El Tejon
Member
buzz, same here.
"You have the right to remain silent..."
- Thread starter pax
- Start date
- Status
DMK
Member
By the grace of God, I'll never be put in such a position, but if I were, I'd keep my mouth shut. I have no misconceptions that something I could say will make the Police buy me a nice warm cup of coffee and drive me home. When some lowlife attacks you and leaves you no way of escape, it's a sure thing that your life will change for the worse regardless of who walks away.
If you keep silent and the detectives decide to take that as meaning you're guilty, that is their opinion and may be disputed in court. However, if you open your mouth and blab some thing in front of a couple LE witnesses, your statement will be fact. In the condition you would be in right after a shooting, you are not capable of determining whether or not the things you say will help or hurt you in court.
Arguments can be made either way, but I believe that you stand better chances if you remain silent, regardless. You can always make a statement later, but you can't take back one you made earlier.
BTW, this topic applies to any situation where you may be sued or charged with a crime. I say cooporate, shut up, and get legal advice.
If you keep silent and the detectives decide to take that as meaning you're guilty, that is their opinion and may be disputed in court. However, if you open your mouth and blab some thing in front of a couple LE witnesses, your statement will be fact. In the condition you would be in right after a shooting, you are not capable of determining whether or not the things you say will help or hurt you in court.
Arguments can be made either way, but I believe that you stand better chances if you remain silent, regardless. You can always make a statement later, but you can't take back one you made earlier.
BTW, this topic applies to any situation where you may be sued or charged with a crime. I say cooporate, shut up, and get legal advice.
Alvarez's statement
And that statement is a good example of why one should wait before making a statement.
The human brain does some strange things, especially under stress. Different stimuli get different priorities, perception of time changes, etc. If one pays close attention after a stressful incident, one can frequently find gaps in one's memory. For instance, you may remember doing something at point A, and something else at point B, but not recall moving from A to B. After the event, your brain will fill in the gaps for you. If quizzed about the event, you'll probably say you moved from A to B, even though you don't remember it.
The other thing the brain does is to deny something occurred. Ever deleted something by mistake, and your first thought was "No, I didn't do that."
Couple these two things with a contemporaneous statement, and you have a set-up to utter something that you might regret later. Now your statement the following day, after you think about what happened, may include "I don't know" and "I can't remember" a number of times. This may not be all that helpful to the investigating officer, but it is more accurate. The investigating officer may even interpret your answer as evasive. I think this is better than saying something that can later be proven false. He's used to people lying to him; if you say something that is clearly false, I think he's more likely to interpret it as a lie than a mistake.
And that statement is a good example of why one should wait before making a statement.
The human brain does some strange things, especially under stress. Different stimuli get different priorities, perception of time changes, etc. If one pays close attention after a stressful incident, one can frequently find gaps in one's memory. For instance, you may remember doing something at point A, and something else at point B, but not recall moving from A to B. After the event, your brain will fill in the gaps for you. If quizzed about the event, you'll probably say you moved from A to B, even though you don't remember it.
The other thing the brain does is to deny something occurred. Ever deleted something by mistake, and your first thought was "No, I didn't do that."
Couple these two things with a contemporaneous statement, and you have a set-up to utter something that you might regret later. Now your statement the following day, after you think about what happened, may include "I don't know" and "I can't remember" a number of times. This may not be all that helpful to the investigating officer, but it is more accurate. The investigating officer may even interpret your answer as evasive. I think this is better than saying something that can later be proven false. He's used to people lying to him; if you say something that is clearly false, I think he's more likely to interpret it as a lie than a mistake.
How about this?
To the 911 operator: I have been attacked. Please send paramedics and police to [your location]. My attacker has been shot.
To the cop: I was attacked by that man/woman. I thought he/she was going to kill me. He/she had a knife/gun/etc. and it's there.
In response to further questioning: Look, I was just attacked and had to shoot someone to save my life. Please, can I take a little while to calm down?
Old rule of thumb is that the more you repeat something to someone, the more you plant the seed in their mind. You want to tell a jury something several times, so why not the investigator?
Beyond that, don't say anything else until you've had a chance to calm down and speak with an attorney, who if nothing else will be able to help you figure out what really happened by walking you through it.
