SD--No One Calls the Play at the Time

[Kleanbore]

In football, the instant replay may be used to validate or overturn a call made by a referee. There are specific rules on how that is to be done.

The instant replay technology is fairly new, but there have always been referees.

Not so in use of force incidents. There are no referees.

There may or may not be eyewitnesses or earwitnesses for part of an event. Some of them may or may not be unbiased. and some of them may actually be able to reliably recall what they saw.

That is not something upon which one wants to count.

When someone says "that man threatened me with a knife on my own property" that may or may not be true, and it may or not be believed.

People should remember that before asserting "if it's a good shoot...".

Instant replay? Well, the existence of a video record can certainly influence things.

 

[scaatylobo]

In football, the instant replay may be used to validate or overturn a call made by a referee. There are specific rules on how that is to be done.

The instant replay technology is fairly new, but there have always been referees.

Not so in use of force incidents. There are no referees.

There may or may not be eyewitnesses or earwitnesses for part of an event. Some of them may or may not be unbiased. and some of them may actually be able to reliably recall what they saw.

That is not something upon which one wants to count.

When someone says "that man threatened me with a knife on my own property" that may or may not be true, and it may or not be believed.

People should remember that before asserting "if it's a good shoot...".

Instant replay? Well, the existence of a video record can certainly influence things.

I try REALLY hard to remind myself that I am 'likely' on camera at ALL times.

I do know that my house cameras are on and recording at all times ] 24/7 ] so they are a constant reminder to act as if I am on the record !.

That was a 'thing' when I worked,and so its a bit easier to remind myself that no matter where I am,or what I am doing " YOUR ON CANDID CAMERA".

 

[Jeff White]

Video is not a reliable way to judge what happened in an incident unless it occurs in a sports stadium with multiple cameras and angles. We had a discussion here a few years back of a police use of deadly force incident. The line of duty use of force was recorded on two dash cams. If you viewed the video from one of the dash cams you would quickly conclude the officer murdered the suspect.......But when you looked at the second dash cam you saw that the use of force was justified and necessary. Two different cameras from two different angles told two different stories.

 

[Kleanbore]

Video is not a reliable way to judge what happened in an incident unless it occurs in a sports stadium with multiple cameras and angles

That's a good put.

But even one video camera can provide information that would not be available otherwise.

No, one cannot rely upon it, but it can shed a lot of light on the story.

 

[Jeff White]

But even one video camera can provide information that would not be available otherwise.

Yes, but I worry that it will create a lot of problems too. I am most familiar with the instant replay we see in baseball. Multiple views from multiple angles and often the video is not conclusive enough to change the call the umpire made in real time.

It took a lot of study and often demonstrations in the courtroom to get jurors to understand that it was possible for a use of force to be justified when the bullet entered from an angle different then straight on. I can see many people saying, "I saw the video, that's what happened there isn't anything more to talk about." A body cam is probably the best way to document an incident, but that's not practical for a private citizen.

 

[1942bull]

I believe many EDC practitioners such things. I do not. I do not care if there are witnesses, cameras, or ' spirits in the sky.' If a person present a deal weapon, regardless of kind or attacks me without a deadly weapon but has a disparity of force advantage I am shooting the perp. I would rather go on trial for shooting the perp than having him or her be tried for my killing or injury. I have CCW Safe, and so I have access to gun lawyer 24/7 plus exception coverage with none of the loopholed;es that the insurance coverage offer by organizations, etc have. For less than half the fee for one hour of good gun lawyer time I am covered for a year.

It is unlikely that I will ever need it. but if I do I have it. It is akin to EDCing. I will most like never use it, but if I do I have it.

 

[Kleanbore]

I do not care if there are witnesses, cameras, or ' spirits in the sky.'

You maw very well care a whole lot about whether there were witnesses, and about what they say they saw.

If a person present a deal weapon, regardless of kind or attacks me without a deadly weapon but has a disparity of force advantage I am shooting the perp.

If you were attacked and the attack as unprovoked; if you had reason to believe that the attacker was armed and that you were in jeopardy; and if the triers of fact do not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt, on the basis of the evidence admitted, that your act was unreasonable and unlawful;; you may well be able to succeed in a defense of justification.

Disparity of force cases often present more difficulty in justifying deadly force.

I have CCW Safe, and so I have...

Great. That will give you the resources for your defense.

It will not, however, manufacture exculpatory testimony of witnesses who were not there.

 

[boom boom]

A soft answer turneth away wrath it is said. It is always better to be a peacemaker if one can and to avoid open conflict unless it cannot be avoided. Juries will normally hold you to that standard. Self defense situations are always based on specific facts peculiar to your particular circumstance at that particular time. Thus, by posting exactly how one will do something in advance when no facts are present can make it look like you have your own standard rather than the law of the community where you are based. Not a good look to a jury. There is a reason that Massad Ayoob's long time best selling book about this was titled, "In the Gravest Extreme" which is a good way to look at it.

Kleenbore has a good call on comparing video to instant replay. With or without video, the refs (jury and judge) are going to scrutinize your actions and any comments made, in jest or in seriousness, such as those on a forum that can be presented as evidence as to your general state of mind regarding self defense. With the proliferation of video, the likelihood that part or all of the encounter may be captured on someone's video cameras or cell phones, give the jury a way to escape the normal he said, she said of witness testimony. As Jeff notes, it has happened over several videotaped shootings that similar to Hollywood's bag of tricks, video from a single angle can be misleading. However, like direct eyewitness testimony of yore was preferred over forensic evidence, a camera allows jurors to settle for the "unbiased" blinking eye of the camera. Not sure what is to be done with it though.

 

[Jammersix]

You maw very well care a whole lot about whether there were witnesses, and about what they say they saw.

Oh, I believe him.

He knows what they'll say the same way he knows what he'll do.

 

[Jammersix]

There is a reason that Massad Ayoob's long time best selling book about this was titled, "In the Gravest Extreme" which is a good way to look at it.

Yup.

And that reason, like all titles for all books, was to sell his book.

 

[FL-NC]

I assume that I am being watched and recorded at all times, and act accordingly. I also have an attorney, who went to law school and attorneys every day. That means he is better at being an attorney than I will ever be. In the event that I need his services, I intend to shut up and let him do the job he has already been paid for.

 

[Kleanbore]

I assume that I am being watched and recorded at all times, and act accordingly.

Good idea. I would not rely upon it, however.

I also have an attorney, who went to law school and attorneys every day. That means he is better at being an attorney than I will ever be. In the event that I need his services,

The point of the thread is that your defense may well be mounted when it is difficult to find anything tp support your account of the incident. Your attorney cannot create evidence that he does not have,

I intend to shut up and let him do the job he has already been paid for.

There is a time to shut up, but if you intend to claim self defense, you may need evidence that may very well disappear from the scene if arriving officers are no made aware of it. We have a sticky on this in this forum.

 

[boom boom]

I assume that I am being watched and recorded at all times, and act accordingly. I also have an attorney, who went to law school and attorneys every day. That means he is better at being an attorney than I will ever be. In the event that I need his services, I intend to shut up and let him do the job he has already been paid for.

The self defense case is not like a regular criminal case. In essence, you are admitting guilt to intentional homicide but claiming justification under the self defense laws in your state. To that end, in most jurisdictions, you must provide evidence that you were justified in your actions and acted reasonably under the law to a threat of imminent death and/or serious injury to yourself (plus whatever other provisions are in the law of your state).

Read the sticky and remember that most attorneys, even criminal defense lawyers, seldom, if ever do self defense cases--they are a specialty niche area of the law because typical criminal defenses are either attacking the police's case and presenting no defense, or using some variant of toddi (the other dude did it) or soddi (some other dude did it). Or, they are experienced in cutting you the best plea bargain you can get such as from intentional murder to manslaughter etc. In this case, your attorney must present evidence that you are in fact guilty of shooting dirtbag x but due to the evidence that you will present, you were legally justified under the laws of _________ (your state goes here). In most jurisdictions, you have the burden to show that your actions were justified under the law as you admit up front that you intentionally shot them but can show through evidence that your actions were justified under the law (not any moral code as some would like).

 

[Kleanbore]

Let me strongly recommend that everyone read boom boom's post above, re-read it, file it, keep it handy, and refer to it from time to time.

Frank Ettin has said much the same thing more than once over the years.

Once you comprehend it, put some thought into the fact that, once your attacker's empty cases have walked away in someone's shoe treads or in someone's hands, and once an accomplice has retrieved and disappeared with the attacker's dropped knife, and once a witness has driven way in that green SUV, the evidence you need will likely be gone forever.

That is much more likely to happen if you choose to say nothing to the arriving officers.

That advice is good, if you intend to try to deny having committed the act. But you cannot do that and plead self defense.

If you have any questions about that, shoot.