Your right to remain silent.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Owen Sparks

member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
4,523
Long ago the courts decided that you do not have to talk to the police. Suppose you have to shoot some thug in self defense and there were no witnesses around. Does your right to remain silent still apply? Wouldn’t calling the police and reporting the shooting be a form of talking to the police? The Bill of Rights guarantees that you can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself; wouldn't calling the police to report it do just that? And being that it was self defense which is legal, you would not have committed any "crime" in the first place would you?

Just wondering.
 
Something tells me not reporting a shooting is going to get you in some deep fecal matter. Try defending that when you get brought before a judge, and you will.
 
And being that it was self defense which is legal, you would not have committed any "crime" in the first place would you?

Killing someone in self defense isn't exactly "legal". It IS a crime to kill someone but sometimes it can be JUSTIFIED if it's ruled self defense. You the shooter do not get to determine alone whether or not it's legal self defense. Until it is ruled as justified, you've committed the crime of homicide. Goes against the "innocent until proven guilty" thing somewhat, but that's the way it is. You can certainly remain silent, but you then can't claim self defense because you'd have to speak to do that.

Failure to report the crime will make your claim of self defense VERY hard to explain if you are ever found out.

So you might have the right to remain absolutely silent, but it is probably not a very good idea.
 
Homicide (intentional killing of another) is a crime. However, it can be justified if the homicide was in self defense, or in defense of another innocent person. You will have to explain your need to defend yourself, or another, at some point. Committing a homicide and not reporting it will make it very hard to convince the cops, the prosecutor, and most importantly the judge and jury, that you were defending yourself, and therefore justified in committing homicide.

However, don't take my word for it, consult with an attorney.
 
Killing someone in self defense isn't "legal". It IS a crime to kill someone but sometimes it can be JUSTIFIED if it's ruled self defense.

+1, you have just committed a homicide. It is not up to you to determine if it was justifiable.

Depending on your state, the law requiring you to report this can be a felony...so even if your homicide is ruled justifiable, you could still be a felon and lose your right to own firearms

and there were no witnesses around.

I don't know where you live, but in this day and age, do you really think this is realistic
 
I'm a law student studying criminal law, so I'm not technically allowed to give any advice, so take this for what it is.

People have lots of rights--freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, rights to remain silent, rights to competent attorneys--but they are not really what you want to rely on to save your freedom. Provided you are justified within the laws of your state to have used deadly force, if you can call the police before anyone else after the shooting and explain the situation, you will be better off than if you didn't call and they found you anyway. This is just from experience and has nothing to do with the law. Technically, you have a lot of rights, but those rights are not foolproof. I've seen people technically within their "rights" go to jail because they were not believed by the juries or the district attorneys.

I would definitely at least report the shooting and file a police report. I would answer certain questions without an attorney, but would demand one if the session got unpleasant. I would recommend that someone without legal education politely refuse to answer any questions without a lawyer, even a state appointed one. It's just safer and probably more reassuring if you have someone in the room that has your back. You can still assert your right to remain silent after you have alerted the proper authorities of the crime that the bg committed before you shot him. You cannot as easily dispel the suspicion of the authorities after they have already discovered you had hidden something from them. They will probably take it personally and at best read too much into it.
 
You call and report A shooting. Once the authorities are there, you tell them you will cooperate once you have had a cooling off period and consulted council, until then you prefer to remain silent until you have obtained the advice of councel.
 
TexasRifleman said:
Killing someone in self defense isn't exactly "legal". It IS a crime to kill someone but sometimes it can be JUSTIFIED if it's ruled self defense.

Then wouldn't you be witnessing against yourself if you called and reported it to the police?
 
Then wouldn't you be witnessing against yourself if you called and reported it to the police?

Yep. The alternative is to not witness against yourself and sit quiet in the courtroom as your murder trial proceeds without your side of the story.

You are free to make the choice. Freedom doesn't always mean you come out on top.
 
Simply telling the authorities that there has been a shooting is not really testifying against yourself, it is a statement of fact. Further, not reporting it will probably look *really* bad when someone goes to decide if it is justified or not. If the police want to know anything more than that a bullet left your gun and hit that guy, then is the time to remain silent.
 
Suppose you have to shoot a bad guy in a remote area. Would it be better to remain silent or to turn your self in or spend ten grand on a lawyer?
 
