Good talk on blocks

[Van Canna]

This being a 'self defense reality forum' much of my threads and posts contain information and excellent tactical know how from stellar lethal force trainers.

You have read much from our great friend and teacher Rory Miller....I have also posted and will continue to post writings by Gabe Suarez from his great forum

http://www.warriortalk.com/forum.php?s= ... ea1b07cfdd

Gabe once posted on my forum years back, he is quite the realist and a great writer.

A recurring theme of his deals with the necessity to be armed with some effective weapon 24/7.

And here is a chilling story from the great John Farnam , lethal force trainer ...Maloney and me trained with him at the Lethal Force Institute.

Why go armed?

Why am I always armed? Why do I train continuously?

This from a friend who works in a prison:

"Today, I had an opportunity to hear stories from several violent offenders, straight from their own lips. All were in excellent physical shape and would (and do!) put up a serious fight in any situation.

I know few people could prevail against them with only bare hands. When there is more than one, any one of us would be in serious danger. Put any one of them into regular clothing, and they would blend right in most anywhere.

One inmate revealed the reason he was in the prison was multiple murders. He got high on meth one evening and decided to break into a home. He tied up the terrified (an unarmed) husband and wife, then decided to murder them.


With a pocket knife, he sawed on a woman's neck until he had cut her head off. Before he himself was similarly murdered, her husband heard every one of her screams and gurgles!

He took the victims' car and headed out of state. On the way, he ran out of gas, so he stopped another car, murdered the unarmed driver (again with a pocket knife), and took that car.

He continued to meet and murder people over the next week, seven in three states. Finally, he returned home, married his girlfriend, and became a father! Using DNA analysis, detectives secured a warrant for his arrest two years later.

This is just one prison story, and by no means the worst! This institution alone is full of them."

Comment: Next time someone asks you why you go armed, tell them this story!

/John

[Van Canna]

From another seminar (Grossman's?) I sat in: fear is to the mind what pain is to the body. It's nature's way of telling you that something ain't quite right.

That's not to say that it has to be debilitating. It's very much something that you can use to own a situation. If you *do* happen to feel it turning master instead of servant, get mad.

Anger is the emotion that is pretty much guaranteed to redirect us from flight/freeze into the fight component of the survival reaction.

And, again, it doesn't need to be a rage that blinds you.

It is best used as a righteous indignation that motivates you to set things right.

Sam Spade

[Van Canna]

People have the RIGHT to remain silent, they just usually lack the ABILITY. This is another area where micro statements are helpful in that it codifies your natural inclination to speak and justify yourself.

[Van Canna]

There is a tendency, through fear-programming, to always want to remain silent. In my opinion, that guarantees suspect status.

If the officers have nothing to go by except what is visible and evident, they really have no choice but to treat you as a suspect.

So, yes...you have the right to remain silent...but using that card as the default also means arrest, suspect status on the report, bail (which in the course of our study means bail for a homicide), and a great deal of drama that is not necessary and easily avoidable.

"hashing it out in court" is great for attorneys as that is how they get paid. By the time you are acquitted, you will likely have spent close to $500K on bail and lawyer fees (assuming a jury trial). Go for it if you have the time and the coin.

Suarez

[Van Canna]

LE do not make statements unless they are compelled because it affords them a degree of protection (they invoke rights and then are ordered to speak by a supervisor, thus their statement is made under duress, etc.).

As a private citizen you don't have that available to you. A general rule of thumb is that suspects tend to receive the Miranda advisement, whereas victims do not.

I expect most guys here will tend to not get into questionable shootings, so the degree of Victim Status Assignment should be high.

In nearly 30 years of teaching, both LE and private citizens, and dozens of victorious gunfights by my students, none have ever been charged or imprisoned as a result of their actions.

Suarez

[Van Canna]

Some will recall the "bouncing balls of sh*it" analogy.

Officer - Mr. Suarez we have to advise you of your rights by policy, etc., etc., etc.

Mr. Suarez - I understand guys, but let me ask you...I have been clear and up front about everything that happened. What part of my statement don't you believe? And am I being considered a suspect now?

Their response and body language will let you know more or less where you stand.

Suarez

[Van Canna]

http://www.warriortalk.com/showthread.p ... ht=Miranda

Miranda only applies if the police are actively interrogating you. If they arrest you, stuff you in the car, and start driving to the station, and then you start blurting out your confession, that’s okay.

