# Freedom of Speech ?



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I saw the other day were a man pled guilty to lying to the FBI. 

Doesn’t the freedom of speech guarantee our right to lie? If we have a right to lie how can we be guilty of a crime for exercising it?

If we don’t have a right to lie then who gets to approve the veracity of our statements and decide whether we go to jail or not?

Will the huckster on TV that claims these vitamins will make you taller and with better hair and attract women be put in jail?
How about the guy that yells fire in a theater? How about the two guys arguing about global warming which one of them will go to jail?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

https://psmag.com/news/should-lying-to-the-feds-be-illegal


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Doesn’t the freedom of speech guarantee our right to lie?


You can lie as much as you want, but not to the police during an official investigation.
There's no promise you won't suffer consequences for your lies.

People often mistakenly think they have some "right" to say anything they want, but that's really not what is stated in the First Amendment.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Not specific to any current event, but true freedom also contains true consequences.


----------



## Steve_S (Feb 25, 2015)

GTX63 said:


> Not specific to any current event, but true freedom also contains true consequences.


Very Well Said INDEED !


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I’ve been told the police have a right to lie to us. Shouldn’t we have that same right ? Shouldn’t the government be held to a higher standard than the citizens they work for ?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

The true point is that you don’t have to answer any question to any law enforcement officer. Don’t want to get caught in a lie and suffer the consequences- keep your mouth shut. You have that right.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Kinda hard not to answer the guy with the gun......


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> I’ve been told the police have a right to lie to us. Shouldn’t we have that same right ? Shouldn’t the government be held to a higher standard than the citizens they work for ?


Wow....Deleted.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

AmericanStand said:


> Kinda hard not to answer the guy with the gun......


Actually quite easy. I have done it,

BTW I was totally innocent. I had no idea what I was being questioned about. I asked, she didn't tell me. So I just said nothing.

To this day I don't know what it was about.


----------



## Hitch (Oct 19, 2016)

Freedom of speech and lying to the police are two completely different things.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

So when the wife asks if these pants make her backside look big??


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

'They make you look beautiful"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Kinda hard not to answer the guy with the gun......


You don't have to answer anything without a lawyer.
It's easier to not answer than it is to lie. (For most people)


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So when the wife asks if these pants make her backside look big??


You’re free to say whatever you wish. She’s also free to say whatever she wishes in return. Exercising one’s rights often comes with consequence.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So when the wife asks if these pants make her backside look big??


The proper answer is “Have you seen my half inch wrench ?”


----------



## TroyT (Jun 24, 2008)

Yes the police can lie to you to get you to incriminate yourself. If you lie to the police or feds, even if you are not under oath, you can be charged and go to jail. The best thing to do when being "questioned" by the police or feds is to tell them you are going to exercise your 5th Amendment right to remain silent. I recall a court case where it was ruled that you have to say something to that effect. Remember, anything you say even in passing to the police or feds can be used against you, even if you have not been read your rights. When/if you are stopped by the police for DUI or speeding and they ask you if you've been drinking and you answer "I had a beer" or how fast do you think you were going, will be used against you.

You should also tell them that you would want an attorney. Saying "I think I should have an attorney" is not enough. Requesting an attorney *should* put an end to the questioning until an attorney shows up. But your mileage may very.

BTW: I'm not an attorney nor do I play one on TV and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn last night, so you should talk with a real attorney.


----------



## tiffanysgallery (Jan 17, 2015)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So when the wife asks if these pants make her backside look big??


With a smile, grandpa would say to grandma, _"do I look suicidal to you" _


----------



## tiffanysgallery (Jan 17, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> Doesn’t the freedom of speech guarantee our right to lie? If we have a right to lie how can we be guilty of a crime for exercising it?


You have freedom of speech, but you're not free from the consequences of it. A right does not free you from wrong doing, like yelling "fire" in a crowded movie house, which could cause injury.

https://civil-rights.lawyers.com/civil-liberties/its-ok-to-speak-your-mind-but-dont-hurt-anyone.html


----------



## 360Media (Nov 22, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> I saw the other day were a man pled guilty to lying to the FBI.
> 
> Doesn’t the freedom of speech guarantee our right to lie? If we have a right to lie how can we be guilty of a crime for exercising it?
> 
> ...


Freedom is only worthy the of the name, so long as the pursuit thereof does not deny others of the same.

JS Mill wrote, “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”

The FBI is established and maintained by the will of the people via proxy, to protect the citizenry from those who would impede the individual freedom to move to and fro in all facets of their lives with a measure of protection and reasonable confidence that justice will be served. 

Personally I believe lying whether to the FBI or anyone else is causes harm and impedes the victims right to pursue freedom in the purest form of an equal playing field rather than one shaded with cowardly lies.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> So when the wife asks if these pants make her backside look big??


That's when you use the *5th* amendment, not the 1st!


