After the fact - Page 2

JohnH1963 · November 16, 2009, 11:15 AM

Oh no, you want to say as little as possible to the police. I would just give them name, rank, serial # and just the pure basics. I would not go beyond that and offer any explanations.

"This is my id, these are the weapons (thats his, this is mine), that is the bad guy, he attacked me, those people witnessed it, I will sign a complaint against him and I won't say or do anything more without an attorney. When can I leave?"

Imagine the police being the principal of a school and the suspects little kids. The principal goes into the classroom trying to figure out what happened, but no one is admitting to it. So the principal finds other ways to send someone to detention. The police are the same way. They will find a way to justify their suspicions to the jury. Whatever you say will be twisted by the police somehow.

Lets say you disturbed the crime scene by moving the weapon. The police can find out later when your attorney is present and has advised you further.

SigP6Carry · November 16, 2009, 07:31 PM

John H, what I meant was that you answered my question, but the answer to my question is that there is no real answer.

I'll use a specific fictional scenario to explain my question.
Say I'm in a restaurant or store and a gunman walks in and fires shots and starts yelling. Before he can hurt someone, I return fire and hit him multiple times in center mass and he goes down (don't argue over this statement or caliber, it's not the point. If you want, I can write a short story or something

) and when I approach him his eyes are open, he's breathing and he's cognizant, but his gun has been dropped and landed about a foot and a half from his right (my left) hand side. What do I do with his loaded and recently fired and handled gun?

Evan Thomas · November 17, 2009, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomme

Say I'm in a restaurant or store and a gunman walks in and fires shots and starts yelling. Before he can hurt someone, I return fire and hit him multiple times in center mass and he goes down (don't argue over this statement or caliber, it's not the point. If you want, I can write a short story or something ) and when I approach him his eyes are open, he's breathing and he's cognizant, but his gun has been dropped and landed about a foot and a half from his right (my left) hand side. What do I do with his loaded and recently fired and handled gun?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnH1963

If it were me, I would carefully slide the weapon with my foot as far as I could away from the assailant and while covering them. I would slide it the furthest practical distance away...10-20 feet if not more. The only time I would not slide the weapon away is if the assailant is obviously dead...a bullet through the head or a huge pool of blood on the ground and assailant not breathing. That is the only reasonable action to take. Would a jury find it unreasonable that you slid the weapon out of reach of the assailant?

Thomme, in your scenario, I think JohnH's reply, above, is still the best answer.

Think about it this way: you've shot the gunman and stopped the threat -- he's down, and his weapon is out of his hand but within his reach. Which answer would you rather have to give, once you're lawyered up and answering the investigating officer's questions?

This:
"Sir, I thought he was going for his gun, so I shot him again after he was down."

Or this:
"Sir, I was concerned that he might go for the gun again, so I slid it out of his reach."

I'd really hate to have to explain why I shot a BG again after he was down, if I could have eliminated the threat just by moving the gun...

jtc2162 · November 17, 2009, 01:20 PM

Once you've slid it from his reach, it's probably not a bad idea to stand between him and his weapon until the police arrive.

KingEdward · November 18, 2009, 04:37 PM

I had this at home regarding "after a shooting"

Re-read it over lunch and here it is in summary...

it's from Massad Ayoob and is pretty thorough...

1) stick to five bare-bones statements when questioned. First, “This man attacked me.” It makes clear from the beginning that you’re the Victim and the guy you were forced to shoot was the Perpetrator.

Second, “I will sign the complaint.” You’re speaking the cop’s language, and further locking in the facts of who’s who and what’s what: you are the Good Guy or Gal, and the guy on the ground is the Bad Guy.

Third, point out the evidence. If you don’t, it can disappear or get moved. In Case Eight in Illinois, a gangbanger attacked a cop and tried to rip his Smith & Wesson 9mm out of his holster and murder him with it. The cop wound up having to shoot and kill him in self-defense. Not until I got there to examine the evidence for trial did anyone bother to examine the uniform pants the officer was wearing; they were torn in the holster area, confirming the officer’s version of events. By then he had been charged with an illegal homicide, and had to go all the way through trial to win acquittal.

Fourth, point out the witnesses. Their words may well exonerate you, but the general public fears reprisal by the genuine criminals who attacked you, or their accomplices, and may be reluctant to come forward on their own. The only way to be sure that testimony that may exonerate you will be taken, is for you to point out to police the witnesses who saw you shoot your attacker in self-defense.

Fifth, and critically important, “Officer, you’ll have my full cooperation after I’ve spoken with counsel.” Stick to that like name, rank, and serial number. Experts tell us that it will be a minimum of 24 to perhaps 72 hours before you’ll be in any condition to deal with a full interrogation. And that interrogation (the more politically correct term “interview” is used now) should not take place until you’ve discussed it with your attorney in depth. Nor should it take place, in my opinion, without the attorney right there with you, and a legal stenographic service’s camcorder rolling to record it for your side, just in case.

Bottom Line
Cops are trained to get guilty people to say incriminating things they didn’t really want to say. The same tactics can get innocent people to say things that someone erroneously convinced of their guilt could use against them, particularly when they are interrogated in the hugely stressful immediate aftermath of having faced death and been forced to extinguish a human life. This is why virtually all of us who are involved in this sort of thing on a regular basis advise that the justified shooter should not submit to a detailed interview until they’ve had time to come down from the stress flood and acquire legal counsel.

At the same time, saying nothing means that your story, the truth, is not being told. Cops see so many criminal uses of force that, when they don’t yet know who’s who, it’s only natural for them to assume that the guy on the ground is the victim and the guy standing with the smoking gun is the perpetrator. That’s why, at this moment, it is wise to get across the five points suggested above, and then shut up and wait for an attorney.

November 16, 2009, 07:31 PM	#27
SigP6Carry Senior Member Join Date: August 27, 2009 Posts: 1,086	John H, what I meant was that you answered my question, but the answer to my question is that there is no real answer. I'll use a specific fictional scenario to explain my question. Say I'm in a restaurant or store and a gunman walks in and fires shots and starts yelling. Before he can hurt someone, I return fire and hit him multiple times in center mass and he goes down (don't argue over this statement or caliber, it's not the point. If you want, I can write a short story or something ) and when I approach him his eyes are open, he's breathing and he's cognizant, but his gun has been dropped and landed about a foot and a half from his right (my left) hand side. What do I do with his loaded and recently fired and handled gun? __________________ -liberal gun nut = exception to the rule- -1.24274238 miles, because Russians don't need scopes- -Gun control was the Klan's favorite law, how can you advocate a set of laws designed to allow the denigration of a people?-

November 18, 2009, 04:37 PM	#30
KingEdward Senior Member Join Date: April 22, 2009 Location: The Volunteer State Posts: 439	5 points after a shooting I had this at home regarding "after a shooting" Re-read it over lunch and here it is in summary... it's from Massad Ayoob and is pretty thorough... 1) stick to five bare-bones statements when questioned. First, “This man attacked me.” It makes clear from the beginning that you’re the Victim and the guy you were forced to shoot was the Perpetrator. Second, “I will sign the complaint.” You’re speaking the cop’s language, and further locking in the facts of who’s who and what’s what: you are the Good Guy or Gal, and the guy on the ground is the Bad Guy. Third, point out the evidence. If you don’t, it can disappear or get moved. In Case Eight in Illinois, a gangbanger attacked a cop and tried to rip his Smith & Wesson 9mm out of his holster and murder him with it. The cop wound up having to shoot and kill him in self-defense. Not until I got there to examine the evidence for trial did anyone bother to examine the uniform pants the officer was wearing; they were torn in the holster area, confirming the officer’s version of events. By then he had been charged with an illegal homicide, and had to go all the way through trial to win acquittal. Fourth, point out the witnesses. Their words may well exonerate you, but the general public fears reprisal by the genuine criminals who attacked you, or their accomplices, and may be reluctant to come forward on their own. The only way to be sure that testimony that may exonerate you will be taken, is for you to point out to police the witnesses who saw you shoot your attacker in self-defense. Fifth, and critically important, “Officer, you’ll have my full cooperation after I’ve spoken with counsel.” Stick to that like name, rank, and serial number. Experts tell us that it will be a minimum of 24 to perhaps 72 hours before you’ll be in any condition to deal with a full interrogation. And that interrogation (the more politically correct term “interview” is used now) should not take place until you’ve discussed it with your attorney in depth. Nor should it take place, in my opinion, without the attorney right there with you, and a legal stenographic service’s camcorder rolling to record it for your side, just in case. Bottom Line Cops are trained to get guilty people to say incriminating things they didn’t really want to say. The same tactics can get innocent people to say things that someone erroneously convinced of their guilt could use against them, particularly when they are interrogated in the hugely stressful immediate aftermath of having faced death and been forced to extinguish a human life. This is why virtually all of us who are involved in this sort of thing on a regular basis advise that the justified shooter should not submit to a detailed interview until they’ve had time to come down from the stress flood and acquire legal counsel. At the same time, saying nothing means that your story, the truth, is not being told. Cops see so many criminal uses of force that, when they don’t yet know who’s who, it’s only natural for them to assume that the guy on the ground is the victim and the guy standing with the smoking gun is the perpetrator. That’s why, at this moment, it is wise to get across the five points suggested above, and then shut up and wait for an attorney.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

November 16, 2009, 11:15 AM	#26
JohnH1963 Junior member Join Date: October 22, 2008 Posts: 416	Oh no, you want to say as little as possible to the police. I would just give them name, rank, serial # and just the pure basics. I would not go beyond that and offer any explanations. "This is my id, these are the weapons (thats his, this is mine), that is the bad guy, he attacked me, those people witnessed it, I will sign a complaint against him and I won't say or do anything more without an attorney. When can I leave?" Imagine the police being the principal of a school and the suspects little kids. The principal goes into the classroom trying to figure out what happened, but no one is admitting to it. So the principal finds other ways to send someone to detention. The police are the same way. They will find a way to justify their suspicions to the jury. Whatever you say will be twisted by the police somehow. Lets say you disturbed the crime scene by moving the weapon. The police can find out later when your attorney is present and has advised you further.

November 17, 2009, 01:20 PM	#29
jtc2162 Junior member Join Date: October 28, 2009 Posts: 76	Once you've slid it from his reach, it's probably not a bad idea to stand between him and his weapon until the police arrive.