Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/skipintro Check out my full interviews with Olay and Rhiannon on Patreon: www.patreon.com/skipintro
It’s not very kind showing a pig in the title. There ARE bad cops, but there are also good cops. But people are not pigs. I equate you using that symbol with Trump calling opponents “vermin” the way Hitler did. I feel like, if you are trying in general to be a good person, don’t be like Trump (or Hitler).
THANK YOU for making this video. Most people dont REALIZE the LAW AND ORDER effect is a THING where people LITTERALLY ignore valid evidence because they want forensics that DONT MATTER and will make them ignore WITNESS TESTIMONY for psuedo csi bullshit. People DONT know their rights cause they think the tv is being honest its fucking terrifying
I used to watch wayyyyyy too much Law&Order, and it hasn't been till recently that I realized how much it affected my perceptions of the legal system. When my son was born I decided to deconstruct my entire life and recognize any beliefs that did not reflect the example I wanted to set for him. Fortunately I was being treated for substance abuse at the time, so I had the resources to do it. If you want to see a happy guidance counselor, tell them you want to deconstruct your life to reflect greater epistemic responsibility. Mine had me over to her house on the weekend, for some (wink wink) extra special sessions, very INTENSE SESSIONS...............with her husband, who had more relevant knowledge. Sorry, life ain't porn. Turns out, hidden among the racism lurking in nursery rhymes, misogyny that my mother set in place, and some really messed up shit they taught in Social Studies back in the 80s, was a very distorted view of how cops treat minorities and poor people. Who knew? It was like having a dry shave, on a hairy ego.
I was a cop what cops do right now is you're a witness until they have talked to you enough to the point where they feel that they can get a guilty on you then you are now a suspect congratulations here's your Miranda rights we have everything you need you can cooperate or it doesn't matter we already got everything we needed from you because you were a witness now you're suspect even though you're always technically a suspect we never had anything official about it and it's nothing says we can't do it this way and they're not necessarily wrong cuz that's what cops do all the f****** time. If you're a victim or you're a witness it's better for you just to remain silent and never cooperate with the police especially in black communities because anything you do or say as witness or as a victim will be used against you and you will go to jail for talking to those cops because you're not white
Also again when I was a cop and this was only 2011 Even if you ask for a lawyer they say well you're not a suspect and they keep you locked in a room basically for hours without anything and they'll ask if you want water but they never bring it to you unless of course it's two three hours later so nothing's really changed now we just say you're a witness until we're ready to throw the book at you then you're a suspect
The other nefarious framing they did that I could never unhear once someone pointed it out to me, was framing demanding a lawyer as tantamount to admission of guilt. The amount of times "we're just talking. If you didn't do anything, there's no need for a lawyer..." I heard in this series is STAGGERING.
Cops do irl too. Happened to me when I falsely framed as responsible for a crime in Akron when I was at home. Thankfully I had installed cameras on the outside of my house so I shut them up real quick. This was before I had any money built up meaning I would have been fucked if it went to trial and had a public pretender
What's infuriating about that is that, if you look, you will find multiple videos on youtube from law professors, practicing attorneys, and former law enforcement explaining in detail why you should ALWAYS exercise your right to an attorney and why you DO NOT open your mouth until your attorney is present.
Something really important to note about Miranda rights: The police are NOT required to Mirandize you AT THE TIME OF YOUR ARREST. They are ONLY required to Mirandize you before you are officially questioned in police custody. That means that if you are arrested and the cops don't read you your rights right away like you see in Law & Order, that does not give you carte blanche to say what you want and declare it inadmissible. Any time a suspect makes a spontaneous statement or confession without any actual questioning, that can (and will) be used against you, regardless of whether you have yet to be Mirandized or not. Also, you do not have to be formally arrested, you just need to be in police custody. Legally speaking, if any reasonable person would not feel free to leave, you are considered in custody, even if you are not officially under arrest. Do. Not. Speak. To. Police. The police are not your friends, just like HR is not there to protect you.
The only thing you say to the police is 'get me a lawyer'. Do not ask if you can have one or should have one. Make a clear declarative statement to get you one.
@@prettyevil6662000 No, you shouldn't. Because saying that you want a lawyer will not be taken as a request for legal representation, only a statement that you have the ability to do so. If you want to request a lawyer You say 'I invoke my right attorney.' Nothing else. You also cannot simply be silent, as that will be taken as a sign that you are guilty. You must invoke that so called right as well These are the only two phrases you should ever utter in the presence of the police. Remember, the primary purpose of the police is to generate and collect revenue for the government. And cops will do anything, regardless of merit or legality to accomplish that goal. Police are nothing but a glorified HR department for the state. Not protectors.
My favorite episode of Law and Order SVU was when they got a proven innocent man killed while in their care and then held someone else responsible for their negligence. I'll never forgot how smug and proud of themselves they were when they did it.
I remember a Law and Order episode where a woman goes to the police begging for protection because she's being stalked. They tell her they can't do anything, she leaves, clearly distressed, and then a few days later she turns up dead. The detective's only response to finding the body? "At least she can't say I told you so." That whole scene just made me irrationally angry
@@screamingcactus1753That passed a writer's room, standards and practices, a studio exec, the director, the producer, and the actor and somehow no one clicked how screwed up that was.
The person they got arrested for it was legitimately responsible for framing the guy, at least. They were smug because they had given the perp a deal on everything else but could now get her for murder...but that is itself an example of pretty blatantly perverting the system to "nail the bad guy".
Coerced confessions are still very common. Especially if the person has an intellectual disability, but it can happen to anyone who doesn't know how duplicitous cops can be.
US police are able to lie to you to solicit a confession, which you may do if you think you are going to be falsely charged due to a statement by a non existent person.
My buddy did 10yrs because the bastards threatened to arrest and put his mom in prison if he didn't confess. He tried to fight it afterwards but it took 10yrs and an interview with the news show Dateline to finally get out. He's part of the reason I tell everyone I know, especially kids, "the police are not your friend. Say nothing and ask for a lawyer."
The Reid technique is just a psychological trick meant to do it. Cops accross the world apply it and it's just plain abuse and manipulation, it often gets people to say what the police wants and make them feel guilty for not doing so immediately.
I'm Canadian and we do not have the right to have a lawyer present or end the interview of our own volition. We have the right to remain silent but the police can hold you for as long as they want in the interview room and all you are entitled to is a call to a lawyer who will probably advise you not to talk. At which point it becomes an endurance challenge for you as they do everything they can to provoke you into speaking. I think it's absolutely barbaric.
As far as I know, they have a similar system in Japan. The police can detain you for up to 23 days without charging you and you do not have the right to speak to a lawyer in private.
I knew someone who just said “I’m sorry officer I cannot answer any questions” and was held for a week or two. They released her without charge cuz she didn’t have ID on her and she won the being silent battle
@@Dave102693 Yes. They even have defense lawyers. But the defense lawyers are basically a farce, paid to put on a facade that it was fair since there's a 99% conviction rate.
A personal example of the power DA has: I was SAed as a child by my step-father, a therapist reported the abuse, and when the CPS questioned me I confirmed it, and so the police put together a case against him. Then the DA decided not to prosecute. He had the testimony of the therapist and myself, but he knew his family personally and decided his personal opinion mattered more. There was three years of pushback from both my family and the from the police themselves, before the DA finally agreed to move forward, at which point a warrant was put out, but he had already left the state. They told us all they could do was wait for him to turn himself in or be arrested for something else. That was almost 30 years ago, he was never arrested and never went to trial. They just forgot about me, all because the DA didn’t feel like pressing charges when they had him in the state.
i’m so sorry you had to go through that, it sounds like so much frustration and betrayal on top of an already traumatic event. i hope you are doing well today💛💛💛
That's horrible. I hope you managed to heal somewhat since then, and are living a better life now. As for the DA, him knowing the criminal personally is a clear conflict of interests. If a lawyer is shown to have a conflict of interests with the person they are defending/prosecuting, they would be barred from working in that specific trial (if the judge knows what they're doing...). But I guess the DA is above the law, and there are no checks on them. Absolutely abhorrent!
"When I got the job at SVU, Dick Wolf said to me, “Ice, you don’t like cops, right?” I told him that during my criminal past, I didn’t hate cops - they were my opponents. [He asked,] “But you admit we need them, right?” I said, “Yeah.” So, Wolf told me to play the cop that we need. And if I play the cop that we need, I won’t have any problems with it - my cop is a far stretch from the cop that the cop killer wants to kill" - Ice-T Sounds like a 'bad apple' argument. He also made it clear that he is acting a character in both Cop Killer and Law & Order.
@citizen_grub4171 In both he's playing a character, so it's expected that he'll take up opposing types of characters, so it's not really crazy. Plus, I wouldn't criticise someone for the works that they're in just because there's political disagreement.
@@bearmarco1944 I know most rap fans can't comprehend this or get mad but the majority of rappers are acting, they went to acting school and learned how to act gangster Ice cube, Ice T , Tupac, Biggie, and Dr Dre all went to private schools in fact Tupac, Biggie, Busta Rhymes, Nas and Jay Z all went to similar schools in New York No music mogul is going to risk having to pay millions in legal fees The "jail " time they serve is just a "street cred " ritual because us rap fans want our rappers to get gangstas These music companies wouldn't keep pushing that if people didn't buy it period Now I'm not the one who complains about guys like Ice T playing a cop because I understand he's been playing a "gangsta " role for decades and accept it It's the same with people getting mad about Taylor Swift and Billie Ellish coming from middle class rich families If people didn't cry for underdog stories and accept reality , they wouldn't be need to lie about "Poor upbringings" You hardly become a success in Hollywood without having connections or are a nepotism hire
I looked up the equivalent to Miranda Rights in my location (NSW Australia) and apparently we _used_ to have the right to remain silent, but that was seriously restricted in 2013 (thanks Barry O'Farrel) because police didn't want to deal with defence attorneys in their police stations. I wonder why they'd be so keen to keep out the defence attorneys /s
New South Wales is also extremely corrupt in terms of the legal systems. The governing officials, criminal organizations, and the police themselves are all in bed with one another.
Everytime i watch a video like this I start thinking about my old job at a port of subs. Constant monitoring, having to adhere to every minute esoteric rule, and naturally long hours for jack pay. I had more oversight than most parts of the justice system do and i slung sandwiches for 10 bucks an hour.
In WA, lawyers will not sit in on interviews, because under old WA law, they could be called to testify against their own client to verify that someone said what someone else said they did. That isn't a problem, because lawyers will tell their clients to be quiet, and defence lawyers have no interest in hanging around police stations for any longer than they need to. Just a sidenote for helpful info; attorneys do not exist in Australia, it is an antiquated legal term and the role of 'attorney' was split into 'solicitor', a lower courts lawyer, and 'barrister', a higher courts lawyer in the 19th century. The USA, however, never caught up.
@@RomasKalashblack humor is technically defined as making light of a bad situation, HOWEVER, black humor is often either made to stand alone (such as saying "wanna hear a joke?" or making a comedy video where you do a skit or drawing a comic) or made by someone who has been hurt by a bad situation. for example, "why do orphans suck at baseball? because they can't find their way home." is dark humor. this joke could be told to someone, filmed as a skit, or drawn as a comic. it would also be funny if an orphan told it. however, would it be funny if an orphan's parents who abandoned them told this joke directly to their orphaned child, or said it about them? no, because then that's just cruel. in this case, the joke might be funny if the person who got the verdict and death penalty said that to their lawyer, because they're making light of a situation that affects them, which they're allowed to do. but for the prosecution who caused that situation to make it about themselves and make light of it, it only shows how they clearly did something wrong yet see no need go fix it. they clearly feel bad about the result of a trial, but rather than say, "i think we had a mistrial" or "wait, that punishment doesn't fit this crime" both of which are genuine reasons to change the outcome of the trial, they're essentially saying "well, that sucks that we killed a guy. thank GOD we can just go out and drink and forget!" meanwhile there's a person who will be killed. edit for clarity: this is why black humor is called gallows humor. if someone in gallows tells a joke about being in gallows, they're laughing about their situation. if the person who sentenced someone to be in gallows makes a joke, now they're being mean.
@@saoirse_milleryou miss the actual Double entendee and the fact that is sadly funny because it is Black humour. No-one needed your splaining the concept.
My partner is in prison for a non-violent addiction related crime. He took the plea deal so the prosecutors would drop false charges that implicated him as being a dealer (despite that objectively not being the case). Despite being over 2 years sober at the time of sentencing, having an addiction counselor testify to his progress, this being his first offense, perfect compliance with pretrial services, and having a leadership role in multiple support groups, and having a very expensive lawyer... The judge sentenced him to more time than the prosecutor asked for, which was double what people in his support groups had gotten for a similar crime. We saw nothing but cruelty from the police, he didn't get medical treatment at the county jail and needed to be hospitalized, the prosecutor outright lied, and the judge was harsh and used dehumanizing language, and don't get me started about the prison. The ONLY people who consistently treated him like a human in this process were the pretrial services officers. He's white, but he's also openly and obviously gay and it's difficult not to think that might be related to the harshness of how we was treated.
The judge was that harsh cuz its a common tactic to be kept in that judge chair by being harsh on addicts and to treat all addicts even recovering ones as violent offenders esp around reelection time. Idk why being a judge or prosecutor is an elected positon but it is same as police chef. So enough bs like this and bribes keep them in power to ruin more people's lives. But yes being gay also probably helped them act even worse.
As an addict, the minute the system identifies you as such you’re easy pickings. Clean time, career, none of that matters. If you’re on maintenance medication? Forget about it. You’re fucked.
when i was arrested for committing crime that was acctually commited on me, my lawyer said, "Please tell me you don't belive innocent until proven guilty."
Friend of mine was up for DV. He was told the court he would go into was "not a place where they figure out what happened. It's a place where they punish bad men for doing bad things." Even though the prosecutions' story depicted him using a total of 5 arms at once, teleporting, and throwing someone _(without a blemish on them)_ by their _hair,_ it wasn't looking too good until the defendant got confused enough trying to figure out how she was dragged into the same room twice that she admitted she fell down on her own, on purpose, but it didn't have anything to do with the divorce settlement that was filed _the day before._ The state prosecutor was pissed. No, not that she'd lied, but that she'd tanked their case.
Regarding Miranda rights: for the love of god, do NOT assume all legal systems are the same as the one on American television. In Finland, for example, you are expected to know your rights and cops do not need to read your rights to you. Not a thing in our legal system. A bunch of people raised on American TV have made the mistake of thinking they'll get all charges thrown out if Finnish cops don't read them their Miranda rights, "gotcha!" - which is not the case. Miranda rights are not a thing in the Finnish legal system. It's actually pretty problematic that people get their lessons on ANY legal system from American TV-shows, when the US system is not the legal system in the vast majority of the world and, as this channel has shown repeatedly, American TV-shows are not even remotely a realistic portrayal of even the American legal system.
