The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Defense and Tactics => Topic started by: Robin on January 02, 2009, 12:56:41 PM
-
The only information you MUST give to police is that you want your lawyer. Watch the video.
The Law Professor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/i8z7NC5sgik&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/i8z7NC5sgik&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
The Cop
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/08fZQWjDVKE&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/08fZQWjDVKE&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0xe1600f&color2=0xfebd01" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Thanks for taking the time to dig up that video link. I have seen it before. It does contain good information but like anything should not be considered the end-all and be-all regarding a given subject. As any good instructor will say, take what other people offer with an open mind. Evaluate it against previous training and experience and see if it will fit in your toolbox. Just because it works for one person (or many) doesn't mean it will work for you. But try to understand where it's coming from and what it's based on.
I think we can both agree the main point in talking with LE after a justifiable shoot is to make sure nothing is said that could be used against you at a later time. However there are some things you should say in order to secure the scene. None of them are by themselves incriminating.
1. Location of weapon you used. This one should be pretty basic. Officers will want to take possession as evidence but they also want to make sure it isn't lying around where it could pose a hazard to someone else. An "I ain't saying nothing without a lawyer" response doesn't help regarding this one even in cases where it does incriminate the suspect. There have been many cases of suspects who ditched a weapon during a chase and officers interrogate them in the field in order to recover it despite "I want my lawyer" refusals. Use of that weapon as evidence against the suspect has been upheld in court.
2. Location and direction of shots fired. TBD already touched on the topic of overpenetration and knowing your backstop. You may not always have that luxury and/or shots could be fired wild. Imagine this scenario: you engage a home intruder at night. One of your missed shots exits your house, enters your neighbor's and severely injures them. Police arrive on scene and you refuse to say anything. Yes the officers will go door to door asking for witness statements. Yes a crime scene tech will look for spent brass and bullet holes. But all of that will take time and an unconscious neighbor who didn't respond to a knock at their door could bleed out before they're discovered. Is this a remote scenario? Of course it is--but realistically speaking so is a home invasion for most of us. That doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare just in case. If that scenario played out you would feel terrible knowing you could have helped save your neighbor's life but didn't. As others have pointed out eventually the police will put together all that information. So why not tell them up front in case someone else needs help?
3. Description of suspects. I thought this would be a no-brainer but apparently not. If you shot one person and other suspects fled the scene, wouldn't you want to give the best description you can so officers have a chance to catch them before they get away? Even knowing there was more than just one person is enough to try setting up a perimeter.
As I have said before, none of this information by itself will get you in trouble. Officers (and DAs) can sympathize with a victim who gave some basic information to help secure the scene but didn't want to say anything beyond that. Blindly saying "I want my lawyer" and refusing to even say where the firearm you used is located isn't the way to go.
-
Thanks for taking the time to dig up that video link. I have seen it before. It does contain good information but like anything should not be considered the end-all and be-all regarding a given subject. As any good instructor will say, take what other people offer with an open mind. Evaluate it against previous training and experience and see if it will fit in your toolbox. Just because it works for one person (or many) doesn't mean it will work for you. But try to understand where it's coming from and what it's based on.
I think we can both agree the main point in talking with LE after a justifiable shoot is to make sure nothing is said that could be used against you at a later time. However there are some things you should say in order to secure the scene. None of them are by themselves incriminating.
1. Location of weapon you used. This one should be pretty basic. Officers will want to take possession as evidence but they also want to make sure it isn't lying around where it could pose a hazard to someone else. An "I ain't saying nothing without a lawyer" response doesn't help regarding this one even in cases where it does incriminate the suspect. There have been many cases of suspects who ditched a weapon during a chase and officers interrogate them in the field in order to recover it despite "I want my lawyer" refusals. Use of that weapon as evidence against the suspect has been upheld in court.
