Riveting and tense
Watched this tonight. Sydney Sweeney is fantastic in this riveting and tense true story. 8/10 is my rating.
shareI'd give it a 10 or a TOP RATING due to the way that she seems innocent at first, until they TRICK her into confessing (by being friendly with her and discussing her CROSSFIT training, DOGS, etc. as a way to get her to let her guard down instead of reminding her of her of her right to remain silent).
So why don't these FBI guys also need to remind her of her rights not to incriminate herself the same way as any other cop with a warrant needs to do???
And WHY is the RUSSIAN interference with the 2016 election and how they acquired our voter registration information also supposed to be a SECRET from the rest of us???
Stuffing the document into her PANTY HOSE as a way to SNEEK it out also reminds one of what OLIVER NORTH's secretary did during the other big SCANDAL. But for some reason that woman and her former boss never served any time in jail.
π€
It is perfectly legal for law enforcement to trick suspects or lie to them (they can even say they are Men in Black and deny your access to lawyers or say something like if you did not do anything wrong why need a lawyer), but the suspects can't lie, because lying to law enforcement, especially FBI, is a crime. So as long as they get her to say something that is not true, they could use that against her.
So there is this imbalance of power, and if you have ever the need to face law enforcement, always speak through a lawyer, if they refuse to get you a lawyer you can just refuse to talk, because they can't lie to or trick your lawyer, it would be obstruction of justice, but you can lie to your lawyer freely. You see just by having a lawyer, the table is turned against law enforcement.
The whole system is designed to protect people who can afford lawyers.
What about court appointed lawyers? Well, court appointed cases are just not profitable, so lawyers tend to try getting rid of them as quickly as possible, by asking their clients to plea guilty in exchange for reduced sentences. By doing so the cases could be closed within days, even hours. But if their client pleaded not guilty it would go to trial, which could last months, even years.
So it is basically a system of putting poor people in prison.
Thanks for the explanation, which is very much appreciated.. But since she also took a vacation in CENTRAL AMERCIA for 3 days, apparently she wasn't a POOR person, or someone who couldn't afford to hire an attorney.
And since she also spoke 4 languages, shouldn't she also have been intelligent enough to have known that she needed an attorney and shouldn't have told them what she said???
But maybe she also knew that fighting them or hiding things from them would result in pissing them off and in her getting a longer sentence than if she answered them???
Whatever the case may be, the sleazy way that she was treated by them still sucked, and one also gets the impression that it didn't matter to them how much money (or how little of it) a person had, because they'd still have done their best to TRICK them into finding out whatever it was that they wanted to know???
And it's also interesting to note how she was treated in comparison to the other SCAM MAN who ran the FAKE UNIVERSITY and the FAKE CHARITY. Because they pussy footed around with him for a year and a half by BEGGING him for the TOP SECRET DOCUMENTS that he had, without ever placing him in hand cuffs and arresting him like they did her when they went to his place in FL with a warrant.
So she gets treated much worse than he was, even though what he did was MUCH WORSE than what she did??? Doesn't that fact alone also make a MOCKERY of our so-called JUSTICE SYSTEM???.
π€
Both Trump and Hilary, and Biden, and I am sure countless others mishandled government documents, but they did not sent it to the press. The press have within their rights to protect their sources, but they did not, they gave her up without putting up a fight.
Also it is actually quite surprising how little average people know of their rights, I mean she could have remained silent, and saying something like:"You guys are clearly conducting an investigation against me, and I have no experience in handling matters like this, so I would like to talk to my legal representation before making further statements".
But she did not do that, it is not even a matter of money. Refusing to talk does not cost anything. I think that is why they showed their badges (so lying after that is a crime), and that is why they did not arrest her because that means they need to read her rights. Those are the warning signs.
I have read a news article I think about a year ago about a black woman, who had a child, worked at McDonalds, violently assaulted her co-worker, a white woman, because she talked crap about her behind her back. It was all caught on camera. The black woman panicked and went on the run, but run out of money about a month later, surrendered herself to the police.
The whole thing was on camera, so the woman did not ask for a lawyer, pleaded guilty with DA, got 3 years in prison with no parole. But later a court appointed lawyer talked to her and she found out that is the maximum she could possibly get. The DA lied to her, scared her into making the worst possible deal. I bet the DA said something like she could get 10 years or something, the whole thing could be about racism as well (it is a black woman beating up a white woman).
The funny thing is that her co-worker never pressed charges, only asked for medical expense, probably because she did talk crap about her. So that woman did not even need to go to jail for it.
These stories just show how little people know of their rights, how inexperienced they are of dealing with law enforcement. And how naive they are.
You can't trust law enforcement, they worked in a human sewage system day in and day out, dealing with the worst possible people everyday, few are not affected by it.
There was a similar story on the news today about a white woman who shot and killed a black woman who came to her door to talk to her because she attacked her kids and didn't like them playing in a field near where she lived.
The woman had also used racial slurs and was arrested because she also had no right to shoot & kill the black woman (even though she also claims the woman had attacked her before). So this story also involves racism as well and it will be interesting to see what kind of verdict results if the case ever goes to trial.
Anyhow, the woman who shot and killed the other one also didn't seem to know that she had NO RIGHT to do so. Here's a link to the story:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/woman-shot-through-door-arrest-stand-your-ground-law-ajike-owens-susan-lorincz/
Also wonder what happens to the REALITY character and what kind of a job she can get once she's released from prison???
π€
By racism I meant why the DA lied to that black woman, so motivated to get her the maximum penalty. Of course there could be incentives from private prison operators, but I think it was more likely racial.
Anyway this woman however is likely OK, because she was likely arrested right away, her rights were read to her, and she would get a lawyer one way or another.
She pleaded not guilty, so that is likely her lawyer, not court appointed. If you can afford to pay they are more likely to advise you to plea not guilty, to drag it out. And since it got media attention there could be high profile firms taking this case for publicity.
If she has lawyers, that is not going to be an easy conviction.