Posted on 05/11/2008 9:16:18 AM PDT by B4Ranch
Had me until that. The statement is patently false on every level.
Ever been pulled over in small town Texas? I hadn't been pulled over in the twenty years I'd lived in Austin, then moved to Moody, Texas. Between Moody, McGregor, and Bruceville-Eddy, I got pulled over something like eight times in the ten years I lived there. You name it; didn't think I stopped long enough at a stop sign at 11 pm when nobody else was in view, license plate light out, didn't think I signaled long enough when changing lanes, didn't drop speed fast enough at the change from 55 to 45 (was going 48 when I hit the 45 sign), whatever. Never got a ticket, cause they never had anything on me, but they were just bored and fishing for a felony. Course, Moody is the meth capital of south Mclennan County, and Bruceville-Eddy should just have a chain link fence thrown around it and be declared a prison, but most of the lawbreakers are kids of the town big shots, so the cops ignore them (if they don't they leave real fast) and try to catch people driving through. It's a lot better than it used to be. When I was a kid they'd pull you over, make you stand by the car and go through your vehicle without a second thought. I had that done to me in Henderson and Waco.
This is not to hammer all cops, as my dad was a cop and I've got a lot of cop friends. Unfortunately, a lot of guys that want to be cops shouldn't be cops, and the reason they shouldn't be a cop is because they want to be able to pull people over and humiliate and intimidate them with no fear of retaliation. Good cops hate those guys, but there are still some of them out there.
Your response gives them why to much info. Places you at the scene places you as the shooter. Tells them you use a semi auto. The 3rd best response is I want to talk to my attorney. The top ten response's are I want to talk to my attorney. The response to any of their Questions is I want to talk to my attorney
You can't be put in double jeopardy, but our illustrious lawyers have found a way around that.
Here's the other thing, and it's big. Most of us have no criminal convictions or charges, and we have a lot to lose. If, for example, I were charged with a criminal offense, no matter how unfounded, I would lose my job, have a hard time getting another one, likely lose my house and vehicles, no insurance, and assorted other problems. The real hard core criminals have no such worries, as they've already got a criminal record. Therefore, it's much easier for cops to hammer a person that tries to be on the right side of the law than a person that doesn't care.
I'm also not convinced that most DAs really care whether you did the crime or not. Nifong is not an aberration. He just picked on someone with deep enough pockets to hire a good lawyer.
Police are sinister about inducing confessions.
As long as they can get away with it they will push hard to get their target to confess because they think they have their target.
Police are interesting in theat they have their union demand their employment dispute sessions be videoed or recorded but likewise demand all interogations NOT be reorded.
What about asking the cops to discuss it at a local coffee shop or other such public place? I would think that would avoid the dangers in either (1) meeting in a place where they could intimidate you, or (2) risking them finding a way to search your house.
Trunk stuff.
What does that mean?
Just normal stuff that's in a trunk.
Mind if I check?
I am not giving you permission to search my vehicle.
What have you got to hide?
I don't have anything to hide.
Then it's okay if I search your vehicle.
I am not giving you permission to search my vehicle.
How are you going to stop me?
I didn't say I'm going to stop you, I said I'm not giving you permission to search my vehicle.
Well, if I did search your vehicle what would I find?
Car stuff.
So you don't mind if I search your car.
I am not giving you permission to search my car.
Look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Let me search your car and if nothing's in there you can be on your way. Otherwise, we can sit here for a few hours while I get a warrant.
I am not giving you permission to search my car.
This can go on for hours. Not that I've ever been pulled over by a bored small town cop who wants to fubar somebody's entire life just for the heck of it.
Exactly correct.
Saying ANYTHING to the LEOs is information that can/will be used against you.
“I will gladly cooperate and answer any questions you have once my attorney is present” is what I recommend to all that I train in CCW/personal defense.
A prominent attorney who also is a major force in the MO CCW areana advises not to say ANYTHING at all, other than basic ID type info. Let the cops put togehter the scene from evidence/witnesses.
Once a cop gets you talking, you’ll likley dig yourself a deep hole as you attempt to ‘splain the whole situation.
DO NOT UNDER ANY circumcstances alter the crime scene (picking up cases-moving bodies etc NO WAY-these acts will make you guilty of at least interfering/tampering with evidence etc.)
What to do:
Call 911 immediately once the situation is safe, render first aid if possible (may not be if the perp is still ambulatory and a threat).
Practice your “I will cooperate and answer questions once my attorney is present” speech until the cops get there, then stay it one more time (to the first cop on the scene), then only answer basic ID questions (do not answer questions like “Do you know this guy?”), then shut up until your attorney advises you to speak.....
Also; holster your firearm if away from your home, secure it if at home (away from your collection-otherwise they will take everything-they may anyway) as soon as you are certain the situation is safe. I practice a tactical reload after every range session and will do the same after a shooting-that way I can see the round count in the mag, add one and know quickly (before the cops take my piece) how many shots I have to account for. The tac reload insures I am prepared if the situation IS NOT yet over-always top off your firearm every chance you get, retaining all magazine with ammo in them, leave empty mags on the ground where they fell for evidence purposes-remember the tampering concern-
God Bless and Practice!
MOLON LABE
This sort of thing is one of the reasons that juries should be told the sentences for crimes of which defendants are accused, and should be allowed to specify maximum sentences with their verdicts; per CGA'68, there should be an explicit statement that any crime for which a jury mandates that a sentence be less than 365 days shall be either considered to be of a class for which no longer sentence was possible or else dropped altogether.
I've seen it argued that there's no legitimate reason for jurors to consider sentencing in determining guilt or innocence. Nice theory, except that the required standards of proof and mens rea should vary with the proposed sentence.
For example, suppose someone runs out of gas on a busy road and coasts to a stop in a wide spot of the road opposite a fire station, and if such wide spot is the only place within coasting distance to get out of traffic; the person then proceeds on foot to a gas station a mile away. Before the person returns to move his car, there is a fire call and the fire crew is delayed by about 90 seconds maneuvering one of their fire trucks out of the station. The motorist is charged with "Obstructing a fire crew".
Suppose you were on a jury and the facts were precisely as described. The law reads "Any person who commits any deliberate act whose effect is to materially delay the effective response of a fire crew to a fire shall be guilty of 'Obstructing a fire crew'". If the penalty for the crime was a $250 fine, would you acquit or convict? What if the penalty was a ten-year prison term? Would that affect your decision? Should it?
I would suggest that the nature of the sentence should affect the decision to acquit or convict, because it should affect the level of intent necessary to find guilt. If the law was written to deal with people who block fire trucks for the purpose of preventing timely response to fires (as would be implied if the sentence was ten years) the person in the scenario above would not qualify. If the law was written to deal with people who fail to afford fire crews and trucks adequate courtesy, the person above would qualify.
Unfortunately, in its desire to create criminals, the government frequently assigns sentences as though laws are intended to go after major deliberate crimes, but then tries to convince juries that they're intended to deal with minor offenses.
Not bad near as I can tell.
If one could do so safely (e.g. if one was with someone else who was also armed) would there be anything the police could find objectionable about giving first-aid to one's attacker? Certainly such first aid could be construed as 'altering a crime scene', but I would think saving the attacker's life to stand trial would outweigh that, would it not?
As to whether one should give first-aid, that would be a more complex question.
Every bullet that you fire in self defense has a lawyer that you may not be able to afford attached to it.
Never forget this.
This is not a problem for the sheep or the wolves. Just sheep dogs. Can I become a sheep or wolf? No, I have picked my path and will stick to it. Can I afford this path? Probably not, but can I afford to change said path? No.
It is hard not to talk to the cops after an incident, and to say, “talk to my lawyer.” Well, I don’t have one. Most of us do not.
They set the system up to screw up and screw us they do. All you can do is train and keep your wits about you.
My humble opinion ..............
An independent jury is essential to justice. The government (and supporters of big and bigger government) would love all of us to believe that the role of the jury is to judge the facts and the role of the court is is to judge the law. If this were true, we could have a perfectly legal law against breathing and the only decision for a jury would be to judge if the defendant had indeed been breathing. Never mind if breathing itself should be a crime.
Independent juries really have no interest in seeing the guilty go free any more than to see that the innocent are convicted. They must be allowed enough latitude during the trial to seek justice and not just be the directed instrument of the State.
Indeed, I think that education of the public about their rights, and obligations when serving in juries is the next major civil rights battle of the Conservative Century.
My advise is: Call 911 to show good faith. Worry about accomplices more than first aid. About one half of crimes involve more than one person. Do not get whacked while your attention is devoted to helping someone who moments before was trying to kill you.
My attorney is not a criminal attorney either.
You DO HAVE a wife, or a brother, sister, mother, father, uncle or aunt who can secure a criminal attorney for you. Nothing says that you MUST retain the same attorney throughout the affair. Some attorneys are excellent at getting you out of jail and that’s where their capabilities stop. That’s when you hire another attorney for the trial if there is going to be one. All of this requires strategic planning that cannot possibly be done until the event occurs.
sadly your exchange is dangerously close to reality. Many officer depositions align with your scenario.
If I just shot someone the last thing I would do is try to render first aid to the man. One moment you are “in fear for your life” and two minutes later you are deciding that this upstanding person is worthy of your first aid? What message is that going to send to a DA or a jury?
Yup.
“The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal ...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.