When Self-Defense Isn’t - 24hourcampfire

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.

Originally Posted by MOGC

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."

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

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

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

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

Originally Posted by Exchipy

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.

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

Originally Posted by jwp475

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.

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

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?

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

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.

Mackey 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.

Originally Posted by jwp475

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.

Originally Posted by Swifty52

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.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

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.

Thank you for excellent analysis and advice.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

"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.

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.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

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.

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

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Slavek

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

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.

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

Originally Posted by jwp475

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

Uh-huh.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

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

Uh-huh.

Standing up in the face of grave danger is a brave action. Bravery doesn't mean absence of fear

Originally Posted by jwp475

Standing up in the face of grave danger is a brave action. Bravery doesn't mean absence of fear

Neither does stupidity.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

Standing up in the face of grave danger is a brave action. Bravery doesn't mean absence of fear

Neither does stupidity.

I'll forgive you of your stupidity this time.

Originally Posted by jwp475

I'll forgive you of your stupidity this time.

Thank you. Most appreciated.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

Standing up in the face of grave danger is a brave action. Bravery doesn't mean absence of fear

Neither does stupidity.

To be afraid is not stupidity

If stupid were a crime it would catch up a hell of a lot of people over a bunch of nonsense. And charging the homeowner here would be nonsense.

Originally Posted by MOGC

If stupid were a crime it would catch up a hell of a lot of people over a bunch of nonsense. And charging the homeowner here would be nonsense.

If you say so.

Originally Posted by jwp475

To be afraid is not stupidity

Absolutely correct!
But, being afraid certainly does tend to bring out the stupidity in those who have not properly prepared themselves for it. Watch the security video attached to the news story for a noteworthy example.

There's likely a lot of lessons to be learned from this story. But the story isn't finished yet, and the transpired facts remain incomplete.

Some of the lessons can also be personal. Some people may opt to leave the cover of their home's interior to protect.their property. I don't begrudge them that, or claim to know the legalities. I'm not inclined to charge outside into unknown danger unless a family member is in danger out there. Even then my approach is at least hoped and planned to be discreet from an unanticipated direction. I often observe suspicious things outside from unanticipated locations as it's already part of my MO.. JMO but I think a great deal of self defense can take place without the application of force. My best to the victim and his family. It's unfortunate he didn't remain as silent as possible in the immediate aftermath.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

To be afraid is not stupidity

Absolutely correct!
But, being afraid certainly does tend to bring out the stupidity in those who have not properly prepared themselves for it. Watch the security video attached to the news story for a noteworthy example.

Solider train for combat yet the first they experience combat some never fire their weapons some cry and others close their eyes.

How does one really prepare for such until they are actually have experienced it.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Solider train for combat yet the first they experience combat some never fire their weapons some cry and others close their eyes.
How does one really prepare for such until they are actually have experienced it.

So, it’s from brave hero, deserving of thanks and a free drink, to inept conscript with a big mouth, unequal to his task?

The responsibility one assumes when choosing to discharge a firearm in public is indescribably huge. One absolutely must do it right, or be awfully damn lucky, and cannot expect a participation trophy along with a free pass for costly mistakes.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

Solider train for combat yet the first they experience combat some never fire their weapons some cry and others close their eyes.
How does one really prepare for such until they are actually have experienced it.

So, it’s from brave hero, deserving of thanks and a free drink, to inept conscript with a big mouth, unequal to his task?

The responsibility one assumes when choosing to discharge a firearm in public is indescribably huge. One absolutely must do it right, or be awfully damn lucky, and cannot expect a participation trophy along with a free pass for costly mistakes.

You've never been in a fire fight have you

Originally Posted by Earlyagain

There's likely a lot of lessons to be learned from this story. But the story isn't finished yet, and the transpired facts remain incomplete.

Some of the lessons can also be personal. Some people may opt to leave the cover of their home's interior to protect.their property. I don't begrudge them that, or claim to know the legalities. I'm not inclined to charge outside into unknown danger unless a family member is in danger out there. Even then my approach is at least hoped and planned to be discreet from an unanticipated direction. I often observe suspicious things outside from unanticipated locations as it's already part of my MO.. JMO but I think a great deal of self defense can take place without the application of force. My best to the victim and his family. It's unfortunate he didn't remain as silent as possible in the immediate aftermath.

A very thoughtful and intelligent comment, sir.

The security video shows a lot more than the printed story provides. For instance, after leaving the relative safety of his house to challenge the thieves, certainly not inappropriate for someone with some backbone, he takes concealment (and likely good cover) behind an auto in the driveway when the shooting starts. However, he then abandons that cover to advance on the crooks, appearing to unnecessarily go on the offensive, inconsistent with an act of self-defense.

