how are shootings handled in your area?

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

obm

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2005
Messages
185
Location
USA
here in honolulu, if you're involved in a shooting, eg:

you come home and walk into the living room and some stranger with an axe is standing over your spouse with blood everywhere...you reach into your drawer pull out a gun and shoot him as he's charging you. assume everything is legit.

it's honolulu PD's policy to automatically arrest ANYONE involved in a shooting. technically, you are arrested for attempted murder or murder depending on whether the guy survives or not. if after their investigation they find you were not at fault they do not pursue a conviction.

is that the way it's handled everywhere else? i thought it was a little unfair that you would be arrested and have an arrest record even tho you were justified. i know there's a difference between being arrested and being convicted of a crime, but it still seems a little unfair, especially if you're justified. i assume there's a process to clear your arrest record, but i assume it also costs alot in lawyer fees.

to HPD's credit, tho, even police officers involved in a shooting on-duty go thru the process...only difference is that the officer is released on his/her own recognizance whereas you would have to make bail.

is this standard practice everywhere? tia.
 
A lot of the aggrivation you would receive is county-based in New Jersey.

In the wrong county in Jersey they'll ransack your house looking for anything illegal, confiscate all your guns, and do everything possible to find a way to charge you with murder....The common knowledge here is that if you shoot someone, be prepared to get the book thrown at you as hard as they can.

It's not so bad down in the red southern part of the state where I live.
 
In Massachusetts due to gray areas in the self defence laws and no 'castle" laws, we have limited rights to self-defence. So wether or not one is arrested depends on the the determination of police at the scene of the crime. If the evidence points to a clear case of self defence then the homeowner will not be arrest for the shooting. He will more the likley be driven to the police station to fill out reports, more intently questioned, fingerprinted, background checked and if determined charged with a crime. If they don't believe the story or evidence proves otherwise then he will be arrested at home. The Distric Attorney's will then look at the information given to them by the investiagtors and then decided on wether the person is charged with a crime.
 
Last edited:
In Texas, all homicides go to a Grand Jury for any decision on filing criminal charges, and, SFAIK, even if the DA doesn't think the event warrants charges.

As far as arrest, that depends on circumstances. By and large, a homeowner who has to kill an intruder is pretty much taken for granted as acting in self-defense: Absent, of course, anything that looks "hinky", such as the shooter/shootee known to one another, or a possible dope deal gone bad.


Art
 
Reply

In Texas and Colorado and Im sure most states that Killing someone is illegal. What I'm trying to say that any death is illegal and later the fact's will show if charges should follow. In Texas the Grand Jury will review the case and determine if charges should follow. In colorado the D.A. will review the case and determine if charges should follow. Be sure that Police Officer's go through the same ordeal. Now as far as had cuffing and taking a person to jail for what you described seems a bit overboard. But each state is different.
 
In Hall Co. Georgia, if you come into your house/business and find an intruder...then shoot them, you more or less have to tell the deputies why you beleived you were in danger of being harmed...and that's it.

I've been told (somewhat tongue in cheek) by deputies that if you shoot an intruder on your porch or in the carport, drag them in the house before the cops get there.

Moving from Hawaii to Georgia (after 13 years on Maui) was the best, but most bittersweet thing I've ever done.
 
Depends a lot on your local political climate, I think. Here in conservative, rural Lewis County, I would be shocked if there were an automatic-arrest policy; in liberal King County I'd be shocked it there weren't.

Mas Ayoob gives this consideration as one reason you want to have the name of a good lawyer on hand, someone you've met with and for whom you have an after-hours phone number. Apparently, if your lawyer shows up before the on-scene investigators finish what they're doing, your odds of getting booked into jail that very night go down significantly even in hostile districts.

pax
 
In Florida, if the evidence at the scene doesn't back up your story, (or if you have no story at all), you wil lget jailed, with no bond, until trial.

If you have a good self-defense story, corroborated by the on-scene evidence, the cops will (most likely) bring you coffee, and replacement ammunition...
 
In Louisiana (except for NO, which is a Socialist liberal hotbed), the cops generally favor the lawful gun-owner. If you have to shoot an intruder in your home, there's an excellent "castle doctrine" law, that basically says you have the right to shoot him, period. The same law was extended to cover motor vehicles while travelling, back in the '90's, after a spate of car-jackings. After a few car-jackers came to sticky ends, and the motorists were congratulated rather than prosecuted, the problem diminished significantly... :D
 
thanks for the replies.

i just want to make it clear that i'm not saying HPD officers are JBT. the officers in the firearms division are pretty cool....many times commenting how cool my firearms are when i go to register them(ugh). and again the auto-arrest policy applies to HPD officers as well.

it just bothers me that you have to get arrested in a justified shooting...sounds like from some of your replies, in some states, officers can make an on-the-spot determination whether they arrest you or not....i can't see why they don't do that here...but then i guess there are better gun related laws that i could whine about over here.

oh, i should mention we do have a castle doctrine, sort of....a weak one...in the sense that we don't have a duty to retreat from our own home like some states...but there has to be clear evidence that serious harm or death was emminent. so you can't shoot an intruder in your home just because he's standing there....but if he's raising his gun up toward your direction you can pull the trigger...but you still automatically get arrested. :)

thanks again for the replies.
 
Self Defence in California

In California you have the right to use lethal force in the defense of your life or serious bodily harm. Also if you are defending your home or are attacked in your home, there is an assumtion of "justification" unless law enforcement has evidence that you acted illegally.

Last year a person phoned the next door home owner and told him he was going to kill him. He then ran next door and up the walkway towards the front door of the home owner yelling he was going to kill him.

The home owner shot him with a 12 ga shotgun. He was killed on the spot. The home owner was arrested pending the Investgation and spent the night in jail. The next day he was released by the DA, no charges pending and the shooting was ruled justified.

Do not know how the civil case came out.
 
More Mass. misinformation

"In Massachusetts due to gray areas in the self defence [sic] laws and no 'castle" laws, we have limited rights to self-defence [sic]."

Completely false. This poster obviously has no clue what his own state's laws say. :rolleyes:

Here is the Massachusetts "castle law," which is over 20 years old:

G.L.c. 278, § 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense.

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

Now here's the civil immunity statute:

G.L.c. 231, § 85U. Death or injury to unlawful dwelling occupants; liability of lawful occupants.

Section 85U. No person who is a lawful occupant of a dwelling shall be liable in an action for damages for death or injuries to an unlawful occupant of said dwelling resulting from the acts of said lawful occupant; provided, however, that said lawful occupant was in the dwelling at the time of the occurrence and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall not be a duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

Don't expect qualified legal advice from anonymous internet posers. :scrutiny:
 
In many states, use of deadly force in self-defense is an affirmative defense to a charge of murder or assault; making a criminal action into a justified (thus not criminal or negligent) one.

You in essence admit to killing/harming the assailant (ordinarily a crime) but claim that, due to the situation, you had a right to under the law.

The political climate and the details and clarity of the situation to responders is what will determine how you, a now self-admitted killer/assaulter, are treated.
 
In my area, a shooting is generally followed by a gutting, and you're expected to stop by one of the game stations to take care of the whole deer tag business.

In my old neighborhood, a shooting generally involved the cops driving by 20 minutes later, and refusing to get out of their car.
 
In my state, everybody claims self defense.

Anyway, the police will arrest and transport to jail. While there the arrestee will be given the one finger wave and an orange jumpsuit. After a day or 2 of legal work, the arrestee may be released.

Investigators are in no hurry to resolve the question of SD. They like the overtime involved in investigating homicide cases.

That said, we did have a retired cop shoot a BG. He was given a desk summons and taken out for beer afterwards.
 
In IL, the criminal becomes the victim, under our screwed up PC BS. Course, I've got a pretty good relationship with the local PD, so instead of being charged with murder 1, I would probably get murder 2:cuss:
 
Badly...

After all, the cops here are M???????s by definition. I hear in some parts of the state they can be decent.
 
Tory said:
"In Massachusetts due to gray areas in the self defence [sic] laws and no 'castle" laws, we have limited rights to self-defence [sic]."

Completely false. This poster obviously has no clue what his own state's laws say. :rolleyes:

Here is the Massachusetts "castle law," which is over 20 years old:

G.L.c. 278, § 8A. Killing or injuring a person unlawfully in a dwelling; defense.

Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

Now here's the civil immunity statute:

G.L.c. 231, § 85U. Death or injury to unlawful dwelling occupants; liability of lawful occupants.

Section 85U. No person who is a lawful occupant of a dwelling shall be liable in an action for damages for death or injuries to an unlawful occupant of said dwelling resulting from the acts of said lawful occupant; provided, however, that said lawful occupant was in the dwelling at the time of the occurrence and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall not be a duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

Don't expect qualified legal advice from anonymous internet posers. :scrutiny:
Click to expand...

Its obvious you don't live in Mass, and don't understand the complex issue of self defence. If you don't believe me call up GOAL at 508.393.5333 and ask for Jon Green he will happy to explain the circumstances to you. He was the one the explanied the law to me when I took my Firearms course. Here is a link to a Mass Attorneys website. http://www.massgunlaw.com/hot_issues_in_massachusetts_fire.htm Reading law is nice, but you again fail to understand that in Mass our laws are open to intruptation by the Police and District Attorneys. Have a nice day:evil:
 
eastwood44mag said;
In IL, the criminal becomes the victim, under our screwed up PC BS. Course, I've got a pretty good relationship with the local PD, so instead of being charged with murder 1, I would probably get murder 2
Click to expand...

My friend you are very obviously unfamiliar with Illinois law regarding self defense. Here is the law:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...00&SeqEnd=9500&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961.

(720 ILCS 5/Art. 7 heading) ARTICLE 7. JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE; EXONERATION

(720 ILCS 5/7‑1) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑1)
Sec. 7‑1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑2) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑2)
Sec. 7‑2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or
(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑3) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑3)
Sec. 7‑3. Use of force in defense of other property.
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with either real property (other than a dwelling) or personal property, lawfully in his possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his immediate family or household or of a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7‑4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.
(Source: P.A. 93‑832, eff. 7‑28‑04.)

(720 ILCS 5/7‑4) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑4)
Sec. 7‑4. Use of force by aggressor.
The justification described in the preceding Sections of this Article is not available to a person who:
(a) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(b) Initially provokes the use of force against himself, with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
(c) Otherwise initially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:
(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 1983.)
Click to expand...

As you can see, Illinois has a very reasonable use of force law. We had no retreat before Florida ever made the news with their law. You are also protected from civil suits.

The criminal does not become the victim unless you do something very stupid like tamper with the evidence or shoot in a questionable situation. People who are involved in legitimate defensive shootings are not often charged with anything, unless they are unfortunate enough to live in one of the municipalities that bans handguns. Then like Hale Demar, they may be charged with an ordinance violation.

Since states attorneys are elected in Illinois, politically charged cases are often disposed of through the grand jury or the coroner's jury. That way the states attorney has political cover for not bringing charges.

Jeff
 
Jeff,

I think it is worthwhile to note the difference between de facto and de jure treatment. Legally, shooting an intruder will be in the right. Realistically, you will probably be hung out to dry--especially if you live in the gun-hating burbs, where they choose to hit you for every mistake (and seeing as how any misuse of any firearm is an automatic felony...you see where I'm going).
 
Doubt if good shoots are treated the same in commie states as in Red States.
 
eastwood44mag,
How do you explain Hale Demar then? The Willmette resident shot and killed an intruder in his home. The shooting was legally justified, and the city fathers of Willmette got all kinds of bad press over their decison to charge him with violation of the village's handgun ban. He wasn't exactly hung out to dry. The states attorney declined to file charges saying the shooting was justified. Last I heard he was prosecuted by the city attorney for a municipal ordinance violation. While that is a pain in the butt, it's not the same as being charged with a crime like murder or manslaughter. Willmette is a gun hating suburb.

The facts just don't back up your assertion. Illinois is not an anti self defense state. We've got enough bad things in the way the state is governed to live down and change, lets not add to the list.

Why don't you come up with some examples to prove your side of things? I really don't think you'll find a lot of cases of good guys being railroaded into prison for defending themselves. I can recall an incident that happened here in Marion County a few years ago, where the owner of a trucking company shot two people who were stealing anhydrous ammonia while they were running away from him after being caught in the act, and no charges were ever filed. That was not a good shoot under state law by any stretch of the imagination.

I can point to another case that happened in Wamac a few months back where a homeowner in his 70s shot a crazed man who was destroying his property and trying to break into his house. No charges were ever filed in that case either. That was good shoot under Illinois law. I know there were at least two threads here at THR on that case.

Jeff
 
Jeff,

I would hope that if it should ever come down to my needing to kill an intruder, that you are right. I've had a few neighbors get screwed over for incidents such as have been discussed, so I'm a little bit doubtful of being helped by the judicial system. Course, when you're told by LE personnel (unofficially, of course) to drag the body back inside, should he collapse in the door-way, you get to be a little wary of what can happen.

I'll hereafter defer to those with more experience than me on the issue in question.
 
Ignorance redux

"Its obvious you don't live in Mass, and don't understand the complex issue of self defence [sic]."

Wrong on both counts. As made obvious - to everyone else, at least - by my ability to cite the statutes YOU claim don't exist. :scrutiny:

"If you don't believe me call up GOAL at 508.393.5333 and ask for Jon Green [;] he will happy to explain the circumstances to you. He was the one the [sic] explanied [sic] the law to me when I took my Firearms course."

Actually, Nancy and Jim often call me. And you obviously did not pay attention to Jon the first time; enroll in a refresher "Firearmscourse."

"Reading law is nice, but you again fail to understand that in Mass our laws are open to intruptation [sic] by the Police and District Attorneys."

Comprehending the law is better. So is learning to spell and punctuate. You have failed at all three. :rolleyes:
 
In MD we do follow the Castle Doctorine and some jurisdictions are sane. Some parts of MD will treat an obviously good shoot the way most other parts of the country do.

In Baltimore, no matter how good a shoot, the political environment is so anti-gun/anti-self defense that the city prosecutor will do everything she can to get you charged (by the grand jury) and convicted of murder, 1st degree if she can get it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top