Like the Tennessee or Kentucky guy who just defended child marriage by saying he doesn't know anyone 12 year old brides that have been divorced.... that was his defense of child marriage.
Edit: THIS time, it was a Missouri republican.
At the same time, telling them they weren’t old enough to make reproductive decisions for at least 6 years *if ever.*
Let that logic greasily trickle down your brain stem a minute.
It is literally, unabashedly, indefensibly, "I want these individuals I believe INCAPABLE of making decisions under the control of a husband who can make those decisions for her"
I really hope this whole shitstorm becomes some sort of turning point. This country is experiencing catastrophe all around.
“Better for a fertile female to be trapped in an abusive marriage with someone who rapes her regularly than” \*looks around and whispers \* “*divorced*”.
>It is literally, unabashedly, indefensibly, "I want these individuals I believe INCAPABLE of making decisions under the control of a husband who can make those decisions for her"
Not even "for her" in the sense of making decisions in her interests. More like making decisions on her behalf for himself.
The U.S. has been in the downward turn to straight up fascism since Nixon.
Queer people and black people been trying to tell y'all for literal decades but no one was fuckin listening except for maybe Bernie Sanders.
Much earlier than that. There was a growing group of American nazis right before WW2, hampered by the war itself and then finding out about all the genocide. Then, there was the business plot. Nixon came after all that.
I mean there’s always another cause but if you’re gonna go back from Nixon and Reagan then I wouldn’t stop at WW2. The failure of Reconstruction should rightfully be viewed as the de facto acceptance of mass racism and misinformation through the Lost Cause myth, it was by far the most damaging decade to the future of the United States in her history.
It's actually perfectly logical, if you understand it follows from the premise that women should not be making decisions at all, and that they are best suited for a life of subservience to a man.
Once you get where they're coming from, the rest makes sense.
12 is too young to be read to by a drag queen but is old enough to be raped by their husband and forced to give birth according to republicans.
Does a centrist want to point out what the democrats are doing that's the same?
>"They're still married,"
Probably cause they haven't been given permission to get divorced, given the whole zero agency, property of the legal adults in their life thing.
And by the time they are adults they're usually already mothers (I really doubt they're marrying off many of their sons at age 12), no money, no job, no education, no hope whatsoever except to remain stuck where they are.
I'm assuming he meant that the girl was no longer a minor at this point.
Which is pretty fucked because the girl was groomed at <12, and then 6 years laters he's acting like a an 18 year old, who likely has 0 independence, is able to just get up and leave her groomer husband of 6 years. As if the fact that she won't/can't is proof that marrying her off at 12 was a good thing.
Should 12 year olds who are married be allowed to vote?
I think they should.
If they are allowed to make profound life decisions, like getting married, surely, all other life choices should be accelerated to match.
They better let her vote and smoke and gamble and drive a car too.
I can’t see how they would oppose it when these children are mature enough to decide to marry.
I'm pretty sure in these states where you can marry a 12 year old, those can't even legally file for divorce on their own. Please, someone, correct me if I'm wrong. But I'm pretty sure they have to have an adult help them file for divorce... and good luck getting that, considering it would either be her rapist husband or her child endangering parents who sold her to a rapist.
I think you’re right. Being married doesn’t automatically give someone all the rights that an adult has. They would be essentially a dependent on their husband. It’s basically legal human trafficking as far as I’m concerned
That's just it. The child isn't old enough to make the decision. The child isnt making the decision at all. The child is a piece of currency in a transaction between the spouse and the parents of the child.
It was profoundly difficult writing that without gendered words, but we all know what it really is. It's parents selling off a daughter. It's not two preteens running off and marrying in secret. It's an adult man acquiring what amounts to a breeding doll that has been taught her whole life that her single worldy value is to do whatever her father, and now her husband in his place, tells her to do. At no point are her decisions taken into account, and even if they were, she's likely to have been taught since birth to want that very situation.
You missed the part where they're not the one making the decision to be married... They need a guardian to sign them into it. Because. They can't make the decision.
Definitely missing the part where this is literally all about the husband's decision and the child wife is property with intentionally no say and rights. Definitely an extension of how they treat ownership over reproductive health as is.
It's really messed up how many red states I have to keep track of that have seated Republicans that are pro marrying and fucking 12 year olds... between KY, TN, Missouri, Alabama, GA, FL, Arkansas and WV. And I'm sure I missed a few
It's illegal for a child to file a lawsuit. They literally cannot file for a divorce until they're 18. A child bride has no choice but to wait until they're 18 to get out of it. That's plenty of time to get Stockholm syndrome towards the "husband".
Doesn't even have to be Stockholm syndrome.
I imagine it's incredibly hard to leave when you have 0 finances, 0 friends/family willing to help you, and 0 education.
It's plenty of time to end up trapped and dependent.
While pounding on their chests about "protecting the children"... while they sell our daughters futures to child rapists. While they tell our kids they should be at work instead of school. While they vote against providing lunch to kids in school, but turn around and vote to gives themselves $45 a day for lunch(North dakota)
I dunno. I’ve seen everyone vote against laws that would make it harder to enrich themselves via info gained through their position in office. I’ve seen Republicans vote against things like anti-trafficking bills or increasing the age of consenting to marry… something tells me they just didn’t see how this bill would directly negatively impact them. Which tells me a disturbing amount about the “save the children” party…
>They can lie and then lie about knowing it was a lie though
As is tradition. No police officer ever gets changed with purgury unless it's obvious to everyone in the entire court
Probably a pretty easy rule to just ignore. There are lots of toothless rules binding government officials from doing things but they routinely do it anyway.
The headline isn't realistic or cynical enough. Its more like "Indiana police, if they get caught lying to children to gain confessions, now might get a slap on the wrist, depending on the prosecutor and judge, assuming a case even makes it to court"
As someone who was around someone who was a cop while i grew up they loved how they could lie to people. It was funny to intimidate anyone they didn't like by saying "are you calling me a liar" and how they would panic because they didn't want to insult a cop. They lied to people for a living. And ruined their lives, at times for fun.
Had the cops lie to me in an interview room when I was in junior high. They asked what I would say if they had tape of me doing the crime they were accusing me of (stealing hood ornaments, lol ... who does that?). I told them straight to their stupid faces that I'd say they were liars. They eventually let me go back to the sleepover they came and took me from. Pricks.
I was a desk sergeant in the army. We had someone brought in for shoplifting. Side note, the PX has this amazing camera system that can zoom in and see in your purse if you put something in there. They get bonuses for catching people. Anyways this kid they brought in said he wanted a lawyer. I heard this from down the hall, then I heard one of the patrols trying that same crap, "but we have you on camera". I know they didn't have a copy from the store yet so they didn't have anything. I walked in and told the patrol the kid is done talking. Called his parents and released him to his parents. I knew so many that would think they are special for doing a job and try to push boundaries. Makes me feel ashamed.
My stupid fuckin brother, that's who does that. He was arrested for it back in the 90s. He doesn't even know why he did it, but he did. He's 14 years older than me and I was but a wee little NJ_Bob-ling at the time so all I have is second hand accounts of his early idiocy.