In Canada, a bunch of the trucker convoy protesters kept trying to "plead the 5th Amendment" to avoid testifying at their trials and the judge was like THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO WHAT
Also finnish law is garbage, and it wouldn't matter if they did have Miranda rights, they would be violated anyway. Seriously almost all those Balkan adjacent nations are essentially wild west when it comes to law With massive corruption and classic built into every aspect of the system. The fact that Andrew rate is even being tried in Romania and hasn't just bought off the cops and the legal system Is a fluke.
Not once have the police ever mirandized me, cautioned me, or told me why I was under arrest. I mean that's probably because I've never been arrested but the point still stands!
Times like these that I remember how lucky I am. There was a warrant out for me when I was misidentified for a crime. I metaphorically tip-toed my way to my lawyer's office and my lawyer contacted an officer so that I could discuss the situation with the officer. My lawyer was super firm with the officer. They had absolutely nothing, I had been working in a place with security cameras (far away from the crimescene). The cops had already found evidence that mostly pointed to someone else (who they were pretty sure had skipped town). They clearly wanted someone to bust, but all they had is that I had similar height, hair, and happened to wear glasses. The officer started reading me my rights (AFTER asking me questions), my lawyer actually stopped him, asked if there was going to be an arrest. The cop said no, and my lawyer asked him to leave.
When I was in High School, my Civics Teacher was a former Cop that was bitter about the police force because he got turned off after turning in another cop for a crime. I tell ya, THIS GUY was 2 things: An alcohalic and a cop hater. He drank during class and he would drive hard into us things like, "Don't talk to cops, around cops, or anything unless you have to.", "Always ask, politely and firmly, if you can leave now after every question until they decide to charge you with something.", "If you're charged, shut your fool mouth unless it is to ask for a lawyer. They know more than your dumb ass does." All other parts of civics, he'd just put in a movie and test us on it as he drank in the back of the class. But police interactions, man he was passionate to make sure we understood and would actually lecture up front. He wouldn't talk about what happened other than he was a former cop so he knows what he is saying.
Alright so an alcoholic former cop who now hates the police and who drinks alcohol infront of schoolchildren while hating on police, who was hired to work with children despite his poor reputation in the police. Good to see we're working with a reliable source of information here when he says why he got turned off.
"he got turned off after turning in another cop for a crime" And this is why there's no such thing as a "Good Cop", all the ones that are good are either chased off or fired. So many police officers have a child mentality, no such thing as a "Thin Blue Line"
You're missing the thing about the lead-crime hypothesis that makes it the biggest slam-dunk in the history of social science: the same correlation is observed in every country, corresponding to when they banned leaded fuels.
I would offer one correction. If you're on a date and find out your date is a cop, and you didn't already know they were a cop, it's probaly best not to leave immediately as an obvious policial statement but rather to find some other later reason to bail on them, 'cos if you blow a cop off bc they're a cop, they're absolutly gonna stalk you and make your life hell.
Huh. So what you're telling me is that the most realistic part of Ace Attorney is not how cartoonishly evil most of the prosecutors are, but rather just that Phoenix ever successfully proves his clients innocent without them being subjected to YEARS of harassment by the court?
Japan's legal system is infamously prosecution-biased and basically any insane shit you can think of doing to try and get a confession out of someone has probably happened in the last year. Ace Attorney is basically a black comedy about how fucked up it is.
The "lawyer dog" thing killed me. Oh my god. The importance of a comma, I guess... But seriously, how can ANY reasonable person (the general standard legal things are held to) think someone would be asking for a dog lawyer? Even if he was, that's still a lawyer, right?
The comma would be there for the written report about what was said. But of course it makes it easier to intentionally misinterpret the arrested person if you skip punctuation. Dog.
I used to work on this show. There are plenty of things to criticize about the ethics portrayed by the cops and prosecutors, but the thing that annoyed me most about it was that almost every episode deliberately told the viewers that "lawyering up" or not talking to the cops were a definite sign of guilt. In a real world version, during the Rittenhouse case, the judge was enraged by the prosecutor's repeated attempts to convince the jury that Rittenhouse not talking to police without legal representation showed he was clearly guilty. The judge at one point became so furious about this clear violation of lawful rights that he implied if it continued he would call a mistrial.
@@XXXX-yc6wv Aside from facts like the judge not allowing relevant evidence in, I dislike the idea that if there was a shootout, whoever left standing would be able to argue it was self defence. So yes I do dislike the verdict.
@@lich109 Rittenhouse wasn't the only one to provide an argument in the trial, the prosecution had plenty of witnesses to provide their account. Nor was he the "only one left standing". One of those he shot was a lead witness for the prosecution. The fact you don't acknowledge this quite major facet of the prosecution's case makes me wonder how much you really know about the trial. Either way, the jury heard everything that was put to them by the defense, prosecution and the court itself in terms of instruction, and they came to a not guilty verdict. It doesn't matter whether you like that verdict, as far as the court is concerned, justice has been appropriately served. Unless you think you know better than the court? Furthermore, the "excluded" evidence would be the video of Rittenhouse saying he wanted to shoot protestors? The prosecution chose not to use it because it could only be used to prove intent, which any wise counsel would avoid attempting, and Binger chose wisely not to use it. So it wasn't "excluded" at all. Don't take any of this to mean I endorse Rittenhouse in any way. I think he's an idiot and part of a bizarre gun culture that I simply cannot fathom despite growing up around firearms. If he had any sense at all he would not have taken a weapon to a riot. The publicity of his name and face is a sentence he will serve until the day he dies, which should serve as a lesson to anyone else considering such a stupid act.
@@XXXX-yc6wv You've got quite the imagination to make up words and arguments I never said, and then imagine I said them, so let me try to bring you back to reality: I'm not here to argue the case. Every point you tried to make in regards to the trial was entirely irrelevant and only served to strawman what I said. My point is that if Rittenhouse was not the one who survived and the other guy shot him, he'd have also gotten off on self defence. That is my point, I am 100% against the idea that two people can be involved in a shooting with the survivor being the one who is in the right.
I remember in one episode of SVU miss Olivia Benson threatens to call immigration on a lady who refused to say where her partner was, and afterward Fin [Ice T's character] questions her on if she was really going to do it, so the writers KNOW that this was wrong but decided to leave it in.
Olivia's done so many awful things. Including threatening victims in various ways such as saying they'll arrest them for wasting police resources if they recant or they'll get them deported if they stop cooperating, etc. Not to mention the myriad of times she's promised someone they can't be deported if they are a witness in a crime only to immediately have that person reported and deported (stop making a promise you know is apparently only true in theory!) Plus the one that will stick with me forever, encouraging a woman who wanted an abortion of her own volition, due to severe mental illness where she couldn't even take care of herself, to carry through with the pregnancy and keep the baby because it'll get better. Olivia, born of rape, knowing it caused her mother to become an abusive alcoholic, wanted someone else to have to live that life too?! With mental illness on top of it? And Olivia is supposed to be the softest and most caring officer in any of the shows. (Guess it's easy to appear soft and gentle when your first partner was literally beating up suspects while you watched his back and your future one tells sex workers they don't deserve help if they're attacked.)
Or the times she SLAMMED a a confined questioned period. M in the interrogation to the table…but that cos seeing the boys club of the police station…that’s might be accurate
@@prettyevil6662000 Copaganda cultists really seem to love seeing Gestapo tactics in action, don't they? I'm tempted to conceive of a show where the American cops basically function like Nazis, I have to wonder what insane level of popularity could such a show garner? Would the critical mass of the audience, every time someone was GTA V torture scened in police interrogation, howl in unison like a bunch of really hungry blood-dripping red-eyed fantasy wolves? I fear they would, Olivia Benson is probably loved *because* she abuses suspects (at least, according to footage from one John Oliver show's L&O clip).
I've got a roommate that absolutely loves Law and Order and every so often I see and hear the character Olivia Benson doing things like lying to suspects, this character is an awful person and is a single mom on top of that too, so they can do virtue signaling like Olivia is raising her son so he doesn't become like the sex criminals she chases at work. The problem with this ideology is it pre-supposes that unless Olivia Benson takes direct action, her son is destined to grow up to be a rapist. It's absurd.
This is depressing. Compare this to something like Perry Mason, which started in 1957, a show about a defense attorney who never loses a case. Or Twelve Angry Men, where the entire movie is about one juror trying to convince the others to vote not guilty on a death penalty case and the happy ending is him succeeding.
Or Matlock, maybe. In Twelve Angry Men, the case's results are uncertain and it's not sure whether the defendant was guilty or not, but the point is that there's room for doubt, so you can't disagree with the jury.
@@amazinggrapes3045 A viewer of the play or the movie never sees the crime, the defendant, or the facts. They only see the jury deliberate. For that reason, they don't know what decision is correct, whether the guy actually did it or not, but they know how the jury came to doubt it. Whether the unnamed defendant committed the murder or not is unknown, basically.
I've seen the trial penalty in action. The most egregious happened to a friend of mine. They offered him 3 years in prison if he pleads guilty. He took it to trial, lost, and they gave him 22 years.
At what point does your friend, as a human with a brain, say to himself, "Okay, I actually did it, and 3 years for what I literally did is reasonable. Let's just take the punishment for the thing I really did, instead of trying to find a way to avoid consequences."?
Thank you so much for this! I'm a social worker who used to work as a medical advocate for SA survivors. I cannot stand how advocates (the people explaining medical and legal terminology to survivors) are portrayed on L&O just bc part of our job is informing survivors that they don't have to make a police report. We're not obstructing justice, we're informing our client of their rights and supporting them through what's possibly the worst day of their life.
And yet, your sympathy prevents justice from occurring. In this case, you are saying that comforting you client is more important than putting a sexual predator in jail. This is why most SA cases aren't brought because of statute of limitations was reached. No evidence is ever gathered and it becomes he said/she said in which case presumption of innocence prevails. How many sexual predators are on the streets making additional victims because of your sympathy?
@@Turamwddidk how to tell you this but you have to fix the system that involves putting the victim on trial and cops traumatizing victims before you can address any of that. you really think a person whose been SA'd is likely to actually get a predator off the street by reporting it? cute. look up conviction rates and you'll understand why people refuse to report because it just gives the rapist further access to them.
@@Turamwdd "How many sexual predators are on the streets making additional victims because of your sympathy?" OP mentioned that informing survivors of *their rights* is part of her job. So by sympathy I think you mean "legal and ethical standards of your profession". Also, what's the alternative? Put pressure on a recent SA survivor to name their attacker? Would you also pressure them to testify in court?
@@Turamwdd Tell me you have no reading comprehension without saying you have no reading comprehension. Dude, what do you expect OP to do, flat out FORCE grape victims to press charges? Newsflash, that's not how it works. Trial = inevitably someone is going to make them relive that horrific experience, and almost certainly be accused by the defense of "asking for it".
THANK YOUUUU for saying don't talk to police. i wish people would learn that the cops CAN and WILL manipulate you into admitting to some sort of crime, whether you committed a crime or not.
@@chrisdiokno5600 Okay? Good on the ones that won't, I guess. Doesn't change the fact that the system allows it and the vast majority of police DO take advantage of that.
I've never really been a fan of the Law & Order franchise. There was always this implication that everyone (cops, prosecutors, victims) were 100% right about everything despite their continuous acknowledgement of their mistakes, caveats, differences, etc. Great to see you pulling apart the threads on this franchise.
I used to watch it as a teenager, even with my family all the time. Now that i've grown up and learned to think for myself, as an adult homeowner for 17 years, I look back on the time I spent watching that racist, conservative, dog-whistling bigoted garbage and feel deep deep shame.
@@thenightstar8312 it's odd that the problems I spotted with the show back then weren't the ones you outlined, but now those are the most obvious to me. I guess it shows that L&O is just layers upon layers of bad.
@@thenightstar8312 L&O spin off: SVU is very left leaning and still falls for the same problem with regular L&O. Depending on your perspective, this is pretty funny to observe.
I was a fan. About 15+ years ago. The one with Vincent dinophrio turned me off as the idea of a ( borderline?) Violent lunatic as a police detective seemed unreal to me. Then I started watching investigations of bad cops.
"asks for a lawyer and isn't given one" oh that's accurate you have to say the magic words- "I am invoking my right to a lawyer". You then have to invoke and follow your right to remain silent. Remember- invoke the right to remain silent. "I am invoking my right to remain silent." You can absolutely invoke the right to a lawyer, then answer a question while waiting for the lawyer to arrive and fuck yourself over. Having a right to remain silent does not include the right to not be asked questions.
It actually does include the right to not be asked questions. Legally the interrogation needs to be stopped immediately, however you can find plenty of cases where that does not matter.
this show tricked me into thinking cooperating would get me out of consequences the second time i was arrested. glad to see more light put on it. never admit to anything and never talk to cops
@@kyleglendinning9414lol you're an idiot, you do realize innocent people are arrested on a regular basis right? If you think being a law abiding citizen is a guarantee that you won't be arrested, or even prosecuted for crimes you didn't commit, you don't know much about the legal system. It's attitudes like yours that make it impossible to get a fair trial in our country, going to a jury trial is putting yourself in front of a bunch of people that are going to assume you are guilty solely because you are in the chair as a defendant.
After being unjustly railroaded by the system at a young age, i came to really hate these shows. They're practically expressly made to give people such a delusional view of the world.
I love the point Olayemi Olurin, Esq made about how frustrating advising white people can be when they find themselves in the position that many many more highly policed populations have found themselves in, seeing an unfair system from the unfair side.
@@SeanWinterswhat’s racist? it’s someone talking about their experiences seeing how white people react when put in a situation they, on average, aren’t used to (compared to other people who are more likely to be used to it). the irony comes from the fact that many white people will dismiss those same experiences as made up or not that important… until they experience it themselves. i’m white and you really have to stretch to even think of the word racist here
This response is a human response when they're ignorant not one based on race. Thats what makes it racist. The implications that create the scenario you're talking about is racist. You're not wrong technically though.
“Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.” -George Carlin Further Carlin on the concept of ‘rights’ below
One of the more frustrating things about people learning most of what they 'know' about the legal system from cop shows is that most of them will pretend otherwise; the fictional worlds copaganda sets up are more real to many people than the actual world they inhabit, and they will aggressively defend their chosen reality over the actual one.
Talking about "pesky civil liberties" getting in the way of a guaranteed culprit being found guilty, there is an old episode of Law and Order where one of the cops follows a suspect, puts a gun to his head and orders him to go confess at the nearest police station, or he will be shot. And once the person recants his confessions later because of absolutely undeniable coercion, everyone just treats this as an annoyance, and I believe the cop in question faces no repercussions for this.
Not only does the Court keep creating ways where you have to know magic words to invoke your right to an attorney, they KEEP SAYING that *NO* magic words are required to invoke one's right to any attorney. Literally.
