RW>Lawyer;   Now Mr Jones wanted to kill Mr Smith, right?
  >Jones;    No.
  >Lawyer;   But didn't you tell the officer at the scene,
  >          and I quote "He was coming at me, I had to
  >          kill him."
  >Jones;    Yes
  >Lawyer;   So you didn't want to just stop him you
  >          wanted to kill him.
RW>So the best thing to say is; "I will answer any
  >questions after my attorney is present.  Until then I
  >exercise my right to remain silent." or put another
  >way; "Lawyer, lawyer, lawyer.  I want my lawyer."
There are lots of different scenarios which require different 
responses.  In a matter as serious as the one you depict, it is obvious 
that it would be important to have a lawyer present.  On the other 
hand, merely telling the officer at the scene "He was coming at me, I
had to kill him...." sounds more exculpatory than inculpatory.
CH> For example, if an officer approached  you and said "Tim
CH> Smith,.......You are under arrest", it would be kind of
CH> foolish for you to remain silent instead of immediately
CH> saying I'm NOT Tim Smith, I'm Rich Willbanks....do you want
CH> to see my I.D.?  Do you see my point?
RW>That's different but I'd have a problem either way.
  >Most of the time I don't carry ID on me, most of the
  >time all I have on me is a couple of bucks in one
  >pocket or the other.  The only real ID I have any more
  >is my DL and I keep it in the car.
Well, Rich I assure you that the officer would allow you to get and
produce your close by ID, as he would be as interested as you to make
sure he was arresting the right person.
CHARLES HUNTER
 * 1st 2.00 #9124 * Study it forever & you'll wonder...fly it once, you'll 
know.
--- QScan/PCB v1.19b / 01-0671
---------------