Self defense statements

Pasifikawv

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
521
Reaction score
100
Location
WV
On this forum, many have cautioned against making lengthy statements after a self defense encounter as words can be twisted to fit various scenarios.

When the FL shooting made the news nearly a month after the event, I listened to the 911 call. Then I started hearing more news reports and seeing the edited transcripts of the call. The edited versions and the commentary of the talking heads varied greatly from my first impressions.

We simply do not have all the facts and it disappoints me that media folks are twisting the few known details to fit a race-based and vigilantly narrative. That may be the case, but it may not.

Statements made during a hurried and stressful 911 call can be twisted to fit many different narratives. Similarly, statements made after a legitimate self-defense encounter can be twisted. This whole incident re-enforces member suggestions not to make lengthy statements until one has legal council.

Here is an example of the 911 call with notes that suggests a totally different scenario:

................

In a neighborhood that has been victimized by numerous violent and property crimes, George Zimmerman (Z) notices a suspicious subject (S) walking around slowly in the rain and who appears to be scoping out at houses. His way of walking indicates to Z that he may be intoxicated. Z calls 911dispatch (D) and reports the above.

Dispatcher: Is he white, black, or Hispanic?

Z: [Having not approached the subject he only referred to as a “guy,” Z is clearly unsure of the race, but states] He looks black.

D: Did you see what he was wearing?

Z: [Easing from his position of concealment for a better view] A dark hoodie with either jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes… I can see him now and he is just staring and looking at all the houses…. Now he’s just staring at me.

D: Is he near the clubhouse?

Z: Yeah, but now he’s coming toward me… [As the subject advances on Z, Z gets a better look.] He’s got his hand in his waistband. [Z can also now give an affirmative answer to the D’s question of race.] He is a black male. [The only time race is mentioned is in direct response to D’s inquiry.]

D: How old do you think he is?

Z: Late teens…. Something is wrong with him. He’s coming to check me out. [Z is clearly stressed and afraid as the 6’ 2” black male advances toward him]. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. I need an officer over here.

[In the background we hear Z on foot retreating to the safety of his vehicle as the subject apparently breaks off from his aggressive advance and cuts thru an alley on foot.]

D: Let me know if he does anything. We have an officer in route.

Z: These [Creative spelling not allowed- phil] always get away. He’s headed toward the entrance of the community.

[Z and D discuss the street layout and where the subject is in relation to the clubhouse and the community entrances.]

D: Which entrance is that?

Z: The back entrance. [Z sits in his truck and plans to head to the entrance. Since both he and the subject headed in the same general direction, Z hopes to observe where the subject goes since D has been asking for more precise locations.]

D: Are you following him?

Z: Yeah.

D: We don’t need you to do that.

Z: OK... He ran. [Z breaks off his observation of the subject.]

D: Do you want to meet with the responding officers?

Z: Yes.

D: Where do you want to meet?

[Z attempts to give step by step driving directions to where he last spotted the subject, but is unclear of the street names, especially the cut-thru alley where the subject disappeared on foot in the dark, rainy night.]

D: What is the address where you are now?

Z: I don’t know. It’s a cut thru so I don’t know the address.

D: Okay. Do you just want to meet at the mailboxes at the entrance?

Z: Yeah, that’s fine.

[Before heading to the entrance and the mailbox kiosk, he gets out to try to read a street sign for the cut thru alley where the subject disappeared into the dark, rainy night. The subject suddenly jumps out of the darkness.]

S: Whatchu followin’ me for!?

Z: [Clearly surprised by the sudden confrontation] What are you doing!?

The 6’2” male subject attacks Z. It is unknown if the subject picked up a club/bottle/rock to use in his attack. Other 911 calls report hearing calls for help as Z was being attacked by the subject. Police find that Z had grass stains on his back, a bloody nose, face bruises, and deep abrasions to the rear of his skull.

Police later play the tape for the subject’s father who says the voice calling for help is NOT his son. Other witnesses say it was Z calling for help.

The subject who had recently moved to the area was currently serving a 5-day expulsion from school and talking with his Miami girlfriend via cell phone w/ blue tooth. The girlfriend reported that she encouraged him not to confront Z. The subject refused his girlfriend’s request and proceeded to attack Z.

Pinned to the ground from the sudden attack and being viciously assaulted by a 6’2” footballer with perhaps a weapon of opportunity, Z fired his pistol in self defense.

...........
I totally made up all the inserts (the quotes from the 911 call are accurate).... I have no earthly idea what happened that night. Nor do the blow-hard on cable TV or HuffPo columnist. That's the whole point. The predetermined narrative of a vigilante killer may be true, but it could also be far from true. It is easy to twist things for cable news coverage, to sell papers, or for a courtroom trial. It is easy for prosecuting attorneys to create a narrative from twisted statements and present it to the jury as gospel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Register to hide this ad
Good Advice, however,

Anyone who carries must also have an understanding of the laws applicable to him and must remember that a legal battle almost always follows the gun battle, both of which must be won.

911 calls are recorded and are available to the police as well as attorneys for the person you shot. Having shot someone, you cannot sit back and do nothing as this will not sit well with any jury. Instead, gather your wits, call 911, and tell them that you have shot someone, that the person needs immediate medical assistance and that you are attempting to administer first aid (if true and if safe to do so). Even if the person is obviously expired, you must call and never, under any circumstances use foul language or racial slurs.

If I'm on a jury and I hear a playback of you attempting to save the guy you just shot, it puts you in a favorable light and I'll be inclined to disregard the opposition's attempts to impeach your character and judgment.
 
I too have no idea what took place. We need to let the justice system work, but I tell everyone in my chl classes that they will be judged by the cops , the prosecutor, the citizens on a grand jury, maybe a trial jury, and by the media and special interest groups, and that after the shooting their lives will be changed forever, and from the moment they pull the trigger they will wish they were living 2,000 miles from the shooting
 
Strongly agree with jtpur on this. In any case involving deadly force used in self-defense you may expect to be placed under several different microscopes, operated by several different people acting under any number of pressures and influences. The more you say, the more statements you give, the more questions you respond to, the greater the possibility (even likelihood) that some will find inconsistencies (real or imagined) that can be used to support contrary arguments.

I suggest a simple "I was in fear for my life and forced to defend myself. I need to consult with an attorney before saying anything else."

Note that I do not suggest being uncooperative or evasive, just a simple stand on your constitutional right to legal representation. From that point onward, unless you knowingly and willingly waive your right to legal counsel, any statement or response you make will not be admissable in a court of law.

Giving a complete statement of the facts and circumstances during the initial investigation may well be the course recommended by your attorney. Submitting to additional questioning over the course of days, weeks, months, and years can easily lead to nuances and reinterpretations, so following the advice of a competent defense attorney will be the best course.

The outcome can never be expected to be good or pleasant. The goal is to avoid being victimized again, and again, and again.

My $0.02 worth.
 
[Before heading to the entrance and the mailbox kiosk, he gets out to try to read a street sign for the cut thru alley where the subject disappeared into the dark, rainy night. The subject suddenly jumps out of the darkness.]

Cool, you got the video version.

These [Creative Spelling Not Allowed- phil] always get away. He’s headed toward the entrance of the community.
In my opinion, this line kind of hurts Zimmerman. It shows he's already convicted the kid.. in his mind, he's guilty and is one of those "buttheads".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This whole case does not bode well for "Stand Your Groung" "No Retreat"Laws in many states. Makes little difference what the legal outcome may be.....Will it politically expedent to just throw Z under the bus. Was Z way of base Did the kid take the initial aggresive action..Will the masses alow a real solution??? The airing of the original call and the total transcript might be the key. Let us all hope that real justice is done....But stand by for the attack on CC. this also may derail the questions yet not replied to on "Fast and Furious"
 
All I can say is that if you are on the phone with 911 (before the shoot), you only answer the questions that they ask and nothing more, do not add on, do not make side comments. After the shoot, to both 911 and the LEOs I would say that he/she was coming after me, I was in fear of my life, and I will help you identify myself but any other questions will be asked with my lawyer with me.
 
Cool, you got the video version.

These [Creative Spelling Not Allowed- phil] always get away. He’s headed toward the entrance of the community.

In my opinion, this line kind of hurts Zimmerman. It shows he's already convicted the kid.. in his mind, he's guilty and is one of those "buttheads".

HA! No video version. I totally invented to the inserts - completely made up. Just using my imagination in the reverse direction of the common narrative on cable news. At least I try to make it clear that I don't know squat about what really happened and my inserts are all mere "artistic license" at work.

As for Z stating: "These [*deleted*] always get away," it may also show that he did indeed discontinue his observation and did not follow. If he were observing and/or following, he wouldn't have been concerned that the subject was "getting away" since he would have known exactly where the subject was and could report the location. His statement and the implied sentiment that he no longer knew where the subject was- only the last direction of travel, may bode well for Z. One could argue (effectively or not) that if the subject was indeed under Z's surveillance, he wouldn't have worried that he was "getting away." Z would have no cause for making such a statement if he was observing/following the subject.

I don't intend to suggest that I think that's what happened (or not.) The point is: Statements made and/or bits of audio captured during an encounter can be interpreted, twisted, manipulated by third parties (media, prosecuting attnys, defense attnys, wing-nuts on forums (self-reference:p) etc.) in ways not readily apparent to the speaker at the time of statement.

My intent is not to judge the merits of the FL encounter since I have absolutely no idea what may have actually occurred, but merely to use it as an example and cautionary tale against making too many statements during a self-defense encounter.
 
My intent is not to judge the merits of the FL encounter since I have absolutely no idea what may have actually occurred, but merely to use it as an example and cautionary tale against making too many statements during a self-defense encounter.

Especially if you're on the phone with 911... you never know if your case could get national attention and every aspect of your life end up under many many microscopes.
 
Good advice regarding what, or what not, to say.

For those of us who have been involved in such incidents in an official capacity, it is an unbelievably miserable experience. And that's when you have the support of your agency because you were acting within the scope of your authority.

I can only imagine what it would be like to go through such a process on your own behalf and on your own nickel.
 
What bothers me is how the public wants "justice", which they term to be "arrest and imprison" the guy who pulled the trigger.

Justice, in this and all other cases, is NOT "arrest, trial, and imprison". Justice is: investigate, get all the facts together, and proceed under the law as appropriate.

I thought we were supposed to be beyond lynch mobs.

Let's all allow the investigators and DA to do their work. Reserve the judgements.
 
What bothers me is how the public wants "justice", which they term to be "arrest and imprison" the guy who pulled the trigger.

Justice, in this and all other cases, is NOT "arrest, trial, and imprison". Justice is: investigate, get all the facts together, and proceed under the law as appropriate.

I thought we were supposed to be beyond lynch mobs.

Let's all allow the investigators and DA to do their work. Reserve the judgements.

I agree. Unfortunately, that kind of thinking doesn't fit in well with the narrative the media is attempting to put forth regarding this incident. Even if the investigation finds that this individual was acting in accordance with the law and was justified in using deadly force, his life is forever changed. He's already being tried and convicted by the media.
 
This whole story seems to be changing by the hour.

I think citizens should report unusual activity to the police, not drive around in a vehicle armed and thinking you have some sort authority, that type of thinking can develop into a nightmare.

Now you have a vigilante being pursued by a lynch mob.
 
Last edited:
Strongly agree with jtpur on this. In any case involving deadly force used in self-defense you may expect to be placed under several different microscopes, operated by several different people acting under any number of pressures and influences. The more you say, the more statements you give, the more questions you respond to, the greater the possibility (even likelihood) that some will find inconsistencies (real or imagined) that can be used to support contrary arguments.

I suggest a simple "I was in fear for my life and forced to defend myself. I need to consult with an attorney before saying anything else."

Note that I do not suggest being uncooperative or evasive, just a simple stand on your constitutional right to legal representation. From that point onward, unless you knowingly and willingly waive your right to legal counsel, any statement or response you make will not be admissable in a court of law.

Giving a complete statement of the facts and circumstances during the initial investigation may well be the course recommended by your attorney. Submitting to additional questioning over the course of days, weeks, months, and years can easily lead to nuances and reinterpretations, so following the advice of a competent defense attorney will be the best course.

The outcome can never be expected to be good or pleasant. The goal is to avoid being victimized again, and again, and again.

My $0.02 worth.
Excellant and factual post throughout it's content. The subject of officers being required to give immediate detailed statements after a self defense shooting,is the subject of a current national study by the Force Science Institute.

I would also suggest retaining an attorney who is intimately familiar with the confusion and thought processes that occur when someone (officer or civilian) is forced to shoot in self defense.
Any attorney who does not keep himself abreast of these studies and investigations is doing his profession and his client an injustice.
 
Back
Top