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

Exactly 💯%

Judge ever tell you that you talk too much? Or did they yawn during your presentation?

What are you up to now...5000 words where a short paragraph would suffice.

SheriffJoe,

Suffice for what?

Though starting out as a road cop myself and experiencing firsthand what it takes to actually produce a handwritten report while in a patrol car in between calls, as a prosecutor I nevertheless had problems with some of the police reports I received from officers (then more conveniently prepared on laptop computers) being far too brief, often failing to include vital information necessary for proper prosecution decisions. An easy example:

“I interviewed the two witnesses at the scene. They told me that they saw [this] happen and they told me that they saw [that] happen.” That was it - the end.

But, that “short paragraph” certainly did not “suffice.” When one of those witnesses became unavailable for trial, I subpoenaed the other, to learn only then that this second witness had been facing away from the action, talking to his buddy, when it happened. This witness had turned around only in time to witness the aftermath, not what caused it. I had to move for the dismissal of an otherwise very good felony case, for lack of available evidence at trial. The judge didn’t like granting that motion, and I certainly didn’t like making it.

When it comes to legal matters, it’s often better to say more than to say less, as long as it actually adds something relevant and necessary to the complete and accurate understanding of the topic, and is not duplicative.

Brevity don’t mean doo-doo if all the necessary information isn’t conveyed.

Yo, genius...




Paragraphs for us.

A crime scene, law violation, after battle/mission debriefing, etc. could use more details, but I think you love to hear yourself talk and THAT is WHY you are an "ex"...everything.

It's only the month of May, but you're in contention for the KOOTY post. You're hanging your entire argument on basis of the defender being arrested, while ignoring that he released the next day, and apparently the charges will be dropped - over-zealous law enforcement and all that. What exactly do YOU find him guilty of? More importantly, why does it matter what you think?

Seems you too could stand some improvement in your reading comprehension skills. Try reading it again, slowly.

A famous "influencer" often said:





NYUK NYUK NYUK!

Let's see if this is slow enough. I'm only going to parse your first two paragraphs because you bore me.

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. Wrong - they let the defender go.

The shooter is absolutely liable for any and all consequences resulting from each and every bullet sent out, even the strays. Wrong - as many have already pointed out the felon is liable, not the defender.

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: Your "deal" is wrong in it's entirety, or provide an example of statutes against returning fire.

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. Wrong - they let the defender go.

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). This is all a creation of your imagination. None of it happened. THEY LET THE DEFENDER GO.

JOG,

It appears that rereading it slowly didn’t much help you to actually understand what was being said, and why. And, you didn’t read it in its entirety, either. Too many words for you to handle all at once, eh? That’s too bad.

It also looks like you might want to work on improving your reasoning skills, as well.

Hint: While it could indicate that charges were dropped, the release of an arrestee from custody usually has more to do with whether he has been deemed likely to appear in court as required later. Releasing an arrestee from custody typically extends the time limit for arraignment, giving prosecutors more time to reflect on the charges to be pursued, to direct followup investigations, and to work out the details of possible alternative case resolutions to be offered pre-arraignment.

JOG you better stop with that common sense people will think your a reasonable normal person instead of an ex prosecutor Ahole.

Having insufficient knowledge of the subject matter does not seem to stop some from aggressively offering very firm opinions on it. Mostly tradition here on the Handguns sub-forum, unfortunately.

Common ignorance is in no way the same as common sense.

Couple of observations for the group and the OP….

Elections matter. Activist DAs aren’t just after cops. That’s what they claim, but they’re not. They’re after anyone who is self reliant.

It’s a two step process—Make the citizenry completely reliant on the government. AND run all the good guys out of the government. And activist DAs are leading the fight in accomplishing both. They’re after you, too.

OP, when people get fed up and start knitting red caps, this is the kind of nonsense they’ll remember.

Did you read the entire original post? Pay particular attention to the part which follows the capitalized word “NOTICE.” Or, like JOG earlier, did you just not get that far?

So that this misunderstanding may be cleared up:
What it does say in the Florida Statutes, Chapter 776, Section 776.032(1) is that: “A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened…” So, an innocent, uninvolved third person, who was damaged by the person using justified force, is not within any category of persons barred by statute from bringing civil action against the person using that justified force.

The activities described in the news article included in the original post occurred in the State of Tennessee. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-11-605, states: “Civil remedies unaffected.– The fact that conduct is justified under this part does not abolish or impair any remedy for the conduct that is or may be available in a civil suit.”

Always gotta have the last word huh?

What? Blatantly false or misleading information should not be corrected because doing so might be “the last word?” Another interesting concept.

You don't have any friends do you?

Thoughtful, intelligent comments are impossible for some. How those few have become tolerated regulars on the Handguns sub-forum remains a mystery.

Pretty sure Tennessee is not Florida. The Gators are a clue.

Yup. The story was from Tennessee, but the Florida guy cited Florida law and got it wrong in his effort to prove his incorrect point about what coulda happened in Tennessee. I was afraid some reader might just believe what he had said and suffer some sorta loss for it. Wrong advice can sometimes have that result. I couldn’t just stand by and let that happen.

Even a justified self-defense shooter remains legally responsible for each and every round fired, no matter in whatever or whoever each bullet may eventually stop.