Don't talk to the police...

[M1911]

Titan:

I'd say that there are far more folks on the STFU side than the other. Even the folks on the expansive statement side suggest something along the lines of: "He was going to kill me. I had to stop him. Those people [pointing] saw what happened. Another fellow was with him and ran away. I dropped a magazine over there [pointing]. I'll answer all your questions, but I have to speak with my attorney first."

No one is saying that you should answer questions at the scene or agree to be interrogated by the detective.

I have had real adrenalin dumps twice (once in the recovery room and once when I became dizzy while driving). My heart rate was well over 150, my blood pressure was high as well, and my hands were vibrating 1" plus. I was definitely not thinking clearly. I expect that in the aftermath of a self defense incident I would be in far worse shape.

In the video, the police officer suggested that agreeing to an interview with the detective is like agreeing to a boxing match with an Olympic champion. Bad idea. Really bad idea.

Considering that the two highly experienced defense attorneys have nothing but your best interest at heart, and have the most direct experience with people who talked when they shouldn't have, I give their opinions the greatest weight. It was quite remarkable when that question was posed. It wasn't as though they both said quietly "you probably shouldn't make a statement." Instead, they both jumped in and basically said STFU!!

In fact, if you go over here, you'll see an article from Lisa Steele where she says "STFU": www.neshooters.com/miranda.pdf

So please don't use my post as "ammunition" for making a statement to the police at the scene.

 

[RG617]

When I took my class at S&W in June, the instructor brought up a scenario that disturbed me a great deal. A bad guy could break into your home and while not threatening harm or being an imminent threat to you or your family, he could kill your dog right in front of you and you could do NOTHING by law because pets of any kind are considered property and we all know that in these parts you can't use deadly force to protect property. I don't think I need to elaborate on my thoughts on this to anyone who's ever had a dog that was quite a bit more than just a piece of property.

 

[Scrivener]

When I took my class at S&W in June, the instructor brought up a scenario that disturbed me a great deal. A bad guy could break into your home and while not threatening harm or being an imminent threat to you or your family, he could kill your dog right in front of you and you could do NOTHING by law because pets of any kind are considered property and we all know that in these parts you can't use deadly force to protect property. I don't think I need to elaborate on my thoughts on this to anyone who's ever had a dog that was quite a bit more than just a piece of property.

Are pets mere property? Yes.

Does a forcible intruder get a pass because he killed your dog, as opposed to breaking your tv? I think not.

Deliberately killing the dog would - indeed, should - be interpreted as a manifestation of intent.

Said intent would - again, should - be taken as a threat against the lawful occupants of said home.

And that threat warrants the use of deadly force in self defense.

 

[RG617]

+1

EXCELLENT interpretation, and definitely an argument that didn't come to mind. I have pretty good self-control, but you don't mess with a man's dog.

 

[Scrivener]

Or this man's cats.

Indeed, any responsible owner's pets.

 

[depicts]

I think the ASPCA has more authority than the average cop anyway.

You better not get caught mistreating an animal. Can you say Michael Vick?

 

[Titan]

Titan:

I'd say that there are far more folks on the STFU side than the other. Even the folks on the expansive statement side suggest something along the lines of: "He was going to kill me. I had to stop him. Those people [pointing] saw what happened. Another fellow was with him and ran away. I dropped a magazine over there [pointing]. I'll answer all your questions, but I have to speak with my attorney first."

No one is saying that you should answer questions at the scene or agree to be interrogated by the detective.

I have had real adrenalin dumps twice (once in the recovery room and once when I became dizzy while driving). My heart rate was well over 150, my blood pressure was high as well, and my hands were vibrating 1" plus. I was definitely not thinking clearly. I expect that in the aftermath of a self defense incident I would be in far worse shape.

In the video, the police officer suggested that agreeing to an interview with the detective is like agreeing to a boxing match with an Olympic champion. Bad idea. Really bad idea.