2. Location and direction of shots fired. TBD already touched on the topic of overpenetration and knowing your backstop. You may not always have that luxury and/or shots could be fired wild. Imagine this scenario: you engage a home intruder at night. One of your missed shots exits your house, enters your neighbor's and severely injures them. Police arrive on scene and you refuse to say anything. Yes the officers will go door to door asking for witness statements. Yes a crime scene tech will look for spent brass and bullet holes. But all of that will take time and an unconscious neighbor who didn't respond to a knock at their door could bleed out before they're discovered. Is this a remote scenario? Of course it is--but realistically speaking so is a home invasion for most of us. That doesn't mean we shouldn't prepare just in case. If that scenario played out you would feel terrible knowing you could have helped save your neighbor's life but didn't. As others have pointed out eventually the police will put together all that information. So why not tell them up front in case someone else needs help?
3. Description of suspects. I thought this would be a no-brainer but apparently not. If you shot one person and other suspects fled the scene, wouldn't you want to give the best description you can so officers have a chance to catch them before they get away? Even knowing there was more than just one person is enough to try setting up a perimeter.
As I have said before, none of this information by itself will get you in trouble. Officers (and DAs) can sympathize with a victim who gave some basic information to help secure the scene but didn't want to say anything beyond that. Blindly saying "I want my lawyer" and refusing to even say where the firearm you used is located isn't the way to go.
You raise several very good points in this series of posts Robin,
" One of your missed shots exits your house, enters your neighbor's and severely injures them."
That is not so far fetched at all considering the number of people who live in apartments (like myself) or closely built housing developments.
But it is still wise to remember the line from the Miranda warning that says "Anything you say will be used against you".
In short I think everyone who owns a firearm for self defense should watch the video's you quoted while keeping in mind the stipulations you have raised.
Another must would be formal training from a recognized source such as Mossad Ayoob's Lethal Force Institute.
-
Robin,
Your proposals seem a bit naive. I suggest paying a couple of hundred bucks to talk to a top criminal defense attorney in your area to find out about self defense with a firearm and what one should do if they are faced with this scenario. It could save you alot of heartache later on.
I used to work for the court in my hometown and I would talk to the judges and prosecutors about case law. I was surprised to find out that people are sent to prison all the time on weak circumstantial evidence. The prosecutors would tell me that if they can get the pieces of the puzzle to fit (and they don't have to fit neatly) to get a conviction, they will do it. They don't feel bad because everyone they send to prison claims they are innocent.
I'm not saying you have this mindset, but many people in this country believe too much of what they see on television crime shows. The criminal justice system, at least in my area, is far more complex and political than anything like what anyone sees on television.
-
To easy to forget. "I NEED AN AMBULANCE, I HAVE SHOT SOMEONE AND THEY ARE INJURED. I HAVE HEART PROBLEMS ETC...." Better to have too many responders than too few. If you have heard the numbnuts that man 911 you wouldn't be surprised if they didn't ask about injuries.
-
Robin, Your proposals seem a bit naive.
In what way does what I suggest seem naive? (And no, I don't watch CSI or similar shows.) There are three separate things I suggest telling officers as part of initial scene safety. I do not believe any of these things can compromise your legal defense. If you have reason to suggest otherwise I would really like to hear it.
Oh, one other related "neat trick": if you can do it, get a copy of your state's jury instructions for justifiable homicide. Jury instructions state in easy to understand terms the level of proof required to convict or conversely, to acquit. In the case of justifiable homicide it states the requirements that must be met in order to justify killing someone.
-
In what way does what I suggest seem naive? (And no, I don't watch CSI or similar shows.) There are three separate things I suggest telling officers as part of initial scene safety. I do not believe any of these things can compromise your legal defense. If you have reason to suggest otherwise I would really like to hear it.
Your suggestions are naive to me based not only the videos Tom posted but what the judges and prosecutors I spoke with told me. But you seem like you are pretty smart, so you should probably handle it the way you see fit.
-
Guys, try to keep "immediate aftermath" which is something we address in season 1 and includes the 911 call (see other thread) and the longer term aftermath which starts with your interview by LE on the scene.
