View Single Post
Old December 30, 2009, 03:21 PM   #27
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
It seems to me that it is a valid discussion to have with regard to not reporting the incident.
Putting aside for a moment, all the many, legitimate reasons why not reporting a self-defense shooting is a seriously bad idea, let's look at this from a purely cost-benefits perspective.

So let's assume a scenario where we decided it was in our best interest to make the prosecutor prove every element of his case. Our absolute best outcome is that police never link us to the shooting at all.

Pros: We avoid all the unpleasantness associated with an investigation and the legal proceedings.

Cons: We live the rest of our lives wondering whether what we are going to do today is somehow going to link us to that incident or whether something we have already done will link us to that incident.

This is pretty much the absolute best we can hope for out of not reporting a self-defense shooting.

So what are the chances police will never link us to the crime? Well, not good it turns out. Homicide has the highest clearance rate of any serious crime nationwide. In 2004, 62.6% of all homicides were cleared by arrest nationwide. This means that a person was arrested, charged, and turned over to the court for prosecution. Note that depending on where you live, the rate might be even higher. Even assuming that some of those are incorrectly cleared, you are looking at a better than even chance that you will still be linked to the crime.

Think about that for a second. You DID commit all the elements of that particular crime. There WILL be evidence of it. And in better than half of the cases nationwide, the police are able to figure out enough to charge you with the crime and take you to court.

So my problem with your cost-benefits analysis is:

1. You face a better than even chance of not avoiding the unplesantry of investigation while at the same time making the unpleasant aspects much, much worse.

2. I think you place way too much value on forcing the prosecutor to prove the elements. You did actually do those things. There will be evidence of it and police will find at least some of it.

3. You assume a "weakened" self-defense claim, when in all probability, you have destroyed any chance at a successful self-defense claim (which was also your strongest defense). At the very best, you've weakened your strongest argument to gain a few extra weak arguments.

In order to claim all these "advantages" by not reporting, you are going to have to say the equivalent of "I wasn't there but if I was there I didn't shoot him; but if I shot him, it was self-defense." Does that sound like a winning argument to you?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02944 seconds with 8 queries