The defense strategy of “never talk to the other side” makes sense for an attorney representing a guilty client. It’s often diametrically opposed to the best strategy for getting charges dropped on a client who shot someone in legitimate self-defense.
Explained here, with examples including some of my own cases.
From the online edition of Combat Handguns, where I’ve written the self-defense and the law column for many years.
Thanks for that encouraging article, Mas. I live in an area where I’m more afraid of my anti-Second Amendment government than I am of criminals, so it’s nice to hear that the system works well most of the time.
Anything you say can and will be used against you. Think.
Hopefully the new FBI director, Kash Patel, will be a great example of correctly enforcing justice, and his example will be catching right on down to honest, knowledgeable, and wise prosecutors everywhere. An agent from the days of J.Edgar Hoover once told me that J. Edgar made sure to shake the hand of every new FBI graduate on their way out to slay dragons and beard lions in their dens. Hopefully Mr. Patel is all about that kind of leadership. One thing that bothers me is that our government appears to have made a habit of corruption being so much the norm that it may take too long for the FBI to catch up in time to make a difference now. Let us continue to try to make the good happen no matter what the adversity, though. MAGA forever!
I would pray that Mr. Patel is nothing like Hoover & does not spy on and blackmail his political enemies and, frankly, he would look awful in a dress & high heels.
Mark, Kash Patel does not have anything like the reputation of a cross-dresser. He does appear 100% a supporter of the 2nd amendment. He also comes across as a ful supporter of law enforcement. He shows no inclination to spy on anybody except real enemy spies such as the Aldrich Ames and Robert Hansen types that we unfortunately have always have had us with us. I happen to share his opinion on a certain few proven rotten apples in our political barrel who need to be thoroughly and appropriately scrutinized. He has strong public support from Dan Bongino, who has to be as well-informed as anybody.
There is a divergence of opinion upon this topic. Mas, as noted above, is on the side that favors limited cooperation with the authorities in order to make a strong, self-defense case. After all, as Mas regularly points out, self-defense is an affirmative defense. If one is going to claim self-defense, then the defendant is going to have to tell his side of the matter, sooner-or-later.
However, one can find a host of lawyers who state, categorically, that one should never, never, never, never, never, ever talk to the authorities. They claim that every single word that issues forth from your open mouth WILL be twisted and used to convict you. In their book, pure silence is the ONLY defense. They advocate providing nothing, standing upon the bedrock of “innocent until proven guilty”, and forcing the prosecutor to dot every “i” and cross every “t” in order to get a conviction.
Who is correct?
In my view, there is no single, correct answer. This is an area where being flexible, rather than dogmatic, is the best approach.
There is no doubt that there are jurisdictions that are (effectively) outright hostile to the “Right of Self-Defense”. These are jurisdictions (EX: the UK, Canada, the Deep-Blue American States, etc.) where left-wing ideology dominates thinking. Leftists are Statists. The State is ALL to a leftist. The individual is NOTHING. The Left would have the People to be totally dependent upon the State for EVERYTHING (Work, Education, Information, Finance, Health Care, personal and national defense, etc.).
To the leftist mind, when an individual defends himself/herself, then that individual has usurped the authority of the State. The use of FORCE is (totally) a prerogative of the State in their book. To a Leftist, self-defense is a direct challenge to the God-like authority of the State. It is heresy and MUST BE REPUIDATED.
If one has engaged in self-defense in one of these “Left-Wing Thinking” areas, then one must recognize that the Right of Self-Defense (although in the Letter of the Law), will only be granted reluctantly, if an all. In these “Blue Jurisdictions”, the lawyers may very well be correct. Instead of an affirmative self-defense option, one might do better to say nothing and then stand upon the “Presumption of Innocence” instead.
However, if one is in a “Red Jurisdiction”, where left-wing ideology does not dominate thinking and where the Right of Self-Defense is truly still respected, then I think Mas is correct. Limited cooperation to show that it was truly self-defense may produce the best results.
So, one size does not fit all. One should take a page from Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” and adjust one’s strategy to fit the battlefield.
Quote of the Day:
“Those who are victorious plan effectively and change decisively. They are like a great river that maintains its course but adjusts its flow.” – Sun Tzu