Law

Do Not Talk To The Police, Celebrity Edition

by

Way back in May of 2008 I linked a very interesting video that was done by an attorney, at this post. Unfortunately the link is now dead.

In essence, the attorney was pleading with people to protect their fifth amendment rights by NOT speaking with the police after an incident unless you have your attorney present, ever. In the video there was a police officer who also said that you should never speak with the cops without an attorney present even if you are IN THE RIGHT.

The attorney said that even if you are in the right, things you tell the police can get twisted and turned around (intentionally, or not), and could incriminate you.

I was thinking of this as the Tiger Woods situation unfolded. I will never know what really happened outside of Mr. Woods’s house in those early morning hours last week. But as I was reading coverage on it I kept seeing that the police kept wanting to come to his house to ask him questions and they were denied. Florida law only states that in this type of investigation that Woods give his license, registration and proof in insurance and apparently that is all that he gave. Finally, Mr. Woods hired an attorney.

It is possible that Mr. Woods hired an attorney right after the incident and got good advice not to speak to the cops, but this episode is a great example of someone who clearly knew his rights and decided to exercise them. Any interview with the police would have hurt Mr. Woods, even though he might have done nothing wrong and just merely had an accident.

Update: Commenter Andrew has a link to the video here.

Since When Do Prosecutors Decide the Type of Trial?

by

In his post, “Why Has Holder Decided to Try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a Civilian Court?” [h/t Instapundit], Eric Posner says:

Then what is the answer? It is surely this: the Obama administration has decided to offer a two-tiered system of justice. We might call them the “high-quality” (civilian) tier and “low-quality” (military) tier. The high-quality approach offers greater accuracy; the low-quality approach offers less accuracy. The Obama administration will use the high-quality system against people when it has a strong case, and the low-quality system against people when it has a weak case.
 
This approach makes sense. Endless detention without trial is no longer a politically viable option. The government will make a judgment as to whether a suspect is dangerous or not. If the case is good, the high-quality system will be used. If the case is bad, the low-quality system will be used. In this way, the government can ensure that people it thinks are dangerous will be locked up.

What the hell? Since when do we allow the executive branch to decide the type of trial a defendant receives based on the quality of the evidence the executive branch decides to use? Since when do we give the executive branch any say in how trials are conducted at all?

Read more

The Entire Jury Will Have to Be in Witness Protection

by

On the subject of the civil trial of KSM, Trochilus raises a point I hadn’t considered:

Given the nature and depth of Islamo-facist enmity toward all Western institutions, including all faiths other than their own, toward all our democratic institutions, including our judicial system, and finally toward most Americans; and given their willingness to act on that hatred — who in their right mind would willingly consent to serve on such a jury?

This will be a trial watched by the entire planet. Millions of Islamist fanatics will be watching. There is a good chance that several thousands of those fanatics might decide to exact revenge on anyone involved.

Anyone who sits on that jury will have to spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulder worrying that they will be the target of a revenge killing. They will become participants in a war with no boundaries and no end.

Read more

Legal Question

by

Long time readers know that I am an accredited self defense and home security expert with close to two decades of experience. Ever since my state legalized concealed carry, I am routinely armed not only with a concealed firearm, but also a variety of less-lethal self defense devices.

Lethal force is considered to be a reasonable response to a threat of grievous bodily harm or death. At least it is here in Ohio.

So what presents this threat? When would a reasonable person think that they are in danger of losing their lives, or becoming disabled or disfigured? Easy enough to determine if the criminal attacker is armed with a knife or gun, but it can be tricky if they aren’t.

Interesting video over at Gateway Pundit, where two people were the victims of an unprovoked attack by protesters taking part in a sidewalk chant organized by ANSWER, the Communist group.

Notice that the victims are outnumbered, and the attackers are using the wooden shafts of their protest signs as weapons. Also note that one of the victims was young and fit, and was smart enough to use the tripod of his video recorder as a makeshift self defense device against the perps.

Am I suggesting that the victims should have shot their attackers? No, and not least because I agree with comment #16 at the GP post. But I am wondering if it would have been legal.

Any lawyers amongst our readers want to tackle this one?

How Obama is Bringing Martial Law to America

by

In my previous post, I listed some (but far from all) of the practical problems presented by trying in a civil criminal court an individual (1) who was captured overseas, (2) had evidence against him collected using covert means, with (3) no chain of evidence or custody, and (4) was harshly and physically interrogated with (5) all witnesses and methods being secret.

The greatest danger posed in the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) isn’t that he will go free. The greatest danger is that he will be convicted and that during his appeals the courts will ratify all of the extraordinary measures used to capture and convict him. The great danger is that the courts will ratify the rough, inaccurate and ambiguous norms of martial law as applying to all civil criminal trials.

After a couple of decades of these court decisions reverberating throughout the legal system, we could end up living under de facto martial law.

Read more