Never Talk To The Police

[CSEMARTIN]

Here they are:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=60...p;ei=&hl=en

[3quartertime]

That was priceless!!! Thanks for posting it.

Very worth the time of watching. In fact I can see me watching it again with my kids!!!

[buddy_fuentes]

Stay out of trouble and you won't need it.

Buddy

[Jim Norman]

Stay out of trouble and you won't need it.

Buddy

Sadly not true.

One can merely be in the wrong place at the wrong time and have a barrage of questions thrown at them. and this can happen days after an event, one that you may not even have been anywhere near and anything you may say can be misconstrued and used to bolster a case against you that you actually should have no part in. About all you need give is your Name and to possibly provide ID to that effect. Beyond that, either read me my rights or let me go.

Now I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, and even though I have stayed at a Holiday Inn, there may be some legal advice out there that is better. But the mind set of; I didn't do anything wrong, so what should I worry about?, can get you into a lot of trouble. Remember, while it may be true that you are innocent until proven guilty, sadly you often have to prove innocence today. Just one more slip down the slope of socialism.

Jim

[driver8M3]

Stay out of trouble and you won't need it.

the video argued exactly against that thinking...

[G-ManBart]

Generally, pretty good advice. I think Professor Duane might have had a little caffeine before giving that talk!

I wish they'd have qualified the statements, but I think it was a time constraint issue. If a cop walks up to you and says "what's your name" you can't remain silent, but you don't have to answer questions much beyond normal identifiers.

The other thing that worries me is I don't think they're suggesting that you shouldn't talk to the police if you're a witness to a violent act or significant crime. If your family is at a park having a picnic and you see someone eles's little Johnny get kidnapped, I think even Professor Duane would suggest talking to the police.

[buddy_fuentes]

I am a retired policeman (over 30 years) and I can assure you that if you refuse to talk to a police officer he will think that you are hiding something. He is going to look deep into your soul to find what he can, maybe causing you unneeded problems in the process. And if you are not guilty of anything, he will be waisting his time and yours. Now if you are involved......that's another thing. You should zip your lip and request an attorney.

Everyone must decide for himself at the time something happens and don't believe everything I tell you or the Internet lawyers tell you. Up jumps the Devil and it's your decision, alone. The Internet Lawyer won't be there to help you...and neither will I.

Buddy

[davidwiz]

To this I would add, never, under any circumstances, ever, ever, ever, if asked by the police, consent to a search of your person, vehicle, house, bag, etc. Let the the police get a warrant.

[SA Friday]

Ya, gotta agree with G-man on that one. There is a huge difference between Victim/Witness and Subject interviews. The laws are different for both cops and interviewees. Also, there is a huge difference on internal philosophies and policies on investigations through out the various LE entities in the US. It is truely rare to run into a 'bad cop' if you look at the %s. It's not uncommon to run into a cop that works for an LE org that essentially works for the prosecution. There ARE LE org's that promote the philosophy that the LE entity doesn't work for the prosecution or the defense, and only works to gather info through multiple means to determine as much of the truth as possible regardless of who it benefits. An investigator in the latter type of LE org is what I would consider to be more thorough in the investigations, but this doesn't work well in a shop that gets multiple investigations a day. It is much more labor and time intensive.

I do not like to give any details to a person during a subject interview. I try to ensure any confession is not tainted by input from information I possess. It's easier to defend a confession in court this way, and helps ensure I am not getting a 'parroted' confession from an innocent person. But, if you did to the crime, you still really really don't want to talk to me.

I have been lucky so far as in I have worked for an org that firmly stands in gathering every bit of info possible and letting the facts stand regardless of who the facts support. In the last 10 years, I have in about 6-8 subject interviews came to the conclusion the individual did not commit the crime, and then followed up on their info to prove they did not commit the offense. I have also testified for the defense in two felony trials at the conclusion of my investigation, and in one of the occasions did so after the subject confessed to a crime she actually committed. It does happen contrary to what the cop in the video said. The military judicial system is very hard to criticize in many respects.

[SA Friday]

To this I would add, never, under any circumstances, ever, ever, ever, if asked by the police, consent to a search of your person, vehicle, house, bag, etc. Let the the police get a warrant.

In 10 years, I have only done one consentual search that disproved an allegation by not revealing physical evidence that proved the offense in question happened. Physical evidence is 10x harder to disprove factual in court than witness testimony or a confession.

[Viggen]

GREAT VIDEO !.

Seems that government employees have one viewpoint on the matter, and regular people see mostly it along the lines of the the Law Professor.

And yes, always refuse a search, of any kind - always.

[chp5]

To this I would add, never, under any circumstances, ever, ever, ever, if asked by the police, consent to a search of your person, vehicle, house, bag, etc. Let the the police get a warrant.

I laugh time and time again when watching COPS on TV when the suspect consents to a search when he has 100 pounds of pot in the tunck

"Ah, officer, I don't know how that go in there . . . It's not mine!"

Edited June 23, 2008 by chp5

[G-ManBart]

GREAT VIDEO !.

Seems that government employees have one viewpoint on the matter, and regular people see mostly it along the lines of the the Law Professor.

And yes, always refuse a search, of any kind - always.

It doesn't seem, to me, that anyone is in real disagreement with the professor....that's why I said it was generally good advice. Heck, I tell all my friends "ask for a lawyer."

If I ever thought I was a suspect in an investigation I certainly wouldn't answer questions beyond basic identifiers like name, DOB, address, employment, etc and I certainly don't know why suspects would ever talk to me, but they do. Victim interviews and witness interviews are another matter entirely and aren't what the video covers and that's the only issue I would have with the video. He's saying don't talk to the police as an absolute and I think that's misleading, and not what he means.

My only comment is that I think the exact title/subject could have been more clearly expressed. The people in the class would have had more information and known the full details of the topic that we miss in the video. I don't think Professor Duane would suggest you shouldn't talk to the police if you witnessed a murder or child abduction, or something like that. Based upon his lecture it was pretty clear that he was talking about suspect interviews, not victim/witness interviews....big difference. Granted, you could refuse to answer questions during a witness interview, but it might delay or prevent solving something like a kidnapping, which could be seen as obsruction of justice. If you're a suspect, or something hapens like the call from the IRS that the Professor Duane mentions, you bet....don't talk to them!

I do really like that the internet makes information like this more readily available and it encourages intelligent discussions....good stuff to think about!

[Miranda]

I am a retired policeman (over 30 years) and I can assure you that if you refuse to talk to a police officer he will think that you are hiding something. He is going to look deep into your soul to find what he can, maybe causing you unneeded problems in the process. And if you are not guilty of anything, he will be waisting his time and yours. Now if you are involved......that's another thing. You should zip your lip and request an attorney.

Everyone must decide for himself at the time something happens and don't believe everything I tell you or the Internet lawyers tell you. Up jumps the Devil and it's your decision, alone. The Internet Lawyer won't be there to help you...and neither will I.

Buddy

Hi buddy,

from the videos

the supreme court says this...

ulmann v. U.S. , 350 U.S. 422,426(1956):

"Too many, even those who should be better advised,

view this privilege as a shelter for wrongdoers.

they too readily assume that those who invoke it ...

either guilty of crime or commit perjury in

claiming the privilege."

As a professional nobody, let me tell you I agree the police do as you state.

It is intimidation.

Used as leverage to force folks off their privilege to say nothing.

That 5th amendment right...

miranda

edit to finish the end quote

Edited June 23, 2008 by Miranda

[Jim Rusert]

Here they are:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=60...p;ei=&hl=en

Amen and AMEN! Let them do their job, but remember it is LEGAL FOR THEM TO LIE TO YOU. Don't talk to the police.

[Pdoyle]

As a LEO, I can see both sides of this arguement. I would ask any LEO, if when they have been the subject of an internal investigation or criminal investigation if they given thier rights, i know, that in internal investigations you have to talk, or are compelled to through employment and termination, but they have been given their right to counsel as well....however, I would encourage any forum member to try a single ride along to see the difference in application and theory. I am the first one to stand up for civil rights...but also think our founding fathers would puke if they saw the mockery the judicail and law enforcement system has become. Just my cynical point of view.

pat

[outerlimits]

remember, talking to an LEO, you may be as true blue and clean as me (yes, i am), a patriotic, law abiding citizen who served my country proud-but at that moment, you are going to be treated like the other section of society that needs to be behind bars. they don't know, and truthfully, don't care. i know, it's their job...but that's bs too. so take the counsels advice...

