Double Standard: Why Do Police Officers Involved in a Shooting Get a ‘Cooling Off’ Period Before Being Questioned?

Fort Worth Police Shooting Atatiana Jefferson

Courtesy Fort Worth Police Department

By Lisa Marie Payne, Associated Press

After a police officer fatally shoots someone, it can take days or even weeks before the public or his supervisors hear the officer’s version of what happened.

In many states, that so-called cooling off period is carved out in state law or in a police department’s contract. That opportunity to take some time before undergoing questioning by investigators angers community activists and others seeking reforms of police departments around the country who believe it gives officers time to reshape their story to justify a shooting and avoid getting fired or charged. Law enforcement officials and experts say officers need to be able to collect their thoughts, so they don’t provide details that are tainted by the trauma of the shooting.

Atatiana Jefferson Fort Worth Police Shooting

A large crowd of protesters gather outside the house, right, where Atatiana Jefferson was shot and killed by police. (Smiley N. Pool/The Dallas Morning News via AP)

Just the latest example arose in Fort Worth, Texas, where a police officer fatally shot a woman inside her home; before he could be compelled to undergo questioning, he resigned, making it even more difficult to find out what he was thinking, why he fired his gun — and some believe, to get justice.

“We laud police in this society as our protectors and purveyors of justice, and we hold them with such high regard, but when it comes to getting a statement when they have killed one of us, they are held to a lower standard than if we killed one of them,” said Pamela Young, lead organizer for the Tarrant County Coalition for Community Oversight in Michigan. “It’s nonsensical.”

More than a dozen states have what are called Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights carved into law. Other states, especially those with unions, have similar protections as part of negotiated contracts. The amount of time afforded officers before they are questioned varies — as short as 24 hours to up to two weeks.

The grace period dates back in most places to the 1970s and has periodically been questioned in police-use-of-force cases, with watchdogs and community activists considering it another example of the thin blue line rallying around one of its own. It’s difficult to say if the lag time has allowed officers to avoid arrest or conviction, especially because the courts grant police more leeway in using deadly force than the general public.

In Maryland, the first state to enact an Officers’ Bill of Rights, lawmakers in 2016 reduced the time from 10 days to five, and extended the period in which residents can file a complaint against police from 90 days to a year-plus-a-day. The changes came as part of a bill after the death of Freddie Gray, who was injured in a Baltimore Police Department van and later died, sparking riots.

Amber Guyger Police Shooting

courtesy Dallas Police Department

The issue of when officers involved in shootings must be questioned has arisen periodically. But amid all the reforms sought of police departments in recent years, it hasn’t been one that has garnered as much attention, until recently. It follows several high-profile police shootings, including one in Dallas, 30 miles from Fort Worth. That’s where a white police officer was recently convicted for fatally shooting an unarmed black neighbor after she said she mistook his apartment for hers; the department there gives officers 72 hours before they are questioned.

It’s unclear when Amber Guyger first talked to investigators about the September 2018 shooting, but she was eventually charged and is serving 10 years in prison after being convicted of murder this month.

Mohamed Noor, Peter Wold, Tom Plunkett

Mohamed Noor, center, accompanied by his legal team, Peter Wold, left, and Tom Plunkett, right. (AP Photo/Jim Mone)

In Minnesota, where an officer in July 2017 fatally shot an unarmed woman who had called 911 about a possible assault, the officer refused to talk to investigators and did not publicly discuss what happened until his trial. Mohamed Noor was convicted of third-degree murder and manslaughter and was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison.

Aaron Dean, the Fort Worth officer who shot 28-year-old Atatiana Jefferson inside her home last Saturday, did not talk to investigators before he resigned two days later and was charged with murder. His attorney, Jim Lane, declined to comment on Dean’s state of mind or his response to the allegations against him.

Bob Bennett, an attorney in Minnesota who represented the family of Justine Ruszczyk Damond, who was fatally shot by Noor, decried what he called special treatment being given officers. Not only are they given extra time before undergoing questioning, but often they are allowed to consult with a union representative or an attorney beforehand.

“A lot can be learned in five or six days and a lot can be polished and sanded,” Bennett said.

Law enforcement officials contend the grace period is critical after such traumatic events — and that officers are being given the same rights as any citizen to refuse to talk with investigators. Many point to research detailing the physiological and psychological toll that traumatic events have on the human body, and suggest the gap is important to ensure the officers are clear-headed and able to process what happened so they can more accurately describe what occurred.

“Of course the critics and the people who don’t trust the police say, ‘Yeah, they need time to get their story together,'” said Tom Manger, a retired police chief in Virginia and Maryland. “Having some time to calm down and get your thoughts together … oftentimes, you get clearer answers and better information.”

Bennett does not buy it, saying if it’s good enough for an officer, it should be fair to treat civilians the same way.

“Why are police, who are professionally trained to observe, to record material, to accurately and completely record all the material and facts of an incident, why are they excused from rendering their report and statement in the same timeframe as untrained, unprofessional witnesses are?”

Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents about 330,000 officers nationally, called the gap in time something available to the general public as well as officers.

“There are an awful lot of misconceptions. First of all, anyone who’s being interviewed by the police with the potential for being charged has a right to decline to say anything. The difference is that police officers at every level decline to testify at the peril of losing their jobs whether they’re guilty or innocent,” he said. “Police officers don’t give up their civil and constitutional rights at the police station door. …

“It isn’t like ‘Law & Order’ where they get into a shootout and then go out for a beer. It isn’t like that at all. These officers suffer sometimes for the rest of their lives just by virtue of being involved.”

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    Never talk to anyone after a shooting until you talk to your lawyer. Doesn’t matter if you’re a cop or another unsworn citizen.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Never talk to anyone after a shooting until you talk to your lawyer.”

      It is not the “talking” that is the major issue. It is the ride, cuffed, to the cop house that is reserved for the citizen only. Cops just turn-in their weapons, and go off shift until they are ready for questioning (as opposed to “interrogated”). Citizens can refuse to talk, but they can’t refuse “the ride”.

      1. avatar daveinwyo says:

        Exactly!
        And how many citizens have 24/7 access to a lawyer? Or even the money for one?
        And if it happens on Friday of a 3 day weekend? Forget a lawyer.
        After recent SCOTUS rulings re. “duty to act” LEO’s should get the same treatment that a citizen does.

        1. avatar James Campbell says:

          I do. 24/7/365 access to a lawyer (NOT an answering service, their # is answered by attorneys). It’s called Firearm Legal Protection. They post my bail, hand me a check for 1k (to cover the cost of my firearm taken as “evidence”, and actually pay my legal fees for all criminal and/or civil proceedings. Most coverage reimburses the legal expenses, not FLP. Not a bad deal for around $200 a year.
          Like they say, hope for the best, but prepare for the worst. Oh, and say NOTHING per advice of council.

        2. avatar Merle 0 says:

          200$ a year is actually less then police union dues.

        3. avatar James Campbell says:

          I researched all the coverage available in Texas and went with FLP. Well worth the premium.

        4. avatar arc says:

          I’ll keep FLP in mind, I plan on getting insurance eventually.

        5. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          I’m not saying FLP isn’t worthwhile, but FLP has limitations which may be important to you. We used to recommend FLP. We no longer do.

        6. avatar James Campbell says:

          Good point.
          The individual needs to decide which company provides the coverage best suited to their needs.

        7. avatar James Campbell says:

          I locked in the FLP $200 annual fee for life when I took my LTC class to legally carry in Texas. This deal was offered on the LTC course day ONLY, and the $200 price was for an impressive list of coverage…….

