I am going to try and refrain from making this too lengthy, but I will address some of the comments thus far…. I think my original post/link addresses much of it anyway.
The lawyer helps you sort your thoughts in a way that will not criminalize you….there is little to gain but much to lose by trying to explain things too fast.
Very true. I have not and will never advise anyone to provide a lengthy, detailed statement on scene. But it remains very prudent to give a three or four sentence verbal statement on scene to help ensure that the investigation starts off with a premise of self-defense. Detailed explanations will come later. Unless you were acting inappropriately, and that is not the person I am talking about, pointing out potential witnesses and physical evidence that might be overlooked is rarely detrimental to a case and often quite beneficial.
Any cop who holds personal animosity towards you because you'd like to consult an attorney before speaking to him isn't worth his weight in fertilizer anyway.
Perhaps, but the quality of the officer makes little difference. He is still the one writing the report and you are still the one under scrutiny. I would assert that this is all the more reason to be cordial and not feed him the same lines that countless crooks do.
He comes at it from an interesting angle that we probably would not normally see here in WA… In WA the law is such that the DA must prove it was not self defence, rather than you must prove it was SD.
I must respectfully disagree that you would not see it in Washington. Much of my law enforcement experience is working the I-5 corridor, from Tacoma to Everett. A bit of research will lead you to the fact that I have applied deadly force in the State of Washington. I have investigated murder cases in Washington and I have consulted for prosecution and defense in the state on self-defense matters. Investigations are very similar across the country. Law enforcement investigates, prosecutors review, and charging decisions are made. You are right that Washington prosecutors must show that it is not a case of self-defense, but let me assure you that your actions must be prima facie self-defense (at first glance). If it is not readily apparent that you acted in self-defense you will be tried in Washington, and elsewhere. I promise you that.
Not to contradict anyone here but when I was a LEO we were told not to speak to anyone after a shooting without speaking first to an attorney….I think this is important to repeat why are YOU going to talk to the cops, when THEY (the police) don't talk after a shooting.
Because you are not a police officer. Well, maybe you are but that is not what I am addressing. Advice that is good (partially) for law enforcement shootings does not equate to being good for private self-defense shootings. Police shootings and private citizen shootings are treated differently. Though often conducted by outside agencies, investigators generally do not presume that officers are acting unlawfully. You are not as lucky. That means the entire direction of the investigation differs based on your status alone, whether you like it or not. Your only remedy for that is to give them at least a basic reason to consider that you were acting lawfully. Absolute silence and an immediate assertion of your rights is not going to do that.
Not only that but the police do talk immediately after a shooting. "Shots fired, suspect down," is often screamed into the (recorded) radio. That might be after they ran a drivers license at a stop, told the dispatcher there was something hinky going on, called out on suspicious activity, etc.... all things that lay a groundwork for lawful claims. Those are statements!
Police actions are often supported much more than yours are even before the shots are fired. 911 calls come in, radio transmissions are recorded, dash cams capture footage, the officer may have been responding to the report of a serious crime already in progress, other sworn officers on scene attest to actions, etc.
If the officer is involved in a shooting the other guy is assumed to be the bad guy. You are afforded none of these luxuries that determine the direction of a case even if the officer does not utter a word after the fact.
Nonetheless, more and more law enforcement attorneys, and their unions, are encouraging their officers to make a quick 2-3 sentence statement. It is actually beneficial to the officer so as to lend credence to the investigation. Investigators tend to find evidence that supports credible claims. It gives them something to work with and cannot be detrimental because it is truthful, assuming the actions were lawful. If you were acting unlawfully all bets are off. Shut up. But evidence rarely contradicts generalized, brief, truthful statements.
How many cases have been won using your strategy?
I do not win cases. I provide services that are dependent upon the facts of the case. I am not interested in who wins but rather that the truth be made known. For lawful actors that means that my technique works an overwhelmingly large percentage of the time.....much more so than saying nothing. But it is not just my technique. It is consistent with other premier experts in the field, namely Massad Ayoob among others. Though I would give the same advice even if nobody else agreed with it, because through my experience I know it works, you are unlikely to find another expert in the field that would disagree on any major point.
Speaking of Mr. Ayoob, I am familiar with a recent case that he has worked on in which the defendant likely would have not ended up in jail if he had asserted self-defense and pointed out evidence from the start, instead of refusing to say anything. But the defendant said nothing and the investigation proceeded just as I have described, with the assumption of guilt by law enforcement, and a subsequent trial that ended poorly. Mr. Ayoob believes that the shooting was justified. But the police were given no alternative to the assumption of a criminal act. They were given little other choice.
If you find yourself in court being tried for murder, you have failed three tests:
1. The police did not believe you.
2. The prosecutor did not believe you.
3. The grand jury did not believe you.
Or at least the first two as many locales do not utilize the grand jury process. The prosecutor makes the charging decision. But my advice, the investigations I conduct, and the services I provide are meant not only to help vindicate the innocent in a court of law, but firstly to keep them from ever going to trial in the first place. Avoid #1 and you don't have to worry about #4, a criminal trial and possible imprisonment.
THANKS TO ALL FOR THE POSITIVE RESPONSES HERE IN THE THREAD, VIA MESSAGE, AND EMAIL.
Though I hope for the discussion to continue and know that there will always be disagreements, it is prohibitive for me to respond to every inquiry. In the end, you will do what you feel is best for your own legal survival. I posted this information in hopes that you would become more informed, perhaps avoid needless additional heartache, and should it get to that point, consider sources beyond an attorney that will assist in ensuring your vindication.
I also know that a lot of focus is on what you should say, or not say, immediately after a shooting because that is often a big point of contention. But I hope everyone re-reads the material and gets even more out of it than that.
OTOH I guess many years in prison and revoked rights is better than having my family maimed or killed. I'm only 20 and the prospect of years in prison is terrifying.
