Just because you aren't arrested immediately after a claim of self defense, doesn't mean it's over.

[Jeff White]

In April of 2021 a woman shot and killed her boyfriend in a domestic dispute. She claimed self defense and was not arrested. The investigation continued and last Monday a Grand Jury indicted her for First Degree Murder.

https://southernillinoisnow.com/2022/10/04/salem-woman-arrested-on-warrant-for-murder/

Salem woman charged with first-degree murder of boyfriend
By Bruce Kropp
Oct 4, 2022 | 2:08 PM
A 29-year-old Salem woman has been indicted by a Marion County Grand Jury for the first-degree murder of her boyfriend.

The indictment became public when Christina Bartley appeared before Judge Mark Stedelin Tuesday afternoon for a first appearance in court.

The indictment, as read by the judge, said that on April 15th of last year Bartley committed 1st-degree murder by shooting Wesley Bivens in the body with a firearm knowing it would cause great bodily harm or death.

The Marion County Sheriff’s Department made no arrests following the investigation. Bartley had indicated during the initial 911 call to report the shooting that it occurred as Bivens was trying to hit her.

State’s Attorney Tim Hudspeth said self-defense claims will be part of the case.

The shooting occurred at the home both reportedly shared on Miles Lane southwest of Salem off the Selmaville Road. Bivens was found dead lying in a hallway at the home when sheriff’s deputies arrived with a gun sitting on a nearby counter.

During Tuesday’s court hearing, Salem attorney Matt Wilzbach entered his appearance to represent Bartley on the murder charge. He also entered a not guilty plea on her behalf. A jury trial date was set for January 10th of next year. Wilzbach also filed a motion to reduce the $1-million bond on the arrest warrant. A hearing will be held at 9:30 Wednesday morning.

Judge Stedelin said if convicted, Bartley faces a 20 to 60-year prison term and a fine up to $25,000.

Something turned up during the investigation that changed this from self defense to First Degree Murder over the course of the last 18 months. I'm sure the details will come out at trial. I'll report back when I get more details. In the meantime, it's not over until it's over.

Before anyone makes a comment about Illinois being antigun, this occurred in a second amendment sanctuary county and it has a history of giving the benefit of the doubt including not prosecuting a local business owner for shooting three people who were fleeing after stealing anhydrous ammonia. I'm going to be really curious if social media posts led to the charges. First Degree Murder is a serious charge and wouldn't normally be charged if it was a legitimate domestic fight.

 

[Shanvanvocht]

Here in SC, a claim of self-defense will, initially, be honored and no arrest made. However, there has, nevertheless, been a homicide, and a full investigation will be conducted by both law enforcement and the coroner. If that investigation uncovers information refuting the shooter's version of events, then arrest will follow days, weeks, or months later.

 

[TarDevil]

On one hand, it's encouraging that investigators take their time before making indictments. On the other hand, it sucks if they are reaching for reasons to make the indictments.

 

[starling]

could mean anything. She may have even shot her mouth off (social media and what not) after the fact that supported a suspicion the investigators had after forensics or an autopsy revealed something questionable.

 

[Jeff White]

On the other hand, it sucks if they are reaching for reasons to make the indictments.

I spent my entire LE career working in this county. I don't know the current states attorney personally, but I do know the investigators. I'm sure no one was reaching for a reason to indict her. Usually a fight between domestic partners that ended with one party dead wouldn't rate a first degree murder charge. Normally the charge would be second degree murder:

(720 ILCS 5/9-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 9-2)
Sec. 9-2. Second degree murder.
(a) A person commits the offense of second degree murder when he or she commits the offense of first degree murder as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of Section 9-1 of this Code and either of the following mitigating factors are present:
(1) at the time of the killing he or she is acting under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by the individual killed or another whom the offender endeavors to kill, but he or she negligently or accidentally causes the death of the individual killed; or
(2) at the time of the killing he or she believes the circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify or exonerate the killing under the principles stated in Article 7 of this Code, but his or her belief is unreasonable.
(b) Serious provocation is conduct sufficient to excite an intense passion in a reasonable person provided, however, that an action that does not otherwise constitute serious provocation cannot qualify as serious provocation because of the discovery, knowledge, or disclosure of the victim's sexual orientation as defined in Section 1-103 of the Illinois Human Rights Act.
(c) When evidence of either of the mitigating factors defined in subsection (a) of this Section has been presented, the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove either mitigating factor by a preponderance of the evidence before the defendant can be found guilty of second degree murder. The burden of proof, however, remains on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of first degree murder and, when appropriately raised, the absence of circumstances at the time of the killing that would justify or exonerate the killing under the principles stated in Article 7 of this Code.
(d) Sentence. Second degree murder is a Class 1 felony.
(Source: P.A. 100-460, eff. 1-1-18.)

could mean anything. She may have even shot her mouth off (social media and what not) after the fact that supported a suspicion the investigators had after forensics or an autopsy revealed something questionable.

Yes, she could have shot her mouth off to someone. But it is 2022 and social media plays a huge part in investigations. We are always telling people to be careful what they post online. One of the reasons I started this thread is the likelihood that social media posts played a role. It doesn't take 18 months for forensics and autopsy results to come back. If that was the deciding factor there would have been charges before now.

 

[starling]

Jeff, my gut feeling is she said, posted, or did something after the fact that incriminated herself but thats just hunch. Could be anything though. I admit I am pretty cynical on how much people openly share about their personal life on line so its probably my own bias.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

Well duh.

Even a completely legitimate SD situation will be life changing.

Best case you're completely initially cleared and no DA decides to go forward. You still get to deal with the fact you injured or worse killed another person, all of the social media BS and the chance of a civil suit.

Worst case is you're charged and indicted.


Still, none this should inhibit your willingness to train nor defend yourself if the need arises.

 

[Jeff White]

Still, none this should inhibit your willingness to train nor defend yourself if the need arises.

This thread is not meant to inhibit anyone's willingness to defend themselves. It's meant to get people thinking about what they post on social media. Why do you have the idea that any post that doesn't promote a "kill 'em all, let God sort em out" attitude is intended to deter someone from defending themselves?

You can deal with the social media problem now and then you don't have to worry about it if you have to defend yourself Explain how that is discouraging people from defending themselves........................

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

This thread is not meant to inhibit anyone's willingness to defend themselves. It's meant to get people thinking about what they post on social media. Why do you have the idea that any post that doesn't promote a "kill 'em all, let God sort em out" attitude is intended to deter someone from defending themselves?

You can deal with the social media problem now and then you don't have to worry about it if you have to defend yourself Explain how that is discouraging people from defending themselves........................

The only way you're dealing with the "Social Media" problem is not to be a part of it. And as much as I hate to say it even this site is "Social Media", just in the ancient form.

Anyone who's replying on a "forum" or even worse a mainstream social media site is already behind the curve.

 

[Jeff White]

Anyone who's replying on a "forum" or even worse a mainstream social media site is already behind the curve.

You’re only behind the curve if you post stupid things that would go towards convincing a jury that you’re out looking for a chance to shoot someone.

If forum posts can be used against you, they can also be used in your defense which is why we have the rules here that we do.

 

[Rexster]

Well before internet “social media,” one’s publicly-spoken words were capable of being used as evidence of intent. One of my LE colleagues experienced this, in the Nineties. Three grand juries returned no-bills, but the fact that the second and third grand juries even heard the case was quite unusual. The basic facts of the shooting were not complex; the deceased person had reached for an illegally-carried handgun, inside a vehicle, during a traffic stop.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

It is pretty unusual to go all the way from "looks like self defense at first glance" to "first-degree murder," though.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

It is pretty unusual to go all the way from "looks like self defense at first glance" to "first-degree murder," though.

I don't think so. Lots of criminal activities go all the way from "I didn't do it" to an arrest for some serious criminal charge.

Each state has its list of statute of limitations. I looked up Illinois and the following have no time limits with respect to statute of limitations involving murder, homicide, and manslaughter:

Murder (first and second degree)
Involuntary manslaughter
Reckless homicide
Hit and run involving death of personal injuries.

Which, in my legally uneducated mind (as I'm not an attorney) means that so long as any potential charges under these categories have never been officially charged and either tried or dismissed with prejudice, there exists some possibility down the road that an individual involved in a homicide MAY eventually have criminal charges preferred against them.


Using a scenario similar to the one in the OP:

Woman kills boyfriend/husband, claims self-defense.

Investigation conducted, no charges perferred against the woman by the police or, if they are, the DA decides not to prosecute for (reasons).

Time passes. Ten years down the road, woman starts posting online, or otherwise starts making claims via other methods, that she intentionally killed her boyfriend/husband over (issues).

Law enforcement discovers these claims, re-opens the case because it was a homicide (no time limit on statue of limitations) which was never previously charged or adjudicated in court. Woman is arrested for charges related to the death of her boyfriend/husband.


@Jeff White brings up a very good point in this, because most of us think of these events in the opposite direction: ie - one's recent actions are investigated in light of evidence from one's past postings. In this case, it would be one's past actions being investigated in light of one's future postings.

 

[Kleanbore]

I looked up Illinois and the following have no time limits with respect to statute of limitations involving murder, homicide, and manslaughter:

True in all jurisdictions. There is never a statute of limitations for murder.

 

[Kleanbore]

Refer to this:

[URL="https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/read-before-posting-legal-considerations-of-posting-on-the-internet.604948/"]Read before Posting: Legal Considerations of Posting on the Internet[/URL]

 

[scaatylobo]

In April of 2021 a woman shot and killed her boyfriend in a domestic dispute. She claimed self defense and was not arrested. The investigation continued and last Monday a Grand Jury indicted her for First Degree Murder.

https://southernillinoisnow.com/2022/10/04/salem-woman-arrested-on-warrant-for-murder/


Something turned up during the investigation that changed this from self defense to First Degree Murder over the course of the last 18 months. I'm sure the details will come out at trial. I'll report back when I get more details. In the meantime, it's not over until it's over.

Before anyone makes a comment about Illinois being antigun, this occurred in a second amendment sanctuary county and it has a history of giving the benefit of the doubt including not prosecuting a local business owner for shooting three people who were fleeing after stealing anhydrous ammonia. I'm going to be really curious if social media posts led to the charges. First Degree Murder is a serious charge and wouldn't normally be charged if it was a legitimate domestic fight.

IF you are forced to use ANY force,especially deadly force.

Expect to be arrested,or at the very least charged with 'civil' rights violations.

If you view any & all such actions,you will see how to avoid such situations ----- if at all possible.

And you will have a back up plan for the eventually of this happening.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I don't think so. Lots of criminal activities go all the way from "I didn't do it" to an arrest for some serious criminal charge.

Each state has its list of statute of limitations. I looked up Illinois and the following have no time limits with respect to statute of limitations involving murder, homicide, and manslaughter:

Murder (first and second degree)
Involuntary manslaughter
Reckless homicide
Hit and run involving death of personal injuries.

Which, in my legally uneducated mind (as I'm not an attorney) means that so long as any potential charges under these categories have never been officially charged and either tried or dismissed with prejudice, there exists some possibility down the road that an individual involved in a homicide MAY eventually have criminal charges preferred against them.


Using a scenario similar to the one in the OP:

Woman kills boyfriend/husband, claims self-defense.

Investigation conducted, no charges perferred against the woman by the police or, if they are, the DA decides not to prosecute for (reasons).

Time passes. Ten years down the road, woman starts posting online, or otherwise starts making claims via other methods, that she intentionally killed her boyfriend/husband over (issues).

Law enforcement discovers these claims, re-opens the case because it was a homicide (no time limit on statue of limitations) which was never previously charged or adjudicated in court. Woman is arrested for charges related to the death of her boyfriend/husband.


@Jeff White brings up a very good point in this, because most of us think of these events in the opposite direction: ie - one's recent actions are investigated in light of evidence from one's past postings. In this case, it would be one's past actions being investigated in light of one's future postings.

I mean, I get what you're saying, and what I think doesn't really matter, I'm just asking, how common is it that a case where no initial arrest is made (presumably because no evidence inconsistent with the claim of self defense is immediately apparent to the responding officer) then blows all the way up to not only was it not self-defense, but it was premeditated?

Clearly if facts come to light that call into question the original story, charges should be filed.

 

[bdickens]

On one hand, it's encouraging that investigators take their time before making indictments. On the other hand, it sucks if they are reaching for reasons to make the indictments.

I'm betting they didn't have to reach very far.

 

[RickD427]

IF you are forced to use ANY force,especially deadly force.

Expect to be arrested,or at the very least charged with 'civil' rights violations.

If you view any & all such actions,you will see how to avoid such situations ----- if at all possible.

And you will have a back up plan for the eventually of this happening.

Please provide some factual support for this statement. Methinks that you're spreading a lot of hogwash here.

I have either handled, or supervised the handling, of more than a hundred defensive uses of force during my working days, including several shooting cases.

It is extremely rare for the person using force to be arrested at the scene. It's only occurred twice in all of the cases that I've been involved with, and only because there was clear evidence that a crime was committed.

We cannot lawfully arrest people without having probable cause to believe that they have committed a crime. Nothing in that equation changes just because the situation involves a defensive use of force.

As to the likelihood of being arrested for a civil rights violation, that is even far less likely. I can only think of one case where there was a prosecution of a non-state actor for civil rights violations in a notionally self-defense case. That was the Ahmaud Arbery case from Georgia. When you at the facts of that case, it's not hard to see why those charges were filed. And I'll also note that there was no arrest at the scene. Charges were filed only after the completion of the investigation.

If you're aware of any other civil rights charges resulting from a defensive shooting, please cite the cases.

 

[Matthew Temkin]

Here in SC, a claim of self-defense will, initially, be honored and no arrest made. However, there has, nevertheless, been a homicide, and a full investigation will be conducted by both law enforcement and the coroner. If that investigation uncovers information refuting the shooter's version of events, then arrest will follow days, weeks, or months later.

Nice.
I recently moved to S.C. from NYC

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I mean, I get what you're saying, and what I think doesn't really matter, I'm just asking, how common is it that a case where no initial arrest is made (presumably because no evidence inconsistent with the claim of self defense is immediately apparent to the responding officer) then blows all the way up to not only was it not self-defense, but it was premeditated?

Clearly if facts come to light that call into question the original story, charges should be filed.

I dunno, honestly. May be @Jeff White or some of the others here with LEO experience can speak to that.

Or maybe @Spats McGee or one of the other attorneys.

I do know that arrests don't necessarily immediately follow any given incident. I'm sure we could all play the "make up sets of circumstances to support this or that view" game, but that wouldn't answer your question as to the frequency.

I do know that the basic guideline for any arrest is that the LEO making it has to have a reasonable belief that the person committed a crime.

 

[Kleanbore]

I'm just asking, how common is it that a case where no initial arrest is made (presumably because no evidence inconsistent with the claim of self defense is immediately apparent to the responding officer) then blows all the way up to not only was it not self-defense, but it was premeditated?

Quite a number of the high profile SD trials come to mind.

 

[RickD427]

I do know that the basic guideline for any arrest is that the LEO making it has to have a reasonable belief that the person committed a crime.

The actual legal standard is for the officer to have "Probable Cause" to believe that the crime arrested for has been committed. Some jurisdictions use the term "Reasonable Cause" in their statutes, and the terms are essentially synonymous. But it is also important not to confuse "Reasonable Cause" with the much lower "Reasonable Suspicion" standard that applies to an investigation detention as authorized by Terry v Ohio.

