1KPerDay
Member
You propose you just walk away? 
What do you say on the phone to 911 after a shooting?
- Thread starter FIVETWOSEVEN
- Start date
- Status
zxcvbob
Member
WAY too wordy. "I don't know, I'm not a doctor. Send the police and an ambulance. Please hurry!"Derek Z said:
It wouldn't hurt to piss yourself, or throw-up on your shirt and/or shoes. Look and smell like a real victim when the cops get there.
(you may do that anyway)Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
This misunderstands the concept of an "affirmative defense." Shooting someone is NEVER simply legal.
The defense against a charge for most criminal cases is basically, "I didn't do it, and you can't prove I did it!" Not testifying against yourself works fine in those cases. Innocent until proven guilty and so on.
In a self-defense case, things work quite the opposite way. First, you admit to this heinous act of assaulting, shooting, and/or killing someone. Then you present your reasons why you HAD to do that or you'd have died or been grievously injured. Those reasons must match the reasons which will be codified in your state's laws for which the crime of assault or homicide may be excused by the state. Usually there is some verbiage like, "It shall be an affirmative defense for the crime of manslaughter that the defendant was in reasonable fear of immediate death or grave injury at the hands of the deceased..." or something to that effect.
So, in self-defense cases, (generally, in most jurisdictions) you MUST prove your justification (not innocence). "Yup, I did it, and here's why..." If the District Attorney, a Grand Jury, or a trial jury if it goes that far, believe your story and find that the situation you faced does rise to the terms spelled out in the law, then you will go free.
No shoot is a "good shoot" until the state declares it to be justified. Every assault, shooting, and/or killing is a crime until the guilt for it has been set aside through due process.
Now, you can still shut up and assume/hope/pray that the evidence "speaks for itself" and/or that the District Attorney will see things just as you would like him/her to and exonerate you of wrongdoing. But that's a lousy wager to make.
Do a search on the term "Affirmative Defense" for more info.
Birch Knoll
Member
There damn well better be a crime to report, if it was in fact a defensive shooting.
I don't think you can have it both ways...as a matter of fact, you can't be compelled to testify against yourself until you are in court and can't invoke the fifth amendment until that time.
Most places also have a law requiring people involved in a shooting to report it...it has been found unconstitutional.
Shooting someone in self defense isn't legal. Self Defense is an affirmative defense to justify the homicide (or attempted homicide) you have committed. In order to avail yourself of this defense, you have to first admit to the homicide
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
Sam1911 said:
Then by logical extention wouldn't reporting it to the police be a form of testifing against yourself as it would incriminate you?
Then by logical extention wouldn't reporting it to the police be a form of testifing against yourself as it would incriminate you?
allaroundhunter
Member
All you have to say is: There is an injured man with gunshot wounds. Paramedics are needed immediately. I am and will stay on scene. I am armed, wearing <insert clothing description> and will fully cooperate with the responding officers. You don't have to say that YOU did the shooting, but eventually you WILL have to give your side of the story, at least to your lawyer(s)
ChCx2744
Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,228
Sorry, but I'm gonna have to disagree on the aspect of rendering aid. Rendering aid would mean I have to touch the perp. Unless I can't help it, I'm not touching the suspect, their weapon (if any) or even getting near them. That's disturbing evidence as well as the crime scene. All spent shell casings, blood and dead suspects stay where they are, as they are.
Dial 911, calmly and collectively (Yes, I am capable of doing this, I have called 911 in high stress situations multiple times) explain that there has been a shooting. Give the location. Give your information, along with name and physical description (Head to toe, weight, height, everything you're wearing. Giving the suspect's physical description is wise, too). Unless you are a licensed MD, medical examiner or post-mortem specialist, the suspect's condition is not your call. Stay on the line. If there is no more immediate threat, holster or put the gun on the ground; only have the phone in your hand. Make sure you advise the operator to relay to the responding officers to not shoot you, that you will not have a weapon in your hands and will comply with all verbal commands. Remember, the call is all recorded. Don't say more than you need to, there will be time for that later. Don't get angry, irritated or sarcastic.
