Posted on 03/07/2012 5:46:37 AM PST by marktwain
In other words, they are trained that the exercise of the 5th amendment is reason enough to arrest someone.
Huh??? That was not the way I was trained! Despite training, each 911 operator is a human being ... some are smart, some are "street-savy", some are old pros (seen & heard it all), some are wet-behind-the-ears 20 somethings with no life experience. I hate to say it, but it truly depends on who you get. If I had you on the phone & you said someone was threatening you & you thought they had a gun, I would have hit the "send" button immediately .... and asked pertinent questions after. I would say that it is often very difficult for 911 to determine what is going on - folks under stress just do not communicate well & the only way you can figure it out IS to ask a lot of questions (but help should already be on the way) ... and when you answer a 911 call and someone is 'screaming' on the other end ..... it's one of the hardest jobs I've ever had. Unfortunately, 99% of the calls the media plays are the ones that are horrendous .... all the good ones where folks get the help they need as quick as humanly possible and the 911 operators are professional, compassionate, and save lives .... you rarely hear those.
What do you find objectionable about the comment? It merely observes the fact that it is usually best to avoid shooting someone if you can, and that most criminals run off when confronted with an armed citizen.
What do you find objectionable about the comment?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, for one thing - you were a hit and run poster. You posted that thread and never replied to it.
But more than that. You were wrong. Everybody took exception to your poor advice.
And if they were wrong, then why didn’t you defend yourself?
But they weren’t wrong. And you knew better than to try and defend that silly comment. I’m surprised you even replied now. Except your reply comes hours after my comment and at the end of this thread, so that no one else will take issue with you.
sfl
You said that I did not reply because I was wrong, but you never explained how or why I was wrong.
I did not reply because there was no need to. The comment stands on its own. Refute it if you are so sure it is wrong. To do so, you need to show two things:
1. It is always better for someone to shoot someone than to avoid it.
2. It is more dangerous to let someone know that you are armed than to not do so, so that you maintain the element of surprise.
People can argue about both in certain cases. It is very difficult to argue about them in general.
I am sure that you saw that I did not claim that the woman did anything wrong. I merely observed that she might have avoided the necessity of shooting the intruder if she had yelled at the intruder that she was armed and the police were on the way.
You said that I did not reply because I was wrong, but you never explained how or why I was wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I’ll be sure to explain it for ya there Mark. Some 24 hours from now. After the issue has died down. Maybe on another thread.
That’s how “we” do it, right?
I don’t think we disagree in any important sense. I completely agree that the less said before you get counsel, the better. Especially so in the immediate aftermath when the physical and emotional reaction ‘crash’ is happening.
I’m just saying that some here seem to be advocating a position of NEVER talking to the police. In a case as clear as the one you are postulating, the facts themselves will do the necessary talking. Things are rarely that clear cut. The recipient of self-defense lethal force is often an acquaintence, family member or domestic partner. The door may have been open. It may have been at a reasonable hour. It may have been on a dark street where you really shouldn’t have been. That doesn’t mean that the necessity to use deadly force wasn’t there. It does mean that you will need to paint in the picture of what was happening that led to your perception of imminent peril and your decision to employ deadly force in the defense of you or someone else.
I really dislike absolutism. Many here at FR are so reflexively anti-police that it would seem that they would stay silent (or even maybe lie) when the truth would save them. Whether to remain silent, or to talk (and if so about what and how much) should always be evaluated with your counsel. Talking, however, cannot always be avoided in all circumstances.
Thank you. I will be looking forward to your response.
As a late entrant to this thread, let me just say this. From a factual viewpoint, I agree 100 per cent with your statement above.
From an operational viewpoint, it's not the approach I would take. After making the 911 call, my plan would be to go into stealth mode, with myself between family and the threat, make myself quiet and small, hoping to avoid a face to face confrontation, but ready to do so with my pump shotgun in hand. And in my case, a round is already chambered, and safety is now off. I'm not giving the intruder any knowledge of my whereabouts by noisily chambering a round.
Finally, FWIW, thanks again for all your hard work finding and posting all the articles and info relevant to firearms and 2nd amendment issues. Keep up the good work!
Bookmark
Bookmark
Best I could come up with is Defensive Gun Use.
Never mind...should have read down at least two comments before responding. :)
If its any help, the Thuggees used to cut deep gashes in the abdomen so that the corpse wouldn’t bloat and float back to the top...
Thank you for your kind comments.
It is clear that one size does not fit all situations and individual incidents.
However, we do know that most criminals flee when confronted with armed force, and that some people have been shot as they attempted to break into a house because their brain was befuddled with alcohol or for some other reason. Most burglars make some attempt to commit their crimes when the residents are gone.
I have yet to read of an incident where a homeowner stated that they had a gun, and then immediately received incoming fire.
It may have happened, I simply do not remember reading of it.
I’m with you - I’m not going to fake an illness or lie about anything regarding the situation. I’m going to state that I was in fear of my life (which would be the truth), and that I will not answer any questions without a lawyer (also truth).
Faking things requires skill to keep up the charade, and I don’t think I have it in me. One could cause many more problems for themselves when their false actions are being described - and interpreted - to a jury than if one would keep it short, simple and truthful.
If it’s a fluid situation, the worse thing you can do is tie up one hand and divide your attention with the 911 operator.
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.