Is there a boogeyman?

[ClearSightTactical]

The title of this thread probably threw you off. I was trying to research people who have been convicted of murder or manslaughter where a reasonable claim of self defense has been asserted.

We hear the horrors of using our weapon in self defense.

Can anyone provide a link to a news article or court case of a person convicted or even charged with murder or manslaughter for using a weapon (firearm or other) in self defense.

I'm not saying the possibility doesn't exist. I just want to examine the situations as I'm prepping to become an instructor and think this would be great insight.

 

[Kasper]

The boogeyman your looking for is either in jail or on death row. So I don't think you will find first hand knowledge. I can tell you here in Washington state the courts are funny. A man was going to break into a house and fell through the skylight and was able to sue the homeowner for his injuries. Another got sued due to having a dog that bit the man while climbing through the window. In both of these cases the people sue admitted to being in the act of an illegal crime when getting injured and still won the law suite.

 

[Itstjs]

Kasper is right, you probably wont hear of any honest cases of a self defense shooting being charged, what you do hear about is those who actually murdered someone claiming self defense.
People falling through sky lights, or climbing in windows [breaking laws] in many cases try and sue someone, the castle doctrine is what prevents those kinda of events being successful for a would be BG.
I personally have not heard of any recently that would have sparked some interest in paying attention. Best bet is to google it and see what pops up.

 

[Kasper]

Sorry should have stuck with stories that involved guns. But I did find this one that is funny.

December 29, 2010

Annals of personal responsibility
Thomas Galloway walked into a bar. And, yes, this is the beginning of a joke, or at least a joke of a lawsuit. Galloway had brought a gun with him into the New Kensington, PA bar "Envy"—but so had another patron. The two found themselves in a gunfight, and Galloway spent five days in a hospital recovering from his wounds before he was convicted for being a felon in illegal possession of a weapon. This was, Galloway said, the bar's fault for not searching its patrons for weapons. Thankfully, a federal court threw out the case; at least it was pro se. [Valley News Dispatch; AP/law.com]

At least here the case was thrown out.

 

[ClearSightTactical]

Again, I am looking for cases where it is not a BS claim of self defense. By BS claim I mean "Well, your honor.. I was selling this guy some crack when he tried to rob me. I defended myself by busting a cap in his a.."

I mean legitimate self defense claims ending up in court.

 

[stingray2100]

if you really want to research you need to go to the court and see if you can go thru some closed old cases. If and this is a big if they are ok with that.

 

[ClearSightTactical]

if you really want to research you need to go to the court and see if you can go thru some closed old cases. If and this is a big if they are ok with that.

lol going to court and trying to find that info would be interesting. I need some sort of identifier such as a name, address, or date to find the court case. I've looked through the online cases which all seem to support my theory, just wanting to see on a national level if there were any cases that sent an innocent man through the process.

 

[mappow]

lol going to court and trying to find that info would be interesting. I need some sort of identifier such as a name, address, or date to find the court case. I've looked through the online cases which all seem to support my theory, just wanting to see on a national level if there were any cases that sent an innocent man through the process.

Source DOJ possibly and Clerks of the Court On-Line in high density cities. Most COC's have online services and it is "Public Record" after conviction in most cases.

 

[ClearSightTactical]

Most cases I'm seeing are based on the grounds of:

1. Accidental. Self defense is deliberate, if the killing was an accident it is not SD.
2. Retaliation. If a person killed or injured after the threat has passed it is not SD.
3. Murder. One case had a man claim that he beat his wife to death in SD, obviously this was not upheld.

I'm not seeing any cases where a clear cut assertion of self defense had been denied.

Sorry for a waste of a thread, just thinking out loud I guess.

 

[Kasper]

The Gary Fadden Incident
Written by Massad Ayoob for American Handgunner

Link Removed.

The story is way to big to post here so just click the link to read it.

This is the only thing I was able to find that matches with what you were looking for. Only problem is it involves a class III weapon used in SD.

 

[ClearSightTactical]

Link Removed.

The story is way to big to post here so just click the link to read it.

This is the only thing I was able to find that matches with what you were looking for. Only problem is it involves a class III weapon used in SD.

Going to Massad Ayoob Group class in March leasantry: very excited.

 

[JimMullinsWVCDL]

I don't have citations handy. However, I have seen a couple of cases where what were otherwise perfectly valid self-defense shootings based upon all the physical evidence and statements by witnesses other than the shooter be destroyed by very inarticulate statements by the shooter during police questionning right after the shooting, one of whom was poorly educated and whom I would have given the benefit of the doubt that neither the jury nor the appellate court did.

For this reason, I strongly believe a person who is involved in a self-defense shooting should only give a minimal statement to the police, if any, stating that the person was attacked, feared for his, life, and acted in self-defense without further commentary, and then invoke his/her right to remain silent and speak to an attorney. A person should not give any further statement until he/she has had time to collect his/her thoughts and emotionally and mentally recover from the criminal attack that caused him/her to act in self-defense. Only then should a person, with the advice of counsel, consider making any further statements. At this point, I would not make a statement without the benefit of examining the physical evidence and other witness statements. The police do the same thing when they're involved in shootings, and so should the rest of us.

 

[ClearSightTactical]

I don't have citations handy. However, I have seen a couple of cases where what were otherwise perfectly valid self-defense shootings based upon all the physical evidence and statements by witnesses other than the shooter be destroyed by very inarticulate statements by the shooter during police questionning right after the shooting, one of whom was poorly educated and whom I would have given the benefit of the doubt that neither the jury nor the appellate court did.

