99 odpowiedzi w tym temacie

[budo_kwiat]

Aha, groźby oczywiście nie są powodem do traktowania kogokolwiek gazem. Chyba, że zachodzi bardzo realne prawdopodobieństwo wprowadzenia tych gróźb w czyn.

A co z groźbami karalnymi, które wzbudzają uzasadnioną obawę, że zostaną spełnione?

[budo_kapral]

eeee, zacytowałeś mnie po czym napisałeś to samo. da fak?

[budo_kwiat]

eeee, zacytowałeś mnie po czym napisałeś to samo. da fak?

Groźba karalna to przestępstwo. Chciałem się dowiedzieć, czy broniąc się przed jego popełnieniem na moją szkodę mogę użyć gazu ;-)

[budo_akahige]

Groźba karalna to przestępstwo...

A to ciekawa kwestia... :roll: ;-)
Wg mnie, groźba karalna nie uprawnia automatycznie do zastosowania obrony koniecznej. Przykładowo, jeżeli w autobusie/tramwaju usłyszysz: "ch..u, poprzebijam opony w twoim samochodzie..." to nie ma tu mowy o bezpośrednim i rzeczywistym zamachu. Nawet jeśli to sąsiad z bloku i groźba sprawia wrażenie realnej.

[budo_kapral]

a co ma piernik do wiatraka?

[budo_warhead]

Przeciez Ci napisal ... ma Ci narysowac i namalowac ?

[budo_esds tactical]

Pisałem o tym w artykule. Zagazowanie kogoś tylko dlatego że obrzucał was chujami lub powiedział ze zerżnie wam córkę/zonę nie usprawiedliwia zastosowania obrony koniecznej. Co innego gdy groźba znajdzie oparcie w gestach "potne cie chuju jak świnie" i sięgniecie pod kurtkę. zastosowanie strzała prewencyjnego łapie się w tzw. "obronę konieczna uprzedzająca". pojawi się natychmiast pytanie a co gdy sięgał po papierosy i nie było tam niebezpiecznego narzędzia? teoretycznie wasze działanie może zostać potraktowane jako eksces ekstensywny lub działaniem w nieuzasadnionym błędzie (to drugie wyłącza poniesienie odpowiedzialności). Oczywiście o tym będzie decydował prorok, Sąd, biegli itd. Z praktyki znam przypadek gdy policjant został oskarżony o przekroczenie uprawnień poniewaz uderzył osobę która dobywała ukryty nóż. Biegły uznał że nie miał możliwości zauważyć że napastnik dobywa nóż w celu zaatakowania jego partnera (pewnie wyciagał go by obrac jabłko które było na drzewie w pobliskim sadzie oddalonym o 7 km). ponieważ napastnik utracił kilka zębów biegły uznał (pojeb) ze działanie było zbyt pochopne - sprawa została odkrecona ale dopiero w drugiej instancji. To tak żeby nie było zbyt różowo.
P.S. Użycie gazu w autobusie moze nie byc najlepszym rozwiązaniem zwłaszcza aerozolu - mozesz 'wzruszyc" do łez nie tylko napastnika ale i psażerów a nawet kierowce... jak ten z wrazenia w cos przypierdoli jeszcze oskarża cie o spowodowanie katastrofy w ruchu ladowym...

[budo_kwiat]

A jakie kwalifikacje miał biegły? Z jakiej służby się wywodził?

[budo_esds tactical]

no cóż, skoro był biegłym to kwalifikacje miał w oczach wymiaru sprawiedliwości wystarczające. Dobrze wiesz że żeby być biegłym nie musisz być w służbach.

[budo_warhead]

A z tym to różnie bywa

[budo_akahige]

...jak mądrze zagadał Warhead budząc się gwałtownie przed kompem o 5.20 rano. ;-)

Biegły uznał że nie miał możliwości zauważyć że napastnik dobywa nóż w celu zaatakowania jego partnera...

