These 3 Words Can Harm Your Defence

[@karlhawkes]

It should not have to be this way. Hardened criminals get away with it because they know to say nothing. Naive people who are the victim of circumstances or emotions often gets snared by the law.

[@qua7771]

I've seen this happen often.

[@davemeads859]

This 💯🔥🔥 the hardened crooks know how to play the system your average person thinks authorities are there to help you or at least find the truth when all that matters is clearance numbers and arrest rates

[@qua7771]

@@davemeads859 Right. When crime is reported, someone has to go to jail. They don't care who, as long as it closes the case. For the falsely accused, it cost a fortune to prove innocence. Some plead guilty just to get out of jail, because fighting it means staying in jail until trial if they can't afford bail. Being in jail already make one look guilty. It's a guilty until proven innocent system.

[@vanpallandt5799]

@@qua7771 are you in US? In UK there is no monetary bail. There is a presumed right to bail. For every 100 crimes reported, the % that result in a custodial sentence is probably less than 5%..there were 6m recorded crimes in England and Wales in 2019/20 and apparently 40,000 ppl were sent to prison in the same period in England and Wales. The UK does have the highest rate of ppl in prison to population in W.Europe which is not good

[@taramaforhaikido7272]

It IS this way. It's reality. "Should" logic is flawed because it goes against that reality. Which is dishonest and delusional. I'm saying this because only when the reality is accepted will people take note of events properly. Accept the situation for what it is so something can be done. This is the truth. The law is a joke. The law fails. Killers get away scot free, leading to revenge killings when the law fails. I don't make it about revenge myself, but if it was your wife gunned down in a drive by... Well, I can understand why even if I don't approve. Personally I'd hunt people down for answers. What I'd do face to face? Don't think anyone knows what they'll do after that point until they're in it. But here's the thing. This is how I think people deal with their own situations. The question is if the law is even needed in the first place in regards to a situation. If for example people are in agreement and choose to settle things between themselves while leaving strangers out of it then it's at least a somewhat controlled environment. In a situation like this the law can attack instead of defend. How many times has the law "butted in" only to backfire into violence and destruction? Look at any war in history, about how empires rise and fall because everyone has their own stupid "I know best for others" attitude and you'll see why. Different reasons. Same old song and dance. The messed up part is that mass killings were once legal and actually required by the law. Here's the facts. The law often is abused. In "obivous" ways and "subtle" ways alike. Rely on it too much and it's not about honesty anymore. The truth has to come first. Even if it goes against the law. In this day and age a court room doesn't represent "honesty". You'll even get thrown off the jury if you know too much. This just makes honest people want to burn the world because of the hypocrisy. Even cruel sadisctic monsters that take pleasure in the suffering of others take issue with this. At that point people will do one of two things. Make it about "the world" (hello path of destruction). Or make it about "Their" world. Sad and pathetic as it is, let idiots be idiots unless they're right in your face. That's just how it is.

[@nua1234]

Taking a smile as a confession, is worrying as lots of people smile when nervous. Also a nod can be an acknowledgment that someone understands what they are being told rather than an agreement.

[@PedroConejo1939]

Absolutely. I found that bit chilling.

[@tightcamper]

Remember the Louise Woodward case 20 years back. Smiled nervously in court under cross examination. To anyone it was obvious it was a nervous smile but the US media went hysterical and it did her no good at all

[@johnvienta7622]

I agree. I actually know someone who was looking at many years in prison for something that not only had they not done, but had not happened at all, so the Police were trying to get him to explain his actions that had only happened in the fantasy world of another person. The prosecutor stated in Court that he had not looked shocked when the allegation was put to him, and that indicated guilt. Luckily the jury saw through the lies, but of course nothing happened to the complaint who started the matter.

[@The01t]

Yep, there's a lot wrong with UK law when it comes to collection of evidence. The Police are so stupid in the UK that the courts have had to broaden UK Police investigative powers to ridiculous levels.

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

No, a smile never constitutes a confession. How absurd. Anyway, just keep your mouth shut, don't answer questions.

[@barryemery16]

When I was attacked, the attacker did come off worse and I was arrested at the time. My words in the interview was “I defended myself using the minimal amount of force necessary”, this was accepted and I was eventually released without charge. It turned out that the attacker was “well known” to the police.

[@josephberrie9550]

same thing happened to me and now I have no trust in the police whatsoever

[@McLoed22]

@@josephberrie9550 because the police conducted an investigation and you were released without charge...? Yeah, when we all know the police are mind readers. People really have unrealistic expectations of the police.

[@spindriftbeach6082]

Good work that man!

[@WreckItRolfe]

A well known money-maker for the judiciary

[@childofthesun32]

I had a similar experience though I didn't have a negative experience with the police. I was attacked and, after asking the person to stop, asking the person why they're hitting me and stating that I'll hit them back if they keep hitting me, I then defended myself, I'll admit excessively. This was because I didn't know this person and didn't know what they were capable of, but I was already in a fight where my glasses were missing. So I just kept hitting the person until they no longer moved, because I didn't want to lose the upper hand and end up being severely or permanently injured by them. When the police came, he tried to press charges and I didn't. I just explained what occurred and said "I hope the guy is ok". It ended up we both got cautions. I'm assuming what happened is they looked into my record and saw absolutely no instances of wrong-doing, then looked into his record and saw repeated examples of him being an absolute wrong 'un. So, even though he was worse off than me, they didn't go after me and just cautioned us both. I remember in the drive home, at the back of the van, I was talking to the police about immortal jellyfish and time-travel. Then said to the police "sorry we didn't meet under better circumstances" and shook his hand.

[@DrWrapperband]

Laughing is the human way of expressing shock. It is cultural as well, in Asian countries laughing means you are embarrassed. It is a scandal if the Police use laughing as evidence of guilt.

[@NeverTalkToCops1]

Correct.

[@dicksmall7976]

No wonder the courts and lawyers make so much money. They are a gang of thugs who have written rules that go against basic human instincts to make money. It's nothing less than a money making scam.

[@elliegreen4738]

Very well said and true.

[@elliegreen4738]

@@RichieBedfellows I laughed hysterically as a child after I was run over by a Volkswagen Beetle which the driver had slowed down but was unable to stop quickly. I wasn't laughing because it was funny, nor did I decide to laugh, it just happened. Even if someone genuinely laughed when they heard that someone who had harmed one of their family or pets or even themselves, I don't see how that could be considered a sign of guilt. It would be dishonest to pretend to be sad about it, you might be relieved to know that they couldn't harm you anymore.

[@elliegreen4738]

@@RichieBedfellows The sort of hysterical laughter just happens even though you might have been hurt as I was by the heavy weight of the car pushing against me. It felt frightening for a minute or so and I think I went mindless, the laughter was a reaction that happened unconsciously. The other kind of pleased laughter or smile is different, who's going to be sad if they heard that someone who was bullying a family member or had got someone to kill their cats was dead.

[@MrNorker77]

Nearly got forced to pay damages because I once said I was sad that the other person in the car accident got hurt badly. What a world we live in that sympathy for other people is seen as an admission of guilt (I only got off because there was video evidence of her running the red light and me trying to brake and swerve to avoid hitting her car).

[@MrNorker77]

@D2M5 You're screwed either way

[@JP_TaVeryMuch]

That's appalling. What a damning indictment of how far away from common sense and civility we have come.

[@emmsue1053]

Was told years ago that in a car accident never say "sorry". .Its an instinctive Brit thing though and not easy to do.

[@Ggdivhjkjl]

In South Australia a few years back, a burglar broke into the house of a samurai sword collector who killed him. The jury refused to convict.

[@yellard6785]

Why was he even charged?! 😮

[@quantisedspace7047]

I take it that the S Sword was used as defence against the intruder ? Or was it used by the intruder, justifying a greater force by the home owner.

[@quantisedspace7047]

​@@yellard6785Tell me you're American without telling me you're American. Outside the USA, it's pretty normal to arrest both the homeowner and the intruder when there's force used like this, or when hurty words are exchanged. Being arrested in UK/Australia isn't such a big deal like it is in the US. It's far from inevitable that an arrest will lead to being charged.

[@adespade119]

Jury nullification in action.

[@ajudygarlandfan3019]

@@quantisedspace7047 Sorry but that is untrue in the UK now as the police have targets to meet on solved crime statistics. In my experience you are presumed guilty the opposite of what our justice system ‘says’ is its basic tenant - innocent until proven guilty.

[@Ade_1]

Also never apologize or say sorry if you've done nothing wrong. An admission of guilt can be implied by those words.

[@brianhoskins1979]

I agree with you but it's still bizarre. If I was attacked by a man and in the process of self defense the attacker fell, hit his head, and sustained serious injury or worse, I would probably still be sorry. Simply because of my involvement in such a scenario, and the terrible outcome of it. Just because I'm sorry about it, doesn't make it my fault. The law in this country is quite a long way from optimum I think.

[@allananderson949]

Unless it's your wife

[@Ade_1]

@@allananderson949 especially if your wife 🤣

[@Farweasel]

Perverse isn't it Even the ordinary phrasing some folk would ordinarily use such as *I'm sorry but* ..... Becomes: 'So you say you now sorry you did it eh' ?

[@scousiered3124]

"I love you" were the three words that always got me into trouble.

[@xtrailz]

Never a good thing to say to a police officer when you are being arrested 👮‍♂

[@Mark-wx6xr]

'I do' will cost you more.

[@arricammarques1955]

@@Mark-wx6xr Men marry because they are tired; women because they are curious; both are disappointed. Oscar Wilde

[@kevinthegerbil2708]

@@Mark-wx6xr Most expensive words to speak.

[@mickeythompson9537]

Never say it _first._

[@michaelayling8855]

You don't want a confession, you want the truth,admitting to something that you didn't do because of a bartering justice system is criminal in itself.

[@dirkbruere]

The US system of plea bargaining is utterly corrupt

[@Chris-vy8kx]

...you want answers.....I WANT THE TRUTH....YOUUU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH🤪

[@KravKernow]

@@Chris-vy8kx "No truth handler you! I deride your truth handling abilities!"

[@chrisellioitt5240]

Court: You go to military court (classed as voluntary slave under conscripts in level) on another lands soul with a bank to make a transaction. Military court defendant is guilty. They give you the 2 options guilty or not guilty and don’t tell you any others! Guilty: you did it and admit the damage Not guilty: you did it but think there is no damage. Ether way you are logged as commuting the crime in all logs.

[@peterdickinson7842]

Judge John Deed Well produced "Set a guard over my lips Over the door of my mouth Lord" Since You're the Author of Life As well as every idle word shall have to be accounted for. I believe God The Son won so I ain't a dumb ass. That fate worse than death! If the crucifixion and resurrection didn't happen Von Crappen Winnie the Shi ite Faeces would be the Species. But God is not mocked As you sow Shall you reap. Repent so you escape condemnation. Jesus Christ God The Son overcame hate by endless love!

[@sahhull]

Never talk to the police without a lawyer. Never talk to the police in conversation. They are waiting for you to incriminate yourself. The police are not your friends. The police will arrest you based on feelings rather than law. Any wonder why respect and public opinion of the police is at an all time low.

[@tSp289]

I'd say a large part of it is people seeing the stuff going on in the US and assuming that means it's happening here too, even though our policing systems are very different.

[@gordonbennett3213]

Let them think beforehand that you are naive and tjat theyll get somewhere in interview. Then once in the room look straight at them in the eye and say No Comment x100

[@John.AR.Activism]

@@tSp289 Its a different culture, most people in the UK wont be armed for a start.

[@davoman5781]

Not true. If you are guilty and going to plead guilty the best thing you can do is fess up straight away and be honest and show plenty of remorse for whatever it is, even in petty crime and in certain cases show you are trying to get any help you need (Mental health, addiction etc) You'll get maximum credit, probation will say they can work with you and the judges are more likely to hit the lower end of the sentencing scale including suspending and use community orders.

[@tSp289]

@@John.AR.Activism True but what I really mean is the policing culture. It has very different origins and emphases in the two countries. The UK is very much more about de-escalation, the US seems to be much more about rapid conclusion, even if that means rapid escalation followed by a shooting. That's reflected in training. Having been toa few different countries and hearing about police casually whacking people out of the way with truncheons (Vietnam), walking around with literal belt-fed machine guns, FALs and uzis (Bolivia) or even just being pointlessly hyper aggressive (Australia), I think people don't realise or appreciate how decent the police are in the UK, on the whole. So then we hear the US talking about police brutality and kind of assume we have the same problem. We do, but what's an 8/10 there is a 2/10 here.

[@bobmirdiff2043]

Five Words . . . "Let Him Have It, Chris!"

[@annhollowell5352]

Yes , they were taken completely out of context and poor Derek Bentley was hanged for it , while the actual murderer is now out of prison and walking around as a free man. Total miscarrage of justice !!.

[@johnvienta7622]

Somebody has a good memory.

[@dalriada842]

They couldn't hang the real murderer, because he was under age. Derek Bentley was a convenient, mentally disabled scapegoat for a system that doesn't really care about justice. The way these ambiguous words were used to hang him is a perfect illustration of why I am opposed to the death penalty.

[@SpeedTriple59]

A good film as well.

[@DJWESG1]

@@paulcollyer801 though it didnt stop poor vulnerable ppl getting banged up for nish.

[@DarrenStarr]

I fell for this many years ago. It still angers me to this day. I pleaded guilty for criminal damage for something I didn't do because the legal-aid solicitor told me that it it was better for me to do it as I'm not likely to win, they wouldn't allow me to enter evidence from impartial witnesses and my sentence would be so much bigger than if I just "took one on the chin". I feel totally stitched up and have no trust in the criminal justice system at all. I wish I could clear my name but I never will be able to as 6 years have passed. I was naïve. I believed in the rule of law, but now I see it's all a farce. That is why they can create lockdowns for us, whilst Boris partied and had an affair, lied to us all multiple times and even with clear video evidence we all saw on social media, the Police who would have known said there was insufficient evidence. They are rotten, the lot of them.

[@martinwarner1178]

Rotten! You are too polite Sir. Peace be unto you.

[@moneymay7050]

Legal aid briefs are a bad idea man

[@stuartd9741]

@@moneymay7050 what should you do then ?

[@19sept76]

I feel it for you mate so much false info about.

[@AddBlue247]

Rotten? No corrupted to the very core.

[@ric6383]

Many thanks. Just put myself through A level Law, after a year studying the subject, my respect for the legal profession went from poor to negligible.

[@bigtorrisi]

This interview is being recorded, is there anything you wish to say. Yes, please dont hit me again officer.

[@EMail-mt1kr]

😂

[@RonMcmurry]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@tedebaer1]

There shouldn't be any assumptions allowed in the legal system and certainly not based on one's facial expressions. The justice system is flawed in so many ways. Keep up the good content, greetings from Sweden.

[@KravKernow]

Judges use something called 'the bench book'. That's guidance on all aspects of conducting a trial. It does mention the dangers of relying on body language. For example, not looking someone in the eye can be seen as shifty; but in some cultures it's a sign of respect to authority. But demeanour is specifically something that can. be taken into account when assessing witness credibility; so there's alway the danger of people not being believed merely because they don't react 'appropriately.' cf Lindy Chamberlain for example.

