blackhawk2000
member
Everybody goes home, because nobody wants to press charges. Hopefully next time one of them actually bleaches the gene pool a bit.
You Apply the Law...Decide who is charged
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
I'm waiting to hear from Jeff what really happened, however I suspect at least one of them spent the night in jail. I don't think any responding officer is going to take the chance that these two morons might resume the festivities later, resulting in a more serious injury, and then have to deal with all the second guessers who'll say, "You could have prevented this if you had acted appropriately the first time you were called." My suspicion is both of them get charged so as to bump the decision making up the chain. Someone up the chain wants to drop charges, it's on their nickel.
My prediction was a prediction. It wasn't something I was advocating. I do believe both are guilty of felonies.
My prediction was a prediction. It wasn't something I was advocating. I do believe both are guilty of felonies.
sacp81170a
Member
That's exactly what I was thinking, even though I might not have articulated it as well.
With civil liability being what it is these days... yeah, it might be safer if both go to jail. We have to fill out a statement of probable cause before the county jail will take 'em, but I think there's enough to go around in this case. Haven't been confronted with exactly this kind of situation, though. Usually one or both parties "want that son-of-a-81tc4" arrested, so it's easier if they're still mad at each other.
I thought that was what you were getting at, but I was really addressing those that are suggesting since there isn't likely to be a conviction, we should just let the matter drop.
I figure at least one has to spend the night in jail- to cool off, if nothing else. If they both spend the night in jail, one (or maybe both) may have a different attitude in the morning.
I figure at least one has to spend the night in jail- to cool off, if nothing else. If they both spend the night in jail, one (or maybe both) may have a different attitude in the morning.
LiquidTension
Member
I can't think of a time when my department has taken anyone to jail for mutual combat. If neither of them wants to press charges, settle the DUI stuff and call it a day.
But I'm not a LEO and it's been a while since I had a criminal law class...and I confess to not having read the pages and pages of criminal code that was posted
But I'm not a LEO and it's been a while since I had a criminal law class...and I confess to not having read the pages and pages of criminal code that was posted
I'm imagining this happening in my neigborhood.
I see the cops showing up and listening to all sides.
When they state that they don't want to press charges, the officers still investigate to make sure they're not getting duped somehow or missing any details.
Eventually, they'd simply berate the two that were fighting, then leave. They might take the knife with them.
They probably wouldn't even handle the DUIs, because no one was driving when they got there. Although, if someone was acting completely drunken and beligerent, they'd pursue it more "so you said you drove home? how long ago was that again?"
If the police were having a slow night and if who started the fight was an "agreed upon" fact, at the max, they'd arrest the instigator for starting the fight.
**oh I forgot the details on children being present. If the officers got the impression that the children were in danger or could be in the future, they'd handle that angle before leaving.
I see the cops showing up and listening to all sides.
When they state that they don't want to press charges, the officers still investigate to make sure they're not getting duped somehow or missing any details.
Eventually, they'd simply berate the two that were fighting, then leave. They might take the knife with them.
They probably wouldn't even handle the DUIs, because no one was driving when they got there. Although, if someone was acting completely drunken and beligerent, they'd pursue it more "so you said you drove home? how long ago was that again?"
If the police were having a slow night and if who started the fight was an "agreed upon" fact, at the max, they'd arrest the instigator for starting the fight.
**oh I forgot the details on children being present. If the officers got the impression that the children were in danger or could be in the future, they'd handle that angle before leaving.
2 arrest
Texas law differs somewhat from what I am reading from "Jeff's" post, but this is a case where I would be called to the scene to advise officer's on what decision to make (as a supvr.) In the interest of safety to all concerned, I would have both taken into custody, primarily to assure that the incident dosen't continue and escalate. (Jones for Agg. Battery, and Johnson for Home Invasion).
I do not believe you could ever make the "DUI" charge. Since neither wants to file charges on the other it probably will not go further in the court system, as stated earlier, I can't see the "States" interest in pursuing it if neither is cooperative. My only interest would be to provide a "cooling down" period where no further violence occurs. A judge may want to issue a restraining order to try and keep the two separated for a while, thus limiting liability to the dept. and state, should they resume their behavior later.
