Why you shouldn't talk to the police

[Toadstone]

I'm not suggesting non-compliance, and I'm not in any way bashing or disrespecting the police.
You simply need to remember to be careful of what you say, because when examined/used out of context in court, a few seemingly harmless words can land you in jail. Everybody needs to take about an hour and a half to watch the videos in this link. Seriously.

http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/never-talk-to-the-police/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm sure that even if you are a lawyer (which, by the way, I am not), and you already know everything that the folks in the videos have to say, I'm sure a nice review wouldn't hurt. It is mostly common sense, but they really drive some points home. The advice should not be taken as a means of evading the law because you are a criminal, but rather ensuring that you don't inadvertently hang yourself even if you are innocent. BTW, I am not affiliated with the blog in the link or any of the authors of the videos. I just ran across it and thought I'd pass it along.

[ScottDLS]

I think I've seen this before and it is an interesting perspective from a legal scholar and defense attorney. There are a number of famous people who have talked themselves into federal convictions by "lying" to investigators...about something they didn't do...that wasn't a crime...

Think, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and Martha Stewart among others.

There is an interesting thread running over in Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association board as to whether after killing someone in self defense, you ought to call 911 or flee, with one PA attorney saying you ought to at least consider fleeing the scene. Me...."No comment".

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-open-c ... ost1290076

[karder]

I like cops. I have several in the family in fact, but the bottom line is, don't allow the police to question you until you have a lawyer present. Despite what they may tell you, once the police start asking you questions, they are not there to help you, they are there to make a case against you. By all means don't lie about anything, just keep your mouth shut until you have representation.
Of course, there is a difference between being a witness and telling the police what you know, and being a suspect and talking too much. I think most here will understand the difference.

[SpringerFan]

"I woke up with an armed man in my home"

"I told him I have a gun and to leave"

"He charged at me and I stopped the threat"

"That is all, I need to speak with legal counsel before any further comment"


Post-incident conversations should go something like that.

[4copas]

Here is a good article to read that shows a different take on this subject

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/uni ... of-silence

And a thread from this forum with very good discussion about it.

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=36226

[snorri]

Keeping your mouth shut doesn't mean your lawyer has to keep his mouth shut.

[dicion]

There is an interesting thread running over in Pennsylvania Firearms Owners Association board as to whether after killing someone in self defense, you ought to call 911 or flee, with one PA attorney saying you ought to at least consider fleeing the scene. Me...."No comment".

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-open-c ... ost1290076

I read through the thread, and wow. It makes some sense, for sure. I also do not know the realities of 'The Process' up there in Pennsylvania, but I'm assuming that it's a colder environment for self-defense and legally carrying a firearm.

I would LOVE to see Charles' response to some of the Lawyer's statements in that thread
I would paste specific statements, but I didn't know if that would fall under the 'copyrighted material' rule.

I highly encourage EVERYONE to read through that thread, and specifically the GunLawyer's responses. Then we can discuss it here.

Basically, he says that Calling 911 when you are not legally required to do so, is effectively surrendering your 5th amendment rights to not incriminate yourself.
By calling 911, you remove the need for the DA to prove you shot them, and place the burden of proof on yourself to prove self defense. (Guilty until proven innocent)
A non-zero percentage of innocent people are found guilty at trial all the time, but someone who is never charged cannot be convicted.

[Hoi Polloi]

Isn't there some law about being required to render aid or report emergencies? I can't recall.

[dicion]

Isn't there some law about being required to render aid or report emergencies? I can't recall.

AFAIK, the only law I've found requiring you to render aid or report emergencies is in response to Vehicle Accidents.

§ 550.023. DUTY TO GIVE INFORMATION AND RENDER AID. The
operator of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in the
injury or death of a person or damage to a vehicle that is driven or
attended by a person shall:
(1) give the operator's name and address, the
registration number of the vehicle the operator was driving, and
the name of the operator's motor vehicle liability insurer to any
person injured or the operator or occupant of or person attending a
vehicle involved in the collision;
(2) if requested and available, show the operator's
driver's license to a person described by Subdivision (1); and
(3) provide any person injured in the accident
reasonable assistance, including transporting or making
arrangements for transporting the person to a physician or hospital
for medical treatment if it is apparent that treatment is
necessary, or if the injured person requests the transportation.

I'm not an expert here, and I'm going to keep looking, but I haven't found anything else yet.

[KC5AV]

<snip> don't allow the police to question you until you have a lawyer present. Despite what they may tell you, once the police start asking you questions, they are not there to help you, they are there to make a case against you. By all means don't lie about anything, just keep your mouth shut until you have representation.

Excellent advice. I've mentioned on here before that I have a brother who has been sitting in prison up in the panhandle for the last 7 years. His step-daughter accused him of molesting her because she was mad that he grounded her for bad grades.
The police picked him up at his workplace, and asked him to come to the station with them. He agreed. When they arrived there, he was told of the allegation against him. The officers told him that they knew he was guilty, and they were going to do everything in their power to prove it. Failing that, they were going to make his life miserable from that day on. However, if he'd sign a confession, they'd do everything they could to help him.
My brother did not know his rights, and did not understand that he was not under arrest at that point. Being scared, he believed both the threat and the offer of help, so he signed a confession to a crime (we believe) he didn't commit.
Years later, his step-daughter went to the DA and recanted. The DA said that it didn't matter. They had his confession, so they were going to proceed with their case against him.
He's due to be released next summer having lost the last 8 years of his freedom.

[ELB]

Here is an article on a guy who did not talk to the police, and it sounds like he regretted that to some degree. Two women (one trained in martial arts) rushed his wife in his home driveway -- he intervened, asked them to leave, they started punching him, then were joined by a male. At that point he shot two of them; two fled, he unloaded his gun, got his trauma kit, and treated the one who fell.

He only made a minimal statement and said he wanted a lawyer present for a full statement. Instead, the cops stuck him in a interrogation room by himself for several hours, took statements from his three opponents (no one killed only wounded), and then charged him. They never did take his statement, nor did it appear that they made any attempt to document his injuries.

$100K cash bond (i.e. was not allowed to use a bail company -- had to pay it all himself). 71 days in jail while money was gathered. Two hung juries. Did not fight a civil case against his him, just paid the policy limit ($100K).

Appears in the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network. Massad Ayoob involved.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/ima ... 2010-9.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[srothstein]

And along the lines of watching what you say, you also need to watch the Supreme Court rulings. Like this last session where they made several rulings on Miranda warnings.

The important one here is to ensure you make a clear and positive assertion of your rights. This has long been the rule, but it was made even stronger this year. The police arrested a suspect and questioned him after giving him his Miranda warnings. He remained silent for a couple hours and the police kept questioning him. After several hours, he was asked something about if he had prayed for forgiveness for the killing (sorry i don't remember the exact question asked) and he answered yes. This was admitted in court as a confession. SCOTUS ruled that this was legal because even though he had remained silent, he had never made a positive assertion of his rights by stating he was remaining silent and not answering any questions.

Make sure you state out loud to the officers that you will not answer any further questions until after you talk with your attorney.

And be aware that it is possible to end up how ELB described, with the cops not even being interested in your statement any longer and your being charged. There must be more to the story than we know for what else occurred in hsi case, but the being charged is very possible.

[ELB]

... There must be more to the story than we know for what else occurred in hsi case, but the being charged is very possible.

The link above is to a case history of the, um, case. It is from the ACLDN point of view, of course. Interestingly, it says the guy who was charged is (publicly at least) of the mind the cops and prosecutor were just doing their job, but his ACLDN advisors have a much less charitable view.

The sticking point seemed to be that some folks had a hard time getting around the fact that an armed man shot at three unarmed people, two of them women. Disparity of force wasn't a strong argument for some people. This was exacerbated, I think, by the fact that he did not get his story in early. The article says the cops that wrote the report, based on the statements of the complainants, did not seem to make an attempt to match the physical evidence of the scene to the statements.

The complainants said he came out into the middle of the street and shot them -- they did not come on his property. However, all the blood was in his driveway, and the photos show the expended shell casings in his driveway. When the complainants sued him in civil court, they changed their story to say it DID happen on his property -- in order to make the insurance liability kick in. (His attorney got to use this discrepancy in his second trial, IIRC).

This may support the notion you ought to give the cops at least an overview of what happened AND point out any evidence. Doesn't mean they will pay attention to it tho.

Note as well that his injuries, cuts and bruises on his head, were not documented by the police, and apparently not by the jail house doctor, who in any case was not predisposed to be sympathetic to anyone in jail. Altho either the doc or a jail med tech told him he probably had suffered a concussion, this did not make it to trial. Hence perhaps insisting on going to the ER (or ED, as the medheads seem to want to call it these days) and getting an independent accounting of any injuries might be a good idea. Not a time to be tough and suck up the pain.

[LabRat]

I couldn't help but notice that the Armed Citizens writer has a J.D., but has not passed the bar; i.e., not a practicing attorney and I have to assume no real trial experience.

Just a thought as to who's giving advice. Remember, you got that video advice for free and its worth exactly what you paid for it.