Mas Ayoob on "saying nothing" to police after a SD incident

I read his work for years before meeting him, had a few drinks with him at the match hotel at Nationals one year. Not an attorney.

IIRC he was shooting MA SSR, finished mid SS time.

Nice guy and entitled to his opinions just like the rest of us.

Though I remembered he was a member here.

I am indifferent as to what Ayoob has to say. I'd rather listen to a lawyer versed in my resident state laws in regards to self-defense and the laws pertaining to that subject. I'll give him credit for turning a part time occupation into a full time training/writing/ expert witness profession but that's the extent of it.

Hangingrock said:

I'd rather listen to a lawyer versed in my resident state laws in regards to self-defense and the laws pertaining to that subject.

Click to expand...

I know a few lawyers, and that's not exactly a field of specialization in most states. Good luck with that.

Anyone with critical thinking skills should think about this: What do the victims of a crime say when the cops get there? And what do the perpetrators say?

This same subject gets treated rather often on the "Calguns" website, where I often responded to it. IANAL, and I've never been personally involved in a shooting incident, but I been the field supervisor at more then 15 deputy-involved shootings and have also responded to, or supervised the response to a roughly equal number of defensive shootings.

Please keep a couple of things in mind:

1) There's more at issue than the legal liabilities involved in a shooting. When you use deadly force, the active part of the incident doesn't end with final shot. You've got a scene that needs to be managed until a sufficient number of first responders arrive, and are prepared to take over that responsibility. How quickly, and how well prepared they are to do that, will depend on how well you brief them.

2) In the management of any shooting scene, there is urgent stuff that needs to be done (like securing suspects and scene, locating other potential victims, and broadcasting suspect info on any outstanding suspects). And there is non-urgent stuff that needs to be done (like producing a record of why you elected to fire shots). In the emergent phases of a response, the urgent stuff takes priority over the non-urgent stuff.

3) A shooting scene is guaranteed to be chaotic at the beginning. The first responders need to bring order to the chaos. That doesn't happen instantaneously. It happens by degrees. The better that folks at the scene cooperate in that process, the faster it occurs.

4) When you employ deadly force, you incur obligations (note for the lawyers - I'm referring to moral obligations more than the legal ones) to persons who were injured by your actions. That includes those you intended to injure (like the suspect) as well as any others. In the case of New York v Quarles, the Surpeme Court weighed the "Miranda Rights" of Mr. Quarles against the public safety in a case where Mr. Quarles discarded a firearm while being pursued by police. Officers demanded (without affording Mr. Quarles the right to confer with an attorney) that he disclose the location of the weapon. The Supreme Court upheld the officer's actions. That case gave rise to the "Public Safety Statement" as an exception to the "Right to Remain Silent." Although the "Public Safety Statement" requirement is most commonly applied to LEO's in a shooting, the legal theories behind it are equally applicable to private persons.

5) For those who believe the appropriate course of action is to say "I'll cooperate, but will not make any statements until I speak with my attorney", consider the following hypothetical: You're involved in a lawful defensive shooting. You fire a number of rounds at a suspect forcing entry into your home. One of your rounds strikes a house down the street and the little old lady inside is struck. One of the routine things that first responders will do is to account for all rounds fired. To do this they need to know how many were fired, and what path they were fired along. If you decline to identify the path, those responders may not locate the little old lady. If her body is found several days later, let me restate the facts in a more legal form: You performed a legal act (shooting the suspect), but without "due care and circumspection" (by withholding, in violation of Quarles, information that would have led to the location and treatment of the little old lady). That satisfies the elements of "Involuntary Manslaughter" under California's statute.

6) There is no "one size fits all" approach to how, and what to communicate to first responders. Please forget about providing any rehearsed statement. They all sound completely phony and will set off more "alarm bells" than you can imagine. You train your mind to deal with threats, and it's that form of mental training that leads folks to better respond to deadly threats. Do the same for the post shooting management. Make sure you understand what information is going to be time critical to the first responders, and what information is not. Make sure that time critical stuff gets communicated. But also realize that a shooting is a very traumatic event. Many folks display post-shooting emotions that impair their ability to accurately, and dispassionately, communicate what occurred. That makes it very wise to separate the urgent information from the non-urgent information. Once you've made a statement, it can't be retracted, and it can very difficult to later correct. Do what LEO's do when involved in a shooting - Give the public safety statement immediately, and then wait until you're past the emotional stages of the event, and have conferred with an attorney, before providing the non-urgent stuff.

7) At the top of list of the non-urgent stuff is the reason that you fired shots. The answer to that question has absolutely no bearing on the scene management. Just don't go there. That one should wait.

8) The responding LEO's are not your enemy, and they're not seeking to put you in jail. In the roughly 15 private person shootings that I was involved in handling, exactly zero of the victims went to jail. And that included one victim who had been involved in two very similar shootings in a two year period. Out of several hundred non-shooting defensive force cases, only two "victims" went to jail. One was an off-duty police officer who broke the arm of a young boy who had taunted his young son. The other was a "victim" who severely beat (with a baseball bat) a suspect who he believed was breaking into his truck. Investigation showed no signs of entry to the truck, only the vehicle alarm was heard, and many witness reported that alarm was often falsely activated.

hanno said:

Sorry, as an attorney for 36 years with considerable experience as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney, I disagree with the video. People typically are not their best after a traumatic event. I don't want the police report detailing what my client blurted out at the scene. Instead, I want the police report to contain a statement the client wrote after the client has had a chance to calmly reflect on the event and has had the opportunity to discuss the legal issues involved. Remember, you are not only looking at criminal charges, you are often looking at civil liability with a lesser standard of proof.

I have had clients charged in criminal cases who would have walked except for the statement they gave to the police.

Even when clients consult an attorney before taking a course of action, they often ignore the legal advice. Their right but not always a wise course of action. A lot of defense work is "clean up on aisle three" trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.

Just some thoughts, for advice consult your own attorney.

Click to expand...

It is about one of the first times that I agree with an attorney.

Retired cop [ 26 years PATROL ] and far too many times I had people I was dealing with,tell me "their lawyer said" as if that meant diddly squat.

Unless its a judge who says it,it aint legal and will NOT hold up in a court of law.

I have had to tell many that I either had taken into custody,or was watching for another cop " you have the right to remain silent" ----- "so shut the fk up".

Yes,that is what I said as I know that running your mouth BEFORE Miranda is admissible !

It's called [ in latin ] a "blurted expression of guilt".

I would not want to piss off an officer,so I will tell them my name and show my CCW papers.

In my case as well,I would show and explain my HR218 right to carry interstate.

I will NOT try to school an officer as to their job,my rights,or what I think [ know ] he or she should do.

Nor will I resist arrest,that will be handled in COURT,and I might even have a good case for a suit = IF my mouth dont run past my brain.

And if your "of an age" such that you could possibly have stress related CHEST PAINS,ask to be treated RIGHT AWAY .

Questioning you prior to that treatment might throw out any questions asked prior to that treatment.

At the hospital,you NEED to call family and ask them to get you an attorney ASAP !.

RickD427 -- great post. Thanks.

RickD427 said:

8) The responding LEO's are not your enemy, and they're not seeking to put you in jail.

Click to expand...

This cannot be overstated. Too often, particularly on the internet, in these discussions of self-defense shooting incidents, people display an adversarial attitude toward the police. I'm not sure if some of those who posted in this thread would actually make statements to responding officers/deputies such as the ones they post on the internet, but that kind of attitude might come through, and probably won't serve one well.

This is an example

P89DCSS said:

You missed my point, there are cops that couldn't care less about innocence. To some cops all they need is a conviction. Sometimes they have motives that are not apparent to the suspects. Like maybe the person shot is the cop's friends husband. Or maybe they don't like your boss. Talking always gives them the chance to twist and lie about what you said

Click to expand...

CPD Lt Jon Burge, an LEO you definitely want to make a good impression on, just like Mom and Ayoob tell us to.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Burge

Torture
According to The Guardian, between 1972 and 1991, Burge "either directly participated in or implicitly approved the torture" of at least 118 people in police custody.[11] Federal prosecutors stated that Burge's use of torture began in 1972.[12][13] Burge was the leader of a group of police officers known variously as the "Midnight Crew", "Burge's Ass-Kickers", or the "A-Team", who abused suspects to coerce confessions.[11] Federal prosecutors stated that the "Midnight Crew" used methods of torture including beating, suffocation, burning, and electrical shock to the genitals, among other methods.[12]

Old Dog said:

Double negatives, misguided conspiracy theories and ridiculous prejudices notwithstanding... I hear the theme music from The X-Files playing in the background...

Click to expand...

No double negative, if you say, "could care less" then you need to look more closely at your word usage. Your tone and words are intended to insult without and facts or knowledge about who you're attacking.

Yet another citizen who has never had to testify to anything in a real courtroom and whose only knowledge of those that work in law enforcement comes from B-movies and bad '80s television series.

Click to expand...

Before covid I interacted daily with the LEOs assigned to my workplace. I ate lunch once a week with them. I asked them directly and they said best strategy is to keep your month shut. No conspiracy theories, rather its knowledge of what can happen when cops start questioning you.

old lady new shooter said:

Someone posted that link earlier, and I believe Kleanbore responded that Marc Victor is a criminal defense attorney, which is not the same thing as an attorney specializing in self-defense cases. I haven't yet watched the Marc Victor interview (actually I think there are two of them), but I think the earlier comments by Kleanbore and JohnKSA are important on this point. The short version of what JohnKSA said is that in a criminal defense case usually the lawyer is trying to prove the client didn't do the act in question, whereas in a self-defense case it HAS to be admitted that the client did the act, the issue is whether it was reasonable to have done so.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a criminal defense attorney.
Only lawyers who specialize in criminal law in the criminal justice system.
And that includes self defense circumstances.
I spent 20 years working as a court officer in various NYC lower criminal courts, supreme criminal court and supreme civil.
And every lawyer that I have discussed this with agrees Mr. Victor.

hanno said:

Just a bit more on cases and experts.

As a prosecutor, I had a case where I had a theory of the case and presented evidence to support that theory. I got a conviction. After the trial the defense counsel and I had an opportunity to talk to the jurors. It was a very humbling experience for both of us. The jurors picked up on something at trial that neither of us had focused on and that drove their verdict. It surprised us both. The jurors did the right thing but for their own reasons.

Another case we had battling well qualified experts. Again the defense counsel and I talked to the jurors after the trial. The jurors were unimpressed with the experts and essentially zeroed them out, focusing on the other evidence.

I've won cases I should have lost and lost cases I should have won. Most attorneys who try cases will tell you the same. There is no "one size fits all."

When I was a defense counsel, when the jury went out to deliberate, clients would almost always ask what do you think they will do? My response was always the same: "We put on our defense and we will know what they will do when they come back and tell us."

If anyone here thinks Ayoob has the only correct answer, then they should follow his advice. I disagree.

Click to expand...

state that you will cooperate with the investigation and give a statement after you've spoken with YOUR attorney. expect to be detained for a lengthy period at this point, maybe even brought to the police station. once you say something to the police, you cannot un-say it. if you are mirandized, say nothing at all. remember, the police could be completely on your side in this, and you could be in a clearly justifiable shooting; however an unethical prosecutor could have the final say when the case goes to a grand jury for review.

Kleanbore said:

Sure there is.

Of course, they handle self defense cases as well as others.

To the extent that you posed the question correctly, that further indicates how few attorneys understand the subject.

What is best for the "It was not I" defense" may not serve the actor well in a case that will require an "I did it, but..." defense.

That should be patently obvious.

Click to expand...

Can you please tell us your experience in the legal or law enforcement profession?
I am just curious as to why you are so quick to trust Ayoob’s advice.

Kleanbore said:

That has been discussed in this thread.

Good put.

Click to expand...

That is not my quote.
And it is dead wrong.
The judge will charge the jury that the burden of proof is upon the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt.
He will also charge that no inference may be made by the defendant invoking his right to remain silent.
Nor does the defense have any obligation to prove or disprove anything.
In fact in NYS it is the prosecution that must disprove the defendant’s claim of self defense.
In any case, all here are free to believe or disbelieve whatever they choose.
Happy New Year to all.

Never mind