After an SD Shooting, What is "The Complaint?"

[psyopspec]

A technical question for our resident attorneys (I know, you're not my lawyer), experienced officers, or others in the know.

Many SD experts, Ayoob probably the most renowned among them, discuss telling responding officers "I'm willing to sign the complaint." This usually is expressed alongside other concepts like positively identifying the attacker, pointing out evidence, pointing out witnesses, and then saying you'll cooperate fully after having spoken with counsel.

So, it got me thinking about a technical question: What, exactly, is "the complaint?" Does this refer to something that comes out of a ticket book on the spot? Or a report prepared several hours/days later? Does "the complaint" incorporate a sworn statement from the SD shooter after speaking to their lawyer? It occurs to me that while experts say we should express a willingness to sign it, it seems short-sighted to agree to sign something when I'm not sure what it is. That said, I realize if it was something produced out of pocket, I could simply reiterate that I'll cooperate fully after speaking with an attorney.

Fred, Jeff, and the other mods: I dropped this thread here thinking that it falls under the umbrella of "what to do after a shooting;" that is, strategy, rather than having a bent of activism, or knowing/fighting against/supporting laws in the legal forum. If I'm wrong or just overthinking it, apologies.

 

[Derry 1946]

After an SD Shooting, What is "The Complaint?"

In this context, it's a report to the police, a statement, usually sworn (made under penalty of perjury), that the victim signs (as in, swear out a complaint), stating the facts and identifying the parties. Pledging to follow through with a formal complaint signals to the police that you are serious and will stand by your account of events, and will ideally help to clearly identify you as the victim and the other party as the assailant (in the minds of police, jurors, prosecutors, and judges).

 

[Jeff White]

The complaint is the statement you fill out that states what the person you just shot did to you that caused you to shoot in self defense. Different agencies will most likely have different forms, some as simple as a blank page you write your statement on and sign and some with a part that gives basic details that the officer fills out with a blank area for you to fill in your statement and signature.

The actual complaint that the state's attorney files in court will usually be prepared in his office and will include the officer's report, written statements of everyone involved and any witnesses.

By stating you are willing to sign the complaint, you are saying that the person you shot committed a crime (robbery, battery, carjacking etc) against you and that you would like him charged. It helps establish you as the victim.

 

[Jim K]

I am not sure it is a good idea to offer to make or sign any statement until you have seen an attorney; it will be better to say as little as possible before that. In most SD cases you will not be a plaintiff in a civil suit; it is more likely that the state (the police) will charge YOU with a crime, probably murder, and place you under arrest, not ask you to file a complaint.

Remember, self defense is not an excuse to the cops (gee, officer, I didn't see that stop sign) it is an affirmative defense in court by which you admit that you did in fact shoot the BG, that you did it intentionally and deliberately, and that your sole defense is based on the need to protect your own life or the life of another innocent person.

Jim

 

[ColtPythonElite]

I am a LEO. We have a criminal complaint form provided by the state that either we, a victim or a witness for the state may fill out to present to a magistrate with their sworn statement when securing a warrant. The document is attached to the warrant and forwarded to the court.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I am not sure it is a good idea to offer to make or sign any statement until you have seen an attorney; it will be better to say as little as possible before that. In most SD cases you will not be a plaintiff in a civil suit; it is more likely that the state (the police) will charge YOU with a crime, probably murder, and place you under arrest, not ask you to file a complaint.....

Jim, you're confusing "complaint", i. e., the document filed in court to initiate a civil suit, with "complaint", i. e., a document filed with the police alleging that you have been the victim of a criminal act committed by an identified person.

The "complaint" being discussed here was well defined by Derry 1946 in post 2.

The reason Massad Ayoob, and others, suggest that a person who has just used force in self defense ask to file a complaint against the person against whom he has used force is to emphasize the fact that he [the person who has defended himself] is the victim of the criminal act of the person he was forced to defend against.

We go into all of this in some detail in the thread What to Do after a Self Defense Encounter.

 

[Spats McGee]

Derry 1946 did a pretty nice job of summing up what "the complaint" is.

