Posted on 05/11/2008 9:16:18 AM PDT by B4Ranch
[Originally published in The Blue Press, from Dillon Precision]
Just Say Nothing by Dave Kopel
What if you've just been arrested for something which shouldn't be a crime? For instance, if a burglar breaks into your home, attacks your children and you shoot him. Should you talk to the police in detail about what happened? In a word, "No." Shut up, call the best lawyer you can find, and then continue to shut up. If you talk to the police, you will only make things worse for yourself.
Sociologist Richard Leo has written several articles which detail the deliberately deceptive techniques which police use to extract a confession.
First of all, since 1986 the Unites States Supreme Court has required that all persons under arrest be given the Miranda warnings, so that they will know that they have a right to remain silent, and the right to a lawyer. So how do police convince a suspect to talk, even after the Miranda warning?
Professor Leo explains that "police routinely deliver Miranda warnings in a perfunctory tone of voice and ritualistic behavioral manner, effectively conveying that these warnings are little more than a bureaucratic triviality." Of course, the Miranda warnings are not trivial; your liberty may hinge on heeding those warnings.
No matter how strong the other evidence against you, a confession will make things much worse. A confession often makes the major difference in the district attorney's willingness to prosecute the case, and his willingness to accept a plea bargain. If your confession gets before a jury, your prospects of acquittal are virtually nil.
If you are foolish enough to reject the Miranda warnings, simply put, the police interrogators will attempt to deceive you into confessing. As a result of increased judicial supervision of the police, deception, rather than coercion ("the third degree") has become the norm for interrogation.
First of all, you will be kept in a physical environment designed to make you want to waive your rights and talk. You will most likely be kept in isolation, in a small, soundproof area. By isolating you, the interrogator attempts to instill feelings of anxiety, restlessness and self-doubt on your part. Left alone for long periods, you may think you are being ignored, and will therefore be happy to see the interrogator return.
Ideally, from the interrogator's viewpoint, you will begin to develop the "Stockholm syndrome," in which persons held captive under total control begin to identify and empathize with their captors. This can occur after as few as ten minutes of isolation in captivity.
While increasing your dependence, the interrogator works to build your trust by pretending that he cares about you, that he wants to hear your story, and that he understands how difficult it may be for you to talk. The interrogator works to become your only source of social reinforcement.
There is no law against outright lies or other deceptions on the part of police during an interrogation. Almost certainly, you will be told that the prosecutor and the judge will be more lenient if you confess. This is a complete lie. The district attorney will be more lenient if you don't confess and he can't make a strong case against you, and therefore has to settle for a plea bargain. Nothing the police promise in the interrogation room is binding on the police, much less on the district attorney.
There are five "techniques of neutralization" which the interrogator may use in order to make you feel that the crime really wasn't so bad, and that it is therefore all right for you to confess. Of course the interrogator's pretense that he doesn't think the crime was serious will last only as long as necessary to obtain the confession.
The first technique is called "denial of responsibility," allowing the subject to blame someone else for the offense. For example, "it was really the burglar's fault for breaking in; he's the one to blame for getting shot." (That's true, but it's you, after all, that the police are interrogating.)
Another technique is "denial of injury." For example, "The burglar wasn't really hurt; he walked out of the hospital two hours ago." Maybe true, maybe not. In truth, the burglar could be in intensive care and the interrogator could be laying the groundwork for a murder case against you.
In the "denial of the victim" technique, the interrogator will suggest that the victim deserved what he got.
"Condemnation of the condemners" is always popular. For instance, "the real problem is all those anti-gun nuts who let criminals run loose, but don't want guys like you to defend themselves." True enough, but when the policeman saying this is holding you prisoner, take his sincere expression with a large grain of salt.
Finally, there's the "appeal to higher loyalties" such as "What you did is a common sense thing. Regardless of some legal technicality, the most important thing is for you to protect your family. Your family comes first, right?" True again, but the man saying this wants you to confess to violating the legal technicality, so you can be prosecuted for it.
A close cousin to the denial strategies are the "normalizing" techniques, in which the interrogator claims to understand that the crime was not typical behavior for the subject; "I can see that you're not a violent person. You're not a criminal. You're a tax-paying, home-owning, regular kind of guy. What happened tonight was really unusual for you, wasn't it?"
You have nothing to gain, and everything to lose by talking. You are not going to outsmart the interrogator. Even if you don't end up producing a full confession, you may reveal details which will help build a case against you.