You’re absolutely correct in observing that all the potential facts may not yet be known, though the provided facts are sufficient for this discussion. An official prosecutorial investigation into this matter should remain ongoing throughout the judicial process, including during trial, as things could change dramatically upon discovery of unforeseen evidence.

One potential fact which could prove troublesome, is the possibility that perhaps an elderly woman (not jwp475), who lives alone across the street, has not yet been discovered dead in her bed by concerned relatives who hadn’t heard from her in a while.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by Earlyagain

There's likely a lot of lessons to be learned from this story. But the story isn't finished yet, and the transpired facts remain incomplete.

Some of the lessons can also be personal. Some people may opt to leave the cover of their home's interior to protect.their property. I don't begrudge them that, or claim to know the legalities. I'm not inclined to charge outside into unknown danger unless a family member is in danger out there. Even then my approach is at least hoped and planned to be discreet from an unanticipated direction. I often observe suspicious things outside from unanticipated locations as it's already part of my MO.. JMO but I think a great deal of self defense can take place without the application of force. My best to the victim and his family. It's unfortunate he didn't remain as silent as possible in the immediate aftermath.

A very thoughtful and intelligent comment, sir.

The security video shows a lot more than the printed story provides. For instance, after leaving the relative safety of his house to challenge the thieves, certainly not inappropriate for someone with some backbone, he takes concealment (and likely good cover) behind an auto in the driveway when the shooting starts. However, he then abandons that cover to advance on the crooks, appearing to unnecessarily go on the offensive, inconsistent with an act of self-defense.

You’re absolutely correct in observing that all the potential facts may not yet be known, though the provided facts are sufficient for this discussion. An official prosecutorial investigation into this matter should remain ongoing throughout the judicial process, including during trial, as things could change dramatically upon discovery of unforeseen evidence.

The one potential fact which troubles me, is the possibility that the elderly woman (not jwp475), who lives alone across the street, has not yet been discovered dead in her bed by concerned relatives who hadn’t heard from her in a while.

Taking the offensive when in defense is often a wise tactic. Take the fight to those that started it. Even a defensive boxer throws punched and goes on the offensive as well

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

Solider train for combat yet the first they experience combat some never fire their weapons some cry and others close their eyes.
How does one really prepare for such until they are actually have experienced it.

So, it’s from brave hero, deserving of thanks and a free drink, to inept conscript with a big mouth, unequal to his task?

The responsibility one assumes when choosing to discharge a firearm in public is indescribably huge. One absolutely must do it right, or be awfully damn lucky, and cannot expect a participation trophy along with a free pass for costly mistakes.

And the costly mistakes in this case were...? Maybe I missed it, did an uninvolved innocent person in the neighborhood get shot by the homeowner? Are there complaints of property damage from his bullets? I know what could have happened, what actual damage did happen?

Originally Posted by MOGC

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

Solider train for combat yet the first they experience combat some never fire their weapons some cry and others close their eyes.
How does one really prepare for such until they are actually have experienced it.

So, it’s from brave hero, deserving of thanks and a free drink, to inept conscript with a big mouth, unequal to his task?

The responsibility one assumes when choosing to discharge a firearm in public is indescribably huge. One absolutely must do it right, or be awfully damn lucky, and cannot expect a participation trophy along with a free pass for costly mistakes.

And the costly mistakes in this case were...? Maybe I missed it, did an uninvolved innocent person in the neighborhood get shot by the homeowner? Are there complaints of property damage from his bullets? I know what could have happened, what actual damage did happen?

Maybe he could tell us how he reacted when he was in a firefight.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Taking the offensive when in defense is often a wise tactic. Take the fight to those that started it. Even a defensive boxer throws punched and goes on the offensive as well

That would be a very useful approach to secure victory in a military engagement or a barroom brawl. But, don’t try to claim you were acting in self-defense after taking the offensive.

However, when acting in the lawful defense of others (not applicable here), taking the offensive may well be reasonably necessary to save them. The standard used in assessing the lawfulness any such action will always be its reasonableness in view of all the surrounding circumstances.

But, keep in mind that there is no such thing as a kick-ass mentality exception in the law of self-defense.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

Taking the offensive when in defense is often a wise tactic. Take the fight to those that started it. Even a defensive boxer throws punched and goes on the offensive as well

That would be a very useful approach to secure victory in a military engagement or a barroom brawl. But, don’t try to claim you were acting in self-defense after taking the offensive.

However, when acting in the lawful defense of others (not applicable here), taking the offensive may well be reasonably necessary to save them. The standard used in assessing the lawfulness any such action will always be its reasonableness in view of all the surrounding circumstances.

But, keep in mind that there is no such thing as a kick-ass mentality exception in the law of self-defense.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

Taking the offensive when in defense is often a wise tactic. Take the fight to those that started it. Even a defensive boxer throws punched and goes on the offensive as well

That would be a very useful approach to secure victory in a military engagement or a barroom brawl. But, don’t try to claim you were acting in self-defense after taking the offensive.

However, when acting in the lawful defense of others (not applicable here), taking the offensive may well be reasonably necessary to save them. The standard used in assessing the lawfulness any such action will always be its reasonableness in view of all the surrounding circumstances.

But, keep in mind that there is no such thing as a kick-ass mentality exception in the law of self-defense.

The home was acting in self defense, tge bad guys fired at him first. By moving off of the porch he was drawing fire away from his home and family.

The charges will not stick

Originally Posted by jwp475

The home was acting in self defense, tge bad guys fired at him first. By moving off of the porch he was drawing fire away from his home and family.
The charges will not stick

You gotta work on improving your reading comprehension skills. You apparently missed this earlier, even though you copied it into one of your comments:

Originally Posted by Exchipy

The security video shows a lot more than the printed story provides. For instance, after leaving the relative safety of his house to challenge the thieves, certainly not inappropriate for someone with some backbone, he takes concealment (and likely good cover) behind an auto in the driveway when the shooting starts. However, he then abandons that cover to advance on the crooks, appearing to unnecessarily go on the offensive, inconsistent with an act of self-defense.

You also missed, or have forgotten, the fact that “the home” (as you now identify him) was actually charged with reckless endangerment (presumably for wrongfully endangering his neighbors by his blind, wild shooting at nothing in particular). He was not charged with ADW on the bad guys, though he certainly could have been, based solely upon the last shot or two he fired.

i see now why exchippy is an "ex- prosecutor" and has been forced to resort to shilling out as an ambulance chaser. that guy wouldn't have even been charged around here, and we would ahve still been looking for the bad guys, if we didn't already have them

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

Solider train for combat yet the first they experience combat some never fire their weapons some cry and others close their eyes.
How does one really prepare for such until they are actually have experienced it.

So, it’s from brave hero, deserving of thanks and a free drink, to inept conscript with a big mouth, unequal to his task?

The responsibility one assumes when choosing to discharge a firearm in public is indescribably huge. One absolutely must do it right, or be awfully damn lucky, and cannot expect a participation trophy along with a free pass for costly mistakes.

Be very careful.
That pedestal is very tall, falling is bound to hurt.

I hope to never attract the attention of a DA.
If I ever do, I hope it is one who lives in the real world, one who understands
that fantasy and perception are not reality.

I'm guessing that you are the type who would prosecute this guy no matter what.

Almost paralyzed with fear?
Reckless. Firing indiscriminately.

Standing on the porch shooting 4 or 5 people in the head, one shot each?
Murder.
He couldn't have been truly in fear and shot that well.

Sorry Counselor,
Real life at 2AM, taking rounds, isn't a law school hypothetical,
or a Billy Bob Badass/Johnny Rambo fantasy.

You have had it explained to you by men (Not I)who have been on the receiving end
of a gun. Yet you cling to your fantasy.

Did you actually read and understand the entire original post which began this thread?

Often, it seems, people who are uncomfortable with the original topic of a conversation attempt to redirect the subject of that conversation to something different, something with which they are more comfortable.

Tennessee must be real glad you moved there
Do you plan to run for DA soon?

Originally Posted by Exchipy

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....

RETURNING fire.

Armed Robbery - the Perpetrators are responsible.

GR

Originally Posted by Garandimal

Originally Posted by Exchipy

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....

RETURNING fire.

Armed Robbery - the Perpetrators are responsible.

GR

Exactly. According to Exchipy's reasoning, no one could ever return fire in a city without being guilty of a crime, which is ridiculous.

Right, in most places the law is that if anyone is shot during an armed robbery, it's on the robbers, not anyone else. That's because the law reasons that the decision to engage in a crime where it's highly likely that someone will be seriously injured or killed is the cause of all reactions to said crime (because such reaction is predictable), including return fire from intended victims. If return fire injures an innocent third party, it's felony murder on the part of the armed robbers. The defender isn't charged with anything. The same rule should apply with any charge, to include reckless endangerment.

Wonder if chipy fits this mold.

NYPD Officers Fire 84 Shots At Suspect, Miss 83 Times

🤣

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Right, in most places the law is that if anyone is shot during an armed robbery, it's on the robbers, not anyone else. That's because the law reasons that the decision to engage in a crime where it's highly likely that someone will be seriously injured or killed is the cause of all reactions to said crime (because such reaction is predictable), including return fire from intended victims. If return fire injures an innocent third party, it's felony murder on the part of the armed robbers. The defender isn't charged with anything. The same rule should apply with any charge, to include reckless endangerment.

I seriously believe those charges will not stick

I think most of us "get it" it's 2Am and we're returning fire not starting a fight but engaging in one. Wish Ole boy would've used a shotgun.

I showed thus to our sheriff and he said the charges are BS and if they stick that it's making self defense illegal and if that happens then we're in a sad state of affairs

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Right, in most places the law is that if anyone is shot during an armed robbery, it's on the robbers, not anyone else. That's because the law reasons that the decision to engage in a crime where it's highly likely that someone will be seriously injured or killed is the cause of all reactions to said crime (because such reaction is predictable), including return fire from intended victims. If return fire injures an innocent third party, it's felony murder on the part of the armed robbers. The defender isn't charged with anything. The same rule should apply with any charge, to include reckless endangerment.

You make an excellent observation, which is mostly correct. The only two things which are incorrect are:

First, though maybe it should, the rule of felony murder simply does not apply to “any other charge.”

Second, is including “not anyone else” at the end of your first sentence. While the rule of felony murder certainly does make all co-perpetrators criminally liable for any foreseeable death resulting from the commission of the felony, it does not relieve a non-perpetrator shooter from separate criminal liability for any single shot fired with criminal negligence.

So, changing the facts in the original story just a bit, had any of the shots fired by our resident, shooting in the general direction of the felons, but at no one in particular and while his eyes were closed, struck and killed a neighbor, the fleeing felons would be criminally liable for second degree murder in that killing under the rule of felony murder. However the resident would also be criminally liable for involuntary manslaughter in that killing, because it directly resulted from his criminal negligence.

Bet reading that’ll make some here extremely unhappy. But, that’s just the way it is. Criminally negligent conduct unfortunately has legal consequences, and there’s no free pass simply because the criminally negligent act was committed in an attempt to foil a felony.

Remember that none of this addresses all of the potential felony charges which could be brought against the fleeing thieves for what they did.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Right, in most places the law is that if anyone is shot during an armed robbery, it's on the robbers, not anyone else. That's because the law reasons that the decision to engage in a crime where it's highly likely that someone will be seriously injured or killed is the cause of all reactions to said crime (because such reaction is predictable), including return fire from intended victims. If return fire injures an innocent third party, it's felony murder on the part of the armed robbers. The defender isn't charged with anything. The same rule should apply with any charge, to include reckless endangerment.

You make an excellent observation, which is mostly correct. The only two things which are incorrect are:

First, though maybe it should, the rule of felony murder simply does not apply to “any other charge.”

Second, is including “not anyone else” at the end of your first sentence. While the rule of felony murder certainly does make all co-perpetrators criminally liable for any foreseeable death resulting from the commission of the felony, it does not relieve a non-perpetrator shooter from separate criminal liability for any single shot fired with criminal negligence.

So, changing the facts in the original story just a bit, had any of the shots fired by our resident, shooting in the general direction of the felons, but at no one in particular and while his eyes were closed, struck and killed a neighbor, the fleeing felons would be criminally liable for second degree murder in that killing under the rule of felony murder. However the resident would also be criminally liable for involuntary manslaughter in that killing, because it directly resulted from his criminal negligence.

Bet reading that’ll make some here extremely unhappy. But, that’s just the way it is. Criminally negligent conduct unfortunately has legal consequences, and there’s no free pass simply because the criminally negligent act was committed in an attempt to foil a felony.

Remember that none of this addresses all of the potential felony charges which could be brought against the fleeing thieves for what they did.

Academic "fly-[bleep]-in-the-pepper."

He was Fired Upon, by perps in the commission of a violent armed felony.

What don't you understand?

GR

There’s another aspect raised by this story, which hasn’t been mentioned yet. If our resident shooter had remained behind the cover of the car in his driveway, if he had been able to see any perpetrator whom he reasonably believed was about to shoot at him again, and kept his eyes open while he shot at that perpetrator, but unfortunately missed, he would likely be facing no charges. However, if the shot which missed had traveled on to cause damage to an uninvolved person, that person could likely prevail in a lawsuit against our resident shooter to recover the cost of repair, even if our resident shooter was in no way negligent. If you think about this some, you might recognize that, as between the shooter and the uninvolved person who was damaged, it’s the shooter who should rightfully pay for the repair.

Originally Posted by Garandimal

Academic "fly-[bleep]-in-the-pepper."
He was Fired Upon, by perps in the commission of a violent armed felony.
What don't you understand?
GR

What I don’t understand is why you refuse to get the message. I can only hope that you never find yourself in a similar situation. But, if you do, that you remember your rights to counsel and to remain silent.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

There’s another aspect raised by this story, which hasn’t been mentioned yet. If our resident shooter had remained behind the cover of the car in his driveway, if he had been able to see any perpetrator whom he reasonably believed was about to shoot at him again, and kept his eyes open while he shot at that perpetrator, but unfortunately missed, he would likely be facing no charges. However, if the shot which missed had traveled on to cause damage to an uninvolved person, that person could likely prevail in a lawsuit against our resident shooter to recover the cost of repair, even if our resident shooter was in no way negligent. If you think about this some, you might recognize that, as between the shooter and the uninvolved person who was damaged, it’s the shooter who should rightfully pay for the repair.

"If, if, if..."

More Academic BS.

He has the Right to go where he pleases.

In doing so, he was Fired Upon, by perps in the commission of a violent armed felony.

What don't you understand?

GR

Originally Posted by Garandimal

He has the Right to go where he pleases.
In doing so, he was Fired Upon, by perps in the commission of a violent armed felony.
What don't you understand?
GR

Yes, it’s just that simple, isn’t it? It’s such simple ideas which keep the criminal justice and prison systems in business. But, where does that leave an intelligent guy like you?

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by Garandimal

He has the Right to go where he pleases.
In doing so, he was Fired Upon, by perps in the commission of a violent armed felony.
What don't you understand?
GR

Yes, it’s just that simple, isn’t it? It’s such simple ideas which keep the criminal justice and prison systems in business. But, where does that leave an intelligent guy like you?

Obfuscation, yet More Academic BS.

How about... hmmm...

"Armed Response to a Violent Armed Felony" for 100, Alex.

What don't you understand?

GR

Originally Posted by Exchipy

There’s another aspect raised by this story, which hasn’t been mentioned yet. If our resident shooter had remained behind the cover of the car in his driveway, if he had been able to see any perpetrator whom he reasonably believed was about to shoot at him again, and kept his eyes open while he shot at that perpetrator, but unfortunately missed, he would likely be facing no charges. However, if the shot which missed had traveled on to cause damage to an uninvolved person, that person could likely prevail in a lawsuit against our resident shooter to recover the cost of repair, even if our resident shooter was in no way negligent. If you think about this some, you might recognize that, as between the shooter and the uninvolved person who was damaged, it’s the shooter who should rightfully pay for the repair.

As to damage to property from return fire, states differ on that. So long as the shooting is justified, some states nullify liability (on the part of the justified shooter) for property damage that results.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by Exchipy

There’s another aspect raised by this story, which hasn’t been mentioned yet. If our resident shooter had remained behind the cover of the car in his driveway, if he had been able to see any perpetrator whom he reasonably believed was about to shoot at him again, and kept his eyes open while he shot at that perpetrator, but unfortunately missed, he would likely be facing no charges. However, if the shot which missed had traveled on to cause damage to an uninvolved person, that person could likely prevail in a lawsuit against our resident shooter to recover the cost of repair, even if our resident shooter was in no way negligent. If you think about this some, you might recognize that, as between the shooter and the uninvolved person who was damaged, it’s the shooter who should rightfully pay for the repair.

As to damage to property from return fire, states differ on that. So long as the shooting is justified, some states nullify liability (on the part of the justified shooter) for property damage that results.

Property damage in a justified shooting is civil

Perhaps he did not have theft insurance on his van? That still does not explain shooting back with eyes closed. Unfortunately he was dumb enough to tell police he shot back with his eyes closed.
As general rule I would run away from gunfire or at least seek cover and stay there. Certainly, I would not leave cover and run toward the shooters.

If a DA prosecutes in this case he deserves the fate this DA received

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-along-with-more-misconduct-allegations/

Originally Posted by jwp475

Property damage in a justified shooting is civil

Yes, it most certainly is. Isn’t that what I said? Again, you need to work on improving your reading comprehension skills.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

As to damage to property from return fire, states differ on that. So long as the shooting is justified, some states nullify liability (on the part of the justified shooter) for property damage that results.

Let’s see now: An individual benefits (saving his life) by the firing of a shot in lawful self-defense (justified), a shot which goes on to cause damage to the property of a third, totally uninvolved person, yet that third person must bear the cost to repair the resulting damage to his property because the liability of the person causing that damage has been nullified by the shooting being justified? Interesting concept, that.

Originally Posted by Slavek

Perhaps he did not have theft insurance on his van? That still does not explain shooting back with eyes closed. Unfortunately he was dumb enough to tell police he shot back with his eyes closed.
As general rule I would run away from gunfire or at least seek cover and stay there. Certainly, I would not leave cover and run toward the shooters.

Well, yes, it would be a bit silly for one who owns no guns to run toward gunfire.

Better to cower in the closet and let the girl friend take the punishment.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Property damage in a justified shooting is civil

I know, but some states bar the seeking of civil damages from a justified shooting.

Originally Posted by jwp475

If a DA prosecutes in this case he deserves the fate this DA received

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-along-with-more-misconduct-allegations/

A pay wall prevented me from reading it.

Originally Posted by Slavek

That still does not explain shooting back with eyes closed.

BS, lots of people close their eyes shooting at deer. Closing his eyes has nothing to do with this being a clear cut self defense action and the charges are ridiculous

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

As to damage to property from return fire, states differ on that. So long as the shooting is justified, some states nullify liability (on the part of the justified shooter) for property damage that results.

Let’s see now: An individual benefits (saving his life) by the firing of a shot in lawful self-defense (justified), a shot which goes on to cause damage to the property of a third, totally uninvolved person, yet that third person must bear the cost to repair the resulting damage to his property because the liability of the person causing that damage has been nullified by the shooting being justified? Interesting concept, that.

He can always seek damages from the criminal who made the defensive shooting a necessity.

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by Slavek

That still does not explain shooting back with eyes closed.

BS, lots of people close their eyes shooting.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by jwp475

If a DA prosecutes in this case he deserves the fate this DA received

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-along-with-more-misconduct-allegations/

A pay wall prevented me from reading it.

Try this one

https://www.npr.org/2007/06/16/11134497/law-panel-disbars-d-a-in-duke-lacrosse-case

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by jwp475

If a DA prosecutes in this case he deserves the fate this DA received

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-along-with-more-misconduct-allegations/

A pay wall prevented me from reading it.

Try this one

https://www.npr.org/2007/06/16/11134497/law-panel-disbars-d-a-in-duke-lacrosse-case

He sure deserved to be disbarred. I remember that case very clearly. Disgusting.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by jwp475

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by jwp475

If a DA prosecutes in this case he deserves the fate this DA received

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-along-with-more-misconduct-allegations/

A pay wall prevented me from reading it.

Try this one

https://www.npr.org/2007/06/16/11134497/law-panel-disbars-d-a-in-duke-lacrosse-case

He sure deserved to be disbarred. I remember that case very clearly. Disgusting.

If the DA in this case doesn't drop the charges he deserves the same disbarment

Originally Posted by jwp475

If the DA in this case doesn't drop the charges he deserves the same disbarment

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Mackay_Sagebrush

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 Sagebrush nails it as per usual.

Is it any wonder Ex- Chippy is an EX-Prosecutor & EX-Cop? 🤪 😂😂😂

Originally Posted by Slavek

Perhaps he did not have theft insurance on his van? That still does not explain shooting back with eyes closed. Unfortunately he was dumb enough to tell police he shot back with his eyes closed.
As general rule I would run away from gunfire or at least seek cover and stay there. Certainly, I would not leave cover and run toward the shooters.

NoElkSlayer / Jason Cardenas always runs from a fight while wearing DIAPERS. 😂😂😂

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Slavek

Perhaps he did not have theft insurance on his van? That still does not explain shooting back with eyes closed. Unfortunately he was dumb enough to tell police he shot back with his eyes closed.
As general rule I would run away from gunfire or at least seek cover and stay there. Certainly, I would not leave cover and run toward the shooters.

NoElkSlayer / Jason Cardenas always runs from a fight while wearing DIAPERS. 😂😂😂

Bwahahaha! Is he really Maser?

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by chlinstructor

Originally Posted by Slavek

Perhaps he did not have theft insurance on his van? That still does not explain shooting back with eyes closed. Unfortunately he was dumb enough to tell police he shot back with his eyes closed.
As general rule I would run away from gunfire or at least seek cover and stay there. Certainly, I would not leave cover and run toward the shooters.

NoElkSlayer / Jason Cardenas always runs from a fight while wearing DIAPERS. 😂😂😂

Bwahahaha! Is he really Maser?

Yep. Outed a long time ago by Renegade50.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by jwp475

Property damage in a justified shooting is civil

I know, but some states bar the seeking of civil damages from a justified shooting.

I believe you’ll find that such a bar applies only to prevent the bad guy-shootee, Mrs. bad guy-shootee, and his blood relatives from seeking damages, and does not apply to an innocent third party.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by jwp475

Property damage in a justified shooting is civil

I know, but some states bar the seeking of civil damages from a justified shooting.

I believe you’ll find that such a bar applies only to prevent the bad guy-shootee, Mrs. bad guy-shootee, and his blood relatives from seeking damages, and does not apply to an innocent third party.

"Self-defense laws in Florida also establish that people who legally used force are immune from criminal prosecution and civil actions." It doesn't say, "unless the civil action is brought by a third party who suffered damages."

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

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.

Then the criminal aggressors should be charged for any damages done during their crime, yes even if the unfortunate return fire caused damages.

Originally Posted by MGunns

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by jwp475

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.

Then the criminal aggressors should be charged for any damages done during their crime, yes even if the unfortunate return fire caused damages.

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.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

When Self-Defense Isn't

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?

Originally Posted by JOG

Originally Posted by Exchipy

When Self-Defense Isn't

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!

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by JOG

Originally Posted by Exchipy

When Self-Defense Isn't

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bluedreaux

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:

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

"Self-defense laws in Florida also establish that people who legally used force are immune from criminal prosecution and civil actions." It doesn't say, "unless the civil action is brought by a third party who suffered damages."

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.”

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Also, Florida is a State in which the prosecution can be compelled to negate self-defense (by a preponderance of the evidence [the civil burden of proof, rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt [the criminal burden]) during presentation of its initial case, which is accompanied in a pretrial hearing, as detailed in Florida Statutes, Chapter 776, Section 776.032(4): “In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense Statutes, Chapter 776, Section 776.032 immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).”

Always gotta have the last word huh?

Originally Posted by Raferman

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.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by Raferman

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?

Originally Posted by Raferman

Originally Posted by Exchipy

Originally Posted by Raferman

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.

Originally Posted by Daverageguy

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.

Originally Posted by Exchipy

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.

This is just plainly in error. One must demonstrate negligence to be deemed civilly liable, which is a disregard for a duty towards specific persons. Being pressed by circumstances to shoot in self defense does not constitute negligence, thus a good shoot (absent recklessness) does not trigger civil liability according to the laws of most states.

As to the specific case under discussion, I don't think this guy's actions constitute recklessness, since his gun was pointing at the perps (and no one else) when he said he sometimes had his eyes closed upon pulling the trigger. Furthermore, there were no third parties amongst the perps at the time to which a duty of care was owed by the defensive shooter.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Originally Posted by Exchipy

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.

This is just plainly in error. One must demonstrate negligence to be deemed civilly liable, which is a disregard for a duty towards specific persons. Being pressed by circumstances to shoot in self defense does not constitute negligence, thus a good shoot (absent recklessness) does not trigger civil liability according to the laws of most states.

I don't think this guy's actions constitute recklessness, since his gun was pointing at the perps (and no one else) when he said he sometimes had his eyes closed upon pulling the trigger. Furthermore, there were no third parties amongst the perps at the time to which a duty of care was owed by the defensive shooter.

I must stand by my statement about a justified self-defense shooter remaining legally responsible for each and every bullet he lets fly, no matter what. Here’s why:

If negligence theory were the only consideration, you would have been absolutely correct, right up until you chose to use the word “recklessness.” Proof of simple negligence (an oops) and resulting damages are all that are required in order to recover under a negligence cause of action. Gross negligence is not required, but it can certainly up the ante to maybe include punitive damages too.

However, negligence isn’t the only available cause of action; there is also strict liability in tort. Strict liability attaches to activities recognized as being inherently dangerous, such as blasting to take down buildings, located very close to other buildings, for new construction. Shooting is also recognized as an inherently dangerous activity, such that anyone who gets shot, who was not supposed to get shot, is entitled to recover damages from the shooter, whether or not actual negligence can be proved. This applies to stuff as well as to people.

There is yet another legal theory of liability which is founded in the law of equity. Where damage occurs and neither person is in any way legally negligent, the person is responsible for causing it pays for it. If both persons played a role in causing it, one had better have been even a little bit negligent or neither pays. It’s fundamental fairness in action. I had hinted at this briefly in response to an earlier comment of yours, though I didn’t i ske any mention of the legal theory.

All of that is why I said shooting in self-defense carries with it huge, almost crippling responsibility. The shooter must absolutely do it right, or be extremely lucky. Sounds like our Tennessee guy had been pretty lucky, maybe just owing for patching a few holes, until he shot off his big mouth to the cops - a pretty dumb move which cost him.

Incorrect.

No wonder police need protection from lawsuits. They can’t fugging shoot, say chipy taught them.

It began with two drivers reporting to police that Johnson was driving erratically on Interstate 70. Johnson subsequently called police and in slurred tones, said that she was armed with an Ak-47 and intended to kill as many police as possible. “I want to kill cops,” said Johnson on the taped call. “I’m gonna kill all the cops I can. I have a gun, have a machete, have an AK-47.”

Arapahoe County deputies and the Colorado State Patrol caught up with Johnson’s Ford Focus on I-70 near Agate at about 11:30 pm. On March 3rd. They conducted a high-risk stop, keeping their distance and repeatedly urging Johnson to show her hands and get out of her car.
After about 15 minutes, believing Johnson had pointed a gun at them, officers unleashed a volley of shots into her car. When nothing happened after the first round of shots, officers continued shouting commands at Johnson to get out of the car.

When they again thought they saw a gun, more shots were fired into her car. “Those deputies and troopers showed a lot of restraint in not causing a further confrontation,” said [Arapahoe County Sheriff Dave] Walcher.

In about 30 minutes, from approximately 75 feet away, deputies and troopers fired 55 rounds at Johnson’s car from AR-15 rifles, .40 caliber pistols, and a shotgun. Not a single round hit her.

“I am surprised,” said Walcher.

Photos of the crime scene obtained by CBS4 also show that in the bursts of gunfire, an Arapahoe County deputy accidentally shot up a state patrol cruiser. Reports suggest the patrol vehicle was struck 28 times. The deputy was standing immediately behind the car but was apparently unaware that many of his shots intended for Johnson were actually hitting the patrol car.

Arapahoe County Sheriff Dave Walcher said,”With all the distractions and lights I don’t think our deputy realized he was hitting the top of the car”. He said his department is doing additional training to address the misfires.

Originally Posted by The_Real_Hawkeye

Incorrect.

If you say so.

Happy to help.

Originally Posted by Swifty52

No wonder police need protection from lawsuits. They can’t fugging shoot, say chipy taught them.

It began with two drivers reporting to police that Johnson was driving erratically on Interstate 70. Johnson subsequently called police and in slurred tones, said that she was armed with an Ak-47 and intended to kill as many police as possible. “I want to kill cops,” said Johnson on the taped call. “I’m gonna kill all the cops I can. I have a gun, have a machete, have an AK-47.”

Arapahoe County deputies and the Colorado State Patrol caught up with Johnson’s Ford Focus on I-70 near Agate at about 11:30 pm. On March 3rd. They conducted a high-risk stop, keeping their distance and repeatedly urging Johnson to show her hands and get out of her car.
After about 15 minutes, believing Johnson had pointed a gun at them, officers unleashed a volley of shots into her car. When nothing happened after the first round of shots, officers continued shouting commands at Johnson to get out of the car.

When they again thought they saw a gun, more shots were fired into her car. “Those deputies and troopers showed a lot of restraint in not causing a further confrontation,” said [Arapahoe County Sheriff Dave] Walcher.

In about 30 minutes, from approximately 75 feet away, deputies and troopers fired 55 rounds at Johnson’s car from AR-15 rifles, .40 caliber pistols, and a shotgun. Not a single round hit her.

“I am surprised,” said Walcher.

Photos of the crime scene obtained by CBS4 also show that in the bursts of gunfire, an Arapahoe County deputy accidentally shot up a state patrol cruiser. Reports suggest the patrol vehicle was struck 28 times. The deputy was standing immediately behind the car but was apparently unaware that many of his shots intended for Johnson were actually hitting the patrol car.

Arapahoe County Sheriff Dave Walcher said,”With all the distractions and lights I don’t think our deputy realized he was hitting the top of the car”. He said his department is doing additional training to address the misfires.

Ya suppose anyone will be held accountable for all those errant rounds?

Exchippy,

YOU are the reason California's so Fùcked up, and should probably be serving a life sentence for all the innocent people you prosecuted.

Originally Posted by antelope_sniper

Exchippy,

YOU are the reason California's so Fùcked up, and should probably be serving a life sentence for all the innocent people you prosecuted.

Another big No.2 heard from.