Mindset Behind Expense Of Carry Piece

Elkins45 said:

Or this could all be totally wrong...but I would imagine it’s a hard sell convincing an attorney to file a civil suit against an average guy with a mortgage, kids with student loans, and a car payment. Unless, of course there’s publicity involved, or truly for seeking justice. I’m guessing the family of that black kid executed in the street in Georgia has a five gallon bucket full of business cards from civil rights lawyers who would happily sue those guys into oblivion even if they never recover a dime.

Click to expand...

I agree, but not knowing the particulars of the case, my first thought (and I am not a lawyer) is that if you have to chase someone down and then shoot them, it's probably not self defense. Maybe I have the wrong case.

What I am interested in knowing is that for good self defense shootings, how many people get sued in civil court afterward. I don't know that we'll ever get a good answer to this and I'm not sure how to go about figuring out what the number is which is why I asked the question.

DR505 said:

Good points about deep pockets and such. My concerns are colored by knowing, as a LEO, a civil suit would likely be attempted after a shooting.

Click to expand...

What is "likely"? I have taken classes from LEOs that have been in a number of shootings. They NEVER got sued. Again, why do you say "likely"? Have you been in a shooting? Have you been sued? Do you know of any LEO that got sued after the shooting - or was it the department that got sued. The department, after all, has much deeper pockets than the average police officer.

DR505 said:

Good points about deep pockets and such. My concerns are colored by knowing, as a LEO, a civil suit would likely be attempted after a shooting.

Click to expand...

Well, your town has deep pockets -- but presumably the town will defend you.

jbmillard said:

What is "likely"? I have taken classes from LEOs that have been in a number of shootings. They NEVER got sued. Again, why do you say "likely"? Have you been in a shooting? Have you been sued? Do you know of any LEO that got sued after the shooting - or was it the department that got sued. The department, after all, has much deeper pockets than the average police officer.

Click to expand...

Thankfully I have not been in a shooting. But I do personally know several who were. One was in a good shoot, was sued civilly, had agency backing, and it still cost him $100,000. He is somewhat bitter still. And several of the others were also sued civilly. Anecdotal perhaps, but it happens.

Getting back on topic...

A slick prosecutor seeking a conviction could paint the owner of a tricked-out and very customized $5000 handgun may have been "eager to use it" when shown in contrast to a utilitarian model in the courtroom.

Blue Jays said:

Getting back on topic...

A slick prosecutor seeking a conviction could paint the owner of a tricked-out and very customized $5000 handgun may have been "eager to use it" when shown in contrast to a utilitarian model in the courtroom.

Click to expand...

Do you know of any cases of this?

jbmillard said:

Do you know of any cases of this?

Click to expand...

It reminds me of the argument about using handloads:

"He couldn't find anything deadly enough to use against the deceased, so he whipped up something in his basement."
or
"He doesn't handload, so he doesn't practice -- negligence!!"

Blue Jays said:

Getting back on topic...

A slick prosecutor seeking a conviction could paint the owner of a tricked-out and very customized $5000 handgun may have been "eager to use it" when shown in contrast to a utilitarian model in the courtroom.

Click to expand...

No, it does not take a slick prosecutor to do this. This is a moron level argument. This is along the lines of saying that you had ninja fantasies if you happened to be dressed in black. Are you going to stop wearing black now? Heck, you might as well not carry a gun for self defense because a 'slick' prosecutor will say that the fact that you carried a loaded gun meant that you were "eager to use it." After all, most 'normal' people don't walk around with loaded guns, do they? Nope. Therefore, you obviously were just lookin' for trouble. Otherwise, why would you be carrying a loaded gun?

We can play this game all day long. It is naive to thing that the prosecution will stop at a singular ridiculous argument about the expense of the gun and just leave it at that. The whole of your being may be brought forth in court to justify why you are a menace to society.

It takes an even dumber moron defense attorney not to defend you against these sorts of spurious attacks, as in the case of Harold Fish whereby the prosecutor harped on the fact that he use 10mm HOLLOWPOINT ammunition. Oh the horrors of hollowpoint ammo!!!!!!!!!! That bothered the jury based on jury interviews after the first trial. Fish's attorney sat idly by. Never mind that 10mm was used by the FBI and several LE departments. Never mind that virtually every police department in the US uses hollowpoint ammo. Never mind that hollowpoint ammo is suggested by virtually all self defense shooting instructors for handguns. Never mind that hollowpoint ammo is safer to use than ball ammo in terms of over penetration.

The prosecution is going to create all sorts of ridiculous arguments. That is its job...to convince the jury that you did it because they feel you did do it (whatever 'it' is). It is the job of your defense attorney to show the stupidity of said arguments.

Double Naught Spy said:

The prosecution is going to create all sorts of ridiculous arguments. That is its job...to convince the jury that you did it because they feel you did do it (whatever 'it' is). It is the job of your defense attorney to show the stupidity of said arguments.

Click to expand...

And I used to think the job of a prosecutor was to do justice.

Double Naught Spy said:

"...This is a moron level argument..."

Click to expand...

Nice to meet you. Thank you for the THR friendship.

The unfortunate reality is appearances have ramifications we must accept. That is all that I am saying.
A black 1911, aces n' eights (dead man's hand) on white stag grips, jeweled barrel, and "Wrong House" engraved on the front does not help the defense attorney mount his or her best defense for a lawful shooter.

Blue Jays said:

Nice to meet you. Thank you for the THR friendship.

The unfortunate reality is appearances have ramifications we must accept. That is all that I am saying.
A black 1911, aces n' eights (dead man's hand) on white stag grips, jeweled barrel, and "Wrong House" engraved on the front does not help the defense attorney mount his or her best defense for a lawful shooter.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of difference between that and a standard, custom or semi custom 1911 or tricked out CZ or any other expensive gun that doesn't have "smile, wait for flash" engraved on the bushing.

Vern Humphrey said:

And I used to think the job of a prosecutor was to do justice.

Click to expand...

If only ...

To be fair, I've known a number of prosecutors in a small town I lived on with a highly transient population. Most were there to do a good job and serve the law to the best of their abilities, but a few were clearly political minded folks to whom "snake" was fairly apt as a descriptior, if a bit harsh to snakes in general.

But most were very good people.

(Also funny serving on a grand jury when you know most of the prosecutors in town)

Vern Humphrey said:

And I used to think the job of a prosecutor was to do justice.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what most think they are doing. They think they are prosecuting guilty people, which means getting justice.

Blue Jays said:

Nice to meet you. Thank you for the THR friendship.

Click to expand...

Sorry if you misunderstood and thought I was referencing you. I was referencing the argument being made by the prosecutor and notation that they won't stop at just one ridiculous argument either. These sorts of arguments should be easily defensible. That a prosecutor may say something bad about whatever it is that you have or do doesn't mean that it will be a significant factor or even a relevant factor in the trial, so long as you don't have an incompetent defense attorney...like Harold Fish.

The point I was trying to illustrate is that virtually all aspects of you and your stuff and be painted in a bad light when you are on trial. You can't stop the prosecution from doing that, but you can nullify the work with a good defense.

When attorneys do this sort of thing, they are appealing to emotion, hoping that the jurors will react based on something other than actual facts, in other words, at the moron level that doesn't involve critical thinking. Both sides use the ploy.

Going back to the original question, I probably wouldn't carry something really nice that I considered irreplaceable. To the other extreme I wouldn't carry junk obviously, it has to have a certain level of quality and reliability to it. Most of my guns have a purpose, even if that purpose isn't always fully realized, so the chances of me having a handgun that is so nice I wouldn't carry it is probably slim to none, I don't see the point in owning guns like that.

If it saves my life I'll be sad to see it go but I'll have no regrets. That said, I carry based on pure practicality and not nostalgia so my carry gun is easily replaced anyhow.

People driving an old beater may say “If I had that brand new Cadillac, I’d baby the heck out of it”. While people who drive the Cadillac as their daily ride may just think of it as their daily driver.

Very good point. I live near Philadelphia, & there is always a danger of traffic routing you into the Peoples Republic of New Jersey. A j frame cost about 300$. A kimber is about 600$. Which one would you rather throw off the Ben Franklin bridge?

Bcwitt said:

Very good point. I live near Philadelphia, & there is always a danger of traffic routing you into the Peoples Republic of New Jersey. A j frame cost about 300$. A kimber is about 600$. Which one would you rather throw off the Ben Franklin bridge?

Click to expand...

Neither one. I'd just drive carefully and make it back across the river with my gun.

Going back to the original question...I carry what I shoot the most accurately. If it's the higher end gun so be it. If it saves my bacon its well worth the price of admission.

I enjoy all of the what to carry theads on this and other forums.There’s a lot to learn for newbies and older people.here’s my findings that fit me.
I like a do it all revolver in 45long with handloads it covers protection and hunting and fun lots of reloading and shooting just for fun. I did change it up to a double action a Redhawk 45acp/45long. I do own a Glock 17 but I shoot better with the revolver and that makes it a better carry gun “for me”.
I also ride motorcycles. I am poor but I ride a 26 thousand dollar BMW. adventure bike because it’s the best fit for me long days on highway to camp and ride off road 3 or 4 states away.I’m over 60 and the only hard truth I have found is Have Fun enjoy your ride .
Carry the firearm that you like it will work much better than a gun you don’t mind losing.

MTNSTRYDER said:

I like a do it all revolver in 45long with handloads

Click to expand...

I learn something new quite often as well...until your post I’ve never seen the .45 Colt called the 45long. I will now add that into my lexicon of gun terms.

I only own handguns for one reason--to carry. I handload for every handgun I own, so I can practice during times of no ammo....like right now.
If I don't shoot it well, or it isn't reliable, or I don't like it...Sayonara.

Hence, anything I own I am willing to carry (and try to do so, at least once in a while).
Yes, I have one or two favorites that I carry the vast majority of the time. And honestly, I should probably sell a few more, as I'm getting too old to carry heavier handguns.

"And I used to think the job of a prosecutor was to do justice."

You know, I used to think the same thing...up until around the time of the Duke Lacrosse case. That was an eye-opener.
After that, I started hearing about more and more politically-motivated cases.
These days, seems like about half the cases that are prosecuted shouldn't be...and half of those that should be, aren't.

Pretty sad state of affairs, when you think about it.
I think I'd better leave it at that.

tarosean said:

I would never carry anything irreplaceable. However, I darn sure do not make a carry decision based on cost alone..

It doesn't matter if it cost $200 or $10,000. If it saved my keister, or loved ones, it was worth every penny paid..

Click to expand...

^^^This. I have carried a custom revolver in the past and it wasn't just for show. However, the gunsmith that built it is now retired and it would be impossible to replace it. Its sentimental value far exceeds its value as a defensive tool. I seriously doubt I'll ever do anything like that again.

orionengnr said:

I only own handguns for one reason--to carry. I handload for every handgun I own, so I can practice during times of no ammo....like right now.
If I don't shoot it well, or it isn't reliable, or I don't like it...Sayonara.

Hence, anything I own I am willing to carry (and try to do so, at least once in a while).
Yes, I have one or two favorites that I carry the vast majority of the time. And honestly, I should probably sell a few more, as I'm getting too old to carry heavier handguns.

"And I used to think the job of a prosecutor was to do justice."

You know, I used to think the same thing...up until around the time of the Duke Lacrosse case. That was an eye-opener.
After that, I started hearing about more and more politically-motivated cases.
These days, seems like about half the cases that are prosecuted shouldn't be...and half of those that should be, aren't.

Pretty sad state of affairs, when you think about it.
I think I'd better leave it at that.

Click to expand...

We need to appoint judges who AREN'T lawyers and let them straighten the system out.