TexasCHLforum.com

You know what's funny????? When I worked in LE all the cops I worked with told me that if we get into a shooting that the first words out of my mouth when the Texas Rangers showed up (that's who investigated LEO shooting for the the county there) was "I was in fear for my life and I would like to speak to my lawyer." Also I actually saw one or two cops get into trouble and once again the first thing they said was they wanted a lawyer.

Now if your speeding or run a red light it would be a good idea to just cooperate. If they are trying to build a case that involves you getting booked into jail I think it's best to talk to your attorney. Also I have said on this board time and time again that you need to have an attorney to protect your rights after the shooting stops; or anytime you need one for that matter. For the price of some new guns you can have one secured just incase you should ever need him at all hours of the day. I do and it's a good piece of mind to me. To be perfectly honest if I get into a shooting where there are other people around I have always thought I will ask them to call 911. My phone call is to my attorney. Hopefully he can get there shortly after they do. If I'm alone I'm going to call 911 and report a self-defense shooting. I'm not going to give the operator details and I'm not going to stay on the phone. "My name is gregthehand. There has been a self-defense shooting at such and such. I am wearing blah-blah and I need to administer first aid. Please hurry." THEN GET OFF THE PHONE. A 911 operator will sit there and talk your freakin' ear off!! Remember Joe Horn??? Half the calls I went to we were getting what were known as "call notes" over our computers the whole way there. The reportee was usally still on the phone with the 911 operator running their mouth, on tape, about what they had just done. Now I am with some guys and I think that basic questions can be answered. Like:

Who shot this guy? "I did"
Did you shoot in self-defense? "Yes."

Stuff like that.

Oh yeah another thing. I happen to know a detective and an FBI agent who BOTH investigated officer involved shootings. Do you know that in Harris County if a county cop gets into a shooting they don't even take his statement (even if he/she wants to give it) with out their attorney there? They let the officer talk to their attorney first about the whole thing while they collect evidence. Finally after that's all said and done they get a camera crew and film the guys statement. I've seen one of these too.

Elvis wrote:LEO here, not an attorney, if I may give you some food for thought. Perhaps one day you find yourself in a position to have to defend yourself with a firearm and you survive. The Police arrive and survey the scene and find you with a smoking gun in your hand and another person down with a gun shot. Newsflash, you have committed a crime in the State of Texas (Agg. Assault or Murder). If the first words out of your mouth are “I want my attorney” then you will be going to jail and booked. I am sure your attorney will be pleased that you did not “incriminate” yourself and he can then formulate a defense that fits the evidence, as long as your checks clear. Juries tend to take a dim view of defendants that “Lawyer Up” as they appear guilty and uncooperative as if they were hiding something.
Try this instead. If you were in a self defense shooting and LEO arrives and asks you what happened, tell them in general terms what the sequence of events were. Give them something to start the investigation toward a Justified shoot. Do not immediately give details like how many shots were fired by you or what words were exchanged. Tell the Police that you do not want to give a formal statement until you have a chance to contact your attorney and by all means contact you attorney as soon as possible. The Police will be able to take your statement in a day or two after you have calmed down and you will remember the events better. At least give us a chance to send you home to your family if things are looking good for you. The standard “I was in fear of my safety and had to shoot to defend myself” or “I was attacked and shot in self defense” will go in the initial report along with the Officers observations of your behavior and mindset.
Just an opinion from someone that has been to more than a few scenes…

Thanks for joining TexasCHLforum and for this post. It sounds like you could give this segment of my Texas Self-Defense & Deadly Force Seminar! For those who have attended this seminar, I'm sure this sounds familiar.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote: Thanks for joining TexasCHLforum and for this post. It sounds like you could give this segment of my Texas Self-Defense & Deadly Force Seminar! For those who have attended this seminar, I'm sure this sounds familiar.

Chas.

Yeah, it's almost verbatim!

Welcome Elvis, glad to have another LEO on the board. We appreciate your guys participation in the threads!

Thanks, Elvis, for your comments and welcome to the forum!
We appreciate ya'll and your comments help me to understand from your view point.

Well I stumbled on this forum and made my first post only to find out you all already are getting sound advice from Mr. Cotton. I have been reading some of his wisdom and it looks like you all are in good hands. I will continue to lurk here and hopefully be able to answer a few questions....Elvis

Welcome back Elvis!

Elvis Lives!!

Well, I realize this thread is very old, however I like to give advice where possible. I teach constitutional law, and it always amazes me how many students are absolutely clueless about the adversarial relationship which exists between LEO's and good/bad guys...yes BOTH! First off, a LEO's job is to solve a crime, NOT necessarily to uphold your constitutional rights. Immediately you have divergent interests at play. The other thing which is always interesting to me is what life experiences you may have had to grind your "lenses" through which you see the world. For instance, I grew up in a suburban white household and was told that LEO's were your friend. Many of the student's I teach come from lower socio-economic circumstances and that is NOT the message they grew up with. Both views are not necessarily right or wrong, BUT they come with their perils.

One of the things people who perceive themselves as "one of the good guys" want to do is immediatley demonstrate their upstanding character. This, of course, leads to the blabber mouth syndrome which is dangerous. The one thing I continually grill into the heads of my students is simply NEVER speak to law enforcement if you are suspected of a crime....EVER. It really goes against human nature for many. Most people want to do the right thing and naively believe that the LEO has their back. Again, the LEO has a job to do and that may not be necessarily to ensure steady sailing for you. The best thing to do is to be compliant, polite, NEVER raise your voice with an officer and, if you should be a suspect, is to assert your protections under the 4th, 5th, & 6th amendments as well as any federal, state, or local statutes which apply. Remember, it is not good enough to assume the LEO knows you want to consult an attorney. YOU must affirmatively let the officer know that no further questioning will take place until you are in the presence of your lawyer. Don't assume anything, and don't let anything be taken for granted when your rights are in the balance. I truly hope this is "common knowledge" for 99% of the forum, but I would be willing to bet the ranch on the fact many of you are not fully aware of what affirmative obligations you have in asserting your constitutional rights, heaven forbid the time ever presents itself.

This ought to be interesting.

MarshalMatt, that is some good input. May I ask in what context you teach constitutional law?

I disagree that an officer does not have as his job to uphold constitutional rights. When I took my oath, I swore to do just that.

John Farnam recommeded to me in my very first defensive handgun course that if I were to be involved in a self-defense shooting, I should (as best I recall)
- make sure me and mine are safe, moving if need be
- be the first to call the cops
- tell the dispatcher someone tried to murder me (after all, why else would I shoot someone?), ask for cops, ambulance, give location, my description...and shut up.
- greet the cops (with my gun out of sight and hands empty) "Thank God you are here! That man over there (or who ran away) tried to murder me. The bad guys went thataway, there is evidence over there, and I will be happy to cooperate fully after I have spoken with my lawyer!"
- Shut up. Be polite but be quiet. Speak when my lawyer tells me to.

This seems like good advice.

Related: There is much discussion and study of how people's memory is not all that great, and how stress and fear and violent events make it even less reliable. Police forces in general seem to have taken this to heart. I once saw a big city PD union had online recommendations for its members for officer-involved-shootings, one of which was do not answer any questions for at least a day or two and only after conferring with the police union lawyer. IIRC this was also written into the contract with the city.

The Force Sciences Institute has many studies and newsletter articles that address various aspects of this, including (but not limited to)
http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/110.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/112.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (see especially "stress can damage short term memory")
http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/41.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Which brings up an interesting question. Why should any verbal "evidence" taken from someone -- not just police officers -- in the immediate aftermath of a homicide be taken as reliable, or even allowed into court?

There is one newsletter from Force Sciences that gives some "pushback" to a private "oversight" organization that apparently recommended "advocates treating surviving officers essentially like suspects and subjecting them to interrogations/interviews as quickly after a life-threatening confrontation as possible to prevent them from colluding with others to distort what happened."
http://www.forcescience.org/fsnews/37.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, why not? An officer who has shot someone has, Elvis noted above, committed a crime. There maybe a defense to prosecution -- i.e. the other guy tried to kill him first -- but it is a criminal investigation, is it not?

Conversely, if justice is better served by letting the officer calm down, reflect, and consult with his lawyer, then why is not the same true for a civilian who has just shot somebody?

I wonder that the criminal defense bar has not made more of this. Maybe they have, I am not involved in too many trials, thankfully.

jbarn wrote:This ought to be interesting.

MarshalMatt, that is some good input. May I ask in what context you teach constitutional law?

I disagree that an officer does not have as his job to uphold constitutional rights. When I took my oath, I swore to do just that.

Absolutely no disrespect to any of the LEO's on the forum...that was not my intent. My point is that in "the heat" of the investigation LEO's have at their core a desire to solve a crime. They go on the best evidence they have. The way that evidence may be interpreted by them and then up the chain of command to ultimately a DA or grand jury can become less than desirable to one's rights. My overarching point is that the number one goal of LEO's is to solve crime and the system by its nature is adversarial. Mind you, I am not suggesting anything nefarious here, just that the way words and events can be interpreted are best left for the ones who are paid to defend you. I in no way would ever suggest that LEO's do not, at their heart, want to do the job they were sworn to do. But, think about it, if only 1% wanted to "stick it" to someone, that is 1% too many. Let the hired guns handle it. Again, no disrespect. In fact, I tell all my classes I am very pro police although what I may be telling them may sound like I'm knocking them.

MarshalMatt wrote:Again, no disrespect. In fact, I tell all my classes I am very pro police although what I may be telling them may sound like I'm knocking them.

In what type of classes do you teach this stuff?

Didn't some famous community organizer used to teach Constitutional law?

Dori wrote:Didn't some famous community organizer used to teach Constitutional law?

No. that isn't true. It's just a myth, someone lied about that. Or at least they misspoke.

Really, that is such a scary thought.

WildBill wrote:

MarshalMatt wrote:Again, no disrespect. In fact, I tell all my classes I am very pro police although what I may be telling them may sound like I'm knocking them.

In what type of classes do you teach this stuff?

Introductory Political Science courses (this is where most of this comes into play when we get to the Bill of Rights, etc.), upper division Constitutional Law courses and courses on Supreme Court policy-making. My degrees are in Constitutional and Public Law with an emphasis on the Supreme Court (advanced degrees in Political Science). I am not an attorney, but have done consulting work for law firms in their appeals department. Just a professor and academic at heart who wanted to shed a little light on a very important topic.