Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Defense Atty Weighs In on Talking to Police After Shooting

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Defense Atty Weighs In on Talking to Police After Shooting

    The attorney is Marc Victor. Actually, the article is about more than just talking to police after a defensive shooting. The entire article is a good read.

    Here are a few points from the article that jumped out at me:

    Marc Victor writes, "Most of the police officers I have discussed this issue with would themselves choose to remain silent after any shooting. Indeed, this is what they are taught. I know police officers who teach their kids not to talk to the police. Indeed, many police officers have admitted this to me. Even the police officers know not to talk to the police."

    And, "...I note that whenever my clients point out an erroneous statement contained in a police report, that statement is never helpful to their case. It seems to me that police officers never incorrectly include statements in police reports that are actually helpful to the defendant."


    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/02/...y-gun-america/
    Last edited by Citizen; 02-13-2016 at 09:36 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  2. #2
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Interesting article. However, this statement caught my eye.
    Ok, I’ll say it. Some cops lie. It shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone that there are good and bad people in all groups.
    Some?, it's many lie. I have read many police reports. If it is a single report by one cop and no other then it can be tough to catch a contradiction, but not impossible. Two or more police reports, affidavits and now video, cops stories start to contradict each other.

    With that said, one of the biggest problems is a judge that interferes with the defense by shutting down cross examination. Most judges believe cops don't lie. That you wouldn't be there if you didn't do something wrong. Remember, 99% of judges were prosecutors. They were never defense attorneys. In other words, they are bias. They believe the rules apply to you, not them.

    The other thing is that defense attorneys believe plea bargains are wins. They are not. Defense attorneys will sell you down the tubes to save another one of their clients.

    Nice article, but not totally truthful.

  3. #3
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Law vs. case law? Statutes/codes/laws are all well and good, it is case law that may save your hide if the need arises that a appellate court reviews your case of getting railroaded.

    Thanks, Citizen, good read.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  4. #4
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Law vs. case law? Statutes/codes/laws are all well and good, it is case law that may save your hide if the need arises that a appellate court reviews your case of getting railroaded.

    Thanks, Citizen, good read.
    Somewhat agree, but the courts are getting more rogue. Been seeing more case opinions directly contrary to higher court case precedent. The Supremes, both state and federal because of case load won't review egregious decisions, letting them stand. Just remember. court decisions ant not decisions at all, they are opinions. But, unlike your opinion their opinion can destroy your life.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    A couple of observations...

    First, as to the issue of "law v. case law" and "rogue courts"; it's important to remember that cops, judges, prosecutors, bailiffs, defense attorneys, garbagemen, dentists, plumbers, and on and on, all have one characteristic in common - they're mostly humans. And as humans, they are normally distributed along the Gaussian (normal, bell) curve with respect to every human characteristic. Some of them are really good, some are really bad, and most are average. There are intellectually dishonest courts - one of my pet peeves is the use of the word, "interpret", as code for "I don't like the law the way it is, so I'm going to make something up and call it an 'interpretation'." - as though the law and opinions had been written in Sanskrit. But some judges are really, really good, too. I'm reminded of Judge J.R. Zepkin who presided over a case in Surry County some time back - a general district court judge who was up on the law (and knew more about it than I did, which was a real surprise to me) and applied it honestly.
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?89450

    Secondly, for those of us who are privileged to reside in The Blessed Commonwealth, keep in mind that most of the legal systems in the U.S. are corruptions of ours, of that derived from early Massachussetts, from later New York, from the French Civil Law (Code Napolean - Louisianna), and from Spanish colonial law (also a civil law basis with a healthy dose of Catholic Canon Law). Virginia's legal system goes back to William the Conqueror, and all the laws, statutes, decrees, and acts of Parliament up to the fourth year of the reign of James I are included in Virginia's legal lexicon. Most states don't have a thousand years of legal history to understand and apply. But the common law stops at the founding of Jamestown - Virginia's courts are "common law" courts only because they apply the common law as it was known to the early settlers, not because they have the power to make stuff up. Because we have a tripartite system of sovereign powers, only the legislature can make stuff up with the consent of the Governor. Nevertheless, precedential statements in court opinions are supposed to be taken as authoritative and applied. Statements like those of the majority in the recent Castleman case, on the other hand, are "mere dicta", stating the personal opinions of the authors, and based on information having nothing to do with the underlying case - such statements have no value as precedents, even though they come from the U.S. Sup. Ct., and need not be followed.

    As to the comments made by the attorney who wrote the article:

    1) Talking to cops: if they have probable cause to arrest you, they will arrest you, and talking to them prior to the arrest (when they don't have to give you warnings) will only be treated as your confession later on. If they do not have probable cause to arrest you, talking to them will give them the probable cause to arrest you almost no matter what you say. Look at your right hand in these situations, and reflect on the five fingers that ought to be there: those fingers stand for five letters, which you should memorize and which ought to come to mind when you look at your hand that way: K Y B M S. Keep Your Big Mouth Shut. Also download the "letter to law enforcement" from my website and keep a few copies everywhere you might need one. Other than, "I want my lawyer", don't say anything to the cops.

    2) After a shooting, call 911, but keep in mind that the line is recorded. I wouldn't say, "there's been a shooting", I'd say, "A man has been injured, please send an ambulance."; identify yourself and give your address (or location) and hang up once you know they have the information they need. Then don't answer the phone when they call back. When the ambulance crew arrives, they'll call the cops, and that's ok. Make sure your gun is available and unloaded in a place where the cops can take it if they want to without your having to touch it. Never touch a firearm in the presence of law enforcement even if they order you to do so. "Going for your gun" will give them license to kill.

    3) I agree that "reasonableness" is a part of the definition of self-defense, but the key word isn't "reasonableness", it's "necessity". If you don't need to kill, don't touch the gun, don't look at it, don't talk about it, don't gesture towards it, don't think about it, and don't show it off. At common law, which may or may not be applicable in your state, you don't have to be engaged in self defense / defense of innocent others in order to take effective action to defend your habitation against intruders (that's the original meaning of "the castle doctrine"), or to stop a serious felony (rape, robbery, murder, arson, and burglary) in progress. You do have to know what you're doing, of course, sort of like a general application of "Know your target and what's beyond it." Here's my definition of the self-defense rule: "If you have a reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact, that you or another innocent person is being subjected to the imminent (or "immediate") threat of serious (or "grievous") bodily injury, then you make take whatever steps are reasonably necessary under the circumstances, up to and including the use of deadly force, to quell that threat."

    4) In Virginia you may "stand your ground" in self defense situations when you played no role in starting the ruckus that led to your having to defend yourself, and in defense of habitation regardless (as long as you didn't pull some stunt to entice your "home invader" into the house just so's you could kill him). It's not relevant to stopping a serious felony in progress. If you caused the fuss, no matter how slightly, you have to run away until you can't get away anymore before you're allowed to stop, turn, and "become the aggressor" (as the Virginia Sup. Ct. puts it).

    5) "It isn't always being fast, or even accurate, that counts; it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing. Theyl draw a breath or blink an eye before they pull the trigger... I won't." John Wayne as "John Bernard Books" in "The Shootist". If you carry a gun for personal defense, make sure you're willing and when necessity (note that key word) arises, shoot to kill. The law is a binary choice - be deadly or be harmless, there's really no middle ground, regardless of what makes sense, either from a practical or moral point of view. If you don't have the need to kill, don't even think about the gun. If you do need to kill, pull it out of the holster after you've found cover (or at least concealment) and use it effectively. You don't become the boss of the situation if you've got your gun out; you don't immobilize your adversary by having the gun out; and you have no ability to hold someone until the police arrive just because you have a gun out. If you shoot someone who has ceased to be a threat, you're a murderer. Bad guy can simply get up and walk away, or worse, take your gun away and shoot you or a family member.

