Does anyone have or know a good "What to do after a self-defense shooting" "Cheat-sheet"?

[george burns]

Call 911, then call a lawyer. Refer to Massad Ayoobs website for a complete primer. But basically tell the police you are the Victim, the guy laying on the ground tried to kill you. Unfortunatelly the only choice you had was to fire your weapon,In defense of your life and those of your family, then ask if you can swear out a complaint against the party, "alive or not", say you intend to co operate completely once you speak to your attorney, and shut the hell up. Do not offer any information as it will be used against you in a Court of law.Do not elaborate even one little bit.

 

[Kleanbore]

Call 911, then call a lawyer. Refer to Massad Ayoobs website for a complete primer. But basically tell the police you are the Victim, the guy laying on the ground tried to kill you. Unfortunatelly the only choice you had was to fire your weapon,In defense of your life and those of your family, then ask if you can swear out a complaint against the party, "alive or not", say you intend to co operate completely once you speak to your attorney, and shut the hell up. Do not offer any information as it will be used against you in a Court of law.Do not elaborate even one little bit.

Close, but no cigar.

It leaves out two very important factors.

One should point out, at the scene and at the time, any evidence, and any likely witnesses.

Once those have gone with the wind, your attorney will have no way of presenting them in court, and your defense of justification could depend on them.

 

[george burns]

Considering that the Police are going to interview anyone at the scene, and tie it off as a crime scene, that will be done auomatically.

 

[Spats McGee]

Only if the police arrive before witnesses have left. Otherwise, it's up to you to identify them.

 

[JONWILL]

Only if the police arrive before witnesses have left. Otherwise, it's up to you to identify them.

Another thought

What if the witnesses that stay are his friends?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Considering that the Police are going to interview anyone at the scene, and tie it off as a crime scene, that will be done auomatically.

And they can still miss evidence unless you point it out to them -- especially if you saw the assailant's knife wind up in the bushes or carried off by someone.

Are you really willing to risk the police missing a crucial piece of evidence because you chose not to call their attention to it.

 

[Spats McGee]

What if the witnesses that stay are his friends?

The police will still want to talk to them.

 

[george burns]

You should only converse with police after consulting with your lawyer. It is what it is. you don't know all the facts, your only concern is a justifiable shooting. You should never offer information that can be used against you, and it will. That's why you don't speak to anyone until consulting with a lawyer, If it's still an active crime scene the police will treat it as such. The Police can and will interview everyone who was there. If it happend in your home that is likely to be just you, a spouse and perhaps a child. Everyone sees the same thing differently that is why you wait for a lawyer. When whitness statements are taken they vary from caucasion to Black, 5 foot tall to 7 foot tall, you should shut up and allow the lawyer to do his job without polluting the entire scene with things that may only confuse and work against you.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Another thought

What if the witnesses that stay are his friends?

That also crossed my mind, friends or relatives at the scene when it happened. I don't think they will be leaving the scene until the police get there, that would be my guess anyway. Will their story be substantially different than yours, good chance. Personally I really don't see anything wrong with pointing out witnesses or evidence but some attorneys do. A witnesses version of events isn't going to change just because they've been identified as witnesses, except maybe in court. They may however try to tamper with the evidence at the scene. The problem I have with answering a line of questioning by the police without an attorney present is I have no idea if they plan on arresting me or not. If you happen to be a long way from home I think the chances are good that they will detain you if for no other reason than to get their questions answered. I believe they can detain you for 24 hours without arresting you, longer if they suspect you of a serious crime.

Best just to identify yourself, state your business and leave the investigation to the police. Your version of events can be adequately communicated to the police through your attorney in the 24 hours following a shooting.

Everyone needs to remember that not all states have a stand your ground statute. Some states have laws imposing a duty to retreat.

A duty to retreat generally means that you can't resort to deadly force in self-defense if you can safely avoid the risk of harm or death (by running away, for example). If that is not an option, say if you were cornered or pinned down and facing serious harm or death, then you would be authorized to use deadly force in self defense. The following states impose some form of duty to retreat before using deadly self defense:

• Arkansas
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Hawaii
• Iowa
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Missouri
• Minnesota
• Nebraska
• New Jersey
• New York
• North Dakota
• Rhode Island
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/states-that-have-stand-your-ground-laws.html

I think that's why attorneys tell you to shut up. Everything hinges on who the police want to prosecute and why.

 

[Sig Bill]

This may be handy for you. It's compiled by lawyers but authored by a layman. I have one.

https://www.amazon.com/After-You-Shoot-Your-Perps/dp/1889632260

 

[Kleanbore]

You should only converse with police after consulting with your lawyer. It is what it is. you don't know all the facts, your only concern is a justifiable shooting. You should never offer information that can be used against you, and it will. That's why you don't speak to anyone until consulting with a lawyer, If it's still an active crime scene the police will treat it as such. The Police can and will interview everyone who was there.

So, George, how could your lawyer, if he were not present at the scene, be able to help yo point out key exculpatory evidence before it disappears?

 

[Kleanbore]

Best just to identify yourself, state your business and leave the investigation to the police.

Great theory, but unless they are already of a mindset that you were justified, and that is unlikely, it is by no means a certainty that they will collect all of the relevant evidence.

And the burden of providing exculpatory evidence resides with the person claiming self defense.

Your version of events can be adequately communicated to the police through your attorney in the 24 hours following a shooting.

Unless the evidence supports it, what is communicated as "your version" would not help much at all.

I think that's why attorneys tell you to shut up.

That , taken literally, is not good legal advice for one who will claim self defense.

Everything hinges on who the police want to prosecute and why.

And it may turn out that, if the attackers knife has wandered off with his friends, or his empty shells have disappeared, the police may, to use your term, "want" to have you prosecuted.

 

[Sig Bill]

All the more reason to read that book.

 

[Kleanbore]

This may be handy for you. It's compiled by lawyers but authored by a layman. I have one.

https://www.amazon.com/After-You-Shoot-Your-Perps/dp/1889632260

It is a good one.

 

[Creaky_Old_Cop]

1. Officer that man attacked me with a knife/gun/baseball bat, it is laying by his right/left hand
2. I believed he was going to kill me, and was close enough to do it.
3. I was forced to fire to stop his attack, I am not sure how many rounds I fired, I stopped shooting when he stopped his attack
4. I will sign the complaint/I want to press charges
5. I want to cooperate fully, but I am really shaken up right now, so I don't want to answer anymore questions until my attorney is here

Hit the big five then shut up.

1. You are establishing the active dynamic. HE attacked YOU with Weapon X, and you pointed out the location of the weapon.

2. You established your reasonable belief that you were in immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm. In other words, he had Ability-Opportunity-Jeopardy working for him. The Three Legs Of Self Defense.

3. You Were Forced To Fire To Stop His Attack...Yes, his actions forced your actions in defense of your own life. Note, you did NOT say "I shot him". You Were Forced To Fire. You Were Forced To Fire. You Were Forced To Fire To Stop His Attack. There was no other way out...HE FORCED YOU to take the action you took.

3(a). Do NOT, NOT NOT NOT under any circumstances say how many rounds you fired even if you believe you know. Tachypsychia, occular occlusion, and simply losing count will probably make you perceive the number incorrectly. By saying "I am not sure" and "you stopped when HE stopped his attack" shows that you were calm, reasonable, and not acting recklessly. By stating that you were not sure, you're not giving possible prosecutors ammo to use to make you look like a liar if you say you fired three rounds, but actually fired five. I would avoid saying "I believe I fired three" because a shyster could use that to call your perception of the entire event into question.

"Mister citizen, you don't even know how many rounds you coldly fired into YOUR victim. How do we know you remember ANYTHING accurately about the event in which you GUNNED DOWN your victim, yet are claiming self defense?"

"Mister Scumbag lawyer, I wasn't keeping track of the number of rounds I fired. I was under a deadly attack by your client, and he forced me to fire those rounds to stop his attack. I stopped firing when he stopped the attack".

4. I will sign the complaint/I will press charges. This is one more statement from you that claims the status of intended victim of a deadly crime.

5. You are stating that you intend to be cooperative. You are shaken up...and you will be. You simply want to wait for your lawyer before you answer any more questions.

NOTE: Do NOT say "I am having chest pains" unless it is absolutely true. That is BAD advice from the Bubba Tactical Skool Of Gun Shootery. Saying you are shaken up is understandable and REASONABLE under the circumstances because any normal human being WILL be shaken up after a potentially deadly attack, and the possible taking of another human life. There are goobers who will say "Tell 'em yore havin a heart attack so they can't interrogate you!"...Any invocation of your rights to remain silent until your attorney is present will stop questioning. You don't need to be a LIAR to invoke your rights.

Being honest and reasonable is something responding officers will understand, and it will NOT give anyone ammo to use against you when your LIE is discovered and it WILL BE. You are not going to be waterboarded or exposed to "enhanced interrogation techniques". Responding officers will be smart enough to figure out what happened, especially if the c.h.u.d. you just blew out of his socks was a "regular customer" in their patrol district. They will most likely know him already, and they will have no special interest in screwing you over, especially if you hit the Big Five, remain calm (as calm as you are able in this situation), comply with their lawful instructions, and be HONEST.

Even if they handcuff you...do NOT resist and raise a ruckus. Being restrained initially is SOP in most places in a self defense situation, especially a lethal force scenario. Say "I understand why you have to do this temporarily, and I will be cooperative". The more cooperative you are, following the advice above, the less time you are likely to spend in handcuffs.

Remember...at this point, the ONLY thing officers know about you is that you just shot, and possibly killed another human being. In the initial moments after their arrival they will be securing the scene and making sure there is no continuing threat. Once done...you will probably be removed from the cuffs. BE CALM. Do not scream about injustice or anything like that. "I understand why you have to do this temporarily, and I will be cooperate with your instructions".

 

[Creaky_Old_Cop]

The idea promulgated by some that you shouldn't cooperate or say ANYTHING at all, to me, makes zero sense at all. As a retired LEO, and all those years were on the street...I call into question anyone who claims to have been "in law enforcement" to say that one should say nothing, and thus be an "uncooperative suspect" rather than a "cooperating victim". The claim of being "In law enforcement" often is code for "I was a security guard" or "I worked in corrections" and this have no specific police training and were not "fully sworn and empowered" law enforcement officers.

The advice on the video some have mentioned is from a criminal defense attorney who, like 99.9999% of criminal defense attorneys, are used to dealing with CRIMINALS who are guilty, and their default, institutional advice is to say nothing, not ever. They are unused to dealing with honest, and innocent people who have acted within the law, and need competent representation through the investigative process.

To say nothing at all to responding officers leaves them with no choice but to note evidence on their own, and interpret the scene on their own.

To allow that makes as much sense to me as simply shooting someone and leaving the scene so "cops can figure it out for themselves", as both pieces of advice are equally bad.

 

[george burns]

You can say too many stupid things when you are in a high stress situation, that's why it's best to leave it to the professionals after making the basic statement that he or they broke in , "if that was the specific incident" and were armed, you knew that your lives were in danger, and had no choice but to defend yourself with your firearm. You would be glad to cooperate fully, but considering the stress of the moment, would like to speak to your family attorney first. You also would like to state that they are the perpitrators and you want to file a complaint against them or him ASAP. Then let the cops do their thing. They have been taught what to do in a case like this, and know procedure better than you, A cop may even tell you to shut up until you speak to a lawyer, "if he knows you personally", it's the way the system works, there is always someone around looking to make their bones on a case involving a gun.
It's just not the time for you to try and lay out a detailed statement since it has been proven that it takes up to 48 hours or more for your brain to process what happened, not a good time to say the wrong thing on the record, which can easily happen when you are in shock. Then you have to rely on a lawyer to undo what you said when you were in a confused state, Anyone who thinks that they will be functioning at full capacity after a shooting has never shot anyone, it's a traumatic experience, not a time to be trying to piece together what the hell just happened.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Anyone who thinks that they will be functioning at full capacity after a shooting has never shot anyone, it's a traumatic experience, not a time to be trying to piece together what the hell just happened.

Most of the advice here is good if you can think rationally in a very stressful situation. Like you, I don't think 90% of us can. Most of this advice comes from people who have never been involved in a self defense shooting. They know what you should do, but can you actually do it, that's the question. Police who are actually trained to respond in a certain manner can't even do it when the shooting starts. A 30% hit rate doesn't speak well of being able to function in a stressful situation. Police body cams are now being used. Someone brought up the fact that what you say in a 911 call can be used against you in court. I would submit that in the case of a body cam that might also be used against you if you inadvertently say the wrong thing in a time of extreme stress.

I don't know the particulars of police body cams as evidence in court but it's something to think about. What about a police body cam in a civil suit brought against you. Maybe someone who knows could weigh in.

 

[hdwhit]

Mn Fats wrote:
I am new to this topic but couldn't giving aid to a man you shot get you into possible legal trouble?

You mean more trouble than you're already in for having shot somebody?

Quite apart from any legal requirements, how could you morally or ethically justify shooting someone - even in self defense - and then refuse them life-saving aid to keep them from dying once they are no longer a threat to you but still alive?

I am not a lawyer and hopefully one of the attorneys will chime in on this one, but if you shoot someone in self-defense and then stand by and refuse to render aid to them and your refusal to provide aid results in them dying you may find yourself charged with a crime even if the shooting was completely justified.

Say you applied an ineffective aid that caused the "bad guy" to lose a limb. Would you not be liable?

Again, how you could morally or ethically stand by and do nothing while you watch a wounded person suffer and potentially die is not clear to me.

While the legal ramifications of whether your aid was appropriate and effectual are outside my expertise, it seems to me there is a clear distinction between being in front of a civil court arguing why you shouldn't held financially responsible for your assailant losing his arm despite everything you tried to do for him and standing in front of a criminal court trying to explain why you stood by and just watched your victim die.

 

[hdwhit]

TRX wrote:
As opposed to the grainy cell phone video from various bystanders, low-quality surveillance video from nearby businesses, and other video sources?

Yes.

Video from bystanders or surveillance cameras are third party evidence and what it shows and its context can be argued.

A video you shoot on your phone of the aftermath of the shooting you committed presumably shows what you wanted to have recorded, so if it shows something that contradicts your testimony it is harder to argue to the jury that it doesn't show what it seems to show.

 

[hdwhit]

Millennial Gunslinger wrote:
In other words, if you didn't train yourself on what to say, don't say anything...

I would not draw that conclusion from what has been said here.

What I take away from the posts covering this topic on the legal forum - which you really should read - is that since you will have to admit to the shooting in order to then raise the affirmative defense of justification, you need to at least make a statement to the investigators to the effect you were the one who was attacked and that you had no other choice than to resort to the use of deadly force.

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

Again, how you could morally or ethically stand by and do nothing while you watch a wounded person suffer and potentially die is not clear to me.

I'm surprised to hear that, granted I'm not sure were on the same page. If you have to shoot someone, it's because they were a lethal threat. I am not about to get into bad-breath distance with that person again, period. Much less to help restore him to "working conditions". There are plenty of reasons why that person may be in a better state than you think, and may be able to turn the table on you.

In other words, I can't see myself feeling compelled to give first aid to the person I felt compelled to shoot in fear for my life a moment ago. It's just way too risky. And honestly I've heard that you are not legally required to do it plenty of times, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone say it is something you should be doing. That besides the whole issue that providing first aid might get in the way of calling 911, being aware of your surroundings (should the person on the floor have buddies), or simply give my mind a few much needed minutes to calm down. I'd much rather get an ambulance on the way quick and let the first responders take care of it.

I also wonder if giving first aid might ever have caused someone to argue that the motive was actually tampering with evidence. Specially if it involves moving the body, cleaning, etc. Unlikely, but so are shootings. I imagine things can get wierd and out of context fast. I'd really have a hard time imagining a justified shooting were giving first aid would feel appropriate where first-responders can arrive quickly.

In other words, if you didn't train yourself on what to say, don't say anything...

I would not draw that conclusion from what has been said here.

What I take away from the posts covering this topic on the legal forum - which you really should read - is that since you will have to admit to the shooting in order to then raise the affirmative defense of justification, you need to at least make a statement to the investigators to the effect you were the one who was attacked and that you had no other choice than to resort to the use of deadly force.

I'm not sure why you focused on that quote and not what I said immediately afterwards. Namely:

In other words, if you didn't train yourself on what to say, don't say anything (and I imagine most people on this forum are of the "trained" variety). If you have, then you know what to say that would leave you in a better position than not saying anything.

What you say afterwards is exactly what I mean. I have better explained my position later on in the thread (after the post where that quote is), and it is along similar lines. The best summary of what I think is probably this link.