Mas Ayoob on SHOOT TO KILL

Kleanbore said:

However, in a self defense incident, the defender is well advised to claim self defense at the time, to avoid having his failure to do so used against him. It is the justification--(fear, etc)--and details of the attack, etc.--that can lead to contradictions.
Good idea.
That advice can defeat a defense of justification. If there is evidence at the scene that would support a claim of self defense, such as empty shells, a knife, etc, or if witnesses are departing, if is important to point it out before it disappears,

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

But continuing of lip-flapping beyond that which is necessary to establish your self defense claim should be with your attorney present and under his/her advice. Because THEY know the laws and THEY know how the legal system works and THEY are there to make the legal system work best for YOU.

There are any number of ways in which statements can be made, totally innocently and in absolute good faith, which can end up biting the person making them. Once statements are made and documented, they're a matter of record. If it turns out something in them isn't right for (insert reasons), then that statement may now be a false statement.

As I said earlier, I'm not an attorney and not LEO...so I don't have the legal expertise these people have in defense/prosecution/interrogation.

HOWEVER...I HAVE had experience on the "wrong end of the legal stick" in the military, which involved going all the way up to an Article 32. It's absolutely no fun being questioned by NCIS and having to deal with attorneys over issues which are serious enough to take a path towards Courts-Martial.

LEOs in real life are not as portrayed in the movies/TV shows. They're there to find evidence in support of criminal charges and convictions. They are NOT there to exonerate or otherwise prove someone "innocent". It's very much adversarial. So if you are being questioned, ANY thing you say will be documented and MAY be used against you.

So yes...make your basic statement, do not lie while doing so, and otherwise let them do their job of securing the scene and gathering witnesses and evidence. You can "make a statement" in addition to your initial, brief, one later, and with your attorney's advice.

Kleanbore said:

One other thing.
"
Keeping one's mouth shut" is not just for dealing with arriving officers. One should speak with investigators later only with counsel present, and after the fact, the actor should refrain from any discussions with friends, family, media, or anyone else, from then on..

Click to expand...

Man, oh man! POWERFUL words of advice, here!

Social media posts have come back to bite people for EXACTLY this reason! And they have people purposefully searching social media posts for exactly this...discussions, comments, pictures, video, etc.

We should have a "shut your pie hole" jingle, some earwig tune that just subconsciously pops up to remind us of things like this!

In LEO academy in the 1960s, we were told to shoot to kill. Reasoning was, if you are not authorized to use lethal force in the situation, then you should not be shooting in the first place.
Not a LEO any more, so only interested in stopping the threat. Never had to and hopefully never will.

Cemetery21 said:

In LEO academy in the 1960s, we were told to shoot to kill. Reasoning was, if you are not authorized to use lethal force in the situation, then you should not be shooting in the first place.
Not a LEO any more, so only interested in stopping the threat. Never had to and hopefully never will.

Click to expand...

We were taught not to have two stories told to the Grand Jury.
Of course this was NYC in 1980…..

Cemetery21 said:

In LEO academy in the 1960s, we were told to shoot to kill.

Click to expand...

Both legal advice on use of [lethal force] and LEO training have changed tremendously over the past five decades. Many of the changes are the results of changes in case law, and changes in social and cultural awareness. Noting that the 1960's training was legitimate at the time is historically informative, but not useful advice today. Smerconish (see 2nd video above) introduced the same discussion problem when he cited advice from Mayor Rizzo.
We should be heeding the advice from current experts like Ayoob and Branca.

All the hype about shooting too well, excessive training, and whatever else we've likely ALL heard at one time of another is a steaming pile of horse manure.

It doesn't matter WHAT all that amounts to because the prosecution will take ANY aspect and make it look "bad" for you in a court of law BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.

If you're inexperienced or untrained, the prosecution will use that against you.

If you've got training, the prosecution will use that against you.

If you've got a semi-automatic, the prosecution will use that against you.

If you used hollowpoint self-defense rounds, the prosecution will use that against you.

If you used FMJ, the prosecution will use that against you.

Remember that part of the Miranda rights which says "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"?

That applies for EVERYTHING, not just what you say.

Because. That's. What. The. Prosecution. Does.


So quit buying into all the hype about such specifics because it's distracting you from what's REALLY important about self-defense.

What might that be?

Knowing what the law ACTUALLY says (and means), understanding what deadly force is and when it may or may not be used, and knowing how to properly comport yourself in all circumstances because this is your duty and responsibility.

Because I'm pretty sure that not ONE of us will be able to find ANY COURT CASE of self-defense where the judge and jury looked at all the evidence before them and said "Hey...this guy only barely scored high enough to qualify for his CWP! He must be innocent!"

If any of us should ever find ourselves in a situation where we have to use deadly force to survive, the totality of the circumstances of the event will, by far, be the most important aspect. And being in compliance with the actual law will, by far, be the strongest thing going for us. If we focus on trivialities to the point where we don't spend significant time learning and understanding this, then we're far more likely to make bad choices every step of the way.


So quit wasting your time on all the trivialities and start learning what's really important.

"Remember that part of the Miranda rights which says "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"?"

So keep your mouth shut!!

Kleanbore said:

Are you aware that your silence can be used against you?

Click to expand...

Well, Ringer tried, but at least the judge slapped him down for it.

Kleanbore said:

Are you aware that your silence can be used against you?

Click to expand...

This is a good point.

Silence in the face of police questioning MAY be used against you. Merely keeping silent while being questioned is not good enough. You must make it plain that you're exercising your right to remain silent.

The case that this position is built upon is Salinas v. Texas. In those circumstances, Salinas came to the police himself to answer questions about a murder committed with a shotgun. He volunteered for this. He chose to answer some questions and remained silent on others. At no time did he actually invoke his right to remain silent. He simply picked and chose which questions he would and would not answer, and this after he voluntarily came to the police.

The right to remain silent requires two things:

1. You affirmatively declare it in some way. The best is a direct invocation of your fifth amendment right to remain silent.
2. You keep your mouth shut to any further questions afterwards (at least until you consult with your attorney). Because if you start flapping your lips again, you've given up your right to remain silent.

Now, this is clear during an arrest, because you know that you've been arrested for a reason and you get the Miranda rights read to you. It's not always so clear prior to an arrest, when the police may just be questioning people as part of an investigation. (No Miranda rights are read for these.) However, anything you say even then will carry just as much weight to be potentially used against you as something said following an arrest.

As always...I ain't not no durn ambulance chaser. This is just my understanding of this subject.

I agree with the above observations re: the legal reason for "shoot to stop." There are other practical reasons for internalizing this.

First, "shoot to kill" may not get the job done. A single shot could be fatal, but it may take a minute or two for the attacker to bleed out enough to stop attacking. "Shoot to stop" implies that you keep shooting until the attacker stops attacking, which is what you want.

Second, once the threat has stopped, you're legally and morally required to stop shooting. If the first round fired causes the attacker to turn and run, you shouldn't continue to shoot as he runs away. "Shoot to kill" mindset might lead you to do so, since he's not dead yet. "Shoot to stop" mindset won't.

As my first CHL instructor put it, "We shoot to stop, not to kill. Shooting to stop might very well be fatal to the bad guy, but that's not the goal."

RetiredUSNChief said:

If any of us should ever find ourselves in a situation where we have to use deadly force to survive, the totality of the circumstances of the event will, by far, be the most important aspect. And being in compliance with the actual law will, by far, be the strongest thing going for us. If we focus on trivialities to the point where we don't spend significant time learning and understanding this, then we're far more likely to make bad choices every step of the way.

Click to expand...

Everything you said is spot on. I find this part of your statement particularly interesting because I watched that Rittenhouse trial pretty darned diligently and I never once heard the term "totality of the circumstances" come up and I was waiting for it. Look at the totality of those circumstances. Gun shots were being fired by people chasing him and threatening him. Threats had been made to his life by Rosenbaum and then by others as he fled. He was assaulted repeatedly my multiple members of an armed mob. I don't understand how the totality of the circumstances didn't come up there. I assume it was water that his attorney felt best to stay out of for some reason. As far as the shoot to kill vs shoot to stop verbiage, I do think it's an important distinction because none of us wants to kill anyone, I certainly don't and the term "shoot to kill" implies that we do, that we have a guilty mind. Words matter and, as such, we should use as few as possible because, as you said, anything you say will be used against you. It's not a matter of can be used against you. It will be. Cooperate to the extent necessary but exercise caution in answering any questions. if it truly was self defense, the truth will be your ally and that will give you a powerful edge but it's no guarantee.