Get a lawyer before talking to police

[steve4102]

I thought this was very well put.

Let’s assume for purposes of this post, then, that you buy into the value of being the complainant rather than the respondent, and you therefore are the first to call 911.

Taking the “say nothing until I talk to my lawyer” advice literally, exactly what are you going to say when the dispatcher answers your call? “I will say nothing until I’ve spoken to my attorney.” Really? When they ask “what’s your emergency?” surely that statement can’t be your reply. Rather, you’ll necessarily provide some description of what’s happened and the location to which you’re asking law enforcement (and ambulance) be sent.

So, you’re ALREADY speaking with the police. And as long as you’re doing so, my advice is to get your claim of self-defense into the evidentiary record as soon as possible. You were attacked, you were in fear for your life, you were forced to act in self-defense.


http://www.ammoland.com/2014/03/losd...#axzz2v6SRsY3l

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

I never stated I was an expert or that I had this greater knowledge of the world. I truthfully told you my experience in these matters which is life experience. Consider me just another opinionater along with the rest.

With all due respect, you did NOT in any way tell us your experience in "these matters." You stated -- without providing any substantiation -- that you have extensive life experience, but you did not provide any information whatsoever as to what that life experience included. Yet you have taken it upon yourself to propose that we should rely on your opinion over the opinions of multiple, experienced attorneys.

While everyone is entitled to have an opinion and to express an opinion ... some opinions are more worthy of serious consideration than others.

[johnelmore]

My words are in this thread which you can review at your leisure. I did not say that you should absolutely take my word over multiple attorneys. In any event, I only see one attorney in this thread who has stated the bulk of their legal experience was working for a healthcare provider. I did not challenge their opinions or mount any type of debate on what they had added to the thread. They asked for my experience and I gave them a truthful answer which I stated as life experience. I also stated what I would do if the police came knocking which is tell them to talk to my lawyer and have a great day. Finally, I pointed out my advice is more akin to an Amazon review or an old guy speaking from his own experiences. You can take my opinion or leave it at the door. Its up to you. In any event it will be you and not me who will suffer any consequences.

My life experience includes many things which I can expand upon in many pages. However, I have never been arrested because I know how to keep myself out of trouble. Never experienced handcuffs or been placed in a patrol car. Lets hope that perfect record continues.

[boltomatic]

You need to be careful about clamming up right at the start, that makes you look very guilty and may cause the police to pry more into the situation that they would have, had you cooperated.

I think a better strategy is to cooperate and be friendly, and only lawyer up if the questions start sounding accusatory or make you feel uncomfortable. If you don't know how to answer a question or don't understand why the officer is asking it, then its probably best to remain silent.

[leadcounsel]

There are a few general human principles at play here, and there's a lot to be said for credibility and cooperative people who have nothing to hide. That said, a person can talk too much or offer too much.

The key is giving the appropriate information and THEN INVOKE.

Generally speaking, the first to report generally has an advantage in the eyes of the law - it's human nature - for anything that is ambiguous or a close call situation where the aggressor or defender isn't clear.

Also, cops and detective are people too, and they interview thousands of people every year. Subjects that are somewhat cooperative and giving of some information are generally at an advantage to a stonewalling or evasive jerk. You can give some information that is helpful up front, and then invoke to remain silent. And you can allow a limited search of your property.

Now, believe it or not, I've had clients who confessed or otherwise admitted to crimes and their honest to God reasoning was that "if I didn't say anything they'd think I did it." You can't make this stuff up. Their logic was totally flawed. Don't be like those people...

What I am about to say is taught consistently by the Armed Citizen Legal Defense Network and other professionals.

1. You should research and contact a qualified criminal defense attorney NOW and put his number in your phone, keep his card in your wallet or somewhere accessible, and memorize that 10 digit number.

2. If you are involved in a self defense shooting, you need to be the first to report it so get on your phone and dial 911 as soon as you safely can. You need to tell the authorities only a few magical statements. Something along the lines of you were attacked by an armed person who was assaulting you/hitting you/threatening you, etc. You were in fear of your life. You are a lawful gun owner/permit holder/etc. and you shot him in self defense to stop the threat. Tell them you want to press charges. Ask for an ambulance. Identify what you look like and where you are located. Finally, tell them that you don't want to make any other statements without talking to your attorney.

3. Comply with LEO. It will suck. You might get arrested, booked, searched, etc. Expect your house/car to be searched, evidence seized, and life to be turned upside down for awhile. It's part of the process. Let your attorney navigate the very complex and serious situation going forward. However it plays out, you'll likely have many sleepless nights.

