The Myth of the Zealous Prosecutor

KirStang,

That's why I would identify first However, if the police were in the backyard which is a 6ft. privacy fence attached to the house, do they really have legal authority to enter that portion of the yard without proper identification as being police officers and/or obtaining a warrant? Or is that dependent on state regulations?

Back to the original purpose of the thread, I seriously believe that if I were to shoot someone as they entered my house illegally, that a prosecutor would make sure the grand jury indicted me on something and pressed it as hard as he/she possibly could. Despite the fact that I felt that someone breaking into my house is an imminent threat to my family and life, I have zero doubt I'd be charged with something.

 

And that's where I think you're wrong. This sort of thing happens regularly enough that there's a pattern, and I just don't think that we see the sort of prosecution you think exists. If someone breaks into your house while you're there - which has the catchy new title "home invasion" - then I don't think a prosecutor is going to go after you, mainly because the law is pretty clearly on your side. There has been a rash of home invasion in East Tennessee, and, of the handful where a bad guy has been shot, I haven't seen a single report of a homeowner being prosecuted, with the sole exception of the guy who chased a bad guy a half mile and shot him in the back from a distance. But if I remember right, he was charged with illegal discharge because he was in a residential area.

 

LAWYER'D!

 

Exactly... chances are. Does the possibility of someone being a burglar really grant you the right to shoot them to smithereens?

Further, that guy in the case mentioned did not wait to identify for certain who the people behind the garage door were.

 

The level of "no good," however, is considered in many cases where the use of DEADLY FORCE is involved.

Fun Pop Culture Example: Turns out shooting someone for TPing your house is illegal in most states.

 

Probably not Texas, though. I think you can get the death penalty for that there if you're black and the homeowner's white. Fremen, confirm?

 

DID YOU KNOW: Texas is the country's asshole (complete w/ stats).

AMERICA!!!

*shoots dual .357s into the air*

 

I love the internet. I went looking for a Yosemite Sam picture to post and came across this. It seems so ... appropriate to the discussion.

 

Foot, meet mouth. I was way naive.

I take back what I said. As OP. I was wrong. Way wrong. I'm seeing too many stupid fuckin' battery cases.

 

I didn't read the whole thread. It was too damn long. Though that wont keep me from adding my two cents:

The whole "over zealous prosecutor" thing is a goddamned myth perpetuated by the gun shop crowd. Those folks cant help it; its an industry built on a foundation of paranoia and the instinctive desire to appear better-informed than you. "You need a gun because people are out to get you. Better yet, you need this new super-expensive gun because double-secret ninja tweekers are generally immune to regular bullets fired from a normal gun." The folks pushing the prosecutor myth are the same folks that made bank when Pres Obama took office and was going to take all of our guns and jerbs. The core tenet of the( inner circle of the) gun crowd is predicated on the idea that SOMEONE is out to get you at all times and only they know about it. I mean, the do work in a gun shop. So obviously they feel completely comfortable warning you about how shooting a bad guy multiple times with a gun that has a modified sling will result in your getting sued in civil court. While they cant actually cite precedent, they are damned sure of the inevitable outcome.

Post Script: Mas Ayoob is a tumbling, tumbling dickweed. He is like pre-MMA Chuck Norris. Up until OIF/OEF rolled around, he was the absolute king swinging dick when it came to shooting people. Once shooting people became mainstream and folks kind of realized that maybe Mas didn't know what the fuck he was talking about, he kind of disappeared from the spotlight and relied on name recognition. I've had the opportunity to correspond with him at length about using a modified gun in self defense. He was/is convinced that installing a 3.5lbs connector would result in a guilty verdict, even if you were using it to defend your sweet, virgin asshole from a wave assault of armed, anti-government rapists. While I based my argument on logic and actually having pointed guns at people in real life, his argument was "Dude. I'm Mas Ayoob and I'm Israeli. Therefore your argument is invalid.". Fuck that guy.

 

LMAO. This makes me wish you'd post more.

 

Great article that contradicts my original point:

http://www.thejuryexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/MeyerTJESep2009Volume21No5.pdf
I briefly skimmed it, but they tested the hypothesis by showing that the homeowner used either an AR15 or a Ruger Mini14, and the outcome between the two was relatively significant (7-9 years for the AR15, 2.5 years for the Mini14).

 

Interesting and somewhat disturbing.

I would kind of like to know how many of the students responded with a not guilty sentence. I assume the researchers would have entered any not guilty sentences as a recommendation of "0 years" and then input that with the rest of the data to get the averages. But it's not quite clear (at least to me, unless I'm just over thinking this) that the sentencing averages is just being calculated from the respondents who thought the homeowner was guilty, and thus any entries for "0 years" would have been omitted.

 

To be quite honest, the homeowner would have never gone to trial since the Castle doctrine would have precluded prosecution. Nonetheless, you see pretty clearly that there is a distinct difference in the way juries treat defendants when presented with mean-looking firearms.

 

Finally, it comes out... the ONE advantage to owning a Mini-14.

 

FTFY.

The same prejustice is why defendants don't appear in front of juries in prison uniforms.

Personally, I see this article as a logical extension of the eccentricities of human nature. A guy shooting a burglar is more likely to be charged if he firing a combat-ready semi-automatic compared to his wife's lavendar .32, all other circumstances being equal. The bad guy is equally dead, but the weapon choice could make a big difference.

This could evolve into a discussion on why Blacks are more likely to be convicted of violent crimes, but that's probably best saved for Politics.

 

But the "among other factors" phrase basically means, "things influence juries."

To which I insert the assholic response:

I've yet to see a case where the *type* of gun really made a difference between being *charged* and not being charged.

Finally, with respect to the study, the population group was all college students--number one, I sure as hell don't want college students sitting in my jury, and number 2, sentences are usually handed down by Judges, not juries.

 

Ummmm, KirStang, you phrase the OP about being charged and about zealous prosecution. Then you wander back in with a study to support that argument. All I did was point out the obvious. But if you're going to get all 7-year-old girl about something, I'll just end by saying that your last 3 posts in this thread aren't your finest.

 

Well, that was a very respectable response. Well played, sir.