The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > Hogan's Alley > Tactics and Training

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 31, 2012, 02:56 AM   #51
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcvbob
...If your in New Jersey, of course you will be arrested and I would expect the police to tear your house apart looking for your other guns, doing as much damage as possible -- heck, they might even burn it down just for fun...
Do you have some actual evidence to support that conjecture or are you just playing around taking cheap shots at New Jersey? Bashing States just for fun is not helpful.

And you might want to remember that a number of folks, in gun friendly States, have had some very tough and expensive times establishing justification for their use of lethal force. Harold Fish, Mark Abshire and Larry Hickey come immediately to mind.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old January 31, 2012, 11:20 AM   #52
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,185
Quote:
Do you have some actual evidence to support that conjecture or are you just playing around taking cheap shots at New Jersey? Bashing states just for fun is not helpful.
A little of both. I've read accounts of this sort of thing happening in NJ, and I exaggerated a little just for fun.

In one case, if I can remember it correctly, someone won a Marlin .22 autoloader in a police benefit auction. Some years later, they were arrested for possession of that same rifle and charged with a felony because the tubular magazine holds too many rounds. (not sure if it's too many .22LR's, or potentially could hold too many if you load .22 Shorts.)

NJ police and politicians are *so* antigun (about like NYC but more corrupt) I really don't know how anybody lives there. Props to any gun owners who can manage it.

I think my main point is still valid; it depends on the politics of what state you are in, and maybe what county.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old January 31, 2012, 11:38 AM   #53
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcvbob
A little of both. I've read accounts of this sort of thing happening in NJ, and I exaggerated a little just for fun...
[1] Statements like "I read accounts..." really don't mean much without a citation to the source.

[2] And "exaggerated a little for fun" isn't helpful or appropriate in this context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcvbob
...In one case, if I can remember it correctly,...
What if you don't remember it correctly?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcvbob
...NJ police and politicians are *so* antigun (about like NYC but more corrupt)...
New Jersey has some strict and onerous gun laws. Whether the authorities in New Jersey (or New York) are corrupt is another matter for which you need to present evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcvbob
...I think my main point is still valid; it depends on the politics of what state you are in, and maybe what county.
And your main point is still not valid. What matters most is exactly what happened, how it happened, what evidence there is, and how you handled the aftermath. Harold Fish, Mark Abshire and Larry Hickey were raked over the coals in gun friendly States.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old February 11, 2012, 05:10 PM   #54
truered
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 11, 2012
Posts: 1
home invasion survivor

would anyone benefit from my advise? i am a home invasion survivor.
truered is offline  
Old February 11, 2012, 07:13 PM   #55
MTT TL
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 1,801
But of course. Self referential experience is mostly what we go on here.
__________________
Proxima est Mors, Malum Nullum adhibit Misericordiam
MTT TL is offline  
Old February 20, 2012, 11:17 AM   #56
dannyb
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2008
Location: SE PA
Posts: 212
I don't want to add noise to the information here, but I do feel that one perspective has been overlooked. If your home is being invaded and you can fort up, being forted up and keeping 911 on the line seems to have worked in a few recent cases. This is especially true for the mother who held up in her bedroom and had 911 on the phone when the invader came crashing in causing her to kill him with the shotgun she was holding (this has been covered on the national news and many posts on this site and others). The other was is the report (a number of threads up from this one but in the Tactics forum) of the mother who had to fumble around looking for a weapon that she knew was around somewhere while her son, hiding in a closet, called 911 and got repeatedly disconnected. In either case, only a DA who was politically suicidal would have prosecuted. All this supposes that you can fort up in some room and maintain contact of some sort with 911.
__________________
Moron Lave (send a Congressman through the car wash)
dannyb is offline  
Old February 20, 2012, 11:44 AM   #57
kinggabby
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 22, 2011
Location: OKC
Posts: 473
I guess we have a bit more luck here in Oklahoma. For example Midwest City, Oklahoma had three shootings in the past 1 1/2 years that were ruled justifiable. And again one good thing about our Self Defense Act is if your shooting is ruled justified then you can not be sued by the one shot ( if he lives ) nor his family . Not they are not too easy as to let someone one off that shows overkill. As anyone has remembered the Ersland case in Oklahoma City. Now as far as the emotional aspect I will not begin to say I know what that will be like. Seeing I have never been in a shooting and I hope I never am . The only thing I like to kill is paper. But I do hope that if it were to happen that my faith in my Lord will guide through it( not preaching ) . I am sure everyone has their own way to deal with the aftermath . And you will only know what will help you once that time comes.
kinggabby is offline  
Old February 20, 2012, 01:01 PM   #58
TexasJustice7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2011
Posts: 213
Here in Texas a police officer friend of mine told me that the gun used probably would be held, not other guns in the house. But this is Texas. That includes just about any self defense shooting. So good to have extras in Texas.
TexasJustice7 is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 04:30 AM   #59
silvermane_1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 396
imo video camras are the best way to go in a sd shooting when a home is invaded, that way now matter how the leo or da tries to spin it the video doesn't lie, yes there is fact of that video cams might say "hey come and rob me, i have expensive toys inside" , but it whould show the facts if it comes down to it, but what is already mention in the other replies in this post are great ideas aswell, but even in anti-gun communities video footage will go a long way in the foremention situation in the post.
silvermane_1 is offline  
Old February 21, 2012, 06:18 AM   #60
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,487
If a firearm or any other object is used to cause the death of a human being... that firearm or device will be taken into custody as evidence. Evidence works two ways... It can tend to convict someone... or tend to exculpate them (proof of being not guilty of a crime).

