Don't Talk To The Police!

n most places & cases this is simply a myth. If you've killed someone the odds are you're going in to the station for a long night of questions.

It depends on the circumstances. Again, if its clearly a good shoot it behooves you to explain the situation. You really think that its a good idea at 2am when you've just shot an armed home invader in your living room to not say a word when the police show up?


Why not let your lawyer meet you there and do the talking? For those in a state without a castle doctrine you are going to get sued. It's not even a question of maybe - you will be sued, and every bit of your statements to the police will be used against you. But please go ahead and speak to the police and forgive the rest of us for following sound legal advice.

Again, you keep dealing in absolutes. There have been plenty of instances where people have defended themselves against attackers without facing civil suits. As far as sound legal advise, the law professor isn't the only attorney in the world, on this board, on in this thread.
 
My Cousin Vinny

A little more entertaining than the videos, a bit longer, and without as clear cut delivery of the message, but the messages are in there, if you can see them. Overall, one of my favorite movies in a lot of ways.

As pointed out in the videos, things we may say in everyday conversation can take on a very different, and possibly sinister appearance when read in court, and especially when read out of context. Very clear in the movie, "I shot the clerk?" (an incredulous question) and "I shot the clerk." (a definite statement when read into the record by the sheriff).

Someone once posted an idea for a card, to carried in your wallet, that you could give to the police when they arrive on the scene of a defensive shooting. It said something like "I have been exposed to gunfire, my hearing is damaged. I cannot answer questions at this time, but will gladly do so later, with my lawyer present". Or something like that. Might this be a good idea?

Obviously it is not practical to never speak to the police about anything, at any time. But it is clearly pointed out in those lectures how innocent statements can work to your disadvantage. Prudence is indicated. The police are not there for our best interests, they are there to do their job, no matter what we might think. And even if the police are ok with something, that doesn't mean the DA is ok with it.

I once worked with a man (about 20 yrs ago) who wound up paying a lawyer $2500 to defend him, because his car was stolen while he was at work. He reported it just like he should, but the local cops couldn't find any evidence, so they went after him, claiming he ditched the car for the insurance money. He was exonerated only after the car was found in a location where he could not have left it and gotten back in time to make the report, and only after coming up with witnesses verifying his whereabouts during the time in question. Had his car been stolen in the middle of the night, while he was sleeping at home alone, he would have been S.O.L.!!!

I mention this anecdote only to illustrate once again that factual innocence does not guarantee you will not be in trouble, if someone in the system decides otherwise.
 
if a cop ever has lied in court against you it WILL give a perspective on LEO's in general. if you are ever investigated for a disappearance/murder as I was it WILL give you a perspective - moreso when the real perp is a cop's brother, and weasels out of it, as he did. run 'Edna Glaze missing' by Google for an eyeopener.

BTW I enjoyed the videos including the one that the ACLU had there also.
 
Well, I watched both videos. For what was covered, I think it was very informative and probably very good advice. But.....

There was ground not covered. Important ground too. Specifically, and you will see this in the video, you have the right not to incriminate yourself. That's what the topic was. That and choosing not to speak to the police in support of that right. Well, you do NOT have the right to refuse to speak to the police under all circumstances or at all times.

You certainly have the right if YOU are the target of an investigation, or are being charged or even arrested in connection with a crime. But you do not have a 5th amendment right not to incriminate others though for example. What if the police are asking you questions in the furtherance of conducting a legitimate investigation, where they have no suspect and are just trying to develop leads? If you refuse to cooperate with an investigation and not tell what you know, you then maybe committing the crime of obstruction of justice, impeding an investigation, etc. If you witnessed someone else commit a crime and you are not yourself a part of it, the law compels you to divulge your testimony. Or at least that's how I understand the law.

This was not covered in the videos, and I think is an important missing piece.
 
"If you did not actually watch the video, you really don't have anything to contribute to this particular conversation and should go start your own thread instead of cluttering this one with inanities."

Dang, I thought this was The High Road. Whoops, my mistake. Maybe I'll just take my attitude over there and leave TFL to you and yours.

Meanwhile, the video won't play for me here at the office, it just sticks on 'buffering.'

I guess I won't comment on my experiences with talk/no-talk since I'm not qualified.