Dial 911, calmly and collectively (Yes, I am capable of doing this, I have called 911 in high stress situations multiple times) explain that there has been a shooting. Give the location. Give your information, along with name and physical description (Head to toe, weight, height, everything you're wearing. Giving the suspect's physical description is wise, too). Unless you are a licensed MD, medical examiner or post-mortem specialist, the suspect's condition is not your call. Stay on the line. If there is no more immediate threat, holster or put the gun on the ground; only have the phone in your hand. Make sure you advise the operator to relay to the responding officers to not shoot you, that you will not have a weapon in your hands and will comply with all verbal commands. Remember, the call is all recorded. Don't say more than you need to, there will be time for that later. Don't get angry, irritated or sarcastic.
Last edited:
MikeNice
Member
I disagree. Even the POs I know aren't told to do this. Let the medics do their job. It may be misconstrued as attempting to do further harm. Plus, the guy just put you in fear of your life. Treat him as a continued threat unless he is deceased.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
After a fashion, yes. That's exactly how an affirmative defense works.
As I said, the very first step in establishing that you were justified is to say "I did it!" You have to admit that you shot someone, and that you did it deliberately (NOT by accident), and that you had to do it. It is vital that you present your justification to establish the affirmative defense.
To your question as I understand it, the 5th Amendment may give you some protection should you so refuse to contribute to your own defense. I suppose it could be argued that the state cannot FORCE you to sustain your own claim of self defense. That's a strange position to take, but if you didn't call out of fear, shame, or whatever, and your state's laws include a duty to report felonies, and you're charged with not doing so -- perhaps you could claim 5th Amendment protection retroactively for that failure. I don't know. It certainly would be winning the battle, but losing the war. Manslaughter, for which you need to establish the affirmative defense, will be the more serious charge.
If you don't call, and/or you otherwise try to hide from what you have done because you don't want to incriminate yourself, then you CANNOT be justified in the act. You are merely a wanted criminal suspect on the lam.
Now, when the police do locate you and take you in for questioning, you're going to have to work harder to establish your defense: Not only were you not at the scene to give the vital initial statements, point out witnesses, point out weapons, establish yourself as the wronged party, etc., but you now face charges of leaving the scene of the crime, and your credibility with the DA and with a jury has taken a huge hit.
You're going to end up having to throw yourself on the mercy of the state and/or jury anyway, but now you've made your case much weaker. Instead of someone who did what he knew he had to do as a reasonable man faced with a deadly threat -- ready to step up to the witness box and confidently establish his justification -- you're seen as unsure, cowering, and ashamed of your actions -- someone who ran and hid instead of taking responsibility for his righteous act.
You'll have to answer for your actions either way. Which way do you want to present yourself?
Last edited:
And legally, that creates a presumption of guilt.
And as a criminal, and the fact that you did shoot should be very easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
In Korwin's book, the idea of not calling 911 came up and was shot down quickly; then, the idea of calling your attorney and having him or her call was discussed, and that dog didn't hunt, either.
So, we need to call or have somoene at the scene do so, and we need to know what to say and what not to.
Loosedhorse
member
Mike, are you misinterpreting my post, perhaps?
My "absolutely not" above refers to the notion that one MUST give first aid. You seem to agree with me that the "MUST" idea is untrue.
Now we do disagree if you feel that one should NEVER give first aid to an attacker. But, of course, that's up to each person. 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:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we have heard expert medical testimony that the deceased victim [that is, the attacker] could have, despite the massive firepower viciously unleashed at him by the defendant [the defender], could have survived, if the defendant had bothered to grab the towel lying 3 feet away and simply applied direct pressure to the wound. But he chose instead to let the semi-conscious, helpless, troubled [mentally disturbed and/or chronically criminal] church-going [his mom confirms] youth [under, say, 30--he looked younger at his funeral] bleed to death while he [prosecutor points finger at defendant] cruelly watched, and coldly listened to his pleas for help. [Prosecutor again turns on 911 tape] "Please, help me. God, I don't want to die. Please. I'm sorry. Oh, God, I'm dying. Help, please, help. [Sobs, then after a while, quietly] Momma..." [then silence. Prosecutor turns tape off, again points at defendant] What kind of monster do we have here, ladies and gentlemen?"
Ahem. Would I actually give aid? Maybe, maybe not: depends on the circumstances. What I mean is that I would not preclude that possibility, simply because I was attacked. And if I chose not to give aid, I would have articulable reasons why, having considered it, 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," "it's only safe to render aid after he's dead," or the ever-popular "hey, shooting him is no problem--but if I try to help him, I could be in big trouble legally."
