If You Carry, Or Might Use A Gun For Self Defense...

[Squishy 1,149]

...you need to understand the truth of this article posted at Ammoland.com;

 

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/10/gun-owners-beware-of-the-reid-interrogation-technique/#axzz2gcKZEi6S

 

As it is, this nation is a patchwork of laws from state to state, county to county or city to city.  In some places there is less risk overzealous law enforcement or an anti-gun DA will do everything in their power to make you the bad guy.  In others, you'll face a concerted effort to make you the wrong doer depending on the circumstances.

 

So IMHO it's best to STFU and lawyer up if you feel the pressure before you say too much.

 

 

[poolingmyignorance 2,191]

Good read, about exactly what I'd expect. Thanks for sharing.

[EthanM 514]

...you need to understand the truth of this article posted at Ammoland.com;

 

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/10/gun-owners-beware-of-the-reid-interrogation-technique/#axzz2gcKZEi6S

 

As it is, this nation is a patchwork of laws from state to state, county to county or city to city.  In some places there is less risk overzealous law enforcement or an anti-gun DA will do everything in their power to make you the bad guy.  In others, you'll face a concerted effort to make you the wrong doer depending on the circumstances.

 

So IMHO it's best to STFU and lawyer up if you feel the pressure before you say too much.

The only thing you should say is lawyer whenever you have to use your firearm.

[Odd Man Out 1,283]

Better to be judged by 12 than be carried by 6 ...  I consider myself well enough grounded that if I ever have to employ deadly force, the last thing on my mind will be having to justify it.

[poolingmyignorance 2,191]

Better to be judged by 12 than be carried by 6 ...  I consider myself well enough grounded that if I ever have to employ deadly force, the last thing on my mind will be having to justify it.

THIS is how I try to operate. The gun is the last ditch effort. But you never know, how things might play out good to keep "shut up" reflex well honed. Even if your obviously innocent, some pansy ass prosecutor might be a liberal and be gunning for CHL'ers.

[termite 463]

If ever in that situation, my lawyer has told me that the ONLY things to say to the PoPo are: #1) I was in fear of my life, #2) I will only talk with my lawyer, and he also said to keep stating, I WAS IN FEAR OF MY LIFE. Unless you shoot some scum bag in the back, 99.999% of the time, you'll walk with no problems. But it is that .001% that kind of gives me the pucker factor. Ya just never know, and YEP, 12 is a lot better odds than 6.

[menace667 194]

The law says force must be reasonable, necessary, and non aggressive. For the use of deadly force you have to be protecting your life from (the possibility of) great bodily harm or death, another person from the same, or preventing the commission of a forcible felony. Use your 5th amendment and do not make any statement to anyone without legal counsel present. Assuming you are not in trouble because it was justified hinges on what and how you explain the force. Concealed to carry classes give just enough info for someone to get in trouble with and should be much more in depth as far as the law and when force is justified and allowed. 

[ChileRelleno 7,071]

I wrote this in response to a thread asking about the aftermath of a Self Defense Shooting.

I've put a lot of thought, a bit of consultation with a lawyer and good chunk of change towards something I pray never happens.

But if you live and this world, own a firearm and are determined to fight back the evil that wants to hurt/kill us, then be prepared.

Train to not only Stop The Threat, but train to deal with the potential shit storm afterwards.

 

The following is how I have any possible SD shooting planned.
I will be following my lawyers advice, which is to ID, give only the most basic info on what happened and as to the finer details, "My memory is not quite clear right now, I'm overwhelmed and I need to talk with my attorney."
I cannot stress the value of having consulted/retained the services of attorney who is very competent in such situations.
..............................................

Regardless if 100 other people are standing around talking to 911, call 911, ID yourself as the victim and say as little as possible.
"My memory is not quite clear right now, I'm overwhelmed and I need to talk with my attorney.", or follow your lawyers advice*.
Follow 911s directions as to your actions and what they want you to do, and regarding first aid to the injured (hopefully deceased) threat.

Clear your weapon and secure it, if possible set it aside in full view, do not be holding it in your hand when the police/EMS arrive.

*Call your lawyer.
*You should already have the number (business card/speed dial) of, or even better, have already consulted/retained a lawyer who is very competent with such situations.
*You should already have consulted this lawyer as to what he desires you say to the police following a SD shooting.
*This is well worth the costs.

Ask witnesses to stay and give statements.