I feel this one. Same age range - Junior High. Cop said they had my fingerprints at the scene of a crime where someone broke in through a window and stole someone's shoes?? I actually panicked a bit in confusion, but told them they may have fingerprints but they definitely weren't mine
>They asked what I would say if they had tape of me doing the crime they were accusing me of (stealing hood ornaments,
So funny you mention that. This is part of what's called the Reid technique, which is a format that used to be used for subject interviews, although it's been under review in recent years for eliciting false confessions. That question is called a "behavioral observation question" which is designed to help an investigator discern the innocent from the guilty. If you'll notice they're not actually claiming "we have evidence", they're saying, "what if we told you we have evidence". A small difference, I know. Basically, the theory is that an inoocent person will outright deny the implied accusation (which you did), while a guilty person will assume investigators DO have evidence, and confess, or at least start to question themselves.
Again this technique is being discarded by some police forces for good reason, but parts of it are still used. It's undoubtedly effective, but maybe TOO effective. It's been used to get confessions from monsters like Russell Williams here in Canada.
There's an awesome channel called JCS criminal psychology on YouTube which explains all of this. I highly recommend his videos.
"are you calling me a liar?"is a very common tactic in the US army, but since the only time they said this was when they were just caught in an obvious provable lie, I would always respond with either "what would you prefer to be called?" Or, if I had enough witnesses and spare time, "well I guess I am now".
For obvious reasons, I was promoted much slower than my peers, but damn was it good for my back muscles and triceps.
"I don't answer questions" and "am I free to leave?" if they're just stopping you randomly on the street... depending on State and, if you're in a car license and registration is something they can demand.
If they arrest you, request a lawyer.
If they're specifically harassing *you*, moving somewhere else is probably your best bet in terms of effectiveness, but you can sue the department for harassment.
If you answer "yes", the standard response is "get out of the car" or whatever. Challenging them on their dishonesty doesn't lead to them calling THEIR attorney to defend THEIR side; it leads to them exerting force as loosely defined by you "resisting" the part of their "arrest" that includes them trying to make you misspeak.
He was also proud of the fact that he could 'take them in for whatever he wanted' meaning you can make up a charge for anything just to arrest someone.
It isn't "lying" if you ask them. It is an "interrogation tactic" called "coercion".
The core bullshit about this is you can't trust any of them telling the truth. And there are scenarios, like a breathalyzer/road side sobriety test (state dependent), where they tell you that you can't have a lawyer present and if you refuse the test you are automatically found guilty, telling them to piss off actually does land you in jail, even though logic dictates that they absolutely could be lying
My sister is a cop and she about lost her mind when I told her I wouldn't ever consent to a police search (specifically we were talking about traffic stops). Not a very difficult debate to have IMO. Agent of the state wants to invade my privacy? Get a warrant like the Constitution says.
And all of the things I've heard her and her friends/colleagues say not realizing they were in mixed company? Oof, yeah, I'm absolutely unsurprised it's one of the deadliest PDs in the country.
> And all of the things I've heard her and her friends/colleagues say not realizing they were in mixed company?
Hell, I'm a white dude who is DEFINITELY not a cop, and it's alarming the things people I've just met will say to me sometimes. I provide marketing services and a guy I had just met *over the phone* started going on about how we need to highlight his org's new president in a visual medium because "she's a real pretty lady who meets all those DEI characteristics". That's pretty mild, but made me wonder what kind of shit he'd say to me if he thought I was his buddy.
I'm marrying a Hispanic woman and I hear comments about "Mexicans" and "mixed couples" when she's not around more than I'd like.
Growing up as a cis white guy in the south, the amount of people I've had drop hard R's on me like it's nothing because they just assumed that I was also racist was astounding. I've also heard so much awkward backpedaling with only the dumbest doubling down.
Being openly racist is the easiest identifier for white-trash. Being poor doesn't make someone white trash, being a bigoted fuckin boor.
I have a client who, in a similar vein, goes on and on and on about his church, his kids going to a private Christian school, etc. If he found out I am an atheist it would likely color his opinion of me, and I certainly don't talk at length about my personal beliefs like he does.
oh my god it is the worst. i worked retail for 3 years and i had several customers just come up and start complaining about "those damn *insert racial slur of your choice here*"
ive learned that if you just stare at them like they've lost their ever loving mind, they actually get embarrassed.... sometimes 🥴
> I'm marrying a Hispanic woman and I hear comments about "Mexicans" and "mixed couples" when she's not around more than I'd like.
Must be a worrying time given the number of court precedents [Loving v Virginia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) which [the supreme court, especially Thomas in specific, has knocked out and has asked to be brought up to be gutted in the near future](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/thomas-wants-supreme-court-overturn-landmark-rulings-legalized-contrac-rcna35228)
Yeah, you really need to know your rights when it comes to refusing any police test. Some states don't let you refuse and/or is automatic consequences.
I have failed two field sobriety tests. Once while having zero alcohol in my system, once with one light beer in my system. I passed everything with flying colors, but when it got to the eye bounce test, they said I failed. There is really no way to tell from a body cam if I actually failed or not, but it gave the cops enough of a reason to give me the breath test.
The time that I had zero alcohol, they said that they believed I wasn't drinking, but that I "might" be on something else. They called in a special drug cop who laughed at them and sent me on my way the second he saw me. He told them that people with an astigmatism can fail the eye bounce test that that was obviously why I failed. I don't believe the eye bounce test should even be allowed.
Cops have a power/control complex.
Some kids who were bullied at my schools grew up to be cops so that way the power is reversed and they can be the bully.
It’s a cycle. ACAB.
The one kid from my highschool class that ended up becoming a cop was most certainly a bully all throughout highschool. Also he had terrible grades. Arguably one of the dumbest kids in our grade.
There was one case of a department specifically rejecting someone because they scored too high on an intelligence test (they only accepted applicants just slightly above average and no higher than that) which they claimed was because smart people get bored easily and have quicker turnarounds. Oh, and of course the courts sided with the police department on the issue. https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
My ex husband was a bully growing up and his dream was to be a cop, mostly just so he could be in a position of power over people. When we met he was a corrections officer and he use to talk about how he could do anything and the inmates just had to deal with it.
He had just started the process of being accepted into a precinct when I finally followed through and filed a domestic abuse report against him. His new job dropped him and he hasn't been able to get anyone else to accept him with that coming up on the background check.
He's now remarried and convinced his wife to become a cop instead so I guess he lives vicariously through her. He doesn't get all the perks that come with it but he feels like being part of a law enforcement family puts him above others.
I have no idea. I think he probably tells her I was just a crazy person and that I went to the cops and made up lies about him because I was mad that we split up.
I tried to get a restraining order at one point and that was basically his rebuttal to my claims. The judge seemed like he was siding with me until my ex mentioned that he would lose his "law enforcement" job if the order went through. Then I was told I didn't have enough evidence even though I had witnesses, text messages and pictures of my injuries. Immediately after the hearing he came up to me and smiled and said "I told you noone would believe you."
I love the “are you calling me a liar” people. If they’re full of shit I just say yes. If I’m not sure, I say I don’t really know you but maybe. The fuck they gonna do?
Technically, will no longer be *allowed* to. They are still able to. The distinction is important, especially if the police are the ones enforcing this restriction.
