Attorney/Lawyer what do people use?

[Terminator03]

+1. A bogus trip to the ER is a waste of everyone's resources and serves no good purpose. There is no need to "buy time". You just end up losing credibility if you fake a reason to go to the ER. You made the decision to fire. Man the f**** up! If you fired in self defense, let the facts speak for themselves. Just remember and exercise your Miranda rights if you don't like how the questioning is going. You are smart enough to be able to tell.

This was my thinking at first, which was why I posed the question, but if you read the responses, it makes a lot of sense (at least to me) that you may not be just wasting time, or faking a "need", because you may in fact be deeply affected by the actions you had to take if you are not of a sociopathic nature, and that can have physical symptoms like those described in the previous replies. Everyone likes to think they could be Charles Bronson (or insert your favorite idol), but no one really knows how they would act, feel, or react to actually taking a life - even when you are given no other choice.

 

[Terminator03]

I would never suggest you lie to the police. However, if you've been through some sort of traumatic incident, and there is the remotest possibility that you are not going to be going home to your own bed that night, you're probably going to be mentally upset. Mental stress can manifest itself in all sorts of physical ways: heart palpitations, mental confusion, shortness of breath, nausea, etc. If you have an underlying medical condition like hypertension, bronchitis, or anything similar, the added mental stress could well aggravate that condition. People who are ill don't always make the best legal decisions when they are in distress.

Your first priority should be to your physical well-being. That may well involve several hours in the emergency room, and you'll probably want to notify your family/friends about your hospitalization. If that delays any possible questioning by the authorities until your legal representative arrives that is unfortunate, but unavoidable.

I realize you'll want to cooperate fully with the police, but medical attention comes first. IANAL, and this does not constitute any legal or medical advice. I am only describing what my actions would be in this hypothetical scenario.

Very well explained.

 

[M1911]

+1. A bogus trip to the ER is a waste of everyone's resources and serves no good purpose. There is no need to "buy time". You just end up losing credibility if you fake a reason to go to the ER. You made the decision to fire. Man the f**** up! If you fired in self defense, let the facts speak for themselves. Just remember and exercise your Miranda rights if you don't like how the questioning is going. You are smart enough to be able to tell.

I don't think you quite understand the amount of adrenalin you will be dealing with in the aftermath, nor do you understand the dynamics of a police interrogation. A shooting in MA will be investigated by a detective who has interrogated thousands of people. You probably have never been interrogated. Going into that alone is like stepping into the ring with Mike Tyson in his prime -- you'll be knocked out and you'll never see it coming.

Jim, unless you know something I don't, and with due respect to those attorneys who used to belong to NES, I see their prime area of expertise as assisting people in obtaining their permits and getting few/no restrictions. I do NOT see any of them as outstanding defense attorneys in the case of a justified self-defense shooting. To me, I see that as a very different skill-set. I had that discussion with another former NES'r (not Keith) who admitted to me that I was correct in this assessment. I only know of one attorney that I would trust to defend my freedom and he's never appeared on NES or any other gun forum that I'm aware of.

Agreed. Attorney Kevin Reddington's phone number is programmed into my cell. I hope I never have to call him.

 

[drgrant]

If you can afford him.... Kevin Reddington.

ETA: M1911 beat me to it.


-Mike

 

[drgrant]

+1. A bogus trip to the ER is a waste of everyone's resources and serves no good purpose. There is no need to "buy time". You just end up losing credibility if you fake a reason to go to the ER. You made the decision to fire. Man the f**** up! If you fired in self defense, let the facts speak for themselves. Just remember and exercise your Miranda rights if you don't like how the questioning is going. You are smart enough to be able to tell.

Credibility with who? The police? Whose only interest is, 8 times out of 10, to hand the DA a prosecution on a silver platter. They do not give a flying f**k if you are innocent or not, they just want to prosecute someone so they can justify their existence. If you kill the BG that means they have only you to send to prison, and they'll try their damndest to do it.

No, in an aftermath of a self defense shooting you WILL NOT be smart enough to not run your mouth inaccurately, because you will be under duress. About the only smart thing to do is to shut up until you've spoken to an attorney.

Ask Harold Fish how well "talking to the cops" worked out for him. The prosecutor used his own statements to absolutely SHRED him in court. He was the only witness, and the prosecution used his weebly-wobbly testimony to cast doubt on his veracity as a witness, and the jury sucked for it, hook line and sinker.

