Aftermath: Lessons In Self-Defense: What to Expect When the Shooting Stops

By Jim Fleming

Before you venture out into the public armed, have you taken the time to consider the consequences of your involvement in a deadly force encounter? If it does happen, after the smoke has cleared, then what do you do? This book will help you to understand what to expect when the shooting stops. What do you say, to whom, and when? How do you deal with neighbors, friends, your own family, the media, the police? How do you protect yourself legally in the ongoing battle to protect your life and liberty? Jim is one of a very few people in the United States with the unique breadth of experience necessary to address the issues knowledgeably. “Aftermath” is a book that goes into each of these questions and more in great detail. It is written by Jim Fleming, a man with a unique perspective on the issues based on his experience as a former police officer, a practicing attorney, certified firearms trainer, CLE presenter (Continuing Legal Education for attorneys) and expert witness for self-defense cases. His style is direct, the chapters fly by like a conversation, filled with practical insight and sound advice. Before you carry in public for the first time, before you go out into the public armed again, before you are called upon to defend your home and your loved ones. You need to read this book.

• Language: English
• Publisher: BookBaby
• Release date: Mar 15, 2015
• ISBN: 9781483551760

Jim Fleming

Jim Fleming is a graduate of Talbot Seminary (M.Div. & Th.M.) and pastor with over 45 years of experience serving in seven local churches. Pastor Fleming draws from vast practical knowledge and deep biblical wisdom to help men become difference-makers. His great joy is in seeing saints bear abundant fruit for Jesus. Raising up a host of shepherds who know how to equip the saints for such ministry is the vision driving Shepherdology 101.

Book preview

off.

CHAPTER 1:

IMMEDIATE AFTERMATH

Maintaining Safety and Security

Research has consistently shown that immediately following a violent confrontation, the average human being is going to suffer a period of confusion and disorientation. The extent to which this will affect any of us is hard to forecast, for human beings are very different, and the circumstances in which the incident arose may cause the effects to differ, even for the same human subject at different times. For some individuals, this will fade rapidly. For others, the effect will linger for some undefinable period of time. Self-defense students, attending any number of classes, taught by knowledgeable and experienced instructors, will hear of the many physiological impacts of the so-called adrenaline dump. This is nothing more than a layman’s way of describing the rapid introduction of a hormonal neurotransmitter named epinephrine¹ into the blood stream. This in turn, has a dramatic effect on various bodily systems, creating an enhanced ability to either fight or run away from danger. We are going to deal with this in much greater detail in Chapter Five, Physiological and Psychological Issues. However there are some important points that need to be made here, as well.

Extensive medical research going clear back into the 1800’s has demonstrated that this rapid infusion of adrenaline into the system increases heart and respiratory rates, causes both dilation and constriction of various vessels of the circulatory system to produce enhanced blood flow to organs needed for rapid and exaggerated physical activity, enhances the production of stored sugars for sustained energy in the face of extended physical activity, and produces a much enhanced affect on striated skeletal muscle fiber.¹

All this sounds good, but, you have to remember that as adrenaline dump gives, it also takes away. As I stated, we are going to talk in some detail about some of the take aways a little later, but for now we will focus on one, very dangerous one: tunnel vision. Under the influence of high levels of adrenaline, you will lose peripheral vision and ALL you will be able to see is the immediate threat. Which would be fine, if the threat is a single individual, in an isolated area, with no other human beings around. The chances are very good, however, that if you do encounter a fight or flight, self-defense situation, the attacker you face may not be alone, or may be positioned against a background of other innocent human beings.

Obviously, tunnel vision is not a permanent effect. It is caused by the rapid dilation of the pupils which allows more light to enter, allowing greater focus. At the same time, this dilation will result in a temporary loss of peripheral vision. This is why your self-defense firearm instructor emphasizes the need to physically break tunnel vision by focusing rapidly on other angles of view and objects that surround you, to the sides, and to the rear. You must do this, rapidly, in order to ensure that you are not leaving yourself open to an attack by anyone assisting your attacker. You cannot rely upon your other senses in such a situation, since, for example, among the other impacts of adrenaline MAY be auditory exclusion caused by the brain simply focusing all of its conscious awareness on the threat you are facing. You may very well not be able to hear the approach of another attacker that you cannot see.

