Why an attorney is necessary before answering any questions...

[Rascal01]

Another thread recently discussed the "don't talk to the police" narrative as well. A few of us noted all the reasons this is horrible advice if you are innocent. Remember, on average about 97% of people defended by attorneys are guilty. If you are in that 97%...don't talk to police.

Self defense is an affirmative defense, you have to admit shooting / killing someone and be able to explain why he needed it. If you don't set the narrative and say very limited, specific things (and ABSOLUTELY not the rehearsed, "I was in fear for my life," saying we so often hear), you are going to have problems. You need to point out evidence that supports your reasons for using force. You need to point out witnesses. You need to set the narrative, briefly, of why you needed to use force. (And we seriously need to think about this more than we practice mag changes and Bill drills). Then you need to wait for your attorney. George Zimmerman would have been convicted if he waited for his attorney. He honestly explained his position which allowed for the correct evidence to be collected.

I don't think there is remotely a consensus this was a lawful shoot, or could have been, since it seemed pretty clear that he could not explain why. And being such...he should have kept his mouth shut. As others quoted from his interview, he could not remotely justify using force and shot on speculation of what could have happened.

As an officer I interviewed many people that defended themselves who did not go to jail because they explained what happened and why. If they would have shut up and asked for a lawyer they would have gone to jail and likely been convicted because evidence of their innocents would possibly not been collected.

I would strongly recommend watching the Massad Ayoob video in post #56. He explains the "why" based on 40+ years of experience with these types of cases. Few attorneys have actually defended an innocent person in a self defense situation. (Side note, I was in this class where the Mas video was made with John from ASP). To quote attorney Andrew Branca, "Carry a gun so you are hard to kill, know the law so you are hard to convict." Recommend reading his book as well.

Sorry...long post, now back to taking about wives and listening. Been ignoring mine while typing this.

One thing is absolutely certain. When the police arrive on a shooting scene they are going to ask "What happened here?" They are rightfully going to expect answers. The shooter's attorney will likely not be present at the arrival of the police. Saying nothing at all to police is not practical.

While the first telephone call should be to the police, it might be prudent for the second call to be to the family attorney, who will likely offer advice on how to respond to police on the scene. You may well hear him/her say "Have you talked to the police?" Or, "What have you told the police?"

Talking to the police is not the problem. Talking to police will be necessary to resolve the situation. Talking to police about a fatal shooting without the benefit of legal council could be a serious problem. I would rather appear to be guilty because I retained an attorney than be found guilty because I hadn't.

If someone is considering using a firearm to defend themselves it might be a good idea to discuss this with their attorney before the need arises. That way attorney and client are on the same page with respect to the police. And that fits nicely with "Know the law so you are hard to convict."

 

[MannyGlocks]

Rascal,

"Talking to the police is not the problem. Talking to police will be necessary to resolve the situation. C. I would rather appear to be guilty because I retained an attorney than be found guilty because I hadn't."

This paragraph (to me anyway) is more than a little confusing.

 

[2DaMtns]

I don't have much to add to the talk/not, lawyer/not part of this thread. But, I do have an awesome wife and we don't deal with any of the drama that has been mentioned on this thread, and I just wanted to take a minute to brag about how awesome she and our marriage are. Not to create disagreement or strife with anyone on the forum, but in honor of her and the awesome woman that she is.

Also, I waited until I was 39 to get married. No way any marriage I would have entered into in my late teens through early 30s would have lasted. Life changed way too much in my 30s. She was worth waiting for though.

 

[JedB]

Been married 37 years and still can't do the laundry right!

I have found that if you make all the clothes red, regardless of original colour, you are no longer trustworthy to do the laundry.
I can deal with that..

 

[MannyGlocks]

Where did the statistic of 97% of the guilty have lawyers attend before speaking etc. come from?

Made up on the spot or from some legal source or ...?

 

[WillametteWill]

Thanks @Nick Burkhardt for posting that video. About a quarter of the way into it and he has some good points. Part of why he thinks Drejka is not guilty is because he was not arrested / charged. This video was made shortly after the shooting. That changed. His view seems to be mostly on disparity of force, a valid thought. He also thinks that the shooting may be accidental (possible). Unfortunately, these two items are completely exclusive in a defense. In looking at some of the transcripts he really could not explain the "why" and this is critical. Looking forward to the rest of the video. (These are great items to listen to at while pulling the handle on the Dillon!)

Where did the statistic of 97% of the guilty have lawyers attend before speaking etc. come from?

Made up on the spot or from some legal source or ...?

You know...87% of all statistics are made up...and I just made that up. Super valid question. This was a Mas Ayoob number from a class. I can tell you from conversations that I have had with criminal defense attorneys while working as an LEO (including after cases where I was testifying against their current client) that they know that nearly everyone they defend is guilty. They have shared with me that they still are entitled to a vigorous defense, may have been overcharged by a DA or know they People's case has some weakness they can attack. Ayoob (and others that I have spoken with in the legal profession) also have shared that few attorneys have conducted a justified self defense case with an actual innocent person. Self defense is a very different animal in that your client is admitting that they did the act that would normally be a crime, but was justified due to the circumstances. Where in "normal" defense, you would never put your client on the stand and allowed to be cross examined, it will be necessary in a self defense case...so they better actually be innocent.

Thanks all for this great conversation. Brain needs to keep thinking during covid!

 

[Rascal01]

Here is my own lawyer experience. It does not involve a shooting but I was in serious trouble with our director and internal affairs unit. I hope I can do this like Jack Webb and give you just the facts.

In 1983 I was sent on temporary duty to a U.S. facility abroad. It was in an active war zone. While there I was shown a military demolition kit the size of a military footlocker, meaning a trunk, not a suitcase.. It was filled with a variety of explosives and accessories, to include substantial amounts of C4 explosive and detonating cord. It was put in place so visiting military engineers could detonated unexploded artillery rounds located around us.

Later my career I was assigned to that same facility. A new administrator arrived with me. He learned of the demolition kit, contacted Washington, spoke to my director, and told him I had obtained these explosives on the black market and intended to smuggle them into the U.S. I was returned to Washington where I learned the story had been believed. The director, the equivalent of J. Edgar Hoover, and I met. He had no interest in my side of the story and I told him from here on he would speak to my lawyer because we were finished talking. I was referred to the bureau headhunters who did internal investigations for the director. This was a career ender with severe potential issues within the department, but possibly criminal charges as well.

I spoke with the internal affairs director. He had assigned my case to his senior investigator and pet bulldog. I told the IA director I would be happy to meet with his investigators at any time as soon as I had arranged for legal council. 'You're getting a lawyer?!" he asked after his head stopped bouncing back and forth. He looked as though a strong young woman had just clipped him a hefty upper cut on the chin and he needed to recover. "Yes," I said, "absolutely."

The Fraternal Order of Police paid my legal bills. It was a hellacious interrogation and we battled back and forth. The administrator had fed them a pack of lies which I completely refuted. I referred to my attorney once, he said I was doing fine and to keep it up. We came out the winners, though knocked about a bit, thanks to the lawyer's presence during the interview and his involvement in the case. Without him it is possible the matter could have ended very differently. Terrorism was in vogue at the time and smuggling C-4 into the U.S. would have meant hard time away from home.

When I got my Washington assignment I reported to work. The office director told me everyone knew I hadn't obtained the explosives. He told me that he had ordered them many years before, and that he had them shipped to that destination. Everybody also knew that he was the guy that put them in place. Then he added that no one would face the tyrannical director on my behalf and dare to tell the truth. So much for the courage, fidelity and honor of U.S. Special Agents. No matter, the director died and I visited his grave when opportunity allowed.

The administrator who started all of this was an embezzler of U.S. Government funds, a criminal act. He had bragged about this to me, proud of his accomplishment. I helped the Inspector General with the investigation and $58,000 was recovered from his bank account, He had maligned me to get me out of the way so he could commit this and other acts.

Is having a lawyer helpful? Yes, I would say it was in my case. I kept my job for nearly 30 years and have a retirement. My life could have been very different had I not protected myself,

 

[sobo]

This is a lesson that I need to follow in regards to speaking with my wife. I swear I get in more trouble with her for chit I didn't do because I'm too dumb to shut my mouth....

Johnnymac- Same here, I get into a LOT of trouble for stuff I don't do!

So, we have a couple of dindoos here...

 

[sobo]

Then he added that no one would face the tyrannical director on my behalf and dare to tell the truth. So much for the courage, fidelity and honor of U.S. Special Agents. No matter, the director died and I visited his grave when opportunity allowed.

So, may I assume that your visit to his grave was for the express purpose of relieving yourself upon it? That's choice!

 

[JohnnyMac]

So, we have a couple of dindoos here...

"The easiest way to solve a problem is to deny it exists" ~ Isaac Asimov
"Denial is a powerful thing" ~ Jane Velez-Mitchell
"Never underestimate the power of denial" ~ Wes Bently
"One picture is worth 1000 denials" ~ Ronald Reagan

These peeps ain't wrong you know ....

 

[sobo]

So, you really dindoo it after all. I'll go along with ya on that...

 

[Rascal01]

So, may I assume that your visit to his grave was for the express purpose of relieving yourself upon it? That's choice!

You can assume and I can't comment, other than that his gravesite was on my route to and from work.

 

[sobo]

 

[revjen45]

I too have had to relieve myself in transit.

 

[wired]

I told my first wife her sister in law was white trash. As far as she was concerned her marriage ended right then and there. Then the next day there was that whole "coming down wrong" incident. Over.

Listen , You have an incredibly vicious 3 legged doberman chained up next to your single wide ? White Trash.

 

[Rascal01]

Like it or not, bladders fill and refill, hence the need for gas stations, fast food eateries and emergency pit stops.

On another note, my director, known as Mr. Retribution, liked to pick out several agents a year for professional destruction. He used it as a management technique to instill fear in the survivors. I preferred to think of it as decimating the ranks, as the French did it WW1.

Alas, he committed his own criminal act by arming his agents with inferior firearms instead of standard government issue. We were in a spot similar to the Marines of WW2 who were issued Reising SMGs. What we were given wouldn't work so most agents got their own replacement in the field.

The guns themselves were not the biggest issue. The director broke the law by violating procurement regulations. Purchases over 25 K require competitive bids to protect the taxpayers. The director literally directed his staff to make multiple purchases of an inferior product by buying in the amount of $24,999. He repeated this until he had filled a warehouse, which he personally told me.

Why would he do this? The most likely motive was kickback.

A raid on his office produced proof of procurement fraud on a grand scale, his secretary having kept accurate notes of the procurement details and staff directives. The case was to go to the federal grand jury and there was no doubt he would be inducted.

The senior attorney for the Office of the Inspector General told senior government officials of the upcoming indictment, noting that the senior-most law enforcement officer of the Department of ^&#(&@ would certainly be indicted. This would no doubt make it into the media. Concerned over damage to the Department's image, the case was not turned over to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

My director dodged the grand jury bullet by 48 hours and the malfunctioning weapons were replaced by M-4s. Above all, the director got a taste of his own bitters as he nearly went to trial for fraud. It seems what goes around comes around.

 

[MannyGlocks]

Rascal,

From your history it sounds like your experience in Law Enforcement was fraught with dealing with criminals in your own organization which inspires me to ask: What criminal percentage would you guess works in L.E.?

1%?

10%?

More than 10%?

 

[HA556]

"Denial is a powerful thing" ~ Jane Velez-Mitchell

I thought it was a river in Egypt!

 

[Rascal01]

Rascal,

From your history it sounds like your experience in Law Enforcement was fraught with dealing with criminals in your own organization which inspires me to ask: What criminal percentage would you guess works in L.E.?

1%?

10%?

More than 10%?

Never thought about it. But here is something someone told me long ago. I think it was a uniformed officer. He said there was very little difference between cops and crooks, and that we just chose different gangs to join up with. Maybe it has to do with personality type. The person who told me that was right. It's a little like the Tom and Jerry cartoons. The cat and mouse chase until shift change, then you go home.

My personality was typed and I was not a good fit for where I worked. I have the perfect personality for a homicide detective, an intelligence agent or a firefighter. That's the good side. On the dark side I qualified as a contract killer. Go figure.

If we count those who stayed late at lunch or went home with a company ink pen in their pocket, every body was a bad apple. But real criminals? My best guess would be cops working drugs and getting caught up in the money. Of the overall LE national population I would guess less than 1% of cops are really criminals. Big cities may be different.

And yes, fraught is a good word. We all had legitimate work to be doing and being entangled in internal matters is not productive. Winning them, though, is necessary for survival.

 

[revjen45]

1) "He said there was very little difference between cops and crooks, and that we just chose different gangs to join up with."
When we lived in TX I was surprised to learn that there is a patch flying motorsickle gang Called the Iron Pigs comprised entirely of L.E.

2) "You know...87% of all statistics are made up...and I just made that up..."
Actually, that should be 87.358%. Iff'n you're gonna make it up the impression of precision gives credence.
(ref. How to Lie With Statistics by Darrell Huff, 1954)