# What to do after you have defended yourself



## skribs (Jan 31, 2018)

Don't worry, I'm not in a situation where I need a lawyer, nor am I in a situation where I've needed to use my martial arts for self defense.  However, let's say that was the case.  Someone attacked me, and as a result of defending myself their arm is broken.

Now, I don't want them to go to the ER and say they were mugged by some karate expert who broke their arm and tried to steal their wallet.  However, I also don't want to call the police and say "yeah, I got in a fight and broke this dude's arm."

Personally, I don't have a lawyer.  I haven't really needed one.  So what do I do in this situation?


----------



## drop bear (Jan 31, 2018)

I did that once.

I snuck off and pretended it never happened.


----------



## AlexanderZousky (Jan 31, 2018)

Hi,
I do not think that you might get in trouble because he attacked you first and you are just trying to defend yourself.
I have been in many situations where i have to defend myself but I usually hold back a little and do not take it too seriously because you could injure them. The martial arts i have learn is mostly about locking instead of straight on fight to the death.


----------



## Martial D (Jan 31, 2018)

skribs said:


> Don't worry, I'm not in a situation where I need a lawyer, nor am I in a situation where I've needed to use my martial arts for self defense.  However, let's say that was the case.  Someone attacked me, and as a result of defending myself their arm is broken.
> 
> Now, I don't want them to go to the ER and say they were mugged by some karate expert who broke their arm and tried to steal their wallet.  However, I also don't want to call the police and say "yeah, I got in a fight and broke this dude's arm."
> 
> Personally, I don't have a lawyer.  I haven't really needed one.  So what do I do in this situation?


I have some experience with this.

4/4 walking away while the other guy sleeps it off or rethinks. Just continued on.

It seems unlikely a potential mugger would want to deal with cops.


----------



## MA_Student (Feb 1, 2018)

Best thing is to call the police and tell them you were attacked and explain how you had to defend yourself that way at least it's reported so there's no potential comeback for it


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 1, 2018)

Flex.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 1, 2018)

It all depends on what you mean by attacked. The word attacked has a wide range of meaning.  Breaking his arm doesn't change the correct course of action. If you were a store clerk and the assailant came in to rob you, the correct action is to call the police. It doesn't matter if he ran out the door with your cash, he is laying on the floor with a broken arm or laying there dead from a gun shot wound.
 A bar fight is a bit different.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2018)

Malos1979 said:


> I love your option, I also have one and I would like to quote a well known band called KC & The Sunshine Band which is an option that speaks for itself:


Dancing after a KO is a 15 yard penalty.

I think I'm mixing sports on that, though.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 1, 2018)

Hypothetical situation: Frank pulls out a gun, points it at Bob and demands his wallet. On lookers call the police saying some guy has a gun and is robbing someone. Bob disarms Frank. The police show up... Now the police think the Bob is the bad guy, he has the gun.

Same thing happens without the gun. Some guy attacks you, police are called on a guy assaulting someone else. You break his arm defending yourself. The police show up. Who was the aggressor? You are both going to point at the other guy.

I tell people, if you defend yourself and injure the other guy... run away to safety. (you don't need him to pull the gun you didn't know he had or for his friends to show up) Then you call the police and state:

I was attacked. (when, where, how and by who)
I was afraid for my life.
I defended myself, he may be hurt.
I ran away, you can find me at this location.
You need to frame the scene for the police who will show up. Most places will allow you to defend yourself with force, if you are afraid for your life. If you claim you were afraid, but you are still standing there flexing* when the cops show up... its not to convincing. A good piece of evidence that you were afraid for your life, is that you ran away from the danger, as soon as you could and you called the cops.

If I defended myself with a gun, then I change number 3 above to: I shot him. Then I add step 5: I need to speak to my lawyer now.

The idea is to be the first to report to the police. Report that you were attacked, you feared for your life, you took actions to defend yourself resulting in the injury to the other guy, and that you retreated to safety as soon as you could.

Sure, there are a ton of cell phones around and someone probably has video. But, how long did it take for them to get the camera out and start recording? Its probably a good bet, that the missed the part where the bad guy pull a knife on a little kid. The also missed the part where you expertly kicked the knife out of the bad guy's hand. (this is probably what caught there attention) By the time there camera starts recording, they get you punching him in the face, then breaking his arm. If they then get video of you running away to safety, the have record of your calling right after to report things line up.

* I realize that the flexing part was a joke... just helped to illustrate.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2018)

Thinking the police are stupid is a good way to get yourself arrested. 'Framing' the scene for the police? Just don't. They are very good at finding out what happened. If you have fled the scene then try to set it up you are going to look guilty rather than looking as if you are in fear of your life because the scenario is you have injured and restrained the person attacking you using reasonable force, why do you need to run away?


----------



## wab25 (Feb 1, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Thinking the police are stupid is a good way to get yourself arrested. 'Framing' the scene for the police? Just don't. They are very good at finding out what happened. If you have fled the scene then try to set it up you are going to look guilty rather than looking as if you are in fear of your life because the scenario is you have injured and restrained the person attacking you using reasonable force, why do you need to run away?


I need to clarify. I did not mean, to re-create the scene or to change any details. If the other guy calls first and reports that you assaulted him, broke his arm and took the money he had in his hand, and the police show up to find you sitting at the bar... They start with the information the have. When people find out you train, the guy is going to press charges for excessive force. However, if you left the scene to safety and called in to report the guy attacking you, and tell them you hurt him because you were afraid... then what they are looking for when they show up is quite different. 

Also, by leaving, you don't allow him to pull the gun he had hidden or for his friends to show up. It also looks better for your case that you were afraid.

Again, I am not saying to lie or change anything. I am saying get your side to the police as soon as is safe.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Thinking the police are stupid is a good way to get yourself arrested. 'Framing' the scene for the police? Just don't. They are very good at finding out what happened. If you have fled the scene then try to set it up you are going to look guilty rather than looking as if you are in fear of your life because the scenario is you have injured and restrained the person attacking you using reasonable force, why do you need to run away?


Nobody said they were stupid. They are human, and have to start with the information they have in hand. If cops are called to an active shooter site, they have to assume the person they see with a gun is possibly the shooter. That translates to any situation. And if the first version they hear is a lie about what happened, that's all they know to start with. Best to get them some real information up front. Much easier to confirm a valid story than to try to disprove a lie (from the victim's viewpoint).


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 1, 2018)

I agree with Tez.

Don’t over complicate it.  Call the police they can figure out who was the aggressor.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 1, 2018)




----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2018)

I didn't say that anyone said the police are stupid, I said thinking the police are stupid is a good way to get yourself arrested. While I am retired now, when I was working if I turned up at the scene of a crime neither I nor my colleagues had preconceived ideas over who was 'guilty' and who wasn't based on what we saw when we arrived. We know better than most how things are almost never how they appear at first so give police officers some credit.


----------



## Buka (Feb 1, 2018)

The only thought that entered my mind was.....if it's right before shift change, can you wait a few minutes before you call?


----------



## wab25 (Feb 1, 2018)

Just some context for the list of actions that I mentioned earlier. I attended a gun disarming seminar a few years ago. As part of that seminar, they had invited a ranking police officer from somewhere in the San Francisco Bay area, who had responded many times to different shooting incidents. He was invited to share what to expect, when the LEOs show up after. Also invited was a prosecuting attorney, who had prosecuted many of this type of case, to talk about what they are looking for and how easily they could take what you said and make you look like the bad guy or at least used excessive force or had no need to respond like you did. There was also a defense attorney, who defended people in these types of cases... he was invited to share his perspective, what helps you out, what hurts you. After they all had made their presentations, a question was asked: How should we react and what should we say, because each person was looking at totally different things, with different goals in mind. The 3 of them had a discussion, and finally agreed on the list that I had listed. They all immediately agreed that you should remove yourself to safety first, and then call it in as soon as you are safe. The defense attorney wanted us to lead with "he attacked me." The prosecutor added the step about saying that you were in fear for your life. Both agreed you probably should not say much more, until you talked to your attorney. (I left the attorney part out as the discussion was about breaking an arm, knocking someone out... not killing them) The officer wanted to add the part about "I shot him." He felt that would help them figure out what happened quicker, and would not make it look like you were hiding anything. He thought that would help make it look like you were cooperating with them, instead making them have to put all the pieces together. (not that they couldn't do so in a few minutes on their own) The lawyers agreed with him, that you should say that, agreeing that it made you look like you were cooperating and at the same time not incriminating yourself. I continue to share that sequence with folks, because it came from a discussion between the different professionals that are involved, and from people in those professions who had real world experience in handling these situations. Anyway, that was their advice that I pass along.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2018)

Paragraphs are very useful.

You were on a seminar, you got what you paid for, doesn't mean it's all wisdom. Rather than 'ranking' try a rank and file police officer, once you involve lawyers things always get complicated. I assume they were paid handsomely for talking at the seminar so they aren't going to minimise their involvement. To be honest though your seminar sounded like a law lecture rather than a useful thing to know after you fend off an attack. 

Incidentally did the word 'adrenaline' come up anywhere here?


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 1, 2018)

wab25 said:


> what do I do in this situation?


I got into a fight in Sheng Yang, China north train station. When 3 Chinese policemen came, I told them that this guy and I got into argument. Our body tangled together, we both lost balance and fell. This guy's head hit on the hard ground. I didn't throw any punches. It was an accident. Those Chinese policemen let me go.

IMO, the throwing art has advantage over the striking art in public self-defense. Lost balance is always a good excuse for your opponent's body injury.


----------



## wab25 (Feb 1, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Rather than 'ranking' try a rank and file police officer


The officer was a rank and file officer. He was not fresh out of the academy. He had performed well enough, long enough to be promoted, but was not yet flying a desk. (sorry, I don't know the ranking system for police) His qualification for his part of the presentation was that he personally responds to these situations... and had already responded to quite a few.



Tez3 said:


> once you involve lawyers things always get complicated


Once you shoot someone in self defense, there is a good chance lawyers will be involved. Not always... but if I had to bet...



Tez3 said:


> I assume they were paid handsomely for talking at the seminar so they aren't going to minimise their involvement.


I am not sure of the monetary arrangement. They were certainly friends with the Sensei who organized the event, and they were very familiar with our system and training. They could have participated out of the goodness of their hearts or been paid... I don't know. It would not have been too much money though as I don't believe there was a large fee for the event.



Tez3 said:


> To be honest though your seminar sounded like a law lecture rather than a useful thing to know after you fend off an attack.


I figure it might be worth it to know what to expect afterwards. Understanding the laws involved might come in handy as well. We had 8 hours of training, about an hour and a half talking with the lawyers and officer about this stuff.



Tez3 said:


> Incidentally did the word 'adrenaline' come up anywhere here?


Quite a bit actually. But, this thread was more on what to do... I took that to be "how not to end up in jail the next day." 

Anyway... what is it specifically that you object to, in what I suggested?

Leave the scene, to a safe location?
Call the police once safe?
Tell the police the other guy attacked you?
Tell the police you were afraid for your life?
Tell the police that you shot / injured the other guy?
Tell them you need to speak to your attorney?
Which part do you object to? If I am telling people something wrong here, can you point it out and why? 

I have run this past many different LEOs in different counties and states, talked to police, sheriffs and FBI agents. In my experience, they all felt this was solid advice and encouraged me to continue giving it. If I could better my advice... I am all ears. What should I add, remove or change?


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 1, 2018)

If the scene is unsafe then yes leave the scene and go somewhere nearby.  If it is safe stay and wait for police.

Call the police as soon as possible.  Advise them you were involved in shooting, where the shooting was located, where you are located, and do as they advise.

If you have a lawyer call him/her.

Give a brief statement of what happened to the lead case agent/investigator (but don’t go into great detail).  Advise patrol officer you would prefer to wait and speak to the investigator if patrol starts asking questions.

Advise investigator you are willing to come in and give a detailed statement within the next 48 hours.

If you don’t have an attorney hire one quick that has experience with self defense.  Even if you aren’t charged with a crime chances are that you will be sued civilly.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2018)

You said he was a ranking officer, that means some one higher up, rank and file means boots on the ground.
Actually adrenaline is the first thing you should talk about, everything you do in the immediate aftermath of an incident is coloured by that, the way you think, the way you respond and what you say. It's fine going through a check list of things you should think about but can you think like that with an massive adrenaline dump? How do you know you won't start burbling instead of logically following the scenario you have set up beforehand.

CB Jones has given you very good advice, I'd follow that rather than the complicated over thought list of things you think will happen and you will do. 

On the point of leaving the scene, if you leave automatically rather than just when it's dangerous to stop have you thought how it will look if you leave an injured person lying there without attempting to call an ambulance, do first aid etc. It may sound a bit much after they attacked you but if you leave when it's safe to stay and don't attempt help it takes 'reasonable force' to something else.

Have you thought too that's it's likely that however good you are as a martial artist you will most likely be injured in the attack and will yourself need medical attention which will come before explaining to police officers etc?

You've had 8 hours training but not the practical experience, I hope you are never attacked and find out but if you were to be I think you will find it very different and rather than seeing the police as adversarial will see them rather as the people who are actually on the good guys side. The police aren't out to get you, they are there to sort out the truth from the lies.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> I got into a fight in Sheng Yang, China north train station. When 3 Chinese policemen came, I told them that this guy and I got into argument. Our body tangled together, we both lost balance and fell. This guy's head hit on the hard ground. I didn't throw any punches. It was an accident. Those Chinese policemen let me go.
> 
> IMO, the throwing art has advantage over the striking art in public self-defense. Lost balance is always a good excuse for your opponent's body injury.


One of my early instructors, who was a former cop and DT instructor, suggested, "We struggled and he fell."


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 1, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> One of my early instructors, who was a former cop and DT instructor, suggested, "We struggled and he fell."



While you was yelling for any witnesses to hear....Stop Resisting.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> You said he was a ranking officer, that means some one higher up, rank and file means boots on the ground.
> Actually adrenaline is the first thing you should talk about, everything you do in the immediate aftermath of an incident is coloured by that, the way you think, the way you respond and what you say. It's fine going through a check list of things you should think about but can you think like that with an massive adrenaline dump? How do you know you won't start burbling instead of logically following the scenario you have set up beforehand.
> 
> CB Jones has given you very good advice, I'd follow that rather than the complicated over thought list of things you think will happen and you will do.
> ...


CB's list isn't much different from the (not-so-complicated) list wab started with. The essentials are the same.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> While you was yelling for any witnesses to hear....Stop Resisting.


In our case, "I don't want any trouble." Same-same.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 1, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> In our case, "I don't want any trouble." Same-same.



Who would have ever guessed "the stop hitting yourself game" would teach you how to communicate during physical altercations.

It all comes together in the end


----------



## wab25 (Feb 1, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> You've had 8 hours training but not the practical experience, I hope you are never attacked and find out but if you were to be I think you will find it very different and rather than seeing the police as adversarial will see them rather as the people who are actually on the good guys side. The police aren't out to get you, they are there to sort out the truth from the lies.


I agree that I have no practical experience, which is why I rely on those who have... and clarified who they were. 

I do not see the police as adversarial, not sure what gave that impression, but I apologize for giving that impression if I have. I have many LEOs as friends, many who I train with regularly and am related to one. Again, I apologize for giving that impression.



Tez3 said:


> Actually adrenaline is the first thing you should talk about, everything you do in the immediate aftermath of an incident is coloured by that, the way you think, the way you respond and what you say. It's fine going through a check list of things you should think about but can you think like that with an massive adrenaline dump? How do you know you won't start burbling instead of logically following the scenario you have set up beforehand.


You make a good point about adrenaline. I may start burbling. But, if I have not ever thought about what to do after, what are the chances I do the right thing? I believe that having a simple plan, that you are familiar with and have thought through a few times will be more helpful, then having no plan and hoping to wing it. I could burble then too.



Tez3 said:


> CB Jones has given you very good advice, I'd follow that rather than the complicated over thought list of things you think will happen and you will do.


CB Jones advice seems very similar to mine. Both of us said make yourself safe first. Both said call it in first. Both said to make a short statement, then talk to a lawyer for more. The major difference is that my statement is already thought out. "I <fill in the blank> the other guy." (fill in the blank with shot, stabbed, punched, pushed, fell down with, choked out... whatever I did to him). The rest is all the same. In my adrenaline dump state of mind, I just have to remember what I did to him... I don't have to try to figure out what details to include, exclude... 



Tez3 said:


> On the point of leaving the scene, if you leave automatically rather than just when it's dangerous to stop have you thought how it will look if you leave an injured person lying there without attempting to call an ambulance, do first aid etc. It may sound a bit much after they attacked you but if you leave when it's safe to stay and don't attempt help it takes 'reasonable force' to something else.


My view of self defense is getting to the point where I can run away. If someone attacks me, and I can run away... that is the proper response. Run away, call the police. If I have to punch, kick, throw, break an arm or shoot him, to get an avenue to escape fine, as long as I take that avenue. I have no duty to subdue him, or incapacitate him in any way. As a citizen, with 8 hours of training, I call the police, they deal with him. Trevon knocked down the creep following him, then broke his nose. Had he then run away, he would be alive today and none of us would know his name. But he stayed to subdue the creep. So, I guess if I totally incapacitate the other guy, and I know his buddies are not coming around the corner I would stay. If I have to break his arm throwing him down, fine. But I don't want to then stand around waiting to see if he pulls another weapon, or his buddies come around. I get to a point where I can run away, then turn in my man card and pride, and run. As soon as I am in a safe location, I call the police, telling them what happened... an ambulance can be sent as a result of that call. I don't feel the need to stay around and incapacitate the guy, until its safe for me to stand next to him and call an ambulance.



Tez3 said:


> Have you thought too that's it's likely that however good you are as a martial artist you will most likely be injured in the attack and will yourself need medical attention which will come before explaining to police officers etc?


I have. This is why I don't feel I need to stay long enough to incapacitate the other guy. The longer I stay, the better chance I get hurt. The fact that I will probably be injured, is one reason why I want to get to safety as soon as possible. I would rather not pass out from blood loss right in front of my attacker, even if I did just blow out his knee.

I guess if you like a check list that you can practice and run through a few times before having to use it for real, then I have shared mine. If you don't like having a checklist to before hand, and are comfortable winging it, thats ok too. Again, I apologize for giving the impression that one should be adversarial to police, that was not my intent.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 1, 2018)

AlexanderZousky said:


> Hi,
> I do not think that you might get in trouble because he attacked you first and you are just trying to defend yourself.
> I have been in many situations where i have to defend myself but I usually hold back a little and do not take it too seriously because you could injure them. The martial arts i have learn is mostly about locking instead of straight on fight to the death.



Mine was with a lock by the way. Hammer locked this junkie and his arm just went crack.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 1, 2018)

I'm not sure why GP wants to criticise me in his posts directed at me, I was taught to keep things simple, CB does, wab25 doesn't. Simple is best.

My point is, in case it's not understood is that things like attacks never happen how you think they will and that is a problem. Not feeling the need to stop around long enough to incapacitate your attacker, how well do you actually think that will go? the chances are you are going to be in shock after the attacker, you may think you won't be because you've sparred a lot but you will be. This is understood, all you have to say is that you don't feel up to be interviewed at that moment which is more than likely to be the truth not dissembling. Then get checked over medically then you can see whether yo need legal help or not. The chances are high you won't because the police will have checked a lot of things and you will be in the clear (as long as you are and aren't missed any bits of information for any reason) 

*To be honest I'd worry far less about what happens afterwards than making sure there is an afterwards. *


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 1, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> *To be honest I'd worry far less about what happens afterwards than making sure there is an afterwards. *


A: What happened to him afterward?
B: There was no "afterward". He was killed in that fight.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 1, 2018)

Think adversarial. Be polite but understand that a lot is at stake.

Make sure you and all your friends have the same story.

 I have friends who have done years in prison for assaults. And known other guys who have walked away after stabbing people.

I still think it is generally better not to involve the police if you don't have to. And I have found the more effort it takes to find and process an offender the less likely anything will come of it.

So when I worked because I was easy to prosecute. I am fixed in one spot, my identity is known and there are cameras everywhere I would get investigated all the time. Now Joe on the street who police might have to find almost never happened.

 Shooting someone will be different as the police will probably be involved anyway.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 1, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> I'm not sure why GP wants to criticise me in his posts directed at me


Why not ask the person you're talking about, rather than wonder out loud? In fact, I don't think I have criticized you here. I pointed out that I don't see much difference between the two positions you seem to see as dramatically different.



> I was taught to keep things simple, CB does, wab25 doesn't. Simple is best.
> 
> My point is, in case it's not understood is that things like attacks never happen how you think they will and that is a problem. Not feeling the need to stop around long enough to incapacitate your attacker, how well do you actually think that will go? the chances are you are going to be in shock after the attacker, you may think you won't be because you've sparred a lot but you will be. This is understood, all you have to say is that you don't feel up to be interviewed at that moment which is more than likely to be the truth not dissembling. Then get checked over medically then you can see whether yo need legal help or not. The chances are high you won't because the police will have checked a lot of things and you will be in the clear (as long as you are and aren't missed any bits of information for any reason)
> 
> *To be honest I'd worry far less about what happens afterwards than making sure there is an afterwards. *


I don't really see much difference between this stance and what WAB posted. The three of you (including CB) are suggesting fairly similar approaches, with more or less focus on some areas and some details.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 1, 2018)

skribs said:


> Don't worry, I'm not in a situation where I need a lawyer, nor am I in a situation where I've needed to use my martial arts for self defense.  However, let's say that was the case.  Someone attacked me, and as a result of defending myself their arm is broken.
> 
> Now, I don't want them to go to the ER and say they were mugged by some karate expert who broke their arm and tried to steal their wallet.  However, I also don't want to call the police and say "yeah, I got in a fight and broke this dude's arm."
> 
> Personally, I don't have a lawyer.  I haven't really needed one.  So what do I do in this situation?



It's difficult to say, it really depends on state/local laws, injuries you sustained, prior personal/criminal history of you and assailant, etc. The best person to ask would be a local criminal defense attorney. They'll tell you exactly what to say and how to say it. With respect to any other advice you receive on here, take it with a grain of salt. Personal accounts are great to share, but laws like these vary greatly state to state and country to country. Legal advice is best to seek from a legal expert with such sensitive matters.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 1, 2018)

Anarax said:


> The best person to ask would be a local criminal defense attorney. They'll tell you exactly what to say and how to say it.



Problem is that most criminal defense attorneys will just advise you not to say anything without a lawyer present.  Which is fine if you don't mind taking the chance of being arrested and having to pay for the legal fees to get out of jail.

One thing you should do is become familiar with your state laws on what you are allowed to do when it comes to self defense.  Castle Doctrine, Stand your Ground Laws, is there a requirement to try and retreat, etc...


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2018)

@GP, certain functions aren't working on this site such as Pm and quotes for me so it's what it is. You criticised me in public so just asking.

Actually I didn't say I disagreed with the poster, I said he was focusing on making it complicated and therefore in the heat of the aftermath of the altercation which he seems to have simplified into the fact he will win, it won't work.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> @GP, certain functions aren't working on this site such as Pm and quotes for me so it's what it is. You criticised me in public so just asking.
> 
> Actually I didn't say I disagreed with the poster, I said he was focusing on making it complicated and therefore in the heat of the aftermath of the altercation which he seems to have simplified into the fact he will win, it won't work.


I don't recall criticizing (why does the British spelling seem more natural to me than the US spelling for that word?) you in this thread, Tez.


----------



## jobo (Feb 2, 2018)

skribs said:


> Don't worry, I'm not in a situation where I need a lawyer, nor am I in a situation where I've needed to use my martial arts for self defense.  However, let's say that was the case.  Someone attacked me, and as a result of defending myself their arm is broken.
> 
> Now, I don't want them to go to the ER and say they were mugged by some karate expert who broke their arm and tried to steal their wallet.  However, I also don't want to call the police and say "yeah, I got in a fight and broke this dude's arm."
> 
> Personally, I don't have a lawyer.  I haven't really needed one.  So what do I do in this situation?



This is from a UK perspective, but i think most points are universal.

you should most certainly report the incident, some time later, if they catch up with you, its going to give some credibility to your account of being a victim, but there is a fair chance that the other guy has or will when questioned claim you were the instigator , and as such you will be be and treated as suspects in a criminal investigation. The truth is largely irrelevant to the situation, if the police can gather sufficient evidence against one or both of you then you WILL be charged. They may just decieded its to complicated and send it to court to sort out.

as you are a suspect in a criminal investigation you should act , accordingly and be extremely guarded in what you say, if you don't go the whole hog and insist on legal representation before you say anything of note. Anything you say that can be twisted or misconstrued will be twisted or misconstrued. Any thing you say that can later be shown to be inaccurate, will be used to show you as liar and throw doubt on your whole testimony. Even little details you get wrong can be used against you. Only make statments that you are sure are 100% accurate, if you are not that sure, say nothing or explain your doubt. If your not in a fit state to make a statement, say so and DONT.

IF it happened in a public place, there is a fair Chance there is mobile phone footage, but as people only film after a fight has started, then it won't show the start and may well show you as the agressor and that alone may send you to court.

the other guy may well find 10 witnesses that just happened to be walking by and saw you attack him.

as above the police care nothing about the truth only that they have enough evidence to prosicute you, it therefor matters not one bit if the police believe you or not, they either have evidence or they don't, don't give them evidence. They don't have by saying daft things that can come back to haunt you in court.

your every action and word, should be calculated to give you credability in court, and if not that, then not to under one your credability.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2018)

Ok, lets get one thing clear. *The police DO* ( in the UK and I've no reason to doubt it's any different in the US) *actually care about the truth. *They will work long hours and go out of their way to make sure the correct person is charged for the crime. They aren't helped by numpties who hate the police and constantly run them down because they've had 'dealings' with them in their dim past and feel slighted ( mostly because they were caught doing something they shouldn't)

Note I said charged not prosecuted because in the UK the Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for prosecutions not the police. While there are mistakes made by the police ( show me anyone who never makes a mistake and I'll show you a liar) the police do their damndest to do a very difficult job to the best of their ability. Yes there are bad apples but they usually do get found out and busted.

Slagging the police off is a pointless and stupid thing to do...unless of course you can do the job better especially in the light of the shortage of manpower and the budget cuts.


----------



## jobo (Feb 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Ok, lets get one thing clear. *The police DO* ( in the UK and I've no reason to doubt it's any different in the US) *actually care about the truth. *They will work long hours and go out of their way to make sure the correct person is charged for the crime. They aren't helped by numpties who hate the police and constantly run them down because they've had 'dealings' with them in their dim past and feel slighted ( mostly because they were caught doing something they shouldn't)
> 
> Note I said charged not prosecuted because in the UK the Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for prosecutions not the police. While there are mistakes made by the police ( show me anyone who never makes a mistake and I'll show you a liar) the police do their damndest to do a very difficult job to the best of their ability. Yes there are bad apples but they usually do get found out and busted.
> 
> Slagging the police off is a pointless and stupid thing to do...unless of course you can do the job better especially in the light of the shortage of manpower and the budget cuts.


in the instant case, the " truth is both relative and subjective, a man has a broken arm, if you are prosecuted for GBH, is just down to if the police can gather enough evidence to support the charge, your case may not be helped by the police conveniently losing, " evidence " that may assist your defence, which for our US friends there has been rather a lot of lately


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Ok, lets get one thing clear. *The police DO* ( in the UK and I've no reason to doubt it's any different in the US) *actually care about the truth. *They will work long hours and go out of their way to make sure the correct person is charged for the crime. They aren't helped by numpties who hate the police and constantly run them down because they've had 'dealings' with them in their dim past and feel slighted ( mostly because they were caught doing something they shouldn't)
> 
> Note I said charged not prosecuted because in the UK the Crown Prosecution Service is responsible for prosecutions not the police. While there are mistakes made by the police ( show me anyone who never makes a mistake and I'll show you a liar) the police do their damndest to do a very difficult job to the best of their ability. Yes there are bad apples but they usually do get found out and busted.
> 
> Slagging the police off is a pointless and stupid thing to do...unless of course you can do the job better especially in the light of the shortage of manpower and the budget cuts.


Like all humans, their view can become biased by what they hear first, but all the cops I know and have known cared about the truth. Like all of us, they can be mistaken, but that's different from being deliberately biased.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 2, 2018)

skribs said:


> Don't worry, I'm not in a situation where I need a lawyer, nor am I in a situation where I've needed to use my martial arts for self defense.  However, let's say that was the case.  Someone attacked me, and as a result of defending myself their arm is broken.
> 
> Now, I don't want them to go to the ER and say they were mugged by some karate expert who broke their arm and tried to steal their wallet.  However, I also don't want to call the police and say "yeah, I got in a fight and broke this dude's arm."
> 
> Personally, I don't have a lawyer.  I haven't really needed one.  So what do I do in this situation?