I am always careful to point out to most students that I am teaching for the street, not for the court. One thing that we didn't get a chance to get into this season, but was covered on a training DVD that was recently released, is the Three Fights concept. I originally heard this concept expressed this way by Tony Blauer during some SPEAR training.
Fight 1: Preparation.
This fight is describe as You vs. You. How do you prepare? How much training do you do? How do you equip yourself? Do you follow Janich's advice on prepping your home or do you keep your doors unlocked and your guns and ammo in separate safes? Everything you do prior to an incident is Fight 1.
Fight 2: Conflict.
This is the actaul Fight that consists of You vs. Bad Guy(s). This is the fight that most of us spend 99% of our time worrying about. How do I shoot? how do I punch? This is the fight that 90% of my teaching is aimed at. What do you do when you are in "the" fight?
Fight 3: Aftermath.
The aftermath is You Vs. Everything. This is all of the ramifications of the conflict. Medical, Personal, Financial, Social, etc., etc.. In fact, I define the existance of "conflict" by the existance of an aftermath. If someone else's actions affected you in a negative way (including having to spend extra energy to walk around the block...etc), then you were in a conflict. The aftermath starts immediately and lasts forever and is the most complex fight. It is also the hardest to prepare for. The most important part of the aftermath for our discussions should probably be the way it affects our Fight 1 in relation to future conflict. Learning from previous conflict (yours or others') is vitally important to efficiency in Fight 1.
All that said, my advice is to cooperate with law enforcement personnel on the scene. They are doing their job and if you were in the right you shouldn't worry about answering simple questions directly. Lawyers may not agree and ultimately you're going to have to decide what is best for you. One lawyer, one police officer or one instructor are simply going to be expressing their opinion. There are so many variables involved in which officer, prosecutor, grand jury, judge, jury, defendant, lawyers, etc are involved that you are never going to get hard & fast 100% accurate advice about what is the best thing to say at any given point. If you think you are smart enough to carry a gun to defend yourself, you better be smart enough to handle the aftermath. As I often say in class: The shooting is going to be the easy part.
-RJP
-
If you have heard the numbnuts that man 911 you wouldn't be surprised if they didn't ask about injuries.
I guess I'm atypical then in that my dealings with dispatch have been pretty good and none of the deficiencies you mention were apparent. But you're right, that doesn't mean it follows every dispatcher is on top of their game. In another thread (NT #1) I suggested giving out a bare minimum of info and waiting for dispatch to ask additional questions. That was based on my experiences where dispatch was good at following up and thus eliminated the need to remember a long list of things to say. Thanks for pointing out the flaw in my thinking.
-
Your suggestions are naive to me based not only the videos Tom posted but what the judges and prosecutors I spoke with told me. But you seem like you are pretty smart, so you should probably handle it the way you see fit.
I'm smart enough to realize that despite everything I've learned I don't have The One True Way. That's why I ask for explanations when people think I'm wrong. Saying I have horrible fashion sense because you read Vogue and Cosmo tells me what your source is, but doesn't tell me that green and orange clash.
You have more experience in or around courts than I do. Based on that you consider my approach incorrect. I would really like to know the details of why it's incorrect based on your experience.
-
I'm smart enough to realize that despite everything I've learned I don't have The One True Way. That's why I ask for explanations when people think I'm wrong. Saying I have horrible fashion sense because you read Vogue and Cosmo tells me what your source is, but doesn't tell me that green and orange clash.
You have more experience in or around courts than I do. Based on that you consider my approach incorrect. I would really like to know the details of why it's incorrect based on your experience.
OK. For what it's worth:
I am not a lawyer. Please consult a top criminal defense attorney (preferably who was a former prosecutor) in your area for advice on how to handle the aftermath in a self defense shooting. The reason for this is they know how the system really works in your area.
I live in an area where law enforcement is very sympathetic to the rights of gun owners. The State Attorney's office tends to be in the middle and the courts tend to be in the middle as well. But if I lived a little south of my location, law enforcement is not as sympathetic and the prosecutors are more aggressive on self defense shootings. Knowing the "lay of the land" is very important should one find themselves in a situation like this. A former prosecutor turned defense attorney can tell you what will likely happen if this occurs. It's kind of like saying there are the rules, but here's how one plays by the rules.
