Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
Although it's long, in my opinion, everyone should watch this once or twice and take it to heart:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
Get a lawyer before talking to police
- Thread starter johnelmore
- Start date
- Status
Frank Ettin
Administrator
That link has been posted here umpteen times. The video provides useful advice regards police contacts in general. But for the reasons discussed by me in post 5 and by lawyer Andrew Branca here, that video does not offer the best advice for dealing with a police contact in the immediate aftermath of your use of force in what you will claim is self defense.Unlicensed Dremel said:
Spats McGee
Administrator
To put it in very simple terms, one of the key differences between defending an ordinary crime and defending an SD shoot is this:
1) In defending an ordinary crime, the defendant's primary tactic is often to simply take this position: "the State cannot prove that I did X, Y, or Z."
2) In defending an SD shoot, the defendant is often forced to take this position: "I did it, but I had a really good reason."
1) In defending an ordinary crime, the defendant's primary tactic is often to simply take this position: "the State cannot prove that I did X, Y, or Z."
2) In defending an SD shoot, the defendant is often forced to take this position: "I did it, but I had a really good reason."
OldMarksman
Staff
Nothing wrong with that--under many circumstances.
But if you opt to do that when the officer is responding to a use of force incident in which you may have to precent a defense of justification, that strategy could increase the likelihood of your being arrested on the spot, where "have a nice day" won't cut it; and more importantly, it could in fact be what ultimately results in your conviction.
I'm not sure how that can be explained any more clearly than it already has been explained several times in this thread. Do you understand what Messrs Branca, Ettin, and McGee have explained to you? At all?
Is the problem that the information is free, or is it just that you cannot evaluate which is valid and what is not?
If it is the former, you can find out when you can next attend MAG-20. You'll have to pay for it.
I thought this was very well put.
Let’s assume for purposes of this post, then, that you buy into the value of being the complainant rather than the respondent, and you therefore are the first to call 911.
Taking the “say nothing until I talk to my lawyer” advice literally, exactly what are you going to say when the dispatcher answers your call? “I will say nothing until I’ve spoken to my attorney.” Really? When they ask “what’s your emergency?” surely that statement can’t be your reply. Rather, you’ll necessarily provide some description of what’s happened and the location to which you’re asking law enforcement (and ambulance) be sent.
So, you’re ALREADY speaking with the police. And as long as you’re doing so, my advice is to get your claim of self-defense into the evidentiary record as soon as possible. You were attacked, you were in fear for your life, you were forced to act in self-defense.
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/03/los...ng-to-police-without-my-lawyer/#axzz2v6SRsY3l
Let’s assume for purposes of this post, then, that you buy into the value of being the complainant rather than the respondent, and you therefore are the first to call 911.
Taking the “say nothing until I talk to my lawyer” advice literally, exactly what are you going to say when the dispatcher answers your call? “I will say nothing until I’ve spoken to my attorney.” Really? When they ask “what’s your emergency?” surely that statement can’t be your reply. Rather, you’ll necessarily provide some description of what’s happened and the location to which you’re asking law enforcement (and ambulance) be sent.
So, you’re ALREADY speaking with the police. And as long as you’re doing so, my advice is to get your claim of self-defense into the evidentiary record as soon as possible. You were attacked, you were in fear for your life, you were forced to act in self-defense.
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/03/los...ng-to-police-without-my-lawyer/#axzz2v6SRsY3l
Aguila Blanca
Staff
With all due respect, you did NOT in any way tell us your experience in "these matters." You stated -- without providing any substantiation -- that you have extensive life experience, but you did not provide any information whatsoever as to what that life experience included. Yet you have taken it upon yourself to propose that we should rely on your opinion over the opinions of multiple, experienced attorneys.johnelmore said:
While everyone is entitled to have an opinion and to express an opinion ... some opinions are more worthy of serious consideration than others.
johnelmore
New member
My words are in this thread which you can review at your leisure. I did not say that you should absolutely take my word over multiple attorneys. In any event, I only see one attorney in this thread who has stated the bulk of their legal experience was working for a healthcare provider. I did not challenge their opinions or mount any type of debate on what they had added to the thread. They asked for my experience and I gave them a truthful answer which I stated as life experience. I also stated what I would do if the police came knocking which is tell them to talk to my lawyer and have a great day. Finally, I pointed out my advice is more akin to an Amazon review or an old guy speaking from his own experiences. You can take my opinion or leave it at the door. Its up to you. In any event it will be you and not me who will suffer any consequences.
My life experience includes many things which I can expand upon in many pages. However, I have never been arrested because I know how to keep myself out of trouble. Never experienced handcuffs or been placed in a patrol car. Lets hope that perfect record continues.
