a****r
发帖数: 387 | 1 Why do you invoke the right to remain silent? Why invoke your right not to
be questioned without your lawyer present? In a nutshell, the answer to this
question is: What you say and do is evidence, what your attorney says is
not.
I just used my gun...What do I do?
“If I have done nothing wrong, why would I not just want to tell the
officers what happened? Only criminals remain silent and talk through their
attorneys, right? Lawyers only want my money and do nothing for me, and I
was the victim.”
These are all perfectly normal human reactions, especially from those who
are personally unacquainted with the criminal justice system. However,
anytime someone is under scrutiny from the criminal justice system, by very
definition, their freedom and fortune may be at risk. Their right to remain
silent could be an integral part of their legal well-being.
You must first realize that any time a firearm is involved in an incident,
whether it is fired or not, the police will very likely start with the
assumption that a crime has been committed and proceed to process the
evidence as such. The police will secure the area, interview witnesses, and
look for physical evidence. If your actions are the focus of the
investigation, any statement you make will either corroborate what the
witnesses and physical evidence show, or it will not. There may be shell
casings, ballistics trajectories and/or possibly even video or photographic
evidence. If your statement does not perfectly match the evidence, even to
the slightest degree, your version of the facts could be viewed differently
than you would like and will likely be used against you. If you make no
statements concerning the facts of the incident until you speak to your
attorney, you eliminate the possibility of allowing an inconsistency, no
matter how innocent, to be used against you.
Some of you reading this might be thinking, "That is all very good advice,
but this won't happen to me." Well, unfortunately, it can. In one past case
under our program, a member who had never been in any trouble with the law
was forced to use his gun. Unfortunately, our member, even though he was
experiencing massive stress and pressure because he had to fire his gun,
gave a statement to the police without consulting us first. The statement
included several very specific facts that could not be immediately
corroborated by the officer. The result was that this inconsistency resulted
in a criminal charge. The lesson here is, after a shooting, speak to your
attorneys before giving a statement to law enforcement!
There is a very simple reason for this - talking cannot help when you are
under police investigation. Very few people ever talk themselves out of
being arrested. However, many people have talked themselves into jail. Your
statements may be completely innocent, but if they conflict in any way with
other evidence in the case, even if that evidence is mistaken,
mischaracterized, or just plain wrong, you will have a legal issue.
Remember, that if you are involved in a situation where you were forced to
use your firearm, you will not be in a proper state of mind to accurately
give the police all the facts and only the facts. You may forget an
important detail, overstate the situation, say something that cannot be
corroborated, or in a worst case scenario, say something that can be proven
to be false.
[FROM THE NEWLETTER SENT BY TEXAS LAW SHIELD] |
j*****v
发帖数: 7717 | 2 unless you are privileged |
h**********r
发帖数: 2284 | 3 Not sure if I understand this correctly:
If someone walked on the street in the middle of the night, a police is
entitled by law to inspect that person's ID without much cause?
What was that professor doing that attracted the police's attention in the
first place?
【在 j*****v 的大作中提到】
: unless you are privileged
|
p******o
发帖数: 1119 | 4 有建议如果开枪后不说话，警察就直接把你扔牢里，按谋杀嫌疑开始调查。
如果向警察简单描述，有人闯入，有生命危险，然后开枪，警察可能不会马上逮捕你，
让你在家等结果。 |
j*****v
发帖数: 7717 | 5 in the video, he already answered the question.
【在 h**********r 的大作中提到】
: Not sure if I understand this correctly:
: If someone walked on the street in the middle of the night, a police is
: entitled by law to inspect that person's ID without much cause?
: What was that professor doing that attracted the police's attention in the
: first place?
|
f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 6 谁建议的？
按谋杀开始调查并不代表你就谋杀了。相反，如果你跟警察说的对你不利，即使没有马
上逮捕你，你反而可能最后被jury判有罪。
请不要采信一般人的主观想法。建议去youtube看看法学教授的说法：Don't talk to
the police.
【在 p******o 的大作中提到】
: 有建议如果开枪后不说话，警察就直接把你扔牢里，按谋杀嫌疑开始调查。
: 如果向警察简单描述，有人闯入，有生命危险，然后开枪，警察可能不会马上逮捕你，
: 让你在家等结果。
|
f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 7 警察问你要ID，你可以不给。你也有权说 I don't consent any searches.
但是如果警察要搜查你或者逮捕你（即使他这么做是违法的！！），你当时也决不能反
抗。
只能一边说 I don't consent any searches. 一边配合警察。然后找律师告警察局。
你一旦像那个女教授一样踢警察了，那就是袭警。毫无疑问。
【在 h**********r 的大作中提到】
: Not sure if I understand this correctly:
: If someone walked on the street in the middle of the night, a police is
: entitled by law to inspect that person's ID without much cause?
