Training & Legal Reprecussions

I was able to get one-on-one training with the former deputy of BCI for the state's A.G. office, and I'm getting more in the future. Also some out of state at Sig that I got through a friend in corrections. I think that beats a University of Phoenix "Mall Ninja" certificate.
 
In some, RARE cases, the judge allows it. In some, even MORE RARE cases, the jury convicts based on it. But, these types of situations are NOT upheld on appeal, because these inquiries are not relevant and are prejudicial to the defendant.
Click to expand...

Can you give some examples where an appeals court has found that a jury was motivated by such factors? Juries aren't polled as to what facts did or did not play into the matter. So, an appeals court would have to find that absent this evidence, the jury could not have found the plaintiff guilty/liable as a matter of law.
 
Good post, Buzz.

For example, in the DC Sniper case, the DA assembled the AR in front of the jury in his opening statement. That was using the well known weapons priming effect first postulated by Berkowitz in his book on the psychology of aggression. Was there an appeal on those grounds?

I don't remember that.
 
I'd figure my training would work in my favor...

If an intruder gets killed... well he's been trained as a Marine, what do you expect?

If an intruder survives... WOW he was trained as a Marine and had the restraint to NOT kill the threat...
 
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.
Click to expand...

Okay, I will try this again. No you should not inform the police of your training if you have been in a shooting. You should know not to say anything to the police beyond requesting your lawyer.

Pretty much across the board, you don't say anything to the police without a lawyer present.
 
The best advice is keep your big mouth SHUT. Tell your attorney about your training (if any) . . . but NOBODY ELSE!!

The less you say, the better.
 
The last two posts sound like the best tactic: leave tactics and what to communicate to your attorney and GET TO ONE QUICK.

Now a practical question: how do you find in your area an attorney with a specialty - or very extensive experience - in SD, and how - and if - do you "set up" a client-attny relationship for future reference. Just ask for a consult and pay the likely high fee involved, or ask your own attny - (one I have worked with in the past has no practical experience in SD cases) - to handle the initial part of any future situation, and ask him for info on who he would get the case referred to that was a specialist? How do any of you have an SD-knowledgeable
attny "at hand" - if you do?
 
Well, here's where you need to do some homework. Start networking - ask your CCW trainer etc for suggestions, and start calling. If someone wants to charge you for a consult, chances are they'll nickle and dime you to death if you need to use their services.
One thing we don't have a shortage of in this area is lawyers. My business lawyer referred me to one gal, and I didn't like her - too aloof for my liking, but waiting at her office, I was talking to another client for another attourney. Not even about firearms, just small chat. He gave me the lawyer's business card. I called him. He didn't specialize in SD, but referred me to someone else. He's top of my list for now, but I'd drop him like a hot rock if I were to meet someone I have even more confidence in.
I don't mean to sound like an old fart with nothing better to do, but if I get the chance, I'm thinking of going to such a trial if I get the chance to; A) See the process, and B) Watch an attourney or two. I've sat for a few hours at court on other business. The problem is, these things are sliced up into so many chunks it's hard to know if you'll watch the process, or sit for an hour to hear a single comment before court is ajourned for the day. It's nothing like the chumps in Hollywood make it seem. It's quite boring (for spectators) usually.
 
Last edited:
What needs to be said:

1. "Officer, this person attacked me. I was in fear from my life. I want to press charges." (Establishes ground work for the affirmative defense of self-defense and puts you in the victim's seat, rather than as a potential suspect).

2. "Please call an ambulance." (Gets you medical attention [which you could very likely need after such an event] and again demonstrates that you are a victim).

3. "I want to cooperate but I need medical attention right now." (Same reason above).

4. "I need to talk with my family." (You should be the one contacting your family, and they should know who your attorney is and how to contact them.)

Telling an officer "I want my lawyer" and nothing else will just peak his interest and suspicion, neither of which you want right then.
 
"4. "I need to talk with my family." (You should be the one contacting your family, and they should know who your attorney is and how to contact them.)"

You have a RIGHT to an attorney.
You do NOT have a right to talk to anyone you want (family or not).

The less information and interaction the better.
You can temper what you say a little if you are in a place that generally responds well to SD events, but you are still giving an elected person (the District or Commonwealth's Attorney) information that can be used against you.

You do not want the DA using the 'spontaneuos speech' exception to Miranda against you.
Better to not get to that point.
 
I've handled a bunch of shootings. I've never seen anyone composed enough to think of the statements offerred here. The normal reaction is for people to run off the head and not shut up no matter how many times we tell them to just stick to the facts. We end up hearing, repeatedly, about things they did that morning, what happened prior to and during the shooting, about their Uncle Fred who was in the war, their kid who is away at college, etc, etc. People just aren't as composed as many here seem to think people should be or what they think they will be.
 
The normal reaction is for people to run off the head and not shut up no matter how many times we tell them to just stick to the facts.
Click to expand...
I've noted the same thing. Amazing how adrenalin can derail the best laid plans ;).
 
You have a RIGHT to an attorney.
You do NOT have a right to talk to anyone you want (family or not).
Click to expand...

If you're in custody, yes. If you're not in custody, things get a lot more interesting.

You can ask the question about talking with your family. If the officer says no, follow up with the attorney. The timeline will then go that you're the victim, he tried to turn you into a suspect, and you asked for an attorney when he started treating you that way.
 
