What do we do after?

[Glock 'em down]

That would work for me IF and it's a BIG IF, there wasn't any evidence at the crime scene that would show anything different than what looks like and APPEARS to be a self-defense shooting. HOWEVER you should be prepared to go "downtown" and sit thru a series of questions by the police. Answer them honestly and fully BUT do not add to like "well, yeah I shot him, but I guess I should have just ran away or something" Remember when Mike Brown started talking about diarrhea of the mouth?

LEO: Did you shot that man?
You: Yes, Officer. I shot that man.
LEO: Did you intend to kill him?
You: I was in fear of my life and I was trying to stop the attack.

There shouldn't be too many questions asked after that except for the "story" about what happened to cause you to shoot him. UNLESS the crime scene kinda looks funny to the officer investigating. And I know this really sounds cold and sadistic, but if you have made the decision to shoot another person, by all means KILL HIM! I know, I know...I'm gonna catch hell over that statement...BUT...here's the bottom line - DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES!!! A dead man can not testify against you! If this scumbag has the balls to try to assault and rob you don't ya think he's got enough balls to lie in court and say that you assaulted him? Think about it! Oh...and by the way...there is a whole series of events that happen after a shooting as well. I've never been involved in a shooting, but a very dear friend of mine has...he told me about what he went through...you can't eat, you can't sleep, you have trash all over your yard every morning, graffiti all over your house, slashed tires on your car, you go from 2 or 3 messages on your phone everyday to 30 or 40 - most of them either hang-ups or verbal threats to you and your family. Because no matter what kind of scumbag you put down - he's got buddies and he's got family too that are gonna stick to him like glue when he gets popped! Think about that!

 

[Michael Brown]

in my SDA class, an attorney taught part of the course. he went through a bunch of hoopla about how nobody should say more to the police than something like "i would like to cooperate, first i must speak to my attorney, please". he insisted that, immediately following the incident, nobody ever seems to know how many shots they fired or exactly what happened (not even the LEOs that he has represented over the years). talking at the scene almost certainly leads to conflicting statements or confusion at the very least.

if you try to talk just enough to prevent arrest... you might be arrested anyway. then you're in big trouble since that statement was made without a clear mind and an attorney (and whatever you said just got you arrested!). if you say nothing, allow yourself to be arrested, and answer questions carefully with your attorney present, the D.A. will have nothing to use against you. also, such an arrest does not put your CCL in jeopardy


here's my question for the LEOs... will a simple "i feared for my life when that man tried to kill me, and i shot him in self defense" prevent an arrest (assuming the evidence suggests that is true)? how could the Stand Your Ground Law change this when it goes into effect?

Please read the links attached to this thread and this particular thread thoroughly as this ground has been amply covered.

After that, take the advice or disregard it, and take your chances.

Michael Brown

 

[Glock 'em down]

And the reason attorneys want you to shut up and not talk to the police is because that means big money for them! Friggin' lawyers make their living off of people's misery and confusion. If they can't "represent" you then they don't work! Did ya ever see a lawyer that wasn't dressed like he just stepped of the pages of GQ? Have you ever seen a lawyer driving a 1984 Dodge or Chevy? Have you ever met a lawyer that didn't brag about his "Masters Degree in this" and "Bachelors Degree in that" LAWYERS THRIVE ON MISERY! Majority of lawyers (probably 95%) take cases for the money...they know the "defendant" is usually guilty but they "try" to get him off. WHY? Because of the Benjamins! Now before you all start asking me "what about this" and "what about that" There are exceptions to every rule. Sometimes a guy IS innocent and a good lawyer will get him off. I PERSONALLY haven't ever seen this happen. I know, I know...it happens on TV all of the time...BUT...C'MON...this is the same TV with a big purple talking dinosaur on it too! There is no love lost between me and lawyers. And while we are at it...here's a lawyer joke for ya!

When a lawyer dies, do you know why they bury them 10 feet under instead of 6 feet under?

Because DEEP DOWN they are really good people!

 

[Glock 'em down]

Where in the hell have you been Mike Brown...THEY'RE KILLING ME HERE!!! HELP!!!

 

[mons meg]

One thing that I probably should add is that if you avoid arrest initially, you are almost in the clear.

If you get arrested, it may take a jury to acquit you.

MB, isn't this going to tip more in the citizen's favor after Nov. 1st of this year with Stand Your Ground going into effect? Or is the arrest provision in the new law largely window dressing?

 

[Michael Brown]

MB, isn't this going to tip more in the citizen's favor after Nov. 1st of this year with Stand Your Ground going into effect? Or is the arrest provision in the new law largely window dressing?

Caveat: I am neither a judge nor a lawyer nor a legislator. Nor will I ever be on any jury that will try anybody criminally.

My belief is that this provision will be window dressing.

It is already the opinion of the Attorney General as well as the Tulsa County ADA's that I have spoken to about it, that it is already trumped by the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Terry vs. Ohio.

I wouldn't count on it to be my savior in a self-defense shooting.

My rationale is this: Currently if the police believe you acted in self-defense, you will likely be detained only long enough to confirm this.

If they do not believe you acted in self-defense but have instead committed a crime, you will be detained and/or arrested.

The law doesn't change a thing if the police believe you committed a crime, regardless of whether or not you believe you acted in self-defense.

So really, criminally, what has this law done?

I think the situation is already plenty good in favor of the armed citizen, criminally, in Oklahoma.

Where the statute is useful is in civil court. I think that was an absolutely outstanding addition to Oklahoma law.

Currently, even if the police and D.A. believe you are 100% on the side of the angels, you can still be dragged into civil court. This law will end that at the motion for summary judgement and will substantially cut down any legal bills that you incur in defending your life.

Michael Brown

 

[Michael Brown]

One last thing about attorneys and the advice it sounds like is prominent in these SDA classes.

Tulsa has approximately 60 criminal homicides per year. With the thousands of lawyers in the area, the vast majority have never even handled a homicide case. Those that have are not arguing that their client did what is being alleged but it was legal. They are arguing that their guy didn't do it. That's not the argument in self-defense.

Tulsa probably only has a dozen or less justifiable homicides per year. Few of those even reach the point of anyone needing a lawyer.

This means that the chances of encountering a lawyer that has any experience dealing with a justifiable homicide are so low that they are statictically insignificant.

This is probably why the explanations given at these SDA classes sound like they came right out of a first year law student's textbook. Chances are, that's EXACTLY where they came from.

I simply don't trust that minimal level of experience.

Ironically, I had this conversation with a former municipal judge, ADA, and current private attorney that I bumped into at dinner last night. This is a guy who was in court all the time not just when he was forced to be.

He felt it would be ludicrous to just exclaim the classic bad guy defense of "I'm not talking until I get my lawyer."

As I said before, you pays your money, you takes your chances.

Michael Brown

 

[AgentJBOND]

Doug Friesen is the lawyer that told my SDA class to keep your mouth shut and wait for your lawyer to arrive. He made it sound like he has had quite a bit of experience in the matter (representive LEOs as well as regular folks). Ever heard of this guy?

 

[tacmedic]

I think Mike makes a great point about experience. So called professionals like laywers and doctors have a very hard time admitting they don't know something. Think of it like this...if you need brain surgery do you want a colon-rectal surgeon doing it? If you find you need a laywer you better be asking them how many justified homicides they've handled. Then subtract 2 from the number they give you to get the truth.

Another legal curiosity I have...anyone hear of this ever happening? Scumbag breaks into your house and attacks you, you have to shoot him to stop him so his family sues you. Has anyone ever, or could you even file a counter lawsuit suing them for all your legal and or medical bills and emotional trauma because they didn't do a better job raising junior? Or because they knew he was a violent criminal and did nothing about it? Or because they didn't turn him in for old warrents instead of hiding him?

Another point I noticed. You will experience some emotional distress afterwards, its human nature, such as second guessing, remorse, depression, etc. this should never be verbalized in such a way as to be confused with an admission of wrong doing. Remember you were forced to make a split second decision based on what you knew at the time. Get the proper training LIKE MIKE's CQT CLASS OR TDSA's CLASSES and trust yourself. I could have never imagined all that would go through my mind in that split second before engaging and during force on force training. Time seemed to slow, tunnel vision ensued, and half a dozen questions went through my head before I could even clear leather. The benefits of experiencing this in training are unimaginable.

 

[Glock 'em down]

Oh Gawd! I don't know why I do this to myself...I guess I'm just a glutton, but...anyway...here goes! Say you as an SDA licensed member stand about 6'5" and weigh about 300 pounds and you get assaulted by a guy that's 5'8" and weighs in at around 160 pounds soaking wet...can you smoke him with your gun? Or will a court of law kinda look down at you for that? I mean...being that you (if you are this size) are almost TWICE AS BIG AS HIM (or her, for that matter) do you think that maybe you can resolve this altercation some other way? How do you think this would make you look in a court of law?