You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
A Firearms Owner's Guide to Dealing with the Police
- Thread starter CaptainObvious
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Depends on the situation
I do believe that this is awesome advise when it comes to the use of a Firearm in personal defense. However in a routine traffic stop I see no reason to be so stand offish. I have a long thread here in T&T regarding "pulled over while CCW"
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=471121
Many who responded shared my view that it was in fact best to let an officer know you were carrying to avoid any supprises.
Thanks, Vermonter
I do believe that this is awesome advise when it comes to the use of a Firearm in personal defense. However in a routine traffic stop I see no reason to be so stand offish. I have a long thread here in T&T regarding "pulled over while CCW"
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=471121
Many who responded shared my view that it was in fact best to let an officer know you were carrying to avoid any supprises.
Thanks, Vermonter
Skadoosh,
Ok, again, I am not willing to debate you here. Let's assume that I agree with all the OPs points. What credentials does he possess that leads one to assume his knowledge is correct, not internet lore, and not going to get me into more trouble than I already am? I guess I need to get stopped by the police at least once to understand the (assumed) paranoia. Again, when giving advice, it is usually normal (in my world) to present evidence that you know what you are talking about. My wife can give teaching advice, my neighbor can give medical advice, my friend can give financial advice etc, because they can back up their statements with credibility and ability.
No more comments from me on this post. To the OP, thank you for your opinion.
Ok, again, I am not willing to debate you here. Let's assume that I agree with all the OPs points. What credentials does he possess that leads one to assume his knowledge is correct, not internet lore, and not going to get me into more trouble than I already am? I guess I need to get stopped by the police at least once to understand the (assumed) paranoia. Again, when giving advice, it is usually normal (in my world) to present evidence that you know what you are talking about. My wife can give teaching advice, my neighbor can give medical advice, my friend can give financial advice etc, because they can back up their statements with credibility and ability.
No more comments from me on this post. To the OP, thank you for your opinion.
Carne Frio said:Here is a great video coving this subject.
Part one is by the lawyer and part two is
a law enforcement officer. It's very well done.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Never talk to the police, without the advise and consent of an attorney.
The video Carne Frio links too is very good, very accurate information.
If you are innocent, or guilty it matters not which, it is not in your interests to answer police questions without an attorney.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Often, but not always, good advice.nate45 said:...Never talk to the police, without the advise and consent of an attorney...
If Claiming Self Defense, Keeping Completely Quiet Is Not the Best Idea, But Don't Say Too Much.
Call 911. Be the first to report the incident and do so immediately. If you don't report it, or if there's a long delay, you will appear to have a guilty conscience.
Then, having taken LFI-I with Massad Ayoob, spending time with him and helping with a class of his in Sierra Vista, AZ not too long ago, I'll go along with his recommendation for when the police arrive.
[1] While one has a right to remain silent, clamming up is what the bad guys do. Following a self defense incident, you'll want to act like one of the good guys. You also won't want the investigating officers to miss any evidence or possible witnesses. What if the responding officers miss your assailant's knife that you saw fall down the storm drain? What if they don't know about the guy you saw pick up your assailant's gun and walk off with it?
[2] The police arrive and see a body on the ground with bullet holes in it, and they see you with a gun nearby. They will immediately be inclined to think of the ventilated corpse as The Victim and the guy still standing as The Attacker. But you're really the victim, and you'd prefer the police to have that in their minds as they begin their investigation.
[3] At the same time, you don't want to say too much. You will most likely be rattled. You will also most likely be suffering from various well known stress induced distortions of perception.
[4] So Massad Ayoob recommends:
- Saying something like, "That person (or those people) attacked me." You are thus immediately identifying yourself as the victim. It also helps get the investigation off on the right track.
- Saying something like, "I will sign a complaint." You are thus immediately identifying the other guys(s) as the criminal(s).
- Pointing out possible evidence, especially evidence that may not be immediate apparent. You don't want any such evidence to be missed.
- Pointing out possible witnesses.
- Then saying something like, "I'm not going to say anything more right now. You'll have my full cooperation in 24 hours, after I've talked with my lawyer."
Last edited:
Thats all good advice fiddletown, I suppose I wasn't clear enough.
I didn't me it to pertain to an initial statement(careful statement), or answering routine questions in a traffic stop, etc.
I meant when one is about to undergo formal questioning.
Answering questions when you are a suspect, or potential suspect, without an attorney, is a bad move.
I didn't me it to pertain to an initial statement(careful statement), or answering routine questions in a traffic stop, etc.
I meant when one is about to undergo formal questioning.
Answering questions when you are a suspect, or potential suspect, without an attorney, is a bad move.
Agree with skans and vermonter.
In minor situations where you are confident of your innocence, there is no reason not to answer simple questions and possibly consent to a search as well. The alternative, to just let yourself get arrested, is not something I, IMHO, want to happen when a simple explanation might address the officer's concern. A simple arrest on your record can be a huge negative even if nothing happens because of it. I have and will invite an officer into my home as well.
No, I believe a measure of reasonable cooperation is fine unless you know you are under some sort of scrutiny or know you have done something "wrong."
In minor situations where you are confident of your innocence, there is no reason not to answer simple questions and possibly consent to a search as well. The alternative, to just let yourself get arrested, is not something I, IMHO, want to happen when a simple explanation might address the officer's concern. A simple arrest on your record can be a huge negative even if nothing happens because of it. I have and will invite an officer into my home as well.
No, I believe a measure of reasonable cooperation is fine unless you know you are under some sort of scrutiny or know you have done something "wrong."
Obambulate
New member
moxie, there's absolutely no reason to invite an on-duty officer into your home. Nothing good can come of it. You don't what the officer knows, and an innocent item could put you in prison.
For instance, the officer sees a candy dish your wife bought 30 years ago. No problem, right? But how could you know if it's a problem or not? Let's say a dish exactly like that was taken during a home invasion and murder.
Now the officer has reasonable suspicion to take your house apart in a search for other evidence. You become a "person of interest", your phone records are scrutinized, your travel history is investigated, etc.
Uh-oh, turns out you were in Pittsburgh the same weekend of the murder. There's no evidence connecting you directly to the murder, but the prosecutor is able to build a circumstantial case against you.
The most innocent things begin to look sinister. The prosecutor paints you in the worst way in front of the jury. You can see the scorn and hatred in the jury's faces. Your attorney THINKS he can get you off, but can't guarantee you won't be put away for 20 years. He advises you to take a plea bargain, 3 years plus probation.
All this because you let the officer in rather than talk to him out on the porch.
For instance, the officer sees a candy dish your wife bought 30 years ago. No problem, right? But how could you know if it's a problem or not? Let's say a dish exactly like that was taken during a home invasion and murder.
Now the officer has reasonable suspicion to take your house apart in a search for other evidence. You become a "person of interest", your phone records are scrutinized, your travel history is investigated, etc.
Uh-oh, turns out you were in Pittsburgh the same weekend of the murder. There's no evidence connecting you directly to the murder, but the prosecutor is able to build a circumstantial case against you.
The most innocent things begin to look sinister. The prosecutor paints you in the worst way in front of the jury. You can see the scorn and hatred in the jury's faces. Your attorney THINKS he can get you off, but can't guarantee you won't be put away for 20 years. He advises you to take a plea bargain, 3 years plus probation.
All this because you let the officer in rather than talk to him out on the porch.
CaptainObvious
Moderator
Moxie said:
In minor situations where you are confident of your innocence, there is no reason not to answer simple questions and possibly consent to a search as well. The alternative, to just let yourself get arrested, is not something I, IMHO, want to happen when a simple explanation might address the officer's concern. A simple arrest on your record can be a huge negative even if nothing happens because of it. I have and will invite an officer into my home as well.[/I]
Police officers generally question people who they suspect have committed a crime. You might think answering their questions or letting them search your property is innocent and will get you out of being arrested, however, you are establishing probable cause for an arrest through your statements and from the basis of a search. I would say that by answering questions and letting them search your property you are MORE likely to get arrested then if you politely told them "I wish to remain silent and consult with an attorney" and did not consent to the search.
