View Full Version : Use an AR for self defense and you're doomed!
OK, an over dramatic thread title, but this is an interesting paper that looks at the effects of types of weapons used, gender effects, and interactions between them, and the effects on jurors. Good info for all gun owners (especially women who use an evil black rifle for SD it would appear...), LEO, and lawyers to read:
Will It Hurt Me in Court?
Weapons Issues and the Fears of the Legally Armed Citizen
by Glenn Meyer
Weapons-related Factors and Gender Can Influence Jury Decisions
Researchers have concluded weapons presence can influence legal proceedings through jurors' evaluation of motives (Berkowitz & LePage, 1967). Dienstbier, Roesch, Mizumoto, Hemenover, Lott, and Carlo (1998) found with increased weapon salience, due to more direct exposure, mock jurors attributed more guilt and assigned longer sentences to the gun user - in that case an armed burglar. Females gave longer sentences and were more affected by weapons exposure.
Branscombe, Crosby, and Weir (1993) conducted mock trial research involving a homeowner who shot a burglar, and found incompetent male shooters and competent female shooters were dealt with more harshly than the reverse pairing. The interaction seemed due to whether or not homeowners breached stereotypical standards (males being competent shooters and females incompetent). Shooters who violated gender roles were perceived more negatively for their use of a firearm than those who did not breach normal gender roles.
Can the appearance and characteristics of a firearm influence a jury decision? Legal scholars have suggested that appearance of excessive force in a self-defense situation (i.e. the martial arts) can affect tort liability (Whitaker, 1995-1996) and that might apply to firearms. Certainly, there is ongoing discussion of banning so-called 'assault weapons' even though past legislative endeavors seem to have no effect on crime rate indices (Koper & Roth, 2001).
Weapons appearance has been discussed in criminal cases. In a recent Court TV televised trial (Florida v. Roten, 2000), the defendant was accused of a hate crime shooting. Roten used a modified SKS (an older Soviet pattern 7.62 mm semiautomatic military rifle) with accessories that might make the rifle appear fiercer than some. A commentator asked why anyone would need such a weapon.
Many people believe that certain types of guns are "good for only one thing - to kill" (Kleck, 1997, p. 16). Self-defense writers discuss in the popular gun press whether an aggressive looking weapon can influence your trial with articles such as "Firepower: how much is too much?" (Ayoob, 2000) and commented on how juries can be influenced by media impressions of assault rifles (Rauch, 2004). Owners of such weapons are portrayed as deranged and militarized appearing weapons are demonized. Even in the overall gun culture there can be a dichotomy of views. Bartholow, et al (2005) found that hunters had negative views about assault weapons as compared to guns primarily designed for sport. A gun writer - Jim Zumbo unleashed a firestorm on himself when as a hunter he denounced assault rifles and later had to recant (Zumbo, 2007).
Cont:
Will It Hurt Me In Court? (http://www.astcweb.org/public/publication/article.cfm/1/21/5/Weapons-Issues-and-the-Fears-of-the-Legally-Armed-Citizen)
Business_Casual
09-26-10, 17:57
How did they control for the varying competence of counsel in the cases?
B_C
How did they control for the varying competence of counsel in the cases?
B_C
An excellent question I can't answer. If the answer's not found in the full paper (linked), you might want to contact the author on that. An important variable no doubt.
They are the legal experts, not me. However, I believe that your locale plays a part. For example in California people would possibly not be as welcoming to an "assault weapon" like they would be in Nevada, Arizona or Texas.
I also think that this is where a true weapons expert would be invaluable. Hypothetically if i were to use my SBR (we have discussed this topic elsewhere) I would bring out the following points.
1. SBR's are tightly regulated by the BATFE and an application is only approved after carefully reviewing the applicant's paperwork and background.
2. The same applies to the suppressor.
3. The AR rifle is one of the most common types of rifles in use throughout the United States and in use by our nations military, as well as hundreds of police and security agencies.
4. The potential for over penetration (collateral damage) with a 5.56 round is less than that of a 9mm FMJ and even more so with an SBR due to decreased muzzle velocity.
5. The suppressor could be justified as a tool which helps to prevent permanent hearing loss (especially when fired in confined spaces). One could also point out that they are also used by LE agencies.
6. One may even be able to state that the weapon is more accurate which again would point to concern about collateral damage.
There may be even more things, but this is what comes to mind. I also think that above all else your shoot has to be clean. Doing things like calling 911, not going outside to confront whomever (unless necessary) as well as repeated warnings to the "suspects" that you are armed shows that you acted with restraint and used deadly force only as a last resort.
PRGGodfather
09-26-10, 18:27
When it comes to getting charged with murder, it is important citizens understand the elements of the offense in question. If even one element to murder is missing -- then charging it becomes impossible. Know what justifiable homicide is in your state of residence, and be sure to meet those elements.
It's like the ingredients to a toll house cookie. If you're missing something important like the toll house chocolate chips, you may still have something sweet and gooey, but it isn't toll house cookies.
Murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide and all codified offenses have elements (ingredients) that make up the offense (the recipe). If you don't have all of the ingredients -- you don't have the recipe.
Do what you know is right, and you can avoid giving the complete recipe to the prosecutor. The attorneys can make noise and try to make hay -- but in the end, if it was truly self-defense -- then there won't be any malice aforethought.
In a nutshell, training for the legal aftermath is just as important. Prepare to be sued, even if the shooting is deemed justified. The burden of proof in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt," but the burden of proof for civil matters is merely "preponderance of the evidence (51%)."
Remember, the attorneys don't argue the facts -- they argue the spin on the facts. Do what's right, and you don't have to worry about the spin.
If the police find blood splatter inside your master bedroom right at the threshhold, and you wisely had a open line to recorded 9-1-1 when the crooks kicked in your door -- well, the fact you used a rifle will mean very little. Even the dumb cops can figure that one out.
Exercise your right to remain silent and encourage your family members to do the same. The Fifth Amendment is five words: I want my lawyer NOW.
Oh, and know what attorney you want to call, before you need one.
That's the basic stuff. If in doubt, add Legal Aspects of Deadly Force to your training regimen.
Prosecutor: "Why did you use an assault weapon for so-called 'self-defense'?"
Defendant: "It's an AR-15 and I used it to protect myself against the criminal element because that is the same rifle that the police use to protect me against the criminal element."
citizensoldier16
09-26-10, 21:20
Prosecutor: "Why did you use an assault weapon for so-called 'self-defense'?"
Defendant: "It's an AR-15 and I used it to protect myself against the criminal element because that is the same rifle that the police use to protect me against the criminal element."
VERY well put. I think we should all memorize this.
Will It Hurt Me in Court?