Honestly, go here:
Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network

They cover unarmed too as well as non-firearms weapons.

Spend the money on the lowest level membership.  This will get you self defense protection for a year and you'll get a stack of DVD's of lectures which are more valuable than the cost of the 1-year membership.  Watch the videos.  They will answer these questions and a bunch more you didn't realize you should have asked.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Like all humans, their view can become biased by what they hear first, but all the cops I know and have known cared about the truth. Like all of us, they can be mistaken, but that's different from being deliberately biased.




Mm it's working. Actually I did say they can be mistaken because they are human. I wouldn't say biased towards the first thing they hear though because actually you tend not to initially believe *anything anyone* tells you until there's evidence. It's something you learn very quickly. Cynical, yes but at least not biased.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Mm it's working. Actually I did say they can be mistaken because they are human. I wouldn't say biased towards the first thing they hear though because actually you tend not to initially believe *anything anyone* tells you until there's evidence. It's something you learn very quickly. Cynical, yes but at least not biased.


Oh, they don't necessarily believe the first thing they hear - that's why I said "biased by" rather than "biased toward". I could have been clearer. Our minds form a picture (so to speak) of a situation as we get details. The first details going into that picture have no competition (except any pre-existing biases, but that's another topic), so color our perception until they are countered by something else (later input has to compete with that starting picture). If the person making the first statement gives good reason to be doubted, then the picture is likely to start by being contrary to what they say.

It's not a strong bias, but as with all subconscious processes, it's tough to entirely eliminate.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 2, 2018)

In the U.S., the first person to call the police is often viewed as the victim.  That's the way it has "always been."  Bad guys do bad things then try to escape while the victim calls the cops.  Of course, bad guys have figured this out and will now call the cops and claim victimhood.

In the U.S., if you ever have to defend yourself, be the first to call the cops.  Even if "nothing really happened, I just punched the other guy a little to make him stop attacking me," call the cops first, before he does.

And the stake escalate if a weapon, such as knife or a club/cane, was involved.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 2, 2018)

skribs said:


> Now, I don't want them to go to the ER and say they were mugged by some karate expert who broke their arm and tried to steal their wallet. However, I also don't want to call the police and say "yeah, I got in a fight and broke this dude's arm."
> 
> In the U.S., the guy that you just fought with, won't get into any legal trouble unless you want file charges.  There's a non-emergency number that people can call with stuff like that.
> 
> It's one thing for the police to see 2 people fighting and something totally different for them to get information after the fact.  A lot of spousal abuse happens simply because the woman calls the police but doesn't press charges, and as a result the husband beats her again for calling the police.  It's a vicious cycle, because the woman just wants the beating to stop but doesn't want the husband to go to jail.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Feb 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Dancing after a KO is a 15 yard penalty.
> 
> I think I'm mixing sports on that, though.


You can break out this dance at :23


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 2, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> Oh, they don't necessarily believe the first thing they hear - that's why I said "biased by" rather than "biased toward". I could have been clearer. Our minds form a picture (so to speak) of a situation as we get details. The first details going into that picture have no competition (except any pre-existing biases, but that's another topic), so color our perception until they are countered by something else (later input has to compete with that starting picture). If the person making the first statement gives good reason to be doubted, then the picture is likely to start by being contrary to what they say.
> 
> It's not a strong bias, but as with all subconscious processes, it's tough to entirely eliminate.




However  years of doing the job tends to get you into a different mindset, you learn from experience so while that while your explanation would cover younger and much less experienced police officers, the more experienced have learned differently. Yes the first to phone is usually the victim but that doesn't mean you believe them, not necessarily because they are lying but because they can be traumatised, confused, injured, scared and a whole range of other emotions ( had one who was sexually aroused and kept trying it on, he was elated from surviving an attack and that was the result though as he was a squaddie it was probably also his normal state anyway).


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 2, 2018)

JowGaWolf said:


> You can break out this dance at :23


Not if my wife's nearby. She'll lock me out of the house.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 2, 2018)

Nothing wrong with a little icky shuffle after coming out on top


----------



## Anarax (Feb 3, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Problem is that most criminal defense attorneys will just advise you not to say anything without a lawyer present.  Which is fine if you don't mind taking the chance of being arrested and having to pay for the legal fees to get out of jail.
> 
> One thing you should do is become familiar with your state laws on what you are allowed to do when it comes to self defense.  Castle Doctrine, Stand your Ground Laws, is there a requirement to try and retreat, etc...



I was referring to the best counsel for legal advice would be a lawyer. A criminal defense attorney would be the most knowledgeable on what to say and how to conduct yourself when the police arrive. Not looking guilty in the situation in which you defended is what you should avoid. Using specific legal terms and conveying your story in a clear and concise manner will speak volumes to the police officers. 

I agree being familiar with the law is the best thing you can do.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Feb 3, 2018)

*What to do after you have defended yourself*

When your opponent's fist is flying toward your face, the legal issue should be the least thing that you ought to worry about. After you have defended yourself, you should pat on your back and be glad that you are still alive.

It's always be better that your opponent has to go to

- hospital,
- funeral home,

instead of you. Your life is more important than anything else.


----------



## marques (Feb 3, 2018)

In that case, I ask 2 questions:
- Can I be identified? By the ‘bad guy’, police...
- Have I the law on my side?

If I am a random tourist and did something where I will never come back and no one knows me, surely no cameras..., probably I would just hope for no consequences, regardless the law.

If I did something on my home street (for instance) then I would need to prevent consequences from the ‘bad guy’ and tell a coherent story to the police... hopping I have the law on my side.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 3, 2018)

Anarax said:


> was referring to the best counsel for legal advice would be a lawyer. A criminal defense attorney would be the most knowledgeable on what to say and how to conduct yourself when the police arrive.



Ok just be careful it’s not one of the Bleed and Plead defense attorneys that make money by providing low quality service to their high quantity of clients.

Give an initial basic statement without going into details and advise you are willing to cooperate and give a full detailed statement with in the next couple days.

Initial statement should be something along the lines of:

I was walking to my car from my office when I bumped into the (attacker), he became angry, we exchanged words, and he pulled a knife.  I was in fear for my life, drew my gun, and shot him in self defense.  I then called 911.

The end.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2018)

CCTV. In the UK it's likely that if you are attacked on the street you won't have to call the police, they will be coming anyway. Many businesses and householders also have their own, just about all pubs and clubs do and before anyone starts on about 'rights' bear in mind that people really want cctv and many people put up their own.


----------



## jobo (Feb 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> However  years of doing the job tends to get you into a different mindset, you learn from experience so while that while your explanation would cover younger and much less experienced police officers, the more experienced have learned differently. Yes the first to phone is usually the victim but that doesn't mean you believe them, not necessarily because they are lying but because they can be traumatised, confused, injured, scared and a whole range of other emotions ( had one who was sexually aroused and kept trying it on, he was elated from surviving an attack and that was the result though as he was a squaddie it was probably also his normal state anyway).


What you say makes sense, but your missing a key point, that being, that it matters little in the long run who or what the police believe. What matters is the evidence they have and if that's enough to secure a conviction .

if your attacked  by billy, a well known hoodlem and billy has a couple of mates that " saw you attack him AND intimidates any witness  to he event . Then billy will almost certainly not be charged, no matte what the police believe. 

you on the other hand, though an innocent victim who was just defending yourself, very well might buy. Charged and convicted basically d on the testimony of billys friends. Though the police believe your story, you are still in prison


----------



## jobo (Feb 3, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> CCTV. In the UK it's likely that if you are attacked on the street you won't have to call the police, they will be coming anyway. Many businesses and householders also have their own, just about all pubs and clubs do and before anyone starts on about 'rights' bear in mind that people really want cctv and many people put up their own.


no not if your attacked on " the street" very few streets have cctv, ,  some roads do, but if you are out of the town centre, at least round here, you would be very lucky to be attacked on telly.


----------



## Headhunter (Feb 3, 2018)

jobo said:


> no not if your attacked on " the street" very few streets have cctv, ,  some roads do, but if you are out of the town centre, at least round here, you would be very lucky to be attacked on telly.


Also CCTV quality is so bad all you'd see is some grey blobs moving around


----------



## jobo (Feb 3, 2018)

Headhunter said:


> Also CCTV quality is so bad all you'd see is some grey blobs moving around


i think that's very variable, but judging by the news, it seems that small shops have better CCTV than that the government installed to protect us, obviously our " safety didn't warrant better cameras. Or paying enough people to watch them, and of course millions of pounds worth of surveylance equipment can be defeated by a 10 quid hoodie and a baseball cap


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2018)

jobo said:


> no not if your attacked on " the street" very few streets have cctv, ,  some roads do, but if you are out of the town centre, at least round here, you would be very lucky to be attacked on telly.





Headhunter said:


> Also CCTV quality is so bad all you'd see is some grey blobs moving around



No and no.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 3, 2018)

cctv videos from UK - Bing video


----------



## Anarax (Feb 3, 2018)

Kung Fu Wang said:


> *What to do after you have defended yourself*
> 
> When your opponent's fist is flying toward your face, the legal issue should be the least thing that you ought to worry about. After you have defended yourself, you should pat on your back and be glad that you are still alive.
> 
> ...



Defending yourself should be the immediate thing on your mind, but not the only thing. As martial artists we need to assess the situation and use reasonable force for that situation. If you go overboard, escalate the situation and use considerable more force than necessary, you might be going to jail.


----------



## Buka (Feb 3, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Nothing wrong with a little icky shuffle after coming out on top



Lol. The Ickey Shuffle was a neighborhood favorite of ours. The first part of it, anyway. We still do it to this day once in a while.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 6, 2018)

Anarax said:


> I was referring to the best counsel for legal advice would be a lawyer. A criminal defense attorney would be the most knowledgeable on what to say and how to conduct yourself when the police arrive.


It has been noted by legal experts in the U.S. that, in the U.S. there is a divide between what criminal defense lawyers say and it is based on wether or not their clients tend to be guilty or innocent and wrongly accused.  

For the guilty, the advise has long been "don't talk to the cops."  There's a reason that Miranda Rights include "you have to right to be silent" and "everything you say can, and will, be used against you" _&_tc.

But there is different advice for the innocent.  Because most of what I know about the subject comes from ACLDN and was specifically presented to me as "proprietary" information, I'm not at liberty to share most of it.  For a full and in depth discussion of it, buy the membership and watch the DVDs.  Seriously.  Alternately, you could could buy the books written by Massad Ayoob.  There might be some articles he's written which cover the basics.

Massad Ayoob: 5 Things To Know After A Defensive Shooting
Massad Ayoob's 5 things to do after involved in a shooting




What Do I Say After a Shooting?

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2018)

I think one thing many forget is that even if you have shot/injured/killed someone in complete self defence is that it's surprising how emotionally traumatic it is to do that. You may know quite logically that you were completely in the right and were entirely justified but it's quite amazing how bad you will feel all the same at taking a life or badly hurting someone. 
So many films, books and television series show there being no after effects for police officers and others who have shoot someone, it's like it's not a big deal but it is. Many police officers, even after being praised for their actions feel bad about taking a life. You may not think you will because of what that attackers was going to do but it will creep up and surprise you. You won't feel as good about it as you thought you would. You will have done the right thing and you will work through it though.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 6, 2018)

lklawson said:


> It has been noted by legal experts in the U.S. that, in the U.S. there is a divide between what criminal defense lawyers say and it is based on wether or not their clients tend to be guilty or innocent and wrongly accused.
> 
> For the guilty, the advise has long been "don't talk to the cops."  There's a reason that Miranda Rights include "you have to right to be silent" and "everything you say can, and will, be used against you" _&_tc.
> 
> ...


not that i mind , but i posted the same video back on page one.  lol

some thing i have heard was that you shouldnt say a word , even if you are innocent because you will never know how the prosecution will twist and use what you say.  also anything you say that defends your position can be thown out in court  as "hearsay".. only the stuff that will get you in trouble will be submitted as evidence against you.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 6, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> I think one thing many forget is that even if you have shot/injured/killed someone in complete self defence is that it's surprising how emotionally traumatic it is to do that. You may know quite logically that you were completely in the right and were entirely justified but it's quite amazing how bad you will feel all the same at taking a life or badly hurting someone.
> So many films, books and television series show there being no after effects for police officers and others who have shoot someone, it's like it's not a big deal but it is. Many police officers, even after being praised for their actions feel bad about taking a life. You may not think you will because of what that attackers was going to do but it will creep up and surprise you. You won't feel as good about it as you thought you would. You will have done the right thing and you will work through it though.



Lt Col Dave Grossman's book "On Killing and On Combat"  talks about this.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 6, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> not that i mind , but i posted the same video back on page one.  lol


That's like 4 pages ago!  I barely remember what I had for breakfast yesterday!  

Sorry, I forgot.



> some thing i have heard was that you shouldnt say a word , even if you are innocent because you will never know how the prosecution will twist and use what you say.  also anything you say that defends your position can be thown out in court  as "hearsay".. only the stuff that will get you in trouble will be submitted as evidence against you.


That advice is changing.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 6, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> some thing i have heard was that you shouldnt say a word , even if you are innocent because you will never know how the prosecution will twist and use what you say.



Disagree, if it is self defense then its a good chance that with a short initial statement and a show of cooperation the investigator will not arrest you on PC.  Without any cooperation you are guaranteed to be arrested on PC and then you are fighting to get out of jail.

What I advised when I worked shootings was......Give me something.  Show me some cooperation and give me an initial statement that I can take back to my supervisor and say "He seems to be cooperating and the evidence along with his initial statement supports the evidence of self defense."



hoshin1600 said:


> also anything you say that defends your position can be thown out in court as "hearsay"



Incorrect.  What I directly hear you say is admisable and I can testify to that.  What someone tells me they heard you say is hearsay and I cannot testify to that.  But the person who actually heard it can testify to hearing it.  You can always testify to what you hear, see, or feel.



hoshin1600 said:


> only the stuff that will get you in trouble will be submitted as evidence against you.



