What to do after use of concealed handgun

[RoyGBiv]

Don't forget that SCOTUS recently changed the interpretation of the Constitution.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... ain-silent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm confused, if he had not been arrested yet and came in voluntarily - what's the problem? The police don't even have to "read him his rights" until is being arrested. Anything he voluntarily says or doesn't say before arrest is fair game (which is why lawyers generally want you to shut your mouth until they get there).

Here's the rub.... You start talking to police... giving them details... then they ask you a question, the answer to which you perceive could be damaging to you... so you decide not to answer the question....

Because you were talking previously, your silence or refusal to answer a potentially damaging question can be used as evidence against you.... Not what you said, but just the fact that you were talking, then refused to answer the hard question..

Example:
You: "Officer, this guy stuck a knife at my throat and told me he was going to kill me if I didn't hand over my wallet, so I shot him"
Officer: "Did you shoot him because he was black?"
You: ??

[A-R]

Don't forget that SCOTUS recently changed the interpretation of the Constitution.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... ain-silent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm confused, if he had not been arrested yet and came in voluntarily - what's the problem? The police don't even have to "read him his rights" until is being arrested. Anything he voluntarily says or doesn't say before arrest is fair game (which is why lawyers generally want you to shut your mouth until they get there).

Here's the rub.... You start talking to police... giving them details... then they ask you a question, the answer to which you perceive could be damaging to you... so you decide not to answer the question....

Because you were talking previously, your silence or refusal to answer a potentially damaging question can be used as evidence against you.... Not what you said, but just the fact that you were talking, then refused to answer the hard question..

Example:
You: "Officer, this guy stuck a knife at my throat and told me he was going to kill me if I didn't hand over my wallet, so I shot him"
Officer: "Did you shoot him because he was black?"
You: ??

It's an incredibly fine line, I agree. But it's my understanding that if you're not charged then 5A doesn't apply because you're not compelled to say a word.

Relevant text of 5A: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

Witnesses are compelled to give testimony under oath, usually in court
Giving a voluntary statement to police is not the same thing

I understand not liking the SCOTUS finding, but not sure I see it violating 5A

[RoyGBiv]

Don't forget that SCOTUS recently changed the interpretation of the Constitution.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... ain-silent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm confused, if he had not been arrested yet and came in voluntarily - what's the problem? The police don't even have to "read him his rights" until is being arrested. Anything he voluntarily says or doesn't say before arrest is fair game (which is why lawyers generally want you to shut your mouth until they get there).

Here's the rub.... You start talking to police... giving them details... then they ask you a question, the answer to which you perceive could be damaging to you... so you decide not to answer the question....

Because you were talking previously, your silence or refusal to answer a potentially damaging question can be used as evidence against you.... Not what you said, but just the fact that you were talking, then refused to answer the hard question..

Example:
You: "Officer, this guy stuck a knife at my throat and told me he was going to kill me if I didn't hand over my wallet, so I shot him"
Officer: "Did you shoot him because he was black?"
You: ??

It's an incredibly fine line, I agree. But it's my understanding that if you're not charged then 5A doesn't apply because you're not compelled to say a word.

Relevant text of 5A: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

Witnesses are compelled to give testimony under oath, usually in court
Giving a voluntary statement to police is not the same thing

I understand not liking the SCOTUS finding, but not sure I see it violating 5A

Maybe a better example....

1. The police intend to arrest you for... XXXXX
2. Rather than mirandize you, they start asking questions.
3. You refuse to answer any questions.
4. That refusal to answer CAN NOW BE USED AGAINST YOU IN COURT....!!!

Take away: Invoke your 5A immediately and EXPLICITLY.... or as soon as you're done pointing out evidence/witnesses/etc.... Do not answer ANY questions.
I am not a lawyer. This is my OPINION. Not legal advice.

http://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/17/th ... ove-guilt/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In his dissent, Justice Breyer stressed the danger:

the need to categorize Salinas’ silence as based on the Fifth Amendment is supported here by the presence, in full force, of the predicament I discussed earlier, namely that of not forcing Salinas to choose between incrimination through speech and incrimination through silence. That need is also supported by the absence of any special reason that the police had to know, with certainty, whether Salinas was, in fact, relying on the Fifth Amendment—such as whether to doubt that there really was a risk of self-incrimination, see Hoffman v. United States, 341 U. S. 479, 486 (1951), or whether to grant immunity, see Kastigar, 406 U. S., at 448. Given these circumstances, Salinas’ silence was “sufficient to put the [government] on notice of an apparent claim of theprivilege.” Quinn, supra, at 164. That being so, for reasons similar to those given in Griffin, the Fifth Amendment bars the evidence of silence admitted against Salinas and mentioned by the prosecutor.

[cb1000rider]

Additionally, if someone pulls a gun or a knife on you (for whatever reason, robbery included) your action should be to draw and fire as fast as you can and be moving at the same time. More often than not these days, the perp will kill the victim even after they have complied with all their demands. Consider for a moment that he told you to drop your pants......... or he told you to lay down face first on the ground?

I'm reading this thread with interest. One point sticks out at me. If you haven't drawn and someone has a knife out (or a gun) and within 20' - they CAN get to you before you can draw if that is their intention.

Now you're in a situation where:
1) You're behind the draw curve and you're going to lose.
2) You may very well get killed even if you comply.

That's just a tough one.

It was news to me that bringing knife to a gun fight could be successful until an instructor showed me.. Everyone pulling a gun from a holster lost to the knife.

[Oldgringo]

"When in danger or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout." - Ancient Chinese Proverb

[texanjoker]

This is not meant to be legal advice. I have been involved in 2 officer involved shootings where I fired shots. One was fatal. I had my attorney present both times. There is nothing wrong with that and in fact it is expected. The only people that get upset by that are the Monday night quarterbacks that forget LEO's have rights as well. A fatal shooting, even for a LEO IS a homicide investigation. That is why I belong to an association and pay my legal defense dues. Both shootings were absolutely justified and civilian witnesses agreed.

Prior to the formal statement they are going to ask, and need to know if there are any suspects outstanding, ect. That is referred to as a "safety statement." The responding officers need to know if there are additional threats, suspects, ect. That is something you are going to do w/o your attorney. Sure you can keep quiet, but the officers NEED to know if there are any further threats to their safety, the public, ect.

http://www.policeone.com/legal/tips/205 ... -shooting/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[bmwrdr]

As far as I know, the best way to act, if it happened and a robber is shot and laying on the ground.

Check the surrounding area, if everything is clear get any weapons out of reach if the thug is still alive.
Call 911 and say you shot an attacker, please send police and an ambulance may be required. Explain your location as detailed and possible. Describe how you look (blue shirt, black pants,..).
Hang up and wait until police shows up. Holster your gun and make sure it is concealed.
Most important, try to stay calm! Good luck!

[Excaliber]

As far as I know, the best way to act, if it happened and a robber is shot and laying on the ground.

Check the surrounding area, if everything is clear get any weapons out of reach if the thug is still alive.
Call 911 and say you shot an attacker, please send police and an ambulance may be required. Explain your location as detailed and possible. Describe how you look (blue shirt, black pants,..).
Hang up and wait until police shows up. Holster your gun and make sure it is concealed.
Most important, try to stay calm! Good luck!

"Staying calm" isn't going to happen. At that point, you're anything but calm, and there's no "stay" about it.

When I see that language in written law enforcement or corporate procedures, it's a pretty fair indicator that the person who wrote the procedure has never successfully managed the emergency situation the procedure is supposed to provide guidance for.

Making the scene safe, holstering your gun, and providing a good description of yourself and the bad guy (who may decide to get up and become active again, despite any wounds) are good ideas.

I do not agree with hanging up. Lots of things can change between the initial report and when officers arrive. I believe it's a better idea to stay on the line with dispatch to provide real time updates but only providing information on things they need to know about (e.g., crowds gathering, suspect attempting to flee, etc.).

[hillfighter]

Each of us has to decide whether it's more important to chew the fat with the 911 operator sitting somewhere safe and dry or deal with the real world situation in front of us. For me that depends a lot on the situation but if it's dynamic it might be more dangerous than texting while driving.

[Excaliber]

Each of us has to decide whether it's more important to chew the fat with the 911 operator sitting somewhere safe and dry or deal with the real world situation in front of us. For me that depends a lot on the situation but if it's dynamic it might be more dangerous than texting while driving.

You don't need to make small talk, and you don't need to focus on the phone.

However, keeping the line open allows you to immediately notify the dispatcher of significant changes in the situation that would impact the response. Those notifications might otherwise be really hard to do if you had to call back.

It also puts anything anyone says to you and anything you say to them on the official dispatch tape. If those things support your account of what happened, you'll be really glad they're there later on.