[@ccityplanner1217]

I wonder what the conviction rate is for autistic people like myself.

[@taramaforhaikido7272]

There are assumptions. "Should" logic doesn't change reality. Speak honesty. Not dishonestly. If you can't even accept reality for what it is even if you don't like it then it betrays that honesty.

[@tedebaer1]

@@taramaforhaikido7272 that's my point, that reality needs to change. When decisions are made that can make a big impact on someone's life it's a no-brainer to base that decision on facts and not assumptions.

[@jfilm7466]

Rebuttal of their assumptions?

[@AlanScottDavies1957]

You remind me so much of our Criminal Law lecturer [Professor Ian Smith] at Earlham Hall School of Law [UEA] when I was in my first year of the LLB (Hons) degree in 1993. He was clear, engaging, and interesting, such that I never wanted the lectures to end. You are so much like him and it takes real skill to teach. Some lecturers had more letters after their names than a Scrabble board but they couldn't teach us how to boil a kettle. Massive respect to you and keep up the good work. Alan

[@AddBlue247]

My great grandad said this: there are two things to avoid in life if possible, police and hospitals.

[@mrsimo7144]

Very true.

[@DJWESG1]

As someone who was almost locked up on a section18 with intent, i can only agree with what youve said. But having experienced the collution between barresters, police and prosecuters, and observing how they all reacted to the not guilty verdict, i can safely say its 99% corrupt. A few years later when my best freind was murdered we witnessed that same class based discrimination take place between same groups and his killer got off while the he, the person who was murdered was made out to be the bad guy, despite being the person who interveined to help. The system is bent. And if it wernt for the odd judge and the odd solicitor we wouldnt even have criminal justice system, wed just have a police state.

[@Whitewolf76802]

Totally agree.

[@o0TaxMan0o]

Yup, I've witnessed it first hand! Played down a pretty strong defence and even threw their own witness statement out because of all the holes in it and persued a flimsy thread only to be sided with by the judge and convicted me. I literally couldn't believe it, couldn't believe they didn't even try and hide and did it right there in front of me.

[@madwhitehare3635]

Blimey. You have a complicated life, don’t you! Section 18, found guilty, best friend getting murdered…..Perhaps you need to reconsider your life choices, then maybe the justice system and the police wouldn’t be so unfair to you….🤣

[@SuperBobbster]

Rubbish

[@ccityplanner1217]

We are unworthy of our justice system; it was designed for people better than us.

[@caribstu]

I was minding my own business waiting for a taxi when I was attacked by three blokes who'd been thrown out of a club for fighting. Despite attempts to avoid confrontation, (which was captured on CCTV) one of them threw a sucker punch to my head and a fight started. i defended myself, until the fight was eventually broken up by the Police, who arrested all four of us. The mistake I had made was that of not realizing until half way through the initial Police interview that i wasn't being treated as the victim, but the suspect. I was unaware one of my attackers had been rushed to hospital and was in ICU. I also had a slight concussion. Several times I asked for a solicitor but the two CID conducting the interview continued to question me anyway. By the time I realized what was going on, It was too late. Initially i was charged GBH Section 18 (intent) Two of the three attackers had previous for ABH, where as i had no record. CCTV and witness statements confirmed they attacked me, and i acted in self defense. The charge which was reduced to GBH section 20. (no weapons / self defense) Eventually, at trial, under cross examination they admitted they were out looking for a fight and weren't bothered who they picked on. Despite my clean record, their obvious intent, and my act proven to be of self defense, i was sent down for 18 months. Don't get me wrong. i did it. I beat the living crap out of them, and it could have been worse, I could have faced a manslaughter charge. In prison, everyone is innocent. Except me, I was the only inmate who put their hands up and said i was guilty. Did my bird. But a part of me knows the Police stitched me up. They knew I was concussed. They never allowed me to see a doctor and when I asked for a lawyer they continued to question me regardless. They also knew I'd acted in self defense yet my attackers were not charged. A better brief than the one who represented me at trial would have probably got the entre interview thrown out. But I was 19, and naively assumed ( as most people do) the Judicial system was about fairness and justice. That was my one and only offence, and frankly, when the Judge said he accepted I acted in self defense but had gone too far, showed a complete detachment from reality. When you're attacked in the street at night by three people you don't count how many times you hit them back, until you're even, You don't stop hitting them until you know they're not getting back up. The Police are only interested in a result. If I knew then what i know now from the off I'd request council, request a Doctor, then not say another word until a solicitor is present. Not even to say 'No comment'. ( and forget those duty solicitors, waste of time)

[@extramild1]

sorry for your troubles bud - sometimes life is not fair.

[@yellard6785]

I feel for you.. But you aren't the only one.. The cops want convictions not crims, not justice.. Judges are out of touch with everyday life.. Never talk to Police.. .

[@JI7NKJ]

That is a harsh one to take, 18 months for defending yourself against three attackers, all caught on cctv and witness statements and a clean record, that just really proves it is convictions they want at all costs. Take solace in being able to defend yourself and doling out a bit of street justice.

[@saraandivanevans6881]

So sorry for you. That's not justice.

[@jaxkovak]

So it would seem that the Police don't really _care_ who is actually guilty, just so long as they get a conviction. The justice system is broken from the bottom up.

[@josephberrie9550]

correct

[@vanpallandt5799]

Not in my 3 plus decades of experience..

[@davoman5781]

nope. Because if afterwards the conviction is overturned it may well come down to shoddy policework or failure of due process which will be terrible for their record.

[@ccityplanner1217]

We are unworthy of our justice system; it was designed for people better than us. Summus indigna júdició nostró; est parátum pró populó mélióre quam nós.

[@vanpallandt5799]

@@davoman5781 tbh if people are acquitted, it was pretty rare for that to be a black mark etc unless the invesigators had really done things wrong. Generally given the vagaries of the jury system, they are often viewed as a perverse verdict. Usually CPS and counsel would look at an acquittal for any lessons learned but unless an entire case resulted in acquittals, would be rare to see too much criticism afterwards (as blame can be down to investigating team in part or whole, CPS or counsel). I have seen a case where the evidence looked strong but the lead investigator said that counsel was changed on the day of opening and the new barrister clearly didnt know the case in the details and put it across poorly so 2 years worth of work went down plughole

[@colinsmith1288]

I have been in this situation,my attacker and l were in court together charged with common assault against one another, he headbutted me on the nose,and grabbed hold of my testicle twice. I restrained him three times with each attack he unleashed upon me.l also punched him a few times.ln the mean time he came after me because l did not beat him to a pulp,my first mistake.Secondly l said to the police my punching him were warning shots,not to destroy him. Thirdly when l refused to fight him again and reported him to the police they did nothing.My advice is say nothing,ask for a solicitor and wait for your day in court. The police and prosecution do not care about right or wrong,only their assumption of it.

[@megapangolin1093]

EEK, this is so important. As always, one feels that the whole justice system is trying desperately hard to trip up the ordinary person to get any sort of conviction to add to their scores for the month. Any ordinary person, unguided, and naive, who just stops someone from attacking them is suddenly thrown to the lions, ordinary expressions such as "it was his fault", ie he attacked me are ones that a normal person might use to explain their actions and or point of view. Surely, these expressions need to be taken into context when interviewing someone. We generally only think we need a lawyer when we have committed a crime, not defended ourselves from attack, and so we could be as usual "caught out" by a wily policeman who knows all the trigger phrases and expressions. It is ludicrously unfair and weighted against normal people. Real crooks know this stuff and don't use these phrases. It is so damnably sad!

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

It's working precisely the way it's intended to - the figures for successfully solved crime go up, regardless of the truth or justice or any of those quaint notions.

[@ChoppingtonOtter]

Having been arrested for a false allegation, I was horrifiedn to discover that when they realised I had not done it the police just kept making up a different offence and trying that. I've never even had a parking ticket in my life.

[@stuartd9741]

Indeed. If you think about it. The police, CPS Barristers, judges are all paid for by the state. So when you are arrested . Is you V the state - legal system. Yet they have all the experience and knowledge of the law and you don't....seems like a conflict of interest from the start ..or biased.. Yes one could get legal advice but see how weighted against the suspect/accused the system is .... Ever tried to challenge a speeding ticket? The law is so tight now impossible without Nick Freeman...££££s..

[@archiprintuk1149]

As BBB says in the video, it's an emotional response. Saying "he attacked me..." and "it was his fault..." are two different things, one rational (and therefore showing that you have restraint) the other emotional.

[@javidson7534]

I don't quite follow the "it's his fault" one. I can only interpret that to mean that the person who made a decision leading to these unfortunate events was the attacker. He chose to attack me. I was left in a position where I couldn't choose to avoid being in a violent encounter. One could say that I acted entirely on instinct, with no conscious decision in the face of the assault; or that I chose to defend myself using the minimum force necessary, because the attacker had left me no other option. That all looks supportive to the case for self-defence.

[@royevans4581]

Here's the thing. I'm an extremely bad tempered person when attacked. Happened a few times when I was younger, on 2 occasions they had a knife or said they had a knife. I'm still here to talk about it. This kind of 'what would a reasonable person do' stuff does not apply in situations like that. I think the law is out of touch with reality on such things.

[@simonh6371]

Not really, you are allowed to use ''reasonable force'' to defend yourself, i.e. you are allowed to knock him out but you can't them continue kicking him when he's on the ground breaking his ribs. I'd say the same applies if someone said they had a knife, even if they didn't, as you had reason to believe that you were in danger of harm. Should point out I'm not a lawyer though. Anyway I hope that nothing happened to you and no action was taken against you on those 2 occasions, as far as I can understand, you were right to do what you did.

[@bobeyes3284]

When I was 19 I got stabbed 3 times. I left the attacker in intensive care. After I was sawn up, the Police charged me with assault. They found the knife and had witnesses. He was never charged. The court case was the most enjoyable 2 days of my life. I had the best barrister money could buy, and it worked perfectly. My barrister ripped them apart for 2 days. I was released with no case to answer.

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

@@bobeyes3284 Hardly the ideal outcome - unless you then sued police and got compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board? ....For which you need a crime reference, but the police won't give you one because they didn't record a crime against you.

[@allothernamesbutthis]

@@simonh6371 if someone pulls a tool and you get the better of them they were prepared to deal heavy damage to you. how far away do you have to get before being safely out of range from attack if they get up again coming after you?

[@simonh6371]

@@allothernamesbutthis I never said anything about that, I actually said that the guy was justified in knocking out the attacker or even the person who said he had a knife (as this was a threat). After that they can't get up.

[@cyclist68]

Two words of defence "No comment"

[@nocommentuk]

Couldn’t agree more

[@oddball7483]

I would like to comment but you may take an ADVERSE IMPLICATION FROM ANYTHING I DO SAY.

[@kaliman1472]

No comment until the next morning after I have seen a solicitor. Never talk to the police straight after the incident when adrenaline is still high. The police will try persuade you by saying : while it is still fresh in your memory. Just say : I would like a cup of tea now please , and a solicitor in the morning thank you . You got all night to go through the situation in your mind . I learned all this in my self protection classes.

[@joelhall5124]

That's not a defence. A friend of mine ended up with five and a half years after doing this

[@lhoman8426]

@@joelhall5124 it won’t get you off any crime, it just prevents you further incriminating yourself. Your friend must have had other evidence against him.

[@Morbius1963]

I worked in the courts and totally agree with you. Say nothing until the best lawyer you can find/afford is present. THEN say "Yes", "No", "I don't know" without embellishment or adjectives to the main questions. btw I am not anti-police, much respect, in fact, but I have seen stitch-ups. If you're really in a bind in the lower court you can use the Clerk to the Court as your defence lawyer. You can do worse.

[@adriankaill9413]

4 word defence..."I want a lawyer..."

[@shaunwhiteley3544]

Why have you got something to hide? Lol , no seriously, good advice!

[@The01t]

Unfortunately the lawyers police get you are always awful

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

touching but naive faith in solicitors - 90% are lazy and useless, hate thier jobs and you

[@graemetaylor1765]

They didn't with me 16 years ago! Cheshire police duty sergeant called the best defence brief in Halton!! 13 months later not guilty! Having said that the plaintiff was a drunken liar who was shown up for the bully that he always has been by the first officer on the scene who didn't actually arrest me! That was 7 weeks later when bully boy Joe called his pals in the masons to make sure I got arrested and charged with absolutely no evidence!! Work that one out!!

[@graemetaylor1765]

They didn't with me 16 years ago! Cheshire police duty sergeant called the best defence brief in Halton!! 13 months later not guilty! Having said that the plaintiff was a drunken liar who was shown up for the bully that he always has been by the first officer on the scene who didn't actually arrest me! That was 7 weeks later when bully boy Joe called his pals in the masons to make sure I got arrested and charged with absolutely no evidence!! Work that one out!!

[@raypurchase801]

Good advice: Always hire a lawyer, who'll charge you more for half a day's work than you might earn in a week. Yes, I know it's good advice, but paying £thousands when you've done nothing wrong isn't painless.

[@shanematthews1985]

In the UK atleast, the duty solicitor you can use when arrested is free, so this argument doesn't apply everywhere and given he is based in the UK his advice is in accordance with that

[@raypurchase801]

@@shanematthews1985 Agreed, but could you actually trust the duty solicitor? I know a bloke who was fitted-up by the duty solicitor's bad advice. A duty solicitor who offers excellent advice to accused persons might be replaced ASAP.

[@markb5403]

Duty solicitors often give absolutely dog-shit, 3rd rate advice. I nearly went to jail off the back of a lazy local duty brief not changing my address on court documents, meaning I missed a court date and was actually listed as 'wanted' for a period of time without my knowledge. I was only exhonerated when I produced an email proving my correspondence and intention to co-operate with the court process. Duty solicitors are often local to the police station and depend on good relations with the police - not always the best recipe for sound, impartial advice. I use a decent law firm but they bill only when they have to do actual court case work, their callouts are free. It pays to do your due diligence, I've hears horror stories of duty sols screwing their clients representation up terribly. I wouldn't take the free option ever.

[@oldfella3919]

@@shanematthews1985 No - never use the duty solicitor - they're often too close to the Police, or inept, or both.

[@ancientrenegade9243]

There's a reason they are a duty solicitor and not out making real money. It's not because they are alturistic and want to help you, it's because they are incompetent.

[@wesmatron]

I was always told that you should never apologise after a car crash even if it was clearly your fault as it could effect your insurance. Is that true?

[@TayWoode]

Yes I’ve heard that too

[@cristinavuscan5610]

If smiling or saying "he deserved it" could get be used against you it means the legal system is flawed. Sadly the legal system most of the times is not looking for justice.

[@christinepage1523]

It confirms my belief that justice is always on the side of the criminals.

[@fawncashew]

Your belief is wrong. The justice system as a whole is so woefully inadequate that it is on no one's side, it rarely benefits anyone at all

[@f.dmcintyre4666]

I worked w/ a bloke who had done about 10 years inside, he knew all the ins and outs of the legal system as most insider peeps know from experience...........Blessings..............

[@christinepage1523]

@@fawncashew You are welcome to your opinions, but I will stick with mine.

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

@@christinepage1523 You said, "Justice is always on the side of criminals". You do realise that doesn't make sense. I get that you are being cynical, but what is it that you're trying to say?

[@yellard6785]

U r correct.. The crims being the Police...

