Get a lawyer before talking to police

[Frank Ettin]

I think Steve meant, "I wouldn't go that far."

And, AB, with respect, I'd tend to agree with Steve. Even with the greatest attention and best intentions a minor violation will slip through or unexpectedly show up.

[steve4102]

Thanks Frank, Fixed it.

[ClydeFrog]

I agree 100% with the TFL member's first remarks(topic post) but Id add a few things;
1st) A big problem that many license holders/armed citizens(not trained, armed-sworn LE officers who follow SOPs or doctrine) do not consider is what to do with the firearm.
I saw a recent online video where the host advised CCW holders to unload the firearm or put it on the ground/return it to your holster.
I strongly disagree with these statements. In a high stress, chaotic event, you need to keep the firearm with you or have the wounded subject(s) covered until LE/back up can arrive. Id advise the 911 call center or LE agency dispatcher of what I look like, the basic condition & description of the wounded subject, my location(if available), if there are any witnesses-bystanders, and that I was armed. I would let the PD or patrol deputies clear the scene & decide how to treat or deal with the subject.
2) I agree that you should give basic details or information to the first responders/investigators but keep your civil rights & due process in mind.
LE officers & detectives are trained to evoke responses or gather information. To request a atty or remain silent is the best way to avoid legal hassles or problems later on. LE officers are also not required to be honest or truthful either,
3) To have a lawyer or pre-paid legal services available is smart too. There are a few choices now for armed citizens & CCW license holders.
As noted, you may be formally arrested & booked into a jail or corrections complex. I can tell you it's not fun(from either side of the process ) but if you are in the right & can be ready to prove your case(actions) that will help in the long run.
4) Id also advise that any armed citizens in a critical incident or lethal force event not expect any "eyewitnesses" or people who claim to know what happened to be fair, honest or able to assist you. I've seen several cases doing security work in urban areas of people recanting statements, lying, making threats, stealing or tampering with crime scene evidence, etc.
If you can, use a smart phone or DV system to document the area & record anyone near the scene. Do not touch or handle any weapons, spent cases, etc of the subject unless it's necessary to preserve it. Let the CSI techs or LE investigators process the scene unless weather or some gawker/street person wants to grab an item(yes, that does happen).

Clyde

[johnelmore]

The example I made with the trucks, I believe, is an excellent point. You can inspect those trucks up and down but still be missing something. The simple truth is any trooper or patrolman can find something on any truck on the road.

In that respect, you might believe what you did was the right thing in a self defense situation. You might have taken classes, been instructed by lawyers and believe that your actions conformed 100% to the law, but there might be something you missed. So you have to be incredibly careful with what you say to the police. Some individuals might be better off staying silent letting an attorney speak for them.

As for pointing out evidence, witnesses or identifying yourself that probably wont get you in any additional trouble. That is if you were totally in the right and that evidence supports it.

I have a collection of firearms. I buy no less than 5 firearms each year. I trade, collect and go out every weekend the weather is pleasant to use them for sport. I have an attorney on-call for these matters. I have a few attornies for different things from taxes to compliance to the labor law, etc. I let them handle these matters because there might be something I missed.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by johnelmore

As for pointing out evidence, witnesses or identifying yourself that probably wont get you in any additional trouble. That is if you were totally in the right and that evidence supports it.

One of the key points in advising folks on how to handle the police in the aftermath of a shooting is this: In many jurisdictions, SD is an affirmative defense. In other words, the burden is on the defendant to prove that the shooting really was SD. That makes it critical that the investigation start off on the right foot. That investigation starts as soon as the police arrive on scene. Unless the shooter wants to risk the police overlooking evidence or witnesses, he or she is going to have to talk to them. It's important that everyone who CCs take some time to understand how to handle that.

[ClydeFrog]

I agree in principle with the last posted comments but it's not always prudent or practical.
You will need to justify your statements or actions in a lethal force incident but you are also entitled to due process & you do not lose or suspend your civil rights.
You(as a suspect or defendant) are still innocent until proven guilty in the US legal system.
Yes, you do want a post-incident event to go smooth but not all criminal investigators/sworn LE are honest or fair.
One of the police investigators involved in the high profile 2012 George Zimmerman case reportedly told a well known defense atty(who he requested to have on retainer for future legal actions) that he felt "pressured" to file criminal charges in the incident.

