Dear Sir Kaikillah,
I don't fully agree with all of your post, but I was really impressed by it and respect your views.
Well done!
|
One important note: I am INFURIATED when anyone claims that prsion is an easy place to live because it has tv, cards, wheatever. Bulls%#&. I challenge anyone who says that to spend 6 months in a jail cell, and try to say it is easy, or not bad. Jail sucks, alot, and anyone who thinks it is so wonderful has no idea what they are talking about.
I'd challenge anyone to enjoy even 20-36hrs in county. And for gamers its even harder because you start looking at the bars and walls thinking of hardness and hp. Not to mention bluff and diplomacy.
I did a bit of time (6 months) and the first 2-3 days are a bit of a culture shock but after that I played cards, boardgames, watched TV(cable, no less), worked out, ate fairly good meals, bought candy and cigarettes from the commissary (in-jail store).. it was a cake-walk. The only thing missing is female companionship (unless you are married before going in, then conjugal visits can happen with some work).
I did my time and will not go back because I am a different person. Jail did nothing to change my perspective, I had changed my perspective (grew-up) before I ever went in. Court proceedings took 1-1/2 years to finally be done and by that time I had flipped the switch.Jail is easy. Life outside is hard. Hold down the job, pay your rent, utilities, food, car payment, insurance, etc... Jail was a vacation and not even close to a deterrent.
I took your guys challenge about "enjoying" some time over 15 years ago. It was far from punishment or rehabilation. The more time that passes, the more "civilized" the prison system becomes. If you want to punish people who break the law you need to strip them of their rights. Who says its cruel and unusual to not have TV, Magazines, etc.
Prison is a ridiculous place that has the mythos of being a tough place to be. It is a joke. Go to prison, get street cred. That's what it is seen as in today's age unless you live a good lifestyle. Most people in jail aren't from upper-middle class or middle class. They are the poor, the desperate, the addicted. Pull them out of their current lifestyle and you just put on an extended holiday.
FH
A-FREAKING-MEN. I hate, loathe, and detest with all of my being the institution of modern advertising. I do not hate advertising itself; I'm a perfectly fine with it. However, the current situation of advertising attempts to portray the world as nothing more than a shallow, materialistic Wal-Mart where people exist to buy products and "expressing one's self" is defined by the clothes one wears, and assumes that we are all stupid enough to actually have our buying habits altered in favor of the advertiser, rather than being repelled by their idiotic display. And, I wonder, how much money do they actually generate from their advertising, compared to the amount spent to produce it? I'm not saying get rid of it, but save yourself some money and the rest of us some annoyance by cleaning up your ads to be sensible in some way, shape, or form, instead of blowing millions on grating frill that nets you nothing, anyway! However, I consider it a more likely possibility that commercial-free channel alternatives are established before advertising gets smart again, and then I begin to wonder how much it would cost to make such a channel the norm?
I agree with the sentiment but feel the idea that advertizing in the modern sense of lifestyle-brand creation does not work is innacurate. The problem is not that Nike, Starbucks, The Body Shop or Disney don't have a clue regarding how to sell product.
The problem is that they are so very good at selling product. Probably the only person not affected by advertizing is the foul smelling individual drinking Listerine for its alchohol content that lives over an airvent near the liquer store. That guy is not affected by advertizing but basically the rest of us are.
The phenominal commercial succsess of companies that embraced the modern brand advertizing concept is testiment to its effectiveness. In the 1950s a company that made 100% profit was a really good company but by the 1990's these sorts of standards had fallen by the wayside as companies like Starbucks begn making 400% or more in profit per year. The key to these companies succsess is to stop making product. Actually making stuff is passe. Thats not where the money is. The richest companies sold or closed down their production facilities. Better to buy product from other companies that create it somewhere in the third world. Then you just brand that and watch the consumers eat it up.
Ironically if you want to live in a space that is free of almost all advertizing the very best place to do that is on private land masquarading as public land owned by what might be the single most effective brand management company created.
Here no brands are allowed to spoil that idealistic small town feel. By surrendering everything to the corporation so that even the town square is in reality private property one is able to get relief from the endless stream of advertizing that has started to invade every square inch of our lives (when the hell did we start needing advertizing in washrooms for example)
For an interesting look at the topic I suggest Naomi Klein's No Logo.
A-FREAKING-MEN. I hate, loathe, and detest with all of my being the institution of modern advertising. I do not hate advertising itself; I'm a perfectly fine with it. However, the current situation of advertising attempts to portray the world as nothing more than a shallow, materialistic Wal-Mart where people exist to buy products and "expressing one's self" is defined by the clothes one wears, and assumes that we are all stupid enough to actually have our buying habits altered in favor of the advertiser, rather than being repelled by their idiotic display. And, I wonder, how much money do they actually generate from their advertising, compared to the amount spent to produce it? I'm not saying get rid of it, but save yourself some money and the rest of us some annoyance by cleaning up your ads to be sensible in some way, shape, or form, instead of blowing millions on grating frill that nets you nothing, anyway! However, I consider it a more likely possibility that commercial-free channel alternatives are established before advertising gets smart again, and then I begin to wonder how much it would cost to make such a channel the norm?
I agree with the sentiment but feel the idea that advertizing in the modern sense of lifestyle-brand creation does not work is innacurate. The problem is not that Nike, Starbucks, The Body Shop or Disney don't have a clue regarding how to sell product.
The problem is that they are so very good at selling product. Probably the only person not affected by advertizing is the foul smelling individual drinking Listerine for its alchohol content that lives over an airvent near the liquer store. That guy is not affected by advertizing but basically the rest of us are.
The phenominal commercial succsess of companies that embraced the modern brand advertizing concept is testiment to its effectiveness. In the 1950s a company that made 100% profit was a really good company but by the 1990's these sorts of standards had fallen by the wayside as...
~sad laughter~ Oh, my God! Are we reduced to that? ~shakes my head~ My, what the modern world hath wrought!
I did a bit of time (6 months) and the first 2-3 days are a bit of a culture shock but after that I played cards, boardgames, watched TV(cable, no less), worked out, ate fairly good meals, bought candy and cigarettes from the commissary (in-jail store).. it was a cake-walk. ...
i'm glad you enjoyed
I spent 60 days in Elmwood county in a small dorm portable with 20 other men. I thought it sucked. I thought i learned my lesson. In two years I was in a suckyer prison
...
