What happens if i have to shoot someone in texas?

Sitting in front of a lap top, thinking of possible, "What if's" and "If I shoot someone?" Is an interesting exercise.

But the reality of a shooting, say at 2am, you awakened from a deep sleep breaking door glass, etc, etc.

Sorry to tell you this, but you have no idea what you will do! The main thing is this, for the average adult person to shoot some one, there has to be one great reason! Fear of great bodily harm being possible, against you or your loved ones, big incentive.

Has the threat been dispatched, was the assailant on their own? 911

"Some one is in my house" Give address, your name.

How all this plays out, as of then, there is no reason to blab on!

Had it happen to me, I called 911, false alarm, some one pulled the screen "locked!" door open, 2AM. But then left.

The snap sound of the catch popping, woke me up. What ever came up on the 911 operators screen, she wanted to make sure I was separated from my gun!

I had met some of the responding Deputy's, when I worked Armed Security at a local gated community. Quite a few times.They checked the down stairs, the garage, round the back of my town house, "Thank You Gentlemen" said I "Keep Safe" "Good night Mike" Painless. No idea how long for the adrenalin to dissipate!

Now if there had been someone bleeding out on my tiles? How would that have played out?
 
One of the reasons I recommend the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (ACLDN) is because they provide every member with a big stack of educational DVDs and a book, all designed to help their members understand the nuances of questions like this. That material alone is worth even more than the cost of the membership package -- but the membership package also includes:

  • Members choose their own lawyers, and are not stuck with a prepaid legal person who may not be a good personal fit;
    .
  • The organization provides a list of lawyers you may wish to contact, but you're not limited to only those choices;
    .
  • Up to $10k goes straight to your lawyer the day you need it -- no delays, no waiting until your name is cleared before you can access benefits or begin setting your legal defense in place, no need for loans or liens to pre-fund your legal defense and hope you'll be reimbursed;
    .
  • Excellent, well-respected use of force experts immediately on your side to help your lawyer put together your self-defense case;
    .
  • More money -- up to a cap of half their war chest, or around $250k -- available as needed for more complex cases;
    .
  • Cases overseen by reputable, knowledgeable experts in the field, including Dennis Tueller, Tom Givens, John Farnam, Marty Hayes, Emmanuel Kappelsohn, and others;
    .
  • Discounts at first tier firearms training schools around the country.

There are a lot of different organizations out there providing some of the same types of aftermath services, but nobody provides the education and immediate access to well-respected expertise that ACLDN does.

pax
 
Regarding the decision of what to say to the police and when to say it.

I would always recommend to anyone who is involved in a self-defense shooting to speak with an attorney experienced in such cases before mouthing a word to the police. That isn't to say that the best course isn't to make a full statement, but at the time of the event you simply will be in no condition to know that. You will have gone through perhaps the most traumatic experience of your life, likely filled with adrenaline, shock and fear, and aren't really in any sort of condition to know the implications of any statements you might make. There is absolutely no need to allow the police to rush you into a statement - the urgency is theirs, not yours.
 
I'm incredibly disappointed in the class you took, it doesn't appear it was a quality venue. I felt the class I took in Austin was top notch. (Feel free to report it to DPS, as they do appreciate that feedback.)

If you don't understand the consequences, you really need to consider if you're prepared to carry.

Look up the following book, it gives you good insight from those who know.
"After you shoot: The Gun is Hot the Perp is not"

PAX and Frank gave some good advice, but be careful acting before you you understand the consequences.

Also, your location will make a difference as to what happens: If you're in Randall, Collin, Loving or Ft Bend Counties with a good shoot, you're likely out of trouble in a week. If you're in San Antonio, Dallas or Houston, you're likely to go to the Grand Jury. If you're in Travis County, history shows you're going to trial.

Good luck.
 
Last edited:
csmsss said:
...I would always recommend to anyone who is involved in a self-defense shooting to speak with an attorney experienced in such cases before mouthing a word to the police....
Click to expand...
That's a common recommendation, but if you are claiming self defense, it's not necessarily the best idea.

  1. Here's what a lawyer and well known commentator on self defense law, Andrew Branca, says about not saying anything to the police without your lawyer:

    • (emphasis in original)
      ...The “say nothing until lawyer” advice is based on the reality that anything you say to police can and may be used against you. It’s certainly true that the only 100% certain way to avoid saying anything incriminating is to say nothing at all.

      Rarely mentioned, however, is that what you DON’T say can also be used against you. Sure, you have a Constitutional right to remain silent, and once you’ve asserted that right your silence cannot be used against you.

      But this privilege applies post-arrest. Your silence before then can certainly be used by the Prosecution to infer guilt—an innocent person would have mentioned self-defense at the time, they’ll argue, and the fact that you did not do so suggests you only fabricated your story of self-defense after the fact to avoid criminal liability....
      Click to expand...

    • (emphasis in original)
      The 911 Call: Be the Complainant, Not the Respondent

      A huge problem for Michael Dunn in his claim of self-defense was the considerable consciousness of guilt evidence he provided to prosecutors. In particular, his flight from the scene well beyond the need to secure his safety and his failure to ever report the shooting to law enforcement before he was arrested at gun point on a murder warrant. This conduct was far more consistent with the behavior of someone who believed he’d “gotten away with it,” than it was with the behavior who believed they’d acted in lawful self-defense. This was especially damaging given that the only evidence of self-defense came from Dunn’s own testimony in court....
      Click to expand...

    • (emphasis in original)
      ...Let’s assume for purposes of this post, then, that you buy into the value of being the complainant rather than the respondent, and you therefore are the first to call 911.

      Taking the “say nothing until I talk to my lawyer” advice literally, exactly what are you going to say when the dispatcher answers your call? “I will say nothing until I’ve spoken to my attorney.” Really? When they ask “what’s your emergency?” surely that statement can’t be your reply. Rather, you’ll necessarily provide some description of what’s happened and the location to which you’re asking law enforcement (and ambulance) be sent.

      So, you’re ALREADY speaking with the police. And as long as you’re doing so, my advice is to get your claim of self-defense into the evidentiary record as soon as possible. You were attacked, you were in fear for your life, you were forced to act in self-defense. Of course, all of this will be recorded, and that recording will be admissible in court. As a result, the jury will get to hear your claim of self-defense in your own words and voice, with all the stress of the moment that such an event necessarily brings with it....
      Click to expand...

  2. It's long been the fact that conduct can be evidence and that a jury may draw inferences from conduct.

    • U.S. v. Perkins, 937 F.2d 1397 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1990), at 1402:
      ...the instruction explicitly stated, "the jury may consider [the false statements] as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt." Id. at 1104. Second, we have approved the use of this instruction on false exculpatory statements. See United States v. Boekelman, 594 F.2d 1238, 1240 (9th Cir.1979) (court noted approval of standard Devitt & Blackmar instruction and distinguished Di Stefano in upholding a variation from the standard instruction); United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435, 443 (9th Cir.1976)....
      Click to expand...

    • State v. Wimbush, 260 Iowa 1262, 150 N.W.2d 653 (Iowa, 1967), at 656:
      ...In Wigmore on Evidence, Third Ed., section 276, Volume II, page 111, under the title 'Conduct as Evidence of Guilt' the editor states: 'It is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused's flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.'

      McCormick on Evidence, section 248, pages 532, 533, puts it thus: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth.' Many acts of a defendant after the crime seeking to escape the toils of the law are received as admissions by conduct, constituting circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and hence of the fact of guilt itself. In this class are flight from the locality after the crime, assuming a false name, resisting arrest, * * *.' See also Jones on Evidence, Fifth Ed., section 386, page 717.

      We have held many times that evidence of escape from custody and flight of an accused is admissible as a criminating circumstance. State v. O'Meara, 190 Iowa 613, 625, 177 N.W. 563, 569; State v. Heath, 202 Iowa 153, 156, 209 N.W. 279, 281; State v. Ford, Iowa, 145 N.W.2d 638, 641. See also 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, section 280, and 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 625 a....
      Click to expand...

    • State v. Lonnecker, 237 Neb. 207, 465 N.W.2d 737 (Neb., 1991), at 743:
      ... Although Clancy involved evidence of the defendant's attempted intimidation or actual intimidation of a State's informant or witness, evidence which was admissible under Neb.Evid.R. 404(2) ("other acts"), the rationale for "conscious guilt" evidence is equally applicable in Lonnecker's case.

      Lonnecker's hiding in the crawl space was evidence of his "conscious guilt" concerning the marijuana located on the premises which were under his control, that is, a conscious guilt concerning possession and cultivation of marijuana as a controlled substance. ...
      Click to expand...

    • Martin v. State, 707 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.App.-Beaumont, 1986), at 245:
      ...In 2 RAY, TEXAS LAW OF EVIDENCE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL sec. 1538 (Texas Practice 3rd ed. 1980), we find:

      "Sec. 1538 Conduct as Evidence of Guilt

      "A 'consciousness of guilt' is perhaps one of the strongest kinds of evidence of guilt. It is consequently a well accepted principle that any conduct on the part of a person accused of crime, subsequent to its commission, which indicates a 'consciousness of guilt' may be received as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged." ...

      See also Cuellar v. State, 613 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Crim.App.1981)....
      Click to expand...

  3. Also see post 6.
 
I was told no matter what if you were even in the right to do so you don't tell the cops nothing until you talk to a lawyer. Near tell the police the story because most are taught you are guilty until proven innocent now days.
 
Oh, well, if you were told differently, I guess it doesn't matter what case law or expert advice says.

pax
 
bungiex88 said:
I was told no matter what if you were even in the right to do so you don't tell the cops nothing until you talk to a lawyer....
Click to expand...
It would be useful to consider who told you that. Anyway, some lawyers and others with some knowledge about how the law works have some different recommendations -- at least when self defense is involved.

See posts 6, 26, and 27.
 
In the case of a 911 call, in which you are reporting some act, an act that you were involved in, you really must give information, at that time, to obtain a response, you did call them, did you not?

The response, in my experience, has been "What is your emergency?"

That sets up the tenure of all that follows?
 
If you say nothing when the cops show up at your self-defense shooting scene, you will be arrested and jailed. Guaranteed. You'll get to talk to your lawyer then. I'll bet that's not going to be the same idiot that advised you to clam up, either.

If you tell them the basic facts, instead, being "I was attacked. I had to shoot. He had a knife. I'm pretty shook right now, I'll give you a full statement tomorrow at the station.", you probably won't be arrested, you probably won't go to jail for a day or two, you won't lose your firearms, and you won't be the laughingstock of the legal community.
 
I know of several defensive shootings, non were arrested that I know about.

It does go to the DA briefly, then no charges filed.
 
Re: The Right to Remain Silent

Being charged with a crime following an SD shooting is fundamentally different than being charged with a garden-variety crime. In many jurisdictions, SD is an affirmative defense. In some jurisdictions, it's a "simple" defense. In either case, it's incumbent on the defendant to produce some evidence that the shooting was, in fact, a case of SD.

That means that in the case of garden-variety charges, a defendant's best posture is often one of: "You can't prove that I did it." In the case of charges arising from an SD event, the SD Shooter/Defendant has to admit to having shot (& perhaps killed) someone in order to claim SD, so his posture is more like: "I did it, but I had a REALLY good reason."

Because of the preceding, it's really important for the SD Shooter to get the investigation off to a good start. If the bad guy threw his knife down a storm drain, the SDS needs to tell the police, "He had a knife and he threw it down that storm drain." If he doesn't, no cop in the world is going to go down that drain looking. If the bad guys used improvised weapons, SDS needs to point them out. Otherwise, the broken bottle with which Thug #1 threatened you is just a broken bottle, not a reason to shoot.

In dealing with the police in the aftermath, the best thing would be to say the right thing. The second best thing is to say nothing. The worst thing would be to say the wrong thing.
 
I know of several defensive shootings, non were arrested that I know about.
Click to expand...
I know of several people who exceed the speed limit on a regular basis. None have been cited that I know about. That doesn't mean I'm going to go whizzing through a school zone at 90mph.

I'm acquainted with several people who've been involved in self-defense shootings. In two of those cases, the situation was fairly obvious, and no arrests were made. Both people had to testify before a grand jury.

Another case involves someone I'll call Bob. A man beat and killed someone in front of several witnesses. The man then took the victim's car and tried to get away. In the process, he struck Bob's car. When Bob stopped, the man attacked him. Bob shot him, again in front of several witnesses.

Bob was charged. Bob had to make bail. Bob had to pay over $4000 in legal fees. Bob got raked over the coals in a very long grand jury investigation before the DA decided not to charge him.

There is simply no way to say that X will happen if you do Y. None. A homicide has been committed, and everything goes on the line.
 
Spats McGee said:
...That means that in the case of garden-variety charges, a defendant's best posture is often one of: "You can't prove that I did it." In the case of charges arising from an SD event, the SD Shooter/Defendant has to admit to having shot (& perhaps killed) someone in order to claim SD, so his posture is more like: "I did it, but I had a REALLY good reason."...
Click to expand...
Folks need to ponder and truly understand what my colleague, Spats McGee, has pointed out here. If you are claiming self defense "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean anything. You will necessarily have to admit to having committed acts which are the elements of the crime you're charged with.

Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:
...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....
Click to expand...
 
Frank, thank you for post #6. Now I have a clear understanding that I did not get in my conceal carry class. I just had the paperwork done and now awaiting my permit. :)
 
Noone can tell you for sure how the process will go after the incident.

One thing to remember though, if you HAVE to shoot someone in self-defense and are legally justified in doing so as your OP says, you are the one that is alive and walking away. You will get to see your family again and did absolutely nothing wrong in defending your own life or someone's life that you care about.
 
markm_04 said:
Noone can tell you for sure how the process will go after the incident.

One thing to remember though, if you HAVE to shoot someone in self-defense and are legally justified in doing so as your OP says, you are the one that is alive and walking away. You will get to see your family again and did absolutely nothing wrong in defending your own life or someone's life that you care about.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the other thing to remember is that the SD Shooter doesn't get to decide whether the shooting was legally justified. That's up to a great many other people including police, investigators, prosecutors, and perhaps a judge and jury.
 
I understand what you are saying and it is true, but if you are six feet under, it really doesn't matter what other people decide then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top