Page 1 of 2
Lawyer talk: Post shooting
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:21 pm
by WarHawk-AVG
Pulled from another site...not sure if it has ever been mentioned here but I though this a very good bit of information:
The most dangerous and damaging single thing one can do in the wake of a lethal confrontation, the one act that fatally damages most claims of legitimate self-defense? Answering questions asked by police investigators, at the scene, without first insisting on having your attorney present.
Even seemingly innocent-sounding statements like, "I didn't mean to....", " It was an accident.....", "This is terrible....", and "I can't believe I did that...." are, in fact, monstrously incriminating. Attorneys tell me that the strongest part of the prosecutor's case is almost always directly founded upon indiscreet statements made, at the scene, by the accused, to police.
On the other hand, saying nothing to police carries risks also. When those on one side of the incident talk freely to the police, and those on the other side say nothing, talkers automatically go into the "victim" column on the investigator's notebook, while the silent go into the "perpetrator" column. Those assigned distinctions tend to be permanent and will color the investigation from that point forward.
The best compromise is to have your well-rehearsed tape loops ready to go. Tape loops need to be emphatic and unmistakable, but neither rude nor insulting: "Officers, I want to cooperate, but I want my attorney here first" , " I'll be happy to answer all your questions just as soon as my attorney is here."
At that point, police are obligated to stop questioning you. However, they may say something to you like, "You can go the 'lawyer-route' is you want, but it won't do you any good." , "You better start answering questions now, while you still have the chance." , "All we want to do is just clear this up." , "You'll feel much better after you talk with us." or,"We only have a few questions, strictly routine..."
What they are trying to do is persuade you to definitively rescind your demand that you have a lawyer to represent you during questioning. Once you say, "Okay, I'll talk with you," they will assume, correctly, that you've changed your mind and no longer want a lawyer. Don't do it! Continue to remind investigators that you still want a lawyer and continue to politely decline to answer questions.
So, when first confronting arriving police officers, (1) assume a non-threatening posture, with both palms turned outward and clearly visible. Make sure no guns or other weapons are visible. (2) Get into the "victim" column" right away with, "Officers, thank God you're here!" Then (3) identify yourself by saying, "I'm the one who called." VCAs don't call the police very often!
When asked what happened, say: "That man tried to murder us," pointing in the direction of the perpetrator. Then comes (4) "I'll be happy to answer all your questions just as soon as my attorney is here."
Beyond that, shut your mouth. Don't sign anything and don't "consent" to anything. If arrested, submit peacefully and without comment. When asked if you understand your rights, say "No." When asked what you don't understand, say, "I don't understand any of it."
Tape loops need to be practiced every time we go to the range. None of the foregoing may seem important, until the unthinkable happens. Then, I promise you, the nightmare will begin, made all that much worse when you don't know your lines!
Just some food for thought
Posted: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:34 pm
by Snake Doctor
Thanks for this post. Good stuff.
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:22 am
by TEX
Where is the quote from? This is pretty much what John Farnam teaches in this area. After Action Damage Control can be very important, especially depending on where you the shooting takes place. The cops may be shaking your hand in Corpus Christi and trying to arrest you in Austin over exactly the same shooting situation. I know at least two (street) cops that have told me they would tell an obvious victim to just keep there mouth shut until they get a lawyer. The cops are not usually out to get you, but they are pretty certain to record anything you say and adrenalin fueled mouth diarrhea could get you into a very deep expensive hole. In fact one well known and respected trainer I have been exposed to, suggested, but did not come right out and say, that a good tactic might be, after telling the officer first “I am the one who called you" and "That person tried to kill me" that you say you are experiencing chest pains and feeling light headed, and then fall to the ground. The emergency shifts from getting you to answer questions to getting you to a hospital. I know it may seem wrong to have an EMS unit make an unworthy run, but I can see the benefit. I am not suggesting this tactic BTW, I am just saying it was mentioned by an instructor.
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:28 am
by WarHawk-AVG
The less you flap your gums running on tons of adrenaline the better off your chances...period!