A criminal investigator will have no legitimate reason to sieze other property including firearms, unless he has a reason to believe they constitute an ongoing threat or are a danger to others, or the well being of the subject. So if an Officer believes that a subject of an investigation is so distrought over his actions that he may do himself harm... He'd have a reason to sieze other firearms. Or if the subject is making statements about revenge, or makes threats to anyone... His weapons may be subject to siezure.

Unless I'm being misled by my friends in the legal profession all siezures are subject to judicial review at some point.
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 01:04 PM   #61
Sponge14
Member
 
Join Date: November 10, 2011
Posts: 51
Quote:
A criminal investigator will have no legitimate reason to sieze other property including firearms, unless he has a reason to believe they constitute an ongoing threat or are a danger to others, or the well being of the subject.
I posted this in it's own thread, but based on what is being said in here I thought it applied here too. It seems that the law doesn't care who was the good guy and who was the bad guy sometimes...

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/21...-near-burglar/
Sponge14 is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 02:27 PM   #62
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sponge14 View Post
... It seems that the law doesn't care who was the good guy and who was the bad guy sometimes...
The law does indeed care -- once everything is finally sorted out. And someone who fires a gun if not appropriate or justified might just not be entirely a "good guy", if doing so is illegal.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 03:08 PM   #63
zincwarrior
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 1,232
Quote:
I don't want to add noise to the information here, but I do feel that one perspective has been overlooked. If your home is being invaded and you can fort up, being forted up and keeping 911 on the line seems to have worked in a few recent cases. This is especially true for the mother who held up in her bedroom and had 911 on the phone when the invader came crashing in causing her to kill him with the shotgun she was holding (this has been covered on the national news and many posts on this site and others). The other was is the report (a number of threads up from this one but in the Tactics forum) of the mother who had to fumble around looking for a weapon that she knew was around somewhere while her son, hiding in a closet, called 911 and got repeatedly disconnected. In either case, only a DA who was politically suicidal would have prosecuted. All this supposes that you can fort up in some room and maintain contact of some sort with 911.
This was the advice on an NRA video. Hold up if possible, inform 911 of your situation, location, and that you are threatened. Keeping 911 on the line while you loudly shout you have the police on the line, have a firearm, and will defend yourself were recommended. The view is that you now have evidence supporting your actions.
zincwarrior is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 03:53 PM   #64
RamItOne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Posts: 983
Two things
"and of course all weapons used in the fight will be conficated by the police as evidence, and may or may not ever be returned to the citizen."

seriously I may not get my gun back? Im not mocking the post, just had never thought of that possibility, kinda scary. Def need to take my sig 1911 off the nightstand.

As for the posters posting what you should say, I would hope you don't use whatever you typed as your response, for if a DA gets a hold of the 911 tape and what you type here and its verbatim, theyll say its either a boiler plate statement or youve put a lot of thought into shooting someone in your own home. Which i see nothing wrong with running scenarios in your mind but the good ol legal system sure can mangle words. Remember clinton and "is".....
RamItOne is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 09:14 PM   #65
DownShift
Junior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2012
Location: Brandon Ms
Posts: 10
I live I central MS and we are pretty PRO firearms around here and there wasa case about 2 years ago in the neighborhood behind my old John where a home owner wok up to a man coming through a window an another breaking into his vehicle... He shot the man coming through the window, stepped out the front door as perp #2 was getting out of his vehicle and shot him also.... The outcome was when the police showed up they asked what happened and apprehended the 2 men... I never found out if either thieves died but the man was never charged and no guns were confiscated... We have a pretty legit castle law in my state and I have also been told personally by a LEO that if second I trying to force ably enter your home just step back wait for them to get in and drop them.. Quote " we don't mind cleaning up the mess" unquote was what is was told directly when I had someone kicking my apartment door one evening.... Again this is in what the rest of the country calls backward and hillbilly but the law around here really favors innocent people that defend what's thierS..
DownShift is offline  
Old February 22, 2012, 09:58 PM   #66
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 715
As far as the basics, from my experience, people seem to be confused on the right to remain silent. The Supreme Court has stated that, "when Miranda warnings are properly given, a person wishing to invoke the right to remain silent must do so unambiguously."

By unambiguously, it means, according to my memory and from legal updates, that a person must state that they wish to remain silent and want to speak with a lawyer. Being silent, in and of itself isnt enough to invoke your right to remain silent. I know others say do not say anything to police, but you should at the very least state this.

True self defense situations are rare, but for the most part there is no reason not to identify who you are, or give your photo ID or drivers license, that you ARE the victim, and that otherwise you are invoking your right to remain silent until you speak with your lawyer.

Refusing to say anything at all may give you some issues in the long run.

Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; February 22, 2012 at 10:10 PM.
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old February 23, 2012, 01:13 AM   #67
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamItOne
Two things
"and of course all weapons used in the fight will be conficated by the police as evidence, and may or may not ever be returned to the citizen."

seriously I may not get my gun back? Im not mocking the post, just had never thought of that possibility, kinda scary. Def need to take my sig 1911 off the nightstand.
Seriously, you may not get your gun back. It will depend on how the legal machinery works. At the very least, your gun will be seized as evidence. It will be examined, checked for finger prints, very likely test fired and bullets compared to those removed from the deceased or wounded. If it's a clean defensive shooting, the court may order your release along with all property confiscated. But with some metro agencies, actually getting your gun back will be made as time-consuming, expensive and difficult as possible.

If you are charged and the prosecution's initial case falls apart in pre-trial motions, they may retain the gun while dithering over whether to bring "other charges". In that case, the gun is still on an evidence-hold. Prosecutors may not notify you that they've elected not to prosecute and after a year or two, the gun destroyed.

Quote:
As for the posters posting what you should say, I would hope you don't use whatever you typed as your response, for if a DA gets a hold of the 911 tape and what you type here and its verbatim, theyll say its either a boiler plate statement or youve put a lot of thought into shooting someone in your own home. Which i see nothing wrong with running scenarios in your mind but the good ol legal system sure can mangle words. Remember clinton and "is".....
I might hope a DA would be so foolish. My attorney would shred the prosecutor's hide and turn it into gerbil bedding.

He would be lambasting the prosecutor's attempt at denying the defendant the right to seek and discuss the best possible legal advice with others, determine a correct and legal course of action to ensure his rights were protected and to use the advice he received. If said advice relies on a generic statement to avoid unintentional admissions or omissions during a period of high-stress, he is well within his rights to use such a statement under the 5th Amendment.

Moreover, he'd point out that the prosecutor's insistence that the defendant "[i]putting a lot of thought [or training] into shooting someone in his home[i]" somehow automatically implies some kind of mens rea, borders on prosecutorial misconduct. Using such logic, the prosecutor would indict airline pilots who survive a crash, NASA personnel for the Challenger and Discovery disasters and automotive safety engineers for any fatality.

At the same time, using the prosecutor's logic in reverse; had the defendant had informed officers that he owned a gun but never thought about using it in the home, this same prosecutor would crucify the defendant as irresponsible, grossly negligent and failing to perform the slightest due diligence with regard to keeping a firearm. He wants the jury to convict not because the defendant erred legally, but because he was too diligent to fall into any legal pitfalls.

A good defense attorney would turn the DA's criticism into a positive advantage by showing the court or jury that the defendant sought advice and/or training to remain within the law. He would argue that taking a human life is an abnormal, high-stress event for the defendant and he was legally advised to use a memorized generic ("boilerplate") statement as the best method to avoid legal quibbling over the exact intent and meaning of a single word or statement.

Rather than worry about the above, it's more important to worry about public statements on forums, emails and in statements to neighbors that anyone breaking in "is gonna leave feet first in a body bag" or "ain't leaving with a pulse". Those kinds of statements are far more damning to a person's attitude than attacking an initial statement.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old February 25, 2012, 08:39 PM   #68
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
The question of what to do has been covered in detail in many post.

Since the Miranda warning has been mentioned.

Cops don't have to issue the warning until you are in custody. Basically, until they tell you you're underest or prevent you from leaving anything you say is fair game.

Spats can give you an excellent explanation.
ltc444 is offline  
Old February 27, 2012, 08:27 PM   #69
Murdock
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 4, 2008
Location: Down East Maine
Posts: 431
Quote:
I won't get my gun back? Really?
Think about this. You just used a gun to save your life or that of another innocent person. Maybe the gun cost you $1,750 because it's a gee whiz custom special. You may not ever see it again because it's been taken into evidence.

