Training & Legal Reprecussions

Anyhow, when mentioning to an attorney and gun-savvy friend that I had possible plans for some training his response was unusual: "That's nice - but for heaven's sake if you ever get involved in a "situation" don't tell THEM (cops) that!"

His point: "they" could then start to find fault as if you were a professional, "so, why didn't you do this, or not do this" etc. - same in a civil case.
Click to expand...
So, I can see that my attorney-friend had a point. Any thoughts on this?
Click to expand...
Your attorney is a crappy one from the sounds of it, or he isn't a criminal defense attorney. He should have cautioned you to not say ANYTHING after a shooting except for requesting you have an attorney present for any questioning. You should know that already.

No, the Defense used the defendant's prior training as a plus in the Defense phase of the trial.
Click to expand...

Give us the specific case, not hearsay.
 
Your attorney is a crappy one from the sounds of it, or he isn't a criminal defense attorney. He should have cautioned you to not say ANYTHING after a shooting except for requesting you have an attorney present for any questioning. You should know that already.


Give us the specific case, not hearsay.
Click to expand...



I could do without the hostility, you wouldn't appreciate being written to/about by a total stranger in a tone like the above. Nor was the person you're calling crappy my attorney, nor do you know what else he ever suggested regarding talking to police. As far as the case: As it is, that case was a side comment; the CCW was a retired school teacher and that plus other details I wrote will provide an easy search if you want it for your own info. If you'd asked I would have done that myself to get the name of the man. But due to the hostility I don't, understandably, have a real desire to do that.

This has been an interesting discussion with intelligent and perceptive participation by everyone. Please don't relegate it to the level of private invective. Since none of us actually know each other - aside from killing a good thing - this is inappropriate and bizarre.
 
With lawyers, anything you do or don't do can be a target for them to pick at during a trial.

For example - a lawyer may make a special effort to inform the jury that you lack any kind of formal training with firearms and that lack of training means you were simply acting out of fear, instead of a rational basis for using deadly force.

Of course the opposite is true -- The lawyers may point out that you've taken 2 or 3 specialized courses in "combat hangun" courses to sharpen your killer instincts. They can allude that your training left you "primed" to shoot-to-kill at the first aggressive act.

One also has to take into account how jurors will react to certain things in the "sterile" environment of a courtroom. They may have had a nice breakfast with their family before coming to court, leaving their relatively normal, non-threatening lifestyle to sit as your jurors. Thus, when the prosecution shows them your handgun with Pitbull stamped in the barrel and slowly describes the ammo you used from the company ads as Fang Face Extreme Shock Explosive Entry rounds and says the ads use terms like it leaves a wound channel of catastrophic proportions and it is utterly devastating you can expect some negative emotional reactions.

If your gun's grips have a flaming skull on them, realize that may be very unappealing to jurors. If you use hollowpoints a prosecutor may try to tell the jurors that they "explode" inside the body or they are "so deadly they are banned by treaty from use in warfare." Of course, if you use FMJ ammo which overpenetrates you may be painted as "reckless" in using ammunition that "is the kind of bullet used in warfare." Having a defense lawyer knowledgeable about weapons is the key to deflecting much of these attacks.
 
I think you need to find smarter legal buddies.

The most important two things you need to keep in mind, is that your skills need to be as sharp as possible, your mindset needs to be focused. What ever happens in court, in theory or in real life, can be handled. Dying at the hands some young punk because you had no skills, or your mind was focused on lawyers and 'what if' scenerios......... well those should not be options for you.
 
I think the issue is whether or not you make it an open book that you've been 'trained' for such encounters. It may suggest (in the minds of the easily convinced sheeple out there) that you are itching to use that training.

Take for example the following:
(1) grandma shoots an unarmed intruder in her house when she finds him using her clothes washer; poor little grandma never even fired the gun before; the assailant is injured but not killed nor maimed for life (example of this in another thread)

(2) ex-military 40-something shoots the unarmed cohort of an armed robber in the back as the bad guys run away, crippling him (another example from this forum) [the armed bad guy ran out the door first]

Guess which of the above gets sympathy and which gets a critical eye?
 
I could do without the hostility, you wouldn't appreciate being written to/about by a total stranger in a tone like the above. Nor was the person you're calling crappy my attorney, nor do you know what else he ever suggested regarding talking to police.
Click to expand...

Nope, I don't know what he said outside of what you reported, but if he had told you not to say anything to the cops, then he should not have had to tell you not to tell the cops about your training.

Okay, he isn't "your" lawyer per se, but a lawyer providing you with legal advice you have passed on to us.
 
Not all cops are idiots. In fact, I hear of more cases where the cops understand the situation than not.

By the way, I've heard that if you take any of Ayoob's classes, he'll show up in court to give expert testimony in your defense.

I think that there will be legal confusion until castle doctrine is implemented nation wide.
 
Anyone seriously interested in the topic of this thread should go back to the first page and carefully read Lisa Steele's article, the link to which was posted by Hallucinator. Lisa is an appellate lawyer in the northeast, and much of her practice is work on behalf of armed citizens who got screwed over in self-defense cases, usually because their original trial attorney didn't understand how to defend these specialized cases. She has loads of BTDT and is the voice of experience in these matters. Thanks for posting the link, Hallucinator.
 
Hallucinator posted:
“Not all cops are idiots. In fact, I hear of more cases where the cops understand the situation than not.”

But following a SD shooting NO cop is your friend.
They are an agent of the state investigating a crime.

“Lisa is an appellate lawyer in the northeast, and much of her practice is work on behalf of armed citizens who got screwed over in self-defense cases, usually because their original trial attorney didn't understand how to defend these specialized cases.”

The “screwed over in self-defense cases” sounds about right for most of the northeast.
 
I have to agree with BillCA. You can't go swimming without getting wet. If you have no training, they'll jump on that. If you have some, They'll exploit it as not enough or just enough to make you dangerous. Even if you had the credentials of Mas Ayoob, they'd be saying; "After training thousands of people, with all your skills, the only thing you could think of was to shoot this poor desperate man"?
By nature, lawyers must take facts, and twist them to their benefit. I'll go with the idea of being informed. At least it's not a crap-shoot.
 
First of all, let's get something out in the open...

If it's a good shoot, it's probably not going to be prosecuted. That is, if the corpse was attacking you, had broken into your occupied home, exhibited any kind of weapon to obtain valuables or committed any kind of felony crime against you, it's unlikely a DA will waist his time trying to prosecute you. That's assuming there are witnesses or evidence to support the contention of self-defense. It may get a little muddy if you're in the woods or at a deserted rest stop, however.

In certain jurisdictions, however, it may be that any case where there is the slightest doubt, the prosecutor will push hard for an indictment. Some D.A.'s have the strange notion that any citizen killing another person, even in self-defense, must be involved in some kind of criminal activity or be a morally corrupt person. It's in these cases we usually see the truth distorted for political gain.

If you're dragged into court in one of these situations, it's always good to spend time talking to your lawyer about any "technical" issues -- such as the use of certain ammo, the type of gear you carried, why O.C. spray wasn't used, why fleeing wasn't an option, etc. Usually the defense gets to know that the prosecution will try to prove with the evidence which allows time to build rebuttals to dramatically misleading statements about the performance of guns, bullets or O.C. sprays. It's also a good time to review any kind of public statements you've made (here or elsewhere) that could be shown in a negative light.

If prosecutors proclaim the bullets are "devastating" for their "explosive effects" your lawyer should be objecting over "facts not in evidence" and challenge the D.A. to show that your ammo does so. Further, your attorney should be reminded to rebut those points when cross-examining witnesses, especially professionals. It may be that simply asking a police officer if he knows that 'x' agencies in the state issue hollow-point ammo.

Much harder is when the prosecution attacks your personal character and credibility. Being caught in a lie to the Police is often damning, but not insurmountable. Having them catch you in several lies destroys your credibility. It's best to say as little as possible until your attorney is present. Things you DO say should be things that will help you later -- such as
- pointing out where a weapon was dropped if it isn't plainly visible
- that one of the grocery-store's bag boys might have witnessed it before running inside.
- The description & direction of travel of an accomplice
- Any assault or injury you sustained (from hands grabbing you to broken bones)

Having such statements at the scene show some cooperation for the investigation and document essential facts without going into detail. Once stated, it's time to avoid trying to be detailed and wait for your lawyer.

I think most cops can probably judge if it's a reasonable shooting or not pretty quickly. I also think that most cops, when they find a legitimate SD shooting, tend to be sympathetic with the defender. That doesn't mean you should be chatty with them, however. But they may not be your enemy either.
 
"If it's a good shoot, it's probably not going to be prosecuted. "

Do not bet your paycheck on that.

"In certain jurisdictions, however, it may be that any case where there is the slightest doubt, the prosecutor will push hard for an indictment. Some D.A.'s have the strange notion that any citizen killing another person, even in self-defense, must be involved in some kind of criminal activity or be a morally corrupt person. It's in these cases we usually see the truth distorted for political gain."

BINGO!
The Arlington County, VA Commonwealths Attorney publicly said he had told the county police to arrest ANY person involved in a shooting in the county.

This was after the state rammed the new concealed 'shall issue' law down his throat.
He then had to be slapped by the State AG for charging more $$ than the new law allowed.
I would fully expect an indictment for any SD shooting in Arlington.
I believe Fairfax would be a little more balanced, since they have passed on a couple prosecutions in the past few years.
 
Disclaimer

Perldog007 is not a legal scholar or licensed attorney. If he tried to play one on TV no one would fall for it.

I read an interesting tidbit in an article by Massad Ayoob. To wit: "If the law is on your side - argue the law. If the facts are on your side - argue the facts. If neither the law or the facts are on your side attack the credibility of the witness/evidence" or words to that effect.

In Virginia we were taught that when a person was killed a second homicide was presumed to have occurred. It was the duty of the state to prove first degree murder and the duty of the defendant to prove self defense.

To me that means "they" are most likely coming for you in the aftermath of a self defense event where the worst has happened.

A logical step from there is to educate yourself as much as possible to prevent your posterior from being submersed in superheated H20.

I am thankful that I have never had to shoot a human, in spite of working as a Special Police Officer in D.C. public housing circa 91-92 when the Capitol had a notorious homicide rate. My training contributed to that happy outcome.

If the worst ever happens, training will keep my mouth shut and eyes and ears open in the aftermath. Training will allow me to articulate why I took the actions I did if I do take the stand. It will show me how to limit my civil liability.

That isn't to say that investigators or prosecutors won't try to use the fact that I have had some training to put me in a bad light. They seem to think that's their job.

YOu pays your money you takes your chances. I choose to take the chance of being trained.

I don't know about court - but I have seen street cops get weird about weapon/ammo selection - method of carry - BUG - spare ammo. Cops are human and good and bad like the rest of us. No reason to think it stops there.

Training, training and more training. That includes reading and discussion groups for me. I don't think there is a one size fits all here, but for me the choice is clear.
 
I'm about to start taking some one on one training courses and this thought popped into my head.

An individual with a black belt is judged differently than an ordinary joe due to the training and lethal skills of the black belt holder. Regular guy accidentally kills someone defending himself is judged differently than a trained hand to hand combat expert...or at least the perception is different to the judge and the jury.

I was also wondering what about competitive shooters. If Jerry Mikulek (sp?) used his revolver in self defense and emptied six shots into a guy in less than two seconds how would his intentions be perceived? Stop or kill?? Obviously that is VERY hypothetical but that's the best example I can come up with.

As someone who's about to get into regular training and competition shooting those are a couple of things that have crossed my mind. You will be able to reason through your actions better due to training but the question of why you did not choose a less lethal shot to neutralize the threat would be on the tip of a super liberal's tongue.
 
You will be able to reason through your actions better due to training but the question of why you did not choose a less lethal shot to neutralize the threat would be on the tip of a super liberal's tongue.
Click to expand...

And if you are properly trained you can demonstrate that your training taught you to shoot to neutralize the threat to your life/loved one. That is shoot to stop, not shoot to kill or shoot to wound.

Most responsible trainers teach that the most reliable method of stopping a deadly attacker is to shoot at center mass until the threat is stopped. Not injured or killed just stopped.

A shot to center mass also has less chance of passing through the deadly threat and killing your innocent neighbor than that Gary Cooper "shooting the knife out of his hand shot" that the super liberal is waxing poetic over.

: Sorry : had to :D

Also leg shots can sever the femoral artery but will not necessarily stop a deadly attack. Same with shooting in the shoulder or arm. The attacker could still bleed out later and kill the intended victim first. Of course this could happen with a center mass hit but the instructors tell us this is where the percentage lies. At least they have every time I have taken a class.
 
The Point:

The original post was not a question of whether or not to get training - that was assumed worthwhile - the point was whether informing police was a wise idea or not if you'd had training. Nor was the latter presented as an answered question one way or the other. It was a discussion point. Seems from what I read here there may not be one answer. And it may be an unknowable - dependent on circumstances - who the DA is in your area - etc, etc.
 
1. Don't tell the police about training - way to much chatter.
2. Training enables you to talk to police in a reasonable fashion.
3. Can it affect the jury - depends on the nuances of the trial. It's well known in jury research that such factors as weapons type, training, gender, etc. can prime ideations negative to your case - if the shoot is ambiguous and the DA can make them strongly. It really depends but it is not a nonissue.
4. NO - you won't see cases report based on that as the legal databases do not report the nuances of the trial presentation. It would have to be brought up as legal issue or appeal. A question to you, won't make the data bases.
 
I always thought SD training - or any training with weapons - would be a plus legally in any "incident"
Click to expand...
There are types of training.

Training for safety, including handling an "event". This enhances your ability to survive (you may face a lot of legal trouble after, but at least you are still present and not pushin' up daisies).

Training for the aftermath which (hopefully) enhances your ability to deal with the legal and societal situation that will most likely follow.

And if you own a firearm for SD, have a lawyer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top