Talking to emergency dispatchers after a self defense incident?

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Wasn't sure if that was the case in the US though, or if it varies between jurisdictions.

 

Just a general question, couldnt you refute any call logs in court by using "being distressed"? Rewording of my orginal statment to change context/point. Wouldnt stating to the Dispatcher that its self defence mean that the police (if they get sent) or the ambulance wont work on the premise you beat the other person up?

 

Speaking to the Police to report a crime on the phone, is like an initial account but in your theoretical situation, you don't need to go into details. However all calls are recorded and can be used in Court as evidence.
When you call you need to say this...
Where are you, who are you, and does anyone need any medical attention. The quicker the call (in this scenario) the better...

Save lives first, blame is ascertained later.

If you want to say you were in a fight and it was self defence, you can. However it is in your statement to a Police Officer where you go into details.
You can delay a statement (in the UK) if you so wish. However...again, when/if it goes to Court. Prepare to defend that decision when the opposing Legal asks why. (that's when a bit of to and fro comes into it)

 

Whenever I've phoned the emergency services, the call handler has asked the nature of the injury and how it happened, as far as I can remember.

 

"It may harm your defence if you do not mention -when questioned-", emphasis mine. It refers to formal interview, not an obligation to get chatty in the back of the panda car.

 

Yup, they will ask. And to be honest, if nothing to hide, just say so. We got in a fight, he ended up hurt.

Regardless of what happens in the initial phone call, its in Court where you really defend yourself and your actions.

 

There is also a second part though that does cover anything said outside of formal interview....generally speaking any copper worth their salt will shut down most "spontaneous" confessions and if they cant they will record it in their notebook

 

I am relatively compliant in the face of authority generally. My first instinct would be to just give my side of the story and assume that if I acted reasonably, I'll be ok.

Then I read/watched things like this:




And became convinced that I was incorrect in my gut instinct here.

 

As a retired L.E.O., who lives in the U.S., I would tell the dispatcher that there had been a fight and someone was injured. State the nature of the injuries and what first aid has been given. The U.S. dispatch system (dialing 911) usually starts with a choice of "Police, Fire, or Rescue". Take option 3 for the OP's scenario. If law enforcement arrives on the scene, be honest. If you're worried about how you responded (correct application of force, self defense vs. assault) then be polite to the officers and simply state you will be more then happy to give them information once you have spoken to an attorney. Cops will have some initial questions just to ascertain why the hell they are there. If you don't provide information, they may get their antenna up. You don't have to provide a police officer with anything other than your name and date of birth. I.D. if you possess it (and everyone should). Then leave it up to the cops to determine the next move.

 

Interesting videos, thanks for posting them.

I did note that he did say that a jury could well look negatively upon a person exercising their right not to incriminate themselves.

 

One of the things he discusses is that explicitly invoking your 5th amendment right can be pointed out to the jury, and he suggests (IIRC, I'm re-watching now) not explicitly invoking it. (E.g., just literally say nothing.)

It sounds to me like the best approach is:
- If you need to dial emergency services for medical care for you or others, just describe their current state, not your actions that may have led to that state.
- When questioned by police, indicate that you are happy to comply and give a statement after conferring with an attorney.
- Do not explicitly state that you are invoking your right to remain silent, as that explicit action (invoking the right) can be pointed out to the jury.

 

He is talking about a decision in Salinas v Texas (2013). I am not knowledgeable on things like this, so may be mis-interpreting. Here is an article about it that explains better than I can: The Supreme Court Decided Your Silence Can Be Used Against You

And in reading over that, I realize that I completely inverted what I had remembered--it was not explicitly stating that he was invoking the right that was used against him. (I don't have details of how it was used against him--the article doesn't really say.)
(So in post #32 my final bullet point is backwards I think... yeah I'm gonna go buy that book now.)

EDIT: The Supreme Court Just Took Away Your Right to Remain Silent may explain better (wanted to edit it in before edit window ran out, but haven't fully read it yet)

 

I watched a bit. You should if you get the chance. He's a very entertaining speaker.

 

To muddy the waters even more for David and Morik, one has to understand that Miranda only applies to someone under arrest. Now, if I am writing you a ticket and still possess your license and registration, technically, you are under arrest and cannot leave as I have not completed my investigation. If I give you all your ID back and then say "Hey, you don't have any guns, knives, battle axes, or chi balls I should know about?" you aren't under arrest. Tricky stuff but it happens all the time. Pleading the 5th, or taking the 5th, is a person's right and can be invoked if you believe you are being detained and are being questioned. Simple questions about who you are and what you are doing are cursory in nature and not investigative.

Also, once in court, juries are given specific instructions that a person pleading the 5th is NOT to be taken as incrimination of wrong doing.

 

I dont know much about US Law or US Court procedures (apart from what I see on telly...Judge Judy is still a thing..right?)

Anyhoo. What I can say from some experience, whilst in Court, thats where some gamesmanship comes into it. Lawyers (on both sides) will always find something in the incident to use for their advantage to win the case.

I can imagine someone "pleading the 5th" or in UK terms "No Comment"-ing. Someone somewhere will try and plant the seed. (Inception)
"Oh its your right to say nothing...but why invoke it? Hmmmm" stuff like that.

Like in that video. "I will never talk to a cop". Thats fine. Crack on. Its his right etc...just hope that it doesnt impede investigations.

 

And I wise Mushroom you are. I call courtrooms "Puzzle Palaces" because you never what the outcome will be. Should be rather simple if the crime was committed, the person accused committed said crime, evidence proves crime & suspect link, jury understands the facts as presented and comes to a verdict. Problem is, facts are interpreted by everyone. Cops, lawyers, judges, and juries. Outcome, therefor, is a mystery. A puzzle.

 

I'm not rabidly anti-authority or anything. I've been pulled over several times and each time I believe I admitted that I was speeding (I was).

But if a possible assault, manslaughter, or murder charge is on the line due to me defending myself (i.e., if I injured someone else at all), plus any potential civil litigation from that person or their family, it seems like it is wiser not to speak to the police about it until I've consulted an attorney knowledgeable in that area of law.

 

Or, understand what you can use as a defense just in case you wind up having to use force... Criminal Law Defenses: Self-Defense - Lawyers.com