Police searches are usually messy. They might take everything out of your car or empty out bags on the ground. Your private belongings will be sifted through thoroughly. There might even be illegal stuff in there which you have no knowledge. Do you have teenagers? When I went to high school, I knew guys who left marijuana in their parents car. There might be stuff from a previous owner, a valet, someone who used the car before, etc.
There have been quite a few firearms owners who thought they did everything right, but then they ended up in big trouble. For example, Harold Fish. Mr. Fish's first mistake was talking to the police detective. Mr Fish thought he did nothing wrong and talking to the police was the best practice. However, each time Mr. Fish repeated the story it would change slightly. Most stories do change slightly as you keep telling them. Mr. Fish should have only communicated to the police through an attorney. He should have never met with them on his own. What seemed like a routine matter turned into Mr. Fish getting charged and convicted of murder.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/t/trail-evidence/
So even in situations which seem minor or where you believe you did nothing wrong, my opinion is not to say anything at all. You dont have to be standoffish or rude. Simply state to the officer you would like to remain silent. You will find more people get arrested as a result of saying too much rather then just staying silent.
In minor situations where you are confident of your innocence, there is no reason not to answer simple questions and possibly consent to a search as well. The alternative, to just let yourself get arrested, is not something I, IMHO, want to happen when a simple explanation might address the officer's concern. A simple arrest on your record can be a huge negative even if nothing happens because of it. I have and will invite an officer into my home as well.[/I]
Police officers generally question people who they suspect have committed a crime. You might think answering their questions or letting them search your property is innocent and will get you out of being arrested, however, you are establishing probable cause for an arrest through your statements and from the basis of a search. I would say that by answering questions and letting them search your property you are MORE likely to get arrested then if you politely told them "I wish to remain silent and consult with an attorney" and did not consent to the search.
Police searches are usually messy. They might take everything out of your car or empty out bags on the ground. Your private belongings will be sifted through thoroughly. There might even be illegal stuff in there which you have no knowledge. Do you have teenagers? When I went to high school, I knew guys who left marijuana in their parents car. There might be stuff from a previous owner, a valet, someone who used the car before, etc.
There have been quite a few firearms owners who thought they did everything right, but then they ended up in big trouble. For example, Harold Fish. Mr. Fish's first mistake was talking to the police detective. Mr Fish thought he did nothing wrong and talking to the police was the best practice. However, each time Mr. Fish repeated the story it would change slightly. Most stories do change slightly as you keep telling them. Mr. Fish should have only communicated to the police through an attorney. He should have never met with them on his own. What seemed like a routine matter turned into Mr. Fish getting charged and convicted of murder.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/ns/dateline_nbc-crime_reports/t/trail-evidence/
So even in situations which seem minor or where you believe you did nothing wrong, my opinion is not to say anything at all. You dont have to be standoffish or rude. Simply state to the officer you would like to remain silent. You will find more people get arrested as a result of saying too much rather then just staying silent.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Actually, to be more specific, Fish's mistake was saying too much too soon. For recommendations on handling a police contact after having fired a gun in what you believe to have been self defense, see post my post 28, above.CaptainObvious said:...There have been quite a few firearms owners who thought they did everything right, but then they ended up in big trouble. For example, Harold Fish. Mr. Fish's first mistake was talking to the police detective...
Last edited:
Obey the law before you are stopped.
If you were breaking it,just admit it and don't take it out of the officer when you were being an idiot to begin with.
Talk to the officer like he's a human being because he is.
Don't be all paranoid.
Only answer the questions asked.
If the officer cuts you a break-just say thank you and be on your way.
If you get a ticket and you know you deserved it,just man up,and pay the consequences.
As far as dealing with the police after a self defense shooting-after reading what I've read here,I'd almost have to say-tell the officers,"I have to get an attorney first and I'll gladly meet you at the station when I can get one to represent me in this matter."
But the officers will ask you questions becuase they need to hear from you why you shot this guy that was attacking you.
I just don't see how you can say-"I'll talk you you at the station with an attorney" on that.
That puts up a red flag to the officers that you might have not been right in what you did.
I hope I never have to deal with that.
If you were breaking it,just admit it and don't take it out of the officer when you were being an idiot to begin with.
Talk to the officer like he's a human being because he is.
Don't be all paranoid.
Only answer the questions asked.
If the officer cuts you a break-just say thank you and be on your way.
If you get a ticket and you know you deserved it,just man up,and pay the consequences.
As far as dealing with the police after a self defense shooting-after reading what I've read here,I'd almost have to say-tell the officers,"I have to get an attorney first and I'll gladly meet you at the station when I can get one to represent me in this matter."
But the officers will ask you questions becuase they need to hear from you why you shot this guy that was attacking you.
I just don't see how you can say-"I'll talk you you at the station with an attorney" on that.
That puts up a red flag to the officers that you might have not been right in what you did.
I hope I never have to deal with that.
WOAH! WOAH!......WOAH!
What kind of lives are some of yall leading?...lol Stop worrying about the police...lol The police should be the least of your problems. As one poster said so intelligently... Treat the police the same way you want to be treated. 99 and 9/10ths of all cops are on your side. No cop wants to get a civilian complaint for harassment, or abuse of authority. More often than not if they do interact with you it's based upon information or complaint from one of your neighbors.
What kind of lives are some of yall leading?...lol Stop worrying about the police...lol The police should be the least of your problems. As one poster said so intelligently... Treat the police the same way you want to be treated. 99 and 9/10ths of all cops are on your side. No cop wants to get a civilian complaint for harassment, or abuse of authority. More often than not if they do interact with you it's based upon information or complaint from one of your neighbors.
Obambulate
New member
If only it was that simple. The police are allowed to lie to us, but we are not allowed to lie to them.
They also can and do use intimidation, and they're very good at it: "Your refusal to let me search your trunk makes me think you've got something to hide. Don't make me get a warrant."
Most people will open their trunk, not knowing their rights. Bottom line, if the cop has to ask permission, he has no legal right to search, and getting a warrant will be extremely difficult.
But I've got nothing to hide! Really? Do you KNOW that? Suppose your wife used the car to go to the garden center and now there's a shovel and some dirt in the trunk. And what's that roll of duct tape doing in there?
Also ,many of us keep a bug-out bag or get home bag in the trunk. It may or may not contain weapons or "burglary" tools, but it certainly makes it look like you're ready to go hide out in the woods at a moment's notice.
They also can and do use intimidation, and they're very good at it: "Your refusal to let me search your trunk makes me think you've got something to hide. Don't make me get a warrant."
Most people will open their trunk, not knowing their rights. Bottom line, if the cop has to ask permission, he has no legal right to search, and getting a warrant will be extremely difficult.
But I've got nothing to hide! Really? Do you KNOW that? Suppose your wife used the car to go to the garden center and now there's a shovel and some dirt in the trunk. And what's that roll of duct tape doing in there?
Also ,many of us keep a bug-out bag or get home bag in the trunk. It may or may not contain weapons or "burglary" tools, but it certainly makes it look like you're ready to go hide out in the woods at a moment's notice.
A girlfriend of mine was stopped for a random gate check, years ago, after her high school aged son had borrowed the car.
He was playing a part in a school play, some medieval thing.
He'd left his props behind, in the trunk, which she did not realize.
Security was (luckily) pretty amused by the whip, leather mask, and manacles, but not as amused by the broadsword... Fortunately, the situation was resolved in a sensible manner.
Point being, it might be a good idea to periodically see what you actually have in your trunk, especially if others have access to the vehicle.
He was playing a part in a school play, some medieval thing.
He'd left his props behind, in the trunk, which she did not realize.
Security was (luckily) pretty amused by the whip, leather mask, and manacles, but not as amused by the broadsword... Fortunately, the situation was resolved in a sensible manner.
Point being, it might be a good idea to periodically see what you actually have in your trunk, especially if others have access to the vehicle.
From an LEO perspective, I think it is a good to evaluate the circumstances and determine what is in your best interests. Absolutes can cost you an unnecessary trip to the jail, whether or not you ultimately face prosecution. The standard for probable cause is much lower than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Total silence on your part may give the investigating officer nothing to work with to show you acted in the right. He may have no choice but to stick you in the jail for the night (that might be fine with you). For shootings, I like the advice posted regarding Ayoob's information. You should be an advocate for your own cause by showing some cooperation. Nothing wrong will stating that you will be giving a full statement under advice of an attorney. Heck, we afford our police officers that same treatment when they are involved in a shooting. All citizens are free to remain silent at all times in all situations. However, if you are truly innocent of criminal activity, and you are in the right emotional state, talking to the police will usually help your cause.
If you are innocent, or guilty it matters not which, it is not in your interests to answer police questions without an attorney.
Never say never. This is not correct 100% of the time. Prosecutors do talk to arresting officers and listen to their input (sometimes) in determining whether, and to what extent, to work out a plea deal. The impression you gave the arresting officer may have a substantial impact on the final resolution of your case. Remember, most criminal infractions never get to trial, especially when it involves someone without a prior record.
However, it is true that far more cases are made against criminal defendants primarily based on what they've said to the arresting officers. Generally speaking, a person would be better off politely refusing to answer questions without an attorney............but not always.
CaptainObvious
Moderator
I wrote this thread for law abiding, well intentioned firearms owners who find themselves in situations with the police and that is the spirit of the thread.
I mentioned earlier Harold Fish which is a good example of a law abiding, well intentioned firearms owner who got in trouble with the law. Another example is Brian Aitken where during the course of moving from one residence to the other found himself being arrested by the police because of the unloaded firearms in his trunk which were being transported.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/15/brian-aitkens-mistake
Brian's first mistake was going back to talk to the police without consulting with an attorney. When he received that phonecall, he should have told them that he would like to speak with an attorney first. Then when the police started searching his car he should have voiced out loud that he does not consent to the search. Before meeting with the police he should have dropped off the firearms at his new home which goes back to not exposing yourself.
A firearms owner can protect themselves from these occurences by following what I posted originally which is:
- Stay calm
- Don't answer questions and exercise your right to stay silent to the greatest extent.
- Do not consent to searches and verbally state such. Don't invite the police into your home, car or business.
- Speak to an attorney first before speaking to the police. Let an attorney be your guide through the process rather then the police or prosecutor
- Do not expose yourself
- Know the law
Think out a strategy now before you find yourself in a Brian Aitken or Harold Fish scenario. Figure out a way not to get into these situations in the first place.
I mentioned earlier Harold Fish which is a good example of a law abiding, well intentioned firearms owner who got in trouble with the law. Another example is Brian Aitken where during the course of moving from one residence to the other found himself being arrested by the police because of the unloaded firearms in his trunk which were being transported.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/15/brian-aitkens-mistake
Brian's first mistake was going back to talk to the police without consulting with an attorney. When he received that phonecall, he should have told them that he would like to speak with an attorney first. Then when the police started searching his car he should have voiced out loud that he does not consent to the search. Before meeting with the police he should have dropped off the firearms at his new home which goes back to not exposing yourself.
A firearms owner can protect themselves from these occurences by following what I posted originally which is:
- Stay calm
- Don't answer questions and exercise your right to stay silent to the greatest extent.
- Do not consent to searches and verbally state such. Don't invite the police into your home, car or business.
- Speak to an attorney first before speaking to the police. Let an attorney be your guide through the process rather then the police or prosecutor
- Do not expose yourself
- Know the law
Think out a strategy now before you find yourself in a Brian Aitken or Harold Fish scenario. Figure out a way not to get into these situations in the first place.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.