Suppose you have to shoot a bad guy in a remote area. Would it be better to remain silent or to turn your self in or spend ten grand on a lawyer?

Ten grand seems cheap compared to the price of that needle going into your arm.

I get your hypothetical argument, I really do. It just seems that the risks outweigh the rewards by an immeasurable amount.
 
I'm not convinced that justifiable homicide is, in fact, a crime. Can someone please lay out evidence asserting it, as such?

To my understanding, homicide is an action. It can be legal or illegal.

That said, judgement whether the homicide is legal or illegal is left to the criminal justice system. Significant leeway is given to law enforcement authorities. Less so to the average citizen. Even less so to those outside the mainstream.

One should choose one's actions within the criminal justice system accordingly.
 
There might be no such thing as a stupid question, but if there was ever a contender, this has got to be it...

Suppose you have to shoot a bad guy in a remote area. Would it be better to remain silent or to turn your self in or spend ten grand on a lawyer?

Odds are pretty good that it'll eventually get out. Places aren't quite so remote as they used to be. 10K on a lawyer to prevent you from being prosecuted is chump change compared to what it would cost to defend yourself in court if you don't fess up and they find out later. (In many states, your life could be on the line.)

Thing is, it's a crime to kill another human being. When a charge is brought against you, there are four possible responses. You can Admit you did it, Deny you did it, claim No Knowledge of the event, or you can Assert an Affirmative Defense.

"Self Defense" is considered in every jurisdiction I'm familiar with to be a valid Affirmative Defense to homicide. Essentially, utilizing an Affirmative Defense is somewhat in contradiction with your 5th amendment rights. When you assert Affirmative Defense, you're basically saying "Yes, I did it, but I had to because _____". You can't really claim that one without admitting something you might not like.

When you call the police to tell them what's going on, everything you say is usable against you (note it's not usable for you: Hearsay.) Thus, you're giving up a part of your 5th amendment rights in order to mount your affirmative defense. You can shut your mouth anytime you want, and wait for an attorney. Most lawyers I've talked to about this generally advise something to the effect of:

"That man assaulted me, and I want him arrested. I'm willing to cooperate with you fully, but I would really like to talk to my lawyer before I answer any questions."

Now, I'm not a lawyer. I have taken a number of law classes, and it's something of a passion for me. I minored in Aviation Law, not Criminal law, so please don't take anything I said as legal advice. What's right for me may not be for you.
 
Homicide is a crime UNTIL ruled justified. It's always a crime until then.

There is no such thing as "justifiable homicide" up front. It's just homicide, then LATER can be found justifiable and therefore not a crime.

So, there is no way to have a justifiable homicide if you don't involve LE and the courts.
 
And being that it was self defense which is legal,

You the shooter do not get to determine alone whether or not it's legal self defense.

It is not up to you to determine if it was justifiable.

Granted Owen did not describe the situation using proper terminology, I think y'all might have missed the point. He wasn't looking for clarification on the parameters of homicide. The premise is that he thinks the shooting was legal and he wants to do the correct thing, but he is trying to comprehend exactly what his rights are and what he may be required to do or say after being in the shooting.

If he thought his shooting wasn't "legal," I doubt he would be too inclined to call the police.
 
Owen Sparks said:
Suppose you have to shoot a bad guy in a remote area. Would it be better to remain silent ....?
Aside from that fact that is something an honest, upstanding individual would not even consider doing, what would your life be like if you did something like that? You'd be constantly looking over your shoulder wondering when the police would catch up with you. You'd never know if you were in the clear. You'd never know whether or not there were witnesses you didn't see or some other pieces of evidence that will ultimately connect you to the shooting.

And from a practical perspective, you were unlucky enough to have found yourself in a situation in which you believed that you had to use lethal force to save your life, and you were lucky enough to have prevailed. Now, do you want to do whatever you can to maximize the chances of things turning out satisfactorily for you so you can get on with your life, or do you want to live as a fugitive, always wondering when the Juggernaut of the law is going to catch up with you?

And if you run and get caught, (1) self defense is likely to be your only chance; and (2) your self defense claim, at the late date of your arrest, is most likely going to fail. Let's face it, while your self defense claim may not be DOA, it is in a coma, on life support with a priest just outside the door ready to administer the last rites.

