[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Interesting day (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/3/2010 6:57:43 PM EDT
|
So I'm at home and my daughter finds me and say's there is someone at the door. I open the door to see who it is. It was two lady's. First thought was Mormons.
Then one lady flips open a wallet and introduces a homeland security badge.  She start's asking me about my next door neighbors that just moved a month ago.
They show me a picture of the husband and the wife to identify them. I say yep that's them. I tell her they were nice people but didn't talk much. There two children went to school with my daughters and the son said they were going back to Michigan. they ask if there was anyone else hanging around there house and I said no. I pointed to the realtors sign that was in front of the house so they could call them to see exactly when they left. They jump in there car with government plates and head off. That was it. They didn't tell me why they were looking for them. So why would homeland security be looking for someone? Makes me wonder who's living next to me. |
|
Mexican Muslims?  So that's how they're gonna do it...
Were fucked now. |
|
Quoted: Mexican Muslims? So that's how they're gonna do it...Were fucked now. Mexican Mooselimbs from Michigan  Variant of the Marijuana Machinegun Moonshine Militia
|
|
Quoted: At this point in time, offer no information of any kind about anyone. Don't be an ass about it, just give vague and inconclusive answers. This makes no sense to me, however, I think I know what position you're coming from. My own point of view is a little more center of yours, and far more inline with the law  :If asked a direct question, give a direct answer. Don't volunteer info if you're not comfortable doing so, but do not take active measures to hinder an investigation. Be honest and sincere, not evasive or misleading. If you no longer wish to answer questions, request for the interview to be halted at that point. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
At this point in time, offer no information of any kind about anyone. Don't be an ass about it, just give vague and inconclusive answers. This makes no sense to me, however, I think I know what position you're coming from. My own point of view is a little more center of yours, and far more inline with the law :
If asked a direct question, give a direct answer. Don't volunteer info if you're not comfortable doing so, but do not take active measures to hinder an investigation. Be honest and sincere, not evasive or misleading. If you no longer wish to answer questions, request for the interview to be halted at that point. My responses are entirely within the law....unless you're in court presented with a warrant and compelled to answer, you do not have to answer anything except your name, your address, and (iirc) where you work. My answers are also not "active measures" to hinder an investigation: If you don't know, you don't know. If you don't recall, you don't recall. The burden of proof is on them to prove what you knew, and when...and even then, "I don't recall" is a legitimate defense. There are no misleading answers. There are no evasive answers. No one is under compulsion to offer information if the information is not known to you. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: At this point in time, offer no information of any kind about anyone. Don't be an ass about it, just give vague and inconclusive answers. This makes no sense to me, however, I think I know what position you're coming from. My own point of view is a little more center of yours, and far more inline with the law :If asked a direct question, give a direct answer. Don't volunteer info if you're not comfortable doing so, but do not take active measures to hinder an investigation. Be honest and sincere, not evasive or misleading. If you no longer wish to answer questions, request for the interview to be halted at that point. My responses are entirely within the law....unless you're in court presented with a warrant and compelled to answer, you do not have to answer anything except your name, your address, and (iirc) where you work. My answers are also not "active measures" to hinder an investigation: If you don't know, you don't know. If you don't recall, you don't recall. The burden of proof is on them to prove what you knew, and when...and even then, "I don't recall" is a legitimate defense. There are no misleading answers. There are no evasive answers. No one is under compulsion to offer information if the information is not known to you.  You came up with a post that was inline with the anti-govt rhetoric that you dally with from time to time, and got called on it. Look- step up and stand by whatever is you beleive, but there's not a second I'm going to let you blow smoke up my ass, especially when you flip-flop and sidestepped the two main points I countered: 1. At this point in time, offer no information of any kind about anyone. 2. ...just give vague and inconclusive answers. The point and time where you are vague and purposely misleading, or concealing information with your answer, you're hindering the investigation. The rest of your arm waving is covered in my last paragraph. Read it again with a more open mind, you'll find both of our points in the middle, kind of like between Strat and Dave_A .As an aside-If it's a Felony crime we're talking about, and you have knowledge of it, to NOT divulge all you know is a Felony in and of itself. "Misprison of a Felony". |
|
Quoted: Quoted: This makes no sense to me, however, I am under the influence of HEAVY narcotics. Leave this ones to the pros Kojak.  It's been 2 or 3 hours since my last meds....I'm more cranky than buzzed. And I might've developed a tolerance. Drove to the Rez to get smokes with *nearly* no problems. I'm sure they'll replace those signs by the end of the week. 
|
|
You have the right to remain silent, when interviewed by LEOs. ("Silent" means both no sound, and/or no information)
If a LEO cannot compel you (as the accused) to tell what you know, then he has even less power to compel a neighbor––or even a witness––to tell what they know. He may ask––but you have the right to refuse to provide the information. You do NOT have to comply with the police. Period. They cannot make you––nor can they hold you accountable for not complying. You cannot give deliberately FALSE information. That is hindering. Misleading is a form of false information. btw, I wrote "inconclusive" (as in, "...just give vague and inconclusive answers"), not "misleading." (you misread what I wrote ).
(Yes, a fine hair here...."misleading" means to give deliberately false information, or omit key information in order to make the LEO come to a false conclusion...."vague and inconclusive" means to not give enough information, so that the LEO cannot make a conclusion; "inconclusive" < "misleading" ) Many people have the idea that if a LEO asks, you must comply. If it's an immediate public safety thing, yes (you can be cited otherwise)....an investigation is not an immediate public safety thing. Yet, the image of "he's-the-police-I-must-do-what-he-says" is hard to defeat. Of course, one can always comply with the request. But, it's not mandatory, and also not illegal to refuse. |
|
Quoted: You have the right to remain silent, when interviewed by LEOs. ("Silent" means both no sound, and/or no information) That's a given, sure. If a LEO cannot compel you (as the accused) to tell what you know, then he has even less power to compel a neighbor––or even a witness––to tell what they know. He may ask––but you have the right to refuse to provide the information. Not as solid as the first point, but, I'll acquise for the purpose of this specific conversation. (In the broadest sense, there are a great number of ways to compel someone to co-operate, many of them legal with penalties.) You do NOT have to comply with the police. Period. They cannot make you––nor can they hold you accountable for not complying. Wrong.
Any person who wilfully fails to stop when requested or signaled to do so by a person reasonably identifiable as a law enforcement officer or to comply with RCW 46.61.021(3), is guilty of a misdemeanor. You cannot give deliberately FALSE information. That is hindering. Misleading is a form of false information. This is my original point, regurgitated. btw, I wrote "inconclusive" (as in, "...just give vague and inconclusive answers"), not "misleading." (you misread what I wrote ). I read it just fine. As I alluded to earlier, you occasionally come up with anti-governmant rhetorect, and that's fine, however you need to expect bleedover as there isn't much of a leap between your mistrust, what you wrote, the intnet, and another reader's perception.Re-read this and read it with the understanding that is it is a stand alone paragraph, and NOT as a distillation, extension or re-interpretation of what you had written. If asked a direct question, give a direct answer. Don't volunteer info if you're not comfortable doing so, but do not take active measures to hinder an investigation. Be honest and sincere, not evasive or misleading. If you no longer wish to answer questions, request for the interview to be halted at that point. (Yes, a fine hair here...."misleading" means to give deliberately false information, or omit key information in order to make the LEO come to a false conclusion...."vague and inconclusive" means to not give enough information, so that the LEO cannot make a conclusion; "inconclusive" < "misleading" ) IF that is what you had written in the first place, as an included caveat for instance, it would've saved keystrokes. Many people have the idea that if a LEO asks, you must comply. If it's an immediate public safety thing, yes (you can be cited otherwise)....an investigation is not an immediate public safety thing. Yet, the image of "he's-the-police-I-must-do-what-he-says" is hard to defeat. Agreed, hold the line in accordance with the Bill of Rights. It's clear and distinctive, co-operate to the level you're comfortable with. Of course, one can always comply with the request. But, it's not mandatory, and also not illegal to refuse. I never wrote anything to the contrary, except regarding the parts where you are wrong... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You have the right to remain silent, when interviewed by LEOs. ("Silent" means both no sound, and/or no information) That's a given, sure. Ok. If a LEO cannot compel you (as the accused) to tell what you know, then he has even less power to compel a neighbor––or even a witness––to tell what they know. He may ask––but you have the right to refuse to provide the information. Not as solid as the first point, but, I'll acquise for the purpose of this specific conversation. (In the broadest sense, there are a great number of ways to compel someone to co-operate, many of them legal with penalties.) There are no legal ways for the LEO to compel compliance with a request. When one is asked "do you know..." that is a simple request for information, not an order. Feel free to list any one of the "many ways" to compel cooperation. You do NOT have to comply with the police. Period. They cannot make you––nor can they hold you accountable for not complying. Wrong.
Any person who wilfully fails to stop when requested or signaled to do so by a person reasonably identifiable as a law enforcement officer or to comply with RCW 46.61.021(3), is guilty of a misdemeanor.
From the link: RCW 46.61.021
Duty to obey law enforcement officer — Authority of officer. (1) Any person requested or signaled to stop by a law enforcement officer for a traffic infraction has a duty to stop. (2) Whenever any person is stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer may detain that person for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person, check for outstanding warrants, check the status of the person's license, insurance identification card, and the vehicle's registration, and complete and issue a notice of traffic infraction. (3) Any person requested to identify himself or herself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself and give his or her current address. I mentioned this in my first post....your only legally required information is your name and address. (eta: also proof of insurance and registration––but only if pulled over in your vehicle) (I also thought––and qualified it as such––that you have to also give your place of employment. That may be required in a courtroom, but not on the street. You cannot give deliberately FALSE information. That is hindering. Misleading is a form of false information. This is my original point, regurgitated. No, you accused me of advocating the idea of giving misleading information. I would not do that because it is....*drum roll*....illegal. 
btw, I wrote "inconclusive" (as in, "...just give vague and inconclusive answers"), not "misleading." (you misread what I wrote ). I read it just fine. As I alluded to earlier, you occasionally come up with anti-governmant rhetorect, and that's fine, however you need to expect bleedover as there isn't much of a leap between your mistrust, what you wrote, the intnet, and another reader's perception.
Re-read this and read it with the understanding that is it is a stand alone paragraph, and NOT as a distillation, extension or re-interpretation of what you had written. If you read the original just fine, why did you misrepresent what I wrote? Yes, I do write "anti-government rhetoric", but that is not relevant to this discussion. This discussion is about what information (if any) one should give to the state....in happier times, I would have been quite content to help "The Man" capture bad guys...problem is, today anyone can be a "bad guy", under the guise/accusation of "terrorism", a charge from which there is no appeal, no facing the accusor, with a host of civil penalties that one cannot rescind....and all this under the protection of "National Security". The fact it was DHS that was present and asking questions, puts me into "no way jose" mode. If asked a direct question, give a direct answer. Don't volunteer info if you're not comfortable doing so, but do not take active measures to hinder an investigation. Be honest and sincere, not evasive or misleading. If you no longer wish to answer questions, request for the interview to be halted at that point. (Yes, a fine hair here...."misleading" means to give deliberately false information, or omit key information in order to make the LEO come to a false conclusion...."vague and inconclusive" means to not give enough information, so that the LEO cannot make a conclusion; "inconclusive" < "misleading" ) IF that is what you had written in the first place, as an included caveat for instance, it would've saved keystrokes. Do I really need to write legalese, just because some didn't take the time to understand the difference between "misleading" and "vague and inconclusive"? Never mind for the moment that I didn't actually write "misleading" (you did), do I really need to clarify what is already clear? The original post: Quoted:
At this point in time, offer no information of any kind about anyone. Don't be an ass about it, just give vague and inconclusive answers. "I don't recall anything out of the ordinary." (eta: "Don't recall" is a very good reason) "They looked normal to me." (eta: What is "normal" to one, may or may not be "normal" to another) "Never really talked to them." (eta: Who's to know?) "I don't know." (eta: Best thing to say, right here.) There are no "misleading" suggestions here. Nothing to throw the authorities in another direction. Many people have the idea that if a LEO asks, you must comply. If it's an immediate public safety thing, yes (you can be cited otherwise)....an investigation is not an immediate public safety thing. Yet, the image of "he's-the-police-I-must-do-what-he-says" is hard to defeat. Agreed, hold the line in accordance with the Bill of Rights. It's clear and distinctive, co-operate to the level you're comfortable with. Of course, one can always comply with the request. But, it's not mandatory, and also not illegal to refuse. I never wrote anything to the contrary, except regarding the parts where you are wrong... There are people out there that will simply bend over and kiss The King's ass, rather than stand for Liberty. There's a lot of talk about "Molon Labe!", yet many cannot bring themselves to SHUT UP when confronted by a LEO...Sometimes we have to go beyond our comfort level in order to defeat tyranny. 
imho |
|
Red Pill, you may have stayed at the Holiday Inn, but you're obviously not a lawyer.
It so happens Matt45 has quite a bit of real-world knowledge in this area. Not sure why you've kept on and on with your points...............it IS entertaining though. You're not "bending over and kissing the King's ass", as you say, by answering a few simple questions. Good luck with pretending to be a statue, next time an LEO asks you something. Hell, film it, and we'll put it on youtube, for hilarity's sake. 
|