No less harder than realizing not everyone shares your opinion.

But, ask Branca and Ayoob, they said it, not me.  (btw: both have testified for decades as expert witnesses in SD cases)


Andrew Branca, "The Law of Self Defense"

Chapter 9

"Tell the responding officers exactly what you told 911:
1. Your name
2. Your location
3. Three specific sentences about what happened and why:
a. I was attacked
b. I was in fear for my life (my family, etc).
c. I had to defend myself.

4. Identify exculpatory evidence and witnesses.

Remember, the jury is only going to arrive at their verdict based on the evidence.  If a piece of evidence goes missing, it does not exist for legal purposes. It becomes speculation.

Good cases of self defense do not suffer from too much evidence.  The suffer from too little evidence.  More evidence is good for the good guys.

So what kind of evidence should you make when you interact with responding officers?

Evidence that will help your narrative.  What the law refers to as exculpatory evidence.  And for the most part exculpatory evidence comes on the form of objects and witnesses.  And you need exculpatory evidence secured.  If it isn't, part of your story becomes speculation, which doesn't exist for legal purposes.

If a thug attacks you with a knife, and as you shoot him that knife goes flying into a bush, tell the responding officers to go look in that bush.  If you don't and the knife isn't recovered, it doesn't exist for legal purposes.  Given the knife justifies your actions, failing to recover it would be devastating to your legal defense.

If all you say is "I want my lawyer" you let that exculpatory evidence disappear. I can assure you that your lawyer is not going to think you are a legal genius for following the advice of a Youtube video to "never talk to the police".

Massad Ayoob
"Conventional wisdom — and many a concealed-carry instructor — says that you should clam up when police arrive at the scene and refuse to say anything without your attorney present, because “police are not your friends” in that situation.

Defensive shooting expert Massad Ayoob disagrees.

Massad Ayoob offers a five-point checklist of things to cover with the police instead of just clamming up:

Establish the active dynamic. This means letting the investigators know what the bad guy did to force you to use your firearm against him. This establishes you as the victim.
Reinforce that by stating you will testify against the bad guy — and Ayoob says the wording of that may be “a little bit tricky.” Don’t say “I’ll press charges,” because in some areas only prosecuting attorneys can press charges. Instead, say “I will testify against him/them.” This strengthens your position as victim.
Point out the evidence. Preserve it if possible; which can be difficult when medical and other personnel are running around disturbing the scene.
Point out the witnesses. I know from experience that witnesses don’t always get interviewed or even have a statement taken at the scene; do your best to make it easy for officers, so the witnesses can back up your story.
Shut up. Tell the officer he or she can expect your full cooperation after you’ve spoken with an attorney."

Also, "if you were attacked by multiple bad guys and one or more of them get away — and you say nothing to the police so they don’t know that 1) you were facing multiple threats when you used your firearm for self defense and 2) there are some bad guys at large — that doesn’t help your case in the least."

"Thank God my client talked to the police while pumped up with adrenaline after one of the most intense experiences of his life without me there!"

-Literally no defense attorney in the history of American law

If you were smart enough you would realize how important it is to train and prepare for "intense experiences".

Or keep an 800 number card handy to wipe your ass when you shityourpants.

Did you ever get around to citing one of those many many cases in which somebody got themselves convicted because they invoked their fifth and sixth amendment rights?

I'll do that immediately after you refute my proposal to train, use common sense, and heed what some experts say about just "clamming up".

So far, you haven't refuted anything.

If it's important to you, ask the real criminal defense lawyers and qualified experts like those I've documented in this thread.

Self Defense Criminal Attorney

Criminal Self Defense Expert

(but we know you won't)  

Surely there's just one.

Ask the experts if you really want to know.

I posted two links above.

It's an excellent book.  I gave my copy away to a friend.  Need to get a couple more.

But, but, hair piece Ayoob said...

The experts aren't the ones making the claim.

