- Messages
- 225
- Reactions
- 410
Another thread recently discussed the "don't talk to the police" narrative as well. A few of us noted all the reasons this is horrible advice if you are innocent. Remember, on average about 97% of people defended by attorneys are guilty. If you are in that 97%...don't talk to police.
Self defense is an affirmative defense, you have to admit shooting / killing someone and be able to explain why he needed it. If you don't set the narrative and say very limited, specific things (and ABSOLUTELY not the rehearsed, "I was in fear for my life," saying we so often hear), you are going to have problems. You need to point out evidence that supports your reasons for using force. You need to point out witnesses. You need to set the narrative, briefly, of why you needed to use force. (And we seriously need to think about this more than we practice mag changes and Bill drills). Then you need to wait for your attorney. George Zimmerman would have been convicted if he waited for his attorney. He honestly explained his position which allowed for the correct evidence to be collected.
I don't think there is remotely a consensus this was a lawful shoot, or could have been, since it seemed pretty clear that he could not explain why. And being such...he should have kept his mouth shut. As others quoted from his interview, he could not remotely justify using force and shot on speculation of what could have happened.
As an officer I interviewed many people that defended themselves who did not go to jail because they explained what happened and why. If they would have shut up and asked for a lawyer they would have gone to jail and likely been convicted because evidence of their innocents would possibly not been collected.
I would strongly recommend watching the Massad Ayoob video in post #56. He explains the "why" based on 40+ years of experience with these types of cases. Few attorneys have actually defended an innocent person in a self defense situation. (Side note, I was in this class where the Mas video was made with John from ASP). To quote attorney Andrew Branca, "Carry a gun so you are hard to kill, know the law so you are hard to convict." Recommend reading his book as well.
Sorry...long post, now back to taking about wives and listening. Been ignoring mine while typing this.
One thing is absolutely certain. When the police arrive on a shooting scene they are going to ask "What happened here?" They are rightfully going to expect answers. The shooter's attorney will likely not be present at the arrival of the police. Saying nothing at all to police is not practical.
While the first telephone call should be to the police, it might be prudent for the second call to be to the family attorney, who will likely offer advice on how to respond to police on the scene. You may well hear him/her say "Have you talked to the police?" Or, "What have you told the police?"
Talking to the police is not the problem. Talking to police will be necessary to resolve the situation. Talking to police about a fatal shooting without the benefit of legal council could be a serious problem. I would rather appear to be guilty because I retained an attorney than be found guilty because I hadn't.
If someone is considering using a firearm to defend themselves it might be a good idea to discuss this with their attorney before the need arises. That way attorney and client are on the same page with respect to the police. And that fits nicely with "Know the law so you are hard to convict."