Incorrect all evidence and information has to be given to the defense.  Holding anything out is grounds for appeal.  And intentionally withholding pertinent evidence that could help the defendant is a big no, no and often in those cases judges will dismiss with prejudice and not allow it to be re-opened.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 6, 2018)

@CB Jones 
@lklawson 
thoughts on these...

"top 10 reasons to not talk to the police"
 @ 8:30  min.  he talks about hearsay and what i mentioned






this officer doesnt talk as fast.


----------



## hoshin1600 (Feb 6, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Disagree, if it is self defense then its a good chance that with a short initial statement and a show of cooperation the investigator will not arrest you on PC.  Without any cooperation you are guaranteed to be arrested on PC and then you are fighting to get out of jail.
> 
> What I advised when I worked shootings was......Give me something.  Show me some cooperation and give me an initial statement that I can take back to my supervisor and say "He seems to be cooperating and the evidence along with his initial statement supports the evidence of self defense."
> 
> ...




based on the two videos i posted ,, was my wording and phrasing wrong or is the information in the videos incorrect or no long valid?  or am i applying something in the wrong context?


----------



## lklawson (Feb 6, 2018)

hoshin1600 said:


> @CB Jones
> @lklawson
> thoughts on these...


Ayoob has specifically referenced and responded to these videos in a few interviews he's given recently (pro-gun podcasts, I don't remember which).  The short version is he says that this is older information and mostly given from the perspective of people who actually are guilty.  It also, he says, puts you in the position of letting the cop assume stuff about your innocence or guilt.  Cops have years or decades of honing their BS detector.  When you shut down with "I ain't tell'n you nuth'n copper! I wanna talk to my mouthpiece!" that's "guilty bad guy talk."  Instead, use "good guy talk" but don't get "diarrhea of the mouth."  Give the police enough information to help them set the narrative of you as a victim who defended himself and then stop talking because the effects of stress and adrenalin dump will skew your memories and perceptions.  When cops are involved in a shooting, most departmental policies give them at least 24 hours before they make an official statement so that their brains and brain chemistry has time to even out, come down of off adrenalin, and allow their brains time to process and more accurately categorize the memories.  It helps prevent those "I shot him four times (but really it was 8)" mistakes.  Again, in the advice of people like Marty Hayes and Ayoob,


Win the "race" to 911
Tell 911 you were attacked and were forced to defend yourself, ask for an ambulance (for the injured parties) and police.  Don't try to be specific about questions being asked ("Sir, how many shots" - You, "I'm not sure, it's all kind of a blur.")
When the officers arrive make sure to not be holding your gun unless you had to keep it in your hand for protection.  Instead have it holstered or put down.
Follow the officer's orders immediately and without question, even if he face-plants you on the concrete.  He needs to be safe and in control of the situation.  It's his job to be.  If you hinder those two immediate goals you're a bad guy and a threat.  Bad things happen to bad guys and threats.  Whatever he says, just do it.
Tell the officer that you were attacked and were forced to defend yourself.  Don't lead with "I shot him."  Say something like "he attacked me and I had to defend myself."

Tell the officer that you will file a complain - some jurisdictions you don't get to file charges and you sound like a doofus spouting stuff you don't understand if you don't know when you can and when you can't

Point out evidence to the officer such as firearms, knives, expended shell casing (which get trapped in responding tires and shoes, never to be seen again), blood spatter, and such.  Don't blabber about how close you were or were not.  "It's still pretty blurry officer, but I remember he attacked me in with this weapon."
Point out witnesses, many of whom don't want to get involved and may disappear forever instead of being able to give corroborating stories.

Then shut up.  Tell the officer that you're pretty upset and need to speak with your lawyer but that you'll be very happy to give your full cooperation after that.
"Good guy talk."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 6, 2018)

@hoshin1600 

lklawson puts it perfectly.

If you are guilty of unjustified shooting......lawyer up.  If not show some cooperation and also start painting the picture of self defense.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 6, 2018)

lklawson said:


> it is based on wether or not their clients tend to be guilty or innocent and wrongly accused.



Not necessarily, not all cops interpret situations the same way. How we interpret our "self-defense" actions and how a cop, judge, prosecutor and jury interprets our actions might be different. The difference in state and local law also plays a significant factor.    



lklawson said:


> For the guilty, the advise has long been "don't talk to the cops."


Though that is sound advice for the guilty, it's not bad advice for the innocent either. The idea that if you choose to remain silent implies you're guilty is very presumptuous, though there are a lot of people who believe so. A similar premise is if I refuse to have my car searched by a cop then I'm hiding something. A citizen exercising their constitutional rights shouldn't be an indication of guilt.

The most important factor in all of this is the situation. Almost any level of force is "legal", but it must be appropriate for the situation.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

Anarax said:


> Not necessarily, not all cops interpret situations the same way. How we interpret our "self-defense" actions and how a cop, judge, prosecutor and jury interprets our actions might be different. The difference in state and local law also plays a significant factor.
> 
> 
> Though that is sound advice for the guilty, it's not bad advice for the innocent either. The idea that if you choose to remain silent implies you're guilty is very presumptuous, though there are a lot of people who believe so. A similar premise is if I refuse to have my car searched by a cop then I'm hiding something. A citizen exercising their constitutional rights shouldn't be an indication of guilt.
> ...


There's some "shoulding" in that third paragraph. Whether clamming up _should _make you look guilty or not isn't really a pertinent factor. The pertinent factor is whether it _does_ make you seem more likely to be guilty or not. What we hear from Ayoob and what CB says are similar things: cops are human, so help them see the reality before something else gives them the wrong idea. Human minds are really good at hanging onto an idea once they have it.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 6, 2018)

Anarax said:


> Not necessarily, not all cops interpret situations the same way. How we interpret our "self-defense" actions and how a cop, judge, prosecutor and jury interprets our actions might be different. The difference in state and local law also plays a significant factor.


Just because you know you're a good guy doesn't mean anyone else does.  Unfortunately LEO are kinda conditioned by the job to look for a criminal and a victim, or sometimes just criminals.  Not their fault really.  It's what actually happens to them.  So, just because you know you're not a criminal doesn't mean anyone else knows that.  It behooves you to not act like a criminal in what you say and how you interact with police.



> Though that is sound advice for the guilty, it's not bad advice for the innocent either. The idea that if you choose to remain silent implies you're guilty is very presumptuous, though there are a lot of people who believe so. A similar premise is if I refuse to have my car searched by a cop then I'm hiding something. A citizen exercising their constitutional rights shouldn't be an indication of guilt.


Yeah, well, welcome to this thing called "life" where actions, activities, and outcomes aren't always "fair."  It sucks, but that's the way it works.



> The most important factor in all of this is the situation. Almost any level of force is "legal", but it must be appropriate for the situation.


Sure.  Unless it isn't.  For a lot of it, it's about what you can prove.  Again, it behooves you to try your best not to get in situations where you have to prove anything.

In any case, do what Hayes, Ayoob, and Andrew Branca tell you; which is pretty much what I wrote above.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Anarax (Feb 6, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> There's some "shoulding" in that third paragraph.



Could you clarify, I don't quiet understand what you mean.



gpseymour said:


> Whether clamming up _should _make you look guilty or not isn't really a pertinent factor. The pertinent factor is whether it _does_ make you seem more likely to be guilty or not.



I'm not referring to how it looks to your average Joe that has nothing to do with the case. I'm referring to the cops, lawyers, judges and juries assigned to the case. Presumption of innocence is still a crucial legal right and shouldn't be ignored.



gpseymour said:


> cops are human, so help them see the reality before something else gives them the wrong idea. Human minds are really good at hanging onto an idea once they have it.



Granted they are human, thus they can misinterpret the situation. When my freedom is on the line I will exercise my constitutional right and seek legal counsel to ensure I have professional representation. This isn't based on any disdain for police officers nor the criminal justice system. It's the reality that human error can destroy my life if I don't approach it with caution.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 6, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Unfortunately LEO are kinda conditioned by the job to look for a criminal and a victim, or sometimes just criminals.




Or as we put it .... the naïve, the idiots and the really stupid idiots.

Just as aside, the US calls them Law Enforcement Officers, we call ours Police Officers, do Americans feel that the job is only to enforce laws or is there more to the job? Here we still go by the 'Peel's 9 principles' of policing by consent.
Definition of policing by consent - GOV.UK

Is this different to the US or similar? Does affect the way that people see the police, which some see to think are keen on getting convictions whatever?


----------



## Anarax (Feb 6, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Just because you know you're a good guy doesn't mean anyone else does.


I referred to the actions, I never brought up the character of the individual.



lklawson said:


> . Unfortunately LEO are kinda conditioned by the job to look for a criminal and a victim, or sometimes just criminals. Not their fault really.


I'm not assigning blame nor fault. I'm choosing to exercise my constitutional right.



lklawson said:


> So, just because you know you're not a criminal doesn't mean anyone else knows that. It behooves you to not act like a criminal in what you say and how you interact with police.


Are you saying choosing to remain silent and requesting legal counsel looks like a criminal act?



lklawson said:


> Yeah, well, welcome to this thing called "life" where actions, activities, and outcomes aren't always "fair." It sucks, but that's the way it works.


Your comment is the perfect example of why I request a lawyer. Presumption of innocence is a legal right, it's not just my opinion of what's fair. If and when my rights are violated, I want my counsel to be right there beside me.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 6, 2018)

@Anarax

Don’t get me wrong if you want to excercise yours rights that’s fine.

Just realize if you choose not to cooperate there is a good chance you are going to be arrested and at a minimum spend a few days in lock up.

What we are advising keeps you from getting arrested initially.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 6, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Is this different to the US or similar? Does affect the way that people see the police, which some see to think are keen on getting convictions whatever?



It’s pretty much the same.  LEO is used a lot just because it stresses that we enforce the law....not legislate or judge.  We simply enforce the laws


----------



## Buka (Feb 6, 2018)

A good part of our duties are singing, dancing and snappy dialogue.




 

No one said traffic duty was going to be easy.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 6, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Or as we put it .... the naïve, the idiots and the really stupid idiots.






> Just as aside, the US calls them Law Enforcement Officers, we call ours Police Officers, do Americans feel that the job is only to enforce laws or is there more to the job? Here we still go by the 'Peel's 9 principles' of policing by consent.
> Definition of policing by consent - GOV.UK
> 
> Is this different to the US or similar? Does affect the way that people see the police, which some see to think are keen on getting convictions whatever?


Feh.  We call our people who enforce laws lots of things.  Cops, Law Enforcement Officers, Police, Police Officers, Officers, and some that are, um... not considered complementary.  

My biggest complaint is when people here make a distinction between "Civilians" and "Police."  It's a pet peeve of mine.  Unless we're living in the Soviet Union or they're Military Police, cops *ARE* civilians!

I try not to let it get my nose too out of joint over it.  ...usually

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Feb 6, 2018)

Anarax said:


> I referred to the actions, I never brought up the character of the individual.


You misunderstand.  I'm not talking about character either, I'm talking about how people are viewed based on their actions.




> I'm not assigning blame nor fault. I'm choosing to exercise my constitutional right.


Which is fine.  But may still get you arrested when you don't have to be, just so that everything can get sorted.




> Are you saying choosing to remain silent and requesting legal counsel looks like a criminal act?


No.  I'm saying that it looks like what a criminal does because, well, it's what criminals do.




> Your comment is the perfect example of why I request a lawyer. Presumption of innocence is a legal right, it's not just my opinion of what's fair. If and when my rights are violated, I want my counsel to be right there beside me.


Getting arrested while the cops sort it out is NOT a violation of your rights.  Take the famous Zimmerman case.  He was arrested, paupered, and had his life ruined basically.  But his civil rights were not violated.  Actually, he's a good example of "good guy non-criminal talk."  At one point an investigating officer was trying to trip him up in his statements and told Zimmerman that video surveillance had captured the whole thing.  Zimmerman replied, "Thank God!"  The cop knew right then that Zimmerman believed he was attacked and had acted in justifiable self defense because the video (which didn't actually exist) would show the whole event.

You know the old saw that "if you don't have anything to hide?"  It's a logical fallacy, no two ways about it.  But humans aren't logical.  If you clam up and say, "I'm not saying anything too you flatfoot, I want my lawyer" you *look* like you have something to hide and, to humans, that makes you *look* guilty.  It ain't fair but it is reality.

And no, that's not me saying it, I'm repeating what a self defense attorney has repeatedly written and said in interviews.  Andrew Branca; his specialty is defending good guys who defend themselves with guns.  He says the same thing as Ayoob.  Ayoob is a professional witness and retired cop.  He says the same thing as Marty Hayes.  Marty Hayes is president and founder Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, an organization formed specifically to defend the honest good guys who defend themselves from bad guys.

Debunking "Don't talk to police"
“Don’t talk to the police” — good advice? | Cornered Cat
Law of Self Defense by Atty. Andrew Branca on Apple Podcasts

Look, honestly, if you want to clam up and say that it's your right, that's true.  When you get arrested and maybe have an expensive trial because of it, when you didn't have to, that's no skin off my nose.  But I think it's smarter to listen to the professionals who actually defend legal self-defenders as opposed to the old advice aimed mostly at those who actually are guilty.

Your call.  <shrug>

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 6, 2018)

I also think people have a misconception of how it works.  Its not like on TV.

You aren't brought back to the office and put in the interview room while we try and get you to change your mind until your attorney barges in and demands you be charged or let go in which the detectives then let you go.

When you invoke your Constitutional Rights it ends our interview.....the next step is you being transported to lock up and booked in on charges.  24-48 hours later you are brought before a judge and arraigned and your bond is set probably around $200,000-$500,000....you can hire a bail bondsman to get you out for 12% (non-refundable).  The state then has 180 days to take it before a grand jury.  You can get your attorney to request a bond reduction hearing, but usually that's a week or two after arraignment.

Now your attorney can setup an interview to speed everything up, but that's still gonna be after you have sat in jail for at least a few days.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 6, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Which is fine. But may still get you arrested when you don't have to be, just so that everything can get sorted.


There's a difference between be detained and arrested. Being arrested and charged is one thing, being found guilty is a different story.



lklawson said:


> No. I'm saying that it looks like what a criminal does because, well, it's what criminals do.


That's your interpretation, not everyone will interpret exercising your constitutional rights as "looks like what criminals do".



lklawson said:


> Getting arrested while the cops sort it out is NOT a violation of your rights.


Correct, a lawful arrest is legal. I said "*if *and when my rights are violated", meaning if the event arises. Being involved doesn't guarantee my rights being violated, nor does it guarantee them being upheld. That's what the right to counsel is for.   



lklawson said:


> At one point an investigating officer was trying to trip him up in his statements and told Zimmerman that video surveillance had captured the whole thing. Zimmerman replied, "Thank God!" The cop knew right then that Zimmerman believed he was attacked and had acted in justifiable self defense because the video (which didn't actually exist) would show the whole event.



I agree Zimmerman's life was ruined by the whole event. However; he explained what happened to the police and he was still arrested, not that's a violation. It wasn't his well articulated version of the story is what saved him, it was the forensic evidence that corroborated his story. Lacerations on the back of his head, angle of the entry wound and his deviated septum pointed to Trayvon standing over him and assaulting/battering him.  Would Zimmerman still had been arrested if he had waited for an attorney? Yes. However; the forensic evidence would had been the same.  



lklawson said:


> "if you don't have anything to hide?" It's a logical fallacy, no two ways about it. But humans aren't logical.


To what end can I apply that idea? The criminal justice system can be as illogical as they want and well, they're only human. If I'm found guilty, oh well, humans are illogical. Humans are flawed, but the defendant nor their attorney will excuse it in a court of law. If they wish to treat the defendant subjectively, their attorney will be right there to object. 



lklawson said:


> "I'm not saying anything too you flatfoot, I want my lawyer" you *look* like you have something to hide and, to humans, that makes you *look* guilty. It ain't fair but it is reality.



To some it might, it depends on your personal ideology. Hence is why it's a *law*. Thinking one looks guilty is excusable, but it becomes a problem when you are *treated *guilty by the criminal justice system before the verdict.



lklawson said:


> I'm repeating what a self defense attorney has repeatedly written and said in interviews.



There are plenty of other experts that say otherwise. 



lklawson said:


> When you get arrested and maybe have an expensive trial because of it, when you didn't have to, that's no skin off my nose.



Like Zimmerman? You used the example so I'll use that one. He cooperated with the police and yet still had a trial. Again it was the forensic evidence that saved him. How would you know the trials wouldn't have happened? There are so many factors that go into determining if a case goes to trial or not.



lklawson said:


> But I think it's smarter to listen to the professionals who actually defend legal self-defenders as opposed to the old advice aimed mostly at those who actually are guilty.



I have no doubt you can find experts that say you should cooperate fully with the police, but you can find plenty of other experts that say otherwise. It's not old nor solely guilty targeted advice The experts you find aren't the only ones that have an opinion on the matter.


----------



## drop bear (Feb 6, 2018)

Buka said:


> A good part of our duties are singing, dancing and snappy dialogue.
> 
> View attachment 21231
> 
> No one said traffic duty was going to be easy.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Feb 6, 2018)

Anarax said:


> Could you clarify, I don't quiet understand what you mean.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not referring to how it looks to your average Joe that has nothing to do with the case. I'm referring to the cops, lawyers, judges and juries assigned to the case. Presumption of innocence is still a crucial legal right and *shouldn't *be ignored.


This is what I was talking about. It shouldn't be, but rarely can life live up to an ideal - even one so straightforward. If you do the right thing for the right reason, you should never have to worry about what you do or don't say to cops, lawyers, or juries. But you do, because they're all human, and if it ever makes it to court, there will be someone (with far more experience than you) telling them a different story from yours.



> Granted they are human, thus they can misinterpret the situation. When my freedom is on the line I will exercise my constitutional right and seek legal counsel to ensure I have professional representation. This isn't based on any disdain for police officers nor the criminal justice system. It's the reality that human error can destroy my life if I don't approach it with caution.



Nobody has said not to do that. Some well-informed exerts, however, have advised how to give yourself the best chance of them seeing the situation as it was - rather than as someone else (perhaps the guy you defended against) wants them to see it.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 6, 2018)

Anarax said:


> I have no doubt you can find experts that say you should cooperate fully with the police, but you can find plenty of other experts that say otherwise. It's not old nor solely guilty targeted advice The experts you find aren't the only ones that have an opinion on the matter.


Heck, don't believe me, the professionals I referenced, or even the cops who personally replied to you in this thread. It's your life.  Be stubborn and in prison. Not my problem.  <shrug>


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 7, 2018)

Anarax said:


> . Being arrested and charged is one thing




Actually, here at least, they are two very different things. Being arrested actually means little, being charged however does.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 7, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Actually, here at least, they are two very different things. Being arrested actually means little, being charged however does.



Same in US technically.  You are officially charged when the prosecutor files the bill of information with the court.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 7, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> I also think people have a misconception of how it works.  Its not like on TV.
> 
> You aren't brought back to the office and put in the interview room while we try and get you to change your mind until your attorney barges in and demands you be charged or let go in which the detectives then let you go.
> 
> ...



Yes, I'm aware that TV oversimplifies due process. I understand that lawerying up doesn't magically solve everything and there is a distinct possibility that I'm might spend time in jail.

I want to clarify that I'm not going to automatically not cooperate with the police. It depends heavily on the situation that I'm in and the circumstances surrounding it. If there are circumstances in which I think I will be mistreated then I will seek legal counsel. If I think I acted within in the law and and a reasonable person can interpret it as so, I'll cooperate. If I think I've done nothing wrong but the situation looks really bad then I'll lawyer up. Not because I think I've done anything illegal, but more so on how a police officer, judge or jury might interpret it. In that case I need legal counsel to help navigate my way through the criminal justice system.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 7, 2018)

gpseymour said:


> It shouldn't be, but rarely can life live up to an ideal - even one so straightforward.


Granted, but the it's not only a principal, but a law. A law in which is a standard set on how defendants are to be treated by the criminal justice system. It doesn't matter someone thinks I'm guilty, but it does matter when the criminal justice systems treats me as so before the verdict. That is why I want an attorney. 

As I told CB, only in heavy cases would I choose to remain silent.



gpseymour said:


> But you do, because they're all human, and if it ever makes it to court, there will be someone (with far more experience than you) telling them a different story from yours.


Hence is why I want my own experienced legal counsel



gpseymour said:


> Some well-informed exerts, however, have advised how to give yourself the best chance of them seeing the situation as it was - rather than as someone else (perhaps the guy you defended against) wants them to see it.



Yes, some experts do, but others don't. I've listened to experts with differing opinions on this matter both have great points. However; the experts that are for remaining silent and seeking counsel have so many examples and evidence that is quiet overwhelming.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 7, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Heck, don't believe me, the professionals I referenced, or even the cops who personally replied to you in this thread. It's your life.  Be stubborn and in prison. Not my problem.  <shrug>



Absolutely not, but I will exercise my constitutional rights as I see fit. If people can't understand the difference between that and "stubbornness", not my problem.


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 7, 2018)

@Anarax 

Thats cool it’s your decision to make.  I just try and caution the people that believe you should never cooperate.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2018)

Anarax said:


> but I will exercise my constitutional rights as I see fit.



Does, however, 'as I see fit' mean you have the legal knowledge to do that correctly? 

We don't have a constitution, we do have rights though, very clearly laid down if we are arrested. Being arrested: your rights - GOV.UK

I follow out of interest more than anything else, not because of political views, the gun control debate in the US. Watching the debate back and forward there seems to be a lot of arguing as to what the 'right to bear arms' means in your constitution. It seems to have varying meanings to different people depending on which side they view the debate from so how can you be sure that your 'as I see fit' is actually what your constitution means, what if you are wrong about what rights you think you have or that the judiciary system decides that 'as they see fit' rules instead? Not arguing with you, just trying to see where you are coming from. I've heard so many people saying they 'know their rights' when it's very clear they don't.


There's the thing too that if you have been attacked you would want the person who did it to be prosecuted, so many on here seem to think they have to defend themselves from the police as well as the attacker. Situations tend to be much simpler than most seem to realise. If it's a mugging/assault then the chances are very high that the mugger is a repeat offender with a criminal record already or at the very least a background that shows them to be unreliable witness or know along with associates to the police while you will be obviously be the opposite. Non criminals and good citizens don't suddenly start to burgle people's homes or attack them on the street. Situations can be different in bar fights but then you have to look and see if you aren't partly to blame anyway so then people do tend to be cagey towards the police.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 8, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Does, however, 'as I see fit' mean you have the legal knowledge to do that correctly?


No, I said exercise my constitutional rights as I see fit. Exercise meaning use at my discretion. Yes, I know my rights and how to exercise them. 



Tez3 said:


> We don't have a constitution, we do have rights though, very clearly laid down if we are arrested. Being arrested: your rights - GOV.UK


In the US we have a constitution.  



Tez3 said:


> I follow out of interest more than anything else, not because of political views, the gun control debate in the US.


Not touching that with a ten foot pole, might get the thread shut down. If you wish to discuss the second amendment private message me. 



Tez3 said:


> It seems to have varying meanings to different people depending on which side they view the debate from so how can you be sure that your 'as I see fit' is actually what your constitution means, what if you are wrong about what rights you think you have or that the judiciary system decides that 'as they see fit' rules instead?


Refereeing to the right to remain silent, that's a right that can be exercised as I have described. We can get into this deep philosophical debate on constitutional interpretations, original intent vs living document, but how it's applied today is what's relevant in this thread. We have the appeals process in case the criminal justice system mistreats a defendant as well. However; constitutional interpretation and rulings are what the US Supreme Court is for. Further more, the right to remain silent and the right to counsel is very clear and straight forward. 



Tez3 said:


> There's the thing too that if you have been attacked you would want the person who did it to be prosecuted, so many on here seem to think they have to defend themselves from the police as well as the attacker.


It's not defending yourself from the police, it's about protecting yourself from possible mistreatment from the criminal justice system. To take it a step further, the government will always have more resources than you will in a court of law, hence wanting your own legal expert is an invaluable resource to have on your side. Though there can be far ranging reasons why someone may remain silent and seek legal counsel, it's still their right to choose to do so.



Tez3 said:


> Situations tend to be much simpler than most seem to realise. If it's a mugging/assault then the chances are very high that the mugger is a repeat offender with a criminal record already or at the very least a background that shows them to be unreliable witness or know along with associates to the police while you will be obviously be the opposite.


You're trying to simplify the self-defense situations and circumstances people find themselves in. You can't put all scenarios in a box and say a + b = c. Self-defense altercations and how it's interpreted by the criminal justice system is much more complex.    



Tez3 said:


> Non criminals and good citizens don't suddenly start to burgle people's homes or attack them on the street. Situations can be different in bar fights but then you have to look and see if you aren't partly to blame anyway so then people do tend to be cagey towards the police.


People are unpredictable so don't count them out. "Non-criminals" aren't guaranteed to stay non-criminal after a certain age. People are chaotic, the circumstances surrounding their lives can change, thus their behavior can change.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 8, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Does, however, 'as I see fit' mean you have the legal knowledge to do that correctly?


Who knows?  It comes across as bluster.  <shrug>



> We don't have a constitution, we do have rights though, very clearly laid down if we are arrested. Being arrested: your rights - GOV.UK]


Wait.  You mean the U.K. isn't governed by the U.S. Constitution?  Now I'm all confused.  



> I follow out of interest more than anything else, not because of political views, the gun control debate in the US. Watching the debate back and forward there seems to be a lot of arguing as to what the 'right to bear arms' means in your constitution. It seems to have varying meanings to different people depending on which side they view the debate from


That runs too close to the rules here prohibiting political discourse.  If you want, I'll gladly discuss it in PM or direct you to an off-site forum where that discussion is appropriate.  Without getting political, what you have to understand here is that this isn't about guns, gun control, Right To Keep and Bear Arms, or that stuff.  It's about what one should or shouldn't do after a self defense incident in which one uses force to defend themselves.  Whether it is a gun, knife, stick, or bare hands, the procedure is pretty much the same.  Legally, it's less about the mechanism used for projecting force as it is that force was used, particularly in the case of "deadly force." 

However, the "gun community" in the U.S. is the group that is on the leading edge of legal defense for those who use force in self defense.  They are the "tip of the spear" so to speak.  So, even if you are an old codger and swinging a cane, the legal concepts from the "gun community" is going to be the "best of breed" advice.



> so how can you be sure that your 'as I see fit' is actually what your constitution means, what if you are wrong about what rights you think you have or that the judiciary system decides that 'as they see fit' rules instead? Not arguing with you, just trying to see where you are coming from. I've heard so many people saying they 'know their rights' when it's very clear they don't.


I recently listened to a "lecture" by a U.S. lawyer discussing how many amateurs in the U.S. think that the plain language of a law is what it means.  Apparently that's not always (usually?) true.  There is black letter law, legal precedent, judicial interpretation, and lots of other spices that bake into the cake.  Just because someone thinks they know what the law "says" doesn't mean that they know what the law actually "means" out in the real world.  My recollection is that it was Alan Gura who said this, a distinguished lawyer who has won cases at the highest court in the U.S.



> There's the thing too that if you have been attacked you would want the person who did it to be prosecuted, so many on here seem to think they have to defend themselves from the police as well as the attacker. Situations tend to be much simpler than most seem to realise. If it's a mugging/assault then the chances are very high that the mugger is a repeat offender with a criminal record already or at the very least a background that shows them to be unreliable witness or know along with associates to the police while you will be obviously be the opposite. Non criminals and good citizens don't suddenly start to burgle people's homes or attack them on the street. Situations can be different in bar fights but then you have to look and see if you aren't partly to blame anyway so then people do tend to be cagey towards the police.


Most cops here in the U.S. are basically good folks.  They get into policing because they want to be the "good guy," wear the white had, rescue the victim, and put the bad guy in jail.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2018)

Well I can see my post was a complete waste of time, minutes of my life I won't get back as you seem to have totally misunderstood everything I wrote.




Anarax said:


> No, I said exercise my constitutional rights as I see fit. Exercise meaning use at my discretion. Yes, I know my rights and how to exercise them.



Gosh, patronise much? I know exactly what 'exercise' means in this context. Are you positive your interpretation of your rights is the prevailing one or the correct one?



Anarax said:


> Not touching that with a ten foot pole, might get the thread shut down. If you wish to discuss the second amendment private message me.



