7 Bullshit Police Myths Everyone Believes (Thanks to Movies)
Hollywood has never been afraid to sacrifice realism for the sake of an entertaining story. And since pretty much every movie or TV show features the police in some way, we as an audience get fed a lot of total horseshit about how the law works and how cops operate in the USA.
But as most of us are on the outside of the judicial system (for the moment) we usually don't even realize that what we're being told is incorrect. So we just accept things like...
#7.
Forensic Science is Magic
As Seen On:
The various CSI shows, Bones
Typical Scenario:
There has been a murder. While the regular cops are all wasting time talking about "witnesses," "motives" and "evidence," the CSI team walks in and gets shit done. Within seconds they find a single hair, scan it with a green laser and discover the identity of the killer, saving countless lives with their ingenious magical science. Hell, the CSI team will even pack up their guns and go arrest the guy!
His one mistake was having hair.
Why it's Bullshit:
First, do you have any idea how much random DNA you are carrying on the soles of your shoes this very instant? A hair from that bank clerk across town, gum from a Pakistani cab driver and semen from an undetermined source are all probably crawling around down there, ready to be tracked through a crime scene.
Also, certain laboratory tests such as DNA samples, toxicology and blood reports can take weeks or even months to process, and when they do finally arrive, they are about as clear cut as the plot to The Phantom Menace.
"Wait, they're racing now?"
Also, while DNA criminal databases do exist, less than 1/10th of all criminals are a part of it. Having a bit of DNA doesn't mean shit unless they have something to compare it to.
That means the CSI stuff is less about finding the killer and more about making sure they have enough evidence to convict the guy they've already pinpointed as a suspect through old-fashioned police work.
CSI is really just another victim of bad Hollywood science, kind of an extension of their "computers are magic" philosophy. It's appealing to think that any problem--even crime--can be stopped cold by nothing but the power of science and human intellect. Add a few dead hookers and an exploding car to the mix and you have the recipe for television success, baby.
#6.
The Insanity Defense Lets You Get Away With Murder
As Seen On:
Law and Order, Primal Fear, A Time to Kill
Typical Scenario:
So things aren't looking so great: The cops caught you stabbing a priest, which you have found out is illegal in your city. Fortunately, your lawyer is Richard Gere, and the two of you combine to convince the jury that you are insane, and that the crime was carried out by one of your multiple personalities.
The man who defends himself has a fool for a lawyer. The man who hires Richard Gere has a sentient nose for a lawyer.
You get off, innocent by reason of insanity! Congratulations, a couple of months at the mental hospital and you'll be back on the streets!
Why it's Bullshit:
Obviously if the legal system had this kind of Get Out of Jail Free loophole, the prisons would be empty. In reality, the Insanity Defense is attempted in less than one percent of all legal cases, which essentially means that more people have tried to pin their crimes on aliens or their evil twin rather than their own basket case, shoelace-eating lunacy.
"No no, it was my brother, Larry Busey!"
Of that tiny fraction where the lawyer was even willing to try it, the defense is successful less than 25 percent of the time. Three states in the US don't even allow insanity as a defense.
Then, in that tiny, tiny fraction of cases where the guy "got off" because he convinced the court he was insane, he doesn't get to just go home. You get sent to a mental institution where you don't have a set sentence at all--they keep you as long as they see fit, which may be forever. You're there until "deemed safe to return to society", which according to the American Psychiatric Association is usually twice as long as the jail sentence would have been.
Hope you like white gowns and staph infections!
This has always been one of those situations where people simply want to believe the system is worse than it is. We can't escape the idea that the courts are too soft on the bad guys and that guilty people are running free left and right. Besides, what is insanity, anyway? Can't you say that anyone who willingly kills another human being is "insane"? Won't giving these guys a free pass based on a little craziness bring the whole system down?
Yes, it would. Which is why the courts don't do it.
#5.
Not Talking To Cops Equals Obstruction of Justice
As Seen On:
Law And Order, Numb3rsTypical Scenario:
The hunt for the bad guy is on and his girlfriend/mother/dog might know where he's hiding. Jerry Orbach barges into their workplace demanding to know where said bad guy is laying low.
They don't want to cooperate with the cops, so they stay silent or develop sudden amnesia. Well that's just too damn bad, because Detective Briscoe says not cooperating with the police is called obstruction of justice and that'll get you a minimum of five years of rapetastic jail time.
"Starting to remember where your dad is now, Timmy?"