Weapons Issues and the Fears of the Legally Armed Citizen
by Glenn Meyer
Will, I think you are spending too much time on silly forums where they routinely debate whether or not one should carry with a round in the chamber, tell implausible 'it happened to me' stories, and ask silly 'what if's."
I read Glenn Meyer's study over. To be fair, it would take me about 6-8 hours to debunk it. If I get the time and inclination later, I might try. In short, he conducted a limited study that was biased to turn out the way he wanted it to. It left a lot of specifics unanswered with regard to exactly how many mock trials he conducted, the specifics of those mock trials, and out of how many mock trials the jurrors ruled against the defender.
Branscombe, Crosby, and Weir (1993) conducted mock trial research involving a homeowner who shot a burglar, and found incompetent male shooters and competent female shooters were dealt with more harshly than the reverse pairing.
This study was conducted 17 years ago when ARs were not nearly as prevalent or popular with civilians or Law Enforcement. Now it would be a simple matter to point out that the AR-15 is the most popular longarm in America and even take the jury on a fieldtrip to a Sports Authority or a Gander mountain and point out all of the civilian ARs, or to point them to the longarm in PD cars.
When you here prosecutors bring up the fact that someone used an "assault rifle" to defend themselves, it is generally cases where someone really screwed up and used the gun improperly, and the use of the so-called assault rifle is not in itself the reason that they were being prosecuted.
Look at the recent case where someone was arrested in Nassau County for firing an AK outside of his home for reckless endangerment. It is hard to argue that the shooting was unavoidable when you safely left the scene to go into the house to retrieve your weapon and then returned to the scene. Yet some people will try to spin this as proof you can't defend yourself in NY State or cannot do so with a military style semiauto.
Another case comes to mind where a someone shot a neighbor who he was involved in an ongoing dispute with using an SKS. What happened was the neighbor threatened him in the building's common hallway, the shooter went back to his apartment, retreived his SKS, and returned and shot and killed the man who threatened him. If he could safely return to his apartment, he could close and lock the door. It is hard to make the case that the shooting was unavoidable when you left and returned to the scene with a firearm.
Had the neighbor tried to force his way into the house, it would have been different. Also, shootings among people who know each others are typically treated more suspiciously than home invasion shootings.
Can anyone provide me a case of someone who defended his home against a home invasion and was tried for using an AR where the gun is otherwise legal to own?
Weapons appearance has been discussed in criminal cases. In a recent Court TV televised trial (Florida v. Roten, 2000), the defendant was accused of a hate crime shooting. Roten used a modified SKS (an older Soviet pattern 7.62 mm semiautomatic military rifle) with accessories that might make the rifle appear fiercer than some. A commentator asked why anyone would need such a weapon.
A typical tactic employed by the people trying to question the use of an AR for home defense.
First, this was a hate crime, presumably a homicide. The guy would be on trial regardless of what firearm he used. So it is intellectually dishonest of the writer to try to link this with a self defense shooting.
Secondly, there will always be people who question 'why anyone would need such a weapon?' If you are going to dictate your choice of firearms why won't own anything more aggressive than an over and under shotgun.
Having said all this, I would not consider using an AR for home defense anyplace where you cannot legally own one, like NY City, and would be very careful and possibly consider using something else in states that restrict it like NY, NJ, MA, CA, etc. Each of those states has their own restrictions, which vary from special licensing, legal possession of only pre-ban guns and magazines, to outright bans on magazines that hold more than 15 rounds (NJ). In those states I would consider using something else as a home defense longarm, such as a Remington 870 with an 18" barrel and extended magazine, or an M1 Carbine gunsmithed to work reliably with softpoints. Just don't try with the M1 Carbine in NJ, because I believe that they have been outlawed there.
They are the legal experts, not me. However, I believe that your locale plays a part.
Exactly. I live in Florida, I am a law abiding citizen, we have a "stand your ground law". I can use a howitzer in defense of me and mine and not have to worry about going to jail. God I love this country.
Hyperbole aside, a good friend of mine, who is an LEO, said he will only use the firearm that he is certified in defense of self, family and home. His decision is based solely on his experience in the courts and a desire to avoid legal entanglements should he ever have to pull the trigger when not on duty. The reasoning is based on the same type of thinking that is found in this article from 2009. His experience shows that if he uses any other weapon other than one he is trained on, it gives the opposing attorney ammunition (no pun intended) to use against him. Envision the attorney painting him as a blood thirsty homicidal maniac who only needed the flimsiest of excuses to unleash his inner rage and secret desire to kill and bask in the death that he caused.
I on the other hand am just a lowly civilian and so long I am defending home and hearth and I do it in FL (or TX or any state with a stand your ground law) I am baiscally home free regardless if I used an AR or wheel gun.
It is still frustrating that there are those good citizens that have to fear this type of insanity for simply defending themselves from the bad guys.
The article on http://www.astcweb.org/public/publication/article.cfm/1/21/5/Weapons-Issues-and-the-Fears-of-the-Legally-Armed-Citizen was not clearly written. it does not specify exactly how many mock juries convened and how many found the shooters not guilty vs. guilty, or even whether the mock juries were intended to decide between guilt or innocence or whether the juries were passing sentence on those who they were told had been found guilty.
If we don't know the number of mock trials, it's impossible to tell if they even used a statistically valid number of, or if they did a statistically invalid number and ran with those since it supported the conclusion that they wanted.
The scenario they used is defined as such, and the whole thing seemed constructed and skewed against the AR.
Here is the scenario:
"First, the written presentation described the incident in factual terms: A homeowner hears a sound at night, downstairs, and investigates. The homeowner comes to the foot of the stairs and is armed. A burglar is discovered in the act of stealing a VCR. The homeowner challenges the burglar by pointing the firearm at him and ordering him, "Don't Move". The burglar responds with a curse and a threat to kill the homeowner. The burglar does not have a visible weapon. The homeowner then shoots the burglar twice, killing him. After the shooting, the homeowner calls 911 immediately and informs the police of the actions of the burglar described above."
First, in many states the shooter would not even wind up in court for a shooting in the circumstances as described--especially if we are talking about a state with Castle Doctrine?
Further, in the scnario the criminal is dead with no witnesses. Even in more restrictive states there is a question as to whether the defender would be prosecuted if he would make a statement like, "the man said he was going to kill me and dropped the TV set. I thought he was going for a weapon so I had no choice but to defend myself."
Now, if he made a statement like, "I shot him by accident; I didn't mean to kill him, I didn't want to shoot him," etc, I don't think using a double barrel shotgun would have saved him from going to trial in some states because according to his statement the shooting was unintended and he did not feel that his life was threatened.
Also, the study/article made mention of the fact that people who used the AR tended to get longer sentences.
Okay, so either Meyer set the thing up by having mock jurrors decide on a sentence of someone who they were told was already guilty, or the mock jurors found everyone guilty regardless of what firearm they used.
