Use of deadly force and civil litigation

[STAGE 2]

To quote Mas Ayoob from another thread:

Injecting reality into a discussion is not telling people to not be prepared. Its giving an accurate picture of how things happen. Telling someone their odds of getting struck by lightning is not encouraging them to stand near a large antenna during a storm. The same applies here, especially when the masses are promoting the notion that if you are out in a storm you WILL be struck by lightning.

Furthermore, with all due respect to Mr. Ayoob, while he is an authority on all things firearms, he is not an authority on all things legal. This sentence... "When the legal attack almost inevitably follows the street attack, you won't have time to formulate a strategy; it's best to have already prepared yourself with one..." kind of disturbs me as it suggests that one should have a "story" for likely situations.

Now I'm NOT suggesting that Mr. Ayoob is advocating anyone to lie. However what I am suggesting is that this statement fundamentally misrepresents the legal realities of what will happen after what we can assume is a good shoot. The DA and the judge aren't going to "pounce" on you without giving you time to consult your attorney. This, of course, assumes that it even goes this far, which it probably wont.

 

[STAGE 2]

I know ADAs and DAs who were so focused on winning that the innocent were at risk

You see, this is what confuses me. Isn't it the DA's job to win if the case is sufficient to go to trial? Are you suggesting that the DA just throw the case? Or are you suggesting that DA's are bringing cases that have no business going to trial? Cause the latter is what happened to Nifong and why he's toast.

 

[buzz_knox]

The DA and the judge aren't going to "pounce" on you without giving you time to cousult your attorney. This, of course, assumes that it even goes this far, which it probably wont.

Will the investigating officers "pounce"? Or will they allow you to come in at your discretion, perhaps after a few days vacation? I think the "pounce" is far more likely, and if you aren't under arrest, you don't get the phone call, attorney, etc. Unfortunately, many people tend to blather to an officer when confronted, and forget that they don't need to say a word at first.

As for having a "story," that's the best advice in the world, and it has nothing to do with lying or generating facts. It deals with understanding what actually occurred and being able to articulate the facts, rather than merely your initial impressions. It's the same reason that officers are trained to give minimal information up front and wait until they've talked to their rep before getting into details of what occurred (without giving specifics on rounds fired, etc., and allowing the forensics guys to handle that aspect of things).

 

[M1911]

Stage 2: you might want to check this out: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

There are plenty of examples. Here's just one:

Defendant detectives Richard Walsh and Timothy Callahan investigated the case.

At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing in 2003, Superior Court Judge Barbara J. Rouse granted Drumgold's motion for a new trial after finding that "justice was not done" and the "system had failed."

Suffolk prosecutors subsequently entered a nolle proseque, which ended the prosecution of the case.

I was just at a "courtroom survival" seminar this weekend. The presenters included an appellate attorney (Lisa Steele), a very prominent MA defense attorney who discussed a self defense case that he recently won, another defense attorney who had previously been an ADA for 13 years, and a police chief.

Counselor Steele discussed several cases, including one which she lost where the judge refused to let a defense expert testify. She played a clip from the oral argument in appellate court. Believe it or not, one of the appellate judges said that it was clear the defendant was looking for trouble because he was carrying a spare magazine.

The former DA spoke about a self-defense case that he had recently won. It was as clear a case of self defense as you could want. This former DA felt the case should never have been prosecuted.

I keep hearing this. That our justice system is a crap shoot and that there are just as many bad apples as good apples. Well, I'd like to see some evidence of this. Show me something that suggests these assertions are true.

You folks point to a single case, or maybe two. For every one of these I have millions that worked out properly.

I believe that Mas Ayoob addressed this previously. Many sheep wander around and say "violence will never happen to me." And you know what? Based on probabilities they are probably correct. Most people will not be the victims of violent crime. So you can leave your gun at home and most likely you will be just fine.

So why do we carry guns then? Because life is a roll of the dice and if your number comes up it will really suck to be unarmed.

It is quite astonishing that so many gun owners understand that bad things can sometimes happen on the street, but somehow fail to believe that the same is possible in the legal arena.