To ja sie dołączę do pytania o tego biegłego. Biegłym zostaje osoba posiadająca bogate doświadczenie zawodowe i jest uznana za eksperta w zakresie swojej działalności. Powołuje się ją w postępowaniu sądowym w celu przedstawiania fachowych opinii o okolicznościach mających znaczenie dla wyniku sprawy sądowej, a których wyjaśnienie wymaga specjalistycznej wiedzy. Pytanie brzmi:
- w jakiej dziedzinie ten biegły posiadał bogate doświadczenie zawodowe?
- w czym był ekspertem ( okulista może )?
- jaką specjalistyczną wiedzę posiadał?

[budo_warhead]

Ja sie spotkalem kiedys z orzeczeniem bieglego: Oskarzony trenowal Kung Fu, wiec mial mozliwosc rozbrojenia napastnika z noza bez robienia mu krzywdy .

[budo_esds tactical]

Jak zostać biegłym sądowym

Ubiegając się o zajęcie biegłego sądowego należy spełniać następujące warunki:

mieć ukończone 25 lat
korzystać z pełni praw cywilnych i obywatelskich
posiadać teoretyczne i praktyczne wiadomości specjalne z danej dziedziny poświadczone odpowiednimi dokumentami
dawać rękojmię należytego wykonywania obowiązków biegłego
wyrazić zgodę na ustanowienie siebie biegłym


W przypadku biegłych, którzy są tłumaczami języka migowego należy ukończyć 21 lat i posiadać „Certyfikat drugi - "T2" - tłumacz-biegły w zakresie języka migowego" lub tytuł eksperta tego języka – oba dokument wydane przez Polski Związek Głuchych.

Biegłych ustanawiają prezesi poszczególnych sądów okręgowych na okres 5 lat.

Chcąc zostać biegłym sądowy do danego sądu okręgowego należy złożyć:

wniosek o ustanowienie biegłym sądowym ze wskazaniem dziedziny wiedzy, w której jest się specjalistą
życiorys
kwestionariusz osobowy
odpis dyplomu ukończonej uczelni wyższej
inne dokumenty potwierdzające kwalifikacje
opinię i zgodę zakładu pracy, w którym jest się zatrudnionym na powołanie pracownika na biegłego
zapytanie o karalności


Ustanowienie biegłym osoby zatrudnionej wiąże się z zasięgnięciem opinii zakładu pracy zatrudniającego tę osobę, natomiast w przypadku osoby wykonującej wolny zawód sąd okręgowy zasięga opinii organizacji zawodowej, do której należy kandydat na biegłego.

Żródło [link widoczny dla zalogowanych Użytkowników]

Akahige - jak pisze Warhead - posiadanie umiejętności nabytych w ramach treningu sportów/sztuk walki może stanowić problem w Sadzie. Fajnie ze ktoś inny to napisał bo zaraz byś twierdził że nad interpretuje rzeczywistość. Twoje pytanie jest trochę nie na miejscy jak na osobę która zabiera głos w kwestiach prawnych. :twisted:

[budo_akahige]

Twoje pytanie jest trochę nie na miejscu jak na osobę która zabiera głos w kwestiach prawnych.

Po pierwsze - mogę sobie zabierać głos we wszelkich kwestiach, nie tylko prawnych. Gwarantuje mi to art. 54 Konstytucji RP ( ten o wolności wyrażania swoich poglądów ). ;-) ;-) ;-)
Po drugie - moje pytanie jest jak najbardziej na miejscu. Nie dotyczyło procedury powoływania biegłych ( mam biegłego w rodzinie ) tylko o tego konkretnego biegłego, który uznał, że broniący się nie mógł widzieć jak atakujący sięga za pazuchę po nóż. To samo pytanie mogło by dotyczyć "biegłego" od obrony przed nożem technikami kung fu, o którym wspomniał Warhead.

posiadanie umiejętności nabytych w ramach treningu sportów/sztuk walki może stanowić problem w Sadzie. Fajnie ze ktoś inny to napisał bo zaraz byś twierdził że nad interpretuje rzeczywistość.

Zaczynasz mięknąć, Bracie, bo piszesz już "może stanowić problem" czego nigdy nie kwestionowalem. Jak jesteś w sądzie z powodu obrony koniecznej, to już masz problem - to oczywiste. Porucznik Aldo Raine ( ten od "Bękartów wojny" ) powiedział coś adekwatnego: "Walka w piwnicy rodzi cały szereg problemów. Najważniejszy z nich jest ten, że musisz walczyć w piwnicy" ;-)
Ja pytałem cały czas o normę prawną, z ktorej wynikałaby dyskryminacja osób uprawiających sztuki walki w zakresie stosowania prawa do obrony koniecznej. Bo na pewno nie wynika ona z treści art. 25 kk ( "nie popełnia przestępstwa, kto w obronie koniecznej..." itd. "Kto" w tym przypadku oznacza "każdy"). Mort ładnie wyjaśnił na drugiej stronie tego wątku, że ewentualne "problemy w sądzie osób uprawiających sztuki walki" mogą wynikać z próby wyprowadzenia określonego stanowiska z zasady proporcjonalności sposobu i środka obrony. A to całkiem inna bajka.
Warto też zwrócić uwagę na kwestię tzw. okoliczności obciążających, która też tu sie pojawiła w kontekście surowszego traktowania osób "przeszkolonych" ( dalej nikt nie wyjaśnił, kto to jest osoba przeszkolona ). Wg jednego z wyroków SN okoliczności obciążające, to fakty, zdarzenia, sytuacje, stany, które:
a) wpływają lub mogą wpłynąć na obostrzenie kary za konkretne przestępstwo – kary, która byłaby wymierzona, gdyby okoliczności tych nie było;
mogą dotyczyć samego przestępstwa, charakteryzować osobowość sprawcy w związku z przestępstwem, charakteryzować sprawcę niezależnie od przestępstwa;
c) z reguły nie należą do ustawowych znamion przestępstwa, chociaż wyjątkowo mogą do nich należeć, lecz wtedy muszą występować ze znaczną intensywnością;
d) są wyrazem znacznego nasilenia u sprawcy złej woli i zaawansowanego stopnia zdemoralizowania;
e) są wyrazem – w świetle zasad społecznego współżycia – negatywnych cech osobowości (charakteru) sprawcy.
Są to także elementy przestępnego działania, które przekraczają – szczególnie w przestępstwach przeciwko życiu i zdrowiu człowieka oraz jego wolności i nietykalności – granice niezbędne (wystarczające) do osiągnięcia przestępczego celu.
Otwarty "katalog" okoliczności obciążających ( łagodzących też ) zawarty jest w rozdz. VI kodeksu karnego, "Zasady wymiaru kary i środków karnych" ( art. 53 - 63 ).
Mówiąc po ludzku, zgodnie z tytułem wątku - okoliczności obciążające dotyczą wyłącznie przestępstwa i kary za nie, a obrona konieczna nie jest przestępstwem.

[budo_esds tactical]

dyskryminacja wynika z tego jak w wielu wypadkach wygląda stosowanie prawa. Opinii biegłych - teoretyków itp

[budo_thufir hawat]

Rory Miller uczy ciekawej rzeczy- tzw. Articulation Wars. Po wykonaniu scenki podczas "scenario training" osoba broniąca się musi wyjaśnić swoje postępowanie, tak jakby tłumaczyła policji lub prokuratorowi. Wbrew pozorom takie przedstawienie faktów by świadczyły o twojej niewinności jest bardzo trudne...

