Legal ramifications of shooting someone

[BillB1960]

This thread was inspired by another thread over in the ammo section about the ramifications of using reloaded ammunition in a carry weapon and then actually having to defend that in court in the case of a shooting. It became abundantly clear at least to me that there are some members here who are, in my opinion significantly underestimating the abilities of a determined prosecuting attorney as well as a determined civil attorney representing the family of the person you shot. Also being significantly underestimated IMO are the costs of defending yourself in a criminal trial.

One of the first things that I was taught in the Oregon CHL course was not to call just any attorney but to call one who specializes in self defense. If the law profession is anything like the medical profession then "specialist" should really be spelled "$peciali$t" and there was some mention of 5 figure retainers.

Statements like: "I'd rather represent myself than use a public defender" make me wonder if we've actually taken into account the true potential costs of defending ourselves and our loved ones using lethal force. I do not profess to have any special knowledge in this area but I'm certain there are some on this board who do. I'd like to hear from them as well as anyone who has actually gone through the process.

Besides maybe it's time to take a little break from the whole AWB thing.

Read More

 

[Flyingswords]

In Texas for sure, if you break into a house, you better hope the cops get to you first before the owner.


I know that for a fact. I lived here for 29+ yrs.

 

[Bushman]

In Texas for sure, if you break into a house, you better hope the cops get to you first before the owner.


I know that for a fact. I lived here for 29+ yrs.

Just curious, why do you hang out on a PNW board then? You seem fairly active too.

 

[BillB1960]

Regardless of whether or not the shooting was justified you face the risk of at the minimum civil litigation and at worst both civil and criminal litigation. You put a bullet in someone you'd better be prepared to hire an attorney.

 

[Flyingswords]

Just curious, why do you hang out on a PNW board then? You seem fairly active too.

Because I lived in Oregon before my ex wife went batbubblegum insane on me and I moved back home to Texas

 

[DuneHopper]

In Oregon, it is highly advised that if you are criminal that you make funeral plans before breaking in a residence.
I have seen first hand several fools go into a house or on a property they should not have and paid the ultimate price.
I have not seen anyone here sued for a shooting, as the police reports show unavoidable action by shooter.
In other words justified shooting.

#1
A few years ago about 2001 a guy broke into a home on a ranch here the guy came home and the burglar jumped out the window and
began running. The owner jumped in his car, knocked the guy down after hitting him with his car. The burglar got up
and ran and the home owner shot him three times killed him. No charges files.

#2 about 2005 in Sutherlin Oregon, Women comes home to find a man sleeping on her couch, she doesn't call the police but goes in her car drives 5 minutes away to where her husband works at a bar. The guy comes home also never having called the police some 20 minutes pass by he wakes up the guy. The guy argues and is drunk saying this is his house. The home owner shoots the guy why he was sitting on the couch.

Not saying right or wrong but these are two cases locally here of justified shootings, and even with eye brows raised
no charges were ever filed.

 

[Boomerang]

#2 -- did the drunk guy just accidentally go into the wrong house? Shooting in that case is just messed up.

 

[BillB1960]

The first call you're taught to make after a shooting is 911, the second is to a lawyer. They say to not even make a statement to the responding officers until you talk to a lawyer. I'm inclined to follow that advice, not out of any great love of the legal profession but because this is an extremely litigious society and I'd rather not go to jail or be sued into the poorhouse.

So that's kind of where I was hoping this thread would go. Not looking to argue whether or not the shooting was justified but what happens after the shooting, the part you never see in the movies.

 

[mrblond]

In my opinion this is one of the major things wrong with our nation. It seems the bad guys have more rights then those they victimize. a man could break into your house, rape your dog and steal your porn collection then slip on his way out and sue you. It makes me sick and its something that needs changed.
Sorry if its off topic.

 

[DuneHopper]

#2 -- did the drunk guy just accidentally go into the wrong house? Shooting in that case is just messed up.

It was in the newspapers here as the guy went in the house apparently passed out thought the owners were in his house when he woke up. It sounds real short but that is what the wrote. No hint he tried to attack them or anything. Ya at the time I went what ??

 

[DuneHopper]

The first call you're taught to make after a shooting is 911, the second is to a lawyer. They say to not even make a statement to the responding officers until you talk to a lawyer. I'm inclined to follow that advice, not out of any great love of the legal profession but because this is an extremely litigious society and I'd rather not go to jail or be sued into the poorhouse.

So that's kind of where I was hoping this thread would go. Not looking to argue whether or not the shooting was justified but what happens after the shooting, the part you never see in the movies.

Seems like evoking your own Miranda rights is something that seldom can backfire, where as talking has a great chance of not going as you planned.

 

[DuneHopper]

The first call you're taught to make after a shooting is 911, the second is to a lawyer. They say to not even make a statement to the responding officers until you talk to a lawyer. I'm inclined to follow that advice, not out of any great love of the legal profession but because this is an extremely litigious society and I'd rather not go to jail or be sued into the poorhouse.

So that's kind of where I was hoping this thread would go. Not looking to argue whether or not the shooting was justified but what happens after the shooting, the part you never see in the movies.

Seems like evoking your own Miranda rights is something that seldom can backfire, where as talking has a great chance of not going as you planned.

Cops are tricky and word things in such a way you are guilty without knowing it.
Example:
Cop: It must have made you angry that guy breaking in your house he had no right being there right ?
Suspect: Yes it did .
Cop so when you shot him you knew he shouldn't be there.
Suspect that's right I did not even know the guy.

Cops: So you were angry at a stranger you had never met and did not know why he was there, yet you shot and killed him?
Suspect huh ??

Spend a 1 hour talking and they will have you admitting to other shootings that occurred on other days.

When in doubt STFU.

 

[DuneHopper]

READ THIS BEFORE MEETING OR TALKING WITH POLICE WAS ENACTED TWO YEARS AGO AND THE NEWS REALLY DID NOT SAY MUCH!

The Old Miranda Rule

For any custodial interrogation the police had to read you your Miranda rights. If you said you didn't want to talk or wanted a lawyer all questioning had to cease. A new Supreme Court case has made it more difficult for you to assert your Miranda rights.

The New Miranda Rule

Under the new case, the police do not have to stop questioning you after reading you your Miranda rights. In the past if they did do so they would have to prove that any statements from you were freely and voluntarily given. Under the new rule the burden is reversed. It is now up to you to prove that you really meant to assert your Miranda rights. Thus if you say "lawyer" the police can keep questioning you and if you volunteer anything it is admissible against you. As usual, the rule for defense attorneys is Keep Your Mouth Shut.

Finally: READ!!!!
If you are questioned police can lie in fact because they suspect you are lying to break the law they in fact go by the premise they are telling what they believe is the truth, and say what ever they can to get you to see their point.
They also do not have to keep any video, or audio for you to use in court as it is been legally deemed hearsay and can not be used in court. That's right when the cop says help me and I will help you and say a good word, it is all part of training to get you to confess and is why making a deal is only for the movies. Unless your lawyer is present and the cops write out the deal, there is none.
Police can also use snip-its of your confession, they are not obligated to play all or any that your defense wants. If they do not present it as evidence you have no right to use it as a defense.

Getting the picture, Cops are not lying even though it seems to you they are, they are trained that suspects lie not cops as twisted as that sounds it what they are taught in the academy and why most new cops are pricks or appear that way because most new cops seem like they are all lying bastards, nope they are just doing what they were taught and it is perfectly legal.

 

[SynapticSilence]

I was the poster in the ammo section who advised against using reloaded as sekf-defense rounds. I may as well have launched a small thermonuclear device into the thread the way it blew up. I did it based on 13 years of serving as an expert witness in court hearings in Oregon and being witness to the way the court system really works. All the macho confidence in your own righteousness and Second Amendment rights won't mean much against a DA out to get you convicted. I basically said there are plenty of excellent and time tested production ammo out there and, in my opinion, using hot reloads that you've bragged about on gun forums for their stopping power was simply an unnecessary risk. I was accused of ripping my original thought off from Mas Ayoob, who stuff I read but didn't know about his advice against reloads. I was asked to provide case law, which there probably isn't much of because only cases that are appealed produce such commentary. And I was accused of slandering the socio-economic status of the forum members because I said most people would end up with a public defender because of the costs of a defended in criminal and/or civil court. My response was my wife and I are professionals with a six-figure income and my personal court experience led me to believe we'd be quickly drained by the required retainer and endless costs of a defense by an attorney who likely charges upwards of $250 an hour. None of that had an effect. People said they'd rather defend themselves than use a PD. Wrong answer. You're a dead duck if you do. I'm an experienced shooter myself and reload all my own target ammo. I've never had an overcharged or squib round. But I'm smart enough to know it's possible and smart enough to know that eliminating risk if I ever do have to put a round in someone is a wise decision. Nobody in that thread wanted to hear that.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[BillB1960]

Lets not forget that you can't get a PD in a civil case so you have to spring for a private attorney or attempt to defend yourself. The plaintiff can get whatever lawyer will work for a contingency without having to front a dime.

So Synaptic, without naming names can you provide any stories of strange things you've seen from cases where you've testified?