The first minutes and hours after a self defense shooting can mean the difference between freedom and prison. I've represented clients (in a variety of criminal defense cases) who were prosecuted and convicted on little more than their own statements to law enforcement. It's very hard to undo the harmful statements of the defendant.

Think of Zimmerman, and the way his words were twisted and that he talked too much. You should have some money set aside, or a good self defense insurance policy, to put an attorney on retainer... think $10,000+.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

...In any event, I only see one attorney in this thread...

Actually, three attorneys have posted in this thread: me; Spats McGee and leadcounsel. In addition, we have a link to an article on the topic by attorney Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self Defense. In addition, OldMarksman has considerable experience working with lawyers and preparing material for research and use as evidence in litigation.

Originally Posted by johnelmore

...You can take my opinion or leave it at the door...

Thank you. I'll leave it.

[johnelmore]

One thing I will say is the company I own deals with law enforcement on a daily basis. See those trucks stopped at the inspection or weigh station with the highway patrol going through them? See those highway patrol pickups with all that equipment in them? There is not a day that goes by that one of my trucks isnt nosed through by a patrolman.

We run a clean business, but there is so much on these trucks they can write you up for. For example a single light where the bulb has blown out. Thats a violation right there. We train the drivers to keep it cool, smile and say nothing when dealing with the patrol. Only tell the patrolman whats required and say nothing more. The patrolman appreciates it because its a more pleasant transaction all around not dealing with a verbally resistant driver. My drivers are 100% pleasant and 100% silent.

This is the philosophy we use on a daily basis and its a rare day the patrol gets the better of us. Unlike many trucking company owners, I dont find myself in court dealing with the violations because of our philosophy of dealing with the patrol. It is very easy to get a violation and impossible to get out of them. Trucking companies have gone out of business because of the patrol. We have a certain discipline which keeps us out of trouble.

As for lawyers, everyone seems to have a law degree nowadays, but the question is if you are qualified in this area of law and how effective you are in helping your clients. There are many ineffective lawyers. I know because I have been through a bunch with my business and family. So just saying you are a lawyer or producing a law degree doesnt make you an expert. I want to see your track record and then I can make a judgement on your expertise in these matters. So I know a lot about lawyers because Im the type who hires them to help me keep my business afloat. Would I hire some of the lawyers in this thread? Well they would have to prove to me they are effective at what they do and that cant be done on a message board.

One example, my buddy has a brother who got into trouble. They went to trial and his brother got the maximum sentence. So he could have represented himself or got a public defender with the same outcome. The lawyer they hired was simply not that good. So listen to the wrong attornies and you might find yourself with the maximum sentence.

[steve4102]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

We train the drivers to keep it cool, smile and say nothing when dealing with the patrol. Only tell the patrolman whats required and say nothing more. The patrolman appreciates it because its a more pleasant transaction all around not dealing with a verbally resistant driver. My drivers are 100% pleasant and 100% silent.

You seem to contradict yourself here.
Are your Drivers 100% silent and say nothing, or do they only offer "required" information? They cannot do both.

If you train your driver to only relay "required" or important information to the officers, then it appears to me you are in agreement with Frank and the other Attorneys here. That would be, in a Self Defense situation, offer up a few "Important" facts, then clam up.
Call 911 and report the incident.
Inform the 911 officer and the Officers on the scene that you were in fear for your life and had to defend yourself.
Point out any "Important" evidence or witnesses.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

As for lawyers, everyone seems to have a law degree nowadays, but the question is if you are qualified in this area of law and how effective you are in helping your clients. There are many ineffective lawyers. I know because I have been through a bunch with my business and family. So just saying you are a lawyer or producing a law degree doesnt make you an expert.

And yet you claimed to have "experience in these matters" on the basis of your [self-proclaimed] extensive life experience ... and it now seems that your extensive experience in dealing with self defense shooting situations devolves to dealing with burned out taillights on trucks at weigh station inspections.

I think I'll stick with what the lawyers recommend.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

One thing I will say is the company I own deals with law enforcement on a daily basis. See those trucks stopped at the inspection or weigh station with the highway patrol going through them? See those highway patrol pickups with all that equipment in them? There is not a day that goes by that one of my trucks isnt nosed through by a patrolman. . . .

Because of your experience, are we supposed to give your opinion as much weight as that of those of us with fairly extensive legal experience? I've been in litigation for almost 12 years now, all of which has involved some combination of civil rights (defending law enforcement officers among other things), (traffic court) prosecution and criminal defense. I am licensed in the state and federal courts of Arkansas, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, and SCOTUS. As Frank pointed out, not all opinions are equal.

