GlockTalk Forum banner

41 - 60 of 65 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,130 Posts
As an investigating officer, this is the worst thing you can do, for you and the case. Waiting for an attorney can take days. Meanwhile, the investigation focuses more on you, instead of the actual culprit, since it is uncommon for innocent people to only speak with their attorney present. Generally, the people who are only willing to talk with an attorney present are guilty of something, if not the crime they are being asked about. This other crime tends to come out while extra attention is given to the wrong person, the same person who could have kept the investigation moving forward and ultimately, away from themselves.
''Generally, the people who are only willing to talk with an attorney present are guilty of something''. Wow, just wow. If you truly are LEO, you are the reason that people should not talk to the police without legal representation. That representation should tell you not to talk to the police under any circumstance.

So an officer involved in a shooting should not require legal council or union rep if it was a good shoot? It must have been a bad shoot if he wants legal/Union representation, using your philosophy.

If you had nothing to do with the crime, you shouldn't even be at the station. Tell the officers that at the scene and go home. If they don't allow you to go home, tell them you want an attorney, no exceptions. They can and will lie to you with no repercussions. They may threaten to put you in jail for life, take your kids and house. No exceptions. I encourage anyone that believes the above comments by nikerret to watch The Innocence Files and False Confessions on Netflix.

Never Talk To the Police- Regent Law Professor James Duane
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE&pp=QAA%3D
 

·
Mr. Awesome
Joined
·
10,268 Posts
You just told us why. Sorry our rights make your job tougher.
''Generally, the people who are only willing to talk with an attorney present are guilty of something''. Wow, just wow. If you truly are LEO, you are the reason that people should not talk to the police without legal representation. That representation should tell you not to talk to the police under any circumstance.

So an officer involved in a shooting should not require legal council or union rep if it was a good shoot? It must have been a bad shoot if he wants legal/Union representation, using your philosophy.
Based on my experience, there is usually a reason people don't want to talk to the police, when actually innocent of the crime they are being asked about. Those reasons usually are adultery or addiction. Adultery is a crime (essentially decriminalized) and the addiction may or may not be, but most of the people who initially refused to give their alibis were hiding where they were from their family, not necessarily LE. Ironically, LE doesn't care you have a girlfriend and once your alibi is proven, you're off the hook.

Don't forget, we are talking a small portion of the population who actually will not talk to LE. The vast majority willingly provide at least some information. Of the few who refuse to talk, there's generally a reason. You two really think people who get snagged by LE and are innocent of the crime being investigated are best off waiting for their attorney, in jail, instead of just saying they were with this person, at this place? Genuinely? I highly doubt that. In fact, I would be willing to bet that having this conversation, in person, and without an audience, you would concede that such a position is stupid. Now, tell me I'm wrong and beat your chest.

cbetts1, I know you'll never believe this, because you have made up your mind and everything is black or white, but I have nothing in my career to be ashamed of or hide. In fact, on multiple occasions, people I have arrested have come to my defense. You won't find an attorney who has ever worked a case of mine who hasn't found me professional and a LEO who operates within the rules, laws, and regulations. I had one attorney call me a liar, officially, the Judge shot him down and told him not to bring that crap in his courtroom, again.

As far as if I got into a shooting on-duty (I'm not currently a cop, so that wouldn't happen), we don't have unions, here. My response would depend on the situation. If I had a bad shoot, I would give a much smaller statement, before the KBI arrived, to investigate. By then, I would have an attorney as, by then, I would know I DID commit a crime. If I shot an active shooter with many third-party witnesses, I would not need get an attorney. All of that ground, in the middle is too situational dependent. If I thought I needed an attorney, I would get one, but not until it appeared I needed one. If I didn't need an attorney, I wouldn't pay for one.

