Hauled in for questioning?

Trunk Monkey said:

Any advice that involves lying to the police can't be good advice. Massad Ayoob suggests simply stating that you'd like EMS to take a look at you. He also said it really wouldn't be a bad idea to have them look at you anyway

Click to expand...

BINGO!

Having had to deal with the legalities involved in the separation/divorce from my first wife, which involved much civilian and military legal involvement, the very LAST thing you want to do is LIE.

Getting caught in lies places your credibility in SERIOUS doubt about ANYTHING in which clear, objective evidence is NOT in your favor.

Having impeccable credentials with respect to the veracity of your own conduct and statements may often be the only thing in one's favor, especially when it boils down to your word against someone else's. If one side is demonstrably untruthful (especially if it's a pattern of untruthfulness) while the other side is demonstrably honest, things do not tend to go well for the liar.

Kleanbore said:

Do not assume that a death would be necessary to trigger an investigation.

Similarly, whenever a firearm has been displayed, the police should be called immediately, and the defender should be the first to call

Click to expand...

Absolutely! In this instance, even had nobody been injured at all, there are several issues that have to be dealt with.

No injuries does not mean deadly force was not brought to bear by various statutes, for example. The mere display of a firearm may constitute exactly that. (And a firearm isn't required for this...indeed, no weapon at all may be required given what "disparity of force" can mean.)

The investigating officers are not your friends, all they are intrested in is clearing the case for the city/county prosecutor.

RetiredUSNChief said:

I ain't no lawyer, but I like to think I have at least somewhat of a practical understanding of the "mechanics" of something like this. Keeping that in mind, I'll happily give you a dollar so you can take that advice to McDonalds and get yourself a cup of coffee with it, because that'll be the only time it's going to be of any real value to you. (Translation: get yourself an actual attorney on your payroll for real legal advice.)

First of all, a shooting happened, which included a homocide. ("Homocide" doesn't mean "murder", by the way.)

So this WILL be investigated by the police. It would not be "unreasonable" (somewhat tongue-in-cheek here) to expect that the police would want to question the person who took part in the actual shooting event.

So...we can pretty much assume that this person WILL be questioned by the police...either voluntarily or otherwise. Either they come in to make a statement, or the police go out and provide taxi service for the event themselves, accompanied with any legal papers required to do so.

What OUGHT to happen, however, is that this person should HIRE an attorney to represent and advise him, before/during/after any such questioning.

The police will conduct an investigation. However, through much movie and TV show hype, many people often have this general misconception that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about".

THAT is WRONG on so many levels, the most important of which would be the LEGAL level.

The police aren't interested in investigations to "prove people innocent". They're interested in investigations to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to charge SOMEONE with a criminal act. Under the principle of enlightened self-interest, voluntarily providing such evidence against yourself is NOT the way to go, most especially through your own personal ignorance.

Which is why anybody under such circumstances NEEDS an attorney to represent them.

That this person shot, and apparently killed, someone is not in question apparently. And wouldn't likely be a fact disputed legally. Which means the questions to be answered involve will likely be centered around whether or not the shooting/killing was within the legal guidelines for justifiable homicide under the laws concerning the use of deadly force.

There are nuances to this which are not advisable to navigate without legal representation...because questioning by officials on such matters is not typically performed by people ignorant on the subject of how to ask the same question 20 different ways, looking for a specific response.

Click to expand...

Chief,

You have some good points here, but I do have to respond to your inference that officers are looking to charge SOMEONE with a criminal act. That's a little "off-base." When we respond to a shooting scene, we're looking to establish the facts of the incident and to determine in there is criminal liability on the part of any of the parties. That task is facilitated by the availability of information, and is frustrated by the absence of information. Additionally, when officers receive an inbalance of information (one side tells us everything, and the other side remains silent), then there is the risk of an improper conclusion being reached due to the bias of inputs.