My life experience includes many things which I can expand upon in many pages. However, I have never been arrested because I know how to keep myself out of trouble. Never experienced handcuffs or been placed in a patrol car. Lets hope that perfect record continues.
boltomatic
New member
Good advice but...
You need to be careful about clamming up right at the start, that makes you look very guilty and may cause the police to pry more into the situation that they would have, had you cooperated.
I think a better strategy is to cooperate and be friendly, and only lawyer up if the questions start sounding accusatory or make you feel uncomfortable. If you don't know how to answer a question or don't understand why the officer is asking it, then its probably best to remain silent.
You need to be careful about clamming up right at the start, that makes you look very guilty and may cause the police to pry more into the situation that they would have, had you cooperated.
I think a better strategy is to cooperate and be friendly, and only lawyer up if the questions start sounding accusatory or make you feel uncomfortable. If you don't know how to answer a question or don't understand why the officer is asking it, then its probably best to remain silent.
leadcounsel
Moderator
There are a few general human principles at play here, and there's a lot to be said for credibility and cooperative people who have nothing to hide. That said, a person can talk too much or offer too much.
The key is giving the appropriate information and THEN INVOKE.
Generally speaking, the first to report generally has an advantage in the eyes of the law - it's human nature - for anything that is ambiguous or a close call situation where the aggressor or defender isn't clear.
Also, cops and detective are people too, and they interview thousands of people every year. Subjects that are somewhat cooperative and giving of some information are generally at an advantage to a stonewalling or evasive jerk. You can give some information that is helpful up front, and then invoke to remain silent. And you can allow a limited search of your property.
Now, believe it or not, I've had clients who confessed or otherwise admitted to crimes and their honest to God reasoning was that "if I didn't say anything they'd think I did it." You can't make this stuff up. Their logic was totally flawed. Don't be like those people...
What I am about to say is taught consistently by the Armed Citizen Legal Defense Network and other professionals.
1. You should research and contact a qualified criminal defense attorney NOW and put his number in your phone, keep his card in your wallet or somewhere accessible, and memorize that 10 digit number.
2. If you are involved in a self defense shooting, you need to be the first to report it so get on your phone and dial 911 as soon as you safely can. You need to tell the authorities only a few magical statements. Something along the lines of you were attacked by an armed person who was assaulting you/hitting you/threatening you, etc. You were in fear of your life. You are a lawful gun owner/permit holder/etc. and you shot him in self defense to stop the threat. Tell them you want to press charges. Ask for an ambulance. Identify what you look like and where you are located. Finally, tell them that you don't want to make any other statements without talking to your attorney.
3. Comply with LEO. It will suck. You might get arrested, booked, searched, etc. Expect your house/car to be searched, evidence seized, and life to be turned upside down for awhile. It's part of the process. Let your attorney navigate the very complex and serious situation going forward. However it plays out, you'll likely have many sleepless nights.
The first minutes and hours after a self defense shooting can mean the difference between freedom and prison. I've represented clients (in a variety of criminal defense cases) who were prosecuted and convicted on little more than their own statements to law enforcement. It's very hard to undo the harmful statements of the defendant.
Think of Zimmerman, and the way his words were twisted and that he talked too much. You should have some money set aside, or a good self defense insurance policy, to put an attorney on retainer... think $10,000+.
The key is giving the appropriate information and THEN INVOKE.
Generally speaking, the first to report generally has an advantage in the eyes of the law - it's human nature - for anything that is ambiguous or a close call situation where the aggressor or defender isn't clear.
Also, cops and detective are people too, and they interview thousands of people every year. Subjects that are somewhat cooperative and giving of some information are generally at an advantage to a stonewalling or evasive jerk. You can give some information that is helpful up front, and then invoke to remain silent. And you can allow a limited search of your property.
Now, believe it or not, I've had clients who confessed or otherwise admitted to crimes and their honest to God reasoning was that "if I didn't say anything they'd think I did it." You can't make this stuff up. Their logic was totally flawed. Don't be like those people...
What I am about to say is taught consistently by the Armed Citizen Legal Defense Network and other professionals.
1. You should research and contact a qualified criminal defense attorney NOW and put his number in your phone, keep his card in your wallet or somewhere accessible, and memorize that 10 digit number.
2. If you are involved in a self defense shooting, you need to be the first to report it so get on your phone and dial 911 as soon as you safely can. You need to tell the authorities only a few magical statements. Something along the lines of you were attacked by an armed person who was assaulting you/hitting you/threatening you, etc. You were in fear of your life. You are a lawful gun owner/permit holder/etc. and you shot him in self defense to stop the threat. Tell them you want to press charges. Ask for an ambulance. Identify what you look like and where you are located. Finally, tell them that you don't want to make any other statements without talking to your attorney.
3. Comply with LEO. It will suck. You might get arrested, booked, searched, etc. Expect your house/car to be searched, evidence seized, and life to be turned upside down for awhile. It's part of the process. Let your attorney navigate the very complex and serious situation going forward. However it plays out, you'll likely have many sleepless nights.
The first minutes and hours after a self defense shooting can mean the difference between freedom and prison. I've represented clients (in a variety of criminal defense cases) who were prosecuted and convicted on little more than their own statements to law enforcement. It's very hard to undo the harmful statements of the defendant.
Think of Zimmerman, and the way his words were twisted and that he talked too much. You should have some money set aside, or a good self defense insurance policy, to put an attorney on retainer... think $10,000+.
Last edited:
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Actually, three attorneys have posted in this thread: me; Spats McGee and leadcounsel. In addition, we have a link to an article on the topic by attorney Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self Defense. In addition, OldMarksman has considerable experience working with lawyers and preparing material for research and use as evidence in litigation.johnelmore said:
Thank you. I'll leave it.johnelmore said:
johnelmore
New member
One thing I will say is the company I own deals with law enforcement on a daily basis. See those trucks stopped at the inspection or weigh station with the highway patrol going through them? See those highway patrol pickups with all that equipment in them? There is not a day that goes by that one of my trucks isnt nosed through by a patrolman.
We run a clean business, but there is so much on these trucks they can write you up for. For example a single light where the bulb has blown out. Thats a violation right there. We train the drivers to keep it cool, smile and say nothing when dealing with the patrol. Only tell the patrolman whats required and say nothing more. The patrolman appreciates it because its a more pleasant transaction all around not dealing with a verbally resistant driver. My drivers are 100% pleasant and 100% silent.
This is the philosophy we use on a daily basis and its a rare day the patrol gets the better of us. Unlike many trucking company owners, I dont find myself in court dealing with the violations because of our philosophy of dealing with the patrol. It is very easy to get a violation and impossible to get out of them. Trucking companies have gone out of business because of the patrol. We have a certain discipline which keeps us out of trouble.
As for lawyers, everyone seems to have a law degree nowadays, but the question is if you are qualified in this area of law and how effective you are in helping your clients. There are many ineffective lawyers. I know because I have been through a bunch with my business and family. So just saying you are a lawyer or producing a law degree doesnt make you an expert. I want to see your track record and then I can make a judgement on your expertise in these matters. So I know a lot about lawyers because Im the type who hires them to help me keep my business afloat. Would I hire some of the lawyers in this thread? Well they would have to prove to me they are effective at what they do and that cant be done on a message board.
One example, my buddy has a brother who got into trouble. They went to trial and his brother got the maximum sentence. So he could have represented himself or got a public defender with the same outcome. The lawyer they hired was simply not that good. So listen to the wrong attornies and you might find yourself with the maximum sentence.
We run a clean business, but there is so much on these trucks they can write you up for. For example a single light where the bulb has blown out. Thats a violation right there. We train the drivers to keep it cool, smile and say nothing when dealing with the patrol. Only tell the patrolman whats required and say nothing more. The patrolman appreciates it because its a more pleasant transaction all around not dealing with a verbally resistant driver. My drivers are 100% pleasant and 100% silent.
This is the philosophy we use on a daily basis and its a rare day the patrol gets the better of us. Unlike many trucking company owners, I dont find myself in court dealing with the violations because of our philosophy of dealing with the patrol. It is very easy to get a violation and impossible to get out of them. Trucking companies have gone out of business because of the patrol. We have a certain discipline which keeps us out of trouble.
As for lawyers, everyone seems to have a law degree nowadays, but the question is if you are qualified in this area of law and how effective you are in helping your clients. There are many ineffective lawyers. I know because I have been through a bunch with my business and family. So just saying you are a lawyer or producing a law degree doesnt make you an expert. I want to see your track record and then I can make a judgement on your expertise in these matters. So I know a lot about lawyers because Im the type who hires them to help me keep my business afloat. Would I hire some of the lawyers in this thread? Well they would have to prove to me they are effective at what they do and that cant be done on a message board.
One example, my buddy has a brother who got into trouble. They went to trial and his brother got the maximum sentence. So he could have represented himself or got a public defender with the same outcome. The lawyer they hired was simply not that good. So listen to the wrong attornies and you might find yourself with the maximum sentence.
Last edited:
johnelmore said:
You seem to contradict yourself here.
Are your Drivers 100% silent and say nothing, or do they only offer "required" information? They cannot do both.
If you train your driver to only relay "required" or important information to the officers, then it appears to me you are in agreement with Frank and the other Attorneys here. That would be, in a Self Defense situation, offer up a few "Important" facts, then clam up.
Call 911 and report the incident.
Inform the 911 officer and the Officers on the scene that you were in fear for your life and had to defend yourself.
