Sheepdog120
Well-Known Member
Please see above in which I describe the "Don't be a dick" doctrine. Detectives know and understand that you are under duress and shouldn't make a statement without a lawyer, but being a dick is not necessary.
Should You Talk To Police After A Self-Defense Incident
- Thread starter Amp Mangum
- Start date
- Replies 68
- Views 2,719
Please see above in which I describe the "Don't be a dick" doctrine. Detectives know and understand that you are under duress and shouldn't make a statement without a lawyer, but being a dick is not necessary.
Sheepdog120
Well-Known Member
Better, but without the "thanks for coming by" LOL. This is more what I was getting at.
Sheepdog120
Well-Known Member
While as long as you can articulate why you moved a REASONABLE distance from the shooting is fine, remember that the GSW "victim's" friends may be still in the area and tamper with evidence that you won't see. If you have to move for your safety then by all means MOVE. But if you can stay on scene then stay on scene.
I know what you’re saying, and of course many things are situationally dependent, but I imagine the officer/detective starting off with “Hi, I’m officer ABC XYZ, how are you? Can you tell me what happened?” Definitely no intent to be a smart ass, and I would likely genuinely be thankful for their presence on scene.
So, whatever YOU say is gospel and cannot be challenged, right?? I think we get it now....
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2019
- Messages
- 1,989
Mucho gracias
Sheepdog120
Well-Known Member
So glad that you decided to read my post. I appreciate the attack for trying to give you guys some solid professional advice. Have a nice day.
Last edited:
fieldgrade
waiting...
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
The list is kind of thin, okay real thin, for our neck of the woods.
Last edited:
If the scene is safe take as many pictures with your phone as you can. Especially any weapons. Have a layer you can call. I use US law shield. If you don't feel well or are injured yourself tell the officer they are obligated to get you medical help first and foremost.
See post 18. I never, at any stage, in any comment I have made indicated being a "dick" to the police is a valid doctrine. But starting from a place of reserve as opposed to "the police always 100% will interpret everything I say exactly as I mean it, not necessarily as it is said."
All that is necessary to "not be a dick" is to preface this statement with "I understand you are just trying to do your job and all, BUT... "and then invoke your right to remain silent. Then just do that, be silent. Offer him coffee, or tea, or crumpets, or show him your model air plane collection if you are at your house.... but say nothing re: the incident, nor anything that is relevant (I would not talk about his preferred carry weapon, for example).
I have found in the FEW times a cop has wanted to question me (once when I drew a handgun on someone who had for all intents and purposes kidnapped my mentally retarded daughter) that I declared I had legitimate reason to "fear for the life and/or safety of myself or others" that when I asked HIM questions "how long you been on the force? Do you feel supported by upper management? How do you handle the smartass back talk that always comes at you? Did you want to be a cop as a kid?" then he actually emotionally "moved over" to me and by the time I finished asking him, he was volunteering how I should go home and write out all the details of the incident in case the other party decided to pursue it...."cause that I what I would do."
S/he might be a jerk, and I can be a colossal arrogant prick when called for (and sometimes when not called for, as many on this board can attest), but I am trying in my later years to remember that s/he is just a person like me, and is not a devil, nor some inhuman monster. Down underneath that bluster, show of force, in your face, try to trick you into incriminating yourself (if you run across a cop like that), there is someone who at one time, went into this to "help people" .... most likely anyway.
Last edited:
I had a conversation more or less about this topic with the criminal attorney at a major firm we've used for business, estates, and what not. He pointed out something that I think speaks volumes about the legal system in this country, something that is worth noting. He said that you will need an attorney who operates in the county where the event took place because you need one that attends the cocktail parties, moves and shakes, and rubs elbows with the judges and DA.
He then gave me his office, cell, and home numbers and said keep them on file in your phone. He said that if nothing else, if an event were to occur to call him and he would at least able to get things in motion and if in a different county get me in contact with someone that could help. I consider keeping his numbers like having a fire extinguisher; I don't plan to ever need it.
fieldgrade
waiting...
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Absolutely agree with finding one who operates in the courthouse where you might have to stand up.
martindale.com is a good resource for identifying attorneys.
Just to note, Massad Ayoob (one of the advisors of American Citizen Legal Defense Network, by the way), in his "Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right to Self Defense" criticizes "I was scared, I will say nothing more without the attorney" position.
He pointed out that there are things that may be told safely, e.g. if you refuse to say your name, whether you are the resident on the premises, or show your driver's license won't make your life any easier.
Also, refusing to cooperate with authority may prevent them from collecting the whole range of forensic. Of course, it does not mean that you need to talk yourself into prison or think that cops are your friends. But they aren't your enemy either.
