The law you're quoting applies to criminal trials only, and is a general set of instructions, not a clearly defined set of laws defining how various levels of LE should or will treat an incident. Because of that, every cop's opinion will be different, and no two incidents will have the same response.
A cop would also have to be crazy to respond to this thread with anything other than their agency policy and perhaps a few clarifying details on that policy provided by local prosecutors, caselaw, etc. Defense attorneys have used prior forum posts against cops in court before. Heck, they've used a prior MySpace status against a cop in court.
I've seen a true story on t.v. that is similar to yours.
From what state? Even if it was in Mass., crossing a county or town line can make all the difference in the world when it comes to how these things are handled. I'd also be very wary of anything shown on TV.
Breaking and entering while someone is home becomes a home invasion.
That's not the case in Mass.
Both quoted a flat rate of $100,000 for defense against a murder one charge. They said that this was a significant discount from their normal hourly rate, because murder defenses are all consuming, and if they charged their normal hourly rate then no one but a millionaire could afford a murder defense.
They're also not at all likely to take your case on "credit," since if you lose, you'll be stuck in prison not making any money or out of prison in several years with a felony conviction keeping you from getting a high paying job.
The MA castle law is really NOT an affirmative defense.
Well just to be clear, the court has to recognize any defense as part of the proceedings. It's not like TV where at the last second the defense can throw out something obscure they forgot about before and end the case on the spot.
Then there's this, particularly applicable to gun crimes:
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...pdf/3160-definitions-license-or-authority.pdf
A defendant who intends to rely on a defense based on license, claim of authority or ownership, or exemption, must provide advance notice of such defense to the Commonwealth and the court. Mass.
R. Crim. P. 14(b)(3).
and
http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsan...f/7680-carrying-certain-dangerous-weapons.pdf
Advance notice of defense based on exemption. A defendant may not rely on a defense based on a license, exemption, or claim of authority or ownership unless he or she has filed an advance notice of such defense with the court and the prosecutor. For cause shown, the judge may allow late filing or a continuance, or may make other appropriate orders. Mass. R. Crim. P. 14(b)(3).
Have you seen
My Cousin Vinny? It was explained a bit more colloquially there.
Mona Lisa Vito: Don't you wanna know why Trotter gave you his files?
Vinny Gambini: I told you why already.
Mona Lisa Vito: He has to, by law, you're entitled. It's called disclosure, you dickhead! He has to show you everything, otherwise it could be a mistrial. He has to give you a list of all his witnesses, you can talk to all his witnesses, he's not allowed any surprises.
[Vinny has a blank look on his face]
Mona Lisa Vito: They didn't teach you that in law school either?
BTW, I'm not calling you a dickhead.
Is it possible that the person would be arrested and then questioned before booking - thereby avoiding the lifetime arrest record?
Yes, but that may not get you off the hook for LTC applications, background checks and similar things where they're asking about arrests. Investigative detention counts for some of them, and a surprising amount of LE info and access to LE databases is becoming available to private entities, including fingerprinting.
Our fellow gun owners still think we're paranoid, even after reading about what happened to the woman in the Arlington shooting, or the guy in Manchester arrested and refused bail for no reason. It's the same basic delusion: "nothing bad will happen to me because I'm a good person."
You can lead a horse to water...
IIRC the shooting at the hospital DID NOT result in any arrests.
An in-depth investigation of the guy's personal life, trial-by-media, and potential loss of LTC while waiting for things to be sorted out are just a few of the things that a gunowner can face in a situation like that. I don't know if the shooter in that case lost his LTC in the interim, but if he did, he would be out of work, because he was employed as an SPO. He also may have been suspended, fired or have lost hours at work because he was under investigation for a gun crime, not to mention being treated differently by everyone because they know he killed someone.
Not getting arrested is helpful, but you can be charged at any time, if the statute of limitations is up then it's on you to argue that in court on your dime. And FWIW, there's no statute of limitations on a murder charge, and it's 6 years for most other crimes, but that depends on the charge and other factors. So if you shoot & kill someone (they don't have to die right there at the scene either) it could come back to bite you at any time that the jurisdiction feels that it was murder.