Shooting lessons: Washington state v. Gail Gerlach

There are two levels of survival that the armed citizen must contemplate, street and court. A self-defense shooting encounter, or anything else in life for that matter, is like a game of chess. One should try to anticipate from whence an attack may come, and have a counter in place.

Way too many who carry make no or only cursory plans for either arena. Taking the minimal training to obtain a concealed carry permit should be the starting point in one's training and education in this subject, although not required by law. Many years ago after soloing when I got a pilot's license my flight instructor said, "This is your license to learn to fly." So, I would urge, it is with use of arms.

I recently spent the last seven to eight months on the defense team for the recent above referenced case as one of two expert witnesses. My associate is a retired state crime lab expert in forensics, particularly including firearms, and my area of expertise is use of force, particularly lethal force.

It will not be my intent to retry the case here. Enough of that has been done in the media, and continues now even though the verdict is in. Some have their minds made up regardless of the facts, much like we have seen in other cases like the Zimmerman and Rodney King trials. Bear in mind when listening to the "gun shop commandos" or gun prohibitionists that a jury of peers unanimously found Mr. Gerlach not guilty on both criminal counts as well as found by majority that this was a case of justifiable self defense. As an instructor in this discipline for more than three decades, my goal here will be "lessons learned."

There is no winner in a gun fight. If one has to use lethal force against an aggressor, that person simply loses less than if they end up on the ground dead or seriously injured. In the medical field it is called a triage decision. One has to pick the lesser of two evils. No matter the degree or level of criminal, they still have family that will be affected. Yes, I understand that the perpetrator initiated the chain of events that may lead to their own death, such as in this case. Nonetheless, condolences are offered to those family members. There is also nothing wrong with feeling happiness for the defender in this event.

Furtive movement cases and case law is not uncommon, and that is what occurred in the Gerlach case. Only last year we had two Spokane County deputies who were forced to shoot a man who presented car keys to them in such a manner that they believed he had a gun, and they responded accordingly by using their guns to shoot him. In that case, as in the Gerlach case, the perception of the defender at that time, knowing what they knew then, is what they must be judged by, not 20/20 hindsight far later.

The jury had all the facts with which to make their decision, something anyone outside the case does not. The media, even at best trying to cover objectively, does not have all the facts. At worst, when agenda driven, they "massage" the facts that they do have. For instance, this case has never been about defending against a property theft by using lethal force. It has always been about self defense against a perceived threat of deadly force against Mr. Gerlach, and that is what the jury understood, after weighing the facts of the case. Yet some of the media has reported before, during, and still after the verdict that this is what the case was about.

Some of the media chose to show a high school graduation picture of the deceased, complete in tuxedo, which was about 8 years younger than what he looked like at the time of his crime. After the verdict another picture was used where he looks to be about 12-14 years old. Really? No sympathy seeking twisting of facts there. Nor is any mention made that he was stealing yet another car while under the influence of the methamphetamine in his system, or what risk this posed to other motorists or bystanders. Or mention made of the 25 grams of meth in his possession. What was mentioned was the almost obligatory "he was just turning his life around," "had a new job interview the next day," and similar statements we hear about perpetrators.

Learn in advance what and what not to say to responding and investigating officers. Say as little as possible in the immediate aftermath as one is still under the influence of the event. There is a reason police get 48-72 hours before they are required to make statements that we know may be erroneous right after the event. We are all subject to the same psychological effects related to that critical incident. Learn the 2-5 minimal things to say, then don't say anything more until you have had time to rest, reflect, and seek counsel, both legal and psychological.

Even when police may view it as a justifiable shooting, this doesn't mean that someone else up the line, perhaps with an agenda, may not put a whole new spin to your words and you find yourself being prosecuted. Unless you keep an extra $2-3,000 lying around just for your criminal defense, it may be wise to not even go there by not saying anything "that can and will be used against you in a court of law." As we have taught in our Use of Force Instructor Trainer classes, you may not go to jail because you did something wrong, you may go to jail because you could not articulate that what you did was right.

Robert Smith is a Coeur d'Alene resident.