you should fear the legal system.

B

briandg

New member
The story that follows is very relevant to defensive shootings, please leave unless decided otherwise. So many people expect everything to be clear, and properly represented to jury and prosecutors.

that is a huge mistake.

about a month ago, a person backed into my vehicle in a parking lot, pinnning one of my passengers between vehicles with slight injuries. The accident was clear as day, the fault of the person in the other vehicle who backed into a parked car and injured a passenger because that driver admittedly didn't look in the rear view windows.

It took over a half hour for over a dozen cops, emts, etc, to clear the scene. When the accident report was finally available, I found several problems.

The digram and measurements were totally wrong.

one of the witnesses told a highly creative and absolutely shameless lie, passing responsibility onto me.

another witness gave distorted report of vehicle positions.

The other person admittted to fault.

My own statements were misrepresented in two areas, leaving doubt on my own truthfulness.

When I contacted the officer who handled the scene and signed the report, that officer told me that my only recourse if the other insurance company would not accept liability was to sue the other person, discredit the false witnesses, prove that the diagram was wrong, and prove that the other person was at fault. The report was an official representation and it could not be amended to reflect my doubts of it's accuracy.

I don't expect an investigation of a self defense shooting to be any more competent.

A person who assumes the best, and expects the legal system to just fall into place behind his testimony and character is fooling himself. A current case is proving that both ways, victim and shooter.
 
I am sorry to hear this, and I certainly hope your friend is OK, but you don't really expect a police officer to alter his report once it has been submitted simply because one of the subjects in the report says it should be altered do you?

Witnesses lie, and lie frequently, they are also often wrong or simply have a different perspective. Of all the evidence one can gather, eye witnesses have proven to be the least reliable. On the other hand, if the officer misrepresented what you said a call or visit to the station to speak to the supervisor could be in order. I would.

A shooting would not be handled or investigated by detectives in the same manner that a parking lot fender bender with a slight injury would be by a beat cop. There is a reason for this and protocols in place for lethal force incidents. On the other hand your misgivings could be perfectly valid in a more rural area. Good luck with the quality of the investigation in one of our neighboring counties to the north. One Sheriff and one deputy. Besides jail staff that is it. If the sheriff calls the highway patrol to help (he often does) you will be in better shape.

Perhaps the other car was modified in some way? Non standard tires for more traction? A high flow air cleaner indicating a propensity to drive recklessly? A Nascar sticker? Your lawyer could use these things to ruin him in court apparently.
 
If it happens again...

... take pictures.

Most of us have camera phones. Take pictures of the scene; sun angle; sight lines; witnesses; pretty much anything that could be a factor.

Record any statements made, if possible.

(This is for a traffic accident.)

One instructor advises that, if possible, it is better to have a witness take photos of any SD shooting scene. If the shooter takes pictures, it could strike witnesses or prosecutors as trophy-taking behavior, rather than legal CYA.
 
See where this goes. Yes, the legal system has flaws in a democracy. I supposed it would be better to be judged by the duke for whom you are a serf?
 
The Chicago Tribune just did an article on this very subject

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...120423_1_crash-reports-red-light-cameras-data


Take pictures and good luck!

I am surprised the diagrams were so messed up, typically when a car hits a pedestrian(in this case a person outside of a car) the assumption of fault is almost always on the driver of the car who hit the pedestrian. If you've even had a beer to drink, someone could jump off of a bridge, land in front of your car and you still might have problems in certain states with ambiguous laws regarding "intoxication".
 
briandg said:
It took over a half hour for over a dozen cops, emts, etc, to clear the scene. When the accident report was finally available, I found several problems.

...

When I contacted the officer who handled the scene and signed the report, that officer told me that my only recourse if the other insurance company would not accept liability was to sue the other person, discredit the false witnesses, prove that the diagram was wrong, and prove that the other person was at fault. The report was an official representation and it could not be amended to reflect my doubts of it's accuracy.
Click to expand...

There is wisdom in your post. While one might hope the police might take more care in a situation involving a shooting than in a motor vehicle accident, it would not be smart to count on that. Just yesterday I read an article in a newspaper in which a reporter discovered that police LIE to suspects during interrogation. The article was based on comments offered by a detective in sworn testimony during a trial for murder. Her position was that "We only do it in cases where we want to convince the suspect to confess."

The problem, of course, is that this demonstrates a prejudiced opinion that they know their chosen suspect is guilty, so "all" they have to do is lead him (or her) to Jesus. What happens if the police are wrong, and the person they're pushing to confess is innocent? There are numerous cases on record where the use of such tactics have led people to "confess" to crimes they didn't commit, solely because they were convinced by the police (lies) that there was overwhelming evidence against them so pleading to a crime they didn't commit was safer than risking a trial. There was a murder case in the city where I grew up. The police were dead certain they knew who did it. They arrested the guy. IIRC it might even have gone to one trial and ended in a hung jury. The lead detective said when he retired that his one regret was not being able to "nail" John Doe for the young woman's murder.

Eighteen years later, someone checked some DNA evidence and (a) proved conclusively that the guy they had been persecuting for 18 years COULD NOT have been the killer; and (b) oh, by the way, there was a perfect match to a guy with other various felonies to his name. They found him and arrested him, and he confessed and was convicted.

Back to motor vehicle accidents: Several years ago I was working late one night and I went to a small restaurant in a nearby strip mall for dinner. As I was returning to my car, I heard a loud engine noise and I turned in that direction. The traffic aisles were convoluted. There was a young woman unparking her car near me. I WATCHED as she carefully looked in both directions before starting to back up. Then some doper in a souped-up heap came screeching around a corner and slammed into her. She never saw him coming, and he was moving so fast that I had no time to warn her.

So the police were called. I waited, and I approached the investigating officer to inform him that I was a witness and I would give him a statement as to what happened.

"We don't need your statement. It's obvious what happened. The chick backed into the other guy."

I tried to explain to him that this was NOT at all what happened, but hi8s mind was made up. He was late for his donut break and he didn't want to be bothered taking a statement that didn't support his theory of the incident.

I still regret that I didn't give the girl my card. In other accidents I've witnessed I have done so, and often the person blamed by the police had only my statement to their attorney to prevent their taking the blame for something that wasn't there fault at all.

So ... your premise is correct. Do not rely on the police to get it right. They make mistakes. And they sometimes have their own agenda, which may not coincide with ensuring that your side of the story is recorded accurately and/or completely.
 
I agree the system is fraught with errors and corruption. I do believe most officers are well intended and usually honest but as much as anyone else there are bad apples and they do have a position of unique power.

I cant count how many times I have seen squad car lights and sirens come on to get through a stop light. Police speeding past the speed limit in pursuit of nothing and more... Still I think many are honorable...

My personal experience with the court system comes from child support and in my singular experience I found that even though I was the custodial parent since my kids were very, very young no penal action would be taken against the nonpaying mother even though she hasn’t paid a dime in almost a decade. My personal appearance and mountains of documented proof means nothing when a judge decides otherwise.

I have an inch think pile of senators and congress people I have written along with attorney general offices of various states, and even the US District Attorney... None of it ever changed one thing except it took my time to write the letters and include copies of my assertions.

I finally got to the point concerning one judge I sent every member of the towns ethics board a copy of his order and a synopsis of what had happened previously and a copy from the court certifying she hadn’t paid in almost a decade... I heard a bit back from that but other than laughs about putting his honor on the spot it changed nothing, he retired and the next guy didn’t do anything different. (I have no idea if my letters had anything to do with his retirement or not.)

So yes some think our system is the best in the world.. I myself highly doubt it. Things will not get better until we the people use our votes and our time to make it better unfortunately most people are only interested when something affects them. How many people can spout off all kinds of sports stuff and have no idea about what laws are being passed and what the effect of those laws will be. I’m not against sports but I do think being a citizen comes with duties we have to uphold...

So yes the system is often poor but still many honorable people serve it and us.
 
Last edited:
"We don't need your statement. It's obvious what happened. The chick backed into the other guy."
Click to expand...
Unfortunately he was probably correct. In my state, if you're in reverse and the other guy isn't, it's pretty much automatically your fault, regardless of any other circumstances.
 
I'm not at all worried about the situation. The other driver admitted liability. the other insurance company accepted liability. everything turned out right, in spite of the probabilities.

Jhenry, it was a soccer mom at a tanning salon, with the names of her kids on the back window. I could have been so totally screwed. When I did present the cop with inconsistencies, the cop agreed that the witness was full of crap, and that I would just have to present these things and prove that he was a liar. No changes.

the driver had all windows tinted, and couldn't see out of them. she looked to both sides, as witnesses said, but she didn't look in the mirrors. she backed straight into the open door of my vehicle, pinning my daughter in the door. huge bruises, no broken bones. Frankly, I'm lucky there was an injury in my car and she felt guilty, because otherwise, I'd ahve been screwed. she would have fought it. I'm absolutely lucky that the cops didn't find the empty beer can that fell out of my recycling in the back of the truck.

I'm trying to point out that all of the people who doubt that they are at risk when presented with a shoot/don't shoot scenario,

THIS IS WHAT IS GOING TO OCCUR.

The accomplices and witnesses are almost certain to lie and provide erroneous information. Then, you get to court.

You are going to be one person against a lot of hostile people. Don't expect it to end well just because you think it ought to.

It has nothing to do, really, with the beat cop, the judges, or even the entire system. It's a matter mostly relevant to the hostile lawyers and juries, the public, and the fact that to a whole lot of people, truth doesn't matter.

Why else would a witness tell an obviously and very poorly fabricated lie to a policeman? he wanted the long haired freak in the beat up truck to get what he deserved, and he wanted the poor soccer mom in the black escalade to walk free.

Life is dangerous.
 
I would love to see more moderation in the adversarial system. Make the judge and jury an inquisitor of sorts, empowered to ask directed questions to the parties involved in a lawsuit or criminal case, although in a criminal case the defense doesn't have to answer and can still assert the 5th amendment. A judge, and even the jury itself, should be able to ask questions if they feel there are relevant issues or viewpoints that are not being presented properly to the jury.
 
I tried to explain to him that this was NOT at all what happened, but hi8s mind was made up. He was late for his donut break and he didn't want to be bothered taking a statement that didn't support his theory of the incident
Click to expand...
.

And it looks like your mind was made up that he was wrong and was late for a break to eat Donuts. So one could conclude from your statement here, that no matter what the officer did, other than what you thought he should do, he was wrong because he was having donut withdrawals. :eek:
 
having been the subject of harassment by Paul Babeu and the Pinal County AZ SO, I under stand the frustration you experienced.

In a recent incident, a 15 year old male attacked his mother. The mother is disabled and weighs maybe 100 pounds. In fear for her life she fired two rounds from a 25 cal baby browning. She missed.

She was charged with multiple counts.

The Officer totally ignored the following:

1. The boy had earlier assaulted his mother. He had been place with another family and was instructed not to return to the home until his father returned the next day.
2. The boy, late at night, broke into the house. Witness's observed the break in and reported it to the Investigator.
3. He was armed with a concealed K-Bar knife. The did not search him even though he admitted he had a knife.
4. She had severe bruises on her body from the beating. No pictures were taken.
5. They booked her under a fictitious name and date of birth even though the report had her real name and date of birth. It took three days to locate her in the jail. The SO denied that she was in fact in custody.
6. A months supply of pain medication was removed by the officer and never booked into evidence.
7. To date they have spent $17,000 and will probably loose their home.

Her husband is a vocal opponent of Sheriff Paul Babeu. The Officer had been a part of the harassment team which has routinely conducted illegal wiretapping, Illegal searches, and generally harassed her and her husband over a period of three years.

She now faces 7 to 21 years in prison. The prosecution is pay back for her husbands Political speech.

Should the citizens of Pinal County AZ trust their Local Law Enforcement? Make your own decision but I don't.
 
Last edited:
So what alternative system do you recommend? They all work pretty much the same way unless you are considered an enemy of the state.
 
I really do not have a solution for a situation were the checks and balances break down like they have in the Case of Babeu (he does not deserve the title of sheriff) and Pinal County Attorney James Walsh. Both are supporters and friends of AZ AG Tom Horn. Horn's Office has refused to investigate numerous written complaints against Babeu, and Walsh.

Babeu, knowing that he would be defeated if he ran for sheriff, is now running for Congress. If appears that a good man is running for Sheriff against Babeu's hand picked successor. Turns out Babeu's pick, his Chief Deputy, is a poacher. He was caught shooting 3 Bull Elk.

The only recourse we had was to summon the power of the press and conduct a grass roots campaign to prevent his reelection. Unfortunately, that does not protect the victims of his activities.
 
Legal System Can Crucify Self Defense Shooter

I have a concealed carry permit in NM, and have read extensively about arrests and cases filed around the country against those who have used their carry weapon in self defense. It's scary to read about huge legal bills, people losing their homes and more.

However, there are too many instances of people taking a plea bargain and admitting guilt at some level simply because the don't have the resources to hire competent defense. I spent a whole lot of time and money researching the various "insurance" policies or methods of insuring some kind of defense if you use your firearm in self defense, especially outside the walls of your home.

After buying multiple "policies," and still not feeling well covered, I found two resources that make me feel like I would at least have expert defense paid for if the worst happens. I don't work for these organizations, nor do I receive anything from them for writing about them. Take advantage of the time and money I've spent and read my article about this type of insurance here. You don't have to spend that much to feel more confident if you must use your gun in self defense.
 
Seen this in a lot of auto accidents. In my own the officer neglected to measure the other drivers tire marks from breaking so their speeding was not considered.
 
Let me get this straight. You said
The story that follows is very relevant to defensive shootings, please leave unless decided otherwise. So many people expect everything to be clear, and properly represented to jury and prosecutors.

that is a huge mistake.
Click to expand...

and that we should fear the legal system.

You then share you experiences regarding a parkinglot collision that had nothing to do with a jury and prosecutors.

Then you note...
I'm not at all worried about the situation. The other driver admitted liability. the other insurance company accepted liability. everything turned out right, in spite of the probabilities.
Click to expand...

In other words, you are saying that we should fear the legal and what goes on in court despite the fact that your even had nothing to do with going to court and the system worked properly as it had the correct outcome.
 
It actually wouldn’t be all that hard to change the system to make it work in a less corrupt manner.

1. Audit officer actions by having a team of authorized auditors who act out the commitment of a crime with or without guns involved(without the officers knowing this is only an audit and not an actual crime)and then review the findings of the officers versus what actually happened. Ensure that the audit includes things like a "beautiful young woman, minorities, elderly" and any other situation that might show inappropriate police activity or inappropriate reporting of a crime.

Retrain those who only make simple human errors and fire those who are grossly wrong or do intentional wrongs. The human factor and judgment need to have reasonable room but the scenarios should be pretty straight forward.. Possibly include video of the "incident" so officers at the time of the investigation can see what happened and see if they still report it inaccurately. Record the investigations of the officers on secreted cameras so each part of the audit can be used as a training tool.

2. All police cars should be equipped with GPS that reports to a central office so that police who are intentionally speeding and not responding get ticketed like anyone else.

Audit officers in a random manner with differing people.

3. Courts could be held to a higher standard also by having a judicial review board of non judicial system individuals (disinterested parties) who can review complaints of outrageous non enforcement of court orders by courts or orders in complete violation of logic and evidence. Give the board the power to punish and dismiss judges in cases of gross abuse of power or outright failure to enforce the law.

Courts could and should be audited in a similar manner to police to ensure that at least a reasonable outcome is obtained.
 
First and foremost, the officers responsibility is to take down the witnesses initial statements "AS THEY ARE GIVEN". During the course of an investigation or trial is where those statements can be picked apart for accuracy.

Also, it's a pretty well known fact that if you show 10 people something that happens quickly and unexpectedly 9 will get it wrong. 8 will thing they are giving an accurate account of the facts, 1 will probably be bs'ing to feel included :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top