Using gun in self defense in MA question?

[M1911]

It's a game time decision for sure. I'm not saying I would do it, but I would consider it. It seems like the cops are going to proceed as if you are the guilty party regardless. I see the upside of walking away, I don't see the downside.

You will most likely have tunnel vision at the time. There will be witnesses that you don't see. And you won't be thinking very clearly due to the adrenalin.

There is a very significant downside -- it will be much harder for a defense attorney to argue self defense if you run away.

 

[xcom]

You will most likely have tunnel vision at the time. There will be witnesses that you don't see. And you won't be thinking very clearly due to the adrenalin.

There is a very significant downside -- it will be much harder for a defense attorney to argue self defense if you run away.

I f we learned one thing from the Boston Bombings it it that cameras are everywhere. ATMs, Stores, private homes, stop lights, drop offs, banks, the list just goes on and on. I would bet that unless you are out in the woods, you are being seen by something or someone.

 

[.40swToFreedom]

I can't believe some are actually suggesting walking away after a "clean shoot". That will surely get you thrown in jail - in ANY state. You call the police (and an ambulance for the perp) and at worst you are defending that your actions were taken in self-defense. If you walk away, the police will be looking for a murder suspect (that's you) and self-defense is out the window.

 

[newenglandjeff]

What the police "Believe", really does not matter beyond the investigation. Admissable evidence and testimony are king. I'm speaking in broad terms. I'm not taking into account potential witnesses and video cameras. I'm just saying that there are pro's and con's to staying or WALKING away.

Example:

Calling the police to report a shoot

PRO: You get to tell your side of the story first.

CON: They likely don't care, and will proceed to build a case against you seeing that you offered yourself up as a suspect.

 

[M1911]

What the police "Believe", really does not matter beyond the investigation. Admissable evidence and testimony are king. I'm speaking in broad terms. I'm not taking into account potential witnesses and video cameras. I'm just saying that there are pro's and con's to staying or WALKING away.

Example:

Calling the police to report a shoot

PRO: You get to tell your side of the story first.

CON: They likely don't care, and will proceed to build a case against you seeing that you offered yourself up as a suspect.

If it is a clean shoot, and you call for police and an ambulance, you have a very good chance of not even being charged. If you run away, your chances of being charged are much higher.

If you are charged, what would you rather have your defense attorney telling the jury in his summation?

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. M1911 was viciously attacked, and in fear for his life. His only actions were to try to stop Mongo from killing him. Once Mongo was down, Mr. M1911 called the police and an ambulance for Mongo. Those are not the actions of a guilty man..."

versus:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. M1911 was scared. That's why he ran away, threw away his gun and his clothes, and skipped town for 3 weeks..."

 

[xcom]

What the police "Believe", really does not matter beyond the investigation. Admissable evidence and testimony are king. I'm speaking in broad terms. I'm not taking into account potential witnesses and video cameras. I'm just saying that there are pro's and con's to staying or WALKING away.

Example:

Calling the police to report a shoot

PRO: You get to tell your side of the story first.

CON: They likely don't care, and will proceed to build a case against you seeing that you offered yourself up as a suspect.

I think that it plays to a jury poorly if you take a "clean shot" and then leave the scene. I'm sure any criminal defense attorney on this site would advise anyone to call him/her and the PD and then shut up until you can talk to counsel.

 

[.40swToFreedom]

What the police "Believe", really does not matter beyond the investigation. Admissable evidence and testimony are king. I'm speaking in broad terms. I'm not taking into account potential witnesses and video cameras. I'm just saying that there are pro's and con's to staying or WALKING away.

Example:

Calling the police to report a shoot

PRO: You get to tell your side of the story first.

CON: They likely don't care, and will proceed to build a case against you seeing that you offered yourself up as a suspect.

Sorry, but the CON of walking away -- becoming a murder suspect -- trumps all else. I'll take on the legal battle, financial hell, and all else that comes with it over murder charges, which will be even more trying and expensive than arguing your self-defense. It's a NO-BRAINER. You walk away, you stoop to the perp's level, plain and simple.

Edit: Especially if there are no witnesses, no one can testify that you were even attacked in the first place.

 

[ACB84]

now i know if the police are going to confiscate the weapons that are in your name.... but what if say your wife has an LTC A and there are guns registered in her name. Would they take them also? What if the guns are registered to an NFA trust where you are the trustee. would they still take them where they technically are not registered to you?

 

[newenglandjeff]

If it is a clean shoot, and you call for police and an ambulance, you have a very good chance of not even being charged. If you run away, your chances of being charged are much higher.

If you are charged, what would you rather have your defense attorney telling the jury in his summation?

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. M1911 was viciously attacked, and in fear for his life. His only actions were to try to stop Mongo from killing him. Once Mongo was down, Mr. M1911 called the police and an ambulance for Mongo. Those are not the actions of a guilty man..."

versus:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. M1911 was scared. That's why he ran away, threw away his gun and his clothes, and skipped town for 3 weeks..."

