[Third_Rail]

This was brought on by another thread, talking about the Sidewinder conversion for Mossberg shotguns. It's a box or drum magazine instead of a magazine tube.


How well do these modifications stand up in court?
A bone stock shotty like a LEO has in his car VS: the evil drum magazine fed home altered gun?


My response was this...

I don't know how many times and to how many people I've got to say this...


Using a solid black firearm with a bayonet and the word "MANKILLER" on the side, as long as it's a legal self-defense case, doesn't make it suddenly an illegitimate case.


Likewise, shooting people randomly with a pink fluffly gun that is shaped like a bunny doesn't suddenly make it ok to do.


This, to me, is like the myth of using reloads for defense being a bad idea - back it up with caselaw, even a single case. Anything?


If anyone can come up with any caselaw to show this, I'd love to see it.

[Preacherman]

Your problem won't be case law: it will be a jury of sheeple who believe the "OMG! An evil black rifle!" drivel spouted by the offense (which is not likely to be the prosecution, but rather a civil trial where the BG's family want money from you for your evil nasty shooting of their angelic, goody-two-shoes little boy who wouldn't hurt a fly).

Using "standard" or "normal" weapons and ammo (similar to what the cops use) removes that element from the equation, all other things being equal.

[Third_Rail]

Hm, I agree with that stance, then - but what the issue is isn't the BG's family suing after the defense. The issue is the defense being taken to court and having the specific firearm or ammo make the otherwise perfectly legitimate defense illegal in some way. I just don't see that happening.


To go back to what you said, though; there should honestly be a law to prevent the familiy of "he's really a good boy, we don't know why he murdered 10 people and burned 6 houses down, it's society's fault" from suing the person who had the smarts to have not only a box of bandaids and a fire extinguisher handy, but a firearm.

[ID_shooting]

I agree with Preacher,

You will not find any case law on the books, but the potential is there. As discussed in my CCW class, it is not too far to stretch that a plantiff will try to convince the jury that you were out to kill somone based onthe tools you used. I know no precent has been sent, but you can't argue that the potential is there.

As to the the criminal aspect, I think a good shoot is just that and the DA could care less what you used for the most part.

[thebucket]

But wouldn't you go to trial only if the DA decided to charge you? If it's a good shoot then why is someone being charged?
In civil court, I could see the self defender being sued and ruled against because of using some "extra-powerful-uber-death-hell-spawned" weapon that the plaintiff turned his AR-15/shottie/homeloaded ammo in to.
But as long as it's a good shoot would you be charged?

[TMM]

considering there's reports of .9 cal's, .357 magnum Glock revolvers, 40mm's, and a .50-cal being shot inside, do you think they can identify handloaded ammo and a modded gun? i think not.

~TMM

[HankB]

If the other side has a weak case anything can be brought up and used against you. That's why you need competent legal representation.

* Use a hollowpoint bullet, and you're using "dum dum" ammo, banned by the Geneva Convention. (Actually the Hague Accords, but who cares . . .) Some shysters have actually used this against cops in good officer-involved shoots.

* Use the ammo cops use, and you're a poser cop wannabe . . .

* Use FMJ ammo, and you're using a MILITARY WARFIGHTING round.

* Use a handload, and you're cooking up EXTRA DEADLY ammo because you WANT to kill.

* Use a standard rifle or shotgun, and you're using a BIG GAME HUNTING GUN on a fellow human being . . .

* Use a handgun, and you used a CONCEALABLE weapon so you could HIDE IT and SURPRISE the guy you shot.

And so forth and so on. Unless you did something really extreme like filling the noses of your bullets with rattlesnake venom or something, competent council will deal with all of these issues in court.

[rhubarb]

In response to the suggestion to use similar guns and ammo to what the police use, I wouldn't put it that way to a jury. A regular citizen that made that claim in front of a jury could be painted as a mall ninja rambo wannabe just as easily as someone who loaded his own bullets from wheel weights. The argument would be that the shooter wanted so bad to be a big bad cop that he carried a "cop" gun, used "cop" ammo, and took the law into his own hands in his wild delusion of himself as a crimefighter.

Once you start worrying about what a jury is gonna think and stop making sound decisions about your personal safety, you might as well start carrying relaxation tapes and play them when confronted by an attacker. :barf:

[duckslayer]

filling the noses of your bullets with rattlesnake venom

:) I got a chuckle out of that.

[GEM]

This type of issue doesn't make caselaw as it is not an issue raised in court.

It is just rhetoric by lawyers or the sheer appearance of the weapon.

In jury simulation literature, such factors do influence verdicts.

In an ambiguous shoot, such factors can have influence. If one doesn't believe me the data bases are in the library. Go use PsychInfo or something similar.

[Standing Wolf]

You will not find any case law on the books, but the potential is there.

People who are afraid to exercise their civil rights don't still have them.

[Burt Blade]

I am still waiting for citations of cases where the judge allowed the ammo brand/type/handload or gun name/mods to be used against a person in a justified/proper shooting. Many folks online and in print swear up and down that such cases do/must exist, but I have yet to see a citation of "(real name) vs (real name)" or "State of (wherever) vs (real name)". "I heard once..." or "(famous person) once said..." are not sufficient.

As I read the Florida statutes, deadly force is not modified or mitigated by brand name, manufacturer, or bullet design. Factory-loaded Black Talon bullets are just as legally deadly as hand-loaded lead round-nose flat-point Cowboy bullets or generic FMJ. Question for any lawyers: Wouldn't the judge sustain an objection of "irrelevant" if the prosecution/plaintiff raised the issue of such things?

Any lawyers care to comment? Any cases you can cite, especially in Florida?