Training & Legal Reprecussions

[ISP2605]

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.

[Capt. Charlie]

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.

I've noted the same thing. Amazing how adrenalin can derail the best laid plans .

[buzz_knox]

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

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.

[ISP2605]

I've noted the same thing. Amazing how adrenalin can derail the best laid plans .

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.

[David Armstrong]

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!"

[BillCA]

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

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.

Personally, more training is usually good. In between training, practice is even better.

[gvf]

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.

[Lurper]

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.

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.

[Double Naught Spy]

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.

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.

[buzz_knox]

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."

[brickeyee]

"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."

But the police on the scene will NOT be making this decision.

It IS going to be made by a DA.

Let your attorney deal with the police and the DA.

[buzz_knox]

But the police on the scene will NOT be making this decision.

It IS going to be made by a DA.

Let your attorney deal with the police and the DA.

The DA will rely on the police reports, as well as discussions with the investigating officers. If every question the DA asks (i.e. "did he know the deceased? Ever seen him before? Did he say why he shot the guye") is answered with "Don't know. The guy refused to say anything to us" the DA is going to be real interested in looking into it further. The investigating officer certainly will be.

And the DA doesn't always make the decision. The DA can leave that to a grand jury who will hear 1) someone died, 2) your weapon was the instrument of death, and 3) you had no answer when asked what happened . . . unless you want to talk to the grand jury. And if the answer to the inevitable question "why didn't you talk to the police" is "I wanted to talk to an attorney first" . . . well, life's going to get interesting.

I know DAs who consider grand juries as tools to get the indictments they want. I know a DA whose motto was "convicting the guilty is easy. Convicting the innocent is the tricky part" and he was only half-joking. I'll take any advantage I can get, and if that means providing sufficient information to the police that my legitimate affirmative defense is established on the police report, so be it.

[brickeyee]

"And the DA doesn't always make the decision. The DA can leave that to a grand jury..."

A distinction wothout a differance since the DA decides to bring the matter before the grand jury.
Usually it means he wants political cover.
"I brough the matter before the grand jury and they refused to issue a true bill."

This is all going to take significant time.

There is no reason to discuss ANYTHING without your attorney present.

[David Armstrong]

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

Sorry Bill, missed that question earlier. While it varies from state to state and to some extent agency policy, as a general rule you are incorrect. You do have the right to call an attorney. Beyond that there are no requirements as they relate to the arrest.