# Guns and juristictions



## PhotonGuy (Aug 19, 2014)

Since guns are meant to be used at a distance, or at least they're good for being used at a distance by a skilled shooter, I was wondering this. When distance comes into play theres the issue of jurisdiction. Lets say somebody in the USA shoots and kills somebody whose in Mexico. The shooter is within USA boarders but close enough to the Mexican line that they can shoot somebody on the other side in the Mexican boarder. So where would they be charged, in the USA or Mexico? Murder is illegal in both places but both countries have different penalties. So where would they be charged and convicted and what penalty would they face?


----------



## Transk53 (Aug 19, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Since guns are meant to be used at a distance, or at least they're good for being used at a distance by a skilled shooter, I was wondering this. When distance comes into play theres the issue of jurisdiction. Lets say somebody in the USA shoots and kills somebody whose in Mexico. The shooter is within USA boarders but close enough to the Mexican line that they can shoot somebody on the other side in the Mexican boarder. So where would they be charged, in the USA or Mexico? Murder is illegal in both places but both countries have different penalties. So where would they be charged and convicted and what penalty would they face?



Good question. As far as I understood, no mans land is fair game. Over the actual border is different.


----------



## elder999 (Aug 19, 2014)

Transk53 said:


> Good question. As far as I understood, no mans land is fair game. Over the actual border is different.



There have been, as far as I know, six cases of the U.S. Border Patrol firing across the border and hitting Mexican nationals on the Mexican side-as far as I know, there have been no legal consequences, except for a single Mexican family suing in the U.S.


----------



## Blindside (Aug 19, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Since guns are meant to be used at a distance, or at least they're good for being used at a distance by a skilled shooter, I was wondering this. When distance comes into play theres the issue of jurisdiction. Lets say somebody in the USA shoots and kills somebody whose in Mexico. The shooter is within USA boarders but close enough to the Mexican line that they can shoot somebody on the other side in the Mexican boarder. So where would they be charged, in the USA or Mexico? Murder is illegal in both places but both countries have different penalties. So where would they be charged and convicted and what penalty would they face?



I am going to go with a "it depends" and "whichever jurisdiction has the more aggressive prosecutor."

edit: Forgot one "maybe both."


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 19, 2014)

Based on some of the responses, it sounds like somebody could commit murder and get away with it as long as they do it across the boarder.


----------



## Blindside (Aug 19, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Based on some of the responses, it sounds like somebody could commit murder and get away with it as long as they do it across the boarder.



I wouldn't try it between the US and Canada.


----------



## Steve (Aug 19, 2014)

Blindside said:


> I wouldn't try it between the US and Canada.



I wouldn't recommend trying it at all.  Am I the only person who thinks this is a little crazy, even hypothetically?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jks9199 (Aug 19, 2014)

Nope.  I'd say it's a very bad idea.  I can come up with a legal theory to charge someone with murder either where the person is shot or where you take the shot.

Photonguy -- this is certainly one of your more unusual questions.  What triggered your thinking and puzzling on this?


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Aug 19, 2014)

Agreed with Steve and jks9199.  Terrible idea and frankly disturbing to talk about here!


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 19, 2014)

I thought about this because of the shooting classes I've taken they talk about knowing what's beyond your target. A good shooter will know whats beyond their target and they will make sure any shot that misses or goes through the target doesn't cause any harm to innocent bystanders. I was thinking what if somebody took a shot and it happened to land in another country or jurisdiction? I was even thinking about what if a bad guy decided to shoot at somebody across a border? I wouldn't recommend it and I would think a person doing it would be charged at least in one of the countries or possibly both. It is disturbing but when dealing with perpetrators you've got to take into mind disturbing stuff.


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 21, 2014)

It all depends.  

If, for example, as a private US citizen, you're on US soil, and shoot a bullet that hits someone on Mexican soil, then you could be subject to both countries' justice, depending on how things proceed. 

If it were a legitimate case of self-defense, then you would be clear from the US side, but you may be in big trouble from the Mexican side.   

Will you be extradited?  If so, then you could very well rot in a Mexican prison, unless you're found innocent in a Mexican court of law (and that's not an easy thing).  If not, then there aren't any legal worries.  

You aren't going to get a straightforward answer to this question, since your question is far too vague.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 21, 2014)

I got a straight forward answer. Getting away with murder is really quite easy if you choose random victims; however most people aren't total psychos, and in the heat of passion, tend to kill someone they know, somehow.


----------



## Transk53 (Aug 21, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> I thought about this because of the shooting classes I've taken they talk about knowing what's beyond your target. A good shooter will know whats beyond their target and they will make sure any shot that misses or goes through the target doesn't cause any harm to innocent bystanders. I was thinking what if somebody took a shot and it happened to land in another country or jurisdiction? I was even thinking about what if a bad guy decided to shoot at somebody across a border? I wouldn't recommend it and I would think a person doing it would be charged at least in one of the countries or possibly both. It is disturbing but when dealing with perpetrators you've got to take into mind disturbing stuff.



Maybe so, but going into darkness is a terrible thing. This sort of thing is the purview of the professional who has the training to bring themselves back. Dangerous premise, even if for some knowledge. Please define what you mean by "Bad Guy", this sort of action would be calculated IMHO.


----------



## arnisador (Aug 21, 2014)

I think this was answered in an ep. of The Simpsons, but in addition to extradition, I believe the U.S. could prosecute you for murder in a case like this. Certainly, people can be prosecuted by their home countries for a variety of crimes committed overseas. But I am not a lawyer!


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 21, 2014)

Do you know what episode it was? I never saw it but I've heard of a Simpsons episode where Homer purchases a revolver from a gunshop called "Bloodbath Beyond." Anyway, based on some of the responses, I would say don't shoot even in self defense if the bad guy is on the other side of the border. And by bad guy I mean somebody who attacks you or tries to commit crime against you.


----------



## Grenadier (Aug 22, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Do you know what episode it was?



I wouldn't put much faith in a cartoon show, when it comes to this area.  Even though Matt Groening tends to be more accurate than other cartoonists, keep in mind, that it's still a fictitious show.  

In a nutshell, you could be facing justice from both sides.  If a prosecuting attorney on the US side decides that your incident did not meet the requirements of being a legit self-defense, then you would be facing charges in the USA, just as if the shooting did not take place across the borders.  It's either self-defense, or murder.  

The bigger question, though, is if the Mexican authorities decide to seek charges, it comes down to whether or not the government is going to allow for extradition.  Even if the USA decides that you were 100% in the clear, there still exists the possibility that the Mexican authorities wouldn't consider it as legitimate self-defense.  If you get extradited to Mexico, the odds are good that you're not going to be given nearly as much leeway as you would in the USA, especially since corruption runs quite a bit more rampant.  



> Anyway, based on some of the responses, I would say don't shoot even in self defense if the bad guy is on the other side of the border. And by bad guy I mean somebody who attacks you or tries to commit crime against you.



That kind of conclusion may not necessarily be a good one.  After all, if someone's trying to kill you in that situation, then it's in your interest to survive the encounter.  In that case, you'd better get a good lawyer who can also fight against extradition procedures.


----------



## PhotonGuy (Aug 23, 2014)

Even if the Simpsons is not 100 percent accurate in its portrayal of stuff, as a matter of fact it often is anything but accurate, but some of the concepts shown in the Simpsons can be used as examples. For instance there was this one episode where Homer is told by Chief Wiggum that anything he does to somebody in his house is good and legal unless he invites them over in which case Homer kicks out his annoying neighbor that he had just invited him over. While Simpsons might not be accurate all the time I do know that such a condition exists in some places called the Castle Doctrine. 

Anyway, if Im engaged with a crook in Mexico while Im on US soil, my first course of action would be to run. I would want to get far enough away from the border that the crook could not engage me with any weapon and that way if he were to pursue me he would have to cross into the US in which case I would have a much better chance in court if I do use deadly force. From what I know, in the USA you're innocent until proven guilty and in Mexico you're guilty until proven innocent, at least that's what the governments of both countries tell you.


----------



## Transk53 (Aug 23, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:
			
		

> Anyway, if Im engaged with a crook in Mexico while Im on US soil, my first course of action would be to run. I would want to get far enough away from the border that the crook could not engage me with any weapon and that way if he were to pursue me he would have to cross into the US in which case I would have a much better chance in court if I do use deadly force. From what I know, in the USA you're innocent until proven guilty and in Mexico you're guilty until proven innocent, at least that's what the governments of both countries tell you.



Why would you think this anyway?


----------



## PhotonGuy (Sep 1, 2014)

Why not? I can happen. And when I say "bad guy," I mean exactly that, a bad guy.


----------



## Transk53 (Sep 1, 2014)

PhotonGuy said:


> Why not? I can happen. And when I say "bad guy," I mean exactly that, a bad guy.



No why would you be engaged in a fight with a bloke in Mexico, that was the question. Hey, please elaborate on that for me? This thread is a little surreal.


----------

