There's a link in the first post of this thread. It'll get you where you need to go.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
What is the proper way to interact with police during/after a Self-Defense situation?
- Thread starter The Meach
- Start date
-
- Tags
- self-defense
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Frank_N_Stein
Grandmaster
Not everyone that is handcuffed is thrown to the ground in order to accomplish it. If you follow the direction of the officer(s) and are calm and compliant, you should be ok. If you explain to the officer(s) that you have a medical condition while you are being calm and compliant, you should be ok. I say should because it is going to be a high stress situation and no one can predict how anyone is going to react.
I knid of have a problem with this. Damn right I don't want to talk about it. There are A LOT more people in jail because a cop either misunderstood or twisted the person's words than need to be, or the guy just had a massive infusion of adrenaline and wasn't sure what he was saying. Because someone wants to cover their *** makes you think they did something wrong? Do you believe that people that refuse a search of their vehicle has something to hide?
I asked because another LEO commented be prepared to be put on the ground and handcuffed. Would I be increasing my legal jeopardy if in situation 1, I did not wait at the scene but went to the Prosecutor's office or Police Station and surrendered myself. I would think I would be decreasing my chances of being manhandled.
I think what he means that you will need to say SOMETHING. You do not want us showing up not knowing who is the homeowner and who is the burglar with one on the ground (maybe shot) and one holding a firearm. The one holding the firearm will not say a word and the burglar has no such problem covering his own butt. Sure, it might all be worked out in the end but it might be a VERY painful process. You might say something to the effect "He broke into my house, I was in fear, and protected myself. I will need my attorney with me for a further statement." See where I'm going with this? A brief statement to get the investigation started in the right direction but save the details for your lawyer.
Joe Williams
Shooter
- Jun 26, 2008
- 10,431
- 38
Perfect. That's all that you should be saying without an attorney. Adrenaline will give you serious diarhea of the mouth. You'll be pumped up, glad to be alive, and glad you won the fight, and you'll say so. "I shot the SOB, he had it coming, and I did it, and I'll do it again. I should have shot him some more!!" won't help your cause, but it's entirely possible it'll be that, or something like it, that comes out of your mouth. Pick a short, simple statement like the above, and PRACTICE SAYING IT ahead of time. Make it part of your tactical training. You want it to be a response you don't have to think about, because thinking clearly may well not be a strong point right then. You'll be focused on things other than giving clear statements.
As for what to do when the cops get there: If you are still holding the gun in your hand, for goodness sake don't make any moves the officer doesn't tell you to. He/she will be very scared, and absolutely positively does not know who the good guy is. Do what they tell you, nothing more, nothing less.
What happened in Phoenix was an aberation.
We have seen in the above posts the concern for those who presumably acted lawfully, and the issue is the protection of rights. Most police officers know this front and back, nay so more well than most.
Sure, there are always a few bad apples in the barrel, along with any other occupation. Remember folks, police officers are human also, however, held to an alleged higher standard of conduct. Police officers are trained to run TO disasters and not FROM them.
Am I an attorney? No. But lets truly think about this.
1. Sure, you may have acted within currently established legal boundaries.
2. Certainly you have the right to counsel.
3. Guaranteed, you will be asked to explain your actions. It will not be later. It will be "sooner."
4. There will probably be an investigation the likes of which (depending on where you live) you have not witnessed. Real life is not like television at all.
5. Remember, the criminal justice system is geared to protect the rights of the accused, not the victim.
6. A court room is not the place where logic and common sense are applied in theory or practice. Bet on that.
7. Attorneys "practice" law. Doctors "practice" medicine too. Usually on you.
Again, these comments are not designed or intended to infuriate, infatuate, dissuade, cajole, or change one's thinking. Certainly, standing up for one's rights are guaranteed under our Constitution. Just remember in the heat of battle, and more importantly the aftermath, questions will abound from not only yourself, but others.
Above all, to survive the potential legal ramifications, one must survive the physical confrontation initially.
I certainly agree that "running off at the mouth" so to speak immediately after a deadly force confrontation may not be the best course of action. Certainly things may be misinterpreted. My focus is on finding the facts so that they are just that: fact(s).
Do not forget, you may have some problems with the police. It is a totally different matter to have a problem with a Prosecuting Attorney. Remember, Prosecutors are humans also.