The way I've explained it is this: In a "garden variety" crime, it's up to the prosecution to prove each and every element, and the defendant's best position is often one of "If you think I did it, prove it." In an SD shooting, the SD Shooter has to: (a) admit that he or she shot someone; and (b) that the shooting was justified under applicable law, given the circumstances. IOW, the SD Shooter has to take the position of, "I did it, but I had a really good reason."

As a practical matter (in establishing a defense to possible criminal charges), the SD shooter is going to have to talk to the police, at least a little. In filing a "complaint" (on the criminal side of things), the SD shooter will be put down as the "victim," and the BG will go down as "suspect." If the SD shooter either (a) doesn't call the police; or (b) refuses to talk to them, one of the side effects is that if the original aggressor shows up at a hospital with a GSW later, his name will go down as "victim," and the shooter's name or description will go down under "suspect." And as stated earlier, a willingness to sign/file a complaint against the BG signals to the police that you're willing to stand by your version of events, as filing a false police report & perjury can both lead to serious criminal charges.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Here is some advice from my lawyer friends:
Do not make statements or sign anything without your attorney present.
Be polite yet firm.
YouTube has some great vids on how to properly interact with the police while safeguarding your rights.

 

[Spats McGee]

Here is some advice from my lawyer friends:
Do not make statements or sign anything without your attorney present.
Be polite yet firm.
YouTube has some great vids on how to properly interact with the police while safeguarding your rights.

With all due respect to you and your lawyer friends, I (sort of) disagree. While it would be great to have an attorney present at the moment that you really need to talk to the police, it may not be possible. You may need to make statements to get the investigation off on the right foot before you can get a lawyer on scene. Defending a SD shooting is a whole different kettle o' fish from defending most criminal charges. And I really, really wouldn't rely on Youtube for legal advice.

As I've said in the past (and which I probably shamelessly stole from Frank Ettin), following an SD shooting:

• The best course of action is to say the right thing.
• The second best course of action is to say nothing.
• The worst course of action is to say the wrong thing.
• The key is knowing the difference.

 

[Kleanbore]

Here is some advice from my lawyer friends:
Do not make statements or sign anything without your attorney present.
Be polite yet firm.

That's great advice if you intend to try to prevent the state from proving that you did something.

But in a self defense case, you are going to have to acknowledge that you did do something, and argue that you were justified in having done so.

Your defense will depend in large part upon your ability to produce evidence supporting your defense of justification. That evidence will have to be secured at the scene. That may not happen unless you direct the attention of arriving officers to the evidence, witnesses, etc., at the time.

That might well require your saying something to them at the time, without the presence of an attorney. If you want to characterize that as "making statements", do not be advised to not do so.

No, I would not sign anything.

 

[Spats McGee]

No, I would not sign anything.

I would not put it quite that broadly, that I would not sign anything. After all, this whole thread started by someone asking what is "the complaint" that he might file after an SD shooting. I'd probably sign that.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yes, if the time to sign the complaint arises before an attorney arrives, it might be okay to sign it then.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

I spent over 30 years working in the NYC. Court system, 20 years as a court officer in both criminal and Supreme Court criminal term.
I also had many fishing/ hunting/ softball teammates and drinking buddies who practiced law on both sides of the system, as well as several girlfriends who were criminal defense lawyers and I picked their brains on the legal aspects of self defense for decades.
( I did a lot more than just pick the brains of the girlfriends, but that is another matter.)
Statements made in the heat of emotion have a way of coming back and biting you in the butt.
While you may feel that you are "helping" with the investigation you may actually be locking yourself into a story that may contradict evidence discovered at the scene ( distances, number of shots fired, time factors, etc) that may come back to haunt you.
This is not to say that you are lying, but immediately after a fight is a poor time to try to explain what actually went down--- which is why NYPD officers are protected by a 48 hour rule.
Meaning that they cannot be questioned by anyone for at least 2,days following a shooting incident.
The police are not your friend-- that is a basic premise when you are the target of an investigation.
Take it for what it's worth.
PS---you would only be signing a complaint if you are deemed to be the victim and/ or witness of a crime.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Matthew Temkin:

I also had many fishing/ hunting/ softball teammates and drinking buddies who practiced law on both sides of the system, as well as several girlfriends who were criminal defense lawyers and I picked their brains on the legal aspects of self defense for decades.

It would seem that you have missed something important.

While you may feel that you are "helping" with the investigation you may actually be locking yourself into a story that may contradict evidence discovered at the scene ( distances, number of shots fired, time factors, etc) that may come back to haunt you.

That is very true indeed, and that is why we tell people what to talk about and what to not talk about.

The police are not your friend-- that is a basic premise when you are the target of an investigation.

True.

PS---you would only be signing a complaint if you are deemed to be the victim of a crime.

If you have engaged in lawful self defense, you have, by definition, been the victim of some kind of a crime--perhaps assault, or perhaps something more serious.

 

[psyopspec]

Thanks Matthew. This is informative, but there are a few things I feel like you may have misunderstood about my intent in asking the question. And of course, this being the internet it's possible our experiences have us reaching different conclusions based on similar input. No hard feelings if that's the case.

Statements made in the heat of emotion have a way of coming back and biting you in the butt.

Knowing this to be the case, I've focused on a very narrow set of things to say:

• I am the victim. That person is the one who attacked me. I was in fear for my life.

• There is the weapon he used/shell casings/other evidence.

• Those people over there saw the whole thing.

• I am willing to sign the complaint.

• You will have my full cooperation once I've had a chance to speak with my lawyer.

While you may feel that you are "helping" with the investigation you may actually be locking yourself into a story that may contradict evidence discovered at the scene ( distances, number of shots fired, time factors, etc) that may come back to haunt you.
This is not to say that you are lying, but immediately after a fight is a poor time to try to explain what actually went down--- which is why NYPD officers are protected by a 48 hour rule.

By nature, I'm not a storyfeller. I wouldn't tell such stories, nor would I advise others to (but again I'm not a lawyer). In any case, the point of my post isn't to ask how I should interact with police; I've seen way too many people on the internet say it's best to completely clam up, and they don't seem to account for things like shell casings blowing away on an icy road, or the attacker's knife that fell down a sewer drain, or keeping witnesses from wandering off since the responding officers can't differentiate them from the rest of the looky-loos.

Those who say to clam up are welcome to their opinion; it's their trial to lose. As for me, if I'm ever in an SD shooting I imagine the outcome will involve a possible indictment; if the indictment goes to trial odds are I'll be relying on SD, an affirmative defense. If that's the case, it would be nice if the evidence indicated that my story of having been threatened with deadly force were true. Hard to do that if the attacker's weapon sat undiscovered and then walked off on the night in question because I felt the need to take a vow of silence.

Meaning that they cannot be questioned by anyone for at least 2,days following a shooting incident.

That is a luxury cops have; those two days are likely to take the form of paid admin leave. The mileage of a private citizen in the same situation is likely to vary.

The police are not your friend-- that is a basic premise when you are the target of an investigation.

Trust me, I'm in no danger of mistaking the primary purpose of having police in our society as filling my need for friends.

PS---you would only be signing a complaint if you are deemed to be the victim and/ or witness of a crime.

Hence the expression of willingness to do so.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...NYPD officers are protected by a 48 hour rule.
Meaning that they cannot be questioned by anyone for at least 2,days following a shooting incident....

But a number of sources might still expect involved officers to immediately provide limited information for public safety and preservation of evidence purposes.

As noted in this article from PoliceOne.com:

...2. The involved officer(s) can give you certain immediate information without compromising personal legal protection.

Jeff Chudwin, chief of Olympia Fields (IL) PD and a former prosecutor, says an involved officer should communicate these essentials: the status and location of the offender(s), if known; evidence that needs to be protected; witnesses who need to be isolated and questioned; ...

In the absence of other reliable eye witnesses who can explain what happened, the involved officer should privately give his supervisor a "very brief, barebones description" of the event--the least amount of information needed to convey the nature of what happened, Lewinski says.

According to John Hoag, a National Advisory Board member of the Force Science Research Center who has responded to more than 40 shootings as a police union attorney, this information can be as sparse as: "He pulled a gun while I was patting him down, I thought he was going to kill me, so I shot him to defend myself."

It's important also, Hoag says, that the involved officer(s) delineate the scope of the scene. ...

"All this information should be given orally and should not be detailed-just enough to get the investigation pointed in the right direction," ....

This is even reflected in the "Officer-Involved Shooting Guidelines" of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (emphasis added):

4.2. After providing needed public safety information, officers who fired a weapon or were directly involved in a critical incident should be encouraged to step immediately away from the scene....

1. Here's what another lawyer, Andrew Branca, says about not saying anything to the police without your lawyer:
   
   
   • (emphasis in original)

     ...The “say nothing until lawyer” advice is based on the reality that anything you say to police can and may be used against you. It’s certainly true that the only 100% certain way to avoid saying anything incriminating is to say nothing at all.
     
     Rarely mentioned, however, is that what you DON’T say can also be used against you. Sure, you have a Constitutional right to remain silent, and once you’ve asserted that right your silence cannot be used against you.
     
     But this privilege applies post-arrest. Your silence before then can certainly be used by the Prosecution to infer guilt—an innocent person would have mentioned self-defense at the time, they’ll argue, and the fact that you did not do so suggests you only fabricated your story of self-defense after the fact to avoid criminal liability....

     
     
   • (emphasis in original)

     The 911 Call: Be the Complainant, Not the Respondent
     
     A huge problem for Michael Dunn in his claim of self-defense was the considerable consciousness of guilt evidence he provided to prosecutors. In particular, his flight from the scene well beyond the need to secure his safety and his failure to ever report the shooting to law enforcement before he was arrested at gun point on a murder warrant. This conduct was far more consistent with the behavior of someone who believed he’d “gotten away with it,” than it was with the behavior who believed they’d acted in lawful self-defense. This was especially damaging given that the only evidence of self-defense came from Dunn’s own testimony in court....

     
     
   • (emphasis in original)

     ...Let’s assume for purposes of this post, then, that you buy into the value of being the complainant rather than the respondent, and you therefore are the first to call 911.
     
     Taking the “say nothing until I talk to my lawyer” advice literally, exactly what are you going to say when the dispatcher answers your call? “I will say nothing until I’ve spoken to my attorney.” Really? When they ask “what’s your emergency?” surely that statement can’t be your reply. Rather, you’ll necessarily provide some description of what’s happened and the location to which you’re asking law enforcement (and ambulance) be sent.
     
     So, you’re ALREADY speaking with the police. And as long as you’re doing so, my advice is to get your claim of self-defense into the evidentiary record as soon as possible. You were attacked, you were in fear for your life, you were forced to act in self-defense. Of course, all of this will be recorded, and that recording will be admissible in court. As a result, the jury will get to hear your claim of self-defense in your own words and voice, with all the stress of the moment that such an event necessarily brings with it....

   
   
2. The Fifth Amendment only protects one against being compelled to testify against himself in a criminal case, not against talking with police, and the Supreme Court has ruled that one's silence may be used against him (Salinas v. Texas, No. 12–246, 2013).
   
   
3. It's long been the fact that conduct can be evidence and that a jury may draw inferences from conduct, e. g., see Martin v. State, 707 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.App.-Beaumont, 1986), at 245:

   ...In 2 RAY, TEXAS LAW OF EVIDENCE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL sec. 1538 (Texas Practice 3rd ed. 1980), we find:
   
   "Sec. 1538 Conduct as Evidence of Guilt
   
   "A 'consciousness of guilt' is perhaps one of the strongest kinds of evidence of guilt. It is consequently a well accepted principle that any conduct on the part of a person accused of crime, subsequent to its commission, which indicates a 'consciousness of guilt' may be received as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged." ...
   
   See also Cuellar v. State, 613 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Crim.App.1981)....

   
   
4. The advice from those YouTube videos making the rounds to say absolutely nothing could well seriously damage the credibility of a person claiming self defense, but that person's credibility will be vital to sustaining his claim of self defense.
   
   Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.
   
   As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1 (emphasis added):

   ...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. ...

 

[Matthew Temkin]

I was never inferring that one should remain mute when the police arrive, nor to state, " Shove it pigs, talk to my lawyer"
Lets go over your points:

I am the victim. That person is the one who attacked me. I was in fear for my life.
OK, but they are going to keep asking you a lot of questions trying to ascertain that.
Just how much information are you willing to give?
And just how deep a hole will you dig yourself into before you decide to stop talking?