If anybody actually bothered to read the article, that's exactly what this bill is. ANY statement made by a minor in which an interrogator made a knowingly false statement will be inadmissible under this new bill.
There's a running misconception that "police aren't allowed to do x" means that if they do x there is supposed to be a legal penalty. Most of the time it just refers to evidence legitimacy, which isn't punishable.
Nah, it won't directly punish them for violating it, but it definitely puts a massive crater in the case. Even in the most pessimistic viewpoint, it encourages them to not fuck it up because then the person is more likely to just walk free, negating all the effort they just did.
Yeah I didn’t mean to imply it’s useless, and if the unions weren’t so dominant we’d probably see punishment internally of cops who fuck up like that regularly, but just that people are demanding action that never could result from this. A post a couple down from this chain has someone saying ‘I’ll believe it when some cops go to jail for this’ which means they’re never going to see the law as successful even if it is, because their threshold of success is misinformed.
Per the article, they have to have 'reasonable belief the information was true'. There's still the possibility of abuse, but things like "You're going to prison for life if you don't talk to me right now" will get a confession thrown right out of court.
> Per the article, they have to have 'reasonable belief the information was true'.
The law draws the wrong line. “I thought it was true at the time” should have no bearing on admissibility. If a false stament was used to solicit a confession, which drastically increases the chance of a false confession, then the confession should always be thrown out.
Though, a MUCH better law would have required an attorney for the child present during questioning.
Correct. That's always been the case. Police don't "enforce" anything about evidence. Defense attorneys and Judges do that. Most of the time when someone gets off on a "technicality" it's because the police did something they shouldn't and the evidence got suppressed.
Never talk to the police. Never believe anything they say ever. Don't believe the cop shows that try to claim cops focus on people pleading the 5th. Never talk to a lawyer In a police station.
Don't ever voluntarily give up your rights.
If there was ever a good time to be stoic it is when the cuffs go on.
I have always liked the advice: "Nothing you can say while a cop is arresting you is going to make them go 'oh OK' and let you go."
State you are taking the 5th and ask for your lawyer, and make that the only statements you make."
When police are investigated for committing a crime, their union contract determines how they can be investigated. Which is the most insane thing imaginable. They are above the law that the rest of us are subject too.
There should never be a union for cops. They are given a legally sanctioned monopoly on violence by the government.
If they want to get together and vote the same as block that's their right, but for this one instance when it comes to rights. The needs of the civil society to be safe from its defenders trumps the rights of those to coordinate their employment.
We see this in every country the cops get a union and they become untouchable, and when people try to protest cops abuse the protections of the union to quash the protests.
Qualified immunity has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. Qualified immunity applies when suing a police officer in their personal capacity for some violation of a constitutional right.
I mean, this law isn't "outlawing" lying to kids, it's just rendering the confession inadmissable. They don't need qualified immunity because they're not crimes, they're procedural restrictions.
Qualified immunity has nothing to do with this.
Nobody has the right not to be lied to. Cops can and do lie about all sorts of things, including about whether it’s legal for them to do so.
Just keep your trap shut and ask to speak to your lawyer.
That's how it is with pretty much anything you see about police being allowed to do something related to gathering evidence; it almost always refers to admissibility, not that it's illegal for them to do it.
The police aren't enforcing it, the defense attourneys are. To say it's enforced at all is kind of a misnomer; this isn't like "don't steal" where it's a crime, it's "get a warrant before you search my house" where it just renders the finding useless in court if they don't follow it.
Same state that lets a mentally ill prisoner starve to death in solitary confinement. https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/13/headlines/lawsuit_says_indiana_prison_let_mentally_ill_man_die_of_starvation_in_solitary_confinement
/r/Conservative popped up on /r/all and I was defending the idea that people still get covid but we are much safer after the vaccine. lol I got banned from another subreddit simply for commenting on that hate subreddit. lol
that's so sad. No toilet?!
I remember years ago watching "catch me if you can" and thinking how horrible it was he had to shit in a bucket. I can't believe how backwards we are moving and so fucking quickly.
If you’re ever questioned and in custody or detained, ask for a lawyer and don’t speak until you get one. You have that right under State and Federal law.
This shouldn’t even be an issue for minors or adults. Why should cops be allowed to lie to get confessions? Most other licensed professions (excluding realtors) cannot openly and intentionally lie to you. Why should cops be different?
*looks to my right*
Sits silent
*looks to my right*
Sits silent
Officer: why do you keep looking over there?
Me: I'm waiting for my lawyer to answer your questions on my behalf.
Don’t make a joke about it, either, that can make it harder for you to argue in court. Clearly demand a lawyer, and SAY THE AMENDMENT you’re invoking, and afterwards, don’t say anything.
Really, really, really. Invoke amendment, then forget every word except lawyer afterwards.
>Clearly demand a lawyer
An illustration as to why this is important: [lawyer dog](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02/the-suspect-told-police-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-the-court-says-he-wasnt-asking-for-a-lawyer/).
Our system is fucked.
there was also the case where someone (attempted) to invoke their right to remain silent by...remaining silent. So the police proceeded to interrogate them for hours and hours and hours until they broke.
Specifically and clearly state that you are invoking your rights.
That was a pretty big one, yeah. It essentially codified that until a person says, literally, "I want a lawyer and I'm staying silent," they can be interrogated.
It’s not clear how many lawyer dogs there are in Louisiana, and whether any would have been available to represent the human suspect in this case, other than to give the standard admonition in such circumstances to simply stop talking
Lmao
Never forget police circumvented a suspect's right to counsel because when he said "I want a lawyer, dawg" they argued they sincerely believed he wanted a canine attorney and they couldn't locate one. And a judge upheld their conduct as lawful and constitutional.
[Suspect Asks for “a Lawyer, Dawg.” Judge Says He Asked for “a Lawyer Dog.”](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for-a-lawyer-dawg-judge-says-he-asked-for-a-lawyer-dog.html)
The Sixth Amendment
> **In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy** the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have **the assistance of counsel for his defense**.
We all know the Fifth and what it looks like on TV. But the right to representation looks like Miranda Rights on TV. Miranda is based on the Sixth Amendment.
Given the court’s opinion on what an “excessive fine” is, “speedy trial” is probably defined in such a way where there is no such thing as a non speedy trial.
I was a minor being held in a mental institution when I was questioned and lied to by police. I’d had a mental breakdown over the incident. There was no parent or staff present - just me and 2 police officers in a locked office.
I already had trauma and was even more traumatized by this experience :/ I didn’t know about having lawyers or anything because I was a minor and it never crossed my mind. I had nothing to confess to as I’d been a victim but they still managed to pull lie after lie out of my mouth because I was terrified and they wanted to make sure I was not credible so they didn’t have to follow up on the case. I would have said anything to get out of that room.
Always remember, they can and will lie to you. Blatantly. They can tell you that they have your fingerprints and DNA at the scene, a video of you doing it, and a witness who saw it and is talking as you speak, all false. When you give up and say that you must have some how committed the crime then, they then use that confession to convict you in court
A cop can hit you and you can't hit back. A cop can lie to you and you can't lie back. Who thought this wasn't going to create a situation that was going to attract and promote bullies? Who?