Same thing for "right to remain silent". Unless you open your mouth and invoke your right to silence, it'll be used against you. The supreme court has OK'd this interpretation too. It means you don't have rights that are inherent. You only have rights if you know the secret code words.
Just to add the plea deal situation is very similar in the UK. If you plead guilty immediately you get 30% off any fines. Which is insane as many folk who get charged won't be able to afford a lawyer and a reduced fine seems like a good deal. But without a lawyer to sort out proper charges from bs ones they get stuck with an inflated or even false criminal record for the unforgivable crime of being poor. And a denied a proper trial.
Do you not get a lawyer for free in the uk? In America you get a public defender, which isn’t that great, but they are still a criminal lawyer and a lot better than nothing
@@jakejanssen4319 you can get one for free if you go to court or when the police interview you. But consultation and plea deal shit costs unless you have under 3 grand in savings.
I think one of the most telling and obvious bits of copaganda in Law & Order is the opening. It says that the people - not victims, the people - are represented by the cops and the prosecutors. At the very start, the show tells the audience not to consider the suspects represented by defense attorneys to be people, so that they are ok with the cops abusing them. It claims that the defense is not serving the interests of "the people."
"In the United states, only one side of the criminal legal system gets treated as working in the public interest" you don't have to speculate as to whether or not Dick Wolf has spread that ideology, the start of every episode literally says only one side represents the people, dehumanizing criminal suspects.
In 2022, I watched all of law in order in 1 go. All of it. By the end i was suicidal, depressed, irritable and so anti-establishment I started working (voluntary unpaid)for the public defender. I cannot stress enough just how disgusting Law and Order is as a series. I cannot stress enough how bad it is as an example of the justice system and frankly if this is the only exposure most people have with what they think of as "the justice system". It's a travesty and the fact that it went on for over 20 years, over multiple franchises is the worst part.
I get the same feeling after learning more about the justice system. The World of Law and Order is only really enjoyable if you know nothing about how the justice system works.
I grew up wanting to pursue forensics, but then eventually (and thankfully) became informed on how horrible our “justice” system is. This series and your account are highly appreciated :,) Watching feels like a bridge between my former and current interests.
me too!! I wanted to be a forensic anthropologist until I learned the truth about the justice system, now I'm going to university for social work in the fall :)
Its nuts how much asking for a lawyer immediately places suspicion on you. "Oh well if youre innocent than you dont need one." No, you need someome to help you defend that innocence. Remember that the goal of the police is to play these mind games with you and trick you into saying the wrong thing. And as such they can lie as much as they want, regardless of your guilt/innocence.
I was falsely arrested when I was 17, because I was at the wrong place, wrong time, when someone stole a car radio. Police never did their jobs. They've went and dusted the car for fingerprints to know I didn't do it. The old security guard, who was at retirement age, told the cops I did it. Probably because it was past 11 at night, and didn't want to deal with catching the actual thief. Cops, by the way, threw me to the ground, and pointed their guns at me. Remember, this was over a car radio. They have absolutely REFUSED to call my parents. Remember, I was 17. Still a minor. And yes, they didn't read me my Miranda rights. Oh yeah, my friend was there too. Also got cuffed. And my arresting thug officer actually had the balls to tell me "the jig is up. Your friend told me everything." First off, who the fuck still says "jig is up" in 2004? LOL Second, my friend told you what? What did I do? Oh yeah, nothing. Most inconvenient school year ever. Of course, they've eventually found me not guilty. Unfortunately, I still have to expunged the bullshit charge from my record. Not that I'm going to pay their extortion for THEIR fuck up. At least the best thing I got out of the whole thing was I got a hot lawyer. lol
You didn’t get a private lawyer? You can sue for a good amount, both the security and the cops for your pain and suffering so do it. My brother got 100 grand after a cop hit him going down the wrong side of the street while intoxicated. They detained him and tried to frame him but it was so obvious that not even the ukrop cop could frame my Russian brother for their late peers screw up.
Same thing happened to me at 15. I was sneaking to go see my girl friend at the time. It was the weekend, and wasn't too crazy late. Like 11 or something. Cop comes around and starts throwing us around, and searching us, because they were looking for someone else. Thought we were them. Changed the whole trajectory of my life.
In fairness from the perspective of the police, they have a witness who has told them that you did it, you were in the area, and then they did fingerprinting which you say exonerated you. You were taken to court and found not guilty. From what I'm hearing, it sounds like the system worked out right. And in spite of that, you complain about it not working. The jig is up. yeah but the guns, handcuffs, force, lying, that's all probably a bit much.
Imagine a scenario where you kidnap someone at gunpoint, lock them in a small room, then threaten them with violence if they don't sign a contract. In no other circumstance would that contract be considered legally binding, but of course plea deals are, because why the hell would the law apply to cops?
Outside of the major crimes stuff, but another reason a lot of stuff doesn't go to trial in regards to civil suits is the sheer cost. When you have a big company suing you for something that you are actually innocent for (this is from experience haha) it costs less in the end to hire a lawyer and get them to make a deal then it would be to pay the lawyer for a drawn out legal battle 9 times out of 10. It's pretty shitty how major companies and super rich people can use the courts as a weapon to get what they want.
33:32 When I was little, I used to think that "the right to remain silent" meant that you were not allowed to speak; i.e., I thought that they meant "you have the right to shut up", because of how aggressively I would hear the Maranda Rights said in police show clips. It wasn't until my high school history classes that I learned I was incorrect.
thank you for your fantastic nixon impersonation. made my day. not sure why anyone would want to use AI voices, it could never even come close to the amount of heart and soul you put into that.
Nothing says "equality before the law" quite like being found innocent by a jury.... Before being forced under threat of jail to pay $1500 USD in court costs.
know all too well about the trial penalty. the AG who prosecuted my husband said as much during trial to the jury. berating my husband for having the "audacity" to want his case to go to trial & how refusing to accept a plea was his thinking that he "knew the law better than police" (which weird) and how his "demanding a trial" is costing the "good people on this jury time away from lives and family" to satisfy the demands of a criminal. Like it was a one day trial that this AG drug out to late in the evening to exhaust the jury by having every single cop go into detail about CI procedures. As if the jury needed to be walked thru every single aspect 4 full times but sure, it was my husband wanting to exercise his constitutional right who was wasting time. not to mention that 3 of those 4 cops admitted what they did was, in fact, entrapment but sure, everything was my husband's fault. and yup, he served more time & we were told flat out that it was because he refused a plea. i expected all this given how our system is but it was still wild to watch it happen irl
In any interaction with police that you did not initiate, you say these words: Am I free to leave? If they say yes, you leave, if they say no or don't answer you, you say this: I invoke my right to counsel. Then, you shut up until your lawyer arrives.
open scene, smiling uniformed police officer walks up to a cafe counter police officer: "Good morning! Can I please have a coffee?" barista: "Am I free to leave?" police officer: "I mean, I suppose, I mean it's your cafe-" barista quickly leaves open second scene, smiling uniformed police officer walks up to a cafe counter police officer: "Good morning! Can I please have a coffee?" barista: "Am I free to leave?" police officer: "Sorry, say again?" barista: "I invoke my right to counsel." police officer: "Is this a joke?" barista: "I plead the fifth." police officer: "Oh, uh, okay." police officer goes to the next employee
In practise this advice doesn't work. You can watch cop interaction videos and see how they will happily ignore the question "Am I free to leave", and just hold you in place and badger you with questions while wasting hours of your time.
@@peacemaster8117 Police, by nature, probably ought to answer that question, but you need to understand that the goal of the police is to sniff out information such as that. If someone is free to leave, the police are still suspicious of them and want to extract more information by asking more questions, questions that may seem pointless but which, to the officer, are important enough to be asked. If a police officer wants to get information, what should they do in that scenario?
@@peacemaster8117 If they don't answer "Am I free to leave" you invoke your right to counsel. Courts have consistently held that police refusing to let you leave on request is custody. Once you unequivocally invoke your right to counsel, they cannot ask questions without your attorney present. If they do, you sue for wrongful imprisonment and get paid.
@@geoffreysorkin5774 Not answering whether you are free to leave and refusing your right to leave are not the same. The first doesn't necessarily imply that you aren't free to leave, the officer might not be answering for a number of reasons, such as if it's irrelevant, or if you're trying to avoid something by asking it. They can ask questions as much as they want after you've asked for counsel, it's only specifically after you've told them that you won't answer questions when they must stop. Wrongful imprisonment suits require that the decision to detain or arrest violates the law, some places require specific intent on the part of the police to engage in wrongdoing for the suit to work. A procedural error, even if what you're describing was one, is not enough for wrongful imprisonment. The advice you've provided will not get anyone rich.
The anger in your voice was so vivid and absolutely justified. Thank you for this video, as well as the entire series. It must be difficult to sit through all of that awful television. Your interviews were so great. It shouldn't be surprising to hear just how awful the 'justice' system is, and yet it shocks me every time. I remember giving up on the original Law and Order series relatively quickly. A lot of it bothered me, even if I couldn't explain why. Mostly, it got very boring, very fast. The formula means the same thing happens in the same way, over and over. I gave up completely when there was way too much airtime devoted to the detailed description of the assault of a disabled girl. It was incredibly creepy. (Full disclosure that a friend and I did watch some of Criminal Intent but purely for Vincent D'Onofrio. I don't remember why we stopped watching, but it was likely because the stories were too depressing.) Thank you again for this series, you're doing great work.
36:42 they did this shit to me in high school. both of the school administrators at the time and an on-campus cop quite literally isolated me from anyone who could help and lied to me about how much trouble I would get in for defending myself against an abusive ex when she started trying to slap me around again, because, up to that point, neither my parents nor any of the curriculum at school actually taught ANYTHING about how to keep yourself safe when you're dealing with law enforcement. I only learned a lot by studying on my own and my parents telling me after the fact I had these rights and that this administrator that my family and myself new personally, had very much betrayed me in a way that could have turned me into a very different person than I am today.
I've been waiting for this day for literally years. I adore this show for its writing and characters, Jerry Orbach as detective Lennie Brisco is one of the great characters of television. But goddamn goddamn goddamn is it not the hardest most popular Copaganda. I don't know any family who watches Blue Bloods but I definitely know parents who watch the WE marathons every couple days. Dick Wolf is just a modern Jack Webb, maybe more successful. BRING IT ON!!!
Oooh, good place to express my pet peeve. Episode in which a woman who repeatedly begs cops to help her with a nameless stalker who has been calling her and following her and has actually succeeded in physically attacking her a couple times. Brisco and Curtis take her statement, and based on a couple incidents of fuzzy memory and the fact that she only knows yhe guy by a nickname, they decide the woman is self- harming to get attention. They gently advise her to get lost so she won’t wind up prosecuted for false accusations. In a moment of absolutely chilling, brilliant acting, the woman softly and matter- of- factly says, “He’s going to kill me.” Then she gets up and walks away. She winds up getting murdered, horribly. Lennie Briscoe is anguished over the incident, and during an internal review of the situation opines that “We made a mistake. “ He then assumes ( out loud) that Curtis agrees with him. Curtis doubles down- she was making it up when they talked to her, the subsequent horrible murder was a coincidence (?!) and Van Buren is furious- not at the lack of due diligence that sent a woman to her death, but at Briscoe “ suborning purjury!” by assuming Curtis would agree with him that an obvious mistake was in fact a mistake. Just…. Holy shit. 😳
Imagine you are watching "Father Brown Mysteries" on the BBC, and in the show he and the other priests refer to altar boys as "teases" and go on and on about how they are "asking for it" and are "always lying" to "ruin the reputations of Godly men." And we'd be getting stories with titles like "The Case of the Lying Altar Boy and the Sacramental Wine" and "The Case of the Residential School Runaway of Thunder Bay." Welp, that's what it feels like to watch cop-shows.
Got it to remain silent i must speak in a loud, but not yelling voice, in the likeness of a wizard from a fantasy novel, " I invoke my right to remain silent!" when being questioned by the police.
Apple pie started because apples were very nearly outlawed due to apple jack overconsumption. Apple growers got together and funded a very successful rebranding campaign. Apple a day keeps the doctor way, American as baseball and Apple Pie, etc...
It's crazy how much last century's marketing influences the food we now see as normal. Did you know kiwifruit are called kiwifruit because of a New Zealand marketing campaign? They were originally known as Chinese Gooseberries.
@@foolishlyfoolhardy6004 apple tarts are from England. Apple pie was invented and popularized because apple growers needed a use for apples that wasn't apple jack. You're welcome
@@foolishlyfoolhardy6004 I never said pies were invented in America. Only that apple pies were invented America. Maybe try writing a post that doesn't contain sixteen pages of qualifiers next time?
Someone ask these judges... what protects them from the police violating their rights other than judge solidarity? Seems cops have gotten authority and protection from consequences of incorrect procedure and abuse. Maybe they'd fathom upholding public rights if they saw themselves part of it.
The last time I had to talk to the police, it was because they'd mistakenly entered my apartment building and thought my apartment was a person in custody's residence. I blankly told them they were in the wrong building. They disagreed. They were also stood 3 feet from the front door that agreed with me.
Couple things, trials are expensive. I've had 2 and the cheaper was an additional 5000 (misdemeanor). The other was an additional 10,000 (felony) that's in addition to the 750-3500 to get to trial in the fist place. In my area if you make more than 17500 ($364 before taxes per week) you can not get a public defender. If you have a case that's beatable but you can't afford to pay you have to pled out. Just last year I was convicted for obstruction because I said no to a search after I saved a random girl who had overdosed in a target parking lot. I didn't know her, saw her gave her cpr and called 911. When they arrived I went to leave cops stopped me I immediately asked to search I said no they cuffed me. I paid my lawyer 4k trial would have been an additional 3500. I injured my leg and couldn't walk for a year couldn't work for another in Dec of 2019 and had only started working 5 months before... I didn't qualify because if I continued at my job I would be paid more than 17.5k by then end of the year and there fore had the money.
can't stop thinking about that "but the victim's families" bit I think we need to stop arguing in terms of that old "is it better for 1 innocent person to be puinished..." doctrine and start arguing that for every innocent person convicted of a real crime there's a guilty person roaming free and the supposed justice system is wasting everyone's time instead of going after the criminal
Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency for opponents of change generally to pretend as if any suggestion is unique and has never been done before in the history of humanity.
Who benefits from cash bail? Now question where these opponents come from because i can guarantee very few of them actually believe the trash that comes out of their mouth
they've already decided that anyone accused of a crime is guilty, because of the propaganda of shows like this. in their minds, why do you need to have bail when you could just start them in the slavery complex known as the justice system immediately?
You just made me realize I'm living for Skip Intro doing an episode on Pooch the Bounty Hunter. I don't know how he spells his canine name but that show. I don't know a lot about bail so Skip would do a great job educating us via Dog (Dawg??).
