Has anyone ever seen a list of things you should
do as a concealed carry person,
to
achieve some sort of credibility, (post shooting)
in a court case?

what would a defense lawyer love to see before he accepts your case?

I am not talking about defending a L.E.O. a body guard, just a plain old civilian.

does the court even recognize any schools, training courses or fire arms academy's ?

would it make any difference to a jury ?
if you spent $700.00 every three years to hone your skills?

-put your gun away
-Call 911
advise there has been a [break-in, burglary,etc] and someone has been shot, please send EMS.
-hang up
-when the cops get there, tell them you will give a statement, after you have spoken t0 your lawyer
-then shut up

I would think your training classes could be used on both sides of a court case.

One side could show that your were skilled with your weapon handling and safe and knew you could only shoot to defend life.

Other side could say you were blood-thirsty and enjoyed practicing or pretending to shoot people...

Repeat this



"I feared for my life, I would like my Lawyer present" repeat this hundreds of times.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
-put your gun away
-Call 911
advise there has been a [break-in, burglary,etc] and someone has been shot, please send EMS.
-hang up
-when the cops get there, tell them you will give a statement, after you have spoken t0 your lawyer
-then shut up

All but "hang up". Stay on the line, even when the police arrive and direct you through your surrender to them. That way anything that happens may be on tape at the dispatch center.

quote:

Originally posted by chessiedog1:
Repeat this



"I feared for my life, I would like my Lawyer present" repeat this hundreds of times.

For goodness sakes, never say this. Ever. Only guilty people say this.

Say something like “ I want to cooperate fully. I want to speak to an attorney first.

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
-put your gun away
-Call 911
advise there has been a [break-in, burglary,etc] and someone has been shot, please send EMS.
-hang up
-when the cops get there, tell them you will give a statement, after you have spoken t0 your lawyer
-then shut up

All but "hang up". Stay on the line, even when the police arrive and direct you through your surrender to them. That way anything that happens may be on tape at the dispatch center.

my advise to hang up was so that there could be no possibility of 911 asking what happened, and you saying something that could be used againt you. I know the telecommunicators are trained to seek answers so they knwo what type of help to send or get rolling towards the incident.

And people instinctively want to tell their side of the story. But I would hang up.
if someone asked why?
I could always say I was trying to render help to the injured or to my family or someone depending on the situation. or that you didn't realize you hung up. But not having a TC pester you about what happened and then you not answering or trying say one thing and then doing another will get you in a bind. There not being arecording is better in some situations.

quote:

what would a defense lawyer love to see before he accepts your case?

A big retainer.

quote:

-when the cops get there, tell them you will give a statement, after you have spoken to your lawyer
-then shut up

Gabe Suarez says otherwise. Just sayin'.

He offers a class on post-shooting and simply shutting up and lawyering up isn't part of it.

I have not taken his class but have read his blogs.

quote:

Originally posted by bendable:
does the court even recognize any schools, training courses or fire arms academy's ?

would it make any difference to a jury ?
if you spent $700.00 every three years to hone your skills?

I seriously doubt that would make a difference toward the outcome. I guess a prosecutor may try to paint you as overzealous, but it would likely be pretty far down the list of factors to be considered. I haven't seen any good summary of the data, but I'm guessing the vast majority of cases come down to willing vs unwilling participant and credible threat from the assailant.

Training can be useful in defending a case. In Washington, a subjective view is used to determine whether self defense has been disproved beyond a reasonable doubt. Subjective means that the jury determines whether someone in your position knowing what you know, being as physically able as you are able, and fearing what you feared acted with reasonable self defense. This allows a defense attorney to bring the trainer on the stand and tell the jury how and why you acted as you did. Some states use objective, rather than subjective determinations to establish self defense. Talk to an attorney in your state because it will vary from state to state how self defense is established and how the State will need to prove or disprove self defense.

All that other stuff about hanging up, etc. is all relative. There just isn't a catch all except this: TO THE ABSOLUTE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, DO NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY PRESENT.

"I assert my right to remain silent."

"I assert my right to counsel."

Then shut up until your lawyer gets there. Don't yak in the back of the squad, don't sing in the holding cell with the other defendants.