So they found you guilty regardless of what gun you used.
So what is the point?
You might as well use the study to urge people against using a firearm in home defense as they will be found guilty of murder if they shoot someone.
Further, Meyer seems to recommend the use of a mini-14 over an AR for home defense because of its more inocuous appearance than an AR. Go start a thread here stating that the Mini-14 is a better home defense weapon than an AR because it looks better in court and see how that goes for you.
I'd love to see such a study done on race and perceived socioeconomic status.
Ed,
You make some very valid points. I skimmed through that whole article by them because it seemed like alot of tripe.
I also agree with PRGGodfather. A shooting is either a good one or it is FUBAR.
The article on http://www.astcweb.org/public/publication/article.cfm/1/21/5/Weapons-Issues-and-the-Fears-of-the-Legally-Armed-Citizen was not clearly written in exactly how many mock juries convened and how many found the shooters not guilty vs. guilty, or even whether the mock juries were intended to decide between guilt or innocence or whether the juries were passing sentence on those who they were told had been found guilty.
If we don't know the number of actual cases they used, it's impossible to tell if they even used a statistically valid number of mock trials, or if they did a statistically invalid number and ran with those since it supported the conclusion that they wanted.
The scenario came from here and it seemed like the whole thing seemed constructed and skewed against the AR.
Here is the scenario:
"First, the written presentation described the incident in factual terms: A homeowner hears a sound at night, downstairs, and investigates. The homeowner comes to the foot of the stairs and is armed. A burglar is discovered in the act of stealing a VCR. The homeowner challenges the burglar by pointing the firearm at him and ordering him, "Don't Move". The burglar responds with a curse and a threat to kill the homeowner. The burglar does not have a visible weapon. The homeowner then shoots the burglar twice, killing him. After the shooting, the homeowner calls 911 immediately and informs the police of the actions of the burglar described above."
First, in many states the shooter would not even wind up in court for a shooting in the circumstances as described--especially if we are talking about a state with Castle Doctrine.
Further, in the scnario the criminal is dead with no witnesses. Even in more restrictive states I don't think he would be prosecuted in most places if the defender would make a statement like, "the man said he was going to kill me and dropped the TV set. I thought he was going for a weapon so I defended myself."
Now, if he made a statement like, "I shot him by accident; I didn't mean to kill him, I didn't want to shoot him," etc, I don't think using a double barrel shotgun would have saved him from going to trial in some states because according to his statement the shooting was unintended and he did not feel that his life was threatened.
Also, the study/article made mention of the fact that people who used the AR tended to get longer sentences.
Okay, so either you set the thing up by having mock jurrors decide on a sentence of someone who they were told was already guilty, or your mock jurrors found everyone guilty regardless of what firearm they used.
So they found you guilty regardless of what gun you used.
So what is the point?
You might as well use the study to urge people against using a firearm in home defense as they will be found guilty of murder if they shoot someone.
Further, Meyer seems to recommend the use of a mini-14 over an AR for home defense because of its more inocuous appearance than an AR. Go start a thread here stating that the Mini-14 is a better home defense weapon than an AR because it looks better in court and see how that goes for you.
Ed,
You make some very valid points. I skimmed through that whole article by them because it seemed like alot of tripe.
I also agree with PRGGodfather. A shooting is either a good one or it is FUBAR.
I totally understand where you are coming from, but allow me to say that just because you, your friends, and even public opinion thinks it is a justified shooting, you may still get charged with a crime and put on trial should the DA want to prosecute.
And once you are on trial, the prosecutor will likely use against you whatever he has at his disposal to paint you as an off kilter raving blood thirsty maniac looking to kill someone, from the ugliness of your gun, to the "armor piercing/black talon/cop killer bullets", to the "hair trigger modifications" you put on the gun, to the "death scope" you were using, just to increase the body count.
Is it unreasonable? Hell yeah. Can most if not all of those ridiculous scare tactic attacks be dismantled? I believe so. But we can't be too optimistic, and we have to prepare for the worst, because sometimes even so called "good shoots" will be seen as unholy by an overzealous DA, and once you are on trial, well by definition the concept of "good shoot" is defunct and irrelevant until the verdict comes in.
I still use hollow points for my pistols and tend to have an AR15 handy for self defense purposes, but I do realize that if, God forbid, I have to I fire up some gang bangers trying to kill me or my family, and I wind up on trial for whatever reason I'll have to defend my choice of weapon in ways that I'd never have to do if I was using a single shot .410 shotgun!
Thomas M-4
09-27-10, 01:28
It depends on your local DA if you are involved in a shooting and some one dies the detectives have to find and present the evidence to the DA then the DA decides if he will charge you or not. And he decides that if he or she thinks they can get a convection on it or not.They are supposed to have a public obligation to prosecute any crime.
To the OP the type of weapon should be irrelevant show long as you are legal to own it. Just unfortunately life doesn't always work that way.
I disagree. And when this was discussed previously in another thread the same points were made. As far as I know there was only one case that anyone could find that was prosecuted because of an "evil weapon".
And in Arizona are laws are pretty forthright when it comes to self defense. I have faith in the system here. When I say good shoot, I don't mean my definition. I am talking about a legal standard (at least in this state).
Things like not shooting through doors or windows, chasing someone outside and shooting them or similar stuff. If I am in public and I can avoid a confrontation I will do so, trust me.
If I am at home I will call 911 (if possible) and I will take up a defensive position. In the aftermath I will shut my mouth and contact a lawyer.
I totally understand where you are coming from, but allow me to say that just because you, your friends, and even public opinion thinks it is a justified shooting, you may still get charged with a crime and put on trial should the DA want to prosecute.
And once you are on trial, the prosecutor will likely use against you whatever he has at his disposal to paint you as an off kilter raving blood thirsty maniac looking to kill someone, from the ugliness of your gun, to the "armor piercing/black talon/cop killer bullets", to the "hair trigger modifications" you put on the gun, to the "death scope" you were using, just to increase the body count.
Is it unreasonable? Hell yeah. Can most if not all of those ridiculous scare tactic attacks be dismantled? I believe so. But we can't be too optimistic, and we have to prepare for the worst, because sometimes even so called "good shoots" will be seen as unholy by an overzealous DA, and once you are on trial, well by definition the concept of "good shoot" is defunct and irrelevant until the verdict comes in.
I still use hollow points for my pistols and tend to have an AR15 handy for self defense purposes, but I do realize that if, God forbid, I have to I fire up some gang bangers trying to kill me or my family, and I wind up on trial for whatever reason I'll have to defend my choice of weapon in ways that I'd never have to do if I was using a single shot .410 shotgun!