If you don't believe us, start talking to some criminal attorneys in your area. Buy them a beer or three and ask them about the miscarriages of justice in the courtroom, or abusive prosecutions, or shoddy police work that they've seen. Then shut up and listen for a while.

 

[STAGE 2]

Will the investigating officers "pounce"? Or will they allow you to come in at your discretion, perhaps after a few days vacation?

If you mean are they just going to let you leave after you've just killed a guy, then no. However, if theres a dead perp on the ground holding a knife, who just happens to have a nice long record, and you're John Q public with his CCW and your story matches up with the physical evidence, then you aren't going to be harassed or "pounced" upon.

I think the "pounce" is far more likely, and if you aren't under arrest, you don't get the phone call, attorney, etc.

If you aren't under arrest, then what is there to worry about.

As for having a "story," that's the best advice in the world, and it has nothing to do with lying or generating facts. It deals with understanding what actually occurred and being able to articulate the facts, rather than merely your initial impressions.

Ok, so explain to me how you have a story prepared where you can "articulate the facts" when the event hasn't occured yet.

 

[M1911]

The DA and the judge aren't going to "pounce" on you without giving you time to consult your attorney.

The responding officers will indeed try to get a statement out of you. They absolutely will try to befriend you. They will tell you that you don't need a lawyer. They may lie to you. They are trained to get you to talk. They will stop IF you assert your right to have an attorney present. But you need to firmly indicate that you won't answer questions until your lawyer is present. If you say "maybe I should talk to my lawyer", the courts have ruled that is not invoking your Miranda rights.

 

[buzz_knox]

You see, this is what confuses me. Isn't it the DA's job to win if the case is sufficient to go to trial? Are you suggesting that the DA just throw the case? Or are you suggesting that DA's are bringing cases that have no business going to trial? Cause the latter is what happened to Nifong and why he's toast.

"Convicting the guilty is the easy part. The trick is to convict the innocent." Direct quote from an ADA I worked for, and he wasn't kidding.

As for bringing cases likely to get tossed, or throwing cases themselves, it happens plenty.

As for Nifong, he wasn't toast because he brought a worthless case. He was toast because 1) he withheld evidence, 2) he lied to opposing counsel, 3) he lied to the court, 4) he ran his mouth to the media to advance his career and made a spectacle of himself, and 5) he didn't drop the case when it became clear that both the evidence and the media were going against him.

 

[buzz_knox]

If you mean are they just going to let you leave after you've just killed a guy, then no. However, if theres a dead perp on the ground holding a knife, who just happens to have a nice long record, and you're John Q public with his CCW and your story matches up with the physical evidence, then you aren't going to be harassed or "pounced" upon.

Ah, the old "if it looks righteous, the cops won't be suspicous" defense. Because the cops have never met anyone who misjudged a situation, who looks clean but isn't, who helped provoke a fight that escalated, etc. And they will also have instant understanding of the physical evidence, before the scene is cleared. Starting from the assumption that you really are clean, how will the cops determine that unless they interrogate you?

If you aren't under arrest, then what is there to worry about.

Running your mouth enough due to being stressed that you end up under arrest would be one thing to worry about. "He was trying to kill me" is justification for lethal force; "I was terrified he was going to beat me down" isn't. You might ask Ayoob the distinction, as that comes from one of the cases he was involved in. The guy had a righteous shoot (he defended himself from multiple attackers who were known to stomp their victims) but told the cops he was worried about a physical assault rather than the lethal attack that he actually feared. He didn't articulate things correctly and got to be a ward of the state for awhile.

Ok, so explain to me how you have a story prepared where you can "articulate the facts" when the event hasn't occured yet.

There are plenty of facts that occur before hand that you should be able to explain, such as modifications you've made to your weapon, your choice of the weapon itself, etc. You should also have somewhat of a grasp of how to respond even after the event, so you don't talk yourself into a charge.

 

[STAGE 2]

I was just at a "courtroom survival" seminar this weekend. The presenters included an appellate attorney (Lisa Steele), a very prominent MA defense attorney who discussed a self defense case that he recently won, another defense attorney who had previously been an ADA for 13 years, and a police chief.

Counselor Steele discussed several cases, including one which she lost where the judge refused to let a defense expert testify. She played a clip from the oral argument in appellate court. Believe it or not, one of the appellate judges said that it was clear the defendant was looking for trouble because he was carrying a spare magazine.

The former DA spoke about a self-defense case that he had recently won. It was as clear a case of self defense as you could want. This former DA felt the case should never have been prosecuted.

Sorry, posting tidbits and snippets don't qualify. If you want to discuss a particular case then lets have all the facts. The opinion of one lawyer doesn't constitute a fact.

Secondly, NOWHERE have I said that the justice system works all the time every time. There are mistakes, abberations, and even intentional miscarriages of justice. However, like I said, these are an incredible minority. Even more so today due to scientific advancements.

So once again, injecting some reality into the discussion is what I'm doing to contradict the idea that if you do defend yourself, the justice system will just chew you up and spit you out.

If you don't believe us, start talking to some criminal attorneys in your area. Buy them a beer or three and ask them about the miscarriages of justice in the courtroom, or abusive prosecutions, or shoddy police work that they've seen. Then shut up and listen for a while.

As someone who formerly worked in the DA's office, I think my personal firsthand experience should suffice.

The responding officers will indeed try to get a statement out of you. They absolutely will try to befriend you. They will tell you that you don't need a lawyer. They may lie to you.

And guess how favorably judges look upon statements obtained by police based on lies.

They are trained to get you to talk. They will stop IF you assert your right to have an attorney present. But you need to firmly indicate that you won't answer questions until your lawyer is present. If you say "maybe I should talk to my lawyer", the courts have ruled that is not invoking your Miranda rights.

Why. I hear this, but I still wonder why. If police roll up on a situation where you are standing there with your pistol standing over some dead guy and the only thing out of your mouth is you asserting your right to an attorney and the right to remain silent, you've certianly preserved your rights, but you've also made things massively difficult.

"Convicting the guilty is the easy part. The trick is to convict the innocent." Direct quote from an ADA I worked for, and he wasn't kidding.

Then, if you are an officer of the court, you have an obligation to report him. Don't tell me that you just sat there while a prosecutor stated that he was knowingly prosecuting innocent people (thus suggesting that he had exclupatory evidence of some kind).

Otherwise I call BS.

 

[buzz_knox]

Then, if you are an officer of the court, you have an obligation to report him. Don't tell me that you just sat there while a prosecutor stated that he was knowingly prosecuting innocent people (thus suggesting that he had exclupatory evidence of some kind).

Otherwise I call BS.

Call BS all you want. I was between my first and second year, and was clerking. By the time the whole "reporting someone" concept was established, I couldn't really raise something that happened years ago and was based on a conversation.

And guess how favorably judges look upon statements obtained by police based on lies.

They are accepted, are they not? Haven't courts established that the police may use deception as a tool? Physical or rigorous coercion is what's not allowed.

The opinion of one lawyer doesn't constitute a fact.

As someone who formerly worked in the DA's office, I think my personal firsthand experience should suffice.

I'm not implying anything, just thought the contrasting statements was funny.

STAGE 2, I'm not arguing that you are flat wrong, nor am I arguing for the sake of arguing. The problem is that zealotry exists on both sides. I've watched federal judges ignore the law to carry out personal agendas; I know a DA who let a murderer go because it was politically expedient; I know a judge who attended a party at the home of a defendant in a civil case he was presiding over (surprise, surprise, the defendant won); and I know cops who will support other cops no matter what has occurred. So arguing "all the problems are due to outliers and you'll be fine" ignores the fact that every person who became "outliers" think the same way.

 

[STAGE 2]

Ah, the old "if it looks righteous, the cops won't be suspicous" defense. Because the cops have never met anyone who misjudged a situation, who looks clean but isn't, who helped provoke a fight that escalated, etc. And they will also have instant understanding of the physical evidence, before the scene is cleared. Starting from the assumption that you really are clean, how will the cops determine that unless they interrogate you?

