Consider this #7: talking to LE after a shoot

[tombogan03884]

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 # 
Kelly Neal, Thank you, that was informative.

[fullautovalmet76]

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......

[THE CORONER]

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

[tombogan03884]

 We all have the right to remain silent, very few of us have the ABILITY.

[Robin]

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.

[Sponsor]

[tombogan03884]

 "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.

[Robin]

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.

[tombogan03884]

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.

[deamonpi]

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.

[kmitch200]

For example, Stupid and Ignorant mean the say thing.

I love irony...