Jeff,
Thanks for the reply. Yes, it is a double edged sword… Now that I know you are LE, I better understand your views. Cops always want more information to work with especially when entering a home with an armed homeowner and possibly an armed intruder. Information is power right? Well… please read on…
tepin,
I have to ask what you intend on saying or doing that you feel will incriiminate yourself on the 911 tape?
There wouldn’t be anything incriminating. The premise for this entire dialog comes down to “malicious prosecution” and protecting oneself from any legal backlash.
There is a reason the telecommunicators ask people to stay on the line. That's so the responding officers can have as much information as to what's actually happening in the house as possible and so that they can make an appropriate response. I wasn't kidding when I said I'd have the TC call you back. We do it all the time
Yes. I know and I agree with this statement. However, the lifespan of the tape lives beyond the conclusion of the incident and the tape can be used for malicious intent by the state or the family of the deceased in a civil suit. If a homeowner was unarmed in the same scenario, I too would stay on the phone with 911. The phone is all you have and if lucky you can blurb out a description of the perp as they enter the bedroom. I have been told that a prosecutor here in Ramsey County MN is salivating at the chance to prosecute a person with their carry permit. Am I paranoid or just overly cautious about malicious prosecutions and civil suites?
Something you aren't taking into consideration is the 911 tape could provide the evidence that saves you from a criminal prosecution or wins the civil suit. It's a double edged sword.
It is a double edged sword but which side is sharper?
I'll tell you from personal experience that there have been times when I was glad to have tapes of radio traffic and dashcam evidence when baseless accusations were made.
Just considering your line of work I think LEO need the audio/video. No debate on that point.
By hanging up, you may be destroying the evidence that could save you from prosecution.
First of all you cannot destroy what doesn’t exist. Which is the better scenario
(1) Having an attorney specializing in civil suites listen to and pick apart a 911 tape for 2 months in preparation for the suit that could cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars? The motivation being that the attorney can collect 60% of whatever is awarded to the family of the person shot in an unsuspecting homeowners home at 3AM and of course it costs the family nothing because its Pro Bono while it costs the homeowner how much to defend himself even if found not guilty? OR
(2) There is a 911 call asking for help and nothing more than a brief description of what is happening. The next day your attorney, who is obligated to follow the law as well as the rest of us, crafts a proper statement on the homeowners behalf. Beyond the written statement, crafted by an attorney, there is nothing to pick at and pull apart.
Jeff, you have to understand that at 3AM its panic time, people will say things they don’t even realize are being said and do things they might not even remember doing. All this happening in a flash and then having someone analyze a 911 tape and question a homeowners actions and language and choice of words. Can you imagine what would happen to the homeowner if he were on the stand and asked if he said XY or Z, replied “no” then the 911 tape was played to the court and proved otherwise? His credibility would be shot from that point forward. What will that cost? Cash or freedom?
”tepin” said:
Wouldn’t you agree that the ideal situation would be to let your attorney file a statement with the cops the following day when everyone is thinking more clearly?
Why would your statement disagree with the evidence on the tape? If you aren't planning on breaking the law or lying in your statement, this is a non issue.
It is possible that the evidence on the tape is only half the truth. The 911 call is capturing the audio but not what is visually / physically happening in the home. Having half the truth on tape is dangerous for the homeowner and opens the homeowner to risk of future frivolous law suites and maybe even criminal charges depending on how much he paid for his attorney. There should be one statement and one record of fact and it needs to be taken by the homeowners attorney and presented to law enforcement by the attorney.
The instructors that I know that teach the MN Permit to Carry class state that whenever you are involved in a shooting, you only state obvious facts, state a willingness to cooperate and lastly request to speak with your attorney and that you do not consent to search.
Are the rules of evidence in civil cases where you are at written in such a way that the plaintiff's attorney would be able to exclude the physical evidence at the scene? There will be plenty of physical evidence such as the location of the body, the angle of the shot, the blood spatter that will prove your version of the event. Unless the plaintiff's attorney can figure a way of keeping the physical evidence from the jury, your argument is baseless.
Well, I know more about criminal law than I do civil but I do know that getting a guilty verdict in civil court is much easier than in criminal court. I also know that the one paragraph of text that makes up the statute regarding the justifiable use of deadly force runs much deeper than the common person may realize. I own a copy of the 5 volume set “Warren on Homicide”. The entire set probably exceeds 3000 pages and discusses presumptions and burden of proof, admissibility, proceedings, weight and sufficiency of evidence, conduct of trial and the list continues, all backed by case law. Now with that said, I cannot answer your question regarding physical evidence being inadmissible in a trial. I don’t know if its possible. Maybe, given a certain set of circumstances. I just do not know. What I do know is that there are a lot of rules around homicide and the homeowner that only knows that they need a firearm for self-defense knows none of these rules. This is why having an attorney is so important. Many innocent people hang themselves just because they don’t know the rules or are not articulate enough to convey the facts properly.
I've been sued before on a baseless case and the truth won out...Heck I was even named in a lawsuit once over an incident that happened when I wasn't even at work, apparently the plaintiff just started naming off cops he knew when he filed the complaint.
Well, I would like to see tort reform.
The best defense against the baseless lawsuit is to do everything the way you're supposed to do it, train for the situation, document your training and take care to preserve the physical evidence.
This sounds like a law enforcement officers job description. What does the “common man” know?
How is it going to look when the plaintiff's attorney puts you under oath and asks;
"Mr. Tepin, on the 911 tape, the telecommunicator asked you to remain on the line while the officers responded. Yet you hung up the phone, why? Was it because you intended to murder my client's son for trespass and didn't wish to have it recorded that my clients son was begging you for his life when you gunned him down in cold blood?
“Mr. Prosecutor, I believed, given the circumstances, it would be dangerous and extremely difficult to juggle a telephone and my shotgun while keeping an eye on the bedroom door and on my wife. In addition, my CCW training recommends that I do not remain on the phone with 911 operators nor am I legally obligated to do so and I have witnesses that will corroborate these facts. I am entitled to an attorney prior to making statements to the police and speaking to 911 is the same as speaking to law enforcement. I also know that home invasions at night are more dangerous and deadly than those invasions committed during the day. I also know that an assailant can cover 21 feet in 1.5 seconds and deliver a blow with knife or club. My full attention was required on the situation and not directing trained law enforcement officers into my home.”
Are you a member of an internet forum known as The High Road? On July 8th, 2006 didn't you advocate hanging up the phone after you called 911 so that audio evidence of what really happened in an encounter with an intruder wouldn't be available to the police or a plaintiff's attorney? Had you made the decision to kill anyone you ever caught trespassing way back then? Were you impatiently waiting for my client's son to stuumble into your home so you could satisfy some outdated primal urge to prove your manhood by gunning another human being down in cold blood?"
“Mr. Prosecutor, I am a member of the Internet forum known as The High Road. I have made statements regarding not remaining on the phone with 911 but I do not advocate what you are suggesting. What I advocate is my legal right to legal counsel regarding the events that were unfolding in my home at 3AM and my right to defend myself and my wife without being encumbered by a telephone. In addition, you will also find on The High Road and other Internet forums, that I am a strong advocate for knowing the law and following the law. If you should take the time to review my other writing on the Internet, you will find that I prefer ‘retreat’ over confrontation. In some cases you will find writings that suggest having a home invader at gun point and requesting him to just leave the property. If you seem to have misplaced this documentation Mr. Prosecutor, my attorney has copies he can provide the court. I do not agree with and I take offense to what you are suggesting.”
What you post here is far from anonymous. It's becoming quite common for computer harddrives and ISP records to be subpeonaed in both criminal and civil investigations. Frankly I'm a little surprised that someone who is so concerned about making sure that his version of the story is the only one that is told would post statements like that on a public forum.
Why are you suggesting the homeowner’s statement would contradict the 911 tape? Being in law enforcement, are you predisposed to not trusting law-abiding citizens that are attacked in their home at 3AM? Is this why people need attorneys?
Jeff, I have worked in Information Technology for nearly 17 years, I know what is posted on the net never dies and I know law enforcement looks to the net for evidence of “poor character” and whatever else during investigations. I know there is no privacy and “handles” are not a shield. Everyone has an IP address and the ISP knows which users have what IP on specific dates and time and WEB servers log it all.
Nothing illegal has been discussed nor do I advocate or promote in any way shape or form anything illegal. Nor do I promote obstruction of justice. I have written that I fear the law more than a perp’s gun for the simple fact that under the wrong circumstances I could lose my freedom for life and get to enjoy the rape that happens in our lovely prisons. For this reason and for me personally, shooting is always a last resort. My views posted on this and other Internet forums will support this as being true.
In my original post I am merely passing on information that I agree with and that others need to take into consideration and make their own decision, as I stated. Consider this:
Law enforcement is not legally obligated to protect citizens
Law enforcement is not legally obligated to respond to 911 calls
It is legal for law enforcement to lie to citizens to obtain information
Law enforcements primary job is to assign blame
Citizens cannot lie to law enforcement because its obstruction of justice
If citizens refuse to answer a law enforcement officers questions it is evidence, not proof of, guilt. The only exception is requesting that you speak to your attorney.
Why do attorneys and everyone else always say “don’t talk to the police without representation?”
If a citizen exercises self-defense in the home or in the street and kills someone, is the citizen really qualified to handle this encounter at the time of the event and without knowledge of law and without an attorney?
There is no law requiring a citizen to remain on the line with a 911 operator nor is there a legal requirement to follow a 911 operators instructions.
You yourself said it’s a double edged sword and my reply was “which side is sharper”? Is the deck stacked for or against the private citizen when a shooting takes place? Why does this system of ours seem so adversarial? Might there be an unfavorable history? Has a homeowner ever gone to jail for shooting a home invader? I would guess so and it would be interresting to review the facts of the trial.
As for the orginal question, I'd turn the alarm off so that I could here, call 911 tell them I was armed and where I was in the house, and wait on the line and provide the TC with as much information about the situation as I could.
So it looks like we agree on everything except staying on the phone.
. Your alarm system has window triggers for multiple windows? I thought ADT, Brinks, Solomans and the like max out at 10 sensors total. I got 2 door sensors and 3 motion detectors, that leaves me with 5 empty spots. I got 12 windows on the first floor alone, so if know of a system that can handle up to 20+ sensors, let me know. Thankfully for me Most of my 1st floor windows are difficult to get to due to height (lowest one is about 6 feet from the ground) and thorny bushes. My windows are also double paned and have double locks (one is the regular lock that came with the window, another is a child proof locks (or a piece of wood) that allow the window to be opened only part way so that a child cannot crawl out. I agree that most breakins occur thru a window, but hopefully I threw enough barriers up to not make it that easy.