This is a great video! I learned a lot from being arrested that I wish I understood beforehand. Most importantly that your right to remain silent starts as soon as the cops show up. DO NOT TALK TO THEM. I lost my job and my place to live in my 43 days of pre-trial detention and I got off lucky compared to a lot of people (even the ones I was locked up with.) My only way out was to plead guilty. When I finally got out I realized that I should never have been convicted because there was a whole counseling program for first time offenders that I was more than qualified for.
The worst part about cop shows and copaganda in regards to Miranda rights, I think, is the fact that they managed to make requesting them look like a sign of guilt. Because "only a guilty person would demand to speak with a lawyer" or "why are you pleading the fifth if you've done nothing wrong?" We've been conditioned to assume that cops are always the good guys who wiuld never try to coerce a confession out of someone who is innocent or twist someone's words in order to incriminate them on something that may be completely unrelated!
The best part is Law and Order SVU does have episodes where an innocent man tries pleading the fifth, only for the cops to coerce them anyway, and if it wasn't for their defence lawyer (who is regarded badly) they'd have gone to prison while the real culprit would still be free. Of course the fact the cops detained then assaulted an innocent man is ignored, and the cops act like the guy is being unreasonable when they assume he's a predator.
I have started working as a legal secretary/paralegal at my county's Prosecutor's Office, a job I was very hesitant to take because I hate our elected prosecutor and think the legal system is rotten. However, it was better than continuing in a severely understaffed, underpaid, abusive newsroom. Plus, the County has one of very few Unions in the area, and no other department was hiring that I could say I had the skills for or which paid enough to make rent. So. I accepted. I already knew this from working in news, but because of the demographics here, almost all of crimes committed and arrests made in the area involve white people. Now, I work solely in misdemeanors, but this has bourne true at the Prosecutor's Office. I think I have seen maybe four Black and two Hispanic defendants in the four months and hundreds of cases I've handled. Despite this, it's astonishing how the public perception here is that crime is committed by people of colour and migrants. The average defendant is either 18 to 25-year-old white dude or a 60 to 75-year-old white dude, with very little deviation. And I mean, the city is 82% white, so that makes sense. But like... The mental gymnastics people here do to pretend the vast majority of crime is done by white dudes here is bananas. But I can verify it is very rare, at least with misdemeanors, for anything ro go to trial. We have a ton of cases either dismissed outright or put into SOC (stipulated order if continuance). A lot of the cases I see are so asinine, I don't mind if they're dismissed. What does concern me is the sheer volume of repeat DUI offenders who consistently get pleas down to negligent ir reckless driving. Stop. Doing that. We're talking BAC levels at .2, some with property collisions. If there's one thing you should definitely not let slide, it is repeated driving while intoxicated charges. Omg. Having worked in news, I have seen some gnarly DUI crashes, including fatal ones. Holy shit, stop letting them drive off into the sunset after slapping their wrists. That being said, a lot of the charges are stupid, and I am not surprised to see the case file in my close pile after arraignment. And then I read cases with 60 officers in a SWAT response over a stolen lawn ornament and lament about how poorly we allocate our resources. C'mon guys ... Really? I hope to one day transfer, but they love me over at the Public Defenders office because I took note of the incredibly inconsistent communication between the offices, particularly around discovery, and made it my personal mission to be as prompt and clear as possible. Their paralegal and I get on well, to the point she sometimes sends questions from DV or felony cases my way for help, and that's so flattering. My prosecutor tells me a lot of the private attorneys have asked about me too. I get the impression there's usually a bit of resistance or lack of mutual respect between prosecutor and defense. Personally, I don't care either way. I believe strictly in finding and sharing evidence as it is, no matter which side benefits, because that is the closest I can come to fairness. Like, one of our police reports mentioned a guy stole from a store for some amount, but never gave the value or what was taken. It was mayo, tomatoes, and a pack of hotdogs for less than $20, and the man, a senior, had no criminal history. So I nade sure to track down the photo of the totalled receipt and print it to attach for the attorneys, because that's important context. $18 of stolen food us way different than stealing a $60 video game, you know? And it was shady the officer left that out, almost bending backwards to avoid mentioning it. So, I dunno, I don't think I am cut out for law. But as long as I am gere, I'm going to remain committed to by sense of fairness and ethics. It seems to annoy the prosecutors a bit, but I am willing to work just as hard to get evidence if benefit to them if it exists, because the point isn't to always be right, or to assume every defendant deserves to be crucified, or to exonerate them all. The point is a fair examination of the facts and, hopefully, proportional repercussions. I can't really control the latter, but I can do my best to help ensure the former. And maybe one day, a job will open up in Parks or something, and I can bounce.
51:07 so we’re supposed to see cops as these highly capable and intelligent beings but there’s a ruling that says they’re too stupid to know when someone is calling them something like dog or bro or my dude?
Part 1 10:10 Law, Order, and Dicks Part 2 22:40 Guilty Until Proven Innocent Part 3 34:32 The Right to Remain Arrested Part 4 1:08:18 I Want to Speak to a Manager
Just a quick note on the overlapping lead and crime rate data. Well before the overlap was noticed there was already a wealth of research establishing a strong correlation berween adolescent lead exposure and later criminality. In particular, the likelihood of participation in violent crime is disproportionately increased by a very similar marging to the one seen in the disproportionate rate of increase in violent crimes that came with the broader crime wave
A cop once firectly violated my constitutional rights, and the judge said it was okay because the cop was nice about it. No, I'm not exaggerating or being hyperbolic. Yes my lawyer was a public attorney who worked at the courthouse, with the same people as the prosecutors every day. That is a major conflict of interest baked right into the system right there.
Just regarding that whole 'plea deal' thing; here in New Zealand, the mere concept of a plea deal would be considered a disgusting miscarriage of justice. Justice is supposed to be about finding the truth, and then encouraging good behaviour and discouraging bad behaviour. There should be no chance of negotiation at any stage in the process.
10:33 I believe light beer descends from Enlisted bars serving watered down beer to soldiers, sailors and marines. Some of the guys developed a taste for it, company saw a way to make money without having to radically change their current equipment, zip zam bap bam.
Phenomenal job on this video!! I have been a public defender for my whole career and you hit the nail on the head. Thank you so much for bringing attention to such an important topic and I love your channel!!
I remember being part of a criminal justice class in high school, with an ex-cop. I remember I fought him so fucking hard on so much shit, because some of the stuff he presented us was reprehensible on a moral level. He was particularly proud of the fact that cops are able to lie to get confessions. It was like he was admitting the darkest side of the police system to us.
Already watched on Nebula, but you make so many good points that I need a second watch to properly digest! Have been loving the serie, thank you for your fantastic work!
"Whatever Ice-T's character is named." Whaddya mean "character"? Wait, you're telling me Law & Order isn't just a documentary about Ice-T's life as a cop?
Y'know, I heard a theory that the infamous brutality of Rome was caused by their lead water pipes. I'm beginning to think Humanity's Greatest Enemy is lead poisoning.
calling a character a psychopath because you find their behaviour unpalatable is out of line. people with personality disorders have a hard enough time without being stigmatized like that
we can just argue against armchair diagnoses, medicalization of everything, and ignorant and imprecise speech. making the "poor psychopaths" angle doesn't make it any more compelling. everyone has some illness misunderstood by the general public and with terms misused in lay conversation. people with personality disorders share their hard times with everyone else, so they're not evading stigma any time soon.
The whole Miranda rights shit is why sov cits exist. Its not that big of a stretch from 'you have to say these exact words to be treated like a human by cops' to 'if you say these exact words, the cops legally have to leave you alone'
As someone who loves the early seasons of L&O and even Criminal Intent, I hope they end their legacy at 25/23. They have become repetitive with their betrayal of victims and criminals and shifting some their cops & DAs into sainted figures. Mariska’s character has been captain for almost as long as Craigen, but I’ve never seen Craigen be THIS MUCH involved in investigations. Also her bias among certain victims become blatantly shown at this point. As well as Carisi acts like the police even though he’s a DA now. I say this as a fan, it’s hard to ignore a lot of the flaws for characters we are supposed to root for.
Tbf Jack was always bad but he was also very obviously an audience insert character. When conservatism was en vogue he was a conservative and when what Americans would call liberalism was on the agenda then he was a liberal. He was always what the audience needed him to be and his only consistent characteristic was that he was rash and kind of didn’t actually give a fuck about the law. He was more of a principles man. That and he was on the down low a ladies man who slept with his assistants. So TL;DR he was very obviously a tv character who changed a lot as the show went on. I actually preferred Cutter as the executive ADA as while he was just as rash he was much more ridged about the law as he was a law nerd and *hated* losing. It was more interesting to see a character argue the points of law for the audience.
I HEAVILY recommend the 5-4 podcast that Rhiannon is on if you're a fan of this channel. As just a random lefty with an interest in politics, the show is incredibly eye-opening about what "the law" actually is in practice (spoiler: it's not great). Also they are all extremely compassionate people.
I think intuitively I always assumed that the hatred of Lawyers in the general cultural zeitgeist was in someway tied to a hatred of the legal system itself, but I'm realizing that's wishful thinking on my part. Because regardless if its a murder trial or a petty dispute, Lawyers are portrayed as people who lie for clients in order to profit, forfeiters of the objective and subjective truth... but that would also imply that all defense attorneys in criminal trails are ALSO lying for their client, and I'm realizing that its shows like Law and Order that reinforce that belief in spite of the fact that people are assumed innocent until proven guilty and that being provided a representation is a right. For some reason we vilify defense attorneys because of this flawed logic of "well when they are defending someone who is guilty, they're still vouching for a criminal" and... YEAH, that's the point. Trials determine culpability AND severity... how are we going to vilify the BIGGEST check and balance thats meant to protect YOU should you end up in the hot seat, or ensure that petty crimes don't get disproportionate sentencing? You can only achieve a fair trial, and explore all possibilities, if both sides are vouching for their parties in the best reasonable faith, utilizing only the facts of the case. I'm realizing that this is exactly why I love the Ace Attorney series despite its world, legal procedure, and scenarios being... so damn wild...
Why can't you deliver a single point without a tacky joke? This is a serious topic. A systemic problem, and rather than give it due gravity, you over punctuate your sentences with cringeworthy attempts at humor. If *you* won't take this topic seriously, why would anybody?
As a Criminal Justice major, I always remember in 1 of my first classes a professor explaining that if there was a 💊 that we could give people that knowlonger made them committ violent crimes, either it would be destroyed/ simple things like jaywalking would be given 20 years. Why 90% of society either works in/ is somehow connected to the criminal justice ⚖ system in some form or fashion.
Noted and filed: when confronted with cops, say clearly and loudly, preferably into a camera or microphone, "I AM INVOKING MY RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND ASKING FOR A LAWYER", possibly several times and in varying tones and volumes.
Get Nebula using my link for 40% off an annual subscription: go.nebula.tv/skipintro
Check out my full interviews with Olay and Rhiannon on Patreon: www.patreon.com/skipintro
It’s not very kind showing a pig in the title. There ARE bad cops, but there are also good cops. But people are not pigs. I equate you using that symbol with Trump calling opponents “vermin” the way Hitler did. I feel like, if you are trying in general to be a good person, don’t be like Trump (or Hitler).
THANK YOU for making this video. Most people dont REALIZE the LAW AND ORDER effect is a THING where people LITTERALLY ignore valid evidence because they want forensics that DONT MATTER and will make them ignore WITNESS TESTIMONY for psuedo csi bullshit. People DONT know their rights cause they think the tv is being honest its fucking terrifying
I used to watch wayyyyyy too much Law&Order, and it hasn't been till recently that I realized how much it affected my perceptions of the legal system. When my son was born I decided to deconstruct my entire life and recognize any beliefs that did not reflect the example I wanted to set for him. Fortunately I was being treated for substance abuse at the time, so I had the resources to do it. If you want to see a happy guidance counselor, tell them you want to deconstruct your life to reflect greater epistemic responsibility. Mine had me over to her house on the weekend, for some (wink wink) extra special sessions, very INTENSE SESSIONS...............with her husband, who had more relevant knowledge. Sorry, life ain't porn.
Turns out, hidden among the racism lurking in nursery rhymes, misogyny that my mother set in place, and some really messed up shit they taught in Social Studies back in the 80s, was a very distorted view of how cops treat minorities and poor people. Who knew? It was like having a dry shave, on a hairy ego.
I was a cop what cops do right now is you're a witness until they have talked to you enough to the point where they feel that they can get a guilty on you then you are now a suspect congratulations here's your Miranda rights we have everything you need you can cooperate or it doesn't matter we already got everything we needed from you because you were a witness now you're suspect even though you're always technically a suspect we never had anything official about it and it's nothing says we can't do it this way and they're not necessarily wrong cuz that's what cops do all the f****** time. If you're a victim or you're a witness it's better for you just to remain silent and never cooperate with the police especially in black communities because anything you do or say as witness or as a victim will be used against you and you will go to jail for talking to those cops because you're not white
Also again when I was a cop and this was only 2011 Even if you ask for a lawyer they say well you're not a suspect and they keep you locked in a room basically for hours without anything and they'll ask if you want water but they never bring it to you unless of course it's two three hours later so nothing's really changed now we just say you're a witness until we're ready to throw the book at you then you're a suspect
The other nefarious framing they did that I could never unhear once someone pointed it out to me, was framing demanding a lawyer as tantamount to admission of guilt. The amount of times "we're just talking. If you didn't do anything, there's no need for a lawyer..." I heard in this series is STAGGERING.
Cops do irl too. Happened to me when I falsely framed as responsible for a crime in Akron when I was at home. Thankfully I had installed cameras on the outside of my house so I shut them up real quick. This was before I had any money built up meaning I would have been fucked if it went to trial and had a public pretender
Not to mention how many shows and movies have sold the idea that pleading the 5th is tantamount to admission of guilt.
Yep. CSI does this 100% of the time as well. There mightve been one case in the whole show where a guy demands a lawyer then is proven innocent.
What's infuriating about that is that, if you look, you will find multiple videos on youtube from law professors, practicing attorneys, and former law enforcement explaining in detail why you should ALWAYS exercise your right to an attorney and why you DO NOT open your mouth until your attorney is present.
@@Aarzu Oh, one of my good friends is a defence attorney, and that is something he will take about, loudly, and at great length.
Something really important to note about Miranda rights: The police are NOT required to Mirandize you AT THE TIME OF YOUR ARREST. They are ONLY required to Mirandize you before you are officially questioned in police custody. That means that if you are arrested and the cops don't read you your rights right away like you see in Law & Order, that does not give you carte blanche to say what you want and declare it inadmissible. Any time a suspect makes a spontaneous statement or confession without any actual questioning, that can (and will) be used against you, regardless of whether you have yet to be Mirandized or not. Also, you do not have to be formally arrested, you just need to be in police custody. Legally speaking, if any reasonable person would not feel free to leave, you are considered in custody, even if you are not officially under arrest.
Do. Not. Speak. To. Police. The police are not your friends, just like HR is not there to protect you.
