District Attorney JosephJubal Early validated both the interrogation and the arrest.

Does that sound right to you?

iheartscotch: She probably didn't know or understand that she could leave if she wasn't under arrest.

But attempting to leave gives the cops reasonable suspicion to place the person under arrest. If they argue that they have the right to leave, the cops just tack on "resisting arrest".

"Rights" are just a fairy tale the politicians keep repeating to blind us to the fact that we live in a police state.

iheartscotch: False statements aren't what bothers me; she either wasn't properly explained her rights or she didn't understand her rights. She probably didn't know or understand that she could leave if she wasn't under arrest.

Understanding your rights is meaningless if you don't exercise them anyway. A lot of people even if they know their rights will still stick around to cooperate or think they can talk their way out of it, or are just plain too scared to exercise their rights. After all, the cops are our friends right? The problem isn't explaining/understanding your rights, the problem is the cops/detectives that are allowed to lie, threaten, bully, or intimidate their way to any convenient confession they can get so they can get a pat on the back, a job well done, and move on to the next one.

iheartscotch: I agree, you have to exercise your rights. I'm wondering how they got away with questioning a 16 year-old without a parent present. Maybe that differs state to state.

According to the article, the interrogator wasn't "properly trained" so that he didn't realize that she was a "juvenile."

And, I'm sorry, but if you don't realize that anyone under the age of 18 constitutes a "juvenile" under our legal system (with or without proper training), YOU AREN'T SMART ENOUGH TO BE A COP.

Wayne 985: Wow... I'm all for police bluffing to trick a guilty suspect, but this went into crazy territory. No evidence that a crime had even been committed? Holding her family ransom with threats and promises directed at them?

Or, as it is known in many police departments, "Tuesday."

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Not all cops are bad.

It's totally unfair to let four or five hundred thousand bad apples spoil the whole barrel.

And the conclusion the cops will come to? Always lose the tape of a confession.

I especially like the apparent implication of the headline here: that the plaintiff ought not be compensated for being tortured and falsely imprisoned because it will cost an insurance company money.

There are too many cases like this, or corrupt judges or prosecuters withholding evidence, etc. They should be punished severely. If they were held accountable this sh*t would decrease real quick.