Why it's Bullshit:
Specifically, the 5th Amendment makes it bullshit. We, on the whole, don't really understand the 5th Amendment, because it has a really shitty marketing department and today is virtually synonymous with fat union gangsters hiding behind it like RoboCop is chasing them. Somebody "taking the 5th" means they're guilty, right?
Not everyone who gets arrested is an Italian-American stereotype.
No, it means under no circumstances can you be coerced into being a witness against yourself. And, since at the moment they speak to you, you don't know if you're a suspect or not, that means you always have the right to not talk to the police.
Now, obstruction of justice is a real thing, and it can be charged when you lie to the cops, destroy evidence or otherwise intentionally fuck up their investigation. But simply refusing to talk to them is not one of those things.
Note, however, that police do have the right to ask you to identify yourself in many states, in which case you do have to tell them who you are. And you do have to give them real answers (see the 1972 Supreme Court case Nebraska vs Heywood Jablome).
#4.
Undercover Cops Have To Identify Themselves If Asked
As Seen On:
Rush, Deep Cover, MonkTypical Scenario:
An undercover police officer is meeting with a big time kingpin who wants to purchase some drugs/prostitutes in one the biggest drug/prostitution stings in years. It took months to establish the officer's rep on the streets all for this moment... and just then the kingpin asks the fatal question: "Are you a cop?"
The officer has no choice but to identify himself as a member of the police force and the entire operation goes to hell.
"It's OK, we actually knew the whole time."
Why it's Bullshit:
This is one of those tension-building devices in undercover cop movies (ie there's a tense scene in the Laurence Fishburne movie Deep Cover where he's forced to answer "yes" when asked the "are you a cop" question, then play it off as sarcasm) but even if asked directly, police officers have no obligation to blow their cover and get shot in the balls.
This makes sense if you think about it, since if that were really the rule there would be no sting operations whatsoever. Even the dumbest crackhead would remember to always ask his new supplier if he is a cop before each purchase.
Likewise for prostitution stings where the police pose as customers, then slap on the cuffs as soon as there's talk of blowjobs for cash. No, it's not entrapment, ladies.
Legally, it can't be entrapment without Sean Connery.
Most of this is plain common sense except for the miranda rights section. The police must inform you of your rights at some point shortly after being apprehended. The police are also allowed to do this through a written form. Yet, if the police forget this and have concrete evidence against you, you will still be convicted.
ReplyThe part which still confuses me in reading rights is along the lines of "....but anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law".
ReplyI understand that is along the lines of what is stated in the US.
Is that the same as in England & Wales ?
In Scotland, the warning is along the lines of "....but anything you do say may be used in evidence". It does not actually say "against you'
Acvtually in the whole of the UK it's usually a paraphrase of "But anything you do say may be used in evidence, something you may later rely on in court." Kinda goes the opposite way. As far as I know anyhow.
My husband is a cop and #2 & #3 are things he always complains about in shows/movies. That and how the actors can never hold a gun properly or search a building correctly.
ReplyNo wonder I'm always getting calls from the same people in prison
ReplyWhat happens when you run out of thumb downs?
Replythe joker used wnated his 'one' phone call remember and used a policemans mobile
ReplyIs anyone else bugged about those anti-gay ads?
Replyanother thing that should have been mentioned is the whole "breathalizer" scenario. movies/tv/whatever make people think that they HAVE to consent to it when they don't.
Reply Hide All See All 5 Repliesyou consented to a breathalizer (any time a cop deems there is reasonable suspicion to do so) when you received your drivers license.
You are allowed to refuse a breathalyzer test in the field. However, you are then issues a citation ($300 in NY), arrested, and your vehicle is impounded. When you get to the station, you are then given a breathalyzer there that you cannot refuse as part of your booking. It's your call.
You can actually ask the cops to take you to the nearest hospital for a blood test. I heard this from a lawyer recently, and thought it was an interesting fact.
Refusing is considered to be admitting guilt, so you are automatically charged regardless. And while I'm sure you can ask them to take you to get a blood test done, they don't have to and I can assure you they won't. So stop being a dumbass and 1. Don't drive drunk. 2. Cooperate with the cops. Being an a*****e just makes things worse for you.
You can refuse a breathalizer, however they will then obtain a warrant and you are then taken to the nearest E.R./A&E and given a blood test. This normally only takes around an hour and the extra time is factored in when deciding if you were over the limit at the time.
