Who has a defense attorney already picked out?

[Dagga Boy]

Nobody has suggested anything anywhere close to that in this thread, dude.

There's a country mile between kooky stuff like having an "Adnarim" flash card to read to the cops after you've had your lawyer call 911, and just knowing who you were going to call if you were in danger of getting Zimmerman-ed.

I never suggested that it was in this thread. I have seen these deride to that level of advice on gun forums. My point was that these threads often turn into an "I know best", or "this is what I would do". I have sort of just given up. I have been blessed that in the multiple shooting investigations that I was the guy sitting at with table with the detectives on the other side, Plan A worked. I have a Plan B, just in case. I think my best advice is to have a couple of plans, as you never really know how things are going to go.

[Lester Polfus]

Illinois is one of those states with a civil liability shield, often cited when people bring up the idea of "adding Castle Doctrine" or "adding Stand Your Ground" (we also have no "duty to retreat" in our self-defense law, so those are generally considered unnecessary here.) But I'm not aware of any case law that further clarifies that shield. My question about it has been (and I guess I'd better get moving on getting an answer!) whether there's any good guidance on what activates that defense. For instance, if I've shot an attacker, and the DA has declined to bring charges, is that enough evidence that I acted in self-defense to activate my protection against civil suits? Or am I going to have to be sued and claim my civil immunity--and maybe even go to a trial and raise it as a defense? I can't claim to be sure.

Exactly. For example, a quick google search in my home state of Washington shows:

"(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030."

Man. That just makes me feel all sorts of warm and fuzzy.

But, further:

"(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant’s claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award."

This makes me feel less warm and fuzzy. Because to my non-lawyer eye, to be found not guilty, there has to have been a trial. Having a trial is on my list of things not to do in life.

Let's hypothosize that I go to trial, and am found not guilty, and the judge says I get a million dollars to cover my lawyers, having Massod Ayoob and Dr. Henry Lee come testify and etc.

Then what? Is there a pot of money sitting in the state coffers for this? What if it's a contentious, highly publicized trial, and no state official wants to sign the check and wake up to headlines the next day saying "Gunman's legal fees paid by state."

I can see the issue being "studied" and deferred, and the can kicked down the road. Meanwhile no check is forthcoming and the lawyers want their money. My remedy would be to sue the state, which takes more lawyers....

[Lester Polfus]

You want to have an attorney call 9-11 for you, rock on.

Totally not my plan. But I know enough about the legal system to know I'm out of my lane, and I think it makes sense to spend a few hours and maybe a couple hundred bucks picking somebody out ahead of time.

[Lester Polfus]

I never suggested that it was in this thread. I have seen these deride to that level of advice on gun forums. My point was that these threads often turn into an "I know best", or "this is what I would do". I have sort of just given up. I have been blessed that in the multiple shooting investigations that I was the guy sitting at with table with the detectives on the other side, Plan A worked. I have a Plan B, just in case. I think my best advice is to have a couple of plans, as you never really know how things are going to go.

Whoops I missed this reply.

I'm really not looking for legal advice, as far as "this is what I would do."

I actually posted this with a little trepidation, because I've seen some pretty whacky stuff said on internet forums too, but the signal to noise ratio on this site is pretty good, so I thought I'd give it a try.

I am interested in the process anybody else has used in picking an attorney, and how it worked out.

[Lester Polfus]

Had to google "Adnarim." Wow.

[Tamara]

Had to google "Adnarim." Wow.

See?

[TheTrevor]

I am not at all certain that the Adnarim statement is a bad idea, though "have lawyer call 911" is ridiculous. What am I missing here?

[Tamara]

I am not at all certain that the Adnarim statement is a bad idea, though "have lawyer call 911" is ridiculous. What am I missing here?

I wouldn't be so bold as to answer for nyeti, but I think what he was getting at with his "Plan A/Plan B" thing was this:

The nature of interfacing with the responding officers can vary wildly with the nature, location, and et cetera of the incident. There's guys that go through televised nightmare trials and guys that practically get high-fived* on the way to the station house to make a statement.

A sighthound sees something running and it looks like prey. A cop hears somebody give a boilerplate non-answer about "I got nothin' ta say to ya. I wanna talk to my lawyer," and he hears every habitual offender he's dealt with (not to mention every Guilty Mook in a screenplay ever) and he's gonna start looking for what really happened. At best, he's going to see you read or recite a canned response and think "Oh, a jailhouse lawyer, eh?"

I don't want to be Chatty Cathy, but I don't want to look like an extra from The Godfather, either. I want to get on the phone with a lawyer, but I don't want to look like I'm a crook in the process.


*Dude in DeKalb Co., GA back in the '90s. Shot a carjacker in the neck in a Wally World parking lot.

[TheTrevor]

Makes sense. Having grown up in a household with an FBI interrogator (true story) I look at stuff like this as common-sense guidelines for how to handle the discussion, not a script to be recited ad nauseam when the first guys in the scene just want to know if there are any more perps bleeding out elsewhere in their patrol area. The key is knowing how to be cooperative while sticking to safe topics of discussion, such as the number of miscreants you personally encountered.

I'd be pretty annoyed if I called PD for service and the responding officers would only answer me with scripted responses. Even more than they already do, I mean.

[Doublestack45]

A couple years ago I asked an attorney who had handled something for me previously if he would be willing to be the guy I called first. I knew his background and liked how he handled himself. He agreed while assuring me that he had been approached by others with the same question. At some level, I immediately felt like I was better off for taking the first step. I did a lot of reading on the subject around that time and view it like an insurance policy with no guarantee. I'll be watching this thread closely.