Shooting thru a barricade at a home intruder

au_prospector · Sep 29, 2014

I dont know. . . .

I think on a forum, its easy to huff and spew hot air through the fingertips.

Dont get me wrong and I mean absolutely no disrespect. My fat fingers are often full of hot air when typing on the internet.

As a God fearing man, I suppose I would need to positively identify my target before pulling the trigger. After all a top rule of firearms safety is to ALWAYS know your target and what is beyond. We all can make the assumption every round fired has a lawyer attached. You cant put the poop back into the cow.

If I could not ID, and I could not retreat ~ then I guess it's a standoff until help arrives. They will without a doubt know I am armed, I can say that for sure. And I always carry a phone.

I guess I will never really know for sure how I would respond until something like that happens. All I can do is try to be as ready as possible. Rehearse often and let us hope something like this never happens to any of us.

Obviously YMMV

Only slightly related in that the homeowner had no idea what the firearm was shooting at. Famous case we studied in a TORT law class I once took. Its a good read, especially the very last sentence. Your question made me think of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney

Kleanbore · Sep 29, 2014

Posted by pendennis: In Michigan, the occupant of the dwelling does not have to establish the intent of the person who has broken into the home, and the home owner is under no obligation to determine if the intruder is armed. And, in some cases, entry to the home doesn't have to be complete.

True facts. But once again, this involves a rebuttable presumption.

Once the intruder has entered the dwelling proper, the intruder may have deadly force visited on them.

Not necessarily true.

If the prosecutor can prove that the actor did not believe that he was in such danger as to require deadly force, that presumption is rebutted. That's a change in the burden of proof from prior law.

One main reason that "once the intruder has entered the dwelling proper" is not a proper way to look at it is that the sight of your gun may change the intruder's objectives radically and defuse the immediate threat. That would eliminate the justification for deadly force.

I'm aware that laws vary from state to state, but the castle doctrine as practiced in Michigan doesn't require the resident to retreat from the dwelling.

True.

Frank Ettin · Sep 29, 2014

pendennis said:
In Michigan, the occupant of the dwelling does not have to establish the intent of the person who has broken into the home, and the home owner is under no obligation to determine if the intruder is armed. And, in some cases, entry to the home doesn't have to be complete. Once the intruder has entered the dwelling proper, the intruder may have deadly force visited on them....

Nope.

Even after all the detailed information about Castle Doctrine laws we've posted here and on other forums, so many people continue to misunderstand them.

For example, under the Michigan Castle Doctrine, it is not correct to say that:

...Once the intruder has entered the dwelling proper, the intruder may have deadly force visited on them...

Michigan's Castle Doctrine law is set out in Section 780.951 as follows (emphasis added):

780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.

Sec. 1.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

(b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following circumstances exist:

(a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used, including an owner, lessee, or titleholder, has the legal right to be in the dwelling, business premises, or vehicle and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order, a probation order, or a parole order of no contact against that person.

(b) The individual removed or being removed from the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship of, the individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used.

(c) The individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime.

(d) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, business premises, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties in accordance with applicable law.

(e) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is the spouse or former spouse of the individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has or had a dating relationship, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, and the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.

(3) As used in this section:[definitions]...

Note that the presumption is expressly rebuttable. Note that certain conditions, including a condition regarding the actor's reasonable belief, potentially raising issues related to the grounds and reasonableness of that belief. Note that there are circumstances under which the presumption is not available.

Castle Doctrine laws do not create free fire zones. While they can materially help someone establish that he was justified in using force in self defense, they are neither licenses to kill nor get-out-of-jail-free cards.

RustyShackelford · Sep 29, 2014

MI gun laws/lethal force....

If the MI information was true as it's posted, the recent home owner with the 12ga shotgun would not have been convicted in the Detroit area. :uhoh:

It's fair to say that many factors not just one law or statue could lead to a conviction but as posted, in court or a formal inquiry, you will need to account for every round or shell that's fired.
The "hey, so what" or "I don't care about laws." mindsets will be to their detriment later on.

Jim K · Sep 29, 2014

Didn't we just go through a lot of TV about a case in South Africa where a man shot through a door at someone he could not see but said he assumed was an intruder? That didn't turn out all that well for the shooter.

