Teenage Girl Talks Her Way into Prison

[Jeff White]

A fight between teenage girls over a boy escalates into gunfire. The girl who fired the shots initially portrays her actions as self defense.

This is video of an actual police interview after a claim of self defense. The facts didn't back up her story.

THE MOMENT AVA KNEW IT WAS OVER

When a planned fistfight over an ex-boyfriend spirals into gunfire, 18-year-old Ava Mooring finds herself in an interrogation room facing detectives who alre...

youtu.be

No one was shot but she still got 15 years.

I'm posting this as an example of how these interviews are conducted.

We don't need to talk about the stupid situation she put herself in. The discussion points are how the other evidence completely disproved her claim that she fired in defense of her friend.

Again, the actual situation isn't what we want to discuss. We are discussing how the evidence and how she talked herself into 3 counts of attempted murder.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

So. She claimed she threw the gun in a creek, but in fact she'd palmed it off to someone else and told them to dispose of it? She lied to the police interviewers. If I were on a jury I'd think that was evidence she felt guilty.

 

[wayneinFL]

A fight between teenage girls over a boy escalates into gunfire. The girl who fired the shots initially portrays her actions as self defense.

This is video of an actual police interview after a claim of self defense. The facts didn't back up her story.

THE MOMENT AVA KNEW IT WAS OVER

When a planned fistfight over an ex-boyfriend spirals into gunfire, 18-year-old Ava Mooring finds herself in an interrogation room facing detectives who alre...

youtu.be

No one was shot but she still got 15 years.

I'm posting this as an example of how these interviews are conducted.

We don't need to talk about the stupid situation she put herself in. The discussion points are how the other evidence completely disproved her claim that she fired in defense of her friend.

Again, the actual situation isn't what we want to discuss. We are discussing how the evidence and how she talked herself into 3 counts of attempted murder.

She did some dumb things- admitting to tampering with evidence, confessing to shooting at the car and knowing people were there- just a few examples. All of that could have been avoided by lawyering up.

The next to last place you want to be is in an interview room with cops trying to make you comfortable. I say next to last, because the last place you want to be is in prison. And that's how you get there.

 

[jmorris]

She did some dumb things-

And didn't stop when advised of her rights.

 

[Craig_AR]

She started giving them evidence when she thought she could safely tell her version without immediately exercising her right to silence without a lawyer. I was surprised how well the detectives made sure she fully understood her Miranda warning rights before proceeding.

 

[fastbolt]

She started giving them evidence when she thought she could safely tell her version without immediately exercising her right to silence without a lawyer. I was surprised how well the detectives made sure she fully understood her Miranda warning rights before proceeding.

Good interviewing training can help make or break an investigation.

Making sure someone understands they are free to not answer questions and leave at any time (i.e. no custody element) was another method that worked quite well.

 

[wayneinFL]

And didn't stop when advised of her rights.

She hadn't even started.

They did a good job of letting her know up front that she had a right to an attorney and was free to stop the interview. She really didn't get a chance to say much before the Miranda warning.

She got a really good Miranda warning and it went in one ear and right out the other.

 

[The Night Rider]

SHE TALKED

Even guilty people are entitled to the best possible defense under the law. Talking to the police isn't that.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Forensics and witnesses can paint a very different picture than the one the interviewee puts out. Unfortunately for many of these people, they don't realize their BS middle school drama story telling and lies quite often don't cut it. LEOs, by this point in time, have already developed a picture of what they think happened based on their investigation

If you're being interviewed, you can bet it's not being done by a complete novice, too.

Odds are those doing the interview either already know the answers to the questions they're going to ask, or they know the answers to enough to use those to determine the relative veracity of the answers to the questions they don't know the answers to.

The interviewee's rights are typically made very, very explicitly clear, for both the accused as well as for LEO, because that's a loophole they want to close right up front:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney.

Your choices are:

1. Clearly articulate you're exercising your right to remain silent and then shut up and don't say ANYTHING.

2. Say stuff and find out just how accurate that statement is that says whatever you say WILL be used against you.

"Planned fist fight"...no sympathy.

 

[Craig_AR]

And a reminder.. just not talking does not invoke your right to be silent and your righ tto a lawyer. You must clearly state you want a lawyer, and you are invoking your right to be silent. Once declared, do not engage in small talk with anyone.

 

[GuyInTN]

The guy in the middle of this triangle has some serious kavorka.

 

[Rule3]

Watched about one minute. Ava Moron!
No she should not have said anything but
They already had enough evidence to charge her she just made it easier.

A stripper a Wackos , what more do you want?
I thought they passed a law that you had to be 21 to be stripper? (I guess it is not official yet)

 

[GJeffB]

I'm going to offer a thought "from the other side" and then relate to the subject. Back story: I spent 28 years as a [civilian/non-LEO] welfare fraud investigator. Most often I was in the position of the referenced detectives, i.e. my investigations were 99.99% complete by the time the suspect came in to interview. Truth be told, I didn't much care if they told the truth or lied, I most likely had them either way. If they told the truth it was a confession (remember, the investigation was virtually complete); if they lied, it just added to the intent to deceive element of the crime.
So what?
So, if you have that thought process, the logical conclusion is to NOT consent to the interview and immediately get representation. Working backwards from my initial comment, if you are without fault, the interviewer probably knows that and is looking for you to hide something (even if unnecessary); if you have culpability, even accidental/incidental, there's no need to confirm their suspicions.

Glowing billboard alert: I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I am not giving and you should not be taking this as advice {whew}. YMMV

-jb, loved the job, glad to be retired

 

[The Night Rider]

Mama Tried - Merle Haggard cover

Join the fam! Check out our Patreon community: http://patreon.com/reinadelcidA cover of "Mama Tried" by Reina del Cid and Toni Lindgren, originally by Merle ...

youtu.be