Mas Ayoob on "saying nothing" to police after a SD incident

[Kleanbore]

I found this interesting in terms of 911, and they dont agree with Ayoob either:

https://www.uslawshield.com/how-to-call-911/

That is in no way contradictory to the advice of Ayoob, Branca, or West.

On the call or after the police arrive, it seems that it has to come out that you/I shot the guy.

If you have shot someone to defend yourself, of course! Otherwise you cannot claim self defense, and it will be pretty obvious But don't get into a discussion about what happened

Under those circumstances, there with a firearm.

Then what?,

On 911, you will identify yourself, describe what you look like, say whether you are injured, mention any other casualties, and speak about the need for ambulances.

When the officers arrive, you will have holstered your gun, or if not, drop it immediately on command. Do what they say.

Tell them what you need them to know at the time (you were the victim, evidence, witnesses) and whether other suspects were there, and no more. That is not "making a statement", in the context of this discussion. That you were the victim will be the basis of your defense, and pointing out evidence and witnesses does not constitute making a statement.

What you do not want to get into is a discussion of what happened.

Two things to keep in mind:

1. The arriving officers were not where when it happened; they see someone who looks a lot like a victim, and they see you; they do not know which among the departing from the scene were witnesses; their immediate task is to secure the scene, obtain assistance for the injured, take suspects into custody, and try to secure the scene. On that last point, empty cases that could be critical can easily disappear, and so can a weapon dropped near at the periphery. That's where your observations could be critical.
2. Your attorney will arrive much later, and will not help secure evidence; and he cannot introduce evidence and witnesses that have disappeared.

I would like to speak with my attorney and not answer, yes?

Not yet.

Explain that you will cooperate after securing legal representation. To do that, you will, when the opportunity presents itself, call someone who will call your lawyer, and who will keep trying until successful.

Do invoke your right to remain silent.

This is assuming it is just you and the dead guy in the room

???

Could be an injured guy.

The attacker may have escaped.

It may be about someone no longer present to whom you had displayed a firearm. Do be the first to call.

Might I suggest two things:

1. Take the several-hour Law of Self Defense Level 1 Course.
2. Subscribe to the LoSD Blog. This will provide one with news regarding recent appellate rulings regarding trials involving a defense of self defense or the defense of third parties Some have gone well for the defendants, and some, very poorly. Attorney Andrew Branca provides excellent commentary

 

[Izzy77]

That is in no way contradictory to the advice of Ayoob, Branca, or West.

If you have shot someone to defend yourself, of course! Otherwise you cannot claim self defense, and it will be pretty obvious But don't get into a discussion about what happened

Under those circumstances, there with a firearm.

On 911, you will identify yourself, describe what you look like, say whether you are injured, mention any other casualties, and speak about the need for ambulances.

When the officers arrive, you will have holstered your gun, or if not, drop it immediately on command. Do what they say.

Tell them what you need them to know at the time (you were the victim, evidence, witnesses) and whether other suspects were there, and no more. That is not "making a statement", in the context of this discussion. That you were the victim will be the basis of your defense, and pointing out evidence and witnesses does not constitute making a statement.

What you do not want to get into is a discussion of what happened.

Two things to keep in mind:

1. The arriving officers were not where when it happened; they is someone who looks a lot like a victim, and they see you; they do not know who among the people and those departing from the scene were witnesses; their immediate task is to secure the scene, obtain assistance for the injured, take suspects into custody, and try to secure the scene. On that last point, empty cases that could be critical can easily disappear, and so can a weapon dropped near at the periphery. That's where your observations could be critical.
2. Your attorney will arrive much later, and will not help secure evidence; and he cannot introduce evidence and witnesses that have disappeared.

Not yet.

Explain that you will cooperate after securing legal representation. To do that, you will, when the opportunity presents itself, call someone who will call your lawyer, and who will keep trying until successful.

Do invoke your right to remain silent.

???

Could be an injured guy.

The attacker may have escaped.

It may be about someone no longer present to whom you had displayed a firearm. Do be the first to call.

Might I suggest two things:

1. Take the several-hour Law of Self Defense Level 1 Course.
2. Subscribe to the LoSD Blog. This will provide one with news regarding recent appellate rulings regarding trials involving a defense of self defense or the defense of third parties Some have gone well for the defendants, and some, very poorly. Attorney Andrew Branca provides excellent commentary

I would like to know how making extra statements id est to the 4 ( mini) "statements" as recommended by Ayoob, is NOT contradictory to what US Law Shield Recomends. Please clarify.

This is what I would like you address:

"Massad Ayoob offers a five-point checklist of things to cover with the police instead of just clamming up:

1. Establish the active dynamic. This means letting the investigators know what the bad guy did to force you to use your firearm against him. This establishes you as the victim.
2. Reinforce that by stating you will testify against the bad guy — and Ayoob says the wording of that may be “a little bit tricky.” Don’t say “I’ll press charges,” because in some areas only prosecuting attorneys can press charges. Instead, say “I will testify against him/them.” This strengthens your position as victim.
3. Point out the evidence. Preserve it if possible; which can be difficult when medical and other personnel are running around disturbing the scene.
4. Point out the witnesses. I know from experience that witnesses don’t always get interviewed or even have a statement taken at the scene; do your best to make it easy for officers, so the witnesses can back up your story.
5. Shut up. Tell the officer he or she can expect your full cooperation after you’ve spoken with an attorney.

https://www.alloutdoor.com/2020/07/24/talk-cops-self-defense-shooting-massad-ayoob-says-yes/

VS.

“If you are in an incident where you are forced to use self-defense, tell the police you invoke your rights and you’d like to speak to your attorney before making any statements.

Additionally, we see people forget to invoke and exercise their right to remain silent because they are still worked up from the incident. It is crucial that you take a moment to cool down, not attempt to intervene in their investigation, and if questioned, tell the officer you want to speak with your attorney before making any statements."
( emphasis mine)

https://www.uslawshield.com/talking-to-police/https://www.uslawshield.com/talking-to-police/

As a side note: clicking on the link to "right to remain silent" brings a further understanding on what they are trying to do for thier clientele:

"Police officers are trained to get information from you without making the interaction seem like a formal interrogation. But remember, from the moment an officer arrives on the scene, everything you say and everything you do will be scrutinized in court. The prosecuting attorney will attempt to use anything and everything against you.

So, what do you say? You say: “I invoke my right to remain silent.” and then let your attorney interact with law enforcement on your behalf."

( emphasis US Law Shield)

https://www.uslawshield.com/miranda-rights/

 

[Kleanbore]

I would like to know how making extra statements id est to the 5 things ( mini) "statements" as recommended by Ayoob, is NOT contradictory to what US Law Shield Recommends. Please clarify

A statement to police officers is customarily defined as a description of what one saw or heard, or did. Massad does not recommend providing such without legal representation. Nor do Attorneys Branca and West.

The reasons are obvious. In the heat of the moment, the actor may misremember key facts, and should the statement contradict other evidence that may come to light, the discrepancy could be damaging.

The potential for damage from what Ayoob, Branca, West, and others recommend saying would not be worrisome, and they can provide essential advantage to the actor.

One of the others is Attorney Marty Hayes, of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.

His put:

"In addition to telling the police that you were attacked, point out any witnesses that saw the incident, or know of any evidence that is likely to be missed by the officers during their investigation. Guilty people don’t help the cops. Innocent people do."​

 

[Rule3]

"In addition to telling the police that you were attacked, point out any witnesses that saw the incident, or know of any evidence that is likely to be missed by the officers during their investigation. Guilty people don’t help the cops. Innocent people do."​

In telling the Police you were attacked. yet never say that you shot him in self defense? As I mentioned before if it is just you and the attacker (dead or alive) you let the Police figure out the pretty obvious that you are the shooter?? Seems they are gonna ask that, then recite the I wish to speak with my attorney?

