Judged by 12 than carried by six???????

[runswithscissors]

Whats with that saying? I mean, if you shoot someone, you had better damn well know that your life was in immediate danger and that shooting was your LAST course of action to protect your life. Why would you have to be judged by 12? Did you do something WRONG? If the prosecuter feels you need to be tried, then maybe you did do something wrong.
I'm not trying to get anyone fired up, but if you shoot someone you should know you are in the right and have nothing to fear. How about instead..

"Better to have your attacker treated, released, and locked in jail than to have them buried six feet under"

I thought about "better to have them six feet under...", but everyone should get a second chance...well, almost everyone

I guess this phrase might apply in an anti-gun state with an anti-gun prosecuter, but, if you did nothing wrong, your lawyer should have you free in a matter of hours

I guess the saying just makes me think that someone may have doubted themselves, and therefore maybe they should be scrutinized. I don't know..

 

[thorn726]

the thing thaT worries me, as a not giganticly huge guy is that being judged by 12 could end up in being carried by six after some major torture.
prison is nothing nice.
BUT= the feeling is = with the way gun laws are, whether a shoot is legit or not, the odds of going to court are very high.

i think yer making a little to much of it, its not like we're all about shooting people down- it's a realistic philosphy about the current state of gun laws.

me too though= it makes a lot of sense, i would rather be judged than carried for sure.

 

[mrhuckins]

Before being deployed to Somalia, we were briefed by a US Army Captain that we were unauthorized to return fire, if fired upon, unless we radioed in for permission. That process could be delayed for several minutes while the brass, miles from danger mulled over the "appropriate respnce." He further stated that by the time permission was granted, we could be dead, so it was better to take matters into our own hands and defend oursleves. Because it was better to be tried by twelve, than to be carried by six.

The sick part of all this was that we were allowed to use deadly force to protect US military sensitve items without asking for permission first. IE, gas masks, ammo or other Military property, but not to protect our lives.

 

[ctdonath]

Why would you have to be judged by 12? Did you do something WRONG?

Being judged by 12 often has nothing to do with doing wrong.

It often has far more to do with the prosecutor wanting to add another successful conviction to his record. To many: you had a gun, someone is now dead, case closed.

 

[centac]

It is a Really Tired Cliche

that gets trotted out as one of those blanket generalizations whenever we need a soundbite.

I'd be interested in knowing if there is any empirical research on the number of legitimate self defense shootings that go to criminal trial and result in a conviction that later gets overturned on non-procedural, factual grounds. I'd also be interested in knowing the number of cases that go to grand jury and how many result in a true bill and how many are nolled. I think that the saying is one of those things that everyone believes but few have any evidence to support, short of anecdotes.

Civil proceedings are a whole different kettle of fish, but I am unaware of any information that singles out gun users for "special treatment." If you shoot someone you will be sued, but the same thing applies if you are in a traffic accident or let your grass grow too high or break wind in public.

I have personal knowledge of one person who shot a business burglar and was criminally charged. A jury aquitted him after he claimed self defense. He shot the burglar in the back, as the unarmed perp was running away, about 75 feet away. I guess it was good for him to be tried by 12........cause he got away with a really, really iffy shoot.

 

[Matthew748]

Its all political. If by some chance I had use deadly force to protect myself from a home invading burglar or drug fiend I would still be very nervous about how the authorities would view it. Maybe its different elsewhere, but I live in a bad county in a not so great state.

 

[hillbilly]

Runswithscissors, the truth is that reality is never as neat, pat, and tidy as it may appear on TV or in the imagination.

I teach CCW in Arkansas. I have to, by state law, hire a police officer or an attorney to talk to my CCW students about self defense and Arkansas state law.

Every single cop and lawyer has told my students the same thing over and over.

There's what the law says, and then there's what really happens. And sometimes, nobody knows what the law really says until that law gets put in front of a jury in an actual case.