Jim

Psyphertext · Sep 29, 2014

Go to state law first. Mif your state says, once justified...the it's justified. Once in my home I do not have the luxury to call timeout.

A barrier in my home is known to me, not the intruder, so a few splinters may be just what the doctor ordered.

pendennis · Sep 29, 2014

RustyShackelford said:
If the MI information was true as it's posted, the recent home owner with the 12ga shotgun would not have been convicted in the Detroit area.

It's fair to say that many factors not just one law or statue could lead to a conviction but as posted, in court or a formal inquiry, you will need to account for every round or shell that's fired.
The "hey, so what" or "I don't care about laws." mindsets will be to their detriment later on.

The home owner, in Dearborn Heights, was convicted in large part because of his inconsistencies in statements provided to the police. He was confused at times, and he didn't get an attorney until after he was arrested and charged by the prosecutor.

He was also his own worst witness at trial. He provided further inconsistent testimony, which caused the jury to discount his version of what happened. Further, he had to take the witness stand because he did not make any type of self-defense statement to the police after the incident.

There were, according to the convicted man's attorney, a number of errors involving evidence that was not preserved by the Dearborn Heights Police. The conviction has been appealed.

There have been at least a half-dozen cases in the City of Detroit proper, where citizens have defended their homes this year. They have been encouraged to to so by the current Detroit Chief of Police.

In at least three of those cases, citizens have shot, wounded, and/or killed intruders who were trying to get away from the interior of the dwelling. In those cases, the Wayne County Prosecutor "no billed" the report by the police. (Michigan does not use a grand jury system in most cases.) And none of the residents stopped to ask the intruder whether they were armed.

It would seem that the imminent threat danger doesn't go away just because the intruder has started to retreat while within the dwelling. And it doesn't necessarily follow, that one needs to determine if the intruder is armed.

It should be noted that these citizens were not engaged in any activities that were illegal in their homes.

Bobson · Sep 29, 2014

Bottom line is this. Whether or not shooting through a door is illegal, killing someone is illegal. If you shoot and kill someone, you aren't off the hook. Instead, you plead guilty to murder on the grounds that it was justified. THEN you get to defend your actions.

Its been established, quite effectively, that while shooting through a door isn't going to make any HD shooting "more legal," it's always a bad idea - and you WILL need to convince 12 people you were justified.

pendennis · Sep 29, 2014

Frank Ettin said:
Nope.

Even after all the detailed information about Castle Doctrine laws we've posted here and on other forums, so many people continue to misunderstand them.

For example, under the Michigan Castle Doctrine, it is not correct to say that:

Michigan's Castle Doctrine law is set out in Section 780.951 as follows (emphasis added):

Note that the presumption is expressly rebuttable. Note that certain conditions, including a condition regarding the actor's reasonable belief, potentially raising issues related to the grounds and reasonableness of that belief. Note that there are circumstances under which the presumption is not available.

Castle Doctrine laws do not create free fire zones. While they can materially help someone establish that he was justified in using force in self defense, they are neither licenses to kill nor get-out-of-jail-free cards.

I didn't write, nor imply, that the occupant could create a "free fire zone" (your words). Nor did I imply that that it was a "license(s) to kill nor get-out-of-jail-free card(s).

The Dearborn Heights case is a poor example of castle and self-defense doctrine. The home owner was hoisted on his own petard by his inconsistent statements to police, and his testimony in court. It's already being used by instructors in CPL classes, as an example of what not to do.

The Detroit Police submitted reports to the prosecutor's office (I mentioned these in another post), and she "no-billed" at least three of those reports of persons who shot, wounded, and/or killed intruders who were trying to escape through windows, etc. The intruders had broken into those homes, and the occupant responded with deadly force. The news reports did not mention if the occupants knew if the intruders were armed.

pendennis · Sep 29, 2014

Bobson said:
Bottom line is this. Whether or not shooting through a door is illegal, killing someone is illegal. If you shoot and kill someone, you aren't off the hook. Instead, you plead guilty to murder on the grounds that it was justified. THEN you get to defend your actions.

Its been established, quite effectively, that while shooting through a door isn't going to make any HD shooting "more legal," it's always a bad idea - and you WILL need to convince 12 people you were justified.

Why in the world would one plead guilty to murder, and then try to defend their actions? That's what the legal system is designed to do. Killing someone is not necessarily illegal, and all killings are not murder. Murder is a legal term.

