Pacers refuse to cooperate with police

s_knight8 wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
>
> DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement officials in
> Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of the
> investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at the
> Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
>
> The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight, said
> Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would "assist
> with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any Pacers
> players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
>
> "That's bewildering to us," said an Auburn Hills police spokesman, Lt. James
> Manning. "They say they will help. On the other hand, the one thing we've
> asked them for, they can't do."
>
> A Pacers spokesman, David Benner, said Monday, "This is a legal matter, and
> we have no comment."
>
>

Common sense. When the cops start asking questions, let
your lawyer do the talking. I've seen alot of clients go to
jail because they thought they were smart enough to talk to
the cops but weren't even smart enough to take their
lawyer's advice.

Johnny <Never lie to the cops; if they ask you an
incriminating question, just shut up."
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

"PeterL" <peterl DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:313nosF2tcafrU1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:coi3jj$2up@dispatch.concentric.net...
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
>>
>> DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement officials
> in
>> Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of the
>> investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at the
>> Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
>>
>> The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight,
>> said
>> Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would "assist
>> with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any
> Pacers
>> players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
>>
>
> How would they not provide the players for interviews? Two detectives
> show
> up in the parking lot right next to the players' cars. As each player
> shows
> up they are invited downtown for an interview. They either cooperate or
> are
> handcuffed and taken in the police car as material witnesses.

Uh, maybe 'cause multi-millionaires aren't anything like "us"?

Jeff

>
>> "That's bewildering to us," said an Auburn Hills police spokesman, Lt.
> James
>> Manning. "They say they will help. On the other hand, the one thing we've
>> asked them for, they can't do."
>>
>> A Pacers spokesman, David Benner, said Monday, "This is a legal matter,
> and
>> we have no comment."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

"bk49" <jeffmayner.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pLednWVZFPBANzHcRVn-2w@giganews.com...
>
> "PeterL" <peterl.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:313nosF2tcafrU1@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:coi3jj$2up@dispatch.concentric.net...
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
>>>
>>> DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement
>>> officials
>> in
>>> Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of
>>> the
>>> investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at the
>>> Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
>>>
>>> The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight,
>>> said
>>> Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would "assist
>>> with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any
>> Pacers
>>> players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
>>>
>>
>> How would they not provide the players for interviews? Two detectives
>> show
>> up in the parking lot right next to the players' cars. As each player
>> shows
>> up they are invited downtown for an interview. They either cooperate or
>> are
>> handcuffed and taken in the police car as material witnesses.
>
> Uh, maybe 'cause multi-millionaires aren't anything like "us"?
>
> Jeff

jeff and peter, let me introduce you to a little document called the US
constitution. specficially the fifth amendment thereof. check the "witness
against himself" part. ;-)

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual
service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for
the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

humbubba.DeleteThis@smart.net
>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
>
>DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement officials in
>Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of the
>investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at the
>Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
>
>The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight, said
>Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would "assist
>with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any Pacers
>players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
>
>"That's bewildering to us," said an Auburn Hills police spokesman, Lt. James
>Manning. "They say they will help. On the other hand, the one thing we've
>asked them for, they can't do."
>
>A Pacers spokesman, David Benner, said Monday, "This is a legal matter, and
>we have no comment."

Have they interviewed Ben Wallace yet? Has he had his steroids test yet?

Is it possible to hold a sporting event in Detroit Michigan?


--

Rick (Richard Allen) Hohensee
write-in candidate, President of the United States of America
platform ftp://linux01.gwdg.de/pub/cLIeNUX/interim/platform2
personal webpage http://linux01.gwdg.de/~rhohen
active in Usenet alt.politics colorg on IRC
humbubba.DeleteThis@smart.net Maryland, USA
Ground troops out of Iraq Put the CIA under INS Save Darfur
Semi-legalize drugs Prosecute Bush Tighten the borders
Isolate Israel Tax churches halve military aquisitions
government jobs for Iraq-wounded soldiers and 9-11 survivors
please email my platform to friends, blogs and countrymen
-------------------------------------------------------------
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

