• About
  • Books
  • Contact
  • Education Resources

PERRIN LOVETT

~ Fiction, Freedom, and The West

PERRIN LOVETT

Tag Archives: don’t talk

When Truth is Not Truth

21 Tuesday Aug 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on When Truth is Not Truth

Tags

don't talk, law, Mueller, Trump, truth, truth is not truth

For what its worth, every honest criminal defense attorney knows exactly what Trump and Guiliani meant by their “baffling” incrimination statements. It’s true.

Exclusive: Trump worries that Mueller interview could be a ‘perjury trap’

Mueller has been known to use such tactics before. It’s his job.

Don’t talk. Even if you’re the President.

Another Charge From Mueller

20 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Another Charge From Mueller

Tags

crime, don't talk, FBI, law, Mueller, Trump

This one might be actionable or subject to extradition.

An attorney who worked for a prominent law firm was charged with making false statements to federal authorities as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election.

Alex Van Der Zwaan was charged Feb. 16 with lying to the FBI and Mueller’s office about conversations related to his work on a report prepared by his law firm on the legitimacy of the criminal prosecution of a former Ukrainian prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko.

Prosecutors charged Van Der Zwaan by criminal information, which typically precedes a guilty plea. He is scheduled to appear Tuesday afternoon in federal court in Washington. He didn’t immediately respond to calls and emails seeking comment.

Van Der Zwaan was an associate in the London office of Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom. “The firm terminated its employment of Alex Van Der Zwaan in 2017 and has been cooperating with authorities in connection with this matter,” the firm said in a statement.

Last year, Van Der Zwaan married the daughter of Russian oligarch German Khan, according to the London Tatler. Khan is a shareholder of Alfa Group, a Russian banking and investment concern, and a board member at LetterOne Holdings, the investment vehicle set up by the founders of Alfa Group.

The unsealing of Van Der Zwaan’s case came four days after Mueller accused 13 Russians of a sophisticated disinformation campaign using a troll army that targeted the 2016 campaign and sought to sow discord in the U.S.

I still don’t see anything resembling collusion between Trump and the Ruskies. I do see a pattern of people getting charged with lying to the FBI. And this guy was an attorney at a mega firm, one of the most monied on Earth. It just goes to show the old adage: if you’re not talking, you’re not lying. The FBI is the police.

Do not talk to the police. Really.

There really is no good reason. If they suspect you or your associates of a crime – any crime – they can generally find something to charge you with. Don’t help them. Don’t make it easy.

On the other hand, if you know of someone who is venturing into the world of “professional school shooting,” and you tell the FBI, they do nothing. Nothing, except for a little CYA after the shooting career starts. Again, no point in the communication.

This is our “premier” law enforcement agency…

Reality Winner on Not Talking to the Police

29 Friday Sep 2017

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on Reality Winner on Not Talking to the Police

Tags

Constitution, crime, don't talk, FBI, police, Reality Winner (Real Name), right to remain silent, spying, stupid

Just don’t do it. Don’t ever answer their questions or give them statements. Just don’t talk. Reality Winner, alleged NSA leaker, could tell you about it.

In the interview [with the FBI], Winner at first denied several times that she leaked any secret documents. She said she had been trying to get an assignment working with U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

First she acknowledged printing a report that “looked like a piece of history.” She told the agents “I thought it would be cool if I had it on my desk for a couple of days.” But she insisted she dropped the report in a bin used for papers that were to be destroyed.

“I mean, I’m trying to deploy,” Winner said. “I’m not trying to be a whistleblower. That’s crazy.”

She changed her story after an agent asked bluntly how she got the document out of the office.

“Folded in half in my pantyhose,” Winner replied.

Winner at one point asked the agents, “This sounds really bad. Am I going to jail tonight?”

One of the agents replied, “I don’t know the answer to that yet.”

