LEO's: Knowing a Good or Bad Shoot When You See It?

[Doc Safari]

Let's look at the home defense scenario from the other side of the coin. It's probably a given that the homeowner who has to shoot an intruder wants to do so only if necessary--yet the definition of "necessary" varies from state to state and from situation to situation.

"I was in reasonable fear of my life" seems to be a rule of thumb, but that's subject to the interpretation of the arriving officers.

So, officers, active and retired, how do you approach the home defense scenario--not as the homeowner but as the officer "showing up to do the paperwork" so to speak? If you were investigating a shooting, how did you come to your conclusions?

What criteria do you/did you use to judge if the homeowner made a good shoot or not? Aside from the obvious: homeowner clearly was not in a defensive situation--what evidence do you look for that helps you decide if it was a good shoot or not? Since the perp often cannot speak for himself at room temperature, you only have the homeowner's story to go on. How do you tell if his version of the story is likely the truth or not? Have you ever been in a scenario where you thought the homeowner was lying and shot the dead person unnecessarily or intentionally?

For example: I hear people all the time claim, "If the perp is unarmed, I'll just put this throwaway gun in his hand or I'll get his fingerprints on it and place it next to his dead body."

That might have worked decades ago, but with modern forensics able to establish definitively whether or not the perp was holding the gun when he was shot--that's an invitation to being arrested.

So, LEO's--just wanting to pick your brain here. If you have ever come upon a shooting in a home, how did you establish who the good guy was versus the bad guy? How do you/did you determine if it was a good shoot or not? Was the scenario obvious? Or did it take some digging to find out what really happened? Did the wife really mistake the husband for a burglar? Or did she plan the whole thing? How did you solve it?

Please tell us some of your actual encounters.

[C-grunt]

From my experience good shoots like you described are usually fairly cut and dry. Bad guy broke into the home and homeowner shot them. I can't remember the last time I've caught a burglar who was truly unarmed. Maybe only a knife or a crowbar, but they had a weapon or a tool that could be used as such.

Usually things get complicated when the "bad guy" and the "victim" know each other. Then you really have to start digging at clues, motive, and history.

[26 Inf]

A couple of the things you mention: I hear people all the time claim, "If the perp is unarmed, I'll just put this throwaway gun in his hand or I'll get his fingerprints on it and place it next to his dead body."
are beyond the scope of the responding officers on scene investigation. In that case they wouldn't really carry weight in an on scene decision to arrest.

An officer should have knowledge of the law. If there is probable cause for the officer to believe the homeowner was in violation of the law they should get arrested on scene. If the evidence doesn't rise to probable cause then they shouldn't be arrested at that time.

You can be held under investigative detention (not free to leave) if there is reasonable suspicion.

Let's take the example of the Florida parking lot shooting. Unknown if deceased was transported and declared at hospital or declared on scene. Really doesn't make any difference, shooter remained on scene.

At some point during the on scene investigation I'm sure the officers took a look at the video. To me the video gives any officer, who knows the law PC to arrest.

ETA: Without the video officer's have to rely on witness statements and consider the veracity of those statements. As I understand the Florida law, if the shooter say 'I was in fear of my life' that is considered true unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. So in this case without the video, and the only direct eye-witness being the deceased guy's girlfriend, probably error on the side of caution and see if the prosecutor wants to file.

§ 776.012(2)....a person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if:

[H]e or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

My interpretation, the assault has already taken place, the assailant had lowered his hands, and begun to turn away. From my perception, taking into consideration the time between being dumped on ass, drawing the weapon and shooting the assailant had time to determine that the subject was no longeractively assaulting him. He was justified in drawing his firearm, but not in shooting when he did.

Based on that I have probable cause to arrest. Understand, my job isn't to determine guilt, it is to gather information, and when appropriate to make arrests based on that information in order to insure safety, and that folks don't flee the jurisdiction.

Once arrested, several things happen. The police have to get their initial reports completed and turned in, there is a person in jail. The prosecutor determines, based on the reports, if there is probable cause to proceed to trial, or (editorial comment) in this case whether he wants to try the guy.

If the prosecutor files charges the person is arraigned. During the arraignment the judge reads the charges, asks if they are understood, asks for the person's plea, and ask if the person needs an attorney appointed. The judge also determines whether the accused needs to remain in custody, released on their own recognizance, or released on bond.

The next step is the preliminary or PC hearing in which the judge determines if there is enough evidence to require the suspect to stand trial. Often the accused waives the preliminary. During this time frame the defense is given initial police reports.

So, the arrest at the scene isn't the final determination of guilt, as you well knew, it doesn't even mean the guy will be officially charged, it is just the first step in the process. In this case the prosecutor determined they didn't want to prosecute, so the guy I had PC to arrest would go free.

I'd be like 'WTF?' and continue to march. Unlike some other officers, this wouldn't change my behavior, if I have PC to arrest, I arrest, regardless of whether I think the prosecutor will file, that's my job.