Saturday, December 20, 2014

How much bullshit are alleged DGUs anyway?

In this case, the DGU that turned out to be false, when someone in Doylestown claimed that the Souderton mass shooter, Bradley Stone, had tried to carjack him.  Instead of making himself a hero, this claim diverted police attention and resources from the manhunt.
"We contend that he performed an enormous hoax that cost taxpayers a lot of money," Bucks County District Attorney David Heckler said at a news conference Friday night. "This is terrible conduct. This is unacceptable conduct."

However  the police officers were suspicious about the claim, according to Heckler.

And well the officers should have been suspicious since the two locations are about 13 miles apart.  Mapquest says it would take about a half hour to drive this, which is probably optimistic given the stop lights and traffic.

Of course, the pro-gun side is happy to look at these incidents as proof that ""guns save lives" when the reality here was that it wasted police resources.

I have to admit curiosity as to how many DGUs are actually verifiable incidents: especially now that the Get Away With Murder laws have stopped any inquiry as to the actual events when someone claims "self-defence".  Short of a major amount of evidence to the contrary, the claim of self-defence stands.  In fact, even with evidence to the contrary, the claim can pass (e.g., Trayvon Martin).

Breaking, it seems that Bath Township detectives believe they have “overwhelming evidence” to prove a former Navy SEAL, Chris Heben, lied when he claimed he was shot during an altercation with three black men outside of a popular shopping center.

"We have overwhelming evidence based upon video, cell phone records and interviews that the shooting did not occur in the West Market Plaza and that Mr. Heben made false allegations to us," said Bath Township Police Chief Mike McNeely.

George Zimmerman recently pointed out that you should have insurance if you are going to go around shooting people due to the legal costs.

Nothing I haven't been telling you, but you all know the law better than I do.

Yeah. right.
See also:

6 comments:

  1. Laci: "Nothing I haven't been telling you, but you all know the law better than I do."

    Apparently so, because I know better than to say something as blatantly wrong as this:

    Laci: "...especially now that the Get Away With Murder laws have stopped any inquiry as to the actual events when someone claims "self-defence"."

    Really now? The police can't even so much as investigate or collect evidence once someone claims self-defense? And you're a practicing attorney?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "George Zimmerman recently pointed out that you should have insurance if you are going to go around shooting people due to the legal costs.
    Nothing I haven't been telling you, but you all know the law better than I do."

    Laci, I must confess to being a bit surprised by your statement. Normally when gun control activists talk about requiring insurance, its liability insurance they want to mandate so that whoever is the victim of said gun violence can be compensated.
    Something much different than the insurance recommended by Zimmerman, which helps the gun owner pay for legal fees to defend him in court. That kind of insurance is already out there and available for those that wish it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I have to admit curiosity as to how many DGUs are actually verifiable incidents: especially now that the Get Away With Murder laws have stopped any inquiry as to the actual events when someone claims "self-defence". Short of a major amount of evidence to the contrary, the claim of self-defence stands."

    You should consider watching this video Mike thoughtfully posted regarding the process of a stand your ground defense and the logic used Mr. Ayoob explains it quite well and has been an expert in the self defense field for many years. In fact, one of his books was required reading at my first job in armed security.

    http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/05/massad-ayoob-on-castle-doctrine-and.html

    Here is what I said back then,

    "He seemed to cover it pretty well to me. According to Mr. Ayoob's description, the defendant has to request a stand your ground hearing and the burden is on the defendant to prove by preponderance of evidence that it was a justifiable use of deadly force. I'm assuming that there is someone from the prosecutor's office to keep things honest.
    As Ayoob states, do the math, if a defendant can prove to a judge that he acted properly, how would a prosecutor ever be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he acted criminally? And as he also mentions, criminals have been using the self defense argument (among others) for as long as there have been homicides."

    Zimmerman never requested a stand your ground hearing and used a defense based on the justifiable use of force in state law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "the defendant to prove by preponderance of evidence that it was a justifiable use of deadly force."

      Sounds like what I've been saying lately which gets Kurt and TS so upset.

      Delete
    2. Uh, no. This is for a pre-trial hearing, where the defendant gets a chance to have the case dismissed by showing one judge it was more likely self-defense than not (51% or better). If that fails, then it goes to trail where the prosecution has to convince a jury of twelve that it was not self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt (90% or better). I think what you are asking for is for the defendant to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are innocent at trial, which is against the principles of our justice system.

      Delete
    3. What TS said.

      Look at it this way: let's say you've shot and killed a young man who, although he had no gun, was brutally attacking you, causing you to fear for your life. The ambitious prosecutor pursues the case as a murder investigation.

      As a defendant, what's the better situation to be in--with Stand Your Ground, whereby if you can provide a preponderance of evidence (not, by the way, the "overwhelming evidence" you keep demanding), you're home free, probably saved tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, immune to any civil liability lawsuits from your late assailant's greedy, opportunistic family, and without the stress of facing years in prison for murder? Even if you can't provide the preponderance of evidence, you're still no worse off than you would have been before Stand Your Ground, you just don't get the benefit of that law (or maybe you do--remember your big "gotcha" moment over me, when I found myself having to acknowledge that Zimmerman did apparently benefit from Stand Your Ground, despite not having invoked it for his defense?).

      Contrast that situation with where you, as the accused, would be without Stand Your Ground, where even with a preponderance of evidence that the shooting was legitimate self-defense, you are on trial for murder (and maybe rotting in jail until the trial, if you can't get the bail money together)?

      So, no--you'll not hear any complaints from me about a preponderance of evidence requirement for successful invocation of the Stand Your Ground defense.

      Delete