Book Review: You Have The Right To Remain Innocent by James Duane

Share

You Have The Right To Remain Innocent

“Any lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to the police under any circumstances.”-Former United States Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, Watts v. Indiana

Many times, we hear about convicted offenders who confess to crimes, who would later admit they didn’t commit the crime and it turns out that they weren’t lying. Some suspects feel pressure by the police to talk, during the interrogation process. Even in simple traffic and pedestrian stops like we now call stop-n-frisk citizens give out too much information, that might find them in the nearest jail or prison because one didn’t know when to keep their mouth shut.

I have always said, if I commit a crime let’s say hypothetically robbed a bank I won’t say a damn thing to the police If I’m picked up and question as a possible suspect in the crime and I’m innocent, talking to the police is the worse thing one can do. Let’s use the Central 5 case as an example, where five young black men were interrogated for hours, and eventually confess to a crime they didn’t commit. What should have happened in that case is that all of them shouldn’t have said a word. Once the parents arrived, the parents should have requested their kids to be released or charge. Otherwise, everything (especially talking to the police) is off the table.

Well, author and law professor James Duane breaks down when a citizen should talk to the police, which is in very rare circumstances in the book entitled You Have The Right To Remain Innocent. Duane let’s the readers becomes aware that the police’s job is to use one’s words against you and that one has the right to remain silent.

Real cases are discuss and evaluated to give the reader an understanding at what’s at risk when one discloses too much information to the police. Some of these real life stories are nothing short of how the criminal justice system needs revamping in the worse way. It’s frightening how so many innocent people are caught up in the criminal justice system, who were innocent because they just couldn’t keep their mouth shut. In other words, the things one says can be used against you.

This book is a guide, that should be followed especially in the event that one finds themselves in the presence of the police being peppered with questions. If one wants the extreme short version, a simple Google search of James Duane on YouTube would be suffice in getting the same information that is in this short guide, but it’s still worth the read. Lastly, this guide is imperative to those who need to get familiar with one’s constitutional rights as it relates to interactions with the police, and it drives home the consequences of those who talk to much to them, which can be used against you.

Rating 4 out 5.

-Ms Scripter

Just blogging for the masses, ya dig?

Share

When One Threatens The Police On Social Media: Say R.I.P. 1st Amendment

Share

freespeech1

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

OPINION- Since the demented lone wolf, decided to execute 2 NYPD officers (Ramos and Liu) in their patrol cars in Brooklyn recently. One’s 1st amendment rights have been covertly changed (even though it has always been covertly altered). The killer (that we won’t name because he single handily left behind a residue of collateral damage) took to social media before the shooting to declare that he was going to kill some police officers. If we were to analyze this further from a psychological aspect, I believe the killer wanted to use the recent killings of unarmed Black people by the hands of the police as an excuse because he was in trouble for shooting his ex-girlfriend. The media at the time conveniently left out that the assassin shot his ex-girlfriend Shaneka Thompson prior, which made his final act, and act of desperation because he didn’t want to go back to prison.

Fast forward to the present, where police officers in the NYPD are turning their backs once NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio entered into their vicinity. Where the Police Union Rep Pat Lynch continues to display psychopathic rhetoric. Then comes the 1st amendment, which seems to have been evaporated once individuals take to social media to make alleged threats against the NYPD:

Six New Yorkers have been arrested in connection with threats against the NYPD, CBS2 reported.

The arrests come after assessments into hundreds of online postings and calls to 911 and 311, WCBS 880’s Monica Miller reported. The reviews have resulted in approximately 40 threat investigations.

Elvin Payamps, 38, was arrested Wednesday after police received a 911 call from a man who said he overheard someone talking on his cell phone about killing cops and saying he had guns at his home. Payamps matched the description and was seen getting into a car nearby, police said. He was arrested after being spotted with a bag of marijuana, police said. A search of his home turned up a shotgun, pistol, two bulletproof vests and brass knuckles, police said. He faces weapons and drug charges.

Two others arrested in connection with various threats are teenagers from Brooklyn. They’re charged with making terroristic threats in messages posted on Facebook. Others face charges of reporting false incidents, Miller reported.

This is where I get confused as to why individuals who make so-called terrorist threats (in the eyes of the police) against the police, are promptly arrested and charged. Why isn’t that appointed to those who constantly fear for their lives when ex-boyfriends or girlfriends make threats via social media that they are going to kill their former partner? When the victim of those threats reports this to the police, they get the “well; they have to do something first before we can arrest them.” How is that any different from what these individuals posted on social media, against the police? The double-standard is glaring. Here is another example:

Devon Coley, 18, was arraigned Monday on a charge of making a terroristic threat just hours after officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos were killed in an ambush by Ismaaiyl Brinsley who had signaled his planned attack online.

The New York Post has reported that Coley — who also is facing unrelated gun possession and other charges — posted a photo of a gunman shooting at a patrol car with the caption ’73Nextt.’

According to reports, the teenager came into the precinct accompanied by his mother and told detectives he felt bad and was sorry for what he had done.

During his arraignment Monday, Coley’s attorney, Daniel Ades, called his client a ‘knucklehead.’

Let me make this abundantly clear that I don’t support individuals who make threats against the police (so one can call off the men in Black from coming over). I do feel that those who make threats against the police should be awarded their 1st amendment right to do so, and the police should learn how to investigate that person instead of automatically arresting them. The last time I checked, investigating serious threats (since the police think those type of threats should be taken more seriously than domestic violence threats) to see if they are valid before putting a person through the system, is part of police work. Has the NYPD become that lazy in order to pad their arrest numbers to investigate a possible crime, or something more sinister is going on?

In other words, a police officer’s life is more valuable than a regular citizen from the way the NYPD is acting. It also means that the 1st Amendment does not pertain to citizens if they make threats against the police. I mean, one can make threats all they want against ex-lovers, friends, and family, but don’t do it against the police or one risks getting arrested. The double standard and the disregard to the constitution is very clear in this case. It also places the 1st amendment into the spotlight as to what one can say on social media that can get them arrested promptly. Folks better be real carefully about utilizing the trigger words like: kill, pigs, wings and guns in a sentence on social media. If one decides to start drafting these words in a combination on Facebook, Twitter, IG, or any other social media outlet, be prepared to be arrested. It reminds me of the laws that were drafted under the Patriot Act after 9/11 and at the rate this is going, the formulation of a police state is front and center. The question now is, what are the people going to do about it?

[SOURCE]

[SOURCE]

-Ms Scipter

Just blogging for the masses, ya dig?

Share