Attorney/Lawyer what do people use?

[M1911]

It seems to me that most officers would be expecting you to say that you're innocent - so my question would be is it just as beneficial to politely state that you wish to speak to your attorney before giving any statement or answering any questions?

How can you be "innocent?" You are standing over a body holding a gun in your hand. You shot him. You intended to shoot him. He needed to be shot because he was attacking you. If you say "I didn't do it" or "I'm innocent", well, that's not going to help your case.

As discussed above, you don't want to get into any details, because you will not be thinking clearly. But you do want to set the stage for your defense. "He was going to kill me, I had to stop him."

I've seen some good suggestions here - mine has been to call any of my friends who are lawyers (6 degrees of separation, every family probably already knows one) at least to get through arraignment and bail.

You really want to call a criminal defense attorney. The guy who did your will is not the right guy.

 

[digitaldon37]

How can you be "innocent?" You are standing over a body holding a gun in your hand. You shot him. You intended to shoot him. He needed to be shot because he was attacking you. If you say "I didn't do it" or "I'm innocent", well, that's not going to help your case.

As discussed above, you don't want to get into any details, because you will not be thinking clearly. But you do want to set the stage for your defense. "He was going to kill me, I had to stop him."


You really want to call a criminal defense attorney. The guy who did your will is not the right guy.

When I said "innocence" I meant what you are calling "setting the stage" - don't officers expect you to say that?

I also didn't mean to infer that my tax attorney would be trying the case, only that he might be someone that I already have a good relationship with so that I could call on in an emergency.

 

[M1911]

When I said "innocence" I meant what you are calling "setting the stage" - don't officers expect you to say that?

Here in MA, I suspect that the vast majority of the shootings at a homicide detective responds to are either 1) gang-related (NHI) or 2) domestics. I want the police to at least consider that this is something different, that I'm not just another dirtbag who shot someone.

So I want to be on record from the very beginning that my life was in danger and I was trying to stop the attack (not kill the attacker, even though he may well have died as a result -- the distinction is very important).

Finally, even if the police expect you to say it was self defense, you still need to say it right from the start. Otherwise, at trial, the detective will pointedly say on the stand that you said nothing about self defense when he interviewed you at the scene -- you only started talking about self defense after you had spoken to your lawyer. That won't look good to the jury.

 

[digitaldon37]

Finally, even if the police expect you to say it was self defense, you still need to say it right from the start. Otherwise, at trial, the detective will pointedly say on the stand that you said nothing about self defense when he interviewed you at the scene -- you only started talking about self defense after you had spoken to your lawyer. That won't look good to the jury.

That is a good point - I hadn't considered what the jury might think. I had been looking at it from a risk/reward POV; if the risks (self incrimination) outweighed the reward (the officer might be influenced) I didn't see the need. But you're right -the jury might presume guilt if one didn't say anything at time of arrest.

 

[M1911]

That is a good point - I hadn't considered what the jury might think. I had been looking at it from a risk/reward POV; if the risks (self incrimination) outweighed the reward (the officer might be influenced) I didn't see the need. But you're right -the jury might presume guilt if one didn't say anything at time of arrest.

You still want to keep it very short and worded very carefully. The temptation will be to just start talking as you want to explain how this all happened and that you are the good guy. Something along the lines of "he was going to kill me, I had to stop him, I will answer all of your questions, but first I need to speak to my lawyer." That statement indicates a few things: 1) you thought that you were in immediate danger of death or grave bodily injury, which is necessary to justify the use of deadly force. 2) Your intent was simply to stop the attack.

If you haven't already, I suggest that you take Mas Ayoob's MAG-20 classroom instruction: MAG-20/Classroom – Armed Citizens’ Rules of Engagement: http://massadayoobgroup.com/?page_id=7

Ayoob covers these issues in far more detail (and with more firsthand experience of the legal system) than any other instructor.

 

[RichM]

Also remember that there MAY be other information that you DO want to give the police at the scene: "The other guy was wearing a dark blue sweatshirt, blue jeans, fluorescent green sneakers, with short hair. He may be hurt, too, and he was running that way."

Thanks, Half and Len, for your help in this as well... we appreciate your experience.