Pozdrawiam, Thufir

[budo_thufir hawat]

Ciekawy artykuł Marca Mac Younga:

Talking to Cops
by Marc MacYoung
I never really like looking down the barrel of a gun. It doesn’t much
matter who it belongs to. The last time I found myself looking down the barrel of
a gun it belonged to a cop.
In the officer’s defense, I was kneeling on a dude’s head at the time. Also,
it was the middle night, in a bad part of town, we were out on the sidewalk and
there were two of us on top of this drunk guy. So the cop pointing a pistol at us is
an understandable reaction.
The nice policemen suggested that my partner and I might want to stop
what we were doing and allow the gentleman to get up. I held up my hands and
said, “I will comply! But this guy is on the fight and, if we let him go, there’s a
good chance he’ll attack us again.”
Still, the officer was adamant about us letting the lil’ feller go. While we
were discussing his release, two more police cars arrived. We stepped back and
the guy popped up like a jack in the box from hell.
We were quickly separated into two groups by the officers and questioned.
As should be the case, we were facing the officer interviewing us with our backs to
the other individual involved. (Getting people out of view of the person they’re
pissed at calms things down.) The other officers were talking to the Master of
Drunken Kung Fu.
We told our story, who we were, where we worked, that this intoxicated
individual had attacked two customers attempting to enter the business. We’d
come to their assistance. He had fallen, yet retained a death grip on one of the
customer’s shirt. They couldn’t flee. I’d used a knife to cut it, so they could jump
in their car and leave. (There was the scrap of cloth on the sidewalk.) We’d waited
until they had left, then we let him up. When we did, he’d attacked us. We’d put
him down in a controlled manner and were trying to talk him down when they’d
arrived.
The officer looked at me and asked, “Did you hit him?”
“No sir. I did a prescribed takedown to control him without injury. We
never struck him. All we did was hold him down so he couldn’t hurt us or the
others.”
About then the other party decided to offer a suggestion to a female police
officer. Not only was the suggestion not polite, but it was loud too. As a final
point, he called her a name. Women generally do not like being referred to as that
part of their anatomy.
The officer in front of us blinked when he heard this. He quietly said, “You
two can go.”
We politely thanked the officer and returned to the business. We looked
over to see our old friend now had new friends – who were also kneeling on his
head.
The female officer seemed to really be working the knee. Women really
don’t like being called that.
This story exemplifies many different and important points about a violent
encounter. First of all, odds are good you will be dealing with the police.
Second, this situation wasn’t self-defense. Nor was it a ‘fight’ to win,
dominate, prove whose pee-pee was bigger, teach someone a lesson or punish
him. None of the normal definitions people commonly banter around in the
martial arts applied to this situation.
It was a use of force situation with a clearly defined goal, tactics and
integrated with verbal communication. “We don’t want to hurt you. If you calm
down, we’ll let you up.”
Third, not only would punching the guy have been inappropriate, but it
would have gotten us arrested. The question of whether we had hit him was a
trap to get us to admit excessive force. A trap that we hadn’t fallen into during the
altercation. A trap we avoided because we knew: use of force is a ‘Goldilocks and
the Three Bears’ issue. This one is too little. This one is too much. This one is just
right.
Fourth, our calm, professional and cooperative demeanor – as we
articulated the facts of the situation – is what kept us from getting arrested. This,
even though the situation had started with us looking down the barrel of a gun.
Had we jumped up and down, howled, screamed, made accusations and
insulted the other guy, and demanded the police arrest the other guy and gotten
angry when they didn’t believe us, it wouldn’t have turned out so well. We would
have ended up, like him, down on the ground with someone kneeling on our
heads.
Let me add, that incident wasn’t the first or the last time I ended up
dealing with the cops. (It was just the last time I had someone point a gun at me
without pulling the trigger.) Cops have been – and still are – a major issue in my
life.
Let me point something out: I am an ex-outlaw. That means something
very specific where I am from. It also means I have a lot of experience dealing
with the cops and not getting arrested. Cops don’t like criminals and they’re
equally not fond of outlaws. That’s because outlaws have their own rules and