What I understand from discussions with Massad Ayoob is that things often don't turn out well at all for folks who run or folks who have lied. See his column in the August, 2010, Combat Handguns.
 
I cannot think of a single instance when failing to report a justified shooting would be in the shooter's best interest from a legal standpoint.
 
And Keeping Silent Isn't the Best Idea in a Self Defense Matter

But Don't Say Too Much.

Call 911. Be the first to report the incident and do so immediately. If you don't report it, or if there's a long delay, you will appear to have a guilty conscience.

Then, having taken LFI-I with Massad Ayoob, spending time with him and helping with a class of his in Sierra Vista, AZ not too long ago, I'll go along with his recommendation for when the police arrive.

[1] While one has a right to remain silent, clamming up is what the bad guys do. Following a self defense incident, you'll want to act like one of the good guys. You also won't want the investigating officers to miss any evidence or possible witnesses. What if the responding officers miss your assailant's knife that you saw fall down the storm drain? What if they don't know about the guy you saw pick up your assailant's gun and walk off with it?

[2] At the same time, you don't want to say too much. You will most likely be rattled. You will also most likely be suffering from various well known stress induced distortions of perception.

[3] So Massad Ayoob recommends:

  • Saying something like, "That person (or those people) attacked me." You are thus immediately identifying yourself as the victim. It also helps get the investigation off on the right track.
  • Saying something like, "I will sign a complaint." You are thus immediately identifying the other guys(s) as the criminal(s).
  • Pointing out possible evidence, especially evidence that may not be immediate apparent. You don't want any such evidence to be missed.
  • Pointing out possible witnesses.
  • Then saying something like, "I'm not going to say anything more right now. You'll have my full cooperation in 24 hours, after I've talked with my lawyer."

Pleading Self Defense is Very Different From the Common Lines of Defense to a Criminal Charge.

A lot of folks point to the "Don't Talk to the Police" video that is making the rounds on gun boards. But it is about a police contact in general. It works fine when you aren't claiming self defense, and it's up to the State to prove your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But things work differently if you are pleading self defense.

Basically --

[1] The prosecutor must prove the elements of the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt -- basically that you intentionally shot the guy. But if you are pleading self defense, you will have admitted that, so we go to step 2.

[2] Now you must present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. Depending on the State, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you may not have to convince the jury. But you will have to at least present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

[3] Now it's the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in justified self defense.

Let's go through that again.

In an ordinary criminal prosecution, the defendant doesn't have to say anything. He doesn't have to present any evidence. The entire burden falls on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the crime you're charged with is, for example, manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that you were there, you fired the gun, you intended to fire the gun (or were reckless), and the guy you shot died. In the typical manslaughter prosecution, the defendant might by way of his defense try to plant a seed that you weren't there (alibi defense), or that someone else might have fired the gun, or that it was an accident. In each case the defendant doesn't have to actually prove his defense. He merely has to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

So in such cases, it probably doesn't pay for you to say anything to the police, at least early on. Let them do the work of trying to amass evidence to prove the case against you. There's no reason for you to help.

But if you are going to be claiming self defense, you will wind up admitting all the elements of the crime. You will admit that you were there, that you fired the gun, and that you intended to shoot the decedent. Your defense is that your use of lethal force in self defense satisfied the applicable legal standard and that, therefore, it was justified.

So now you would have to affirmatively present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In some jurisdictions, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you don't have to convince the jury. But you will at least have to present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

Then it will be the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury (in some jurisdictions, he will have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt) that you did not act in justified self defense. And even if you didn't have to prove self defense (only present a prima facie case), the more convincing your story, and your evidence, is, the harder it will be for the prosecutor to meet his rebuttal burden.
 
William Lee said:
I would answer certain questions without an attorney, but would demand one if the session got unpleasant. I would recommend that someone without legal education politely refuse to answer any questions without a lawyer, even a state appointed one.

This must be balanced by the fact that "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." As a good citizen, you'll probably feel inclined to help the police any way you can, though you should also pay attention to the exact wording of the previous quote.

There's a few great youtube vids out there (that i can't access from work here) on the topic and it really drives home just how limited the police can be in actually helping you versus the damage in speaking to them without a lawyer can cause. Likewise, there are far too many documented perversions of justice to take a situtation you are directly involved in lightly.

