Don't Talk to Cops, Part 1 and 2

[Quantum Windbag]

Here is another false confession for you to think about.

Lloyd was convicted of the 1984 murder of a 16-year-old girl in Detroit after he wrote to police with suggestions on how to solve various recent crimes. During several interviews, police fed details of the crime to Lloyd, who was mentally ill, and convinced him that by confessing he was helping them “smoke out” the real killer. Lloyd eventually signed a confession and gave a tape-recorded statement. The jury deliberated less than an hour before convicting him and the judge said at sentencing that execution, which had been outlawed in Michigan, would have been the “only justifiable sentence” if it were available. In 2002, DNA testing proved that Lloyd was innocent and he was exonerated. As mandated in a settlement with Lloyd’s family, Detroit Police officials said in 2006 they would start videotaping all interrogations in crimes that could carry a sentence of life.

The Innocence Project - Understand the Causes: False Confessions / Admissions

 

[ConHog]

Here is another false confession for you to think about.

Lloyd was convicted of the 1984 murder of a 16-year-old girl in Detroit after he wrote to police with suggestions on how to solve various recent crimes. During several interviews, police fed details of the crime to Lloyd, who was mentally ill, and convinced him that by confessing he was helping them “smoke out” the real killer. Lloyd eventually signed a confession and gave a tape-recorded statement. The jury deliberated less than an hour before convicting him and the judge said at sentencing that execution, which had been outlawed in Michigan, would have been the “only justifiable sentence” if it were available. In 2002, DNA testing proved that Lloyd was innocent and he was exonerated. As mandated in a settlement with Lloyd’s family, Detroit Police officials said in 2006 they would start videotaping all interrogations in crimes that could carry a sentence of life.

The Innocence Project - Understand the Causes: False Confessions / Admissions

A mentally ill person does not bolster your case here. It opens up another discussion, but it doesn't bolster your argument about lying to suspects.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here is another false confession for you to think about.

Lloyd was convicted of the 1984 murder of a 16-year-old girl in Detroit after he wrote to police with suggestions on how to solve various recent crimes. During several interviews, police fed details of the crime to Lloyd, who was mentally ill, and convinced him that by confessing he was helping them “smoke out” the real killer. Lloyd eventually signed a confession and gave a tape-recorded statement. The jury deliberated less than an hour before convicting him and the judge said at sentencing that execution, which had been outlawed in Michigan, would have been the “only justifiable sentence” if it were available. In 2002, DNA testing proved that Lloyd was innocent and he was exonerated. As mandated in a settlement with Lloyd’s family, Detroit Police officials said in 2006 they would start videotaping all interrogations in crimes that could carry a sentence of life.

The Innocence Project - Understand the Causes: False Confessions / Admissions

A mentally ill person does not bolster your case here. It opens up another discussion, but it doesn't bolster your argument about lying to suspects.

Why not? If you think that people who are mentally ill should not be lied to, how are police supposed to know they are crazy? Is there some kind of mark on them that cops can see that is invisible to non cops?

 

[ConHog]

Here is another false confession for you to think about.

The Innocence Project - Understand the Causes: False Confessions / Admissions

A mentally ill person does not bolster your case here. It opens up another discussion, but it doesn't bolster your argument about lying to suspects.

Why not? If you think that people who are mentally ill should not be lied to, how are police supposed to know they are crazy? Is there some kind of mark on them that cops can see that is invisible to non cops?

You ever talk to a mentally ill person? Generally pretty easy to tell and that point the DA will usually ask them to meet with a psychologist or barring them agreeing to get, get a court order for such. I have no idea why that wasn't done in the case you cited.

 

[George Costanza]

Now boys - let's all get along here.

OK - I had to review a bunch of police reports in an attempt murder case in preparation for a preliminary hearing next week. All done now . . . so let's talk about cops lying to suspects in order to get a confession.

First off, it is clear they can legally do it - no question about that. But is something like this morally justified? Of course not. But the perp wasn't playing fair when he committed his crimes - why should the police play fair with him in trying to get him to admit to what he did?

This is one of those "crystal ball" issues that so often comes up in the area of police v. perps. If we could be 100% certain that the police had a guilty suspect in the interrogation room, then I would not be opposed to their lying to the suspect in order to induce a confession. The problem is, we can't be 100% certain of that and, besides, regardless of what the cops may THINK they have against the suspect, he is still PRESUMED INNOCENT prior to conviction in a court of law.

I have always believed in the principle that it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than that one innocent person be convicted. I feel the same way on this issue. I think it is better that the police fail to get confessions from 10 guilty suspects than that one innocent person give a confession based on lies told to him by the police.

I think this is also one of those areas where reasonable minds can differ. I can see good arguments on the other side of the issue as well. But I am a defense attorney first and a liberal Democrat second, so my position on the issue is fairly easy to determine.

