TexasCHLforum.com

LabRat wrote:I couldn't help but notice that the Armed Citizens writer has a J.D., but has not passed the bar; i.e., not a practicing attorney and I have to assume no real trial experience.

Just a thought as to who's giving advice. Remember, you got that video advice for free and its worth exactly what you paid for it.

Actually, the writer does not have a J.D., since it was Marty Hayes' wife Gila who was the writer.

That said, regardless of Mr. Hayes' bar status, it appears his career was as a police officer and police trainer, so it is possible he might have a better insight into how and why cops do things, and how investigations really go, than many practicing lawyers, no? I note that Massad Ayoob is one of his cohorts in this article. He is not unknown as a consultant in the self-defense legal circles, so I assume he would associate with someone who is very far off the track. I find Ayoob difficult to read sometimes because he spends a fair amount of this time on the doom-and-gloom of self-defense, but case's such as Hickey's might tend to push one in that direction. Plus, its easier to write about case where everything goes wrong than the ones that go right.

And in any case, Mr. Hickey won his case. Not a grand slam, but a win nevertheless.

LabRat wrote:Just a thought as to who's giving advice. Remember, you got that video advice for free and its worth exactly what you paid for it.

Like most advice on the internet.

Those posts in the PA forum were interesting. I wouldn't mind taking that lawyer's seminar if I go back to PA for business.

Here is a shocking fresh article which bears on the subject of this thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14 ... =1&_r=1&hp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While rational arguments have been made on both sides here on the forum, there cannot be much question but that if you do not speak at all, at least prior to receiving competent legal advice, your chatting with the authorities cannot be converted into a confession, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

This applies when one is a suspect and perhaps, sometimes, even when he is apparently just a witness. The latter, I might suggest, is a personal judgment call very much dependent on the circumstances. The judgment required of a prospective witness, possibly under great stress, is perhaps not had in equal measure by everyone.

b322da wrote:Here is a shocking fresh article which bears on the subject of this thread.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/us/14 ... =1&_r=1&hp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While rational arguments have been made on both sides here on the forum, there cannot be much question but that if you do not speak at all, at least prior to receiving competent legal advice, your chatting with the authorities cannot be converted into a confession, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

This applies when one is a suspect and perhaps, sometimes, even when he is apparently just a witness. The latter, I might suggest, is a personal judgment call very much dependent on the circumstances. The judgment required of a prospective witness, possibly under great stress, is perhaps not had in equal measure by everyone.

Interesting article, and I present the crux of it right here:

"...and none had a lawyer present."

Lawyer up, first, fast, and every time. You may think you're just under arrest for something small, but what if they think you did something else as well, and start hitting you with that at the station?

I carry a small card in wallet under my CHL, I hope I never need to use it:

Dear Officer: If I have given this to you, I have unfortunatley had to do what was necessary to defend innocent life. I am willing to sign a criminal complaint against the perpetrator (s). I will point out witnesses and evidence.

As you may have experienced yourself, this is a stressful and traumatic experience for me. Therefore, I wish to make no further statements until I have contacted and attorney and composed myself. I also do not consent to any searches. I will cooperate fully once I have consulted with an attorney and calmed down. As a lawfully armed citizen, I ask for the same courtesy that you would show a fellow officer who was involved in a similar situation.

I have explained to my family that they need not "help" me with the officers and they should remain silent as well.

I am not a lawyer, but I know I need one in the event of a shooting.

There's a big difference between giving a brief, factual statement like "that guy tried to kill me and I had to shoot him" and giving a dramatic reenaction.

bdickens wrote:There's a big difference between giving a brief, factual statement like "that guy tried to kill me and I had to shoot him" and giving a dramatic reenaction.

If you can do the broken record under stress, that may be the best way to handle it. If they insist on asking you questions without your lawyer present, keep repeating "that guy tried to kill me and I had to shoot him" (or a similar short statement appropriate to the facts) in response to every question about what happened until they get the picture.

If you get bored, you can switch to "I'm not feeling so well. I need a doctor."

Of course, if you have diarrhea of the mouth and can't keep from talking on and on, it might be better to keep quiet altogether. You need to know yourself.

bdickens wrote:Of course, if you have diarrhea of the mouth and can't keep from talking on and on, it might be better to keep quiet altogether. You need to know yourself.