To the 911 operator: I have been attacked. Please send paramedics and police to [your location]. My attacker has been shot.
To the cop: I was attacked by that man/woman. I thought he/she was going to kill me. He/she had a knife/gun/etc. and it's there.
In response to further questioning: Look, I was just attacked and had to shoot someone to save my life. Please, can I take a little while to calm down?
Old rule of thumb is that the more you repeat something to someone, the more you plant the seed in their mind. You want to tell a jury something several times, so why not the investigator?
Beyond that, don't say anything else until you've had a chance to calm down and speak with an attorney, who if nothing else will be able to help you figure out what really happened by walking you through it.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Buzz and El Tejon, while Ayoob may not have mentioned one particular aspect in LF1, he does discuss the light trigger in his Ayoob Files book, pages 73-74. Alvarez's initial statement was that the gun discharged because he was bumped, not because he pulled the trigger, hence the manslaughter aspect of the case and not a murder case. Had the officer meant to pull the trigger and stated specifically from the onselt that he meant to shoot Snake Johnson, then he would have been charged with murder, not manslaugher. The contention that the shooting was not intentional was because of the officer's statement and because he had modified his gun with a lighter trigger that apparently would be seen as more likely to fall than a full weight trigger. Of course, having the hammer locked back and the gun in single action mode and the muzzle pressed against Snake's head muddled the case as well.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=114917&highlight=alvarez
Keep in mind that Ayoob recently included his lawyer's comments that 1911s should not be used as defensive firearms as they are harder to defend in court than other guns like the laywer's Glock with a NY trigger.
Ayoob enjoys playing all sides of the discussion.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=114917&highlight=alvarez
Keep in mind that Ayoob recently included his lawyer's comments that 1911s should not be used as defensive firearms as they are harder to defend in court than other guns like the laywer's Glock with a NY trigger.
Ayoob enjoys playing all sides of the discussion.
El Tejon
Member
00, on page 73-74 Mas is discussing the prosecution's theory of the case. "The point is not that the prosecution failed to convince the jury that Alvarez was a 'gunfighter' who had dangerously modified his duty weapon. The point was that the prosecution tried to do that." Massad Ayoob, THE AYOOB FILES 73-74 (1995) (emphasis in original).
Ayoob likes to ensure that his students receive the argument and the counter-argument as a good instructor should. However, as he drives home in LFI-I and II, there can be multiple lessons from one example.
Ayoob likes to ensure that his students receive the argument and the counter-argument as a good instructor should. However, as he drives home in LFI-I and II, there can be multiple lessons from one example.
An interesting debate...with most people saying you should not make a statement without advice of counsel. It might help to know that the union contracts of many police agencies stipulate that in an officer envolved shooting the officer will not be questioned for at least 24 hours and that he will have a lawyer present when is is questioned about the affray.
Sleuth
Member
Let me give everyone an idea of what can happen, in sort of a reverse view. I arrested three folks with 500 pounds of marijuana in their truck. They were all very calm, but one of them did not invoke "Miranda", and stated that:
They had gone to Mexico
A man jumped out of the trees with a gun
He forced them to drive deeper into Mexico
Other men put something in the back of their truck
When they came back into the US, and my patrol officer stopped them, the man with a gun ran away.
Here is someone who could have been talking about buying a pack of gum, claiming they had just been kidnapped at gunpoint in another country. When I told her I did not beleve her, she stopped talking.
The jury also could not believe that some who had just gone through a traumatic event like being kidnapped and held a gunpoint would be calm, collected, and not excited about it. It is contrary to the common experience. I would have had a much harder time getting a conviction if all three had remained silent. They each got 7 years in prison - so they get out this year!
Have you ever talked to someone who just went through a life changing event? Virtually everyone wants to talk about it, to anyone who will listen. They want to release all that adrenalin, and the person you talk to can be (with limited exceptions) compelled to testify against you. The police are not your friend in that situation. Once you ask for a lawyer, say nothing, offer nothing. All conversations you start are admissable. If they ask for my ID, I will hand them my drivers license. Otherwise, I'll do my statue imitation.