Most violent criminals are too stupid to read, and too lazy to pursue a time-consuming, high-precision hobby like handloading. So I'm not worried that a violent criminal will read this column, and avoid confessing to a serious crime. Anyone who does commit a violent crime should confess, since they've done something that is wrong. Too often in America, good citizens are arrested for victimless "crimes," including unjustifiable (and unconstitutional) gun regulations. The routine use of deception in order to trick good citizens into confessions is something that deserves more scrutiny than it has thus far received.
In the long run, routine deception by the police tears at our social fabric, and undermines the law enforcement system. The more police lie, the more skeptical juries are going to be, even when police are telling the truth.
Moreover, there are about 6,000 false confessions for felonies every year in the United States. (Huff et al., "Guilty Until Proven Innocent," Crime & Delinquency, vol. 32, pages 518-44, 1986). False confessions are one of the major reasons for the conviction of innocent persons.
Why would someone make a false confession?
I’m a big fan of the Emotional Confession portion that seems to come at the end of every CSI episode.
This is actually good advice in ANY police situation. Call a lawyer and SHUT UP!
Even traffic stops involve intimidation. have you been drinking? Do you have any drugs or weapons?
May I search your vehicle?
Answer no and then they raise the intimidation. Step out of the vehicle sir.
Everyone is assumed guilty of something by the cops and they will do anything to get a person to hang themselves.
Cops are helpless to stop criminals. But they are in complete control in making new criminals.
>Cops are helpless to stop criminals. But they are in complete control in making new criminals
Had me until that. The statement is patently false on every level.
Possible reasons:
1. They get “beat down” (not physically) and want the immediate situation to be over with.
2. They get convinced they will be convicted no matter what and that a confession will bring a lessor punishment. (Unfortunately there may be some truth there. A judge may impose a lessor sentence if the defendant shows remorse for what he did which includes admitting the wrong. So if you are innocent and maintain your innocence but get convicted anyway, you can get more severe punishment than someone who actually commits a crime.)
3. They may have been drunk or otherwise impaired at the time of the offenses and get convinced that they did something they don't remember due to the impairment.
4. A long “interview” leaves them mentally, spiritually and physically debilitated and they make a mistake.
5. In colloquial, nonprofessional terms: Some people are nuts.
please explain how my statement could be false?
When I took a mandatory class prior to getting my concealed carry permit, the instructor (a former LEO) was emphatic about keeping one’s mouth shut if you ever had cause to use your weapon in self-defense.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
BTTT
My basic planned and prepared response if I survive is , Officer I have been involved in an act of self defense and wish to make no other statement without “MY” lawyer present. But I am willing to pick up my brass if you want me too !
...... Littering is unethical.
Shoot too stop the threat as a last resort every time.
Stay safe !
About 30 years ago I received a call from a detective asking if I would come down to the PD because he wanted to interview me about some crime that occurred in the neighborhood. I do remember him being surprised when I told him no, if he wanted to talk to me, he knew where I lived. Never heard from him again so I have no idea what it was all about.
A gold star for you !!!
They can create a new criminal out of thin air.
See how this works in a domestic dispute.... Out of thin air a man can be charged with crimes that were never comitted, on hearsay evidence alone. I've seen it happen twice.
Stop littering. Use a revolver for your self defense!
Something very close to that happened to me, but instead of even talking to him I gave him my lawyer’s phone #. My lawyer told him, “If you want to speak to my client indict him and get him in front of a Grand Jury.” Never heard from them again.
On the other hand, if the police come to where you live and you let them in they can “search” (not necessarily formally or officially) and find something illegal you didn't know about.
On the other other hand, if we can help apprehend a criminal, most of us want to help, as long as we ourselves are not the “criminal” they want to apprehend.
Ain't nothin’ easy, and it seems like all the breaks go to the actual criminals and the legal bureaucracy.
A friend of my Brother has been a cop for over 20 years. He told my Brother that if you ever shoot someone breaking into your home, all you tell the Police is “I was in fear for my life”. That’s it.
Get your Lawyer to be your spokesman.
I have comfortable chairs on my front porch. The only LEO’s who are permitted inside my home without a warrant are long time friends who are coming for lunch, dinner or the evening. In most cases, I and/or the Mrs have been inside their homes first.
That’s almost exactly the same advice I have been given. In the interest of saving the community money, wait until the perp stops breathing before calling 911.
