JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Juries are made up of people from your community. If you shoot the guy coming down the hall to your bedroom, you are probably in good shape. If you shoot the guy who threatens you with an butt whipping by him and his friend, even if using deadly force is legally justified, you will be in trouble.

You seem to speak from experience, can you elaborate?


If you are involved in a self defense situation, call the police, report that you were attacked and defended yourself with no additional details. The nice person on 911 will try to get you to talk. If you need to talk, repeat over and over, I would like to consult with my attorney before making a statement. Tell the investigating officers that. Call an attorney. Do not discuss the facts until you have an attorney and a good recording device owned and operated by the attorney present.

More experience with this type of thing?
 
Willamette College of Law, 1976. Private practice with emphasis in criminal law Nov. 1976 to date. I have never had to defend one of these cases, have seen a few resolved with and without trials. I've tried a few felonies, and a few personal injury cases as plaintiff. Lots of assault type cases short of a death.

Juries come from your community and reflect the values and norms of that community, and the variety of attitudes held by different groups in the community.

For the State to convict you in a self defense case, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your defense does not apply. For a plaintiff to prevail in a civil suit they must prove by a preponderence of evidence, a lower bar for sure, that your defense doesn't apply.

These cases are governed by pretty specific laws, but are driven by individual fact patterns.

For example, police officers gunning down an unarmed black man sitting in his car in Portland will not get indicted by a grand jury. The family of the dead guy might get a settlement from the City, or a verdict in a wrongful death case.
 
For sake of conversation, you decide to take the bench trial route, bypassing the jury trial...whatcha think?

When contacting the Police in such an event, where there's just you and another person (now deceased), wouldn't it be helpful to provide a bit of info at the time of the incident to help with the investigation? Such info., that would not incriminate yourself in any way?

Such as 3 things;

1) People involved
2) Scope of the incident - meaning any and all places where the incident took place. For example the incident started on the front porch and ended across the street.
3) Weapons/evidence involved and where they can be located.

Whatcha think?
 
Deavis has it pretty good. Claim self defense and immediately demand to speak to your lawyer. The police will tell you that you are not under arrest, that you don't have a right to a lawyer, and that you need to be honest with them.

"Am I free to go? I want to talk to my lawyer before I answer any questions or make any statements. Can I speak to your supervisor. Did you get a recording of my request to talk to an attorney?" Repeat as necessary.

Once you are talking, giving details and engaging in a dialogue with the police, you have given them permission to write down anything they want, and they will swear that you said those exact words at your trial. Wouldn't you rather collect your thoughts, confer with counsel, and have an electronic recording of your story? My secretary always says our clients have the right to remain silent, just not the ability.

We normally refer to bench trials as long sentencing hearings in Benton County.
 
The Police will tell you, you don't have the right to a lawyer? Have you had experience with this?

Making a statement like that, means you can't trust the Police anymore than one can trust an ambulance chasing attorney. Ouch!

I never said to give the Police any details, I said to help the investigation and to get it headed in the right direction. Otherwise important things can be missed, things that may help your case. Once LE leaves the scene, it becomes contaminated and anything found after the fact is suspect.

One doesn't even have to claim self defense, don't say anything, and give the investigators the 3 things I posted above and go call your attorney if need be.

As much as the person you shot and/or their family can hold you liable, so can you do the same to them.....it's a 2 way street.
 
Yes. I have had experience with that. One of the standard tools used by law enforcement to get people to talk to them is to tell you that you need to be honest with them. Another is to tell you that you are not under arrest, and that you do not have a right to an attorney. In a way that is accurate to them. Once they put you under arrest they are required to inform you of your right to remain silent, warn you that anything you say can and will be used against you, and inform you of your right to an attorney, and to a court appointed attorney if you need one.

Before you are arrested there is no requirement for the state to appoint you an attorney if you are indigent. You do have the right to consult with an attorney, to remain silent about all facts, and there is the definite possibility that whatever you say, or they say you said, will be used against you.

Why is it that you feel comfortable referring to me or any attorney as an ambulance chaser?

Why would you think a police officer is looking out for your interests more than your own attorney? You do have an attorney to call when you get into a bit of legal trouble don't you?
 
I never called YOU an ambulance chaser, you'll need to go back and re-read my post.

So let's ease up there folks....

I was making a point, that your blanket statement about LE people and how they will treat a person was a poor statement, as it gives the impression that every LE person will try to twist things around and be against you. That's an ambiguous statement that has no merit.

In WA state, if you are the person of interest in a crime, or a suspect, or involved some way other than a witness, rights must be given before any questioning, other than for preliminary fact finding inquiry questions.

Sure it's standard to tell people to be honest, would you want your client any other way?

Let's get this subject in perspective...are there LE people that will not look out for your best interests? Yes. Are there LE people that will help you out? Yes. Telling the investigators the above 3 items I mentioned a few posts ago, will do nothing to harm you, incriminate you or your case, but give the investigation what it needs, and shows co-operation. After that, don't make any statements until you have counseled with an attorney that is versed in use-of-force issues. I have been on both sides of the coin many times.

The best money spent right NOW, is to find an attorney NOW, spend a few hours with them NOW, before you need them, so you know exactly what you can and can not do, and who to go to should that need arise.

Making ambiguous statements and throwing out unqualified opinions does not answer the questions people have. Let's stay on track with facts that we know to be true, and have had actual experience with.

Doing the..my friends-brother in law's-uncles-mother told me......gets us no where.
 
Really?

Making a statement like that, means you can't trust the Police anymore than one can trust an ambulance chasing attorney. Ouch!

I'm always amused when someone asks for my advice, then argues with me or takes offense at my observations.

This is not accurate:

Let's get this subject in perspective...are there LE people that will not look out for your best interests? Yes. Are there LE people that will help you out? Yes. Telling the investigators the above 3 items I mentioned a few posts ago, will do nothing to harm you, incriminate you or your case, but give the investigation what it needs, and shows co-operation.

This is:

The best money spent right NOW, is to find an attorney NOW, spend a few hours with them NOW, before you need them, so you know exactly what you can and can not do, and who to go to should that need arise.

I'm too polite to characterize this:

Making ambiguous statements and throwing out unqualified opinions does not answer the questions people have.

When I visited this site a few days ago there was a note that said I hadn't posted for a while. This is the reason.
 
Its funny how sometimes people will try to rationalize there mistakes. The statement about 'ambulance chasing attorneys' is wrong- Wichaka, learn and try not to repeat. You area moderator on the site but are still human and will make mistakes.

That said, unless you are the judge and DA in the case, you have no idea what will help or hurt you. Talking to an attorney or having one present while talking can't hurt.
 
What I was told at my CHL class that I took at Keiths begining of December this year is that If you are cleared in criminal court of any wrongdoing you can still be sued by ANYBODY, even the gf of the criminals best friend in high school was the example he gave us. He said that it generally costs $80,000 in legal fees if a criminal is shot, and that is IF you are declared not guilty. Pretty bad but thats what we were told at our CHL class, but remember I don't know of anybody whos life is not worth that $80k
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its funny how sometimes people will try to rationalize there mistakes. The statement about 'ambulance chasing attorneys' is wrong- Wichaka, learn and try not to repeat. You area moderator on the site but are still human and will make mistakes.

That said, unless you are the judge and DA in the case, you have no idea what will help or hurt you. Talking to an attorney or having one present while talking can't hurt.


This is getting a bit out of hand, now isn't it? Seems like I struck a nerve with some people here.

I'm not rationalizing any mistake, because I did not make one.

Making a generalized statement about all people in a certain profession doesn't do the conversation any good, and shows a real lack of judgment.

Do you like people calling all firearms owners "Gun nuts" or "Rambos" or "Freaks" I know you don't. So what's the difference? There is none.
Not all firearm owners are the above names, not all attorneys are ambulance chasers, and yes there are LE people that you can trust.

There's good and bad in all professions, even yours. But it wouldn't be right to make a blanket statement that everyone in your profession is ......you fill in the blank.

So this part of the conversation is now done. Let's get back on track with the subject of the thread.

So now begs the question....is there anyone here that has ever been through this type of thing? Someone who can give a qualified opinion on the matter from both sides of the coin?

I know of one......am waiting to hear from others.

And before you post, please refer to my thread about an un-qualified opinion. This is not an area where "I read somewhere....." or the "My brothers-Friends-Uncles-Girlfriend......etc." is going to cut it. This is real life stuff that people want to know. They want to know what's involved in the aftermath.

They all hear about the awful outcomes, because that's what makes news. How often do you hear about the good outcomes? How often do you hear about law abiding citizens with firearms stopping crimes? Not nearly enough.
Well folks it happens way more than you think.

As much as the media and others make us firearms owners out to be evil, they also make the aftermath of a righteous shooting look like it's the end of life for the citizen as well. There are worst things in life that will happen to you.

Am looking for first hand accounts who can give factual, useful information to the members of this forum. And who can do it without the useless name calling and generalized examples.

Anyone.....Anyone....?
 
This is getting a bit out of hand, now isn't it? Seems like I struck a nerve with some people here.

I'm not rationalizing any mistake, because I did not make one.

You didn't strike a nerve, you were out of line calling attorney, "ambulance chasers." You did make a mistake, the comment was inflammatory. Learn and move on... As I am doing now.
 
I understand where wichaka is coming from, and I don't think the below statement was actually directed at robctwo.

Making a statement like that, means you can't trust the Police anymore than one can trust an ambulance chasing attorney.


I think he was illustrating that it was wrong to label everyone in a given profession, like saying all attorneys are Ambulance Chasers and all cops are bad and/or cannot be trusted.
 
I guess others as well as myself read it from an outside view. If you were to read the post as is, its inflammatory in or out of context. As a mod, it is incumbent to ensure that any questionable content is expanded upon so there is no question as to meaning.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top