Police are not pursuing charges against Dennis, Mendoza said.
Of course, that is the good news, and would not be the case in a lot of states.
Police are not pursuing charges against Dennis, Mendoza said.
After startling Henry, Dennis chased him outside and ordered him to stop. When Henry brandished a pickax handle, Dennis shot him once in the chest.
So you see, members of the jury...
whm1974 said:Yep you can win the criminal trial and turn around and lose in civil court...
gc70 said:I don't exactly agree with the police advise, but I don't exactly disagree either.
If someone is trying to break into my house, or has already done so, here is what I would do: get a gun; call 911; and yell to the BG that I had called the police. If the BG wants to leave, that's good - I avoid official hassle and post-shooting home clean-up. If the BG wants to visit with me personally, my wife will get her wish for new carpets in part of the house.
In short, I will not go out of my way to shoot or kill someone, but I will oblige anyone who presses the issue.
Dear Mr. Mayor,
I am writing about a quote attributed to Chandler Police Detective Frank Mendoza in The Arizona Republic. According to the story, a homeowner was home when a robber tried to enter his home. The homeowner left his home to capture the robber and was forced to defend himself against the robber's threat of physical harm by shooting the robber. Detective Mendoza was quoted as saying, "Given the situation, he had plenty of time to call 911 and leave the home."
No person should be asked to leave his own home for the convenience of an invading criminal. What if the homeowner's family were there? Would Detective Mendoza expect them to evacuate to avoid confronting a dangerous thug? They aren't safe inside the home since the robber is trying to enter, but they must endanger themselves further by leaving the relative safety of their home? Would Detective Mendoza be so accommodating in a similar situation? Would you, Mr. Mayor?
What's more, there is no guarantee that dialing 911 would protect the victim and his family. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the police have no duty to protect individuals from criminals bound to do them harm. This was the ruling in Warren v. District of Columbia in 1981 and has been re-affirmed as recently as this year in Gonzalez v. City of Castle Rock. While I respect police officers in their willingness to protect society and don't doubt that any officer would put himself in harm's way to protect us, the system doesn't always work that way. Even with a response time of only a few minutes, the police could not be expected to stop a threat to someone's life when precious seconds could mean life or death.
I hope that the rest of the police force in Chandler hold in higher regard the right and duty of citizens to protect themselves when confronted with violence. To have as the mouthpiece of the department an officer who belittles a citizen's protection of himself and his home is disheartening.
Thank you for your attention in this matter. I am not a citizen of Chandler, but I remain,
Truly yours,
Rube Barb
I believe that there is something about Arizona law that prevents someone from winning a civil suit if that person is cleared in the criminal investigation, ie. a "good shoot".
AZRickD said:However, just a few years ago, the anti-gun county attorney (Rick Romley) was able to sneak through an amendment to a bill which now places the burden of proof upon the person shooting the bad guy rather than on the county attorney's office which would prosecute the good guy.
Rick (not Romley)
whm1974 said:Yep you can win the criminal trial and turn around and lose in civil court...
-Bill
The burden of proof change happened in 1997 as part of an omnibus criminal code bill. It was added at the last minute as a floor amendment. I bet a lot of legislators didn't fully understand what they were voting on.
The bill as passed into law:
http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=legtext/43leg/1R/laws/0136.htm
It amended ARS 13-103 and added ARS 13-205.
And the other which was a presented as a direct quote:Police discourage self-defense home invasion shootings, Chandler police Detective Frank Mendoza said.
"We don't recommend handling things this way," Mendoza said. "Given the situation, he had plenty of time to call 911 and leave the home."
13-103. Abolition of common law offenses and affirmative defenses; definition
A. All common law offenses and affirmative defenses are abolished. No conduct or omission constitutes an offense or an affirmative defense unless it is an offense or an affirmative defense under this title or under another statute or ordinance.
B. For the purposes of this section, "affirmative defense" means a defense that is offered and that attempts to justify the criminal actions of the accused or another person for whose actions the accused may be deemed to be accountable. Affirmative defense does not include any defense that either denies an element of the offense charged or denies responsibility, including alibi, misidentification or lack of intent.
3-205. Affirmative defenses; burden of proof
A. Except as otherwise provided by law, a defendant shall prove any affirmative defense raised by a preponderance of the evidence, including any justification defense under chapter 4 of this title.
B. This section does not affect the presumption contained in section 13-411, subsection C and section 13-503.
13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention
A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904, or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if he is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.
13-503. Effect of alcohol or drug use
Temporary intoxication resulting from the voluntary ingestion, consumption, inhalation or injection of alcohol, an illegal substance under chapter 34 of this title or other psychoactive substances or the abuse of prescribed medications does not constitute insanity and is not a defense for any criminal act or requisite state of mind.
Maybe.Standing Wolf said:Keeps cops in pay checks, I guess.
It would be best for all concerned if Officer Mendoza also complain to the editor. If the reporter is making up quotes, the reporter needs to be disciplined by the employing news agency or fired.Ofc. Mendoza said he didn't say the first and the second was taken out of context since he covered several scenarios in the interview with the young J-school grad who wrote the article.
In the end, he said that as soon as he read the copy on the web, he knew he was in for it. He called the reporter to voice his displeasure.
gc70 said:If someone is trying to break into my house, or has already done so, here is what I would do: get a gun; call 911; and yell to the BG that I had called the police. If the BG wants to leave, that's good - I avoid official hassle and post-shooting home clean-up. If the BG wants to visit with me personally, my wife will get her wish for new carpets in part of the house.
In short, I will not go out of my way to shoot or kill someone, but I will oblige anyone who presses the issue.