self defense shooting in Spokane

[Kildars]

imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:

erps wrote:

FunkTrooper wrote:

I think one of his big mistakes was talking to the police! After a defensive situation when police arrive you tell them you want to speak to an attorney, never under any situation should you speak to a police officer it is there job to lock you up.

Their job is to do an investigation.

And that investigation could end with someone behind bars, the point is whether your innocent or not don't talk to the police.

QFMFT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

 

[OrangeIsTrouble]

imported post

kildars, I love that video, but there is a better link on google video, so you don't have to load up 2 different youtube videos. That's my bible.

 

[Lammo]

imported post

Update: Charges dropped in Cd’A shooting

A man accused of shooting two men during a night of drinking in downtown Coeur d’Alene left jail Friday after a grand jury declined to indict him. Adam M. Johnson, 25, said he shot Brandon R. Burgess and Bradley J. Phillips in self-defense after the men and their friends threatened him during an early-morning argument Dec. 27.

The men had argued at a bar hours earlier, and police said Johnson was attacked by the men only after he fired a gun at them.

A grand jury apparently disagreed and refused to indict Johnson, the CEO of a Coeur d’Alene-based telecommunications company. Charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery were dismissed Friday in Kootenai County District Court.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/jan/08/charges-dropped-cda-shooting/

 

[Vandal]

imported post

Since the charges have been dropped I would expect the civil suits to be thrown out soon as well.

The only thing the State could go after him for now is violation of this, but I highly doubt it as the writing is very vague and usually up to the discretion of the arresting officer.

http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=180330002B.K]

18-3302B. CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR
DRUGS. It shall be unlawful for any person to carry a concealed weapon on or about his person when intoxicated or under the influence of an intoxicating drink or drug. Any violation of the provisions of this section shall be a misdemeanor.

The civil liability clause can be found here:
http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title6/T6CH8SECT6-808.htm

TITLE 6
ACTIONS IN PARTICULAR CASES
CHAPTER 8
ACTIONS FOR NEGLIGENCE
6-808.CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR SELF-DEFENSE. (1) A person who uses force as justified in section 18-4009, Idaho Code, or as otherwise permitted in sections 19-201 through 19-205, Idaho Code, is immune from any civil liability for the use of such force except when the person knew or reasonably should have known that the person against whom the force was used was a law enforcement officer acting in the capacity of his or her official duties.
(2) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the defendant in any civil action if the court finds that the defendant is immune from such action pursuant to this section.

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

FunkTrooper wrote:

erps wrote:

FunkTrooper wrote:

I think one of his big mistakes was talking to the police! After a defensive situation when police arrive you tell them you want to speak to an attorney, never under any situation should you speak to a police officer it is there job to lock you up.

Their job is to do an investigation.

And that investigation could end with someone behind bars, the point is whether your innocent or not don't talk to the police.

This coin definetly has two sides. Everyone has the right to refuse to speak to Police. If one chooses to exercise this, the Police will then make ALL the decisions for you, without the benefit of your input. The accounts of all other witnesses and persons involved will be weighed, and you will have just completely handed your fate to the Officer. This typically makes the Officer's job much easier, as there are less factors to consider in their decision. The likeliehood of going to jail at that timewill beGREATLY increased. It is the Officer's job to try and determine exactly what took place, and if you liketo gamble with your freedom, then by all means...........roll the dice.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

imported post

If anything bad ever happens, I really hope & prayit never does.I am going to folow the advice I have been given by several lawyers, and in every defensive gun class I have ever taken, That person(s) tried to murder me,I amvery upset and will make a statement tommorow after I have had time to collect myselfand shut up until I talk to my lawyer. Massad Ayoob also recomends not talking to LE as well.

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

Orphan wrote:

If anything bad ever happens, I really hope & prayit never does.I am going to folow the advice I have been given by several lawyers, and in every defensive gun class I have ever taken, That person(s) tried to murder me,I amvery upset and will make a statement tommorow after I have had time to collect myselfand shut up until I talk to my lawyer. Massad Ayoob also recomends not talking to LE as well.

ANY attorney would be an idiot (and many are anyway) to ever advise someone to speak to Police. Tellingpeople to keep their mouth shut is the default setting for the general populace. It is good advice for those who have commited a crime, are stupid, or have no common sense. They have no idea if you fall into any/all of these categories, and are just erroring on the side of safety. Remember, the attorney is not the one in handcuffs going to jail (well........sometimes they are).

