Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
This. I don't know many firearms trainers that start at $100 an hour and go up from there.
Court Certified Use of Force Expert Interview
- Thread starter Crusader103
- Start date
- Status
This. I don't know many firearms trainers that start at $100 an hour and go up from there.
Shadow 7D
Member
pointless one without the other
use you weapons at the wrong time and you have a 'bad' outcome
fail to use your weapons at the right time and you have a 'bad' outcome
yeah, it's all related, and a lawyer should be part of your education, cause you need one to teach YOU the law, and if you do run afoul the cops, well it helps to have someone to call.
use you weapons at the wrong time and you have a 'bad' outcome
fail to use your weapons at the right time and you have a 'bad' outcome
yeah, it's all related, and a lawyer should be part of your education, cause you need one to teach YOU the law, and if you do run afoul the cops, well it helps to have someone to call.
I hear that. In your hypothetical statement to 911 you said you would be "unarmed when the police arrive," which implies to me that the weapon would not be on your person or under your direct control. I was just curious where you intended to put it.
Personally, if the cops show up in "shots fired" mode, I will be "assuming the position."
orangeninja
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,117
Personally? If the scene is secured I'm putting my gun on the ground with the chamber empty. When the cops arrive my hands will be held high.I hear that. In your hypothetical statement to 911 you said you would be "unarmed when the police arrive," which implies to me that the weapon would not be on your person or under your direct control. I was just curious where you intended to put it.
Personally, if the cops show up in "shots fired" mode, I will be "assuming the position."
I ran the five page "write-up" in the OP by my attorney. He's not a criminal defense attorney, but none the less, had a lot to say.
His first thought is that he is in complete disagreement with giving even the slightest statement from anyone without an attorney present. He more or less "bashed" what J Scott had to say. He reminded me that invoking the 5th cannot be brought to jurors as part of a case in a court room -- the jurors aren't informed of the "fifth" being invoked during an investigation and such a statement can be struck down and is not admissible. That is, pleading the fifth, may not persuade the investigators, but it will not be brought up in court -- or shouldn't.
He reminded me that our intention to vindicate ourselves will be used as nothing more than an attempt to use our words against us. I believe him.
While it's feasible a detective might be swayed by cooperation, it's more likely than not, any words spoken will haunt the speaker later. Much to lose, little to gain.
It cost me $100 to hear this; "cooler heads and better decisions prevail when an attorney is called -- and I don't care what it costs the accused". "I'm here to make a profit, but even if I don't speak or act on someones behalf, I advise to keep quiet and invoke an attorney, even a court appointed attorney."
JScott, you are certainly well regarded, I would like to suggest to other readers to consider a qualified attorney in such serious matters as defending oneself against serious charges.
If it were me, ultimately, regardless of the proficient writing skills and ability to "touch" the common reader with his intelligence, I'd ultimately let my lawyer decide if JScott and his theory should be a part of my paid defense.
I'd also like to offer that I find "JScott" capable, with his intelligence, of contributing to his own defense, if it were called for. However, none of us are JScott, and must act appropriately if ever our defense is demanded.
I'd also like to remind everyone that JScott cannot defend anyone in court -- and there's a good reason for that. (he's a soldier, not an attorney)
His first thought is that he is in complete disagreement with giving even the slightest statement from anyone without an attorney present. He more or less "bashed" what J Scott had to say. He reminded me that invoking the 5th cannot be brought to jurors as part of a case in a court room -- the jurors aren't informed of the "fifth" being invoked during an investigation and such a statement can be struck down and is not admissible. That is, pleading the fifth, may not persuade the investigators, but it will not be brought up in court -- or shouldn't.
He reminded me that our intention to vindicate ourselves will be used as nothing more than an attempt to use our words against us. I believe him.
While it's feasible a detective might be swayed by cooperation, it's more likely than not, any words spoken will haunt the speaker later. Much to lose, little to gain.
