OldMarksman
Staff
I really do not think so, if deadly force had been justified, and if the shooter had used no more force than had been necessary.Ethics and legality also seem to point against it [(a head shot)] being reasonable.
I really do not think so, if deadly force had been justified, and if the shooter had used no more force than had been necessary.Ethics and legality also seem to point against it [(a head shot)] being reasonable.
Grand Juries do not decide quilt or innocence, nor do they decide questions of civil liability. They decide whether to proceed with criminal prosecution.
It simply means that the evidence shown to the Grand Jury does not support an assessment that a criminal trial would most probably result in a finding of guilt behind a reasonable doubt.
I'd be surprised if that were correct. Typically, grand juries simply decide if there's enough evidence to indict, based on a possibly one-sided presentation by the prosecutor.
Even then, a finding by a GJ that there's not enough evidence to support a criminal charge may or may not mean that the SD shooter acted in accordance with applicable law.
And I don't think the article that you linked supports the claim that anything is "usually handled by the Grand Jury." It's merely a listing of the "Top 25 Defensive Gun Uses of 2017." There's no mention whatsoever about how the states respectively connected to each DGU handles the charging process, much less their civil liability framework.
Yep.No indictment, no trial.
Well, yes, but the lack of a criminal conviction does not mean that one did not commit a crime--it means only that there was reasonable doubt.If you did not commit a crime you by default acted within the law.
Yep.It means [(that there's not enough evidence to support a criminal charge)] that the states lacks the evidence to convict...
No, it most certainly does not....which equates to the same thing [(that the SD shooter acted in accordance with applicable law)].
I'll take you at your word that you got the intent of the law straight from the AG's office. That said, it is important to understand that the AG is your State's attorney. Unless you are acting on behalf of the State itself, the AG is not your lawyer. I'm curious, though: In the materials that you got from your State's AG, was the AG opining on the effect of criminal matters on civil litigation between private citizens? If your AG rendered an opinion on this, or some other public document, would you be kind enough to give me an identifier, so that I might read it for myself?Nanuk said:BINGO. And in my state, per the section of law I quoted and the intent stated that I got directly from my states Attorney General's office, done. . . . .Spats McGee said:Grand Juries do not decide quilt or innocence, nor do they decide questions of civil liability. They decide whether to proceed with criminal prosecution.
Yes, and no. "No indictment, no trial," yes. But it's not quite right to equate a lack of a trial with innocence. It's not uncommon for a prosecution to fail, simply because the prosecutor could not prove each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. That results in a not guilty verdict. I'm not convinced that the ND law you cited has been established to work the way you claim.Nanuk said:Again, BINGO. That is how the system works. No indictment, no trial. If you did not commit a crime you by default acted within the law. I do not know the law in Arkansas or New York, but here with that we are done. . . . .Spats McGee said:. . . . I'd be surprised if that were correct. Typically, grand juries simply decide if there's enough evidence to indict, based on a possibly one-sided presentation by the prosecutor. . . . .
Who said they were? But you placed the link along with a claim that Grand Juries handle civil immunity determinations.Nanuk said:The point of the exercise was to show that all shootings are not Myst shrouded mysteries and bound to land you in civil or criminal court as Mas Ayoob would have us believe, it depends on the state. In my entire LE career I cannot remember any SD use of force incidents making it past the prosecutor/grand jury where I worked as a city cop (TX) or a fed (TX, CA, NM, ND).Spats McGee said:. . . .
And I don't think the article that you linked supports the claim that anything is "usually handled by the Grand Jury." It's merely a listing of the "Top 25 Defensive Gun Uses of 2017." There's no mention whatsoever about how the states respectively connected to each DGU handles the charging process, much less their civil liability framework.
That seems to be the case with civil immunity statutes in quite a number of states.The law you cited was enacted in 2007, and has not made it to your Supreme Court.
In the absence of case law to the contrary, I do not see any other way to interpret the law.IMO, the argument is still open that where no criminal prosecution has commenced, the SD shooter must establish that he or she acted within the parameters of the law.
I don't either.I have no faith in this average joe and his ability to safely and cleanly and successfully pull off a head shot during a confrontation.
I don't either, if there is an alternative.I just in general don't think that the brain, as a small target, should be used...
Maybe, but maybe not. Hitting something vital is more serendipitous than designed. That's why many situations necessarily end up with a number of shots being fired very quickly. And yes, the upper chest does make a better target than the head.If the shooter doesn't hit the thirty or so square inches of spine and at least partially paralyze the target, he will still hit a major organ, bone, blood vessel, or other damaging portion.
I don't disagree with that.briandg said:We've gone off course, imo, into purely legal and technical debate, and not much of this is actually beneficial to the average joe in any particular jurisdiction, . . . .
As to the first part, I do not claim to be smarter than others here. I do have a specialized education, one that I earned more through determination and hard work than anything else, but that doesn't necessarily make me smarter than you. There's a reason accountants don't ask me for math advice.briandg said:. . . . Spats, you and several others here are actually lawyers, legal professionals, and obviously far smarter than I am, but not necessarily of the same moral/ethical cut of cloth. . . . .
Agreed on all counts. As to it being part of a drill, one who trains "two to the chest and one to the head" had better be able to articulate, under oath and cross-examination, why he or she trains that way. In that sense it's not really any different than any of the other choices we make as concealed carriers: be prepared to articulate.briandg said:. . . . I have no faith in this average joe and his ability to safely and cleanly and successfully pull off a head shot during a confrontation.
I don't believe that a head shot is a good ethical decision to make just because it is part of a drill. I don't think that it can be a smart move legally. . . . .
First, do not ask yourself, "Can I shoot?" Ask yourself, "Do I have to?" In simplest terms, that's going to be the litmus test in most jurisdictions. We can go on and on about immediacy, threats of serious body harm, disparity of force, etc., but it all boils down to: you can use that force necessary to stop an unlawful threat against yourself or others. I'll say it again: Do not ask yourself, "Can I shoot?" Ask yourself, "Do I have to?"briandg said:. . . . There are my beliefs, do any of you share these thoughts, and if not, what suggestions to you have on a practical and moral approach, 'will i go to hell or do i deserve jail', rather than 'am i going to be prosecuted or sued for this head shot'? . . .
I'll take you at your word that you got the intent of the law straight from the AG's office. That said, it is important to understand that the AG is your State's attorney. Unless you are acting on behalf of the State itself, the AG is not your lawyer. I'm curious, though: In the materials that you got from your State's AG, was the AG opining on the effect of criminal matters on civil litigation between private citizens? If your AG rendered an opinion on this, or some other public document, would you be kind enough to give me an identifier, so that I might read it for myself?
A class taught by someone in your AG’s office?Nanuk said:See post #47. That is the law.
The matter of intent of the law was a verbal statement during a class.
A class taught by someone in your AG’s office?
No argument about that!See post #47. That is the law.
That is likely a very fair characterization of why the law was enacted. I would not classify that as legal advice--it's just common sense.The matter of intent of the law [("The intent of the law is so that the victim of a violent attack is not "victimized" again by the system or the attackers family")] was a verbal statement during a class.
What most of those videos show is that the " 'old two in the belly and one in the head' adage" would not be a viable response in such attacks. Of course, none of them involved the shooting of someone who was holding a hostage.This is what I am talking about
There are no jurisdictions in which retreat is required if retreat is not safely possible. That is a fundamental tenet of common law even where it is not spelled out in statute.In those states where you must retreat before using force articulate for me just how you are going to do that without suffering severe injuries.
All the double speak and legaleze speak, in the end when you make a head shot in a defensive shooting you will get sued. Some lawyer that wants a nice percentage and a name for himself, says "if you could make that shot under pressure why didn't you just wound." then you spend the next couple of years and a boat load of money defending again. That is just the plain hard facts.
Do you have any basis at all for that contention?...in the end when you make a head shot in a defensive shooting you will get sued.
Very easy for an expert witness to counter....Some lawyer says ... "if you could make that shot under pressure why didn't you just wound."
If the evidence prevents you from being successful in your quest for civil immunity, you may end up in court. Or your attorney may advise settling out of court....then you spend the next couple of years and a boat load of money defending again.
Sounds like a stretch, and your point is unclear.Let’s change the calculus since we are contriving scenarios: The new scenario is you can either:
1) make a good head shot, get arrested and be sued in civil court, -or-
2) not shoot at all, not get arrested, not get sued in civil court, but get killed.