It’s pretty much the same. LEO is used a lot just because it stresses that we enforce the law....not legislate or judge. We simply enforce the laws
What to do after you have defended yourself
- Thread starter skribs
- Start date
It’s pretty much the same. LEO is used a lot just because it stresses that we enforce the law....not legislate or judge. We simply enforce the laws
lklawson
Grandmaster
Feh. We call our people who enforce laws lots of things. Cops, Law Enforcement Officers, Police, Police Officers, Officers, and some that are, um... not considered complementary.
My biggest complaint is when people here make a distinction between "Civilians" and "Police." It's a pet peeve of mine. Unless we're living in the Soviet Union or they're Military Police, cops ARE civilians!
I try not to let it get my nose too out of joint over it. ...usually
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
lklawson
Grandmaster
You misunderstand. I'm not talking about character either, I'm talking about how people are viewed based on their actions.
Which is fine. But may still get you arrested when you don't have to be, just so that everything can get sorted.
No. I'm saying that it looks like what a criminal does because, well, it's what criminals do.
Getting arrested while the cops sort it out is NOT a violation of your rights. Take the famous Zimmerman case. He was arrested, paupered, and had his life ruined basically. But his civil rights were not violated. Actually, he's a good example of "good guy non-criminal talk." At one point an investigating officer was trying to trip him up in his statements and told Zimmerman that video surveillance had captured the whole thing. Zimmerman replied, "Thank God!" The cop knew right then that Zimmerman believed he was attacked and had acted in justifiable self defense because the video (which didn't actually exist) would show the whole event.
You know the old saw that "if you don't have anything to hide?" It's a logical fallacy, no two ways about it. But humans aren't logical. If you clam up and say, "I'm not saying anything too you flatfoot, I want my lawyer" you look like you have something to hide and, to humans, that makes you look guilty. It ain't fair but it is reality.
And no, that's not me saying it, I'm repeating what a self defense attorney has repeatedly written and said in interviews. Andrew Branca; his specialty is defending good guys who defend themselves with guns. He says the same thing as Ayoob. Ayoob is a professional witness and retired cop. He says the same thing as Marty Hayes. Marty Hayes is president and founder Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, an organization formed specifically to defend the honest good guys who defend themselves from bad guys.
Debunking "Don't talk to police"
“Don’t talk to the police” — good advice? | Cornered Cat
Law of Self Defense by Atty. Andrew Branca on Apple Podcasts
Look, honestly, if you want to clam up and say that it's your right, that's true. When you get arrested and maybe have an expensive trial because of it, when you didn't have to, that's no skin off my nose. But I think it's smarter to listen to the professionals who actually defend legal self-defenders as opposed to the old advice aimed mostly at those who actually are guilty.
Your call. <shrug>
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
I also think people have a misconception of how it works. Its not like on TV.
You aren't brought back to the office and put in the interview room while we try and get you to change your mind until your attorney barges in and demands you be charged or let go in which the detectives then let you go.
When you invoke your Constitutional Rights it ends our interview.....the next step is you being transported to lock up and booked in on charges. 24-48 hours later you are brought before a judge and arraigned and your bond is set probably around $200,000-$500,000....you can hire a bail bondsman to get you out for 12% (non-refundable). The state then has 180 days to take it before a grand jury. You can get your attorney to request a bond reduction hearing, but usually that's a week or two after arraignment.
Now your attorney can setup an interview to speed everything up, but that's still gonna be after you have sat in jail for at least a few days.
You aren't brought back to the office and put in the interview room while we try and get you to change your mind until your attorney barges in and demands you be charged or let go in which the detectives then let you go.
When you invoke your Constitutional Rights it ends our interview.....the next step is you being transported to lock up and booked in on charges. 24-48 hours later you are brought before a judge and arraigned and your bond is set probably around $200,000-$500,000....you can hire a bail bondsman to get you out for 12% (non-refundable). The state then has 180 days to take it before a grand jury. You can get your attorney to request a bond reduction hearing, but usually that's a week or two after arraignment.