As soon as Police arrive, announce yourself, make it very clear you are the victim/shooter, and you are going to to press charges/file a complaint, etc.
Have ID/CCW out and ready.
Make sure they know where your weapon is, follow their directions, do not argue if they wish to arrest you, be very calm/polite/compliant and do whatever they command, except answer detailed questions without your attorney.
Do not answer any questions other than to ID yourself, or divulge only what your attorney has advised*.
"My memory is not quite clear right now, I'm overwhelmed and I need to talk with my attorney.", or follow your lawyers advice*.
...................................................

Know your local/state laws.
Know the circumstances in which deadly force is authorized.
Know what is behind you target.
Know the right answers to the key questions,

"My and/or someone else's life/limb was in mortal danger."
"I shot to stop the threat."
"My memory is not quite clear right now, I'm overwhelmed and I need to talk with my attorney."
..................................................

So much more, but my MTS is acting up.

 

[unclejake 428]

This is a subject in which we should ALL be ready to face. We spend money on firearms, training, ammo. But a good lawyer is priceless in this situation!

[mostholycerebus 415]

Better to be judged by 12 than be carried by 6 ...  I consider myself well enough grounded that if I ever have to employ deadly force, the last thing on my mind will be having to justify it.

The point of a self-defense shoot is to protect my own life. Without my own liberty, its not much of a life anyway. Either way, my kids are left without a dad. The follow-up is as much, perhaps MORE, important than the shoot, when it comes to self-defense preparedness and training.

[DogMan 2,343]

Whether right or wrong I have chosen to stop thinking too much about the subject. I don't want to over think all the possible consequences of shooting someone at the moment my life is in danger. I'm going to trust my instincts that I actually need to shoot to save my life and then shut my mouth afterwards and let the chips fall where they may.

[Remek 771]

Nevermind. I have to pay closer attention.

 

Thanks squishy! Useful info!

Edited October 3, 2013 by Remek

[jerry52 893]

Depending on the activity of the area. LEO will jump at the chance to break up the traffic enforcement bore.

That why you always see 12 cars on some calls.

1. Before you shoot try to leave or don't be there in the first place.

2.Call 911 and report you have been a victim of a attack and have had to defend yourself.

3.Explain to 911 what you are wearing then shut up (you are being recorded).

4 Holster or secure gun if out of danger.

5.When police arrive offer nothing but you have been a victim  of an attack.

6.Shut up an accept the fact that this is going to be along day and that you will be in jail and need a attorney.

7. Shut up

8.Shut up

9.They want to use their training so Shut Up

10. This will take a long time to resolve years sometimes, you will lose your gun (why because it is evidence), you could lose your job. or lose a ,lot of work time.

11. Carrying a gun is not a game , Your view point of being in danger does not matter only 12 people do that.

Good Post Thanks

[magsite20 1,664]

Depending on the activity of the area. LEO will jump at the chance to break up the traffic enforcement bore.

That why you always see 12 cars on some calls.

1. Before you shoot try to leave or don't be there in the first place.

2.Call 911 and report you have been a victim of a attack and have had to defend yourself.

3.Explain to 911 what you are wearing then shut up (you are being recorded).

4 Holster or secure gun if out of danger.

5.When police arrive offer nothing but you have been a victim  of an attack.

6.Shut up an accept the fact that this is going to be along day and that you will be in jail and need a attorney.

7. Shut up

8.Shut up

9.They want to use their training so Shut Up

10. This will take a long time to resolve years sometimes, you will lose your gun (why because it is evidence), you could lose your job. or lose a ,lot of work time.

11. Carrying a gun is not a game , Your view point of being in danger does not matter only 12 people do that.

Good Post Thanks

+1 to all the above

get a lawyer before you talk to anyone 

because with a poor work choice you could loose your freedom or even your life.

[storm6490 2,768]

Know the law and you don't need a bottom feeder. I didn't ... twice.

 

Are you (Incompetent)?

Definition - adj
1  : not legally qualified: as
a  : lacking legal capacity (as because of age or mental deficiency)
b  : incapable due to mental or physical condition
compare competent
c  : lacking authority, power, or qualifications required by law <an ~ court> <~ evidence>
2  : unable or failing to perform adequately <fired for being ~> <an ~ attorney>
compare ineffective assistance of counsel
Pronunciationin-'käm-p&-t&nt

[Sdustin 578]

Menace667 non aggressive? Really it doesnt get much more aggressive than shooting someone.

[kevinfreel 215]

I think he means you can't chase the perp into a corner and gun him down or purposely inflame the incident. If the perp is non confrontational there is no need to shoot.

[Maxwelhse 1,285]

If ever in that situation, my lawyer has told me that the ONLY things to say to the PoPo are: #1) I was in fear of my life, #2) I will only talk with my lawyer, and he also said to keep stating, I WAS IN FEAR OF MY LIFE. Unless you shoot some scum bag in the back, 99.999% of the time, you'll walk with no problems. But it is that .001% that kind of gives me the pucker factor. Ya just never know, and YEP, 12 is a lot better odds than 6.

 

Fire your attorney and get a new one. The right procedure is below:

 

 

Depending on the activity of the area. LEO will jump at the chance to break up the traffic enforcement bore.

That why you always see 12 cars on some calls.

1. Before you shoot try to leave or don't be there in the first place.

2.Call 911 and report you have been a victim of a attack and have had to defend yourself.

3.Explain to 911 what you are wearing then shut up (you are being recorded).

4 Holster or secure gun if out of danger.

5.When police arrive offer nothing but you have been a victim  of an attack.

6.Shut up an accept the fact that this is going to be along day and that you will be in jail and need a attorney.

7. Shut up

8.Shut up

9.They want to use their training so Shut Up

10. This will take a long time to resolve years sometimes, you will lose your gun (why because it is evidence), you could lose your job. or lose a ,lot of work time.

11. Carrying a gun is not a game , Your view point of being in danger does not matter only 12 people do that.

Good Post Thanks

 

What do you say to the cops after any event other than a minor traffic offense?

 

NOTHING without an attorney present. Absolutely, jack shit, nothing... When you're arrested, cooperate. Let them cuff you, take your gun, stuff you in the car, and get booked into the county jail. That's all you have to do. Do no resist arrest in any form and ask for an attorney any time when being spoken to. That's it and all there is to it...

 

------

 

Side note... My fiance is about 6 months away from her JD... She doesn't align herself to me politically (we work it out, we just don't talk politics) and she is with me 100% on this one... A month or two ago I was being a bit of a bad neighbor (like all of mine are) and playing my music quite loud (again... my dick neighbors do it all the time... I just do it better than they do). In between songs I heard a pounding at the door (for like 10 minutes... cop must have been really pissed).. Did I answer it? Fuck no.. No more loud music, no more probable cause to enter my home. I was in the wrong on that one, but once it stopped, he had no reason to enter my home or for me to open the door without a warrant. If he wanted to, he could have issued a citation by mail (which I would have paid... I did it, I confess, and he sure as shit witnessed it, it's not subtle)... She agreed with my tactic there as well (though scolded me for basically being a drunken douche, which I was at the time).... That said, I learned my lesson and only play that loud while the sun is up, on weekends, and not for all that long now. I need a minimum of 20 acres for the next house and my real home theater rig needs to end up in a bachelor pad off of the main house "campus".

Edited October 4, 2013 by Maxwelhse

[Long Shot 1,287]

I read this a few days ago. Seems legit. I still lean toward STFU.

 

After A Shooting, What To Reveal

Posted February 2nd, 2009 by Massad Ayoob & filed under Combat Handguns.

 

Saying the wrong thing or saying nothing can hang you in court— find the right balance in 8 cases!

 

Good people who carry guns often debate the question, “Should I answer the police when they try to question me after I’ve been involved in a self-defense shooting? Or, perhaps, I should listen to the attorneys who advise, ‘Don’t say a word until you’ve spoken with your attorney.’”

 

The answer is more complicated than the question. Each situation will be different, so following blanket advice automatically puts us in the position of taking black and white approaches to gray issues.

 

A couple of lectures have been going around the Internet gun-related forums. One depicts an attorney giving legal advice, who adamantly tells the audience to say nothing to the police. Another, often shown along with that one, depicts a veteran police detective now becoming an attorney, who essentially says the same thing. Each gives several examples of people who said something at the incident scene or at time of arrest that came back to haunt them, and convict them.

 

Shutting Up

What you’ll find when you’re listening for a case where an innocent man was convicted for talking to the police, is exactly one example. Let’s call it Case One. A mentally ill individual who called the police with suggestions for finding a dangerous perpetrator they were looking for. He says this individual was manipulated by the police into writing a confession to the crime in question, in hopes of “smoking out” the real criminal. Of course, the man’s written confession became the centerpiece of the state’s charge against him for the crime in question, and the anchor of his conviction for that crime.

 

Now, that’s a pretty scary thing, but it doesn’t tell me not to talk to the police. It tells me that (A) crazy people can get themselves convicted of crimes they didn’t commit, ( doing crazy things will get you in trouble, and © saying you committed a crime you didn’t commit is likely to convince others that you did in fact commit it. If you’re crazy, do crazy things, or admit to doing things you didn’t do, keep your mouth shut.

