1. I’ve seen several vids like this. Basically, it seems you shouldn’t trust yourself after an incident, and you can’t trust that responding officers will be understanding or forgiving of misstatements.

   As one raised to respect police officers, this is a little discordant-seeming … until I read the news.

   8

2. Have listened to Massad speak many times over the years and it’s always a ‘welcome review’ to participate in. Thanks for posting it. Andrew Branca has followed Massad’s doctrine, and I believe, he has presented an even more detailed ‘method of responsibly working with law enforcement’, just enough to establish a proper legal foundation upon which the legal meat grinder can operate most effectively, resulting in better odds of justice being served in the end.

   1

   1. The one thing about Massad’s discussion of how to work with law enforcement that always puzzled me is his insistence that you disclose having a firearm, including in states (like NH, our home state, if I remember right) where there is no requirement to do so. I could never understand why doing anything to make a cop more nervous would be a good idea. Yes, if your weapon is in view, sure. But if it’s effectively concealed, and you haven’t been told to get out of the car, why do that?

      4

3. If the cops have probable cause to arrest you, they are going to do so, and there is nothing that you can possibly say that will change that. Even if there is, it can still be said at a later time, after your attorney arrives.
   If the cops DON’T have probable cause to arrest you, there are plenty of things that you can say that will GIVE them the probable cause that they didn’t have before you opened your mouth.

   8

4. Ask Richard Jewell how talking to police turned out…

   2

   1. Watch the video

5. I generally agree with Mas. I’ve taken his MAG 40 class twice. (I’m a slow learner.)

   Still, I believe that this has been made into a binary choice while reality suggests that there’s a grey area.

   I makes sense to call and report, thus initially putting yourself in the “victim” role. If you can, pointing out possible evidence or witnesses seems smart. Once the basics are noted, respectfully request your attorney before rambling on and on when you’re pumped on adrenaline.

   A different video noted that one questioning technique is to have you just sit at the officer’s desk without asking any questions. Apparently, people get quite uncomfortable with the silence and start talking.

   1

   1. I’ve taken MAG-40 several times (later, I’ll take it with a friend if it will help get them to go). I also took MAG-80 and take classes from other folks.
      You’re right, it (whether to say something to the police or not) is not necessarily a binary choice.
      Mas makes a lot of sense to me with what he says.
      Watch that video of the law professor who says “Don’t talk to the police” (2 part video).
      He’s right too, and so is Mas. Even the experts don’t totally agree with each other. You have to do what you think makes sense in your situation. I’d submit that it would make sense for you to consider both the law professor guy (who thinks like a criminal defense attorney) and Mas.
      If you take MAG-40 or even do your own legal research, you can find cases where the defender didn’t say anything to the responding police, as is his right, and thus evidence at the scene was lost which could have supported a claim of self-defense. If you decide to tell the responding cops that you defended yourself and point out evidence & witnesses, that gives an opportunity for that evidence to be preserved.
      It has happened that wind has blown away the bad guys’ shell casings and if too much time goes by it won’t be possible to locate them. It has happened that EMS has tracked across the scene and even moved things in their efforts to save the life of the criminal who got shot, which hides the fact he had a weapon or was attacking or whatever.

      Do what you think makes sense. If you can control yourself under stress, and perhaps have the couple of key things to say and then NO MORE, it might make sense for you to consider doing what Mas says if you think it makes sense. (I do)
      I’ve heard people denigrate Mas for this and it’s clear to me that the people who do that haven’t taken MAG-40 and don’t have a good idea of the nature of the legal dangers out there.

      3

6. Oh, since I can’t edit, I would not disclose the presence of my handgun unless I needed to.

7. After you state the basic facts, shut up. From previous experience in accidents and such, I know I tend to ramble, so I know I have to shut up, and get away.

   Complaining of chest pains could be a good way. No one wants to see someone die of a heart attack. Chances are your heart will be going a mile a minute, you will feel sick to your stomach, your chest will be tight, you cannot breathe or are hyperventilating, you may even be dizzy. Maybe instead it will be your spouse or kids, or you were hurt during the altercation. State the five points, ask for medical assistance if even slightly necessary, and STFU. If they cuff you, Shut Up like a clam.

   Change the Topic to your health, and your lawyer will be happy to help the investigartion.

   1

8. I always wondered about this. Mas makes sense. Of course, I’ve seen the “don’t talk to the police” video, but I always wondered how much you’d antagonize and motivate them by not talking at all. Seems better to give just enough to appear cooperative and no more.

   My interactions with LE have all been minor. The only time I’ve gotten pulled over and answered the “do you know why I pulled you over?” question, I said, “I imagine for the expired tags I got a warning for 20 miles ago?” He let me go.

   1

9. ASP did a two-part response to Mas’ videos, which also makes complete sense. Their lawyer guest says to shut up until you can speak with your attorney. Mas claims that “I ain’t sayin’ nuthin’ ’til mah mouthpiece gets heah” is problematic, but the lawyer reminds that exercising your Constitutionally-guaranteed right to legal counsel cannot be used against you, that it’s his job to control the narrative, and that speaking before he gets there makes that job harder.

   (Also, don’t promise full cooperation or that you’ll testify; it may be in your best interests to not testify, and promising to do so in the moment looks pretty bad when you refuse later.)

   One reason for the disparate advice, is that the lawyer and Mas are approaching it from two different angles. Mas is a use-of-force expert and a former officer, who has investigated crime scenes and interviewed/questioned suspects and witnesses. OTOH, the lawyer is a defense attorney, who sees first-hand how things play out in court. Mas’ advise assumes CCW-friendly officers, and while many or most are, some are not. If you get one of those responding to your incident, coming out and admitting guilt (they will write their official report that way) could be a problem later that your attorney will have to defuse.

   My completely-non-expert opinion is: Both of them make a lot of sense. Do what you think will work best for you, based on the situation you’re in.

   I personally like this plan: Claim you were defending yourself, point out the evidence and witnesses, and say you’re willing to make a statement after you’ve calmed down and spoken with legal counsel. Ask for medical attention, if necessary. Then shut up. But that’s just me. YMMV.

   1

   1. Never forget that 99.99% of all the clients a Defense Lawyer will have are truly guilty bastards and they will treat everybody as if they were scum criminals, you included. That is why they default on saying not to utter a word. Unfortunately, that is a huge indicator to the cops that the person might be (as usual) a scum bucket and not even bother to think otherwise. Mas approach is designed to create that doubt and not allow investigators to decidee on the spot you are guilty and then present the case as such.

Comments are closed.