[@AkiraHDR50]

During my security training I was told these 3 words "reasonable and proportionate" if such event should happen.

[@simonleib1992]

I was taught necessary reasonable and proportionate

[@philm3509]

I have watched many of your videos on many subjects and this is in my mind the most important. It is very good advice and in addition to this I would like to point out, if I am correct. Say nothing until you get legal counsel to anyone, not even family or friends. That is assuming your innocent. Your channel has a place for sure in the border sense but people must understand it is only covering the basics of law and not a definitive answer.

[@antonioverdad5071]

Got chased all over town by a guy in a top of the range Audi once. Found out later that he had a scratch of red paint on his car that he picked up in a car park, my car was red (but a very different shade) and he wanted to get his paintwork repaired and charge it to my insurance to keep his no claims bonus intact. I called the police, but because he was in an expensive car and I drove an old banger the police sided with him and made me pay for his damage on my insurance! Even the insurance company let me down. Initially they were on my side but when he threatened court action they pressured me into letting him claim off my insurance!

[@mkay6089]

"It may harm your defense if when questioned you fail to mention something you later rely on in court" is a loaded got ya phrase before you even try and prove your innocence. AND that is how the UK justice system( Justice LOL) is, you are presumed guilty not presumed innocent by this and twisting your answer or smile or laugh. It not about them proving you are guilty is is about trying to prove your innocent in this day and age.

[@nicholasviney5975]

An apology can be seen as a confession

[@johnvienta7622]

They have tried this in the USA at least, where someone rings the alleged offender and says that they just want them to say sorry, and of course the Police are listening.

[@nicholasviney5975]

@@johnvienta7622 yup I apologised to a womans kids after she drove into me I shouted at her and they started to cry. The police wrote me up as at fault even though I was parked and engine off no keys in the ignition when she drove into my van. All because I made an apology to her kids for shouting and being angry.

[@EnglishVeteran]

During my Service Career, I was a Combat Survival Instructor teaching those skills in various theatres around the planet. Broadly, Temperate, Arctic, Desert and Jungle. Part of that process was to conduct very realistic R to I Courses, (Resistance to Interrogation). Those skills were ingrained into all students to such a point that when under the most extreme conditions, an individual can sub consciously fall back onto that Model. Those skills could be applied easily to a situation where a recipient of that training would be able to conduct himself very efficiently when in Police Custody. In the strict terms of Interrogation (Interview?”, I see the Police, at all levels, as complete amateurs.

[@skylongskylong1982]

Are you talking the big four Name , Rank, Service Number, Religion ?

[@KravKernow]

@@skylongskylong1982 Now its name, rank, number, date of birth. Technically you don't have to give your rank. But if you don't you'll be treated as if enlisted personnel. Not a problem if you are. But if you're an officer that means you could be made to work. (The horror!)

[@KravKernow]

Ironically the forces often use barristers in that role. ("The British Army does not interrogate; it cross examines.")

[@pyellard3013]

I am not sure they are that amateur... It's their profession and they mostly have plenty of experience... Sure, someone trained in interrogation will easily avoid their tricks... As will the experienced who know to say "no comment" no matter what provocation or supposedly harmless question is asked... But the ordinary law abiding member of the public is a sitting duck.... They have no experience and probaby think the police are "just doing their job" rather than determined to secure another "nick"... 🙄

[@nigelfrancis2514]

I love your help and advice freely given to all when members of the public become involved with the police . During my 72 years on this earth I have had to contact / come into contact , with her majesty’s constabulary , and in most cases wish I had never set eyes on them . Any help as this should be taken on board very seriously

[@john-de5vf]

Went through 2 years off hell from that same situation . Self defense . Luckily the person showed his true colours in court and jury saw through him . Not guilty 😁.

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

If you didn't sue the police, they won and you lost.

[@SuperBobbster]

@@saraheverardsrapers3910 sue the police for what?

[@vanpallandt5799]

@@saraheverardsrapers3910 how do you mean won? We had cases where some ppl were acquitted incl one who got off solely due to in effect a charging error. And then he told blatant lies outside court that differed completely to his defence when in court .We didnt consider it a win?

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

@@vanpallandt5799 Win = you have more money and more liberty Lose = you have less money and less liberty Win for police = causing loss of liberty and money and wasting your time and life Lose for police = hmm, well, they never get sacked, and if they do, they get re-employed, they personally suffer no consequences financially or otherwise, hence: They won, you lost, unless you sue them to get back your money and some compensation for the loss of liberty and your time and life wasted. Plus, you are on their PNC for life, and can no longer call the police in any situation where it's he-said she-said or self-defence - they will always arrest you if you give your name and you are on their computer.

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

@@SuperBobbster Unlawful detention, trespass to person and property, malicious prosecution (hard), assault, battery, and psychological harms resulting therefrom.

[@WingNuts2010]

If an 80-year-old man with a cane for poking the eye out of a thug who was pushing the man's wife about, just because the man said something along the line as mentioned in the video, it would be a very sad reflection on 'justice'. If that was the result, is it no wonder that the justice system is years overdue for a massive review.

[@nearlyretired7005]

There is nothing wrong with the judicial system,but there are grey areas. It's how the personnel of the law interpret it. In the case you mention,the actions of the old man,would be considered as a reasonable defence,(by me!) If the man were a 20 stone wrestler defending his wife,then poking an eye out would be unreasonable! Although,the old man would have to be briefed as to the correct thing to say,to reinforce his defence,otherwise there could be a risk of GBH.This would be grossly Unfair,in my view. He deserved to have his eye poked out.Shouldnt have said that!

[@Dixy3]

Good advice Dan, thank you for sharing this information 👍

Guilty till proven innocent. 🇬🇧

[@rodin-06]

I'm relatively new to your videos. I like your tidy, concise descriptions and explanations. Personally never been in trouble with 'the law', but I watch with interest and i hope retain enough to apply you advice if I found myself needing it!

[@buzzdem]

My favourite is "I didn't do nothing." Double negative. I'd never be able to resist pointing that out, but I fear it would be right over the head of the type of person who would say that.

[@darrenelkins5923]

Once again , the law is an ass I once knew a couple who were criminal barristers. They both stopped practicing law and became primary school teachers. Both disillusioned with law , as in their experience, it was not about justice.

[@philipwhatcott1964]

If you are being attacked, you have no idea how far they are prepared to go. You must think of your life in danger. I would make sure they were no longer in a position to attack. They wouldn't be getting back up in a hurry...if I could manage it. I certainly wouldn't wait to see how far they were prepared to go.

[@ianhill4585]

There's a saying "it's better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6."

[@auwz66]

On the flip side some good phrases to use to help your defence... . I never wanted to hurt anyone I just wanted to keep myself safe, are they ok? I just wanted to get out of there I felt like I had no other choice. I kept warning him/her to stay back I dont feel safe and they kept coming. I feel really bad and wish I had not had to do that but I had to protect myself / family. I tried to help as soon as I realised he/she was hurt my first thought was call an ambulance. I never want to be in that situation again. hth

[@martinwilliams9866]

All bad!

[@madmick9205]

could you explain please, how, when your right to say nothing is exercised. The prosecution can then use that to infer to a jury that it is due to either non cooperation or something to hide. the same when you do not give evidence from the witness box. usually these are decisions based upon the legal advice by a solicitor or Barrister. However, a judge will still allow the prosecution to infer a negative to a jury.

[@Kenobi5001]

This fascinates me as it is so blatently falsely incriminating someone, how can people have respect for the law if it allows this I wonder.

[@SpeckleKen]

Not in Scotland, btw. The right to silence is enshrined in Scots Law (as I believe it once was in England & Wakes). No adverse inference may be drawn in a Scottish court, and the judge would flay alive the advocate who tried. Which just seems right to me!

[@BigPaul3122]

The word you need is imply, not infer. Inference is taken, not given. Speckle Ken above, has it right.

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

@@BigPaul3122 Doesn't matter - CPS use silence as a box to tick for proceding with the case to trial.

[@sundog486]

As a child and into my early teens I could not help myself smiling as a display of grief, such as when I was told a relative or friend had died. Fortunately I've been able to overcome that impediment.

[@chompchompnomnom4256]

"I can't remember". Prosecutors always do the memory trick on the Jury. "So what did you have for dinner on the 17th of January 1986"?... "I can't remember...".... "So it's possible to did commit murder in 1986 but have just forgotten?".

[@nua1234]

In Ireland there was an enquiry into payments to politicians, when a rich person was asked surly you can remember giving £100k (in the 80’s). Reply to barrister “well if I was on your salary I would”.

[@andydbedford]

I do not eat breakfast, that is a great answer to something like that, and in my case its perfectly true.

[@ianhill4585]

If ,I stabbed the person with the cutlery I used to eat dinner on that date in 86' , there's a better chance I'd remember. I can't recall if I commited murder or rape on that date, maybe I need the cutlery link for clarification? Memory is strange innit!!??🤦

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

Nonsense - you weren't interviewed by police about your breakfast in 1986, you were asked questions immediately after your arrest about the criminal incident.

[@ianhill4585]

@@saraheverardsrapers3910 Who's that to?

[@SLDJ2010]

Really appreciate that you appear to have woken up in the middle of the night to let us know this ❤

[@DontPanicDear]

Being a normal law abiding citizen, in a blurred defence / assault situation….. Outside my comfort zone in an interview, after some stressful event, is exactly when I’d forget all this and talk to the friendly Policeman, who says he just wants to help me. The only thing to remember is to be respectful, and politely ask for legal representation. And a cup of tea ☕️

[@experiment54]

I’d decline any drink

[@PhilJonesIII]

@@experiment54 I'd confess to anything before drinking the gloop in those cups.

[@DontPanicDear]

@@experiment54 I understand this when being sold too, but not so much here. I’m not on any lists and don’t expect I’d be poisoned 👀 If you ARE talking, it is possible to use drinking as a punctuation to give you time to respond. It might help you gather your thoughts and not blurt out ‘Well he bloody deserted it” etc 🤣 Just taking your sweet time can just seem like you’re blatantly telling them what they want to hear, not what actually happened. I guess water would be better then.

[@experiment54]

@@DontPanicDear don’t want anything from an enemy that captures and imprisons you

[@archiprintuk1149]

Raises an interesting point, if you are feeling stressed etc is it possible to request the interview be postponed? Might ask BBB on that one!

[@ruiseartalcorn]

Good advice! Many thanks :)

[@krissymarklewis1793]

I got into a situation where I was attacked by a bouncer for no reason outside a club. He was choking me out so I had no other choice but to bite him to get out of this headlock as I was feeling faint. I made a statement when took to the station. I had a read through it and there were certain this added that I didn't even say, one of those things was surprisingly "he deserved it" haha. I told them to remove the things I didn't say and they did. On looking at this video I'm glad I did take a proper look at it as It seems they were trying to stitch me up. The club also had 3 staff witnesses, none of them were even there!

[@alisoneyers2450]

You really are good. Thank you for the knowledge you impart freely. Regards, AlisonX

[@EnglishVeteran]

However, what percentage of English people can afford the cost of a top Lawyer? The duty Solicitor is about as much use as a Chocolate Fire Guard.

[@warwickscram1656]

Most of them ex-coppers too. You can't even trust your solicitor.

[@sw6188]

@@warwickscram1656 That would depend on what country you are in. Where I live, I have never heard of or seen an ex-cop retrain as a lawyer. They usually become private investigators or go do something completely different.

[@lrdisco2005]

Duty solicitor will drop you right in it, especially if you are from the "lower" classes.

[@warwickscram1656]

@@lrdisco2005 Secret handshake club.

[@davoman5781]

@@warwickscram1656 wot a crock lol. Not in the UK

[@matykerogaming8691]

Love this behind the scenes story, thank you

[@eggyboy123]

I was told once by a friend, a chief inspector 'never say anything'

[@tpv59]

WOW ! WOW !! WOW !!!

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

He was wrong - a jury can form an adverse inference from your silence.

[@tpv59]

@Bla Bla GOOD SIMPLE Point, Bla Bla.

[@marko1314]

Best one l learned is to never agree to UNDER-STAND - If ever asked by someone whom 'assumes authority' over you (like a policeman or a magistrate) "Do you understand?" One should always reply in the negative - This is because by agreeing to their covert offer of contract you're in fact conceding that it's them you STAND-UNDER.

[@nickname1812]

Derek Bentley "Let him have it".

[@pointblankracer6274]

Great advice, also free, respect and thank you.

[@flyerh]

I taught my kids one important phase when it comes to finding a burglar in the house and the consequences post defence. “I was I; fear of my life your worship”

[@karhukivi]

This advice is for US and British legal systems. In European (and possibly other countries?) which use the Civil Code systems, not answering questions is deemed suspicious and goes against you if it ends up in Court. Failure to cooperate with the investigation could be added to your troubles. The right to remain silent is a right but not a defence in those countries.

[@barriereid9244]

"If I was not unlawfully attacked, I would not have to have defended myself, in order that I would be able to return home to my family."

[@annhollowell5352]

Thankyou for your videos. They are very informative.

[@terrystratford1235]

3 words that harm a defence........I love you! 😅

[@jean-pierredeclemy7032]

"it's a fair cop guv, you got me bang to rights" is more than three words!

[@liddylinski4916]

Thank you 👍

[@EtonieE25]

Thank you for your professional advice 👍👍👍

[@anonamous7108]

Police officers have to write down the first words you say after reading you the caution. The best words to say are " stop kicking me officer? "

[@chrissedaka8141]

Body-cam?

[@nigelbaldwin1038]

Thanks for your helpful advice again.

[@jacksimper5725]

The opinion that the criminal/attacker is defended by the law against the victim seems to be verified then after all.

[@blankroomsoup666]

I recall one of the police shows where the cops insisted the suspects talk to them before getting legal advice, because doing so would make him appear guilty. My question is will it ever be seen that way in court?

[@caliburn50a]

No all as corrupt as each other

[@EdMcF1]

It has amazed me how often people are convicted with at least part of the case against them being that they confessed to a cell mate when on remand.

[@ccityplanner1217]

I would suggest having a gang which recruited thus: every time one of its members gets arrested, they confess to their cellmate whilst on remand. The cellmate is then admitted to the gang if he keeps this confidential & does not testify.

[@shaneedwards596]

this explains why when protecting my kids a few years back, putting myself between them and the person whom wish to harm them, and instead taking the hits myself (due to said attacker being a woman) and when accused of causing inner ear damage to the said attacker, despite all I did was pointed at them and advised them to back off... and being hit by them... 3 weeks later I was placed under arrest, interviewed and despite no evidence other than a very unreliable witness who wasn't even there to be able to testify on what had or had not transpired, who was actually (I later found out) was being blackmailed with it coming out that the individuals behind the entire thing threatened that they would report her son for something they knew he'd done, unless they filed a statement with the police stating I had assaulted the person who wanted to cause harm to my kids... the accusation to me sounded so far fetched and unreal that the disbelief of being accused of such things despite only pointing and issuing verbal warnings to back off... and even showing the WPC what I had done, indicating pointing finger, then looked at said finger... retracted it and said "oh I'm sorry, I shouldn't point this it might still be loaded, after all how am I supposed to harm anyone just pointing my finger at them any other way?" she asked if I "thought this was funny" to which my response was.... "no, I do however think this is absolutely BS, and ridiculous" and "if i had caused any harm, HOW? can you point your finger at someone and cause injury without even touching them?" the WPC stated that "there was no evidence to support the allegations and normally would not have followed up, but the fact that the person who filed the statement did so, meant they had to" so I got an ABH for something I did NOT do.... and would have been faced with potential prison time, had her son not threatened to stab and shoot me.... after being encouraged and egged on by her ex husband... aka my father... who has an obsession with making my life hell because I refuse to bow down to what he says and accept the lies he spouts and lie that he's not the bully he actually is...

[@Antipodean33]

I was attacked by a machete wielding maniac and I ended up with the machete and during that process they lost some body parts. I was charged first with attempted murder, which was quickly dropped to GBH with intent. Luckily a jury found me not guilty with a unanimous verdict. I couldn't believe i was charged at all, we have shit self defence laws here

[@bobbyrayofthefamilysmith24]

It's a joke init? Surprised they don't lock up the kids instead of the peados.

[@marklittler784]

Did he find them again?

[@marklittler784]

@D2M5 Body parts

[@ColinH1973]

Thanks Dan. 👍

[@Pengochan]

It's even worse than that, even just mindlessly agreeing to some totally irrelevant statement that is later called into question can make you look like a liar in court and thus be used against you. I.e. it's some compound statement, and you think it's about just one part, but you unwittingly agree to something else as well, or you agree something happened at a very specific time, when actually you just don't know the time that exactly.

[@keithwilliams1243]

I believe that if judges draw a negative inference from such words then they are either corrupt, stupid or both. Take for example the phrase "He deserved it" well did he deserve it or not? if it is a matter of fact that the other fellow deserved it then I can't see how a judge or other could be allowed to draw a negative inference for making a statement of fact. A man has a lawful right and obligation to be honest in court, no one can lawfully penalise a man for exercising that lawful right. It seems to me that if the other fellow deserved it not only should this enhance the case of the man who used force but the worse the other fellow is the more it should enhance the case of the man who used force because some criminals are sufficiently evil to provoke violence and some cases are so egregious that many of the judges and lawmongers that draw these unfair inferences probably secretly believe themselves in certain cases that the criminal did indeed deserve what he got. Believing a man deserves it is not a crime nor is it a fraction of a crime which might justify a negative inference, there is no fraction, there is no crime at all, if there were than all of the many people (including judges) who are not in court but still believe he deserves it should all be arrested if the application of the law is to be consistent. Furthermore, I don't believe that judges/courts have the slightest ideal what is proportional. Their attitude seems to be use the absolute minimum of force needed. Well that's all very well when you are sat on your arse in a chair in a nice calm courtroom and it's not you who is about to get his brains smashed in. In the real world, the one that most judges do not inhabit it does not work like that. When faced with immediate danger you do not have time to think or be careful to not hurt the aggressor too much, that would never do but the problem is the defender has to respond to the threat immediately with no time to ponder the legalities and there is a very fine line between reasonable self defense and too much force. Now if the defender gets it wrong and uses too much force but removes the threat then so what? no harm done. If on the other hande the defender gets it wrong the other way and uses too little force then he is either injured or dead and the aggressor gets away with it. Common sense says too much force is safer than too little so we should all err on the side of more defensive violence not less. It's a shame that most judges are too stupid to see this obvious truth.

[@spiritualanarchist8162]

One of the best advice i remember was :'Be careful with saying something anything cynical or ironical to make a point ' .Some police officers can pretend not to understand you'r making a joke or exaggeration and just record what you say literary.

[@spiritualanarchist8162]

@D2M5 True. But sometimes cops ask these questions that seem so obviously stupid. Like : Did you plan to hurt him ?' And I answer like 'Sure, i always hurt people i never met ..Duh 🙄(or something similar ) Months later in court , you get those same words thrown back at you, completely out of context by the defense or prosecution : 'You said in your statement that you always hurt people you never met ' Is that true ? And now you'r having to defend something you said in a moment of irritation. You have to explain it was a joke and then you realize it doesn't sound as a joke anymore .

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

Then demand the transcript and video of the interview in disclosure, and ask the judge to find the police in contempt when they refuse to.

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

@@spiritualanarchist8162 That's why you demand the video of the interview in disclosure, not just the transcript of the interview.

[@soapboxsewer421]

Wow, now I know why people stay silent and wait for their lawyer. More broadly, this is also why I feel like staying silent and hiding from society more generally. Sometimes it seems like there's nothing I can say or do that won't be taken or spun negatively.

[@sher64ct45]

Absolutely 💯

[@ihateunicorns867]

I have a problem where I laugh when something really bad happens. I'm not happy about it. It's normally when things are looking very bad for me. The more I try to suppress is, the worse it gets. I've heard that this happens to other people sometimes too. This makes for some escalating arguments with my wife. I hope I never get arrested for something serious as I'm likely to start laughing.

[@DVGlasgow]

Go to your GP. Describe your emotional response to stress and distress. Ask if you can access therapy for it. Chances are you won't be referred (although you might get lucky), but if your GP has made a record of your problem, you can produce that as evidence if you have the misfortune to get into serious trouble as a result of laughing in a PACE interview, in the witness box, or any other formal/legal context.

[@davoman5781]

I think the Joker had a special car for that :)

[@entropy5431]

@@davoman5781 He's not laughing now.

[@NDKY67]

Yes I can confirm that these words can get you into trouble, luckily I had a police officer who advised me against saying what I was saying and turned a blind eye after I said the perpetrator deserved his injuries.

[@neil999ish]

There are still some police out there who have integrity and believe in the "fair" questioning of suspects, but many are looking for quedo points to make themselves look good to higher ups and there are those that just don't know the law or on ego trips.

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

@@neil999ish No, there really are not any police with integrity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - can you name any police officer who has acted with integrity in the last 10 years?

[@ccityplanner1217]

@@neil999ish : Depends on bureaucratic health.

[@johnvienta7622]

A good interviewer will use five words to establish the facts of what happened, and that applies to witnesses as well as a potential defendant. Those words are, " how, when, where, why, who". If you are being accused of an offence and you feel the need to speak, give a very short denial of any wrongdoing and after that answer," I refer to my previous statement" to every question. The Police will try to entice an answer by commenting on your reluctance to answer, and it is human nature to try and explain yourself, but you just keep saying the same thing, or of course " charge me or release me".

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

Juries may draw an adverse inference from your silence and the CPS will use it as grounds to prosecute because it increases the chance of successful prosecution. Answer with a better excuse based on their failure to show you the evidence before the interview or your lack of fitness to answer questions, and repeat that answer to all questions.

[@johnvienta7622]

@@saraheverardsrapers3910 , I am sure that BBB can clarify, however I was of the opinion that the adverse inference can only be drawn in very specific circumstances.

[@MetalVII]

“It was me.” That seems pretty damning.

[@mickya7829]

Never speak to the police without legal advice

[@siraff4461]

I've been in this exact position when I was attacked at work (nightclub back then). A drunk mistook me for someone he had a problem with and tried to break a glass off my head. Having quite a few years of m/a experience myself it got blocked and he got jawed then restrained until the bouncers dragged him off. During this he lost two teeth. When I got interviewed I simply explained exactly what happened without going further into it. I think another 10 or so people (some staff, some customers) were also interviewed and the cameras watched back. The only thing I heard officially after was a letter from the police saying no further action was going to be taken against me. The grapevine suggested he was a regular offender and got 8 weeks - though only serving 4. I was expecting him to come back in at some point to try and settle the score but he never did.

[@f.dmcintyre4666]

I work in MH and during a workplace violence prevention seminar we were told not to use the word BLOCK as it can be deemed offensive like what BBB is saying................Blessings...............

