Much of our law and how jammed up you get all depends on how you articulate the situation!
Self defense or manslaughter?
- Thread starter 4excal
- Start date
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
"Pettersen told the dispatcher he fired his handgun at a gray car that was leaving his property after an attempted burglary."
I'm no lawyer but this sentence appears that he was in no imminent danger at the point he shot. Emotions/adrenaline may have taken over.
I'm no lawyer but this sentence appears that he was in no imminent danger at the point he shot. Emotions/adrenaline may have taken over.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
I just purchased a legal service membership from CCW Safe. Their membership card has a 24 hour emergency hotline phone number and the following:
"If you are involved in a self defense shooting, identify yourself as the victim of the attack. Inform responding police that you have an attorney and you will be happy to cooperate BUT only in the presence of your attorney."
I'm not saying this would have changed the outcome in the above situation but it wouldn't have hurt. BTW, I researched a number of companies and they seemed the most complete and thorough as well as being very reasonable. Just a FYI.
4excal
.338 Win Mag
For real?? Never heard of such a thing. (I have, but, never heard of anyone actually buying it)
I have been thinking for a while to get a membership as well.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Yup, there are a number of them out there (USCCA/Second Call Defense/ACLDN, etc.) I was most comfortable with CCW Safe. Didn't mean to hijack the thread though.
For real?? Never heard of such a thing. (I have, but, never heard of anyone actually buying it)
No Hijack at all. Important shit that can assist in us here, not being a news story!
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Anything that might look like a weapon. Did the guy reach for some keys, might have looked like he was reaching for a knife or a gun....
Activity that couldn't be considered provocation on its own could be after a confrontation is in progress, I'm not going to assume someone is reaching for a weapon everytime their hand reaches into a pocket, but if they've already attacked me, I'm not going to assume they aren't.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
If I feel I am protecting my family, what the law will say afterward is a secondary consideration at best. I'm not going to let my wife get hurt because I was worried about the consequences of defending her.
spat
.700 Nitro Express
I don't think any of us would have taken it. It was a dumb move, unless he saw something we don't know about. The jury's still out (literally) on whether it was a criminally dumb move or not. Best case scenario for this guy is a huge lawyer bill that could have been avoided.
I am not nit picking sir.
So folks get a complete picture, can you tell us under what circumstances, if someone is unlawfully in your domicile, deadly physical force is NOT justified?
So folks get a complete picture, can you tell us under what circumstances, if someone is unlawfully in your domicile, deadly physical force is NOT justified?
I think it would be pretty difficult to justify shooting at a car full of would be burglars in nys.
In the absence of arson, imminent danger and or being caught during the commission of the crime DPF does not seem warranted. Granted that the shooting took place in his driveway and not as the suspects were on the open road may be to his benefit. The fact that it looks like the shooting victim was not named as one of the individuals casing the house but an accomplice in the get away vehicle may not fare well for the home owner.
My thought, which I think the majority of the forum readers would agree with is....... Play stupid games win stupid prizes.
What I think the prosecution thinks, an attempted burglary does not warrant DPF against fleeing suspects.
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
Cop: Why did you keep shooting when the bad guys were crawling back to their cars?
Snappo (with lawyer present): The bad guys yelled that they were going to their cars to get their machine guns to kill me and my family with. I feared for the lives of my family and myself.
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
People should be very careful with what they say to the cops. If the thugs were going back to their car to get more serious firepower and told the homeowner that was what they were doing with the intent of using deadly force; then I am sure it's fine that he opened fire during their retreat. Telling the cops he was just trying to shoot out car tires was beyond idiotic. Of course that's what got him busted. He should have said he was in shock, demanded to be treated by medical staff, and got a lawyer before saying anything. Then with his lawyer present, he could have said they were going to their vehicle to get machine guns.
4excal
.338 Win Mag
To me, the last portion "persons must retreat from attackers IF THEY CAN DO SO SAFELY" is the key consideration. Why? Well, for one thing, I don't know of anyone out there who can outrun a bullet. So, IMHO, if someone is anywhere in my home and they have a firearm, there is nowhere for me to move to where I can safely outrun a potential bullet.
So, at that point, I'm opening up on their ass.
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
In this story - the bad guys already said "oh fuck" and were running away. Rather than let them get away and call 911, the homeowner opened fire on the vehicle attempting to disable the vehicle from retreating. His bullet that were aimed at the tires missed and killed a vehicle occupant. This has nothing to do with an intruder in a home.
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
@po!
That's a good one lol!
You see my vision, right? Why would the homeowner say he was shooting at car tires? He should have said he was in shock, demanded medical help, and not said a word about the shooting until meeting with his lawyer. Sometimes in the heat of the moment, folks don't use common sense. Sadly, this error in judgement is going to cost this poor guy life in prison.
Glenn B
.308 Win
While you kind of got the essence of the duty to retreat right, you missed a very important couple of words that make the requirement to retreat different from what you said. You are not required to retreat 'if you can do so safely'. Here is part of the NY State jury charge relative to the justification of the use of deadly force:
Source of quote.
