I agree. And isn't it troublesome that policing in America now has every one worried about being victimized when they've done nothing wrong? Even if you can get a lawyer it's going to cost you money to pay that lawyer just to avoid getting in trouble when you haven't done anything wrong.
@@robertscheffler3584 The problem is that it isn't necessarily voluntary. If you're in jail or in a tiny interrogation room at a police station, you may not feel free to refuse to answer the police officers' incessant questions, which can go on for hours and hours.
@@Milesco Correct. It is legally correct to remain silent after requesting a lawyer. It is even smart. But then they start the "just short of torture" methods. Not letting you sleep, not letting you use the bathroom, loudly making statements (but not asking questions, wink), telling you lies like, "Joey just said he was willing to testify against you, unless you sign this waiver of your rights and give us your side of the story first."
@@robertsmith2956 How were the cops’ rights violated in the Rodney King incident? As far as Supreme Court rulings against the police: Miranda v. Arizona- The police improperly and unconstitutionally questioned people against their Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights. The police must inform people in custody of their right to remain silent and seek counsel before questioning. Mincey v. Arizona- The police were lawfully on scene with a search warrant and stayed on scene after a police officer was murdered while executing the warrant. The police were lawfully in the home and did not leave. A unanimous Supreme Court said that the police needed to stop searching on the first warrant and go get a second warrant for the homicide. Collins v. Virginia-The police had a very distinctive looking motorcycle, flee from them on more than one occasion. After a tip the police went to a residence and with their own eyes in plain view and without touching anything, could see under a tarp in the driveway the back wheel of the motorcycle which clearly indicated that it was the one which had fled. With this observation giving probable cause, m an officer lifted the tarp and got the motorcycle serial number. It turned out stolen. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled it was unlawful search even though they could clearly see the evidence in plain view. This was because it was in the driveway and even though it was visible from the street, the police needed a warrant. Terry v. Ohio- The police needed at least reasonable suspicion which they could articulate of a specific crime before they could detain a person. Tennessee v. Garner-Tenessee law allowed for the shooting of a fleeing felon if the person could not be apprehended by other means. An officer in Tennessee witnessed the break-in of a home, which is a very serious felony. As a person was running away and trying to get over a fence, the officer shot him in the back and killed him, which was legal by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that using such force, even for a felony, was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment unless the person had committed a violent act or made a violent threat. The police cannot blanketly shoot fleeing felons. Arkansas v. Sanders- The police got a tip of a man getting off of an airplane with a suitcase full of marijuana. The police saw the man getting into a car and stopped the vehicle. With the tip, the police opened to the trunk of the car without consent under the vehicle exception to a warrant and found 10 pounds of marijuana. The Supreme Court thew out the search as unconstitutional without probable cause and the tip could not be corroborated, making, it an invalid search. Florida v. J. L.-The police received an anonymous tip of a teenager standing at a bus stop with a handgun stuck in his pants. The tip gave a very detailed description of the suspect and the police found the teenager exactly fitting the description standing at the bus stop. They frisked the teenager for their safety as allowed by the Supreme Court since try had reasonable suspicion and they found the handgun and charged him. I unanimous Supreme Court threw out the detention because even though they had a very good description and reasonable suspicion and even though it was a definite safety issue to the public with the unlawful firearm, the officer still could not rely on the anonymous tip. Do you want me to go further in Supreme Court rulings that have gone against the police?
Yes! I’m over $4000 in debt right now for a wreck I had no control over after having a seizure but accused of a DUI. It’s a nightmare what this cop put me through and very traumatic. I asked to see her bodycam and have yet to see it. Why? I was trapped inside my car as she was reading me my so called rights and treating me like a criminal.
I used to believe if innocent there's no need to "keep silent" or "request a lawyer" until I was falsely accused and a LEO explained there's lots of innocent people in jail who thought the same thing. An officer's job isn't to prove innocence or guilt, but rather have enough to make an arrest and let the courts sort it out.
Everything is legal when you have the handcuffs, the tasers, and the guns and the courts turn a blind eye. We should stop trying to delude the American people that there are rules as to what the police can and cannot do when the police don't care about the rules and there is no penalty when the police violate them. That goes especially for perjury: cops lie under oath with impunity.
And even if you beat the rap, you still got legal bills. They win either way. Considering the fact we are innocent until proven guilty, we have a problem with our police system.
@Maineprepper-o1b And even if the case is dismissed record of the arrest follows you for years or life. I had two arrests for DUI that were dismissed, one five years ago and one over a decade, and they were subsequently used against me by a prosecutor. A prosecutor should not be able to bring up arrests for which a person was exonerated, and especially with no context, which was what this prosecutor did. The SF-86, by which a person applies for a security clearance, requires the applicant to disclose all arrests over the past seven years, regardless of whether it was dismissed, resulted in acquittal, or even expunged, and the reporting window is lifetime for drug and alcohol offenses. So if a person is wrongly arrested over and over and cleared each time, that is still reportable. I have an eye condition where my eyes are squinty and red. Every time a cop doesn't like the way I look I spend time in jail, I get fired from my job, and it costs me thousands of dollars in attorney fees. There have been zero crashes and I have been convicted zero times (the cops have lied pretty bad to try to score a conviction, though). It's wrecked my life.
@@Maineprepper-o1buh you have that backwards. It's you're guilty until proven innocent. Otherwise they wouldn't arrest you first. Then it's a pain in the ass to esponge your record.
Absolutely true. Once they read you your rights, you know for a fact they're looking at you for whatever it is. At that point you need an attorney. It's one thing to give a statement because you saw a hit and run but it's another when they start looking at you as part of that hit and run
@@JimDean002 I wouldn't even stick around to give a statement about a crash. If cops appear, I disappear, even if the reason they are there has nothing to do with me. Remember Richard Jewel, the security guard who was falsely accused of the 1996 Olympic Park bombing.
No matter what the situation is… Remain silent. Do not self incriminate yourself by saying a single word. Doesn’t matter if they read your rights or not. Just shut your mouth immediately.
THIS! Do not fall for the LIE that they are your friend or that they are reasonable decent people who will let you go once you explain the facts to them. Law enforcement jobs attract psychopaths, sociopaths, sadists and bullies. Sure. There are some normal people who are just doing it for the cash and the check but you don't know which one has gotten a hold of you. Talking is not going to help you. It sucks but you're going to have to dig into your pocket and get a lawyer and they know it. They are doing what bullies do best, inflicting pain on someone who won't be able to touch them.