If you misjudge the situation and kill someone (i.e. your belief was not reasonable), you've committed a crime. If you look clean but aren't, then you comitted a crime. If you helped to provoke or start the fight, you aren't clean. See where I'm going with this.

Once again, if you want to remain silent, its your right and your hide. However, if you had a genuine fear of your life and and defended yourself as a result, the police aren't going to sit there and grill you until they find a reason to arrest you. To suggest this means that you believe that every cop is out there to get you. Thats just not the case.

Running your mouth enough due to being stressed that you end up under arrest would be one thing to worry about. "He was trying to kill me" is justification for lethal force; "I was terrified he was going to beat me down" isn't. You might ask Ayoob the distinction, as that comes from one of the cases he was involved in. The guy had a righteous shoot (he defended himself from multiple attackers who were known to stomp their victims) but told the cops he was worried about a physical assault rather than the lethal attack that he actually feared. He didn't articulate things correctly and got to be a ward of the state for awhile.

Well, if he shot them because he didn't want to get beat up then there is a legitimate fact question as to whether he was truly in fear for his life or suffering serious bodily injury. Add to that the fact that the state has the burden and they need to meet that beyond a reasonable doubt, and something tells me I'm only getting half the story.

There are plenty of facts that occur before hand that you should be able to explain, such as modifications you've made to your weapon, your choice of the weapon itself, etc. You should also have somewhat of a grasp of how to respond even after the event, so you don't talk yourself into a charge.

So you've just shot a guy and you want to start talking about the mods you've made to your weapon? Give me a break.


Once again, this idea that if you use a firearm to defend yourself you will end up in court and probably convicted unless you have a strategy just isn't true. If you look at the number of incidents in which firearms are used in self defense and how many of those actually make it to court, and of those how many people are actually convicted, its on the verge of dishonesty casting the impressions that some of you are.

 

[STAGE 2]

So arguing "all the problems are due to outliers and you'll be fine" ignores the fact that every person who became "outliers" think the same way.

I'm not arguing this. I'm arguing that this issue has been blown way out of proportion. I think part of it is because of a legitimate (though not quite factual) fear, and I think part of it is because it makes for good press.

Like I said, I believe in injecting reality. The reality is that most people will never have an encounter where they need to use self defense. Of the people that will, the reality is that most will not need to actually use the firearm to defend themselves. Of those that do, the reality is that the person likely won't be arrested. If they are arrested, the reality is that the DA won't prosecute the case. If the DA does prosecute the case, then the reality is that you won't be convicted because the state won't make its burden. That leaves us with the folks that are convicted.

Now I dont know how many zeros go after the decimal point to figure out what percentage of people this is, but its a whole hell of alot. This doesn't warrant the hype that this issue has recieved.

 

[M1911]

Sorry, posting tidbits and snippets don't qualify. If you want to discuss a particular case then lets have all the facts. The opinion of one lawyer doesn't constitute a fact.

Commonwealth v. Peppicelli. If you worked in a DA's office, then you can find the recordings of the oral arguments for the appeal. Listen to it and weep.

And guess how favorably judges look upon statements obtained by police based on lies.

Sorry, but the courts have held that police can lie to suspects. It is standard police procedure and happens all the time. For example: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/61010/criminal_confessions_can_the_police.html

Standard procedure when you have two perps is to separate them and tell each one that the other is rolling over on them. The courts don't have any problem admitting the resulting confession.

Why. I hear this, but I still wonder why. If police roll up on a situation where you are standing there with your pistol standing over some dead guy and the only thing out of your mouth is you asserting your right to an attorney and the right to remain silent, you've certianly preserved your rights, but you've also made things massively difficult.

Yes. There was a lengthy discussion in the seminar about what you should or should not say in the aftermath of such an incident. The panel of four split two and two about what to say.