 

[qqac]

Thankfully, there's only one person here who is going to be adversely affected by this horrific legal advice

Whoa there cowboy! Did you forget Northeastshooters.com is an internet discussion forum? Nothing posted here constitutes "legal advice." If you look back through the beginning of this thread, you'll see that I never mentioned being an attorney. Someone else undertook to look that up and post it. I was participating in this discussion as a gun owner. Although I happen also to have in my background being an attorney (a civil attorney, and I never held myself out to be a criminal defense attorney here), I was not posting in that capacity, I was not advocating on your behalf, and I was certainly not giving any of you "legal advice" (without a retainer! ). Does everything you post here come as your professional opinion as a plumber/accountant/mechanic/engineer/gynecologist/fill-in-the-blank? Of course not.

 

[qqac]

So now the pendulum in this thread is starting to swing from "keep your mouth shut" to "make a statement"? Glad it's starting to get through to you.


Now back to the discussion. Say you shoot someone in SD and the responding officers want to ask you a few questions. You refuse to respond without an attorney. Sure, you are within your rights, and the police officers intellectually recognize that you are within your rights and that they cannot hold it against you, but their gut reaction will be, this guy is hiding something. It would be like teasing a dog with a T-bone steak. They won't forget it, they won't let it go and all they want to do is clamp down their jaws on it.


Compare that to a situation where you give a clear, simple statement of your perception of what occurred: the threat of immediate grave bodily harm or death by the other person, the reasonable fear for your personal safety that you felt, the warning that you gave, the inability to safely retreat (or that the incident took place in your home if you can claim the castle doctrine defense), that the other guy was not leaving or retreating. Sure, you might be shaking with adrenalin, and you might have to compose yourself first, but you get that on the record right up front as an extemporaneous statement, and it is powerful, clear and convincing. Clear and convincing enough that no charges are ever brought. Get it on the record early and present a clear, coherent picture.

 

[qqac]

You think this only happens on TV and not real life? You can Google for news reports from across the country of recent self defense shooting incidents where the shooter spoke with police and charges were not brought: a convenience store clerk in New Orleans, a homeowner in Spartanburg, SC, a store clerk in Fresno, CA, a homeowner in Greensboro, NC. Do you think the store clerks had the resources to lawyer up first before being questioned? Not likely. But you won't get away with doing this in the People's Republic of MA, you say? Many of you remember the 2009 case in Wilbraham, MA, where a homeowner shot a psychotic neighbor, David Gatti, who had entered his condo. The homeowner "fully cooperated" with the police. Translation: the homeowner talked to the police without an attorney. No charges were filed. The police determined the evidence demonstrated self defense and would not support the filing of charges. By talking with police at the scene and presenting a statement justifying his actions, he avoided arrest. He was not dragged into the system. If he had refused to talk without an attorney, he most definitely would have been arrested and jailed and required to post bail. Huge difference.


Contrast that with the case of Tom Toolan, an banker from Manhattan who was accused of stabbing his ex-girlfriend in Nantucket. He lawyered up, hiring one of the best his money could buy (Kevin Reddington, no less). Toolan was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison. How about the Richard Sharpe case? Sharpe was a wealthy physician who shot his wife, then lawyered up with Joe Balliro, another very prominent and expensive MA criminal defense attorney. Since he had it all planned, Sharpe did not say a thing without his attorney. Sharpe was found guilty, lost his appeals and spent the rest of his life as a woman in the state correctional institute, until he hanged himself. How about the billionaire Galleon hedge fund owner Raj Rajaratnam? No doubt he followed the conventional wisdom and didn't say a thing either, and with the best lawyers a billion dollars could buy, Raj ended up being indicted, tried, and convicted on all counts. That is not to say any of these are bad lawyers. They are very fine, well regarded lawyers. The point is you need to do a few things to help yourself, and help your lawyer help you. If you think keeping the number of a great defense lawyer in your cell phone speed dial will save the day, you've been watching too much Perry Mason.

 

[qqac]

You need to learn the law of self defense in the jurisdiction where you are. Know it cold. Practice recognizing scenarios where deadly force is or is not legally justified. Practice this just like you practice handling and firing your guns. You need to be able to recognize the situation as it unfolds, remember it in detail, and make a split second decision whether to fire--all automatically. If you don't know the rules, are a hothead, or for whatever other reason are prone to shooting people prematurely, reconsider whether you should have an LTC or guns at all. If you don't know the law in advance, won't give up your guns, and are determined to shoot people on your own terns rather than strictly in accordance with law, then you should be prepared for the consequences.


Maybe you think the laws are too complicated to understand and even if you do understand them, you can't be expected to remember them at times of stress. Does not knowing the law and panicking ever entitle someone to shoot another person dead? What if you and your neighbor were arguing, and he draws his gun and shoots you because he was afraid you were getting too angry and he knew you carried. Would that be right? Should he be able to call his lawyer and concoct a story to get away with it?

 

[qqac]

Someone mentioned the case of Harold Fish, the 57 year old schoolteacher who was hiking in AZ and shot a person he claimed attacked him. First off, make no mistake: what happened to Mr. Fish was a tragedy, everything from the encounter to the legal proceedings. However, if you dig up the details of the case (and you have to look at the court decisions and legal briefs, not just news reports), you would realize that Mr. Fish cooperating with police and speaking to them without an attorney was NOT his big mistake. Jurors in post-verdict interviews said the inconsistencies in Mr. Fish's statements did not bother them and were perfectly understandable. In fact, Mr. Fish's cooperation almost got him off the hook. The police were going to write it off as justified self defense, until the community raised a ruckus in support of the person who died, presented a 300 person petition, and forced the DA to take a second look. Mr. Fish's big mistake was that he stood his ground as the other person, Grant Kuenzli, ran toward him. This was not in his house. It was in the open, in a public park. At the time of the incident, AZ castle doctrine applied to home, curtilage and vehicle, otherwise there was a duty to retreat. This was such a big mistake and there was so much sympathy for Mr. Fish that AZ afterward changed the law to allow standing your ground in public places under certain circumstances, and passed a separate law to make it retroactive should Mr. Fish be re-tried. In any event, Mr. Fish could have and, under the law at the time, should have retreated up the trail. Mr. Kuenzli had 2 dogs that ran toward Mr. Fish, but Mr. Fish said the dogs had backed off and run away after he fired a warning shot at the dogs (they were rescue dogs from the pound being taken for a walk, not trained guard dogs or fighting dogs). Mr. Kuenzli did not brandish and in fact did not have a long distance weapon (he had a screwdriver in his back pocket, which Mr. Fish never saw), so Mr. Kuenzli could not have really harmed Mr. Fish from a distance as Mr. Fish was retreating. If Mr. Kuenzli continued to chase him down as Mr. Fish retreated, Mr. Fish would have had much more defensible justification. Having a lawyer at initial questioning would not have helped him (other than to fabricate a lie to fit the law). Knowing the self defense law better, in advance, could have.

 

[terraformer]

In re #190 second paragraph.

Dude, those examples aren't self defense scenarios. They were murderers. Do you think all gun owners are murderers???

 

[qqac]

A few people here seem to harbor extreme cynicism about the justice system. Look up the code of conduct for prosecutors in MA, SJC Rule 3:07, sub-Rule 3.8. They have a duty not to prosecute if there is no probable cause. They have a duty to disclose excuplatory evidence, and not avoid pursuit of exculpatory evidence. If they breach their duties and engage in misconduct like railroading a gun owner just because they are anti-gun or want to rack up statistics, the consequence is that the case gets dismissed, the conviction gets overturned. If you think even all the trial judges and appellate judges are corrupt, well, you may as well just end it all now. No lawyer can help you if there isn't a fair judge to argue before.

 

[qqac]

Dude, those examples aren't self defense scenarios. They were murderers. Do you think all gun owners are murderers???

No, of course I don't think gun owners are murderers. That's why I believe you can and should make an initial statement justifying your actions in the event of a shooting. But be sure to get your wits together, and mostly importantly, learn the law beforehand.

 

[terraformer]

In re fish: Duty to retreat doesn't mean physically and isn't absolute. It is a deescalation clause. If someone is running after you, you can't ddeescalate. Nor does running away from someone running at you really necessary. He was out in the open and had no where to go.

 

[qqac]

Remember the Paul Langone hospital shooting back in 2009? It happened on October 27th. It wasn't until March 31st of 2010 that the DA ruled the shooting justified and declined to press criminal charges. A five month investigation before the guy could breath a sigh of relief. I thought that was one of the cleanest shoots I ever heard of.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I have to wonder how much of that time the DA spent trying to find something to charge the guy with.

That's the consequence of shooting someone. It is not the consequence of having or not having a lawyer. It's worse if you say nothing, demand an attorney, and get arrested.

 

[qqac]

In re fish: Duty to retreat doesn't mean physically and isn't absolute. It is a deescalation clause. If someone is running after you, you can't ddeescalate. Nor does running away from someone running at you really necessary. He was out in the open and had no where to go.

Yes it does mean physically. You need to try to leave the scene, or back away from the aggressor. It does not mean you have to de-escalate or "talk him down."

How does being out in the open mean you have nowhere to go? You can go anywhere! Kuenzli did not have a gun, did not brandish a gun. Mr. Fish could have drawn, then backed away while keeping his eyes on Kuenzli in case Kuenzli drew a weapon. Yes, he takes a greater risk that way, but it is a risk you have to take as a responsible gun carrier. You can't just go around shooting people out of precaution.

 

[terraformer]

A few people here seem to harbor extreme cynicism about the justice system. Look up the code of conduct for prosecutors in MA, SJC Rule 3:07, sub-Rule 3.8. They have a duty not to prosecute if there is no probable cause. They have a duty to disclose excuplatory evidence, and not avoid pursuit of exculpatory evidence. If they breach their duties and engage in misconduct like railroading a gun owner just because they are anti-gun or want to rack up statistics, the consequence is that the case gets dismissed, the conviction gets overturned. If you think even all the trial judges and appellate judges are corrupt, well, you may as well just end it all now. No lawyer can help you if there isn't a fair judge to argue before.

Stick to civil and administrative law. In two years I have seen that code of ethics violated multiple times. More importantly, prosecutors have absolute discretion to prosecute and many do based on their own personal morality and biases.

 

[drgrant]

A few people here seem to harbor extreme cynicism about the justice system. Look up the code of conduct for prosecutors in MA, SJC Rule 3:07, sub-Rule 3.8. They have a duty not to prosecute if there is no probable cause. They have a duty to disclose excuplatory evidence, and not avoid pursuit of exculpatory evidence. If they breach their duties and engage in misconduct like railroading a gun owner just because they are anti-gun or want to rack up statistics, the consequence is that the case gets dismissed, the conviction gets overturned. If you think even all the trial judges and appellate judges are corrupt, well, you may as well just end it all now. No lawyer can help you if there isn't a fair judge to argue before.

Pure bullshit. The justice system routinely f**ks people over, and never really gets punished for it.... It's not about the Judges, either, its's about the moonbat DAs and prosecutors that exist in a lot of states, pushing crap cases.

Look into Mr. Girard's case, for starters.... You know a prosecutor/DA is full of shit when 95% of the charges against someone get dropped, all at once. (eg, http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x1036629599/Manchester-man-escapes-time-in-jail)

The only time the system ever gets punished for misconduct is that if it's so over the top egregious, that they can't hide it- for example, in the Duke Lacrosse "rape" case. Even then Nifong got off relatively easy, when frankly I think he should have been executed.

-Mike

 

[OfficerObie59]

If you think even all the trial judges and appellate judges are corrupt, well, you may as well just end it all now. No lawyer can help you if there isn't a fair judge to argue before.

for what it's worth, even for someone who is a general defender of the justice system, there's quite a bit of evidence to suggest that a number of judges are guided by an anti-gun ideology when it comes to RKBA. Example #1 in my head was the SJC decision that used a distorted take on originalism to uphold the safe storage law--basically, even though the state wasn't bound at the time to follow Heller, the law would still be constitutional as it would take the same time to load a flintlock in 1791 as it would to unlock a modern weapon.

That type of intellectual dishonesty seems particularly pervasive when it comes to gun issues in the Commonwealth, and its a valid argument to suggest that dishonesty and corruption are one in the same.

 

[M1911]

Contrast that with the case of Tom Toolan, an banker from Manhattan who was accused of stabbing his ex-girlfriend in Nantucket. He lawyered up, hiring one of the best his money could buy (Kevin Reddington, no less). Toolan was indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to life in prison.

So, you are saying that Tom Toolan, who flew to Nantucket to stab his girlfriend to death would have gotten off if he'd made a statement to the police?

How about the Richard Sharpe case? Sharpe was a wealthy physician who shot his wife, then lawyered up with Joe Balliro, another very prominent and expensive MA criminal defense attorney. Since he had it all planned, Sharpe did not say a thing without his attorney. Sharpe was found guilty, lost his appeals and spent the rest of his life as a woman in the state correctional institute, until he hanged himself.

So, you're saying that Richard Sharpe, who shot his wife in front of her brother and others in the foyer of their home, would have gotten off if he'd made a statement to police?

If you think keeping the number of a great defense lawyer in your cell phone speed dial will save the day, you've been watching too much Perry Mason.

And, once again, another strawman argument from qqac.

qqac, just stop.

 

[Stef]

Whoa there cowboy! Did you forget Northeastshooters.com is an internet discussion forum? Nothing posted here constitutes "legal advice."

