Can a witness refuse to talk to police?

[mikeflys1]

I was just thinking about this the other day and was wondering...say im involved in a SD shooting in my own house. Now im not going to talk to police before consulting a lawyer but could my gf also refuse to speak to them? Would there be any legal repercussions?

[40Pirate]

IANAL

Yes, anyone can refuse to talk with police until they have legal counsel.

Will police be unhappy? yes
Will police be suspicious? yes
Will police beat you with hoses? no

[Riz58]

You can refuse to cooperate, just NEVER lie to them! The lie would be a crime in itself even if the witness was not otherwise involved.

[Blitzer]

Yes but don't forget it is legal for them to lie to you. ;)

[PhoneCop]

I was just thinking about this the other day and was wondering...say im involved in a SD shooting in my own house. Now im not going to talk to police before consulting a lawyer but could my gf also refuse to speak to them? Would there be any legal repercussions?

Could you or your girlfriend be prosecuted simply for refusing to talk to the police either before or after consulting with an attorney? Check your state laws, but the answer is nearly certainly, no.

[glockeglock]

I was just thinking about this the other day and was wondering...say im involved in a SD shooting in my own house. Now im not going to talk to police before consulting a lawyer but could my gf also refuse to speak to them? Would there be any legal repercussions?


No one has to speak with the police, ever. You cannot be compelled to talk to anyone, except to testify in court when under subpoena.

Of course in the right circumstances, I suppose the police could take the GF's silence or refusal to cooperate as indicia of guilt or hindering and arrest her.

That said, statements given in the moments following a SD shooting are going to carry a lot more credibility than statements given after consultation with an attorney. But as a witness to something a loved one did, I'd take that chance and wait for an attorney as a misspoken word or incorrect perception uttered in those critical moments could be devastating to a SD shooting defendant.

One caveat. If you are involved in a SD shooting and YOU tell or even suggest a witness not talk to the police, you could be charged with witness tampering, witness intimidating or a some other investigation hindering crime. At your trial, testimony that you told a witness to not talk would look very, very bad.

IMHO,
Steve

[Timberwulf]

What about obstruction of justice? Does that apply in any of these situations?

[Tweek's Turbos]

Once they subpeona you, you don't really have a choice. You can chose not to incriminate yourself, but you aren't miranda'd. And if you are subpeonaed you can have your counsel with you if you choose.

[mikeflys1]

No one has to speak with the police, ever. You cannot be compelled to talk to anyone, except to testify in court when under subpoena.

Of course in the right circumstances, I suppose the police could take the GF's silence or refusal to cooperate as indicia of guilt or hindering and arrest her.

That said, statements given in the moments following a SD shooting are going to carry a lot more credibility than statements given after consultation with an attorney. But as a witness to something a loved one did, I'd take that chance and wait for an attorney as a misspoken word or incorrect perception uttered in those critical moments could be devastating to a SD shooting defendant.

One caveat. If you are involved in a SD shooting and YOU tell or even suggest a witness not talk to the police, you could be charged with witness tampering, witness intimidating or a some other investigation hindering crime. At your trial, testimony that you told a witness to not talk would look very, very bad.

IMHO,
Steve

Yea i understand...this all came up because of a conversation about what we'd do if someone broke into the house. I have no intention of shooting anyone unless I absolutely have to but CT is a fairly anti-gun state so I want to have the legal bases covered.

[fgutie35]

Your GF would have to act on her own will and take the fifth. She cannot be pressured or persuaded by you cause then it would be obstruction of justice. If I'm not mistaken.

[rvrctyrngr]

Short answer, no, neither you nor your GF are under ANY obligation to speak to the police.

You and GF: "Officer, I've suffered a very traumatic experience. I intend to cooperate fully, but I am not going to make any statements until I've had some time to calm down. I'll be happy to speak with you (fill in appropriate time/date here). How may I get in touch with you?"

Repeat as necessary.

Shows your willing to coopreate, but also sez you're not saying anything right at the moment. Give them your name, as a courtesy, then shut the hell up. Call your attorney, and have him/her present when you speak to the police the next day (or whenever you decide is appropriate).

[FLRon777]

Excellent thread on this topic. Lengthy, but very informative.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=885751

[isp2605]

Police - no.
Grand jury - yes.
If she's just a witness then 5th Amendment doesn't apply to her. The 5th is to protect a person against self incrimination. If she's not involved and only a witness then her testimony in front of a grand jury does not involve self incrimination. If she is called before a GJ and refuses she could be cited for contempt.

[Nickotym]

The following video goes into this in great detail:

http://www.washingtonceasefire.net/content/view/109/45/

[Doc226]

The following video goes into this in great detail:

http://www.washingtonceasefire.net/content/view/109/45/

EXCELLENT VIDEO

You beat me to it--NEVER talk to the police.

The most interesting part of what he said was "can be used against you" but anything that can be used to help you will be dismissed as hearsay

[GlocksForGoons]

As a witness you can be charged with obstruction of justice. They will read you your rights at which point you would be utilizing your 5th amendment right.

[SAWMAN]

The above video is simply GREAT !

Rather long winded but definately worth every minute. Especially the "talk" given by the LEO.

Remember also, the Ramsey case. Their little daughter was murdered in their own home. They refused to talk to the police for over two months. And then, when they agreed to be "interviewed", it was at a time and place of their choosing,with their lawyers running interfearance for them.

You don't have to be rich to do what they did. Just smart.

[kensteele]

in some states if not all, a wife cannot be compelled to testify against the husband, even in court. ianal

[Solid]

Yes, as it is possible to incriminate yourself. Guilty or Innocent.

[isp2605]

They will read you your rights at which point you would be utilizing your 5th amendment right.
Remember that Miranda only applies when 1) a person is in custody and 2) when being interrogated. If either of those is lacking then the police do not have to read you Miranda. It's not like on TV.

[kensteele]

^i think leo need to read you miranda warning whenever they believe you are a suspect as well, correct?

[Sam Spade]

^i think leo need to read you miranda warning whenever they believe you are a suspect as well, correct?

Incorrect.


Remember that Miranda only applies when 1) a person is in custody and 2) when being interrogated. If either of those is lacking then the police do not have to read you Miranda. It's not like on TV.

[PicklePilot]

On another thread shows a video where it talks about not talking to police..

My take...if your a typical homies, uneducated retard, that is always doing something wrong, no, your probably not going to out think the cop detective with a high school education with some training in interogation.

As well...putting yourself in a situation where what you did was incriminating or questionable, then getting caught doing it, means your just as much of a retard no matter what..

If a guy with a 12" butcher knife is chasing you around the house before you shoot him, I really don't think you need to lawyer up...it's pretty clear cut...but as others have said...your probably doing something wrong, somewhere, and the more you talk, the more they find out what your really up to.

[target17]

You can refuse to cooperate, just NEVER lie to them! The lie would be a crime in itself even if the witness was not otherwise involved.

For those who might be undecided about talk don't talk to the police. Please Keep in mind it is legal for them to lie to you, but illegal for you to lie to them!

[Resqu2]

If a guy with a 12" butcher knife is chasing you around the house before you shoot him, I really don't think you need to lawyer up...it's pretty clear cut.

That makes since to us but it's the anti gun DA that we have to worry about later on. My only statement would be that I was in fear for my life and my families life and I shot to stop the threat. After that I would not answer any more questions untill I was repersented by a lawer.