Also, my strict position is that using the advocates doesn't release yourself from knowing the law, so reading things like "NC Law of Self Defense" by J. Rubin and laws related to the question is "must-do" anyway.
He pointed out that there are things that may be told safely, e.g. if you refuse to say your name, whether you are the resident on the premises, or show your driver's license won't make your life any easier.
Also, refusing to cooperate with authority may prevent them from collecting the whole range of forensic. Of course, it does not mean that you need to talk yourself into prison or think that cops are your friends. But they aren't your enemy either.
Also, my strict position is that using the advocates doesn't release yourself from knowing the law, so reading things like "NC Law of Self Defense" by J. Rubin and laws related to the question is "must-do" anyway.
I have a good friend who is a lawyer in SC and he is pro-gun. I asked him about joining one of the so-called firms that handle self defense cases. He told me that some of the attorneys don't know a pistol from a revolver, a rifle from a shotgun. Yet they sign up with these entities to defend people involved in self defense cases. He told me to take the time and talk to several attorneys and basically do your own homework before something happens. I think that is good advise. He told me to call him in the event something happens and he would put me in touch with some of his gun owning self defense attorneys in NC.
Last edited:
I have to disagree. An LEO must always be viewed as an enemy when there is any possibility you could be arrested and charged. Here is why. You should always start with the assumption that THE OBJECTIVE OF AN LEO IS TO COLLECT EVIDENCE THAT HE CAN USE TO PROSECUTE YOU. This does not mean you cannot be cheerful and agreeable and even communicative, when it comes to BASIC areas where you may help him/her discover evidence that will help your case (i.e. "He threw the gun into those bushes over there. I have a recording of the incident." etc).
It just means that he should always be viewed as intending to put you in jail and never as an "objective" evidence gatherer. I usually talk to cops like I would talk to the STASI. "yes sir.... no sir.... hmmmmm"...and silence. In the back of my mind, I am always thinking "what can he do to arrest me with what I am about to say?"... because if you don't believe that is PRECISELY what he is thinking, you are phenomenally naive.
Last edited:
There's a good example. What the police hear sounds bad, makes them think you're guilty.
In context, he was in the right, but because of the evidence he provided, he had to take a plea.
That's why, even though I like and support police, I would treat an interaction with police after a shooting as an adversarial interaction, and react accordingly.
One of my LEO buddies told me that if you call 911 just give them your location, what assistance is required (ambulance for example) and hang up. Do not stay on the line. Everything is recorded and the dispatcher will ask you questions that at the time you may not answer appropriately.
What I want to know is are you legally mandated to call 911 when something happens? What statute are you violating by not calling 911?
What I want to know is are you legally mandated to call 911 when something happens? What statute are you violating by not calling 911?
The problem is that WE WANT TO BE HELPFUL. Most of us (Well, I mean most of Y'ALL! I am different, as you know! 
) don't like to be thought of as argumentative, arrogant, arguing, or hostile, and will bend over backwards to ingratiate ourselves with an authority figure. This usually is pretty good strategy, but in this case, no. I am not saying you become a smart mouth impudent in your face twit, 'cause that will get you a ride downtown on SOME KIND OF CHARGE, whether legit or no. Be respectful and truthful, but don't be afraid to get back in their face when they try to intimidate (that is a fine line to walk, between asserting your rights and being a jerk). I find the apostle Paul to be interesting in his defense and arguments here. His adversaries wanted to have him transferred to another venue, so they could hijack the folks transferring him and kill him on the way. The authority in charge was corrupt, and wanted to give them the opportunity (the case was troublesome and annoying to him). He had to ask Paul if he was willing to be transferred, much like a cop asking if we will be willing to "answer a few questions." His answer was revealing. He knew the law, and quoted it. Essentially that he was a citizen of Rome with the trial rights such citizenship conferred, that he was being tried in the appropriate venue, that his accusers were not willing to come confront him in court (he knew what was happening is the clear implication) and that he had a right to appeal to what was the equivalent of the federal judiciary, all the way up to the USSC (he "appealed to Caesar"). He was respectful, deferential, but assertive. It also flustered and pissed off the lower level lackey who was trying his case and trying to make a kangaroo court out of it. You can find the incident (if you are interested in such things) in the New Testament book of Acts chapter 25, but the legal ball got rolling back in chapter 21 v 27.
BLUF... know your rights and cheerfully and respectfully assert them, knowing this guy wants to put you in jail, no matter how broadly he smiles.