First George, I must ask you why you used the plural boys in your rebuke? I did nothing to deserve his ridicule and did not retaliate.

Now onto the matter at hand.

I certainly 100% agree with you, I'd rather see 10 guilty men go free than see one innocent man go to jail, and so while I stood on the other side of the fence from you, I certainly respect your place in our judicial system.

I just don't see how an innocent person could possibly be tricked into confessing. if a guilty person is too stupid to detect a lie and or exercise their rights... that's too bad.

But as you said, this is just one of those issues that either side has positive and negatives. It would be a much easier call if we only detained guilty suspects.

Apologies - make that singular.

How could an innocent person be tricked into confessing to a crime he did not commit? I have given this example several times before, but I'll dust it off one more time:

Husband is accused of killing his wife. He is factually innocent, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence against him. Police tell him that they will be going for the death penalty on the basis of what they now have. They then say that he can get himself out of the death penalty if he tells them what really happened because there are a number of scenarios which, if it happened that way, the suspect would not be subject to the death penalty.

Even though he is innocent, the guy confesses to killing his wife in a fit of rage in order to avoid the death penalty. Can you see how someone might confess to a murder he did not commit under that kind of pressure? The police tell him how he will be out in three years for manslaughter as opposed to being executed if he sticks to his "I didn't do it" story.

In point of fact, this never was a death penalty case - but the police are allowed to lie to the suspect. In point of fact, he will be facing 25 to life for first degree murder on the basis of his confession - not out in 3 years for manslaughter. But, once again, the police are allowed to lie to the suspect.

This kind of stuff happens much more often than people think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A mentally ill person does not bolster your case here. It opens up another discussion, but it doesn't bolster your argument about lying to suspects.

Why not? If you think that people who are mentally ill should not be lied to, how are police supposed to know they are crazy? Is there some kind of mark on them that cops can see that is invisible to non cops?

You ever talk to a mentally ill person? Generally pretty easy to tell and that point the DA will usually ask them to meet with a psychologist or barring them agreeing to get, get a court order for such. I have no idea why that wasn't done in the case you cited.

Sure it is, which is why people who actually make their living talking to mentally ill people are fooled all the time.

 

[ConHog]

Now boys - let's all get along here.

OK - I had to review a bunch of police reports in an attempt murder case in preparation for a preliminary hearing next week. All done now . . . so let's talk about cops lying to suspects in order to get a confession.

First off, it is clear they can legally do it - no question about that. But is something like this morally justified? Of course not. But the perp wasn't playing fair when he committed his crimes - why should the police play fair with him in trying to get him to admit to what he did?

This is one of those "crystal ball" issues that so often comes up in the area of police v. perps. If we could be 100% certain that the police had a guilty suspect in the interrogation room, then I would not be opposed to their lying to the suspect in order to induce a confession. The problem is, we can't be 100% certain of that and, besides, regardless of what the cops may THINK they have against the suspect, he is still PRESUMED INNOCENT prior to conviction in a court of law.

I have always believed in the principle that it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than that one innocent person be convicted. I feel the same way on this issue. I think it is better that the police fail to get confessions from 10 guilty suspects than that one innocent person give a confession based on lies told to him by the police.

I think this is also one of those areas where reasonable minds can differ. I can see good arguments on the other side of the issue as well. But I am a defense attorney first and a liberal Democrat second, so my position on the issue is fairly easy to determine.

First George, I must ask you why you used the plural boys in your rebuke? I did nothing to deserve his ridicule and did not retaliate.

Now onto the matter at hand.

I certainly 100% agree with you, I'd rather see 10 guilty men go free than see one innocent man go to jail, and so while I stood on the other side of the fence from you, I certainly respect your place in our judicial system.

I just don't see how an innocent person could possibly be tricked into confessing. if a guilty person is too stupid to detect a lie and or exercise their rights... that's too bad.

But as you said, this is just one of those issues that either side has positive and negatives. It would be a much easier call if we only detained guilty suspects.

Apologies - make that singular.

How could an innocent person be tricked into confessing to a crime he did not commit? I have given this example several times before, but I'll dust it off one more time:

Husband is accused of killing his wife. He is factually innocent, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence against him. Police tell him that they will be going for the death penalty on the basis of what they now have. They then say that he can get himself out of the death penalty if he tells them what really happened because there are a number of scenarios which, if it happened that way, the suspect would not be subject to the death penalty.

Even though he is innocent, the guy confesses to killing his wife in a fit of rage in order to avoid the death penalty. Can you see how someone might confess to a murder he did not commit under that kind of pressure? The police tell him how he will be out in three years for manslaughter as opposed to being executed if he sticks to his "I didn't do it" story.

In point of fact, this never was a death penalty case - but the police are allowed to lie to the suspect. In point of fact, he will be facing 25 to life for first degree murder on the basis of his confession - not out in 3 years for manslaughter. But, once again, the police are allowed to lie to the suspect.

This kind of stuff happens much more often than people think.

Of course that happens a lot more than people want to admit, BUT the question is why? Is it because LEO lie to suspects or is it because people are too stupid to exercise their right to an attorney? Seriously, if you were in the room when such a silly proposition was put to your client how many seconds would it be before you said hell no, would you even consult your client before declining? Of course not. On the other hand, a GUILTY person would jump at the lie to avoid the possibility of a death penalty, even if as you contend there really wasn't a possibility of such.

Did I make sense there at all?

 

[ConHog]

Why not? If you think that people who are mentally ill should not be lied to, how are police supposed to know they are crazy? Is there some kind of mark on them that cops can see that is invisible to non cops?

You ever talk to a mentally ill person? Generally pretty easy to tell and that point the DA will usually ask them to meet with a psychologist or barring them agreeing to get, get a court order for such. I have no idea why that wasn't done in the case you cited.

Sure it is, which is why people who actually make their living talking to mentally ill people are fooled all the time.

Look pal, it's pretty apparent you're out of your depth here. of course professionals are fooled all the time, but rarely does a court appointed Dr declare someone isn't fit for trial when i fact they are.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You ever talk to a mentally ill person? Generally pretty easy to tell and that point the DA will usually ask them to meet with a psychologist or barring them agreeing to get, get a court order for such. I have no idea why that wasn't done in the case you cited.

Sure it is, which is why people who actually make their living talking to mentally ill people are fooled all the time.

Look pal, it's pretty apparent you're out of your depth here. of course professionals are fooled all the time, but rarely does a court appointed Dr declare someone isn't fit for trial when i fact they are.

What do court appointed Dr have to do with this?\

FYI, mentally ill people can be highly intelligent, and delusional. Some of their delusions can be so well thought out that they can convince others of the reality of their delusion. If trained psychiatrists sometimes think a delusional person is of sound mind, how are untrained police supposed to tall the difference? Especially when it actually makes their job easier by wrapping a complicated case up in a neat bow?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

First George, I must ask you why you used the plural boys in your rebuke? I did nothing to deserve his ridicule and did not retaliate.

Now onto the matter at hand.

I certainly 100% agree with you, I'd rather see 10 guilty men go free than see one innocent man go to jail, and so while I stood on the other side of the fence from you, I certainly respect your place in our judicial system.

I just don't see how an innocent person could possibly be tricked into confessing. if a guilty person is too stupid to detect a lie and or exercise their rights... that's too bad.

But as you said, this is just one of those issues that either side has positive and negatives. It would be a much easier call if we only detained guilty suspects.

Apologies - make that singular.

How could an innocent person be tricked into confessing to a crime he did not commit? I have given this example several times before, but I'll dust it off one more time:

Husband is accused of killing his wife. He is factually innocent, but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence against him. Police tell him that they will be going for the death penalty on the basis of what they now have. They then say that he can get himself out of the death penalty if he tells them what really happened because there are a number of scenarios which, if it happened that way, the suspect would not be subject to the death penalty.

Even though he is innocent, the guy confesses to killing his wife in a fit of rage in order to avoid the death penalty. Can you see how someone might confess to a murder he did not commit under that kind of pressure? The police tell him how he will be out in three years for manslaughter as opposed to being executed if he sticks to his "I didn't do it" story.

In point of fact, this never was a death penalty case - but the police are allowed to lie to the suspect. In point of fact, he will be facing 25 to life for first degree murder on the basis of his confession - not out in 3 years for manslaughter. But, once again, the police are allowed to lie to the suspect.

This kind of stuff happens much more often than people think.

Of course that happens a lot more than people want to admit, BUT the question is why? Is it because LEO lie to suspects or is it because people are too stupid to exercise their right to an attorney? Seriously, if you were in the room when such a silly proposition was put to your client how many seconds would it be before you said hell no, would you even consult your client before declining? Of course not. On the other hand, a GUILTY person would jump at the lie to avoid the possibility of a death penalty, even if as you contend there really wasn't a possibility of such.

Did I make sense there at all?

It is OK to lie to suspects because only guilty people or stupid people confess, does that sum it up?

 

[ConHog]

Sure it is, which is why people who actually make their living talking to mentally ill people are fooled all the time.

Look pal, it's pretty apparent you're out of your depth here. of course professionals are fooled all the time, but rarely does a court appointed Dr declare someone isn't fit for trial when i fact they are.

What do court appointed Dr have to do with this?\

FYI, mentally ill people can be highly intelligent, and delusional. Some of their delusions can be so well thought out that they can convince others of the reality of their delusion. If trained psychiatrists sometimes think a delusional person is of sound mind, how are untrained police supposed to tall the difference? Especially when it actually makes their job easier by wrapping a complicated case up in a neat bow?

What does a court appointed Dr have to do with it? I already explained that. If a suspect seems "off" a Dr is in order

 

[Ragnar]

If suspected of something never talk to cops. They can and will hear what they want to hear. Cops decide ahead of time what happened in every case and then go about proving what they have decided happened. Get a lawyer.

Cops are allowed to lie to you at all stages of talking to you.

If you are not a suspect there is nothing wrong with talking to cops.

Danger, danger! (Spoken like someone who needs to watch the video's. lol)

Very thoughtful stuff on the question of the morality of cops lying to suspects. I've had no law training beyond a few Constitutional Law credits doing PolySci way back in the early 1990's. I know it has zip to do with the video's but it's still fun to follow through the thread. If nothing else, for me, the knowledge of the cops ability to lie is just one more reason (among so many) to shut the hell up. Reason numero uno being it can't possibly help you and likely as not will hurt you regardless of your innocence.

All that said, I know that I have no problem at all with the cops legal ability to lie to suspects. I'm on the fence as to it's morality, leaning toward the idea that it ought to be in a police officer's bag of tricks. I imagine it does more good than harm and in the end, you can always get around it by... wait for it... oh yeah, never talking to cops.



On the morality question I'm assuming the suspect is of a sound mind. Though, how one might be of sound mind during an interrogation (sorry "interview") is beyond me. Leading back full circle to not farking talking to the cops, lol.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Look pal, it's pretty apparent you're out of your depth here. of course professionals are fooled all the time, but rarely does a court appointed Dr declare someone isn't fit for trial when i fact they are.

What do court appointed Dr have to do with this?\

FYI, mentally ill people can be highly intelligent, and delusional. Some of their delusions can be so well thought out that they can convincY

What does a court appointed Dr have to do with it? I already explained that. If a suspect seems "off" a Dr is in order

You started the discussion about court appointed Drs, not me.

 

[ConHog]

What do court appointed Dr have to do with this?\

FYI, mentally ill people can be highly intelligent, and delusional. Some of their delusions can be so well thought out that they can convincY

What does a court appointed Dr have to do with it? I already explained that. If a suspect seems "off" a Dr is in order

You started the discussion about court appointed Drs, not me.

and I explained their place. Sorry you can't understand it.

 

[Ragnar]

Bumping as useful info for anyone who cares to watch the vids in the OP.

 

[lawbuff]

I have no problem with people being advised to shut up when confronted by LEO, whether they are guilty or innocent. The burden is on the state to prove a case if they have one. No burden for the suspect to help them out.

In my state, Ohio, if I am charged with a crime and I assert an Alibi defense by notice of, at trial, I must prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, the state does not have to.

I disagree with you on whether LEO can lie to suspects. I have no problem with a LEO or DA telling a suspect they have a witness or anything like that in order to entice a confession. There's not much chance of someone being told they have a witness to a crime they didn't commit and admitting to a different crime because of that claim. It's just not logical.

I have seen case law addressing the legality of police tricking a person out of his home/apartment so they can effect an arrest in public, no warrant then.

For the life of me, I can't remember the decision, whether permitted or not, but I have read such.

 

[lawbuff]

In case you didn't quite follow it all, I'll sum it up for ya. Do. Not. Talk. To. Cops.

Not at all????

That could land you in the pokey, fact specific here, remember Hiibel??

Additionally, iF you are witness to a major felony, namely, we will say, Homicide, and refuse to give your name/address to a LEO for subpeona purposes, you "could possibly" find yourself under arrest as a Material Witness.

 

[Ragnar]

In case you didn't quite follow it all, I'll sum it up for ya. Do. Not. Talk. To. Cops.

Not at all????

That could land you in the pokey, fact specific here, remember Hiibel??

Additionally, iF you are witness to a major felony, namely, we will say, Homicide, and refuse to give your name/address to a LEO for subpeona purposes, you "could possibly" find yourself under arrest as a Material Witness.

No, I had to google Hiibel. Just an FYI but I'm not a lawyer nor do I have any kind of legal expertise at all.

I concede there are likely many occasions when one could have a legal or moral obligation to (in many cases "eventually") talk to the police. Not least of which would be to talk to them as a witness or a victim in a crime.

My understanding of the video's (and it's been a few days) is that in all or nearly all the examples, the police were interrogating ("interviewing") suspects. The point was/is that one should never volunteer anything one is not absolutely legally required to w/o getting a lawyer first. (including 100% true statements)