This video is worthy of its own thread

imported post

The 5th Amendment was put in place to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

Hard to cite something that is institutionally swept under the rug.

There is this http://www.innocenceproject.org/but afaik they really only focus on cases where DNA is in the evidence box, and DNA testing was not available at the time of the trial.

252 convicts exonerated, by a very small organization with minimal resources. That's the tip of the iceberg imho, the very smalltip of a ginormous iceberg.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt there are some that are convicted and put in jail or prison that should have never spent a day in jail.
On the other hand not all that are being released do to DNA are not innocent and would be a misconception to think so.

Our system is not perfect but as time goes along (slowly) it seems it does get better but not for some.
It is better then no system at all or numerous other systems though out the world that are much worse and I know this does not provide comfort for the innocent but I as others do not have the answer.

imported post

44Brent wrote:

The 5th Amendment was put in place to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

Click to expand...

Actually it was put there so you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, regardless of guilt or not.

imported post

BigDave wrote:

On the other hand not all that are being released do to DNA are not innocent and would be a misconception to think so.

Click to expand...

So, would it also be a missconception to think that not everyone convicted because of DNA is guilty?

If you think that not everyone who has a conviction over turned due to new DNA evidence is innocent, than the opposite ought to be true as well.

In other words, do you call DNA evidence into question universally, or just when it's used to prove innocence of a previously convicted citizen?

imported post

Dave_pro2a wrote:

BigDave wrote:

On the other hand not all that are being released do to DNA are not innocent and would be a misconception to think so.

Click to expand...

So, would it also be a missconception to think that not everyone convicted because of DNA is guilty?

If you think that not everyone who has a conviction over turned due to new DNA evidence is innocent, than the opposite ought to be true as well.

In other words, do you call DNA evidence into question universally, or just when it's used to prove innocence of a previously convicted citizen?

Click to expand...

I feel that DNA is one part of the equation but not an all in one basket, what occurs if DNA is mishandled, contaminated or even planted.
With DNA as a part of the equation is good for either side but not a sole determining factor.
As with anything there will be error on both sides of being convicted or exonerated of a crime.

imported post

BigDave wrote:

olypendrew wrote:

I'm a criminal defense attorney. I mostly represent criminals, with a fair amount of innocent people who were just defending themselves thrown into the mix.

If I was involved in a self-defense shooting, I would not agree to be interrogated by the police, no matter how righteous I thought the shooting was. There is very little upside, and a potentially tremendous downside.

Click to expand...

I am glad you chimed in here, you address interrogation and I whole heartily agree, how about at the initial contact at the scene?

The Police arrive at the scene, do you recommend for clients to shut up and not say anything? What would be appropriate to convey to Police about evidence, witnesses who the players are, and that you acted in self defense.

Click to expand...

The best advice to cover all situations is to simply STFU until you talk to your lawyer. You can always make a statement later, with your lawyer present.

I'm not saying that there aren't hypothetical situations where it might be better to say, "I was scared for my life, so I defended myself, but I have nothing else to say until I talk to my attorney" But the one size fits all answer is STFU.

imported post

olypendrew wrote:

BigDave wrote:

olypendrew wrote:

I'm a criminal defense attorney. I mostly represent criminals, with a fair amount of innocent people who were just defending themselves thrown into the mix.

If I was involved in a self-defense shooting, I would not agree to be interrogated by the police, no matter how righteous I thought the shooting was. There is very little upside, and a potentially tremendous downside.

Click to expand...

I am glad you chimed in here, you address interrogation and I whole heartily agree, how about at the initial contact at the scene?

The Police arrive at the scene, do you recommend for clients to shut up and not say anything? What would be appropriate to convey to Police about evidence, witnesses who the players are, and that you acted in self defense.

Click to expand...

The best advice to cover all situations is to simply STFU until you talk to your lawyer. You can always make a statement later, with your lawyer present.

I'm not saying that there aren't hypothetical situations where it might be better to say, "I was scared for my life, so I defended myself, but I have nothing else to say until I talk to my attorney" But the one size fits all answer is STFU.

Click to expand...

So what happens when witnesses and physical evidence disappear that would assist in the defense of your client? because your client followed the advice of STFU.

imported post

Usually, by the time someone is my client, they have either already talked, or they already invoked their right to remain silent.

I'm not sure what kind of exculpatory evidence you are thinking of that wouldn't already be seen and seized by the cops. But if there are unknown by-stander type witnesses who might have seen something that would help your case, there's probably nothing wrong with saying, "I'm invoking my right to remain silent, but you should talk to so and so about what he saw." And then STFU. The important thing is to know when to say no more, and a lot of people try to make one self-serving statement, and wind up being interrogated.

I think it's safe to say that few of us would be in our right mind immediately after shooting someone.

imported post

Drew thanks for responding and I agree there is a point to shut up and that is when it comes to explaining why you did what you did or in an interrogation.

This is why I would keep to the basics of Who, What, Where and When ONLY, as this will give the Officers everything they need to investigate the incident with out committing to any ideas or concepts about why.

Along with this some type of statement that I was in fear of my life and defended myself and that I am so upset I will make myself available for law enforcement with in 24 hours of talking with my attorney for any questions.

There is a great importance of having an attorney available during questioning that protect our rights during this period of time along with providing a second witness to the questions and answers you have made.
This will protect your meaning of your replies, what do I mean by this, if one was to use video and audio tape you will be able to see and hear your responses that if just written or heard could be construed as something different.
It has been recommended if you are interrogated have your own people video recorded so there is no doubt you have access to that evidence in court that could possibly come up lost later.

Anyways Massad Ayoob class when it comes to the Judicious Use of Deadly Force is very good and many attorneys attend for his experience in this area as law school does not dig deep into this.
The class with Mass had 8 Attorney's in paid attendance out of I believe 45 who took the class.

Drew I do not want to put you on the spot or to make a blanket statement, it is just good to have your participation.

imported post

BigDave wrote:

44Brent wrote:

The 5th Amendment was put in place to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

Click to expand...

Actually it was put there so you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, regardless of guilt or not.

Click to expand...

You are confusing what the 5th Amendment does, with why it was put there.

The 5th Amendment prohibits the compelled testimony against one's self.

The why is to protect the innocent.

imported post

It is apparent to me that those who advocate talking to the police didn't even take the time to watch the videos of the law professor and the police officer. Even the police officer states that people would be better off not talking to the police.

imported post

44Brent wrote:

BigDave wrote:

Actually it was put there so you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, regardless of guilt or not.

Click to expand...

You are confusing what the 5th Amendment does, with why it was put there.

The 5th Amendment prohibits the compelled testimony against one's self.

The why is to protect the innocent.

Click to expand...

Are you splitting hairs here, does not both the bold portions above say the same thing!

imported post

44Brent wrote:

It is apparent to me that those who advocate talking to the police didn't even take the time to watch the videos of the law professor and the police officer. Even the police officer states that people would be better off not talking to the police.

Click to expand...

Well you just do that and hopefully you will come out okay, stupid but okay.

imported post

BigDave wrote:

This is why I would keep to the basics of Who, What, Where and When ONLY, as this will give the Officers everything they need to investigate the incident with out committing to any ideas or concepts about why.

Along with this some type of statement that I was in fear of my life and defended myself...

Click to expand...

Isn't such a statement a huge part of the "Why" that you just said you wouldn't talk about?

A very simple "Why" statement (self defense, fear for my life) would be the only thing I would say.

imported post

geojohn wrote:

BigDave wrote:

This is why I would keep to the basics of Who, What, Where and When ONLY, as this will give the Officers everything they need to investigate the incident with out committing to any ideas or concepts about why.

Along with this some type of statement that I was in fear of my life and defended myself...

Click to expand...

Isn't such a statement a huge part of the "Why" that you just said you wouldn't talk about?

A very simple "Why" statement (self defense, fear for my life) would be the only thing I would say.

Click to expand...

geojohn the statement of "Along with this some type of statement that I was in fear of my life and defended myself..." is to fulfill the requirement for use of deadly force along with who what where and when and making yourself available after you have talked with your attorney.

imported post

44Brent wrote:

It is apparent to me that those who advocate talking to the police didn't even take the time to watch the videos of the law professor and the police officer.  Even the police officer states that people would be better off not talking to the police.

Click to expand...

Every officer I know, including my father, think no one should talk to the police without an attorney. Of course they will usually never tell anyone involved in an incident this, it is just the way it is and how they solve crimes. Bad guys like to try and talk their way out of stuff.

imported post

Good videos, and I'm convinced and will be lawyering-up if it ever happens.

imported post

joeroket wrote:

Every officer I know, including my father, think no one should talk to the police without an attorney. Of course they will usually never tell anyone involved in an incident this, it is just the way it is and how they solve crimes. Bad guys like to try and talk their way out of stuff.

Click to expand...

As with Officers telling citizens if they shoot somebody to pull them into your house, or telling you it is illegal to open carry as I am sure we could go on to many issues.

Just because an Officer tells you it is so does not make it so as many are not current nor knowledgeable in the gun laws and with State Preemption.

I agree bad guys try and talk their way out but how does that relate to the law abiding telling the officer Yes I shot him and I acted in self defense and was in fear of my life.

imported post

BigDave wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Every officer I know, including my father, think no one should talk to the police without an attorney. Of course they will usually never tell anyone involved in an incident this, it is just the way it is and how they solve crimes. Bad guys like to try and talk their way out of stuff.

Click to expand...

As with Officers telling citizens if they shoot somebody to pull them into your house, or telling you it is illegal to open carry as I am sure we could go on to many issues.

Just because an Officer tells you it is so does not make it so as many are not current nor knowledgeable in the gun laws and with State Preemption.

I agree bad guys try and talk their way out but how does that relate to the law abiding telling the officer Yes I shot him and I acted in self defense and was in fear of my life.

Click to expand...

Or your lawyer could tell the investigators what happened. At least after everything has settled down a bit, after the adrenaline rush, and crash.

imported post

BigDave wrote:

joeroket wrote:

Every officer I know, including my father, think no one should talk to the police without an attorney. Of course they will usually never tell anyone involved in an incident this, it is just the way it is and how they solve crimes. Bad guys like to try and talk their way out of stuff.

Click to expand...

As with Officers telling citizens if they shoot somebody to pull them into your house, or telling you it is illegal to open carry as I am sure we could go on to many issues.

Just because an Officer tells you it is so does not make it so as many are not current nor knowledgeable in the gun laws and with State Preemption.

I agree bad guys try and talk their way out but how does that relate to the law abiding telling the officer Yes I shot him and I acted in self defense and was in fear of my life.

Click to expand...

I think we are talking about different things. Officers that tell you to pull a person into your house after you have shot them outside are idiots as are ones that tell you OC is unlawful.

I made no claims as to the knowledge of officers I simply made a statement that all the officers I know agree that you should not talk without an attorney.