          Premium Individual

          Eligibility
          Multi-State Coverage

          Legal Resources

          Uncapped attorney fees for defense for criminal and civil cases
          24/7 emergency hotline
          Extreme Risk Protection Order Coverage
          Bail bond protection up to $250,000
          Expert witness/investigator fees
          Lost wages reimbursement
          Firearm confiscation payment
          Incident scene clean-up fee
          My FLP mobile app

          Even covers red flag legal fees, should that ever become a thing in Texas.

        8. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          Perhaps a comparison of the various firearm/carry/self defense insurances would be a good article for someone at TTAG. TTAG could do a separate article on each insurance and then a final one comparing them all.

        9. avatar James Campbell says:

          That would be an interesting TTAG article.
          The FLP app is indispensable when I road trip. I have my Texas LTC info loaded into the app, select a state on the US map, and the app provides all the details/laws/requirements for a Texas LTC Holder in that state. The first info displayed is requirements to identify during traffic stop, then info regarding conditiond and storage requirments for firearms, then a list of the CURRENT firearm laws in the state. This info is updated constantly, I’ve personally checked the app after law changes and they are usually updating the app within 24 hours. Current info at my fingertips is a huge plus. When I first got FLP and saw an app was included, I thought oh, an app, ho-hum, but now I find the app is awesome. Current info takes away that unsure feeling when you get pulled over with firearms in your vehicle.

    2. avatar John Parker says:

      “Why I will never talk to any police officer” by James Duane, Regent Law School professor and former defense attorney

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

      1) There is no way it will help.
      2) You may admit your guilt with no benefit in return.
      3) You can easily make a mistake in your statements and be penalized for it.
      4) You can give away information that can be used to convict you.
      5) Your statements can be used against you if police don’t recall your statements with 100% accuracy.
      6) Your statements can be used against you if police don’t recall their questions with 100% accuracy.

  2. avatar Merle 0 says:

    Well, we don’t have to answer any questions immediately after defending ourselves either. If you don’t want to talk to police or investigators after, then don’t. It’s pretty clearly outlined in the 5th amendment.

    1. avatar Jonathan-Houston says:

      That’s specious. An officer surrounded by supportive officers, with a union lawyer immediately by his side, with the legal deck stacked in his favor (see U.S.S.C case Graham v. Connor, for example) and statutory immunity from questioning for days or weeks after a shooting is nowhere near the same thing as an everyday citizen, terrified after the shooting and now facing a phalanx of homicide detectives.

      Plenty of such people will be desperate to clear their name and talk to the police, having had no advice otherwise as to the recklessness of speaking to investigators promptly or without an attorney. Plenty of those people will talk themselves into a conviction, or at least an expensive trial, as a result. No way that’s the same set of circumstances facing an officer, such that John Q. Citizen can easily just decline to be “interviewed.”

      1. avatar Merle 0 says:

        Yeah and it’s never gonna be an equal playing field. You’re never going to be able to get rid of police and your never going to have a perfect justice system. But you can learn to take some personal responsibility and learn your rights and learn how to conduct yourself in the face of the law. I’ve personally done it before.

      2. avatar Rad Man says:

        Some of the most difficult defense cases I handled were because people would not exercise their right to remain silent. If you identify yourself honestly and accurately and then have the discipline to shut up in the face of questioning, you’re in excellent shape moving forward. You WILL NOT be able to explain your way out of anything – so don’t try.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          The best explanation I’ve given…

          If a cop has probable cause to arrest you, they’ll arrest you. No amount of talking will get you out of that room.
          If a cop doesn’t have probable cause to arrest you, they only thing you can to by talking is give them said probable cause.

          Either way, once you ID yourself, shut the fuck up and let your lawyer do the talking. That’s why you’re paying his ass.

        2. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          “Either way, once you ID yourself, shut the fuck up and let your lawyer do the talking.”

          Wouldn’t identifying yourself, and saying only that you were attacked and would like to sign a complaint after you have talked to your lawyer be a bit smarter?

          Some in here have mentioned that being the first to sign that complaint goes a *long* ways in establishing who is the actual victim is in some jurisdictions…

        3. avatar DJ says:

          I thought he was going to kill me, over and over. To everyone.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        If you don’t know your rights even after being read them verbatim it’s your fault, not the system’s.

  3. avatar Topher says:

    It’s called a Union.

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      Police unions and Black Lives Matter are perfect mirror images of each other.

      Both exist to protect violent felons from the consequences of their actions.

      1. avatar Ted Unlis says:

        And old homecoming weekend for the Robert Farago Cop Haters Club here at TTAG flames on as yet another instantly recognizable moron from back in the day chomps down on the bait. Absolutely hilarious!

        1. avatar Chris Morton says:

          And as usual, there isn’t even an ATTEMPT to refute what was said.

          Black Lives Matter and police unions are both dedicated to ensuring that violent sociopaths are unaccountable for their crimes.

      2. avatar Ted Unlis says:

        RFCHC homecoming weekend here at TTAG hates on as another recognizable moron from back in the day chomps down on the bait. Absolutely hilarious!

  4. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Pfffftttttt !! Blow it out your barracks bag.

    Yes, anyone can refuse to talk to investigators. However, citizens involved in a shooting are taken immediately to the cop house for intimidating questioning. Citizens don’t get to wait to do the interrogation room.

    If police believe a citizen is a suspect, that person is cuffed and driven off in the back seat of a cop car. Does this happen to a cop? Or do cops get to go home and “chill”? How often do cops name other cops as “suspects”, cuff them and drive them to interrogation in a police-involved-shooting?

    And, where are all the pro-2A organizations demanding “sensitive” police treatment after a shooting be eliminated? Where are they demanding armed citizens have the exact same treatment as police involved in a shooting?

    1. avatar Chris Morton says:

      Look at how Officer Anthony Abbate was treated after the 300lb. cop tried to stomp a 100lb. barmaid to death.

      He was allowed to hide out in “rehab” for DAYS, then arrested WITHOUT being cuffed.

      He was protected by other cops from public and media scrutiny during his court appearances.

      “If you’re not cop, you’re little people.” – From the movie “Blade Runner”

    2. avatar Merle 0 says:

      Eh, I think this article is just click bait. It appears to me at least, you and this article are painting a picture of us being helpless at the hands of all powerful police. We’re not. I’ve been cuffed and hauled off to jail before. I was cleared of all charges and I now work in the criminal justice field. (Administrative). It’s not exactly pleasant but it’s not exactly like the movies either. As I noted below if police are such a concern there’s training you can get and studying you can do to counter the stresses of interrogation.

    3. avatar Hannibal says:

      “I don’t want to answer any questions until I speak to my lawyer” is game over. You may still be arrested, but no answers you give may be admissible if you have invoked and are still questioned.

      And the very same thing applies to police. You don’t think someone who shows up on a shooting scene isn’t going to ask “what the hell happened?” The statutory restrictions are about mandatory questioning: in other words, answer our questions or you’re fired. These are issues you do not face when you can stay silent from the moment of shooting on.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        answer our questions or you’re fired.

        You are armed agents of the state (or State) pretty much licensed to kill. It is a part of your employment that you agreed to. Don’t like it, take calculus and physics and become an engineer.

        1. avatar Matt(TX>NM) says:

          @Danny Griffin “We used to recommend FLP. We no longer do.”

          I would like to know more, please?

  5. avatar RGP says:

    Technically their standard for themselves is lower than the standard that would be applied to an ordinary citizen who accidentally speedbumped a homeless guy in a black suit at night on a blacktop road in the rain.

    1. avatar Hannibal says:

      If you speedbump someone in the rain you have the absolute right to remain silent. You want a 72 cooling off period where you don’t have to answer questions or be punished by the state? Okay, good job, you already have that, it’s called the 5th Amendment.

