Teenage Robber Dead, Shot by Good Samaritan

Status
Not open for further replies.
"If the Sam got involved to protect his friend, then why would he leave if he was under the impression that danger was still present or could return? At least drag your friend with you, if your initial involvement was due to concern for their safety.

1. There are bad guys threatening my friend, I will insert myself.
2. Bad guys might show up where I and my friend are, I will extract myself.

Depends on how lawyers try to sell it."

Hmm, very interesting point. Just my tin foil hat self, but something is screwy with this, as far as the facts we are given.

I am thinking gang affiliation, or I am just crazy. Hard to Monday morning quarterback stuff.

But, stuff like this is a great mental exercise, to think about what you would or might do.
 
Likely response: Because you have now shifted any further attention or attack squarely onto you.

The question the likely response triggers, for me - In leaving, are you trying to draw danger away from your friend, since you just defended them from that danger, or are you leaving your friend to deal with the danger you fear you just brought upon yourself?
 
Posted by SharpsDressedMan: Kleanbore, your not a cop trying to make a cops job easy, are you?
Of course not.

How about leaving your ID at the scene of the shooting before you leave, along with a note that you WILL be co-operating, soon, but had to go talk to your attorney. The cops always want what the cops want. What's the hurry? You, the shooter, left the scene, and took the GUN with you. Big deal.
I presume you are joking. A person shoots someone else and takes off? How can anyone know that his first objective is not to get rid of the gun, and his second, to disappear? Is he armed and dangerous? The answer: he is a wanted man.

If you actually plan to eventually co-operate, and don't alter the "evidence", there is no foul....the only thing you have done is stall a piece of the investigation just long enough to confer with an attorney (to protect your rights; a good reason in MY opinion), and nothing was lost except a little time.
No one knows your plans but you. To everyone else, you are acting like a guilty person.

And how will anyone know that you did not alter evidence?

Time durng which nothing was going to happen except the police trying to get you to talk BEFORE you spoke to an attorney.
Or possibly to make good your escapes, to get rid of evidence, or to shoot someone else.

If you are serious about this, you need some training and education, pronto. In the mean time don't act on your own advice.

If you are being sarcastic, we do not need that here.
 
SharpsDressedMan said:
....Big deal. If you actually plan to eventually co-operate, and don't alter the "evidence", there is no foul....the only thing you have done is stall a piece of the investigation just long enough to confer with an attorney (to protect your rights; a good reason in MY opinion), and nothing was lost except a little time....
You still fail to grasp that the fact of leaving the scene (flight) can be considered to be evidence of guilt.

Here's what some cases say:

  • State v. Walker, 595 P.2d 1098 (Kan., 1979), at 1099 - 1100:
    ...the general rule that evidence of flight may be admissible in order to establish the defendant's consciousness of guilt. 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 280; 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 625; ...
    ...
    It is well settled that conduct of the accused following the commission of an alleged crime may be circumstantially relevant to prove both the commission of the acts charged and the intent and purpose for which those acts were committed. Among such conduct is flight of the accused...

  • State v. Quiroz, 772 N.W.2d 710 (Wis. App., 2009), at 716:
    ...It is well established that evidence of flight has probative value as to guilt. See State v. Knighten, 212 Wis.2d 833, 838-39, 569 N.W.2d 770 (Ct.App.1997). Analytically, flight is an admission by conduct. State v. Miller, 231 Wis.2d 447, 460, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Ct.App.1999). The fact of an accused's flight is generally admissible against the accused as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and thus of guilt itself....

  • State v. Robinson, 360 S.C. 187 (S.C. App., 2004), at 195:
    ...See also State v. Beckham, 334 S.C. 302, 315, 513 S.E.2d 606, 612 (1999) (stating that evidence of flight has been held to constitute evidence of guilty knowledge and intent); State v. Grant, 275 S.C. 404, 407, 272 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1980) ("[A]ttempts to run away have always been regarded as some evidence of guilty knowledge and intent.") (internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Ballenger, 322 S.C. 196, 200, 470 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1996) (noting that flight is "at least some evidence" of defendant's guilt); State v. Thompson, 278 S.C. 1, 10-11, 292 S.E.2d 581, 587 (1982), .... (finding evidence of flight admissible to show guilty knowledge, intent, and that defendant sought to avoid apprehension); State v. Freely, 105 S.C. 243, 89 S.E. 643 (1916) (declaring the flight of one charged with a crime has always been held to be some evidence tending to prove guilt);...
 
The question the likely response triggers, for me - In leaving, are you trying to draw danger away from your friend, since you just defended them from that danger, or are you leaving your friend to deal with the danger you fear you just brought upon yourself?

I don't think you brought it upon yourself. I think you lifted off your friend and simply shifted it to yourself. And if they come back it will be escalated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top