The above advice was also given by the Captain of the Sheriff's office during my CCW class.

[Resqu2]

For those who might be undecided about talk don't talk to the police. Please Keep in mind it is legal for them to lie to you, but illegal for you to lie to them!

True statement but I think it's so wrong that they can lie and it not be a crime in it's self.

[isp2605]

^i think leo need to read you miranda warning whenever they believe you are a suspect as well, correct?
No. Miranda only applies to custodial interviews. Both "custodial" and "interview" has to be present. If either is missing then Miranda is not required. So if you are free to leave or believe you are free to leave then you are not in custody. Or you can be taken into custody but if not interviewed then Miranda doesn't apply. You can be detailed but that doesn't mean you are in custody.
People believe what they see on TV is real life. It isn't.

[series1811]

The above video is simply GREAT !

Rather long winded but definately worth every minute. Especially the "talk" given by the LEO.

Remember also, the Ramsey case. Their little daughter was murdered in their own home. They refused to talk to the police for over two months. And then, when they agreed to be "interviewed", it was at a time and place of their choosing,with their lawyers running interfearance for them.

You don't have to be rich to do what they did. Just smart.

But, I think most of us know why the Ramsey's felt they needed to do that. One or both of the Ramseys were either guilty or really didn't give a crap as to whether the police caught the murderer of their little girl or not (which only makes sense if they knew who the murderer was already, and didn't want him or her caught). Whatever happened there that night, they knew that telling the police the truth was just going to make it worse.


Sometimes, the truth will set you free, and sometimes the truth will result in your serving a long prison sentence.

[kensteele]

No. Miranda only applies to custodial interviews. Both "custodial" and "interview" has to be present. If either is missing then Miranda is not required. So if you are free to leave or believe you are free to leave then you are not in custody. Or you can be taken into custody but if not interviewed then Miranda doesn't apply. You can be detailed but that doesn't mean you are in custody.
People believe what they see on TV is real life. It isn't.

so here's a situation. the police think you may have been involved in a crime (they think you are a suspect) and they stop you to question you. they are not taking you into custody, they are only detaining you upon further investigation. they start asking questions, where were you.....? did you just....? can you tell me if....?

you're not free to leave. at this time, you have no rights to a lawyer. do you have to answer those questions? is this the time to say i'm not going to answer any of your questions?

[rvrctyrngr]

so here's a situation. the police think you may have been involved in a crime (they think you are a suspect) and they stop you to question you. they are not taking you into custody, they are only detaining you upon further investigation. they start asking questions, where were you.....? did you just....? can you tell me if....?

you're not free to leave. at this time, you have no rights to a lawyer. do you have to answer those questions? is this the time to say i'm not going to answer any of your questions?


No, Ken, you do not have to answer those questions, but they're certainly not going to tell you that. At the risk of sounding anti-leo, which I most certainly am not, there is never a time that I can think of when you are obligated, legally, to answer questions posed by police.

[isp2605]

so here's a situation. the police think you may have been involved in a crime (they think you are a suspect) and they stop you to question you. they are not taking you into custody, they are only detaining you upon further investigation. they start asking questions, where were you.....? did you just....? can you tell me if....?

you're not free to leave. at this time, you have no rights to a lawyer. do you have to answer those questions? is this the time to say i'm not going to answer any of your questions?
What you say or don't say is up to you.
In your scenario above the police don't have to read you Miranda because you are not in custody. Doesn't matter if the police think you are a suspect or not. Only on TV and in the movies do the police read Miranda in those situations. That's not real life.
Where a witness does not have the option of not answering questions is in the grand jury. A witness cannot invoke 5th Amendment because the witness is not testifying against themselves. 5th Amendment is protection against self-incrimination, not incriminating someone else. If the police have witnesses refusing to cooperate and they are running a major criminal investigation then most likely the prosecutor will call a grand jury, subpoena the witnesses to the grand jury, and compel the witnesses to testify.

[SAWMAN]

.......If,at any time,you do not want to say anything to the police,or anyone else,it's pretty simple.

Keep your mouth shut !!

Alot of the LEO's procedure is plain ol' intemidation. Don't let them get to you. This is why it is SO VERY IMPORTANT to have a lawyer with you before you utter one word.

You have two choices,do not open your mouth...or...have a lawyer there when you do. These are your rights. These rights can't be taken away from you unless you let someone take them.

[zbusdriver]

No. Miranda only applies to custodial interviews. Both "custodial" and "interview" has to be present. If either is missing then Miranda is not required. So if you are free to leave or believe you are free to leave then you are not in custody. Or you can be taken into custody but if not interviewed then Miranda doesn't apply. You can be detailed but that doesn't mean you are in custody.
People believe what they see on TV is real life. It isn't.the Professor James Duane lecture (http://www.washingtonceasefire.net/content/view/109/45/) really enlightened me. WOW! i've always been pro LEO, and i still am! as a law-abiding citizen i've had very little contact with the police. i felt the Ramsey's were guilty because they refused to speak with the police; after the video, i now understand layering-up.

i’ve always assumed that cooperating with the police was the right thing to do. NOT TRUE! i’ve struggled with this issue for the last couple of days because i have always felt that people should cooperate and be honest. but i have now changed my position. I AM STILL PRO LEO! however, i will not speak with them and allow them to go after the bad guys.

if i am involved or a witness to any incident, if asked, i will hand them my ID and CPL (MI carry permit). i will not say a word, not even hello. i will leave the scene, if allowed, and contact my attorney (i only know business attorneys, so i will now search for a defense attorney to add to my call list). if arrested, i will corporate (in silence) i will have my Miranda rights read to me and answer “yes” to, “do you understand?” i will then sit mute and only say, “i need to contact my attorney.” I will not give a statement under any circumstance!

as far as the discussion about when the Miranda statement needs to be verbalized to you by the police is a moot point. any statement you give to the police prior to, or after, they read you your rights can be used against you; therefore, the Miranda discussion is pointless.

[isp2605]

I did a lot of investigations in my 35 yrs in LE, from murders to major white collar to major drug cases and everything in between. What I found is people want to talk to the police even when we don't want to listen to them. The more traumatic the situation is for the person the more they want to talk and they won't shut up even when we ask them to.
I did one agg battery case where the subject just wouldn't shut up even after he was Mirandized and even after we told him we didn't want to hear him say anything. Yet he continued running off the head telling us his entire life story including what he did to the victim and why he did it. Later in court he said we continued interrogating him after he said he wanted an attorney and refused to talk to him. Complete opposite of what actually happened. Had the court believed him the judge would have thrown out his confession and everything else he told us. The video tape from the interview room blew his side of the story.
People say they won't talk to the police but usually they do.

[Jack22]

My take...if your a typical homies, uneducated retard, that is always doing something wrong, no, your probably not going to out think the cop detective with a high school education with some training in interogation.

Ten-to-one that cop detective has a college degree, but other than that I agree completely. Unlike your friends and relatives to whom you can lie with relative impunity, LEO's are naturally suspicious of you and are trained to ask follow-up questions, and also ask for more detail. So, you're forced to come up with a detailed, consistent, non-contradictory alibi on the fly without all of the pauses and "umms" and "ahhhs" that someone telling the truth won't have.