For example: someone embezzles a few thousand from their employer, simple felony theft. He buys a bass boat and a video game with it (money laundering: 5 years). He doesn't report the money as income (tax evasion: 10 years). He is offered a plea deal: 5 years, out in 2. If he loses at trial: many years, especially if he qualifies as a repeat offender.
I know someone who was faced with this and who accepted the plea. Based on everything I know now, he was guilty of something, but not of the crime he plead guilty to, and would not have been really guilty of the crimes he would have gone to trial with. So, now he is a felon. The state spent several tens of thousands on the incarceration he did get, he is shut out of many jobs because of his record, and the law enforcement establishment still to this day treats him like they have power and control over his life, even though he served the time he was sentenced to.
This is not to excuse his crime, for which he appears to be very sorry he did. An essential point of justice must remain: the punishment must fit the crime. Justice is never served when the charge is increasingly unrelated to the actual criminal act. It becomes a form of legal revenge, or social wrath on people we can coerce into admitting they did wrong.
People who want a peaceful and law-abiding society and who think we must be tough on law-breakers should be careful about what is going on. With every passing year it gets easier and easier for the average citizen, who intends on obeying the law, to find they have violated some obscure rule or regulation. If anyone reading this has ever thrown away a rechargeable battery in a landfill, they could be charged with a felony. Fill in the wet spot in your back yard? You may follow others who have damaged "wetlands" to federal prison. Fix a degraded and badly eroding streambank? You may face a crippling fine for disturbing the habitat of a federally-protected species.[1]
We are rapidly approaching the point anticipated by Ayn Rand in her novel Atlas Shrugged:
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.”
(”Atlas Shrugged”, Part II, Chapter 3)
[1] Saving soil without a permit puts farmer in cross hairs of EPA http://www.mofb.org/FBPeople-WendellCurtman.html
See my post about ‘crime deconstruction’. Touching your brass would be the criminal act of ‘tampering with evidence’ or ‘impeding an investigation’, or any of a number of crimes.
Had me until that. The statement is patently false on every level.
Ever been pulled over in small town Texas? I hadn't been pulled over in the twenty years I'd lived in Austin, then moved to Moody, Texas. Between Moody, McGregor, and Bruceville-Eddy, I got pulled over something like eight times in the ten years I lived there. You name it; didn't think I stopped long enough at a stop sign at 11 pm when nobody else was in view, license plate light out, didn't think I signaled long enough when changing lanes, didn't drop speed fast enough at the change from 55 to 45 (was going 48 when I hit the 45 sign), whatever. Never got a ticket, cause they never had anything on me, but they were just bored and fishing for a felony. Course, Moody is the meth capital of south Mclennan County, and Bruceville-Eddy should just have a chain link fence thrown around it and be declared a prison, but most of the lawbreakers are kids of the town big shots, so the cops ignore them (if they don't they leave real fast) and try to catch people driving through. It's a lot better than it used to be. When I was a kid they'd pull you over, make you stand by the car and go through your vehicle without a second thought. I had that done to me in Henderson and Waco.
This is not to hammer all cops, as my dad was a cop and I've got a lot of cop friends. Unfortunately, a lot of guys that want to be cops shouldn't be cops, and the reason they shouldn't be a cop is because they want to be able to pull people over and humiliate and intimidate them with no fear of retaliation. Good cops hate those guys, but there are still some of them out there.
Your response gives them why to much info. Places you at the scene places you as the shooter. Tells them you use a semi auto. The 3rd best response is I want to talk to my attorney. The top ten response's are I want to talk to my attorney. The response to any of their Questions is I want to talk to my attorney
You can't be put in double jeopardy, but our illustrious lawyers have found a way around that.
Here's the other thing, and it's big. Most of us have no criminal convictions or charges, and we have a lot to lose. If, for example, I were charged with a criminal offense, no matter how unfounded, I would lose my job, have a hard time getting another one, likely lose my house and vehicles, no insurance, and assorted other problems. The real hard core criminals have no such worries, as they've already got a criminal record. Therefore, it's much easier for cops to hammer a person that tries to be on the right side of the law than a person that doesn't care.
I'm also not convinced that most DAs really care whether you did the crime or not. Nifong is not an aberration. He just picked on someone with deep enough pockets to hire a good lawyer.
Police are sinister about inducing confessions.
As long as they can get away with it they will push hard to get their target to confess because they think they have their target.
Police are interesting in theat they have their union demand their employment dispute sessions be videoed or recorded but likewise demand all interogations NOT be reorded.
