Talk or Don't Talk: The Aftermath of a Self Defense Situation

Lots of conflicting advice here, and as a retired attorney with more than thirty years of practice I can state that there's a good reason for the conflicting answers. Sometimes speaking to the first LEOs on the scene will help. Often it will hurt. I, and every lawyer, will tell our clients to shut up, because we don't know whether or not they will say the right thing or the wrong thing. We err on the side of caution.

If you choose to speak, speak the truth. A lie will cook your goose. And don't guess. A wrong guess will be considered a lie. Second, the first words out of your mouth, to 911 and to the first responders, will be "[I've been/I'm being] attacked. They [are/were] going to kill me," or words to that effect. Third, if you are taken to the station, tell the LEOs that you will be happy to cooperate but demand your attorney. Say NOTHING further until your attorney arrives. Demand doesn't mean bang the table. It simply means an unequivocal statement that you want your attorney present before you are asked any questions.

Ayoob's recommendations remain the closest thing to the golden rules. Even sticking to Ayoob's recommendations won't establish the defense of justification, though. That's a whole different kettle of fish.
 
CapeCodShooter said:
...Ayoob's recommendations remain the closest thing to the golden rules....
Click to expand...
And that's the way I see it. In the immediate aftermath of a high stress self defense event, no one is really going to be in a position to tailor, under stress, the absolutely ideal response for that exact situation. But Mas' recommendations will cover the ground well.

CapeCodShooter said:
...Even sticking to Ayoob's recommendations won't establish the defense of justification, though....
Click to expand...
Of course not, but (1) they are consistent with the defense of justification; and (2) they will start things off on the right footing.
 
IMHO, Dont say a thing. Anything can and will be used against you in the Court of Law. Oh I would request an extra amublance you will be in shock.
 
+1 to Mas Ayoob's rules.

Also some more info about police shootings. I think if it's good for police, it's probably good for the armed citizen involved in a legitimate self defense shooting.

Force Science #42: How to assure fair, neutral, and fact finding investigations of officer-involved shootings.

Jeff Chudwin, chief of Olympia Fields (IL) PD and a former prosecutor, says an involved officer should communicate these essentials: the status and location of the offender(s), if known; evidence that needs to be protected; witnesses who need to be isolated and questioned; and any injuries requiring immediate medical intervention. “Everyone at the scene should be carefully checked to see if they need medical care,” Artwohl cautions. “In their heightened state of arousal they may not notice personal injuries.”

In the absence of other reliable eye witnesses who can explain what happened, the involved officer should privately give his supervisor a “very brief, barebones description” of the event–the least amount of information needed to convey the nature of what happened, Lewinski says.

According to John Hoag, a National Advisory Board member of the Force Science Research Center who has responded to more than 40 shootings as a police union attorney, this information can be as sparse as: “He pulled a gun while I was patting him down, I thought he was going to kill me, so I shot him to defend myself.”

It’s important also, Hoag says, that the involved officer(s) delineate the scope of the scene. If a chase preceded the shooting, for example, the “scene” might technically extend over a considerable distance.

“All this information should be given orally and should not be detailed-just enough to get the investigation pointed in the right direction,” Lewinski says. “Officers who may have been peripherally present at the shooting or arrived soon after can provide what they know in more detail, assuming they are not so emotionally affected that their memories may be impaired.”

However, the shooter(s) should not discuss details of the shooting with you or anyone else until they’ve had an opportunity to discuss it with their association attorney and/or their personal defense attorney. “In many agencies it has now become routine for officers to have their own personal defense attorney to represent their interests after any deadly force encounter,” Artwohl says.
Click to expand...
 
In either case, shooters point out the following ~

suspects
victims
evidence
witnesses
lawyer up and shut up
Click to expand...

Well, dang, Pax. If you'd said that back at the beginning, it could have save a lot of argu.........err, debate.:D
 
Probably also a good idea to put away your firearm. You don't want the police showing up and you waving around your full house IPSC pistol. Pop the clip out and put it in a dresser drawer. I'm not speaking from experience, but that would seem prudent.

What about the empty cases? Pick them up or leave them where they fell?

- Ruark
 
Ruark said:
Probably also a good idea to put away your firearm. You don't want the police showing up and you waving around your full house IPSC pistol. Pop the clip out and put it in a dresser drawer. I'm not speaking from experience, but that would seem prudent.

What about the empty cases? Pick them up or leave them where they fell?
Click to expand...
Good God, man -- don't tamper with evidence. And no, you don't want to be holding your gun, but don't hide it either. It's also evidence.

Put it down near you, within easy reach (the assailant might have friends or colleagues who might show up before the police get there), but keep your hands off it.
 
Enough cooperative base information to give those on the scene a clear picture, let the scene do the details talking. References to being a bit rattled and unsure once the basics are covered is okay, it would be hard to hold you accountable for a later inconsistency if you respond with replies to being unsure and shook up.

In most situations facts will be on your side which helps tremendously.
 
I have really enjoyed reading this thread through, even the posts that may not seem as well informed, as they have led to some very good information being posted. If anyone reads this thread and hasn't sat down to make sure he/she has a plan in the awful case that they will need one, then something is wrong.