Police don't charge you with crimes, the district attorney's office does.

You trust your local law enforcement? You play poker with all the guys in that precinct? Good for you. Police do not charge, the district attorney does (or, more likely and assistant DA).

I worked a case where the investigating officer told me, straight up, that a particular defendant should not have been charged with charge X (the defendant was arrested that night on a different charge, charge Y). Three months after the defendant's arrest on charge Y, the assistant DA charged the defendant with charge X (in addition to charge Y). Again, law enforcement can recommend charges, and can write their reports so that it appears that all the elements of a charge are present, but the district attorney's office decides what defendants are charged with (on the state level).

Sometimes such charges are legit. Sometimes they're political. I've also see them be personal (no it shouldn't happen, but yes, it does happen; no, there isn't much you can do about it as a defendant or defense attorney).

There are only two people in the system looking out for you, and, unless you already are a criminal defense attorney working in that jurisdiction, likely only one of you knows the system.


"I assert my right to remain silent."

Why is it important to assert the right to remain silent? Because law enforcement cannot question you alone, after you assert that right. The right must be affirmatively asserted (just keeping your mouth shut isn't good enough). Asserting this right does not mean you cannot later waive the right by talking (but before talking, please, please, discuss what you want to say with your defense attorney).


"I assert my right to counsel."

Why is it important to assert the right to legal counsel? Because you are the only one who can do so. The ghost of Johnny Cochrane could like your case so much that he comes back to represent you. Your mother could retain the ghost of Johnny Cochrane to represent you. But, unless you ask for counsel, police don't have to give counsel access to you. Your lawyer could be eight feet away on the other side of the cell wall: the police do not have to inform you that she's there, trying to get to you to give you advice. You have to ask for it.

On the above point, don't be ambiguous about it. "I think I want to talk to a lawyer" is not good enough. There was a recent case in Louisiana where the LA Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's post-arrest statement of "Get me a lawyer dog!" was insufficient to invoke the defendant's right to counsel because police could interpret the defendant's statement as asking for a lawyer who was a dog (and because there is no such thing as a dog that is also a lawyer, the police did not have to act on the defendant's request).

Asserting the right to remain silent does not get you the right to counsel. Asserting the right to counsel generally should get police to stop questioning you until counsel is present, but it's better to assert both.


Real life v. TV

Before anyone asks, no, the prosecutor cannot use someone's choice to exercise their right to remain silent or right to counsel as admission of or evidence for guilt.

In plain speak it is prosecutorial misconduct and instant grounds for a mistrial* for the prosecutor to say something like, (on cross) "And you asked for a lawyer because you knew you were guilty, didn't you?" or (at closing) "ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant asserted the right to remain silent because he knew he was guilty, and whatever he would say would only prove his own guilt."

*mistrial = start all over. Could be the same judge, but definitely a new jury (if jury trial). Nobody likes this because it means all the time and effort put into the trial is wasted.


Training v. Facts of the Case

As far as training is concerned, it depends, but my guess is that the facts of the case matter more than what shooting schools you went to.

You could be active-duty Tier 1, get drunk, make a bad decision, shoot someone without legal justification and be in a really bad legal position. Or you could be an eighty-nine-year-old widow who pulls out your long-dead husband's .22 revolver that you never touched in your life before, and kill a 7-time convicted rapist with his hands around your throat, and be a very good legal position with absolutely no firearms training whatsoever.

[edited for grammar]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: LDD,

Heres my take on this. And after the fear, and adrenaline, and stress of the event, I recognize that this may be difficult.
Call 9-1-1.
Say "There has been a shooting (give location) someone is hurt and I need help". Give a description of yourself to dispatch. If pressed for details, say "I cant talk, I am having trouble breathing". Which probably will be true! Keep the line open until you know cops are close.
Now... Several car loads of adrenaline charged cops are rocketing towards you. Holster up and as they arrive, get yourself into full view (think dash cam) with HANDS UP. Then comply with instructions and be prepared to be cuffed.
Tell the the cops "I want to tell you about this, but I want my attorney with me when I do". Then point out anyone who saw what happened. Next, tell the cops you are having trouble breathing and have tightness in your chest and ask to be taken to the ER. It will help you to get away from the scene, if it can happen. Otherwise, you may sit in the back of a patrol car for quite a while. Cuffed. Then you probably will wind up in a interview room. If you are placed in an interview room, ask anyone who sits down with you "am I under arrest"? If they say yes, shut up immediately and ask for counsel. If the answer is no, then say, "I want to be released until I talk with my attorney and my family".
Say nothing to media. Post nothing on line.
Dont discuss the event with anyone outside your immediate family and swear then to secrecy too.
Make no mistake. The aftermath will be in all likelihood, the most dangerous thing to put past you. If you need it, seek counseling to help you get past it.
As to training, i think any good attorney can show your training in a positive light

One more thing to consider is what mods you may have done to your EDC pistol. If you have made mods to the trigger etc, you may open yourself up to liability. I was advised not to mod the trigger on my Glock G10 for this reason, when I took it in to the LGS. Even with Glock parts! Any configuration that gives an advantage above OEM specs, could be used by opposing counsel. Just imagine what they could say, to sway a jury. I ended up improving the trigger anyway, but I only carry the G10 in the wilderness for critters.


When I EDC, it is a totally OEM setup.

quote:

Originally posted by FishOn:
One more thing to consider is what mods you may have done to your EDC pistol. If you have made mods to the trigger etc, you may open yourself up to liability. I was advised not to mod the trigger on my Glock G10 for this reason, when I took it in to the LGS. Even with Glock parts! Any configuration that gives an advantage above OEM specs, could be used by opposing counsel. Just imagine what they could say, to sway a jury. I ended up improving the trigger anyway, but I only carry the G10 in the wilderness for critters.


When I EDC, it is a totally OEM setup.

This is commonly repeated, but I heard Ayoob once say he couldn't find cases that support this fear after a fairly extensive caselaw survey.

quote:

Originally posted by YooperSigs:
As to training, i think any good attorney can show your training in a positive light

I think that finding that "good attorney" with relevant experience could be rather challenging in some locales. There are only a few (tops) justifiable self defense cases that go to trial each year in MN. There really isn't any attorney that has dealt with a significant number of them. The best you can hope for is a guy that has defended the usual mix of criminals. While they are certainly aware of what not to say, they aren't going to be well versed in the details.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by FishOn:
One more thing to consider is what mods you may have done to your EDC pistol. If you have made mods to the trigger etc, you may open yourself up to liability. I was advised not to mod the trigger on my Glock G10 for this reason, when I took it in to the LGS. Even with Glock parts! Any configuration that gives an advantage above OEM specs, could be used by opposing counsel. Just imagine what they could say, to sway a jury. I ended up improving the trigger anyway, but I only carry the G10 in the wilderness for critters.


When I EDC, it is a totally OEM setup.

This is commonly repeated, but I heard Ayoob once say he couldn't find cases that support this fear after a fairly extensive caselaw survey.

I've seen this happen in person, once. So, while not statistically significant, it can happen.

The prosecutor tried to make a big deal out of the fact that the defendant's gun had a 4.5lb trigger.

Unfortunately for the prosecutor, who was not a gun person, nor well versed in firearms at all, the gun in question was an M&P Pro, which comes with a factor trigger weight of (you guessed it: ) 4.5 lbs.

Fortunately for the prosecutor, the defense attorney was an even worse trial attorney and knew probably less about guns than the prosecutor so he didn't jump on her overextending herself and show her up in front of the jury.

Unfortunately, for both, one of the jurors did not answer a voir dire question truthfully and bailed at the end of the first day (of what was probably going to be a two-day trial), which resulted in a mistrial.

I don't know how round 2 wound up, but my guess, is if the defendant stuck with the same attorney, he's probably doing time now.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by FishOn:
One more thing to consider is what mods you may have done to your EDC pistol. If you have made mods to the trigger etc, you may open yourself up to liability. I was advised not to mod the trigger on my Glock G10 for this reason, when I took it in to the LGS. Even with Glock parts! Any configuration that gives an advantage above OEM specs, could be used by opposing counsel. Just imagine what they could say, to sway a jury. I ended up improving the trigger anyway, but I only carry the G10 in the wilderness for critters.


When I EDC, it is a totally OEM setup.

This is commonly repeated, but I heard Ayoob once say he couldn't find cases that support this fear after a fairly extensive caselaw survey.

I've seen this happen in person, once. So, while not statistically significant, it can happen.

The prosecutor tried to make a big deal out of the fact that the defendant's gun had a 4.5lb trigger.

Unfortunately for the prosecutor, who was not a gun person, nor well versed in firearms at all, the gun in question was an M&P Pro, which comes with a factor trigger weight of (you guessed it: ) 4.5 lbs.

Fortunately for the prosecutor, the defense attorney was an even worse trial attorney and knew probably less about guns than the prosecutor so he didn't jump on her overextending herself and show her up in front of the jury.

Unfortunately, for both, one of the jurors did not answer a voir dire question truthfully and bailed at the end of the first day (of what was probably going to be a two-day trial), which resulted in a mistrial.

I don't know how round 2 wound up, but my guess, is if the defendant stuck with the same attorney, he's probably doing time now.

It isn't that they don't try it, it is that you can't find any cases where it makes any demonstrable difference.

Admittedly, one problem is that it can be hard to tell what particular facts or evidence are what really influences jurors. But I think what Ayoob meant is that he couldn't find cases where is was clear that sort of evidence was particularly important to the jury's verdict.

quote:

Originally posted by 229DAK:

quote:

-when the cops get there, tell them you will give a statement, after you have spoken to your lawyer
-then shut up

Gabe Suarez says otherwise. Just sayin'.

He offers a class on post-shooting and simply shutting up and lawyering up isn't part of it.

I have not taken his class but have read his blogs.

how many people has Gabe Suarez defended in court after a shooting?

i can't think of ANYTHING you would say immediately after a shooting that would 'exonerate' you that you couldn't say at a later time with an attorney

I can think of A LOT of stuff you could say without one that would IMPLICATE you in terms of potential criminality

I realize in the heat of the moment you want to try to explain why you did what you did - beyond providing extremely BASIC info everything I have read over the years says STFU ...

------------------------------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by FishOn:
One more thing to consider is what mods you may have done to your EDC pistol. If you have made mods to the trigger etc, you may open yourself up to liability. I was advised not to mod the trigger on my Glock G10 for this reason, when I took it in to the LGS. Even with Glock parts! Any configuration that gives an advantage above OEM specs, could be used by opposing counsel. Just imagine what they could say, to sway a jury. I ended up improving the trigger anyway, but I only carry the G10 in the wilderness for critters.


When I EDC, it is a totally OEM setup.

This is commonly repeated, but I heard Ayoob once say he couldn't find cases that support this fear after a fairly extensive caselaw survey.

I've seen this happen in person, once. So, while not statistically significant, it can happen.

The prosecutor tried to make a big deal out of the fact that the defendant's gun had a 4.5lb trigger.

Unfortunately for the prosecutor, who was not a gun person, nor well versed in firearms at all, the gun in question was an M&P Pro, which comes with a factor trigger weight of (you guessed it: ) 4.5 lbs.

Fortunately for the prosecutor, the defense attorney was an even worse trial attorney and knew probably less about guns than the prosecutor so he didn't jump on her overextending herself and show her up in front of the jury.

Unfortunately, for both, one of the jurors did not answer a voir dire question truthfully and bailed at the end of the first day (of what was probably going to be a two-day trial), which resulted in a mistrial.

I don't know how round 2 wound up, but my guess, is if the defendant stuck with the same attorney, he's probably doing time now.

It isn't that they don't try it, it is that you can't find any cases where it makes any demonstrable difference.

Admittedly, one problem is that it can be hard to tell what particular facts or evidence are what really influences jurors. But I think what Ayoob meant is that he couldn't find cases where is was clear that sort of evidence was particularly important to the jury's verdict.

That's true, and then there's the fact that most of our searchable cases are appellate-level and this isn't the kind of thing that gets fought over in courts of appeal.

Like a lot of facts at trial, you just throw as much in for your side as you can, and hope the jury was listening when you said it.