That was my point all along sir and from experience shutting ones mouth is the best applicable action. We have a right to do so granted to us by our laws. You don't need to be a lawyer to read the Constitution of the United States of America. It is really a remarkable document that should be read with greater frequency in my modest opinion. I read it in the 5th grade and I still like it.
After a shooting -- now what?
- Thread starter Dannix
- Start date
- Status
gatorjames85
Member
So the LEO's already were convinced that this was a SD shooting-Fiddletown's approach tries to protect you when they don't.
gatorjames85
Member
Keep in mind that LE is allowed to lie to you during questioning.
gatorjames85
Member
I believe that this is an equitable principle, not a legal one (wouldn't apply here).
Okay what issue would you like to debate first?
gatorjames85
Member
You could start by explaining to me how one would invoke equity as a defense to murder.
Here is the wikipedia article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands_doctrine
Last edited:
I am not an attorney and would not have the first clue in all honesty. Maybe you could explain it to me.
gatorjames85
Member
It was rhetorical- I don't see how it could. I am not trying to be rude or anything, I just want to clear up that this wouldn't apply here. Equitable remedies are things like injunctions, specific relief (forcing someone to actually do something, not just pay damages), etc. If you are seeking these, you must have "clean hands," i.e. you can't have wronged the other party.
Sorry for veering off topic, btw.
Lou McGopher
Member
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2009
- Messages
- 507
If a team of police investigating the scene can't find the casing... what makes you think you will be able to point it out when they arrive? And if you did, how did you know right where to find it and even think to look for it at such a stressful time? Maybe you planted it there.
That IF and What and How should not come from the shooter in his or her present state of mind and excitation. It will only result in adding to the confusion in my opinion. The shooter should be compliant with directives from authorities but I feel he would also be best served to remain silent, invoking his 5th Amendment Right to do so until suitable and non involved legal council can get involved with the chaos. Let the clearer head prevail.
It's a very important right. How and when to exercise it is the question.
If somone has killed a neighbor or relative, you should say nothing without the advice of counsel.
If someone has taken all of the money out of the safe where you work, you should say nothing without the advice of counsel.
If your organization is under investigation for conspiracy to defraud, you should say nothing without the advice of counsel.
...and so on....
But--if you have shot someone in your house, and there is an accomplice with a gun still in your house, does anyone really think that shutting one's mouth is the best applicable action? That one should be obvious.
If someone has held up the bank from which you had just come and you can describe the getaway car, should you remain silent?
The self defense case differs from almost all other kinds of cases. You will have to admit to having willfully used deadly force, and you will have to present evidence to the effect that you were justified. The gathering and securing of that evidence is not something that you can do--it is beyond your control. If the police at the scene miss it, you won't be able to use it. If they have no inkling that the shooting involved self defense on your part, and if all indications point to a criminal act on your part, they won't be looking for evidence indicating that your use of deadly force was justified. They might see it and recognize it and they might not; and time is of the essence.
That's discussed in some detail in Lessons from Armed America. That book has received high acclaim from the recognized experts on this and other fora. If anyone who has read it would like to present an opposing view from a supported, objective, and reasoned standpoint, I'm sure that everyone here would appreciate it.
You should of course say nothing about the details of what happened until you have the benefit of the advice of counsel. However, if you can do anything at the outset to keep an obvious homicide on your part from rapidly turning into an otherwise unstoppable criminal prosecution that could cost you your fortune, your record, and your personal freedom, it would probably be wise to do so, in my humble opinion.
Mas Ayoob's approach, which is the same as that recommended by Fiddletown and by Kathy Jackson and which is very close to that recommended by Marty Hayes, is intended to do that. All of them have explained how failing to do so could prove very harmful to you.
You do have a constitutional right to not do so, of course....
Sir with all due respect, If I had all the answers to What If Questions in this world I would not be sitting here right now. I think I would be very busy answering all of them. At some point, you have to take the training wheels off and go it alone. I can only tell you what worked for me in the past and what I have seen work in the past.