So what? Maybe it was the finer features of this precision instrument that saved your life, enabling you to shoot it well enough to out perform your attacker. That's why you bought it, right?

If so, it has served its purpose in the infinite complexity of the cosmos. Your legal fees are going to be much more significant than the gun. You'll probably have to sell it to pay for the lawyer anyway.

It's a detail. A trinket. You are alive and able to buy another one. Let it go.
__________________
The United States Marine Corps: Providing the enemies of America the opportunity to die for their countries since 1775. Semper fi.
Murdock is offline  
Old February 27, 2012, 08:40 PM   #70
m&p45acp10+1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,310
For those thinking you will not get the gun back you are very, very wrong. In fact most cases you would get it back withing 24 hours of a grand jury deeming justifiable use of force. They have to by law regardless of the state.

I personaly know someone that shot and killed an armed intruder. The day after he was cleared by the grand jury he drove to the county sherriff's office, and withing 30 minutes he was driving away with his gun. He did not get the remaining 5 rounds of ammo that were in it the night it was turned over to the LEO's.
__________________
No matter how many times you do it and nothing happens it only takes something going wrong one time to kill you.
m&p45acp10+1 is offline  
Old February 27, 2012, 09:16 PM   #71
Glenn Dee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,487
Your firearm is your private property. As long as you have the legal right to posses it... The police can NOT take it permenantly. However as long as it holds some criminal evidentiary value it may be held. A person who is no true billed, or cleared by a coronors jury should get his property back forthwith. Local jurisdictions may have some rules allowing them to hold on to the property for a period of time... In one jurisdiction the firearm may end up being destroyed before it can be returned. That same jurisdiction will usually remove any permission to posses the firearm (Revoke the permit) A person could make a civil case I guess.

While IMO you will probably get the gun back, but it may be marked by the vouchering officer, and may not have been stored well or taken care of.
Glenn Dee is offline  
Old February 28, 2012, 07:11 AM   #72
BillCA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,087
Quote:
Since the Miranda warning has been mentioned.

Cops don't have to issue the warning until you are in custody. Basically, until they tell you you're under[arr]est or prevent you from leaving anything you say is fair game.
Unless the rules have changed (yet again) recently, that's not quite true.
The have to issue the Miranda warning before they interrogate your or ask you questions . Typically the warning is given at the time of arrest or shortly thereafter. However, if the cops don't ask you questions, they don't need to recite the Miranda warning. You can be cuffed, transported and booked into jail before you hear the warning.

If they haven't issued the Miranda warning and haven't asked questions, if you make a voluntary utterance about the crime, it will be admissible.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately)
BillCA is offline  
Old February 28, 2012, 08:27 AM   #73
federali
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2011
Location: Nassau County NY
Posts: 378
One Big Mess

In all probability, all cartridge firing firearms at the scene will be taken as evidence until the ballistics boys identify which firearms were used or discharged. As an investigator, you don't want to be flayed on the witness stand for assuming that only the gun in the home owner's actual possession was used.

Another point to remember is that once you have defeated the intruders, you are now responsible for them and you may not permit further harm to be inflicted upon them by family members. It is wise to call 911 and advise them that medical assistance is needed. That 911 tape will be entered as evidence so choose your words carefully and do what you can to prevent the wounded intruder from dying if you can safely do so.
__________________
Int'l Assoc. of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors
federali is offline  
Old February 28, 2012, 08:47 AM   #74
TexasJustice7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 10, 2011
Posts: 213
Quote:
JoneeMan: What is deemed reasonable largely depends on people in your area. Police in your area may or may not have a positive attitude towards civilian gun overship. The same goes for District or County Attorneys, Sheriffs, and Judges, except they're elected officials, and they will likely side with the popular opinion of the people around you. Politics should not be underestimated in this regard.
While this may be true regarding the attitude toward civilian gun ownership, my opinion is (and I have 2 brothers in law enforecement, one deceased), any law enforcement officer who is opposed to civilian gun ownership is in my opinon not a legitimate law enforcement officer. I believe that part of their duty as a police officer is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. If he does not support the right to keep and bear arms then
it is my opinion that person should never have been allowed to wear a badge in the first place. If I knew of such a one, I would attempt to garner support to have them removed. But then I don't know of any, and I live in Texas.
TexasJustice7 is offline  
Old February 28, 2012, 11:54 AM   #75
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasJustice7
...my opinion is ..., any law enforcement officer who is opposed to civilian gun ownership is in my opinon not a legitimate law enforcement officer. I believe that part of their duty as a police officer is to protect and defend the Constitution...
That's very nice. But the topic of this thread is dealing with a difficult situation in real life. So one's notions about how things should be in an ideal world are off topic.
Frank Ettin is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15683 seconds with 9 queries