Good advice if you’re involved in a shooting.

[cmort666]

For me... I find it entertaining so many advocate shutting up to the cops yet are prolific posters in this forum.

Let's lay this out... You shut up to the cops and that Detective who is paid by the hour but not very much and needs the overtime to pay for his kids braces spends a few good hours with your desktop looking at how much you run your mouth in here on the SD forum... What's he going to come away with here in some cases???

Just saying... Some of this advice as a few of the cops have said is going to come across as dead guilty of murder.

1. Do you REALLY see no difference between posting OPINION to an internet message board and disclosing information to the police, information which can and will be used against you in a court of law?
2. I couldn't care less what a cop "comes away with" from my refusal to speak without benefit of counsel.
3. What a cop WANTS during the course of an investigation and what's in YOUR best interest are most definitely not necessarily the same thing.

Of all of the reasons to waive important rights, "The cops won't like it if you don't." is probably the worst.

 

[OIF2]

I believe the reason officers are given Miranda right off the bat is so they can't be compelled to make a statement under Garrity which may be used against them in disciplinary procedures and later admitted into court against them in a criminal trial under certain circumstances. Being read Miranda for a police officer immediately after a shooting whether they are in custody or not or whether they are being interrogated or not is a GOOD thing for them, not a bad thing.



This is wrong. The requirement for Miranda is custody and interrogation. People who haven't been charged with a crime must be given Miranda if they are not free to go and the police are asking questions beyond routine booking questions if their answers are to be used against them. People who aren't charged with a crime are given the Miranda warning all the time if they're not free to go and they're being questioned and the police intend to use what they said against them. People who HAVE been charged with a crime must also be warned and waive their right to an attorney AND their right to remain silent before a statement is admissible. The "attorney" part attaches automatically after a person is charged.



They sure as hell do. Right after they are given the Miranda warning. You can't compel a cop to give a statement under Garrity if you've already read him his Miranda warning and he invokes his 5th and 6th Amendment rights. You said in L.A. they're given Miranda right from the start, so there you have it.

Obviously, you know far more about homicide investigations in LA; thanks for the input. Didn't know I was screwing up all those investigations I was involved in during my over 20 years there.
How to interview, what to say and when to say it, as well as what the DA (district attorney) wants or doesn't want is a local thing, based on state court precedent and that police departments' SOP. It's NOT a cut-and-dried national policy. If you had read my post carefully, you would have read that since you as the shooter are NOT free to go, you don't have to answer anything and can request a lawyer. You DON'T have to be Mirandized unless you're being held AND interrogated. Suspects are arrested daily in CA and not given a Miranda warning because no one asks them anything. No questions, no Miranda. People are always Mirandized on TV because it looks cool. CA is not exactly a conservative state; suspects' rights are carefully guarded (remember the Rose Bird court?).
Cops in LA (I know, I'm wrong again, but hey, it's what happens there), are given a Miranda warning immediately upon the arrival of the DA after a LEO shooting because it's usually an adversarial interrogation. Cops there pay a lot of money in league dues; saying that cops get preferential treatment in a shooting is incorrect due to the nature of police work. We pay cops to respond to gunfire and confront people with guns. Cop shootings aren't necessarily self-defense shootings. Cops pay for league reps and attorneys because no one gives an LA cop any slack; ANY LA police shooting is looked at today as suspicious. Read the LA Times (no friend of the LAPD).
Cops in LA are mandated by dept policy to give a safety statement; there's no waiting for your attorney (I know, I'm wrong again, but I DID work there; what do I know?). You don't stop being a cop just because you shot someone; your responsibility is to assist in capturing any other outstanding suspects and to make sure a complete and accurate crime broadcast is put out immediately. "Shutting up" is not an option; you must give detailed info to the responding officers. That comes with the territory; don't like it, find another job.
The main point here is that a shooting is handled differently by each jurisdiction, depending on local and state court precedent and dept policy. Lots of what I've said is relevant; lots isn't. Something to remember is that even though LA is VERY anti-gun (impossible to get a civilian CCW there), it's a pretty good place to be if you've shot someone justifiably. It's a daily thing; people shooting people is an uneventful occurance that usually makes the 3rd or 4th page of the LA Times Metro section. This is true in every large urban area. The cops are good at it because of constant repetition and don't have time to create an alternate version or make a case based on revenge or incompetence. There's too much oversight and too many other shootings to look at. Kind of like match shooting; the more matches you enter, the better you get at handling match pressure; practice will only take you so far. Each shooting is unique and mistakes ARE made, though, so my advice (again, given before) would be to interview a homicide investigator in your area, do your research, talk to the local DA and prepare yourself for AFTER the shooting as much if not more than the cool shooting and tactical part. I did, as a cop. Know what (and when) you're going to say; don't just "clam up". Again, it's your call what you do. There are worse things than shooting someone though; shooting someone and going to jail is one.
Bob

 

[MaximumLawman]

Obviously, you know far more about homicide investigations in LA; thanks for the input. Didn't know I was screwing up all those investigations I was involved in during my over 20 years there.
How to interview, what to say and when to say it, as well as what the DA (district attorney) wants or doesn't want is a local thing, based on state court precedent and that police departments' SOP. It's NOT a cut-and-dried national policy.