And thanks to all for the links to great reference info on this subject too!

Very informative. Great discussion!
 
C'mon! Just use common sense here. If I were involved in a shooting I would, when the cops first showed up, impress upon them that I was the victim and that the bad guys attacked me first. I would tell the officers where the bad guys' weapons were so that they could immediately recover them. If you wait too long there is a chance that the weapons might "disappear." I would not give an official, videotaped or written statement until my attorney was present and with me.
 
Rifleman 173

C'mon! Just use common sense here
Click to expand...

The problem is that with all the hormones released into our bodies during a life threatening encounter, common sense DOES NOT abound. In general one becomes very chatty and looks for vindication of our actions from others. What you paraphrased from others is great, just do that and then remember to clam up.

Good Luck & Be Safe
 
Almost done with Alan Korwin's new book, "After You Shoot." His premise is that calling 9-1-1 and detailing what has happened can be used against you in court, since they tape all 9-1-1 calls and you have not invoked your right to council ... so far, I don't think I'm convinced ... his argument is to call, say there's been a shooting, I need a cop and an ambulance, identify yourself and the address, and hang up ... then call your lawyer (you DO have one on retainer, don't you?) and proceed from there ... there's a discussion involving a number of lawyers, cops, etc., and no concensus yet ... interesting concept, tho ... what do you tell 9-1-1?
 
I agree that you don't want to tell a long story on the 911 call. I'd simply say something like: "Someone's been shot. We need police and an ambulance at [ location ]. I'm [ name and brief description ] and will wait here."
 
Knowing, often from painful expirience, that things are often not what they seem to be and that the one on the ground that has been shot will appear as a victim to the first responders behooves me to make said first responders aware the the real victim is the one that shot the offender lying on the ground bleeding.

Biker
 
BikerRN said:
Knowing, often from painful expirience, that things are often not what they seem to be and that the one on the ground that has been shot will appear as a victim to the first responders behooves me to make said first responders aware the the real victim is the one that shot the offender lying on the ground bleeding
Click to expand...
Absolutely. That's why when the first responders arrive one says, "That person attacked me......etc."
 
I believe that if ever faced with that situation, the less you say, the better. The man in Arizona, forget his name off the top of my head openly spoke about a shooting in the woods with a crazed man known by locals to be potentially violent. The prosecuter turned all of his statements against him. The governor eventually pardoned him. I will try to dig up the exact details, perhaps someone has heard of his case and can provide a link to it.

The physiologic reaction of such a stressful situation renders statements made soon after such an event unreliable. In my Nevada CCW class, the instructor, an experienced LEO spoke about an officer involved shooting he participated in killing the suspect who drew on him first after a long chase into a dead end ally. He did not remember the last 30 seconds of the conflict once the engagement was unavoidable and did not at all know how many rounds were fired.

I have been taught in more than one CCW class to cooperate with the police for the immediate situation and calmly if possible state I will be glad to give a full statement once I have a lawyer present. If they are going to take you jail, they will take no matter what you say based on their initial investigation.

Another statement from a LEO doing the CCW class is that LEO's are not your friends in such a situation, perhaps not your enemy either, but they have a job to do and reporting anything you say is part of that job. Don't play lawyer, cooperate but shut up and get an experienced CCW lawyer. Don't talk to anyone about the case. Seemingly innocent statements to third parties have landed more than one person in jail. The affirmative defense lays the framework for admitting you shot the person but within the grounds of legal self defense. Adverse statements at the crime scene can make such a defense impossible.
 
Here it is, Harold Fish. Quite frightening example of simply answering questions in aftermath of self defense shooting that landed him in prison with second degree murder conviction. Anytime I think of what to say after such an event, God forbid I am ever faced with a life threatening attack, I think of Fish. Stay quiet, calm, cooperative and ask for your lawyer who understands affirmative self defense.

http://azdailysun.com/news/local/article_b359b204-65a3-533a-84b1-b38470e1b916.html
 
I believe that if ever faced with that situation, the less you say, the better. The man in Arizona, forget his name off the top of my head openly spoke about a shooting in the woods with a crazed man known by locals to be potentially violent. The prosecuter turned all of his statements against him. The governor eventually pardoned him. I will try to dig up the exact details, perhaps someone has heard of his case and can provide a link to it.
Click to expand...

His name was Harold Fish.

He was a retired school teacher. There is another case in AZ where the shooter didn't say anything, and that laid the groundwork for the assailant's family and friends to paint the real victim as the aggressor, instead of the way it actually was. Two hung juries later the County Attorney decided not to try him a third time. His name was Larry Hickey.

You can be hung no matter what you do. My belief however is that one should point out the relevant facts and then SHUT UP! If you do nothing you will appear guilty. If you do too much, you will be found guilty. It is a narrow line we tread.

Biker
 
Alaska444 said:
...The prosecuter turned all of his statements against him. The governor eventually pardoned him....
Click to expand...
As BikerRN pointed out, the man's name is Harold Fish. The governor did not pardon him.

The court of appeals overturned the conviction because the trial judge erred by not admitting certain evidence offered by Fish in his defense. A new trial was ordered, but the prosecutor decided not to retry Mr. Fish and instead dismissed the charges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top