What do we do after?

[ostater]

Thanks for the feedback Buzzdraw.

I was also told there was a thread back then. I'll try to find it.

I am obviously pretty far right and agree with you 100% about the Tulsa paper. But with a username like "Ostater" you can understand I have a little disdain for their sportswriters.

 

[jmtgsx]

I am obviously pretty far right and agree with you 100% about the Tulsa paper. But with a username like "Ostater" you can understand I have a little disdain for their sportswriters.

"Its GARBAGE!"

 

[aUSMCb]

this is a really good thread! quite a wealth of knowledge shared here...but of course, in the end, all seems to be circumstantial depending upon the specifics of your situation and need to defend yourself...

a good friend of mine is a Police Chief in OK...He's both my SDA instructor, a certified Glock Gunsmith and live fire scenario weapons instructor (myself and his fellow officers in his area attend live fire scenarios a few times a year)..

With respect to responses referring to stopping the threat and not the heart, he summed up this very important point simply and clearly:

So you protect yourself or your family and the DA agrees and any would be charges against you are dropped...instead of a double tap or accurate shot to vital organs (or empty three clips cause i'm freakin out), and the threat survives, nothing stops him or his family from rolling his ass into a civil hearing in a wheel chair, IV equipment, heart monitor ect..anything the families civil attorney can dream up to show the hard life this bad man now has to live...at that point, you have just put your financial life and your families life in the hands of a jury...

If you have a legitimate reason to fire your weapon, and as it was repeated over an over again, a reason that a normal, everyday person would agree with your choice to fire your weapon, regardless if the criminal is dead or alive, you are justified....the same can't be said if his crippled ass is wheeled into a civil courtroom...

so at the end of the day, you may have defeated the threat, but the bad guy gets to laugh his ass to the bank...

Either shoot to kill, or carry a rasp!

 

[dalepres]

"Officer, I mean no disrespect, but I understand my rights. I have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. I have a right to refuse to consent to any search of my body and personal effects. I wish to exercise all my rights. If I am under arrest, I wish to invoke and exercise my Miranda rights and be allowed the opportunity to obtain the advice of my attorney. If I am to be taken into custody, I request a resonable opportunity to make arrangements to secure my own property. If I am not under arrest, I want to leave. If I am free to leave, please tell me immediately so I may go about my business."

That cracked me up. I am not a LEO but I bet most LEOs, if you read that card to them, would tell you to shut your mouth and go sit on that curb until they're ready to talk to you. Which, of course, you will do. Then he can keep you from going about your business for as long as the investigation of the scene takes before he finally gets around to interviewing you and deciding that you're under arrest. Again, I'm not a LEO; I'm just guessing here.

What I'd really like to hear is how those who have had to use lethal force for defense of themselves or others have behaved when the police showed up. Have they refused to give statements without a lawyer? Have they given statements freely? What is the percentage of arrest/conviction related to those (or other) options? When we see a person on trial for defending themselves, is that a case where the shooter copped an attitude right off the bat? When we see the shooter go home to his family and no charges are ever brought, is that a case where the shooter cooperated? Or was it exactly the opposite? Or is there no relationship at all? Certainly there have been enough incidents where such statistics could be determined.

Dale

 

[JamesBell]

Either I haven't read this thread or it has been a long time. I just have to throw this out there though:

I have a right to refuse to consent to any search of my body

Terry v Ohio seems to be pretty clear. The above quote is incorrect.

 

[Michael Brown]

Either I haven't read this thread or it has been a long time. I just have to throw this out there though:


Terry v Ohio seems to be pretty clear. The above quote is incorrect.

You can refuse to consent. You always have that right.

However when Terry applies, you may not resist a pat-down, although you can reserve your right not to consent.

Terry applies to pat-downs of the exterior clothing, not searches which are reserved for arrests, warrants, or consent (implied or otherwise).

Michael Brown

 

[Nanotech9]

my understanding of a terry pat is the officer isn't supposed to maneuver the items inside your pocked from the outside... but simply pat them. Even if this is correct, i doubt anybody actually follows it.

 

[Michael Brown]

my understanding of a terry pat is the officer isn't supposed to maneuver the items inside your pocked from the outside... but simply pat them. Even if this is correct, i doubt anybody actually follows it.

Essentially this is correct, however like most legal concepts, it's not a hard and fast rule.

Generally what you are referring to applies if the offcer suspects that what he feels is contraband, not weapons.

If the officer perceives that what he feels is a weapon, then he may manipulate it or even reach in and remove it to confirm suspicion.

If what he feels is contraband, he may not manipulate it, but may remove it if his training and experience tells him/her instantly that the item is known contraband.

It gets even murkier when the item may or may not be known contraband but is instantly known as an item that regularly conceals contraband (i.e. a film canister).

The issue in court generally comes down to documentable training and experience.

For instance, a brand new officer will not be held in the same regard as a ten year veteran with hundreds of arrests and possibly thousands of searches under his/her belt.

It is definitely not a black and white issue.

Michael Brown

 

[JamesBell]

MB, you are totally correct. I read the comment that you have the right to "refuse to consent to any search of my body" as possibly leading one into a situation where they were saying an officer couldn't pat you down if they thought it was necessary. As you know, that isn't the case. While it isn't a full search, trying to tell a LEO that he can't do something that he feels is necessary for his safety can't end well.

 

[dalepres]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the zealousness with which prosecutors pursue charges if an arrest is made in a SD shooting - assuming that statements made earlier in this thread to that effect are accurate:

H. The court shall award reasonable attorney fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection F of this section.

Dale