No, you are not understanding, which is not surprising because it is a matter of perspective. I never said that LEO loses any credibility at all. What I am saying is that particular LEO may have a much different perspective then one who has no interest being a lawyer. In the end, the opinions presented in those video clips are just that opinions. My experience and many other law enforcement officers experience are the opposite of some of the opinions offered by those presenters as such our opinions will be very different.

For example if the lawyer's first point were true and a person could never talk their way out of being arrested by telling the officer the truth concerning what ever activity the discussion was about, set aside the fact that has happened literally hundreds of times in encounters with me personally, how crowded would court dockets be if every conversation with law enforcement resulted in an arrest?

As to your thin blue line comment I never said nor did I imply that anyone is infallible. Actually I very clearly stated that Law Enforcement can make unintentional errors and intentional ones as well. Just as lawyers can make errors and be disbarred, doctors can lose their licenses and Marines can be dishonorably discharged. The people doing these jobs are humans just like everybody else and as such are susceptible to human failure like everybody else as well

FB

You seem to be dodging the question. What is this slightly different goal that you claim terrorist organizations have?

I also won't be inclined to spoon feed you facts on demand as you have replied to me in the past on two separate occasions. Though I do notice that you deleted the most recent occurrence of that particular statement. Wonder why that was? You can do your own research.

FB

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/14415200-post67.html

I am not dodging the question. I don't find the question relevant at all. This is the post that I made the response in that started this tangent.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/14619539-post339.html

This post was in response to a request for examples where a terrorist organization would use photo surveillance and why. My response was that it matters little if it is a terrorist organization or a traditional organized criminal organization because they often use the same methods to plan,prepare, and perpetrate their criminal activities. It is also true law enforcement uses similar methods to combat both types of illegal activities. The goals of either organization really don't matter if the activities of both organizations are illegal. While the reason why the organization is perpetrating illegal activity may matter to you, it doesn't matter to law enforcement any further then is necessary to prove intent.

That being said an organized criminal organizations goal most often is to make money for the organization. They very rarely participate in crimes of passion but will commit crimes of violence to further the goal of making money.

A terrorist organization most often has a less materialistic and intangible idealistic goal. It will vary from organization to organization. They will commit crimes with the intent to make money but this is usually not the goal in and of itself. It is to make money to further the idealistic goal. The money is used to plan and perpetrate acts that use violence and fear to achieve there idealist goal. Something to keep in mind is that idealistic goal may not be illegal in itself. It is the activities of the terror organization uses to achieve that goal that is illegal.

As I said I fail to seen the relevance of the goals of either organization to answer the question that was asked of me. If you see it differently the ball is in your court.

FB

It does happen, and is reversed on appeal. You can actually be arrested (obstructing a public official, disorderly conduct, contempt of cop) for remaining silent or refusing an unlawful order.

Yup. Police are not there to protect you, they are there to generate arrest statistics to be used in promotion criteria. Protecting you is a secondary (at best) function.

He seems clear enough to me GUWonder. I have read Firebugs posts and consider them a good source of reasoned response. You may well have researched the internet for legal opinion / argument and you will find plenty of it no doubt but it does strike me that the ordinary Joe Public is best protected by one thing.....the application of common sense ! You know, like what people did before the internet! If you are engaged in some sort of criminal act and you attract the attention of LEO's the law abiding public expect them to do what their tax dollars pay for and discharge their duties. If you are not engaged in criminal activities then any misunderstanding should be cleared up e.g. 'Sorry, I'm climing in this window because, I've lost my keys and yes here is my ID at this address'. If you are in some other category then the waters may become muddied but the officers developing suspicions do need to be cleared before you can proceed. It may be up to you how much you want to co-operate and how much of a scene you feel is appropriate but again, it's his job to clear his suspicions, in spite of that.

And photos and video don't have to be forms of surveillance. My (our) point.I'd appreciate it; an example of where a convicted terrorist had previously taken photos/videos (in person) of the target. Nothing personal, but vague references from those with a dog in the fight just don't cut it with me. They usually turn out to be apochryphal or anecdotal, that is if they can be substantiated at all.Not all photography is criminal activity. Maybe not even any photography, although I'll concede OP (the case in point !) may well have contributed to making it appear so. The goals of an organization do not matter at all if the activites are legal.No dispute. What is in question is why a perfectly legal activity (photography at airports) should raise suspicion in the first place, and why draconian tactics are often used in clearing those suspicions. I'm sure, in fact I know, that some LEOs are statisfied with a simple conversation conducted in a civil manner free of intimidation. Some are not; and those are the ones whose attitude and actions we censure.