I will add one thing. IF there is still a risk to the responding officers, I will tell them about the "male in the red shirt & jeans armed and on the loose." Otherwise, it's:
I was in fear of my life
"That guy" was going to kill me.
I want to speak to my lawyer.
They had gone to Mexico
A man jumped out of the trees with a gun
He forced them to drive deeper into Mexico
Other men put something in the back of their truck
When they came back into the US, and my patrol officer stopped them, the man with a gun ran away.
Here is someone who could have been talking about buying a pack of gum, claiming they had just been kidnapped at gunpoint in another country. When I told her I did not beleve her, she stopped talking.
The jury also could not believe that some who had just gone through a traumatic event like being kidnapped and held a gunpoint would be calm, collected, and not excited about it. It is contrary to the common experience. I would have had a much harder time getting a conviction if all three had remained silent. They each got 7 years in prison - so they get out this year!
Have you ever talked to someone who just went through a life changing event? Virtually everyone wants to talk about it, to anyone who will listen. They want to release all that adrenalin, and the person you talk to can be (with limited exceptions) compelled to testify against you. The police are not your friend in that situation. Once you ask for a lawyer, say nothing, offer nothing. All conversations you start are admissable. If they ask for my ID, I will hand them my drivers license. Otherwise, I'll do my statue imitation.
I will add one thing. IF there is still a risk to the responding officers, I will tell them about the "male in the red shirt & jeans armed and on the loose." Otherwise, it's:
I was in fear of my life
"That guy" was going to kill me.
I want to speak to my lawyer.
FPrice
Member
Pax...and others...
"Pretty good Ayoob Files in American Handgunner this issue (Nov/Dec 2003). Highly recommend you read it before responding to this thread, if possible."
It appears as if many have NOT read the article and do not understand the circumstances of this case. Or at least are forgetting what happened when the police arrived.
The main reason (IMHO) that the individual was arrested was the fact that the deceased's wife (I think) told the police that that the individual lured the deceased into the kitchen to retrieve a gun, pursued him, and shot him in the back. She painted a picture of false aggression which the accused did nothing to contradict. She also conveniently left out the part of the deceased smashing the toilet with the metal bar then coming after the accused.
Under these circumstances and the accused not saying anything at all in his defense, the police probably had no choice but to arrest him. Rememberm this was relatively neutral territory. If it had been the accused's house with signs of forced entry, then things might have been different.
Ayoob knows the dynamics of an investigation much better than most of us on this board (with the exception of some of the more experienced LEOs in the crowd). He also is aware of the emotions involved in the aftermath of a shooting. I think his advice was pretty much right on. At least as far as describing why you felt fear for your life and what the deceased did to you, or tried to do to you. I might refrain from being so verbose about the importance of the case and wishing to continue in 24 hours, etc., etc.
I think you should say at least enough to present your side (He attacked me with that item, I was in fear for my life and tried to defend myself.). Don't let someone else accuse you of something while you are playing dumb.
The police are neither your friends nor your enemies. They are professionals trying to sort out a difficult situation. The best you can do is to give them a reason to believe you and then be quiet.
Let's hope none of us have to find out by personal experience.
"Pretty good Ayoob Files in American Handgunner this issue (Nov/Dec 2003). Highly recommend you read it before responding to this thread, if possible."
It appears as if many have NOT read the article and do not understand the circumstances of this case. Or at least are forgetting what happened when the police arrived.
The main reason (IMHO) that the individual was arrested was the fact that the deceased's wife (I think) told the police that that the individual lured the deceased into the kitchen to retrieve a gun, pursued him, and shot him in the back. She painted a picture of false aggression which the accused did nothing to contradict. She also conveniently left out the part of the deceased smashing the toilet with the metal bar then coming after the accused.
Under these circumstances and the accused not saying anything at all in his defense, the police probably had no choice but to arrest him. Rememberm this was relatively neutral territory. If it had been the accused's house with signs of forced entry, then things might have been different.
Ayoob knows the dynamics of an investigation much better than most of us on this board (with the exception of some of the more experienced LEOs in the crowd). He also is aware of the emotions involved in the aftermath of a shooting. I think his advice was pretty much right on. At least as far as describing why you felt fear for your life and what the deceased did to you, or tried to do to you. I might refrain from being so verbose about the importance of the case and wishing to continue in 24 hours, etc., etc.
I think you should say at least enough to present your side (He attacked me with that item, I was in fear for my life and tried to defend myself.). Don't let someone else accuse you of something while you are playing dumb.
The police are neither your friends nor your enemies. They are professionals trying to sort out a difficult situation. The best you can do is to give them a reason to believe you and then be quiet.
Let's hope none of us have to find out by personal experience.
Maybe they are not exactly your enemy (although that can be up in the air depending on the cop) but I can guarantee you what ever you say to them WILL BE TWISTED in court by YOUR ENEMY. So the officers will probably not be able to (or willing to) do ANYTHING to HELP you in court. That makes them, at very least, hostile to me.... Not necessarily their fault (depending on the officer) just the way it happens, and what they have to do...
also remember, that a vast majority of the time, if you shoot someone, no mater how justified, you will be taking a trip to the station in cuffs.... not your enemy huh?
*edit to clarify, that I'm not bashing officers, just stating the fact that if you tell them something like "I fired 2 shots" and later it comes out that you fired 3 (a VERY common mistake), the officer will have to reveal this in court, and the opposing council will be sure to bring up the fact that you LIED, even though we all know it is easy to be confused immediately after, and it was an honest mistake.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Trusting strangers is idiotic. Don't tell the police anything, except maybe "This guy attacked me and I feared for my life," then shut the hell up and wait for counsel.
tetleyb
Member
Some peoples view of the police are completely distorted. As a police officer who has investigated numerous shootings of this type, I and no one I have worked with, have EVER arrested said person or taken them to the station in "cuffs."
I don't believe anyone here has said to tell the responding officers the number of shots fired or to give a detailed statement. I, and others, have said to give a brief statement, then ask for your attorney.
I was in fear for my life (or the life of my loved ones) and I fired in defense of my (their) life. Before answering any further questions, I would like to talk with an attorney.
One more thing, I would strongly suggest you also talk with your wife (significant other) and children. They can rat you out quicker then anyone (and usually do).
El Tejon
Member
tet, excellent advice. Have a "just in case" drill with the trusted other (if applicable).
As usual, I agree with Lawdog. The answer varies. I have edited my comments at http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=64983 to fit this thread.
Consider these factors in resolving your dilemma:
1. If you don't say a word, you may lose valuable evidence. There may be artifacts around the scene that are relevant to you but not immediately apparent to the police. By the time you get a lawyer on board, the scene may have been processed and exculpatory evidence lost, and the ability to enlist the aid of the police in support of your theory, or to establish your credibility, also may be lost. If you get a lawyer, make sure he/she acts quickly to preserve evidence, but it's not as good as having the police as your witness.
2. Police have spouses, significant others, friends, kids, parents, etc. Generally, in all but the most rabid anti-gun/PC/paternalistic places, the police will go out of their way to exculpate a person they believe to have acted legitimately in self defense. I guess I am fortunate enough to have lived in places where police don’t have a problem with good guys turning the table on bad guys. I know one person who was congratulated by police after she shot a guy (probable career criminal) who followed her and her sister into the house with obvious nefarious intentions. I also have seen police CLEAR suspects as a result of voluntary interviews, contrary to popular belief.
3. Your decision may turn on the circumstances of the particular case. If it's a crime being committed in your house by a total stranger who forcibly entered with a deadly weapon at 3 a.m., it's going to look different to police and prosecutors than if it's a re-escalation of an argument that took place in a bar involving your ex-spouse's new "friend." I have seen some situations that were so squeaky clean that police would have wondered why the good guy was stonewalling, and others where people were whispering, and the people involved definitely should shut up.
4. There are 4 possibilities:
a. you don't get arrested and you don't get prosecuted
b. you don't get arrested immediately but you later get arrested and prosecuted
c. you get arrested but you don't get prosecuted
d. you get arrested and you get prosecuted
The less you say the more likely you are going to get arrested, because the police will only be looking to the physical evidence and what the bad guy/witnesses say. Be prepared to go to jail. The less you say the harder it is to convict. Talking immediately could help you on the front end and burn you on the back end. It is a major dilemma. If you live in a place where you can be assured of being arrested, then there's less reason to talk (outside of loss of evidence concerns) because you're not going to beat the ride under any circumstances. If the place where you live has a really bad jail, you may not want to spend a minute in a holding cell with real criminals accused of murder, rape, etc., because that's how you'll be treated if arrested for shooting someone.