The two defense attorneys (one a former prosecutor) said you should STFU and say you need to speak with your attorney. The former prosector was an ADA in Suffolk County (Boston, MA) for 13 years, during which time he prosecuted thousands of cases. When he left the DA's office, he had over 100 attorneys reporting to him. He has been a defense attorney for 5. The other attorney, Kevin Reddington, is one of the most prominent criminal defense attorneys in eastern MA. He successfully defended Charles Chieppa:

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070322/NEWS/703220342

He also represented Dr. Ann Gryboski.

The police chief and Attorney Lisa Steele, a prominent MA and CT appellate attorney, suggested that you make a brief statement to police, saying what happened, pointing out evidence and witnesses.

The big problem that they all agreed on is that in the aftermath of such an incident you will be completely wired with adrenalin and will likely not be that coherent. The effects of the adrenalin can change your perception of time and distance. So your perception of what happened may not be consistent with the forensic evidence. For example, you might tell the officers that the guy was almost right on top of you with his knife when you shot him, when forensics show he was 15 feet away. Then the police think you are lying and things go downhill from there.

I have had large adrenalin dumps on two occasions (that fortunately had nothing to do with self defense). I can attest to the fact that I was not thinking clearly at that time.

In any major US city, the police union's contract typically specifies that in the aftermath of a shooting, the officer involved must be taken to the hospital and does not have to speak to internal affairs until at least 24 hours after the incident and will only do so with his attorney present. There's a reason for that.

Here's excerpt from an article by Attorney Steele:

Oddly, four out of five suspects questioned by police routinely waive these rights and agree to answer the investigator’s questions. Investigators are taught how to create a rapport with a suspect, offer sympathy, minimize the importance of the Miranda right, and persuade suspects to waive their rights and speak with them.

...

Kassin suggests that innocent people have a naive faith in the power of their
innocence to set them free. They may think that investigators will accurately judge their actions and thoughts. Sadly, studies have shown that law enforcement officials are no better than the rest of us at telling truth from lies.

Police officers see a difference between an interview – a neutral conversation
intended to get information about a crime before an arrest, and an interrogation – a post- arrest confrontation intended to gain a confession. In a self-defense situation, you may be arrested at the scene. In a self-defense situation, you will be admitting to intentionally using deadly force against the aggressor. The legal line between lawful self-defense, voluntary manslaughter, and murder can be very thin; much may depend on what you say to police and your words may be dissected by lawyers, judges, and jurors for years to come. In the immediate aftermath of a shooting, you will not be emotionally prepared to give an accurate statement.

Full article is here: http://www.neshooters.com/miranda.pdf

 

[buzz_knox]

So you've just shot a guy and you want to start talking about the mods you've made to your weapon? Give me a break.

You asked what facts existed prior to a shooting you would need to be able to explain. Neither of us conditioned it on explaining it to an investigating officer.

 

[M1911]

However, if you had a genuine fear of your life and and defended yourself as a result, the police aren't going to sit there and grill you until they find a reason to arrest you.

You are sadly mistaken. In the event of the death of a citizen, the police will quite rightly perform a very thorough investigation, including a very thorough interrogation. In most jurisdictions, you can expect to be arrested. You may well not be charged. But you will most likely be arrested.

To suggest this means that you believe that every cop is out there to get you. Thats just not the case.

No, every cop isn't "out to get you." They are trying to do their job. When a citizen dies a violent death they will investigate it thoroughly. They have investigated crimes where what really happened was quite different than how it originally might have appeared. Quite often seasoned investigators have gotten quite cynical and assume that everyone is lying to them (simply because most of the people they deal with are mopes who lie anytime their lips are moving).

A few years back a woman in Arlington, MA was in her home when a drunk burglar broke in. She pointed a gun at him, he laughed and tried to attack her. She shot him in the neck. He survived.

She was arrested. Her license to carry was revoked and all of her guns and ammunition were confiscated. She was not prosecuted and eventually her license was reinstated. But it took over a year for the legal process to wind down.

 

[M1911]

I'm not arguing this. I'm arguing that this issue has been blown way out of proportion. I think part of it is because of a legitimate (though not quite factual) fear, and I think part of it is because it makes for good press.