• There is the weapon he used/shell casings/other evidence.
Really??
Are they just going to take your word for it?
Did you plant them and are pointing it out hoping to convince them that you are the victim?
Suppose you say that he fired 5 shots at you but there are only two casings?
What if someone picked up the gun while your back was turned?
What if...............................
Police are VERY suspicious by nature since the vast majority of their clientele are dirt bag liars
Trying to convince them of your innocence is pointless since it will take a lot of investigation to ascertain just who is the good guy.

• Those people over there saw the whole thing.
Just how do you know what they saw??
Did they really see the whole thing?
Or did they just hear a few shots and turned to see you hovering over the twitching corpse?
(Even if they did see everything are you certain that they will be willing to get involved and back up your story?)
Are they your friends who are willing to cover up for you?
Perhaps they are the dead guys friends who were in on the robbery of you but now will swear that you picked a fight with them?
Trust me, the police are very good at finding witnesses without your help.

• I am willing to sign the complaint.

That will earn you a chuckle from a streetwise detective.(Sure pal, I bet you will but we sure as hell aint there yet.)

• You will have my full cooperation once I've had a chance to speak with my lawyer.
Now that makes sense.
Then again, the cops may say, "Hey fella, only guilty people need lawyers.
Are you trying to hide something from us"??
Now what are you going to do?
Do you now decide to come clean and fully cooperate without your lawyer or do you clam up and wait for legal assistance?

The bottom line is this:
Talking to the police is like eating potato chips--you'll never stop at just one chip or one statement.
The more you talk the more they will try to keep you talking.
The more information you give them the more info they will try to elicit.
Yes, you may have a carefully crafted set of responses but trust me, your prepared speech will crumble once they start the "Good cop/Bad cop routine on you.
So please, tell them that you were attacked and were forced to defend yourself.
Then tell them that you are having chest pains and can they please take you to a hospital.
And then call your lawyer and do as he says.
Again, just IMHO.

 

[psyopspec]

@ Frank Ettin

The advice from the video the OP linked to could well seriously damage the credibility of a person claiming self defense, but that person's credibility will be vital to sustaining his claim of self defense.

Clarifying question, which video?

@ Matthew

Longer response forthcoming.

 

[Spats McGee]

The bottom line is this:
Talking to the police is like eating potato chips--you'll never stop at just one.
The more you talk the more they will try to keep you talking.
The more information you give them the more info they will try to elicit.
So please, tell them that you were attacked and were forced to defend yourself.
Then tell them that you are having chest pains and can they please take you to a hospital.
And then call your lawyer and do as he says.
Again, just IMHO.

Emphasis supplied, but that's just to illustrate that the above statement is quite a bit different from where you started:

Here is some advice from my lawyer friends:
Do not make statements or sign anything without your attorney present.
Be polite yet firm.
YouTube has some great vids on how to properly interact with the police while safeguarding your rights.

I'm not saying that you should attempt to write a novel in excruciating detail about what happened. There will be plenty of time to do that for your lawyer (which will, of course, be confidential work-product). However, I think the best idea is one that psyopspec summed up nicely:

Knowing this to be the case, I've focused on a very narrow set of things to say:
• I am the victim. That person is the one who attacked me. I was in fear for my life.
• There is the weapon he used/shell casings/other evidence.
• Those people over there saw the whole thing.
• I am willing to sign the complaint.
• You will have my full cooperation once I've had a chance to speak with my lawyer.

. . . . Statements made in the heat of emotion have a way of coming back and biting you in the butt.
While you may feel that you are "helping" with the investigation you may actually be locking yourself into a story that may contradict evidence discovered at the scene ( distances, number of shots fired, time factors, etc) that may come back to haunt you.

I agree. A SD shooter is nonetheless in the unenviable position that he or she must be able to point to some evidence that the shooting was, in fact, SD. SD is ordinarily an affirmative defense, so the burden is on the SD shooter of having to prove self-defense. Yes, there are risks involved.

This is not to say that you are lying, but immediately after a fight is a poor time to try to explain what actually went down--- which is why NYPD officers are protected by a 48 hour rule.
Meaning that they cannot be questioned by anyone for at least 2,days following a shooting incident.

While you are correct that it's a high-stress time that may lead to errors, we "civilians" don't have the benefit of the NYPD's collective bargaining agreement.

I spent over 30 years working in the NYC. Court system, 20 years as a court officer in both criminal and Supreme Court criminal term.
I also had many fishing/ hunting/ softball teammates and drinking buddies who practiced law on both sides of the system, as well as several girlfriends who were criminal defense lawyers and I picked their brains on the legal aspects of self defense for decades. . . . .

If we're going to whip 'em out and compare bona fides: I'm a practicing attorney in Arkansas. I'm licensed in the state and federal courts, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. (Not that I've ever argued at SCOTUS, but I do have my license there.) I've been licensed for 13 years and spent 12 in litigation, including but not limited to federal civil rights litigation (defending the police), municipal law, some (very minor) prosecution and criminal defense. I've got dozens if not hundreds of friends, acquaintances and colleagues who are lawyers (on both sides of the aisle) and police officers. I've researched the issue of SD extensively in my state, and in less depth in many states in the Union.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Clarifying question, which video? ...

My error. Part of my post was taken from another thread, and I did an incomplete job of editing. I've fixed it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Again, just IMHO.

Yes it is just your [very] humble opinion. But there are better opinions out there from folks who are more qualified than you to offer them.

 

[psyopspec]

I was never inferring that one should remain mute when the police arrive, nor to state, " Shove it pigs, talk to my lawyer"

I think we both have a level of respect for the way this discussion is going; I don't think either of us are advocating that course. All good.

Several of the responses, questions, and points you mention have to do with (1) the concept of additional questions the officers will likely ask; (2) the fact they will have a lot of questions regardless of anything the SD shooter says, or doesn't say; and (3) officer reactions to the limited statements outlined in the bullets you quoted, which will vary greatly depending on setting and officer. And, suffice to say I understand an officer's duty as centered on gathering evidence and making arrests that eventually lead to convictions.

To respond generally to those three items, stick with the original points in the OP. They don't deviate if the officer likes you, or hates you, or thinks you're suspicious, or thinks you smell good. They don't change if he puts on the shiny bracelets and throws you in a holding cell for several hours, or puts his arm around you and offers a cigarette or a cup of coffee, or dons clown shoes and starts juggling. The police response has nothing to do with the reasons to make those statements.

Similarly, with any additional questions the officers might have, stick to the points. For example, the SD shooter points and says "The brass over there is from when when he attacked me." If the officer responds, "How many shots did he fire?" or "How many shots did you fire?" the SD shooter would respond by going straight to the catch-all: "You will have my full cooperation once I've had a chance to speak with my lawyer." It's not about what the cops think, but about preserving evidence (more on this below).

The point with witnesses, like the evidence, is to make sure they don't get overlooked. Yes, cops are great at identifying witnesses; then certainly no harm done in mentioning it, and that fully nullifies your other points since our good officers are going to find the witnesses in any case. But, police tend to be human beings, with all the fallibility that can come with the territory. So consider it a "just in case" move.

Suppose you say that he fired 5 shots at you but there are only two casings?

To say how many shots were fired by any party is to deviate substantially from what I propose.

Trying to convince them of your innocence is pointless since it will take a lot of investigation to ascertain just who is the good guy.

I think this is one of the points where we misunderstand each other. The SD shooter shouldn't be trying to convince anyone of anything. That's a non-starter plan and certainly not one I'm putting forth.

The bottom line is this:
Talking to the police is like eating potato chips--you'll never stop at just one chip or one statement.

I think that your statement here strikes at the very basis of why silence is, as another poster put it, second best. A little forethought can go a long way, and that's what I'm trying to hone.

Yes, you may have a carefully crafted set of responses but trust me, your prepared speech will crumble once they start the "Good cop/Bad cop routine on you.

I think it's only fair to throw in my own CV highlights for the purposes of this discussion. Admittedly, I'm not a cop nor a lawyer. I have had past work where I was charged with influencing the behaviors and attitudes of select individuals and groups of people. To that end, I know just enough to be dangerous about how the game of influencing people is played.

