Milwaukee police arrest woman for not agreeing with their story - Page 3

Ladewig · 24th October 2015, 10:46 AM

Originally Posted by cullennz

Who says she wasn't drunk?

Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2

As Foolmewunz said, Wouldn't the cops have given her a field sobriety test if they thought she was drunk? After all, she insisted she was driving. Furthermore, if you are trying to break someone's claim that they were driving, insisting on a sobriety test seems like a good place to start - a drunken person might admit to being a passenger at that point.

cullennz · 24th October 2015, 12:03 PM

Good point. Pretty stupid post really

TragicMonkey · 24th October 2015, 12:30 PM

Well, clearly she was guilty of something, otherwise the cops wouldn't have hassled her. The solution is to hassle her until they decide what she's guilty of. Possibly regicide! Has anyone checked on all the monarchs, to make sure they're all accounted for? Or what about theft of precious Archaeopteryx fossils? Are any missing? It may take a million man-hours and a lot of vicious beatings, but this old lady will not get away with it! Whatever it is.

The Norseman · 24th October 2015, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Maybe they arrested her just to have a reason to take care of her.

There are already procedures in place for that and an arrest isn't one of them.

Originally Posted by Darat

Yep:

"A witness say they saw someone helping you out of the car?"
"Oh yes, that was the kind man, he checked I was OK, helped me out and then left"
"Ah, thanks for clearing that up, anything we can do to help?"

And that should have cleared it up, to then arrest her and all the rest of the palava seems to be an over reaction.

People really don't seem to pay much attention that the (in this instance) fifth amendment is there to protect the innocent; protecting the guilty is just a side-effect of the main part.

Babbylonian · 24th October 2015, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

People really don't seem to pay much attention that the (in this instance) fifth amendment is there to protect the innocent; protecting the guilty is just a side-effect of the main part.

True, but in this situation, with police officers who are apparently intent on finding wrongdoing (even if they don't know what the wrong is), remaining silent would almost certainly have led to the same result.

The Norseman · 24th October 2015, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

True, but in this situation, with police officers who are apparently intent on finding wrongdoing (even if they don't know what the wrong is), remaining silent would almost certainly have led to the same result.

Well, I disagree. The cops very well cannot say, "we think you're lying because of these 'other witnesses'" if you don't say anything at all, yes? The burden, rightly so, is for the police themselves to come up with evidence enough (called probable cause) for an arrest and they've found that it's simply easier to browbeat and lie to people to get them to say anything at all in order to reach that probable cause. Based on the report so far as is, I cannot reasonably think of a crime and probable cause to support that crime for her to be arrested without her statements.

It's also obvious but not much discussed, that the police can and will use anything you say against you but what people don't realize is that happens literally any time at all and you do not need to be Mirandized for any of it.

It happens every day; this case is a perfect example, in fact.

And yes, I'm acutely aware of the fact that cops will try and browbeat and coerce you into talking by lying and saying stuff like, "if you're innocent you should have nothing to hide" and "just tell the truth and it'll go easier on you." Cops lie. They are never to be trusted when you are the one under scrutiny for any reason. Unless, of course, you can tell before your police interaction that the cop who's questioning you is one of the 'good guys'. I can't, so unfortunately, that taints all potential police interactions that I may have in the future.

Babbylonian · 24th October 2015, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Well, I disagree. The cops very well cannot say, "we think you're lying because of these 'other witnesses'" if you don't say anything at all, yes? The burden, rightly so, is for the police themselves to come up with evidence enough (called probable cause) for an arrest and they've found that it's simply easier to browbeat and lie to people to get them to say anything at all in order to reach that probable cause. Based on the report so far as is, I cannot reasonably think of a crime and probable cause to support that crime for her to be arrested without her statements.

There was no probable cause with her statements, unless she said a lot more than what's been offered. "No, I didn't commit a crime" doesn't constitute probable cause just because someone else intimates/implies that you might have committed a crime. That's straight-up Orwell ****.

mgidm86 · 24th October 2015, 01:56 PM

The OP says she was taken to jail - she was not. She was brought in for questioning. Big deal.

I guess the cops are doing a decent job since the latest bad-cop threads consist of this one, a kid with a "clock", and a guy manhandled for walking in the middle of the street in a bus zone.

The Norseman · 24th October 2015, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

There was no probable cause with her statements, unless she said a lot more than what's been offered. "No, I didn't commit a crime" doesn't constitute probable cause just because someone else intimates/implies that you might have committed a crime. That's straight-up Orwell ****.

We essentially agree, except as far as I know, she didn't just say "I didn't commit a crime" but said other things as well, thus setting up the "we think you're lying" part which can be used against a person to help establish probable cause. All said as my understanding which could be wrong.

At any rate, it's best to say, "I'm not making any statements without advice from an attorney."