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

I don't think you quite understand the amount of adrenalin you will be dealing with in the aftermath, nor do you understand the dynamics of a police interrogation. A shooting in MA will be investigated by a detective who has interrogated thousands of people. You probably have never been interrogated. Going into that alone is like stepping into the ring with against Mike Tyson in his prime -- you'll be knocked out and you'll never see it coming.

Agreed. Attorney Kevin Reddington's phone number is programmed into my cell. I hope I never have to call him.

To the "doubting Thomas" above . . . you really need to take an "Interrogation & Interview Techniques" class from a LE instructor to really get an appreciation for what M1911 is saying. I took this as a one-day class from the Police Academy (MCJTC) back some 30 years ago and I still remember how the instructor was pulverizing the interviewee (a volunteer veteran FT PO) mercilessly. Even the rest of us (all POs) were sweating bullets watching how this was demonstrated to us.

If you can afford him.... Kevin Reddington.

Funny how the three of us think alike here, isn't it!

 

[qqac]

Credibility with who? The police? Whose only interest is, 8 times out of 10, to hand the DA a prosecution on a silver platter. They do not give a flying f**k if you are innocent or not, they just want to prosecute someone so they can justify their existence. If you kill the BG that means they have only you to send to prison, and they'll try their damndest to do it.

No, in an aftermath of a self defense shooting you WILL NOT be smart enough to not run your mouth inaccurately, because you will be under duress. About the only smart thing to do is to shut up until you've spoken to an attorney.

Ask Harold Fish how well "talking to the cops" worked out for him. The prosecutor used his own statements to absolutely SHRED him in court. He was the only witness, and the prosecution used his weebly-wobbly testimony to cast doubt on his veracity as a witness, and the jury sucked for it, hook line and sinker.

-Mike

Yes, credibility with the responding officers, among others. Good, honest cops are not your enemy. Cops and prosecutors do not need to throw innocent citizens in prison to justify their jobs -- there are plenty of BGs around to ensure that. If the report concludes a shooting appeared to be justified self defense, the prosecutor will have no reason to push it, and you've likely nipped the inquiry in the bud. Prosecutors in fact have an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence, so the innocent are not railroaded. Several years ago I was involved in a MV accident where a person died. I established my credibility and lack of culpability with the responding PO at the scene, and that was the end of the inquiry. No further questioning, no charges brought, not even a civil claim.

I do agree if you know you are not smart enough and cannot keep your wits about you, exercise your Miranda rights and stay silent. I also agree if you really do feel you need to go to the ER, then go. But don't just fabricate something as a ruse to "buy time."

+1 on not talking to anyone, if that is the route you need to go. Even if a PO assures you that it is "off the record" it is not and it is admissible, according to a recent case by the SJC in MA (Commonwealth v. Tremblay). Statements to EMTs and other first responders or non-police public officials or even friends and family might be inadmissible hearsay (or protected communications), but there are many technical hearsay exceptions.

 

[qqac]

To the "doubting Thomas" above . . . you really need to take an "Interrogation & Interview Techniques" class from a LE instructor to really get an appreciation for what M1911 is saying. I took this as a one-day class from the Police Academy (MCJTC) back some 30 years ago and I still remember how the instructor was pulverizing the interviewee (a volunteer veteran FT PO) mercilessly. Even the rest of us (all POs) were sweating bullets watching how this was demonstrated to us.




Funny how the three of us think alike here, isn't it!

LenS, so are you a LEO or former LEO? Would you interrogate a person with the goal of finding the truth, or to railroad him into prison regardless of the truth?

 

[Terminator03]

LenS, so are you a LEO or former LEO? Would you interrogate a person with the goal of finding the truth, or to railroad him into prison regardless of the truth?

Not trying to answer for Len, but my opinion is that it is up to the personal agenda of the prosecution as well as the officers involved in the case. What happens if they are of the belief that NO citizens should be running around with firearms in the first place? Do you really believe they would only be looking for the "truth" to set you free as quickly as possible? Instead you could be presenting them with an opportunity to push their personal agenda on a silver platter! Are you willing to trust your life, and freedom that those in charge of prosecuting the case have no personal bias, or agenda? If you truly have that much faith and trust, then I have some nice bridges for sale...

 

[Boston_Shooter]

+1. A bogus trip to the ER is a waste of everyone's resources and serves no good purpose. There is no need to "buy time". You just end up losing credibility if you fake a reason to go to the ER. You made the decision to fire. Man the f**** up! If you fired in self defense, let the facts speak for themselves. Just remember and exercise your Miranda rights if you don't like how the questioning is going. You are smart enough to be able to tell.