On 30 Nov 2004 10:28:51 EST, "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam.RemoveThis@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
>
>DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement officials in
>Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of the
>investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at the
>Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
>
>The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight, said
>Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would "assist
>with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any Pacers
>players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
>
>"That's bewildering to us," said an Auburn Hills police spokesman, Lt. James
>Manning. "They say they will help. On the other hand, the one thing we've
>asked them for, they can't do."
>
>A Pacers spokesman, David Benner, said Monday, "This is a legal matter, and
>we have no comment."
>

And no clue either.
You have everything that happened on tape and seen by millions by now,
why would you investigate further?
Go after the person who threw the cup on Artest and the one who threw
the chair, and whoever entered the court charging at players.
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

In article <coi3jj$2up@dispatch.concentric.net>,
"s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
>
> DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement officials in
> Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of the
> investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at the
> Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
>
> The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight, said
> Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would "assist
> with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any Pacers
> players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.


The first paragraph doesn't necessarily follow from the remarks
quoted in the second paragraph. I don't know why anyone should think
that the team should play a role in producing the players for interviews
with the police. If the police want to question a witness (or a
suspect), they can (try to) do so without using any intermediaries.
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

"Gary S. Simon" <garscosi.RemoveThis@thisisatypo.pipeline.com> wrote in message
news:garscosi-571003.12445530112004@news1.east.earthlink.net...
> In article <coi3jj$2up@dispatch.concentric.net>,
> "s_knight8" <s_knight8nospam.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
> >
> > DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement
officials in
> > Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of
the
> > investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at the
> > Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
> >
> > The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight,
said
> > Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would "assist
> > with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any
Pacers
> > players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
>
>
> The first paragraph doesn't necessarily follow from the remarks
> quoted in the second paragraph. I don't know why anyone should think
> that the team should play a role in producing the players for interviews
> with the police. If the police want to question a witness (or a
> suspect), they can (try to) do so without using any intermediaries.

I think the police were just trying to make things easy on everyone. The
Pacers were quite smart to stay out of it: they will eventually be party to
the law suits that this fight engendered.
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

In article <313nosF2tcafrU1.DeleteThis@uni-berlin.de>,
"PeterL" <peterl.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

> How would they not provide the players for interviews? Two detectives show
> up in the parking lot right next to the players' cars. As each player shows
> up they are invited downtown for an interview. They either cooperate or are
> handcuffed and taken in the police car as material witnesses.


They'd have to wait until the next game in Detroit. "Downtown"
in this case is Auburn Hills.

Unfortunately, if the Pacers players's attorneys just stonewall
they'll probably swear out warrants. The police would have little
other choice.
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

Granville Waiters' Ghost wrote:

> In article <313nosF2tcafrU1.RemoveThis@uni-berlin.de>,
> "PeterL" <peterl.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>How would they not provide the players for interviews? Two detectives show
>>up in the parking lot right next to the players' cars. As each player shows
>>up they are invited downtown for an interview. They either cooperate or are
>>handcuffed and taken in the police car as material witnesses.
>
>
>
> They'd have to wait until the next game in Detroit. "Downtown"
> in this case is Auburn Hills.
>
> Unfortunately, if the Pacers players's attorneys just stonewall
> they'll probably swear out warrants. The police would have little
> other choice.

The stone wall you are talking about is the 5th Amendment's
protection against compelled self-incrimination. When cops
want to question people in connection with a criminal
investigation, the cops are not their friends, whether
people think they are suspects or not. No lawyer worth his
law degree lets a client talk to the police in a criminal
matter unless he is present and certain ground rules are
clearly understood and closely followed. The best advice a
lawyer can give his client in a criminal matter is, "Do not
say anything about this matter to anybody, and that means
everybody, unless I say it's ok and tell you what to say."

Most criminals and too many innocents are convicted out of
their own mouths, and cops will tell you that it's their
best and favorite tool. A freedom-loving society's interest
in the lives, liberty, and property of it's people places
the highest of burdens on government at every stage of a
criminal matter before it can lawfully deprive any person of
any of those. And the investigative stage is most often the
most crucial for both sides.