And legal self-defense does not mean one can't shoot through a door. Each case is considered differently. And it doesn't follow that one will be tried.

What happens if a bad guy points a gun at you through your storm door? It's a door, but you could reasonably assume that your life was at risk. Do you end up in front of a jury?

RetiredUSNChief · Sep 29, 2014

The OP asks a thoughtful question...thoughtful because it is not inconceivable that such a scenario as shooting through a barrier during a home invasion of some kind might happen.

Thought experiments such as these are, indeed, useful in crafting our skills and knowledge with respect to how we may comport ourselves should such an eventuality actually occur in the future.

If I may offer a personal insight into the various opinions on such matters, though:

People who speak in absolutes in terms of response to such scenarios are, in almost all cases, barking up the wrong tree, most especially with respect to legalities. That said, I'm not an attorney and I'll let those who are offer more sound legal insights.

Does your state have the Castle Doctrine and No Right to Retreat?

GA does and if someone enters my house without my permission they will receive a "warm" welcome and I don't have to ask their intentions or verify they're armed...

This is an example of such an absolute term (emphasis is mine).

Anyone entering my house uninvited will have to do it by force as I don't leave the doors or windows open.

Anyone that's willing to enter my house by force is not there to bake me cookies.

I'll take my chances with the DA...

Here is yet another absolutist term (emphasis is mine).

Both of these responses fail the reality check, namely that somehow ALL scenarios in which someone is in a house without permission or by "force" automatically gives a person the right to use deadly force, with an implied impunity.

News flash: killing another person is homicide. As a society, this is considered such a taboo that very strict laws dictating what is and what is not an illegal homicide have been put into place. Kill someone, justified or not, and be prepared to have every detail of the circumstances of that killing examined in extreme detail, indeed down to the microscopic level. And then, if it didn't essentially happen on the 50 yard line during half time at the Superbowl with tens of millions of witnesses watching things play out in your favor, odds are that you're going to be in for a very long, painful, and expensive defense which you may or may not "win".

So again...DON'T fall into the "absolutist" trap. Change even one minor detail of a homicide and it can go from "justifiable" to "murder" just like that.

In Michigan, the occupant of the dwelling does not have to establish the intent of the person who has broken into the home, and the home owner is under no obligation to determine if the intruder is armed. And, in some cases, entry to the home doesn't have to be complete. Once the intruder has entered the dwelling proper, the intruder may have deadly force visited on them. There have been any number of cases in which the local prosecutor has declined to indict.

I'm aware that laws vary from state to state, but the castle doctrine as practiced in Michigan doesn't require the resident to retreat from the dwelling.

WRONG in a very big-picture way. Again, this is another example of an absolutist point of view, which should automatically make people think twice and start investigating. Frank covered this one in post #28.

The law is very rarely so simplistic. In fact, the law is pretty holistic, meaning that the totality of the law as written AS WELL AS the circumstances in which the law is to be applied must be taken into account. You don't get to pick and choose which sentence or paragraph concerning deadly force to apply...they ALL are considered and considered in light of the circumstances in which they are applied.

And another aspect to consider, which I think Kleanbore hit upon. That aspect is essentially the difference between a legal or allowed course of action and the wise or ethical course of action.

They are not necessarily one and the same.

You have an armed intruder in the house, hiding in a known location. You MAY have legal recourse to use deadly force. However, knowing the information you do, it MAY be wiser to call 911 on your way the back door to safety.

If you want to have a fair definition of deadly force and when it's allowed to be used, this is the definition I learned in the Navy many years ago:

"Deadly force is that amount of force which I know, or should know, will cause serious bodily injury or death, to be used as a last resort when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed."

That's deadly force in a nutshell. Know and understand what your state laws say on the matter and think about how they dovetail with this basic definition.

Frank Ettin · Sep 29, 2014

pendennis said:
...The Detroit Police submitted reports to the prosecutor's office (I mentioned these in another post), and she "no-billed" at least three of those reports of persons who shot, wounded, and/or killed intruders who were trying to escape through windows, etc. The intruders had broken into those homes, and the occupant responded with deadly force. The news reports did not mention if the occupants knew if the intruders were armed.

Yes, but so what?

People do defend themselves in their homes, and they do get exonerated when they show that their use of force was legally justified. And if, for whatever reason, the actor fails to convincingly show legal justification, he'll go to jail -- even when it happened at his home.