) don't like to be thought of as argumentative, arrogant, arguing, or hostile, and will bend over backwards to ingratiate ourselves with an authority figure. This usually is pretty good strategy, but in this case, no. I am not saying you become a smart mouth impudent in your face twit, 'cause that will get you a ride downtown on SOME KIND OF CHARGE, whether legit or no. Be respectful and truthful, but don't be afraid to get back in their face when they try to intimidate (that is a fine line to walk, between asserting your rights and being a jerk). I find the apostle Paul to be interesting in his defense and arguments here. His adversaries wanted to have him transferred to another venue, so they could hijack the folks transferring him and kill him on the way. The authority in charge was corrupt, and wanted to give them the opportunity (the case was troublesome and annoying to him). He had to ask Paul if he was willing to be transferred, much like a cop asking if we will be willing to "answer a few questions." His answer was revealing. He knew the law, and quoted it. Essentially that he was a citizen of Rome with the trial rights such citizenship conferred, that he was being tried in the appropriate venue, that his accusers were not willing to come confront him in court (he knew what was happening is the clear implication) and that he had a right to appeal to what was the equivalent of the federal judiciary, all the way up to the USSC (he "appealed to Caesar"). He was respectful, deferential, but assertive. It also flustered and pissed off the lower level lackey who was trying his case and trying to make a kangaroo court out of it. You can find the incident (if you are interested in such things) in the New Testament book of Acts chapter 25, but the legal ball got rolling back in chapter 21 v 27.BLUF... know your rights and cheerfully and respectfully assert them, knowing this guy wants to put you in jail, no matter how broadly he smiles.
Last edited:
TripleO7
Well-Known Member
The Range At Lake Norman is hosting a free seminar on Tuesday 7/7/20. 6p-8p. Put on by USCCA.
Yes, I know there will be a sales pitch included, but it is something I've been giving serious thought anyway, so I signed up.
Yes, I know there will be a sales pitch included, but it is something I've been giving serious thought anyway, so I signed up.
TripleO7
Well-Known Member
Ok...It appeared as though they had a power point presentation that they couldn't get to work and it ended up being a lot of Q&A. I'm sure there was plenty of good stuff in it that we didn't get to hear or see. The law firm partner mentioned a couple things that would be covered but people kept interrupting with questions. The average age of the attendees was probably 50ish. The partner from the law firm does a lot of work for the F.O.P. The associate was a true gun guy, many years under his belt shooting and has worked at a LGS or two.
Some things I took away from the session. Most of it I and the rest of y'all already know....
1. Say as little as possible when you call 911. Ask for police and an ambulance. It's not your responsibility to determine if the douchebag is dead or alive. 911 calls are of course recorded.
Someone in the class claimed as soon as 911 is dialed the recording starts? Either way I intend to make sure that I am the only one talking if I ever have to make that call. You are also most likely to be given a ride to the cop shop in cuffs.
2. Follow Massad Ayoobs advice, then STFU until you have counsel. NO MATTER HOW BRILLIANT YOU THINK YOU ARE! Even if you are just having a "casual chat" with Officer Wantstobuildacase. They don't have to Mirandize you just to "talk" Ask General Flynn how things work out when you talk to law enforcement casually. This is about your 5th Amendment rights. I strongly suggest you take the roughly 3/4 of an hour of your precious time to at least listen to the video @Diablos posted. SPOT ON! Most of what they able to discuss is covered in that video.
3. The longer the better before you start to tell your side of the story. Request medical attention for yourself if you even think you're OK is a good way to delay.
4. Triple tap is not a good idea. The main partner of the law firm that was there told us of a retired Marine that did it instinctually and got convicted because of the shot to the head. All good otherwise. NC is not a shoot to kill state. I don't know if any are. Didn't ask.
My personal opinions are is that it's premeditated murder. So is the intentional mag dump, although you might get away with it claiming duress, etc. Hopefully your jury will see it that way. Again just my personal opinions.
5. Defending against charges in a shooting is very very very expensive. Would probably bankrupt most of us.
6. Regarding immunity from civil action...yeah you have it in NC if it's a good shoot. The USCCA guy that was there mentioned a case where the shooter didn't get sued for killing the guy. He was divorced and had a 12 year old who the ex had custody of. The dead guy was on the hook for another six years of child support. The ex filed a suit for lost wages. USCCA settled the case for 70K rather than spending months or possibly years litigating. The case was in one of their recent e-mails if you get them or look at them when you do.
7. Don't count on being able to shoulder the brace on AR/AK pistols much longer.
PM me if you want the name of the firm as well as the name of the associate that is a shooter. The partner didn't mention being a gun guy, but I believe he would be a great advocate as well. If it takes a minute or two for me to get back, I apologize ahead of time. Some of you may even know the associate. He didn't mention where exactly he had worked. He hates the BATFE. Sounded to me like he has a collection like @BigWaylon!
I'm going to go with USCCA in a few minutes. I just had to consider the level of protection I could afford and have worked that out.