@Bazoo , since economic circumstances force you to represent yourself, then it makes a lot of sense to understand, for yourself, as well as you can, what the law says. If you don't have access to counsel, then it makes sense to go directly to the statues and court cases directly, rather than to rely on the opinions of non-lawyers, because
I see it’s a vastly different world when viewed from the eyes of a lawyer vs a police officer.
Here are two examples from this thread:
The "Public Safety Statement" grounded in the case of New York v Quarles. It held that under emergent conditions, law enforcement's need to access information to alleviate the emergency trumped the "Right to Remain Silent"
I disagree with this summary of
Quarles' holdings.
In
Quarles, the court simply held that police may ask questions related to "Public Safety", and that statements given by a suspect in response to such questions
after being taken into custody but before a Miranda warning was provided could not be excluded from subsequent prosecutions.
That's all.
Quarles does
NOT place any obligation on a suspect or a defender to provide a "Public Safety Statement".
Similarly,
@RickD427 summarizes the Court's holding in
Salinas v Texas this way:
Don't think that you can simply "Not Talk."
This is also incorrect, but only because it oversimplifies the court's opinion.
It is true that the
Salinas court did hold that simply remaining silent does not
implicitly invoke constitutional protections against self incrimination.
But the
Salinas court clearly upheld the principles that once constitutional protections are
overtly invoked (say, by requesting counsel or by saying that you refuse to answer questions based on your constitutional rights) a suspect or defender cannot be compelled to answer questions put to them by the police or a prosecutor. And that once this right is invoked, such refusal to answer questions cannot be held against them in further proceedings.
Note that in general only a judge can compel a person to answer questions.
So, while I respect
@RickD427 's service as a police officer, I suggest that his understanding of the significance of both
Quarles and
Salinas may be colored by this perspective.
Likewise, you can't really trust my perspective. You clearly read and write well, so I suggest you go to these cases themselves, and for yourself, read what the courts themselves have written. Do this for statues and appellate decisions that describe that law of self-defense and which might apply to you. They are all out there at no cost via the internet. Check out books on the topic from your local library. Read. Study. Educate yourself.
Self-defense law is really complex, and is always changing. But in absence of the resources to hire counsel, this may be your best choice.