It cost me $100 to hear this; "cooler heads and better decisions prevail when an attorney is called -- and I don't care what it costs the accused". "I'm here to make a profit, but even if I don't speak or act on someones behalf, I advise to keep quiet and invoke an attorney, even a court appointed attorney."
JScott, you are certainly well regarded, I would like to suggest to other readers to consider a qualified attorney in such serious matters as defending oneself against serious charges.
If it were me, ultimately, regardless of the proficient writing skills and ability to "touch" the common reader with his intelligence, I'd ultimately let my lawyer decide if JScott and his theory should be a part of my paid defense.
I'd also like to offer that I find "JScott" capable, with his intelligence, of contributing to his own defense, if it were called for. However, none of us are JScott, and must act appropriately if ever our defense is demanded.
I'd also like to remind everyone that JScott cannot defend anyone in court -- and there's a good reason for that. (he's a soldier, not an attorney)
Birch Knoll
Member
So it's a bit like asking your family practitioner for his advice on a optimal chemotherapy regimen for a rare genotype of acute myelogenous leukemia. Criminal law is a specialty, like patent law, or space law. Nonspecialist attorneys know just enough about these topics to be dangerous.
He's not an attorney. He is an expert witness, yet, he seems to be offering legal advice (on the guise of his credentials).
IMO, the real motive is to attract viewers to his website. Make no mistake, I'm all for capitalism, however offering his "legal" opinion, without a degree, is nothing short of unqualified.
If anything, I'm here to remind viewers that JScott is certainly qualified to attain a law degree and then speak with proper credentials. Until then, we may as well find a law enforcement thread and ask cops what they think.
I'm sure JScott will not appreciate my comments. If JScott would like to comment, I'd like him to include a case where a statement given to law enforcement actually helped the accused. A case J Scott testified in would have even more credibly.
What say, JScott?
IMO, the real motive is to attract viewers to his website. Make no mistake, I'm all for capitalism, however offering his "legal" opinion, without a degree, is nothing short of unqualified.
If anything, I'm here to remind viewers that JScott is certainly qualified to attain a law degree and then speak with proper credentials. Until then, we may as well find a law enforcement thread and ask cops what they think.
I'm sure JScott will not appreciate my comments. If JScott would like to comment, I'd like him to include a case where a statement given to law enforcement actually helped the accused. A case J Scott testified in would have even more credibly.
What say, JScott?
Birch Knoll
Member
He didn't claim to be.
Actually, he seems to be offering his expertise to attorneys. His advice is consistent with other highly-regarded experts, like Ayoob, as well as with common sense. At least some criminal defense attorneys also concur.
No doubt. Personally, I don't mind learning about web resources that might be of use or interest to me.
You took my comments out of context.
I hope JScott can make me take a knee when he links us to actual cases he's been involved in and shows real-life examples where giving a statement without an attorney has been beneficial and persuaded investigators.
Sounds good on the surface, but I'd like to see some facts.
I hope JScott can make me take a knee when he links us to actual cases he's been involved in and shows real-life examples where giving a statement without an attorney has been beneficial and persuaded investigators.
Sounds good on the surface, but I'd like to see some facts.
Which criminal defense attorney's would those be?
I like to learn too. However, I take my literature with a grain of salt. Not simply believing everything I hear, carte blanc.
Would you like me to list cases where the accused convicted themselves with their statements?
Birch Knoll
Member
That was not my intention.
Well, the attorney who conducted the interview for the law journal, for one. And more generally, those that employ the likes of JScott and Massad Ayoob.
I think we are all aware that making the wrong statements can all but convict you. It does not follow that making a very few careful, true statements that you perceived a deadly threat and identifying supporting or exculpatory witnesses and evidence will likewise harm your case.
SleazyRider
Member
I agree with ArtP, in fact, I find the "interview" to be somewhat disingenuous. It reads like an infomercial, to be frank.
Last edited:
Toforo
Member
In which professional legal journal did your interview appear?
(I'd like to read it within the context of an actual publication in addition to the PDF file from your business website that you provided)
From within this thread I was able to glean that you are not from the state I am from.
