Wow! Now it's Illegal to be a Victim!!

[CCoburn]

I've actually been well aware for quite some time now the threat of consequence using deadly force in defense of oneself and would likely be one of my first thoughts at the outset of any such situation.

And because of the above my ideology would be to avoid deadly confrontations at all costs if possible. I'm the type that will be looking for mitigating resolutions when/if something begins brewing in whatever form it may take. I have no desire at all to "take the Nestea plunge" into the never-ending shitstorm of beaurocracy and red tape with uncertain outcomes i.e. the judicial system.

The guidelines vary by state. In my state I'm vaguely familiar with the castle doctrine which I presume is why some people jokingly say that if you shoot someone on your property make sure you drag them into your house("castle") before calling the cops.

I've also heard that when threatened with aggravated/elevated violence within your own dwelling(e.g. stranger danger) that you should "retreat" and call 911, and this particular type of scenario just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[FlyingClayDisk]

I've actually been well aware for quite some time now the threat of consequence using deadly force in defense of oneself and would likely be one of my first thoughts at the outset of any such situation.

And because of the above my ideology would be to avoid deadly confrontations at all costs if possible. I'm the type that will be looking for mitigating resolutions when/if something begins brewing in whatever form it may take. I have no desire at all to "take the Nestea plunge" into the never-ending shitstorm of beaurocracy and red tape with uncertain outcomes i.e. the judicial system.

The guidelines vary by state. In my state I'm vaguely familiar with the castle doctrine which I presume is why some people jokingly say that if you shoot someone on your property make sure you drag them into your house("castle") before calling the cops.

I've also heard that when threatened with aggravated/elevated violence within your own dwelling(e.g. stranger danger) that you should "retreat" and call 911, and this particular type of scenario just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Two things (well, maybe three)

1. The "Castle doctrine" is indeed a result of a man's home being his 'Castle', but it is also an outfall from Colorado's 1986 "Make My Day" law (before Colorado turned into a leftist kommie stronghold).  The term "Make my Day" was from the Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry, movies and it had a bad connotation, so 'Castle doctrine' was adopted in lieu of it.

2. Never, and I mean NEVER, touch someone after they've been shot!  EVER!  (Well, unless you enjoy prison food and the game of cornhole).  Whomever started circulating this crazy notion of moving a body after a shooting is insane!  Don't do it!  This is a lie one thousand times over!  Just keep your mouth shut, and let your attorney sort it out.  You have a right to remain silent.  Use it!  Cooperate, give your name and ID, that's it...and shut your pie hole. 

3. Don't rely on things you've heard.  Instead, read and understand YOUR specific State and Local statutes.  Know your laws, for fact.  I'm not going to suggest your proper course of actions because every situation is different, every location is different, but you DO have rights.  Know what they are, and don't guess.  I can say this, for my particular situation, the only thing a 9-1-1 operator will hear will be..."There has been a shooting at (xyz) address.  Send LEO's and EMS."...and not one word more (and the phone will be left off-hook for E-911 address lookup purposes by dispatchers).  No repeats (it's all on tape anyway), no names, no descriptions...nothing.  When LEO's arrive I will cooperate with their instructions (completely), and not say a word, other than..."I am not comfortable answering any questions any questions until my attorney is present".  Not a word more.  No matter how long it takes.  BTW - you can speed things up by requesting an attorney as soon as possible after being Mirandized.  Don't fall for the trap of..."you're not being arrested, only being taken for questioning" (thus, no Miranda warning).  Doesn't matter, you still don't want to answer any questions without your legal representation (attorney) present.

edit - I honestly hope and pray I never have to follow these instructions, but I know for fact these are the correct actions for my particular situation and location.

edit 2 - The "trap" I refer to above is an attempt to get you to make a statement which creates probable cause to justify your arrest.  Probable cause IS admissible evidence (in a trial).  The point being, statements made AFTER being read your Miranda rights, is ALSO admissible, BUT statements made between being arrested and being read your Miranda rights is NOT admissible.  Thus, if you say something you don't mean when you are just being 'questioned', and this leads to your arrest (i.e. creates probable cause) then it can be used against you later in a trial.  It doesn't carry the same weight as a signed confession after the fact, but it's close.  Conversely, if you request an attorney before you say anything, especially after being mirandized (following arrest) then all questioning must stop (by law).

[Maxmars]

I was always under the impression that when any citizen brandishes a firearm in public, it is appropriate to detain that citizen for questioning, just to ensure the safety of those other citizens around them.  I think police should approach and address in such cases.

But prosecutors (who seem to think they are the end of the process) demand prosecutions... and the more visible and alarming the better.

So in this case, charging the suspect with attempted murder is more sexy.  And more 'news worthy.'  Never mind that the incident seems to be over vicarious outrage about two people's in conflict on the other side of the world.

A judge needs to hear this case...  But the prosecutors 'set the framework' to make it into a 'show.'

People clash all the time.  Weapons only make those clashes overtly dangerous to anyone around them.

The bystanders in this case didn't think, the perpetrator of the attack didn't think, the person recording didn't think.  This is a case of hormones, agitation, and emotion... with no thought.

Once again, we rely on the judicial to 'evaluate'...  Where will it all end?

The end depends on the media first, the prosecutor second, and the judge third.  Ass backwards, if you ask me... in fact, the media shouldn't be in that equation at all.

[FlyingClayDisk]

...

The end depends on the media first, the prosecutor second, and the judge third.  Ass backwards, if you ask me... in fact, the media shouldn't be in that equation at all.

Correction.. the "end" NEVER depends on the media...EVER!  Seldom depends on the prosecutor, and ALWAYS depends on the JURY.  The JUDGE is a mere "tool" of administering "JUSTICE" and order.  If the judge ever becomes more than this, then he/she is legislating from the bench. 

Trial by media is anarchy.

In a weaponized justice system, all of the above are against you, but the larger net is cast upon the jury.  If we lose the objective nature of a jury, then we, as a nation, have truly lost the wishes of our Founding Fathers in this nation.

Perhaps you were being sarcastic, but I wasn't.  And, perhaps I misunderstood.  If so, my apologies...otherwise, I stand firm.

[KKLoco]

The article specifically states that Hayes was a legal gun owner. In Massachusetts, you need a permit to conceal carry. 

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resourc...-gun-laws/

The gun laws there are strict, to say the least. Hayes was a gulf war veteran. No surprise he was carrying. What’s the point of carrying a gun on you — if you can’t use it when someone is trying to choke you to death?

Not sure why I’m trying to make sense of this, as we officially live in clown world…..

[Maxmars]

Correction.. the "end" NEVER depends on the media...EVER!  Seldom depends on the prosecutor, and ALWAYS depends on the JURY.  The JUDGE is a mere "tool" of administering "JUSTICE" and order.  If the judge ever becomes more than this, then he/she is legislating from the bench. 

Trial by media is anarchy.

In a weaponized justice system, all of the above are against you, but the larger net is cast upon the jury.  If we lose the objective nature of a jury, then we, as a nation, have truly lost the wishes of our Founding Fathers in this nation.

Perhaps you were being sarcastic, but I wasn't.  And, perhaps I misunderstood.  If so, my apologies...otherwise, I stand firm.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that the media shouldn't have any place in this... but the government/media combine insists...

I think the point of the judge is to ensure that it's the law is correctly applied.  Prosecutors, being theatrically motivated, always goes for the most they can... justice be damned.  We have 'defense attorneys' who ostensibly want to offer their client the full benefit of not being 'railroaded' or 'abused' by prosecutorial privilege and entitlement.

The jury can agree or disagree... the judge ensures that it the process is executed properly, in accordance with the standing 'constitutional' principles of the law... the prosecutors simply want to score a 'win.'  The rest is all add-on...  enter the media.... who reports with inclusions of bias, inflammatory rhetoric, editorial activism, and government 'talking points.'

There was some sarcasm in there... glad you noticed.

[l0st]

I've actually been well aware for quite some time now the threat of consequence using deadly force in defense of oneself and would likely be one of my first thoughts at the outset of any such situation.

And because of the above my ideology would be to avoid deadly confrontations at all costs if possible. I'm the type that will be looking for mitigating resolutions when/if something begins brewing in whatever form it may take. I have no desire at all to "take the Nestea plunge" into the never-ending shitstorm of beaurocracy and red tape with uncertain outcomes i.e. the judicial system.

The guidelines vary by state. In my state I'm vaguely familiar with the castle doctrine which I presume is why some people jokingly say that if you shoot someone on your property make sure you drag them into your house("castle") before calling the cops.

I've also heard that when threatened with aggravated/elevated violence within your own dwelling(e.g. stranger danger) that you should "retreat" and call 911, and this particular type of scenario just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

"the never-ending shitstorm of beaurocracy and red tape with uncertain outcomes"

So, so true.

Yeah, castle doctrine varies by state. I was given your specific recommendations by the 5-0 where I used to live. ie: drop them inside the door

Duty to retreat depends on state. I lived in Maryland for a number of years and its a duty to retreat state which means if they attack you in your house you must make every attempt to leave before shooting them. Bullshit, and I don't live there anymore. That said, MD is a total police state so you're probably pretty safe otherwise.

---

Two things (well, maybe three)

1. The "Castle doctrine" is indeed a result of a man's home being his 'Castle', but it is also an outfall from Colorado's 1986 "Make My Day" law (before Colorado turned into a leftist kommie stronghold).  The term "Make my Day" was from the Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry, movies and it had a bad connotation, so 'Castle doctrine' was adopted in lieu of it.

2. Never, and I mean NEVER, touch someone after they've been shot!  EVER!  (Well, unless you enjoy prison food and the game of cornhole).  Whomever started circulating this crazy notion of moving a body after a shooting is insane!  Don't do it!  This is a lie one thousand times over!  Just keep your mouth shut, and let your attorney sort it out.  You have a right to remain silent.  Use it!  Cooperate, give your name and ID, that's it...and shut your pie hole. 

3. Don't rely on things you've heard.  Instead, read and understand YOUR specific State and Local statutes.  Know your laws, for fact.  I'm not going to suggest your proper course of actions because every situation is different, every location is different, but you DO have rights.  Know what they are, and don't guess.  I can say this, for my particular situation, the only thing a 9-1-1 operator will hear will be..."There has been a shooting at (xyz) address.  Send LEO's and EMS."...and not one word more (and the phone will be left off-hook for E-911 address lookup purposes by dispatchers).  No repeats (it's all on tape anyway), no names, no descriptions...nothing.  When LEO's arrive I will cooperate with their instructions (completely), and not say a word, other than..."I am not comfortable answering any questions any questions until my attorney is present".  Not a word more.  No matter how long it takes.  BTW - you can speed things up by requesting an attorney as soon as possible after being Mirandized.  Don't fall for the trap of..."you're not being arrested, only being taken for questioning" (thus, no Miranda warning).  Doesn't matter, you still don't want to answer any questions without your legal representation (attorney) present.

edit - I honestly hope and pray I never have to follow these instructions, but I know for fact these are the correct actions for my particular situation and location.

edit 2 - The "trap" I refer to above is an attempt to get you to make a statement which creates probable cause to justify your arrest.  Probable cause IS admissible evidence (in a trial).  The point being, statements made AFTER being read your Miranda rights, is ALSO admissible, BUT statements made between being arrested and being read your Miranda rights is NOT admissible.  Thus, if you say something you don't mean when you are just being 'questioned', and this leads to your arrest (i.e. creates probable cause) then it can be used against you later in a trial.  It doesn't carry the same weight as a signed confession after the fact, but it's close.  Conversely, if you request an attorney before you say anything, especially after being mirandized (following arrest) then all questioning must stop (by law).

Question:

What is all this BS about being "mirandized". I've been arrested many times, and not once has an officer "mirandized" me. I mean literally zero times in maybe 25 arrests.

Say what you will about being arrested. I stand up for my rights every time. I also have a "clean record".
 
I've been "arrested" about 25 times in my life and only 1 charge led to a conviction and only because I didn't fight it because I own 100% of everything I own (no mortgages, no loans no nothing) and I don't give two flying fucks what people think of me. I make my own money and I don't need to prove anything to anyone else.

---

edit 2 - The "trap" I refer to above is an attempt to get you to make a statement which creates probable cause to justify your arrest.  Probable cause IS admissible evidence (in a trial).  The point being, statements made AFTER being read your Miranda rights, is ALSO admissible, BUT statements made between being arrested and being read your Miranda rights is NOT admissible.  Thus, if you say something you don't mean when you are just being 'questioned', and this leads to your arrest (i.e. creates probable cause) then it can be used against you later in a trial.  It doesn't carry the same weight as a signed confession after the fact, but it's close.  Conversely, if you request an attorney before you say anything, especially after being mirandized (following arrest) then all questioning must stop (by law).

I've NEVER had this happen. The police will happily continue questioning, even after requesting a lawyer, and the DA will absolutely submit it as "evidence".

See, there is a difference here between what is legally supposed to be happening and what actually happens.

This country has been so far off the rails for so many years its like pulling the arm on a slot machine whether or not you get actual "justice".

[FlyingClayDisk]

 

What country are you in?

If you're in the US and you've been arrested without being read your Miranda rights, then any case against you would be thrown out...if it can be proven you were not mirandized at the time of arrest.  If you're outside the US, then I guess that's different.

Same goes for questioning after you've requested an attorney.  After you've been read your Miranda rights, and you request an attorney, no questions can continue.  Now, I suppose some LEO could try to ask you further questions, but it's kind of pointless because nothing you say after that is admissible.  Some backwater town might try some different stuff, but this is accepted legal practice in most jurisdictions.  Not just my opinion either; it's legal fact and precedent.

Oh, and you've been arrested (25) times?  Wow!

[CCoburn]

Two things (well, maybe three)

1. The "Castle doctrine" is indeed a result of a man's home being his 'Castle', but it is also an outfall from Colorado's 1986 "Make My Day" law (before Colorado turned into a leftist kommie stronghold).  The term "Make my Day" was from the Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry, movies and it had a bad connotation, so 'Castle doctrine' was adopted in lieu of it.

The last time I heard the thing about "dragging them into your house" was maybe a year ago by my GF's stepdad. In retrospect though the more I think about it, I'm not really so sure he was joking, and knowing that guy, he may well have been serious as a heart attack. This guy is always wanting to buy my guns, and these days I only have a couple left. He's an old survivalist borderline doomsday prepper who loves his beer on a daily basis. He usually buys the cheapest shit he can find, but when I go over for visits I usually surprise him with some of the more expensive fringe stuff for him to critique.

I would damn near have to be backed into an optionless corner before resorting to deadly force. Every time though when I'm getting ready to hit the road and I'll be checking/tidying up the back seat, I always make sure the headset's easily reachable – the way I drive it usually ends up on the floor. It's a .44, and even if my life depended on it, I still would rather not fire it without that(been there done that). Remember Dirty Harry, always putting in/taking out his ear plugs? See, even he knew better.

The S & W 629 Classic that D. H. Callahan made famous seemed to me to be a lighter build in comparison with the Ruger I have – that Ruger is built like a friggin' tank. Same with the Colt Anaconda which seemed pretty much on par with the S & W.

[Lynyrd Skynyrd]

The last time I heard the thing about "dragging them into your house" was maybe a year ago by my GF's stepdad. In retrospect though the more I think about it, I'm not really so sure he was joking, and knowing that guy, he may well have been serious as a heart attack. This guy is always wanting to buy my guns, and these days I only have a couple left. He's an old survivalist borderline doomsday prepper who loves his beer on a daily basis. He usually buys the cheapest shit he can find, but when I go over for visits I usually surprise him with some of the more expensive fringe stuff for him to critique.

I would damn near have to be backed into an optionless corner before resorting to deadly force. Every time though when I'm getting ready to hit the road and I'll be checking/tidying up the back seat, I always make sure the headset's easily reachable – the way I drive it usually ends up on the floor. It's a .44, and even if my life depended on it, I still would rather not fire it without that(been there done that). Remember Dirty Harry, always putting in/taking out his ear plugs? See, even he knew better.

The S & W 629 Classic that D. H. Callahan made famous seemed to me to be a lighter build in comparison with the Ruger I have – that Ruger is built like a friggin' tank. Same with the Colt Anaconda which seemed pretty much on par with the S & W.

It's very stressful for most of us to kill someone, even in self defense. Many self-defense experts advise requesting that the police to take you to a hospital for cardiac monitoring.