Which is surprising to most people because their gun laws are relatively lax

But yea it feels like if you study the details of most government systems (such as the justice system wrt self defense) you get red pilled and jaded very quickly

Not just this sort of thing

Just the amount of people who don't get good representation and just get destroyed

This is what BLM should really be complaining about

It is a kind of tyranny of the majority

Most people never go through the system

Or they do and hate it with a passion but somehow assume it was only bad for them

And still trust in the system as a whole

And don't get me wrong, I appreciate that trust, because it keeps the world civil!

But the few people who go through it and get screwed, don't make the news

They get no coverage

No investigative reporting

No one else knows

So you can get an egregious situation where a state is routinely prosecuting people for "not retreating"

And if (the details of each case were) more widely known would be an outrage

But out of sight out of mind

Just as a side point though,

Even in states where you don't have a duty to retreat, if it is obvious you could have and don't, it might count against you IIRC

Branca basically warns against shooting unless you absolutely have to, even if you technically have the right

I should read it again

I agree 100%

Pleading the 5th is not the same as saying "I don't know what happened" when interviewed by police.

It's a right.

It's not considered lying even if they have an expert witness/undercover officer.

That witnessed everything that happened.

Keep in mind, this mostly extends to a defense, not to a witness.

Ultimately: Police don't determine guilt, the court determines guilt. The police establish probable cause, this is much further down the metaphoric ladder than a conviction is. You also cannot have your practicing of rights used in a way that would be taken into consideration by the court. E.g: They can't say that because you refused to talk, that you're more suspect; moreover, they cannot use that as any sort of evidence for conviction or change of judge ruling. (If my understanding is correct) @RobertGrulerEsq Would know more about this, as this is his area of expertise.

If pleading the 5th were self-incriminating in itself, it would defeat the purpose of the amendment after all.

I don't think Doc is disputing that

he made two points (from what I can tell) that doesn't contradict what you are saying

1. Point out the evidence

(so it is collected)

2. Some people don't get decent representation

in such a situation I have no idea what the best course of action is

if you have to rely on the police instead of your lawyer you are probably already screwed

Even pointing out evidence is enough for police to use your statements against you. It can come down to just how you phrase something.

It can come down to what choice of present/past tense verbs you use.

The confusing space is when you can not even know you're under suspicion when you're talking to them or you can become that way while talking to them. They want people to talk as much as possible without having to divulge their agenda and they can be evasive af when questioned about their purpose. That's probably why they often don't crack out the Miranda warnings from the jump, like we learned on tv.

@Zuluzeit That is at least correct here. They will want as much conversation on topic as possible.

@realz and yes, that was my point. You would want the police to secure as much evidence in your favor as possible. It is often lost if they do not.