 

[Kleanbore]

In telling the Police you were attacked. yet never say that you shot him in self defense?

They'll figure it out.

"I shot him" is not the same as "I killed him".

then recite the I wish to speak with my attorney?

Read Post #51.

 

[Izzy77]

A statement to police officers is customarily defined as a description of what one saw or heard, or did. Massad does not recommend providing such without legal representation. Nor do Attorneys Branca and West.

The reasons are obvious. In the heat of the moment, the actor may misremember key facts, and should the statement contradict other evidence that may come to light, the discrepancy could be damaging.

The potential for damage from what Ayoob, Branca, West, and others recommend saying would not be worrisome, and they can provide essential advantage to the actor.

Obviously this could be argued either way, depending how one defines "Statement", and does Ayoob cross that line or not...

"1. Establish the active dynamic. This means letting the investigators know what the bad guy did to force you to use your firearm against him."
( emphasis mine)

To me at least this would require some explanation ( I would call it a "mini" Statement), I am sure you ( yourself) would keep it brief...but would most people be so inclined?

"2. Point out the evidence." Unless you just say "This was his/ her Gun" or "This was his/her Knife" most would start "expaining" yet again.

If you take the US Law Shields page on "Right to Remain Silent" it shows thier position is NOT the same as Ayoobs. We are all individuals and we can all make our decision on who to rely on. Mossad may be an Instructor, former LE, and expert witness in some past trials, but he is not a lawyer. ( and neither am I).

I have a big mouth, when I was younger I have had issues trying to "explain" things that really need no explanation, and even when some things needed explanation, was not believed. I support law enforcement despite some abuses, because on a whole you NEED law enforcement.

 

[Kleanbore]

Obviously this could be argued either way, depending how one defines "Statement", and does Ayoob cross that line or not...

"1. Establish the active dynamic. This means letting the investigators know what the bad guy did to force you to use your firearm against him."

That is consistent with what Branca, Hayes, and West advise.

It is obviously not the sort of thing hat would entail a risk of confusion or contradiction.

To me at least this would require some explanation ( psuedo Statement),

Why?

"2. Point out the evidence." Unless you just say "This was his/ her Gun" or "This was his/her Knife" most would start "expaining" yet again.

???

To the extent that the advice of US Law Shield would actually preclude the giving of the information discussed by Ayoob, et al, I wonder just how they would expect arriving officers at the scene of an outdoors incident to quickly identify the participants, divine who may have witnessed the crime, prevent the disappearance of small piece of key evidence, etc.

Mossad may be an Instructor, foremr LE, and expert witness in some past trials, but he is not a lawyer.

Branca, Hayes, and West are attorneys who specialize in self defense cases.

 

[JohnKSa]

It has been touched on before, but I'm going to reiterate it because it is critical.

Ayoob is exclusively focused on self-defense cases and so is his advice. Everything he says is exclusively predicated on the assumption that the incident in question is justifiable self-defense. Trying to take GENERAL advice about what to do in interactions with the police and apply it to advice that is EXCLUSIVELY about interacting with the police after a justifiable self-defense incident will result in apparent contradictions. Why? Well, for one thing, the first step in claiming self-defense is voluntarily admitting to committing a homicide/attempted homicide/assault with a deadly weapon, something that otherwise would be horrifically inadvisable.

In the GENERAL case, the legal system must prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So they have to find all the evidence and do all the legwork to come up with a narrative that fits the evidence and that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are guilty. Obviously, it makes zero sense to provide them with any assistance in this regard. You don't have to admit to anything, you don't have to help with anything, you don't have to say anything--in fact you shouldn't unless there you know of something that obviously precludes your committing the crime. Even then, having your attorney handle it would be better to insure that there are no misunderstandings or slips.