Our Castle Doctrine and State Laws are unique to my state (Missouri) just as your Castle Doctrine and State Laws are unique to your location.
I choose to continue to obtain legal advice from an experienced specialized licensed attorney from within the state I reside over that of a "professional witness" from outside our state's jurisdiction.
Please don't take my response to your post and interview negatively as clearly, many people here in this thread have found useful insight within your post....
But, like ArtP - I too brought your posted interview to the attention of my attorney....
....and, like ArtP's attorney, my special practice attorney here assures me (after reading this) that within our castle doctrine and within our state laws here in Missouri, it's his job to keep me OUT of the courtroom to begin with, negating the need for an "expert witness" -
- BUT; if we should ever be compelled to enter the courtroom as a result of a defensive action, that HE is the expert witness regarding the law and my legal liabilities within the venue I choose to reside.
Great interview - thanks for taking the time to post it for all to see - it was GOOD to be able to show my attorney something in contrast to what he advises.
OP
OP
Crusader103
Member
I do not mind detractors so I will respond, though I do not intend to get into a back and forth. To each their own so this is my response and I will let it be from there. Ultimately, you will live with the decisions that you make regardless of the input you receive.
My website is clearly visible in my tag line and referenced in my posts from time to time. I believe that anyone who offers themselves up as an authority of sorts should be able to support that claim. My bio as a police officer and military operator is there for all to see. Whether or not you put any credit in it is up to you.
Occasionally I will receive "business" through THR. I would strongly assert that any amount gained through this website is in small comparison to the amount of time I have spent on 300+ posts, many of which have been quite lengthy and of substance, whether or not they are agreed with. THR is on a very short list of many gun forums I frequent. It is not for advertisement. I actually find that there is some meaning in "The High Road" and therefore choose to interact here though many other outlets would likely provide a greater advertising arena were that my goal. I have found many intellectual posts on THR, including areas that are not my expertise, and will continue to return for those reasons.
I will not disclose my client list nor reference individual cases. It would be unprofessional of me to do so and in some cases protected by agreement. Should I interact professionally with any one of you here (and I have with THR members) I think you would appreciate my refraining from discussing your case. If you choose to do so that is fine but I will not speak in more than general terms. Though I am a fan, this is still an internet forum and I will simply not do it. With a little research, you should have no difficulty coming up with it on your own. If that is a deal breaker for you, I guess I won't be looking for your check anytime soon.
Just as I will not disclose a client list, I will not disclose a professional journal. I have posted links on THR of articles appearing in gun magazines with my name on it. I first appeared in "Modern Gun" magazine over 20 years ago at the age of 14 - I was a somewhat capable competitive shooter then and was featured along with an M14. I recently referenced an article I wrote in the IDPA journal. A professional legal journal is different. It is not meant for the public. If it were meant for you, you would have received it before reading my transcript. Yes, I scanned the transcript into Word and edited out the attorneys full name, adding my own logo to it before turning it into a PDF. I thought there might be some here that would benefit from it and it has been expressed to me that they have. That is why I posted it. If you didn't, I apologize for wasting your time but if you did, I will not apologize for reference my professional name on it. I feel that an interview of me is appropriate to put on a page with my name on it. It also helps to prevent its intellectual theft. If it sounded like a persuasive argument, or "infomercial" if you will, it was supposed to be. That's why it was posted in the journal.... to get attorneys to do things they had not always done.
I'm not overly concerned with what your individual attorneys might have told you in contrast with the advice that I have provided. That was kind of the point of the interview. Perhaps that part was missed. My advice is in in the company of the better known experts on the matters of self defense..... including those that have been successful in vindicating actors who truly "shut up" just like many attorneys would have said. Even if my advice were not consistent with others better known than me, my advice would be the same because it is supported by my sound experience.
