The rule says stay on scene,but....

this is not advice but as far as I am concerned. If I must use my firearm in public, I will reholster and get the heck out of the "danger zone" asap. As soon as I am "away" from where bad things just went down, I will call 911 to request EMS/POLICE and then meet them where ever there designate. I will not loiter around for some guys 5 cousins or friends to show up and I wont loiter around for some good intending citizen who has been coiled like a spring waiting on the day to pull a gun on somebody. I may go across the street, around the corner or even drive off in my car.. but I aint hanging around where gunplay just occurred. No matter where I go, Ill be on the phone with 911 in a matter of a couple of minutes. I wont be securing any scene, separating witnesses, kicking the badguys weapon all over the floor or collecting evidence. If the badguy tries to run away.. he can, I wont try and stop him.
 
Last edited:
FireForged said:
this is not advice but as far as I am concerned. If I must use my firearm in public, I will reholster and get the heck out of the "danger zone" asap....
Click to expand...
And maybe your explanation will be convincing, or maybe it will not.

OldMarksman said:
Most cops and juries have this 'flight = guilt' thing.
Click to expand...
And it is embodied in established legal principles.
Click to expand...

Yes, post incident conduct is evidence and can be argued as evidence of guilt. For example see:
  • U.S. v. Perkins, 937 F.2d 1397 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1990), at 1402:
    ...the instruction explicitly stated, "the jury may consider [the false statements] as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt." Id. at 1104. Second, we have approved the use of this instruction on false exculpatory statements. See United States v. Boekelman, 594 F.2d 1238, 1240 (9th Cir.1979) (court noted approval of standard Devitt & Blackmar instruction and distinguished Di Stefano in upholding a variation from the standard instruction); United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435, 443 (9th Cir.1976)....
    Click to expand...

  • State v. Wimbush, 260 Iowa 1262, 150 N.W.2d 653 (Iowa, 1967), at 656:
    ...In Wigmore on Evidence, Third Ed., section 276, Volume II, page 111, under the title 'Conduct as Evidence of Guilt' the editor states: 'It is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused's flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.'

    McCormick on Evidence, section 248, pages 532, 533, puts it thus: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth.' Many acts of a defendant after the crime seeking to escape the toils of the law are received as admissions by conduct, constituting circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and hence of the fact of guilt itself. In this class are flight from the locality after the crime, assuming a false name, resisting arrest, * * *.' See also Jones on Evidence, Fifth Ed., section 386, page 717.

    We have held many times that evidence of escape from custody and flight of an accused is admissible as a criminating circumstance. State v. O'Meara, 190 Iowa 613, 625, 177 N.W. 563, 569; State v. Heath, 202 Iowa 153, 156, 209 N.W. 279, 281; State v. Ford, Iowa, 145 N.W.2d 638, 641. See also 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, section 280, and 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 625 a....
    Click to expand...

  • State v. Lonnecker, 237 Neb. 207, 465 N.W.2d 737 (Neb., 1991), at 743:
    ... Although Clancy involved evidence of the defendant's attempted intimidation or actual intimidation of a State's informant or witness, evidence which was admissible under Neb.Evid.R. 404(2) ("other acts"), the rationale for "conscious guilt" evidence is equally applicable in Lonnecker's case.

    Lonnecker's hiding in the crawl space was evidence of his "conscious guilt" concerning the marijuana located on the premises which were under his control, that is, a conscious guilt concerning possession and cultivation of marijuana as a controlled substance. ...
    Click to expand...

  • Martin v. State, 707 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.App.-Beaumont, 1986), at 245:
    ...In 2 RAY, TEXAS LAW OF EVIDENCE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL sec. 1538 (Texas Practice 3rd ed. 1980), we find:

    "Sec. 1538 Conduct as Evidence of Guilt

    "A 'consciousness of guilt' is perhaps one of the strongest kinds of evidence of guilt. It is consequently a well accepted principle that any conduct on the part of a person accused of crime, subsequent to its commission, which indicates a 'consciousness of guilt' may be received as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged." ...

    See also Cuellar v. State, 613 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Crim.App.1981)....
    Click to expand...
 
If time allows, call 911 to alert them to the incident. If you're still on with them, I would suppose you could say "X is happening and I don't feel safe. Can I leave and drive to the nearest police station?"
 
Good job Frank Ettin. That's a good legal precedence to show up to people so they understand running away has it's own set of risk.

Deaf
 
Thanks for the answers! The post generated enough discussion to indicate it was a good question.
"Stay alive" is pretty much always the best choice.
We can try to exercise the option to not be in the wrong place at the wrong time.That gives a percentage,but its not absolute.
IMO,giving up tracts of our country to "Don't go there zones" is contributing to the problem.
To those with the glib advice about not going to impoverished minority neighborhoods(yes,it was written carefully) Your comment re-enforces the point."Don't go where THOSE PEOPLE are.".The flip side is "Why is one of THOSE PEOPLE in my neighborhood."
Tribal mobbing ,it seems,is a dark side of human nature.
My question ,and this situation,can equally apply if an impoverished minority individual is alone and vulnerable in an affluent majority neighborhood..
Any of us can be driving through a place where we are unfamiliar,detoured,or a service person on a call,or just deciding to try a recommended restaurant.
Lightning can strike just about anywhere.

For many years I figured I did not need a concealed permit,based on simple logic."If I need a gun to go there,I should not go there"

"There" can be anywhere.

Its good to have some ideas ahead of time.

"Self defense in a potentially hostile environment"

Even cops have a hard time with that one these days.
 
Last edited:
"Not always possible and just a thought to ponder, bad things happen to good people in good places (what we assume are good places) "

Except that isn't what the OP posited is it?

What the OP posited was "bad things happening to good people" and then "more bad things coming out of the wood work".

FFS it's not rocket science. Don't want to have bad things coming out of the wood work: Stay out of the rich and vibrant areas.
 
If the situation gets 'to there', you have to decide if you want to be judged by 12 or stick around and possibly be carried by 6.

Life's choices aren't always so simple and clear.
 
If the situation gets 'to there', you have to decide if you want to be judged by 12 or stick around and possibly be carried by 6.
Click to expand...
If you are to be judged by twelve, a number of people will have decided that the evidence against you indicates a reasonably high likelihood that you will be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It will then be up to you to present evidence in your defense. If you appear to have fled the scene, you will have damaged your case significantly.
 
And maybe your explanation will be convincing, or maybe it will not
Click to expand...

and that is a possibility no matter if I stay or not.

In my mind, my immediate safety trumps the efforts toward securing the best position in a court battle that may never happen. I would feel differently about leaving the immediate area if I were at home or in some space that I control. In public, its very different... at least to me in my own specific circumstances. Others may feel different and I don't argue against how they feel. I simply speak for myself in an effort foster fruitful debate.

let me highlight the fact that I did not say leave and disappear without further word. I said leave the danger zone to avoid the potential of continued hostilities, contact police/ems within moments and return to a location that they choose.
 
Last edited:
Stay out of bad areas of town. And by bad areas, I mean areas where it is likely that that residents will assume that any dispute between two people is due to a prejudice based on physical differences.

That said, we all know this is not possible 100% of the time.

From an LEO perspective, this is a fairly realistic scenario, and one many police officers have actually faced.

I believe that as long as you call 911 IMMEDIATELY, and stop as near as possible, any reasonable person will be able to understand why you took the action you did.

Expect to be confronted at gunpoint by police and handcuffed when they arrive. That's the way it should happen. Remember you will probably be 1 of 12 911 callers, and 11 of them are just going to say Person A shot Person B and ran, drove off etc. It will take time for all of the facts to get sorted out, ESPECIALLY if it is a chaotic crime scene.
 
Here's the thing - I live in a nice area. The houses sell for between $90k and $140k. The people in my neighborhood seem to be generally good people, I haven't had any real issues with anyone that I've come across. However you never know how people (even people you know) will react when tragedy strikes.

You could defend yourself against a violent attacker in a good neighborhood and still end up in an "angry mob mentality" situation. People that knew the guy you shot are likely going to think he was a great guy and didn't deserve what happened to him. Doesn't matter the neighborhood.
 
And maybe your explanation will be convincing, or maybe it will not
Click to expand...
and that is a possibility no matter if I stay or not.
Click to expand...
Possibility yes, but your credibility in presenting that explanation will likely be higher if you have not introduced evidence of flight as an indication of guilt.
 
Possibility yes, but your credibility in presenting that explanation will likely be higher if you have not introduced evidence of flight as an indication of guilt
Click to expand...

that can be seen as trying to manage a potential courtroom situation that has not yet occurred. If I have just been involved in a self defense action, my personal safety is a clear a present imperative. Everything else is a very distant 2nd or 3rd.

I disagree if the suggestion is that the narrowly defined ( almost literal) interpretation that all manner of "fleeing" or putting feet to pavement coupled with locomotion is an absolute indication of guilt that cannot be reasonably overcome via plausible and intellectually honest explanation.
 
Last edited:
Look, under your scenario presumably, you already shot and possibly killed a guy in the name of keeping yourself safe. Do you really have to ask this question? Are you (or anyone) really going to stick around for some more confrontation? How, exactly, is this going to play out?

First priority is to keep yourself safe - GET THE HECK OUT! Call 911, if you can. Go to a police station, if necessary. If it were me, I would not be hanging around waiting for the police while an angry crowd gathers and is getting agitated by my presence.

As someone who has been trapped in the middle of a full-blown race riot - you get the heck out as fast as you can! The cops aren't coming to anyone's rescue. Things flare up faster than you can snap your fingers for seemingly no reason at all. You can't control an angry mob.
 
Last edited:
If you are to be judged by twelve, a number of people will have decided that the evidence against you indicates a reasonably high likelihood that you will be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

It will then be up to you to present evidence in your defense
Click to expand...
I, leaving out the flight part of your statement and in my opinion is you have a 50/50 shot no pun intended of things going either way.
 
Just another opinion....
While leaving the scene is not an indicator of guilt, it will be examined by the same standards as the shooting. Was it reasonable. A self defense shooting requires an affirmative defense. In sum and substance the burden of proof switch from the state to the person who did the shooting. Leaving the scene would require the shooter to explain the reason.

My fear is that a person is involved in a justified shooting and reasonably flee the scene for their or another's safety. Then when trying to explain the reason for fleeing get caught up by their own conscious and attempt to be politically correct. As well as being led toward politically correct responses by an interrogator.

It has been said that the truth will set you free,and for the most part this is true. Having been involved in more than a few shooting investigations , the forensic, proximity, and witness evidence will always point to the truth.....
 
The advice to "Not go to those places" is good.
Click to expand...

I've learned that there is often no telling in advance what many of "those places" are. You could be driving to a 4th of July fireworks celebration in an area that you never thought was a bad area and suddenly find yourself in an all out riot.

Remember Ales Lien, the SUV driver that hit a motorcycle driver in a gang/group (which included several police officers) that was messing with him and stopping abruptly in front of his vehicle - he was pulled out of his car and severely beaten. I think the video shows why he chose not to stick around; unfortunately they caught up with him. Too bad he wasn't armed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top