A bit slow at calling the cops

[buttfish]

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
.

[TimRB]

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

Tim

[CinnamonBear723]

What law did he break by not telling them he fired a weapon?

[ChuckDizzle]

I've seen more questionable shootings never make it to an arrest. It really depends on the DA.

[fiddletown]

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:

      Miranda warnings. See Miranda v. ArizonaId., 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:

      Miranda

   3. Salinas, 133 S.Ct., at 2179:

      Garner v. United StatesMurphy, 465 U. S., at 427 (quoting Monia, 317 U. S., at 427)....

      
      
   4. Salinas, 133 S.Ct., at 2184:

      ....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:

      ...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):

      ...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:

      ...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)....

[VL221]

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.

[fiddletown]

....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)

   ...The

2. (emphasis in original)

   The 911 Call: Be the Complainant, Not the Respondent
   
   A huge problem for Michael Dunn

3. (emphasis in original)

   advice literally, exactly what are you going to say when the dispatcher answers your call? Really? When they ask and ambulanceYou 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....

[fiddletown]

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.

[sealocan]

Sleep-walking-shooting....



it could happen,


if his lawyer can think of it in time.

[Garand1911]

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.

[mooseboy84]

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.

[God Bless America]

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.

[CinnamonBear723]

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.

[fiddletown]

...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.

...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):

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.

...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.

[-hanko]

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?