The 4th, 5th and 6th amendments don't vary by state or department policy to the extent that an appeal to the federal level would have a different result based on which state the shooting took place in.

If you had read my post carefully, you would have read that since you as the shooter are NOT free to go, you don't have to answer anything and can request a lawyer.

I never said or implied otherwise.

You DON'T have to be Mirandized unless you're being held AND interrogated. Suspects are arrested daily in CA and not given a Miranda warning because no one asks them anything. No questions, no Miranda. People are always Mirandized on TV because it looks cool.

Yeah, I know. I said that in my post. YOU said you have to be charged with a crime AND a suspect before you're given the Miranda warning. You said it right here:

As a citizen, if you're not charged with a crime and are not a suspect, you're not given a Miranda warning.

Even though I didn't work in LA, I'm guessing that even the LAPD Detectives give the Miranda warning to citizen suspects who have not yet been charged with a crime on a quite regular basis? Or do they not do any interrogation until a suspect has been charged? I'm not presuming to tell you how they do things in LA...just wondering.....

Cops in LA are mandated by dept policy to give a safety statement; there's no waiting for your attorney (I know, I'm wrong again, but I DID work there; what do I know?).

I never said they weren't required to make a statement. I said they couldn't use this statement against them in most cases in criminal court. Unless Garrity doesn't apply in LA.

"Shutting up" is not an option; you must give detailed info to the responding officers. That comes with the territory; don't like it, find another job.

"Shutting up" is absolutely an option. The police may not be compelled to make a statement that can be used against them in criminal court anymore than anyone else can. And "finding another job" may be a better alternative to making a compelled statement depending on how good or not the shooting was. You don't think Internal Affairs has ever used a Garrity statement as a fishing expedition? I know they're not "allowed" to, but you don't think it has ever happened?

Why don't you tell us about the Garrity warning/rule and how and when it's used in CA when investigating police shootings. And how and when it's applied in the context of Miranda (Instead of getting defensive since I don't work in LA and you did).

I wouldn't say anything beyond my name until I spoke with an attorney if I was a citizen involved in a shooting. It's WAY too easy to screw up based on the potential agendas of the cops, prosecutors and community.

 

[NE450No2]

Most Police Depts. have 2 seperate investigation when an officer is involved in a shooting.

One is the "Criminal" investigation, that goes to the Grand Jury.

The second is the Internal Affairs Investigation. This investigation is geared toward Dept. Regulations.
many Depts. have "Shooting Rules" that are stricter than State law.

So you could have a "Legal" shooting, but it could still be in violation of Dept. Rules and be fired for it.

You do not have to answer any questions in the Criminal Investigation, and you do not speak to them without your lawer.

However, depending on the "rules" of your Dept. you might not be allowed a lawer for the IAD part of the investigation.

Remember the "Rules of Employment" can be and usually are different than State and Federal laws.

I always just gave the exact same statement to IAD and Homicide.

I never talked to Homicide with out my Lawer.

 

[OIF2]

The 4th, 5th and 6th amendments don't vary by state or department policy.



I never said or implied otherwise.



Again, I never said otherwise to this either. You said that a citizen is not given the Miranda warning if they are not charged with a crime. This is not necessarily true and in fact is untrue in many cases prior to people being charged, even, I'm quite sure, in CA and L.A. That is, unless the LAPD road cops or detectives never question people who are in custody prior to being charged.


I never said they weren't required to make a statement. I said they couldn't use this statement against them in most cases in criminal court. Unless Garrity doesn't apply in LA.



"Shutting up" is absolutely an option. The police may not be compelled to make a statement that can be used against them in criminal court anymore than anyone else can. And "finding another job" may be a better alternative to making a compelled statement depending on how good or not the shooting was. You don't think Internal Affairs has ever used a Garrity statement as a fishing expedition? I know they're not "allowed" to, but you don't think it has ever happened?

Why don't you tell us about the Garrity warning/rule and how and when it's used in CA when investigating police shootings. And how and when it's applied in the context of Miranda (Instead of getting defensive since I don't work in LA and you did).

