I was wondering what the role of the police are when they arrive on the scene of a dangerous situation. Suppose cops arrive on a scene when two men are pointing guns at each other. A third man is dead on the ground with gun shot wounds. The police take control of the situation, but who do they arrest for the murder of the man on the ground? Or, are both simply brought in for questioning. In short, I was wondering if cops ever weigh-in the fact that their perspective on an incident can be totally off-base (arriving in the middle of something) and how much circumstances are swaying their judgement. - Jinx
I am not a policeman.
In the scenario you describe, the police would indeed try to take control of the situation. One of their jobs is to protect the public.
Once every suspect is disarmed, they will all be taken for questioning. Everyone present is either a potential witness or a suspect (and also have their rights).
If one person is an undercover agent, presumably they may prefer to keep their identity secret until in provate anyway…
They might not even have to both be taken in. The conclusion may be obvious at the scene. You’d be surprised by what you can accomplish simply by asking questions or even just listening to what the suspects are yelling when you get there.
They would probably both be taken in. Both the guns would definitely be confiscated so bullet tests could be done. But one is probably a murderer and the other probably a witness.
One thing to remember is that in a situation such as the OP described the convenience of all parties will be the least of the officer’s concerns. Anyone involved will get shipped off to the station for interviews and will spend a massive amount of time there - all day or more.
Investigative processes do not take 55 minutes, minus commercials.
When I took firearms/self-defense classes in Massachusetts, one segment was on “what to do after you shoot someone.” The basic gist was - you will be cuffed, arrested, & brought in for questioning. Even if you shot a known, armed, felon in your own home, late at night. Even if he’s a convicted child rapist and you found him in your daughter’s room. Even if he shot your wife first. Doesn’t matter - they’ll arrest you and bring you in for questioning. This was from a former ADA -legal portions of the training had to be conducted by a lawyer.
Obviously, YMMV. Knowing how hostile MA is to gun owners, I believe it.
Two men are pointing guns at each other over a dead body. First thing that happens is both guns are out of their hands. That is accomplished by having them drop the guns. If they don’t then it is accomplished by shooting him/them until he or they drop the gun/s. Then everyone gets cuffed. Initial questioning happens at the scene but everyone is brought in for further investigation.
muldoonthief that is not because Mass is hostile to gun owners, it’s just good police work. You shoot an intruder and tell the police. At that point they only have your word that he was an intruder. The word of someone who just shot and killed a man in his house. Maybe it was your bookie, your wife’s lover or the paperboy who keeps throwing the paper in the bushes. You would be brought in for further questioning until everything can be verfied.
You’re right. It’s the part that happens afterwards (which I wrote then deleted as non-relevant) that’s more characteristic of the gun-owner hostility. I’d agree that disarming and arresting is the safest way to go.
Fair enough. With a name like muldoonthief they may be looking at you a little closer.
Nothing happens until the scene is secured and made safe for the officers and everyone else. First things first - both men are disarmed and handcuffed immediately.
An article of interest. See also here.