I certainly understand that you want to help law enforcement, but you might be surprised at how you react in a situation like that. If you think you are going to be the most calm, rational, logical person you were before the incident, you are naive. The videos that Tom posted echoed what prosecutors told me when I worked for the courts: defendants tend to say too much and are stupid. At one of these incidents, law enforcement want to find the criminal(s) as quickly as possible. Even when you think you are "helping" them, they are constantly filtering what you say for any kind of BS. They are trained, and experience teaches them, to be very skeptical. So you may think you have an "open and shut case" and they will take you to jail anyway because they do not believe you based upon your statements and the evidence.
And lastly, I was involved in a self defense shooting almost three years ago; I posted my experience elsewhere on the forum. Though my "bad guy" was a drug dealer's pit bull, I knew there was the small possibility this could go against me if I said something without thinking. I got a lawyer and let him do the talking for me because I knew I was in no mental or emotional state to speak rationally and logically to the police at the time of the shooting. I knew I had done nothing wrong but I did not want to take any chances.
Like I said before, you should handle this the way you think is best for the area where you live. But I would strongly suggest you consult an attorney just to make sure you have touched all the bases. As great as Rob, Mike, and Michael are, they don't have a self defense series coming for what happens in the court room- which is where your fate will be decided after you survive the shooting.
-
Good info Full Auto, Robin, The comment about the Jury rules is also a good idea and thank you for prodding Full auto and not getting upset, This information with what Rob posted is the purpose of a forum.
-
Robin, it might help to know what region of the country and what locale you are in. Back where I grew up, heck I know everybody and can say anything without fearing misuse. I feel that way where I live now, but not in the town where I work because the DA their is anti-gun and will hang your behind with any type of a chance.
One's thoughts are most often reflective of the direct experience of that person and does not necessarily reflect the totality of possibilities. We're all here to expand our knowledge and proficiency, but to do that we must allow ourselves to consider other possibilities.
Will I tell LE my name, yes. Will I say I feared for my life, of course. Will I show them the evidence that will be used to convict the person who attacked me like his weapon and shell casings, without saying. Will I ask to file a complaint against the person who attacked me, certainly. Will I start to give them other "helpful" information" to tell the story, not on your life.
Many of the posters here have responded in this and other threads believing they were a help in pointing out that they believe one should consider other possibilities. Peace to you, and find joy in following your own path.
-
Robin, it might help to know what region of the country and what locale you are in. Back where I grew up, heck I know everybody and can say anything without fearing misuse. I feel that way where I live now, but not in the town where I work because the DA their is anti-gun and will hang your behind with any type of a chance.
One's thoughts are most often reflective of the direct experience of that person and does not necessarily reflect the totality of possibilities. We're all here to expand our knowledge and proficiency, but to do that we must allow ourselves to consider other possibilities.
Will I tell LE my name, yes. Will I say I feared for my life, of course. Will I show them the evidence that will be used to convict the person who attacked me like his weapon and shell casings, without saying. Will I ask to file a complaint against the person who attacked me, certainly. Will I start to give them other "helpful" information" to tell the story, not on your life.
Many of the posters here have responded in this and other threads believing they were a help in pointing out that they believe one should consider other possibilities. Peace to you, and find joy in following your own path.
Very well stated, Rastus!
On another, totally unrelated subject:
Are you pulling for the Sooners, or do you really care?
-
Very well stated, Rastus!
On another, totally unrelated subject:
Are you pulling for the Sooners, or do you really care?
Hmmm...born in Louisiana, attended the antithesis of LSU....I might except I like Tim Tebow. They are playing Florida, right? I really only pay a lot of attention to my boys' high school games. In Oklahoma I pull more for Tulsa or OSU than OU. Just something about supporting an organization that has a mascot based on persons who circumvented the rules honest people followed....I just can't get past that.