In the SPECIFIC case of self-defense, you don't get the option to claim you didn't do it. You have to admit to committing homicide/attempted homicide/assault with a deadly weapon. That's the first, unavoidable step. Once you have done that, you and your legal team will have to show that what you did was justifiable. So now, it makes sense to help the police collect evidence. It makes sense to let the police know what the situation is at a very basic level. It makes sense to admit to having committed the act but without providing any information other than what is absolutely necessary to get everyone on the same page.

 

[JohnKSa]

"1. Establish the active dynamic. This means letting the investigators know what the bad guy did to force you to use your firearm against him."
( emphasis mine)

But be very careful. Every detail you provide is a detail you could get wrong. People commonly get things wrong in situations like this, and you don't want to be accused of lying or trying to create a false narrative. You want to say as little as possible because that gives you the best chance of not making a mistake.

"2. Point out the evidence." Unless you just say "This was his/ her Gun" or "This was his/her Knife" most would start "expaining" yet again.

Again, be VERY careful.

You don't know the gun belonged to the person in question. Don't make a statement that implies you do. Now the police wonder how you knew the gun was his--did you know him--had you seen him with that gun previously--did he tell you it was his? What if it turns out to be your gun that he found during the break-in? Now what will the police think about your claim that it was his? What you mean is that the attacker had that gun/knife during the attack--you don't know if it was his. So say that the attacker had that gun--but nothing more than you absolutely have to. Every detail you provide is a detail you can get wrong, or that might contain a shade of meaning you haven't considered.

And no, I'm not being ridiculous and trying to split hairs. What you say and do will be carefully analyzed. Small details, shades of meaning, and offhand comments will be taken very seriously and could be very important.

 

[Howland937]

I could see where the pro-Ayoob approach could be best and also the "shut-up and ask for your attorney" could be a good idea as well.
I'm not an attorney, LEO, or self defense expert, so my thoughts are just based on observations of people in general.
The right answer in each situation may differ depending on personality traits of the person forced into self defense.

There are people who are "explainers" who are naturally defensive and feel like they have to explain the situation and convince others to agree. Whether it's the kid heading to the principal's office or the guy who's late for work. (Excuse makers could be another name for them) Probably best if they just shut up.

There are people who get so rattled by stress, they run around 100mph and accomplish nothing. Full on freak-out mode is probably going to make conversation with law enforcement challenging.

If a person can deal with stress, be clear and concise then I believe Mr. Ayoob's advise would be beneficial. If a person can realistically identify the type they are based on previous stressful experience, they'd possibly have a better idea which approach would be best for them.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I could see where the pro-Ayoob approach could be best and also the "shut-up and ask for your attorney" could be a good idea as well.
I'm not an attorney, LEO, or self defense expert, so my thoughts are just based on observations of people in general.
The right answer in each situation may differ depending on personality traits of the person forced into self defense.

There are people who are "explainers" who are naturally defensive and feel like they have to explain the situation and convince others to agree. Whether it's the kid heading to the principal's office or the guy who's late for work. (Excuse makers could be another name for them) Probably best if they just shut up.

There are people who get so rattled by stress, they run around 100mph and accomplish nothing. Full on freak-out mode is probably going to make conversation with law enforcement challenging.

If a person can deal with stress, be clear and concise then I believe Mr. Ayoob's advise would be beneficial. If a person can realistically identify the type they are based on previous stressful experience, they'd possibly have a better idea which approach would be best for them.

In general I am a very left-brain person. My personal pattern in a stressful situation is to become totally focused on solving the problem. After the problem is solved, past experience is that I get weepy and shaky. But I don't remember getting illogical. Which of course doesn't mean there couldn't be a first time...