Considering that the two highly experienced defense attorneys have nothing but your best interest at heart, and have the most direct experience with people who talked when they shouldn't have, I give their opinions the greatest weight. It was quite remarkable when that question was posed. It wasn't as though they both said quietly "you probably shouldn't make a statement." Instead, they both jumped in and basically said STFU!!

In fact, if you go over here, you'll see an article from Lisa Steele where she says "STFU": www.neshooters.com/miranda.pdf

So please don't use my post as "ammunition" for making a statement to the police at the scene.

Understood.

I realize that the heavy weight of the argument is on the side of 'say nothing' and that's where my bias lies as well. My curiosity lies in how to pull it off without potentially prejudicing anyone to me or my case if I ever end up before a jury.

This thread has accelerated my interest to do a lot more research and investigation on the issue. The Ayoob's course, the links, etc. will help.

 

[Nickle]

Titan, I gave it some thought on HOW to stay silent. (Remember, I am NOT a lawyer, but my thoughts come from what some people much smarter than I am have said.)

I guess I would simply tell the cops that respond that I am going to cooperate, and would be willing to talk to them, after I consult my attorney. I would definitely give them my name and address, and offer ID. I would certainly do all of that as politely as possible. Bank on getting arrested, especially in Mass.

As to what happens in court, I just can't feature a prosecutor getting up and insinuating someone is guilty, by virtue of them utilizing their right to remain silent, especially after a statement like above. Can't say the accused was uncooperative or resisted arrest, either. I think a defense attorney could have a field day if the prosecutor made that argument, especially to a jury.

Remember, court cases don't go like you some of the crap you see on TV.

You might want to invest in a copy of Unintended Conseuences, by John Ross. A lengthy read, but a good one. Another is Boston's Gun Bible, by Boston T. Party. Don't let the "Boston" bit through you, that's what he's called, it's NOT about the city. I know Boston, by virtue of on-line stuff, and he seems to know what he's saying. He advocates silence, or no more than you HAVE to (name and a statement similar to what I mentioned).

What you're looking for in those 2 books is a story (true) about a case that happened way back, involving 5 Mafia hit men that did a hit during a parade, in broad daylight. They all got arrested, and never got tried, because the cops/DA couldn't figure out which one did it, because they all remained completely silent, as in not a word.

 

[M1911]

Or this man's cats.

I'm right with you there. Someone going after our cat would provoke serious response.

 

[M1911]

I realize that the heavy weight of the argument is on the side of 'say nothing' and that's where my bias lies as well. My curiosity lies in how to pull it off without potentially prejudicing anyone to me or my case if I ever end up before a jury.

This thread has accelerated my interest to do a lot more research and investigation on the issue. The Ayoob's course, the links, etc. will help.

Ayoob's point at LFI-1 was that 1) you are in no shape to give a statement, but 2) you want to look like a victim to the police, not a perp. So he was not on the "say nothing" side. His advice was along the lines of:

He was going to kill me/us. I had to stop him. I'll answer all of your questions, but first I have to talk to my attorney. I don't feel well, please take me to the hospital.

This is a carefully crafted statement. The first part: "he was going to kill me/us" indicates that you were in fear for your life, which justifies the use of deadly force. The second part: "I had to stop him" indicates that your intent was merely to stop the attack. Note that it says "stop", not "shoot". The third part: "I'll answer all your questions" indicates that you will be cooperative and have nothing to hide. The fourth part: "but first I have to talk to my attorney" invokes your right to remain silent until you speak to your attorney, who will likely tell you not to make any statement to the police. The fifth part: "I don't feel well..." gets you some medical attention, which you may need. It also may delay additional police pressure to get you to talk.

 

[highlander]

Hypothetical...after talking to police in court..