I've noted the same thing. Amazing how adrenalin can derail the best laid plans .
Click to expand...
I'll never forget the possible burglary call I went to one night. It was at the home of a guy I knew. Great big guy. Stood at least 6'6", weighed at least 350. Owned a large construction company and worked construction his entire life. Thought he was some kind of ninja killer. Always playing with guns. Talked the big talk about how no one had ever mess with any of his equipment, him, etc. Thought he heard someone breaking into his house one night and called 911. When I got there he was crying like a baby. Snot running down his chin, crying, wouldn't stop whimpering. I asked him if he'd checked out the house when he heard the noise. Nope, he replied "What would I have done had they been in the house?" Scared to death. Turned out looked like the neighbor's dog had jumped on the door trying to get in the house.
Another incident. We had a dispatcher who worked part time at some of the local PDs. Always talking guns, firearms training, ammo performance, etc. Big talker. One night he stopped a truck which turned out to be 2 escapees from another state in a stolen truck. They jumped him, took his gun, and tried to shoot him but they couldn't figure out how to get the safety off the 459. They kicked him around some and then took off on foot. When we got there another one scared to death. He quit all the part time cop jobs and in the 25 yrs since that incident I've never heard him talk once about guns, training, or any of the other big talk.
 
I may have missed it, but in response to the OP something to keep in mind is what the training was and who was teaching it. There are some instructors, due to the way they teach/advertise, that I can see being a bit of a problem in that civil case. Good basic instruction by recognized and respected trainers is always good. Taking a course from somebody with a questionable background, or a course that emphasizes Rambo-type fantasy probably is a little less so. "Come take this course and become an instant warrior, ready and able to kill 15 opponents without taking a deep breath. Learn why everyone is an enemy to be wary of! Instructor Billy Badass, who has been fired from every place he has worked because he was just too tough for them to take, will unleash the ninja warrior lurking within you!"
 
You have a RIGHT to an attorney.
You do NOT have a right to talk to anyone you want (family or not).
Click to expand...

I thought all arrestees were entitled to two phone calls. Or am I incorrect?

With regard to the OP, I was just discussing this with a local CCW instructor. It used to be that many instructors were "scoring" targets shot in qualification and recording the scores. That practice is now discouraged because it would feed lawyers. On one hand, if your score was marginal they could claim you were a lousy shot and really shouldn't have a permit. If you scored high, that opens the door to questioning why you didn't just "wound" him if you're so good. :rolleyes:

Personally, more training is usually good. In between training, practice is even better.
 
Heard another argument against telling about training: the owner of my range responded to my question of a CCW-trainer he knew and what prices he charged. Range owner said he could put us in touch to discuss possibly working together. He mentioned though - training value aside - legally he didn't think this a good idea and would hurt, as the training could suggest CCW expecting something to happen - and that he might help cause that by "going out looking for it" with his lethal defense training in hand.

Seems kind of ridiculous interpretation, and one I would think easily countered, but who knows, maybe some truth to it.
 
The normal reaction is for people to run off the head and not shut up no matter how many times we tell them to just stick to the facts.
Click to expand...
This is why you should visualize and mentally rehearse before the incident happens. Chances are you will want to or feel the need to talk to someone about it. The police are not the ones you want to talk to about it. At best, they are a neutral third party, their job is to investigate not validate your feelings, etc. Have someone you can call when that happens (preferably a spouse or your atty) after you have told the police that you wish to have your attorney present. Have the conversation out of earshot of the police.

As far as training goes, it can be a double edged sword. It depends on who you took the training from and how you, the trainer, your attitude and actions are percieved by the jury.
 
Heard another argument against telling about training: the owner of my range responded to my question of a CCW-trainer he knew and what prices he charged. Range owner said he could put us in touch to discuss possibly working together. He mentioned though - training value aside - legally he didn't think this a good idea and would hurt, as the training could suggest CCW expecting something to happen - and that he might help cause that by "going out looking for it" with his lethal defense training in hand.

Seems kind of ridiculous interpretation, and one I would think easily countered, but who knows, maybe some truth to it.
Click to expand...

But why would you want to tell the cops of your training after you have been in a shooting? What could you possibly hope to gain be divulging such information? Your statements of your training are not going to change the events that transpired or change the legality of the events.

As for the range owner's interpretation of how things might happen, he isn't a lawyer. If he was, he would likely know that the argument has been made time and time again that legally carrying a gun makes a person look like they were going out and looking for trouble. It is a stupid tactic that does not work. It is part of that whole, "If you are prepared for trouble you must be looking for trouble" argument and is easily put to rest.

Opposition lawyers can take just about any tactic they want to paint you in a bad light, and many will. That is why you don't talk to the cops after a shooting, especially a homicide. There is no reason to voluntarily provide information about yourself that can be used against you.

Case and point, Harold Fish. I don't know if he was guilty or not. He openly chatted with the cops about his "self defense" shooting because he supposedly thought he had done no wrong. The problem turned out that his version of the story didn't fit the forensic evidence and he was the only visual witness to the shooting. There were auditory witnesses who heard the shot and who placed the time of the shooting quite some time different from when Fish claimed, hence part of the mismatch. Anyways, one of the things the opposition lawyer did was to note the use of horrible hollowpoint ammo. Fish's lawyer was a moron and apparently didn't do anything to dispell with notion that hollowpoint ammo was particularly nasty or bother to note that it is commonly used by cops and citizens. The hollowpoint ammo claim was bogus, but unchallenged.

Expect all aspects of the shooting to come under scrutiny, including your background, but don't freely divulge unnecessary information to the cops.
 
Is "Don't talk to the cops" a general statement in this area? If so, it's going to make it incredibly hard to prove self-defense as that requires an actual and reasonable belief that your life or the life of an innocent was in danger. Both the subjective and objective portions of the test will often be determined by your statement of what happened, and the investigating officer's impression thereof, as well as the facts.

Stating "don't talk" is quite different than "don't talk until you've had medical attention and legal advice."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top