"Not so. The "reading your rights" thing (aka the Miranda Warning) is NOT done to everybody who gets arrested. It's instead a warning for people who are about to be interrogated. That doesn't include you if you were arrested for, say, driving drunk and then peeing on the hood of the police car. They pretty much know what they need to know."
ReplyThere's one more caveat in that. The Miranda is used for CUSTODIAL interrogation. If you're free to leave at any time, but are still being questioned (which is all interrogated means), you do not get the Miranda. If you're in custody (arrested/not free to leave), but not being questioned, you don't get the Miranda.
Well, you don't HAVE to get Mirandised. I've seen cops do it for phone interviews (still shaking my head over that).
custodial interrogation is tricky stuff. most people don't know what it entails. they also think that they can blurt out whatever the f**k they want while in the presence of a police officer if they haven't been read miranda, apparently forgetting that they can use "spontaneous utterances" against them in court because they're volunteering information. oh, criminal law is hysterical.
A lot of it is so the police can watch the assholes that think they can beat the system without accidently catching too many innocent people instead.
What it fails to help is laws regarding Minors.
As someone who's been in hospital this year after a guy tried to kill me, because the guy was 'Technically a minor' (Bloody highschool) all he had to do was make "A sincere sounding apology"
Doesn't matter that if some people hadn't pulled him off me, pounding my face into the pavement like an irate gorilla, I would not have made this comment. He said he was sorry.
In the UK if you refuse to answer questions at all the police can arrest you for that, that said if you simply say you dont know and its plausable that thats the case then they cant.
Replythe police can only arrest you if you are under reasonable suspicion and refuse to co operate. You can always ask what the reasonable suspicion is. i wouldnt bother tho, when do the IPCC ever find the police guilty of anything
In the U.K As long as you thruthfully provide the police with your name + address when asked for it you don't have to say another word. At all, under any circumstances. The only thing they can arrest you for is lying to them or refusing to identify your self and give your address.
If you dont want to end up in prison-USE COMMON SENSE
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesNone of these are things that only people in prison have to deal with. You don't even need to be arrested to invoke your 5th amendment rights - a cop can come by and want to question you about a burglary across the street, and you can choose to invoke your 5th amendment rights instead of talking to him.
Why? Because even if you are totally innocent, you could say something like "yeah, Tom had it coming, he never locks his door and he's a total douche!" and they could most certainly use that against you. People think, "I have nothing to hide, I'm innocent, so I'll talk to the cops all I want and I'll be fine!" Not true.
Prison and jail are also two very different places.
Yeah, using common sense ALWAYS makes sure you aren't wrongfully arrested or detained.
Also, they can convince you that you raped and eaten a child that never existed.
Also a thing on that Enhanced 911 system is it enacts if you simply dial "91". During an argument I once made the threat by simply dialing the first two digits, then I hung up and the cops came a knockin'.
Replyhmm, sounds possibly like bullshit to me. Or do the cops visit everyone who calls Oklahoma too?
When Jerry Orbach barges in demanding information, you by God give it to him.
ReplyIf Jerry Orbach barges in demanding information, I am running to my zombie apocalypse shelter.
Can I throw in one? It seems kind of important: "Dumb criminals always get caught, but the most sophisticated and well-planned-out crimes are the ones most likely to succeed." This is false, and the opposite is true.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesSee, generally, criminals really suck at being criminals unless they were born into a crime syndicate and have been doing murder their whole lives. But most of us aren't even involved in that, since they couldn't care less about us. I'm talking about murders of everyday people by someone who may or may not be a psychopath or has some motive for doing it. Someone finds a body in a random area, and no one saw anything. The police are sent in to investigate. It usually takes less than a few days, if not the same day, to arrest the right guy, who's been planning it for months, maybe years.
People who plan crimes for the first time assume they know what they're doing. They have this vague idea of how forensics works, and if they take the right precautions, they think they'll get away with it. They'll do the usual stuff of being sure there aren't any prints or DNA evidence to find. They might kill them in one area and dump the body in another. They might try to form an alibi for themselves. They might even use special weapons and bullets to make identifying the gun used very difficult. Premeditated murders by inexperienced murderers tend to go like that.
But every single thing they're thinking about forensics is wrong to such an astronomical degree that they'll be identified and caught within a couple of days of just analyzing the crime scene. The reason is extremely simple: You don't even realize how much evidence you're leaving behind when you try to cover up and then exit the scene. Forensic workers are in their line of work because they're good at it, and in a murder case, they're especially good at it, since they've worked with people like you a hundred times already who had the same ideas. Although it's practically impossible, let's assume you actually get away with not leaving DNA evidence at the scene, a feat which would delay their investigation maybe 10 minutes. But this type of criminal seems to forget one kind-of-important thing: There's an extremely good chance that your motive is not a secret to the police or even the public, and even if it isn't, they'll link one to you in the first day, meaning you're going to be a suspect. If they have your ex-girlfriend, are a business partner, are even an acquaintance in any form, you're up for questioning so they can see what stories match up. Good luck getting out of that one, because unless you're the most street-hardened criminal in the country, their questioning is going to break you down after six hours or so. Your story also has to match up with everyone else's, and if yours alone is the faulty one, you're pretty much fucked. They expect you to slip up at some point, and they'll be watching you the whole time. The rest is just a matter of going through the motions until you're arrested and convicted, since you'd have the MMO all lined up by that point: method, motive, and opportunity. Premeditated crimes almost always are discovered and the perpetrator caught because the person carrying them out has no idea what they're doing.
Dumb criminals are actually the most likely to get away with murder, by a long shot. These are the criminals that don't try to get cute, and hence just do it and leave. These types of criminals are a nightmare for the police, who may never catch them. Someone who ambushes someone else in a parking lot out of f*****g nowhere and stabs them to death, then immediately leaves without anyone seeing him, has a very good chance of never being caught, because the police will have almost nothing to go by. No one saw him, no DNA evidence was left, and the only intent was to kill and leave. No one knows what he looks like, what his motive was, or even if it was just a random stabbing or a premeditated act. They have no idea, and they have no resources to go by except questioning people, which doesn't often do much good, since the real murderer, assuming he's questioned, will just say he was somewhere else. Unless he can be proven wrong somehow, the investigation reaches a stalemate there. "Blitz" murders are the police's worst nightmare when it comes to homicide investigations, not premeditated ones, which tend to be extremely easy to solve. It's a good day when they get a "bizarre" crime, since that practically always means there's enough evidence to convict a person of anything they want.
And that's my lesson for today. Hope you learned something.
Damn! Thats a long comment!
I learned that you watch way too many crime dramas
NO you CAN'T "throw one in"! Ah crap you did it anyway.
*I learned what tl;dr means by reading that comment
Right so #5 is very wrong. During the investigatory period, a person may not "plead the 5th" if they haven't been accused of anything. Now, police also can't force you to talk via the threat of obstruction of justice either. They can however make you say whatever it is that you do know if they reasonably believe that you have information that will assist the investigation.
Reply Hide All See All 10 RepliesI know this because...well because I'm a MFing lawyer.
How can they make you say what you do know?
With rubber hoses?
Why do I have trouble believing you are a lawyer, and instead picture you a tubby, sweatier than most high schooler who hasn't learned he doesn't meed to try and be cool oj the internet yet
In my experience as an Internet professional, Lawyers don't say/type "I'm a MFing Lawyer"
Also, if you're any decent lawyer you'd know that you are refering to "Compelling a whitness" or in court dealing with a "Hostile Whitness" (Which happens after the investigation period), it requires some court orders and actual evidence that a person knows something.
Ironically I know this because I am a Lawyer, no seriously, I googled that shit!
then learn how to spell "witness"
You do realize, don't you, that contrary to popular belief the police are not permitted to be violent with witnesses? That doesn't mean they aren't on occasion but it usually means trouble for them when they are. If they're convinced you know something (reasonably convinced) they can ask you to accompany them to their precinct for further questioning but you are under no obligation to go unless you are under arrest.
But they can't actually *force* you to do anything unless they suspect you've committed perjury or committed a crime yourself. Technically it may not be "pleading the 5th" to refuse to talk to the cops if you haven't done anything but it does fall into the same category - you haven't been accused but you are refusing to say anything that might cause you to fall under suspicion in *any* criminal matter.
You must not be a very good f*****g lawyer. You do not have to say anything to Police other than verifying your identity. Anything else and you should ask for your attorney to be present. Period.
remind me never to hire you. you're an idiot. did you take the bar exam in iraq?
Funny, both a law professor and a law student who was a police officer said exactly the opposite of what you just said, Lawyer. Search Youtube for "Never talk to the police". You have a right not to talk to them at all times, and you have the right to have an attourney present at all times that the police are talking to you. Use your judgement based on the situation as to whether you should or not.
If you're a lawyer then getting through law school must be waaaay easier over the pond. You may also want to go back to it because you clearly missed something.
People don't realize that most of the reasons that cops get away with a lot of random bull s**t is because people don't know the law better. They get intimidated and don't ask for a lawyer, because they don't want the cops to think they're guilty. They talk and incriminate themselves in the most stupid ways because they think that they might have left some evidence behind, when in fact there isn't any evidence.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesI've only learned a lot about the legal system and cops because my father is one. He's a dick too. And he'll pull that intimidation stuff if he thinks he can get away with it. So your best bet if you get in trouble, act confident in your answers, don't lie, and for god sakes, if you did do it, get a lawyer and don't say a damn word.
Truer words have never been spoken.
If you are arrested for anything, remember only one thing: Shut your mouth till you get a lawyer.
Cops can and will be dinks to trip you up. It might not be illegal but it is indecent and immoral and definitely is not serving or protecting. There is just too much money (your stuff) to be made.
99% of people cops deal with a scumbags. The same assholes commit all the robberies all the time. 99% of the time you know EXACTLY who robbed the house in the area because its ALWAYS the same people. Get these morons talking and they will spill everything, because they are barly educated trash.
@Syn I'ma call bullshit on your "99%" since I'm not a scumbag, and I've actually dealt with cops more than a handful of times. Once, i was in my yard smoking, and cops asked "Do you know if your neighbor is home?" Another time, my car got hit, and, guess what? I had to deal with cops. There've been other times too, but it'd be a pretty boring coment if all I talked about was my boring brushes with cops.... point is, although I may be a scumbag... talking to boring, innocent people who were either in the right place, or who have had something bad happen is probably a lot bigger part of a cops job than dealing with "scumbags"
It's always in your best interest to get a lawyer, as frustrating as that is for police. At the same time, of course police are going to try to trip you up, that's their job. They can't tell the difference between somebody who is lying and somebody who really is innocent. Their job is to get as much evidence as possible to give to a prosecutor. The unfortunate fact that confessions are seen by juries as more damning evidence than they really are isn't the police's fault, that's the job of the courts, and particularly the defense attorney.
Calling police immoral for trying to interrogate you properly is like saying that they are immoral for dusting for fingerprints. After all, plenty of innocent people leave finger prints around all the time. It's up to the courts to decide whether fingerprints or a confession are evidence of guilt.
Cops do get too much credit, as do soldiers... it takes all of us... right down to the very smallest consumer to keep this planet going. not saying we are all equal, just saying that everyone has or her is place.
ReplyThe US sees its troops very differently to the rest of the world. The same way the Germans saw their troops diffently during WW2. (This is the part where you all get offended and prove me right)
I am going to prove you right Syn. One of the reasons that Patton was in disgrace was for slapping a soldier. The Germans were unable to believe that he would actually be in disgrace so when D-Day came around the Germans were distracted by a fake army being assembled by Patton. The Germans would never have pulled a General because he did something like slap a soldier.
whoever wrote this go to hell 3 of these are wrong figure out which one you f*****g retard.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesYea there's a retard here... Pretty sure it's not the person who wrote the article.. Jus' sayin'..
I'm thinking dooodeeeedooooo (did I spell that right?) might be a lawyer.
Says the retard who wrote that retarded comment. Go back to 4chan noobtard
With the phone call one, since I assume that the author was referencing In the Line of Fire with the Eastwood/Malkovich line, I'm pretty sure that in that movie, they do acknowledge that the police (ESPECIALLY the FBI) can track down someone who's called them with relative ease. However, Malkovich was a. jamming the signal and/or b. using a location like a phone booth where he can get away before the cops get there.
ReplyActually I think that myth is a holdover from the old days, before implementation of Signalling System #7 protocols. Before SS7, it did take minutes to trace the origination of a phone call, the recepient had to keep the caller on the line while experts did the analog equivalent of pinging switches to trace the number that was being used to make the call (they were "tracing" the signal path, hence the term trace). It could take five minutes or even more if the call was international, to trace a phone call.
After SS7, which allowed for, among other things, higher modem speeds, caller ID, and instant tracing of phone calls.
and now in the digital age its pretty much instant.
Fairly certain you guys have never actually SEEN Law & Order, since they don't pull this horseshit ever in that show.
ReplyFairly certain you have never actually *seen* Law & Order, since they nearly always pull that horseshit in that show