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.
I absolutely agree on both counts. I personally had to go through jury selection in 1998 for a "bad shoot" with an airgun, believe it or not. (It was not a shooting with injuries). The accused was up for just about any charge you would associate with a real firearm. (I didn't get picked so I don't know how the case ended up).
It's important to remember that the burden of proof is a lot lower in a civil lawsuit, and a lawyer could convince a jury that just having a certain gun, or a gun with certain characteristics made you negligent, or whatever term they want to use. I'm not saying it's right. I'm saying that he may be able to put that thought in the jury's minds. To make a long story short, don't put "Punisher" skulls on your defensive gun.
During my concealed carry class, the instructor advised that if you do shoot someone, call the cops, and when they arrive the first thing you should do is advise them that you would prefer to speak to an attorney before answering their questions. This is even if you are 100,000% sure it was a "good shoot."
(I present that last part to see if anyone agrees with that logic). :smile:
I guess we were posting at the same time there…
The Castle Doctrine also protects us from civil suits. If we shoot someone in defense in a Castle Doctrine state, neither they nor their family members can sue us. We are protected from civil suits under the new laws.
From the Texas Castle Doctrine PDF - http://www.baylor.edu/content/servic...php/119767.PDF
Quote:
b. Immunity From Civil Liability for Actions Which are Justified Under the Texas Penal Code
The last major change created by the 2007 amendment is the provision granting civil immunity.111 Under this new section, an actor is immune from potential civil liability when his use of force is justified under Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code.112 The civil immunity provision includes, but is not limited to, the self-defense justification contained in section 9.32 of the Texas Penal Code. Proponents of this bill support it because it allows the potential victim to concentrate on protecting himself and his family instead of thinking about potential civil liability for his actions.113
Yeah, this one is repeated quite often. I think some take it a bit too far though. In reality, and as advised by my attorney, don't answer any questions under stress that require much thought or that could corner you if you word it wrong or at least you might say something that you have to explain later.
What is probably the best suggestion is to tell them when they get there that "This man or these men attacked me and I want them arrested" or "out of my house/away from me" etc., or something else along those lines. Also, you can say "I was so scared for my life and I shot them in self defense" or "to stop him from attacking me", then state something like this, "Officer/Detective, I understand you have questions for me and I'm more than happy to give you a complete statement, but I'd really appreciate some time to calm down as I don't want to give a statement under this amount of stress at the moment. I'll be more than happy to come down to the station later tonight or first thing tomorrow with my attorney to give you a complete statement, but right now I need to calm down" or say something in place of "calm down" along the lines of "…but right now I'd like some medical attention or be seen by an EMT."
This tells them a few things. I know asking for the person, who may clearly be dead, to be arrested sounds odd, but it shows that you were the one being attacked and you are afraid. Obviously it could be something other than arrested as long as you don't say something like, "I'm glad that son of a bitch is dead, bring him here so I can shoot him again!".
The next part clearly shows that you are more than willing to cooperate but since this doesn't happen to you all the time, you are completely stressed out and can't clearly articulate the facts until you are calm. It also says that you have nothing to hide and will happily come to them, but also lets it be known that you want your attorney present.
I get the idea of not talking at all, but just plainly blurting out that you won't talk and want your attorney makes it appear that you are on the defensive. Though this will most likely NOT alter the outcome, we want every friend we can get in these situations and don't want to appear that we're scared of talking or that we're hiding anything at all.
Hope this helps. Again, this mostly from my attorney in my own words and through other things I've picked up on the subject. Remember, if it's a clean shoot you did nothing wrong and should act accordingly.
Guys: the Castle Doctrine (at least the Texas version, and I doubt that any other state's is vastly different) does not give you blanket immunity from criminal prosecution or investigation. All that it does is allow you a presumption that your use of deadly force was reasonable if you used deadly force against someone who unlawfully breaks into or attempts to break into your house using force and you did not provoke that person. (There are other provisions in this statute, and you need to read and understand the statute that controls in your jurisdiction).
This presumption can be overcome in a court of law. If you get involved in a bad shoot, you can and will be investigated and prosecuted.
