To Speak or Not to Speak

[gremlin_bros]

feel free to ask me anything about what i went through i will try to answer the best i can.

 

[XD_fan]

No tampering

IANAL nor do I play one on TV.

Tampering with evidence is just as bad if not worse than leaving the scene or lying. Don't do it. As others have stated it will be immediately obvious where the actual shooting occured and where the bodies fell and how they got there. No tampering, no touching. I don't know if your under any obligation to render first aid after stopping the attack.

The police will take control of your house after they arrive. You will most likely be removed from the house and asked to surrender your firearm. You must and should cooperate with the police. Given our current legal climate they probably have and will take carte blance to search your house down to the last nail. I personally would not give them permission to do anything. It will make no difference to them either way. They will do what they want to and see fit to do.

Regardless what is said to you by the police you have no obligation to speak to them about anything. Massad Ayoob has written about this many times. See his writing else where for details. You must obtain legal assistance and representation before speaking to the police and as soon as possible. Most of us don't have a lawyer on speed dial but it shouldn't take a week to locate one. The only thing you or anyone in your household should say to the police is that you will make a statement and answer questions after obtaining legal advice and representaion. This is no way can or should make you look guilty nor should intimidation of same be allowed. Children are problematic and probably should be removed from the scene. This does not mean you spirit them out of state and hide them. Under no circumstances should the police be allowed to speak to them without a parent and your lawyer present.

Be prepared to be arrested. Be prepared to be ruined financially unless this is such a clear cut case of self-defense as to be called on the spot as such. Then still be prepared for the same. Be prepared to be vilified and humilitated.

One thing you can do to help your cause in all this. Ayoob suggests that you write down what your understandings are of self-defense in a letter. Mail this letter to yourself via registered mail and retain it unopened against needing it. Make sure you update this on a periodic basis as time passes or your understanding changes. Do not had this over to the police. Give it to your lawyer. I have a seperate safe for documents from my gun safe. I would assume and most likely the police will require your gun safe be opened and expect to have every gun in your house confiscated. I refer back to my statement on the legal climate. It does make no difference on the "legalities" of the the action taken by the police. They are the police and will decide what is legal or not. Arguing with them will make no difference.

I know that I'm painting a pretty bleak picture. Sorry, it just the way things are in the country today. You will be guilty until proven innocent. Even then there will be someone involved who still thinks your guilty. Remember this when you talk to people. Its better to say nothing or refer a question to your lawyer than say what you think is the "right" thing to say. DO NOT lie to your lawyer. Be as honest and forth right with your lawyer as you can be. This is the one person who will be on your side. Your paying them but don't think they are your servant. If your in doubt something ask them. In the proper time and place.

Yeah, I'm a cynic and a pessimist. The police and the law are not your friends. They investigate crimes and are looking for the guilty. Its the nature of their business. Never forget this fact. The burden and responsiblity of using a firearm, concealed carry, and having the mindset to shoot a fellow human is a very heavy one. Treat it accordingly. If you do not have the mindset to deal with the consequences of your actions, do not carry or use a gun in self-defense. If you do not have the mindset to draw and fire if circumstances require, do not carry or use a gun in self-defense. If you do not understand that you are an ordinary citizen and have no right or authority to step into a bad situation, do not carry or use a gun in self-defense. If and only if you understand all of the about, the consequences of the burden you carry, and what shooting in the defense of yourself and loved one means, welcome to the rank of the sheep dogs.

 

[redneckrepairs]

CAS700850 i cant speak for any attorney , but as an investigator for a former prosicutor now in private practice due to term limits , my boss would kick my butt if i allowed any statements from one of his clients ( assuming i am the one called out of bed ) before a cooling off period ( when he personaly can meet with them ) , the clients criminal background check will stand on its own when run , no tramatised person needs to go over this without some hours to reflect on surviving the experinace . just my understanding of his opinion and no advise to anyone .

 

[gremlin_bros]

it is my understanding that the leo will take guns used at the time into evidence, not every gun you own IE the bg was shot with a 9mm they would not go into your locked safe and take your rem 870 unless there is evidence that it too was used the idea is bg's may have friends who want revenge and will come looking for it you will still need a way to defend yourself from further attacks.
so the idea is surrender the firearm you used that is law don't worry about it you can get it back after the dust settles but do have other firearms you can use in sd if the need arises. the Leo's i know and the commander from the academy here in Ohio follow this idea and advised the same to students. to simplify it is surrender the firearm in question(the one you used to shoot the bg) and have a backup ready if the bg's friends come looking for trouble. don't be a victim to retaliation.

 

[Justin]

Try explaining a self defense shooting, in your own home, when the attacker, after being shot, runs out of your home and collapses in the neighbor's yard! I guarantee you'll be prosecuted even though it was a clean shoot!!! So advise I was giving was sound... if you shoot them in your home make sure they fall in your home... ask around Biker... check state laws....

YOU are the one making the assertion that it's legal to drag a body back into the house, therefore the responsibility of proving the legality of what you advocate is on your shoulders.

I challenge you to cite one state law anywhere in the United States that says it's legal.

 

[Molon Labe]

YOU are the one making the assertion that it's legal to drag a body back into the house, therefore the responsibility of proving the legality of what you advocate is on your shoulders.

I challenge you to cite one state law anywhere in the United States that says it's legal.

We are in agreement. But your logic is a bit backwards.

The way our laws work, "If a law doesn't say you can't, then you can." In other words, you can do anything you want unless there is a law forbidding it. Therefore you are allowed to move the body unless there's a law forbidding it.

So here's the question: Is there a law forbidding you to move the body?

Answer: Yes. It's called Tampering with Evidence.

 

[Jeff White]

Well there is nothing in anti-gun Illinois' law that says you should drag the body back into the house:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading)
ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑2)
Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
Sec. 7‑3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

But I did find this:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...eqEnd=59900000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/31‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 31‑4)
Sec. 31‑4. Obstructing justice.
A person obstructs justice when, with intent to prevent the apprehension or obstruct the prosecution or defense of any person, he knowingly commits any of the following acts:
(a) Destroys, alters, conceals or disguises physical evidence, plants false evidence, furnishes false information; or
(b) Induces a witness having knowledge material to the subject at issue to leave the State or conceal himself; or
(c) Possessing knowledge material to the subject at issue, he leaves the State or conceals himself.
(d) Sentence.
(1) Obstructing justice is a Class 4 felony, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection (d).
(2) Obstructing justice in furtherance of streetgang related or gang‑related activity, as defined in Section 10 of the Illinois Streetgang Terrorism Omnibus Prevention Act, is a Class 3 felony.
(Source: P.A. 90‑363, eff. 1‑1‑98.)

I'm pretty sure that dragging the body back into the house falls into paragraph (a). In fact I'm sure enough about it, that I would hesitate to arrest someone for it, without checking with the states attorney.

Jeff

 

[Justin]

ML-

I was referring more to legitimate debating technique than to the law.

Within proper debate, it is the responsibility of the person making an assertion to be able to back it up with facts and citations, especially if the assertion is out of the realm of what is commonly held.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Just a short note here... before you call 911 make sure dead men are entirely in your home... if not drag them in... no kidding... law is worded such in most states that intruders need to be inside your home... if you shoot and they wander out and die you will be prosecuted differently that had they fallen dead inside your home...

Legal friend of mine told me about this point....

I have also heard of this "tip" from friends in normal conversation, however I would never follow it.

 

[Atticus]

For the non-lawyers, assume you are a juror. You hear of a double shooting in what appears to be a home invasion (masked intruders, weapons, maybe even forced entry). Do you want to hear the home owner's side of the story? Do you want to hear him say he was in fear for himself and his family? Do you want the cops to say the homeowner was fully cooperative and had nothing to hide? Would remaining silent look bad to a juror, as I have heard?

Assuming you are on trial in this situation, I would definately want to know why. The first thing I would want to know is, what is your connection to the dead guys? When I hear stories like this, my first thought is, drug deal gone sour.

 

[benEzra]

Just a short note here... before you call 911 make sure dead men are entirely in your home... if not drag them in... no kidding... law is worded such in most states that intruders need to be inside your home... if you shoot and they wander out and die you will be prosecuted differently that had they fallen dead inside your home...

Legal friend of mine told me about this point....

(snip)

Try explaining a self defense shooting, in your own home, when the attacker, after being shot, runs out of your home and collapses in the neighbor's yard! I guarantee you'll be prosecuted even though it was a clean shoot!!! So advise I was giving was sound... if you shoot them in your home make sure they fall in your home... ask around Biker... check state laws....

I have studied the self-defense laws of both Florida and North Carolina in great depth, and have received CCW licensure in both states. In either state, there is NO law that says if someone attacks you and you are in actual danger of death or serious bodily harm, you have to be in your home to defend yourself or your family. (If there were, what would be the point in CCW, if you can't defend your family or your own life outside your house?) Nor does justifiable self-defense against a home invader turn into murder or manslaughter because the bad guy runs out of your house after being shot. I challenge you to cite a single statute on which that claim could be based.

Tampering with evidence, on the other hand, IS a serious crime. And not only is it a crime in and of itself, it would make you look like you committed a murder or two and then dragged them inside to try to set it up to look like self-defense. That would be the #1 quickest way to turn a clear-cut case of what would otherwise have been ruled justifiable self-defense into a charge of premeditated murder. Not a good idea.

 

[Ryder]

Might create an adversarial relationship? Too late for that. I will not give a statement because cops will twist every word that comes out of my mouth to make me look guilty and justify their actions. Anyhow, been there done that so forget about it in the future, I am not an idiot.

Apparently lots of people are not stupid. Here's a story released today from one of the places I moved away from over 20 years ago. They've been begging for public assistance on the local netwrok news channels for days now.

--

SAGINAW -- Citing fear of retaliation and mistrust of the police, people are refusing to come forward to help in the investigations of the city's 10 shootings in five days.

The most recent shooting happened at 1:50 a.m. today in the 2200 block of Maplewood. Brittany Neshell Harry, 19, of Buena Vista Township, was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at a local hospital. Deonte Omari Hood, 19, of Saginaw, was in critical condition this morning.

Sgt. Mark Lively of the Saginaw Police Department said police plan to interview Hood sometime today. He said people have not come forward with information on this or the other shootings.

"We get all kinds of excuses," Lively said.

He said people are afraid to talk because of fear of retaliation against themselves or their families. He said some people have the attitude that "I'm going to take care of it myself." Other people say they don't trust the police. This lack of evidence frustrates the police, who have other crimes to solve.

"It's gotten to the point that unless it's a homicide, we're just going to close the case" if there isn't any forensic evidence, Lively said.

He said Prosecuting Attorney Michael Thomas has talked about a witness protection program to encourage more people to contact police. Thomas was not available to comment at press time.

Lively said police do not know if there is a common thread in these shootings, but that it's "always a possibility."

He said each homicide takes anywhere from three to six officers. Officers have to guard the scene, go with the victim to the hospital and, if the victim dies, follow the body to the morgue.

The department has seen its numbers reduced from 150 officers to 92 officers through layoffs in the past three to four years. Lively said he expects more layoffs because of the city's budget problems.

 

[k_dawg]

For this type of scenario, and others.. sometimes you have to deflect a insistant officer. They have been trained to all-but-badger a witness/suspect/etc. Just about every criminal type says "i want my lawyer..", so dont be suprised if that doesn't get them to stop.

"I need to sit down and catch my breath"... "i'm not feeling well". Just sit down, and calm down. Don't get into an arguement with them. Just clam up.

 

[k_dawg]

I have studied the self-defense laws of both Florida and North Carolina in great depth, and have received CCW licensure in both states. In either state, there is NO law that says if someone attacks you and you are in actual danger of death or serious bodily harm, you have to be in your home to defend yourself or your family. (If there were, what would be the point in CCW, if you can't defend your family or your own life outside your house?) Nor does justifiable self-defense against a home invader turn into murder or manslaughter because the bad guy runs out of your house after being shot. I challenge you to cite a single statute on which that claim could be based.

Tampering with evidence, on the other hand, IS a serious crime. And not only is it a crime in and of itself, it would make you look like you committed a murder or two and then dragged them inside to try to set it up to look like self-defense. That would be the #1 quickest way to turn a clear-cut case of what would otherwise have been ruled justifiable self-defense into a charge of premeditated murder. Not a good idea.

One thing to keep in mind is, in Florida.. simply being unlawfully in the house, is defacto serious threat to life. If the badguy is in your house, you dont have to prove that you were reasonably in fear of your life.

But yes, absolutely, what ever happens, don't tamper with the scene. That's trivial for them to detect.

 

[O.F.Fascist]

After securing any visible weapons, the officers will search the house. Most home invasions like this happen because the people in the house are known to the bad guys as having large amounts of drugs, cash, jewelry, or other valuables. The detectives will be looking for anything to indicate a motive for the home invasion other than "random accident." They'll also just want to make sure that all perps/residents are accounted for, and nobody's going to pop out with a weapon.

Might this not be another good reason to have locks on the internal doors of a home and use them. So as those rooms from the wandering and prying eyes of a police officer "securing" the area.

 

[ceetee]

Might this not be another good reason to have locks on the internal doors of a home and use them. So as those rooms from the wandering and prying eyes of a police officer "securing" the area.

Not really. Locks are to keep honest people honest; not to keep out cops searching for accomplices. If they think there's a chance of another bad guy in the vicinity, CRASH!

 

[redneckrepairs]

it is not the " cops" job to be your friend , it is thier job to make you think they are , the cops do not twist what you say , they do howeaver use it out of context to support what they see as the truth , if you cant deal with that , get over it , the world is not built for our benifit , this is a difficult time that if you are honest about things ( with a lawyer ) at worse you will get a No true bill from a grand jury , howeaver if you start tampering with evidince , lying to police , treating it like i cant wait to get online and brag , well you may well earn an oppertunity to meet leroy and bubba , i hope ya like your new bunkies lol

 

[V4Vendetta]

I'm no lawyer. I'm a average fella. If you were on trial, I would like to hear your side. Depending on if I'm convinced, I might ask the judge to award your court costs & legal fees. I wouldn't move any bodies. I wouldn't even go near them unless they were reaching under their coats for a weapon. I live in NC. I'm not really experienced with the legal system here. I'm gonna look in the yellow pages for a lawyer to have on speed-dial after I'm done typing this post.

I would have several guns so that the one the police took wouldn't be my only line of defense. If I only had the one gun, I have a friend who I'm pretty sure would let me borrow some of his. He has enough to re-take Germany. If I was in my living room watching TV & BG's broke down the door, I'd shoot them. I live in a home where the door is point blank in front of me so I wouldn't miss. Then I'd call my lawyer if I could think of it. Then I'd call 911. Then I'd sit down on my couch, place the gun on the table in front of me where I could grab it if I needed.

I would then instruct my family on not saying anything until our lawyer gets here. I will have already done this ahead of time but I feel it would be wise to repeat it. The deputy's where I live are pretty nice when I've dealt with them in the past on social matters but I still would not say anything until my lawyer gets there. I probably sound like a broken record but I feel that point should be emphasized.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Cheese!

So, here I am out here in the country, 8 miles outside a town of 2500.

Usta be 1100, but the state (against the wishes of the locals) chose to put in a max. security prison of 1400 and now the town uses the bigger population to collect more welfare funds.

Nine years I have lived here and never seen a police car on my street. Largest county in Missouri and a sheriff and 4 deputies.

I yam on 90 acres, non-visable and 400 feet from the street, and 3/8 mile from the nearest neighbor.

My security system consists of 2 dogs and a hail of bullets. Nobody comes down my drive without the dogs setting up a racket.

I don't do or deal in drugs. I am poor. There is no reason for any bgs to invade my home for any reason other than pure ignorance.

If one was to step out onto their porch down here in my neck o' the woods, it would be entirely a non-event for them to hear gunfire any time day or night (frequently class III) of the week.

Thus, I must proclaim that in my case I would think seriously about invoking the triple S principle. (Shoot, Shovel and Shut up)

I really feel sorry for youse guys that must live in the big cities like rats in a cage.

I have a barn up near the road. Somebody stole a compound bow and some arrows I stored up there several years ago. I put up a little sign in the barn saying, "If I catch you stealing here, they will never find your body."

Since then, I have had no problems.

The problem that I have been dealing with mostly is, "What do I do with his car?" What a big hole I would have to dig.

Are there any suggestions?

 

[V4Vendetta]

"I really feel sorry for youse guys that must live in the big cities like rats in a cage."

Thanks.

 

[Powderman]

Try explaining a self defense shooting, in your own home, when the attacker, after being shot, runs out of your home and collapses in the neighbor's yard! I guarantee you'll be prosecuted even though it was a clean shoot!!! So advise I was giving was sound... if you shoot them in your home make sure they fall in your home... ask around Biker... check state laws....

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

What you do if you do this is turn a clean shoot into what looks like a murder.

Trust me, people who are shot do not always just fall in a heap. As a matter of fact, even with a good COM shot that destroys the heart, you will still have about 15 seconds to do whatever you want, fueled by remaining blood pressure and adrenalin.

Try sprinting for 15 seconds. See how far you can run.

There are WAY too many things that tell the story, forensically: gun shot residue, scuff marks, high-velocity blood splatter, hair, fibers, you name it.

If it is a good shoot, it doesn't matter if the BG gets into his car, drives a hundred miles away and then dies.

If it is a bad shoot, nothing in the world will conceal it for long.

Moreover, consider that your average cop nowadays also has at the very least some extensive training on preserving a crime scene, and how to spot and identify evidence. Lots of us also have various college degrees in the same thing. Add that to just plain street experience, and you're in a losing situation if you alter a crime scene.

Trust me, if the responding officers even THINK that you have tampered with the scene, the next thing you hear will be your Miranda rights.

Do NOT tamper with the crime scene. EVER.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Just a short note here... before you call 911 make sure dead men are entirely in your home... if not drag them in... no kidding... law is worded such in most states that intruders need to be inside your home... if you shoot and they wander out and die you will be prosecuted differently that had they fallen dead inside your home...

Legal friend of mine told me about this point....

Your legal friend needs to brush up on the law, then. (Paralegal, maybe?)

I'm sure the crime scene investigators, homicide detectives, and county coroner are going to be completely fooled by such a genius move...dragging a bleeding corpse into your house. Surely that's not going to leave any sort of evidence that may be used against you...like, oh, maybe several pints of blood in front of your house that were oozing out of Mr. Bad Guy when he fell after you shot him several times?

Seriously, if that's the kind of advice you're disseminating, I suggest that you not only ask your legal friend to hit the local community college for some lessons on the law, but also that you stop dispensing such dangerous and fallacious advice to the rest of the membership. Not only is it advocating an act that is illegal (tampering with evidence), but it also makes us gunowners look like trigger-happy, bloodthirsty imbeciles.

 

[MikeIsaj]

I

know that I'm painting a pretty bleak picture. Sorry, it just the way things are in the country today. You will be guilty until proven innocent.

THe error here is applying the laws and attitude of your state to all states. I will concede that this attitude is appropriate in far too many places but not in the whole country. I live in Pennsylvania, a 2d friendly and compliant state and in Bucks county which is also 2d and self defense friendly. Had an incident several years ago where the elderly homeowner caught the BG breaking in to his shed. Confronted him in the backyard with a shotgun, chased him down the street and shot him in the crotch. BG died, DA ruled the shooting self-defense. I'm lad for the homeowner but, IMHO it stopped being self-defense when the homeowner started pursuit.

 

[PvtPyle]

Just a short note here... before you call 911 make sure dead men are entirely in your home... if not drag them in... no kidding... law is worded such in most states that intruders need to be inside your home... if you shoot and they wander out and die you will be prosecuted differently that had they fallen dead inside your home...

Legal friend of mine told me about this point....

You can not be serious. I would LOVE to see where this has been an issue in court and what the outcome was, or anywhere in ANY states law where it says that if you shoot someone and they go outside to die that you will be prosecuted under a different standard. And even more so, I would LOVE to see where it is acceptable to tamper with a crime scene! In fact show me ANY state where it would be acceptable to do something like this!

I know in Utah if you do anything to the body other than check for vitals or weapons you will be prosecuted under the law for tampering at the least. But if I am in fear of my life or a loved ones life (and that is far more that the law requires), I can shoot him in my house, on my yard, at my neighbors house, at the mall, on the county court house steps, or anywhere else the incident may occur. (The details of how smart it is to shoot someone on the court house steps or any of the other places is another issue, but if the shoot is justifiable I wont be prosecuted for it depite the location.)

Where do people come up with this stuff?

 

[progunner1957]

Alcohol and self defense shootings??

An acquaintance was once involved in a similar situation... he got out a bottle, and poured himslef a couple stiff ones. He told the police that he felt the need for a couple drinks to help himself calm down after the incident, and that he also felt that it wasn't proper for him to give a statement while "under the influence"...

But won't the police then say: "AHA!!! He was drinking and then used the gun!"

As I understand it, alot of police/prosecutors etc. seem to be of the opinion that -
1.) You cannot possibly make the right choices about self defense/use of deally force if you have had even one swallow of an alcoholic drink,
2.) If you have been drinking, you no longer have the right to self defense, and
3.) If you have been drinking and are forced to shoot an attacker in self defense, it is no longer self defense but automatically becomes murder or attempted murder.

If I am wrong and there are any attorneys/police/prosecutors present who can clarify this, please do so.