Discussion: What to Do after a Self Defense Encounter

[M-Cameron]

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

Should I call 911?

no, but then again, you were presumably fine yesterday, fine this morning when you woke up........and im assuming nothing tragic has happened between the time you woke up and now.

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?

i dunno, i dont think i would hold it against someone who was just in a violent struggle to want to be checked out by doctors......i dunno, maybe thats just me.

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.

like i said, go to get checked out first a nd foremost, make sure you are ok....

....but anyone who has spent time in an ER will tell you, youve got at least an hour wait......i would use that time to write down my version of the events as i remember them, so that way i can have something to reference a month or two later........again, maybe this is just me, but i write down notes from important phone calls, meetings, accidents, ect.




like i said before, these are just my opinions on the matter, so take them for what theyre worth.....i dont claim to be a firearms tactics expert......and who knows, maybe im wrong, and maybe my views will change, but for right now, this is what makes sense to ME......

 

[Loosedhorse]

but anyone who has spent time in an ER will tell you, youve got at least an hour wait

At a lot of ERs, the wait for a no-symptoms, no-wound, just-want-to-be-checked-out-thanks would be 12 hours or more. Triage.

im assuming nothing tragic has happened between the time you woke up and now.

Is "tragedy" a condition treatable by ER?

When I want to "get checked out" by an MD (after my own self-check has revealed nothing), I schedule an appointment. Every year. Not in the ER.

And again--why is there the assumption that the police, on hearing you "just want to get checked out" would transport you to an ER? Since we've already established that no one is going to fake symptoms, why would the police simply do that, any more than if you request that they drive you to your lawyer's office, they'd drive you there?

just in a violent struggle

He struck you, bit you, cut you, or shot you? That's different; the seriousness of blows to the head may especially be underestimated by those receiving them.

 

[M-Cameron]

And again--why is there the assumption that the police, on hearing you "just want to get checked out" would transport you to an ER? Since we've already established that no one is going to fake symptoms, why would the police simply do that, any more than if you request that they drive you to your lawyer's office, they'd drive you there?

thats why i said earlier....if they wont let you go, head over yourself as soon as you leave the police station...or dont...i dont really care.

He struck you, bit you, cut you, or shot you? That's different; the seriousness of blows to the head may especially be underestimated by those receiving them.

well considering you just shot him, im going to assume he assaulted you with more than words.

 

[Loosedhorse]

well considering you just shot him, im going to assume he assaulted you with more than words.

If I guy pulls a knife or a club, says to me, "I'm going to kill you," and starts running at me, I will shoot him before he ever touches me (if I can).

Being the victim of a deadly assault in no way requires you to be touched or injured--and if I have any say in the matter, I won't be. What is required is the reasonable belief that you were about to be maimed or killed, and had no ability to retreat in safety--not that you actually let him try to kill you.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by MikeNice: 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 is in essence Massad's advice, and that of many other experts.

That video shows why you should follow the advice to seek counsel before taking it any further. ....

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.

The video does illustrate how statements made to law enforcement officers can help to incriminate people who make them. One can get the same education in the context of the lawful use of force by attending MAG-20, and have the opportunity to ask questions.

I guess I was wrong to assume people could incorporate multiple sources in to a single understanding.

The problem is that the two sources provide contradictory advice. Mr. Duane says to say nothing, period, and a lot of people here had been taking that to heart as the advice to follow after a self defense shooting. Mr. Ayoob advises us to make a few very limited statements, depending upon the circumstances, that may prove crucial to a self defense case, and to say nothing at all after that without the advice of counsel.

In my opinion, there are three things to keep in mind.

The first is that the arriving officers will most probably be very skeptical of any claim that a violent incident involved a justified act of self defense (unless the evidence to that effect is rather obvious), (1) because most persons who have shot someone else and who cannot plausibly deny having done so will probably claim self defense, and (2) because, since truly justified self defense shootings occur infrequently, the vast majority of such claims that officers have heard have turned out to be false.

The second is that there is a strong likelihood that evidence and witnesses that are not identified at the scene will be lost to the defense. Since one can reasonably conclude that arriving officers will not be looking specifically for exculpatory evidence, much of the burden of pointing it out will fall to the defender.

The third is that statements to the 911 operator, to the arriving officers, to investigators, and to the media can all be used as evidence and that the need to keep one's mouth shut (and one's keyboard inactive on the subject) does not go away when the charging authority decides to not pursue the case.

