PDA

View Full Version : What happens when a homeowner shoots


robster11
12-07-2012, 4:49 AM
When a homeowner shoots an armed intruder. What level of investigation do police have for situations like this. Lets say its clear the homeowner legally owned the gun, and the intruder was armed.

Do the execute a search warrant and treat the homeowner like they may have committed a crime?

the86d
12-07-2012, 5:01 AM
It depends on the state. In California they will usually take the firearm as evidence (sometimes all of them, I read), and do an investigation as to if it was a justifiable homicide, homicide(, or manslaughter?).

If you put more than 3-4 rounds in them, you had better have a trail of blood (in the act, not after) showing that they were still coming after you with a weapon after you fired shots... OR you are going to jail for homicide. Make sure that you don't empty magazine(s) in them if the threat has stopped, or you WILL stay in jail for a long time. DO NOT SHOOT THEM IF THEY ARE NOT A THREAT.

(This is just how I understand it, and they had better be in your house, or inside a locked gate to your property with No Trespassing signs every 1/2 mile, I think it is.)

Do not delay 24 hours in calling the police like one guy did that executed an intruder after said intruder was laying on the ground bleeding. HE is going to go to jail for a LONG time...

...Do the execute a search warrant and treat the homeowner like they may have committed a crime?

I believe that it depends on circumstantial evidence, blood splatter patterns, and facts (they can tell if your story doesn't add up based on evidence at the scene).

Ford8N
12-07-2012, 5:54 AM
What happens really depends on the county it happened in and who the Chief law enforcement officer is of your jurisdiction. In one county you could be called a hero and did a great service for the citizens of your community. The other you will lose your Second Amendment rights for life, thousands of dollars of legal bills and be branded a racist, mentally ill vigilante.

chris
12-07-2012, 5:57 AM
screwed in this state.

vantec08
12-07-2012, 6:14 AM
In CA, you can expect those with authority to crawl up your backside with a microscope to the point of "does-he-use-matching-socks." Most likely, you will held to a different standard than a poor criminal trying to have some xmas.

robster11
12-07-2012, 6:15 AM
Thanks for the reply. That is a good point about it being different for each county. Would it make a difference if you did not kill the armed intruder, but just shot them once and waited for police.

I assume they would still take your weapon, but would they ransack your house? It seems that a family already dealing with a scary situation could have to deal with a lot of other possible legal issues along with it. Those sort of unknowns can be very scary.

vantec08
12-07-2012, 8:36 AM
Of course shoot-and-wound could result in more "action." Depends on the specific circumstances and the LE agency and DA overseeing the investigation. In CA, there is no immunity from civil prosecution so you can almost expect a lawsuit from the poor aggrieved criminal (or his survivors).

jaymz
12-07-2012, 8:53 AM
My friend's brother in law did a couple of years for killing an armed intruder at his house. The only reason he did any time at all is because he's a felon and wasn't supposed to have a gun. No civil suit from the family. Bottom line is this - if it's a good shoot, nothing will happen.

QuarterBoreGunner
12-07-2012, 10:43 AM
In CA, you can expect those with authority to crawl up your backside with a microscope to the point of "does-he-use-matching-socks." Most likely, you will held to a different standard than a poor criminal trying to have some xmas.

screwed in this state.

Yeah, not necessarily to both of these.

My friend's brother in law did a couple of years for killing an armed intruder at his house. The only reason he did any time at all is because he's a felon and wasn't supposed to have a gun. No civil suit from the family. Bottom line is this - if it's a good shoot, nothing will happen. (emphasis mine)

This is absolutely correct. If you keep a firearm for self-defense, you had better damn well know the law before hand. That guy that waited 24 hours? Yeah he's going to jail for a very long time.

Laythor
12-07-2012, 10:48 AM
The idea that the state is "out to get you" is strong on any gun message board but the facts do not bear that out.

A simple search of "intruder shot + california" brings up lots of news stories and very very few of them ever end up with the shooter going to jail let alone being arrested.

If you own a gun for personal defense and use that gun for personal defense in your home under fear for your life or the life of others then you have nothing to fear from the state.

Window_Seat
12-07-2012, 12:21 PM
The decision to ruin a person's life for a good shoot does not necessarily rest with the CLEO (Chief of Police/Sheriff) or the investigating Police/Detectives assigned to a case, although they could recommend the charges be filed and cause you to have an arrest record that causes you to be fired and keeps you from getting hired.

There is a thing called "Prosecutorial Discretion".

IN Wisconsin, it used to be that if the Prosecutor (who had sole authority to file a complaint in the beginning) decided not to file a complaint, the court could override that decision in an ex parte hearing.

In that statutory measure:

"[O]nly the district attorney could issue a criminal complaint, rather than permitting the district attorney or judge to issue a complaint. If the district attorney was unwilling or unable to issue a complaint, a judge could do so upon a finding of probable cause." (Becker, 1988, pp. 749-768).

So if a prosecutor can now make the decision solely, and not be questioned, now people might think that he or she has too much power, but hasn't this always been the case? He better watch out if it's abusive, even in San Francisco (but that's just my opinion).