Briefly, but consciously, breaking the visual lock you have on the attacker can alert you to other dangers, including innocent human beings in your immediate area, and other factors within the environment in which your very personal, and very violent battle, has just taken place.

Here is another issue. Contrary to the often made argument, there are not just two kinds of people in the world. This is known in debate circles as a false dichotomy or false dilemma, where the proponent of an argument claims that his conclusion is one of only two options, when in fact there are other options, or, in this case, many more than two kinds of people in the world. It comes up often in self-defense, and often there, debated in the context of the statement, There are two kinds of people at the scene of a self-defense incident, those who will rush to aid the wounded attacker, and those who will not. It is one of those topics that is guaranteed to generate great controversy, cause a rise in blood pressure, and produce a lot of opinions, usually stated on self-defense blog sites, such as this one:

Good question, for me, as a licensed [LPN, RN, PA, EMT, etc.], this may be different. I may find myself in trouble by not helping. I’m certainly going to have to look deeper into this. I will say on the moral side, if it is safe for me to do so, I will render aid to my attacker until the ambulance arrives.

There is some controversy in the laws of various states as to whether you, as the defender, must render aid. Some jurisdictions have statutes that do speak to the issue.² Decisions can also be found in the case law of other states confronting the issue, with mixed results:

We therefore hold that a person, who is found to have used justifiable force but who nevertheless fails to summon aid in dereliction of the legal duty as defined here, may be found criminally negligent only where the failure to summon aid is the cause-in-fact of death, rather than the use of force itself.

State ex rel Kuntz v. Montana, 995 P.2d 951 (Mont. 2000)

Those readers who believe that the true meaning of this language is readily apparent from the ruling itself, have never been involved in the realities of the practice of law. There are a total of eight weasel words to be found in that sentence. Words that will have a legal meaning, and, therefore, a legal consequence, depending upon the ultimate interpretation of those words. That consequence may vary from courtroom to courtroom and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

But this question only addresses the duty of the defender to render or summon aid. What about those who are merely witnesses, rather than actors in the events that have taken place? As a firearm self-defense instructor, I have heard the argument more than once. I am an RN and I have a duty to render aid. If I don’t, in any instance, I can lose my license and face criminal charges. This, notwithstanding the fact, as I have often pointed out, that by making physical contact with a wounded criminal, the RN may very well place herself in danger. Well, that can’t be helped, the law does not account for that, I still have a duty. This perception, or belief, may stem from the fact that a handful of states have enacted what are commonly referred to as duty to rescue statutes.³

However, almost every one of these so-called duty to rescue statutes also clearly states in articulating this duty:

…to the extent that the person can do so without danger or peril to self or others.

Minn. Stat. Ann. §604A.01.

When I show this language to the licensed medical professional, they often stare at the writing, perplexed, and sometimes admit that their understanding of their duty has been based upon something that someone else told them at an in-service, or that they read in some publication or another. For example, the Nurse’s Legal Handbook has been quoted as saying, that the only people with a legal duty to provide care in an emergency situation are those who perform rescues as part of their jobs – emergency responders, police, firefighters, etc. Nurses are not presumed to have a legal duty to provide care – except in those approximately ten states mentioned above, which have enacted these duty to rescue laws.

