What Do You Do If You Are Involved In A Shooting?

[brickeyee]

I cannot understand why you would go against what every attorney I have used or known (including my wife) have said.
"Do not talk to the police."
It has been an axiom of law school training for a long time.
If you can find an attorney that will say otherwise I would really like to make their acquantance and here there arguments.

[pickpocket]

I cannot understand why you would go against what every attorney I have used or known (including my wife) have said.
"Do not talk to the police."
It has been an axiom of law school training for a long time.

If YOU got paid by the hour to render a service, wouldn't YOUR advice be to never make a move without first enlisting your help? Neither of those points further your argument.

I have already addressed those questions. What you - and others - are so vehemently arguing against is making an "official" statement without consulting your attorney.

What you are missing is that I never once advised anyone to do otherwise. However, telling the police that "That man tried to stab me, and I shot him" can only help - they already know you shot someone, so what's the harm in telling them that you shot someone? Everyone already knows this, and one of the witnesses will surely let them know. What it DOES is give the police that interesting bit of information that you feared for your life...which will help determine the initial direction of the investigation.

However, when they come at you initially they are going to ask "What happened here"...they are not going to approach you with a pad and paper and immediately ask you to make an official statement.

There is a difference between making an official statement and simply explaining to the police "what happened"... all you're doing is telling them what they already know. Only an attorney would conceivably advise someone not to do that.

[brickeyee]

""That man tried to stab me, and I shot him" "

I am going to make one last comment on this and end it.

The simple statement above is an admission of guilt.
You have just freely and spontaneously admitted to at least aggravated assault while armed. It will be admitted as evidence, ?formal statement? or not.
The police do not "...already know you shot someone...".
They now a shooting has occurred. Nothing more.
When you go to law school you can comment on the motives and reasoning for what attorneys say.
Until then I am inclined to believe what 100% of the attorneys I have ever encountered say "Do not talk to the police".
Most of the time the advice is based on hard lessons learned.

[pickpocket]

You have just freely and spontaneously admitted to at least aggravated assault while armed. It will be admitted as evidence, ?formal statement? or not.

You mean like the ballistics evidence that they're going to run or the weapon that they're going to confiscate from you or the witness statements they're going to get?

The police do not "...already know you shot someone...".
They now a shooting has occurred. Nothing more.

You can't be serious... really....I have no suitable response.

When you go to law school you can comment on the motives and reasoning for what attorneys say.

It appears my knowledge (or lack thereof) of attorneys is as much based on assumption as is your understanding of police officers. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle.

Either way - Stay safe.

[Jeff22]

How much do you tell the police after you are involved in a self-defense shooting? A lot depends on how the self-defense issue is addressed in the laws of YOUR STATE. (look your laws up. Don't depend on somebody to tell you what they are, or what they think they are. look them up yourself. Depending upon how the statutes are organized, sometimes it's hard to find them on the web, and you may have to go look at the hard copy of the statutes down at the public library)

Where I live, there is no "right" to self defense in the statutes -- self defense is an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, where basically you are saying "Yes, I shot the guy in self defense AND THIS IS WHY." (our statutues use the term "privilage" to define instances where otherwise unlawful acts are justified; such as the use of force in self defense) If there are witnesses that can support your actions, or evidence that would prove that events happened the way you said they did, YOU need to point this stuff out to officer friendly when he gets there. DO NOT presume that the cops will find this stuff on their own. Most cops, even detectives, do not investigate legitimate self-defense shootings very often. This means they may overlook evidence that is beneficial to your case. This may also mean that they mis-interpret events, because they're NOT familiar with this kind of investigation.

Don't misconstrue the suggestion that you should make a statement to the police to mean that you need to make a detailed statement at the scene of the incident. That is probably NOT a good idea.

What you need to do is sometimes referred to as a "public safety statement" -- that's what cops are often required to give at the scene of an incident they are involved in. It would be simple -- something like "I was gassing my car up and a guy appeared out of the darkness with a knife and he tried to rob me and he threatened me with the knife and began to advance and my escape route was cut off and I was in fear for my life and I shot at him to defend myself." Just a simple explaination of the incident. Don't go into great detail at the time, because you'll probably be too upset. Wait until you have counsel before you make a DETAILED statement, but tell the investigating officers SOMETHING -- a brief synopsis of events.

You will be handling it the same way that most police unions tell their officers to respond in such an investigation -- a brief description of events, followed by "I prefer not to make any more statements until I've had the advice of counsel".

(In fact, George T. Williams has an article about this very topic, called "Public Safety Statements" in the August/September 2006 issue of POLICE MARKSMAN magazine)

Of course, all situations are different. And I don't know how the police and prosecutors handle incidents like this where you live. To make a determination about the "prosecutorial climate" in your locale, DON'T depend on anything written in the newspaper. Articles in the newspaper or features on television are not (generally) prepared by people who know anything about the law or tactics or much of anything else. They're just newspaper or TV reporters, NOT subject matter experts about anything. Most of the stuff you read in the papers has signficant errors in it, not because the news media are participants in some vast conspiracy, but because THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE WRITING ABOUT. So don't depend on the media to get the facts straight on anything.

And don't depend on advice you hear from some gunshop commando or some guy you ran into at the gun show. A regular general practice attorney probably won't be of much use as a reference, either. You'll need to talk to somebody who specializes in this kind of criminal defense. And DON'T depend on advice from the cop who lives down your street. Absent specialized training, they won't know either! They may (or may not) be familiar with the policy of their police department, and how the police union advises them to act after being involved in an incident, but they probably WILL NOT have good advice for the private citizen in a similar situation.

(It seems that people who have a few seconds to realize that they're in danger can usually maintain better mental track during the incident than those caught totally by surprise. And if you are wounded or sustain a significant injury, you are in no position to be talking at all.)

Remember, ANY STATEMENT YOU MAKE TO THE POLICE CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE. The police only have to inform you of your privilege against testimonial self incrimination during a custodial arrest. There is a common misconception that "it doesn't count" if you have not provided and signed some kind of written statement, and this is incorrect.

When you make this brief statement, make it to the sergeant or the investigator who will be the primary investigator on the case. Don't explain to just any uniformed cop who happens by, because they may not be primary on the incident. And only give your statement once. The more you repeat it, the more likely it is that there will be inconsistencies, caused by the stress of the situation.

If you aren't sure that you can make a statement and then stop talking, then it might be best to say very little at all.

[brickeyee]

"Depending upon how the statutes are organized, sometimes it's hard to find them on the web, and you may have to go look at the hard copy of the statutes down at the public library"

I would only add that you ned to review the applicable case law to have a full understanding of how the statutes have been applied previously.

The case law can help clarify the boundaries that have been set in how the statute law is applied.

Virginia's self defense law is entirely case law (other states are similar).
Some if it may seem odd on first reading. You typically cannot claim self defense if you pursued the person or engageed in 'mutual combat'.
If two people get in a fight and escalate to firearms EACH can be charged and neither can claim self defense. If one party attempts to halt the confrontation 'clearly by word or deed' and the second continues the self defense claim may be revived.
The general juducial philosophy in the state has a lot to say how the judge may view the case also. Virginia is pretty conservative, but some areas are more liberal than others.

Even the new 'stand your gound' laws are going to need supproting case law (and there is ot much yet).
If prosecutionin self defense is dissalowed, who will make the decision if the self defense calim is justifiable?
The DA?
The judge?
How will it get before a judge without prosecution?

Many of these items have yet to be sorted out.