Not getting defensive; just telling you what goes on in LA and how we do it. Again you gotta read, Bro; if you don't TALK to the suspect, there's no IMMEDIATE need for Miranda. You can, if you want, but it's USUALLY not necessary. Depends on the caper and the unit's policy (different in Narcotics, where detectives are arresting, investigating and filing, as opposed to, say, patrol, where the arrest and arrestee are turned over to the dicks). Homicide Detectives like to Mirandize, since they're doing the interview. Suspect can be detained (or arrested) without it. Once you start the interview, it's time to "Mirandize" the suspect. You can talk about the 4th, 5th, 6th, 18th or 20th Amendments all you want, but on the LAPD, if you don't (if you're an Officer) talk to or assist responding Officers and don't give a safety statement, you're out of a job. Everyone on the Dept knows that and accepts it. Sitting there playing dumb while additional suspects are running around is, lets say, not professional. And not helpful to your fellow Officers or very ethical, either. Maybe it's not like that on Podunk PD in Anywhere Else, USA, but that's what it is where I worked as a policeman and detective for 24 years. Not gonna argue with another cop, hijack the thread and bore the crowd, since you know all about these things, but if you PM me I'll give you the LAPD League number and you can argue with them about our policies. I bet you were fun as a probationer.
Bob

 

[MaximumLawman]

You do not have to answer any questions in the Criminal Investigation, and you do not speak to them without your lawer.

However, depending on the "rules" of your Dept. you might not be allowed a lawer for the IAD part of the investigation.

Remember the "Rules of Employment" can be and usually are different than State and Federal laws.

I always just gave the exact same statement to IAD and Homicide.

I never talked to Homicide with out my Lawer.

At what point does the internal investigation start in relation to the criminal investigation? And when is the statement under Garrity for the internal investigation taken as opposed to the statement that you give to the investigators/prosecutor for the criminal investigation?

 

[NE450No2]

For you Civilians, just in case it had not been made clear, if you are involved in a shooting, make NO Statements with out a lawer.

Never sit in a room, with a Police Officer, and say ANYTHING, with out a lawer present.

Never.

And remember, I was the Police for over 30 years...

 

[MaximumLawman]

Again you gotta read, Bro; if you don't TALK to the suspect, there's no need for Miranda.

Again...Bro....I know that. This is what I'm calling you on: Your statement that if you haven't been charged and you're not a suspect the police won't give you a Miranda warning. You still sticking with that one?

I bet you were fun as a probationer.

If you can't attack the message attack the messenger. Not an uncommon tactic among cops I guess.....

 

[NE450No2]

At what point does the internal investigation start in relation to the criminal investigation? And when is the statement under Garrity for the internal investigation taken as opposed to the statement that you give to the investigators/prosecutor for the criminal investigation?

Where I worked, one of the 10 largest cities in the USA, IAD and Homicide would show up at the shooting location.

The Lawer would show up there too. I always was allowed to confer with the lawer first, and then I would do a "walk through" with IAD, my immediate Command Staff, and I always allowed Homicide to be present as well [ALL of my shootings were good in "every way"].

My Dept. was not rabid about Officer involved shootings, especially in the Unit I was in. We Never had a Bad Shooting.

 

[OIF2]

Again...Bro....I know that. This is what I'm calling you on: Your statement that if you haven't been charged and you're not a suspect the police won't give you a Miranda warning. You still sticking with that one?



If you can't attack the message attack the messenger. Not an uncommon tactic among cops I guess.....

Yeah, I'm sticking with it, Counsellor; just telling you how things USUALLY went (I ALSO said each shooting was unique; should be obvious to another copper).
As far as "attacking" the messenger, you're pretty thin-skinned for a cop (are you?). Probationers are spoken to far worse than that; I was utilizing street cop humor. Being that you ARE the "MaximumLawman", though, I guess you weren't amused. All the best!
Bob

 

[raven818]

I was in law enforcement for a very long time, with multiple enforcement agencies. After reading this entire thread ( whew, some strange ideas from some ), I'd like to jump in with the remarks being made about officers under investigation. I worked inside agencies in different states, and each state had like laws in regard to investigating a police officer. The one that stands out to me is Polygraph testing. Officers in all of the agencies I had contact with, had the right to demand the initial polygraph testing be done by the head of testing at the State Police Office in the Capital of what ever state they were in, no matter what police department or agency they worked for.

The reasoning behind this right was, that states office had the best polygraph examiner available, anywhere. In my many years, I never heard of that option being made available to a civilian. That doesn't mean as a civilian you shouldn't look into it. Ask your lawyer if the need ever arises. If so, keep in mind, just having that person present a failed polygraph in a court room, is going to go a long way with a jury.

 

[OIF2]

I was in law enforcement for a very long time, with multiple enforcement agencies. After reading this entire thread ( whew, some strange ideas from some ), I'd like to jump in with the remarks being made about officers under investigation. I worked inside agencies in different states, and each state had like laws in regard to investigating a police officer. The one that stands out to me is Polygraph testing. Officers in all of the agencies I had contact with, had the right to demand the initial polygraph testing be done by the head of testing at the State Police Office in the Capital of what ever state they were in, no matter what police department or agency they worked for.

The reasoning behind this right was, that states office had the best polygraph examiner available, anywhere. In my many years, I never heard of that option being made available to a civilian. That doesn't mean as a civilian you shouldn't look into it. Ask your lawyer if the need ever arises. If so, keep in mind, just having that person present a failed polygraph in a court room, is going to go a long way with a jury.

Never heard of a poly used in that way, but I like it. Not admissible in court, but it definitely could counter an argument from the DA if the shooting was shaky. Thanks for the input from FLA.
Bob

 

[MaximumLawman]

Probationers are spoken to far worse than that; I was utilizing street cop humor. Being that you ARE the "MaximumLawman", though, I guess you weren't amused. All the best!

Nah, you were just being sarcastic....But I did fine in all three of my probationary periods....As far as the "Maximum Lawman", I just liked the song.

Yeah, I'm sticking with it, Counsellor; just telling you how things USUALLY went

OK...I'll take your word for it...

As a citizen, if you're not charged with a crime and are not a suspect, you're not given a Miranda warning.

You're not going to tell us about how Garrity works in LA, are you...

The Lawer would show up there too. I always was allowed to confer with the lawer first, and then I would do a "walk through" with IAD, my immediate Command Staff, and I always allowed Homicide to be present as well [ALL of my shootings were good in "every way"].

Would they have you sign a Garrity form and/or Miranda form before you said anything and after talking with your laywer? And would your lawyer have you invoke your rights under Garrity before you made a statement for internal purposes?

 

[NE450No2]

Early in my carear we did not sign Garrity warnings. That happened later on. I have signed many of them. I never signed one at the scene, only when at IAD, before I wrote my statement.

We even signed them when writing a statement as a witness, even if you did not fire a shot.

 

[NE450No2]

Also when writing your statement for IAD, and remember I always gave the same statement to Homicide, the least you say the better, some examples...

IAD can compel you to make a statement, they cannot dictate what you state. They then can ask specific questions, and then you answer them as you see fit. Of course never Lie...

When I was a Witness, and did not see the actual shooting, I would write, "I saw Nothing, Nothing".

When I was the shooter I would write, " He Pointed a gun at me, and I shot him".
Then the usual, I was in fear of my life, or the life of another...

They would always want much more, I just signed my name and said, "thats IT".

I would "remind them", Look at the Penal Code, and the Dept Regulations, when someone points a GUN at you, you are justified in shooting them. Nothing else matters, the day of the weak, the weather, what you had for dinner, what color of socks you are wearing, etc...

 

[The Big D]

Don't know where you fellas/ladies worked but can assure you that in my experience there was no INTERNAL investigation until AFTER the prosecutor's work was done. That's due to Garrity, obviously. (And I am certainly not insinuating the prosecutor's "work" suggested wrongdoing on the part of the LEO(s) involoved.)

That said, I cannot comprehend ANY professional LE organization that does not compel/order their personnel to state what happened...immediately...in any circumstance.

As an aside, in my experiences "Internal Affairs" was NOT involved in use of force investigations until there was an indication of wrongdoing, if there was any such indication.

Be safe.

 

[MaximumLawman]

That said, I cannot comprehend ANY professional LE organization that does not compel/order their personnel to state what happened...immediately...in any circumstance.

I believe NYPD has a "48 hour period" where cops can not be compelled to make a Garrity statement until 48 hours after a shooting. This became quite contentious after the Diallo shooting if I recall correctly.

 

[Stratajema]

...SAY NOTHING about the incident, NOTHING, until you have talked to an attorney, NOTHING...

Sadly, someone will read what you wrote and still blab away. Several years ago I (as a civilian) came upon the scene of a serious two car accident. No police were yet on the scene. On the scene I told the person apparently responsible for the accident to say nothing until she had time to be represented by an attorney. Guess what she did when the police arrived? Blab blab blab, cry, blab, blab, handcuffed, cry, blab, blab

Folks, request an attorney, then say NOTHING. No chit chat once you are away from the scene or being transported. Unless you are injured and need to convey info about your injury, your response to every question has to be limited to four words "I want an attorney".

 

[MaximumLawman]

On the scene I told the person apparently responsible for the accident to say nothing until she had time to be represented by an attorney.

I hope a relative of yours is the not-at-fault party involved in a serious crash someday and someone gives the same advice to the responsible party.

 

[the deer hunter]

It probably did not help Fish's case that he shot the guy 3 times. It seems like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't talk.