I think Johnson was initially at fault for entering the residence with the intent to fight (assault) Jones, which seems to equal "Home Invasion" in that state. Once the fight begins (which appears to be mutually agreed upon), Jone is guilty of "Agg. Battery" for including the knife (neither is without blame). In my jurisdiction, (with neither wishing to pursue charges) it would probably be "dropped", however we would need to take both into custody to make sure we did everything available to deter further violence. just .02 worth
Texas law differs somewhat from what I am reading from "Jeff's" post, but this is a case where I would be called to the scene to advise officer's on what decision to make (as a supvr.) In the interest of safety to all concerned, I would have both taken into custody, primarily to assure that the incident dosen't continue and escalate. (Jones for Agg. Battery, and Johnson for Home Invasion).
I do not believe you could ever make the "DUI" charge. Since neither wants to file charges on the other it probably will not go further in the court system, as stated earlier, I can't see the "States" interest in pursuing it if neither is cooperative. My only interest would be to provide a "cooling down" period where no further violence occurs. A judge may want to issue a restraining order to try and keep the two separated for a while, thus limiting liability to the dept. and state, should they resume their behavior later.
I think Johnson was initially at fault for entering the residence with the intent to fight (assault) Jones, which seems to equal "Home Invasion" in that state. Once the fight begins (which appears to be mutually agreed upon), Jone is guilty of "Agg. Battery" for including the knife (neither is without blame). In my jurisdiction, (with neither wishing to pursue charges) it would probably be "dropped", however we would need to take both into custody to make sure we did everything available to deter further violence. just .02 worth
My take on it:
I believe more of Jones's story.
Even with a big wound, it can take a little while before blood drips enough to hit the floor, thus the fact that there is blood only in the kitchen isn't really collaberating Johnson's story. I suppose something could have been grabbed from the kitchen to press against the wound, preventing further dripping on the floor.
Also, there's the whole thing that there are multiple stories collaberating that Johnson went there to fight. Thus he could be charged with assault for attacking Johnson He can't be charged with battery because Jones wasn't injured. There's no testimony disagreeing that Johnson started it. I don't think he can be charged with home invasion because he wasn't armed and didn't hurt anybody, though he might be covered by 12-11(6).
Jones, having already been attacked, in his own home to boot, would have been justified in using deadly force to stop the attack of Johnson. Thus, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt as far as self defense goes. Johnson's son doesn't explicitly state that the fighting stopped as soon as the knife was obtained, so I can't assume that. The backing out at knife point appears to be justified under article 7, as he's ending a home invasion.
Then you get to the point that nobody wants to press charges, and that all parties involved except for the boy were drunk as lords. In that case, well, I'm afraid that the only cause is to write it all of and hope the knife wound is enough to get Johnson to settle down a bit.
Normally I'd try to get Johnson into a cell at least overnight, but given that he's been stabbed and probably at least a little doped, mixed with alcohol, he should be collapsing fairly shortly. Given the lack of wanting to press charges, I'd have to drop the charges in the morning anyways.
I believe more of Jones's story.
Even with a big wound, it can take a little while before blood drips enough to hit the floor, thus the fact that there is blood only in the kitchen isn't really collaberating Johnson's story. I suppose something could have been grabbed from the kitchen to press against the wound, preventing further dripping on the floor.
Also, there's the whole thing that there are multiple stories collaberating that Johnson went there to fight. Thus he could be charged with assault for attacking Johnson He can't be charged with battery because Jones wasn't injured. There's no testimony disagreeing that Johnson started it. I don't think he can be charged with home invasion because he wasn't armed and didn't hurt anybody, though he might be covered by 12-11(6).
Jones, having already been attacked, in his own home to boot, would have been justified in using deadly force to stop the attack of Johnson. Thus, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt as far as self defense goes. Johnson's son doesn't explicitly state that the fighting stopped as soon as the knife was obtained, so I can't assume that. The backing out at knife point appears to be justified under article 7, as he's ending a home invasion.
Then you get to the point that nobody wants to press charges, and that all parties involved except for the boy were drunk as lords. In that case, well, I'm afraid that the only cause is to write it all of and hope the knife wound is enough to get Johnson to settle down a bit.