[Jeff22]

Self Defense in the Law of Illinois:

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)
ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

(720 ILCS 5/7‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑2)
Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent,
riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is
necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(720 ILCS 5/7‑13) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑13)
Sec. 7‑13. Necessity.
Conduct which would otherwise be an offense is justifiable by reason of necessity if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury which might reasonably result from his own conduct.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑14) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑14)
Sec. 7‑14. Affirmative defense. A defense of justifiable use of force, or of exoneration, based on the provisions of this Article is an affirmative defense.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
=======================================================
Wisconsin State Statute 939.48 -- Self Defense and the Defense of Others:

(1.) A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the (unlawful) interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or to herself.
(2.) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows: (a.) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self defense against such attack, except when the attack, which ensues, is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger
of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant, unless the person reasonably believes that he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise
avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailants. (b.) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant. (c.) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
(4.) A person is privileged to defend a third person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person in privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the third person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the third person.

Wisconsin State Statute 939.45 -- Privilege: The fact that the actor's conduct is privileged, although otherwise criminal, is a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct.The defense of privilege can be claimed under any of the following circumstances:
(2.) When the actor's conduct is in defense of persons or property under any of the circumstances described in 939.48 (Self-Defense and the Defense of others) or 939.49 ((Defense of Property and protection against retail theft):
(3.) When the actor's conduct is in good faith and is an apparently authorized and reasonable fulfillment of any duties of a public office; or
(4.) When the actor's conduct is a reasonable accomplishment of a lawful arrest.
=========================================================

These are just a couple of examples of how the "self defense" issue is addressed in statutes. Most states probably have similar language. I find it interesting that Virginia does not address "self defense" in statutory law, but rather depends on case law to determine precedent. That has to make being involved in any use of force in self defense incident quite an adventure . . .

[Oregongundude]

I think there is a lot to consider when your involved in a self defense shooting, having a good lawyer on retainer wouldn't be a bad idea.

[marlboroman84]

Geez Louise! There is some really conflicting advice in here. Some good advice, but some really bad THIS IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU!!!*big dramatic voice*

1. Not everyone is going to be reduced to a bowl of Jell-o when they shoot somebody. Adrenaline? Yes of course, but not everybody reacts immediately to that kind of stress. I almost kissed the grill of a Ford Explorer one day on my motorcycle and it didn't even phase me til about 2 hours later.

2. I definitely agree with not saying much and getting a lawyer. You are probably gonna be arrested or "invited" downtown for a chat, but that doesn't mean they are gonna slap you in blue overalls and throw you in the cage with Bubba and Joe Bob. Cops can only detain you 12 hours without charging you and if they go over that 12 hours or throw some crap charges at you to hold you, BAM! civil suit buddy.

Not to say sometimes it doesn't end badly, but I'd imagine most of the time if it's a good shoot, that's gonna be pretty much that.

Either way I don't ever wanna find out what prison food tastes like.

[brickeyee]

“Cops can only detain you 12 hours without charging you and if they go over that 12 hours or throw some crap charges at you to hold you, BAM! civil suit buddy.”

This varies by jurisdiction. In some places you can actually be held for 72 hours before you must be arraigned.

[V4Vendetta]

If you think cops are bad, they are pansies compared to bail agents. Those guys will follow you anywhere and they do not always play by the rules the cops are supposed to follow.

They don't have to follow LEO's rules. My dad used to tell me stories about when he was a bondsman. This was back in the late 60's to early 70's. They didn't need warrants to go in someone's house if they felt their suspect might be inside. They had almost absolute power.

One time in SC, they were pulled over by a LEO*. The cop saw that they had pistols & a shotgun in the car & asked what they were doing. They told him they were bail bondsmen & were going after a suspect who had skipped. The LEO went back to his car & called in to verify their story. He came back to their car looking dumbfounded & said "You guys got more authority than I do!"

They then left.


*I forget what for.

[devildogdad]

The one thing you need to keep saying to yourself is " I'm alive" "My kids still have their father" "My wife is not a widow" Never loose track of that. Yes your life will turn to [color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color][color=#FF0000]█[/color], but when it does, just keep repeating those lines to yourself. If it's a clean shoot, this will come out in the eveidence, if it was iffy well you should have thought of that before you pulled the trigger. remember you can't wish a bullet back.

[DeathRodent]

Here is what I would do.

My first response would be "I am in shock and I am confused and I do not understand my rights" practice it , memorize it. You probaly do not understand your rights (well enough) unless you are an attorney.

I would probably state that 3 or more times in the presence of multiple people (witnesses).

In my experience, Police are very used to the I don't want to talk without a lawyer response and a lot of them are trained at getting you to talk after hearing that...very common is Why don't you want to talk to me? Are you guilty? Then why not talk to me? etc, etc, etc,

IF you start of by stating or answerring - regardless of the question asked - "I am in shock, I am confused and I don't understand my rights" You already have a reason to then state I want an attorney present or I'm not feeling well, and IF you do end up talking after that which most people do at least you have some grounds for trying to get it disqualitfied - first you stated you do not understand your rights second you asked for an attorney.

[brickeyee]

"In my experience, Police are very used to the I don't want to talk without a lawyer response and a lot of them are trained at getting you to talk after hearing that...very common is Why don't you want to talk to me? Are you guilty? Then why not talk to me? etc, etc, etc,"

Once you ask for a lwayer all questioning must stop. Period.
The SCOTUS and multiple lower courts have upheld this.
They can try but are looking at a quick loss in court.
The police wil not make a decison to presecute. A DA will.
While some jurisdictions may be more accepting of SD shootings, many are not.
The every time answer is (regretfully) to lawyer up and shut up.

[paramedic70002]

FWIW, I had a state police investigator tell me this:

The 2 biggest mistakes a suspect makes are talking assuming the police know more than they do. The third is leaving witnesses

[BillCA]

Is it just me....

Originally Posted by paramedic70002

The 2 biggest mistakes a suspect makes are talking assuming the police know more than they do. The third is leaving witnesses

Or did I miss something?

I've seen the adrenaline dump cause people to do odd things in the aftermath of a life-threatening event. Some can't stay still. Some yell & scream. Some cry, swear, laugh, giggle, shake uncontrollably, faint or sit down and go to sleep when it wears off.

Remember, no matter how sympathetic the cops are, they are not your friends, they are doing their job to investigate. Give a minimum of information and advise your spouse to do the same. Tell no lies since if they are discovered to be lies it will make you look worse (and may be grounds for prosecution).

The best way to tell no lies, it is easiest to say nothing without your lawyer present. When it comes time to answer questions with your lawyer, don't answer immediately, to allow your lawyer a chance to jump in. Consider each question and try to recall the circumstances before answering. If you can't remember a detail, say so. If asked to pin down anything like time, distance, number of shots fired, etc. prefix your responses with "as I remember it..." or "the way it seemed to me was..." You are providing your perceptions of the event and because you are human, your perception of a specific item may be less than perfect. Example: You recall shooting twice. Evidence shows you fired 4 shots -- two sets of double-taps.

[rick_reno]

Call my attorney and say nothing.

[Guntalk]

We cover this on Personal Defense TV. Massad Ayoob did a segment on it.

His advice:

Do not have the gun in your hand when the police arrive. In your holster is okay. As they roll up, put your hands up.

Officer, I'm the one who called you.

I will sign a compaint.

That man attacked me.

Point out the details (gun, casings, etc.). Point out the witnesses (don't allow them to leave, since they could be your best defense).

Office, you know this is a serious matter. I will make a complete statement in 24 hours, after speaking with counsel.

He points out that saying nothing can allow important evidence to disappear. Witnesses leave. Cartridge cases (from the attacker's gun) get blown across the street or picked up by the treads in car tires.

Set yourself up as in the role of the one who called the police and who will sign the complaint. The only other role available in this play is that of the perpetrator.

What you do in the five minutes after the police arrive can determine where you get to live the rest of your life.

[DanV1317]

yeah. keep your mouth shut. Let them put you in cuffs and take you "down town". When your attorney arrives then you talk to him/her.