They didn’t ask you any questions. You just started talking on your own. It’s also okay for them to ask perfunctory questions (e.g. Can I see your ID? Is this still your address? What’s a good phone number?) or to collect physical evidence (fingerprints, breath/blood sample) without Mirandizing you.

[Van Canna]

The police have little real incentive to observe Miranda, but they generally do so simply because it is so easy. If you just read a suspect his rights, you have done your CYA.

Some police (notably the entire FBI) try to be sly and avoid Mirandizing suspects. They will play games to avoid someone being officially “in custody” so that they don’t have to Mirandize them.

I believe this is foolish, mostly because I don’t think it ever matters. Some suspects are going to sing like canaries and others will be silent as a stone.

I don’t think Mirandizing a suspect has ever turned a canary into a stone. But police are taught that Mirandizing someone might induce them to be silent. I don’t buy it.

We all have the right to remain silent, but many people just don’t have the ability.

Here is the most important point to know: You have the right to remain silent; You have the right to an attorney. You have these rights right now. You have these rights always.

These rights don’t kick in when the cop reads them to you. So if you are not in custody, but you are being interrogated, you don’t have to wait for the cop to arrest you and Mirandize you. Shut the hell up. Ask for a lawyer.

[Van Canna]

When you ask for a lawyer, you have to be clear. The standard is that your request for counsel must be “clear and unequivocal.” Don’t ask the cop, “Should I have a lawyer for this?” Don’t opine, “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.”

You must state—clearly and unequivocally—that you want an attorney. You don’t, though, have to be an ass about it. It’s good enough to say, “I’ll be happy to answer your questions, officer, but before I do so I really need to talk to an attorney.

I’m not sure exactly who to call, so I’ll have to do some research. I realize that delays your investigation a bit, but I know that I should have an attorney for this.” That’s clear. That’s not a wishy-washy request.


Once you do this, the police should cease all questioning. That doesn’t mean you go free. They may have other evidence of a crime. But they must stop questioning you.

Some police will observe this rule; others will ignore it. The sad reality is that no one punishes the police when they break this rule (or many others).

If they break the rule, and you then confess to a crime, realistically they just lose the confession. If they didn’t question you, there wouldn’t have been a confession at all.

(I disagree with this, for the reasons stated above. I think that canaries are going to sing regardless. Just sit back and wait for the music. But many police feel like they have to ‘do something’ in order to get a confession.)

And sometimes they get away with breaking the rule. A judge might find that the defendant implicitly waived their right to silence or counsel because of some act or comment subsequent to the moment when they asked for counsel.

[Van Canna]

Talking is dangerous. I am, without a doubt, the least talkative attorney in my area.

I speak when there is a purpose, but I don’t talk just to hear the sound of my own voice. Every word that comes out of your mouth is another potential to trip.

When you speak to the police, there is no telling what they will be able to take out of context and use against you later.

And, to paraphrase my favorite comedian-rapist, people say the darndest things.

You will look back on your own statement and wonder, “Why did I say that?” or “Why on earth did I say it that way?”

Silence is truly golden. Don’t wait for a Miranda warning.

[Van Canna]

Dont know if this is a rabbit hole or not, But an addendum to Miranda. And something to be watchful for. I get out a bit on the interview and interrogation side of training ( with instructors from all over the nation in various "techniques") and there are trends in some areas now (dont know if it the trend will continue) based on a SCOTUS decision based on Miranda and confessions.

Situation: Det. has you on the hook for something and starts the interrogation. Cop doesnt Miranda and gets the confession "realizes" he didnt give Miranda. So the Det. advises Miranda and retakes the final statement, making it a confession that will usually survive suppression.

In some circles this is being touted as an interrogative tool, because folks like to talk, and once you get them talking, it is easy to get them to "retell" the story.

I always took a different approach as a Det. . In the room I mirandized you right up front, and started on things totally not case related. A good interrogation is a marathon, not a sprint. Im not talking shine the light in your eyes, but take the time to establish rapport, stop for a smoke break (if they smoke) make sure there are opportunities for water or coffee (no booze) .

