11 Reasons Not To Talk To The Police

imported post

swatspyder wrote:

What do you want Dave? No one is going to agree with you entirely, and yet you continue to push this issue. SAYING NOTHING will help you. SAYING SOMETHING WRONG will hurt you.

Stop pushing this issue about what little you "should" say :exclaim:

Click to expand...

Where is the Fly Swatter SPLAT ! :lol:

Not saying something can harm you as well !

If you do not like what I write then don't read it or reply.

And don't get your panties in a bunch!

imported post

BigDave wrote:

swatspyder wrote:

What do you want Dave? No one is going to agree with you entirely, and yet you continue to push this issue. SAYING NOTHING will help you. SAYING SOMETHING WRONG will hurt you.

Stop pushing this issue about what little you "should" say :exclaim:

Click to expand...

Where is the Fly Swatter SPLAT ! :lol:

Not saying something can harm you as well !

If you do not like what I write then don't read it or reply.

And don't get your panties in a bunch!

Click to expand...

Two attorneys disagree with you, one can be seen in a video, the other is a member of this forum.

imported post

BigDave wrote:

swatspyder wrote:

What do you want Dave? No one is going to agree with you entirely, and yet you continue to push this issue. SAYING NOTHING will help you. SAYING SOMETHING WRONG will hurt you.

Stop pushing this issue about what little you "should" say :exclaim:

Click to expand...

Where is the Fly Swatter SPLAT ! :lol:

Not saying something can harm you as well !

If you do not like what I write then don't read it or reply.

And don't get your panties in a bunch!

Click to expand...

This looks like a situationwhen not one answer is correct for all situations. Some aspects of both arguments are appropriate for some encounters. I think we could all agree on that on some level?

Or perhaps it is a we agree to disagree and leave it at that. Resorting to fisty cuffs is no means to an end and a poor tactic to persuade ones argument.

imported post

Great link Swat. I stand by the "say nothing, ask for your lawyer" thought.

imported post

I have never met Big Dave, but I do know a bit about him, a small bit. He has what appears to be a good grasp on the different aspects of what to say and not to say. That being said, follow the dictates of your own conscience. What may be germaine in one circumstance could quite possibly fry you in another.

Should you speak with the police? Should you remain quiet until speaking withcounsel ? Only you can make that determination based upon the information you have at that particular time.

Read what Dave contributes and read for content, not as if it were the only hard and fast rule of conduct.

Dave, Most of us understand what you are trying to contribute, the big problem seems to be the manner of delivery.

imported post

amzbrady wrote:

swatspyder wrote:

This has to do with people being stopped by police, just to end up talking themselves into a corner and giving up their rights, or admitting to doing something when they weren't.


11 Reasons Not To Talk To The Police

This article might just as well be entitled “You have the right to remain silent. Use it. Say Nothing.”
This doesn’t mean “Deny having committed the crime.” It means telling the police officer that your attorney has advised you not to answer any questions, and then saying nothing else to anybody until you talk to him or her.
Recently, I was giving this advice to a potential witness, and he said, “I’ll just tell them that I don’t know anything.” This is wrong. For one thing, he did know something, so this would have been a lie. I may have wanted that witness to testify at the trial. A competent prosecutor would have discredited the witness by showing that at one point, he’d told the police he didn’t know anything, and at trial he was trying to convince the jury that he did know something.

What If The Police Don’t Read You Your Rights?
You always have the right to remain silent. Do not be confused by the fact that sometimes, the police don’t read you your rights. Sometimes they are required to, and sometimes they’re not. But any time you are questioned by the police – whether you are under arrest, or only being detained, or you are just a witness – you always have the right to remain silent, even if the police don’t tell you so. Until or unless a judge from a court of competent jurisdiction orders you to answer questions, you have the right to remain silent. Use it. Just politely tell the police that your lawyer told you not to answer any questions. And understand that even if you’re not asked a question, the prosecution can and will use anything you say, even to a friend or family member. A client of mine asserted his right not to answer a police detective’s questions, but spontaneously asked whether he could get the death penalty. The court allowed his question to be used as evidence against him. Say nothing.

Read the rest of this Attorney's reasons for not talking to the police here: http://www.cja.us/news/11-reasons-not-to-talk-to-the-police/

Click to expand...

I dont know what the time limit is, but the police have a limited amount of time to read you your rights after you have been arrested.

Click to expand...

Not totally correct. If the police don't interrogate you after they arrest you, they do not have to read you your "Miranda" warnings at all. The warnings are required only in cases of custodial interrogation. They can arrest you for DWHUA, cuff you, stuff you and take you to the gray bar hotel for an extended stay and never, ever read you your "Miranda" warnings, so long as they do not interrogate you (that is, ask you guilt seeking questions) after the arrest. Separate from "Miranda", under WA court rules, they do have to "immediately" advise you of your right to a lawyer. See CrR 3.1(c)(1) & CrRLJ 3.1(c)(1) at http://www.courts.wa.gov/court_rules/

As a practical matter, they likely almost always follow the words "you are under arrest" with "you have the right to remain silent, etc." but this would be more due to routine and habit than legal requirement.

imported post

¿No habla ingles?

imported post

Son_of_Perdition wrote:

¿No hablo ingles?

Click to expand...

Fixed it for you. If you try to pull that card gotta say it right. LOL.

imported post

They can easily get a spanish interpreter, how about Cherokee?

"Wup Whta ny ay"

imported post

Now you kbow I like that!

imported post

Another tidbit of information as to claiming self defense and why one should if you acted with in the law.

You will be stating that you were there and you shot the perp and with this you will need to present some evidence that you acted in Self Defense and the level of proof is only to being more likely then not.

Now the State is in the position to prove that you did not act in Self Defense.

You will be able to present your training and expert witnesses for Armed Self Defense to testify on your behalf so you can educate what could be considered a dumb down jury.
The concept of being able to educate those who will sit in judgment of you boggles the mind at times.

[line]
Washington Practice Series TM
Current through the Third Edition

Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
2008 Edition Prepared by the Washington Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions, Hon. Sharon S. Armstrong, Co-Chair, Hon. William L. Downing, Co-Chair

Part IV. DefensesIt is something to consider, why would you not want all the evidence preserved to prove your case?

On the other hand what evidence would harm you if it was preserved? If you acted with in your training and the law, well none.

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

Son_of_Perdition wrote:

¿No hablo ingles?

Click to expand...

Fixed it for you. If you try to pull that card gotta say it right. LOL.

Click to expand...

Semantics. I'll try not to spell it for them. Perhaps Klingon would be more effective.

Seriously. I like aLess is more approach when conversating with LEO's.No need to say somethingthat only benefits them.


EDIT: To remove my foot from my mouth:uhoh:

imported post

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum65/44339-4.html

Just wanted to link to the same discussion over in the General section.

imported post

Who here has been arrested in a self defense situation?

OH I have, let me tell you from my personal experience with Kirkland PD, it is not a good idea to tell them the details to explain your innocence.

They even radio'd in and told dispatch they were interviewing the "victim", until two other officers come over stated the name of the person involved (apparently a well known figure in Kirkland) and suddenly I am the one in cuffs. You never know what details you give up can be used against you.

You might tell the truth, but if it conflicts with someone elses story you are the liar and now everything you said is suspect, and the innocent until proven guilty thing is just an illusion. Claim selfdefense, fear for life, then use the ablility of your lips to stay closed and keep themthat way. Oh and trust me they will make you feel like an ass and a jerk for not cooperating , it's a trick don't fall for it.

imported post

SVG
OUCH :what:
Sounds like you got to know more than you wanted too. :uhoh:

Dave

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

Who here has been arrested in a self defense situation?

OH I have, let me tell you from my personal experience with Kirkland PD, it is not a good idea to tell them the details to explain your innocence.

They even radio'd in and told dispatch they were interviewing the "victim", until two other officers come over stated the name of the person involved (apparently a well known figure in Kirkland) and suddenly I am the one in cuffs. You never know what details you give up can be used against you.

You might tell the truth, but if it conflicts with someone elses story you are the liar and now everything you said is suspect, and the innocent until proven guilty thing is just an illusion. Claim selfdefense, fear for life, then use the ablility of your lips to stay closed and keep themthat way. Oh and trust me they will make you feel like an ass and a jerk for not cooperating , it's a trick don't fall for it.

Click to expand...

If you can elaborate what was the out come?

Unfortunately any self defense incident one can be expected to be arrested until evidence and facts come to light.
If one gets into details of the incident there is where the problem lies, evidence pointed out and shut up, still be prepared to be arrested.

Officers should be or need to be non bias at all times, we know this is not the case here.

imported post

Outcome was had to take a plea bargain unless I wanted to spend lots of money defending myself which I didn't have, and if you own property the state doesn't provide you a lawyer no matter how broke you are.

The lawyer asked me "Why the hell did you talk to the police?, I could have had it dismissed."

I truly thought I was helping the LEO go get the bad guy and providing evidence of my innocence, silly me.

And no one is unbiased look at the varying opinions we get here when something invovling guns is reported on the news, LEO are no different.

imported post

I know this happens quite often in our legal system as to they play off the fears of what it will cost to stand up for ones rights when wrongly charged for something that they did not do or acted properly in.

It seems that the attorney said what he did as it was looking at the State proving their case but remember you were there and something occurred there is two things proven already regardless of what you said about what you did.

Your Attorney evidently was not looking at an affirmative defense ie Self Defense in which again saying yes I was there and yes this is what happen with your attorney present.

Talking about details of incident of how things went down can and will be tricky to say the least and these are the things I agree in not discussing or making a statement until you have talked with your attorney and they are present.

When discussing details it is imperative to have your attorney there not only for their advice but to have a witness to what you said and how you said it during questioning.

There are issues when recording a witness interviews or interrogations as we communicate there is facial expressions, voice inflections, body movements and of course how each word or sentence is perceived by others, having a witness there to confirm your intent or response is every so valuable. If they record the interview you hire someone to record as well be it audio or audio and video, there has been evidence as this that was accidentally destroyed or lost before.

SVG if you were happy with the outcome then that is fine for you, although I feel if it was not an issue of funds there would have been a different out come.

Dave