An interview (i.e. talking). One story. Another story. On and on. Yes, dear, it sounds bad – because it sounds. Because you’re talking. Period. Half the time they have no evidence other that what you volunteer. Give them anything and, as they WARN YOU, it “can and WILL be used against you in court.” Yes, you’re in jail, now. Judge Epps will probably keep you there after today’s hearing.

Actually, I’m not so sure Winner could put all this together even at this time. She has a history of talking. A lot. Little of it makes sense:

“Yeah, I screwed up royally.”

Saying anything is a bad idea. That one was really bad.

 

“Look, I only say I hate America like 3 times a day. I’m no radical. It’s mostly just about Americans obsession with air conditioning.”

Like, OMG, radicals at least attempt a little coherency.

“I mean yeah I do [America’s] literally the worst thing to happen on the planet. We invented capitalism the downfall of the environment.”

Give an SJW a little rope… Yeah, maybe that’s not fair, here. How about SJI = Social Justice Idiot?

 

“I’ve filed formal complaints about [the NSA] having Fox News on, you know? Uh, just at least, for God’s sake, put Al Jazeera on, or a slideshow with people’s pets.”

She needs to be re-educated for bringing God into this. People’s pets???

I’m starting to see a mental deficiency defense if nothing else. Something lacking in the amygdala or something…

For the rest of you: just don’t talk.

nimbus-image-1506709658993

In causally related news, the other day was the 230 anniversary of the U.S. Constitution. I missed it along with all the “fun”. Shame they didn’t miss it back in 1787. Proof some lies live forever a long time.

Again, DO NOT TALK

10 Friday Jun 2016

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns, News and Notes

≈ Comments Off on Again, DO NOT TALK

Tags

CIA, crime, don't talk, FBI, government, lies, police, terrorism

Usually nothing good comes out of talking to the police. I’ve said this again and again and again. In the ordinary encounter they attempt to have a suspect (we’re all suspects) say something they can use against him. Remember, you have the right to remain silent. Use it because anything you say can and will be used against you.

It gets worse. If you talk and you don’t say something they can use against you, they will just fabricate some false story out of your words or simply make up a complete lie to suit their needs. If you give a 30-minute interview the odds are there will be some random sentences that can be edited together into a sinister statement which, though untrue, will be used before a jury (grand and/or trial). I’ve seen it in person. In the absence of any incriminating statements, clever investigators can say you said something (off record and not recorded, of course). This makes it harder for you to deny the lies – you did give a statement after all. You admit that. It becomes your word against the cop’s as to what you said. Courts are programmed to automatically give credence to the police version.

Outside of personal criminal cases it is still unwise to talk to agents of the state. Even if they’re not trying to railroad you with a false confession or something similar they can still use “your” statements to fabricate an official lie or cover-up.

On July 17, 1996 TWA flight 800 exploded off the coast of Long Island and fell into the Atlantic Ocean. The official story is that an oxygen generation system in the fuel tanks malfunctioned and caused the crash. This is certainly possible. It is also a possibility the plane was shot down by a SAM. Several witnesses have said they say something (like a missile) streaking toward the aircraft just before the explosion occurred. One of those witnesses was Mike Wire.

Wire was one of hundreds of witnesses interviewed by the FBI following the tragedy. He spoke with Special Agent Andrew Lash for over an hour and a half. Lash took copious notes which he allowed Wire to double-check. All seemed well. Then several years later Wire learned his interview served as the basis of the government’s official story – a story which did not match Wire’s account.

Irvine had something he wanted me to see. It was a certified word-for-word transcript of a 1999 meeting between the NTSB’s witness group and the CIA analysts who created the animation the FBI used to close the case. I was amazed that I was referenced so much; it seemed that a third of this 81-page document mentioned me (the man on the bridge) in some way.