      1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

        Will a cop be in jail during those 72 hours? Will I be in jail those 72 hours?

        1. avatar Jordan says:

          You both will…just on different sides of the cell.

  6. Because their police union negotiated a contract with their employer to give them the time. They know that memory of an event is supposed to be better after 72 hours or two sleep cycles. That is what they know and do and most people have no idea about.

    If involved in a self defense shooting, give the police the bear essentials, such as your name, address, etc., point out any witnesses, point out any evidence that needs collecting, and (if true) state your were forced to shoot because you were in imminent fear that you (or a 3rd person) was about to be killed or very seriously injured. Then politely invoke your right to an attorney and state you are invoking your right to remain silent. Then don’t give a complete statement until you have consulted with a decent attorney and let at least 72 hours pass. If threatened with arrest, better to spend a night in jail than decades in the penitentiary. I presided over a dozen self-defense/murder trials over 18 years and jurors want to acquit the decent defendant, but you have to help them out by not spilling your guts to the police or to 911.

    1. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      What union/club can we join to get the same treatment? How do some people get bumps and bruises after that ride to the station? So the cops might lose their jobs? Regular people lose their jobs if they’re not even a suspect, just a rumor of being one.
      See the 84yr old retired cop who lost all his guns when a waitress overhear him talking about lax school safety? It’s at the BearingArms site.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        You don’t have to, you already have those rights and much more. Stop whining about stuff you saw on “The Shield”.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yo, your learned judgeness! That would be “bare” essentials.

    3. avatar Adub says:

      I appreciate you posting here. Having a retired judge with real experience cuts through the crap posted by armchair experts.

  7. avatar MLee says:

    Well yeah but…..”“There are an awful lot of misconceptions. First of all, anyone who’s being interviewed by the police with the potential for being charged has a right to decline to say anything. The difference is that police officers at every level decline to testify at the peril of losing their jobs whether they’re guilty or innocent,” he said. “Police officers don’t give up their civil and constitutional rights at the police station door.

    The only problem that bullshit line…police are trained to get a person to talk BEFORE they can get a story together and BEFORE they have the presence of mind to lawyer up. If anyone here is involved in a defensive gun use and won’t talk to police emmediately, it’s almost a sure thing they will be saying stuff like, “Well we have no choice to put you in jail unless you start talking right now!!

    Remember, cops can lie and do lie, but you can’t lie to the police.

    I know if I’m involved in a DGU, all I’m saying is I had fear for my safety. The cops can put the facts together without me.

    1. avatar Merle 0 says:

      You can get training on how to talk to the police, too. I’m not arguing devils advocate here, but I am arguing against the notion we’re all helpless in the face of police power. You can declassified CIA manuals on human manipulation, which I have done, you can also study up on certain aspects of SEREs training, you can study up on police questioning tactics themselves, none of that is secret information. All of which give you the tools to get yourself to the point where the lawyer gets there. Those kinds of tools will help if your ever kidnapped, too.

      1. avatar Chris Morton says:

        If you assume a cop is lying to you, you can’t go too far wrong.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “You can get training on how to talk to the police, too”

        And just why should that be necessary? First, we are admonished not to talk to police, then told to learn how to talk to police.

        The issue isn’t talking, or not talking. The entire issue, and the only issue, is that cops are treated differently after an involved shooting than are the citizenry (non-cops). There is no tactical, moral, or justice underpinning for such differential treatment. Only that cops, and their political masters can get away with it.

        1. avatar Merle 0 says:

          “And just why should that be necessary?”

          Because we live in the real world. Personally, based on my first hand experience with the system, I in fact would talk to the police. But I bring up that it is right not to, and you can train yourself how to “not talk”, because it’s not as simple as thinking “oh I just won’t talk.” I’m not saying you should try to play mind games, either. When you are held captive by someone and have no power, be it police or criminal, your best course of action is to try to befriend your captors. Now, this is getting a little too intense for this particular issue because all YOU have to do is not say anything incriminating until your lawyer gets there. But I will tell you this, it’s harder for anyone to hurt or be mean to someone who’s friendly to them. I’ve seen police, guards, and investigators get befriended and manipulated by criminals. They all did it by becoming friends with the guy first.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          “You can get training on how to talk to the police, too”

          And just why should that be necessary?

          Because law enforcement in this country is corrupt, from the little podunk towns who mess with drivers traveling through their town/state to large agencies who’ve had to be taken over by the .gov for incompetency and abuse of citizen’s rights. It’s systemic. This includes the FBI, it’s not just states.

      3. avatar Gordon in MO says:

        I have been to several self defense classes where both lawyers and police officers were instructors.

        They all, including police officers, said to identify yourself, establish that you were the victim and then request to speak with a lawyer.

        It is too easy to say something you think is innoclous that will be construed as incriminating and have to be defended in court.

      4. avatar Hush says:

        “training you can get and studying you can do to counter the stresses of interrogation.”
        As a citizen who pays taxes that pay police salaries, why should I as a citizen have to spend money and time to acquire training that will help me deal with them? Since they are the paid employees seems to me they should learn how to deal with citizens in a dignified way!

    2. avatar Victoria Illinois says:

      The towns pay for that ” mistake”. That means you, taxpayer is paying.

  8. avatar Biatec says:

    Policing is a job. That’s why it’s different. it is a different standard. There are positive and negative aspects to being a cop.

    I find it irritating when people talk about police reform without saying what they mean. I find it is often like talking about gun reform. They have no idea what they are talking about and often will just support what ever bill is proposed by anyone.

    No one is required to talk to investigators ever. This article really does not make sense. You point out bad shootings like they are not going to go on trial for them.

    The only thing I can think of is better training and pushing out lazy, unfit and jumpy recruits. How ever there will always be bad or incompetent cops just like there is for any other job.

    1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      “Policing is a job. That’s why it’s different. it is a different standard”
      I agree that it is a job, and that it is different [from a non-LEO] and that LEO MUST be held to a different standard – a higher standard. Since it is a job, I think I read, “Professional Law Enforcement,” on the side of more than one Ford Police Interceptor, society should expect and the governing bodies should ensure a very high level of training and a very high intolerance to incompetence. Thus, holding LEO to a higher standard than those who are not professionals and do not have the benefits of training at a professional level is the only logical conclusion.
      Do we not hold licensed professionals to a higher standard than the general public?

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        That was my point. Training and pushing out bad recruits. How ever we can’t just make new laws to change that. People who want to change things have to join the force, become police chiefs and get into administrative positions.

        Right now people are all saying more training. What does that mean? I know lots of brilliant trainers who I would trust my life to and want everyone to be trained by. That is not actually that common. It’s the same issue with lots of other fields. Idiots in high places teaching other idiots to be idiots.

        no one making laws knows anything about the subject either. on top of that you have people advocating disarming police, (demilitirizng them) wanting them to not dress in body armor and new rules that don’t make any sense for when it’s okay to shoot.

        Still this article does not make sense though and you didn’t clarify it in anyway. It’s asking the impossible to get rid of bad cops. When you say a higher standard you are not specific in any way either. I still don’t see unfair treatment either.

        1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          A simple example, in even the worst case, is to bring out “the manual” and to bring out “experts” to create a ruler against which to measure the actions in question. It happens all the time in regular professional liability lawsuits. As in everything else, it is 2020 hindsight, but at least some, less than perfect but uniform, standard of accountability emerges. Having been on both sides of the aisle in court, I recognize our imperfect legal system for what it is, but it is better than many.

        2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          People who want to change things have to join the force, become police chiefs and get into administrative positions.

          LOL. The Chicago chief of police was just found passed out drunk on the side of the road. The CPD is covering up for him.

          Right now people are all saying more training. What does that mean?

          How long do you have to go to school to become a barber or hair stylist. Someone recently wrote that their wife had to go to school for two years to be licensed to cut and perm women’s hair. But he, a cop, went to the academy for a few months (6) and now has the power over life and death. Even he said it is messed up.

          What about, for a start, we make the police academy at least two years long. Maybe four like a regular bachelor’s degree, but at least two years. The person who wants to be a cop enrolls and pays for their own school just like nurses and engineers and English majors do for college/university. Then when they graduate they try to find a job just like every other graduate.

          I get the feeling that an awful lot of cops got into policing because they didn’t know what to do in life and they didn’t have to pay for school. Yeah, I know there is a tiny minority who actually went to university and got a four year CJ degree first, but come on, how many? 1%?

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Policing is a job. That’s why it’s different…”

      That’s it? That’s your justification for dissimilar treatment of suspects in a shooting? I have a job, why am I not afforded the necessary time to get my head straight before being interrogated?

      A gun is a gun. A shooter is a shooter. A bullet is a bullet. A shooting is a shooting. And a suspect is a suspect, uniform or not.

      1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        “The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America…The Constitution’s first three words—We the People—affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens.”

      2. avatar Biatec says:

        Neither of you are making any sense and you take the smallest unimportant part of what i said and ignore the rest.

      3. avatar Hannibal says:

        Because you aren’t going to a stranger’s house at 1AM when they call 911 to try and save them from their ex breaking down the door.

        If you and enough other people to agree to do that instead we won’t need cops. Maybe set up a phone tree or something. But until then, it matters. There are only so many people qualified and willing to work for a department that pays them barely enough to get by (some states) or where they’ll get thrown under the bus (“Ferguson police can’t hire enough officers two years after Michael Brown’s shooting death”). And for some reason people get upset when they call 911 and nobody comes.

        1. avatar daveinwyo says:

          There is one difference in LEO’s that most seem to be missing.
          City police are not the same as a sheriff.
          The city police are “led” by an appointed chief, sheriff’s are elected.
          Sheriff deputies tend to be more citizen oriented, where as city police are more “politically” oriented. Having had dealings with both I, personally, have little use for city cops.
          I have trained with both, and both have some a holes, but city police tend to be more CYA , and a little more us vs them.
          Still, all the above comments seem to come from city, or near city dwellers.
          Living out in the sticks with a 45-60 minute show time is preferable in some cases, but deadly in other cases. And out here lawyers are not “on call” 24/7. We have 4 in the county, and only one is a criminal lawyer.
          But we do have a nice jail.

        2. avatar Live in St. Louis says:

          Ferguson is doing just fine and had plenty of officers..hell I want to be sponsored so I can become an officer without having to pay out of pocket or quit my job which st.louis county requires you to do. Or go to St.charles police academy which cost $5800. Which is money that’s hard to come by with a wife and two kids and a home.

  9. avatar HEGEMON says:

    The police represent the state. The state has sovereign immunity. The police or agent of the state has limited sovereign immunity. That’s basically it in a nutshell. Since the common man enjoys neither, he must refrain from talking until he has his counsel after a shooting. Yes, you will be handcuffed, booked, and possibly charged with a crime. Just keep your mouth shut, even if you’re righteous in your actions.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The police represent the state. The state has sovereign immunity. The police or agent of the state has limited sovereign immunity. That’s basically it in a nutshell.”

      And there you have it; complete misunderstanding who the real sovereign is: “we the people”. The state does not exist without the permission of the sovereign people. The police do not exist without the permission of the sovereign people. Both are servants of and to the sovereign people.

      What you have presented is the basic underpinning of an authoritarian society: people exist to serve the state, and are otherwise non-persons.

  10. avatar Texas Law says:

    The difference between cops and citizens is the fact that they can be compelled by the to make at statement or the will suffered a negative consequence – loss of their job.

    Pursuant to the 5th Amendment, Joe Citizen can never be compelled by the state to say anything to the cops.

    Essentially, after the “cooling off” period, cops have no choice but to make a statement.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Sure they do. Aaron Dean refused to make a statement. He totally refused to cooperate with the FWPD.

      1. avatar Jared says:

        That’s actually incorrect Dan. There are what are called Garrity hearings (Garrity v New Jersey). They are compelled administrative inquiries where the questions have to be answered; however, they can not be used against you criminally.

        There are some (not many) agencies like the Port Authority of NY/NJ Police where they do not have to do administrative hearings; however, almost all other agencies do.

        Most people outside of law enforcement are completely unaware of Garrity or Kalkines.

        1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

          Jared, I know what Garrity hearings are. I was just responding to the statement “cops have no choice but to make a statement.” Obviously they do, Dean refused.

      2. avatar Ted Unlis says:

        Which proves Aaron Dean knew all too well there was no explanation or justification for shooting through through a glass window and killing a lawfully armed resident who was reasonably reacting to what she perceived as a burglar but was actually Officer Dean’s incompetent [email protected]$$ prowling around in her privacy fenced back yard at 2:30AM in violation of departmental policy after he negligently made no attempt to make contact with the residents by simply knocking or ringing the doorbell at the front door of the residence which was secured by a closed and locked storm door on a welfare check call he had no reason to treat as high risk. Dean quit FWPD just ahead of being fired and arrested for murder.

        Interesting that even when not a single LEO defends an idiot like Aaron Dean, and even though a top notch professional LE agency like Fort Worth PD obtains a murder warrant on one of their own in record time, it’s still not enough for shallow cop haters like Danny Boy.

      3. avatar Tex Law says:

        If he was always going to take the 5th, then the law/rule makes no difference. He would never have made a statement. The only time it makes a difference is when the cop is forced to make a statement b/c of his job.

        If cops could be forced to make a statement (at the risk of losing their job), the statement might not be admissible in any criminal proceedings.

  11. avatar TommyJay says:

    In Judge Rusty’s excellent comment, he claims that some evidence exists showing that one’s memory of a traumatic event gets better over 73 hours. Well, OK. I’d have guessed 24 hrs., but let’s call it 48 hrs. Shouldn’t we have a law that says that the officer must file a detailed police report of the incident within 48 hrs., or the failure to do so can be used against him or her in court, as well as cause for termination?

    Is “Protect and Serve” really meaningful, or is it just a BS slogan?

  12. avatar Michael in AK says:

    When you have a profession full of mouth breathers, you have to g8ve them time to form sentences.

  13. avatar Former PA LEO says:

    This was drilled into us, every year, at continuing education and legal updates.

    1. Always, after a shooting, go to the hospital for heart, chest, or other pain. You’re probably in shock anyway.
    2. Say nothing to anyone.
    3. Always call your lawyer, or union rep/lawyer.
    4. The lawyer will be at the hospital by the time you get there.
    5. The lawyer will not let anyone talk to you for at least 24 hours and ideally 48 hours.
    6. Lots of evidence, video, and other crap is discovered in 48 hours. It’s beneficial to wait before saying or
    doing anything.
    7. In that time your lawyer is going to go over stuff with you dozens of time. By that time it will be clear that you shoot was good or you’re in a lot of trouble.

    Our annual classes were taught by retired state police investigators, these guys would brag that they investigated
    23 officer involved shootings and never had a finding against and officer. They were coaching you how to
    make your shoot solid.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Enough said.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        And face it, a citizen could get a lot (but not all) of that advantage if they threw a *lot* of money at it. Very few can afford to throw a few hundred thousand dollars at getting that kind of representation…

    2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Apparently none of that is even needed now. Amber Guyger wasn’t even on duty. She murdered a man in his own house and in the aftermath she was treated better than someone who coughed in public without covering his or her mouth.