I do not wish to discuss the second amendment at all, I was using it as analogy because I have seen both sides assigning different meanings to the same sentences. I could have used an analogy from elsewhere but used this because I thought it would be understandable to you ( it was to others but not you). I am offering no opinions on the gun control debate but thought I'd use it to point out that different people depending on their agenda and understanding will argue opposite points from the same piece of writing. Which is why I asked if you actually understood your rights as given by your Justice system. You might say 'A' gives you the right to carry only a pencil, someone else will argue that 'A' gives you the right to only carry a fountain pen while the legal experts will tell you 'A' says any writing implement which you can chose.





Anarax said:


> It's not defending yourself from the police, it's about protecting yourself from possible mistreatment from the criminal justice system. To take it a step further, the government will always have more resources than you will in a court of law, hence wanting your own legal expert is an invaluable resource to have on your side. Though there can be far ranging reasons why someone may remain silent and seek legal counsel, it's still their right to choose to do so.



Ah well your government and the legal system are more bound up together than ours, we don't have elected officials as judges etc. We have judicial independence from the government and others who would wish to influence it. People are also prosecuted in the name of the Crown not the country or government. The Crown even prosecutes the government who is never guaranteed to win.
Judicial accountability and independence





Anarax said:


> You're trying to simplify the self-defense situations and circumstances people find themselves in. You can't put all scenarios in a box and say a + b = c. Self-defense altercations and how it's interpreted by the criminal justice system is much more complex.



Now many scenes of an attack/attack etc have you attended or dealt with? How many witness statements have you taken? How many criminals have you dealt with? How many self defence situations have you actually seen or dealt with.
Here it's not in the least complicated to deal with self defence situations in the legal sense.
Self-Defence and the Prevention of Crime | The Crown Prosecution Service






Anarax said:


> People are unpredictable so don't count them out. "Non-criminals" aren't guaranteed to stay non-criminal after a certain age. People are chaotic, the circumstances surrounding their lives can change, thus their behavior can change.




No idea what this means in regards to my post.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2018)

I do not want to discuss gun  control, dear people, I just used that current argument to point out that people with different agendas and understanding will use the same words to argue their case and construe those words with different meanings according to how they want to present their case. *It's an analogy, definition of which is" a comparison between one thing and another, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification: ".*


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Wait. You mean the U.K. isn't governed by the U.S. Constitution? Now I'm all confused




I know your remark is meant as gentle sarcasm but not sure if you would laugh when I tell you I have seen posts on FB where there are people do think we are under the US Constitution, mostly on the Flat Earth Society site though......

Though seriously I have heard people here plead 'the Fifth Amendment' 
We have this....... 
"  The right to silence has been a key part of the English (Anglo-Saxon) legal system for at least a 1000 years, it is possible it was being used as far back as the 7th- 8th centuries, the right to silence remained unchanged for centuries and it is only in recent times (15 years) that a slight amendment has been made to it, this amendment still allows the defendant the right to remain silent, BUT his silence can be presented to a jury as evidence of guilt, but only IF the defendant when questioned by the police refuses to answer BUT later at court presents an alibi, (i.e the prosecution can argue, that the defendant did not have an alibi when questioned, BUT months later suddenly has, which clearly is suspect) there is no law protecting a witness who is called to give evidence at trial, but who when on the stand then refuse's to do so, 'on the grounds that it may expose their own criminal activities', if a witness refuses to testify while on the stand they can be held in contempt of court, and treated accordingly,  a defendant can decline to take the stand and speak in his own defence."


----------



## jobo (Feb 8, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> I know your remark is meant as gentle sarcasm but not sure if you would laugh when I tell you I have seen posts on FB where there are people do think we are under the US Constitution, mostly on the Flat Earth Society site though......
> 
> Though seriously I have heard people here plead 'the Fifth Amendment'
> We have this.......
> "  The right to silence has been a key part of the English (Anglo-Saxon) legal system for at least a 1000 years, it is possible it was being used as far back as the 7th- 8th centuries, the right to silence remained unchanged for centuries and it is only in recent times (15 years) that a slight amendment has been made to it, this amendment still allows the defendant the right to remain silent, BUT his silence can be presented to a jury as evidence of guilt, but only IF the defendant when questioned by the police refuses to answer BUT later at court presents an alibi, (i.e the prosecution can argue, that the defendant did not have an alibi when questioned, BUT months later suddenly has, which clearly is suspect) there is no law protecting a witness who is called to give evidence at trial, but who when on the stand then refuse's to do so, 'on the grounds that it may expose their own criminal activities', if a witness refuses to testify while on the stand they can be held in contempt of court, and treated accordingly,  a defendant can decline to take the stand and speak in his own defence."



the right to silence has been modified again, a bit more recently, in that case negative interference can be drawn from a refusal to answer a specific question, even if its not raised as part of the defence, like an alibi. so,, how did the murder,weapon get in your bed room , sort of thing 

witness can refuse. To give evidence if they believe there is a specific threat to thei safety if they do so


----------



## CB Jones (Feb 8, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> there are people do think we are under the US Constitution,



Not Yet, Anyways..........


----------



## jobo (Feb 8, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Not Yet, Anyways..........


the people of the UK are governed by a constitution, most of which is written down, not however in the same place at the same time, its spread over 10s of thousands of documents written at any time in the last thousand years or so, which can make it a bit of a pig to read, let alone understand . .

we do have the bill, of rights on which i believe the US constitution was based on, however most of that has been swapped and the magna carter isn't worth the paper its written on


----------



## Anarax (Feb 8, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Gosh, patronise much? I know exactly what 'exercise' means in this context. Are you positive your interpretation of your rights is the prevailing one or the correct one?


Not trying to be patronizing, I thought my statement was clear in its meaning. When someone doesn't understand my statement, I break it down to a level that misinterpretation is less likely.   



Tez3 said:


> I am offering no opinions on the gun control debate but thought I'd use it to point out that different people depending on their agenda and understanding will argue opposite points from the same piece of writing. Which is why I asked if you actually understood your rights as given by your Justice system. You might say 'A' gives you the right to carry only a pencil, someone else will argue that 'A' gives you the right to only carry a fountain pen while the legal experts will tell you 'A' says any writing implement which you can chose.


Personal interpretation of the law is one thing, legal rulings and how it's applied is another matter. As I stated, the Supreme Court makes decision concerning the constitution. It's the ruling that changes how the laws are applied. We have 9 Supreme Court Justices, their majority decision is what will be refereed to concerning said law.There are times our Supreme Court Justice vote 5-4, thus that's how they decide. Not to say they can't have intellectual exchanges on the cases/laws, but there ruling is to be applied.



Tez3 said:


> Ah well your government and the legal system are more bound up together than ours, we don't have elected officials as judges etc. We have judicial independence from the government and others who would wish to influence it. People are also prosecuted in the name of the Crown not the country or government. The Crown even prosecutes the government who is never guaranteed to win.


That's interesting and I would like to research more on the differences between our justice systems, but the context of this thread was the US Justice System. That's why I was reciting US laws and examples. 



Tez3 said:


> Now many scenes of an attack/attack etc have you attended or dealt with? How many witness statements have you taken? How many criminals have you dealt with? How many self defence situations have you actually seen or dealt with.
> Here it's not in the least complicated to deal with self defence situations in the legal sense.


I worked in Forensics for over 5 years and have worked with police officers and detectives with cases. I have read police reports or have had them recited to me by detectives. I've been on patrol with multiple police officers on numerous occasions. I also have numerous attorneys and police officers in my family. You don't need an extensive resume to be able to understand how your judicial system works though, being an informed Citizen doesn't require a degree. My point was self-defense cases aren't always clear cut nor simple(in the US).



Tez3 said:


> No idea what this means in regards to my post.


Your statement about "non-criminals" was very broad. Even non-criminals behavior can change if their circumstances change.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2018)

Anarax said:


> but the context of this thread was the US Justice System.




You do realise this is an international site? There are posters here from various countries around the world, all with equally valid opinions and experiences.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 8, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> You do realise this is an international site? There are posters here from various countries around the world, all with equally valid opinions and experiences.


No, no.  I'm pretty sure mine are more valid than anyone else'.  

<ducking>

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2018)

Anarax said:


> but the context of this thread was the US Justice System.




You do realise this is an international site? There are posters here from various countries around the world, all with equally valid opinions and experiences.




jobo said:


> the people of the UK are governed by a constitution, most of which is written down, not however in the same place at the same time, its spread over 10s of thousands of documents written at any time in the last thousand years or so, which can make it a bit of a pig to read, let alone understand . .
> 
> we do have the bill, of rights on which i believe the US constitution was based on, however most of that has been swapped and the magna carter isn't worth the paper its written on



The Magna Carta wasn't written as a 'bill of rights' nor as a constitution but to protect the barons and the wealthy of the time. Peasants weren't considered worth of any legal protections. It never did anything for 'normal' people. Richard the Third gave non privileged more legal rights than anyone, rights which are still protected today. the Magna Carta was also written on parchment made from sheepskin.

The governance of the UK and the Judiciary are two separate entities. The Bill of Rights is from1689 when William and Mary were invited to rule and reinforced earlier Acts. Other Acts are equally important, much of all of it was about settling the future of Protestantism for good and repressing the Roman Catholics so it was no Human Rights Bill.

We don't need a specific Constitution document.


----------



## Anarax (Feb 8, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> You do realise this is an international site? There are posters here from various countries around the world, all with equally valid opinions and experiences.


Yes I'm aware it's an international forum. Bringing context to the conversation isn't to belittle your opinion, it's to say the topic we are speaking of is of the US Justice System. The OP is American thus the most useful information would be rooted in US law. The OP reciting laws from other countries to US police, judges or lawyers would serve of little use.


----------



## jobo (Feb 8, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> You do realise this is an international site? There are posters here from various countries around the world, all with equally valid opinions and experiences.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the,rights in the,Mc are not restricted to barons, and the bill of rights preCEEDED  W and M . Apart from that you seem to have good grasp of history, the bit about sheep skin was right at least.

currently we don't need a bill of rights, but our gov will give us one when its scraps the ECHR, .


----------



## Anarax (Feb 8, 2018)

CB Jones said:


> Not Yet, Anyways..........



I think this illustrates the American spirit well


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 8, 2018)

jobo said:


> the,rights in the,Mc are not restricted to barons, and the bill of rights preCEEDED  W and M . Apart from that you seem to have good grasp of history, the bit about sheep skin was right at least.
> 
> currently we don't need a bill of rights, but our gov will give us one when its scraps the ECHR, .




No it was for the Barons. This from the British Library. Magna Carta: People and society


I have an extremely good 'grasp' of history, the Bill of Rights Act was formed for William and Mary from one only slightly previous to it in 1688.
Bill of Rights [1688]

Bill of Rights 1689

The European Court of Human Rights doesn't impinge on our rights in our present condition.   We signed the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951 and it's this Treaty that gives us 'membership' of the European Court of Human Rights not the fact we are at the moment in the EU, shortly to leave. *The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU organisation. The European Council runs the court, finances etc. not the EU.
*
What Is The European Convention On Human Rights?

No, The Sun, the Human Rights Act is not the EU


----------



## jobo (Feb 8, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> No it was for the Barons. This from the British Library. Magna Carta: People and society
> 
> 
> I have an extremely good 'grasp' of history, the Bill of Rights Act was formed for William and Mary from one only slightly previous to it in 1688.
> ...


well no not JUST barons( read your own link, it all in there), and 1688 does proceed 1689( and therefore W&M) and i said nothing about the eu


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 9, 2018)

jobo said:


> well no not JUST barons( read your own link, it all in there), and 1688 does proceed 1689( and therefore W&M) and i said nothing about the eu





jobo said:


> currently we don't need a bill of rights, but our gov will give us one when its scraps the ECHR, .




Last line dear. 'Our' Government cannot 'scrap' the European  Court of Human rights. 

You would argue that night is day so I'll let you crack on.


----------



## jobo (Feb 9, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Last line dear. 'Our' Government cannot 'scrap' the European  Court of Human rights.
> 
> You would argue that night is day so I'll let you crack on.


i did not say that were go to scrap the court, they can withdraw from the European CHARTER of human right .and that of course scraps our human rights


----------



## lklawson (Feb 9, 2018)

lklawson said:


> I recently listened to a "lecture" by a U.S. lawyer discussing how many amateurs in the U.S. think that the plain language of a law is what it means.  Apparently that's not always (usually?) true.  There is black letter law, legal precedent, judicial interpretation, and lots of other spices that bake into the cake.  Just because someone thinks they know what the law "says" doesn't mean that they know what the law actually "means" out in the real world.  My recollection is that it was Alan Gura who said this, a distinguished lawyer who has won cases at the highest court in the U.S.


I dug it up.  It was Andrew Branca's "Case of the Week" ; State v. Outlaw.

The segment can be heard here:
The American Warrior Show: Listener Q&A: Sight/Target Focus | 1911's | Carry Considerations for Runners


Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 11, 2018)

skribs said:


> Don't worry, I'm not in a situation where I need a lawyer, nor am I in a situation where I've needed to use my martial arts for self defense.  However, let's say that was the case.  Someone attacked me, and as a result of defending myself their arm is broken.
> 
> Now, I don't want them to go to the ER and say they were mugged by some karate expert who broke their arm and tried to steal their wallet.  However, I also don't want to call the police and say "yeah, I got in a fight and broke this dude's arm."
> 
> Personally, I don't have a lawyer.  I haven't really needed one.  So what do I do in this situation?


What you do, once free of the situation, call the police and report the incident.  I know you don't want to call the police, but if it was legitimate self defense you need to make sure you have some control over the narrative.  That starts with being the one to call the police.  If not he will get medical treatment, his arm is broken after all, and if he tells the hospital HE was the victim of an assault he will have the control of the narrative.  When the police shown up to talk with you you will have to explain your way over the hurdle of "so if you were the victim why didn't you call 911?"

So long as the force you used was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, even if it resulted in serious injury, you should be good.  By this I mean someone shoves you, you don't immediately move to intentionally breaking their arm but if the guy tackles you though and you break their arm to free yourself you are good.  How do you get your story across?  By taking the initiative on framing the narrative.


----------



## Buka (Feb 11, 2018)

As painful as this is for me to say, it's what I feel. Iit's a difficult subject. To me, the choices I have after the fact, sometimes depend on location. I frequent parts of our country where I will do anything, and I mean anything, before calling the police. Pains me saying that, especially given my background, but that's the way I see it. That has been my experience.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 15, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> No it was for the Barons. This from the British Library. Magna Carta: People and society
> 
> 
> I have an extremely good 'grasp' of history, the Bill of Rights Act was formed for William and Mary from one only slightly previous to it in 1688.
> ...



Thanks Tez3.  As always, you are well informed and able to provide interesting links.  I always try to completely read the information at your links because I never fail to learn things I didn't know.  If and when I have time I often read other linked information.

When I was a kid in grade school and high school, I remember mention of the Magna Carta and other documents that were said to be things that we incorporated in our constitution (although it was often implied that the framers of our constitution were just so smart to think of those things on their own).  I don't remember ever being shown pictures or more importantly, copies of what was in those documents.  Where were you back then?  Oh wait, you would not have been alive then, and there is that thing called the internet too.

Thanks again.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 15, 2018)

oftheherd1 said:


> Thanks Tez3.  As always, you are well informed and able to provide interesting links.  I always try to completely read the information at your links because I never fail to learn things I didn't know.  If and when I have time I often read other linked information.
> 
> When I was a kid in grade school and high school, I remember mention of the Magna Carta and other documents that were said to be things that we incorporated in our constitution (although it was often implied that the framers of our constitution were just so smart to think of those things on their own).  I don't remember ever being shown pictures or more importantly, copies of what was in those documents.  Where were you back then?  Oh wait, you would not have been alive then, and there is that thing called the internet too.
> 
> Thanks again.



Thank you for the compliments! I rather think I was probably in the RAF when you were at school or perhaps I'd left by then. 

This is a very good site for British history, some quite amazing things on there.Funding for local authority archives for taking in public records  along with this one The British Library

Did you know that the Magna cart was kept in Fort Knox during the second World War?

The meadow where history was made


----------



## lklawson (Feb 15, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Did you know that the Magna cart was kept in Fort Knox during the second World War?


Crown Jewels too from what I heard.

Actually both the Crown Jewels and the Magna Carta are still there.  We sent you back forgeries.  Still not sure how we fooled you guys with typing paper and plastic "jewels" in brass, but whateves.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 15, 2018)

lklawson said:


> Crown Jewels too from what I heard.
> 
> Actually both the Crown Jewels and the Magna Carta are still there.  We sent you back forgeries.  Still not sure how we fooled you guys with typing paper and plastic "jewels" in brass, but whateves.
> 
> ...




The Crown Jewels were kept at Windsor Castle during the war so sorry you will have to make do with your replicas. The real ones are quite spectacular though. Where Were the Crown Jewels Hidden During World War II?


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 15, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> The Crown Jewels were kept at Windsor Castle during the war so sorry you will have to make do with your replicas. The real ones are quite spectacular though. Where Were the Crown Jewels Hidden During World War II?



I've always thought they were more gaudy than spectacular, but that's a matter of taste. I feel the same way about a lot of Gothic architecture, like the Parliament building.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Feb 15, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Thank you for the compliments! I rather think I was probably in the RAF when you were at school or perhaps I'd left by then.
> 
> This is a very good site for British history, some quite amazing things on there.Funding for local authority archives for taking in public records  along with this one The British Library
> 
> ...



In the RAF when I was at school?  Oh how I might wish.  But actually I wouldn't.  As with most everybody, there were some things I regret, but there have been so many good things in my life I wouldn't want to give up, I will keep myself and my experiences as they are.

The link for the Magna Carta doesn't work for me, at least at work.  I will try when I get home.  I think very few people know what is at Ft Knox, other than the people who work there.  Maybe not all of them for all I know.  I know when I was there, they released a crown, to Hungary as I recall.  Nobody had any idea it was there.  Do you know how they got it there?  By ship would have seemed very dangerous unless before a time when US ships were targets for U-boats.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Feb 15, 2018)

Folks, there's a fair bit of off-topic posting going on (to which I'm guilty of contributing). Perhaps we could return to the original topic, and if there's interest in a thread on protection of artifacts during WWII we can start another thread?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 15, 2018)

Dirty Dog said:


> Folks, there's a fair bit of off-topic posting going on (to which I'm guilty of contributing). Perhaps we could return to the original topic, and if there's interest in a thread on protection of artifacts during WWII we can start another thread?




 Home Guard. Ultimate self defence hence relevance.


----------



## Ondrejmatej (Feb 16, 2018)

skribs said:


> Don't worry, I'm not in a situation where I need a lawyer, nor am I in a situation where I've needed to use my martial arts for self defense.  However, let's say that was the case.  Someone attacked me, and as a result of defending myself their arm is broken.
> 
> Now, I don't want them to go to the ER and say they were mugged by some karate expert who broke their arm and tried to steal their wallet.  However, I also don't want to call the police and say "yeah, I got in a fight and broke this dude's arm."
> 
> Personally, I don't have a lawyer.  I haven't really needed one.  So what do I do in this situation?





No matter how prepared you think you might be to defend yourself, a life or death situation is like nothing you have ever experienced.Every self defense situation is different. It is impossible to predict how local authorities will react to your particular situation


----------



## lklawson (Feb 16, 2018)

Ondrejmatej said:


> It is impossible to predict how local authorities will react to your particular situation


That's not true at all.  Past behavior, along with public statements, are pretty good predictors.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## jobo (Feb 16, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Actually, here at least, they are two very different things. Being arrested actually means little, being charged however does.


being,arrested can have life,changing implications for the innocent, not least of which is you cant move to America


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 17, 2018)

jobo said:


> being,arrested can have life,changing implications for the innocent, not least of which is you cant move to America



If you have been arrested but not charged with anything then you apply for a deletion of records (and deletion of biometric information) and you can enter the US.


----------



## jobo (Feb 17, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> If you have been arrested but not charged with anything then you apply for a deletion of records (and deletion of biometric information) and you can enter the US.


you can't delete your arrest record,r can you ? They will show up on enhanced cbr checks for ever


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 17, 2018)

jobo said:


> you can't delete your arrest record,r can you ? They will show up on enhanced cbr checks for ever




If you aren't charged with any offence and are de arrested then you can have your record deleted so providing you have no other record. it's deleted so won't show up at all.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._data/file/430095/Record_Deletion_Process.pdf

It also depends on how you were arrested, often if you are arrested then de arrested not long after without any bail or further investigations it's not recorded in anything other than the officers notebook ( that is a legal document). An arrest that is recorded in the police station when some one is locked up for a night or number of ours then released without charge is only recorded as an arrest, if it goes no further and as you are de arrested it won't show up on CRB checks.


----------



## jobo (Feb 17, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> If you aren't charged with any offence and are de arrested then you can have your record deleted so providing you have no other record. it's deleted so won't show up at all.
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa..._data/file/430095/Record_Deletion_Process.pdf
> 
> It also depends on how you were arrested, often if you are arrested then de arrested not long after without any bail or further investigations it's not recorded in anything other than the officers notebook ( that is a legal document). An arrest that is recorded in the police station when some one is locked up for a night or number of ours then released without charge is only recorded as an arrest, if it goes no further and as you are de arrested it won't show up on CRB checks.


that's no where near as clear cut as your,suggesting, it only applies where is has been shown there wasn't a crime ir that you couldn't have committed it. If its not charged because the police lack the evidence to get a conviction, rather than having established it could not have been you, then the record cant be erased.

so for arguments sake, you are arrested for a crime, let's say criminal damage, there is no dispute a crime was committed there is a,hole in a widow and your arrested because you are a) in the vicinity and b) fir the description of the suspect. You can not have your arrest records erased just because the police cant actually prove beyond reasonable doubt it was you. Even where you can have it erased, its at the discretion of the police, they can just refuse to do it


----------



## Buka (Feb 17, 2018)

Ondrejmatej said:


> No matter how prepared you think you might be to defend yourself, a life or death situation is like nothing you have ever experienced.Every self defense situation is different. It is impossible to predict how local authorities will react to your particular situation



Ondrejmatej, welcome to MT, bro.


----------



## jobo (Feb 17, 2018)

Ondrejmatej said:


> No matter how prepared you think you might be to defend yourself, a life or death situation is like nothing you have ever experienced.Every self defense situation is different. It is impossible to predict how local authorities will react to your particular situation


you can go some way to predicting it, certainly in England, if you leave your attacker with serious injuries, you will be arrested and aggressively interviewed on suspicion of a crime. That's with out any confusion as to who was the,aggressor and what witness did or didn't see.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 17, 2018)

jobo said:


> that's no where near as clear cut as your,suggesting, it only applies where is has been shown there wasn't a crime ir that you couldn't have committed it. If its not charged because the police lack the evidence to get a conviction, rather than having established it could not have been you, then the record cant be erased.
> 
> so for arguments sake, you are arrested for a crime, let's say criminal damage, there is no dispute a crime was committed there is a,hole in a widow and your arrested because you are a) in the vicinity and b) fir the description of the suspect. You can not have your arrest records erased just because the police cant actually prove beyond reasonable doubt it was you. Even where you can have it erased, its at the discretion of the police, they can just refuse to do it




You don't understand the powers of arrest. Your a and b aren't the only reasons someone may be arrested. And yes you can have the record deleted if you haven't been charged/taken to court and don't have a previous record.
The police arrest for many reasons, they can as easily de arrest and more often than not they aren't made into official records. De arrest and released without charge are two different things. 

In your hypothetical case, if you have been arrested for either reason, the arrest ( if you are arrested, you may just be asked to go to the station to help with enquiries) may not go as far as being noted other than in the officer's notebook, if ten minutes after you've been arrested the call comes over the radio that they have found the real suspect, you will be de arrested with no record of the arrest. The police don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, they don't actually have to 'prove' anything. They are investigators with any evidence being put into a file for the CPS so they can decide whether it's a watertight case, borderline or there's no evidence. the police can charge someone but it will the CPS who decide on whether it goes to court.

Other reasons to arrest.

(4)But the power of summary arrest conferred by subsection (1), (2) or (3) is exercisable only if the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that for any of the reasons mentioned in subsection (5) it is necessary to arrest the person in question.

(5)The reasons are—

(a)to enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person's name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his real name);

(b)correspondingly as regards the person's address;

(c)to prevent the person in question—

(i)causing physical injury to himself or any other person;

(ii)suffering physical injury;

(iii)causing loss of or damage to property;

(iv)committing an offence against public decency (subject to subsection (6)); or

(v)causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;

(d)to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person in question;

(e)to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question;

(f)to prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person in question.

(6)Subsection (5)(c)(iv) applies only where members of the public going about their normal business cannot reasonably be expected to avoid the person in question.]

consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions ( that person doesn't actually do this, it's the CPS in their name)

*Consultation with the Director of Public Prosecutions*
F2dealt with under section 37(7)(a)] above, an officer involved in the investigation of the offence shall, as soon as is practicable, send to the Director of Public Prosecutions such information as may be specified in guidance under section 37A above.

(2)The Director of Public Prosecutions shall decide whether there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence.

(3)If he decides that there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, he shall decide—

(a)whether or not the person should be charged and, if so, the offence with which he should be charged, and

(b)whether or not the person should be given a caution and, if so, the offence in respect of which he should be given a caution.

F3shall give notice] of his decision to an officer involved in the investigation of the offence.

F4(4A)Notice under subsection (4) above shall be in writing, but in the case of a person kept in police detention under section 37(7)(a) above it may be given orally in the first instance and confirmed in writing subsequently.]

(5)If his decision is—

(a)that there is not sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence, or

(b)that there is sufficient evidence to charge the person with an offence but that the person should not be charged with an offence or given a caution in respect of an offence,

a custody officer shall give the person notice in writing that he is not to be prosecuted.

F5(5A)Subsection (5) does not prevent the prosecution of the person for an offence if new evidence comes to light after the notice was given.]

(6)If the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions is that the person should be charged with an offence, or given a caution in respect of an offence, the person shall be charged or cautioned accordingly.

F6 (whether because of section 17 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 or for any other reason) ] , he shall instead be charged with the offence.

(8)For the purposes of this section, a person is to be charged with an offence either—

F7(a)when he is in police detention at a police station (whether because he has returned to answer bail, because he is detained under section 37(7)(a) above or for some other reason), or]

(b)in accordance with section 29 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003.


----------



## jobo (Feb 17, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> You don't understand the powers of arrest. Your a and b aren't the only reasons someone may be arrested. And yes you can have the record deleted if you haven't been charged/taken to court and don't have a previous record.
> The police arrest for many reasons, they can as easily de arrest and more often than not they aren't made into official records. De arrest and released without charge are two different things.
> 
> In your hypothetical case, if you have been arrested for either reason, the arrest ( if you are arrested, you may just be asked to go to the station to help with enquiries) may not go as far as being noted other than in the officer's notebook, if ten minutes after you've been arrested the call comes over the radio that they have found the real suspect, you will be de arrested with no record of the arrest. The police don't have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, they don't actually have to 'prove' anything. They are investigators with any evidence being put into a file for the CPS so they can decide whether it's a watertight case, borderline or there's no evidence. the police can charge someone but it will the CPS who decide on whether it goes to court.
> ...


that isn't what you link said, it said ONLY in defined circumstances and ONLY if the CC agrees, there no power to have all non conviction arrests erased

i know A& B ARNT THE ONLY reasons to arrest , but they are together a reason for arrest, and make a situation that would not be eligible to be erased


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 17, 2018)

jobo said:


> that isn't what you link said, it said ONLY in defined circumstances and ONLY if the CC agrees, there no power to have all non conviction arrests erased
> 
> i know A& B ARNT THE ONLY reasons to arrest , but they are together a reason for arrest, and make a situation that would not be eligible to be erased






All the deletions I know of went through no problems but of course if you think as you do that the police are out to get you then nothing I say will make the slightest bit of difference. I suppose it depends how much you wanted to visit the US really, guess you are quite disappointed but you do have to be innocent to have your record if you have one, most don't, deleted. The US isn't alone in not wanting crims visiting.


----------



## jobo (Feb 17, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> All the deletions I know of went through no problems but of course if you think as you do that the police are out to get you then nothing I say will make the slightest bit of difference. I suppose it depends how much you wanted to visit the US really, guess you are quite disappointed but you do have to be innocent to have your record if you have one, most don't, deleted. The US isn't alone in not wanting crims visiting.


well perhaps only the people who were eligible applied, read your own link and you will see its not a blanket entitlement.

visiting no problem, you just lie, getting a,work permit is a bit more difficult


----------



## iluvmycam (Feb 24, 2018)

OP...unless you shoot or knife someone bad...I move on out and not stand around to suck my thumb.


