Good talk on blocks

[Van Canna]

Auditory exclusion

Auditory exclusion does not preclude the possibility of damage to the inner ear, and there are some treatments that can reduce or repair that kind of damage if they're done soon enough after the event.

If I were to shoot inside of any structure, much less a car, I would tell responders to take me to a hospital or clinic afterwards for an immediate check.

[Van Canna]

STFU!

There is much discussion about how one should be respectful but firm with law enforcement about saying anything after an "incident", until you have an attorney present.

But I have never read anything about what others who may be with you at the time are required to do / should do. I understand witnesses that are not known to me can give statements, but what about those who may be with me at the time of incident (wife, friend/s, etc.)?

Are they required to give statements without the attorney being present, or do they fall under the same area as the one who actually did the shooting - no talking until legal advisor is present?

[Van Canna]

I would suggest that NO ONE over whom you might have influence make ANY statement to ANY agent of the government regarding the incident without consulting an attorney. Preferably yours if you were the self-defense shooter.

The MIRANDA warning only applies to people who are under arrest. If you or a potential witness are NOT under arrest YET (could run away), anything you say can be used without a MIRANDA warning.

If in the back seat of a police car, STFU! It is not uncommon for recording devices to be running unattended and you have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in a police car.

Whatever is said is admissable in court. Do NOT get into a police car if you are not under arrest. It is NOT a convenient place to sit!

If you (or a witness) is not under arrest, anything said is open to being misconstrued, misunderstood, twisted, distorted and otherwise manipulated and used against the victim who has used lethal force in self-defense.

STFU is good advice for all. NO COMMENT is the best comment until an attorney can be consulted. That includes anyone who might be a witness in your defense. Letting anyone over whom you might be able to exert some influence "babble on" to the cops in the absence of legal advice is NEVER a good idea.

NOTHING is going to be resolved "on the scene". Resign yourself that you will be going to jail. That's it. Nothing anyone on the scene says will get you off the hook. Tell them to STFU and your attorney will contact them for a statement.

I am a former LEO. It was my JOB to get people to "open up". We wrote down EVERYTHING as best as we were able. We made mistakes. Six months later, in court, we only had our notes. Whatever we wrote down at the scene was taken as GOSPEL by the prosecutor. Even if we misunderstood something.

As a former LEO, I can tell you that we are allowed (by a U.S. Supreme Court Decision) to INTENTIONALLY LIE to suspects and potential witnesses. TAKE THIS AT FACE VALUE! If the cops can legally LIE to you, they are not your best friend, even if you need one at the moment.

A lesson for all. Many police departments have "To Serve and Protect" emblazoned on the side of their squad cars. It's propaganda. They serve the government and protect the government. Take that to the bank.

I don't dislike cops. I was one. They have a thankless job to do. Protecting your rights is not on their priorities if you or your witnesses wish to jabber on about anything and everything you saw, thought, etc.

Sorry for the diatribe, but this is what I do.

Craig R. Brownell,
Chief Instructor,
MN Pistol Class, LLC
www.mnpistolclass..com

[Van Canna]

As a retired law enforcement officer I would mirror the comments already made. However a simple statement to the officers arriving on the scene can save a lot of trouble and embarrassment. This is what I share with my CCW students and is also a statement that is supported by our local 2nd amendment attorneys.

When asked "what happened" immediately post defensive shooting simply state: "I shot to make him go away, I was in fear of my life" or "I shot to make him stop,I was in fear of my life (or the life of another".

For follow up questions simply respond that you are, "concerned about a civil suit from the intruder (or their estate) and I want to consult with my family attorney first to defend against the possibility of civil litigation before I make any further comments." Police officers understand the concept of civil litigation.

Then ask when you can meet with a detective to discuss the incident with your "family" attorney present. I hope this adds and supports to the discussion.

[Van Canna]

You cannot undo anything you have said. Due to the trauma, you're brain will try to kick into auto-pilot, and you will become a self-incriminating babbling idiot...

[Van Canna]

The prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney will have the officer on the stand and after detailing the efforts to stabilize the situation, will ask...what was the first thing the shooter said?

