the aftermath of a shooting incident --
Just remember not to over-think this stuff: Your actions will be evaluated based on the information known to you at the time of the incident. Your perception of threat. Your perception of tactical options. Your decisions will be compared to those of a "reasonable man" under the same circumstances
Some of the instructors who primarily train the armed private citizen (like John Farnam & Massad Ayoob) always suggest that you find an attorney in your area (if possible) who specializes in defending private citizens in self defense cases, and at least pay to talk to them for an hour or two and get their interpretation of the law in your state and the "judicial climate" in your locality -- how police & prosecutors proceed in these kind of investigations, how the process works, what political issues may be at play, and etc. That's pretty good advice, with the qualifier that, in many locations, it'll be pretty hard to find an attorney with trial experience in this unusual area, because in most places there just aren't that many true self-defense shootings. A regular general practice attorney probably won't have any specialized training or experience in this area, and they may not know that they don't know, so it's always possible that you may get some bad advice.
You might want to consider talking to the counsel for the local police officer's union or association -- it's quite possible that the local police union attorney has had some specialized training in this area, or can point you in the direction of somebody who does have such training.
---------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER BEING INVOLVED IN A SHOOTING INCIDENT:
From John Farnam of Defense Training International
www.defense-training.com
14 June 2006
Two important points from Skip Gochenour's lecture at the 2006 National Tactical Invitational.. Skip is involved with the criminal justice system daily, and these two points should be kept in mind by all of us:
In the wake of a deadly-force incident in which you were involved:
(1) Let your lawyer do all the talking!
(2) "Self-defense" is a justification only available when your actions were intentional. "Self-defense" may not be invoked to justify"accidents"!
Your lawyer can have his facts all mixed up. He can tell outrageous lies.
You can fire him on Monday morning, and probably should! However, when talking with investigators and prosecutors, HE CAN GET YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY BEFORE THEM WITHOUT STATEMENTS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO YOU! You needn't worry about what he says, to anyone. You need only worry about what you say.
It 's your statements, even inadvertent ones, that will come back to haunt you.
For example: When you intimate or even suggest, however subtly, that your use of deadly force was, in fact, accidental, from that point forward "self-defense" will no longer be available to you as a justification for what you did. A negligent discharge (ND) that results in an injury or death is a negligent homicide, and it cannot be subsequently converted to "self-defense," no matter what the person was doing when he was shot. STATEMENTS AS INNOCENT-SOUNDING AS, "I 'M SORRY." "I DIDN'T MEAN TO" or "I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS HAPPENED" ARE ALL THUS PERNICIOUSLY INCRIMINATING. Such statements must never leave your lips!
Those of us who go armed neglect the foregoing at our peril.
/John
15June06
Refinements, from a student who is a well-known and respected criminal defense attorney:
"I cannot count the number of times I've heard a client say, "They wanted to interview me, and we talked a little, but I didn't tell them ANYTHING. I was very careful.' Then, I get the discovery, including the report on the interview. It invariably includes a full confession, plus additional damaging statements, repeated multiple times. Great beginning for our defensive strategy!
The only thing that I believe a person should tell police who arrive at a hot scene (not all lawyers agree) is:
(1) 'Thank heaven you're here!'
(2) 'I'm the one who called.'
(3) 'A man broke into our house and tried to murder us.' (adjust as necessary)
(4) 'I'll be happy to answer all your questions, as soon as my lawyer is here.'
The only additional statements I advise are:
Tell arriving officers about: (1) active threats, (2) innocent people in the area (3) evidence, and (4) witnesses. These are important to the case, to the safety of officers and others, and may not be obvious.
Those statements, while still not risk-free, are appropriate and reasonable, and I think there is a moral duty to provide information which DIRECTLY effects the safety of officers and the discovery of truth."
/John