I moved back here. They checked him at the border and found 2 trench mortars and an RPG in his trunk. Claimed he was going hunting. Yeah, for Brinks trucks.)

 

[loseyourname]

One useful thing that I was taught in my high school law class was that if you shoot someone, make sure he's dead.

That reminds me of some gangster rap lyrics that I can't quite remember. The sentiment, though, was "if you shoot me, you better kill me, because if you don't, I'm coming after you when I get out of the hospital."

 

[Danger]

"if you shoot me, you better kill me, because if you don't, I'm coming after you when I get out of the hospital."

Another very good reason. My stance on fighting is walk, run, crawl if necessary; if there's no avoiding it, one of us ain't coming back.

 

[mattmns]

That reminds me of some gangster rap lyrics that I can't quite remember. The sentiment, though, was "if you shoot me, you better kill me, because if you don't, I'm coming after you when I get out of the hospital."

That sounds 2pac esque, I am thinking "hit 'em up," or "troublesome '96"

will check in a minute.

 

[ShawnD]

They also told us that if we kill someone on our property, drag him into the house before the law shows up.

I learned that one too. If you're outside, you're pretty much screwed without witnesses. If the guy is in your home, you can at least claim that violence was the only way to end the situation.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

They also told us that if we kill someone on our property, drag him into the house before the law shows up.

I learned that one too. If you're outside, you're pretty much screwed without witnesses. If the guy is in your home, you can at least claim that violence was the only way to end the situation.

It depends on where you are. Here in California, where someone can break into your house hurting themself in the process then sue you for it and win, it probably wouldn't matter a whole lot.
Another one I've heard along the same lines is that if you shoot someone you should be sure to shoot off all the rounds. Apearantly, aside from making sure the person is dead, it helps to show that it was not a premeditated act.

 

[Danger]

Here in California

I'm afraid (or maybe relieved) that my only knowledge of US law is from the media. Ours is similar in many ways, but also different enough to make comparison difficult.

 

[loseyourname]

I saw a very good western tonight that reminded me of another old adage. If you're going to kill someone, be sure to kill his family and anyone else that might someday want to avenge the act.

 

[gerben]

I think everyone should be shocked and outraged over this abuse of power. But apparently it is not only tolerated, it's entertainment! I consider this sort of thing much more dangerous to the US than any terrorists.

I agree, officers like the ones in the video are bringing up some kind of rage in me, while I am (I guess) a model citizen. It makes me feel like there is a sort of war between police and citizens.

Moreover, I think about 60% less should have to be incarcerated if they would stop that ridiculous law against drug use.

 

[JFo]

In general though, the policeman is supposed to be the calm one in the situation. While the criminal is panicking/firing wildly/etc he's supposed to remain calm, asses the situation, and take whatever action is in the public's best interest. Sometimes that means letting a criminal get away rather than risking innocent lives in a shoot-out.

No kidding. just a couple of nights ago, there was a live police chase on tv that was taking place a couple blocks from my apt in LA. The guy was on a motorcycle, so they decided to just let him get away. I couldn't believe it!

I guess the moral is if your going to perform grand theft auto, steal a fast bike!

 

[Moonbear]

No kidding. just a couple of nights ago, there was a live police chase on tv that was taking place a couple blocks from my apt in LA. The guy was on a motorcycle, so they decided to just let him get away. I couldn't believe it!

I guess the moral is if your going to perform grand theft auto, steal a fast bike!

Isn't L.A. one of the places that started the whole push to end police chases? Of course, they were the place that made them so popular in the first place. I'm not sure if it's really L.A. or CA in general. It just wasn't worth the risk to the innocent bystanders, so when a chase exceeds certain speeds or gets into a crowded area, I think they are now required to call it off. I supposed chases down isolated dirt roads in the middle of nowhere, Dukes of Hazzard style, are still allowed.

As for those Cops type shows, I'm not exactly a regular watcher of them, but the ones I've seen recently (as opposed to years ago when they first came out and rules were different) have been rather boring because I think the cops being followed by the camera crew have been instructed to be on their best behavior, so they are handling pretty minor incidents that are easily controlled and everything is done by the book. In the early years of those shows, I think there was a lot more "showing off" for the cameras, and a lot of arrests that I wondered if they even went to trial or were just released and charges dropped.

 

[shingetsunohimitsu]

In Sweden there have been quite a few cases where the police have just randomly shot a guy and then claimed "he was hysteric" or some other bad excuse. Like recently, a guy who was allegedly "with a knife and totally out of control" was shot in the chest and died because of police violence. The policeman is getting away with this because there is one "reliable" police witness to the happening, whereas the guy's parents, who also saw the thing, say that their son was in control and not waving a knife hysterically around, and on top of that he was 5 metres away from the policemen and couldn't have hurt them had he wanted to.

Doesn't it strike anyone that it's just wrong with policemen bearing arms in the first place? They're supposed to uphold the law, not go around shooting people. And the worst thing is, they never get punished for it either. They blame it on someone else and everyone takes their word for it because they, whoopdeedoo! policemen! Even though in the particular situation I mentioned, it's obvious that they should have shot him in the leg or some other place on his body that doesn't make him die.

Cold murder, that's what it is. Brutal murder. And we accept it.

 

[marlon]

Not to be Captain Obvious, but two (stupid and criminal) typically go hand-in-hand.

If you are talking about 'little' street-criminals, yes but the big fish are very well organized and mostly even very well connected to some kind of public service like the police, politics, administrations and so on

marlon

 

[russ_watters]

Doesn't it strike anyone that it's just wrong with policemen bearing arms in the first place?

No. Policemen need to be armed for their own protection.

Even though in the particular situation I mentioned, it's obvious that they should have shot him in the leg or some other place on his body that doesn't make him die.

In the US, anyway, there are three reasons why you can't do that:

First, deadly force is deadly force. It is force that has the potential to cause death. Shooting someone -even in the leg- has the potential to kill and must always be treated as such.

Second, it is only to be used when it is necessary - ie, when the offier's own life is at risk. In such cases, you need to stop the person immediately, and since a handgun is an imprecise weapon, that means shooting the perpetrator in the chest.

Third (and this may sound ironic), to shoot someone in the leg, even in self-defense, is cruel.

 

[mattmns]

I think the police only need to bear arms when the public bears arms. For example the US. iirc, the police in the UK do not carry guns.

 

[Grogs]

I think the police only need to bear arms when the public bears arms. For example the US. iirc, the police in the UK do not carry guns.

That sounds familiar to me as well. I remember reading an article about how they (the Brits) wear a different sort of vest designed more for stopping knives (which normal 'bulletproof' vests aren't very good at.) In the US at least if the police didn't carry guns, they'd be the only ones without them. The guy with the full suit of kevlar armor who stood in the middle of the street for hours while the LAPD tried to bring him down comes to mind as an example of what happens when the police are outgunned.

 

[Danger]

It would take all day to try sorting out quotes, so I'm just going to address issues randomly.
In Calgary, chases are called off after a certain length (3 blocks, I think) or speed. It varies with the circumstances. The chopper takes over after that, and there is absolutely no escaping that sucker. There are so many divisional stations that a car can reach just about anywhere within a couple of minutes once HAWC1 tells them where to go.
In rural parts of Alberta, the RCMP (we have no provincial force) use spike belts as soon as they can be deployed. The chase is more to keep track of the guy than to stop him.
Police are generally outgunned by the bad guys, unless they're a special team. Four RCMP members were just ambushed and killed on a farm near here a couple of weeks ago. Generally, I think they should be better equipped, not worse.
You have to shoot for not only the large part of the target, but it's also advantageous to go with whatever part you practise on at the range. While my first instinct would be 2-chest+1-head, I was taught to go for the crotch. The area is as large as the chest, with more room for error. Off to either side takes out a hip, low is still a bad leg wound, high is a gut or chest shot, and if you happen to hit where you're aiming, the guy will wish that you'd killed him.

edit: A friend of mine was very briefly a Calgary Police Service member. He found that he couldn't bring himself to shoot a looney who was menacing a group of officers with an axe. His partner did. Tim quit the next day because he didn't want to put anyone in the position of having no reliable back-up.

 

[hypatia]

Most of the cops I know are really good people. Their are also some i know who are not, and I know one who is down right evil.
I don't envy there jobs, or any job which requires you to put your life on the line. One thing to keep in mind, that is when your life is in jeopardy, they will be the first people you call, the first to arrive, and the first to help, and the last to leave.

 

[Danger]

Most of the cops I know are really good people. Their are also some i know who are not, and I know one who is down right evil.
I don't envy there jobs, or any job which requires you to put your life on the line. One thing to keep in mind, that is when your life is in jeopardy, they will be the first people you call, the first to arrive, and the first to help, and the last to leave.

Amen to that (in the non-religious sense, of course). There are good and bad in every profession. As mentioned elsewhere, I'm in some legal difficulty at present. I still play pool with the arresting officer. I did what I consider ethically correct, but illegal. He was obliged to do his duty. Nothing personal.

 

[ShawnD]

I think the police only need to bear arms when the public bears arms. For example the US. iirc, the police in the UK do not carry guns.

So basically I could conquer that entire country if I had a knife?

If I were a cop, I wouldn't dare attack a man with a knife; the risk is just too great. If you're using a club or pepper spray, you are within striking distance. If you have a tazer, you are assuming that it will actually go through his clothes and stop him. A gun is the only safe way to kill a suspect who just won't give up.

 

[Smurf]

A gun is the only safe way to kill a suspect who just won't give up.

I think that shows a major difference in thinking, in the UK they don't try to kill suspects.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Isn't L.A. one of the places that started the whole push to end police chases? Of course, they were the place that made them so popular in the first place. I'm not sure if it's really L.A. or CA in general.

I think that it's southern California in general. Pretty dense population with lots of cars, freeways, and highways. Also lots of dumb carjackers and crackheads.
Just the other day there were two chases in a row in Orange County. The news chopper followed one and then picked up a second one just after the first one ended.

 

[Danger]

Also lots of dumb carjackers and crackheads.

The one strange thing that I've noticed once in a while is that even after a chase is called off, the dumb bugger running away doesn't realize that he isn't being chased and keeps driving like a maniac anyhow. A couple of innocent folks got killed in a T-bone crash with a guy who ran a red more than 5 blocks past where they let him go.