Why you shouldn't talk to the police

[LabRat]

ELB,

I respect your opinions and appreciate that you offer them. I appreciate that you have a different view; discussion is good. However, I must disagree.

You may think your examples experience trumps most criminal defence attorneys, but I do not. Its simply another view to me, but not the prevailing one in my mind.

None of us knows what kind of legal experience Marty Hayes has or doesn't have. But not having taken the bar would prevent him from legally practicing law in any discipline, I imagine. So I really consider him a non-practicing attorney, I guess.

The original "Don't talk to the Police" attorney gave some real life examples that hit home to me. Add to that he's been thru the fire (so to speak) of trial. He's been there and he's done that.

And I guess that's my decision to not put my faith into Marty Hayes statements. He's never been in the position of having to defend or prosecute someone who's talked to the police (that not passing the bar thing again).

And I HAVE listened to them all.....I never implied, nor should you infer, that I didn't listen to both sides of this discussion. I listened to Hayes, I just did not feel he was a credible source of information I'd trust with my life.

A lot of us on this board write how the founders of this country were right and knew what could happen, having come from other countries where rights were not respected or even available.

I still think that and the 5th amendment is still good advice from the founders. They wrote that someone cannot be "compelled" to be a witness against himself. They didn't say you couldn't be, they just defined the limit of the government's ability to compel you.
They knew that people would speak about what they want to, possibly even to their own detriment.

There are plenty of examples of people who did speak to the police even though they were innocent and wound up in jail for a long time (1 day is too long).

English is such a language that the same statement, in two different contexts, can likely be taken in a lot more than two ways. The bad part is that you, as an innocent party, cannot control the presentation of the context, presented by the police or the prosecutor, to the jury.

You can present your own context (how about even the correct context) but you have no guarantee that's what the jury will believe. Truth does not always triumph, unless truth is very, very careful.

And that's the crux of what is being presented here. You can't be compelled to be a witness against yourself, so why would you speak (before consulting an attorney) with words that could be so presented as to suggest (even powerfully) that you may be guilty of a crime? All it takes is a suggestion to get the ball rolling.

Many cases have been won on circumstantial information (I hate to say evidence) alone. With no concrete proof of any involvement by the defendant. Some of that evidence may have come directly from the defendant, though unwittingly.

Once words are spoken, they can't be taken back and nullified. They're there for all to examine in whatever context the mind of the examiner wishes to believe or concoct. The same cannot be said for unspoken words, even if true.

It boils down to a matter of timing and context control. If you think that you can control the context of what you say to the police, then by all means, proceed.

I choose to speak only after consulting with competent counsel. Thereby relating not only the truth that I speak, but the context in which I speak it.

The truth comes out, but in a proper manner and at the right time so as to present the correct context in which to examine that truth. Truth, out of context, can look a lot like a lie if someone wants it to.

Sorry to be long winded.....

LabRat

[Jumping Frog]

{Jumping Frog: Below are my personal notes that I took while watching an episode on "Personal Defense TV" a couple of years ago, summarizing Massad Ayoob's 5 critical points to remember immediately following a shooting. I believe these are within TOS, because they are my personal notes -- this is not cut and pasted from a copyrighted article.}

Before we get into the five points, I always worry that the police are called for a "man with a gun". I am the man with the gun. That is why one of the critical skills that we teach is not just being able to draw quickly without looking at the gun, but being able to keep an eye on the danger zone while holstering one-handed by feel so you can see what is going on around you, and when the officer gets there you are not the threatening figure with the pistol. You are the person in the non-threatening position, say your hands are about shoulder high with palms forward showing you are unarmed.

Call the Police.

When they arrive, "Officer, I am the one who called you, this is the man who attacked me, he may still have a weapon, I do not know if there are any more."

Whoever calls in first gets to be the victim complainant. There is only one other role open in the play, and that's the perpetrator. You want to be the one who makes the telephone call. The perpetrator is laying there in a puddle of blood doing a remarkably convincing imitation of a victim. You by default become the perp if you do not make the call in. The system is keyed on the assumption that whoever made that initial call is the victim.

I think there are five points that really need to be covered here. A lot of folks will say don't say anything until your lawyer gets there. That's too late, there are a lot of things the cops need to know before they can establish in their mind who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. The 5 point checklist I teach is this:

1. Officer, this man attacked me.
2. I will sign the complaint.
3. Evidence is here.
4. The witnesses are there.
5. Officer, you will have my full cooperation in 24 hours after I have spoken with counsel.

If we don't say those things, if we don't point out the evidence, it disappears.

I did one case in Connecticut. The shooting went down on a cold, icy night. The spent brass will literally blow across an icy street from the wind and from passing cars. If you look at it, 9 MM or 45 brass is just the right size to get caught in the treads of people's shoes or in the treads of passing cars. The evidence that he shot at you if you don't point it out to the officers is gone and it is never coming back. The witnesses are over here thinking could this be some drug shooting or vengeful gang-banger. They don't know what's going on. "Do we really want to get involved?" If they leave, the testimony that would have proven you innocent leaves with them.

So basically, to recap:

1. Point out Perpetrator to Police. ("This man attacked me, clearly showing he is the perpetrator, you are the victim).
2. Tell Police you will "Sign the Complaint". ("I will sign the complaint." Cop language that tells them, "He is the victim complainant, the guy on the ground is the subject of the complaint.)
3. Point out the evidence to the police.
4. Point out Witnesses to Police.
5. Will Give Full Cooperation in 24 hours After speaking with Attorney. (From then on, whatever else is said, "Officer, you know how serious this is. You will have my full cooperation in 24 hours after I have spoken with counsel").

At that point, don't offer anything more. That is your name rank and serial number. Basically, the police officer who is there on the scene will be the one whom the court will be looking to, to say, "what do you think?". The court, the prosecutor, and the investigating detectives will follow him. The tone of this whole investigation is going to be set in the seconds and minutes after the shooting has taken place. The four or five minutes after the shooting may determine where you get to live for the next 20 years.

{I especially agree with the common sense notion that you never get a second chance to make a first impression. You must set the tone in the first seconds and minutes of dealing with law enforcement.

Personally, I have weighed the pros and cons of keeping totally silent versus dealing with the five points, above. I look at this way. If I actually become a criminal and start deliberately committing crimes, then I will follow the defense attorney's suggestion to keep my mouth shut.

However, if I am a law abiding citizen who has just encountered a BG perpetrating a felony on me, I will act like an honest citizen and make the complaint per the guidelines above. It seems like a reasonable course to take.}

[b322da]

[ELB]

Labrat,

There are no guarantees that anyone, cop, DA, jury, or judge, will interpret what you say or do not say in any particular way. I do think there is enough experience to say here are what the trends are.

Criminal defense attorneys defend a lot of people, the vast majority of which are guilty. Ergo the vast majority of their clients probably can NOT help themselves by talking, and I would suspect that same group probably has a hard time expressing themselve logically even when they are not under pressure. Thus SHUT UP and wait for your lawyer is good, straight forward advice (especially if you are under the influence of something, but more on that later).

Ayoob, Farnam, Suarez...and Hayes... have experience with this same crowd. However, they are providing advice to a specific subset, the good-guy citizen CHL-type who has just justifiably shot someone in self-defense. They know at least as well as any, and better than most, criminal defense attorney how the police proceed with an investigation, and how that investigation is influenced by what the cops find on the scene, ESPECIALLY if it is not initially obvious what happened. These same guys have made it their vocation to study this type of situation, and pass on their conclusions to their students. (And in the case of Farnam, I have seen defense attorneys in his courses second his advice). Thus, in this particular category of incident, I tend to believe they have the edge in experience.

But sure, there are no guarantees that anything you do or don't do will help.

You are of course free to do as you wish, and good luck to you. I just find it perplexing that your basic objection boils down to be that one guy in particular, Mr. Hayes, has a J.D. but has not taken the bar exams and practiced as an attorney, so his advice is no good. This does not seem logical to me. But if it works for you, and you want to wait for your lawyer before talking to the cops, press on.

It does seem to me that the vast majority of self-defense shootings, no attorneys are initially consulted, the defender apparently says whatever he says, and in the end he comes out OK.

[LabRat]

ELB

We agree to disagree and I thank you for the discussion.

LabRat

[Fangs]

It does seem to me that the vast majority of self-defense shootings, no attorneys are initially consulted, the defender apparently says whatever he says, and in the end he comes out OK.

Joe Horn? Hehe, but I do agree with you in regards to Texas at least.

[gigag04]

Sure criminals have defense attorneys, but so do cops when they are involved in a critical incident.

[ELB]

It does seem to me that the vast majority of self-defense shootings, no attorneys are initially consulted, the defender apparently says whatever he says, and in the end he comes out OK.

Joe Horn? Hehe, but I do agree with you in regards to Texas at least.

Yes, well Joe Horn's entire scenario wasn't exactly in the "vast majority" of self-defense shootings, was he?

Sure criminals have defense attorneys, but so do cops when they are involved in a critical incident.

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean, but I will note that I expect criminal defense attorneys have many many more actual criminals as clients than they do cops or Joe Citizens, unless the attorney works solely for a police union or association.

[Fangs]

I wasn't being sarcastic about Joe Horn. He pretty much said everything you're not supposed to and was still no-billed IIRC.

[gigag04]

Sure criminals have defense attorneys, but so do cops when they are involved in a critical incident.

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean, but I will note that I expect criminal defense attorneys have many many more actual criminals as clients than they do cops or Joe Citizens, unless the attorney works solely for a police union or association.

I was posting in agreement with this statement:
There are no guarantees that anyone, cop, DA, jury, or judge, will interpret what you say or do not say in any particular way. I do think there is enough experience to say here are what the trends are.

Criminal defense attorneys defend a lot of people, the vast majority of which are guilty. Ergo the vast majority of their clients probably can NOT help themselves by talking, and I would suspect that same group probably has a hard time expressing themselve logically even when they are not under pressure. Thus SHUT UP and wait for your lawyer is good, straight forward advice (especially if you are under the influence of something, but more on that later).

Meaning, I think cops should understand wanting to speak to your lawyer.

[Marty Hayes]

Hello everyone, Marty Hayes here. I was just made aware of this thread, and frankly, I am somewhat dissapointed that none of the posters here actually took the step to contact me and allow the the ability to address some of the issues here. If you want the straight scoop, go to the horses mouth.

Anyway, I guess I am here because LabRat seems to want to take issue with my opinions as Director of the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, so here I am, LabRat. Please feel free to pose any questions directly to me, and I will attempt to answer them promptly and respectfully, (despite my not being a trial lawyer).

[AustinMRH]

Call the Police.

When they arrive, "Officer, I am the one who called you, this is the man who attacked me, he may still have a weapon, I do not know if there are any more."

Whoever calls in first gets to be the victim complainant. There is only one other role open in the play, and that's the perpetrator. You want to be the one who makes the telephone call. The perpetrator is laying there in a puddle of blood doing a remarkably convincing imitation of a victim. You by default become the perp if you do not make the call in. The system is keyed on the assumption that whoever made that initial call is the victim.

I think there are five points that really need to be covered here. A lot of folks will say don't say anything until your lawyer gets there. That's too late, there are a lot of things the cops need to know before they can establish in their mind who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. The 5 point checklist I teach is this:

1. Officer, this man attacked me.
2. I will sign the complaint.
3. Evidence is here.
4. The witnesses are there.
5. Officer, you will have my full cooperation in 24 hours after I have spoken with counsel.

If we don't say those things, if we don't point out the evidence, it disappears.

So basically, to recap:

1. Point out Perpetrator to Police. ("This man attacked me, clearly showing he is the perpetrator, you are the victim).

I think the critical thing to take from this and some of the other quotations of what to say is this:

This is the man who attacked me/This person attacked me.

But NOT 'I had to shoot him.'

Don't own being the shooter. Don't identify yourself as a person who shot somebody else. Rather identify yourself as the victim of an attack. You want the LEO to initially assess the situation as this: Perp attacked victim. Victim defended self. Perp was wounded during his attack.

IANAL (but I watch a lot of Matlock)

[ELB]

...I was posting in agreement with this statement:
...Meaning, I think cops should understand wanting to speak to your lawyer.

etc

Aha! Violent agreement! Sorry, I just now picked up on this post, now I see what you meant.

[ELB]

Hello everyone, Marty Hayes here. I was just made aware of this thread, and frankly, I am somewhat dissapointed that none of the posters here actually took the step to contact me and allow the the ability to address some of the issues here. If you want the straight scoop, go to the horses mouth.

Anyway, I guess I am here because LabRat seems to want to take issue with my opinions as Director of the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, so here I am, LabRat. Please feel free to pose any questions directly to me, and I will attempt to answer them promptly and respectfully, (despite my not being a trial lawyer).

Welcome aboard! And no, I didn't even think about emailing you (or whatever). Dunno why, but just didn't. But glad you found us. I found your article interesting.

[Marty Hayes]

I am going to post a couple of self-seving links. One is a booklet I wrote regarding self-defense law, and the other is a link to a long article on the Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network's E-journal, about a case where I WAS part of the defense, team. I testified in both trials, and assisted the defense attorneys in the second one also. if LabRat or any other detractors would like to discuss the information contained therein, I would be happy to do so.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/ima ... -SDLaw.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/ima ... ooklet.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;