I'm not talking about running away and skipping town. I'm talking about casually WALKING away, secure in the knowledge that no crime has been commited.

 

[.40swToFreedom]

now i know if the police are going to confiscate the weapons that are in your name.... but what if say your wife has an LTC A and there are guns registered in her name. Would they take them also? What if the guns are registered to an NFA trust where you are the trustee. would they still take them where they technically are not registered to you?

Read back through this thread for the answer to your first question by LenS (they will take them). Not sure about the trust.

 

[Chistech]

30 years ago or so I was involved in just this very scenario. Didn't get arrested but took my gun of course. Went to the PD for statement and told I couldn't leave state. Was determined one of these same guys had killed a guy earlier that night in another town. None of my firearms were taken and even my LTC wasn't. A copy was made and filed along with my statement. Never even ended up in court. One guy got 11yrs, the other 13! Of course they were allowed to plead for something. They killed someone and didn't get life! Got to love MA. About 5 yrs later the guy I shot got beat to death during a prison transfer where they put him in general population overnight. He pissed off 5 guys and they gave him what he deserved. Of course this was all about 30yrs ago, things were different then and where the investigating PO got pissed off at me when I told him I aimed for his shoulder and that is where I hit him. The PO said if I could shoot that good in that type of situation to, in his words: "next time, shoot the f$%ker in the head!" "This is MA and these guys will get out, find out where you and your family live then kill you in your bed while you sleep!" The cop's statement scared me more than the situation did at the time as it really made me think. I was 21-22 at the time and not much more than a kid.

 

[M1911]

I'm not talking about running away and skipping town. I'm talking about casually WALKING away, secure in the knowledge that no crime has been commited.

What is important here is not that you think no crime has been committed. What is important is convincing the police and the DA that no crime has been committed. Whether you casually walk away or run, the police and DA will believe that you had a guilty conscience and knew you were not justified in using deadly force.

 

[45collector]

How many of you carry pepper spray? Just sayin'. I'd much rather spray and walk away than have to shoot someone and deal with the aftermath.

Seriously though grab a couple cans, go take a walk in the woods, draw a face on a tree and practice hosing it down from as far back as you can before the stream starts to arch. It's cheap, It's easy, it's quiet. Granted, it's like bringing a knife to a gun fight if the assailant has a gun, is hardened to pepper spray, is on some crazy drug, or is close enough to make contact before you dowse him. But remember situational awareness is your #1 buddy in avoiding having to do any of this.

 

[newenglandjeff]

What is important here is not that you think no crime has been committed. What is important is convincing the police and the DA that no crime has been committed. Whether you casually walk away or run, the police and DA will believe that you had a guilty conscience and knew you were not justified in using deadly force.

I would say it's more important to convince a jury.... If it got that far. Walking away, potentially avoids that unnecessary situation. If an investigation leads to you, you still get a shot with a jury. The prosecution may not even be allowed to make mention of your actions immediatly after the shoot.

 

[M1911]

I would say it's more important to convince a jury.... If it got that far. Walking away, potentially avoids that unnecessary situation. If an investigation leads to you, you still get a shot with a jury. The prosecution may not even be allowed to make mention of your actions immediatly after the shoot.

If you walk away and get caught, your chances of not being prosecuted are far, far less. And your chances of convincing a jury are also far, far less. If you walk away, the judge may not even let your defense lawyer present a self-defense argument.

 

[drgrant]

I'm not talking about running away and skipping town. I'm talking about casually WALKING away, secure in the knowledge that no crime has been commited.

The Nike defense made sense in the 80s but less so now, there are cameras and such everywhere. In foreign countries where the conviction rate is retarded low and the justice system is back asswords, and law enforcement horrendously corrupt, I'd be pretty tempted... but in most of the US? No way. They will find you, one way or another.

-Mike

 

[.40swToFreedom]

I would say it's more important to convince a jury.... If it got that far. Walking away, potentially avoids that unnecessary situation. If an investigation leads to you, you still get a shot with a jury. The prosecution may not even be allowed to make mention of your actions immediatly after the shoot.

You will get a shot...facing murder/attempted murder charges. Sure they'll probably get dropped or you acquitted, but you'll be jailed the whole time and held on bail you'll never be able to afford.

Also if I'm not mistaken you're committing a crime by walking away unless you are still in fear for your safety. Though IANAL.

 

[newenglandjeff]

If you walk away, the judge may not even let your defense lawyer present a self-defense argument.

Yeah... On that note, I'm just going to walk away from this discussion.

 

[newenglandjeff]

Also if I'm not mistaken you're committing a crime by walking away unless you are still in fear for your safety. Though IANAL.

That was my question many pages back. Everything I have said since then is under the assumption that there is no law specifically requiring you to report a lawful act of self defense. If there is such a law, then clearly that is the logical course of action following a SD shoot.

 

[Quiet]

I would say it's more important to convince a jury.... If it got that far. Walking away, potentially avoids that unnecessary situation. If an investigation leads to you, you still get a shot with a jury. The prosecution may not even be allowed to make mention of your actions immediatly after the shoot.

dude, don't you think that everyone claims self defense? Your behavior before during and after the shoot is going to determine your fate.

 

[Rider]

What is important here is not that you think no crime has been committed. What is important is convincing the police and the DA that no crime has been committed. Whether you casually walk away or run, the police and DA will believe that you had a guilty conscience and knew you were not justified in using deadly force.

Yeah, in my (unarmed) self-defense classes, we have it hammered in that after any altercation you should call the police and tell them you were attacked because 1)whoever calls the cops first wins, and 2) astonishingly, muggers and ne'erdowells actually call the police to report being attacked when they initiate the encounter, because then they can sue. If they attack you and you kick their ass, who is the bad guy? Also, just like with shooting, remember to yell, "please leave me alone! Get back! Don't make me ....!" and so forth so witnesses know what they saw.

It's a mad world we live in.

Which brings us back to: if you have anything worth protecting, get a good umbrella policy.

 

[TOM1960]

So after all is said and done, let's say they did take my stash after I shot being in fear of imminent bodily harm from an armed assailant. What is the best option for my expensive collectable firearms? Can my brother with an LTC-A pick up my property and hold it (although you can only do 4 transfers to a non-dealer a year)? Can an FFL pick them up and hold them on "consignment?"

Don't keep your whole stash in one place (ie: your primary residence). Spread it out a bit. Valuable collector's items should definitely be stored out of state with trusted friends, relatives or (for pistols) an out of state safe deposit box. Keep only a few guns at home, just what you need for defensive, target and hunting purposes. Treat them like cash. Would you keep your entire life savings, in cash, in your at-home gun locker? No, you keep some petty cash at home, maybe a month's worth, and the rest is either in a bank account or in a safe deposit box. Treat your firearms collection the same as you treat your cash. MA is rabidly anti-gun and the cops are NOT your friends! Be proactive.

 

[Quiet]

Unless he's collecting as an investment, a collection is there to be enjoyed in this life.

Don't let carrying for self-defense run your entire life.

 

[45collector]

Don't keep your whole stash in one place (ie: your primary residence). Spread it out a bit. Valuable collector's items should definitely be stored out of state with trusted friends, relatives or (for pistols) an out of state safe deposit box. Keep only a few guns at home, just what you need for defensive, target and hunting purposes. Treat them like cash. Would you keep your entire life savings, in cash, in your at-home gun locker? No, you keep some petty cash at home, maybe a month's worth, and the rest is either in a bank account or in a safe deposit box. Treat your firearms collection the same as you treat your cash. MA is rabidly anti-gun and the cops are NOT your friends! Be proactive.

For a lot of us, every gun we own is in our name via either an FFL transfer or an FA10. Everything that Len has already explained to you seems to be going right over your head. If the PD is going to confiscate your guns, it doesn't matter if they're in Boston or Baja; you must either turn them in or disclose to the PD exactly where they are. Now for you, that doesn't seem to be an issue since you've already admitted to breaking state laws, however unconstitutional they might be.

 

[Volt]

So after reading through this thread, what if the scenario of a police officer off-duty has someone B&E's into his home and he uses a deadly force, then what? Does he get his badge, weapons, and anything else related taken away?

 

[45collector]

So after reading through this thread, what if the scenario of a police officer off-duty has someone B&E's into his home and he uses a deadly force, then what? Does he get his badge, weapons, and anything else related taken away?

Don't compare what happens to LEO after a shoot (whether it's a good one or dirty one) with what happens to you or me.

 

[Volt]

Don't compare what happens to LEO after a shoot (whether it's a good one or dirty one) with what happens to you or me.

With that I understand, but still doesn't answer the question. I think they should also be held accountable for their actions.

Better yet, what if the LEO is not home, his wife however grabs for their shotgun and takes the perp down... Now what?

 

[je25ff]

This thread is depressing.

 

[Volt]

This thread is depressing.

I thought the same thing as I got to page 12. MA laws are beyond messed up.

 

[45collector]

Yes everyone should be held accountable for their actions. No one should even have to worry about facing charges/ confiscation for shooting someone that has broken into their home, be it LEO or not.

In the wife scenario, if you're assuming that she is not licensed at all, and is the only one home, technically she has committed a crime. But since she's the wife of a cop, she will most likely be given a little more slack when it comes to possible charges being brought on her, if indeed it was a perfectly justified shoot.

Not that it's exactly related to the discussion, but remember what happened to that MSP trooper when his son got a hold of his unsecured handgun, went next door to the neighbor's house, pointed the gun at someone and pulled the trigger? Yeah, nothing happened to that trooper. Now thank God that gun was unloaded, but if that were to happen to any other average mug, there would be charges. Lots of them.