Innocent man being interviewed for a B&E.

You can no longer identify a suspect by color, it is racist. You also cannot not use gender, as could be offensive to the gender fluid crowd. Nor weight as that might be offensive to the weight challenged people. Nor height as it might be offense to the height challenged. So you are down to describing their clothing, as long as it doesn't indicate any of the aforementioned aspects.

So you can say you were robbed, but you cannot describe the person. Oh, and the government will no longer be able to use facial recognition software if they happen to get video of the crime. People will begin to complain about crimes not being cleared, even more than they do now. They will be unable to understand why.

 

Anything to make your life easier? My using my rights is not a symptom or evidence of my guilt. People talk themselves into jail, not out of it. Your advice is terrible.

 

People on traffic stops talk themselves into jail, not out of it. In the interview room, my experience shows heavily toward the opposite. My “advice” is based on a solid career doing criminal investigations. What is yours based on?

 

People talk them self 'out of jail' every day. Actually, it is more common than someone talking themselves into it because criminal cases normally involve multiple persons with only one offender in the end. People provide information such as alibis and explanations for concerns that pop up and they are crossed off the list. I know the 'I hate the law people' don't believe that but it is the reality.

 

I don’t think he is interested in reality. You know the type.

 

He literally explained to you why that was worse for you. If you want a lawyer, the police will proceed without your input. You'll get a lawyer when you get one - they usually don't care. If you are in custody, you'll stay there a while. Best case, you have money and a lawyer you can call (very uncommon for criminals) but that still means the police ignore you until they get around to getting back to you.

In classes, I use the example of the only police officer I ever recall asking for a lawyer, rather than making a statement immediately after a shooting. The only thing that can justify a shooting is the shooter's input, so when he skipped his chance to talk the case went to the grand jury without that input. He was indicted for murder and went to trial. At the end, he was found not guilty based on self-defense, after losing his house, job, wife, and bank account defending the case. Imagine how much better it would have been if he told them his defense on day 1 and didn't get indicted.

 

Years of staying out of jail.

 

100 percent of all lawyers would disagree with you. Terrible advice

 

Of course, they don’t have a vested interest.

 

I don’t know about Canada, but in England, the police are not allowed to use deception of any kind while interviewing a villain/suspect. The admonition was not like the English warnings circa 1991-2.

 

You are absolutely right - they do have a vested interest- to keep their client out of jail. You have your job to do and so do they. Allowing yourself to be interrogated by the police is incredibly dumb whether you are innocent or guilty

 

There is a difference between interview and interrogation.

 

Lying to a Federal agent is a felony- ask some of Trumps people how talking to the Feds worked out. If you don’t remember exactly what happened or get confused about the exact chain of events your screwed. Talking to local or state police is no different- they are going to use your words against you. Never talk to the police. Many think they can talk their way out of it and then bury themselves.

 

Yup..."interview" is what the cops call it when they want to talk to you..."interrogation" is what it ends up being in reality.

 

Now, I'm at a computer and can type easier...

At risk of injecting reason and thought process, instead of blanket "never talk to the police", let me share an example, with you.

Kansas has a law that you shall not be arrested or prosecuted, if you use a weapon in the defense of yourself, another person, your dwelling ,your place of work, or your vehicle. However, this law requires that the person who uses force "reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third party against such other's imminent use of unlawful force." The next section discusses deadly force to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. The last subsections of the applicable statutes states that, "Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat...."

We had a call one night of a man who shot two home intruders. When we got there, one man was laying on the porch with a gigantic hold in his butt cheek. The other was cowering behind a vehicle, bloodied. The person who we believed shot him was still standing over them, with a 12 gauge shotgun. The man cowering behind the vehicle dropped to the ground and put his hands out. He was a known thug. He was handcuffed and an ambulance was called, for him.

The man holding the shotgun put it down, upon LEO request. Now, let's say he refused to talk to us, at all. He refused to tell us this was his home and he heard them break in and shot them, because he was in fear for his life and the lives of his family. He would be arrested and taken to jail, until his lawyer could get there and we would clear this up, later. Meanwhile, his house would be cleared and a search warrant obtained to gather evidence as to why he shot these people. His family would not be allowed to stay there, through this process. The actual suspects may or may not be held, at this time, depending what they said (the guy shot in the butt was too out of it to say anything).

Back to reality. The man holding the shotgun put it down and told us this was his house, he didn't know either of these guys, but had heard them kick his front door in. When he got up, the first firearm he came to was his shotgun, so that's what he used to shoot them. He expressed his fear they were going to harm him and/or his family. Now, by law, he could not be arrested unless other evidence showed this was not what occurred. The shotgun and written statements were taken (the shotgun taken in case it was needed, in court) and we helped him mend his door as good as could be done, in the middle of the night.

Now, I live in a VERY firearm-friendly State and the LEO's here are used to dealing with armed good guys. I fully understand this gets complicated in places that have BS gun laws.


I could go on and on with REAL examples of how innocent people talked to the cops and were better for it, but a few of you are going to still stick your head in the sand and say it's best to NEVER talk to the police. When asked why, they usually have no REAL reason, just what they have imagined or heard (generally third-hand by someone they don't know).

Depending on the the crime and your involvement, it may be best to wait until your attorney can talk to you. This is the exception. This is the 1%, unless you are guilty. If you get brought in, in handcuffs, and you refuse to give an alibi or whereabouts, in most jurisdictions, you will sit in jail until your attorney comes in. Do you have your attorney's phone number? A 24 hour number that they themselves answer? If not, you're going to sit in jail until you can get ahold of them, when it's your turn to use the phone.

I hate the idea of an innocent person sitting in jail, especially, if all they had to do was use a modicum of common sense. If you're willing to listen to a few minutes of the interview, you'll usually be given an timeframe and an area the LE are interested in. If you know you weren't in that area, because you were at the bank getting a new car loan, why the hell would you wait for your attorney? Conversely, if you know you were in the area of the crime and you know the person who did the crime, because you were there, YES, you would likely be best served waiting on an attorney as you need to make a deal to avoid the applicable charges you will face, but this means you are not innocent.

I've never understood why people think LE hates it when people lawyer up. What is frustrating is when someone lawyers up and they go to jail, but then after being told to lift their balls and squat and cough, they decide they are willing to tell you something that proves their innocence, but they were just being hard headed. There's a time and place for refusing to talk, without your lawyer present. Most people will live their whole lives only seeing those times on TV or hearing about them, in a gun forum.


With all that said, I do have my attorney's phone number. His personal cell phone that he will answer any time of day. I also have a different attorney I can call, if the first is unavailable. I have paid for this service. This was always for what could happen on the job, more than off. I don't believe I will be in an interview room, but you never know. Most people I talked to, in to interview room, had done nothing wrong. Some were victims, others were unwilling participants (in the crime) or just witnesses and I would rather have a nicely recorded interview with no background noise or distractions than what I could do in my vehicle.

As a pre-teen, I got into a little bit of trouble. While sitting in the back of the patrol car, with my friend, his father said to us, "Don't admit to guilt". I have never forgotten it and have even said it to suspects. Even if you have done some wrong, do not admit to more than you did.

 

You just told us why. Sorry our rights make your job tougher.

 

Well, if I recall correctly, Bren is a lawyer, so he totally blew your curve.

 

Minimum for a defense attorney is 350/hour.

Minimum trial is 2 weeks for murder/manslaughter.

Trial alone lawyer goes on the clock at 0800, at the latest, trial goes until 1700, prep for next day goes until at least 2100. Nevermind pretrial work. Easy 50k.

Then if they are good they will have jury consultants, paralegals, second attorneys, expert witnesses.

Yeah, no conflict of interest there.

 

Make your life harder. See my math above plus time spent in a cell and money for bond.

 

That happened to a DA investigator in the greater after LA area. His attorney advised him not to talk because at the time there was a school of thought amongst California attorneys who defend cops thought it would be best not to talk during an investigation of deadly force. He was convicted of manslaughter.

That school of thought got buried real quick and the lawyers who never bought into it were able to continue to defend officers rather than go chase ambulances like the discredited idiots.