For this reason, I strongly believe a person who is involved in a self-defense shooting should only give a minimal statement to the police, if any, stating that the person was attacked, feared for his, life, and acted in self-defense without further commentary, and then invoke his/her right to remain silent and speak to an attorney. A person should not give any further statement until he/she has had time to collect his/her thoughts and emotionally and mentally recover from the criminal attack that caused him/her to act in self-defense. Only then should a person, with the advice of counsel, consider making any further statements. At this point, I would not make a statement without the benefit of examining the physical evidence and other witness statements. The police do the same thing when they're involved in shootings, and so should the rest of us.

Two weeks ago I would have completely agreed with you. Massad Ayoob, like him or not is internationally known and respected use of deadly force expert witness. I haven't taken his class yet, but in his taped seminars he states the following:

Lawyers tell you to shut up because you might make a mistake in your statement. They tell you not to take the stand because its suicide. Most lawyers do not have experience defending an innocent man- most lawyers don't have experience defending a justified homicide. They have you defend yourself as though you are guilty. Let me ask you this, if you don't take the stand and tell your side of the story and stand up for yourself- who the hell is going to?

By keeping quiet at a crime scene you may be letting evidence in your favor be brushed over and missed, once its gone its gone forever, that seemingly harmless and unrelated metal pipe at your metal shop where the incident occured may have been your ticket out of jail.

 

[nogods]

Two weeks ago I would have completely agreed with you. Massad Ayoob, like him or not is internationally known and respected use of deadly force expert witness. I haven't taken his class yet, but in his taped seminars he states the following:

Lawyers tell you to shut up because you might make a mistake in your statement. They tell you not to take the stand because its suicide. Most lawyers do not have experience defending an innocent man- most lawyers don't have experience defending a justified homicide. They have you defend yourself as though you are guilty. Let me ask you this, if you don't take the stand and tell your side of the story and stand up for yourself- who the hell is going to?

By keeping quiet at a crime scene you may be letting evidence in your favor be brushed over and missed, once its gone its gone forever, that seemingly harmless and unrelated metal pipe at your metal shop where the incident occured may have been your ticket out of jail.

I don't think Massad Ayoob grasps of the concepts of a criminal trial.

 

[ClearSightTactical]

I don't think Massad Ayoob grasps of the concepts of a criminal trial.

Please enlighten me

 

[1015811414]

Link Removed.

The story is way to big to post here so just click the link to read it.

This is the only thing I was able to find that matches with what you were looking for. Only problem is it involves a class III weapon used in SD.

That story was amazing. Thanks for the link.

Hans

 

[S&W645]

I sat on a jury in one such case, but the facts did not backup the defendant. Person claimed self defense in shooting a drug dealer and bully. Facts showed bullet marks in the stairway above the defendant's apt. With the bullet wounds in the BG in his back and at rising angles. We found the person guilty of the lessor crime of Manslaughter because firing a gun inside a building that results in a death has that charge. Penalty could have been time served but that wasn't for us to decide.

 

[S&W645]

Two weeks ago I would have completely agreed with you. Massad Ayoob, like him or not is internationally known and respected use of deadly force expert witness. I haven't taken his class yet, but in his taped seminars he states the following:

Lawyers tell you to shut up because you might make a mistake in your statement. They tell you not to take the stand because its suicide. Most lawyers do not have experience defending an innocent man- most lawyers don't have experience defending a justified homicide. They have you defend yourself as though you are guilty. Let me ask you this, if you don't take the stand and tell your side of the story and stand up for yourself- who the hell is going to?

By keeping quiet at a crime scene you may be letting evidence in your favor be brushed over and missed, once its gone its gone forever, that seemingly harmless and unrelated metal pipe at your metal shop where the incident occured may have been your ticket out of jail.

Your lawyer is who defends you. There is no need for a defendant to take the stand if a case is weak. And it prevents a DA from a chance to examine a defendant.

 

[ClearSightTactical]

Your lawyer is who defends you. There is no need for a defendant to take the stand if a case is weak. And it prevents a DA from a chance to examine a defendant.

I'm not an attorney so i'd definitely go with advice of counsel, just saying if its an "iffy" situation I think testimony would be helpful...again not an attorney so I have no basis other than my reasoning to back up my opinion

 

[S&W645]

I'm not an attorney so i'd definitely go with advice of counsel, just saying if its an "iffy" situation I think testimony would be helpful...again not an attorney so I have no basis other than my reasoning to back up my opinion

In the case I talked about above, the defendant would have been better off saying nothing. Because she admitted firing the weapon in court, which the police did not have, we had no choice but to find her guilty.

In a second case, the defendant said nothing and relied on his lawyer. The defendant walked.

Anecdotal, yes. But this is why you pay a lawyer. It has always worked for me. If they say to not talk, you don't. The PA/DA or lawyer on the other side will always try to trip you up in custody, court or mediation. It is what they get paid to do, win the case. If your lawyer does the talking, the DA/PA or other side's lawyer loses that chance to trip you up. That is also the point of the video Don't talk to the police, silence without council present. With the change in Miranda, they don't have to tell you either.

Lawyer: "When did you stop speeding?"
Defendant: "I never have."
Lawyer: "So you admit speeding in the past. No further questions."
That in court could lose you the case as you just put the thought in the jury's mind.