    Otherwise, I very much liked the article, and I hope everyone will read it.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    SNIP If you carry a gun for personal defense, make sure you're willing and when necessity (note that key word) arises, shoot to kill. The law is a binary choice - be deadly or be harmless, there's really no middle ground, regardless of what makes sense, either from a practical or moral point of view. If you don't have the need to kill, don't even think about the gun. If you do need to kill, pull it out of the holster after you've found cover (or at least concealment) and use it effectively.
    I would argue, "shoot to stop", rather than "shoot to kill". It is an unfortunate circumstance of technology that the force necessary to stop a genuine threat of grave bodily injury or death just also happens to be potentially lethal to the attacker. I would argue the goal is to stop the attack--right now! If the attacker happens to die, so be it; that is a result of the technological limitations.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I would argue, "shoot to stop", rather than "shoot to kill". It is an unfortunate circumstance of technology that the force necessary to stop a genuine threat of grave bodily injury or death just also happens to be potentially lethal to the attacker. I would argue the goal is to stop the attack--right now! If the attacker happens to die, so be it; that is a result of the technological limitations.
    As a matter of best characterization and optimal language usage, I agree with you 100%. As a matter of practical approach, I think effectiveness is all that counts, and you couldn't be more right, what counts is stopping the threat - the goal isn't to kill or even hurt someone else, the goal is to keep yourself alive, and your family safe in their home. What I'm thinking, though, is all those movies in which Charles Bronson, Chuck Norris, or Arnold Schwarzenegger knocks some enemy unconscious and then goes off to look for other enemies leaving that guy with his weapons and still alive. Not even disabled. And you know, I can't help yelling at the TV, "Hey, you moron, don't you realize that guy's going to awaken from his concussion in a few minutes, be really mad, and come after you with the weapon you left him with???? How stupid can you be???" It doesn't help, though, they never learn - I've seen the same movie over and over and they just never get any better. So here's my take, not as an attorney, exactly, and not as an NRA trainer, either, but personally: you get exactly one chance to stop the threat. When the threat is over, and there's no necessity, your "need" to take action to stop the threat dematerializes. So if Badguy can recover from his wound pretty quickly and act nonthreatening, you'd damned-well better keep an eye on him. And when he walks towards you with his hands open and outstretched begging for peace, back up. And then, if and only if, you reasonably feel that the threat has come back upon you, you can take further defensive action. I, myself, don't want Badguy to get up off the floor. I don't care whether he's dead or not, but he sure as hell ain't walking towards me again if I can help it. "The law of self defense is the law of necessity." If you don't need to take defensive action, then you're not allowed to take defensive action.

    And I'll say it again, you're right, the goal is to stop the threat, and in the immortal words of Skidmark, "stay safe".
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Remember that state laws will varie. The state I am in has law that states there is a defense for slaying the attacker, wounding the attacker/bg could land you in hot water.

    Besides, with all the anti-gun tards out there, having a one sided story is better in court.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Last edited by Freedom1Man; 02-15-2016 at 09:37 AM.
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    Remember that state laws will varie. The state I am in has law that states there is a defense for slaying the attacker, wounding the attacker/bg could land you in hot water.

    Besides, with all the anti-gun tards out there, having a one sided story is better in court.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Until some piece of evidence proves or can be used to support that you went beyond stopping the attack. Coupled with the quote in bold, it seems to me the shooter might also be open to a charge of killing a witness in order to prevent him telling his side of the story. Major felony, I bet. Just thinking further: a manslaughter conviction might converted into a seriously hard-time felony.

    Maybe User can weigh in on this dead witness angle.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Until some piece of evidence proves or can be used to support that you went beyond stopping the attack. Coupled with the quote in bold, it seems to me the shooter might also be open to a charge of killing a witness in order to prevent him telling his side of the story. Major felony, I bet. Just thinking further: a manslaughter conviction might converted into a seriously hard-time felony.

    Maybe User can weigh in on this dead witness angle.
    Like I said, it varies from state to state. Washington has it as an affirmative defense under a list of conditions. So, if the bg was trying to car jack you, and you only wound them then they will claim that they were only asking for directions.....

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Some?, it's many lie. I have read many police reports. If it is a single report by one cop and no other then it can be tough to catch a contradiction, but not impossible. Two or more police reports, affidavits and now video, cops stories start to contradict each other.
    I would not view such contradictions as evidence of lying. If I did, I'd have to assume that most all witnesses to a crime were also lying. If cops find 5 witnesses to a crime, they are likely to get 6 or more different accounts of what happened, 6 different descriptions of the suspect, and at least 3 different descriptions of which way he fled.

    Study after study demonstrates that eye-witness testimony is the least reliable evidence available. How many of the innocent men sitting in prison were identified as the rapist by the victim, only to have DNA testing later confirm there is just no way the convicted did the deed? Sure, there are cases of women lying. But all of them? In many cases, we're talking about good faith, honest mistakes on the part of someone severely traumatized.