Another more recent event in my metro area involved a patrol officer, shot & killed while on duty. The veteran officer had a DV body-cam unit but reportedly had it shut off during the incident where he was later murdered.
The cop worked in a upscale community & constantly interacted with high-profile(celebrity) residents with wealth/connections.
In my view, he might have kept the DV system cut off to avoid any scrutiny of his conduct while on duty or knowing his job could be on the line if he were caught lying, using insults/slurs, etc.

CF

[leadcounsel]

One other important point to consider is this:

Unless the other guy immediately dies, he may very well give his *side* of the story. It could be immediately, or it could be in hours or days later. He will certainly claim to be the victim, simply minding his own business when you tried to rob him and shot him! His family will pour out of the woodwork to publicly talk about how he is a good, quiet, law abiding man. Again, reference the Zimmerman trial and how that punk Martin was made out to be an angel by the press!

Witnesses to the event, let's assume that they are neutral and the event occurs in public, will also be giving their versions. Some may not be favorable because people perceive events differently.

And often it's simply not clear what happened. Witnesses start watching at different times, have different angles, and bring differing world views to each event. For instance, if all they saw was you shoot someone, and they didn't see the other guy start the assault, then their perspective is that you simply shot a guy in the parking lot, and they may assume YOU are the assailant!

If you simply invoke immediately, you lose the initiative and a golden opportunity to tell your version first, which is very important. Again, the key is understanding what IS important to say, and understanding the law of lethal self defense. If your version was, "His music was too loud, so I told him to turn it down, and he flipped me the bird, so I shot him..." well then you're better off remaining silent, because that won't help you!"

[Tom Servo]

You will need to justify your statements or actions in a lethal force incident but you are also entitled to due process & you do not lose or suspend your civil rights. You(as a suspect or defendant) are still innocent until proven guilty in the US legal system.

There are always shades of gray when prosecutors and juries get involved. The memories of witnesses can get hazy, and they can be inaccurate immediately after the fact.

The advice I was given by a prominent instructor (name rhymes with "hi, you") was this:

• That man over there...yeah...the one on the floor
• attacked me with that weapon.
• I was in fear for my life.
• I used that weapon over there...yes, the one on the table.
• That person and that person witnessed it.
• I want to help as much as possible, but I'm really in no shape to make any further statements. I'd like to speak with an attorney. I'm sure you can understand.

Do not take the officer or detective's word that no charges will be filed. This was a crucial mistake made by Zimmerman. Contact a lawyer as soon as possible so he can help going forward.

However, helping police secure the scene and gather evidence is not only a good idea, it might help the perception that you the victim of a crime and you are doing what you can to help.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Spats McGee

One of the key points in advising folks on how to handle the police in the aftermath of a shooting is this: In many jurisdictions, SD is an affirmative defense. In other words, the burden is on the defendant to prove that the shooting really was SD. That makes it critical that the investigation start off on the right foot....

And even in jurisdictions in which you don't have the burden of proof in a self defense claim, you will have the burden of production, i. e., you must be able to produce sufficient evidence to make a prima facie (on its face) case that all the elements necessary for your act of violence to have been legally justified have been satisfied. If you can not make a prima facie case, you will not get a self defense jury instruction, i. e., the jury essentially will not be told that they can find you not guilty if they found that you acted in self defense.

And remember that claiming self defense means, essentially, that you will have to admit that you intentionally threatened or committed an act of violence against another person. Once you've decided that you are going to try to avoid criminal responsibility for your act of violence by pleading self defense you no longer have the luxury of being able to waffle.

You won't be able to get away with, "I didn't do it; and if you don't believe that, it was an accident; and if you don't believe that, it was self defense." You will have to admit, "Yes, I shot the guy, and I intended to shoot him." And once you get to that point, the only way you avoid going to jail is by getting the district attorney and/or the grand jury and/or a trial jury to conclude that you were justified in shooting him.

Originally Posted by johnelmore

...As for pointing out evidence, witnesses or identifying yourself that probably wont get you in any additional trouble. That is if you were totally in the right and that evidence supports it....

But since as noted above a claim of self defense requires admitting your intentional act of violence, if you aren't totally in the right and/or the evidence doesn't support that claim, you will lose. What your proper handling of the aftermath of a self defense incident can do for you is better support and preserve your self defense claim. It won't buy you wiggle room.

[Fishing_Cabin]

Just another person that agrees with what Frank, Spats, and the other lawyers have said.

Unfortunately when dealing with legal matters, it is difficult for some to separate the emotions from what is in their best interest. Beyond the legal aspect, a lawyer will help greatly with this aspect. If one knows that he/she has trouble with the emotional aspect, I would recommend a lawyer handling most contacts with law enforcement or the courts, and following their advice on which way to proceed.

As to a lawyer just in case, there is probably a lot to be said about knowing who is a well rounded "general" lawyer in your area and keep a business card, contact info, etc in your wallet if something ever comes up.

Keep in mind, the lawyer is just an asset, pick him/her wisely, do not have unreasonable expectations, and stay within your lawyers advice.

[ammo.crafter]

Always retain counsel when arrested or believe you will be arrested.
Always take advantage of your right of self-incrimmination and remain silent.
Always retain counsel who is conversant in the offense at hand; do not use a free family friend who does not actively practice in the specific area of law that you require.

[Panfisher]

I guess I've just never had a bad experience with law enforcement so I am not concerned about speaking to them. I don't plan to tell my life story or anything but if they ask questions I'll answer them. I have been stopped twice by bored county deputies (rural area) who found a license plate light out, and one that the trailer lights on my boat were going on and off with each bump in the road due to a bad ground wire. Both could have written me up, I actually thanked both officers for letting me know what was wrong so I could fix it, heck I can't see the license plate light from inside my truck. No ticket, at least one officer acted as though he REALLY wanted to write me a ticket, but I its tougher to do to someone who is polite and appreciative, I wore a uniform and badge for about 20 years so I have a positive bias toward LEO's in general. FWIW I was not a cop, I was a Park Ranger.

[mikejonestkd]

I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TV, nor did I sleep at a holiday inn last night. However, I have been involved in self defense training on college campuses for almost 30 years, and all the advise I have received from numerous lawyers and law enforcement officers mirrors Frank Ettin's post #5.

Saying something like, "That person (or those people) attacked me." You are thus immediately identifying yourself as the victim. It also helps get the investigation off on the right track.
Saying something like, "I will sign a complaint." You are thus immediately identifying the other guys(s) as the criminal(s).
Pointing out possible evidence, especially evidence that may not be immediate apparent. You don't want any such evidence to be missed.
Pointing out possible witnesses before they vanish.
Then saying something like, "I'm not going to say anything more right now. You'll have my full cooperation in 24 hours, after I've talked with my lawyer."

The above are the same instructions that I tell every group of students that I work with. Your communication with responding officers needs to be clear and simple - who, what, when, and where.

[KyJim]

Unless the other guy immediately dies, he may very well give his *side* of the story. It could be immediately, or it could be in hours or days later.

True, and also remember that not everyone who is shot dies. The shooter may be facing an assault or attempted murder charge instead of a homicide.

[James K]

"That investigation starts as soon as the police arrive on scene."

Well, maybe. The investigation may start then, but the occurrences being investigated start before that, maybe a long time before. The 911 call will be part of the investigation. So will the prior actions of the (presumably) self-defense shooter and the victim. And the investigation may turn up information the "innocent" party would rather not have revealed, with unpredictable results.

Jim

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by James K

...The 911 call will be part of the investigation. So will the prior actions of the (presumably) self-defense shooter and the victim. And the investigation may turn up information the "innocent" party would rather not have revealed, with unpredictable results.

Yes, that is true. However, it is also unavoidable. Once you have threatened or used lethal force against another person you have prima facie committed a crime. So if you threatened or used that force in what you will claim was justified self defense and expect to be able to avoid criminal responsibility on that basis, the question we're considering is what you can do post incident to best support and preserve that claim.

[leadcounsel]

The investigation may start then, but the occurrences being investigated start before that, maybe a long time before.

Including social media postings, youtube videos, bloodlust internet postings, internet pictures of yourself with evil looking guns, etc...

So, keep that in mind. This stuff all tends to surface in criminal trials. While YOU might invoke your right to remain silent, YOU might be giving statements inadvertently when irresponsible and out-of-context internet postings are presented to the prosecutor or judge or jury...

So take down that "Shoot first ask questions later" or other stupid signs on your front door, your bumper sticker, stop wearing those silly T-shirts, no blood lust style postings on the web, etc.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by leadcounsel

Including social media postings, youtube videos, bloodlust internet postings, internet pictures of yourself with evil looking guns, etc...

So, keep that in mind. This stuff all tends to surface in criminal trials. While YOU might invoke your right to remain silent, YOU might be giving statements inadvertently when irresponsible and out-of-context internet postings are presented to the prosecutor or judge or jury...

And that is true. Everything you have said or done prior to the incident is out there already and fair game. Nothing you could say or do after the incident will erase any of it.

[TDL]

I think Branca's advice is very good. And I agree with the approach of the people wisely supporting it.

Branca's tenents are succinct, logical and broad enough to fit most SD cases I can imagine.

That said, when you do invoke right to attorney at the point Branca, Spats et all sagely advise, or even after, at that point you still in some situations will come under withering pressure from the investigating officers that your silence or request of an attorney implies guilt.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by TDL: ...when you do invoke right to attorney at the point Branca, Spats et all sagely advise, or even after, at that point you still in some situations will come under withering pressure from the investigating officers that your silence or request of an attorney implies guilt.

And according to Salinas v. Texas, your silence before you have been arrested may be used against you.

I do not see any problem with saying that you had reason to believe that you had been forced to defend yourself (I would not elucidate), and that you did it with a particular weapon. You are going to have to admit those facts anyway, if you do mount a defense of justification.

Ayoob used to advise saying something like "officer, you know how important this is--you will have my full cooperation in 24 hours after I have spoken with my attorney". So far, I've seen nothing to indicate against that reommentdation.

[iraiam]

And according to Salinas v. Texas, your silence before you have been arrested may be used against you.

They can use my silence against me all they want, that is vastly preferable to me opening my mouth and providing them with actual statements and evidence to use against me. I have been lied to and about by police in the past, so this is where we are.

My silence will always infer guilt within the minds of some people, specifically LEO, who really don't like having their queries not answered, they can think whatever they want, I'm way ahead of them; I'm thinking about my dealings with the court system.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by iraiam

They can use my silence against me all they want, that is vastly preferable to me opening my mouth and providing them with actual statements and evidence to use against me.

My silence will always infer guilt within the minds of some people, specifically LEO, who really don't like having their queries not answered, they can think whatever they want, I'm way ahead of them; I'm thinking about my dealings with the court system.

Silence didn't work out well for Mr. Salinas, either before his trial or at his trial.

[iraiam]

Salinas silence was specific and pertained to actual physical evidence, during a voluntary interrogation. He clammed up in the middle of the interrogation, 2 stupid moves right in a row.

It will be a cold day in hell before I ever agree to a voluntary interrogation for any reason. Any attorney that would advise me to submit to such an interrogation, even with said attorney present, will be fired immediately.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by iraiam

...It will be a cold day in hell before I ever agree to a voluntary interrogation for any reason. Any attorney that would advise me to submit to such an interrogation, even with said attorney present, will be fired immediately.

And that might not be the best idea if you ever need to use your gun in what you will want to claim is self defense. See posts 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 30, 38, 46, 55, 57, 58, 59, and 66

[iraiam]

And that might not be the best idea if you ever need to use your gun in what you will want to claim is self defense. See posts 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 30, 38, 46, 55, 57, 58, 59, and 66

possibly, but the bigger mistake would be firing my weapon in a situation that would leave the question of self defense in need of answering by anything other than physical evidence. I will admit that we generally don't get to choose these situations.

As I have said in other threads, as a private citizen; I must be absolutely sure of my justification to use lethal force, mistaking a Pepsi can for a firearm only works as justification for government agents.