 

[grampster]

For me, as a former LEO, the proper thing to do if you are involved in a SD incident is to remain quiet, beyond identifying yourself and that your are willing to discuss the situation in a proper setting. First of all there is going to be a bit of on scene chaos at the time. After the police arrive and begin to ascertain the situation, secure the scene and things quiet down the best thing to do is to continue to remain quiet during this time except if asked whether you are injured or not. When officers begin to ask what happened, the best thing to say is that since the scene is really not the place to discuss anything, you'd be willing to be transported to HQ at the earliest convenience for a proper setting and you'll contact your attorney before going over anything. You can certainly explain your reasoning is that you know they would like an accurate explanation and that would be the best way to do that.

 

[Kleanbore]

For me, as a former LEO, the proper thing to do if you are involved in a SD incident is to remain quiet, beyond identifying yourself and that your are willing to discuss the situation in a proper setting.

How would you suggest handling a situation that did not involve self defense?

 

[grampster]

I'm not sure why a person who is familiar with and comfortable with firearms would be in a public incident involving firearms in a non self defense situation. My feeling about that is as my sig line says; sometimes run, sometimes fight, sometimes do nothing. That means that logic should trump emotion as a citizen. That logic comes with training. Assuming you mean a ND in public, or a confrontation that leaves no options, the same after incident tactic would apply. Be quiet and offer to cooperate off site with a chance to speak with your attorney.

 

[Izzy77]

It has been touched on before, but I'm going to reiterate it because it is critical.

Ayoob is exclusively focused on self-defense cases and so is his advice. Everything he says is exclusively predicated on the assumption that the incident in question is justifiable self-defense. Trying to take GENERAL advice about what to do in interactions with the police and apply it to advice that is EXCLUSIVELY about interacting with the police after a justifiable self-defense incident will result in apparent contradictions. Why? Well, for one thing, the first step in claiming self-defense is voluntarily admitting to committing a homicide/attempted homicide/assault with a deadly weapon, something that otherwise would be horrifically inadvisable.

In the GENERAL case, the legal system must prove you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So they have to find all the evidence and do all the legwork to come up with a narrative that fits the evidence and that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you are guilty. Obviously, it makes zero sense to provide them with any assistance in this regard. You don't have to admit to anything, you don't have to help with anything, you don't have to say anything--in fact you shouldn't unless there you know of something that obviously precludes your committing the crime. Even then, having your attorney handle it would be better to insure that there are no misunderstandings or slips.

In the SPECIFIC case of self-defense, you don't get the option to claim you didn't do it. You have to admit to committing homicide/attempted homicide/assault with a deadly weapon. That's the first, unavoidable step. Once you have done that, you and your legal team will have to show that what you did was justifiable. So now, it makes sense to help the police collect evidence. It makes sense to let the police know what the situation is at a very basic level. It makes sense to admit to having committed the act but without providing any information other than what is absolutely necessary to get everyone on the same page.

But be very careful. Every detail you provide is a detail you could get wrong. People commonly get things wrong in situations like this, and you don't want to be accused of lying or trying to create a false narrative. You want to say as little as possible because that gives you the best chance of not making a mistake.Again, be VERY careful.

You don't know the gun belonged to the person in question. Don't make a statement that implies you do. Now the police wonder how you knew the gun was his--did you know him--had you seen him with that gun previously--did he tell you it was his? What if it turns out to be your gun that he found during the break-in? Now what will the police think about your claim that it was his? What you mean is that the attacker had that gun/knife during the attack--you don't know if it was his. So say that the attacker had that gun--but nothing more than you absolutely have to. Every detail you provide is a detail you can get wrong, or that might contain a shade of meaning you haven't considered.

And no, I'm not being ridiculous and trying to split hairs. What you say and do will be carefully analyzed. Small details, shades of meaning, and offhand comments will be taken very seriously and could be very important.

Very well written...this would be my concern as well. While it MIGHT be fine to say "this was the gun he used", most people are not that well put together..to be so precise when adrenalin is still pumping. IMHO Ayoob is not giving the best advice for the 90% of people ( myself included) who will be "shaken not stirred" after such an incident. I know myself, I know my limitations, many people do not.