Just me.
(Sorry, probably off-topic: but considerations of what will be recorded on your 911 call do come into play.)
9mm, I'm not sure why you feel that calling (or holstering?) would necessitate having the attacker out of your sight? Perhaps you mean for the moment it takes to glance down and dial 911 or 0?
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Well, I can't speak much as to the initial interaction with police. From a legal perspective, I would want a client to be:
1. Very concise with his wording. Be brief. State only facts that you are absolutely sure of and if you don't know, say "I don't know" instead of guessing or speculating. It may turn out later that as time passes and the stress reaction subsides you remember more details. If your later testimony contradicts what you tell the 911 operator, it can create the impression that you are being less than truthful, so resist the natural urge to be helpful and speculate on what may be going on and keep it limited to the bare facts.
2. Don't lie to the police (example: say you are sick or ill when you are not). Not only will it create a giant mess when it is discovered, it may be a crime in and of itself. At the very least, it will cause the police to re-evaluate every statement you made to them. Forensic evidence is not the 99.9% guarantee they show on CSI. If police start looking at ambiguous forensic evidence with the impression that you are lying to them, they are more likely to let the justice system sort it out.
3. I don't think there is an easy answer to rendering aid. There are certainly cases where people have been killed or seriously injured by a second criminal attacker they never saw until it was too late. You also have the issue that you may destroy or alter forensic evidence that supports your claim in the process of trying to help the person who tried to kill or seriously injure you. My general take on it is that I am going to have to feel pretty secure about my well-being and my family's well-being before I start worrying about the guy who just tried to kill or seriously injure me.
1. Very concise with his wording. Be brief. State only facts that you are absolutely sure of and if you don't know, say "I don't know" instead of guessing or speculating. It may turn out later that as time passes and the stress reaction subsides you remember more details. If your later testimony contradicts what you tell the 911 operator, it can create the impression that you are being less than truthful, so resist the natural urge to be helpful and speculate on what may be going on and keep it limited to the bare facts.
2. Don't lie to the police (example: say you are sick or ill when you are not). Not only will it create a giant mess when it is discovered, it may be a crime in and of itself. At the very least, it will cause the police to re-evaluate every statement you made to them. Forensic evidence is not the 99.9% guarantee they show on CSI. If police start looking at ambiguous forensic evidence with the impression that you are lying to them, they are more likely to let the justice system sort it out.
3. I don't think there is an easy answer to rendering aid. There are certainly cases where people have been killed or seriously injured by a second criminal attacker they never saw until it was too late. You also have the issue that you may destroy or alter forensic evidence that supports your claim in the process of trying to help the person who tried to kill or seriously injure you. My general take on it is that I am going to have to feel pretty secure about my well-being and my family's well-being before I start worrying about the guy who just tried to kill or seriously injure me.
orangeninja
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,117
Actually once you ask for an attorney questioning is over until legal counsel arrives. It's one of them pesky Supreme Court rulings.
Loosedhorse
member
Then please tell us which one. As I recall, those evidenciary rules (about whether statements made after the accused requests counsel can be used as evidence) go by state. I think you're correct for NY, and wrong for MD, for example. But I await your pesky citation.
You'll also note that none of the statements my theoretical detective made were in fact questions--so questioning did stop. If a suspect makes a volitional utterance in response to statements (not questions) while the police are in fact in the process of getting him his requested counsel, well...
What's a detective to do?
Last edited:
Excellent contribution, and something that we will most likely incorporate into the final result of this discussion.
Another good input, which would best be discussed in a separate thread.
Earlier, we summarized the best advice about what to say to arriving police officers and created a Sticky, which we entitled rather imprecisely, "What to Do After a Self Defense Encounter."
Thanks to FIVETWOSEVEN's OP here, we are now working collectively on what to say when calling 911. That will be a valuable addition.
