• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What if I don't WANT to call a lawyer?

Bravo_Sierra

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
912
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
imported post

Devils Advocate

There is something call the "Tachy Psyche Effect" you need to research.

"Tachypsychia is a neurological condition that distorts the perception of time, usually induced by physical exertion, drug use, or a traumatic event. It is sometimes referred to by martial arts instructors and self defense experts as the Tachy Psyche effect. For someone affected by tachypsychia, time perceived by the individual either lengthens, making events appear to slow down, or contracts, objects appearing as moving in a speeding blur. It is believed that tachypsychia is induced by a combination of high levels of dopamine and norepinephrine, usually during periods of great physical stress and/or in violent confrontation."

DONT talk to the police.
 

Devils Advocate

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
166
Location
, Virginia, USA
imported post

Bravo_Sierra wrote:
Devils Advocate

There is something call the "Tachy Psyche Effect" you need to research.

"Tachypsychia is a neurological condition that distorts the perception of time, usually induced by physical exertion, drug use, or a traumatic event. It is sometimes referred to by martial arts instructors and self defense experts as the Tachy Psyche effect. For someone affected by tachypsychia, time perceived by the individual either lengthens, making events appear to slow down, or contracts, objects appearing as moving in a speeding blur. It is believed that tachypsychia is induced by a combination of high levels of dopamine and norepinephrine, usually during periods of great physical stress and/or in violent confrontation."

DONT talk to the police.


Why not? The moment will be over and the speed back to normal. The only thing distorted is time. Not the facts.

I know exactly what you posted is like. You get a rush and everything moves in super slow-mo as your brain focuses your senses on what you see.

This has nothing to do with your talking to the police later.

When they arrest me I will get an attorney. To me silence = something to hide. When I have something to hide I will remain silent and get an attorney. Ha-Ha!
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:
SNIPTo me silence = something to hide.
This is what we've been trying to tell you.

Silence does not equal something to hide. The 5th Amendment was put there to protect the innocent citizen who would otherwise be ensnared by ambiguious circumstances. See the Prof. Duane video for the exact quote, from the Supreme Court, if I recall.

Silence is a recognition that the other side has all the power while at the same time has all the human faults--makes mistakes, misinterprets what it sees or is told, has its own personal motives and prejudices, etc.

This is not to dissuade you from your position otherwise. Its merely so you can see the picture more fully.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,188
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
imported post

To me, it's become clear that Devils Advocate is infatuated with the authority of the state. I've decided it's not worth wasting my time on someone with a view so worshipful of government and its agents and in such willful ignorance of reality.

I mean, are there actually adults who truly believe something so trite and patently false as "silence = something to hide"?
 

FightingGlock19

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
583
Location
, Kentucky, USA
imported post

Devils Advocate wrote:
Bravo_Sierra wrote:
DONT talk to the police.


Why not? The moment will be over and the speed back to normal. The only thing distorted is time. Not the facts.

I know exactly what you posted is like. You get a rush and everything moves in super slow-mo as your brain focuses your senses on what you see.

This has nothing to do with your talking to the police later.

When they arrest me I will get an attorney. To me silence = something to hide. When I have something to hide I will remain silent and get an attorney. Ha-Ha!

Mr DA, you've not been involved in a violent confrontation where shots were being fired, have you? You, also, don't seem to have a full understanding of the Tachy Psyche.

I was asked, "how many times did you shoot?" Needless to say, I didn't answer the "detective's" question. I lawyered up. Even though I had shot well before the question, I couldn't, for the life of me, recall as I told the "detective" I wanted my lawyer.

When you start talking, you won't stop. I've seen it happen. Then you end up not only paying for the lawyer, you end up paying the unfucking fee he charges.

There is nothing you can say to an officer to make him NOT arrest you. He is just a field reporter and will be going home at the end of his shift. The detective wants to hurry up and get you in jail so he can go home at the end of his shift.

The best thing you can do, legally and financially, is not answer ANY questions.

Even my wife & kids understand it's important not to answer any officers' questions on the scene.

My lawyer will do the talking for me.

Being quiet equals guilt to a lot of people because that's what they see on tv.

Let me ask you this, what looks "guiltier" ...a person who says nothing or a person who changes stories?

