Could someone do this and not go to prison for it? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Lebenz · #1 06-08-2006, 02:02 PM

Here’s a scenario: you witness someone assaulting someone else. You tell them to stop The person doing the assaulting (the perp) turns and comes towards you. You have a hand gun. You also have a carry permit. You aim the gun at them and demand they lay on the ground. The perp doesn’t stop coming toward you. You fire several times. One shot misses the perp and hits someone else. The perp is shot and down and a bystander is shot and down. Meanwhile someone calls the cops. They show up. Do you end up going to prison for being a good albeit violent samaritan and coming to the defense of someone unknown?

cscmc1 · #2 06-08-2006, 02:15 PM

We need more info -- namely, what's the guman's gross household income? Johnny Cochrane's aren't cheap.

Seriously, though, that's a good question.

Maroon 300D · #3 06-08-2006, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cscmc1

We need more info -- namely, what's the guman's gross household income? Johnny Cochrane's aren't cheap.

Seriously, though, that's a good question.

Cynical, but I'll second that.

The bystander who was shot may decide not to press charges in a case like that, particularly if some sort of financial settlement could be reached. If they did, though, the penalty would almost certainly involve a healthy dose of jail time due to minimum sentencing laws. That's if the shooter were found guilty, of course. I bet almost every state has minimums for 'gun crimes.'

BENZ-LGB · #4 06-09-2006, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

Cynical, but I'll second that.

The bystander who was shot may decide not to press charges in a case like that, particularly if some sort of financial settlement could be reached. If they did, though, the penalty would almost certainly involve a healthy dose of jail time due to minimum sentencing laws. That's if the shooter were found guilty, of course. I bet almost every state has minimums for 'gun crimes.'

It is not up to the victim to press charges. It is up to the police to investigate the case and then submit the case to the local prosecutors. The local prosecutors then decide whether or not to file a case against the defendant.

It is "The People of (choose your state) vs. John Doe (perp)" The crime is committed against everyone, not just against the victim. so the victim does nothave the choice. In certain types of cases, like domestic violence cases, the victim (usually a wife or girlfriend) is often uncooperative. A case can be filed if the circumstances are right, regardless of what the victim wants to do.

The idea that a victim has to "press charges" befoe a case can go forward is a misconception.

If a victim does not cooperate, i.e., refuses to talk to the cops, or won't provide enough information to file a case, then the police and the prosecutor must look for independent evidence, outside of the victim, before a case can be filed. If there is enough independent evidence (like eyewitnesses or other evidence) and the prosecutor has enough evidence to file a case, then the case "may" be filed, regardless of what the victim wants.

There are not enough facts in the initial hypothetical to make a decision. As it now stands, I doubt if any prosecutor would ever file charges. The victim can, however, always bring in a civil suit against the shooter.

Maroon 300D · #5 06-09-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

It is not up to the victim to press charges. It is up to the police to investigate the case and then submit the case to the local prosecutors. The local prosecutors then decide whether or not to file a case against the defendant.

It is "The People of (choose your state) vs. John Doe (perp)" The crime is committed against everyone, not just against the victim. so the victim does nothave the choice. In certain types of cases, like domestic violence cases, the victim (usually a wife or girlfriend) is often uncooperative. A case can be filed if the circumstances are right, regardless of what the victim wants to do.

The idea that a victim has to "press charges" befoe a case can go forward is a misconception.

If a victim does not cooperate, i.e., refuses to talk to the cops, or won't provide enough information to file a case, then the police and the prosecutor must look for independent evidence, outside of the victim, before a case can be filed. If there is enough independent evidence (like eyewitnesses or other evidence) and the prosecutor has enough evidence to file a case, then the case "may" be filed, regardless of what the victim wants.

There are not enough facts in the initial hypothetical to make a decision. As it now stands, I doubt if any prosecutor would ever file charges. The victim can, however, always bring in a civil suit against the shooter.

Well I stand corrected!

Maybe the prosecutor would press charges if it were that Wrigglesworth guy from the 38 y.o. murder thread and the shooter was a prominent community member.

BENZ-LGB · #6 06-09-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

Well I stand corrected!

Maroon, it is a common misconception; fueled by years of fictional movies and TV victims saying: "I am not going to press charges..."

The other misconceptions:

1. The standard of proof (in a criminal case) is: "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "beyond a shadow of a doubt." Few things, if any, can ever be proved "beyond a shadow of a doubt." (Look at the religious debate raging in the "If I die tomorrow ..." thread.

)

2. A defendant is NOT "...innocent until proven guilty." A defendant is "...presumed innocent until proven guilty." A person is simply not "innocent" one moment and then "guilty" the next -- after the jury returns a guilty verdict.

A defendant is cloaked with the "presumption" of innocence at the beginning of the trial. That presumption stays with him/her throughout the trial until after all the evidence has been heard and the jury returns its verdict. It is only, however, a "presumption" or a starting point. It is not a "magical" grant of "innocence."

For example, let's say that one of you is sitting in a cafe drinking a capuccino and eating a croissant. Someone comes in and shoots you dead in full view of twelve bishops, twelve nuns and twelve ministers (just to pick a random group of people

). At the defendant's murder trial, he is presumed innocent even while the 12 bishops, 12 nuns and 12 ministers are testifying about what each saw ("...pulled the gun, walked up to victim, said something about the Benz wiring harness, and then shot the victim dead").

The defendant is not "innocent," hell, he is as guilty as sin (to contine with the religious motif). No one can take his/her guilt away. He is just "presumed" innocent.

If the prosecution fails to meets its burden of proof and the jury finds the defendant "not guilty" (notice, that they don't find him "innocent" just "not guilty" -- big difference) the defendant is not innocent of the shooting. He is still guilty of killing a person, the prosecution just couldn't prove it. Look at the OJ criminal trial. The prosecution couldn't prove him guilty, but that does not make OJ "innocent."

In fact, if a defendant who is not convicted of a crime wants to walk away with the label "innocent" attached to him/her, he has to apply to the court for the judge to make an actual and factual finding of innocence. A "not guilty" verdict is not enough, there has to be a factual finding of "innocence." In California those post-trial motions are seldom made (defense attorneys know that most, if not all, of their clients are guilty, regardless of what the lawyers may claim in public and are only too happy to walk away with a "no guilty" verdict) and the motions are seldom granted.

Sorry about the long-winded post. I thought the info may be interesting to some.

TheDon · #7 06-08-2006, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surf-n-Turf

Depends on the State. In Florida they are trying to make it OK to shoot someone if you feel threatened. No contact needed. What a can of worms that'll open.

that was passed i belive..

jlomon · #8 06-08-2006, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebenz

Here’s a scenario: you witness someone assaulting someone else. You tell them to stop The person doing the assaulting (the perp) turns and comes towards you. You have a hand gun. You also have a carry permit. You aim the gun at them and demand they lay on the ground. The perp doesn’t stop coming toward you. You fire several times. One shot misses the perp and hits someone else. The perp is shot and down and a bystander is shot and down. Meanwhile someone calls the cops. They show up. Do you end up going to prison for being a good albeit violent samaritan and coming to the defense of someone unknown?

The first question I would ask you is this: was the "perp" assaulting the victim with a weapon of some sort? I would have to think that the reasonableness of response would play into this question. If the perp wasn't using a weapon of some sort, how reasonable is it to escalate to deadly force?

I think the best test would be what would happen if it was a police officer that discharged their gun in the exact same situation. Would they be liable if they struck an innocent third party? If they would be, then it is reasonable to assume the samaritan would be as well.

AustinsCE · #9 06-08-2006, 03:26 PM

Well, around here the guy shooting would get charged with manslaughter, the assulter would be an accesory as well as like 4 other charges that go with the assault, the person shot and assaulted would be an accessory to both and charged with whatever they call it, escalating a crime or something? That is of course if the cops that gets there first, second and third dont get kill shots before emptying their entire belt of ammunition. Best plan in this case-kill all witnesses, watch for cameras, and dont leave any tire marks.

John Doe · #10 06-08-2006, 04:29 PM

I know the answer, but am invisible on this thread.

Maroon 300D · #11 06-08-2006, 04:44 PM

Invisible? You should take off that ring...haven't you seen the movies?

Is that a function of the ignore feature? I've never used it.

John Doe · #12 06-08-2006, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maroon 300D

Invisible? You should take off that ring...haven't you seen the movies?

Is that a function of the ignore feature? I've never used it.

Yeah. I used it once for a short while--mainly so I wouldn't retaliate. What happens, is you can see someone responded, but it is blank where the response is supposed to be. You really have to resist temptation to hit "view post anyway", and I bet most people can't resist

cmac2012 · #13 06-10-2006, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

I know the answer, but am invisible on this thread.

I heard someone talking, but I can't see anyone.

There was a case down near San Jose a few years back a little like the hypothetical scenario here. A retired SJ Fire Captain was in the parking lot of a shopping mall when he observed a security guard approach a guy he suspected of shoplifting. The guy managed to get into his car and was maneuvering a bit haphazardly to escape. The Fire Captain meanwhile, had retrieved his gun from his car just in case.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1996/11/09/MN21607.DTL&hw=Robert+Gremminger&sn=001&sc=1000

He ended up shooting the driver, killing him. He said that he feared for his safety and that of the security guard, who instructed him to surrender his weapon immediately thereafter.

Long story short -- it was a nasty trial, he got up to 14 years for involuntary manslaughter and carrying a weapon w/o a permit. The shoplifter was black, the decedent's family was not happy with the verdict, the fire captain had a history of antagonism towards blacks, I imagine he has to watch his back pretty close while in stir. It's the kind of PITA I would certainly prefer to avoid.

More on the verdict.

Botnst · #14 06-08-2006, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebenz

Here’s a scenario: you witness someone assaulting someone else. You tell them to stop The person doing the assaulting (the perp) turns and comes towards you. You have a hand gun. You also have a carry permit. You aim the gun at them and demand they lay on the ground. The perp doesn’t stop coming toward you. You fire several times. One shot misses the perp and hits someone else. The perp is shot and down and a bystander is shot and down. Meanwhile someone calls the cops. They show up. Do you end up going to prison for being a good albeit violent samaritan and coming to the defense of someone unknown?

Yes, no, and it depends.

mgburg · #15 06-08-2006, 11:29 PM

Ah! A question for a bunch of lawyers...

Here's the problem.

Assuming that the perp survives - lawsuits galore. You have money? Your a** is theirs (and his) in perpetuity.

Whether the victim (original) (OV) lives or dies, the emphasis will be on you. You're the reason the whole thing came to a conclusion. Pretty warped thinking, eh?

Whatever happened to the "...he hit me first..." scenario? And why do judges allow attorneys to even venture past that line of logic? If the guy that's assaulting the OV was confronted by an officer, and he did exactly the same thing that you're forced to do, why would it be allowed to procede further in the prosecution. I say, "Stop the BS about what might have happened. Fact #1: Perp was beating OV. Fact #2. Good Samaritan (GS) came to aid and even though he's somewhat of a poor shot, did manage to put an end to the perp's rampage. Case dismissed. As for the OV, direct him to sue the a** off the perp and his entourage."

And for good measure - any attorney that's assinine to defend the perp, or sue someone else on the perp's behalf, should be forced, by the courts, to share in the repatriation to any and all victims of the perp's actions. Maybe a few attorneys having to "buck-up" for halfa**ed lawsuits and countersuits will thin out some of these frivoulous court actions that currently clogging courts around the country.

Thanks for letting me vent! Me spleen is now clean!