Now what do you want that 'first thing' to be that the jury will hear?

[Van Canna]

No one has ever been convicted for something they did not say.

Also, do not believe ANYTHING the police (or investigators) might say in an effort to obtain a statement from you. They may try to appear sympathetic, friendly even "buddy-up". They can lie with impunity. Nothing they say matters at all, everything you say matters highly.

The investigator pats you on the shoulder and says, "I can see how tough this is for you. You probably need to go home and get some rest. All you need to do is give us a short statement and we'll get you a ride home in a few minutes, O.K.?"

You spill your guts. As soon as they think you've said about all there is, you will be arrested and jailed immediately.

BUT, BUT, BUT, YOU SAID...>>>CLANK<<<

Consider yourself warned.

[Van Canna]

This guy is right. I know, I was one of the detectives who "buddied up" successfully many times and schmoozed my way into a waiver of Miranda rights.

Detectives are trained to do this at formal investigator schools. I went to one after making detective.

The best cops are consummate actors, and yes I lied many times to suspects and it was all legal, and the dummies fell for it. (This is a calculated risk of course and you are running a bluff and if caught you can kiss getting a confession goodbye normally.)

I never jammed up a righteous gun owner. The situation never came up. I dealt with serious violent felons.

Bottom Line: After a shooting there is no percentage in making a statement without the advice of an attorney who is present.

This break also gives you time to calm down and run the shooting through in your mind so you have your facts straight.

A detective will be paying particular attention to any conflict between your version and the physical evidence at the scene.

Physical evidence is the high card. Witnesses are not nearly as credible and can be attacked much more easily in trial.

[Van Canna]

Even if the investigator APPEARS to be miffed that you won't speak, they would handle it exactly the same way if they were in your position.

Trust me, they understand even if they aren't letting on.

The media WRONGLY reports people as being found innocent. Courts do not do that. They find people guilty or not guilty. This has less to do with the deed itself (shooting someone) and focuses on violating the law (justifiable shooting).

The devil is in the details and the less you say about it before consulting an attorney, the better off you are likely to be. That you did it may be totally obvious. Whether it was justified requires legal help.

This is a LEGAL matter, not a moral matter. It doesn't MATTER if everyone knows you did it. What matters is whether or not you violated the law.

This an issue of legality, not a moral issue. Even if you're ARE lawyer, you need a lawyer. I practiced law and I've been a cop. I wouldn't hesitate to STFU until I had a lawyer at my side.

One of the biggest problems people are likely to encounter is stress-related memory difficulties.

BTDT. After the incident, you make a statement to the police and honestly believe it to be the truth (e.g.: engagement distance, sequence of events, time elapsed, etc.).

Later, when you've had a chance to calm down and reflect, your memory improves. Your judgment regarding timing, what you saw and what you did will likely sharpen. The details are very likely to be different than your original impressions.

If you give both stories, you will be "caught in a lie". Neither story will be considered truthful and any physical evidence that controverts either story will show you to have been lying.

Lying to the police is a crime in most jurisdictions. They couldn't get Martha Stewart for insider trading, but they nailed her on lying to investigators and it cost her 10 months in the federal slam. O.J. never made any statements of any kind to the police and he's out walking around. Take a lesson.

[Van Canna]

Really interesting

What would you suggest
- I tell my wife _ if she's ever in a situation where I have to shoot a guy and she observes the whole thing from start to finish?

Being a witness and not a participant, she cannot say to the LEO that she will not say anything without her lawyer present. Or can she?

[Van Canna]

Even if the police tell you differently, NO ONE is required to speak with the police; witnesses, perpetrators or victims, and EVERYONE has the right to counsel. Your Miranda rights always apply, but the police are not required to advise you of them until they arrest you.

If she's still there, her silence may cause the police to be suspicious of her possible involvement, but that is their problem. She may even be arrested on the basis of their suspicions, but they still have to prove a case against her. If she is only a witness, it won't go very far.

If your wife is *-only-* a witness, she is free to leave before the police arrive.
This is not a crime. You don't have to tell the police that she was present. You don't have to tell them anything and neither does she. If any other witnesses are still present, point them out to the police.

