Carl N. Brown
Member
This thread reminds me.
We had recently what some people would judge a "bad shot": a burglar shot while driving away. However, the shooter had 1911 in one hand, 911 on a cell phone in the other, and the grand jury heard the whole incident: burglar trying to grab gun, gun going off, burglar reaching car, shooter jumping out of the way of the car as the burglar swerved at him, shooting at the burglar in the car after it passed. The grand jury did not support billing the shooter.
Sometimes it is not clear to the self-defense shooter that the attacker is in flight due to the speed things happen in the fog of an attack: apparently it was not clear at the time the shot was fired that the attacker was in flight and the threat was over. Witnesses help a lot, and that 911 recording was a good witness. Maybe just that one case, maybe that grand jury that day.
The prosecutor did want to discourage engaging burglars. This burglar was exiting the home of the shooter's neighbor and technically when the burglar drove away after swerving at the shooter, the threat that justified use of lethal force was over. That is where the "reasonable persons" (grand jurors) judgement was that in that split second they would have been in fear of imminent death or serious harm.
However, the same fog of fear would make any blabbings you do to 911 inconsistent. I would recommend calling as soon as possible, keeping report to the minimum, identify and describe yourself, and stay on the line and follow all dispatch instructions, plus to have a recording if the attacker or accomplices re-engage.
We had recently what some people would judge a "bad shot": a burglar shot while driving away. However, the shooter had 1911 in one hand, 911 on a cell phone in the other, and the grand jury heard the whole incident: burglar trying to grab gun, gun going off, burglar reaching car, shooter jumping out of the way of the car as the burglar swerved at him, shooting at the burglar in the car after it passed. The grand jury did not support billing the shooter.
Sometimes it is not clear to the self-defense shooter that the attacker is in flight due to the speed things happen in the fog of an attack: apparently it was not clear at the time the shot was fired that the attacker was in flight and the threat was over. Witnesses help a lot, and that 911 recording was a good witness. Maybe just that one case, maybe that grand jury that day.
The prosecutor did want to discourage engaging burglars. This burglar was exiting the home of the shooter's neighbor and technically when the burglar drove away after swerving at the shooter, the threat that justified use of lethal force was over. That is where the "reasonable persons" (grand jurors) judgement was that in that split second they would have been in fear of imminent death or serious harm.
However, the same fog of fear would make any blabbings you do to 911 inconsistent. I would recommend calling as soon as possible, keeping report to the minimum, identify and describe yourself, and stay on the line and follow all dispatch instructions, plus to have a recording if the attacker or accomplices re-engage.
Last edited:
