Video - What to immediately do following a self-defense shooting

[American123]

The only good option.

 

[WillametteWill]

Consider carefully if shutting up is always going to be in your best interest. There may be critical information and/or EVIDENCE that could easily disappear if you go totally silent.

Example: "Officer, I'm the one who called you (make sure you call it in). That man on the ground attacked me. His knife fell under that car. Those two people over there are witnesses. I want to, and will cooperate fully, but won't be saying anything else until my attorney is present.

If you just shut up, critical evidence like his weapon and critical witnesses could disappear. Stuff disappears from crime scenes very quickly. Crime scenes get contaminated really quickly. It may not always be in your interest to go totally silent.

^^^This

Mas Ayoob has been covering this for years. You have to establish the "active dynamic" that you are the victim, where evidence and witnesses are in your favor before you politely request counsel and advise you will be cooperating upon talking with them. Otherwise, evidence to exonerate you is lost forever. There are many people that I would have taken to jail had they not explained their side of the story.

If you are guilty, yes, completely shut up. Attorneys are used to working with guilty people. The number of honest good guy self defense cases that the average attorney handles in a career can usually be counted on one hand. This is a critical area that everyone who carries a gun should do extensive research on and decide / practice for themselves what is the best course of action. Zimmerman was only acquitted because he talked with police as just one example. But if we don't think about this and have a clear understanding things can go badly wrong.

I generally like the videos from this person but rendering aid to the person you just shot is tactically TERRIBLE advice. Your focus will be on this and situational awareness goes out the window. His partner that you did not notice can walk up and put a bullet in your head. We need to remain alert and aware of other potential dangers. Yes, request aid. I also disagree regarding evidence disruption if your are working on the downed suspect. It can and likely will happen.

Good OP to get the thought process running!

 

[RX-79G]

tactically TERRIBLE advice.

You have to balance the tactics of the moment with the strategy of not going to prison. The case against you will revolve around your motives and attitude toward the person you shot.

Concerning yourself too much with a follow up sneak attack might be one too many what ifs. Put pressure on the wound, your gun in the holster and your head on a swivel.

 

[American123]

You have to balance the tactics of the moment with the strategy of not going to prison. The case against you will revolve around your motives and attitude toward the person you shot.

Concerning yourself too much with a follow up sneak attack might be one too many what ifs. Put pressure on the wound, your gun in the holster and your head on a swivel.

Hell no, if someone warranted being shot because they were a deadly threat, they do not warrant medical care until professionals arrive to administer it.

 

[RX-79G]

Hell no, if someone warranted being shot because they were a deadly threat, they do not warrant medical care until professionals arrive to administer it.

That's a stupid principle to go to prison for.

Especially if you are a Christian or any other person that values human life. (Thou shall not kill does not have a mugging proviso.)

But even if you are a terrible person, playing the part of a humanitarian is to your benefit when they are deciding whether to arraign you, try you or find you innocent. Strategy.


But by all means, go down with the ship. No one will admire your courage.

 

[WillametteWill]

You have to balance the tactics of the moment with the strategy of not going to prison. The case against you will revolve around your motives and attitude toward the person you shot.

Concerning yourself too much with a follow up sneak attack might be one too many what ifs. Put pressure on the wound, your gun in the holster and your head on a swivel.

Thank you for the discussion. I completely disagree with the premise that you are going to prison because you didn't render aid to someone who just attempted to kill, rape or otherwise cause great bodily injury to you or a loved one. Does a lone police officer render aid on someone they shot without the benefit of back up officers present? No, almost never. Just because the person is "down" I do not know if they are faking it, recover after the initial shock and continue the assault (had a conversation this week with an officer who had this happen to a partner, suspect shot twice in the chest, collapsed, than raised his gun again) or have fellow criminals / spouses in the area watching (Walmar shooting where citizen defender shoots bad guy and is then killed by female spouse laying off the area). These are not speculation, they are real threats.

Especially if you are a Christian or any other person that values human life. (Thou shall not kill does not have a mugging proviso.)

I consider myself a Christian that values human life, but the passage is not thou shall not kill, it is murder. Which is what the person was trying to do to me or another. If we use the word kill that would mean I could not defend myself in the first place and would just need to let me or family die. Not going to happen. Thank you again for sharing your perspective.

 

[American123]

That's a stupid principle to go to prison for.

Especially if you are a Christian or any other person that values human life. (Thou shall not kill does not have a mugging proviso.)

