View Single Post
Old October 18, 2021, 04:46 PM   #77
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,685
Quote:
maybe that's why it's always illegal to kill a human and only can be justified by a jury of your piers or the DA I guess .
You're close but still not quite spot on. It's a multi-stage process with defined roles after a shooting.

The police investigate, and give their findings to the DA. They can recommend a course of action, but that recommendation has no legal weight. It is the DA who makes the decision to prosecute, or not.

Many, (I'd like to think most) will look at the evidence, and decide if there is a case for prosecution, and if they think they can win it, proceed with charges leading to arrest and trial. At that point it becomes the province of the court and the jury of your peers decision to render.

In most cases where charges don't get filed, its because the DA recognizes it a "good shoot" (within the law in all aspects) and there is nothing to use to build a case otherwise. When the investigation results are less than clear cut, the DA may, or may not take it to trial. Its their decision at that point.

HOWEVER, there ARE DA's who have a policy of taking every self defense case to trial, no matter what the investigation results indicate. When one of those people is the DA, even "good shoots" wind up in court. Which is of course, a waste of the court's time and taxpayer money, but often the DA cares less about that than about "sending a message"...
(personally I always felt that prosecuting someone to "send a message" is one of the more boneheaded things a DA can do. Actual criminals won't get the message and lawful folk don't need to hear it.)

So, if the cops and the DA are smart enough to recognize an obvious "good shoot", and are not driven by any personal agenda, its unlikely to go to court. But if things are not crystal clear, or if there is some level of personal agenda involved it often will go to court, and once there, it becomes the jury's decision if it was justified, or not.

Killing another person is always some level of crime. To claim self defense, one must admit to doing it, but having no other choice. At that point the court decides if your justification is valid and if so, you are not convicted of the crime. They don't say "there was no crime" they say "you are not criminally responsible" or words to that effect.

or, at least that's the way I understand it's supposed to work.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02146 seconds with 8 queries