Talking to Police

ISP2605 -

You're forgetting that there's two possible trials that'll occur after your self-defense shooting - criminal and civil. And while the shooting may be 100% cut-and-dried (eg. your attacker was named Jason Voorhees, was smeared with fresh co-ed blood, and was shot in the process of chainsawing through the front door of your home at Crystal Lake), the civil trial is another thing again.

A good lawyer will make sure that you don't make statements in the heat of the moment, give conflicting stories due to post-adreneline rush confusion, or any of a number of potentially costly mistakes you might make that - even if they don't result in a criminal trial - will cost you heavily in a civil suit. And don't forget that the rules of evidence are much slacker in civil courts, so the most innocent-looking stuff that'd never see the light of day in the DA's case may still pop up to bite your civil defendant butt.

After all, when crippled ol' Widder Voorhees is on the stand lamenting how "Jay-Jay" always paid her medical bills, was kind to animals, and never slaughtered on Sundays...you'll want every advantage you can get.
 
My only concern with not talking to cops is that I have had 2 cops tell me they assume guilt when the the subject of an investigation "lawyers up." They assume innocence when the subject speaks freely. Is that said to ensure cooperation? Or is it sincere?
 
My only concern with not talking to cops is that I have had 2 cops tell me they assume guilt when the the subject of an investigation "lawyers up." They assume innocence when the subject speaks freely. Is that said to ensure cooperation? Or is it sincere?
Click to expand...

That is total BS. In any case, I usually know a person is going to get off when they refuse to incriminate themselves and lawyer up. It is a rare case that is won by evidence alone and not a confession or guilty plea. Most of the time if a person demands a trial I tend to think they are not guilty, if anything.

Edited to add: Of course there is an exception for people stupid or unlucky enough to get caught it the act. :)
 
Last edited:
"ISP2605 -
You're forgetting that there's two possible trials that'll occur after your self-defense shooting - criminal and civil."

No, I'm not forgetting about it. I'm very well aware of it. BTDT. Been involved in those cases as the defendant (twice), witness (both to the shooting and as an expert witness), and investigator in numerous shooting cases, both LEO and civilian. So yeah, I have been around that mulberry bush many times. Did shooting cases for a lot of years and was in federal court twice on 1983 action.
So yeah, I know what goes on in those proceedings. Those are not something I imagined, read about, or heard others talk about. Saw them first hand.
 
My only concern with not talking to cops is that I have had 2 cops tell me they assume guilt when the the subject of an investigation "lawyers up." They assume innocence when the subject speaks freely.
Click to expand...
Possibly only a semantics problem here, but the term "assume" falls in the same category as "routine". Both are a form of profanity in law enforcement.

What I assume doesn't mean squat in what action I take. Solid probable cause does. If there's a discrepancy in statements, most likely you'll be detained for further investigation, but an arrest won't be made without probable cause.

Another thing to consider is - this is something I don't know - whether or not evidence admitted into a criminal trial would be admissible in a civil trial. Just another thought.
Click to expand...
Civil court is much more forgiving than a criminal court. Anything admissible in criminal court will be admissible in civil court, but a lot of things presented during a civil trial would not be admissible in criminal court. That was, I believe, O.J. Simpson's big problem.
 
My only concern with not talking to cops is that I have had 2 cops tell me they assume guilt when the the subject of an investigation "lawyers up." They assume innocence when the subject speaks freely. Is that said to ensure cooperation? Or is it sincere?
Click to expand...

That may be the case - but what does it really matter what they 'assume'?
They can't arrest on an "assumption" and they certainly can't prosecute.
They can assume all day long - they're not the ones who are going to have to wade through civil litigation before it's all said and done.
They're not the ones who are going to have to pay Jason Voorhees' mom $100k because he had a rough childhood and it wasn't his fault he broke into your house and strangled your grandma. :mad:

Assume away, Mr. Officer.
They can only hold you for so long without charging you with a crime, and an overnighter at the local jail isn't nearly as bad as having to sell your house to make restitution payments because you said something in the heat of the moment that came back to bite you in the tail at the civil trial.
 
Capt Charlie said:
Anything admissible in criminal court will be admissible in civil court, but a lot of things presented during a civil trial would not be admissible in criminal court.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up - I wasn't so sure which way that went.
 
ISP2605 said:
No, I'm not forgetting about it. I'm very well aware of it. BTDT.<snip>
Click to expand...
Well then, I'm not sure I understand your previous post. You seem to be saying that a shooter doesn't need to worry about "lawyering-up" if it's a clean, good shoot that takes a scumbag off the streets. My point was that, even if the cops and DAs line up to shake your hand afterwards, there's still a very good chance of civil action from friends or family of the shootee - and having engaged an attorney from the get-go will give you a better shot at prevailing in that trial by (at least) reducing the chance of you inadvertently saying something damaging to your defense.

Do you not agree? If not, could you explain your reasoning? Because - and I'm not trying to be snarky here - that would go against pretty much all the advice I've ever heard or read on self-defense shootings: "Shut up and lawyer up!". If you've got experience to the contrary, I'd like to hear about it (as much as you can or are willing to tell, of course).
 
"Well then, I'm not sure I understand your previous post."

Obviously.
Here's my point. Others have posted such comments as:
"The way some cops and many lawyers are";
"The police can and will use everything you say against you in a court of law.";
"Once this mindset has been established no amount of reason or finely-worded statements will convince him to see things your way.".
It's the general tone of paranoia that the police are out to get everyone. Have any of these ever been involved in a shooting where police responded? Or even had any dealings with police in a defensive situation? Or are they just parrotting some paranoia from others who have never been in such a situation? Have they ever responded to a shooting to find some guy who the police has been dealing with for years, always skating by with minimal penalties, pulling jobs but leaving not enough evidence to get charges filed? You won't find police and prosecutors shedding any tears when these kinds finally get caught up with. Just to clue everyone in, the police aren't out to make an arrest everytime there's a shooting. If it's legit, then no sweat. Not everyone who is involved in a shooting is drug downtown and held in a dark dungeon with the ultimate goal of charging everyone. That's just not the way things are done. Maybe on TV or the movies, but not in real life.
If you haven't never been involved in these situations then you'd probably be very much surprised at the conversations that go on behind closed doors between police and the prosecutors when one of community's regular actors finally gets his final reward.
 
I would suggest that you think about it like this.

If you have an armed intruder in your home...or threatening your life limb or body, and you took armed measures to disarm them, I would let the cops know.

Lawyering up right away always looks guilty, as if you have something to hide. Lawyering up always plants the something to hide seed. Not to mention that lawyers have a habbit of mucking things up. Then you have to think about how long its going to take for some hump lawyer to get your statment to the detectives, not to mention whether or not he takes the time... and is smart enough to accurately articulate what actually happened. I know this is going to be a big shocker, but not all lawyers are exactly sharp. I personally would talk the investigating officers ear off. This is one of those times that you have to drop the conspiracy theory/all cops are stupid way of thinking, and have faith in the judcial system.
 
The cops will use everything you say against you.

Most definately, police will use everything that you say which is incriminating against you.
If you have nothing to hide, and have acted within the limits of the law, you will have nothing to say which is incriminating.

How many times do you think that police give miranda warnings to innocent citizens before they question them in order to obtain the truth...before eliminating them as suspects? Everytime? 9 out of 10?
 
What you say can also clarify the situation quickly which could keep you out of problems.
It doesn't hurt to discuss with an attorney. Just realize that while waiting for an attorney you could be waiting where you may not want to wait. Also realize, it's your attorney. The police don't provide you with an attorney.

How many have the foresight to already have an attorney, and have discussed their options with that attorney prior to CCW? Or have given it any thought? Or are they just going to wait until a situation happens then grab the phone book and start running down the names? If so, it's too late at that point.
How many who CCW carry any kind of liability insurance? There's more to self-defense than deciding which ammo to carry. Even in a legit, straight up shooting, if sued it's going to cost you even if you win. Attorneys aren't free. Counter-suing isn't realistic. What's the chances of the BG having anything to collect?
 
As a civilian, no statement made, other than an excited utterance can be used against someone, criminally or civilly, unless they have been mirandized. So there really is no need to avoid speaking to an investigating officer unless someone starts to read you your Miranda rights.
 
"As a civilian, no statement made, other than an excited utterance can be used against someone, criminally or civilly, unless they have been mirandized."

Not at all true. Every utterance you say can be admissible. Miranda only applies for custodial interviews. Two things have to be present before Miranda applies. One is you have to be in custody. Two is it has to be an interrogation/interview. Absent either one of those and Miranda is not required. Standing at the scene and being asked "What happened?" is not interrogation and you obviously aren't in custody, therefore, there's no requirement for Miranda. Whatever you respond with is admissible.
 
Lawyering up right away always looks guilty, as if you have something to hide. Lawyering up always plants the something to hide seed.
Click to expand...
I disagree. You're merely exercising your rights, no different than an LEO who declines to provide a statement until he/she consults the PBA representative/union attorney.
 
DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have nothing against police in general,I have something against a few individuals though;) ! ALWAYS,ALWAYS talk to an attorney first!
It is better to spend 72 hours in investigation then 20 years in prison for self defense!I personally spent around 40 hours in an interogation once, they were mad as hell cause i had ABSOLUTLY nothing to say,I sat there with my mouth shut and went home later.Thats all that matters right?:D
 
Remain the 'victim'

It was suggested in my CHL class, that if you have to shoot someone in self-defense, remain the 'victim' throughout the ordeal. You were attacked (probably), you started off as a victim, stay that way. Don't let the BG be the victim because he's dead. Tell the officer that you are willing to talk, you are under a lot of stress, you can't endure the situation, please get me away from here and I'll tell you what you want to know.

First, you ARE under a lot of stress, adrenaline is pumping and you need to calm down before blurting out any information. And above all, don't get cocky and make like you are a big hero for wasting a bad guy. (It may look as if you planned it)

Second, once you are moved to the police station or wherever, you can ask for an attorney, you've already been established as the victim.
 
"And above all, don't get cocky and make like you are a big hero for wasting a bad guy."

Several years ago I was interviewing a cop who took a shot at a driver who tried to run over him. The macho had kicked in and he was making it difficult for me and him. We knew what had happened, had plenty of witnesses, it was a straight up, legit shooting, but we needed to get his story.
I asked him "Why did you shoot at the driver?"
He replied "Because he was trying to run over me."
My next quesion was "So you were in fear of your life."
He answered "Nope, I wasn't afraid."
(Help me here guy. Work with me. Don't make it harder than it needs to be.)
I said "Did you think he would hit you?"
He answered "Yep, coming straight at me. No doubt he intended to hit me."
So I asked again "So you were in fear of your life."
He replied "Nope, I wasn't afraid."
Me: "If he had hit you, do you think he could have killed you or caused you great bodily harm."
Him: "Sure. "
Me: "So being in fear of your life, you fired a round to protect yourself and stop the attack?"
Him: "Yep, except I wasn't afraid."
Why do they make it hard on themselves? All this was audio taped. Fortunately it never came back to bite him but you can imagine what that would have sounded like to a civil jury. "Nope, I wasn't afraid."
Sometimes egos and machismo are your worst enemies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top