Johnny <=has worked both sides of that street: D.A.'s
Office, 1975-1978, and private criminal defense practice off
and on, 1978-1987. Between that and that damned Family Law,
I retired early before my nerves were completely shot and my
emotions stripped bare. LOL

P.S. Personal Injury law is more lucrative, but I couldn't
bring myself to chase ambulances - Sirens give me the
jitters; early memories of my happily misspent youth give me
the feeling that it's the cops coming for me. :-)
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:32:17 -0800, Johnny <apterix.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:

>s_knight8 wrote:
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
>>
>> DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement officials in
>> Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of the
>> investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at the
>> Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
>>
>> The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight, said
>> Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would "assist
>> with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any Pacers
>> players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
>>
>> "That's bewildering to us," said an Auburn Hills police spokesman, Lt. James
>> Manning. "They say they will help. On the other hand, the one thing we've
>> asked them for, they can't do."
>>
>> A Pacers spokesman, David Benner, said Monday, "This is a legal matter, and
>> we have no comment."
>
>Common sense. When the cops start asking questions, let
>your lawyer do the talking. I've seen alot of clients go to
>jail because they thought they were smart enough to talk to
>the cops but weren't even smart enough to take their
>lawyer's advice.
>
>Johnny <Never lie to the cops; if they ask you an
>incriminating question, just shut up."

So did those clients commit a crime that they deserved to go to jail
for, or were they jailed unfairly? Would it have been better if they
said nothing and were let go?

I'm a firm believer in the rights of defendants and witnesses. Still,
I don't recall the specific amendment that gives everyone a
constitutional right to "get away with it".

Swyck
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

Swyck.DeleteThis@nospam.com wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:32:17 -0800, Johnny <apterix.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>s_knight8 wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/30/sports/basketball/30nba.html
>>>
>>>DETROIT, Nov. 29 - The Indiana Pacers have told law enforcement officials in
>>>Michigan that Pacers players will not submit to interviews as part of the
>>>investigation into the brawl that injured nine fans during a game at the
>>>Palace of Auburn Hills on Nov. 19.
>>>
>>>The Auburn Hills Police Department, which is investigating the fight, said
>>>Monday that Pacers officials told the department that they would "assist
>>>with the investigation as much as possible" but would not provide any Pacers
>>>players for Auburn Hills detectives to interview.
>>>
>>>"That's bewildering to us," said an Auburn Hills police spokesman, Lt. James
>>>Manning. "They say they will help. On the other hand, the one thing we've
>>>asked them for, they can't do."
>>>
>>>A Pacers spokesman, David Benner, said Monday, "This is a legal matter, and
>>>we have no comment."
>>
>>Common sense. When the cops start asking questions, let
>>your lawyer do the talking. I've seen alot of clients go to
>>jail because they thought they were smart enough to talk to
>>the cops but weren't even smart enough to take their
>>lawyer's advice.
>>
>>Johnny <Never lie to the cops; if they ask you an
>>incriminating question, just shut up."
>
>
> So did those clients commit a crime that they deserved to go to jail
> for, or were they jailed unfairly?

The guilt or innocence of a client is not an issue to a
defense lawyer in the performance of his professional duty.
Attorneys are ethically obligated by the Code of
Professional Responsibility to give every client the best
possible representation within the bounds of the law. A
criminal defense attorney must present every defense
available, including, and especially, the assertion of
Constitutional rights designed to ensure that prosecutions
are conducted fairly.

>Would it have been better if they
> said nothing and were let go?
>

It is a fundamental precept of the American justice system
that in the interests of curbing potential abuses of power
by the government it is better to risk that a guilty man go
free than that an innocent man be punished or unjustly
deprived of his life, liberty, or property at any stage of
the proceedings. This meritorious principle is given
substance by the heavy burdens placed on the prosecution at
every stage of a criminal proceeding. Among these burdens
are the various procedural and substantive safeguards of the
4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments.

The direct answer to your question is that it would be
better for the accused and for the principle of justice
protecting the innocent stated above if they said nothing
whether they were let go or not, better for the cops if they
could be forced to spill their guts and rat out all their
friends.