Castle Doctrine laws can help show justification, but it's never automatic.

The bottom line is that if you use force defending yourself in your home, there are still standards which must be satisfied to show you were justified. And that is a question which can only be considered on a case-by-case basis looking at the totality of the circumstances and all the evidence.

Onward Allusion · Sep 29, 2014

The reason for my question wasn't related to tactics. I just wanted to know would a person have a legal leg to stand on if they shot through an inside door at an intruder. Has there been case law concerning a similar scenario? I would imagine that a big part of the equation would be the age, sex, & physical condition of the homeowner.

Frank Ettin · Sep 29, 2014

Onward Allusion said:
...I just wanted to know would a person have a legal leg to stand on if they shot through an inside door at an intruder...

Fair enough. And the definitive answer is "maybe."

The thing is that, has as been mentioned, nothing here is automatic; and the outcome will always be based on the totality of the circumstances and all the evidence. The actor will need to be able to show that the applicable legal standards for justification were satisfied.

The presence of a barrier is only one factor. If the actor can successfully meet the applicable standards even shooting through a barrier, he'll be exonerated.

But, I also can't see the presence of a barrier necessarily helping matters. It most likely will make it more difficult to show justification.

Onward Allusion said:
...Has there been case law concerning a similar scenario?...

This probably hasn't come up much. However, a couple of cases I seem to recall did not end happily for the guy claiming self defense.

Frank Ettin · Sep 29, 2014

BTW, we discussed a similar issue here.

RetiredUSNChief · Sep 29, 2014

Again, Onward, I don't think you'll get a simple answer to your question...and no "case law" setting some kind of precedent.

The answer to your question lies in the totality of the laws governing deadly force in your jurisdiction as applied to the specifics of any given scenario.

For instance, there is a world of difference between an exchange of gunfire in self defense in which shooting through the cover of the invader and an invader that's using cover as part of his escape activities.

In the former, the invader is actively applying force in which it's reasonable to believe your life is in imminent danger. In the latter, the invader is NOT applying force because he's actively trying to flee and it's no longer reasonable to believe your life is in imminent danger.

Change one detail and the whole picture may take on an entirely different meaning.

9mmepiphany · Sep 29, 2014

pendennis said:
Why in the world would one plead guilty to murder, and then try to defend their actions? That's what the legal system is designed to do. Killing someone is not necessarily illegal, and all killings are not murder. Murder is a legal term.

You'd actually have to plead guilty to having committed a homicide.

That is the prerequisite to claiming Self Defense, an affirmative defense, as a justification for the homicide

Bobson · Sep 29, 2014

Killing someone is not necessarily illegal

It is always illegal.

When you're accused of a crime in court, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. When you go into court for a SD shooting where you've killed your attacker, you'll begin by pleading guilty. In doing so, the burden of proof switches to you. Until you prove sufficient justification, you're guilty of murder.

It's not an insignificant matter of semantics. You kill someone for any reason, you've committed a felony. Later, you'll get an opportunity to defend your actions, but understand that you're starting in the hole.

RustyShackelford · Sep 29, 2014

Back door; The Chesire Murders....

I can understand the points made in #32 but again I'm not tracking the intent of the remarks saying; "hey if the crook is hiding, just dart out the back door". :uhoh:

What happens when you scramble outside and 3/4/5 more thugs or a armed "back-up" or get-away driver are there.

The "run away" or flee concept doesn't always seem feasible depending on the property.

I also refer the forum members to the CT Chesire incident(of the HBO documentary The Chesire Murders).
Desperate and violent home invaders/thugs are not going to see a family member dash off or see victims escape & say; darn, we really needed them here well okay whatever.

garymc · Sep 29, 2014

I'd be really hesitant to fire at an unidentified person behind furniture or cover. What if an armed intruder broke into your home and a cop saw and followed him in and hid behind the couch hoping to get the drop on him? If your infrared shows a human form behind the couch with it's arm extended as though holding a gun, will it show that it's a cop in full uniform? If you are able to shoot through a wall and the couch, will you be saying oops? Boy, wouldn't it be embarrassing if you shot a cop who was there to protect you, your family, your home? It's all speculation, so anything could happen.

Frank Ettin · Sep 30, 2014

Bobson said:
Killing someone is not necessarily illegal

Click to expand...

It is always illegal....

That is incorrect.

Let's have a look at the various types of "homicide."

"Homicide" is the killing of one person by another. So let's examine how the law looks at "homicide."

"Homicide" is not a crime. Homicide might be a crime, or it might not be a crime.
A homicide can be --
- Accidental;
- Negligent;
- The result of reckless (or willful, wanton and reckless) conduct;
- Intentional without malice (evil intent);
- Intentional with malice; and
- Intentional, premeditated and with malice.
An accidental homicide basically would be a death occurring as the unintended result of actions of an actor, even though the actor acted as a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. The actor incurs no criminal or civil liability in the case of a truly accidental homicide.
A negligent homicide would be a death occurring as the unintended result of the actions of an actor failing to use the degree of care expected of a reasonable and prudent person in like circumstances. And the actor incurs civil, but not criminal, liability in the case of a negligent homicide.
Homicides (3) - (6) are crimes: involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, and first degree murder, respectively.
The various types of homicide are defined in terms of the state of mind/intent/conduct of the actor.
If you point a gun at someone, the gun discharges and the person dies, your conduct gives rise to at least an articulable suspicion that a crime anywhere from involuntary manslaughter (pointing a gun at someone is at least reckless) to murder in the first degree has been committed. If you are claiming that you acted in self defense, you would be at least admitting the elements of voluntary manslaughter, i. e., you intentionally shot the guy.
Self defense, simple negligence or accident is a defense to a criminal charge of involuntary manslaughter, voluntary manslaughter, murder, or first degree murder. Self defense or accident is a defense against a civil claim. It will be up to you to make the case for your defense, e. g., it was an accident, it was mere negligence, it was justified.

Bobson said:
...When you go into court for a SD shooting where you've killed your attacker, you'll begin by pleading guilty. In doing so, the burden of proof switches to you. Until you prove sufficient justification, you're guilty of murder....

And that is also not entirely accurate.

You don't really "plead guilty." But you do effectively admit that you intentionally shot someone.
By admitting that you have admitted the core elements of a crime -- at least voluntary manslaughter. You haven't admitted to murder because you haven't necessarily admitted to malice or evil intent.
As the defendant seeking exoneration on the grounds of justification, your burden of proof will vary somewhat depending on the jurisdiction. But you will in any event have the burden of producing evidence sufficient to support the inference that all the elements have been satisfied as necessary for your act to have been justified. If you have thus made a prima facie case the prosecution will have the burden of convincing the jury that your actions were not justified.
By claiming self defense you have effectively admitted the elements of the crime, so the prosecutor doesn't have to prove that you intentionally shot the guy. But that's not quite the same as a formal plea of guilty.

Several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:

...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....

Bobson · Sep 30, 2014

Thanks for the clarifications, Frank. My mistakes.

RustyShackelford · Sep 30, 2014

Circumstances....

I think it's important to clarify a point that's being made in terms of conditions in a break-in or assault.
If a violent subject or unknown intruder was using a object or furniture as cover/concealment & posed a known threat to me, Id use deadly force(fire a gun).
If the subject(s) saw me or knew my spouse/family member was armed & took off I would not chase them or use deadly force at that point.
The only exception to that may be shooting into a closed or blocked door because you do not know where your rounds are going or who may be there.

Years ago(early 2000s) I saw a news report of a USMC veteran/US Dept of Energy employee in NM who intervened when a crook broke into his home. The home owner chased the guy out of the house & started to shoot at him as the bad guy ran down the street.
The local prosecutors in New Mexico charged the home owner. :uhoh:

I don't recall the outcome.

mgkdrgn · Sep 30, 2014

Kleanbore said:
The word is presumption, and such a presumption is rebuttable.

Any indication, from forensic evidence, eyewitnesses, earwitnesses, or anything else that indicates that the intruder did not constitute an imminent threat at the time deadly force was used (for example, that he had decided and attempted to surrender or flee) could refer that presumption inoperable.

Combining such evidence with the fact of an actor's having made it known that "an armed intruder is going to be shot, period" could seal one's fate.

Be careful.

A resident will almost always be far better off not having to deal with the aftermath of having shot someone, regardless of the apparent strength of a potential defense of justification.

I'm sorry, but if there is an ARMED intruder in my HOUSE, I'm not going to take the time to sit down and work all that stuff out, consider all the legal angles, and look up the supreme court precedents.

In SC an intruder in your house, much less an armed one, is legally presumed there to do you and/or your family grievous bodily harm.

I will not allow that if I can prevent it.

BANG!

Kleanbore · Sep 30, 2014

Posted by mgkdrgn: I'm sorry, but if there is an ARMED intruder in my HOUSE, I'm not going to take the time to sit down and work all that stuff out, consider all the legal angles, and look up the supreme court precedents.

Of course not.

Do your studying before the day of the test!

In SC an intruder in your house, much less an armed one, is legally presumed there to do you and/or your family grievous bodily harm.

That is true. In fact, it is true in most states.

But in law, presumptions are rebuttable.

I will not allow that if I can prevent it.

Good thinking.

BANG!

Be careful before creating any evidence that could be used to indicate state of mind--that you might have been predisposed to shoot.

Consider this very carefully:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=604948

Relevant excerpts:

Everyone who posts here or anywhere else on the Internet should understand that such posts are permanent, and they may be subject to discovery in legal proceedings at any time in the future. Should any member ever find himself or herself involved in such proceedings, posts containing comments that could be interpreted unfavorably could prove damaging.

You do not want to publish anything ... where it may be made available to plaintiffs and investigators, that you should more properly tell only to an attorney in confidence in a privileged legal communication.

First, everyone should understand that if one posts in a public forum on the Internet for anyone in the world with Internet access to read, or when one sends a company email for that matter, one can have no expectation of privacy. Second, electronic postings can be and have been traced back to the originator, authenticated, and used both to facilitate further investigations and as evidence. One's computer may be seized, or subpoenas may be issued to others. Also, investigators can use search engines as well as anyone else.

There are two kinds of situations in which a statement made on the Internet or put in email or posted on one of the various social networks can come back to haunt the originator.

The first involves posts of the "this happened to me" genre. If an incident that could lead to an investigation and/or additional legal proceedings has occurred, anything said about it on the Internet could either be used as evidence or to lead investigators to other facts or information that could be used as evidence that could prove damaging to the originator. For that reason, it is very important to exercise caution in terms of what one posts.

This can apply to either criminal or civil proceedings or both.

It is important to understand that the risks involved may even apply in cases that have not yet been pursued by law enforcement. A statement such as "I drew my gun and told him to get off my property" may be all that is needed to start or provide additional evidence for an investigation that might otherwise have gone nowhere.

In case it is not understood by some, the fact that the investigation of an incident appears to have been "closed" does not mean that the actor is free of risk. A statement by an officer that one "did the right thing", or even a decision by a prosecutor or grand jury to not pursue charges, is not a guarantee against further action. For one thing, new persons may replace others. More importantly, however, new evidence can be brought to light, and a posting here or anywhere on the Internet may just be the thing to make that happen.

The second risk involves the possible use of a statement posted on the Internet before an incident has occurred.

One way that such messages may be used is to indicate state of mind.

In the event that a person becomes involved in an incident in which the evidence supporting justification is sparse or is contradicted in part by other evidence, or an inconsistency casts doubt upon the credibility of the actor, anything that might be used to indicate that the actor had been predisposed to the use of deadly force could prove very damaging indeed.

Statements such as "anyone on my property is fair game", "in my state the law allows me to shoot anyone who...", "if he gets away he might harm someone else", "shoot the loudest one", etc., to cite a few hypothetical examples, can be discovered and used in court years after they were made.

This is not just conjecture. For a real example, consider that in a highly publicized case the defendant, who was a firearms instructor, had used training materials containing words such as “always cheat; always win,” and a statement to the effect that one should treat every one else in a polite manner while simultaneously having a plan to kill them. These statements may serve with a proper effect in an instructional setting, but taken out of context, they can be and have been used with damaging effect in a trial setting.

Over the years, I have been confronted with three intruders in two different states. Under current law, I would undoubtedly have been given the benefit of legal presumptions that deadly force was justified in one case, very probably in another, and very possibly in the third.

But I did not shoot. The point of a gun and some industrial strength coaching sufficed.

I am infinitely better off with that outcome.

Shooting thru a barricade at a home intruder

Member

Moderator

Moderator

member

Member.

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

member

Member

Moderator

Member

member

Member

Moderator

Similar threads