Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > GENERAL DISCUSSION > General gun discussions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

General gun discussions This is a place to lounge and discuss firearm related topics with other forum members.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-18-2018, 6:56 PM
buttfish's Avatar
buttfish buttfish is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 297
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default A bit slow at calling the cops

UPDATE: 16 year old male identified as a suspect in a residential burglary

DATE/TIME: Saturday, July 14, 2018 - 6:13 pm

INCIDENT: Assault with a Deadly Weapon

LOCATION: Unknown

SUSPECTS: Confidential - black male juvenile 16 years of age a resident of Desert Hot Springs;
Confidential white male adult 69 years of age a resident of Yucaipa

SUMMARY:
***** UPDATE *****
Following up on this shooting investigation, detectives learned that the 16-year-old juvenile was dropped off at the 7-11 location by two black males and an unknown female, who were driving a Ford Mustang GT.

Just prior to the shooting, the three male suspects attempted to burglarize a residence in 33000 block of Wallace Way in the City of Yucaipa. As they attempted to force entry into the home through a backyard window, they were confronted by the 69-year-old homeowner. The suspects attempted to flee from the residence. As they did, the homeowner armed himself with a handgun and fired one round at the suspects, striking the 16-year male suspect. The homeowner reported the attempted burglary approx. 30 minutes after it occurred but failed to report that he fired his weapon at the suspects.

I want to see how this one plays out
.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-18-2018, 7:21 PM
TimRB TimRB is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central CA
Posts: 852
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If he shot at them while they were running away, he's probably in big trouble.

Tim
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-18-2018, 8:14 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,876
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

What law did he break by not telling them he fired a weapon?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-18-2018, 8:25 PM
ChuckDizzle ChuckDizzle is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Out and about.
Posts: 4,398
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I've seen more questionable shootings never make it to an arrest. It really depends on the DA.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-18-2018, 8:41 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,927
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonBear723 View Post
What law did he break by not telling them he fired a weapon?
When reporting an incident leaving things out can be used against you. A lack of candor can be interpreted by a grand jury or jury as a consciousness of guilt.
  1. See, for example, Salinas v. Texas, 133 S.Ct. 2174, 186 L. Ed. 2d 376, 81 USLW 4467 (2013) in which the Supreme Court ruled that one's failure to answer a question during a non-custodial interview could be used against him.

    1. Salinas, 133 S.Ct., at 2178:
      Quote:
      ...Petitioner’s interview with the police lasted approximately one hour. All agree that the interview was noncustodial, and the parties litigated this case on the assumption that he was not read Miranda warnings. See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). For most of the interview, petitioner answered the officer's questions. But when asked whether his shotgun “would match the shells recovered at the scene of the murder,” App. 17, petitioner declined to answer. Instead, petitioner “[l]ooked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, cl[e]nched his hands in his lap, [and] began to tighten up.” Id., at 18. After a few moments of silence, the officer asked additional questions, which petitioner answered. Ibid....
    2. Salinas, 133 S.Ct., at 2178-2179:
      Quote:
      ...Petitioner did not testify at trial. Over his objection, prosecutors used his reaction to the officer's question during the 1993 interview as evidence of his guilt. The jury found petitioner guilty, and he received a 20–year sentence. On direct appeal to the Court of Appeals of Texas, petitioner argued that prosecutors' use of his silence as part of their case in chief violated the Fifth Amendment. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument, reasoning that petitioner's pre-arrest, pre-Miranda silence was not “compelled” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. 368 S.W.3d 550, 557–559 (2011). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals took up this case and affirmed on the same ground. 369 S.W.3d 176 (2012)....
    3. Salinas, 133 S.Ct., at 2179:
      Quote:
      ...The privilege against self-incrimination “is an exception to the general principle that the Government has the right to everyone’s testimony.” Garner v. United States, 424 U. S. 648, 658, n. 11 (1976). To prevent the privilege from shielding information not properly within its scope, we have long held that a witness who “‘desires the protection of the privilege . . . must claim it’” at the time he relies on it. Murphy, 465 U. S., at 427 (quoting Monia, 317 U. S., at 427)....
    4. Salinas, 133 S.Ct., at 2184:
      Quote:
      ....Before petitioner could rely on the privilege against self-incrimination, he was required to invoke it. Because he failed to do so, the judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is affirmed. ...

