ending threat just by presentation?

[allaroundhunter]

Originally Posted by deepcreek

Reason -1- Back to the fact that many people in self defense situations have been charged with felonies.

Deepcreek, every single person who has shot another in self defense has confessed to committing a felony. If you kill a man in self defense then you must first confess that you have indeed committed homicide (a felony), only after that can you be acquitted after it is ruled justified or you are no-billed.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by deepcreek: Maybe the armed citizen doesn't have any "evidence supporting lawful justification" video, voice recording, witnesses, ....So basically they would be admitting to a felony with no evidence of justification.

At which point it is a matter of the perps' words against the word of the armed citizen, and the perps can provide a verifiable description of the firearm in support of an assertion that the armed citizen committed a crime.

If they do not believe their actions to have been both felonious and provable, the persons whom the armed citizen claims to have presented an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm will likely have no cogent reason to not sign a complaint.

The only point I am trying to make is calling 911 might not always be the best strategy. and that the good guy does not always win in court.

The task faced by the court is to determine just who is the "good guy."

A person who has drawn a weapon and who did not report it will not come across as a good guy.

You want to report it, and you want to be the first to do so.

[MLeake]

deepcreek, you are suggesting a fight with Murphy.

Murphy says that if you don't report the incident, the bad guys, other witnesses, or some recording device (security camera, trail cam, smart phone) will record a limited view of what happened.

So, while you suggest that there could be negative outcomes to reporting, you should consider the relative odds of negative outcomes if somebody else makes the report.

I learned as a kid that things would only get worse if my parents heard about the problem from somebody other than me. As a Navy officer, I can attest that when my guys reported having done something questionable, themselves, the repercussions (if any) were less severe than they would have been had somebody else reported them.

If nothing else, the course of action you seem to advocate could suggest guilty conscience to a prosecutor, or worse yet a jury.

[deepcreek]

The task faced by the court is to determine just who is the "good guy."

The idea is to stay out of court.
The court systems are designed to get people to take plea bargains and pay fines. If you want a jury trail get ready for a very risky, expensive, long and stressful journey.

Murphy says that if you don't report the incident, the bad guys, other witnesses, or some recording device (security camera, trail cam, smart phone) will record a limited view of what happened.

So, while you suggest that there could be negative outcomes to reporting, you should consider the relative odds of negative outcomes if somebody else makes the report.

I would consider both sides of the coin and all strategies if I got into a fight.

Most decent lawyers will tell you not to go talk to police, detectives and prosecutors without them if you are involved in a felony case, I would feel very worried about making statements and getting interviewed without decent legal advice.

Just things I would consider before I call 911 and started blabbing away.

If nothing else, the course of action you seem to advocate could suggest guilty conscience to a prosecutor, or worse yet a jury.

So could a bunch of statements made in the heat of the moment and taken out of context.

The only thing I am advocating is to be very careful and explore all options and strategies. Fights can be life altering events nothing to take lightly.

[Jammer Six]

If calling 911 isn't going to help you, neither is a weapon.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

Most decent lawyers will tell you not to go talk to police, detectives and prosecutors without them if you are involved in a felony case, I would feel very worried about making statements and getting interviewed without decent legal advice.

I would say you are better off with the police on your side because they they bear greatly on the prosecutor and his call as to whether or not charges should be filed.

If you have done nothing wrong and you have nothing to hide I would advise not to alienate yourself by seeking a lawyer automatically and invoking your right to council without careful thought and consideration.

Only a lawyer will advise to speak to him first. In fact, I bet you would find more lawyers than you think that would advise you to cooperate if you are not guilty.

Public opinion and LE opinion can get you in more trouble than any lawyer can get you out of. Trust me, you want them on your side first if at all possible and automatically invoking right to council is not always your best bet.

My brother was brought up on murder charges at 17 years of age ( mom still has the newspaper clipping) because my mom and dad got him a lawyer and would not allow him to make a statement.

If it weren't for detectives sent back for a second look of the crime scene he would have been in prison.

They found the ricochet off of a pole that my brother claimed was there. It was proof he shot into the air and not in the back of thief.

[Jammer Six]

I've heard it from a cop-- it's not just lawyers.

I've known cops on both sides of this argument. There is a school of thought that says you always need an attorney to talk to cops, but there is also a school of thought that doesn't believe that all cops (or police departments as a whole) are out to get you.