Sure, there are always a few bad apples in the barrel, along with any other occupation. Remember folks, police officers are human also, however, held to an alleged higher standard of conduct. Police officers are trained to run TO disasters and not FROM them.
Am I an attorney? No. But lets truly think about this.
1. Sure, you may have acted within currently established legal boundaries.
2. Certainly you have the right to counsel.
3. Guaranteed, you will be asked to explain your actions. It will not be later. It will be "sooner."
4. There will probably be an investigation the likes of which (depending on where you live) you have not witnessed. Real life is not like television at all.
5. Remember, the criminal justice system is geared to protect the rights of the accused, not the victim.
6. A court room is not the place where logic and common sense are applied in theory or practice. Bet on that.
7. Attorneys "practice" law. Doctors "practice" medicine too. Usually on you.
Again, these comments are not designed or intended to infuriate, infatuate, dissuade, cajole, or change one's thinking. Certainly, standing up for one's rights are guaranteed under our Constitution. Just remember in the heat of battle, and more importantly the aftermath, questions will abound from not only yourself, but others.
Above all, to survive the potential legal ramifications, one must survive the physical confrontation initially.
I certainly agree that "running off at the mouth" so to speak immediately after a deadly force confrontation may not be the best course of action. Certainly things may be misinterpreted. My focus is on finding the facts so that they are just that: fact(s).
Do not forget, you may have some problems with the police. It is a totally different matter to have a problem with a Prosecuting Attorney. Remember, Prosecutors are humans also.
Last edited:
We hear or read all the time about the fact that you WILL "run off at the mouth", "you'll say things that might not come out the way you intended", etc.
You also hear/read quite a bit about people getting caught up in the legal system for a justified SD shooting or whatever, based on the aforementioned oral diarrhea.
Since cops & prosecutors are humans with experience in these kind of situations shouldn't they KNOW that this is likely to happen? Wouldn't it make humane sense for them to realize that it could happen & at least try to keep an open mind in the investigation instead of using an "excited utterance" to try to nail a guy to the wall? Wouldn't they want to have the same protections afforded to them in a similar situation? Aren't most departments policies geared toward protecting the officer in an investigation of a LEO shooting to the point of not even allowing an interview on the subject for several hours (24?) after the event with automatic counsel?
You also hear/read quite a bit about people getting caught up in the legal system for a justified SD shooting or whatever, based on the aforementioned oral diarrhea.
Since cops & prosecutors are humans with experience in these kind of situations shouldn't they KNOW that this is likely to happen? Wouldn't it make humane sense for them to realize that it could happen & at least try to keep an open mind in the investigation instead of using an "excited utterance" to try to nail a guy to the wall? Wouldn't they want to have the same protections afforded to them in a similar situation? Aren't most departments policies geared toward protecting the officer in an investigation of a LEO shooting to the point of not even allowing an interview on the subject for several hours (24?) after the event with automatic counsel?
Finity:
Law Enforcment organizations do things differently according to their rules, whether they be Merit Rules and Regulations, Standard Operating Procedures, Union Rules, etc.
What we look for is the TRUTH. Not BS, not some "excited utterance." The course of the investigation usually hinges on several issues, not the least of which the search for the truth is paramount.
Since you are probably not a police officer, you probably have not had the pleasure of responding to a shooting, where an armed person still may be on site. Keeping one's hide from being perforated unnecessarily is a high ranking priority. I don't want to hear "that's what you get paid for".
We certainly don't have the ability to read minds. If we don't have a "point of departure" or at least a theoretical frame of reference to initiate or begin an investigation, where will it go? To a grand jury? At a grand jury, a ham sandwich can be indicted since the prosecution is presenting the "facts". No defense attorney, no judge, just one side of the issue.
We in law enforcment cannot hold anything against anyone if they decline to make a statement. That is fact. We know these types of situations are emotionally charged. Certainly, rational thought and a clear concise sequence of events either in the presence of or not in the presence of counsel is indicated. The tone of your post gives an indication that the police are to be mistrusted, and that we are looking to "jam up" someone.
In my case, nothing could be further from the truth. I am only giving my opinion of many years of practical, not theoretical law enforcement experience.
And in case you were wondering, I was involved in an OIS ten years ago. I gave a full statement of my actions without an attorney, nor with any "excited utterances."
Law Enforcment organizations do things differently according to their rules, whether they be Merit Rules and Regulations, Standard Operating Procedures, Union Rules, etc.
What we look for is the TRUTH. Not BS, not some "excited utterance." The course of the investigation usually hinges on several issues, not the least of which the search for the truth is paramount.
Since you are probably not a police officer, you probably have not had the pleasure of responding to a shooting, where an armed person still may be on site. Keeping one's hide from being perforated unnecessarily is a high ranking priority. I don't want to hear "that's what you get paid for".
We certainly don't have the ability to read minds. If we don't have a "point of departure" or at least a theoretical frame of reference to initiate or begin an investigation, where will it go? To a grand jury? At a grand jury, a ham sandwich can be indicted since the prosecution is presenting the "facts". No defense attorney, no judge, just one side of the issue.
We in law enforcment cannot hold anything against anyone if they decline to make a statement. That is fact. We know these types of situations are emotionally charged. Certainly, rational thought and a clear concise sequence of events either in the presence of or not in the presence of counsel is indicated. The tone of your post gives an indication that the police are to be mistrusted, and that we are looking to "jam up" someone.
In my case, nothing could be further from the truth. I am only giving my opinion of many years of practical, not theoretical law enforcement experience.
And in case you were wondering, I was involved in an OIS ten years ago. I gave a full statement of my actions without an attorney, nor with any "excited utterances."
GuyRelford
Master
At every opportunity, I teach my gun-owning clients the relevant Indiana law that controls the use of deadly force. That is for two distinct reasons: 1) so that they can comply with that law in all respects, and 2) so that if they are ever actually in a self-defense shooting scenario, they will be able to give the responding LEOs a very short and concise statement that establishes the justification for their use of deadly force (i.e., that they are the good guy). After that, they should decline further comment until their attorney is present.
I would also respectfully submit that there are a lot of folks in Indiana with guns in their homes (or even with LTCHs) who don't truly understand Indiana law relating to the use of deadly force. So they're in a lot tougher situation when called upon to explain their actions.
I would also respectfully submit that there are a lot of folks in Indiana with guns in their homes (or even with LTCHs) who don't truly understand Indiana law relating to the use of deadly force. So they're in a lot tougher situation when called upon to explain their actions.
Cops are good guys and all but I have seen first hand when a cop takes a statement and twist it and adds his own thoughts right into the report, makes the other guy out to be the good guy in the right. Then he hands it into the prosecutor who then decides to burn your a$$, add to this that it was a small town and they had nothing better to do. This was just when a guy tryed to run me off the road and I had to hit him to keep from hitting a pole head on. Call me a liar and say I am a bad guy but it is what it is. I would hate to be in a shooting and have to deal with this on a large level. These small town cops-prosecutors-judges will hang your a$$ regardless of how the law reads, shootings are scary stuff!
Think-think-think!!! Pulling the trigger is the easy part!
Think-think-think!!! Pulling the trigger is the easy part!
remymartin
Expert
other than a simple reply, I will keep my mouth closed. The situation which may have happened, led to, said occurance. right or wrong secure pisstowel, cooperate. the officers are likely as pumped as you are, and somehow want to look for a reason to abuse you. Best bet, in as few words as possible, state the simple facts and STFU. take your lumps and call your attorney. you will get lumps.
LCSOSgt11:
I wasn't suggesting to not say anything. I agree that the best course of action is to give a brief description of the events, if possible. In the best case scenario I would love to be able to fully cooperate with the investigation (I mean, I am the good guy) but in the real world it would be to my disadvantage to fully cooperate then have my words twisted by a not-so-professional LEO/prosecutor.
I hate to say I mistrust "all" cops but it would be foolish of me to trust any of them, either.
I'm not saying that all cops are bad. That would be ridiculous. I'm not even saying "most" cops are bad. I'm saying there's enough out there that are bad to justify the fact that you can't fully trust any of them with the rest of your life, because you don't know if the one doing the investigation is a "bad" one.
You sound like one of the reasonable one's & I commend you for that.
OTOH, as I've said before, it seems that in many (most?) SD actions that you hear about the GG doesn't get charged, so I'm not going to let the fact that there are bad cops/prosecutors out there prevent me from taking whatever actions are necessary (within the law - see below) to protect me & my family for fear that I will go to jail for the rest of my life.
I completely agree with that.
I can't fathom why anyone would take the responsibility of owning a gun to be used in self-defense & not bother to learn the laws relating to its use.
I obviously haven't read that many states laws relating to guns & deadly force, but out of the adjacent states, IN laws are relatively straight forward & with the internet available everywhere, there really is no excuse to not know at least the basics.
I wasn't suggesting to not say anything. I agree that the best course of action is to give a brief description of the events, if possible. In the best case scenario I would love to be able to fully cooperate with the investigation (I mean, I am the good guy) but in the real world it would be to my disadvantage to fully cooperate then have my words twisted by a not-so-professional LEO/prosecutor.
I hate to say I mistrust "all" cops but it would be foolish of me to trust any of them, either.
I'm not saying that all cops are bad. That would be ridiculous. I'm not even saying "most" cops are bad. I'm saying there's enough out there that are bad to justify the fact that you can't fully trust any of them with the rest of your life, because you don't know if the one doing the investigation is a "bad" one.
You sound like one of the reasonable one's & I commend you for that.
OTOH, as I've said before, it seems that in many (most?) SD actions that you hear about the GG doesn't get charged, so I'm not going to let the fact that there are bad cops/prosecutors out there prevent me from taking whatever actions are necessary (within the law - see below) to protect me & my family for fear that I will go to jail for the rest of my life.
I completely agree with that.
I can't fathom why anyone would take the responsibility of owning a gun to be used in self-defense & not bother to learn the laws relating to its use.
I obviously haven't read that many states laws relating to guns & deadly force, but out of the adjacent states, IN laws are relatively straight forward & with the internet available everywhere, there really is no excuse to not know at least the basics.
Joe Williams
Shooter
- Jun 26, 2008
- 10,431
- 38
I don't trust cops when they are investigating a criminal act. It's not a matter of cops being bad or good. It's a matter of cops are looking for bad guys, and if you are the one standing over a person on the ground with a gun in your hand, for at least a while you are ranking pretty high on their list of "potential bad guys." There's also the simple fact that, just as in the general population, there are police officers who do not like citizen firearm ownership and use of guns for self defense and these guys will not be as sympathetic to you putting a bad guy on the ground as other cops will be. Most, once they've done some investigating, would give you a high five if they could. Either way, it's a good idea to let them conduct their investigation until they figure out what happened, and to hold your tongue until you've had a chance to calm down, chat with a lawyer, and say what you've got to say in the proper manner. "Sir, he attacked me/my family, I was in fear for my/our lives, and I had to defend myself/us. I've got no further statement to make until I've spoken with my attorney. Thank you for understanding." Practice it ahead of time, and don't be surprised when they cuff you up. It's not the end of the world, it doesn't mean they are locking you and throwing away the key, it just means they are investigating, and you'll get your chance for an attorney. Heck, if there are plenty of witness or, better yet, video, you likely won't even take a ride.
The only time I have run across a CCW badge was with a guy wearing it on one side and his pistol on the other. He was standing outside of his house waiting for us to arrive. He had just shot his wife to death and tried to kill his son. Sooo, I have a bad impression of CCW badges.Does anyone here think that having the Pink in your hand or maybe even a Concealed Carry Badge would help in this situation? Let me know what you think.
Site Supporter
Members online
- indydrummer
- Mr. Habib
- semperfi211
- Gaffer
- erasure
- bulldogs42
- Bosshoss
- pewpew2232
- jbm1521
- Cavman
- Bugzilla
- snorko
- hopper68
- DoggyDaddy
- OkieGirl
- senork
- 88E30M50
- deo62
- sloughfoot
- INgunowner
- Knight Rider
- yotehunt
- BugI02
- BeDome
- BAgun
- Luke.Schlatter
- patience0830
- KLB
- Rburney
- edwea
- INP8riot
- Whip_McCord
- mgrober
- rkwhyte2
- dieselrealtor
- indyblue
- slims2002
- Bob45
- led4thehed2
- maxipum
- bub74
- citizenkane
- WhitleyStu
- BigMoose
- JTL165
- XDdreams
- Tradesylver
- johns
- warren5421
- Hkindiana