The AZ legislature changed the laws a few years back. If a person claims self defense the prosecutor has to have evidence that you acted with malice or otherwise unlawfully before they can charge you. I can't remember the exact wording off the top of my head.
Here is the plain English language explanation of our self defense laws.
The adaptation of the Arizona Castle Doctrine (Senate Bill 1145) reversed the laws back to be in favor of individual citizens, not prosecutors. The Castle Doctrine has 5 main points:
(1) Previously, "justification" defenses, including self-defense, were affirmative defenses. The defendant (or self-defender) had to prove them by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., proof of "more likely true than not). Under SB 1145, if the defense presents "evidence" (quantum undefined) of justification, the prosecution must disprove justification to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. This change is not limited to defense of home or car, but applies anywhere.
(2) No duty to retreat before using force to prevent certain serious offenses, including aggravated assault. Again, this applies anywhere, any place a person has a legal right to be, in the language of the law.
(3) A person is presumed to be justified in using force or deadly force if he/she reasonably believes they or another person are in imminent peril and the attacker has entered or is trying to enter a residence or occupied auto. Once again, there is no duty to retreat.
(4) A person is generally presumed to be justified in use of force if the attacker has unlawfully forced his way into residence or car or is trying to do so (with certain exceptions, such as if the person forcing in had a legal right to be in there). This means that justification is automatically presumed when a person uses physical or deadly force against an intruder. It is now the prosecutor’s job to prove there was no justification, which once again falls within our legal system’s concept of innocent until proven guilty.
(5) If the aggressor is foolish enough to sue, and the defender wins, the defender recovers attorney fees and lost income (presumably, lost while at the courthouse). This not limited to the home invasion situation.
It depends on your local DA if you are involved in a shooting and some one dies the detectives have to find and present the evidence to the DA then the DA decides if he will charge you or not. And he decides that if he or she thinks they can get a convection on it or not.They are supposed to have a public obligation to prosecute any crime.
To the OP the type of weapon should be irrelevant show long as you are legal to own it. Just unfortunately life doesn't always work that way.
I totally understand where you are coming from, but allow me to say that just because you, your friends, and even public opinion thinks it is a justified shooting, you may still get charged with a crime and put on trial should the DA want to prosecute.
And once you are on trial, the prosecutor will likely use against you whatever he has at his disposal to paint you as an off kilter raving blood thirsty maniac looking to kill someone, from the ugliness of your gun, to the "armor piercing/black talon/cop killer bullets", to the "hair trigger modifications" you put on the gun, to the "death scope" you were using, just to increase the body count.
Can you find some specific cases where this was the case, where the gun was legal to own and legally owned by the defender where the defender did not screw up majorly in some other way?
The only two that come to mind are the following.
Gary Fadden case (used a select fire Ruger AC556) and the recent case in Arizona of Harold Fish (believe it was a 10mm handgun with dreaded hollowpoints).
In the Fish case his case was overturned by the Arizona State supreme court and I believe that his conviction was expunged and he had all of his rights restored.
Can you find some specific cases where this was the case, where the gun was legal to own and legally owned by the defender where the defender did not screw up majorly in some other way?
The only two that come to mind are the following.
Gary Fadden case (used a select fire Ruger AC556) and the recent case in Arizona of Harold Fish (believe it was a 10mm handgun with dreaded hollowpoints).
In the Fish case his case was overturned by the Arizona State supreme court and I believe that his conviction was expunged and he had all of his rights restored.
Neither of those were home defense cases.
Ayoob has been trotting the the selectfire AC556 forever. That was like over 20 years ago, and it resembled a road rage situation in that it started as an ego dispute with one person mouthing off and another answering.
It's not accurate to say that Harold FIsh was arrested or prosecuted for using hollowpoints
The big issue with Harold Fish is that he shot at an unarmed man who he claimed attacked him multiple times. One or more of those shots were in the man's back, which may have resulted when the attacker suddenly turning to flee as Fish was in the process of shooting him. This is not the same as shooting someone who broke into your home, since there is a much higher standard of proof required when shooting someone who was unarmed on public land or a hiking trail as opposed to someone who has broken into or is trying to force their way into an occupied house--thus demonstrating their threat to you.
The bigger issue was that Harold Fish made too many statements to the police without a lawyer present. Several of those statements were contradictory--like what the guy said when attacking him and at what time the shooting took place, etc. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the prosecution siezed on these contradictory statements and claimed that Fish had deliberately waited before going for help.
As for the prosecutions issue with the hollowpoints, it reflects upon the weakness of the defense counsel. All the defense counsel had to do is ask the court balif what his gun was loaded with, and it would have been hollowpoints. Likewise they could point to the fact that 99% of law enforcement agencies in this country issue hollowpoints.
The only two that come to mind are the following.
Gary Fadden case (used a select fire Ruger AC556) and the recent case in Arizona of Harold Fish (believe it was a 10mm handgun with dreaded hollowpoints).
In the Fish case his case was overturned by the Arizona State supreme court and I believe that his conviction was expunged and he had all of his rights restored.
Those are the same cases that I had to use as an example. Look, I hope that you guys are right, but again, there are precedents for this as per the above examples. It is not common, and I wouldn't get too excited about it, I just think that you have to be ready to defend your choices. And Fish's case was overturned, but he went through the ringer big time before his case was overturned. I also seem to remember that his counsel was a total fiasco when it came to defending the use of a 10mm. And I'll reiterate, a politically driven DA wanting to get a conviction on a potentially high profile "assault weapon" case may indict for political reasons/to make a name for himself when he runs for mayor, even if the shoot seemed justified.
For example lets say that you shoot an attacker on your property, at night, that instead of ceasing and desisting upon being verbally challenged and warned, instead rushed at you holding what you thought was a knife, but that turns out to be a pocket comb or some such, or points his gun at you, only it happens to be a cell phone, is other wise unarmed, and oh by the way he is a minority, and the town you live in has an anti gun DA. And you are the owner of a few "assault weapons". Call me paranoid, but if such a DA decides to indict you, I don't think that he'll be nice enough not to try to assassinate your character and motives by pulling the jury's heart strings based on the type and number of guns you have, and the accouterments that you have adorned your rifle with. It may be as simple a defense as using that great line above, about you taking a cue from your local PD and using what they use, but a more rigorous defense may be needed, and I say we ought to be mentally prepared for that contingency.
I posted this before you posted Ed. L. and so I'll add this to my scenario, as you shoot him he spins and he takes one in the side or back, not uncommon, so now the DA is charging that not only did you shoot an unarmed man, but you shot him in the back, that coupled with your "bad" guns can make for a bad day in court, and your counsel needs to be prepared for this I think.
I agree, they weren't home defense. They were the ONLY cases that I know of or could recall.
I didn't mean to imply that Mr. Fish was arrested and charged because of the hollowpoints, only that the prosecutor used it as part of the prosecution.
