So did this guy commit a crime?

[casselthief]

why not leave, you're not guilty of nuthin'!!
sure, it's the D.A.'s job to prosecute, but it ain't his job to say that just cause you shot an "evil doer" that you didn't do it illegally. that's the Grand Jury's job.

dude ran, cause well, he had something to run from.
bottom line.

I got a good laugh about your line about illegals, no doubt, really!

[kauboy]

I can tell you that I would stay on the scene unless I felt that I was in danger by doing so. And even then I would contact the police as soon as reasoably possible.

I would also contact an attorney, even before the police arrived and say nothing to the police except the most basic facts - that I was in fear for my life, that I fired at the suspect, and that I would like to speak with my attorney.

Leaving the scene will usually cause people to assume that you are somehow guilty of something, regardless of whether or not you really are. Perception can become reality, and your actions could influence the police, the DA and the jury. I wouldn't do anything that would negatively influence the ones who will be deciding my legal fate if I could help it.

That was not the intent of my question. I too would stay. I wanted to know what the legal eagles would recommend a best course of action to be. Would it change anything to leave and let the excitement die down before coming forward a few days later with council? Would I immediately be considered "wrong" for not being there when the police arrived? Would I be treated as such? (i.e. cuffed and booked on the spot)

[stroo]

Just given the facts here, it would have been better for him to stay although I am not convinced he did anything illegal by leaving the scene. Of course if he was not a CHL or was an illegal alien or had some other inherent problem, he may have commited a crime that is not clear from the facts. Still probably better to stay, but if that was the situation, you can understand why he may have decided to leave.

[tallmike]

These things he did were illegal, but he has a defense for them.

Carrying a concealed weapon is illegal, a CHL permit gives you an exemption from that law in some situations. He broke the law when he carried concealed and until they know this person had a permit they have to assume a crime was committed.

He discharged a weapon, another crime. He may have a legal defense since he was reacting to an armed criminal but not until the situation is reviewed by the city attorneys or a judge/jury he cant decide that for himself.

He killed a guy, thats homicide every time but again it may be reviewed and deemed justified by the city attorneys or a judge/jury however they may also decide it wasnt justified.

The crimes were committed and he cant make the decision himself that it wasnt a crime and just leave.

[Liberty]

The crimes were committed and he cant make the decision himself that it wasnt a crime and just leave.

Errmm... Of course he can. In fact he did.

While he may not have made things any better in the long run for himself, by leaving he didn't create any extra charges for himself. If he stuck around he would at least faced a grand jury hearing. Perhaps he has avoided the whole mess and made life easier for everyone by just disappearing. A slime ball is dead. My main critisism of the shooter is that if he is going to shoot up the bad guys and disappear into the sunset, shouldn't he be using silver bullets?

[Odin]

These things he did were illegal, but he has a defense for them.

That was the question I had after reading the story. Did he actually commit a crime. And despite several posts the suggest he committed a crime, I'm not sure I see where he committed any crime other than possibly the discharging his firearm might have been a misdemeanor offense.

Carrying a concealed weapon is illegal, a CHL permit gives you an exemption from that law in some situations. He broke the law when he carried concealed and until they know this person had a permit they have to assume a crime was committed.

Nobody has said that he was carrying a concealed weapon, and if he was he may have had a CHL. That info wasn't given in the news story (probably because it is unknown).

Carrying concealed is NOT a crime "until they know this person had a permit". In America the law does not assume that you are guilty until you prove otherwise, the law assumes that you are innocent until the prosecutor proves otherwise. You got that part backwards.

He discharged a weapon, another crime. He may have a legal defense since he was reacting to an armed criminal but not until the situation is reviewed by the city attorneys or a judge/jury he cant decide that for himself.

This is true. It appears that he may have committed a misdemeanor in discharging his firearm.

He killed a guy, thats homicide every time but again it may be reviewed and deemed justified by the city attorneys or a judge/jury however they may also decide it wasnt justified.

Homicide is a scientific/medical term.

If the prosecutor can prove to a jury that he committed criminally negligent homicide, manslaughter, murder, or capital murder then he will have committed a criminal homicide.

The crimes were committed and he cant make the decision himself that it wasnt a crime and just leave.

It seems that he did just that.