• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Regarding firearm for self defense and "proving innocence"

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

I often hear/read people discussing the liabilities in using a firearm in self defense, and the potential legal repercussions that may come with it. I am aware that self defense laws vary greatly, state by state, but I live in the state of Washington, and am well aware of the self defense laws here, including use of force, when justified, and justifiable homicide. It's not really a gray area. State law is very clear.

My question is more so asking for your opinion. Why do you feel that there are more people who are immediately more concerned with potential legal repercussions of their actions? How many state's have such a gray and shady area of self defense?

I often hear people saying how you'll have to "prove yourself innocent in front of a jury."

In all of the articles and news broadcasts that I've read and watched, I have never once heard of a case where an individual, who truly and justifiably defended there self against an attacker, who also had to prove his innocence in front of a jury. In every case I have read or watched, the prosecutor did not even bring up charges on the individual. Usually, if the prosecutor brings up charges, then that prosecutor has reasonable evidence to believe you truly did not act within self defense, or used more force than necessary.

If, by chance that the prosecutor was wrong in his/her charges, and you truly were innocent, then your chances of convincing a jury would seem pretty good, as long as you're completely truthful about the situation, don't fabricate evidence, and don't overly mix your story up. I have a friend who is a prosecuting attorney, and he said that it's actually normal for a story to get mixed up a little bit, considering the heat of the moment, and the fact that you may not be thinking too clearly when giving your description of the incident.

Anyway, what are your opinions on true self defense cases that actually make it to trial VS ones that aren't even prosecuted at all? It seems very 90-10 to me, with 90% of them not even getting prosecuted in the first place. At least where I'm from, and their sources.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
imported post

The use of deadly force is not one to be taken lightly. I for one hope I never have to know what its like to use it. In Wisconsin (a criminal friendly state) if you shoot someone even in your own home you will have to prove that you did so in self defence. No castle doctrine here. We are not given the "privilege" of self defence. We also (because of no castle doctrine) have to be concerned about the civil action taken by the family of the criminal. It is a sad fact that the family can sue you for killing their precious relative while they areattempting to kill you.

I am sure others will add to this, but that is why the legal repercussions are a major concern.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

Thanks for your input. I'm just trying to get perspectives from other states. Maybe I just take the Castle Doctrine for granted, considering Washington has one. Washington seems to be a very self defense friendly state, and I'm fortunate for that. Reading stories from others who come from not-so-friendly states really help open the eyes.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

I am pretty sure that if a prosecutor takes a case to court involving an affirmative defense of self-defense, he has to have serious reason to believe that it was not a case of self-defense.

If it is a toss-up, he isn't going to bother to try the shooter. He'll try cases that he believes he has a good shot to win.
 

NightOwl

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
559
Location
, California, USA
imported post

Just to play it safe, should you have to shoot someone in self defense, it's a good idea to tell the police when they arrive "I shot in self defense. I have nothing else to say without an attorney present." Don't hang yourself by misspeaking, sometimes the little things that come out might be enough to incite prosecution in a situation like that.

Don't talk to the police, part 1 and 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

I'd even skip the first sentence and just say, "I have nothing to say without my attorney present."
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

NightOwl wrote:
Just to play it safe, should you have to shoot someone in self defense, it's a good idea to tell the police when they arrive "I shot in self defense. I have nothing else to say without an attorney present." Don't hang yourself by misspeaking, sometimes the little things that come out might be enough to incite prosecution in a situation like that.

Don't talk to the police, part 1 and 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
Seems funny for me, considering I'm testing to become a police officer. :)
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
NightOwl wrote:
Just to play it safe, should you have to shoot someone in self defense, it's a good idea to tell the police when they arrive "I shot in self defense. I have nothing else to say without an attorney present." Don't hang yourself by misspeaking, sometimes the little things that come out might be enough to incite prosecution in a situation like that.

Don't talk to the police, part 1 and 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE
Seems funny for me, considering I'm testing to become a police officer. :)
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
 

Ca Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
2,330
Location
, ,
imported post

There was a case back east, I am trying to find a link toit right now. A man shot 4 people on his property and claimed self defense. It is often used as a test case and many poeple dont know that if you have a good attorney and you keep your mouth closed you have ALOT of leeway on how much you can claim you feared for your life or well being.
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
My question is more so asking for your opinion. Why do you feel that there are more people who are immediately more concerned with potential legal repercussions of their actions?
Because just about everywhere the killing of a human being is a crime. You may be either "justified" or "excused" for killing another human being, but only after you have 1) admitted you are guilty of killing another human being and 2) presented your legal case to prove your actions qualify for justification or excuse.

In other words, there are going to be legal ramifications. The question is merely one of how much time, energy, and money are you going to need to spend dealing with those ramifications. Some places send all killings to the Grand Jury and have very few that were claimed to be self defense reported out as True Bills. No further criminal action and who knows if a civil suit will or will not be filed against the person who killed another human being, although either justified or excusable on grounds of self defense. Other jurisdictions seem to make sure every alleged kiling of another human being in self defense gets a full criminal trial before there is a decision whether it could be ruled excusable or justified. And even if it is ruled as justified or excusable you might face a civil lawsuit.

Just my take on the question, but that's why I feel people are immediately concerned with potential legal repercussions of their actions in a self defense killing of another human being.

stay safe.

skidmark

* Yes, I purposely went heavy-handed on repeating "the killing of another human being" because that's what is behind the OP's question. We need to remember that.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

Here in Washington, I don't believe I've ever heard of a true case of self defense homicide that has gone to trial. It must truly sucks to live in a jurisdiction where a prosecutor would be quick to jump the gun and make a case out of something like this. It's one thing to weigh out the evidence on both sides to truly investigate if there was a crime committed. That's understandable. It's completely different when the prosecutor goes out of his way to criminally charge someone who justifiable defended there self, even when the evidence is against them (the prosecutor).

I remember a specific case a while back, where a man was jumped in the city of Seattle. The man was who jumped him was "unarmed" but had knocked the victim to the ground. Upon falling down, the man drew his firearm, shot, and killed the attacker. Police eventually took him to the station for questioning, but he was let go after it was ruled as justifiable self defense. Prosecutors never filed charges, and the case never saw the court room. I can't find the specific article, but it's around somewhere.
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

Seems funny for me, considering I'm testing to become a police officer. :)

Isn't that the first cop rule they teach?

video

You have a right to remain silent, exercise it.


At our Jacksonville Criminal Law Firm, many of our cases begin with our client talking to the police. Some criminal clients invoke their right to remain silent, but a majority do talk to the police and try to explain their side of the story. Talking to the police is almost always a detriment to a criminal suspect. The police wear handcuffs for a reason. Their job is to put you in jail.

Recently, there was a suspect shot by police at the Wendy's on Baymeadows Road. Police shot 42 times in a carjacked car that had 3 innocents in it as well as the suspect. Two of the innocents, one child, are in the hospital with gunshot wounds at the hands of these police officers. Baymeadows Road was shut down for around 8 hours so an investigation could be conducted. Not an investigation about the carjacking, the suspect was dead. Law enforcement was supposed to be investigating the police shooting.

Today is 6 days after the incident and the police officers who shot into the car still have not given a formal statement about what happened. They "lawyered up". They will not talk to any law enforcement agency without discussing the case in detail with their union attorney.

When police interrogate civilian suspects, they almost always tell them to simply tell the truth. "If you don't have anything to hide, why wouldn't you talk to us?" is the line that is commonly used by police. If this is true, why don't the police officers involved in a police shooting simply "tell the truth".

taken from here
 

Nevada carrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,293
Location
The Epicenter of Freedom
imported post

Seems funny for me, considering I'm testing to become a police officer. :)

Were you tought all the valuable techniques that police officers employ to trick people into making incriminating statements or forfeiting their rights yet? or is that off the record OJT type stuff?

LAC: May I help you officer?
LEO: Holy cow, it wreaks of marijuana in your car... is this you child in the car seat?
LAC: Yes.
LEO: You don't seriously smoke pot around your doughtier do you?
LAC: No officer.

In this simple dialog I just demonstrated two responses to a LEO question that can be used in court to show reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

The first LEO question was "Wow, it wreaks of marijuana in there, is this your child?" If the person being questioned simply said yes, what is it he said yes to? The smell of pot or that it's his child? Now the officer has suspicion.

The second question, "You don't smoke pot around your children do you?" What did the officer ask and what did the suspect answer? That he doesn't smoke pot or that he doesn't smoke pot around his daughter? Now the LEO has probable cause.

Bottom line, don't answer questions from LEO's, they are usually designed to get you to give them the answer they want to hear not the answer you want to give. Cops are trained to suspect that everyone is guilty until proven innocent, Trying to prove your innocence in a system that must assume innocence until proven guilty can only make things more difficult.

The number one LIE a police officer will tell you, "If you cooperate, I can help you." A police officer is interested in one thing, Furthering his career and advancing his pay grade by gathering evidence, making arrests and assisting prosecutors in getting convictions. Your Rights, best interests and well being count for less than snail @#$% to a police officer. While you are getting booked in into the county jail, he and his buddies will be sharing a beer and a laugh at your expense because officer pinhead just got another gold star and that much closer to his next promotion.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
imported post

The right to remain silent carries with it the responsibility for the consequences when someone chooses not to remain silent. Don't blame the officer when someone ignorantly waives his rights.
 

cscitney87

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
1,250
Location
Lakewood, Colorado, USA
imported post

I agree Only to a degree. Without saying exactly what happened; I want to say that I legitimately escape certain prosecution by talking to police officers. I was pulled over and had some serious issues with my plate, registration, and insurance. I don't want to write a 2 page story; so I'll wrap this up. I Could have been arrested and my vehicle definitely Could have been impounded. I was very polite, saying "Sir" after literally everything. I kept my tone calm and collected- never raised my voice. I was sincere in my apology... The officers whom approached me had decided to head back to the patrol car and run my information. I had several other officers come up to my car during this time and play the Good Cop Bad Cop "where were you going" "what house?" "What friend?" "You know this is a bad neighborhood?" blah blah just talking the talk. I remained calm and answered every question; except when the officers requested information about my destination- I politely explained I didn't know the exact address and had always driven there by memory.

Well to make a long story short; The officers let me go with the First and Only warning that I have EVER ever ever heard of and LITERALLY None of my friends have ever even Seen a Denver "warning" and never heard of anybody getting off on a warning- specially for what I did wrong.


I actually got a warning. Instead of jail and getting my vehicle impounded. All I did was talk. If I had kept my mouth shut; I would have gone to jail and they could have searched through my car too! :shock: Instead- I actually protected my 4th Amendment rights by waving my 5th. I talked and avoided an impound which automatically makes my vehicle subject to police search. Which Could have landed me in a WHOLE LOT more trouble.
 

Aaron1124

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Messages
2,044
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
imported post

I don't really feel I'm at liberty to say. It should be up to each individual to use their own judgment on what decisions they make when it comes to talking to the police, but I can say that Nevada is on to the right idea. Don't go out violating the law and you shouldn't have to worry about answering questions from the police. Obviously if you're smoking marijuana in your vehicle, especially with your children present, you should be arrested, and charged, as it's a clear violation. I wouldn't defend the "suspect" and teach him what to say to narrow his chances of being charged. That's why I'm going in to law enforcement rather than practicing law.

Have you been reading "I Know You Are Lying" by Mark McClish?
 

buster81

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Richmond, Virginia, USA
imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:
Don't go out violating the law and you shouldn't have to worry about answering questions from the police.
If I haven't violated the law, the police shouldn't have to worry about questioning me. Simple.
 
Top