 

Failure to Communicate

I’ve been an expert witness for the courts in shootings and other use-of-force cases for 29 years now. I’ve literally lost count of the number of good people I’ve seen get in trouble because they didn’t communicate with authorities in the immediate aftermath of a DGU (defensive gun usage).

 

Let me share a few examples, just from cases I’ve personally been involved in. Case Two was a gentleman in New England who was attacked by two vicious predators, at least one of them armed, on a rain-swept residential street. He fired one .40 round in self-defense, mortally wounding the armed antagonist with his Glock 23. Unfortunately, he then panicked and fled. Witnesses had seen his car, and within hours police were at his door. He told them what had happened, but it was too late. He was arrested for Manslaughter, and we had to go through a stressful, expensive, full-blown trial to win his acquittal.

 

Case Three took place in the same state. The defendant was licensed to carry and was wearing a Beretta 96 when he came upon a man he personally knew to be violent who was strangling a woman on a darkened sidewalk. He stepped out of the car, drew his weapon, and ordered the attacker to stop. Screaming that he would kill him, the aggressor lunged at the citizen as if to disarm and murder him, and the defendant fired a single .40 bullet that dropped the offender, mortally wounded. He, too, panicked and fled. By the time he “turned himself in,” the police had already come to the conclusion that they were seeking a guilty criminal who fled. He was charged with Murder, and he, too, had to go through a full trial before the jury found him Not Guilty on all counts.

 

Both of the defense attorneys in the above cases were convinced that if their clients had had the presence of mind to call in from the scene and report their self-defense shootings, their clients would never have been charged with either homicide in the first place.

 

Done Right

In Case Four, a clergyman in an Eastern city was aware of violent street crime in his neighborhood, and he was licensed to carry the Glock 27 pistol that was with him on the night in question. He was confronted by an armed robber who pointed a revolver at him. The padre drew and fired in self-defense, his single shot dropped the offender. The criminal survived, though seriously wounded. He turned out to have been armed with a starter pistol that resembled a real revolver.

 

Aftermath? Zip! He told the cops what happened. Their investigation quickly determined that the wounded man was a dangerous career criminal, and the shooter was the quintessential Good Guy. Learning from the shooter in the beginning what had happened, set the stage for an investigation that turned out to be the impartial fact-finding an investigation is supposed to be.

 

Devil In The Details

After the near-death experience of a self-defense shooting, you’ll be the worst possible witness to speak to such details as distance, number of shots fired, exact words spoken during the encounter, etc. Let me share a few examples again from cases I’ve personally worked.

 

Case Five, in Arizona, I was retained on behalf of one of two Federal agents severed from employment after a controversial fatal shooting. One had already resigned, and there was nothing I (or anyone else) could do for him at that point. The other, the one I was retained for, had been fired. It was alleged among other things that they had lied about the number of shots they had fired. One said he had fired once, maybe twice; the other believed he had fired a double tap. Investigation showed, however, that both had fired several more shots than they said.

 

This is par for the course. In an adult lifetime spent debriefing gunfight survivors, I can literally count on my fingers the number who were able to keep track of the shots once they went past three or four, and even in those rare cases, there was usually some compelling circumstance that allowed them to keep count. In most cases, the person perceiving himself to be facing death will fire more shots than he realizes. Unfortunately, answering this sort of question and getting it wrong makes you look like a liar. In this particular case, the wrongfully fired agent got a settlement he was happy with and went on with his life, but they don’t all end that happily. Don’t attempt to answer detailed questions in the short-term aftermath.

 

Case Six, in Florida, a police officer shot and killed a fleeing fugitive who tried to run him down with a motorcycle. It was a cross-racial shooting that triggered civil unrest. Believing he was about to be killed, the officer honestly didn’t recall whether or not he had discharged his Glock 17. He had, in fact, fired a single, reflexive shot that instantly killed the man who was trying to murder him. The State saw that as lying and charged him with Manslaughter. He was ultimately acquitted at trial, but it was still a life-changing ordeal for him.

 

Bare Bone Statements

Case Seven, also in Florida, this time involving an armed citizen. After an escalating series of abuses by her common-law husband, a woman summoned the courage to tell him, “You’ve been drinking all my beer, you’ve been smoking all my cigarettes, you won’t get a job… I want you to leave.” He attempted to murder her, left her for dead, and was arrested after she regained consciousness and reported him. Soon after, out on bail and in a drunken rage, he came back to her home to murder her. When he broke down the door and came at her, she shot him, and he staggered outside and fell, dying of .22 caliber gunshot wounds.

 

When police arrived, she submitted to interrogation. Asked what had happened, she went back to the beginning to explain the chain of events. She began, “He was drinking all my beer, smoking all my cigarettes, wouldn’t get a job…” And, as she spoke, she saw the emergency personnel outside zipping the man she had loved into a body bag. Her words trailed off. The detective called the State’s Attorney’s office and explained that he had a woman who had shot her common-law husband and, when asked why, had replied she had done it because he was drinking her beer, smoking her cigarettes, and wouldn’t get a job. It sounded like Manslaughter to them, and that’s exactly what she went to trial for before a defense team led by Mark Seiden won her acquittal. She suffered a massive, permanently damaging stroke shortly thereafter. Not a happy ending.

 

This is why I’ve come to advise Lethal Force Institute students to stick to five bare-bones statements when questioned. First, “This man attacked me.” It makes clear from the beginning that you’re the Victim and the guy you were forced to shoot was the Perpetrator.

 

Second, “I will sign the complaint.” You’re speaking the cop’s language, and further locking in the facts of who’s who and what’s what: you are the Good Guy or Gal, and the guy on the ground is the Bad Guy.

 

Third, point out the evidence. If you don’t, it can disappear or get moved. In Case Eight in Illinois, a gangbanger attacked a cop and tried to rip his Smith & Wesson 9mm out of his holster and murder him with it. The cop wound up having to shoot and kill him in self-defense. Not until I got there to examine the evidence for trial did anyone bother to examine the uniform pants the officer was wearing; they were torn in the holster area, confirming the officer’s version of events. By then he had been charged with an illegal homicide, and had to go all the way through trial to win acquittal.

 

Fourth, point out the witnesses. Their words may well exonerate you, but the general public fears reprisal by the genuine criminals who attacked you, or their accomplices, and may be reluctant to come forward on their own. The only way to be sure that testimony that may exonerate you will be taken, is for you to point out to police the witnesses who saw you shoot your attacker in self-defense.

 

Fifth, and critically important, “Officer, you’ll have my full cooperation after I’ve spoken with counsel.” Stick to that like name, rank, and serial number. Experts tell us that it will be a minimum of 24 to perhaps 72 hours before you’ll be in any condition to deal with a full interrogation. And that interrogation (the more politically correct term “interview” is used now) should not take place until you’ve discussed it with your attorney in depth. Nor should it take place, in my opinion, without the attorney right there with you, and a legal stenographic service’s camcorder rolling to record it for your side, just in case.

 

Bottom Line

Cops are trained to get guilty people to say incriminating things they didn’t really want to say. The same tactics can get innocent people to say things that someone erroneously convinced of their guilt could use against them, particularly when they are interrogated in the hugely stressful immediate aftermath of having faced death and been forced to extinguish a human life. This is why virtually all of us who are involved in this sort of thing on a regular basis advise that the justified shooter should not submit to a detailed interview until they’ve had time to come down from the stress flood and acquire legal counsel.

 

At the same time, saying nothing means that your story, the truth, is not being told. Cops see so many criminal uses of force that, when they don’t yet know who’s who, it’s only natural for them to assume that the guy on the ground is the victim and the guy standing with the smoking gun is the perpetrator. That’s why, at this moment, it is wise to get across the five points suggested above, and then shut up and wait for an attorney.

 

Tags: Columns CH, Massad Ayoob, Self Defense & The Law

 

 

... for more on this

pick up the issue of Combat Handguns

 

 

2

 

Browse related topics » Combat Handguns, Table of Contents, Table of Contents CH

[Remek 771]

I read this a few days ago. Seems legit. I still lean toward STFU.

After A Shooting, What To Reveal

Posted February 2nd, 2009 by Massad Ayoob & filed under Combat Handguns.

Saying the wrong thing or saying nothing can hang you in court— find the right balance in 8 cases!

Good people who carry guns often debate the question, “Should I answer the police when they try to question me after I’ve been involved in a self-defense shooting? Or, perhaps, I should listen to the attorneys who advise, ‘Don’t say a word until you’ve spoken with your attorney.’”

The answer is more complicated than the question. Each situation will be different, so following blanket advice automatically puts us in the position of taking black and white approaches to gray issues.

 

Actually, no. Even this guy's comments in the end agree with all thats been discussed by the videos that even we have passed around. I gotta think this guy did not understand what was said in the videos.

 

A couple of lectures have been going around the Internet gun-related forums. One depicts an attorney giving legal advice, who adamantly tells the audience to say nothing to the police. Another, often shown along with that one, depicts a veteran police detective now becoming an attorney, who essentially says the same thing. Each gives several examples of people who said something at the incident scene or at time of arrest that came back to haunt them, and convict them.

