Letter Re: After the Shooting

Mr. Rawles,
Mr. Tupreco has made some salient points in his article on your actions and statements after a shooting to protect you and yours. However some of what he says is blatantly false, at least in my neck of the woods. I am a retired police officer who was involved in five separate instances of deadly force during my career so I think I speak with some experience that Mr. Tupreco lacks. He states that police officers are focused only on clearing cases so they will interrogate you with that frame of mind even if your use of deadly force is justified. I personally handled several instances over the years where citizens used deadly force to protect themselves or loved ones from criminals. I not only was sympathetic to their justifiable use of deadly force I even suggested a citizens commendation for an elderly woman that shot a burglary suspect in the face as he tried to enter her home. I can similarly attest that the vast majority of my fellow officers were very inclined to assist citizens in these situations as much as we could.

Mr. Tupreco also states that police are assumed innocent and not required to give a statement prior to consulting counsel. On the contrary any citizen of the the USA can refuse to speak to law enforcement and request an attorney before saying anything. In contrast as a police officer involved in the use use of deadly force I was required to speak to internal affairs and perform a reenactment of these incidents that was video recorded. I’m not sure where Mr. Tupreco gets his information about police being given special treatment but he is simply wrong. As stated I am a retired police officer not an attorney but if you ever feel uncomfortable speaking to law enforcement simply stop. Request an attorney and say no more. Police Officers are on your side not adversaries to be feared interested only in clearance statistics.
Thank you, – Carl L.