Uechi-Ryu.com

Thanks for the post Panther, right on target as usual.I remember well your past situations and how lucky you were in finding the right 'cops and lawyers'

And yes, Mas Ayoob has been preaching this for years as well...and he has also been educating cops and lawyers.

Wish you could meet Roy Bedard...he is most excellent_ and also being a police officer, gives him lots of credibility...he writes for 'police one'...

_________________
Van

Like Jason, I don't have much to add, but just wanted to pop in and say that I'm enjoying the conversation. We talk a bit about the "third fight" in the PDR Program (you vs. the legal system), but it's nice to more/more in-depth examples.

Cool stuff.

_________________
http://honestphilosophy.blogspot.com/

I like that, Jake...thanks for stopping by.

Education in these matters is critical...everybody wants to be a tough guy until they begin to fall to pieces behind bars, financially destitute and their whole wide world in shambles.

_________________
Van

We've met... Summerfest 2001! Roy was very helpful and kind to me. He could tell that I "used to" have the timing and technique, but just wasn't on it any more. Since then, I've used some of his advice and techniques (and spending some time back in the thick of things, which I've stopped doing) to regain some of that timing/technique. Having met Roy, shared messages with him a number of times since, and both read & discussed a lot of his ideas on things (from other websites too)... are the reasons why I read the threads that he's quoted or written on. There are a few things we don't completely agree on, but not any of this stuff... Then again, I've never met anyone that I agree with 100% or maybe I should say there's no one out there that would agree with me 100% all the time!

You've hit it right on the head. Law Enforcement investigators are skilled in addressing self-defense investigations. But an unfortunate double standard has emerged.

When cops investigate cops for a use of force there are certain protocols in place to protect the "victim" officer. The first protocol, is exactly this; that investigators begin with a heuristic analysis which assumes that the cop was a victim and was using force allowed by statute. With civilian use of force, most often the investigator assumes the opposite, particularly when someone has been killed. The investigation will often focus on gaining a confession that the defender was responsible, and once obtained-the work is done. Police are trained to gather inculpatory information from civilians and exculpatory information from each other.

The second protocol is that cops are instructed to not give detailed statements until some time has past and investigators are instructed by policy to not take a detailed statement until 24-72 hours after the fact. This protocol is in place because our observations in the field have demonstrated that the unusual fight/flight response creates a caustic memory environment for the highly aroused defender.The odd impressions one gets while experiencing the effects of the sympathetic nervous system do not indelibly imprint on short term memory very well. Though no one is sure why, it seems to be an effect of the hyper-aroused amygdala which is believed to effect both emotions and memory. In short, only certain details are usually able to be recalled after periods of intense stress and officers have been known to manufacture memories in order to fill in the blanks. This is partly because they are so eager to tell their story (they most often feel immediately venerated after winning), another common feature of moralistic violence. Other cops are trained to shut them up when they start rambling, as the para-sympathetic nervous system begins to take over. When they rest, the thoughts most often emerge in coherent detail and will often be strikingly inconsistent with the original statement (which they often aren't even able to recall). Naturally, when reasonable minds view the contrasted statements they will likely assume that the officer was lying or "covering-up", a famous catch-phrase used to express endemic systematic corruption within the police organization.

A third protocol is that investigators often file reports on their findings, not arrest affidavits when investigating other cops. They gently meet with the Prosecutor to prepare for a presentation to the Grand Jury. It might surprise some people to hear that the Grand Jury is an assembly of citizens who meet in private with the Prosecutor and any witnesses he deems germane to the case. The Prosecutor asks the questions, and thus steers the story in any direction that he might desire. There is no cross examination (except perhaps from the untrained jurors) and no alternative theory introduced. Thus the popular aphormism, "A good prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich," was born.