No doubt many attorneys assert themselves as your sole defender. I asserted why that is not always the best course of action, unless you are indeed guilty of the crime accused. And just because an attorney chooses to be your sole support does not make it wise. They are experts in the law, not specifics of actions. A medical malpractice attorney calls doctors to the stand. An accident attorney calls reconstructionists to the stand. A fraud attorney calls financial forensic experts to the stand. An attorney claiming a form of insanity defense calls psychologists to the stand. The reason for all of this? Because the attorney is an expert in matters of law, not matters of action. But suddenly the criminal attorney feels that they can explain why you defended yourself with a firearm better than an expert in the matter? If that's what you want to go with, there's plenty of attorneys willing to oblige. A majority of them in fact. I never said it wasn't. I think it was clear in my interview that my guidance is in contrast with that of most attorneys. I'm not offended by that because I know better.
It makes no difference which state I am from. I have worked in and testified in many. I do not attempt to explain matters of law in your jurisdiction. That is what your attorney is for. I explain circumstances, how self defense situations develop, the anatomy of a gunfight, and actions taken by those involved based upon their level of training, or lack thereof. That does not change from state to state.
Anyone would be correct in that the lack of a statement cannot be used against you in court per se. But the officer on the stand WILL be asked in one form or another, "Did you question the defendant?" If his response is to the effect of, "No explanation was offered," which I guarantee is admissable in form or fashion every time the jury will get the hint. Not only that but officers do have a way of conveying the demeanor of the defendant whether anyone chooses to believe so or not. Nonetheless, as stated in the interview, the reason for giving a brief statement on scene has more to do with ensuring that the investigation goes in your favor than it does with the admissability in court. That is in the form of the officers investigation as well as revealing the presence of witnesses who might support your claim as well as exculpatory evidence.
By the way, I am proud of being a soldier. I have served and continue to serve honorably but that is not all I do. Again, see the bio, but I have been a federal agent and police officer at the state and local level. I was not "court certified" by magic. I am truly "certified" individually by every court I testify before when being introduced as a witness and establishing credibility. I continue to be called in by police departments for speciality training in firearms regularly. I have rewritten the use of force policy for several of them. So I do thank you for recognizing me as a soldier, because I am, but please do not imply that being a soldier is somehow a limitation in context or experience.
And "theories" are unproven ideas. My guidance is not theoretical though I would agree that there is never a guarantee. I can assure you that my advice is much more sound than other techniques though.
Your attorney should be your expert concerning the law. If they are not, I suggest finding another attorney. That does not mean that they should be relied upon as the most capable means of expressing the process of actions taken in self defense.
Whether or not you agree with the substance of the interview, my previous guidance, and the advice of others in the field, is up to you. Speaking as someone who has been in a gunfight, or too darn many more, I sincerely hope that you are as prepared legally as you are tactically. If not, you will soon find that an attorney sitting next to you is not always as comforting as you currently think it will be if your actions were not spot on before they got involved.
This is not to be taken as an advertisement. I can assure you that I am not hurting for your "small yearly fee" and I have plenty of work. Those that know me and have worked with me know that whether it be firearms training, law enforcement professional training, court services, fighting a war in Afghanistan, or taking way too much time to make a lengthy post on an internet forum, that I do it because I actually find some fulfillment in what I do. When I start doing it for the money you will see my rates increase significantly.
My website is clearly visible in my tag line and referenced in my posts from time to time. I believe that anyone who offers themselves up as an authority of sorts should be able to support that claim. My bio as a police officer and military operator is there for all to see. Whether or not you put any credit in it is up to you.
Occasionally I will receive "business" through THR. I would strongly assert that any amount gained through this website is in small comparison to the amount of time I have spent on 300+ posts, many of which have been quite lengthy and of substance, whether or not they are agreed with. THR is on a very short list of many gun forums I frequent. It is not for advertisement. I actually find that there is some meaning in "The High Road" and therefore choose to interact here though many other outlets would likely provide a greater advertising arena were that my goal. I have found many intellectual posts on THR, including areas that are not my expertise, and will continue to return for those reasons.
I will not disclose my client list nor reference individual cases. It would be unprofessional of me to do so and in some cases protected by agreement. Should I interact professionally with any one of you here (and I have with THR members) I think you would appreciate my refraining from discussing your case. If you choose to do so that is fine but I will not speak in more than general terms. Though I am a fan, this is still an internet forum and I will simply not do it. With a little research, you should have no difficulty coming up with it on your own. If that is a deal breaker for you, I guess I won't be looking for your check anytime soon.
Just as I will not disclose a client list, I will not disclose a professional journal. I have posted links on THR of articles appearing in gun magazines with my name on it. I first appeared in "Modern Gun" magazine over 20 years ago at the age of 14 - I was a somewhat capable competitive shooter then and was featured along with an M14. I recently referenced an article I wrote in the IDPA journal. A professional legal journal is different. It is not meant for the public. If it were meant for you, you would have received it before reading my transcript. Yes, I scanned the transcript into Word and edited out the attorneys full name, adding my own logo to it before turning it into a PDF. I thought there might be some here that would benefit from it and it has been expressed to me that they have. That is why I posted it. If you didn't, I apologize for wasting your time but if you did, I will not apologize for reference my professional name on it. I feel that an interview of me is appropriate to put on a page with my name on it. It also helps to prevent its intellectual theft. If it sounded like a persuasive argument, or "infomercial" if you will, it was supposed to be. That's why it was posted in the journal.... to get attorneys to do things they had not always done.
I'm not overly concerned with what your individual attorneys might have told you in contrast with the advice that I have provided. That was kind of the point of the interview. Perhaps that part was missed. My advice is in in the company of the better known experts on the matters of self defense..... including those that have been successful in vindicating actors who truly "shut up" just like many attorneys would have said. Even if my advice were not consistent with others better known than me, my advice would be the same because it is supported by my sound experience.
No doubt many attorneys assert themselves as your sole defender. I asserted why that is not always the best course of action, unless you are indeed guilty of the crime accused. And just because an attorney chooses to be your sole support does not make it wise. They are experts in the law, not specifics of actions. A medical malpractice attorney calls doctors to the stand. An accident attorney calls reconstructionists to the stand. A fraud attorney calls financial forensic experts to the stand. An attorney claiming a form of insanity defense calls psychologists to the stand. The reason for all of this? Because the attorney is an expert in matters of law, not matters of action. But suddenly the criminal attorney feels that they can explain why you defended yourself with a firearm better than an expert in the matter? If that's what you want to go with, there's plenty of attorneys willing to oblige. A majority of them in fact. I never said it wasn't. I think it was clear in my interview that my guidance is in contrast with that of most attorneys. I'm not offended by that because I know better.
It makes no difference which state I am from. I have worked in and testified in many. I do not attempt to explain matters of law in your jurisdiction. That is what your attorney is for. I explain circumstances, how self defense situations develop, the anatomy of a gunfight, and actions taken by those involved based upon their level of training, or lack thereof. That does not change from state to state.
Anyone would be correct in that the lack of a statement cannot be used against you in court per se. But the officer on the stand WILL be asked in one form or another, "Did you question the defendant?" If his response is to the effect of, "No explanation was offered," which I guarantee is admissable in form or fashion every time the jury will get the hint. Not only that but officers do have a way of conveying the demeanor of the defendant whether anyone chooses to believe so or not. Nonetheless, as stated in the interview, the reason for giving a brief statement on scene has more to do with ensuring that the investigation goes in your favor than it does with the admissability in court. That is in the form of the officers investigation as well as revealing the presence of witnesses who might support your claim as well as exculpatory evidence.
By the way, I am proud of being a soldier. I have served and continue to serve honorably but that is not all I do. Again, see the bio, but I have been a federal agent and police officer at the state and local level. I was not "court certified" by magic. I am truly "certified" individually by every court I testify before when being introduced as a witness and establishing credibility. I continue to be called in by police departments for speciality training in firearms regularly. I have rewritten the use of force policy for several of them. So I do thank you for recognizing me as a soldier, because I am, but please do not imply that being a soldier is somehow a limitation in context or experience.