Now your attorney can setup an interview to speed everything up, but that's still gonna be after you have sat in jail for at least a few days.
Anarax
Master Black Belt
There's a difference between be detained and arrested. Being arrested and charged is one thing, being found guilty is a different story.
That's your interpretation, not everyone will interpret exercising your constitutional rights as "looks like what criminals do".
Correct, a lawful arrest is legal. I said "if and when my rights are violated", meaning if the event arises. Being involved doesn't guarantee my rights being violated, nor does it guarantee them being upheld. That's what the right to counsel is for.
I agree Zimmerman's life was ruined by the whole event. However; he explained what happened to the police and he was still arrested, not that's a violation. It wasn't his well articulated version of the story is what saved him, it was the forensic evidence that corroborated his story. Lacerations on the back of his head, angle of the entry wound and his deviated septum pointed to Trayvon standing over him and assaulting/battering him. Would Zimmerman still had been arrested if he had waited for an attorney? Yes. However; the forensic evidence would had been the same.
To what end can I apply that idea? The criminal justice system can be as illogical as they want and well, they're only human. If I'm found guilty, oh well, humans are illogical. Humans are flawed, but the defendant nor their attorney will excuse it in a court of law. If they wish to treat the defendant subjectively, their attorney will be right there to object.
To some it might, it depends on your personal ideology. Hence is why it's a law. Thinking one looks guilty is excusable, but it becomes a problem when you are treated guilty by the criminal justice system before the verdict.
There are plenty of other experts that say otherwise.
Like Zimmerman? You used the example so I'll use that one. He cooperated with the police and yet still had a trial. Again it was the forensic evidence that saved him. How would you know the trials wouldn't have happened? There are so many factors that go into determining if a case goes to trial or not.
I have no doubt you can find experts that say you should cooperate fully with the police, but you can find plenty of other experts that say otherwise. It's not old nor solely guilty targeted advice The experts you find aren't the only ones that have an opinion on the matter.
drop bear
Sr. Grandmaster
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2014
- Messages
- 23,416
- Reaction score
- 8,141
This is what I was talking about. It shouldn't be, but rarely can life live up to an ideal - even one so straightforward. If you do the right thing for the right reason, you should never have to worry about what you do or don't say to cops, lawyers, or juries. But you do, because they're all human, and if it ever makes it to court, there will be someone (with far more experience than you) telling them a different story from yours.
Nobody has said not to do that. Some well-informed exerts, however, have advised how to give yourself the best chance of them seeing the situation as it was - rather than as someone else (perhaps the guy you defended against) wants them to see it.
lklawson
Grandmaster
Heck, don't believe me, the professionals I referenced, or even the cops who personally replied to you in this thread. It's your life. Be stubborn and in prison. Not my problem. <shrug>
Actually, here at least, they are two very different things. Being arrested actually means little, being charged however does.
Same in US technically. You are officially charged when the prosecutor files the bill of information with the court.
Anarax
Master Black Belt
Yes, I'm aware that TV oversimplifies due process. I understand that lawerying up doesn't magically solve everything and there is a distinct possibility that I'm might spend time in jail.
I want to clarify that I'm not going to automatically not cooperate with the police. It depends heavily on the situation that I'm in and the circumstances surrounding it. If there are circumstances in which I think I will be mistreated then I will seek legal counsel. If I think I acted within in the law and and a reasonable person can interpret it as so, I'll cooperate. If I think I've done nothing wrong but the situation looks really bad then I'll lawyer up. Not because I think I've done anything illegal, but more so on how a police officer, judge or jury might interpret it. In that case I need legal counsel to help navigate my way through the criminal justice system.
Anarax
Master Black Belt
Granted, but the it's not only a principal, but a law. A law in which is a standard set on how defendants are to be treated by the criminal justice system. It doesn't matter someone thinks I'm guilty, but it does matter when the criminal justice systems treats me as so before the verdict. That is why I want an attorney.
