Law & self defense instruction

[Mitchell, Esq.]

In terms of a use of force incident, the legal profession suffer from it’s own marketing.
Lawyers do this in part by overselling the complexity of the situation to the general public, in that we explain all the possible pitfalls, perils and things that can go wrong in the aftermath of a use of force incident, and we expect you to be overwhelmed…and thus hire us.

Yes. Attorneys are out to make money. So are shooting instructor, plumbers, prostitutes, engineers and the guy who installs your HVAC system. (Of them all, prostitutes are the most honest and have the best reputation.)
This over-marketing, seems to have produced a side industry of people in the tactical instruction marketplace who as part of their classes attempt to reduce the legal aspects of self defense easily digestible components for their students.
Unfortunately, those attempting to reduce the volume & complexity of information to the retail tactical consumer do not always have the best grasp of the information they purvey, nor are they always cognizant of how the actual statutes are applied in court, or understand the reasoning behind the information they purvey.

You shouldn’t go to a law office to learn gun fighting (…Well, not yet. Let me get some more classes in and I’ll fix that…Personal Injury Legal Services may just get a whole new meaning in a few years…), and you really shouldn’t go to a tactical school to learn about law. However; gun fighting schools would be negligent if they didn’t give their students basic information regarding use of force laws; but how will the student know if the teacher is saying anything worth listening to?

I) Simplicity

This is self defense, not Federal Administrative Procedure Act litigation or Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. (Shudder. Bad law school memories…) The area of self defense law is not overly complex.
It’s not SIMPLE, and it does require significantly more mental effort than “tried by 12 or carried by 6, and to hell with all the legal mumbo-jumbo…” – but overly complex? No.

The subjective/objective test, Ability/opportunity/intent/jeopardy, applicable retreat statutes or castle doctrine laws and rules for what constitutes reasonable force are not overly complex in practical application.

They should not be so in explanation.

You need instruction that is simple, applicable to a broad variety of situations, easily usable under stress (like…after shooting someone…maybe?) and able to be understood at a bone deep level so you can use it to filter the data from the situation as it comes in subconsciously.

If your instructor is not providing you with that, then they are doing you a disservice.

II) Source material

Another factor you should be on the lookout for - is an instructor providing you with a copy of statutes for you to read absent any legitimate source’s interpretation of them.

Perhaps your state has a law of retreat – it’s probably no different in drafting and language from 15 other state’s laws (legislatures are not the most inventive…they tend to copy a lot from other states…) but in application? How is it applied in your area? Have courts made it a narrow, almost archaic provision that is merely given lip service allowing you to effectively ignore it and stand your ground in practical application – or is it adhered to strictly, making your rules of engagement very tight?

You will not be able to tell by a copy of the law. If you are not given recent, citable sources applicable to your jurisdiction, you have questions that need to be answered.

Teaching general principles of use of force is one thing. Many instructors do classes in multiple states, and asking them to be fully up to par on the minutia of all the states they travel to would be asking too much.

However, your local instructor purporting to teach the law of his state to his class absent proper interpretation, quite another.
Legitimate sources to look for are the state’s jury instructions, American Jurisprudence excerpts, court cases, and Law Review Articles. Be aware that while this area of law doesn’t change very much, it does evolve. Material from 15 years ago may still be accurate – or not.

If you aren’t receiving info on how up to date your instructor’s material is, question the freshness of the product you are getting.

III) Reasoning for choosing the instructor’s line of thinking.

As an example of this, let’s look at advice on post incident behavior/statements.

This is an area in which I respectfully disagree with Mr. Ayoob because of my training and experience as a criminal defense attorney. I believe the less spoken to the police, the better (my thinking lies toward #1 Shut up. #2 Lawyer up, #3 Shut up again...); however, I know & understand the reasons Mr. Ayoob has for his advice, and I and further familiar with his qualifications for offering it.

Beware of people merely parroting his advice on statements, or offering alternative advice without the ability to explain the reasoning behind the position they take or the qualifications to make a decision intelligently on the subject.

If an instructor is unable/unwilling to explain why he follows a particular line of thought - beware. Further, if they do not have the qualifications to make that choice intelligently, the same.

Being a current or former police officer is not enough. Being an attorney – the same.

What experience do they have in the area of investigations or criminal representation? I don’t ask anyone to blindly accept what I’m saying based on a piece of paper on my wall. If I can’t explain why I’d suggest a course of action to your satisfaction, they I wouldn’t ask you to follow it.

Should you get less from an instructor?

Further, as to explanations for a given course of action – be sure they are applicable to you.

If, for example, an instructor’s experience in this area is that of a large city tactical officer who was involved in multiple job related shootings, his post shooting experiences may be greatly influenced by his point of view, and his experiences will probably not be a 1:1 correlation to what you may experience in the aftermath of a situation.

I do criminal defense work. I do it in the Northeastern United States of America. I have a point of view on this subject that is developed from different experiences than people who have a law enforcement background from the South, Northwest, Midwest or Central United States.

Hell, for that matter, I may see things differently than cops from the Northeast too.

That doesn’t mean I’m right or other points of view are wrong, just that it’s based in different experiences, and that will result in seeing things differently than someone who’s background is different from mine. Everyone has a point of view. Make sure you know what the instructor’s is before adopting it for yourself.

Simply dismissing a point of view because it's not yours isn't smart either.
Listen, evaluate, ask questions and decide if a given piece of information fits into the matrix of information you have gotten from other qualified people.

It may be the other side of the argument, so it may not fit perfectly, but again, that doesn't make it wrong. It simply makes it the other point of view.

A self defense instructor does not have to be an attorney to provide a competent level of instruction to the retail training consumer in the area of law surrounding use of force. However, that’s no excuse for handing a student a line of outdated, oversimplified bullshit or a confusing mass of information under the theory that the student won’t understand it anyway.

It’s your life and your freedom.

Demand better.

[JDM]

Good Post.

I think I'd be fairly hesitant to take a law class NOT instructed by a lawyer who focuses on defense cases, or a prosecutor. Or a well teneured police officer from a reasonabily sized metro area.

Experience and up to date information are paramount. I dont need speculation, or ball parking.

[rsa-otc]

Mitchell's right.

You need to be careful where you get your info from. With the advent of reciprocity between states more and more people are carrying out of their home juristictions. We need a base set of concepts that can apply accross multiple juristictions. Local based instructors many times can not cover that adequately. That's where people like Ayoob and Kapelsohn come to play with experiance accross many borders.

[Tamara]

I usually have a lawyer drive me to gun school. Sometimes he loads my mags, too, if I ask nice and make a little sad face while holding up my blistered thumb...

[Occam's Razor]

Interesting to note that even within the same metropolitan areas you can have a wide interpretation of applicable laws, and various additions. i.e. Denver vs. the rest of the metro area.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Good Post.

I think I'd be fairly hesitant to take a law class NOT instructed by a lawyer who focuses on defense cases, or a prosecutor. Or a well teneured police officer from a reasonabily sized metro area.

Experience and up to date information are paramount. I dont need speculation, or ball parking.

Well...

Actually, I don't focus on "self defense" cases.

I do general practice I like to call "Clusterfuck Management". You have a clusterfuck, I make fix-fix.

As part of CF management, I handle criminal work and civil work. Some of that work ends up being use of force related, but it is a minority. I can count on one hand the amount of cases it's been in 5 years of practice.

Simply put, it's not a common occurrence, but the law on it is well established, so it's not a huge deal if the guy giving you the info hasn't personally defended a use of force case in court as long as the person giving you the info has the background to be qualified to do it.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I usually have a lawyer drive me to gun school. Sometimes he loads my mags, too, if I ask nice and make a little sad face while holding up my blistered thumb...

That's cheating.

[rsa-otc]

She has weapons we mere men can not compete with.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

She has weapons we mere men can not compete with.

Garthwaite browning hi-powers with a gold bead front sight?

[rsa-otc]

Garthwaite browning hi-powers with a gold bead front sight?

Those too.

[JDM]

Well...

Actually, I don't focus on "self defense" cases.

I do general practice I like to call "Clusterfuck Management". You have a clusterfuck, I make fix-fix.

As part of CF management, I handle criminal work and civil work. Some of that work ends up being use of force related, but it is a minority. I can count on one hand the amount of cases it's been in 5 years of practice.

Simply put, it's not a common occurrence, but the law on it is well established, so it's not a huge deal if the guy giving you the info hasn't personally defended a use of force case in court as long as the person giving you the info has the background to be qualified to do it.

Is it of any tangible benefit if my lawyer happens to be a "gun guy" or not really?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Is it of any tangible benefit if my lawyer happens to be a "gun guy" or not really?

Is he a tax guy who can shoot, but doesn't really see the courtroom all that much...or is he someone who shoots, and has guns, drugs & thugs as part of his usual practice?

Lawyer + gun guy does not always = "Someone who knows use of force laws"

It is more likely than not he will make himself familiar with it...but not always a sure bet.

[JDM]

Is he a tax guy who can shoot, but doesn't really see the courtroom all that much...or is he someone who shoots, and has guns, drugs & thugs as part of his usual practice?

Lawyer + gun guy does not always = "Someone who knows use of force laws"

It is more likely than not he will make himself familiar with it...but not always a sure bet.

I'd say the bulk of his practice is defense. He does a little family law, usually for friends, and only simple stuff, otherwise defense. Some real low lives from what I've gathered from the news.

And he has a shit load of guns. I don't know how much of a "shooter" he is, but an owner to be certain.

I'm pretty comfortable with what he could do for me if it comes down to it, but I was just curious what, if any, impact the gun thing had.

[KeeFus]

I was involved in an on-duty gun fight almost 3 years ago. When I spoke to the SBI (2 days later) I had an attorney with me, and had already spoken to one that's a friend. I dont think either is a "gun guy" but they sure as hell know how to handle an investigation/investigator. You will need someone to do your legal thinking for you and who will quickly keep you up to date on how things are going. Research your local lawyers before you need them and it will likely be a non-issue.

[Zhurdan]

I was involved in an on-duty gun fight almost 3 years ago. When I spoke to the SBI (2 days later) I had an attorney with me, and had already spoken to one that's a friend. I dont think either is a "gun guy" but they sure as hell know how to handle an investigation/investigator. You will need someone to do your legal thinking for you and who will quickly keep you up to date on how things are going. Research your local lawyers before you need them and it will likely be a non-issue.

So where does the "researching your local lawyers" play into the whole "he was looking into this before it happened" part of things? I have a close personal friend who is a Fed lawyer who I've had over to my home on many occasions who'd told me that any "pre-work" you do will bite you in the ass in court. She's amenable to scenario discussion, but that's only because I'm the Godfather to her child and a lifelong friend. Outside of that, she says that "talking about it" with legal council is pretty much akin to a guilty verdict if something goes down.

[KeeFus]

So where does the "researching your local lawyers" play into the whole "he was looking into this before it happened" part of things? I have a close personal friend who is a Fed lawyer who I've had over to my home on many occasions who'd told me that any "pre-work" you do will bite you in the ass in court. She's amenable to scenario discussion, but that's only because I'm the Godfather to her child and a lifelong friend. Outside of that, she says that "talking about it" with legal council is pretty much akin to a guilty verdict if something goes down.

I dont think "pre-work" will bite you in the ass anymore than talking to your barber about a haircut will. Talking to an attorney about what to do if something happens just makes good sense. Believe me, you don't wanna be talking to some re-re lawyer that has no clue. Mine is the local FOP attorney. He's represented several guys I know that have used deadly force and comes highly recommended. I still go against him occassionally in District/Superior court on criminal stuff...seems kinda wierd but he's a great attorney. I've won some and lost some against him in those areas but I would call him again if I needed him in a tort or criminal case.

ETA: Researching them can entail speaking to LEO's in your area and asking them if they were involved in a GF who would they call and why? Find out who the local attorney is that does a lot of trials and wins; someone that makes good arguments in front of a judge/jury. There are resources available that can direct you to a good attorney. I have seen attorneys that absolutely boggled my mind with their arguments and won a case. I have also seen attorneys that I wouldn't want representing an enemy. Go sit in court one day and watch how they deal with the opposition and you will see who is on top of their game and who is not.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

So where does the "researching your local lawyers" play into the whole "he was looking into this before it happened" part of things? I have a close personal friend who is a Fed lawyer who I've had over to my home on many occasions who'd told me that any "pre-work" you do will bite you in the ass in court. She's amenable to scenario discussion, but that's only because I'm the Godfather to her child and a lifelong friend. Outside of that, she says that "talking about it" with legal council is pretty much akin to a guilty verdict if something goes down.

The discussions with counsel are privileged.

Nobody but you and the attorney will know what you discussed unless:

YOU tell them, in which case you are a moron...or the attorney tells them in which case it's inadmissible and you have a malpractice claim, and someone's voided license to practice law as a trophy.

Responsible people...act responsibly.

Part of that is to make sure you aren't using a firearm in a way contrary to law. How does one do that...

Well, talking to an attorney about what your responsibilities are is a good way to do that.

So...

#1 If you talked to a lawyer, nobody should know, and if they do, it means nothing.
#2 If it is found out that you did talk to a lawyer, the subject is nobody's fucking business.
#3 It is part of public policy to encourage people to get legal advice by making access to counsel protected by confidentiality.

I disagree on the "Bite you in the ass" school of thought.

What is the Fed lawyer gonna do, find out that you went to an attorney for a 1 hour visit 6 months before you got into a shooting?

OK...What were you discussion?

The viability of brewing alcohol as a business?
Licensing for a strip club?
How to structure your finances for a strategic default leaving the bank and your soon to be ex-wife high and dry with your cash hidden and protected from them?

Yeah...prework is a killer.

Then don't attend any shooting classes, dry fire, read any texts on the use of force or work out.

Because, after all, you don't want to be looked at as someone preparing to be a killer...right?

[TCinVA]

As for how you select a potential lawyer...a good method if you know investigators in your area is to ask them what defense lawyers make them nervous. Then ask them which ones they'd call if they needed a good lawyer.

It will usually be the same list of people.


So where does the "researching your local lawyers" play into the whole "he was looking into this before it happened" part of things? I have a close personal friend who is a Fed lawyer who I've had over to my home on many occasions who'd told me that any "pre-work" you do will bite you in the ass in court.

With all due respect to your friend, she must have dealt with some surprisingly stupid or incompetent defense attorneys. A defense attorney who can't successfully counter an attempt to paint a legal consultation as premeditation for a violent act isn't worth hiring in the first place.

[Dagga Boy]

I am just going to add a quick point here, as I don't want to turn this into a major pissing contest. If you want to plan on not saying a thing to the cops and "lawyer up", that is fine. Plan on going to jail. Nobody is going to call your attorney in the middle of the night (and he probably won't answer the phone anyways). You can plan on getting booked into county jail, and then you can call your attorney, but you will be calling from jail. You may get a chance at some point to talk to investigators with your attorney, but you can plan on that being a confrontational and adversarial relationship in which you are in the middle. Basically, if you act like a "suspect" you will be treated like one. Bad guys tell the cops to screw themselves and they want an attorney. You may get off at some point after great expense, and time in custody, but it won't be in a "timely" manner.

My take is that if you are, in fact, an innocent victim of a crime, act like it. I speak from a level of experience as having done this from multiple sides-being the shooter (never used an attorney and was treated like a victim, acted like a victim, was never sued, and never prosecuted), an investigator, and having spent a good amount of time in the private sector doing civil and criminal investigations (usually baggin up dirty attorney's......like every other profession, there are bad apples). You don't need to go full crazy with running your mouth, but FOR ME, I would really like the officers to have my side of the story immediately to help guide the investigation. Otherwise, the only side they have is the other party's side of the story, and the other sides friends and witnesses. There may or may not be physical evidence. There may be physical evidence that can be missed, or ruined by the time you and your attorney decide to make a statement-if at all. Most attorney's consider themselves to be God's of the courtroom, and believe they can get you off based on their court room skills.I have been up against lots of them on shooting cases from different sides. Some are OUTSTANDING, and I know one of the local criminal defense attorney's in my area that I would use if I was in trouble (keep in mind, this was an opponent I respected having gone up against him in court......even though his client went to jail for life on my case, he did a great job). I have watched him in action on numerous cases. That is a grand total of ONE, and I have seen a lot. You want to roll the dice with "a family friend", or a "referral".......hope that works out when your life is the chip you are bartering with.

I know of at least one LEO sitting in jail because he took the "lawyer up" route. No statements at all. His attorney would never let him talk to investigators. Of course the criminal he shot, and all the unfriendly witnesses in the ghetto complex all told a different story. Basically, the good guy became the bad guy, and the bad guy was made into a saint by his version and the "witnesses". The investigators only had one side of the story, and it wasn't the good guys. By the time court rolled around, it was one version with no law enforcement investigation to back it up, and all the statements from the very cooperative bad guys with another story that was fairly un-likely, but was the only story on the record.

Think about this-If you were the victim of a robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, rape, hit and run, had your car stolen,etc..... would you ask for a lawyer before talking the officers? I have never had a real crime victim ask for a lawyer before reporting the crime and telling the officers what happen. If a lawyer called me to report a crime on behalf of the victim.......a lot of bells would be going off. Keep in mind that cops HATE predatory asshole criminals. For the type of people on this forum, I would venture that even the dumbest of cops could figure out which of the parties was probably the criminal, and which was the good citizen who didn't want to be a victim and will act accordingly. Demanding an attorney and refusing to say anything translates to "I don't trust that you are smart enough to figure out that I am a victim and the other guy is a criminal, and that only a guy with a law degree can explain it to you"...true or not, that will be the translation. The cops will also be immediately thinking, "what is this person afraid to tell me that they feel they need an attorney"? If that is how you want the guys at the scene "right now" to be thinking, great........hope things work out well in the end.

From the other side. If read my rights, I would ask for an attorney. I basically asked the investigators on my shootings "are you interviewing me as a victim or a suspect". I simply said if you are interviewing me as a victim, I will fully cooperate, if you are considering me a suspect and read me my rights, I will probably ask for counsel.

[Zhurdan]

Wow, just asked a question.

I wasn't making a declarative statement, just curious is all.

[41magfan]

Good posts, nyeti and I'll add the following;

Most applications of force in self-defense situations do not violate the letter or spirit of the law. The thing that lands most cases (civilian or law enforcement) in court is the unpredictable element of politics.

If the public or political perception of your case involves any element of political correctness – you better hold on to your ass. You may come out on the other end without being convicted of a crime, but you will likely do so at great expense – emotionally, physically and financially.

It starts with the investigating personalities. If a cop is so inclined – he can greatly influence the direction of a SD investigation. I’ve influenced a Grand Jury towards murder or self-defense on more than one occasion, and told the complete truth every time. It’s a complete crap shoot when it comes to the predisposition of the guys and gals investigating your use-of–force.

The DA ultimately has the say in whether you’re charged or not, and the factors that play into that decision mirror the factors listed above with the added element of re-election concerns. In many cases, the DA doesn’t have any particular interest in seeing you convicted; he just doesn’t have the stones to make the call and would rather let a jury decide your fate – at your expense.

Our CJ system is designed to mitigate the possibility of either element – law enforcement and prosecutors - getting fast and loose, but it often times doesn’t work as intended.

Unfortunately, our system of justice is only as good as the people that administer it and that’s a dynamic for which you just can’t prepare.

[Lon]

I have always been frustrated by the hypocrisy I have seen when it comes to the whole "talk to the cops or lawyer up thing" and the assumption that if you want a lawyer with you you must be hiding something.

Let me explain. When police officer gets in a shooting (at least in my AO), is he required to make a formal statement right away? If you work for a good department - no. Heck, I think the IACP is even recommending an officer involved in an OIS be sent home for at least 1-2 sleep cycles before making a formal statement. When I went through a use of force seminar hosted by FLETC last year the speaker (I think it was John Bostain) was adamant about letting an officer get some sleep before making a formal statement. He also talked about having your FOP attorney there when you talk to the investigators.

