[businessprofessor]

I am curious about the home owner’s usage of an attorney. He certainly has a right to consult an attorney and not talk to the police directly. If the home owner has no connection to this home invasion, I am not sure why he would consult an attorney. My suspicions are raised on this incident although I applaud him for his defense of his family.

[CRBDeuce]

” If the home owner has no connection to this home invasion, I am not sure why he would consult an attorney.”
The second after you ever ‘pull the trigger’, you need to call an attorney in this country....that would be especially true if he has a concealed carry permit.

[Polynikes]

“I am curious about the home owner’s usage of an attorney. He certainly has a right to consult an attorney and not talk to the police directly. If the home owner has no connection to this home invasion, I am not sure why he would consult an attorney.”

He is probably playing it cautious. Ill advised statements to MSM sources can be twisted and end up being used for civil action by the perps family and a bloodsucking attorney. I don’t think it will happen in this case insomuch as the perp is dead but it is a good tactic if you shoot someone depending on the jurisdiction. Sort of a legal CYA

[William Tell]

businessprofessor said: "If the home owner has no connection to this home invasion, I am not sure why he would consult an attorney. "

There isn't anything that you can say at the time you are involved in a shooting that you can't say just as effectively later after having consulted with an attorney.

One common emotional response to surviving a shooting is exhilaration at having defeated an enemy in deadly combat. This emotional response can be mistaken for an unhealthy desire to engage in such combat.

The guy in Pasadena, Texas made a mistake in saying, I believe, something along the lines of "I'll kill them", about the two thieves he was about to confront. No matter how justified the shooting might have been at the instant it occurred, the statement made works against giving the shooter the benefit of any doubt.

Best to just say nothing.

[brityank]

I am curious about the home owner’s usage of an attorney. He certainly has a right to consult an attorney and not talk to the police directly. If the home owner has no connection to this home invasion, I am not sure why he would consult an attorney. My suspicions are raised on this incident although I applaud him for his defense of his family.

Much as I resent that I feel this way, there is no way under similar circumstance that I would not have an attorney before talking to the police. The main reason is you have -- from a Court's point-of-view -- acquired an unimpeachable witness to all actions by both you and the police. Your wife or next-door neighbor might be good people, but the Court will accept the word of an "Officer of the Court" more readily against the opinions and statements of the cops.

The inferences from the cops here indicates he's done the right thing.