WillametteWill's Self Defense Lifestyle Book Review (Please post your own as well)

[IndyPrepper]

Found this one a while back, it's a compendium of articles taken from the "Gil Habard Guns Catalog", wrtten by a bunch of expert match shooters from the ole days. It's pretty edifying. And entertaining. Brought back memories of my teen years in the 80's learning how to shoot from the Sheriff's deputies Colt Python's in the explorer program I was in. A lot of good, forgotten basics in this gem.. The last time I was at the range I ran a few mags single hand from low ready @ 25 yards..fun stuff!

 

[WillametteWill]

Book Review:
You Have the Right to Remain Innocent
By Professor James Duane​

This book is written by a Harvard-educated professor with the exceptionally popular YouTube video, Don't Talk to the Police. It has been quoted (I will argue misquoted as you will see) numerous times over the years including in this forum. It is a long video but for those interested in self defense law I believe it is worth your time for his perspective. When I saw he had a relatively short book on the topic (currently available on Kindle Unlimited if you subscribe) it seemed worthy of a read, while I expected I would disagree with quite a bit of his content.

Let me explain my bias and some background, I'll try and be brief. I have seen other articles, videos, and media that essentially espouse, cops' bad / shut mouth or all attorneys tell you to remain silent. Most of you know my background was as an LEO. I hate these because I know for myself and nearly everyone I was blessed to work with we were never trying to trick someone innocent into arresting them. In fact, we did everything we could to not arrest someone who was innocent. Many times by people talking we could see their side and make the issue go away. And yes, plenty of guilty people talked too much and went to jail. So I agree, if you are guilty, shut up.

I also subscribe to Mas Ayoob's concept of say a limited amount of specific information after a DGU, and I would say this is true even if no shots are fired. In a recent class, Mas offered that Duane's book states that there are times to talk to the police including self defense cases; this pushed me to read the book.

Duane's major concept is that if an officer approaches you to talk about some past event, this is specifically when you should not talk to them. This is likely good advice (I still think that in my time in the field I would do this to seek the truth, but yes, also if there was an indication the person was guilty of something). He indicates that if you are approached by an officer at a point where what you are doing may be perceived as strange or unlawful, you should, a) identify yourself and b) provide a brief explanation of the reason you are where you are or your actions (i.e., yes, I'm breaking into this house, but my neighbor locked themselves out and asked for help since their dog is running amok inside).

In fact, related to self defense he writes, "At the risk of stating the obvious, you should of course talk to police (although as briefly as possible) in those situations in which the law requires you to call them (to let them know, for example, that you have been involved in an automobile accident or in a shooting where someone has been seriously injured or killed, or have been a witness or a victim of a crime, or if you are pulled over on the highway for a minor traffic violation." (Emphasis mine)

Note that he advised this should be as brief as possible of a statement, which I believe is exactly, IMHO, what the information Ayoob is suggesting. Ayoob actually provides a roadmap where Duane just says be brief. It seems everyone contrasts these two professionals yet when you look at what they are advising I do not think they are inconsistent.

The meat and potatoes of the book provides interesting information from a good perspective. Duane points out that police can lie when they interview you. They can trick you. In my world, these lies and tricks would never affect an interview with an innocent person. People don't confess to crimes they did not commit. We were never trying to arrest an innocent person but just find the truth. Again, if you are guilty, shut up.

But Duane provides many examples where people did confess to crimes they did not commit. I think his examples are the outliers in general are from extremely serious cases like murder. This was nearly always after extremely long interviews, with folks that did not have an attorney present, and many had other factors in play. This is obviously terrible. What helps his case is that he notes many of the cases involved releases after DNA proved the person innocent along with other information (this is important as many cases have been overturned yet all indications still point to the original suspect as being the person who committed the crime).

I think the most eye-opening aspect of the book is how, nearly always with federal agents, seemingly minor misstatements can end up putting someone in jail, even if they did not commit a crime. I have long understood that the feds play by a different set of rules than local LEOs. I've had many co-workers embedded in federal task forces and they share stories on practices that local LEOs would think of as unethical, immoral, and likely illegal. He makes a strong case that if someone approached you from the government, they are not there to help.

Something I learned is that, in some cases, not talking to the police (i.e., taking the 5th​) can be used to imply guilt. This came up in Rittenhouse but with the opposite result, the judge ruling Rittenhouse's lack of statements was a fundamental right. So I'm not sure this concept is being embraced everywhere. He did note to plead the 6th​ (I want my attorney) to avoid this trap.

I was spoiled thinking that law enforcement across the country operates like west coast agencies. Sure, there are bad apples everywhere, and a few agencies had some serious issues. There are many good agencies and officers around the country. He points out that with some federal agencies, including evidence witnesses, scary may be closer to normal.

I'm glad I read this book. Definitely comes from a different perspective than I usually read so it helps keep me out of the echo chamber of how I think things should be.