Discussion: What to Do after a Self Defense Encounter

[Shawn Dodson]

Ayoob’s Five Things to do After a Shooting (video) - http://link.brightcove.com/services...ubuAMtj_R-Ysh59NPXX8YJFfXDc&bctid=16359316001:

1. Point out Perpetrator to Police (be the first to call 9-1-1, tell police, "officer this man attacked me")
2. Tell Police you will “Sign the Complaint”
3. Point out the Evidence to the Police
4. Point out the witnesses to Police
5. Will Give Full Cooperation in 24 hours After speaking with Attorney.

(Provided the situation allows you the opportunity to do these things.)

 

[Owen Sparks]

What if you live in a rural area with no neighbors nearby and no witnesses?

 

[Frank Ettin]

What if you live in a rural area with no neighbors nearby and no witnesses?

What if you had to defend yourself in town? Depending on what the actual circumstances are, you might need to improvise, adapt and overcome.

 

[Sam1911]

What if you live in a rural area with no neighbors nearby and no witnesses?

Well, I suppose that would be...

1. Point out Perpetrator to Police (be the first to call 9-1-1, tell police, "officer this man attacked me")
2. Tell Police you will “Sign the Complaint”
3. Point out the Evidence to the Police
[strike]4. Point out the witnesses to Police[/strike]
5. Will Give Full Cooperation in 24 hours After speaking with Attorney.

Pretty easy, really.

Unless you're dumb enough to try the "Shoot, Shovel, and Shut-Up," routine.

That's a good way to go from "lawful defender" to, "Authorities today disclosed that they've located the remains of the missing man buried on the property of a resident of Cletis County, one Owen Ray Sparks" (don't all those guys have the middle name "Ray?" ... what's up with that?) "who has been taken into custody for questioning while his property is being excavated in a search for more bodies. Mr. Sparks claims the man attacked him in his home, though at this late date no evidence to support that claim has been found. Authorities say Mr. Sparks will at the very least face charges of failing to report a homicide and unlawful disposition of human remains..."

 

[DoggerDan]

5. Will Give Full Cooperation in 24 hours After speaking with Attorney.

That's key. While you can help with with basic info, they'll be asking all kinds of questions, but now's not the time to gush forth. Even if you haven't been Mirandized, what you say can come back to bite you. Telling them you'll be happy to cooperate with them fully after speaking with your attorney is a clear sign to them you're not hiring an attorney to help protect you from any wrongdoing, but rather, that you're thinking with sober judgement and are merely being cautious.

 

[MikeNice]

Here is a good instructional video on why you should not talk to police officers without seeking counsel. THis is a presentation given by a real defense attorney. This isn't some self proclaimed expert spouting off with opinion.

In Praise Of The Fifth Amendment

 

[Sam1911]

Here is a good instructional video on why you should not talk to police officers without seeking counsel.

Yes, that video sure does make the rounds, doesn't it?

However, that video does not cover a self-defense shooting.

When you're suspected of committing a crime, like theft or possession of a controlled substance, your guilt must be proven by the state. Your defense is simply, "I didn't do it, I wasn't there, it wasn't me, and you can't prove it." Anything you say can and will be used against you. There is little or nothing that you could say to an arresting officer that will help you in any way, and much that can go wrong.

In a self-defense shooting all that gets stood on its ear. You start out with an admission of guilt. "I DID IT." (You can't justify shooting someone in self defense if you don't admit to the act.) "And here's why..." This is called an "affirmative defense." You are admitting to committing a crime, but presenting evidence on your behalf that excuses the action in the eyes of the law. "Innocent until proven guilty," doesn't enter into it.

So, instead of clamming up and refusing to speak to the responding officers, you begin building the defense case YOU must make right there at the scene -- by giving a few, limited, purposeful statements. Establish your identity, establish that you are the wronged party, identify the attacker, identify any witnesses, point out the physical evidence such as dropped weapons, paths of entry, etc. Offer that you will sign a complaint (YOU are the wronged party here) and THEN ask for counsel and respectfully stop talking.

If you do not offer anything as justifying evidence, believing that you are innocent until proven guilty, all the state has to do is prove that you did kill someone in order to convict you of that crime. The burden to prove that you were justified is on YOU, and your case could be won or lost right there at the scene.

 

[Sky]

Kinda like shooting; not everyone is an expert at talking....especially after such an event.
Thanks for the sticky guys.

 

[Loosedhorse]

The burden to prove that you were justified is on YOU

Not in every state. For example, after Harold Fish, AZ changed their law so that disproving SD is the prosecutor's burden.