Sometimes you genuinely need a cop.

If you need a gun, I would think chances are good that a cop would be more help than harm.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by deepcreek

So where do you get your "learning" stats from ?...

It's not a matter of statistics. It's basic logic theory/epistemology. Poor data yield poor conclusions. Garbage in, garbage out.

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...Self Defense situations are basically fights...

It's a special kind of fight. It must be initiated by the wrongful, violent conduct of one person against another, innocent person. Otherwise, the use of force in self defense isn't legally justified.

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...Do good guy always win the legal fight?...

If the good guy wants to maximize his chances of surviving the legal aftermath, he needs to handle things properly after his violent event.

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...By reporting an "incident" you are giving statements and possible incriminating your self in a crime without consulting legal advice.

This has been discussed many times on this board, most recently in this thread.

• As I noted in post 9 in that thread:

  ...Keeping Silent Isn't the Best Idea in a Self Defense Matter
  
  But Don't Say Too Much.
  
  Call 911. Be the first to report the incident and do so immediately. If you don't report it, or if there's a long delay, you will appear to have a guilty conscience.
  
  Then, having taken LFI-I with Massad Ayoob, spending time with him and helping with a class of his in Sierra Vista, AZ not too long ago, I'll go along with his recommendation for when the police arrive.
  
  [1] While one has a right to remain silent, clamming up is what the bad guys do. Following a self defense incident, you'll want to act like one of the good guys. You also won't want the investigating officers to miss any evidence or possible witnesses. What if the responding officers miss your assailant's knife that you saw fall down the storm drain? What if they don't know about the guy you saw pick up your assailant's gun and walk off with it?
  
  [2] At the same time, you don't want to say too much. You will most likely be rattled. You will also most likely be suffering from various well known stress induced distortions of perception.
  
  [3] So Massad Ayoob recommends:
  

  • Saying something like, "That person (or those people) attacked me." You are thus immediately identifying yourself as the victim. It also helps get the investigation off on the right track.
  • Saying something like, "I will sign a complaint." You are thus immediately identifying the other guys(s) as the criminal(s).
  • Pointing out possible evidence, especially evidence that may not be immediate apparent. You don't want any such evidence to be missed.
  • Pointing out possible witnesses before they vanish.
  • Then saying something like, "I'm not going to say anything more right now. You'll have my full cooperation in 24 hours, after I've talked with my lawyer."

  ...

• As Spats McGee noted in post 20 in that thread:

  ...I'll save you the trouble of contacting me about Frank's comments. My credentials: I'm a lawyer, licensed in the state and federal courts of Arkansas, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and SCOTUS. I've been practicing law for ~11 years, in the following areas: civil rights defense, domestic relations, criminal defense, and prosecution. I've also spent the last few years (since I started carrying) keeping abreast of the law surrounding the RKBA.
  
  I've read Frank's post, and it is dead on correct. There are some nuances that will vary from state to state, such as whether SD is a defense or an affirmative defense, and what burdens of proof are attached to it (preponderance of evidence, beyond reasonable doubt, etc.). Frank's post, however, lays out the basics extremely well. If anyone has any questions about how SD defenses work, I'd suggest reading Frank's post a few times....

• As KyJim noted in post 21 of that thread:

  ...I'm a lawyer with 30 years experience, the last eight years solely in criminal law. I'm a prosecutor. I'm licensed in Kentucky, the federal district courts in my state, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Frank's assessment is "spot on."
  
  I have seen more than one instance where a claim of self-defense never surfaced until at or just before trial and I've never seen it succeed. It''s extremely difficult to mount a claim of self-defense without the defendant taking the stand. You can bet the prosecutor is going to make it known through questioning that the self-defense claim is something new and that the defendant has concocted it and tailored his/her story to fit what the prosecution has turned over in discovery.
  
  While I am not giving advice, I can tell you what I would do if I had to justify a shooting. I would give the basic version and then affirmatively assert my right to remain silent and talk with my attorney. Assuming my attorney agreed, I would then give a thorough statement later. That's pretty much what Frank said.

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...Maybe the armed citizen doesn't have any "evidence supporting lawful justification" video, voice recording, witnesses, So basically they would be admitting to a felony with no evidence of justification...

There is always evidence.

