Thanks guys, I'm learning a lot so far. Again, I don't want to give anyone advice, just learn.
"Why is a person requesting to speak to council before making any statements such a hassle?" It's not a hassle for me, just wondering why one would risk arrest rather than simply take the investigator on a 'walk through' of the scene.
"Is the request for council a "sign" of guilt , and why ?" No, it isn't. Let me leap to a trial, not just a shooting, but any trial, if the defendent does not take the stand, the judge will instruct the jury not to include that fact in their deliberations, and (if it even comes up) if the defendent had refused to talk with the police, the judge will also instruct the jury not to include that fact in their deliberations.
"WHY say anything at all? If anything I say WILL be used against me - why say anything at all?" In a good shoot, your are the victim. The bad guy may be in the morgue or hospital, that'll leave you as the victim. It is always helpful to do a quick walk through with the victim to make sure that the crime scene investigators gather all pertinent evidence while in custody of the scene. Lots of things can happen to alter or contaminate the scene prior to it being properly secured and processed.
"Next, does Miranda only apply after you've been arrested". Miranda is simple and complicated all at the same time. Simply, Miranda is required when there is a 'custodial interrogation". It gets complicated when environment, circumstances and perception come into play. But, let's say that there is 'custody' without questioning... anything uttered, related to the crime will become admissable becasue it was not a responce to a question. This could be discussed for days. Hope that helps.
"What's to keep an LEO from getting the pre-arrest conversation mixed together with the post-arrest conversation?" If you are not free to leave (where-ever you are), for any reason, and all the sudden you begin to say incriminating things, if the officer does not, at that point, stop and adivse you of your Miranda rights, a good lawyer will see to it that those statements are inadmissable at trial.
"They say this to cops who have been involved in a shooting incident:" Again, cop shootings are different. They will be involved as the victim (I'm assuming a good shoot as I have with all my responces) in a criminal investigation, but they will also be subjected to an internal use of force review to establish if they were conforming to their use of force policies. It's been my experience that most cops are bothered more by their agencies investigation per policy, than the criminal investigation. They know that somewhere behind the scenes, administrators, lawyers, and insurors are evaulating liability issues pertinent to their future.
