That last sentence while I know it is true has the potential to scare me the most.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
What would you do during a Bad Guy Attack
- Thread starter Janx
- Start date
That last sentence while I know it is true has the potential to scare me the most.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
It isn't entirely arbitrary, though it can certainly be abused that way. Take something I do know something about, prosecution for Medicaid fraud. Several years ago I worked on reports for a state Medicaid outfit. I saw the raw data for suspected and likely fraud most every day for seven years.
The DA charged with going after it goes after a tiny percentage of the total. They simply don't have the resources to go after all of it. So they go after the worst cases, and a handful of others that they think will be easy to prove, so as to make examples. The rest of them the state will negotiate on terms of, basically--"pay us back the money and don't file Medicaid claims anymore, and will let you go." Nonetheless, I know of at least one incident that was probably mere laxness that was prosecuted as fraud by a DA out to make a name, but should have been handled the softer way. That doesn't mean that most Medicaid fraud prosecutions are arbitrary--just that there is always the possibility by the nature of the problem.
If you randomly snatch a purse, you get one set of criteria. If you randomly snatch a purse from an elderly lady in an area where two toughs nearly killing someone for $20 so that they can get their next drug hit is not uncommon, but is mostly inhabited by law-abiding people who grew up shooting squirrels out of trees in one shot--then you might get a slightly different set of criteria. They aren't going to elect a DA that will prosecute that lady, and if he does in a moment of insanity, the jury isn't going to convict.
Doesn't matter what the law says. Or rather, it does, so the laws have changed lately to more reflect the reality of how it will be handled, rather than trying to change the reality to match the laws.
I look at it as the safety net. In America, in every case, the law is also on trial. Is it just, is it applicable.
Applying a law without context means more people get charged with crimes than society would accept.
In virtually all societies across all time, the robber is always a bad guy from the perspective of the group the grandma belongs to. Societies may disagree with her response (using violence), but generally, she's the innocent to be protected.
There are few societies which would brand the grandma as a bad guy. Which is what strict application of the law would do (because she would be a felon).
Additionally, there seems to be legal precedent that breaking the law due to another person breaking the law is defensible.
Case in point, my wife was riding in a car to school with a friend. Apparently, in this town, north/south streets have right of way over cross streets (I never knew that). They crossed the street and got hit by a speeding truck. The cop wrote my wife's friend a ticket.
They went to court and won because the truck was speeding. Had he not been speeding, the distance he was from the car when it entered the intersection would have been sufficient and thus no accident would have resulted.
Not the exact same thing, but the point is, the law allows for "if X crime had not happened Y crime would not have happened, therefore the person causing X is at fault and Y is not really a crime."
So, in grandma's case, she pursued the bad guy around a corner. BFD. She did not wantonly endanger bystanders and the action was part of her initial reaction to defend herself and her property. If the bad guy had never tried to rob her, she never would have been in physical or legal peril.
I'm sure real lawyers could clarify and correct this observation.
Self-defense though does have pretty strong regulations and has been tried and tested quite often.
The grandma is not really a 'bad guy' by intent necessarily but she did break the law and used deadly force when the law explicitly states you definitely cannot. This is something that has been strongly tested in all states so has a lot of precedent to it.
On the other hand, obviously it is a law that is practiced by people so has lots of added complexities beyond the given verbiage (it is why we have courts and legal professions).
It is firmly established that you cannot pursue in cases like this. But I would like to hear a lawyers opinion on this, they will have far greater expertise than my limited google knowledge.
I will say that I think what people think will happen when it goes to court/legal system is probably very different than the reality of it. I imagine that the old lady in today's day and age would be more likely to be arrested than not and would be more likely to be sued than not (I could definitely be wrong, but that is my initial thoughts). Now obviously if she has no money that would affect the civil portion of my scenario.
Once again though I would love to hear a lawyers take on this.
But legal issues of self defense and its ramifications I find interesting.
One thing any DA- regardless of unique variables in state laws on self-defense- would take into account would be "the heat of the moment."
Roughly put, they would examine how much time elapsed between the initiation of the crime, Granny's initial response, and the interval between THAT and the pursuit that culminated in additional shots being fired.
If we're talking a minute between the first 2 shots and the last 2, I doubt any DA prosecutes. If we're talking 2 shots, a 10 minute pursuit, the snatcher getting cornered and THEN shot 2 more times, that's a clear breach of the peace. (Barring other facts not in evidence, of course.)
Roughly put, they would examine how much time elapsed between the initiation of the crime, Granny's initial response, and the interval between THAT and the pursuit that culminated in additional shots being fired.
If we're talking a minute between the first 2 shots and the last 2, I doubt any DA prosecutes. If we're talking 2 shots, a 10 minute pursuit, the snatcher getting cornered and THEN shot 2 more times, that's a clear breach of the peace. (Barring other facts not in evidence, of course.)
Well, from a real case here in Houston a few years back:
a neighborhood had been getting hit by a spate of robbers.
One resident, notices 2 black dudes breaking into his neighbor's house. He calls 911 and gets his shotgun.
the 911 dispatch tells him to stay inside, but he goes out and confronts the robbers. He also says something racially disrespectful, but given the circumstances may apply to the bad people robbing his neighbor.
As I recall, they turn and run, and he shoots them in the back, killing them.
Quannell X shows up to make a big deal out of the story, because that's what he does. The guy making the racial statement on the 911 call being his focus for "hate crime".
The news covers it the whole time. Ultimately the case goes to a grand jury where they do not bring the case to trial. The jist is, the guy defending his neighbor's property under the terms of the Castle Law in Texas is cleared.
I may have gotten a detail or two wrong, but the case is: guy catches 2 suspects in the act and kills them as they turn to run and he is not prosecuted in a formal trial (though a grand jury thing is like a trial and probably just as serious).
If a guy can shoot 2 crooks in the back at the scene of the crime, a grandma can chase a purse snatcher a bit and shoot him in the ass. Legal Precedent works that way.
First Texas works much differently than other states particular in self-defense laws. I am surprised Castle Law worked in this case but I could see how it could.
If the crooks left the house and he shot them while they go down the street, he would really have to prove imminent danger which would be hard.
EDIT: i just realized you were talking about the Joe Horn case (had to look up the name). My parents live in Houston so i remember them talking about it. Looking it up, this case caused lots of debates and legal discussion. In his favor the 2 men did charge him giving him greater reason to claim self-defense.
Conversely in Ga there was a case (this was brought up in my high school Civil class as it was relevant and allowed them to bring 'current' events into teaching') where a guy in a house shot an intruder. He was convicted of manslaughter as he shot the guy in the back as the guy was trying to leave his house.
I only bring this up as such cases can go either way. There is in most states the idea that you need to retreat if possible in all non-home related situations.
These are totally different scenarios relative to the grandma story. She pursued, she was no longer in imminent danger, it was not her house etc. Legal precedent does not apply to such dissimilar cases as you brought up; legal precedent does not work like that. I am not saying she would get prosecuted, she might very well not as particular elements (like timing as brought up by Danny) would play a role in this.
My general point really was that people get arrested and prosecuted in "self-defense" cases all the time. The most common defense in assault is self-defense plea.
Last edited:
well, my point about legal precedent is if there's enough cases where the self defender gets off, it reinforces letting the next one off (particularly if you have a good lawyer).
And of course, Texas's self defense laws are a bit more open. The way most people talk about what they should be able to do, it's a shock that other states don't have the same laws given that they don't match to the mindset of the people.
In any event, when I cited the Castle Law, in texas, it sums up to necessary force in defense of self or other or property owned by self or other. There's also a time of day clause (dusk or later I think). The gist is, the Horn case was OK because he was defending a neighbor's property AND it had the right time of day.
If the crooks had dropped the loot and run down the street, he'd be hosed. But as long as they were holding the loot, he could probably chase them all night.
In any case, you're arguing that by the letter of the law, the grandma should be in jail. I do not disagree with that interpretation of the law.
I would disagree with the law itself. I would advocate changing the law if the government punished its citizens for doing what its police officers failed to do, protect and serve. (constrained to the immediate crime event, not hunting down criminals or patrolling like Batman).
My premise is that the police cannot prevent all crimes, nor be in all places. As such, despite their mandate to protect and serve, they do not have the right to restrict grandma's ability to protect her interests from criminals (who are in effect Terrorists, which this country is in a state of war over). Basically, they can't bitch about how she did their job because they weren't there doing it.
Given the solve rate for random crime is piss poor, grandma busting a cap in his ass was the best lead the cops had to catching the guy. Therefore, citizens dealing with the matter directly when it happens may be more effective in some instances.
He cant chase them because of the loot. You cannot use lethal force to protect items in that way. According to every state, that would almost definitely get you thrown in jail. He could use nonlethal force (pointing a gun at them even as a bargaining tool is considered using lethal force) and try and make an arrest, but that can have its own issues.
In Texas, you can protect your neighbors property (home) as long as you can make the case that you believe you are protecting it and there is reasonable fear of imminent danger to yourself or your neighbor.
But it is consistent across states that you cannot use lethal force to protect personal property.
While there are cases where they have upheld self defense there are many where they haven't and have successfully prosecuted the 'defender.' My guess is that the overwhelming claims of self defense are not upheld (mostly because that is the most common claim in any battery); i do not know if this is necessarily true, just my thought based on what i read.
While laws need to be able to protect someone defending themselves, it almost by nature is going to be very murky. Size of defender vs assailant, weapons involved, ability to escape, intention of defender, provocative actions of defender etc all play a role in whether they will prosecute you for self defense.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