In spite of this statutory language, no one has a legal duty, statutory or otherwise, to render aid in a situation where doing so may put their safety or their life, or the lives of others, in peril. This will not stop those who feel morally bound to rush to the aid of a criminal you just had to shoot in order to save your life. This will also not stop the morbidly curious from crowding in as close to the wounded (or now deceased) attacker as possible, so that they can see the scene first hand. There is no common sense to it, it is just a facet of human nature. It is why we slow down in traffic as we pass the scene of a horrific auto accident, backing up traffic for miles behind us. It is why I, as a young street cop, was once pushed face first on top of a dead gunshot victim, while attempting to do the obligatory chalk outline around the body. The press of those behind me, who just had to see, literally pushed me forward off my feet as I squatted, absorbed in the task at hand.

This human reaction presents multiple levels of danger for you as a defender. One, the attacker may use the weapon he was attempting to use against you, to injure or even kill the Good Samaritan(s). Two, the attacker may attempt to barter the safety of the Samaritan for your voluntary disarmament, and consequential exposure to a continued attack. Three, the movements of onlookers, to and around the downed attacker’s position, the movement of the attacker’s body while attempting to provide aid, and the alteration of clothing, and other artifacts during these efforts may change, hide or obscure evidence that might be critical to the authorities who will have to investigate the event to determine whether your use of deadly force was justified under the circumstances.

You cannot be held liable if another person exposes themselves to a known and appreciable danger and is injured as a result. Nor can you control the movement of the misguided, the unwary, or the morbidly curious, by ordering them away from the body, or immediate vicinity of the downed attacker. You do not have that kind of legal authority, and your attempt might be misconstrued by those who simply lack the understanding to appreciate these three dangers. You can attempt to use an appeal to common sense by stating clearly and loudly something that might cause the innocent citizen to rethink their approach. Stay away from him, he is still armed!⁴ Stay away from him, he may attack you too! A variation on the first theme. Stay away from him, you could destroy evidence! Yet another variation. You can use your own imagination to come up with something that you believe would be helpful in this instance. You may not be successful in your effort, but you have to try. If you cannot keep Florence Nightingale or morbid gawkers from crowding in, at least try to identify them so that law enforcement officers and crime scene technicians examining the scene will know who it was that trampled heedlessly all over the evidence at this crime scene.

Wait a minute! you say, What crime scene? I was defending myself I committed no crime! Think about it. By definition, someone has committed a crime here. If not, then why did you employ deadly force? Either the attacker committed a crime, causing you to fear for your very life, or you committed a crime in shooting an innocent person. THIS IS A CRIME SCENE, and as such, it must at all costs, be treated as such. I will keep repeating this at various points to reinforce the idea.

It is also obvious, if you think about the issue at all, that in the aftermath of a deadly force encounter, there is a time to remain armed, and there is a time to put down the gun. Law enforcement officers, once called, are going to be responding to a report of a man with a gun, or perhaps, shots fired. Upon arrival, they are not going to know who might be a law-abiding citizen, and who might be a danger to the officer or the general public, or how to tell them apart, until after the scene has been stabilized and they can obtain some information. At the outset, they will view anyone who is armed as a potential threat, and will deal with them as such. You are going to be disoriented to one degree or another, and your focus is not going to be razor sharp. Before the officers arrive to confront you face to face, you need to put that gun away. But when is too soon?

Here is a partial transcript of a 911 call made to the Botetourt County, Virginia Sheriff’s 911 dispatcher in April, 2009. This is the part that I want you to pay particular attention to:

Wife : Oh my God!

Wife : (inaudible)…. Oh.. get somebody here quick

(police radio…shots fired from inside the house)

Dispatcher : "Ma’am..

Wife : Yes

Dispatcher : What happened?

Wife: He just came through and my husband shot him and he’s still moving.. Oh Lord

Dispatcher to someone : The husband shot him

Dispatcher : Where did he shoot him?

Wife : I don’t know.. I don’t know!

Dispatcher : Where is your husband?

Wife : He’s standing here in the kitchen to make sure he doesn’t come in

Dispatcher : ok.. I want you to tell your husband to put the gun down

Wife : what if he comes in to try and attack us?

Dispatcher : Ma’am if he shot him he is not going to get up… tell your husband to put the gun down please.

A law enforcement dispatcher, with no known experience as a participant in a self-defense, deadly force encounter, attempting to order a distraught woman to tell her husband to put the gun down. A dispatcher, who does not know if the home invader has been shot, and does not know anything about his condition, inexplicably tells that wife, Ma’am if he shot him, he is not going to get up… Stop, and ask yourself. How does she know that? Answer?: She doesn’t, nor does she have the authority to make such a demand, and she is far from the scene, reacting only to what limited information she is receiving from the distraught wife. Is putting the gun down before law enforcement arrives a good idea in this instance? No, it very likely is not. What might the couple have done in that situation? Perhaps a request to the 911 operator, When your officers arrive, tell me that they are outside, and my husband will put the gun down. Not before … Gee, can you do that? Yes, you can. Consider the case of the Holmes Beach Florida woman (NJ") who called 911 on August 1, 2014⁵, when she heard glass breaking and her door being kicked in:

In a police report, officers said the suspect used a large rock to smash the bottom glass out of the door. They then cut out the screen.

On the other side of the door, NJ was awake and ready.

I don’t know what was going on in my mind. Honestly all I wanted was my gun, she said.

She grabbed it and went downstairs.

I was probably running down the stairs with my new hip so to speak, said NJ.

She yelled out warnings to whoever was downstairs.

I didn’t want to shoot. I really didn’t want to have to shoot anybody, she said.

She then called for help.

When I called 911 she kept saying put the gun down. Put the gun down and I said I’ll put the gun down when I see the police, NJ said."

I feel comfortable believing that the 911 operators in each of these situations would not want any harm to come to the frightened home owner. The problem is, they are trained to give this response as a means of preserving officer safety for the responding officers. I understand and appreciate that effort, I used to be one of those officers. However, this is an individual who is not on scene, who can only respond to what he or she is being told over the telephone, regardless of the accuracy of the information. The defender has his own level of responsibility for personal safety. In such a situation, do not blindly place your fate in the hands of an unknown authority figure, and follow their directives without stopping to question the wisdom of their advice.

People in high-stress situations are extremely susceptible to the power of suggestion. They are under unaccustomed levels of extreme stress, and they WANT someone to tell them what to do. We are all pretty much trained from adolescence to obey a law enforcement officer. People automatically will give that 911 operator the same level of respect. This type of unthinking compliance is very understandable, but you have to remember that your very survival may literally depend upon your recognizing that unthinking sheep-like impulse to obey, and finding a means of resisting it.

Maintain readiness with your firearm until it is no longer necessary. Ideally, that will be as law enforcement officers arrive on scene and you no longer need to cover an attacker, who may be feigning serious injury, waiting for the chance to attack and overpower you and make an escape. Even worse, what about the attacker who is so deranged that escape is not a consideration, and continuing the attack against you is at the forefront of his mind.

If you are in a situation where you need to maintain control of your firearm until ordered to relinquish it by the police, then do so, by following their commands to the letter, and immediately upon receipt. Make eye contact with the officer, demonstrate that you are listening to his commands. Do not argue, do not quibble, do not attempt to tell them their jobs, and do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, be foolish enough to say something like I don’t wanna scratch my gun! You have just used deadly force on another human being. You may know what that was like, but very few others do. That is the type of comment that cops will talk about in roll call for months afterward, and, you can be absolutely dead-solid, certain, that the jury is going to hear all about it, when the prosecutor presents her case in chief to a jury.

CHAPTER 2:

CONTACTING LAW ENFORCEMENT

Who should call

What to say and what not to say (5 W’s what-where-when and who)

I recently read an article written by a criminal defense attorney very familiar with self-defense representation. That attorney said, More people are convicted as a result of what they say in that initial call for emergency services, than from any other issue in the cases. I have no hard, authenticated statistics from which to draw my own conclusions on the accuracy of his assertions. However, over the course of thirty-two years of criminal defense practice, I can say that I have seen it happen very, very