@ FinderKeeperz: While I 100% agree, I would also strongly advise you to say you are asserting your right to remain silent. (And then, of course, remain silent.) By explicitly invoking your constitutional right to remain silent, your silence can't later be used against you in court. _(Salinas v. Texas,_ 570 U.S. 178 (2013))
It don't mater if they do violent your rights , even if you sue them , it cost the tax payers not the person at fault , so no mater what they get away with anything , biggest and most dangerous criminals an armed gang ever
You have to specifically invoke your fifth amendment rights and then ask for an attorney. And then just shut up. The two words "fifth" and "amendment" must be included in your response.
I was detained but i say nothing i plead the 5th amendment they insulted me pop my tires point at me whit guns and i still say nothing because i had no idea what they were talking about
It's imperative to understand that Miranda is ALWAYS in play when being engaged by police. ANYTHING you EVER say to police AT ANY TIME can and will be used against you if possible.
So, someone being questioned by cops wants a lawyer, and he doesn't keep an attorney on retainer. What happens..?,, they bring in their guy to talk for you..? And what about the legal fee, does he end up owing thousands of dollars to their lawyer afterwards... ?
Exactly. Our two-tier justice system is rigged toward the rich. The cops know a rich person can afford a lawyer which is why they don't ever treat them the way they treat the rest of us.
Here's the thing: asking for a lawyer during questioning _won't get you a lawyer._ A lawyer is not just going to magically appear. But *_that's okay._* Because it's really not about getting a lawyer in the moment. What it's about is _shutting down the interrogation._ Because once you invoke your right to a lawyer, the police _must stop questioning you_ until you have one present. This is extremely important, because it neutralizes the inherently coercive atmosphere of a police interrogation. That's the real reason why, if you're in custody and being questioned, you should ask for a lawyer. It shuts down the interrogation. (If you're not in custody or being detained, just say you're asserting your right to remain silent and then walk away.)
Common man. Rights can't be bypassed. A right supercedes all law or it isn't a right. It's a privilege. Your rights don't stop being your rights because someone is manipulating you. What that means is they breached their oath to protect your rights and have no more authority than a Walmart greeter. But according to the Clearfield doctrine, that's all the authority they have anyway.
Make sure you STATE, out loud, to the police that you are exercising your right to remain silent - and then REMAIN SILENT! Anything you say after this can be interpreted as you waiving your right to remain silent. Once this right is waived, the police can interpret silence as admitting guilt!
People **believe in** "innocent until proven guilty"... But they forget about the second part of the phrase: "...in a court of law." Nearly every cop believes you are GUILTY until you can PROVE you are innocent. They build a case (sometimes based poorly on hearsay, supposition, and/or circumstantial evidence) AND THEN want you to **prove them wrong.** They send the case - sometimes still purely circumstantial - to the prosecutor who will assert you ARE guilty... beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense's job ISN'T to prove you are innocent but to poke enough holes in the prosecution's case so the jury thinks "they **might not** be guilty" - they have "reasonable doubt". As this letter and others keep telling people: **DON'T talk to the cops.** "Anything you say can be used against you." But cops WILL NOT consider anything you say that COULD price their case wrong... unless your lawyer is there to FORCE them to do it.
NEWP!!! Everyone should have at least one lawyer on retainer or someone they trust to pick the appropriate lawyer for them. Even if you NEVER break the law it's always good to know your rights are protected.
I remember getting into a “fender bender” was actually break checked by some psychopath on I 35 driving through Dallas, Texas finally when we met up at a gas station after getting off the phone with the police telling them he was chasing me ,a drug enforcement officer came out to the scene and questioned me up and down without ever looking at the other guys direction, telling me all kinds of questions that didn’t relate to the stop I firmly told him I would not like to answer any of your questions anymore. I have nothing to hide and at this point you’re harassing me and I would like you to stop profiling me because you’re racist telling me because I’m from Mexico driving up to Colorado for my construction job (I’m a foreman for metal framers) and I have legal residency, messages to back up where I’m going and on top of that he tried to say my tool boxes where full of drugs , luckily my dog was with me and I told him “ I’m not taking her out because she’ll bite you and anyone who tries to touch her , she’s my dog safely in the comfort of my truck” also before all of this began I got out of my truck and shut the door “thus giving me leverage for when more police arrive they can’t just open my door” long story short I was given the other guys insurance information and as for the drug enforcement officer I told him (you need to change the way that you think because it’s very stereotypical and it could’ve cost you your job. I hope you change that mindset of yours) after which I got into my truck and left feeling angry but mostly disappointed so little was done to seek justice just some pig fishing shallow water.. but DUDE the state trooper that exchanged our insurance was super chill not even tripping I didn’t have the insurance in hand!! To elaborate we drove about 3 counties over before I felt safe to stop once confirmed police would be in the area and that’s why that drug officer decided to pull up. I still can’t forget his “meth head stare” like the mf wanted my soul hahaha suck on the constitution tyrant
exactly. People they just need to get info from don't get read Miranda rights. Reading you your rights mean your arrested/questioned and they think your guilty. You don't get arrested or read your rights if they think your innocent.
I learned from an article about scam calls that saying the word "yes" could let them splice the recording and make it seem like you agreed to their deal. Given that, I would, in your situation described, instead say, "I understand."
The way I understood that was said to me once that a fella said "no" and then there were circumstances that arose in a difficulty for them and then an attorney was designated. Don't know if that is a true event or not, just was told of a situation like that.
I made a mistake once talking to prosecutors about a crime that I had no role in and they went Perry Mason on me with some accusation from tapping my phone. I would never speak to law enforcement about anything as a result.
I have seen this very thing happen. In the situation I know, the police called the individual & told the person they were doing an investigation & wondered if the person would be willing to come in & help them because the police thought the person had information that could assist them in the investigation. The person was not told until they arrived that THEY were the one being investigated & why. When they arrived & were told so, they were also told that they were "not under arrest & this is just a conversation. You are going to walk out of here & go home when we are done." The whole thing truly was an interrogation by one officer who was a detective. When they finally left, they immediately sought legal counsel & were told by two seperate attorneys not to talk to police anymore. If police were to call & request anything, they were to refuse on the advice of their attorney & state such. The police DID call back & ask if they would be willing to take a lie detector test. They refused & told the police why. In the long run, the person ended up NOT charged & nothing ever went to trial. In hindsight, they said that had they known the truth of what was going on, they would never have gone in for the interview to start with. The whole reason they didn't arrest them to begin with was because all they had was an accusation & no evidence. They knew that the arrest could always come later. Fortunately, this falsely accused person never became a statistic of a corrupt legal system. What tripped this person up was not knowing that this was a criminal investigation at all because the detective was purposely vague about what was actually being done. Attorneys like this one are vital for the public to have in the protection of our rights. Our law enforcement from cops to courts is corrupt at its core.
I can't think of any possibility of my being arrested, but if asked why I need a lawyer if I didn't do anything wrong, my response would be WWRJD - what would Richard Jewel do.
No. That is totally useless and won't accomplish anything. What you DO say is "I'm asserting my right to remain silent." And then remain silent. If you're not in custody, *_leave._* You *_are_* in custody, add that you want a lawyer, too. These statements will require the police to stop interrogating you.
Never talk to the cops, never agree to come in, never tell your side of the story, never let the cops in your house, never let them search your car, Doesn't matter how many times its said there is always someone dumb enough to believe that police are here to help you.
In pre-devolution times the Federal Judiciary will do everything they can to maintain the "status quo" by turning a deaf ear to Common Law and Supreme Court rulings. So don't be surprised when you find yourself battling two foes (1) the defendant and (2) the de facto court. Courts are obligated to obey the Supreme Court Decisions and statutes, so use them to your advantage. Therefore perfect your case preparing for a second battle against the judiciary when or if you must sue the court directly. Remember statutes are for them to obey not us, use them to control them!What it really means is that the court proceeds at common law without statutes or codes. Then why do courts seem to use statutes and codes? Courts designated as courts of record may act as statutory courts unless a party to a case objects But who knew you can object to the court using statutes?The authority of a court of record at the common law comes from unalienable fundamental rights and may not be submitted to vote, and is not dependent on the Constitution or the outcome of elections. Courts of record proceed according to the course of the commor law, without the aid of a statute or code. [Corpus Juris Secundum vol 25 section 344 ].Inferior courts are any courts that use statutes or codes "Inferior courts" are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law." [cf. Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. ndrowi_nCul 6521if you must sue the court directly. Remember statutes are for them to obey not us, use them to control them! Judges must maintain a high standard of judicial performance with particular emphasis upon conducting litigation with scrupulous fairness and impartiality. State Judges, as well as federal, have the responsibility to respect and protect persons from violations of federal constitutional rights. Government immunity violates the common law maxim that everyone shall have a remedy for an injury done to his person or property. "No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or anywise destroyed.but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land." "Where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act iS the rightful remedy.The Purpose of a Common Law court Many people are plagued by the injustice of the courts, police, schools banks, social services and the NHS. As citizens of a common law based judicial system, we have the right to come together in our local communities and convene a common law court in full lawful legitimacy. We are capable of judging and sentencing any person, business or organization fairly regardless of the status they hold in society. A court convened randomly by the public can be trusted to judge fairly with no alterior motives. Our sentences are enforced by local community members acting as peace officers who are sworn agents of the court directed by our court appointed sheriffInferior criminal legislative and civil administrative courts may be sued directly, collaterally by a court of record at common law review without appealing, thus voiding inferior orders and judgments [c.f. Corpus Juris Vol XVII $ $ 3265-3268 (1919)].The "judge" has no discretion in a court of record at common law, and can only do ministerial functions, such as signing your orders. No judgment of a court of record can be appealed to the Supreme Court or an inferior court except by the rules of common law There is no higher court. "The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this Court would be. It is as conclusive on this Court as on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact by deciding it." Chief Justice Marshall. Ex Parte Watkins, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 193 (1830).""Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant. Fraud and justice never dwell together." Maxims of Law, Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, page 1832 • Quod alias bonum et justum est, si per vim vei fraudem petatur, malum et injustum efficitur. What is otherwise good and just, if sought by force or fraud, becomes bad and unjust, 3 Co. ^ 78." Bouvier's Maxims of Law, 1856"Ex dolo malo non oritur action. Out of fraud no action arises. Cowper, 343; Broom's Max. 349." Bouvier's Maxims of Law, 1856, and any act by any government official to conceal the fraud becomes an act of fraud; • fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a fraud. 1 Vern. 270." Bouvier's Maxims of Law 1856 • and fraud is inexcusable and unpardonable; • Fraus et dolus nemini patrocianari debent. Fraud and deceit should excuse no man. 3 Co. 78." Bouvier's Maxims of Law 1856"Once a fraud, always a fraud." 13 Vin. Abr. 539. • Things invalid from the beginning cannot be made valid by subsequent act." Trayner, Max 482. Maxims of Law, Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition, page 1862 • A thing void in the beginning does not become valid by lapse of time." 1 S. & R. 58. Maxims of Law, Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition, page 1866 • Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin Dig. 50, 17, 29; Broom, Max. 178, Maxims of Law. Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition, page 1862,Government immunity violates the common law maxim that everyone shall have a remedy for an injury done to his person or property. "No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or anywise destroyed.but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land."
Innocent people don't try to create alibis to protect themselves & innocent behavior doesn't necessarily creates evidence, so I would say that it's probably even harder to protect yourself if you are innocent because you might not have the proof of your innocence at hand.
Yep that's why I never go to the police station I only want that one time I was blackmailed online of course the cop's not going to help me so I did I talked to a person who knows how to hack I got this person in trouble for me
There are 2 lawas here the right to only answer questions with lawyer present and the protection of been silent. If they ask u a question before reading u your rights that cant be used but the second they right u your rights they can ask you questions.
When explicitly asserting your right to speak with a lawyer before talking to the police, is there a "best" word or phrase to use when making such assertion? Examples: Lawyer Attorney Legal Counsel Legal Team Team of Attorneys etc......
Real laws don't break (laws of light) Real laws cannot be destroyed (laws of energy) Principal extraction Reverse Application Equate Formulate Proof Apply for Consistency.
With that engaging intro. I'm expecting to hear an in-depth law advice, that hopefully can help with our civil rights issue. Something with a real world application. This is a surface level information, general knowledge that mass public already know. Maybe there's more to it? 😅
Save it dude ...cops just bypass your right anyway ... By ignoring them , and what are you gonna do ? Mr lawyer.. Complain.? ... ok .... To whom ? The police perhaps ...
U have the right to rember silince u have the right not to be questioned without lawyer present ur have the right to speak via a lawyer all this doesnt matter if with out been queationed u CANT KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.
So are you saying there are so many laws and they are so convoluted that only with help of a lawyer can you avoid admitting to something you didn't even know was illegal?
Believe it or not, if you are innocent and you really don't need a lawyer, we're going to try and scare you into paying for one, because law school was really expensive...or I need a new yacht...
If you are charged with a crime, _you need a lawyer,_ whether you're innocent or not. If you haven't been charged with a crime, but you're in custody and being interrogated, asking for a lawyer will _shut down the interrogation_ until you have one present. That's an extremely important protection against the coercive environment of an interrogation room. You don't have to have a lawyer on retainer to take advantage of this right. All you have to do is *_ask_* for an attorney, and the police will have to stop questioning you until you have one present. (But make sure your request for an attorney is clear and unequivocal. In fact, don't make it a request -- make it a demand: "I want a lawyer." Otherwise, the cops will claim that you were just making an inquiry and not a demand. They're scummy like that. And the courts go along with it.)
Ummmm that’s not accurate. If you’re detained or voluntarily go in to talk and are free to go they are NOT reading Miranda. They aren’t required. Only required in one of those three examples you gave.
Yeah, don't rely on the cops reading you your miranda rights. There are several exceptions to that rule, so don't expect them to read you your rights. In many cases they don't have to. You have to know your rights, without relying on the police to tell you what they are. That's your responsibility. So the basic advice I always tell people if they find themselves being questioned by the police, is to: 1. Assert your right to remain silent, and then 2. *Remain silent.* (Many people remember the first one but then forget the second! It does no good to say "I assert my right to remain silent" and then start talking. But that's what a lot of people do. So don't do it! Assert your right to remain silent and then *shut the fu@k up.)*
First of all, it would never get this far if they really thought they would even have a chance at winning. The prosecuting lawyer asks themselves, “Do I have enough evidence here to convince a 12-man jury beyond a reasonable doubt?”. Believe me, prosecution won’t even ask for a trial unless they thought they have some chance of winning. But if it’s a no way this will never win kind of thing, then you have zero worry. Jury wants evidence like videos, witnesses, biological samples with DNA, cell phone records, communications evidence, evidence other than the non-evidence of false accusations, made-up fabricated total lies stories, and fabricated false evidence, etc. They will try you to try and make something happen, but nothing ever does. But they try anyway. How embarrassing that must have been to them, me, already knowing and met their rented out bodyguard
They should be teaching this stuff in high school along with the Constitution. Even cops tell their kids not to trust the police
I agree. And isn't it troublesome that policing in America now has every one worried about being victimized when they've done nothing wrong? Even if you can get a lawyer it's going to cost you money to pay that lawyer just to avoid getting in trouble when you haven't done anything wrong.
Does anyone else get the idea this guy is a plant a mole or just a phony
@@Harrybrown4570 No
They do. I learned it in high school.😂
@@Harrybrown4570- NO.
Like the comedian Ron White, most people have the right to remain silent, they just don't have the ability!!!
They will violate your rights freely, often without consequences. Revoke their qualified immunity and all this stops overnight.
Unfortunately Trump wants to give them immunity. Seems we are going the wrong direction as a country.
@@Maineprepper-o1b Totally agree.
How is voluntarily talking to the police after being read miranda violating your rights?
@@robertscheffler3584 The problem is that it isn't necessarily voluntary. If you're in jail or in a tiny interrogation room at a police station, you may not feel free to refuse to answer the police officers' incessant questions, which can go on for hours and hours.
@@Milesco Correct. It is legally correct to remain silent after requesting a lawyer.
It is even smart.
But then they start the "just short of torture" methods. Not letting you sleep, not letting you use the bathroom, loudly making statements (but not asking questions, wink), telling you lies like, "Joey just said he was willing to testify against you, unless you sign this waiver of your rights and give us your side of the story first."
We live in a police state in Amerikkka!!!!
America is turning into a nazi state..
Yes and sadly about 1/3 of the voters. Just don't want to vote, 1/3 vote for the Jack Boots and the other third of us get stepped on.
@@Maineprepper-o1b a vote for a Republican, is a vote for freedoms to be taken away & big brother government.
@@Maineprepper-o1b "Those who refuse to engage in politics are doomed to be ruled by their inferiors" Plato 460 B.C.
Thw Supreme Court will rule for law enforcement 99% of the time
Like a slave can afford the Supreme Court. lol
Don’t read many Supreme Court cases, right?
@tvc184 cool story 👢 licker
@@tvc184 Only time I have heard of them ruling against the cops was when the cops rights were violated in the rodney king case.
@@robertsmith2956
How were the cops’ rights violated in the Rodney King incident?
As far as Supreme Court rulings against the police:
Miranda v. Arizona- The police improperly and unconstitutionally questioned people against their Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment rights. The police must inform people in custody of their right to remain silent and seek counsel before questioning.
Mincey v. Arizona- The police were lawfully on scene with a search warrant and stayed on scene after a police officer was murdered while executing the warrant. The police were lawfully in the home and did not leave. A unanimous Supreme Court said that the police needed to stop searching on the first warrant and go get a second warrant for the homicide.
Collins v. Virginia-The police had a very distinctive looking motorcycle, flee from them on more than one occasion. After a tip the police went to a residence and with their own eyes in plain view and without touching anything, could see under a tarp in the driveway the back wheel of the motorcycle which clearly indicated that it was the one which had fled. With this observation giving probable cause, m an officer lifted the tarp and got the motorcycle serial number. It turned out stolen. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled it was unlawful search even though they could clearly see the evidence in plain view. This was because it was in the driveway and even though it was visible from the street, the police needed a warrant.
Terry v. Ohio- The police needed at least reasonable suspicion which they could articulate of a specific crime before they could detain a person.
