This is admittedly a long post but there is a lot of mis-information. As background, I have represented numerous people involved in self defense situations and I teach the legal portion of CCW classes in my state. TL;DR version: Johnny is right on point even if I might not handle the situation exactly like he does.
CC states that Johnny is wrong on point 1 regarding police duty to individuals. Actually, Johnny is correct. In Deshaney v. Winnebago, 489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989), the Supreme Court held that “nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.” This means that the State has NO duty to protect any individual. So, imagine that cops are sitting at the station, drinking coffee, eating donuts and watching Jerry Springer when they get a 9-1-1 call that a madman has broken into a woman’s house with an axe. They shrug their shoulders and go back to Jerry Springer. The madman rapes and kills the woman. Are they liable? No. Families of deceased students from the Stoneman school shooting sued the police and guess what? Their case got dismissed because cops are not liable.
https://bit.ly/3PwirZR
Johnny is also correct on point 4. Police reports are inadmissible hearsay. Anything you say, though, is a statement by a party opponent and is generally admissible. If, though, you say anything in your favor, you don’t get to introduce it through someone else. That’s called ‘self-serving hearsay’. You have to take the stand. So why shouldn’t you talk to cops if you’re involved in a self-defense situation? There are a few reasons:
Your senses may deceive you. In such a situation, your fight or flight response can distort what you perceive. As a result, your statements, while you earnestly believe them, may be contradicted by the physical evidence. In such an instance, the discrepancy will not be viewed as the statement of a person who’s just undergone a very serious and traumatic situation but instead viewed as a guilty party lying to avoid culpability for a crime. CC may disagree but I’ve seen it happen to my clients.
You don’t know what other evidence there is. Your statement may be contradicted by someone else.
You don’t know who the cops are or who prosecutor is or how they will view matters. You might live in a pro-gun state but have an anti-gun cop or prosecutor.
To avoid criminal, and I stress criminal, liability, you do not have to be right. You just have to be reasonable. It’s why cops can shoot someone pulling out a wallet. It’s a ‘reasonable’ mistake.
So what do you say if you’re involved in a self defense situation? “Officer, that person tried to [kill/stab/shoot/attack/whatever] [me/spouse/partner/child]. I believed he was going to [seriously injure/kill/rape/wound][relevant party] and so I stopped him. Now, I want to talk with my lawyer. I am not making any statement without my lawyer.” You can’t waffle on this last point. You have to demand a lawyer. Saying, “Maybe I should get a lawyer” or “I think I should get a lawyer” is not enough. You have to affirmatively say “I want to talk with my lawyer.” Johnny’s point to say “I want a lawyer” repeatedly, almost mantra-like, is EXCELLENT advice.
What I suggest saying is admittedly a bit more than Johnny advises to say. I will admit that the topic of what to say after a self defense shooting/incident is debated in the CCW community. I favor this approach because it puts the cops on notice right away that you are claiming self defense but it does not give any details that can be used against you later if you are incorrect for the reasons stated above. Further, while ‘self-serving hearsay’ is inadmissible, it can be used to impeach the police if you do go to trial. Your attorney can ask something like, “Dan Defendant told you that he believed Dead Guy was going to hurt him, didn’t he?” The prosecutor may object but the answer is, “Not hearsay because I am impeaching the investigation as will be shown by my follow up questions.” And then your lawyer goes on to talk about the scene: gun/knife near dead guy’s hands; dead guy was not welcome in the house; etc. The point is that it is used to show that you claimed self defense immediately and the investigation was biased against the defendant.
So I disagree with Johnny on that point but I won’t say he’s wrong. Whether you have to identify yourself prior to arrest can also vary based on state law. If the event happens at your house, I would probably identify myself just to establish that I had the right to be there and to get the benefit of the doubt that comes from the event being in your own home. If this happened elsewhere, I would think about whether I should identify myself. If a cop was being very forceful and demanding that I ID myself, I likely would because the place to argue with a cop is in court, not at the scene. Further, even if I have the right to not ID myself and he’s demanding I do so, I can pretty much guarantee my failure to ID myself will get me arrested. May not be right but that’s just reality.
As a general rule, you can use force of any type when you meet 2 criteria: 1) you believe that you are about to be injured, attacked, whatever; and 2) that believe is reasonable. So saying “He was coming at me with a knife so I shot him” sounds good until it’s pointed out that the guy was 75 yards away. At that point, your belief is not reasonable and you don’t have the right to use force.
You can use deadly force if you can use force (see above) and deadly force is necessary to prevent murder, rape, kidnapping, armed robbery, child sexual assault, or arson. Some states may grant the right to use deadly force against additional crimes but those are generally the ones that most commonly justify allowing deadly force.
As a general rule, you cannot use deadly force to defend property. There are some limited exceptions in different states so check your own state laws but the exceptions usually limit allowable deadly force to prevent a burglary or arson on an occupied dwelling so even there the focus is really on protecting life, not property. But you should absolutely check your own state laws and talk with an attorney about this. This is also why you should never say, “I was defending my home.” Defending your home does not give you the right to use deadly force. Defending your own person or your wife or children or guest in your home can.
Johnny’s point #2 is generally correct about deadly force. In many places you can use non-deadly force to stop a trespass at your house but that is limited to using the necessary non-deadly force to remove someone. So you can’t just beat the shit out of them but you can tell them to get off your property and escort, maybe even push them off your property, although probably not off a third-floor balcony.
At this point, this fellow has established that he will not willingly go away. You should contact police every time he comes by if for no other reason than to establish the number of times he will not leave. This will establish the reasonableness of your mindset should the situation escalate in the future. You can firmly escort him from your premises. I don’t know what your state law says about you being armed in that situation. In some states, mine is one and it’s based upon a Texas case so I presume Texas is this way as well, a citizen can arm himself in anticipation of a potential conflict and still keep his right to use deadly force in self defense should the need arise. Put another way, the mere act of having a firearm on your person, assuming its legal otherwise, does not make you the initial aggressor per se.
I don’t know if you are in an apartment complex or if you own a condo. Either way, one thing you can do is to give him a trespass notice. Get something from the apartment manager or condo association in writing. Make a copy so you can have a record of what it says. Make sure it cites to the relevant statutes in your state. Film yourself giving it to him so that you have a record that he is on notice to not come around. Other than forcing him off your property without beating the shit out of him, there is not much you can do if all he’s doing is hanging around your building.
Your neighbor might be in a different situation. You say he climbed on her deck on the third floor. If it’s a deck such as in a condo or apartment and it’s only her deck, that is, the only way off the deck is either climb down or through her apartment/condo, that becomes far more troubling, particularly since she’s female and he’s male. The size discrepancy will definitely be a factor in determining whether any self defense is reasonable. If I were the neighbor, I would get a gun that I could use and if he was on my deck, I would get my gun and I would escort him from my property at gunpoint while on the phone with the police. Someone that unstable who is present on a deck that should have limited access is definitely a threat and I do not believe that her escorting him from her apartment with a firearm would create any legal issues in most jurisdictions. Some notoriously anti-gun jurisdictions, such as NY, NJ, or Hawaii, there might be issues related to the gun.
I know this answer is long but these can be intensely factual situations. You should really talk with a lawyer in your state about the specifics of your state law. Once you commit to using force of any kind, particularly deadly force, your choices will be intensely analyzed and scrutinized. You absolutely should get competent legal advice from your own state about what your state laws do and do not allow. I would look at USCCA or LawShield or Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network and see if there is an attorney that is part of their organization near you. Call them and pick their brains. They would be an excellent resource because legal advice from the internet will likely land you in jail.