AK47 For Home Defense?

[Trent]

From a Louisiana case:

Man shot a 16 year old kid who was NOT invading his home - mistakenly taking him for a home invasion. While the kids were trick or treating on Halloween, the wife panicked when they appeared at her car port door, she yelled "GET THE GUN" and the husband shot one of them....*

He was arrested, taken to jail, and tried for criminal manslaughter before that verdict was issued. Very life disrupting.

In his closing argument prosecuting attorney Doug Moreau
highlighted the lack of proportion in Peairs’s reaction to his wife’s fear.
“He goes back to the bedroom, gets the gun, never, ever, ever asking,
‘Hey, what’s up? What’s out there? What would you like me to do?’ It’s
his conduct in going to the closet and getting the biggest handgun made
by human beings and never ever asking what it’s for.”

Source: http://www.lclark.edu/live/files/7234-lcb144art5forellpdf

In this case, it was a "good" outcome:

The jury only deliberated three and a half hours before acquitting Peairs.

If he'd used an AK-47 "evil assault rifle" instead of a 44 magnum revolver, would the verdict have been different?

It .. Didn't end there.

1. The Civil Trial
When Yoshi’s parents did not receive an apology, they opted for the
remedy that is viewed as the typical means of receiving reasonable
compensation in the United States: a lawsuit.

In 1994, the wrongful death suit was tried to Judge William Brown, sitting without a jury.

...

Judge Brown awarded the Hattoris more than $650,000 in damages and costs, stating: “There was absolutely no need to the resort of a dangerous weapon.”

Only Peairs appealed; after trial his insurance company paid its policy limit of $100,000 to the Hattoris.

So now we have an instance where people in Luisiana can be sued for wrongful death following a "cleared shooting"... and lose.

I'll leave you with this final quote to chew on for considering what piece to keep handy for home defense in Louisiana; another case referenced in that same document:

Another difference between the two Peairs cases that arguably
affected the outcomes was that the criminal trial was tried to a jury and
the civil trial was tried to a judge. Perhaps the jury was more easily swayed
by Peairs’s subjective fear for himself, his family, and his home than the
judges were in the tort case. However, in the case involving Bernhard
Goetz, he fared very differently in his two jury trials. In the tort case, the
jury awarded a whopping $43 million to one of the young men he shot
even though the jury in the criminal case acquitted him of attempted
murder. These starkly different jury verdicts suggest that outcomes in
criminal and civil cases are often not dependent on whether the civil case
is tried to a judge or a jury.

*43 million dollars*.

That's a lot of dough.

Now you think the weapon you choose matters, considering it may end up being shown to a Jury some day in court?

 

[Motega]

if you are going to heft around a long gun for home defense a 12 GA is the answer... recoil doesn't matter if you only shoot once. Also consider collateral damage through walls not only can hurt people but pipes, gas lines, electrical, etc.
And to the argument it is more compact I would respond that there are way more home defense options for shotguns than rifles as far as flashlights, ammo, stocks, grips, etc.

 

[MtnCreek]

OP,

Trent's right. Get a baseball bat and hope for the best.

 

[back40]

there are way more home defense options for shotguns than rifles as far as flashlights, ammo, stocks, grips, etc.

this simply isn't true, especially if considering the ar15.

motega, as for shooting once.....how can you say at this moment how many shots are necessary to stop a threat? you can't. planning around only taking one shot is poor at best.

my preference is for the ar, but the ak should do you fine with the right load, and plenty of practice. as stated earlier, the safety will be your biggest hurdle, and for me would have me lean towards the shotgun. ymmv

 

[NG VI]

So now we have an instance where people in Luisiana can be sued for wrongful death following a "cleared shooting"... and lose.

Had nothing at all to do with the weapon in question, the reason he lost the civil suit (and probably should have lost the criminal proceedings) is because he used lethal force against someone when there was no justification for doing so.

Strangers approaching your home on Halloween is not something that would surprise or alarm a reasonable person in this country.