If you're ever in this situation, God forbid, then by all means, man the eff up and strut your stuff...let me know how that works out for you. I've never been in a situation like that so I'm not going to pretend like I know how it'll feel, and that I'll be able to keep my wits about me. The closest thing I've ever experienced was being mugged at gunpoint. It definitely wasn't fun, and when it was over my thinking was far from rational, and I wasn't able to calmly explain what happened, nor could I recall simple details about it until a few hours later. The human body is a funny thing, and as much we'd all like to think we'd have total control regardless of circumstances it just isn't true in most cases.

 

[drgrant]

Yes, credibility with the responding officers, among others. Good, honest cops are not your enemy..

So you're going to bet your life on whether or not you're getting an honest cop/investigator?

Cops and prosecutors do not need to throw innocent citizens in prison to justify their jobs -- there are plenty of BGs around to ensure that

Bullschumer. Most of them don't/won't know who you are or care about you. You are a statistic to them. If you get convicted, you ARE a bad guy, in the eyes of the law, so whether you deserved it or not quickly becomes irrelevant.

If the cops wanted to be really nice to you they would say "Please don't feel compelled to say anything until you get an attorney. We'll take you back to the station and give you a hot cup of coffee and a handshake. " How often does that happen?

BTW, even if the cops aren't even trying to mindf**k you during questioning, even if they THINK you are innocent, and you are answering very benign questions not designed to trip you up, you can STILL put yourself in the hole. That stuff in their report is the stone tablets written about in the bible. That s**t becomes near-gospel and if you contradict yourself (even if the new version is "the truth") you can easily destroy your veracity as a witness as a result. Having served on a Jury and witnessed this firsthand, it doesn't take much to make a jury believe that you are a fruitcake and anything you say is not worthy of being considered evidence. The Juror's trust in a witness is a very fragile thing.

If the report concludes a shooting appeared to be justified self defense, the prosecutor will have no reason to push it, and you've likely nipped the inquiry in the bud. Prosecutors in fact have an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence, so the innocent are not railroaded.

If this is the case then why is it that they took seemingly forever to clear Paul Langone in what is best described as an incontrovertible lawful use of deadly force? It's because the moonbat DA Conley so DESPERATELY wanted to prosecute him for something, but had to drop the case when they couldn't dig up anything, and the political overtones of throwing bologna against the wall under those circumstances would have been too great for him.

The only time this state lets people walk without a dog and pony show is if your act of self defense is 100% air tight, and many people simply will not have that luxury when the chips are down. If any nuance of complexity enters the situation at all, they are going to try to fry you. Counting on "the facts to speak for themselves" is a bogus idea when the state often gets to write the narrative.

BTW prosecutors in this state are mostly moonbats. Moonbats who would order us executed if they could get away with it... keep that in mind, in the back of your head. They don't like it when people are self-sufficient, because it diminishes the perceived power of the state, however slightly.

Several years ago I was involved in a MV accident where a person died. I established my credibility and lack of culpability with the responding PO at the scene, and that was the end of the inquiry. No further questioning, no charges brought, not even a civil claim.

Sorry but you are hopelessly naive if you believe that a car accident and an SD shooting are anywhere near the same thing. The political overtones of either event are not even on the same planet.

I do agree if you know you are not smart enough and cannot keep your wits about you, exercise your Miranda rights and stay silent.

The problem is it is difficult to know how you will behave and what you will say under that kind of duress. It's cheaper to just shut up. Why do you think they put cops in officer involved shootings on admin leave immediately? Because they are too wigged out to properly attest to what just happened to them. Giving "mostly right" statements under duress doesn't cut it.

I also agree if you really do feel you need to go to the ER, then go. But don't just fabricate something as a ruse to "buy time."

I think people should go to the ER if they feel like they need to go to the ER, period, and they should shut up regardless until they talk to an attorney. There is no need to run your mouth to the police immediately, it's not like they're going to let you go anytime soon anyways.

+1 on not talking to anyone, if that is the route you need to go. Even if a PO assures you that it is "off the record" it is not and it is admissible, according to a recent case by the SJC in MA (Commonwealth v. Tremblay). Statements to EMTs and other first responders or non-police public officials or even friends and family might be inadmissible hearsay (or protected communications), but there are many technical hearsay exceptions.