If not talking pisses off the police and the DA, oh well, they're not the ones that decide if I'm guilty or not.
 

codename_47

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
376
Location
, ,
imported post

For them to even detain you, it has to be Reasonable Articulatable Suspicion (RAS), and I don't think that failure to answer questions counts as RAS (anyone know if that's correct?).

That is correct. Failure or refusal to answer questions or talk is nothing more than silence, which isn't RAS or PC or anything. You are merely exercising a right that you have not to talk or incriminate yourself. God help the moron that arrests someone because they wouldn't talk to them. I can smell the lawsuit money from here.


This board appears to be really be filled with paranoid people who hate and/or distrust all police.

We have to remember. The police work on our behalf to do a job to catch criminals. We need to keep in mind that we might be stopped for reasons we are not fully aware of.


The police are not your friends. Their main job is to take away property and freedom. They are not people I want to associate with.

It makes me look like I have something to hide.


So what? I'd love to see them take action based on "I had a hunch he had something to hide..."

If I were a cop.... your family not saying something would make me suspect they saw you do something wrong and do not want to rat on you.

and again, what are you going to do with this suspicion and zero proof?

What would my attorney say "My client has never been to the cabin."

No, your atty would probably say charge him with a crime or let him go.

Had I shut up I would have stayed on his radar and probably would have more to worry about.

Like what?
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

I think the context here is "never talk to police if you just shot someone" rather than a blanket "never talk to police". I don't know how many of you here have been a witness to a crime, been a witness in a court case, or been an "expert" in a court case, however, I have unfortunately been each of those. I work a lot with attorneys, think pretty quickly on my feet and have a pretty good understanding of the legal system through my profession, yet none of those was like what I thought. I know enough now to know that if I am ever in a situation where I discharge my firearm when I'm not target shooting or hunting and it is appropriate to summon LE, I am going to give the bare minimum information and then ask for my attorney.

I used to work for 2 trial attorneys who often said, "It doesn't matter how good your facts or your position, any time you walk into court it is basically a 50/50 proposition." You never know what a judge or jury will do regardless of the law or the facts. You never know what a witness will say regardless of the facts. You never know how you will react to a hard cross-examination. Even if your facts and position are so solid you make the other side look flat out stupid, that doesn't mean that you will be sympathetic to a judge or jury. There are just so many variables and so many rules of each court that go far beyond the law, that unless you know your way around not just "the system" but that particular circuit or level of court, you can easily put yourself in a bad position.

On top of those factors think about a very stressful situation you have been in such as a car accident or an argument. Did you recall the facts the same way immediately following the situation as you did in a few hours or a few days after you calmed down and reflected on the incident and your memories? Did you maybe recall other details that escaped you immediately following the incident? If you taped yourself describing the event immediately following and then the next day would you sound the same? Could someone in a court room honestly refer to you as "on edge" or "stressed" or "reactive" immediately following the incident?

Calling an attorney does a multitude of things. It helps ensure that your rights are protected. It gives you a third party on your side listening very carefully not to just what you say but how you say it who has the ability to stop everything if you start saying something stupid. It gives you someone on your side who knows the system to act as a buffer between you and the system. It likely will buy you some time to calm down, relax and reflect on the incident. And all of that ignores the benefit of having counsel that has been with you from the beginning on your side in a worst case scenario of going to trial.
 

nitrovic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
935
Location
, ,
imported post

Citizen wrote:
nitrovic wrote:
SNIP  There are many instances where the "don't talk to the police" can back fire.  What if the police respond because your wife claims you hit her.  Of course, you won't talk to the police, so that gives them one side of the story.  What if your child falls and breaks their arm.  A lot of places call the police for this.  Instead of talking to the police and letting them know what happened, you now have social services called on you because the police don't have your side.  What if an endangered missing child is in your area and the police come knocking door to door on a canvass.  Maybe you saw a child matching the desciption earlier, but you "won't talk to the police".  Now precious time is gone because you won't say anything.  That is an ignorant statement to "neve talk to the police".

THINK FOR YOURSELVES PEOPLE!! USE YOUR HEADS.  Every situation is different.  Let's not all be like sheep and just follow what somebody on youtube of all places tells us.
Just as there are many instances where talking to the police can backfire.

