The Law An interesting video about police and your right to silence

[stormee]

This video is American but it really stands up as well here as it does there. It's about why you shouldn't make a statement to police and should use your right to silence as an effective tool if you are questioned, even if you are innocent.

It ties in nicely with some of the questions of police abuse of power and corner cutting that have been coming up in some threads over the past few days too in regard to the new search powers. I truly agree with everything this guy says. Silence is golden. What are your thoughts, if you get time to watch the video.

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6wXkI4t7nuc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6wXkI4t7nuc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

 

[Play by Numbers]

Excellent clip which explains the importance of the right to silence and why people should exercise that right.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

by golly that's a good clip. I strongly recommend you watch it, even though it's long.

It perfectly explains the automated nature of the criminal justice machine. As the OP said, you'd hate to think what that means coupled with even a shred of corruption

 

[fishguts]

by golly that's a good clip. I strongly recommend you watch it, even though it's long.

It perfectly explains the automated nature of the criminal justice machine. As the OP said, you'd hate to think what that means coupled with even a shred of corruption

Agreed, was well worth the watch. It is very informative from both a defence and prosecutor's perspective.

 

[bunsen burner]

Even when you're innocent and telling the truth it's very easy to have contradictions in your story and it's very easy to see something different to how someone else sees it.

Therefore, remain silent at all times.

 

[bit_pattern]

Haven't watched the vid but just got to say that nothing pisses me off more than those filthy, propaganda police drama shows (Law and Order, The Bill etc) that try to push the line that not talking makes you look guilty in front of a jury. If you are implicated in anything then it is up to the police to build the evidence with which to prosecute you, it isn't your ****ing responsobility to do their job for them. Let them build their case then get a ****ing lawyer to disemble it in front of the people deciding whether their case is sound or not. These **********s are trained to manipulate and twist every word you say, guilty or innocent they don't really give a s**t, they just want to prosecute their case.

 

[tandino]

Haven't watched the vid but just got to say that nothing pisses me off more than those filthy, propaganda police drama shows (Law and Order, The Bill etc) that try to push the line that not talking makes you look guilty in front of a jury. If you are implicated in anything then it is up to the police to build the evidence with which to prosecute you, it isn't your ****ing responsobility to do their job for them. Let them build their case then get a ****ing lawyer to disemble it in front of the people deciding whether their case is sound or not. These **********s are trained to manipulate and twist every word you say, guilty or innocent they don't really give a s**t, they just want to prosecute their case.

Looks like that video will be right up your alley then.

I think a lot of people have got it stuck in their head that the concept of not talking = guilty, so they are more than willing to "cooperate" with police, which will lead to their downfall eventually.

It has certainly given me a heap to think about.

 

[Chief]

Can we put to rest the phrase "those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear" ?

 

[stormee]

Can we put to rest the phrase "those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear" ?

Bravo, seriously this is the most annoying phrase and people parrot it like it's gospel. It isn't about having nothing to hide as this video shows.

Further, our civil liberties should be at the core of our law. OUR RIGHT TO EXIST WITHOUT INVASION OF OUR PRIVACY. Without intrusion from law enforcement into our lives. Things like CCTV all over a city (think london) are part of this. So are the new search laws.

This really is just the tip of the spear. And please don't turn around to those of us who didn't agree with the laws when your civil liberties are totally eroded and ask us what is to be done. We warned you.

 

[Wally Carter]

I saw this clip some time back, it is excellent. However, there is one big difference. Australia has no constitutional protection for the right to silence.

Excellent clip which explains the importance of the right to silence and why people should exercise that right.

If the police really want you to talk they can just bypass your "state rights" and drag you up before the Australian Crime Commission on some trumped up crap.

To achieve this aim, the ACC has a range of special coercive powers such as the capacity to compel attendance at examinations, production of documents and the answering of questions (similar to a Royal Commission). The ACC also has an intelligence-gathering capacity and a range of investigative powers common to law-enforcement agencies, such as the power to tap phones, use surveillance devices and participate in controlled operations.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BD/2007-08/08bd054.pdf

Failure to give a statement before the ACC, and maintain your supposed "right to silence", can result in a 5 year prison term. A person was given 8 months in January of this year for that exact reason.

It is a criminal offence to refuse or fail to take an oath or
make an affirmation when required to do so by an examiner21. Likewise, it
is a criminal offence to refuse or fail to answer a question that an examiner
requires a person to answer. The maximum penalty for these offences is
five years imprisonment.


http://www.supremecourt.nt.gov.au/d...ralian Crime Commission Anor v LB 9 Sept.pdf

Here's another interesting read:

http://netk.net.au/Federal/Federal7.asp

The ACC is an ongoing body that is gaining expanding powers. Lawyers offices are also being bugged utilising the powers under the Anti Terrorism Act.

If you happen to share a lawyer that is involved with representing a person accused of terrorist activities, then it is a good chance that ASIO is listening to your sensitive legal conversations.

If you confide aspects of something that could be deemed a criminal activity with your legal representative and ASIO record it, they are now compelled to pass that information of the the relevant police authorities.



Aren't you glad that all those brave Aussie Diggers laid down their lives so you could have "freedom"?

Remember to vote Laborel at the next election. It REALLY matters.

 

[J_Moore]

It's true that you can't refuse to answer questions in a court, Wally, but that still doesn't mean you need to say s**t in the police interview room.

 

[Chief]

Failure to give a statement before the ACC, and maintain your supposed "right to silence", can result in a 5 year prison term. A person was given 8 months in January of this year for that exact reason.

And at that point the phrase "I cannot recall" is your friend. Nobody can outlaw a faulty memory.... can they?

 

[Illinois Nazi]

No problem with people not speaking to police. But I think they should be compelled to tell their side of the story in open court and be cross examined. (But then I have this crazy idea that the court should be there to find out what happened, not to be a playground for lawyers trying to come up with the cleverest trick to win the case.)

 

[Wally Carter]

And at that point the phrase "I cannot recall" is your friend.

Johnny Spit is your friend.

[youtube]pFS6WAXea5s[/youtube]

Nobody can outlaw a faulty memory.... can they?

Not yet.

However, that still doesn't dismiss the erosion of civil rights in this country.

We need an entrenched Bill of Rights that resides beyond the clutches of Parliament.

 

[Wally Carter]

No problem with people not speaking to police. But I think they should be compelled to tell their side of the story in open court and be cross examined. (But then I have this crazy idea that the court should be there to find out what happened, not to be a playground for lawyers trying to come up with the cleverest trick to win the case.)

Are you referring to defence lawyers?

 

[Play by Numbers]

It's true that you can't refuse to answer questions in a court, Wally, but that still doesn't mean you need to say s**t in the police interview room.

Yep.

Let your lawyer do the talking I suppose.

As for the courts I am no legal eagle and having had no experience appearing in any, I would have to take any actions in regards to how to answer questions and what to say if certain questions came up (for any hypothetical matter) under advisement from my (hypothetical) attorney.

 

[Chief]

No problem with people not speaking to police. But I think they should be compelled to tell their side of the story in open court and be cross examined. (But then I have this crazy idea that the court should be there to find out what happened, not to be a playground for lawyers trying to come up with the cleverest trick to win the case.)

That is fine. But the heart of the matter is that they should not be compelled to incriminate themselves. They need to give an answer, but that answer can be "I refuse to answer on the grounds I may incriminate myself in some way". The defendant is not there to do the job of the prosecution, just as the prosecution is not there do do the job of the defence.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Are you referring to defence lawyers?

Mainly, but not exclusively.

 

[Sportman1987]

Thanks, great vid.

 

[tesseract]

Can we put to rest the phrase "those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear" ?

Yep, such words are spouted by the legally ignorant.

 

[Wally Carter]

Mainly, but not exclusively.

Those tricky one or two man defence teams that have to try and win a case against the combined resources of the entire state?

Reckless Scallywags!!!

Yep, such words are spouted by the legally ignorant.

I'd label then "intellectually ignorant".

 

[dr nick]

that certainly was a very interesting clip, and i remember some high and pious types in some other thread absolutely lambasting a bloke who didn't want to talk to the police in regards having to prove his own innocence...

As for the cons who admit guilt to the police when they seem to have all this evidence pointing guilt at them (eg CCTV footage), is there generally some leniency shown towards them on behalf of the judge rather than having an overwhelming case going to court and being convicted on that anyway?

 

[Chief]

Basically wait until your legal person has all the evidence that the prosecution intends to use. Then work out the best course of action. It may well be that the prosecution's evidence has you bang to rights - at that point maybe your lawyer will suggest you plead guilty to try to get some leniency.

 

[Illinois Nazi]

Basically wait until your legal person has all the evidence that the prosecution intends to use. Then work out the best course of action. It may well be that the prosecution's evidence has you bang to rights - at that point maybe your lawyer will suggest you plead guilty to try to get some leniency.

Or more likely they will help you come up with some bullshit story that kind of fits the facts, which they can then try to sell to a few suckers on the jury.