You could shut me up and I'll apologize sincerely if you can cite one single solitary case in the United States in which it can be demonstrated that refusing to talk to the police contributed to a conviction.

ONE.

Here they both make the claim:
Andrew Branca, "The Law of Self Defense"

Chapter 9

"Tell the responding officers exactly what you told 911:
1. Your name
2. Your location
3. Three specific sentences about what happened and why:
a. I was attacked
b. I was in fear for my life (my family, etc).
c. I had to defend myself.

4. Identify exculpatory evidence and witnesses.

Remember, the jury is only going to arrive at their verdict based on the evidence.  If a piece of evidence goes missing, it does not exist for legal purposes. It becomes speculation.

Good cases of self defense do not suffer from too much evidence.  The suffer from too little evidence.  More evidence is good for the good guys.

So what kind of evidence should you make when you interact with responding officers?

Evidence that will help your narrative.  What the law refers to as exculpatory evidence.  And for the most part exculpatory evidence comes on the form of objects and witnesses.  And you need exculpatory evidence secured.  If it isn't, part of your story becomes speculation, which doesn't exist for legal purposes.

If a thug attacks you with a knife, and as you shoot him that knife goes flying into a bush, tell the responding officers to go look in that bush.  If you don't and the knife isn't recovered, it doesn't exist for legal purposes.  Given the knife justifies your actions, failing to recover it would be devastating to your legal defense.

If all you say is "I want my lawyer" you let that exculpatory evidence disappear. I can assure you that your lawyer is not going to think you are a legal genius for following the advice of a Youtube video to "never talk to the police".

Massad Ayoob
"Conventional wisdom — and many a concealed-carry instructor — says that you should clam up when police arrive at the scene and refuse to say anything without your attorney present, because “police are not your friends” in that situation.

Defensive shooting expert Massad Ayoob disagrees.

Massad Ayoob offers a five-point checklist of things to cover with the police instead of just clamming up:

Establish the active dynamic. This means letting the investigators know what the bad guy did to force you to use your firearm against him. This establishes you as the victim.
Reinforce that by stating you will testify against the bad guy — and Ayoob says the wording of that may be “a little bit tricky.” Don’t say “I’ll press charges,” because in some areas only prosecuting attorneys can press charges. Instead, say “I will testify against him/them.” This strengthens your position as victim.
Point out the evidence. Preserve it if possible; which can be difficult when medical and other personnel are running around disturbing the scene.
Point out the witnesses. I know from experience that witnesses don’t always get interviewed or even have a statement taken at the scene; do your best to make it easy for officers, so the witnesses can back up your story.
Shut up. Tell the officer he or she can expect your full cooperation after you’ve spoken with an attorney."

Also, "if you were attacked by multiple bad guys and one or more of them get away — and you say nothing to the police so they don’t know that 1) you were facing multiple threats when you used your firearm for self defense and 2) there are some bad guys at large — that doesn’t help your case in the least."



I'm not a criminal defense attorney and have never claimed to be.

Ask them if you really want to know.

Why do you keep bumping this thread?

Holy shit THIS!

You are not a criminal defense attorney, stop giving advice about talking to police.  You have not a fucking clue what your going on about.  

Solomon McLemore.

I’m listening.

Mclemore and his girlfriend had a shouting match. Neighbor called the police. The “iz donts talks to da pooolllleeeece” guy decided not to open the door. Police made a warrantless entry after 15 minutes of trying to get the “iz donts talk to da poooooolllleeeece” guy to open the door. It turned out there never was a domestic. Girlfriend was fine. No crime had been committed, except for the “Iz donts talk to da poooooollllleeeeece” guy obstructing by not opening the door.

Had he just opened the door and talked, he’d have been ok.

Instead, he was arrested and convicted of obstruction.

He appealed. Lost.

Appealed to the State Supreme Court and the conviction was affirmed by a 4-4 vote.

He appealed to SCOTUS and certiorari was denied.


You asked for one. I gave you one. Take your L and apologize. And no moving goal posts either.

L.

Sadly, I find this scenario more likely than OP's.

Don't talk to the police. There is a reason the Miranda warning states anything you say can be used AGAINST YOU. It will not be used to help you.

EDITED - Damn You are FAST Makarov57!!!

Thank You for your provided info.  

BIGGER_HAMMER

He was convicted for obstruction. "Not talking to the police" is not obstruction. Not opening the door when the police had what they thought was a legitimate reason to be there and make entry due to a possible domestic is what he was prosecuted for.

You have a Constitutionally protected right to remain silent. His words (or lack thereof) had nothing to do with the conviction, his actions did.

Try again.

The challenge was very specific, “one single solitary case in the United States in which it can be demonstrated that refusing to talk to the police contributed to a conviction.”

Despite you trying to play move the goalposts, that’s what happened.

But since I got you on the hook, now let’s use People v. Tom.

Richard Tom broadsided at high speed a vehicle driving by Loraine Wong. Wong’s younger daughter, Sydney, was killed, and her older daughter, Kendall, sustained serious injuries. At trial, evidence of his silence (following his arrest but before receipt of Miranda warnings) was admitted against him. Specifically, the prosecutor used the fact that Tom failed to inquire about the other people involved in the collision. (The doctrine here is called “consciousness of guilt evidence”). He was convicted.

At issue on appeal was whether the trial court violated Defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by admitting evidence of his silence. The State Supreme Court said, No.

The court ruled that Tom needed to make a timely and unambiguous assertion of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in order to benefit from it.

The court remanded the case for further proceedings to see whether Tom had unambiguously asserted his right to silence or not, because absent such an assertion, the silence CAN be used against a defendant.

(There is a circuit split and a divergence of state case law on this point as well, but I digress.)

Again, this clearly fits the parameters of the challenge that was posed (and I have several more examples, most dealing with the admission by silence doctrine that is far beyond the comprehension of the typical trailer trash of GD.)

This whole thing demonstrates that not everything in the law is as black and white as the typical GD trailer park resident thinks.

I am not one that thinks giving a detailed run down in the immediate aftermath of a self defense shooting is wise. However, the trailer park version of how to best handle this, spouted off by losers who couldn’t pass a high school exam, let alone a bar exam, isn’t helpful either.

Regardless, this is all beyond the parameter of the challenge that was posed. Both McLemore and Tom filled the “one” example of “contribution” as laid out in that challenge.

But aren't the local police your friend, when you routinely click "Like" on their FB posts about neighborhood charity events, or when they catch a shoplifter...?  What about the fact that you voted for the bond sale to pay for their new squad cars?  What if you agree to donate when you get the phone call from the "State Troopers Association" to donate for their cause?  Aren't the police your friends after all that?  I mean, you posted on Facebook how much you appreciate their department - and got 500 likes!

When that two-time loser tries to break into your house thru the garage and you shot him with the shotgun - well surely your local police will understand...."yeah, no problem Bob, the neighborhood has really gone to shit lately....we'll take it from here and scrape up the body...thanks for supporting the pancake feed at the station house last month"

I see outpourings of support and encouragement on social media for our local LE agencies - but wonder...how many of those positive comments and reactions are based on first-hand interactions of any kind?

I am not convinced. He was not convicted for remaining silent, he was convicted for obstruction. I'm not taking the L, and not apologizing.

If that's the best you got, I feel comfortable in maintaining my policy of "shut the fuck up."

Not only will not, it CAN not be used to help you.

You are playing move the goalposts like any good trailer park resident would do.

I noticed that you ignored People v. Tom completely too.

It’s sad.

You asked for “one” example because you were so convinced that there aren’t any. Until I mentioned it in this thread, you had never even heard of the legal doctrine of consciousness of guilt evidence or an admission by silence.

Anyone with a brain can see that both McLemore and Tom fit the parameters of your trailer trash challenge.

Now you are trying to welch.

Don’t be the loser that you are projecting here. Rise above the trailer, take your L.

I'm not going to engage with you if you're going to call me trailer trash.

I didn't ignore People v. Tom, I am doing additional research on the case. But fuck it. If you're going to be a jerk, feel free to flap your gums to the cops all you want. I'm not going to knot the rope used for my own hanging. You can do whatever you want.

Here’s the thing, I never said that I thought it was wise to “flap your gums to the cops” in the aftermath of a self defense shooting.

I think that Branca and Ayoob are closer to being right than the trailer trash that infest this site though. Neither of them advocate “flapping your gums” either.

The facts are still this, you laid out a very loose challenge in your zeal to be right. I provided you two examples, right off the top of my head that answered your challenge (which was why I was so quick in my reply) but now you want to welch and play the victim.

Tom may be the clearer example, but both fit the bill.

Tom isn’t out there all alone either. I mentioned the circuit split in this issue. In addition to California, MN, VT, KY, MI and the 8th and 11th Circuits have all held that the government’s substantive use of a defendant’s post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence does NOT violate the Fifth Amendment.

Hawaii, along with the 9th, 10th and DC circuits have ruled the opposite.

As with everything in the law, there really isn’t a black and white answer that will tie everything up in a neat bow the way Jethro wants it to.

I didn't move any goalposts. The guy in the first example was convicted for his actions, not for not talking to the police.

I'm not the one who posed the challenge to find a single case of this happening, I just don't believe your first example shows what you think it does.

In this Tom scenario, his silence was a problem because it was portrayed as callousness towards victims. He didn't overtly assert his 5A rights.

I don't think anyone here is saying to literally say NOTHING, as in just sit there and refuse to say a single word. In a SD shooting you best believe that I will be asserting my 5A rights verbally.

The cases you're trotting out are not SD shootings and have other issues as far a relevance to this topic. It's a case of your exceptions actually proving the rule.

I for one don't care if there is one, two, or 87 cases where you can "kind of" show how clamming up hurt somebody legally. In the VAST majority of situations it is simply unwise to talk to the police.

LOL he specifically said don't move the goalposts and that's the first thing you do.

Salinas vs. Texashttps://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-246

Enjoy your shit sandwich.

lol. I would wear that obstruction conviction like a medal of honor. Modern society is such a fucking joke.

blue lives murder

Lol, this is a textbook case of moving the goal posts. Again, think back what the challenge was, “one single solitary case in the United States in which it can be demonstrated that refusing to talk to the police contributed to a conviction.”

Now you want “one single SD shooting case in the United States in which it can be demonstrated that refusing to talk the police contributed to a conviction.”

That wasn’t the challenge.

And yes, people are advocating saying “literally nothing.” Some of the worst trailer trash take it further to even say “never call the police for anything” “never cooperate with the police” “don’t communicate to police if you witness a crime” and “even if my wife was raped, I wouldn’t report it to the police.”

All of those statements have been made by various tards here and on other gun boards.

I talk to the police. It’s not often but when I have to I say yes Sir, no Sir, have a nice day Sir, I have nothing to say without my lawyer Sir, am I being detained Sir, I don’t consent to searches Sir, come back with a warrant Sir, I didn’t see and or hear anything Sir.

Did you even read your link?

Salinas literally talked to the police and then stopped on a question about ballistic relating to his shotgun.  

They used that failure to answer as evidence of guilt, and since he was outside the scope of Miranda.  He did not have his 5th violated, he was free to go at any time.

Sounds like almost every First 48 episode where someone opens their mouth without a lawyer.



He could have just said I'm not talking, and left.

FPNI

I was on a jury about a year ago.  We convicted the gal based on what she said while talking to the cops at her house (body cam recording) and what she said on her phone while alone in the cop car (car cam). In fact I think the cops put her in the car figuring she would dial up someone and blab while thinking she was alone.  Yeh, she was guilty as hell, but I learned a lesson.


This show is great, GD would love it.

Ask any lawyer what do do and they will all say the same thing

NEVER TALK TO THE POLICE WITHOUT A LAWYER!

Meh, they just want more billable hours.  It's a rare instance where a lawyers interests line up with the regular folks.

Branca said that in his book because he is a rep for concealed Cary insurance. If you watch any of his coverage of the Rittenhouse trial, I stopped counting how many times he said “the reason the trial is not going well for the DA is because Rittenhouse STFU and lawyered up.”

"That guy right there presented a deadly threat to me, and I was forced to stop the threat. I will cooperate after I've met with my lawyer."

That's literally all I plan on saying. Any follow-up questions go through my lawyer, and he/she will give the answers, not me. It's not my civic duty to paint a picture for the police and prosecutor since they're already paid to do that on their own.

Andrew Branca, "The Law of Self Defense"

Chapter 9

"Tell the responding officers exactly what you told 911:
1. Your name
2. Your location
3. Three specific sentences about what happened and why:
a. I was attacked
b. I was in fear for my life (my family, etc).
c. I had to defend myself.

4. Identify exculpatory evidence and witnesses.

Remember, the jury is only going to arrive at their verdict based on the evidence.  If a piece of evidence goes missing, it does not exist for legal purposes. It becomes speculation.

Good cases of self defense do not suffer from too much evidence.  The suffer from too little evidence.  More evidence is good for the good guys.

So what kind of evidence should you make when you interact with responding officers?

Evidence that will help your narrative.  What the law refers to as exculpatory evidence.  And for the most part exculpatory evidence comes on the form of objects and witnesses.  And you need exculpatory evidence secured.  If it isn't, part of your story becomes speculation, which doesn't exist for legal purposes.

If a thug attacks you with a knife, and as you shoot him that knife goes flying into a bush, tell the responding officers to go look in that bush.  If you don't and the knife isn't recovered, it doesn't exist for legal purposes.  Given the knife justifies your actions, failing to recover it would be devastating to your legal defense.

If all you say is "I want my lawyer" you let that exculpatory evidence disappear. I can assure you that your lawyer is not going to think you are a legal genius for following the advice of a Youtube video to "never talk to the police".

Written by a professional, experienced, self defense criminal attorney.

Massad Ayoob
"Conventional wisdom — and many a concealed-carry instructor — says that you should clam up when police arrive at the scene and refuse to say anything without your attorney present, because “police are not your friends” in that situation.

Defensive shooting expert Massad Ayoob disagrees.

Massad Ayoob offers a five-point checklist of things to cover with the police instead of just clamming up:

Establish the active dynamic. This means letting the investigators know what the bad guy did to force you to use your firearm against him. This establishes you as the victim.
Reinforce that by stating you will testify against the bad guy — and Ayoob says the wording of that may be “a little bit tricky.” Don’t say “I’ll press charges,” because in some areas only prosecuting attorneys can press charges. Instead, say “I will testify against him/them.” This strengthens your position as victim.
Point out the evidence. Preserve it if possible; which can be difficult when medical and other personnel are running around disturbing the scene.
Point out the witnesses. I know from experience that witnesses don’t always get interviewed or even have a statement taken at the scene; do your best to make it easy for officers, so the witnesses can back up your story.
Shut up. Tell the officer he or she can expect your full cooperation after you’ve spoken with an attorney."

Also, "if you were attacked by multiple bad guys and one or more of them get away — and you say nothing to the police so they don’t know that 1) you were facing multiple threats when you used your firearm for self defense and 2) there are some bad guys at large — that doesn’t help your case in the least."

Not all lawyers say the same thing.

Read above.

I thought we are supposed to tell the cops we are having chest pain??

covered well in Branca's book

More to the point, he was not charged or convicted for doing anything in a situation that would be relevant to this thread, namely the aftermath of a self-defense incident.