MovieChat Forums > Mud (2013) Discussion > What would the legal aftermath be after ...

What would the legal aftermath be after the shooting at the end ?

posted 11 years ago by Maquina_Muerte
33 replies | jump to latest

a question for the lawyers among you guys... Just wondering, since I'm no American, if ballistics would lead the cops to the old guy on the other side of the river... would he be able to get away with it ? Even if those guys were bounty hunters, i assume they were not allowed to tresspass on another mans property, right? ...so does that mean that the old guy, the neighbour, had all the right to help the defend 'his neighbours' and shoot the bountyhunters dead, since they were in a way tresspassing and having a shootout in the house and therefor endangering the lives of the kid and its parents ? What are the laws considering helping out neighbours when their lives are being endangered, does a man have the right to kill the tresspassers of one's neighbours ???

thx

[–] mobocracy 11 years ago

Justifiable homicide typically includes a defense of others concept, where you can use deadly force to protect someone from death or serious bodily injury.

I suspect that when the mob shows up at your neighbor's house shooting shotguns, even across the river, you would be given a free pass for shooting some of them.

[–] valdrick15 11 years ago

I don´t think so. I think that any lawyer that would like to really frame the sniper could have found 100 legal reasons to put the guy behind bars.

[–] mobocracy 11 years ago

There is a lot about the situation that would suggest prosecution risk -- you and your home weren't the target, firing across a river, in the dark at assailants you don't know. You could probably build a case for manslaughter and several cases of reckless endangerment, reckless discharge of a firearms, etc.

But there's a lot of mitigating factors -- the neighbor's home was under assualt by a gang of armed men who were actively firing their weapons and you are a trained military sniper with special forces/CIA experience, the rural location means there is a sense of urgency since other help is not likely to come.

Every lawyer and cop in the world would tell you not to do it, they all can tell stories of the good samaratin who shows up at a situation and intervenes only to found out the situation is the opposite -- the guy getting beat up was a mugger, the woman being raped is the kinky couple, etc.

Would I start sniping human beings at 100+ yards in the dark of night when I was not the target of their assualt? Probably not, but then again there haven't been any armed assaults in my neighborhood by vengeful mobs of thugs, either.

[–] valdrick15 11 years ago

Yes but don´t forget that we were watching the whole picture, while from the sniper´s point of view, he couldn´t know much of what was going on. And it wasn´t just one shot, the guy killed a few men. In real world, the sniper would go to jail for sure.

[–] marshaul 11 years ago

That depends where "in the real world" one is.

In Texas, for example, the police probably wouldn't even attempt to prosecute any of the homeowners in this scenario.

The simple fact is that, in most states in the US, there is nothing illegal about using a rifle to defend your neighbors against a gang of armed invaders (assuming said gang isn't the cops), any more than it would be to come to his aid with a handgun.

Range doesn't matter, and it's all about what a reasonable person would believe in the circumstance. A reasonable person would assume said gang of invaders were criminals with deadly intent, and the fact that this happened to be the correct assessment certainly wouldn't harm a potential jury's view of the "reasonableness" of said assessment.

It's evident that you're not very familiar with self-defense law in the US.

[–] valdrick15 11 years ago

Yes, apparently I am not. I tend to think that the self-defense laws are somewhat alike all over the civilized world, but according to what you say they are not.

[–] nammage 9 years ago

Each state has their own laws, no law trumps federal law (though some states ignore that, and sometimes get away with it). This story is based, I believe, in Arkansas. This is what I found:

Section 5-2-606 of the Arkansas Code provides:

A person is justified in using physical force upon another person to defend himself or herself or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and the person may use a degree of force that he or she reasonably believes to be necessary.

However, the person may not use deadly physical force except as provided in section 5-2-607. A person is not justified in using physical force upon another person with the purpose to cause physical injury or death to the other person or if the person provokes the use of unlawful physical force by the other person.

A person's use of physical force upon another person is justifiable if the person in good faith withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his or her purpose to withdraw from the encounter; and the other person continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful physical force; or the physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not authorized by law.

Section 5-2-607 of the Arkansas Code provides that a person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes: that the other person is committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence; is using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or is imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.

A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if he or she knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety by retreating.

However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is: in the person's dwelling and was not the original aggressor; or a law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or by surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right to possession of the property.

http://selfdefenseark.com/arlaw.htm

-Nam

I am on the road less traveled...

[–] Smerdyakoff 11 years ago

I don't understand since Carver, King's son, followed the kids to Mud's Island why they just didn't ambush him there? Or get him arrested later on then have someone kill him in prison?

[–] DeepFriedJello 11 years ago

I wondered too why they didn't go after Mud on the island.
And the way they were blasting holes in the houseboat, the bounty hunters could be in big doo doo if the kid or his parents were killed. Wasn't that being a bit reckless?

[–] Smerdyakoff 11 years ago

In the last scenes, the wheels came off an otherwise good fairly original movie. It's like they had to have one big Hollywood shootout then some epic escape and resurrection scene. One can add, since they followed Mud from the island to the houseboat, they could have ambushed him along the way too. Why do it where there would be witnesses?

[–] Eponymous-too 11 years ago

They didn't follow him to the island. They found out about him when Mud brought him to the hospital. They then kept an eye on him figuring Mud would show up again to see how he was doing and they were right. They followed the parents when they brought him home from the hospital and waited.

"My name is Paikea Apirana, and I come from a long line of chiefs stretching all the way back to the Whale Rider."

[–] Smerdyakoff 11 years ago

Wasn't there an earlier scene when the bad guys were on the river shadowing the kids' boat in their boat? I am pretty sure they knew he was on the island after because the kid kept visiting Mud's girlfriend and they followed him there from her motel room.

[–] BroncoFan1818 11 years ago

The two guys "shadowing" was Galen and his friend. The bad guys never knew about the island and only found Mud because he brought Ellis to the hospital.

[–] Eponymous-too 11 years ago

I'm not a lawyer. The law differs from state to state and even town to town in regards to what does and does not constitute justifiable use of deadly force. The reality is that the sniper would have been in big trouble pretty much everywhere, which is why he took off before the cops got there.

"My name is Paikea Apirana, and I come from a long line of chiefs stretching all the way back to the Whale Rider."

[–] marshaul 11 years ago

No, self-defense laws almost never vary from town to town.

Most states, including Arkansas, have state preemption of firearms and self-defense laws, meaning that localities are not permitted to enforce their own local ordinances which differ from state law.

Furthermore, most states, again including Arkansas, have a strong home defense, and defense of others, protections in the law (or in legal precedent, as is the case in, say, Virginia).

In almost every state, it is lawful to use deadly force to protect a third party from what a reasonable person would conclude is a threat to their life. It's safe to bet that a jury would find it quite reasonable to assume that a gang of dudes (who clearly aren't cops) blasting holes in your neighbor's house with shotguns aren't there for a dinner party.

I wish folks who are ignorant of the law would not speak to it.

[–] cooleon 11 years ago

I don't think Tom would go to jail.

The Carver's gang was beyond bounty hunters.
They were hired guns.
They were trespassing and shooting at innocents, Ellis and his family.

Tom and Ellis' places seem not that far.
Ellis could loudly hear Tom's whistle.
Tom, without being a concerned party, could have a good grip on the situation.

The end results are; Tom prevents hired killers shooting innocents.
Any laws or jury would see Tom as even a hero.

I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together.

[–] Robbmonster 11 years ago

Please consider revising the title of your thread. Not all of us have seen this film.

Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

[–] floridaz 11 years ago

Good point! But this is why I ALWAYS check IMDB AFTER watching the movie.

[–] Robbmonster 11 years ago

Thanks for not being snide in your reply to my post. It definitely is a good idea to check message boards after seeing a film, but I just like to glance the front page topics to get a feel for 'hot topics' I might want to keep an eye on while watching.

Having said that, when starting a topic, I always try to be mindful of putting spoilers in the title. It's just more considerate, I think.

Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

[–] Ginkasa 10 years ago

*this probably won't get noticed, but whatevs*

The problem would be how one defines spoilers. Some people would say that "hot topics" regarding the movie could be considered spoilers. Some people wouldn't consider just the idea of a shooting at the end a spoiler, so long as it didn't contain specifics about who is shooting who. There is no clear answer over what someone will consider a spoiler, so it can be difficult to ascertain how vague one should be to prevent spoilers. There has to be some detail, though, to display what the topic of discussion will be.

Overall, I would say that it is reasonably acceptable to expect spoilers in a message board for a movie over a year old, even in the subject headings. That said, it also doesn't hurt to try and mask some spoilers, if possible.

[–] Robbmonster 10 years ago

I agree with you 100% on all accounts. No one forces me to check out the threads before seeing a movie, that's my choice, and it may not be a particularly smart choice, but this IS the information age we are living in, and it's almost impossible to go into a film completely cold, no idea what to expect.

But in response to your point, if it was me starting a thread and I wasn't sure if something I was saying was a spoiler, I'd just chuck a *possible spoilers* line in the heading. That way the unsuspecting can decide on their own if they want to enter.

But what I would NOT do is include the spoiler itself in the heading, for example, no way I would go over to the Usual Suspects board and start a topic with the heading *I knew right from the start that Verbal was Keyser Soze* or something like that.

Common sense has to play a role on all sides. Sadly, by entering boards for movies I haven't seen, I'm not exactly putting my own common sense to its best possible use :)

Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

[–] Maquina_Muerte 11 years ago

sorry for that but I don't think the title gives anything away, I need to thank the people with juridic knowledge for their contributions here... Things are a bit more clear now, eventhough I think it would still be difficult to make a good decision about this in court...

[–] Robbmonster 11 years ago

You don't think the title gives anything away?

How about the fact there is a 'SHOOTING AT THE END'!!!??

Of course it gives something away.

Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds

[–] daryl-b-t 11 years ago

I think it was fairly clear the old guy was only shooting when they were about to shoot somebody. He wasn't just killing everyone he could.

[–] chickatty2 11 years ago

I'm a criminal defense lawyer and here's my 2 cents, for whatever their worth..

First of all, remember that the cops have been paid off. Obviously, their interest in following the law is minimal. Second, and more importantly, there are no witnesses left alive except Ellis and his parents who probably didn't see what happened anyway. Finally, they can't match the shells to Tom's rifle because it's with Tom and Mud - long gone.

In reality, there would be a token investigtion with no charges filed. What's interesting is I didn't 'give any thought to any of this until the issue was rIsed here. For me this was just entertainment. :)

[–] faaus72 11 years ago

I may be mistaken but, I thought the informer was verifying that Mud was dead.

[–] bluefellow 11 years ago

No, the informer was notifying King that his son Carver was dead.

"I don't want any Commies in my car. No Christians, either."