----------



## Jena (Aug 13, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Kinda hard not to answer the guy with the gun......
> 
> You have the right to remain silent.
> 
> ...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Jenna what what do you do when that guy with a gun locks you in a bear room and keeps badgering you for hours on end?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Jenna what what do you do when that guy with a gun locks you in a bear room and keeps badgering you for hours on end?


Ask if I’m under arrest. If the answer is no I get up to leave. If the answer is yes I ask for my lawyer. Other than that I keep silent. Know your rights. Use your rights.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Jenna what what do you do when that guy with a gun locks you in a bear room and keeps badgering you for hours on end?





mmoetc said:


> Ask if I’m under arrest. If the answer is no I get up to leave. If the answer is yes I ask for my lawyer. Other than that I keep silent. Know your rights. Use your rights.


Yep.
And this too...........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ut-cant-assert-it-yet/?utm_term=.4819cbacf117


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> And this too...........
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ut-cant-assert-it-yet/?utm_term=.4819cbacf117


I find the concept at hand to be largely irrelevant to the actual issue. Under the circumstances, the detainee verbally waived his rights to counsel and confessed after having submitted a written demand for a lawyer several days earlier. Realistically, he might as well have argued that he signed a non-consent form in 1978. I rather doubt that it would wash had he invoked his right to counsel before questioning started in earnest but after actions had been made toward initiating that questioning, like making a declaration of having questions or herding him into a room with a table and two chairs.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> I find the concept at hand to be largely irrelevant to the actual issue. Under the circumstances, the detainee verbally waived his rights to counsel and confessed after having submitted a written demand for a lawyer several days earlier. Realistically, he might as well have argued that he signed a non-consent form in 1978. I rather doubt that it would wash had he invoked his right to counsel before questioning started in earnest but after actions had been made toward initiating that questioning, like making a declaration of having questions or herding him into a room with a table and two chairs.


That's how it was ruled in court too.
I actually posted that to show it's for real, that when you ask for counsel, the have to stop questioning you.
That's what Americanstand was asking about - "what can you do?"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Jenna what what do you do when that guy with a gun locks you in a *bear* room and keeps *badgering* you for hours on end?


Are you being held captive in a zoo?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AmericanStand said:


> Jenna what what do you do when that guy with a gun locks you in a bear room and keeps badgering you for hours on end?


Keep a close eye on that bear!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Look guys when you spent several hours in A room with smoky taking turns asking you questions while you’re waiting for your lawyer to be contacted they simply wear you out ! they have teams to take shifts they go out take breaks have a coffee maybe some donuts and all the time you’re being hounded how does that work out? If that doesn’t work they simply put you in a cell with a nut who drives you up the walls till you beg for the chance to confess to anything that will get you out of that cell that is the real world.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Look guys when you spent several hours in A room with smoky taking turns asking you questions while you’re waiting for your lawyer to be contacted they simply wear you out ! they have teams to take shifts they go out take breaks have a coffee maybe some donuts and all the time you’re being hounded how does that work out? If that doesn’t work they simply put you in a cell with a nut who drives you up the walls till you beg for the chance to confess to anything that will get you out of that cell that is the real world.


Sometimes not so well. But all that you describe is a violation of your rights and actionable.

I’ve heard your complaint. What’s your solution?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Anyone involved in the legal system needs to be held to a much higher standard. They need to know that and they need to be held to it repeatedly. The crime of using your position within the law to violate another’s rights should be Huge, using your position within the law to get away with a crime should be huge. 
To give an example a cop should have to ask for permission and authority to exceed the speed limit if he is seen by another copExceeding the speed limit he should face penalties 10 to 100 times those of the average person if the other cop ignores this crime because cops hang together he should be in jail for the rest of his life. It’s that simple.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Anyone involved in the legal system needs to be held to a much higher standard. They need to know that and they need to be held to it repeatedly. The crime of using your position within the law to violate another’s rights should be Huge, using your position within the law to get away with a crime should be huge.
> To give an example a cop should have to ask for permission and authority to exceed the speed limit if he is seen by another copExceeding the speed limit he should face penalties 10 to 100 times those of the average person if the other cop ignores this crime because cops hang together he should be in jail for the rest of his life. It’s that simple.


Which solves the question I asked how?


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> Which solves the question I asked how?


If police violating one's rights face prison until the second coming of Christ they may be a bit more mindful of not violating people's rights?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> If police violating one's rights face prison until the second coming of Christ they may be a bit more mindful of not violating people's rights?


They do face punishment for doing so. But in order for them to be held accountable one has to know their rights and have the courage to exercise them. Which leads back to my original statement about what to do when speaking to an officer of the law.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> They do face punishment for doing so. But in order for them to be held accountable one has to know their rights and have the courage to exercise them. Which leads back to my original statement about what to do when speaking to an officer of the law.