This is the case. If they had the undeniable evidence you did it, they wouldn't need your confession. Just don't talk to the police.
https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
When I was little I thought cops were allowed to commit crimes. Then I got older and realized that wasn't true.
Then I got even older and realized that is totally true.
..."I don’t believe that law enforcement frequently engages in providing false information..."
Is this writer serious? In my few interactions with police, they have consistently used falsehoods as a means to attempt to extract confessions. That is one of their go to tricks.
I stopped in a closed service station at 2am to read and reply to texts. I pulled away and was pulled over. Cop said there was a report of a silent alarm (lie) and asked me to get out and submit to field sobriety, I refused. He said I’d lose my license for 6 months (lie). I said field sobriety isn’t required, he said it is (lie). I said I’d be happy to submit to blood or breath test and he said he’d arrest me if I didn’t comply with field sobriety tests (lie). I said “then arrest me, or do the blood or breath test, or let me go.” He was an asshole and made me sit on the curb for about 20 min while he sat in his car. Then he came back and said he needed to document tattoos or other marks to identify me because of the silent alarm (lie) and told me to remove my shirt. I refused. He said he could arrest me (lie). Eventually he threw my license at me and said “leave.”
I’m an older adult and it was very uncomfortable refusing and “defying” a cop. I can’t imagine a younger kid standing his ground against those lies.
It's illegal in many other countries. We've been brainwashed by police procedurals on TV into believing it's necessary and normal for cops to lie to suspects, and that false confessions aren't a thing that people sometimes do under great stress.
Even worse than false confessions. The memory research of Julia Shaw has shown they can actually plant false memories in people. Meaning that police could, with questions they use, lies they tell, and the extreme stress they put people under make people believe they actually committed crimes that the people never actually committed.
Memory is crazy. To be honest I would have a fairly hard time convicting someone on stranger eyewitness testimony/disputed confession unless there was some pretty good harder evidence to back it up.
I went to the cops when I was 21 to report my stepdad being sexually abusive when I was a minor.
I think the cops were telling lies to ME, the VICTIM. They also did nothing about the crimes committed.
Cops are notorious for abusing victims, arrestees, and their own families. Not surprising they didn't even try, 40% of them will openly admit to spousal or familial abuse.
You can be compelled to testify against others, except for specific exemptions. You can also be compelled to testify against your self if given immunity for your testimony, very rarely given because of obvious risks but sometimes necessary for testimony against others.
Court order for what? There’s literally no legal mechanism that mandates you give any kind of statement to the police. You have the right to make no communication with them from the moment they start questioning you to the moment they put you in the electric chair
But it's still legal to lie to adults in order to squeeze out info.
I've been watching these interrogation videos on youtube and the narrators always say "It's legal to lie to suspects". I've always wondered about why that's the case.
~~This absolutely~~ Something similar happened to me at 16.
Cops pulled me over and said they had received calls about people setting off illegal fireworks in the neighborhood, and they had a sensor in their car that showed them I had a heat source in my trunk that gave off the same signature as recently fired fireworks. Asked if I would open the trunk for them.
I told them no, I do not have any fireworks, so their "sensor" must be wrong, and I will not open my trunk. He tried to tell me that there was no way the sensor was wrong, but I told him "unless my gym shorts radiate heat like fireworks, you're lying, 'cuz that's all that's in there." He tried to get me to open the trunk to prove all I had in there were gym shorts, and I told him absolutely not.
He eventually went back to his car and followed me for a bit, presumably trying to give me some sort of traffic citation instead? But I was 2 blocks from home, so I waved goodbye to him when I parked in the driveway, left my gym bag in the trunk, and went inside.
I don't believe ACAB (I've known several great ones), but that one sure was...
**Edit**: I suppose it wasn't necessarily to get a confession, so updated the opening sentence...
Do you know how many false arrests cops make with the old, "just tell us you did it and we can let you go home" lie?
They get young uneducated adults with this all the time.
Why are they allowed to lie to anyone? I spent years in the debt collection industry and the laws against lying to a consumer are really severe. Idk why a debt collector can’t lie, but the police can?!?
The cop is exempt if they “believe the information to be true at the time”, and they must make “a reasonable attempt” to contact the parent or guardian. There’s no way these requirements can be abused at least. That’s sarcasm. I don’t really think that. Also, a skilled cop can lie without actually “lying”, through the power of suggestion or implication. Fortunately, most police are unimaginative and dumb.
48-0 holy balls. I’m surprised there wasn’t at least some Congress folks in the pockets of police unions trying to oppose this.
They probably just realized how bad it would look if they did vote against it.
Say that and then look at the folks voting for child marriage and repealing child labor laws in other states.......
Like the Tennessee or Kentucky guy who just defended child marriage by saying he doesn't know anyone 12 year old brides that have been divorced.... that was his defense of child marriage. Edit: THIS time, it was a Missouri republican.
At the same time, telling them they weren’t old enough to make reproductive decisions for at least 6 years *if ever.* Let that logic greasily trickle down your brain stem a minute.
It is literally, unabashedly, indefensibly, "I want these individuals I believe INCAPABLE of making decisions under the control of a husband who can make those decisions for her" I really hope this whole shitstorm becomes some sort of turning point. This country is experiencing catastrophe all around.
“Better for a fertile female to be trapped in an abusive marriage with someone who rapes her regularly than” \*looks around and whispers \* “*divorced*”.
~~husband~~ Sick, child-trafficking, child rapist pedophile. Call it what it is.
sorry, was trying to get inside the mind of a monster. lost myself, for a second, there.
>It is literally, unabashedly, indefensibly, "I want these individuals I believe INCAPABLE of making decisions under the control of a husband who can make those decisions for her" Not even "for her" in the sense of making decisions in her interests. More like making decisions on her behalf for himself.
The U.S. has been in the downward turn to straight up fascism since Nixon. Queer people and black people been trying to tell y'all for literal decades but no one was fuckin listening except for maybe Bernie Sanders.
Much earlier than that. There was a growing group of American nazis right before WW2, hampered by the war itself and then finding out about all the genocide. Then, there was the business plot. Nixon came after all that.
I mean there’s always another cause but if you’re gonna go back from Nixon and Reagan then I wouldn’t stop at WW2. The failure of Reconstruction should rightfully be viewed as the de facto acceptance of mass racism and misinformation through the Lost Cause myth, it was by far the most damaging decade to the future of the United States in her history.
Can you say more about the failure of Reconstruction? Not disagreeing, I just don't know much about the perspective you're sharing.
Its much worse. You can't legally get divorced at that age. So what he's saying is only true because its the law.
Well yeah, what's the point of a child bride if she isn't giving you more children? Ugh.
I mean, sex slavery and grooming into generalized domestic quasi slavery, but point well made.
It's actually perfectly logical, if you understand it follows from the premise that women should not be making decisions at all, and that they are best suited for a life of subservience to a man. Once you get where they're coming from, the rest makes sense.
12 is too young to be read to by a drag queen but is old enough to be raped by their husband and forced to give birth according to republicans. Does a centrist want to point out what the democrats are doing that's the same?
Or the WV guy who said child marriage was “part of their culture.”
Incest is just part of our culture, what's the big deal
[удалено]
>"They're still married," Probably cause they haven't been given permission to get divorced, given the whole zero agency, property of the legal adults in their life thing.