5. Self defense or justification is a defense to something that ordinarily would be a crime. So, admitting facts that amount to shooting someone does establish the elements of the crime, whether aggravated battery or homicide. OTOH, even if you don’t admit what happened, if the police show up at your house and you, your gun, and a bleeding bad guy are there, the lack of that statement isn't really going to save you much grief. The reality is that you have intentionally shot someone, and you were relying on your defense. Are you really planning to wait until the prosecution proves a homicide at trial before you decide to say "OK, so you have a point, but I have a defense to it"? It is a good idea to talk to a lawyer in your state in advance on burden of proof and other procedural issues.
6. If you wish to speak to a lawyer, approach it from the standpoint that this was a traumatic occurrence, that you are unfamiliar with the procedures, and that you would like to get some advice, rather than taking the approach that you know your rights and want to talk to a "suit." Also, if you are traumatized, go to the hospital and seek medical care. Yes, you are a victim even if you don't have a bullet hole in you. This delays questioning, allows time to get your composure and to get a lawyer, etc. You should NEVER talk until you are relaxed, comfortable, rested and READY, because of the consequences.
7. Regardless of your decision on speaking to the police, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you speak to anyone other than persons who cannot be forced to testify if you object, such as your duly employed lawyer (attorney-client privilege) or other persons governed by your particular state law (e.g. husband-wife and clergy privileges in many states). (There haven't been any parent-child privileges where I have lived.) The police are going to interview everyone with whom you spoke about the incident, and if your multiple stories don't match, even for innocent reasons, it could work against you. Cruiser, the husband/wife privilege is usually 2 distinct privileges. One is the defendant’s right to prevent the non-defendant spouse from testifying (with exceptions, such as if the non-defendant spouse is the victim). Check the local law of your jurisdiction.
Consider these factors in resolving your dilemma:
1. If you don't say a word, you may lose valuable evidence. There may be artifacts around the scene that are relevant to you but not immediately apparent to the police. By the time you get a lawyer on board, the scene may have been processed and exculpatory evidence lost, and the ability to enlist the aid of the police in support of your theory, or to establish your credibility, also may be lost. If you get a lawyer, make sure he/she acts quickly to preserve evidence, but it's not as good as having the police as your witness.
2. Police have spouses, significant others, friends, kids, parents, etc. Generally, in all but the most rabid anti-gun/PC/paternalistic places, the police will go out of their way to exculpate a person they believe to have acted legitimately in self defense. I guess I am fortunate enough to have lived in places where police don’t have a problem with good guys turning the table on bad guys. I know one person who was congratulated by police after she shot a guy (probable career criminal) who followed her and her sister into the house with obvious nefarious intentions. I also have seen police CLEAR suspects as a result of voluntary interviews, contrary to popular belief.
3. Your decision may turn on the circumstances of the particular case. If it's a crime being committed in your house by a total stranger who forcibly entered with a deadly weapon at 3 a.m., it's going to look different to police and prosecutors than if it's a re-escalation of an argument that took place in a bar involving your ex-spouse's new "friend." I have seen some situations that were so squeaky clean that police would have wondered why the good guy was stonewalling, and others where people were whispering, and the people involved definitely should shut up.
4. There are 4 possibilities:
a. you don't get arrested and you don't get prosecuted
b. you don't get arrested immediately but you later get arrested and prosecuted
c. you get arrested but you don't get prosecuted
d. you get arrested and you get prosecuted
The less you say the more likely you are going to get arrested, because the police will only be looking to the physical evidence and what the bad guy/witnesses say. Be prepared to go to jail. The less you say the harder it is to convict. Talking immediately could help you on the front end and burn you on the back end. It is a major dilemma. If you live in a place where you can be assured of being arrested, then there's less reason to talk (outside of loss of evidence concerns) because you're not going to beat the ride under any circumstances. If the place where you live has a really bad jail, you may not want to spend a minute in a holding cell with real criminals accused of murder, rape, etc., because that's how you'll be treated if arrested for shooting someone.
5. Self defense or justification is a defense to something that ordinarily would be a crime. So, admitting facts that amount to shooting someone does establish the elements of the crime, whether aggravated battery or homicide. OTOH, even if you don’t admit what happened, if the police show up at your house and you, your gun, and a bleeding bad guy are there, the lack of that statement isn't really going to save you much grief. The reality is that you have intentionally shot someone, and you were relying on your defense. Are you really planning to wait until the prosecution proves a homicide at trial before you decide to say "OK, so you have a point, but I have a defense to it"? It is a good idea to talk to a lawyer in your state in advance on burden of proof and other procedural issues.
6. If you wish to speak to a lawyer, approach it from the standpoint that this was a traumatic occurrence, that you are unfamiliar with the procedures, and that you would like to get some advice, rather than taking the approach that you know your rights and want to talk to a "suit." Also, if you are traumatized, go to the hospital and seek medical care. Yes, you are a victim even if you don't have a bullet hole in you. This delays questioning, allows time to get your composure and to get a lawyer, etc. You should NEVER talk until you are relaxed, comfortable, rested and READY, because of the consequences.
7. Regardless of your decision on speaking to the police, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should you speak to anyone other than persons who cannot be forced to testify if you object, such as your duly employed lawyer (attorney-client privilege) or other persons governed by your particular state law (e.g. husband-wife and clergy privileges in many states). (There haven't been any parent-child privileges where I have lived.) The police are going to interview everyone with whom you spoke about the incident, and if your multiple stories don't match, even for innocent reasons, it could work against you. Cruiser, the husband/wife privilege is usually 2 distinct privileges. One is the defendant’s right to prevent the non-defendant spouse from testifying (with exceptions, such as if the non-defendant spouse is the victim). Check the local law of your jurisdiction.
M
Mr Grinch
Guest
Deaf, if they speak, aren't they in fact precisely proving that they AREN'T dumb???
Grinch
Sleuth
Member
Mr. Grinch, it's an obvious play on words. Dumb as in unable to speak, vs. DUMB as in not capabile of organized thought.
I know, it's Friday, you were thinking about going shooting.
I know, it's Friday, you were thinking about going shooting.
M
Mr Grinch
Guest
...and it is even funnier that it was written by a deaf person!
The "Right to remain silent" is inherently really stupid. I suggest answering "No" to "do you understand these rights" when asked by the arresting officer (yes, I have been arrested before - and remaining silent does tend to paint you as guilty).
In my case, the officer told me of my right to remain silent, then proceeded to ask for ID and confirm verbally my name and address. I hesitated, and for a moment - not wanting to give up my right and potentially incriminate myself, yet at the same time not wanting to seem as if I was obstructing justice or not willing to co-operate. For someone who's not familiar with the precise wording of the law at the time, it's a harrowing experience.
Unfortunately for me, I was overtly friendly and provided more information than I really should have - and was charged with the offense, of which without my testimony there would otherwise be no evidence. "Stupid is as stupid does". I certainly learnt my lesson.
In my case, the officer told me of my right to remain silent, then proceeded to ask for ID and confirm verbally my name and address. I hesitated, and for a moment - not wanting to give up my right and potentially incriminate myself, yet at the same time not wanting to seem as if I was obstructing justice or not willing to co-operate. For someone who's not familiar with the precise wording of the law at the time, it's a harrowing experience.
Unfortunately for me, I was overtly friendly and provided more information than I really should have - and was charged with the offense, of which without my testimony there would otherwise be no evidence.
"Stupid is as stupid does". I certainly learnt my lesson.tetleyb
Member
This is absolutely positively correct...
To answer "no" to do you under stand your rights, will make you come across as you being a "smarta**." I suggest you do not do it. Your attitude can get you in alot of trouble and/or get you out of alot of trouble.
If you were "charged" with a crime, then obviously there was enough probable cause for you to be arrested (you didn't say you were convicted or if the case ever went to trial).
The easiest, most simple answer to the question:
I feared for my safety (the safety of others) and I fired in the defensive of my life (or the life of others). Before any further questioning, I would like to talk to an attorney.
How in the heck can those two sentences get you into trouble? Saying nothing, however, can.
ysr_racer
Member
5. I want to press charges
p35
Member
I am a practicing criminal defense lawyer, and I have seen many more people talk themselves into bigger problems than talk themselves out of a charge in the first place. I have also seen cops lie, cheat, and threaten a suspect's family members to get him to confess (not all are like that, just as not all lawyers are crooks). Folks in the Northwest have probably heard of the Wenatchee witch hunts a few years ago, where an overaggressive detective got a bunch of people to confess to being child molesters when they actually had done nothing at all. Most of them are now out of prison, after being there for several years before the truth came out.
I don't think it's realistic to expect that you can just say "I was in fear" and then shut up; it goes against all your instincts after an adrenaline dump, and the cops will ask follow up questions. Not talking at all is a lot easier to remember and keep straight. The magic words are "I want to talk to my lawyer"; anything you say in response to a question after that can't be used against you. When you get home, write a letter to your lawyer detailing everything you can remember. A lawyer will go to jail himself before handing over an attorney-client letter, and no judge will allow it into evidence if someone does get it.
Obviously, who you are, who the shootee is, and where it happened will carry a lot more weight than anything you say. If you shoot someone behind the Bucket of Blood Tavern at 2:00 AM while drunk, you're going to have a hard time selling self defense. If the psycho ex you have a restraining order against kicks in your door and comes at you with an ax, the cops will pat you on the back and walk away.
Bottom line, you can't improve the situation by talking. SHUT THE HELL UP!
I don't think it's realistic to expect that you can just say "I was in fear" and then shut up; it goes against all your instincts after an adrenaline dump, and the cops will ask follow up questions. Not talking at all is a lot easier to remember and keep straight. The magic words are "I want to talk to my lawyer"; anything you say in response to a question after that can't be used against you. When you get home, write a letter to your lawyer detailing everything you can remember. A lawyer will go to jail himself before handing over an attorney-client letter, and no judge will allow it into evidence if someone does get it.
Obviously, who you are, who the shootee is, and where it happened will carry a lot more weight than anything you say. If you shoot someone behind the Bucket of Blood Tavern at 2:00 AM while drunk, you're going to have a hard time selling self defense. If the psycho ex you have a restraining order against kicks in your door and comes at you with an ax, the cops will pat you on the back and walk away.
Bottom line, you can't improve the situation by talking. SHUT THE HELL UP!
FPrice
Member
p35...
"I am a practicing criminal defense lawyer..."
Goody! Please raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth.
Did you read the Ayoob article which started this whole thread? If so, what is your take on what happened and why the accused went to jail.
You presented to very different, virtually opposite scenarios to prove your point, but what about what I refered to as virtually neutral ground? It was neither his home nor the Tavern scenario. A hysterical woman is screaming that he killed her husband, the gross evidence supports that accusation somewhat, yet the accused offered no explanation.
" I don't think it's realistic to expect that you can just say "I was in fear" and then shut up; it goes against all your instincts after an adrenaline dump, and the cops will ask follow up questions."
Most of the people on this board probably practise to survive a lethal encounter without panicking. Is it unreasonable to think that they cannot practise to at least offer a basic explanation to an LEO of what happened without panicking there?
I think threads like this help prepare us at least a little bit for that situation.
"I am a practicing criminal defense lawyer..."
Goody! Please raise your right hand and swear to tell the truth.
Did you read the Ayoob article which started this whole thread? If so, what is your take on what happened and why the accused went to jail.
You presented to very different, virtually opposite scenarios to prove your point, but what about what I refered to as virtually neutral ground? It was neither his home nor the Tavern scenario. A hysterical woman is screaming that he killed her husband, the gross evidence supports that accusation somewhat, yet the accused offered no explanation.
" I don't think it's realistic to expect that you can just say "I was in fear" and then shut up; it goes against all your instincts after an adrenaline dump, and the cops will ask follow up questions."
Most of the people on this board probably practise to survive a lethal encounter without panicking. Is it unreasonable to think that they cannot practise to at least offer a basic explanation to an LEO of what happened without panicking there?
I think threads like this help prepare us at least a little bit for that situation.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
