I'll start out by making it clear that I understand that there is nothing to gain and everything to lose by talking to law enforcement in the aftermath of a DGU. I realize that the right thing for anyone to do is invoke right to counsel, STFU, and to make no statement to law enforcement except on the advice of a competent attorney.
And I'll go further by saying that, in general, that is also true of news media, and more broadly, talking about the incident at all, to anyone. Except under the careful guidance of an attorney who is experienced in dealing with the media, it is, at a personal level, unwise.
The trouble with this approach is that it leads to the tragedy of the commons. The firearms community benefits from fair, widespread reporting of legitimate DGUs. In Florida, where the first modern carry law was passed in 1987, I suggest that it is the constant media reports of DGUs in response to life-threatening violence that have, over the course of twenty years, altered the legal and political landscape to such a degree that police, prosecuting attorneys, news media, and other public figures handle them routinely and professionally.
I think that the recent DGU at an Oklahoma City pharmacy is an example of the media benefit that comes from giving an interview after a DGU. In that thread,
Andrew Rothman wrote: Uh-oh. Don't talk to cops, don't talk to the press.
And I think, as general advice from a carry permit instructor to a student, Andrew's comment is appropriate. But let's look at the specifics of the incident and see whether it still applies:
1. Unlike a statement made to a cop, Ersland's statement to the reporter isn't admissible in court.
2. The presence of multiple witnesses and physical evidence leave little room for doubt regarding what happened.
3. The nature of Ersland's work and the way the robbery took place make it difficult to second-guess his actions or ascribe ulterior motives (compared to, say, someone encountering trouble after leaving a party or drinking establishment in the wee hours).
I think that, in this particular case, Ersland accomplished three things by speaking to the media:
1. He got his side of the story out, so that his customers won't wonder and let their imaginations run. In this way, he will lose fewer customers, and perhaps gain some community sympathy.
2. By getting his story out into the community, the job of any prosecutor wishing to pursue charges, or especially to seat a grand jury, is made much harder.
3. He has furthered the understanding of DGU, self-defense, and carry issues in Oklahoma City more effectively than the most polished PR person could do.
I think that, in this particular case, Ersland himself came out ahead, as well as doing a public service.
So I see this matter as being much more gray and much less black and white than it is often presented. I think that as a community we should mull whether, when, and how media contact is appropriate in such incidents, remembering that clients of defense attorneys are, on the whole, young, foolish, and lacking in public speaking skills and camera presence, attributes that do not necessarily apply throughout the carry community.
Which makes this different than talking to the cops. Nothing good can ever come out of talking to the cops, and anyone who hasn't seen the video over in the reference section should go watch it to learn why.
[fixed link]
|
