It's not considered lying even if they have an expert witness/undercover officer.

That witnessed everything that happened.

Keep in mind, this mostly extends to a defense, not to a witness.

Ultimately: Police don't determine guilt, the court determines guilt. The police establish probable cause, this is much further down the metaphoric ladder than a conviction is. You also cannot have your practicing of rights used in a way that would be taken into consideration by the court. E.g: They can't say that because you refused to talk, that you're more suspect; moreover, they cannot use that as any sort of evidence for conviction or change of judge ruling. (If my understanding is correct) @RobertGrulerEsq Would know more about this, as this is his area of expertise.

If pleading the 5th were self-incriminating in itself, it would defeat the purpose of the amendment after all.

I don't think Doc is disputing that

he made two points (from what I can tell) that doesn't contradict what you are saying

1. Point out the evidence

(so it is collected)

2. Some people don't get decent representation

in such a situation I have no idea what the best course of action is

if you have to rely on the police instead of your lawyer you are probably already screwed

Even pointing out evidence is enough for police to use your statements against you. It can come down to just how you phrase something.

It can come down to what choice of present/past tense verbs you use.

The confusing space is when you can not even know you're under suspicion when you're talking to them or you can become that way while talking to them. They want people to talk as much as possible without having to divulge their agenda and they can be evasive af when questioned about their purpose. That's probably why they often don't crack out the Miranda warnings from the jump, like we learned on tv.

@Zuluzeit That is at least correct here. They will want as much conversation on topic as possible.

@realz and yes, that was my point. You would want the police to secure as much evidence in your favor as possible. It is often lost if they do not.

I think the point that Maw and I are making / have made is that we wouldn't risk the chance that our statements may direct the police to process elements of the scene vs the probability that our statements may be later used against us.

if you see the gun your attacker was holding has fallen into the bushes

you want to point that out

pretty sure every lawyer would agree

also, it is almost always better to say you don't want to talk with finesse IMO

"Lawyer. Lawyer." "Sir, I'd love to answer all your questions, and I'll do so in the presence of my lawyer"

same response, two possibly very different effects

"he was very polite"

"do you find that noteworthy, officer?"

"yes. He had just killed a man. It didnt seem to impress him much..."

anyway, I think it is worth asking @RobertGrulerEsq about this;

The argument we are having is if (for example in a case of self defense):

A: We should avoid saying _anything_, or next to nothing, to the police, like Duane says in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE,

B: Like Ayoob says (https://youtu.be/WBy9L0gcqGY) we should be as helpful as possible w.r.t pointing out evidence, and be polite?

C: Should we try to convince the police that we are right, or get the police on our side by telling them everything?

Or some combination? Something else?

@Doc I think the point is that is inadmissible

if you listen to Duane, he says? implies? (I haven't seen it in a while) that the police basically cannot _help_ you when it comes to that, it would be hearsay or something

they _can_ testify about confessions

The "dont talk to police" i have shown it to a few people, vid is 100% right on...sad thing is just wish i could follow such easy advice.

"Dont talk to the cops" highly implies "you've" really fucked this one up and dont need to implicate yourself in further liability.

it that if the police promise you something you dont writing that cant testify they said it makes it hearsay.. funny whatever else you do say will be used against you. its weird what sound or feel right could be the death nail in your case. so just dont say anything till you have lawyer

ya kinda be he makes very good points

or the police f up and their going to cya themself

Yes it happens and a lot more then what you would think

@osok yea I mean if you got a law professor and a veteran detective telling you the same thing...probably best to heed those words. I show that video a lot too

Speaking of don't talk

apparently Rittenhouse talked to The Washington Post and pretty much admitted that he had his friend perform a straw purchase to buy him a rifle

...how and why did his lawyers let him be interviewed by The Washington Post and admit to a straw purchase taking place?

Because they are incompetent.

