Long ago (more than 25 years), I got a call from a stranger, an on-duty cop. He said his name, where he was calling from (a locale not a quick drive), and who had recommended he call me (a DUSM I knew; I found out later he was standing nearby). The caller then said this: “I just shot someone in the line of duty. . . . . . . . . .” I was able to conduct about a 30-minute “interview” (today I would call this a “debrief”) of the client (attorney-client relationship can be established without formal engagement agreement or fee payment; the cop understood he was speaking with a licensed attorney in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice). He was not within earshot of anybody on the scene; however, I assumed others could see him.

I “found” my notes from that conversation. With some minor rewording and formatting punctuation, here are the questions I put to the client (answers and some of the follow up inspired by his answers have been omitted to protect the innocent): Continue reading →

I scour the internet almost daily on self-defense and related topics, courtesy of as-it-happens Google Alert emails. That usually results in my reading articles of deadly force incidents where an LEO or nonsworn alleges self-defense.  I follow up on some, to a second and third article.  Too often there is “quoted” a statement purportedly made by the deadly force user, his/her attorney, or the LE agency PIO or command (sheriff or chief), that is inconsistent with justified self-defense, or is otherwise problematical. The statement may have been made to the writer/reporter or to incident responders, at a court appearance, or during an impromptu or scheduled press conference or media interview.

The most common ship-sinking (or legally meaningless) statements include those which assert or opine that the deadly force user: didn’t intend to kill or harm anyone; didn’t think the firearm was loaded; inflicted bodily harm by accident; only meant to scare or stop a threatener; was scared or in fear for his/her life; was attempting a citizen’s arrest; imagined/suspected/speculated the person on the receiving end of the deadly force might have been armed. Worse still, sometimes the statement will suggest the use of deadly force was premised on mere defense of (real or personal) property or was an intervention of a criminal act to which deadly force is not a lawful response. Continue reading →

I recently learned (hat tip, Claude Werner, The Tactical Professor, his blog is HERE) that in the firearms and self-defense training community, there is a four-to-five year publishing cycle for the rehashing of subject matter.  I authored a post which included a discussion of “warning shots” back in 2014 — HERE.  So, I now unabashedly revisit the subject.  But, I plead not guilty to the pardonable sin of rehashing —  I actually do have fresh thoughts/material on the subject.

Prior MSW post takeaway:  “Except (perhaps) in the retaking of escaping prisoners, to fend off a dangerous “protected” species threatening at distance, or certain maritime encounters, a warning shot is so universally frowned upon it likely cannot be “justified” to a prosecutor, judge, and jury.  But, Bob Dylan might just be correct, the times they are (maybe) a-changin’.  For better or worse, see how a recent Florida “warning” shot incident is described here.  [Link expired]. Here’s another, a New Hampshire no prosecution report on a self-defense shooting.  The report favorably notes that a warning shot was first taken.”

Continue reading →

“Great losses are great lessons.”
― Amit Kalantri

     When I introduced the CAN paradigm element (2012, see HERE, and 2015, see HERE), I identified three components: mindset; equipment; skill. In various MSW posts I offered related concepts, including: advance planning; physical conditioning; tactics; competence under pressure; reliable, mission appropriate equipment; training; practice; retreat; disengage; challenge; threatening deadly force; gun-pointing; less lethal. Whether LEO or nonsworn, employing deadly force when wrong; when appropriate, but done negligently, or; failing to employ it when needed (the MUST), can be immediately and/or long-lastingly painful to the mistake maker or other innocents (loved ones, strangers, K9 partner, or citizens you are sworn to “protect and serve”).

    CAN failures engender SHOULD misjudgments, and often beget an unwelcome response from the legal system (the MAY).  Of timely and particular note: (1) Regardless of a “win” in the hearing room or courtroom, complete “vindication” and a return to the status quo ante are nevertheless rarely attained; (2) For LEOs who make ugly mistakes, the landscape of policing has changed.  You are no longer practically immune from criminal prosecution for CAN failures. Prosecutors will charge assault, battery, manslaughter, or culpable negligence when they come upon an LEO who has injured or killed and comes up short on their view of the MAY. Although quite rare, the specter of dual federal/state prosecution has a special impact of its own. (See HERE). Continue reading →

A bit more than three years ago (November 2013), I wrote (applying the four elements of my deadly force paradigm) on armed response to a home invasion.  See “‘CASTLE’ DEFENSE: WHAT CAN–MAY–SHOULD–MUST YOU DO.”  [See also other active links in the text below, and related MSW posts referenced below].  For our purposes here, “home invasion” is defined as an unlawful and forceful entry by stranger(s) into the enclosed confines (fenced or walled grounds, or building interior) of an occupied residential dwelling.

In the prior post, I offered for consideration on the SHOULD and MUST: “The legally recognized sanctuary  of your “castle” has been invaded. The presence of criminal-minded strangers who have made forceful entry often ends in great bodily harm or death, and such heinous crimes carry long prison sentences.  Innocent lives (yours included) are clearly in extreme peril.  Escape is often impossible or impractical, as an attempt to do so may put innocent life in increased danger.  You have issued a verbal challenge or decided to do so would be tactically unsound, and have a target at gunpoint or are at your favorite ready position.  The home invaders are now aware the castle is occupied and their presence is known, but have chosen not to make a hasty exit.  If not now, when?” (Italics added here for emphasis). Continue reading →