As it turns out, the CIA based its animation around what I saw. However, there was a big problem. The CIA claimed that the nose of the plane blew off and when it did, the plane soared up for more than 3,000 feet. This, according to the CIA, confused me and other witnesses into thinking we saw a missile. I saw nothing of the kind. I saw an object zigzag up off the horizon at about a 40-degree angle, arch over and culminate in an explosion. After the explosion, the plane fell straight out of the sky.

As the transcript showed, at least two of the NTSB people gave the CIA resistance. They had seen the FBI “302” that Lash prepared, and it honestly reported what I had seen. When cornered, the CIA analyst responded, “He [I] was an important eyewitness to us. And we asked the FBI to talk to him again, and they did.”

This was nonsense. The FBI never spoke to me after the initial Lash interview. The CIA analyst continued, “In his original description, he [I] thought he had seen a firework and that perhaps that firework had originated on the beach behind the house.” This was true.

According to the analyst, though, I was “reinterviewed,” and I changed my statement. According to this fictional second interview, I did not see the light ascend from the beach. I first saw the light appear “as if — if you imagine a flagpole on top of the house it would be as if it were on the top or the tip of the flag pole.” As a millwright, we do not use flagpoles as an increment of measurement. I would use degrees of angle in this kind of instance as in the original statement.

“Now, when the FBI told us that,” said the analyst, “we got even more comfortable with our theory.”

I do not know who generated this false interview to fit their scenario, but I stand by my original approved statement made to agent Lash. No other statement exists as there were none. The CIA built its case-closing animation around an interview that never took place. I would learn later that the CIA manufactured interviews with several other key witnesses.

This whole experience has left me disillusioned with the FBI, disillusioned with the CIA, and totally disillusioned with the news media that bought this whole story without ever questioning it — even after the truth about the fake interviews had become impossible to deny.

In sensitive cases like this the FBI and other domestic law enforcement sources serve as information generators for the CIA, which ultimately controls the official stories. Regardless of what really happened and what is said the CIA will only publish the version it wants the public to see. Fake interviews can only be effectively denied if they never happened. Rather than making statement X to the FBI only to have the CIA convert it into statement Y for disinformation purposes it is far better to have no part in the process period.

heavy.com

If approached by any state officers under such circumstances one should not only refuse to make statements and answer questions but record the refusal and following silence. This will not stop them from fabricating lies but will give you plausible deniability. Let them make up their own stories.

If You Have Nothing to Worry About, Then Why Did You Call Me?

27 Wednesday May 2015

Posted by perrinlovett in Legal/Political Columns

≈ Comments Off on If You Have Nothing to Worry About, Then Why Did You Call Me?

Tags

America, crime, defense, don't talk, freedom, government, Lew Rockwell, people, police, rights, silence, television

The police are supposed to keep us safe from harm.  Government was allegedly instituted solely to protect our rights, integrity and freedom (all lies).  If this was true then Clover would be correct in his oft stated mantra, “if you ain’t doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about.”

I don’t believe that.  I have been in the system and around it.  Even now I can smell its faint odor of maliciousness.  Yuck!

A long time ago I penned a piece called How to Interact with the Police.  It was a short guide on protecting oneself from unnecessary prosecution.  I have given several speeches on the subject and advice innumerable to individuals over the years.  In short, just don’t talk to them.  They are necessarily your friends.

Many cops do a great job enforcing the law while preserving individual freedoms.  Many others do not.  Consult YouTube for countless abuses of police power in America.  Half of the videos there concern people who know and assert their rights and successfully escape the dragnet of police corruption.  The other half are of innocent people tased, arrested or murdered by the police, usually for nothing.

In most of those latter cases the “suspect” either invited the police into his life or answered their questions.  Don’t do either.  There is a reason you have the right to remain silent.  This is one commonality between police reality shows and police drama shows (both big hits in Amerika).  The suspect always breaks down and confesses or says enough for the police to link him to a crime.  This happens in real life too. Oftentimes, the only evidence the cops have of any wrongdoing is the defendant’s statement or admission.  Don’t do their job for them.