Civilians who use self-defense very rarely get this type of representation from a Prosecutor. On the contrary, often when the investigator has finished his work, he presents it to the Prosecutor who often directly files an information or presents it to a Grand Jury in an attempt to secure an indictment (about half of the States and the Feds use this method on felony cases). This begins the long process of defense which sends the winner to jail to await trial. If the winner happens to be poor, or the offense is viewed as particularly egregious due to the good work of law enforcement and/or the Prosecutor, the winner will stay in jail for untold periods of time. Several years is not uncommon.

So-yes, getting the right officer on the scene, one who has a profound sense of justice and the skills and abilities to understand the dynamics of combat is a huge advantage, but regrettably, also a crap-shoot. A good officer will gather all of the details available and automatically consider an alternative possibility to the combat crime that on the surface he appears to be facing. He will gather statements and evidence to synthesize facts in order to demonstrate the true nature of the use of force to a reasonable degree of certainty. From this he will decide to arrest (probable cause) or release so that the case can be further reviewed. If information gathered later suggests the commission of a grievous crime warrants can be issued. If the officer reasonably believes that the force used was justifiable with respect to self defense, then the civilian should be provided the appropriate protocols for going into the review process (Grand Jury) with dignity and support.

_________________
RRB
Okay,who stopped payment on my reality check?

Thanks Roy, for pointing out this double standard...pretty chilling information.

I guess it is true about our legal system being a 'sewer System'

_________________
Van

Roy. . . Who should be attending your Thursday, Aug 4th Seminar?

How can we reach them???

I would think it is in everyone's best interest to have lawyers, investigators and police homicide detectives there! How do we get the message out?

_________________
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"

As you are aware Roy, this is what Mas Ayoob calls 'logorrhea' i.e., diarrhea of the mind/mouth.

The question is if trained cops need to be shut up in those moments....then what chance do civilians have, even the supposedly trained ones, in those terrible moments when all personal control seems to go all the hell.

Talk about a 'stacked deck'

_________________
Van

What do you make of this, Roy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE

_________________
Van

Interesting trial. . . The Florida Casey Anthony trial, where she is accused of killing her child. Been on all TV channels for past month.

One of defense lawyer's strategy is to try and prove that the person who found the child's remains, lied to police immediately after finding the remains and based this on the fact that he changed his story a couple days after the event. (Defense claiming he found the child 3 months earlier and that he deposited the body in the woods where he could "find" it for the $250,000 reward.)

When asked how he felt following finding the remains he stated "shocked, stunned!" He called police while in this state and while being "interviewed" following the call, he said one thing while "rambling on and on" (his words) then later, recalling the true events somewhat differently when he corrected his original statement.

Of course, no one from the prosecution explained what Roy would have been able to share with the jury regarding "state of mind" following a traumatic event and/or being interrogated immediately following such event.

_________________
GEM
"Do or do not. there is no try!"

Hi Van,

It's a great video, and a terrible video at the same time. I have watched it once before. It's great-because he's right, and it's terrible because it is a good example of how justice truly has been reduced to a formal cat and mouse game.

The truth is, most criminals are easy, fortunately, and in my experience they have been easy to break and easy to get a confession from.But Interviewing is a highly refined skill as this former officer shows you. Time and again, the same criminals representing that 2-5% of the population get caught over and over again and are made to confess over and over again. Criminals tend to be clever, but not very smart -- there is a huge difference.

Unfortunately, non-criminals are also not very smart nor very clever, in particular because they aren't used to being arrested and they don't work daily in the dark world of deception. They operate in a reasonably honest world and are far more likely to take what they see and hear at face value. Cops are always amused at the civilian mentality that continuously repeats things like, "My little Johnnie would never do that!" or " "I know he didn't do it, cause he said he didn't do it!)

Most people are extraordinarily susceptible to suggestion, misdirection, and verbal sleight-of-hand. They live in a world that requires consent, mindless abusive consent. When their insurance rates go up--they get mad, stomp around, but they consent. When the Government willy nilly spends their tax monies, they consent. If the church, or their political party or the voice on the other end of the telephone tell them what to do, they consent. It's easier that way. We live in a society that that trades consent for peace and comfort.