    3. avatar Ted Unlis says:

      What a crock of $#it. If you actually were ever a LEO in PA, it’s easy to see why you’re now “former”. It’s not at all uncommon for “former” bad cops who got their @$$ run off or fired for incompetence, corruption, or both, to lie their @$$ of out of spite. It’s just as likely you have no LE background whatsoever and are instead just another lying cop hater pitching your bull$#it cop hating “former LEO” fairytale to the irrelevant minority of cop haters drawn to TTAG during this ridiculous Robert Farago Cop Hating Club homecoming weekend.

      1. avatar Chris Morton says:

        Please tell everyone how Carolina Obrycka “had it coming” because she’s an “illegal alien” and “put her hands on” Tony Abbate.

        While you’re at it, tell everybody how Kathryn Johnston was a “drug dealer” and “attempted cop killer”.

  14. avatar Head Wound Harry says:

    Let me give you a point of perspective from the other side of the fence…I am a Homicide detective in a VERY busy jurisdiction. We have had 106 Homicides this year so far. Now, I use the word Homicide because it refers to the killing if a human being by another human being. A Homicide can be deemed justified OR unjustified. If it is deemed justified, you go home. If it is deemed unjustified, then it becomes a Murder. I cannot tell you how many people I have interviewed over the last 10 years who were perfectly justified in their defensive gun use. If they lawyered up, good for them, they were probably going home that night anyway. If they decided to talk to me, I got their statement about what happened, compared it to the evidence and witness statements. If it was legit, then I pat you on the back, give you my business card and walk you to the elevator. That’s probably the last time you’ll hear from us. 99.9% of the time, the DA’s office goes along with our findings. So, you probably WANT to talk to me IF YOU KNOW your defensive gun use was legit. I cannot help how you are treated by uniform officers after a defensive gun use. They do not know you or your frame of mind. On the street, it’s cuff and stuff until they contact Homicide to come out and figure out what happened. I also cannot control if you live/work in a small jurisdiction that has little to no experience dealing with homicides, murders or defensive gun use. Stop thinking of the police as your enemy. If your shooting was legit and you know it then you have nothing to be scared of except a little rough handling by uniform. If it was not legit, then by all means lawyer up. It makes no difference to me. By the time I talk to you, I already know what happened, have probably viewed video from two or three different sources, spoke with witnesses and have a warm and fuzzy whether it was legit or not. I have enough work to do with dope boys killing dope boys, shootings, stabbings, and countless other things we handle. I’m not looking to railroad anybody and make my case load even bigger.

    1. avatar Merle 0 says:

      Spot on. I’ve worked with a couple detectives and theyve shared the same sentiment. Maybe it’s just being in the south, but I’ve had a number of detectives and police Truly cheer on defensive shootings and thank them for helping out.

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      One more time, with feeling….

      It is not about talk/don’t talk (but I see what you tried to do there with your invitation to convict ourselves out of ignorance), but about differential treatment. When a cop is involved in a shooting, that cop should be cuffed, placed in a cop car and taken directly to interrogation. From there, the cop, like any other citizen can assert constitutional rights, and take their chances like the rest of us.

      1. avatar Merle 0 says:

        And what I keep arguing with you about is reality. That’s never going to fly in reality and to think so is laughable. The world isn’t perfect and neither is the justice system in this country. But it’s far better then the vast majority of places, and there are rights you do have and tools you can use to your advantage. Maybe I’m too jaded or just too much of a realist For the libertarian mindset of no police or handcuffed police but again, I’d rather tell people the ugly truth and tell them how to deal with it.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Reality” is that the situation is unjust, and expressing an opinion about unjust acts, or conditions does not ignore reality. If the only way to deal with “reality” is just accept it without comment, and move on, are we not a sad lot?

          It is “reality” that some people claim themselves to be special cases because they want to be a special case. It is incumbent on others on this forum to point out to such persons that they are not special, at all. If a challenge causes these special persons to reflect on their condition, and make appropriate changes, that is all to the good. If a challenge causes these special persons to never return to the forum, even better.

        2. avatar Merle 0 says:

          You seem pretty full of yourself. Look, we can argue the different concepts of reality until we’re blue in the face, but my overall point against your opinion is that your opinion in fanciful. You can claim well it shouldn’t be that way and what not, but it is. What I’m trying to do is tell people their not helpless and hopeless because it’s a reoccurring theme on this blog that police have this godlike power that you are helpless against, and quite frankly I think it hurts the overall cause of gun rights because it scares people into not carrying.

    3. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      Richard Jewell.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        A shame he didn’t live long enough to enjoy some of the compensation he got for being treated as he was…

        1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

          Clint Eastwood has movie coming out December 13 about Richard Jewell.

          Being Eastwood, it ought to be a decent portrayal…

      2. avatar Chris Morton says:

        and Kathryn Johnston.

    4. avatar Hannibal says:

      While I agree with you I think it’s hard for regular folks to be able to differentiate between someone trying to legit figure out the situation and someone trying to get incriminating statements. I’ll say that there are certain places where I would be very hesitant to advise people to talk to the police before an attorney after a shooting. DC, NYC, Baltimore come to mind.

      1. avatar Flying Fish says:

        Would probably add Miami Metro area to that list.

    5. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Stop thinking of the police as your enemy.

      LOL. I just watched a video today of a cop who arrested someone for putting his foot in the gutter/off the curb. The charge was pedestrian in the street. I also just watched a video today of dozens of cops who arrested a handful of car owners and charged them with reckless driving, etc. Out of county, no witnesses, not even the cops themselves, etc. Some were probably speeding, but many were not and it was provable by all the video cameras that were taken without warrants by the cops. Corrupt judge. Even though the prosecutor said, “hey, wait a minute, this isn’t right.” Cost them $30,000.

      So it doesn’t matter if you are an entire SWAT team in Colorado who raid the wrong house and conspire to frame the innocent victims (I thought only 1% or 5% or maybe 10% at the most were corrupt, it seems we never see that in real life. Entire squads are corrupt and cover for each other or entire departments are corrupt).

      What happened when one, lone Florida LEO stopped and gave a ticket to another Florida LEO? She was threatened and surveilled by other Florida LEOs from multiple agencies.

      Good cops have openly stated that they can’t speak out about bad cops because they will be abandoned on an officer needs assistance call. So they become bad cops for covering up for the bad cops.

      Chicago cops are advocating that officers slow roll and basically ignore calls because no one likes them.

      Yes, the police are our enemy until proven otherwise.

      1. avatar Chris Morton says:

        The “good cops” in Chicago solidly lined up behind woman beater Tony Abbate.

        If the cops aren’t the “enemy”, they should stop ACTING like the enemy.

    6. avatar Ted Unlis says:

      Amen Harry!

    7. avatar Chuck says:

      Spot on. I’m not a LEO, but have many family members, including a son, who are or have been LE. The problems of the past are few and far between, and sure, it varies State to State, and Municipality to Municipality, but for the most part, the bad eggs are weeded out, usually fairly early in their career There’s plenty of incompetent doctors, nurses and EMS that should be in other careers, just as there are lawyers who are unscrupulous. So the problem isn’t just the Police. To be perfectly frank, I wouldn’t shake hands with any of our elected leadership from local to State to Federal without my other hand covering my wallet.
      Yes, sometimes someone’s missed in the weeding out, but it’s the exception and not the rule.
      As for the Officer who shot the woman in her home, does anyone really think the Department is going to skate by that? I can just about guarantee there’s going to be State Investigators, if not Federal reviewing everything about that incident, including the Chief’s comments that the officer in question would have been fired if he hadn’t resigned. That’s a serious Flag and breech of protocol on the Chief’s part. Talk about some serious ammo for the defense to motion for a change of venue.
      Our LEO’s are human and put their pants on one leg at a time. Because they’re hired to enforce and uphold the law, they are held to higher standards, but it’s wrong to condemn the whole community for the misdeeds of a few. And as we’ve witnessed, they’re held to account for those misdeeds, and I personally believe that any cover-ups are few and far between, and no where near as prevalent as they were many years ago. There’s simply much more oversight today than in times past.