1. Your testimony about what happened is evidence. In a self defense matter, it is often the best evidence you will be able to offer to establish your justification for the use of violence. So it will be vitally important to you that your story be believed. If you fail to promptly report the incident, or if you leave the scene without reporting the incident, your credibility is impaired. Your post event conduct can be considered as evidence of guilt (see the cases I've cited in post 92).
   
   
2. There will likely be some physical evidence. Of course if you don't report the incident promptly so the police can secure the crime scene and search for and preserve evidence, physical evidence can be lost or compromised and won't be available to help support your testimony.

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...The idea is to stay out of court...

And exactly how do you plan to do that? There is no guarantee that you can avoid it.

1. As discussed in post 33, you might avoid being charged if the evidence is obvious and strong that your use of force was legally justified. Of course you can't know ahead of time if that will be the case, but failing to promptly report the incident and/or fleeing the scene isn't going to help.
   
   
2. Or do you imagine that you'll be able to "get away with it"?
   
   
   1. Well in that regard, let's see what a disinterested third party has to say.
      
      
      • Boston T. Party, Boston's Gun Bible, Javelin Press, 2002, pg 5/2:

        ...I am not recommending that anyone flee the scene of a justifiable homicide,...In fact, after reviewing the precautions such a flight will require, most of you will properly conclude that it's far too involved and risky to succeed -- and that's my point here. Call 911; don't flee...

      • Boston T. Party, pg 5/10:

        ...Criminals have a better practical chance of getting away with ...flight because they have prior experience (you don't), they can plan for it (you got surprised , and thus retrospectively left many inadvertent clues). They have the immediate support of the criminal underworld (you don't). They are ruthless (you are just an average person), they feel no gullt (you will, at least in the form of doubt)...

      
      
   2. In fact in the articles you linked to in your post 90, folks who didn't report their incident were found out anyway and apparently had their problems made worse by their failure to report their incidents:
      
      
      • See this USCCA article:

        A Missouri homeowner was arrested after running off a pair of thieves at gunpoint.
        
        The thieves went to the sheriff’s office to complain of being threatened at gunpoint, with a spurious story to explain their presence at the house. The sheriff bought their story, sweetened as it was by claims that the homeowner was a drug dealer, and raided the home. No drugs were found, but as a consolation prize the citizen was arrested for brandishing a firearm at the thieves....

      • And http://www.610wiod.com/articles/wiod...and-10095842/:

        ...According to a court document filed April 17th, Pierre "grabbed a baseball bat and his shotgun and secured his property from inside. He then exited his home and, while remaining on his property, inspected his yard where the noise had been heard."
        
        He says he was only outside for less than 5 minutes before retreating. He never fired his weapon. Pierre says it wasn't even loaded.
        
        The entire incident was caught on surveillance camera....
        
        ...Pierre says he was taken to jail and charged with improper display of a weapon. But he maintains he was defending himself, and the judge eventually agreed....

        The authorities might well have been more inclined to accept Pierre's claim if he had promptly reported the incident.
   
   
3. Since there's no guarantee one can avoid court, one would be well advised to do everything he needs to do to lay the best foundation for his defense if he does wind up in court. One of the things he can do in that regard is promptly report the incident.

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...Most decent lawyers will tell you not to go talk to police, detectives and prosecutors without them if you are involved in a felony case,...

However, as discussed by three decent lawyers here, self defense can be different.

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...I would consider before I call 911 and started blabbing away....

Who said anything about "blabbing away"? One does need to control his tongue, but with some thought one should be able to report a violent encounter succinctly and to the point.

[Tinner666]

Gunners,

Sorry if this is not in the appropriate thread.

Are there any legitimate statistics that state the percentage of threats that have been stopped when nothing more happens than a firearm is brought to bear by the intended victim?Rmocarsky

Nope and never will be. I attract lightening and muggers it seems. Today I saw a character on the sidewalk waving a 2x2 full of nails. I stayed clear, then went down the walk. A few moments later, I hear "I'm getting my paycheck now!" and there he was coming up behind me ith the raised club.

From about 15' I spun and put my hand under my shirttail and said "Don't! I'll pop you! Drop it!" He did and walked off. I can't post hwat he was saying as he came up and as he left. A few folk crossed the street.

I follow the wife into a store and a few minutes later hear hollering. He's at it again with the cllub. Maybe I should have gotten it?
I stayed clear and took a couple of pix. Nobody called PD. Everybody he accosted took off. I think it was a mental case??? I dunno.
I'm sure it would have been a good shoot, but who wants that? I just wanted peace. He tried stopping a couple of cars too.

Not all threats, or potential attacks are reported. I'd bet less than 1% are reported.

[deepcreek]

It's not a matter of statistics. It's basic logic theory/epistemology. Poor data yield poor conclusions. Garbage in, garbage out.

Many people classify this as "common sense"

There is always evidence.

No there is not.
"evidence" has to be collected by law enforcement they don't always have things to collect. Not everyone lives under surveillance cameras.

However, as discussed by three decent lawyers here, self defense can be different.

"Can" is a pretty strong word.

Lets not forget that the internet is a global platform and not just stucco strip malls in the US. A winning self defense strategy that works in a Santa Barbra parking lot might not be so winning in the slums of Detroit, the backwoods of the Ozarks or in many other countries.

Many people have lost trust of law enforcement and the legal system due to corruption and abuse some places it might not be safe to call them.

Some people might have to deal with the attackers after the police write on the paper and leave in places where people have no respect for others that cannot deal with their own problems.

[OldMarksman]

Deepcreek, have you ever heard anyone who is knowledgeable of use of force law, the justice system, and legal precedent responsibly recommend that the defender not be the first to report an incident?

In one of the best courses on use of force law, the instructor recommends that, if one should find it necessary to display a weapon in self defense and be unable to safely remain while contacting law enforcement, he or she should head immediately to the nearest police station if the location is known, or if that is not possible, to a well lit safe place from which to call.

The reasons are compelling. For one thing, as Frank Ettin has pointed out, flight is an indication of potential guilt. For another, the person who calls first will be known as the complainant. If the defender is not first, he or she will be identified as the suspect.

Not good.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by deepcreek

No there is not.
"evidence" has to be collected by law enforcement they don't always have things to collect. Not everyone lives under surveillance cameras....

You're wrong.

1. As I wrote in post 108:

   Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

   ...Your testimony about what happened is evidence. In a self defense matter, it is often the best evidence you will be able to offer to establish your justification for the use of violence...

2. The legal definition of "evidence" is:

   A thing, a document, or the testimony of a person that bears on the truth or falsity of an assertion made in litigation; the totality of such items introduced in a trial; the legal doctrines pertaining to the admission, use, and evaluation of such items.

3. Another definition is:

   ...Law information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court...

4. And if you left the scene of the incident, that fact will be considered evidence of guilt and also diminish your credibility. See the cases I cited in post 92.
   
   
5. Of course you may be hoping that the incident will not be discovered or that you won't be found out. But you can never be absolutely sure of that. In any case, it's not the sort of thing someone of good character would rely on. Character is how one acts when no one is watching.
   
   
6. So it appears that you don't understand what evidence is.

[deepcreek]

The legal definition of "evidence" is:
Quote:
A thing, a document, or the testimony of a person that bears on the truth or falsity of an assertion made in litigation; the totality of such items introduced in a trial; the legal doctrines pertaining to the admission, use, and evaluation of such items.

edit: As I said earlier their is not always evidence. Evidence is not a magic thing that appears after every action, it has to be collected.

Someone was saying earlier most incidents in their area are unreported “I'd bet less than 1% are reported.” Which is common in some areas.
So where is the “evidence” if 2 people in the dark face off decide not to fight go separate ways?

No “items” no “ testimony” no evidence. Unless you want to call the police and say "I threatened someone with a gun" please come collect my testimony as evidence.

[Wreck-n-Crew]

^^ Not to mention this is covered in every CCW class I have ever encountered as far as calling or making an attempt to contact the police.

Let the police show up because they were nearby and heard the shots or were called by someone else while you were in the process of leaving. It will not go well for you at least until it is sorted out and still maybe not then.

Leaving is as bad as picking up shell casings or moving a body because the people involved are part of the evidence.

>>>>back to "ending threat by presentation" >>>>>>> Great topic!

[Spats McGee]

No, "evidence" does not have to be "collected." A person's testimony is evidence. It can be the testimony of persons involved, or the police. One example of each:
1) As an SD shooter, if I'm charged, I'll likely have to testify as to the facts necessary to establish my defense. My words are evidence.
2) If I decline to call the police, the police will likely testify that it appears that: (a) I did not call 911; and (2) I left the scene without reporting the incident. Their words are evidence.
3) If I show my weapon, the BG might leave the scene, then he may call the police to try to "beat me to the punch." Alternatively, he might be stopped for speeding as he flees the scene. When asked why he was speeding, he might say that some guy pointed a gun at him and scared him. The police officer, being a naturally curious sort, might follow up. The BG's words are evidence.

The court will not care what ordinary citizens believe "evidence" to be. The rules of evidence tell us that testimony counts as "evidence."

[Glenn Dee]

As I have said before.... Sometimes it's not as much what you do as how you explain it. If someone threatened me enough to force me into using deadly force, and I frew my firearm with the intent to use it against the person. Upon seeing that I was armed and willing to defend myself the person stopped what ever he was doing, or ran away I'm no longer justified in using deadly force I put my gun away.

Did I menace, threaten, or display the gun?...nope my intent was to use justified force, but the guy changed his mind and so did I and put the gun away... It's really that simple.

[deepcreek]

No, "evidence" does not have to be "collected." A person's testimony is evidence.

The person has to be found, contacted and have made a statement. It called "collecting" evidence for a case.

If a robber runs back to his crack house hides in the basement and is not to be found their is no testimony from him because one can not be collected.

[csmsss]

I don't think I've ever seen someone work so hard to dig a hole he/she couldn't possibly dig out of.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by deepcreek

The person has to be found, contacted and have made a statement. It called "collecting" evidence for a case.

If a robber runs back to his crack house hides in the basement and is not to be found their is no testimony from him because one can not be collected.

That assumes that if the one who presents the firearm to deter the threat doesn't call the police, then the police will have no way of finding out about it. It's possible, but far from guaranteed, that the police will never know it happened. You seem willing to bet jail time on that. I'm not quite so eager to do so.

[deepcreek]

That assumes that if the one who presents the firearm to deter the threat doesn't call the police, then the police will have no way of finding out about it. It's possible, but far from guaranteed, that the police will never know it happened. You seem willing to bet jail time on that. I'm not quite so eager to do so.

I am not gambling on that. I am just saying "evidence" is not a magical thing that always appears. and robbers do not always run and call 911.

All self defense situations are different. You can follow one strategy that works a large percentage of the time and it will probably be a decent bet.

Personally I will weigh the situation I am in and make a strategy as things unfold. But I am not hard wired to speed dial 911 at every confrontation. I don't like court and I try to avoid it when possible.

If speed dial 911 is your mantra for every confrontational situation more power to you.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by deepcreek

I am not gambling on that. I am just saying "evidence" is not a magical thing that always appears. and robbers do not always run and call 911.

I'm well aware that evidence does not magically appear. You seem to disregard the fact that there are sources other than one of the two parties involved in an incident.

The part quoted above is not "all you're saying." Several pages ago, you wrote this:

Originally Posted by deepcreek

Unfortunately there are also several reasons not to report such an indecent.

Many people have called law enforcement for help or trying to be a helpful citizen only to find themselves in handcuffs facing prison time. Not that it is always the fault of the officers but we have a legal system that is not always looking out for the better of our citizens.

Someone calls law enforcement says they just scared off 3 robbers at gun point they now have one guy who has admittedly threatened people with a gun=felony. Then if they get the 3 guys they will just say something like "we just asked for a lighter.”
The only case law enforcement and prosecutor has is the guy with the gun. Sorry “it's the law..” Sorry “just doing my job..”

Not saying people should not call law enforcement but be careful. Results may vary.

Yes, one should be careful when calling law enforcement. But my take on this is that you are advising folks not to call law enforcement (the last line of the above-quoted notwithstanding), and I question whether you have a solid understanding of self-defense law and police procedure. I would suggest that it is better to plan for contact with law enforcement, than to plan ways to avoid said contact. Juries don't like guys that try to cover things up.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...Someone was saying earlier most incidents in their area are unreported “I'd bet less than 1% are reported.” Which is common in some areas...

Well, no one said exactly that. A number of people have speculated that only a small number of defensive gun uses in which the gun is not fired get reported. A number of people have speculated that detail on such incidents might not be captured and readily discoverable by usual research methodologies.

But no one put any numbers to those speculations, so you pulled the "1%" out of the air. And since this is just a matter of unsupported speculation (although not unreasonable) we can not really have any good idea of what the actual numbers might be.

Furthermore, what the number of such incidents which go unreported might be is somewhat beside the point.

1. Persons knowledgeable about the subject recommend that if one is attacked or threatened by someone with lethal force under circumstances in which the person attacked or threatened (the "actor") reasonably concludes that he is justified using or threatening lethal force in self defense, the actor should promptly report the incident even when the assailant has fled without a shot having been fired. As the attorney author of the USCCA article to which you, yourself, furnished the link wrote:
   
   

   1. ...It is critical to be the first person to relate events to the police. The first report sets the tone for the case...

      and
      
      

   2. ...It is essential that the citizen report every use of his gun, even if nothing more than displaying the gun for the benefit of threatening psychotics or thugs...

   
   
2. It is at least unwise, and perhaps even foolish, to assume that such an incident would not be discovered.
   
   
   1. As Spats McGee, an experienced lawyer, wrote in post 115:

      ...If I show my weapon, the BG might leave the scene, then he may call the police to try to "beat me to the punch." Alternatively, he might be stopped for speeding as he flees the scene. When asked why he was speeding, he might say that some guy pointed a gun at him and scared him...

   2. As Spats then wrote in post 119:

      ...That assumes that if the one who presents the firearm to deter the threat doesn't call the police, then the police will have no way of finding out about it. It's possible, but far from guaranteed, that the police will never know it happened...

   3. As the attorney author of the USCCA article noted:

      A Missouri homeowner was arrested after running off a pair of thieves at gunpoint.
      
      The thieves went to the sheriff’s office to complain of being threatened at gunpoint, with a spurious story to explain their presence at the house. The sheriff bought their story,...

   4. There may have been witnesses of whom you weren't aware, and one of them could report the incident.

Originally Posted by deepcreek

So where is the “evidence” if 2 people in the dark face off decide not to fight go separate ways?

But that's not the situation. One person was attacked or threatened, and he defended himself. But as has sometimes occurred the attacker or a third party reports the incident, the defender's credibility is severely damaged if he hadn't promptly reported the incident himself.

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...Personally I will weigh the situation I am in and make a strategy as things unfold. But I am not hard wired to speed dial 911 at every confrontation. I don't like court and I try to avoid it when possible...

You're of course free to follow that path yourself.

What's important for us, here, is that others who might be reading this thread understand that (1) your opinions in this regard aren't well thought out; (2) your opinions in this regard aren't necessarily well supported considering the realities of the law, the legal system and police procedure; and (3) doing things as you propose doing them might get one into a lot of trouble.

All opinions are not equal.

[deepcreek]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
There is always evidence.You're of course free to follow that path yourself.

What's important for us, here, is that others who might be reading this thread understand that (1) your opinions in this regard aren't well thought out; (2) your opinions in this regard aren't necessarily well supported considering the realities of the law, the legal system and police procedure; and (3) doing things as you propose doing them might get one into a lot of trouble.

All I am saying is people should think out things when they are involved in a serious life changing event. Will one solution fit all situations? No.

Why is that such a bad proposal ? Because it does not agree with yours ?

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
There is always evidence.

Again their is not always evidence. Evidence is created be careful what evidence you create against yourself. You as a lawyer should know this.

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
All opinions are not equal.

No they are not. free legal advice from the internet probably is not the best.

[MLeake]

deepcreek,

Your advice about selectively not calling 911 borders on advocating criminal activity. It is socially irresponsible. It flies counter to the advice given by self-defense instructors, attorneys, and investigators.

The only scenario where such advice could conceivably make sense (assuming one was justified in the use of deadly force) would be in the case of a known corrupt police department and court system.

A friend who resides overseas had his local police chief (in that country) give him the advice you are giving, but he is in a country where the foreigner is always wrong, and where even those who were justified in self-defense are expected to pay a blood debt.

Your concept, as applied in the US, is at best foolish and socially irresponsible, and at worst criminal.

Why do you keep digging yourself deeper?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by deepcreek

...Why is that such a bad proposal ?...

MLeake answered that pretty well:

Originally Posted by MLeake

...deepcreek,

Your advice about selectively not calling 911 borders on advocating criminal activity. It is socially irresponsible. It flies counter to the advice given by self-defense instructors, attorneys, and investigators....