Legal discussion

Post by **justang1997** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:49 am

What sort of legal requirement would a person have to notify the police that they used justifiable deadly force to protect their life.

For example, let's say Joe Bob is driving home from work and a rioting mob blocks the road while protesting the outcome of a recent court case. The mob surrounds his vehicle and begins to attempt to pull him out onto the street. Fearing for his life he fires his gun in self defense and kills some of the attacker and is able to speed away to a safe location.

He has broken no law. He isn't even aware if someone has been killed. Would the 5th amendment protect him if he decides to just go home and avoid the media circus that could erupt due to the age of the rioters?

Post by **Rem700** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:55 am

Legally i dont know. But if it were me, I would drive to a safe location and call 911 explain in short what happened and wait for the cops. During my wait i would be searching for a lawyer and make absolutely no comments or answer any questions until my lawyer was present. Also as a precaution and if time allowed i would have tried to record video on my phone (granted time may not allow for this but i would think you would be able to see a mob coming).

http://www.youtube.com/user/ssracer02 · Post by **ssracer** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 8:59 am

That would be a nasty situation. I'm sure a prosecutor would try to string you up for leaving the scene, but there's no way in hell you'd survive if you stayed and waited for the police

Post by **justang1997** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:04 am

A buddy was talking about putting a dash cam in his truck. Pretty popular in europe for insurance companies.

Post by **justang1997** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:08 am

In my opinion a person who has broken no law shouldn't be required to say shit. If the cops came knocking I'd be completely cooperative and have my legal ducks in a row.

Post by **ChopperDoc** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:25 am

Well, first off, you HAVE committed a crime. You just used deadly force. That is a crime on some level even if no one dies. Now, that said, you MAY be justified under the law to use that deadly force, but YOU don't get to be the guy that decides if it was justified under the law.

Just going home and keeping your mouth shut is NOT going to do you any favors once they do come find you (they likely will).

Retreat to a safe location and call 911. Make the call as factual and brief as possible, separate yourself from your firearm if you can (they are going to take it) and get your lawyer on the phone.

Edit: I am not a lawyer and this is my opinion of what the law says. Though I occasionally watch Perry Mason rerun marathons while staying at a Holiday Inn Express, you should not consider my opinion legal advice. Consult a competent lawyer in the field for specific advice.

Post by **justang1997** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:40 am

ChopperDoc wrote:Well, first off, you HAVE committed a crime. You just used deadly force. That is a crime on some level even if no one dies. Now, that said, you MAY be justified under the law to use that deadly force, but YOU don't get to be the guy that decides if it was justified under the law.

Just going home and keeping your mouth shut is NOT going to do you any favors once they do come find you (they likely will).

Retreat to a safe location and call 911. Make the call as factual and brief as possible, separate yourself from your firearm if you can (they are going to take it) and get your lawyer on the phone.

Edit: I am not a lawyer and this is my opinion of what the law says. Though I occasionally watch Perry Mason rerun marathons while staying at a Holiday Inn Express, you should not consider my opinion legal advice. Consult a competent lawyer in the field for specific advice.

No lawyer here either. But if a jury decides that you were justified then that means no crime was committed. It isn't like you are innocent only after the jury decides.

Also, let's say you weren't justified. You would essentially be confessing if you reported the incident. The 5th says you don't have to confess. But the 5th protects innocent people as well. If you "know" you are innocent of committing any crime then why stir up trouble for yourself if you are under no legal obligation to do so.

Another similar yet less dramatic scenario: A man tries to mug you while you are walking your dog one night. He has no weapon but is larger than you. You reach for your wallet and instead pull a collapsible baton and crack the dude in the melon and run home. Fearing he may find out where you live if you call the police you decide not to report the incident. Technically a baton to the head is deadly force. Have you broken any law by not reporting?

Post by **Mike** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:55 am

Good argument on a really sketchy slope. You technically have committed homicide if you killed people, but the defense is it was self defense. I like your argument though. Just kill the whole mob so there is no witnesses and drive off really fast!!!

Post by **ChopperDoc** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:56 am

justang1997 wrote:
ChopperDoc wrote:Well, first off, you HAVE committed a crime. You just used deadly force. That is a crime on some level even if no one dies. Now, that said, you MAY be justified under the law to use that deadly force, but YOU don't get to be the guy that decides if it was justified under the law.

Just going home and keeping your mouth shut is NOT going to do you any favors once they do come find you (they likely will).

Retreat to a safe location and call 911. Make the call as factual and brief as possible, separate yourself from your firearm if you can (they are going to take it) and get your lawyer on the phone.

Edit: I am not a lawyer and this is my opinion of what the law says. Though I occasionally watch Perry Mason rerun marathons while staying at a Holiday Inn Express, you should not consider my opinion legal advice. Consult a competent lawyer in the field for specific advice.
No lawyer here either. But if a jury decides that you were justified then that means no crime was committed. It isn't like you are innocent only after the jury decides.

Also, let's say you weren't justified. You would essentially be confessing if you reported the incident. The 5th says you don't have to confess. But the 5th protects innocent people as well. If you "know" you are innocent of committing any crime then why stir up trouble for yourself if you are under no legal obligation to do so.

Another similar yet less dramatic scenario: A man tries to mug you while you are walking your dog one night. He has no weapon but is larger than you. You reach for your wallet and instead pull a collapsible baton and crack the dude in the melon and run home. Fearing he may find out where you live if you call the police you decide not to report the incident. Technically a baton to the head is deadly force. Have you broken any law by not reporting?

The use of force / deadly force is against the law. perhaps you are justified. Perhaps the eye witness accounts will conflict with yours and you might have to face a jury. Will it look better if you report the attempted robbery or if you keep your mouth shut?

There was actually a case like this (I think I posted it here) not too long ago. A guy was walking home after work when he was targeted by a small gang of yout's looking for another victim of "Knock Out King". They attacked him and he defended himself with a knife. One kid died as a result of the wounds, but the victim did not know this. he ran for his life once he was able to break free, made it home and called no one.

Police used video surveillance from a hospital to figure out what went down and who the victim was and went to his home. They took the knife and took his statement. The last I heard no charges were filed, but what if they were? Some witnesses, at first (along with the kids parents) tried to paint the victim as the attacker (perhaps even racially motivated). If there was no video of the incident and police could not determine who the initial aggressor was, do you think that a jury is more likely to believe your story if you run home, bolt the door and say nothing?

Post by **Vividia** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:59 am

In my opinion, not a legal one, to be sure, bad news never gets better by being undelivered. I always prefer to be the one to report the issue, and get my story out first, especially if I have nothing to hide. But that is just me.

Post by **justang1997** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:00 am

Is justifiable homicide a crime? I know that sounds really stupid to ask but I mean if a killing is ruled a justifiable homicide then that person is innocent of homicide. Would that mean "guilty" of justifiable homicide. You can't get a warrant to arrest someone on suspicion of justifiable homicide right?

Post by **justang1997** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:07 am

ChopperDoc wrote:
justang1997 wrote:
ChopperDoc wrote:Well, first off, you HAVE committed a crime. You just used deadly force. That is a crime on some level even if no one dies. Now, that said, you MAY be justified under the law to use that deadly force, but YOU don't get to be the guy that decides if it was justified under the law.

Just going home and keeping your mouth shut is NOT going to do you any favors once they do come find you (they likely will).

Retreat to a safe location and call 911. Make the call as factual and brief as possible, separate yourself from your firearm if you can (they are going to take it) and get your lawyer on the phone.

Edit: I am not a lawyer and this is my opinion of what the law says. Though I occasionally watch Perry Mason rerun marathons while staying at a Holiday Inn Express, you should not consider my opinion legal advice. Consult a competent lawyer in the field for specific advice.
No lawyer here either. But if a jury decides that you were justified then that means no crime was committed. It isn't like you are innocent only after the jury decides.

Also, let's say you weren't justified. You would essentially be confessing if you reported the incident. The 5th says you don't have to confess. But the 5th protects innocent people as well. If you "know" you are innocent of committing any crime then why stir up trouble for yourself if you are under no legal obligation to do so.

Another similar yet less dramatic scenario: A man tries to mug you while you are walking your dog one night. He has no weapon but is larger than you. You reach for your wallet and instead pull a collapsible baton and crack the dude in the melon and run home. Fearing he may find out where you live if you call the police you decide not to report the incident. Technically a baton to the head is deadly force. Have you broken any law by not reporting?

The use of force / deadly force is against the law. perhaps you are justified. Perhaps the eye witness accounts will conflict with yours and you might have to face a jury. Will it look better if you report the attempted robbery or if you keep your mouth shut?

There was actually a case like this (I think I posted it here) not too long ago. A guy was walking home after work when he was targeted by a small gang of yout's looking for another victim of "Knock Out King". They attacked him and he defended himself with a knife. One kid died as a result of the wounds, but the victim did not know this. he ran for his life once he was able to break free, made it home and called no one.

Police used video surveillance from a hospital to figure out what went down and who the victim was and went to his home. They took the knife and took his statement. The last I heard no charges were filed, but what if they were? Some witnesses, at first (along with the kids parents) tried to paint the victim as the attacker (perhaps even racially motivated). If there was no video of the incident and police could not determine who the initial aggressor was, do you think that a jury is more likely to believe your story if you run home, bolt the door and say nothing?

I get what you are saying here. Of course it would look bad to a jury if you just went home and locked the door. BUT is it illegal? If no crime has been committed and no law broken by not reporting the incident, you could forfeit the jury trial. A judge is likely to see it as black and white correct? If the lawyer proves no law was broken by not reporting the use of force then that's that.

Post by **ChopperDoc** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:11 am

Homicide is a crime. period.

It is ONLY ruled 'justified' under the law if an investigation determines that what you did falls into the legal definition of self defense or defense of another (or in Kentucky if someone is trying to burn one of the buildings on your property or evict you illegally from your home).

people that oppose the Stand Your Ground laws believe that, as you are alluding, that I can smoke some fool and if I believe that it was justified, go scott free. All I have to do is claim self defense. This is not true, as you still have to face the music at some point for the legal system to judge your actions as justified or not.

Use of force is a crime. use of Deadly force is a crime. Homicide is a crime. yes you may be justified, cleared by the DA or a grand jury, or even a jury of your peers, but YOUR belief that the shooting was righteous is not enough for you to face no charges.

Better that YOU report it than to be found later not reporting it, because someone is going to be deciding if you are justified or not after the fact.

Post by **justang1997** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:14 am

Whether or not you report it would not change whether or not the force was justified.

Is there a legal requirement to report?

Post by **ChopperDoc** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:22 am

justang1997 wrote:Whether or not you report it would not change whether or not the force was justified.

Is there a legal requirement to report?

I am not sure if there is a legal requirement to report. I would doubt that there is. I mean, if I get into a bar scuffle and just end up with a few bruises and neither of us is pressing charges, no harm no foul. If someone calls the police they can't force us to press charges on each other and they can't arrest us for not reporting the use of force, etc, etc.

But what is legal and what is prudent is not always one and the same.

If you used deadly force you can be certain that they will be looking for you. especially if someone dies because of it. Once they do find you, even if your use of force turns out to be justified under the legal definitions (it does not mean that you are not guilty of committing a crime, it means that with proper justification under the law you are immune to legal - and in Kentucky - civil prosecution for that crime) do you think it is more or less likely that you will face a jury if you report it or not?

If you do not report it, the evidence at the crime site and potentially eye witness stories, or even the guy who took a bullet if he does not die, story is told first. Is that really what you want to happen?

Post by **justang1997** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:26 am

Looks like from all I'm reading there is no legal requirement to report a crime from what I can tell. Unless you are a doctor or teacher and then only certain crimes. Whether its a mugging you witness on the street or a mugging that happens to you personally you aren't required to call police and report it.

If you used force in defense of yourself and caused injury then it seems you have the right not to disclose that information to the police because that information will be used against you.

Post by **ChopperDoc** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:31 am

justang1997 wrote:Whether or not you report it would not change whether or not the force was justified.

Is there a legal requirement to report?

No, it would not change that FACT, but as we saw in the Zimmerman trial, a prosecutor with a political agenda may attempt to obfuscate the facts with wild ass bullshit speculation so he can put another notch in his conviction belt.

Top that with the federal hate crimes act and if you are white and the other person is not, or if it was a gang of rainbow clad gay rioters that you had to shoot into, then just imagine the line of stories which could be envisioned by the media. Someone could say that, in your scenario above, that you tried to drive your vehicle into their giant dildo mascot and they were defending themselves from YOUR use of a vehicle to initiate deadly force on them, thus making YOU the initial aggressor and giving them a self defense argument under the legal definition.

While I doubt that not reporting it is a crime (of much weight anyway... maybe one of those add on charges like Kentucky has with 'flanged ammo' in the commission of a felony), I cannot imagine too many scenarios where the end result is going to be better on you if you do not report it yourself.

Post by **justang1997** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:33 am

ChopperDoc wrote:
justang1997 wrote:Whether or not you report it would not change whether or not the force was justified.

Is there a legal requirement to report?

I am not sure if there is a legal requirement to report. I would doubt that there is. I mean, if I get into a bar scuffle and just end up with a few bruises and neither of us is pressing charges, no harm no foul. If someone calls the police they can't force us to press charges on each other and they can't arrest us for not reporting the use of force, etc, etc.

But what is legal and what is prudent is not always one and the same.

If you used deadly force you can be certain that they will be looking for you. especially if someone dies because of it. Once they do find you, even if your use of force turns out to be justified under the legal definitions (it does not mean that you are not guilty of committing a crime, it means that with proper justification under the law you are immune to legal - and in Kentucky - civil prosecution for that crime) do you think it is more or less likely that you will face a jury if you report it or not?

If you do not report it, the evidence at the crime site and potentially eye witness stories, or even the guy who took a bullet if he does not die, story is told first. Is that really what you want to happen?

Because of the recent events it is obvious that if you report the incident, knowing you are justified and the jury agree's, you are subjecting yourself to credible death threats from across the country and the same for your family and the government will do nothing in your defense. I don't see how it would be prudent to subject yourself to that if you are under no legal obligation to do so.

Post by **Niceguy** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:44 am

I by no means know the legal logic in this and I'm not a betting man but,,,I would bet a LARGE amount of money than in any of your scenarios that if you did not report it and were caught (which is about a 95-100% chance in my opinion) you would be hung out to dry. Right or wrong...

Post by **ChopperDoc** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:45 am

justang1997 wrote:
ChopperDoc wrote:
justang1997 wrote:Whether or not you report it would not change whether or not the force was justified.

Is there a legal requirement to report?

I am not sure if there is a legal requirement to report. I would doubt that there is. I mean, if I get into a bar scuffle and just end up with a few bruises and neither of us is pressing charges, no harm no foul. If someone calls the police they can't force us to press charges on each other and they can't arrest us for not reporting the use of force, etc, etc.

But what is legal and what is prudent is not always one and the same.

If you used deadly force you can be certain that they will be looking for you. especially if someone dies because of it. Once they do find you, even if your use of force turns out to be justified under the legal definitions (it does not mean that you are not guilty of committing a crime, it means that with proper justification under the law you are immune to legal - and in Kentucky - civil prosecution for that crime) do you think it is more or less likely that you will face a jury if you report it or not?

If you do not report it, the evidence at the crime site and potentially eye witness stories, or even the guy who took a bullet if he does not die, story is told first. Is that really what you want to happen?
Because of the recent events it is obvious that if you report the incident, knowing you are justified and the jury agree's, you are subjecting yourself to credible death threats from across the country and the same for your family and the government will do nothing in your defense. I don't see how it would be prudent to subject yourself to that if you are under no legal obligation to do so.

Do you honestly believe that you are not going to be subject to that later on when they find you? Or are you assuming that if you don't report no one will ever know?

It basically boils down to this: Homicide is a crime, so they are going to be looking for you. Forever. The evidence, in absence of your testimony, MIGHT indicate that the shooting was in self defense, but they can't really close that case until they know for sure. So you are going to be a homicide suspect until they do (they might not know who you are right now, but eventually it will catch up to you).

let's say that they find you a year later and that some of the evidence is questionable as to whether or not it was self defense? Is it more or less likely that you face a jury? Is it more or less likely that they believe you were attempting to cover it up for some reason?

1fastmach1 · Post by **1fastmach1** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:45 am

niceguyr6 wrote:I by no means know the legal logic in this and I'm not a betting man but,,,I would bet a LARGE amount of money than in any of your scenarios that if you did not report it and were caught (which is about a 95-100% chance in my opinion) you would be hung out to dry. Right or wrong...

This guy...

Post by **Rem700** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:55 am

IMO it is best to report it for the simple fact that it removes some doubt as to your intent on the situation. It seems best to always be the first the to give your story, then when corss referencing to other stories....yours was first and all are compared to your vs yours being compared to someone elses account.

Post by **justang1997** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:06 am

ChopperDoc wrote:
justang1997 wrote:
ChopperDoc wrote:
justang1997 wrote:Whether or not you report it would not change whether or not the force was justified.

Is there a legal requirement to report?

I am not sure if there is a legal requirement to report. I would doubt that there is. I mean, if I get into a bar scuffle and just end up with a few bruises and neither of us is pressing charges, no harm no foul. If someone calls the police they can't force us to press charges on each other and they can't arrest us for not reporting the use of force, etc, etc.

But what is legal and what is prudent is not always one and the same.

If you used deadly force you can be certain that they will be looking for you. especially if someone dies because of it. Once they do find you, even if your use of force turns out to be justified under the legal definitions (it does not mean that you are not guilty of committing a crime, it means that with proper justification under the law you are immune to legal - and in Kentucky - civil prosecution for that crime) do you think it is more or less likely that you will face a jury if you report it or not?

If you do not report it, the evidence at the crime site and potentially eye witness stories, or even the guy who took a bullet if he does not die, story is told first. Is that really what you want to happen?
Because of the recent events it is obvious that if you report the incident, knowing you are justified and the jury agree's, you are subjecting yourself to credible death threats from across the country and the same for your family and the government will do nothing in your defense. I don't see how it would be prudent to subject yourself to that if you are under no legal obligation to do so.

Do you honestly believe that you are not going to be subject to that later on when they find you? Or are you assuming that if you don't report no one will ever know?

It basically boils down to this: Homicide is a crime, so they are going to be looking for you. Forever. The evidence, in absence of your testimony, MIGHT indicate that the shooting was in self defense, but they can't really close that case until they know for sure. So you are going to be a homicide suspect until they do (they might not know who you are right now, but eventually it will catch up to you).

let's say that they find you a year later and that some of the evidence is questionable as to whether or not it was self defense? Is it more or less likely that you face a jury? Is it more or less likely that they believe you were attempting to cover it up for some reason?

I'm discussing this to form my own opinion. I always assumed I'd just call 911 and wait. But recent events have me questioning if that's the right answer 100% of the time. Its exactly what the 5th amendment is for. Protecting the innocent.
I'm likely never going to be in a defensive shooting. If I am it isn't likely that ill shoot an upstanding member of the community either. If I'm in a lonely dark alley and its some cracked out addict then I don't see that being top priority for the police forever. But who knows, that crack addict could be the governors son. Be even worse if it was the first black governor's son. :llama:

if there is no legal requirement to report then perhaps a lawyer should be your first call and not 911.
Road rage incident on rush hour interstate with tons of witnesses... Yeah, I'm waiting for the cops. At least then ill have witnesses potentially in my favor.

Again I'm no lawyer and I'm just discussing the scenario.

Post by **ChopperDoc** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:23 am

Understood, but the idea of not reporting it, with today's video capture society, seems like inviting trouble to me. eventually they will find you and they will because you are not likely to be the one doing a shooting in a back alley of some crack addict or pusher.

You have a job, a paycheck, a home, a car, a cell phone, a firearm that was legally purchased somewhere, and a work routine that probably varies little. Because you have a life, they are going to find you. The likelihood that they won't is pretty slim, unlike the guy who is more at home in a back alley. He may get caught too, but his won't be due to the same reasons you are, he will continue to screw up until he is caught, probably for something else, and then some piece of evidence ties him to the crime scene.

let's take a look at another possibility:

You just left the crime scene, fleeing for your life. You fired 12 shots in desperation, not knowing if you hit anyone or killed anyone. These actions might be found justified under the law, but waht about stray rounds?

Even if you are found justified, you can still be held criminally and civilly responsible for any stray rounds that injure or kill bystanders. You likely won't know until after the fact if that is the case. How much leniency do you believe you will receive if one of your rounds hits another motorist, or their kid in a car seat, if you don't report the attack and they have to come track you down?

I agree that you need to be calling your lawyer. But I think it is likely, in a majority of scenarios, imprudent to not call 911 and report what happened shortly after it does. The 5th amendment protects you from making any statement once the police are there asking questions, and I would never go into too much detail on a 911 call, but to not report it and wait on them to find me some time after the fact? Will it look better on you to be escorted out in cuffs from your workplace if have a warrant for your arrest?

I don't think so. legal requirement or not, I cannot imagine it to be a good idea.

Post by **justang1997** » Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:32 am

I agree that it is likely imprudent not to call 911 in a majority if situations.
But in the stray round scenario I don't see it helping you one bit to call the police immediately. You are fried either way on that one.

Kentucky Armory Club

Legal discussion

Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Re: Legal discussion

Login • Register