As I understand the current law in AZ when it comes to self defense. The law says "anywhere a person has the legal right to be".
Neither of those were home defense cases.
Ayoob has been trotting the the selectfire AC556 forever. That was like over 20 years ago, and it resembled a road rage situation in that it started as an ego dispute with one person mouthing off and another answering.
It's not accurate to say that Harold FIsh was arrested or prosecuted for using hollowpoints.
The big issue with Harold Fish is that he shot at an unarmed man who he claimed attacked him multiple times. One or more of those shots were in the man's back, which may have resulted when the attacker suddenly turning to flee as Fish was in the process of shooting him. This is not the same as shooting someone who broke into your home, since there is a much higher standard of proof required when shooting someone who was unarmed on public land or a hiking trail as opposed to someone who has broken into or is trying to force their way into an occupied house--thus demonstrating their threat to you.
The bigger issue was that Harold Fish made too many statements to the police without a lawyer present. Several of those statements were contradictory--like what the guy said when attacking him and at what time the shooting took place, etc. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, the prosecution siezed on these contradictory statements and claimed that Fish had deliberately waited before going for help.
As for the prosecutions issue with the hollowpoints, it reflects upon the weakness of the defense counsel. All the defense counsel had to do is ask the court balif what his gun was loaded with, and it would have been hollowpoints. Likewise they could point to the fact that 99% of law enforcement agencies in this country issue hollowpoints.
Vlad,
I understand what you are saying. However I will not be carrying my "assault rifle" outside of my property and would be armed with my G19 or 22.
Second, all of my weapons are equipped with lights so that I can make positive ID.
I also will not go outside to challenge anyone as I stated before. The only exception would be if I had a family member outside. Unless all SHHTF I will take a defensive position in my home and try and set the terms.
Exempt under dire circumstances confronting someone outside of your residence is probably not a good idea.
Those are the same cases that I had to use as an example. Look, I hope that you guys are right, but again, there are precedents for this as per the above examples. It is not common, and I wouldn't get too excited about it, I just think that you have to be ready to defend your choices. And Fish's case was overturned, but he went through the ringer big time before his case was overturned. I also seem to remember that his counsel was a total fiasco when it came to defending the use of a 10mm. And I'll reiterate, a politically driven DA wanting to get a conviction on a potentially high profile "assault weapon" case may indict for political reasons/to make a name for himself when he runs for mayor, even if the shoot seemed justified.
For example lets say that you shoot an attacker on your property, at night, that instead of ceasing and desisting upon being verbally challenged and warned, instead rushed at you holding what you thought was a knife, but that turns out to be a pocket comb or some such, or points his gun at you, only it happens to be a cell phone, is other wise unarmed, and oh by the way he is a minority, and the town you live in has an anti gun DA. And you are the owner of a few "assault weapons". Call me paranoid, but if such a DA decides to indict you, I don't think that he'll be nice enough not to try to assassinate your character and motives by pulling the jury's heart strings based on the type and number of guns you have, and the accouterments that you have adorned your rifle with. It may be as simple a defense as using that great line above, about you taking a cue from your local PD and using what they use, but a more rigorous defense may be needed, and I say we ought to be mentally prepared for that contingency.
For example lets say that you shoot an attacker on your property, at night, that instead of ceasing and desisting upon being verbally challenged and warned, instead rushed at you holding what you thought was a knife, but that turns out to be a pocket comb or some such, or points his gun at you, only it happens to be a cell phone, is other wise unarmed, and oh by the way he is a minority, and the town you live in has an anti gun DA. And you are the owner of a few "assault weapons".
You constructed a scenario where the defender really screwed up and used the gun improperly and got himself in a situation that could completely have been avoided if he had stayed in his house.
In the shooting you described you are going to be in trouble no matter what gun you used since it was a questionable shooting.
If you were in fear of your life, why did you leave the safety of your locked home to go looking for or confront a potentially armed person rather than stay safely inside and call the police? If you look at situations where home defenders have gotten into trouble this is a big one--leaving the safety of their home to confront someone. You cannot argue that you did everything to avoid the situation.
Regardless of whether you live in a Castle Doctrine state or not, it is always best to be seen as having done everything possible to avoid the shooting, providing doing so doesn't increase the risk to you. This includes not doing things like leaving the safety of your house to search for or confront someone unless someone outside's life is at risk.
As far as someone rushing you if you have them at gunpoint, per Massad Ayoob, it is safe to assume that they have some type of weapon they intend to use or intend to attempt to disarm you and use your own weapon on you, either of which justifies shooting them.
Call me paranoid, but if such a DA decides to indict you, I don't think that he'll be nice enough not to try to assassinate your character and motives by pulling the jury's heart strings based on the type and number of guns you have, and the accouterments that you have adorned your rifle with.
So does this mean that you are considering selling all of the guns that you feel a DA might object to?
I posted this before you posted Ed. L. and so I'll add this to my scenario, as you shoot him he spins and he takes one in the side or back, not uncommon, so now the DA is charging that not only did you shoot an unarmed man, but you shot him in the back, that coupled with your "bad" guns can make for a bad day in court, and your counsel needs to be prepared for this I think.
And this can happen no matter what gun you use to shoot someone in self defense. Are you trying to suggest that using a less capable firearm would somehow insulate you from shooting someone who quickly turned in the back, or somehow protect your from prosecution if the DA decided to challenge the shooting?
As I said, there are *some* places where you need to be more careful about the firearm you use and the actions you take. Things that might get you in trouble in one place might not have the same effect in another.
Will, I think you are spending too much time on silly forums where they routinely debate whether or not one should carry with a round in the chamber, tell implausible 'it happened to me' stories, and ask silly 'what if's."
It comes from a mailing list of legal scholars who focus on fire arms related issues I belong to run by proff Volokh out of UCLA.. I think the major potential benefit of the paper is to potentially prepare/aware people that weapons choice may have an impact in jurors decisions when other factors are the same, and to help defense at attorneys prepare for that possibility. I thought some of the gender perception differences were interesting also. I'm mot an attorney, so I wont comment on the legal relevance of the paper, but I thought there was some interesting info to be found.
You constructed a scenario where the defender really screwed up and used the gun improperly and got himself in a situation that could completely have been avoided if he had stayed in his house.
In the shooting you described you are going to be in trouble no matter what gun you used since it was a questionable shooting.
If you were in fear of your life, why did you leave the safety of your locked home to go looking for or confront a potentially armed person rather than stay safely inside and call the police? If you look at situations where home defenders have gotten into trouble this is a big one--leaving the safety of their home to confront someone. You cannot argue that you did everything to avoid the situation.