The Norseman · 24th October 2015, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by mgidm86

The OP says she was taken to jail - she was not. She was brought in for questioning. Big deal.

One, you don't have to be taken to jail in order to have been arrested. Two, an arrest follows you around for the rest of your life which, especially if you're innocent of any wrongdoing, sucks.

Quote:

I guess the cops are doing a decent job since the latest bad-cop threads consist of this one, a kid with a "clock", and a guy manhandled for walking in the middle of the street in a bus zone.

Yes, since there are no other current threads on iSkep, the police really have cleaned up their act.

Babbylonian · 24th October 2015, 02:16 PM

Originally Posted by mgidm86

The OP says she was taken to jail - she was not. She was brought in for questioning. Big deal.

She was placed in handcuffs and taken to a police station. Why are people so intent on quibbling here? Are you all really so intent on offering ex post facto justification of lousy police work?

quadraginta · 24th October 2015, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

She was placed in handcuffs and taken to a police station. Why are people so intent on quibbling here? Are you all really so intent on offering ex post facto justification of lousy police work?

It's the Cop Groupies' Credo™.

Anything which casts any doubt whatsoever upon the flawless performance or purity of intent of any of our valiant and selfless law enforcement heroes must ... a priori ... be lies, distortion, or an incomplete rendition of the facts.

No exceptions.

Ladewig · 24th October 2015, 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by mgidm86

The OP says she was taken to jail - she was not. She was brought in for questioning. Big deal.

I guess the cops are doing a decent job since the latest bad-cop threads consist of this one, a kid with a "clock", and a guy manhandled for walking in the middle of the street in a bus zone.

And the thread in which Chicago police went to great lengths to systematically and routinely prevent an estimated 7000 suspects from talking to their lawyers by hiding them and interrogating them at a location unknown to anyone but the police.

"Decent job" indeed.

Aber · 25th October 2015, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

She was placed in handcuffs

It may be policy but this looks slightly over the top.

24th October 2015, 10:46 AM	#81
Ladewig I lost an avatar bet. Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 28,098	Originally Posted by cullennz Who says she wasn't drunk? Sent from my GT-S6802 using Tapatalk 2 As Foolmewunz said, Wouldn't the cops have given her a field sobriety test if they thought she was drunk? After all, she insisted she was driving. Furthermore, if you are trying to break someone's claim that they were driving, insisting on a sobriety test seems like a good place to start - a drunken person might admit to being a passenger at that point.
	__________________ I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.

24th October 2015, 12:03 PM	#82
cullennz Embarrasingly illiterate Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NZ Posts: 20,030	Good point. Pretty stupid post really
	__________________ "I mean, you've got the first sort of mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a story-book, man," Biden said. 2007 https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna16911044

24th October 2015, 12:30 PM	#83
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,745	Well, clearly she was guilty of something, otherwise the cops wouldn't have hassled her. The solution is to hassle her until they decide what she's guilty of. Possibly regicide! Has anyone checked on all the monarchs, to make sure they're all accounted for? Or what about theft of precious Archaeopteryx fossils? Are any missing? It may take a million man-hours and a lot of vicious beatings, but this old lady will not get away with it! Whatever it is.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

24th October 2015, 12:42 PM	#84
The Norseman Meandering fecklessly Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,424	Originally Posted by marplots Maybe they arrested her just to have a reason to take care of her. There are already procedures in place for that and an arrest isn't one of them. Originally Posted by Darat Yep: "A witness say they saw someone helping you out of the car?" "Oh yes, that was the kind man, he checked I was OK, helped me out and then left" "Ah, thanks for clearing that up, anything we can do to help?" And that should have cleared it up, to then arrest her and all the rest of the palava seems to be an over reaction. People really don't seem to pay much attention that the (in this instance) fifth amendment is there to protect the innocent; protecting the guilty is just a side-effect of the main part.
	__________________ A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book

24th October 2015, 01:44 PM	#86
The Norseman Meandering fecklessly Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,424	Originally Posted by Babbylonian True, but in this situation, with police officers who are apparently intent on finding wrongdoing (even if they don't know what the wrong is), remaining silent would almost certainly have led to the same result. Well, I disagree. The cops very well cannot say, "we think you're lying because of these 'other witnesses'" if you don't say anything at all, yes? The burden, rightly so, is for the police themselves to come up with evidence enough (called probable cause) for an arrest and they've found that it's simply easier to browbeat and lie to people to get them to say anything at all in order to reach that probable cause. Based on the report so far as is, I cannot reasonably think of a crime and probable cause to support that crime for her to be arrested without her statements. It's also obvious but not much discussed, that the police can and will use anything you say against you but what people don't realize is that happens literally any time at all and you do not need to be Mirandized for any of it. It happens every day; this case is a perfect example, in fact. And yes, I'm acutely aware of the fact that cops will try and browbeat and coerce you into talking by lying and saying stuff like, "if you're innocent you should have nothing to hide" and "just tell the truth and it'll go easier on you." Cops lie. They are never to be trusted when you are the one under scrutiny for any reason. Unless, of course, you can tell before your police interaction that the cop who's questioning you is one of the 'good guys'. I can't, so unfortunately, that taints all potential police interactions that I may have in the future.
	__________________ A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book

24th October 2015, 01:14 PM	#85
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,548	Originally Posted by The Norseman People really don't seem to pay much attention that the (in this instance) fifth amendment is there to protect the innocent; protecting the guilty is just a side-effect of the main part. True, but in this situation, with police officers who are apparently intent on finding wrongdoing (even if they don't know what the wrong is), remaining silent would almost certainly have led to the same result.

24th October 2015, 01:50 PM	#87
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,548	Originally Posted by The Norseman Well, I disagree. The cops very well cannot say, "we think you're lying because of these 'other witnesses'" if you don't say anything at all, yes? The burden, rightly so, is for the police themselves to come up with evidence enough (called probable cause) for an arrest and they've found that it's simply easier to browbeat and lie to people to get them to say anything at all in order to reach that probable cause. Based on the report so far as is, I cannot reasonably think of a crime and probable cause to support that crime for her to be arrested without her statements. There was no probable cause with her statements, unless she said a lot more than what's been offered. "No, I didn't commit a crime" doesn't constitute probable cause just because someone else intimates/implies that you might have committed a crime. That's straight-up Orwell ****.

24th October 2015, 01:56 PM	#88
mgidm86 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 6,094	The OP says she was taken to jail - she was not. She was brought in for questioning. Big deal. I guess the cops are doing a decent job since the latest bad-cop threads consist of this one, a kid with a "clock", and a guy manhandled for walking in the middle of the street in a bus zone.
mgidm86 Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 6,094	__________________ I can't do this anymore.

24th October 2015, 02:11 PM	#89
The Norseman Meandering fecklessly Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,424	Originally Posted by Babbylonian There was no probable cause with her statements, unless she said a lot more than what's been offered. "No, I didn't commit a crime" doesn't constitute probable cause just because someone else intimates/implies that you might have committed a crime. That's straight-up Orwell ****. We essentially agree, except as far as I know, she didn't just say "I didn't commit a crime" but said other things as well, thus setting up the "we think you're lying" part which can be used against a person to help establish probable cause. All said as my understanding which could be wrong. At any rate, it's best to say, "I'm not making any statements without advice from an attorney."
	__________________ A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book

24th October 2015, 02:14 PM	#90
The Norseman Meandering fecklessly Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 8,424	Originally Posted by mgidm86 The OP says she was taken to jail - she was not. She was brought in for questioning. Big deal. One, you don't have to be taken to jail in order to have been arrested. Two, an arrest follows you around for the rest of your life which, especially if you're innocent of any wrongdoing, sucks. Quote: I guess the cops are doing a decent job since the latest bad-cop threads consist of this one, a kid with a "clock", and a guy manhandled for walking in the middle of the street in a bus zone. Yes, since there are no other current threads on iSkep, the police really have cleaned up their act.
	__________________ A government is a body of people usually - notably - ungoverned. -Shepard Book

24th October 2015, 02:16 PM	#91
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,548	Originally Posted by mgidm86 The OP says she was taken to jail - she was not. She was brought in for questioning. Big deal. She was placed in handcuffs and taken to a police station. Why are people so intent on quibbling here? Are you all really so intent on offering ex post facto justification of lousy police work?

24th October 2015, 03:30 PM	#92
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,291	Originally Posted by Babbylonian She was placed in handcuffs and taken to a police station. Why are people so intent on quibbling here? Are you all really so intent on offering ex post facto justification of lousy police work? It's the Cop Groupies' Credo™. Anything which casts any doubt whatsoever upon the flawless performance or purity of intent of any of our valiant and selfless law enforcement heroes must ... a priori ... be lies, distortion, or an incomplete rendition of the facts. No exceptions.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

24th October 2015, 03:32 PM	#93
Ladewig I lost an avatar bet. Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 28,098	Originally Posted by mgidm86 The OP says she was taken to jail - she was not. She was brought in for questioning. Big deal. I guess the cops are doing a decent job since the latest bad-cop threads consist of this one, a kid with a "clock", and a guy manhandled for walking in the middle of the street in a bus zone. And the thread in which Chicago police went to great lengths to systematically and routinely prevent an estimated 7000 suspects from talking to their lawyers by hiding them and interrogating them at a location unknown to anyone but the police. "Decent job" indeed.
	__________________ I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly. Last edited by Ladewig; 24th October 2015 at 03:33 PM.

25th October 2015, 01:05 AM	#94
Aber Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,735	Originally Posted by Babbylonian She was placed in handcuffs It may be policy but this looks slightly over the top.
Aber Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 1,735