  2. Conduct can be evidence, and a jury may draw inferences from conduct.

    1. U.S. v. Perkins, 937 F.2d 1397 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1990), at 1402:
      Quote:
      ...the instruction explicitly stated, "the jury may consider [the false statements] as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt." Id. at 1104. Second, we have approved the use of this instruction on false exculpatory statements. See United States v. Boekelman, 594 F.2d 1238, 1240 (9th Cir.1979) (court noted approval of standard Devitt & Blackmar instruction and distinguished Di Stefano in upholding a variation from the standard instruction); United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435, 443 (9th Cir.1976)....
    2. State v. Wimbush, 260 Iowa 1262, 150 N.W.2d 653 (Iowa, 1967), at 656 (emphasis added):
      Quote:
      ...In Wigmore on Evidence, Third Ed., section 276, Volume II, page 111, under the title 'Conduct as Evidence of Guilt' the editor states: 'It is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused's flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.'....
    3. Martin v. State, 707 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.App.-Beaumont, 1986), at 245:
      Quote:
      ...In 2 RAY, TEXAS LAW OF EVIDENCE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL sec. 1538 (Texas Practice 3rd ed. 1980), we find:

      "Sec. 1538 Conduct as Evidence of Guilt

      "A 'consciousness of guilt' is perhaps one of the strongest kinds of evidence of guilt. It is consequently a well accepted principle that any conduct on the part of a person accused of crime, subsequent to its commission, which indicates a 'consciousness of guilt' may be received as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged." ...

      See also Cuellar v. State, 613 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Crim.App.1981)....
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-18-2018, 8:52 PM
VL221's Avatar
VL221 VL221 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: NorCal
Posts: 1,449
iTrader: 29 / 100%
Default

Yikes!

From my CCW class, always give the least amount of information as possible whenever a firearm is involved. In any situation it is better to be detained or even arrested than to give a statement.
__________________
\
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-18-2018, 9:04 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,927
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VL221 View Post
....From my CCW class, always give the least amount of information as possible whenever a firearm is involved. In any situation it is better to be detained or even arrested than to give a statement.
Here's what a lawyer and well known commentator on self defense law, Andrew Branca, says about not saying anything to the police without your lawyer:
  1. (emphasis in original)
    Quote:
    ...The “say nothing until lawyer” advice is based on the reality that anything you say to police can and may be used against you. It’s certainly true that the only 100% certain way to avoid saying anything incriminating is to say nothing at all.

    Rarely mentioned, however, is that what you DON’T say can also be used against you. Sure, you have a Constitutional right to remain silent, and once you’ve asserted that right your silence cannot be used against you.

    But this privilege applies post-arrest. Your silence before then can certainly be used by the Prosecution to infer guilt—an innocent person would have mentioned self-defense at the time, they’ll argue, and the fact that you did not do so suggests you only fabricated your story of self-defense after the fact to avoid criminal liability....
  2. (emphasis in original)
    Quote:
    The 911 Call: Be the Complainant, Not the Respondent

    A huge problem for Michael Dunn in his claim of self-defense was the considerable consciousness of guilt evidence he provided to prosecutors. In particular, his flight from the scene well beyond the need to secure his safety and his failure to ever report the shooting to law enforcement before he was arrested at gun point on a murder warrant. This conduct was far more consistent with the behavior of someone who believed he’d “gotten away with it,” than it was with the behavior who believed they’d acted in lawful self-defense. This was especially damaging given that the only evidence of self-defense came from Dunn’s own testimony in court....
  3. (emphasis in original)
    Quote:
    ...Let’s assume for purposes of this post, then, that you buy into the value of being the complainant rather than the respondent, and you therefore are the first to call 911.

    Taking the “say nothing until I talk to my lawyer” advice literally, exactly what are you going to say when the dispatcher answers your call? “I will say nothing until I’ve spoken to my attorney.” Really? When they ask “what’s your emergency?” surely that statement can’t be your reply. Rather, you’ll necessarily provide some description of what’s happened and the location to which you’re asking law enforcement (and ambulance) be sent.

    So, you’re ALREADY speaking with the police. And as long as you’re doing so, my advice is to get your claim of self-defense into the evidentiary record as soon as possible. You were attacked, you were in fear for your life, you were forced to act in self-defense. Of course, all of this will be recorded, and that recording will be admissible in court. As a result, the jury will get to hear your claim of self-defense in your own words and voice, with all the stress of the moment that such an event necessarily brings with it....
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-18-2018, 9:40 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,927
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
If you don't call the cops, somebody else could be subject to a wall of text on CG in the near future that doesn't quite answer the question....
Only because you haven't bothered to try to understand the point.

Simply put: by leaving stuff out you damage your credibility and it looks like you think you're guilty of something.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-18-2018, 11:13 PM
sealocan sealocan is online now
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 9,755
iTrader: 20 / 100%
Default

Sleep-walking-shooting....



it could happen,


if his lawyer can think of it in time.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-19-2018, 12:45 AM
Garand1911's Avatar
Garand1911 Garand1911 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Occupied Territory
Posts: 1,441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

He should of called 911 ASAP, but fear, stress, getting your head right can delay the process.
He doesn't have to say he shot anyone, just say shots have been fired.

When the 911 recording is played back in court, him requesting an ambulance for the shot bad guy would make him look good with the jury.
He could also claim he tried first aid on the shot bad guy, which is why there was a delay in calling 911.
__________________
"I saved your life, AND brought you pizza" -- Me
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-19-2018, 5:19 AM
mooseboy84 mooseboy84 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 52
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

How ironic, I just reading thread Captain Save a Woman, and then see this.

You never know, there could have been something illegal / or that had to be destroyed. It may have been a random or targeted.

I feel bad for 16 year old, but that's the risk one takes when they try living the street life.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-19-2018, 6:01 AM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5,163
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mooseboy84 View Post
I feel bad for 16 year old, but that's the risk one takes when they try living the street life.
Not me. Not at all.

Last edited by God Bless America; 07-19-2018 at 12:04 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-19-2018, 11:46 AM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,876
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Only because you haven't bothered to try to understand the point.

Simply put: by leaving stuff out you damage your credibility and it looks like you think you're guilty of something.
That was kinda my point. I'm well aware of how grand juries operate and all, but I was just making a point that there is no law the forces anyone to tell the police anything. In fact, there's this whole pesky fifth amendment thing written in this old *** document for those in the U.S.

Also leaving things out is different than refusing to answer a question.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-19-2018, 2:25 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,927
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonBear723 View Post
...I was just making a point that there is no law the forces anyone to tell the police anything....
Well as you put it there, that's not true.

A lot depends on situation and purpose. So, for example, someone who is a mere witness (not a person of interest) might at times be compelled to answer questions or provide information pursuant to a subpoena, or things pursuant to a search warrant.

And in the context of the subject being discussed in this thread, i. e., the homeowner's failure to disclose when reporting an incident, that he fired shots, that is (1) misleading; and (2) not useful. You're assuming that without a specific statute one's conduct doesn't have legal significance.

But as I outlined, conduct can be used in evidence and therefore affect the outcome of a legal proceeding in which you are the subject.

So, for example, if the DA chooses to charge the homeowner with assault, the DA could comment to a jury that the jury should consider the homeowner's failure to disclose, when he reported the incident, that he fired his gun as evidence of guilt, i. e., knowledge that under the circumstances any threat had passed and thus he was justified in using lethal force.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonBear723 View Post
...In fact, there's this whole pesky fifth amendment thing written in this old *** document for those in the U.S....
So you have a poor understanding of the Fifth Amendment and its limitations.

Do you in fact know what the Fifth Amendment actually says. Well here it is (emphasis added):
Quote:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
That does not describe a broad right to not say anything to the police. And Salinas, outlined in post 5, helps illustrate one way in which that Fifth Amendment is limited. So in Salinas, under the circumstances of that case, i. e., a non-custodial interview in which Salinas had not formally claimed Fifth Amendment protection, Salinas could not assert a Fifth Amendment right to prevent the prosecutor from commenting on Salinas' conduct during that interview, viz., a failure to answer a particular question, and to suggest to the jury that Salinas' conduct in that regard could be considered evidence of guilt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonBear723 View Post
...Also leaving things out is different than refusing to answer a question.
What would matter is whether Fifth Amendment protections would apply. If they do not, conduct generally would be fair game for comment by a prosecutor, and that could include a failure to answer a question, making a statement that's untrue, leaving information out or a statement, etc. See the cases cited in post 5.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-19-2018, 3:01 PM
-hanko's Avatar
-hanko -hanko is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Bay Area & SW Idaho
Posts: 14,176
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Question

Help me understand.

Assuming it was a "good shoot", why is the shooter in court, and why the grand jury stuff?

If you're talking civil suit, 2 things...

You can and may be sued for anything...which is why you carry liability insurance and have an attorney.

To my knowledge, grand juries function in criminal, not civil, matters. Correct?
__________________
True wealth is time. Time to enjoy life.

Life's journey is not to arrive safely in a well preserved body, but rather to slide in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "holy schit...what a ride"!!

Heaven goes by favor. If it went by merit, you would stay out and your dog would go in. Mark Twain

A man's soul can be judged by the way he treats his dog. Charles Doran
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-19-2018, 3:14 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5,163
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
Help me understand.

