Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Mandatory viewing: cops agree - never talk to the cops.

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by Loz, Jul 31, 2008.

  1. Fascinating video here:

    It gives several interesting perspectives on how "helping police with their enquiries" - ANY enquiries, can only ever *possibly* do you harm.

    It's a fair chunk of time at about 45 minutes, but well worth it - and the first guy talks at a million miles an hour so you're definately getting your bandwidth dollar's worth.
  2. You have the right to remain silent.
    It is the best policy.
  3. Haven't watched the video but I've always used the silent technique with any altercations with officers of the law & it seems to have worked pretty well for me :) :) When the time comes for talking you're better to hire a mouthpiece & let them do it for you :LOL:
  4. Worth a watch.

    Pity Australia doesn't have a bill of rights.
  5. But we have more rights than if we did. As soon as something is codified and defined, it just gives people the scope to hit us for things that are outside the defined area.....
  6. A very interesting watch. Seems odd that here in Australia, we have no constitutional protection for the right to silence, yet it is regarded by the courts as 'common law'.

  7. Woah...he does speak quickly. Damn!

    Entertaining though.
  8. +1 :cry:
  9. Dunno about it being a "right" but as a policy, you can't go wrong.

    That's why I always say to people that if the cops pull you up, and no matter what for, or how "friendly" they seem to be, never, ever say anything other than what the law requires you to say, starting with "why were you speeding?".
  10. There is a way around this, as a number of Australian politicians have recently demonstrated. The answers to always give are: "I am not sure at this time", or "I don't recall at this time". In essence, answering in that manner is basically the same as exercising the equivalent of a 5th amendment by avoiding incriminating oneself. Answering in this way still allows you to "recall" events at a later time (i.e. if/when in court) as required as your memory may have been "jogged" by testimony or evidence.
  11. When they use the claim, "my memory fails me" when being x-examined it's a handy way of bullshitting your way out of a hole without incurring perjury charges or whatever. Cops do it all the time. I watched one case once where a copper was being x-examined by the defence barrister. He uttered those words so many times he might as well have held up a placard or point to a sign on the wall whenever the barrister started to speak.
  12. Parallel...

    Belinda Neal writes for the Herald.

    Even though she's godzilla; props for writing the truth, in this instance.


    This is absolutely true, and I am so amazed that our traffic law system is based on the complete opposite!
  13. News: a couple of 14yo boys find a shotgun, and one gets shot [apparently] accidentally. Article

    Police have charged the other kid with murder.

    Here's the interesting bit:

  14. That is interesting. But he IS already under "legal advice" - so can it be assumed that, although facing a murder charge, silence may still be the best defence (at this stage)?
  15. If he hasn't done it, he hasn't given his side of the story to the police, which could have all sorted it out. Also he won't be able to get costs if he wins the case (Had it been in Victoria not sure about NSW).
  16. Just came across this. How can you say that? If the police see a cager on a mobile phone they issue an on the spot fine. If the cager wants to fight it they fill in the notice of objection on the back and they get their day in court. There is the opportunity to have it heard and the belief of innocence until proven guilty is still there. The cager did not have to answer questions on the offence, only questions regarding identity.
  17. Day,
    If I read your post correctly, what you are saying is what Ktulu has written. The offender is asked to prove his/her innocence after the charge, by objecting the offence.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but your post assumes the officer has made no mistake and without proof a fine is issued (for arguments sake, the driver may have been resting his/her head on there palm?).
  18. Nope. I'm talking about the clear mobile phone seen in the hand one that you and I see day in and day out. The cager can spin that story to the court if they want.

    And back to your first paragraph, I may not have made myself clear. By the offender objecting it is up to the officer to prove the offence was committed, not for the defendant to prove their innocence. That is what I am getting at. Which relies on the principle that you are innocent until proven guilty. Which is why I dispute the statement: "This is absolutely true, and I am so amazed that our traffic law system is based on the complete opposite!"
  19. A fine is an offer to contract.
    Paying a fine is an admission of guilt and bypasses a prosecution process.

    If you DON'T pay it [and even if you initiate private process ie. letters of appeal or even a simple request for evidence] the fine becomes an enforcement order and the penalty is applied to your licence/registration:

    --> without a presentation of evidence to you the accused, without an admission of guilt from you, and the hearing will most likely be in your absence. You won't even be advised or given an opportunity to defend yourself.
    A fine puts the onus on YOU, an innocent person to take the police to court over a matter. To use your time and money to fight punishment for something it has NOT been established you did.

    Guilty until you admit guilt by coercion OR win in court using all that free time and money we all have lying around.
  20. Sounds like you have been reading that Aussiespeedingfines site. A fine is not an offer to contract. Yes paying a fine is an admission of guilt and bypasses the prosecution process. However, as I stated, if you choose to object and fill in the "Notice to object" on the back of the fine you can state your case in court. The onus is on the police to provide proof of the offence. How you choose to defend yourself is up to you. You are assuming that the police target innocent people. What about the people that have committed an offence?

    You appear to have a cynical view of the process but it is what we have. I take it you're speaking from experience? Not everything in life is perfect but I ask you this. What would improve the process? What changes could be made? Perhaps we could start a new thread with constructive input into what we believe would make for a fair system ........... Baring in mind that it is changing.

    Addit: As per the above, I have created the following thread to fill that function: https://netrider.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=60079