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

[hdwhit]

BSA1 wrote:
One thing that I see rarely mentioned is using your cellphone to document the crime scene. I am surprised that a master expert like Ayoob fails to discuss it.

Perhaps "master expert" Ayoob doesn't mention it for a reason.

A grainy cell phone camera picture taken after the fact under less than ideal conditions by a cameraman who is an interested party could easily do you more harm than good. The photograph "sees" what is in the lens. It omits everything outside the view of the lens so the context of the photograph in both space and time is easily lost.

 

[grampajack]

All you have to remember is to keep your mouth shut. If you can't do that on your own, then an index card in your wallet isn't going help you, and may end up being used as evidence against you.

 

[boom boom]

For the O/P--this is a complex matter that requires much more than a checklist--you should spend the time to become educated rather than relying on legal advice through the internet.

FWIW, I have taught regarding the subject matter for years. Many of my former students are involved in the criminal justice system in various forms and a relative is a former trial lawyer and now a trial judge who defended the accused even in death penalty cases. I wholeheartedly recommend Ayoob's advice in that citation above as a bare minimum and he elaborates on this theme in several of his books which explains it much more than the brief daily caller citation. His MAG 20 class and his usual presentations at the NRA's annual conventions are also well-advised. I also advise listening to Marty Hayes and reading the free (the last I checked) ACLDN newsletter and Tom Given's Rangemaster newsletters which often recount legal predicaments. Members also get DVD's that cover the various issues in self defense in great detail which come with membership. I have no experience with other groups so cannot judge the usefulness of their material.

The sad truth is that the criminal justice complex is mostly set up to facilitate processing the guilty, not to protect the rights of the innocent--if you are guilty then you should keep quiet until talking with an attorney. Thus, many criminal defense attorneys are quite used to representing guilty clients which causes them to favor not talking at all until an attorney is present. This is why you want an attorney experienced in specifically self-defense cases rather than a general trial attorney. But the problem is that in the police and prosecutors' experience, guilty people do not ordinarily give statements voluntarily. By declining to present your side of the story briefly, you risk being categorized as just like other criminals. This is especially true if you have a live attacker (which is fairly likely)--they and their cohort will place the blame on you--especially if they think they can get a civil suit payday. They will present you as a monster who attacked someone who was not doing anything wrong.

The problem is that self-defense is an AFFIRMATIVE defense that more or less requires the defendant to provide evidence on their behalf that they acted reasonably. If the police and prosecutors have no evidence from the defendant at the time that even indicates self defense, they will not necessarily look for such evidence on their own. The mindset tends to solving crimes in the CJ system rather than protecting an individual's rights. This is why Ayoob mentions that you need to provide the gist of this information--e.g. that person attacked me and I will sign a complaint/want them charged/etc. there is the evidence e.g. knife, scuff marks, whatever, and those are the witnesses who saw what happened, etc. You should have already made a 911 call or had someone else do it.

Now, the difficult part for some people is to STOP TALKING, invoke the right to counsel, and then not answer any further questions even if they arrest you and hold you in custody until an attorney is present. If you start talking again while waiting for your counsel, it can be used against you. Detailed information such as distance, everything that led up to the confrontation, etc. should only be provided after consulting an attorney because emotionally traumatic experiences can affect memory, perceptions, etc.

Legal training is as important as range training if you carry and intend to use a firearm for self defense. Knowing when and where you can legally act and under what circumstances is crucial to providing your story to a jury. In addition, if you pick the right trainers, preferably someone who has testified in court as an expert witness, that person can provide third party corroboration of the subject matter of your training to a jury. They will also prepare you to answer questions from law enforcement as many such as Tom Givens, John Farnam, Massad Ayoob, etc. have had careers in law enforcement or attorney experience in self defense cases such as Marty Hayes.

Put not your trust in insurance alone. Insurance of different sorts may or may not protect you as most have an opt-out clause if the insurance company decides that you acted criminally.

 

[JONWILL]

Haha, everyone recommending books when I could have just watched a TV show! Why didn't we just start there? JK


Thanks for the response. Pretty well thought out and informative.

I'd say that sure there are "hard and fast rules", but that they are just that and don't excuse one from being flexible depending on the situation. No quick guide is a substitute for actual training and formation, but I'd also say that no training is permanent so being able to fall back on something is wise. I agree that it's unlikely to remember, or be willing, to pull something like that out. But it isn't impossible and it would almost certainly be beneficial. Nonetheless it is worth pointing out that part of having such a document is being able to consult it once a year or so and keep it fresh. I have read quite a few of M. Ayoob's books in the past, but that was at least 3 or 4 years ago and let's just say that I'm happy that no one is going to test me on it. Same for the "Florida Firearms Law, Use and Ownership book which is the bible on firearm self-defense law here in Florida. The thing is just that. No one remembers a 3 or 4 hundred page legal book by hard for too long. Of course, I still have a general idea of the Do's and Dont's, but I'm a stuctured type of person that is humble enough to trust documents more than my memory. I just generally keep quick guides for things like that, and they tend to come in handy and you don't risk forgetting them with time.

Regarding emotional state, if psychology can teach us one thing it's that predicting your own behavior or mindset in an extreme situation is worthless. And because of that, I'd rather consider the worst state and if I'm less altered, well all the better. After all, if we fight about carrying reloads or not, or if a 9mm double stack is enough, we are the type of people that prepares for the worst.


Too true haha. That seems pretty common in just about all threads. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to think that.


I'd like to think that they'd have all that more or less fresh, plus I don't think getting sued is at the top of their priorities. For good or bad it would be the sole purpose of this one. It's a whole different scenario when your minding your own business just putting some gas on your way home, and then all hell breaks loose. Maybe I didn't make it clear, but I asked this from the "don't screw yourself legally" point of view, so it's more on how to interact with responding officers and what to keep in mind. I never considered it to have anything to do with anything like "tying up the perpetrator with shoe laces". It's more "Remember you are the victim, act like one, even if the responding officers joke around (Ex. they knew the perpetrator, repeat felon, he got what was coming to him) or are more indiferent, or excited" (CCW Safe). Not in those words, but that idea.


Maybe I misunderstood, but I'd almost tend to say the opposite. The well trained firearm carrier is the one that thinks and plans for this in advance, and as such doesn't end up needing it precisely because s/he already had it. Wanting a quick list isn't because your less trained, it's because you are. The mere fact of researching and consulting a priori something like this is what makes you actually internalize it.



Well, seeing as I didn't find anything like I was looking for, I'm writing one for myself just to keep in my Firearm Hobby folder so I can review it whenever I feel the need. Of course it won't be a short list that covers it all. It will just be a short list that reminds me the few things that I would like to remind myself, should it ever come to that. I'm just a big fan of PDF quick guides for reviewing things. I'll post it once it's done if anyone wants to give an opinion.

Thanks for the insight.

Laugh all you want. Those are real life interrogations. Good luck if you happen to give conflicting statements.


Good luck pulling out a reference card. That looks great. "Why would someone keep a shooting reference card in their wallet?" Maybe they were planning on shooting someone?

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

For the O/P--this is a complex matter that requires much more than a checklist--you should spend the time to become educated rather than relying on legal advice through the internet.

I've probably said this repeatedly already, but precisely because it is such a complex matter is why I'd like to complement the time I've already spent educating myself through a variety of means, with something short I can brush up on from time to time. Firearms is just a small hobby among many others. I just don't have neither the time nor disposition to re-read 400 page tomes a few times a year just to keep fresh what I'm unlikely to ever need. It's much more realistic (not just for me, but for everyone, especially those who don't spend their time on firearm forums) to read the 3 or 4 different books once, and simply keep a summary to consult elsewhere. All I was looking for is a nicely formatted version of the chapter "Ch. XII - WHAT TO DO AFTER THE POLICE ARRIVE" from Florida Firearms Law, Use and Ownership, This, and this, along with a few other things. Trust me, I've done my fair share of reading and researching (for an average licensed gun owner). Which is precisely why I realize that the situation is complex enough to not trust myself (or almost anyone for that matter, experts aside) to be fully prepared for it, regardless of any training.

Now, the difficult part for some people is to STOP TALKING, invoke the right to counsel, and then not answer any further questions even if they arrest you and hold you in custody until an attorney is present.

Exactly. Much like the bystander effect, being aware that you might not be aware of what your are doing and why, is the best way to properly address it.

Legal training is as important as range training if you carry and intend to use a firearm for self defense.

Definitely agree. Sadly many (most?) people get lazy with range training, and I'd imagine the majority (not including this forum) of firearm owners are oblivious to legal training. At least of those who I know in person. Last time I gifted a new CCW holder the Florida Firearms Law, Use and Ownership book linked above (over 300 pages of pure legal information), they never got past the first chapter.

in self defense cases such as Marty Hayes.

I actually had one of his booklets open pending reading since yesterday. Hopefully I can take a look at it in a while.

 

[shafter]

Call 911 immediately even if others are already doing it. Render aid if you are safely able to, and when officers arrive relay any information that may be pertinent for public safety such as a description and direction of travel of the suspect if he managed to leave the scene. Then politely ask for your lawyer to be present for any questioning. You want to be seen as cooperative while being carefully what you say during a highly emotional event. As an LEO I don't take it personally when someone invokes their right to an attorney.

 

[JR24]

Laugh all you want. Those are real life interrogations. Good luck if you happen to give conflicting statements.


Good luck pulling out a reference card. That looks great. "Why would someone keep a shooting reference card in their wallet?" Maybe they were planning on shooting someone?

I think you meant "The First 48" and I love that show. So, so so many of the people they eventually convict could have at least stood a great chance in court had their first words during interrogation been "lawyer".

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

..."The First 48" and I love that show. So, so so many of the people they eventually convict could have at least stood a great chance in court had their first words during interrogation been "lawyer".

I haven't seen either, honestly. I can only imagine what their about, but being dramatizations or reality TV makes me take it with a grain of salt, so to say. Nonetheless I imagine that in many cases not asking for a lawyer and keeping quiet is probably simply one more example of a long list of bad life decisions...

 

[Solomonson]

If the perpetrators(s) are down when you call 911 and the emergency operator asks if they are dead and you don't know, be careful if they tell you to "make certain they are dead."

That's not license to administer a "finishing shot."

 

[Mn Fats]

Render aid if you are safely able to

To the bad guy that you just shot? I am new to this topic but couldn't giving aid to a man you shot get you into possible legal trouble? Say you applied an ineffective aid that caused the "bad guy" to lose a limb. Would you not be liable? Just curious on this.

 

[Spats McGee]

I'm too short on time this morning to fully address this, but I will say this: Because of the nature of defending SD shootings (an affirmative defense in many jurisdictions), as compared to defending garden-variety crimes:
1. The best thing to do is to say the right thing.
2. The 2nd best thing to do would be to say nothing.
3. The worst thing to do is to say the wrong thing.

The hardest part is knowing which is which.

 

[JONWILL]

I think you meant "The First 48" and I love that show. So, so so many of the people they eventually convict could have at least stood a great chance in court had their first words during interrogation been "lawyer".

It also seems to think the police will automatically assume he is in the right. There will be an investigation. The results maybe be not in the shooters favor. When someone died in a shooting the death, I believe is called "death of a citizen". I may be wrong though

 

[MADDOG]

"you have the right to remain silent, use it"

 

[TRX]

A grainy cell phone camera picture taken after the fact under less than ideal conditions by a cameraman who is an interested party could easily do you more harm than good.

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

Video is almost everywhere. Your attorney at least has your own video from the beginning, not something the prosecutor can pick and choose to use against you.

 

[Kleanbore]

He means that being so well prepared for the civil/legal aftermath of a SD shooting could easily be perceived as you were looking for a fight.

No, that is not what I meant by "...I think that referring to something after the fact would not help your credibility very much, and your credibility is paramount.". I meant just what I said. A person who says something that may appear to have been memorized will likely not be perceived as truthful.

What Ayoob says is good advice. Too many people think you should say nothing. That can get you in trobule.

Absolutely, and here's why, in very few words.

In a defense of justification after a self defense shooting, the defense has the burden of production--they must provide evidence that the defender acted lawfully in self defense.

But the evidence can disappear quickly--on foot, in cars, in moving water, in the hands of an accomplice or in someone else's hands, in boot treads, and with the wind. Once gone, it is gone.

The only way to prevent that is to point out to responding officers at the time whom and what to secure.

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

Render aid if you are safely able to

To the bad guy that you just shot? I am new to this topic but couldn't giving aid to a man you shot get you into possible legal trouble? Say you applied an ineffective aid that caused the "bad guy" to lose a limb. Would you not be liable? Just curious on this.

That got my attention, too. It does come up from time to time, albeit infrequently. Most experts tend to not mention that issue at all. From what I've seen so far, I have a hard time reasoning that the benefits outweigh the cons. Now what I have seen is that you should most certainly indicate in the 911 call that an ambulance is required for the attacker (presuming he was shot/injured). It isn't in your favor to delay his care.

Now regarding liability, I have a hard time imagining getting sued for applying improper first aid - you're probably most likely to get sued for shooting them in the first place, if they are in any legal position to sue at all. In theory, Good Samaritan protection could cover you if you applied improper first aid within what would have reasonably been the scope of your abilities (but I'm not sure how that would mesh with something you inflicted. Probably not well). However the biggest issue I see is that if you feared for your life (and you should have if you shot them), it isn't very reasonable to expect you to restore them to a condition in which they could become a threat again, and the cycle repeats itself. I imagine someone more cynical might even think that if you provide serious first aid, it might be because you aren't confident of having done the right thing (shot them) or that it was accidental. And a shooting can't be accidental and self defense at the same time. All in all, the vulnerability and close contact that applying first aid requires in a situation that is not under your control would most likely exceed what could reasonably be expected from anyone. If you can toss them a small towel to apply pressure on their own wounds that is probably not a bad idea at all, but under extreme supervision. Hopefully you are just minutes away from qualified aid arriving to take it from there anyway.

In other words, legal trouble for improper first aid is probably the least of your concerns, but I find a hard time conceiving a situation in which it would safe or recommended to do so anyway.

Opinions/corrections welcome.

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

Video is almost everywhere. Your attorney at least has your own video from the beginning, not something the prosecutor can pick and choose to use against you.

I'm curious, but honestly have no idea of how that would work. Would claiming to have recorded a video yourself of the scene expose yourself to having your phone taken as evidence, in any way that wouldn't have already been likely? Perhaps it would be better to shut up about it until you have reviewed it with your attorney to make sure it provides any value or perspective that any regular photographs of the scene do not.

I'm fond of the ideas of bodycams for regular people , since what really might help is a video of the "before and during", but it's a pity we're not there yet. Although not entirely. Bye bye any presumption of privacy...

 

[JR24]

I haven't seen either, honestly. I can only imagine what their about, but being dramatizations or reality TV makes me take it with a grain of salt, so to say. Nonetheless I imagine that in many cases not asking for a lawyer and keeping quiet is probably simply one more example of a long list of bad life decisions...

Yeah, most of the perps are not very good at making wise decisions.

The show is basically just cameras following homicide detectives during real investigations. Interviews shown are real and its amusing how often they get the right guy, with almost no evidence and manahe to wrangle a confession. Mostly by building repore and getting the guy to "man up" to what he did.

 

[MachIVshooter]

No, that is not what I meant by "...I think that referring to something after the fact would not help your credibility very much, and your credibility is paramount.". I meant just what I said. A person who says something that may appear to have been memorized will likely not be perceived as truthful.

Right. That's what I deduced, simply worded it differently and a bit more broadly. Be it one specific phrase (as you apparently meant) or a set of actions and utterances, if it seems to have been memorized/predetermined/rehearsed, it will call into question the legitimacy of a self defense claim.

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

Well oddly it took me long enough, but I eventually found what I was asking about in the first post by pure chance. I don't know how I didn't stumble on it sooner.

Self-Defense Guideline Card

SELF DEFENSE GUIDELINE CARD

I perfectly understand the reasoning of anyone who would say having a preprinted card looks bad, and I won't argue the contrary. You'll find plenty of credible sources arguing that it's a bad idea or on the other hand that, while suspicious it may be better than the potential alternative. In either case it is probably secondary to the actual circumstances. And like keeping silent vs. giving a basic account of the circumstances, it's a tradeoff. I'd say the ideal compromise is to simply keep it next to the CCL in case, mostly commit it to memory consulting it once in awhile, and then not need it if the time comes.

If anyone is interested, I've posted a picture of how the card looks laminated, as well as the original file in both word and PDF format (and one with CCW Safe's number in case anyone else is also a member. The number and name can also be modified to whatever you use). If you simply open it in word, and print it inserting the paper manually, it prints perfectly on the right spot both front and back of the piece of paper. I'm not recommending using it, just offering it since I have it. Of course, between a silly laminated card and hours of researching the issue in better detail, I need not say which I'd prefer. It's a compliment, not a substitute.

