|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 31, 2012, 02:56 AM | #51 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
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. |
|
January 31, 2012, 11:20 AM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,720
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth |
|
January 31, 2012, 11:38 AM | #53 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
[2] And "exaggerated a little for fun" isn't helpful or appropriate in this context. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
February 11, 2012, 05:10 PM | #54 |
Junior Member
Join Date: February 11, 2012
Posts: 1
|
home invasion survivor
would anyone benefit from my advise? i am a home invasion survivor.
|
February 11, 2012, 07:13 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
But of course. Self referential experience is mostly what we go on here.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
February 20, 2012, 11:17 AM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2008
Location: SE PA
Posts: 336
|
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) |
February 20, 2012, 11:44 AM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 22, 2011
Location: OKC
Posts: 502
|
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.
|
February 20, 2012, 01:01 PM | #58 |
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.
|
February 21, 2012, 04:30 AM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2011
Location: Burien,WA
Posts: 897
|
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.
|
February 21, 2012, 06:18 AM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
|
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. |
February 22, 2012, 01:04 PM | #61 | |
Member
Join Date: November 10, 2011
Posts: 51
|
Quote:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/21...-near-burglar/ |
|
February 22, 2012, 02:27 PM | #62 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
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.
|
February 22, 2012, 03:08 PM | #63 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 1, 2011
Location: Texas, land of Tex-Mex
Posts: 2,259
|
Quote:
|
|
February 22, 2012, 03:53 PM | #64 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Posts: 990
|
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"..... |
February 22, 2012, 09:14 PM | #65 |
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..
|
February 22, 2012, 09:58 PM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 720
|
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. |
February 23, 2012, 01:13 AM | #67 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Quote:
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:
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) |
||
February 25, 2012, 08:39 PM | #68 |
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. |
February 27, 2012, 08:27 PM | #69 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 4, 2008
Location: Down East Maine
Posts: 431
|
Quote:
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. |
|
February 27, 2012, 08:40 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 3, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 3,930
|
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. |
February 27, 2012, 09:16 PM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,560
|
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. |
February 28, 2012, 07:11 AM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Quote:
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) |
|
February 28, 2012, 08:27 AM | #73 |
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 |
February 28, 2012, 08:47 AM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 10, 2011
Posts: 213
|
Quote:
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. |
|
February 28, 2012, 11:54 AM | #75 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|