Frightening! Three Masked Teens with Guns Shot Dead by Homeowner in GA w/ AR-15

He doesn't, but your statements aren't hearsay if you're sued in civil court. They're admissible as a statement by party opponent and these days they have body cams/mics recording the investigation which can be used. He can also be called to testify about what he heard the defendant say as long as he's available for cross examination and under oath, just like any other witness.
Said it, stuck with it.

 

Umm yes, I think - not sure what you're getting at exactly, lol... It would have served the same purpose w/ much more 'authritah' so to speak. Though I do a lot of shooting / training / drills etc. I haven't gotten all that comfortable w/ the 12 ga. lol. Not that a flinch factor is much of an issue in close range SHTF scenario that we're talking about here. Certainly putting another 50 lbs. on my '$' - 120 frame would help - but then I'd have to buy a new wardrobe, lol... Sounds like you concur w/ Uncle Joe's sage wisdom here...

 

Hey, give him/her/alphabet credit, a 40mm grenade launcher WILL do the job.

 

Here is the TITLE of the article you linked to in the OP:

Frightening! Three Masked Teens with Guns Shot Dead After Attempting to Rob Georgia Homeowner at 4 AM in Morning (Video)

I see NO Mention of "AR-15" in the OP Link.

^(Why does the RW always feel the need to "sensationalize" a Thread Title?)

Anyway, on-topic, the guy defended his home, good for him.

 

https://www.americanrifleman.org/the-armed-citizen

 

Your video was wonderful. I want to but won't post the video of my 10 & 12 year old grandsons along with my wife of 52 years shooting the AR we built from scratch.
Pretty much the same result and you could not get the smiles off their face with a belt sander.
Without question one of the best home defense weapons ever created, except for JakeStarkeys 40mm grenade launcher of course.

 

Whatever you say counselor.

 

What's it like living in a war zone country?

 

Are you saying that is incorrect as a statement of law robby?

 

Would not know, i was born long after the war between the states. Never been shot at and I dont live in Chicago or other Democrat strongholds.

 

Miranda rights ring a bell. Anyways back to the topic, those family members have every right to discovery.

 

Hate to tell you this but miranda isn't all that applicable to a CIVIL case brought for wrongful death or something like that. If you open your mouth its very much likely you'll be stuck with it in civil even if not in criminal.
You've also got the criminal is bard civil is preponderance thing to deal with, OJ style.

As to discovery: now who is talking about court? This ain't discovery, they're just demanding these people testify against themselves in public without even alleging a cause of action ffs.

 

Only if you've been read your Miranda rights.

 

Police get involved with civil cases. You have gone off on a tangent.

 

And evidence excluded from a criminal proceeding doesn't have to be excluded from a civil proceeding. If you shoot someone, you should have your attorney give a statement to the police and otherwise shut the **** up about it, unless you want each of those statements examined under a microscope with an eye towards litigation.

 

How else are they supposed to get money for clothes?

 

Years back my attorney advised me to be polite and keep my mouth shut, even if I am threatened with an arrest if I don't cooperate, just keep my mouth shut, be cooperative with the arrest and bail out later.

From there she will sort it out, but if I talk it will become much more expensive for me with each word I speak.

Bottom line is say nothing until ones attorney is present.

 

Oh man I laughed so hard at this.

 

Definitely. Don't know how long ago she gave you the advice but after some recent (few years ago) cases you now have to add and don't make anything that could be argued to be a gesture or expression IE don't roll your eyes, give the bird, flinch, gasp, snort, etc. in response to ANY question to simply remaining quiet.

 

It would still be considered hearsay evidence in a civil trial..........


hearsay evidence - noun

: evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on another's statement not made under oath

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hearsay evidence

 

His daddy was a detective in the jungles of 'nam you know! He knows what he's about

 

I just want to hear him screaming "HOLD STILL SO I CAN SHOOT YOU IN THE HEAD DAMMIT!".

 

*sigh* https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_801

Rule 801. Definitions That Apply to This Article; Exclusions from Hearsay

. . . .

(d) Statements That Are Not Hearsay. A statement that meets the following conditions is not hearsay:
. . .

(2) An Opposing Party’s Statement. The statement is offered against an opposing party and:

(A) was made by the party in an individual or representative capacity;

(B) is one the party manifested that it adopted or believed to be true;

(C) was made by a person whom the party authorized to make a statement on the subject;

(D) was made by the party’s agent or employee on a matter within the scope of that relationship and while it existed; or

(E) was made by the party’s coconspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The statement must be considered but does not by itself establish the declarant’s authority under (C); the existence or scope of the relationship under (D); or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it under (E).


A statement by party opponent is NOT HEARSAY, by definition. This is true in the fed, and in Tx and in every state I'm aware of.
This should not be confused with something that is EXCEPTED from hearsay, which is a different set of rules in the 800s about things that ARE hearsay but are allowed under certain strictures.

So the police report would be hearsay, its an unsworn out of court statement offered for its truth. But the COP testifying what he heard the defendant say would be EXCLUDED (rather than excepted) from the hearsay rule because the defendant is a party and the plaintiff is offering the statement through a witness who heard it with personal knowledge and who is subject to cross then..


Would you like me to continue to browbeat you with the rules or will you accept that the lawyer knows more than you?

 

I bet it was hell draggin that 40mm through those viet cong tunnels.

 

*bloop* di di mao di di mao