If your case goes to a jury and that jury is made up of common, non-gun savvy citizens, you need to be aware that in cases involving the use of deadly force in marginal situations - where the facts are less than clear in your favor - your choice of a weapon can color the jury's view of you as a good guy or a bad guy. IIRC, David Hardy cited a study on his Arms and the Law blog where prospective jurors were less likely to find self defense when the shooter used an EBR instead of, say, a duck gun. In my state of Texas, I not infrequently run into people who are not aware that AR-15's are even legal, and have no idea why anybody would want to own one. That person may be on your jury someday. OP's fear is not out of line, and is something to take into consideration - not the be-all end-all, but something to think about - when making your choice of self-defense weapon.
Nobody said anything about criminal immunity, all that was said is it will be approached and investigated differently.
I suppose most shoots inside your own home where there is clear evidence that there was an attemped or successful break and enter are most readily assumed to be "clean." But one that might not be so clear-cut and therefore might not even go under castle doctrine is one that occurs away from home, like in the Ayoob article, in your pickup truck. There, if you blasted a dude with an AR as opposed to a .38 revolver, the situation might look very different as presented in court.
Here is the Beckwith Story. It happened in Florida.
Harry Beckwith's Guns in Alachua County, Florida, is probably my favorite gunshop. It isn't just that smell of gun oil, cigar smoke, and old, worn leather that reminds me of the gun shops of my youth. It isn't just the fabulous Luger collection that resides there, nor the excellent buys, especially on collectibles. Harry's place has a karmic touch of the armed citizen about it that you don't find in the atmosphere of your average firearms emporium.
The revolver always visible at Harry's belt is nothing new for the gunshop habitude. Sometimes he wears a modest Charter Arms .44 Bulldog, and sometimes a Smith & Wesson Model 60 .38 Special with the fabulous Tiffany silver grips that you normally only see in the coffee table gun books.
No, what's different about Harry's is that as soon as you step out of your car in the spacious parking lot, you notice the bullet holes in the concrete outer walls of the building. Inside you see more holes in the walls.
There's a photo of a rifle champion next to his bullseye target and there's a hole in the bullseye - a REAL hole, which also pierces glass and backing.
"I like to tell folks that I put that one there intentionally," says Harry with a puckish grin. At 68, Harry admits that his recollection is a bit cloudy, but he figures that in his 35 years in the retail gun business he has experienced right at 35 robberies and burglaries. He proudly notes that in all those rip-offs and heist attempts, only two firearms were not recovered.
He also remembers the only three times when the thieves were unfortunate enough to face him. Each time, it evolved into a gun battle. Each time, he shot them and they didn't get to shoot him.
The first was a pure pistol fight. Harry drew and shot the robber, who lost all interest in carrying on the fight. This saved his life; when the wounded gunman surrendered, Harry Beckwith, a moral man, didn't shoot him again.
In the second shootout, the gun dealer interrupted a felon about to drive off with guns he'd heisted from the store. Though not a Class III weapons dealer, Beckwith was federally licensed to possess such arms for his own use. When the thug raised a .45 auto pistol at Harry, Beckwith trumped his ace with a burst of full automatic fire from a Smith & Wesson Model 76 9mm submachine gun. Struck in the forehead, the gunman dropped his pistol and screamed, "I'm hit!"
"Get out of the car," Beckwith roared back. The man did, and realizing he was still alive despite a gunshot wound in the forehead, he ran. Once more, Beckwith held fire.
The man was captured later and treated for an ugly but minor head injury from a flattened- out 9mm hollowpoint round that had lost most of it's energy piercing the safety glass of the windshield.
That incident took place in 1976, the Bicentennial of our nation's independence. A Class III weapons owner had delivered a splendidly appropriate demonstration of the independence our nation was celebrating. In the "the spirit of "76," he stopped a violent criminal with a Model 76.
But neither of these had prepared Harry Beckwith, then 63, old enough to collect Social Security and qualify as a Senior Citizen, for the incident that left his place of business bearing the distinctive scars you can see there to this day.
The night of November 12, 1990, promised to be a quiet one. The regular bowling pin shoot had finished up less than an hour ago. The gunshop was securely locked up, and so was the separate indoor shooting range building located behind it.
Harry Beckwith was at home with his wife in their beautiful hacienda, separated from the business structures by about 100 yards of beach sand and trees. A picturesque setting that would make the quintessential Florida postcard.
Harry was relaxed and watching TV. It was 9:50 p.m. Suddenly, two discordant sounds pierced the night. One was the distinctive crash of a heavy vehicle being driven through the steel-reinforced glass door in the concrete entryway of the gunshop. The other was the yelping of the burglar alarm.
Beck with moved instantly. He knew his rural location was remote; even though the police would be rolling immediately, he wasn't sure they could get there in time.
He moved smoothly and certainly, with the economy of motion that comes with age and with planning. He knew his wife would get on the phone and put a gun in her own hand, in a safe place. That left his mind free to cope with the problem of dealing with the marauders.
He reached for the weapons he had laid out for just such a contingency.
First was a Charter Arms Bulldog revolver in an old Bucheimer crossdraw paddle holster. It slipped easily into place in front of his left hip. It was loaded with five rounds of his favorite .44 Special ammunition, Winchester Silvertip hollowpoint.
Next came the Model 76 submachine gun. One magazine was in place, the bolt properly closed, "condition three." More magazines were rubber-banded to the extended stock. Beckwith had found this to be a faster way to access them than to attach a pouch in the same place. He slung the licensed submachine gun over his right shoulder.
He picked up an AR-15, a gun he has always described as a "Colt Sporting Rifle." It contained one magazine downloaded to only 15 rounds. Another such magazine was banded to its plastic stock as well.
With the other hand, he scooped up a Remington Model 1100 12 gauge semiautomatic shotgun, already fully loaded.
Figuring he was ready for anything, Harry Beckwith quietly stepped out into the shadows, moving away from the house in the direction of the shop, some 100 paces distant.
He could see that two vehicles were there, both '88 Oldsmobiles, one blue and one white. Numerous adult male figures were scurrying in and out of the shop, bearing armloads of guns to the cars through the door they'd crashed. He couldn't make out color or age, only that they were grown men, and that they were maybe seven of them.
At a point between the shop and the house, he carefully laid the shotgun down out of sight. It would be a fallback weapon if he had to retreat in that direction. He took the AR-15 in both hands, ready, and moved forward again.
But there was a full moon out, and the same moonlight that had allowed him to observe the criminals allowed them to see him. Beckwith knew then he'd been "made".
"I should've been more in the shadows," Beckwith would tell me years later. "He gunned the car straight at me. I'm too old to run. I fired off my shoulder at him and the vehicle."
When the butt of the rifle hit the shoulder pocket, Beckwith opened fire, manipulating the trigger as fast as he could. Suddenly, the AR was not responding; he had run dry.
The vehicle was still coming at him, rapidly closing the 50 yards distance.
A skilled man can reload an AR-15 almost as quickly as a Colt .45 auto, and Harry Beckwith is skilled at arms. As his right index finger punched the mag release, his left hand broke the spare magazine free of the rubber band and slammed it home with a practiced motion, his left thumb almost simultaneously pressing the bolt drop paddle on the left side of the frame.
He resumed fire, as fast as he could work the gun.
The high-pitched crack of the AR-15 could not drown out the dull chong sound of the .223 ball rounds punching through the auto body, nor the distinctive sound of heavy glass breaking. The vehicle swerved off course, and Harry ran dry again.
As he dropped the now useless rifle, the blue Oldsmobile veered away from him, cutting to its left. It threw a giant rooster-tail of dust as the driver accelerated away from the old man he had tried seconds before to crush to death. Beckwith saw the car disappear onto Route 441.
Beckwith turned his attention back toward the shop. Five more of the burglars were there, most holding guns, pistols and longer weapons.
Silhouetted in the moonlight, too old to run, still facing five-to-one odds against men with all kinds of guns capable of easily killing him from 50 yards away and who could easily have loaded up with some of the thousands of rounds they'd had access to for some time now, Beckwith knew he was still in deadly danger.
He swung up the Smith & Wesson submachine gun, racked the open bolt back and cut loose on full automatic.
