Cop vs. Lawyer – A Great Interview

T.J. Bloch of Policing Black and White
T.J. Bloch of Policing Black and White

Fair DUI’s Warren Redlich was interviewed on February 21st for a radio show (or podcast) by Greensboro reserve police officer T.J. Bloch. T.J. runs the website Policing Black and White, a growing website. You should be able to see the audio player below.

It was a great conversation though unfortunately we had to cut it short. We’re talking about doing another one soon. If you can’t see the player, this is the link to the full MP3 file.

Bloch is a great guy who was forced, while on active duty, to shoot a woman who was trying to stab him with a knife. Partly as a result of that incident along with other traumatic experiences he retired early from active duty and became a reserve officer.

10 replies on “Cop vs. Lawyer – A Great Interview”

  1. Excellent! I am currently in the process of filing Criminal Complaints, using UBC, and you just gave me some valuable info. Thank you so much! I was not committing any crime, but was assaulted in the middle of the night, minding my own business.

    Wayne Bachmann

  2. So, while during this interview, when Mr. Redlich says he was frustrated at hearing his clients making the mistakes during confrontation with the police, and makes a note that these clients making the mistakes weren’t “the guy who works construction, or the janitor; this is lawyers, executives, surgeons, …”, what do you suppose he was inferring?

  3. I was referring to the popular perception that educated professionals know better than regular Joes.

  4. Well, Mr. Redlich, I wouldn’t agree that this perception is very popular. Surgeons might have some idea as to how deep to cut an incision through the skin, but I doubt their education touches on ampacity load calculation for an industrial environment. I wouldn’t expect a surgeon to know how to swing a hammer anymore than I’d allow a tradesman to poke me with a needle. Why would it surprise you that both “educated professionals” and “regular Joes” aren’t familiar with the proper way to handle conflict with police officers?

    Mr. Redlich, would it be fair to say you are persuading your listeners to evade police efforts to crack down on drunk drivers? I’m assuming you’ve never had friends or family killed by a drunken driver.

    Here’s the thing. I’d be willing to bet that nearly everyone who has bought your book, or followed your website, or listened to your interview(s) have had some personal DUI experience. And of that particular audience, I’d also be willing to bet that the majority are least concerned with the defense of rights and freedoms afforded by the Constitution and more concerned with how to avoid being caught. As an attorney, are these the people you want to lead?

    This is the part where you convince me that honesty and cooperation aren’t the right ways to confront police officers because so many innocent people are wrongly accused of bloodshot eyes, alcohol on the breath, and slurred speech. Hundreds and thousands and hundred thousands of innocents fail the field sobriety tests and breath-alyzers. How astronomical are those numbers Mr. Redlich, when compared to the numbers that will hang a ziplock bag out their window before leaving the parking lot of their favorite watering hole?

  5. I can’t convince someone who refuses to accept the truth. Ask a cop if innocent people ever get arrested.

    While you’re at it ask if there are cops who won’t write another cop for a DUI.

  6. On the numbers I’ve seen over 10% of those arrested for DUI in FL blow a legal BAC and they’re still charged.

  7. And that leaves out the innocents who refuse and the ones where the breath test device gets it wrong.

  8. It’s not difficult for me to accept any truth. I’m sure there are innocent people charged with crime all the time, but being charged isn’t the same as being convicted, and your not going to convince me that police in general are just looking to slap cuffs on the wrists of innocent people. Police officers are infallible, the technology they are using isn’t perfect either. But what I do understand is that these checkpoints are a deterrent to drunk drivers, and offer a means, however imperfect, to take a few of these drivers off the road. They provide a degree of security for both the drunk driver and the sober driver who they share the roads with. I’m not going to get into the numbers with you, because I’m sure you’ve probably seen them already. If it’s been a while since you’ve reviewed them, I implore you to take a few minutes to refresh your memory, because the number of drivers caught under the influence is staggering, always keeping in mind that these are only the numbers who are caught.
    I guess what irks me the most is that YOU KNOW that a very large part of your clients, and your audience in general are offenders both of the law with regards to DUI, and common sense. It’s bad enough that your job is to go before our system of “justice” to defend them, arguing technicalities and process to have their charges thrown out, or negotiating admissions in an effort to reduce the penalties they deserve. Now, you offer them advice on how to circumvent one of the few safeguards we have to help keep the roads just a little safer for our loved ones.
    You’re supposed to be one of those “educated professionals”, right? If you really want to help get rid of those pesky, rights infringing safety checkpoints, why don’t you think of a better way for our society to clamp down on violators.

  9. Routine patrols are far more effective at catching drunks. I know that from my work and most cops agree.

    The approach I’m advocating won’t help drunks. It requires patience, silence and following instructions, all things police watch for during these encounters.

  10. Bill, your point about checkpoints reducing incidents of drunk driving is valid. But patrols catch more drunk drivers without as much infringement on everyone’s personal freedoms by stopping all vehicles rather than just suspicious ones. My point is that just because something can reduce the frequency of a type of crime does not mean it is a good idea. If we tied up everyone who owns a gun, there’d be less homicides by firearm, but that doesn’t mean we should. If we never allowed people to print or say anything about other people, we’d have less libel and slander, but that doesn’t mean we should. Let’s make our police more effective and less intrusive.

Comments are closed.