    8. avatar Matt says:

      Got dem receipts?
      Pics or GTFO?
      Prove it?

      I can’t help but think it really depends on your jurisdiction and beyond that if a prosecutor wants to make a name for themselves.

  15. avatar Juice says:

    It’s because the police will use every tool they’re allowed within the bounds of the law to elicit a confession or otherwise damning responses out of someone, because it’s the most reliable way to close a case. In all situations, they’re acting in their best interests within the rules. If it were legally mandatory that you have to wait 72 hours to question everyone, that’s what they’d have to play by. They’re also the ones responsible for handling all of this, so they get to decide who they handle with kid gloves or walk through the process while informing them of all their options, and who they give the bare minimum of information to.

    1. avatar Juice says:

      In short: they give the cooling off period because they can. And when they don’t, it’s because they don’t have to.

  16. avatar Ark says:

    5th Amendment, you can enforce your own “cooling off period”.

    Citizens involved in defensive shootings are also, frequently, not immediately arrested and questioned.

    Slow news day, AP needs eyeballs, cop hate is a tried and true way to get them.

  17. avatar Mark says:

    LEOs are also civilians.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      But they aren’t treated as any other civilian.

  18. avatar anarchyst says:

    “Equal justice under law” is supposed to be “the law of the land”. There should be NO police “carve-outs” or “professional courtesy”.
    All it takes is ONE BAD COP and a complacent police department hierarchy and corrupt court system to make ALL cops look bad. Those who have been wronged by police see only the uniform and not the person wearing it.

    I wish it weren’t so, but that is the sad state of affairs these days.

    Yes, I want to see EVERY cop go home safe after his shift, but I also want the same for those innocent citizens who who (are forced to) interact with cops.

    Incidents such as the Daniel Shaver murder by police officer Philip Brailsford should NEVER be tolerated. Sad to say, such situations are becoming the “norm” rather than the exception.
    Not only murderer Philip Brailsford, but EVERY cop that was present at Shaver’s murder as well as the entire command structure of the police department and prosecutor’s office should have been held responsible. The “good” cop who stands around while these abuses are taking place and does nothing about it is just as culpable.

    Rehiring and giving Brailsford a pension adds insult to injury.

    “Letting things slide” when it comes to police misconduct shreds the whole Constitutional concept of “equal justice under law” and fosters the very troublesome attitude that many people have of “law enforcement”.

  19. avatar Nanashi says:

    Blue Privilege.

  20. avatar Frank says:

    Because the only ones are more equal than the rest of us farm animals
    Same damn reason they get to buy firearms cheaper, have qualified immunity, rarely get prosecuted for killing people (except for very recently, and in a few older instances)
    The thin blue lines “protecting and serving” the shit out of us, since storm trooping was invented

    1. avatar Frank says:

      also all those carve-outs, LEOSA, no tax stamps/background checks on the select fire firearms/silencers/destructive devices etc… they possess, and all the other privileges given to them to set them above the rest of us

  21. avatar Joseph Malone says:

    pretty soon you are going to do a story about a white supremacist leader in Washington getting his firearms confiscated under red flag laws.

    1. avatar James Campbell says:

      Ed White??? Bob Byrd??? Jeez, there are so many Dems in Washington who are KKK members. Give us a clue, which dems is it?

  22. avatar Robb says:

    “Law enforcement officials contend the grace period is critical after such traumatic events — and that officers are being given the same rights as any citizen to refuse to talk with investigators.”

    Uh huh. Let one of us beyond the thin blue line snoop around a house and shoot a lady through her window and see if we go home that night.

    If any of us, not in LE, shoot anyone there is a 99.9999999% chance we a) are going to the police station that night, b) will be grilled and, if invoking our 5th amendment rights, will be spending the night there if not more than 1 night baring overwhelming evidence it was in self defense(e.g. lots of witnesses, video proof, etc), c) will most likely not have adequate counsel right beside us for the whole thing.

    A guy I know was recently arrested for murder after shooting a guy in self defense. His mug shot shows a nice shiner, he was 60, his assailant much younger and in better physical shape. He spent a few weeks in jail for not making a statement, dealt with lost income, professional shame, etc. Fortunately, he was no billed or had the charges dropped.

    To suggest we get the same treatment as LEO is ludicrous by that author. And I say the above as a step-brother to 2 LEOs.

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    Golly my first thought was Stasi,Red Guard or Gestapo privilege. For a bunch of tax collector’s…oh well.

  24. avatar enuf says:

    6 Concealed Carry Insurance Options To Protect Your Six (2019)

    https://gundigest.com/handguns/concealed-carry/4-self-defense-insurance-options

    1. avatar Matt(TX>NM) says:

      Thank you for the link.

  25. avatar enuf says:

    There should be no difference between we common citizens and police officers when it comes to a shooting. If a police officer is allowed a 72 period to consider his statement, plus a lawyer and a union representative, then we mere citizens deserve the same provisions.

    This does not mean the police have to ignore evidence and let a killer walk for two days. Always act on the available evidence, but do so whether it is a police officer or not.

  26. avatar Chief Censor says:

    Cops have privileges given to them by politicians because cops are the enforcers of politicians’ rules. If you don’t give these cops benefits for doing that job they won’t do it. They need special treatment for them to love their job. There is no way you can get bad people to join and enforce bad laws without incentive. They also need a familial environment that gives them the confidence to do harm to the public daily without the stress of punishment.

    When you shoot someone you get sent to the homicide interrogation room for hours. They will make you wait there all day to get you tired before they come in to talk to you about what happened. When you don’t make statements, or leave before the police can get a statement, you are immediately considered a murderer and will be chased down as such. Once you fire your gun you need to contact police and give a preliminary statement of innocence with a clear self defense claim. Otherwise, the DA will charge you as a murderer and use that against you in court. You are by default compelled to contact them before they contact you or before the person you shot contacts them as a victim. You don’t have to give them a detailed statement, but they will come after you more when you don’t and no union/order/brotherhood will be there to back you up.

    And when you shoot at someone you are not allowed to shoot to kill like cops are trained. You have to shoot to stop the threat. Cops can get away with unloading an entire magazine on a now unarmed former threat.

    I have heard cops say it’s best to make sure you kill the suspect so they can’t go to court and tell their side.

    Some cops have given advice to not declare the scene safe for the RA, that way the suspect will die by bleeding out, once he is dead you can act as if you are trying to save him. Yelling at the incapacitated person to show you their hands and to let go of the weapon is a good way to waste a few minutes. Another tip to waste time is to wait for more units so you can approach tactically with shields and/or with long guns. Pretending to not have gloves, or taking your time to put them on, is a way to not have to do CPR for a minute or two.

    Because of those inside tips and tricks to make sure suspects don’t make it to court, some states have requirements that police immediately provide medical to the gunshot victim after they cuff.

    Cops get to pull and point their guns whenever they feel like it. It’s not considered a crime because they have a badge, but if you did the same you would be charged or killed. This is a clear sign that police do not respect your 2nd Amendment and are trained to escalate to deadly force. You should never point a gun at someone you are not going to shoot yet cops do it all the time. No one likes having a gun pointed at them, but cops love pointing their guns at everyone.

