A bit slow at calling the cops

[God Bless America]

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.

[God Bless America]

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.

[wpod]

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

[CBR_rider]

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?

[fiddletown]

...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/

...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.

.....To my knowledge, grand juries function in criminal, not civil, matters. Correct?

Well:

...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

...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.

... 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.

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.

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.

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.

[CBR_rider]

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.

[God Bless America]

Blah blah blah blah...
Please put me on your ignore list
...

Done!

[fiddletown]

I answered correctly. It's too bad you don't understand the answer.

[God Bless America]

Lol, Answer the question counselor

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.

[CBR_rider]

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.

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

[fiddletown]

If he is a lawyer, he is not a very good one....

How would you know? You're certainly no kind of a lawyer.

...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.

[bronco75a]

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.

[God Bless America]

'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!

[fiddletown]

'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.

...But fiddletown will not give a straight answer - ...

Here, once again, is the answer distilled:

...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.

[Ron-Solo]

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.