Posted on 01/14/2014 8:09:01 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
I had a friend unlucky enough to find a woman’s body while hiking near the Blue Ridge Parkway. They isolated him and told his wife he had been having an affair with this woman. They told his employer the same.
From the dog catcher to the President, THEY ARE ALL LIARS.
Close. Under some circumstances, I suppose that a lie could be “delaying or obstructing” but it’s the obstruction, not the lie itself that is illegal. A fine distinction, perhaps, but material.
You are quite correct that lies told to federal agents are themselves crimes under federal law. You’ll look long and hard to find a similar state law that applies to your local constabulary.
Having been accused of a serious crime I didn't commit I *would* get myself a lawyer and have him/her present during any questioning.However,I *would* answer all questions put to me *regardless* of any advice my lawyer might give.I'd also give them my fingerprints,DNA,computers,phone records,etc,etc...despite any advice my lawyer might provide.
OTOH,if I'm guilty I don't say a word to the cops or turn over *anything* to them without my lawyer's approval....or a court order.
This wall between a police officer and the citizen is growing by the day and with the police paramilitary buildup places most Americans on their guard against the coming assault upon them!
Never speak to a cop, he or she is not you friend. Wait until the 2nd Revolutionary war begins and most Americans will discover just how much they hate most American citizens, especially those who are armed and are individualist who want to be left alone!
Absolutely no disrespect intended. But what’s your reasoning? I’m curious. And, I daresay, educatable.
I suspect that mine is a minority opinion so I don't read any disrespect into those who question or disagree.
But what’s your reasoning?
Simply put...my reasoning behind my attitude when *wrongly* accused is that I'm reasonably articulate and can be pretty convincing when I'm telling the truth about something.That fact combined with a (possibly naive) faith in the system would bolster my basic "if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear" philosophy.
My attitude regarding having been justifiably accused...I'm a *terrible* liar,not even slightly convincing and easily tripped up.As a kid,I was always amazed by how my mother could almost always figure out when I was lying (not that I lied all that often).So it's highly unlikely that I could even fool a jury with a collective IQ as low as OJ's first jury.
I bet 99% of the cops in this country have never seen a copy of the constitution. I’ll also bet a huge majority of big city cops can’t read above eighth grade level.
Fair ball. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Thanks for the reply!
The DA is the case should have been referred to the State Bar on an ethics case.
I have told people who were not in law enforcement the same thing.
"Their goal is not to get “the truth”. It is to arrest someone."
My goal was to try to arrest the person responsible. If, in my mind, there was not enough to make the arrest, I let the person go. I remember a case that another officer wrote and the charges were very serious felonies according to the report. As it happened, the two individuals involved contacted me and I interviewed them both, and I didn't arrest either. I wrote a follow up to the report of what they told me, and in the end, the District Attorney filed misdemeanor charges. The easy thing would have been just to make the arrest and not talk to them. I chose the harder way.
Regardless, the point of the scenario is for you to choose your response to the actions of the police. The police found your missing family member alive. You must choose to thank them or curse them.
But in the scenario your missing family member WAS found - ALIVE - because of the work of the detective who lied to the parolee. Sure the parolee was nervous. It's very common when officers contact parolees.
Choose your response. Thank the detective or curse him. It's a simple choice.
Regardless, the scenario stands as is. The detective found your missing relative alive. Do you thank him or curse him.
No, it doesn't, because it presumes no other possibilities and is therefore a false premise. It is artificial because the cop would not be fool enough to try it under a Constitutional justice system; else he would lose the conviction. Yet to play your game by the Constitutional standard, I would thank him for my relative safety and curse him for getting the crook off with his clumsy handling of the case having produced inadmissible evidence, leaving the perp free to trouble my family and his in retaliation. Your cop would be prosecuted and land in jail. I would then console his family pursuant to the perp's calculated retribution having shot the SOB for trying it with mine.
You lack creativity, which is why you resorted to the easy, familiar, and dishonest gambit.
Citizens are not sheep. The justice system has made the people into sheep. It was not originally intended to run this way, and didn't for most of the first century of this nation's life until communist lawyers started to mess with it with the goal of a police state making citizen law enforcement virtually impossible. They succeeded. Apparently you like it that way. Unfortunately, it has made police officers perjuring themselves a daily occurrence (and yes, I do know police officers and this is from what they say, even in tony Silicon Valley).
It’s a hypthotical
mark
Where did you learn that? You aren't paraphrasing Aristotle. You're getting this from someone else or making it up yourself.
Reading Ethics. It's a condensation of about three pages.
You aren't paraphrasing Aristotle. You're getting this from someone else or making it up yourself.
Nope.
You don’t care to discuss it?
Aristotle: "If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for at that rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our desire would be empty and vain), clearly this must be the good and the chief good. . . . Since there are evidently more than one end, and we choose some of these (e.g. wealth, flutes, and in general instruments) for the sake of something else, clearly not all ends are final ends; but the chief good is evidently something final. Therefore, if there is only one final end, this will be what we are seeking, and if there are more than one, the most final of these will be what we are seeking. Now we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else, and that which is never desirable for the sake of something else more final than the things that are desirable both in themselves and for the sake of that other thing, and therefore we call final without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else.
Now such a thing happiness . . "
That’s part of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.