But even if you are a terrible person, playing the part of a humanitarian is to your benefit when they are deciding whether to arraign you, try you or find you innocent. Strategy.


But by all means, go down with the ship. No one will admire your courage.

There is zero basis to make the claim, "that's a stupid principle to go to prison for." You won't go to prison for not rendering aid, you will go to prison if it is a bad shoot, irrelevant if aid is rendered or not. The conditions in which a self defense shooting is legally justified or not have zero to do with whether medical aid is rendered.

Using a reference to Christianity to talk about "not killing" is always a desperate act. Jesus didn't say, "never defend yourself and let others enslave you as a Christian." Which is effectively your lame argument if you assert that there are no conditions in which actions that may result in the death of another is not warranted.

Luke 22:36 Jesus said, if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

So either Jesus thought swords were great fashion accessories, or he acknowledged that being able to defend yourself (which may result in the death of others) was necessary.

 

[RX-79G]

There is zero basis to make the claim, "that's a stupid principle to go to prison for." You won't go to prison for not rendering aid, you will go to prison if it is a bad shoot, irrelevant if aid is rendered or not. The conditions in which a self defense shooting is legally justified or not have zero to do with whether medical aid is rendered.

Using a reference to Christianity to talk about "not killing" is always a desperate act. Jesus didn't say, "never defend yourself and let others enslave you as a Christian." Which is effectively your lame argument if you assert that there are no conditions in which actions that may result in the death of another is not warranted.

Luke 22:36 Jesus said, if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

So either Jesus thought swords were great fashion accessories, or he acknowledged that being able to defend yourself (which may result in the death of others) was necessary.

You'll go to prison for whatever reason the jury thinks you should go to prison for. Self defense cases commonly come down to whether the shooter believably feared for their life or had other motivations. This isn't about the text of any law, but you establishing yourself as a normal person with little choice, rather than a hateful paranoid looking for an excuse.

Given what some of you guys post on this forum, you might keep in mind that the attitudes you espouse here about people deserving to die, how you hope certain people die and how you are prepared some day to kill certain people are also going to be part of what the jury hears.


So yeah, I am one of those stupid people that values all life. I'm also one of those stupid people that would do nearly anything to not go to prison - including not standing there while someone bleeds out because they pointed a knife at me.

Everyone gets to make their own choices, and if you think it isn't safe to render aid, you had better have decided that it isn't safe to stick around, either. Because standing there waiting for the police does not support your story of being frightened the mugger has friends on the way.

 

[American123]

You'll go to prison for whatever reason the jury thinks you should go to prison for. Self defense cases commonly come down to whether the shooter believably feared for their life or had other motivations. This isn't about the text of any law, but you establishing yourself as a normal person with little choice, rather than a hateful paranoid looking for an excuse.

Given what some of you guys post on this forum, you might keep in mind that the attitudes you espouse here about people deserving to die, how you hope certain people die and how you are prepared some day to kill certain people are also going to be part of what the jury hears.


So yeah, I am one of those stupid people that values all life. I'm also one of those stupid people that would do nearly anything to not go to prison - including not standing there while someone bleeds out because they pointed a knife at me.

Everyone gets to make their own choices, and if you think it isn't safe to render aid, you had better have decided that it isn't safe to stick around, either. Because standing there waiting for the police does not support your story of being frightened the mugger has friends on the way.

You are not legally obligated to render aid to anyone, let alone someone who was moments ago a deadly threat. You're welcome to make up whatever analogies and hypothetical situations you like and you're welcome to plan your response as well.

If it was a bad shoot, you playing doctor with the perp won't keep you out of prison and if it was a good shoot, you sitting on your hands waiting for the police to arrive won't put you in prison.

The "holier than thou" attitude isn't going to matter either.

 

[RX-79G]

You are not legally obligated to render aid to anyone, let alone someone who was moments ago a deadly threat. You're welcome to make up whatever analogies and hypothetical situations you like and you're welcome to plan your response as well.

If it was a bad shoot, you playing doctor with the perp won't keep you out of prison and if it was a good shoot, you sitting on your hands waiting for the police to arrive won't put you in prison.

The "holier than thou" attitude isn't going to matter either.

I don't know why this point is so hard for you to understand. "Legal obligation" is whether you have an added charge to murder or not.

What the jury sees is a dead guy, a live guy with a story about being attacked and context:

You cut through an alley and are attacked by a Hispanic guy with a knife. You shoot, dial 911 and stay put hidden behind a dumpster. No cameras. No witnesses.

The police come and find the guy is still breathing, has a sealed bag of coke in his pocket and a Gerber tac folder with only his fingerprints nearby. On you they find no knife and $200 cash.

At your house they find first aid kits, a computer with websites showing you complain about "illegals" a lot and a small collection of quality tac folders. A coworker doesn't recognize the knife at the scene, but recalls that you usually have some sort of knife clipped in your pocket.

Police notice that you seem calm, provided no first aid and deny knowing the victim.

The DA charges you based on the theory that you were there to buy drugs, were upset with the dead man's poor English and killed him. Then wiped your knife and planted it on him. Having no remorse, you watched him bleed out despite having the knowledge of wound first aid.

What does the jury think? What is your attitude toward immigrants? Where's your knife? Why so much cash? Why did you watch him die?


Legal obligation be damned. That jury has just as much reason to find you guilty as believe your story. See how this works?

 

[WillametteWill]

Given what some of you guys post on this forum, you might keep in mind that the attitudes you espouse here about people deserving to die, how you hope certain people die and how you are prepared some day to kill certain people are also going to be part of what the jury hears.

Since all of the conversations on page two have been between three of us, not seeing where there is any talk about folks deserving to die or wanting to get into a shooting. When I train folks (and at the places I attend training) the mindset for preparing for the possibility of a gunfight is to find a way not to get in one. A firearm is a tool of last resort. Period. I'm convinced the more you train the less likely you will find yourself in a situation where one is necessary, as long as you take a balanced approach to your training and not just practice Mozambique drills (e.g., situational awareness, de-escalation methods, etc.)

I'm pretty sure I've pointed loaded firearms at more people that most folks who have CHL's (retired LEO). That is not bragging, simply a statement. Some could have been shot lawfully, ethically and morally. Precisely zero were during my career. That is not, "prepared someday to kill certain people," it is being prepared to lawfully and morally defend yourself by stopping a threat. By the actions of the perpetrator this could result in their death. If one is not prepared for this result, I would strongly recommend some deep soul searching as to whether they should be carrying a gun; pepper spray might be a better option for them. Not a judgement, just a reality.

Are there some folks who are over the top with the bravado and seemingly glee of the thought of getting into a shooting? Yes, and agree with you that they are in a terrible place if they find themselves in a shooting. I've said this (here) before, folks who say, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6," have never been judged by 12. If you are a racist it will likely come out and don't disagree with you that this could influence a prosecutor on charging the case or a juror against you. I'm not, so I don't worry about this.

You haven't addressed the fact that law enforcement will almost never render first aid one on one after shooting someone. North Hollywood shooting was a big case for this as one of the suspects bled out because they were not sure if he had a bomb. They could articulate they reason first aid was not rendered. Just like an armed citizen can articulate that he/she did not know if there were additional suspects, did not know if the suspect was faking or only temporarily disabled, can't easily talk on the cell phone while treating someone, likely doesn't have combatives or weapon retention training that officers have, is likely carrying in a low level retention holster (unlike officers...mine was a level 3 retention), does not know how long before help arrives since they do not have a police radio, requires the citizen defender to actually disarm the suspect since their weapon will likely be next to them...the list goes on. And those whose who carry guns should understand these factors and decide for themselves.

You have a perspective that you believe will work for you. I'll respect that even if not agreeing with it.

 

[RX-79G]

Since all of the conversations on page two have been between three of us, not seeing where there is any talk about folks deserving to die or wanting to get into a shooting. When I train folks (and at the places I attend training) the mindset for preparing for the possibility of a gunfight is to find a way not to get in one. A firearm is a tool of last resort. Period. I'm convinced the more you train the less likely you will find yourself in a situation where one is necessary, as long as you take a balanced approach to your training and not just practice Mozambique drills (e.g., situational awareness, de-escalation methods, etc.)

I'm pretty sure I've pointed loaded firearms at more people that most folks who have CHL's (retired LEO). That is not bragging, simply a statement. Some could have been shot lawfully, ethically and morally. Precisely zero were during my career. That is not, "prepared someday to kill certain people," it is being prepared to lawfully and morally defend yourself by stopping a threat. By the actions of the perpetrator this could result in their death. If one is not prepared for this result, I would strongly recommend some deep soul searching as to whether they should be carrying a gun; pepper spray might be a better option for them. Not a judgement, just a reality.

Are there some folks who are over the top with the bravado and seemingly glee of the thought of getting into a shooting? Yes, and agree with you that they are in a terrible place if they find themselves in a shooting. I've said this (here) before, folks who say, "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6," have never been judged by 12. If you are a racist it will likely come out and don't disagree with you that this could influence a prosecutor on charging the case or a juror against you. I'm not, so I don't worry about this.

You haven't addressed the fact that law enforcement will almost never render first aid one on one after shooting someone. North Hollywood shooting was a big case for this as one of the suspects bled out because they were not sure if he had a bomb. They could articulate they reason first aid was not rendered. Just like an armed citizen can articulate that he/she did not know if there were additional suspects, did not know if the suspect was faking or only temporarily disabled, can't easily talk on the cell phone while treating someone, likely doesn't have combatives or weapon retention training that officers have, is likely carrying in a low level retention holster (unlike officers...mine was a level 3 retention), does not know how long before help arrives since they do not have a police radio, requires the citizen defender to actually disarm the suspect since their weapon will likely be next to them...the list goes on. And those whose who carry guns should understand these factors and decide for themselves.

You have a perspective that you believe will work for you. I'll respect that even if not agreeing with it.

I'm not talking about this thread when I mention attitudes towards people, but the all the posts in all the subforums and other social media a person has. The average person on a firearms forum already has moderately conservative views, and many people on this forum feel incredibly comfortable talking about immigrants, minorities, gays, etc in less than glowing terms.

I don't think the "it's what cops do" defense is very good if you're not a cop. It just is another thing that makes it appear that you view yourself as an "enforcer of laws", and being labeled a vigilante is also not great for your defense.


As I already pointed out, if you choose to not render aid, you had better also choose to run away as fast as you can for the fear of your life that made you unable to stay and help. Otherwise, we are back to the freelance police attitude.


I think it is 100% possible that those idiots who killed Arbury truly believed that they had correctly identified a thief, were doing what was necessary to capture him for law enforcement and were shocked that he fought back. But what the jury saw was a bunch of dummies that jumped to the wrong conclusion and are bigots. That completely erased their perceptions of their actions in the jury deciding their intent.

Same with Theodore Edgecomb. He may have really felt fear for his life after the couple said hateful things, hit him with their car and walked up on him like they were armed. But there was no weapon found, he didn't call the police and he was awful on the stand. Also guilty of murder in what might have actually been a legit SD case.


Perception of intent is everything. Give the jury reason to believe you. Don't act like there is righteousness in self defense. Don't post your antipathy towards the groups of people that have the most poor and therefore the highest crime rates. Rendering aid, being a good witness, calling the police before your lawyer and appearing regretful that a person is dead are all things that will decrease your chance of looking like a gun-totin' Proud Boy with a Batman complex. The jury of your peers are unlikely to be a bunch of conservative white gun owners.

 

[WillametteWill]

I don't think the "it's what cops do" defense is very good if you're not a cop. It just is another thing that makes it appear that you view yourself as an "enforcer of laws", and being labeled a vigilante is also not great for your defense.

Choosing not to render aid AFTER an armed confrontation that you were FORCED into by the actions of another for personal safety reasons similar to what an officer would articulate (along with a bunch of others noted prior) has absolutely no relationship to vigilante justice. I'm comfortable that prosecutors and juries would see the difference.

Same with Theodore Edgecomb. He may have really felt fear for his life after the couple said hateful things, hit him with their car and walked up on him like they were armed. But there was no weapon found, he didn't call the police and he was awful on the stand. Also guilty of murder in what have actually been a legit SD case.

In the first video I've seen Edgecomb rides his bike up next to a stopped vehicle in traffic and punches the passenger in the face. Later, that car pulls up next to him (not close to hitting him) and the unarmed passenger who got out confronts him and is shot in the face. The suspect then flees the state. Saying hateful things does not allow you to shoot people. What does, "walked up on him like they were armed," even mean??? Try articulating that to a jury and good luck to him (didn't work). Was the victim extremely unwise during this encounter? Absolutely, but you can't shoot unarmed people, who you started the fight with by assaulting them, and expect to get away with it. Fear must be reasonable based on the reasonable person standard. You also have to have innocence on your side...he did not. Even if not required he could have ridden off on his bike (avoidance), proportionality (bringing a gun to at best a fist fight) is not there. He literally checks every box as to why this was not a self defense case.

Happy to look at more evidence with this case but does not look favorable from any angle I've seen on the web.

 

[RX-79G]

In the first video I've seen Edgecomb rides his bike up next to a stopped vehicle in traffic and punches the passenger in the face. Later, that car pulls up next to him (not close to hitting him) and the unarmed passenger who got out confronts him and is shot in the face. The suspect then flees the state. Saying hateful things does not allow you to shoot people. What does, "walked up on him like they were armed," even mean??? Try articulating that to a jury and good luck to him (didn't work). Was the victim extremely unwise during this encounter? Absolutely, but you can't shoot unarmed people, who you started the fight with by assaulting them, and expect to get away with it. Fear must be reasonable based on the reasonable person standard. You also have to have innocence on your side...he did not. Even if not required he could have ridden off on his bike (avoidance), proportionality (bringing a gun to at best a fist fight) is not there. He literally checks every box as to why this was not a self defense case.

Happy to look at more evidence with this case but does not look favorable from any angle I've seen on the web.

The problem here is that you just did what a jury does - you took in the facts that were better articulated and ignored what you didn't think should be relevant or was not observed.

Edgecomb stated that the incident started with the car (a deadly weapon) swerving at him, followed by the occupants insulting him to demonstrate their willingness to threaten him again with deadly force. Everything on video follows that event.

The fact that you don't believe him, don't think that happened, don't see it as relevant is exactly what we're talking about. You don't get to dictate what a jury is going to hear about you outside of what you do immediately after. Everything you've done in your life - threaten a coworker, said something stupid on the internet, whatever - is already going to be part of the story against you. So whatever you can do to construct a different perception of the person you might be is really important.

Choosing not to render aid AFTER an armed confrontation that you were FORCED into by the actions of another for personal safety reasons similar to what an officer would articulate (along with a bunch of others noted prior) has absolutely no relationship to vigilante justice. I'm comfortable that prosecutors and juries would see the difference.

It has a relationship if there are other factors making appear you had motivations outside of immediate risk of harm. And I've pointed out how that can happen, either by your past character or simple coincidence. Again, if you are too afraid to stay - go. If you stay, don't play the "cops do it card" because you aren't a cop, and juries may decide that your interest in cop procedures is either because you see yourself as a vigilante or you are attempting to cover your lack of empathy.


We can argue the particulars all you want, but "Don't be easy to hate" is the principle. You can insist whatever you want, but the jury gets to decide if your mindset was that of an innocent man in fear of his life or something else. The jury is under no obligation to see the world through your eyes, which is why they sank Edgecomb.

As a cyclist, I know exactly how Edgecomb might have felt after people nearly ran him over and then bubblegum on him afterwards. It feels an awful lot like someone would be happy if they had killed you. But that part of the story didn't impress.

 

[American123]

I don't know why this point is so hard for you to understand. "Legal obligation" is whether you have an added charge to murder or not.

What the jury sees is a dead guy, a live guy with a story about being attacked and context:

You cut through an alley and are attacked by a Hispanic guy with a knife. You shoot, dial 911 and stay put hidden behind a dumpster. No cameras. No witnesses.

The police come and find the guy is still breathing, has a sealed bag of coke in his pocket and a Gerber tac folder with only his fingerprints nearby. On you they find no knife and $200 cash.

At your house they find first aid kits, a computer with websites showing you complain about "illegals" a lot and a small collection of quality tac folders. A coworker doesn't recognize the knife at the scene, but recalls that you usually have some sort of knife clipped in your pocket.

Police notice that you seem calm, provided no first aid and deny knowing the victim.

The DA charges you based on the theory that you were there to buy drugs, were upset with the dead man's poor English and killed him. Then wiped your knife and planted it on him. Having no remorse, you watched him bleed out despite having the knowledge of wound first aid.

What does the jury think? What is your attitude toward immigrants? Where's your knife? Why so much cash? Why did you watch him die?


Legal obligation be damned. That jury has just as much reason to find you guilty as believe your story. See how this works?

The jury doesn't get to change the law based on their preconceived bias no matter how saintly or evil "you" may be perceived. The law says what it says regarding what constitutes a legal use of deadly force. I don't know what that is so difficult for you to understand.

Either a deadly threat existed, or it didn't.

 

[RX-79G]

The jury doesn't get to change the law based on their preconceived bias no matter how saintly or evil "you" may be perceived. The law says what it says regarding what constitutes a legal use of deadly force. I don't know what that is so difficult for you to understand.

Either a deadly threat existed, or it didn't.

Right, did the deadly threat exist? You say it did. The DA says it didn't. The DA seems nice. You seem like a crab itching for fight. Did the dead guy try to rob you, or did you plant your knife on his body? The jury will decide that based on your credibility as the only surviving witness because there is no actual evidence that you were attacked aside from your word.

There are lots of innocent people in jail.

 

[American123]

Right, did the deadly threat exist? You say it did. The DA says it didn't. The DA seems nice. You seem like a crab itching for fight. Did the dead guy try to rob you, or did you plant your knife on his body? The jury will decide that based on your credibility as the only surviving witness because there is no actual evidence that you were attacked aside from your word.

There are lots of innocent people in jail.

Innocent of what? There are a lot of people in jail who made statements to police after the incident that were used against them in a court of law. If you listen carefully to your Miranda rights it says, "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Nothing will be used for your benefit, only against you. Therefore if you let the facts of the case be presented.

Hypothetical example:

"Guy threatened to kill me with a knife and then ran toward me, I believed he was going to so I shot him to defend myself. (dead guy laying several feet away)."

The PA would have to disprove those events for a case to have any merit. If that's as simple as it is, and you make no statement that would incriminate yourself beyond a simple self defense situation, it's a non-starter.

The Zimmerman - Martin investigation is a good example of that. Zimmerman was getting his head smashed into the pavement by Martin. Know how we know? Because Zimmerman had blood coming out the back of his head and the facts of the case showed Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Martin was shot. Zimmerman also testified such (which they didn't need because the evidence already could have concluded that but it made the account seem very probable considering the evidence matched his description of events).

The only reason why that even went to court was because of the national outcry that demanded for "justice" by the same BLM crowd that does the same thing today anytime there is a homicide that isn't black on black violence.

Rendering aid is irrelevant. Knock yourself out if that's what you think will help your hypothetical case.

 

[RX-79G]

Innocent of what? There are a lot of people in jail who made statements to police after the incident that were used against them in a court of law. If you listen carefully to your Miranda rights it says, "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law." Nothing will be used for your benefit, only against you. Therefore if you let the facts of the case be presented.

Hypothetical example:

"Guy threatened to kill me with a knife and then ran toward me, I believed he was going to so I shot him to defend myself. (dead guy laying several feet away)."

The PA would have to disprove those events for a case to have any merit. If that's as simple as it is, and you make no statement that would incriminate yourself beyond a simple self defense situation, it's a non-starter.

The Zimmerman - Martin investigation is a good example of that. Zimmerman was getting his head smashed into the pavement by Martin. Know how we know? Because Zimmerman had blood coming out the back of his head and the facts of the case showed Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Martin was shot. Zimmerman also testified such (which they didn't need because the evidence already could have concluded that but it made the account seem very probable considering the evidence matched his description of events).

The only reason why that even went to court was because of the national outcry that demanded for "justice" by the same BLM crowd that does the same thing today anytime there is a homicide that isn't black on black violence.

Rendering aid is irrelevant. Knock yourself out if that's what you think will help your hypothetical case.

All of that is true, none of it applies to my statement.

We don't know what happened to Martin. We know what Zimmerman said happened. If Zimmerman left out the part where he told Martin he was going to kill him and Martin was fighting for his life, that's not going to be part of the facts presented in the case.

What I pointed out is that the facts presented are going to include your internet history, what's on your person, what's on the dead guy's person and how you come off to people. None of which you can control. What happens afterward is what you can control, and you ought to think long and hard about whether you are going to look like a nice guy or not when the police have had time to pick apart your life and your actions.

Some people on this forum are going to have a VERY hard time if they end up being the one who lived through a confrontation.

 

[American123]

All of that is true, none of it applies to my statement.

We don't know what happened to Martin. We know what Zimmerman said happened. If Zimmerman left out the part where he told Martin he was going to kill him and Martin was fighting for his life, that's not going to be part of the facts presented in the case.

What I pointed out is that the facts presented are going to include your internet history, what's on your person, what's on the dead guy's person and how you come off to people. None of which you can control. What happens afterward is what you can control, and you ought to think long and hard about whether you are going to look like a nice guy or not when the police have had time to pick apart your life and your actions.

Some people on this forum are going to have a VERY hard time if they end up being the one who lived through a confrontation.

Fair enough, how would a investigator determine what someone posted on the internet? Would that be going through their internet service provider and seeing what all the websites they have gone to?

Then contacting NWFA.com and saying "give me all the information pertaining to this IP address?

 

[RX-79G]

Fair enough, how would a investigator determine what someone posted on the internet? Would that be going through their internet service provider and seeing what all the websites they have gone to?

Then contacting NWFA.com and saying "give me all the information pertaining to this IP address?

Generally, by obtaining a search warrant for your computer and phone, which they will do anyway to determine if you actually have a connection with the dead guy.