Originally Posted by johnelmore

. . . .We train the drivers to keep it cool, smile and say nothing when dealing with the patrol. Only tell the patrolman whats required and say nothing more. The patrolman appreciates it because its a more pleasant transaction all around not dealing with a verbally resistant driver. My drivers are 100% pleasant and 100% silent.

Which is it? Say nothing, or stay 100% silent? The two are mutually exclusive.

If, in fact, you train drivers to "tell the patrolman what is required," then you are to some extent, agreeing with those of us advocating that one should say what's right, rather than to simply stay silent. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the best plan is to say what's right. The second best plan is to say nothing, and the worst plan is to say what's wrong.

Originally Posted by johnelmore

. . . .As for lawyers, everyone seems to have a law degree nowadays, but the question is if you are qualified in this area of law and how effective you are in helping your clients. There are many ineffective lawyers. I know because I have been through a bunch with my business and family. So just saying you are a lawyer or producing a law degree doesnt make you an expert. . . . .

Umm, actually, to a certain degree, it does. I'm not saying that one cannot be knowledgeable about the law without a law degree. Take OldMarksman and Al Norris as examples. Neither one is a lawyer, but I'll gladly concede that both are very knowledgeable about the law in the firearms context. However, if one has a license and practices (or practiced) law does mean that one has likely been to an ABA-accredited law school, passed a bunch of classes about the law, and passed the bar exam. I don't know about other jurisdictions, but in Arkansas, the bar exam is a 3.5 day exam. Those things do require a certain amount of expertise.

Originally Posted by johnelmore

I want to see your track record and then I can make a judgement on your expertise in these matters. So I know a lot about lawyers because Im the type who hires them to help me keep my business afloat. Would I hire some of the lawyers in this thread? Well they would have to prove to me they are effective at what they do and that cant be done on a message board.

Are you quite sure that we'd take you on as a client? You don't seem to value the opinions of attorneys, and quite frankly, I hated having clients who refused to listen to my advice. Your experience with lawyers does not necessarily equate to a knowledge of relevant law.

Originally Posted by johnelmore

One example, my buddy has a brother who got into trouble. They went to trial and his brother got the maximum sentence. So he could have represented himself or got a public defender with the same outcome. The lawyer they hired was simply not that good. So listen to the wrong attornies and you might find yourself with the maximum sentence.

I don't think that this demonstrates what you think it does. You can get the maximum sentence even when you've listened to the right lawyer. A lawyer is no better than the case in front of him. While it is possible that your buddy's brother's lawyer was ineffective, it's also entirely possible that the State had a veritable mountain of evidence against the brother. We're lawyers, not magicians.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

One example, my buddy has a brother who got into trouble. They went to trial and his brother got the maximum sentence. So he could have represented himself or got a public defender with the same outcome. The lawyer they hired was simply not that good. So listen to the wrong attornies and you might find yourself with the maximum sentence.

That is very nearly the dictionary definition of the False Cause logical fallacy.

Every day, I eat cereal for breakfast. One time, I had a muffin instead, and there was a major earthquake in my city. I've eaten cereal ever since.

Every day, I eat breakfast (buddy got in trouble)... one day I ate a muffin (buddy got lawyer)... earthquake happened (buddy went to jail)... now I only eat cereal (lawyer was bad).

[Don P]

We run a clean business, but there is so much on these trucks they can write you up for. For example a single light where the bulb has blown out. Thats a violation right there. We train the drivers to keep it cool, smile and say nothing when dealing with the patrol. Only tell the patrolman whats required and say nothing more. The patrolman appreciates it because its a more pleasant transaction all around not dealing with a verbally resistant driver. My drivers are 100% pleasant and 100% silent.

Apples and oranges when used for comparison. Just my .02 worth

[OldMarksman]

Posted by johnelmore: I also stated what I would do if the police came knocking which is tell them to talk to my lawyer and have a great day.

And, one more time, that may be the right thing to do, depending upon what they are there to see you about.

But if you have been involved in a use of force incident, and if you intend to present a defense of justification, you most certainly will already have had some interaction with law enforcement when "the police come knocking"--unless, of course, you have already fled the scene of the incident, in which case how you conduct yourself will not prevent a very bad outcome.

If you have used or threatened deadly force in self defense, you will want to have been the first to notify the police by calling 911. You will not have left the scene unless you had no alternative. The police will have come to the scene very quickly in force, and the situation will have been something very different from having officers "knocking at the door".

If you have shot someone, and they see evidence of that, is it likely that the officers will assume that you were in fact guilty of a crime, unless of course the incident happened in your house and the door had been smashed. Their first actions will be to endure the safely of everyone; they will also secure the scene.

But unless you tell them some of what to look for, they will likely have no way of knowing that the couple leaving the other side of the lot in the SUV may be the only witnesses who will be able to corroborate your version of he events, and that they need to be identified on the spot before they disappear, never to return. Unless you tell them what to look for, they will have not reason to look on the other side of the fence for the weapon thrown there by your assailant, and that evidence, too, may disappear forever. And so on.

Thing about it. At that point your fate will depend entirely upon your attorney's ability to successfully present a case that your action had been justified because you had had reason to believe that the use of deadly force had been immediately necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.

But your attorney will not be able to do that without corroborative evidence. And he or she cannot present evidence that he or she does not have.

Asserting that the evidence once existed but has disappeared will be of no use to you whatsoever. Your failure to speak when it was possible to do so may be precisely what put you in that position.

[johnelmore]

I am just curious. Why do you keep insisting that I am putting down your experience or your opinion? I respect all of the opinions and people in this forum and in general. If you think Im challenging you in that matter or proclaiming to be an expert let me stop you right there. I feel like my thread is being thrown off base by these accusations.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

I am just curious. Why do you keep insisting that I am putting down your experience or your opinion? . . . .If you think Im challenging you in that matter or proclaiming to be an expert let me stop you right there.

Hmmm . . .

Originally Posted by johnelmore

I am not an attorney myself, but I always tell people when the topic comes up to stay silent and get a lawyer. There should be a sticky on this and I hope the mods can put together a good thread for such a sticky. This subject gets rehashed so many times, but its great advice which should always be followed. I have no idea why so many people cant follow this basic advice.

Originally Posted by johnelmore

A good motto to remember would be to "shut up and lawyer up". That motto would help more people then it would hurt. I can see a lot of guys in the news would have benefited from such advice. Of course, there are things you can say, but that would be too tough to explain to all audiences and not everyone could execute flawlessly when the time comes

Originally Posted by johnelmore

. . . .Consider me just another opinionater along with the rest.

Perhaps because you've continued to give what may be very bad legal advice, and asked that we consider you "just another opinionater along with the rest." There are several very learned opinions in this thread alone which differ with yours.

Not to mention this tidbit:

Originally Posted by johnelmore

As for lawyers, everyone seems to have a law degree nowadays, but the question is if you are qualified in this area of law and how effective you are in helping your clients. There are many ineffective lawyers. . . . So just saying you are a lawyer or producing a law degree doesnt make you an expert. . . . .

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

I respect all of the opinions and people in this forum and in general.

That's exactly the issue that Frank and others are trying to explain.

You should not respect all opinions.

There are people who think the earth is flat. There are people who think Hitler was right.

Do you "respect" those opinions? I don't.

They have the right to have those opinions but when the facts speak to the exact opposite to the opinion, I do not respect the opinion.

All opinions are not equal and not all opinions deserve respect.

[johnelmore]

Respect and disagreement are two different concepts. While I might strongly disagree with an opinion, I will still respect the ideas and the people behind those ideas. A certain man once said to "take the high road" as you move about the message boards and in life in general. Thats the philosophy I take.

So while I might disagree with Frank and other members at times, I still respect the man and what he has to post. I would never throw his threads off, disrespect his ideas or say something untowards. The high road is the one I will take.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by johnelmore: So while I might disagree with Frank and other members at times, I still respect the man and what he has to post.

Is there anything specific regarding the handling of a self defense incident on which you disagree with Frank? If so, what is it? And what is the basis for your disagreement?

[steve4102]

So while I might disagree with Frank and other members at times,

You have stated many times that you disagree with Frank and the other Attorneys here on how to handle a Self Defense Shooting.

Just exactly how would you handle a situation like this.

You are attacked in a parking lot by 3 Bad Guys, one with a knife. You draw your weapon and fire, killing the bad guy with a knife. The other two BGs take off running taking the knife with them. You saw them drop the knife in a dumpster. You also notice that a couple in a red SUV saw the whole thing and are driving away.

Would you call 911? If so what would you say.

When the cops arrived, would you tell them about the knife in the dumpster, or would you say nothing?

When the cops arrived, would you tell them about the Red SUV. or would you say nothing?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

...I feel like my thread is being thrown off base by these accusations.

Why? Because some folks here are expressing disagreement with your opinion, are challenging your opinion, and explaining why your opinion is wrong and not worth serious consideration? Do you contend that just because you started a thread any opinion expressed by you is immune to criticism and challenge?

It seems that some folks toss in "It's just an opinion" as if it doesn't matter whether the opinion is right or wrong. And sometimes it really doesn't. If it's your opinion that navy blue would be a fine color to paint the north wall of your living room, it doesn't matter whether I think you're right or wrong. In fact, your opinions about matters of your taste -- what you like or don't like in food, art, decor, etc. -- are by definition right for you.

But if it's an opinion about whether that pain in your belly is indigestion, cancer, or something else, being right or wrong will matter a good deal. And in that case the opinion of your doctor is entitled to a lot more respect than that or your mechanic.

Originally Posted by johnelmore

...While I might strongly disagree with an opinion, I will still respect the ideas and the people behind those ideas....

You're more generous than I am.

Everyone is entitled to civility. But some opinions and ideas are not entitled to respect, and Brian gave some good examples.

[KyJim]

Frank Ettin pretty well summed it up in Post 5. I wasn't going to post here until there was some question as to "credentials" of attorneys in this kind of matter.

I have over 30 years of experience practicing law. Early in my career, I was a part time federal public defender (mostly trial work), a contract attorney for our state's public defender system at the appellate level, and also assisted in a couple of major criminal prosecutions at the trial court level as a prosecutor. I currently am employed full time doing criminal appellate work and have handled numerous self-defense cases at the appellate level including several which resulted in published opinions. I just filed a brief on one self-defense case and am starting a brief on another one this afternoon. You'll have to accept this at face value because I'm not putting my name out there for someone interested in a "free" gun collection.

I only mention my "bona fides" to assure any reader that Frank's comments in this matter are solid and dovetail with my opinions as well. We have talked about this matter of remaining silent in other threads including one I started about the Salinas opinion. http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...hlight=salinas

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by KyJim

...I wasn't going to post here until there was some question as to "credentials" of attorneys in this kind of matter...

Jim, thanks for joining the thread.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

Respect and disagreement are two different concepts. While I might strongly disagree with an opinion, I will still respect the ideas and the people behind those ideas. A certain man once said to "take the high road" as you move about the message boards and in life in general. Thats the philosophy I take.

So while I might disagree with Frank and other members at times, I still respect the man and what he has to post. I would never throw his threads off, disrespect his ideas or say something untowards. The high road is the one I will take.

"The High Road" in regards to conduct has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not any particular opinion is worthy of respect.

It is foundational to logic and reality that some opinions are not worthy of respect. The moon is not made of cheese. If you hold that opinion, I do not respect it.

Fact is, the holding of certain opinions will and should lead to a lack of respect for the person holding them. A person who believes that another person is inferior to them because of the color of their skin is a person who holds an opinion that is not worthy of respect and holds an opinion which makes them, the person who holds the opinion, not worthy of respect.

I can still debate or converse with that person and "take the high road" but that has nothing to do with respecting them or their opinion. I can (and would) tell them pointedly that I do not respect their opinion nor them because of their opinion and still be quite "high road".

You, what I know of you, I respect. You seem like a good guy. Hard working, American entrepreneur, etc, etc. Your opinion on legal matters, I may listen and I may wonder if you're right and I will respect your opinion unless/until I know better. If a bunch of lawyers join in and universally agree that your opinion is wrong, yet you maintain that you are not wrong and the attorneys can't be trusted to know how the law/legal system works, I will no longer respect your opinion.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

We run a clean business, but there is so much on these trucks they can write you up for. For example a single light where the bulb has blown out. Thats a violation right there. We train the drivers to keep it cool, smile and say nothing when dealing with the patrol. Only tell the patrolman whats required and say nothing more. The patrolman appreciates it because its a more pleasant transaction all around not dealing with a verbally resistant driver. My drivers are 100% pleasant and 100% silent.

Aside from the self-contradictions incorporated in this brief paragraph, there's another issue. You write that you run a "clean" business, yet you seem to accept as fact that your trucks may be hitting the road with defects. Yes, a single burned-out taillight is a minor defect, but it is a defect. And federal (and most state) commercial motor vehicle laws require that the driver inspect his/her vehicle for such defects each and every time they hit the road. For a "clean" business to be writing that "there is so much on these trucks they can write you up for" suggests that you do not require that your trucks be inspected front-to-back each day before leaving the dispatch yard (or garage, or whatever your company uses as home base). If you allow a truck to leave without being inspected, or to leave with a known defect such as a burned-out bulb ... I respectfully submit that you are not running a "clean" business, because you are not operating in compliance with clear legal requirements.

[steve4102]

^^^ I wouldn't go that far^^^

I drove truck for a few years and it was always inspected before it left the yard, but there are a lot of things that can happen behind the cab that the operator is not aware of until he is pulled over by "Patrol" or he makes a scheduled stop.