• 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.

Ayoob on what to say to police AFTER a SD shooting

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
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.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
...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.
 

RedRuger

Regular Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Messages
59
Location
, Louisiana, USA
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.
 

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
Brass Magnet said:
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? :p
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:

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
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.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
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.)
....

That's because your original post failed to identify a specific antecedant for the pronoun, which you have now clarified. Where the person to whom the pronoun applies is unidentified, then the grammatically neuter pronoun, "he" (which happens to be identical in form to the masculine pronoun), is appropriate. Grammatical gender is defined by the antecedent. An unidentified antecedant requires the neuter gender.

What always mystifies me is why people who use "she" inappropriately, are the usually the same people who don't like words like, "actress", "administratrix", and "aviatrix", preferring to apply the masculine form to everyone. My view is that a woman is perfectly competent to act, to administer, and to fly an airplane, and it is therefore not necessary to identify her as a man in order to justify her doing so.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
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.

What you quoted there was intended to represent a clear waiver of the right to counsel, which a "reasonable police officer" would be justified in accepting. If you say something like that, even if you've previously asked for an attorney to be present, then you're revoking the earlier request, and the exclusionary rule does not apply.

There is no law or rule (the "exclusionary rule" is basically a federally mandated rule of evidence, by the way, not "law"), that prevents the cops from asking you questions, or for that matter, for you to ask them questions, or for anyone to talk about whatever they want to. What the rule provides is that the statements you make after having unambiguously and unequivocally asked to have an attorney present are inadmissible in court against you, absent a clear waiver of that right.

The court decisions clearly state that the interrogation must cease when the request is made, but there is no adverse consequence to the cops if they fail to stop asking questions, other than the exclusionary rule. There's a really good reason why they may continue to ask questions, even where they know the information they acquire cannot be used directly. They may elicit information that will lead to admissible evidence. They take the same approach with respect to illegal wiretaps, searches, etc., even though those are crimes (like, who's going to prosecute them?). This is only a rule of evidence, and there are no "teeth" in the rule to make the cops respect your rights.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I raised the quote as it is a practical impossibility. In order to utter it, short of the suspect blurting it out, after having earlier asked for counsel, when he happens to be in the presence of an officer for some other reason, say being moved from an interrogation room to a holding cell, the suspect would have to be in a situation specifically disallowed by his request for an attorney.

My point is that, if the police keep a suspect in (or return him to) an interrogatory situation, without his counsel, after the request for an attorney has been made, then a waiver of counsel (regardless of the thoroughness of the wording) without the advice of that counsel during that interrogation should be impossible.

The police must stop the interrogation, eliminating the possibility of the suspect waiving his right to counsel without the presence of counsel--unless, of course, he happens to blurt out that thorough waiver of counsel during some other incidental contact with an officer--infinitely unlikely.
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
It's not "a right not to be questioned", it's "a right to remain silent".

So, after asking for a lawyer, provide only your lawyer's contact info, then REMAIN SILENT.


AND NEVER SIGN ANYTHING...ANYTHING!!!...WITHOUT YOUR LAWYER READING IT FIRST!

On TV :p cops get people to sign away their rights. Real life is not like TV, so DON'T SIGN ANYTHING!
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Actually, it is not a "right to remain silent," the wording of Miranda notwithstanding. The right it is not to incriminate oneself. Remaining silent is merely the technique employed prior to counsel advising one as to what he might say that would not incriminate (which could be nothing at all).

You also have a right to that counsel. It is this latter right that protects the former.

The goal, until counsel is present, is to remove oneself from the situation in which he might say something unhelpful. The result of the request of the lawyer is that the police must end any interrogation and, except as necessary to maintain any custody, leave one be.

The point is, don't just remain silent; demand an attorney in unequivocal language. That is the only way to stop the questioning and eliminate the possibility of unintentionally waiving the so-called "right to remain silent."

IANAL.
 

Badger Johnson

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
1,213
Location
USA
Actually, it is not a "right to remain silent," the wording of Miranda notwithstanding. The right it is not to incriminate oneself. Remaining silent is merely the technique employed prior to counsel advising one as to what he might say that would not incriminate (which could be nothing at all).

You also have a right to that counsel. It is this latter right that protects the former.

The goal, until counsel is present, is to remove oneself from the situation in which he might say something unhelpful. The result of the request of the lawyer is that the police must end any interrogation and, except as necessary to maintain any custody, leave one be.

The point is, don't just remain silent; demand an attorney in unequivocal language. That is the only way to stop the questioning and eliminate the possibility of unintentionally waiving the so-called "right to remain silent."

IANAL.