Why is your post insisting that innocent people tolerate being treated as if criminal suspects and take up the burden of demonstrating their innocence to LEOs? That may work for those attracted to fascism and its petty nature, but it doesn't work for others.

He whose mother and family called him "David Headley" has been accused of using photos/videos to help plan the Thanksgiving Day long-weekend terrorist attacks in Bombay. He and/or another person were also accused of casing the Jyllands-Posten office around CPH, that was known as the "Mickey Mouse Project". No joke, guilty pleas included.

what an example of tinhorn fascism (abuse of power) run amok...

there is also in the thread, by some posters, a disturbing trend towards the view of the moronic and little remembered Attorney General Ed Meese, who famously (wrongly and ignorantly) said about certain people that "if they were innocent they wouldn't be suspects."

It's apparent that TSA and the police here know as little about the Constitution as Ed Meese, and we are all suffering for it.

Who the hell wants to fly when you're going to put up with the abusive chicken$hite we read about here daily? :td:

I suspect my October flight to a family wedding in Boston may be my last "pleasure" flight for a long, long time.

Oh, btw, I work in federal LE, for those who will assume that I'm some left wing radical softie.

It's interesting that you take this view. The handful of prosecutors and law enforcement officers I have heard from about this topic (outside of this forum and the linked youtube videos from both the lawyer and the LEO) have all repeated the advice of, "Keep your mouth shut, no matter what and no matter how smart and how innocent you think you are." What advice would you give your family members if they were facing questioning by law enforcement (from outside of your own agency)?

I also seem to recall that silence cannot be used as evidence of guilt in court. If it can be used as probable cause for an arrest, that seems contradictory. Similarly if it can be used as reasonable suspicion for a detention/investigation.

As for considering the totality of the situation in developing suspicion/cause, I have some appreciation/respect for that, but I do have to wonder. Nature recently published a paper debunking the whole non-verbal clues of guilt concept on which TSA BDOs rely and saying that the whole thing is non-science. I wonder how much of the situational evaluation by LEOs is non-science and total hogwash. That doesn't mean they won't be right much of the time or most of the time--experience brings good instincts in smart people. But there's no way to prove that the "good" outcome of catching someone guilty came from observing the involuntary facial expressions, etc, or through a correct gut feeling by the LEO that the person was guilty.

based on 23 yrs. of law practice including defense and federal LE, I agree ... there is almost nothing you can say that will help you and the entire conversation is designed to get you to say something arguably incriminating (with the listener of a mindset to take everything at its most incriminating & inculpatory meaning).

Exactly. And it applies whenever there is a huge difference in power between you and the questioner, and when the questioner has the power to fail you, detain you, incarcerate you, or otherwise make your life miserable.

It's like the old story that a flight instructor used to tell about how to answer questions at an FAA flight exam:

Instructor: "We will now prepare for your flight exam. Pretend I'm the examiner"
Instructor: (holds up yellow pencil): "What's this?"
examinee: "It's a yellow writing instrument, number 2, sharpened on one end and an eraser on the other. You use it to write your clearances unless the point breaks."
Instructor: "What?"
examinee: "You're holding a #2 pencil sharpened on one end"
Instructor: "What?"
examinee: "You're holding a pencil"
Instructor: "Correct. Next question...."

Don't lie, but the more information you give opens you up for even more questions. A good questioner understands that and uses it to get you to say something you may regret later. Folks asking questions, especially those with a background in intel, understand this well...

I don't see the LEO's tactics as draconian, but that's ultimately a matter of opinion.

As to examples of legal activities being questioned, intelligent terrorists will conduct probes and dry runs for the purpose of finding weaknesses in a plan before they actually execute it. For example box cutters were legal to take on board prior to September 2001. It's a safe bet that the attackers had carried these on prior flights to make sure the attack would work.

Are you saying that a citizen must prove their innocence rather than government proving guilt?

Why would they have needed to carry them on in a dry run when they weren't prohibited anyway? That makes no sense. Of course they'd get thru. And short of actually attacking with box cutters, how would could they have done a dry run to see that the attack would succeed?

If it were a prohibited item, I could see how that would be advantageous to see if they'd be picked up. However, there was no need.

Any hijacking attempt would have succeeded at that time, as it was common knowledge that the crew would cooperate. A dry run on that premise wouldn't have been needed as it had been played out time and time again in previous hijackings that yes, the crew would cooperate.