That would be me after a shooting.....hence the card

ELB wrote:

LabRat wrote:I couldn't help but notice that the Armed Citizens writer has a J.D., but has not passed the bar; i.e., not a practicing attorney and I have to assume no real trial experience.

Just a thought as to who's giving advice. Remember, you got that video advice for free and its worth exactly what you paid for it.

Actually, the writer does not have a J.D., since it was Marty Hayes' wife Gila who was the writer.

That said, regardless of Mr. Hayes' bar status, it appears his career was as a police officer and police trainer, so it is possible he might have a better insight into how and why cops do things, and how investigations really go, than many practicing lawyers, no? I note that Massad Ayoob is one of his cohorts in this article. He is not unknown as a consultant in the self-defense legal circles, so I assume he would associate with someone who is very far off the track. I find Ayoob difficult to read sometimes because he spends a fair amount of this time on the doom-and-gloom of self-defense, but case's such as Hickey's might tend to push one in that direction. Plus, its easier to write about case where everything goes wrong than the ones that go right.

And in any case, Mr. Hickey won his case. Not a grand slam, but a win nevertheless.

ELB, Actually I was referring to the 1st ArmedCitizen article that was written by Marty Hayes. See this copy from the article:

========================================================================
Unintended Consequences of Silence
This article first appeared in the Network's November 2009 journal.

by Marty Hayes, J.D.

You cannot read an Internet firearms forum these days without running across a thread about what to say to the police after a self-defense shooting. The in-vogue advice from Internet pundits is, “Say nothing. Demand to speak to a lawyer.” And, that is very good advice, if you are a criminal.

If I were practicing law, which I could do if I wanted to take six months out of my life to study for and pass the bar, I would give that advice to all my clients who were criminals. After all, not much good can come from telling lies to the police, and certainly not much good comes to the criminal if he confesses to committing the crime. So, while well intentioned, the advice to keep your mouth shut until your attorney arrives has some potentially severe unintended consequences for the innocent.

I know there are 2 articles - I wasn't clear on my reference.

Again, the information appears to come from someone with no trial experience. That was my point.

LabRat

No trial experience? Really?

Not as a criminal lawyer, sure but neither does Massad Ayoob, nor John Farnam, nor Gabe Suarez, but all have extensive experience not only in trials about shootings, but as shooters, investigators, "investigatees", researchers and witnesses for both sides. I would say their advice trumps most criminal defense lawyers wrt to self-defense shootings, and they have been involved with the whole process from end to end. As far as I can see, they have given the same advice when they were being paid as when they weren't. It would be a good idea to listen to them, regardless of their (non)status as a practicing attorney.

ELB wrote:No trial experience? Really?

Not as a criminal lawyer, sure but neither does Massad Ayoob, nor John Farnam, nor Gabe Suarez, but all have extensive experience not only in trials about shootings, but as shooters, investigators, "investigatees", researchers and witnesses for both sides. I would say their advice trumps most criminal defense lawyers wrt to self-defense shootings, and they have been involved with the whole process from end to end. As far as I can see, they have given the same advice when they were being paid as when they weren't. It would be a good idea to listen to them, regardless of their (non)status as a practicing attorney.

I agree. Sure experience speaks volumes but there are other ways of becoming an expert without actually going through it. Just about everyone here seems to like to give advice as to what to do in the event of a shooting but how many have actually been in that situation?

As for not calling 911 after a self defense shooting, I guess that will have to depend on where it happens. We all know there are states where a jury would love to lynch a legally armed citizen so maybe fleeing the scene would be a smart decision. But I for one would have a hard time getting that fact out of my head if I were on the jury.

Now a question about the PA link, if someone is required to render aid to an injured party but not a dead one, who's to say the prosecuter won't try to convice a jury that you are not a doctor and had no way of knowing the perp was dead or alive when you fled in fear of prosecution? It just seems that fleeing will do irreparable damage to your case if you're tracked down and dragged before a jury.

Fleeing the scene would never be a wise decision.

bdickens wrote:Fleeing the scene would never be a wise decision.

As a general rule I try to avoid absolute black or white statements, if at all possible, having seen so much gray in my life (and not just in the mirror), but on this one I could not agree more, BD.

bdickens wrote:Fleeing the scene would never be a wise decision.

Fleeing "baaaad", napster - i mean calling 911 - "gooood"