So if it's good for us cops, why do some of us get bent out of shape when a victim wants to avail himself of the same protection?

I fall between the extremes when it comes to speaking with investigators after a shooting (off duty or civilian). I think giving a VERY brief statement that establishes you as the victim (like "he tried to rob me and I defended myself PERIOD) and then stating that they will have your cooperation completely once you have calmed down and can come in with an attorney is the way to go. Hard to use a short statement like that against you, IMO.

[TGS]

I am just going to add a quick point here, as I don't want to turn this into a major pissing contest. If you want to plan on not saying a thing to the cops and "lawyer up", that is fine. Plan on going to jail. Nobody is going to call your attorney in the middle of the night (and he probably won't answer the phone anyways). You can plan on getting booked into county jail, and then you can call your attorney, but you will be calling from jail. You may get a chance at some point to talk to investigators with your attorney, but you can plan on that being a confrontational and adversarial relationship in which you are in the middle. Basically, if you act like a "suspect" you will be treated like one. Bad guys tell the cops to screw themselves and they want an attorney. You may get off at some point after great expense, and time in custody, but it won't be in a "timely" manner.

My take is that if you are, in fact, an innocent victim of a crime, act like it. I speak from a level of experience as having done this from multiple sides-being the shooter (never used an attorney and was treated like a victim, acted like a victim, was never sued, and never prosecuted), an investigator, and having spent a good amount of time in the private sector doing civil and criminal investigations (usually baggin up dirty attorney's......like every other profession, there are bad apples). You don't need to go full crazy with running your mouth, but FOR ME, I would really like the officers to have my side of the story immediately to help guide the investigation. Otherwise, the only side they have is the other party's side of the story, and the other sides friends and witnesses. There may or may not be physical evidence. There may be physical evidence that can be missed, or ruined by the time you and your attorney decide to make a statement-if at all. Most attorney's consider themselves to be God's of the courtroom, and believe they can get you off based on their court room skills.I have been up against lots of them on shooting cases from different sides. Some are OUTSTANDING, and I know one of the local criminal defense attorney's in my area that I would use if I was in trouble (keep in mind, this was an opponent I respected having gone up against him in court......even though his client went to jail for life on my case, he did a great job). I have watched him in action on numerous cases. That is a grand total of ONE, and I have seen a lot. You want to roll the dice with "a family friend", or a "referral".......hope that works out when your life is the chip you are bartering with.

I know of at least one LEO sitting in jail because he took the "lawyer up" route. No statements at all. His attorney would never let him talk to investigators. Of course the criminal he shot, and all the unfriendly witnesses in the ghetto complex all told a different story. Basically, the good guy became the bad guy, and the bad guy was made into a saint by his version and the "witnesses". The investigators only had one side of the story, and it wasn't the good guys. By the time court rolled around, it was one version with no law enforcement investigation to back it up, and all the statements from the very cooperative bad guys with another story that was fairly un-likely, but was the only story on the record.

Think about this-If you were the victim of a robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, rape, hit and run, had your car stolen,etc..... would you ask for a lawyer before talking the officers? I have never had a real crime victim ask for a lawyer before reporting the crime and telling the officers what happen. If a lawyer called me to report a crime on behalf of the victim.......a lot of bells would be going off. Keep in mind that cops HATE predatory asshole criminals. For the type of people on this forum, I would venture that even the dumbest of cops could figure out which of the parties was probably the criminal, and which was the good citizen who didn't want to be a victim and will act accordingly. Demanding an attorney and refusing to say anything translates to "I don't trust that you are smart enough to figure out that I am a victim and the other guy is a criminal, and that only a guy with a law degree can explain it to you"...true or not, that will be the translation. The cops will also be immediately thinking, "what is this person afraid to tell me that they feel they need an attorney"? If that is how you want the guys at the scene "right now" to be thinking, great........hope things work out well in the end.

From the other side. If read my rights, I would ask for an attorney. I basically asked the investigators on my shootings "are you interviewing me as a victim or a suspect". I simply said if you are interviewing me as a victim, I will fully cooperate, if you are considering me a suspect and read me my rights, I will probably ask for counsel.

"Officer, I'm the one that called 911. That man tried to kill me. Here is my ID and license to carry a firearm(holding in hand), my firearm is located XXXX. I will be happy to answer your questions when my lawyer is present and am now invoking my 5th amendment rights."

Beyond those words, I don't know what talking to a cop is going to do for me.

Now please don't take these comments as offensive but I feel pretty strong about this......dude, you're a cop. Your sitting on a different side of the fence, and you're telling me a cop doesn't get treated differently from a citizen? Being the son of a former NJ State Trooper/Salem County detective/Undersheriff, friend of several street cops, friend of a Sheriff's Lt, and cousin of another street cop, I'm pretty positive at this point in my life that there's a difference and a badge brings certain fringe benefits. I'm NOT counting on the good will, reasoning or logic ability of a cop when I'm involved in a shooting. That's what lawyers are for. It's really not me saying cops are stupid or jackbooted thugs bent on "treading on me." After all, my current goal is to get in the LE community.

Sure, if I was in Caroline County, Virginia and the scene/witnesses were telling, then I'm not going to expect much grief from the cops.....actually, they might shake your hand and bullshit with you if the guy you shot was a known troublemaker. City of Richmond, VA? Fairfax, VA? Philadelphia, PA? It could be Charles Manson laying there with a bloodied chainsaw in one hand and a head on a pitchfork in the other, while the baby jesus himself appears over my shoulder saying I'm innocent. You know what? I'm still eating a cement sandwich.

And eating a cement sandwich and spending time in county lockup is better than going to jail as my next career because a police officer recorded my spiel incorrectly or the dude I shot was hooked up in the system.

It's nothing personal against cops, but their job does not hold my best interests as a priority.

[Al T.]

Great discussion.



Occam's Razor
Interesting to note that even within the same metropolitan areas you can have a wide interpretation of applicable laws, and various additions.

Huge deal here. We just recently got a prosecution over turned by the SC Supreme Court. Interesting case, especially as three of the Supreme Court judges voted for acquittal and the fourth wrote an incredibly anti self-defense opinion. :mad: The dissenting opinion makes for some sickening reading.

[Al T.]

Beyond those words, I don't know what talking to a cop is going to do for me.

I'd want to point out evidence and witnesses. In other words, help the cops help me.

Caveat to that is - don't get motor mouth. And as pointed out, if you get your rights read to you, STFU.

[rsa-otc]

Like TGS pointed out, keep you intial statement general, short & sweet, NO specifics. Then clam up and invoke the 5th and get your lawyer involved. Memories of tramatic events are unreliable immediately after the incident. There are some good articles on this topic at the Force Science Institue website http://www.forcescience.org/fsinews/archive/. Article number 2 is a good place to start. I have personnal experiance with this, the incedent is still in litigation so I can't go into specifics but what happened mirrors exactly what the articles state.

Our company policy is quite literally "Officer that man threated me and I defended myself. That's all I can say by company policy until a company attorney is present." This hopefully will take some pressure off since you are telling them it wasn't your decision to wait for an attorney it was the company's policy. As police they should be able to relate since they are bound by their policies and regulations as well.

[KeeFus]

LEO shootings are indeed a somewhat different animal. I was advised of my Garrity Rights (http://www.officer.com/article/10250234/garrity-vnew-jersey-another-look) within 2 hours. Under Garrity you essentially have to tell IA what happened (tell us what happened or you will be disciplined type interview). After that interview I was encouraged to talk to the SBI. I walked in to the interview room, told the investigator I wasn't doing an interview, and walked out. Mirandized two days later with a lawyer present.

I have been to a few citizen self defense type scenes and the citizens were helpful with the investigation, they just didn't give anymore than was necessary. In my experience, there is usually a witness that can give LEO's a lot of info. I would point them out as well as any evidence laying around. Look for cameras in the area and direct LEO's that way. I'd definetly give them my lawyers business card and tell them that I am represented by counsel but I'd be sure and point out things that would help me while I was on-scene.

[Dagga Boy]

I'd want to point out evidence and witnesses. In other words, help the cops help me.

Caveat to that is - don't get motor mouth. And as pointed out, if you get your rights read to you, STFU.

There you go. That is what I am talking about.

Before we throw out the "nyeti is a hypocrite, he was a cop" argument.......I don't agree with the whole sleep cycle and delayed statement crap either. I treat all of these the same. I was in multiple on duty shootings. A whole bunch of off duty violent encounters and incidents, all in Southern California (the bastion of screwed up ideas on anything involving guns, force, and dealing with criminals), and have NEVER asked for an attorney, and have never been sued. By the way, all of the folks I shot and was highly involved in the shooting of, were minorities.......still, no lawsuit....hmmmmmm:eek:. I am the most cooperative victim you have ever seen. Just like every real victim I dealt with from the other side. I would agree on politics, you can't control that in anyway. What you can control is being the highly cooperative victim from minute one.

As for the cop delayed statement thing-b.s.......we don't give shooting victims, suspects, witnesses or involved parties a few days to think about things and sleep on it and come up with something. We may come back later, but the best evidence and statements are going to be gathered as close to the event as possible.

Fresh evidence is critical. I will give an example. We had an officer try to stop a female motorist. She failed to yield, drove home and ran in the house. Her husband came to the door with a shotgun and encountered the officer. The officer claimed the husband pointed the shotgun at him, the husband says his wife ran in saying that somebody was chasing her and he just took the gun to the doorway, never saw the officer, and never raised the gun, and the officer just shot at him and he threw the gun down. A single hole was above the doorway of the home. Two rounds of brass were on the ground. The situation was looking sort of bad for the cop. It "looked" like he just shot a couple of wild rounds (we "figured" the second round went over the home), and the husband was telling the truth. I went to the station to start my investigation on the firearms phase. The officer looked me right in the eye and emphatically told me that he swore he identified himself (the emergency lights of the marked police unit were also on and in view from the house), told the suspect to drop the gun, AND DID NOT FIRE TILL I WAS LOOKING RIGHT DOWN THE BARREL OF THE SHOTGUN. Wow, very different stories. I returned immediately to the scene. Stood right where the officer was, looked directly at where the shotgun was still laying on the ground, walked it off......looked into the shotgun, and found something interesting......a .45 ACP hollowpoint slammed into the breechface of the shotgun. Guess who was telling a fairy tale? Because that officer spoke to me as a victim, appeared in his demanor and actions that night like he had just seen his life flash before his eyes, and I was able to get to that shotgun in its exact postition where he "Dropped" it (more likely because of the round that just slammed into the breechface rather than voluntarily) before it ended up buried in an evidence vault and everybody was lawyered up.

None of this is science or replicable. None of this is "fair" (I tell my daughter that "fair" is a place where fat animals win prizes). Politics is a very two way street. The D.A. is basing the case on evidence and statements gathered by those first responders. Politics won't over-ride too much, and DA's are also afraid of back blast from prosecuting a loser. My goal is to have as many people on my side as I can, especially the guys writing the initial reports, and I have been down this road. The call on how many people to introduce into the stew is a call you have to make on your own, and based on the circumstances at hand. In my first shooting, the police union was in a major conflict with the administration over contract negotiations and discipline issues. I asked myself if I really wanted to interject a union lawyer into MY shooting case. I questioned if MY best interest would be served by having a confrontational environment right out of the gate on a case where I had just shot a juvenile minority in the back at 46 yards away in another city that was very P.C. oriented..........(one of two armed gang-members wearing a panty hose mask and running from one carjacked vehicle, that he rammed into mine, directly towards an intersection with another vehicle stopped at a red light). I simply asked if I could have a friend sit with me on the interview. I had a mentor who had retired from LAPD and worked for us (and had been in numerous shootings) sit with me to ensure I didn't go full "babble". It was very non-confrontational, and worked out well.

Your milage will vary on this stuff, but personally, I am against "lawyering up" just for the sake of "Lawyering up" in most cut and dry cases.

[ToddG]

Think about this-If you were the victim of a robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, rape, hit and run, had your car stolen,etc..... would you ask for a lawyer before talking the officers?

The difference is that after shooting someone I'm now also a potential criminal. And in some places, some police and prosecutors will zero in on that with far more gusto than the guy who might have just tried to rob me before getting shot multiple times for his trouble.


From the other side. If read my rights, I would ask for an attorney. I basically asked the investigators on my shootings "are you interviewing me as a victim or a suspect". I simply said if you are interviewing me as a victim, I will fully cooperate, if you are considering me a suspect and read me my rights, I will probably ask for counsel.

SCOTUS says the investigator is free to lie when asked that question. As such, his answer to that question is relatively meaningless.

The reason lawyers recommend that clients make no statement is manifold:

most suspect/defendants have no grasp of the legal system;
most suspect/defendants have no grasp of the limits of the police's authority;
most suspect/defendants have no grasp of their own rights;
most suspect/defendants have no grasp of the rules of evidence;
most suspect/defendants have no experience being on the wrong end of an aggressive professional criminal investigation; and
history shows that when people begin talking to police, they tend to say things they later wish they had not.


The simple fact is that a career police officer with extensive experience in both criminal investigation and the legal system, as well as a badge to show, is in a substantially different circumstance than the average CCW or home defense citizen.

[Dagga Boy]

Just thought of something else.........

So we can probably agree that if you end up going to criminal court on a shooting, your best bet is a highly experienced courtroom criminal defense lawyer. Having spent a good amount of time in a very adversarial environment with criminal defense lawyers who make their bones representing criminals (a huge majority of which ARE real bad guys, and likely the same type of person you just shot), are not well liked by the local cops (most of who cannot figure out for the life of them how you defend a guy who has been raping a six year old for two years), would also be the best person to represent you......do you really want to hand this guys card to the cops at a scene where you just shot somebody and ask them to call him/her for you.............just askin...:confused:.

[Dagga Boy]

Sorry Todd, typing at the same time.

Again, If you think you need an attorney, get one. I just caution to ask yourself if it is going to make the situation better or worse. NOBODY....not me, not Mr. Mitchell, esq., not Massad Ayoob, not anybody....can, or should make that decision for you. I play devil's advocate on this because I want people to THINK about the whole picture, and not what they read in gun rags, or gun forums. I will say this. If you just shot somebody while carrying illegally, with some questionable equipment, while engaged in less than optimal circumstances (picking up hookers, drinking in a bar, etc.....basically if you have to create a lie to why you were there or what the circumstances were) get a lawyer. If you just shot a theft suspect with an NFA carbine while wearing a plate carrier and NOD's......get a lawyer. If you were awoken out of a dead sleep by a fourteen strike parolee who just kicked your door in and is armed and you shoot them with a "normal" self defense gun while on the phone with 911..........ask yourself if interjecting your right to an attorney is a good move. That is all I am saying.

As far as the cops lying to you in the initial phases of an investigation........

Interviewed as a victim, in an environment without your rights read, where you are not free to leave, and the officers "lie" to you........I'll defer to Mr. Mitchell, esq. on how well that is going to fly in court.

My goal, on these cases are NOT to be to the point where I am advised of my rights. That is all. I do not want to be a suspect, I want to be on the box on the form that says "victim". The earliest phases of the incident is the best place for this distinction to be made. If its not, plan to loose everything you have, spend time in jail, and generally ruin your life and that is when you "win".

[ToddG]

As long as we're still in my home -- assuming a home defense situation -- they may never read me my rights. If I'm brought down to the station voluntarily they don't need to read me my rights. Right up until the moment I say, "Guys, I'm leaving" they don't need to read me my rights. You and I both know that the investigator could say, "When he suddenly decided he wanted to leave, we got suspicious and concerned that he might flee before our investigation continued..." And until then, honest-promise-friend it's just routine questioning.

As far as asking for a lawyer being a kneejerk automatic response, I'd defer to your many posts about shooting technique and the need to have automatic built-in responses because we are not all at our best cognitively during (or in the aftermath of) a high stress adrenalized situation.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely believe that a suspect can make his life worse in the way he asks for an attorney, etc. But the suggestions given so far in terms of making a simple statement, claiming victim status, and them clamming up are popularly recommended for a reason.

[wrmettler]

This is an excellent topic. I see on many forums where individuals set up fact situations with everyone piling one to discuss each person’s response. Posters then set themselves up as “experts” in a civilian’s armed responses, with others relying on such expert’s advice about when to use deadly force. This is a problem, as such advice is usually incorrect.

We can discuss hypothetical situations forever, but unless each person knows the particular state law regarding the circumstances of when to use or threaten to use deadly force, all the discussions do is reinforce generally bad information.

The problem is that different states have different laws regarding threatening the use of or using deadly force. I don’t believe there is one consistent universal fact situation that would allow an armed response in all states.

So, people if you are a civilian, carry a firearm and intend to use it in self-defense or in the defense of others, you need to educate yourself about the laws of the state in which you reside. Do not guess about the law or rely on an internet posting. Ignorance is no defense.

I suggest people either study your state’s laws (reading some statutes and perhaps some cases is not brain surgery) or get a group of people together and ask an attorney to give a presentation of your group. There are several good books out on the subject such as Alan Korwin’s books. But regardless of how you do it, educate yourself with the specifics and do not believe generalities discussed on the internet. Arizona law is ARS 13-401 through 421 speaks about justification to threaten or to use deadly force, and is very specific. State v. Fish 213 P.3d 258 is the best case regarding justification in the use of deadly force. Mr. Fish put 2 10mm rounds into an unarmed guy in the forest.

Remember that after every shooting, you may or may not be the victim, depending on the facts of the shoot. This is what the police want to know. What you say will determine how the police pursue the case. If you know your states law, you have a leg up. If you do not, but rely on joe blow from the internet, i.e. the guy lying in your driveway had the motive or opportunity to shoot, you will probably go to jail. But, if you decide to retain an attorney, the police can only investigate on the facts available and that might – or might not - cause them to jail you also.

Retaining an attorney and thinking about your statement over some time is a decision you must make. But, after you are jailed, etc, the local prosecuting agency reviews the facts and decides whether to pursue criminal charges, and not the police. If your local prosecutor won’t prosecute you, the case should end. The police could think your shooting was justified, the prosecutor may want to prosecute in any event. Hopefully, if you provide the correct factual statement based on your state’s law to the police/prosecutor, then you may persuade the prosecutor to decline prosecution.

When I was teaching Arizona CCW, we taught, after much consideration, that one should tell the police the basic facts of the event, and then retain an attorney. It was a tough decision. Our reasoning was based on the then (a long time ago) police procedure of having the LEO involved in a shooting not give a statement until well after the event and possibly speaking to a union attorney. If that was the LEO’s right, then a civilian should have the same rights, without prejudice by the police.

Thinking back, I don’t know if this is the right advice. How you handle the situation is your decision, but the better you know and understand the law of your state the better your decision about what to do after the shooting will be.

One last thought in the long post. Internet statements may come back to haunt you. Be careful about what you say on an open forum, because if you are ever at the wrong end of a prosecution, the prosecutor might be able to discover your statements (i.e. I don’t care about the law, anybody messes with me is getting 2 in the chest, etc.), and use them to show you have no regard for the law.

I am an attorney, but I am not a criminal attorney-never done a criminal case. However, I think the above information is valid regardless of whether I am an attorney or not.

[rsa-otc]

Neyti;
I'm not discounting your experiences and I'm glad they were positive. Unfortunately that has not always been the case for everyone who has been involved with a shooting investigation.

You are not a suspect until you are a suspect and that can change at a moments notice. But everything you say to the investigators as a victim or a suspect is evidence that can be used against you later either in a criminal or civil trial. The problem is that both experience and research says that memories right after a traumatic event are sketchy and unreliable. Innocent statements that you make early on can come back and bite you once you sort out your memories. You then will be faced with the authorities asking which version is the lie and which is the truth. That's the reason for the investigators to wait and a victim to force them to wait until the victim has time to sort them out.

With regard to choosing a lawyer you want to stay away from your normal criminal defense lawyers and if at all possible choose one who specializes in OIS shooting cases.

[rsa-otc]

One last thought in the long post. Internet statements may come back to haunt you. Be careful about what you say on an open forum, because if you are ever at the wrong end of a prosecution, the prosecutor might be able to discover your statements (i.e. I don’t care about the law, anybody messes with me is getting 2 in the chest, etc.), and use them to show you have no regard for the law.

An extremely good point that many should head. Just like inappropriate pictures statements made on the Internet last forever and you can't get them back.

[Al T.]

One other thing to mention - he who calls 911 first has an advantage.

[Dagga Boy]

wrmettler. Excellent advice. I just moved to a new state, and have been a resident of three states with widely varying gun laws. I tread lightly in all of them, and try to error on the conservative side. Having been a life-long California resident, even as a police officer, I don't push the envelope, and based on a recent incident, am VERY glad that I stay well within what is legal.

I would highly suggest for anyone who carries a firearm or keeps one in the home for defensive use, that you at least have a discussion and some sort of plan in place and a good discussion with a attorney who is well versed in this kind of litigation.

I would take a hard look at having a "family attorney" that works in a law firm with numerous attorney's with various specialties. If that happens to be the same firm that represents the local cops MAY be a good idea.

Todd, keep in mind I am very much into hard-wired response. I also usually teach three techniques for specific operations (retention shooting, flashlight, ready-positions, etc...) to make choices simple but giving a few options to choose to apply to a very wide variety of problems. In this case-talk to the officers without counsel, brief discussion of simple facts and then and attorney, and lawyer up ASAP. I just want to make sure that people understand from the investigating cops side of things how their actions will be perceived (right or wrong is not the issue, it is not fair, justice is not blind, so we have to deal with that as best we can), so they have a bigger bowl of information.

Again, I also agree that police officers should not be given special treatment in these cases. The courts via decisions have placed officers in a little different place (where they have to give a statement), but I do believe that if we think it is important to get critical information in a timely manner for investigations to best get to the truth for citizens, then the same should be true for the LEO's. I take with a grain of salt anything that is said with multiple days to "think" about a statement, with an attorney preparing a defense, as how close to the pure truth that statement is as opposed to how good the statement is. The truth and not as prosecutable are in no way the same thing.

[TCinVA]

My goal, on these cases are NOT to be to the point where I am advised of my rights. That is all. I do not want to be a suspect, I want to be on the box on the form that says "victim".


Here here....but I don't know how you can guarantee that. I know of officers who had their teeth kicked out by handcuffed dudes that ended up criminally charged with assault for punching a restrained suspect. Nevermind that the dude and someone else from the car that was pulled over was kicking the unholy snot out of the officer and that the officer was fighting back, he still ended up being treated like a suspect by people from his own agency.

If all cops were good ones primarily interested in justice, it wouldn't be a problem. Unfortunately you never know just what sort of person you're going to be talking to in the aftermath of one of these things.

I don't personally subscribe to the "never talk to the po-po!" nonsense some spew because I know that if my bullets are in some dude's chest sooner or later I'm going to have to chat with the police about why that is...but in the immediate aftermath of a shooting I also know I don't want to say things out of the possible anger (or even euphoria) that I may be experiencing. I don't want to talk to 19 different officers and potentially get bits of the story different because boy-howdy can that come back to bite you in the ass. I basically want to stick to a script that breaks down into these major elements:

- I was in this location where I have every legal right to be
- I was criminally assaulted by the guy with my bullets in him
- I was in fear for my life
- He was trying to kill me, so I stopped him from killing me
- I don't wish to make any further statements without my attorney present

If I notice some things on the scene that I think are helpful to my cause or version of events, sure. I'll point them out as politely and tersely as possible.

If I've just used violence against another human being, let's face facts: I'm a suspect. To modify the old saying a bit, I may not be able to talk my way out of an overnight stay at county lockup, but I can sure as hell talk my way into much worse.

In my area thankfully the police are largely sane and the laws tend to favor the honest citizen who tries to stay out of trouble. Recently a dude was running around a college town threatening people with what turned out to be an airsoft gun. Multiple people called 911 about this guy. In the meantime he managed to threaten one college student too many with that fake pistol and the college student pulled a Ruger LCP and shot him. (Bounced off the femur and took out both testicles) With the 911 callers describing the guy with the bullet wound and the shootee's criminal history, the officers figured out in pretty short order who the good guy was. To the best of my knowledge the shooter was only mildly inconvenienced by the investigation. If they all went like that it would be great.

[Dagga Boy]

Neyti;
I'm not discounting your experiences and I'm glad they were positive. Unfortunately that has not always been the case for everyone who has been involved with a shooting investigation.

You are not a suspect until you are a suspect and that can change at a moments notice. But everything you say to the investigators as a victim or a suspect is evidence that can be used against you later either in a criminal or civil trial. The problem is that both experience and research says that memories right after a traumatic event are sketchy and unreliable. Innocent statements that you make early on can come back and bite you once you sort out your memories. You then will be faced with the authorities asking which version is the lie and which is the truth. That's the reason for the investigators to wait and a victim to force them to wait until the victim has time to sort them out.

With regard to choosing a lawyer you want to stay away from your normal criminal defense lawyers and if at all possible choose one who specializes in OIS shooting cases.

Typing at the same time again......

I agree. My situations may not be normal. Keep in mind though that I have done all sides of this and testified as an expert in court in both defense and for the prosecutor in cases involving "defensive shootings". I am simply basing my OPINION on my experience that those who "are", "act like" and "talk like" a victim tend to get treated as such. Most LEO's use the "walk like a duck, talk like a duck, act like a duck......must be a duck" philosophy. I like to work within that simple idea. We have all seen on the internet all the experts giving advice on how to "use your rights" and the "tried by 12", and screw the cops ideology when what to do after a shooting. My advice is a simple one of be nice to the policemen, and they will probably be nice to you. There are bad cops, bad investigators, bad attorney's, bad prosectors, and bad judges. If you get a bunch of those together, it will be a bad result. Hopefully, and that's what it is, more of the people involved will do the right thing, and not the wrong thing.

[TCinVA]

Typing at the same time again......
basing my OPINION on my experience that those who "are", "act like" and "talk like" a victim tend to get treated as such.


Let's make use of your experience, then: If you wouldn't mind expanding a bit on what acting and talking like a victim means? I think I know the picture you're painting with that, but others may not and I could always be wrong. :D

[rsa-otc]

My advice is a simple one of be nice to the policemen, and they will probably be nice to you.

Total agreement on this.

Even as I'm telling them I won't say anything further my tone will be a respectful & polite as possible. But I won't give specifics until I've had time to sort them out for myself.

One of my duties over the years has been to come up with a policy that will hold water throughout the 48 states that our personnel travel. Our guys can travel up to 1300 miles and 4 or more states jurisdiction's in 24 hours. And I can see with the increasing amount of reciprocity CCW holders doing the same. So what ever my guys or I do has to hold up in LA, Seattle, NY, NJ, FL etc. Maybe I'm unique in this.

[TCinVA]

I think that if you're going to assert your rights in any interaction with the police (post-shooting or not) it should be done politely. Being polite and professional works in all sorts of circumstances.

[TGS]

Acting cordial goes without saying, just like it'd be a bad idea to wave your gun around when the cops arrive. You being cordial isn't necessarily going to prevent you from getting curb-stomped in a lot of areas, though. You're still a suspect.

To add, lots of professional LEO's have the ability to sound like they're your best friend while explaining how you're going to jail and putting you in a cruiser. Just because someone is nice doesn't mean they're believing you, empathizing with you, or letting you off the hook. Still a good idea to assert your right to silence. The police aren't there to be nice to you and hold you up as a pillar of society for killing a crook....they're people working a job with objectives, and will exploit what you say. It's not a personal endeavor against you for most cops, they're doing a job and have to duty to investigate, and that might involve deception/tricking you up. All cops? No, TC gave a great example. When anyone figures out the litmus test for deciding what their intentions are with 99% accuracy, let me know and I'll rethink clamming up after a brief statement.

What I'm getting at is that being nice may make everyone feel good at first, but being nice/cordial/professional is not a defense against a trial. Clam up/lawyer up and you might spend time in holding, but you've got a defense against a trial.

[Dagga Boy]

Let's make use of your experience, then: If you wouldn't mind expanding a bit on what acting and talking like a victim means? I think I know the picture you're painting with that, but others may not and I could always be wrong. :D


Cops talk to crime victims all the time. Not all "victims" are really victims. In a lot of cases, the "girl I just gave a ride to who stole my wallet" was not as it may seem. Cops can smell most of these. I have talked to plenty of victims of horrifically violent crimes. Talk to the "true" lady businesswoman who pulled off the freeway to get gas and made a wrong turn to get back on the freeway and ended up brutally raped........you learn to separate that from the crack addicted prostitute with a stripper nickname who got "raped" by a guy who "she just wanted a ride from". They act and talk very different.

Most people who have been in these situations WANT to talk about what happened. I had this exact response myself in multiple incidents. You should be full of all sorts of natural chemicals that are inducing many reactions. I have spoken to many victims, and a good officer knows how to try to focus them , and ask important questions, and to build a chronological base of "who, what, where, when, and why". Most of the victims I have spoken to are not only on board with helping, they are almost too helpful (based on the t.v version of what L/E investigations look like). Again, I have NEVER had a true, righteous victim lawyer up. I have had plenty of real self defense cases (most are not shootings). They tend to be pretty obvious. Now the "self-defense" cases that end up in court with the "victim" charged tended to involve factors like a drug sale involved, and illegal weapon, impaired victim via drugs alcohol or both, a love triangle, or some other factor. It is why I take the cases of John Q. Citizen ending up in court on a cut and dry righteous shoot to be absolute rarities and tend to have all the "bad's" involved with personnel in the case. I do not believe many of the cases reflected in print or the gun boards, because I have seen how some writers changed or "spruced up" the facts of cases I am aware of to make them seem like more horrific abuses than they really were. Any story from a gun shop counter or gun show is suspect. What is admissible and discussed in court is often missing a great number of factors (like previous criminal activity).

In all of the cases I was involved in as a victim, I stayed the course. I have been a victim of numerous assaults while in the line of duty, or off duty. I responded to the investigation with the exact manner as was usual. The fact that I defended myself/or others, was a result of that attack. I found that many (men in particular) are afraid to admit they were scared. This is not the time for macho crap. I am as much a hard ass in person as I am on the net :D, and you can bet I freely admitted that I was scared when some idiot was pulling a gun on me. I was scared to death that the gang member with a stocking over his entire head and face running from a car that he had just pulled a late night Coca Cola delivery guy out of at gunpoint was going to do the same thing to another innocent person right in front of me. Fear is an okay thing to admit in these situations. Victims tend to be scared and excited. They suffer from many of the same issues that happen during a a crisis, with problems with defining time, confusion, see incredible details from some things and not seeing other obvious things. Halfway decent investigators should know all of this. Questionable victims tend to be elusive, very easily offended and get very defensive when asked questions. They tend to espouse "their rights" and just act a little indignant that the cops are asking questions about their story. Real victims tend to understand why you are asking questions, and if they don't understand are very receptive to explanations as to why a question is important. Again, overly cooperative vs. elusive......these are real factors. Just watch COP's. It should be fairly obvious.

As far as the issue with cops getting prosecuted by the own people for b.s. as victims.....been down this road. A) Some places suck. B) Many cops are terrible at report writing. C) Many try to be cute (and I have directed by supervisors to do this and I have refused) by being very vague in reports. I am brutally honest in my reports. If I hit a guy in the face with a closed fist, my report says so, it does not say that I used "a zone one restraint". I stunned a courtroom when a crooks attorney asked me if a "hit is client in the face"....the response of "absolutely, several times", and then justified why, and what I was trying to attain. Pretty much shuts down the whole argument. The guys who stammer their way through this get into trouble. Tell the truth. Most people suck at lying, and most cops are professionals at being lied to. Crooks lie like rugs, good guys tell the truth, even if its a little embarrassing. When the guy bleeding in your house is telling a fairy tale about being lost and was just trying to use your phone when you shot him after using a racial name is going to be seen through pretty quick by the officers......especially if you are telling a story about being asleep, never seeing the guy before, pointing to the broken door and being embarrassed for being so scared..........vs. sorry officer, I need to speak to my attorney before I give a statement.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Miranda rights apply when 2 things are present:

Custody & interrogation.

Custody = You are not free to leave.
Interrogation = Information is being scolicited.

Custody doesn't mean handcuffs. It means when you want to go, you can't.

Interrogation doesn't mean the fingernail factory or hot lights. It means someone wants info out of you and they are taking steps to get it.

An interrogation can be you & d'cop are just talking, and the cop has someone brings you a D&D coffee (Light & sweet) and a glazed twisty thing, telling you "Yeah, it's great you finally bagged that shitbird...man, I've been wanting to do that for years..." and you are telling him how it went down.

That's an interrogation. Not a custodial interrogation. And it is fucking effective.

Why?

Because nobody read you your rights. You were free to go.

They just wanted to talk to you about bagging the fucktard you bagged. You can decline if you want to.

And EVERYTHING is admissable. Why? It was your freely given statement. You didn't have to talk, and could have left. You weren't under arrest...you were free to shut up.

You know that, because it is assumed people know their rights.

By the time rights are read to people, it's too late.

Does it mean every time the cops speak to you they are trying to nail you, but people's focus on "If I'm read my right, it's time to lawyer up!" is wrong.

It's too late.

You can't unsay stuff.
You can only make sure you don't say something you didn't want to.

That's why people lawyer up.

In most use of force cases it won't matter...but you only know that till after it's over and are cleared.

[rsa-otc]

You have to remember as well that the police may play nice but the prosecutor may have a different idea. I beleive there are even some juristictions that all shootings go in front of a Grand Jury.

[Dagga Boy]

"What I'm getting at is that being nice may make everyone feel good at first, but being nice/cordial/professional is not a defense against a trial. Clam up/lawyer up and you might spend time in holding, but you've got a defense against a trial."

And that is what will happen. If you are good with going to county jail for awhile (it will be a long while) and waiting for a jury trial, then this is good advice. Me, I am going to try to avoid any incarceration if at all possible. Different strokes for different folks.

[Dagga Boy]

You have to remember as well that the police may play nice but the prosecutor may have a different idea. I beleive there are even some juristictions that all shootings go in front of a Grand Jury.

And they are all basing it initially on the police report of the incident. Unless that prosecutor is willing to get their own investigators to go out and start an investigation over again to counter the police report from the agency in whose jurisdiction the case falls, then that initial report is going to be the foundation of the case. Again, I want my name in the victim box on that report.

[rsa-otc]

I would like to also add, when it comes time for you to give a statement (when ever you choose to, at the scene or in the presence of your attorney) NEVER EVER intentionally lie or shade the truth. It will bite you in the a** quicker then anything else.

ETA: I know no one here has even remotely suggested that, but I wanted to get that out there as well.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

especially if you are telling a story about being asleep, never seeing the guy before, pointing to the broken door and being embarrassed for being so scared..........vs. sorry officer, I need to speak to my attorney before I give a statement.

That's a basic, mark 1, mod 0 situation that means nothing to nobody.
It's hard to fuck up the aftermath of shooting someone with those facts.


The cross racial shooting at an ATM (out of camera range...) in a city far from your home town in which your assailent turns really fast (you kinda fumbled your draw...) and you land a shot in his spine...and did I forget to tell you your assailent was a 17 year old honor student (I have a client who did 1st degree robbery of a series of jewlery stores who is 17yo...and yeah, he was an honor student...) with a politically active mother...

THAT's kind delicate. That's the meat of the thing. That's when it get's deep and you need to know how to handle the situation.

That's a fucked up situation nobody wants to think they may end up in, but it's the one which the thinking for your home invasion-statement in view of the kicked in door - mindset will land you in deep.


Approaching prep for "best of worse case scenario" is a loosing mindset.


Think of the firsst as the equivalent of sending your kids to grandma for the weekend so you & the wife can get friday & saturday alone for some well needed screwing w/o interuption. It impresses nobody.

Think of the second as a broke motherfucker needing to talk his way into Scores in Manhattan, and come out with a pair of strippers, then talk their way into a penthouse in a Manhattan hotel without ID, cash or a credit card. That shit will impress EVERYONE.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I would like to also add, when it comes time for you to give a statement (when ever you choose to, at the scene or in the presence of your attorney) NEVER EVER intentionally lie or shade the truth. It will bite you in the a** quicker then anything else.

How do you know you are telling the truth.

The mind fills in a lot of detail that doesn't really exist, and does so with the belief that since other things were present, the other details must have been.

When someone approaches you agressively and you see something in their hand, you may have your mind shout "KNIFE!!" - sorry. Tin Foil sandwich wrapper.

You may have been justified in shooting based on the circumstances and what you reasonably believed under the situation, lighting, training and time constraints...

But if you say "He had a knife! I saw it. Sliver blade!" - Oh, my.

Liar. LIAR! You killed him and made up a story! Lethal injection for you!

Another reasons not to give a statement w/o counsel.

(Can it be dealt with - yes, but it's gonna be a bitch...)

[Dagga Boy]

Miranda rights apply when 2 things are present:

Custody & interrogation.

Custody = You are not free to leave.
Interrogation = Information is being scolicited.

Custody doesn't mean handcuffs. It means when you want to go, you can't.

Interrogation doesn't mean the fingernail factory or hot lights. It means someone wants info out of you and they are taking steps to get it.

An interrogation can be you & d'cop are just talking, and the cop has someone brings you a D&D coffee (Light & sweet) and a glazed twisty thing, telling you "Yeah, it's great you finally bagged that shitbird...man, I've been wanting to do that for years..." and you are telling him how it went down.

That's an interrogation. Not a custodial interrogation. And it is fucking effective.

Why?

Because nobody read you your rights. You were free to go.

They just wanted to talk to you about bagging the fucktard you bagged. You can decline if you want to.

And EVERYTHING is admissable. Why? It was your freely given statement. You didn't have to talk, and could have left. You weren't under arrest...you were free to shut up.

You know that, because it is assumed people know their rights.

By the time rights are read to people, it's too late.

Does it mean every time the cops speak to you they are trying to nail you, but people's focus on "If I'm read my right, it's time to lawyer up!" is wrong.

It's too late.

You can't unsay stuff.
You can only make sure you don't say something you didn't want to.

That's why people lawyer up.

In most use of force cases it won't matter...but you only know that till after it's over and are cleared.


Based on the above, I am wrong........lawyer up. The cops are out to nail you everytime they talk to you. The only time I have seen something like the above is on T.V., and if you are "happy" about "bagging a shitbag", and you want to brag about it.......that isn't being a victim.

I'm going to gauge my response on the situation. Its worked for me in the past on numerous occasions. The rest of you......get an attorney.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Based on the above, I am wrong........lawyer up. The cops are out to nail you everytime they talk to you. The only time I have seen something like the above is on T.V., and if you are "happy" about "bagging a shitbag", and you want to brag about it.......that isn't being a victim.

I'm going to gauge my response on the situation. Its worked for me in the past on numerous occasions. The rest of you......get an attorney.

Look, take it as you want to.

I got my experience, you got yours, and if they don't agree with each other, that's cool.

I know why do what I do, I'm sure you do as well.

[Ed L]

I've been to LFI 1 & 2 with Ayoob, but talking with Nyeti and listening to his reasoning has changed my thoughts on how to handle the aftermath of a shooting.

How many self defense shootings have you handled, Mitchell?

[TGS]

"What I'm getting at is that being nice may make everyone feel good at first, but being nice/cordial/professional is not a defense against a trial. Clam up/lawyer up and you might spend time in holding, but you've got a defense against a trial."

And that is what will happen. If you are good with going to county jail for awhile (it will be a long while) and waiting for a jury trial, then this is good advice. Me, I am going to try to avoid any incarceration if at all possible. Different strokes for different folks.

Talking might get you off at the scene. It might also get you a permanent jail sentence.

I'll take the time in county awaiting trial versus shooting myself in the foot and risking a life sentence.

One decision gives you the chance of a life sentence or worse, and may or may not land you in a county jail awaiting a trial. The other decision may or may not land you in county jail awaiting trial, and keeps you from giving yourself a life sentence or worse.

Seems pretty cut'n'dry to me. Talking can only hurt you.

I'm glad that as a LEO your way worked. I'm not a LEO.

[TGS]

and if you are "happy" about "bagging a shitbag", and you want to brag about it.......that isn't being a victim.


Actually, that is COMPLETE bullshit. "Kill joy" is a very well documented and understood emotion. The reason you don't talk is because it can still be used against you.

[TCinVA]

People will frequently have differing points of view on a subject like this based on their background and experience. I know investigators who will tell you to tell the truth because they are good investigators interested in justice and they're not after anyone who doesn't deserve jail time. I know investigators who will tell you to shut the hell up because they have seen people get screwed over by other investigators/prosecutors/etc when they told the truth. Etc.

I think everybody here is trying to give advice based on what they've seen...and they've seen all sorts of different sides of the problem.

So what does the average reader do with all this information? I'd say keep all of it in mind. Nyeti has given some very valuable insight into the way most police officers look at and handle things. That's extremely valuable information to have. Our legal friends have reminded us that anything you say to the police is fair game in court, and that investigators can look like your best friend while trying to bury you. (Rule 1 of interrogation: Get. Them. Talking. Doesn't even matter about what.) That's also very valuable information to have in the Rolodex.

[rsa-otc]

Look, take it as you want to.

I got my experience, you got yours, and if they don't agree with each other, that's cool.

I know why do what I do, I'm sure you do as well.

Hey guys lets keep in mind Nyeti's experience base IIRC is from the South West part of the country, Mitchell, TGS & Myself are coming from the GREATER (said tongue in cheek) North East. Different cultures, different experiences.

ETA: TC and I were typing at the same time.

[Ed L]

Hey guys lets keep in mind Nyeti's experience base IIRC is from the South West part of the country, Mitchell, TGS & Myself are coming from the GREATER (said tongue in cheek) North East. Different cultures, different experiences.

Actually Nyeti's experience is based on Southern California--not the most friendly place to gun owners.

[rsa-otc]

I've been to LFI 1 & 2 with Ayoob, but talking with Nyeti and listening to his reasoning has changed my thoughts on how to handle the aftermath of a shooting.

How many self defense shootings have you handled, Mitchell?

I'm an Ayoob grad as well, I've also had the pleasure of working with Emanuel Kapelsohn on our policies and procedures. Add that to several civil suites that I have been involved with.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I've been to LFI 1 & 2 with Ayoob, but talking with Nyeti and listening to his reasoning has changed my thoughts on how to handle the aftermath of a shooting.

How many self defense shootings have you handled, Mitchell?

Shootings - Self defense - none. I don't pretend I've done a SD shooting.

Self defense use of force cases from the defense side - 3. Two criminal, and one civil.

Criminal incident #1 resulted in the charges being dismissed even though the defendant didn't have a permit to carry a gun in CT.
#2...was bad. Put simply, he thought he was a musician because he had a guitar, and he and I had a disagreement about how to handle the case. He wanted an unreasonable disposition of his case (the prosecutor didn't believe his fear was reasonable in light of certain factors I won't mention...) and stiffed me on the bill, and last I heard he was still going to court on it.

Civil incident was a clusterfuck. Apparently you are not supposed to lie to the police and say "Nothing happened" when you hit someone with a wrench as they were trying to ground and pound you. The other guy made it to the phone, my guy left and lets just say it went downhill from that point.

Shootings, however... Done them. Had a nice one with the defendant smoking MJ laced with PCP involving an AK, shooting at the cops and so forth...He's only going to do 2 years for it. I'm not sure if that is good or bad, as he's only doing 27 days per round of 7.62x39mm but hey, I do what I do...

[Mitchell, Esq.]

So what does the average reader do with all this information? I'd say keep all of it in mind.

That's the whole fucking deal!

It's info that may or may not apply, but should factor into your prep & decission making.

[Dagga Boy]

Actually, that is COMPLETE bullshit. "Kill joy" is a very well documented and understood emotion. The reason you don't talk is because it can still be used against you.

There is a big difference between being happy and thankful you are alive, and telling a police investigator that you enjoyed shooting someone. If that is how your mouth and brain work........GET A LAWYER.

I'll sort of back out of this a little. I would like to only offer that I would seek training and advice from those with exceptional credentials of actually working all sides of the equation. Scott Reitz at ITTS in SoCal is my go to for these types of matters (he writes a column for SWAT magazine that I read first every issue). He doesn't make as big of a deal as "others" about what an expert he is on this stuff, but he has actually done all sides-shooter, investigator, an in demand expert witness, and has trained units that have lawyers whose career is based on suing them for everything. His training is very worthwhile, and insight into use of force is worth reading everything you can.

I tend to question those who offer expert opinion on these things, and never been involved in anything like it first hand. That is just me, and others are entitled to listen to whomever they wish. It is easy to write me off as the "you were a cop, so it doesn't count". That is fine, but keep in mind, I was not well liked within my own organization. I have been sitting in other agencies interview rooms for off duty stuff where I might have well been a CCW holder, because that is essentially what I was. Luckily, my first hand, actual outcomes from shooting in defense of myself and others, as well as high level uses of force have worked out in a positive manner without the need of counsel to this point.

[Dagga Boy]

Shootings - Self defense - none. I don't pretend I've done a SD shooting.

Self defense use of force cases from the defense side - 3. Two criminal, and one civil.

Criminal incident #1 resulted in the charges being dismissed even though the defendant didn't have a permit to carry a gun in CT.
#2...was bad. Put simply, he thought he was a musician because he had a guitar, and he and I had a disagreement about how to handle the case. He wanted an unreasonable disposition of his case (the prosecutor didn't believe his fear was reasonable in light of certain factors I won't mention...) and stiffed me on the bill, and last I heard he was still going to court on it.

Civil incident was a clusterfuck. Apparently you are not supposed to lie to the police and say "Nothing happened" when you hit someone with a wrench as they were trying to ground and pound you. The other guy made it to the phone, my guy left and lets just say it went downhill from that point.

Shootings, however... Done them. Had a nice one with the defendant smoking MJ laced with PCP involving an AK, shooting at the cops and so forth...He's only going to do 2 years for it. I'm not sure if that is good or bad, as he's only doing 27 days per round of 7.62x39mm but hey, I do what I do...

If I ever do something stupid with a gun, or questionable...........I am calling you. In all of the above cases, they sort of fail all of the "nyeti rules" for living while armed. Keep in mind that I am stupidly monkish when it comes to my personal life because I am armed 24/7. The reference made early involving the wife at a hotel vs. strippers and such.......couldn't even relate to #2 or what the hell you were talking about, and #1 was about as exciting as my life gets.

[Mr_White]

I believe I have noticed a trend, not just based on this thread, but also from those attorneys and LEOs who have trained me, that those who have experience as working LEOs tend to offer the advice of "give a limited statement to get the initial investigation pushed in the right direction, point out evidence and witnesses, then invoke right to legal counsel," whereas those who have experience as attorneys tend toward the advice of "say nothing and immediately invoke right to legal counsel." And they've generally cited the same reasons as Mitchell and Nyeti in this thread.

[TGS]

Thanks to everyone for the contributions to this thread.

Food for thought. This is a Regent Law School professor lecturing about police interviews:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Now, I believe in giving a very brief, undetailed statement like I posted earlier, but his lecture is a big part of what I'm based off of. He goes over real-life instances.

[mscott327]

Great post I don't think and I may be wrong but "my firearms instructor said..." will hold up in court.
If you're going to carry a gun, you better damn well know when to and not to use it.

[Dagga Boy]

Thanks to everyone for the contributions to this thread.

Food for thought. This is a Regent Law School professor lecturing about police interviews:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

Now, I believe in giving a very brief, undetailed statement like I posted earlier, but his lecture is a big part of what I'm based off of. He goes over real-life instances.

I could only take about 12 minutes....Go with this guys theory. I liked the part where he talks about being a victim and wanting the bad guy punished.........can never happen, because he will never talk to the police.....too bad, so sad, no victim, no crime. All this stuff is fairly true if you are a criminal, and were not a victim. I have talked to thousands of people everyday in tons of circumstances and had to figure out through interviews who was the victim, and who was the criminal.......I guess I am batting 50% rather than a 100% as he purports.

I say go with the tell the cops to pound sand and not say a word till your lawyer arrives.

I do note a funny thing.........its all the lawyers (who will not do a single second of time, but will benefit financially from your situation) who say don't do a thing without counsel...just saying.

[Mr_White]

I do note a funny thing.........its all the lawyers (who will not do a single second of time, but will benefit financially from your situation) who say don't do a thing without counsel...just saying.

I mostly note that as well, though I've also seen a little crossover in points of view between lawyers and LEOs.

I can't watch the law school professor video here at work, but if it is the one I think it is, there is a companion video, shot during the same general presentation, of an experienced detective strongly agreeing with the law school professor that one ought to say nothing an lawyer up.

[TGS]

I could only take about 12 minutes....Go with this guys theory. I liked the part where he talks about being a victim and wanting the bad guy punished.........can never happen, because he will never talk to the police.....too bad, so sad, no victim, no crime. All this stuff is fairly true if you are a criminal, and were not a victim. I have talked to thousands of people everyday in tons of circumstances and had to figure out through interviews who was the victim, and who was the criminal.......I guess I am batting 50% rather than a 100% as he purports.

I say go with the tell the cops to pound sand and not say a word till your lawyer arrives.

I do note a funny thing.........its all the lawyers (who will not do a single second of time, but will benefit financially from your situation) who say don't do a thing without counsel...just saying.

Watching the entire thing will be much more convincing than 12 minutes. Especially when he gets into the human factor, it applies directly to a victim.

[mnealtx]

Total agreement on this.

Even as I'm telling them I won't say anything further my tone will be a respectful & polite as possible. But I won't give specifics until I've had time to sort them out for myself.

One of my duties over the years has been to come up with a policy that will hold water throughout the 48 states that our personnel travel. Our guys can travel up to 1300 miles and 4 or more states jurisdiction's in 24 hours. And I can see with the increasing amount of reciprocity CCW holders doing the same. So what ever my guys or I do has to hold up in LA, Seattle, NY, NJ, FL etc. Maybe I'm unique in this.

Here's what Mas Ayoob had to say on the subject of a post-shooting encounter with the police - it seems to match up pretty well with the points made by a number of posters in the thread:

Link (http://www.tactical-life.com/online/combat-handguns/after-a-shooting-what-to-reveal/)

This is why I’ve come to advise Lethal Force Institute students to stick to five bare-bones statements when questioned. First, “This man attacked me.” It makes clear from the beginning that you’re the Victim and the guy you were forced to shoot was the Perpetrator.

Second, “I will sign the complaint.” You’re speaking the cop’s language, and further locking in the facts of who’s who and what’s what: you are the Good Guy or Gal, and the guy on the ground is the Bad Guy.

Third, point out the evidence. If you don’t, it can disappear or get moved. In Case Eight in Illinois, a gangbanger attacked a cop and tried to rip his Smith & Wesson 9mm out of his holster and murder him with it. The cop wound up having to shoot and kill him in self-defense. Not until I got there to examine the evidence for trial did anyone bother to examine the uniform pants the officer was wearing; they were torn in the holster area, confirming the officer’s version of events. By then he had been charged with an illegal homicide, and had to go all the way through trial to win acquittal.

Fourth, point out the witnesses. Their words may well exonerate you, but the general public fears reprisal by the genuine criminals who attacked you, or their accomplices, and may be reluctant to come forward on their own. The only way to be sure that testimony that may exonerate you will be taken, is for you to point out to police the witnesses who saw you shoot your attacker in self-defense.

Fifth, and critically important, “Officer, you’ll have my full cooperation after I’ve spoken with counsel.” Stick to that like name, rank, and serial number. Experts tell us that it will be a minimum of 24 to perhaps 72 hours before you’ll be in any condition to deal with a full interrogation. And that interrogation (the more politically correct term “interview” is used now) should not take place until you’ve discussed it with your attorney in depth. Nor should it take place, in my opinion, without the attorney right there with you, and a legal stenographic service’s camcorder rolling to record it for your side, just in case.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I do note a funny thing.........its all the lawyers (who will not do a single second of time, but will benefit financially from your situation) who say don't do a thing without counsel...just saying.

Ya know, you were a bit slow with that one.

I'm disappointed.

[Dagga Boy]

Why would you use "cop language" when you're not a cop. Are you trying to be a cop? What is "cop language". Is that what you heard on T.V.. I don't know what things are like in the metropolis where Mas is patrolling, but people didn't sign complaints in my neck of the woods. Use nice citizen language, and be polite.

Don't try to do the investigators job. Simply state the obvious basics. You don't need to tell the officers what to do, just tell the story with emphasis on things that were factors in what happened or will help exonerate you (this will include witnesses and possible evidence, but don't tell them how to handle either).

Don't make promises you can't keep. "I'll cooperate when my attorney gets here"..........wanna bet you won't. I am sure the officers will be likely to be work on the behalf of the "cooperative victim" who just clammed up and refused to further cooperate the second their attorney showed up.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

why would you use "cop language" when you're not a cop. Are you trying to be a cop? What is "cop language". Is that what you heard on t.v.. I don't know what things are like in the metropolis where mas is patrolling, but people didn't sign complaints in my neck of the woods. Use nice citizen language, and be polite.

Don't try to do the investigators job. Simply state the obvious basics. You don't need to tell the officers what to do, just tell the story with emphasis on things that were factors in what happened or will help exonerate you (this will include witnesses and possible evidence, but don't tell them how to handle either).

Don't make promises you can't keep. "i'll cooperate when my attorney gets here"..........wanna bet you won't. I am sure the officers will be likely to be work on the behalf of the "cooperative victim" who just clammed up and refused to further cooperate the second their attorney showed up.

yes...

This.

100%

[Dagga Boy]

Ya know, you were a bit slow with that one.

I'm disappointed.

Actually, I used to bring this up a lot when our city attorney's used to come up with insanely stupid policies that were sure to get our guys sued (job security), not for doing anything wrong, but for violating stupid, and poorly thought out policies.

I have an extensive amount of experience in the private sector in dealing with attorney's (both good and bad). Motivations are a factor depending on what side of the fence. I would say with confidence that criminal defense attorney's could give a hoot if you innocent or not. They defend anybody. The cops know this, and so do the attorney's. Just keep this in mind.

[Al T.]

(Bounced off the femur and took out both testicles)

Got to love a story with a happy ending. :D

Back on topic.

We have a lawyer here who is a big advocate of the "shut up" tactic. Published a popular book for SC gun toters. Very aggressive (and effective) gun rights campaigner.

Never been in a court room as an attorney. Never been sworn as an officer. Never attended any sort of firearms training other than our state mandated 8 hour CWP qualification.

Be careful of your sources - any where you get them.

[mnealtx]

Why would you use "cop language" when you're not a cop. Are you trying to be a cop? What is "cop language". Is that what you heard on T.V.. I don't know what things are like in the metropolis where Mas is patrolling, but people didn't sign complaints in my neck of the woods. Use nice citizen language, and be polite.

Does "I will sign the report" or "I'm willing to sign a statement" meet with your approval, or is reinforcing the fact that you were the innocent party too much "cop language", too?


Don't try to do the investigators job. Simply state the obvious basics. You don't need to tell the officers what to do, just tell the story with emphasis on things that were factors in what happened or will help exonerate you (this will include witnesses and possible evidence, but don't tell them how to handle either).

Where did he advocate telling the police how to handle the witnesses or evidence?


Don't make promises you can't keep. "I'll cooperate when my attorney gets here"..........wanna bet you won't. I am sure the officers will be likely to be work on the behalf of the "cooperative victim" who just clammed up and refused to further cooperate the second their attorney showed up.

You've already told them that you're the victim and that you're willing to sign a statement to that effect. You've shown them the weapon that your attacker was carrying and the shell casings from your own gun, as well as the people across the street that saw the attack.

Looks like 'who, what, when where and why' are pretty much covered... why would you volunteer more and more info that could be used to trip you up later?

[Dagga Boy]

Has anybody here ever been in a shooting.............raise your hand. Did it go like any of this? If it did, I'd like to hear about the process you went through.

You will be "contained" somewhere. You won't be running around pointing anything out. You won't be "signing" anything at the scene, maybe later in some places, but not there. You shouldn't be demanding much of anything. Quiet calm will be your friend. If you want to "point out anything or direct officers to witnesses, it will be during a initial comments or initial interview. This is where you need to decide weather you are going to want an attorney. Don't be shocked if you are handcuffed. They do in fact come off, especially if they went on very easy. We will hope that a felony was being committed at the time of the attack. In this case you don't have to make a citizens arrest. Simply indicate that you will be cooperative in the prosecution of your attacker (that is different from being cooperative in discussing your actions in repelling the crime). If I could give one tip, breath through your nose, calm down, and think before you speak. If you are incapable of this, ask for an attorney, and be prepared to ride the train (some simply are not, or the scene may be so horrendous that you can't calm down, so that is not meant as an insult).

[TGS]

Be careful of your sources - any where you get them.

I wouldn't be afraid to trust the advice of a practicing lawyer on the bar, Massad Ayoob(plenty of experience as a career LEO and giving expert testimonials), or a Regent Law School professor.

Especially when what they're saying makes sense, both through letter of the law and reasoning.

[TGS]

Has anybody here ever been in a shooting.............raise your hand. Did it go like any of this? If it did, I'd like to hear about the process you went through.



*hand raised*

What you laid out is how it went down. Me personally, I wasn't even involved beyond being on the same property and I was tackled and had the cold steel of a S&W 5904/06's muzzle pressed against my cranium while I was cuffed.

There's plenty of opportunity to run your suck and screw yourself.

[Dagga Boy]

I wouldn't be afraid to trust the advice of a practicing lawyer on the bar, Massad Ayoob(plenty of experience as a career LEO and giving expert testimonials), or a Regent Law School professor.

Especially when what they're saying makes sense, both through letter of the law and reasoning.


TGS, correct me if I am wrong (lord knows it happens regularly). Massad Ayoob's L/E career. My understanding is he is a reserve officer in a very small department in a pretty quiet place. Has he ever done a first hand officer involved shooting that he has been in, or he was an investigator on? How about first hand investigations of complex shootings at the scene when it happened and has had suspects and victims pointing out evidence and sign complaints, and he was in his jurisdiction and was a primary handling officer. Has he testified in a shooting case as an on duty investigator and not an outside "expert" witness (big secret, being an expert witness has a ton of variance) Just curious. If he was in fact a full time paid officer who spent a lot of time doing first hand investigations of shootings, I have been given bad information, and I'd like to get the correct info.

The attorney from Regent lost me in his first little criminal defense attorney analogy with the guy who got into a fight with a female attorney in a court hallway. Had the guy gone to court and the officer's testimony was "I met with both parties at the scene. The female said the male grabbed her around the neck. She was scared, and wanted the other subject arrested for assaulting her. She had some redness around her neck that she said came from being grabbed. I talked to the other subject and asked him what happened. He refused to speak to me and demanded an attorney. Based on the statements and evidence available at the time, the male attorney was placed under arrest. Due to his invocation of his right to remain silent, he was not questioned or interrogated and was booked into county jail for assault and battery (could have been assault with intent to commit GBI depending on the depth of the "victims" statement (you know, the other attorney who has an obviously different opinion about talking to the cops, and didn't go to jail...that attorney). In reality, saying that he was "just messing around, and it was a joke" was far better. Either way, that guy was going to be sitting in that courtroom on the "defendant" side. The Regent guy is simply assuming that the criminal defense attorney was telling the truth, and the officer was obviously lying along with the female attorney. That may have happened, but I will go with the other side, and would have never used that argument as to why saying anything to the police is bad. Again, that is CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER speak........they represent..........CRIMINALS. Most of their clients (certainly not all, the system is far from perfect) are criminals. They make a living trying to prove that ALL of their clients are not Criminals. They have never met a person who really did what the cops said...........unless they don't get paid...........then their clients ARE criminals. So take the guy from Regents spin with a grain of salt, just like you should take mine.

Don't take my posts as anti lawyer. I have worked with the best in the world while in the private sector. One of the best classes I was in was with a lawyer who sues police departments as his primary job. It is how I discovered that the city attorney's that my brass was depending on were not doing us any favors, and were in fact making us far more vulnerable to getting sued.

[Dagga Boy]

TGS..if you don't mind me asking. In the case you were involved in, did you talk to the officer's or invoke your rights? did either land you in jail? After the cuffing and gun part, when the scene was secure, did you get treated fairly or not?

[mnealtx]

Has he ever done a first hand officer involved shooting that he has been in, or he was an investigator on? How about first hand investigations of complex shootings at the scene when it happened and has had suspects and victims pointing out evidence and sign complaints, and he was in his jurisdiction and was a primary handling officer. Has he testified in a shooting case as an on duty investigator and not an outside "expert" witness (big secret, being an expert witness has a ton of variance) Just curious. If he was in fact a full time paid officer who spent a lot of time doing first hand investigations of shootings, I have been given bad information, and I'd like to get the correct info.

Not really sure what your issue is with Ayoob, but if you're trying to say that he doesn't have the experience to give advice on what to say to the investigators after the shooting, doesn't that make him *more* qualified than you in giving advice on what to say that will keep you out of trouble in the trial?

[TGS]

Nyeti,

I guess I put my foot in my mouth with Ayoob. I knew it was a pretty small/quiet place, but didn't know he was a reserve officer. Noted.

With the video, you're only looking at a very small portion of his lecture by watching the first minutes. If you watch the entire video, there's plenty of material that is applicable to any suspect. Personally, I don't see a difference between a criminal and a "victim" if they're both being treated as suspects. They've both got one thing in common: The police are trying to find something to get them on. I'm not going to assume that they're NOT treating me as a suspect when they're also trying to figure out why I shot someone. Saying more than a brief amount of info with little detail might get me out of the suspect box right away, but it might also shoot me in the foot if they think there's anything to go on. Too much of a risk for me.

Was I treated fairly by the cops? Well, as soon as the two that detained me brought me over to the larger group, another officer waived at them and said to let me go since I wasn't even a witness to the shooting, I was only on the property. There wasn't really a chance for me to say anything since the take-down was pretty quick and I was moved promptly without questioning. I was treated like a shooting suspect should be treated while being moved to whatever containment area they had designated(except for the muzzle against skull thing).

As a 16 year old, I wasn't really familiar with invoking rights and what not. I was more rambling, "what's going on?! I'm a good kid, I'm trying to get into the naval academy....why is there a gun against my head!?!"

If that were to happen again, I'd talk to them simply because I was in no way involved in the shooting other than being on the property. The police were responding to a shooting and my friend and I were the first people these two specific officers saw. One officer had me blinded by a light(it was night time) and ordering me to walk towards him, so I did. Completely unaware, I was tackled from the side by another cop. Next thing I knew I was eating dirt, my hands were being cuffed behind me and there was a gun against me head. They picked me up and had complete control of me.....I don't know the name of the technique but I learned it in the Marines(where you're holding the suspect by the shirt-neck with your arm underneath their cuffed hands forcing the suspect into a bent-over weight-forward stance). I was walked over to the general vicinity where their cars were. When we got there, it was pretty evident that I wasn't even a witness to the shooting since the victim, shooter and witnesses had already been gathered up. One of the cops took my info and asked me to just hang around in case they needed anything else. There's no possible way I could have been construed to be a suspect at that point. When my mother found out about the gun against my head part, she certainly had some choice words for the police.

If I had actually shot at anyone, I'd make the brief statement and shut up because I'd be suspect by virtue of killing someone. You can still be convicted as a victim.

[TGS]

As a practicing lawyer, admitted to the bar, and a graduate of a pretty good local law school, please take my word for it that neither of these is a guaranty of good advice. Refer back to Mitchell's post somewhere in this thread (I think) where he used the example of a tax lawyer asked for self-defense-related legal advice. Having met Mitchell, listened to his presentation on this and read some of the sources he is citing, I do, in fact, respect his legal advice on this subject. But I did have to go through the analysis to get there and you should too. In my experience, there are a lot more lawyers than there are good lawyers.

Good point. I was pretty quick to accept Mitchell's advice since he was not only quoting and using references, but none of the other lawyers on here contradicted him.

[Dagga Boy]

"I wouldn't be afraid to trust the advice of a practicing lawyer on the bar, Massad Ayoob(plenty of experience as a career LEO and giving expert testimonials), or a Regent Law School professor."

mnealtx-I was responding to the above. You obviously think a lot of what Ayoob has to say, and are probably a happy LFI student. Great. A long time ago, I was a huge fan of Ayoob. I've got most or all of his books, and read most of his magazine articles. Unfortunately, over the years, and as my own first hand experience increased, I found that its was contrary to his advice. I wish Ayoob would very much stick to armed civilian issues where I feel he truly is a SME. Shooting stuff.....okay, but Stressfire was a total failure at my place. From what I have gathered, and based on my experience, his advice as a police expert is not in line with mine. At that point, you make the call. Just remember if you are taking advice from somebody who has never done something themselves with first hand experience, then you are taking advice from a "student" or "observer". Not right or wrong, but you should take it in context.

[KeeFus]

I'll say this about Mas. If I ever needed someone to come to my trial and be an expert he'd be on the top of the list...even of he was only a part-time cop. He is able to convey a message (my message) to the jury/judge. He's a nationally recognized expert in the field. He's got the credentials and can back up what he says. I spoke with him at length during the 2010 Carolina Cup about my shooting and I was very impressed. He knows his shit.

While my agency was fielding price quotes on pistols from different distributors in early 2011 I ran across a salesman from Ed's Publlic Safety in Ga. He mentioned that he would use one of the forum contributors here...Tom Givens.

The point is this: If your ass ends up in a sling and before a jury you want to convey to the jury why you did what you did. Having someone who is a recognized expert in the area of self defense, along with a great trial attorney, may be the difference between not guilty and guilty. Don't settle for the bargain basement...there's plenty of people in prison that did just that. Hopefully the legal minds that you're dealing with will realize self defense when they see it and it will never get past an investigation or Grand Jury hearing.

As far as talking or not talking to the police...do what you feel is necessary. If you shut up and hand the officer a lawyers business card then so be it. As for me, I will point out witnesses, evidence, camera's, etc. and thats about it other than assist as much as I can without giving a statement. If it's that important for them to get a statement then they can contact my attorney...and yes, I'm a cop but at no point have I ever given up my rights to have an attorney present.

[Dagga Boy]

TGS, I disagree with the way you worded this:

"Personally, I don't see a difference between a criminal and a "victim" if they're both being treated as suspects. They've both got one thing in common: The police are trying to find something to get them on."

There is a big difference between criminals and victims. Cops love real victims......its why some of us became cops-to put predatory animals in cages (Note, I said "some" of us). If both criminals and victims act like suspects, they will be treated as such. I also couldn't disgree with you more that the police are trying to find something to get them on. Couldn't be further from the truth. The problem is that officers deal with very few "black and white" crime scenes or incidents. Most incidents are a result of both parties engaged in bad behavior. Trust me, we love cut and dry crime scenes where there is an obvious "bad guy" and an obvious "good guy". We love people who tell the truth, even if its not good things. We HATE liars. Liars get the full ride. Be a good guy, don't lie, and chances are things will go okay, even in a bad situation.

In the case you were involved in is one where we have no info in regards to what the information the officers had from dispatch and how you were taken down.....may have been too nice, perfect, a little excessive, or very excessive.......hard to tell from this chair. What I can say is that without saying a thing, a first responding officer got enough information to clear you, had you dusted off and sent on your way without you having to lawyer up. I used to always make it a point to explain to people why they were detained in a certain way when force was used. I was a rarity in this regard, but it was the main reason why I was able to work with a high level of activity, and had one complaint in almost 20 years....(from another cops kid, who I made the mistake of letting go with a severe ass chewing instead of taking him to jail....learned a lesson very early in my career, and spent the next 15 years without another complaint with several thousand arrests). I wish more cops would take a moment to explain things to people, but it is a frowned upon practice. I would even apologize if a mistake was made........God forbid.

[Dagga Boy]

Keith, glad you were impressed with Ayoob and would use him. I don't know how much exposure you have had to other folks to compare.

For me, Scott Reitz or Ron McCarthy. We used Ron a lot at my P.D. and he was exceptional. Scott is HIGHLY regarded in this realm. These guys just aren't well known by the general public. Keith as a LEO, if you ever get a chance to get a class with ITTS and Scotty, invest the money.

I have also heard great things about Tom Givens from those I respect.

[mnealtx]

"I wouldn't be afraid to trust the advice of a practicing lawyer on the bar, Massad Ayoob(plenty of experience as a career LEO and giving expert testimonials), or a Regent Law School professor."

mnealtx-I was responding to the above. You obviously think a lot of what Ayoob has to say, and are probably a happy LFI student. Great.

No, I'm not an LFI student, and I don't have any of his books. I *do*, however, have at least a modicum of common sense and it seems logical to limit what you say in the immediate aftermath of a shooting when you're not going to clearly remember what happened and have a case of stress-induced blabbermouth to boot.


I wish Ayoob would very much stick to armed civilian issues where I feel he truly is a SME.

Would that include where he advises civilians in what to say so as to limit their possible liability if a court case ensues?


Just remember if you are taking advice from somebody who has never done something themselves with first hand experience, then you are taking advice from a "student" or "observer". Not right or wrong, but you should take it in context.

Given his experience in testifying in defense, does that not add credence to what he advises people to say in the aftermath of a shooting?

[TGS]

TGS, I disagree with the way you worded this:

"Personally, I don't see a difference between a criminal and a "victim" if they're both being treated as suspects. They've both got one thing in common: The police are trying to find something to get them on."

There is a big difference between criminals and victims. Cops love real victims......its why some of us became cops-to put predatory animals in cages (Note, I said "some" of us). If both criminals and victims act like suspects, they will be treated as such. I also couldn't disgree with you more that the police are trying to find something to get them on. Couldn't be further from the truth. The problem is that officers deal with very few "black and white" crime scenes or incidents. Most incidents are a result of both parties engaged in bad behavior. Trust me, we love cut and dry crime scenes where there is an obvious "bad guy" and an obvious "good guy". We love people who tell the truth, even if its not good things. We HATE liars. Liars get the full ride. Be a good guy, don't lie, and chances are things will go okay, even in a bad situation.


I'm not saying that cops are evil simpletons out to turn everything into their statistic for promotion boards.

If you watch the whole video I linked, you'd see what I'm stepping in, even if you disagree with it. I could say something that doesn't add up to the police and do so without realizing I just labelled myself a criminal in the cops' eyes. Or, the human factor could come into play later as humans are imperfect and a police officer might recall something incorrectly during a trial. In addition, a lot of shooting scenes might not be so cut and dry that they'll arrive on scene and say, "Whoa! He's definitely the good guy." I shot someone. That makes me a suspect for crime already.

I think geography definitely plays a part in it, as well. If you open carry in Philadelphia you'll be tackled and have your face ground into the pavement while they check on your creds. They don't do it like I've seen videos of California cops who approach you nicely, ask to see your ID, check to see if you weapon is unloaded, and send you on your way. I'm certainly not giving two shits about talking with the police without representation if I end up shooting someone in Philly. Take for instance the case of Gerald Ung.....the police arrived to him tending DiDonato's wounds(the attacker). He complied and was cordial with all their commands. There was video of the shooting which even showed he was trying to withdraw from the confrontation and attacked by a group of men when he fired. PPD still threw him in jail, and then it got even worse since DiDonato was a brat connected through his father(former DA or something of the likes).....you're not talking your way out of anything with PPD, and anything I say to PPD will only serve to hurt me. Especially with the amount of unjustified shootings that Philly has going on right now, I can't imagine them associating a responsible citizen with guns right now. As the Regent professor explained in his lecture, anything you say can be used against you, however it can not HELP you in a court of law. Where I carry, it's going to court no matter what. Thinking anything else is hoping for the best.

[Shellback]

One of the most thought provoking threads I've read in a long time.

[Tamara]

I think geography definitely plays a part in it, as well. If you open carry in Philadelphia you'll be tackled and have your face ground into the pavement while they check on your creds. They don't do it like I've seen videos of California cops who approach you nicely, ask to see your ID, check to see if you weapon is unloaded, and send you on your way.

Bear in mind that the video in question was a suburban department. I'm sure there are plenty of places in LA proper where they'd be happy to give you the same greeting as in Philly. Similarly, I know there are Philly 'burbs where the cops are similarly relaxed.

Don't fall into this "Well, maybe it's that way in your part of the country..." trap. Things vary from county to county and township to township, often based on departmental culture as much as local ordinances and state laws. I've had pleasant roadside interactions with State Troopers who never said "Boo!" about the stack of pistols on the passenger seat not twenty miles down the same highway from where my ex had his face bounced of the hood of a Crown Vic for having a pistol on the passenger seat.

An illustration: Back in the late '80s/early '90s, when I knew and hung out with quite a few cops from both the Atlanta Police Dept. and the Fulton County Police Dept. (the county which contains ATL). Atlanta would hire with an H.S. diploma and a pulse, while the county wanted at least an associates degree or four years in the .mil. Starting pay for the county was half again what it was in the city. I knew good officers from both departments, but given those facts where do you think I'd rather have an interaction with the police as an armed citizen?

[ToddG]

My final thoughts on this subject (as someone, since we're talking about experience, who was involved in prosecuting a number of shooting cases when I worked for the U.S. Attorney's Office while in law school):

Most cases of lethal force are pretty black and white. If you're obviously in the wrong, nothing you do or say is going to help you unless you luck out (e.g., OJ Simpson).

If you're obviously in the right, barring some back luck you should be OK. Though in many places, right or wrong, you're getting cuffed and going to jail until someone wearing a black robe says otherwise.

It's the exceptional cases that get publicized and discussed to death. But it's also the exceptional cases that tend to color most legal experts' advice on the matter because, again, the black & white cases are easy. Since you won't know until after the fact whether your case is a black & white one or an exceptionally grey one, you'll find most lawyers -- who are, by profession, trained risk managers -- recommending you take the safer route of limiting what you say until you've had the benefit of qualified legal advice on the specific incident in question.

If someone wants to suggest that lawyers only give this advice because it makes them money, I humbly suggest such a person ask most experienced lawyers what they personally would do in that situation. Almost unanimously you'll hear them say they'll shut up and lawyer up after giving the basic "he was the bad guy, I'm the good guy, the knife he was trying to stab me with is over there..." statement.

On the other hand, I've heard many cops expound on the benefit of making full statements. Cops like people who make full statements... especially people they're trying to prosecute. Good investigators are highly trained at getting people to say things they shouldn't. That's a good and important skill because usually, they're questioning criminals. But jumping to the conclusion that the investigator will automatically know I'm actually a good guy and will be looking out for my best interest when he's questioning me is expecting a hell of a lot from a guy I've never met whose job is to catch & imprison criminals.

Your lawyer is on your side, every time. The police may be on your side, neutral, or looking to lock you away. Which one do you want to roll the dice with?

FWIW, as someone who travels all over the country and cannot possibly familiarize himself with the intricacies of every jurisdictions' laws on self defense, I've always taken a pretty straightforward approach to use of lethal force: TORO, The Only Reasonable Option. If there's something else I can reasonably do to extricate myself and my loved ones from danger without resorting to lethal force, I'll do so. If there is no other reasonable option, then it's time to make loud noises. While this might mean there are times when I could have used lethal force but didn't, it's almost guaranteed not to land me in a situation where I wasn't allowed to but did.

[Dagga Boy]

One of the most thought provoking threads I've read in a long time.

And Thinking about this stuff with an honest hardcore debate is at least why I am vested in this thread. I know what I am going to do, and have been through it a few times. As a very retired cop who now lives several states away from my old stomping grounds, things may change next time. I have a few responses in place in my head, and will pull one of those three if, God forbid, I ever have to go through a post shooting or high level use of force investigation again.

This leads to where the mild de-rail is heading. Cops, like lawyers, doctors, and trash truck drivers will vary greatly from place to place. Heck in my area, it could differ from shift to shift in the same city. All of these things involve PEOPLE. Everyone is different. We ourselves are different depending on the situation. I have been stopped, while armed in a lot of different places and with different situations. Some officers handled things great, some okay, and some piss poor. In a recent case in Texas, the young officer was very nice, very professional, and if he was one of my guys.......we would have had a long talk about some safety issues. Just go to an airport and fly with guns.........everybody seems to have their own way of doing things, and very few are by the book. Just go to a variety of shooting ranges, and see variances in the way people handle the "same situation".

If we look at mine and Keith's situations (as so far the only two who have ponied up that we have been through this before), I would venture they could be flipped depending on the situation. If Keith was faced with the situation I was in on my first shooting, where the attorney who would be coming if I asked for one was already deeply embroiled in a conflict with the department and the investigators (at my place we had two sets of investigators who work the shooting-one set for the criminal portion, and one set for the civil portion-something a civilian won't see) were all being very reasonable, so I made a decision to "phone a friend" rather than "phone an attorney". It worked out so incredibly well (with the exception of the plea deal they gave to the crook) for me, that I used the same strategy in future events. By the same measure, if things were different, I would have loved to have come in after a few days of fishing with an attorney. Either way, it sounds like both strategies "worked" (I don't know what the civil side of Keith's case was). I know as a retired LEO (which means a civilian), I will not be fishing if it got to that point, and I will probably be talking to my attorney from county jail if I go that route. Again, all considerations, but the key is that nothing in the justice world is hard and fast.

[KeeFus]

(I don't know what the civil side of Keith's case was).

There hasn't been one...yet. Notice I haven't really gone in-depth with any of it either.

[Shellback]

And Thinking about this stuff with an honest hardcore debate is at least why I am vested in this thread. I know what I am going to do, and have been through it a few times. As a very retired cop who now lives several states away from my old stomping grounds, things may change next time. I have a few responses in place in my head, and will pull one of those three if, God forbid, I ever have to go through a post shooting or high level use of force investigation again.

At this point in time my ideas run pretty parallel to Todd's. Give a brief statement about absolute, incontrovertible facts and then exercise my Constitutional rights. As a former LEO you've been trained in the police's interrogation techniques, I've read about Reid technique, etc., and also how to deal with situations and incidents of this nature, most citizens like myself have not. I'm also not naive to the fact that you know how to articulate what were to have happened in a shooting incident better than I would and that goes a long way.

There are plenty of people who've talked themselves into a jail cell, given false confessions due to interrogation techniques and been put in prison due to a poor investigation and under false information. Hopefully it never happens but if put in that situation like that I'd much rather have somebody well versed in the law helping me negotiate the path of least resistance.

To sum it up I think there's a happy "medium". Help the police to establish the basic facts as a foundation to their investigation and then let them do their job. However, most people want to be too helpful, interrogators count on it, and that'll end up with your ass in the fire on occasion. There is a real reason that the Miranda warning came into existence.

[KeeFus]

I've looked back over this thread to read the posts. Im gonna add one thing that needs to be said about gunfights. AVOID THE HELL out of them! I'm not saying be a victim...I'm saying that if you have the option...avoid it.

Having lived through one (and I hope never another) I can tell you with complete certainty that no matter how justified you are there will always be nay sayers, most of which is the liberal media and the friends and family of the suspect...I still get mad over some of the things that were said in the aftermath by the media and what they'll do to gain ratings. It's quite easy to say this or that but they (gun fights) are over in seconds and your mind will miss details which may come back to you over a period of days. If advised by your attorney, give one statement...and be done with it. Dont give interviews and dont tell your pals (they'll bug the shit outta you as well wanting details) because it will get twisted. If that unfortunate event ever finds you don't get all Happy Feet with your mouth and let it all go...give as little as you can give to assist the investigation...leave everything else to the attorney.

[TGS]

Bear in mind that the video in question was a suburban department. I'm sure there are plenty of places in LA proper where they'd be happy to give you the same greeting as in Philly. Similarly, I know there are Philly 'burbs where the cops are similarly relaxed.


Suburban department? It was 4th and Market street. That's about as Philly as you can get, it's old city. You're saying a suburban department responded to that? The nearest suburb is like 20 minutes away unless you go across the bridge to NJ. I'm confused.

I agree that how the police act can change dramatically from department to department. All the more reason to err on the side of caution.

[rsa-otc]

I've looked back over this thread to read the posts. Im gonna add one thing that needs to be said about gunfights. AVOID THE HELL out of them! I'm not saying be a victim...I'm saying that if you have the option...avoid it..

Absolutely positively no truer words have been said.


Dont give interviews and dont tell your pals (they'll bug the shit outta you as well wanting details) because it will get twisted.

Sound & solid advise. Discuss the situation only with those you can have a legally confidential conversation with, Lawyer, Wife, Priest, Doctor. Check the law in that local, some inroads have been made over the years in the area of confidentiallity. Discussions with anyone else will be admisable in court and as Kieth pointed out can get all twisted around.

[Tamara]

Suburban department? It was 4th and Market street. That's about as Philly as you can get, it's old city. You're saying a suburban department responded to that? The nearest suburb is like 20 minutes away unless you go across the bridge to NJ. I'm confused.

You said:

I've seen videos of California cops who approach you nicely, ask to see your ID, check to see if you weapon is unloaded, and send you on your way.

I said:

Bear in mind that the video in question was a suburban department.

(I assumed you were probably referring to this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFzH5Oe-YL4), the one that had seen the most internets play recently.)

[TGS]

Thanks for the clarification. The primary subject of my post was Philly, and my mind was still on the Ung video. Hence, the confusion.

Seen a bunch more videos than just the Oceanside one.

[Dagga Boy]

Couple of things:

Keith-preach it brother. Shootings are in no way shape or form-fun. If your skill and training paid off and you won a fight, you shouldn't feel bad about winning, but it is in not a good process.

A little different take on talking about the shooting. I took almost every officer who was involved in a shooting to a meal, shortly after the fact and did a debrief with them. It was done to discuss very specific things in regards to how our training related to the reality. This was one of the best tools I had at my disposal to find out what works, vs. what we think works. We also found out a ton about what was missing from L/E training, yet were factors to the officers involved in shootings. I instituted training on mindset in regards to the use of lethal force, and de-mystifying the process and what should be expected post shooting.

The Open Carry stuff in California.......they did such a great job of "educating" the LEO's and "Sheeple" with confrontations and generating educational man with a gun calls, that it was made illegal. Its called-blowback.

[fuse]

this is a
http://i514.photobucket.com/albums/t349/mootsarmy/cockmongler_legendary_thread.jpg


I have nothing to add, except this rather topical news story..

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/10/robert-farago/the-power-of-stfu-jesus-gonzalez-skates-on-murder-charge/

Seems like he there is a possibility he could have made this all go away if he did what nyeti suggests..

Also, seems like things could have gone far worse if he talked..

[TGS]

this is a
http://i514.photobucket.com/albums/t349/mootsarmy/cockmongler_legendary_thread.jpg


I have nothing to add, except this rather topical news story..

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/10/robert-farago/the-power-of-stfu-jesus-gonzalez-skates-on-murder-charge/

Seems like he there is a possibility he could have made this all go away if he did what nyeti suggests..

Also, seems like things could have gone far worse if he talked..

Doesn't seem like things went too well for him. 40 years and 15 years max possible sentence, right?

I looked up his case. I think it's a better example of get a good lawyer than it is to STFU. His argument for self-defense didn't even match what he said over the phone to 911, not to mention he claimed he was assaulted trying to enter his car........which was 144 feet in the opposite direction from where the shooting took place.

Shady if you ask me. Seems more like he was looking for a fight as the next step in his 2A campaign.

Still, on a basic level I can see how not giving statements to the police helped. He was pretty much in the wrong from what I can tell, and anything he could've said would likely have been contradicted by evidence since he was making shit up to begin with.

[fuse]

Dude, thanks. I wrote that on my phone, and thought it was a different case. I remember this case now. Shady city, to say the least.

Your comments are pretty much spot on.

The author of that blog post really misrepresented the whole thing, IMO.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

People mistake STFU as a full time rule rather than a default response for stressful situations in which you are not at your best.

It MIGHT be the best thing to do...or not...but it is simple, effective, cannot be held against you in court (A prosecutor cannot say "The defendant REFUSED to speak to the police...the sign of a guilty person!!" - and he cannot infer it either. It is your RIGHT to do so.) and generally speaking, better than saying too much.

It's A response, NOT the ideal response.

[John Hearne]

While my LE experience isn't as long or distinguished as "Nyeti" most of what he says rings true based on my experience and the experiences of others I know. Additionally, I did a brief stint as an agency prosecutor (handled all initial appearance and adjudicated misdemeanors while dealing with high dollar defense attorneys), and current serve as the agency rep for our court and our prosecuting attorney's office. I am also familiar with several civilian side self-defense cases and how they were handled.

First, geography matters and more distinctly, political climate matter - probably more so than anything else. With the exception of the Harold Fish incident, most "bad" handling of self-defense shootings are consistently from the same areas. On the other hand, in Memphis, TN, it is not uncommon for the good guy to be released at the scene without a trip downtown. The dynamic tends to be - the suspect is well-known to the police. The suspect gets shot while committing a violent felony. Nobody is really upset that one less thug is on the street. Is this the environment to make a brief "Ayoob statement" to the police - yes, it is. When is the only time there’s a problem - if the police don’t think the suspect was committing a violent felony.

Even in less friendly areas, the dynamic of being labeled the "victim" is important. This is even truer when shots aren't fired and you end up with a complaint about brandishing a gun or something similar. We laugh about it but generally the first person to call 911 is the victim. You really want that label.

I recently worked a case where a person brandished a knife in a public restroom. The victim was concerned that the incident was a robbery or assault when in fact it was an attempt to solicit illicit sex. The offending party left and the victim called to report the incident. When I arrived on-scene it was very obvious who had done right and who had done wrong. The victim was "shook up," mildly distressed, very willing to tell their story, and wanted the people caught.

When the suspects were eventually contacted, they acted in a very different way. When they were separated their stories didn't match up, and the primary suspect didn't even mention the brandishing because he was trying to lie about the sexual solicitation. When both suspects' histories were checked, they both had priors for the same offense. It didn't take much to figure out who to charge. Now, had the victim tried to slink off and the suspect had reported the event, it would be a very different dynamic and the ending would not be as happy. Should the victim have shut up and lawyered up - no. Should the suspects have shut up and lawyered up - yes.

While I'm sure it varies, the initial agency to make the report has huge influence over how a case is adjudicated. While I'm sure it happens somewhere. I've never heard of a prosecutor going after someone the police didn't want pursued. Generally, you have to beg the prosecutor to take the case, not wish the prosecutor would back off. If the police consider you the victim, the odds of prosecution are pretty minimal. Your case may go before a grand jury but that's for political reasons - it "washes the hands" of the prosecutor and they can't be blamed for ignoring the death of poor misunderstood soon-to-be upstanding citizens.

Criminal defense attorneys represent guilty people. I once asked a public defender with 20+ years of experience, how many innocent people he had as clients. His answer was "two." For this reason, their advice is structured around minimizing the amount of rope that the police have to hang (not literally) their clients. If you've done something wrong/illegal, lawyering up is the best answer. However, if you haven't done something wrong/illegal, telling the police to "fuck off" isn't the best strategy.

[Dagga Boy]

A lot of this cases are based on a situation where we are looking for a "justification" or exception to a law. If you do not provide that, you will go to jail, and the D/A will have no choice but to charge you. You can provide that justification ahead of time, while incarcerated with your attorney, on the witness stand, or never.....its your right. I try to get my justification established as soon as possible in the process. For example, my CCW permit is a little different than most peoples. I have been contacted on various occasions and been armed. Now I could follow the Regents guys advice and simply not talk to LEO's, go to jail, have my pistol taken, and then in court, my attorney could show my LEOSA I.D. to the judge and I would be freed without ever having submitted to the cops and D.A who are just out to screw me, and feel much better. I've been pulled over with both NFA weapons, and registered assault weapons in a state where it was required. I was legal in all cases, and had the required documentation to prove it. I could have kept my papers secured till the LEO presented a warrant to read them, or simply shut up, ride the train, and had my attorney provide that documentation in court to a judge to then be released. I've always been a big push over and just gave the stuff to the cops............and was even really nice about it. At some point if you want to not be charged/punished for homicide, or attempted homicide, you will need to convince somebody that it is justified in the process. If you want to keep that justification a secret until court, as is your right, then do it.

For me, I want out as early as possible. I am a solo parent, I don't like criminals and don't want to be housed with them. I have limited assets and want to keep them. So, I try to be as cooperative as possible in providing justification for my actions. I have access to the best attorney's in the world due to past private sector work. I don't want to make that call unless I absolutely have to.

Just remember, your attorney is not going to be in jail, your attorney is not going to be without financial means, your attorney is going to be giving you a bill at the end -win or lose, not the other way around. Your attorney has zero to lose if you get convicted. Your attorney's skill level is often determined by your income bracket. I am just pointing out that this is going to be YOUR decision, with YOUR ass on the line, and you and your family dealing with all of the negatives associated with this.

I would also agree with Todd on this that many of these cases tend to be on the extreme end of the spectrum, and very much rarities.

[Dagga Boy]

Let me add.........Remember what was said earlier about an attorney. If I was in one of these cases again, I would get the best qualified attorney I can find with experience in these cases. I would pay whatever it took to have Scott Reitz as my expert witness (who recommends to ask as politely as possible, to get an attorney, and emphasize cooperation). This is not the time to go low rent, or low experienced. If you tell the officers that you were defending your life and will cooperate with their investigation and ask for an attorney in the nicest means possible........you want someone who can really help to get your side told in the most concise means possible. If you bring in someone who tells the cops to pound sound, and you are not going to cooperate after you said you would, it is the attorney being a hard ass and not you, BUT you will be the one who is going to be facing the results of what they do.....good or bad, so choose wisely, and maybe do some research ahead of time.

[Dagga Boy]

People mistake STFU as a full time rule rather than a default response for stressful situations in which you are not at your best.

It MIGHT be the best thing to do...or not...but it is simple, effective, cannot be held against you in court (A prosecutor cannot say "The defendant REFUSED to speak to the police...the sign of a guilty person!!" - and he cannot infer it either. It is your RIGHT to do so.) and generally speaking, better than saying too much.

It's A response, NOT the ideal response.

I would agree with this.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

First, geography matters and more distinctly, political climate matter - probably more so than anything else. With the exception of the Harold Fish incident, most "bad" handling of self-defense shootings are consistently from the same areas. On the other hand, in Memphis, TN, it is not uncommon for the good guy to be released at the scene without a trip downtown. The dynamic tends to be - the suspect is well-known to the police. The suspect gets shot while committing a violent felony. Nobody is really upset that one less thug is on the street. Is this the environment to make a brief "Ayoob statement" to the police - yes, it is. When is the only time there’s a problem - if the police don’t think the suspect was committing a violent felony.

Er...Well...

I actually has something written on that to from a while ago...

(Yes. Thank you. I know I have no life & should get one...but it's easier to spend lonely nights on the computer writing. I'll try drinking and see if that help better...)

http://getoffthex.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/729104881/m/269004752001

Most people, when asked to visualize a situation in which they would have to use force, imagine a very "clear cut" situation.

An armed robbery, assault, or home invasion. Something like that...

However, these incidents are relatively clear cut.

I'm not minimizing the seriousness of the situation and the need to be aware for pitfalls and perils the aftermath brings such as what happens if your assailant was turning and your perfect center chest shot happens to impact between his shoulder blades...but, barring that, and obvious problems such as long, rambling, confused statements which leave the situation so confused to the point the police now feel they have to charge you with a crime (Harold Fish...) or "You don't look so bad, here's another" (Mr. Goetz...) these situations tend to be, more likely than not, well understood by the police and the courts.

Someone attacked you without provocation.
You used force to defend yourself.
The force is articulated and, if the explanation of the force used is sufficient per the situation, the matter is closed in the eyes of the criminal court.

If not, you go to trial and do the court dance, which, as Massad Ayoob says when he quotes John D. McDonald by saying "Trial law is the last true blood sport,".

Real life; however, has a way of seeping into people experiences, and things are not always so simple.

The incident itself may be clear cut; however, the incident will not be the only thing looked at in a use of force situation in which someone is killed or severely injured.

These 4 (there are more…) factors are more than sufficient to muddle almost any situation involving the use of force:

Money
Sex
Family relationships
Custody issues related to kids

If one is present, it can drastically complicate a situation - if 2 or more are present, you have just entered the ancient Chinese curse - May you live in interesting times..."

These are factors which people deal with on a daily basis that may precipitate a use of force situation...however, most people are still stuck in the paradigm of preparing for a mugging in a dark parking lot all the while ignoring the possible pressure cookers in your daily life which can explode and cause a mess - not to mention injury.

Money. You owe someone money. Someone owes you money...maybe you just are broke, being foreclosed on and it's making you short tempered...regardless, understand it's effect on the relationships and interactions you have with people.

Maybe you need some help. Maybe you need a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy to eliminate your debt (call me...). Maybe you need a (new) job.

Whatever the "bling$$" issue is, when it comes to 'bang" it can put a whole new spin on the case, and can be a factor which makes a self defense incident look a lot like manslaughter.

Sex. You know where this leads. (I mean other than spanking, bite marks and scratches you are proud of, smoking, cuddling, public displays of affection which make everyone around you uncomfortable and eventually to some really great photos you promise to never share …marriage, divorce and child support payments…)

If it wasn't for people doing stupid stuff to get some, or after having got some, the criminal docket would be a boring place and I wouldn't have money to go to...OK, not mentioning that establishment…moving on…

Where were we...oh, yes...as a practical aspect, if you are in a relationship with someone who is, or has, assaulted you, or were previously in a relationship with this person, or are fighting a new significant other of your former partner...congratulations.

You have just stepped on a land mine called "domestic violence". This particular land mine is especially fun, because not only do most states take a more careful look at the incident, some place it on it's own docket with prosecutors assigned to deal with "people like you" who act against people they are or have been in a relationship with…and they don’t like people who do that kind of thing…

If you are having trouble in a relationship that is troubled...get counseling, and if that doesn't help get the F… out.

Do not be afraid to call the police to report harassment, and if need be, consult with an attorney to discuss how to best proceed with restraining orders and orders of protection.

This is an area were you need to document, document...and then document some more.

If the SHTF you better have your paperwork in order to (have counsel) show the police the history of what has been ongoing in order to establish the reasonableness and appropriateness of your actions.

Family...we all love them...even if we can't stand them. Mother in laws...brother in laws....sisters (I've got one, anyone want another?). I can't tell you how to deal with your family. Hell, I can barely deal with mine (really, does anyone want another sister? I’ll throw in cash…not much…but some…) but if anything does happen between you and a family member, guess which docket you are on – that’s right. Domestic Violence, and the attendant docket that is just full of people who society just doesn’t cotton to anymore.

When dealing with family, stay sober. Yes, I know…drinking helps when you deal with them (or in some cases, allows you to understand them…), but it does impair judgment and can land you in trouble you might have been able to walk away from if you were sober.

If you are having an argument with a family member, don’t let it get out of hand. Ask them to leave if it’s your place, or leave theirs if you have to. Too many times tempers get heated, someone snaps and POOF. The DV docket.

Other than the emotional aspects of realizing you got into a stupid conflict with your brother in law over something neither of you really cared about, if you are convicted of a Domestic Violence crime, kiss your ability to own firearms goodbye.

As above, if you have issues with a family member that go beyond simple arguments and are afraid something may occur, don’t be afraid to get the issue documented with the authorities. If the first piece of information the police get is a 911 call after a serious incident were you used force, you get some new labels: “assailant” & “defendant”.

Custody issues related to kids. This usually involves drop-offs and pickups, and can be a really shitty time for everyone. Even former spouses who absolutely won’t speak to each other have to inevitably confront each other for these exchanges. They can be tense, emotional and one or both party might be spoiling for a confrontation about long standing issues which either have not been addressed, addressed improperly, or addressed very well by one sides attorney to the detriment of the other.

Throw in Mom’s new boy toy who’s heard “all about you” or Dad’s …perky, attractive “friend” who is not quite finished with college…and things can get ugly.

Aside from the issues of domestic violence that confrontations here raise, fighting in front of your kids may get Child Services involved, and you may become familiar with a new phrase you’d rather not be hearing, “Risk of injury to a minor”.

When dealing with custody issues such as pickups and drop-offs, consider using a public place with good security & surveillance systems. If you can, inform security that you and your spouse will be doing a custody switch and if they can possibly have a guard in the area.

Also, limit your time at the exchange. The less time on site, the less time you have exposed to any problems. Besides…the activity you have planned for tonight started 3 minutes ago and you have to get going…too bad, so sad…no fight tonight…bye.

If you think you might need restraining orders or things of that nature, then it’s time to talk to someone in your local courthouse’s family violence office or your own attorney.

Maybe handling the pickups and drop-offs on a ‘make it up as you go’ plan isn’t going to work. If needed, a court can impose police enforceable orders on both parties as to the location, time and manner these events are undertaken.

Nobody wants court or government interference if they can avoid it…but sometimes it’s better than the alternative of handling it yourself.


Too many people assume “A good shoot is going to be a good shoot” then get hit from an unexpected direction. Life isn’t simple. The aftermath of a use of force situation isn’t either.

If you have any of these issues ongoing, be aware of them, and if possible, clean them up to the best of your ability.

Yes, some of it may cost money, but it will be money well spent, giving you the peace of mind knowing that it’s taken care of…not to mention knowing that you’ve taken a step to insuring that if you do end up in a use of force situation, you have as many loose ends tied off as possible.

As a last note…Several times above I’ve mentioned calling the police and restraining orders. It’s very common that people who are interested in self protection view those ideas with great scorn and derision – and standing alone, those feelings aren’t unwarranted because pieces of paper by themselves don’t protect you.

However, the police and the courts, who will be adjudicating your situation after it happens, expect people to go through the procedures the law establishes for managing potentially violent situations.

Calls to 911, police reports and restraining orders. These steps, and others, are those society, through the legislature and courts, expect you to avail yourself of.

The use of force against another person is an extreme event, and considered a last resort. Merely because people feel that the steps that precede physical action as ineffective does not invalidate them, or make them any less necessary.

They are tools to be used as appropriate, either to give the authorities more ability to act such as in the case of having someone who is “merely trespassing” arrested for violating a restraining order (hopefully negating an incident ‘this time” by the arrest…), or for laying the groundwork to show why a use of force was the only reasonable action someone could take at a time in the future.

The difference between justified or unjustified can be hard to find in some instances, and the time to help clarify next year’s incident may be today.

[Dagga Boy]

The above post is why I lead a horribly monastic life. Unlike many in my world, I have made a trade off with regards to carrying a gun. I don't drink with a gun, therefore I rarely drink, and have not drank to "stupid" since my days at a party college. I walk away from relationships with both friends and family when they get stupid. I have lost enough money on uncollected loans and favors that I no longer lend to anyone. I don't get into relationships that you need to keep secret (good rule to go by) and don't cheat. Live in agonizing pain to stay off prescription dope. I lead a terribly boring life that focuses on being a dad and an example to my child-period. Essentially, the reason I have little need for attorney's is because I make a daily choice to be insanely by the book. Many people who carry guns do not take the responsibility as seriously as I do, and that can come back to bite you.

If you have "vices" that you can't control, don't carry a gun. If you can't control your vices, and carry a gun or other type of self defense weapon.........you may want to get Mr. Mitchell's contact info now.

[ToddG]

The above post is why I lead a horribly monastic life.

Yeah. That's why. ;)

[Dagga Boy]

Yeah. That's why. ;)

You know those people who are horribly unlucky, can never catch a break, and get caught at everytime they do something wrong........That would be me. So if anybody on this planet should not be cheating on spouses, spending time with strippers, using any kind of recreational drugs, and should avoid drinking........it would be me. It leaves sitting around b.s.'ing about guns on the internet as "fun". Its also the reason being a cop was so fun. I could drive fast, pick up hookers and buy dope (working vice), and have machine guns without going to jail...... as long as you knew where to stop:eek:.

[Chuck Haggard]

The above post is why I lead a horribly monastic life. Unlike many in my world, I have made a trade off with regards to carrying a gun. I don't drink with a gun, therefore I rarely drink, and have not drank to "stupid" since my days at a party college. I walk away from relationships with both friends and family when they get stupid. I have lost enough money on uncollected loans and favors that I no longer lend to anyone. I don't get into relationships that you need to keep secret (good rule to go by) and don't cheat. Live in agonizing pain to stay off prescription dope. I lead a terribly boring life that focuses on being a dad and an example to my child-period. Essentially, the reason I have little need for attorney's is because I make a daily choice to be insanely by the book. Many people who carry guns do not take the responsibility as seriously as I do, and that can come back to bite you.

If you have "vices" that you can't control, don't carry a gun. If you can't control your vices, and carry a gun or other type of self defense weapon.........you may want to get Mr. Mitchell's contact info now.

Glad it's not just me in that boat.

[DannyZRC]

Interesting thread, good read.

[Nephrology]

Shootings - Self defense - none. I don't pretend I've done a SD shooting.

Self defense use of force cases from the defense side - 3. Two criminal, and one civil.

Criminal incident #1 resulted in the charges being dismissed even though the defendant didn't have a permit to carry a gun in CT.
#2...was bad. Put simply, he thought he was a musician because he had a guitar, and he and I had a disagreement about how to handle the case. He wanted an unreasonable disposition of his case (the prosecutor didn't believe his fear was reasonable in light of certain factors I won't mention...) and stiffed me on the bill, and last I heard he was still going to court on it.

Civil incident was a clusterfuck. Apparently you are not supposed to lie to the police and say "Nothing happened" when you hit someone with a wrench as they were trying to ground and pound you. The other guy made it to the phone, my guy left and lets just say it went downhill from that point.

Shootings, however... Done them. Had a nice one with the defendant smoking MJ laced with PCP involving an AK, shooting at the cops and so forth...He's only going to do 2 years for it. I'm not sure if that is good or bad, as he's only doing 27 days per round of 7.62x39mm but hey, I do what I do...

How did you get 2 years for that, given the state AWB alone?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

How did you get 2 years for that, given the state AWB alone?

When I hired a former SF guy for a shooting reconstruction, we accounted for all 7.62x39mm ammo - bullets & casings, and took note of several shell casings for .40S&W marked Remington.

Nickle plated...like Rem Golden Saber...The local police duty round. (I know this, because I am a font of useless information and...I asked a while ago when the changed guns to SIG 229 in .40S&W DA/SA)

Strangely enough, they happen to be fresh, and in the position several officers were standing. They matched the direction of origination which lined up with 4 holes in a police car - holes formerly ascribed to the defendant.

Further investigation revealed that no officer reported firing their weapon...odd, considering they had justification for doing so...So, either someone was really embarrassed to have shot the police car, or actually didn't know they fired any rounds. Either way, it looked dumber than can be.

I mean, how will that look at trial? Cross examining all the officers as to their actions...then the CSI people.
Jury argument at the end would be themed "Cops Lie - Evidence Doesn't"...because after all, those holes weren't caused by an AK...The CSI & Defense expert agree on that, which means someone wearing a funny hat and badge LIED in his report...
And if they would lie about discharging a weapon...what else are they lying about here?

But, moving on, my expert conclusively argued several things:

1) No shots were fired at the police.
2) Given the defendant's training (national guard) and the range involved (under 50 yds) the charges of attempted murder could not be sustained because had it been his intent to fire at the police, he would have no trouble landing shots on or at least near the cops, and he didn't.

Took the whole thing down from a fuck-ton of attempted murder to a slew of charges (all mid level stuff, but nothing capital) resulting in the defendant owing a lot more than 2 years with some probation, but he's gonna be out after serving 2 years due to the technical details of the plea and the CT Dpt of Corrections.

POOF.

2 years to serve, or roughly 27 days/round of 7.62x39mm...

[Mitchell, Esq.]

The lesson being when cops make mistakes, someone WILL make the most of it.

It's an adversarial system. It's not pretty, but it's what we have.

[Nephrology]

The lesson being when cops make mistakes, someone WILL make the most of it.

It's an adversarial system. It's not pretty, but it's what we have.

Indeed. I pass no judgements as I am applying to medical school next year. I am not thrilled to be jumping headfirst into one of the ugliest systems we have...

[David Armstrong]

I'm a retired LEO and have been involved in and investigated a number of shootings. My take is simple, I use it for me and for those I teach. "Officer, I was attacked. Those folks over there are witnesses (if appropriate). I'm a little shaken up over the thing right now and want to talk with my attorney before I do anything else." And that is about it. As was said, that should be the default, and there certainly can be situations where an alternative response might be appropriate. I suggest that default simply because I've seen too many instances of people who got things completely wrong under stress, and their comments just did not agree with the facts of the case. Just one example, an officer swore he had been shot, described the gun and everything. Only problem was that he had been stabbed, not shot. Fortunately a psych professional was able to explain things. The mind is a funny thing sometimes.

[ToddG]

I'm sure I've told this story here before:

Running a FOF/Simunition shoot house exercise many years ago, we set students' guns up so they would malfunction after the first round was fired. The student came around a corner into a room where he found a loved one being held at gunpoint by the BG. In between the BG and the doorway was a folding chair and on the folding chair was a giant stainless revolver. Part of the test was to see who would notice the revolver and try to use it rather than trying to clear what was a catastrophically difficult stoppage in his own gun.

One shooter came in, fired the round from his gun, had the malfunction, dropped his gun, picked up the revolver, and shot the BG with it so fast that afterwards we asked him if someone had cheated and told him about the revolver. "What revolver?" was his response. Until we literally showed him the videotape he refused to believe there had been a revolver in the room. His recollection was that he had a malfunction, cleared it, and shot the BG with his own gun. For background, the shooter in question had been through multiple quality shooting & tactics classes as well as previous FOF scenarios. He wasn't some newb who fell apart under stress.

[JAD]

One shooter came in, fired the round from his gun, had the malfunction, dropped his gun, picked up the revolver, and shot the BG with it so fast that afterwards we asked him if someone had cheated and told him about the revolver. "What revolver?" was his response. Until we literally showed him the videotape he refused to believe there had been a revolver in the room. His recollection was that he had a malfunction, cleared it, and shot the BG with his own gun.
That's the best example of unconscious competence I've ever heard.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I'm sure I've told this story here before:

Running a FOF/Simunition shoot house exercise many years ago, we set students' guns up so they would malfunction after the first round was fired. The student came around a corner into a room where he found a loved one being held at gunpoint by the BG. In between the BG and the doorway was a folding chair and on the folding chair was a giant stainless revolver. Part of the test was to see who would notice the revolver and try to use it rather than trying to clear what was a catastrophically difficult stoppage in his own gun.

One shooter came in, fired the round from his gun, had the malfunction, dropped his gun, picked up the revolver, and shot the BG with it so fast that afterwards we asked him if someone had cheated and told him about the revolver. "What revolver?" was his response. Until we literally showed him the videotape he refused to believe there had been a revolver in the room. His recollection was that he had a malfunction, cleared it, and shot the BG with his own gun. For background, the shooter in question had been through multiple quality shooting & tactics classes as well as previous FOF scenarios. He wasn't some newb who fell apart under stress.

1st time I am hearing it, and it's frightening.

[David Armstrong]

I'm sure I've told this story here before:

Running a FOF/Simunition shoot house exercise many years ago, we set students' guns up so they would malfunction after the first round was fired. The student came around a corner into a room where he found a loved one being held at gunpoint by the BG. In between the BG and the doorway was a folding chair and on the folding chair was a giant stainless revolver. Part of the test was to see who would notice the revolver and try to use it rather than trying to clear what was a catastrophically difficult stoppage in his own gun.

One shooter came in, fired the round from his gun, had the malfunction, dropped his gun, picked up the revolver, and shot the BG with it so fast that afterwards we asked him if someone had cheated and told him about the revolver. "What revolver?" was his response. Until we literally showed him the videotape he refused to believe there had been a revolver in the room. His recollection was that he had a malfunction, cleared it, and shot the BG with his own gun. For background, the shooter in question had been through multiple quality shooting & tactics classes as well as previous FOF scenarios. He wasn't some newb who fell apart under stress.
As I said, the mind is a funny thing. I've interviewed victims who swore the BG was a black male when it was a white guy, swore the BG used a gun when it was a knife, swore the BG used a big shiny revolver when it was a small black autoloader, and so on. I would make a guess that your shooter had visualized the survival mindset routine enough that when the malf occurred the subconcious "there's another gun, grab it and use it" kicked in and it never even made it out of his visualization into the reality section of his thinking.

[rsa-otc]

. He wasn't some newb who fell apart under stress.

Just the oposite I would say. That is zone I want to be in during a fight.

[dookie1481]

I found this on TPI in an unrelated thread. I found it interesting and it seems pretty relevant to this discussion.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/stories/Hickey%20Booklet.pdf

[Dagga Boy]

I take all one sided versions that I have no knowledge of with a grain of salt. I will note that as I said, you won't be walking around pointing out a thing to anybody. As soon as you ask for an attorney at the scene, there will be no statement from your side. Notice, the other people didn't ask for an attorney and all of their statements are what the case was based on (their names are in the box that says "victim"). I thought it was also interesting to note that there was shock that the couple of little brief statements made did not make anyone's report. Many of the cops are so paranoid about getting into trouble for talking to someone who invokes their Miranda rights, especially asking for an attorney before they are even read, that they won't put down any statement for fear that they will wind up being accused of coercing the statement. Officers really like to get something when they have nothing. When they got one side talking and one wants a lawyer, life is very easy. Document the side that wants to talk, note that the other side wants an attorney, and send it to the D/A. Life is easy for the D/A. One side says they are a shooting victim, and in fact have been shot, and the other side says they want to invoke their right to remain silent.....pretty easy decision there as well. Like I said, lawyers always want their shot in court, and its a crap shoot. Just like its a crap shoot at the scene.

I would love for the lawyers on this board and involved in this thread to maybe pose this question to the esteemed scholars of the field-

"Why are these situations the only ones where it is a common recommendation for the victim of a crime to ask for an attorney (which is essentially-no statement will be given outside of a courtroom), and this is somehow normal."

The sad thing is that the "justice" system has become this perverted that we recommend victims to get an attorney.

[ToddG]

I would love for the lawyers on this board and involved in this thread to maybe pose this question to the esteemed scholars of the field-

"Why are these situations the only ones where it is a common recommendation for the victim of a crime to ask for an attorney (which is essentially-no statement will be given outside of a courtroom), and this is somehow normal."

Because there is a very bright line between "being a victim" and "being a victim who responded with lethal force."

Self-defense is a justification, which technically means that you committed a criminal act but the legal system says that it was ok as long as you can check all the necessary boxes. Nonetheless, you committed a criminal act. As such, you're not just a victim but also a suspect and potential defendant.

There's a huge difference between explaining how your house was burgled (which involved no overt action on your part) and explaining how you shot someone 15 times in the face defending yourself.

[mnealtx]

When they got one side talking and one wants a lawyer, life is very easy. Document the side that wants to talk, note that the other side wants an attorney, and send it to the D/A.

There seems to be a rather large discrepancy between the advice given and your interpretation - care to square it with "assert you're the victim, point out the attacker, acknowledge that you'll sign a statement, point out evidence/witnesses and then shut up"?

[Dagga Boy]

There seems to be a rather large discrepancy between the advice given and your interpretation - care to square it with "assert you're the victim, point out the attacker, acknowledge that you'll sign a statement, point out evidence/witnesses and then shut up"?

EXACTLY! Because you may not get to do all of that stuff. OR, you went to "default" before getting any of that stuff out, and it doesn't then get asked or clarified, because now the officers are putting themselves in jeopardy if they do. Once the "attorney" word gets spoken, all bets are off and the officers are on their own to piece things together based on what is available.

This has been my point all along. I am in no way, shape or form saying it is wrong to go the attorney route. I am saying that you need to be thinking about this stuff (which I hope we all have been doing, including myself during the course of this thread), and prepared for what is really going to happen when you do. That is all.

[Dagga Boy]

Because there is a very bright line between "being a victim" and "being a victim who responded with lethal force."

Self-defense is a justification, which technically means that you committed a criminal act but the legal system says that it was ok as long as you can check all the necessary boxes. Nonetheless, you committed a criminal act. As such, you're not just a victim but also a suspect and potential defendant.

There's a huge difference between explaining how your house was burgled (which involved no overt action on your part) and explaining how you shot someone 15 times in the face defending yourself.


Todd, as I think I remember pointing out somewhere else, there are lots of things we do that are "criminal acts", but excused if certain criteria are met. CCW is one that most people here can relate to. Possession of many types of drugs would be common as well. I have a medicine cabinet full of felonies, luckily, I have a prescription that makes the possession legal. Same with NFA, and other felony weapons possessions.

This is why I am curious as to what the "law school" professors take is.

[mnealtx]

EXACTLY! Because you may not get to do all of that stuff. OR, you went to "default" before getting any of that stuff out, and it doesn't then gets asked or clarified, because now the officers are putting themselves in jeopardy if they do. Once the "attorney" word gets spoken, all bets are off and the officers are on their own to piece things together based on what is available.

Why wouldn't you get to do all that stuff, pray tell?

Officer: What happened here?
Suspect: I was attacked by that man (points) and had to defend myself.
I'm willing to sign a statement attesting to that fact.
There are the shell casings from my gun (points), there is the knife he was carrying (points) and those people over there (points) were witnessess to the attack.
I'd like to postpone giving any other statements until I have my attorney present.

Are you saying that the officer wouldn't take that information down, appended with a note that 'at this point, the suspect invoked his Miranda right to silence'? If not, why is that the fault of bad advice and not bad police work?

[Dagga Boy]

If the whole world is lollipops and unicorns, the above is a best case scenario, and should go great. It will go even better if the attorney you get already has a great relationship and is good at working with law enforcement and you go home. It is what we are all after.

Here is the reality I have seen. Shooting scenes are total chaos. There is a bunch of screaming people, double this if somebody is hurt, and it will often go off the chart when somebody is dead. The L/E folks may or may not be good at crisis management. If they are good, people are going to get segregated and secured and they (the officers) will dictate the pace of the investigation. They will often be short of manpower for the tasks at hand. Again, things will be placed in some sort of prioritized order that may or may not make sense later. I have worked hundreds of shootings......all of them were dictated by scene management that was dependent on those at the scene. In the case of where I used to work, the people at those scenes were really experienced at putting them together in a solid, professional manner (and mistakes were still made). Think about a highly chaotic scene in a jurisdiction who have very little experience with dealing with these types of scenes and investigations, and very few people and resources. You have outstanding parties that have fled, people who need medical attention. Then there are the curious administrators and others who don't need to be polluting a crime scene, but show up like ants at a picnic.

Here are another couple of tidbits. If you are the victim of an assault during the commission of a crime by several predatory criminals and you shoot one or a few and the others flee........the knife or weapons they had won't be there when the cops get there. Stuff will magically disappear in almost any case. One of the guys I shot was a full penetration in a little bar. No matter how hard numerous people searched, in a very confined area that the round could have gone, that bullet was never found. Same in my first shooting. Other than the three shotgun hulls standing straight up on their bases on the ground (you couldn't duplicate that again in a hundred years) and the holes in the crook, there wasn't a shed of evidence related to the shots or the errant pellets.

Where I am going with all of this is how I dealt with the "PTSD" issues for my people. We had very in depth (and very non-PC) discussions ahead of time about the realities of their jobs, about the realities of using lethal force, and provided some serious thinking material before they had to shoot somebody so we didn't have to deal with somebody who was unprepared for the process when it did happen. That is what I am trying to do here. I want people to understand that this is not going to be like some gun shop or firearms magazine romance novel when it happens. Over my career I have seen bad people shoot good people, good people shoot bad people, and a majority were some level of gray in various degrees from one end of those clear cut spectrums to the other. It takes a lot of work in horrible chaotic circumstances to figure it out. I want to put myself in the position of being a clear cut good guy shooting a clear cut bad guy. How I live my life and my actions well prior to the event will make it far easier to avoid these situations all together, and if it does happen I want to do everything in my power to make it crystal clear. I am also very aware that I can fall into the gray area, and that is what the RIGHT attorney, and RIGHT expert witnesses are for.

[ToddG]

Todd, as I think I remember pointing out somewhere else, there are lots of things we do that are "criminal acts", but excused if certain criteria are met. CCW is one that most people here can relate to. Possession of many types of drugs would be common as well. I have a medicine cabinet full of felonies, luckily, I have a prescription that makes the possession legal. Same with NFA, and other felony weapons possessions.

Incorrect. There is an important legal distinction between doing something for which you have a permit (whether it's a CCW permit, NFA stamp, or prescription from your doc) and committing what it prima facie a crime -- manslaughter -- and then invoking self-defense as your justification. Carrying with a CCW permit is specifically not a crime. Manslaughter is always a crime, but if you can make out the elements of self-defense then you have a justification for committing that crime.

[Tamara]

Incorrect. There is an important legal distinction between doing something for which you have a permit (whether it's a CCW permit, NFA stamp, or prescription from your doc) and committing what it prima facie a crime -- manslaughter -- and then invoking self-defense as your justification. Carrying with a CCW permit is specifically not a crime. Manslaughter is always a crime...

So, when that anti-gun activist referred to a CCW permit as a "license to kill", they were just jerking the reporter's chain? :rolleyes:

[ToddG]

So, when that anti-gun activist referred to a CCW permit as a "license to kill", they were just jerking the reporter's chain? :rolleyes:

No. As we all know, once you get a CCW, you're legally entitled to do anything you want. I stopped paying for my meals as restaurants years ago and just yesterday drove a Ferrari off the lot with nothing more than a middle finger and my CCW card.

Or maybe not.

[Dagga Boy]

No. As we all know, once you get a CCW, you're legally entitled to do anything you want. I stopped paying for my meals as restaurants years ago and just yesterday drove a Ferrari off the lot with nothing more than a middle finger and my CCW card.

Or maybe not.

For those few elites that have a CCW in the city of Los Angeles........that could actually be pretty close to the truth:eek:.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

People consistantly, and sometimes willfully, misunderstand the idea of limiting what you say in the aftermath of use of force.

Like using the sights, it's a continium of circumstances that needs to be tailored to the situation, with a very big eye toward risk mitigation and limitation of exposure.

I believe in STFU as a defaultbecause you don't know what the situation really was, or what happened, till it's all over.

Your shoot was a clean shoot because at the end of the process it was declared so.

You may have certain facts and circumstances which make it more likely that you shoot was a clean shoot (You shooting an intruder outside your kids room at 2 AM...the often imagined "clean shoot" most people envision...) and make the investigation post incident very prefunctory...Or not.

You don't know. Therefore, basing post use of force thinking on the best case scenario of worst case scenario - If I have to shoot someone it will be in the gravest extreme...but the situation will be relatively clearcut with a tattooed gangbanger and warrants out for his arrest breaking into my living room... - appears to me a dumbshit idea.

The default is modifiable at your discretion, per the situation.

If the situation is clearcut, little you do or say will screw it up.

If the situation is not, then you may want to not screw yourself at the outset by locking yourself into a statement.

If something is clearly identifiable in the aftermath of a situation, maybe you should ID it to the cops...but with all the work done on showing how faulty the human mind is, and how it fills in the blanks with what it believes happened...you could be making a mistake that hurts you.

We should all be aware that statements made under the influence of stress, even if they are hearsay (An out of court statement offered as evidence by someone other than the declarant to prove the truth of the matter asserted) are considered expecially believable and are admissable as evidence against you.

Your statement of "that's the knife" may be true to you, but only because you believed you saw it, reacted to the threat and saw something small and shiny (the I-Phone 4...) fall from someone's hand - and your mind processes it as a Benchmade Striker so clearly that you could see the serations on the blade.

You don't know.

People shoot scrotes all over the USA all the time. Most of those situations are very clearcut, and the aftermath is not one in which the prosecuting authority tries to drop the hammer on the shooter.

Most shooting situations are also very elementry.

They do not require 1/10th of the skills Todd imparts to students, nor do they require great holsters, H&K pistols with HST ammo. Many are solved with rudamentry marksmanship from a Tarus 9mm carried in a nylon desantis holster shooting Winchester White Box ammo.

But nobody uses that as their ideal of preparedness or equiptment choice.

Nor should anyone use a simplistic, rote method of thinking to the exclusion of understanding their are nuances to this shit.

Human stress reaction, perception, the way memory works...it all factors into the discussion.

If people want a rote, easy to understand method of handling things, have at it.

Shut up and wait for the lawyer is the one I like, but Massad Ayoob's obviously does too from long experience and a lot of students who have shot people and come out with their skin intact. Whatever.

Getting back to the original topic of this thread...who you get your instruction from...

I hope every read this part:


III) Reasoning for choosing the instructor’s line of thinking.

As an example of this, let’s look at advice on post incident behavior/statements.

This is an area in which I respectfully disagree with Mr. Ayoob because of my training and experience as a criminal defense attorney. I believe the less spoken to the police, the better (my thinking lies toward #1 Shut up. #2 Lawyer up, #3 Shut up again...); however, I know & understand the reasons Mr. Ayoob has for his advice, and I and further familiar with his qualifications for offering it.

Beware of people merely parroting his advice on statements, or offering alternative advice without the ability to explain the reasoning behind the position they take or the qualifications to make a decision intelligently on the subject.

If an instructor is unable/unwilling to explain why he follows a particular line of thought - beware. Further, if they do not have the qualifications to make that choice intelligently, the same.

Being a current or former police officer is not enough. Being an attorney – the same.

What experience do they have in the area of investigations or criminal representation? I don’t ask anyone to blindly accept what I’m saying based on a piece of paper on my wall. If I can’t explain why I’d suggest a course of action to your satisfaction, they I wouldn’t ask you to follow it.

Should you get less from an instructor?

Further, as to explanations for a given course of action – be sure they are applicable to you.

If, for example, an instructor’s experience in this area is that of a large city tactical officer who was involved in multiple job related shootings, his post shooting experiences may be greatly influenced by his point of view, and his experiences will probably not be a 1:1 correlation to what you may experience in the aftermath of a situation.

I do criminal defense work. I do it in the Northeastern United States of America. I have a point of view on this subject that is developed from different experiences than people who have a law enforcement background from the South, Northwest, Midwest or Central United States.

Hell, for that matter, I may see things differently than cops from the Northeast too.

That doesn’t mean I’m right or other points of view are wrong, just that it’s based in different experiences, and that will result in seeing things differently than someone who’s background is different from mine. Everyone has a point of view. Make sure you know what the instructor’s is before adopting it for yourself.

Simply dismissing a point of view because it's not yours isn't smart either.

Listen, evaluate, ask questions and decide if a given piece of information fits into the matrix of information you have gotten from other qualified people.

It may be the other side of the argument, so it may not fit perfectly, but again, that doesn't make it wrong. It simply makes it the other point of view.

I hope this all wasn't about lawyers v. cops...it really should have been about explaining the 'why' of our points of view.

[Dagga Boy]

In a strange way, through a long thread, I think we are in agreement about a lot of things. Hopefully, learning has occurred with everyone involved. What has occurred is a ton of thinking and constructive debate. I take nothing personal with any of this and if I didn't respect the opinions of others, I wouldn't have bothered hitting the keys to respond.

The one thing that should be taken away from everybody, regardless of thoughts on the issue-Avoid shootings like the plague. Everybody's life will change, and not in a good way, the second the trigger is pressed. I have been shot at more than I have done the shooting. It sucks beyond words. In none of those cases did I return fire because the criteria was not present to make the shoot good. You need to weigh very heavily ahead of time what you are willing to lose by carrying a firearm, because if you ever have to use it, everybody involved loses. The key is to be as far down the list of losers as possible.

[rjohnson4405]

In a strange way, through a long thread, I think we are in agreement about a lot of things. Hopefully, learning has occurred with everyone involved. What has occurred is a ton of thinking and constructive debate. I take nothing personal with any of this and if I didn't respect the opinions of others, I wouldn't have bothered hitting the keys to respond.

The one thing that should be taken away from everybody, regardless of thoughts on the issue-Avoid shootings like the plague. Everybody's life will change, and not in a good way, the second the trigger is pressed. I have been shot at more than I have done the shooting. It sucks beyond words. In none of those cases did I return fire because the criteria was not present to make the shoot good. You need to weigh very heavily ahead of time what you are willing to lose by carrying a firearm, because if you ever have to use it, everybody involved loses. The key is to be as far down the list of losers as possible.

Could you elaborate on these "situations." I'm having a hard time understanding how getting shot at isn't enough of a reason to shoot back, but I realize your experiences will vary wildly from a normal civilian so I'm curious.

[Dagga Boy]

Two of them were ambushes. In one case I knew where the shot came from by the muzzle flash, but did not have a hard enough distinguishable target to return anything but suppressive fire. I had the means to get out of the situation safely rather than engaging a "muzzle flash", and went that route. Another was as close as I have ever come to being killed. I responded to an apartment complex in the middle of the night on a "911 hang up". My tactics were about perfect...parked a ways away, walked in carefully, limited use of any light, etc. As I entered a courtyard area a local gang member was hiding in some bushes behind a tree and fired a single round of .380 from my 3:30 about 15 yards away. The shot came within an inch of my nose and impacted a stucco wall next to me. I turned while drawing, but could not get a clear shot as the guy ran down a walkway. Due to it being a dense apartment complex, the risk of hitting an occupied apartment was too great to risk a shot. I ran down an parallel walkway while radioing for help. I ended up back at my car (recovered my Remington 870) and continued tracking the guy as he went over a wall to a field. He was picked up by our helicopter on the FLIR, but was eventually lost in another ghetto apartment complex. It was graveyard, and I was on the call alone because we were so busy that no other officers were available, so we just didn't have the resources to dig the guy out. Our intel unit never got enough information to prosecute, but got enough info to determine that it was a retribution hit for some increased police pressure on a local gang. Law Enforcement is a full contact sport. I've been present at multiple shootings where others had a shot, but I personally did not have the necessary criteria to fire myself. In another case, I was on bicycle patrol in the middle of the night and a guy let off a round from an AK47 on the other side of a chain link fence right next to me (drunk Mexican national "celebrating"). Discretion being the better part of valor, I hunkered down behind a very large old tree, got the place surrounded and took him into custody without incident.

All of these situations are very individual. I was charged by a mentally diminished guy with a knife, and his mother tackled him while I was in my trigger press. In another case while a guy was trying to rip my Sig out of my retention holster, I had him in a front head lock and was choking him out with my left arm. He went out just before I shot him in the head with the Sig .380 I pulled from an ankle rig with my right hand. The last call I was ever on in police work (where I was significantly injured) went very bad for me because just as I was going to shoot the suspect, i could see the faces of two small children pressed against the passenger windows of the car the suspect was up against, and was about guaranteed to hit them if any of my rounds fully penetrated the suspect. Some times, being the good guy requires tough choices in very compressed time frames. I've been in all kinds of situations like these (I could go on with numerous cases) where lethal force decisions are made in very chaotic situations and things are changing rapidly in fractions of a second. Its why I roll my eyes when I hear all the folks (usually at gun shops, ranges, gun shows or on the internet) saying "what they would do" without the real experience to back up their opinions.

[rjohnson4405]

I agree with every situation as you presented it and see what you mean now. Them shooting at you was usually justification to respond with deadly force, but justification alone wasn't enough. I thought you meant it wasn't a clear cut good shot in the legal sense that Mitchell discusses.

I really appreciate you taking the time to educate me.

While many of those situations can be specific to your career, there are many situations you discuss that could apply to me as a civilian too. At this point in my life as a single guy with no dependents I would rather take a bullet than risk shooting a child. As I grow up and have my own children/wife/dependents of my own that may change.

[TGS]

Two of them were ambushes. In one case I knew where the shot came from by the muzzle flash, but did not have a hard enough distinguishable target to return anything but suppressive fire. I had the means to get out of the situation safely rather than engaging a "muzzle flash", and went that route. Another was as close as I have ever come to being killed. I responded to an apartment complex in the middle of the night on a "911 hang up". My tactics were about perfect...parked a ways away, walked in carefully, limited use of any light, etc. As I entered a courtyard area a local gang member was hiding in some bushes behind a tree and fired a single round of .380 from my 3:30 about 15 yards away. The shot came within an inch of my nose and impacted a stucco wall next to me. I turned while drawing, but could not get a clear shot as the guy ran down a walkway. Due to it being a dense apartment complex, the risk of hitting an occupied apartment was too great to risk a shot. I ran down an parallel walkway while radioing for help. I ended up back at my car (recovered my Remington 870) and continued tracking the guy as he went over a wall to a field. He was picked up by our helicopter on the FLIR, but was eventually lost in another ghetto apartment complex. It was graveyard, and I was on the call alone because we were so busy that no other officers were available, so we just didn't have the resources to dig the guy out. Our intel unit never got enough information to prosecute, but got enough info to determine that it was a retribution hit for some increased police pressure on a local gang. Law Enforcement is a full contact sport. I've been present at multiple shootings where others had a shot, but I personally did not have the necessary criteria to fire myself. In another case, I was on bicycle patrol in the middle of the night and a guy let off a round from an AK47 on the other side of a chain link fence right next to me (drunk Mexican national "celebrating"). Discretion being the better part of valor, I hunkered down behind a very large old tree, got the place surrounded and took him into custody without incident.

All of these situations are very individual. I was charged by a mentally diminished guy with a knife, and his mother tackled him while I was in my trigger press. In another case while a guy was trying to rip my Sig out of my retention holster, I had him in a front head lock and was choking him out with my left arm. He went out just before I shot him in the head with the Sig .380 I pulled from an ankle rig with my right hand. The last call I was ever on in police work (where I was significantly injured) went very bad for me because just as I was going to shoot the suspect, i could see the faces of two small children pressed against the passenger windows of the car the suspect was up against, and was about guaranteed to hit them if any of my rounds fully penetrated the suspect. Some times, being the good guy requires tough choices in very compressed time frames. I've been in all kinds of situations like these (I could go on with numerous cases) where lethal force decisions are made in very chaotic situations and things are changing rapidly in fractions of a second. Its why I roll my eyes when I hear all the folks (usually at gun shops, ranges, gun shows or on the internet) saying "what they would do" without the real experience to back up their opinions.

holy cow, man! You've got a penchant for bad situations. You've got as many hairy experiences, or more, as all the LEO's I know combined.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Its why I roll my eyes when I hear all the folks (usually at gun shops, ranges, gun shows or on the internet) saying "what they would do" without the real experience to back up their opinions.

Your fucked up situations are the kind of thing nobody else can envision when they imagine their shooting, which is why it's so hard to get people to break out of the "I'd just..." mentality.

With simplistic answers to complex problems..."They'd just" fuck it up. Period.

[Dagga Boy]

I seem to have a black cloud that follows me around, combined with being a guy who loved putting animals in cages gets you in trouble. I've been involved in a bunch of crap off duty as well (why I don't drink and carry a gun). Everyone of those went to an extreme level of violence. This is how many civilian shootings and conflicts tend to go (no radio, no help, and limited gear with few options).

The biggest issues tend to be correct threat assessment, and what is often left out of the equation in most "shooting" programs. I was always hyper sensitive about bystanders. They are often a factor, and why surgical shooting skills and good analytical skills are so important. I am of the opinion that if you are not sure about what you are doing, or what is happening....firing your weapon is not going to make it better.

[Dagga Boy]

I have some hints for stuff I did/do on a daily basis to help with this stuff. If there is interest, we can start a new thread, or just drop it if you guys are sick of me:p.

[Mr_White]

I have some hints for stuff I did/do on a daily basis to help with this stuff. If there is interest, we can start a new thread, or just drop it if you guys are sick of me:p.

I am interested in continuing to hear what you have to say, nyeti.

[Ed L]

I have some hints for stuff I did/do on a daily basis to help with this stuff. If there is interest, we can start a new thread, or just drop it if you guys are sick of me:p.

We need a thread like described above.

[rsa-otc]

Hell yes; how we supposed to learn if we don't sit at the feet of those who have been there & done that, with open and accepting minds.

[Korenwolf]

I have some hints for stuff I did/do on a daily basis to help with this stuff. If there is interest, we can start a new thread, or just drop it if you guys are sick of me:p.

Really interested in what you have to say

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Speak!!!!

[JDM]

New thread please

[Shellback]

New thread please

When it's started someone please post a link here. Thanks!

[David Armstrong]

Some times, being the good guy requires tough choices in very compressed time frames. I've been in all kinds of situations like these (I could go on with numerous cases) where lethal force decisions are made in very chaotic situations and things are changing rapidly in fractions of a second. Its why I roll my eyes when I hear all the folks (usually at gun shops, ranges, gun shows or on the internet) saying "what they would do" without the real experience to back up their opinions.
Very well said, and I agree completely. Many officers, myself included, can relate far more instances where "I could have but decided not to because....." than the actual "I shot the BG" incidents. One of the things that I have found interesting in studying this field is how alert many are and the rapid decision-making process that goes on, such as your seeing the faces of the kids in the car.

[Dagga Boy]

I started penning the diatribe today, but daddy duties took over before I have to leave town to work the LaRue shoot (I'll be chained to the Aimpoint booth if anyone is going). If I get some hotel time I will post it as a new thread, otherwise I'll have it up Sunday or Monday. Hopefully, it will garner some quality discussion........or you guys will be convinced I'm an idiot, either way it should be a good topic on means for mental preparation for dealing with crisis.

[ToddG]

Hopefully, it will garner some quality discussion........or you guys will be convinced I'm an idiot,

http://paulgoddard.co.uk/tuition/resources/mathematics/statistics/overlapping.gif

I kid!

[JDM]

I started penning the diatribe today, but daddy duties took over before I have to leave town to work the LaRue shoot (I'll be chained to the Aimpoint booth if anyone is going). If I get some hotel time I will post it as a new thread, otherwise I'll have it up Sunday or Monday. Hopefully, it will garner some quality discussion........or you guys will be convinced I'm an idiot, either way it should be a good topic on means for mental preparation for dealing with crisis.

Really looking forward to it.

[Dagga Boy]

http://paulgoddard.co.uk/tuition/resources/mathematics/statistics/overlapping.gif

I kid!

You went to Cornell, I went to San Diego State..................I have no clue what that is, BUT, in my youth I could drink excessive amounts of alcohol............inverted;). We obviously learned different important things in college.

[ToddG]

You went to Cornell, I went to San Diego State..................I have no clue what that is, BUT, in my youth I could drink excessive amounts of alcohol............inverted;). We obviously learned different important things in college.

Holy crap, that had me literally laughing out loud because ironically, the diagram above covers that, as well. :cool:

[Aray]

Your fucked up situations are the kind of thing nobody else can envision when they imagine their shooting, which is why it's so hard to get people to break out of the "I'd just..." mentality.

With simplistic answers to complex problems..."They'd just" fuck it up. Period.

I really need to figure out how to communicate this well to students.

[ford.304]

I really need to figure out how to communicate this well to students.

The best way it's been impressed on me is just sharing as many of these nasty, real-world anecdotes as possible. Especially if you combine them with some plastic-gun role playing and make them make decisions quickly.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

The best way it's been impressed on me is just sharing as many of these nasty, real-world anecdotes as possible. Especially if you combine them with some plastic-gun role playing and make them make decisions quickly.

Do the role playing, then have someone come as it is two thirds finished.

This person who came in at the conclusion is the witness who gets to tell the role players what he saw happen.

This person was not involved, has no bone to pick with anyone and no reason to lie...but the incident they are going to relate they saw isn't going to match very well with the incident the role players know about...

But, that is the story 911 gets told. Which means it is the truth.

:p

[RoyGBiv]

I started penning the diatribe today, but daddy duties took over before I have to leave town to work the LaRue shoot (I'll be chained to the Aimpoint booth if anyone is going). If I get some hotel time I will post it as a new thread, otherwise I'll have it up Sunday or Monday. Hopefully, it will garner some quality discussion........or you guys will be convinced I'm an idiot, either way it should be a good topic on means for mental preparation for dealing with crisis.

Did this tale of experiences ever get posted?
I suspect it would be an interesting and educational read.

Thanks for this thread BTW... Good read.

[beejhay]

To be honest with you I'm looking for the topic that talks about criminal defense lawyers redding (http://www.dgardnerlaw.com), and I'm so glad that I saw this area. Do you have any idea about it?

[Tamara]

When you subcontract out your marketing to SEO trolls, you're subcontracting out your ethics, too, criminal defense lawyers redding.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I pitch my class to a training group this evening for inclusion into their program.

[cutter]

I believe in STFU as a defaultbecause you don't know what the situation really was, or what happened, till it's all over. ......
Therefore, basing post use of force thinking on the best case scenario of worst case scenario - If I have to shoot someone it will be in the gravest extreme...but the situation will be relatively clearcut with a tattooed gangbanger and warrants out for his arrest breaking into my living room... - appears to me a dumbshit idea..........



Long thread and I haven't read all of it, so sorry if I am repeating here, but it seems that most of the examples given in this thread assume you are the victim of some random evil bad guy who you have never seen before. How often does that happen verses a shooting of a known acquaintance? Most of my CCW class was getting their permit because of a fear of someone they knew. IMHO keeping your mouth shut until you have a lawyer, after you just shoot your crazy Ex or the next door neighbor you have had angry words in the past would be a very good idea. I could see you talking yourself into big trouble if not. What's a few nights in jail verses years in the State pen?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Long thread and I haven't read all of it, so sorry if I am repeating here, but it seems that most of the examples given in this thread assume you are the victim of some random evil bad guy who you have never seen before. How often does that happen verses a shooting of a known acquaintance? Most of my CCW class was getting their permit because of a fear of someone they knew. IMHO keeping your mouth shut until you have a lawyer, after you just shoot your crazy Ex or the next door neighbor you have had angry words in the past would be a very good idea. I could see you talking yourself into big trouble if not. What's a few nights in jail verses years in the State pen?


My four sure fire "Screw up your incident" factors:

Money
Sex
Family relationships
Custody issues related to kids

Sure to turn a legitimate, lawful use of force situation into a possible murder case.

[voodoo_man]

My four sure fire "Screw up your incident" factors:

Money
Sex
Family relationships
Custody issues related to kids

Sure to turn a legitimate, lawful use of force situation into a possible murder case.

big +1 on this list.

If you shoot someone and you are somehow connected to that person through one of those listed, you are going to have a bad day in court.