"I fired high, over their heads, to keep them down," he would explain later. "I used short bursts."
He saw them duck. He knew it had bought him a moment. But his near-death experience with the blue Oldsmobile bearing down on him was fresh in his mind. If they crawled up the covered side of the car, they could do the same with the white Olds.
And if two magazines of .223 hadn't disabled the other identical vehicle, what could he hope to do with 9mm fire? He realized that the time to disable the felons' second car was now.
He swept it from one end to the other, reloaded, and continued. Every window in the Oldsmobile disintegrated as the copper jacketed bullets tore through. Beckwith had stagger- loaded the magazines with hardball and Remington 115 gr. jacketed hollowpoints. The tires deflated with an audible hiss.
Beckwith saw the surviving perps moving away from the vehicle. Now the big danger was being shot instead of being run down. A second empty S&W magazine hit the ground, and Beckwith opened another burst of diversionary fire with a third stick.
The perpetrators had enough. He saw them run around the corner of the building. He took a cover position and waited.
The first police car pulled into the scene approximately one minute later. To Beckwith, it seemed as if he waited an hour.
However, reconstruction of the incident would show that it had been only three minutes from when the alarm sounded to when the first responding Alachua County deputy made it into the gunshop. The incident itself had lasted less than two minutes.
During that time, Harry Beckwith had fired 105 shots.
By 2 a.m. all surviving perpetrators had been arrested and were in custody. Six were at the jail and one at morgue. Roger Patterson, age 18, was found dead in the wreck of the shot up Oldsmobile. He'd gotten across the line into Marion County with one tire shot away, driving 13 miles before he lost control and crashed. Cause of death was a .223 rifle wound through the chest.
The second man in the blue car was captured near the scene.
Both cars had been hot-wired and stolen. Some 20 stolen firearms were found in each car. The white Olds had been so badly shot up it had to be towed from the scene.
Patterson was the only one hit. This was because he was the only one Beckwith fired at. Most of his shots had been directed at keeping the other men's heads down and dissuading them, and at disabling their second vehicle, goals he achieved with spectacular success.
Beckwith told me later, "I could have killed all five of them, at the end, when they were running away and exposed to me. But I was no longer in danger from them, so chose not to shoot them."
Beckwith had high praise for the professionalism of the Alachua County Sheriff's Deputies in general, and particularly for those who responded that night - with one possible exception.
There is still anger in his voice when he relates, "One of them wanted to read me my rights!" However, the anger fades when he continues, " And then a sergeant said to the guy, "He's the victim, for Christ's sake!''
He is still bitter about having to speak before the grand jury. Most Florida jurisdictions bring justifiable homicides before a grand jury as a matter of course, but being in there alone without legal counsel still has a "star chamber" feel to it that leaves you with no warm fuzziness about the experience at all.
As any high school civics student knows, the function of a grand jury is to determine if you've committed a crime. That's a bitter pill to swallow when someone just ripped you off and tried to run you down like a possum in the road. Harry Beckwith still bitterly refers to his cross-examination before the grand jury as an "inquisition."
However, the system generally works, and Shakespeare was right when he said, "The truth will out." The grand jury returned a verdict of no true bill, in effect, designating the incident a justifiable use of lethal force.
What leaves Harry Beckwith most unhappy today is that these perpetrators, initially charged with felony murder, were allowed to plead down to attempted burglary. They turned out to range in age from 16 to 21.
Harry Beckwith fired two magazines of 15 rounds each from the Colt .223 rifle, and two full mags and part of a third from the S & W submachine gun. Only one bullet caused death.
The great majority of his gunfire fell into the "warning shot" category - suppressive fire if you will. We can argue at length about the concept of the warning shot, but the fact remains that in this case, it fulfilled its intended purpose.
It was not lost on the grand jury that exculpated Harry Beckwith that he could have killed all seven perpetrators, and chose not to. It was likewise to his benefit that twice before in his life, he had shown mercy and not killed men he'd shot when they gave up the fight after he wounded them.
Every case I've seen of a shooting with a lawfully owned Class III weapon has gone to a Grand Jury. Some of those grand juries have indicted.
However, every time it was provably self-defense, the subsequent Petit jury has also acquitted the shooter. Still, such trials are extremely expensive for the defendant.
(Interestingly, Florida is one of only two states, the other being Washington state, where an accused citizen found "not guilty" at trial can be reimbursed legal fees and costs by the local government.)
A good general rule for avoiding trial in a justifiable shooting would be, "Semi-auto yes, full-auto no."
In the November, 1990, incident, Beckwith fired more rounds than any armed citizen has probably fired in legitimate self-defense since the Indian Wars. I'm glad he got out of it ok.
Beckwith's domination and unscathed survival of this incident is owed in large part to the fact that he was allowed to lawfully possess high cartridge capacity, rapid-fire weapons for self-defense, the sort of "assault weapons" our current Administration would forbid other Americans to possess.
When Ted Gogol of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America was putting together a group of citizens who had used such firearms to protect their own lives and those of other innocent people, I put him in touch with Harry Beckwith, who would have gone to testify before Congress but for the fact that his wife was ill and he couldn't leave her.
But Harry Beckwith didn't need to testify in Congress to show that he's the kind of tough American who can stand up for his rights, temper justice with mercy, and take care of himself, even against seven-to-one odds if someone is trying to kill him.
As long as he is allowed to own and use the kind of weapons that give him parity against the sort of brutal criminal that runs in packs, and tries to run down and kill senior citizens who would dare to interfere with their lawless depredations.
The Ayoob Files
Ok. I don't want to pick nits, but some of the statements below can be read that way and some clarification is needed.
You can be sued in civil court. You have the affirmative defense to prove that your shoot meets the criteria under the "Castle Doctrine." That means the burden is on you. You are immune from liability if you meet your burden, but legal fees mount up quick.
An investigation will be done. The police have the authority to elect not to submit a case to the DA's office. They have always had this discretion, however. I agree that the Castle Doctrine makes it less likely that a case will be referred to the DA, or that a prosecutor will move forward with prosecution if the Doctrine's factors are met. But that is different than what you said above.
They can always take you to trial. (I realize this is grossly oversimplifying things). If they have probable cause to arrest you and can convince a Grand Jury to indict, the DA can take his chances trying to overcome the presumption. It is unlikely, because it makes a tough burden even tougher, but it can be done.
Aside from the civil suit, I think we're on the same page here. What I meant by the "investigation" was that of course they'll investigate, but it will not be taken to grand jury without good reason unlike before when all went to the grand jury. We are now to be viewed as the victim as of 2007.
As for them or the family suing us, it cannot be taken to trial if it's determined as a defensive shoot. Sure, maybe they will try but once it's in front of the civil court, if it makes it that AR, it'll be stopped at that point. Castle Doctrine and "Stand Your Ground" both have different guidelines.
As for the channels for investigation, it's not up to the DA under the castle doctrine. If it is determined justified it can not be taken any farther by a DA unless there is evidence, just just based on how he feels. And if it can be taken farther that means it doesn't fall under the castle doctrine inthe first place. It's not different.
In Arizona, if you are not criminally charged for using deadly force (i.e. it was self defense) then you cannot be sued by the vicitim or his/her family (someone can correct me if I am wrong).
There are also remedies in place for compensation and payment of legal fees if you are acquitted.
Yeah, we got off on our own thing there! I appreciate the debate whether I'm right or wrong or it's just simply wording. Hopefully someone learned something from that and the other posters that will either allow them to use the weapon they want for defense or even if it just gets someone to look into deeper....that's a good thing.
If there's something I said that wasn't clear, you think is plain wrong or just feel like talking about it a bit more, feel free to PM me. This is one of those times where it's not about who's right, but that the info itself is correct.
Jon
A lot has to do with local law and how it reflects attitude toward firearms (like is there a Castle Doctrine, will issue CCW, etc). Most important is the circumstances of the shooting. I could find links to a lot of home defense shootings with AKs where the defender was not prosecuted.
The gunwriter most responsible for the "looks bad in court argument" is Massad Ayoob. He originally started writing about it in the early 1980s, a time when most police officers were armed with revolvers that may or may not have been loaded with hollowpoints.
It's different today, as most police are armed with high capacity automatics loaded with hollowpoints and often carry an AR-15 sytle "patrol rifle" in their car. Also at the time he started writing about it, the phrase "home invasion" was not in the dictionary. Also, compare the number of places that have a castle doctrine and issue CCW permits to any citizen with a clean background who passes a perscribed course now to the time when Ayoob first advanced that argument.
If it does come to court, a decent attorney can make a lot of these arguments look foolish. If the prosecution makes a big deal about hollowpoints, the lawyer can respond, "You mean like the type the court ballifs have loaded in their guns? Or perhaps the type that are standard issue to the city and state police as well as virtually every law enforcement agency in the country?" Likewise with ARs: "You mean like the type of rifle carried in this city's patrol cars which is the most common type of rifle you will find in police cars across the country?"
It is certainly going to be different in a state like New York, New Jersey, and California than it is in TX or Ok. All this should be a factor in your firearms selection.
Usually when there is a big deal made of the firearm used it is either illegal for the person to own where the shooting occurred or there were other circumstances that called the shooting into question.
Typically when you hear about weapons or ammo being made an issue by the prosecution, there are a wide number of other more serious questions about the justifiablility of the shooting such as whether the defender's life truly was in jeopardy, whether the defender was justified in shooting under the laws where the shooting took place, or whether the defender did something to cause, contribute to, or keep the situation that led to the shooting going.
I'm talking about situations where perhaps the defender left the safety of their home to shoot someone in their yard or breaking into their car, etc. In situations like this, the shooter would have major problems regardless of what firearm they were using.
My only question is if you use an SBR to defend your home and the police confiscate it in wake of a home defense shooting, as they usually do, how do you handle the matter with the ATF since it represents a transfer of ownership-if even a temporary one?
And will this have an effect on your ownership and future ownership with the ATF?
This is an excellent point and it serves to illustrate why the AR/M4 is a good choice for self-defense and a gun like the AK is not. Even though your AK is perfectly legal, it has been so demonized by the media as the bad guy's weapon that it puts your attorney at a disadvantage if there is ever a question about the incident. I'm not saying get rid of your AK, but be aware of the fact that if you are in a shooting you don't want anything about your actions to be questionable. For another example, you are better off with a defensive gun named the "Model XYZ" rather than one named the "Pit Bull."
It's also only a little bit of a stretch to say that window decals, bumper stickers, and wall posters that proudly proclaim "I don't dial 911" and such are a no-no.
Your age and overall character and demeanor are factors, too. In the Beckwith example, suppose he had been a twenty-two year old with somewhat of a checkered past himself. Could that have made a difference in how the cops treated him? You bet it would.
Again, I'm referring primarily to the potential for you to lose a civil suit filed by a wounded perp than your going to prison for the shooting.
The point is that you have to think about your total "footprint" of potential liability and act accordingly.
it's truly a shame, but here in California, after many legal struggles, the AR is finally starting to get some acceptance. a California resident may now possess an AR if it has a "bullet button" and no more than a 10 round magazine. (more than10 round, detachable magazines, are illegal here under any circumstance in centerfire.)
California legislators live in terror of AR's and AK's, in fact, it is basically, semi-automatic, ANY kind of firearm with a detachable magazine that is "evil" and feared and loathed by California state legislature. (except when in the hands of LE, of course.) :(
i believe a person might do themselves a 'favor' by considering a medium caliber lever or pump action such as a .38/357 for HD. :cool:
for some reason, or reasons unknown, in many persons minds, the use of an AR is "evil" where the use of a pump or lever action doesn't seem as heinous...go figure; i believe it's the result of the fear instilled by legislators and anti-gunners.
in the end, there are legitimate reasons for any, and all, cases for HD firearms selection be they AR, Pump or lever action...
This isn't entirely true. There are such things as registered assault weapons (that got grandfathered in). Same thing for mags; if you owned it prior to 2000, you can keep using your mags in your RAW or a featureless build.
See Calguns.net for more details on this type of stuff. (They have a flow chart there to help you determine if your gun is legal or not).
It is obvious you are not for gun rights and it is equally obvious what is ridiculous (and it isn't the permit system in Indiana). I do agree, however, that you need guidelines but it is on what the 2nd Amendment really says. I personally feel that you should move to NY or CA so you can feel safer, far away from those of us with Indiana carry permits. :cool:
Really? I think someone is guilty of overthinking. :)
This discussion of type of firearm used in self defense also raises the question of modification. "Uh oh! You shot the bad guy w/a 3lb competition trigger instead of the stock 5-7 lb trigger!" Who is going to know that? Oh, and in a justifiable case, it shouldn't matter. Just like using an AK/Uzi/insert villianous-scary-sounding firearm here.
I forgot to add the hypothetical of dropping in an heavier than stock trigger into your firearm. Would you be in the same "trouble"? :)
And SBR requires paperwork with the ATF to legally own. It is not the same as a standard AR. Thus if you shoot someone with it in self defense and the local police take temporary possession of it as they typically do with firearms used in defensive shootings, it is technically a transfer of ownership--even though it is temporary. Transfering ownership requires paperwork with the ATF.
This is why I asked about a situation like this.
I disagree. I can specifically recall reading about some cases (even a few recently in AZ) where the police suspect that the "victim" was involved in illegal activity or that there was more to the story but the actions at that time were deemed "justifiable".
Remember the case in New York last year? Someone used a semi-auto AK to defend his home from some local "gangsters". It wasn't the weapon that was the issue. According to the prosecution it was his actions.
It is true that AR/M4 type is now easier to paint as a 'patrol rifle' or police rifle or a firearm similar to what the police use.
It is also true that the AK is an iconic firearm often associated with insurgents, terrorists, even spree killers, etc. But if you are talking about places with Castle Doctrine, this will not be an issue unless you did something very wrong beyond the justified use of deadly force, in which case, you would be in trouble whatever firearm you used.
I imagine you could find out how many millions of semiatuo AKs were improted into the US and are now owned by civilians to point out that these are hardly uncommon firearms these days.
Not everyone can afford an AR, and an AK is an more economic alternative, though there are issues with possible overpenetration of the 7.62x39mm round vs the .223, and as I wrote before, it depends on the state and local laws and legal environment.
Here are some cases of homeowners who used AKs to defend themselves without issues:
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/15002418/detail.html: "Police: Victim Fired AK-47 At Home Invader
3 Men Sought After Storming House, Police Say."
http://www.wftv.com/news/13542354/detail.html "Resident Uses AK-47 To Kill Home Invader."
And finally, someone who used an AK type for home defense in NY State without issues: "“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.”
Anyway, my main points are:
1. Times are different and the use of AR type firearms are far more widespread among police as well as ownership is much higher. Even AKs are far more common.
2. It depends where you live--the laws and legal environment. What is true in one state and legal environment may not be true in another.
3. It ultimately depends on the situation & the justifiability of the shooting.
The guy had some beef with some local gangsters and retreated to the safety of his house, retrieved a NY state legal Wasr or something similar, left the safety of his house, went to reconfront them, and fired rounds into the ground near the gangsters on the street.
Once he had retreated to the safety of his house, the situation was over as was the threat. If they ahd tried to force their way into his house it would be a different matter.
Even in more restrictive states, deadly physical force is permitted for self defense in situations where you face the immediate and unavoidable danger of death or serious physical injury. It's hard to agrgue that the siituation was unavoidable when you safely got inside your house, retrieved a firearm, and then left the safety of your house to confront them again.
The only exception to this would be if the gangsters were a threat to someone else's life outside. This is a different situation, nad you had better be sure of exactly what the situation is before getting involved--and that is another different subject.
How on earth do you figure?
It is ridiculously easy to obtain your CCW permit in indiana, you fill out some paper work, get a background check and have your prints taken. Easy, that's is a fact. (Edit: I am NOT saying that it is a bad thing, but why not offer people some instruction??)
Are you saying any state that has ANY other requirement than that is "tore up from the floor up"? :rolleyes:
Carrying a handgun is serious, for the majority of people on here, rules and common sense may not be a problem...but there are a lot of stupid people in this world. Handing out a rule book or requiring a 4 hr class to better arm people with knowledge on such an issue is FAR from anti-gun.