 

[Izzy77]

That is consistent with what Branca, Hayes, and West advise.

It is obviously not the sort of thing hat would entail a risk of confusion or contradiction.

Why?

???

To the extent that the advice of US Law Shield would actually preclude the giving of the information discussed by Ayoob, et al, I wonder just how they would expect arriving officers at the scene of an outdoors incident to quickly identify the participants, divine who may have witnessed the crime, prevent the disappearance of small piece of key evidence, etc.

Branca, Hayes, and West are attorneys who specialize in self defense cases.

First things first...there are ways to do exactly as Ayoob says without getting into trouble. That does not mean it is good advice for many people, if you are part of the selct group that can stay very calm and be sure to inform ONLY on things that would be helpful on a possible case being made against you, then by golly I wish you the best. ( I fully wish this would never have to happen at all ! )

What I was trying to relate is for many ( most?) people "establishing dynamic" ( beyond the curt " I was attacked and feared for my life") can lead to "diarrhea of the mouth" and cause more issues than it is worth. We can train and contimplate all we want, but humans have a physiology geared towards "fight or flight" and these things tend to take over our higher intelligence in a life or death situation. So yes, with or without Ayoob's advice, many people will try to "explain" away things, and that can open the door to legal issues.

I am glad you can see that US Shield and Ayoob are not fully in agreement.

 

[DoubleMag]

This thread in itself kinda ends the ''well, the statement to the police will seem canned'' , doesn't it?

While developing a checklist of sorts, ** Don't forget to notify any & all LEO's at the scene if you are a concealed carrier and your state requires it **

 

[Spats McGee]

....So Ayoob is basically saying, say "this and this and this to help your case" and then, Shut up. I am not sure many people can actually do this....

One of my favorite law-related jokes/sayings: "Everyone has the right to remain silent. Very few have the ability."

It has been touched on before, but I'm going to reiterate it because it is critical.... the first step in claiming self-defense is voluntarily admitting to committing a homicide/attempted homicide/assault with a deadly weapon, something that otherwise would be horrifically inadvisable.....

As I have explained to some in my circle of acquaintances: "To claim self-defense, you kind of have to say, 'Yes, I shot him. But I had a really good reason.'"

 

[jmr40]

In the aftermath of an SD shoot, the best thing you could do would be to say the right thing. The second best thing would be to say nothing, and the worst thing would be to say the wrong thing. The trouble is knowing the difference between the best and the worst.

That is probably the best advice, with the fewest words, I've ever heard. And it applies to pretty much everything, just not a SD shooting.

I'm a retired shop teacher and football coach. In addition to that I drove a bus for athletic events and field trips for 30 years. Having teenagers working with power equipment and the risks of serious injury involved with coaching football plus the liability of being responsible for 30-40 kids on a bus I was driving placed me in a very vulnerable position to be sued if I didn't do everything just right.

A big part of my training not only in college, but in training sessions throughout my career involved making sure all safety policies were strictly adhered to. And how to respond if something did happen. Not to lie about what happened, but if care isn't used in which words were chosen it is easy to make it look like you did something wrong when you didn't.

That same philosophy applies to gun ownership.

 

[Anchorite]

One of my favorite law-related jokes/sayings: "Everyone has the right to remain silent. Very few have the ability."

As I have explained to some in my circle of acquaintances: "To claim self-defense, you kind of have to say, 'Yes, I shot him. But I had a really good reason.'"

Yep. And no one denies that the shooting occurred and that your client is the shooter. Stipulate to some evidence if you can and it fits your defense strategy, but the focus is on the circumstances leading up to the event, and the aftermath.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Interview by John Correia.

Many of us have heard a million times "Never say anything to the police except 'I have to call my attorney'. In this video Mas Ayoob says this is a bad idea, explains why, and advises what we should say.