-
Will I tell LE my name, yes. Will I say I feared for my life, of course. Will I show them the evidence that will be used to convict the person who attacked me like his weapon and shell casings, without saying. Will I ask to file a complaint against the person who attacked me, certainly. Will I start to give them other "helpful" information" to tell the story, not on your life.
These are precisely the points Massad Ayoob recommends should you ever find yourself involved with a self defense shooting. The two additional recommendations are to point out to the police any witnesses that may have been present at the scene that can defend your explanation, and also make it clear to the officer that you are fully aware of the seriousness of the situation and will be very happy to cooperate with all police inquiries and tell your side of the story in 24 hours, after you have had an opportunity to confer with legal counsel.
Very sound reasoning and points that I have committed to memory.
-
These are precisely the points Massad Ayoob recommends should you ever find yourself involved with a self defense shooting. The two additional recommendations are to point out to the police any witnesses that may have been present at the scene that can defend your explanation, and also make it clear to the officer that you are fully aware of the seriousness of the situation and will be very happy to cooperate with all police inquiries and tell your side of the story in 24 hours, after you have had an opportunity to confer with legal counsel.
Very sound reasoning and points that I have committed to memory.
Roger that.
-
Will I tell LE my name, yes. Will I say I feared for my life, of course. Will I show them the evidence that will be used to convict the person who attacked me like his weapon and shell casings, without saying. Will I ask to file a complaint against the person who attacked me, certainly. Will I start to give them other "helpful" information" to tell the story, not on your life.
These are precisely the points Massad Ayoob recommends should you ever find yourself involved with a self defense shooting.
Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner but I kept forgetting to reply until now. I asked Massad this question. Here's what he had to say, with emphasis added by me:
Securing the scene and checking for other casualties is part of standard response. The "I was in fear of my life" formula doesn't come from me. I think explaining the bad guy's attack on you, stating that you'll sign the complaint, and pointing out evidence and witnesses should do it, followed by "you'll have my full cooperation after I've spoken with counsel" when you're asked anything else.
"Checking for other casualties" means giving a description of shots fired and which direction they went--and that includes shots you fired. I think the three things I suggesting telling LE immediately after a shoot and what Massad describes are pretty similar.
-
Sorry I didn't respond to this sooner
Sorry I haven't checked this thread before...been busy lately.
"Checking for other casualties" means giving a description of shots fired and which direction they went--and that includes shots you fired. I think the three things I suggesting telling LE immediately after a shoot and what Massad describes are pretty similar.
While I don't advocate "Say Nothing!" to LE responders, going into 'description of shots fired and which direction they went' seems to me to be opening a can of worms that doesn't need to be that detailed right then.
A simple question interjected by the officer such as "and how far away were you?" could be trouble.
My first CCW class was given by a PD Detective.
He told of officers that "took cover behind a big tree" which in reality was the diameter of 2 pop cans.
He told us that distance seems compressed under stress. 30 feet seems like 10 ft. You saying that the BG was X feet away and the physical evidence shows different....could be an opening for an unscrupulous DA that needn't be given.
He advocated telling very basic information, 'that's his weapon', 'he came at me', that you feared for your life and you will give a statement after you've had time to consult with counsel and calm down from a life threatening situation.
I would be happy to state "please check on my neighbors, it was very chaotic." That puts the checking on innocents on the front burner, and since they control the scene, it's their baby from there on out.
This may be the same thing you meant/said but I missed it in the 'black & white' of forum speak.
-
I am a felony prosecutor so I can offer some commentary on this issue. My first piece of advice is to find a good criminal defense attorney in your area. A good resource to find such an attorney is to ask your local cops who they would have represent them in a shooting or who their local Police Union or lodge uses. Once you've found him or her, have a meeting and discuss the situation with them. Have their card in your wallet so in case you ever do blast somebody you have someone to call. Three more comments on defense counsel. First, you want one that has the respect of the local prosecutor. Some do, many do not. There are defense counsel whom I have a great deal of respect for, there are others who I don't (and that would be putting it mildly). Since you will be communicating with the cops and your local prosecutor through this person, you want someone they respect. Second, this attorney probably does not advertise on TV. Third, don't just use your tax, probate, or civil attorney. They probably know less than you do about criminal law.
