Except perhaps in some very small jurisdictions, responding officers to not perform the investigation. Others do that later.
The "Investigation" is process. It begins with the first arriving officer, and ends when the prosecuting authority has accepted the case, and is satisfied with the filing. It includes ALL intervening activities, regardless of who performed them.
The first responders secure the area, summon medical care and reinforcements, identify persons at the scene, and take persons into custody.
Yup, they do that, and they do a whole lot more.
Anything that is said to them (or to the 911 dispatcher) can and will be used against any suspects.
You're half-right (and half-wrong) on this one. Anything said "can" be used. Whether it would be used is going to depend on the strategy of the prosecutor to try the case.
Some things that are not said can also be used negatively--such as a failure to mention self defense.
I've seen this posted before, and I'm disbelieving of the assertion. I've asked the posters to back up the claim with case citations and no one has provided any. The only response given to date is that something to that effect was attributed to someone who said something in a presentation. Until there's a case on the table, I'm calling "BS" on this. If there really is any such case law, I'd really like to see it and would be very grateful to anyone who could provide it.
If that were all, the only responsible advice would be for the defender to mention only his name and address, and that he had defended himself.
But that is not all. The arriving officer has no way of knowing which persons in the gathering crowd may have witnessed the incident.,and if they disappear , the testimony that they do not later provide will not exist. So the defender is prudently advised to point out the witnesses at the scene.
I agree, it's prudent to point out witnesses. If they're lost, they're probably not ever going to be identified. Without seeing that missing case about forfeiting self-defense if not immediately claimed, I'd think it wiser for one to delay discussion of the reasons for applying force until one has conferred with their attorney. In my agency's practice, our LEOs involved in shootings were required to provide certain information immediately and that did not include the reasons for firing.
If weapons, empty cases, etc. are on the scene, the defender cannot afford to let the responding officers in their haste not notice them and to let them disappear so that they, too, do not exist. Those are another thing to mention at the scene.
Also a very good idea. It's also very important to identify the number of rounds fired, and the direction they were fired in, so that any potential victims of such fire can be located.
If some of the attackers had escaped, it would be irresponsible to not mention that and to provide descriptions.
Ditto.
What the defender should not do, under any circumstances, is try to provide an account of that happened at that time. The likelihood that natural error will lead to contradictions that can seriously harm the defender's credibility. And that is a legal and technical factor. It's all downside, and no upside.
I largely agree with this one. There is a lot of evidence that folks tend to distort their recollection of events under stress. It's also common to make statements under stress that are not fully deliberated. Once statements are made, they can't be retracted, and they're hard to correct.
Some people may not understand this, but the defender's statements to the arriving officers cannot influence a finding of justification. It is not their call.
The "Call" about whether an incident is justified is not made at the scene. Depending on the jurisdiction, it's made much later. In my jurisdiction, if a death resulted from contact with an LEO, the final decision was made by the District Attorney, in other cases it was made by the department at a level commensurate with the type of force applied. The decision is made upon review of all materials contained in the investigation, INCLUDING those contributed by the first responders.
I think my point was clearly made. We live in society that would like to blame LEOs and LE agencies for all of their problems (just turn on the news). My point was simple one, and it's that when folks try to limit the information flow the officer, and then suffer an inappropriate decision caused by the lack of information, who is at fault?