Edited June 24, 2008 by outerlimits

[Flexmoney]

I have a true instance here of IBTL (in before the lock...as many of our LEO threads seem to devolve into an us vs them thing)... If I get a chance in the next day or two, I dig up a thread on a different forum that has suggestions on how to handle yourself if you are every involved in a (justified) shooting.

[AikiDale]

I really like it that it is okay for an agent of the government to lie to a citizen, but it is a federal offense for a citizen to lie to an agent of the government. Kinda makes me feel all warm and fuzzy and secure and protected.

[G-ManBart]

I have a true instance here of IBTL (in before the lock...as many of our LEO threads seem to devolve into an us vs them thing)... If I get a chance in the next day or two, I dig up a thread on a different forum that has suggestions on how to handle yourself if you are every involved in a (justified) shooting.

I started to post a comment about the advice our legal advisor gave to us, but it was getting long, so I passed, but seeing your comment it made me think again. Everyone here should know/think about this stuff as I'm certain 99.9999% of the folks here aren't criminals and should be aware of the best way to protect themselves.

Here's what we were told, in a nutshell.....If I am involved in a use-of-force incident I've been advised to give the minimum information required consistent with the situation. i.e. if I'm at a 7-Eleven and somebody sticks the joint up and I cap them, when the local PD show up I'd say something like "The bad guy was armed and was robbing the place and I had to use my weapon to stop them". They need a little bit to work with, but after that, I don't say anything and then I will be directed to give a compelled statement. A compelled statement can only be used against me in an administrative action and can not be used in any legal proceedings either criminal or civil.

The regular Joe/Jane with a CCW permit should do something similar. You'd probably have to give a few details along the lines of "the bad guy was robbing the joint/mugging me etc and if you have any additional questions, I'll be glad to entertain them once I have counsel present".

One reason I posted this is that it may not be the police that you have to worry about. If you answer questions beyond the most basic and the responsible authorities determine you were 100% justified and don't charge you, you are STILL open to civil charges brought by the bad guy or his family and those statements will all be allowed in the civil action....and the standard for guilt is much lower in civil law as it's usually the preponderance of evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.

[warpspeed]

I have a very good friend of mine who has given me this exact same advice.

In fact, he said the same thing the professor did - there will be plenty of time to confess later, what's your hurry.

[Flexmoney]

OK...I found the other forum and will copy and paste the info...

-----------------------------

AFTER BEING INVOLVED IN A SHOOTING INCIDENT:

From John Farnam of Defense Training International www.defense-training.com

14 June 2006

Two important points from Skip Gochenour's lecture at the 2006 National Tactical Invitational.. Skip is involved with the criminal justice system daily, and these two points should be kept in mind by all of us:

In the wake of a deadly-force incident in which you were involved:

(1) Let your lawyer do all the talking!

(2) "Self-defense" is a justification only available when your actions were intentional. "Self-defense" may not be invoked to justify" accidents!

Your lawyer can have his facts all mixed up. He can tell outrageous lies.

You can fire him on Monday morning, and probably should! However, when talking with investigators and prosecutors, HE CAN GET YOUR SIDE OF THE STORY BEFORE THEM WITHOUT STATEMENTS THAT ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO YOU! You needn't worry about what he says, to anyone. You need only worry about what you say.

It 's your statements, even inadvertent ones, that will come back to haunt you.

For example: When you intimate or even suggest, however subtly, that your use of deadly force was, in fact, accidental, from that point forward "self-defense" will no longer be available to you as a justification for what you did. A negligent discharge (ND) that results in an injury or death is a negligent homicide, and it cannot be subsequently converted to "self-defense," no matter what the person was doing when he was shot. STATEMENTS AS INNOCENT-SOUNDING AS, "I 'M SORRY." "I DIDN'T MEAN TO" or "I CAN'T BELIEVE THIS HAPPENED" ARE ALL THUS PERNICIOUSLY INCRIMINATING. Such statements must never leave your lips!

Those of us who go armed neglect the foregoing at our peril.

/John

created by dti@clouds.com

Copyright © 2006 by DTI, Inc. All rights reserved.

created on Wednesday June 14, 2006 23:59:2 MST

15June06

Refinements, from a student who is a well-known and respected criminal defense attorney:

"I cannot count the number of times I've heard a client say, "They wanted to interview me, and we talked a little, but I didn't tell them ANYTHING. I was very careful.' Then, I get the discovery, including the report on the interview. It invariably includes a full confession, plus additional damaging statements, repeated multiple times. Great beginning for our defensive strategy!

The only thing that I believe a person should tell police who arrive at a hot scene (not all lawyers agree) is:

(1) 'Thank heaven you're here!'

(2) 'I'm the one who called.'

(3) 'A man broke into our house and tried to murder us.' (adjust as necessary)

(4) 'I'll be happy to answer all your questions, as soon as my lawyer is here.'

The only additional statements I advise are:

Tell arriving officers about: (1) active threats, (2) innocent people in the area (3) evidence, and (4) witnesses. These are important to the case, to the safety of officers and others, and may not be obvious.

Those statements, while still not risk-free, are appropriate and reasonable, and I think there is a moral duty to provide information which DIRECTLY effects the safety of officers and the discovery of truth."

/John

created by dti@clouds.com

Copyright © 2006 by DTI, Inc. All rights reserved.

created on Thursday June 15, 2006 23:59:2 MST

Media Tactics

By Victoria Deaton

E-mail: bohican@mindspring.com

Here goes...off the cuff...my basic rule on how to deal with reporters (mostly TV) when they show up at the shooting scene, and later on at your door and at the courthouse. I'll try and post a more concise version later. Grab a cup of coffee. It's a very long post but subtle nuances are important here. I'm not supporting or damning the media, just giving y'all a feel for what usually happens. If you have a shooting buddy, and you feel pretty comfortable with what I'm outlining, discuss a media plan with him and your attorney in case a shooting occurs to give you some level of preparedness. You may need your buddy as a designated family spokesman. Don't identify him as a shooting sports partner...just a "friend of the family".

I'll assume the shooting happened in a public place, making it a bit more high-profile, like in a road-rage situation where good guy and bad guy aren't immediately evident, unlike a situation where some guy broke into your house at night. The following thoughts are based on heavy media coverage in a town that has a big newspaper, several TV stations, and a neighboring town that has the same. You might get lucky and just get a reporter or two. Unless your local law enforcement agency's jurisdiction has 800MHz systems you can expect the media to show up shortly after the law enforcement officers are dispatched to the shooting scene. 800Mhz systems can cut down on what the media pick up on the scanner, but some law enforcement agency's are providing the media with 800 MHz receive-only radios upon request. In short, you may have to deal with reporters and cameras during one of the most stressful moments of your life. Stay cool, and take care of business.

At the scene, don't duck the cameras. It makes you look guilty. Never, EVER put your hand over or on the lens of a camera, or get in a shoving match with a photographer. It makes you look guilty and evasive, and the photographer in most jurisdictions can and will press charges. Most of all, it makes you look physically aggressive — not a good thing at this time. If you are in a patrol car, don't duck down; don't cover your head. If the officer can give you a copy of a report or even a piece of useless paper to look at, it's even better to look occupied. If not, a simple nod to a camera is okay. Do NOT talk to reporters or answer questions yelled at you. They will be set up in a line along the crime scene tape and a camera will always be on you. Reporters will be talking to the designated law enforcement officer spokesperson. There might be choppers overhead. Live vans and sat trucks will set up on sidewalks. The circus has come to town.

At some point you may have to walk into your local courthouse/police department. Expect cameras during this "walkdown". Again, don't duck. If you're cuffed in front, ask the law enforcement officer if you can fold a shirt or jacket over the cuffs. Photographers will be walking alongside, ahead, and behind you and scurrying pretty quickly. This is a function of having to have walkdown shots that are 30 seconds long plus having shots to edit, so they're gonna be moving pretty quickly and jockeying for position. Don't misinterpret this as aggression. Again, a nod is fine. Do NOT say anything more than "It's best I don't talk to you guys yet." if anything at all. Always use conversational language whenever possible. Walk tall. Don't slouch.

[Flexmoney]

Don't appear cocky. Just walk normally. You can do anything for 3 minutes and that's all the media wants at that point: pictures and maybe some sound (TV slang for "interview") with one of the folks involved in the shooting. Pray for a tornado, hurricane, landslide, meteorite...anything to divert crews (manpower) to other stories. <g>

If you have an attorney at this point, coordinate a statement of some sort and contact your family to make sure they get the same message. The media will descend upon your house to get a shot of where you live and will probably knock on the door. If it was up to me, and if it's a high profile shooting, I'd put my family in a hotel room for a few days. Expect live trucks on the street. Expect your neighbors to be asked questions. The line your family is to use is "hi, guys...sorry, we just can't talk right now" if they are getting in the car to come down to the PD. Conversational english. Non-adversarial.

Reporters have deadlines. TV reporters have to have pictures and an interview for that deadline. TV folks will need something for 12 noon, 5pm, 530pm, 6pm, and 11pm, and the stuff will get regurgitated for the early am show at 6am or whatever; they call this "feeding the monster"--a huge demand for fresh pictures and interviews. They are not interviewing you because they want to or want to "nail" you. They are there because of managers who are competing to be #1 with the story, and that crew is the one that got dispatched. Don't take it personally. Depending on whether the shooting was a big deal they will do liveshots, and photographers will be looking for pictures. Did you use a pistol or an AR-15? Expect to see a shot on the news of a law enforcement officer handling it, and boy does that AR look big as hell. Simple COM (center of mass) shots from a Glock 19? Pictures of the brass on the street. A 12ga. fired at near point-blank range leaving a mess on the bad guy's car? Depending on the video standards (rules of what gore can be used on-air) at a station, that mess from the shotgun may show up. Shootings are ugly. The pictures won't be of you fighting for your life so that you can go home to your family, but of the aftermath. I think about these things because I've seen them for the past 12+ years and unfortunately the expected post-shooting media exposure affects my shoot/no-shoot decisions.

You can't control the pictures at the scene but at least you can control the soundbites from your "team" that go on TV and the quotes in the paper. Have your attorney work with someone you designate as a family representative, like your shooting buddy (who may better understand a defensive shooting situation than your non-shooting neighbor Barney does). First, get control of your personal situation: handle the Law enforcement officers, get your attorney on the horn, and call your family. Then use the attorney and your designated family spokesman to provide the media with a statement if they are on the story big time, even if the statement doesn't amount to much. Once it's approved by the attorney, have your friend Joe Soundbite go to the house, if that's where the media are camped out. If at all possible, give them a statement away from the house to draw them away from your family and neighbors. (If you ever once carted a shotgun out to your car on the way to the gunsmith and a clueless neighbor saw it, you can expect a soundbite on TV to the effect of "yeah, he was always playing with guns" or something stupid like that.)

Spokesman: "Hi, I'm Joe Soundbite, and since Fred Defendant is over at the police department helping out with the report, he's designated me to give you guys a brief statement. Before we get going, I'd like to ask for your help. First, we'd appreciate it if you folks will respect his family and give them some room. No one here in the house is going to make a statement. Second, any questions about the situation will need to be directed towards Todd Louis Green, his attorney, who will give you folks more info since he's working closely with the PD and with Fred. This okay? Good. Now I'm going to make a statement. You guys ready?(they'll all nod since they've been rolling tape all this time---it just makes you look as cooperative as possible) I can't answer any questions, but Fred is uninjured (or is being treated or whatever). He told the police that he'd cooperate in any way necessary. The situation happened while he was on his way to work/lunch/whatever. It's a stressful time for everyone involved, and we're cooperating fully with the authorities."

Two things have happened. You've gotten the message out that you don't want the media hounding you (more on that later) and you've given them a miniscule soundbite ("it happened on the way to work...he's cooperating") which is something benign but usable. Make sure your buddy sticks to the script. Keep the tone conversational, like you're telling your employees about a new policy. Firm, but conversational.

After the statement, the media will attempt to get more information. Joe Soundbite, your friend/spokesman, is to smile, shake his head, and say, "Geez guys, I can't give you any more than that since everyone is so busy and I don't have much info. But if you guys will help out and not hassle the family, we'll help out by giving you guys what you need in time to meet deadlines. Have you talked to the cops? They've been very helpful to us. Perhaps they can give you more than I can." He's identified Law enforcement officers as being "helpful" to you (that's subtle), and then ended the impromptu press conference.

[Flexmoney]

This sort of deal making usually works when you've got a shooter who has been already identified as being in a "self-defense shooting". Remember the advice in other posts to tell cops "I' was afraid for my life"? That's a good thing. Remember that if it is a justifiable shooting, and the basic facts come out soon afterwards (reporters will interview law enforcement officer spokespeople on the scene) then you have a very good chance of working with media that will understand early on that it was a justifiable shooting. Good newspeople (they do still exist) will recognize the dynamics.

You can expect calls from the newspaper and TV stations all day and into the night and for a while after the shooting, so prepare your family accordingly. Stick to your spokesman unless your spouse is up to it. Joe or Spouse Soundbite is to repeat the script. Change a few words here and there as the hours progress so they have something different to put on the air...again, it's a sort of trade. If you give them tidbits to appease their editors and producers so that they can feed the monster, they'll give you a bit of room. They may contact your employer to find out what kind of person you are. Don't be surprised if they look for any criminal history...anything on the record will show up, particularly if the shooting has any hint of being anything other than self-defense. Going before a magistrate? If the magistrate permits, you may have cameras on you there as well.

When coming out of the Police Department, after talking to your attorney, you'll have another walkdown the same as before. Best to have your attorney come out, talk to reporters, and give a brief statement. If he's media savvy, he'll give the ground rules, just like Joe Soundbite did (see how this is coordinated?). It goes something like this:

Attorney: "Hey guys, gather round and I'll tell you what's up. First, no cameras for a second, okay? Fred is finishing up with the Police. It's been a long day, and we'd appreciate it if you'd give him and his family some room. That okay? Can you do that? We know you need statements and pictures, so here's the deal. He won't run from you guys if you don't chase him. I'm gonna give you guys a statement, answer as many questions as I can, and then we'll see if Fred is done and we'll walk out. How about we come out this door, we'll get in the elevator, and walk out the front door. He'll walk to the end of the block here and then we're gonna get in the car and that'll be it for today."

The attorney answers questions; his style at that point is his choice. He goes back and gets Fred (you), but before he comes out the door, he comes back out to the herd of reporters and says "we're about ready". What this does is look like you are cooperating fully, helping out the media who have been camped out not knowing when you'd appear. In essence, you are controlling your appearance, which is better than running the gauntlet. Give them a bit of what they want after setting up the guidelines. Most of the time, attorneys will help their client sneak out a back door. When that happens, media members form an impromptu "pool" that temporarily puts media competitors on the same team and increases resources...they will assign photographers to each door, with the agreement that whoever gets the video will share it with the other competing station. Again, give them a little bit, and they'll usually back off and won't resort to pool tactics or pack mentality. It works 90% of the time.

Do not discuss the case in any way shape or form. Don't give much personal information other than the most positive (Sunday school teacher, etc). Don't let anyone who is making statements say stuff like "Fred is well-trained...shoots IDPA...is on a tactics list." It will come out as "Fred trained to do this sort of shooting." THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OFF THE RECORD, AND CAMERAS ARE ALWAYS ROLLING. It's the media version of "treat every gun as if it's loaded". Never let your guard down. Don't say anything stupid. Also, wireless mics are pretty much standard nowadays in TV. It's unethical, but sometimes a reporter will show up on a doorstep with no camera with the intention of getting someone on the record...with a photographer nearby recording the audio and pictures. Never be afraid to ask if you are being recorded (and ask them to stop if necessary and insist on an off-camera interview), and always assume that you are being recorded anyway to be safe. A good reporter will knock on the door, politely ask if you (or family member) will consent to be interviewed on camera. If not, will you make a statement off-camera? If not, can they get pictures of you and the reporter talking but without sound? You may feel like not saying anything, and that is your right. But if nothing else, comply with the last one (reasons follow), but be sure and ask if they are recording the conversation. Remember that while you may not want to give a statement, the victim's family certainly will, and it is best to be on the record in some way that makes you human. But do it in a controlled fashion. Never lose your cool, even if the reporter is a jerk. Let your attorney handle the folks who are on your private property against your wishes *after* you have officially, politely asked them to leave. Have your attorney place a phone call to the station's general manager or the newspaper's publisher. Crap rolls downhill, and no news director wants to hear from their boss that an employee was acting unethically. Expect to hear some sort of excuse about "reporting the news", so don't bother calling unless it's over-the-top aggressive tactics.

[Flexmoney]

If the police report comes out favorably to the shooter, have the attorney, or family member, leak a copy of it. Send it first to the reporters who are cooperating with your request for some privacy.

Do NOT threaten reporters/photographers. One incident a few years back had a shooter threatening to *shoot* reporters if they came on his property. Not good <g>. If they do come onto your property, let the cops know. If the shooting happened on your property, the media will be behind crime scene tape and that distance is determined by Law enforcement officers. They will also look for other angles, like the street behind your house.

Take a look at your property and where the public right-of-way is. Once the crime scene tape comes down, the media knows where the right of way is and will sit there. This means that they can't sit on your lawn, but they can shoot from the sidewalk, or across the street. Remember that if you take an adversarial position with them, they will find ways to get pictures that are worse than those that you control--i.e, the controlled walkdown, the statement on the steps, etc. If you can get them away from your house by keeping all the statements at the PD or attorney's office, even better.

Also remember that the victim's family will be involved and may be interviewed. They *will* provide pictures of the victim to the media. As you can expect, the picture won't be of a snarling, crazed gunman who pulled a gun on you. It will be a picture of him at a family cookout or some pre-crack-addiction picture with him smiling and looking nice and neat, or him accepting the employee of the year award at work. You'll hear the relatives say "He was a great dad/son...he never hurt anyone...now what will we do now that Sally has no daddy?" That picture and interview will be shown in the same report as your picture going into the courthouse. The victim's family can talk for hours and make themselves heard to every reporter who will interview them. You're stuck with short soundbites through your attorney and spokesman at first. This is why image is so darned important. If the shooting incident goes as far as to change legislation (the Seagroves shooting in NC, for example) the pictures will be trotted out for years to come whenever the issue arises. Image is everything. Don't lose your cool. Take care of business with the Law enforcement officers and your attorney, then take care of your family. Make sure if you have kids that you help them deal with the focus that will be on your family. Keep young kids away from the TV initially since the pictures from the scene may be frightening to them. As soon or someone you trust has time, explain in appropriate detail the situation and the resulting publicity. Your kids may take some crap at school; your kid's teacher or guidance counselor may be able to help. Again, never release any info that may come back to haunt you.

Never play up to the camera. No Bible-thumping. No false tears (remember Susan Smith? Every newsroom in the county knew within 10 seconds of her first interview that she was guilty). No matter what you think of the media, there are usually professionals here and there in very market who will give balanced reports right up until the point where they feel you are manipulating them beyond what can be reasonably expected, but no further. Understand what they need to "feed the monster", give them enough to keep them out of your hair, but do not give them anything that will ever come back to haunt you.

Just my 2¢ worth. The counsel of your attorney and local Law enforcement officers takes precedence and none of this is legal advice.YMMV, etc. I'll be more than happy to answer any specific questions and I promise I won't be as long-winded. <g>

Victoria Deaton is a Photojournalist with over 12 years of experience working for major news organizations. She is also an avid shooter and an advocate of the 2nd Amendment and carrying concealed weapons.

This article was originally posted to the "Tactics List,"

an e-mail listserve sponsored by

COMTAC, Ltd. Firearms Training

List instructions are available at the COMTAC home page