44Brent
Regular Member
imported post
The 5th Amendment was put in place to protect the innocent, not the guilty.
The 5th Amendment was put in place to protect the innocent, not the guilty.
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.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.
Actually it was put there so you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, regardless of guilt or not.The 5th Amendment was put in place to protect the innocent, not the guilty.
On the other hand not all that are being released do to DNA are not innocent and would be a misconception to think so.
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.BigDave wrote:So, would it also be a missconception to think that not everyone convicted because of DNA is guilty?On the other hand not all that are being released do to DNA are not innocent and would be a misconception to think so.
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?
olypendrew wrote:I am glad you chimed in here, you address interrogation and I whole heartily agree, how about at the initial contact at the scene?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.
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.
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.BigDave wrote:
olypendrew wrote:I am glad you chimed in here, you address interrogation and I whole heartily agree, how about at the initial contact at the scene?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.
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.
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.
44Brent wrote:Actually it was put there so you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, regardless of guilt or not.The 5th Amendment was put in place to protect the innocent, not the guilty.
Are you splitting hairs here, does not both the bold portions above say the same thing!BigDave wrote:Actually it was put there so you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself, regardless of guilt or not.
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.
Well you just do that and hopefully you will come out okay, stupid but okay.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.
Isn't such a statement a huge part of the "Why" that you just said you wouldn't talk about?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...
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.BigDave wrote:Isn't such a statement a huge part of the "Why" that you just said you wouldn't talk about?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...
A very simple "Why" statement (self defense, fear for my life) would be the only thing I would say.
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.
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.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.
Or your lawyer could tell the investigators what happened. At least after everything has settled down a bit, after the adrenaline rush, and crash.joeroket wrote: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.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.
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.
joeroket wrote: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.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.
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.