    In fact, one reason not to talk to the police before talking to your lawyer is the high chances that something you say with 100% honest intent, is going to be flat out contradicted by some forensics evidence. "I swear the guy was within arms' reach when I pulled the trigger..." but the forensics demonstrate he was 3 times that distance when the bullet hit him. You didn't lie. You were honestly mistaken. Your lawyer's job is to take what you tell him and relay (portions of it) in a way that doesn't hurt your case. "My client was in fear for his life as the assailant approached him" isn't near as likely to be contradicted by forensics.

    So yes. Some cops lie. All cops are human, as are all prosecutors and judges. And despite best efforts, those who work in the criminal justice system spend about 95% of their time dealing with the 4% of humanity most charitably described as dregs and parasites. It does color their view.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    Until some piece of evidence proves or can be used to support that you went beyond stopping the attack. Coupled with the quote in bold, it seems to me the shooter might also be open to a charge of killing a witness in order to prevent him telling his side of the story. Major felony, I bet. Just thinking further: a manslaughter conviction might converted into a seriously hard-time felony.

    Maybe User can weigh in on this dead witness angle.
    Freedom1Man is absolutely right, every state has its own laws and its own legal system, and unless you live in Virginia, I'm not an attorney where you are. But one thing is true, the defenses to a criminal charge are just that, defenses. And an "affirmative defense" is one that you, as the defendant, must plead and prove yourself. The prosecution doesn't have to disprove your theory of acquittal, and "bears the burden of proof throughout the prosecution", but the defendant must affirmatively offer evidence in support of his defense.

    In Virginia, when you shoot and kill someone, the standard charge is 2nd degree murder. Then, at trial, it can be changed to 1st degree or manslaughter as appropriate. Probable cause is established when the cop has reason to believe you shot and killed the guy and can haul you off to jail just because of that. They'll say things like, "unless you can tell me exactly what happened, I'm going to have to arrest you." Your response should be, "I want my lawyer" - better to spend three days in jail than twenty in the penitentiary. I can't remember any case in which my client was found guilty in which he'd refused to talk to the cops - but, in all the cases in which my client was found guilty, it was basically because he'd talked to people he shouldn't. One of my favorite cases of all time was one in which my client had co-operated fully with the police and had his statement reduced to a signed writing, which the prosecution offered as a confession, but in which the jury found him not guilty anyway. Not significant other than that, but it really sticks out in my thinking precisely because I'd pulled his fat out of the fire, notwithstanding his having done everything he could to torpedo himself by having talked to the cops. It sticks out because it's so rare.

    I offer it as a joke when I do personal defense law seminars, but it's true that it's a lot easier to win a case when there's no witness to testify against you. "It's not funny, it's sad", as a girl I knew in high school used to say. I also joke with them about how the real reason they're there is so they can learn the rules about when they're allowed to blow someone's head off. I hope that's not really true, but the fact is that the law is all about rules, and it's all technicalities - you've heard about people who "got off on a technicality" - well, everyone who's found guilty is found guilty on a set of technicalities. It's a good idea to know they rules where you live. I strongly recommend that, where ever you may be, you locate the best lawyer, or the best two or three lawyers in your state who really, seriously understand the law of personal defense and who really do go to trial for their clients well prepared and ready to do what it takes to win. Ask the bailiffs who work the courtrooms - ask them if they'd been arrested for having shot someone what lawyer they'd call to represent them. Then call that lawyer or those lawyers up and chat about what you need to do to get them to represent you in case something bad happens; pay for a thirty-minute visit to the office if necessary, but have someone you can call when you need to. If you get injured on the highway at 2:00 o'clock a.m., you get whatever surgeon is working at the hospital that night. But wouldn't you like to be able to pick your surgeon, knowing that some humans are really good, some are really bad, and most are average. Do you want an average surgeon working on you? When you have a problem because you've had to defend yourself, your home, and your family, is that the time to consult the phone book to see what kind of a lawyer you're going to hire? Do it now, and help that lawyer out by taking the trouble to know the rules where you live.

    K Y B M S - Keep Your Big Mouth Shut - once your tongue gets to moving, it'll acquire a mind of its own and blurt out all sorts of stuff which you'll wish later you'd said in a more articulate fashion. Wait until you can calm down and talk to your lawyer FIRST, then, in consultation with your lawyer, you can decide whether to make a statement to the prosecution. If you did act in the reasonably held belief, based on objective fact, that defense was necessary, then people can argue that you killed Badguy in order to silence the witness, but only the dumbest of defense lawyers wouldn't object to that, and only the dumbest of judges would overrule that objection, because it isn't relevant - has no bearing on whether you shot the guy or whether you had a reasonable basis for your use of deadly force.
    Last edited by user; 02-15-2016 at 04:14 PM.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    The med school anchorman is addressed Doctor and his grades aren't posted on his license.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    The med school anchorman is addressed Doctor and his grades aren't posted on his license.
    Reminds me of the law school joke - what do you call the guy who finishes dead last in his class but manages to have the "C" average required to be graduated "J.D.", and who passes the bar exam with the lowest possible passing score on his fifth try? Answer: Attorney at Law.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    Reminds me of the law school joke - what do you call the guy who finishes dead last in his class but manages to have the "C" average required to be graduated "J.D.", and who passes the bar exam with the lowest possible passing score on his fifth try? Answer: Attorney at Law.
    Yes. I did not want to offend any present in the thread. But that was my point.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  16. #16
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Yes. I did not want to offend any present in the thread. But that was my point.
    Certainly not an offense to me (I did pretty well, and passed on my first attempt - probably the only person in the room who thought the exam was fun - I'd have done better, but I got a "D" in taxation). And it has the virtue of being true. Like I often say, no matter what the occupation, some are really good, some are really bad, and most are average, and it doesn't really matter what variable you're measuring. But then, about sixty-eight percent are within one standard deviation from the mean, by definition.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  17. #17
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Post Heien a cop does not need to lie. Post Heien all a cop needs to do is state "...well I thought..." Black letter law is readily available to anyone. If I can find black letter law in less than a minute in most instances a cop can too, he does have a computer/phone at his disposal. He has the authority to arrest me for 15-20 minutes, or longer if there needs to be a quorum of cops to figure out what they think the law is. If cops are not required post Heien to know the law then talking to a cop is pure folly.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  18. #18
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Post Heien a cop does not need to lie. Post Heien all a cop needs to do is state "...well I thought..." Black letter law is readily available to anyone. If I can find black letter law in less than a minute in most instances a cop can too, he does have a computer/phone at his disposal. He has the authority to arrest me for 15-20 minutes, or longer if there needs to be a quorum of cops to figure out what they think the law is. If cops are not required post Heien to know the law then talking to a cop is pure folly.
    Just to add.

    Heien v. North Carolina was about a vague law not an unambiguous law. In a recent 6th Circuit decision of Northup v. City of Toledo Police Department, No. 14-4050 (6th Cir. May 14, 2015) the court addressed Heiene as it relates to Ohio.

    At page 4 of the slip Opinion the 6th Circuit states,
    Ohio law permits the open carry of firearms, Ohio Rev. Code § 9.68(C)(1), and thus permitted Northrup to do exactly what he was doing. While the dispatcher and motorcyclist may not have known the details of Ohio's open-carry firearm law, the police officer had no basis for such uncertainty. If it is appropriate to presume that citizens know the parameters of the criminal laws, it is surely appropriate to expect the same of law enforcement officers-at least with regard to unambiguous statutes. Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S.Ct. 530, 540 (2014).
    At page 5 of the Slip Opinion the court continues,
    Not only has the State made open carry of a firearm legal, but it also does not require gun owners to produce or even carry their licenses for inquiring officers. See Ohio Rev. Code §§ 9.68(C)(1), 2923.12; Mike DeWine, Ohio Att’y Gen., Ohio’s Concealed Carry Laws and License Application 15 (2015) (“Ohio’s concealed carry laws do not regulate ‘open’ carry of firearms. If you openly carry, use caution. The open carry of firearms is a legal activity in Ohio.”); R. 26 at 121 (“If an officer engages in a conversation with a person who is carrying a gun openly, but otherwise is not committing a crime, the person cannot be required to produce identification.”).
    The 6th Circuit decision concludes with the observation that the police officer, i.e. the State, has no authority to interfere with a persons constitutional right to bear arms with the following statement on page 7 of the Slip Opinion,
    While open-carry laws may put police officers (and some motorcyclists) in awkward situations from time to time, the Ohio legislature has decided its citizens may be entrusted with firearms on public streets. Ohio Rev. Code §§ 9.68, 2923.125. The Toledo Police Department has no authority to disregard this decision—not to mention the protections of the Fourth Amendment—by detaining every “gunman” who lawfully possesses a firearm. See Ohioans for Concealed Carry, Inc. v. Clyde, 896 N.E.2d 967, 976 (Ohio 2008) (holding that Ohio’s statewide handgun policy preempts contrary exercises of a local government’s police power). And it has long been clearly established that an officer needs evidence of criminality or dangerousness before he may detain and disarm a law-abiding citizen. We thus affirm the district court’s conclusion that, after reading the factual inferences in the record in Northrup’s favor, Officer Bright could not reasonably suspect that Northrup needed to be disarmed.
    Other states needs to take note of this decision.
    Last edited by color of law; 02-16-2016 at 09:53 PM. Reason: word nazi

  19. #19
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,506
    You misspelled 'bear arms'. Otherwise thanks for the ref
    Last edited by Maverick9; 02-16-2016 at 06:54 PM.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Maverick9 View Post
    You misspelled 'bear arms'. Otherwise thanks for the ref
    <chuckle> Good catch. Otherwise, shirt-sleeves enjoy constitutional protection.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    <chuckle> Good catch. Otherwise, shirt-sleeves enjoy constitutional protection.
    I wonder if the relationship between bear & bare is not similar to sware & swear as sware is derived from 𐍃𐍅𐌰𐍂𐌴. My KJV uses sware as the simple past tense of swear.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  22. #22
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    Just to add.

    Heien v. North Carolina was about a vague law not an unambiguous law. In a recent 6th Circuit decision of Northup v. City of Toledo Police Department, No. 14-4050 (6th Cir. May 14, 2015) the court addressed Heiene as it relates to Ohio.

    At page 4 of the slip Opinion the 6th Circuit states,

    At page 5 of the Slip Opinion the court continues,

    The 6th Circuit decision concludes with the observation that the police officer, i.e. the State, has no authority to interfere with a persons constitutional right to bear arms with the following statement on page 7 of the Slip Opinion,

    Other states needs to take note of this decision.
    Good stuff. There is no ambiguity where OC in Ohio is concerned and cops know this. What the cop in Northrup did was a clear and unambiguous crime, could if be possible that he committed several crimes? Prosecutors should be held criminally liable for prosecuting these cases as a co-conspirator in the cop's crime. Sadly, the citizens of Ohio let that cop and his cop shop off the hook. If the citizens of any state want their cops to follow the laws then criminal prosecutions of the cops, prosecutors, and the judges who allow these travesties of justice to be perpetrated against the citizenry, must be pursued. Start racking up misdemeanor convictions against nitwit cops and all cops will start doing their job and know the laws they are paid to enforce.

    SCOTUS, yet again, ignores what the state(s), Ohio at least, know to be true that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and this idiom must apply to cops. If there is any doubt as to the understanding of the law the cop must not act. Letting a prosecutor or judge "fix" his blatant screw-up is unacceptable.

    State v. Haas - 2012-Ohio-2362 http://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/thi...2/7-10-15.html

    But, cops have the system on their side, thug union reps to pay for their lawyers, and prosecutors/judges to run interference for them, so why should any cop work to know the law when accountability is near impossible.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  23. #23
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Good stuff. There is no ambiguity where OC in Ohio is concerned and cops know this. What the cop in Northrup did was a clear and unambiguous crime, could if be possible that he committed several crimes? Prosecutors should be held criminally liable for prosecuting these cases as a co-conspirator in the cop's crime. Sadly, the citizens of Ohio let that cop and his cop shop off the hook. If the citizens of any state want their cops to follow the laws then criminal prosecutions of the cops, prosecutors, and the judges who allow these travesties of justice to be perpetrated against the citizenry, must be pursued. Start racking up misdemeanor convictions against nitwit cops and all cops will start doing their job and know the laws they are paid to enforce.

    SCOTUS, yet again, ignores what the state(s), Ohio at least, know to be true that "ignorance of the law is no excuse" and this idiom must apply to cops. If there is any doubt as to the understanding of the law the cop must not act. Letting a prosecutor or judge "fix" his blatant screw-up is unacceptable.