No different for CCW'ers or off-duty LE. If you shoot the gas station robber after he shoots the clerk, you probably don't need an attorney. If you shoot the guy who slept with your wife, and you two were alone, in the woods, where he met you after you used your wife's phone to lure him there, but it was self-defense, you should get an attorney.




Let's go back to the video. The suspect got brought in for a "B&E". In the beginning, the investigator seems convinced the guy did it. The suspect does talk to the investigator. How did this hurt him? From what I see, it helped him. Perhaps, you'd be willing to show how this video is damning, for the suspect. The benefits I see are the investigator says there is video. I believe the suspect was correct in calling this bluff-it didn't seem the video exists, based on the investigator's response. This is good information to have, if the suspect does get prosecuted and there wasn't a video. Was it destroyed? Was it a bluff? Great ammunition for a defense where "reasonable doubt" is all that's required.

The other thing that was huge is the suspect provided potential witnesses in giving his story of getting off the public transportation and which route he took, before LE contact. Now, LE has to do some time-sensitive footwork and investigating to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, they have the correct person. Juries tend to find people "not guilty" when LE doesn't do their job and investigate the claims given by all parties. Even the three hours later, that the interview was to the time he got off public transportation, can make things difficult, but much easier than tracking people down a day, or two, later. You think this makes it harder for LE? Sure it does, but the problem is not LE's. LE will investigate what they can based on what they find and are given. It's the suspect's problem that LE cannot verify their story.


Would you like to hear another story of someone who won the "talk to LE" lottery? This one is backwards, though. I'll give the short version.

I stopped a vehicle, for speeding. The driver, one of the largest humans I have ever seen, had been drinking and had a Suspended DL. He was very forthcoming, admitting to drinking Crown Royal and littering when he threw his cup out, after he finished the drink. He also admitted he didn't have a DL and the child in the back seat was not in a proper car seat (of course, these are all things I knew or would find out, except, the littering). The whole time we interacted, something was off.

When I got him to the jail, his girlfriend, who owned the car and was sober, followed us. When we got within a block, she turned off. I had another Deputy wait out front, for her, in case she needed help finding the building. In the jail, I ran a records check and found this man had been released from prison less than twelve hours ago. I asked him about that and he told me he used to make and sell methamphetamine and did time for that as well as weapons charges. He was very cooperative. Way too cooperative, but I couldn't come up with exactly why.

The girlfriend arrived around thirty minutes after I got to the jail. The other Deputy said she was very friendly, asking how to bail him out. I had the other Deputy ask for consent to search the vehicle. She consented and he found nothing. He, too, said something was very off.

The man I arrested had $1,407 cash, in his pocket. He asked if he could use that, to bail out. He could, though his bail was much less. I finished up and left. He bailed out and left with a check for the difference in the cash he brought in and the bail amount.

The next night, at break, a Trooper asked me about the car stop, from the night prior, with the big guy. I told him about it and he said I needed to call Wichita PD. They had a burglary with an abnormally large male. After getting in touch with the Wichita PD, I learned they had a Pizza Hut robbed a few hours before my traffic stop and arrest. Guess how much money was stolen. Yep, $1,407.

I am convinced the gun was still in the car, at the time of stop. I think she got rid of it in the thirty minutes she disappeared. It will never be proven. He took one hell of a gamble that I didn't know of the robbery and that I wouldn't learn of it before he could get arrested, processed, and bailed out.

Based on that example, everyone who talks to the police is guilty of more than they are being charged with. Of course, this is absurd, as is the idea that someone with nothing to hide is best served by going to jail instead of just giving basic information that exonerates them. Of course, you do you. You get one life to live, make the best of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,505 Posts
It sticks in my memory that there used to be a sticky somewhere on GT several years ago about how to respond to police when involved in a DGU. I though it was in COP Talk.

I've spent some time looking for it and did some searches, but can't find it. A lot of it involved around wether it was a good shoot or a bad shoot.

Anyone know where it went?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,375 Posts
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.
I would argue that the front door step scene of a crime is a lot different than an interrogation room.

“I’m the home owner. I feared for my life. I’d like to talk to my attorney.”

Repeat as needed.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,504 Posts
Dirty little secret about law professor's video: every example except one that he uses is of a factually guilty person. The exception is a guy with poor cognition who was highly susceptible to suggestion.

Assuming that you're factually not guilty, it's to your advantage to guide the investigation in the right direction. (Okay, unless you're covering for someone.) Staying out of jail, not messing up your employment, nor having warrants served at your home are all good things. You don't need a lawyer when you have an alibi.

If you did it, but have a justification, there's a little more to it, but again it's in your interest to have the investigation go in the right direction.

And to quash a common untruth: cops are indeed required to give a preliminary statement after a shooting without the benefit of an attorney.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,504 Posts
I would argue that the front door step scene of a crime is a lot different than an interrogation room.
Again, there's a difference between an interview and an interrogation. When you're asked/invited/requested to come down and you accept, it's not an interrogation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,375 Posts
Here’s one to get people riled up. Would George Zimmerman been better off not talking and lawyering up? “I feared for my life. I’d like to call my attorney.”.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,130 Posts
Unfortunately all LEO and DA's aren't the stand up people like on Glock Talk:2gun: . Statistically thousands of innocent people have been put in jail or are in jail for various reasons. For the most part it is best to remain silent.
 

·
Why so serious?
Joined
·
64,718 Posts
Yeah totally, this appears based on the what they say to take place in Hamilton, Ontario.
"Damn the man! " , eh?

Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,980 Posts
If you are going to talk to the police, if you are involved in a self defense scenario, you should be very thoughtful and not ramble on. Know and understand the deadly force laws in your state. Remember the key elements. A clear defense of yourself or you loved one should be easy, in my state. When it comes to the many other justifications in Texas, it might be wise to say it was a very traumatic experience and you need time for your nerves to settle. Consider calling a lawyer, if there are any questions in your mind. Or it might be wiser not to use deadly force in those scenarios, if safe for you or others.

I am not a lawyer, and I don’t play one on TV and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
 

·
If the coronavirus doesn't take you out, can I?
Joined
·
1,001 Posts
"Damn the man! " , eh?

Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk
you lost me, I do not understand the reference, besides the 'eh.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,375 Posts
They can’t misquote silence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: syntaxerrorsix

·
Registered
Joined
·
445 Posts
I want to be very clear about something because I feel I may have given the wrong impression here: I am a big supporter of LEO of all stripes, and I do support the notion that you should absolutely discuss what is going on with the police. I just think people should be careful about what they say and I take exception to the attitude that "Generally, the people who are only willing to talk with an attorney present are guilty of something, if not the crime they are being asked about."

I get that this may be your experience, but it is not the most constructive way to approach a citizen exercising his rights. Yes, they may have something to hide (or fear) as pointed out earlier in this thread, but why assume straight off the bat that it is a crime?

For example, if I were the guy who was cheating on his wife, lied to his wife about his whereabouts, had been using drugs, or was attending a political event in support of a candidate overtly hated by a large segment of the population, you can bet I would get myself protected before I talk. But, once protected, I would definitely want to cooperate to the greatest extent possible.

Here's an interesting question... In your experience, what is the best way to signal to a cop that you want to cooperate but have something to say that isn't for public consumption, if you know what I mean?
 

·
M&P
Joined
·
5,770 Posts
Ok officers and attorneys on here a quick question, if you’ll allow: How many interviews (what rough %) go over to interrogations or lead to charges with the person directly being interviewed?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,504 Posts
Ok officers and attorneys on here a quick question, if you’ll allow: How many interviews (what rough %) go over to interrogations or lead to charges with the person directly being interviewed?
Fewer than half, easy. Remember, all of the contacts with victims and witnesses are interviews, not interrogations.

And I'd really rather be considered a victim in an attempted robbery than a suspect in a shooting. Which does kinda require me to *act* like a victim.
 

·
Why so serious?
Joined
·
64,718 Posts
Ok officers and attorneys on here a quick question, if you’ll allow: How many interviews (what rough %) go over to interrogations or lead to charges with the person directly being interviewed?
That answer is meaningless without the context of what the persons involvement was with the situation and the officers knowledge of facts/evidence at the time of the interview.

Respectfully

Sent from my Jack boot using Copatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: nikerret

·
Mr. Awesome
Joined
·
10,268 Posts
I would argue that the front door step scene of a crime is a lot different than an interrogation room.

“I’m the home owner. I feared for my life. I’d like to talk to my attorney.”

Repeat as needed.
Close, but more is needed. The applicable statute, in my jurisdiction, is "reasonably believe". You can't just say you were in fear for your life. You have to show a reason, if you want the statutory protection against being arrested or charged. However, there will also be evidence. If the LE get there and find you standing over a masked man who is bleeding out, and your front door is kicked in. When asked, you say you are the homeowner, were in bed when you heard the door get kicked in and got your firearm. Upon seeing the masked man, you felt fear he was there to do you harm so you shot him until he stopped coming towards you. After that you called 911. It can only help you to answer the first few follow-up questions. Do you know the masked man? Have you noticed anything suspicious in the hours, days, weeks, before you were attacked? Is there any reason someone may want to hurt you? This last one can be tricky, if you are doing shady things, even if they are not expressly illegal, but if you are a normal member of the citizenry, you will either not have a clue or you may think it has to do with X, Y, or Z. If you get through these, it should have met the "reasonableness" standard, if it could be met. From there, if you want to talk to an attorney, do it politely. "This has been a hard night, I don't want to talk anymore." Of course, they will ask you to, that's the investigating part of investigation, but they won't hold it against you and can't arrest you (KS law, probably doesn't apply where you live).


Unfortunately all LEO and DA's aren't the stand up people like on Glock Talk:2gun: . Statistically thousands of innocent people have been put in jail or are in jail for various reasons. For the most part it is best to remain silent.
The first sentence is fact. There absolutely are some bad cops out there. They are few and far in between, but that doesn't mean you won't meet one. In my life, I have met one that I put in the "bad cop" category. I was young and dumb, unfortunately. Nothing came of it, but I missed an opportunity to get some nice settlement money based on his behavior and illegal actions.

If someone genuinely thinks it's best to get an attorney before saying anything, that is their right. Based on my experience, I have never seen that be the case, for an innocent person. I have seen innocent people sit in jail because they refused to come to their own defense and I have seen innocent people sit in jail until their story was able to be confirmed.

The worst case of someone innocent sitting in jail, in one of my cases, was over 24 hours. The man was brought in as evidence pointed to him being the culprit. In the interview, he denied his involvement. More evidence was found and it, too, pointed to him. He was placed in jail, on the appropriate charges. The next day, I was able to corroborate some of what he said, in the interview. The new evidence proved there was no way he was the person. I felt terrible and immediately called the jail to have him released. As he left, I met him and apologized. I asked if he wanted to see why he was in jail and offered to show him the parts of the evidence that supported him committing the crime. He was interested and I showed him the reasons he was arrested and held. He agreed he fit the crime and was glad I was able to find the piece needed to prove it wasn't him. I would like to hear his telling of the event, years later, but I don't think he regretted giving me his story, in the interview. In his case, he looked just like and shared a first and last name of the real bad guy. They had never met and were in no way related.


The whole phenomenon of innocent people giving false confessions is an interesting study and there is much more to it than I have fully read into. People do it for a variety of reasons. Often, it's a combination of impaired or abnormal intelligence paired with LE pushing the limits of what's legal and ethical. These cases, when they come to light, are very interesting and tragic.
 
41 - 60 of 65 Posts
Top