Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61

Thread: Ayoob on what to say to police AFTER a SD shooting

  1. #1
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426

    Ayoob on what to say to police AFTER a SD shooting

    I don't know if this has been posted here before. I found it informative.
    http://bcove.me/avvz2z2j
    Also at http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/05/2...real-shooting/

    Have the pistol holstered, hands clearly empty, when officers arrive.

    1) I'm the one who called, there's the guy who attacked me (he has a gun, knife, etc.)
    2) I will sign the complaint
    3) There's the evidence
    4) There are the witnesses
    5) I'll cooperate fully in 24 hours & after I've talked with my lawyer.
    (I'm very upset, I understand this is very serious, I will cooperate fully tomorrow after I've talked with my lawyer & she is with me.)

    LOL:
    Quote Originally Posted by Ayoob
    The perpetrator is lying there in a pool of blood, doing a remarkably convincing imitation of a victim...
    Quote Originally Posted by MLK, Jr
    The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort & convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge & controversy.
    Quote Originally Posted by MSG Laigaie
    Citizenship is a verb.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 27:12
    A prudent person foresees the danger ahead and takes precautions.
    The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Proverbs 31:17
    She dresses herself with strength and makes her arms strong.

  2. #2
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028
    IANAL.

    Immediately after a SD shooting...

    If SAFE to do so, protect the scene. Don't let anyone tamper with evidence (eg. steal the BG's weapon).

    Call 911, even if someone else already called.

    Identify yourself. First name, last name and location.

    Tell them you were Attacked. Don't say you shot someone. Say, "There's been a shooting" and leave it at that.

    Tell them to send an Ambulance. Don't fake a heart attack. The ambulance is for the BG, but they can still make sure you are okay.

    Tell them you want your Attorney. 911 calls are recorded. Ask for your attorney during your 911 call. Don't say anything that's not mentioned in the OP. The 911 operator probably won't be able to get your attorney for you, but you are now on record as having asked for your attorney.


    Again, IANAL, but this is what I was taught to do between the shooting and the police arriving.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Badger Johnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,217
    Quote Originally Posted by MyWifeSaidYes View Post
    IANAL.

    Immediately after a SD shooting...

    If SAFE to do so, protect the scene. Don't let anyone tamper with evidence (eg. steal the BG's weapon).
    I always carry my camera on my belt. I think I'd photograph the scene, pull the card and give it to a trusted friend, and so forth. Truth is, you can't always protect the scene so you need proof. Now photos can be altered, but it's better than saying 'the (weapon) was right there', FWIW. In fact it's easier to prove authenticity if you take multiple photos of the same thing - the BG's position, weapon, surroundings. I'd get about 10 shots of the weapon in conjunction with the BG if possible. Of course even that's not always possible, but if you have your cam as part of your gear you can use it when you can. Obviously, don't risk your safety taking pics if the threat is on going, etc.

    In fact, I've been musing about getting a cam/flashlight - there are several out there. If the diameter is one inch it could be rail mounted. I'm starting to feel like I'm wearing Batman's utility belt. Camera, knife, HG, OC-spray, Tac-light, fake wallet, house/car/other car/remotes for alarms/cars key ring. My pants, belt, gear must weigh 5lbs.

    Good idea on the attorney, calling 911 yourself, using more general language, not self-implicating. Nice post.
    Last edited by Badger Johnson; 08-23-2011 at 04:41 AM.
    A gun in a holster is better than one drawn and dispensing bullets. Concealed forces the latter. - ixtow

    Hi, I'm hypercritical. But I mean no harm, I just like to try to look deeply at life

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MyWifeSaidYes View Post
    IANAL.

    Immediately after a SD shooting...

    If SAFE to do so, protect the scene. Don't let anyone tamper with evidence (eg. steal the BG's weapon).

    Call 911, even if someone else already called.

    Identify yourself. First name, last name and location.

    Tell them you were Attacked. Don't say you shot someone. Say, "There's been a shooting" and leave it at that.

    Tell them to send an Ambulance. Don't fake a heart attack. The ambulance is for the BG, but they can still make sure you are okay.

    Tell them you want your Attorney. 911 calls are recorded. Ask for your attorney during your 911 call. Don't say anything that's not mentioned in the OP. The 911 operator probably won't be able to get your attorney for you, but you are now on record as having asked for your attorney.


    Again, IANAL, but this is what I was taught to do between the shooting and the police arriving.
    Good tip on getting the request for an attorney on record during the 911 call. The "right to remain silent" does not shut the cops up. It is your "right to an attorney" that does. If you have requested an attorney, you may not be questioned outside of his presence. That shuts the cops up until and unless you are protected from any games that they might play.

    IIRC, you cannot even re-waive your right to counsel unless your counsel is present. This precludes the cops insisting, even after you have asked for a lawyer, that you again waived your right to counsel and voluntarily spoke to them. Ask for a lawyer first, and get it on the record. The recorded 911 call is a good time to do it.

    On edit: regarding taking pictures: What if there is something incriminating in the photos? (You don't have to have committed a crime for some evidence to be "incriminating.") What are the hazards of putting this evidence in the hands of a third party besides yourself and your lawyer?
    Last edited by eye95; 08-23-2011 at 08:18 AM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Only thing that bothers me about taking pictures after being involved in a SD shooting is how the prosecutor is going to present that fact to a jury. (Why, yes, I am paranoid. Why do you ask?) I can see the fact of you taking pictures being twisted so as to present you as having a callous disregard for human life.

    There is also the business of handing that evidence to a third party who is not an attorney. I'm nervous about that, too. There have been too many people in my life whom I thought I could trust who betrayed that trust. Some of them I had known for years and thought they had some integrity.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    IIRC, you cannot even re-waive your right to counsel unless your counsel is present. This precludes the cops insisting, even after you have asked for a lawyer, that you again waived your right to counsel and voluntarily spoke to them. Ask for a lawyer first, and get it on the record. The recorded 911 call is a good time to do it.
    Got a cite to go with that?

    My memory seems to be full of folks who changed their mind and signed waivers and talked to the cops, then went to jail/prison.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  7. #7
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCRetired View Post
    Only thing that bothers me about taking pictures after being involved in a SD shooting is how the prosecutor is going to present that fact to a jury. (Why, yes, I am paranoid. Why do you ask?) I can see the fact of you taking pictures being twisted so as to present you as having a callous disregard for human life.

    There is also the business of handing that evidence to a third party who is not an attorney. I'm nervous about that, too. There have been too many people in my life whom I thought I could trust who betrayed that trust. Some of them I had known for years and thought they had some integrity.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    Also... I would think that after a SD shooting, the adrenilin is still going to be cranking at full force or I have read that everything kicks into slow motion... I do not think I would be able to calmly take photographs of much of anything...

    Good advice on the 911 Calls....

    Outdoorsman1
    Last edited by Outdoorsman1; 08-23-2011 at 03:33 PM.
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (1891–1970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Got a cite to go with that?...
    Nope. That is why I said, "IIRC." If someone else could confirm or refute my recollection, let them have at it.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,198
    Last year the surpeme court ruled that even if you ask for a lawyer they can still keep asking you questions. It is your right not to andwser them but they can keep asking . Where as under the old case law once you asked for a lawyer they had to stop asking you questions.

    So just remain silent or ust keep saying I want my lawyer to any question asked.

  10. #10
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Kybms!!!

    I don't really have a problem with most of what's been said here already, but let me reinforce the idea that the less said by you, the better. Keep Your Big Mouth Shut!!!
    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.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I don't really have a problem with most of what's been said here already, but let me reinforce the idea that the less said by you, the better. Keep Your Big Mouth Shut!!!
    I have stated in this thread a recollection that once one has requested an attorney, the right to counsel cannot be rewaived except in the presence of counsel. That recollection has been challenged. You are probably most qualified to speak on the subject. At the very least, my recollection is probably a gross simplification of the protection from the police interrogating a suspect who has requested counsel, claiming that he changed his mind.

    Can you clarify this for us? Thanks.

  12. #12
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,277
    Ring Ring

    "Hello 911 what is your emergency"

    "I would like to report a suicide"

    "Is the victim still alive"

    "I don't think so, he has 10 bullet holes in the chest"
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 08-25-2011 at 12:08 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Ring Ring

    "Hello 911 what is your emergency"

    "I would like to report a suicide"

    "Is the victim still alive"

    "I don't think so, he has 10 bullet holes in the chest"
    This is especially funny to me as I recall a former police chief in a certain Alabama town who "committed suicide". He was found in his bathtub at home with five bullet wounds in the head. His successor as police chief was quoted at the time as saying, "It's the worst case of suicide I've ever seen!" There was, at the time, a lot of speculation as to "who dun it" and there are, many years later, still whispers about it.

  14. #14
    Activist Member JamesCanby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Alexandria, VA at www.NoVA-MDSelfDefense.com
    Posts
    1,543
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I don't really have a problem with most of what's been said here already, but let me reinforce the idea that the less said by you, the better. Keep Your Big Mouth Shut!!!
    Didn't a court recently rule that silence cannot be used as an affirmation that one is invoking his/her right to remain silent, that the person being detained/arrested must verbally indicate that he/she was invoking his/her Miranda rights? Or am I confusing that with something else?

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818
    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    I don't know if this has been posted here before. I found it informative.
    http://bcove.me/avvz2z2j
    Also at http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/05/2...real-shooting/

    Have the pistol holstered, hands clearly empty, when officers arrive.

    1) I'm the one who called, there's the guy who attacked me (he has a gun, knife, etc.)
    2) I will sign the complaint
    3) There's the evidence
    4) There are the witnesses
    5) I'll cooperate fully in 24 hours & after I've talked with my lawyer.
    (I'm very upset, I understand this is very serious, I will cooperate fully tomorrow after I've talked with my lawyer & she is with me.)

    LOL:
    Where does the "24 hours" thing come into play? Is it to help show that you are upset to the police and help them to understand that being upset may cause you to not make a proper statment? In any case, I've never heard that before......and why is the lawyer a she? A little prejudice there Mkegal?

    Oh, and where is step 6? ****...

    I've always liked. "Officer, I will coopoerate fully with the investigation but I will not answer any questions or make a statement until my lawyer is present." Just a different way of saying the same thing though.

    Othewise, I think those steps are pretty sound advice.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by JamesCanby View Post
    Didn't a court recently rule that silence cannot be used as an affirmation that one is invoking his/her right to remain silent, that the person being detained/arrested must verbally indicate that he/she was invoking his/her Miranda rights? Or am I confusing that with something else?
    IIRC, the ruling merely said that remaining silent for a period of time did not forever invoke the right to remain silent. That one had not said anything to a point in time did not logically mean that they would never talk. Therefore, despite a suspect not talking did not mean that the police had to stop questioning.

    The only way to stop the questioning is to demand your lawyer. The police cannot question you outside the presence of the requested lawyer. That's how you shut them up.

    This plays into the clarification I requested from user. If you have requested a lawyer, how can you waive that right without the lawyer present? The police cannot exactly question you to find out you have waived that right unless the lawyer is present--unless you run up to the police, unsolicited, blurting out, "I waive my right to an attorney!" which is as stupid as it is unlikely.

  17. #17
    Regular Member MyWifeSaidYes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Logan, OH
    Posts
    1,028
    The "24-hour thing" is so you have time to calm down after an SD shooting. If your lawyer shows up only minutes after you call him, OR HER , you won't be in any shape to * c a l m l y * recall and relate the event to the police.

    The reason to ask for your lawyer is to let the police know WHY you are not answering their questions. Don't remain completely silent. The police are either going to let you go or haul you to jail. If you don't say ANYTHING, they will probably choose jail. When questioned, simply repeat the phrase, "I'll answer questions in 24 hours after I've talked with my attorney and thay can be present."

    You don't have to limit yourself to "24 hours", you can simply say "tomorrow". Having said that, understand that 8am the morning after an 11pm shooting is "tomorrow". Not much time to chat with your lawyer. On the other hand, 24 hours after an 11pm shooting is 11pm the next night. That might be too late for the investigating officer to interview you. On to the next day and another night of attempted sleep...

    Miranda rights don't usually get read to you until the police have decided to arrest you. Before then, anything you say is considered voluntary information. That info will be used as RAS to arrest you, even if your lawyer can keep it from being used against you later.

    I think I'll make a wallet card with the advice in this thread. The first and last rule will be: KYBMS
    All the other advice will merely be exceptions to that rule.

  18. #18
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    Quote Originally Posted by MKEgal View Post
    I don't know if this has been posted here before. I found it informative.
    http://bcove.me/avvz2z2j
    Also at http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/05/2...real-shooting/

    Have the pistol holstered, hands clearly empty, when officers arrive.

    1) I'm the one who called, there's the guy who attacked me (he has a gun, knife, etc.)

    .................1)A I want him arrested!.................

    2) I will sign the complaint
    3) There's the evidence
    4) There are the witnesses
    5) I'll cooperate fully in 24 hours & after I've talked with my lawyer.
    (I'm very upset, I understand this is very serious, I will cooperate fully tomorrow after I've talked with my lawyer & she is with me.)

    LOL:
    Im not a doctor, and dont know if he is Not dead.
    He is the bad guy, and bad guys go to jail!
    Last edited by 1245A Defender; 08-25-2011 at 07:21 PM.
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  19. #19
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    IIRC, the ruling merely said that remaining silent for a period of time did not forever invoke the right to remain silent. That one had not said anything to a point in time did not logically mean that they would never talk. Therefore, despite a suspect not talking did not mean that the police had to stop questioning.

    The only way to stop the questioning is to demand your lawyer. The police cannot question you outside the presence of the requested lawyer. That's how you shut them up.

    This plays into the clarification I requested from user. If you have requested a lawyer, how can you waive that right without the lawyer present? The police cannot exactly question you to find out you have waived that right unless the lawyer is present--unless you run up to the police, unsolicited, blurting out, "I waive my right to an attorney!" which is as stupid as it is unlikely.
    I'm going to have to look that one up - off the top of the head, I'd say that a request for an attorney is conclusive - but there is authority for the proposition that one can demand recognition of his rights, only to waive the rights later. And, since I'm not sure, I'm going to spend some time on this issue tomorrow morning. Thanks for bringing it up.
    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.

  20. #20
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373

    Ok, here's the answer:

    The law on this subject has not only not been watered down since the last time I looked at it, it's gotten stronger. The latest case I saw was in the U.S. Sup. Ct. as of Oct. of 2010. An unambiguous request for an attorney shuts down the interrogation, and that's that. There is a "big but", though. I focus on illustrative discussions from Virginia law, but this is an implementation of the dictates of the U.S. Sup. Ct., and should be applicable everywhere in the U.S.

    The request for an attorney must be unambiguous and unequivocal. "I think that I might need a lawyer." is not a request for counsel. "I wish I had a lawyer with me." is not a request for counsel.

    ...the invocation of the right to counsel must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal. In Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 459 (1994), the Court held that

    {a}s we have observed, “a statement either is such an assertion of the right to counsel or it is not.” Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 97-98 (1984). An accused must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. If the statement fails to meet the requisite level of clarity, Edwards does not require that the officers stop questioning the suspect.

    Here, the question is whether Zektaw's statement “Right, and I'd really like to talk to a lawyer because this — oh my God, oh, my Jesus, why?” under an objective, “reasonable police officer” test was a clear, unambiguous, unequivocal request for counsel.

    Since Miranda and Edwards, we have reviewed several cases to determine whether a defendant's statement clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally invoked his right to counsel. In some cases the defendants' statements were determined to be questions seeking clarification of their rights. See Hilliard, 270 Va. at 51, 613 S.E.2d at 585 (“‘Can I have someone else present too, I mean just for my safety, like a lawyer like y'all just said?’” was not an unequivocal request for counsel); Commonwealth v. Redmond, 264 Va. 321, 330, 568 S.E.2d 695, 700 (2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 930 (2003) (“‘Can I speak to my lawyer? I can't even talk to {a} lawyer before I make any kinds of comments or anything?,’ were not a clear and unambiguous assertion of his right to counsel”); Mueller v. Commonwealth, 244 Va. 386, 396, 422 S.E.2d 380, 387 (1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1043 (1993) (“‘Do you think I need an attorney here?’” did not constitute a request for counsel); Eaton v. Commonwealth, 240 Va. 236, 250, 252, 397 S.E.2d 385, 393, 395 (1990), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 824 (1991) (“You did say I could have an attorney if I wanted one?” was equivocal); and Poyner v. Commonwealth, 229 Va. 401, 410, 329 S.E.2d 815, 823, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 865 (1985) (“‘Didn't you say I have the right to an attorney?’ . . . was not a request for counsel . . . {a}t most, it sought to clarify one of the rights of which he had already been advised”).

    In Hilliard we held that the defendant's request that he “would like to have somebody else in here because I may say something I don't even know what I am saying, and it might . . . jam me up” did not “‘clearly and unambiguously communicate a desire to invoke his right to counsel.’” 270 Va. at 52, 613 S.E.2d at 585-86. We also held that a defendant's statement that “‘he felt like he might want to talk to a lawyer’ . . . was couched in ambiguous terms to the effect that he might want to talk to a lawyer.” Bunch v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 423, 430, 433, 304 S.E.2d 271, 275, 276, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 977 (1983). Additionally, we have held that “‘I'll be honest with you, I'm scared to say anything without talking to a lawyer” is an expression of a defendant's “reservation about the wisdom of continuing the interrogation without consulting a lawyer; however, it does not clearly and unambiguously communicate a desire to invoke his right to counsel.” Midkiff v. Commonwealth, 250 Va. 262, 265, 267, 462 S.E.2d 112, 114, 115 (1995). Finally, the United States Supreme Court held that “‘Maybe I should talk to a lawyer’ — was not a request for counsel.” Davis, 512 U.S. at 462.

    However, in Hilliard additional statements by the defendant were considered. We held that when the defendant stated “‘Can I get a lawyer in here?’” and the detective responded, “‘Do you want to do that?’” and the defendant then said “‘I already have a lawyer. I mean, I can talk to you, don't get me wrong. But I just want to make sure I don't, like I said before, just jam myself up’” was a clear invocation of the defendant's right to counsel. 270 Va. at 52, 613 S.E.2d at 586.

    In Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (1984), the United States Supreme Court considered a case in which the police officer said, “‘You have a right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer present with you when you're being questioned. Do you understand that?’” and the defendant responded, “‘Uh, yeah. I'd like to do that.’” Id. at 93. The Court held that such an exchange was an unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel. See id. at 92. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court also held in Edwards that the defendant sufficiently invoked his Miranda rights when he stated “I want an attorney before making a deal.” 451 U.S. at 487, 479.

    The Commonwealth argues that Zektaw's statement, “Right, and I'd really like to talk to a lawyer because this — oh my God, oh my Jesus, why?,” was ambiguous and equivocal. Specifically, the Commonwealth contends that Zektaw's statement was ambiguous and was not a clear assertion of his right to counsel because “{t}here were no pauses between Zektaw's various phrases; it was just one long sentence, and afterward the conversation between Detective Hein and Zektaw continued. The defendant made no further mention of having an attorney present. He continued asking questions and his level of talkativeness never varied.” We do not agree.

    ...
    Zektaw v. Commonwealth, 278 Va. 127, 136-138, 677 S.E.2d 49 (2009) (emphasis added - this is the most recent definitive Virginia case on this subject in my database.)

    Here's another "big but": the right to counsel can be waived after having been asserted. A person can, subject to the ordinary rules about "waiver" (i.e., the waiver must be made voluntarily, intelligently, and with knowledge of the effects of the waiver), decide he doesn't want an attorney, after all. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the waiver was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Ordinarily, in a custodial interrogation setting, the exclusionary rule applies on the basis of the presumption that the setting and custodial situation is inherently coercive, and that once the request for counsel has been made, mere confessional blathering will not constitute a valid confession (it's not really voluntary). If someone were to say, "I know this is being recorded, and I know that earlier I requested an attorney; I know I have the right to have an attorney present, and I now wish to waive that right. I know that anything I say can, and will, be used against me in court, and that I may be convicted of a crime because of what I am about to say.", would probably be considered a valid waiver.

    Somewhere between the two extremes, there's a line that defines what "knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made" means. Moreover, people of limited intellect, and persons under a disability (e.g., minors, crazy people), etc. (none of which applies to this august body) are unable to give consent or to waive their rights, their parent, guardian, or guardian ad litem have to do it for them or it don't get done (lack the capacity to "intelligently and knowingly" waive their rights).

    By the way, I stick by my earlier post, and I'd like everyone to memorize, "KYBMS". If you keep your big mouth shut, it doesn't matter whether you ask for your attorney. So if you don't trust yourself to speak to the cops (and most people should not), you'll be safest if you just don't say anything. But if you do have to say something, it should be, "I want my lawyer!!!".
    Last edited by user; 08-26-2011 at 09:55 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.

  21. #21
    Opt-Out Members BigDave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Yakima, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,463
    This is a first I have seen someone recommend after a shooting to stop and take pictures.
    My concern is that you may not know who is friendly or foe and getting yourself or those with you to safety is of high importance along with trying to preserve evident and witnesses, calling for law enforcement and medical.

    I will stay with Massad's recommendations.

    If someone is worried about having incriminating evidence on them, maybe they should seek training and information to ensure you do it right.
    • Being prepared is to prepare, this is our responsibility.
    • I am not your Mommy or Daddy and do not sugar coat it but I will tell you simply as how I see it, it is up to you on how you will or will not use it.
    • IANAL, all information I present is for your review, do your own homework.

  22. #22
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by BigDave View Post
    ...If someone is worried about having incriminating evidence on them, maybe they should seek training and information to ensure you do it right.
    The problem is that no one can get enough training or information. Each incident is going to be different, and one of the variables is what local government people show up, and what they're bringing to the party, emotionally and intellectually. You have to assume that you are going to be charged with a crime, so it is wise to call your lawyer immediately after calling the ambulance (and, unless your local laws require you to report any such incident, let the EMS people phone in the situation to local LE).

    I repeat myself, but the time to find a good lawyer is now.
    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.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    59

    After an Incident Advise -- Comments

    If you have a chance to attend Massad Ayoobs MAG-20 Armed Citizens' Rules of Engagement class it is well worth attending.

    Call the police IMMEDIATELY The FIRST caller is normally assumed to be the victim
    Have the police send an ambulance for the perpetrator; you want to appear to be concerned about the perpetrator

    Tell the police the bare minimum:
    I was attacked by that person Point him out
    He had a weapon Point it out
    I was forced to defend myself to STOP his attack
    I think those people were witnesses Point them out
    I want him prosecuted and will sign the complaint
    I know that this is serious and will cooperate fully after speaking to an attorney.
    You will be questioned by multiple police and investigators. Stick to the above until you have spoken with your attorney.

    Do not respond to questions about distance, number of shots fired, or time. Under stress your perception may not fit the facts.

    Do not talk to anyone other than your attorney about the attack. The police will find them and ask them what you said.

    If you have a cell phone camera use it to get pictures of the scene (don't disturb the evidence), the weapon, and particularly witnesses before they (the witnesses or the weapons) walk away. Send the pictures to someone you trust if possible.

  24. #24
    Regular Member MKEgal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    in front of my computer, WI
    Posts
    4,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Brass Magnet
    Where does the "24 hours" thing come into play?
    I was writing what Mas said in the video.
    Aside from reminding officers & you that you're VERY stressed right then,
    AFAIK most LEA have a similar policy for officer-involved shootings:
    wait at least until the officer has slept 8h + have a union rep present.
    Would be interesting to FOIA that policy from departments across the country, just to see.

    and why is the lawyer a she? A little prejudice there Mkegal?
    1) Why does that show prejudice any more than always using the male pronoun for an unknown person?
    2) The local lawyer on my cell phone is a woman.
    (Listed as ICE #4, who handled the first part of the Brookfield case. Actually, last I looked there are 3 lawyers in the office, 2 women, 1 man.)

    "Officer, I will cooperate fully with the investigation but I will not answer any questions or make a statement until my lawyer is present."
    Other than giving the recommended basic "I'm the victim" statements, makes sense.
    Last edited by MKEgal; 08-26-2011 at 10:43 PM.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    How does one come to say, "I know this is being recorded, and I know that earlier I requested an attorney; I know I have the right to have an attorney present, and I now wish to waive that right. I know that anything I say can, and will, be used against me in court, and that I may be convicted of a crime because of what I am about to say."

    If one has requested an attorney, there should be no officer trying to question him and, therefore, no opportunity for the situation described by the hypothetical suspect to arise.

    If I were to find myself in such a situation, where I have requested an attorney yet am still in an interrogation room with an officer and a running recorder, I'd say, "I have requested an attorney. Why are we still here in a setting that is clearly still an interrogation, while I am, in essence, being denied my right to counsel? You are violating my rights. Stop it." I shouldn't have to say any such thing. The instant a suspect asks for an attorney, he should be left alone except as administratively necessary to maintain custody. Recording and a detective are not administratively necessary to maintaining custody of a suspect. A locked door, or, at most, the presence of a silent uniformed officer are all that is necessary.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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