Prosecutor: Did you describe the deceased as "black (or Hispanic)"?
defendant: yes, well, the police...
prosector: Do you ALWAYS describe people that don't look like you that way?
defendant: Well! you see, umm, I...
prosector: You were not born and raised here, am I correct?
defendant: that is correct, I...
prosecutor: You came here from Atlanta (or maybe relatives in a Southern State)?
defendant: yes.
prosecutor: Were you aware that both your great grandfather And your great grand uncle BOTH served as Confederate soldiers in the Civil War??

defendant: Well yes, and I....
Prosecutor: Aha! And were you also aware that you 3rd cousin, and your wife's cousin's brother in law are or were actively in the KKK?
defendant? What, Who? I have never even..

Prosecutor: Well, ladies and genltemen of the Jury, you will see the defendant comes from a long line of Racists and grew up in and around race hatred..

My poor unfortunate client, merely went up to Mr. Smith's door to ask for directions, being lost. When due to the darkness, he stumbled on the defendant's steps causing him to fall into the front door. The door crashed open. When my client went to apologize to the home owner for causing damage. The defendant, being from racist stock, seeing a person of color instantly attacked my client..

moral. SAY nothing. it just can not help you..

Ah,somehow I don't think the defense attorney would sit quietly and let the prosecutor pull a stunt like that without yelling "objection". Plus it sounds like a really,really bad court room drama. I understand that it's a "what if" scenario but it does stretch the bounds of credulity.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Billy Bulger refused to talk without immunity because of what he termed the "perjury trap" - he was (in my opinion rightfully) concerned that any statement he made which, although not an intentional lie, did not turn out to be exactly true layed the groundwork for a perjury charge. Guess what? He didn't get immunity, but didn't get indicted either.

Martha Stewart was convicted based on what she said to investigators, not what she actually did.

 

[M1911]

The perjury trap is very, very real, as Scooter Libby found out.

 

[Half Cocked]

This is a carefully crafted statement. The first part: "he was going to kill me/us" indicates that you were in fear for your life, which justifies the use of deadly force. The second part: "I had to stop him" indicates that your intent was merely to stop the attack. Note that it says "stop", not "shoot". The third part: "I'll answer all your questions" indicates that you will be cooperative and have nothing to hide. The fourth part: "but first I have to talk to my attorney" invokes your right to remain silent until you speak to your attorney, who will likely tell you not to make any statement to the police. The fifth part: "I don't feel well..." gets you some medical attention, which you may need. It also may delay additional police pressure to get you to talk.

I would favor a carefully crafted statement such as this over the "say absolutely nothing" theory. But it is YOUR decision to make.

From a professional standpoint I would like to hear that someone was in fear of their life and that it was self defense. I do not need someone to give a complete statement. You would be in no shape to give one and you should have representation.

By at least getting the self defense statement out there you are letting the investigators know that it may not be a pre-meditated act. If there is evidence to support this you may very well not get arrested on scene and may not ever get charged. There is at least a chance depending on the investigators/DA's office.

By saying "absolutely nothing" I can guarantee you will be arrested. You may never get indicted but you will get arrested.

Just my .02.

This is one I agree with Ayoob on.

 

[Nickle]

Well, there's the best answer I've seen yet, and it's an opinion from an LEO.

Doesn't get much more clear than that.

 

[drgrant]

The perjury trap is very, very real, as Scooter Libby found out.

IMO in an SD case this isn't about perjury at all. However, It has everything to do with your suitability as a witness- especially if you (the defender) are the only witness.

For example one of the things that got Mr. Fish in jail was that his testimony had coherency and consistency problems with things that he had said before. If a witness destroys his own credibility, this can be a serious problem if there aren't other witnesses to back you up. Even in civil cases credibility of the witness plays a HUGE role. I was on a jury in an insurance case where a guy drove his car into a tractor trailer combination and got squashed while the truck was making a turn. (The guy with the car insisted he was in the turn and the truck drove into him, the guy with the truck said the car guy had driven inside his turn radius as he was making the turn. ) The guy with the car was the plaintiff side, and the statements he gave on the stand differed from the statements that were divulged in some pre-trial deposition thing. This pretty much destroyed his credibility- we coudn't believe a word he said because the statements had changed. On the other hand, the truck driver's testimony was rock solid consistent and his statements were extremely credible. Right off the bat most of the jurors agreed on this and did not favor the plaintiff at all. Granted, in a criminal case jurors may be more likely to apply extra scrutiny, but it is still hard for them to brush off credibility issues (whether real or imagined).