Assuming it was a "good shoot", why is the shooter in court, and why the grand jury stuff?

If you're talking civil suit, 2 things...

You can and may be sued for anything...which is why you carry liability insurance and have an attorney.

To my knowledge, grand juries function in criminal, not civil, matters. Correct?
No. There are also civil grand juries.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-19-2018, 3:18 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5,163
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Well as you put it there, that's not true.
Which law requires anybody to speak with the police?

As originally asked: What law did he break by not telling them he fired a weapon?

Cite that law. No more walls of text. Just cite that law.

Cite now, or forever hold your peace.

Last edited by God Bless America; 07-19-2018 at 3:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-19-2018, 4:07 PM
wpod's Avatar
wpod wpod is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,394
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Not calling LE right away worked quite well for Ted Kennedy.
Though not a shooting. Guess that made it ok.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-19-2018, 4:51 PM
CBR_rider CBR_rider is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,561
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Well as you put it there, that's not true.

A lot depends on situation and purpose. So, for example, someone who is a mere witness (not a person of interest) might at times be compelled to answer questions or provide information pursuant to a subpoena, or things pursuant to a search warrant.

And in the context of the subject being discussed in this thread, i. e., the homeowner's failure to disclose when reporting an incident, that he fired shots, that is (1) misleading; and (2) not useful. You're assuming that without a specific statute one's conduct doesn't have legal significance.

But as I outlined, conduct can be used in evidence and therefore affect the outcome of a legal proceeding in which you are the subject.

So, for example, if the DA chooses to charge the homeowner with assault, the DA could comment to a jury that the jury should consider the homeowner's failure to disclose, when he reported the incident, that he fired his gun as evidence of guilt, i. e., knowledge that under the circumstances any threat had passed and thus he was justified in using lethal force.

So you have a poor understanding of the Fifth Amendment and its limitations.

Do you in fact know what the Fifth Amendment actually says. Well here it is (emphasis added):That does not describe a broad right to not say anything to the police. And Salinas, outlined in post 5, helps illustrate one way in which that Fifth Amendment is limited. So in Salinas, under the circumstances of that case, i. e., a non-custodial interview in which Salinas had not formally claimed Fifth Amendment protection, Salinas could not assert a Fifth Amendment right to prevent the prosecutor from commenting on Salinas' conduct during that interview, viz., a failure to answer a particular question, and to suggest to the jury that Salinas' conduct in that regard could be considered evidence of guilt.




What would matter is whether Fifth Amendment protections would apply. If they do not, conduct generally would be fair game for comment by a prosecutor, and that could include a failure to answer a question, making a statement that's untrue, leaving information out or a statement, etc. See the cases cited in post 5.
So are you saying a law was actually broken by the homeowner or not?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
[BTW, I have no problem seeing DEA Agents and drug cops hanging from ropes, but that's a separate political issue.]
Stay classy, CGF and Calguns.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-19-2018, 5:18 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,927
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
...Assuming it was a "good shoot", why is the shooter in court, and why the grand jury stuff?....
One can never assume an incident was a good shoot. That will need to be decided by the DA and/or the grand jury and/or (if you're really unlucky) the jury at your trial.

All sorts of things will factor into the making of those decisions -- including things you said, or didn't say, or left out of your statements, or inconsistencies in different statements made at different times, or other things you did or didn't do after the incident.

And looking at the OP, it can't be assumed that the homeowner here is out of the woods. Of course, this happened only a few days ago, so we don't have all the information. But it looks like the guy shot at a couple of bad guys who were running away. That's not the sort of fact that will be likely to help the powers that be conclude this was a good shoot. And his failure to mention that he fired could lead to the inference that he knew he was in the wrong to have done so and tried to cover it up/

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
...If you're talking civil suit, 2 things...

You can and may be sued for anything...which is why you carry liability insurance and have an attorney....
But your'e still going to want to put on the best defense you can, if for no other reason than to reduce any settlement amount. And conduct from which the elements of liability can be inferred is still evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -hanko View Post
.....To my knowledge, grand juries function in criminal, not civil, matters. Correct?
Well:
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
...There are also civil grand juries.
But the role of a civil grand jury is to investigate and report on the operations of county and local government entities. So they're irrelevant to this discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
...No more walls of text.....
Don't tell me how to respond. If I choose to answer one of your questions I will answer in a manner I decide is appropriate and is accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
... or forever hold your peace.
And don't tell me to "hold my peace." As long as I'm a member here I will post as I see fit -- subject only to the rules of this board.

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
Which law requires anybody to speak with the police?...
You're looking for a simplistic answer. However, reality is not obliged to accommodate your need for simplistic answers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wpod View Post
Not calling LE right away worked quite well for Ted Kennedy.
Though not a shooting. Guess that made it ok....
No, what made it okay was that he was Ted Kennedy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR_rider View Post
So are you saying a law was actually broken by the homeowner or not?
You're someone else looking for simplistic answers. But the world, and particularly the legal system, doesn't work that way.

It's often not a matter of violating a statute. It's often a matter of certain acts or omissions in certain contexts are likely to have adverse legal consequences. And things you say or don't say, or things you do or don't do, can sometimes be used against you.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-19-2018, 5:25 PM
CBR_rider CBR_rider is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,561
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
One can never assume an incident was a good shoot. That will need to be decided by the DA and/or the grand jury and/or (if you're really unlucky) the jury at your trial.

All sorts of things will factor into the making of those decisions -- including things you said, or didn't say, or left out of your statements, or inconsistencies in different statements made at different times, or other things you did or didn't do after the incident.

And looking at the OP, it can't be assumed that the homeowner here is out of the woods. Of course, this happened only a few days ago, so we don't have all the information. But it looks like the guy shot at a couple of bad guys who were running away. That's not the sort of fact that will be likely to help the powers that be conclude this was a good shoot. And his failure to mention that he fired could lead to the inference that he knew he was in the wrong to have done so and tried to cover it up/

But your'e still going to want to put on the best defense you can, if for no other reason than to reduce any settlement amount. And conduct from which the elements of liability can be inferred is still evidence.

Well:But the role of a civil grand jury is to investigate and report on the operations of county and local government entities. So they're irrelevant to this discussion

Don't tell me how to respond. If I choose to answer one of your questions I will answer in a manner I decide is appropriate and is accurate.

And don't tell me to "hold my peace." As long as I'm a member here I will post as I see fit -- subject only to the rules of this board.

You're looking for a simplistic answer. However, reality is not obliged to accommodate your need for simplistic answers.



No, what made it okay was that he was Ted Kennedy.



You're someone else looking for simplistic answers. But the world, and particularly the legal system, doesn't work that way.

It's often not a matter of violating a statute. It's often a matter of certain acts or omissions in certain contexts are likely to have adverse legal consequences. And things you say or don't say, or things you do or don't do, can sometimes be used against you.
Lol, Answer the question counselor: Did the homeowner, based on the facts that we know, violate a criminal statute in this incident?

I didn’t ask if he could be held I contempt of court, I didn’t ask if he had to respond to a subpoena, testify before a grand jury, etc.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
[BTW, I have no problem seeing DEA Agents and drug cops hanging from ropes, but that's a separate political issue.]
Stay classy, CGF and Calguns.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-19-2018, 5:29 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5,163
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Blah blah blah blah...
Please put me on your ignore list
...
Done!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-19-2018, 5:37 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,927
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR_rider View Post
Lol, Answer the question counselor: Did the homeowner, based on the facts that we know, violate a criminal statute in this incident?

I didn’t ask if he could be held I contempt of court, I didn’t ask if he had to respond to a subpoena, testify before a grand jury, etc.
I answered correctly. It's too bad you don't understand the answer.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-19-2018, 5:38 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5,163
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR_rider View Post
Lol, Answer the question counselor: Did the homeowner, based on the facts that we know, violate a criminal statute in this incident?

I didn’t ask if he could be held I contempt of court, I didn’t ask if he had to respond to a subpoena, testify before a grand jury, etc.
If he is a lawyer, he is not a very good one.

Integrity is paramount to a lawyer's reputation, and integrity requires answering a question honestly, even if it is unpleasant or embarrassing to do so.

I don't know if he is really unable to understand that he is not answering the question, i.e., poor reading comprehension, or if he is refusing to for some other reason, but either way I predict another irrelevant wall of text in an effort to distract.

He certainly will not give the short answer.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-19-2018, 5:49 PM
CBR_rider CBR_rider is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,561
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
I answered correctly. It's too bad you don't understand the answer.
So no laws relating to a failure to call the police by the homeowner were in fact broken, got it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
If he is a lawyer, he is not a very good one.

Integrity is paramount to a lawyer's reputation, and integrity requires answering a question honestly, even if it is unpleasant or embarrassing to do so.

I don't know if he is really unable to understand that he is not answering the question, i.e., poor reading comprehension, or if he is refusing to for some other reason, but either way I predict another irrelevant wall of text in an effort to distract.

He certainly will not give the short answer.
I think he often gives a good summary of laws, but like any attorney they hate simple answers because those provide little potential to twist and turn. It really is a simple question we have asked and it really does have a simple answer in Regards to criminal statutes for a particular situation at a particular point in time
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwiese View Post
[BTW, I have no problem seeing DEA Agents and drug cops hanging from ropes, but that's a separate political issue.]
Stay classy, CGF and Calguns.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-19-2018, 5:59 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,927
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
If he is a lawyer, he is not a very good one....
How would you know? You're certainly no kind of a lawyer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
...integrity requires answering a question honestly,...
Which I have done, even if the answers are not the answers you wanted or expected.

In effect, the questions asked are meaningless, or rather assume a reality that doesn't exist.

Whether or not the homeowner broke some law by not reporting at the time he reported the incident that he fired a shot assumes that's what matters. But it's not. What matters, in the context of legal process is that the omission can have adverse legal consequence to the homeowner (and I've explained how).

Whether or not the homeowner committed a crime by firing simply can't be answered with the limited information available. On it's face it's always at least an assault to fire a gun at someone, and apparently the homeowner hit someone. That's prima facie aggravated assault.

But the important question is whether the homeowner can show justification and thus avoid criminal liability. That's likely to be a tough sell since the guys were running away. But there might be information we don't now have which could turn that around.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-19-2018, 7:26 PM
bronco75a's Avatar
bronco75a bronco75a is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 658
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Only because you haven't bothered to try to understand the point.

Simply put: by leaving stuff out you damage your credibility and it looks like you think you're guilty of something.
'Just whose side are you on? Enough of your bull****. We have a right to remain silent. I didn't serve 22 years in the military to throw away my rights because some old guy on calguns cites stuff contrary to my constitutional rights. If this thug didn't try to illegally break into an elderly man's home he never would have been shot. Don't end up making the homeowner the bad guy in this - he was just protecting his life/home. Just like you liberals bend over backwards for ILLEGAL aliens - they never should be in the country to begin with so spare me the crocodile tears for separating children from them - it's their own damn fault just like it's the burglars fault for committing this crime. It was his bad luck a homeowner was armed to defend said property and his life.

Last edited by bronco75a; 07-19-2018 at 7:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-19-2018, 9:02 PM
God Bless America's Avatar
God Bless America God Bless America is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 5,163
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco75a View Post
'Just whose side are you on? Enough of your bull****. We have a right to remain silent. I didn't serve 22 years in the military to throw away my rights because some old guy on calguns cites stuff contrary to my constitutional rights.
There is no law stating one has to speak to the police. None of the long, inapposite posts state anything different.

The question was (and still remains) as presented in post #3: What law did the OP break by not telling the police he fired a weapon?

But fiddletown will not give a straight answer - because there is no such law, and he will not admit that. I suspect he is embarrassed to do so at this point.

And thx bronco for defending our rights!

Last edited by God Bless America; 07-19-2018 at 9:06 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-19-2018, 9:31 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,927
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bronco75a View Post
'Just whose side are you on? Enough of your bull****. We have a right to remain silent. I didn't serve 22 years in the military to throw away my rights because some old guy on calguns cites stuff contrary to my constitutional rights.....
Thank you for your service, but you're ignorant about the law.

And I'm on the side of those who would like to understand the law as it actually is. How the law actually works is important because in the real world that's how things will be decided. Those who, as many here, fixate on how they would like things to be could be in for a big surprise if they find themselve entangled in the legal system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
...But fiddletown will not give a straight answer - ...
Here, once again, is the answer distilled:
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post

...In effect, the questions asked are meaningless, or rather assume a reality that doesn't exist.

Whether or not the homeowner broke some law by not reporting at the time he reported the incident that he fired a shot assumes that's what matters. But it's not. What matters, in the context of legal process is that the omission can have adverse legal consequence to the homeowner (and I've explained how).

Whether or not the homeowner committed a crime by firing simply can't be answered with the limited information available. On it's face it's always at least an assault to fire a gun at someone, and apparently the homeowner hit someone. That's prima facie aggravated assault.

But the important question is whether the homeowner can show justification and thus avoid criminal liability. That's likely to be a tough sell since the guys were running away. But there might be information we don't now have which could turn that around.
Accept if or not, your choice. Learn or remain ignorant, again your choice. It doesn't matter to me.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-19-2018, 9:51 PM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Classified
Posts: 8,581
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

As an investigating officer, failure to mention shots fired would immediately raise a bunch of red flags. That would immediately bring suspicion on the shooter. If the suspect was running away, that seriously complicates matters and could lead to criminal charges. If the homeowner was upfront and honest, I could easily ask certain questions that could mitigate the situation some. I’d NEVER falsify anything in a report, but the right questions could show that there wasn’t criminal intent by the shooter. Lie to me, and he’s got nothing coming. Waiting 30 minutes to call and report the incident is a problem, but could be explained depending on the circumstances.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011

NRA Life Member
CRPA Life Member
NRA Rifle Instructor
NRA Shotgun Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
DOJ Certified Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-19-2018, 10:50 PM
pistol3 pistol3 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 305
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I was in a class a few years ago about what to do after a self-defense shooting. They recommended giving a brief statement of facts to the police. I.e. there was an intruder in my house, I feared for my life, I fired at the intruder, and they fled out the back door. Without a lawyer, I don't think I would feel comfortable saying much more than that, but at least you are being up front about what happened.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-19-2018, 11:22 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,927
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistol3 View Post
...They recommended giving a brief statement of facts to the police. I.e. there was an intruder in my house, I feared for my life, I fired at the intruder, and they fled out the back door. Without a lawyer, I don't think I would feel comfortable saying much more than that, but at least you are being up front about what happened.
That would pretty well cover things preliminarily. And that's pretty much what Andrew Branca is suggesting (see post 7).

You'll probably need to make a more detailed statement later on. By then you should have gotten yourself a lawyer, and you can let him do the talking.

Also, several years ago a lawyer by the name of Lisa Steele wrote an excellent article for lawyers on defending a self defense case. The article was entitled "Defending a Self Defense Case" and was published in the March, 2007, edition of the journal of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The Champion. It was republished in four parts, with permission, on the website, Truth About Guns. The article as republished can be read here: Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; and Part 4.

As Ms. Steele explains the unique character of a self defense case in Part 1:
Quote:
...Self-defense is all-or-nothing. In order to establish it, the client has to admit being at the crime scene, with a weapon, which he or she used to intentionally harm the aggressor. The client has to admit that he injured the aggressor. The client has to convince the jury that if a reasonable person had been standing in his shoes, the reasonable person would have done the same thing. In effect, the aggressor invited his fate by threatening or inflicting serious bodily harm, or by threatening to kill the client.

In one fell swoop, the client has given up alibi and mistaken identity defenses. He or she has given up any claim that the wound was made by accident. Generally, the client must give up provocation (heat of passion or extreme emotional disturbance). Logically, provocation implies an unreasonable response to a situation, and mitigates murder to manslaughter. Self-defense implies a rational response to a very dangerous situation and, if successful, results in an acquittal. Similarly, the client must give up claims of mental illness or insanity and defenses based on intoxication or drug use....
...

... Often, the defendant will need to testify in order to establish his subjective belief about the threat and need to respond defensively. This can be done through circumstantial evidence, but it is difficult....
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-20-2018, 12:27 AM
Ron-Solo's Avatar
Ron-Solo Ron-Solo is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Classified
Posts: 8,581
iTrader: 16 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pistol3 View Post
I was in a class a few years ago about what to do after a self-defense shooting. They recommended giving a brief statement of facts to the police. I.e. there was an intruder in my house, I feared for my life, I fired at the intruder, and they fled out the back door. Without a lawyer, I don't think I would feel comfortable saying much more than that, but at least you are being up front about what happened.
I concur. A LEO isn’t going to take offense to this stance. It gives him the info for a preliminary report, is truthful, and additional info can be obtained thru later interviews.

A lie starts things off on the wrong foot and could end badly.
__________________
LASD Retired
1978-2011

NRA Life Member
CRPA Life Member
NRA Rifle Instructor
NRA Shotgun Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
DOJ Certified Instructor
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-20-2018, 9:10 AM
A-J's Avatar
A-J A-J is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,544
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonBear723 View Post
What law did he break by not telling them he fired a weapon?
It is generally illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits.
__________________
It was not a threat. It was an exaggerated response to an uncompromising stance. I was taught never to make a threat unless you are prepared to carry it out and I am not a fan of carrying anything. Even watching other people carrying things makes me uncomfortable. Mainly because of the possibility they may ask me to help.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-20-2018, 11:53 AM
major burnout's Avatar
major burnout major burnout is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 3,857
iTrader: 37 / 100%
Default

There was an illegal alien who shot and killed a nice young woman in SF. He lied and said it was an accident.

Home owner should just say he fired his weapon but accidentally struck the nice young man.
__________________
Calguns- redacted more than Hillarys bengazi emails.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rattlesnake_nm View Post
10/4 . Ranger pm'd me. I will chill on replying to insults with my own insults. Thanks for the heads up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickD427 View Post
In addition to all of the above, please note that it is illegal for you to offer an "Assault Weapon" for sale while you are in California, even if the weapon is restricted to sale out of the state.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-20-2018, 1:53 PM
Kestryll's Avatar
Kestryll Kestryll is offline
Head Janitor
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Occupied Reseda, PRK
Posts: 21,506
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
Cite that law. No more walls of text. Just cite that law.

Cite now, or forever hold your peace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Blah blah blah blah...
Please put me on your ignore list
...
Done!
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless America View Post
If he is a lawyer, he is not a very good one.

Integrity is paramount to a lawyer's reputation, and integrity requires answering a question honestly, even if it is unpleasant or embarrassing to do so.

I don't know if he is really unable to understand that he is not answering the question, i.e., poor reading comprehension, or if he is refusing to for some other reason, but either way I predict another irrelevant wall of text in an effort to distract.

He certainly will not give the short answer.
Welcome to my undivided attention.

Take a guess how well that's going to work out for you.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member / CRPA Life Member / SAF Life Member
Calguns.net an incorported entity - President.
The Calguns Shooting Sports Assoc. - Vice President.
The California Rifle & Pistol Assoc. - Director.
DONATE TO NRA-ILA, CGSSA, AND CRPAF NOW!
Opinions posted in this account are my own and unless specifically stated as such are not the approved position of Calguns.net, CGSSA or CRPA.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-20-2018, 1:55 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,876
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A-J View Post
It is generally illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits.
Yes I realize that, but as has been discussed, I was singling out whether there exists any state of federal statute that mandates you talk to the police. It has nothing to do with whether the action of firing the weapon was legal or not.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-20-2018, 2:01 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,876
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
Thank you for your service, but you're ignorant about the law.

And I'm on the side of those who would like to understand the law as it actually is. How the law actually works is important because in the real world that's how things will be decided. Those who, as many here, fixate on how they would like things to be could be in for a big surprise if they find themselve entangled in the legal system.

Here, once again, is the answer distilled:Accept if or not, your choice. Learn or remain ignorant, again your choice. It doesn't matter to me.
I hope you are not suggesting we are all ignorant of the law. You are in fact, arguing your points against a few LEO's including myself. I am well aware what the 5th amendment says and how it applies. I am also aware of Miranda Rights and how they apply as well.

I am not arguing that its a good idea to stay quiet which could lead to consequence against the shooter. I am simply saying there is no law that forces anyone to speak to the police.

This is why i phrased my original question the way I did which for some reason sent you on some sort of legal mumbo jumbo tirade. I was simply asking what law would the shooter be in violation of by no talking to the police?

That question does, in fact, have a very simple answer.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-20-2018, 2:16 PM
fiddletown's Avatar
fiddletown fiddletown is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 4,927
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CinnamonBear723 View Post
....I was singling out whether there exists any state of federal statute that mandates you talk to the police...
And as been mentioned in a number of ways that’s not really important. What’s important to understand is that if you have been involved in an incident in which you’ve used force in what you will claim is self defense, how you interact with the police can have a significant eff ct on how things work out for you.

Things like not reporting the incident promptly can work against you. Not saying anything to police can work against you. Saying too much at the wrong time can work against you. Talking but leaving things out can work against you. Saying the wrong things can work against you. Not telling the truth can work against you.

And understanding how the law works can help you better prepare to handle things in ways that will help increase you chances for a good outcome.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-20-2018, 2:23 PM
CinnamonBear723 CinnamonBear723 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Orange County
Posts: 1,876
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fiddletown View Post
And as been mentioned in a number of ways that’s not really important. What’s important to understand is that if you have been involved in an incident in which you’ve used force in what you will claim is self defense, how you interact with the police can have a significant eff ct on how things work out for you.

Things like not reporting the incident promptly can work against you. Not saying anything to police can work against you. Saying too much at the wrong time can work against you. Talking but leaving things out can work against you. Saying the wrong things can work against you. Not telling the truth can work against you.

And understanding how the law works can help you better prepare to handle things in ways that will help increase you chances for a good outcome.
We are arguing about two very different things. I never assigned a level of importance to the answer of my question. Nor did I ever say it was a good idea not to talk to the police, or argue against the consequences. I was just pointing out there are no existing statutes that forces a person to talk to the police. Don't make this into something its not.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:37 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy