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

[RickD427]

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.

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.

You're kinda all over the map here, but please consider these points to bring some clarity to what you have written:

There is little, if any, distinction between being "Charged" and "Arrested" for a civil rights violation once the case has proceeded to trial. There are several meaningful distinctions that precede a trial, but the context of my posting referred to post trial. You were not misquoted. Here is what you posted (a verbatim quote from your posting):

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

You most certainly did mention "arrested" in your statement. My challenge for you to cite such cases still remains. Of the thousands of defensive uses-of-force cases that have occurred in the past few years, I can only think of the Arbury case that produced a civil rights prosecution. But the challenge remains. Please cite your cases. I do agree that a lawsuit is quite likely following a defensive lawsuit, to the extent that you should plan on it, but seeing a cause of action for a civil rights violation is quite unlikely. But going back to your claim, a civil lawsuit does not produce "Charges." Those must be brought by a prosecuting authority.

A Gerstein Hearing is required following any custodial arrest where the arrestee is detained beyond 48 hours and where then has been no prior determination of "Probable Cause" to support the charges. Please refer to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Gerstein v Pugh for the requirement to conduct the hearing and to the U.S Supreme Court's decision in Riverside v McLaughlin for the hearing to be conducted within 48 hours.

If you're speaking with regard to New York state law, a "Huntley" hearing has no relevance to our discussion. A New York state "Huntley" hearing is for the purpose of determining the admissibility of evidence in a criminal trial.

As to your statement "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." I don't see your relevance here. The topic of this thread was the immediacy of an arrest following a defensive use-of-force. The factors such as I discussed are highly relevant to that issue. You'll have to excuse me, I have no idea what you mean by "DPF", you failed to identify that acronym.

 

[fastbolt]

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...


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.

I'd also lean toward it being that something new has surfaced in the last 18 months.

If the original forensic evidence was unable to support a case of second or first degree murder, on its own merits, something new has reasonably had to develop that would help tip the investigation toward it having been a deliberate criminal act, versus justifiable deadly force employed in self defense. Something that eliminated, in the mind of the state, the 'passion' element of a second degree charge, going right to first degree murder. What might've developed since then, other than new statements recovered from continued investigation, and/or social media postings?

 

[old lady new shooter]

I wonder whether this conversation is confusing a civil case brought by the person shot in self-defense (or his/her family) with a civil rights charge filed by the government.

 

[Sistema1927]

My takeaway from this discussion:

If you are ever involved in a shooting, keep your mouth shut. If you have to "vent" do it only in the presence of someone who can't be called to testify against you, such as your attorney or member of the clergy. And, never discuss it online.

 

[Kleanbore]

The point has been made.

We can only speculate at this point. We may know more when the trial takes place.