 

[old lady new shooter]

Someone posted that link earlier, and I believe Kleanbore responded that Marc Victor is a criminal defense attorney, which is not the same thing as an attorney specializing in self-defense cases. I haven't yet watched the Marc Victor interview (actually I think there are two of them), but I think the earlier comments by Kleanbore and JohnKSA are important on this point. The short version of what JohnKSA said is that in a criminal defense case usually the lawyer is trying to prove the client didn't do the act in question, whereas in a self-defense case it HAS to be admitted that the client did the act, the issue is whether it was reasonable to have done so.

 

[Old Dog]

I've managed to refrain from posting in this thread thus far, but as it's New Year's Eve (about an hour and a half from 2021 PST), all I have to say is that we have some members posting here who apparently believe that any (and every?) law enforcement officer responding to the scene of a self-defense use of lethal force situation is absolutely clueless with zero powers of observation and/or not possessed of critical thinking skills.

For me, as a former LEO, the proper thing to do if you are involved in a SD incident is to remain quiet, beyond identifying yourself and that your are willing to discuss the situation in a proper setting.

I disagree. One will have to at least give a basic synopsis of what happened, even if it's just a couple sentences -- AGAIN, you don't have to go into detail! Believe it or not, the modern day police officer or deputy is actually trained in crime scene response, de-escalation techniques, dealing with highly upset victims in traumatic circumstances and critical incident stress response. Often, a self-defense shooting will appear to be just that to the responding cops.

First of all there is going to be a bit of on scene chaos at the time.

Yeah, but often -- there is NOT "on scene chaos." Unless you're in Pioneer Square at midnight on a party or big-game weekend.

Now, maybe not all cops have experience responding to homicides or deadly force incidents, but if you've got more than a minute on the job, you've probably already acquired the ability to differentiate the good guys from the bad guys most of the time. But if not, that's why we have those folks that are called "detectives." Finally, if all you're gonna give the responding cops and investigators is, "I'm not saying anything until I see my lawyer," you are not assisting the responsible agency in conducting its investigation and could possibly be giving an indication that you have something to hide. Might mean the difference between leaving the scene in handcuffs and spending a night in the county lock-up, or being given high-fives by the responding cops.

But I know that the average defense attorney will disagree with me here. Thing is, there's more than one side to the aftermath of a self-defense shooting.

 

[JohnKSa]

You are right, of course. I remember watching an episode of COPS filmed many years ago. An older woman heard something in her backyard. She opened her door and fired her gun without ever seeing a target. The responding officer, realizing that she was really afraid, declined to pursue the issue and instead cautioned her about what she had done and reloaded her gun for her.

There are some things to keep in mind:

1. You don't get to choose which cops will respond when you call 911, nor do you get any information about them that might help you decide how to handle the situation. You get what you get, and you definitely don't want to start running your mouth on the assumption that the officers who respond are going to see everything your way and give you "high-fives".

2. The cops who respond to the scene will not decide whether or not to indict you, they won't decide whether or not to attempt prosecution, they will hand over the evidence they collect to others who will make those decisions. They won't hold a trial for you at the scene and determine guilt or innocence. It's important to keep in mind that even if the officers are very favorably impressed with you, they don't make the final decisions on how your case will be handled. Yes, they will have input, but others will look over the evidence and make the final determination of how the state will respond.

3. There's a lot at stake. It makes sense to handle things very cautiously. We carry guns because we are concerned about preparing for the worst case scenario, not the average or best case scenario. If we have to use our guns, it makes sense to keep using that same perspective when it comes to dealing with the legal aspects of the aftermath.

Marc Victor's response video

At 3 minutes into the video, Mr. Victor makes exactly the same observation I did in my earlier post.

Ayoob is going into this with the express assumption that the situation in question is a justifiable case of self-defense. That context is critical.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Something people should ask themselves when watching the video.

Is Mas Ayoob an attorney? Is Mas Ayoob YOUR attorney.