Tennessee v. Garner-Tenessee law allowed for the shooting of a fleeing felon if the person could not be apprehended by other means. An officer in Tennessee witnessed the break-in of a home, which is a very serious felony. As a person was running away and trying to get over a fence, the officer shot him in the back and killed him, which was legal by state law. The Supreme Court ruled that using such force, even for a felony, was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment unless the person had committed a violent act or made a violent threat. The police cannot blanketly shoot fleeing felons.
Arkansas v. Sanders- The police got a tip of a man getting off of an airplane with a suitcase full of marijuana. The police saw the man getting into a car and stopped the vehicle. With the tip, the police opened to the trunk of the car without consent under the vehicle exception to a warrant and found 10 pounds of marijuana. The Supreme Court thew out the search as unconstitutional without probable cause and the tip could not be corroborated, making, it an invalid search.
Florida v. J. L.-The police received an anonymous tip of a teenager standing at a bus stop with a handgun stuck in his pants. The tip gave a very detailed description of the suspect and the police found the teenager exactly fitting the description standing at the bus stop. They frisked the teenager for their safety as allowed by the Supreme Court since try had reasonable suspicion and they found the handgun and charged him. I unanimous Supreme Court threw out the detention because even though they had a very good description and reasonable suspicion and even though it was a definite safety issue to the public with the unlawful firearm, the officer still could not rely on the anonymous tip.
Do you want me to go further in Supreme Court rulings that have gone against the police?
It is sad that we know we are innocent and we have to pay big money to a lawyer for something we did not do. Either way we loose.
Yes! I’m over $4000 in debt right now for a wreck I had no control over after having a seizure but accused of a DUI. It’s a nightmare what this cop put me through and very traumatic. I asked to see her bodycam and have yet to see it. Why? I was trapped inside my car as she was reading me my so called rights and treating me like a criminal.
@ Sadly you are guilty until proven innocent.
Whether one is guilty or not , freedoms are based on how much money and time you have
I used to believe if innocent there's no need to "keep silent" or "request a lawyer" until I was falsely accused and a LEO explained there's lots of innocent people in jail who thought the same thing. An officer's job isn't to prove innocence or guilt, but rather have enough to make an arrest and let the courts sort it out.
Everything is legal when you have the handcuffs, the tasers, and the guns and the courts turn a blind eye. We should stop trying to delude the American people that there are rules as to what the police can and cannot do when the police don't care about the rules and there is no penalty when the police violate them. That goes especially for perjury: cops lie under oath with impunity.
And even if you beat the rap, you still got legal bills. They win either way. Considering the fact we are innocent until proven guilty, we have a problem with our police system.
@Maineprepper-o1b And even if the case is dismissed record of the arrest follows you for years or life. I had two arrests for DUI that were dismissed, one five years ago and one over a decade, and they were subsequently used against me by a prosecutor. A prosecutor should not be able to bring up arrests for which a person was exonerated, and especially with no context, which was what this prosecutor did.
The SF-86, by which a person applies for a security clearance, requires the applicant to disclose all arrests over the past seven years, regardless of whether it was dismissed, resulted in acquittal, or even expunged, and the reporting window is lifetime for drug and alcohol offenses. So if a person is wrongly arrested over and over and cleared each time, that is still reportable. I have an eye condition where my eyes are squinty and red. Every time a cop doesn't like the way I look I spend time in jail, I get fired from my job, and it costs me thousands of dollars in attorney fees. There have been zero crashes and I have been convicted zero times (the cops have lied pretty bad to try to score a conviction, though). It's wrecked my life.
@@Maineprepper-o1bThe gang members in the system know you are innocent, but try to destroy you anyway. And, we pay
I have seen one actually that got arrested. Not sure what happened after that though.
@@Maineprepper-o1buh you have that backwards. It's you're guilty until proven innocent. Otherwise they wouldn't arrest you first. Then it's a pain in the ass to esponge your record.
The idea that silence means guilty was promoted by Hollywood for decades
It still is my friend. Good observation.
Plead the 5 and dont talk without an attorney
Absolutely true. Once they read you your rights, you know for a fact they're looking at you for whatever it is. At that point you need an attorney. It's one thing to give a statement because you saw a hit and run but it's another when they start looking at you as part of that hit and run
@@JimDean002 I wouldn't even stick around to give a statement about a crash. If cops appear, I disappear, even if the reason they are there has nothing to do with me. Remember Richard Jewel, the security guard who was falsely accused of the 1996 Olympic Park bombing.
No matter what the situation is… Remain silent. Do not self incriminate yourself by saying a single word. Doesn’t matter if they read your rights or not. Just shut your mouth immediately.
THIS! Do not fall for the LIE that they are your friend or that they are reasonable decent people who will let you go once you explain the facts to them.
Law enforcement jobs attract psychopaths, sociopaths, sadists and bullies. Sure. There are some normal people who are just doing it for the cash and the check but you don't know which one has gotten a hold of you. Talking is not going to help you.
It sucks but you're going to have to dig into your pocket and get a lawyer and they know it. They are doing what bullies do best, inflicting pain on someone who won't be able to touch them.
@ FinderKeeperz: While I 100% agree, I would also strongly advise you to say you are asserting your right to remain silent. (And then, of course, remain silent.)
By explicitly invoking your constitutional right to remain silent, your silence can't later be used against you in court. _(Salinas v. Texas,_ 570 U.S. 178 (2013))
@@Maineprepper-o1b
😂😂😂
@@Maineprepper-o1bReal!
That's what I'm going through I was wrongfully convicted for a crime I did not commit
It don't mater if they do violent your rights , even if you sue them , it cost the tax payers not the person at fault , so no mater what they get away with anything , biggest and most dangerous criminals an armed gang ever
ATTORNEY is the only word you say ??? Continuously!!!! You Say it 147 times !!!!
You have to specifically invoke your fifth amendment rights and then ask for an attorney. And then just shut up. The two words "fifth" and "amendment" must be included in your response.
We have tricks also its called the 2nd amendment and unity
I was detained but i say nothing i plead the 5th amendment they insulted me pop my tires point at me whit guns and i still say nothing because i had no idea what they were talking about
It's imperative to understand that Miranda is ALWAYS in play when being engaged by police. ANYTHING you EVER say to police AT ANY TIME can and will be used against you if possible.
Even before they detain you, even if they are just within hearing distance of you talking to someone else.
So, someone being questioned by cops wants a lawyer, and he doesn't keep an attorney on retainer.
What happens..?,, they bring in their guy to talk for you..?
And what about the legal fee, does he end up owing thousands of dollars to their lawyer afterwards... ?
Exactly. Our two-tier justice system is rigged toward the rich. The cops know a rich person can afford a lawyer which is why they don't ever treat them the way they treat the rest of us.
Here's the thing: asking for a lawyer during questioning _won't get you a lawyer._ A lawyer is not just going to magically appear.
But *_that's okay._* Because it's really not about getting a lawyer in the moment. What it's about is _shutting down the interrogation._ Because once you invoke your right to a lawyer, the police _must stop questioning you_ until you have one present.
This is extremely important, because it neutralizes the inherently coercive atmosphere of a police interrogation.
That's the real reason why, if you're in custody and being questioned, you should ask for a lawyer. It shuts down the interrogation.
(If you're not in custody or being detained, just say you're asserting your right to remain silent and then walk away.)
That just PROVES that POLICE officers aren't "JUST" in THEY'RE CIVIC DUTY .Which means we have the RIGHTS to fight back. IN THE CONSTITUTION
Common man. Rights can't be bypassed. A right supercedes all law or it isn't a right. It's a privilege. Your rights don't stop being your rights because someone is manipulating you. What that means is they breached their oath to protect your rights and have no more authority than a Walmart greeter. But according to the Clearfield doctrine, that's all the authority they have anyway.
Make sure you STATE, out loud, to the police that you are exercising your right to remain silent - and then REMAIN SILENT! Anything you say after this can be interpreted as you waiving your right to remain silent. Once this right is waived, the police can interpret silence as admitting guilt!
Exactly , think about it. Innocent means an illegal arrest =law suit
People **believe in** "innocent until proven guilty"... But they forget about the second part of the phrase: "...in a court of law."
Nearly every cop believes you are GUILTY until you can PROVE you are innocent. They build a case (sometimes based poorly on hearsay, supposition, and/or circumstantial evidence) AND THEN want you to **prove them wrong.**
They send the case - sometimes still purely circumstantial - to the prosecutor who will assert you ARE guilty... beyond a reasonable doubt.
The defense's job ISN'T to prove you are innocent but to poke enough holes in the prosecution's case so the jury thinks "they **might not** be guilty" - they have "reasonable doubt".
As this letter and others keep telling people: **DON'T talk to the cops.** "Anything you say can be used against you." But cops WILL NOT consider anything you say that COULD price their case wrong... unless your lawyer is there to FORCE them to do it.
Yankyland sounds like a crap place.
Terry versus Ohio is the main cause of the quote unquote bypass
The 12 presumptions in law need to be known more too
I have a Constitution to protect. It is more important than anything else.
Only criminals are ever brought in for questioning
ALWAYS REMEMBER….their dream scenario is a felony arrest with every encounter! That is how they get promoted the fastest!
ALWAYS, the only words out of your mouth when being questioned by Police is LAWYER .... LAWYER ... LAWYER
I don't file taxes without my accountant. I would never talk to a cop without my attorney
The only word that needs to be said, lawyer.
Police should trade-in there slogan "to protect and serve" to "detain and arrest".
NEWP!!! Everyone should have at least one lawyer on retainer or someone they trust to pick the appropriate lawyer for them. Even if you NEVER break the law it's always good to know your rights are protected.
I remember getting into a “fender bender” was actually break checked by some psychopath on I 35 driving through Dallas, Texas finally when we met up at a gas station after getting off the phone with the police telling them he was chasing me ,a drug enforcement officer came out to the scene and questioned me up and down without ever looking at the other guys direction, telling me all kinds of questions that didn’t relate to the stop I firmly told him I would not like to answer any of your questions anymore. I have nothing to hide and at this point you’re harassing me and I would like you to stop profiling me because you’re racist telling me because I’m from Mexico driving up to Colorado for my construction job (I’m a foreman for metal framers) and I have legal residency, messages to back up where I’m going and on top of that he tried to say my tool boxes where full of drugs , luckily my dog was with me and I told him “ I’m not taking her out because she’ll bite you and anyone who tries to touch her , she’s my dog safely in the comfort of my truck” also before all of this began I got out of my truck and shut the door “thus giving me leverage for when more police arrive they can’t just open my door” long story short I was given the other guys insurance information and as for the drug enforcement officer I told him (you need to change the way that you think because it’s very stereotypical and it could’ve cost you your job. I hope you change that mindset of yours) after which I got into my truck and left feeling angry but mostly disappointed so little was done to seek justice just some pig fishing shallow water.. but DUDE the state trooper that exchanged our insurance was super chill not even tripping I didn’t have the insurance in hand!! To elaborate we drove about 3 counties over before I felt safe to stop once confirmed police would be in the area and that’s why that drug officer decided to pull up. I still can’t forget his “meth head stare” like the mf wanted my soul hahaha suck on the constitution tyrant
Remind them that they are committing criminal acts ignoring your rights and your personal safety
if any cop says you have the right to remain silent - exercise that right!
SAY NOTHING - NEVER ANSWER QUESTIONS!
Far to often, the police are after a conviction, and not justice.
When they start doing the rights you already considered guilty because they wouldn't be considering you Miranda rights if they knew you were innocent
exactly. People they just need to get info from don't get read Miranda rights. Reading you your rights mean your arrested/questioned and they think your guilty. You don't get arrested or read your rights if they think your innocent.
When they say these are your rights do you understand them? The only word from your mouth should be yes.
I learned from an article about scam calls that saying the word "yes" could let them splice the recording and make it seem like you agreed to their deal.
Given that, I would, in your situation described, instead say, "I understand."
The way I understood that was said to me once that a fella said "no" and then there were circumstances that arose in a difficulty for them and then an attorney was designated. Don't know if that is a true event or not, just was told of a situation like that.
I made a mistake once talking to prosecutors about a crime that I had no role in and they went Perry Mason on me with some accusation from tapping my phone. I would never speak to law enforcement about anything as a result.
You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be misquoted against you.
If there's no warrant then do not associate with Jackals👍.
Even a fish wouldn't get caught if it kept it's mouth shut 🎣🐟
That's called a corrupt criminal organization
Don't speak to a corrupt cup.
Call a lawyer
Moral law states that you should cooperate, and yes, demanding legal representation is admitting guilt. Paper law isn't always right.
I love the way he says wrong😅.
Silence is golden...
All of this is 100% true! (The voice of experience)
I have seen this very thing happen. In the situation I know, the police called the individual & told the person they were doing an investigation & wondered if the person would be willing to come in & help them because the police thought the person had information that could assist them in the investigation. The person was not told until they arrived that THEY were the one being investigated & why.
When they arrived & were told so, they were also told that they were "not under arrest & this is just a conversation. You are going to walk out of here & go home when we are done."
The whole thing truly was an interrogation by one officer who was a detective. When they finally left, they immediately sought legal counsel & were told by two seperate attorneys not to talk to police anymore. If police were to call & request anything, they were to refuse on the advice of their attorney & state such.
The police DID call back & ask if they would be willing to take a lie detector test. They refused & told the police why.
In the long run, the person ended up NOT charged & nothing ever went to trial.
In hindsight, they said that had they known the truth of what was going on, they would never have gone in for the interview to start with.
The whole reason they didn't arrest them to begin with was because all they had was an accusation & no evidence. They knew that the arrest could always come later. Fortunately, this falsely accused person never became a statistic of a corrupt legal system.
What tripped this person up was not knowing that this was a criminal investigation at all because the detective was purposely vague about what was actually being done.
Attorneys like this one are vital for the public to have in the protection of our rights. Our law enforcement from cops to courts is corrupt at its core.
5th & 6th amendments
Officer: Do you know why I pulled you over?
Me: Yes
Officer: Why?
Me: To complement me on my fantastic driving skills.
Officer: 🤪
And why do they or allied to trick an individual to get what they want? It causes many people to be falsely prisoned over their lies? 🤬
I can't think of any possibility of my being arrested, but if asked why I need a lawyer if I didn't do anything wrong, my response would be WWRJD - what would Richard Jewel do.
Tell them this, "you're harassing me and I want you to stop."
No. That is totally useless and won't accomplish anything.
What you DO say is "I'm asserting my right to remain silent." And then remain silent.
If you're not in custody, *_leave._*
You *_are_* in custody, add that you want a lawyer, too.
These statements will require the police to stop interrogating you.
Ok… so I invoke my rights… then what happens? Do we just wait on the roadside for an attorney to magically appear? Or what?
Never talk to the cops, never agree to come in, never tell your side of the story, never let the cops in your house, never let them search your car, Doesn't matter how many times its said there is always someone dumb enough to believe that police are here to help you.
If they can by pass something that is supposed to restrain them then the restraints never existed and when have been lied to from the beginning
BLESSINGS ♥️♥️♥️👩🏽🦳
The corruption and the judicial system that's all you're trying to teach us
In pre-devolution times the Federal
Judiciary will do everything they can to
maintain the "status quo" by turning a
deaf ear to Common Law and Supreme
Court rulings. So don't be surprised
when you find yourself battling two
foes (1) the defendant and (2) the de
facto court. Courts are obligated to
obey the Supreme Court Decisions and
statutes, so use them to your
advantage. Therefore perfect your case
preparing for a second battle against
the judiciary when or if you must sue
the court directly. Remember statutes
are for them to obey not us, use them
to control them!What it
really means is that the court proceeds
at common law without statutes or
codes. Then why do courts seem to use
statutes and codes? Courts designated
as courts of record may act as statutory
courts unless a party to a case objects
But who knew you can object to the
court using statutes?The authority of a
court of record at the common law
comes from unalienable fundamental
rights and may not be submitted to
vote, and is not dependent on the
Constitution or the outcome of
elections. Courts of record proceed
according to the course of the commor
law, without the aid of a statute or
code. [Corpus Juris Secundum vol 25
section 344 ].Inferior courts are any
courts that use statutes or codes
"Inferior courts" are those whose
jurisdiction is limited and special and
whose proceedings are not according to
the course of the common law." [cf. Ex
Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v.
ndrowi_nCul 6521if you must sue
the court directly. Remember statutes
are for them to obey not us, use them
to control them!
Judges must maintain a high standard
of judicial performance with particular
emphasis upon conducting litigation
with scrupulous fairness and
impartiality. State Judges, as well as
federal, have the responsibility to
respect and protect persons from
violations of federal constitutional
rights. Government immunity violates
the common law maxim that everyone
shall have a remedy for an injury done
to his person or property. "No freeman
shall be taken, or imprisoned, or
disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or
anywise destroyed.but by lawful
judgment of his peers or by the law of
the land."
"Where powers are assumed which have
not been delegated, a nullification of
the act iS the rightful remedy.The Purpose of a Common Law court
Many people are plagued by the
injustice of the courts, police, schools
banks, social services and the NHS. As
citizens of a common law based judicial
system, we have the right to come
together in our local communities and
convene a common law court in full
lawful legitimacy. We are capable of
judging and sentencing any person,
business or organization fairly
regardless of the status they hold in
society. A court convened randomly by
the public can be trusted to judge fairly
with no alterior motives. Our sentences
are enforced by local community
members acting as peace officers who
are sworn agents of the court directed
by our court appointed sheriffInferior criminal
legislative and civil administrative
courts may be sued directly, collaterally
by a court of record at common law
review without appealing, thus voiding
inferior orders and judgments [c.f.
Corpus Juris Vol XVII $ $ 3265-3268
(1919)].The "judge" has no discretion in
a court of record at common law, and
can only do ministerial functions, such
as signing your orders. No judgment of
a court of record can be appealed to
the Supreme Court or an inferior court
except by the rules of common law
There is no higher court. "The judgment
of a court of record whose jurisdiction is
final is as conclusive on all the world as
the judgment of this Court would be. It
is as conclusive on this Court as on
other courts. It puts an end to inquiry
concerning the fact by deciding it."
Chief Justice Marshall. Ex Parte
Watkins, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 193 (1830).""Fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant. Fraud and
justice never dwell together." Maxims of Law,
Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, page 1832
• Quod alias bonum et justum est, si per vim vei
fraudem petatur, malum et injustum efficitur.
What is otherwise good and just, if sought by
force or fraud, becomes bad and unjust, 3 Co.
^
78." Bouvier's Maxims of Law, 1856"Ex dolo malo non oritur action. Out of fraud no
action arises. Cowper, 343; Broom's Max. 349."