: What was that professor doing that attracted the police's attention in the
: first place?
|
p******o
发帖数: 1119 | 8 学习了。
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 警察问你要ID，你可以不给。你也有权说 I don't consent any searches.
: 但是如果警察要搜查你或者逮捕你（即使他这么做是违法的！！），你当时也决不能反
: 抗。
: 只能一边说 I don't consent any searches. 一边配合警察。然后找律师告警察局。
: 你一旦像那个女教授一样踢警察了，那就是袭警。毫无疑问。
|
l**o
发帖数: 1240 | 9 别误导了。如果警察找你要ID，很多情况下是必须给的。比如traffic stop或者有
probable cause。 不给就arrest。 Identify yourself不会给你带来啥麻烦，你可以
不给任何statement。
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 警察问你要ID，你可以不给。你也有权说 I don't consent any searches.
: 但是如果警察要搜查你或者逮捕你（即使他这么做是违法的！！），你当时也决不能反
: 抗。
: 只能一边说 I don't consent any searches. 一边配合警察。然后找律师告警察局。
: 你一旦像那个女教授一样踢警察了，那就是袭警。毫无疑问。
|
l*****t
发帖数: 3117 | 10 probable cause这个事还真不好说。
警察不代表法律，警察不懂法律细节的太多了。
大家一定得记住，警察要求的，不代表法律要求的。
【在 l**o 的大作中提到】
: 别误导了。如果警察找你要ID，很多情况下是必须给的。比如traffic stop或者有
: probable cause。 不给就arrest。 Identify yourself不会给你带来啥麻烦，你可以
: 不给任何statement。
|
i**e
发帖数: 6810 | 11 貌似是这样。不给ID就arrest的事情我身边就听说过
【在 l**o 的大作中提到】
: 别误导了。如果警察找你要ID，很多情况下是必须给的。比如traffic stop或者有
: probable cause。 不给就arrest。 Identify yourself不会给你带来啥麻烦，你可以
: 不给任何statement。
|
f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 12 请不要动不动就说我误导。
就事论事，我们在讨论黑人教授拘捕这个视频。这个视频里她不给ID完全没有问题。大
不了被警察违法detain一下。最后说不定还能sue一下警察的歧视黑人。一个穿西服套
装的女性，半夜在路上走，很难说是 probable cause。
你要放弃你的权力，主动交出ID避免麻烦，那是你的自由。
但是：1，警察pull over你，给ID没什么。但如果是边境检查、非法移民检查的检查站
之类的，你是可以不给ID的。2，如果警察有probable cause，你给不给ID他都有权
detain你了，这种情况，你觉得妥协给ID就能被放走那仅仅只是你的一厢情愿。这个跟
觉得把一切交待给警察就能被宽大处理是也是你自己的自由。
最后还是再强调一次，detain/arrest并不代表什么。从你的语气看来，你很怕被
arrest。你怕被arrest而主动放弃你自己的权力，那是你的自由。
【在 l**o 的大作中提到】
: 别误导了。如果警察找你要ID，很多情况下是必须给的。比如traffic stop或者有
: probable cause。 不给就arrest。 Identify yourself不会给你带来啥麻烦，你可以
: 不给任何statement。
|
i**e
发帖数: 6810 | 13 arrest有record吧
【在 f***a 的大作中提到】
: 请不要动不动就说我误导。
: 就事论事，我们在讨论黑人教授拘捕这个视频。这个视频里她不给ID完全没有问题。大
: 不了被警察违法detain一下。最后说不定还能sue一下警察的歧视黑人。一个穿西服套
: 装的女性，半夜在路上走，很难说是 probable cause。
: 你要放弃你的权力，主动交出ID避免麻烦，那是你的自由。
: 但是：1，警察pull over你，给ID没什么。但如果是边境检查、非法移民检查的检查站
: 之类的，你是可以不给ID的。2，如果警察有probable cause，你给不给ID他都有权
: detain你了，这种情况，你觉得妥协给ID就能被放走那仅仅只是你的一厢情愿。这个跟
: 觉得把一切交待给警察就能被宽大处理是也是你自己的自由。
: 最后还是再强调一次，detain/arrest并不代表什么。从你的语气看来，你很怕被
|
f***a
发帖数: 1434 | 14 you are innocent until proven guilty (by a judge or jury).
警察arrest不能代表任何事情，尤其是最后case被法官dismiss掉的。
如果你还怕，那你看看4473表。买枪的表照理很严格吧？你看有哪一条是问arrest的？
相反里面有问你是否convicted过felony。而主动跟警察交代说太多就是最容易convict
的原因。
强烈建议看看youtube上的各个视频，尤其是法学教授的don't talk to the police.
路人不懂法，而警察懂法为了破案可以合法的骗你。要了解法律还是看专业律师或者教
授的介绍。
【在 i**e 的大作中提到】
: arrest有record吧
|
