Posted by Weedwacker: I've always been of the mind to keep your mouth shut until a lawyer is available to represent you and keep you from saying something that comes across as incriminating. Then I read this story about a common real time scenario that plays down. Now I'm not sure what I would do.
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2383535699&topic=17230
Suarez is correct, and the comments on his article that disagree do not represent good advice in a self defense case. I'll join fiddletown in trying to explain why.
Posted by demigod: You not wise to say NOTHING.
If you do not want to be charged after a self defense shooting in which what happened to require you to shoot is not clear except to you, or if you would intend to mount a defense of justification if necessary, that double negative is vey correct indeed.
We've always been instructed to give the basics and articulate that you were in fear for your life.
So, how much is enough, and how much is too much?
For advice that requires a less subjective interpretation, see fiddletown's post above (the Massad Ayoob advice).
Posted by boredom: i watched these videos a while back, and the things that are stated by both sides is both shocking and eye opening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7N...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
These provide excellent advice for
most situations, but not for self defense cases. Most criminal investigations, charges, prosecutions, and trials involve trying to determine who had the opportunity and means and perhaps the motive to commit a criminal act and trying to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the person so identified did commit that act. The mission of the defense is to attack the evidence and to establish reasonable doubt about whether the accused did commit the act.
A self defense case is different. In order to avoid conviction, one who uses deadly force to protect himself must necessarily admit to having used such force. To successfully mount a defense of justification or to avoid being charged in the first place, there must be some evidence indicating that the actor did not provoke the incident, that he had reason to believe that he had been in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and that he had no other reasonable choice. That evidence will have to indicate that the actor had reason to believe that the person against whom such force had been used had had the ability and the opportunity to seriously injure the actor and that the actor was in fact in immediate jeopardy. If the case happens to go to trial, it is up to the defense to produce that evidence.
The distinction is important. It is not up to the police to convince anyone that you did it. You will have to admit to it. It is up to you to establish that you had no other choice.
If witnesses who could support your case drive away and you can't find them, or if the assailant's weapon, accomplices, or if other evidence such as empty cases disappear, the actor may well become a defendant with a very difficult defense to conduct.
That, and the fact that you do not want the police to regard you as the suspect from the outset (thus establishing in their minds that what they need to look for is evidence that will incriminate
you), make following the usual "don't talk to the police" advice to the letter something that can actually help lead to the criminal conviction of the wrong person in a self defense case.
For much better advice, see fiddletown's posts above.
His first post calls attention to what has been said on his before and recommends reviewing them, and particularly this:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4264884&postcount=8
The second contains specific advice on what to do (be the first to call) and what to say and not to say.
Massad Ayoob recommends:
Saying something like, "That person (or those people) attacked me." You are thus immediately identifying yourself as the victim. It also helps get the investigation off on the right track.
Saying something like, "I will sign a complaint." You are thus immediately identifying the other guys(s) as the criminal(s).
Pointing out possible evidence, especially evidence that may not be immediately apparent. You don't want any such evidence to be missed.
Pointing out possible witnesses.
Then saying something like, "I'm not going to say anything more right now. You'll have my full cooperation in 24 hours, after I've talked with my lawyer."
One other thing: if you want to ask an attorney about this, choose one that has real experience in defending the self defense case. Most lawyers I know cannot address the question very well at all. Many law schools devote less than two hours to the subject of affirmative defenses.
By the way, if the shooting occurred in your house in a castle doctrine jurisdiction, particularly if there is obvious indication of unlawful entry and there has been only casual prior contact, if any, between you and the intruder, the defense should be relatively straightforward. The rub comes when you have been accosted in a parking lot or on a sidewalk, and what happened is not clear to those who arrive after the fact.
I hope this helps.