The real difference between non-criminals and criminals in a formal interview is that they often DO trust the police, so when these highly refined techniques are used, they tend to take the bait quicker and harder. In fact they tend to want to volunteer lots of unneeded information in the spirit of helping the officer get through this. I know, its hard to believe as you sit here reading this, but all of us at some level are vulnerable to this. We are gregarious people who are programmed to help each other. A basic tenet of civilized society is, "Honesty is the best policy" and most people prescribe to that. But honesty and truth are totally different things. Honesty is one persons perceptions. The truth is established after the fact. It is an interpretation of perceptions. Ill share a little anecdotal story I wrote to express this most import point in my next post.

So, as this relates to self-defense - when you add the feelings of veneration that usually comes after the battle has ended--when you realize for the first time that you are a Champion in a contest for life and death, naturally, you are going to talk. You might even brag as your para-sympathetic nervous system helps to celebrate the fact that you are still alive. In my Wylie case, after fighting for his life he won the fight and was quick to try and help the detectives understand what happened. They asked, "But, did you cut him?" Wylie responded, "Yes, I cut him...I tried to cut his F*cking head off!" He didn't recall any of that - until he saw the recorded interview. Statements like that are hard to work around.

In the book, I devote a chapter to the interview an discuss what should be done in the hindsight of a justifiable use of force. In the meantime, if there are any questions - one would be wise to watch that video again

_________________
RRB
Okay,who stopped payment on my reality check?

The Truth about the Truth
an excerpt from Managing The Middle - Police and Media relations in the New Age of Information
By: Roy Bedard

The final game of the Little League World Series was over. As usual, the losing team blamed the loss on the poor calls of the umpires. “The Umps are blind!” they shouted from the bleachers, “How much are they paying you?” shouted one parent as Jeff, the plate umpire called the final strike.

“Jackasses! “ Jeff thought to himself… “They are all just jackasses”. As he walked from the field, another parent approached him. “Great game today blue! You were dead on with those calls!” The umpire nodded his head and continued walking and as he walked his nod turned to a subtle shake of the head.

He turned back to look over his shoulder in time to see the winning pitcher run up and embrace the man who just gave him the compliment. It was suddenly clear that this man was the winnng pitcher’s father.
The Umpire walked into the clubhouse where he ran into three other Umpires that had also helped call the series. “Good game today Jeff”, one said. “Thanks man” Jeff replied wearily as he worked his way towards the locker room.

After changing clothes and freshening up, Jeff walked back into the common area. “Hey; let’s get a drink” one of the other Umpires shouted. The four of them agreed and soon they were seated around a high top at a local pub. As usual, the talked turned to baseball and they began debriefing each other on the series, recalling certain plays and certain calls that they had made. As Jeff sat and listened, he realized that each of them, having years of experience on the playing field, all perceived the game slightly differently.

He being the youngest and greenest umpire among them joined the conversation with a simple question, “Tell me fellas, how is it that you call a pitch…I mean it is fairly subjective after all…”

One of the Umpires looked at him wryly. He said, “well, I call them like I see them. It’s really simple as that.”

The second umpire looked at him inquisitively, shrugged, and began shaking his head, “nah, you have to be more objective, I call them like they are.”

The third one slightly tilted his head back. He chuckled and raised his glass to his lips. He looked over the top of the rim and paused for a moment. Being the oldest Umpire among them and having the most seniority in the league the other umpires looked at him and became quiet. Jeff tuned also turned slightly and focused on him. Looking back at Jeff, the older Umpire grinned. “Son” he said… “They ain’t nothing till I call them!”

The profound truth of this simple parable is that reality is nothing more than an agreed upon perception. Whether discussing something that has happened, is happening or might happen in the future the truth about the event is always constructed in the mind of the observer based upon many different variables. Too often the truth is considered the antithesis of a lie, and yet these two ideas have very little to do with each other.

Looking at our three Umpires, we can see three very different paradigms regarding the “truth” of a valid pitch. None of them are lying; each of them is assigned the task of describing a ball in motion as it crosses the plate. Yet they rely on different paradigms to render an opinion and though they might arrive at the same conclusion, how they got there is quite different.

I enjoy this story, because it profoundly reflects the dynamics that exist between the community, the police and the media in the new age of information.

To break down these paradigms, let’s begin with our first umpire. It’s obvious that he views himself as a casual observer, a third party to the event. He calls them as he sees them, suggesting that he might even be comfortable with a small margin of error in his reporting. He sees himself entirely as a third party judge of the truth, drawing his opinions upon the information given to him contrasted with the knowledge he has from past learning and experience as an umpire. He would tell you after an exhaustive argument that he knows what a strike looks like, and at some point would likely close the door on further conversation.

This truth schema is similar to the schema used by members in the larger community. When a situation occurs that they are made aware of, they quickly become judges of that information. Having no control over the situation, community members tend to look at the content that they have been given, and from that content, they will inevitably call it as they see it. Like Umpire number one, they are external to the truth about the pitch. They didn’t throw it, didn’t catch it – just watched as it sailed across the plate. They don’t care necessarily if it was a deceptive pitch, like a curveball or a knuckle ball. How it got to the plate is irrelevant to umpire number one. The simple fact that it got there is good enough and from that perspective a judgment can be made with very little other information.

The community like Umpire number one counts on others (the pitcher and the catcher) to provide the means for which to make a judgment call. Their truth is determined by an evaluation of what they have observed and their final judgment reflects a coming together of many different personal variables.

The second umpire’s statement is in my opinion, more representative of the law enforcement paradigm. Whereas Umpire number two, calls them like they are, he makes a strong suggestion that he is not a judge of an event, but rather a simple reporter of the facts. The pitch is what it is, and in being so – inherently posses a certain truth that isn’t subject to interpretation or debate.

Umpire two’s paradigm forces him to watch the ball as it leaves the pitchers hand. As it works its way towards the plate, he continuously observes and speculates where it may end up as it nears the strike zone. He watches it spin, notes how the air currents move it around slightly within its trajectory. If it begins to high or two low, he might lean towards a conclusion that it will likely become a ball rather than a strike. But if it changes along the path – he is trained and compelled to change along with it.

Our second umpire wants to know everything about the pitch; from the moment that it leaves the mound to the moment it arrives in the catchers glove. He wants to start drawing his conclusion immediately by lining up his observations in his mind to support his final conclusion. Whether it appears to be a curve ball or a fastball matters to him, because these types of pitches are predictable in how they behave. Their predictability brings a level of certainty as to where they where will likely end up. Umpire two does not judge pitches – he recognizes them. He calls them as they are.

If there were a margin of error for this umpire, he would tell you that it exists only in not knowing all of the facts, or perhaps having certain facts that cannot be validated with any level of certainty. Maybe he closed his eyes for a second, or perhaps looked away at the moment the pitch crossed the plate. To deal with these missing facts, he uses deductive reasoning based on all the other facts that he has observed and for which he is certain. He is completely comfortable with the paradigm that conclusions necessarily follow from their premises.

By solemnly declaring that he call pitches as they are, he feels immune to debate and in fact is offended by those who question his call. Umpire two, through his paradigm, places himself in the self-righteous and enviable position of being correct without question. He would tell you that his call is not a judgment; a matter of opinion as Umpire One’s is. His call is a matter of fact, a simple reporting of the event.

The third Umpire, having been around the longest, professes his wisdom based solely on the paradigm that he alone is in control of the call. Regardless of what the pitch actually is or isn’t, it doesn’t take shape until he reports it, and only then does it become “truth” to the audience who hears him declare it for the first time.

If it’s a close call, that could go either way, he knows that when he declares it one side will be happy while the other will be angered. Umpire three enjoys controversy, and at times he might even fudge a close call in order to satisfy a greater objective.

He may give a close call to the batter, to make the game more exciting – or take one from him if the team is already suffering a merciless beating. Umpire three knows that all things are subject to interpretation. He is not dishonest; he just realizes that the truth is transcendent, an intangible conclusion based completely upon the interpretation of events. Baseball is not a reasoned game; it is an emotional one – with both sides hollering slurs and comments at the umpire based upon their own special interests. Being called blind, and being told that he just called a great by two different people watching the exact same game no longer confuses umpire three, he has come to expect it. He is in charge of the game and all eyes are upon him. He constructs the truth with every call he makes; the pitch ain’t nothing till he calls it.

_________________
RRB
Okay,who stopped payment on my reality check?

Wow- This just in from the PERF news clipping service. Good timing to help validate my points.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/6229 ... ewers.html

_________________
RRB
Okay,who stopped payment on my reality check?

Thank you Roy for such an educational post. None of us could have really imagined the finer points you elucidate…though many might have taught they knew. A common problem.

1.

I think some of us reading this might have experienced what you write here, and possibly in retrospect will tend to deny it.

2.

Can't wait for the book to come out. But how to specifically develop a protective response action [after the fact] with the mind in a state of shock and vulnerable to skilled interrogators while in the confine of a small room designed to terrify the 'winner'…with possibly recording devices and cameras catching every tone, demeanor, attitude on display?

As you indicate, in such a mind state we won't even be aware of what we are saying/doing…how to program the primal brain to 'self protect' against that insidious enemy?

[ I had such a situation with a client driving a bus killing a pick up truck driver as it blew a red light…the police report reflected our client having told the police at the scene….that he was doing 25mph…and that in order to avoid the accident….when he first saw the pickup entering the intersection 25 feet away…he unbuckled his seat belt…got up from his seat and ran towards the back of the bus…reaching half way there…when the impact occurred…the front end of the bus smashing into the driver's door of the pickup….thankfully…at a probable cause hearing…the magistrate tossed the case out…and chided the police for having charged the driver with vehicular homicide./

When I interviewed the driver he denied having made such ridiculous statements…until I showed him the police report]

~~

As in the video…does the police have the right to keep you 'prisoner' in that room for hours on end, even after if you have told them you will not answer any questions until properly rested and in the presence of your attorney?

What if you have a medical condition that requires medication at certain intervals of time and or complaints of not feeling well and you ask to be sent to the hospital?

What would the police do and what would be their potential liabilities on this?

_________________
Van

The most important thing to develop is a reflexive action to not answer any questions or make any statements at all. That is, not until an attorney is present. If you don't have an attorney's phone number AND after-hours number in your phone, stop reading this and get one NOW. You need to have an attorney who is a phone call away or you will be tempted to talk to police. In critical moments it will seem easier to do that - remember human nature is to help, and the officer will tell you that he needs your help. He will also convince you that talking to him is a good thing right now and every moment of delay just makes it get worse. Remember that he is eager to conclude this case and get on to the next one. For him, it is a job. For you it is your life. During the Lopes case, the investigator spoke with me outside of the courtroom. He got was the one who got Lopes to "confess" but reflected on it by saying, "You know, I feel bad for the poor bastard." This investigator is an honest, upright, professional cop who knew that Lopes used force to defend himself. But it wasn't his job to defend Lopes. That is an attorney's job and Mr. Lopes didn't have one at that moment.

Do yourself a favor and avoid the hassle of finding an attorney under dire circumstances. You don't need to pay him now, but find one who specializes in criminal defense and get his number in your phone. If you can take a day to go meet him--even better. Don't fall for the retainer pitch, it isn't necessary. Attorney's are eager for work just like the rest of us. Most will take your call and assist you . It isn't a bad idea, regardless of your socio-economic status to begin building a modest defense account. You'll need to have at least enough money for the original meeting--think around several hundred to one thousand dollars. If you are going to get a court ordered attorney because of indigency, he will be assigned to you by the court later (another Constitutional right). Your biggest problems are going to happen within the first several hours of a use of self-defense and you are going to have to supply your own legal counsel to shield you.

If after a use of self-defense, particularly when you may have had to take a life and are now confronted by law enforcement you must immediately say "I WANT AN ATTORNEY" repeat it to youself over and over,"I WANT AN ATTORNEY!"

This puts the officer on notice that you have invoked a guaranteed Constitutional right and any statements after that are not admissible against you in court. If you are asked to go on video and give a statement--even better. Agree to the request. Wait until the investigator finishes with the preliminaries. He will start with the basics, tell you who he is and what he is investigating. He will then make a record of who is in the room. He might have you introduce yourself to the camera by saying and spelling your name. He will then read you your rights per MIRANDA. As soon as he is finished he will say to you, do you want to tell me what happened? This is your big moment! Turn your head to the camera and look into the lens. Then say loudly and surely "I WANT AN ATTORNEY."

Know however that if you make extemporaneous or spontaneous comments or utterances that might incriminate you, these are all admissible. This is no time to get on a phone at the police department and tell your mother what you have done. Nothing in a police department, jail or prison is secret (unless an attorney is with you). These statements can and will be used against you. If you are in the police station, you must remain silent. If your attorney arrives and you are provided an opportunity to consult with him you wil be given a private room where you can speak freely. This interview is protected and can not be used against you under the attorney/client privilege.

Under most circumstances, attorney's will advise you to not speak with the police, but remember, self-defense is not illegal. If your story is a clear representation of the facts as you recall them, and it clearly shows you were defending yourself, the attorney may advise you to conduct an interview with him present. This is a gamble of course, but one that may be worth taking if your statement is powerful enough to convince the investigating officer to not pursue charges. Having your attorney there during the interview will force you to be kept on a short leash and you will need that.

You are NOT trying to be uncooperative. Your behavior does matter. Don't be angry with law enforcement. Don't curse the system and don't be a jackass. Like any other of life's unexpected consequences, you are going to have to deal with the process and manage it appropriately. You can't just go home, and it is not just going to go away. You are gong to be there awhile, accept it and calm down. On a positive note, chances are you will be treated very nicely--that's one of the interview tactics police use to make you feel comfortable and more encouraged to talk. Appreciate the sentiment but don't get lulled in to the imaginary comfort zone and start believing it's real. Ask for a pad and paper so you can make your own notes of what is going on around you, record statements that police make. If they are rude, unprofessional or threatening, write it down. If you aren't given a writing tool under the guise that you might use it for a weapon, request a crayon. If you are still refused. Make mental notes and record them as soon as your attorney arrives.

Cooperate fully. Tell your attorney to speak with the officer. Have him inform the investigator that you just experienced a life and death incident and you need some time to gather your thoughts. Your attorney can elaborate on fight/flight phenomena if they are properly schooled. Make sure the officer knows that you want to cooperate fully and are just as eager to resolve this circumstance. You can state that whatever you did or might have done (cause you don't always remember under stress) was done in an act of self-protection. This begins the process of an affirmative defense for which good investigators will pick up on. This will help to influence the possibility that the officer will make a fair review of the facts in light of your claim.

If you don't agree to be interviewed at that moment, chances are that you are going to jail. What else can a cop do with a "might-be" murderer? This is why I think that some attorneys will roll the dice and let you speak. Just make sure that you give it at least one night of sleep ( I know it might not be too restful in a jail cell). You might think you are in charge of your faculties, but you might also think that when you are drinking. When the neocortex is not fully functioning, things aren't as they seem.

If you have a medical need --officers are obligated to oblige your request for assistance. They will likely call an EMT who will make the determination of whether you need to go to the hospital or not. If you need meds, this will likely be taken up with the jail staff once delivered there, who will refer you to the medical section once you have been processed through booking.

Failure to provide you medical attention is a violation of a Constitutional right and is actionable under Federal Tort Law. Most officers know the problems that Civil lawsuits bring and are programmed at the academy to avoid them when possible.

These are all great questions Van and I appreciate you asking!

_________________
RRB
Okay,who stopped payment on my reality check?