So what does this mean post-shooting?

It has always been the "traditional wisdom" to say little or nothing in response to questions after one has engaged in a self-defense shooting.  The rationale has always been that anything you might say in that time of hyper-arousal and confusion might be used against you.  Hence, common advice ranges from say nothing at all to pointing out important evidence and witnesses and then declining further comment until one is able to gather one's self or have counsel present. This is the common procedure with LEO after officer-involved shootings - no interrogation on scene.

But now that the SCOTUS has ruled that pre-Miranda silence can be used as against us as evidence, what does that mean for this advice?  Does this mean that refusing to answer questions, whether before or after Miranda warnings, can be used as evidence against you?

This hopefully will alarm some of those who always spout that worn out old notion that "If you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear."  Given the post-incident arousal and confusion, memory is likely to be less than reliable and one is liable to say something in a way that could be misinterpreted.  Now we know that saying nothing is likely to be misinterpreted, too.