Point out any "Important" evidence or witnesses.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
And yet you claimed to have "experience in these matters" on the basis of your [self-proclaimed] extensive life experience ... and it now seems that your extensive experience in dealing with self defense shooting situations devolves to dealing with burned out taillights on trucks at weigh station inspections.johnelmore said:
I think I'll stick with what the lawyers recommend.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Because of your experience, are we supposed to give your opinion as much weight as that of those of us with fairly extensive legal experience? I've been in litigation for almost 12 years now, all of which has involved some combination of civil rights (defending law enforcement officers among other things), (traffic court) prosecution and criminal defense. I am licensed in the state and federal courts of Arkansas, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and SCOTUS. As Frank pointed out, not all opinions are equal.johnelmore said:
Which is it? Say nothing, or stay 100% silent? The two are mutually exclusive.johnelmore said:
If, in fact, you train drivers to "tell the patrolman what is required," then you are to some extent, agreeing with those of us advocating that one should say what's right, rather than to simply stay silent. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the best plan is to say what's right. The second best plan is to say nothing, and the worst plan is to say what's wrong.
Umm, actually, to a certain degree, it does. I'm not saying that one cannot be knowledgeable about the law without a law degree. Take OldMarksman and Al Norris as examples. Neither one is a lawyer, but I'll gladly concede that both are very knowledgeable about the law in the firearms context. However, if one has a license and practices (or practiced) law does mean that one has likely been to an ABA-accredited law school, passed a bunch of classes about the law, and passed the bar exam. I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in Arkansas, the bar exam is a 3.5 day exam. Those things do require a certain amount of expertise.johnelmore said:
Are you quite sure that we'd take you on as a client? You don't seem to value the opinions of attorneys, and quite frankly, I hated having clients who refused to listen to my advice. Your experience with lawyers does not necessarily equate to a knowledge of relevant law.johnelmore said:
I don't think that this demonstrates what you think it does. You can get the maximum sentence even when you've listened to the right lawyer. A lawyer is no better than the case in front of him. While it is possible that your buddy's brother's lawyer was ineffective, it's also entirely possible that the State had a veritable mountain of evidence against the brother. We're lawyers, not magicians.johnelmore said:
Last edited:
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
johnelmore said:
That is very nearly the dictionary definition of the False Cause logical fallacy.
Every day, I eat cereal for breakfast. One time, I had a muffin instead, and there was a major earthquake in my city. I've eaten cereal ever since.
Every day, I eat breakfast (buddy got in trouble)... one day I ate a muffin (buddy got lawyer)... earthquake happened (buddy went to jail)... now I only eat cereal (lawyer was bad).
OldMarksman
Staff
And, one more time, that may be the right thing to do, depending upon what they are there to see you about.
But if you have been involved in a use of force incident, and if you intend to present a defense of justification, you most certainly will already have had some interaction with law enforcement when "the police come knocking"--unless, of course, you have already fled the scene of the incident, in which case how you conduct yourself will not prevent a very bad outcome.
If you have used or threatened deadly force in self defense, you will want to have been the first to notify the police by calling 911. You will not have left the scene unless you had no alternative. The police will have come to the scene very quickly in force, and the situation will have been something very different from having officers "knocking at the door".
If you have shot someone, and they see evidence of that, is it likely that the officers will assume that you were in fact guilty of a crime, unless of course the incident happened in your house and the door had been smashed. Their first actions will be to endure the safely of everyone; they will also secure the scene.
But unless you tell them some of what to look for, they will likely have no way of knowing that the couple leaving the other side of the lot in the SUV may be the only witnesses who will be able to corroborate your version of he events, and that they need to be identified on the spot before they disappear, never to return. Unless you tell them what to look for, they will have not reason to look on the other side of the fence for the weapon thrown there by your assailant, and that evidence, too, may disappear forever. And so on.
Thing about it. At that point your fate will depend entirely upon your attorney's ability to successfully present a case that your action had been justified because you had had reason to believe that the use of deadly force had been immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.
But your attorney will not be able to do that without corroborative evidence. And he or she cannot present evidence that he or she does not have.
Asserting that the evidence once existed but has disappeared will be of no use to you whatsoever. Your failure to speak when it was possible to do so may be precisely what put you in that position.
johnelmore
New member
I am just curious. Why do you keep insisting that I am putting down your experience or your opinion? I respect all of the opinions and people in this forum and in general. If you think Im challenging you in that matter or proclaiming to be an expert let me stop you right there. I feel like my thread is being thrown off base by these accusations.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Hmmm . . .johnelmore said:
johnelmore said:
johnelmore said:
Perhaps because you've continued to give what may be very bad legal advice, and asked that we consider you "just another opinionater along with the rest." There are several very learned opinions in this thread alone which differ with yours.johnelmore said:
Not to mention this tidbit:
johnelmore said:
Last edited:
- Status