Jail is easy. Life outside is hard. Hold down the job, pay your rent, utilities, food, car payment, insurance, etc... Jail was a vacation and not even close to a deterrent.
I never want to go back. Jail sucks even county.
I had a uncle who said he should not be out. He held up a bank around the corner from his house and parked the get away car in the front yard. He has been in Vacaville for over twenty years know.
I took your guys challenge about "enjoying" some time over 15 years ago. It was far from punishment or rehabilation. The more time that passes, the more "civilized" the prison system becomes. If you want to punish people who break the law you need to strip them of their rights. Who says its cruel and unusual to not have TV, Magazines, etc.Prison is a ridiculous place that has the mythos of being a tough place to be. It is a joke. Go to prison, get street cred. That's what it is seen as in today's age unless you live a good lifestyle. Most people in jail aren't from...
|
|
i'm glad you enjoyed
I spent 60 days in Elmwood county in a small dorm portable with 20 other men. I thought it sucked. I thought i learned my lesson. In two years I was in a suckyer prisonI never want to go back. Jail sucks even county.
I had a uncle who said he should not be out. He held up a bank around the corner from his house and parked the get away car in the front yard. He has been in Vacaville for over twenty years know.
For the record, I don't wanna go back. What I was trying to get across was that for people who live in the s*@tty side of life jail isn't a bad place. Jail is more of a deterrent towards middle-class people, people with goals, and people who have alot to lose by going to jail. The reality is that a majority of people going into the prison system don't have much to lose so prison becomes a better alternative to the drug-dealer, gang, muggings infested streets. That was what I was trying to get across.
I had nothing to lose before I went in. No job, wife, car, house, etc. Where is the punishment/rehabilitation? I get to sit and watch Cable TV all day, someone cleans and cooks everything I need, I can get reading material, and there was several games going on (Spades, poker, dice, etc.) at any time that I could join in. Why wouldn't Joe-Gangbanger, who got caught selling illegal firearms or drugs, enjoy that?FH
Obviously, sir, you were never forced to eat lima beans as a child. Then you would know the meaning of the word "hate".
Wow! It took awhile to stop laughing after reading this...! ;;D
A short rant.
I hate it when players show up for a game and don't want to actually game. Just call and say you can't make it. You may have perfectly logical reasons to not want to game and that's acceptable. It's not like I've not had nights where I just wanted to call it off because of a bad mood in which I might kill the party or suffered from lack of sleep that turned the game into a one-room, "go home, I'm going to sleep" sort of thing. It happens.
I hate that my wife who is playing one of the more important members of the party, tends to fall asleep less than an hour after we've actually gotten started playing, telling me to "NPC me." - she then expects to have the same XP as everyone else at the next game session... She gets up earlier than I do, and we're playing on Fridays right now, so I can understand fatigue, but.... ARGH!!
I hate it when the group agrees to get together the next day to make up for a night of no-game, only to have one person decide simply not to show up. No call, no explanation, no nothing.
Do we game? No, because that person is rather important to the group...
We did, however, decide to start a d20 Modern game for when he's not around. Next time he shows up late and sees us all having a good time without him, he'll either want in on the game, or he'll decide he can show up whenever he wants - either of which is fine with us, since we're sort of tired of all gathering at one time only to have him show up when "another game" ends a couple of hours later...
RUDE!
I know exactly what you mean. I had a Dm that would be "hosting" a game, but would only sit in front the TV and get the game started. That was soooooooo irritating.
Jail is more of a deterrent towards middle-class people, people with goals, and people who have alot to lose by going to jail. The reality is that a majority of people going into the prison system don't have much to lose so prison becomes a better alternative to the drug-dealer, gang, muggings infested streets. That was what I was trying to get across.
Despite some disagreements, I concur here. A kid who is a gangster in LA doesn't really know how bad jail is- which is precsiely the problem. To middle class people, it is hell. But not to low class people- its not even a deterrent ot them. So we need to look at something else to do. Yeah, It doesn't fix these poor kids- it makes them worse.
|
|
What I was trying to get across was that for people who live in the s*@tty side of life jail isn't a bad place. Jail is more of a deterrent towards middle-class people, people with goals, and people who have alot to lose by going to jail. The reality is that a majority of people going into the prison system don't have much to lose so prison becomes a better alternative to the drug-dealer, gang, muggings infested streets. That was what I was trying to get across.
I had nothing to lose before I went in. No job, wife, car, house, etc. Where is the punishment/rehabilitation? I get to sit and watch Cable TV all day, someone cleans and cooks everything I need, I can get reading material, and there was several games going on (Spades, poker, dice, etc.) at any time that I could join in. Why wouldn't Joe-Gangbanger, who got caught selling illegal firearms or drugs, enjoy that?FH
This thread is fascinating. As one of those presumably middle class types, I would view ending up in prison as an absolute horror, but then it would ruin my life (I could never work properly in my chosen profession again, for example). But the interesting flip-side as to how great or little impact it has upon it habitual residents (the "criminal classes" if such a thing exists) is something which never occurred to me. I'm so glad that I found this board, it has such interesting, articulate people on it.
And I'm also glad that you guys who maybe have been "entertained" by the US prison system seem to have got your lives in order, from what I can tell from your posts - unlike lots of others. Out of curiosity, and maybe this has sort of been covered before, but what impact (if any) did the hobby have on your "rehabilitation"? Did it show you other intellectual vistas, stimulate an interest in learning, or was it completely incidental?
Director of Game Development
|
Just a side note, but the prison population in the US is the highest in all the Western world. And in a recent National Geographic graph about what statisticly is the greatest chance for one to lose their life legal execution rests between 'hornet, wasp or bee sting' and 'lightning'. (1 in 62,468)
|
|
Aubrey, in answer to your post, I was just 18yrs old when I commited my crime(s) and I was incarcerated a year and a half later. I had my high school sweetie cheat on, leave me, and tried to have everyone she knew hunt me down to get me beat up (because I hospitalized the guy when I walked in on him on top of her while she was 6 months pregnant with my kid). Life sucked and I hit some self-destructive phases. I was fighting someone (she sent them after me)once a week roughly for 7 months, and I never fell. I turned to drugs to mask my depression and hatred for life and did some things that I find, on hindsight, to be abominable. Once I realized that life CAN be cool and left my hometown to clear my head, I came back to the things that I enjoyed. D&D would have helped me avoid the whole issue but I didn't have a group for a while during high school. I have not only done my time but I also took it upon myself to try to makeup for all the wrongs I have done. I never feel like I am forgiven because I don't forgive me, but I try to live a good life, I give to the State trooper, volunteer firemen, and have a great relationship with my local law enforcement. I recently attended one's wedding. I hope God forgives me for my past, but I won't.
