What happens to your License and gun after the Encounter?
This is a discussion on What happens to your License and gun after the Encounter? within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Quote:
but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was ...
September 9th, 2007 09:46 AM
Clarification of Florida
Probable cause means a clear indication, not a maybe it could be so. If the situation is not clearly and obviously not righteous -the dead participant is stark naked, no weapon (gun or otherwise) exists at the scene, with six shots in the back of the head at close range - the law operates on the assumption (the discussion of the law as it was formulated in the legislature indicates as such) that if things turn out to be not righteous, the live shooter can be dealt with later. The wording was placed in the law to restrict the police from arrest first, and resolve who is who later.
but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
Bottom line is that unless the shot is clearly not righteous, I can not be arrested and my weapon taken.
Actually, the way I read it is that unless the shoot was clearly righteous
they can arrest you and take your weapon.
Don't forget, they are not going to be able to evaluate all of the forensic evidence right then and there, and there is a distinct possibility that there might be hostile witnesses. If they have dead guy with a gun, and a live guy with a gun, and three of dead guys drinking buddies telling a story favorable to him, and only you telling the truth, what do you think is going to happen on that scene?
There are several cases - one in Daytona Beach I believe - where the cops have not formally closed an investigation, but the shooter is not under arrest because there is not a clear non-righteous situation. i.e. there is a clear case of ambigousness.
Marion Hammer got this law passed, and she has been at it for years - i.e. she got concealed carry through in the late 1980's.
Last edited by GHFLRLTD; September 9th, 2007 at 09:48 AM.
George H. Foster
September 9th, 2007 09:46 AM
September 9th, 2007 07:15 PM
in my SD shoot - the LEO took info from my gun and the expended shell casing - left the gun with me
YMMV - there was no body laying on the ground either...
IMHO the facts of the situation will always be determinative...
September 10th, 2007 03:22 AM
I stay out of 'problem' areas, I don't go to bars, etc. If I find myself defending my person/my family in a parking lot, or on my property (Central FL)...I'm confident that the situation will be in the positve for me...but you never really know.
"That I cannot do."
"Give this to, uh, Clemenza. I want reliable people, people who aren't going to be carried away. After all we're not murderers in spite of what this undertaker thinks."
Certified Glock Armorer
NRA Life Member
September 10th, 2007 07:09 AM
Well, it's true that you are always exposed to a political decision regarding whether the DA prosecutes you or empanels a grand jury to look into your shooting.
So, regardless of what Florida's castle doctrine states... I wouldn't bet on the fact that you won't be arrested, even if it is a clear cut case of self defense.
That's the chance you take when you make a conscious decision to strap on a gun and use a gun to defend yourself.
It ain't right, but it is reality!
But in the case of Mr. Borland (of which I read regularly), there were indeed questions looming about how much force he used, and whether he had gone looking for trouble and/or escalated things. He did, after all, do a multi-phase shooting, did he not? He is reported to have fired first 5 shots, then 9 more. I guess no one can really know how that sequence went down, and whether there was a break after which he decided to shoot some more. (Frankly, the people he shot barely qualify for that designation; they were gang-banger scum, and well-known to be.)
But Mr. Borland did shoot three people, right? (Was it three shot, two dead?) I know that everyone would want that investigated thoroughly; I guess I don't see that a TRIAL is necessary, though. The system seems to treat a trial as a fact-finding exercise, when in fact it is not. A trial tries the facts that are already known by the time the case gets to court. All they do in trial is parade what is already known before a jury, and get the jury to see whether the events amount to guilt of a crime. I do see it as a mistake to use the trial of Mr. Borland (or anyone) as the venue during which to determine if the acts were self-defense.
But I do think that in much more clear-cut instances, you would not be charged, here in Florida. There have already been cases to demonstrate this. Not everyone who shoots someone and then claims self defense is prosecuted.
September 10th, 2007 01:53 PM
Let me add this twist...
You are confronted by a bad guy (has to be bad to confront innocent ol' me) which escalates to the point that I have no other option than to shoot him. He had a weapon, demonstrated his willingness to use it and I was in clear danger of being suddenly dead. I take the shot.
NOW. The police come and investigate, take my report and the bad guy says nothing (he is dead or not able to rebutt my story) The officer decides, in the better interest of the State and everyone involved, he or she needs to "hold" my weapon and my CCW.
NOW I'm heading home, naked and with my head spinning because I had to shoot someone. I have no gun, my whole body and mind is shaken. I go home, lock the door, greet my wife and kids, kiss them all and tell them the story. The 11 o'clock news reports the shooting of a bad guy by me. They give details. TOO MANY details! So, 1 AM, I am still awake and I hear a noise.
Seems the bad guy had a few friends....
(when seconds count, the local police respond within minutes)
September 10th, 2007 04:17 PM
Originally Posted by Joel
Luckily... in this scenario, I own more than one gun. The police may have confiscated my CCW piece for the investigation, but when the crook's friends showed up thinking I was defenseless, they'd be in for a big surprise.
September 10th, 2007 06:47 PM
Don't know about your area, but in some locales the po-po can and will get a warrant and confiscate any and all weapons under your control before determining if the shoot was justified or not.
Originally Posted by ShadowAngel
Even if you have some "off the radar", if you get caught with it or need to use it before the investigation, trial, etc is over, you'll be in deep doo doo, aka risking felony conviction...
September 12th, 2007 02:37 PM
This thread gave me an epiphany. I realized that all states in the United States are anti-gun, with the possible exceptions being Vermont and Alaska. The states know they can not legally take your right to a firearm since it's protected under the Bill of Rights. BUT, what they can do, and do do in many cases, is make the gun laws so ambiguous and so abundant that anyone who uses a gun winds up virtually to the point where they were almost better off taking their chances without it. I think I may becoming more of a Libertarian after now having my eyes opened to all of the abuses of the government in regard to gun laws.
Am I off base?
September 12th, 2007 04:14 PM
I don't think your off base.
Originally Posted by alyehoud
September 12th, 2007 04:20 PM
Thanks to all for the great information and to HotGuns for letting me know how it is in my state!
Originally Posted by HotGuns
September 13th, 2007 12:18 AM
Originally Posted by peacefuljeffrey
It was my understanding of the case was that yes, there was a break in the shooting. This was also clearly indicated by the surviving thug who was the driver, when he said that during the first string of shots, he ran into a fence. He then put the jeep into reverse and in his words, "attempted to get out of the line of fire."
My contention was (and of course I do not have all the specific details of the case) that the whole shooting event probably transpired in a matter of seconds. Including the pause after the first 5 shots and the subsequent 9 shots fired.
When faced with the effects of being thrust into full "body alarm mode" in a fight or flight situation at the thought of being run down by a jeep full of gang-bangers who have threatened your life it is extremely hard to use "detached reflection" and monday morning quarterback yourself in the heat of a gun battle. Any prosecutor should realize this.
Also regardless of the sole survivors testimony "that he put the jeep in reverse to get out of the line of fire", how on earth was Mr. Borland supposed to know what was truly going on in his mind.
With the information Mr. Borland had at the moment, he probably did not know if he had actually hit any of them at all... and could also just as logically conclude that reason the gang-banger put the jeep in reverse and backed up was to continue to Run Him Down!
While we don't have all the facts... I feel that it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume the entire event transpired in less than a minutes time. Or close to it. That's pretty damn fast when you feel your life is going to be over in that encounter.
My problem is the information the prosecutor had at hand when giving his opening statement.
The prosecutor said that these men were known to Mr. Borland and the police as members of an especially violent street gang.
These gang bangers had been drinking all day and had just finished watching Al Pacino's Scarface; a particularly violent cuban gang-banging drug dealing movie which had sufficiently riled them up and had them enraged.
The assailants armed themselves with a baseball bat and admitted they embarked on a mission to seek out Mr. Borland and severely mess him up while in a drunken and highly enraged state.
There were originally 4 assailants and when they started talking about getting a gun to use against Mr. Borland, one of them had enough and got out of the jeep.
Ok, Jeff... The prosecutor had this information at hand when he decided to file charges.... The prosecutor also admitted in court during his opening statement that Mr. Borland was most definitely in fear of his life and justified in shooting them.
What he wasn't happy with was that in the heat of the moment... in middle of a fight for his life when they ran up on the curb and attempted to run him down with the jeep... As soon as he fired his first volley of shots and the jeep ran into the fence... When the surviving assailant put the jeep went into reverse and attempted to back up... The prosecutor expected Mr. Borland to immediately regain his composure and be able to read the mind of the murderous thug attempting to back over him and (assume that what the thug would tell the prosecutor was the truth) in that he was "just trying to get out of the line of fire."
I don't know about you, but I don't think that Mr. Borland was unreasonable at all in thinking that maybe they were still trying to run him down and that the threat to his life was still ongoing and immediate!
The other thing that disturbs me was what the prosecutor said after Borland was acquitted! He said in a press conference that he was glad Borland was acquitted and that if he was in the same situation, he wouldn't be sure what he would have done!
To me... that did not justify 1st degree murder charges with a possibility of Life Without Parole upon conviction! To me... it was purely a political challenge of the castle doctrine law and an anti-gun bias.
To me, if I were a prosecutor, I wouldn't have even considered filing charges in that case. If I truly felt compelled to file on this case... I would consider manslaughter at best!
I certainly respect your opinion and you probably have read more about the case than I have. I'm clear up here in Missouri and a long way from Florida.
This is just my perspective on the case.
Again, I'm not disagreeing with your post Jeff... It think you have excellent points there! I'm just clarifying my position on things after reading what I have and corrisponding with Mr. Borlands defense attorney via email.
"The gun is the great equalizer... For it is the gun, that allows the meek to repel the monsters; Whom are bigger, stronger and without conscience, prey on those who without one, would surely perish."
By MJK in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: January 21st, 2010, 11:56 AM
By Pikachu711 in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: October 12th, 2009, 01:41 AM
By coriantan in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: August 26th, 2009, 07:46 PM
By PointnClick in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
Last Post: April 21st, 2009, 01:57 PM
By DarinD in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: November 12th, 2007, 08:36 PM
Search tags for this page
what happens to your gun after self defence arkansas
Click on a term to search for related topics.