The only thing you say to the police is 'get me a lawyer'. Do not ask if you can have one or should have one. Make a clear declarative statement to get you one.
Every day is Shut The Fuck Up Friday.
In Spain the police is constitutionally required to inform about their legal rights at the time of the arrest.
@@prettyevil6662000 No, you shouldn't. Because saying that you want a lawyer will not be taken as a request for legal representation, only a statement that you have the ability to do so. If you want to request a lawyer You say 'I invoke my right attorney.' Nothing else. You also cannot simply be silent, as that will be taken as a sign that you are guilty. You must invoke that so called right as well These are the only two phrases you should ever utter in the presence of the police. Remember, the primary purpose of the police is to generate and collect revenue for the government. And cops will do anything, regardless of merit or legality to accomplish that goal. Police are nothing but a glorified HR department for the state. Not protectors.
@@podemosurss8316 Sounds like my ancestors should have never left Spain. xD
My favorite episode of Law and Order SVU was when they got a proven innocent man killed while in their care and then held someone else responsible for their negligence. I'll never forgot how smug and proud of themselves they were when they did it.
I remember a Law and Order episode where a woman goes to the police begging for protection because she's being stalked. They tell her they can't do anything, she leaves, clearly distressed, and then a few days later she turns up dead. The detective's only response to finding the body? "At least she can't say I told you so." That whole scene just made me irrationally angry
@@screamingcactus1753I’d say it’s closer to rationally angry. I’ve never understood how people can’t see the evil in mocking a murder victim
@@screamingcactus1753 Irrationally angry? Seems like rational anger to me.
@@screamingcactus1753That passed a writer's room, standards and practices, a studio exec, the director, the producer, and the actor and somehow no one clicked how screwed up that was.
The person they got arrested for it was legitimately responsible for framing the guy, at least. They were smug because they had given the perp a deal on everything else but could now get her for murder...but that is itself an example of pretty blatantly perverting the system to "nail the bad guy".
Just to be clear on a piece of terminology, "pretrial detention" is jail. That's what jail is.
Characters: I know my rights!
Jordan: And I KNOW MY LEFTS! And soon, you will know your ups if you keep on!
The other one is prison right?
@@rav3style That's _after_ you get convicted. Jail is before they convict you.
Coerced confessions are still very common. Especially if the person has an intellectual disability, but it can happen to anyone who doesn't know how duplicitous cops can be.
US police are able to lie to you to solicit a confession, which you may do if you think you are going to be falsely charged due to a statement by a non existent person.
Yup.
My buddy did 10yrs because the bastards threatened to arrest and put his mom in prison if he didn't confess. He tried to fight it afterwards but it took 10yrs and an interview with the news show Dateline to finally get out. He's part of the reason I tell everyone I know, especially kids, "the police are not your friend. Say nothing and ask for a lawyer."
Your buddy is a fool.@@bertbaker7067
The Reid technique is just a psychological trick meant to do it. Cops accross the world apply it and it's just plain abuse and manipulation, it often gets people to say what the police wants and make them feel guilty for not doing so immediately.
Every lawyer I've ever spoken to says the same thing: never talk to the cops.
I'm Canadian and we do not have the right to have a lawyer present or end the interview of our own volition. We have the right to remain silent but the police can hold you for as long as they want in the interview room and all you are entitled to is a call to a lawyer who will probably advise you not to talk. At which point it becomes an endurance challenge for you as they do everything they can to provoke you into speaking. I think it's absolutely barbaric.
As far as I know, they have a similar system in Japan. The police can detain you for up to 23 days without charging you and you do not have the right to speak to a lawyer in private.
I knew someone who just said “I’m sorry officer I cannot answer any questions” and was held for a week or two. They released her without charge cuz she didn’t have ID on her and she won the being silent battle
I don’t understand that logic
@@nataschavisser573do they even have lawyers in Japan?
@@Dave102693 Yes. They even have defense lawyers. But the defense lawyers are basically a farce, paid to put on a facade that it was fair since there's a 99% conviction rate.
A personal example of the power DA has: I was SAed as a child by my step-father, a therapist reported the abuse, and when the CPS questioned me I confirmed it, and so the police put together a case against him. Then the DA decided not to prosecute. He had the testimony of the therapist and myself, but he knew his family personally and decided his personal opinion mattered more. There was three years of pushback from both my family and the from the police themselves, before the DA finally agreed to move forward, at which point a warrant was put out, but he had already left the state. They told us all they could do was wait for him to turn himself in or be arrested for something else. That was almost 30 years ago, he was never arrested and never went to trial. They just forgot about me, all because the DA didn’t feel like pressing charges when they had him in the state.
that's just. that's fucking sickening.
That's vile and none of it should have happened. I hope you have lots of goodness in your life now.
The DA should have resigned. This is blatant conflict of interest. I'm sorry to hear this happened to you.
i’m so sorry you had to go through that, it sounds like so much frustration and betrayal on top of an already traumatic event. i hope you are doing well today💛💛💛
That's horrible. I hope you managed to heal somewhat since then, and are living a better life now.
As for the DA, him knowing the criminal personally is a clear conflict of interests. If a lawyer is shown to have a conflict of interests with the person they are defending/prosecuting, they would be barred from working in that specific trial (if the judge knows what they're doing...). But I guess the DA is above the law, and there are no checks on them. Absolutely abhorrent!
Can we all just agree that it's crazy how Ice-T went from "Cop Killer" to copaganda?
"When I got the job at SVU, Dick Wolf said to me, “Ice, you don’t like cops, right?” I told him that during my criminal past, I didn’t hate cops - they were my opponents. [He asked,] “But you admit we need them, right?” I said, “Yeah.” So, Wolf told me to play the cop that we need. And if I play the cop that we need, I won’t have any problems with it - my cop is a far stretch from the cop that the cop killer wants to kill"
- Ice-T
Sounds like a 'bad apple' argument. He also made it clear that he is acting a character in both Cop Killer and Law & Order.
@@bearmarco1944 And it is still copaganda.
@citizen_grub4171 In both he's playing a character, so it's expected that he'll take up opposing types of characters, so it's not really crazy. Plus, I wouldn't criticise someone for the works that they're in just because there's political disagreement.
@@bearmarco1944 I know most rap fans can't comprehend this or get mad but the majority of rappers are acting, they went to acting school and learned how to act gangster
Ice cube, Ice T , Tupac, Biggie, and Dr Dre all went to private schools in fact Tupac, Biggie, Busta Rhymes, Nas and Jay Z all went to similar schools in New York
No music mogul is going to risk having to pay millions in legal fees
The "jail " time they serve is just a "street cred " ritual because us rap fans want our rappers to get gangstas
These music companies wouldn't keep pushing that if people didn't buy it period
Now I'm not the one who complains about guys like Ice T playing a cop because I understand he's been playing a "gangsta " role for decades and accept it
It's the same with people getting mad about Taylor Swift and Billie Ellish coming from middle class rich families
If people didn't cry for underdog stories and accept reality , they wouldn't be need to lie about "Poor upbringings"
You hardly become a success in Hollywood without having connections or are a nepotism hire
I looked up the equivalent to Miranda Rights in my location (NSW Australia) and apparently we _used_ to have the right to remain silent, but that was seriously restricted in 2013 (thanks Barry O'Farrel) because police didn't want to deal with defence attorneys in their police stations. I wonder why they'd be so keen to keep out the defence attorneys /s
New South Wales is also extremely corrupt in terms of the legal systems. The governing officials, criminal organizations, and the police themselves are all in bed with one another.
Australians and Americans both lack the ability to remain silent so that "right" fell to the wayside.
Everytime i watch a video like this I start thinking about my old job at a port of subs.
Constant monitoring, having to adhere to every minute esoteric rule, and naturally long hours for jack pay.
I had more oversight than most parts of the justice system do and i slung sandwiches for 10 bucks an hour.
In WA, lawyers will not sit in on interviews, because under old WA law, they could be called to testify against their own client to verify that someone said what someone else said they did.
That isn't a problem, because lawyers will tell their clients to be quiet, and defence lawyers have no interest in hanging around police stations for any longer than they need to.
Just a sidenote for helpful info; attorneys do not exist in Australia, it is an antiquated legal term and the role of 'attorney' was split into 'solicitor', a lower courts lawyer, and 'barrister', a higher courts lawyer in the 19th century. The USA, however, never caught up.
Canada doesn't even have them lmao, he got his idea from Stephen Harper and the IDU.
"guilty verdict AND the death penalty, wanna go get a drink?"
is probably one of the single most vile lines I've heard in my life.
I’m waiting for the part in the video that this occurs, but could be black humour?
@@RomasKalash Black humor because in real life the person getting sent to their death is statistically more likely to be black.
@@RomasKalash gallows humor isn't funny coming from the executioners
@@RomasKalashblack humor is technically defined as making light of a bad situation, HOWEVER, black humor is often either made to stand alone (such as saying "wanna hear a joke?" or making a comedy video where you do a skit or drawing a comic) or made by someone who has been hurt by a bad situation. for example, "why do orphans suck at baseball? because they can't find their way home." is dark humor. this joke could be told to someone, filmed as a skit, or drawn as a comic. it would also be funny if an orphan told it. however, would it be funny if an orphan's parents who abandoned them told this joke directly to their orphaned child, or said it about them? no, because then that's just cruel.
in this case, the joke might be funny if the person who got the verdict and death penalty said that to their lawyer, because they're making light of a situation that affects them, which they're allowed to do. but for the prosecution who caused that situation to make it about themselves and make light of it, it only shows how they clearly did something wrong yet see no need go fix it. they clearly feel bad about the result of a trial, but rather than say, "i think we had a mistrial" or "wait, that punishment doesn't fit this crime" both of which are genuine reasons to change the outcome of the trial, they're essentially saying "well, that sucks that we killed a guy. thank GOD we can just go out and drink and forget!" meanwhile there's a person who will be killed.
edit for clarity: this is why black humor is called gallows humor. if someone in gallows tells a joke about being in gallows, they're laughing about their situation. if the person who sentenced someone to be in gallows makes a joke, now they're being mean.
@@saoirse_milleryou miss the actual Double entendee and the fact that is sadly funny because it is Black humour. No-one needed your splaining the concept.
My partner is in prison for a non-violent addiction related crime.
He took the plea deal so the prosecutors would drop false charges that implicated him as being a dealer (despite that objectively not being the case).
Despite being over 2 years sober at the time of sentencing, having an addiction counselor testify to his progress, this being his first offense, perfect compliance with pretrial services, and having a leadership role in multiple support groups, and having a very expensive lawyer...
The judge sentenced him to more time than the prosecutor asked for, which was double what people in his support groups had gotten for a similar crime.
We saw nothing but cruelty from the police, he didn't get medical treatment at the county jail and needed to be hospitalized, the prosecutor outright lied, and the judge was harsh and used dehumanizing language, and don't get me started about the prison. The ONLY people who consistently treated him like a human in this process were the pretrial services officers.
He's white, but he's also openly and obviously gay and it's difficult not to think that might be related to the harshness of how we was treated.
I'm sorry to hear that. How much time is he facing?
I am so sorry.
The judge was that harsh cuz its a common tactic to be kept in that judge chair by being harsh on addicts and to treat all addicts even recovering ones as violent offenders esp around reelection time. Idk why being a judge or prosecutor is an elected positon but it is same as police chef. So enough bs like this and bribes keep them in power to ruin more people's lives. But yes being gay also probably helped them act even worse.
As an addict, the minute the system identifies you as such you’re easy pickings. Clean time, career, none of that matters.
If you’re on maintenance medication? Forget about it. You’re fucked.
That's infuriating, and yes, the fact that your partner is openly gay might very well be why the judge was a piece of s**t.
when i was arrested for committing crime that was acctually commited on me, my lawyer said, "Please tell me you don't belive innocent until proven guilty."
Friend of mine was up for DV. He was told the court he would go into was "not a place where they figure out what happened. It's a place where they punish bad men for doing bad things." Even though the prosecutions' story depicted him using a total of 5 arms at once, teleporting, and throwing someone _(without a blemish on them)_ by their _hair,_ it wasn't looking too good until the defendant got confused enough trying to figure out how she was dragged into the same room twice that she admitted she fell down on her own, on purpose, but it didn't have anything to do with the divorce settlement that was filed _the day before._ The state prosecutor was pissed. No, not that she'd lied, but that she'd tanked their case.
Regarding Miranda rights: for the love of god, do NOT assume all legal systems are the same as the one on American television. In Finland, for example, you are expected to know your rights and cops do not need to read your rights to you. Not a thing in our legal system. A bunch of people raised on American TV have made the mistake of thinking they'll get all charges thrown out if Finnish cops don't read them their Miranda rights, "gotcha!" - which is not the case. Miranda rights are not a thing in the Finnish legal system.
It's actually pretty problematic that people get their lessons on ANY legal system from American TV-shows, when the US system is not the legal system in the vast majority of the world and, as this channel has shown repeatedly, American TV-shows are not even remotely a realistic portrayal of even the American legal system.
What does Finnish law have to say on such and how is it applied?
It's not even a "gotcha" in the American legal system unless they're using a confession to convict you. Movies and TV shows usually get it wrong.
In Canada, a bunch of the trucker convoy protesters kept trying to "plead the 5th Amendment" to avoid testifying at their trials and the judge was like THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO WHAT
Also finnish law is garbage, and it wouldn't matter if they did have Miranda rights, they would be violated anyway.
Seriously almost all those Balkan adjacent nations are essentially wild west when it comes to law
With massive corruption and classic built into every aspect of the system.
The fact that Andrew rate is even being tried in Romania and hasn't just bought off the cops and the legal system
Is a fluke.
@@kristinmh1Taking the Fifth does sound a lot better than Taking Section 11 c of the Charter, though.
I have never, not once been Mirandized.
I brought this fact up once in court, Judge basically told me "Tough shit, I'm reading them to you now"
Not once have the police ever mirandized me, cautioned me, or told me why I was under arrest.
I mean that's probably because I've never been arrested but the point still stands!
Times like these that I remember how lucky I am. There was a warrant out for me when I was misidentified for a crime. I metaphorically tip-toed my way to my lawyer's office and my lawyer contacted an officer so that I could discuss the situation with the officer. My lawyer was super firm with the officer. They had absolutely nothing, I had been working in a place with security cameras (far away from the crimescene). The cops had already found evidence that mostly pointed to someone else (who they were pretty sure had skipped town). They clearly wanted someone to bust, but all they had is that I had similar height, hair, and happened to wear glasses. The officer started reading me my rights (AFTER asking me questions), my lawyer actually stopped him, asked if there was going to be an arrest. The cop said no, and my lawyer asked him to leave.
I guess if a cop doesn't say what your Miranda rights are, you don't have them?
Time to turn at the jury and stare at them like "are you guys hearing this shit?"
When I was in High School, my Civics Teacher was a former Cop that was bitter about the police force because he got turned off after turning in another cop for a crime. I tell ya, THIS GUY was 2 things: An alcohalic and a cop hater. He drank during class and he would drive hard into us things like, "Don't talk to cops, around cops, or anything unless you have to.", "Always ask, politely and firmly, if you can leave now after every question until they decide to charge you with something.", "If you're charged, shut your fool mouth unless it is to ask for a lawyer. They know more than your dumb ass does."
All other parts of civics, he'd just put in a movie and test us on it as he drank in the back of the class. But police interactions, man he was passionate to make sure we understood and would actually lecture up front. He wouldn't talk about what happened other than he was a former cop so he knows what he is saying.
Can we have THIS as a TV show? That sounds like an amazing character.
Alright so an alcoholic former cop who now hates the police and who drinks alcohol infront of schoolchildren while hating on police, who was hired to work with children despite his poor reputation in the police. Good to see we're working with a reliable source of information here when he says why he got turned off.
"he got turned off after turning in another cop for a crime"
And this is why there's no such thing as a "Good Cop", all the ones that are good are either chased off or fired. So many police officers have a child mentality, no such thing as a "Thin Blue Line"
You're missing the thing about the lead-crime hypothesis that makes it the biggest slam-dunk in the history of social science: the same correlation is observed in every country, corresponding to when they banned leaded fuels.
The numbers Mason, we found out what they mean--
I would offer one correction. If you're on a date and find out your date is a cop, and you didn't already know they were a cop, it's probaly best not to leave immediately as an obvious policial statement but rather to find some other later reason to bail on them, 'cos if you blow a cop off bc they're a cop, they're absolutly gonna stalk you and make your life hell.
Stay safe out there
I would want cop meat, but yeah, thanks.
Yeah, no joke. 40% of cops, and all that. This is ABSOLUTELY a time to have your roommate make that fake-emergency call.
Sure, man.
@@trioptimum9027 *40% of cops that are _CAUGHT._
Huh. So what you're telling me is that the most realistic part of Ace Attorney is not how cartoonishly evil most of the prosecutors are, but rather just that Phoenix ever successfully proves his clients innocent without them being subjected to YEARS of harassment by the court?
Japan's legal system is infamously prosecution-biased and basically any insane shit you can think of doing to try and get a confession out of someone has probably happened in the last year. Ace Attorney is basically a black comedy about how fucked up it is.
The "lawyer dog" thing killed me. Oh my god. The importance of a comma, I guess... But seriously, how can ANY reasonable person (the general standard legal things are held to) think someone would be asking for a dog lawyer? Even if he was, that's still a lawyer, right?
Unfortunately MacGruff the Crime dog, Attorney at Law was busy that day.
I don't think reasonable person standard applies when you talk about qualified immunity or police conduct in general.
@@hexkirn judging from how Court cases into police brutality go, I think you're right :/
You're not required to say "comma" in normal speech. Why would a comma make a difference in a spoken request?
The comma would be there for the written report about what was said. But of course it makes it easier to intentionally misinterpret the arrested person if you skip punctuation. Dog.
I used to work on this show. There are plenty of things to criticize about the ethics portrayed by the cops and prosecutors, but the thing that annoyed me most about it was that almost every episode deliberately told the viewers that "lawyering up" or not talking to the cops were a definite sign of guilt.
In a real world version, during the Rittenhouse case, the judge was enraged by the prosecutor's repeated attempts to convince the jury that Rittenhouse not talking to police without legal representation showed he was clearly guilty. The judge at one point became so furious about this clear violation of lawful rights that he implied if it continued he would call a mistrial.
There is a lot that I really dislike about that trial, however that was one of the parts the judge got right.
@@lich109 I'm presuming you dislike the verdict?
@@XXXX-yc6wv Aside from facts like the judge not allowing relevant evidence in, I dislike the idea that if there was a shootout, whoever left standing would be able to argue it was self defence. So yes I do dislike the verdict.
@@lich109 Rittenhouse wasn't the only one to provide an argument in the trial, the prosecution had plenty of witnesses to provide their account.
Nor was he the "only one left standing". One of those he shot was a lead witness for the prosecution. The fact you don't acknowledge this quite major facet of the prosecution's case makes me wonder how much you really know about the trial.
Either way, the jury heard everything that was put to them by the defense, prosecution and the court itself in terms of instruction, and they came to a not guilty verdict. It doesn't matter whether you like that verdict, as far as the court is concerned, justice has been appropriately served.
Unless you think you know better than the court?
Furthermore, the "excluded" evidence would be the video of Rittenhouse saying he wanted to shoot protestors? The prosecution chose not to use it because it could only be used to prove intent, which any wise counsel would avoid attempting, and Binger chose wisely not to use it. So it wasn't "excluded" at all.
Don't take any of this to mean I endorse Rittenhouse in any way. I think he's an idiot and part of a bizarre gun culture that I simply cannot fathom despite growing up around firearms. If he had any sense at all he would not have taken a weapon to a riot. The publicity of his name and face is a sentence he will serve until the day he dies, which should serve as a lesson to anyone else considering such a stupid act.
@@XXXX-yc6wv You've got quite the imagination to make up words and arguments I never said, and then imagine I said them, so let me try to bring you back to reality:
I'm not here to argue the case. Every point you tried to make in regards to the trial was entirely irrelevant and only served to strawman what I said. My point is that if Rittenhouse was not the one who survived and the other guy shot him, he'd have also gotten off on self defence. That is my point, I am 100% against the idea that two people can be involved in a shooting with the survivor being the one who is in the right.
I remember in one episode of SVU miss Olivia Benson threatens to call immigration on a lady who refused to say where her partner was, and afterward Fin [Ice T's character] questions her on if she was really going to do it, so the writers KNOW that this was wrong but decided to leave it in.
Even the “most moral” cop in the franchise are just a softer version of Hank from Chicago PD tbh
Olivia's done so many awful things. Including threatening victims in various ways such as saying they'll arrest them for wasting police resources if they recant or they'll get them deported if they stop cooperating, etc. Not to mention the myriad of times she's promised someone they can't be deported if they are a witness in a crime only to immediately have that person reported and deported (stop making a promise you know is apparently only true in theory!)
Plus the one that will stick with me forever, encouraging a woman who wanted an abortion of her own volition, due to severe mental illness where she couldn't even take care of herself, to carry through with the pregnancy and keep the baby because it'll get better. Olivia, born of rape, knowing it caused her mother to become an abusive alcoholic, wanted someone else to have to live that life too?! With mental illness on top of it?
And Olivia is supposed to be the softest and most caring officer in any of the shows. (Guess it's easy to appear soft and gentle when your first partner was literally beating up suspects while you watched his back and your future one tells sex workers they don't deserve help if they're attacked.)
Or the times she SLAMMED a a confined questioned period. M in the interrogation to the table…but that cos seeing the boys club of the police station…that’s might be accurate
@@prettyevil6662000 Copaganda cultists really seem to love seeing Gestapo tactics in action, don't they?
I'm tempted to conceive of a show where the American cops basically function like Nazis, I have to wonder what insane level of popularity could such a show garner? Would the critical mass of the audience, every time someone was GTA V torture scened in police interrogation, howl in unison like a bunch of really hungry blood-dripping red-eyed fantasy wolves?
I fear they would, Olivia Benson is probably loved *because* she abuses suspects (at least, according to footage from one John Oliver show's L&O clip).
I've got a roommate that absolutely loves Law and Order and every so often I see and hear the character Olivia Benson doing things like lying to suspects, this character is an awful person and is a single mom on top of that too, so they can do virtue signaling like Olivia is raising her son so he doesn't become like the sex criminals she chases at work. The problem with this ideology is it pre-supposes that unless Olivia Benson takes direct action, her son is destined to grow up to be a rapist. It's absurd.
This is depressing. Compare this to something like Perry Mason, which started in 1957, a show about a defense attorney who never loses a case. Or Twelve Angry Men, where the entire movie is about one juror trying to convince the others to vote not guilty on a death penalty case and the happy ending is him succeeding.
Or Matlock, maybe. In Twelve Angry Men, the case's results are uncertain and it's not sure whether the defendant was guilty or not, but the point is that there's room for doubt, so you can't disagree with the jury.
@@bearmarco1944I'd argue that regardless of his legal guilt status, the defendant in Twelve Angry Men did nothing wrong
@@amazinggrapes3045 A viewer of the play or the movie never sees the crime, the defendant, or the facts. They only see the jury deliberate. For that reason, they don't know what decision is correct, whether the guy actually did it or not, but they know how the jury came to doubt it.
Whether the unnamed defendant committed the murder or not is unknown, basically.
What about Phoenix Wright--
I've seen the trial penalty in action. The most egregious happened to a friend of mine. They offered him 3 years in prison if he pleads guilty. He took it to trial, lost, and they gave him 22 years.
That’s over 7 times the guilty plea sentence. What the actual fuck?
At what point does your friend, as a human with a brain, say to himself, "Okay, I actually did it, and 3 years for what I literally did is reasonable. Let's just take the punishment for the thing I really did, instead of trying to find a way to avoid consequences."?
Did I miss something? I didn't see any mention of him actually committing the crime.@@B3Band
@@B3Band Why are you assuming their friend actually did it instead of being rail roaded?
@@mizu7662
Hes a bootlicker
Thank you so much for this! I'm a social worker who used to work as a medical advocate for SA survivors. I cannot stand how advocates (the people explaining medical and legal terminology to survivors) are portrayed on L&O just bc part of our job is informing survivors that they don't have to make a police report. We're not obstructing justice, we're informing our client of their rights and supporting them through what's possibly the worst day of their life.
And yet, your sympathy prevents justice from occurring. In this case, you are saying that comforting you client is more important than putting a sexual predator in jail. This is why most SA cases aren't brought because of statute of limitations was reached. No evidence is ever gathered and it becomes he said/she said in which case presumption of innocence prevails. How many sexual predators are on the streets making additional victims because of your sympathy?
@@Turamwddidk how to tell you this but you have to fix the system that involves putting the victim on trial and cops traumatizing victims before you can address any of that. you really think a person whose been SA'd is likely to actually get a predator off the street by reporting it? cute. look up conviction rates and you'll understand why people refuse to report because it just gives the rapist further access to them.
@@Turamwdd "How many sexual predators are on the streets making additional victims because of your sympathy?"
OP mentioned that informing survivors of *their rights* is part of her job. So by sympathy I think you mean "legal and ethical standards of your profession".
Also, what's the alternative? Put pressure on a recent SA survivor to name their attacker? Would you also pressure them to testify in court?
@@Turamwdd Tell me you have no reading comprehension without saying you have no reading comprehension. Dude, what do you expect OP to do, flat out FORCE grape victims to press charges? Newsflash, that's not how it works. Trial = inevitably someone is going to make them relive that horrific experience, and almost certainly be accused by the defense of "asking for it".
THANK YOUUUU for saying don't talk to police. i wish people would learn that the cops CAN and WILL manipulate you into admitting to some sort of crime, whether you committed a crime or not.
Yup.
There's no such thing as an innocent/casual conversation with a LEO.
Not all of them
@@chrisdiokno5600 Okay? Good on the ones that won't, I guess. Doesn't change the fact that the system allows it and the vast majority of police DO take advantage of that.
@@screamingcactus1753 That is true, or at least they are often bullied into compliance by the Blue Wall
If justice were involved, it would be _law and justice_ instead of _law and order._
I've never really been a fan of the Law & Order franchise. There was always this implication that everyone (cops, prosecutors, victims) were 100% right about everything despite their continuous acknowledgement of their mistakes, caveats, differences, etc. Great to see you pulling apart the threads on this franchise.
yes. Even now people have so many misconceptions about the legal system and what the law is
I used to watch it as a teenager, even with my family all the time. Now that i've grown up and learned to think for myself, as an adult homeowner for 17 years, I look back on the time I spent watching that racist, conservative, dog-whistling bigoted garbage and feel deep deep shame.
@@thenightstar8312 it's odd that the problems I spotted with the show back then weren't the ones you outlined, but now those are the most obvious to me. I guess it shows that L&O is just layers upon layers of bad.
@@thenightstar8312 L&O spin off: SVU is very left leaning and still falls for the same problem with regular L&O. Depending on your perspective, this is pretty funny to observe.
I was a fan. About 15+ years ago. The one with Vincent dinophrio turned me off as the idea of a ( borderline?) Violent lunatic as a police detective seemed unreal to me. Then I started watching investigations of bad cops.
"asks for a lawyer and isn't given one"
oh that's accurate
you have to say the magic words- "I am invoking my right to a lawyer". You then have to invoke and follow your right to remain silent. Remember- invoke the right to remain silent. "I am invoking my right to remain silent." You can absolutely invoke the right to a lawyer, then answer a question while waiting for the lawyer to arrive and fuck yourself over. Having a right to remain silent does not include the right to not be asked questions.
It actually does include the right to not be asked questions. Legally the interrogation needs to be stopped immediately, however you can find plenty of cases where that does not matter.
this show tricked me into thinking cooperating would get me out of consequences the second time i was arrested. glad to see more light put on it.
never admit to anything and never talk to cops
Maybe don’t do things that get you arrested, ever consider that?
@@kyleglendinning9414 maybe go fuck yourself, you ever consider that?
@@kyleglendinning9414 hmm i think YT removed my last reply. go find the horizon. you are lower than a dog.
@@kyleglendinning9414lol you're an idiot, you do realize innocent people are arrested on a regular basis right? If you think being a law abiding citizen is a guarantee that you won't be arrested, or even prosecuted for crimes you didn't commit, you don't know much about the legal system.
It's attitudes like yours that make it impossible to get a fair trial in our country, going to a jury trial is putting yourself in front of a bunch of people that are going to assume you are guilty solely because you are in the chair as a defendant.
@@kyleglendinning9414 Remember this comment when you get wrongly arrested and the police charge you with anything and everything.
After being unjustly railroaded by the system at a young age, i came to really hate these shows. They're practically expressly made to give people such a delusional view of the world.
I love the point Olayemi Olurin, Esq made about how frustrating advising white people can be when they find themselves in the position that many many more highly policed populations have found themselves in, seeing an unfair system from the unfair side.
"i love when x guy said racist thing, but its not bad because it's about yts"
@@SeanWinterswhat’s racist? it’s someone talking about their experiences seeing how white people react when put in a situation they, on average, aren’t used to (compared to other people who are more likely to be used to it). the irony comes from the fact that many white people will dismiss those same experiences as made up or not that important… until they experience it themselves. i’m white and you really have to stretch to even think of the word racist here
@@SeanWinterswhat racist thing was said?
This response is a human response when they're ignorant not one based on race. Thats what makes it racist. The implications that create the scenario you're talking about is racist. You're not wrong technically though.
@@MyChannel773what do you say about all the black people that act exactly the same in the same situation?