Similar state-by-state variation is seen in other affirmative defenses, such as "not guilty by reason of insanity," in terms of who has the burden of proof and to what standard (prepoderance of evidence vs. beyond reasonable doubt, etc.). But there is typically no consistency in the insanity and SD requirement by each state.

Many states actually require that the prosecution prove the crime (including lack of SD justification) beyond reasonable doubt. And there is a theory that, after Heller announced the fundamental right of SD, that the same high standard should apply to all SD cases in any state.

That does not mean that in those states where the burden is on the prosecutor, the defendent should allow evidence or witnesses to be overlooked, or should make no statement at trial.

 

[Frank Ettin]

The burden to prove that you were justified is on YOU

Not in every state. For example, after Harold Fish, AZ changed their law so that disproving SD is the prosecutor's burden.

Not quite correct, and it's a subtle, but very important, distinction. Even where the defendant does not have the burden of proving self defense, he still has the burden of producing evidence that all the elements of justification have been satisfied, i. e., making a prima facie case. The prosecutor does not have the burden of disproving self defense unless and until the defendant has put on a prima facie case of self defense. And if the defendant does not make a prima facie case, he will not get a self defense jury instruction from the judge.

Since it was mentioned, let's look at cuurent Arizona law as modified as a result of the Fish case.

Under 13-205A, Arizona Revised Statutes, "... If evidence of justification pursuant to chapter 4 of this title is presented by the defendant, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act with justification...."(emphasis added)

Thus it is not sufficient that the defendant merely say he was defending himself or another. The defendant retains the burden of presenting evidence that his conduct was justified under the applicable provision of Chapter 4 of Arizona Revised Statutes.

For example, under 13-404, ARS, "...a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force...."

And under ARS 13-405, "... A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force....."

Therefore, the defendant claiming justified use of deadly force has the burden of putting on competent evidence that the requirements of 13-404 and 13-405, or one of the other provisions of Chapter 4, have been satisfied.

As a practical matter, if you claim self defense you will need to put on a convincing case of justification even if you don't have the burden of proof. You have admitted committing an act of extreme violence on another human being. This is something that most people, probably including most of the jurors, naturally find repugnant. You stand before the jury bearing the mark of Cain. The less convincing your self defense case is, the easier it will be for the prosecution to meet its burden of proof that your use of force was not justified.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Thanks for the needed clarification of my omission. I mentioned that evidence and a statement would still be needed; the prima facie requirement is the legal requirement why. And as you say, juries can be very suspicious of SD claims at times, so convincing them is always the aim, no matter the legal requirement.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Here is a good instructional video on why you should not talk to police officers without seeking counsel.

That video ranks right up there in misleading folks with the Diagnostic Handgun Shooting Wheel.

Before anyone thinks about using the advice presented in the video clip, it is extremely important to understand what an Affirmative Defense is.

THis is a presentation given by a real defense attorney. This isn't some self proclaimed expert spouting off with opinion.

Isn't it interesting than that real defense attorneys use the opinion of experts to make/understand their cases

 

[Frank Ettin]

Here is a good instructional video on why you should not talk to police officers without seeking counsel.

That video ranks right up there in misleading folks with the Diagnostic Handgun Shooting Wheel.

Before anyone thinks about using the advice presented in the video clip, it is extremely important to understand what an Affirmative Defense is.

The video deals with police contacts in general and doesn't consider the unique characteristics of a plea of self defense.

For a better understanding of why self defense is different, see this post (and post 87, above).

Also, see this article by Attorney Lisa Steele and published electronically by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (and this thread discussing her article).

...THis is a presentation given by a real defense attorney. This isn't some self proclaimed expert spouting off with opinion.

But he never specifically discusses self defense.

And see the article, with the link above, by an expert, Lisa Steele, for the leading association of real criminal defense lawyers, about why defending a self defense case is fundamentally different from defending other criminal matters.

 

[M-Cameron]

But we frequently see folks, even instructors, suggesting as a blanket proposition, "Say you're having chest pains and ask for an ambulance so the police can't ask you questions."That is a truly lousy idea.

for what my opinion is worth, i would recommend being checked out by a doctor after a SD situation, whether you think you need it or not.

you dont need to fake chest pains, just say, " I would like to be checked at the Hospital"

for 2 reason:

1) First and foremost, i am not a doctor, and i was just involved in a pretty traumatic event(physically and mentally)....its pretty easy to not notice an injury when adrenaline is flowing and your attention is elsewhere.

