PDA

View Full Version : Self Defense shooting, legal questions post shooting.


nicki
08-20-2011, 2:07 AM
So, here is hypothetical situation, someone attacks me, I draw and double tap him a couple of times with my 1911.

I then call 911.

First, what is the absolute minimum stuff I have to tell them because right now my call is being recorded and I would prefer to not answer any questions.

That is what LAWYERS are for.

I don't want to effectively convict myself trying to do the right thing.

Second, when the police arrive I don't want to answer any questions. After all, I would be in "SHOCK" because some attacker forced me to shoot them.

Their actions would be causing me alot of anxiety, which brings me to the next question. I could blurt out something that will be used against me.

I figure lab equipment can be false readings.

CAN I REFUSE ALL DRUG/ALCOHOL TESTS because I don't want to submit to anything without consulting an attorney first.

Your thoughts guys.

Nicki

Anchors
08-20-2011, 3:08 AM
1. Most armed self-defense cases end with no shots fired. 92% actually. The ones that do don't play out so smoothly, there are an infinite number of other variables your description doesn't account for (such as location, armed/unarmed attacker, etc). Also, you should be calling 1911 after you GTFO of the crime scene. Tell them to tell the cops you are a good guy with a gun and you will come back when they have cleared the scene for safety. I don't think leaving a dangerous crime scene is going to be a bad thing. It will show that you truly just wanted to get out of the situation (which is the only reason to shoot, end threat long enough to leave).

2. You have to tell them your location, the nature of why you're calling, and probably your name. (They will certainly ask all three). I would ask them to tell the cops I'm armed as I said above.

3. Don't say anything except "he was trying to kill me" and "lawyer".

4. Lab equipment? They aren't going to make you take a polygraph exam lol which is inadmissible as evidence anyway.

5. If you are driving, I don't think you can refuse an alcohol test if an officer has suspicion that you are under the influence. You can refuse field tests, but you're going to the station anyway in this case, where they can extract blood.

6. Why are you drinking/doing drugs when you carry?

Gray Peterson
08-20-2011, 5:27 AM
Join these guys:

Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/)

They are legitimate and they do help in DGU situations.

Maestro Pistolero
08-20-2011, 6:35 AM
Massad Ayoob has some good advice in this regard. He essentially says give them enough to establish the facts and then shut up.

I am crudely paraphrasing, but it goes something like this.

"Officer, this man/woman attacked me, I feared for my life and I fired in self defense. I will sign the complaint". Massad considers that the crucial information for the officer to tilt the investigation in the right direction.

Point out witnesses, evidence (weapon used for attack, shell casings, etc.)

Then tell the officer you will give your full cooperation once you have spoken to counsel, and that you decline to make any further statements at this time.

lhecker51
08-20-2011, 8:06 AM
Join these guys:

Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/)

They are legitimate and they do help in DGU situations.

Excellent link! The two dpwnloadable pdf's are very good reading and are recommended.

From the author Marty Hayes in the first pdf:

"Proving Your Claim of Self Defense

The armed citizen who has been forced to shoot in self defense faces a conundrum.You see, after a shooting, the police will be called (either by you or another person) and when they question you, anything you say can be used against you in a court of law. If what you say or don’t say raises suspicions that you were not justified in shooting, you will probably be jailed until you can get a preliminary hearing in front of a judge. Conversely, if the officers believe you legitimately shot the attacker in self defense, you will more likely than not sleep in your own bed that night. Thus, the question is, how do you explain to responding officers what happened, but still invoke your right to remain silent? The answer is, you cannot. You must make a decision whether to keep silent or to explain what happened."

Read the rest after you download the pdf as I have only pasted the situation and not the analysis.

Sudaev
08-20-2011, 8:22 AM
5. If you are driving, I don't think you can refuse an alcohol test if an officer has suspicion that you are under the influence. You can refuse field tests, but you're going to the station anyway in this case, where they can extract blood.



