Hauled in for questioning?

Quite possible the gun shop owner was all too willing to go on his own b/c he went down there to provide a statement along with his complaint.

Just because the story said "taken in for questioning" does not mean that's what really happened; what passes for news media today often gets even basic facts wrong.

Use to be common practice. Today, first thing you say is “I want my attorney present!”

You have the right to remain silent. You may be arrested for what’s often referred to as, “obstruction of justice,” but you still have the right to remain silent and request counsel.

Mas Ayoob developed a five-point checklist of things that the righteous shooter needs to establish as soon as possible in the aftermath of a self-defense shooting. Paraphrasing:

1) Establish the active dynamic. The active dynamic is the action that forced your lawful response. It's not "I shot him." It's "this man tried to kill me."

2) Advise the police that you will sign the complaint. The bad guy you shot is making a very good impersonation of a victim. However, you must help the police understand that you are the complainant, the true victim of the attack that brought about the shooting.

3) Point out the evidence. The scene will be chaotic. First responders want to attend to the injured, secure the scene, etc. They aren't into preserving evidence. The sooner you point out the evidence to the first responding officers, the more likely it is to be secured. When you've done the right thing, evidence helps you.

4) Point out the witnesses. A lot of witnesses, for their own reasons, "don't want to get involved." Often they leave the scene, unidentified. Point out the witnesses at the first opportunity.

5) Politely decline further questioning until you have consulted an attorney. Studies show that, in the immediate aftermath of a life-threatening encounter, we may forget some things or get some details wrong. Short-term memories can be blocked, you could have experienced tunnel-vision or tachypsychia (a sense that everything worked in slow-motion). Experts recommend 24-48 hours between one of these events and a detailed debriefing. Mas' recommendation is to do items 1-4, and then politely respond to subsequent questions this way: "Officer, you'll have my full cooperation after I've spoken with counsel."

Taken from Deadly Force, Understanding Your Right to Self Defense, p. 202-206.

Available here:

https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Force...ords=ayoob+deadly+force&qid=1592802138&sr=8-1

Item number five from Mas Ayoob is right on the money - and quite important. Most involved in a critical incident where they were required to use deadly force (not all killing involves firearms...) will find the urge to justify their actions overwhelming. An agreement to provide a full statement - after consulting with your attorney (and at least 24 hours after the incident) is very prudent.... Very few will come through having used deadly force without serious emotional issues - unless they were already previously blooded... and it's not their first rodeo...

In my small 100 man department, we thought it so important that we wrote it into our procedures for handling an investigation into an officer involved shooting... We were the first nationally accredited department in our area so you can be sure that our rules did in fact comply with CALEA (commission for accreditation for law enforcement agencies) THE standard nationally at that time, the early nineties...

In my own history many years before (41 years ago) after killing a man on the street, the only time in a career when I ever fired a single shot, I was required to not only provide a full statement but also go through a video taped re-enactment of the incident within an hour or two of the shooting... Years later when I was in charge of my department's internal investigations of deadly force incidents I made a ooint of always allowing the officer involved a day's time before bringing him or her in for a statement... My department's investigation only occurred after we were certain that no criminal charges were pending from the incident. The only thing on the line for the officer(s) at that point was their job so it was administrative in nature - not criminal...

Contrast what I've just described with what we've recently seen in Atlanta.... In my opinion there isn't anything worse that can be done to any officer than to destroy their confidence in the folks they work for... but that will be for another conversation entirely...

I have to laugh at this 'detained' stuff. I have been in LE for 45+ years and the courts have ALWAYS ruled that if you are not FREE TO LEAVE you are under arrest, PERIOD! As far as going to the station for questioning, if you refuse to go and it is an ongoing investigation you could be 'arrested' for 'interference' with and/or 'impending' the investigation. Some jurisdictions can 'take into custody/arrest' material witnesses too. If you ask if you are 'free to leave' and the answer is NO, you are under arrest. I have been ask by those I have stopped for a traffic violation if they are 'under arrest', and I reply YES YOU ARE, YOU ARE NOT FREE TO LEAVE. Now this 'arrest' will be 'disposed' of in one of three ways: 1. A warning, written or verbal depending on the jurisdiction you are in, will be issued. 2. A summons will be issued requiring the violator to either plead guilty and pay a fine or, if they wish to plead not guilty and appear in court. The violator is released on their 'word/signature' that they will either pay or appear. 3. They are 'PHYSICALLY' taken in to custody and taken to jail to bond out.

