What to do after use of concealed handgun

[kahrfreak]

Since this thread has been resurrected, just thought I'd clarify a statement made earlier in the thread:

The basics: "I was in fear for my life,"

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the magic words (if you feel so compelled to make a statement) "I shot to stop the threat"?

Reference: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18471" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Keith B]

Since this thread has been resurrected, just thought I'd clarify a statement made earlier in the thread:

The basics: "I was in fear for my life,"

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the magic words (if you feel so compelled to make a statement) "I shot to stop the threat"?

Reference: viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18471" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You may be getting confused with 'Shoot to kill' vs. 'Shoot to stop the threat.' A threat does not necessarily mean you were in fear for your life or serious bodily injury. These are justifications for use of deadly force. A 'threat' could be nothing more than than a verbal threat to beat you up which would not justify deadly force. So, bottom line, you would shoot because you were in fear for your life, and when you shoot you only shoot to stop the the threat from taking your life.

[ELB]

Great tips guys. I've been looking for a forum like this for a while.

Welcome aboard. You can find more discussions (including this one) here:

FAQ: What do I do or say after defending myself?

Also, if you go to Advanced Search, put in "FAQ" in "Search for key words," and select the radio button options for "Search within Topic Titles Only" and "Display Results as... Topic Titles," you might find some more things that interest you.

btw, "Fear for my life" is not mentioned in the Texas statutes as a legal justification (nor is "shoot to stop the threat," for that matter). Legal justification run along the lines of a having a reasonable belief that your use of (deadly) force is immediately necessary to prevent someone else's unlawful use of (deadly) force against you or a third party.

But "fear for my life" is often ends up being quoted in the news articles, even when quoting the police.



Best wishes,

[MasterOfNone]

btw, "Fear for my life" is not mentioned in the Texas statutes as a legal justification (nor is "shoot to stop the threat," for that matter). Legal justification run along the lines of a having a reasonable belief that your use of (deadly) force is immediately necessary to prevent someone else's unlawful use of (deadly) force against you or a third party.

But "fear for my life" is often ends up being quoted in the news articles, even when quoting the police.

I agree that fear has nothing to do with legal justification, "fear for my life" is useful to help establish in the minds of jurors that your response was "immediately necessary," because too many jurors try to make ethical judgments instead of legal judgments.
How many times have we seen jurors interviewed saying that they were influenced by a defendant who "showed no emotion?"

[aardwolf]

Has anyone read Alan Korwin's book on the subject? He's written some useful books but the cover makes me hesitate.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[johnson0317]

"I feared for my life" indicates that you felt there was imminent danger. Fearing for your life may not be just cause for shooting someone, but the reason you were fearing for your life may be. "I feared for my life." "There is his weapon." "Those are witnesses." "I am willing to make a complaint." Masaad Ayoob believes these are the things that must be covered before you clam up and claim the 5th.

I think he is right. There are plenty of studies that show much of what happened will be blocked out of your mind, at least for a short while. Your brain may be an amazing processor, but it also knows how to divert power to what is needed...just like your body. It does not miss all that much, and a lot of it is going to filter back in when the time is right. If you start making statements right up front, you may end up regretting it when some of the missing pieces start to fall in to place...and if that information would help you, but contradicts initial statements...not good.

Those four points listed above should not get you into trouble unless you decide to elaborate.

I have legal protection through [Pre-paid legal service] and through CHLPP. These are not "insurance", but they do provide and pay for an lawyer with some idea of what they are doing from arrest through aquittal or conviction. The reason I have both is that [Pre-paid legal service] not only covers criminal proceedings, but also covers civil suits anywhere in Texas. CHLPP provides the same criminal prosecution protection in any state that recognizes our CHL permit, but it does not cover civil suits. For less than $300 a year, I get a lot of piece of mind. I hope I can look back in 20 or 30 years and wonder why I wasted all of that good money on something I never needed.

I apologize if I re-covered ground already discussed, but I just wanted to put my own words out there.

RJ

[Excaliber]

Has anyone read Alan Korwin's book on the subject? He's written some useful books but the cover makes me hesitate.
" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have met Alan, I like him, and I read his book.

I also corresponded with him afterwards about his conclusions, on which we respectfully disagree.

He recommends that you find and retain a lawyer who will magically show up at the scene of a shooting any day of the week, day or night, and start to represent you on the spot.

I'll start believing in the tooth fairy before I bet my future on that assumption.

[WildBill]

He recommends that you find and retain a lawyer who will magically show up at the scene of a shooting any day of the week, day or night, and start to represent you on the spot.

This only works for people like Charlie Sheen.

[Brushgun7303]

wow so much information its very useful thanks to everyone sharing their info

[Brushgun7303]

seems that using a gun is bad but id rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

[bayouhazard]

After shooting the attacker, you have the right to remain silent but you're not allowed to tamper with evidence. So skip the middle S in the 3S solution for predators.

[angels05ss]

Thanks for the great info

[RoyGBiv]

Don't forget that SCOTUS recently changed the interpretation of the Constitution.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... ain-silent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[A-R]

Don't forget that SCOTUS recently changed the interpretation of the Constitution.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... ain-silent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm confused, if he had not been arrested yet and came in voluntarily - what's the problem? The police don't even have to "read him his rights" until is being arrested. Anything he voluntarily says or doesn't say before arrest is fair game (which is why lawyers generally want you to shut your mouth until they get there).

[JALLEN]

Don't forget that SCOTUS recently changed the interpretation of the Constitution.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/co ... ain-silent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm confused, if he had not been arrested yet and came in voluntarily - what's the problem? The police don't even have to "read him his rights" until is being arrested. Anything he voluntarily says or doesn't say before arrest is fair game (which is why lawyers generally want you to shut your mouth until they get there).

I haven't read the opinions in that case but did just review the link. My reaction is that the author is over-blowing it a smidgen. All this case seems to say is that whether you answer questions, invoke your rights appropriately or not, prosecutors can testify about your demeanor, the circumstances, whether you were calm, sweating, nervous, fidgetity, etc.

It makes me nervous though, because there are no corroborating witness except you, so if the po-po gets up there and tells an "improved" version of what occurred, you are faced with having to take the stand to refute it, and you may not want to do that for very sound reasons having nothing to do with the ultimate conclusion of guilt or innocence. Moreover, you may not be believed. I would exclude such observations as more prejudicial than probative.

There are those out there who believe that police are saints still in their earthly toil, whose powers of observation, recollection and veracity are flawless, and can be trusted and believed whatever they say under oath, but don't you believe it. Sometimes they do all that, God bless 'em, but other times, when need be, there is a temptation to recall the facts as they wished they had happened, no tie goes to the runner etc., or as we sometimes crudely put it, like golfers they "improve their lie." I've caught a couple of them at it, in open court. Since my criminal trial experience is very limited, having two instances is statistically very bad, and may not be enough of a sample, but nevertheless, like seeing your wife riding on the back of a motorcycle driven by a sailor, you can never trust again afterwards.