Bouvier's Maxims of Law, 1856,
and any act by any government official to conceal the
fraud becomes an act of fraud;
• fraus est celare fraudem. It is a fraud to conceal a
fraud. 1 Vern. 270." Bouvier's Maxims of Law 1856
• and fraud is inexcusable and unpardonable;
• Fraus et dolus nemini patrocianari debent. Fraud
and deceit should excuse no man. 3 Co. 78."
Bouvier's Maxims of Law 1856"Once a fraud, always a fraud." 13 Vin. Abr. 539.
• Things invalid from the beginning cannot be
made valid by subsequent act." Trayner, Max
482. Maxims of Law, Black's Law Dictionary 9th
Edition, page 1862
• A thing void in the beginning does not become
valid by lapse of time." 1 S. & R. 58. Maxims of
Law, Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition, page 1866
• Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin
Dig. 50, 17, 29; Broom, Max. 178, Maxims of Law.
Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition, page 1862,Government immunity violates
the common law maxim that everyone
shall have a remedy for an injury done
to his person or property. "No freeman
shall be taken, or imprisoned, or
disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or
anywise destroyed.but by lawful
judgment of his peers or by the law of
the land."
End immunity.
Innocent people don't try to create alibis to protect themselves & innocent behavior doesn't necessarily creates evidence, so I would say that it's probably even harder to protect yourself if you are innocent because you might not have the proof of your innocence at hand.
Yep that's why I never go to the police station I only want that one time I was blackmailed online of course the cop's not going to help me so I did I talked to a person who knows how to hack I got this person in trouble for me
There are 2 lawas here the right to only answer questions with lawyer present and the protection of been silent. If they ask u a question before reading u your rights that cant be used but the second they right u your rights they can ask you questions.
When explicitly asserting your right to speak with a lawyer before talking to the police, is there a "best" word or phrase to use when making such assertion?
Examples:
Lawyer
Attorney
Legal Counsel
Legal Team
Team of Attorneys
etc......
Real laws don't break (laws of light) Real laws cannot be destroyed (laws of energy) Principal extraction Reverse Application Equate Formulate Proof Apply for Consistency.
How do I educate myself about these laws/rights?
Police use to be hero's, Not these days.
What about if you are just being interviewed as a witness? Lawyer up?
With that engaging intro.
I'm expecting to hear an in-depth law advice, that hopefully can help with our civil rights issue. Something with a real world application.
This is a surface level information, general knowledge that mass public already know.
Maybe there's more to it? 😅
Every time I see lawyer Hampton videos that the audio never catches up to the video.
I'm really good at Shutting up..
Intent matters more
Go with a lawyer
Do we need to find a lawyer ahead of time? How do we find one when we're already in a bad situation? Don't they take your phone away?
Cops arrest
And
Judge is charged of your life your life in their hande
Save it dude ...cops just bypass your right anyway ...
By ignoring them , and what are you gonna do ? Mr lawyer..
Complain.? ... ok ....
To whom ? The police perhaps ...
when a cop ask you to step out your car and talk to them in the back of the car are you obligated to?
U have the right to rember silince u have the right not to be questioned without lawyer present ur have the right to speak via a lawyer all this doesnt matter if with out been queationed u CANT KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT.
May have the right to be silent...just don't have the ability to shut up
So are you saying there are so many laws and they are so convoluted that only with help of a lawyer can you avoid admitting to something you didn't even know was illegal?
Believe it or not, if you are innocent and you really don't need a lawyer, we're going to try and scare you into paying for one, because law school was really expensive...or I need a new yacht...
The district attorney, the prosecutor, the judge and the attorney you call are all in the same country club.
If you are charged with a crime, _you need a lawyer,_ whether you're innocent or not.
If you haven't been charged with a crime, but you're in custody and being interrogated, asking for a lawyer will _shut down the interrogation_ until you have one present. That's an extremely important protection against the coercive environment of an interrogation room.
You don't have to have a lawyer on retainer to take advantage of this right. All you have to do is *_ask_* for an attorney, and the police will have to stop questioning you until you have one present.
(But make sure your request for an attorney is clear and unequivocal. In fact, don't make it a request -- make it a demand: "I want a lawyer." Otherwise, the cops will claim that you were just making an inquiry and not a demand. They're scummy like that. And the courts go along with it.)
Ummmm that’s not accurate. If you’re detained or voluntarily go in to talk and are free to go they are NOT reading Miranda. They aren’t required. Only required in one of those three examples you gave.
Yeah, don't rely on the cops reading you your miranda rights. There are several exceptions to that rule, so don't expect them to read you your rights. In many cases they don't have to. You have to know your rights, without relying on the police to tell you what they are. That's your responsibility.
So the basic advice I always tell people if they find themselves being questioned by the police, is to:
1. Assert your right to remain silent, and then
2. *Remain silent.* (Many people remember the first one but then forget the second! It does no good to say "I assert my right to remain silent" and then start talking. But that's what a lot of people do. So don't do it! Assert your right to remain silent and then *shut the fu@k up.)*
how come it says there are 4 comments, but I can only see 3?
It's because the other one hasn't been processed and posted yet. If you leave the page and come back you will probably see it.
Never in my life ever been picked up or questioned by the police....oh yeah not guilty of anything.
First of all, it would never get this far if
they really thought they would even have a chance at winning. The prosecuting lawyer
asks themselves, “Do I have enough
evidence here to convince a 12-man jury beyond a reasonable doubt?”. Believe me, prosecution won’t even ask for a trial unless they thought they have some chance of winning. But if it’s a no way this will never win kind of thing, then you have zero worry. Jury wants evidence like videos, witnesses, biological samples with DNA, cell phone records, communications evidence, evidence other than the non-evidence of false accusations, made-up fabricated total lies stories, and fabricated false evidence, etc. They will try you to try and make something happen, but nothing ever does. But they try anyway. How embarrassing that must have been to them, me, already knowing and
met their rented out bodyguard
Yeah but they can use your silence against you in court
Not if you explicitly invoke your right to remain silent. Do that first, and then you're okay. _Salinas v. Texas,_ 570 U.S. 178 (2013)
BUT WHAT IF THEY SAY YOU ARE NOT UNDER ARREST. THEY HAVE A DOZEN WAYS TO CIRCUMVENT MIRANDA.
Just say they dont care about the constitution
Why not close all these loopholes. Ffs.
lol us a sheep if u don’t watch this a make a difference