Tell that to Mr. Peppicelli. He's serving ~7 years.

 

[STAGE 2]

Standard procedure when you have two perps is to separate them and tell each one that the other is rolling over on them. The courts don't have any problem admitting the resulting confession.

And this is AFTER they have been mirandized. AFTER they have been told they dont have to answer. AFTER they have been informed of their right to counsel.

Police don't run up to a scene, mirandize someone and then start asking questions.

Police officers see a difference between an interview – a neutral conversation intended to get information about a crime before an arrest, and an interrogation – a post- arrest confrontation intended to gain a confession.

And I agree with this. However you keep glazing over the point that in most cases with a good shoot, the person defending themselves aren't arrested.

By all means, if you are arrested, button up and keep quiet.

You are sadly mistaken. In the event of the death of a citizen, the police will quite rightly perform a very thorough investigation, including a very thorough interrogation. In most jurisdictions, you can expect to be arrested. You may well not be charged. But you will most likely be arrested.

No, I don't think so. Most good shoots don't involve an arrest. And as you said, the one's that do aren't pursued by the DA without the potential defendant having to do anything.

No, every cop isn't "out to get you." They are trying to do their job. When a citizen dies a violent death they will investigate it thoroughly. They have investigated crimes where what really happened was quite different than how it originally might have appeared. Quite often seasoned investigators have gotten quite cynical and assume that everyone is lying to them (simply because most of the people they deal with are mopes who lie anytime their lips are moving).

And thats fine. The more thorough the investigation the better. The problem that I think you are having is "what happens if others don't find your belief to be reasonable". Thats certianly a possibility. For example, some guy walks up to you and stick a knife in your face and you shoot him. Thats unquestionably a good shoot. However, what if some guy and his buddy walk up to you with no visible weapons and tell you if you don't give them your wallet they are going to, "bust you up". Not so clear cut.

If you, as the gun owner, venture into murky waters by shooting someone who is not legally presenting a threat of deadly force, then you can't blame the justice system for bringing some scrutiny. There are many self defense cases what are not clear cut. These aren't the ones that I'm talking about.

A few years back a woman in Arlington, MA was in her home when a drunk burglar broke in. She pointed a gun at him, he laughed and tried to attack her. She shot him in the neck. He survived.

She was arrested. Her license to carry was revoked and all of her guns and ammunition were confiscated. She was not prosecuted and eventually her license was reinstated. But it took over a year for the legal process to wind down.

Bolded the important part for you.

As far as the rest, this conversation is about people being wrongfully prosecuted for defending themselves. It has NOTHING to do with what happens to your firearm(s). I'll be the first to say that cutting through the bureaucracy to get your property back is maddening at best. However thats a totally separate issue from being prosecuted.

Tell that to Mr. Peppicelli. He's serving ~7 years.

Again, you can't point to a single case and hold it up as the norm. There are judicial abberations. I've never said anything different. However this problem isn't worth the hype it's recieved.

 

[STAGE 2]

Tell that to Mr. Peppicelli. He's serving ~7 years.

EDIT: Just read the facts of the case. If this is the kind of stuff that you are going to hold up as abberations of justice then I've been wasting my time.

Here's my favorite part...

Nearing the corner, the Stivaletta group came upon David P., Paul P., and a third man. Paul P. approached the group and asked for Martin to identify himself. Paul P. said words to the effect of "So you're the guy that threatened my brother," and began hitting Martin in the head with his cane. A fistfight ensued. While fighting, Martin heard someone say, "What do you want, some of this?" He looked in the direction of the voice and saw a man waving a gun. When his attention was refocused on his fistfight, he heard a gunshot. David P. had shot David S. in the stomach at close range. As David S. fell, he told his son to run. Scott S. and Luciano fled the scene. Arthur S., engaged in a separate altercation with the defendants' knife-wielding companion, eventually fled as well.

Now before you get your panties in a wad and say that this is only one side of the story, thats not the point. This case isn't an example of a clear cut case of self defense. Its a case full of problems. You've got several witnesses alleging one thing, several others alleging exactly the opposite. You have the same guy who was involved in the car accident only the day before scrapping with the defendants little brother.

Its a giant clusterflop. You may not agree with the result, but this is hardly an example of the justice system gone wrong. With witnesses like this, how could you not expect a prosecutor to bring this case.

 

[Frank Ettin]

So Stage 2, what's really your point?

As I read the last couple of pages, some members are pointing out that --

[1] Whether or not it's a "good shoot" may or may not be immediately apparent. Among other things, a particular use of lethal force could be recognized as a "good shoot" only after some investigation. You could be under strong suspicion initially.

[2] Situations can get complicated and evidence may be unclear or difficult to sort out.

[3] A Castle Doctrine law is no guarantee that you won't become ensnared in legal complications following you use of lethal force in what you believe to have been in legitimate self defense.

[4] So just as we train and prepare mentally for the need to defend ourselves, or our family (which statistically is extremely unlikely to happen), it is also prudent to prepare for the possible aftermath of such an event. And in that regard, preparing a strategy is not the same as preparing a story ahead of time. One of course can't concoct a story in advance, since you can't predict what will happen. But that's no reason that you can't have a post "self defense event" strategy, including, for example, having an arrangement with a lawyer who you can call, knowing that you don't have to make any kind of immediate statement while under extreme stress, knowing that you can ask to speak with your lawyer before you make any statement, etc.

[5] Whether or not the vast majority of police officers and DAs are fair minded and reasonable is beside the point. It's appropriate to be ready if things don't work out as well as they ought. Sometimes a particular officer will not follow proper procedure. Sometimes a particular prosecutor will be overzealous for any number of reasons. Perhaps such conduct is aberrant, and therefore one shouldn't expect it. But aberrant things do happen, and it doesn't hurt to be prepared for the possibility.

What is wrong with all that? And I seem to recall that you wrote in another thread that you were a prosecutor. Could you be a little prejudiced, perhaps?

Oh, and by the way, please remind me what kind of monetary settlement Nifong's "victims" will actually get. As I recall, he filed bankruptcy staying the civil suit against him. And even though any debt he may ultimately owe the Duke lacrosse players may not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, it doesn't look like he'll have much in the way of assets with which to satisfy any settlement or judgment. Of course there are other defendants, but the individual defendants probably don't have much more money than Nifong, and the governmental entity defendants can't be liable for punitive damages. So I sort of doubt that any of the lacrosse players are going to be able to retire on anything that they may finally be able to collect.

 

[STAGE 2]

So Stage 2, what's really your point?

That this issue has been hyped because it makes for good magazine fodder and net discussion.

There is a prevalent anti-government view on gun boards to the point that any case involving a weapon or a gun crime is automatically touted as an example of the big bad evil government trying to stick it to the little guy. This is neither accurate nor productive.

When you approach things from a neutral point of view, not only do you have a better grasp of things, but it puts a proper light on the real abuses and mistakes.

What is wrong with all that? And I seem to recall that you wrote in another thread that you were a prosecutor. Could you be a little prejudiced, perhaps?

I wouldn't call it prejudiced, but I am a little bit dismayed at the views I see here. Kinda like how service men dont like being labled as baby killers or people who terrorize folks in the dead of night, I don't like hearing people disparage folks in the DA's office, especially when they have no experience with the law, or the judicial system.

Oh, and by the way, please remind me what kind of monetary settlement Nifong's "victims" will actually get. As I recall, he filed bankruptcy staying the civil suit against him. And even though any debt he may ultimately owe the Duke lacrosse players may not be dischargeable in bankruptcy, it doesn't look like he'll have much in the way of assets with which to satisfy any settlement or judgment. Of course there are other defendants, but the individual defendants probably don't have much more money than Nifong, and the governmental entity defendants can't be liable for punitive damages. So I sort of doubt that any of the lacrosse players are going to be able to retire on anything that they may finally be able to collect.

I have no doubt that the settlement reached between the 3 players and duke university is substantial.