And "theories" are unproven ideas. My guidance is not theoretical though I would agree that there is never a guarantee. I can assure you that my advice is much more sound than other techniques though.
Your attorney should be your expert concerning the law. If they are not, I suggest finding another attorney. That does not mean that they should be relied upon as the most capable means of expressing the process of actions taken in self defense.
Whether or not you agree with the substance of the interview, my previous guidance, and the advice of others in the field, is up to you. Speaking as someone who has been in a gunfight, or too darn many more, I sincerely hope that you are as prepared legally as you are tactically. If not, you will soon find that an attorney sitting next to you is not always as comforting as you currently think it will be if your actions were not spot on before they got involved.
This is not to be taken as an advertisement. I can assure you that I am not hurting for your "small yearly fee" and I have plenty of work. Those that know me and have worked with me know that whether it be firearms training, law enforcement professional training, court services, fighting a war in Afghanistan, or taking way too much time to make a lengthy post on an internet forum, that I do it because I actually find some fulfillment in what I do. When I start doing it for the money you will see my rates increase significantly.
Last edited:
ClickClickD'oh
Member
orangeninja said:
Your spouse can not be compelled to testify against you.
SleazyRider
Member
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. ---Sagan
Shadow 7D
Member
Damn it Art
I'm trying to find the thread, I think it's in legal
guy a few years ago shot his neighbor across the street after two women attacked his wife in his garage and the boy friend hit him in the head with a wine bottle.
In his 3rd?? trial the investigating cop admitted to not talking to him (despite the head injury) And that the investigation might have taken a different turn.
Basically the 3 neighbors were jumping up and down screaming he attacked them.
Then there is the kid in Philly that was videoed being attacked by a crowd, who after warning off a guy attacking from the side was blind sided and taken to the ground, where he shot and killed his attacker.
The cops talked to some chick in a doorway a block down the street, didn't get the video, didn't pull surveillance etc. and took the aggressor groups statement that they were walking to church and helping old ladies (at 3am) cross the street. It wasn't until his trial that one witness, a friend and the girl that the attackers had started the entire thing by harassing, who returned to NY (due to fear of revenge and NO police interest in her story) was called by the defense. Not one cop had interviewed her, despite her TRYING to give a statement and being just feet from the shooting.
Yeah, in both cases the judge was less than pleased with the police work, but both of these cases SHOW exactly how the investigating officers bias / predetermined flow of events can make a clear SD case from something that is judged SD into something that you end in court fighting for your freedom.
Yeah, zip it, that's fine
but then you have the cop investigating the case from the perspective of YOU being the bad guy, and looking for evidence AGAINST you, instead of looking to corroborate your version of self defense.
I'm trying to find the thread, I think it's in legal
guy a few years ago shot his neighbor across the street after two women attacked his wife in his garage and the boy friend hit him in the head with a wine bottle.
In his 3rd?? trial the investigating cop admitted to not talking to him (despite the head injury) And that the investigation might have taken a different turn.
Basically the 3 neighbors were jumping up and down screaming he attacked them.
Then there is the kid in Philly that was videoed being attacked by a crowd, who after warning off a guy attacking from the side was blind sided and taken to the ground, where he shot and killed his attacker.
The cops talked to some chick in a doorway a block down the street, didn't get the video, didn't pull surveillance etc. and took the aggressor groups statement that they were walking to church and helping old ladies (at 3am) cross the street. It wasn't until his trial that one witness, a friend and the girl that the attackers had started the entire thing by harassing, who returned to NY (due to fear of revenge and NO police interest in her story) was called by the defense. Not one cop had interviewed her, despite her TRYING to give a statement and being just feet from the shooting.
Yeah, in both cases the judge was less than pleased with the police work, but both of these cases SHOW exactly how the investigating officers bias / predetermined flow of events can make a clear SD case from something that is judged SD into something that you end in court fighting for your freedom.
Yeah, zip it, that's fine
but then you have the cop investigating the case from the perspective of YOU being the bad guy, and looking for evidence AGAINST you, instead of looking to corroborate your version of self defense.
Birch Knoll
Member
Not every state recognizes spousal privilege. And in any case, a spouse can testify of his or her own free will.
Last edited:
Shadow 7D
Member
by sleazy
And broken binding privacy clauses = no business (and much less money)
yeah, um, the guy is in a trade magazine, so somebody believes him.
And broken binding privacy clauses = no business (and much less money)
yeah, um, the guy is in a trade magazine, so somebody believes him.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
That is very well stated. And, given the fact that very similar advice is offered by quite a few sources who are highly experienced in this area (more so than your local criminal defense attorney), it is hardly an "extraordinary claim."
I never read the THR thread, but here's the story you're referencing: http://ostti.com/Hickey%20Booklet.pdf.
Sure could have gone much better for Larry Hickey if his version of events had been considered during the investigation.
orangeninja
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,117
Jscott, thanks for your post and I appreciate the service you offer. I do disagree with you in that I believe that providing any information to the police without council beyond the bare facts given to the 911 operator is very dangerous. (The 911 call should include that you were attacked, you shot the attacker, you need an ambulance and police at your location, your description, his description and any medical related questions the operator has while you wait, no details.)
You can give this information to the police to but details get very dangerous. When you play “psychology” with the police you it’s a no prize game but with heavy consequences. You said it yourself, “a provable lie is as good as an admission” and that is exactly correct. If you contradict yourself even once, you are sunk. They will and should document each and every thing you say despite the psychological and physiological trauma you just endured. You may have a massive adrenal dump (most likely will) and be shaking, somewhat confused, have difficulty with high cognitive thought processes and even loss of some fine motor skills. This is the worst time to try and recall details of what happened and explain them to someone who has a legal and ethical obligation to look for ways where you might have broken the law.
You are a cop (or were). I was a long time ago. You trust cops, so do I…generally, but police are procedural by nature and though they use discretion in their investigations they are trained to look for criminal activity. I advise people to clam up not because I have an inherent distrust of the police, but because I believe that someone who has just been through a highly traumatic experience is probably not “mentally present” enough to answer the kind of probing questions they are sure to get. Add to the scenario that the officer already has a version of the story from the 911 operator (no matter how basic) and that the officer is highly attuned to using stressful situations to their advantage and they generally have a pretty good grasp on human psychology (academic and/or street) and you have an extremely dangerous situation.
If an officer indicates that the defendant on trial gave no statement at the scene sending a message to the jury, it would take a psychiatrist about 15 seconds of testimony on the effects of a traumatic situation like this to debunk the notion the suspect was hiding something and maybe another 10 seconds of testimony that the defendant was in fact trying to sort things out himself (time is not exact but you get the idea, it can quickly and easily be overcome). Especially if the attack was unprovoked and sudden and/or the defendant was injured.
You said it yourself “…if even one thing said is proven a lie it is very difficult for the defense to overcome”. There are 2 kinds of “lies”. Those told purposefully and those told inadvertently. Contradict just one piece of physical evidence and your goose is cooked. This is why you should get a lawyer, get all the facts, get all the evidence you can examine before you, then provide the details of the altercation as you know them to be.
Lastly, most larger departments I know of turn shootings over to a criminal investigator (who will also interview the shooter), the patrol officer is not the primary investigator on the scene even if he does the initial contact investigation (gathering statements, documenting evidence, etc.). In addition to this as you and everyone else knows, forensic investigations (where a homicide has taken place) will also do their thing. Lastly, depending upon the jurisdiction, etc. a district attorney may investigate the shooting and who knows, maybe a grand jury hearing will be held (I understand that a bill or no bill is required in all homicides in some jurisdictions). This is a lot of people in motion, a lot of cogs in a very big wheel. If at any point the suspect contradicts anything he says or physical evidence obtained, there are serious problems.
Now I am not an expert witness or court certified anything. Even my law enforcement career wouldn’t have likely made a good television series and I am not a lawyer nor do I play one in the movies…but logically, given the totality of the possibilities for error it makes perfect sense to get professional help immediately.
Since a medical example was used earlier I’ll liken a shooting (homicide) to a heart attack, you get to a professional immediately. Talking to the cops is like trying to diagnose and operate on yourself. Even if you somehow succeed it would be awkward, painful and leave you with some nasty scars.
You can give this information to the police to but details get very dangerous. When you play “psychology” with the police you it’s a no prize game but with heavy consequences. You said it yourself, “a provable lie is as good as an admission” and that is exactly correct. If you contradict yourself even once, you are sunk. They will and should document each and every thing you say despite the psychological and physiological trauma you just endured. You may have a massive adrenal dump (most likely will) and be shaking, somewhat confused, have difficulty with high cognitive thought processes and even loss of some fine motor skills. This is the worst time to try and recall details of what happened and explain them to someone who has a legal and ethical obligation to look for ways where you might have broken the law.
You are a cop (or were). I was a long time ago. You trust cops, so do I…generally, but police are procedural by nature and though they use discretion in their investigations they are trained to look for criminal activity. I advise people to clam up not because I have an inherent distrust of the police, but because I believe that someone who has just been through a highly traumatic experience is probably not “mentally present” enough to answer the kind of probing questions they are sure to get. Add to the scenario that the officer already has a version of the story from the 911 operator (no matter how basic) and that the officer is highly attuned to using stressful situations to their advantage and they generally have a pretty good grasp on human psychology (academic and/or street) and you have an extremely dangerous situation.
If an officer indicates that the defendant on trial gave no statement at the scene sending a message to the jury, it would take a psychiatrist about 15 seconds of testimony on the effects of a traumatic situation like this to debunk the notion the suspect was hiding something and maybe another 10 seconds of testimony that the defendant was in fact trying to sort things out himself (time is not exact but you get the idea, it can quickly and easily be overcome). Especially if the attack was unprovoked and sudden and/or the defendant was injured.
You said it yourself “…if even one thing said is proven a lie it is very difficult for the defense to overcome”. There are 2 kinds of “lies”. Those told purposefully and those told inadvertently. Contradict just one piece of physical evidence and your goose is cooked. This is why you should get a lawyer, get all the facts, get all the evidence you can examine before you, then provide the details of the altercation as you know them to be.
Lastly, most larger departments I know of turn shootings over to a criminal investigator (who will also interview the shooter), the patrol officer is not the primary investigator on the scene even if he does the initial contact investigation (gathering statements, documenting evidence, etc.). In addition to this as you and everyone else knows, forensic investigations (where a homicide has taken place) will also do their thing. Lastly, depending upon the jurisdiction, etc. a district attorney may investigate the shooting and who knows, maybe a grand jury hearing will be held (I understand that a bill or no bill is required in all homicides in some jurisdictions). This is a lot of people in motion, a lot of cogs in a very big wheel. If at any point the suspect contradicts anything he says or physical evidence obtained, there are serious problems.
Now I am not an expert witness or court certified anything. Even my law enforcement career wouldn’t have likely made a good television series and I am not a lawyer nor do I play one in the movies…but logically, given the totality of the possibilities for error it makes perfect sense to get professional help immediately.
Since a medical example was used earlier I’ll liken a shooting (homicide) to a heart attack, you get to a professional immediately. Talking to the cops is like trying to diagnose and operate on yourself. Even if you somehow succeed it would be awkward, painful and leave you with some nasty scars.
Last edited:
ClickClickD'oh
Member
ttolhurst said:
Then they aren't being compelled are they?
Birch Knoll
Member
Obviously. My point is that many people believe that a a spouse not only cannot be compelled to testify against the other spouse, but may be prevented from testifying. They cannot.
- Status
Similar threads