Regardless of whether you live in a Castle Doctrine state or not, it is always best to be seen as having done everything possible to avoid the shooting, providing doing so doesn't increase the risk to you. This includes not doing things like leaving the safety of your house to search for or confront someone unless someone outside's life is at risk.
As far as someone rushing you if you have them at gunpoint, per Massad Ayoob, it is safe to assume that they have some type of weapon they intend to use or intend to attempt to disarm you and use your own weapon on you, either of which justifies shooting them.
So does this mean that you are considering selling all of the guns that you feel a DA might object to?
And this can happen no matter what gun you use to shoot someone in self defense. Are you trying to suggest that using a less capable firearm would somehow insulate you from shooting someone who quickly turned in the back, or somehow protect your from prosecution if the DA decided to challenge the shooting?
As I said, there are *some* places where you need to be more careful about the firearm you use and the actions you take. Things that might get you in trouble in one place might not have the same effect in another.
If you are in your house, and someone forcibly breaks in, I think that you should be pretty safe no matter the weapon, so long as it is legal in that jurisdiction. I remember the case of the college student that foiled a home invasion by using his AK, he was of course not charged.
However the scenario I used that you call a bad shoot scenario may be a likely one to contend with, if for example, that someone has a ranch or large property. Then you can find yourself outside the protection of your home, but still on your property, and confronted with the scenario I described above. Or are you suggesting that one shouldn't carry a weapon while on one's ranch, instead relegating all weapons to the house only?
And until I lost all my guns in a boating accident :o, I had all sorts of guns that many DA's would go apoplectic over. My points were simply as follows: 1) hope for the best but expect the worse, and don't expect the DA's office or even the local PD to be your friends 2) expect that even what you see as a justified self defense shooting may be prosecuted by a DA, 3) be prepared to defend your choice of politically incorrect weapons, or better yet, make sure that your lawyers are able to do this
And for the record I would rely on the same type of semi automatic pistol, rifle, and ammunition for self defense against the criminal element (as a gentlemen put it so wisely earlier in the thread) as my local police department does, but I will also not over optimistically adhere to the belief that I will never find myself in the unfortunate position to have to defend my actions or my choice of gear in court.
However the scenario I used that you call a bad shoot scenario may be a likely one to contend with, if for example, that someone has a ranch or large property. Then you can find yourself outside the protection of your home, but still on your property, and confronted with the scenario I described above.
If you live on a ranch, you probably live in a state where the gun you use isn't an issue. If you live on a ranch in someplace like TX, AZ, NM, especially someplace where you might run into drug smugglers or criminals in an isolated area, I don't think anyone is going to question your choice of a more capable weapon in your truck.
Again, it is a local issue. The police and courts in a part of California where ranches are common are likely to look on differently on defensive gun use than the courts in places like LA or San Francisco.
But if you do live in one of those states like MA, CA, NJ, NY, etc, you have to be MUCH more careful about entering into ANY *avoidable* situations that might lead or escalate to lethal force.
Two questions that the district attorney will ask is did a shooting meet the requirements of a justifiable shooting and also did the defender take every step possible to avoid getting into the situation and try to exit it if safely possible.
Going out armed looking for someone outside of your house who is not a direct threat to anyone falls into the avoidable category.
If you examine situations where citizens got in trouble for defensive shootings, one common element is people who got into situations that were avoidable--like left their house to confront someone. It's kinda hard to argue that you were in fear of your life if you left the safety of your locked house to confront someone, unless they were posing a threat to the life of a third party or firebombing your house.
If you are want to avoid legal trouble you will hopefully try to avoid questionable situations that might lead to or escalate into lethal force.
Or are you suggesting that one shouldn't carry a weapon while on one's ranch, instead relegating all weapons to the house only?
Please show me where I am suggesting that.
And for the record I would rely on the same type of semi automatic pistol, rifle, and ammunition for self defense against the criminal element (as a gentlemen put it so wisely earlier in the thread) as my local police department does, but I will also not over optimistically adhere to the belief that I will never find myself in the unfortunate position to have to defend my actions or my choice of gear in court.
And we don't disagree on this.
The legal environment has changed over the last two decades with regards to firearms and self defense over the past two decades.
The Second Ammendment has been afirmed as an individual right that applies to self defense.
Many more places have castle doctrine and will issue carry permits to people without requiring the licensee to prove a need.
The whole "looks bad in court" argument dates back to a time when most Police Officers carried revolvers with round nosed ammo. I'm not saying that there is no validity to it, just not nearly as much as there once was, and not in every place.
Now just about every police department issues hollowpoints and AR-15s are commonly found as "patrol rifles."
It's a different environment. As I said, this doesn't mean that you don't have to be careful with firearm selection in certain restrictive states.
The whole "looks bad in court" debate has a way of bringing assclowns out of the woodwork--like an idiot on another forum who tried to suggest that using a pump action shotgun with an extended magazine was pre-meditated murder.
It comes from a mailing list of legal scholars who focus on fire arms related issues I belong to run by proff Volokh out of UCLA.. I think the major potential benefit of the paper is to potentially prepare/aware people that weapons choice may have an impact in jurors decisions when other factors are the same, and to help defense at attorneys prepare for that possibility. I thought some of the gender perception differences were interesting also.
I've seen Glenn Meyer, the author, advancing intellectually dishonest arguments elsewhere. Given his history and the lack of specifics of his experiment, I am highly skeptical of him. He's progun, but tends to hang out on forums where they routinely debate whether or not it is a good idea to keep a round in the chamber of your carry gun.
As I've said, if you live someplace like Mass, you need to be more careful with firearm selection. This isn't the same if you live in a castle doctrine state.
And even if you live in a castle doctrine state, you should still try to avoid getting into situations that might lead to lethal force.
I guess the advice below is fine if there is someone outside shouting, "I'm here to kill you. Now come out of that house right now."
But in real life, things are almost never that clear. You hear a noise or the dog barks. Do you dial 911, head for the basement bunker and wait a week to be sure it is safe to come out? Most people will just go outside to find out what is going on. Probably it is nothing, but just in case they take some form of protection with them.
About 6 or 8 months ago at night my wife said she heard someone outside our master bedroom window. I doubted there would be someone out there, but I grabbed an AR15 with weaponlight, quietly went out a door and around the FAR side of the house. I rounded the corner just enough to turn the weaponlight on, and saw a cow moose eating the bushes about 10 feet from the back of the house.
Also consider that in most states you are in the right to confront a person committing a forcible felony. So if a guy is breaking into your tool shed, in many states you are just fine to confront him and tell him to wait right there for the police. If he comes at you with a weapon and you shoot, it's a good shoot. If he runs away, let the cops chase him.
If you were in fear of your life, why did you leave the safety of your locked home to go looking for or confront a potentially armed person rather than stay safely inside and call the police? If you look at situations where home defenders have gotten into trouble this is a big one--leaving the safety of their home to confront someone. You cannot argue that you did everything to avoid the situation.
