Share
"Don’t Talk to Police.”
This is the title of a 48-minute YouTube video that every student must watch. The first half of the video is a speech given by Professor James Duane of the Regent University School of Law, in which he instructs students to never talk to law enforcement. In the latter half of the video, a police detective reiterates Duane’s advice.
According to the law professor and the detective, speaking to police, even when innocent, is never beneficial to individuals. This is especially true of police-initiated encounters, such as traffic stops and investigations — essentially, any situation where you did not call 911 to ask for help. Three possible outcomes can arise from such encounters: positive, neutral and negative.
When a police officer initiates an interview or conversation, it is impossible to have a positive outcome. In other words, at the end of the conversation, you will not be in a better position than had the conversation never happened in the first place. This is why both men advise against speaking to police.
It is possible to have a neutral ending to a police-initiated encounter. This means that talking to police brings neither benefit nor harm to an individual — although, some would classify these as negative because of the inconvenience, wasted time or stress caused by the situation. Examples of neutral outcomes are being pulled over and let off with a warning, no charges arising from an inquiry or investigation, and the exchanging of hellos and small talk on a public sidewalk.
Numerous times in this country, when police initiate conversations and interviews, it leads to negative outcomes for the individual. Arrests, prosecutions and convictions of criminals fall under this category. Those who inflict violence on fellow citizens or another’s property may deserve such an outcome. However, the problem is that police bring injustice upon many undeserving individuals.
Justice is not served when police arrest, jail, harass or intimidate innocent persons. This is especially true when an innocent person is prosecuted and convicted of a crime that they did not commit.Duane listed a number of ways in which innocent, well-meaning people can incriminate themselves when talking to police. But injustice also arises from situations where police engage in illegal actions, enforce immoral or illegal laws, or use violence and force against non-violent individuals.
Being that police are increasingly disregarding their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, one does not have to look far to find cases of both illegal laws and illegal police action. The War on Drugs exemplifies a set of illegal laws.
Federal laws against drugs are illegal because they are unconstitutional — they are unconstitutional because the founding document does not grant the federal government the authority to outlaw drugs. Americans used to understand this fact, and Washington acknowledged it in 1919 when it sought a constitutional amendment to prohibit the manufacture and sale of liquor.
Unfortunately, because police “are just following orders” or “are just doing their jobs,” they have no problem enforcing these illegal laws. An example of this happened in July when area police descended upon the Meadowview Apartments in Pulaski, Va.
According to the Roanoke Times and WDBJ7, police from Pulaski, Dublin, Radford, Blacksburg and Virginia Tech, sheriffs from Montgomery, Pulaski and Wythe counties, Virginia State Police and federal agents prowled around the apartments at 2 a.m. with drug-sniffing dogs. When dogs alerted on an apartment, a search warrant was obtained so that cops could proceed to look for evidence. Even if drug prohibition was legal and moral, this late-night escapade by area police shows little regard for the United States and Virginia constitutions. Pulaski Police Chief Gary Roche said the operation was a result of “complaints about possible drug issues in the apartment complex.”
A version of this article appeared in the Sep 22 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 13 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Oh boy. You may catch more flack for this column than your last one. Sadly, you are probably correct. The U.S. jails more people than any other country. We used to point to communist dictatorships and decry those statistics. Many people in our prisons are there for "crimes against the state" in which there was no victim.
Another startling fact is that Americans are more likely to die from police than a terrorist (http://newsblaze.com/story/20090221100148tsop.nb/topstory.html).
Reply to this Top
I'm assuming this is the YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc.
Looks like the same one from Regent's webpage I found when Googling the law professor. http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/faculty_staff/duane.cfm
Guess I know what I'm watching on my lunch break tomorrow.
Reply to this Top
Good advice. So much of police work is centered around creatively extracting information that you don't have to give. "Do you know why I pulled you over" is a classic example to get you to admit guilt. Another misconception is that you have to submit to roadside sobriety tests at the risk of losing your license if you do not. Until you are under arrest, you do not have to submit to any such tests, yet the officer will often ask you to perform them and then use the results to arrest you and take you in for the formal breath or blood analysis.
Reply to this Top
Just for the record, I am not advocating drinking and driving. I'm merely citing an example of why it is important to know your rights when you interact with police. At the very least, in any interaction with police that could even potentially lead to admission of any guilt on your part, you should always ask if you are free to leave, whether you are under arrest, and, if in doubt, ask politely for the officer to allow you to contact legal representation.
Reply to this Top
While 10-15% of police officers are good people out there with the intention of helping the community, the rest are out building their egos to show the big dick of the law. I don't say this as a disgruntled arrestee, but as former friend of multiple officers who just love telling their stories of flexing their muscle to find ways to arrest even the most benign individuals. Advocates of law enforcement will always argue that people constantly bash the police until they actually need them, but those instances are far and few between compared to most interaction individuals have with officers. Don't tell people not to drink and drive if you are just going to arrest them for doing the right thing and walking home(bburg specific), don't arrest someone sitting on a bench waiting for their cab, and don't drum up charges against those who don't tell you what you want to hear. I am completely with the columnist on this one, especially here in Blacksburg where the fraternity of police have more d-bags than all the other frats combined(seemingly impossible right?)
Reply to this Top
Here in blacksburg, you are more likely to get arrested walking home alone drunk than in a group. That part is obvious. However I walked home many times after a few drinks (not drunk) without any incident. The key thing is to make sure you can walk almost normal. If you can't then you drank to much and you have alcohol issues as well. Otherwise you stand out as an obvious target asking to be confronted by police. Another major thing guys get arrested for around here (a cop told me before) is people urinating in public. That is another thing that is an instant arrest worthy other than public intoxication.
Reply to this Top
There are bad cops out there, for sure. But the overwhelming majority of those I have personally interacted with in the Blacksburg, Virginia Tech, and VA State Trooper departments are fantastic.
The author unfortunately uses such a small window in which an individual is impacted by the police interaction that he misses the totality of positive/negative outcomes. You may not gain anything immediately from answering an officer's questions about, say, a neighbor's activities. But, when that neighbor is arrested and his basement meth/lab, pet taxidermy, cable-stealing, torture chamber activities are shut down, you'll be better off. Restricting the benefit measurement to the immediate moment you speak to the officer undermines the hard work and sacrifice that the boys in blue take on to the greater benefit of society. And having someone else standing in front of a bullet for $35k/year is a damn good deal for the rest of us.
Reply to this Top
they wouldn't have to stand in front of you to take a bullet (notice how your writing implies that that bad guys will have guns to begin with) if gun laws weren't so stiff for the good guys
Reply to this Top
You really think that if gun control laws were not in place that that would be enough to deter ALL crime? No.
Top
i didn't make such a general claim. but nonetheless I think it would significantly reduce the amount of crime.
Top
Good site to track it:
http://www.injusticeeverywhere.com/
Reply to this Top
Some specialists argue that <a href="http://goodfinance-blog.com/topics/personal-loans">personal loans</a> aid a lot of people to live their own way, because they are able to feel free to buy necessary goods. Furthermore, various banks present financial loan for young and old people.
Reply to this Top
This comment was deleted for violating our comment policy.
Top