(to be fair I haven't read the article or seen the interview)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2020/11/19/kenosha-shooting-kyle-rittenhouse-interview/?arc404=true

In my queue.

<mean words about his lawyers>

ok lets say there is a straw purchase what if anything dose that have to do with his case. I look at this as two different cases altogether and try n to tie them two together would be a waist of time. Or possibly defense wants this info for some weird double jeopardy thing down the road if they win the trial case.

So hypothetical question about this case...if there was no video for this case how close would the rest evidence be to showing what happened (with video) Also would this case have completely different out come (no video)

@osok, you just advanced to level 3!

We wouldn't be able to speculate with any accuracy. Keep in mind, however, the lack of evidence favors defendants, but witness testimony also could be extremely biased for obvious reasons.

With the absence of evidence, it would be a tossup between playing witnesses to the jury. I'm no legal expert though.

Generally speaking, absence of evidence is favorable to defendants, but it's not a rule and it comes with a ton of caveats and nuance.

It's too easy to wrongly convict people in the existing system.

In this case, however, he opened fire on a left leaning crowd, the ones famous for shouting ACAB and then desperatly calling 911 to scream for help followed by a lawsuit where they sue the police for bigotry.

Im pretty sure if there was no video, commies would have done what they do best. Coordination of lies.

Needless to say, I wouldn't envy any Criminal Defense lawyer representing Rittenhouse if there were not documented video evidence.

Because they'd have their work cut out for them.

Oh, I disagree. Losing battles are the most glorious.

Remember David Crockett and Wallace Hartley?

Keep in mind, you're talking about a 17 year old seeing the rest of his life behind bars if convicted.

oh, indeed.

But he did try to assist criminals, you know.

And yes, I made much worse decisions at 17.

So did many of us probably.

But to bring it back onto the case; he fired in self defense only. That is a very American right. A coordinated lie would change that in absence of video-evidence.

So he caught a break on that one.

need to get a gun cam

I dont like things that runs on batteries, but, yeah. I want one of those FLIR ones with a memory stick. (for different purposes)

Lol ominous

Come on! Dont make me look bad! Im a competing sports shooter, you donkey.

Reap-IR for target practice.

That's... uh.

A new concept.

..and a hunter...

https://tenor.com/view/espresso-classy-pinkies-up-sips-tea-sipping-gif-7250101

👍

I have a question. How Does L Lin wood's issues involving his ex employees/partners stand to effect his license?

Well when lawyers do something wrong, they tend to end up being sanctioned, as for that particular example, he probably won't just lose his license if this is the only thing he's had filed against him.

@RobertGrulerEsq Would know more about sanctions.

They usually have a form of strike system.

Unless it's bad enough.

And it's likely state-dependent.

I think he should lose his license personally because he seems to be a terrible lawyer, but that's simply my opinion.

I also think he's terribly conceited and looking to grift.

@Maw, you just advanced to level 11!

Next level statement 👍

I honestly don't know how he passed the bar to begin with.

Or law school for that matter.

Ok pelosi is live she talking about our guns

He also has the ability to get Rittenhouse out on bail and hasn't even bothered.

And it irritates me like no other.

Rittenhouse remains incarcerated while he doesn't have to.

They 100% have made over 2 million in donations for Rittenhouse specifically.

He should be out on bail.

The only logical reason I can see for not having him out on bail is protective custody.

And why they wanted to waive the right to have a quick preliminary hearing blows my mind.

They are trying to milk this cash cow and keeping Rittenhouse in prison for doing that.

And it makes me **mad**

Yea, above all else I think that Rittenhouse and his poor mother were taken in by these vultures swooping in from overhead who wanted to A) make this cause a cause célèbre for 2A rights and B) solicit donations to "help Kyle" but really just using the money to pay for other expenses in this "foundation."

More than any of that, though, I just think that they've done him a disservice by not using their best judgment in terms of doing what is actually best for him given the situation.

@Neph (Nec) / Krystaps (War), you just advanced to level 1!