Do you see the difference, it is a big one. You are required to retreat if you know you can do so with complete safety to yourself and others. Thus, if it is not your belief that you can retreat with complete safety, for reasons you would most likely have to articulate in court and make a jury believe, you would probably be acquitted. You will note that it does not say that you need to have a reasonable belief that you can retreat safely, or that you need to have probable cause of such. It does say someone must have retreated "...if he/she knew...". That little extra bit written into the law can make all the difference because it makes it all depend on what you thought at the time. In court it would not be you saying that 'no one can know the future' and thus you would get off Scott free. However, if you can articulate a few to several reasons (or in some cases just one such reason) as to why you believed you could not safely retreat, you may well have made your case under the law. Is it more difficult here in NY than in some other duty to retreat states - sure it would be because of the leftist mentality that prevails here but still that little extra bit as it appears in the law can be a huge help to your defense.
ProgSpear
.338 Win Mag
Nah, it's all good bro. He was just trying to comply with article 4 of the law that @GOPerfect cited in post #7. He was just trying to keep the vicious animal from leaving his premises:
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
While I know every situation is different, I would think 99% of the time you would want to retreat out of the driveway and back into the house. Even if you have to lay down cover fire during the retreat to limit return-fire from the enemy. The reason I say that is because the house is where you have a telephone service, places to shelter from live fire (table on it's side, inside of an iron bath tub, etc) and can most easily return fire from undisclosed locations (any room). Plus, the house is where you have more firearms and more ammunition. This guy fucked up. He should have either killed all occupants and told the cops he was told by the bad guys that they had machine guns in the vehicle; or he should have retreated into the home and taken pictures of the vehicle and called 911. But to open fire on the car tires / engine and then tell the cops he was shooting to disable the vehicle - that's just a HUGE mistake on his part. HUGE. And sadly it's going to cost him his freedom for a long time - maybe the rest of his life.
I agree with you on this. He has fucked himself badly with his explanation.
One other thought that I keep in mind at all times: if I am ever involved in a DGU, my steps to take will be to A. check area for safety and any wounds, B. call 911 and ask for assistance and an ambulance, while identifying and describing myself, and that was attacked, etc., C. call my attorney, and then D. shut the fuck up. If pressed, I will state that I will give a statement only in the presence of my attorney.
Also, as I will very possibly be in a state of shock, I will ask to be transported to an ER for medical care. If I am not mistaken, once you have requested medical care, the police cannot interrogate you for the next 72 hours? Anybody know for certain about that?
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
Not "probably". Absolutely you are in a state of shock. Even if you don't know it. So always demand to be treated for shock. Once you lawyer up, a cop can't interrogate you whether you are in shock or not. He would be violating Miranda. Bummer about that guy though. All he did was wake up to enjoy his day, and thugs shit on his life. Personally, if I was a jurist I would demand they let the guy walk. But fucking left wing liberals will be what the prosecution staffs the jury with. Gun hating city folks with past criminal records no doubt.
Glenn B
.308 Win
You seem to think that I was writing about the incident in question. I was not replying relative to the shooter in this thread nor to his actions, I was replying to what someone said is our duty in NY State.
As for the guy in this particular incident, I think he screwed up big time but there truly is not enough evidence to review to make a final decision and I base my belief on what I have read so far (thus my belief could change if the facts change as from how they were initially reported). You seem to think he should have retreated out of the driveway or at least that 99% of the time that is what you should do. I strongly disagree, I think it would have been better had he never stepped foot out of his house in the first place in that particular situation as I understand it from the brief news account. As for you saying he screwed up, I believe so too but your advice that he should have told police a certain fabricated story is not the best advice for anyone in such a situation. Telling the police a lie about what took place, especially if it would be a lie that could later bite him in the ass, would not be a good thing. For anyone to fabricate a story that the alleged criminal said he was going to the car to get his machine gun, consider the possibility that the guy who you said stated that could have been a mute or someone who spoke only a language other than English and you have zero comprehension of that language. You would have screwed yourself badly because of your deceit. No, it would not be good for anyone to make up a bullshit story. Instead, it would have been best to stay mum except to ask for a lawyer and for immediate medical attention at a hospital's emergency room. Why ask for medical attention - just tell the cop you do not feel normal physically. Tell the truth about why such as shortness of breath, rapid heart rate, adrenalin rush, hot flash, fear your blood pressure is sky high - whatever - or just seek medical attention and do not give a reason. Also, do not let an officer of the law talk you out of that or out of you staying quiet until you see your attorney.
Snappo
6.5 Creedmoor
You are 100% correct. 1,000%. I never considered the guy couldn't have said that due to no-speaka-da-english. Good call mang! You see someone pull in your driveway so you go out. That's legit. Maybe he was thinking UPS with his new turntable he ordered on ebay. Who knows. But once you are out there and realize these are bad guys and not J-Lo looking for a random hot sex with a stranger; it's time to beat feet back to where all the guns, ammo, and shit to hide behind is. I hate how NY Castle Doctrine expects you to retreat to the house though. In GA it could be anywhere on your property, not just inside the 4 walls. I have mixed feelings about there needing to be a Federal Castle Doctrine. I really can see Jefferson's point about strong states and a week Fed. But maybe on this one there needs to be Federal Castle Doctrine, just like there needs to be a federal CCW.
This guy is beyond fucked, isn't he?