Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns When Self-Defense Isn’t

https://www.foxnews.com/us/tennesse...erment-returning-fire-armed-auto-thieves

There are several important lessons in this news story. Discharging a firearm in an urban or suburban setting is an unbelievably huge, almost crippling responsibility. The shooter is absolutely liable for any and all consequences resulting from each and every bullet sent out, even the strays. Nearly everywhere, the employment of deadly force is governed by statutes strictly limiting its application. In particular, the legal concept of self-defense is often misunderstood. So, here’s the deal as it applies to this dude’s unfortunate situation:

First, while a criminal defendant is absolutely presumed innocent until proven otherwise and the prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, self-defense is only an affirmative defense which must be proved by the defendant. The prosecution is usually not required to negate self-defense as part of its initial case. But, once the defendant has introduced evidence of self-defense, the prosecution then becomes obliged to negate it. This all comes as a shock to most people. True, if the pre-charging investigation discloses that the evidence of proper self-defense is compelling, a competent and reasonable prosecutor will decline to charge, in the interests of justice and judicial economy. However, a politically motivated prosecutor may lawfully charge regardless, and force the defendant to prove the self-defense at trial (costly, even if successful).

Second, as to the need, the use of deadly force in self-defense must be reasonable under the specific circumstances immediately presented at the precise moment it is employed. It must be reasonably necessary in that there must be an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury which is sought to be prevented, and the deadly force employed is the minimum level reasonably available, reasonably applied and reasonably calculated to prevent it. In this case, because of the increasing distance to the targets in that they have already disengaged and are are fleeing, the threat has diminished and the application of deadly force takes on the character of retaliation rather than actual self-defense. The video demonstrates this, as it shows the shooter leaving cover, unnecessarily exposing himself to harm as he moved forward in an apparent attempt to more advantageously engage the targets.

Third, as to the manner, deadly force in self-defense must be reasonably applied. “Spray and pray” gunfire at distant, fleeing targets, with the potential for innocent victims to be present in and around residences behind the targets, all while the shooter’s eyes are closed, cannot possibly be reasonable.

Fourth, each and every shot fired must be separately subjected to same analysis. Though one or more shots may well be determined to be both reasonable and fired in lawful self-defense, other shots may not be. Once the shooting starts, it does NOT then become “open season.”

NOTICE that the charge brought against the shooter here is reckless endangerment rather than assault with a deadly weapon upon the fleeing crooks (which could have been supportable under the facts and law). So, the imperfect self-defense aspects appear to have had some influence on charging.

As a retired prosecutor, and based solely on the information in the story, I would not have hesitated to charge and prosecute this doofus shooter for reckless endangerment and I would expect a conviction if the case were to go to trial and I did my job competently. However, this case also appears to be an excellent candidate for an appropriate pre-trial plea bargain, or perhaps even pre-trial diversion, with restitution ordered as to any and all innocents damaged by the wild shots fired, with proper self-defense firearms training being required, and with a bit of community service imposed to drive the lesson home.

The final lesson here is to keep your damn mouth shut until after you have consulted an attorney, should you ever be compelled to use deadly force. When the cops come asking what happened, you will need to identify yourself, surrender any physical evidence, including the weapon used, and maybe provide a brief, general statement such as, “I was violently assaulted, I feared for my life and the perpetrator was shot” [end of statement] before invoking your rights to counsel and to remain silent. Then, talk with the attorney before saying more.

You are from California, aren't you? I guess that explains it.

"As a retired prosecutor, and based solely on the information in the story, I would not have hesitated to charge and prosecute this doofus shooter for reckless endangerment and I would expect a conviction if the case were to go to trial and I did my job competently."

Typical Blue city cops, trying to maneuver the victim into some kind of charge against him.

Guess so, though it looks to be the same in Tennessee.

That’s the spin FOX news was trying to give the story.

Fear in that situation is "reasonable" for most anyone. The man was just "too honesty and fourth right" for his own good

That’s for sure. But then, that wasn’t his only mistake, now was it?

What a surprise.

More bad mouthing and Monday morning quarterbacking yet again by Exchipy. Bad mouthing of the man in the arena. A man protecting both his home and property, obviously from people who were willing to kill him without hesitation, based on the fact that they immediately started shooting at him and into his home that contained his family.

If they are willing to shoot at him and try to murder him the instant he walks out onto his porch, it is absolutely reasonable to expect that they will kill anyone else present in the home as well to eliminate eyewitnesses and prevent from being identified.

Perhaps if you had some actual gunfighting experience, instead of just badmouthing people, (which is what you have a documented track record here of doing) you might have some credibility, but you don't have either.

Disgusting.

Mackay Sagebush, what planet are you from? Are you really in favor of closed eyes while “spray and pray” shooting at targets not clearly seen in the first place, and in a populated environment? Are you not what you claim?

Or, were you just so eager for an opportunity to attack, that you didn’t give much thought to what you were saying?

Charging an innocent man of a crime and the only crime is that he was scared and admitted it.

Charges are BS and will not stick.

There is always a law that is broken by everyone every day, simply because there are so many and no one knows them all.

The fact that the home owner was charged shows that law enforcement has zero ability to use proper discretion.

And, if you and your family were living in a house across the street, what then?

“[Z]ero ability to use proper discretion?” Remember that this guy was only charged with reckless endangerment, not the ADW which could have been charged.

Are you really in favor of closed eyes while “spray and pray” shooting at targets not clearly seen in the first place, and in a populated environment?

Holy sheep dip, happens all the time in Chicago, LA, Atlanta, DC, NYC etc. The only thing your liberal post is lacking is Bidets “you only need a shotgun” quote.

Thoughtful, intelligent comments are impossible for some.

"I was forced to shoot in self defense, officer. I'd like to speak to an attorney before I make any other statements."

That's all you say to the cops. Repeat if pressed.

Thank you for excellent analysis and advice.

BINGO!
But, why would you admit that you’re the one did the shooting? It’s unnecessary. Why not simply say, “I was violently attacked, I feared for my life and the attacker was shot.” Nothing further. The only admission then, would be the implication that you were actually present for the events in order to able to make the statement. While it sounds like you’re passing yourself off as a victim/witness, in fact you are a victim/witness, with perhaps more to say after you’ve consulted with your attorney.

If I lived across the street from him I'd buy him a drink and think him for his brave action

???He told police he fired the gun with his eyes closed.

Yeah, so what? That happens a lot more than you might think butost never admit it

Uh-huh.