[sendarope]

This is not a "bash police" post. I respect the guys on the street. Though that respect is reserved for those that uphold the oath they took and with the militarization of our law enforcement that category of officers is shrinking. I have known a lot of cops over the years and one of my good friends is a VA state trooper. All the guys I have ever run into have been good guys but their bureaucratic bosses have not been.

http://www.regent.edu/admin/media/schlaw/LawPreview/
The professor is followed by an LEO who backs up his assertion that you should never talk to the police.

Miranda reads" you have the right to remain silent anything you say can and may be used AGAINST you in a court of law"
Though nothing you say can and may be use FOR you.

All it takes is some rogue prosecutor (Duke) to get you good and screwed.

I know what many LEO's may say about this. But fortunately here on THR most of us are the good guys so the criminals will not likely see this.
Besides somebody loaded this on Youtube as well.

[Rugerlvr]

Many many posts on this same video.

[Art Eatman]

My view is really, really simple: Don't be stupid when you talk to police. Use common sense about what you say and what you don't say. Keep it to a bare bones minimum; even the cops will tell you that, not just your lawyer.

Standing there, mute, could get you arrested for murder. A bare bones story might well result in no charges at all.

Skip the grimy details of, "He said, and I said, and he did this and I did that..." and all that happy horsepoop. You can sell the story to True Crime Magazine at some future time...

"He was there, I was here; he attacked, I defended." After that, it's attorney time.

[Biker]

Perfect, Art.

Biker

[Treo]

I think it's a great video but I'm amazed that this thread isn't locked yet

[divemedic]

Standing there, mute, could get you arrested for murder. A bare bones story might well result in no charges at all.

I disagree. I cannot think of a single thing you could say that would get you out of a murder charge that will not get you out of a murder charge 20 minutes later when your attorney gets there.

On the flip side of that, anything you say CAN do the opposite and get you in hot water. Ever heard of talking your way into a ticket?

[ilbob]

Most of the time talking with police about some crime they think you committed is an awful idea. Clamming up and asking for your lawyer is the only thing that makes any sense.

A normal traffic stop - say as little as possible, don't volunteer anything. That does not mean you have to be rude.

[Treo]

I can see where shutting up could get you arrested, but I can see more where not shutting up could get you convicted.

If I was involved in a murder investigation the only words you'd get out of me would be " I do not wish to make any statement or answer any questions W/ out my attorney present."

[cmidkiff]

Name, rank, and serial number :)

... from a civilian point of view. I'm always polite and cooperative with LEO's, but I'm sure as heck not volunteering any information. ID, insurance card, CCW permit... they have the right to ask for such things, and I'm happy to oblige. Questions like 'have you been drinking' will get answered... it's appropriate for them to ask, and I don't drink and drive. Questions such as 'do you know how fast you were going', 'why are you in such a hurry' or 'what are you doing out so late' or 'what's in the back of the truck' aren't going to get an answer without representation.

Happily, I have never had any occasion to deal with a LEO asking me questions not related to a traffic stop, but if the occasion were to arise, I would apply the same sort of logic.

[ilbob]

they have the right to ask for such thingsThey have no such right. They have been granted power to demand such things. There is a huge difference between a right and raw government power.

[ptmmatssc]

If it were a shooting incident , the only thing a LEO would hear from me would be :

" I feared for my life . I need to talk to my attorney. "

Nothing else .

Any other time , as said by someone else , name ,rank, serial # . You know , license , reg, ins.

[Frog48]

Old news.

[Pat-inCO]

If you remain totally quiet, YOU are the BG, correct or not. Make the shortest and most concise statement possible, including:
1) I am the victim
2) I feared for my life because he attacked me
3) My name is......etc.
4) I want to consult with my attorney before I say any more.
5) If asked any further questions, repeat number 4.

The LEO then has enough to begin his part AND you have established you are the victim, not the BG.

[divemedic]

If you remain totally quiet, YOU are the BG, correct or not.

Standing mute is not an admission of guilt, nor can the fact that you refused to answer be used against you.

There is a reason why they tell you that you have the right to remain silent. I have testified in numerous cases, including several homicides, and I have seen many a defendant go down because he let one little statement slip. I frequently tell people not to say things that I will have to testify to later, and when they ignore me, I get overtime to go to court and testify.

[Jim K]

OK, everyone is fond of scenarios, some absurd. But how about this one?

You are walking down the street when a car runs up on the sidewalk, killing and injuring a dozen people. You get the make of car, license number, and a good look at the driver.

The police ask if anyone has any information. You refuse to tell them anything because some "legal expert" on the THR site said to never talk to the police. Now don't you feel all good and superior?

Jim

[torpid]

OK, everyone is fond of scenarios, some absurd. But how about this one?

You are walking down the street when a car runs up on the sidewalk, killing and injuring a dozen people. You get the make of car, license number, and a good look at the driver.

The police ask if anyone has any information. You refuse to tell them anything because some "legal expert" on the THR site said to never talk to the police. Now don't you feel all good and superior?

Luckily, this was all just an elaborate test, and the people were robots.
The "police" in this scenario are actually aliens disguised as police, and they are looking for observant humans to abduct for their genetic experiments.

Congratulations, you just avoided an unpleasant extraterrestrial experience.

Whew, thanks THR "experts"!

[Biker]

The cop's perception of you and how he writes up his report goes a long way in how the legal issue proceeds after the fact.

BTDT...

Biker

[divemedic]

The cop's perception of you and how he writes up his report goes a long way in how the legal issue proceeds after the fact.

In this country the prosecution uses something called evidence. We do not prosecute based on opinion of some beat cop. Any exculpatory evidence that will be brought to light by your statement will still be just as true in 20 minutes after your attorney gets there. Besides, saying that you would rather that your attorney be there before making a statement does not mean that you have to be rude about it.

Or are you trying to say that LEOs are so unprofessional that they don't understand the law?

[Biker]

I'm not trying to say anything - I meant exactly exactly what I said.

Was I not clear enough?

Biker

[Old Ephraim]

Threads on this topic have always intrigued me, with your consent I'd like to participate for once.

I've been a peace officer for 23 years, two on the road, and 21 with a state investigative agency. I've never tallied, but I've been the lead investigator or supervisor on probably well over 300 shootings, be they homicides (all manners of), suicides, accidents (which are mostly negligence), and officer involved shootings.

While citizen self defence shooting investigations are vastly different from officer involved shooting investigations, at their core they need to be evaulated in the same manner. That is, what was going through the shooters mind immediately before and at the time of the shooting event? A simple "I was afraid for my life, I want a lawyer" does not educate the investigator as to the many, and changing, evaulations that go through your head before a decision to act, or not act, is reached. Scientific analysis of the scene, and witness statements are very important, but your statements are critical. Experienced investigators will know that you will most likely be a 'soup sandwich' after a shooting, and will make allowances for that.

I guess my question is; why limit yourself to a reaction of "I want a lawyer"? You've already exercised options in making the decision to carry for your protection (that I support whole-heartidly), what to carry, ammo, holster, training, playing out many scenerios in your mind, discussing courses of actions with loved one...so why limit yourself after the gun goes bang?

No matter what I investigate all I seek is the truth. I've never received a bonus for clearing, or arresting anyone. The vast majority of investigators I've worked with over the years are this way as well. I would never advise anyone to not exercise their rights, but if you know it's a good shoot, why risk an arrest record?

I'm really hoping to learn something from you guys. If I can answer any questions from you I would be happy to do so.

[Thernlund]

http://www.servut.us/mirror/kuvat/motivation/repost.jpg


-T.

[whosyrdaddy]

OK, everyone is fond of scenarios, some absurd. But how about this one?

You are walking down the street when a car runs up on the sidewalk, killing and injuring a dozen people. You get the make of car, license number, and a good look at the driver.

The police ask if anyone has any information. You refuse to tell them anything because some "legal expert" on the THR site said to never talk to the police. Now don't you feel all good and superior?

Jim


Think Richard Jewell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Jewell)

[Thernlund]

Think Richard Jewell

That's right. No good deed goes unpunished. Screw civic duty if I'm going to get crucified for it.


-T.

[basicblur]

I guess my question is; why limit yourself to a reaction of "I want a lawyer...so why limit yourself after the gun goes bang?
‘Cuz after watching the lawyer’s video (and the cop on behind him said he couldn’t tell you anything the lawyer said was incorrect), anything you say to a cop (even though it’s hearsay) “can and will be used against you in a court of law”, just like Miranda says.
BUT
Anything you say to the cop that could be used in your defense in a court of law will immediately be challenged by the prosecutor as hearsay and will not be allowed…
Nuttin’ like playing with a stacked deck!

No matter what I investigate all I seek is the truth.
While the cop on the beat may seek the truth, have you ever seen Nancy Grace or Lis Wiehl on TV (both former prosecutors)?
How would you like to have either one of these gals (or someone similar, and they ARE out there) as the prosecutor on your case?
Think all they’re seeking is the truth?
We won’t even mention Mike Nifong…

The vast majority of investigators I've worked with over the years are this way as well.
I think the operative words here are “vast majority”!
Hmmmm…with my luck, iff’n I was involved in something (or someone THOUGHT I was), wonder if I’d be lucky enough to get one of the "vast majority" or…? :banghead:

[divemedic]

No matter what I investigate all I seek is the truth. I've never received a bonus for clearing, or arresting anyone. The vast majority of investigators I've worked with over the years are this way as well. I would never advise anyone to not exercise their rights, but if you know it's a good shoot, why risk an arrest record?


That is a rather political answer. As an investigator, you are paid for arrests that result in convictions. You may not get a bonus, but if do not close cases, or you do not make arrests, or your arrests do not result in convictions, I will be willing to bet you won't be an investigator for very long.

Sort of reminds me about traffic tickets. Cops claim that there are no quotas, which is true- there is no set number of tickets they must write. However, every cop that works in a populated area will tell you that your evals depend on ticket writing. Heck, my city even budgets a certain amount of income every year from traffic ticket fines.

Arrest record beats a conviction. Arrest means squat.

[ptmmatssc]

I guess my question is; why limit yourself to a reaction of "I want a lawyer"? You've already exercised options in making the decision to carry for your protection (that I support whole-heartidly), what to carry, ammo, holster, training, playing out many scenerios in your mind, discussing courses of actions with loved one...so why limit yourself after the gun goes bang?


There is a BIG difference . All the actions/decisions before a shoot ( picking carry gun , ammo, etc ) are things that one has time to mull over in a clear state of mind . Immediately after a shoot , which normally is reaction vs planning , one's mind is not going to be "zen like" .

A simple grammatical error or misspeaking could be used later against you , even though it isn't "what you meant" .

I don't believe in the " we're here to help you , just tell us what happened" . It falls in line with " if you have nothing to hide....." . I tend to be skeptical of those that propose not requesting a lawyer before speaking .

Experienced investigators will know that you will most likely be a 'soup sandwich' after a shooting, and will make allowances for that.

That may be true , maybe not , but prosecutors WILL take any statement you make and WILL use it against you if possible , regardless of you being a "soup sandwich" or not . They are there to prosecute , not defend , and will use any statement they can to get a conviction.

I would much rather have an arrest because of wanting to exercise my rights , rather than a conviction based on any of my statements made while I was a "soup sandwich" and wasn't clear of mind.

I would never advise anyone to not exercise their rights, but if you know it's a good shoot, why risk an arrest record?

It may not be "advising" , but your statements seem to promote the idea to not exercise ones rights .

"If a man neglects to enforce his rights, he cannot complain, if, after a while, the law follows his example."



.

[Art Eatman]

I've been in the big middle of a murder case, and been on a voluntary manslaughter jury. Had a night club on 6th St. in Austin's entertainment district. IOW, sorta BTDT insofar as some form of involvement with LEOs. And that's separate from the occasional traffic ticket or my very frequent pass-throughs of Border Patrol and US Customs checkpoints.

We're not talking about a Richard Jewel or traffic tickets and car searches or whatever. We're talking about what should be seen as a good shoot, a self-defense deal.

What you don't want to do is contribute in any way to making anybody in the criminal justice system think it was a bad shoot. Simple as that.

I guarantee you: Attitude, body language and behavior is a large part of the deal. Mouth music is the remainder.

[ptmmatssc]

I guarantee you: Attitude, body language and behavior is a large part of the deal. Mouth music is the remainder.

I agree , you need not be a Richard Cranium when officers show up . To me , a simple " I'm willing to answer whatever questions you have once I confer with my lawyer" is not giving an "attitude". Yelling about "I know my rights" is not gonna win you any points .

A polite and courteous person can still exercise their right to council . And I believe it's better to have that on the investigation notes rather than "rude, aggressive, uncooperative" etc .



.

[Old Ephraim]

It's almost though some are thinking that the police won't be able to recognize what crime occured at a shooting event. In a good shoot the trigger puller will be the victim and the injured, or dead party, will be the offender. If the injured party lives, and I send investigators to speak with him at the hospital, I think you can imagine what their statement will be. You will most likely be the victim of some type of robbery or assault, or attempt thereof. Statements you make WILL be used...against the offending party.

And, if you are not in custody, chances are better than not that you will not hear Miranda uttered from a cops lips. Miranda does not attach until there is a custody issue.

And I still don't get paid for arrests. My work is evaulated, as I evaulate my subordinates work, on quality.

[ilbob]

There are enough cases where cops go over the line that you have to do what you can to protect yourself. You don't have to be rude about it, but there is nothing that says you have to be stupid about it either. Cops are not there to protect your rights. That is dead last on their list of things they are doing when they come on a crime scene. They will do what it takes to avoid a court tossing out evidence later on, but that is about it. Anything else to protect yourself has to be on you.

[ptmmatssc]

It's almost though some are thinking that the police won't be able to recognize what crime occured at a shooting event.

There ya go . No need to "question" anybody then :D


Now here's my question(s) . Why is a person requesting to speak to council before making any statements such a hassle?

Is the request for council a "sign" of guilt , and why ?

If a person is not "in custody" , thereby not having Miranda read and in effect , can what they say still be used against them ? And if it can , why would someone want to speak with the chance they may "say something wrong" or have something misconstrued , and then later be used against them ?


.

[pyle]

Here's a question I've often thought of:

Regarding Miranda:

"anything you say can and will be used against you"

WHY say anything at all? If anything I say WILL be used against me - why say anything at all?

Next, does Miranda only apply after you've been arrested? For example, if an LEO is investigating an "incident" - will the "anything I say can and will be used against me" be applicable to the conversation before the arrest or only after the arrest? What's to keep an LEO from getting the pre-arrest conversation mixed together with the post-arrest conversation?

From a theoretical perspective - it seems you would be stupid to open your mouth at all. However, from a practical perspective - maybe not??? I'm a little confused.....

[whosyrdaddy]

What you don't want to do is contribute in any way to making anybody in the criminal justice system think it was a bad shoot. Simple as that.

Exactly, and the very best way to do that is to keep your mouth shut until your lawyer gets there. I get the impression that some commenting in this thread didn't even watch the video.

Many people seem to believe that an investigators job is to ascertain the facts and determine whether a crime has been committed.

That is simply not the case.

An investigators job is to obtain as much incriminating evidence as possible against any subject of any investigation. If they find any such evidence, the subject becomes a suspect. Even if no such evidence exists, the Prosecuting Attorney may still elect ignore this fact and hence you become a Defendant.

Here (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/msp/Legal_Update_-_Sept_2006_173197_7.pdf) is a perfect example from the MSP's own website.

General Provisions of the Act
A person may use deadly force with no duty to retreat if (PA 309):
1. They are not engaged in a crime
2. They are in a place they have a legal right to be
3. They honestly and reasonably believe deadly force is necessary
4. The deadly force is used to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault of the person or another

In the absence of guidance from a prosecutor, officers should attempt to gather circumstantial or direct evidence that might show that use of force was unjustified, i.e., the circumstances listed in PA 309 did not exist.

[divemedic]

Read this paper from the Pennsylvania Fraternal Order of Police (http://www.pafop.org/EXPO%20Class.pdf).

They say this to cops who have been involved in a shooting incident:

it is imperative that the member invoke their right to consult with counsel prior to making any statement to anyone about anything.

Now, if this is what the FOP is telling cops who have been involved in a shooting, why isn't that good advice for everyone else as well?

[Kosh75287]

I've ALREADY made ONE small town in Texas famous for the antics of their municipal "police". I wasn't even involved in a shooting, and I was treated like a criminal. The part that stirred me to action was that, once they realized I wasn't Charles Manson or Ted Bundy, THAT'S when they started turning the screws.
Good will and cooperation be damned. From now on, they get NOTHING from me after my name and my attorney's name.

[Art Eatman]

Kosh, if you go to judging "all" by the malactions of one or a few, I have a couple of suggestions: One, never get married; or two, don't have a buddy; he might steal your gal.

IOW, there is a reason I brought up the point about using common sense, horse sense, whatever you want to call it: If some LEOs come on to the deal as hostile toward you, sure, keep a zipper on your lip. Get a lawyer ASAP.

Again, the subject is a clean shoot, self-defense.

[Rangermedic]

A Leo involed in a shooting, will not talk to an investigator withg out representation. why should you?
If you think you are going to be in "control" of your mouth post shooting, think about how you feel or react post a MVA.

[Boomer]

Old Ephraim, thanks for your insight and comments. I'd appreciate it if you would comment specifically on the following that Rangermedic just posted:

A Leo involed in a shooting, will not talk to an investigator withg out representation. why should you?
If you think you are going to be in "control" of your mouth post shooting, think about how you feel or react post a MVA.

Is this what happens when a LEO is involved in a shooting? If so, should it be different for a non-LEO? And if so, why?

[Old Ephraim]

Thanks guys, I'm learning a lot so far. Again, I don't want to give anyone advice, just learn.

"Why is a person requesting to speak to council before making any statements such a hassle?" It's not a hassle for me, just wondering why one would risk arrest rather than simply take the investigator on a 'walk through' of the scene.

"Is the request for council a "sign" of guilt , and why ?" No, it isn't. Let me leap to a trial, not just a shooting, but any trial, if the defendent does not take the stand, the judge will instruct the jury not to include that fact in their deliberations, and (if it even comes up) if the defendent had refused to talk with the police, the judge will also instruct the jury not to include that fact in their deliberations.

"WHY say anything at all? If anything I say WILL be used against me - why say anything at all?" In a good shoot, your are the victim. The bad guy may be in the morgue or hospital, that'll leave you as the victim. It is always helpful to do a quick walk through with the victim to make sure that the crime scene investigators gather all pertinent evidence while in custody of the scene. Lots of things can happen to alter or contaminate the scene prior to it being properly secured and processed.

"Next, does Miranda only apply after you've been arrested". Miranda is simple and complicated all at the same time. Simply, Miranda is required when there is a 'custodial interrogation". It gets complicated when environment, circumstances and perception come into play. But, let's say that there is 'custody' without questioning... anything uttered, related to the crime will become admissable becasue it was not a responce to a question. This could be discussed for days. Hope that helps.

"What's to keep an LEO from getting the pre-arrest conversation mixed together with the post-arrest conversation?" If you are not free to leave (where-ever you are), for any reason, and all the sudden you begin to say incriminating things, if the officer does not, at that point, stop and adivse you of your Miranda rights, a good lawyer will see to it that those statements are inadmissable at trial.


"They say this to cops who have been involved in a shooting incident:" Again, cop shootings are different. They will be involved as the victim (I'm assuming a good shoot as I have with all my responces) in a criminal investigation, but they will also be subjected to an internal use of force review to establish if they were conforming to their use of force policies. It's been my experience that most cops are bothered more by their agencies investigation per policy, than the criminal investigation. They know that somewhere behind the scenes, administrators, lawyers, and insurors are evaulating liability issues pertinent to their future.

[cassandrasdaddy]

somewhere behind the scenes, administrators, lawyers, and insurors are evaulating liability issues pertinent to their future.

too true and that selling them out to reduce that liability or quiet a special interest is an option even if its a legal shoot

[MechAg94]

I have seen the video, but most of the examples in the video were dealing with interviews and questioning at the police station or after the fact. IMO, that is a no-brainer. You need to have counsel.

What I am thinking of is what happens on the side of the street when cops show up and see me with a gun and a dead guy nearby. I just can't see telling the cops I want a lawyer and nothing else. A simple statement of ' he pulled a weapon on me, I feared for my life, and I shot him' would be reasonable IMO. Just make sure it is 100% true. No need to have a "conversation" at all. After that, sure, find a lawyer. IMO, you can't assume the scene will be "obvious" and there might be complications like witnesses who saw only part of the scene and think you just shot him or any number of things. I just find it hard to believe some of you would be yelling for your lawyer 2 seconds after reholstering.

Also, if you are the one calling 911 which you should do in most any situation to make sure the cops know who you are, you are going to have to tell them something. You can't tell them "there is a dead guy here, I need hang up and call my lawyer". I can just see a prosecutor playing that 911 call to the grand jury.

[MechAg94]

How many of y'all actually have a lawyer's phone number on you or in your phone ready to call on the side of the street? That is what many of you seem to be saying so I assume you are prepared to call 911 then call you lawyer.

[weisse52]

Well, yes I do. Not sure of the sequence, but I will be calling him.

And it might serve you well to do the same. Not sure you want to be surfing the phone book at 3:00 AM looking for someone to provide assistance and counsel.

If you plan for other details, why would you not have thought ahead and have a lawyer?

If you carry a firearm you take on a much greater responsibility than those that choose not too.

So, plan ahead for all aspects.

[DMF]

"What's to keep an LEO from getting the pre-arrest conversation mixed together with the post-arrest conversation?" If you are not free to leave (where-ever you are), for any reason, and all the sudden you begin to say incriminating things, if the officer does not, at that point, stop and adivse you of your Miranda rights, a good lawyer will see to it that those statements are inadmissable at trial.Sorry, but that is not correct. Miranda advisement is needed when there is questioning, or the practical equivalent of questioning. If someone in custody chooses to make unprompted statements to the cops even without Miranda warnings and a waiver, those statements will still be admissable. I am NOT required to stop someone from talking, if they decided on their own, without questioning from me (or the practical equivalent of questioning), to make incriminating statements. I can sit there quietly and listen as long as I like, and it's all admissable as long as I don't question the person prior to rights advisement and waiver.

[billwiese]

Standing mute is not an admission of guilt, nor can the fact that you refused to answer be used against you.

Not so fast.

State cases, probably.

In Federal matters, there's matters of USC 1001 (IIRC) - thus where 'muteness' should be replaced by statement that you need to talk to a lawyer, with no other statement being made (even a professing of innocence should be avoided) Other muteness without deferring to a lawyer can be used against you in Fed court, it seems ("He stood silent while we accused him of <Fed crime #123456>")

Even assertion of your innocence to investigators can be used against you by Feds if something goes haywire: lookit Martha Stewart.

So, it's thus far more rational to say, "I need to consult with counsel (etc.)" rather than "I'm innocent, now I have to talk to my lawyer."

Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

[DMF]

Regarding the original post, that video has been discussed before, here and on other forums. Here is what I said on another gun forum regarding this video:

Some good info there, but also a vast oversimplification of the problem. I can think of many situations where you want to talk to the cops even though you're a suspect.

What if your kid is missing? You're a possible suspect, a possible victim, and a possible witness. Are you going to significantly reduce the chance that your child will be found by not talking to the cops?

What if your spouse is murdered? Again, you're a possible suspect, a possible victim, and a possible witness. Are you going to lower the chance that the killer will be found and brought to justice by not talking to the cops?

Then there are the folks who actually are guilty, and offered a chance to work as an informant. Getting on board to help yourself out early is the best chance to get a better deal.

Just a few examples:

It's a lot more complicated a choice than the defense attorney, and future defense attorney (cop) are making it out to be. They are mostly concerned about billable hours, and lawyering up early usually means more billable hours for them.

[DMF]

In Federal matters, there's matters of USC 1001 (IIRC) - thus where 'muteness' should be replaced by statement that you need to talk to a lawyer, with no other statement being made (even a professing of innocence should be avoided) Other muteness without deferring to a lawyer can be used against you in Fed court, it seems ("He stood silent while we accused him of <Fed crime #123456>")I've actually worked 1001 cases, and that's the biggest load of BS I've ever heard. Refusing to talk with investigators cannot be used as evidence of a 1001 violation. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's flat out false.

As to Martha Stewart she did not merely make statements claiming innocence she was shown to have knowingly and willfully made false statements to the investigators. She lied, got caught in those lies, and was prosecuted for it.

[Elza]

MechAg94: How many of y'all actually have a lawyer's phone number on you or in your phone ready to call on the side of the street?I do. His office, home, and cell numbers are on my cell phone.MechAg94: That is what many of you seem to be saying so I assume you are prepared to call 911 then call you lawyer.This is precisely what I plan to do.

[tallpaul]

Experienced investigators will know that you will most likely be a 'soup sandwich' after a shooting, and will make allowances for that.


yup the professor mentions that and how it is twisted and used against you- heck the LE says the same...

[tallpaul]

esides, saying that you would rather that your attorney be there before making a statement does not mean that you have to be rude about it.

that should be a two way street... I also have a real issue that if someone lies to them it is an issue but LE are allowed to lie and manipulate their statements...

I had a shooting in my neighborhood last summer and stayed on the phone with 911 giving updates and info live from just after the initial-while a car came back and shot some more and untill the officers arrived telling the house layout-number of perps where they were from what I saw etc...

I hate to say it but I don't think I would again... the lawyers and investigators were a pain in the butt- wanted me to take off work- not get comped-although they get paid to goto court etc...

well I like ta think I would not but in reality I doubt I could let police go blind into the dark if I could help but it definately left a bad taste behind.... and I was innocent and helping them!

[Gentleman Ranker]

Old Ephraim Yesterday, 10:56 PM (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=4695941&postcount=39) says:

... cop shootings are different.

Would you be willing to say more about this? I understand your point about LEOs being the subject of two investigations rather than one, but are they different in any other way?

I am honestly curious.

It's been my experience that most cops are bothered more by their agencies investigation per policy, than the criminal investigation. They know that somewhere behind the scenes, administrators, lawyers, and insurors are evaulating liability issues pertinent to their future.

Many citizens know that, somewhere behind the scenes, bureaucrats, lawyers and politicians are evaluating political issues pertinent to their future. Not all of these evaluations are entirely friendly.

Citizens often hear "if you have nothing to hide ....". How does this not apply to the internal investigation of an officer who's made a good shoot? Or is that question just an interview tactic that LEOs know better than to dignify?

I don't intend this as hostile, I'd just like to hear it clearly explained so that I, as a non-LE, non-specialist can understand it.

Thanks for your input, and

regards,

GR

[Treo]

I see some interesting strawmen in this thread. The subject under discussion is ; You've been involved in an SD shooting, not if you saw a car rundown a bunch of people, not if you're wife and kids vanished (more about that later).

If there's been a shooting and you're involved, the cops are walking into it W/ the possibility that you're lying. They will ask you the same question 10 times and look for discrepencies in your answer. According to the cop on the video they can and will lie to you to get the answers they want. If that doesn't change your mind about talking to the cops nothing in this thread will either.

Family disappearnce:
How many people here remember Jon Benet Ramsey? That happened almost twelve years ago and the Boulder P.D just got around to saying that they were innocent.

I'm sorry but if I were involved in any type criminal investigation as other than a witness I wouldn't answer any questions W/out a lawyer, there's just too much to lose

[M1911]

At a recent seminar I attended, the speakers were:

- 2 prominent criminal defense attorneys, both of whom have worked a number of self defense cases.
- an appellate attorney who has worked on a number of self defense cases
- the chief of police from a small town force, who used to be the director of Smith & Wesson Academy.

When this question was asked, the speakers gave three different opinions. The chief suggested the most expansive statement, how you were attacked, what you did, who saw it, where the evidence was, etc. But he acknowledged that you would be in the midst of an adrenalin dump and possibly greatly affected by tachypsychia.

The appellate attorney also suggested that you make a brief statement at the scene that would lend credence to you being the victim.

The two criminal defense attorneys both said the same thing: STFU.

If I am ever in that unfortunate situation, my plan is to say something along the lines of: "He was going to kill me (us), I had to stop him. I'll answer all of your questions by I need to speak with my lawyer first."

[Old Ephraim]

"Would you be willing to say more about this? I understand your point about LEOs being the subject of two investigations rather than one, but are they different in any other way?"

If a citizen is involved in a self defence shooting, odds are better than not, that the first information to come into the dispatch center is going to be a call for service (cops or ambulance) related to the shooting itself, be it from the shooter, or a witness. (I've actually seen folks on this site give some darn good advice on giving some thoughtful consideration as to how to call 911. How you make your call will have an impact on the initial responding officers mindset as he is on his way to the scene)

In cop shootings there is usually another event, already in progress, prior to the dreaded 'shots fired' coming across the radio. A traffic stop, a call to a domestic dispute, robbery, breaking and entering, whatever. One of the first stops for the investigators in cop shootings is the dispatch center to pick up the recordings of phone calls and radio traffic, and then off to grab the video from a patrol car. Investigators have a lot of evidence available to them prior to taking any statements, or working the scene. Hope that answers your question.

[Old Ephraim]

Sorry I didn't see this one earlier...

"Old Ephraim, thanks for your insight and comments. I'd appreciate it if you would comment specifically on the following that Rangermedic just posted:
Quote:
A Leo involed in a shooting, will not talk to an investigator withg out representation. why should you?
If you think you are going to be in "control" of your mouth post shooting, think about how you feel or react post a MVA.
Is this what happens when a LEO is involved in a shooting? If so, should it be different for a non-LEO? And if so, why"

Again, I'm back to answering based on my experience. I work for a state agency, usually officer involved shootings happen within the local agencies where policies vary. Most officers will do a walk through of the scene with us (with their supervisor present), give us their weapon(s) and uniform, go home, sleep (or try to) and then come in for a complete statement the next day. Sometimes their lawyer shows up, sometimes they simpy talk to them on the phone prior to the interview, sometimes I talk to their lawyer before the interview on the phone. Sometimes the officer insist on giving their detailed statement right away. Sometimes they can't shut up and every thought passing through their head comes out of their mouth as they bounce all over the scene.

My preference as in investigator is to have 'the basics' from the shooter, be he a cop, or citizen while I still have control of the scene. If someone is rambling on, I'll usually say, "let's talk about that tomorrow". In my experience most people give better detailed statements after having time to digest what just happened to them. They are still to 'jazzed' at the scene to accurately sort out feelings and articulate their decision making process from a highly stressful event.

As far as..."A Leo involed in a shooting, will not talk to an investigator withg out representation." As a blanket statement, that is not always true. Maybe in some areas, maybe not in others. I hope that answers your question.

[Boomer]

Thanks for the response.

[divemedic]

If you click on this link (http://www.pafop.org/EXPO%20Class.pdf), you will see that the attorney that wrote it is acknowledging that there are two investigations for police officers. He also says that cops are exempt from having any statements they make in the course of an internal investigation being used against them.

Basically, if your employer (the Police Department) requires you to make a statement under the threat of discipline if you refuse, then you are required to make a statement under the law, but that statement cannot be used against you in court. If the employer tells the officer that the statements made are going to beused in court, he does not have to make a statement. An attorney will know when each situation applies. However, according to the Weingarten rule, a police officer may have a union attorney present during all investigations.

So in these cases, police officers have a protection we do not have. This is coming from an FOP lawyer, and even with those protections, he is advising officers to STFU until a union attorney arrives. I wonder why that is?

I am not saying an officer will not, and I am not saying that every cop and prosecutor is out to get you, but considering the stakes, why would you take the chance that the one you are talking to isn't one of the Nifongs? Whatever you have to say that makes you look innocent will still do so in 20 minutes when the attorney gets here, but once you make a statement you can't unsay it. As attorneys are fond of saying, "You can't unring a bell."

[bensdad]

This thread is interesting. It won't change how I deal with the police if I ever have to shoot someone, but it's interesting.

Sorry guys, but Officer Friendly died when you got your driver's license. Their only job now is to collect evidence against a perp. Their job is NOT to help clear your good name.

1) claim victim status in one small sentence.
2) "I'm very upset right now. I need my lawyer."

[basicblur]

What if your kid is missing…What if your spouse is murdered? Are you going to lower the chance that the killer will be found and brought to justice by not talking to the cops?
How many people here remember Jon Benet Ramsey? That happened almost twelve years ago and the Boulder P.D just got around to saying that they were innocent.

Yup…I remember when the parents wouldn’t talk to the police without a lawyer and they were crucified by some in the media! I remember thinking at the time “I don’t blame ‘em, as they are undoubtedly suspects, and they are probably worried ‘bout someone trying to hang this crime on them” (these folks were wealthy/smart enough to know the game).
Now all these years later, new DNA methods have proven neither of the parents are suspects.

I also have a real issue that if someone lies to them it is an issue but LE are allowed to lie and manipulate their statements...
I was discussing this very issue with someone who watches a lot of those court TV shows-apparently in NC there was a case of the father of a mentally ill teen being murdered, and in the course of the investigation the teen was lied to (“we talked to your father in the hospital before he died and he said you shot him”). The teen (being mentally challenged) said his father had never lied to him, so it must be true! He was convicted, but many years later the true murderer was found.
Think these investigators were just “seeking the truth"?

Who was it that said, “The law is an ass?”

Cases like the above (and those where prosecutors willingly withhold evidence that could help exonerate the defendant) have REALLY bugged me over the years. Society walks around fat, dumb, and happy thinking the guilty party is behind bars when the true criminal is out on the street, no doubt continuing to ply his craft.
So in cases as the above, we have an innocent person behind bars (at taxpayer expense) while the criminal continues to put society at risk.

I also had a co-worker who was into politics, and told me he once mentioned to a local politician that something had to be done to these prosecutors who are found to be withholding evidence (there had been a spate of such stories in the news at the time). He said the local politician (being a former prosecutor) acted like you’d shot him through the heart!

Ya know…if we as a society continue to walk around with our head in the sand ‘bout this stuff, it’s just going to continue (to society’s detriment).

[DMF]

Yup…I remember when the parents wouldn’t talk to the police without a lawyer and they were crucified by some in the media! I remember thinking at the time “I don’t blame ‘em, as they are undoubtedly suspects, and they are probably worried ‘bout someone trying to hang this crime on them” (these folks were wealthy/smart enough to know the game).
Now all these years later, new DNA methods have proven neither of the parents are suspects.What if all those years ago they had talked to the police? What if that conversation would have allowed the police to eliminate them as suspects earlier, or at least place less emphasis on them as suspects? Maybe that would have cleared the air enough to allow the investigators to concentrate more time on finding the killer, instead of devoting so much time to determining whether or not the parents were the killers.

See that's the real world, and it's not about billable hours.

[divemedic]

Alternatively, what if all those years ago they had talked to the police, said something incriminating, and been convicted on it?

The police can ask the same questions whether or not your lawyer is there. It's just that if your lawyer is there, he will make sure the questions are legal, and that you don't say anything stupid.

[basicblur]

What if all those years ago they had talked to the police? What if that conversation would have allowed the police to eliminate them as suspects earlier, or at least place less emphasis on them as suspects? Maybe that would have cleared the air enough to allow the investigators to concentrate more time on finding the killer, instead of devoting so much time to determining whether or not the parents were the killers.

See that's the real world, and it's not about billable hours.

Yeah…I knew somebody was going to come back with that angle!

What if…
They HAD talked to the police, and with all the media attention the police felt pressure to charge somebody, but not having any other suspects, they used the parents’ statements (however innocuous they seemed at the time) against them in court?

Now I’m assuming the parents are not guilty of the child’s murder (innocent until proven guilty donchaknow) and don’t know who is. Way I understand it, the police have DNA from a number of folks that don’t match what they found on the young girl’s skirt, so I’m also assuming that rules out family members etc.

We can play the “What if” game all day long…in the “real world”, the what if door swings both ways.

[Sebastian the Ibis]

There is a two part process for civilians involved in self defense shootings too. Dealing with the police and dealing with the prosecutor.

The prosecution is what matters because only they can alter your life. The police can only put you in jail for a couple of days (resulting in no charges or record). The police will use your fear of going to jail for a couple of days to get you to give them the information they need to put you away for a long time.

If I am ever in a self-defense situation I will courteously and meekly request my attorney, and will in no circumstances say anything without an attorney present. I will not try and annoy the police with an attitude, but I am fully prepared to go to jail for the night if they threaten me with it.

Only a prosecutor can get you a "deal" or decide to not prosecute you. All a police officer can do is decide not to take you in that night. However, they can use everything you tell them against you in court.

While I am sure Old Ephraim is an honorable officer, I do not know about the officer answering the call in all situations. A friend of mine was rear ended a couple of days ago while stopped at a light and he got the reckless driving citation because the responding officer knew the other driver. It sucks but that is life.

I would not even tell the responding officer that I did it and was fearful. I would take care of that when calling 911 "There is a bad guy breaking into my house- jeans, black sweater, ski-mask." This way the responding officers see me as the victim and him as the bad guy when they arrive on the scene, I really should not have to say anymore.

[taprackbang]

I am not a huge fan of the current police force. I know some good guys, (LEOs) but I have lost trust in the department for many reasons.
They tend to harass good people. Recently, they were forcing blood draws upon suspected drunk drivers in Texas. They confiscated guns from law abiding citizens in N.O. after Katrina. Officers from OTHER states were doing this!!

I don't need the police. I can take care of my own safety.

[NASCAR_MAN]

I see two themes constantly emerging in relation to this topic:

1. If I don't say anything, then I'll get arrested, and

2. If I don't say anything then it will not look good in court.


For the first: If I don't say anything, then I'll get arrested

No one ever talked there way out of being arrested. Didn't you listen to officer Bruch? If the police have enough evidence to arrest you, then they will....no matter what you say. However, if you choose to talk, then you've just chosen to make an already bad situation a lot worse.

For the Second: If I don't say anything then it will not look good in court

The fact that you asked for your attorney and refused to answer questions can't even be mentioned in court.



So...why say ANYTHING?

[billwiese]

[quote=billwiese]
In Federal matters, there's matters of USC 1001 (IIRC) - thus where 'muteness' should be replaced by statement that you need to talk to a lawyer, with no other statement being made (even a professing of innocence should be avoided) Other muteness without deferring to a lawyer can be used against you in Fed court, it seems ("He stood silent while we accused him of <Fed crime #123456>")

I've actually worked 1001 cases, and that's the biggest load of BS I've ever heard. Refusing to talk with investigators cannot be used as evidence of a 1001 violation. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's flat out false.

Well just as one example:

from http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=5213 :

It is crucial to note that affirmatively declining to discuss the
investigation in the absence of counsel is not the same thing as
remaining completely silent. If you are not in custody, your total silence,
especially in the face of an accusation, can very possibly be used against
you as an adoptive admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Your invocation of counsel, however, cannot be used against you at trial.
(US v. McDonald, 620 F.2d 559, 561-64 (5th Cir. 1980)). Your refusal to
talk substance in the absence of counsel will force the prosecutor to decide
whether your information is important enough to justify a grand jury
subpoena for your testimony.



I thus again say the ONLY response to any government entity is "Talk to my lawyer."

There was a similar but more extensive answer to these 1001 matters in a linked .pdf I saw via Arms and the Law, IIRC.



Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

[devildog66]

All anecdotal LEO "my experience" info aside, show me the citation of a court case where talking with LE prior to having an attorney present HELPED a defendant. Saying nothing is a RIGHT not a display of bad attitude. The 5th Amendment is as important as our cherished 2nd Amendment and should be exercised as we exercise the 2nd in order for it to be regarded.

[ravencon]

No one ever talked there way out of being arrested.
Spot on.

While most self-defense shootings will involve you with municipal, county or state LE, the basic rule of not giving a statement to LE without your attorney being present is especially true if dealing with the feds.

If you make a false statement to a federal agent you can be charged with a felony. If a federal agent lies to you they are using a legitimate investigative technique. NEVER talk to a fed without your lawyer being present.

[devildog66]

+1 for ravencon and I would add that NO one ever talked their way out of a conviction through talking with LE prior to having representation present.

[MechAg94]

I see two themes constantly emerging in relation to this topic:

1. If I don't say anything, then I'll get arrested, and

2. If I don't say anything then it will not look good in court.


For the first: If I don't say anything, then I'll get arrested

No one ever talked there way out of being arrested. Didn't you listen to officer Bruch? If the police have enough evidence to arrest you, then they will....no matter what you say. However, if you choose to talk, then you've just chosen to make an already bad situation a lot worse.

For the Second: If I don't say anything then it will not look good in court

The fact that you asked for your attorney and refused to answer questions can't even be mentioned in court.



So...why say ANYTHING?
So two weeks later when the rotting corpse is noticed by neighbors and they call 911, how is not saying anything going to look in court? :D

I agree with others who have said a short statement is enough. 10 words or less. Repeat it twice, once to 911 and once to responding officers. Don't repeat it. That is more or less what I was referring to. Beyond that, I agree that I wouldn't trust myself not to saying something stupid if I started BS'ing with the cops.

[cassandrasdaddy]

Say Nothing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All anecdotal LEO "my experience" info aside, show me the citation of a court case where talking with LE prior to having an attorney present HELPED a defendant. Saying nothing is a RIGHT not a display of bad attitude. The 5th Amendment is as important as our cherished 2nd Amendment and should be exercised as we exercise the 2nd in order for it to be regarded.


you do realize that if someone gets off there is no court case right? try google for a shooting at the waffle house on warrenton road in fredericksburg va about 2 or three years ago. guy shot 2 folks during a 5 on 2 assault. one fatality. he fled then returned and was forthcoming as were other witm=nesses he was there for about 3 hours but he went home no charges and he got his gun back.

[cassandrasdaddy]

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2003/022003/02232003/889328

Man fatally shot, another wounded







One killed, another wounded after altercation at Stafford restaurant.
By KEITH EPPS


Date published: 2/23/2003

Witnesses say victims provoked 3 a.m. violence

A 25-year-old Fauquier County man was shot and killed early yesterday in an altercation outside a Stafford County restaurant, police said.

Clyde Joseph Merica of Remington was dead in the parking lot of the Waffle House on U.S. 17 near Interstate 95 when deputies began arriving shortly after 3 a.m.

Sheriff Charles Jett said a second man had been shot through the upper part of his leg. That victim, another Fauquier resident, was taken to Mary Washington Hospital. His name was not released.

Two local men believed to have been on the other end of the altercation turned themselves in to police yesterday, Jett said.

No charges were filed last night. Police were still interviewing the suspects and other witnesses late into the night.

Police sources said early witness accounts indicate that a group of between three and five men, including Merica and the other shooting victim, actually started the disturbance.

Several witnesses claim that the two local men, whose names have not been released, were simply eating breakfast when others in the restaurant began a verbal altercation with them.

The two men left the restaurant in an apparent effort to get away from the others, witnesses said, but once outside, they were attacked and beaten.

According to witness accounts, one of the men eventually got into his car and got a gun. When he noticed his friend wasn't in the car, he got back out and saw him being pummeled.

Sources said the man with the gun then fired--but only after members of the opposing group rushed toward him. Merica died near the area where the suspects' vehicle had been parked.

The combatants apparently didn't know each other prior to yesterday, sources said.

Jett declined to elaborate on the investigation, which he said is still in its early stages.

Jett would say only that there was a verbal altercation inside the restaurant and a physical one outside.

The person responsible for the shootings left with a second man in a black Mitsubishi, Jett said.

Both men later turned themselves in and gave statements to police, Jett said. The weapon used to kill Merica was turned over to police.

Jett said the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office has been consulted about possible charges. It was the first homicide in Stafford this year.

[Treo]

Only an idiot would start some stuff at the Waffle House , come 3 O'Clock in th A.M. even the waitresses are packin'

I saw an episode of C.O.P.S. tonite ( yes I know it was C.O.P.S) but one segment really illistrated one of the points we're talking about.

3 guys busted for dope the police seperate them & one guy rolls instantly, claims the drugs takes full responsabilty for them and very clearly states that his 2 buddies knew nothing about the drugs. The cop immediately walks over to the two buddies & tells them that the first guy is giving them up and they'd better come clean right now.

Cops can and will lie to you to get a confession out of you.

Don't talk to the cops

[O C]

Think of it this way. The cops work for the same agency as the prosecuter, be it City, County, State, or Fed.They have a staff to back them up from the 911 call center to secretarial help. Exactly who is on your staff? Get the field as level as possible, because it's YOUR ass in the sling. Everybody else goes home( except for one BG possibly).Yes, I have a lawyer's card clipped to my CCW permit.No talking untill my guy gets there. " I understand the seriousness of the situation, and feel that it's in my best interest to have legal council".

[devildog66]

Regarding the Fredricksburg case, I would attribute the result more to the corroborating witness statements then to the actions of the two individuals. Had the witnesses seen something else those two would have regretted the decision they made - they were lucky.

I'll close out my participation in this thread with the following. Exercise your 5th Amendment right as strongly as one exercises the 2nd. The 5th is not only for some cats with "Joey Bananas" or "Tony Big Fish" as nicknames. It is for right against self-incrimination - inadvertent or otherwise.

[ilbob]

Now all these years later, new DNA methods have proven neither of the parents are suspects.
And it was pretty obvious about 3 months into the 12 year ordeal that the investigators blew it early on by focusing on the parents. Their refusal to admit their mistake a long time ago is an affront to every law abiding citizen. yet, you will notice nothing bad happened to the cops or the DA for this 12 year long witch hunt.

Thats is why you can never, ever consider a cop or DA as a friend in this kind of situation. They are there to pin the crime on someone. They probably prefer to get the right guy, but if they focus on the wrong guy upfront, they will always take their time admitting it. Don't help them to screw with you by saying things w/o your lawyer present.

[wyocarp]

Even in simple traffic stops, cops use what you say against you. Police are not your friends! Nothing extra should be said to them. They write down anything you say that can be used against you on the back of the tickets. Get a copy of the back of the next ticket you get and you'll never have extra conversations with police officers again. They are wolves in sheeps clothing.

[ilbob]

They are wolves in sheeps clothing.
I don't think that is quite the case. But do not mistake a cop with a friendly demeanor for a friend.

I will say it once more. I do not believe most cops are the enemy. That does not make them your friend, any more than it makes friends of the 7 billion other people who are not your enemy.

They are there to do a job for an entity that in many cases is, if not your enemy, certainly unfriendly.

[revjen45]

" If some LEOs come on to the deal as hostile toward you, sure, keep a zipper on your lip. Get a lawyer ASAP."
Yeah, that's why they will act like your buddy and try to gain your trust. You catch more flies with honey, etc... Remember, their job is to supply the D.A with busy work.

[wyocarp]

They are there to do a job for an entity that in many cases is, if not your enemy, certainly unfriendly.


That makes them the enemy in my book. If they aren't for you, they are against you!

[ilbob]

They are there to do a job for an entity that in many cases is, if not your enemy, certainly unfriendly.

That makes them the enemy in my book. If they aren't for you, they are against you!
In the real world it is not quite that simple. Instead of hating cops, you should be cautious around them and take your wrath out on the politicians at election time. I know that does not have a whole lot of immediate gratification, but in the long run it solves things, while merely hating cops does not.

Someone has to enforce the law. Anarchy is not a good option. The problem is not so much with those who enforce the laws, but the laws themselves.

[mbt2001]

Just a note...

I think that the 5th amendment is more of a prohibition against torture than anything. How can you be COMPELLED to give evidence against yourself absent some kind of physical or psyc. torture?

[ilbob]

Just a note...

I think that the 5th amendment is more of a prohibition against torture than anything. How can you be COMPELLED to give evidence against yourself absent some kind of physical or psyc. torture?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I don't see a prohibition against torture in there. You obviously could not use the proceeds of the torture in a criminal proceeding though.

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Stop for a minute and think about it..

If a cop had enough to arrest and convict you for everything he wanted would he even speak with you? NO.

They ask you questions so that they can get information to prosecute people, either you or someone else- but you don't know who that is. Just watch a dozen episodes of Cops and you will know what happens when you don't invoke.

[mbt2001]

I think it is implied... One of the most obvious ways to compell someone to do something is by force.

[ilbob]

I think it is implied... One of the most obvious ways to compell someone to do something is by force.
Note the use of the phrase "criminal case". If there is no criminal case involved, that part of the 5th does not apply.

I am not advocating widesprad use of torture by government, but the 5th just does not prohibit it directly.

[Henry Bowman]

This thread has wondered far astray, has been hashed and rehashed interminably, contains far too much misinformation and opinion not based on legal knowledge.

Enough.

[Coronach]

HB closed the thread, but I wanted to clarify one point:A Leo involed in a shooting, will not talk to an investigator withg out representation. why should you?
If you think you are going to be in "control" of your mouth post shooting, think about how you feel or react post a MVA.

Is this what happens when a LEO is involved in a shooting? If so, should it be different for a non-LEO? And if so, why?

When a LEO is involved in a shooting 'round here, the LEO will make a VERY basic statement of fact at the time. To wit: "I was roughly here, he was roughly there. He had a gun, I shot him. I think there were some people over there who may be witnesses."

The purpose of this is to give the investigators a very general idea about what happened, so they know the scope of the scene and where to look for witnesses and physical evidence.

This is generally what a defensive shooter should do as well. The cops need to know who shot, so they know that no one else is involved (either as sender or recipient of bullets). The cops need to know, generally, where the shooting happened. The cops do not need to know immediately WHY you shot, beyond "I was in fear of my life".

Make a brief, general statement, request your attorney, and SHUT YOUR MOUTH. This is exactly what the LEOs do, and it's exactly what you should do.

IANAL, and you really should consult with one prior to contemplating defensive use of a handgun. Besides, if you say you want your lawyer, their first question will be "OK, who is it?" You should probably have an answer. ;) Now is not the time to open up the yellow pages and flip to AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1+ Bail Bonds, Criminal Defense, Paternity & Divorce, LLC. You want someone who knows whatthe heck he is doing, not someone who knows how to do an arraignment with low bond and negotiate a good plea. ;)

Again, this is not to get this thread fired back up again, it is merely to clarify that point. You should do what the cops do: VERY general statement, request a lawyer, politely decline to answer further questions.

Mike