John
 
Don't believe I've ever seen so many paranoid people in one place.

Never been on the wrong side of the questions, have you.

My story...

I had relocated to NW Arkansas in the mid 90s for a job with a small kit plane manufacturer as their engineer. I am out from NY, most of the company came out from CA the year before, this is a very rural area and we all stick out like sore thumbs.

Their is an Air Show that the company is going to attend and I am going to mind the shop. My neighbor, who also moved out with his wife and kids from CA, is attending but has a problem. His wife works night shift at a Tyson chicken plant nearby and doesn't get home till midnight. The boy (14) and girl (11) get home from school around 3 though... No problem. If they can be trusted (the boy is 14) to be home a couple hours alone I will get back by 5:05 (I worked real close). When I get home I get them fed and help with any needed homework. They go to bed and I crash in the recliner with the TV until mom got home around midnight and then go home. This went fine for day Mon and Tues (aside from the Tornado scare... another story). Tues night Lori, the mom, said I could just go home next door when they are asleep. Wed and Thur pas eventually with me going home around 10 or so.

On Friday a deputy sheriff came out to the shop to see me.

He requested I follow him back to their station, using my car, to answer some questions about a problem in the area... I agree and let the shop know I am stepping out and where I am going.

I am taken to an office pretty far back in the station and informed that there have been harassing phone calls made to women in the area over the last couple days... "What do you think of that? What do you think should be done to the person who did that?" and other such questions. I, being a law and order type of guy said my opinions on the matter and that I had not problem helping them find the perpetrator (oh how naive I was...). He then takes out a little tape recorder and says that one of the women recorded the call. It sounded like a kid, not local, saying stupid stuff about how she was pretty and how he would like to kiss her. It was stupid, and probably unsettling, but nothing like how bad I thought it would be. I am then told that several of the women complaining had been called repeatedly, over and over. The recording I was listening to was from a call made to... THE SHERIFF'S WIFE :eek:.

The sheriff at the time was known to administer Slap Glove Justice and was widely rumored to have been responsible for a large portion of the pot harvest in the hills around there, ruthlessly going after any who would illegally grow such crops without his protection. He really did have "Love" and "Hate" tattooed on his knuckles.

Now the Deputy says "I know that is you on that tape." :eek::eek:!!! The calls were traced to the house I was sitting at.:eek::eek::eek:!!!! He then leads me through a door in the side of the office to a room with only a table, two chairs and a clock. It is all painted cinder block construction with a heavy solid door. It is on the other side from an empty office which is at the end of an empty hallway. I am getting very nervous. I am left to stew for about 10 minutes.

When he returns he starts putting on the pressure. If I would simply sign this statement confessing this could all be handled quickly. His boss wants this done today and he is going to get it done. They know it is me so it would be easier on everyone if I just signed. They could have a voice analysis done but why waste the time when they already know the answer... I ask about the kid I was watching and am told he is off on a school trip and they have not spoken to him but they spoke to his mom who said I was at the house during the times in question. I continue to state that I am not certain who that is on the tape but it is a kid or two and one is certainly not local. I, being from NY, have an accent not similar to the region and over a fuzzy recording perhaps they think my voice from my 5'4" frame with a NY accent sounds like this kid but it isn't. I am not signing anything and if I am being placed under arrest, which he states I am not at the moment, I am going to need a lawyer. All the while I was really expecting my head to get bounced off the table but I know one thing, I am not signing a damn thing. The fear of actual physical abuse, and lack of witnesses or recording made me hesitant to get to demanding on the lawyer issue. The whole time I try to be as polite and non-confrontational as possible. Now open physical threats are made but the outrage of the sheriff is mentioned over and over and how it will go much harder for me if I don't cooperate. I am then left there again after a good 20 - 30 minutes back and forth suggesting I sign a confession.

When the deputy returned he asked me what I wanted to do. I replied "I have no problem helping you but I am not signing or admitting to anything I did not do and I did not do this." He tells me to follow him out of the interrogation room.

We sit back down in the office this started in. He looks at me ans says, "I know that is not you on the tape." I breathe a huge sigh of relief and he continues with "Do you know why I had to do that?" My response was "To see if I would confess." To that he responded "No, to eliminate you as a suspect." (If I was smart enough not to cop to the whole thing before did he think I was dumb enough to fall for that one? I don't respond to that). I am told I can go home and thank you for my cooperation.