Regardless of whether you live in a Castle Doctrine state or not, it is always best to be seen as having done everything possible to avoid the shooting, providing doing so doesn't increase the risk to you. This includes not doing things like leaving the safety of your house to search for or confront someone unless someone outside's life is at risk.
I guess what it comes down to is going outside and facing xxxx unknowns or trying to stop someone from burglarizing your toolshed worth getting into a potentially armed confrontation and someone getting killed.regardless of what they law says?
Breaking into an occupied dwelling is a whole different matter IMHO. As much as I trust the laws of AZ, I just don't relish the idea of getting into a deadly force situation. I guess it's because I am a little gun shy having been shot once. Not something I care to relive.
Being on a ranch or the back 40 is also a different animal. If you had livestock and such that is also a different scenario as well.
What we are really talking about is being at your dwelling and having an AR or similar "evil" weapon when the SHTF. You then use it to repel or kill an intruder intent on doing you harm.
I guess the advice below is fine if there is someone outside shouting, "I'm here to kill you. Now come out of that house right now."
But in real life, things are almost never that clear. You hear a noise or the dog barks. Do you dial 911, head for the basement bunker and wait a week to be sure it is safe to come out? Most people will just go outside to find out what is going on. Probably it is nothing, but just in case they take some form of protection with them.
About 6 or 8 months ago at night my wife said she heard someone outside our master bedroom window. I doubted there would be someone out there, but I grabbed an AR15 with weaponlight, quietly went out a door and around the FAR side of the house. I rounded the corner just enough to turn the weaponlight on, and saw a cow moose eating the bushes about 10 feet from the back of the house.
Also consider that in most states you are in the right to confront a person committing a forcible felony. So if a guy is breaking into your tool shed, in many states you are just fine to confront him and tell him to wait right there for the police. If he comes at you with a weapon and you shoot, it's a good shoot. If he runs away, let the cops chase him.
Great discussion gentlemen. Well hopefully no ass clownery has emanated from my end, no pun intended.
My self defense weapons on hand: 6920, mossberg 500, G19. God forbid that I should ever have to use them to defend my, or my family's life. I want to add a large canister of bear spray to that load out; that could be a thread of it's own perhaps. So as you can see I haven't let the fear of unfair, unjust, and tyranical potential prosecution dissuade me from certain types of guns, but having grown up in a commie country, I just sort of expect the worst from ze political authorities :D
I
What we are really talking about is being at your dwelling and having an AR or similar "evil" weapon when the SHTF. You then use it to repel or kill an intruder intent on doing you harm.
For true SHTF (such as ACORN riots in Detroit or similar), I think it will be necessary to keep the rioters well back from your neighborhood, which will mean confronting them at least a couple of blocks from where you reside.
For just a normal home invasion burglary, I would agree that once you know there is danger, keep low, try to stay safe, and shoot if you have to in order to protect your family. But don't go looking for trouble.
Ok. And under the law are citizens allowed to take to the streets during a riot and confront other citzens? It may be necessary, but how in the world would LEO's or military be able to tell who is causing problems and who isn't. Unless there is a total breakdown in society there will probably be a curfew and I can almost bet people wandering around with weapons won't be a welcome addition.
For true SHTF (such as ACORN riots in Detroit or similar), I think it will be necessary to keep the rioters well back from your neighborhood, which will mean confronting them at least a couple of blocks from where you reside.
For just a normal home invasion burglary, I would agree that once you know there is danger, keep low, try to stay safe, and shoot if you have to in order to protect your family. But don't go looking for trouble.
But in real life, things are almost never that clear. You hear a noise or the dog barks. Do you dial 911, head for the basement bunker and wait a week to be sure it is safe to come out? Most people will just go outside to find out what is going on. Probably it is nothing, but just in case they take some form of protection with them.
Again, it depends what the laws are where you live and what the courts are like.
I have a friend in Dallas who went outside and confronted someone who was burglarizing his car and shot the man. He got in no trouble.
Conversely, there was a man in NY State who went outside with his licensed handgun and confronted some teenagers who were breaking into cars in the neighborhood. He did this after calling the police and being advised that they would not be able to get there for like 20-30 minutes. One of the teenagers rushed him, prompting the man to shoot him 2-3 times killing him. One shot hit the shootee in the side, possibly when he was turning. But that gave rise to speculation that he shot him when he was fleeing. To make a long story short, the shooter was indicted and stood trial for murder. He was found not guilty, but I'm sure the legal bills were overwhelming. The main issue was that in many places lethal force is regarded as a last resort for life unavoidable, life threatening situations.
I would argue that given the situation and legal environment in NY state, it wasn't worth the risk of getting arrested, going to prison, and the financial cost of a murder defense.
In places like NY, NJ, MA, etc, you have to be able to make the argument that the threat was unavoidable. It is hard to argue that the situation was unavoidable when you left the safety of your house to get involved in it.
Also consider that in most states you are in the right to confront a person committing a forcible felony. So if a guy is breaking into your tool shed, in many states you are just fine to confront him and tell him to wait right there for the police. If he comes at you with a weapon and you shoot, it's a good shoot. If he runs away, let the cops chase him.
And if it turns out to be a drunk unarmed teenager who rushes you, you now have to choose between shooting a possibly unarmed man or getting into a weapon retention situation.
Again, it depends on the legal environment of your state. In some places you might be okay to shoot him, in other places you might go to trial.
I can't control who I might run into or what he might do. But in this case I can control my involvement by not going into the situation in the first place.
The fact that you went out to search for someone or confront someone who wasn't a direct threat to you in a situation that could lead to lethal force can definitely be a problem. It's different if someone breaks into or is in the process of breaking into your occupied house or car.
Great discussion gentlemen. Well hopefully no ass clownery has emanated from my end, no pun intended.
Nah, you're okay
RogerinTPA
09-28-10, 10:23
It depends on your local DA if you are involved in a shooting and some one dies the detectives have to find and present the evidence to the DA then the DA decides if he will charge you or not. And he decides that if he or she thinks they can get a convection on it or not.They are supposed to have a public obligation to prosecute any crime.
To the OP the type of weapon should be irrelevant show long as you are legal to own it. Just unfortunately life doesn't always work that way.
Agreed.
Here in FL we have the Castle Doctrine, that is extended to the boundary of your property and your vehicle when out and about for car jacking scenarios, but you can still be f--ked by some dick head DA. Not too long ago, an individual made a righteous shoot on his property. The DA crucified the guy when the case never should have be brought against him, got thrown in jail for several months, went four years before a higher court overturned the case, lost his home and went broke in the process.
Great discussion gentlemen. Well hopefully no ass clownery has emanated from my end, no pun intended.
