Self Defense Shootings and Talking to the Police

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

ManBearPig

member
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
151
Ok, so on youtube, is a very good video section about how to never talk to the police. How what you say can't be used to help you...ever, but anything you say can be used against you. It's very informative.

Here are the two parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE&feature=related

Here is my question. Even after watching all of that, I still wonder if you would at least want to say the minimal if you were involved in a home defense shooting......such as this:

Magic phrase number one: I was in fear for my life.
Magic phrase number two: I shot to stop the threat (never say I shot to kill).
Then as an after thought: I"ve done nothing wrong.
Then you ask for your lawyer after making those statements.

Or should you just follow everything in the video and not even give that minimal to the police, take your being arrested, and let it play out?
 
IMO it's a matter of when and where. In my home or on my property? I'd offer a brief reasonable explanation and then shut up. Pretty much the same "out on the street", but briefer and definitely mention attorney. If you clam up totally, you arouse suspicion, IMO.

I live in what's basically gun-friendly territory, so YMMV.
 
Hello friends and neighbors // IIRC the series also mentions having the officer place said BG under arrest reguardless of the outcome of the shooting.

BG Wounded arrest them/BG "Appears Dead" still have officer arrest them, first thing.

A 911 call would also be a good idea reguardless of outcome, even if you already hear sirens approaching.

jmho
 
Magic phrase number one: I was in fear for my life.
Magic phrase number two: I shot to stop the threat (never say I shot to kill).
Then as an after thought: I"ve done nothing wrong.
Then you ask for your lawyer after making those statements.
Click to expand...

Me...I like the K.I.S.S. method.

1. I was in fear for my life.
2. I'd like to speak to my lawyer.
 
My firearms instructor advises an additional line after stating, "I was in fear for my life." He suggests also stating, "I want that person arrested." He suggests saying this even though the BG may be incapacitated from your defensive response. My instructor explained that most of us are not medical experts, and not qualified to declare the official medical status of the BG. By stating, "I want that person arrested," even repeating it, the line is likely to appear in the responding officer's written report. This report would be referenced in any potential future legal action.
 
This is essentially what Massad Ayoob and some others recommend, and why:

1. Say something like, "That person, or those people, attacked me." You are thus identifying yourself as the victim.
2. Say something like, "I will sign a complaint." That establishes that you viewed the conduct of the other party to be criminal. It also shows a spirit of cooperation.
3. Point out possible evidence, especially evidence that may not be immediate apparent. So if the assailant's knife slide under a car, tell the investigating officer. If the assailant dropped his gun in the bushes as he ran away, mention that. You don't want any such evidence to be missed.
4. Point out possible witnesses.
5. Then say something like, "Officer, you know how serious this is. I'm not going to say anything more right now. You'll have my full cooperation in 24 hours, after I've talked with my lawyer."
 
RE: the "I want that person arrested" statement... I've been involved in one or two situations where the BG said exactly that about me even though I was the one legally in the right (not shooting situations, but still relevant). It's not something many officers I know (Detroit area, Louisville Metro, and Tallahassee area) take into consideration, especially in a shots fired situation.

My advice is to stay silent until addressed by the investigating officer, explain that you were in fear for your (or another person's if in a state that allows defense of another) life and that you will cooperate fully with the investigation, sign a statement (handwritten by you) after speaking with your attorney. This is the same advice that was given to me when I asked the OP's question of a Leon County Sheriff.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I should have added to my preceding post that I was recently in Arizona helping out with Massad Ayoob's MAG40 class (the successor to LFI-I). In the class were a retired judge with a lot of major criminal jury trial experience and an Army lawyer who prosecuted criminal matters. We talked after the class was over. Both were of the opinion that Mas knew and understood the law and how the legal system worked and that the advice he offered for dealing with the legal aftermath of a self defense event was accurate and apt.
 
While I don't always agree with what Ayoob says, it's never stupid, just not necessarily applicable to the scared grandma with a home invader's blood all over the walls. The basic thrust however, is something with which I cannot disagree.

Tell the police the MINIMUM necessary to portray yourself as the victim, without volunteering unnecessary information which would only falsely incriminate you or muddy the situation. After that, invoke your rights to counsel and to remain silent and do just that, REMAIN SILENT.
 
Having been a sort of LEO (SA for New York AG) it never ceased to amaze me how many people want to explain what happened. They really believe that explaining what happened will enable them to just go home and forget whatever happened.
Some can't shut up. I could ask questions for hours and get answers.
It's a fact once you start talking you won't stop. You want to clarify the explanations.

SHUT UP
And now SCOTUS has ruled you have to say , I want to Shut Up.
If the wonderful officer that approaches you just tells you it's all going to be OK just tell him what happened and you'll be out of here in no time. The LEO just lied. You know SCOTUS has said a LEO can lie?.

Really, SHUT UP

AFS
 
LEO: So, what happened here?
CoRoMo: The bad guy broke in, I felt mortally threatened so I fired my gun at him.
LEO: What was this guy doing that made you feel so threatened?
CoRoMo: I'll have to speak to my attorney before I can give you the answer to that. If you have any other questions, he and I will do what we can to give you a full description of what happened here.


IANAL, and the above narrative may
or may not work. I make no guarantees
as to the effectiveness or wisdom of this post.
:cool:
 
Last edited:
LEO1: So, what happened here?
kop: Gee , Nice shoes officer are they comfortable ?
LEO2: So, what happened here?
kop: Have you seen my cat ? The shots seem to have scared him off .
LEO3: So, what happened here? Just start in the begining .
kop: my date of birth is ...
LEO1: So, really , what happened here?
kop: I dialled 911
LEO: So, what happened here?
LEO: suit with badge interrupts "don't you guys get it let him call his lawyer already you arn't going to get a thing from him ."
LEO: So, let him make the call
kop: on phone to Lawyer . Howie , get over here as quick as you can there has been a shooting .
Howie/Lawyer: Interesting choice of words , do I have permission to record ?
kop: Absolutely you have my permission to record this conversation .
Howie/Lawyer: do not hang up just put the phone down I'll be right there .
LEO: So , you say you shot this guy .
kop: how 'bout them Yankees ....

Refuted by my Lawyers recording and my testimony as well as corroborated by one honest LEO was the statement to my attorney that I had admitted to shooting the alleged assailant made by not one but two LEO's eavesdropping on privileged communication between my attorney and I .
burden of proof then shifted radically to the state having to prove if there was a shot fired , if there was a shot fired by me and only then if it was justified . The obvious forced entry and round discharged by my alleged assailant pretty much sealed the deal . What my stalling accomplished along with providing the time for my attorney to appear was limit the scope of the investigation to the immediate scene and not allow a search of the home .

just shut up and hope that your attorney lives as close as mine .

btw , retainer for the criminal defence "use of excessive force and discharge of etc ..." $2,500 .
final total for subsequent civil suit , $5,800 . AND not being able to carry concealed for a year . AND having my weapon retained for evidence for 23 months . AND court mandated anger management classes at my expense . AND a response from any traffic stop , from then until forever, from whatever database, that I am to be considered armed and dangerous . (imagine trying to explain to your 92 year old mother why she is being ordered to get out of the vehicle with her hands above her head and assume a face down position on the street)
Now before questioning the wisdom of spending that money answer me this . What price your freedom and would you gamble everything you own and everything you would ever own on defending yourself in an otherwise frivolous civil suit or retain competent legal representation ?

So there in a nutshell is the price of self defence . Pay up or die .

~kop
 
Last edited:
As for talking with the cops after a self defense shooting, can't answer for others but my wife and I will lawyer up.

L.W.
 
wishin said:
Flexyourrights.org has a DVD out that gives 10 rules for dealing with the police. It costs $15.00.

http://flexyourrights.org/10_Rules/
Click to expand...
These sorts of videos are fine for learning how to deal with police encounters in general. But if you're involved in an incident in which you will be claiming that you acted in self defense, your situation will be a little different.

You will want to establish that you were the victim. You will want to be sure that the police don't overlook evidence that might help you, like the attacker's knife that you saw fall down a drain or the attacker's gun that you saw a bystander pick up and walk away with. You will need to tell your story and make at least a prima facie case that you were justified to do what you did.

This can be very different from the normal criminal case in which the suspect is considered the perpetrator and can sit back and force the prosecutor to prove the state's case.

An excellent resource is a new book out entitled Lessons From Armed America by Kathy Jackson and Mark Walters. Kathy is a member here and goes by pax. She is also managing editor of Concealed Carry Magazine, an instructor at the firearms Academy of Seattle and the proprietor of the Cornered Cat (http://www.corneredcat.com/).

Another excellent resource is the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/). The president, Marty Hayes, is also a member here as well as being director of the Firearms Academy of Seattle. He is also a lawyer and teaches continuing legal education classes for attorneys in the handling of self defense cases.
 
Posted by Fiddletown: This [the self defense case] can be very different from the normal criminal case in which the suspect is considered the perpetrator and can sit back and force the prosecutor to prove the state's case.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed. In the "run of the mill" shooting case, the prosecution will have to prove that the shooter was present at the scene of the crime and that he fired the shots. It is up to the defendant's lawyer to make them do so.

In a self defense case, the actor will have to admit at the outset having been present and having employed deadly force; it will then be up to the actor to provide evidence to support a claim of justifiability.

Should supporting evidence not be found at the scene and disappear in rain, wind, whatever, and/or should otherwise corroborating witnesses disappear or not be questioned by police at the scene, no amount of "lawyering up" after the fact can undo the damage. An attorney cannot produce evidence that he or she does not have.

Along the same line, should the initial investigators have no inkling that the shooting involved self defense and believe at the outset that they have a crime of manslaughter for which to develop their case, they will have no reason to consider looking for evidence of an unlawful act that may have required an act of self defense. Today's police and police investigators are competent and diligent, but they are not perfect, their workloads are backbreaking, their time is budgeted, and their work is prioritized.

Those who insist upon following otherwise excellent advice to say nothing when a self defense shooting occurs simply do not understand the concept of an affirmative defense.

It also might be helpful to be referred to as the alleged victim rather than "the suspect."

These cited sources provide essentially the same advice that Ayoob has provided, along with explanations of why:

An excellent resource is a new book out entitled Lessons From Armed America by Kathy Jackson and Mark Walters. Kathy is a member here and goes by pax. She is also managing editor of Concealed Carry Magazine, an instructor at the firearms Academy of Seattle and the proprietor of the Cornered Cat (http://www.corneredcat.com/).

Another excellent resource is the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/). The president, Marty Hayes, is also a member here as well as being director of the Firearms Academy of Seattle. He is also a lawyer and teaches continuing legal education classes for attorneys in the handling of self defense cases.
Click to expand...

No, you do not want to start discussing what happened without having an attorney present. But you do not want to give up the opportunity of identifying yourself as the victim, pointing out the assailant, and pointing out any evidence or witnesses that may prove crucial to your future, either.
 
If I'm involved in an incident, I interact with LEO as little as possible. I keep my mouth shut after telling them I want my attorney.
 
Just like the original discussion, I'm not going to go into a debate about either, believe who you want, that's fine. I didn't post what I did to start a fight, and I refuse to play the game with anyone who has one in mind.
 
Kleanbore wrote: "Today's police and police investigators are competent and diligent, but they are not perfect, their workloads are backbreaking, their time is budgeted, and their work is prioritized."

Let me refer you to Carlos Miller's blog, Photography Is Not A Crime.
 
Its a matter of perception, if you look like a criminal, then expect those people used to dealing with criminal to treat you like one. I read a thread here last year about CCW where it came to basically two sides, one loose and baggy to conceal the gun, the other business casual, dress shirt, nice coat, good shoes and spacious slacks.
The main gist for the second was that you would be better received by the police and yet not stand out in a crowd.

Me, I have a pocket recorder, a digital one, that if I carry a gun goes in a pocket too. Human memory is proven failiable, so I have no expectation that my own is any better, and less an "witness" because you may not lie, but bad guys do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Confederate
  • Locked
Don't Talk to the Police!
Replies
3
Views
812
Jeff White
J
C
  • Locked
Don't Talk to the cops.
Replies
2
Views
475
coolluke01
C
M
  • Locked
Never Talk To The Police
Replies
6
Views
1K
Jeff White
J
Ben86
  • Locked
Guilty or Innocent, Don't Talk to the Cops!
Replies
4
Views
667
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
C
  • Locked
Don't Talk to the Cops - Videos
2
Replies
49
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top