----------



## pdg (Feb 24, 2018)

Another historical post post 



Tez3 said:


> CCTV. In the UK it's likely that if you are attacked on the street you won't have to call the police, they will be coming anyway. Many businesses and householders also have their own, just about all pubs and clubs do and before anyone starts on about 'rights' bear in mind that people really want cctv and many people put up their own.



Is that really true in your part of the country?

Around here it's certainly not...

While there is cctv in the local city, toss a coin as to what it's looking at. For most of '16/'17 it was actually turned off completely. After being turned back on late last summer, the police and control room operators still didn't have access in December (last I heard, don't know if they've been let in yet).

So, to assume someone is watching and that "the police will be on the way" isn't something I can support.

As to quality of images...

Householder's own cctv:


 

City cctv:

 

Brilliant...


Then of course there's the fact that even if you call they might not show up either.

An acquaintance was awoken in the night by strange noises so he looked out the window to see his work van open with someone unloading it, he called the police and was told there wasn't anyone available right now so he should leave them to it. He decided against that and informed the operator he'd deal with it himself.

3 days later a uniformed officer arrived, introduced himself as "rapid response" and offered a crime reference number...


Metropolitan areas may well be supported by effective constabularies, but the other 95% of the land mass might as well be on it's own.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 24, 2018)

pdg said:


> Is that really true in your part of the country?



Very much so, I actually live in a security area. 

I think you need to look up  Project Servator.
You also need to understand that the government has cut police numbers so it's hardly the police forces fault if they cannot respond as quick as you'd like.
We have lost 68,000 officers since 2010.


----------



## pdg (Feb 24, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Very much so, I actually live in a security area.
> 
> I think you need to look up  Project Servator.
> You also need to understand that the government has cut police numbers so it's hardly the police forces fault if they cannot respond as quick as you'd like.
> We have lost 68,000 officers since 2010.



Project Servator sounds all nice and fluffy and inclusive in central London, or on a train... Again, metropolitan area.

Around here, not so much. Our county constabulary makes no mention of it on it's website (at least, not that I can see from a brief scan, and if it was high priority surely they'd publicise it so the intended 'helpers' knew?)

And response as quick as I'd like? 3 days to attend a potentially violent incident?

Please be aware I'm not blaming the individual officers, their workload vs. resources is such that they can't do everything - due to 'streamlining' (read budget cuts) we don't have a 24hr manned station within 30 miles (Americans take note, because of the roads around here that 30 miles can easily take an hour, more if you don't have lights and sirens).

Hardly a week goes by where there's not an appeal for witnesses to a violent incident in one of the local towns (or in the city) - if the cctv was all encompassing there would be no need for hugely unreliable eyewitness accounts. And that's reported incidents, usually where the victim is hospitalised, many more happen that it's felt it's just not worth reporting.

Personally, if I was put in the situation where I injured someone who initiated an attack on me I'd be unlikely to report it...


----------



## Buka (Feb 24, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Very much so, I actually live in a security area.
> 
> I think you need to look up  Project Servator.
> You also need to understand that the government has cut police numbers so it's hardly the police forces fault if they cannot respond as quick as you'd like.
> We have lost 68,000 officers since 2010.



68,000 since 2010. Wow. That's just nuts. What a shame tight budgets are.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 24, 2018)

pdg said:


> Project Servator sounds all nice and fluffy and inclusive in central London, or on a train... Again, metropolitan area.




Works in North Yorks and we have very rural areas ie the Moors and the Dales. Of course you have to do a bit as a civvie and so many people want looking after, not willing to contribute to their own safety. 


pdg said:


> we don't have a 24hr manned station within 30 miles (



You are lucky then we have to travel more than 30 miles.

Living in a rural area is always going to be different to living in a city or town, we get on with it. One reason we can is that we look out for each other and there is less crime anyway. When houses are miles apart you aren't going to get the same police coverage, if you expected it then you are sadly mistaken, it's something you have to take into account when you chose to live in the country. I doubt American police get to remote homes any faster than ours do, no police can unless you expect a helicopter but luckily for us North Yorks police have a couple so guess what, they get here damn when needed quick, we also have air ambulance.




pdg said:


> Personally, if I was put in the situation where I injured someone who initiated an attack on me I'd be unlikely to report it...



You wouldn't have to the person you injured would do it for you and you would be the bad guy. It won't help your case with the police when you try to explain why you didn't report it.


----------



## pdg (Feb 24, 2018)

I grew up in the countryside, I'm used to it in a way - but it's changed. 25 years ago we had two full time stations within 10 miles and you'd see the local bobby (who almost everyone knew by name) at least a few times a week doing his rounds of the villages. Unfortunately that job doesn't really exist any more and our local community support officer you only see once a month at the parish council meetings so he/she can tell us what crime has been reported...

With watching out for each other, that's not really changed so any community involvement initiative isn't really a new idea - it's just renaming what's been going on forever (but it'd be nice to think that the backup could be the same).

The only visible policing we really see now are the mod plods - and while they're very likely to intervene if they see something in progress, it's not within their remit to respond to civilian callouts.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2018)

pdg said:


> The only visible policing we really see now are the mod plods - and while they're very likely to intervene if they see something in progress, it's not within their remit to respond to civilian callouts.




Actually the MOD Plods as you so nicely call them can be called out to deal with civvie callouts if needed. I know I went on many a one wherever I've been posted. They are trained exactly the same as Home Office Police, have the same powers and can be tasked to do and go anywhere they are needed from Afghanistan to the Balkans to the street of London.


----------



## jobo (Feb 25, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Actually the MOD Plods as you so nicely call them can be called out to deal with civvie callouts if needed. I know I went on many a one wherever I've been posted. They are trained exactly the same as Home Office Police, have the same powers and can be tasked to do and go anywhere they are needed from Afghanistan to the Balkans to the street of London.


well no not the,same powers. They can certainly be sent to deal with unrest under the,control of a,chief constable. But they are not constables, therefore any if the many powers that are given to constables including,stop and,search, arrest are not given to mod police unless you are,part of the forces or on mod property.


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2018)

jobo said:


> well no not the,same powers. They can certainly be sent to deal with unrest under the,control of a,chief constable. But they are not constables, therefore any if the many powers that are given to constables including,stop and,search, arrest are not given to mod police unless you are,part of the forces or on mod property.




Wind your neck in son, you really don't know what you are talking about but then you have argued on here before about things with people whose job is it is haven't you. 
The Anti Terrorist and Crime Act 2001 gave the MDP far reaching powers that can be used not just in an MoD setting but anywhere. MDP police have always had the power to use anywhere when providing mutual aid to any police force or when witnessing any suspected criminal act or to save life and minimise personal injury


MDP officers may now exercise police powers where a local police force requests the assistance of MDP officers. This is most likely to be in support of defence related tasks; major civil emergencies; or the provision of specialist policing capabilities, such as marine policing. Where such assistance is provided, Ministry of Defence Police officers will be under the operational control of the local Chief Constable from the requesting force, and will have the same police powers as officers of that force.

Second, an MDP officer may exercise police powers to deal with emergency situations where he/she is in uniform, or in possession of documentary evidence of membership of the MDP, and has “reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence is about to be committed, is being committed or has been committed, or “…reasonably believes that action is necessary to save life or prevent or minimise injury.” that means basically they can act in any situation they may be needed whether it's on Crown property or civilian and involving civilians. 

Third, a senior MDP officer may authorise MDP officers to carry out stop and search operations under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (which allows these powers to be exercised at random, without the need for reasonable suspicion). This applies to the MDP on the street of London. and other places Ministry of Defence Police to patrol Kent streets alongside armed officers
The primary objective of the extended jurisdiction is to assist in the prevention of terrorism and to provide an effective police response to terrorist incidents or suspected acts of terrorism.

Stick to what you actually know and really, don't tell people how they do their job. Of course we know you hate all police and the military so I assume you are just getting your jibes in.

Ministry of Police Act 1987 
*"Jurisdiction.*
*(1)In any place in the United Kingdom to which subsection (2) below for the time being applies, members of the Ministry of Defence Police shall have the powers and privileges of constables."*

*3C)Members of the Ministry of Defence Police shall have in any police area the same powers and privileges as constables of the police force for that police area,[F11in Scotland the same powers and privileges as constables of the Police Service of Scotland,] and in Northern Ireland the same powers and privileges as constables of the Police Service of Northern Ireland,— *

*(a)in relation to persons whom they suspect on reasonable grounds of having committed, being in the course of committing or being about to commit an offence; or *

*(b)if they believe on reasonable grounds that they need those powers and privileges in order to save life or to prevent or minimise personal injury.
*
Due to the MDP also suffering cuts in manning it's less likely that MDP officers can or are able to assist Home Office police than ever before so don't hold your breath waiting for things to get better under this government.

The Terrorism Acts have changed a lot of police powers, for all Forces to enable a consolidated approach to situations. This is why MDP officers at eon the streets of London doing Stop and Search, the fact they are the only force that is always armed helps in many situations. yes I an aware of the protests and the Court of Human Rights ruling on S&S. This was sorted by  Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011.

MOD Police help guard the nation - DCI : Defence Contacts International

Yes the MDP primary function is to protect Crown property but they will with other Home Office police when asked and this gives them exactly the same powers as their Home Office colleagues, every police officer also has the responsibility of preventing crime and taking action when needed regardless of where as actually all citizens who can carry out citizen's arrests. Most people however prefer to either turn a blind eye to criminal acts or think it's nothing to do with them and slag off the police on message boards.


----------



## jobo (Feb 25, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Wind your neck in son, you really don't know what you are talking about but then you have argued on here before about things with people whose job is it is haven't you.
> The Anti Terrorist and Crime Act 2001 gave the MDP far reaching powers that can be used not just in an MoD setting but anywhere. MDP police have always had the power to use anywhere when providing mutual aid to any police force or when witnessing any suspected criminal act or to save life and minimise personal injury
> 
> 
> ...


edit?


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2018)

jobo said:


> edit?



Do one.


----------



## jobo (Feb 25, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Wind your neck in son, you really don't know what you are talking about but then you have argued on here before about things with people whose job is it is haven't you.
> The Anti Terrorist and Crime Act 2001 gave the MDP far reaching powers that can be used not just in an MoD setting but anywhere. MDP police have always had the power to use anywhere when providing mutual aid to any police force or when witnessing any suspected criminal act or to save life and minimise personal injury
> 
> 
> ...


you've edited all the qualification out of that link

the ministry if police,act ONLY applies to crown propery and operations. A,fact you must know as you have,cynical remove those references to completely change it meaning in what you have posted


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2018)

jobo said:


> you've edited all the qualification out of that link
> 
> the ministry if police,act ONLY applies to crown propery and operations. A,fact you must know as you have,cynical remove those references to completely change it meaning in what you have posted




Really? How long did you serve in the MDP? Longer than I do you think?
A very poor troll I might add. Now I'm done.


----------



## jobo (Feb 25, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> Really? How long did you serve in the MDP? Longer than I do you think?
> A very poor troll I might add. Now I'm done.


well your the one who has been caught cheating, what would the police think of that i wonder


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 25, 2018)

jobo said:


> well your the one who has been caught cheating, what would the police think of that i wonder


----------



## Juany118 (Feb 25, 2018)

As to cameras, they are becoming very prevalent in the US as well in some unique ways.  Yes you have the County DA's office giving towns money for the systems, the small city I work in has 13 CCTV cameras now that are viewed from our station.  However we also did an interesting thing.  The grant ran out of money but we had a grant program where the City would pay for residents in specific areas to have home CCTV cameras with a DVR.  

The deal was though, if they accepted the system, the PD could access the video upon request.  You then have the citizens who get their own systems.  They are usually quite helpful.


----------



## lklawson (Feb 26, 2018)

Tez3 said:


> you really don't know what you are talking about





Tez3 said:


> A very poor troll I might add.


Seems to be his hobbies.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Tez3 (Feb 26, 2018)

Juany118 said:


> As to cameras, they are becoming very prevalent in the US as well in some unique ways.  Yes you have the County DA's office giving towns money for the systems, the small city I work in has 13 CCTV cameras now that are viewed from our station.  However we also did an interesting thing.  The grant ran out of money but we had a grant program where the City would pay for residents in specific areas to have home CCTV cameras with a DVR.
> 
> The deal was though, if they accepted the system, the PD could access the video upon request.  You then have the citizens who get their own systems.  They are usually quite helpful.





One of our local bank branches has a lobby that stays open 24hrs so people can use the ATM. There is CCTV installed to cover the whole lobby area, something many couples didn't realise when they popped in after the pubs closed. Bear in mind this is on the Garrison so lots of fit young people eager to pass a few pleasant minutes in each others company popped into the lobby . The bank always opened later on Monday mornings for staff training..... ie watching the weekends CCTV tapes.


----------



## Marie_Flowers88 (Feb 27, 2018)

skribs said:


> Don't worry, I'm not in a situation where I need a lawyer, nor am I in a situation where I've needed to use my martial arts for self defense.  However, let's say that was the case.  Someone attacked me, and as a result of defending myself their arm is broken.
> 
> Now, I don't want them to go to the ER and say they were mugged by some karate expert who broke their arm and tried to steal their wallet.  However, I also don't want to call the police and say "yeah, I got in a fight and broke this dude's arm."
> 
> Personally, I don't have a lawyer.  I haven't really needed one.  So what do I do in this situation?




I think you should really call the police and tell them what happened. That you did it for self-defence. At least they can arrest the guy and put it in prison so it won't attack other people.


----------



## pdg (Mar 12, 2018)

pdg said:


> While there is cctv in the local city, toss a coin as to what it's looking at. For most of '16/'17 it was actually turned off completely. After being turned back on late last summer, the police and control room operators still didn't have access in December (last I heard, don't know if they've been let in yet).
> 
> So, to assume someone is watching and that "the police will be on the way" isn't something I can support.



Following certain events last week, even the media in Moscow is asking questions about the cctv system in a fairly local city...


----------



## Swanson (Mar 19, 2018)

If you can't walk away you done the right thing
Defence and defend


----------



## JR 137 (Mar 20, 2018)

When in doubt as to what to do after you’ve defended yourself, you can’t go wrong with copying the greatest of all time...




Or...


 
Or my personal favorite...
 
All are equally effective.  Use whichever one to suit your mood.


----------

