What do you say on the phone to 911 after a shooting?

[9mmepiphany]

The "what if" situations specifically address "telephone technique" with the 9-1-1 operator during worst case conditions after a shooting.

Ah, I didn't catch that in your list of questions. I read the OP as what to say while speaking to the operator as opposed to scene security before or during the call

So are you asking what to do, after the shooting, but before calling if these factors exist or if the situation changes while you are on the phone?

 

[orionengnr]

Having sat in (the front seat of) a patrol car waiting for a tow truck fairly recently, I had about 30 minutes to talk with the officer and listen in on the radio transmissons. He was pretty derisive of the lack of quality info transmitted from Dispatch/911 to him...and getting to listen in for that short period of time, I am a believer..

The best part was, I am a CHL holder and was legally carrying at the time. Since we had (at the time) a duty to disclose, I did so immedately. The fact that he invited me to sit in the front seat with him, while still armed, and showed absolutely no concern at doing so, bought him a large measure of respect on my part.

I ended up sending a hand drafted letter to his Chief on his behalf. I did not mention the CHL thing, but praised him on his professionalism and general demeanor. I hope it made it into his P-file.

Fort Worth PD, FWIW.

You also must be seen trying to render some kind of first aid when the police get there .

Wow. We seem to get more bad advice by the day.

 

[allaroundhunter]

I do not see myself rendering first aid to a person that I just had to shoot in order to protect myself. I have not had the training to do so, and also, I do not want to approach the person just in case he still is not completely out of the fight.

 

[ChCx2744]

orionengnr, I'm sure the officer really appreciates your commendation. Any commendations officers receive from the public are shared with the entire watch and placed into the officer's file. I'm sure that made his day a bit happier.

 

[MikeNice]

Now we do disagree if you feel that one should NEVER give first aid to an attacker.

That is my exact position.

We could envision a scenario where the attacker is down, bleeding from a wound he can't stanch by hmself, and he begs for your help...with an open 911 line. You refuse. A possible outcome:

A very simple rebutal, "The attacker Mr. ____ pulled a knife (or gun) on my client. He was unawre of were the weapon was as Mr.____ asked for help. Still in fear for his life my client refused aid. He did not want to step into an ambush. The attacker Mr. ____ had already proven he was willing to use lethal force against my client. So, my client refused to give him a chance to make good on his threats."

Police do not render aid. They keep the person secured until medics arrive. If a cop won't render aid, you shouldn't feel obligated to do so. Your life is just as valuable as theirs.

Here is a video of an OIS involving a deputy from a near by county. After the shooting occurs the deputy waits for back up. They then approach to secure the gun and subject. They do not render aid. They handcuff the individual.

Guilford County Deputy OIS

If a well trained cop won't approach without back up, neither will I.

I chose not to do so in this particular case, rather than a general principle of "police don't do it, so I shouldn't,"

Well it is an easy one to defend in court.
"Officers are trained for this specific type of event and they still find it unsafe to approach the downed attacker alone. I recieve less training than many officers. So, I did not feel I was capable of approaching and maintaining my safety."

"hey, shooting him is no problem--but if I try to help him, I could be in big trouble legally."

Good Samaritan laws cover injury caused while rendering aid in many states. The big problem is that if something you do causes further harm it may be construed as excessive force, or attempting to "finish off" the person. Both can land you in big trouble and negate your claim to defense.

I would simply tell the 9-1-1 operator, "he seems to be in a lot of pain and is screaming for help. Please rush first responders." It shows you are concerned for his well being. It also allows you to maintain your distance. Then again I also don't plan on holding an open line. After I give all relevant information I am hopping off of the phone. Being distracted at that point can prove dangerous or fatal.

 

[Sam1911]

[Guys, remember this is the S,T,&T forum. Silly humor is not welcomed. Keep it serious and thoughtful, please.]

 

[Loosedhorse]

Man I hate repeating myself

Then don't. Despite your repeating yourself, you are still wrong: your "point" about questioning in no way refutes my detective scenario.

If you've got a SCOTUS case that says it does, then share.

A very simple rebutal

Perhaps. Of course, this is all hypothetical. But we can speculate that the witnesses on scene will also state that the deceased was begging for help, then became unconscious...and you still didn't help. That will make a strong emotional impact, and it is not just logic that convinces jurors.

So, perhaps not so simple to rebut.

As I already said, if you have an articulable reason specific to your actual case (as opposed to a "general policy") of why you didn't render aid, I think you're in the best shape you can be. But, it is up to the jury to decide whether, after you justifiably stopped him, you unjustifiable caused him to die.

The criminal AND civil jury.

Police do not render aid.

I am not the police. I do not have a departmental policy, or city-paid lawyers to back me up on a claim of "I was just following policy."

If I go to trial, I pay my defense; the police department doesn't. If I lose a judgment, I pay, not the city. I don't want my kids to lose me, but I also don't want them to lose my house, either.

As the consequences of my action (or inaction) for me is different than the consequences for police, why should I adopt their policy?

After I give all relevant information I am hopping off of the phone.

Okay, but the continued recording of the 911 tape, as well as an open line of comm to the police, might do you good. Unless you're worried you're going to do something that you'd rather a jury not hear later...like ignore pleas for aid.

The big problem is that if something you do causes further harm it may be construed as excessive force, or attempting to "finish off" the person.

Why would that be construed? As you're applying pressure to a leg wound (making things worse how, exactly?), you're prehaps shouting "I'll teach you to attack me, you %@$#*@% @%#$*@! I'm going to take this bandage and KILL YOU WITH IT!"

People rendering aid look like people rendering aid; the witnesses will be your friends. You just said that there are good samaritan laws if you don't do it quite right.

Again, you're actually going to tell a jury and prosecutor you didn't render aid because you thought that they'd think you (by putting your gun aside and grabbing a towel) were trying to kill him...when it was your inaction that DID in fact kill him? You perhaps think this will advance your standing in their eyes as a "reasonable and prudent" individual?

Oh, here's another consideration besides "consequences" that I should perhaps mention: sentimental, old-fashioned guy that I am, I don't think I can stand by and watch someone die if I think I can safely save him. (I couldn't watch someone drowning, either, as some CA police and firefighters are apparently "obligated" to do.)

Perhaps that's not "tactical enough" for some, but it is who I am.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

If you've got a SCOTUS case that says it does, then share.

"Once warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear. If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 474 (1966), See also: Edwards s. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (1990).

Where shall I send the bill for legal research?

 

[Loosedhorse]

Don't send ANY bill, until you explain how that citation prevents the detective in my scenario from making the statements I posited, and using any response as evidence. As I said, the detective's statements are not questions.

As orangeninja brought up his "questioning" point in response to my detective scenario (which he quoted), perhaps either of you can explain how it is relevant to that? Or if his comment wasn't meant to address my scenario, and he was just passing the time of day, I retract my request.

From RI v Innis

Nor does the record indicate that, in the context of a brief conversation, the officers should have known that respondent would suddenly be moved to make a self-incriminating response. While it may be said that respondent was subjected to "subtle compulsion," it must also be established that a suspect's incriminating response was the product of words or actions on the part of the police that they should have known were reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating response, which was not established here.

(Oh, and where shall I send my bill? Or do I know already? )

 

[orangeninja]

Then don't. Despite your repeating yourself, you are still wrong: your "point" about questioning in no way refutes my detective scenario.

If you've got a SCOTUS case that says it does, then share.

All right Dick Tracy...

It's probably the single most famous criminal case law in the history of the U.S. justice system but just for you...


The Miranda warnings originated in a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, which set forth the following warning and accompanying rights:

•You have the right to remain silent;
•Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law;
•You have the right to consult with a lawyer and have that lawyer present during the interrogation;
•If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you;
•You can invoke your right to be silent before or during an interrogation, and if you do so, the interrogation must stop.
•You can invoke your right to have an attorney present, and until your attorney is present, the interrogation must stop.

Darn it, Bartholomew Roberts beat me to the punch... ah well.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Okay, Perry Mason D): RI v Innis was after Miranda, and decided that brief statements made by cops that led to an incriminating statement by the defendent after he requested counsel were admissible in court.

What part of Miranda do you suppose the Innis court didn't understand?

 

[orangeninja]

Okay, Perry Mason (): RI v Innis was after Miranda, and decided that brief statements made by cops that led to an incriminating statement by the defendent after he requested counsel were admissible in court.

What part of Miranda do you suppose the Innis court didn't understand?

Voluntary statements by the suspect are always admissible. Also if the suspect asks for a lawyer but continues talking or asking questions about the case, that is also admissible. The point is the police cannot initiate the conversation nor can they coerce a statement once a lawyer has been requested. If the suspect wants to sit quietly questioning cannot begin anew, if they want to talk about baseball or the weather, same thing. But if they want to continue talking about the case they are in effect waiving their right to remain silent.

In the case of Innis he voluntarily began discussing the case again. He was not threatened nor coerced into doing so. There was no “interrogation” nor “functional equivalent” nor were the officers in question even speaking to the suspect at the time.

If you’re going to demand case law you should at least try and read it clearly so that you understand what took place and why the courts ruled as they did. However a good indicator that you might be in over your head at this point in the discussion would be if you are moving your lips while you read this post.

 

[Sam1911]

The subject of the thread was: "What do you say on the phone to 911 after a shooting?"

I'm going to close this for now as we've drifted far afield. (And we're getting a little raw with each other.)

 

[Kleanbore]

If anyone has anything constructive to say on this subject that has not already been said here, send a PM to Sam or me.