All of that crap is too complicated for someone with adrenaline pumping through their system to think about. People just need to shut up, period, until they talk to counsel.

I'll give you a hint about the mindset here- It's part of the same reason why criminal defense attorneys would not ever represent themselves. A normal person cannot be expected to remain objective and clear thinking in such matters because they are running on emotional overload in the aftermath of such an incident.

-Mike

 

[qqac]

If the cops wanted to be really nice to you they would say "Please don't feel compelled to say anything until you get an attorney. We'll take you back to the station and give you a hot cup of coffee and a handshake. " How often does that happen?

Of course they don't automatically want to be nice to you. You could be a bona fide BG. They need to try to assess that initially.

Having served on a Jury and witnessed this firsthand, it doesn't take much to make a jury believe that you are a fruitcake and anything you say is not worthy of being considered evidence. The Juror's trust in a witness is a very fragile thing.

Frankly, I have far less faith in juries than I do in LEOs. A jury is a crapshoot.

Sorry but you are hopelessly naive if you believe that a car accident and an SD shooting are anywhere near the same thing. The political overtones of either event are not even on the same planet.

I disagree--drunk driving homicide (which it might have been perceived as, though I had absolutely zero alcohol) is a political hot button.

 

[Billsail]

.

 

[M1911]

qqac:

Some time back, I was at a one day seminar about the use of deadly force. The speakers included the above-mentioned Kevin Reddington and another MA criminal defense attorney who had been an ADA in Suffolk County for a dozen years. They have both successfully defended clients on the basis of self defense. And they both adamantly said that after a self-defense incident that you should shut up.

Mas Ayoob, who has been involved in quite a few self defense court cases, has suggested that you should say something like "he attacked me, I feared for my life and had to stop him. I'll answer all your questions after I speak with my attorney."

Attorney Lisa Steele, who has worked on appeals of self defense cases, provides this annotated Miranda warning:

Text of Typical Miranda Warning Meaning
You have the right to remain silent; Shut up.
anything you say can and will be used
against you in a court of law; Shut up – very little that you say can be
used in your favor.

you have the right to an attorney; Who will tell you to shut up until he or she
meets with you.

if you cannot afford one, one will be
provided to you free of charge. The government will pay someone to tell
you to shut up until they meet with you.

The fact that all of these folks who have extensive experience with the justice system are telling you to shut the heck up should tell you something.

Many of us keep guns for personal protection at home and on our person do so because we know that bad things can happen to good people. We realize that people who think nothing bad can ever happen to them have their heads in the sand.

And yet many of us still cling to the notion that nothing bad could ever happen to us in the legal aftermath. That is just as misguided as those who think they will never be the victim of crime. Ayoob has seen the legal aftermath and is convinced that more than a few innocent men have been put in jail.

The police officer who responds to the scene doesn't know that you are a "good guy." The same is true of the detective who arrives later, and the assistant DA assigned to the case. And here in MA, chances are that at least one of those representatives of the legal system believes that only two kinds of people carry guns: cops and bad guys.

A few years back, a woman in Waltham was in her home when a drunk criminal came into her home. She told him to leave and pointed her gun at him. He laughed and started to approach her. She shot him. It took more than six months for the DA to decide not to charge her, at which time the chief of police in her town decided to revoke her LTC (until he was talked out of it by her lawyer).

If you think the cop at the scene is going to smile, clap you on the back, say "good shoot", and walk away, you are dreaming.

 

[Tyke]

Was there not a youtube clip posted here recently where a law professor and former criminal defense lawyer stated to not talk to the police...ever? No matter how trivial the question is.

Kicker was that he then invited a police detective up to give his view...and he stated the same thing!

 

[drgrant]

Of course they don't automatically want to be nice to you. You could be a bona fide BG. They need to try to assess that initially.

My assertion still stands- even if they do want to be nice to you, there is nothing to be gained by providing (possibly inaccurate) statements that could be used against you later.

Frankly, I have far less faith in juries than I do in LEOs. A jury is a crapshoot.

Yeah, well, a LEO, even a good one, isn't going to "save" you from a jury in such a situation, regardless.

I disagree--drunk driving homicide (which it might have been perceived as) is a political hot button.

Not compared to a self defense shooting. Not even close. Not to mention in a DUI type of case there are a lot less things someone can bone themselves on. 99% of those cases all hinge around whether or not someone blew into the breathalyzer or not, or whether or not a legally admissible blood sample was taken.