There also the issue of time-criticality of information and that has been termed as the "Public Safety Statement." The courts have held that there are instances where the urgency of information to first responders trumps the "right to silence." Please refer to U.S. Supreme Court's 1984 decision in New York v Quarles and it's following cases. The writings of Masaad Ayoob discussed earlier in this thread kinda capture the concept of the "Public Safety Statement." Officers need to know where the victims and suspects are, who is who, and where any undiscovered victims may be. That information can't wait for you to confer with an attorney, and it doesn't have to.

At the same time, folks always seem to feel the need to explain why they employed deadly force ("he tried to kill me","I was in fear for my life"). There is no urgency to such information and it doesn't fall within the bounds of the "Public Safety Statement."

The investigative process into a deadly force incident takes quite a while. It doesn't conclude at the scene, but investigators do form first impressions at the scene and if those first impressions are wrong, it can take some effort to correct.

My advice:

1) Never lie, or intentionally mislead the first responders and investigators.

2) Make sure you provide them with all needed "Public Safety" information. Remember the "why" of the force application is not part of the "Public Safety" information.

3) Politely inform officers that you will complete the investigative, non-time critical, interview after having the time to confer with your attorney. This is the same practice we follow when involved in on-duty shootings.

4) Make sure that you have an attorney. (3) ain't gonna work if you don't got an attorney. The police don't provide you with an attorney unless you're in-custody. In every jurisdiction where I've worked, the police don't actually provide an attorney, we wait until the court appoints one at arraignment and that creates its own delay. Court appointed attorneys work on a schedule that measures in weeks and months, not on hours and days.

Kleanbore said:

On the other hand, defenders who did not say at the scene that they had acted in self defense have been denied a self defense instruction at trial.

Click to expand...

Citation(s) please? I'm not aware of any such cases, and if they do exist, I appreciate the opportunity to add them to my library.

Sift through these posts and you will find good advice here.

Rockrivr1 said:

A local LE once told me that when pushed after stating you want your attorney present say you're not feeling very well and you think you are having a heart attack. Lay down at that point. LEs have to get you aid and in all likelihood stop any additional questioning. Gives you time to get your lawyer as well.

Click to expand...

That is so monumentally stupid it's unreal.

When you get to the hospital and the emergency room staff finds out there is nothing wrong with you (and they will), you know who else is going to find out? The police.

When the police find out, you know what else they learn about you? That you're a liar.

You lied once to hinder their investigation. What else are you lying about?

Congratulations. Right when your credibility probably matters more than at any other time in your life, you just destroyed it.

Not to mention that when the bill comes for the ambulance ride and emergency room treatment you didn't need, it might even dwarf the one from your lawyer. Whose job you made infinitely more difficult because he now has to fight an uphill battle to establish the credibility of a known liar in addition to everything else. And even if he gets you off, the obstruction of justice charge might still stick.

All this when, in a free state like Texas (and several others), you very well may have been able to go home and sleep in your own bed that night. In a not-so-free state, well, you were going to jail anyway, so why make things harder and delay the inevitable?

RickD427 said:

Chief,

You have some good points here, but I do have to respond to your inference that officers are looking to charge SOMEONE with a criminal act. That's a little "off-base." When we respond to a shooting scene, we're looking to establish the facts of the incident and to determine in there is criminal liability on the part of any of the parties. That task is facilitated by the availability of information, and is frustrated by the absence of information. Additionally, when officers receive an inbalance of information (one side tells us everything, and the other side remains silent), then there is the risk of an improper conclusion being reached due to the bias of inputs.

Click to expand...

I'll bow to you on this, owing to your professional experience. Because I ain't no law enforcement officer, either!

However, I'd like to clarify what I was saying if you don't mind, as it would appear that what I posted was taken to mean the police are looking to charge anybody they can with a criminal act. That was not my intent.

My intent was to emphasize only that the police aren't looking for evidence to establish "innocence". They're looking for evidence that a crime has been committed, and that the evidence will lead them to someone who can be charged and, ultimately, held responsible for it.

"Evidence" being physical, verbal, written, witnessed, etc. And, of course, this starts from the time the police are notified of a particular event and start collecting all this information.

Ideally, the evidence is collected objectively and points towards the "guilty" and away from the "innocent". Or, perhaps in this example, towards "justification" and away from "criminally liable".

But the role of "law enforcement", by definition, does not involve seeking out reasons to declare any given person "innocent", even if the ultimate goal is to find and hold the guilty responsible.

If the evidence says "nothing is here to charge (this person) with (a given crime)", then the investigation looks elsewhere.

By the way...I can only imagine how difficult it is to pursue and properly document, preserve, and maintain the chain of custody for all the different kinds of evidence necessary to successfully legally navigate any criminal investigation. My hat's off to those who can not only do this, but do it well.

What I tell the people I train is there are very few ALWAYS OR NEVER in this life. So if you find yourself in the position where you do use lethal force you must decide what action you take when it is investigated by the LE agency where it occurs. If you feel that it is not in your best interest, for what ever reason, to make a statement to the investigator just tell them you are to upset to talk about it right now, and if they get 'pushy' then play the 'lawyer' card. If you feel confident that it is being handled fairly, with out political bias, then I recommend you cooperate with the LE. To each his own.

The legal arena is the LAST place I'd want to base my freedom and rights on how I "feel".

Not only are statutes not based and interpreted on "feelings", those who pursue questions/interrogations are masters at manipulating feelings, and prosecuting attorneys are trained and skilled at manipulating feelings in court.

Dealing with legal matters is best served with solid, legal advice and reasoning. Not "feelings".

grampster said:

Sift through these posts and you will find good advice here.

Click to expand...

The problem is if you have to sift through the posts how can you know which advice is good and which isn't

You can't get better advice than this.

One thing that Andrew branca says during this interview is getting arrested isn't the big deal getting convicted is the problem.

Trunk Monkey said:

The problem is if you have to sift through the posts how can you know which advice is good and which isn't

Click to expand...

That's the point of this forum. You come here to to learn things. The more information you have, the better you are able make decisions.

grampster said:

That's the point of this forum. You come here to to learn things. The more information you have, the better you are able make decisions.

Click to expand...

And it's not as if this is actual legal advice. That should be purchased from an attorney who will work for you.

Discussions are a starting point. Nothing more.

Trunk Monkey said:

The problem is if you have to sift through the posts how can you know which advice is good and which isn't

Click to expand...

You don't. That's why forums like this are a good place to find other sources of information, not a reliable source of information in themselves. The things you read on a forum should not be considered to be anything other than a random, faceless, un-vetted person's opinion unless they provide reliable sources to back up what they're saying.

Kleanbore said:

That sounds extremely dangerous.

"If you feel"? Your fate would then be entirely up to how you happen to react to the officer.

Bad idea.

Never "make a statement" at the scene that sets forth any details whatsoever. That's a NEVER.

Establish that you acted in self defense, point out any relevant evidence snd witnesses so that they do not disappear, and STOP. That's an ALWAYS.

Your only objective is to avoid harming or destroying your defense of justification.

Do not hurt yourself by trying to avoid being arrested. That;s an ALWAYS.

Click to expand...

TO EACH HIS OWN!!!!!

Jim Rau said:

TO EACH HIS OWN!!!!!

Click to expand...

Really bad advice is still really bad advice

Jim Rau said:

TO EACH HIS OWN!!!!!

Click to expand...

Not really. This is the legal section of the forum, not the random ignorant cop opinion section.

bearcreek said:

Not really. This is the legal section of the forum, not the random ignorant cop opinion section.

Click to expand...

I guess you do not believe that people have the RIGHT to make up there on mind then????

Trunk Monkey said:

Really bad advice is still really bad advice

Click to expand...

So you do do not believe in individual rights either???