Not reporting the shooting will probably damn you outright if you are ever implicated in it. You're in a better situation if you report it, but know what you're getting into doing so.
 
To preface by saying that I do not believe that 'Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up' is ever appropriate, and am not arguing that covering up an SD shooting is right, I do not agree with your statement below.

Homicide is a crime UNTIL ruled justified. It's always a crime until then.

I understand what you are saying. I'm asking for a citation of specific legislation backing up your point.

I'll argue a counterpoint-

Often in an SD shooting the police will not arrest the shooter, if the evidence at the scene is such that it is obvious that the shooting was in self defense. The prosecutor will not press charges and the shooter goes on with life (diminished by the experience, but still…).

Your argument seems to state that one becomes a criminal at the time of action, prior to arrest, prosecution or conviction. That does not square with my understanding of the criminal justice system. My understanding is that a crime has not technically been committed until one has been arrested, prosecuted and found guilty in a court of law.

The police, in assessing whether to make an arrest for a homicide, must demonstrate a probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the homicide was unlawful. A prosecutor must also be able to make a case that a homicide is unlawful prior to prosecution.

Homicide, in and of itself, is not de facto a crime. A fatal automobile wreck which result in the death of another is technically a homicide. It may or may not be an unlawful one.

A police officer who shoots a citizen in defense of said officer or another citizen has committed a homicide. Are you arguing that such an officer is guilty of a crime until he can prove himself innocent?

In fact, your argument would seem to imply that homicide is existentially or ontologically a crime, outside of any framework of established law.

Please clarify for me.

A crime is not a crime, unless it is discovered and prosecuted. This position may be amoral, in fact immoral, but it is technically correct.
 
"He was trying to kill me! I was fighting for my life!

Nothing more. Do. Not. Talk. To. The. Police.

There is a poster here who has a link in their sig line with a you tube video. The video is of a law professor and former defense attorney speaking as to WHY you don't want to talk to the police, even if you know you're innocent. After the law professor speaks for about 30 minutes, a 20 year veteren detective speaks...and says the same thing; Do. Not. Talk. To. The. Police.
 
LemmyCaution said:
Often in an SD shooting the police will not arrest the shooter, if the evidence at the scene is such that it is obvious that the shooting was in self defense. The prosecutor will not press charges and the shooter goes on with life (diminished by the experience, but still…).

That is very much state law dependent. In most states prosecutors are not given the option. If you shoot someone in Texas the law requires they press charges and the Grand Jury then decides if it was self defense.

States that give the prosecutor that much leeway are pretty rare.

LemmyCaution said:
Your argument seems to state that one becomes a criminal at the time of action, prior to arrest, prosecution or conviction.

I'm going to stick with Texas law because that's the one I know. This is from the penal code of Texas:

Sec 19.02 Murder (b) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual;
(2) intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual;

So, a self defense shooting would qualify because it is intentional and shooting someone is clearly dangerous to human life. This would seem to me to apply at the moment the act occurs. The crime exists at that moment. Whether you are ever caught or prosecuted is a different story, in the eyes of the law the crime exists right then.

In Texas if you kill someone (and it becomes known of course), self defense or not, you will be charged with some form of criminal homicide. Then, the Penal Code give you several "justifications" including:

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. etc

So, here, you will be charged and sent before a Grand Jury. Many times the prosecutor himself will also present the Grand Jury with evidence of justification but he is required by law to charge you with a crime of homicide if you shoot and kill someone. And if at that time the Grand Jury believes the justification true they no-bill the shooter and that's the end of it. If they are not completely convinced of the justification you go to trial.

LemmyCaution said:
A fatal automobile wreck which result in the death of another is technically a homicide.

Car wrecks are not criminal homicides by default. You cannot compare an accident like a car crash with an intentional act such as shooting a robber. The law says:

TYPES OF CRIMINAL HOMICIDE. (a) A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual.

A car accident does not meet any of those unless the reckless or negligence portion kicks in, then it becomes manslaughter; drunk driving for example. A pure accident does not meet the definition of criminal homicide.

I probably should have been using the complete term "criminal homicide" rather than just homicide. We're clearly talking about the criminal type here in this situation. My mistake if that caused any confusion. It probably did.

Not a lawyer, wish we had one around for stuff like this :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top