I think the idea behind saying little to nothing is that in doing so, you won't have to create a situation where the jury is questioning your credibility because of the differences in statements. If a prosecutor sees this (and is an a**h*** and wants to railroad/nifong you) he/she will try to capitalize on these discrepancies to cast doubt on the veracity of your testimony or the evidence the defense has presented.

-Mike

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Right off the bat most of the jurors agreed on this and did not favor the plaintiff at all.

So, did you do the right thing and not give the plaintiff any money, or did the jury award something since "it's the insurance company's money and he was hurt"?

 

[Titan]

Ayoob's point at LFI-1 was that 1) you are in no shape to give a statement, but 2) you want to look like a victim to the police, not a perp. So he was not on the "say nothing" side. His advice was along the lines of:

This is a carefully crafted statement. The first part: "he was going to kill me/us" indicates that you were in fear for your life, which justifies the use of deadly force. The second part: "I had to stop him" indicates that your intent was merely to stop the attack. Note that it says "stop", not "shoot". The third part: "I'll answer all your questions" indicates that you will be cooperative and have nothing to hide. The fourth part: "but first I have to talk to my attorney" invokes your right to remain silent until you speak to your attorney, who will likely tell you not to make any statement to the police. The fifth part: "I don't feel well..." gets you some medical attention, which you may need. It also may delay additional police pressure to get you to talk.

Thanks. That makes a lot of sense and seems a better alternative than coming off sounding completely non-cooperative.

 

[M1911]

There are a few things to keep in mind. The combination of adrenalin and the shock of the situation can really mess you up. You probably won't be thinking clearly. The adrenalin may make you very emotional. You may find it very, very hard to stick to a short script. And the police officers are trained to try to get you to talk. They are trained to befriend you and to minimize the seriousness of the situation.

Killing someone is a terrible thing and you'll probably want more than anything to tell your story to someone you perceive as sympathetic. You may be overwhelmed with feelings of "what have I done?" even though you had no choice. If you voice those emotions, those statements will likely be used against you later.

Defense attorneys all have stories about how their client said that "he didn't tell the police anything," only to find out later that their client had made some very incriminating statements. Once you start your minimal statement, you may find it very hard to stop talking.

So I can understand both the STFU argument and Ayoob's minimal statement argument. I dearly hope I never have to make that choice myself.

 

[Titan]

There are a few things to keep in mind. The combination of adrenalin and the shock of the situation can really mess you up. You probably won't be thinking clearly. The adrenalin may make you very emotional. You may find it very, very hard to stick to a short script. And the police officers are trained to try to get you to talk. They are trained to befriend you and to minimize the seriousness of the situation.

Killing someone is a terrible thing and you'll probably want more than anything to tell your story to someone you perceive as sympathetic. You may be overwhelmed with feelings of "what have I done?" even though you had no choice. If you voice those emotions, those statements will likely be used against you later.

Defense attorneys all have stories about how their client said that "he didn't tell the police anything," only to find out later that their client had made some very incriminating statements. Once you start your minimal statement, you may find it very hard to stop talking.

So I can understand both the STFU argument and Ayoob's minimal statement argument. I dearly hope I never have to make that choice myself.

That is absolutely a real concern.

I've seen attorney's prepare clients for testimony in court and it's incredible how much difficulty they have trying to reign them in from 'embellishing' in response to questions rather than simply responding to what's been asked.

.