A bit slow at calling the cops

[pistol3]

I was in a class a few years ago about what to do after a self-defense shooting. They recommended giving a brief statement of facts to the police. I.e. there was an intruder in my house, I feared for my life, I fired at the intruder, and they fled out the back door. Without a lawyer, I don't think I would feel comfortable saying much more than that, but at least you are being up front about what happened.

[fiddletown]

...They recommended giving a brief statement of facts to the police. I.e. there was an intruder in my house, I feared for my life, I fired at the intruder, and they fled out the back door. Without a lawyer, I don't think I would feel comfortable saying much more than that, but at least you are being up front about what happened.

That would pretty well cover things preliminarily. And that's pretty much what Andrew Branca is suggesting (see post 7).

You'll probably need to make a more detailed statement later on. By then you should have gotten yourself a lawyer, and you can let him do the talking.

Also, several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and was published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:

...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....
...

... Often, the defendant will need to testify in order to establish his subjective belief about the threat and need to respond defensively. This can be done through circumstantial evidence, but it is difficult....

[Ron-Solo]

I was in a class a few years ago about what to do after a self-defense shooting. They recommended giving a brief statement of facts to the police. I.e. there was an intruder in my house, I feared for my life, I fired at the intruder, and they fled out the back door. Without a lawyer, I don't think I would feel comfortable saying much more than that, but at least you are being up front about what happened.

[A-J]

What law did he break by not telling them he fired a weapon?

It is generally illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits.

[major burnout]

There was an illegal alien who shot and killed a nice young woman in SF. He lied and said it was an accident.

Home owner should just say he fired his weapon but accidentally struck the nice young man.

[Kestryll]

Cite that law. No more walls of text. Just cite that law.

Cite now, or forever hold your peace.

Blah blah blah blah...
Please put me on your ignore list
...

Done!

If he is a lawyer, he is not a very good one.

Integrity is paramount to a lawyer's reputation, and integrity requires answering a question honestly, even if it is unpleasant or embarrassing to do so.

I don't know if he is really unable to understand that he is not answering the question, i.e., poor reading comprehension, or if he is refusing to for some other reason, but either way I predict another irrelevant wall of text in an effort to distract.

He certainly will not give the short answer.

Welcome to my undivided attention.

Take a guess how well that's going to work out for you.

[CinnamonBear723]

It is generally illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits.

Yes I realize that, but as has been discussed, I was singling out whether there exists any state of federal statute that mandates you talk to the police. It has nothing to do with whether the action of firing the weapon was legal or not.

[CinnamonBear723]

Thank you for your service, but you're ignorant about the law.

And I'm on the side of those who would like to understand the law as it actually is. How the law actually works is important because in the real world that's how things will be decided. Those who, as many here, fixate on how they would like things to be could be in for a big surprise if they find themselve entangled in the legal system.

Here, once again, is the answer distilled:
Accept if or not, your choice. Learn or remain ignorant, again your choice. It doesn't matter to me.

I hope you are not suggesting we are all ignorant of the law. You are in fact, arguing your points against a few LEO's including myself. I am well aware what the 5th amendment says and how it applies. I am also aware of Miranda Rights and how they apply as well.

I am not arguing that its a good idea to stay quiet which could lead to consequence against the shooter. I am simply saying there is no law that forces anyone to speak to the police.

This is why i phrased my original question the way I did which for some reason sent you on some sort of legal mumbo jumbo tirade. I was simply asking what law would the shooter be in violation of by no talking to the police?

That question does, in fact, have a very simple answer.

[fiddletown]

....I was singling out whether there exists any state of federal statute that mandates you talk to the police...

[CinnamonBear723]

We are arguing about two very different things. I never assigned a level of importance to the answer of my question. Nor did I ever say it was a good idea not to talk to the police, or argue against the consequences. I was just pointing out there are no existing statutes that forces a person to talk to the police. Don't make this into something its not.

[fiddletown]

... I was just pointing out there are no existing statutes that forces a person to talk to the police....

[CinnamonBear723]

I'm sorry that my input is of no importance to you or your discussions. I was just posing a simple question.

I for one find it to be an important question. I believe in the preservation of people's rights and not forcing them to incriminate themselves. I mean don't get me wrong, I love it when people vomit all over themselves when I interview them, but they certainly have the right not to speak with me. No big deal though, I guess I'll try trampling all over their rights and coercing statements by telling them they are guilty until they can prove to me they aren't.

[fiddletown]

...I believe in the preservation of people's rights and not forcing them to incriminate themselves. ....

I'm sorry, but perhaps your understanding of Miranda and the Fifth Amendment is not as robust as you think it is.

1. A Miranda warning is required only during a custodial interrogation. (And there is at least one exception to that: New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984).)
   
   
2. Otherwise, in general one must specifically claim Fifth Amendment protection, except in a few, limited situations (e. g., a threat of withdrawal of a government benefit (Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967); Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977); Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973))
   
   
3. As the Supreme Court stated in Salinas v. Texas, 133 S.Ct. 2174 (2013), at 2179:

   Garner v. United StatesMurphy, 465 U.S., at 427, 104 S.Ct. 1136 (quoting Monia, 317 U.S., at 427, 63 S.Ct. 409). See also United States ex rel. Vajtauer v. Commissioner of Immigration, 273 U.S. 103, 113, 47 S.Ct. 302, 71 L.Ed. 560 (1927).
   
   That requirement ensures that the Government is put on notice when a witness intends to rely on the privilege so that it may either argue that the testimony sought could not be self-incriminating, see Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951), or cure any potential self-incrimination through a grant of immunity, see Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 448, 92 S.Ct. 1653, 32 L.Ed.2d 212 (1972). The express invocation requirement also gives courts tasked with evaluating a Fifth Amendment claim a contemporaneous record establishing the witness' reasons for refusing to answer. See Roberts v. United StatesHutcheson v. United StatesGarner, supra, at 658, n. 11, 96 S.Ct. 1178....

   
   
4. So anything done, said or not said by someone in that universe of situations in which Fifth Amendment protection doesn't apply, is fair game for a prosecutor; and a prosecutor can urge that a jury draw negative inferences therefrom. A lack of a specific statute requiring one to talk with police doesn't prevent anything done, said or not said by someone being self incriminating in that universe of situations in which Fifth Amendment protection doesn't apply.
   
   
5. That essentially moots the question you ask in post 3:

   What law did he [the homeowner referenced in the OP] break by not telling them he fired a weapon?

   Because his voluntary statements reporting the incident are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection, if he is prosecuted the prosecutor can negatively comment on the homeowner's omission of the fact that he fired his gun and urge the jury to draw negative inferences from that omission.

[CinnamonBear723]

I'm sorry, but perhaps your understanding of Miranda and the Fifth Amendment is not as robust as you think it is.

1. A Miranda warning is required only during a custodial interrogation. (And there is at least one exception to that: New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984).)
   
   
2. Otherwise, in general one must specifically claim Fifth Amendment protection, except in a few, limited situations (e. g., a threat of withdrawal of a government benefit (Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967); Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801 (1977); Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (1973))
   
   
3. As the Supreme Court stated in Salinas v. Texas, 133 S.Ct. 2174 (2013), at 2179:
   
4. So anything done, said or not said by someone in that universe of situations in which Fifth Amendment protection doesn't apply, is fair game for a prosecutor; and a prosecutor can urge that a jury draw negative inferences therefrom. A lack of a specific statute requiring one to talk with police doesn't prevent anything done, said or not said by someone being self incriminating in that universe of situations in which Fifth Amendment protection doesn't apply.
   
   
5. That essentially moots the question you ask in post 3:Because his voluntary statements reporting the incident are not subject to Fifth Amendment protection, if he is prosecuted the prosecutor can negatively comment on the homeowner's omission of the fact that he fired his gun and urge the jury to draw negative inferences from that omission.

My understanding of both is just fine. We are just not at all on the same page.

[blasterp7]

Let me try to be nice! Many of the suggestions you have made are very reasonable and some of them are true and some of them are the half-truths of an attorney!!!!!

So I started law enforcement in 1974 - 3/11/74 to be exact!!! Attorneys like that!! I am still involved in law enforcement as a retired rangemaster. running the range and associated budgeting.

I will try to be accommodating and state that most attorneys are full of themselves and generally wrong. I am sure you are not one of those!

Their are way more factors than you or myself have brought up regarding this situation. I can state that LE is, in it purest form and one that I have always followed, not out to scr$% anyone.