Csmsss - you said:
Quote:
|
That wasn't the context of Salinas, nor has it been mentioned in any other posts till yours.
|
Well, you're the one who actually mentioned bolting in Post #10 when your recommended leaving if not in custody.
No,
Salinas did not involve justification of a defensive shooting. I raised that scenario since this is a gun board and we have an awful lot of discussions about defensive use of force.
Salinas might nevertheless come into play if the shooter is not in custody and simply "bolts" without giving a statement. Even before
Salinas, that type of "silence" could be used for impeachment purposes if the shooter testified (by far the most common scenario). Now,
Salinas clarifies that silence can be used in the state's case-in-chief if the shooter does not affirmatively invoke the Fifth Amendment. The concurring opinion raises the specter of silence being used even if the shooter affirmatively asserts the Fifth. We'll have to wait on that to see what happens.
In addition, failing to explain
why the shooter used deadly force on someone is going to naturally cast additional suspicion on the shooter and perhaps cause police to pay some additional attention to the shooter. Acting guilty implies guilt.