What about asking the cops to discuss it at a local coffee shop or other such public place? I would think that would avoid the dangers in either (1) meeting in a place where they could intimidate you, or (2) risking them finding a way to search your house.
Trunk stuff.
What does that mean?
Just normal stuff that's in a trunk.
Mind if I check?
I am not giving you permission to search my vehicle.
What have you got to hide?
I don't have anything to hide.
Then it's okay if I search your vehicle.
I am not giving you permission to search my vehicle.
How are you going to stop me?
I didn't say I'm going to stop you, I said I'm not giving you permission to search my vehicle.
Well, if I did search your vehicle what would I find?
Car stuff.
So you don't mind if I search your car.
I am not giving you permission to search my car.
Look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. Let me search your car and if nothing's in there you can be on your way. Otherwise, we can sit here for a few hours while I get a warrant.
I am not giving you permission to search my car.
This can go on for hours. Not that I've ever been pulled over by a bored small town cop who wants to fubar somebody's entire life just for the heck of it.
Exactly correct.
Saying ANYTHING to the LEOs is information that can/will be used against you.
“I will gladly cooperate and answer any questions you have once my attorney is present” is what I recommend to all that I train in CCW/personal defense.
A prominent attorney who also is a major force in the MO CCW areana advises not to say ANYTHING at all, other than basic ID type info. Let the cops put togehter the scene from evidence/witnesses.
Once a cop gets you talking, you’ll likley dig yourself a deep hole as you attempt to ‘splain the whole situation.
DO NOT UNDER ANY circumcstances alter the crime scene (picking up cases-moving bodies etc NO WAY-these acts will make you guilty of at least interfering/tampering with evidence etc.)
What to do:
Call 911 immediately once the situation is safe, render first aid if possible (may not be if the perp is still ambulatory and a threat).
Practice your “I will cooperate and answer questions once my attorney is present” speech until the cops get there, then stay it one more time (to the first cop on the scene), then only answer basic ID questions (do not answer questions like “Do you know this guy?”), then shut up until your attorney advises you to speak.....
Also; holster your firearm if away from your home, secure it if at home (away from your collection-otherwise they will take everything-they may anyway) as soon as you are certain the situation is safe. I practice a tactical reload after every range session and will do the same after a shooting-that way I can see the round count in the mag, add one and know quickly (before the cops take my piece) how many shots I have to account for. The tac reload insures I am prepared if the situation IS NOT yet over-always top off your firearm every chance you get, retaining all magazine with ammo in them, leave empty mags on the ground where they fell for evidence purposes-remember the tampering concern-
God Bless and Practice!
MOLON LABE
This sort of thing is one of the reasons that juries should be told the sentences for crimes of which defendants are accused, and should be allowed to specify maximum sentences with their verdicts; per CGA'68, there should be an explicit statement that any crime for which a jury mandates that a sentence be less than 365 days shall be either considered to be of a class for which no longer sentence was possible or else dropped altogether.
I've seen it argued that there's no legitimate reason for jurors to consider sentencing in determining guilt or innocence. Nice theory, except that the required standards of proof and mens rea should vary with the proposed sentence.
For example, suppose someone runs out of gas on a busy road and coasts to a stop in a wide spot of the road opposite a fire station, and if such wide spot is the only place within coasting distance to get out of traffic; the person then proceeds on foot to a gas station a mile away. Before the person returns to move his car, there is a fire call and the fire crew is delayed by about 90 seconds maneuvering one of their fire trucks out of the station. The motorist is charged with "Obstructing a fire crew".
Suppose you were on a jury and the facts were precisely as described. The law reads "Any person who commits any deliberate act whose effect is to materially delay the effective response of a fire crew to a fire shall be guilty of 'Obstructing a fire crew'". If the penalty for the crime was a $250 fine, would you acquit or convict? What if the penalty was a ten-year prison term? Would that affect your decision? Should it?
I would suggest that the nature of the sentence should affect the decision to acquit or convict, because it should affect the level of intent necessary to find guilt. If the law was written to deal with people who block fire trucks for the purpose of preventing timely response to fires (as would be implied if the sentence was ten years) the person in the scenario above would not qualify. If the law was written to deal with people who fail to afford fire crews and trucks adequate courtesy, the person above would qualify.
Unfortunately, in its desire to create criminals, the government frequently assigns sentences as though laws are intended to go after major deliberate crimes, but then tries to convince juries that they're intended to deal with minor offenses.
Not bad near as I can tell.
If one could do so safely (e.g. if one was with someone else who was also armed) would there be anything the police could find objectionable about giving first-aid to one's attacker? Certainly such first aid could be construed as 'altering a crime scene', but I would think saving the attacker's life to stand trial would outweigh that, would it not?
As to whether one should give first-aid, that would be a more complex question.
Every bullet that you fire in self defense has a lawyer that you may not be able to afford attached to it.
Never forget this.
This is not a problem for the sheep or the wolves. Just sheep dogs. Can I become a sheep or wolf? No, I have picked my path and will stick to it. Can I afford this path? Probably not, but can I afford to change said path? No.
It is hard not to talk to the cops after an incident, and to say, “talk to my lawyer.” Well, I don’t have one. Most of us do not.
They set the system up to screw up and screw us they do. All you can do is train and keep your wits about you.
My humble opinion ..............
An independent jury is essential to justice. The government (and supporters of big and bigger government) would love all of us to believe that the role of the jury is to judge the facts and the role of the court is is to judge the law. If this were true, we could have a perfectly legal law against breathing and the only decision for a jury would be to judge if the defendant had indeed been breathing. Never mind if breathing itself should be a crime.
Independent juries really have no interest in seeing the guilty go free any more than to see that the innocent are convicted. They must be allowed enough latitude during the trial to seek justice and not just be the directed instrument of the State.
Indeed, I think that education of the public about their rights, and obligations when serving in juries is the next major civil rights battle of the Conservative Century.
My advise is: Call 911 to show good faith. Worry about accomplices more than first aid. About one half of crimes involve more than one person. Do not get whacked while your attention is devoted to helping someone who moments before was trying to kill you.
My attorney is not a criminal attorney either.
You DO HAVE a wife, or a brother, sister, mother, father, uncle or aunt who can secure a criminal attorney for you. Nothing says that you MUST retain the same attorney throughout the affair. Some attorneys are excellent at getting you out of jail and that’s where their capabilities stop. That’s when you hire another attorney for the trial if there is going to be one. All of this requires strategic planning that cannot possibly be done until the event occurs.
sadly your exchange is dangerously close to reality. Many officer depositions align with your scenario.
If I just shot someone the last thing I would do is try to render first aid to the man. One moment you are “in fear for your life” and two minutes later you are deciding that this upstanding person is worthy of your first aid? What message is that going to send to a DA or a jury?
Yup.
“The Miranda warnings were mandated by the 1966 United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Miranda v. Arizona as a means of protecting a criminal ...”
One funny thing. After I got my CC permit, when these small town cops pulled me over, I'd hand over my permit, they'd ask me if I was carrying, I'd say yes, and they'd relax. Concealed carry people are a lot safer to be around than most people, so cops know they're not at risk. Despite the aggravation I feel when getting pulled over, I wouldn't want to do it for a living.
When Will The Police Read Me My Miranda Rights?
The police must advise suspects of their “Miranda Rights” - their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and the right to an appointed attorney if they are unable to afford counsel - prior to conducting a custodial interrogation. If a suspect is not in police custody (i.e., “under arrest”), the police do not have to warn him of his rights.
The police are very aware of when they have to read suspects their “Miranda Rights.” The police will frequently question a suspect, specifically telling the suspect, “You are not under arrest, and are free to go. However, we would like you to answer some questions.” After the suspect voluntarily answers questions, and sometimes if he refuses, he is arrested. The questioning, being voluntary and non-custodial, is usually admissible. After arrest, the police may have no interest in further questioning, and thus may not ever read the suspect his “Miranda Rights.”
If The Police Don’t Read Me My Rights, Can They Still Use My Statement?
Sometimes, a suspect will make voluntary statements after he is arrested. The police do not have to warn suspects not to make voluntary statements, as long as they do not deliberately try to elicit those statements through statements or conduct. Sometimes, suspects will express their surprise at being caught by the police, with statements to the effect of, “You got me.” At other times, suspects will try to justify their actions to the police after they are arrested, with statements such as, “I don’t know why I did it,” or, “The drugs weren’t mine - I was carrying them for a friend.” Those statements, if made spontaneously by a suspect, will almost always be admissible in court. Additionally, if a statement leads to the discovery of other evidence, even if the statement itself was taken in violation of the Miranda ruling the police may be able to use that evidence.
Can My Silence Be Used Against Me In Court?
When a person chooses to remain silent after receiving his Miranda warnings, that silence cannot be used against him in court. However, if a person has not received his Miranda warnings, and remains silent, it is possible for that “pre-Miranda” silence to be used against him. For example, if a person is arrested for murder, or is told that he is a suspect, a typical innocent person will express disbelief and may even try to present an alibi. It would be unusual for a person to simply remain silent, after being informed that he is being wrongfully charged with murder - even people who know their right to remain silent will often express surprise. A prosecutor may subsequently argue that the “pre-Miranda” silence resulted from the fact that the defendant was not surprised that the police “figured it out.”
How Do I Protect Myself From Having My “Pre-Miranda” Silence Used Against Me?
If you are under investigation for a criminal offense, you can prevent “pre-Miranda” silence from becoming an issue by stating, “My attorney told me never to talk to the police without talking to him first. Do I have to answer your questions?” Once informed that you have the right to remain silent, no negative inference can be drawn from your exercise of that right. There is nothing wrong with making your attorney responsible for your choice to remain silent — it looks a lot more suspicious if you simply refuse to answer questions than if you present the explanation that your attorney gave you standing advice not to answer questions.
If I Remain Silent Or Ask For A Lawyer, Won’t The Police Think I Am Guilty?
The police tend to draw a negative inference from the fact that suspects refuse to answer questions, or where suspects hire attorneys (”lawyer up”) before they are charged with crimes. However, there are many cases where the only evidence against a defendant is his confession, or where an innocent person finds that the police have misinterpreted his statements. In one notable case, a police officer was a criminal suspect — he made a taped statement, expressing his innocence. Subsequently, he was shocked to hear his tape recorded “confession” used against him in court. As it turned out, his statement was recorded on a used tape, which contained a confession from a different case. Part of the old recording, immediately after the end of the police officer’s statement, was presented as the defendant’s “confession.” If that can happen to a police officer, obviously it can happen to you.
If I Choose To Remain Silent, Or Request An Attorney, But Later Decided To Answer Questions, Can They Use My Statement?
If the police do try to question you after your arrest, they are supposed to cease interrogation if you exercise your right to remain silent or request an attorney. It should be noted that the request for an attorney is “more powerful” than a request to remain silent. Courts tend to view police claims that a suspect changed his mind about having an attorney with much more suspicion than claims that the suspect changed his mind about remaining silent.
The police use numerous techniques to get suspects to change their minds about remaining silent. One very simple technique is to use silence against the suspect — the officer explains, “You don’t have to make a statement, but I still have to write up this report, describing what everybody says that you did.” The officer, in front of the suspect, then starts to type out his report, saying nothing to the suspect. It is common for the suspect to break the silence, and to choose to make a statement.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/miranda_rights.html
If it is a Terry stop, won’t the cop immediately ask you to step out of the vehicle?
A lot would depend upon the nature of the thread and the effect of the bullet. The legitimate purpose of shooting someone in self-defense is to neutralize the threat. If that happens to kill the person, fine, but the purpose is supposed to be to stop the attacker.
In many scenarios, I would not expect that someone who had just shot someone else would be inclined to give first aid, but I would expect in other scenarios (e.g. if one knows that the attacker is generally a good person but has 'snapped' for some reason) one might be forced to use deadly force to stop the attacker, and yet not particularly want the attacker dead. Killing the attacker would be preferable to not stopping the attack, but if the attack can be stopped with the attacker surviving that may be preferable still.
IMHO, there should be a law stating that all actions by police confronting a subject are presumed to be coercive, and any statements made or permissions given in response to such actions are presumed to be involuntary. Such presumptions could be rebutted, but police often exploit the implied threat that they could exercise their power to make people miserable should those people not do as the police want.
I am having a hard time putting together a situation where I am in fear for my life yet I can’t find another solution except deadly force. If you think you are going to be involved in such a thing I suggest that you get some tear gas or a Taser. I would stay away from using deadly force unless you are prepared to defend yourself before a jury.
This is actually an ACLU video. I am second to none in my contempt and outrage for the ACLU. But frankly, I think this video is very instructive.
Flame away if you must. But I still think it's worth seeing, and thinking about next time you are pulled over.
Depends on their attitude and how much they know about the law. I usually get it defined early on in the conversation. I would not recommend it unless you have LOTS of experience both talking and in the law but if they tell you it is a Miranda stop ask them if you still have to provide information that might incriminate you. Locks many of them up right away - can be good fun. make sure you have time to deal with it though if they decide to haul you in. Interestingly enough I do not and have not had the problem of definition with the NHP. The young punks from the CHP are a real pain.
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.