Plus, I shared a steak with Fred Fuller once.

But really, I know how I react under an adrenaline dump, and how others tend to react. I have a working familiarity with the sort of techniques police would be likely to use in interacting with someone who was party to a shooting and a possible suspect after the fact. I know that to do their jobs, to gather evidence and get convictions, they rely on different approaches and a lot of questions. Armed with that knowledge, I still think, and several experts on the matter seem to agree, that one can establish him/herself as the victim and preserve evidence/witnesses without self-incriminating, so long as they give it some well-informed thought and stick to it.

Again, just IMHO.

Thanks for it. This is helpful, and I have a great deal of respect for your experience in the topic at hand.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

I think we both have a level of respect for the way this discussion is going; I don't think either of us are advocating that course. All good.

Hopefully this discussion has gotten people thinking but we can only take this speculation so far.
I joined the USCCA association, mainly for the legal insurance ( but the magazine is nice too) and that one of the NYC lawyers listed is one who would be the first man I would call.
I think the best way to end this discussion is to suggest that interested parties contact an experienced, local criminal defense lawyer and find out what he would suggest be done after a self defense shooting.
I am a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer. If you need honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Amen to that and a Happy Thanksgiving to all.

 

[psyopspec]

A note on evidence preservation

Related to the post above, but separate enough that I wanted to isolate the information here, the reason one might point out evidence after a shooting is solely to make sure it's preserved. That's it. The rhetorical questions I use here are just that, and not directed at any one person.

"It won't make the cops like you."

Fine. It's not supposed to.

"The cops will find it! After all, that's their job."

You sure about that? Say it's winter, mid-blizzard, and they're responding to a shooting. By the time they secure the scene and everyone involved, are you 100% confident that if no one tells them to look for brass in the snowbank they'll find it? Or that it won't blow away? Or be taken away? Or end up in boot treads?

"Well now you're just worrying unnecessarily."

Well maybe. But if someone were to end up in a shooting and claimed SD, would it be better if the evidence backed them up, or better if there was no evidence of an attack because they decided to keep silent?

"Seriously guy, the cops are good at what they do. They'll find all there is to find at the scene."

Or maybe it'll be like this case, where a former SWAT officer serving as an outside investigator to another agency "found 10s of 20s of 30s of casings" that thad been missed at a scene where a cop was shot. Full quote from the chief who's agency was assisted: “I was frightened. The shooting of a police officer is the most intense crime scene there is,” he continued, “for this guy to find 10s of 20s… of 30s of casings… of evidence… is kind of disturbing. It sort of points at… how good was the investigation?"

There's also the recent instance of this woman, caught trying to move shell casings after a shooting. Cops were the intended target in this case and so were on hand to intervene. Had it been a private citizen, it's hard to see how their silence would have helped, versus pointing out the evidence once the scene was secure.

Or a third example from New Orleans, in which "police apparently missed two spent shell casings when they canvassed the scene..." Fortunately in this instance, the evidence was still there to be found hours later.

These examples are all from this year; they're just the top-hits from a cursory search and there are plenty more. And it goes without saying, these are only from among those that made the news. Police are humans. Incompetence happens, things get overlooked, or moved intentionally. To be involved in an SD shooting is to have enough of a slate of problems on hand without having to deal with disappearing evidence. To point it out is to preserve it.

 

[Spats McGee]

And a Happy Thanksgiving to all of you, as well!

Now, on to psyopspec's last post . . . Just one more example I'd like to throw in, related to:

Say it's winter, mid-blizzard, and they're responding to a shooting. By the time they secure the scene and everyone involved, are you 100% confident that if no one tells them to look for brass in the snowbank they'll find it? Or that it won't blow away? Or be taken away? Or end up in boot treads?

There are a variety of instances in which the police might overlook evidence if nobody tells them about it. Blizzards are a good example. Bushes, storm drains . . all kinds of places that are hard to look into. When it comes to the weapon that the attacker used, consider not only where it might go, but also what it is. A bottle, for example. Unless you tell the police "he attacked me with that bottle," it's just a bottle on the ground.