As I told CB, only in heavy cases would I choose to remain silent.
Hence is why I want my own experienced legal counsel
Yes, some experts do, but others don't. I've listened to experts with differing opinions on this matter both have great points. However; the experts that are for remaining silent and seeking counsel have so many examples and evidence that is quiet overwhelming.
Anarax
Master Black Belt
Absolutely not, but I will exercise my constitutional rights as I see fit. If people can't understand the difference between that and "stubbornness", not my problem.
Does, however, 'as I see fit' mean you have the legal knowledge to do that correctly?
We don't have a constitution, we do have rights though, very clearly laid down if we are arrested. Being arrested: your rights - GOV.UK
I follow out of interest more than anything else, not because of political views, the gun control debate in the US. Watching the debate back and forward there seems to be a lot of arguing as to what the 'right to bear arms' means in your constitution. It seems to have varying meanings to different people depending on which side they view the debate from so how can you be sure that your 'as I see fit' is actually what your constitution means, what if you are wrong about what rights you think you have or that the judiciary system decides that 'as they see fit' rules instead? Not arguing with you, just trying to see where you are coming from. I've heard so many people saying they 'know their rights' when it's very clear they don't.
There's the thing too that if you have been attacked you would want the person who did it to be prosecuted, so many on here seem to think they have to defend themselves from the police as well as the attacker. Situations tend to be much simpler than most seem to realise. If it's a mugging/assault then the chances are very high that the mugger is a repeat offender with a criminal record already or at the very least a background that shows them to be unreliable witness or know along with associates to the police while you will be obviously be the opposite. Non criminals and good citizens don't suddenly start to burgle people's homes or attack them on the street. Situations can be different in bar fights but then you have to look and see if you aren't partly to blame anyway so then people do tend to be cagey towards the police.
Anarax
Master Black Belt
No, I said exercise my constitutional rights as I see fit. Exercise meaning use at my discretion. Yes, I know my rights and how to exercise them.
In the US we have a constitution.
Not touching that with a ten foot pole, might get the thread shut down. If you wish to discuss the second amendment private message me.
Refereeing to the right to remain silent, that's a right that can be exercised as I have described. We can get into this deep philosophical debate on constitutional interpretations, original intent vs living document, but how it's applied today is what's relevant in this thread. We have the appeals process in case the criminal justice system mistreats a defendant as well. However; constitutional interpretation and rulings are what the US Supreme Court is for. Further more, the right to remain silent and the right to counsel is very clear and straight forward.
It's not defending yourself from the police, it's about protecting yourself from possible mistreatment from the criminal justice system. To take it a step further, the government will always have more resources than you will in a court of law, hence wanting your own legal expert is an invaluable resource to have on your side. Though there can be far ranging reasons why someone may remain silent and seek legal counsel, it's still their right to choose to do so.
You're trying to simplify the self-defense situations and circumstances people find themselves in. You can't put all scenarios in a box and say a + b = c. Self-defense altercations and how it's interpreted by the criminal justice system is much more complex.
People are unpredictable so don't count them out. "Non-criminals" aren't guaranteed to stay non-criminal after a certain age. People are chaotic, the circumstances surrounding their lives can change, thus their behavior can change.
lklawson
Grandmaster
Who knows? It comes across as bluster. <shrug>
Wait. You mean the U.K. isn't governed by the U.S. Constitution? Now I'm all confused.
That runs too close to the rules here prohibiting political discourse. If you want, I'll gladly discuss it in PM or direct you to an off-site forum where that discussion is appropriate. Without getting political, what you have to understand here is that this isn't about guns, gun control, Right To Keep and Bear Arms, or that stuff. It's about what one should or shouldn't do after a self defense incident in which one uses force to defend themselves. Whether it is a gun, knife, stick, or bare hands, the procedure is pretty much the same. Legally, it's less about the mechanism used for projecting force as it is that force was used, particularly in the case of "deadly force."
However, the "gun community" in the U.S. is the group that is on the leading edge of legal defense for those who use force in self defense. They are the "tip of the spear" so to speak. So, even if you are an old codger and swinging a cane, the legal concepts from the "gun community" is going to be the "best of breed" advice.
I recently listened to a "lecture" by a U.S. lawyer discussing how many amateurs in the U.S. think that the plain language of a law is what it means. Apparently that's not always (usually?) true. There is black letter law, legal precedent, judicial interpretation, and lots of other spices that bake into the cake. Just because someone thinks they know what the law "says" doesn't mean that they know what the law actually "means" out in the real world. My recollection is that it was Alan Gura who said this, a distinguished lawyer who has won cases at the highest court in the U.S.
Most cops here in the U.S. are basically good folks. They get into policing because they want to be the "good guy," wear the white had, rescue the victim, and put the bad guy in jail.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk
Well I can see my post was a complete waste of time, minutes of my life I won't get back as you seem to have totally misunderstood everything I wrote.
Gosh, patronise much? I know exactly what 'exercise' means in this context. Are you positive your interpretation of your rights is the prevailing one or the correct one?
I do not wish to discuss the second amendment at all, I was using it as analogy because I have seen both sides assigning different meanings to the same sentences. I could have used an analogy from elsewhere but used this because I thought it would be understandable to you ( it was to others but not you). I am offering no opinions on the gun control debate but thought I'd use it to point out that different people depending on their agenda and understanding will argue opposite points from the same piece of writing. Which is why I asked if you actually understood your rights as given by your Justice system. You might say 'A' gives you the right to carry only a pencil, someone else will argue that 'A' gives you the right to only carry a fountain pen while the legal experts will tell you 'A' says any writing implement which you can chose.
Ah well your government and the legal system are more bound up together than ours, we don't have elected officials as judges etc. We have judicial independence from the government and others who would wish to influence it. People are also prosecuted in the name of the Crown not the country or government. The Crown even prosecutes the government who is never guaranteed to win.
Judicial accountability and independence
Now many scenes of an attack/attack etc have you attended or dealt with? How many witness statements have you taken? How many criminals have you dealt with? How many self defence situations have you actually seen or dealt with.
Here it's not in the least complicated to deal with self defence situations in the legal sense.
Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service
No idea what this means in regards to my post.
Gosh, patronise much? I know exactly what 'exercise' means in this context. Are you positive your interpretation of your rights is the prevailing one or the correct one?
I do not wish to discuss the second amendment at all, I was using it as analogy because I have seen both sides assigning different meanings to the same sentences. I could have used an analogy from elsewhere but used this because I thought it would be understandable to you ( it was to others but not you). I am offering no opinions on the gun control debate but thought I'd use it to point out that different people depending on their agenda and understanding will argue opposite points from the same piece of writing. Which is why I asked if you actually understood your rights as given by your Justice system. You might say 'A' gives you the right to carry only a pencil, someone else will argue that 'A' gives you the right to only carry a fountain pen while the legal experts will tell you 'A' says any writing implement which you can chose.
Ah well your government and the legal system are more bound up together than ours, we don't have elected officials as judges etc. We have judicial independence from the government and others who would wish to influence it. People are also prosecuted in the name of the Crown not the country or government. The Crown even prosecutes the government who is never guaranteed to win.
Judicial accountability and independence
Now many scenes of an attack/attack etc have you attended or dealt with? How many witness statements have you taken? How many criminals have you dealt with? How many self defence situations have you actually seen or dealt with.
Here it's not in the least complicated to deal with self defence situations in the legal sense.
Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service
No idea what this means in regards to my post.
I do not want to discuss gun control, dear people, I just used that current argument to point out that people with different agendas and understanding will use the same words to argue their case and construe those words with different meanings according to how they want to present their case. It's an analogy, definition of which is" a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification: ".
