close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

about an officer in an OIS talking to investigators w/o attorney guidance

Discussion in 'Cop Talk' started by Tilley, Aug 31, 2011.

  1. Tilley

    Tilley Man of Steel

    1,750
    2
    Mar 21, 2006
    USA
    If you are referring to me, guess again. My opinion of you is not good, so why in the world would I feel the need to discuss my credentials with a person I think to be an Internet warrior?

    But that's just me. Perhaps I am wrong about you. Maybe you can take this discussion over to Cop Talk and express yourself regarding this specific topic...you know...the one about a police officer involved in a shooting talking to investigators without seeking guidance from an attorney.

    I think I would be fascinated to see how well that goes over there.

    Now if you will excuse me.
     
  2. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    42,120
    8,982
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    In short: You have nothing to back up your opinion? If you don't want to tell about your awesome "credentials" you could just give a legal argument - that would have come with the "credentials."

    Cop Talk? there are guys over there from the department where the shooting happened and other PD's in the county. It has been discussed on GT plenty and the police are very familiar with it. Heck, there are some members over there that I have trained on Use of Force law, in real life, using that case as an example.
     

    Last edited: Aug 31, 2011

  3. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,797
    3,461
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    Ask and ye shall receive...
     
  4. Billua

    Billua Lake Mead Explr

    502
    0
    Sep 30, 2009
    Las Vegas, NV
    Yeah, so nhit! Me 2...
     
  5. I'm also confused. I'm bring my union rep in to clear up this confusion. In the meantime, never talk to the police.
     
  6. merlynusn

    merlynusn

    4,005
    245
    Nov 16, 2007
    NC
    Me too Brad.

    It doesn't matter what the circumstances.... Any officer who is involved in a shooting needs the guidance of an attorney. IA is not questioning him, Homicide is, which makes it a criminal investigation.
     
  7. dbcooper

    dbcooper

    1,138
    2
    Mar 2, 2011

    Any officer, any citizen.
     
  8. RussP

    RussP Moderator

    33,797
    3,461
    Jan 23, 2003
    Central Virginia
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2011
  9. merlynusn

    merlynusn

    4,005
    245
    Nov 16, 2007
    NC
    And the question was in reference to an officer involved shooting.

    I don't mind anyone asking for an attorney. It's part of it. It is your right and if you want to exercise your right to an attorney, good for you. Just remember, your Miranda Rights only attach if you are In Custody and being Interrogated.
     
  10. Tilley

    Tilley Man of Steel

    1,750
    2
    Mar 21, 2006
    USA
    Long story short, at some point in the thread, a fellow named Bren stated if a police officer is involved in an on-duty shooting, it's okay to speak to investigators BEFORE consulting with an attorney.

    I disagreed, then it got ugly. Bren gave out his vast experience as a police officer and now as an attorney, and wanted everyone who disagreed with him to give their experience. I didn't play his "who's is bigger" game and suggested he take his advice here.
     
  11. Sharky7

    Sharky7 Boomshakalaka

    3,199
    17
    Feb 21, 2009
    It's important to speak on scene and give a brief summary. Responding officers must know if there are other offenders they are looking for, basic details, etc. Safety of the community and officers is important - if it is still an active scene, I can't wait until tomorrow to update everyone.

    That being said, I will give my full statement the following day after I have had a chance to sit down with my representation and walk through the incident back at the scene and in my mind a few times and take some notes. These incidents can be very emotional, so giving it some time can help take that emotion out of it and help deal better with the facts and help yourself recover and help your memory.
     
  12. ^^^ Good common sense approach.

    Can the agency compell you to answer all their questions NOW, or else face discipline (like suspension)? Probably. This is when a level headed union rep/atty can pave the way by noting for the record your emotional state so that the statements you're being compelled to make NOW may be incomplete, not fully accurate, etc...

    Remember also that they can no longer use these compelled statement against you criminally. That's why the DA usually tell the agency to hold of from compelled interviews.
     

  13. Is it OK to speak before speaking with an atty? Well, Yes, it's OK... but it would depend. Especially if you have a number of witnesses, video cameras, etc... who saw and recorded the whole shooting etc... I personally wouldn't feel comfortable doing so until after speaking with an atty. You know, bounce it off an impartial/unemotional third party.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2011
  14. DaBigBR

    DaBigBR No Infidels!

    8,798
    8
    Oct 28, 2005
    Circling the wagons.
    Carry Issues is GNG's retarded cousin in my book.
     
  15. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    42,120
    8,982
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    Well, it's a GNG or Carry Issues thread where I used the example of Commonwealth v. Mattingly, a police shooting case where the officer, unlike 99+% of all officers here - declined to talk to investigators or describe his justification aftyer a questionable shooting (he's actually the only one I know of in KY and I know of more than most people).

    Without a stated, subjective justification required by KRS 503.050 (self-defense), intentionally killing someone is the definition of murder, so Mattingly was indicted, charged, fired and went to trial, only to be found not guilty, because he acted in self-defense. He did not get his job or money back.

    My point was that a self-defense explanation good enough to convince a jury of Louisville civilians to acquit, should have been good enough to head off the prosecution at an earlier stage, if he had presented it. But KY law doesn't have the "reasonable person" standard - it says the shooter can only be justified based on his own belief that he was in danger of death, serious injury, etc., so, without that, you are in trouble.

    Many of the "never talk to the police" guys disagree, but give no argument as to why, beyond unsupported conclusions.

    Interesting that some say an officer always gets to talk to an attorney. In Kentucky, the NEVER talk to an attorney, outside of maybe 2 cities and probably not there in most cases. Of course, here they don't have unions or attorneys on call for the police either (except, maybe, 2 cities, but I doubt it).

    However, the original discussion was about civilian CCWers - they don't get to talk to an attorney before the decision is made to arrest or not arrest and, under our law, the explanation is a necessity if you don't want to be charged. Once you are charged by the police you will need a judge to uncharge you (a grand jury decision not to indict is simply the basis for a judge to dismiss the charges, it doesn't do so automatically).
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2011
  16. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    42,120
    8,982
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    As I said, here both police and civilians almost universally explain their justification at the scene. Without a justification, the police complete discretion to arrest them for murder, based on intentionally shooting someone. With a justification, the police are prohibited from arresting them unless they have probable cause to believe they were not justified (burden is reversed). KRS 503.085.

    The fact is, once you become a murder defendant, the deck is stacked against you. It isn't worth that risk to decide to "bounce it off an impartial/unemotional third party" later, IMO.

    Obviously, the risk is not the same for civilians and police, it was just coincidence that I used a police case as my example of someone who was tried for murder, possibly because the situation snowballed from his decision not to explain his actions at the scene.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2011
  17. Nick.45

    Nick.45

    144
    0
    Dec 26, 2007
    Iowa
    Civilians don't have the right to a lawyer when they are arrested, only when they are being interrogated. Just because they are taken in or volunteer to go to the station to be questioned/interrogated by detectives, does not mean that they are under arrest. But they may or may not be charged and arrested after.

    An officer after firing his weapon in the line of duty is being questioned by detectives and should have the right to have an attorney/union rep, etc present.


    ETA: I am only a non sworn jailer, so I may or may not be wrong.
     
    Last edited: Aug 31, 2011