Typical disclaimer, not legal advice, use under one's own risk and responsibility, etc etc.

 

[Sauer Grapes]

Wait till they read all your post on gun forums!!
I've kinda decided, give general facts of the incident, then politely refrain from answering anymore questions without legal representation. One of those general facts being, "I feared for my life".

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Keep in mind some of the things you're advised to do may be impossible to accomplish if a hostile crowd gathers before police arrive.

 

[CoalTrain49]

This is all you need to Know.

Identify yourself as the victim of the attack.

Inform responding police that you have an attorney. If you don't then say I need an attorney.

You will be happy to cooperate BUT only in the presence of your attorney.

If you travel out of state as I do it would be extremely helpful to have some type of insurance that will provide you with an attorney immediately.

 

[BSA1]

Perhaps "master expert" Ayoob doesn't mention it for a reason.

A grainy cell phone camera picture taken after the fact under less than ideal conditions by a cameraman who is an interested party could easily do you more harm than good. The photograph "sees" what is in the lens. It omits everything outside the view of the lens so the context of the photograph in both space and time is easily lost.

Please better explain your position that not taken video/photographs of people at the crime scene immediately in the aftermath of using deadly force "could easily do you more harm than good"?

As commented video cameras are in common use and, all to often, the quality of images leave much to be desired.

My own video creates a better quality record of the people that are at the crime scene and of evidence that may prove to be relevant. Lord forbid if I am on trial after using deadly force to defend myself the credibility of people who are testifying is of major importance. A "surprise" witness for the prosecution that claims to have seen the incident may be for their own "surprise" when they are not in the video you filmed.

Remember you don't not have to prove your innocence in a trial. It is only necessary to create enough doubt in the mind of the jury about the evidence and witnesses the prosecution presents that you are guilty.

 

[MillennialGunslinger]

This is all you need to Know.
Identify yourself as the victim of the attack.
Inform responding police that you have an attorney. If you don't then say I need an attorney.
You will be happy to cooperate BUT only in the presence of your attorney.

After looking at this for the past few days, I can't help but say that I've reached the conclusion that that is all some people need to know (say), only because that is the best that some people can do. But not the best that can be done. Some people are bound to put themselves into more trouble than they would have simply shutting up. The problem seems to be not that people give a basic description of necessary details, if not those who can't stop at giving solely that. And there are a lot of reasons to fall into that trap, admittedly. But it ideally should be done because of the whole "affirmative defense" issue and what that implies.

On the other hand, by "identifying yourself as the victim of the attack", we may already be on the same page. Really, it boils down to say as little as you need to start the investigation with you as the victim and the other person as the aggressor. Identify witnesses before they leave. Identify evidence that is not evident before lost, removed or tampered with. Identify any other attackers which may have ran away (and if they took what would have been evidence with them), off the top of my head. And there are a lot of things to take into account when doing so, of course. At least that's the opinion of those far more educated than I on the matter. Perhaps you include all those things in the attack part of the phrase. If you don't see it beneficial, then there arguably are tradeoffs to that.

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.

Personally, I think that referring to something after the fact would not help your credibility very much, and your credibility is paramount.

Totally unrelated though, but in this thread, one of the suggestions (that wasn't widespread, but wasn't challenged either) was to:
"Write yourself a letter now that states (and documents) any training or certifications with firearms you hold. Leave the sealed letter in your safe. Prior knowledge is great evidence and admissible in court."

I see how both things could give an appearance of premeditation, but between a wallet card (like what some people have for a car accident, or a heart attack, or etc etc) and a certified letter sent to yourself in advance with your own training, as a layman I'd certainly look upon the second with a lot more suspicion. Simply because of how unusual something like that would seem. It just left me curious if nothing else. If anyone has any thoughts on that, I'd be curious about it.

 

[bfox]

You said you probably would not be coherent or rational but you have the presence of mind to look in your wallet for a card ? I always think its funny that a lot of guys on these forums think they are going to be the one walking away after these situations . I would ask a Lawyer what to do . Card in your wallet is creepy to me !