This is a continuation of a discussion found in another thread ( here: http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=84324&page=2)
Here is a link to the Ayoob article. See, especially, page 3.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_112685749/
Printable View
This is a continuation of a discussion found in another thread ( here: http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=84324&page=2)
Here is a link to the Ayoob article. See, especially, page 3.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_112685749/
Things do happen occasionally but defensive laws have gotten much better in the past few years even. My Dad was a DA in Los Angeles County for years. I've asked him about this numerous times and he's stated that unless you do something that is illegal, the weapon used is not going to make a difference, even in LA.
Here in TX, and any other state with the Castle Doctrine or "Stand Your Ground", we're much better off than years past and if it's a clean shoot, we should have nothing to seriously worry about.
ETA - Remember, this was 27 years ago and even the judge instructed the jury to NOT take the weapon into account in deliberations. This was a DA trying to make a name for himself in a very sensitive time for that type of weapon with a defendant that was not protected by the same laws we are today.
Jon
That article by Ayoob is very dated (84) and a lot of positive gun laws (castle doctrine) have passed. So as long as it is a good shoot, I would not worry about using a suppressed SBR for HD.
C4
Good points. Castle doctrine has been a major positive change for us honest citizens.
I intend to protect my home and family with effectiveness for the role intended as the primary consideration, but I still am concerned about a jury being swayed based on emotional harranguing rather than the law or facts--especially if you get a judge who is an activist. (You know the old saying of lawyers: "If the facts are on your side, argue the facts, if the law is on your side, argue the law, if neither the law nor the facts are on your side, harrangue the jury.")
First, there would have to be a "bad shoot" in order for charges to be brought up against you. Since you live in a state that has castle doctrine and assuming that you shot the person in your home, it would be very hard for a prosecutor to go after you.
Now in a lawsuit, I think you could be sued by the family of the person you killed and they COULD win. With that said, it is only money and I didn't come into this world with it and won't be able to take any of it with me. So no worries again.
C4
I understand, but especially in states like Texas, it won't get to that point. The Castle Doctrine and even the "Stand you ground" laws are very clear in that if it was clearly a defensive shoot, we are not to be prosecuted or really even investigated.
Before the Castle Doctrine, any defensive shooting went in front of a Grand Jury. Today, if it's ruled a clean shoot at the time of the shooting, it's closed and does not go to a Grand Jury - this also means it's not up to a DA to decide if it should be nvestigated, it essentially stops him from any action, regardless of his beliefs, if a few basic criteria are met. See, now it has to be considered justified first, unless evidence shows different. Back then, we had to prove it was justifiable as they were not obligated to look at it that way and were at their mercy.
No DA in his right mind will go against this as he does not have that discretion based in anything but hard evidence as of now.
I hope I'm explaining this correctly. Please not that I am NOT am attorney. My info comes from a close friend who is an attorney here in Texas and my dad who was a pretty well known and somewhat high profile DA in Los Angeles but is now about to retire from Criminal Defense.
Best thing to do obviously would be to consult a Texas attorney who specializes in these types of cases to really ease your concerns.
Look at the guy who shot the two robbing his neighbors house all while on the line with 911. The DA believed there was evidence that showed he went beyond the limits of self defense and brought it in front of a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury felt differently and no-billed him.
I've been considering a silenced SBR build as of lately and this exact thing has been on my mind lately.
I have my first kid on the way so protecting my family has been even more of a constant concern of mine rather than when I lived alone. I'm by no means unarmed, I have pretty much come to the conclusion lately that a silenced SBR is my ideal HD weapon. (caliber TBD)
What constitutes a "justified" shooting? I tend to think my common sense would dictate what would or would not be, and when it comes down to it, if I feel my family is in even the slightest bit of danger, I won't hesitate to do what I have to do...but are there any good articles/precidents/etc that would help give me a better understanding of the law and how different situations would be percieved?
Is it as simple as if your life is in danger or not?
What if you find a theif in your house, it's dark and you don't know if he is armed and he runs?
You're in a traffic jam, some thug gets road rage, your car is blocked in and they get out of their car and come toward you. Do you risk that he has a weapon by the time he gets to your window? Do you step out to divert away from your family and risk escalating it? Do you draw your weapon and warn him in public and risk a gun fight?
As much as I am for gun rights, CCW permits are ridiculously easy to obtain in Indiana and NO guidelines are given to you. I personally feel it should be like obtaining a driver's license and that a test and instruction is necessary, atleast hand out a rule book of acceptable behavior, where you can/can't carry, etc...I know what I would do in a lot of these situations, but I'd venture to bet a lot of people haven't thought about it, including many CCW permit holders I know and these things happen in a split second.
Sorry if this is somewhat off topic, but if anyone has some good reading, would love to see it.
(Edit: some good info since I started writing this)
Grant and Jconsiglio, Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that even under Castle Doctrine they could bring charges against you and take you to trial (regardless of how "clean" the shoot appeared). I'm glad my impression was not correct.
The topics you are talking about vary according to state law. At least in Texas, you DO get a "rule book" as in instruction in what State law says about deadly use of force and what constitutes a justified situation, and conversely, many CCW classes (called CHL here) cover this subject in depth. Get to a class from a qualified instructor in your state and ask about these topics.
In reference to he Gary Fadden case and the whole NFA weapons as "defense weapons" thing. We have discussed this before in other threads.
1. The prosecutor was anti-gun and we'll never know if the sole reason he was charged was because of the weapon or not.
2. The incident occured on the road and not at his home. In 1984 there weren't many states that allowed for CCW and as Grant has mentioned, alot of things have changed since then.
3. Most all who own NFA weapons are responsible gun owners and citizens. They have also in many cases undergone several background checks.
4. A bad shoot is a bad shoot. They key is being able to articulate why you do what you did. In addition keep your mouth shut probably goes a long way.
5. In 1984 cell phones weren't by any means common. Had he had one available it may well have changed the whole story.
6. In the end he was acquitted, even though it was costly.
7. I believe that a gun shop owner used an SMG several years back to defend his store after a burglary. The criminals were trying to make off with some of his weapons.