    Where is the NRA on this Texas licensed lawful gun owner using a handgun to protect a child in her castle? Where is the Texas resident Colion Noir? They didn’t have much to say about Philando Castile or EJ Bradford. Heck, I don’t recall them even saying anything about Dick Tench.

    I thought the NRA was all for black Americans, Demcorats and women exercising their 2nd Amendment rights after watching their latest marketing video.

    1. avatar Merle 0 says:

      Well if all that is true I guess we should all just be too afraid to carry huh?

    2. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Excellent post.

      I’ve noticed over the decades that it has become more and more common for officers to point their firearms without obvious threat. It doesn’t sit well with me as, when I was younger, that was a common sense (and probably legal) no-no. IMHO, if there has to be any legal latitude, greater than for any citizen, for agents of government, then it ought to be the absolute minimum deviation possible to get the job done fairly with the most interest on protecting the constitutional rights of all involved. That might mean some guilty go free but that is preferable to the innocent being deprived of their liberty.

    3. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

      “Some cops have given advice to not declare the scene safe for the RA, that way the suspect will die by bleeding out, once he is dead you can act as if you are trying to save him.”
      Exactly what happened at the North Hollywood shootout to the second suspect, Matasareanu. “The LAPD did not allow Matasareanu to receive medical attention, stating that ambulance personnel were following standard procedure in hostile situations by refusing to enter “the hot zone”, as Matasareanu was still considered to be dangerous,” it was only after his body was quite well at room temperature that medics were allowed to approach his body.

  27. avatar Timothy Toroian says:

    I would reverse the procedure and ask the cops what they think took place if I had to shoot somebody. That kind of follows the 5th on not testifying against yourself. You need to know what you are or might be accused of before testifying.

  28. avatar Wally1 says:

    Wow! Lots of cop hate here, Most cops are for you, that is if you aren’t a total scumbag. This is usually determined within about 15 seconds of contact. Why should they not be given preferential treatment. Have you seen the crap they deal with daily, remember, no one calls police when something good happens.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      That worked out well for Atatiana.

      1. avatar Chris Morton says:

        And for:
        * Patrick Dorismond
        * Kathryn Johnston
        * Carolina Obrycka
        * Emma Hernandez
        * Margie Carranza
        * David Perdue
        * Charles Kinsey

    2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      Most cops are for you, that is if you aren’t a total scumbag. This is usually determined within about 15 seconds of contact.

      So you admit that cops will make a snap decision (Fifteen whole seconds! Wow!) and if they don’t like you then will be against you. Good to know.

      1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

        And to think that sometimes it takes mere mortal juries, the only legally recognized determiners of fact by US law BTW (except at bench trials, but those are presided by God himself, or so believe the jurists), days to reach a conclusion. Even in a recent 2A bench trial it took the judge over a year to render an opinion.
        Cops really are superhuman after all. Are they like the DalIs Lamas and born divine or is divine infallibility vested upon graduation from the academy?

        1. avatar Hannibal and the Elephants says:

          Edit function, my kingdom for an edit function! Dalia Lama. Not Dalis! Omph!

    3. avatar Chris Morton says:

      Who was Tony Abbate “for”?

  29. avatar Cory says:

    Nepotism/Cronyism. Just like all governments or positions of power and authority.

  30. avatar Hannibal says:

    This stupid canard again. I swear, it’s amazing how some of you poke holes in AP stories about guns but don’t think two minutes about stories about law and cops. Or maybe you’re just ignorant of the Constitution?

    Cops have a ‘cooling off’ period for questioning as it related to mandatory reporting as part of their job- emphasis on mandatory. Non-cops, civilians, citizens, whatever you want to call it, have NO such mandatory reporting. John Q. Public can shoot someone and never say a word to anyone but his lawyer from then until eternity and suffer no direct consequences from the state (a jury may be another matter but even they are supposed to ignore silence). 5th Amendment is very clear on this. John Q. Officer, on the other hand, has a problem there, as he has to report on what happened as part of his job. So claiming that any ‘cooloff’ period is somehow an advantage when everyone else has no need to say anything at all is dishonest or ignorant.

    If you’re carrying a gun and you don’t understand the basics of the 5th Amendment, you’re in trouble.

    1. avatar Blake says:

      Hannibal, you’re right. You have no need to talk for as long as you want. But they’ll keep you locked up like an animal for as long as they damned well want, and who’re you gonna complain to? The police? Somethingsomething probable cause something complete story something.

      And what about those of us who don’t have enough money to have a lawyer on retainer?

    2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Another ignorant reply from a cop. You shoot someone, you go home for your 72 hour rest period so you can get your story straight in your mind and with other officers.

      If I refuse to talk, I am put in jail.

  31. avatar "keep yur paws off my dead guy" possum says:

    Not really a cooling off period, they’re just resting up after hunting and skinning out all them dead guys.

  32. avatar Ted Unlis says:

    Nothing like tossing out some smelly chunks of bait chumming for cop haters who for some strange reason were drawn to this forum back in the day when TTAG founder Robert Farago, the cop hating weed smoking radical from Austin, exercised total editorial control of TTAG.

    What exactly is the reason TTAG felt compelled to share this poorly written and researched anti law enforcement propaganda piece that is so reminiscent of the many cop hating bull$#it articles Farago used to reliably and consistently pen then serve up to an irrelevant minority of like minded cop haters.

    1. avatar Merle 0 says:

      Farago was an idiot and And a coward and this place is better without him. He hated cops, yet believed during a home invasion you should remain in place, even if the intruder was in your daughters bedroom, “no matter what you hear”, and wait for the cops to show up. Totally oblivious to the fact police response times can be over 30 minuets. The pos also believed in duty to retreat and that having a home security system was *more* Important then having a gun for home defense.

  33. avatar John in AK says:

    Folks, here’s where some reality gets inserted, while many of you are having your exercise in futility complaining about how cops have ‘privileges’ that you don’t.

    Surpise! It’s all because They’re Cops, and You’re Not.

    Do you want those privileges?

    Fine. Become cops. When you DO become cops, then you get all of the ‘privileges,’ the secret handshake, the key to the Cop Bathroom, the qualified immunity, the Garrity Rule, and all that.

    In exchange, you then don’t get to run the other way from the sound of gunfire, you don’t get to go back to sleep when the armed robbery report comes over the radio, you don’t get to drive past slowly gawking to your heart’s content when there’s a messy fatality on the freeway. You also don’t get to ignore the DV call, the child-abuse call, the ‘baby-not-breathing’ call that is almost certainly a very small, cold, blue corpse, or the several-days-old-in-hot-weather maggoty suicide.

    Colonel Jessup says it best:

    “I have neither the time,or the inclination, to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I’d rather you just say ‘Thank you!’ and go on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn, what you think you are entitled to!”

    By the way, this is the wording of a standard ‘Garrity Warning,’ a Supreme-Court supported requirement for government employees being questioned that tells them about their being protected against forced self-incrimination under threat of losing their jobs:

    “You are being asked to provide information as part of an internal and/or administrative investigation. This is a voluntary interview and you do not have to answer questions if your answers would tend to implicate you in a crime. No disciplinary action will be taken against you solely for refusing to answer questions. However, the evidentiary value of your silence may be considered in administrative proceedings as part of the facts surrounding your case. Any statement you do choose to provide may be used as evidence in criminal and/or administrative proceedings.”

    Ain’t that 5th Amendment GRAND?! How odd that it applies to both cops AND ‘citizens’. . .

    And now you know.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      If I’m placed in jail for refusing to talk, why isn’t the cop placed in jail for refusing to talk? You say we have the same rights. Apparently we don’t.

      1. avatar Cam says:

        Exactly, they need a standard where either all people and offices are taken into custody and possessed in the same way or everyone gets a two day to get thier thought together.

      2. avatar Ted Unlis says:

        Big surprise! A predictable response from Danny Griffin, part of that irrelevant minority of cop haters drawn to TTAG since the Robert Farago era. Danny Boy reliably takes the bait any time a juicy cop hating propaganda piece is tossed in front of him.

    2. avatar LKB says:

      Caca de Toro.

      On the one hand, you do make a good point about Garrity warnings — cops can be fired based on proof less that that beyond a reasonable doubt, and so from an employment law perspective a cooling off period + Garrity warning may well be defensible.

      However, your comment ignores the elephant in the room — why do cops get special treatment when it comes to a *criminal* law investigation? The fact that what you say in a criminal law investigation may have civil law implications doesn’t mean you get special treatment — except for cops. And query whether this kind of “special” treatment is contributing to the corrosive “anti-cop” attitudes that are out there and growing?

      There is a simple solution. If the police union wants to negotiate a 48 or 72 hour cooling off period for statements that will be admissible in termination proceedings, fine — have a contract provision that any statements that *are* given before then inadmissible in the subsequent termination proceedings. But don’t let that employment law proviso mutate into special treatment from a criminal investigation — if John Q Public would be cuffed / stuffed / jailed because he refused to talk, then do the same to the officer.

      Stated differently, if I’m involved in a defensive gun use, I can’t avoid “the ride” by claiming “hey, if I talk to you, it might get used against me in a civil suit by the bad guy’s family” – it’s certainly true, but if I take that position I’m going for a ride. Why should cops enjoy special immunity here?

      If the cop wants to shut up for 48-72 hours to protect his job, fine — treat him EXACTLY like any other citizen who doesn’t want to talk to investigators because of potential civil law consequences. And if the po-po unions won’t allow that, then they should STFU about why the public has such negative attitudes toward them.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Bingo, LKB. You nailed the issue and solution.

    3. avatar LKB says:

      “In exchange, you then don’t get to run the other way from the sound of gunfire, you don’t get to go back to sleep when the armed robbery report comes over the radio, you don’t get to drive past slowly gawking to your heart’s content when there’s a messy fatality on the freeway. You also don’t get to ignore the DV call, the child-abuse call, the ‘baby-not-breathing’ call that is almost certainly a very small, cold, blue corpse, or the several-days-old-in-hot-weather maggoty suicide.”

      But if you chicken out and don’t do your job, relax, the victims of your cowardice or incompetence have no civil recourse against you. And your union is there to make sure to make it all but impossible to fire you.
      And if you violate the law, you enjoy qualified immunity from suit.

      Yes, law enforcement is necessary and it is not an easy job. However, those facts do not justify immunity from the laws and rules that the rest of us have to live with.

    4. avatar Ted Unlis says:

      So John, when did you move from Ohio to Alaska?

    5. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      In exchange, you then don’t get to run the other way from the sound of gunfire, you don’t get to go back to sleep when the armed robbery report comes over the radio, you don’t get to drive past slowly gawking to your heart’s content when there’s a messy fatality on the freeway.

      Ha. Coulda fooled me.

    6. avatar Ted Unlis says:

      Chris Mallory, Ralph, Danny Griffin, John in AK (formerly Ohio?); a virtual Robert Farago cop haters club homecoming weekend at TTAG! Too funny!

      1. avatar Ralph says:

        “Policemen so cherish their status as keepers of the peace and protectors of the public that they have occasionally been known to beat to death those citizens or groups who question that status.”

        David Mamet

  34. avatar Sam Hill says:

    There is an old saying, “Better to be judged by twelve, than carried by six.” If that is the case, you might be ok IF you don’t convict yourself by diarhia of the mouth. My advice if you ever have a problem and need to call 911 ask for the fire department, tell them you have smelled a gas leak. They will probably get there before the cops anyway and sirens go a long way to put evil doers to flight and firemen won’t shoot you. Or arrest you.
    Às for double standards, the world is full of them legal or not, Constitutional or not, get over it.

  35. avatar Thanksgiving says:

    I’m with you. That thing will stick out like a sore thumb.

  36. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Double Standard: Why Do Police Officers Involved in a Shooting Get a ‘Cooling Off’ Period Before Being Questioned?”

    Gotta have time to get all the lies in order…

    And we have a “cooling off period” too, it’s called keeping your mouth shut…

  37. avatar John W Weber says:

    This is clearly anti police propaganda. Civilians have the right to remain silent right up until trial and have attorney client privilege and it’s way longer than 10 days.

    1. avatar LKB says:

      And if a civilian exercises that right, they get cuffed and stuffed. The point is that cops in such situations don’t.

      Are you claiming that the police in a DGU DON’T get treated differently than John Q Public? If so, you are delusional. If not, then address the actual issue: WHY should cops enjoy such “special” treatment not afforded other citizens?

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      If a cop needs to exercise his 5th Amendment rights, then he should not remain a cop. If you want the bloated paycheck, platinum benefits, and early retirement then you should have to give up rights enjoyed by productive citizens.

  38. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    Any government employee who takes the 5th Amendment should immediately lose their job and pension. If their acts require 5th Amendment protection, then they should not be employed by the citizens. Any resignation by a government employee should be able to be transformed into a termination that will cost that former employee his government pension.
    It is well past time we disarmed cops. The rights of a citizen are more important than the safety of a government employee. Don’t like it? Find honest work where you are not living off the sweat of the tax payer’s brow. Citizens should be armed, not government employees.

  39. avatar Ralph says:

    Cops get time before they are questioned because they have been selected for low to moderate intelligence, so they need more time to make sh!t up.

  40. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    We all have a legal right to that cooling-off period. Nobody can force you to talk to the police. You can’t even be forced to the stand to testify against yourself. Keep. Your. Mouth. Shut.

  41. avatar Jeff says:

    “Why are police, who are professionally trained to observe, to record material, to accurately and completely record all the material and facts of an incident, why are they excused from rendering their report and statement in the same timeframe as untrained, unprofessional witnesses are?”

    Because the LEOs represent the government, and are in turn represented and protected by lawyers and police unions.

    If you have a good lawyer or advice from one, you can play too.

  42. avatar Nelson says:

    It’s simple: Govt TERRORISTS protect other Govt TERRORISTS, when the 2-tiered legal caste system is written by the same said Govt TERRORIST caste. DUH. xD

  43. avatar Michael C says:

    Here is The Truth About OIS. Officers, unlike citizens (or off-duty officers) MUST provide a statement. This is administrative and can not be used in a criminal trial. Remember LEOs retain their natural rights just like any citizen. A mandatory/forced statement is illegal under the 5th Amendment. Policy can not change that. Additionally LEOs MUST give a “Public Safety Statement” immediately after the scene as stabilized. Meaning they were in fear of their safety of the safety of others, the direction they shot and the direction the bad guy shot. This is to find possible additional victims/damage caused by the shooting. Citizens are NOT required to provide a PSS. The point of the “cooling off” period is to allow a clearer recollection of the event. Basically the “cooling off” period is akin to a citizen stating “I’m not talking until I talk to my attorney.” But the LEO has the added burden of providing a PSS.. Also, officers do not just go home after a shooting. Their firearm is taken for forensics, they are transported to the station where they are supervised/monitored until they provide an initial interview, they are relieved of duty or reassign to administrative tasks, scheduled for interview with psychologists and/or peer support. There is much more involved in an OIS than a citizen defensive shooting.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email