 

Actually, it's a single video. A law school lecture by invited criminal attorney and he gave half his time to an LEO, WHO IS IN THE SAME LAW SCHOOL, to rebutt the attorney, but even he agreed that your best advice is to SHUT THE FUCK UP, and consult your ttorney first.

 

 

Shutting Up

What you’ll find when you’re listening for a case where an innocent man was convicted for talking to the police, is exactly one example. Let’s call it Case One. A mentally ill individual who called the police with suggestions for finding a dangerous perpetrator they were looking for. He says this individual was manipulated by the police into writing a confession to the crime in question, in hopes of “smoking out” the real criminal. Of course, the man’s written confession became the centerpiece of the state’s charge against him for the crime in question, and the anchor of his conviction for that crime.

Now, that’s a pretty scary thing, but it doesn’t tell me not to talk to the police. It tells me that (A) crazy people can get themselves convicted of crimes they didn’t commit, ( doing crazy things will get you in trouble, and © saying you committed a crime you didn’t commit is likely to convince others that you did in fact commit it. If you’re crazy, do crazy things, or admit to doing things you didn’t do, keep your mouth shut.

 

Funny, because it tells me not to talk to police (meaning dont talk without counsel). During the fog of self defense, who's to say you wont be railroaded? Additionally, if you're the "crazy person" would you know it? I assume not, and note that the "crazy person" was actually mentally slow/delayed/retarded/what ever you want to call it, not "crazy". Dont be a dumb ass, dont talk without a lawyer present or 100% immunity provided in written form, AFTER your attorney has reviewwed it and agrees it is good.

 

Failure to Communicate

I’ve been an expert witness for the courts in shootings and other use-of-force cases for 29 years now. I’ve literally lost count of the number of good people I’ve seen get in trouble because they didn’t communicate with authorities in the immediate aftermath of a DGU (defensive gun usage).

 

An expert witness is giving you legal advice. This should raise the hair on the back of you neck. He is not aware of the law to be an expert witness, he's an expert in some other field. If he was a legal expert, he'd call himself an attorney.

 

Let me share a few examples, just from cases I’ve personally been involved in. Case Two was a gentleman in New England who was attacked by two vicious predators, at least one of them armed, on a rain-swept residential street. He fired one .40 round in self-defense, mortally wounding the armed antagonist with his Glock 23. Unfortunately, he then panicked and fled. Witnesses had seen his car, and within hours police were at his door. He told them what had happened, but it was too late. He was arrested for Manslaughter, and we had to go through a stressful, expensive, full-blown trial to win his acquittal.

 

Funny, this tells me that you dont go and commit a crime (fleeing the scene) after such an incident. Its got NOTHING to do with talking to your lawyer first, except to say its better to TALK TO YOUR LAWYER before you talk to the police! Turn yourself in with the lawyer present if you fled. Certainly there is room for the fog of panic to have caused a bad judgement by fleeing, but that will vanish if the police run you in for manslaughter becuase you forgot to make a case because your lawyer wasnt there when you talked.

 

 

Case Three took place in the same state. The defendant was licensed to carry and was wearing a Beretta 96 when he came upon a man he personally knew to be violent who was strangling a woman on a darkened sidewalk. He stepped out of the car, drew his weapon, and ordered the attacker to stop. Screaming that he would kill him, the aggressor lunged at the citizen as if to disarm and murder him, and the defendant fired a single .40 bullet that dropped the offender, mortally wounded. He, too, panicked and fled. By the time he “turned himself in,” the police had already come to the conclusion that they were seeking a guilty criminal who fled. He was charged with Murder, and he, too, had to go through a full trial before the jury found him Not Guilty on all counts.

Both of the defense attorneys in the above cases were convinced that if their clients had had the presence of mind to call in from the scene and report their self-defense shootings, their clients would never have been charged with either homicide in the first place.

 

Again, this "case three" only tells me not to commit crimes after self defense, or at least dont get caught. Either way, if you are going to be questioned, wait for attorney consultation. Much like the last case, the present one ignores that you may get railroaded without an attorney to make sure you domt misspeak or just flub up. The attorneys being convinced does not make it true, and all the attorneys are really stating is if the guy had the presence of mind to answer how an attorney would advise, it might have made it get to the same point faster. Again, this says to a reasonable person: consult your attorney prior to talking to the police, and do not do something stupid, like fleeing! But in the fog post defense, you might need an attorney to advise it!!!

 

 

Done Right

In Case Four, a clergyman in an Eastern city was aware of violent street crime in his neighborhood, and he was licensed to carry the Glock 27 pistol that was with him on the night in question. He was confronted by an armed robber who pointed a revolver at him. The padre drew and fired in self-defense, his single shot dropped the offender. The criminal survived, though seriously wounded. He turned out to have been armed with a starter pistol that resembled a real revolver.

Aftermath? Zip! He told the cops what happened. Their investigation quickly determined that the wounded man was a dangerous career criminal, and the shooter was the quintessential Good Guy. Learning from the shooter in the beginning what had happened, set the stage for an investigation that turned out to be the impartial fact-finding an investigation is supposed to be.

 

This only says that if you do talk to the police, it may still go your way. It doesnt say the lawyer would have gotten you convicted. Again, the full stop line of protecting yourself is to consult your attorney first. hell, this doesnt even say they would have arrested the guy if he talked to his attorney first.

 

Devil In The Details

After the near-death experience of a self-defense shooting, you’ll be the worst possible witness to speak to such details as distance, number of shots fired, exact words spoken during the encounter, etc. Let me share a few examples again from cases I’ve personally worked.

 

Again, good reason not to talk until youve talked to your lawyer, and talk only with lawyer present.

 

Case Five, in Arizona, I was retained on behalf of one of two Federal agents severed from employment after a controversial fatal shooting. One had already resigned, and there was nothing I (or anyone else) could do for him at that point. The other, the one I was retained for, had been fired. It was alleged among other things that they had lied about the number of shots they had fired. One said he had fired once, maybe twice; the other believed he had fired a double tap. Investigation showed, however, that both had fired several more shots than they said.

This is par for the course. In an adult lifetime spent debriefing gunfight survivors, I can literally count on my fingers the number who were able to keep track of the shots once they went past three or four, and even in those rare cases, there was usually some compelling circumstance that allowed them to keep count. In most cases, the person perceiving himself to be facing death will fire more shots than he realizes. Unfortunately, answering this sort of question and getting it wrong makes you look like a liar. In this particular case, the wrongfully fired agent got a settlement he was happy with and went on with his life, but they don’t all end that happily. Don’t attempt to answer detailed questions in the short-term aftermath.

 

Again, good reason for attorney consult. Attorneys protect you from making stupid mistakes like that, and when you do it anyway, they help to clear up the fact that counting bullets is hard to do, much less remember during self defense.

 

Case Six, in Florida, a police officer shot and killed a fleeing fugitive who tried to run him down with a motorcycle. It was a cross-racial shooting that triggered civil unrest. Believing he was about to be killed, the officer honestly didn’t recall whether or not he had discharged his Glock 17. He had, in fact, fired a single, reflexive shot that instantly killed the man who was trying to murder him. The State saw that as lying and charged him with Manslaughter. He was ultimately acquitted at trial, but it was still a life-changing ordeal for him.

 

Again, good reason for waiting to talk to your attorney. And note that the trial saved his ass, so the attorney helped!

 

Bare Bone Statements

Case Seven, also in Florida, this time involving an armed citizen. After an escalating series of abuses by her common-law husband, a woman summoned the courage to tell him, “You’ve been drinking all my beer, you’ve been smoking all my cigarettes, you won’t get a job… I want you to leave.” He attempted to murder her, left her for dead, and was arrested after she regained consciousness and reported him. Soon after, out on bail and in a drunken rage, he came back to her home to murder her. When he broke down the door and came at her, she shot him, and he staggered outside and fell, dying of .22 caliber gunshot wounds.

When police arrived, she submitted to interrogation. Asked what had happened, she went back to the beginning to explain the chain of events. She began, “He was drinking all my beer, smoking all my cigarettes, wouldn’t get a job…” And, as she spoke, she saw the emergency personnel outside zipping the man she had loved into a body bag. Her words trailed off. The detective called the State’s Attorney’s office and explained that he had a woman who had shot her common-law husband and, when asked why, had replied she had done it because he was drinking her beer, smoking her cigarettes, and wouldn’t get a job. It sounded like Manslaughter to them, and that’s exactly what she went to trial for before a defense team led by Mark Seiden won her acquittal. She suffered a massive, permanently damaging stroke shortly thereafter. Not a happy ending.

 

Again, good reason for an attorney to help you and keep you from misstatements, as well as fix the errors when made by the accused. I didnt see the police were listening here.

 

This is why I’ve come to advise Lethal Force Institute students to stick to five bare-bones statements when questioned. First, “This man attacked me.” It makes clear from the beginning that you’re the Victim and the guy you were forced to shoot was the Perpetrator.

Second, “I will sign the complaint.” You’re speaking the cop’s language, and further locking in the facts of who’s who and what’s what: you are the Good Guy or Gal, and the guy on the ground is the Bad Guy.

 

No, just shut up. You can say all this later. Hell, many of the most influential supreme court justices have specifically advised you to shut up. Are you sure you want to believe this bozo? I feel bad for anyone who thinks this guy knows what hes talking about.

 

Third, point out the evidence. If you don’t, it can disappear or get moved. In Case Eight in Illinois, a gangbanger attacked a cop and tried to rip his Smith & Wesson 9mm out of his holster and murder him with it. The cop wound up having to shoot and kill him in self-defense. Not until I got there to examine the evidence for trial did anyone bother to examine the uniform pants the officer was wearing; they were torn in the holster area, confirming the officer’s version of events. By then he had been charged with an illegal homicide, and had to go all the way through trial to win acquittal.

 

But he was acquitted, right? Also, if you missed the pants yourself in the fog of post defense trauma, do you really think your attorney would not look for this? Only if he is a schyster. Trust me, they go over all this stuff every time. Plus, who's to say they wont charge him anyway even if the pants were known to be torn. I swear any bozo can sound like hes smart, but the truth is, they are still bozos.

 

Fourth, point out the witnesses. Their words may well exonerate you, but the general public fears reprisal by the genuine criminals who attacked you, or their accomplices, and may be reluctant to come forward on their own. The only way to be sure that testimony that may exonerate you will be taken, is for you to point out to police the witnesses who saw you shoot your attacker in self-defense.

I think, no, in fact, I know, the police take all names of all possible witnesses. You can ID them later, when you arent in the fog of post defense, and they are isolated from the incident and can then more easily not be afraid of reprisal.

 

Fifth, and critically important, “Officer, you’ll have my full cooperation after I’ve spoken with counsel.” Stick to that like name, rank, and serial number. Experts tell us that it will be a minimum of 24 to perhaps 72 hours before you’ll be in any condition to deal with a full interrogation. And that interrogation (the more politically correct term “interview” is used now) should not take place until you’ve discussed it with your attorney in depth. Nor should it take place, in my opinion, without the attorney right there with you, and a legal stenographic service’s camcorder rolling to record it for your side, just in case.

Well. He seems to agree here. He even recognizes the fog. Just dont talk at all though, its the smart move, as has been pointed out by many others in law, as well as me.

 

Bottom Line

Cops are trained to get guilty people to say incriminating things they didn’t really want to say. The same tactics can get innocent people to say things that someone erroneously convinced of their guilt could use against them, particularly when they are interrogated in the hugely stressful immediate aftermath of having faced death and been forced to extinguish a human life. This is why virtually all of us who are involved in this sort of thing on a regular basis advise that the justified shooter should not submit to a detailed interview until they’ve had time to come down from the stress flood and acquire legal counsel.

At the same time, saying nothing means that your story, the truth, is not being told. Cops see so many criminal uses of force that, when they don’t yet know who’s who, it’s only natural for them to assume that the guy on the ground is the victim and the guy standing with the smoking gun is the perpetrator. That’s why, at this moment, it is wise to get across the five points suggested above, and then shut up and wait for an attorney.

 

So, this bozo is so worried about getting his story told right away, and the uninformed thought of the LEOs, that he will forgo an attorney to get some stuff out? Sounds fuckin dumb to me. You are the last person to be a judge of what to say after such an incident. Dont be a moron like this guy. Shut the fuck up! Ask to consult your attorney. Tell them you won't talk until you consult an attorney. Dont be a bozo.

 

Tags: Columns CH, Massad Ayoob, Self Defense & The Law and the art of going full retard

 

 

... for more on this

pick up the issue of Combat Handguns

2

Browse related topics » Combat Handguns, Table of Contents, Table of Contents CH

Edited October 5, 2013 by Remek

[Remek 771]

Fire your attorney and get a new one. The right procedure is below:

 

 

 

6.Shut up an[d] accept the fact that this is going to be along day and that you will be in jail and need a attorney.

7. Shut up

8.Shut up

9.They want to use their training so Shut Up

What do you say to the cops after any event other than a minor traffic offense?

 

NOTHING without an attorney present. Absolutely, jack shit, nothing... When you're arrested, cooperate. Let them cuff you, take your gun, stuff you in the car, and get booked into the county jail. That's all you have to do. Do no resist arrest in any form and ask for an attorney any time when being spoken to. That's it and all there is to it...

 

... A month or two ago I was being a bit of a bad neighbor (like all of mine are) and playing my music quite loud (again... my dick neighbors do it all the time... I just do it better than they do). In between songs I heard a pounding at the door (for like 10 minutes... cop must have been really pissed).. Did I answer it? Fuck no..

Man, those are smart words! Edited October 4, 2013 by Remek