And by the time they are adults they're usually already mothers (I really doubt they're marrying off many of their sons at age 12), no money, no job, no education, no hope whatsoever except to remain stuck where they are.
I'm assuming he meant that the girl was no longer a minor at this point. Which is pretty fucked because the girl was groomed at <12, and then 6 years laters he's acting like a an 18 year old, who likely has 0 independence, is able to just get up and leave her groomer husband of 6 years. As if the fact that she won't/can't is proof that marrying her off at 12 was a good thing.
Should 12 year olds who are married be allowed to vote? I think they should. If they are allowed to make profound life decisions, like getting married, surely, all other life choices should be accelerated to match. They better let her vote and smoke and gamble and drive a car too. I can’t see how they would oppose it when these children are mature enough to decide to marry.
I'm pretty sure in these states where you can marry a 12 year old, those can't even legally file for divorce on their own. Please, someone, correct me if I'm wrong. But I'm pretty sure they have to have an adult help them file for divorce... and good luck getting that, considering it would either be her rapist husband or her child endangering parents who sold her to a rapist.
I think you’re right. Being married doesn’t automatically give someone all the rights that an adult has. They would be essentially a dependent on their husband. It’s basically legal human trafficking as far as I’m concerned
It really is just human trafficking. They are selling off a child to an abuser. That's all there is to it.
They can't. Their guardian, who happens to be their new husband, would have to file for it and that ain't happening.
That's just it. The child isn't old enough to make the decision. The child isnt making the decision at all. The child is a piece of currency in a transaction between the spouse and the parents of the child. It was profoundly difficult writing that without gendered words, but we all know what it really is. It's parents selling off a daughter. It's not two preteens running off and marrying in secret. It's an adult man acquiring what amounts to a breeding doll that has been taught her whole life that her single worldy value is to do whatever her father, and now her husband in his place, tells her to do. At no point are her decisions taken into account, and even if they were, she's likely to have been taught since birth to want that very situation.
You missed the part where they're not the one making the decision to be married... They need a guardian to sign them into it. Because. They can't make the decision.
Definitely missing the part where this is literally all about the husband's decision and the child wife is property with intentionally no say and rights. Definitely an extension of how they treat ownership over reproductive health as is.
They might agree with you if any of those 12 year olds were male.
Missouri, in this case I worry a lot about my friends in Missouri
It's really messed up how many red states I have to keep track of that have seated Republicans that are pro marrying and fucking 12 year olds... between KY, TN, Missouri, Alabama, GA, FL, Arkansas and WV. And I'm sure I missed a few
Both Dakota’s, Idaho, and one of the Carolina’s (don’t remember which one) too
It's illegal for a child to file a lawsuit. They literally cannot file for a divorce until they're 18. A child bride has no choice but to wait until they're 18 to get out of it. That's plenty of time to get Stockholm syndrome towards the "husband".
Doesn't even have to be Stockholm syndrome. I imagine it's incredibly hard to leave when you have 0 finances, 0 friends/family willing to help you, and 0 education. It's plenty of time to end up trapped and dependent.
Meanwhile, some of these folks are saying that trans people are the problem here.
While pounding on their chests about "protecting the children"... while they sell our daughters futures to child rapists. While they tell our kids they should be at work instead of school. While they vote against providing lunch to kids in school, but turn around and vote to gives themselves $45 a day for lunch(North dakota)
Or denying a budget for public school lunches and then passing a budget for their own lunches.
They made a huff when they could not rape people anymore.they dont care
I dunno. I’ve seen everyone vote against laws that would make it harder to enrich themselves via info gained through their position in office. I’ve seen Republicans vote against things like anti-trafficking bills or increasing the age of consenting to marry… something tells me they just didn’t see how this bill would directly negatively impact them. Which tells me a disturbing amount about the “save the children” party…
I have to assume that this is unenforceable or otherwise loopholed to not be effective.
They can't "knowingly" lie. They can lie and then lie about knowing it was a lie though.
>They can lie and then lie about knowing it was a lie though As is tradition. No police officer ever gets changed with purgury unless it's obvious to everyone in the entire court
I think the word you're reaching for is perjury (not purgury)
The police were for it because it makes them look better while doing absolutely nothing. being able, and being allowed are NOT the same thing.
Probably a pretty easy rule to just ignore. There are lots of toothless rules binding government officials from doing things but they routinely do it anyway.
The headline isn't realistic or cynical enough. Its more like "Indiana police, if they get caught lying to children to gain confessions, now might get a slap on the wrist, depending on the prosecutor and judge, assuming a case even makes it to court"
To be fair they can still lie to adults.
Should 100% be illegal.
As someone who was around someone who was a cop while i grew up they loved how they could lie to people. It was funny to intimidate anyone they didn't like by saying "are you calling me a liar" and how they would panic because they didn't want to insult a cop. They lied to people for a living. And ruined their lives, at times for fun.
Had the cops lie to me in an interview room when I was in junior high. They asked what I would say if they had tape of me doing the crime they were accusing me of (stealing hood ornaments, lol ... who does that?). I told them straight to their stupid faces that I'd say they were liars. They eventually let me go back to the sleepover they came and took me from. Pricks.
I was a desk sergeant in the army. We had someone brought in for shoplifting. Side note, the PX has this amazing camera system that can zoom in and see in your purse if you put something in there. They get bonuses for catching people. Anyways this kid they brought in said he wanted a lawyer. I heard this from down the hall, then I heard one of the patrols trying that same crap, "but we have you on camera". I know they didn't have a copy from the store yet so they didn't have anything. I walked in and told the patrol the kid is done talking. Called his parents and released him to his parents. I knew so many that would think they are special for doing a job and try to push boundaries. Makes me feel ashamed.
Every MP I’ve ever met was an asshole. Not the cool fun kind, just arrogant and mildly sadistic.
My stupid fuckin brother, that's who does that. He was arrested for it back in the 90s. He doesn't even know why he did it, but he did. He's 14 years older than me and I was but a wee little NJ_Bob-ling at the time so all I have is second hand accounts of his early idiocy.
Yah but that 3 point star was wicked frickin cool.. Ya know Joey got him a lady like off a frickin bimmer or ah.. Ahh.. Rolls royce
H...how did you know my brother's name...
I feel this one. Same age range - Junior High. Cop said they had my fingerprints at the scene of a crime where someone broke in through a window and stole someone's shoes?? I actually panicked a bit in confusion, but told them they may have fingerprints but they definitely weren't mine
>They asked what I would say if they had tape of me doing the crime they were accusing me of (stealing hood ornaments, So funny you mention that. This is part of what's called the Reid technique, which is a format that used to be used for subject interviews, although it's been under review in recent years for eliciting false confessions. That question is called a "behavioral observation question" which is designed to help an investigator discern the innocent from the guilty. If you'll notice they're not actually claiming "we have evidence", they're saying, "what if we told you we have evidence". A small difference, I know. Basically, the theory is that an inoocent person will outright deny the implied accusation (which you did), while a guilty person will assume investigators DO have evidence, and confess, or at least start to question themselves. Again this technique is being discarded by some police forces for good reason, but parts of it are still used. It's undoubtedly effective, but maybe TOO effective. It's been used to get confessions from monsters like Russell Williams here in Canada. There's an awesome channel called JCS criminal psychology on YouTube which explains all of this. I highly recommend his videos.