Lawful self defense is a million times more subjective than any DUI case ever could think of being.

-Mike

 

[Mr Weebles]

Yes, credibility with the responding officers, among others. Good, honest cops are not your enemy. Cops and prosecutors do not need to throw innocent citizens in prison to justify their jobs -- there are plenty of BGs around to ensure that. If the report concludes a shooting appeared to be justified self defense, the prosecutor will have no reason to push it, and you've likely nipped the inquiry in the bud. Prosecutors in fact have an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence, so the innocent are not railroaded. Several years ago I was involved in a MV accident where a person died. I established my credibility and lack of culpability with the responding PO at the scene, and that was the end of the inquiry. No further questioning, no charges brought, not even a civil claim.

Just out of curiousity, what is it like in the magical fantasy world you live in? Do unicorns fart rainbows and prance among the clouds? Do adorable little elves bring you fluffy kittens to play with whenever you're sad?

 

[Terminator03]

qqac:

Some time back, I was at a one day seminar about the use of deadly force. The speakers included the above-mentioned Kevin Reddington and another MA criminal defense attorney who had been an ADA in Suffolk County for a dozen years. They have both successfully defended clients on the basis of self defense. And they both adamantly said that after a self-defense incident that you should shut up.

Mas Ayoob, who has been involved in quite a few self defense court cases, has suggested that you should say something like "he attacked me, I feared for my life and had to stop him. I'll answer all your questions after I speak with my attorney."

Attorney Lisa Steele, who has worked on appeals of self defense cases, provides this annotated Miranda warning:



The fact that all of these folks who have extensive experience with the justice system are telling you to shut the heck up should tell you something.

Many of us keep guns for personal protection at home and on our person do so because we know that bad things can happen to good people. We realize that people who think nothing bad can ever happen to them have their heads in the sand.

And yet many of us still cling to the notion that nothing bad could ever happen to us in the legal aftermath. That is just as misguided as those who think they will never be the victim of crime. Ayoob has seen the legal aftermath and is convinced that more than a few innocent men have been put in jail.

The police officer who responds to the scene doesn't know that you are a "good guy." The same is true of the detective who arrives later, and the assistant DA assigned to the case. And here in MA, chances are that at least one of those representatives of the legal system believes that only two kinds of people carry guns: cops and bad guys.

A few years back, a woman in Waltham was in her home when a drunk criminal came into her home. She told him to leave and pointed her gun at him. He laughed and started to approach her. She shot him. It took more than six months for the DA to decide not to charge her, at which time the chief of police in her town decided to revoke her LTC (until he was talked out of it by her lawyer).

If you think the cop at the scene is going to smile, clap you on the back, say "good shoot", and walk away, you are dreaming.

^that is the key point right there that I highlighted! Regardless of whether you are truly justified, or not, you have no way of knowing how the people involved in your case will view it because nothing is ever black and white when humans are involved. Everything is weighed against personal beliefs, and interpretation regardless of how "impartial" they are supposed to be.

 

[qqac]

qqac:

Some time back, I was at a one day seminar about the use of deadly force. The speakers included the above-mentioned Kevin Reddington and another MA criminal defense attorney who had been an ADA in Suffolk County for a dozen years. They have both successfully defended clients on the basis of self defense. And they both adamantly said that after a self-defense incident that you should shut up.

Mas Ayoob, who has been involved in quite a few self defense court cases, has suggested that you should say something like "he attacked me, I feared for my life and had to stop him. I'll answer all your questions after I speak with my attorney."

Attorney Lisa Steele, who has worked on appeals of self defense cases, provides this annotated Miranda warning:



The fact that all of these folks who have extensive experience with the justice system are telling you to shut the heck up should tell you something.

First, they are dumbing down the advice to address the lowest common denominator intellect.

Second, it's good for business to promote this dependency on lawyers. "You need a good lawyer, and I happen to be one."

 

[drgrant]

First, they are dumbing down the advice to address the lowest common denominator intellect.

Second, it's good for business to promote this dependency on lawyers. "You need a good lawyer, and I happen to be one."

It's one thing to suggest that you don't need a lawyer if you're going to traffic court or small claims court, or even housing court. In most cases in those venues a lawyer might be overkill.

Criminal defense is not something you should chinse out on- the potential costs of failure in such a case, is usually pretty staggering.