creeds and often those don’t gel with the laws of society.
I’ve set aside my outlaw ways and not only have I become a respected
member of society, I now teach cops. I not only teach them how to more
effectively kneel on people’s heads, but I also teach them how to keep their
emotions under control. So when someone screams in their faces an obscene
suggestion and refers to them as part of their anatomy they don’t lose their cool
and instead of just kneeling on his head, throw the guy a beating.
This gives me a unique perspective when it comes to dealing with cops. I
cannot tell you how many times I have stood there handcuffed (or sat on the
curb) while being questioned by the police. It was such common event, I honestly
can’t remember how many times it happened. I was a violent and scary dude so I
didn’t take it personally when the officers felt more comfortable talking to me in
handcuffs. I can communicate just as well with my hands handcuffed as I can
when free. Because of my outlaw lifestyle, I’ve had cops itching to arrest me and
trying to find cause. I can also tell you I’ve met a brick wall for lipping off to a
cop. Important safety tip, female cops don’t like being called ‘pigettes’ either.
(Hey, I was young and stupid OK?)
On the other hand, I’ve spent many a pleasant hour smoking cigars and
drinking scotch with them. I’ve talked to officers about their stresses and fears
about the dangers they face in their job. I’ve listened to officers in bitch sessions
about how the department and society treats them and what insane restrictions
they must operate under. I’ve helped them through time of emotional torment
and trauma because of what happened to them on the job.
I tell you this so you will understand that I have dealt with cops under all
kinds of circumstances – including from both sides of the law.
Therefore my first bit of advice to you when dealing with the cops is
remember: They are human beings.
They are not your enemy. They are not your friend. They are not Nazi SS
troopers, robots or clones in uniforms. They are not gods or lawyers. They are not
out to get you, oppress you or take away your rights. Nor are they your whipping
boy or your nigger.
Yet, that is how a large number of civilians treat the police. They’d never
think about snapping their fingers at a waiter, but they’ll treat a cop even worse.
Officers are human beings with feelings, thoughts, biases, frustrations and
ways of looking at things just like you. They can make mistakes, lose their cool, be
opinionated, angry and judgmental, just like you. Also like you, they can decide
someone is being an asshole and that it’s okay to make that person’s life
unpleasant.
I always preferred Hillel’s version of the Golden Rule “That which is
hateful unto you, do not do unto your fellow.” Now if you want a cop to decide
you’re an asshole, go ahead and ignore Hillel’s advice.
This should be common sense, but you can’t believe the number of people
who make cops the target of their anger, frustration and outrage because the cop
is telling them ‘no.’ Most people don’t ever go any further than being angry
because they are being ticketed for breaking a traffic law. But believe me, it does
go way beyond that.
Cops are constantly barraged by people calling them names, screaming at
them, blaming them, snarling at them, disrespecting them, lying to them, spitting
on them and even physically assaulting them. It’s appalling, the petty stuff
people fly off the handle about. Some people are outraged when police tell them
they cannot go a certain way because of some issue up ahead.
So when I remind you that they are human beings, I’m pointing out
something very, very important. Namely, that you aren’t the only one there with
feelings, frustrations and human limitations.
Here’s my second bit of advice. How you treat the cops has a BIG influence
on how they treat you.
This is critical to remember because if you’re an unreasonable, obnoxious
asshole to them, then that’s going to come back on you. Whether it’s them being
an unprofessional asshole or a professional asshole -- it will blow back on you.
Don’t worry about being pepper-sprayed, beaten or shot for being a pissy
little asshole. They save that stuff for people who are really working at being
obnoxious. It isn’t his gun you need to worry about if you’re being a snot, it’s his
pen.
What he writes can turn your life into a living hell. So do yourself a favor
and don’t give in to your urges to be rude and obnoxious. I once had a girlfriend
who insisted on her ‘right’ to tell the cops what she thought about them stopping
us. That traffic stop ended up costing me over $1500, as the cop just kept on
writing.
My third bit of advice is to understand that the police are, first and
foremost, public safety officers. That is their numero uno job. And it’s something
they take seriously: stopping people getting hurt bad. The cop’s job is to keep
people from getting hurt.
That simple shift in perspective will save you all kinds of problems.
Most laws are based on known dangers and known problems that arise
from certain behaviors. If people are doing this, sooner or later, bad things
happen. Plain and simple.
Now, here’s where something a friend from long ago used to say comes
into play. Just because something is dangerous doesn't automatically mean you
are going to get hurt if you do it. I have noticed that the young, inexperienced –
or simply imagination impaired – often take this to mean there is no danger at
all.
There are a lot of imagination-impaired people out there. Or to be more
precise, there’s a lot of people who willfully ignore the potential danger and
damage of their behaviors. They think since they’re having fun or profiting by it,
it must be ‘good.’ (Better yet, that they have a ‘right’ to do it.)
An obvious example is a bunch of drunk teenagers deciding to go all Fast
and Furious racing down the city streets at over 100 miles an hour. People doing
this kind of stuff will catch the cop’s attention. Even if it’s to scrape them off the
traffic divider.
That brings us back to safety laws. If you’re behaving in a way that runs
afoul of these laws, the cops will tell you to stop. How insistent you are about
your ‘right’ to behave this way is going to influence the outcome of the situation.
So too is how far out of bounds you’ve decided to go. Fast and Furious on
city streets? Mandatory arrest at 20 miles over the speed limit in most states.
Even if you don’t get in an accident, you’ll be facing the local equivalent of
reckless endangerment charges. Get in an accident and kill someone? Vehicular
homicide or manslaughter is in your future. That’s if you don’t end up with a
telephone pole on your head after you wrap it around one.
However, long before you get to that potential road kill stage there’s
another aspect of public safety. That is fucking with other people and interfering
with them going about their business. Now we’re talking disturbance. This is
actually a two-fold issue.
First, it is how most people encounter the cops.
Straight up, 99% of your dealing with police will be about safety and
disturbance issues. This, whether getting a speeding ticket or your neighbors
complaining about your barking dog. Or you complaining about your neighbor’s
dog or stereo. Generally speaking the easiest answer is stop doing whatever is
causing the fuss. Oh wait, try not doing them in the first place. That works better.
But that brings us to the second issue: people get obnoxiously selfrighteous
about their ‘right’ to be an asshole, usually because of the following
reasons:
1) they are having fun
2) they are emotional
3) they are intoxicated
4) they don’t want to be told what to do
5) they feel entitled/oppressed
6) they get territorial
7) some of the above
8) all of the above
That means they’re going to insist on acting the way they are acting. Odds
are good they’re going to get pissy when they get told ‘no.’ They don’t see (or care
about) the problems their actions are causing. It’s all about them and their
‘rights.’ This is something cops get a lot of.
If this describes you then you’re going to see the ugly side of cops.
Remember the officer’s pen. It’s going to become real important to, and
expensive for, you.
Now let’s say that the situation has gone past barking dogs or an illegal
left-hand turn. Something has happened that looks a lot like a crime to cops. I’m
not talking about you coming in and robbing the local 7-11. How about you and
your neighbor get into a dispute over the placement of fence and it comes to
blows.
When the cops roll up what they’re going to see is ‘two citizens in dispute.’
Well okay, that’s the official version. Odds are is what they are going to
see is two screaming, pissed off people who want the other arrested for assaulting
them. Both of them are going to claim the other attacked him first and what they
did was self-defense. In short what they’re going to see is two assholes.
And if you were acting like one, they’re going to be right. Odds are, both of
you have crossed legal lines and are co-creators of this problem. Like 95% of the
time, odds.
Here’s an important safety tip: Cop’s first duty upon arriving at an incident
is to investigate.
Reread that again. It’s important. That means to find out what happened.
They’re going to be asking questions. How well you communicate, how you
conduct yourself, how calm, polite and respectful you are of them trying to do
their job is going to have a lot to do with the next stage.
There comes a point in any investigation where the officer decides if a
crime has been committed or not. From this point the focus shifts from finding
out what happened to building a case for the prosecution.
You need to understand that the officer is not going to hold up a sign that
says, “I’m now trying to build a case against you.”
Nor is he going to tell you “I’m beginning to suspect that a crime has been
committed and you did it.” Which is less of a turning point than the ‘I’m now
building a case.’ The ‘I have a suspicion’ is more of a veer in that direction. But if
you are paying attention you’ll see the veer.
Using the incident I mentioned earlier you could say the veer was the cop
asking us if we’d hit him. The truth was however, the veer had happened when
they’d pulled up and we were kneeling on his head.
I’d veered it back when I told them ““I will comply! But this guy is on the
fight and, if we let him go, there’s a good chance he’ll attack us again.”
In my initial communication, I’d given him multiple reasons to shift back
into investigation mode. First, I’d told him we were going to follow his orders.
But most importantly, I’d given enough information to make it
questionable as to whose name went in the victim box and who went into
suspect/arrestee box on the police report.
Here’s something to keep in mind. If the cops show up, there’s usually a
problem. Problems look bad. Thing is, this may be a first for you, but the cop has
seen it hundreds of times before. Unfortunately, that can lead to bias and
jumping to conclusions. So it’s incumbent on you to communicate to him that
whatever is going on is not just SOSDD (Same Old Shit, Different Day). It’s
something that he needs to investigate instead of just going for building a case
and arresting someone.
Going back to the kneeling on the dude’s head incident. Fortunately, the
drunk’s outburst showed I wasn’t lying about him being on the fight. All the other
little details like us being sober, having legitimate business reasons for our
presence, the scrap of cloth and cooperating all added up as to who was the
problem – despite what it looked like when the cops showed up.
Now being polite, calm and cooperative during the investigation might
seem like common sense, but when you’re adrenalized, emotional and selfrighteous,
it’s easy to fall into asshole mode. You’ll want to tattle on the other guy
to get him into trouble.
Another thing that gets people in a tizzy is they think the cops should be
psychic. “Well, I’m obviously the good guy here. Why is the officer asking them
questions about my behaviors? It’s the other guy who’s cause this problem. Why
is the cop treating me like a criminal?”
But there’s one special spot where people don’t just step on their dicks.
They start pogo sticking. That’s when, confronted with statements and questions
about your own bad behavior, there’s a strong impulse to lie and spin the truth to
make yourself look good. Ya know what? It’s not going to go well for you if you
do that.
It’s definitely not going to help if it’s true.
Here’s a hint, if you crossed the line and know it, it’s time to shut up and
lawyer up. Don’t try to lie. Don’t try to talk your way out of it. Don’t spin. Shut
up.
Granted that isn’t news to people who are professional criminals. But
there’s something you need to know. “Lawyering up” is the fastest way to get a
cop to shift into building a case mode. It’s a common criminal tactic and when
cops see it, it is human tendency (remember, cops are humans) to jump to that
conclusion.
This makes what I’m about to say a judgment call. You need to know when
it’s time to talk and when it’s time to shut up and get your lawyer involved.
When you see that veer it’s time to start being very careful with your
answers. When you see the turn, it’s time to shut up and get your lawyer there
before you answer any other questions – even if you are innocent. DON’T try to
fix it yourself. You’re dealing with a professional with a pen and what he writes,
not what you say, is what is officially in the record.
In a related venue, the more serious the potential charges, the more you
need to have your lawyer present. Anything, and I do mean ANYTHING involving
weapons and self-defense, and it’s time for you to exercise your Miranda rights
about having an attorney present during questioning.
Remember that turn into ‘start building a case?’ Well let me tell you
something important about it. This has been court-tested and approved, so listen
well. In the development of a case an officer can lie to you, trick you and ask you
questions designed to get you to admit guilt without coming out and saying “I did
it.” Remember, cops routinely deal with bad people who are tricky and lie to
them. They have to do the same to build cases against bad guys. They’re good at
catching bad guys.
This is why it is so important that you do everything in your power to
keep the cop from deciding you’re one of them! Being polite, cooperative and
doing what you can to assist them in their investigation is a REALLY good start to
achieving this.
But if the cop decides that you’re a bad guy then there really isn’t anything
you’re going to say to change his mind at that moment. Here’s the funny thing. If
you’re a bad guy, you need a lawyer. If you’re a good guy in a serious situation you
really need a lawyer.
If you’ve been paying attention there should be something that’s bothering
you. It’s ‘Marc, didn’t you say that cops think you’re guilty if you lawyer up? But
now you’re telling me to lawyer up.”
Well, there’s lawyering up and then there’s lawyering up. Or to put it
another way, it’s a matter of style. Personally the best way I’ve ever heard of
doing it comes from Rory Miller. “Officer, I want to cooperate and I will provide
you with a full statement. But we both know about the risks of getting sued.
Because it’s so serious, I’d like to have my lawyer present when I answer your
questions”
I could write an entire book about all the yummy goodness that is in this
statement. But let me give you some highlights.
You’re still cooperating – you’re not telling the cop you ain’t going to say
nuffin’. Nor are you making his job harder. You’re just rescheduling.
You’re going to talk even with the lawyer there – lawyering up by the guilty
usually means roaring silence. You want your side of the story to be heard. You
are willing to help the officer in his investigation.
You are informing the officer you are exercising your Miranda rights – you
will not talk about the case without an attorney present. Three sub-points come
with this
1) You HAVE to inform the officer you are exercising your Miranda rights
otherwise they can keep on questioning you. Asking for your lawyer to be present
before answering any more questions counts.
2) From the moment you ask for your attorney the officer cannot ask you
questions about the case -- without the presence of your attorney. If he does not
only will anything you say not be allowed in court, but there’s a good chance the
entire case will be thrown out. Seemingly small thing from your side, huge issue
from the cop’s side.
3) Everything I have said is null and void, if YOU bring up the case again
to the officer. Do not step on your dick about this. Not talking about the case
without your lawyer present also means you don’t talk about it.
If the situation is serious, expect to spend some time sitting in a jail cell
while waiting for your attorney to show up. Well fine. I hope you like cartoons.
Because you’re going to be watching them. Oh BTW, you know the thing I said
about not talking about your case without an attorney? Yeah, that goes double
with the guys in county jail. Jailhouse snitches and all that….
In closing I’d like to give you some perspective. You know when the traffic
cops walks up to your car and asks you “Do you know why I stopped you?” or “Do
you know how fast you were going?” That is a very sneaky way to get what is
known as an admission of guilt.
If you were 75 in a 60 zone, most people are going to try and lie it down. “I
thought I was doing 65.” Well guess what Brainiac? You’ve still confessed to
knowing you were speeding AND you lied to the cop. Guess what category that
puts you in?
A-S-S-H-O-L-E
These days I deal with cases of people going to prison for the rest of their
lives and in some cases facing execution. I grew up doing things that could have
put me into prison for a long, long time. So you know what my advice to you
about the small stuff like speeding tickets and a too-loud stereo is?
Man up about it.
Don’t try to wiggle out of it. Don’t piss and moan about your ‘rights’ or that
you weren’t doing anything. You know you were doing it. You know you’re out of
line so just take a chill pill. It’s small time stuff. Don’t make an issue of it. This
really applies to safety and disturbance stuff.
But most of all own up to it.
You know what? That honesty will help you. Last time I got a moving
violation I was running late to the airport and the cop clocked me doing 63 in a
45 zone. Three more miles an hour and it would have been mandatory arrest.
When he walked up to my car I had my license, registration and proof of
insurance waiting. The first words of the conversation were “I was a baaaaad
boy.” He laughed.
He also wrote me up for doing 50. I sincerely thanked him for it and then I
went and caught my plane.

[budo_k4t4rynka]

Tak to już u nas w Polsce jest. Zostaniesz okradziony i pójdziesz do więzienia za unieszkodliwienie złodzieja....

[yasumi]

Ech no tak to działa

[ohkarol]

ja znalazłam fajne wytłumaczenie ,zestawienie praw i obowiązków w temacie obrony koniecznej