And every single case is unique and specific.

One example just got settled in a Washington County courthouse last night, only about 45 miles north of my home.

Last February, a man awoke to find an intruder in his house. The homeowner grabbed his shotgun and chased the intruder outside. The intruder jumped into a car parked on the driveway just outside the house. The homeowner fired a shot, killing the man in the car.

Three months later, after an investigation, authorities arrested the homeowner on a murder charge.

Last night, the jury found the homeowner who shot the intruder in a car in his driveway after chasing him out of the house not guilty on all charges.

While it may seem like a simple, cut-and-dried case of an illegitimate shoot, there were enough extenuating circumstances and evidence that did not get reported in the news that made a jury unwilling to convict the shooter of murder, manslaughter, or even negligent homicide.

Even with the intruder retreating, even with him in a car, and apparently about to flee before he was killed, the jury found the shooter not guilty on all charges.

So, the saying means that in a true, real, life-and-death situation, you must do whatever it takes for you to survive the encounter.

But you must do so with the full knowledge that everything you do in that situation will be investigated, examined, and maybe even judged by a jury of your peers later.

hillbilly

 

[Control Group]

In my mind it's a phrase referring to carrying a gun and being ready to use it whether or not the law says that you can. Of course, my opinion is colored by living in a non-CCW state, so I'm faced with a choice between powerlessness before an armed criminal, or being a criminal myself.

In that situation, it's not just a sound bite, it's a legitimate alignment of priorities.

For those of you currently living in places where you are, generally, allowed to carry an adequate means of self-defense, I can understand thinking it sounds a bit iffy.

 

[TallPine]

Personally, I think I might rather be dead than stuck in some hellhole prison for the "crime" of self-defense.

But then I have to take into account protecting my family at all costs.

But it Montana, the concept of self-defense is pretty liberal, not only legally but socially (from a jury's viewpoint).

 

[Joejojoba111]

That Ayoob guy wrote that you could shoot Charles Manson raping a nun, and you'd still go to court. Simple as that, every shoot goes to court.

And it's a good expression because it's easy to remember. They say the same thing in martial arts classes, but it's more complicated. It's not like Karate Kid, where you don't fight at all costs - unless it's a tournament, it's hazy. You retreat if you think you safely can, or if you think it won't jeopardize others' safety, or else you fight to kill, but if you have an opportunity to end it without death you might want to go for that, if you think it won't put you at undue risk... Lots of IFs, because like the other guys said it's always different. Point is that you should look out for #1, and if you're the caring type look out for those around you too, and if you know you did the right thing it doesn't matter if you go to jail for it, because you will KNOW it is better to spend time in jail than wonder if you could have saved someone, or to be dead yourself. It's definately something you have to plan ahead of time, because you won't be able to reason the consequences correctly in a crisis.

 

[brickeyee]

What goes before a grand jury is completely up to the local prosecutor. If he wants a trial, he is very likely to get one. A grand jury hears only what the prosecutor decides to let them hear in a closed proceeding. Since no one is actually being tried, the rules are very different. Almost any shooting can be presented in such a way to gain an indictment.
If you pull the trigger be prepared to send a lot of money on attorneys.

 

[DFBonnett]

There are a number of people who believe that, after having dispatched a perpetrator in all good conscience, hanging around to have the "law" screw you over for the benefit of some prosecutor looking to "make his bones" is the height of folly. They believe that unassing the area with alacrity and/or removing the detritus of said perpetrator to a neutral area is the prudent action.
Personally, I'm a good little sheeple and would of course call the local JBTs so they could screw me over and make a "good bust". I merely state that opinions vary.

 

[jnojr]

The sick part of all this was that we were allowed to use deadly force to protect US military sensitve items without asking for permission first. IE, gas masks, ammo or other Military property, but not to protect our lives.

Well, you were carrying gas masks, ammo, and other military property, right?

 

[user203]

In the peoples republic we have to run

Here in Massachusetts, since the late 70's under Gov. Dukakis We as citizens YES EVEN IN OUR OWN HOUSE...have to run, as oppose to fight. That is a fact folks... You will be judged by 12 even if they broke into your home, and started to rape your wife/daughters...You and they need to run You cannot up the force...if the rapist (in this example) does not have a gun, You cannot escalate the force. BETTER TO BE JUDGED BY 12 THAN CARRIED BY 6 !

 

[q102josh]

well if your life is really in danger, then you're totally justified in shooting someone in self defense... of course there are some places where a lunatic could be coming at you with a butcher knife, and when you pop him, they'll try to convict you of murder.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Even with the intruder retreating, even with him in a car, and apparently about to flee before he was killed, the jury found the shooter not guilty on all charges.

As well it should have done! The criminal could easily have slammed the car into drive and run over the victim.

 

[dustind]

I do not have a permit to carry, but I do carry some times. So that statement does ring true for me.

That makes me wonder. If I shoot someone away from home and I am carrying without a permit, do I have to report it? Wouldn't that be self incrimination? I do not carry a cell phone so I would basically have to leave the scene anyway unless there was a witness with a phone. If I made it home without further incident I would be turning myself in as a criminal if I called the police.

 

[bjbarron]

New Jersey and New York have really draconian gun laws. In addition, these states are two of the 6 that do not have 'keep and bare arms' sections in their state constitutions. Both are 'may issue' states...the upshot of which is no ordinary citizen can carry. For example in New Jersey, there are about 35,000 carry permits issued out of 8 million citizens...exclusively retired LEOs and Security guards.

Having said that, I know lots of people who carry. Down here in South Jersey we are a different (red) state, the retired population is huge...and lots of older people carry. Since Bernie Goetz admitted to shooting 4 dirtbags on the subway, and got proscuted for it, no one admits to anything any more.

You would be surprised at the number of ex-dirtbag ventilated bodies that show up now and then, police ask for the shooter to turn him/herself in, and no one does. We learned. There was a case shortly after Goetz of a bystander with a gun defending other passengers on a subway from a dirtbag with a knife. Said dirtbag is no more...and none of the other passengers saw a thing. It was sort of funny for a while reading about the police asking the guy to turn himself in - they promised that they wouldn't charge him.

Shoot, shovel, and shut up. That's the rule here in Joisey. If you have to shoot anyone here, and get nabbed, you can be sure to be charged and feel the full weight of the state on your back. Residing in these states makes that something you have to live with...but you'll still be living. At least there'll only be one guy left standing to lie on the witness stand.

 

[whm1974]

The sick part of all this was that we were allowed to use deadly force to protect US military sensitve items without asking for permission first. IE, gas masks, ammo or other Military property, but not to protect our lives.

Items like that are more easy to replace then trained personall.

-Bill

 

[Art Eatman]

bjbarron pointed out the classic case where carrying a handgun in spite of laws against that saved a man's life: Bernie Getz, on the NY City subway. He was threatened with robbery by four guys armed with sharpened screwdrivers.

I first heard the saying from an Austin, TX, cop back some 40 years ago before Texas had a CHL law. If you're alive, you'll be judged by a jury if you shoot in defense of your life. If you're dead because you didn't break the law, you'll be carried by six. You decide.

Susannah Gratiot-Hupp saw her parents each carried by six after the mass-murder shootings in the Luby's in Killeen. She'd tried to be a nice, legal person by leaving her handgun in her car. She was elected to our Legislature in great part because of her desire to rectify the injustice of Texas gun laws. She was instrumental in the passage of our CHL laws.

The "judged by twelve" refers to the actual jury trial after an indictment. In Texas, all homicides are brought before a Grand Jury, regardless of who did the shooting: Police, a CHL person or a "just a homeowner" or an out-and-out murderer. It's up to the Grand Jury to return an indictment or not.

Art