As I said, you'r okay here.
There is an enourmous amount of stupidity that hides behind the "it would look bad in court" banner, which often leads to the advocation of less capable firearms and questionable if not suicidal tactics.
For example, here is a link to a post made on this board where someone beleived that carrying a round in the chamber in a carry gun would get him in trouble in court.
Where I live now, no way would I go C1. I'd have time to react to the situation and have several reasonable escape strategies at hand. An attorney or LEO would be asking why I was in C1 - was I planning to shoot someone?? Lots of legal questions.
Here in FL we have the Castle Doctrine, that is extended to the boundary of your property and your vehicle when out and about for car jacking scenarios, but you can still be f--ked by some dick head DA. Not too long ago, an individual made a righteous shoot on his property. The DA crucified the guy when the case never should have be brought against him, got thrown in jail for several months, went four years before a higher court overturned the case, lost his home and went broke in the process.
This is why the shooter should be seen as doing nothing that would increase the likliehood of an armed confrontation unless someone's life is at stake. In other words, don't go looking for trouble armed if that trouble has not come to you.
Moose-Knuckle
09-28-10, 15:15
I don't own any "Assault Rifles" I only own semi-automatic sporting rifles. ;)
CarlosDJackal
09-28-10, 15:43
If the AR is what it takes to do the job; the AR is what I will use (if available). As a Criminal Defense Lawyer once told me: "It's not the availability or quality of the evidence. It's the ability of your lawyer that will win you your case."
When my life or the life of others is on the line, what a jury (who WILL NOT be my peers) will think about the tool I used is going to be the last thing on my mind. YMMV.
It's not even that some people are against guns for self defense - at their core some people are just anti self-defense PERIOD.
You could use a 2x6 to beat the bad guy over the head and the prosecutor would ask why you used such a large board when 2x4's were readily available. Were you trying to kill your attacker? :eek:o
I can see the headline of "Home Improvement Magazine" now - "Wood boards - how much is too much?"
EDIT - I don't worry about this. If I TRULY BELIEVE that I am going to DIE ... I am going to use whatever is available be it a bobby pin or a tactical nuclear weapon to save my or my family's ass. I'll take my chances with the jury if the certain alternative is death.
I think some people are really worried that the circumstances of their self-defense incident may be questionable. IMO if there is any question that your like is in jeopardy, it probably isn't. AJOP rules apply!
Can anyone provide me a case of someone who defended his home against a home invasion and was tried for using an AR where the gun is otherwise legal to own?
I've had this question and search open for a long time, too. Never heard of even a single case.
I've had this question and search open for a long time, too. Never heard of even a single case.
Exactly. In every case that I've see where the defender winds up in trouble using a a semiauto military style rifle where it is legal to own, the shooter did something else very wrong in the shooting to get him in court.
On the other hand, I've seen quite a number of cases nationwide where the defender has used an AR and even an AK and not gone to trial.
Here are a couple:
Police: Victim Fired AK-47 At Home Invader 3 Men Sought After Storming House, Police Say:
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/15002418/detail.html
Police: Victims Use Stashed Weapons To Kill, Injure Home Invaders.
The weapons, including the AK-47, were in the home because one of the victims participates in gun shows, one of the victims told Local 6 News:
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/13542239/detail.html
Resident Uses AK-47 To Kill Home Invader:
http://www.wftv.com/news/13542354/detail.html
"Awakened by the noise of a group of men kicking in his apartment door early Sunday morning, Derrick G. Murray rushed to retrieve the assault rifle he keeps in his bedroom for protection.
Only seconds later, he pulled the trigger, shooting one of the intruders in the leg and sending all of them fleeing from the residence they had just invaded:
http://www.courierpress.com/news/2009/mar/15/police-armed-burglar-shot-resident/
And the link no longer works for the following story, but it involves a man who used an SAR-1 for home defense in NY state who did not get arrested for doing so, something some people will tell you is an impossibility:
“Newsday, December 8, 2008: Two would-be burglars chose the wrong house to invade when they broke into an Inwood home early yesterday morning. They were greeted by the resident, who opened fire on them with his AK-47-style assault rifle, Nassau police said. It was 5:32 a.m. Sunday when the male resident, 36, "heard suspicious noises coming from the front door of his home, and armed himself with a Romanian SAR-1 rifle," a variant of the Soviet AK-47 assault weapon, a police report said. The two men "broke through the front door and were confronted by the victim, who shot four times toward the subjects," the police report said. The burglars ran off, apparently uninjured, and four rifle shell casings were later found at the house, police said. One of the men appeared to have been carrying a knife, the resident reported. Fourth Squad detectives are investigating.”
15 year old boy uses AR-15 to end home invasion:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE
Nonetheless, I would still be very careful about using this type of firearm in places like NY, NJ, CA, MA, etc. And I would be careful about using any gun in 7.62x39 because of penetration issues.
Walter Middy fantasies aside....
Know the law in your area.
Did you actually have to use deadly force? What gave you the legal AND moral right to shoot the person?
When there is a dead body on the ground the police will investigate.
Know how and when to talk to the police. Even if you are proud to have killed the guy, don't act like it!
Know a good lawyer - always. Do some other business with him (will, power of attorney, NFA trust ect) so he knows you. Even if a self-defense case is not his thing he will give you a good referral. It amazes me how us 'gun-nuts' will spend thousands on guns, gear and training and spend nothing on legal contingencies. The Court can deprive you of life, liberty and property just as sure as a home invasion robbery/rape/murder will.
If you were in the military (esp Army or USMC) you have a lot more jury credibility in using an AR for self defense. My two go-to guns are an M4gery and an M9 pistol. It is pretty easy for me to produce an 'expert' weapons qualification card and my 20 years of training using these weapons.
I would argue, as a general rule, that most true self defense cases do not go to court. Problems arise when the DA's office thinks it can make a case. Do not give them the ammo they need!
Walter Middy fantasies aside....
Walter Mitty. ;)
As I said, you'r okay here.
There is an enourmous amount of stupidity that hides behind the "it would look bad in court" banner, which often leads to the advocation of less capable firearms and questionable if not suicidal tactics.
For example, here is a link to a post made on this board where someone beleived that carrying a round in the chamber in a carry gun would get him in trouble in court.
Oh don't worry, I knew that I was OK, I was just being socially decorous by asking.
Like I said I still use the right tool for the job, carry my CCW with a chambered round, etc., but if you read my posts, I think I've made my concerns very clear. I'll also say that while some get overly paranoid, the result being substandard equipment and tactics, others are also potentially unreasonable, but from the other side of the argument, refusing to realize that it is possible to get a really bad a$$ raping from a politically motivated DA looking to make an example, and a name for himself. To me, realizing this just goes hand in hand with a well prepared mind and attitude, across the board.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.