this isn't for the benefit of the dispatcher in the moment, but for the tape record which may come into play at trial. I have no problem having that statement read back to me at trial.
It is for my immediate benefit. I must assume that the officers on arriving will have guns drawn, pointed at me. My immediate concern is to stay alive when the responding officers arrive. If it is
at all reasonable to assume that my verbiage offers an advantage over yours in that regard, I'll stick with mine. I will also be happy to have my transcript read in court.
"I've defended myself and we need an ambulance" seems to be skirting the issue a bit
If that issue comes up at trial, I will be happy to explain that it is rehearsed verbiage (practiced, just as I practice drawing and shooting), and why I selected those particular words
before the shooting, and did not ad lib them afterward.
Admit that you have done exactly what you did
My statement does that: I defended myself from a deadly attack. The police can have ALL the details after I speak to my lawyer. My job is to do the minimal amount of talking at that stage to accomplish my goals of summoning help, establishing me as the good guy (now and at trial), and staying alive.
Not necessarily in that order!
Related: it may well be that the dispatcher will start asking additional questions at that point, as the responders are in route--how should we respond to those questions?
Thoughts on that, anyone?
Yes: every additional word I say to the police is treacherous, "can be used against you." My immediate concerns are the three given above. If additional (armed) accomplices remain at the scene, then of course they represent a danger to me and the responding officers, and I MUST mention them, IMHO. If they have fled, well, then helping apprehend them is not an immediate goal.