 

[M-Cameron]

If I guy pulls a knife or a club, says to me, "I'm going to kill you," and starts running at me, I will shoot him before he ever touches me (if I can).

Being the victim of a deadly assault in no way requires you to be touched or injured--and if I have any say in the matter, I won't be. What is required is the reasonable belief that you were about to be maimed or killed, and had no ability to retreat in safety--not that you actually let him try to kill you.

goodness buddy, give me the benefit of the doubt and assume im not a complete idiot.

of course if the guy never touches you, then yes, chances are you are about as fine as you were several hours before the incident....and assuming you woke up alive, you probably wont need to go to the hospital.........


now ive never been in a gunfight, or ever had to defend against a threat to my life......but im going to assume in most circumstances, someone looking to kill you isnt going to stand 30 feet away, and make it verbally known they are going to attack you, and give you the opportunity to pull your gun before they attack.

ide imagine in most situations, the guy(s) will wait until your back is turned, and attack you when your not looking, and blind side you.

but then again, its never happened to me(thankfully)....so i could be wrong, maybe criminals really are that stupid.

 

[Loosedhorse]

give me the benefit of the doubt and assume im not a complete idiot.

I did assume that you're not.

im going to assume in most circumstances, someone looking to kill you isnt going to stand 30 feet away, and make it verbally known they are going to attack you

You, however, seem to assume this is the only way one could be warned of an imminent attack before being struck from behind.

No matter. We seem to agree on the point at hand: ask for medical care if you need it.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I guess I was wrong to assume people could incorporate multiple sources in to a single understanding.

The problem is that the two sources provide contradictory advice. Mr. Duane says to say nothing, period, and a lot of people here had been taking that to heart as the advice to follow after a self defense shooting. Mr. Ayoob advises us to make a few very limited statements, depending upon the circumstances, that may prove crucial to a self defense case, and to say nothing at all after that without the advice of counsel.

That is the problem that I see, these two sources of advice are not complimentary. Mr. Duane's advice is redundant and incomplete as the correct response to a claim of an Affirmative Defense.

The first is that the arriving officers will most probably be very skeptical of any claim that a violent incident involved a justified act of self defense (unless the evidence to that effect is rather obvious), (1) because most persons who have shot someone else and who cannot plausibly deny having done so will probably claim self defense, and (2) because, since truly justified self defense shootings occur infrequently, the vast majority of such claims that officers have heard have turned out to be false.

The second is that there is a strong likelihood that evidence and witnesses that are not identified at the scene will be lost to the defense. Since one can reasonably conclude that arriving officers will not be looking specifically for exculpatory evidence, much of the burden of pointing it out will fall to the defender.

These are both very true. Without input from a person who used Deadly Force in self defense, the officers will be looking at/for evidence to substantiate that a shooting occurred there and involved both parties...not for the reasons why

 

[MikeNice]

That is the problem that I see, these two sources of advice are not complimentary. Mr. Duane's advice is redundant and incomplete as the correct response to a claim of an Affirmative Defense.

Let me explain how I learn things and why I don't think the video is contradicting Ayoob or others.

When I approach a complicated subject, such as this one, I read multiple sources. Then I weed out the ones that seem less than reliable or informed. Then I go back through the ones that seem knowledgable.

I read Ayoob, Dodson, and a few others that spoke from an informed position. I read up on an affirmative defense. Then I decided that the general advice was right. Ayoob's steps are the best advice and Dodson gives great advice on details to watch for and relay. Then Duane's video supports the general consensus to shut up and avoid full statements about the entire event. It shows why the final part of Ayoob's advice is critical.

The video, to me, supports Ayoob's premise to promise compliance after seeking counsel. If the video is the only advice you seek on the matter it is misleading. However, that is not how I went about things. Whether the video is a train wreck waiting to happen or not depends on the viewer not the advice given.

I have supported Ayoob's advice and the idea of limitted disclosure from the begining.

I fully support saying, "I am shaken up right now. I will fully comply with any investigation once I have time to calm down and consult counsel." But, say it only after telling them, this man attacked me and I was forced to defend myself. I want to file a complaint against him for _____. Those people over there were witnesses and the evidence he dropped is over there. If he fled the scene tell them the direction and estimated elapsed time.

To me the video tells you exactly why you should play it that way. Anything more and you open yourself up to a world of possible problems.

 

[9mmepiphany]

I think I understand your learning style.

Just curious, would you say that, without the Duane video, the Ayoob advice is incomplete?

 

[MikeNice]

I don't think it is incomplete. I believe it enhances the teaching and validates it in someways. Not every cop knows the intricate details of law and not every lawyer is competent. However, when they agree it adds to the probability that the advice is good.

There is a second part to the video that has a cop/law student basically explaining it from his working experience. It solidifies the idea that the advice is good.

It also helps to know why you are following each step. Ayoob does good explaining most of the procedure. The video details the why of the last step. I believe that bit of knowledge makes people more comfortable executing it. It might also make them less likely to deviate from the plan.

 

[Kleanbore]

I have added two links in the Sticky on this subject.

One covers a book that Fred Fuller mentioned in a post last year. The other links to a recent post by fiddletown.

See Post #4 of the Sticky.

I hope they prove helpful.

 

[Jeff22]

what to do after a self defense encounter

You're certainly better off to make a brief statement to the police after any self defense incident you're in. Give the first responding officers a brief synopsis, so they can get on with the investigation. If you decide to make a short statement to the police, make it to a supervisor or the case detective. You don't want to make multiple statements. One will do fine.

Police officers are trained to make a brief factual statement after any shooting incident they're involved in. It is often referred to as a "public safety statement" and deals only with the relevant information needed to deal with the incident and to protect the scene. Such as, how many suspects were there? How were they dressed? If some escaped, which way did they go? Are there any witnesses around? Are there items of evidence around that need to be protected and recovered? Does anybody need medical attention?

You don't have to give them your life story and you probably won't be able to remember all the details about the incident, so DO NOT try to go into great detail. But a brief statement is probably in your best interests. You have to survive the initial incident, and then you have to survive the investigation, and then you have to survive any potential civil litigation.

If you respond to the police in the same way that they are trained to do when involved in a self-defense shooting, it may help them reach an understanding that you were indeed acting appropriately under the circumstances. If you lie to a cop, or try to hide something from a cop, or if they perceive that you are trying to hide something, they respond like sharks do when they smell blood in the water . . . you do NOT want that to happen to you. Nor do you want to talk too much, nor make multiple statements about what happened to multiple investigators. The more you think this stuff through in advance, the better off you will be.

You should locate an attorney locally who has some expertise and understanding of self-defense issues, and talk to him soon. Get an understanding of how the law works in YOUR STATE and also what the actual "prosecutorial climate" is toward self-defense incidents is in YOUR LOCATION.

Remember, most cops and most prosecutors (and most defense attorneys) don't have that much experience investigating legitimate self defense shootings, because they don't happen all that often in most jurisdictions. So you need to do some research ahead of time.

IN THE GRAVEST EXTREME by Massad Ayoob remains the standard work on the legal issues of self defense. It was written in 1980 and needs to be updated, but most of the information in there is still valid.


How much do you tell the police after you are involved in a self-defense shooting? A lot depends on how the self-defense issue is addressed in the laws of YOUR STATE. (look your laws up. Don't depend on somebody to tell you what they are, or what they think they are. look them up yourself. Depending upon how the statutes are organized, sometimes it's hard to find them on the web, and you may have to go look at the hard copy of the statutes down at the public library)

Where I live, there is no "right" to self defense in the statutes -- self defense is an AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, where basically you are saying "Yes, I shot the guy in self defense AND THIS IS WHY." (Our statutes use the term "privilege" to define instances where otherwise unlawful acts are justified; such as the use of force in self defense)

If there are witnesses that can support your actions, or evidence that would prove that events happened the way you said they did, YOU need to point this stuff out to officer friendly when he gets there. DO NOT presume that the cops will find this stuff on their own. Most cops, even detectives, do not investigate legitimate self-defense shootings very often. This means they may overlook evidence that is beneficial to your case. This may also mean that they mis-interpret events, because they're NOT familiar with this kind of investigation.

Don't misunderstand the suggestion that you should make a statement to the police to mean that you need to make a detailed statement at the scene of the incident. That is probably NOT a good idea.

What you need to do is sometimes referred to as a "public safety statement" -- that's what cops are often required to give at the scene of an incident they are involved in. It would be simple -- something like "I was gassing my car up and a guy appeared out of the darkness with a knife and he tried to rob me and he threatened me with the knife and began to advance and my escape route was cut off and I was in fear for my life and I shot at him to defend myself." Just a simple explanation of the incident. Don't go into great detail at the time, because you'll probably be too upset. Wait until you have counsel before you make a DETAILED statement, but tell the investigating officers SOMETHING -- a brief synopsis of events.

You will be handling it the same way that most police unions tell their officers to respond in such an investigation -- a brief description of events, followed by "I prefer not to make any more statements until I've had the advice of counsel".

Of course, all situations are different. And I don't know how the police and prosecutors handle incidents like this where you live. To make a determination about the "prosecutorial climate" in your locale, DON'T depend on anything written in the newspaper. Articles in the newspaper or features on television are not (generally) prepared by people who know anything about the law or tactics or much of anything else. They're just newspaper or TV reporters, NOT subject matter experts about anything. Most of the stuff you read in the papers has significant errors in it, not because the news media are participants in some vast conspiracy, but because THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE WRITING ABOUT. So don't depend on the media to get the facts straight on anything.

And don't depend on advice you hear from some gunshop commando or some guy you ran into at the gun show. A regular general practice attorney probably won't be of much use as a reference, either. You'll need to talk to somebody who specializes in this kind of criminal defense. And DON'T depend on advice from the cop who lives down your street. Absent specialized training, they won't know either! They may (or may not) be familiar with the policy of their police department, and how the police union advises them to act after being involved in an incident, but they probably WILL NOT have good advice for the private citizen in a similar situation.

(It seems that people who have a few seconds to realize that they're in danger can usually maintain better mental track during the incident than those caught totally by surprise. And if you are wounded or sustain a significant injury, you are in no position to be talking at all.)

Remember, ANY STATEMENT YOU MAKE TO THE POLICE CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE. The police only have to inform you of your privilege against testimonial self incrimination during a custodial arrest. There is a common misconception that "it doesn't count" if you have not provided and signed some kind of written statement, and this is incorrect.

When you make this brief statement, make it to the sergeant or the investigator who will be the primary investigator on the case. Don't explain to just any uniformed cop who happens by, because they may not be primary on the incident. And only give your statement once. The more you repeat it, the more likely it is that there will be inconsistencies, caused by the stress of the situation.

If you aren't sure that you can make a statement and then stop talking, then it might be best to say very little at all.
======================================================
Always remember:
Most police seldom if ever investigate a legitimate self-defense shooting incident. If you are uncooperative, it makes it that much harder for them to figure out what actually happened. In my experience, innocent people usually DO NOT invoke their rights against testimonial self incrimination -- they can't wait to tell the investigating officers all about what happened BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG! Right or wrong, cops equate "silence" with "guilt". You can rant and rave all you want about your "rights" but the first right you have is to be responsible for your actions!

That being said be careful what you say, but it's best that you give them a little bit of information so they can start the investigation, and then ask for your lawyer. If there is evidence or witnesses that can verify your side of the story, the police need to know that. You can't assume they're just going to magically figure it out for themselves. If you want to avoid a great deal of trouble, you're going to have to cooperate with the investigation to some limited extent. But be very careful what you say!

Just remember not to over-think this stuff: Your actions will be evaluated based on the information known to you at the time of the incident. Your perception of threat. Your perception of tactical options. Your decisions will be compared to those of a "reasonable man" under the same circumstances

Some of the instructors who primarily train the armed private citizen (like John Farnam & Massad Ayoob) always suggest that you find an attorney in your area (if possible) who specializes in defending private citizens in self defense cases, and at least pay to talk to them for an hour or two and get their interpretation of the law in your state and the "judicial climate" in your locality -- how police & prosecutors proceed in these kind of investigations, how the process works, what political issues may be at play, and etc. That's pretty good advice, with the qualifier that, in many locations, it'll be pretty hard to find an attorney with trial experience in this unusual area, because in most places there just aren't that many true self-defense shootings. A regular general practice attorney probably won't have any specialized training or experience in this area, and they may not know that they don't know, so it's always possible that you may get some bad advice.

You might want to consider talking to the counsel for the local police officer's union or association -- it's quite possible that the local police union attorney has had some specialized training in this area, or can point you in the direction of somebody who does have such training

 

[Averageman]

We had two Attorneys, one a former Prosecuter at our gun club meeting this month.
They seem to be of the opinion that you call them after you call 911 and say nothing until they get there.
I can't unsay anything I have said to a LEO, He cant unhear it and I'm probobly a little shakey at the time.
I think I will give them my attorneys card and say that I am afraid, hurt and shaken and not ready to make a statement without representation; but I do wish to fully cooperate.

 

[Mike1234567]

Say the minimum "facts" then **** and spill everything to your attorney.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Averageman: We had two Attorneys, one a former Prosecuter at our gun club meeting this month.
They seem to be of the opinion that you call them after you call 911 and say nothing until they get there.

