What happens if i have to shoot someone in texas?

Oh, well, if you were told differently, I guess it doesn't matter what case law or expert advice says.

pax
Click to expand...

Wait, are you advising someone to not wait for their attorney before speaking with police? Trying to get more clarity on what your advice is.
 
Wait, are you advising someone to not wait for their attorney before speaking with police? Trying to get more clarity on what your advice is.
Click to expand...
I don't believe she, or anyone else in the thread, is saying that.

You do need to be careful what you do say to law enforcement. You're going to be coming down off a tremendous adrenaline rush, and you may blab something that could be used against you later.

"He kicked in the door and attacked me with a knife" is good. It helps establish the situation.

"That ratchety sleazebucket deserved a few extra holes" is not so good. It implies a vigilante mindset.

Generally, the best thing to do is give law enforcement the information they need to secure and process the scene. That guy on the floor kicked in my door. He had the knife that's over there. I discharged this weapon. Those two people there witnessed the event. I'll be glad to cooperate, but I'm a mess right now. I'd like to have an attorney present during questioning.

I suppose I have the right to clam up and refuse to say anything, but that could lead to critical evidence being overlooked.
 
Quote:
Wait, are you advising someone to not wait for their attorney before speaking with police? Trying to get more clarity on what your advice is.
I don't believe she, or anyone else in the thread, is saying that.

You do need to be careful what you do say to law enforcement. You're going to be coming down off a tremendous adrenaline rush, and you may blab something that could be used against you later.

"He kicked in the door and attacked me with a knife" is good. It helps establish the situation.

"That ratchety sleazebucket deserved a few extra holes" is not so good. It implies a vigilante mindset.

Generally, the best thing to do is give law enforcement the information they need to secure and process the scene. That guy on the floor kicked in my door. He had the knife that's over there. I discharged this weapon. Those two people there witnessed the event. I'll be glad to cooperate, but I'm a mess right now. I'd like to have an attorney present during questioning.

I suppose I have the right to clam up and refuse to say anything, but that could lead to critical evidence being overlooked.
Click to expand...

Ok, as noted was trying to clarify. Your statements above are exactly in line with what I have been told as well (at least for Texas).
 
I live in Georgia, so I can't speak for what goes on in Texas, but we have almost daily CCW usage in the news here and I have yet to hear of the defender getting arrested. Just in the last month, we have a man at a car wash shoot the driver of SOMEONE ELSE'S carjacked car,a man defending his life during a smoke shop robbery and a man holds a would be carjacker at gunpoint until police arrive. That's just outside the home ccw, this doesn't include thw dozens of burglars that get shot every year. But I have yet to hear a case of the ccw holder getting arrested after a "good" shoot. I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen and tgat we shoukdnt take time to understand the laws and repercussions, I just think its outside the normal to be put in cuffs IF the police have reason to believe you were in fear of injury or death. But like I said, this is Georgia, and the courts seem to be working on our side lately.
 
In NJ you'd end up in jail. Even though we do have some right to self defense, most prosecutors are of the opinion you should just go ahead and get die. Then the cops will arrest them and they'll go to jail for murder. :p
 
skizzums said:
. . . . I just think its outside the normal to be put in cuffs IF the police have reason to believe you were in fear of injury or death.
Click to expand...
It's also important to remember that the police also put people in cuffs for officer safety. I've heard a lot of griping about that phrase ("officer safety") over the years, but even if the police have a hunch that it really was SD, the shooter may find himself or herself in handcuffs for a while.
 
markm_04 said:
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.
Click to expand...
True enough, but there's a line of thinking that goes something like this: "a good shoot is a good shoot." The same folks that spout that overlook the fact that the shooter doesn't get to make that call.
 
skizzums said:
...I have yet to hear a case of the ccw holder getting arrested after a "good" shoot....
Click to expand...
But again, you don't get to decide if ir was a good shoot. If the police and prosecutor decide it was a good shoot you won't be arrested (or you'll be arrested and quickly cleared). But if you thing it was a good shoot, but the prosecutor and/or grand jury don't, you will get arrested; and it won't be a good shoot unless the jury at your trial decides it is.

zincwarrior said:
....As noted, jurisdiction matters a lot....
Click to expand...
Maybe or maybe not. See post 6. Hickey, Abshire and Fish were in "gun friendly" States.
 
Of all the SD shootings noted above, where the shooter was not arrested, how many of them involved the shooter clamming up when the police showed up, refusing to say anything without a lawyer?

I'm betting not a single one.

Also, several shootings were in public, with witnesses, giving the police more than just the shooter's word for it.

When the police show up and find you standing over a body, or two, with a smoking gun in your hand, you'd better tell them the basics. "This is my house. I live here. I woke up and found these men in the hall. They attacked me. I was afraid for my life. I shot them both. They had a screwdriver and that iron bar you see on the floor. I'm pretty shook, I'll make a full statement tomorrow downtown. What time should my lawyer and I come by?"
 
kilimanjaro said:
Of all the SD shootings noted above, where the shooter was not arrested, how many of them involved the shooter clamming up when the police showed up, refusing to say anything without a lawyer?

I'm betting not a single one.....
Click to expand...
How would we know?

kilimanjaro said:
...Also, several shootings were in public, with witnesses, giving the police more than just the shooter's word for it....
Click to expand...
Except you really don't understand about the problems with eyewitnesses.

The unreliability of eyewitnesses is well studied and well known. See, for example the article "The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony" as published in the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies. An eyewitness might easily conclude that you were the assailant and that you threatened an innocent man with your gun.

Some of the problems with eyewitnesses were outlined by Lisa Steele in part 2 of her article (see post 36 for links):

  • ...The nature of a self-defense situation generally means that the client and the witnesses will not be able to accurately recall what happened. This is normal. Self-defense situations develop very quickly. Bystanders who were not paying attention to the situation may not take notice until after a loud noise or sudden movement. Thus, they may miss important cues that led the client to believe he or she was in imminent danger. Once a weapon has been displayed, weapon focus will cause the witnesses to watch it, and perhaps miss other important events during the incident . . .
    Click to expand...

  • ...Eyewitnesses may significantly overestimate or underestimate distance and event duration. They may get the sequence of events wrong. Unfortunately, the jury may regard the misperceptions of neutral witnesses as more persuasive than the client’s testimony, or even regard conflicts between the testimony of the client and the witness as a sign that the client is lying. The attorney needs to keep in mind the usual issues of stress, lighting, distance, contrast, and event duration when questioning witnesses....
    Click to expand...

  • ...The second problem the attorney will encounter with witnesses and the client is the effects of after-acquired information on memory. The attorney should look very carefully at the timing of interviews, statements, media reports, and other information which may cause the memory of a witness to change in order to match after-acquired knowledge....
    Click to expand...

  • ...Hindsight bias is related to the after-acquired knowledge problem. A witness who knows the outcome of an event may retroactively feel that the outcome was obvious....
    Click to expand...

And check out Gerald Ung, referred to in post six. He was attacked by six men, the attack was recorded on video. He was still charged and stood trial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top