In fact, he says that no one should ever agree to be interviewed by the police. Take the 5th. Even if you're innocent, speaking to the police will never be to your advantage. What you say can and will be used against you in a court of law--but it cannot be used in your favor as it's just hearsay.
About halfway through the video the professor turns over the mic to a police officer who, rather than contradicting the professor, actually augments the professor's arguments.
7 comments:
I first saw this video several years ago, and have advised everyone I know, and my wife, to follow this advice.
It is a sad thing, but in these times I am afraid of police when they take notice of me.
Of course you don't speak to the police ... even if you're completely innocent. If you make a small mistake? You open yourself up to perjury charges. Or ... they may wind up charging you. I trust the police NEVER.
I actually took the time to watch this ... eventually. And I knew most of it already (having an attorney friend) but the nuances were really good ... and the officer's honesty, as well.
The Fifth Amendment is often referred to in the Lamestream Media as the "Fifth Amendment Privilege" and people who invoke it are said to be exercising their Fifth Amendment Privilege. The Fifth Amendment is not a privilege, it is a constitutionally guaranteed right.
Rights, unlike privileges, cannot be limited or denied by capricious authority.
EdD... You're correct of course ... although there's still a difference between rights and inalienable rights ... the founding fathers definitely made a distinction. And while everyone has heard The Miranda warning ... and understand the principle ... if we're honest with ourselves, we generally assume someone taking the 5th has something to hide. Were I on a jury, I would follow the law ... but I'd think it. So ... when one refers to it as a privilege? They are deliberately understating it. Why? likely to try to sway jurors in their favor. It's more polite and deferring, and amounts to the same thing.
I still contend that given the information that we have learned since Lerner's day in front of the Congress make her guilty of perjury and possibly obstruction of justice. While she certainly has her rights, she deprived her victims of theirs.
Ellen K ... you make my point. But ... taking the 5th is not obstruction of justice. Deliberately destroying evidence is. If someone can ever prove that ... she's toast. I'm encouraged by Eric Holder resigning today. Maybe the next AG will actually care about justice ...
Post a Comment