Lets recall Professor Duane's video.  "Never speak to police under any circumstances" was his phrasing, I believe.  And, lets recall that he quoted Supreme Court Justice Jackson who said the same.  And the Detective in the video who, upon arriving at the podium says, "Everything Professor Duane just told you is true."

So, that's one law professor and former criminal attorney, one Supreme Court Justice--cite provided in the video and researched by me, and one police detective ALL SAYING DON"T TALK TO THE POLICE.  That is more than triple good enough for me. 

As to Vic's statement about witholding information about a missing child, I think we're being attacked not for our own literal-ness, but for Vic's literal-ness in interpreting our posts.  I doubt anybody would really withold information about a missing child.  It would help if literal-minded people would not take too literally what is being posted.  I for one refuse to list out myriad caveats and exceptions to what I write for the benefit of the literal-minded or to avoid being criticized.

Let's not spin what was said, I stated when those times would possibly be harmful to all involved. He said what he said. There are a lot of people her who can't think for themselves and are sheep. It is ignorant to make a blanket statement like "never". He's trying to be shocking and be in the public eye. I could care less if some prior Detective says the same thing. I know a couple lawyers who told me how anti-police the teachers were at their law school. They taught these young impressionable kids that they should never believe the police and never work with them in a case. That is just ignorant and spreading mistrust for no reason. I agree, there are MANY times when you should invoke your right to remain silent, but it's not a blanket statement. THINK FOR YOURSELVES PEOPLE!!!!
 

nitrovic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
935
Location
, ,
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
I think the context here is "never talk to police if you just shot someone" rather than a blanket "never talk to police".  I don't know how many of you here have been a witness to a crime, been a witness in a court case, or been an "expert" in a court case, however, I have unfortunately been each of those.  I work a lot with attorneys, think pretty quickly on my feet and have a pretty good understanding of the legal system through my profession, yet none of those was like what I thought.  I know enough now to know that if I am ever in a situation where I discharge my firearm when I'm not target shooting or hunting and it is appropriate to summon LE, I am going to give the bare minimum information and then ask for my attorney.

I used to work for 2 trial attorneys who often said, "It doesn't matter how good your facts or your position, any time you walk into court it is basically a 50/50 proposition."  You never know what a judge or jury will do regardless of the law or the facts.  You never know what a witness will say regardless of the facts.  You never know how you will react to a hard cross-examination.  Even if your facts and position are so solid you make the other side look flat out stupid, that doesn't mean that you will be sympathetic to a judge or jury.  There are just so many variables and so many rules of each court that go far beyond the law, that unless you know your way around not just "the system" but that particular circuit or level of court, you can easily put yourself in a bad position. 

On top of those factors think about a very stressful situation you have been in such as a car accident or an argument.  Did you recall the facts the same way immediately following the situation as you did in a few hours or a few days after you calmed down and reflected on the incident and your memories?  Did you maybe recall other details that escaped you immediately following the incident?  If you taped yourself describing the event immediately following and then the next day would you sound the same?  Could someone in a court room honestly refer to you as "on edge" or "stressed" or "reactive" immediately following the incident?

Calling an attorney does a multitude of things.  It helps ensure that your rights are protected.  It gives you a third party on your side listening very carefully not to just what you say but how you say it who has the ability to stop everything if you start saying something stupid.  It gives you someone on your side who knows the system to act as a buffer between you and the system.  It likely will buy you some time to calm down, relax and reflect on the incident.  And all of that ignores the benefit of having counsel that has been with you from the beginning on your side in a worst case scenario of going to trial. 

That's what I meant to say before I went off on a rant. Well said.
 

nitrovic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
935
Location
, ,
imported post

codename_47 wrote:
For them to even detain you, it has to be Reasonable Articulatable Suspicion (RAS), and I don't think that failure to answer questions counts as RAS (anyone know if that's correct?).


The police are not your friends. Their main job is to take away property and freedom. They are not people I want to associate with.