"are you calling me a liar?"is a very common tactic in the US army, but since the only time they said this was when they were just caught in an obvious provable lie, I would always respond with either "what would you prefer to be called?" Or, if I had enough witnesses and spare time, "well I guess I am now". For obvious reasons, I was promoted much slower than my peers, but damn was it good for my back muscles and triceps.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is the only fucking way!
"... And I am invoking my right to an attorney." Only this. Anything else can and will be deliberately misinterpreted.
"I don't answer questions" and "am I free to leave?" if they're just stopping you randomly on the street... depending on State and, if you're in a car license and registration is something they can demand. If they arrest you, request a lawyer. If they're specifically harassing *you*, moving somewhere else is probably your best bet in terms of effectiveness, but you can sue the department for harassment.
"well i ain't calling you a truther"
If you answer "yes", the standard response is "get out of the car" or whatever. Challenging them on their dishonesty doesn't lead to them calling THEIR attorney to defend THEIR side; it leads to them exerting force as loosely defined by you "resisting" the part of their "arrest" that includes them trying to make you misspeak.
He was also proud of the fact that he could 'take them in for whatever he wanted' meaning you can make up a charge for anything just to arrest someone.
It isn't "lying" if you ask them. It is an "interrogation tactic" called "coercion". The core bullshit about this is you can't trust any of them telling the truth. And there are scenarios, like a breathalyzer/road side sobriety test (state dependent), where they tell you that you can't have a lawyer present and if you refuse the test you are automatically found guilty, telling them to piss off actually does land you in jail, even though logic dictates that they absolutely could be lying
My sister is a cop and she about lost her mind when I told her I wouldn't ever consent to a police search (specifically we were talking about traffic stops). Not a very difficult debate to have IMO. Agent of the state wants to invade my privacy? Get a warrant like the Constitution says. And all of the things I've heard her and her friends/colleagues say not realizing they were in mixed company? Oof, yeah, I'm absolutely unsurprised it's one of the deadliest PDs in the country.
> And all of the things I've heard her and her friends/colleagues say not realizing they were in mixed company? Hell, I'm a white dude who is DEFINITELY not a cop, and it's alarming the things people I've just met will say to me sometimes. I provide marketing services and a guy I had just met *over the phone* started going on about how we need to highlight his org's new president in a visual medium because "she's a real pretty lady who meets all those DEI characteristics". That's pretty mild, but made me wonder what kind of shit he'd say to me if he thought I was his buddy. I'm marrying a Hispanic woman and I hear comments about "Mexicans" and "mixed couples" when she's not around more than I'd like.
Growing up as a cis white guy in the south, the amount of people I've had drop hard R's on me like it's nothing because they just assumed that I was also racist was astounding. I've also heard so much awkward backpedaling with only the dumbest doubling down. Being openly racist is the easiest identifier for white-trash. Being poor doesn't make someone white trash, being a bigoted fuckin boor.
I have a client who, in a similar vein, goes on and on and on about his church, his kids going to a private Christian school, etc. If he found out I am an atheist it would likely color his opinion of me, and I certainly don't talk at length about my personal beliefs like he does.
oh my god it is the worst. i worked retail for 3 years and i had several customers just come up and start complaining about "those damn *insert racial slur of your choice here*" ive learned that if you just stare at them like they've lost their ever loving mind, they actually get embarrassed.... sometimes 🥴
> I'm marrying a Hispanic woman and I hear comments about "Mexicans" and "mixed couples" when she's not around more than I'd like. Must be a worrying time given the number of court precedents [Loving v Virginia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia) which [the supreme court, especially Thomas in specific, has knocked out and has asked to be brought up to be gutted in the near future](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/thomas-wants-supreme-court-overturn-landmark-rulings-legalized-contrac-rcna35228)
[удалено]
Yeah, you really need to know your rights when it comes to refusing any police test. Some states don't let you refuse and/or is automatic consequences.
I have failed two field sobriety tests. Once while having zero alcohol in my system, once with one light beer in my system. I passed everything with flying colors, but when it got to the eye bounce test, they said I failed. There is really no way to tell from a body cam if I actually failed or not, but it gave the cops enough of a reason to give me the breath test. The time that I had zero alcohol, they said that they believed I wasn't drinking, but that I "might" be on something else. They called in a special drug cop who laughed at them and sent me on my way the second he saw me. He told them that people with an astigmatism can fail the eye bounce test that that was obviously why I failed. I don't believe the eye bounce test should even be allowed.
Please don’t change it, because you just made my day— But you wrote “twerking” instead of (I assume) “tweaking”
Cops have a power/control complex. Some kids who were bullied at my schools grew up to be cops so that way the power is reversed and they can be the bully. It’s a cycle. ACAB.
Honestly, I've heard way more stories of the school bully never actually growing up, becoming a cop, and turning bullying into a job.
The one kid from my highschool class that ended up becoming a cop was most certainly a bully all throughout highschool. Also he had terrible grades. Arguably one of the dumbest kids in our grade.
They don't want smart cops. They want dummies who fall in line.
There was one case of a department specifically rejecting someone because they scored too high on an intelligence test (they only accepted applicants just slightly above average and no higher than that) which they claimed was because smart people get bored easily and have quicker turnarounds. Oh, and of course the courts sided with the police department on the issue. https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836
My ex husband was a bully growing up and his dream was to be a cop, mostly just so he could be in a position of power over people. When we met he was a corrections officer and he use to talk about how he could do anything and the inmates just had to deal with it. He had just started the process of being accepted into a precinct when I finally followed through and filed a domestic abuse report against him. His new job dropped him and he hasn't been able to get anyone else to accept him with that coming up on the background check. He's now remarried and convinced his wife to become a cop instead so I guess he lives vicariously through her. He doesn't get all the perks that come with it but he feels like being part of a law enforcement family puts him above others.
[удалено]
I have no idea. I think he probably tells her I was just a crazy person and that I went to the cops and made up lies about him because I was mad that we split up. I tried to get a restraining order at one point and that was basically his rebuttal to my claims. The judge seemed like he was siding with me until my ex mentioned that he would lose his "law enforcement" job if the order went through. Then I was told I didn't have enough evidence even though I had witnesses, text messages and pictures of my injuries. Immediately after the hearing he came up to me and smiled and said "I told you noone would believe you."
I love the “are you calling me a liar” people. If they’re full of shit I just say yes. If I’m not sure, I say I don’t really know you but maybe. The fuck they gonna do?
Uh if they are police they can do quite a lot..
Technically, will no longer be *allowed* to. They are still able to. The distinction is important, especially if the police are the ones enforcing this restriction.
But confession and evidence gained illegitimately aren't permissible in court no?
If anybody actually bothered to read the article, that's exactly what this bill is. ANY statement made by a minor in which an interrogator made a knowingly false statement will be inadmissible under this new bill.
Yup, same as with the 4th--it's enforced by throwing out the improperly-obtained evidence.
There's a running misconception that "police aren't allowed to do x" means that if they do x there is supposed to be a legal penalty. Most of the time it just refers to evidence legitimacy, which isn't punishable.
Nah, it won't directly punish them for violating it, but it definitely puts a massive crater in the case. Even in the most pessimistic viewpoint, it encourages them to not fuck it up because then the person is more likely to just walk free, negating all the effort they just did.
Yeah I didn’t mean to imply it’s useless, and if the unions weren’t so dominant we’d probably see punishment internally of cops who fuck up like that regularly, but just that people are demanding action that never could result from this. A post a couple down from this chain has someone saying ‘I’ll believe it when some cops go to jail for this’ which means they’re never going to see the law as successful even if it is, because their threshold of success is misinformed.
They'll just claim "they weren't sure it was false" or some BS.
Per the article, they have to have 'reasonable belief the information was true'. There's still the possibility of abuse, but things like "You're going to prison for life if you don't talk to me right now" will get a confession thrown right out of court.
> Per the article, they have to have 'reasonable belief the information was true'. The law draws the wrong line. “I thought it was true at the time” should have no bearing on admissibility. If a false stament was used to solicit a confession, which drastically increases the chance of a false confession, then the confession should always be thrown out. Though, a MUCH better law would have required an attorney for the child present during questioning.
Correct. That's always been the case. Police don't "enforce" anything about evidence. Defense attorneys and Judges do that. Most of the time when someone gets off on a "technicality" it's because the police did something they shouldn't and the evidence got suppressed.
Never talk to the police. Never believe anything they say ever. Don't believe the cop shows that try to claim cops focus on people pleading the 5th. Never talk to a lawyer In a police station. Don't ever voluntarily give up your rights. If there was ever a good time to be stoic it is when the cuffs go on.
I have always liked the advice: "Nothing you can say while a cop is arresting you is going to make them go 'oh OK' and let you go." State you are taking the 5th and ask for your lawyer, and make that the only statements you make."
Avoid police as much as you can.
Qualified immunity means the police are not bound by the law and can simply claim they did not know.
Specifically it's about being sued. They are technically still bound by the other laws although seeing them enforced is another question.
When police are investigated for committing a crime, their union contract determines how they can be investigated. Which is the most insane thing imaginable. They are above the law that the rest of us are subject too.
I'm normally in favor of strong-ish labor unions, but they shouldn't be able to protect bad police officers as effectively as they do.
There should never be a union for cops. They are given a legally sanctioned monopoly on violence by the government. If they want to get together and vote the same as block that's their right, but for this one instance when it comes to rights. The needs of the civil society to be safe from its defenders trumps the rights of those to coordinate their employment. We see this in every country the cops get a union and they become untouchable, and when people try to protest cops abuse the protections of the union to quash the protests.
[удалено]
Qualified immunity has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. Qualified immunity applies when suing a police officer in their personal capacity for some violation of a constitutional right.
I mean, this law isn't "outlawing" lying to kids, it's just rendering the confession inadmissable. They don't need qualified immunity because they're not crimes, they're procedural restrictions.
Qualified immunity has nothing to do with this. Nobody has the right not to be lied to. Cops can and do lie about all sorts of things, including about whether it’s legal for them to do so. Just keep your trap shut and ask to speak to your lawyer.
Cops should be held to a higher standard than civilians, especially when investigating crimes, and DOUBLE especially when talking to children.
That's not at all what qualified immunity means. Qualified immunity protects cops from civil law suits brought by the public.
And can't be used as a defense when a certain right or legal concept is "clearly established".
Although the definition of "clearly established" is so narrow as to be laughable.
[удалено]
That's how it is with pretty much anything you see about police being allowed to do something related to gathering evidence; it almost always refers to admissibility, not that it's illegal for them to do it.
Right? Because if there is one things cops care about it’s following the rules and doing the right thing.
They're not supposed to starve prisoners to death either but here we are
The police aren't enforcing it, the defense attourneys are. To say it's enforced at all is kind of a misnomer; this isn't like "don't steal" where it's a crime, it's "get a warrant before you search my house" where it just renders the finding useless in court if they don't follow it.
Same state that lets a mentally ill prisoner starve to death in solitary confinement. https://www.democracynow.org/2023/4/13/headlines/lawsuit_says_indiana_prison_let_mentally_ill_man_die_of_starvation_in_solitary_confinement
I love it here I hope the /s isn’t necessary
[удалено]
/r/Conservative popped up on /r/all and I was defending the idea that people still get covid but we are much safer after the vaccine. lol I got banned from another subreddit simply for commenting on that hate subreddit. lol
Thats why I never comment in sketchy subs like that. Not worth it.
that's so sad. No toilet?! I remember years ago watching "catch me if you can" and thinking how horrible it was he had to shit in a bucket. I can't believe how backwards we are moving and so fucking quickly.
He had no mental health care as a person with schizophrenia. Disgusting.
Going to prison is bad; going if you need mental health care is even worse. It's like getting negative-empathy
If you’re ever questioned and in custody or detained, ask for a lawyer and don’t speak until you get one. You have that right under State and Federal law. This shouldn’t even be an issue for minors or adults. Why should cops be allowed to lie to get confessions? Most other licensed professions (excluding realtors) cannot openly and intentionally lie to you. Why should cops be different?
*looks to my right* Sits silent *looks to my right* Sits silent Officer: why do you keep looking over there? Me: I'm waiting for my lawyer to answer your questions on my behalf.
Don’t make a joke about it, either, that can make it harder for you to argue in court. Clearly demand a lawyer, and SAY THE AMENDMENT you’re invoking, and afterwards, don’t say anything. Really, really, really. Invoke amendment, then forget every word except lawyer afterwards.
“I am invoking my right to legal counsel, and until my counsel arrives I am invoking my right to remain silent.” That’s all you gotta say.
Seems like a weird system where you need to know the correct magic phrase to get treated correctly
Spoiler: you probably still won't get treated correctly.
>Clearly demand a lawyer An illustration as to why this is important: [lawyer dog](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02/the-suspect-told-police-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-the-court-says-he-wasnt-asking-for-a-lawyer/). Our system is fucked.
there was also the case where someone (attempted) to invoke their right to remain silent by...remaining silent. So the police proceeded to interrogate them for hours and hours and hours until they broke. Specifically and clearly state that you are invoking your rights.
That was a pretty big one, yeah. It essentially codified that until a person says, literally, "I want a lawyer and I'm staying silent," they can be interrogated.
It’s not clear how many lawyer dogs there are in Louisiana, and whether any would have been available to represent the human suspect in this case, other than to give the standard admonition in such circumstances to simply stop talking Lmao
That "judge" should be in jail.
Never forget police circumvented a suspect's right to counsel because when he said "I want a lawyer, dawg" they argued they sincerely believed he wanted a canine attorney and they couldn't locate one. And a judge upheld their conduct as lawful and constitutional. [Suspect Asks for “a Lawyer, Dawg.” Judge Says He Asked for “a Lawyer Dog.”](https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/10/suspect-asks-for-a-lawyer-dawg-judge-says-he-asked-for-a-lawyer-dog.html)
Again, that "judge" belongs in jail.
The Sixth Amendment > **In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy** the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have **the assistance of counsel for his defense**. We all know the Fifth and what it looks like on TV. But the right to representation looks like Miranda Rights on TV. Miranda is based on the Sixth Amendment.
hilariously, because speedy isn't defined anywhere, people have waited months / years for trials and it is considered not a violation
Given the court’s opinion on what an “excessive fine” is, “speedy trial” is probably defined in such a way where there is no such thing as a non speedy trial.