I use my past to keep a moral compass and to show me how much I need to do to good person.
I would and have willingly risked my life to help others and will do it if I ever see someone in trouble with no hesitation. I am here to NOW to do the best I can as a human and I have alot to makeup for.
FH
I feel it important to note here that the aforesaid "haven" from advertising, (Celebration, Florida) is mostly owned by the world's most advanced company when it comes to advertising.
Yes, the Disney company owns Celebration, Florida.
Why do I know this? Because I work in the development and building industry and learned about the efforts in Celebration to reduce/eliminate advertising.
Don't you find it the slightest bit odd that "Main Street" in Celebration looks faintly like the Main Street of any Disney theme park?
That's on purpose.
Syrinx
Good points, Jeremy. It often seems that no one does anything anymore just to do their job, but rather, they manipulate whatever they can to get the most profit with the least effort. I've heard that there are some think tanks and such that have serious concerns about the sustainability of our current economic situation, and the ramifications of going to far with it could be dire.
My dad has told me several times about encounters he had with economists years ago, and the statement they always like to use, "Whatever the market will bear." My father's reply was always, "Well, how do you know what that is? And what happens when you push it too far?"
Blank stares.
On the topic of the death penalty, I personally object to it on the basis of human error. I have some minor qualms with governments claiming the right to execute their own citizens, but that's in the same bin as my qualms with their right to declare war- deffinately something to avoid, but in the current world, that's not always an option.
And while I do believe that there are evil people in the world who deserve death (or rather, the rest of us deserve to not have them around), who is to stand in judgement? Humans make mistakes. Try imagining yourself, or your spouse, or your grown children, wrongfully put under the executioner's needle, and see how you feel. I would rather get rid of the process entirely, but if it is to be there, I want plenty of chances for the wrongfully accused to clear their names. And even given the statistics in Daigle's post, why add to another source of death?
Besides, there are other ways that would probably cost the same (don't come at me with statistics on this, I won't read them, it's not the point I'm trying to make), and still inflict punishment I personally find fitting even for a serial killer, without the severity of a mistake with a death sentance.
Try an iron box about five stories underground with a padlocked door through which you get occaisional light and some water and bread twice a day. Bedding is optional and at a court's decision. That's it. That's your world. You want to continue your case and appeals? Fine- there's a remotely controlled intercom through which your lawyer can talk to you, but you stay in the box. You get sick? They can look through the little peephole and judge whether or not to let a doctor come into your small, dark universe and prescribe some medication. Nothing else, ever. If you're later found innocent, great! Sorry for the hell you went through, but you're free to go and try to rebuild your life. If you're not so lucky, you rot down there for the rest of your days.
|
I hate having to deal with longer lines at the airport because a bunch of Islamofascist, nutjob terrorists decided to try and blow up a bunch of innocent people. What a bunch of a~@#*!@s. And now I can't even bring a soft drink onto the plane with me! Next thing you know, we'll all have to be flying in our underwear under armed guard.
I hate having to deal with longer lines at the airport because a bunch of Islamofascist, nutjob terrorists decided to try and blow up a bunch of innocent people. What a bunch of a&&*%%&s. And now I can't even bring a soft drink onto the plane with me! Next thing you know, we'll all have to be flying in our underwear under armed guard.
And FAA forbid that you should bring a laptop on board, or get that wonderful "S" branded on your ticket. "Special Screening" - take off your shoes, all metal objects. Oh, if you're wearing jeans with metal studs and buttons on them, turn down the waistband as well. In public view of everybody. Laptop? Open up the bag, take it out of the bag, open it up, let them visually scan it, x-ray it, all that fun stuff.
The "cure" is worse than the disease.
Try an iron box about five stories underground with a padlocked door through which you get occaisional light and some water and bread twice a day. Bedding...
We have an amnendment in our Constitution against exactly that kind of treatment. No cruel or inhumane treatment of prisoners. Which does NOT cover the death penatly, since the writers of the Constitution & the Bill of Rights did not consider the death penatly either cruel or inhumane (in the late 18th Century).
Since many states have not gotten rid of the death penalty, and some have even brought it back after removing it, the Powers That Be (the US Supreme Court) don't find the "clear consensus between states" they want before handing down a decision that would impact on state's rights issues.
There are some add-ons. The Supreme Court has said you have to know why you are being executed (which kinda toes that "cruel and inhumane" line in my mind, but probably without going over it). So people who are not aware of their crime or punishment can't be executed. The case was a person with severe Downs Syndrome.
I guess it comes down to whether you think the death penalty is supposed to serve as detterant or as a punishment. As a detterent, it basically sucks. Especially with the way the law interprets "intent to kill." If you think there are some crimes for which the punishment should be death, then it's in place to handle those situations. Considering the severity of the punishment, though, I don't think having the matter go up through the courts is necessarily a bad thing. Especially in order to catch problems.
For the record, I have known genuinely evil people. I have no problem with considering the death penalty for them. They are mass murderers and their extortion scheme forced all of us out of that blissful innocence where we imagined we could open a bottle of medecine and that it would help us, not kill us. However, both of those individuals are already out of prison now and quite alive.
And FAA forbid that you should bring a laptop on board, or get that wonderful "S" branded on your ticket. "Special Screening" - take off your shoes, all metal objects. Oh, if you're wearing jeans with metal studs and buttons on them, turn down the waistband as well. In public view of everybody. Laptop? Open up the bag, take it out of the bag, open it up, let them visually scan it, x-ray it, all that fun stuff.
The "cure" is worse than the disease.
And, to get back up on my legal high horse, what happened to the "right against unreasonable search of person,effects and papers"? That one that was written into the Constitution? They need a warrant to do that kind of search anywhere other than an airport (which goes WAAAAAAY beyond a frisk).
I understand the need for increased security. I had friends in the World Trade Center. You CAN do what they are doing (the Special Screening part). You just have to do it to EVERYONE who gets on the plane. Otherwise it's profiling. Which is (supposedly) bad.