If she leaves the scene and starts contacting your attorney, this can be a real time-saver for you. The attorney will already have her version of the story and be prepared when you meet.

If there is still danger, YOU can leave the scene as well. I strongly advise calling the police yourself to report the assault in any event.

You want YOUR voice on that 911 tape. No details; just your name, "he/they attacked me/us", where you and they are at the moment, whether anyone needs medical attention and that you are no threat to the police when they arrive.

While you're doing that, she's in a taxi and calling your lawyer on the way home. If your vehicle is not involved in ANY way, she can drive it home and prevent it from being impounded "because it might be evidence".

It will be up to the police to prove that it is evidence. If you weren't in or near your vehicle during the attack, it's merely some of your property in the vicinity. That does not make it evidence or automatically subject you to towing/impound fees.

Police: "Where's your car?"

You: "I want my attorney and I do not consent to any searches."

Police: "Witnesses said you were with a woman. Where is she?"

You: "I want my attorney and I do not consent to any searches."

Police: "One witness said you called her 'honey', told her to call your attorney and go home. Who was she and where did she go?"

You: "I want my attorney and I do not consent to any searches."If you see a pattern here, you're getting the idea. Heh.

The problem I see here is despite all this advice, when the time comes, under the stress of the moment we will not be able to remain silent.

[Van Canna]

If the police show up at the house, she is not required to answer the door, admit them to your home or speak to them.

I strongly recommend that she has already contacted the attorney and not do any of the above unless the attorney has advised otherwise. If they have a warrant, they will say so and must hand it to her.

If they force entry "in pursuit" or "probable cause", she then says, "I want my attorney and I do not consent to any searches."

If they say "We're getting a warrant, you may as well let us in." There is no reason to admit them until they actually have the warrant. Hopefully, the attorney will arrive before the warrant.

If you already have a lawyer, run this past them for their specific advice. They will be representing you, it's best if you do it their way.

[Van Canna]

Lets get real about what an attorney can and cannot do.

If the police show up with a search warrant and he is present, all he can do is step aside and stay out of their way.

A judge has been convinced there is probable cause for the search and that trumps any attorney who is "a criminal defense legend in his/her own mind." If you shut the door in their face they can just kick it off the hinges and walk right past you and it is all legal with the search warrant in their possession.

And while we are on search warrants--expect one. Especially if the wife left the scene with anything that was at the scene at the time of the shooting.

By the way, establishing probable cause for a search warrant is very easy. Especially if the detective has had warrants signed by that particular judge before.

I had a guy who signed one while he was at a bar stool with more than a few empties lined up on the bar in front of him and would have been a prime candidate for a DUI. Oh well....he IS a judge.

[Van Canna]

The attorney cannot stop warrant service, but they can advise the subject regarding their rights and caution them about talking while noting how the police conduct their affairs.

Before the police arrive, the attorney can also spirit the subject away to a secure location to calm them down and conclude an interview. Again, they are only a witness.

That does not require that they surrender voluntarily simply because they ASSUME that the police might be interested. At this point, they may not even have been positively identified. The police are only following investigatory leads.

Many (most?) people in this situation are likely to be seriously intimidated by the police, even if the police are not behaving in an intimidating manner. We all want to be cooperative.

We are, after all, the good guys and we have been raised to respect the police. In a situation such as this, cooperation means ONLY "do not physically or verbally offer the least resistance".

There is no requirement to turn themselves in, give a statement or consent to anything.

At a secure location, the attorney can interview the witness. The attorney may then contact the police to offer the witness' statement and will accompany the witness to make that statement.

Under these circumstances, the witness (e.g.: wife) is less likely to be arrested simply for being related to the victim and present during the attack.

At the scene, the police' default procedure will be "Round 'em all up, we'll sort it out later." If she's not there when the police arrive and can get with the attorney before making a statement, she is more likely to remain free.

[Van Canna]

what I was told in the CCW class was the first words out of your mouth had better be I was in fear of my life because I thought he was going to kill me and I want to speak to my attorney.