Bullshit, cowboy. It's legal advice no matter what the source is. In this case, it happens to be horrible legal advice and worth every penny we paid for it.

 

[terraformer]

QQAC,
Three men, all unknown to each other, cross paths in the desert at the same time. X has no weapon on him. Y has a knife. Z has a gun. X and Y get into a verbal argument. Y pushes X and X pushes him back. X then says he has no desire to fight and puts his hands up. Y pulls a knife and proceeds towards X. X makes no movement to physically retreat. Z shoots Y.

Valid self defense scenario? Why or why not?

 

[terraformer]

Pure bullshit. The justice system routinely f**ks people over, and never really gets punished for it.... It's not about the Judges, either, its's about the moonbat DAs and prosecutors that exist in a lot of states, pushing crap cases.

Look into Mr. Girard's case, for starters.... You know a prosecutor/DA is full of shit when 95% of the charges against someone get dropped, all at once. (eg, http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x1036629599/Manchester-man-escapes-time-in-jail)

The only time the system ever gets punished for misconduct is that if it's so over the top egregious, that they can't hide it- for example, in the Duke Lacrosse "rape" case. Even then Nifong got off relatively easy, when frankly I think he should have been executed.

-Mike

Nifong should have went to jail at least but he had absolute discretion to prosecute so you can see how that would work out. Ironically, because the lacrosse players were white and rich is why he was punished at all. Had that scenario been flipped, he would still be a DA to this day.

But he is not the best example of this. Take Cubby Robison (http://jerobison.blogspot.com/2009/05/cubbys-day-in-court.html) or Clint Cornelius (http://freeclint.com/). Cubby is definitely the best example of the three. DA Scheibel is probably more dangerous than nifong as she has a clear pattern of this type of abuse. She is the DA for the two above and is also the DA that prosecuted the court clerk who failed to return a bathroom key in the court house.

 

[Boghog1]

Yes it does mean physically. You need to try to leave the scene, or back away from the aggressor. It does not mean you have to de-escalate or "talk him down."

How does being out in the open mean you have nowhere to go? You can go anywhere! Kuenzli did not have a gun, did not brandish a gun. Mr. Fish could have drawn, then backed away while keeping his eyes on Kuenzli in case Kuenzli drew a weapon. Yes, he takes a greater risk that way, but it is a risk you have to take as a responsible gun carrier. You can't just go around shooting people out of precaution.

Were you able to type that with a straight face? ever hear of Tom Ball, the civil court is just as bad as the criminal court when it comes to its abuses

 

[Blitz1]

qqac,

Wow. Seriously?

 

[Boghog1]

here is a name she authored some self defense article in another thread
Lisa Steele
Legal Experience: 20 years
Jurisdictions: Massachusetts
BOLTON, MA 01740
(978) 368-1238

I wonder if she has a contact for someone in NH

 

[terraformer]

here is a name she authored some self defense article in another thread
Lisa Steele
Legal Experience: 20 years
Jurisdictions: Massachusetts
BOLTON, MA 01740
(978) 368-1238

I wonder if she has a contact for someone in NH

Lisa is an appeals court specialist and does not do district court cases.

ETA: Here is the article BTW...
http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/f587d7d10c34fff2852572b90069bc3c?OpenDocument

 

[center442]

That's the consequence of shooting someone. It is not the consequence of having or not having a lawyer. It's worse if you say nothing, demand an attorney, and get arrested.

Paul Langone did, in fact, have lengthy conversations with the police regarding the shooting. I'm happy that it ended well for him.

But consider: If Langone had been indicted isn't it likely that some of his own comments would have been used against him at trial?

Making a brief, simple statement to the police after a shooting that asserts your innocence might well be fine. The problem is the tendency of people following a traumatic event like a shooting to go far beyond that simple statement and enter into a dialogue and say all sorts of things. You can't put the words back in your mouth after you've uttered them. What might seem like perfectly justifiable behavior to the shooter might be viewed very differently by the police. I'd rather say nothing than the wrong thing.

BTW, could you explain to me why it took a 5 month investigation to exonerate Langone? Please don't tell me that it took the DA all that time to conduct her "investigation." If that's the case, there are a whole lot of people being quickly indicted who aren't getting the benefit of such a thorough investigation. My bet would be that it took 5 months to decide that Langone wasn't a politically correct subject for prosecution.

When I was a child I believed that the legal system was about dispensing justice. As I grew up I put away childish things. The legal system I see about me now is more about dispensing legalities at the expense of true justice. Perhaps if I were a lawyer or independently wealthy I'd have a different view.