Iggy said:

Use to be common practice. Today, first thing you say is “I want my attorney present!”

Click to expand...

I see this advice a lot. But, how many of us have a criminal-defense attorney on retainer? If not, how are you going to select a lawyer instantly if you've never given it much thought? In other words, this is easier said than done.

AlexanderA said:

I see this advice a lot. But, how many of us have a criminal-defense attorney on retainer? If not, how are you going to select a lawyer instantly if you've never given it much thought? In other words, this is easier said than done.

Click to expand...

Hence the reason to think about it. You carry a gun in the event you will need said gun. Think of it as the same reason you carry automobile insurance. You have it for the just in case. You don't have to have a lawyer on retainer. You just need to have the name of someone you will call in the event something happens and you need a lawyer. If that lawyer cannot help you they will refer you to someone else. The next thing to think about is whether you might want to carry an insurance policy to help in event you are in a shooting event and need funding to help pay for said lawyer. There are several out there to think about.

lemaymiami said:

Years later when I was in charge of my department's internal investigations of deadly force incidents I made a ooint of always allowing the officer involved a day's time before bringing him or her in for a statement...

Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, did non-LE folks typically get the same grace period when involved in SD shootings in your jurisdiction?

Unlike what you see in popular entertainment... No one in this country can be forced to make a statement about anything... It’s entirely up to the individual whether they choose to speak or not... and when they choose to do so.

On the other hand a police officer can be required to make an administrative statement since what’s at stake is their job...

The only time we ever put an officer on the spot like that was after a determination had been made that no criminal charges were going to be filed. If criminal charges were made it stopped the administrative process cold until any criminal charges were resolved.

In hindsight I shouldn’t have brought up my agency’s internal procedures since no citizen would ever have to deal with them. Most are not aware of just how closely most cops are looked at internally if they ever fire a shot on the job - much less if someone is injured or killed...

One other minor point... in my career down here in paradise there were occasions when officers were caught cold in wrong doing... even a few on my own department (and if you ever hear of a police department where no one has ever been prosecuted or fired for mis-conduct... you can bet things aren't so clean if you could look behind the curtain, serious understatement...). I have known of more than one case where an officer under investigation simply resigned rather than go on the record about something they were involved in... The really smart ones had their lawyer negotiate an "out" before any investigation got started so they could keep their certificate (here in Florida, like most states police officer certification is controlled by the state - and without that certificate you're simply not eligible to work as an officer...). There's a great incentive for a city or county to reach these kind of agreements since it ends any chance of a subsequent legal action against them by the officer... even if it does allow a bad actor to get off without the public hearing just what was involved...

These days there's a definite issue about so- called "gypsy cops" (the media's label for officers that move from department to department - usually one step ahead of their past mis-deeds with a previous agency...). What most fail to realize is that a bad reference from a previous employer leaves that employer civilly liable under our current tort law... As a result most towns, cities, or counties are advised by their own lawyers to only provided a "neutral reference" when asked about a former employee. That really needs to change (my opinion) if we're ever to shut down the possibility of a bad officer getting another job in police work.

Lots more to say about this sort of stuff but not appropriate here... Once again, take a close look at Ayoob's recommendation if you're ever involved in a serious use of force incident... very good advice given there in my opinion.

Jim Rau said:

I have to laugh at this 'detained' stuff. I have been in LE for 45+ years and the courts have ALWAYS ruled that if you are not FREE TO LEAVE you are under arrest, PERIOD! As far as going to the station for questioning, if you refuse to go and it is an ongoing investigation you could be 'arrested' for 'interference' with and/or 'impending' the investigation. Some jurisdictions can 'take into custody/arrest' material witnesses too. If you ask if you are 'free to leave' and the answer is NO, you are under arrest. I have been ask by those I have stopped for a traffic violation if they are 'under arrest', and I reply YES YOU ARE, YOU ARE NOT FREE TO LEAVE. Now this 'arrest' will be 'disposed' of in one of three ways: 1. A warning, written or verbal depending on the jurisdiction you are in, will be issued. 2. A summons will be issued requiring the violator to either plead guilty and pay a fine or, if they wish to plead not guilty and appear in court. The violator is released on their 'word/signature' that they will either pay or appear. 3. They are 'PHYSICALLY' taken in to custody and taken to jail to bond out.

Click to expand...

This is definitely not the case in Florida. A victim/witness cannot be compelled to provide a statement or compelled to remain available. We don’t arrest people for obstruction for failing to provide statements or having to leave the scene.

wickedsprint said:

This is definitely not the case in Florida. A victim/witness cannot be compelled to provide a statement or compelled to remain available. We don’t arrest people for obstruction for failing to provide statements or having to leave the scene.

Click to expand...

No one does. Can you say 5th and 6th Amendments?????

I would not go without a lawyer.

1. I wouldn't take legal advice from Jim Rau if my life depended on it.

I watched a video by Andrew Branca a couple of days ago. He disagreed with Masaad Ayoob on one VERY SPECIFIC point. He mentioned Mas by name and said he would be very hesitant to tell the police "I want to press charges" or "I will sign the complaint." . I can't remember his exact words but it was something like if you tell the cops "I want to press charges." the first thing they're going to ask you is "What for?" He said your best course of action is to say "That man tried to kill me, I was forced to defend myself." That establishes that you are the victim.

He agreed with everything else Masaad Ayoob said.

There's no way I'd talk to the police without a lawyer and I would follow my lawyer's instructions To A "T".

Kleanbore said:

Would you expect an attorney to come to the crime scene and to join you in the patrol car?

One would be advised to answer not questions without an attorney present,, but a failure to alert the arriving officers to key exculpatory evidence could damage one's case for justification irreparably.

It would be a good idea to start off on the right foot with officers. I would much rather be described as "the complainant" than as "the suspect".

Click to expand...

My original post, pre-edit, gave more info than I should have, so I did a hasty edit. I would advise that you arrange a meeting at the precinct with your attorney for further questioning if you are not under arrest.

A local LE once told me that when pushed after stating you want your attorney present say you're not feeling very well and you think you are having a heart attack. Lay down at that point. LEs have to get you aid and in all likelihood stop any additional questioning. Gives you time to get your lawyer as well.

Rockrivr1 said:

A local LE once told me that when pushed after stating you want your attorney present say you're not feeling very well and you think you are having a heart attack. Lay down at that point. LEs have to get you aid and in all likelihood stop any additional questioning. Gives you time to get your lawyer as well.

Click to expand...

Any advice that involves lying to the police can't be good advice. Massad Ayoob suggests simply stating that you'd like EMS to take a look at you. He also said it really wouldn't be a bad idea to have them look at you anyway

HankB said:

So . . . if the police DO NOT place you under arrest, but want you to go to the station for questioning, do you have to go with them? I understand that they may decide to arrest you if you refuse to go and that resisting arrest is not going to turn out well for you, but I'm just wondering from a legal standpoint if you are required to go with them if they just say "come along to the station with us, you're going to answer some questions."

Click to expand...

I ain't no lawyer, but I like to think I have at least somewhat of a practical understanding of the "mechanics" of something like this. Keeping that in mind, I'll happily give you a dollar so you can take that advice to McDonalds and get yourself a cup of coffee with it, because that'll be the only time it's going to be of any real value to you. (Translation: get yourself an actual attorney on your payroll for real legal advice.)

First of all, a shooting happened, which included a homocide. ("Homocide" doesn't mean "murder", by the way.)

So this WILL be investigated by the police. It would not be "unreasonable" (somewhat tongue-in-cheek here) to expect that the police would want to question the person who took part in the actual shooting event.

So...we can pretty much assume that this person WILL be questioned by the police...either voluntarily or otherwise. Either they come in to make a statement, or the police go out and provide taxi service for the event themselves, accompanied with any legal papers required to do so.

What OUGHT to happen, however, is that this person should HIRE an attorney to represent and advise him, before/during/after any such questioning.

The police will conduct an investigation. However, through much movie and TV show hype, many people often have this general misconception that "if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about".

THAT is WRONG on so many levels, the most important of which would be the LEGAL level.

The police aren't interested in investigations to "prove people innocent". They're interested in investigations to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to charge SOMEONE with a criminal act. Under the principle of enlightened self-interest, voluntarily providing such evidence against yourself is NOT the way to go, most especially through your own personal ignorance.

Which is why anybody under such circumstances NEEDS an attorney to represent them.

That this person shot, and apparently killed, someone is not in question apparently. And wouldn't likely be a fact disputed legally. Which means the questions to be answered involve will likely be centered around whether or not the shooting/killing was within the legal guidelines for justifiable homicide under the laws concerning the use of deadly force.

There are nuances to this which are not advisable to navigate without legal representation...because questioning by officials on such matters is not typically performed by people ignorant on the subject of how to ask the same question 20 different ways, looking for a specific response.