Not like he was describing. If anything at all happens to them, it is generally very small. The department or its sponsoring manifestation of government may get a nasty lawsuit, but there is generally not any significant punishment for the officer if any at all. Change that and attitudes will change.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> Not like he was describing. If anything at all happens to them, it is generally very small. The department or its sponsoring manifestation of government may get a nasty lawsuit, but there is generally not any significant punishment for the officer if any at all. Change that and attitudes will change.


The most common form of redress for incidents like these are Federal actions for civil rights violations, the penalties for which can be quite severe. But the bar is high as it should be. Most states do have statutes protecting officers if they are acting within the bounds of their office. But that doesn’t make those officers immune from losing jobs or careers for such behavior.

But let’s look at reality. Many say LEOs should be held to the highest standard but let a police officer shoot a suspect and who, inevitably, gets the benefit of the doubt by the vast majority of the public? What type of cops do we glorify in the popular media? The rule follower who lets a suspect walk away because he lacks probable cause? Or the one who bends and even breaks the rules to seek justice? Given the choice how many would look away if the cop roughed up the suspect “just a bit” or “sweated” him in the box to lock up the evil child molester?

More laws punishing bad actors might lessen abuse. But why should the more laws argument be any more valid in this case than when it’s brought up in areas like guns or drugs when the demand for more laws is often, rightly, shouted down with the rationale that more laws won’t prevent the wrongminded from acting wrongly.

More laws won’t protect you from the abuse of authority. What will is knowing and exercising your rights. If you voluntarily surrender them, and unless you’re being tortured anything beyond the basics you say is voluntary, you are to blame, not the police. You can rely on the same system that abuses you to save you from abuse but I’ll rely on myself.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> The most common form of redress for incidents like these are Federal actions for civil rights violations, the penalties for which can be quite severe. But the bar is high as it should be. Most states do have statutes protecting officers if they are acting within the bounds of their office. But that doesn’t make those officers immune from losing jobs or careers for such behavior.
> 
> But let’s look at reality. Many say LEOs should be held to the highest standard but let a police officer shoot a suspect and who, inevitably, gets the benefit of the doubt by the vast majority of the public? What type of cops do we glorify in the popular media? The rule follower who lets a suspect walk away because he lacks probable cause? Or the one who bends and even breaks the rules to seek justice? Given the choice how many would look away if the cop roughed up the suspect “just a bit” or “sweated” him in the box to lock up the evil child molester?
> 
> ...


Many good points. My problem is that while it is supposed to work this way, in practice it often does not. 

First, the qualified immunity laws. The standard under which an officer is generally judged is that of what a "reasonable person" would believe legal under the circumstances, or in other words anything a jury of laymen can be persuaded is plausible for a person to have thought legal. Conversely, if I stand accused, I had better be absolutely right no matter how bizarre the law or how far outside the realm of anything a normal person would expect it may fall. As you could imagine, I have a serious problem with being held to a much higher standard as a layman than a professional specializing in the application of the law is held.

Second, you are absolutely right about human nature in this situation. It is much easier to have sympathy with the cop who beats the information out of a criminal used to save a child's life than it is if the cop were outside the lines with the father who took care of the molester who violated his daughter without official assistance to do so.

Third, I generally do not believe that more laws are the solution and usually cringe when I hear the phrase "there ought to be a law...". The problem here is that for the most part there are no teeth in the law. Right now there is a man of my acquaintance a couple of years into a civil rights lawsuit against his city PD. The best he can reasonably hope for is a monetary settlement which really punishes the local taxpayer and does not individually punish the guilty officers, and he has without question the best lawyer in the state for the nature of the case. The problem is that we need laws that not only provide for making rights violations illegal but do so in a way that punishment is fairly certain rather than being guilty as hell offering a chance of serious consequences on par with the chance of winning the lottery. Similarly, government would be much cleaner if there were an actual punishment for violations of the oath of office. By contrast, violations of gun and drug laws will reliably put you in prison much longer than any normal person would want to be there. Further, there is no constitutional authority for the government to be involved in guns or drugs either one aside from general issues of interstate commerce, which is regulation of the commerce, not the nature of the product. By contrast there is both an explicit and implicit constitutional responsibility to protect the rights of the citizens.

My conclusion is that, as you said, it is supposed to work. In reality it doesn't. In my reckoning, the problem is that there is no real punishment with a realistic chance of being handed out when violations occur.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> Many good points. My problem is that while it is supposed to work this way, in practice it often does not.
> 
> First, the qualified immunity laws. The standard under which an officer is generally judged is that of what a "reasonable person" would believe legal under the circumstances, or in other words anything a jury of laymen can be persuaded is plausible for a person to have thought legal. Conversely, if I stand accused, I had better be absolutely right no matter how bizarre the law or how far outside the realm of anything a normal person would expect it may fall. As you could imagine, I have a serious problem with being held to a much higher standard as a layman than a professional specializing in the application of the law is held.
> 
> ...