They are not alone. One does have to question, of course, how many self defense pleas thay have been involved with and how they have done. Self defense cases are not like the usual criminal case, and even among the former, what was successful in one case mat not be successful in another.

There are two incontrovertible things to be said on this.

One is that you do not want to say anything at all that may be used against you. Not answering any questions without an attorney present, and not providing an account of the incident at the time is a good start toward that.

The other is that once evidence and witnesses that may prove helpful or essential to the defense disappear from the scene, it is likely that they are gone forever.

One other thing: because a self defense claim is the only defense available to a criminal who cannot plausibly deny having done the deed, spurious claims of self defense are not uncommon. Along that line, do you really want to entrust to a police officer who has just arrived on the scene of what probably looks a lot like a murder to seek out and stop the green pickup that was carrying witnesses, or to look for the atttacker's fleeing accomplice, on his own initiative?

Not I.

As Jeff22 points out,

If there are witnesses that can support your actions, or evidence that would prove that events happened the way you said they did, YOU need to point this stuff out to officer friendly when he gets there. DO NOT presume that the cops will find this stuff on their own. Most cops, even detectives, do not investigate legitimate self-defense shootings very often. This means they may overlook evidence that is beneficial to your case. This may also mean that they mis-interpret events, because they're NOT familiar with this kind of investigation.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

They seem to be of the opinion that you call them after you call 911 and say nothing until they get there.

It is worth noting that your 911 call is probably admissible as evidence and is a statement to police in its own right. This is one reason it pays to take the time to consider how you will handle the 911 call and any other statement to police. Just telling them you'll talk when your attorney gets there sounds good; but can be impractical in many cases if you need to call for help, identify yourself for responding officers, describe suspects, etc.

 

[Supranatural]

That's true when it comes to herding livestock, weapon retention, using concealment or cover, or shooting at steel plates, but it is most certainly not true when it comes to compliance with the laws involving public financial reporting, with those involving the negotiation of contracts, or compliance with the laws concerning the use of force. There would be no more effective way for one to get into serious trouble than for someone to "see, try, and do" things in those areas without the necessary academic background. That is not just my personal opinion--I've seen it proven too many times to doubt it.

Having attended MAG-20 and having read just about everything I have been able to lay my hands on, I firmly believe that being told what to say in a particular situation and trying it out could cause far more trouble than it would avoid, if one were not first educated in the legal background and had not been explained the numerous high court rulings that make up much of the fabric of the legal system. Add to the need for an understanding of how witness's minds work, of jury psychology, of how prosecutors influence juries, the physiological impacts of post-incident stress, wounds, and so forth, and one needs still more academic grounding.

One of the things that Mas states over and over is "I cannot tell you what to say"; the example of what to say to the police we have been discussing is the sole exception.

Perhaps Mas could design an illustrative simulation, but I think the value would be limited and it would divert resources from the class and dilute the benefit.

If one really has an appetite for learning the complexity of all that is involved here, one can take just one very small element of what is covered in the classroom training--what to say to the arriving officers after a self defense encounter--and study that one in great depth. We have chosen Mas' recommendation as the "school solution" here at THR, but we also understand that every person who has used deadly force and who cannot plausibly deny having done so will almost certainly claim self defense, and we therefore understand that appearing to use a practiced "canned" statement will not help us a bit--and that it can hurt..

For more on that, and this is really not recommended for those who insist on a simple cookie cutter solution, one can read After You Shoot by Alan Korwin. Korwin submitted the question of what to say to the police after a shooting, which formed the basis of the very beginning of this thread, to a number of attorneys; the discussion is most enlightening.

Just one little teaser on that: has anyone here ever thought about why and how the statement "I feared for my life", so often recommended, could effectively be used against a lawful defender in court?

So how would saying that you feared for your life could be turned against you?

 

[Fred Fuller]

See the 'sticky' thread with the same title at the top of the main index page or click on http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=589272

Since this is a necro thread resurrection, I'm closing it - somehow I can't see much more of use appearing after five pages of existing discussion and a couple of years of elapsed time since the previous last post.

There's more than one kind of fear, and simple raw fear, that is unjustified by the circumstances, is not likely to be seen as adequate justification for the use of force. NC calls for 'a person of ordinary firmness' (or courage) as a standard for conduct, as well as imposing a 'reasonable person' standard. Many other states impose legal guidelines of a similar nature. Examine your own state code and case law for the standard of conduct in self defense, or better yet consult a criminal defense attorney for clarification.