Normally I'd try to get Johnson into a cell at least overnight, but given that he's been stabbed and probably at least a little doped, mixed with alcohol, he should be collapsing fairly shortly. Given the lack of wanting to press charges, I'd have to drop the charges in the morning anyways.
TCB in TN
Member
You can't fix stupid!
Nobodys getting convicted of anything. From what we are given you can't even swear the BAC is to high. These guys are idiots, and I hope that they either grow a brain or grow up, but w/o being willing to testify against each other there is no way anyone ever gets convicted.
Nobodys getting convicted of anything. From what we are given you can't even swear the BAC is to high. These guys are idiots, and I hope that they either grow a brain or grow up, but w/o being willing to testify against each other there is no way anyone ever gets convicted.
HankB
Member
1. I don't see the State as having a compelling interest in prosecuting if neither moron is pressing charges.
2. With all the adults drinking - possibly drunk - I don't see any credible testimony coming out of this, even if the state decides to compel testimony.
3. Child protective services ought to be notified, on behalf of the 10-year old.
Sounds like all the adults are in training for the next round of Darwin Awards . . .
2. With all the adults drinking - possibly drunk - I don't see any credible testimony coming out of this, even if the state decides to compel testimony.
3. Child protective services ought to be notified, on behalf of the 10-year old.
Sounds like all the adults are in training for the next round of Darwin Awards . . .
CAS700850
Member
Back in my days as a prosecuting attorney, we would have presented the case to the Grand Jury exactly as it was presented by Jeff at the outset, and then tell the Grand Jury to consider charges on both adult males in the scenario. I doubt that ten minutes of deliberations would go by before both males were no-billed, meaning no charges on either adult male.
Excellent presentation, Jeff. Just as I often got the case presented to me on a Monday morning after a hot summer weekend. God only knows how many situations like this I waded through in my past. Headaches all around, and you just hope and pray that no one goes and kills the other within the week.
Excellent presentation, Jeff. Just as I often got the case presented to me on a Monday morning after a hot summer weekend. God only knows how many situations like this I waded through in my past. Headaches all around, and you just hope and pray that no one goes and kills the other within the week.
W Turner
Member
Charge Johnson with Home Invasion. He did enter the home without permission to start a fight with Jones. Whatever happened after that fact is irrelevant. He met the threshold for that charge. If PC is there to charge him with DUI for either driving from the function or to the ER drunk, then hit him with a DUI as well.
Charge Jones with Aggravated Assault (I think it was this, or Aggravated Battery...I HATE A.D.D.!). He left the room to get a knife, reentered the room with the intent of stabbing Johnson. He did stab him, but the depth of the wound (2" +/-) compared to the length of the blade (6+ inches) would suggest to me that there was no intent to kill Johnson.
The fight was mutual combat given that Johnson gave Jones time to get dressed and get his glasses on.
Charge Sally with Felony stupid for being involved with either one and for having the kids in this kind of environment.
Call Family and Children services to look after the kids' well being.
Charge Jones with Aggravated Assault (I think it was this, or Aggravated Battery...I HATE A.D.D.!). He left the room to get a knife, reentered the room with the intent of stabbing Johnson. He did stab him, but the depth of the wound (2" +/-) compared to the length of the blade (6+ inches) would suggest to me that there was no intent to kill Johnson.
The fight was mutual combat given that Johnson gave Jones time to get dressed and get his glasses on.
Charge Sally with Felony stupid for being involved with either one and for having the kids in this kind of environment.
Call Family and Children services to look after the kids' well being.
sturmruger
Member
Jeff this one is quite a mess. I am interested to know if any charges were filed? What is the right answer here?
Everyone involved is guilty of being stupid.
The fight was voluntary, it sounds like to me. It doesn't even sound like they had a beef to settle, just recreational fighting. For pete's sake, they even called a time out so the guy could get his glasses. (was there a beef?) In the middle of the bout, one of the guys decides the other is getting carried away and just wants to call off the fight, so he gets a knife. The other guy is drunk (probably both are) and doesn't realize the guy means business until he gets stuck. Nobody wants to press charges, there's no lingering acrimony that would lead one to think there would be a repeat, there's not even any proof that the parties involved were drunk at the time the fight occured (believe me, you can down a lot of hard liquor between the time that 911 is called and the cops actually show up) nor is there proof the guy was drunk while driving, since he may have drunk after getting to the hospital parking lot, or may have drunk at home, then drove to the hospital before the alcohol got into his bloodstream, especially if he had a good amount of food in his stomach to impede absorbtion. Long story short, can't prove he was over the limit on BAC WHILE he was driving.
Plenty of crimes here against good taste and common sense, but nobody should be going to jail over this one. My bet is that somebody will get charged though, just so the state can interfere in another couple of people's lives.
The fight was voluntary, it sounds like to me. It doesn't even sound like they had a beef to settle, just recreational fighting. For pete's sake, they even called a time out so the guy could get his glasses. (was there a beef?) In the middle of the bout, one of the guys decides the other is getting carried away and just wants to call off the fight, so he gets a knife. The other guy is drunk (probably both are) and doesn't realize the guy means business until he gets stuck. Nobody wants to press charges, there's no lingering acrimony that would lead one to think there would be a repeat, there's not even any proof that the parties involved were drunk at the time the fight occured (believe me, you can down a lot of hard liquor between the time that 911 is called and the cops actually show up) nor is there proof the guy was drunk while driving, since he may have drunk after getting to the hospital parking lot, or may have drunk at home, then drove to the hospital before the alcohol got into his bloodstream, especially if he had a good amount of food in his stomach to impede absorbtion. Long story short, can't prove he was over the limit on BAC WHILE he was driving.
Plenty of crimes here against good taste and common sense, but nobody should be going to jail over this one. My bet is that somebody will get charged though, just so the state can interfere in another couple of people's lives.
JMusic
member
I'm still wiping tears out of my eyes!!! Damn this is the way they go down. Both should be charged. A good one for the Grand Jury.
Jim
Jim
The problem with charging Johnson with HI is that he wasn't armed, nor did he cause injury. At least no injury that Jones is willing to report or requires a hospital visit for, or even visible to the police. Remember, this is Texas, to charge someone they have to meet the verbage of the crime, and for HI that requires either possessing a deadly weapon or causing injury.
Thing is, this is Texas, with very liberal(in the traditional sense) self defense laws. By my reading, Jones not only has no duty to retreat while in his home, he's allowed to pursue his attacker while on it. The fact that Johnson attacked first(dragging Jones out of bed) gives Jones authorization to use whatever force he feels necessary. Could he have safely stayed in the utility room? We don't even know if it has a door, much less a substantial lockable one. We don't know how far in he went.
The fact that he gave Jones time to get dressed doesn't mean that it was mutual combat. The drunk Johnson might of attacked even if Jones refused, Jones may have played along long enough to wake up a little. Given that both were drunk, but Jones was peacefully sleeping it off until dragged out of bed, it's johnson's fault for the fight.
This may be about all you can do, but we have no evidence that the kids are physically abused, so what even they can do may be limited.
Finally, I'd be interested in finding out how this played out, whether anybody got charged, and with what.
NineseveN
member
Firethorn, I believe we're talking about events that took place in Illinois according to the hypothetical, which is a different ball of wax as far as the laws are concerned as I understand it. Jeff posted the relevant code in his original post.
Which brings me to a point that I had missed earlier, what relevance does this hypothetical have to anyone not living in Illinois? State laws differ, sometimes dramatically (as Firethorn illustrated and we should all know already anyway), so what lesson is learned for those of us outside of Illinois from this exercise aside from what is legal in a state we don’t reside in?
I don't really care what folks in Ilinois can and cannot do, or do and do not do...I'm only concerned with my home state and any state I may travel to or through; Illinois is not one of those states.
I'm sure Jeff had an interesting motive for this exercise, but if it is what it appears to be, I am afraid that the utcome of this discussion will have little value other than to solidify that jeff knows Illinois law (he should, he's a polcie officer there) and how this situation would play out there.
Which brings me to a point that I had missed earlier, what relevance does this hypothetical have to anyone not living in Illinois? State laws differ, sometimes dramatically (as Firethorn illustrated and we should all know already anyway), so what lesson is learned for those of us outside of Illinois from this exercise aside from what is legal in a state we don’t reside in?