As a criminal defense attorney, THANK YOU FOR THIS
“Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges.”
-George Carlin
Further Carlin on the concept of ‘rights’ below
I nearly lost it at the "he could have meant he wanted a dog that was a lawyer". I dont know how that could've been taken seriously, like at all.
One of the more frustrating things about people learning most of what they 'know' about the legal system from cop shows is that most of them will pretend otherwise; the fictional worlds copaganda sets up are more real to many people than the actual world they inhabit, and they will aggressively defend their chosen reality over the actual one.
Precisely
Talking about "pesky civil liberties" getting in the way of a guaranteed culprit being found guilty, there is an old episode of Law and Order where one of the cops follows a suspect, puts a gun to his head and orders him to go confess at the nearest police station, or he will be shot.
And once the person recants his confessions later because of absolutely undeniable coercion, everyone just treats this as an annoyance, and I believe the cop in question faces no repercussions for this.
The show was just being realistic.
Not only does the Court keep creating ways where you have to know magic words to invoke your right to an attorney, they KEEP SAYING that *NO* magic words are required to invoke one's right to any attorney. Literally.
Do you mean revoke instead of invoke in the last line?
@@DancingTiger No. Invoke. As in "Effectively ask for an attorney."
There are no magic words other than "I want an attorney" with no qualifiers like "might want" or "I think." It isn't complicated.
@@Turamwdd Actually, no. "I want a lawyer" is expressing a desire, but isn't a request. Seriously.
Same thing for "right to remain silent". Unless you open your mouth and invoke your right to silence, it'll be used against you. The supreme court has OK'd this interpretation too. It means you don't have rights that are inherent. You only have rights if you know the secret code words.
Just to add the plea deal situation is very similar in the UK. If you plead guilty immediately you get 30% off any fines. Which is insane as many folk who get charged won't be able to afford a lawyer and a reduced fine seems like a good deal. But without a lawyer to sort out proper charges from bs ones they get stuck with an inflated or even false criminal record for the unforgivable crime of being poor. And a denied a proper trial.
Do you not get a lawyer for free in the uk? In America you get a public defender, which isn’t that great, but they are still a criminal lawyer and a lot better than nothing
@@jakejanssen4319 you can get one for free if you go to court or when the police interview you. But consultation and plea deal shit costs unless you have under 3 grand in savings.
I think one of the most telling and obvious bits of copaganda in Law & Order is the opening. It says that the people - not victims, the people - are represented by the cops and the prosecutors. At the very start, the show tells the audience not to consider the suspects represented by defense attorneys to be people, so that they are ok with the cops abusing them. It claims that the defense is not serving the interests of "the people."
"In the United states, only one side of the criminal legal system gets treated as working in the public interest" you don't have to speculate as to whether or not Dick Wolf has spread that ideology, the start of every episode literally says only one side represents the people, dehumanizing criminal suspects.
In 2022, I watched all of law in order in 1 go. All of it. By the end i was suicidal, depressed, irritable and so anti-establishment I started working (voluntary unpaid)for the public defender. I cannot stress enough just how disgusting Law and Order is as a series. I cannot stress enough how bad it is as an example of the justice system and frankly if this is the only exposure most people have with what they think of as "the justice system". It's a travesty and the fact that it went on for over 20 years, over multiple franchises is the worst part.
I get the same feeling after learning more about the justice system. The World of Law and Order is only really enjoyable if you know nothing about how the justice system works.
The truth is much worse.
@@kappadarwin9476 Especially SVU, the bizarre plot twists make the whole thing unbelieveable.
I grew up wanting to pursue forensics, but then eventually (and thankfully) became informed on how horrible our “justice” system is. This series and your account are highly appreciated :,) Watching feels like a bridge between my former and current interests.
me too!! I wanted to be a forensic anthropologist until I learned the truth about the justice system, now I'm going to university for social work in the fall :)
Hell yeah, a fellow social worker! Good luck in school!
Same! I wanted to be a forensic pathologist. Instead I just went into nursing.
I still stan Bones.
I'll become a metallurgist.
Its nuts how much asking for a lawyer immediately places suspicion on you. "Oh well if youre innocent than you dont need one." No, you need someome to help you defend that innocence. Remember that the goal of the police is to play these mind games with you and trick you into saying the wrong thing. And as such they can lie as much as they want, regardless of your guilt/innocence.
I was falsely arrested when I was 17, because I was at the wrong place, wrong time, when someone stole a car radio. Police never did their jobs. They've went and dusted the car for fingerprints to know I didn't do it. The old security guard, who was at retirement age, told the cops I did it. Probably because it was past 11 at night, and didn't want to deal with catching the actual thief. Cops, by the way, threw me to the ground, and pointed their guns at me. Remember, this was over a car radio. They have absolutely REFUSED to call my parents. Remember, I was 17. Still a minor. And yes, they didn't read me my Miranda rights.
Oh yeah, my friend was there too. Also got cuffed. And my arresting thug officer actually had the balls to tell me "the jig is up. Your friend told me everything."
First off, who the fuck still says "jig is up" in 2004? LOL Second, my friend told you what? What did I do? Oh yeah, nothing.
Most inconvenient school year ever. Of course, they've eventually found me not guilty. Unfortunately, I still have to expunged the bullshit charge from my record. Not that I'm going to pay their extortion for THEIR fuck up.
At least the best thing I got out of the whole thing was I got a hot lawyer. lol
You didn’t get a private lawyer? You can sue for a good amount, both the security and the cops for your pain and suffering so do it.
My brother got 100 grand after a cop hit him going down the wrong side of the street while intoxicated. They detained him and tried to frame him but it was so obvious that not even the ukrop cop could frame my Russian brother for their late peers screw up.
@@RomanvonUngernSternbergnrmfvuskacap
@@przemekdude ?
Same thing happened to me at 15. I was sneaking to go see my girl friend at the time. It was the weekend, and wasn't too crazy late. Like 11 or something. Cop comes around and starts throwing us around, and searching us, because they were looking for someone else. Thought we were them. Changed the whole trajectory of my life.
In fairness from the perspective of the police, they have a witness who has told them that you did it, you were in the area, and then they did fingerprinting which you say exonerated you. You were taken to court and found not guilty.
From what I'm hearing, it sounds like the system worked out right. And in spite of that, you complain about it not working. The jig is up.
yeah but the guns, handcuffs, force, lying, that's all probably a bit much.
Imagine a scenario where you kidnap someone at gunpoint, lock them in a small room, then threaten them with violence if they don't sign a contract. In no other circumstance would that contract be considered legally binding, but of course plea deals are, because why the hell would the law apply to cops?
Outside of the major crimes stuff, but another reason a lot of stuff doesn't go to trial in regards to civil suits is the sheer cost. When you have a big company suing you for something that you are actually innocent for (this is from experience haha) it costs less in the end to hire a lawyer and get them to make a deal then it would be to pay the lawyer for a drawn out legal battle 9 times out of 10. It's pretty shitty how major companies and super rich people can use the courts as a weapon to get what they want.
slapp suits moment
33:32 When I was little, I used to think that "the right to remain silent" meant that you were not allowed to speak; i.e., I thought that they meant "you have the right to shut up", because of how aggressively I would hear the Maranda Rights said in police show clips. It wasn't until my high school history classes that I learned I was incorrect.
thank you for your fantastic nixon impersonation. made my day. not sure why anyone would want to use AI voices, it could never even come close to the amount of heart and soul you put into that.
He means "heart and jowl," but he ain't know it.
Nothing says "equality before the law" quite like being found innocent by a jury.... Before being forced under threat of jail to pay $1500 USD in court costs.
know all too well about the trial penalty. the AG who prosecuted my husband said as much during trial to the jury. berating my husband for having the "audacity" to want his case to go to trial & how refusing to accept a plea was his thinking that he "knew the law better than police" (which weird) and how his "demanding a trial" is costing the "good people on this jury time away from lives and family" to satisfy the demands of a criminal. Like it was a one day trial that this AG drug out to late in the evening to exhaust the jury by having every single cop go into detail about CI procedures. As if the jury needed to be walked thru every single aspect 4 full times but sure, it was my husband wanting to exercise his constitutional right who was wasting time. not to mention that 3 of those 4 cops admitted what they did was, in fact, entrapment but sure, everything was my husband's fault. and yup, he served more time & we were told flat out that it was because he refused a plea. i expected all this given how our system is but it was still wild to watch it happen irl
Just vile. I'm really sorry.
@@TwoMarshmallows1 thank you
@@jerseyjess7826 💛🖤💚🤎💙💗❤💜
Oh God, the lawyer dog incident makes me so mad every time I'm reminded of it. So disgusting.
In any interaction with police that you did not initiate, you say these words:
Am I free to leave?
If they say yes, you leave, if they say no or don't answer you, you say this:
I invoke my right to counsel.
Then, you shut up until your lawyer arrives.
open scene, smiling uniformed police officer walks up to a cafe counter
police officer: "Good morning! Can I please have a coffee?"
barista: "Am I free to leave?"
police officer: "I mean, I suppose, I mean it's your cafe-"
barista quickly leaves
open second scene, smiling uniformed police officer walks up to a cafe counter
police officer: "Good morning! Can I please have a coffee?"
barista: "Am I free to leave?"
police officer: "Sorry, say again?"
barista: "I invoke my right to counsel."
police officer: "Is this a joke?"
barista: "I plead the fifth."
police officer: "Oh, uh, okay."
police officer goes to the next employee
In practise this advice doesn't work. You can watch cop interaction videos and see how they will happily ignore the question "Am I free to leave", and just hold you in place and badger you with questions while wasting hours of your time.
@@peacemaster8117 Police, by nature, probably ought to answer that question, but you need to understand that the goal of the police is to sniff out information such as that. If someone is free to leave, the police are still suspicious of them and want to extract more information by asking more questions, questions that may seem pointless but which, to the officer, are important enough to be asked. If a police officer wants to get information, what should they do in that scenario?
@@peacemaster8117 If they don't answer "Am I free to leave" you invoke your right to counsel. Courts have consistently held that police refusing to let you leave on request is custody. Once you unequivocally invoke your right to counsel, they cannot ask questions without your attorney present. If they do, you sue for wrongful imprisonment and get paid.
@@geoffreysorkin5774 Not answering whether you are free to leave and refusing your right to leave are not the same. The first doesn't necessarily imply that you aren't free to leave, the officer might not be answering for a number of reasons, such as if it's irrelevant, or if you're trying to avoid something by asking it. They can ask questions as much as they want after you've asked for counsel, it's only specifically after you've told them that you won't answer questions when they must stop.
Wrongful imprisonment suits require that the decision to detain or arrest violates the law, some places require specific intent on the part of the police to engage in wrongdoing for the suit to work. A procedural error, even if what you're describing was one, is not enough for wrongful imprisonment. The advice you've provided will not get anyone rich.
I saw a preview of Law and Order...
"We knoiw he did it, let's go get the evidence!"
That is the OPPOSITE of how it is supposed to work!
You think that's bad, you are really going to hate "The Closer."
it's unambiguous class warfare. when i hear yankees say "the system works" i always feel like i'm going mad
The anger in your voice was so vivid and absolutely justified. Thank you for this video, as well as the entire series. It must be difficult to sit through all of that awful television. Your interviews were so great. It shouldn't be surprising to hear just how awful the 'justice' system is, and yet it shocks me every time. I remember giving up on the original Law and Order series relatively quickly. A lot of it bothered me, even if I couldn't explain why. Mostly, it got very boring, very fast. The formula means the same thing happens in the same way, over and over. I gave up completely when there was way too much airtime devoted to the detailed description of the assault of a disabled girl. It was incredibly creepy. (Full disclosure that a friend and I did watch some of Criminal Intent but purely for Vincent D'Onofrio. I don't remember why we stopped watching, but it was likely because the stories were too depressing.) Thank you again for this series, you're doing great work.
I’ve never seen a picture of Dick Wolf until now but HOLY MOLY he just *looks* pro-cop
36:42 they did this shit to me in high school. both of the school administrators at the time and an on-campus cop quite literally isolated me from anyone who could help and lied to me about how much trouble I would get in for defending myself against an abusive ex when she started trying to slap me around again, because, up to that point, neither my parents nor any of the curriculum at school actually taught ANYTHING about how to keep yourself safe when you're dealing with law enforcement. I only learned a lot by studying on my own and my parents telling me after the fact I had these rights and that this administrator that my family and myself new personally, had very much betrayed me in a way that could have turned me into a very different person than I am today.
I'm sorry that happened to you.
It's disturbing people tell kids to go get cops if they need help.
I've been waiting for this day for literally years. I adore this show for its writing and characters, Jerry Orbach as detective Lennie Brisco is one of the great characters of television.
But goddamn goddamn goddamn is it not the hardest most popular Copaganda. I don't know any family who watches Blue Bloods but I definitely know parents who watch the WE marathons every couple days. Dick Wolf is just a modern Jack Webb, maybe more successful.
BRING IT ON!!!
my favorite detective was cyrus lupo
Oooh, good place to express my pet peeve.
Episode in which a woman who repeatedly begs cops to help her with a nameless stalker who has been calling her and following her and has actually succeeded in physically attacking her a couple times. Brisco and Curtis take her statement, and based on a couple incidents of fuzzy memory and the fact that she only knows yhe guy by a nickname, they decide the woman is self- harming to get attention. They gently advise her to get lost so she won’t wind up prosecuted for false accusations.
In a moment of absolutely chilling, brilliant acting, the woman softly and matter- of- factly says, “He’s going to kill me.” Then she gets up and walks away.
She winds up getting murdered, horribly.
Lennie Briscoe is anguished over the incident, and during an internal review of the situation opines that “We made a mistake. “ He then assumes ( out loud) that Curtis agrees with him.
Curtis doubles down- she was making it up when they talked to her, the subsequent horrible murder was a coincidence (?!) and Van Buren is furious- not at the lack of due diligence that sent a woman to her death, but at Briscoe “ suborning purjury!” by assuming Curtis would agree with him that an obvious mistake was in fact a mistake.
Just…. Holy shit. 😳
Imagine you are watching "Father Brown Mysteries" on the BBC, and in the show he and the other priests refer to altar boys as "teases" and go on and on about how they are "asking for it" and are "always lying" to "ruin the reputations of Godly men." And we'd be getting stories with titles like "The Case of the Lying Altar Boy and the Sacramental Wine" and "The Case of the Residential School Runaway of Thunder Bay." Welp, that's what it feels like to watch cop-shows.
The jowlly “lawlessness” bit sent me 😂😂😂
Got it to remain silent i must speak in a loud, but not yelling voice, in the likeness of a wizard from a fantasy novel, " I invoke my right to remain silent!" when being questioned by the police.
It's about time an anti-law & order series showed how corrupt and rotten the system really is.
Ace Attorney
Apple pie started because apples were very nearly outlawed due to apple jack overconsumption.
Apple growers got together and funded a very successful rebranding campaign. Apple a day keeps the doctor way, American as baseball and Apple Pie, etc...
It's crazy how much last century's marketing influences the food we now see as normal. Did you know kiwifruit are called kiwifruit because of a New Zealand marketing campaign? They were originally known as Chinese Gooseberries.
@@foolishlyfoolhardy6004 apple tarts are from England.
Apple pie was invented and popularized because apple growers needed a use for apples that wasn't apple jack.
You're welcome
@@foolishlyfoolhardy6004 I never said pies were invented in America.
Only that apple pies were invented America.
Maybe try writing a post that doesn't contain sixteen pages of qualifiers next time?
@@foolishlyfoolhardy6004 I said in my first post that apple pies started to become the popular American icon because of apple jack. Please read.
@@foolishlyfoolhardy6004 also, why are all your posts edited now?
Someone ask these judges... what protects them from the police violating their rights other than judge solidarity? Seems cops have gotten authority and protection from consequences of incorrect procedure and abuse. Maybe they'd fathom upholding public rights if they saw themselves part of it.
The last time I had to talk to the police, it was because they'd mistakenly entered my apartment building and thought my apartment was a person in custody's residence. I blankly told them they were in the wrong building. They disagreed. They were also stood 3 feet from the front door that agreed with me.
Couple things, trials are expensive. I've had 2 and the cheaper was an additional 5000 (misdemeanor). The other was an additional 10,000 (felony) that's in addition to the 750-3500 to get to trial in the fist place. In my area if you make more than 17500 ($364 before taxes per week) you can not get a public defender. If you have a case that's beatable but you can't afford to pay you have to pled out.
Just last year I was convicted for obstruction because I said no to a search after I saved a random girl who had overdosed in a target parking lot. I didn't know her, saw her gave her cpr and called 911. When they arrived I went to leave cops stopped me I immediately asked to search I said no they cuffed me. I paid my lawyer 4k trial would have been an additional 3500. I injured my leg and couldn't walk for a year couldn't work for another in Dec of 2019 and had only started working 5 months before... I didn't qualify because if I continued at my job I would be paid more than 17.5k by then end of the year and there fore had the money.
can't stop thinking about that "but the victim's families" bit
I think we need to stop arguing in terms of that old "is it better for 1 innocent person to be puinished..." doctrine and start arguing that for every innocent person convicted of a real crime there's a guilty person roaming free and the supposed justice system is wasting everyone's time instead of going after the criminal
Law & Order just makes me upset with how often they exploit appeal to emotion just to get people to confess.
The opposition to bail reform puzzles me. I live in a country without cash bail, do opponents to bail reform think everyone skips out on their trial?
Unfortunately, there is a strong tendency for opponents of change generally to pretend as if any suggestion is unique and has never been done before in the history of humanity.
Who benefits from cash bail?
Now question where these opponents come from because i can guarantee very few of them actually believe the trash that comes out of their mouth
they've already decided that anyone accused of a crime is guilty, because of the propaganda of shows like this. in their minds, why do you need to have bail when you could just start them in the slavery complex known as the justice system immediately?
You just made me realize I'm living for Skip Intro doing an episode on Pooch the Bounty Hunter. I don't know how he spells his canine name but that show. I don't know a lot about bail so Skip would do a great job educating us via Dog (Dawg??).
This is a great video! I learned a lot from being arrested that I wish I understood beforehand. Most importantly that your right to remain silent starts as soon as the cops show up. DO NOT TALK TO THEM. I lost my job and my place to live in my 43 days of pre-trial detention and I got off lucky compared to a lot of people (even the ones I was locked up with.) My only way out was to plead guilty. When I finally got out I realized that I should never have been convicted because there was a whole counseling program for first time offenders that I was more than qualified for.
That's awful, I'm so sorry that happened. I hope you are happy and well these days.
"I know my rights and I know you won't respect them."
This video reminded me of why I'm afraid of Jack McCoy...
the criminal justice system is disgusting
The worst part about cop shows and copaganda in regards to Miranda rights, I think, is the fact that they managed to make requesting them look like a sign of guilt. Because "only a guilty person would demand to speak with a lawyer" or "why are you pleading the fifth if you've done nothing wrong?"
We've been conditioned to assume that cops are always the good guys who wiuld never try to coerce a confession out of someone who is innocent or twist someone's words in order to incriminate them on something that may be completely unrelated!
The best part is Law and Order SVU does have episodes where an innocent man tries pleading the fifth, only for the cops to coerce them anyway, and if it wasn't for their defence lawyer (who is regarded badly) they'd have gone to prison while the real culprit would still be free. Of course the fact the cops detained then assaulted an innocent man is ignored, and the cops act like the guy is being unreasonable when they assume he's a predator.
I have started working as a legal secretary/paralegal at my county's Prosecutor's Office, a job I was very hesitant to take because I hate our elected prosecutor and think the legal system is rotten. However, it was better than continuing in a severely understaffed, underpaid, abusive newsroom. Plus, the County has one of very few Unions in the area, and no other department was hiring that I could say I had the skills for or which paid enough to make rent. So. I accepted.
I already knew this from working in news, but because of the demographics here, almost all of crimes committed and arrests made in the area involve white people. Now, I work solely in misdemeanors, but this has bourne true at the Prosecutor's Office. I think I have seen maybe four Black and two Hispanic defendants in the four months and hundreds of cases I've handled. Despite this, it's astonishing how the public perception here is that crime is committed by people of colour and migrants. The average defendant is either 18 to 25-year-old white dude or a 60 to 75-year-old white dude, with very little deviation. And I mean, the city is 82% white, so that makes sense. But like... The mental gymnastics people here do to pretend the vast majority of crime is done by white dudes here is bananas.
But I can verify it is very rare, at least with misdemeanors, for anything ro go to trial. We have a ton of cases either dismissed outright or put into SOC (stipulated order if continuance).
A lot of the cases I see are so asinine, I don't mind if they're dismissed. What does concern me is the sheer volume of repeat DUI offenders who consistently get pleas down to negligent ir reckless driving. Stop. Doing that. We're talking BAC levels at .2, some with property collisions. If there's one thing you should definitely not let slide, it is repeated driving while intoxicated charges. Omg. Having worked in news, I have seen some gnarly DUI crashes, including fatal ones. Holy shit, stop letting them drive off into the sunset after slapping their wrists.
That being said, a lot of the charges are stupid, and I am not surprised to see the case file in my close pile after arraignment. And then I read cases with 60 officers in a SWAT response over a stolen lawn ornament and lament about how poorly we allocate our resources. C'mon guys ... Really?
I hope to one day transfer, but they love me over at the Public Defenders office because I took note of the incredibly inconsistent communication between the offices, particularly around discovery, and made it my personal mission to be as prompt and clear as possible. Their paralegal and I get on well, to the point she sometimes sends questions from DV or felony cases my way for help, and that's so flattering. My prosecutor tells me a lot of the private attorneys have asked about me too. I get the impression there's usually a bit of resistance or lack of mutual respect between prosecutor and defense. Personally, I don't care either way. I believe strictly in finding and sharing evidence as it is, no matter which side benefits, because that is the closest I can come to fairness. Like, one of our police reports mentioned a guy stole from a store for some amount, but never gave the value or what was taken. It was mayo, tomatoes, and a pack of hotdogs for less than $20, and the man, a senior, had no criminal history. So I nade sure to track down the photo of the totalled receipt and print it to attach for the attorneys, because that's important context. $18 of stolen food us way different than stealing a $60 video game, you know? And it was shady the officer left that out, almost bending backwards to avoid mentioning it.
So, I dunno, I don't think I am cut out for law. But as long as I am gere, I'm going to remain committed to by sense of fairness and ethics. It seems to annoy the prosecutors a bit, but I am willing to work just as hard to get evidence if benefit to them if it exists, because the point isn't to always be right, or to assume every defendant deserves to be crucified, or to exonerate them all. The point is a fair examination of the facts and, hopefully, proportional repercussions. I can't really control the latter, but I can do my best to help ensure the former. And maybe one day, a job will open up in Parks or something, and I can bounce.
51:07 so we’re supposed to see cops as these highly capable and intelligent beings but there’s a ruling that says they’re too stupid to know when someone is calling them something like dog or bro or my dude?
Part 1 10:10 Law, Order, and Dicks
Part 2 22:40 Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Part 3 34:32 The Right to Remain Arrested
Part 4 1:08:18 I Want to Speak to a Manager
Just a quick note on the overlapping lead and crime rate data. Well before the overlap was noticed there was already a wealth of research establishing a strong correlation berween adolescent lead exposure and later criminality. In particular, the likelihood of participation in violent crime is disproportionately increased by a very similar marging to the one seen in the disproportionate rate of increase in violent crimes that came with the broader crime wave
A cop once firectly violated my constitutional rights, and the judge said it was okay because the cop was nice about it. No, I'm not exaggerating or being hyperbolic. Yes my lawyer was a public attorney who worked at the courthouse, with the same people as the prosecutors every day. That is a major conflict of interest baked right into the system right there.
Just regarding that whole 'plea deal' thing; here in New Zealand, the mere concept of a plea deal would be considered a disgusting miscarriage of justice. Justice is supposed to be about finding the truth, and then encouraging good behaviour and discouraging bad behaviour. There should be no chance of negotiation at any stage in the process.
I unironically would leave a date if I found out my date was a cop.
Maybe wait until the date is over and find an unrelated excuse. 40% and all.
@@somedragonbastard very true. Good looking out. Ideally I would already know my date’s occupation and weeded out the cops. Can never be too safe
10:33 I believe light beer descends from Enlisted bars serving watered down beer to soldiers, sailors and marines. Some of the guys developed a taste for it, company saw a way to make money without having to radically change their current equipment, zip zam bap bam.
Phenomenal job on this video!! I have been a public defender for my whole career and you hit the nail on the head. Thank you so much for bringing attention to such an important topic and I love your channel!!
As someone who is trying to get into the law field, this show is terrifying
FINALLY someone says it. The system is broken through and through and this doesn't benefit any of us. Regardless of skin color.
I remember being part of a criminal justice class in high school, with an ex-cop. I remember I fought him so fucking hard on so much shit, because some of the stuff he presented us was reprehensible on a moral level. He was particularly proud of the fact that cops are able to lie to get confessions. It was like he was admitting the darkest side of the police system to us.
Already watched on Nebula, but you make so many good points that I need a second watch to properly digest!
Have been loving the serie, thank you for your fantastic work!
"Whatever Ice-T's character is named."
Whaddya mean "character"? Wait, you're telling me Law & Order isn't just a documentary about Ice-T's life as a cop?
Y'know, I heard a theory that the infamous brutality of Rome was caused by their lead water pipes. I'm beginning to think Humanity's Greatest Enemy is lead poisoning.
calling a character a psychopath because you find their behaviour unpalatable is out of line. people with personality disorders have a hard enough time without being stigmatized like that
don't even get my started on all the "jokes" about schizos and how people with schizophrenia are treated like subhuman trash.
we can just argue against armchair diagnoses, medicalization of everything, and ignorant and imprecise speech. making the "poor psychopaths" angle doesn't make it any more compelling. everyone has some illness misunderstood by the general public and with terms misused in lay conversation. people with personality disorders share their hard times with everyone else, so they're not evading stigma any time soon.
The whole Miranda rights shit is why sov cits exist. Its not that big of a stretch from 'you have to say these exact words to be treated like a human by cops' to 'if you say these exact words, the cops legally have to leave you alone'
As someone who loves the early seasons of L&O and even Criminal Intent, I hope they end their legacy at 25/23. They have become repetitive with their betrayal of victims and criminals and shifting some their cops & DAs into sainted figures. Mariska’s character has been captain for almost as long as Craigen, but I’ve never seen Craigen be THIS MUCH involved in investigations. Also her bias among certain victims become blatantly shown at this point. As well as Carisi acts like the police even though he’s a DA now.
I say this as a fan, it’s hard to ignore a lot of the flaws for characters we are supposed to root for.
Tbf Jack was always bad but he was also very obviously an audience insert character. When conservatism was en vogue he was a conservative and when what Americans would call liberalism was on the agenda then he was a liberal. He was always what the audience needed him to be and his only consistent characteristic was that he was rash and kind of didn’t actually give a fuck about the law. He was more of a principles man. That and he was on the down low a ladies man who slept with his assistants.
So TL;DR he was very obviously a tv character who changed a lot as the show went on.
I actually preferred Cutter as the executive ADA as while he was just as rash he was much more ridged about the law as he was a law nerd and *hated* losing. It was more interesting to see a character argue the points of law for the audience.
Fun fact, Dick Wolf is now a billionaire.
I HEAVILY recommend the 5-4 podcast that Rhiannon is on if you're a fan of this channel. As just a random lefty with an interest in politics, the show is incredibly eye-opening about what "the law" actually is in practice (spoiler: it's not great). Also they are all extremely compassionate people.
I think intuitively I always assumed that the hatred of Lawyers in the general cultural zeitgeist was in someway tied to a hatred of the legal system itself, but I'm realizing that's wishful thinking on my part. Because regardless if its a murder trial or a petty dispute, Lawyers are portrayed as people who lie for clients in order to profit, forfeiters of the objective and subjective truth... but that would also imply that all defense attorneys in criminal trails are ALSO lying for their client, and I'm realizing that its shows like Law and Order that reinforce that belief in spite of the fact that people are assumed innocent until proven guilty and that being provided a representation is a right. For some reason we vilify defense attorneys because of this flawed logic of "well when they are defending someone who is guilty, they're still vouching for a criminal" and... YEAH, that's the point. Trials determine culpability AND severity... how are we going to vilify the BIGGEST check and balance thats meant to protect YOU should you end up in the hot seat, or ensure that petty crimes don't get disproportionate sentencing? You can only achieve a fair trial, and explore all possibilities, if both sides are vouching for their parties in the best reasonable faith, utilizing only the facts of the case.
I'm realizing that this is exactly why I love the Ace Attorney series despite its world, legal procedure, and scenarios being... so damn wild...
PART 1?!?!?! BUT I WANT IT NOW!!!!
Veruca, sweetheart, Daddy's trying.
😂😉
Why can't you deliver a single point without a tacky joke?
This is a serious topic. A systemic problem, and rather than give it due gravity, you over punctuate your sentences with cringeworthy attempts at humor.
If *you* won't take this topic seriously, why would anybody?
As a Criminal Justice major, I always remember in 1 of my first classes a professor explaining that if there was a 💊 that we could give people that knowlonger made them committ violent crimes, either it would be destroyed/ simple things like jaywalking would be given 20 years. Why 90% of society either works in/ is somehow connected to the criminal justice ⚖ system in some form or fashion.
Noted and filed: when confronted with cops, say clearly and loudly, preferably into a camera or microphone, "I AM INVOKING MY RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND ASKING FOR A LAWYER", possibly several times and in varying tones and volumes.