[briandg]

The story that follows is very relevant to defensive shootings, please leave unless decided otherwise. So many people expect everything to be clear, and properly represented to jury and prosecutors.

that is a huge mistake.

about a month ago, a person backed into my vehicle in a parking lot, pinnning one of my passengers between vehicles with slight injuries. The accident was clear as day, the fault of the person in the other vehicle who backed into a parked car and injured a passenger because that driver admittedly didn't look in the rear view windows.

It took over a half hour for over a dozen cops, emts, etc, to clear the scene. When the accident report was finally available, I found several problems.

The digram and measurements were totally wrong.

one of the witnesses told a highly creative and absolutely shameless lie, passing responsibility onto me.

another witness gave distorted report of vehicle positions.

The other person admittted to fault.

My own statements were misrepresented in two areas, leaving doubt on my own truthfulness.

When I contacted the officer who handled the scene and signed the report, that officer told me that my only recourse if the other insurance company would not accept liability was to sue the other person, discredit the false witnesses, prove that the diagram was wrong, and prove that the other person was at fault. The report was an official representation and it could not be amended to reflect my doubts of it's accuracy.

I don't expect an investigation of a self defense shooting to be any more competent.

A person who assumes the best, and expects the legal system to just fall into place behind his testimony and character is fooling himself. A current case is proving that both ways, victim and shooter.