[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by JohnKSa

Here's some additional information from an attorney on the importance of calling the police, and doing so as rapidly as possible.

http://www.ammoland.com/2014/02/repo...w-enforcement/

The article is primarily focused on why it's important to call to report an incident, even when the initial impulse might be to walk away since it was resolved with no shots fired. However, the general principles also apply to the idea of why it can be important to report the incident before the other participant does.

"Because it was the dirt bag who called the police, in both their official reports and in their practical worldview, it is now HE who is the “complainant” of a crime—the presumed “offended party”–and YOU who are the “respondent”—the presumed offending party."

Also, folks should realize that that flight, which could include simply leaving the scene without reporting the incident, can be used as evidence of guilt. Here's what some cases say:

• State v. Walker, 595 P.2d 1098 (Kan., 1979), at 1099 - 1100:

  ...the general rule that evidence of flight may be admissible in order to establish the defendant's consciousness of guilt. 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 280; 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 625; ...
  ...
  It is well settled that conduct of the accused following the commission of an alleged crime may be circumstantially relevant to prove both the commission of the acts charged and the intent and purpose for which those acts were committed. Among such conduct is flight of the accused...

• State v. Quiroz, 772 N.W.2d 710 (Wis. App., 2009), at 716:

  ...It is well established that evidence of flight has probative value as to guilt. See State v. Knighten, 212 Wis.2d 833, 838-39, 569 N.W.2d 770 (Ct.App.1997). Analytically, flight is an admission by conduct. State v. Miller, 231 Wis.2d 447, 460, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Ct.App.1999). The fact of an accused's flight is generally admissible against the accused as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and thus of guilt itself....

• State v. Robinson, 360 S.C. 187 (S.C. App., 2004), at 195:

  ...See also State v. Beckham, 334 S.C. 302, 315, 513 S.E.2d 606, 612 (1999) (stating that evidence of flight has been held to constitute evidence of guilty knowledge and intent); State v. Grant, 275 S.C. 404, 407, 272 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1980) ("[A]ttempts to run away have always been regarded as some evidence of guilty knowledge and intent.") (internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Ballenger, 322 S.C. 196, 200, 470 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1996) (noting that flight is "at least some evidence" of defendant's guilt); State v. Thompson, 278 S.C. 1, 10-11, 292 S.E.2d 581, 587 (1982), .... (finding evidence of flight admissible to show guilty knowledge, intent, and that defendant sought to avoid apprehension); State v. Freely, 105 S.C. 243, 89 S.E. 643 (1916) (declaring the flight of one charged with a crime has always been held to be some evidence tending to prove guilt);...