True however the field breathalyzer test (the hand-held version) is voluntary as well. You could refuse the breathalyzer at the police station, but you'll get a license suspension for a year. How that looks if you're involved in a shooting, I'm not sure.

MudCamper
08-20-2011, 8:34 AM
6. Why are you drinking/doing drugs when you carry?

What if you are sitting in your living room enjoying a beer when and armed home invasion gang starts smashing through the front door. If you do drink, then it is possible you could be attacked when drinking. You don't usually get to choose the time most convenient for you to be attacked. It's a legitimate question.

Trailboss60
08-20-2011, 8:46 AM
Your guys advice is right on..it isn't really as easy as just "clamming up", true your mouth can be your own worst enemy, and your words will be used against you...just to expand on maestro said...every one should read this;

http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/unintended-consequences-of-silence

Anchors
08-20-2011, 9:00 AM
Good point Mud.
I get around it by not drinking. Ever.

creekside
08-20-2011, 9:43 AM
So, here is hypothetical situation, someone attacks me, I draw and double tap him a couple of times with my 1911.

I then call 911.

... [1] the absolute minimum stuff I have to tell them ...

... Second, when the police arrive I don't want to answer any questions. After all, I would be in "SHOCK" because some attacker forced me to shoot them.

... [3] CAN I REFUSE ALL DRUG/ALCOHOL TESTS because I don't want to submit to anything without consulting an attorney first.

Your thoughts guys.

Nicki

Not a lawyer, these are just my thoughts, Edited To Add, based on past training I have received from NRA, articles I have read from Massad Ayoob (such as his articles in "Backwoods Home" magazine (http://www.backwoodshome.com/ayoob_index.html)), and what I've heard and read from gunnies, especially on this forum.

1) The dispatcher needs to know enough to send help and provide officer safety information. The NRA Personal Protection in the Home course discusses this in detail. The fact that 911 calls are recorded is highly desirable.

It is strongly preferable that 911 has been called PRIOR, and that the 911 recording has recorded you shouting a verbal warning such as "Get out! I have a gun! The police have been called. Stay out or I'll shoot!" However this is not always possible.

In the situation you describe, as calmly as you can, give the essentials:

"I have been attacked, I need the police, I am holding my attacker(s) at gunpoint."

You will be asked a lot of questions, starting with your address. Be sure to describe yourself, the clothes you are wearing and the type of firearm you are holding. Describe the intruder(s) and any other person(s) present.

The arriving officers need to know who the players are. Anyone who does what they are told is part of the solution; everyone else is part of the problem. Once the police show up, they are in charge.

2) You have the right to remain silent. I have never been in a defensive shooting, and Goddess willing, I never will be. Keeping silent is often enough a fast trip to jail. However, talking too much is a slow trip to prison. Jail for a few nights is better than prison for some years, especially if the situation may be legally murky.

I'm going to briefly explain what the attacker did, point out the physical evidence and identify any outstanding witnesses or suspects, say that I'll give a statement with the assistance of my attorney, and that I want criminal charges against my attacker(s). That's it.

3) I don't have a good answer to that one in a self-defense context, because I don't use drugs or alcohol at all and therefore would submit to a test at any time. Failing to test in a DOT or work context is worse than a positive result. I'd love to hear from others on this point.

Oceanbob
08-20-2011, 10:03 AM
So many possible situation's apply here. A bar fight that ends badly can get you in trouble. An obvious home-invasion by an armed person or persons will be easy to explain.

The level of cooperation depends on how 'Good' the shooting is. It is always best to keep the conversation to a minimum until your attorney can step in.

In a bar type situation (for example) expect to get handcuffed and taken down-town.

In an obvious home invasion defense, most likely you will be questioned at home and perhaps asked to come down for an interview later in the week.

Most of the time they will do a blood test for drugs or booze.

It always helps if your attacker is armed. If not, expect serious problems and a lawsuit from the perps relatives. (Civil suits are often filed even in good shootings)

If the shooting happens at home it is possible your home-owners insurance will defend and provide Council.

You can't 'double-tap' someone with a 1911 if all they do is raise a fist or their voice to you. You must take all exits possible from these situations; including driving away with a broken windshield. Don't man up and spend 10 years in prison. :D

Be well, Bob

lhecker51
08-20-2011, 10:04 AM
This resource would make a great sticky.

http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/home

Swatter911
08-20-2011, 11:33 AM
If the investigator believes the chemicals in your blood are evidence in the shooting, they will call a nurse to the police station and draw your blood for chemical testing. You can say you don't consent but they may draw it anyways. Your attorney can argue about admissibility of the blood evidence or violation of your civil rights for you in court later.

fiddletown
08-20-2011, 11:41 AM
Join these guys:

Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/)

They are legitimate and they do help in DGU situations.+1, It's an excellent organization.

As far as what to do:

Call 911. Be the first to report the incident and do so immediately. If you don't report it, or if there's a long delay, you will appear to have a guilty conscience.

Then, having taken LFI-I with Massad Ayoob, spending time with him and helping with a class of his in Sierra Vista, AZ not too long ago, I'll go along with his recommendation for when the police arrive.

[1] While one has a right to remain silent, clamming up is what the bad guys do. Following a self defense incident, you'll want to act like one of the good guys. You also won't want the investigating officers to miss any evidence or possible witnesses. What if the responding officers miss your assailant's knife that you saw fall down the storm drain? What if they don't know about the guy you saw pick up your assailant's gun and walk off with it?

[2] At the same time, you don't want to say too much. You will most likely be rattled. You will also most likely be suffering from various well known stress induced distortions of perception. Mentally prepare ahead of time to maintain control of yourself and say only the minimum that needs to be said.

[3] So Massad Ayoob recommends:

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."

If you don't think you can control yourself, it's better to say nothing than the wrong thing.

And Note: Pleading Self Defense is Very Different From the Common Lines of Defense to a Criminal Charge.

A lot of folks point to the "Don't Talk to the Police" video that is making the rounds on gun boards. But it is about a police contact in general. It works fine when you aren't claiming self defense, and it's up to the State to prove your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But things work differently if you are pleading self defense.

Basically --

[1] The prosecutor must prove the elements of the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt -- basically that you intentionally shot the guy. But if you are pleading self defense, you will have admitted that, so we go to step 2.

[2] Now you must present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. Depending on the State, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you may not have to convince the jury. But you will have to at least present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

[3] Now it's the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in justified self defense.

Let's go through that again.

In an ordinary criminal prosecution, the defendant doesn't have to say anything. He doesn't have to present any evidence. The entire burden falls on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the crime you're charged with is, for example, manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that you were there, you fired the gun, you intended to fire the gun (or were reckless), and the guy you shot died. In the typical manslaughter prosecution, the defendant might by way of his defense try to plant a seed that you weren't there (alibi defense), or that someone else might have fired the gun, or that it was an accident. In each case the defendant doesn't have to actually prove his defense. He merely has to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

So in such cases, it probably doesn't pay for you to say anything to the police, at least early on. Let them do the work of trying to amass evidence to prove the case against you. There's no reason for you to help.

But if you are going to be claiming self defense, you will wind up admitting all the elements of what would, absent legal justification, constitute a crime. You will necessarily admit that you were there, that you fired the gun, and that you intended to shoot the decedent. Your defense is that your use of lethal force in self defense satisfied the applicable legal standard and that, therefore, it was justified.

So now you would have to affirmatively present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In some jurisdictions, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you don't have to convince the jury. But you will at least have to present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

Then it will be the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury (in some jurisdictions, he will have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt) that you did not act in justified self defense. And even if you didn't have to prove self defense (only present a prima facie case), the more convincing your story, and your evidence, is, the harder it will be for the prosecutor to meet his rebuttal burden.

cadurand
08-20-2011, 12:06 PM
This guy lost me after he said only criminals should remain silent.

That's just naive.

Sudaev
08-20-2011, 12:16 PM
The "don't talk to the police" idea is advice for what to do if you're charged with a crime. Being involved in a shooting, where presumably you are acting in good faith, generally falls outside the scope of that.

For example, you obviously wouldn't refuse to talk to the police if you called them about a burglar in your home (where you didn't shoot), so why refuse to talk to them if you shot him? Why refuse to talk to the police over something you called them about?

fiddletown
08-20-2011, 12:18 PM
This guy lost me after he said only criminals should remain silent...Too bad you didn't bother to read and try to understand what I wrote. In any case, I stand by my comments. They are the same things one would hear from Massad Ayoob and Marty Hayes (Mr. Hayes is president of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network mentioned by Gray Peterson).

Furthermore, I didn't write that only criminals should remain silent. What I wrote was essentially that, if you can control your tongue, keeping entirely silent after you have used your gun in self defense is probably not the best strategy. I also explained why.

I'm sorry that you don't understand the difference.

Trailboss60
08-20-2011, 1:54 PM
This guy lost me after he said only criminals should remain silent.

That's just naive.

That is in the first sentence, if you go on to read the rest of the article, Marty expands on that statement...it all makes perfect sense.
Having talked to some people that were involved in this incident;
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/crime/documents-outline-road-rage-shooting-4-12-2011

Matthew was able to go home after the shooting, had he just said "I feared for my life from this attacker"a and clammed up, he would have probably would have spent a night or two at the graybar hotel.
His comments were very limited in scope, and put it on a fast track to resolving the investigation that benefited him.

I used to subscribe to the "no comment without a lawyer" but after hearing Marty Hayes and Mas discuss this strategy, I changed mine.

chiselchst
08-20-2011, 2:11 PM
The "don't talk to the police" idea is advice for what to do if you're charged with a crime. Being involved in a shooting, where presumably you are acting in good faith, generally falls outside the scope of that.

Nope...not correct. It refers to talking to the police under any circumstances.

Is it true most LEO's won't allow themselves to be interviewed after a shooting, until they have legal representation?

Swatter911
08-20-2011, 3:43 PM
Nope...not correct. It refers to talking to the police under any circumstances.

Is it true most LEO's won't allow themselves to be interviewed after a shooting, until they have legal representation?

LEOs in CA are required to immediately give a public safety statement that generally covers the circumstances of the shooting, number of rounds fired and direction, identification of suspects, witnesses and victims both on the scene and outstanding, along with any other time sensitive info that may aid victims or help catch suspects. It's a lot more than what other posters have recommended a citizen give in a self defense shooting.

The criminal side of the OIS is usually handled by the agency's Homicide Division and yes some LEOs will wait for an attorney before making a statement. In the criminal investigation they want a voluntary statement from the officer. This statement goes to the DA.

The administrative side of the OIS will be a compelled statement where the officer is ordered to give a statement and answer questions. This is usually conducted by Internal Affairs and the LEO may have a representative or attorney present. The timing of this depends solely on how aggressive the IAD is. This statement does not go to the DA, but is to ensure agency policy was followed.

ETA: As someone who has investigated citizens using lethal force to defend themselves, Mr. fiddletown is pretty close to being right on.

BigFatGuy
08-21-2011, 12:26 AM
Massad Ayoob...
"Officer, this man/woman attacked me, I feared for my life and I fired in self defense. I will sign the complaint".


Ayoob also suggests "I want this man arrested." After all, you are not a doctor, you are not qualified to determine that the attacker is now dead, and you are truly in fear for your life.

chiselchst
08-21-2011, 4:08 AM
Thank you for clarifying that in such detail. What's often reported - or what info us non-LEO's get is always suspect.

I also agree with Mr. Fiddletown, and those immediate actions. I think what you say initially is the most crucial. Be sure not to mis-speak, and don't say too much...

LEOs in CA are required to immediately give a public safety statement that generally covers the circumstances of the shooting, number of rounds fired and direction, identification of suspects, witnesses and victims both on the scene and outstanding, along with any other time sensitive info that may aid victims or help catch suspects. It's a lot more than what other posters have recommended a citizen give in a self defense shooting.

The criminal side of the OIS is usually handled by the agency's Homicide Division and yes some LEOs will wait for an attorney before making a statement. In the criminal investigation they want a voluntary statement from the officer. This statement goes to the DA.

The administrative side of the OIS will be a compelled statement where the officer is ordered to give a statement and answer questions. This is usually conducted by Internal Affairs and the LEO may have a representative or attorney present. The timing of this depends solely on how aggressive the IAD is. This statement does not go to the DA, but is to ensure agency policy was followed.

ETA: As someone who has investigated citizens using lethal force to defend themselves, Mr. fiddletown is pretty close to being right on.

lhecker51
08-21-2011, 7:48 AM
This is a great thread! Lot of very good information from the site that was mentioned. There are many innocent people in prison because they felt their innocence could stand alone and that they have nothing to hide. Their are corrupt DA's that care more about their conviction record and political posturing than the law itself. They become the law and the law serves them rather than they serving the law. A prime example of this is our current AG, Eric Holder. You will be thrown in prison for political and selfish expedience here in the US. I believed at one time that yes, mistakes are made by DA's but that they rarely result in the innocent going to prison. I believed that the media made the issue look bigger than it really is, but I am now seeing an alarming pattern where the innocent go to prison, the guilty are given a hand slap for agreeing to a plea bargain.

I have personally seen the car jacker that beat my sister in law into a coma and permanent paralysis only get four years in prison (Thank you so much San Bernardino County DA!!!!!!)

If you are expecting the truth to stand on it's own in the courtroom, you are a fool. The truth takes backseat to criminal rights, the DA's career, and LE laziness. Another great example was Chief Beck quickly stating case solved in the Giants fan beating. He did this due to public and political pressure. One should not be Chief of Police if you are of such weak character and backbone.

To all the DA's and LEO's that are truly passionate about the rule of law, let's hope that the trend begins to go your way.

Tarn_Helm
08-21-2011, 3:08 PM
So, here is hypothetical situation, someone attacks me, I draw and double tap him a couple of times with my 1911.

I then call 911.

First, what is the absolute minimum stuff I have to tell them because right now my call is being recorded and I would prefer to not answer any questions.

That is what LAWYERS are for.

I don't want to effectively convict myself trying to do the right thing.

Second, when the police arrive I don't want to answer any questions. After all, I would be in "SHOCK" because some attacker forced me to shoot them.

Their actions would be causing me alot of anxiety, which brings me to the next question. I could blurt out something that will be used against me.

I figure lab equipment can be false readings.

CAN I REFUSE ALL DRUG/ALCOHOL TESTS because I don't want to submit to anything without consulting an attorney first.
Your thoughts guys.

Nicki

I am relying on this for now.

Self-Defense Laws of All 50 States, with "Plain-Talk" Summaries (http://firearmslaw.com/) cost: $29.95 u.s.
ISBN: 978-0-9845058-0-7
Compiled by Mitch Vilos - Attorney, and Evan Vilos

Book blurb: (Standard Cover) This is THE MOST IMPORTANT book EVER written for anyone who might be forced to defend him or herself. If you violate a firearm possession law, you might be charged with a low-level felony. But, if you kill or injure someone WITHOUT LEGAL JUSTIFICATION, you could lose everything or end up doing life in prison like the hapless neighborhood watchman whose plight is described in shocking detail in Chapter 2. Don't let this happen to you!

After you read it, you find that CA "self-defense law" is arranged in layers.

Your act of self-defense with armed force, God forbid, will be interpreted through the multi-layer lens of the following:

1. Actual state code
2. Jury instructions aka "CALCRIM (tp://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/criminaljuryinstructions)," http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jury/criminaljuryinstructions
3. Case law rulings/precedents
4. Fact pattern of your specific case, as entered into evidence (notice that this could in theory exclude facts you or others would include as crucial for exculpating you)

Keep in mind that the summary provided in the book cited above goes from page 67 through page 76.

And that is a summary.

The summary excludes some detail, but the relevant details there are cited for you and your legal counsel to look up and pursue further, should you ever need to do so.

God forbid.

The book received mention (http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2010/12/new_book_on_sel.php)by constitutional law scholar and Second Amendment champion David T. Hardy (http://armsandthelaw.com/aboutus.php).

You can see a video interview of Mitch Vilos here: Self Defense Discussion with Mitch Vilos Part 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReAuSkcCBj8)

ReAuSkcCBj8

Your question raises the following issue:

What should all law-abiding Calgunners be pushing to put on our legislative "to-do list" of laws that need to be enacted in order to protect lawful gun owners who find themselves in the position of needing to use armed force for lawful self-defense.

Ex-school teacher Harold Fish is the poster boy for the need to reform the gun-carry laws before you have to exercise your right recognized under those laws. (http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/)

Pushing for LTC (aka CCW) rights is not enough.

We need to push for these so that we do not end up in prison after having exercised those rights.

Example:

1. Castle Doctrine
2. No civil liability while relying on Castle Doctrine
3. Stand Your Ground Law
4. No civil liability while relying on Stand Your Ground Law
5. Burden on prosecutors to prove at trial that lawful LTCer did not act in self-defense

Etc.

In other words, shall-issue LTC is just the beginning of the list of laws we need in order to be able to exercise our right to lawful self-defense, while minimizing our exposure to legal risks of criminal and civil prosecution.

Phew.

Longer than I thought it would be.
:p

Good question.

Glad you brought it up.
:cool:

EDIT:
P.S., Don't talk to the police (beyond what Massad Ayoob says) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc).
6wXkI4t7nuc

JimSar
08-21-2011, 7:15 PM
Join these guys:

Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network (http://armedcitizensnetwork.org/)

They are legitimate and they do help in DGU situations.

I just joined...

Thanks.

Ron-Solo
08-21-2011, 7:42 PM
LEOs in CA are required to immediately give a public safety statement that generally covers the circumstances of the shooting, number of rounds fired and direction, identification of suspects, witnesses and victims both on the scene and outstanding, along with any other time sensitive info that may aid victims or help catch suspects. It's a lot more than what other posters have recommended a citizen give in a self defense shooting.

The criminal side of the OIS is usually handled by the agency's Homicide Division and yes some LEOs will wait for an attorney before making a statement. In the criminal investigation they want a voluntary statement from the officer. This statement goes to the DA.

The administrative side of the OIS will be a compelled statement where the officer is ordered to give a statement and answer questions. This is usually conducted by Internal Affairs and the LEO may have a representative or attorney present. The timing of this depends solely on how aggressive the IAD is. This statement does not go to the DA, but is to ensure agency policy was followed.

ETA: As someone who has investigated citizens using lethal force to defend themselves, Mr. fiddletown is pretty close to being right on.

As a retired 32+ year law enforcement officer who had to shoot 4 people during my career, Swatter has summed it up pretty well. I responded to many shootings involving homeowners and self defense situations. Every incident we gave the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner, and ties go to the runner. If you clam up and don't say anything, which is your right, you will at least get a ride to the station for questioning as a suspect, where you will have the right to speak to a lawyer, before any questioning. The "Free of Charge" part of that doesn't kickin until you get to court, sometimes days later.

A basic statement, such as "He broke down my door and had a big club/knife/whatever. I was in fear for my life/my family/that stranger/etc so I shot him until he stopped his attack." Not much more is needed to get the investigation rolling in the right direction.

hornswaggled
08-21-2011, 8:12 PM
As a retired 32+ year law enforcement officer who had to shoot 4 people during my career, Swatter has summed it up pretty well. I responded to many shootings involving homeowners and self defense situations. Every incident we gave the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner, and ties go to the runner. If you clam up and don't say anything, which is your right, you will at least get a ride to the station for questioning as a suspect, where you will have the right to speak to a lawyer, before any questioning. The "Free of Charge" part of that doesn't kickin until you get to court, sometimes days later.

A basic statement, such as "He broke down my door and had a big club/knife/whatever. I was in fear for my life/my family/that stranger/etc so I shot him until he stopped his attack." Not much more is needed to get the investigation rolling in the right direction.

Thank you for your well-informed experience. However I would venture to say that depending on the DA's office where you live and their political leanings, even saying that much could land you in the defendant's chair. "Oh so you were in fear? Then you weren't thinking rationally, were you? You were are afraid for yourself/your family... did you once think about being afraid for Mr. Perp or his right to life?"

Like the book "After You Shoot" notes, when LEO's are involved in a shooting... do THEY talk to investigators or the DA without an advocate present? Not if the department can help it.

Librarian
08-21-2011, 8:21 PM
"Oh so you were in fear? Then you weren't thinking rationally, were you? You were are afraid for yourself/your family... did you once think about being afraid for Mr. Perp or his right to life?"

Not that there are not some folks who might take the position you suggest, but the language of the PC (http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/198.5.html) uses 'fear': 198. A bare fear of the commission of any of the offenses mentioned
in subdivisions 2 and 3 of Section 197, to prevent which homicide
may be lawfully committed, is not sufficient to justify it. But the
circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable
person, and the party killing must have acted under the influence of
such fears alone.


198.5 Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

Ron-Solo
08-21-2011, 8:31 PM
That's why I said a very basic preliminary statement. Inform them you will happy to provide additional information as soon as you speak to legal council. LE doesn't get upset by this, and you point the investigation in the direction it should go, at the suspect.

Once again, it is your choice what you say. If you say absolutely nothing, expect to be treated as one of the suspects. Don't get offended, you had your chance to point the investigation in the right direction. If you don't help, they look at everyone as a suspect until they sort it out.

And to the other question out there, I didn't use legal representation on any of my shootings during the investigation. I never felt like a suspect, especially since 3 of the 4 that I shot, fired first.

Final Score:

Me: 4, Bad Guys: 0

I'm retired!

fiddletown
08-21-2011, 8:36 PM
... when LEO's are involved in a shooting... do THEY talk to investigators or the DA without an advocate present? Not if the department can help it.As outlined by Swatter911 in post 20, in most cases they do, and may be required to, make a preliminary statement.

The point of a private citizen making a bare-bones, preliminary statement, as I outlined in post 14 is to lay a good foundation and properly set the stage for the initial investigation.

When the first officers arrive on the scene, they will see someone on the ground with holes in him and bleeding, and you will be there with, or near, a recently fired gun. Their immediate impression will be that the guy bleeding is the victim. But your interests will be better served if they begin the investigation considering the possibility the you are in fact the victim. That is why it's desirable for you to say something like, "That person attacked me."

Ron-Solo
08-21-2011, 8:38 PM
As outlined by Swatter911 in post 20, in most cases they do, and may be required to, make a preliminary statement.

The point of a private citizen making a bare-bones, preliminary statement, as I outlined in post 14 is to lay a good foundation and properly set the stage for the initial investigation.

When the first officers arrive on the scene, they will see someone on the ground with holes in him and bleeding, and you will be there with, or near, a recently fired gun. Their immediate impression will be that the guy bleeding is the victim. But your interests will be better served if they begin the investigation considering the possibility the you are in fact the victim. That is why it's desirable for you to say something like, "That person attacked me."

My point exactly.