There can never be a complete answer to this question given different jurisdictions, social mores, varying politics, etc etc. What flies in Arizona, may not in New York. What flies in Marciopa County, Arizona, may not in Coconino County, Arizona. Defensive uses of firearms that I thought were completely justified have been viewed as unjusitfied by other prosecutors - leading to some spirited debates. The dilemma a self-defense shooting suspect faces is trying to give the authorities enough info so that they have some evidence of justififcation and they don't charge you (note I am not talking about arresting you) WITHOUT giving them info which can be used against you. So most of the communication that you do should be through your attorney as what they say can in no way be used against you. Note there is no embarrassment about communicating through or contacting a lawyer after a shooting. Most police do so after shooting someone.
One school of thought is that you should lawyer up immediately (by lawyering up I mean invocating your right to counsel as soon as you come into contact with police). This is easy to remember but will probably be hard to do as most people will want to explain what has happened. It certainly keeps you from saying anything stupid as you won't being saying anything. Of course not saying anything will leave the responding police with little to no idea what happened.
Another school of thought is to give the police just enough to let them know what's going on and then lawyer up. This has the advantage of letting them know what's going. The difficulty will be in shutting up once you start talking. Saying something like "He attacked me/my wife/the school children/etc and I was in fear for my/their/our life or lives. I'm really scared, I want to let you know what happened but I need to contact my attorney first," may be something to consider.
Yet another school of thought is just to let them know what happened. This will give the cops and prosecutor information more quickly. But remember you're going to be pretty amped up. And also remember that what you consider to be justified may not be so by the authorities. Your statements may or may not match those of other witnesses. On the other hand, your statements may provide enough info that provides adequate jusitification and the prosecutor will not charge you and you want to avoid getting charged at almost all costs.
I cannot tell you which will work for you in any given situation in any given jurisdiction.
One final caveat (although it might seem stupidly obvious), I would always communicate with police if there is an active ongoing threat.
-
How many here have a CCW attorney on their cell phone, if you need one you may not have time to look for one. I have my ccw insurance number on my cell and a independent ccw lawyer also. Hoping I never have to make that call but have the information ready.
-
How many here have a CCW attorney on their cell phone, if you need one you may not have time to look for one. I have my ccw insurance number on my cell and a independent ccw lawyer also. Hoping I never have to make that call but have the information ready.
I have Penny Deans # ;D
Kelly Neal, Thank you, that was informative.
-
Thanks again, Kelly! I am in Florida and I use a guy named Jon Guttmacher who wrote a book on firearms law and how it relates to citizens in Florida; he is on my speed dial......
-
My wife and myself watched both videos a few weeks ago. I'm constantly in touch with persons talking about CC, and questions about CC traffic stops. I feel alot more confident about NOT saying anything to law enforcement now. I tell everyone that asks not to talk to cops when they've been read their rights. I tell them to wait until the lawyer gets there. They are going to do their job. I'm going to protect my ass. Silence until your attorney gets there to speak to you. He can talk to the cops for you. When they say they can and will use anything you say against you, they really mean they WILL.
Oh! I also learned not to allow cops to search anything, "car, purse, home, backpack, lunch sack, or fannypack" is giving up your attorney's arguement to have items found in the search thrown out for an unlawful search. The prosecutor uses items found against you, when you give permission to search. Without probable cause, don't allow them to search anything! Even if you think you don't have anything to hide. Doesn't matter. Remember, protect and serve; not search and seize.
Great post! Learned alot. Glad I was here to see it.
Here's those videos on not talking to the cops...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
-
We all have the right to remain silent, very few of us have the ABILITY.
-
I am a felony prosecutor so I can offer some commentary on this issue.
Thanks for your insights Kelly, they were great.
One final caveat (although it might seem stupidly obvious), I would always communicate with police if there is an active ongoing threat.