2) pretty much for the same reason instructors will tell you to go to the hospital. it gives you time to collect yourself, time to try to relax, time to write down the events as you best remember them, and time to contact your lawyer.

 

[Kleanbore]

Interestingly, our purpose in developing the Sticky that originally led to this discussion was to caution and educate those who might otherwise be misled into believing that what is presented in that "good instructional video" , which had almost gone viral on the gun boards, represents the best advice for dealing with arriving officers after a self defense shooting.

 

[Loosedhorse]

" I would like to be checked at the Hospital"

I'm not an LEO, but if someone asked me that at a shooting scene, I'd ask: "Why? Are you shot? No--then why?"

I know you have the right to be provided an attorney if you ask (and cannot afford one). I'm not sure if you have a right to a ride to the hospital simply because you request it.

 

[M-Cameron]

I'm not an LEO, but if someone asked me that at a shooting scene, I'd ask: "Why? Are you shot? No--then why?"

I know you have the right to be provided an attorney if you ask (and coannot afford one). I'm not sure if you have a right to a ride to the hospital simply because you request it.

ive never been in a SD situation...hopefully never will be, so i cant say for certain how strict they are with their hospital policy..

but assuming you get THAT officer who responds to your call....

you were just involved in a Life or death situation.....i can almost gaurantee something isnt going to feel right..

dizziness?
short of breath?
rapid pulse?

you dont need to lie, just use what you can to see a doctor.

i think it would be in the officer best interest to let you go also, simply for a CYA policy.....if you request to go to the hospital, and he wont let you, then all of a sudden you have a heart attack at the police station....thats a HUGE liability on them.

i dont know, maybe you will feel just fine, and the officer wont let you go to the hospital, and you leave the police station the next day feeling fine......

i would still go to the doctor to have myself checked out just to be sure.

ide hate to find out 5 months after the event that i have HypoGlycemianeurodistrohypertension as a result of the incident and i never had it checked out.

 

[Sam1911]

i dont know, maybe you will feel just fine

Well, this seems like a question of whether you NEED to go to the hospital. I don't think anyone is suggesting that you shouldn't go if you are experiencing real trouble, or if you even suspect that you might be.

The only reason the hospital request was brought up here is that some folks have suggested it as part of a dodge to keep from having to speak to the police.

I think we've shown that avoiding speaking to the police is counter-productive to your continued well-being.

Going to the hospital does not prevent you from needing to make some limited statements to the responding officers, and it also doesn't preclude you from being able to do so, so it seems like a bit of a non-issue.

Request EMTs and possibly a hospital check-out if you feel the need. But make the statements you need to make. That way you'll a) live to see the courtroom; and, b) have a more satisfactory time when you get there.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the same reason instructors will tell you to go to the hospital. it gives you time to collect yourself, time to try to relax, time to write down the events as you best remember them, and time to contact your lawyer....

Those are not good reasons to seek emergency medical care, tie up emergency medical resources and incur medical expenses (that you'll probably expect your medical insurance to pay).

The reason to seek emergency medical care is because you genuinely believe that you are suffering from a medical condition that requires immediate care to preserve your health and/or life.

 

[M-Cameron]

well, this seems like a question of whether you NEED to go to the hospital. I don't think anyone is suggesting that you shouldn't go if you are experiencing real trouble, or if you even suspect that you might be.

The only reason the hospital request was brought up here is that some folks have suggested it as part of a dodge to keep from having to speak to the police.

I think we've shown that avoiding speaking to the police is counter-productive to your continued well-being.

Going to the hospital does not prevent you from needing to make some limited statements to the responding officers, and it also doesn't preclude you from being able to do so, so it seems like a bit of a non-issue.

Request EMTs and possibly a hospital check-out if you feel the need. But make the statements you need to make. That way you'll a) live to see the courtroom; and, b) have a more satisfactory time when you get there.

i didnt mean that you should go to the hospital as a "avoid the police" tactic...

because when it comes to dealing with the events after the shooting, i tend to liked

Ayoobs philosophy of giving the police everything they need to help determine it was

a SD situation.....point out evidence/ witnesses, sign the complaint, make the

police know you are the victim.



i mean it as a 'better safe than sorry' technique....

you just used lethal force to protect your life and wellbeing, i know i wouldnt want

to comprimise my efforts because i didnt notice a broken bone, severe bruising or

torn ligaments....or because i simply didnt want to spend several hours in a

hospital.


now i dont know if i happen to have a high pain tolerence, or what......but i know

ive broken bones and never noticed and dislocated joints and didnt really feel any

pain till the next day or so.....and thats just from palling around the

house.....god only knows how badly i could be hurt and not notice after im buzzing

with adrenaline after a SD scenario....thats why i advocated going to the hospital

even if you think you feel fine....