"Traditionally, discussions of prosecutorial discretion focus on charging and plea bargaining decisions. (Citing footnote 30). But on occasions when new evidence casts doubt on a convicted defendant’s guilt, questions of prosecutorial discretion take on comparatively greater importance. When there is an inadequate factual basis for criminal charges, a criminal trial will often (though not invariably) act as a corrective. (Citing footnote 31). In contrast, the legal process holds out little hope for wrongfully convicted defendants, especially in the absence of help from prosecutors." (Green & Yaroshefsky, 2009, p. 472).

We have 58 county DAs, and none are the same, and I don't know how often they communicate with one another, but (even with my "in San Francisco" comment above) I feel like there could be "location location location" factors in each of their decisions to file a complaint in a scenario involving a good shoot where there is a blood and shell trail and the deceased is in possession of a weapon, but I would be confident in a system where we could have the kind of defense that is recommended. If it were a good shoot in SF, I believe strongly there would be some kind of charge filed against a homeowner.

Getting out of a messy situation involving a good shoot (to me) depends on the kind of Counsel representing you. This sums it up in that respect:

[This post was in no way inspired by any recent public posts from any party or litigation matter publicized here, and was instead based on some prior private communications, so please do not infer anything about other CG posts from this message.]

Unfortunately some folks seem to call "a" or "their" lawyer first when they have a pressing firearms legal matter in CA, and then retain him/her - and only later call CGF.

At that point, CGF can only try to cooperate and assist with the retained lawyer and perhaps subsequently offer assistance on the case (which may indeed be quite helpful to shortening the process).

CGF usually does not help with the fees of a lawyer outside the "CA gunrights coalition" ones we refer you to, unless for some special reason it were to become necessary. And for a variety of reasons, we cannot "take the case" away from a defendant's lawyer nor prompt a defendant to drop the lawyer.

This can be a costly mistake: what CA gun lawyers can do with their eyes half-closed [on top of their reputations for winning gun cases which plays into faster resolution] may take much longer for a non-gun lawyer, especially one that doesn't have knowledge of the history of rulemaking, prior case law, etc. Even the best non-gun lawyer takes time to get up to speed on matters like these - and on your nickel.

If you have a CA firearms legal matter that's gonna require some lawyering, and have general confidence you've not violated the law (charges are bogus, DA or LEO doesn't know the laws, etc.) PLEASE CALL CGF FIRST. Even if you're suddenly uncertain about some issue, CGF team would still like to hear about it and run it thru the screening process.

CGF is here to defend your gun rights when you've generally walked the straight & narrow; throguh this work we're likely to encounter numerous situations that may not just benefit the client but gunrights here in general.

There may also be 'interesting' matters arising from cases that "aren't quite so perfect". CGF has informally helped in matters where the case was not quite so clean due to inadvertent situations, but we didn't wanna see a poor guy screwed over big time (i.e., popped for felony AW charges but helping get them reduced to nuisance/seizure via AB2728).

Also, if & when you contact CGF, please ONLY state to the CGF contact the overall nature of the case and the information that's already known to the opposition. (At most: "I was busted for a rifle with a BulletButton and I followed the flowcart", "I was busted for a loaded gun - they said separate loaded magazine was still a loaded gun", etc.) Rock-bottom minute details that could affect your case should only be imparted to the actual CGF lawyer with whom you've been put in contact, to avoid any possible self-incrimination exposure.

For those not familiar with the operation, the CGF lawyer will question you and screen the matter. In the past, we've had folks that tell a good story about their situation - and later it's found there's a bunch of troubling color (say, legit OLL but another loaded gun in the car, felon with the group, etc.) If things are misrepresented and this is discovered after worflow begins, the client may well have to pay the legal fees himself per agreement. (And some of these folks we've *still* managed to help in spite of all this - and in spite of some catty backtalk when confronted with the issue.)

Nevertheless, we can't fix problems if we don't know they exist - and knowing about new cases is the first step.

We'd prefer to err on the safe side and even if you think your matter isn't 'pure enough' there's some chance CGF may be able assist or defend certain aspects of the matter so all is not lost.

Calguns Foundation helpline: (800) 556-2109 - although using email hotline@calgunsfoundation.org is usually best.

Knowing is the first part. And if you KNOW of someone with an gun legal issue that's in the general realm of CGF support (i.e, not a bank robber etc.) please let that party know about CGF and/or PM a CGFer here as much info about the matter as you know.

With all of this researched and stated, I am thankful that we live in a system of prosecutorial discretion, but when a DA decides not to use "spirit of the law" in a case where he or she has no business using "letter of the law", the system has become one with tragic consequences for everyone of the people, all of the time.

(And I am not a lawyer, just a dumb Trucker :eek:).

References:
Becker, S. (1988). Judicial Scrutiny of Prosecutorial Discretion in the Decision Not to File a Complaint. Marquette Law Review, 71(4), 751. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol71/iss4/3

Green, B. A., & Yaroshefsky, E. (2009). Prosecutorial Discretion and Post-Conviction Evidence of Innocence. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6(467), 467-517. Retrieved from http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/osjcl/files/2012/05/GreenYaroshefsky-FinalPDF.pdf

Erik.

kln5
12-07-2012, 12:54 PM
Take a MAG 40 class with Massad Ayoob and learn all about how to defend yourself legally.

thayne
12-07-2012, 1:37 PM
It depends on the state. In California they will usually take the firearm as evidence (sometimes all of them, I read), and do an investigation as to if it was a justifiable homicide, homicide(, or manslaughter?).

If you put more than 3-4 rounds in them, you had better have a trail of blood (in the act, not after) showing that they were still coming after you with a weapon after you fired shots... OR you are going to jail for homicide. Make sure that you don't empty magazine(s) in them if the threat has stopped, or you WILL stay in jail for a long time. DO NOT SHOOT THEM IF THEY ARE NOT A THREAT.

(This is just how I understand it, and they had better be in your house, or inside a locked gate to your property with No Trespassing signs every 1/2 mile, I think it is.)

Do not delay 24 hours in calling the police like one guy did that executed an intruder after said intruder was laying on the ground bleeding. HE is going to go to jail for a LONG time...



I believe that it depends on circumstantial evidence, blood splatter patterns, and facts (they can tell if your story doesn't add up based on evidence at the scene).


Where in the PC does it say you are limited to 3-4 rounds? I dont see it.



197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.



198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

The Shadow
12-08-2012, 6:34 AM
197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:

1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,

That's pretty self explanatory

2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,

That almost seems ambiguous.

3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,

Again, that's not totally clear.

4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

This could be a problem. I'm thinking that, like open carry, the law says you can do it, but law enforcement and legislators don't want you to do it, and if you do, do it, you will be labeled a vigilante. But that's just my opinion.

198.5. Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or
great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to
have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great
bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that
force is used against another person, not a member of the family or
household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and
forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or
had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.
As used in this section, great bodily injury means a significant
or substantial physical injury.

On its face, it seems crystal clear. However, law enforcement has a tendency to muddy the waters and "err" on the side of making an arrest and confiscating "evidence" in matters such as this.

Just a thought, if a sworn peace officer (aka LEO) were to be in the same situation as a citizen, would said peace officer's weapon be confiscated ? Or is it "professional courtesy" not to do that ?

SWalt
12-08-2012, 8:29 AM
Where in the PC does it say you are limited to 3-4 rounds? I dont see it.

You are allowed to defend yourself only to the point where there is no longer a threat to you life or another. Once the threat is stopped, you must stop.

If you unload 3 30 round magazines and the perp has 90 holes in him, expect to be prosecuted for murder. If the perp has 3 or 4 bullets in him (enough to stop most people) and you expended 90 rounds, you better have a very good explanation and evidence to back it up. Otherwise a good attorney will come up with a better explanation then you while he sues you for every thing you own. Or the local DA prosecutes you for any number of other reasons.

(yes 90 rounds and 3 mag changes is extreme, but i'm using it to show the more rounds you expend the more questions will come up to your motive for shooting more than necessary to stop the threat)

JMHO

SWalt
12-08-2012, 8:59 AM
When a homeowner shoots an armed intruder. What level of investigation do police have for situations like this. Lets say its clear the homeowner legally owned the gun, and the intruder was armed.

Do the execute a search warrant and treat the homeowner like they may have committed a crime?

As others have mention, it depends on the initial investigation and on the circumstances. A clear cut case of self defense wouldn't cause the cops/DA to go further and investigate (haul you in for more intense questioning or get a search warrant).

A close buddy of mine used lethal self defense on 2 separate occasions (3 killed between the 2 occasions). Both times justified. They only took the weapons involved (returned later after the investigations were complete) and left him with his other weapons (in plain sight) that were at the scene but not used.

socal2310
12-08-2012, 9:19 AM
You are allowed to defend yourself only to the point where there is no longer a threat to you life or another. Once the threat is stopped, you must stop.

If you unload 3 30 round magazines and the perp has 90 holes in him, expect to be prosecuted for murder. If the perp has 3 or 4 bullets in him (enough to stop most people) and you expended 90 rounds, you better have a very good explanation and evidence to back it up. Otherwise a good attorney will come up with a better explanation then you while he sues you for every thing you own. Or the local DA prosecutes you for any number of other reasons.

(yes 90 rounds and 3 mag changes is extreme, but i'm using it to show the more rounds you expend the more questions will come up to your motive for shooting more than necessary to stop the threat)

JMHO


A magazine change, followed by more rounds fired when it can be demonstrated that the threat was stopped before the magazine change (harder to prove than you might think) would indeed be a problem. However, emptying the magazine or cylinder is a frequent complaint about police shootings, and I've seen all manner of political posturing in response to citizen outrage, but that has never been that important of a consideration.

Why? Because you can empty a ten round magazine in about two seconds and a standard capacity magazine in under four. Unless you score a CNS shot, it can take more than two seconds for someone to react to even a fatal wound, it's not all that unusual for someone to survive up to five bullet wounds and the record is over twenty.

Finally, your accuracy when shooting that quickly under stress at anything further than point blank range usually means a lot of misses.

Ryan

Old_Bald_Guy
12-08-2012, 10:20 AM
If you put more than 3-4 rounds in them, you had better have a trail of blood (in the act, not after) showing that they were still coming after you with a weapon after you fired shots... .
And you know this how? That's a rather extreme generalization. You're justified in shooting or you're not; a trail of blood is not required to demonstrate that you were righteously in fear for your life from an intruder in your home and that as far as you knew in the heat of the moment, he still posed a threat. Yeah, I know about the reputations and anecdotal characterizations of the prosecutorial histories of certain jurisdictions in CA, but a generalization like that isn't supported by the data as far as I know. If you have some data, please post it.

Or maybe it was just hyperbole to illustrate a point?

SWalt
12-08-2012, 10:32 AM
A magazine change, followed by more rounds fired when it can be demonstrated that the threat was stopped before the magazine change (harder to prove than you might think) would indeed be a problem. However, emptying the magazine or cylinder is a frequent complaint about police shootings, and I've seen all manner of political posturing in response to citizen outrage, but that has never been that important of a consideration.

Why? Because you can empty a ten round magazine in about two seconds and a standard capacity magazine in under four. Unless you score a CNS shot, it can take more than two seconds for someone to react to even a fatal wound, it's not all that unusual for someone to survive up to five bullet wounds and the record is over twenty.

Finally, your accuracy when shooting that quickly under stress at anything further than point blank range usually means a lot of misses.

Ryan

Not disagreeing with you at all, all depends on the circumstance and evidence however. "Hard to prove" might be if there is no witness. Suppose a wife or child was a witness and when pulled aside said " he went back and got another thing to put in the gun and shot him 2 more times to be sure he was dead"? Any manor of scenarios can happen. A person shot 5 times can still advance and pose a threat, but the evidence should show, through a blood trail, of them advancing. And also, he could be shot 5 times and drop dead in the same spot, but a mag change and follow up shots involves time, especially if one is already in panic mode. That would have to be explained. Just all sorts of scenarios.

I think the OP is worried what would happen after a justified shooting in his home. I don't see the cops hauling him off if the shooting is justified. But the advice I was giving is:

1) Shut the hell up and ask them to investigate first and you will give a statement after they investigate.
2) After they investigate and they want to ask you for your statement, first ask if you are gonna be arrested.
3) If they say no, then give them an accurate, brief statement. If they say you will be arrested, shut the hell up.

I think its good advice

SilverTauron
12-08-2012, 10:52 AM
If the forensic evidence is consistent with the statement of self defense by the owner,then all should be well.For the most part that's how things play out.

Where things go to pot is when the prosecutor or DA decides to press charges on their own initiative.The police may close the case and consider it a clear cut self defense incident,but if political outcry or personal bias comes into play the homeowner will be in a heap o' trouble.Observe Florida Prosecutor Angela Morely's cancellation of Zimmermann's grand jury hearing. Sadl,we can't control this very important variable.Even in 'right to carry' states we have liberal leaning DAs too.

Meplat
12-08-2012, 4:26 PM
What happens really depends on the county it happened in and who the Chief law enforcement officer is of your jurisdiction. In one county you could be called a hero and did a great service for the citizens of your community. The other you will lose your Second Amendment rights for life, thousands of dollars of legal bills and be branded a racist, mentally ill vigilante.

It’s not just the CLEO it is also the DA and general political/social climate of where you live. Our last DA put burglars on notice that if a householder shot them as they were fleeing over the back fence it would not be prosecuted, and actually followed through. The DA that followed that one said there would be no change in policy, I have not heard of any cases one way or the other with the new one. It’s a nice ace in the hole, but I’m not going to push my luck and try it. I don't need that kind of drama if the threat is running away!

darksands
12-08-2012, 4:52 PM
I would think that if someone does get in trouble it is because they said something out of confisisiom on record. Lets just say I would ALWAYS consult a lawyer before speaking with investigators. It's comes down to how you articulate the situation. "I was in fear for my life".

MOA1
12-08-2012, 5:51 PM
If you shoot somebody, you will be going for a ride to the police dept. so will your gun.

I think the only solid advice I would give a person is: You might say, I shot an intruder.

That's it. And I'm not even sure you should say that. You WILL face a civil suit, anything you say can and will be used against you. Twisted to mean whatever they want it to mean. Let your lawyer do the talking.

Novator
12-08-2012, 7:15 PM
If you shoot somebody, you will be going for a ride to the police dept. so will your gun.

I think the only solid advice I would give a person is: You might say, I shot an intruder.

That's it. And I'm not even sure you should say that. You WILL face a civil suit, anything you say can and will be used against you. Twisted to mean whatever they want it to mean. Let your lawyer do the talking.

Ok I was unaware that civil suits were mandatory, and quite frankly refusing to talk to the police at all following a self defense shoot is a garunteed way to earn a trip in a police cruiser.

Following Massad Ayoob's post shoot instructions is your best bet.

spetsnaz
12-08-2012, 7:37 PM
better to have the lawyer do all the talking

the86d
12-09-2012, 3:45 AM
Where in the PC does it say you are limited to 3-4 rounds? I dont see it.

And you know this how? That's a rather extreme generalization. You're justified in shooting or you're not; a trail of blood is not required to demonstrate that you were righteously in fear for your life from an intruder in your home and that as far as you knew in the heat of the moment, he still posed a threat. Yeah, I know about the reputations and anecdotal characterizations of the prosecutorial histories of certain jurisdictions in CA, but a generalization like that isn't supported by the data as far as I know. If you have some data, please post it.

Or maybe it was just hyperbole to illustrate a point?

I said that 3-4 rounds is probably your limit, IF the threat has stopped.

If you shoot them once the threat has stopped (they halt their advance and their body "goes into shock" even just dazing them, they turn around, turn sideways writhing in pain,) turn around to cease and desist the illegal activity they were initially intent upon, and then you shoot them in the side, or the back, the exit wounds WILL be evidence, as will the blood splatter patterns, and you WILL probably be going to jail for murder. If you shoot someone on the ground, while they are just bleeding (due to CNS damage?), this will be probably be seen as an execution.

Trayvon Martin was beating the Zimmerman's head against the ground, and then went for Zimmerman's handgun, but who did all the ignorant fools that follow the media, AND black panthers, AND even Obama side with?
Better safe than sorry. Just MY thoughts...

Moonshine
12-09-2012, 4:26 AM
In Cali I'm sure if you shot a home invader the first place you're going is downtown. Heck I keep pepper spray with me and my phone a gun is the last resort... Even if you are justified in a self defense shooting in this state you'll likely spend years in court in civil law suits while the home invaders family members sue you.

The way I look at it a home invader living and going to prison faces a fate far worse than death... California's prisons are medieval and make Mexican prisons look like Hilton!

socal2310
12-09-2012, 6:57 AM
This has been noted previously in the thread, but it bears repeating:

Claims that the homeowner shooting a burglar is likely to go through the wringer has never been substantiated. Indeed, we have almost innumerable counter-examples. I have never even heard of an arrest that wasn't associated with bg on bg crimes (homeowner was targeted because of criminal activity).

In fact, there is one case that seems heavily slanted against the paranoia involving a convicted felon. My google fu is weak right now, but there was an L.A. County case about four years ago where a convicted felon defended his girlfriend and her mother from a knife wielding assailant with a gun he retrieved at the residence (legally owned by either his girlfriend or her mother), then barricaded himself in panic. After he surrendered to police, he was arrested but the DA decided to drop charges.

Seizing the weapon in question is standard practice, even with police shootings, of course yours will be taken.

Self-defense shootings in public are another matter entirely. We've all heard horror stories about prosecutorial persecutions even in relatively gun-friendly locales.

Ryan

Robidouxs
12-09-2012, 7:54 AM
If someone is in my house that is not supposed to be there I am going to empty magazine. I won't be counting rounds, all I will be caring about is stopping the threat. Chances are that your accuracy won't be stellar so I expect to shoot until the threat is stopped, including if this leads to death of the intruder. I am immune to civil lawsuits because of a new Arizona law.

Dantedamean
12-09-2012, 8:47 AM
It also depends on who you shoot and who is paying attention. Look at the Zimmerman case in Florida, went from a good shoot to a messy case because the media got involved. They took the side of the poor black kid just walking home.

Gunlawyer
12-09-2012, 10:56 AM
This is not legal advice but just my humble opinion. lol

In a shooting always have an attorney present before talking with the police.

In the prompt 911 (Dont wait til the person bleeds out for 24hrs) call say this ONLY, "Someone forcibly entered my house. I was in imminent danger and feared for my life. There was a shooting and the intruder is down. Please send the police. I am (description of yourself including clothing worn)." Do not say anymore.

Do not say anymore to police at scene without an attorney present.

With regards to "how many shots you may shoot and only shooting 3-4 rounds" -thats ridiculous. You are authorized to shoot until the threat has stopped. If it takes 5 rounds til the threat drops and stops coming toward you then shoot 5 rounds, if you empty your clip into the intruder and he is still coming up the stairs after you then reload and keep shooting til he drops. I do not suggest shooting in the back of the head when he is down to finish him off-lol. Also do you really think you are counting rounds in that situation. Just dont answer questions abut round count until you and your attorney have discussed this and you know to answer like this, "I shot until the threat stopped until he stopped coming towards me and was down."

jaymz
12-09-2012, 11:36 AM
If you shoot somebody, you will be going for a ride to the police dept. so will your gun.

I think the only solid advice I would give a person is: You might say, I shot an intruder.

That's it. And I'm not even sure you should say that. You WILL face a civil suit, anything you say can and will be used against you. Twisted to mean whatever they want it to mean. Let your lawyer do the talking.

If it's a good shoot, the post above is 100% false. Your sigline says one test is better than a 1000 opinions (something to that effect). I posted the "test" earlier.

Ok I was unaware that civil suits were mandatory, and quite frankly refusing to talk to the police at all following a self defense shoot is a garunteed way to earn a trip in a police cruiser.

Following Massad Ayoob's post shoot instructions is your best bet.

Civil suits are not mandatory. I don't know what Ayoob's post shoot advice is, but I'd be leery of following the advice of a guy that's supposedly got all of these "qualifications", but really doesn't have much real world experience.

RomanDad
12-09-2012, 11:41 AM
When a homeowner shoots an armed intruder. What level of investigation do police have for situations like this. Lets say its clear the homeowner legally owned the gun, and the intruder was armed.

Do the execute a search warrant and treat the homeowner like they may have committed a crime?

No offense, but the question sounds like "if I shoot somebody in my home are they going to find the other illegal stuff I'm doing?"

If you shoot somebody in your home, your home has just become a crime scene. You have a dead (or seriously wounded) guy on your floor.

The police are going to treat it as a crime until they are convinced it isn't.

And if you don't consent to them coming in, it will take them 2 seconds to get a warrant (which they dont really need, because of the guy on your floor).

You (or your lawyer) just saying "I dont know that guy, he broke in and he had a gun" may be true, but the police aren't just going to take your word for it. They are going to conduct an investigation to find out WHO the dead guy is, (is he a bible salesman, or is he a career criminal?) WHY he might be there (is he there to rob you, or is he your business partner?), HOW he was killed (was he armed? Can they trace THAT weapon back to him or does it look like you grabbed a knife out of the kitchen and tossed it down after the fact? Does your story match the evidence?), WHO you are (are you just an easy target for a lowlife, or are you selling drugs out of your coat closet and this is a drug deal gone bad?), IF the the two of you had any previous dealings, and whether you have any other motives to kill the guy (You're banging his wife on the side and she's got a million dollar insurance policy on him).


If its self defense, its self defense, the evidence will bear that out, and you'll be fine.... But its a homicide, and investigating those is their biggest job...

Patrick Aherne
12-09-2012, 11:45 AM
[B)

Just a thought, if a sworn peace officer (aka LEO) were to be in the same situation as a citizen, would said peace officer's weapon be confiscated ? Or is it "professional courtesy" not to do that ?[/B]

Yes, if you fire rounds, your duty weapon, possibly your backup and your rifle/shotgun get taken into evidence and sent to the crime lab. You also get tested for gun shot residue, driven to the station, mirandized and interviewed, if you do not chose to invoke your right to legal representation.

Many agencies NEVER give the firearm back, or in the case of one Bay Area county, wait until all civil remedy timelines have run out, so the deputy has to go buy a new rifle because he isn't getting it back for three years.

Scuba Steve33
12-09-2012, 2:36 PM
I said that 3-4 rounds is probably your limit, IF the threat has stopped.

If you shoot them once the threat has stopped (they halt their advance and their body "goes into shock" even just dazing them, they turn around, turn sideways writhing in pain,) turn around to cease and desist the illegal activity they were initially intent upon, and then you shoot them in the side, or the back, the exit wounds WILL be evidence, as will the blood splatter patterns, and you WILL probably be going to jail for murder. If you shoot someone on the ground, while they are just bleeding (due to CNS damage?), this will be probably be seen as an execution.

Trayvon Martin was beating the Zimmerman's head against the ground, and then went for Zimmerman's handgun, but who did all the ignorant fools that follow the media, AND black panthers, AND even Obama side with?
Better safe than sorry. Just MY thoughts...

:facepalm:

-hanko
12-09-2012, 2:53 PM
If you shoot somebody, you will be going for a ride to the police dept. so will your gun.
Your gun may, you not necessarily so.

Even if you are justified in a self defense shooting in this state you'll likely spend years in court in civil law suits while the home invaders family members sue you.

The way I look at it a home invader living and going to prison faces a fate far worse than death... California's prisons are medieval and make Mexican prisons look like Hilton!
How 'bout a case where that's happened...:rolleyes::confused:

-hanko

Foebia
12-09-2012, 2:56 PM
Wife will use a taser then run. I love less then lethal devices. Taking a persons life is huge and will also change yours forever. Hearing the fridge open and you lay in 8 rubber 12g slugs into gramdma wont be as bad as the alternative. Plus you will not hesitate, which could be harmful to your health.
Ultimately it may be up to a jury, and their own ideas of guns and not really the law. If i was on a jury for any self defense, i would make sure it was a hung jury.

Foebia
12-09-2012, 2:56 PM
Wife will use a taser then run. I love less then lethal devices. Taking a persons life is huge and will also change yours forever. Hearing the fridge open and you lay in 8 rubber 12g slugs into gramdma wont be as bad as the alternative. Plus you will not hesitate, which could be harmful to your health.
Ultimately it may be up to a jury, and their own ideas of guns and not really the law. If i was on a jury for any self defense, i would make sure it was a hung jury.

Scuba Steve33
12-09-2012, 3:23 PM
Wife will use a taser then run. I love less then lethal devices. Taking a persons life is huge and will also change yours forever. Hearing the fridge open and you lay in 8 rubber 12g slugs into gramdma wont be as bad as the alternative. Plus you will not hesitate, which could be harmful to your health.
Ultimately it may be up to a jury, and their own ideas of guns and not really the law. If i was on a jury for any self defense, i would make sure it was a hung jury.

:facepalm:

Wonder if I can go three for three.

Novator
12-09-2012, 5:25 PM
Wife will use a taser then run. I love less then lethal devices. Taking a persons life is huge and will also change yours forever. Hearing the fridge open and you lay in 8 rubber 12g slugs into gramdma wont be as bad as the alternative. Plus you will not hesitate, which could be harmful to your health.
Ultimately it may be up to a jury, and their own ideas of guns and not really the law. If i was on a jury for any self defense, i would make sure it was a hung jury.

Seriously.... How about identifying the "intruder" before opening fire even with less lethal means.

kaligaran
12-09-2012, 5:46 PM
In reference to firing till your threat is stopped...

When I took my CCW class years and years ago back in TN, one of the things that the instructor (a retired police detective) talked about was not saying (after a shoot) how many shots you fired.
The reason he explained was that b/c when the adrenalin dump you will most likely think you fired just a shot or two but may have unloaded your entire magazine.
You may be 100% sure you fired only a couple but you most likely won't realize till you look at the magazine.

BrokerB
12-09-2012, 10:16 PM
If you are calling 911 after you shot an attacker because you were in fear for your life or great bodily injury to you and loved ones......first thing said is " send an ambulance"

If you got to court at least there playing a caring audio message

Rubber slugs? ...wow if your life is threatened you better dam well know what your shooting at rambo .. And rubber slugs at 8feet are going to put bi g dents in grandmas skull.

Dantedamean
12-10-2012, 8:40 AM
I've been told my many LEOs I've spoken with, when the police show up say nothing more than: I was in fear for my life and I want to speak with a lawyer.

The Shadow
12-10-2012, 5:41 PM
Yes, if you fire rounds, your duty weapon, possibly your backup and your rifle/shotgun get taken into evidence and sent to the crime lab. You also get tested for gun shot residue, driven to the station, mirandized and interviewed, if you do not chose to invoke your right to legal representation.

Many agencies NEVER give the firearm back, or in the case of one Bay Area county, wait until all civil remedy timelines have run out, so the deputy has to go buy a new rifle because he isn't getting it back for three years.

Okay, so an agency never gives the firearm back to the employee involved in the shooting. That's fine if he's guilty of a crime or the firearm BELONGS to the agency. But what if it's obvious that it's a good shoot ? Do they simply take the one that he used, and then issue another department firearm, or is the employee just SOL until the investigation is complete ? And what if it's a peace officer from another agency, involved in an off duty shooting ? Lets put this into a scenario that is much like a shooting where a private citizen is involved.

1. LEO is off duty.

2. LEO is at home.

3. Violent intruder forces way into hypothetical LEO's home.

4. LEO responds to threat and shoots criminal with DEPARTMENT issued firearm.

5. As is common among LEOs, said LEO lives in a jurisdiction that they do not work in.

What does an agency do ?

Old_Bald_Guy
12-10-2012, 8:04 PM
Trayvon Martin was beating the Zimmerman's head against the ground, and then went for Zimmerman's handgun, but who did all the ignorant fools that follow the media, AND black panthers, AND even Obama side with?
Better safe than sorry. Just MY thoughts...
Zimmerman's story has become your reality, evidently. The evidence shows that Zimmerman sustained injuries. There is no physical evidence that Martin went for his gun. There's also no way to know if Martin did or did not stand his ground and defend himself against a perceived threat who was following him. He's dead and can't say. Before you launch into a burden of proof debate, don't bother. Arguing Zimmerman's actions and the merits vs demerits of SYG aren't gonna go anywhere but endless circles. Same with the role of the fake "organization" known as the new black panthers, or President Obama's real vs perceived position on the guilt or innocence of the defendant. You seem to think you "know" things that aren't really known.

As far as the house scenario, my point was that if you fire numerous rounds at some intruder in the space of a few seconds as your adrenaline spikes and you're in mortal fear for the lives of your wife and kids and everything is happening at once, the fact that you fired more than 3 or 4 rounds isn't gonna be some kind of magical and arbitrary threshold. The fact that he may have started falling in that 3 second interval won't be the automatic nail in your coffin as you seemed to characterize it. Sure, if you shoot him, he falls, and then you shoot him some more as he lies supine on the floor, that's a different story.

Saym14
12-10-2012, 8:17 PM
LEO's are always on duty.
local PD will investigate and probably contact employer.

APV
12-10-2012, 8:19 PM
Can anybody clarify if it is legal to keep unlocked guns and unlocked ammo at home? I am bit confused about self defense. My impression was that firearms and ammunition should be kept locked separately at home which makes self defense almost impossible unless the intruder decided to knock at the door with the announcement of his evil plans. Is it legal to keep a loaded magazine at home or ammo next to the rifle?

Robidouxs
12-10-2012, 8:32 PM
My guns are loaded and ready to go. Why would I risk it when someone breaks into my house?

oldsmoboat
12-11-2012, 4:31 AM
Can anybody clarify if it is legal to keep unlocked guns and unlocked ammo at home? I am bit confused about self defense. My impression was that firearms and ammunition should be kept locked separately at home which makes self defense almost impossible unless the intruder decided to knock at the door with the announcement of his evil plans. Is it legal to keep a loaded magazine at home or ammo next to the rifle?
My self defense guns are kept loaded and ready. (What good are they otherwise?) But we have no kids in the house. When the grandkids come over the guns get locked up in the safe.

Saym14
12-11-2012, 10:26 AM
There is a law that u can be held criminally liable if a child finds your insecure gun and gets hurt or hurts someone

kaligaran
12-11-2012, 10:32 AM
Can anybody clarify if it is legal to keep unlocked guns and unlocked ammo at home? I am bit confused about self defense. My impression was that firearms and ammunition should be kept locked separately at home which makes self defense almost impossible unless the intruder decided to knock at the door with the announcement of his evil plans. Is it legal to keep a loaded magazine at home or ammo next to the rifle?

Your location says 'bay area' if you are in San Fran city proper then there's another ordinance that applies in your home that is currently being challenged by the NRA.
A 2007 San Francisco ordinance requires handgun owners to keep weapons locked up or use trigger locks when stored at home.
Here's a recent link with the latest info on the challenge: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Federal-judge-upholds-San-Francisco-gun-laws-4073273.php

robster11
12-11-2012, 11:54 AM
Good advice on calling a lawyer and shutting up. I also didn't think about the civil suits that inevitably come.

Civil suits could end up being pretty damaging. My company , and many others specifically ask and possibly check on any civil suits. Anything that can damaging a companies reputation could get someone tossed.

advocatusdiaboli
12-11-2012, 12:19 PM
This has been noted previously in the thread, but it bears repeating:

Claims that the homeowner shooting a burglar is likely to go through the wringer has never been substantiated. Indeed, we have almost innumerable counter-examples. I have never even heard of an arrest that wasn't associated with bg on bg crimes (homeowner was targeted because of criminal activity).

Ryan

Bull Puckey!!!!! Here is a recent one from Marin County CA Left Coast:

A 90-year-old California man who was shot during an alleged burglary has reportedly been sued by the admitted methamphetamine addict who allegedly shot him.
The Marin Independent Journal reports that Samuel Cutrufelli, 31, claims Jay Leone “negligently shot” him during a January confrontation inside Leone’s home in Greenbrae. Authorities have said Cutrufelli entered the home and put a gun to Leone’s head before binding the elderly man with a belt and rummaging through the residence for valuables.
Leone said he was able to wriggle his hands loose before convincing Cutrufelli to let him use the bathroom. He then grabbed one of the five handguns from his bedroom and spotted Cutrufelli in his closet. Cutrufelli, in turn, allegedly fired his gun, striking Leone in the jaw. Leone then fired back before Cutrufelli wrestled his gun away and put the gun to Leone’s head and pulled the trigger — but no bullets remained in the gun.
Both men were hospitalized for an extended period following the gun fight. Cutrufelli claims Leone caused him “great bodily injury, and other financial damage, including loss of Mr. Cutrufelli’s home, and also the dissolution of Mr. Cutrufelli’s marriage,” the newspaper reports.



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/25/accused-burglar-reportedly-countersues-0-year-old-shooting-victim/?test=latestnews

greg36f
12-11-2012, 12:29 PM
Bull Puckey!!!!! Here is a recent one from Marin County CA Left Coast:




http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/25/accused-burglar-reportedly-countersues-0-year-old-shooting-victim/?test=latestnews



I think he was talking about the criminal aspect. Obviously, no one has any control over the civil aspect.

robster11
12-11-2012, 2:15 PM
I think he was talking about the criminal aspect. Obviously, no one has any control over the civil aspect.


Both could seemingly impact you in similar ways.

These type of stories really grind my gears.

scarville
12-11-2012, 2:45 PM
This might help put it in context

3vaC6jCIyLo

bbogert
12-11-2012, 2:55 PM
Bull Puckey!!!!! Here is a recent one from Marin County CA Left Coast:




http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/25/accused-burglar-reportedly-countersues-0-year-old-shooting-victim/?test=latestnews

Unreal that a meth addict that broke in to someone elses home can even file a suit. Totally unreal. I hadn't heard this story and I live 1 town away from Greenbrae.

kaligaran
12-11-2012, 3:40 PM
Unreal that a meth addict that broke in to someone elses home can even file a suit. Totally unreal. I hadn't heard this story and I live 1 town away from Greenbrae.

You can file a suit against anyone for anything.

It doesn't mean the suit has merit or will get anywhere. I'm surprised that a lawyer even took the guy's case.

SilverTauron
12-11-2012, 4:55 PM
You can file a suit against anyone for anything.

It doesn't mean the suit has merit or will get anywhere. I'm surprised that a lawyer even took the guy's case.

Its a zero sum game for the scumbag.

The lawyer takes a share of the settlement for compensation in the event of a win, so the bad guy pays $0 to file.

Unfortunately, even if the good guy wins they'll have to spend $50K on legal fees to defend themselves from the BS suit.

Grizzled Bastard
12-11-2012, 6:48 PM
Wow, a lot of speculation thrown around on this one.

I can only speak to my own experience, here in CA way back in time when things like this were looked at differently. OP wanted to know what happens, this is what happened to me.

Edited: I just typed out a Cliff Notes version of my experience when I came home to a house being burglarized and I was forced to shoot and kill a perp but my story is probably better shared FTF over a beer rather than blasted across the entire internet. These things never end well.

Bottom line OP, if it's anything like my case, you will spend some time in the local jail until the DA is satisfied that you can be cut loose or whether you're going down for the deed. In my case it was the former after sitting in the pokie for 22 hours, scared *****less about what might happen to me for defending my own life. There will be lot's of time spent getting your firearm back, as well as wondering if some attorney for the douchebag perp's family or commonlaw wife will drag you through the mud, which fortunately did not happen in my case.

None of what transpires is fun.

FastFinger
12-11-2012, 7:13 PM
I think the OP is worried what would happen after a justified shooting in his home. I don't see the cops hauling him off if the shooting is justified. But the advice I was giving is:

1) Shut the hell up and ask them to investigate first and you will give a statement after they investigate.
2) After they investigate and they want to ask you for your statement, first ask if you are gonna be arrested.
3) If they say no, then give them an accurate, brief statement. If they say you will be arrested, shut the hell up.

I think its good advice

Why ask them if they're going to arrest you? LEO are under no obligation to answer truthfully, they can say they have no intention of arresting you while they're actually having the jail housekeeping staff fluffing up your pillow and a laying out a chocolate on it.

-hanko
12-11-2012, 8:19 PM
Bull Puckey!!!!! Here is a recent one from Marin County CA Left Coast: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/25/accused-burglar-reportedly-countersues-0-year-old-shooting-victim/?test=latestnews
Context of "going through the ringer" was clearly in reference to an ARREST.

Your link says zero about an arrest.

There is NO law preventing some arse bucket from suing you in civil court for any reason whatsoever.

hth :rolleyes:

-hanko