You'd be surprised how often "stupidly obvious" gets missed. My favorite employee review was the comment that I "have the ability to point out things that are obvious only after pointed them out." :)
What do you consider an active ongoing threat? My viewpoint is a fleeing suspect isn't an active ongoing threat, but you might consider otherwise.
Oh, as a side note here's something I found amusing about LEO and DAs. When describing incidents LEOs say things like "the suspect struck the victim". DAs describe the same incident as "the defendant struck the victim." It's a small thing but speaks volumes about the difference in viewpoints between them.
-
"What do you consider an active ongoing threat? My viewpoint is a fleeing suspect isn't an active ongoing threat, but you might consider otherwise."
I would disagree because, depending on the situation, If the BG posed enough of a threat to YOU to justify shooting, even if he runs away, he will likely present just a serious a threat to some one else. (obviously this probably would not apply in a case like domestic abuse, or other instance were the motive is "personal")
"Oh, as a side note here's something I found amusing about LEO and DAs. When describing incidents LEOs say things like "the suspect struck the victim". DAs describe the same incident as "the defendant struck the victim." It's a small thing but speaks volumes about the difference in viewpoints between them."
The Police have to go by the "assumption of innocence" so any Identification of the BG has to be proven, (even if the victim gives the attackers name, It COULD have been his twin brother, The Police don't know. and the whole point of a trial is to prove whether or not the "suspect" is in fact "the perpetrator")
While the Prosecutors job is easier, the person at the other table who isn't the Lawyer, is only there to DEFEND, against an "accusation", which regardless of the results of the trial, makes him the "defendant".
It boils down to semantics.
-
I would disagree because, depending on the situation, If the BG posed enough of a threat to YOU to justify shooting, even if he runs away, he will likely present just a serious a threat to some one else.
What you describe is a potential threat. What Kelly said was active ongoing threat. Those are two different things, which is why I asked Kelly to clarify his phrase so I could better understand his meaning.
The Police have to go by the "assumption of innocence" so any Identification of the BG has to be proven.
Sorry, but that's not how LEOs work. Let's say an armed robbery occurs and the description is "WMA wearing black hoodie and blue jeans last seen walking NB on Main". LEOs are going to assume everyone they see in that general area matching the description is the suspect until proven otherwise. Likewise LEOs are going to assume everyone they meet is a potential threat until proven otherwise. I could go on but I think you get the idea.
-
What you describe is a potential threat. What Kelly said was active ongoing threat. Those are two different things, which is why I asked Kelly to clarify his phrase so I could better understand his meaning.
Sorry, but that's not how LEOs work. Let's say an armed robbery occurs and the description is "WMA wearing black hoodie and blue jeans last seen walking NB on Main". LEOs are going to assume everyone they see in that general area matching the description is the suspect until proven otherwise. Likewise LEOs are going to assume everyone they meet is a potential threat until proven otherwise. I could go on but I think you get the idea.
DUH, Everyone in they area who MATCHES the description IS a suspect until proven otherwise. What do you think the point of the trial IS ? to find out if they got the RIGHT suspect. ::)
Words have MEANING, like Rush says. To many people think that a word means a LOT of things, or don't even KNOW what a word means when they use it. For example, Stupid and Ignorant mean the say thing.
WRONG. Stupid means unable to learn, ignorant means uneducated, which means they CAN learn if given information.
-
I would disagree because, depending on the situation, If the BG posed enough of a threat to YOU to justify shooting, even if he runs away, he will likely present just a serious a threat to some one else. (obviously this probably would not apply in a case like domestic abuse, or other instance were the motive is "personal")
The only situation that really matters is yours, You telling LE that the perpetrator ran off in that direction is enough. It is no longer your encounter.
It boils down to semantics.
And Semantics is very important indeed, that is part of the problem I have when talking to some is they don't have a grasp on the actual meaning of the word, and end up confusing themselves. Also called equivocation.
-
For example, Stupid and Ignorant mean the say thing.
I love irony...
-
...and on that, very funny, note....
Locked.