Once an officer has made an arrest, there must be a Gerstein hearing conducted by a judicial officer to independently determine that the required "Probable Cause" for the arrest exists. The Gerstein Hearing must be held within 48 hours of the arrest. If there is any lingering concern that the terms "Probable Cause" and "Reasonable Cause" were different as to the standard of making an arrest, that difference gets settled in the Gerstein Hearing, which specifically requires that "Probable Cause" be established.

That 48 hour requirement is one reason that LEOs generally do not like to make immediate arrests. Unless there is some concern that the suspect's identity is unknown, the suspect is likely to flee, or is likely to continue criminal conduct, we would much rather wait until the investigation is complete before submitting the case for a Gerstein Hearing.

 

[scaatylobo]

Please provide some factual support for this statement. Methinks that you're spreading a lot of hogwash here.

I have either handled, or supervised the handling, of more than a hundred defensive uses of force during my working days, including several shooting cases.

It is extremely rare for the person using force to be arrested at the scene. It's only occurred twice in all of the cases that I've been involved with, and only because there was clear evidence that a crime was committed.

We cannot lawfully arrest people without having probable cause to believe that they have committed a crime. Nothing in that equation changes just because the situation involves a defensive use of force.

As to the likelihood of being arrested for a civil rights violation, that is even far less likely. I can only think of one case where there was a prosecution of a non-state actor for civil rights violations in a notionally self-defense case. That was the Ahmaud Arbery case from Georgia. When you at the facts of that case, it's not hard to see why those charges were filed. And I'll also note that there was no arrest at the scene. Charges were filed only after the completion of the investigation.

If you're aware of any other civil rights charges resulting from a defensive shooting, please cite the cases.

Misquoting me does not change what I posted.

I did not mention "arrest" for a civil rights violation ,I did say CHARGED and that will cost you tens of thousands of dollars [ see ANY such charges ever leveled at officers,citys,individuals ].

And I did not specify arrest at the scene,the D.A. can review your case,AND if your a real person that has property and a job and standing in your community = you are in deep poo.

ESPECIALLY if your crime involved a person of another race.

The most recent cases are so far over the line as to logic and reason that your history of cases might be good for a history case study.

Watch any news program and see who gets charged and then try hard to find the outcome of those charges,NO - I will not do your leg work and more than you did mine [ "your case studys" ]

But you will suffer real financial pain if forced to use DPF - just the hiring of a basic attorney who specializes in your case. = ten thousand as a retainer !.

I will add that I reside in NYS and they sue EVERYBODY for ANYTHING.

 

[scaatylobo]

The actual legal standard is for the officer to have "Probable Cause" to believe that the crime arrested for has been committed. Some jurisdictions use the term "Reasonable Cause" in their statutes, and the terms are essentially synonymous. But it is also important not to confuse "Reasonable Cause" with the much lower "Reasonable Suspicion" standard that applies to an investigation detention as authorized by Terry v Ohio.

Once an officer has made an arrest, there must be a Gerstein hearing conducted by a judicial officer to independently determine that the required "Probable Cause" for the arrest exists. The Gerstein Hearing must be held within 48 hours of the arrest. If there is any lingering concern that the terms "Probable Cause" and "Reasonable Cause" were different as to the standard of making an arrest, that difference gets settled in the Gerstein Hearing, which specifically requires that "Probable Cause" be established.

That 48 hour requirement is one reason that LEOs generally do not like to make immediate arrests. Unless there is some concern that the suspect's identity is unknown, the suspect is likely to flee, or is likely to continue criminal conduct, we would much rather wait until the investigation is complete before submitting the case for a Gerstein Hearing.

NEVER heard of a "Gerstien" hearing ,but have attended a few Huntley Wade ] 710:00 ] hearings.

And using what rights an LEO has to make an arrest has NOTHING to do with the average citizen [ on here ] has as far as rights to use of DPF etc.