What to do after a self defense shooting if you are poor?

The police are not your enemy, either. Virtually all of us in LE are in favor of the good guy who prevails over the bad guy. Yes, we collect evidence to determine whether or not a crime has occurred, but in a justifiable shooting the evidence tends to be there to show us that a crime has NOT occurred.

Saying nothing at all is quite likely to get your arrested, because saying nothing gives the police no information to go on other than the fact that you shot someone and they don't know why. Now, having a lawyer present during a detailed interview could be prudent for the reasons I mentioned in my other post, but you can still rarely go wrong by giving a quick statement explaining that you shot the person in self defense because ABC or XYZ.

Remember, the police are arriving with limited facts. As soon as the scene is secure from a tactical perspective, the next thing you'll probably hear is: "So, what happened here?" Consider these three possible answers, two of which are reasonable in my opinion (and I've experienced all three on justifiable shoots):

1) "I don't talk to the police. Call my lawyer" (went to the jail in handcuffs because literally all we knew was that he had just killed someone - later interviewed with a lawyer and cleared without ending up in court. But, spent more time in a holding cell than he ever needed to).

2) "I was walking my dog and this guy approached me from behind and said 'give me your wallet or I'll shoot you', as I turned and shined my flashlight at him I saw him raising a gun at me and I shot him before he could shoot me" (subject was briefly detained on-scene while we corroborated his story with the facts we could determine at the time).

3) "That guy had a gun and tried to kill me. I shot him. But, I hope you understand that I really think I should talk to my lawyer before I say more" (he was given a ride to HQ for an interview after he obtained legal representation - never charged). '

The only thing I'm really trying to emphasize here is that you shouldn't consider the police to be your adversary unless you yourself are the violent criminal.

 

I appreciate your comment. First I appreciate your perspective as a policeman. That is very helpful.

I have resolved to not use my weapon except the direst of circumstances, in which case I would be in fear of my life or my immediate family.

 

I already replied twice to this thread, but allow me to add some color to this: my wife carries, she does not have insurance. My brother in law and father in law carry, and neither of them have insurance. My uncles carry, and they don't have insurance. I carry, and don't have insurance, though I do admittedly have representation available through my union if I'm in a shooting.

If you're in a shooting and you feel like you need a lawyer, you can always call one with or without insurance. If you're in a situation that is that bad, thank your lucky stars that you're alive, and get a loan for the lawyer if you need it. I suggest you cross that bridge when you come to it. If you're smart and doing what you're supposed to do, it will probably never come to that point. Conversely, if you don't carry and find yourself in a situation where you would have been forced to shoot if you were carrying, it probably means that you're dead, and none of the above matters any longer.

 

You mentioned living on a farm. Assuming rural area, I advise making friends with the Sheriff and deputies. It’s easy to do, mostly because they want the same.

The initial decision to charge or not charge is theirs. Sure, county attorney could direct them otherwise. But that’s days down the road. The friendship or them “knowing you” will keep you covered initially.

I’m speaking from experience. I’ve not been involved in a shooting, but in other matters, knowing the Sheriff has worked for me.

 

Our legal system is founded on the principle that each party will aggressively pursue its own interests.

If you don't have the resources to push for your own interests after a SD shooting, then you are, as it were, unarmed in that fight.

The case for self-defense had better be so clear that it speaks for itself.

If not, then you must depend on the kindness of strangers (lawyers, experts, investigators) to speak for you. On their own dime.

Tough choice. But in America, it is what it is.

 

I have to respectfully disagree with this poster, and suggest that this is about the worst way that you can respond.

Please refer to our earlier discussion, absent your issue of not being able to afford a lawyer, on this same topic: https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-of-self-defense-doesnt-mean-its-over.911153/

It's very important to remember that a defensive shooting is going to be a traumatic event, and there is a long anecdotal history of folks making inappropriate statements immediately following their involvement in defensive shooting. That statement is true for LEOs as well as for members of the general public.

My main concern with Mr. "Rockrivr's" posting is that he ignores two very critical Supreme Court cases that are critical to your post-shooting conduct.

I'll repeat my advice from the earlier thread, after being involved in a defensive shooting, immediately provide what has become known as the "Public Safety Statement" to responding officers, and then do not discuss the incident further until you have recovered from the post-incident trauma. That is the advice followed by most LEO's and is equally good advice for all others.

The "Public Safety Statement" grounded in the case of New York v Quarles. It held that under emergent conditions, law enforcement's need to access information to alleviate the emergency trumped the "Right to Remain Silent." Public Safety Information is generally understood to include identifying the suspect and their location, witnesses and their location, the number and direction of rounds fired, and the identification of any other victims. Depending on the situation, it can also include any other points of information that would cause an immediate response by the LEOs. Please note that the reason you decided to shoot doesn't meet any of these criteria.

Of of the biggest pieces of BS that appear in these threads are statements that the LEOs are your "enemy", or that you are going to be arrested simply because a shooting occurred. Both are far from being true. The making of an arrest requires that there be "Probable Cause" to believe that you committed a crime. Nothing about that standard changes simply because a shooting was involved. We actually have a pretty strong bias AGAINST arresting folks at the scene of a complex crime. The main reason being that a bunch a time clocks start ticking and we have to rush the investigation to meet deadlines. The first deadline occurs 48 hours after the arrest and is the Gerstein Hearing on the arrest. No complex investigation gets very far in 48 hours. The main factors considered when making an on-scene arrest are whether the person's identity is known, whether they are likely to flee, and whether they are likely to continue criminal conduct.

The other reason the "I was in fear for my life..." statement is dumb is found in Salinas v Texas. That case held that when a person is questioned, before Miranda is triggered, that silence can be inferred as guilt. Whether that inference is reasonable is dependent on the circumstances. When you offer a statement "I was in fear for my life", you invite the question "why were you in fear for life?" If you refuse to answer that question, then Salinas may be triggered. Why go there if you don't have to?

I would strongly recommend that folks (both LEO and the general public) do consult with an attorney before engaging in a detailed post-event interview. No reputable attorney (they like keeping their law licenses) will tell you what to say to investigators, but they will perform two very valuable services: 1) They will help you to present the facts in the clearest way possible, and 2) They can point out likely consequences of your statements so that you don't get blindsided in the interview. Your interview is going to be recorded and you can't retract or amend what is said. You gotta get it right the first time. Here's the biggest problems that I've seen folks get into: 1) Don't try to "steer" or "control" the interview. The countering strategy is for the interviewers to back you into corners. You credibility suffers and you can't get it back. 2) Context - Words have meanings and context is important. Choose your words carefully so that they be accurate, and not subject to multiple meanings. For example "I didn't do nothing" is commonly understood to be a denial, but you parse out the actual words, it's an admission that you did "something."

If you're dead-set on not using an attorney to provide these services, then make sure that you can do them for yourself.

Don't think that you can simply "Not Talk." If you try that avenue, expect that the investigators will resort to a Grand Jury and then you either talk, or sit in jail until you do talk. Please note that you don't go to jail for the shooting, you go to jail for the silence. Also remember that you don't get an attorney when you're at the Grand Jury stage. You don't have to be a defendant to be dragged to a Grand Jury, we can drag witnesses there as well.

I should also point out that the part of the Miranda Admonishment about being provided an attorney only applies to custodial questioning. There is no requirement for the LE agency to provide you with an attorney if you re not in custody. The attorney services provided may not be free. In-custody defendants are entitled to lawyers at questioning and all defendants liable to a jail term are entitled to lawyers at trial, but every jurisdiction that I'm familiar with has a vetting process to determine a person's ability to pay and also has a process to recover the costs of public defender representation. I'll second earlier suggestions for you to obtain "Pro Bono" representation. I've never seen a "Pro Bono" representation of a criminal defendant, most "Pro Bono" cases that I've seen involve social causes, but it may be worth an effort. I should also point out that Public Defenders tend to be very good lawyers, despite their reputation. During all of my working days, the Public Defenders, as a group, did a much better job of testing my cases than did private attorneys.

 

It had occurred to me, that knowing the local police would be beneficial. I lead a quiet life however. Dunno how to go about it though I’ve been alert to opportunities. I try to thank LEOs for their service to our community whenever I have the chance.

 

That's kind of the whole deal to begin with isn't it?

I play basketball with several, used to go to the gym with several too. Not because of friendship but because we were in the same place. That's where we became friends

On paper. But it's simply not the case IME. Ive seen entirely too many cases. Human nature for 90% of the officers i know just doesn't allow it. A Billion cases show that. And everyone has a "if I hadn't known him he would have thrown me under the jail" story. OR at least gotten a ticket.

Now I don't know any who id think would change the outcome of a big self defense/murder etc etc case because of relationship. But how your treated is most certainly influenced. Ive been on both sides of that equation.

 

You're going to jail

 

Sure, in theory. In practice, not so much. Who you know becomes pretty important in times of crisis.

But you also have to remember the Sheriff really isn’t your friend, although you know them in this example.

All the other rules apply still. Keep your mouth shut except to say you feared for your life, yada yada….

 

I appreciate that my comments are not the most popular but I guess it comes down to how pro or anti gun the state you live in actually is. I live in a deep blue anti gun state. My advice has been beat into us gun owners as the AG and many Chiefs are dead set against self defense shootings and our ability to carry in my state. The advice I gave came directly from a family member who is a detective LE in a city local to me. I’ve also been given that advice from a lawyer I’ve set up as my contact in the event I have to use my gun. It didn’t cost anything to have the initial discussion with the lawyer and he knows me now so I’m not a stranger calling out of the blue. Might not be a bad idea for the OP to have a free conversation with a lawyer. For the just in case.

 

Wow, that post contains a lot of good information.

The quote above seems predominant with thinking heads. In other words...

"Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you."

"Yes sir, here you go."

Less risk, less expensive.

 

As others have said there are places in the country where a self defense shooting may not result in being arrested. It's kind of an online myth that getting in a shooting will automatically result in getting arrested and charged. With that being said I would still want to make sure my bases were covered if that were to happen.

It's good to have a close friend's phone number memorized. Someone that you know will answer the phone 24/7 so you can call them and let them know you've been arrested and charged and have them get the ball rolling on an attorney.

 

First off, please accept my condolences regarding living in Massachusetts. I do get your point. But please consider your earlier advice in light of Quarles and Salinas. It can get folks into trouble.

I can't deny that politically motivated arrests don't occur. They do. But they are also quite rare, and quickly resolved. I recently read of one occurring in Los Angeles where a person pointed a finger at someone in anger and was arrested for making criminal threats. The case law clearly didn't support the arrest.

That's one reason why a Gerstein Hearing is required within 48 hours of the arrest.

San Jose had a caper last week where a homeowner shot and killed a suspect in what appeared to be a home invasion. I don't know the details, but the homeowner was arrested. But the D.A. declined charges and he was released.

Even where an unfounded arrest is made, there are two very quick actions that can be taken to obtain a release, and a third that I won't call "quick" but is also available. The first is the Gerstein Hearing. It has to happen within 48 hours and if the judge isn't satisfied that there is probable cause supporting the arrest, the suspect is released. The second is the D.A. review (which is supplanted by a Grand Jury review in some jurisdictions). If both fail, the arrestee can also pursue a habeas action.

As with just about anything else in life, you gotta "pay your nickel and take your chances." You wanna go with the best odds you can get. Being a knucklehead at the scene of a defensive shooting isn't good odds.

 

That's what I would do for sure.

 

Late to this thread, but I really think we do ourselves an injustice if we worry too much about the whole blue state/red state or blue city/red city aspects.

Look at the data in one's region historically and not through the prism of how you think things might go... Don't prejudge your city's police response because the chief was appointed by a socialist mayor, or the DA is an elected Democrat.

The greater Puget Sound area is typically extremely liberal and most of the cities and even some of the smaller towns have Democrat mayors/councils (who appoint COPs), prosecutors and sheriffs. Our entire region -- even in some of the more rural parts of the counties, is afflicted with a plethora of weekly home invasions. We've had defensive shootings running the gamut from road rage incidents, multiple armed criminals invading occupied dwellings, street robberies where the intended victim is armed, you name it.

Yet, for the most part, with great state constitutional protections, every legitimate self-defense use of deadly force seems to turn out favorably for the home-owners/residents/victims, with no arrests, charges and (presumably) little to no expense for those (on the right side) involved.

RickD427 is giving some excellent advice.

 

I appreciate the discussion. Certainly some things to consider.


I see it’s a vastly different world when viewed from the eyes of a lawyer vs a police officer.

 

Put a lawyer on retainer even it's $300 a local scumbag.
I think it's odd that people will carry a gun to protect them selves from unsanctioned criminals then do nothing to protect them selves from the state sponsored/elected criminals.

 

Surprise, surprise: lawyers aren't all equal.

Most criminal defense lawyers can advise you from the SD event through initial questioning. Local counsel can be more cost-effective.

But if you have to experience grand jury testimony or a trial, the choice of counsel and experts becomes more critical. Relatively few criminal defense lawyers have extensive experience developing or presenting an affirmative defense (yes, I shot him, but my actions are legally excused). You may have to look around for a while to find one, and they won't likely be cheap.

Yeah, not having the money to hire a lawyer is a problem. But there is one distinct advantage to not having any money: nobody is going to sue you in civil court after the criminal aspects of a SD event are resolved!