Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Remember you feared for your life. Thats the phrase. Just put a knife in his hand and it will be no billed by a grand jury. Back to the pepper spray question. A secret that I will share. WASP spray. It is accurate up to 20 feet. It is legal to have anywhere. And it has been proven to be more effective than pepper spray.
Cops arrive, blast the HOMEOWNER six times in the back and then, while the 911 line was till open and recording DISCUSS HOW TO COVER UP THEIR **** UP WITH MAN THEY THOUGHT WAS DEAD AT THEIR FEET!!
Family Says 911 Tape Caught Cops Planning Cover-Up After Shooting
PHOENIX (CN) - A homeowner says a Phoenix police officer shot him six times in the back during a 911 home-invasion call, and the 911 tape recorded the officer's partner saying, "That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back. ... We clear?" The family says the officers were not aware that the 911 call was still recording as they spoke about covering up the shooting.
In their complaint in Maricopa County Court, Anthony and Lesley Arambula say an armed intruder "crashed through the front window" of their home on Sept. 17, 2008 and ran into one of their son's bedrooms.
Anthony, worried about his son who was still in his bedroom, says he "held the intruder calmly at gunpoint" and called 911.
Phoenix Police officers already in the neighborhood heard the crash of the Arambulas' window. When they approached the house, Lesley says, she told Sgt. Sean Coutts that her husband was inside holding the intruder at gunpoint. Lesley says Coutts failed to pass on that information to the two other officers.
Inside the house, the Arambulas say, Officer Brian Lilly shot Anthony six times in the back while he was still on the phone with the 911 operator - twice when he was on the ground.
The officers ran into the bedroom after Anthony told them, "You just killed ... you just killed the homeowner. The bad guy is in there."
The complaint states that Officer Lilly "admitted that it was only after Tony was laying, bullet-ridden, on the ground that he assessed the situation. The 911 tape continued to record what happened even after Officer Lilly unloaded his weapon into Tony, including Officer Lilly's post-shooting, one-word 'assessment': '****.'
"Tony believed he was going to die; the 911 tape records his plaintive goodbye to his family: '... I love you ... I love you.' Then Tony made what he believed was a dying request to the officers; he did not want his young family to see him shot and bloodied. Officers callously ignored his request and painfully dragged Tony by his injured leg, through the home and out to his backyard patio, where they left him bloodied and shot right in front of Lesley, Matthew and Zachary."
The Arambulas say the officers later dragged Anthony onto gravel, then put him on top of the hot hood of a squad car, and "drove the squad car down the street with Tony lying on top, writing in pain."
According to the complaint, Lilly can be heard on the 911 tape telling Coutts, "We ****ed up."
Lilly says on the tape that he did not know where Anthony's gun was when he shot him and that he "opened fire because he heard loud noises and saw someone who looked like he might be the 'Hispanic' male they were pursuing" before getting to the Arambulas' house, according to the complaint.
The complaint states: "Sgt. Coutts knew that officers has just shot up and likely killed an innocent homeowner and the husband of Lesley, with whom he had spoken before entering the home, instead of the armed intruder. Sgt. Coutts was quick to commence the cover-up of their terrible mistake. Sgt. Coutts asked Office Lilly where Tony's gun was at the time Officer Lilly had opened fire on Tony. Officer Lilly admitted that he did not know where Tony's gun was: 'I don't know. I heard screaming and I fired.'"
Lilly later told a police internal affairs investigator that Anthony had pointed his gun in his direction, "in the 'ready' position," the complaint states. But Anthony Arambula says he was facing away from the officers, who could not have even seen his gun.
The complaint continues: "Still not knowing that he is being recorded n the 911 tape, Sgt. Coutts interrupted Officer Lilly's admission and apology with his assurance that the cover-up would commence: 'That's all right. Don't worry about it. I got your back. ... We clear?'"
After the shooting, the Arambulas say, the Phoenix Police Department treated them "like suspects in a drug bust," denying Lesley, Michael and Zachary information about Anthony's condition and denying friends and family members access to him at the hospital.
Anthony Arambula survived, but continues to suffer pain, which he expects will last for the rest of his life.
