Home > The Main Room > The Okie Corral > Innocent man being interviewed for a B&E.

Innocent man being interviewed for a B&E.

  1. Starts around the 5 minute mark. At which point in the interview should the cop have known, they’ve nabbed the wrong guy? Yet decided to charge him anyway.
    View: https://youtu.be/CUJKaPu7oMQ
  2. You interview or interrogate for as long as they will talk to you , he’s there by consent .

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  3. As to the point I saw no indicators that jumped out that he was deceptive , the detectives should have investigated the alibis that is their job.

    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  4. Even if innocent the only words coming out of my mouth would be "Am I free to go?" and "I'd like to call my attorney.".
  5. A subject of the Queen has no constitutional rights.
  6. Strange, he was very calm. Maybe it is a Canadian thing.

    How did this get posted up, and how did it turn out?
  7. I saw nothing in the interview to prove his guilt or innocence. His calm demeanor and reasonableness definitely fit him being innocent, but there’s no automatic “yes” or “no” as to if he is, from this short video.

    You almost never know, during an interview, if what they say is true. Depending on the case, they either sit there while you investigate their story or you send them home and prove what they said, to the extent possible.
  8. As an investigating officer, this is the worst thing you can do, for you and the case. Waiting for an attorney can take days. Meanwhile, the investigation focuses more on you, instead of the actual culprit, since it is uncommon for innocent people to only speak with their attorney present. Generally, the people who are only willing to talk with an attorney present are guilty of something, if not the crime they are being asked about. This other crime tends to come out while extra attention is given to the wrong person, the same person who could have kept the investigation moving forward and ultimately, away from themselves.
  9. Why is it strange he is calm? This is three hours after the arrest. Unless he was very high, after three hours most people are calm and just want resolution.

  10. If I'm innocent and don't know anything about the actual suspect I'm not only unable to assist you but all I can do is make things worse for myself. If I can point you towards evidence or a suspect I will otherwise you are going to have to wait for my council.
  11. I think he was arrested in Delaware, he talks about property he also owns in Canada. Reading the comments he was awarded a $48,000 settlement.
  12. THIS
  13. My experience is around corporate internal investigations. Innocent people continue to be insistent that they are innocent, often becoming more insistent. They get really irritated they are accused and their reputation being tarnished. Inexperienced people that have done it, get weaker or vague in their denials, or claiming they had no idea that anything they had done was wrong, or they were going to put it back. Experienced people know the game. I never met one of those in my circle. Ours were more on the fraud and kickback side, not on the B&E side.
  14. My confusion was the Hamilton Police video and Toronto which are near each other, and the accents. Delaware surprises me.
  15. I never heard Delaware come up.

    EDIT - Listened again, Delaware is the street name I believe.
  16. Thanks, probably a Canadian case then.
  17. Yeah totally, this appears based on the what they say to take place in Hamilton, Ontario.
  18. I don't see how you would know you have the wrong guy from the guy saying he didn't do it.

    Did you learn about law from this judge?

    View: https://youtu.be/WU95F01IJsc

    When I Google it, I see people saying "witnesses said the suspect was white and Michael is black.' That leaves me shaking my head at the utter stupidity and wondering if they have looked at the guy.
  19. How about “I’m innocent.”, “Am I free to go?” And “I’d like to call my attorney.”?

    If I’m sitting in that room I don’t give a rats ass about the real culprit. I care about my ass. We probably walk by 100 uncaught felons every day.
  20. You can no longer identify a suspect by color, it is racist. You also cannot not use gender, as could be offensive to the gender fluid crowd. Nor weight as that might be offensive to the weight challenged people. Nor height as it might be offense to the height challenged. So you are down to describing their clothing, as long as it doesn't indicate any of the aforementioned aspects.

    So you can say you were robbed, but you cannot describe the person. Oh, and the government will no longer be able to use facial recognition software if they happen to get video of the crime. People will begin to complain about crimes not being cleared, even more than they do now. They will be unable to understand why.
  21. Anything to make your life easier? My using my rights is not a symptom or evidence of my guilt. People talk themselves into jail, not out of it. Your advice is terrible.
  22. People on traffic stops talk themselves into jail, not out of it. In the interview room, my experience shows heavily toward the opposite. My “advice” is based on a solid career doing criminal investigations. What is yours based on?
  23. People talk them self 'out of jail' every day. Actually, it is more common than someone talking themselves into it because criminal cases normally involve multiple persons with only one offender in the end. People provide information such as alibis and explanations for concerns that pop up and they are crossed off the list. I know the 'I hate the law people' don't believe that but it is the reality.
  24. I don’t think he is interested in reality. You know the type.
  25. He literally explained to you why that was worse for you. If you want a lawyer, the police will proceed without your input. You'll get a lawyer when you get one - they usually don't care. If you are in custody, you'll stay there a while. Best case, you have money and a lawyer you can call (very uncommon for criminals) but that still means the police ignore you until they get around to getting back to you.

    In classes, I use the example of the only police officer I ever recall asking for a lawyer, rather than making a statement immediately after a shooting. The only thing that can justify a shooting is the shooter's input, so when he skipped his chance to talk the case went to the grand jury without that input. He was indicted for murder and went to trial. At the end, he was found not guilty based on self-defense, after losing his house, job, wife, and bank account defending the case. Imagine how much better it would have been if he told them his defense on day 1 and didn't get indicted.
  26. Years of staying out of jail.
  27. 100 percent of all lawyers would disagree with you. Terrible advice
  28. Of course, they don’t have a vested interest.
  29. I don’t know about Canada, but in England, the police are not allowed to use deception of any kind while interviewing a villain/suspect. The admonition was not like the English warnings circa 1991-2.
  30. You are absolutely right - they do have a vested interest- to keep their client out of jail. You have your job to do and so do they. Allowing yourself to be interrogated by the police is incredibly dumb whether you are innocent or guilty
  31. There is a difference between interview and interrogation.
  32. Lying to a Federal agent is a felony- ask some of Trumps people how talking to the Feds worked out. If you don’t remember exactly what happened or get confused about the exact chain of events your screwed. Talking to local or state police is no different- they are going to use your words against you. Never talk to the police. Many think they can talk their way out of it and then bury themselves.
  33. Yup..."interview" is what the cops call it when they want to talk to you..."interrogation" is what it ends up being in reality.
  34. Now, I'm at a computer and can type easier...

    At risk of injecting reason and thought process, instead of blanket "never talk to the police", let me share an example, with you.

    Kansas has a law that you shall not be arrested or prosecuted, if you use a weapon in the defense of yourself, another person, your dwelling ,your place of work, or your vehicle. However, this law requires that the person who uses force "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third party against such other's imminent use of unlawful force." The next section discusses deadly force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. The last subsections of the applicable statutes states that, "Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat...."

    We had a call one night of a man who shot two home intruders. When we got there, one man was laying on the porch with a gigantic hold in his butt cheek. The other was cowering behind a vehicle, bloodied. The person who we believed shot him was still standing over them, with a 12 gauge shotgun. The man cowering behind the vehicle dropped to the ground and put his hands out. He was a known thug. He was handcuffed and an ambulance was called, for him.

    The man holding the shotgun put it down, upon LEO request. Now, let's say he refused to talk to us, at all. He refused to tell us this was his home and he heard them break in and shot them, because he was in fear for his life and the lives of his family. He would be arrested and taken to jail, until his lawyer could get there and we would clear this up, later. Meanwhile, his house would be cleared and a search warrant obtained to gather evidence as to why he shot these people. His family would not be allowed to stay there, through this process. The actual suspects may or may not be held, at this time, depending what they said (the guy shot in the butt was too out of it to say anything).

    Back to reality. The man holding the shotgun put it down and told us this was his house, he didn't know either of these guys, but had heard them kick his front door in. When he got up, the first firearm he came to was his shotgun, so that's what he used to shoot them. He expressed his fear they were going to harm him and/or his family. Now, by law, he could not be arrested unless other evidence showed this was not what occurred. The shotgun and written statements were taken (the shotgun taken in case it was needed, in court) and we helped him mend his door as good as could be done, in the middle of the night.

    Now, I live in a VERY firearm-friendly State and the LEO's here are used to dealing with armed good guys. I fully understand this gets complicated in places that have BS gun laws.

    I could go on and on with REAL examples of how innocent people talked to the cops and were better for it, but a few of you are going to still stick your head in the sand and say it's best to NEVER talk to the police. When asked why, they usually have no REAL reason, just what they have imagined or heard (generally third-hand by someone they don't know).

    Depending on the the crime and your involvement, it may be best to wait until your attorney can talk to you. This is the exception. This is the 1%, unless you are guilty. If you get brought in, in handcuffs, and you refuse to give an alibi or whereabouts, in most jurisdictions, you will sit in jail until your attorney comes in. Do you have your attorney's phone number? A 24 hour number that they themselves answer? If not, you're going to sit in jail until you can get ahold of them, when it's your turn to use the phone.

    I hate the idea of an innocent person sitting in jail, especially, if all they had to do was use a modicum of common sense. If you're willing to listen to a few minutes of the interview, you'll usually be given an timeframe and an area the LE are interested in. If you know you weren't in that area, because you were at the bank getting a new car loan, why the hell would you wait for your attorney? Conversely, if you know you were in the area of the crime and you know the person who did the crime, because you were there, YES, you would likely be best served waiting on an attorney as you need to make a deal to avoid the applicable charges you will face, but this means you are not innocent.

    I've never understood why people think LE hates it when people lawyer up. What is frustrating is when someone lawyers up and they go to jail, but then after being told to lift their balls and squat and cough, they decide they are willing to tell you something that proves their innocence, but they were just being hard headed. There's a time and place for refusing to talk, without your lawyer present. Most people will live their whole lives only seeing those times on TV or hearing about them, in a gun forum.

    With all that said, I do have my attorney's phone number. His personal cell phone that he will answer any time of day. I also have a different attorney I can call, if the first is unavailable. I have paid for this service. This was always for what could happen on the job, more than off. I don't believe I will be in an interview room, but you never know. Most people I talked to, in to interview room, had done nothing wrong. Some were victims, others were unwilling participants (in the crime) or just witnesses and I would rather have a nicely recorded interview with no background noise or distractions than what I could do in my vehicle.

    As a pre-teen, I got into a little bit of trouble. While sitting in the back of the patrol car, with my friend, his father said to us, "Don't admit to guilt". I have never forgotten it and have even said it to suspects. Even if you have done some wrong, do not admit to more than you did.
  35. You just told us why. Sorry our rights make your job tougher.
  36. Well, if I recall correctly, Bren is a lawyer, so he totally blew your curve.
  37. Minimum for a defense attorney is 350/hour.

    Minimum trial is 2 weeks for murder/manslaughter.

    Trial alone lawyer goes on the clock at 0800, at the latest, trial goes until 1700, prep for next day goes until at least 2100. Nevermind pretrial work. Easy 50k.

    Then if they are good they will have jury consultants, paralegals, second attorneys, expert witnesses.

    Yeah, no conflict of interest there.
  38. Make your life harder. See my math above plus time spent in a cell and money for bond.
  39. That happened to a DA investigator in the greater after LA area. His attorney advised him not to talk because at the time there was a school of thought amongst California attorneys who defend cops thought it would be best not to talk during an investigation of deadly force. He was convicted of manslaughter.

    That school of thought got buried real quick and the lawyers who never bought into it were able to continue to defend officers rather than go chase ambulances like the discredited idiots.
  40. ''Generally, the people who are only willing to talk with an attorney present are guilty of something''. Wow, just wow. If you truly are LEO, you are the reason that people should not talk to the police without legal representation. That representation should tell you not to talk to the police under any circumstance.

    So an officer involved in a shooting should not require legal council or union rep if it was a good shoot? It must have been a bad shoot if he wants legal/Union representation, using your philosophy.

    If you had nothing to do with the crime, you shouldn't even be at the station. Tell the officers that at the scene and go home. If they don't allow you to go home, tell them you want an attorney, no exceptions. They can and will lie to you with no repercussions. They may threaten to put you in jail for life, take your kids and house. No exceptions. I encourage anyone that believes the above comments by nikerret to watch The Innocence Files and False Confessions on Netflix.

    Never Talk To the Police- Regent Law Professor James Duane

    View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&pp=QAA%3D
  41. Based on my experience, there is usually a reason people don't want to talk to the police, when actually innocent of the crime they are being asked about. Those reasons usually are adultery or addiction. Adultery is a crime (essentially decriminalized) and the addiction may or may not be, but most of the people who initially refused to give their alibis were hiding where they were from their family, not necessarily LE. Ironically, LE doesn't care you have a girlfriend and once your alibi is proven, you're off the hook.

    Don't forget, we are talking a small portion of the population who actually will not talk to LE. The vast majority willingly provide at least some information. Of the few who refuse to talk, there's generally a reason. You two really think people who get snagged by LE and are innocent of the crime being investigated are best off waiting for their attorney, in jail, instead of just saying they were with this person, at this place? Genuinely? I highly doubt that. In fact, I would be willing to bet that having this conversation, in person, and without an audience, you would concede that such a position is stupid. Now, tell me I'm wrong and beat your chest.

    cbetts1, I know you'll never believe this, because you have made up your mind and everything is black or white, but I have nothing in my career to be ashamed of or hide. In fact, on multiple occasions, people I have arrested have come to my defense. You won't find an attorney who has ever worked a case of mine who hasn't found me professional and a LEO who operates within the rules, laws, and regulations. I had one attorney call me a liar, officially, the Judge shot him down and told him not to bring that crap in his courtroom, again.

    As far as if I got into a shooting on-duty (I'm not currently a cop, so that wouldn't happen), we don't have unions, here. My response would depend on the situation. If I had a bad shoot, I would give a much smaller statement, before the KBI arrived, to investigate. By then, I would have an attorney as, by then, I would know I DID commit a crime. If I shot an active shooter with many third-party witnesses, I would not need get an attorney. All of that ground, in the middle is too situational dependent. If I thought I needed an attorney, I would get one, but not until it appeared I needed one. If I didn't need an attorney, I wouldn't pay for one.

    No different for CCW'ers or off-duty LE. If you shoot the gas station robber after he shoots the clerk, you probably don't need an attorney. If you shoot the guy who slept with your wife, and you two were alone, in the woods, where he met you after you used your wife's phone to lure him there, but it was self-defense, you should get an attorney.

    Let's go back to the video. The suspect got brought in for a "B&E". In the beginning, the investigator seems convinced the guy did it. The suspect does talk to the investigator. How did this hurt him? From what I see, it helped him. Perhaps, you'd be willing to show how this video is damning, for the suspect. The benefits I see are the investigator says there is video. I believe the suspect was correct in calling this bluff-it didn't seem the video exists, based on the investigator's response. This is good information to have, if the suspect does get prosecuted and there wasn't a video. Was it destroyed? Was it a bluff? Great ammunition for a defense where "reasonable doubt" is all that's required.

    The other thing that was huge is the suspect provided potential witnesses in giving his story of getting off the public transportation and which route he took, before LE contact. Now, LE has to do some time-sensitive footwork and investigating to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, they have the correct person. Juries tend to find people "not guilty" when LE doesn't do their job and investigate the claims given by all parties. Even the three hours later, that the interview was to the time he got off public transportation, can make things difficult, but much easier than tracking people down a day, or two, later. You think this makes it harder for LE? Sure it does, but the problem is not LE's. LE will investigate what they can based on what they find and are given. It's the suspect's problem that LE cannot verify their story.

    Would you like to hear another story of someone who won the "talk to LE" lottery? This one is backwards, though. I'll give the short version.

    I stopped a vehicle, for speeding. The driver, one of the largest humans I have ever seen, had been drinking and had a Suspended DL. He was very forthcoming, admitting to drinking Crown Royal and littering when he threw his cup out, after he finished the drink. He also admitted he didn't have a DL and the child in the back seat was not in a proper car seat (of course, these are all things I knew or would find out, except, the littering). The whole time we interacted, something was off.

    When I got him to the jail, his girlfriend, who owned the car and was sober, followed us. When we got within a block, she turned off. I had another Deputy wait out front, for her, in case she needed help finding the building. In the jail, I ran a records check and found this man had been released from prison less than twelve hours ago. I asked him about that and he told me he used to make and sell methamphetamine and did time for that as well as weapons charges. He was very cooperative. Way too cooperative, but I couldn't come up with exactly why.

    The girlfriend arrived around thirty minutes after I got to the jail. The other Deputy said she was very friendly, asking how to bail him out. I had the other Deputy ask for consent to search the vehicle. She consented and he found nothing. He, too, said something was very off.

    The man I arrested had $1,407 cash, in his pocket. He asked if he could use that, to bail out. He could, though his bail was much less. I finished up and left. He bailed out and left with a check for the difference in the cash he brought in and the bail amount.

    The next night, at break, a Trooper asked me about the car stop, from the night prior, with the big guy. I told him about it and he said I needed to call Wichita PD. They had a burglary with an abnormally large male. After getting in touch with the Wichita PD, I learned they had a Pizza Hut robbed a few hours before my traffic stop and arrest. Guess how much money was stolen. Yep, $1,407.

    I am convinced the gun was still in the car, at the time of stop. I think she got rid of it in the thirty minutes she disappeared. It will never be proven. He took one hell of a gamble that I didn't know of the robbery and that I wouldn't learn of it before he could get arrested, processed, and bailed out.

    Based on that example, everyone who talks to the police is guilty of more than they are being charged with. Of course, this is absurd, as is the idea that someone with nothing to hide is best served by going to jail instead of just giving basic information that exonerates them. Of course, you do you. You get one life to live, make the best of it.
  42. It sticks in my memory that there used to be a sticky somewhere on GT several years ago about how to respond to police when involved in a DGU. I though it was in COP Talk.

    I've spent some time looking for it and did some searches, but can't find it. A lot of it involved around wether it was a good shoot or a bad shoot.

    Anyone know where it went?
  43. I would argue that the front door step scene of a crime is a lot different than an interrogation room.

    “I’m the home owner. I feared for my life. I’d like to talk to my attorney.”

    Repeat as needed.
  44. Dirty little secret about law professor's video: every example except one that he uses is of a factually guilty person. The exception is a guy with poor cognition who was highly susceptible to suggestion.

    Assuming that you're factually not guilty, it's to your advantage to guide the investigation in the right direction. (Okay, unless you're covering for someone.) Staying out of jail, not messing up your employment, nor having warrants served at your home are all good things. You don't need a lawyer when you have an alibi.

    If you did it, but have a justification, there's a little more to it, but again it's in your interest to have the investigation go in the right direction.

    And to quash a common untruth: cops are indeed required to give a preliminary statement after a shooting without the benefit of an attorney.
  45. Again, there's a difference between an interview and an interrogation. When you're asked/invited/requested to come down and you accept, it's not an interrogation.
  46. Here’s one to get people riled up. Would George Zimmerman been better off not talking and lawyering up? “I feared for my life. I’d like to call my attorney.”.
  47. Unfortunately all LEO and DA's aren't the stand up people like on Glock Talk:2gun: . Statistically thousands of innocent people have been put in jail or are in jail for various reasons. For the most part it is best to remain silent.
  48. "Damn the man! " , eh?

    Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk

  49. They don't. The investigation still proceeds, just without your input. That works out so that the only person things are tougher are is you.