There's a pretty good book called "Arrest-Proof Yourself" (http://www.amazon.com/Arrest-Proof-Yourself-Ex-Cop-Reveals-Arrested/dp/1556526377/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214089710&sr=1-1) that covers a lot of this type of thing. It was written by a defense attorney who used to be a Miami Police Officer, so he knows his stuff and, more importantly, he give you the LEO's perspective and what the LEO is looking for when on the prowl and when talking to you. The book's useful information is amazingly valuable, but there's only about 50 pages of that useful information in the 280 pages; the rest is fluff. It's also written in a street lingo style to make it more appealing to its target audience. FWIW, I didn't particularly like that style.

[Dragoon44]

I did a lot of investigations in my 35 yrs in LE, from murders to major white collar to major drug cases and everything in between. What I found is people want to talk to the police even when we don't want to listen to them. The more traumatic the situation is for the person the more they want to talk and they won't shut up even when we ask them to.
I did one agg battery case where the subject just wouldn't shut up even after he was Mirandized and even after we told him we didn't want to hear him say anything. Yet he continued running off the head telling us his entire life story including what he did to the victim and why he did it. Later in court he said we continued interrogating him after he said he wanted an attorney and refused to talk to him. Complete opposite of what actually happened. Had the court believed him the judge would have thrown out his confession and everything else he told us. The video tape from the interview room blew his side of the story.
People say they won't talk to the police but usually they do.

Absolutely, one thing that the average citizen does not understand and the ace interrogator does, Normal people have a compulsion to talk, to rationalize what they have done. Even being aware of that fact will not stop most people from talking. it is just human nature, and good cops know it. and know how to play the "rationalize, and minimize" card.

[cloudbuster]

...
That said, statements given in the moments following a SD shooting are going to carry a lot more credibility than statements given after consultation with an attorney. ...


...and that is exactly why you shouldn't talk to the police right after a SD shooting. In the stress of the situation, and without counsel, you are far, far more likely to say something damaging to yourself, and the the fact that you said it right then is going to make it seem much more compelling to a jury than any correction or clarification you make with advice of counsel or on the witness stand later.

You are only going to hurt yourself by talking to police at the time. There is literally almost nothing you can say that will be to your benefit. Anything you have to say in your benefit can be said much more safely and precisely later with or through counsel.

[B-Dog]

This thread brings up a good point for everyone to remember including myself:

Discuss w/ your wife, room mate .. whatever, that should anything ever happen to remain silent until you have spoke w/ your attorney.

[cloudbuster]

Police - no.
Grand jury - yes.
If she's just a witness then 5th Amendment doesn't apply to her. The 5th is to protect a person against self incrimination. If she's not involved and only a witness then her testimony in front of a grand jury does not involve self incrimination. If she is called before a GJ and refuses she could be cited for contempt.

If I remember correctly, there are some cases regarding this stating that a person who chooses to "take the fifth" is under no burden to prove why their theoretical response would incriminate them. If a witness to a crime refuses to answer questions on the grounds that it might incriminate them, they are under no obligation to prove that the statements would, in fact, incriminate them (because to do so would obviously be de facto self-incrimination). So, if someone takes the fifth, it is the police and the prosecution's burden to try to build a case against them if they so choose.

[Sam Spade]

If I remember correctly, there are some cases regarding this stating that a person who chooses to "take the fifth" is under no burden to prove why their theoretical response would incriminate them. If a witness to a crime refuses to answer questions on the grounds that it might incriminate them, they are under no obligation to prove that the statements would, in fact, incriminate them (because to do so would obviously be de facto self-incrimination). So, if someone takes the fifth, it is the police and the prosecution's burden to try to build a case against them if they so choose.

Nope, they just give immunity, limited even, and that argument's done.

[Dragoon44]

If I remember correctly, there are some cases regarding this stating that a person who chooses to "take the fifth" is under no burden to prove why their theoretical response would incriminate them. If a witness to a crime refuses to answer questions on the grounds that it might incriminate them, they are under no obligation to prove that the statements would, in fact, incriminate them (because to do so would obviously be de facto self-incrimination). So, if someone takes the fifth, it is the police and the prosecution's burden to try to build a case against them if they so choose.

OMG, did you come up with this yourself?????

Your answer is that if you are a witness you should tell the cops your taking the fifth, which in essence is telling the cops, "I'm not a witness, I am a suspect."

:rofl::rofl:

[isp2605]

If I remember correctly, there are some cases regarding this stating that a person who chooses to "take the fifth" is under no burden to prove why their theoretical response would incriminate them. If a witness to a crime refuses to answer questions on the grounds that it might incriminate them, they are under no obligation to prove that the statements would, in fact, incriminate them (because to do so would obviously be de facto self-incrimination). So, if someone takes the fifth, it is the police and the prosecution's burden to try to build a case against them if they so choose.
If they are being subpoenaed as a witness in a GJ then the 5th doesn't apply to them. If they refuse to testify then it's contempt. It's not all that uncommon for a person to be cited for contempt for refusing to testify at a GJ. The person can be jailed for the duration of the GJ until they decide to talk. Seen it happen several times. Usually they've only sat in jail a day or so. By then they've talked to an attorney who wised them up and they decide to talk in the GJ.

[series1811]

To me, the bottom line is, if you are so sure your version of what happened is going to send you to jail, get an attorney.

Because, whenever anyone lawyers up right away to me, that's what I figure is going on, and I can't think of a case off the top of my head where that hasn't been true.

[Denied]

Why would you not want to cooperate with the police? If you are a witness tell the truth, if you are a suspect, lawyer up and keep you mouth shut. Refuse to talk and any cop worth his donuts will find a way to cause you a lot of inconvenience and cash.

[cloudbuster]

OMG, did you come up with this yourself?????

Your answer is that if you are a witness you should tell the cops your taking the fifth, which in essence is telling the cops, "I'm not a witness, I am a suspect."

:rofl::rofl:

*shrug* Burden of proof's on them. Good luck building a case.

If I was a witness to something that a loved one did and my honest testimony would be harmful to them, I'd rather they started investigating me than contribute testimony that might help send my wife/son/daughter to jail. There are a lot of situations we can all imagine where someone might be morally right but legally wrong.

If fifth amendment didn't apply, as another poster said, in a GJ testimony, then I guess I'd just have a really bad memory.

But, setting aside weird hypothetical situations, and back to the original topic, it's still bad to talk to the cops at the scene, and if you are going to talk, then at trial when you are under subpoena and oath is the place to do so (or at least after you've had time to collect yourself and talk to a lawyer before making a statement).

ETA: And no I didn't come up with it myself, as I said I had heard of applicable cases. I am/was open to correction. Don't be a dick.

[cloudbuster]

Why would you not want to cooperate with the police? If you are a witness tell the truth, if you are a suspect, lawyer up and keep you mouth shut. Refuse to talk and any cop worth his donuts will find a way to cause you a lot of inconvenience and cash.

I think the distinction here is the nature of your status as a witness. Are you just a guy on the scene in public who witnessed something, or was it your husband/wife/relative that was just involved in something? If it's someone I love, I would want to choose my words just as carefully as the suspect would, and that means I wouldn't want to make a statement immediately, but would want to talk to a lawyer.

If I just saw a mugging or shooting happen as I was walking down the street, yeah, I'm going to be as cooperative as possible, why not?

A bunch of you act like innocent people never get sent to jail in this country.

[isp2605]

If fifth amendment didn't apply, as another poster said, in a GJ testimony, then I guess I'd just have a really bad memory.
Before commenting you need to understand what the 5th Amendment says. Among other things it prevents self incrimination. Providing testimony against another is not incriminating yourself. The 5th says nothing about providing testimony to incriminate another.
Sorry you would get "bad memory". I guess committing perjury isn't beyond your capabilities either. Might as well compound your crimes of not only contempt but add perjury to your list of charges too.

[cloudbuster]

Before commenting you need to understand what the 5th Amendment says. Among other things it prevents self incrimination. Providing testimony against another is not incriminating yourself. The 5th says nothing about providing testimony to incriminate another.
Sorry you would get "bad memory". I guess committing perjury isn't beyond your capabilities either. Might as well compound your crimes of not only contempt but add perjury to your list of charges too.

Gee, it's not like I didn't realize that's what I was saying. And I do understand what the fifth says. Can you think of no situation where you'd commit perjury to keep a loved one out of jail if the incident was a gray area? I'm not talking about defending cousin Hannibal Lector, I'm talking about defending your daughter who shot a guy that she says was trying to rape her and the D.A. is making a case that there was no attempted rape happening and that the deadly force was not justified. Now, say you believe your daughter was defending herself, but your daughter had made some comment earlier that could be interpreted as a motivation for murder. Would you report it honestly? I wouldn't, and I'm not ashamed to say I wouldn't.

Look up the Linda Lee Walden case in Ohio back in the 80s. The girl spent a lot of time in jail before getting a retrial and being acquitted.

[isp2605]

Gee, it's not like I didn't realize that's what I was saying. And I do understand what the fifth says.
You've already proven you didn't understand what the 5th says. If you really did know what the 5th was about then you would have known that the 5th doesn't apply if you are a witness and that it only protects you from self-incrimination.

If you want to play the game of lying to a grand jury and perjury then don't go whining and crying about it when you sit in jail. Just remember if you want to play that game then you'll end up paying the penalty for it. Your choice, just make sure you truly understand the consequences. You might look kind of foolish tho when the GJ returns a no bill on the incident but you're still sitting in jail for contempt and a conviction for perjury. But it's your choice. Just be smart enough about the situation so you know what you are facing.

As far as not talking to the police and waiting until trial to tell your story, you also once again proven you really don't have a grasp of the real world of criminology. By the time it gets to trial the justice system already has a story. Whether you help get the real story a head of time or not is up to your own peril. Which story do you want it to have? The story that your accusers are telling or your side? I've worked a lot of cases where the "subject" in the allegations saved his bacon by talking to us prior to charges being filed. If the system only has the one side of the story then that's the one it's going to go with absent any thing to the contrary. If you have a legit story to tell it is going to cost you a whole lot of money waiting for trial to tell your story, and it most likely will cost you a whole lot more than money.

You'll find that not every attorney will give you the advice of not talking to police. They understand that getting your story out right the first time and often earlier the better will keep a person out of a whole lot of trouble, a lot less aggravation, and is a lot easier to defend. It's why in almost every case where we delayed talking to the suspect that the suspect's attorney would call wanting to talk to us.

But then, don't talk to the police. Not to worry because someone will. Your only choice is which story do you want the police to hear.

[Denied]

From the Ohio Revised Code; you might want to read the code for your state before deciding to hinder an officer in an investigation.

2921.32 Obstructing justice.
(A) No person, with purpose to hinder the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, conviction, or punishment of another for crime or to assist another to benefit from the commission of a crime, and no person, with purpose to hinder the discovery, apprehension, prosecution, adjudication as a delinquent child, or disposition of a child for an act that if committed by an adult would be a crime or to assist a child to benefit from the commission of an act that if committed by an adult would be a crime, shall do any of the following:

(1) Harbor or conceal the other person or child;

(2) Provide the other person or child with money, transportation, a weapon, a disguise, or other means of avoiding discovery or apprehension;

(3) Warn the other person or child of impending discovery or apprehension;

(4) Destroy or conceal physical evidence of the crime or act, or induce any person to withhold testimony or information or to elude legal process summoning the person to testify or supply evidence;

(5) Communicate false information to any person;

(6) Prevent or obstruct any person, by means of force, intimidation, or deception, from performing any act to aid in the discovery, apprehension, or prosecution of the other person or child.

(B) A person may be prosecuted for, and may be convicted of or adjudicated a delinquent child for committing, a violation of division (A) of this section regardless of whether the person or child aided ultimately is apprehended for, is charged with, is convicted of, pleads guilty to, or is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing the crime or act the person or child aided committed. The crime or act the person or child aided committed shall be used under division (C) of this section in determining the penalty for the violation of division (A) of this section, regardless of whether the person or child aided ultimately is apprehended for, is charged with, is convicted of, pleads guilty to, or is adjudicated a delinquent child for committing the crime or act the person or child aided committed.

(C)(1) Whoever violates this section is guilty of obstructing justice.

(2) If the crime committed by the person aided is a misdemeanor or if the act committed by the child aided would be a misdemeanor if committed by an adult, obstructing justice is a misdemeanor of the same degree as the crime committed by the person aided or a misdemeanor of the same degree that the act committed by the child aided would be if committed by an adult.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in divisions (C)(4) and (5) of this section, if the crime committed by the person aided is a felony or if the act committed by the child aided would be a felony if committed by an adult, obstructing justice is a felony of the fifth degree.

(4) If the crime committed by the person aided is aggravated murder, murder, or a felony of the first or second degree or if the act committed by the child aided would be one of those offenses if committed by an adult and if the offender knows or has reason to believe that the crime committed by the person aided is one of those offenses or that the act committed by the child aided would be one of those offenses if committed by an adult, obstructing justice is a felony of the third degree.

(5) If the crime or act committed by the person or child aided is an act of terrorism, obstructing justice is one of the following:

(a) Except as provided in division (C)(5)(b) of this section, a felony of the second degree;

(b) If the act of terrorism resulted in the death of a person who was not a participant in the act of terrorism, a felony of the first degree.

(D) As used in this section:

(1) “Adult” and “child” have the same meanings as in section 2151.011 of the Revised Code.

(2) “Delinquent child” has the same meaning as in section 2152.02 of the Revised Code.

(3) “Act of terrorism” has the same meaning as in section 2909.21 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 05-15-2002

[SAWMAN]

Denied,you sound as If you could be a LEO.....anyway....by keeping my mouth shut and not saying anything(anything at all)I would defy a prosecuter to make a case that I was,in any way,intentionally,hindering an officer in their investigation.(Go ahead,try to prove intent.)

I feel that false statements is one thing....no statements is another. I still say,I do not have to talk to anybody if I do not want to.

I am not a lawyer or a LEO. This is simply my belief.

[ndshooter]

That makes since to us but it's the anti gun DA that we have to worry about later on. My only statement would be that I was in fear for my life and my families life and I shot to stop the threat. After that I would not answer any more questions untill I was repersented by a lawer.

The above advice was also given by the Captain of the Sheriff's office during my CCW class.

It is funny because my CCW teacher is an ex-cop from LA and he told us to repeat the same thing. The other night the police came to my friends house where my brother was outside a little drunk... they tried to question him and he just kept saying that he doesn't have to talk to them. They asked for his id and were calling him Mr constitutional because he wouldn't talk to them. He dint have his ID but he did have his CCW so he gave them that. They also told him that no police officer would have told him to say that he does not have to talk to the police.

After that my brother said am I under arrest and they said no and walked away. One cop wrote down his license plate and my brother asked him what that was for. He replied "So when the next drive by shooting happens, I know where to find you."

[Denied]

Denied,you sound as If you could be a LEO.....anyway....by keeping my mouth shut and not saying anything(anything at all)I would defy a prosecuter to make a case that I was,in any way,intentionally,hindering an officer in their investigation.(Go ahead,try to prove intent.)

I feel that false statements is one thing....no statements is another. I still say,I do not have to talk to anybody if I do not want to.

I am not a lawyer or a LEO. This is simply my belief.

Sawman, yes I am a retired LEO and have seem many cases involving people who thought they could keep quiet about "something they knew". IF it can be proved that by not saying anything they hindered an investigation or aided someone in escaping justice then that person can be charged. At the least that tactic can cost you a lawyer fee that could make a good down payment on another home.

[series1811]

Tell Susan McDougal you can't go to jail or refusing to talk to the police.

[kensteele]

Tell Susan McDougal you can't go to jail or refusing to talk to the police.

Susan McDougal (born 1955 in Heidelberg, Germany) is one of the few people who served prison time as a result of the Whitewater controversy in the United States, though fifteen individuals were convicted of federal charges. She is most notorious for refusing to answer "three questions" for a grand jury about whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial. Her refusal lead to 18 months jail time for contempt of court, which was most of her total 22 months of incarceration. McDougal received a full Presidential pardon from outgoing President Clinton in the final hours of his presidency in 2001.

source: wikipedia

[Darkangel1846]

My one encounter with the law........went to a party, a fight started, LEOs arrived, everyone went to jail. ( My room mate was dating a married women, she was having a party at her daughters apartment, The married women had bought the booze) I was charged with possession of beer as a minor(I was 20) Spent the night in jail, went to court was fined $50.00.
Two weeks later the LEOs came over to my house and wanted me to write up the whole incident including who bought the booze. I knew they were on a mission by the DA to get this women with a heavy charge. I told them not only would I not write or make any statement but they could get the heck out of my house. I can't tell you how many threats they made to me. The next day the DA called me and threatened me over the phone, I laughted and hung up. Nothing ever came of it.
Never talk without having a lawyer present, then only give short answers and never volenteer anything.

[series1811]

My one encounter with the law........went to a party, a fight started, LEOs arrived, everyone went to jail. ( My room mate was dating a married women, she was having a party at her daughters apartment, The married women had bought the booze) I was charged with possession of beer as a minor(I was 20) Spent the night in jail, went to court was fined $50.00.
Two weeks later the LEOs came over to my house and wanted me to write up the whole incident including who bought the booze. I knew they were on a mission by the DA to get this women with a heavy charge. I told them not only would I not write or make any statement but they could get the heck out of my house. I can't tell you how many threats they made to me. The next day the DA called me and threatened me over the phone, I laughted and hung up. Nothing ever came of it.
Never talk without having a lawyer present, then only give short answers and never volenteer anything.

Are you sure you didn't say, "It's on, cuz!"

[another okie]

McDougal went to jail because she refused to testify even after being given immunity.

There are different types of immunity - the full kind, which means you can't be prosecuted for the crime no matter what, and the other kind, which means you can if they can find other evidence.

The problem with the procedure used on McDougal is that the courts now allow prosecutors to prosecute people who have been given immunity if the the prosecutor can "show" that the evidence would have come to light anyway. That means it's not really safe to testify if you are given the lesser kind of immunity, but that they can imprison you for not testifying. Truly a totalitarian choice.

[series1811]

There are different types of immunity - the full kind, which means you can't be prosecuted for the crime no matter what, and the other kind, which means you can if they can find other evidence.


Yeah, that's exactly how they described the different degrees of immunity in my academy and law school classes and how we refer to it in court and in legal documents.

[another okie]

Was that a wisecrack? I was trying to avoid jargon. If you want me to put it in Law French or Latin or something just let me know.

[series1811]

Was that a wisecrack? I was trying to avoid jargon. If you want me to put it in Law French or Latin or something just let me know.

Yeah, if you could do that, that would be great.

[bustedknee]

People stand up for their rights every day. In doing so they commit the greatest crime in existence: Contempt of Cop.

"No, you may not search my house/car without a warrant."
"No, I do not wish to make a statement at this time."
Etc., etc...

Be prepared to deal with the results. A lot will depend on your attitude, what others witnesses say, and what evidence the officer sees at the scene. But be prepared (and tell your GF to be prepared) to spend some time behind bars till it gets sorted out.

[SAWMAN]

.....behind bars on what charge ??

They wanna get crappy with me as to what I saw,I'll tell 'em it was the arresting officers mother and/or wife that I saw
running from the scene.

[passive101]

Serious question. If my g/f was with me during the time of the shooting can she not also opt to wait for my attorney before speaking to police?

That should be completely legal correct?

[cloudbuster]

Serious question. If my g/f was with me during the time of the shooting can she not also opt to wait for my attorney before speaking to police?

That should be completely legal correct?

Yes, it's legal.

[deadday]

Yes. (character limit)

[cloudbuster]

You've already proven you didn't understand what the 5th says. If you really did know what the 5th was about then you would have known that the 5th doesn't apply if you are a witness and that it only protects you from self-incrimination.

Yes, I knew that. I was talking about deliberately throwing suspicion on myself. I acknowedge that it's not a good idea unless I'm prepared to be in a world of trouble.


If you want to play the game of lying to a grand jury and perjury then don't go whining and crying about it when you sit in jail. Just remember if you want to play that game then you'll end up paying the penalty for it. Your choice, just make sure you truly understand the consequences. You might look kind of foolish tho when the GJ returns a no bill on the incident but you're still sitting in jail for contempt and a conviction for perjury. But it's your choice. Just be smart enough about the situation so you know what you are facing.

No whining planned. I fully understand the seriousness of it. This is the kind of thing I'd only do for a loved one I'd prepared to die for in any case.


As far as not talking to the police and waiting until trial to tell your story, you also once again proven you really don't have a grasp of the real world of criminology. By the time it gets to trial the justice system already has a story. Whether you help get the real story a head of time or not is up to your own peril. Which story do you want it to have? The story that your accusers are telling or your side? I've worked a lot of cases where the "subject" in the allegations saved his bacon by talking to us prior to charges being filed. If the system only has the one side of the story then that's the one it's going to go with absent any thing to the contrary. If you have a legit story to tell it is going to cost you a whole lot of money waiting for trial to tell your story, and it most likely will cost you a whole lot more than money.


If my lawyer advised me to make a statement before trial, I'd make exactly the statement he advised. That's different from talking without benefit of lawyer right at the scene.


You'll find that not every attorney will give you the advice of not talking to police. They understand that getting your story out right the first time and often earlier the better will keep a person out of a whole lot of trouble, a lot less aggravation, and is a lot easier to defend. It's why in almost every case where we delayed talking to the suspect that the suspect's attorney would call wanting to talk to us.

But for my attorney to advise me of that I'd first have to have his advice, which would mean not giving a statement at the scene.

[kensteele]

Serious question. If my g/f was with me during the time of the shooting can she not also opt to wait for my attorney before speaking to police?

That should be completely legal correct?

the answer to this question was given "yes it is legal."

so to follow-up, because i'm not totally familiar with this, hoping to learn something.

your g/f is not a suspect, she didn't do anything wrong, the police is going to tell her "why do you need a lawyer?" she's not being accused of anything, where is it in the law that says you are entitled to a lawyer before you answer questions from the police as another citizen, maybe a witness, maybe not? are you saying no you are not entitled to a lawyer by law but you still don't have to speak when asked questions? i'm wondering how that plays into hindering an investigation. at this point, the police will ask/force you to come downtown for further questioning since you are not cooperating, right? is that a scare tactic, do you have to go? can they take you down and hold you awhile? then are you detained, is that an interview?

i think i know the answer to some of these questions, just want to be sure....and for others who might be reading...play out the scenario. i would imagine the police aren't happy when someone not involved completely clams up.

[ram2711]

Not giving a statement until you consult a lawyer is always in your best interest. This is the advice I received from my CCW instructor who has been a LEO for 22 years. He said to keep your mouth shut because after a violent confrontation you are not in the right state of mind to give a statement.

My sister and two cousins are lawyers and they told me the same thing. Say you will cooperate and give a statement, after you speak to your lawyer. The law professor and LEO in the video posted in an earlier post clearly demonstrated why talking to the police without legal representation is a bad idea. That video just confirmed what I have been told by multiple people. Like the old saying goes: Never miss a good chance to shut up.

[Denied]

Seems to me we are confusing two issues:

First if you are INVOLVED in an incident such as a self defense shooting by all means talk to a lawyer before giving a statement, BUT be aware that you could be held as a suspect in a crime, where IF you were involved in a justified shoot, your statement would help the investigators determine the justified part.

Second IF you were a witness to a crime (not to be confused with participant) and you refuse to give a statement what have you gained other than to shine the light of suspicion on yourself? If the investigation results in a determination that you indeed did have information that could lead to the solving of said crime then you could be charged with obstruction even though you said nothing.

[dbrowne1]

Yes, a witness can refuse to talk to LE. That is not obstruction, or any other crime, in and of itself.

Whether it is a crime to lie to a LEO depends upon exactly who you are talking to.

If you are subpoenaed (to any proceeding) you have to show up and testify truthfully, subject to any privilege or objections once you get there.

That's the long and the short of it.

[kensteele]

Second IF you were a witness to a crime (not to be confused with participant) and you refuse to give a statement what have you gained other than to shine the light of suspicion on yourself? If the investigation results in a determination that you indeed did have information that could lead to the solving of said crime then you could be charged with obstruction even though you said nothing.

are you speaking from the pov of a citizen, as leo, or as a lawyer? read back a few posts, i think there is some conflicting information.....

[Timberwulf]

Seems to me we are confusing two issues:

First if you are INVOLVED in an incident such as a self defense shooting by all means talk to a lawyer before giving a statement, BUT be aware that you could be held as a suspect in a crime, where IF you were involved in a justified shoot, your statement would help the investigators determine the justified part.

Second IF you were a witness to a crime (not to be confused with participant) and you refuse to give a statement what have you gained other than to shine the light of suspicion on yourself? If the investigation results in a determination that you indeed did have information that could lead to the solving of said crime then you could be charged with obstruction even though you said nothing.

First - your statement without a lawyer *might* help to show you were justified, or a few slip ups *might* land you in jail for negligent homicide or worse. Why take the risk on *might*? Lawyer up, then talk with your lawyer's help. Something you say can not be unsaid later because suddenly it's portraying you in a bad light.

Second - If you are in some way related to the shooter, wife, family member, girl friend, whatever, and you were there, YOU don't want to make any statements that may cause results listed in the first section above to your loved one - YOU are involved in this issue almost as much as the shooter. Fine, it shines the light of suspicion on you - I have news for you - the light is already there. All it takes again is a misspoke phrase or a slip up and now both of you may be in hot water. Again, if you were involved personally in the event, lawyer up. Yes, you might take a ride for a little bit, but it's far better than joining your loved one in bankruptcy or jail.

Now, if you're an unattached witness ("officer, I was headed into the mall when I saw that guy try to rob the other guy, and the guy being robbed shot the robber"), speak on up - give your statement. It's highly unlikely you're in any way legally involved in the event. :)

[BigKid]

This thread has kind of gone a few different (but good) directions. But I am curious, along with Passive, about my girlfriends role. We are out and about, I had to use my firearm in self defense.

My response to responding interviewing LEO:
"I was in fear for my life. I want to be fully cooperative, however I would like to speak to my lawyer."

My girlfriends response to the interviewing LEO:
"I want to be fuly cooperative, however I would like to speak to my lawyer."

Couple questions, is this the best way to handle this? Also, can we have the same lawyer or do i need to get 2 lawyers on retainers now?

Interesting topic. I dind't really think about this all that much prior to this thread. But really, its a high likelihood I would not be alone when somethign goes down. This makes a very good argument to inform your partner/close friends of your carrying status.

[dbrowne1]

Your girlfriend can do and say whatever she wants to do/say. You can talk to her about this issue and see if she'll agree to your strategy, then hope that she actually sticks to it under the stress and questions flying at her following an incident. I wouldn't count on it.

She doesn't need a lawyer and she doesn't need to invoke her right to counsel unless she was involved or is suspected of involvement beyond that of a witness. It also seems to me that it would look rehearsed and suspicious if she starts asking for a lawyer when she didn't even do anything. Best course is for her to just say she'll cooperate and give a statement later once she has calmed down, then refuse to talk anymore. She then needs to talk with YOUR lawyer.

Nobody keeps criminal defense lawyers "on retainer." You pay them a retainer when and if you hire them. Have the names and numbers of 2 or 3 you like and trust handy.

[rvrctyrngr]

Thanks, dbrowne1. I've read through this entire thread, and I can't, for the life of me, understand why the first words out of so many folks' mouths would be "I want to talk to my lawyer".

Why mention the lawyer? You are under no obligation to talk to the police, you can talk to them at a time of your choosing (if you choose to do so at all). Mentioning a lawyer at first contact can turn the responding leo's attitude south...never a good thing.

A more reasonable response would be:

You and GF: "Officer, I've suffered a very traumatic experience. I intend to cooperate fully, but I am not going to make any statements until I've had some time to calm down. I'll be happy to speak with you (fill in appropriate time/date here). How may I get in touch with you?"

If you can get your attorney on the phone while the police are on route, so much the better for you.

When you DO go speak to the police, have your attorney present, for sure.

[dbrowne1]

Thanks, dbrowne1. I've read through this entire thread, and I can't, for the life of me, understand why the first words out of so many folks' mouths would be "I want to talk to my lawyer".

The reason you do it if you're a suspect, as opposed to a mere witness, is to invoke your right to counsel, at which time they have to stop questioning you (or else they risk losing the admissibility of information and evidence that flows from that questioning).

[-gunut-]

I was just thinking about this the other day and was wondering...say im involved in a SD shooting in my own house. Now im not going to talk to police before consulting a lawyer but could my gf also refuse to speak to them? Would there be any legal repercussions?

I would talk to them, personally. I know when I can shoot and when I cannot. If it is a true SD, you tell your story, and most likely nothing will happen to you.

Don't say anything and you will probably be arrested and booked into the jail.

If you are guilty of a crime or ignorant of the laws regarding self defense, I can see why you would not want to talk. Otherwise, I would do so to avoid the hassle and to make it clear from the beginning that my life was threatened and I acted within my rights to protect myself or my family.

[kensteele]

The reason you do it if you're a suspect, as opposed to a mere witness, is to invoke your right to counsel, at which time they have to stop questioning you (or else they risk losing the admissibility of information and evidence that flows from that questioning).

that's is a confusing statement. now i'm lost....again.

1.when do you not have a "right to counsel" and what does it mean to "invoke" it in this situation?

2.if you are a suspect, i was told the police do not have to read you your rights. to me, that means they can still ask you questions. what do you mean they have to stop asking you questions (as a witness or a suspect)?

go back a few posts, my confusion stems from when the police think you are a suspect and maybe i misunderstood this but whether the police thinks or treats you like a suspect or detain you is moot. it's only when there is an interview or you are arrested do you benefit from miranda or the 5th. no?

[kensteele]

I would talk to them, personally. I know when I can shoot and when I cannot. If it is a true SD, you tell your story, and most likely nothing will happen to you.

Don't say anything and you will probably be arrested and booked into the jail.

If you are guilty of a crime or ignorant of the laws regarding self defense, I can see why you would not want to talk. Otherwise, I would do so to avoid the hassle and to make it clear from the beginning that my life was threatened and I acted within my rights to protect myself or my family.

personally i think you are way off base. i almost want to say this is foolish but it's your life so you surely make the personal choices that are most appropriate for you.

i respectfully disagree that if you are involved and you inform the police that you will speak to them at the agreed upon time and say nothing else, that without enough cause or evidence, they will instead arrest you anyway as a direct result of you not talking.

the bottom line is if they can find the right charges that are most appropriate for you, they will arrest you regardless of what you have to say or not. di you not watch the video? :wavey:

[rvrctyrngr]

The reason you do it if you're a suspect, as opposed to a mere witness, is to invoke your right to counsel, at which time they have to stop questioning you (or else they risk losing the admissibility of information and evidence that flows from that questioning).

Makes sense.

If I'm arrested as a suspect, or under investigative detention, absolutely. My statement was presuming things haven't gotten that far.

[-gunut-]

personally i think you are way off base. i almost want to say this is foolish but it's your life so you surely make the personal choices that are most appropriate for you.

i respectfully disagree that if you are involved and you inform the police that you will speak to them at the agreed upon time and say nothing else, that without enough cause or evidence, they will instead arrest you anyway as a direct result of you not talking.

the bottom line is if they can find the right charges that are most appropriate for you, they will arrest you regardless of what you have to say or not. di you not watch the video? :wavey:

What I mean by this is that,

1. You explain it was a self defense shooting and explain the invastion. They see what happened, make rational judgement, investigate and interview, and write up a report, most likely suggesting no further action and forward to the DA. (That is how it works around where I live)

2. You don't say anything. There is a guy dead in your house and you have killed him. You are arrested, taken to jail, booked, get a call to your lawer, stay detained and wait for a chance to talk to one, setup an interview with LE, etc.

What would you say? Would you say anything? How little or how much? <<perhaps this is where we are not understanding eachother... ?

Reguardless of what the video says, at times talking to the police (as long as you understand what you are saying and the laws in your area) can benifit you and avoid getting further in the system for a crime you are not guilty of.

With this there are really no right or wrong ways to go about it. It all depends on where you live and the individuals you encounter. Most lawers preach to not talk to the police because the large majority of the people they defend are absolute morons.

[kensteele]

What I mean by this is that,

1. You explain it was a self defense shooting and explain the invastion. They see what happened, make rational judgement, investigate and interview, and write up a report, most likely suggesting no further action and forward to the DA. (That is how it works around where I live)

2. You don't say anything. There is a guy dead in your house and you have killed him. You are arrested, taken to jail, booked, get a call to your lawer, stay detained and wait for a chance to talk to one, setup an interview with LE, etc.

What would you say? Would you say anything? How little or how much? <<perhaps this is where we are not understanding eachother... ?

Reguardless of what the video says, at times talking to the police (as long as you understand what you are saying and the laws in your area) can benifit you and avoid getting further in the system for a crime you are not guilty of.

With this there are really no right or wrong ways to go about it. It all depends on where you live and the individuals you encounter. Most lawers preach to not talk to the police because the large majority of the people they defend are absolute morons.

so what are you being arrested for and charged with, murder?

[-gunut-]

so what are you being arrested for and charged with, murder?

I would think so. Without explaining what happened who is to know it is self defense?

[dbrowne1]

that's is a confusing statement. now i'm lost....again.

1.when do you not have a "right to counsel" and what does it mean to "invoke" it in this situation?

2.if you are a suspect, i was told the police do not have to read you your rights. to me, that means they can still ask you questions. what do you mean they have to stop asking you questions (as a witness or a suspect)?

go back a few posts, my confusion stems from when the police think you are a suspect and maybe i misunderstood this but whether the police thinks or treats you like a suspect or detain you is moot. it's only when there is an interview or you are arrested do you benefit from miranda or the 5th. no?

Miranda applies only to custodial interrogation - that means that you have to be both "in custody" (which can mean an arrest, or at the very least a detention wherein you are not free to go) AND questions aimed at developing evidence of your involvement or guilt in a crime. There's lots of case law on this, but that's the gist of it.

Right to counsel in this context is 6th amendment.

If you're confused or unsure about what to do or whether you're a suspect, my suggestion would be to shut up and lawyer up if there's any doubt.

As far as what you'd be arrested for, the state has a prima facie case for 2nd degree murder if you intentionally kill another human being - at least in my state and at common law. It's then up to your to show you were justified.

[BigKid]

Your girlfriend can do and say whatever she wants to do/say. You can talk to her about this issue and see if she'll agree to your strategy, then hope that she actually sticks to it under the stress and questions flying at her following an incident. I wouldn't count on it.

She doesn't need a lawyer and she doesn't need to invoke her right to counsel unless she was involved or is suspected of involvement beyond that of a witness. It also seems to me that it would look rehearsed and suspicious if she starts asking for a lawyer when she didn't even do anything. Best course is for her to just say she'll cooperate and give a statement later once she has calmed down, then refuse to talk anymore. She then needs to talk with YOUR lawyer.

Nobody keeps criminal defense lawyers "on retainer." You pay them a retainer when and if you hire them. Have the names and numbers of 2 or 3 you like and trust handy.

I'm going to have to end up getting a lawyer on retainer just to figure this out. I'm confused as to how much weight the statement of the girlfriend carries. If she were to say something incriminating (for me) to the police officer, would that carry as much weight if I said something incriminating? Not just for my sake, but I know that if she said something to land me in jail she will feel responsible. It's not that I want her to lie, but like the video says, 100% truth of innocence can still incriminate.

She may or may not follow our plan, but she might. Its that whole "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take" idea.

As far as retainer, might not be the norm to get a defense attorney on retainer (I am not sure), but I know of at least one that'll accept a small retainer to be "on call" in your emergency.

[Travis Morgan]

Cops WILL lie to you and pressure you to talk. They will even ask where you work, so they can call and "Have a chat" with your boss. I had some fatass loser cop in Junction City, Ks. try that crap on me when I had called in a complaint about some ugly hookers propositioning me. He got pissy because I was flirting with the dispatcher. (She was flirting back)

Officer fatass kept on trying to be threatening. He'd ask a question about me, where I was staying, where I lived, where I worked, parent's names......... etc.. I'd refuse to answer. He'd tell me, "Legally, I can ask these questions. It's the LAW." To which I replied, "Yes you can. And the fifth ammendment says I don't have to answer. Now, if you're gonna arrest me, I'd just as soon you got with it. My beer's getting warm." (I was at a titty bar.)

The two other officers he had there with him were trying like hell not to smile, and were obviously bored.

Just remember, other than identifying yourself, you don't have to say anything. If they detain you too long without being placed under arrest, that's actionable, and counts as false arrest.

[series1811]

Cops WILL lie to you and pressure you to talk. They will even ask where you work, so they can call and "Have a chat" with your boss. I had some fatass loser cop in Junction City, Ks. try that crap on me when I had called in a complaint about some ugly hookers propositioning me. He got pissy because I was flirting with the dispatcher. (She was flirting back)

Officer fatass kept on trying to be threatening. He'd ask a question about me, where I was staying, where I lived, where I worked, parent's names......... etc.. I'd refuse to answer. He'd tell me, "Legally, I can ask these questions. It's the LAW." To which I replied, "Yes you can. And the fifth ammendment says I don't have to answer. Now, if you're gonna arrest me, I'd just as soon you got with it. My beer's getting warm." (I was at a titty bar.)

The two other officers he had there with him were trying like hell not to smile, and were obviously bored.

Just remember, other than identifying yourself, you don't have to say anything. If they detain you too long without being placed under arrest, that's actionable, and counts as false arrest.

All police officers live in fear of coming into contact with a person possessing your knowledge and rapier like wit (not to mention your high self esteem).

[Dragoon44]

All police officers live in fear of coming into contact with a person possessing your knowledge and rapier like wit (not to mention your high self esteem).

But most of them wish ALL their complainants wanted to give thier statements at titty bars.

:rofl::rofl:

[series1811]

But most of them wish ALL their complainants wanted to give thier statements at titty bars.

:rofl::rofl:

Exactly. How come I never get to question people in titty bars? :steamed:

[bustedknee]

What I mean by this is that,

1. You explain it was a self defense shooting and explain the invastion. They see what happened, make rational judgement, investigate and interview, and write up a report, most likely suggesting no further action and forward to the DA. (That is how it works around where I live)

2. You don't say anything. There is a guy dead in your house and you have killed him. You are arrested, taken to jail, booked, get a call to your lawer, stay detained and wait for a chance to talk to one, setup an interview with LE, etc.

What would you say? Would you say anything? How little or how much? <<perhaps this is where we are not understanding eachother... ?

Reguardless of what the video says, at times talking to the police (as long as you understand what you are saying and the laws in your area) can benifit you and avoid getting further in the system for a crime you are not guilty of.

With this there are really no right or wrong ways to go about it. It all depends on where you live and the individuals you encounter. Most lawers preach to not talk to the police because the large majority of the people they defend are absolute morons.


The way you see it is how it should be..not how it really is.

[Timberwulf]

And not only that, BustedKnee, but if you've just shot someone, your mental state will be very agitated and fragmented. You also haven't had time to really think through the whole scenario. How many times have you gotten a ticket for something in traffic (or had an accident), and it took you a day or so to get a handle on exactly how it happened, what led up to it, etc? This effect means that the statement you give them may not even be wholly accurate. And when your answers change down the road, the Police aren't going to treat it like you are remembering better - they're going to treat it as if you lied, or are lying, which makes you an even greater suspect.

Every CCW instructor I've had essentially said to tell the Police: "I was in fear for my/his/her life and I shot to stop the threat. I will be happy to answer your questions once my lawyer is present." Done. You've stated it was self defense, and you've done it with the minimum of presentation of facts in such a way as to allow you to make an accurate, more detailed statement with a lawyer present to protect your rights. The facts presented are also very easy for you to know during the time right after the shooting (there is only one detail in that statement - who you defended - pretty easy to figure out immediately ;) ). The finer details will come to mind later, and you can give that statement with counsel present at that time.

[dbrowne1]

As far as retainer, might not be the norm to get a defense attorney on retainer (I am not sure), but I know of at least one that'll accept a small retainer to be "on call" in your emergency.

If you just want to meet with someone and ask them questions about all this, they'll send you a bill for whatever time you take up, or a flat fee if you negotiate it up front.

As far as retainers go, those get put into a trust account and the lawyer can only withdraw that money and pay himself or the firm when and as you use his time. It's usually just a way to make sure the lawyer gets paid on an ongoing and active matter. I don't think I'd bother tying up money in some lawyer's trust account just for the privilege of being able to call him every once in a while about gun or use of force issues.

Criminal law and law in general is not like medicine. There is really no value to having a lawyer "on call" 24/7. It's not as though that lawyer appearing at the jail magically springs you out, or his appearing 15 minutes after an incident at the scene is likely to make any difference. You'll have plenty of time to talk with him later and he'll need to investigate and evaluate your situation.

[TheeBadOne]

As an Law Enforcement Officer, if a witness refused to speak to me, I'd ask them to step out into the a hallway, lean in close, and say:


"It's on, Cuz!"



:tbo:

[rvrctyrngr]

As an Law Enforcement Officer, if a witness refused to speak to me, I'd ask them to step out into the a hallway, lean in close, and say:


"It's on, Cuz!"

:tbo:


For some strange reason, TBO, I don't doubt that! :supergrin:

[Travis Morgan]

If you just want to meet with someone and ask them questions about all this, they'll send you a bill for whatever time you take up, or a flat fee if you negotiate it up front.

As far as retainers go, those get put into a trust account and the lawyer can only withdraw that money and pay himself or the firm when and as you use his time. It's usually just a way to make sure the lawyer gets paid on an ongoing and active matter. I don't think I'd bother tying up money in some lawyer's trust account just for the privilege of being able to call him every once in a while about gun or use of force issues.

Criminal law and law in general is not like medicine. There is really no value to having a lawyer "on call" 24/7. It's not as though that lawyer appearing at the jail magically springs you out, or his appearing 15 minutes after an incident at the scene is likely to make any difference. You'll have plenty of time to talk with him later and he'll need to investigate and evaluate your situation.

I've heard of rich guys putting every lawyer in their area on retainer before serving their wife with divorce papers. You can also call a lawyer, record the call, speak with the lawyer, discuss some specifics of your case, and from there on, they will be "tainted", and your wife will have to go WAY outside the area to find a lawyer.

As an Law Enforcement Officer, if a witness refused to speak to me, I'd ask them to step out into the a hallway, lean in close, and say:


"It's on, Cuz!"

Unfortunately, this seems to be the attitude that prevails among the current generation of officers. Just like the little fckers that tase everyone, including 9 year olds and old women, for "not complying", whether they were legally bound to, or not.

:tbo:

[solomansousana]

I was just thinking about this the other day and was wondering...say im involved in a SD shooting in my own house. Now im not going to talk to police before consulting a lawyer but could my gf also refuse to speak to them? Would there be any legal repercussions?

At ANY time in the process ANYONE may say they will give a statement, AFTER they consult with an attorney.

Even were I involded in a SD shooting, I'd give the police responding a basic heads up, but then I'd tell them I want to consult with my attorney prior to giving a formal written statement. Witness can do the same.