Lets face it..after a situation like that you will be running on dang near instinct...your mind will be all over the place and your mouth might engage before your brain realizes what is coming out of it
In Harris county I guarantee the currently seated DA will use your words against you in a court of law
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 12:59 am
by frankie_the_yankee
The advice is very similar to what Ayoob teaches. IMO, it is good advice.
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:28 am
by JoshL
Just out of curiousity, what is the reasoning in saying that you don't understand your rights?
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:47 am
by seamusTX
JoshL wrote:Just out of curiousity, what is the reasoning in saying that you don't understand your rights?
Part of a Miranda warning is asking the suspect if he understands his right to remain silent. If he says he doesn't understand it, the police are better off not talking to him.
Personally, IMHO, IANAL, etc., I would not lie or falsify. It is perfectly legal and justified to say nothing at all.
- Jim
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 10:56 am
by Jungle Work
"That man (or woman) was going to kill me (rape, murder, rob, etc) and other innocent people. He (she) was shot. Now I'd like to talk with my attorney before giving any futher statements."
Jungle Work
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:13 am
by Renegade
seamusTX wrote:JoshL wrote:Just out of curiousity, what is the reasoning in saying that you don't understand your rights?
Part of a Miranda warning is asking the suspect if he understands his right to remain silent. If he says he doesn't understand it, the police are better off not talking to him.
I often wondered what would happen if you said you did not understand your rights. I know I do not understand mine (as I am certainly not up on every single Case Law that deals with them), so I would answer with a 'NO' to any question asking if I understand my rights.
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 1:44 pm
by platipus_
What is the generally recommended advice for your spouse/children to follow who witnessed an incident, but were not involved in, when questioned?
My first post here. Great forum by the way.
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 2:07 pm
by seamusTX
Renegade wrote:I often wondered what would happen if you said you did not understand your rights. I know I do not understand mine (as I am certainly not up on every single Case Law that deals with them), so I would answer with a 'NO' to any question asking if I understand my rights.
I don't really know.
If the investigators follow the spirit of the law, they should ask you if you want to call a lawyer or need one appointed.
However, they sometimes persist in questioning, and sometimes cases are thrown out of court on account of that.
platipus_ wrote:What is the generally recommended advice for your spouse/children to follow who witnessed an incident, but were not involved in, when questioned?
Good question, and welcome to the forum.
You are never obligated to answer questions from the police. IMHO, IANAL, friendly witnesses should say they want to talk to their lawyer first.
That's my own plan if I am ever questioned by the police. People have gotten in a lot of trouble giving unadvised answers to investigators, even if they were not initially the subject of an investigation.
- Jim
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:24 pm
by Piney
Greetings--
Couple of comments from a recent informal discussion with an atty over these types of issues--
One of his comments was to never use the word "shot"-- use the phrase "I stopped the threat to my life/wife/ect".
Another comment was to inform the officer that you were in fear of your life, you stopped the threat, and that you want the perpetrator arrested. We got a chuckle out of that, but he said the purpose behind that type of statement was to show that you did not have an intention to kill the perp, only to stop the threat. By saying you want him arrested, that shows you intention was to stop.
And- of course- no "chatty cathy" mode-- shut your mouth until your attny arrives on the scene even if this means being removed from the scene by officers.
Someone previously posted about what should folks involved in the incident (ie family, ect) do. I suppose similar wording about fear for their lives ect is safe. He gave the same advise-- No discussions or statements until your or their atty is present.
Some may feel that by not being forthcoming about every detail, you may appear to be hiding somthing. Its not that way. Seemingly innocent comments or statements can be qute damaging to one's defence.
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 3:51 pm
by seamusTX
I "brainwashed" myself a long time ago to use the phrase "stop the threat," and Charles says the same thing in his talk.
The family, being witnesses, are obligated to identify themselves to the police but nothing more. They are also unikely to be at risk for any charges related to the incident.
The thing to worry about, if you're inclined to worry, is what witnesses who don't know you might say.
- Jim
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 4:06 pm
by DoubleJ
just don't leave any witnesses!
hahhahahaha, jk
