[mrstang01]

Has ANYBODY actually got an example of anyone using a semi-auto rifle in a valid self-defense situation that has gotten charged for using the rifle?

We're having this same discussion on another board, and everybody and his brother offers up the "lawyers gonna get ya" threat, but nobody has a concrete example.

Michael

[Jeeper]

This is probably the same as the people that say "dont use handloads in your carry gun". I have never actually heard of a case where it was detrimental.

[Greg L]

?

As opposed to what, a bolt action, pump, or shotgun? If I need to cut a board it really doesn't matter if I use a circular, table, radial arm, or hand saw. I needed a job done (in this case making one board into two, in yours stopping a thug), the tool that is used shouldn't enter into the discussion at all. The tool that I use depends on what job needs to be done and what tools are close by when I want to do it.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me if a lawyer did try something like that somewhere/sometime.

Greg

[Glamdring]

There was a thread here not to long ago about a guy who used an AK to stop someone from breaking thru patio door (sliding glass door).

Shot him in knee/leg once. They guy kept trying to get in and he shot a second time.

IIRC they didn't even plan to press charges.

[Skunkabilly]

...not to mention trigger jobs? :confused:

[Parker Dean]

Well, to me the "trigger job" one makes sense if there's a civil case brought against the shooter. The plaintiff's lawyer will try to show that the trigger job made the weapon more likely to be fired accidentally which what really happened. The shooter is just making that stuff up about shooting on purpose. I can see this getting the lawyer a crack at the shooters insurance company and the shop that did the work's insurance company because the shop was theone that made that trigger unsafe by modifying it.

And for the plaintiff's shark, er... lawyer, with any luck at all the insurance companies will settle before trial.

I suppose in the wacky world of lawsuits-for-the-hell-of-it, using a rifle on a person could be used to intimate excessive force or some kind of cruel-and-unusual type garbage that seems to go well with some juries. I mean every one knows that rifles are used on big dangerous game and are FAAAR too powerful for measly humans. Even the military knows that rifles are too powerful to use on people, that's why they use that little 5.56 bullet, blah, blah, blah...

God forbid you use a rifle with a "trigger job"...

[treeprof]

IME, be aware of lawyers in general, but even more wary of juries in civil liability trials. I wouldn't let it affect my choice of the best SD weapon, tho.