This is the type of thinking that has plagued some on here. The officer's job is not to take away property and freedom. Can we stop with that type of BS and lies. What is wrong with some you? Just have an adult conversation about the OP's question (which was a good one) and STOP THE POLICE/LEO/COP BASHING!!! This board has some very helpful threads (this could be a HUGE one), but when people start with this nonsense it may turn away people looking for good advice. It also turns the discussion to the typical cop hating talk that goes on. Keep your opinions and hatred out of it and join the discussion.
 

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

nitrovic wrote:
codename_47 wrote:
For them to even detain you, it has to be Reasonable Articulatable Suspicion (RAS), and I don't think that failure to answer questions counts as RAS (anyone know if that's correct?).


The police are not your friends. Their main job is to take away property and freedom. They are not people I want to associate with.



This is the type of thinking that has plagued some on here. The officer's job is not to take away property and freedom. Can we stop with that type of BS and lies. What is wrong with some you? Just have an adult conversation about the OP's question (which was a good one) and STOP THE POLICE/LEO/COP BASHING!!! This board has some very helpful threads (this could be a HUGE one), but when people start with this nonsense it may turn away people looking for good advice. It also turns the discussion to the typical cop hating talk that goes on. Keep your opinions and hatred out of it and join the discussion.

Ok Vic, lets get this back on track. In the OP, the poster has stated that he had just defended himself, called 911 and made some initial statements. Are you saying that he SHOULD answer police questions beyond the three statements he had already made, OR are you saying he SHOULD NOT answer any questions?

I'm sorry if you already said what you think, but this thread is difficult to follow.
 

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Mr. Advocate. It seems pretty clear that you intend to talk to the police in the situation described in the OP, so I for one think you should. This is NOT legal advice and IANAL, but as an everyday joe, I think you should tell them whatever you want. I hope it works out for you.

Do you know where the term "Devil's Advocate" comes from?
 

nitrovic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
935
Location
, ,
imported post

buster81 wrote:
nitrovic wrote:
codename_47 wrote:
For them to even detain you, it has to be Reasonable Articulatable Suspicion (RAS), and I don't think that failure to answer questions counts as RAS (anyone know if that's correct?).


The police are not your friends. Their main job is to take away property and freedom. They are not people I want to associate with.



This is the type of thinking that has plagued some on here. The officer's job is not to take away property and freedom. Can we stop with that type of BS and lies. What is wrong with some you? Just have an adult conversation about the OP's question (which was a good one) and STOP THE POLICE/LEO/COP BASHING!!! This board has some very helpful threads (this could be a HUGE one), but when people start with this nonsense it may turn away people looking for good advice. It also turns the discussion to the typical cop hating talk that goes on. Keep your opinions and hatred out of it and join the discussion.

Ok Vic, lets get this back on track.  In the OP, the poster has stated that he had just defended himself, called 911 and made some initial statements.  Are you saying that he SHOULD answer police questions beyond the three statements he had already made, OR are you saying he SHOULD NOT answer any questions?

I'm sorry if you already said what you think, but this thread is difficult to follow.

You're right, it is a little difficult. In my position I shouldn't answer that directly. Being as there a few here who wouldn't hesitate to use what I say against me by calling my job. However, I stated earlier that if I was a citizen and had to use deadly force, I would want a person who knows the law inside and out (such as a good lawyer) representing me.
 

nitrovic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
935
Location
, ,
imported post

buster81 wrote:
nitrovic wrote:
codename_47 wrote:
For them to even detain you, it has to be Reasonable Articulatable Suspicion (RAS), and I don't think that failure to answer questions counts as RAS (anyone know if that's correct?).


The police are not your friends. Their main job is to take away property and freedom. They are not people I want to associate with.



This is the type of thinking that has plagued some on here. The officer's job is not to take away property and freedom. Can we stop with that type of BS and lies. What is wrong with some you? Just have an adult conversation about the OP's question (which was a good one) and STOP THE POLICE/LEO/COP BASHING!!! This board has some very helpful threads (this could be a HUGE one), but when people start with this nonsense it may turn away people looking for good advice. It also turns the discussion to the typical cop hating talk that goes on. Keep your opinions and hatred out of it and join the discussion.

Ok Vic, lets get this back on track.  In the OP, the poster has stated that he had just defended himself, called 911 and made some initial statements.  Are you saying that he SHOULD answer police questions beyond the three statements he had already made, OR are you saying he SHOULD NOT answer any questions?

I'm sorry if you already said what you think, but this thread is difficult to follow.

You're right, it is a little difficult. In my position I shouldn't answer that directly. Being as there a few here who wouldn't hesitate to use what I say against me by calling my job. However, I stated earlier that if I was a citizen and had to use deadly force, I would want a person who knows the law inside and out (such as a good lawyer) representing me. Here is my original answer to the OP-
Orygunner wrote:
I've seen the recommended videos:

Never talk to the police:
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgikhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

Busted: Citizens guide to surviving police encounters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

I've read the recommendations of professionals:

If you have to shoot someone, only call 911 to report shots are fired, and someone is injured.

The only things you say to the police are:
  • I was attacked by that person.
  • I want him arrested.
  • I will not say anything else until I talk to my lawyer.
I understand that is the best course of action to take to protect yourself, but here's my question:

What if I don't WANT to call a lawyer?

What good is a lawyer really going to do at that point? Sure, I can tell my attorney what happened, and I assume he's going to relay the important information to the police so they can decide I acted justifiably. But what are my other options to protect myself from prosecution?

I want to know WHY it's really best to call a lawyer. What is he really going to do for me that I can't do for myself? If I only say I was attacked, and say nothing else, what can the police really do?

I've seen some other writings that do say you should answer the officer's questions, but I think that can only screw you in the long run. Even though you may be arrested if you don't say anything, don't they then have to provide you with an attorney?

I don't have anything personal against lawyers, I just resent having to pay one for something I can do myself.

...Orygunner...
Quick answer-every situation is different. Every jurisdiction is different, every responding officer is different, every police supervisor is different, every prosecutor is different (they will be the ones deciding on if to charge/not to charge), every judge is different. If I would use deadly force as a citizen and have the possibility of being charged with a "crime" that could put me in jail for life (or the chair), I would want somebody well versed in the law representing me. Know what I mean? Unlike others here, I know that it is not the police officers intention to "screw you" in most cases, they are just trying to get the facts of the case. Just the opposite actually, most officers I've seen (this is MY jurisdiction mind you, i'm not speaking for others) do their best to give the person defending themselves the benefit. This goes for the prosecutor as well (again, MY jurisdiction, not all). BUT, what if you get the one who doesn't think like this? Why gamble your freedom
 

les_aker

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
221
Location
Springfield, Virginia, USA
imported post

nitrovic wrote:
You're right, it is a little difficult. In my position I shouldn't answer that directly. Being as there a few here who wouldn't hesitate to use what I say against me by calling my job. However, I stated earlier that if I was a citizen and had to use deadly force, I would want a person who knows the law inside and out (such as a good lawyer) representing me.

Yet you have problems, and even frequently take issue, when someone doesn't answer a question you have posed directly.
 

Orygunner

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
737
Location
Springfield, Oregon, USA
imported post

I agree there's too many factors for a "one solution fits all" approach. Look at some of the absolute bonehead moves of people involved in self-defense shootings and it certainly didn't hurt them any.

The guy in Texas that left his house and shot the two guys in his own front yard after he saw them robbing a neighbor's house. After hearing the 911 tape and the inconsistencies in his story between the 911 tape and his news interview, plus the fact that he shouted "You're Dead!" before firing the shots, I was sure he was going to get charged, and he didn't.

I've read of other cases and seen other news reports & interviews with people involved in self-defense shootings, they basically said on television "I shot him!" and they didn't get charged either...

Then there's the story of Harold Fish, who claimed he shot a charging man in self-defense, he's now in prison:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_/ai_n16488917

So it looks like it could go both ways, but it does seem to tend to side with the law-abiding citizen, especially when the attacker has a criminal record.

I would think that depending on circumstances, witnesses, and the demeanor of the responding officers, I MAY give more information than Istated previously.However, I would much rather err on the side of covering my own butt than on providing evidence against myself for some anti-self defense prosecutor.

Here's another thought: If a self-defense shooting is justified, and no criminal charges are filed against the lawful citizen, what about CIVIL court? Can what a person says to police be used against youif the attacker (or family)files a wrongful death or injury lawsuit? That almost scares me more than criminal charges, becauseI don't think we have anylegal protection in this state against that sort of thing (lawsuits stemming from self-defense actions).

...Orygunner...
 

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
imported post

If you are involved in a shooting, then pony up the money.
The lawyer can also handle the grand jury, and posibly stop the pursecution
well before the trail stage. Now if you are getting involved in monthly, or
weekly shootings. then yes I can see your point it would get expensive.
And just pray that you don't have to defend yourself against a poor
minority just on his way to school to better himself. Look at NY subway icon Berny Getz.
Just look at the Duke boys, the had proof they were on the other side of town
at time of crime, but DA didn't care, judge didn't care. It took lawyers to finally
get the charges droped.

Just shut up and deal with the costs, maybe a civil suite for legal expenses
against the perps, those 20" rims should be worth something after all.
Or while you are lcked up, study to become a lawyer so you can see where you went wrong.
 

Hawkflyer

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
3,309
Location
Prince William County, Virginia, USA
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
I think the context here is "never talk to police if you just shot someone" rather than a blanket "never talk to police". I don't know how many of you here have been a witness to a crime, been a witness in a court case, or been an "expert" in a court case, however, I have unfortunately been each of those. I work a lot with attorneys, think pretty quickly on my feet and have a pretty good understanding of the legal system through my profession,
I am not a lawyer, and your mileage may vary.


This is the correct context for this discussion. While we could add in a lot of serious types of other incidents, the focus of this forum should be on what to do in the event of a defensive shooting incident.

The fact is, a lot of you are going to talk to the police when they arrive on the scene. The prisons are filled with those that have. "Devils Advocate" says "so what if the police can lie so can I." Well not really. The police can lie to you and there is no penalty. If you lie to the police there are a range of charges they can heap on that cover just that situation. It is NOT smart to lie to the police, and it is NOT smart to talk to them about the incident without a lawyer.

When the police arrive the first words out of your mouth should be "I want to talk to a lawyer." Those words should be the answer to every question they ask. Most people convict themselves by providing more information to the police than required by law. That information then becomes leads for the police to examine. From there it is very easy to build a circumstantial case that can convict you, even if you are innocent.

The police DONOT have to be the evil, maniacalmonsters that many of you think they are for this to happen. Honest people can be lead down the path to convict you by the statements you make and the circumstantial evidence they gather as a result. Jails and prisons contain a lot of people who were innocent of the crime they are accused of committing, but managed to talk themselves into a conviction anyway.

Keep in mind. In this situation you DID ACTUALLY SHOOT SOMEONE. Shooting people is a crime. The criminal aspects MAY be offset by mitigating factors that will justify the shooting. Hence the term JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE. It is still homicide, but due to the circumstances there will be no criminal prosecution. The Officer on the scene will not make that decision. If you shoot someone, YOU ARE GOING TO GET ARRESTED. Only after the prosecutors office looks at the case will a decision be made to let you go, or prosecute you. Read the papers, you will see this in every case.

So ask for a lawyer right up front. Meet with the lawyer, and let them do their job. Best case, you are going to spend a night in jail, so forget about talking the investigating officer out of arresting you. Mortgage your house if you have to to get competent legal defense, that is cheap compared to a long prison term.

Oh yea. Be aware that the little room they put you in has audio and video recorders in it that will pick up anything you say to yourself or your family. That counts as talking too. So don't fall for the "we thought you might like to visit with your family" trick.

As for Devils Advocate, I wish you luck buddy, say hello to your cell mate for all of us out here.

Regards

PS to NITROVIC - It would be helpful if you would consolidate your responses into single posts instead of responding separately to each post. Not a criticism, just a suggestion to help the rest of us.
 

nitrovic

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
935
Location
, ,
imported post

les_aker wrote:
nitrovic wrote:
You're right, it is a little difficult. In my position I shouldn't answer that directly. Being as there a few here who wouldn't hesitate to use what I say against me by calling my job. However, I stated earlier that if I was a citizen and had to use deadly force, I would want a person who knows the law inside and out (such as a good lawyer) representing me.

Yet you have problems, and even frequently take issue, when someone doesn't answer a question you have posed directly. 

Like I said, with my position it could lead to somebody trying to get me in "trouble". It's been threatened before, why risk it. I gave my opinion anyway.
 
Top