Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    44,641
    In essence Garrity went something like this -

    Investigator advises you of Miranda.
    You declined to speak.
    Investigator ordered you to give a statement, advising you would be fired for refusing.
    You then gave your compelled statement under duress...and inadmissible in a criminal or civil procedure.

    This has zero effect on a civilian, non-agency-employee, event.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    44,641
    I will add that the "You have a right to remain silent, blah, blah" is read routinely to police to open the path for Garrity. That is the only reason other than the officer is really considered a suspect. Victims are not read "Miranda" as it has no bearing on the interview of a victim.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel Suarez View Post
    In essence Garrity went something like this -

    Investigator advises you of Miranda.
    You declined to speak.
    Investigator ordered you to give a statement, advising you would be fired for refusing.
    You then gave your compelled statement under duress...and inadmissible in a criminal or civil procedure.

    This has zero effect on a civilian, non-agency-employee, event.
    There should be a Garrity warning, similar to the Miranda stuff. If you say anything after the Garrity warning, it is voluntary, not under duress.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrity_warning
    A typical Garrity warning (exact wording varies between state or local investigative agencies) may read as follows:

    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.

    If you are compelled to give a statement under threat of termination and do, you may be immune from criminal stuff, but I'm not so sure about the civil side. If you are threatened with termination, it is considered "use immunity".

    As a cop, if you refuse to give a statement and are fired for that, you should be able to get your job back, with backpay...if you have a good police union.

    http://www.garrityrights.org/faq.html
    Can I be forced to waive my Garrity Rights?

    No. The United States Supreme Court ruled in 1968's Gardner v. Broderick that public employers cannot use a threat of termination to force employees to waive their constitutional rights.

    However, some employers might attempt to convince or persuade an employee to cooperate by using leverage short of termination. By using penalties such as unwelcome schedule changes or assignment to unattractive duties, employers might try to bring about cooperation without making threats of severe discipline or termination. Employees who give statements under such circumstances are very unlikely to be protected by Garrity, as courts would find that their cooperation was voluntary and not compelled.
    Last edited by blackie; 11-15-2018 at 02:32 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
    Channelling others: if I fail to give first aid to the criminal I shoot and wound, will that be used as evidence of malice or criminal intent on my part?
    You gain nothing by treating him. Think about what a prosecutor......or Susie Soccer Mom on your jury might think

    a. You look guilty by saving his life......thought you were just trying to kill him 2 seconds ago
    b. He dies or is severely injured.......who's going to be blamed for the death.......Guess you didn't want him to talk
    Last edited by mean_sartin; 03-23-2019 at 11:59 PM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    44,641
    Quote Originally Posted by mean_sartin View Post
    You gain nothing by treating him. Think about what a prosecutor......or Susie Soccer Mom on your jury might think

    a. You look guilty by saving his life......thought you were just trying to kill him 2 seconds ago
    b. He dies or is severely injured.......who's going to be blamed for the death.......Guess you didn't want him to talk
    "Victims" don't have to worry about prosecutors do they? That is the entire object of the exercise.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  6. #26
    Two weeks ago I was forced by necessity to make a short trip to the People’s Republic of Minnesota. Prior to my trip I consulted the app Legal Heat to check their laws regarding firearms. I was unpleasantly surprised to discover that, according to Legal Heat, there is a Minnesota law titled “Duty to Render Aid to a Shooting Victim”.

    This law is summed up to read “A person who discharges a firearm and knows or should know that the discharge has caused bodily harm to another person must immediately investigate the extent of the injuries and render immediate reasonable assistance to the injured person. A person who who violates this duty is subject to criminal penalties that vary according to the extent of the shooting victim’s injuries. A person who witnessed a shooting incident is subject to the same duty to investigate and render aid and is also subject to criminal penalties for failing to do so.”

    I agree with every reason stated above as to why rendering aid to someone you just had to shoot a bad idea. This law does not seem to take any of these reasons into account. I just mention this as a complicating factor in Minnesota (and other states with crazy laws like this) and something you will need to plan for if you are involved in a shooting in those states.

    Perhaps another potential issue is that this law seems to confer automatic victim status on the “shootee”, regardless of circumstance. I have no idea how important a legal issue this is - maybe Law Dog can comment.

    Of course the best policy is to not visit Minnesota and states like it. Unfortunately, in my case, circumstances made travel there unavoidable. I never considered going there unarmed.
    Last edited by GrayWolf2; 03-24-2019 at 04:40 PM.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    44,641
    Quote Originally Posted by GrayWolf2 View Post
    Two weeks ago I was forced by necessity to make a short trip to the People’s Republic of Minnesota. Prior to my trip I consulted the app Legal Heat to check their laws regarding firearms. I was unpleasantly surprised to discover that, according to Legal Heat, there is a Minnesota law titled “Duty to Render Aid to a Shooting Victim”.

    This law is summed up to read “A person who discharges a firearm and knows or should know that the discharge has caused bodily harm to another person must immediately investigate the extent of the injuries and render immediate reasonable assistance to the injured person. A person who who violates this duty is subject to criminal penalties that vary according to the extent of the shooting victim’s injuries. A person who witnessed a shooting incident is subject to the same duty to investigate and render aid and is also subject to criminal penalties for failing to do so.”

    I agree with every reason stated above as to why rendering aid to someone you just had to shoot a bad idea. This law does not seem to take any of these reasons into account. I just mention this as a complicating factor in Minnesota (and other states with crazy laws like this) and something you will need to plan for if you are involved in a shooting in those states.

    Perhaps another potential issue is that this law seems to confer automatic victim status on the “shootee”, regardless of circumstance. I have no idea how important a legal issue this is - maybe Law Dog can comment.

    Of course the best policy is to not visit Minnesota and states like it. Unfortunately, in my case, circumstances made travel there unavoidable. I never considered going there unarmed.
    A bad guy tries to kill you and you shoot him and he is a victim? I am not seeing it. I want much more proof than this. And if it is, f*ck Minnesota just like Somalia. But I seriously doubt that such is the case there.

    Back in the Jurassic there was implied "render aid to a bad guy you shot" for LE. Unless there is specific training required on how to do that...wich at the time there wasn't...its covered by asking for paramedics for the downed bad guy.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    415
    Quote Originally Posted by GrayWolf2 View Post
    Two weeks ago I was forced by necessity to make a short trip to the People’s Republic of Minnesota. Prior to my trip I consulted the app Legal Heat to check their laws regarding firearms. I was unpleasantly surprised to discover that, according to Legal Heat, there is a Minnesota law titled “Duty to Render Aid to a Shooting Victim”.

    This law is summed up to read “A person who discharges a firearm and knows or should know that the discharge has caused bodily harm to another person must immediately investigate the extent of the injuries and render immediate reasonable assistance to the injured person. A person who who violates this duty is subject to criminal penalties that vary according to the extent of the shooting victim’s injuries. A person who witnessed a shooting incident is subject to the same duty to investigate and render aid and is also subject to criminal penalties for failing to do so.”

    I agree with every reason stated above as to why rendering aid to someone you just had to shoot a bad idea. This law does not seem to take any of these reasons into account. I just mention this as a complicating factor in Minnesota (and other states with crazy laws like this) and something you will need to plan for if you are involved in a shooting in those states.

    Perhaps another potential issue is that this law seems to confer automatic victim status on the “shootee”, regardless of circumstance. I have no idea how important a legal issue this is - maybe Law Dog can comment.

    Of course the best policy is to not visit Minnesota and states like it. Unfortunately, in my case, circumstances made travel there unavoidable. I never considered going there unarmed.
    The key words in the law are “reasonable assistance.”

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    5,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger View Post
    The key words in the law are “reasonable assistance.”
    Indeed. Having no isolation gear, do I really want to take his ickies home to my family? Given that he just tried to kill me, do I really want to put myself and my weapon within his reach? The cops would take a cover officer and handcuff him before rendering aid. That's reasonable, but I had neither available to me. You heard me on the 911 tape ask for paramedics--- who wouldn't move in until the scene was secure.

    So since I summoned aid and acted to the standards of trained cops and paramedics, how was I unreasonable?
    __________

    "To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Beyond The Wall
    Posts
    44,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
    Indeed. Having no isolation gear, do I really want to take his ickies home to my family? Given that he just tried to kill me, do I really want to put myself and my weapon within his reach? The cops would take a cover officer and handcuff him before rendering aid. That's reasonable, but I had neither available to me. You heard me on the 911 tape ask for paramedics--- who wouldn't move in until the scene was secure.

    So since I summoned aid and acted to the standards of trained cops and paramedics, how was I unreasonable?
    Exactly. I just wrote a piece on the myths believed by gun people and didn't add this one. I should have. Who benefits by promoting the myth? Those who teach and sell tactical medical stuff. It will be my next "let's piss someone off" article.
    Gabriel Suarez

    Turning Lambs into Lions Since 1995

    Suarez International USA Headquarters

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •