Discussion in 'General Self Defense' started by skribs, Jan 31, 2018.
No and no.
cctv videos from UK - Bing video
Defending yourself should be the immediate thing on your mind, but not the only thing. As martial artists we need to assess the situation and use reasonable force for that situation. If you go overboard, escalate the situation and use considerable more force than necessary, you might be going to jail.
Lol. The Ickey Shuffle was a neighborhood favorite of ours. The first part of it, anyway. We still do it to this day once in a while.
It has been noted by legal experts in the U.S. that, in the U.S. there is a divide between what criminal defense lawyers say and it is based on wether or not their clients tend to be guilty or innocent and wrongly accused.
For the guilty, the advise has long been "don't talk to the cops." There's a reason that Miranda Rights include "you have to right to be silent" and "everything you say can, and will, be used against you" &tc.
But there is different advice for the innocent. Because most of what I know about the subject comes from ACLDN and was specifically presented to me as "proprietary" information, I'm not at liberty to share most of it. For a full and in depth discussion of it, buy the membership and watch the DVDs. Seriously. Alternately, you could could buy the books written by Massad Ayoob. There might be some articles he's written which cover the basics.
Massad Ayoob: 5 Things To Know After A Defensive Shooting
Massad Ayoob's 5 things to do after involved in a shooting
What Do I Say After a Shooting?
Peace favor your sword,
I think one thing many forget is that even if you have shot/injured/killed someone in complete self defence is that it's surprising how emotionally traumatic it is to do that. You may know quite logically that you were completely in the right and were entirely justified but it's quite amazing how bad you will feel all the same at taking a life or badly hurting someone.
So many films, books and television series show there being no after effects for police officers and others who have shoot someone, it's like it's not a big deal but it is. Many police officers, even after being praised for their actions feel bad about taking a life. You may not think you will because of what that attackers was going to do but it will creep up and surprise you. You won't feel as good about it as you thought you would. You will have done the right thing and you will work through it though.
not that i mind , but i posted the same video back on page one. lol
some thing i have heard was that you shouldnt say a word , even if you are innocent because you will never know how the prosecution will twist and use what you say. also anything you say that defends your position can be thown out in court as "hearsay".. only the stuff that will get you in trouble will be submitted as evidence against you.
Lt Col Dave Grossman's book "On Killing and On Combat" talks about this.
That's like 4 pages ago! I barely remember what I had for breakfast yesterday!
Sorry, I forgot.
That advice is changing.
Peace favor your sword,
Disagree, if it is self defense then its a good chance that with a short initial statement and a show of cooperation the investigator will not arrest you on PC. Without any cooperation you are guaranteed to be arrested on PC and then you are fighting to get out of jail.
What I advised when I worked shootings was......Give me something. Show me some cooperation and give me an initial statement that I can take back to my supervisor and say "He seems to be cooperating and the evidence along with his initial statement supports the evidence of self defense."
Incorrect. What I directly hear you say is admisable and I can testify to that. What someone tells me they heard you say is hearsay and I cannot testify to that. But the person who actually heard it can testify to hearing it. You can always testify to what you hear, see, or feel.
Incorrect all evidence and information has to be given to the defense. Holding anything out is grounds for appeal. And intentionally withholding pertinent evidence that could help the defendant is a big no, no and often in those cases judges will dismiss with prejudice and not allow it to be re-opened.
thoughts on these...
"top 10 reasons to not talk to the police"
@ 8:30 min. he talks about hearsay and what i mentioned
this officer doesnt talk as fast.
based on the two videos i posted ,, was my wording and phrasing wrong or is the information in the videos incorrect or no long valid? or am i applying something in the wrong context?
Ayoob has specifically referenced and responded to these videos in a few interviews he's given recently (pro-gun podcasts, I don't remember which). The short version is he says that this is older information and mostly given from the perspective of people who actually are guilty. It also, he says, puts you in the position of letting the cop assume stuff about your innocence or guilt. Cops have years or decades of honing their BS detector. When you shut down with "I ain't tell'n you nuth'n copper! I wanna talk to my mouthpiece!" that's "guilty bad guy talk." Instead, use "good guy talk" but don't get "diarrhea of the mouth." Give the police enough information to help them set the narrative of you as a victim who defended himself and then stop talking because the effects of stress and adrenalin dump will skew your memories and perceptions. When cops are involved in a shooting, most departmental policies give them at least 24 hours before they make an official statement so that their brains and brain chemistry has time to even out, come down of off adrenalin, and allow their brains time to process and more accurately categorize the memories. It helps prevent those "I shot him four times (but really it was 8)" mistakes. Again, in the advice of people like Marty Hayes and Ayoob,
Win the "race" to 911
Tell 911 you were attacked and were forced to defend yourself, ask for an ambulance (for the injured parties) and police. Don't try to be specific about questions being asked ("Sir, how many shots" - You, "I'm not sure, it's all kind of a blur.")
When the officers arrive make sure to not be holding your gun unless you had to keep it in your hand for protection. Instead have it holstered or put down.
Follow the officer's orders immediately and without question, even if he face-plants you on the concrete. He needs to be safe and in control of the situation. It's his job to be. If you hinder those two immediate goals you're a bad guy and a threat. Bad things happen to bad guys and threats. Whatever he says, just do it.
Tell the officer that you were attacked and were forced to defend yourself. Don't lead with "I shot him." Say something like "he attacked me and I had to defend myself."
Tell the officer that you will file a complain - some jurisdictions you don't get to file charges and you sound like a doofus spouting stuff you don't understand if you don't know when you can and when you can't
Point out evidence to the officer such as firearms, knives, expended shell casing (which get trapped in responding tires and shoes, never to be seen again), blood spatter, and such. Don't blabber about how close you were or were not. "It's still pretty blurry officer, but I remember he attacked me in with this weapon."
Point out witnesses, many of whom don't want to get involved and may disappear forever instead of being able to give corroborating stories.
Then shut up. Tell the officer that you're pretty upset and need to speak with your lawyer but that you'll be very happy to give your full cooperation after that.
"Good guy talk."
Peace favor your sword,
lklawson puts it perfectly.
If you are guilty of unjustified shooting......lawyer up. If not show some cooperation and also start painting the picture of self defense.
Not necessarily, not all cops interpret situations the same way. How we interpret our "self-defense" actions and how a cop, judge, prosecutor and jury interprets our actions might be different. The difference in state and local law also plays a significant factor.
Though that is sound advice for the guilty, it's not bad advice for the innocent either. The idea that if you choose to remain silent implies you're guilty is very presumptuous, though there are a lot of people who believe so. A similar premise is if I refuse to have my car searched by a cop then I'm hiding something. A citizen exercising their constitutional rights shouldn't be an indication of guilt.
The most important factor in all of this is the situation. Almost any level of force is "legal", but it must be appropriate for the situation.
There's some "shoulding" in that third paragraph. Whether clamming up should make you look guilty or not isn't really a pertinent factor. The pertinent factor is whether it does make you seem more likely to be guilty or not. What we hear from Ayoob and what CB says are similar things: cops are human, so help them see the reality before something else gives them the wrong idea. Human minds are really good at hanging onto an idea once they have it.
Just because you know you're a good guy doesn't mean anyone else does. Unfortunately LEO are kinda conditioned by the job to look for a criminal and a victim, or sometimes just criminals. Not their fault really. It's what actually happens to them. So, just because you know you're not a criminal doesn't mean anyone else knows that. It behooves you to not act like a criminal in what you say and how you interact with police.
Yeah, well, welcome to this thing called "life" where actions, activities, and outcomes aren't always "fair." It sucks, but that's the way it works.
Sure. Unless it isn't. For a lot of it, it's about what you can prove. Again, it behooves you to try your best not to get in situations where you have to prove anything.
In any case, do what Hayes, Ayoob, and Andrew Branca tell you; which is pretty much what I wrote above.
Peace favor your sword,
Could you clarify, I don't quiet understand what you mean.
I'm not referring to how it looks to your average Joe that has nothing to do with the case. I'm referring to the cops, lawyers, judges and juries assigned to the case. Presumption of innocence is still a crucial legal right and shouldn't be ignored.
Granted they are human, thus they can misinterpret the situation. When my freedom is on the line I will exercise my constitutional right and seek legal counsel to ensure I have professional representation. This isn't based on any disdain for police officers nor the criminal justice system. It's the reality that human error can destroy my life if I don't approach it with caution.
Or as we put it .... the naïve, the idiots and the really stupid idiots.
Just as aside, the US calls them Law Enforcement Officers, we call ours Police Officers, do Americans feel that the job is only to enforce laws or is there more to the job? Here we still go by the 'Peel's 9 principles' of policing by consent.
Definition of policing by consent - GOV.UK
Is this different to the US or similar? Does affect the way that people see the police, which some see to think are keen on getting convictions whatever?
I referred to the actions, I never brought up the character of the individual.
I'm not assigning blame nor fault. I'm choosing to exercise my constitutional right.
Are you saying choosing to remain silent and requesting legal counsel looks like a criminal act?
Your comment is the perfect example of why I request a lawyer. Presumption of innocence is a legal right, it's not just my opinion of what's fair. If and when my rights are violated, I want my counsel to be right there beside me.
Separate names with a comma.