Quote:
Originally Posted by Howard Beale
You must mean the opposite.
I don't think that I'd have too much of a problem gathering up cases where the individual had a good outcome by talking to the police if I had the resources.
I tried to find some web help. There was nothing for MS-13 but I did find the Crips and Bloods discussion forum although I didn't spend much time looking it over and I think that it''s probably not quite the thing.
What we need here are more 2p2'rs from the Hood. If I thought that I wouldn't get ban-slapped I might make a 'Create a Hood Forum' thread in ATF as a semi-jopke.
No I did not mean the opposite of what I said. Additionally, I do not mean the opposite of what I am saying right now. I am also not levelling you right now nor am I trolling. But I don't mind you suspecting any of those on this forum.
It is going to be hard to find many cases where people "shouldn't" have talked to the police because:
*It is a relatively rare occurance.
*When people get screwed by talking to the police, they frequently lose their internet access among other things.
*even if not convicted, people often don't want to discuss the time they were indicted and prosecuted.
That's what I meant.
But it does now occur to me that I have a good example--it's not mine, but someone I was friends with at the time who talked to the police:
Police come to the guy's apartment asking for him. They ask if he was at a particular club the night before. He asks why they want to know. They tell him a woman claims he punched her.
He immediately starts to deny it, and says they have the wrong idea--he never punched anybody. They reassure him they're not that judgemental and they hear these accusations all the time. The best thing for him to do is come down to the station and give his statement. Which he does.
They interrogated him for about three hours on camera, and I believe an ADA was there for most of it. They repeatedly commend him for talking with them and helping them sort this out. They make him tell his story repeatedly backward and forward and point out the inconsistencies. Whenever he gets flustered and says, "Well, maybe I should have a lawyer here?" They say, "Ok, you can do that, but then this opportunity we have here to make this all go away will cease. " aaaaaand then they start praising him for cooperating again then ask him to start from the beginning.
Over time, the specific incident changes like this;
"I didn't even shove her, some other guy shoved me"
"The other guy shoved me and I shoved back"
"When I shoved the guy"
"I shoved the guy"
"I shoved the guy, well she kind of jumped in the way"
"she kind of got shoved"
"I guess you could say I shoved her"
"like I said, shoved them, him and her, while I was holding my motorcycle helmet. "
And various details worked out the same way.
Aaaaaand yes, they were sort of an on again off again couple, after the interview started with " I know who she is. "
So they press charges and it went to trial. Very expensive defense attourney, something in the neighborhood of $30k. Entire case essentially boiled down to that tape, his " confessions" and "dishonesty" and the two accusers who claimed my friend had repeatedly bashed her in the head with his motorcycle helmet. The defense: if he really kicked the **** out of her as she claimed, how come she didn't have a single bruise or cut?
That arguement carried the day, but it seemed a very tenuous proposition. With the risk of actual jail time. He never would have even been charged if he hadn't talked to the police. There was no evidence that anything had even happened.
Not that he was the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he wasn't braindead either. Just a kid who knew nothing had really happened and if he told the truth everything would be fine. He said "hello" to an old girlfriend and her new guy shoved him--what a dick.