[@siraff4461]

@@f.dmcintyre4666 I agree. I think these days they would make me out to be a thug for doing the same thing. In the heat of the moment you just react though and that was the result.

[@rogercamp2910]

2 Essex coppers tried to get me for a DUI many years ago. I remained silent other than to give my name. I let it go to magistrates court before i spoke and then dropped the coppers into the quagmire in front of the maggie. I presented my evidence and was dismissed and the 2 coppers got reprimands on their records. I still chuckle today when i see the police shows on TV and one of the rozzers in question turns up. My defence was totally useless and admitted he was only there for the money.

[@jamesdiver2183]

How did you do it

[@rogercamp2910]

@@jamesdiver2183 I was parked on a pub carpark, in addition my car was lhd and I was sat in the passenger seat. I didn't have the keys in my possession . They also tried to charge me with having illegal plates (ie germanized). They claimed it didn't have MOT or insurance but the car was registered in Germany but they never asked and I never told them until it was in court. The faces was absolutely a postcard worth.

[@theonlybuzz1969]

Great advice, I thought it would have been something similar to “don’t be cocky” as ever great advice to hear, not that any of us expect to have an encounter with the police, keep up with the great work 👍👍

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

When you are (sometimes) handed a leaflet in custody, it says: "7. You or your solicitor have the right to see the evidence against you BEFORE the interview". Police, being institutionally corrupt, often pretend to be unaware of this, therefore, when the interview starts, you simply answer all questions with "I have not seen the evidence as is my right under section 7 of this leaflet which quotes the European [act I can't remember], so therefore I suggest this interview takes place when I have seen the evidence." Which means you have answered all the questions therefore the jury cannot draw an adverse inference from your silence, and you have a civil claim against the police.

[@davidspear9790]

No. They're fully aware of it. They'll just cherry pick what evidence to hand over to you or your solicitor, so they can potentially drop a bombshell in the interview that may make you change your responses. They'll use any trick in the book to get you to speak.

[@saraheverardsrapers3910]

@@davidspear9790 That's why you never ask for a solicitor - because then police will assume you dont' know you are entitled to see their evidence beforehand. section 7 of that directive says "you or your solicitor have the right to see the evidence before the interview", and by the time the interview has started and you state you haven't seen the evidence, it's too late for them.

[@theoriginaldylangreene]

This is bad advice, The section 7 that you mention is this :- "If your case goes to court, you or your solicitor will have a right to see the prosecution evidence before the court hearing." So that's before a court hearing, not before the interview.

[@johnmehaffey9953]

My solicitor said to me to say nothing until they got there and if they couldn’t get there still say nothing they’ll get there sometime, I was only in to enquire about my house deeds and the conversation got around as to what to do if nabbed by the police even though you’re totally innocent, still the same answer “don’t say anything”

[@robmo6505]

"I am innocent" And then keep your mouth firmly shut.

[@davidanderson4091]

This is all great advice, but the best piece of advice I could give to anyone dealing with the Police is don't unless you have a lawyer present. Some years ago, the Police came to my work place and wanted me to accompany them to the Police station.They didn't tell me why, so I asked. They said there had been an assault on my ex-girlfriend (I actually had heard about it, but had a rock solid alibi; it happened in Christchurch - New Zealand and was in Australia at the time). I know my rights so I said no. One of the two cops said something like _"being uncooperative won't help you"_ . I said, something like _"I know my rights. If you want me to come with you, you will have to arrest me. Are you arresting me?"_ . They didn't answer immediately, but then the other cop said something like _"Why not. If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear"_ and I remember exactly what I said next. I laughed and said _"I have three words for you... Arthur, Allan, Thomas"_ * . I could see the pair of them were not happy with that response, so I quickly said words to the effect that _"If you want to interview me, I am happy for you to do so at my home, with my solicitor present"_ . With that, they left and later we arranged the interview over the phone. Once they realised that my alibi was sound they lost interest in me. My advice to anyone who gets involved as a suspect or a person of interest with the Police is that 1. You do not have to answer any of their questions 2. You do not have to go with them unless they arrest you * for reference the Arthur Allan Thomas case was a famous 1960's case in NZ law where a man did nothing but co-operate with the Police and they framed him by planting evidence against him at the crime scene, concealing the existence of exculpatory witness testimony, and outright lying in court. It took three trials and over 9 years before what the Police did was discovered, and Arthur was freed.

[@cedroncaine4450]

If using those three words has the effect you say in court then the court seems to be acting on an assumption of guilt rather than of innocence and thereby limiting Freedom Of Speech as we know it.

[@elliegreen4738]

I think your on to something, supposing our Governments are planning to replace the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty and replace it with the Napoleonic Justice system.

[@cedroncaine4450]

@@elliegreen4738 That's exactly what I'm saying.... our courts are administering admiralty law and the barristers are coalescing in the injustice.

[@jamesfitzmaurice9829]

Much appreciated. Thanks for all your advice.

[@markbradbury6076]

Related to a comment you made in the video, whats your view on sentance reduction in exchange for admitting guilt? Do you think this drives unsound convictions?

[@jdottdeestv8149]

Yes.

[@crinolynneendymion8755]

@@jdottdeestv8149 Worse, it brings the law into disrepute.

[@HenryW9]

“You have a right to remain silent, anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you in the court of law” Heed those words.

[@archiprintuk1149]

Think before you talk! :)

[@contessa.adella]

But it can harm your defence if you do not mention something that you later come to rely on in court. (to that effect).

[@Roadent1241]

"My hearing-aid battery needs changing. I can't hear you." "SHE'S GUILTY BECAUSE SEH'E NOT COPPPERTATING!!!"

[@josephberrie9550]

thats the old one read the new one now

[@Roadent1241]

@@josephberrie9550 Where do you read them? I've learned it via the police programs on TV but if they're only going to show the 15-20 year old reruns that's not my fault, I don't know if they have any very modern recent programs. I'm not going to go and intentionally make trouble with the police just to hear the new version.

[@MichaelJirochVisualArtist]

He doesn’t get to the 3 words until 2:18 mark. Half way through.

[@stevew3196]

I know of a case where a man in his 50's with no prior convictions was jailed. In a local bar he went to buy a drink accidentally bumped into a man who spilled his drink. He apologised offered to replace the drink. The other chap ssid "don't worry about it." He was part of a group on a stag party. As the man who apologised left the bar two of the group followed him outside and attacked him. He knocked the first to the ground the second went for him with a knife he hit the second attacker who as he fell hit his head on a kern edge and later died. He was convicted and jailed because there was no cctv footage of the altercation and because he was an ex marine and also a former semi pro boxer. He areed to talk to police without legal representation believing He'd done nothing wrong. Hadn't caused the confrontation and had simply acted in self defence. A man on hid 50's followed and attacked by 2 men half his age one with a knife!

[@effdiffeyeno171]

If I take notes on this and then later become involved in an altercation, purely by chance, would my notes harm my defence? (Removes top three sheets of notepad and eats them. At least it's fibre in my diet)

[@PINACI]

Sound like you're talking about Charlie Veitch and his assault of a drunk guy who was just trying to ask his friend about the bodycam he was wearing? Charlie likes to follow drunks and drug users around so he can defend himself when one take offence to his camera like he did again in his recent video. Self defence is also walking away from the situation and not hanging around for the inevitable.

[@sketch-R]

That man sounds like a coward and an idiot. Anyone that knows anything about people being 'wasted' or have experience with them should know they are easy to defeat.

[@robplazzman6049]

Saw that myself. The guy is odious !

[@Derek_Garnham]

Sure - "The love police" was interesting stuff, but I've stopped watching him at all as I feel it only encourages him to persist with his train-wreck of a channel.@@robplazzman6049