Question for the Attorneys/Cops

[Rob99VMI04]

Don't know where this should be however thought I would ask.

Lets say your involved in a shooting.

Obviously clean self defense shooting trying to save life and limb etc.....Any reasonable man/woman consider self defense. Your state DOESN'T have CASTLE Doctrine.

Should/Can/has it been to file press Assault charges IMMEDIATLY to help you in a liability case/ and possible file a civil assault lawsuit against either a surviving bad guys or a dead bad guys family to help you in a down the road civil suit?

[HowardCohodas]

I carry this card I created right behind my CCW license.

If I have given this to you, it has been necessary to take actions to defend innocent life. I am willing to sign a criminal complaint against the perpetrators. I will point out witnesses and evidence.

As you may have experienced yourself, this is a stressful and traumatic experience for me. Therefore, I wish to make no further statements until I have contacted an attorney and composed myself. I also do not consent to any searches. I will cooperate fully once I have consulted with an attorney and calmed down. As a lawfully armed citizen, I ask for the same courtesy that you would show a fellow officer who was involved in a similar situation. Thank you for your understanding.


It is not original with me and I no longer remember where I first saw it.

[SIXTO]

In short, Yes, that will (or at least should) be done on your behalf no matter if the crime is assualt, robbery or whatever. Doing so yourself wont help your case. The only problem with this tactic is you can't charge a dead man with a crime.

[cwblanco]

Don't know where this should be however thought I would ask.

Lets say your involved in a shooting.

Obviously clean self defense shooting trying to save life and limb etc.....Any reasonable man/woman consider self defense. Your state DOESN'T have CASTLE Doctrine.

Should/Can/has it been to file press Assault charges IMMEDIATLY to help you in a liability case/ and possible file a civil assault lawsuit against either a surviving bad guys or a dead bad guys family to help you in a down the road civil suit?

There no doubt will be a LEO investigation from the inception. If the bad guy is not dead, then it is likely that they will file the assualt charges. Of course, if he is dead, there will be no charges.

If you are contemplating a lawsuit and if the bad guy is wealthy, you may want to file your suit. On the other hand, it is probable that the bad guy will be a dead beat who owns absolutely nothing, except stolen property which is likely to be returned to the rightful owners. Thus, if you sue the bad guy, you have the prospect of recovering nothing. Of course he will counter sue. If you have nothing either, fine. But if you own property, then suing the bad guy would be flipping a two-headed coin and calling "tails."

As a final analysis, who is going to pay the lawyers if there is nothing realistic to go after. I suppose that if you are rich, you could get into the litigation for entertainment purposes.

[cwblanco]

I carry this card I created right behind my CCW license.

If I have given this to you, it has been necessary to take actions to defend innocent life. I am willing to sign a criminal complaint against the perpetrators. I will point out witnesses and evidence.

As you may have experienced yourself, this is a stressful and traumatic experience for me. Therefore, I wish to make no further statements until I have contacted an attorney and composed myself. I also do not consent to any searches. I will cooperate fully once I have consulted with an attorney and calmed down. As a lawfully armed citizen, I ask for the same courtesy that you would show a fellow officer who was involved in a similar situation. Thank you for your understanding.


It is not original with me and I no longer remember where I first saw it.

If a client of mine walked into may office with such a card, and if he followed my advice, that card would head straight to the shredder.

[HowardCohodas]

If a client of mine walked into may office with such a card, and if he followed my advice, that card would head straight to the shredder.

This has been reviewed by LE officers and by lawyers, all free advice. So don't keep us in suspense, share your reasons for your opinion. I'm always eager to learn.

[CCWINNC]

If a client of mine walked into may office with such a card, and if he followed my advice, that card would head straight to the shredder.

That is a worthless post criticizing another member unless you provide some sort of educational explaination for the rest of us to learn from.

[JonInNY]

If a client of mine walked into may office with such a card, and if he followed my advice, that card would head straight to the shredder.

To cwblanco: Why? Please explain.

[TacticalCompact]

That is a worthless post criticizing another member unless you provide some sort of educational explaination for the rest of us to learn from.

+1. Please give explanation to support your views.

[cwblanco]

+1. Please give explanation to support your views.

To cwblanco: Why? Please explain.

Although society had adapted rather well to accept the concept of CHL, and we can work through that just fine at trial, the idea of having a card printed which, arguably (at least from the prosecution position) suggests a predisposition or intent to get into a fatal fracas can be harmful to your case. There is a good chance that the card will be admitted into evidence the fact that the card was prepared prior to the shooting, mainly because it was created prior to the shooting, and was not originally prepared in response to any actual interrogation. Even if the card is not admitted in its entirety into evidence, the fact that you were in possession of the card prior to the shooting and part of its contents are likely to be admissible to show that you knew there was going to be a fracas or some type of predisposed intent (I know that is not the intent, but that will be the prosecution's approach).

A lawyer will have enough problems fighting off all of the other innuendos, biases, and trash thrown at the defendant with having the addition of fighting off the innuendo created by the card, whether or not it is a fair innuendo.

Don't do it. Don't have any documents showing any predisposition. Your card is very similar to the fellow who already had made advance bail bond arrangements. While it sounds logical, it can come back and bite you in the butt bad.

On the other hand, it seems that it would be wise to think out in advance how you would respond in such a scenario -- what you would say, what you would do.

As an example, I saw one response in another thread which is a logical response to questioning. "Sir, I obviously have been subjected to a terrible trauma. I will be happy to talk to you as soon as my lawyer is here with me." Believe it or not, the natural response is to immediately began talking to avoid suspicion. However, in many states including Texas, the jury can even be told that you requested that your lawyer be present, and if it is brought out, the jury will be instructed that it was your right and that fact cannot be considered as evidence against you.

[CCWINNC]

Although society had adapted rather well to accept the concept of CHL, and we can work through that just fine at trial, the idea of having a card printed which, arguably (at least from the prosecution position) suggests a predisposition or intent to get into a fatal fracas can be harmful to your case. There is a good chance that the card will be admitted into evidence the fact that the card was prepared prior to the shooting, mainly because it was created prior to the shooting, and was not originally prepared in response to any actual interrogation. Even if the card is not admitted in its entirety into evidence, the fact that you were in possession of the card prior to the shooting and part of its contents are likely to be admissible to show that you knew there was going to be a fracas or some type of predisposed intent (I know that is not the intent, but that will be the prosecution's approach).

A lawyer will have enough problems fighting off all of the other innuendos, biases, and trash thrown at the defendant with having the addition of fighting off the innuendo created by the card, whether or not it is a fair innuendo.

Don't do it. Don't have any documents showing any predisposition. Your card is very similar to the fellow who already had made advance bail bond arrangements. While it sounds logical, it can come back and bite you in the butt bad.

On the other hand, it seems that it would be wise to think out in advance how you would respond in such a scenario -- what you would say, what you would do.

As an example, I saw one response in another thread which is a logical response to questioning. "Sir, I obviously have been subjected to a terrible trauma. I will be happy to talk to you as soon as my lawyer is here with me." Believe it or not, the natural response is to immediately began talking to avoid suspicion. However, in many states including Texas, the jury can even be told that you requested that your lawyer be present, and if it is brought out, the jury will be instructed that it was your right and that fact cannot be considered as evidence against you.

Along that lines should I shread my CCW as well. It shows that I have a predisposition to protect myself if needed with a handgun and the use of deadly force. Not to be sarcastic but I have a friend who belives the same thing that. If you are caught with a firearm in an unauthorized place with a CCW it is a Felony. If you do not have a CCW it is a misdemeanor.

[Rob72]

While it sounds logical, it can come back and bite you in the butt bad.

So can many other things. I guess the pertinent question is: is this a citation of one or more defensive actions in the state of Texas? Or is it Ayoob Files...

I personally would not be too keen on the card myself, but I also have some public service experience, and experience with lawyers, to say that the ability to articulate why one does what one does in response to a situation is generally more helpful than not- it is indicative of training. Now if you have a certificate from these guys, you might have some issues, otherwise...
BLACK WOLF SECURITY CONSULTING ( CONSULTANCY: COUNTER TERORIST, CLOSE PROTECTION, GUARDING, TRAINING )

[cwblanco]

Quote 1: cwblanco said "Although society had adapted rather well to accept the concept of CHL, and we can work through that just fine at trial, . . . "

Quote 2: Along that lines should I shread my CCW as well. It shows that I have a predisposition to protect myself if needed with a handgun and the use of deadly force. Not to be sarcastic but I have a friend who belives the same thing that.

Go back and read Quote 1 above.

If you do not have a CCW it is a misdemeanor. If you are caught with a firearm in an unauthorized place with a CCW it is a Felony.

If you have the statutory cite for this please let us know. At a minimum, please give us the state so that we can check it out.

[SIXTO]

This thread is turning into great material for the CCW myths thread.

[dcb188]

I would have to agree that having that card shows a possible predisposition to be involved in an incident, else why have the card printed and on your person? Any mention of speaking to an atty is a buzzword that creates suspicion. Then when the jury is instructed that under no circumstances are they to hold that against you, they do hold it against you anyway. The jury instruction does not remove it from the jury's mind. Having the card creates a situation where now you have to fight this idea that you looked forward to this kind of incident, besides having to possibly fight about the incident itself. You knew it was coming,the prosecution would say. If someone had a card in their wallet that said "When you catch me for something, I intend to maintain my innocence" all of us would think that that was suspicious and showed that they were going to commit crimes. It is just one more hurdle that you are throwing in your own way, that will have to be overcome at trial. And even if there is no trial, it still shows to a lot of folks, rightly or wrongly, that you sort of welcomed this kind of incident, because you sort of came prepared for it in a way. That is the real problem. They might be wrong but you needlessly expose yourself to that kind of prejudice. At least with no card on you, no one can draw those kinds of conclusions.