Easy & convenient way to get out of handcuffs

[vector40]

Thanks, hza.

[mark55]

The buckle key is a neat idea, but it would have to be mounted on a boot, as belts and laced boots are confiscated in custody !
(redefines getting caught with your pants down ?)

[uklocksmith]

some of the boys in blue over here use cuffs with tubular keys and a knee between the shoulders while face down so thinkin about bulldog clips is usually the last thing on your mind.

[raimundo]

legally if you are not free to leave and go about your own business, you have actually been arrested no matter what lies they tell you about "custody" At this time you have the obligation to refer all questions to your lawyer. If you give up your rights, you are part of the erosion of those rights and a transfer of power to the state. Be as prepared to waste their time as they are to do the same to you. Also your right to chose not to speak to them is a priori, you do not have to be under arrest to invoke it.

[jamo]

Over hear (england) when u are arrested ure hands are cuffed so the backs of your hands are togeher so ure palms face in opposite directions this means it is nigh on impossible to pick the cuffs although u can do it with a safety pin (i have done many times as my cousin is a copper) also arrests are quite rough usually ending up with being slammed to the ground under about 8 fat coppers then the cuffs are put on very tight so u lose circulation very quickly. Id like to see anyone get out of the cuffs after this treatment

[capt.dunc]

i don't think i've ever seen a bulldog clip small enough to make a makeshift key for smith and weston cuffs, only for cheaper "novelty" cuffs, i'm not sure which police force uses them, but the fur trim looks like it'll keep your wrists warm if you're arrested durring winter.

[NKT]

capt.dunc

Well, in the UK, "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."!

This is, in my opinion, coersion by the state (or at least the police). It says that you should start talking without representation, right now, and what you say counts, but if you forget something or make an error, then you are stuffed. So you had better say something - which may incriminate you, especially if the policeman is being smart with you, or telling you the not-quite-absolute truth.

Not seen anyone using the fluffy cuffs for police work recently... Perhaps try the vice squad?

[vector40]

Here's the US Miranda warning: http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html

[MrB]

Uh, NKT, I don't think you have it quite right. The caution starts to apply from the time when you are arrested, and continues thereafter.

So unless you know exactly what to say, you are quite entitled to insist on saying nothing until you have legal representation, and to insist on your right to legal representation before answering any questions. That's the bit they won't tell you of course, and they will hope that you don't know enough to insist on it.

[Mad Mick]

Unfortunately, the assumption these days is that you are guilty until you are proven guilty, then you are guilty all over again! This applies whether you are caught inside the Bank of England vault, or you sat on a park bench licking an ice-cream 'provocatively'.

*MENTAL NOTE - STAY AWAY FROM THE MR WHIPPY VAN!*

[NKT]

MrB, it is hard to say. The implication of the caution is that if you fail to say anything *there and then* you might find that silence used against you later.

From looking at the use of the caution in interviews, at the time of arrest, and where it isn't actually the police giving the caution (for instance, an interview with a Local Education Officer or Trading Standards - see the top two entries on Google.com for "pace caution uk"), it does mean with immediate effect.

Mad Mick, I assume you are referring to the removal of the "Double Jeopardy" rules? This rather unfair rule means you can be found not guilty by the full force of the law, and then get tried for the offence again later on! If the entire legal system, the thousands of police and man-hours, millions of pounds of legal advice and forensics, etc. available cannot find you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then I don't think it fair to leave that doubt in the aquitted's mind that they might get hauled up again, six months down the line.

The UK is heading towards a police state, and most of the guards against it have been removed in the name of "efficiency", "modernisation" and "for the children/stop the terrorists". But just like a saw without a hand guard, although it is faster to use and cheaper, it gets more dangerous every time you remove another protective measure.

[Heliox]

Actually, I believe that the loss of the double jeoprady law means, more succinctly, that they can try you until they get a convinction. I'll remind you that the reason it's a US law, was because England thought it was ok to do the same thing to its citizens in America in the 1700s. The more things change...

[NKT]

I wasn't aware of that... Thanks, it's a useful thing to know.

You put it both succinctly and correctly. Nice one.

[Elijah]

I think it is a good choice to remove the double-jeopardy law in cases where the suspect is found innocent. In many cases, there is extremely important evidence that may not be found or processed at the time of the first trial. Imagine you're found innocent of murder, then a month later the police find the victims corpse buried in your backyard along with the murder weapon which has your fingerprints ALL over it. I believe the police have every right to try you again in a court of law, and so does our government. Just so long as they are approaching the case with new evidence, you can be retried at any time until you are found guilty. After you're found guilty, you may never be tried for the crime again.

Thus was born the movie "Double Jeopardy." A man is convicted of murdering his wife, when in fact he is innocent. After getting out of jail, he hunts down his wife in order to REALLY kill her. He cannot be punished for doing so, because he has already been punished for it.

[raimundo]

elijahs wrong, if he hunts down and kills her that is a new crime even if the previous one didn't happen. And evidence can be and is planted, its one of the common things that happen, look up the houston crime lab and read all about it, or was it the FBI crime lab and the whitehurst whistleblower case, or the oklahoma crime lab and joyce gilchrists testilying. its done all over. never think that being innocent means they won't convict you, they are in the conviction business, and sometimes they convict the innocent to cover for the guilty, look at the stories of people convicted to cover for whitey bolger. fingerprints that are 'lifted' can be placed anywhere, if you are ever on a jury, remember that a finger print is not the same as a bloody fingerprint, the second is far more probative, a fingerprint cannot be time and datestamped, and the FBI actually arrested a lawyer in oregon because they said his fingerprints were on the bomb on that madrid train, they weren't and the spanish police told them so, but the FBI had another agenda, fear and repression and they didn't listen to the spanish police. They convict the person the bureaucracy has been accusing throught the news plants or now that we have a president who likes subliminal propaganda, the news is actually produced by the government and presented as real news. Be very careful about the authorities, there are a lot of "john bolton" types there.