You will either get the confession or you wont, but you will probably get additional leads to follow. It should be noted that Miranda, when exercised all questions that are case or could be case related must stop. I can still talk cars, dogs, guns, sports, etc. Again once you start talking about anything, its hard to stop talking.

Ive had frequent flyers say " i will only talk to Coastal" when asked why they say "He understands, and youre kinda a dick" Also helps when someone like lawdog wants to try and find a peel about how we treated the suspect. You might want to reach across the table and stab the child molester in the eye with your pen, but you should never show it, and he should never feel it. After all, youre the only guy who understands.

Now for some folks, Im sure your saying "youre giving away our secrets". The fact of the matter is that any of this can be found on the interwebs, and even if you know it, it still works most of the time based on a variety of factors (this is the other reason Lawdog doesnt want you to start talking about anything)

Hell, there are entire courses covering only how to set up an interview room based on suspect and offense data.

Coastal cop

This is so true. In my investigations this was the key

Again once you start talking about anything, its hard to stop talking.

[Van Canna]

Typically a traffic stop does not require Miranda--typically, BUT when the officer decides that there is more than just a minor traffic violation going on AND he thinks you are the suspect, Miranda does become an issue IF he questions you about the crime.

Say for instance you and three of you middle class white friends decided to drive from Pennsylvania to Baltimore City through an economically depressed predominately black area, and the officer stopped you on the way back to PA because you had an air freshener hanging from your rearview mirror (a minor traffic violation)...

and while writing you the ticket (for a "blocked" windshield), he called for K9, and once the dog handler arrived, you were asked to step out of the car so the dog could sniff--

THEN before the officer asks you questions about going to Baltimore City to buy drugs, he needs to Mirandize you....

Vibranium

[Van Canna]

Everything you say will be used in the investigation.
- state only what are simple facts: (or, I was assaulted by...point)

ONLY THE FREAKIN FACTS. You were just in an event; your are not in that "normal" state.

- your expert speculation and adrenaline-amped perception may be colored, warped, or wrong.

This has been stated in other threads, but you must resist the temptation to help/puke until you've recovered from the trauma -or exhilaration - of the event.

- you can always say more later.

- control mouth, make simple statement if required, state simple facts.

As it has been indicated...many of us just don't have the ability to remain silent under the jolt of the adrenalized post chaotic event and under the guile of professional investigators.

[Van Canna]

As Uechi Ryu practitioners, or any style, we need to keep remembering that in any confrontation where some degree of force and or identifiable moves we make, as martial arts moves/strikes/blocks, whatever...

even if the moves don't hurt anyone, we can still be charged with assault and battery...so to wit:

Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause

These two evidentiary standards are simply two shades of grey. The significance of the legal distinction between the two is enormous, and yet there is surprisingly little objective guidance to distinguish between them.

There are no mathematical formulas that we can apply. This means that in actual practice the subjective nature of the analysis causes courts to reach dissimilar conclusions in similar cases; or similar conclusions in dissimilar cases.

The generic definition that is offered up for probable cause is this:

“If the facts and circumstances before the officer are such as to warrant a man of prudence and caution in believing that the offense has been committed, it is sufficient.”

How useful is that? Not very. The courts repeatedly fall back upon utterly useless phrases like “common sense.” Gee, someone couldn’t possibly abuse a phrase like “common sense.”

Suarez Intnl

[Van Canna]

Terry Frisk

Start with the general rule: You have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. So what is unreasonable? Well, any search is presumed to be unreasonable unless either (a) a detached, neutral magistrate has made a finding that probable cause exists and has issued a warrant, or (b) there is an exception to the warrant requirement. We’ll deal with exceptions later. Terry is, interestingly, not considered an exception to the warrant requirement. Instead, the Court found that a “frisk” is not actually a “search.”

“The police should be allowed to ‘stop’ a person and detain him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with criminal activity. Upon suspicion that the person may be armed, the police should have the power to ‘frisk’ him for weapons.

If the ‘stop’ and the ‘frisk’ give rise to probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime, then the police should be empowered to make a formal ‘arrest,’ and a full incident ‘search’ of the person.

This scheme is justified in part upon the notion that a ‘stop’ and a ‘frisk’ amount to a mere ‘minor inconvenience and petty indignity,’ which can properly be imposed upon the citizen in the interest of effective law enforcement on the basis of a police officer’s suspicion.”

Law Dog[Suarez International]