It's easy to say "Bah, I don't need a lawyer" if you are suing some guy in court because he peed on your rug. It's not so easy to say that when the state is potentially taking YOU to court for murder just for defending yourself.

Note that I am not a lawyer, nor do I harbor any special fondess for them... but they are a necessary evil, particularly when one is on the wrong side of the jury box.

-Mike

 

[M1911]

First, they are dumbing down the advice to address the lowest common denominator intellect.

Right. Because you're a smart guy and you can handle talking to a cop, even though you've just been through the most traumatic moment in your life, you've got so much adrenalin running through you that your arms are bouncing up and down, and your heart rate is settled into a nice, steady 150 bpm. Sure thing, tough guy.

You might want to watch this point of view from a veteran police officer: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912

 

[Stef]

Oh boy, another one...

 

[qqac]

My assertion still stands- even if they do want to be nice to you, there is nothing to be gained by providing (possibly inaccurate) statements that could be used against you later.

Yeah, well, a LEO, even a good one, isn't going to "save" you from a jury in such a situation, regardless.

If you establish your actions were justified, and the police conclude that is the case, the matter will not reach indictment. That is how convincing a LEO in the first instance can save you from going in front of a jury later.

Not compared to a self defense shooting. Not even close. Not to mention in a DUI type of case there are a lot less things someone can bone themselves on. 99% of those cases all hinge around whether or not someone blew into the breathalyzer or not, or whether or not a legally admissible blood sample was taken.

Lawful self defense is a million times more subjective than any DUI case ever could think of being.

-Mike

The point is not really about subjectivity, but rather the high political and community pressure for prosecution of those types of cases, i.e. DUI's causing death. But if you want to talk about subjectivity, how about blowing a .07? Not black and white.

 

[Stef]

If you establish your actions were justified, and the police conclude that is the case, the matter will not reach indictment. That is how convincing a LEO in the first instance can save you from going in front of a jury later.

LEOs don't decide if a case goes forward for indictment. You gain NOTHING by speaking to them.

 

[M1911]

If you establish your actions were justified, and the police conclude that is the case, the matter will not reach indictment. That is how convincing a LEO in the first instance can save you from going in front of a jury later.

It is hardly ever that black and white.

 

[lancecolonel]

First, they are dumbing down the advice to address the lowest common denominator intellect.

so it should go without saying that those of the "highest intellect" will heed this advice as well....

Second, it's good for business to promote this dependency on lawyers. "You need a good lawyer, and I happen to be one."

if you were a plumber would you give detailed instructions to some random person on how to install a gas water heater? or would you just say "hooking up gas lines is best left to someone who knows exactly what they're doing. call me if you need one hooked up."

i know what i would do in both situations.............

 

[qqac]

Right. Because you're a smart guy and you can handle talking to a cop, even though you've just been through the most traumatic moment in your life, you've got so much adrenalin running through you that your arms are bouncing up and down, and your heart rate is settled into a nice, steady 150 bpm. Sure thing, tough guy.

You might want to watch this point of view from a veteran police officer: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6014022229458915912

Sorry, but that video presentation does not support your position. PO Bruch's examples are of interrogating people who in fact committed the crimes (but are not yet guilty of the crime, legally) and how he gets to that guilty.Note that he also said he is not out to put anyone innocent in prison.

 

[kevin9]

Frankly, I have far less faith in juries than I do in LEOs. A jury is a crapshoot.

...Second, it's good for business to promote this dependency on lawyers. "You need a good lawyer, and I happen to be one."

... You made the decision to fire. Man the f**** up! If you fired in self defense, let the facts speak for themselves. Just remember and exercise your Miranda rights if you don't like how the questioning is going. You are smart enough to be able to tell.

 

[MichaelJR]

If anyone honestly thinks it's a good idea to speak to cops about anything aside from directions, you've been run over by the dummy bus.

 

[center442]

LEOs don't device if a case goes forward for indictment. You gain NOTHING by speaking to them.

Exactly. The police at the scene could believe you were 100% justified in your actions. That is still not going to prevent a DA or ADA from going to the Grand Jury and pressing for an indictment.

What's that saying about a prosecutor getting a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich? I'm not a cop basher by any stretch of the imagination, but if the SHTF the first person I'm going to want to speak to (after any medical care I may need) is an attorney.

BTW, that advice came to me from two separate police officers and an attorney. Fortunately, I have never had to practice what I preach. I sincerely hope I, and everyone else here, never has to. As with many things in life, YMMV.