Index  •  FAQ  •  Search  

It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 4:13 am

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 Public opinion consequences of refusing to talk to the media 
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 9:48 pm 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 471
Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
Everyone, please quit conflating talking to the police with talking to the media. They're different issues. Believe me, I get it with regard to police, and I think I made that clear in the opening post. If anyone wants to make the case that talking to the police is a good idea, or beat a dead horse by proclaiming it's a bad idea, start your own thread.

This thread is specifically about the media, and how a consequence of the widespread "don't talk to anyone" approach is that the public relations goals of the carry movement are not served. I pose the hypothesis that a complete refusal to talk to anyone is probably not necessary or perhaps not even helpful as a legal defense strategy, noting in particular that hearsay is not admissible in court, and the track record of prosecutors and law enforcement in subpoenaing reporters for their notes and unpublished tapes is poor.

And on that subject, I'd be delighted to read what anyone has to post.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 10:48 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 10:24 am
Posts: 6767
Location: Twin Cities
Did you miss Lawyer in Training's post? (He's far too modest -- he's a real lawyer now.)

Quote:
I can think of at least two exceptions to the general hearsay rule that might get this admitted in court, and possibly using it for impeachment if Mr. Ersland testifies.

Did I miss the "statements made to the press aren't admissible" rule during Evidence? Or is that just a Florida specific exception?

_________________
* NRA, UT, MADFI certified Minnesota Permit to Carry instructor, and one of 66,513 law-abiding permit holders. Read my blog.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 5:32 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:24 pm
Posts: 471
Location: 12 miles east of Lake Wobegon
I would be delighted if L.I.T. or another knowledgeable person would elucidate the two exceptions to the hearsay rule that might apply.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 5:41 am 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm
Posts: 1571
Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
MostlyHarmless wrote:
I would be delighted if L.I.T. or another knowledgeable person would elucidate the two exceptions to the hearsay rule that might apply.

1. it is not hearsay for someone to use your own words against you, whether stated to the police or a reporter/media

2. it is not hearsay for someone to use your own words against you, whether stated to the police or a reporter/media

(for the non-lawyers....that is often called an "admission against interest".)

_________________
Paul Horvick
http://shootingsafely.com
---
Contact us to schedule a class for you and your friends, and check our website for more information http://shootingsafely.com


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 5:58 am 
Senior Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:36 pm
Posts: 440
Location: W. St. Paul
I'll leave the legal debate to others.

I fail to see any benefit to talking to the. largely, anti-gun and anti-self-defense media. Your words will be twisted to show you as the mouth breathing, knuckle dragging murdering redneck they're already convinced you are.

_________________
I will never apologize for being an American!
http://post435gunclub.org/cmp.htm
cmpofficer@post435gunclub.org
http://mrra.org
6 down, 24 to go.


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 6:03 am 
Longtime Regular

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2005 2:54 am
Posts: 2444
Location: West Central MN
"Anything you say can be used against you."

That means anyting you say to anybody, ever, folks. And it means anyting whether it's true or not, and whether you think it is for or against your interest, or even if you think the statement is not relevant to the incident.

A good lawyer (hell, even a bad lawyer) can spin ANYTHING at trial. If nothing else, they can argue that you were being "evasive" or simply lying or even mistaken when you spoke, or that your statements were inconsistant with some other evidence or fact they developed at a later time. It's what lawyers do.

But, even though virtually every lawyer or disinterested cop would tell folks to just say "lawyer" and shut up, most people really think they can improve on this advice a little by only saying the "right" things.

Cops also know you will talk to your friends and family later. After a couple of weeks, they'll suddenly talk to your friends and family as well.

But if you say nothing, there is nothing to spin. 8)


Last edited by Dick Unger on Fri May 29, 2009 6:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 6:05 am 
Forum Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:37 pm
Posts: 1571
Location: Detroit Lakes, MN
Dick Unger wrote:
"Anything you say can be used against you."



Close....

Anything you say can and will be used against you.

(Note...not disagreeing...reinforcing!)

_________________
Paul Horvick
http://shootingsafely.com
---
Contact us to schedule a class for you and your friends, and check our website for more information http://shootingsafely.com


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 6:40 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:02 pm
Posts: 1569
Location: The Mild, Mild, West, Burbs
Perhaps this is what Mostly is getting at:

The News Beast must be fed, if you try to lock yourself away and say nothing, they will hound you because they think there is a story they have a right to publish. By having an interface between the person involved in the DGU and the Beast, the reporters will be able to file a story and appease their editors / producers. Anything said to the media must be bland, saying nothing about the case and approved by your lawyer.

I have somewhere a paper written by a journalist that covered the pros and cons and gave some examples of what to say, I'll try and dig it up.

_________________
NRA Certified Instructor
MADFI Certified Instructor
MN DNR Certified Instructor
UT BCI Certified Conceal/Carry Instructor


"If you expect the police to always be able to protect you, why are the ones who show up at crimes called 'detectives' instead of 'defenders'? Detectives try to find a criminal after they've committed a crime."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 7:32 am 
Raving Moderate
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:46 pm
Posts: 1292
Location: Minneapolis
OK, without "conflating", so as not to annoy Mostly, here goes-

Anything you say to "the media" is going to be on the record, whether written in the Strib, or in the video recordings made by TV news. All of which is admissible at trial. In fact, it's worse than that, as I understand the law- you have none of the same protections speaking to a reporter that you do speaking to the police.

In short, the only words in my vocabulary following (God forbid!) a shooting are "I need to speak with my lawyer."

Standard disclaimer: IANAL, YMMV, some restrictions may apply, see store for details.

_________________
I'm liberal, pro-choice, and I carry a gun. Any questions?

My real name is Jeremiah (go figure). ;)


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 9:17 am 
Member

Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:00 am
Posts: 41
MostlyHarmless wrote:
This thread is specifically about the media, and how a consequence of the widespread "don't talk to anyone" approach is that the public relations goals of the carry movement are not served. I pose the hypothesis that a complete refusal to talk to anyone is probably not necessary or perhaps not even helpful as a legal defense strategy, noting in particular that hearsay is not admissible in court, and the track record of prosecutors and law enforcement in subpoenaing reporters for their notes and unpublished tapes is poor.

And on that subject, I'd be delighted to read what anyone has to post.


It's the probably and perhaps that I find fault with here. If I'm involved in a DGU, I'm going to shut my piehole and do what my lawyer recommends.

If my lawyers recommended course of action also helps "the public relations goals of the carry movement" that's a bonus. If not, movement be damned. I'm pretty sure that carry will continue without my being a poster child, on the other hand I'm also pretty sure that the "carry movement" won't have my back in the showers at Stillwater.

Anybody who's played poker with me knows I like to gamble, but I'd be playing for my life here.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 10:22 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:44 pm
Posts: 1525
Location: Isanti, MN
One thought that occurred to me was that the Treptow 911 call was released to the media shortly after the incidenent he had been involved in. His words from the 911 call are available to the procecutors and defense alike. Whether what he said in the course of that call are to his benefit or detriment will be determined in all probability at trial. I guess my point is EVERYTHING and ANYTHING one might say could cause things to go "egg-shaped" (a reference I borrow from Joel). That fact just reinforces to me the concept of saying absolutely-positively as little as possible to ANYONE with the exception of your lawyer.

Quote:
Did you miss Lawyer in Training's post? (He's far too modest -- he's a real lawyer now.)


Congrats L.I.T. I guess you can now go forward and "PRACTICE" law :shock: . Darn I love that term. :wink: :D

I want to take this opportunity to thank all the "Legal Eagles" that share there knowledge with the rest of us. I tip my hat to one and all. :!:

_________________
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
- Winston Churchill -


WITHOUT LIBERTY THERE IS NO FREEDOM


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 10:33 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:54 am
Posts: 5270
Location: Minneapolis
Scott Hughes wrote:
could cause things to go "egg-shaped"

Pear-shaped maybe?

_________________
I am defending myself... in favor of that!


Offline
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 10:55 am 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:44 pm
Posts: 1525
Location: Isanti, MN
You are correct sir. :oops: Thanks Dean :) TGIF :bang:

_________________
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
- Winston Churchill -


WITHOUT LIBERTY THERE IS NO FREEDOM


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 11:11 am 
Poet Laureate
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:36 am
Posts: 760
Location: Hutchinson, MN
cryptical wrote:
on the other hand I'm also pretty sure that the "carry movement" won't have my back in the showers at Stillwater.

:lol:
Well said. Gives one pause, doesn't it?

(Well, maybe not Nords... He knows the right things to say. :wink: )

_________________
It's not always easy these days to tell which of our two major political parties is the Stupid Party and which is the Evil Party...
But it remains true that from time to time they collaborate on something that's both stupid and evil and call it bipartisanship. -Thomas E. Woods Jr.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:21 pm 
Longtime Regular
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 4:00 am
Posts: 1094
Location: Duluth
I'm fairly certain that the media wouldn't be interested in printing anything that I would have to say to them. And I'd even put my tooth in to say it.

_________________
"I wish it to be remembered that I was the last man of my tribe to surrender my rifle" Sitting Bull


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 48 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

This is a static archive the Twin Cities Carry forum, maintained as a public service by the current forum of record, The Minnesota Carry Forum.

All times are UTC - 6 hours


 Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


 
Index  |  FAQ  |  Search

phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group