That leaves the other aspects of what to do right after a shooting (or after drawing a firearm). What the defender does and does not do immediately after the hammer falls (or the striker strikes) on what has hopefully been the last shot fired could make a lot of difference in the outcome. I think it would be good to tackle that also, separately from this.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
Most homocides are committed by people known to the victim yet a third still remain unsolved. What are the chances of you being suspected if you have to shoot a stranger in self-defense who had picked you at random? An armed robber is not likely to attack you with witnesses present nor is he likely to tell anyone that he is about to committ a violent felony. Suppose you chose not to incriminate yourself and don't report it? Sure it would look bad if it ever got to court and you might be sued later on, but then if there were no witnesses it would probably never go to court if you don't report it.
Loosedhorse
member
Owen, are you suggesting that, if we shoot someone in self-defense, we not report it? Perhaps, just to lower our risk of prosecution further, we should quickly dispose of our gun and clothes, because some investigator might later confuse them with "incriminating evidence"?
Now, that is going to seem a bit evasive!
There is a principle: "flight eguals guilt." The justified defender stands his ground, and explains his actions.
As to witnesses: we've already heard that we should assume there's one more accomplice than you know about. I might add: "and six more witnesses."
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
As I said before ... If you don't call, and/or you otherwise try to hide from what you have done because you don't want to incriminate yourself, then you CANNOT be justified in the act. You are merely a wanted criminal suspect on the lam.
At the very least, you are guilty of a crime (probably several) for which the guilt has not been reconciled by a sustained affirmative defense. You may get away with it. Lots of murderers, bank robbers, rapists, and other violent criminals get away without judgment. And they can't be compelled to testify against themselves, either.
Seems a poor basis for a legal strategy.
Not reporting your defensive use of force is a truly lousy idea. As Loosedhorse pointed out, flight equates to guilt. If you do get caught, your self defense claim is pretty much out the window. It's very unlikely that anyone would believe your claim of justification after you'd taken a powder.Owen Sparks said:
And how sure are you that you'd get away with it? Let's get some additional perspective on that point from an outside source.
"...I am not recommending that anyone flee the scene of a justifiable homicide,...In fact, after reviewing the precautions such a flight will require, most of you will properly conclude that it's far too involved and risky to succeed -- and that's my point here. Call 911; don't flee..." (Boston T. Party, Boston's Gun Bible, Javelin Press, 2002, pg 5/2)
And --
"...Criminals have a better practical chance of getting away with ...flight because they have prior experience (you don't), they can plan for it (you got surprised , and thus retrospectively left many inadvertent clues). They have the immediate support of the criminal underworld (you don't). They are ruthless (you are just an average person), they feel no gullt (you will, at least in the form of doubt)...." (Boston T. Party, pg 5/10)
We've already discussed this at some length here.
Yes, crimes committed by gang members, drug dealers, and illegal aliens who have no permanent residences and no legitimate employment, which make up the greater proportion of "homicides [which] are committed by people known to the victim" are often difficult to solve. Not so for a shooting by a citizen with a residence, documented existence, and legitimate lifestyle.
At a bare minimum, two to one, using your numbers.
He may hope to not do so, but there are witnesses to numerous shootings.
That's contradictory. Legally, flight is considered an indication of guilt. Thus, you would in fact be incriminating yourself.
Around here, most murders are solved.
It would "look bad in court"? That's the understatement of the year. It would seal your fate.
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,198
What if the area is NOT safe?
What if the attacker's angry friends/family menace you?
What if "bystanders" become hostile towards you?
What if the scene is chaotic and you don't control the aftermath?
What if you had to flee the area to keep from being lynched by an angry mob?
How "perfect" will your dialogue with the 9-1-1 operator be under these conditions?
Suggestions?
What if the attacker's angry friends/family menace you?
What if "bystanders" become hostile towards you?
What if the scene is chaotic and you don't control the aftermath?
What if you had to flee the area to keep from being lynched by an angry mob?
How "perfect" will your dialogue with the 9-1-1 operator be under these conditions?
Suggestions?
A subject for another thread, Don't want to drift too far from telephone technique after the shooting
Shawn Dodson
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 3,198
The "what if" situations specifically address "telephone technique" with the 9-1-1 operator during worst case conditions after a shooting.
Discussions so far ASSUME a best case "telephone technique" situation.
orangeninja
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2003
- Messages
- 3,117
Man I hate repeating myself...next time you quote me be sure and do it in context. You left out the ..."actually once you ask for an attorney questioning is over until legal counsel arrives."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked