Should You Talk to the Police After a Self-Defense Incident? (Part I)

[Casual Friday]

In a nutshell, you probably want to give a limited statement that establishes you were the victim, where evidence that might disappear or be overlooked is, and who witnesses are before they move on, and if any additional suspects are still out (say you shot one and another escaped and stole a car to flee the scene). Once you've established that, shut up.

You can let the officer know that you are shaken up by the incident and your head is not completely clear. That you fully intend to cooperate as best you can after you've had some time to compose yourself and speak with an attorney.

There is no stigma in so doing and it is your right to speak to an attorney before making further, or any statements, for that matter.

It's your right to stop the questioning at any time.

That said, if you've already given a statement, you would not be out of line telling another officer that you are still shaken from the incident and you want to compose yourself before making additional statements in case you accidentally leave out or add information you hadn't stated the first time through.

It is normal for humans to remember more after a period of time following a stressful incident.

If they want to force the issue, then I would opt to speak to counsel beforehand.

Do you feel that's also the best approach when guns get involved but no shots fired?

[blues]

Do you feel that's also the best approach when guns get involved but no shots fired?

Since there's a chance of being charged with brandishing and / or other violations at the state / local level, I'd advise reporting the matter to the police before any other party has the opportunity to do so, providing basic ID and information, (as to your being the "victim", any witnesses, any evidence, video, audio, etc) and then rely upon advice of counsel before any statements since you have more than a zero chance of being charged.

I'll leave it to BBI and other state and local LE to fill in the gaps as it's something they would have much more expertise with.

[BehindBlueI's]

Do you feel that's also the best approach when guns get involved but no shots fired?

Yes, in addition to the more detailed reporting of whatever crime you were a victim of that lead to the escalation. Serial numbers for items stolen, etc.

During my not shooting incident last year I had 3 different cops ask me what happened on scene so they could make sure I was telling the same story. I cooperated then because the situation was a lot less serious than if I had had to shoot the guy.

Any suggestions on how to politely decline to give more than one statement after you’ve given the initial statement?

I wouldn't assume that was the reason. Especially on a confusing scene, sometimes there's just overlap because an officer doesn't know it's been asked by someone else. If it's serious you're likely to have at least a uniformed officer ask for basic "what happened" and then a detective ask more detailed questions. You might get a supervisor asking you questions if an officer was involved in any way, such as a use of force.

That *could* be the reason, it's just not how we would do things. You could probably just say "I gave a statement to that officer over there" or something along those lines and see what the response is, then use your best judgement from there.