    State v. Haas - 2012-Ohio-2362 http://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/thi...2/7-10-15.html

    But, cops have the system on their side, thug union reps to pay for their lawyers, and prosecutors/judges to run interference for them, so why should any cop work to know the law when accountability is near impossible.
    On second thought, State v. Haas provides valuable data to cops and prosecutors to collaborate as to how a cop can record the "facts" to avoid such a outcome as Haas in the future.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  24. #24
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    Like I often say, no matter what the occupation, some are really good, some are really bad, and most are average, and it doesn't really matter what variable you're measuring. But then, about sixty-eight percent are within one standard deviation from the mean, by definition.
    But in many, very important cases, the distribution is not normal. And if we attack the problem is the distribution was normal, we are likely to get it wrong. I may have posted this before, but if anyone hasn't read it, is well worth a read.

    "Million Dollar Murray" is an article about power-curve problems. It explains why certain problems--like homelessness or excessive pollution from cars, might be easier to solve, than to manage.

    The Salt Lake City area has implemented some of the proposed solutions to chronic homelessness put forward in this article with some fairly good success.

    Notably for our audience here, in addition to just general knowledge of social science, is the section dealing with bad cops in the Rodney King era LAPD.



    Between 1986 and 1990, allegations of excessive force or improper tactics were made against eighteen hundred of the eighty-five hundred officers in the L.A.P.D. The broad middle had scarcely been accused of anything. Furthermore, more than fourteen hundred officers had only one or two allegations made against them—and bear in mind that these were not proven charges, that they happened in a four-year period, and that allegations of excessive force are an inevitable feature of urban police work. ... A hundred and eighty-three officers, however, had four or more complaints against them, forty-four officers had six or more complaints, sixteen had eight or more, and one had sixteen complaints. If you were to graph the troubles of the L.A.P.D., it wouldn’t look like a bell curve. It would look more like a hockey stick. It would follow what statisticians call a “power law” distribution—where all the activity is not in the middle but at one extreme.

    ...

    One officer had been the subject of thirteen allegations of excessive use of force, five other complaints, twenty-eight “use of force reports” (that is, documented, internal accounts of inappropriate behavior), and one shooting. Another had six excessive-force complaints, nineteen other complaints, ten use-of-force reports, and three shootings. A third had twenty-seven use-of-force reports, and a fourth had thirty-five. ....

    The report gives the strong impression that if you fired those forty-four cops the L.A.P.D. would suddenly become a pretty well-functioning police department. But the report also suggests that the problem is tougher than it seems, because those forty-four bad cops were so bad that the institutional mechanisms in place to get rid of bad apples clearly weren’t working. If you made the mistake of assuming that the department’s troubles fell into a normal distribution, you’d propose solutions that would raise the performance of the middle—like better training or better hiring—when the middle didn’t need help. For those hard-core few who did need help, meanwhile, the medicine that helped the middle wouldn’t be nearly strong enough.

    (emphasis added)

    The sections of the article dealing with polluting automobiles and homelessness are also a fascinating read.

    This bit of political psycho-analysis near the end of the article is something worth chewing on for many of us as we all run the risk of viewing the world through our preconceived social and political views.



    Power-law solutions have little appeal to the right, because they involve special treatment for people who do not deserve special treatment; and they have little appeal to the left, because their emphasis on efficiency over fairness suggests the cold number-crunching of Chicago-school cost-benefit analysis. Even the promise of millions of dollars in savings or cleaner air or better police departments cannot entirely compensate for such discomfort.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  25. #25
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    But the report also suggests that the problem is tougher than it seems, because those forty-four bad cops were so bad that the institutional mechanisms in place to get rid of bad apples clearly weren’t working.
    What? The cops were so bad that the process wasn't working? Or, perhaps, the process was (is?) so bad that no matter how bad a cop he cannot be gotten rid of.

    The L.A.P.D.’s problem was a matter not of policy but of compliance.
    Of course it was (is?) a matter of policy. If the policy "permits" bad cops to be retained as the norm and not the extreme exception then compliance with the policy is not the problem. Non-compliance, to get rid of a bad cop, is now the exception...in the extreme...and a problem with cop shops.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •