Cost of 8-day self-defense case: $332,000

I'd be curious on Mas' opinion on this one :

I killed a man answering his cellphone. Good luck with that.

Click to expand...

Given that this has happened numerous times in law enforcement encounters ( "he had a gun/knife", which ended up being keys, cellphone, cigarette pack/etc), and they have been declared a " Justified Shooting", is the burden in a citizens case different from a LE case in this scenario ?

He shot him because as he started to drive it away, the perpetrator turned and pointed what appeared to be a gun over his shoulder at Mr. Gerlach, who then fired the single, fatal shot....

Click to expand...

So, could we all presume to have this level of belief when it comes to our defense, or is this unusual ?

Details....

I agree that details are important but I also think it's a matter of perception.
for example:
You see a armed robber run out of a location & enter a vehicle. You draw your pistol & the robber drives straight towards you(but is unarmed, not holding the firearm).
Could you legally use deadly force & fire at the felon? Thru the auto glass or auto metal?
If you could jump out of the way or flee, should you?
What will the local law enforcement officers say when they respond? Will they rail against you for acting or let you off due to CCTV video or witness statements?

In 2011, I had a event where a motor vehicle swerved directly at me as it went in reverse, knocking down a metal gate in the process(the vehicle occupants had a fight with a unknown male in the street). All of this took place in approx 5 seconds too.
I was doing a security detail at a low end hotel property in a urban area around 1030pm.

Rusty

I'd have just let the car go, my gun is for defending my person not my physical posessions...

So, could we all presume to have this level of belief when it comes to our defense, or is this unusual ?

Click to expand...

Nothing can be presumed when going to trial. Juries are notoriously unpredictable. Judges are political. The whole judicial system is a high-volume, money-making meat grinder fed by district attorneys and the police. Anything and everything happens, mostly outside a defendant's limited sphere of influence. From all this, most disturbing is the number of wrongful convictions coming to light lately based on modern forensic science.
Not to mention witnesses recanting their testimonies.

I'd whole lot rather somebody I shot be found with a gun than a set of keys or a wavy middle finger. From there, one could start predicting, but I wouldn't go so far as to presume anything.

carbuncle said:

I'd have just let the car go, my gun is for defending my person not my physical posessions...

Click to expand...

He didn't defend his physical possessions. He defended himself against a perceived threat of imminent danger to his life.

blarby said:

So, could we all presume to have this level of belief when it comes to our defense, or is this unusual ?

Click to expand...

No. What we can all presume any time we use deadly force is that we'll have to justify our use of deadly force in accordance with the jurisdictional laws under the circumstances of each and every instance.

There are NO freebies when it comes to homicide.

Everything is not always as it appears

As one of the expert witnesses in the Gerlach case allow me to say that it was a good example of the adage that "everything is not always as it appears." Based upon initial news reports I was not in Gail Gerlach' camp. Why? For the same reasons that many here and elsewhere have stated, moving vehicle, back of head wounding, etc. Only after being prompted to review the case by a former student who is an excellent 22 year experienced investigator did I begin to see "the rest of the story" as Paul Harvey used to say.

Basing opinions on flawed premises results in flawed opinions. Using premises supplied by the main stream media will often lead us to erroneous conclusions, especially when we accept, without question, what we are being "fed." In this case that included the prosecutor's office feeding the media with their leaked information to influence the public. Even though this case was forwarded by SPD to the prosecutor's office with no recommendation, which is in itself a recommendation, the Prosecutor stated publicly that he wanted "to send a message to the citizen's of Spokane."

Consider this: we know that as a rule the media does not portray guns and gun owners in a favorable light. While most reading this would agree that the utility of firearms far outweighs their misuse and abuse, that is of course not "the party line." Hence we continually see downplaying or no reporting of legitimate uses of firearms, especially in their defensive role. Emphasis is placed on criminal use and accidental occurrences are portrayed as "epidemic." Is it any surprise then that news accounts of what may very well be a legitimate justifiable and reasonable use of deadly force portray that story in a light that is biased and slanted?

It is one thing to be ignorant of the subject and express an uninformed opinion. Just read a letters to the editor page in any paper on any subject to see plenty of such examples. I think we all see too often in this field, though, instructors and others who are ready to espouse their opinions in a case based upon only what they have read in the newspaper. The media and/or whomever else has an agenda in these cases use these statements to legitimize their forgone conclusion which as noted above, is often biased. Even reporters who are objective face deadlines and rushes that often leave facts out. I cannot say how many times my partner and I have had coffee while reading in the paper an account of an incident/call we were on that transpired that night before. We look at each other and ask, "Was that the same call we were on?" because the news account bears no resemblance to the actual call.

The heading in this string that the cost of an 8-day defense is $332K is an example of this. That cost is for over 9 months of work as well as the 8-day trial but the implication is "come on, $300K for eight days work, who are they kidding?" After having spent 9 months working with the defense team I can very well say that I would hire Richard Lee and David Stevens as my defense counsel should I be involved in such an incident. And I would have counsel retain Gaylan Warren who was the other expert witness in this case. I know first hand how hard they worked on this case. They would also be placing a call to Massad Ayoob as well, needless to say.

In addition to the 9 months of preparation I also spent all 8 days in court advising counsel and over four and a half hours on the witness stand. We were all able to educate the jury as to the true facts of the case, hence the results. We had access to full discovery hence all the facts, so we find it interesting to listen to comments of those who do not have all those facts. This is especially true when the comments of how Mr. Gerlach should be in jail come from people who should have a better understanding of our criminal justice system.

This whole issue over fees is among other things a deputy prosecutor who wants to re-try the case by disputing fees. Even he said to the jury that if they find that Mr. Gerlach acted in self-defense it was as much as saying that the case should never have been brought. Hello! Washington State has this as a mechanism to not bankrupt a person who has been wrongfully accused. It also serves to make the state think twice about prosecuting a case they should not, which I believe is a good thing. We all see rampant abuses of our civil liberties today with no accountability. Not every state has this and I am thankful that Washington does for this reason. The prosecution and media hype the "taxpayer has to pay for this now" which is designed to inflame people, which it does to many. Those same people forget that they could easily be next in such a case.

I usually try to work quietly behind the scenes, but felt that we have enough enemies as gun owners and don't need our own ranks armchair quarterbacking cases where, unless we are involved, we will not have all the facts. These are real people facing serious consequences after already facing and surviving a real or perceived to be real threat to life or limb. It is not an intellectual exercise for them. Let's make sure that the opinions we espouse are informed opinions.

Finally, you aren't necessarily going to go to jail for doing the right or wrong thing, but you may go to jail if you aren't able to articulate correctly that what you did was right. If one does not know how to interact with responding/investigating officers then one is not fully "armed" no matter what hardware they are packing.

Stay safe.

Many thanks for your insights, Robert.

Guns & the media.....

In short there are a few points the local media quickly makes any time it involves a armed citizen(license holder or not). These are some of the common points the on scene media will report;
1) If the citizen was armed or not, & if armed a basic description of the gun(revolver, pistol, rifle, machine gun, cannon, etc). Some enlightened newsies even detail if it's loaded.
2) If the armed citizen or "victim" had a valid gun license or CCW permit.
3) If the citizen(victim) had any pending charges or criminal records for anything. No dog license? Parking fines? A arrest that had charges dismissed 15 years ago? So what! The media will be critical of anything you did.
What about the armed robber or thug you shot? Who cares.
4) If you(the armed citizen or gun owner) are a veteran, ex-cop, Boy Scout scoutmaster, volunteer firefighter or church bingo # caller. Anything that can show you were a law-abiding, upstanding member of the community before you went rogue.
5) If the subject(person shot or thug who you used deadly force on) had any weapons.

There are other points I could address but these are many of the common ones nationwide.
Watch a news report or read a web media broadcast about a lethal force event & see what the local reporter keys on.

Rusty

I agree that details are important but I also think it's a matter of perception.
for example:

You see a armed robber run out of a location & enter a vehicle. You draw your pistol & the robber drives straight towards you(but is unarmed, not holding the firearm).
Could you legally use deadly force & fire at the felon? Thru the auto glass or auto metal?

Click to expand...

I'm gonna say, well, it depends. Just cuz someone is armed and carrying a gun, how would I know he's a robber? Just cuz he ran out of a place? He could be an armed citizen or a police officer with somewhere to go, and maybe I happen to be standing in the middle of the road??? But if you were sure, and you were correct, then I don't see anything stopping you, per se. Depends on where you live and how much you like being detained, questioned, and/or in court and/or sued. If you have the ability to mind your own business, then why not try that out? Beside all that, if you stand there and shoot, you are probably going to end up being a bumper ornament even if your aim is good.

The truth is, this thief was caught red-handed stealing a car in the wrong neighborhood. And the shooter was vindicated because of 1. where he lived and the jury it produced. Those other people on the jury realize that if they want to continue to have nice things with nice neighbors, sometimes you have to look the other way when bad people come to an untimely end. This was made possible by the thief holding up a theatening set of keys, sure. But that was not enough of a defense on its own. See point number 1.

a theatening set of keys, sure. But that was not enough of a defense on its own

Click to expand...

No, the keys were not altogether conclusive. It took something in addition to the keys for the jury to acquit. Gloob has expressed current and growing public sentiment well. People are fed up with social garbage running wild in the streets from one victim to another.

Here's one metropolitan cop with the right stuff:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/0...mes-craig-says-more-citizens-should-be-armed/
http://www.freep.com/article/20140519/NEWS01/305190122/Detroit-NRA-guns-Craig

Couple of months ago, Detroit PD Chief James Craig noted during another interview the idea was catching on Citizens were actively acquiring and using guns to thwart crimes against themselves.

Hail to the Chief.