I am also a firm believer that carrying a cat by the tail is not a good idea from past experiences and that locks are only intended for honest people to keep them honest!...lol
But you had previously writtenTeddyb said:
So which is it? Is what led up to the event all that matters, or is one's handling of the aftermath also important?Teddyb said:
In any case, for the reasons explained in several posts, complete silence is not the best course following a self defense event.
Of course the Clean Hands doctrine has nothing to do with this subject. I have no idea why Teddyb posted the link, and it looks like he doesn't now remember why he did either.gatorjames85 said:
Maybe you won't be able to. But what if you do actually know it's there? It would be better if it were found than if it were missed. And it would be better if it were found immediately rather than later. A later discovery is more consistent with your either having planted it or your having suppressed it. Neither inference does you any good.geniusiknowit said:
mljdeckard
Member
I'm going to hold this thread as a reason to be careful where to get your advice from. Free internet advice is worth exactly what you paid for it.
There is a reason I come down with fiddletown almost all of the time. Because not only does what he says make legal sense, it is confirmed as I study criminal justice from my professors, a couple of whom are practicing prosecutors. There is a lot more to this when you learn the law line by line, and then match it up with precedent.
And Teddy, your badge and experience notwithstanding, you know as well as I do that if you ask five different cops for legal opinions, you will get five different answers. When I want to get clarification on the law, I don't call the sheriff's office, I call the attorney general's office. I took a professional responsibility class in which we studied local and national precedents in which EXPERIENCED cops made mistakes that cost them the case because they thought they knew the law better than the prosecutor did. Sometimes REPEATEDLY through their whole career. Cops make arrests, prosecutors make cases.
There is a reason I come down with fiddletown almost all of the time. Because not only does what he says make legal sense, it is confirmed as I study criminal justice from my professors, a couple of whom are practicing prosecutors. There is a lot more to this when you learn the law line by line, and then match it up with precedent.
And Teddy, your badge and experience notwithstanding, you know as well as I do that if you ask five different cops for legal opinions, you will get five different answers. When I want to get clarification on the law, I don't call the sheriff's office, I call the attorney general's office. I took a professional responsibility class in which we studied local and national precedents in which EXPERIENCED cops made mistakes that cost them the case because they thought they knew the law better than the prosecutor did. Sometimes REPEATEDLY through their whole career. Cops make arrests, prosecutors make cases.
I've seen a similar question/scenario elsewhere here...
First: If you're not going to call 911 and you've predetermined not to talk to police without a warrant, what do you propose to do with the body? And if you do call 911, what exactly are you going to tell the dispatcher?
I hate to point this out, but it's not the AG who is going to be responding to your house if you've shot someone in self-defense. It's going to be the police.
Last edited:
W.E.G.
Member
You just can't get some people to not talk.
Then, once they get started, they WON'T STOP talking.
Then, once they get started, they WON'T STOP talking.
But it will be the prosecutor reading the reports and deciding what to do about things.McCall911 said:
The police are not going to be making decisions about what you did or why you did it. They are going to following established procedures. They are going to be collecting evidence, investigating and making reports. You're not going to "make your case" with the police. But what you do or don't do will be affecting how things go for you down the road.
Correct.
And if the police come to the scene of a shooting of unknown circumstances (because the person isn't talking or won't let them in) this is also going to appear on the police report(s). But equally likely is the fact that someone from the prosecutor's (or DA's) office will be called to the scene, since the circumstances of the shooting are still unknown.
In the meantime, you have police all over the place in a situation that they don't know anything about. Just a shooting and a guy holed up in a house who's not saying anything or letting them in.
What's wrong with this picture?
mljdeckard
Member
I'm much less concerned about who responds to my house than I am about who decides if charges will be filed and will be presiding over the grand jury.
I'm not sure I'm following you, but I think we may be saying sort of the same thing. You don't want to say too much too soon, or without counsel. But you also want to start laying the foundation for your self defense claim. And that takes us back to the short statement outlined in post 17.McCall911 said:
And I agree.mljdeckard said:
Yes, but that's just honestly out of your control. You act on emotion (fear) when you shoot an intruder or assailant. It's not a calculated event (as I understand it, it definitely shouldn't be!) Scary? You bet! You might even begin to doubt yourself, whether you did the right thing. But you have to hold on to the belief that there was no other way.
About the only other advice I have:
If there is no other choice but to talk to the police (and I can guarantee it's inevitable, even with your attorney), you should remain firm in stating that you acted out of fear for your life and had no other choice. But you should also show remorse, which you will undoubtedly feel anyway.
If it sounds like I speak through experience, I do. I've never talked about this here until now. And it's been a long time ago, so some details are fuzzy. I'd just rather not have to do it again. Acting in self-defense has terrible consequences for you, make no mistake about it. And not just legal. But I certainly would do it again if I had to.
Last edited:
196scoutmaster
Member
The instructor of my Permit-To-Carry class always said "The law says..." - and followed that phrase with whatever clinical language was appropriate to the discussion of using a personal firearm. AND he always finished with "Its rarely or never been tested in court - do you want to be the first?" What I got out of the class was -
-be alert and avoid trouble. that's the first and best course of action
-if trouble does find you - give 'em the damn wallet. Is my wallet and its contents worth more than my life? (NO)
- as a last resort (harm to yourself and/or others) use your firearm - accurately (meaning practice practice practice)
- call 911 and say there's been a shooting and an ambulance is needed. Give an address if asked and NOTHING more.
- tell Law Enforcement "Officer, I believed my life was in danger. I won't say more until talking to a lawyer."
-be prepared to be cuffed and taken in for questioning
-pray....a little help from upstairs might go a long way
-make that phone call to your lawyer and SHUT UP till he/she gets there. Law Enforcement works for the STATE - not you in this situation.
-be prepared for more than a small expense - but you will be alive
Minnesota has a limited "castle doctrine" law. Its improving but needs to get better. The law does state (I may get this wrong but here goes) I, as a citizen, must "flee danger, not confront it" first. If I'm unable to do so, THEN I may use deadly force. Regardless of my political beliefs about carrying a firearm - I've earned the "priviledge" granted my by the State. I won't deliberately do anything to lose that priviledge or screw it up for others.
-be alert and avoid trouble. that's the first and best course of action
-if trouble does find you - give 'em the damn wallet. Is my wallet and its contents worth more than my life? (NO)
- as a last resort (harm to yourself and/or others) use your firearm - accurately (meaning practice practice practice)
- call 911 and say there's been a shooting and an ambulance is needed. Give an address if asked and NOTHING more.
- tell Law Enforcement "Officer, I believed my life was in danger. I won't say more until talking to a lawyer."
-be prepared to be cuffed and taken in for questioning
-pray....a little help from upstairs might go a long way
-make that phone call to your lawyer and SHUT UP till he/she gets there. Law Enforcement works for the STATE - not you in this situation.
-be prepared for more than a small expense - but you will be alive
Minnesota has a limited "castle doctrine" law. Its improving but needs to get better. The law does state (I may get this wrong but here goes) I, as a citizen, must "flee danger, not confront it" first. If I'm unable to do so, THEN I may use deadly force. Regardless of my political beliefs about carrying a firearm - I've earned the "priviledge" granted my by the State. I won't deliberately do anything to lose that priviledge or screw it up for others.
It also helps to know your state laws. In Michigan, since 2006, you no longer have a duty to retreat anywhere you are legally allowed to be. In a self defense use of deadly force, the burden of proof falls on the prosecutor not you.
There is more to it that is beneficial to the law abiding, but you get the picture. Not all states are as friendly to self defense and it behooves one to know what is allowed.
Talking to your state gun rights organizations and a lawyer is good preparation after the event it is too late to ask hat you should have done.
There is more to it that is beneficial to the law abiding, but you get the picture. Not all states are as friendly to self defense and it behooves one to know what is allowed.
Talking to your state gun rights organizations and a lawyer is good preparation after the event it is too late to ask hat you should have done.
- Status