Post of the week.
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
Actually, it is not a "right to remain silent," the wording of Miranda notwithstanding. The right it is not to incriminate oneself.

Well, technically ;) the right is: "No person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."

You can incriminate yourself all you want, you just can't be forced to do it.

And it seems we all agree that the best way to not voluntarily incriminate yourself is to REMAIN SILENT.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
...And it seems we all agree that the best way to not voluntarily incriminate yourself is to REMAIN SILENT.

I disagree. The best way to not incriminate yourself is to open your mouth and utter the words: "I want a lawyer now." Until you say those magical words, the police may continue to browbeat you with questions--wearing down your resolve to remain silent. Once those words leave your lips, they must leave you be. This is the point have been endeavoring to make.
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
I raised the quote as it is a practical impossibility. In order to utter it, short of the suspect blurting it out, after having earlier asked for counsel, when he happens to be in the presence of an officer for some other reason, say being moved from an interrogation room to a holding cell, the suspect would have to be in a situation specifically disallowed by his request for an attorney.

My point is that, if the police keep a suspect in (or return him to) an interrogatory situation, without his counsel, after the request for an attorney has been made, then a waiver of counsel (regardless of the thoroughness of the wording) without the advice of that counsel during that interrogation should be impossible.

The police must stop the interrogation, eliminating the possibility of the suspect waiving his right to counsel without the presence of counsel--unless, of course, he happens to blurt out that thorough waiver of counsel during some other incidental contact with an officer--infinitely unlikely.
All of that does not fit in with the information user already presented.....
What you quoted there was intended to represent a clear waiver of the right to counsel, which a "reasonable police officer" would be justified in accepting. If you say something like that, even if you've previously asked for an attorney to be present, then you're revoking the earlier request, and the exclusionary rule does not apply.

There is no law or rule (the "exclusionary rule" is basically a federally mandated rule of evidence, by the way, not "law"), that prevents the cops from asking you questions, or for that matter, for you to ask them questions, or for anyone to talk about whatever they want to. What the rule provides is that the statements you make after having unambiguously and unequivocally asked to have an attorney present are inadmissible in court against you, absent a clear waiver of that right.

The court decisions clearly state that the interrogation must cease when the request is made, but there is no adverse consequence to the cops if they fail to stop asking questions, other than the exclusionary rule. There's a really good reason why they may continue to ask questions, even where they know the information they acquire cannot be used directly. They may elicit information that will lead to admissible evidence. They take the same approach with respect to illegal wiretaps, searches, etc., even though those are crimes (like, who's going to prosecute them?). This is only a rule of evidence, and there are no "teeth" in the rule to make the cops respect your rights.

According to user, even if you invoke "I want my attorney," they CAN still place you in the position of asking you questions. They just cannot USE what they hear you say. EXCEPT for the specific of an unequivocal revocation of your declaration "I want my attorney."
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Of course it is not illegal, and the police cannot be arrested for talking to you after invoking. The point is that the questioning is against the rules and what you say is excluded.

There are many things that the police cannot do, but do anyway. There are consequences defined for any rule-breaking. The word "cannot" has a wide range of meanings. In this context, read it to mean "not permitted to," not "physically stopped from."

My question still stands, even if the precise wording needs to be tweaked, which I won't bother doing.
 
Last edited:

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, USA
Of course it is not illegal, and the police cannot be arrested for talking to you after invoking. The point is that the questioning is against the rules and what you say is excluded.

There are many things that the police cannot do, but do anyway. There are consequences defined for any rule-breaking. The word "cannot" has a wide range of meanings. In this context, read it to mean "not permitted to," not "physically stopped from."

My question still stands, even if the precise wording needs to be tweaked, which I won't bother doing.
If you are seeking a valid answer, asking a specific and precise question is the best route to that answer.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
Eye95, the Silverback, is right about what's "spo'dabe". Continuing to interrogate after a request for counsel is a "shouldn't-happen-situation". And, in response, I'll quote from Firesign Theatre, "I think we're all Bozos on this bus":
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a lot like having bees live in your head. But, there they are!"

I can recall a time when I was a romantic idealist, and believed that the people in charge of our judicial system were intellectually honest.

Fact is, the cops can and do continue to interrogate after a request for counsel is made. It's like that old joke about why the dog does what he does... because he can.

I don't mean to disagree with Eye95 about asking for an attorney. And one ought to have a good attorney lined up already. But other than that, KYBMS!

See also: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?93581
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Of course it is not illegal, and the police cannot be arrested for talking to you after invoking.
Yes they can be arrested, it is just not done. If they are asking questions or trying to intimidate an answer. The feds can charge them or the judge can hold them in contempt and jail them.
 
Top