Don’t talk and you’ll likely walk.

As for calling them or inviting them into your home – never do it.  Police are like vampires.  They usually need permission to enter but once inside they proceed to destroy. Again, don’t help them.

My friends over at LewRockwell.com have posted another grand article on this topic – a video with instructions.  Both are worth a review.  Know your rights when dealing with the government’s armed agents.

Kitten_Flyer_small_0

(Don’t be cornered.)

This problem of malicious police exploration can effect anyone, even the police.  A friend of mine, an agent with a powerful federal police agency, called me recently.  He knows I no longer actively practice criminal defense but he wanted my unofficial opinion anyway. He happens to be a lawyer himself, by the way.

It seems his agency is conducting some internal investigation into something trivial, something which does not involve my friend.  However, despite his doing nothing wrong, for some reason he seemed to have something to worry about.  Explain that, Clover.

Given his position, his predicament may be a little more nuanced than that of the average citizen.  However, knowing very little, all I could advise him was to say nothing. If the matter concerns written records, then the investigators will have them to review. Let the record speak for itself.  There is no need to explain or expand anything.  Such actions might lead in a direction no rational person could foresee.

I told him, “You know how you guys are.”  He seemed a little offended by the statement but sheepishly agreed with me.  Investigators are usually on a fishing expedition and not using some concrete science as portrayed on television.  They need a suspect (or witness) to tell them something in order to have any chance of prosecuting anyone. Don’t be that someone.  Don’t effectively prosecute yourself.  Don’t talk.

How to Interact with the Police

26 Tuesday Feb 2013

Posted by perrinlovett in Uncategorized

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

1791, 42 USC 1983, 911, advice, Americans, Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Fund, arrest, Augusta, authority, Bill of Rights, Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, citizen, citizen-police encounter, clients, concealed carry, Constitution, Courts, crime, don't talk, education, evidence, felony, Fifth Amendment, firearms, Georgia, government, gun, H.L. Mencken, illegal, incrimination, James Duane, law enforcement, lawyers, libertarian, Libertarian Party, Ludowici, militia, Miranda v. Arizona, Natural Rights, North Carolina, open carry, permit, police, public, right to remain silent, searches, Second Amendment, self-defense, self-preservation, sheriff, South Carolina, States, Switzerland, Terry v. Ohio, Vermont, warrant, witness, Youtube

Don’t talk.  Do not ever talk to the police under any circumstances whatsoever, ever.  Ever.  This is the general libertarian legal advice given by good lawyers who wish to spare their clients and anyone else listening the possibility of unwittingly implicating themselves in criminal activity, whether they were actually involved or not.

I like this advice and tend to give it to clients myself.  However, as with most legal issues, this matter is not quite that simple.  Well, maybe it is, but there are reasons why you might need to address the cops.  I’ll get to those a little later.

On March 10, 2013 I will address the Libertarian Party of the greater Augusta, Georgia area.  I was asked to speak on the subject of citizen interaction with the police in general and, more specifically, interactions involving a citizen carrying a firearm.  I will do so happily.  This column is a preview of what I will likely discuss.

There are two federally recognized (sometimes) natural rights which are affected by such situations – actually, they are different tangents of the same right – the right to self-preservation.  The first involves not implicating oneself in wrongdoing, the second involves the right of self-defense.  The Constitution lists these rights under Amendments V and II, respectively.  All State Constitutions recognize the same rights to a degree somewhere within their texts.  I’ll stick with federal language as a universal representation:

The Fifth Amendment reads: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The above subject primarily deals with the “witness against himself” clause, though due process is implicated as well.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  This relates, obviously, to carrying a weapon while interacting with the police.

Both of these rights, despite laws and court rulings in their favor, have experienced considerable erosion since the ratification of the Bill of Rights (most rights have).  I will not necessarily discuss the origin of the rights, their history, or their decline herein.  As is, I will just accept them as plainly written.

Back to not talking to the police.  Many attorneys, including yours truly, generally advise against talking to government employees of any stripe, not simply the police.  This extends to telephone conversations (including 911 calls) as such calls are frequently recorded.  I recently posted a link to this video (Don’t Talk to the Police): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc.  The video is a 50 minute discussion of our subject by Regent Law School (Virginia) law professor James Duane.  The advice is excellent.  You’ll notice though that immediately after saying he will never talk to the police, professor Duane talks to a police officer.  There are almost always exceptions to a general rule.

I’ll cover a few of those now.  If you are a law professor who gives such a talk and you invite a police officer to participate, you will need to talk to the police.  If you’re a nice person who walks by a cop on a sunny morning, you might say, “Good Morning!” – that’s talking to the police.  If your child is kidnapped late one night you will probably call the police before anyone else.  If you are the victim of another type of violent crime you might talk.  If you are drunk, high, suffering from low blood sugar, or under a mental delusion, you might talk to the police, not remembering any of this advice at the time.  If your friend, relative, co-worker, or neighbor is a cop …  you get the picture.

Other government employees sometimes require your verbal attention too.  These examples are almost too numerous to list.  They range from telling a campaigning CongressCritter to buzz off when he disturbs your breakfast at the local cafe (happened to me once) to asking a clerk where the county vehicle tag office is.

Most of these examples are innocent enough.  However, sometimes the police arrest and persecute people for innocent interactions.  I had a client once who singed an insurance policy while paying for it.  He was later arrested and charged with felony insurance fraud based on his signature.  The crime didn’t even involve his particular policy.  In such cases, no advice is sufficient; one must engage a competent attorney and fight the system.

My subject matter here is really how to interact with the cops when you are approached about a possible criminal action wherein you might be a suspect. 

I recall from law school there are three tiers of citizen-police encounters.  The first is a simple and voluntary meeting (like some of my above examples) wherein the citizen is free to leave.  If you find yourself in a Tier One and you suspect the officer is probing you, ask if you are free to leave.  If you are, do so immediately.  Remember you do not have to say anything to the police no matter what they ask or say.  In these simple situations you can just walk away and terminate the encounter.

The second tier is known in legal circles as a Terry stop (see: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).  It is also more commonly called an investigatory stop.  That means the approaching officer is officially investigating some alleged or potential criminal wrongdoing.  The citizen is not necessarily free to leave and is technically under detention, even if temporarily so.  A Tier One becomes a Terry stop if the officer responds that the citizen is not free to leave.  At this point the citizen should shut up.  The exceptions are again to ask if you are free to leave or if you are under arrest and to tell the officer you do not consent to any searches.  Do not ever consent to searches.

The police are not supposed to arbitrarily initiate Terry stops (they do sometimes).  Rather, they are supposed to have “articulable suspicion” that a crime has or may have been committed and that the citizen is a likely suspect or witness.  The standard for such suspicion varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and by the individual case, though the common maxim is the officer must have something more than a hunch about the possible crime.  Fuzzy, yes.

Terry stops originate from many sources: tips or reports of crime, something the officer witnesses, an emergency, a man-hunt, or something else.  Frequently, the police have nothing at all in the way of evidence.  Thus, they turn to the citizen for incriminating evidence.  Citizens offer the evidence against themselves voluntarily in most cases.  If you ever saw the TV show Cops, then you know a suspect will immediately start babbling on about what he did or didn’t do.  This usually digs the suspect a nice hole – with bars.  This is why you shouldn’t say anything.  Do not help the police do their job.  At this point you will either be arrested, further temporarily detained, or released regardless of what you say.  Talking won’t help, so don’t do it.

The third tier is a formal arrest.  If you are arrested you must absolutely cease talking period.  At some point the police will advise you of your Miranda rights (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)) – you know these from TV.  They will tell you you have the right to remain silent and that anything you say can and will be used against you.  Did you get that?  Anything you say will be used against you.  Give them nothing.  Under arrest you only make one statement, repeatedly in necessary: “I want an attorney.”  The police usually stop questioning at that point, sometimes they don’t.  Just do not answer or make any other statements – at all.  Be silent as you have the right.

Silence is the better rule in most of these encounters.  By talking you will either implicate yourself or possibly give the officer(s) something else to consider in your prosecution.  Sometimes officers hear things wrong or falsely report what a citizen says.  They can make you out to be a liar.  You’re not lying if you’re not talking.

I have been retained by several clients just over the issue of voluntary interrogations.  I stopped the practice entirely after so many such incidents.  The client would get a call from the police, asking the client to “come downtown” to answer a few questions or make a statement.  Once a client demanded to visit the Sheriff to make a statement all on his own – over a non-issue.  My constant advice to all of these folks was to not go and to say nothing.  Most did not listen and I had to accompany them to the Q&A sessions.  At those meetings I objected to each and every question the police asked and every statement the client uttered.  That did not stop most of these people.  I have literally watched as people talked themselves into felony prosecutions.  Seeing the process as pointless and potentially liability-inducing on my part, I stopped participating.  Don’t put your attorney through such torture.  Don’t talk.

I’ve also been hired by clients after they talked to the police.  I have read many statements and listened to many recording wherein a client essentially convicted himself.  Often, without their own damning, idiotic testimony through such statements, the government would never have had a case to try.  Don’t talk to the police.

Firearms add an extra dimension to the issue.  America is the most heavily, privately armed country in the world.  We should rejoice!  The primary reason for the Second Amendment was to ensure the People would always be able to fend off a tyrannical government, all other purposes are ancillary.

Unfortunately, much has changed since 1791.  Today, many Americans are afraid of firearms (and much else) and defer unwisely to the government for protection.  Their fears are fueled by a few isolated stories from the lamestream media.  Many of these cases, I suspect, are false-flag operations of the government, ginned up to alarm the frightened people.  Remember always – “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” – H.L. Mencken.

In the old days, no-one looked twice at a person carrying a gun in public.  It was what Americans did.  You can still find the practice accepted in many rural communities.  The practice is open and notorious in Switzerland (God bless the Swiss). 

Swiss Militia man

(A Swiss Militia member openly carrying a battlefield rifle in a grocery store.  The blonde woman is not concerned – free people are not.  Source: Google Images.)

The local LP sent me a video of a law student telling off a police officer who “detained” the student over a firearm.  I seem to have misplaced the video link.  You can surely find it or something similar on Youtube.  Here’s my take on the matter.  First, Americans have every right to go armed just about anywhere they want to, even though many jurisdictions illegally attempt to block this right.  Second, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor – more on that in a second.  Third, in the Georgia and much of the South, we are lucky to have pro-gun law enforcement.  Many officers welcome armed citizens. 

Let’s assume for argument’s sake, you encounter an officer with a dimmer view of freedom.  Georgia and most other States allow concealed carry of weapons – usually with a permit.  I think those permits are UnConstitutional.  A few States like Vermont do not regulate of require such licenses.  This issue is slowing making its way through the courts.  We will see what becomes of it.  For now, if you carry concealed, play the government’s game.

To avoid an unwanted and unnecessary confrontation over your gun, carry concealed.  If they (the police or the easily alarmed) can’t see the weapon, they can’t inquire about it.  Some State’s licenses come with the requirement that a citizen inform any approaching or present law officer that they have a license and are carrying.  North and South Carolina come to mind.  This is also UnConstitutional.  Georgia is not such a State.  Say nothing in Georgia.  In fact, if you have the gun well concealed, say nothing wherever you are.  If they don’t know, they don’t know – and they don’t need to.

If you carry openly, which is your right, you may expect someone to alert the police to “a man with a gun.”  As a result, you may be approached by an officer.  This would be a quasi-tier one/two encounter.  Carrying a gun itself is not justification for any suspicion of wrongdoing.  The police will inquire anyway.  They may go as far as to handcuff you while they check your license and the gun.  This a violation of your civil rights.  I had a friend who was stopped by a traffic officer in Ludowici, Georgia one night.  The officer inquired about my friend’s pistol and took the gun to “check it.”  The officer then announced he would have to keep the gun until the next day in order to verify it really belonged to my friend and was carried properly.  This was in keeping with Ludowici’s long-standing policy of public harassment.

Before I became really upset about the story my friend told me it had ended well.  The Ludowici police chief, realised his officer had broken the law, immediately dispatched a courier to hand deliver the gun back to my friend.  As my friend was happy, the issue died.  A bloodless victory is the best kind as we say in court.

However, if you find yourself in a similar situation, the best thing to do is keep quiet.  Do not tell off the officer as the afore-noted law student did, even though you are completely right.  The police sometimes get nervous and arrest or murder “uppity” civilians and make up a good excuse for their actions in their report.  The street is not the place to fight for your rights – unless the officer endangers your life.  You can use force against the police if necessary, just as you would against any other armed thug.  But, these situations are messy at best. 

It is usually after such an encounter you should act – by contacting an attorney.  You may very well have a civil rights action against the police (State or local) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (or a Bivens action against federal officers [Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)]).  An attorney can advise you in a particular case.

Two more specific situations, very briefly.  First, if you are involved in a self-defense shooting you will likely have contact with the police.  In such cases always identify yourself as the victim of the underlying crime.  In order to legally use deadly force against another, one must reasonable belive that one’s life is in imminent danger from a criminal actor who simultaneously posses the ability and the proximity to in fact endanger innocent life.  This is the general public standard, in most jurisdictions you have more leeway on your own property (stand your ground and castle statutes).

If you have to shoot someone (I hope you never do), report only the fact of the crime and that you ended it per the standard I just stated.  The police may want additional statements.  Do not make them.  Tell the officer you take the matter very seriously and that you need to, accordingly, speak with your attorney before making any additional statements or answering any other questions.  Again, if you are arrested (not always a given, here), say absolutely nothing.  I am referral attorney for the Armed Citizen’s Legal Defense Fund, based in Washington State, http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/.  The Fund has produced an excellent series of videos on this subject.  Legal and tactical shooting experts discuss in-depth how to handle these situations with your gun and with the law.  I recommend you purchase and review these videos. 

Second, if you are at home and the police knock on the door, do not open it.  Do not let the police in volutarily for any reason.  This by itself constitutes a consentual search (at least cursory).  If the police have authority (a warrant) to enter your home, they will do it rather than asking you for permission.  If they ask, they have no authority.  Don’t help them gain it.  I have former clients in prison because they opened a door for the police.  Don’t do it and don’t talk to them. 

Remember, in a specific case you may have, consult with a specific attorney for legal advice.

As for advice, nothing herein constitutes legal advice.  Consider this, rather, a general legal education.  When you see the police use common sense and do not talk if you can help it.  Doing the first and refraining from the second may save you many headaches.

Perrin Lovett

perrinlovett@gmail.com

FREE Ebook!

The Substitute – my first novel

Buy Now at Amazon. $19.95 Paperback.

Expect the fiction…

TPC COMPENDIUM – TBA

The best of my TPC columns, so far. Available when edited (someday).

The Happy Little Cigar Book

Buy From Amazon! The perfect coffee table book!

Perrin On Politics

FREE E-book! Download now~

Freedom Roasters Coffee

Right-Minded Social Media For Normal People

Archives

  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • June 2012

The Freedom Prepper Video Podcast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAICKIIvQQs

Have a Cup!

Perrin’s Columns for The Piedmont Chronicles

Perrin’s Articles at FREEDOM PREPPER

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Cancel
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy