DFW Mustangs    

Go Back   DFW Mustangs > General > The Armory

The Armory The definitive firearms forum of DFW Mustangs.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-07-2014, 06:33 PM   #21
Chili
Joe Blow
 
Chili's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1975
Location: Euless
Posts: 24,078
Default

I skipped a couple, but here is one I got today:

Quote:
Texas Law Shield
May 7, 2014
Texas Law Shield
From Texas Law Shield Program Attorneys
When Are Police Required To Read Me My Rights?

Dear Texas Members,

Make sure you know how to invoke your legal rights if you ever need to! Understanding how to invoke these legal rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present during any police interrogation may be vital in keeping you out of trouble with the legal system.

In this short 1-minute video, Senior Firearms Program Attorney Richard Carter explains when police are legally required to read you your Miranda Warnings, (surprise, it doesn’t necessarily work the way we see in the movies) as well as the importance of unequivocally invoking your legal rights.

Chili is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2014, 06:48 PM   #22
Chili
Joe Blow
 
Chili's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1975
Location: Euless
Posts: 24,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lowthreeohz View Post
I can see how you'd feel that way, however there's potential value-added from hearing someones first hand experience in regards to a shoot. That's not so on the pay question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pokulski-Blatz View Post
Glassdoor.com

I lump that question in with asking someone who deployed "did you kill people". Taking a life is tough on a person. Shit, even getting close to taking a life can fuck with someones mind for a while.
I must have missed these posts when the came up but... I think there is a lot of value in people sharing their personal defense stories, but can certainly understand those that may not be comfortable discussing them. Especially on a message board.

Our CHL instructor had a very significant personal experience with a shooting case that he shared in class, that really taught me a lot. Besides having a law degree and being a US Marshall for 10+ years, he actually shot and killed a guy that attempted to rob him, before even getting into law enforcement. He had to go through the grand jury process (no billed) and the civil process, and racked up significant legal bills, and his insight into the process from the "shooter's" perspective (especially being able to tie it in after the fact with his LE career) was invaluable. Worth far more than the cost of the CHL class by itself, in my mind.

But yeah, that kind of traumatic experience can be difficult for some to want to discuss, or even think about, for that matter.

I would never ask or probe someone on it, just because I would not want to put them in that situation. But if they were willing to volunteer the information, I would listen with all of my attention.
Chili is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2014, 07:22 PM   #23
Chili
Joe Blow
 
Chili's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1975
Location: Euless
Posts: 24,078
Default

I may have missed a couple, but here is one from a couple days ago:

Quote:
Dear Texas Members,

In this newsletter, we are going to rejoice in "silence" and the right to remain the same. Why do you invoke the right to remain silent? Why invoke your right not to be questioned without your lawyer present? In a nutshell, the answer to this question is: What you say and do is evidence, what your attorney says is not.

I just used my gun...What do I do?

“If I have done nothing wrong, why would I not just want to tell the officers what happened? Only criminals remain silent and talk through their attorneys, right? Lawyers only want my money and do nothing for me, and I was the victim.”

These are all perfectly normal human reactions, especially from those who are personally unacquainted with the criminal justice system. However, anytime someone is under scrutiny from the criminal justice system, by very definition, their freedom and fortune may be at risk. Their right to remain silent could be an integral part of their legal well-being.

You must first realize that any time a firearm is involved in an incident, whether it is fired or not, the police will very likely start with the assumption that a crime has been committed and proceed to process the evidence as such. The police will secure the area, interview witnesses, and look for physical evidence. If your actions are the focus of the investigation, any statement you make will either corroborate what the witnesses and physical evidence show, or it will not. There may be shell casings, ballistics trajectories and/or possibly even video or photographic evidence. If your statement does not perfectly match the evidence, even to the slightest degree, your version of the facts could be viewed differently than you would like and will likely be used against you. If you make no statements concerning the facts of the incident until you speak to your attorney, you eliminate the possibility of allowing an inconsistency, no matter how innocent, to be used against you.

Some of you reading this might be thinking, "That is all very good advice, but this won't happen to me." Well, unfortunately, it can. In one past case under our program, a member who had never been in any trouble with the law was forced to use his gun. Unfortunately, our member, even though he was experiencing massive stress and pressure because he had to fire his gun, gave a statement to the police without consulting us first. The statement included several very specific facts that could not be immediately corroborated by the officer. The result was that this inconsistency resulted in a criminal charge. The lesson here is, after a shooting, speak to your attorneys before giving a statement to law enforcement!

There is a very simple reason for this - talking cannot help when you are under police investigation. Very few people ever talk themselves out of being arrested. However, many people have talked themselves into jail. Your statements may be completely innocent, but if they conflict in any way with other evidence in the case, even if that evidence is mistaken, mischaracterized, or just plain wrong, you will have a legal issue.

Remember, that if you are involved in a situation where you were forced to use your firearm, you will not be in a proper state of mind to accurately give the police all the facts and only the facts. You may forget an important detail, overstate the situation, say something that cannot be corroborated, or in a worst case scenario, say something that can be proven to be false.
Chili is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 05:48 PM   #24
Tyrone Biggums
Lifer
 
Tyrone Biggums's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Buffalo Stance
Posts: 13,902
Default

Thanks for sharing these, Craig. We took our chl class today and a rep for TLS came in and talked for about 10 minutes. I wanted to do a little research up front before signing on. Normally I would laugh at the thought of a pre-paid legal service, but in this case, I'm having a hard time finding a reason not to do it.
Tyrone Biggums is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 08:01 PM   #25
GhostTX
Token Troll
 
GhostTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sherman
Posts: 10,853
Default

So...any more people get this? And how's it been? I'm still mulling around this, USCCA, or other options. Do feel it'd be good "protection", just trying to find the best value.
__________________

"Self-government won't work without self-discipline." - Paul Harvey
GhostTX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 08:15 PM   #26
Cobraman
Fo Fi Six
 
Cobraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GhostTX View Post
So...any more people get this? And how's it been? I'm still mulling around this, USCCA, or other options. Do feel it'd be good "protection", just trying to find the best value.
I've had it for around a year now. It is only a few bucks a month and is just kind of out of sight out of mind until they send you an info email. I can't really say it is good or bad- but the guy that shot someone in this thread said they are helping out. That's good enough for me.
Cobraman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2014, 09:54 PM   #27
Semper299
Hotty Toddy
 
Semper299's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Bedford
Posts: 230
Default

Most police officers carry some type of pre paid legal service so yeah, if you are going to carry I would recommend it.
Semper299 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2014, 12:50 AM   #28
Cobraman
Fo Fi Six
 
Cobraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,113
Default

I've said before that If I ever get into a situation where I need them and they don't do shit, I'm not really in any different situation than I would have been anyways. A few bucks a month is as easy as skipping whataburger one time, and then you at least have a game plan for when shtf. Who would you call after the police currently? I'd hate to be searching google for a 2nd amendment attorney day of. Worst case you are out like $80 a year, best case they save you thousands.
Cobraman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2014, 10:58 PM   #29
Gasser64
Lifer
 
Gasser64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 2,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobraman View Post
I've said before that If I ever get into a situation where I need them and they don't do shit, I'm not really in any different situation than I would have been anyways. A few bucks a month is as easy as skipping whataburger one time, and then you at least have a game plan for when shtf. Who would you call after the police currently? I'd hate to be searching google for a 2nd amendment attorney day of. Worst case you are out like $80 a year, best case they save you thousands.
For this reason i will buy it. But i would like to see some people they have helped.
Gasser64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 09:24 AM   #30
Chili
Joe Blow
 
Chili's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1975
Location: Euless
Posts: 24,078
Default

When they made the pitch they gave examples of how they have saved clients from jail and costly legal expenses, but of course that is the point of marketing.

But, as others have mentioned, for the somewhat nominal cost, I feel much better with it. I have mentioned this story before, but our CHL instructor was involved in a fatal shooting before he went into law enforcement (attempted robbery at gunpoint at a gas station). This was before the "stand your ground" laws and when asked if he could have retreated he sarcastically said he could have. Little did he know, the buddy buddy act of the cop in charge fooled him into thinking he was in no danger, but they then used that against him as a basis for prosecution.

He beat the criminal and civil cases but spent 10's of thousands of dollars on each (in the 90's).

My two main take-aways were: Don't talk to cops after a shooting and mitigate potential for out-of-control legal costs.
Chili is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 09:37 AM   #31
IHaveAMustang
RIP DFWstangs.net
 
IHaveAMustang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Keller
Posts: 4,294
Default

I bought it the day we took Venix's class. Like mentioned above, its a couple outings to a fast foot restaurant that will potentially keep you out of jail and from going bankrupt.

