40 or 9mm?

Semper Fi said:
I don't care what the cops expectations are. Their job is to make arrests. The prosecutors job is to put people behind bars. Those are the cold hard facts.

Another cold hard fact. Most people get themselves into trouble with the law though their mouths. They try to talk their way out of a situation with the cops by "explaining" what happened or they tell their "best" friend what they did or didn't do who in turn tells their best friend ad nauseum and eventually the police find out.

Every attorney I know will advise that you must keep your mouth shut if you even remotely suspect you may be the target of a criminal complaint. Certainly the act of shooting someone qualifies in that regard.

Semp
Click to expand...

You are a clear advocate for your position. However, it is the job of police to arrest criminals and the job of prosecutors to attempt to convict criminals. That is not a meaningless distinction.

Most persons convicted of crime are justly convicted. If they got in trouble because they spoke, that is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Most attorneys probably agree with you. It's what they do for a living.
 
Tom?
Can I borrow Kismet's question mark for a second and speak between posts?

I think what Semper is posting from is the real world experience of having a police experience turn sour. In some jurisdictions, like areas of California, almost everyone is guilty of something. There are codes upon codes. And in the presence of some police officers at some times the communication is not straightforward; it is loaded with the burdon of 'proving' you are not the convenient answer for a cop's bad day or special need.

There is the law and then there is justice. They are not always the same.
Innocent people do go to jail. And sometimes 'slightly dirty' people, caught in a circumstance where they were trying to do right, take a fall.

Let me make one up: someone who is drunk attempts to stop a crime. The crime is not stopped. They arrest the drunk after getting all the information, thanking him for his efforts, and cuffing him.

Like it or not, there is a valid reason never to speak to police. I choose to speak to them. I live in Montana and the area is sane enough that honesty is possible. I don't know I'd feel the same were I in LA again.

Did you ever read a Judge Dredd comic? In the future, a special police is empowered to be police, jury and judge, and in some cases, even carry out sentence- on the spot. They address everyone by a chilling, "citizen".


munk
 
I have no doubt that innocent people go to jail and are convicted. (But most reported "high profile" cases involve inaccurate witness testimony - not self-incrimination.)

I have no doubt that there are bad cops who do bad things. I know of my own personal knowledge that this is so. I have witnessed police beatings and have been shot at by an LEO (Franklin County, Ohio, Deputy Sheriff) when my "crime" was walking along on my lawful business on the O.S.U. campus. I have seen police rioting.

I have acknowledged that there is a school of thought that says, "Say nothing but 'I want a lawyer.'"

I think not explaining yourself is more likely to cause trouble for you than otherwise.
 
Tom, we will simply disagree on the matter. After all, my 2 cents worth was worth exactly what anyone paid for it.

I tend to be somewhat hard headed. I'm not sure if the Marines did it to me or just reinforced what was already there. :)
 
Best thing is to say only-
"I was afraid for my/their life" and "I don't feel well can you take me to a Hospital".

This last part- "I don't feel well can you take me to a Hospital" will get you away from the scene and time to collect your thoughts.

Be cooporative and remorseful and don't say anything else about the incident to anyone except your attorney.
 
Semper Fi,

The main tasks for any Police Officer are to protect life and property, and preserve the peace. We make arrests as part of the job, but it is not the job. I don't get paid any extra for arresting people, and it's often a pain in the butt to do so. (The vast majority of people who get arrested are drunk and/or on drugs.)

Before I can make any arrest I need probable cause; "facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable, prudent person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed." Absent PC, and I can't lawfully make an arrest. (An arrest by warrant could be considered an exception, but whomever got the warrant had to have PC in the warrant.)

As I mentioned before, if you believe that you have committed a crime, like murdering someone just because they pissed you off, by all means keep your mouth shut and ask for an attorney. Make the Police establish PC to arrest you. However, if you just shot some SOB who was trying to carjack you, you do yourself a great disservice by not telling the Police that. Point out where the bad guy dropped his knife, tell them if there were witnesses, etc. Give them a basic understanding of what happened, then just hold off putting anything in writing until you meet with your competent attorney.

Semper Fi, Semper Fidelis from a former 0311. I realize that there are A$$holes in every profession, but hopefully someday you will have a better opinion of the Police.

Boy, has this thread ever gotten off of the original topic!:eek:
 
I am with Semper.

In my opinion, a cops job is not to tell right from wrong They are there to arrest people. A judge will determine if you were acting according to the law or not, a cop cannot do this.

If you are questioned by the police, shut up. It's not their job to help you in such a situation. Likely you can only make the situation worse for you or others involved.

Don't get me wrong, I dont have think that all cops are bad. Likely, most are good guys. I am just saying dont confuse their job with a judge's job.

Keno
 
Semper Fi said:
I don't care what the cops expectations are. Their job is to make arrests. The prosecutors job is to put people behind bars. Those are the cold hard facts.

Another cold hard fact. Most people get themselves into trouble with the law though their mouths. They try to talk their way out of a situation with the cops by "explaining" what happened or they tell their "best" friend what they did or didn't do who in turn tells their best friend ad nauseum and eventually the police find out.

Every attorney I know will advise that you must keep your mouth shut if you even remotely suspect you may be the target of a criminal complaint. Certainly the act of shooting someone qualifies in that regard.

Semp
Click to expand...

This sounds very right to me. "Keep your mouth shut."

I do have some questions of the LEO members of the Cantina. Perhaps a criminal attorney member of the Cantina.

I think that a few very legitimate points have been raised.

1. I am sure that the responding officers want to know what happened, so how much do you say? What should you say? What should you NOT say? I would certainly belive that for most of us, being in a situation where you shot someone would be VERY unnerving to say the least!

2. It would seem likley that witnesses could and would have differing 'perspectives.' Some of these might seem incriminating to the police, and deflective or 'non-answers' from the surviving shooter would put them on edge. Perhaps in an arresting mood.

3. Unquestionably find a good criminal attorney to advise you on proper answers. But how do you find one? Particularly on short notice, maybe in the middle of the night?

4. Is it better to shoot to kill if you feel the situation warrants it? Are you likley to get in more trouble with a dead attacker than leaving him wounded and alive to testify against you later?

I don't know LEO procedures however and how the Law actually comes into play. Aren't unsworn statements inadmissable in Court?

It would seem a statement to the LEOs would be proper as long as you are not in front of a court reporter or making sworn statement of some kind would be ok. Maybe I am being naive. Maybe I watch too much TV.

But I WOULD really like some professional advice here. Better to find out a few things about this now than trying to access info from inside jail.
 
reminds me of when i lived in texas, there was a rash of burglaries of elderly women who would be beaten up and sexually abused. one nite he picked the wrong widow, she shot him thru the door with her .22 rifle as he was jimmying the door.

when the police arrived, they found the perp on the porch just outside the door, bleeding profusely from his thigh. he was promptly dragged in-doors by the cops who said "she shot you after you came in thru the door into her house, didn't you?", he said no, but after an accidental kick in the wounded leg and a query about did he really want an ambulance, he changed his statement, and then they interregated the lady. "you shot him as he came in throught the door and started into your house, didn't you?"

anyway, he told her, if there is a next time make sure he's inside before you shoot & make sure he's not able to sue you later...*

of course it's all subjective. as someone said, depends on the cop, the situation, and and a variety of circumstances. never lie tho, forensics is a lot better nowadays than when i was in texas, if they choose to follow up with it anyhow. the more you cooperate, the better, just don't compromise your rights unwillingly.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
*-reminds me of the hunting joke where a man calls emergency services with:

man: 'i just accidentally shot my buddy & i think i've killed him, what should i do?"

ES: 'calm down, calm down, first make sure he is really dead"

background noise: BANG-BANG-BANG

man: 'allright, i've made sure, what now?'
----------------------------------------------------------------------
 
I think another thing to consider is the specific jurisdiction where it happens. In some pathetic areas of the country, if you defend yourself, you will be arrested and treated like a criminal regardless of the truth. You then have to prove your innocence, and then you might get released. In places like that, your best bet really is to just say nothing other than "Lawyer, now, please."

In areas that still resemble America, you're not going to be arrested or taken into custody unless there is some actual evidence that you committed a crime (imagine that). These are the places where it's probably a good idea to provide the minimal "I feared for my life" statement and request to be able to make your real statement the next day when you are calm.

Anyone who thinks they may have to use any kind of potentially deadly force to defend themself needs to know for sure the best way to respond in the aftermath. A good step toward that is to talk to the attorney you will be calling and ask them for their specific advice for your specific jurisdiction.
 
In the more rural regions of the north Georgia mountains, and I strongly suspect other areas as well, WHO you are can matter more than WHAT you did.

I reference a personal experience I had with a man I will use initials only -- HJA. We were involved in a real estate deal.

HJA had a daughter who was involved with an outsider of their community. The outsider, NTO, treated the daughter very badly, including a beating.

HJA told NTO that if he ever came near the daughter agian he would kill him. NTO agreed to leave the county and never talk or try to see the daughter again.

One night the daughter called HJA and told him that NTO had called her and was on his way over. HJA jumped in his Plymouth and sped to her home arriving about the same time as NTO.

As NTO opened the door to his 4x4 HJA pulled up behind him and opened fire with a 12 ga shotgun, missing NTO, but blowing a hole in the open door of the 4x4. NTO jumped back inside. HJA who had fired through the open window of his Plymouth, accelerated and accidently dropped the shotgun on the ground outside his car.

He grabbed a .357 magnum he had on his seat and opened fire on the fleeing NTO, who was speeding across a field, driving blind from the floor of his 4x4. HJA had an advantage that he was left handed and liked to practice shooting with his friends from the local police department.

Witnesses later told of bullet holes through the back of the 4x4 and that the seat where a driver should have been sitting looked like it had been "clawed by a giant cat."

Unable to see from his crouched position, NTO continued his flight across the field. HJA, in his Plymouth was unable to continue pursuit because he got stuck. He called the local police who caught and arrested NTO, who was unarmed.

NTO was told by the local police that if he ever showed up in that north Georgia county again, under ANY circumstances, that he "would never see the light of day again!" And that he had to pay for getting HJA's Plymouth unstuck and damages to HJA's daughter's field.

The damages to NTO's 4x4 were not addressed. He showed wisdom in never returning.

Even allowing for some exagerations, the bottom line was that HJA tried his best to kill and unarmed man that had committed no offense (that night); there were no outstanding warrants on NTO -- if he had been a little more sober, HJA might have succeeded.

HJA was never arrested, detained or charged in any way. I suspect that if he had succeeded in blowing away NTO, the outcome against HJA would have been the same.

There is an old saying -- "Its not what you know, but WHO you know."

I think that a more appropriate wording might be -- "Its not WHO you know, but WHO KNOWS you!"

And don't "mess with" HJA's daughter!
 
You guys are even more cynical than I am! I give up, do what you think is best and deal with the consequences yourselves. However, don't blame the Police for the choices that you make.

As for Bill Marsh's questions;

1. Take a few minutes to collect your thoughts, then give the Police a brief rundown on the events. Be sure to explain that you had no choice but to kill the SOB. Then tell them that you think you had better wait until you have spoken with an attorney before you give a detailed statement. Most cops will understand why, but if they don't, too bad for them.

2. Undoubtedly there will be confusion at the scene, so (assuming that you did not intentionally commit a crime) try to get the cops on board with your version of the events. It's much better to have them proving your version, than trying to disprove it.

3. As for hiring a good attorney, there is no reason to find one that same night. If you aren't arrested at the scene, take the time to seek out a good, experienced defense attorney. If you are arrested, refuse to speak until you've spoken to an attorney, then shop around (or have a trusted person do it for you.)

4. If you can legally kill the bad guy, I think you are better off to do so. I'm not talking about chasing him down the street to finish him off, but if you shoot him several times in the head before he hits the ground you are probably good to go. With the bad guy dead, he won't be in a position to contradict your version of the events.

Yes, sometimes verbal statements are admissible, but they can be attacked much more easily than sworn written statements. Interestingly, it has been my experience that if a case actually goes to trial, all of the witnesses are given subpoenas, even those who have already given sworn written statements. The witnesses have to testify in court and their statements are used only to refresh their memories or impeach their testimony if they try to say something different on the stand.
 
Is it better to shoot to kill if you feel the situation warrants
Click to expand...

Negative, negative, negative. As a good guy, Always shoot to stop!

It is also true that the surest way to stop an threat with potentially lethal force will also likely kill the attacker- but the INTENT is always to STOP THE THREAT.

If you are in fear for your life, or acting to protect others' lives, shoot until the target is not a threat. You shoot to stop. You never "shoot (at people) to kill".

John
 
agree with spectre, the other side of the coin is never shoot to wound, the old movie thing of shooting someone in the hand or arm to put them out of commission is (a). hard especiially under stress & (b). even a wound to an extremity can kill, a leg wound to the thigh's vena cava can exsanguinate someone in minutes (c). a wounded man can still kill you, most people have spare extremities they can use to do this if one doesn't work right.

worth repeating till it sinks in ALWAYS SHOOT TO STOP, then stop when you are sure they have lost the ability to continue...

and practice,practice,practice.

i am of the philosophy that it it is better to go to jail for killing them, than they go to jail for killing me.
 
We seem to have lost sight of something in this country. You are responsible for protecting yourself and your family. Whether you do that by putting locks on your doors, shooting someone threatening you or your family or by just being aware, it is your responsibility. The police ,FBI or whatever are Law Enforcement. They show up after the law has been broken. The only protection they can provide is the fear of the consequence of breaking the law and by taking law breakers off the street so they cannot do it again. Until someone actually has broken the law, the police and the courts are powerless to intervene. By then, it is too late and you have to live with the results regardless of the outcome afterwards. So take care of yourselves and your families.
.40m cal over 9mm any day.

Just my 2 cents worth.
 
Courts have consistantly ruled that the Police do not have the legal obligation to stop crime as it is being commited. They can try, when resources and materials permit, but they are not criminally, civily, or personaly responsable for your well being.

The individual is responsible. Well intentioned laws to aid the individual, like gun bans, cause more harm than good.

munk
 
One should not assume that your statements cannot be introduced against you if you are charged with a crime. Miranda, IF it holds up, says you must be given THE warning if you are a suspect. Were you given THE warning? Who will be believed on that point? Did you speak as the police arrived before they could give a warning? ("We entered the room and he immediately yelled, 'I shot him, the no good SOB.' " )

Your incriminating statments, if not barred under Miranda, are admissions - not inadmissible hearsay.

Generally, the statements of other witnesses outside of court - sworn or unsworn, written or oral -- can only be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted if made with knowledge of imminent death (in anticipation of death) or if those statements are against their own penal interest (incriminate them as well). They can also be used to show inconsistency or in an effort to refresh recollection. (They could also be used to prove the witness was capable of speaking at the time.)
 
Charging Moros? I want a .50 cal. at least. Explosives are nice.
These are Mohamad`s. Kill them or they will surely kill you.
Long live Jihad. Let us kill them all once and for all.
So that our children do not have to live in fear of the Mohamads.
If they don`t do the job, suicide is your best option.



jmings said:
It's an old saw that ".22s have killed more people than any other caliber". I assume that they're talking civilians. Even if true would that make the .22 the most deadly caliber? Of course not.


I would go with Robert Ruark's advice and "Use Enough Gun".

There was an elephant hunter who used a .308 and his success caused quite a few deaths among those who thought they could do likewise and would up with a pissed-off pachyderm instead of a trophy.

LOL when I saw the title I though the decision was between a 9mm and 40mm.

Given the choice:
.38 special against a charging Moro?
9mm against an angel-duster?
12GA slug gun against King Kong?

I became uninvolved with firearms before the 10mm/.40 were popular.

<old guy rambles on>

Once I had a Polish Radom 9mm and got a great bargain on a box on ammo. I went out to a dump and popped a 55gal steel drum. Wow! Shake hands with Godzilla. It tore a foot long hole in the drum and left my hand numb! No more fireing of that and the next day I went to the Hawthorne Library and looked up the headstamp. German mfg proof round for sub-machine guns. Lucky the Radom was a John Browning design, what?

All other considerations being equal, go with the .40.

OT: Hey, Bill, should I quit bugging you?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top