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Orphan wrote:

If anything bad ever happens, I really hope & prayit never does.I am going to folow the advice I have been given by several lawyers, and in every defensive gun class I have ever taken, That person(s) tried to murder me,I amvery upset and will make a statement tommorow after I have had time to collect myselfand shut up until I talk to my lawyer. Massad Ayoob also recomends not talking to LE as well.

ANY attorney would be an idiot (and many are anyway) to ever advise someone to speak to Police. Tellingpeople to keep their mouth shut is the default setting for the general populace. It is good advice for those who have commited a crime, are stupid, or have no common sense. They have no idea if you fall into any/all of these categories, and are just erroring on the side of safety. Remember, the attorney is not the one in handcuffs going to jail (well........sometimes they are).

Remember:

"...anything you say can and will be used against you.....

it will be used against you.....NOT FOR YOU! It does not matter if it is incriminating or exculpatory it will be used ONLY AGAINST YOU!

 

[Wheelgunner]

imported post

I have never seen a situation where 8 men rushed a man shooting a gun.

That said, the investigation will be interesting.

Also, time to upgrade my weaponry. This will be my last post as Wheelgunner as I am switching over to autos in my Daisho.

Form here on in I will be posting as BrenTen.

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

Remember:

"...anything you say can and will be used against you.....

it will be used against you.....NOT FOR YOU! It does not matter if it is incriminating or exculpatory it will be used ONLY AGAINST YOU!

Line #2 of my Miranda card reads; anything you sayCAN be used against you in a court of law. The word "will" appears on some, but not all. If a case does not go to trial, then obviouslyit WILL NOTbe used against one in aCOURT of law, which makes "will" a misnomer under Miranda. I fail to see how a trulyexculpatory statement could ever be used against one, as it's very definition is to clear the defendant of guilt. I can however tell you that an exculpatory statement can definetly help one's cause during an interview by Police at the time of an incident. Ultimately it's up to each individual to decide what is best for them at the time.

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

From the case Miranda v Arizona 1966

"The warning of the right to remain silent must be accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be used against the individual in court..."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436

If you don't think that an exculpatory statement can be used against you then you miss the whole point about an adversarial legal system. Prosecutors will not use your statements to help you only to prosecute you whether you violated the law or not.

Now that being said, each should make his own decision. Personally I have talked to LEO but I control the conversation not them. Well, ok just a couple of speeding tickets is all I have ever done, lol....

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

If you don't think that an exculpatory statement can be used against you then you miss the whole point about an adversarial legal system. Prosecutors will not use your statements to help you only to prosecute you whether you violated the law or not.

And what possible purpose would it serve to try and convict a person who is truly innocent? This is classic conspiracy theory stuff.

A defense attorney will definetly use exculpatory statements to try and prove one's innocence, whether they are guilty or not. They get paid to lie, sidetrack, and muddy the water as much as possible in the case of a "client" whodid or didn't violate the law. This is where I have a problem with attorneys. Personally I would not sleep well at night knowing that I did my best to deceive honest people for $$$, knowing that my client was guilty. My moral and ethical standards would never allow me to have such a "profession". I guess there is a place for everyone in society though.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

gogodawgs wrote:

If you don't think that an exculpatory statement can be used against you then you miss the whole point about an adversarial legal system. Prosecutors will not use your statements to help you only to prosecute you whether you violated the law or not.

And what possible purpose would it serve to try and convict a person who is truly innocent?

To chill the exercise of the 2A, especially African-Americans being able to defend themselves. Where have you been the past century (or more)? Google "JPFO gun control is racist".

If you can't convict a law-abiding gun owner, all you have to do is make crap up, and never be held personally civilly or criminally liable.

 

[BigDave]

imported post

Always use caution when talking to law enforcement in an investigation as to how it will be viewed at a later date.

It has been recommended to record your interviews after the incident and with an attorney present so you have someone else there that can verify what you said and how you said it.
In a audio tape it limits understanding to voice only, no expression, jesters and can be misunderstood very easily.
If they do a video, you do one also just in case theirs happen to come up missing, do not do it alone have an attorney with you.

Now at the scene, I have seen the videos of the attorney and officer listed above and it misses important information that will be lost if you do not speak up.

I use the who what where and when to know what to inform law enforcement.

Who- I am the Victim, He Attacked me, Witnesses are there and there
What- He came running at me yelling "he was going to kill me" with a baseball bat in his hand I was in fear of my life and I had to shoot him, The Bat is there, the casings are there and there.
Where- Northwest Corner of Yakima Ave and 6th St behind the AM PM
When-5:15 pm

Then you tell them that you are very upset and you will make yourself available in 24 hours to fully cooperate when I have had time to talk with my council.

If you complete clam up, you may loose valuable evidence and witnesses that could help you prove your position.

Use extreme caution in rambling on and trying to justify your actions, you will get yourself into trouble. It is well known after incidents people will seek out others to find support for their position and will alter change to help find that support, better at this point to shut up.

 

[Trigger Dr]

imported post

OJ was in Calif. This was in Idaho different states, different courts, different laws.

 

[Jeff Hayes]

imported post

The whole legal system is corrupt, Too many timesDAs do not look for the truth only if a conviction can be achived and Johnny Law is correct about the defence side as well.

 

[BigDave]

imported post

Trigger Dr wrote:

OJ was in Calif. This was in Idaho different states, different courts, different laws.

Yes, thanks I caught that, removed it and reposted.

I wish we had that same protection here in Washington.

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

gogodawgs wrote:

If you don't think that an exculpatory statement can be used against you then you miss the whole point about an adversarial legal system. Prosecutors will not use your statements to help you only to prosecute you whether you violated the law or not.

And what possible purpose would it serve to try and convict a person who is truly innocent? This is classic conspiracy theory stuff.

A defense attorney will definetly use exculpatory statements to try and prove one's innocence, whether they are guilty or not. They get paid to lie, sidetrack, and muddy the water as much as possible in the case of a "client" whodid or didn't violate the law. This is where I have a problem with attorneys. Personally I would not sleep well at night knowing that I did my best to deceive honest people for $$$, knowing that my client was guilty. My moral and ethical standards would never allow me to have such a "profession". I guess there is a place for everyone in society though.

I did not say that they would 'try and convict a person who is truly innocent?' now did I? NO! The last thing I am is a conspiracy guy! I did not say that the person in this case is/was innocent, as a matter of fact shooting someone is 'homicide', the question here will be whether it is justified or not and thus legal by statute. So please do not try to misinterpret my statements.

Perhaps I used a very strong word in 'exculpatory' but for this thread I will not change it to a less powerful word. And perhaps we are combining inappropriately both the LEO stop/investigation and the prosecutor/legal system. From time to time we tend to bunch them together when they are two seperate entities.

But it is the goal of the prosecutor to convict.

The goal of the LEO may not be to convict, but it is to give enough information to the prosecutor to convict.

 

[Johnny Law]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

But it is the goal of the prosecutor to convict.

The goal of the LEO may not be to convict, but it is to give enough information to the prosecutor to convict.

Prosecutors are very busy people, and will not waste their time on a case unless they feel it has merit, and they have strong evidence. This is why they plea bargain so much,as cases are prioritized, and there isn't time to try them all.

The goal of LE is to collect as much info as possible at any given scene, and provide as much detail in the report as possible. If it is a shooting or high priorityscene, extra time will be spent on collecting witnesses statements and small details. A Cop will usually have a very strong feeling as to what actually happened at a scene, and always remember that Copsbecomehuman lie detectors after doing the job for a while. I get lied to every day by people fromALL walks of life, and I can count on 1 hand the times that someone was actually able to bs me, and I totally bought into it.

Whether or not one chooses to speak with Police is up to the individual, but some basics are very helpful, and may well make the difference on whether one goes to jail or not. Whateverone says, DONOT LIE. It will very likely catch up to you later, and it will ruin any credibility you may have had in the courtroom, and can destroy your case.

 

[N6ATF]

imported post

Johnny Law wrote:

Whateverone says, DONOT LIE. It will very likely catch up to you later, and it will ruin any credibility you may have had in the courtroom, and can destroy your case.

Which I think is part of that video. Humans are fallible and even when you think you're telling the truth, it could later proven to be a lie. Better not to say anything at all.

Even if you give what you think is your full legal name, and they pull up a copy of your birth certificate that says otherwise, with no legal name changes in-between, they can charge you with false ID and/or bring it up at trial.