Plus I put it on my AMEX which I don't use, so it keeps the points trickling in and the credit active (longest CC on my account, which helps credit score)
__________________
IHaveAMustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 01:10 PM   #32
GhostTX
Token Troll
 
GhostTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sherman
Posts: 10,853
Default

Has anybody spoken with "your" lawyer on the list (lawyer of geographic area)? How they view themselves as apart of the protection?
__________________

"Self-government won't work without self-discipline." - Paul Harvey
GhostTX is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 01:15 PM   #33
Darren M
Horse Trader
VIP Member
 
Darren M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Aledo
Posts: 5,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chili View Post
My two main take-aways were: Don't talk to cops after a shooting and mitigate potential for out-of-control legal costs.
I saw a video from USCC the other day stating this, sort of. The only thing you should say is that you'd like to invoke your 5th amendment rights and that you'd like to have a lawyer present during questioning. Furthermore, make it VERY clear. That way there is no question. My thoughts go to my spouse/kids if they were there. God forbid! Should they also plead the 5th? Or request a lawyer be present as witnesses? Or, are they covered under my requests? I've heard a wife can't be forced to testify on the stand against her spouse but what about at the scene?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taya Kyle, American Gun
There comes a time when honest debate, serious diplomatic efforts, and logical arguments have been exhausted and only men and women willing to take up arms against evil will suffice to save the freedom of a nation or continent.
Darren M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 01:27 PM   #34
Baron Von Crowder
asshole with an opinion
VIP Member
 
Baron Von Crowder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Venus
Posts: 23,302
Default

the quote my CHL instructor recommended was " I would like to cooperate fully with you, but I would like to consult my attorney first"

He said that they arent supposed to question you any longer.
__________________
"If I asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." - Henry Ford
Baron Von Crowder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 01:40 PM   #35
Labora
Lifer
 
Labora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,785
Default

Some useful info worth a mention for anyone considering it is if you travel out of state you can call them and ask about any other state gun laws and they will happily fill you in. Just another way to cover your ass in regards to magazine bans, chl reciprocity, legal transport, etc.
Labora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 02:04 PM   #36
GeorgeG.
Lifer
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Van Alstyne
Posts: 5,041
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Von Crowder View Post
the quote my CHL instructor recommended was " I would like to cooperate fully with you, but I would like to consult my attorney first"

He said that they arent supposed to question you any longer.
sounds like the class I took...was this in Grand Prairie?

And this should be a perma-sticky!
GeorgeG. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 04:09 PM   #37
Baron Von Crowder
asshole with an opinion
VIP Member
 
Baron Von Crowder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Venus
Posts: 23,302
Default

mine was in Grapevine, but it might have been the same dude?
__________________
"If I asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." - Henry Ford
Baron Von Crowder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2014, 08:18 PM   #38
Chili
Joe Blow
 
Chili's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1975
Location: Euless
Posts: 24,078
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren M View Post
I saw a video from USCC the other day stating this, sort of. The only thing you should say is that you'd like to invoke your 5th amendment rights and that you'd like to have a lawyer present during questioning. Furthermore, make it VERY clear. That way there is no question. My thoughts go to my spouse/kids if they were there. God forbid! Should they also plead the 5th? Or request a lawyer be present as witnesses? Or, are they covered under my requests? I've heard a wife can't be forced to testify on the stand against her spouse but what about at the scene?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Von Crowder View Post
the quote my CHL instructor recommended was " I would like to cooperate fully with you, but I would like to consult my attorney first"

He said that they arent supposed to question you any longer.
They way they recommended addressing it in my class was to say no more than "I feared for my life" and "I'm really shaken up and my family attorney has told me to consult with him before giving any statements" or something to that extent. They encouraged stating "family attorney" because you don't come off like you were prepared for dealing with a shooting case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Labora View Post
Some useful info worth a mention for anyone considering it is if you travel out of state you can call them and ask about any other state gun laws and they will happily fill you in. Just another way to cover your ass in regards to magazine bans, chl reciprocity, legal transport, etc.
We do have the multi-state coverage (it's an extra couple bucks a month) but honestly, before I travel I usually just check handgunlaw.us just to make sure I'm clear on the reciprocity and local requirements.
Chili is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2014, 07:45 PM   #39
Chili
Joe Blow
 
Chili's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1975
Location: Euless
Posts: 24,078
Default

Latest email (minus the marketing stuff):

Quote:
Can A Police Officer Search My Cell Phone Without A Warrant?

Fourth Amendment jurisprudence may be the most heavily litigated amendment to our Constitution. As a general rule, the police must have a warrant prior to conducting a search or seizure unless an exception applies. These exceptions to the warrant requirement have been created by the courts interpreting and deciding when it is reasonable to search and seize persons and property without a warrant. As technology advances, the 4th Amendment must evolve as well. There is one piece of technology that has become an extension of our person, our cell phone. Many of our cell phones are overflowing with personal information such as texts, personal contacts, schedules, emails, and photos. Can a police officer search through the personal contents of your cell phone without a warrant?

On June 25, 2014, the United States Supreme Court ruled "No." To understand the importance of this ruling, it is useful to review the evolution of prior lower court decisions on this subject.

Division of the Lower Courts

Until recently, courts around the country have been split on whether a police officer could search through the contents of a person's cell phone without a warrant. In a California case, a man was stopped for driving with expired registration tags and a suspended license. The police conducted a search incident to arrest finding a smart phone in the man's pocket. A "search incident to arrest" is an exception to the warrant requirement that allows a police officer to search a person and the area immediately surrounding the person during or immediately after a lawful arrest usually for "officer safety."

The officer looked through the phone's contact list and text messages where he saw certain names preceded by the letters "CK." The police officer believed that "CK" was an acronym for "Crip Killers," a slang term for members of the Bloods gang. Hours after the arrest, a detective who specialized in gangs further examined the contents of the phone and found videos and photos associated with the Bloods gang. In one photo, the man was posed next to an automobile that had been involved in a shooting. He was later charged and convicted of three crimes including attempted murder. The California Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits a warrantless search of a cell phone incident to arrest as long as the cell phone was immediately associated with the arrestee's person.

A case arising out of Massachusetts had a completely different outcome. In that case, a police officer conducting routine surveillance saw an individual make a drug sale from his car. Officers arrested and seized two cell phones. After arriving at the station, the officers noticed the phone repeatedly receiving calls from "My House." The officers opened the cell phone, saw a picture of a woman and a baby set as the phone's wallpaper. They pressed a button to access the call log, saw the phone number associated with "My House," and used an online phone directory to trace the phone number to an apartment building. Officers obtained a search warrant for the specific apartment and seized drugs, cash, and weapons.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals held that cell phones require a warrant to be searched (completely opposite of the California Supreme Court). They reasoned that cell phones are different from other physical possessions that may be searched incident to arrest without a warrant because of the amount of personal data contained within the cell phone.

What Did the Supreme Court Decide?

With a clear division between the courts, the United States Supreme Court made a ruling on this issue in June of 2014. The Supreme Court held that police may not search digital information on a cell phone without a warrant. The Court reasoned that cell phones are the one device carried on the person that has an immense storage capacity and collects personal, detailed information.

The Court stated that data stored on a cell phone cannot be used as a weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate an arrestee's escape (normally the justification for a search incident to arrest). Officers may examine the phone's physical aspects to make sure that it cannot be used as a weapon, but they cannot go through the cell phone's contents because the contents cannot harm anyone. What if the contents of the cell phone might warn officers of an impending danger such as a confederate headed to the scene to harm a police officer? The Court stated that this concern should be addressed on a case by case basis and is not an issue in this instance. If it were to arise, the exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement may apply. "Exigent circumstances" typically means there is an emergency condition such as a fleeing felon, a person's life is in danger or evidence is being destroyed.

A second issue addressed by the Supreme Court was, what if information or evidence that may lead to an arrest is destroyed on the cell phone? The Court stated that there is no indication that this problem is prevalent and even if the cell phone was secured by the police, it could still be vulnerable to another person remotely wiping the cell phone's data.

The Court made it clear that this decision does not prevent a cell phone from ever being searched without a warrant, but that a warrant is generally required before a search. The narrow ruling states that a cell phone cannot be searched without a warrant pursuant to the search incident to arrest exception. However, the Court did leave the door open that in the event of an exigent circumstance, there may be a justification for a warrantless search of a cell phone.
So, aside from the cell phone situation, if the purpose of a "search incident to arrest" is primarily due to officer safety, why is a vehicle search "incident to arrest" legal? It seems to me that if the suspect is in police custody, and the vehicle is now impounded, argument could easily be made that there is no longer any concern for "officer safety". Well, unless they think there is a bomb in the car or something.. I wonder (and hope, to some extent) if someone will now use that as basis to challenge search of a car "incident to arrest".

Clearly, my above questions depend heavily on the actual statutes or laws concerning searches "incident to arrest" and is primarily based on that only being allowed based on officer safety. Not that I expect much, but I am responding to their email with those very questions, and will post up any reply..
Chili is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2014, 09:22 PM   #40
Cobraman
Fo Fi Six
 
Cobraman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,113
Default

Had a rep call and leave a voicemail this morning.
Cobraman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:36 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.