The City of Phoenix and Officer Dzenan Ahmetovic also are named as defendants.
The Arambulas seek punitive damages for gross negligence, civil rights violations, failure to supervise, excessive force, deliberate indifference to medical needs, false arrest, and emotional distress. They are represented by Michael Manning with Stinson Morrison Hecker.
there is no f-ing way im touching a criminal who broke into my house with my hands if i have a gun to shoot him with. forget about my wife, she has strict instructions in case of a break in and i expect her to follow them.
CaptainNJ - can you share what the instruction for your wife to follow is? We have a 3-year old kid and all the rooms we sleep in are on the 2nd floor. What do you think is the best course of action when we don't have a gun or pepper spray but the alarm goes off in the middle of the night? Thanks!
Of course it doesn't. But you said you have to (a) wait until your LIFE is in danger (which is wrong) and (b) you need to try to escape/retreat first (which is wrong). Those are two important facts!
As citizens in our own homes, threat of personal injury (far less than threat of LIFE) is enough to justify use of deadly force. And there is explicitly no requirement to retreat from your own home.
Lusitan,
Great info, definitely presents it a bit clearer. You seem very knowledgeable on the subject and I appreciate all the info you provided. I think we are both on the same page, just a few comments.
I think my position has tried to be that using deadly force in NJ (specifically in a home break-in) most times winds up with charges being brought against the homeowner (if he did the shooting). I never said there weren't times it would be justifiable and no charges brought but the majority of the time, I would expect them. Also, I wanted to caution those who think that just because you find someone in your house, you can blindly shoot them without expecting legal recourse.
I think you are somewhat splitting hairs with the definition of "personal injury". I may have been a little aggressive using "life in danger" but you have to agree that the level of "personal injury" needs to be extremely high to justify deadly force. If you think saying "I was afraid he was going to punch me so I shot him" is going to get you off the hook of killing a home intruder, you and I both know that will never work. You have to feel that the "threat of personal injury" is so high that your only option to protect yourself was to kill him.
If an intruder is standing in your kitchen threatening you with a wooden spoon, do you think there is the same level of "threat of personal injury" as if he was standing there with a knife? My point being that the level of the "threat" of personal injury will be taken into account to determine whether it was a justified shooting.
I never said you were obligated to retreat, another poster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusitan
That's a straw-man argument; an argument nobody made but you just set up yourself so you could knock it down. Who is talking about "randomly" shooting people in their home? Nobody. We're talking about intruders in your home and what you can do in self defense. That's not "randomly" shooting people in your home.
I meant randomly shooting without that threat of personal injury. You can't just shoot anyone who breaks in your home, there has to be a threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusitan
Um, I can't imagine it would take a whole lot of time to explain how, when the invader broke into your home in the middle of the night, you feared a threat of personal injury to you and your family and therefore took action to defend yourself.
Might not take that long, but you better be damn good at proving/convincing that the "threat of personal injury" was enough to justify shooting someone. Again, like I said earlier, you can't claim you felt he was going to punch you so you shot him. A broken nose/black eye may fall into the category of "personal injury", but you'll never get that past a jury to defend you killing a guy.
I think this goes back to the difference in "life's in danger" and "threat of personal injury", I would think you agree with me that the threat better be real close to you fearing for your life before a grand jury won't bring charges. Again, that was the intention of my posts, to expect charges to be brought if this happens in NJ. Might be OK in other states but in NJ, you are guilty until proven innocent if you kill someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusitan
I would like you to be educated on this for your own safety and your family's safety as well, and so that misinformation does not spread causing more confusion among us. I think we are all on the same "side" here.
Agreed, I think we are both on the same side here. Always a plus to get good information !!
CaptainNJ - can you share what the instruction for your wife to follow is? We have a 3-year old kid and all the rooms we sleep in are on the 2nd floor. What do you think is the best course of action when we don't have a gun or pepper spray but the alarm goes off in the middle of the night? Thanks!
well, i have a dog, an alarm system and 3 handguns + a shotgun on the way. for me, if you dont take the necessary steps to secure your home, you arent taking proper care of your family. in reality, the dog and alarm system should deter any potential intruders. however, if my wife were to be home without me and someone breaks in, she grabs the nearest gun first (if there is time she is to get the shotgun). any intruder in the house is an unacceptable risk to my wife and child's lives.
if you dont have a gun or pepper spray (i wouldnt even recommend going after someone with pepper spray) then i would say your best bet is to grab a baseball bat and swing away. dont hesitate, you hesitate and you and your family are dead.
I'm not just arguing with you for the sake of arguing, and I appreciate your perspective. But I do think it's important to respond to a few points you raised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo Bloe
I think my position has tried to be that using deadly force in NJ (specifically in a home break-in) most times winds up with charges being brought against the homeowner (if he did the shooting).
I don't know. Do you have an statistics for that? I certainly would agree that people who improperly use a weapon frequently do so in their home, but I imagine that usually involves turning the weapon on a family member or someone else visiting your home with your permission (e.g. an argument or people are drinking or using drugs, whatever -- not a home invasion situation).
I have not seen any statistics either way, but I would be very surprised if statistics showed that in a home-invasion context, a homeowner who discharges a weapon ends up with charges being brought against him more often than not. I'd be very surprised to learn that because not only does it go against common sense, it also seems to go against the law. But if you can point me to some statistics, I'd be interested to read them.
Quote:
I think you are somewhat splitting hairs with the definition of "personal injury". I may have been a little aggressive using "life in danger" but you have to agree that the level of "personal injury" needs to be extremely high to justify deadly force. If you think saying "I was afraid he was going to punch me so I shot him" is going to get you off the hook of killing a home intruder, you and I both know that will never work. You have to feel that the "threat of personal injury" is so high that your only option to protect yourself was to kill him.
The law requires threat of personal injury. Not "extremely high" personal injury. The fact is that anyone who breaks into my home while me, my wife, and children are sleeping is up to no good. He is violating the law and invading our home and the law does not require a homeowner to try to distinguish between threat of personal injury versus "extreme" threat of personal injury etc. In this type of situation, there isn't time to analyze all the facts and make some calm decision like we can sitting in front of the computer screen. These are life-and-death situations, and the law doesn't require anything more than threat of personal injury. People are strangled, children are kidnapped, and many other horrible violent crimes are committed by people without weapons when they break into homes. The law doesn't require me to wait until the invader starts doing something like that, nor does it require me to wait for him to announce his intention to do something like that.
Quote:
If an intruder is standing in your kitchen threatening you with a wooden spoon, do you think there is the same level of "threat of personal injury" as if he was standing there with a knife? My point being that the level of the "threat" of personal injury will be taken into account to determine whether it was a justified shooting.
Of course, standing in my kitchen holding a wooden spoon may at first appear to me to be standing in my kitchen holding a knife or a gun or anything else in the split second I am forced to make a decision about protecting my family.
Quote:
A broken nose/black eye may fall into the category of "personal injury", but you'll never get that past a jury to defend you killing a guy.
I disagree. If a man breaks into my home in the middle of the night and when confronted attempts to break my nose, I don't think it will be difficult for me to justify using a weapon in self-defense and defense of my family. If an intruder were to knock me unconscious with a punch to the head, who knows what he would do to my wife and children? I don't have to take that chance, nor does the law require me to.
CaptainNJ - can you share what the instruction for your wife to follow is? We have a 3-year old kid and all the rooms we sleep in are on the 2nd floor. What do you think is the best course of action when we don't have a gun or pepper spray but the alarm goes off in the middle of the night? Thanks!
I know this wasnt directed at me but I will share anyway. We have a small walk in closet that has been turned into a semi safe room. 4 people can fit in there snugly. Triplebeam door frame, solid wood door with security hinges and not only a dead bolt but a metal brace that spans the width of the door (think oldie time castle doors). We have a seperate phone line ran from the street pole directly to the room. 2 flashlights, an aluminum bat, and a hand gun. We have already run 2 drills since the room has been completed and my wife and mother in law are instructed to grab my son, lock themselves in the room and call 911. If they are home alone and have time, they are to grab my shotgun but, that is a low priority. I have even contemplated installing a permanent gate at the top of the stairs (As is done in MANY countries) so that no-one can even get to the second floor.
I have even contemplated installing a permanent gate at the top of the stairs (As is done in MANY countries) so that no-one can even get to the second floor.
Interesting concept. I suppose one has to consider fire-safety and alternate exits, but I had never thought of this.
The safe room concept is also a good idea, which we have implemented to some degree as well. But thanks for some ideas on that as well.
I'm not just arguing with you for the sake of arguing, and I appreciate your perspective. But I do think it's important to respond to a few points you raised.
Agreed. Not arguing with you either, just hoping to make sure NJ homeowners do not get a false sense of security that it is all right to shoot anyone who invades their home in any circumstance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusitan
I have not seen any statistics either way, but I would be very surprised if statistics showed that in a home-invasion context, a homeowner who discharges a weapon ends up with charges being brought against him more often than not. I'd be very surprised to learn that because not only does it go against common sense, it also seems to go against the law. But if you can point me to some statistics, I'd be interested to read them.
I would have to research that to give you stats, not even sure where I would find them but I'll look. Do you really think it goes beyond common sense to not be able to just come out with guns blazing in any home invasion? Don't you think that the law favors you calling the police rather then taking the law in your own hands and shooting someone? Although I know this is not a "stat" but I've lived in NJ 43 years and remember a few of these instances. I also own a number of guns and have been cautioned by the local police on the legal use in a home invasion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusitan
The law requires threat of personal injury. Not "extremely high" personal injury. The fact is that anyone who breaks into my home while me, my wife, and children are sleeping is up to no good. He is violating the law and invading our home and the law does not require a homeowner to try to distinguish between threat of personal injury versus "extreme" threat of personal injury etc. In this type of situation, there isn't time to analyze all the facts and make some calm decision like we can sitting in front of the computer screen. These are life-and-death situations, and the law doesn't require anything more than threat of personal injury. People are strangled, children are kidnapped, and many other horrible violent crimes are committed by people without weapons when they break into homes. The law doesn't require me to wait until the invader starts doing something like that, nor does it require me to wait for him to announce his intention to do something like that.
From the point of view of "the letter of the law" you are correct but I would guess you would be making that case to a jury to decide your future. In my opinion, I do not interpret the law as loosely as you do.
Again, as I mentioned earlier, one of the points I was making was that if you shoot a home intruder, I would expect there to be charges brought by the GJ. You may win a court battle on this but I still would expect you to go to trial to do it. I think a GJ would find enough there to send it to trial. I think at that trial, the "level" of threat would need to be identified then decided if it warranted deadly force. Not sure saying "people are strangled, children are kidnapped, and many other horrible violent crimes are committed by people when they break into homes" will be enough to warrant deadly force. I believe the GJ/jury will need to see that there was an actual threat, not an anticipated one. Unfortunately, in NJ I feel you do need to wait until that threat is there before you can expect no charges from a GJ.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusitan
I disagree. If a man breaks into my home in the middle of the night and when confronted attempts to break my nose, I don't think it will be difficult for me to justify using a weapon in self-defense and defense of my family. If an intruder were to knock me unconscious with a punch to the head, who knows what he would do to my wife and children? I don't have to take that chance, nor does the law require me to.
well, I have to disagree. Not arguing, I think it is fine we have different views on this. I would expect there to be charges against you. Again, maybe splitting hairs here but if all you suffer is a broken nose I doubt the GJ would justify deadly force. If you make a case (again, I think it would be in front of a jury) that the man was attacking you at the time, was beating you badly and you feared he was going to kill you, then yes you might get off. If someone breaks in your home, demands your car keys and punches you in the nose for not giving them to him fast enough, you can't use deadly force.
As I said Lusitan, I think we are on the same page here. I think you would wind up facing charges and having to present your defense in a court of law. You may win in these situations ( I tend to be skeptical) but I do think charges would be brought. In many of your scenarios, there is enough there to support your position. Not sure what the outcome would be in the hands of 12, but you certainly have a defense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Thats the phrase. Just put a knife in his hand and it will be no billed by a grand jury. Back to the pepper spray question. A secret that I will share. WASP spray. It is accurate up to 20 feet. It is legal to have anywhere. And it has been proven to be more effective than pepper spray.
