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.

I think the point that Maw and I are making / have made is that we wouldn't risk the chance that our statements may direct the police to process elements of the scene vs the probability that our statements may be later used against us.

if you see the gun your attacker was holding has fallen into the bushes

you want to point that out

pretty sure every lawyer would agree

also, it is almost always better to say you don't want to talk with finesse IMO

"Lawyer. Lawyer." "Sir, I'd love to answer all your questions, and I'll do so in the presence of my lawyer"

same response, two possibly very different effects

"he was very polite"

"do you find that noteworthy, officer?"

"yes. He had just killed a man. It didnt seem to impress him much..."

anyway, I think it is worth asking @RobertGrulerEsq about this;

The argument we are having is if (for example in a case of self defense):

A: We should avoid saying _anything_, or next to nothing, to the police, like Duane says in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE,

B: Like Ayoob says (https://youtu.be/WBy9L0gcqGY) we should be as helpful as possible w.r.t pointing out evidence, and be polite?

C: Should we try to convince the police that we are right, or get the police on our side by telling them everything?

Or some combination? Something else?

@Doc I think the point is that is inadmissible

if you listen to Duane, he says? implies? (I haven't seen it in a while) that the police basically cannot _help_ you when it comes to that, it would be hearsay or something

they _can_ testify about confessions