Posted on 10/16/2013 5:53:39 AM PDT by marktwain
Tulsa, Okla. —
A homeowner returns from a walk Saturday evening and finds an intruder inside his home near Skelly and Lewis.
Police say they received the call around 6 p.m., but not just for a burglary.
(Excerpt) Read more at krmg.com ...
Pretty simple lesson:
Don’t sneak into homes not your own.
You might get shot.
Beat him unconscious, tie him up, drag him outside.
PAINTBALL time!
Nasty welts all over his person, while asking him bizarre questions.
A trip down the rabbit hole for him.
“Who do you work for? Who sent you? What do you know about Project Arc Bow?!”
The Intruder was apparently not carrying a name, but likely had at least two arms.....
This is why perps want the local papers to publish the names and addresses of gun owners, so they know which houses not to burglarize.
In 0’s world the homeowner will be charged with assault with a deadly weapon and unlawful discharge of a firearm and sentenced to 5 - 10 years in prison while the perp will get 5 years probation and walk...
Oh yeah forgot 0 would charge him with attempted murder too
No pic?
Didn’t see one (pic)
(notes in parentheses)
He picked up his gun on the way to that bedroom when he saw the burglar standing in the hallway. “I quickly noticed someone standing in the entrance way to my bedroom. I just simply reacted, finger went on the trigger, clicked off the safety and I shot him three times...”
(You *do* this, but this is *not* what you tell the police. Instead, you say “I thought he had something like a weapon in his hand, which he was raising towards me in a threatening manner.”)
“He made his escape by pushing my window unit out the window,” He said. “Taking a 12-foot high dive out my bedroom window.”
(As a note, while it might be emotionally gratifying, do not throw a perp out a window any lower than five stories (50 feet)).
He may well have been armed, it is unclear.
From the first report:
“Police say they found the gun in the front yard.”
It matters tactically if he was armed or not. But legally, if you say you thought he was armed, and was attempting to use that weapon against you or someone else, you are good.
Other things they may ask about, which can sound foolish, but can really matter in court, and are used as traps:
1) Were the decedent or you in an illuminated location?
2) Were you able to visually identify the decedent?
3) Could you judge the height of the decedent?
4) What kind of weapon did you think the decedent had? (A really trick question.)
5) Did either of you speak before you fired?
Court testimony is less honesty than ritual. Honesty can be used against you, which is why the ritual evolved. A pat, bulletproof answer is often far better than the truth.
It is one of the reasons for the Fifth Amendment.
A polite refusal to answer questions absent the presence of legal council is almost always good advice.
what are the answers?
Absolutely. However, in court, starting with the Coroner’s inquest, if you know how to give the ritualized answers, it will usually satisfy “the system” that you were in the right, so the case will proceed no further against you.
Zimmerman is a great example. He was very forthcoming with the police, turning them to his side, but he was prosecuted (persecuted) anyway. And though his case was not about burglary or robbery, there are still some ritualized expression he could have used to help short circuit things.
Unfortunately, the answers need to be tailored to fit the event. This is a major purpose of a good lawyer: not to tell you what to say, but to tell you how to say it.
An early example of this happened in England in the 19th Century. A policeman found the remains of a man who had been decapitated. In court he testified that he had found a dead man.
But a lawyer challenged him on this. “How did you know he was dead? Are you a doctor?”
So the officer changed his story, that “When I found his lordship, I determined that he had been ‘interfered with’.”
Yes, criminal court rituals can be that stupid. But once somebody discovers that they work, they become part of the court’s lexicon, and witnesses, especially police, use them more and more.
Other things they may ask about, which can sound foolish, but can really matter in court, and are used as traps:
1) Were the decedent or you in an illuminated location?
2) Were you able to visually identify the decedent?
3) Could you judge the height of the decedent?
4) What kind of weapon did you think the decedent had? (A really trick question.)
5) Did either of you speak before you fired?
Court testimony is less honesty than ritual. Honesty can be used against you, which is why the ritual evolved. A pat, bulletproof answer is often far better than the truth.
Actually the ONLY answer is your name, I was afraid for my life and I WANT AN ATTORNEY!!! Nothing else, don't EVER talk to the police EVER about anything unless your lawyer is present. They are NOT your friend and have no interest in helping you or anybody else. If anybody reads this please take home this one fact DON'T EVER JUST " TALK" to the police. EVER. . Don't describe anything, don't tell them anything don't even try to explain what happened. Just your name, you were afraid and you want your lawyer.
I agree. But often the incident doesn’t end with the police leaving. You will likely have to testify at the Coroner’s Inquest hearing, unless you plead the fifth, which you probably won’t have to do, because you have had a lot of attorney counseling by that point.
The Coroner’s Inquest is not a trial, but really to determine the cause of death; which will almost certainly be called “homicide”, which is not accusatory, and just says that one person killed another person, or one person committed suicide.
All this information then feeds into the Grand Jury inquest, in which it is up to the prosecutor as to whether to prosecute you, a decision that has to be supported by the Grand Jury.
Then and only then, when it goes to trial, should you clam up again, unless your attorney says otherwise.
[Video: Don’t talk to police]
A good one, learned a lot, but the guy drove me nuts by talking too fast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.