Those are not good reasons to seek emergency medical care, tie up emergency medical resources and incur medical expenses (that you'll probably expect your medical insurance to pay).

The reason to seek emergency medical care is because you genuinely believe that you are suffering from a medical condition that requires immediate care to preserve your health and/or life.

Which is why i listed that one second, perhaps i should have really listed that as

an added advantage to the first point than a seperate reason........i dont advocate

going to the hospital SOLELY to "buy time and relax".....get yourself checked

out first and foremost.......but ive spent a good amout of time in ERs, unless you

are bleeding out of the eyes(and even then....), you are going to have a bit

of time on your hands which you can use to calm down and get collected, contact

family/ lawyer, ect.

 

[MikeNice]

Okay, I should have been more clear in my presentation of the video.

Follow the basic ground rules set by Massad Ayoob and then follow the video's advice. Tell them that you were attacked and forced to defend yourself. Point out or describe the attacker. Point out any witnesses and evidence. Then shut up until you get everything straight with an attorney. That video shows why you should follow the advice to seek counsel before taking it any further.

Isn't it interesting than that real defense attorneys use the opinion of experts to make/understand their cases

Isn't it interesting that a lot of so called "self defense experts" and other instructors tell people to lie. My point is that this guy knows why you shouldn't gush or lie in any way. He lays it out rather plainly.

It doesn't speak directly to self defense. However, it does educate people on some of the nuances that can destroy a good self defense shooting. Take it as a part of your education and not the sole piece. I guess I was wrong to assume people could incorporate multiple sources in to a single understanding.

 

[MikeNice]

you dont need to lie, just use what you can to see a doctor.

The chances are they will follow the ambulance and sit outside of your room in the ER. If you just admitted that you shot someone they aren't leaving. You need to be prepared for the fact you may be heading to jail for the night. Whether you sit in the hospital or not first really isn't going to do much to help.

If your statement pans out and evidence is on your side you may not get held. I know from working with cops that "I fired at the guy," followed by "I'm not talking without a lawyer," is going to set off some alarms. Most cops aren't going to risk letting a violent offender get a good head start on covering up evidence or running.

Once you pull that trigger a night in an interigation room or a cell should be in your plans. If you lawyer up expect the cell. Heading to the hospital delays the inevitable and puts a cop outside your door listening to all of your conversations. It increases your chances of blowing your case accidentally.

"Well your honor we heard him tell his wife that the guy said _____. When we got him in the interigation room he told us that the guy said _____. So we pressed him on a couple of details and he said he couldn't exactly remember. He answered the same questions when his wife asked at the hospital."

Remember anything a cop hears you say can be used against you. He doesn't have to be asking you questions. He just needs to be able to hear what you say. Don't give them more time to listen. Your conversation with your lawyer is privilliged. So, get to that as fast as possible. Otherwise stay silent, after following Massad Ayoob's advice.

 

[M-Cameron]

MikeNice.......read what i last posted, The hospital visit is for your HEALTH....not to delay dealing with/ trick the police.

but hey, if you can be absolutely 100% sure there is nothing wrong with you........by all means skip the hospital.

 

[MikeNice]

I got your point after reading the following post. I put it up there for the benefit of those that still see medical attention as a way to get a break.

If your situation involved going hands on, or you falling down, get checked out. It gives you a chance to calm down and evaluate your health. Adrenalin can cover up serious issues. It is common for cops and soldiers to fight for long periods of time and not realize they were wounded.

I had a Korean war vet tell me he was shot during a fire fight. He didn't realize it until a second shot hit him in the arm and forced him to drop his rifle. So, if there was a scuffle, you fell, or shots were exchanged definitely ask for attention.

 

[Loosedhorse]

hey, if you can be absolutely 100% sure there is nothing wrong with you........by all means skip the hospital.

Hey, I can't be "absolutely, 100% sure" that there's nothing wrong with me right now, so...

Should I call 911?

Please remember that your claim of SD will rest in large part on whether the jury finds you to be a reasonable person. Asking for emergency transport to an ER because something might possibly be wrong with you...will be perceived as reasonable?

About the same way, IMHO, that asking to be transported to the ER so that you can collect your thoughts and write stuff down will make you appear to them as an honest person.