From friends who work in the airline industry, I have also been told, it's all pretty much window dressing. You can still get pretty much anything on a plane if you know how things go on behind the scenes. But having people pulled to one side and publically stripped makes everyone (except for that person) feel safer.
And why do I always get the S on my ticket?
|
|
And why do I always get the S on my ticket?
I actually had this for the first time just this Wednesday on a flight back from Norfolk. The guy at the airport was very polite, and even friendly, so I was nice in return. I think that definitely made a difference.
These days though, I find myself wishing they would come up with that system they had in Total Recall, where the screen shows up you skeleton only. That would be cool!
The reality is that a majority of people going into the prison system don't have much to lose so prison becomes a better alternative to the drug-dealer, gang, muggings infested streets. That was what I was trying to get across.
FH
I know a number of people who sober up and use jail as a place to "vacation" from hustling, but none ever want to go back when they get out (or so they say but thier actions say otherwise)
peace
Personally, I don't consider my aforementioned box in the ground to be any more cruel or inhumane than the death penalty, or other things that our government and military does. Which is why I mentioned it as an alternative. But, that's just me.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I feel it important to note here that the aforesaid "haven" from advertising, (Celebration, Florida) is mostly owned by the world's most advanced company when it comes to advertising.
Yes, the Disney company owns Celebration, Florida.
Why do I know this? Because I work in the development and building industry and learned about the efforts in Celebration to reduce/eliminate advertising.
Don't you find it the slightest bit odd that "Main Street" in Celebration looks faintly like the Main Street of any Disney theme park?
That's on purpose.
Syrinx
I hate to burst your bubble, but everyone knows this - you don't need to be in a particular profession or trade. The OP even said:
"Ironically if you want to live in a space that is free of almost all advertizing the very best place to do that is on private land masquarading as public land owned by what might be the single most effective brand management company created."
He didn't come out and say Disney because he assumed (correctly) that the audience would pick up on the inference.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
And, to get back up on my legal high horse, what happened to the "right against unreasonable search of person,effects and papers"? That one that was written into the Constitution? They need a warrant to do that kind of search anywhere other than an airport (which goes WAAAAAAY beyond a frisk).
Thankfully, time is erasing most of what I once knew about criminal procedure from my mind. However, I want to say that the pre-boarding search falls under the umbrella of no reasonable expectation of privacy. In other words, because you expect to be searched, the search is not unreasonable. Maybe one of the actual criminal lawyers will correct me, because I'm sure I'm butchering the exception.
That being said, there are other huge exceptions to the 4th amendment. Border searches (which includes a search before you board an international flight) are not within the realm of the 4th amendment whatsoever. You have no 4th amendment right with respect to such searches.
And a stop and frisk uses its own special set of rules.
Anyway, I don't have a good answer today. Just some good old fashioned rambling.
|
Director of Game Development
|
Airtravel is regulated by the government but it is still a private industry. The industry should just say "if you don't like it then walk". There would be grumbling and claims that the airlines would go out of business but people would continue to fly.
Even when the govt financially bails out said industry. No conflict of interest there.
But, Yes, totally. You don't like it? Drive or walk or something. But even better, be a real citizen and challenge laws you don't like and use the proper channels to change things. Of course that would require getting up from the couch or computer.
And, to get back up on my legal high horse, what happened to the "right against unreasonable search of person,effects and papers"? That one that was written into the Constitution? They need a warrant to do that kind of search anywhere other than an airport (which goes WAAAAAAY beyond a frisk).
Thankfully, time is erasing most of what I once knew about criminal procedure from my mind. However, I want to say that the pre-boarding search falls under the umbrella of no reasonable expectation of privacy. In other words, because you expect to be searched, the search is not unreasonable. Maybe one of the actual criminal lawyers will correct me, because I'm sure I'm butchering the exception.
That being said, there are other huge exceptions to the 4th amendment. Border searches (which includes a search before you board an international flight) are not within the realm of the 4th amendment whatsoever. You have no 4th amendment right with respect to such searches.
And a stop and frisk uses its own special set of rules.
Anyway, I don't have a good answer today. Just some good old fashioned rambling.
I've done my share of work on both prosecution and defense. And did some clerking for a judge on a criminal rotation. I have to admit to being much more suited than prosecution than defense. (I have no problem with the way stop and frisk has developed, for example). And I STILL can't abide the justifications they give for obliterating the Bill of Rights in an airport.
I have had law professors that teach defense trying to convince me otherwise and their arguments just don't make sense, from the constitutional law on through the relevant case law. I think it would come down to a national security exception, if it could be defended at all.
|
again, i am reminded about stupidity
we, (at least those of us in the USA) are slowly becoming more and more gullible, and foolish.
with each passing terror incident, whether actual, potential, or "foiled", the US government takes one (or several) more of our civil liberties away.
before you know it, there will be inter-state checkpoints and all citizens will be required to carry ID at all times.
hell, that's now.
try getting stopped on the street and be unable to produce identification. i dare you to go unshaven (for you males) or in a burkha, walk around a close-by town, and see how many times you get stopped for questioning by those fellows and ladies in the nice blue uniforms.
better be able to prove you're who you say you are...and that "Guess?" label on your jeans ain't gonna cut it.
Heinlein had it right. once you're in a community large enough to require identification papers, it's time to move on out and start fresh.
and on the advertising....
i recommend everyone reads William Gibson's "Pattern Recognition", in which the main character, Caise Pollard, has a VERY severe reaction to any and all major logo's and brands. quite an interesting read.
here's to the end of the world as we know it, chummers!
the hamster
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I've done my share of work on both prosecution and defense. And did some clerking for a judge on a criminal rotation. I have to admit to being much more suited than prosecution than defense. (I have no problem with the way stop and frisk has developed, for example). And I STILL can't abide the justifications they give for obliterating the Bill of Rights in an airport.I have had law professors that teach defense trying to convince me otherwise and their arguments just don't make sense, from the constitutional law on through the relevant case law. I think it would come down to a national security exception, if it could be defended at all.
What is the basis though? Was it originally non-governmental actors? Before the TSA came into being, security was run by airlines themselves, right? No gov't actor = no 4th amendment violation. Post-TSA, the argument would be the mercurial reasonable-expectation-of-privacy or extreme exigent circumstances (national security).
The international loophole is a weird one. On that I completely agree.
try getting stopped on the street and be unable to produce identification. i dare you to go unshaven (for you males) or in a burkha, walk around a close-by town, and see how many times you get stopped for questioning by those fellows and ladies in the nice blue uniforms.
better be able to prove you're who you say you are...and that "Guess?" label on your jeans ain't gonna cut it.
You're not going to get arrested or beat up for not carrying identification, which you seem to imply by saying "better be able to...."
If the officer has probable cause to detain you and you lie about your name, you can get arrested for "failure to identify." That's the law in my state.
Officers stop and talk to people all the time. There's no detention there. You cannot be legally frisked if the officer cannot articulate a reason why he/she feels there is a risk to their safety. When being "frisked" they can only go by the "plain feel" doctrine and "pat down your outer clothing for items that could be a weapon." That's well established Terry vs. Ohio case law and supported by several subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
Your implication seems to be that officers are rogue threats who arbitrarily pick on freaky looking people to harass them. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the message I'm getting from your post.
90% of the time, a citizen has called to report "suspicious activity" that the officer is obligated to investigate. At that point, the officer has to talk and find out what the person is up to. Officers can also legally "talk" to anyone they want and engage them in conversation. That's not detaining them. If the person panicks and runs or implicates himself in something else, then that's not the officer's problem. Police can legally approach and talk to anyone they want--if through that conversation they develop probable cause to believe the person is committing a crime (or threaten a breach of peace in my state) then they can detain them for investigative purposes.
Sure there are rogue officers who say to hell with the Constitution and screw with every shady person they see, damn the torpedoes, but in today' climate their careers tend to be rather short lived.
I've been a police officer for 18 years and I take great pride in doing my job legally and helping protect the rights of the suspect as much as I help protect my community. Most officers I know and have worked with are the same way--they play by the rules and they do their job the way it's supposed to be done.
Policing is the most monday morning quarterbacked profession in the world. Painting every cop with the broad brush that gets applied every time a bad apple generates another black eye for my profession is a dangerous road and leads to your kids instinctively fearing the officer who may be the only person that can truly protect them.
(Hey, it's a rant!! I'm not threadjacking!!)
Here's farewell2kings guide to acting when stopped by the police (with a nod to Chris Rock)
10. Keep your hands in plain sight
9. Be polite
8. Be truthful
7. Don't run, fidget or act like you got an AK in your shorts
6. Don't throw your dope and run
5. Politely comply with the officer's requests
4. Say "yes sir" "yes ma'am" "no sir" "no ma'am" (it makes the cops think your parents might have actually given a s&$+ about you)
3. Don't imply that the officer should be doing something else, such as consuming processed dough products or catching "real criminals."
2. Smart remarks are not appreciated by most city watchmen
1. Don't square off, smart off, try to act like a bigshot in front of your friends, answer the questions and be cool.
If you HAVE NOT committed a crime and you are in an area you are legally allowed to be at that point (accounting for curfews, trespassing laws, etc.) I can guarantee you you will NOT be arrested and if that officer encounters you again, he/she will be much more likely to cut you some slack and treat you more like a human being than a potential rapist or murderer (which only you know that you are not, the cops want to survive to see the end of their shift and can't take chances)
Even if the officer initially treats you badly or says something you don't like, keep your cool and act polite and you will have taken the high road. If you were unlucky enough to have encountered a jerk police officer, you'll probably shame them into treating you better. Cops appreciate polite people, honesty and people who don't threaten their lives or those of other cops or citizens.
Oh, I would also love to be able to drive through traffic with the lights on.
It's overrated. It was fun the first few times and then you realize how freakin' dangerous it is and avoid it if at all possible. I got through my adrenaline junkie phase of police work in one piece (thankfully). During those two years I got dragged through a parking lot, thrown across the room by an enraged 13th level barbarian construction worker with warrants, shot at twice, two unwarranted and unsustained internal affairs complaints, three vehicle pursuits and I almost shot three people who "almost" gave me no other choice. I had two people die on me while I was doing CPR and I got doused with bodily fluids more than once. I had a bloated corpse explode on me and I had to do first aid on gunshot victims, one of them shot by my partner, on more than a few occasions, until EMS got there.
F2K 16 years later says "no to adrenaline rushes" thank you very much. Unfortunately, I can't always make the choice about that, but so it goes. It's probably why I spent almost eight years in white collar crime arresting bookkeepers and "trustees with their hands in the cookie jar." I hope to go into retirement quietly, playing D&D with my friends and an occasional round of golf. 18 years later I realize I probably wasn't cut out for my line of work :)
|
|
you're right...especially about the rogue officers
although that may be an artifact of where i lived (lessee here...walking through urban New Haven at 0600, white dude, dressed like he's got some money...must be here to buy/sell/distribute)
living out of the "norm" for the situation gets you stopped and "talked to" many many many times. personal experience tells me that.
and you're right, i know what not to do. i know i'm not committing crimes. i know i have nothing to really fear from those nice men in uniforms.
but the end result is: there's 2 of them, 1 of me. they have sticks, guns, pepper spray, and handcuffs, and worst of all, radios.
so, your average citizen (white, middle-class working stiff btw. 18-30, like yours truly) has a slightly less than "oh let's have a nice little chat" attitude when approached by armed men/women.
but that's a rant for a completely other topic...
my original post wasn't really about that part of the post...that came out as i was typing...must have been a cathartic kind of typing leakage, i would assume.
but i stand by my statment. when you have to have a piece of paper/plastic/computer chip to tell the world who you are, we've grown too far apart to trust one another. time to move on to quieter, friendlier locales. (if they're to be found)
the hamster
Yeah, I wouldn't want to live in a world where you HAVE to carry an ID card either.
|
Director of Game Development
|
You're not going to get arrested or beat up for not carrying identification, which you seem to imply by saying "better be able to...."
Yeah, I wouldn't want to live in a world where you HAVE to carry an ID card either.
When my wife was in jail overnight (in Austin) for an arrest 6 years ago she was in the cell in with three women who were arrested for "failure to identify". One was in the "talking back and being uncool" category, while the other two went out without their ID. Of course they could have just been talking s#!t.
You can't get arrested for "failure to ID" unless you've committed some other offense. Mouthing off to the cops is never a good idea, because our recall of vague penal and municipal ordinances that can get you tossed in the can goes up in direct proportion to how much you've pissed us off.
My usual scenario of arresting people for failure to ID involved a traffic stop and someone claiming not to have any ID. They then gave me a name and date of birth and address. I would write this down. I'd go back and run the name/dob through the computer and find out that no name/dob (date of birth) matching that had any driver's license or state issued ID on file.
(Giving away trade secret here)--I'd then go back to the violator and ask them questions like "What month where you born in?" (Since they had lied to me, some had forgotten what DOB they told me, so I'd get a conflicting date of birth --bingo--probable cause!) or perhaps I'd ask them how old they are (since they lied and most can't do math that fast in their head, they'd hesitate-try to remember what fake date of birth they gave me and f#+! up--bingo! Probable cause).
So if you're going to lie to the cops and give a fake name and date of birth, don't be a dumb ass and try to memorize your lie. Of course, good freakin' luck--many patrol cars have laptops where mugshots and Driver's license pictures, fingerprints can be downloaded in seconds, so you'd better be damn lucky or damn good, because any police officer who's been on the street longer than three months can tell if you're lying with about 80% accuracy. (Hey, he's lying, the lips are moving! :) To put it in terms we all understand, after 3 months in the field, any officer gets a free feat of Skill Focus-Sense Motive.
It's the classic sense motive vs. bluff check, LOL.
The thing to remember is that in most states "interfering with a peace officer" is also a criminal offense. So, if the officer is trying to talk to someone and you get into the act to impress the officer and your friend with your knowledge of the laws and how the officer can't do this and can't do that, don't be surprised to find yourself spending a few enjoyable hours at your local dungeon of doom.(usually giving you a chance to sober up).
More advice to those who might consider dropping the name of a friend or family member to avoid getting a ticket in your name. When I worked investigations I charged a guy with "identity theft" for using his brother's name during a traffic stop. The suspect's brother had called the police because he had traffic warrants out for him, caused by his loving brother who had given out his name during the stops involved.
Suspect's brother didn't want his brother to go to jail, he just wanted the tickets removed from his record. No problem...unfortunately, the "identity theft" statute only requires the intent to defraud "someone" (in Texas), not necessarily the person whose identity was stolen. Therefore, the victim was not the brother whose name got used, but the court. Suspect got convicted of misuse of identifying information and spent 9 months in prison (not everyone in Texas gets executed, okay?), even though his brother didn't want to prosecute.
Just for the record, here is the "Failure to Identify" law from the Texas Penal Code, verbatim:
§ 38.02. FAILURE TO IDENTIFY. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.
(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:
(1) lawfully arrested the person;
(2) lawfully detained the person; or
(3) requested the information from a person that the
peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal
offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsections (d) and (e), an
offense under this section is:
(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (b).
(d) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this
section that the defendant was a fugitive from justice at the time
of the offense, the offense is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (a); or
(2) a Class A misdemeanor if the offense is committed
under Subsection (b).
(e) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under Section 106.07, Alcoholic
Beverage Code, the actor may be prosecuted only under Section
106.07.
WOW!!!!!
Never have I heard such crying in my life....Listen all you wonderfully adept history majors: This country of ours; the land of the beautiful is nothing more then one great big large college fraternity: Every one gets hazed, Italians, Irish, Blacks, Chineese, Japanese, Jews, Germans, Women, Native Americans, Role Players, Cops, Sick People and now it is the Islamic peoples turn....Thank you Mencia!!!!
Now as to those supposed abuses by law-enforcement: I guess the 60's rejects here don't read the paper or listen to c-span---The Patriot Act; although thankfully still here have been whittled away so it has more oversite then the streets of LA.
Oh but wait...it was our elected officials who; being afraid of the wrongfully collected files of one Hoover who swung the pendulum so far the other way that cops and innocent peoiple were getting killed because the cops could NOT share valuable information amonst themselves...Now right after 9/11 these same pansies who WE elected are asking..."Why did these agencies who are supposed to protect us not communicate?" HEY PANSY....GO SEE A DOCTOR ABOUT YOUR FRIGGEN ALZHEIMER's...Oh but wait....now they are communicating and guess what....."Oh no we must protect the peoples privicy."....DR FREUD TO THE CONGRESS!!!!!
Ok so what are these people saying about those who wear the uniform of the law enforcement community and those of us who do not?
1. We do not trust you to look out for the best interests of the community....In fact given the chance we suspect you will treat every one like Rodney King...YET.
2. We want you to do whatever you have to in order to protect us.....Jusat don't get caught, filmed, taped, googled, or friggen iPODed.
3. You do not know how to do your job....we do....Nevr mind the fact that there is a clear seperation of powers and we have never been on the streets on that intense of a level...
4. Finally and most important: We are so paranoid due to some Scientologist actor starring in a movie where we are charged for a crime we will commit in the FUTURE and scared to death by fears that we will be forced by our government to believe that 1+1 is actually 3. Never mind the fact that we the people are our own worse nightmare.
STOP!!!!! We who wear the uniform or have worn the uniform of Law Enforcement whether local, state or federal walk an extremely dangerous line so fine that at times it can't be seen....The laws they enforce do not come out of thin air....we the people through our elected officials TELL them which laws to enforce....You don't like it....either act within the confines of the constitution to change them or...GET OVER IT!!!!
Now for the other end of the spectrum: Hey all you jack-asses who think that just because you are a cop and can get away with anything: Ding-Bat---WE HAVE CELL_PHONES WITH CAMERAS AND ACCESS TO THE INTERNET----AND WE KNOW HOW TO USE THEM.
So you've read this far...What to really do if you get pulled over:
1: Pull over immediatly!!! Not when you damned well feel like it...at the very least is a speeding ticket, at the most...'Worlds Scariest Police Chases."
2: When you do pull over, turn the damned engine off, put your hands on the steering wheel with fingers spread and in plain sight. Nothing fills a police officer with confidence more then not being able to see your hands....In fact it should make the passenger of your car want to beat the...you know what...out of you for forcing that rookie cop to stick his/her shotgun in your face (Don't laugh or balk moron...It happened to me.)
3: If you are pulled over at night...Turn your interior light on....Let the cop see what the hell is inside your car.
4: DO NOT SAY SIR OR MA'AM!!!! Ever!!!!! Guess what? That person is human and just might be reminded of the arguement he/she got into with their kids or might take slight offense at these terms....They have a title: 'Officer' They have not been knighted and they work for a living.
COPS:
1. Quit asking stupid questions like..."How are you today?" Hey retard: I just broke the law and you caught me...HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO FEEL BESIDES LIKE AN IDIOT. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Oh jeez...was it because of my winning personality?? Or was it because I broke the law and you busted me...I think it was the latter...WHAT ABOUT YOU???
2. Guess what...If we act nervous it is because we are TERRIFIED of you...You have a gun and you can lock us away because you think that we deserve it...You can put us in tight cuffs and because we have no idea where your limits are...It is not because we are terrorists or because we are drug dealers or because we chopped up the neighbors cat...You have a car with lights, a gun and power to totally disrupt our lives!!!!
BOTH SIDES:
Guess what we need those people with that kind of authority...Some one once said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and the boys, girls and dogs in blue are that vigilance and I LIKE HAVING THEM THERE!!! However do not forget that it is the people you boys, girls and dogs serve...show us the respect we deserve just as we should show you the respect you so rightly deserve.
Oh BTW I was a Federal Law Enforcement agent for 6 years during the Regan Administration so I have seen my share of pervs and perps both in uniform and out of uniform.
You forgot to add "Semper Paratis", captramses.
(For you non-linguiphiles out there, that's the Coast Guard motto - "Always Ready.")
Out of curiosity, and maybe this has sort of been covered before, but what impact (if any) did the hobby have on your "rehabilitation"? Did it show you other intellectual vistas, stimulate an interest in learning, or was it completely incidental?
NO incindental Thier was no D&D where I went to prison, this was still in the 80's.
I spent a year in prison for felony possession of cocaine with intend to sale ( I had 2 oz some in little baggies cost me $1200 and i could doubled my money and spent a week high). But my crimes as a dealer where much worse and I regret the things I did to others for money and pure power to manipulate others. Drugs bring money and influence no doubt.
When I got out I moved with my parents to Maui, turned about 22, gained concious, got an education and stopped smoking pot.
Don't get me wrong some people can smoke pot and be fine (It is well documented on this thread of what I think of cocaine, ice and crack heads), for me I just would waste away on pot, cause I have an addiction so have avoided it for 15 years.
Always good to have the knowledgable folks around.
Here's another one: If one was being frisked, when is it legal for the officer to reach into one's pocket or pants? (the object felt and grabbed was a bag of a "dried leafy plant" as documented)
Well, each circumstance is unique. Officers may not reach "into" a pocket when patting someone down on a Terry stop (stop and frisk) unless they can "plainly feel" that what they are touching is an illegal substance or something that could be a weapon. The case law swings both ways on that sometimes and sometimes these cases get tossed and sometimes they don't. It all goes back to the circumstances of the particular incident and the credibility of the officer and everyone involved in the incident.
I kid you not that 75% of the time when I patted people down, they'd tell me they had dope on them. And that over half of the time, if the dope was just a small amount and obviously just for personal use, I'd just make them grind it into the pavement with their foot and pour water all over it or piss on it or whatever. I strongly disagree with putting people in jail who are drug "users" while I still don't buy the whole "legalize everything" movement.
I hung out with potheads and occasional users of stronger drugs all through high school. Most are grown up now, a few aren't. I have family who avoid me because they know what I do for a living, but it's okay, it's their life, if that's what they want to do then they know what the potential consequences are.
Captramses---well said, partner.
Just a point of note--some Departments require their officers to "greet" citizens on a stop. I always just said "Good morning, I stopped you because you have a decapitated dripping head of a nun in the bed of your truck"...that sort of thing :)
The cameras in patrol cars and the audio mikes most officer wear on their lapels now are great "civilizing" tools for those few cops who abuse their power. Since my Department got them installed in all cars a few years ago, our "unprofessional conduct" complaints have dropped by 2/3 (I just read the stats last week, it's true.
Two reasons--the cops are nicer because they know they're being taped and the citizens don't file frivolous complaints because they can't freely make up b$&~!*#@ at Internal Affairs as easily any more.
That's a good thing, because now Internal Affairs can spend more time investigating "real" complaints and helping weed out the people who really shouldn't be wearing badges as opposed to pandering to the crybabies who want to deflect away from their own trouble by putting up as much flak as possible.
I live about an hour outside of Louisville, KY. The PD there seems to be pretty good- they're often on the news talking about new technology updgrades or new policies, their stance on this or that. The chief is charismatic and seems intelligent and trustworthy. The LM (Louisville Metro) PD is a pretty good organization, especially for all the drug crimes and murders they have to deal with in the poorer parts of town- this year has seen several parents and their children, all younger than three years of age, shot. Amazingly, the police have gotten there fast enough to save the kids lives.
That said, New Albany's PD sucks. New Albany is the largest of the three towns on the Indiana side of the Louisville metro bubble. They don't arrest innocent people or wrongful accuse- they don't do anything. Amongst other reports, my father has had to call on them twice, once for an attempted assault against him in the middle of the street, with dozens of witnesses who also called the cops (who never showed, and upon returning the next day with a strip of clear tape he had used to lift fingerprints from his car, my father was told that nothing could be done without a name and address; the cop never even looked at the tape, I was there with him), and once when driving down the road (me following in my car directly behind him), an obviously severly mentally handicapped young man threw a two-by-four at my dad's car. He called the cops, since the kid had looked about as likely to jump in front of the vehicle as throw something, and dad was mainly worried about this obviously severly impaired person getting injured. The cops did come, but the offender had already fled the scene, and the amount of interest they showed in actually following up the report was obviously null.
So do whatever you want in New Albany, 'cause apparently no one will stop you. I feel safe now.
As a quasi-relevant side-story, I had a bit of an accidental run in the the NYPD when I was 14. My mother had died the year before, and dad and I needed to get out of the house to clear our heads, so we went up to New York, my first time in the city. Well, while trying to see the Statue of Liberty, we found ourself accidently driving through the embassy district, which a very nice policeman quickly informed us we weren't allowed to do, and redirected traffic to get us out ASAP.
Asking us where we were trying to go, he directed us to a place that often had street-side parking and wasn't too far from the ferry. We went, and lo, there was a space! Well, we went off and had a great time seeing the sights of the city... until we got back to our car a little after five, and found it wasn't there. None of the cars which had been parked there were present, as a matter of fact. And, now that the large van which had previously held a space was gone, we could see a sign that said "No parking, anytime."
So we had to ask another cop where the impound lot was and hop a bus clear across Manhattan (which was actually kind of fun). Upon reaching the station, we saw there was a rather long line that dad would have to stand in. Luckily, there was also a couch, upon which I sat down to wait for him. Dad had to leave the room for some reason or the other, and while he was gone, in came about five men, all dressed in ragged denim, sporting heavy tatoos, and "decorative" chains. They proceeded to sit on and around the couch next to 14-year-old, Indiana-native me. I was rather nervous, to say the least.
It wasn't long before a cop came out, pointed to the couch, and said, "All right, everyone, let's go." The group began to move, and not having any experience in this type of thing, and the cop having pointed right at me along with everyone else, I found myself in the strange situation of passing through room after room with these cops and "gentlemen."
As I was touring the station, my father came back into the main room and saw that I was gone. He became rather concerned, to say the least, and began to inquire, rather forcefully, as to the location of his son. I was with my "group" for a full hour, before dad finally managed to find me, sitting in a plastic chair next to all these other guys out in the impound lot as they were taken one-at-a-time to look for their cars. No cop ever stopped to wonder why a 14-year-old boy with a T-shirt from the Chicago Rainforest Cafe was in this group. In hindsight, I think they should have. But, that's my little tale of my encounter with the NYPD.
Oh, and about "Louisville"- Almost everyone from more than two hours away calls it "Lewis-vill." No, you pronounce it, "Loo-a-vill," but you have to slur it all together. Ask any native to the area!
I had a negative view of the Tempe PD for a while because as a 16 year old, I got "jacked up" against a patrol car because I matched the description of someone the officers were looking for. I made the mistake of reaching for my wallet in my front pocket without telling the officer and he thought I was going for a weapon or something, so I was "directed" to the pavement.
After being cut loose, I felt very indignant--they should have apologized, they shouldn't have stopped me. As I got older I realized that the officers had no clue that I wasn't going for a weapon and that they couldn't take the chance because it's their life, everyday, that gets put at risk if they get too lax.
Police officrs are an extension of their community and they enforce the community's norms. Captramses was absolutely correct when he said that if you don't like the way the police are doing things, vote for a new mayor and city council and ask your new mayor to remove the police chief and force changes upon the PD. That's happened in many places.
Police officers are individuals and should be judged as such, but some Departments can and do develop an ingrained attitude that sometimes is not positive. When that happens, the community must "rise up" and demand change from their lawmakers. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and if elected officials realize that the quality of their law enforcement is important to the citizens who vote and get involved, then change can and will occur, albeit usually not as fast as people want.
Unfortunately, I'm not a resident of the aforementioned New Albany, and have no say in their elections. It just happens that is the town my father drives through to and from work everyday, and we go there a lot for groceries and gas. Next time a local election comes up in our area, I do plan on voting against the current elected members of the law enforcement, as the Harrison Co., IN, police could use some major changes, as well.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
COPS:
1. Quit asking stupid questions like..."How are you today?" Hey retard: I just broke the law and you caught me...HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO FEEL BESIDES LIKE AN IDIOT. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Oh jeez...was it because of my winning personality?? Or was it because I broke the law and you busted me...I think it was the latter...WHAT ABOUT YOU???
The reason the police do that is because very frequently, the suspect will blurt out something incriminating. Case law is chock full of suspects that yell out things like "I killed her and buried the body in my backyard" when the officer asks "why were you going so fast?" Also, the conversation that you have with a police officer prior to arrest is outside of Miranda. So, if they ask how you are doing and you respond with something incriminating, that statement is not going to be excluded because you had not received your Miranda rights. Finally, if the officer says something to you and you respond with a very sketchy answer, that can be part of the grounds for probable cause to justify a warrantless search.
Asking you how you are doing is a surprisingly effective tool of evidence gathering. As F2K said, people love to needlessly confess to the police.
The reason the police do that is because very frequently, the suspect will blurt out something incriminating. Case law is chock full of suspects that yell out things like "I killed her and buried the body in my backyard" when the officer asks "why were you going so fast?" Also, the conversation that you have with a police officer prior to arrest is outside of Miranda. So, if they ask how you are doing and you respond with something incriminating, that statement is not going to be excluded because you had not received your Miranda rights. Finally, if the officer says something to you and you respond with a very sketchy answer, that can be part of the grounds for probable cause to justify a warrantless search.Asking you how you are doing is a surprisingly effective tool of evidence gathering. As F2K said, people love to needlessly confess to the police.
Actually my friend this is not true...I just checked the stats and I know quiet a few police officers from my days in law enforcement. I have also chatted with real Criminal Justice instructors who work in the field. The opposite is true. Now I am not saying that F2K is full of it all I am saying is that his experience appears not to be the norm...So please if you are going get it right. Thanks
Actually my friend this is not true...I just checked the stats and I know quiet a few police officers from my days in law enforcement. I have also chatted with real Criminal Justice instructors who work in the field. The opposite is true. Now I am not saying that F2K is full of it all I am saying is that his experience appears not to be the norm...So please if you are going get it right. Thanks
The reason the police do that is because very frequently, the suspect will blurt out something incriminating. Case law is chock full of suspects that yell out things like "I killed her and buried the body in my backyard" when the officer asks "why were you going so fast?" Also, the conversation that you have with a police officer prior to arrest is outside of Miranda. So, if they ask how you are doing and you respond with something incriminating, that statement is not going to be excluded because you had not received your Miranda rights. Finally, if the officer says something to you and you respond with a very sketchy answer, that can be part of the grounds for probable cause to justify a warrantless search.Asking you how you are doing is a surprisingly effective tool of evidence gathering. As F2K said, people love to needlessly confess to the police.
Actually it IS true. Personally, I've had it happen in front of my on ride-alongs, I've tried cases to the court and to the jury where the defendant did it and I've had clients do it when I was doing defense work. That's all in a relatively limited range of my experiences. As far as acquaintances, it's the bane of every defense attorney I know, the joy of every prosecutor and the eternal bemusement of every cop.
All that plus the unbelievable number of examples of case law where it happens. Which you get to study a number of if you ever have to deal with Miranda issues. Whicn is pretty much every defense case if your lawyer is zealouosly pursuing your defense. (It's all in the motion practice).