Never talk to the police , period

[Lodogg2221]

Yes, I very clearly understood that you said that these things do not happen because they (supposedly) will not hold up on court. Again, your theory and my results are at sharp disagreement.

As I said, I understand. I dont know what happened, and at this point with all the other crap in this thread aimed at me for my opinion, dont care. Should it have happened? No. Does it all the time to everyone else? Not likely....

 

[Expat]

Good Lord. I give up. )

That is why most of us who are generally supportive of good cops don't post much in these threads any more. I would also note that many of our active duty officers have been banned or no longer come here anymore. We had some really great ones here.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Before we start, I did use the word 'nearly' to qualify my statement. Of course not all shootings result in an arrest.....immediate or otherwise. However, it is my belief that both the timing and frequency of arrests for firearms related scenarios, is directly related to the jurisdiction in which they occur. A more gun friendly state would likely not immediately arrest and allow due process to work, while an anti-state would likely work to assure that the suspect is in custody as soon as possible.

As far as the media is concerned with ascertaining and conveying facts, we only hear of the more "newsworthy" incidents. If I have heard of more than a 20 self defense shootings since the beginning of the year, that pales in comparison to Gary Kleck's estimate to the two million defensive gun uses a year by law abiding citizens.

We just can't know, but can surmise that a large percentage of people are immediately arrested, regardless of the media coverage upon the issue. The NRA supports this statement in its many publications and courses upon DGUs.

I would think the difference would be in the amount of castle doctrine states we have now compared to just a few years ago. In a CD state there would be no reason to arrest unless evidence came out showing that your claim may be invalid. This would back up the 'don't talk to cops' advice.

Well, Webster doesnt get to court very often these days, but they generally see lying by authorities to get a certain outcome different from one intended by the victim or defendant as the case may be, as the same thing regarding the law.

This is just plain incorrect. You think that if someone were trying to buy drugs off of an undercover cop and they ask them that they are LEO that they are going to tell the truth?

Next you are going to say "but that's different!"

 

[IndyDave1776]

As I said, I understand. I dont know what happened, and at this point with all the other crap in this thread aimed at me for my opinion, dont care. Should it have happened? No. Does it all the time to everyone else? Not likely....

This brings me back to the point of condescension that originally irritated my with your posts. You are making an assumption that our results are grossly atypical. How do you know what is or is not likely in general? Do you expect us to believe that we just have such bad luck as to consistently run into your select few bad cops who are rare as hens' teeth? If that notion had an element of truth, I would think that the averages would catch up with us eventually.

In the your post quoted above you start with a fair statement, then another fair statement, and then conclude with a completely unsupported notion that our results are unusual. Why is this? Looking back the other direction, I would not presume to tell you that all cops are lying, crooked, pieces of trash just because the majority that I have encountered are, but then again, you can rest assured that I am going to consider the most commonly encountered actual result to be the probability in any future encounter. Any other response would require any or all in combination of denial, drug abuse, idealism run amok, and hereditary insanity. I feel no reasonable recourse other than to believe that they ARE out to get me until proven otherwise. If this were not the case, then why would it have become an issue for the courts to have upheld as a standard that they are entitled to lie and deceive in order to gather damning information regardless of whether it is what it is or is made useful by a twisting worthy of Satan himself?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Before this gets out if hand...

I think the idea of "never" talking to police is a bit unrealistic. I've met with a good amount of people that have followed that advice, and it typically doesn't end well for them. When the PC is there to make an arrest w/o a person's statement, what's the point in not talking (in most instances)? One must also keep in mind, that not speaking is probably best when one is the sole focus of an investigation. How many people are willing to remain silent, if they are being indicated by witnesses or opposing parties. Not saying it's right, but it looks pretty bad when there has been a crime committed, two people indicate that another is the perpetrator, and when confronted, that person "lawyers' up". We still live in a society where people believe that telling the truth and being upfront are always the best options. You will still find many (on a jury), who view not talking to police after a crime has occurred as being very suspicious for a person claiming innocence.

 

[Ted]

I would think the difference would be in the amount of castle doctrine states we have now compared to just a few years ago.

Again, while a majority of states have CD laws, the information is so skewed by its lack of reporting in the MSM.

In a CD state there would be no reason to arrest unless evidence came out showing that your claim may be invalid. This would back up the 'don't talk to cops' advice.

You're presuming that a CD law in every state is comprehensive enough to dictate such. In the more left leaning states, if may be merely be a matter of, for example, an affirmative defense.

Though how often is a person arrested for essentially, "Just because"? We see it everyday......and a dead body nearly guarantees that one's firearm(s) is/are confiscated, and wearing handcuffs.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Before this gets out if hand...

I think the idea of "never" talking to police is a bit unrealistic. I've met with a good amount of people that have followed that advice, and it typically doesn't end well for them. When the PC is there to make an arrest w/o a person's statement, what's the point in not talking (in most instances)? One must also keep in mind, that not speaking is probably best when one is the sole focus of an investigation. How many people are willing to remain silent, if they are being indicated by witnesses or opposing parties. Not saying it's right, but it looks pretty bad when there has been a crime committed, two people indicate that another is the perpetrator, and when confronted, that person "lawyers' up". We still live in a society where people believe that telling the truth and being upfront are always the best options. You will still find many (on a jury), who view not talking to police after a crime has occurred as being very suspicious for a person claiming innocence.

(I just got the too much rep scold!)

 

[Classic Liberal]

I just thought it was rather odd that there were the "few" that seem to have a dim view and wanted to know why, and so while I still dont know why, I know they are set in their ways for reasons known to them, and leave it at that.

It's been stated here previously, but I'll post it again, so you will know why.
There are some of us that have negative interactions with LEO when no laws were being violated. The only violations were the ones being executed by LEO that stopped us.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Before this gets out if hand...

I think the idea of "never" talking to police is a bit unrealistic. I've met with a good amount of people that have followed that advice, and it typically doesn't end well for them. When the PC is there to make an arrest w/o a person's statement, what's the point in not talking (in most instances)? One must also keep in mind, that not speaking is probably best when one is the sole focus of an investigation. How many people are willing to remain silent, if they are being indicated by witnesses or opposing parties. Not saying it's right, but it looks pretty bad when there has been a crime committed, two people indicate that another is the perpetrator, and when confronted, that person "lawyers' up". We still live in a society where people believe that telling the truth and being upfront are always the best options. You will still find many (on a jury), who view not talking to police after a crime has occurred as being very suspicious for a person claiming innocence.

I agree for the most part, but I think it is a dirty shame that people are convicted based on opinion rather than fact.

I would still rather take my chances with facts and not incriminating myself. Personal preference I guess.

Again, while a majority of states have CD laws, the information is so skewed by its lack of reporting in the MSM.



You're presuming that a CD law in every state is comprehensive enough to dictate such. In the more left leaning states, if may be merely be a matter of, for example, an affirmative defense.

Though how often is a person arrested for essentially, "Just because"? We see it everyday......and a dead body nearly guarantees that one's firearm(s) is/are confiscated, and wearing handcuffs.

I just don't see the indicators you do in the news and even in the grapevine. Are there bad arrests of innocent people? Sadly yes.

Does that make them the majority? No.

I have read (and stopped reading) so many gun rags that talk about law and self defense in absolutes. The fact is there is only ONE absolute in this world and it has nothing to do with humanity!

 

[Colts]

. . . My advice would be, dont shoot anyone unless you absolutely have to, and you wont have anything to worry about . . .

After reading this thread I am not sure what to believe but I do believe some some of it has merit.
I especially think it is a good idea (perhaps some luck is needed), not to shoot anyone (this lessens the need for a lawyer).

I think there is a lot of room in the middle of the two opposing sides that seem to predominate this discussion. I would even go so far as to suspect that many here agree on much more than they realize (I know, it is not as fun talking about what we all agree on ).

As many have stated in the past, the best part of this site is that we can read, discuss (robustly debate), ponder and learn before we might find ourselves in a situation where we may need to act!

Yeah INGO!

 

[88GT]

In nearly every incident that I've recalled in the past, the shooter was arrested at the scene, regardless of the perceived circumstances.

There is no reason to believe that any of us won't be arrested, even if we have sound and video readily available to exonerate any us of criminal action.

Arrested or detained? Not arguing, just seeking clarification. I can see detaining all parties until details are sorted out on scene. But an arrest, even for nearly every incident, seems out of the ordinary.

Like this one?

No, more like this

Face it, they lie. And they can get away with it.

 

[Colts]

I do not want to give the wrong impression in my previous post. It is not a bad idea to know or talk to a lawyer, like Guy.

I do not carry a lawyers card on my person, but there is one in my ammo box.

 

[Ted]

Arrested or detained? Not arguing, just seeking clarification. I can see detaining all parties until details are sorted out on scene. But an arrest, even for nearly every incident, seems out of the ordinary.

George Zimmerman wasn't arrested according to the media, but wasn't afforded the choice of refusing being cuffed and transported to the Police Department. So while he was, strictly speaking, detained......was he only detained?

 

[88GT]

George Zimmerman wasn't arrested according to the media, but wasn't afforded the choice of refusing being cuffed and transported to the Police Department. So while he was, strictly speaking, detained......was he only detained?

I get what you're saying, but I don't buy that this is SOP for the majority of self defense shootings.

 

[Ted]

I just don't see the indicators you do in the news and even in the grapevine. Are there bad arrests of innocent people? Sadly yes.

Does that make them the majority? No.

I have read (and stopped reading) so many gun rags that talk about law and self defense in absolutes. The fact is there is only ONE absolute in this world and it has nothing to do with humanity!

I get what you're saying, but I don't buy that this is SOP for the majority of self defense shootings.

I never stated that such were a majority, though I did allude to the number as significant. Of the 12,420 arrests for homicides last reported by the BJS, I would wager a fair number fall within that category.

 

[NDhunter]

That is why most of us who are generally supportive of good cops don't post much in these threads any more. I would also note that many of our active duty officers have been banned or no longer come here anymore. We had some really great ones here.

And this fact is mighty sad. This thread really, really didn't have to go there. I'm 100% supportive, but you could discuss the viewpoint of the video standing from either side of the fence without turning it into a normal LE-bashing fest.

 

[serpicostraight]

And this fact is mighty sad. This thread really, really didn't have to go there. I'm 100% supportive, but you could discuss the viewpoint of the video standing from either side of the fence without turning it into a normal LE-bashing fest.

wheres the bashing i must have missed it. i did see facts stated.

 

[repeter1977]

well, i like how i have to present facts and show points of the news on my side, but you can go with emotions. Anti gunners are a lot like that too now, i know that will really get everyone riled up.
As a military policeman, i have read more then a couple people their rights, and I know that it is not always the best idea to talk, but usually those that chose not to talk have a good reason. However, i know this will surprise most the posters on here, when its a he said he said argument, and the person is able to "talk" their way out of it, then they have before. Hard to arrest someone while still processing evidence, which can go either way until evaluated further, unless they confess. Granted, I do have to say, there are always 3 sides to any 2 sided argument. Side A, Side B, and what really happened.
As I had said before, if you chose to invoke your rights to a lawyer, then they have to go off of everything else in front of them, without your point of view. And I also said, sometimes the right to remain silent is the best choice to make, but to say its ALWAYS the choice to make, is kinda of drastic. Just like if i said, you should always talk and never ask for a lawyer. I believe Massad Ayoob has the best points, and thats whom I would listen to, as he is an expert witness and a police officer that has been to more trials then I would ever care to.

 

[serpicostraight]

well, i like how i have to present facts and show points of the news on my side, but you can go with emotions. Anti gunners are a lot like that too now, i know that will really get everyone riled up.
As a military policeman, i have read more then a couple people their rights, and I know that it is not always the best idea to talk, but usually those that chose not to talk have a good reason. However, i know this will surprise most the posters on here, when its a he said he said argument, and the person is able to "talk" their way out of it, then they have before. Hard to arrest someone while still processing evidence, which can go either way until evaluated further, unless they confess. Granted, I do have to say, there are always 3 sides to any 2 sided argument. Side A, Side B, and what really happened.
As I had said before, if you chose to invoke your rights to a lawyer, then they have to go off of everything else in front of them, without your point of view. And I also said, sometimes the right to remain silent is the best choice to make, but to say its ALWAYS the choice to make, is kinda of drastic. Just like if i said, you should always talk and never ask for a lawyer. I believe Massad Ayoob has the best points, and thats whom I would listen to, as he is an expert witness and a police officer that has been to more trials then I would ever care to.

see op video. i think they have good points. when talking can only harm and not help why talk?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

In nearly every incident that I've recalled in the past, the shooter was arrested at the scene, regardless of the perceived circumstances.

There is no reason to believe that any of us won't be arrested, even if we have sound and video readily available to exonerate any us of criminal action.

I never stated that such were a majority, though I did allude to the number as significant. Of the 12,420 arrests for homicides last reported by the BJS, I would wager a fair number fall within that category.

It may just be me, but when sometime says "In nearly every incident..." that tells me he is thinking it is a vast majority and not just 'significant.'