It is after 5 now so I go home and see Lori (the mom) walking into her front door next door. I wave to get her attention and receive a cold "go to hell look" from her in return as she goes in her door. Several hours later her son comes over to offer his apologies. Apparently he and a local friend, who was 15 or 16, had started making these prank calls at random out of the phone book. The friend would be there until just before I got home from work and then on the two nights I went home after he was "asleep" he would get up and start making the calls on his own. He was going to have a bushel of community service ahead of him, although they seemed to be trying to cut the local kid more slack and hammering the California kid... Lori came over afterwards to apologize for her desire to have me cut to ribbons, which I said was entirely justified since she had reason to believe some demented pedophile might have been watching her kids. She was though going to have to get a baby sitter for the following week since I thought it best that I NOT be over there alone with the kids. I accepted the stupid kid's apology, he basically was a good kid who was trying to fit in in a new town with what turned out to be a bad apple.

Lessons to be learned:

1. Be polite and respectful. Nothing escalates the situation faster than giving lip to the officer, even if he has earned it.

2. Do not admit to anything.

3. Don't panic. I admit I would have bet serious money I was going to receive a beating of some sort. Tone of voice, verbal implications of the well known nut job sheriff's displeasure and body language at several points had me prepared to suffer some abuse. I knew though that even if it hurt signing any confession would have long lasting implications from which I might never recover. How much of a beating could they really give me anyway since the whole shop saw me walk out healthy and knew where I was going.

4. Do not let your fear keep you from mentioning the need for a lawyer. I admit I was slow to do so. Again, I really feared a beating and hoped I could reason my way out of such without signing a confession. In the end I did mention that if I was being arrested I would want one and the interrogation did end not soon after. In hindsight I should have probably brought up the lawyer sooner but I really didn't think they would care.

When detained by an LEO they have enormous power over you. There is good reason to be wary of exposing yourself and remembering their may have nothing to do with your welfare and everything to do with satisfying their boss, making an arrest, getting a confession or a host of other items which are detrimental to you.
 
I have looked at both of the "Don't Talk" videos. I have also seen the ACLU videos (don't get me started on the racist messages in those) which have much the same message.

Interesting information and seemingly good advice. Although I will admit, as other poster have pointed out - that there are probably exceptions to the rule.

What gets me about the videos in the original posts as well as the ACLU videos is that they are more slanted to "how not to get caught" or "how to get away with something illegal."

Sure, we have a 5th amendment right to not incriminate ourselves. That's fine. You could also argue we have a moral and ethical obligation to NOT do the crime in the first place and to be punished for it if we do. It was mentioned in the video that the 5th has a bad rap because it is usually associated with criminals avoiding questions. Maybe that's because it is usually used by criminals, not innocent people.

I know that these videos bill themselves as made to protect innocent people from inadvertently saying something which can be used against them. That's fine and can be useful information to that end. These videos, however, are really a message to criminals on how to use rights and laws to avoid punishment.
 
I know that these videos bill themselves as made to protect innocent people from inadvertently saying something which can be used against them. That's fine and can be useful information to that end. These videos, however, are really a message to criminals on how to use rights and laws to avoid punishment.

and is the Book of Combat Handgunnery intended for the use of criminals to teach them how to conceal and use a firearm?

Most cops are good and honest but there are enough who are not that the wide dissemination of such information on your rights makes very good sense.
 
WOW, amazing stuff you would never think about if you are not in that line of business...and THAT'S why you hire a professional and GOOD lawyer!
 
johnbt ~

Sorry you can't get the video which is the topic of this thread.

Seriously: If you'd like to talk about something other than the topic of this thread, please do feel free to start your own topic. Not trying to cut you or anyone off here, but simply trying to keep the thread on topic.

pax
 
Stage2 said:
You really think that it's a good idea at 2am when you've just shot an armed home invader in your (sic) living room to not say a word when the police show up?

I would call my lawyer before I called the police and let him advise me on what I should and should not tell them.

I'm fairly certain that the vast majority of police officers are fine people. I'm also 100% certain that you should not undergo questioning by the police regarding a criminal matter without the advice and presence of an attorney.

I'm not a Doctor so I don't diagnose my illnesses. I'm not a Lawyer so I don't try to defend myself against the legal system.

I have several friends who are police officers one is an FBI agent. I am also well acquainted with several defense attorneys and one states attorney. All have given me the same advice don't submit to questioning by the police without a lawyer ever.
 
What gets me about the videos in the original posts as well as the ACLU videos is that they are more slanted to "how not to get caught" or "how to get away with something illegal."
You must have missed the part where the lawyer paraphrased the government about not knowing how many federal laws there are.

You must have also missed the part where the officer said he could follow someone and eventually find a (legitimate) violation no matter how careful the driver was.

The point, which was not made crystal clear because whenever it's stated clearly it sounds like libertarian paranoia, is that nobody is innocent. Everyone is a criminal.

I thought there was plenty in the presentation that dealt with innocent people being the subject of police investigation. But even if I'm wrong and it was focused on helping the guilty get away with it, I would point to the above as reasons why that's not necessarily bad.
 
I have several friends who are police officers one is an FBI agent. I am also well acquainted with several defense attorneys and one states attorney. All have given me the same advice don't submit to questioning by the police without a lawyer ever.

Not submitting to questioning is not the same thing as not talking to the police. Several people here have said that you should never talk to the police. Thats way different than refusing to answer to questioning.
 
Not submitting to questioning is not the same thing as not talking to the police. Several people here have said that you should never talk to the police. Thats way different than refusing to answer to questioning.
__________________

I have lots of friends in l.e., and I talk with them occasionally. However, I do tire fairly quickly of speaking in monosyllables! :D
 
True, but the counterpoint is that the opinion of a single law professor and police officer does not constitute a majority, a consensus or even an established fact. Grains of salt are best when liberally spread on both sides.

Touche....I don't see your counterpoint to hold much water if it does establish a consensus or especially an established fact. The defense atty provided examples to support his case. I'd at first claim anecdotal evidence, but since it's recorded as one of many cases I tend to take heed.

We hate it when folks characterize all gun owners as redneck wackos, so lets stop painting all police as gestapo interrogators.

I don't think the majority that actually saw the vids are insinuating this in the first place...

As far as who's testimony carrys more weight at trial, it depends. However if everything I say lines up with all the physical evidence, then I'm not to worried about what johnny law has to say.

Your key word here is "if". That's an AWFUL big gamble to take in a serious incident that you stated. My rebuttal is that one CAN get burned in court even if one follows your logic.

There isn't anything the police need to manufacture for this. Their problem is figuring out whether the guy with the gun was the attacker or the guy on the ground. If its a clear cut shooting (my wife was a witness, the knife is still in the guys hand/on the ground, he's got a rap sheet) I can save myself a whole mess of grief by giving a short summary of what happened.

You need not worry about convincing the police officer of your innocense...

What I do object to is this idea the you should never talk to the police. Its a conclusion based on a faulty premise and isn't practical in every situation.

If there's even a shred of possibility of a crime that's been committed would wrongfully be branded on me I will not peep a word to the cops.

What's that old saying? "Better to have others THINK that you're a fool rather than SPEAK and remove all doubt.

Tell me this: Where have you seen one being convicted due to not saying ANYTHING to police whether it's at the scene of a crime or at the station during interrogation? There's not one case out there that I can recall that one gets convicted because he/she didn't talk to police. It's almost always because they DID.
 
There is a big difference between answering a LEO asking you if you saw a person or vehicle of a certain description in the area and telling him all the details of what was going through your mid the moment you shot the home invader. Use your head and state the obvious facts only such as

"He broke into my home, my life was threatened and I used force necessary to end the threat." Anything beyond that requires a lawyer.
 
There is a big difference between answering a LEO asking you if you saw a person or vehicle of a certain description in the area and telling him all the details of what was going through your mid the moment you shot the home invader. Use your head and state the obvious facts only such as

"He broke into my home, my life was threatened and I used force necessary to end the threat." Anything beyond that requires a lawyer.

+1 I see someone else gets it.
 
Would it be feasible to sticky this video? I think it would enhance its effectiveness if it were stickied.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top