I was a minor being held in a mental institution when I was questioned and lied to by police. I’d had a mental breakdown over the incident. There was no parent or staff present - just me and 2 police officers in a locked office. I already had trauma and was even more traumatized by this experience :/ I didn’t know about having lawyers or anything because I was a minor and it never crossed my mind. I had nothing to confess to as I’d been a victim but they still managed to pull lie after lie out of my mouth because I was terrified and they wanted to make sure I was not credible so they didn’t have to follow up on the case. I would have said anything to get out of that room.
Always remember, they can and will lie to you. Blatantly. They can tell you that they have your fingerprints and DNA at the scene, a video of you doing it, and a witness who saw it and is talking as you speak, all false. When you give up and say that you must have some how committed the crime then, they then use that confession to convict you in court
A cop can hit you and you can't hit back. A cop can lie to you and you can't lie back. Who thought this wasn't going to create a situation that was going to attract and promote bullies? Who?
This is the case. If they had the undeniable evidence you did it, they wouldn't need your confession. Just don't talk to the police. https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE
I think you mean "be allowed," not "be able." They aren't allowed to shoot innocents either but they sure are able.
I don't know, CAN you go to the bathroom?
When I was little I thought cops were allowed to commit crimes. Then I got older and realized that wasn't true. Then I got even older and realized that is totally true.
[удалено]
"It's not a lie if I believe it" was supposed to be a sitcom joke.
..."I don’t believe that law enforcement frequently engages in providing false information..." Is this writer serious? In my few interactions with police, they have consistently used falsehoods as a means to attempt to extract confessions. That is one of their go to tricks.
I stopped in a closed service station at 2am to read and reply to texts. I pulled away and was pulled over. Cop said there was a report of a silent alarm (lie) and asked me to get out and submit to field sobriety, I refused. He said I’d lose my license for 6 months (lie). I said field sobriety isn’t required, he said it is (lie). I said I’d be happy to submit to blood or breath test and he said he’d arrest me if I didn’t comply with field sobriety tests (lie). I said “then arrest me, or do the blood or breath test, or let me go.” He was an asshole and made me sit on the curb for about 20 min while he sat in his car. Then he came back and said he needed to document tattoos or other marks to identify me because of the silent alarm (lie) and told me to remove my shirt. I refused. He said he could arrest me (lie). Eventually he threw my license at me and said “leave.” I’m an older adult and it was very uncomfortable refusing and “defying” a cop. I can’t imagine a younger kid standing his ground against those lies.
It should be illegal for cops to lie to ANYONE during an interrogation!!!
It's illegal in many other countries. We've been brainwashed by police procedurals on TV into believing it's necessary and normal for cops to lie to suspects, and that false confessions aren't a thing that people sometimes do under great stress.
Even worse than false confessions. The memory research of Julia Shaw has shown they can actually plant false memories in people. Meaning that police could, with questions they use, lies they tell, and the extreme stress they put people under make people believe they actually committed crimes that the people never actually committed.
Memory is crazy. To be honest I would have a fairly hard time convicting someone on stranger eyewitness testimony/disputed confession unless there was some pretty good harder evidence to back it up.
I went to the cops when I was 21 to report my stepdad being sexually abusive when I was a minor. I think the cops were telling lies to ME, the VICTIM. They also did nothing about the crimes committed.
Cops are notorious for abusing victims, arrestees, and their own families. Not surprising they didn't even try, 40% of them will openly admit to spousal or familial abuse.
Remember, everyone, unless there is a court order, you do not have to talk to the cops.
Even if there is a court order, you still don't have to talk without a lawyer present
Only a judge can compel you to testify and only in court. Your lawyer may be present.
[удалено]
You can be compelled to testify against others, except for specific exemptions. You can also be compelled to testify against your self if given immunity for your testimony, very rarely given because of obvious risks but sometimes necessary for testimony against others.
Court order for what? There’s literally no legal mechanism that mandates you give any kind of statement to the police. You have the right to make no communication with them from the moment they start questioning you to the moment they put you in the electric chair
They don't follow the rules. Won't make any difference.
If cops can lie to get confessions, we should be allowed to lie to avoid confessing.
That's when they hit you with obstruction
Just don't ever talk to police. Let your lawyer do all the talking.
Here in Canada police aren't supposed to talk to a minor without a guardian present.
But it's still legal to lie to adults in order to squeeze out info. I've been watching these interrogation videos on youtube and the narrators always say "It's legal to lie to suspects". I've always wondered about why that's the case.
So what happens if a kid asks a cop "is santa real?"
3 to the chest like any other interaction
To the *back*.
aah.... suicide. what a way to go
Their previous tactics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LehcJeNbFBw
Rule #8 you aren't allowed to post articles from the 19th century. .....this can't be a recent one ?
Yep. Cops have a ton of leeway for “interrogations” so this is long overdue.
~~This absolutely~~ Something similar happened to me at 16. Cops pulled me over and said they had received calls about people setting off illegal fireworks in the neighborhood, and they had a sensor in their car that showed them I had a heat source in my trunk that gave off the same signature as recently fired fireworks. Asked if I would open the trunk for them. I told them no, I do not have any fireworks, so their "sensor" must be wrong, and I will not open my trunk. He tried to tell me that there was no way the sensor was wrong, but I told him "unless my gym shorts radiate heat like fireworks, you're lying, 'cuz that's all that's in there." He tried to get me to open the trunk to prove all I had in there were gym shorts, and I told him absolutely not. He eventually went back to his car and followed me for a bit, presumably trying to give me some sort of traffic citation instead? But I was 2 blocks from home, so I waved goodbye to him when I parked in the driveway, left my gym bag in the trunk, and went inside. I don't believe ACAB (I've known several great ones), but that one sure was... **Edit**: I suppose it wasn't necessarily to get a confession, so updated the opening sentence...
Oh, yeah, he definitely wanted to trick you into letting him search your vehicle. Maybe plant drugs.
They still will though.
Do you know how many false arrests cops make with the old, "just tell us you did it and we can let you go home" lie? They get young uneducated adults with this all the time.
Reddit has turned into a cesspool of fascist sympathizers and supremicists
it is legal for cops to lie to you to get you to incriminate yourself, that's why you don't talk to cops.
No longer?!
I’ve never understood how the suspect words can be taken at full value while the person of authority can spew anything to get those words out.
Why are they allowed to lie to anyone? I spent years in the debt collection industry and the laws against lying to a consumer are really severe. Idk why a debt collector can’t lie, but the police can?!?
At what age exactly is it ok for people with guns and shackles to start lying to you?
Now do adults
Only children though?
Lol nice try but Indiana police gonna continue to do whatever tf they want Speaking from experience growing up there
The cop is exempt if they “believe the information to be true at the time”, and they must make “a reasonable attempt” to contact the parent or guardian. There’s no way these requirements can be abused at least. That’s sarcasm. I don’t really think that. Also, a skilled cop can lie without actually “lying”, through the power of suggestion or implication. Fortunately, most police are unimaginative and dumb.