I don't really care what folks in Ilinois can and cannot do, or do and do not do...I'm only concerned with my home state and any state I may travel to or through; Illinois is not one of those states.
I'm sure Jeff had an interesting motive for this exercise, but if it is what it appears to be, I am afraid that the utcome of this discussion will have little value other than to solidify that jeff knows Illinois law (he should, he's a polcie officer there) and how this situation would play out there.
The rest of the story
Johnson was flown to a larger hosptial for a nuerosurgy consult. He would have been charged with home invasion if he hadn't been admitted to the hospital. The states attorney declined to charge Jones for the stabbing. I woke him at 4:30 am to ask (it's procedure on the weekends in this county because of jail overcrowding, sometimes they have to release people early to free up bed space, so to save the county the cost of having pay for a bed in a neighboring county or the hassle of releasing county jail prisoners a few days early, the states attorney is consulted in iffy cases...Johnson wasn't arrested at the hospital for the same reason, the county didn't need to pick up the tab for the medical bills. Had he been dischraged from the ER I would have arrested him.)
No one has been charged and most likely no one will be charged.
The purpose of this thread was to give the members who don't have regular dealings with the criminal justice system an example of a self defense situation most often looks like. I could write a news account to make this situation look like a home invasion where the homeowner successfully defended himself against an intruder or a fight that got out of hand where a man stabbed his friend. Any member here could.
There are a lot of threads posted here that are based soley on news reports. In most cases news reports are all we have to go on. When the prosecutor charges someone or the jury convicts someone there is a lot of indignation and calls on the forum that the state is anti-self defense, the prosecutor is anti self defense or the people on the jury are sheep. But in most cases there is not enough information to make that call from a news report. The police, prosecutor, jury and judge all have access to much more information then is ever printed in a news report. Think about this case and how much information doesn't make it into the paper the next time you read an account of self defense. Most self defense situations are closer to this one then the ones you read in The Armed Citizen.
Jeff
Johnson was flown to a larger hosptial for a nuerosurgy consult. He would have been charged with home invasion if he hadn't been admitted to the hospital. The states attorney declined to charge Jones for the stabbing. I woke him at 4:30 am to ask (it's procedure on the weekends in this county because of jail overcrowding, sometimes they have to release people early to free up bed space, so to save the county the cost of having pay for a bed in a neighboring county or the hassle of releasing county jail prisoners a few days early, the states attorney is consulted in iffy cases...Johnson wasn't arrested at the hospital for the same reason, the county didn't need to pick up the tab for the medical bills. Had he been dischraged from the ER I would have arrested him.)
No one has been charged and most likely no one will be charged.
The purpose of this thread was to give the members who don't have regular dealings with the criminal justice system an example of a self defense situation most often looks like. I could write a news account to make this situation look like a home invasion where the homeowner successfully defended himself against an intruder or a fight that got out of hand where a man stabbed his friend. Any member here could.
There are a lot of threads posted here that are based soley on news reports. In most cases news reports are all we have to go on. When the prosecutor charges someone or the jury convicts someone there is a lot of indignation and calls on the forum that the state is anti-self defense, the prosecutor is anti self defense or the people on the jury are sheep. But in most cases there is not enough information to make that call from a news report. The police, prosecutor, jury and judge all have access to much more information then is ever printed in a news report. Think about this case and how much information doesn't make it into the paper the next time you read an account of self defense. Most self defense situations are closer to this one then the ones you read in The Armed Citizen.
Jeff
XLMiguel
Member
Wow! What a great case study! It certainly points up the relative subjectivity in the documentation of such situations, even in the face of good, solid investigative work by the responding officers.
Kudos, Jeff, for a great learning exercise.
This quote & link needs to be chiseled in stone at the top of this and the L&P forums, perhaps it will quell some of the urination contests that start from SD threads that spring up from spotty news coverage
Kudos, Jeff, for a great learning exercise.
sacp81170a
Member
Deleted. accidental double post.
Last edited:
sacp81170a
Member
LOL. Yep, sounds about right. Funny how many procedures in the CJ system are determined by budgetary constraints, a lot more than most people think. Good post. We have several county jails housing federal inmates because the feds are so reliable in paying their bills. Why take up a bed that can be rented to a paying "customer" when you don't have to?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
