HuntingNet.com Forums - View Single Post - Costs of Protection
View Single Post
Old 12-07-2007, 07:00 PM
  #8  
driftrider
Nontypical Buck
 
driftrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Coralville, IA. USA
Posts: 3,802
Default RE: Costs of Protection

I've read/heard/read/heard these tid bits. I've heard that if you are on the right, it will cost you between $10-$15k to defend yourself with no ability to recover expenses. If you are the wrong, upwards of $25k with potential jail time.
How much would you say my two kids are worth? My wife? Me? $15k to save just one of their lives is a bargain. As far as being wrong...don't be. If you shoot someone at night inside your own home, the chances are good that you won't even spend a night in jail. As long as there is no evidence present that strongly refutes your assertion of self-defense, the police will probably not even arrest you in most jurisdictions. They'll take your statement and the statements of any witnesses (the perp is dead, right?), they'll take pictures of the scene and collect any relevant evidence, and write it up as an apparent justifiable homicide. This will go to the local prosecutor who will review the evidence and police reports, and if he too is satisfied that there was no foul play on your part, he'll send it to a judge as a justifiable homicide and once the judge rules as such, you're good to go. You'll probably have to make a single court appearance at said hearing.

Granted, all jurisdictions are different, and the actual process may vary somewhat, but the only way you're going to spend any real time or money defending yourself in court is if the police do find evidence that suggests that your self-defense story is not true. Or if you are one of the really unlucky few who has a real anti-gun crusader of a DA.

Do you remember Hale DeMar? He was the guy from Wilmette, IL (a burb of Chicago) that shot a guy that had broken into his house twice in 24 hours. Remembering that Illinois, and the Chicago area especially, are among the most anti-gun jurisdictions in the U.S., he was NOT charged at all with the shooting itself. The only thing the city of Wilmette tried to get him on was his violation the city's handgun ban, which they eventually dropped after national pressure. He was represented by lawyers paid for by various pro-gun organizations, and the charge was a misdemenor that carried a $750 fine. He fought it as a matter of principle, and eventually won.

The point is that self-defense cases involving firearms happen all the time (about 2.5million times a year according to some studies). Most don't involve shots actually being fired, but those that do are usually handled administratively unless there is a good reason for the police to believe that circumstances were highly questionable. Remember, deadly force laws are necessarily vague because there can be no hard-and-fast rules for when deadly force is lawful or not. It's left to what a "reasonable person" would believe was necessary under what they PERCIEVED the threat to be. Most LEO's will give a law-abiding homeowner the benefit of the doubt.

All black helicopter paranoia aside...if someone enters your home with obvious ill intent, the moment you spend contemplating what a lawyer MIGHT do to you LATER, may give the perp just the time he needs to do what he IS going to do to you NOW. I'll take my chances with the legal system if it means that I'll get to see my kids grow up.

Mike
driftrider is offline