Welcome to the family brother @Gregory_D2 and you are in the right place at the right time.
I am not an attorney. I offer no legal advice. However, as a retired Major Crime Unit, police detective in a large urban environment, I can offer this: Each and every shooting is unique. Most likely not how the shooter thought the scenario would go down. Each case depends on the totality of the circumstances. Iâve been involved in two shootings as a participant, and have investigated many more. I enjoy these active discussions where we have an opportunity to learn.
I would discount the bravado, locker-room, tough guy, comments by gun store commandos. Sadly, these days there are politically motivated prosecutors, who have been corrupted by âcampaign donationâ cash. Some DAâs are politically active anti-self defense advocates, as are some police officers. Once the smoke has cleared and things have settled down a bit, inform one officer and one officer only; âOfficer I want to cooperate with the investigation. I was being attacked and believed that my life was in danger, so I had to defend myself.â Iâll be willing to answer your questions, but not until I speak with my attorney." Then shut up. The more comments you make to more than one officer, will become inconsistent interpretations on several police reports. Be cooperative but do not discuss the use of force.
You may be handcuffed and taken to the police station until investigators have gathered the facts, but do not waive your right to remain silent! Wait for your USCCA attorney.
We are all members of a fantastic organization, who know what they talk about. Many have been there, done that. I wish they had been around when I needed the help.
9 Likes
I agree completely with @Pioneer but will add 1 caveat, The prohibition on police questioning you is stronger when asserting your right to counsel than just asserting your right to remain silent. Invoke both your 5th and 6th amendment rights!
8 Likes
true, so true.
1 Like
@Pioneer I really like your advice âinform one officer and one officer onlyâ, and explanation âThe more comments you make to more than one officer, will become inconsistent interpretations on several police reportsâ.
Each officer, and jury member (if it gets there) will have a different interpretation of your statements and its intent, thatâs just human behavior. While we want to be helpful, adrenaline (and other catecholamines) affect our brains, which may mean we misremember events, say more than we should or act differently than we normally do.
It takes time, 48-96 hours, for these chemicals to leave our system and return our brain functions to normal. Until then (and with an attorney present) state and assert your right to remain silent. Remember, while you are in custody, whether inside a police car, or the station you may be recorded, these statements can be used against you.
4 Likes
Warning, what would be the purpose of a warning? If everyone is accounted for in my household, and someone breaks into my house in the scenario that was depicted in the original post, why would you issue a warning? Makes absolutely no sense. The perpetrator deserves what he/she gets at that point. Any less at that point would be foolish. Especially considering you donât know if theyâre armed. No Jury would convict someone in that case. Itâs cases like this that I carry USCCA insurance in the first place.
1 Like
The âwarningâ is self-explanatory.
The purpose is to warn, before you take full responsibility of talking somebodyâs life or putting him / her in hospital.
This is also something that differ responsible gun owners from criminals. Firearm is the tool of last resort. Verbal warning is the first. Simple warning is also an indicator that using the firearm wasnât your first and only choice and makes the judgement easier for the people who will judge you.
The other thing is that sometimes warning can do the job for us and no firearms is needed.
2 Likes
JERZY: nope not in the scenario given in the original post. In my home, family accounted for, there is no debate. Itâs me or him/her at that point. One of us ainât going to walk away that night.
1 Like
It worked in the scenario⊠didnât it?
1 Like
I fully agree with @MikeBKY statement. I just answered question regarding the purpose of using verbal warning.
In this particular case verbal warning worked. From moral perspective of course.
But as mentionedâŠall depends.
1 Like
Actually, no, it did not, as the perp continued up the stairs and shooting him was necessary. She was fortunate that she was able to stop him before he got to her. As you agreed, it depends. You always try to assert your opinion as fact or the best method, means, whatever. Demeaning and denigrating others that do not hold your beliefs is is not holy, Christian, nor right.
@Dave17 ⊠as always you have to negate everything⊠so letâs agree with your version to end the empty discussion.
BTW⊠if you wanted to understand the real meaning of my post you should be focused on this:
not this:
because you again changed context of the whole post separated part of it.
1 Like
You try so hard to be right when you even agreed that it depends, but you them claim I took your comment out of context?
No, read the self-defense incident again. If the verbal warning worked, she would not have had to shoot the perp. The point of the verbal waning is to end the situation without a use of force - she shot and killed him, hence, the verbal warning did not work. She was fortunate that she had the time to try that method before being assaulted and was still able to end the threat with her firearm.
Only when preposterous statements are being presented as fact, not opinion.
End of discussion - at least it should have been, but you always believe your opinion is the right/best one to have. Thank God, and I am an Atheist, that we live in a country where your opinion is valueless and will not affect our rights and actions. The same is true of my opinion, but I donât demean and denigrate people that do not believe my opinions.
@Dave17 ⊠I really appreciate your commitment in this discussion⊠even all discussions at this Community ⊠but you have to focus more on the topic. You analyze every word, try to find 2 or 3 options for everything I wrote, mostly by separating part of the posts, taking it out of context.
It doesnât work this way. Anyway, my opinion is mine, your is yours. Iâve never told Iâm right in everything, and Iâve admitted it several times.
However, regarding this thread and scenario:
I still stand with my opinion:
In this particular case verbal warning worked. From moral perspective of course.
Maybe we have a different understanding of self defense, aftermath and moral obligations to yourself after shooting somebody.
My understanding of these above is to try everything possible before I break the shot. Perhaps this brave woman thought the same way? Who knows. Did it work. Yes it DID. She warned before she took a shot, giving the assailant two options.
Remember we use deadly force as the last resort. Verbal warning may be the first. It will always work if you warn and it doesnât matter what is the result of that warning. It just has to be told.
I hope you still keep in mind⊠âfrom moral perspectiveâ.
Also if you follow the thread form very beginning and read carefully all posts you should find a consistency of my thinking:
The thing is - donât be a person who âshoots first and asks questions laterâ.
I think this Community is about it.
1 Like
I did not take your comments out of context. Your issue with them is that I show you in your true light.
LOL. It is a moral requirement to warn a perp not to commit murder? Is that in your version of the Bible? No, the verbal warning did not work, you are just trying real hard not to be wrong in stating it worked, when the purpose of the warning is to prevent violence. It is not to preserve some perceived âmoral high groundâ.
Again, it did not in the case being discussed.
I am not proposing that. You are trying to make it appear I stated something I clearly I did not. This not about winning; this is about self-defense. As you agreed, a verbal warning may be given, but depending on circumstances, that might not be an option. The recent attack of an officer by a man with a hatchet, is just one more instance where time is of the essence, where a verbal warning likely would have resulted in severe bodily injury or death.
The only morality to judge is that a violent action was neutralized and that the actions the victim took were justified based on the circumstances, not your perception of reality.
Ok guys letâs keep it civil we can agree to disagree in this forum. We all have opinions whether they are wrong or right. Letâs be in peace and harmony so that everyone can enjoy and learn from one another. God bless you all.
5 Likes
Damn it⊠that supposed to be my turn now⊠
1 Like
Itâs gotten really scary out there now. âJusticeâ used to have your back - mostly untrue today. So sad 
3 Likes
Read through your post which was excellent BTW, reminds me of an incident a homeowner gave:
Late at nigh he heard someone break into his home. He grabbed his firearm, went to a position of cover and announced to the intruder: get out I have a gun. The intruder replied: I do too! The homeowner immediately opened fire.
2 Likes