> I'm a firm believer in the rights of defendants and witnesses. Still,
> I don't recall the specific amendment that gives everyone a
> constitutional right to "get away with it".
>
> Swyck

Give me a break, you know better than that; but in case you
don't, I'll try to clear up your implication by adding to
what I said above: Constitutional rights are not intended
to allow criminals to "get away with it." Their purpose is
to protect the fundamental rights, freedoms, immunities, and
privileges (what we call Liberty with a capital L) of a free
people from encroachment by government. They do not give
criminals a Constitutional right to get away with anything;
they deny the government the right to get away with
practices a free people consider unfair, unjust, and just
plain tyrannical. It is not Constitutional rights which
allow the factually guilty in a particular case to go free,
it is the abuse of those rights by the government.

Anyway, the tenor, tone, and implication of your closing
sentence resembles the sarcasm of one who is not only less
than well-read in Constitutional Law, but is also
dissatisfied with the present balance of burdens between the
government and the accused as established by Constitutional
Law. That is a political question, my only interest in this
thread is an accused's right to assert his Constitutional
rights as part of his defense, not to argue the political
wisdom of the prevailing application those rights or and
accused's right to assert them. One who is a knowledgeable
firm believer in the rights of defendants and witnesses as
presently established would not stoop to such a specious and
somewhat sneering implication.

BTW: The word "still" is a signal that the statement which
follows it contradicts or is otherwise not in accord with
the preceding statement, and in this case you used it
correctly. :-)

Johnny <"Just give me that rubber hose and a half hour
alone with this goon, Chief, and I'll have him singing like
a Canary and ratting out his own Mother.">
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

In article <N_4rd.187884$hj.100409@fed1read07>,
Johnny <apterix.RemoveThis@cox.net> wrote:

> Johnny <=has worked both sides of that street: D.A.'s
> Office, 1975-1978, and private criminal defense practice off
> and on, 1978-1987.



A fellow member of the tribe. Or species. ;-)
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police 

"Johnny" <apterix DeleteThis @cox.net> wrote in message
news:N_4rd.187884$hj.100409@fed1read07...
> Granville Waiters' Ghost wrote:
>
>> In article <313nosF2tcafrU1 DeleteThis @uni-berlin.de>,
>> "PeterL" <peterl DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How would they not provide the players for interviews? Two detectives
>>>show
>>>up in the parking lot right next to the players' cars. As each player
>>>shows
>>>up they are invited downtown for an interview. They either cooperate or
>>>are
>>>handcuffed and taken in the police car as material witnesses.
>>
>>
>>
>> They'd have to wait until the next game in Detroit. "Downtown"
>> in this case is Auburn Hills.
>>
>> Unfortunately, if the Pacers players's attorneys just stonewall they'll
>> probably swear out warrants. The police would have little
>> other choice.
>
> The stone wall you are talking about is the 5th Amendment's protection
> against compelled self-incrimination. When cops want to question people
> in connection with a criminal investigation, the cops are not their
> friends, whether people think they are suspects or not. No lawyer worth
> his law degree lets a client talk to the police in a criminal matter
> unless he is present and certain ground rules are clearly understood and
> closely followed. The best advice a lawyer can give his client in a
> criminal matter is, "Do not say anything about this matter to anybody, and
> that means everybody, unless I say it's ok and tell you what to say."
>
> Most criminals and too many innocents are convicted out of their own
> mouths, and cops will tell you that it's their best and favorite tool. A
> freedom-loving society's interest in the lives, liberty, and property of
> it's people places the highest of burdens on government at every stage of
> a criminal matter before it can lawfully deprive any person of any of
> those. And the investigative stage is most often the most crucial for
> both sides.
>
> Johnny <=has worked both sides of that street: D.A.'s Office,
> 1975-1978, and private criminal defense practice off and on, 1978-1987.
> Between that and that damned Family Law, I retired early before my nerves
> were completely shot and my emotions stripped bare. LOL
>
> P.S. Personal Injury law is more lucrative, but I couldn't bring myself
> to chase ambulances - Sirens give me the jitters; early memories of my
> happily misspent youth give me the feeling that it's the cops coming for
> me. :-)
>

kind of strange to say you don't want to incriminate yourself before anyone
has asked a question. just kidding, it's the obvious thing to do.
fortunately for the police, the players in question have already provided a
lot of evidence to the camera.

dave
 >> Stay informed about: Pacers refuse to cooperate with police