There is the real chance of realistic punishment being handed out. It’s low but it exists. The problem I have with your stance is that you wish to wait until you have surrendered your rights and then seek redress. Don’t surrender those rights in the first place and you’ll have no need to seek such redress. And if you then do have cause to do so the case should be much easier to make.

You cannot complain that a jury of “laymen” is unable to properly adjudicate a case involving law enforcement officers without throwing our entire system of jurisprudence. Should only plumbers be on the jury involving a civil suit regarding a bad plumbing contractor? Only doctors on malpractice cases? Often times those who commit crimes while in an official capacity are held to higher standards in the sentencing process. That’s where such things are rightly considered.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> There is the real chance of realistic punishment being handed out. It’s low but it exists. The problem I have with your stance is that you wish to wait until you have surrendered your rights and then seek redress. Don’t surrender those rights in the first place and you’ll have no need to seek such redress. And if you then do have cause to do so the case should be much easier to make.
> 
> You cannot complain that a jury of “laymen” is unable to properly adjudicate a case involving law enforcement officers without throwing our entire system of jurisprudence. Should only plumbers be on the jury involving a civil suit regarding a bad plumbing contractor? Only doctors on malpractice cases? Often times those who commit crimes while in an official capacity are held to higher standards in the sentencing process. That’s where such things are rightly considered.


It seems that I failed to make clear that my problem with the punishment is not that it does not exist but rather that the guilty party has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than actually being punished. That is not a realistic or effective punishment.

My problem with the jury is not supposing that laymen are incapable of doing the job but rather that a professional lawman, who supposedly understands the law he is enforcing, is held by the qualified immunity laws only to the standard that 12 laymen can be convinced that a 'reasonable person' or in other words the average person on the sidewalk would anticipate to be legal rather than what the law actually is, but when I stand accused, if I am not more perfect than God, no matter how obscure the law, I am on the way to the Gray Bar Hotel. Why am I held to the standard of perfection while a professional is held to a much lower standard?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> It seems that I failed to make clear that my problem with the punishment is not that it does not exist but rather that the guilty party has a greater chance of being struck by lightning than actually being punished. That is not a realistic or effective punishment.
> 
> My problem with the jury is not supposing that laymen are incapable of doing the job but rather that a professional lawman, who supposedly understands the law he is enforcing, is held by the qualified immunity laws only to the standard that 12 laymen can be convinced that a 'reasonable person' or in other words the average person on the sidewalk would anticipate to be legal rather than what the law actually is, but when I stand accused, if I am not more perfect than God, no matter how obscure the law, I am on the way to the Gray Bar Hotel. Why am I held to the standard of perfection while a professional is held to a much lower standard?


You’re not. You’re held to whatever those twelve jurors decide. Just as the officer is. Many laws that affect common citizens have the “reasonable standard” exemption. The qualified exemptions and reasonable standard laws can be misused but imagine a world without them where every action of a police officer is subject to lawsuit.

But the bigger issue is still that you wish to rely on some law to protect your rights rather than protecting them yourself by simply asserting them.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> You’re not. You’re held to whatever those twelve jurors decide. Just as the officer is. Many laws that affect common citizens have the “reasonable standard” exemption. The qualified exemptions and reasonable standard laws can be misused but imagine a world without them where every action of a police officer is subject to lawsuit.
> 
> But the bigger issue is still that you wish to rely on some law to protect your rights rather than protecting them yourself by simply asserting them.


No. You are simply not correct. According to the law, most any of us are held to exactly what the law says, as in ignorance of the law is no excuse. By contrast, under the qualified immunity laws, police are held only to the standard of what a 'reasonable person' would believe the law to be--or, in other words, ignorance of the law IS an excuse so long as you can convince a jury that your incorrect understanding of the law is plausible.

Oh, and one other thing...when it comes to asserting my rights and the rights of those I hold dear, you have absolutely no idea just how ruthless I can be, and how much so I have been in the past.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

mmoetc said:


> Ask if I’m under arrest. If the answer is no I get up to leave. If the answer is yes I ask for my lawyer. Other than that I keep silent. Know your rights. Use your rights.


No, this is wrong.
The police have the right to detain you without arrest. The length of detainment, as I recall, is generally limited to the situation, but in no case should exceed 20 minutes. Its not a hard and fast rule however. 

The proper question isn't "am I under arrest?", its "Am I being detained?". In many states, you are not even required to identify yourself unless you're under arrest and they can't arrest you just to get you to identify yourself.

When asking "Am I being detained?", if the police answer no, you get up and leave. If the answer is yes, the next step is tell them you don't wish to answer any questions and that you are requesting a lawyer. 

If the police are fishing and trying to get you to incriminate yourself, which is how they make 90% of arrests, that will usually end things pretty quickly.



AmericanStand said:


> *Look guys when you spent several hours in A room with smoky taking turns asking you questions while you’re waiting for your lawyer to be contacted they simply wear you out !* they have teams to take shifts they go out take breaks have a coffee maybe some donuts and all the time you’re being hounded how does that work out? If that doesn’t work they simply put you in a cell with a nut who drives you up the walls till you beg for the chance to confess to anything that will get you out of that cell that is the real world.


No.. once you tell them you don't want to answer questions and request a lawyer, they are not allowed to question you further. 

There is absolutely NOTHING you can say to a police officer that will ever help you in any way... except maybe "Don't let go of that rope or I'll fall 30 stories to my death"


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> No. You are simply not correct. According to the law, most any of us are held to exactly what the law says, as in ignorance of the law is no excuse. By contrast, under the qualified immunity laws, police are held only to the standard of what a 'reasonable person' would believe the law to be--or, in other words, ignorance of the law IS an excuse so long as you can convince a jury that your incorrect understanding of the law is plausible.
> 
> Oh, and one other thing...when it comes to asserting my rights and the rights of those I hold dear, you have absolutely no idea just how ruthless I can be, and how much so I have been in the past.


No, I’m not. Reasonable standard laws don’t allow LEOs to claim ignorance of the law as a defense but they do allow the jury to decide if a reasonable person would see their enforcement, application or actions as that a reasonable person would find proper. The exact same standard a LEO faces when someone pulls a gun on them applies to you in the same circumstance. Would a reasonable person feel threatened enough to shoot first?

The same reasonable person standard is littered throughout civil and criminal law standards. 

And I’ve heard many “tough guy” stories told on the inter webs. They hold little sway with me until I see the court documents or read the news accounts.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Murby said:


> No, this is wrong.
> The police have the right to detain you without arrest. The length of detainment, as I recall, is generally limited to the situation, but in no case should exceed 20 minutes. Its not a hard and fast rule however.
> 
> The proper question isn't "am I under arrest?", its "Am I being detained?". In many states, you are not even required to identify yourself unless you're under arrest and they can't arrest you just to get you to identify yourself.
> ...


Thanks for correcting my wording.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> No, I’m not. Reasonable standard laws don’t allow LEOs to claim ignorance of the law as a defense but they do allow the jury to decide if a reasonable person would see their enforcement, application or actions as that a reasonable person would find proper. The exact same standard a LEO faces when someone pulls a gun on them applies to you in the same circumstance. Would a reasonable person feel threatened enough to shoot first?
> 
> The same reasonable person standard is littered throughout civil and criminal law standards.
> 
> And I’ve heard many “tough guy” stories told on the inter webs. They hold little sway with me until I see the court documents or read the news accounts.


This issue has been beaten half to death on another website I frequent. When two very good defense attorneys, a civil attorney, and two prosecutors are telling me that this is exactly how the qualified immunity laws work, I am going to trust them. It is in fact two different codified standards of law.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> This issue has been beaten half to death on another website I frequent. When two very good defense attorneys, a civil attorney, and two prosecutors are telling me that this is exactly how the qualified immunity laws work, I am going to trust them. It is in fact two different codified standards of law.


I’ll hold that statement to the same standards as I do inter web stories of bravery.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

mmoetc said:


> I’ll hold that statement to the same standards as I do inter web stories of bravery.


You are free to believe what you like, but the differing legal standard nevertheless applies, just like you must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court but in civil court only the preponderance of evidence is necessary to rule against you, or in other words, the jury has to be 100% sure to convict you of a crime but only 51% sure to rule against you in a lawsuit.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

IndyDave said:


> You are free to believe what you like, but the differing legal standard nevertheless applies, just like you must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal court but in civil court only the preponderance of evidence is necessary to rule against you, or in other words, the jury has to be 100% sure to convict you of a crime but only 51% sure to rule against you in a lawsuit.


Yep. But nowhere does the reasonable person provision allow that ignorance of the law is a get out of jail free card. If anything it holds professionals such as LEOs, doctors and others to a higher standard of expectation than the common reasonable citizen.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Murby said:


> No, this is wrong.
> The police have the right to detain you without arrest. The length of detainment, as I recall, is generally limited to the situation, but in no case should exceed 20 minutes. Its not a hard and fast rule however.
> 
> The proper question isn't "am I under arrest?", its "Am I being detained?". In many states, you are not even required to identify yourself unless you're under arrest and they can't arrest you just to get you to identify yourself.
> ...


 Gee that’s a nice law. 
I wish somebody would tell the cops about it.


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

AmericanStand said:


> Gee that’s a nice law.
> I wish somebody would tell the cops about it.


The cops know it very very well.. its the citizens who are not aware of it. Unfortunately, the way our legal system is organized, the cops are not required to respect all of your rights if you don't invoke them. 

In fact, the ignorance of the general public is so profound that the supreme court ruled that when things get serious, the cops are obligated to educate you on your rights... (see Miranda vs Arizona 1966.) Hence, we call them "the Miranda rights"... "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say can be used against you, you have the right to attorney, bla bla bla"

But the truth is, the cops are trained and practiced experts in manipulation... and the only way, I repeat, THE ONLY WAY, the average citizen can counteract that training is to memorize and invoke the following words:
1) Am I being detained or am I free to go?
2) I do not consent (to searches, questioning, or any other request)
3) I want to exercise my right to remain silent

Most (99.9%) of people out there think that by exercising their rights, the cops may think they're guilty of something and then use that against them. 
NOTHING could be further from the truth, in fact, its against the law for a cop to use that against you. Its about the only thing they CAN'T use against you. Its a defensive weapon for citizens for which there is no way for the police to counter or get around... its the only defensive weapon. 

After you're done exercising your right to remain silent, you then glue your lips shut and leave them that way. The ONLY other thing the law requires after that is that you identify yourself. In some states, you have to identify anytime a cop asks, in other states (most?), you're not required to identify until you are under arrest. You are required to provide certain pieces of information.. I think its name and birth date.. beyond that, (check your state laws) you are not required to provide social security, address, job, or anything else.

The only thing I would add is:
4) Never be confrontational and always remain civil and polite. Don't roll your eyes, flip your finger, or take any action that can be seen as adversarial. Just shut up and don't consent to anything. its real simple. 

Lets look at an example where these rules can apply and not apply in the same circumstance. 

You're driving down the road because you're moving to another home. A cop pulls you over because he thinks you were going 55 in a 45 mph zone.
Before he gets out of his car, get out your papers but make sure when he approaches, both hands are on your steering wheel.

Never give the cop clear answers.

Cop: Good morning, license, registration and insurance please:
You: Good morning officer, here you go
Cop: Do you know why I pulled you over? (He's hoping for a confession here)
You: Why did you pull me over? (You just answered his question with a question)
Cop: Do you know how fast you were going?
You: How fast did your radar say I was going? (again, you're asking him questions and questions are never confessions)
Cop: (at this point, he realizes you're not going to be a moron and confess, so he says) Hang tight, I'll be back shortly.
Cop comes back after sitting in his car for 10 minutes.
Cop: Do you have any weapons or illegal substances in the vehicle? (he's looking to make an arrest to get brownie points with his commander and justify more budget spending)

Because you were moving to your new home, you happen to have all your weapons and ammo in the trunk as well as your wife's jewelry, sex toys, dirty magazines, and new craftsman tool set. 

Now notice, he didn't ask if you have any illegal weapons, he just asked if you have any weapons. If you say no, you are lying to the police officer and that can and will be used against you in court if he finds them. So, the proper answer is:

You: Officer, I realize you're just doing your job but I don't answer those kinds of questions and invoke my right to remain silent. Are you detaining me further or am I free to go? 

At this point, you've blunted his attack on you and you've put him on notice. What notice you might ask? He has to answer you and he can either say (A) "you're free to go" or (B) "You're being detained." If you don't get an answer or if you get an attitude, simply ask again politely and keep asking. (This will work to your favor later on) If he chooses option B, then YOU have the right to demand he tell you WHY he is detaining you further. YOU have the right to ask him what crime he suspects you of committing to warrant further detention. The police officer must be able to answer you and articulate a reason for which he suspects you of a crime and what crime it is. Later, he will have to explain to a judge what led to that reason.

He can not say "you're being elusive because you remained silent" _ NOW GET THIS PART STRAIGHT BECAUSE ITS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER; *Your silence CAN NOT be used against you.*_ It can not be used as reason to suspect you, detain you, or in any way used to arrest or prosecute you. 

Now if he decides to search your vehicle, he's breaking the law. 

At this point, 99% of cops will back down, realize you know your rights, and stop wasting everyone's time. As long as you remain polite in both your responses and body language, the police officer is very unlikely to get emotional about it and do anything else but send you on your way. Remember, cops are people too.. they get mad, upset, laugh and cry just like the rest of us. If you have the talent, make him laugh.

There are rules to this game and if you know the rules, you can play the game on fair footing. If you don't know the rules, they'll run over you like a truck and get promotions and pay raises to reflect it.

There is one exception to all this, and as it so happens, it applies to me. If you live in a small town like I do, and you know the police officer and you know he's not trying to screw you over, you can pretty much ignore everything above for the most part.

You: Well jee whiz Jim, my wife Barbara burned her hand on the stove and asked me to hurry home to take her to the doctor. 
Officer Jim: Hurry home Murby, but keep the speed down, I'll call Doc Brown and let him know you're coming.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> This issue has been beaten half to death on another website I frequent. When two very good defense attorneys, a civil attorney, and two prosecutors are telling me that this is exactly how the qualified immunity laws work, I am going to trust them. It is in fact two different codified standards of law.


Some random guy on another unnamed forum told me you're wrong.
I'm going to take his word for it because he knows stuff.

You've got the word of 5 *lawyers*, a profession which trains it's participants to say whatever it takes to make someone believe them.


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

This 


AmericanStand said:


> I saw the other day were a man pled guilty to lying to the FBI.
> 
> Doesn’t the freedom of speech guarantee our right to lie? If we have a right to lie how can we be guilty of a crime for exercising it?
> 
> ...


debatable to say the least but when it comes to the LAW you are guilty until proven innocent. it is a crime to lie to the law and encouraged for the law to lie to you in order to file a charge against you. I know they tried to charge me with terrorism once. I was found guilty then later the case was expunged. but still they throw my innocent but in jail and I served time.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

KandCfamilyfarm said:


> This
> 
> 
> debatable to say the least but when it comes to the LAW you are guilty until proven innocent. it is a crime to lie to the law and encouraged for the law to lie to you in order to file a charge against you. I know they tried to charge me with terrorism once. I was found guilty then later the case was expunged. but still they throw my innocent but in jail and I served time.


Terrorism? Seriously? What did you do, threaten to collect and ignite the methane from your cows?


----------



## Murby (May 24, 2016)

IndyDave said:


> Terrorism? Seriously? What did you do, threaten to collect and ignite the methane from your cows?


Its obvious the law had a real beef with him -


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

IndyDave said:


> Terrorism? Seriously? What did you do, threaten to collect and ignite the methane from your cows?


When I first moved here there was a group of older gentlemen men that had been to Korea and had put together a neighborhood watch of sorts. They liked me and took me in. These guys put this neighborhood watch together because well we could not trust or depend on law enforcement at the time. Our sheriff was a drunk who got put in jail for drunken brawling at the waffle house on a regular basis and any time we called they would never even show up anyways because we were a hour out. 

So let me start from the beginning. I was working for a roofing crew with two buddies when one buddy we'll call him mark relapsed on meth. Well we tried to help mark out because well despite being a abusive drug addict was a good guy when sober. So we tried to help Mark by making sure he had a job, food, and money for him and his wife. Well Mark had seem to find trouble every where always and one day he came to work and needed a advance on his pay so boss man being the good guy he was gave Mark a two week advance. Old Mark burn right through that in three days. Then he started asking us on the crew for money some gave some didn't but when Mark burnt all his resources up he began to steal tools and well the boss man cant have that so Mark was let go. A day later Mark showed up to give some he owed 20 bucks to their money back and when he left he left with two nail guns boss man had had-it with Mark. Next day Boss man shows up with a old sawed off packed with rock salt and tells us if you got to shot him we don't have the time or money for this BS. So it is about a month down the road and I run out to my truck to grab lunch and who do I see its mark with two tool belts and our back up compressor sneaking off. So I run to the bossman's van reach in grab the gun and head Mark off right as he is trying to drive off. I yelled freeze and started yelling and asking mark what in hell do you think you are do man well about this time here comes the boss red as red get and mad as hell he jumps in the passenger side and begins to well you get it by the time the cops got there mark had fell down a lot and hurt himself. 

Well that's how me and Mark got on bad terms. Basicly I stood there while he fell down a lot.
So now it's a few days later and Me and my wife were out celebrating our anniversary when we came across Mark at the local bar and I will tell you if looks could kill I would be dead. So I got up walked over and tried to talk to him we that didn't work he just blow a short burst of air through his lips turned his head knocked his beer on the ground and stormed out like a woman. So I walked back over to my table with my wife and sat down. suddenly I feel a tap on my shoulder and turn to see one of my buddies from the neighborhood watch and he said you guys should come on down to my place and have some of my winne I just finished up yesterday I turn to my wife and she said that sounds good but what about the kids. So we decided after long debate to pick the kids up from the sitter and let them stay with my parents for the night. So we walk out the bar and here's Mark sitting in his truck I looked at him he looked at me and I went on my way. So we get the kids and we are one the way to my parents house driving down the road and here comes some A hole riding my A$$ down the road. First thing I think is crap I been drinking and now I got a cop riding me running my tag so I go into sober mode and follow every law I can think of when suddenly the guy flys by and I see it Mark this guy has been following me at this point all kinds of stuff starts running through my head and I am on high alert but he just speeds off out of sight. So we get almost to my parents house and there it a fork in the road with a parking lot on the other side. I start to pull up to the stop then I see mark sitting there in his truck. I stop at the stop sign turn on my signal then start to go Mark flips his light and punches the gas he came barreling right at me. So I punch the gas to keep from getting T Boned at this point I'm in front and he is behind me I fly up to my parents house jump out and Mark just drives by yelling rude stuff that really don't make any sense at all. Well at this point Dads up and out the door with a 357 python blowing rounds off at Mark. Mark is squealing tires and takes off. So I figure at this point I could really need another drink and there is no way Mark is coming back tonight anyways after all this so we drop the kids off kiss them good night because they are safe and in good hands and head off to find that winne my buddy had promised. So we head on down to my buddies for some winne when no more then a mile up the dang road here comes Mark again he pulls up beside me and now this A$$ hole has a pump action 20 gage So I punch the gas and he peppers my tailed gets the truck and a tail light I floor it and fly all the way to my buddies house with Mark hot on my tail we pull down his road and Mark pulls off no one messes with my buddy he has a arsenal and every one knows it. So I get to my buddies house and jump out yelling and steaming mad my buddie come out on to the porch and yelled back with his boom stick what the hells wrong with you. I look up and realize what I just did and reply nothing he said bull get in here and have a seat. So we go in and sit down and over a very long time and many drinks we talk about what had happen that night. Next thing I know I wake up from being passed out in the kitchen on the floor. I asked what happen and was last night a bad dream he simply said you came in mad about something or other and passed out happy in the kitchen. Two days later I got cops rolling up to the gate looking for me I wasn't there I was out fishing. So I went on down to the station to see what they needed and I end up in jail on charge for a attempted murder assault with a deadly weapon and a freaking bomb.


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

Come to find out someone really did go to Mark's house that night and shoot the place up and threw a homemade bomb. Who it was I have no ideal I know of a few people it could've been but the the cops lock me up for it so why would I help them as far as they were concerned with the who thing they had their man. I kept my mouth shut and fought it out in court.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I've always tried my best to cooperate with the law, do as I'm told etc. thus far I've never had a single one draw a weapon, much less shoot me. Ymmv.


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I've always tried my best to cooperate with the law, do as I'm told etc. thus far I've never had a single one draw a weapon, much less shoot me. Ymmv.


Well it has gotten a lot better here in recent years it took a couple incidents like mine but we have a officer who basically lives here now. Which encouraged the trash to move on. So I would have to say the area is 100 times better now.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I've always tried my best to cooperate with the law, do as I'm told etc. thus far I've never had a single one draw a weapon, much less shoot me. Ymmv.


You can say that again.
Not only will mileage vary, it will vary a LOT!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I've always tried my best to cooperate with the law, do as I'm told etc. thus far I've never had a single one draw a weapon, much less shoot me. Ymmv.


I have noticed that the cops like quiet and average step away from quiet or average and they tend to be all over you.


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

In Marks defence he was a good guy before the drugs and a ****ty wife. Life has a way of chewing some people up and spitting them out.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

KandCfamilyfarm said:


> In Marks defence he was a good guy before the drugs and a poopty wife. Life has a way of chewing some people up and spitting them out.


I have heard that behind every failure of a man stands a wife.


----------



## KandCfamilyfarm (Nov 4, 2017)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I have heard that behind every failure of a man stands a wife.


Ya she is a real peace of work. Still see her around every now and then but never in good company. She actually drove Mark to hang him self.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Some random guy on another unnamed forum told me you're wrong.
> I'm going to take his word for it because he knows stuff.
> 
> You've got the word of 5 *lawyers*, a profession which trains it's participants to say whatever it takes to make someone believe them.


I'll concede your point so far as that I know them and you don't, therefore it is much more reasonable for me to take their word for it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

IndyDave said:


> I'll concede your point so far as that *I know them* and you don't, therefore it is much more reasonable for me to take their word for it.


So it's also a biased opinion.
Rationalization isn't necessarily "reasonable".

I'd bet you presented your question in a manner that made them more likely to agree with you too.
The point remains it's just more random internet anecdotes.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

Bearfootfarm said:


> So it's also a biased opinion.
> Rationalization isn't necessarily "reasonable".
> 
> I'd bet you presented your question in a manner that made them more likely to agree with you too.
> The point remains it's just more random internet anecdotes.


I didn't play Q&A with them. This stuff just comes up periodically.


----------



## resto (Dec 7, 2017)

Hitch said:


> Freedom of speech and lying to the police are two completely different things.


Correct. The former is covered by the 1st Amendment, the Latter in order not to lie is covered by the 5th Amendment. Soooo....as a Citizen of the USA, there is no need to Lie and no need to say anything.


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

If the fish kept his mouth shut, he would not have been caught.


----------



## resto (Dec 7, 2017)

Where I live, LEOs act different. They are Polite, if they are not, a meeting with their Superiors is enough. Here LEOs know that they work for me. This is a "Right To Work State". The City and County, do not recognize Unions or Bargain with them. That makes a BIG difference in the way LEOs act. It also helps to know your Local Politicians on a personal level, to get things done, as they work for me also and they don't have a Union Either. Heh Heh.


----------



## Bungiex88 (Jan 2, 2016)

Under oath you can’t lie. Well you can but if they find out it’s a federal crime


----------