 

[Comedian]

Now you think the weapon you choose matters, considering it may end up being shown to a Jury some day in court?

If the wiki article on the incident is accurate, his choice of gun had less to do with the outcome of the civil suit than the fact that he shot someone without any sort of reasonable justification. Maybe there's something missing from the wiki article that makes Peairs's actions sound more prudent but from what I've just read he's extremely lucky he's not serving a lengthy prison term, regardless of what weapon he ultimately used.

 

[Trent]

Yes, but prosecutors can, and will, waive weapons around in front of the jury (if they are allowed, if not, pictures, and still if not, they'll convey the biggest scariest words they can conjure).

In front of the people who decide your future.

The same sort of thing could happen if you shot through someone and hit someone unintended down range. You might not be *criminally* liable as you were acting in self defense, but the parents of the little girl you paralyze might take everything you own and half your check for the rest of your life. Choosing a rifle for home defense carries with it serious responsibility. If the bullet can conceivably leave your property it is a serious problem. Most rifles I own will travel a long, long way, and last I checked, none of us have x-ray vision to determine what is behind our target.

If you have a hell of a large spread, all the more power to you. If you have neighbors within view... something to think about. I've personally seen AK47 rounds travel through a LOT of material. We've shot at just about everything you could ever want to shoot at, excepting people, obviously. But cars, logs, lumber, computers, masonry blocks, you name it. 11" of solid pine. 1/4" mild steel.

Or in one case where an old friend of mine had a negligent discharge with a 7.62x39 hollowpoint - he had a round in the chamber when he pointed the weapon at the center of a support, steel I-beam in an outbuilding. Went through just off center through both sides of the "I", then through corrugated siding on the outbuilding + more corrugated siding in the shed + two sheets of 3/4" plywood + a glass pane + the outside of a wooden crate + shattered a brake rotor in a bunch of car parts in the crate - recovered the bullet fragments amongst the other junk in the crate. He was lucky the round finally hit something solid and didn't keep going towards downtown.

 

[Trent]

I was in court during the trial of the self-proclaimed leader of the Western Illinois Militia, over a decade ago; the prosecutor wanted to parade ALL of his guns in front of the jury.

The defense filed a motion to quash that - but the judge allowed photo reproductions of all of the weapons the defendant had at home.

Enter a video presentation where the prosecutor identified every firearm, every magazine, ammunition counts, the works. His M14 rifle became "the SAME military rifle used by the United States in foreign wars - refitted by the defendant to become even more lethal with modern polymer frame, enhanced sites, and other additions to make it even MORE deadly. The defendant had {forgot how many, but it was a couple of thousand} rounds of ammunition, including armor piercing ammunition capable of defeating the best police body armor available; enough ammunition to wage a small WAR."

Yes, I remember it like it was yesterday, I've watched it happen in real life.

Prosecutors will use every emotional tool they have at their disposal, period.

Depending on the charges, your guns, ALL of them, could be paraded in front of the Jury. In modern days, even your social media, and forum postings are discoverable as evidence. If you make postings like "I pity the fool that breaks in to my house some day, he'll be DRT, another dead dirtbag"... guess what? Now what you did is premeditated.

No, in public speaking, including forums, I will always advise caution. In weapon selection for home defense, I'll always advise caution.

If I'm ever in front of a jury on a self defense issue, I can point to "countless postings" I have made in public saying "shoot to incapacitate, not to kill", "use reasonable force, never more than necessary", "choose a weapon that doesn't put others at undue risk", "train in the legal aspects of self defense", and so on.

Because this very post I'm making, might be used as evidence someday, if I ever have to defend my life, or the life of my family.

Just food for thought, I can't make other's decisions for them, free country and all that. All I can do is talk about how I have made mine.

 

[Comedian]

Yes, but prosecutors can, and will, waive weapons around in front of the jury (if they are allowed, if not, pictures, and still if not, they'll convey the biggest scariest words they can conjure).

In front of the people who decide your future.

And? Neither that or the Peairs case suggests that the looks of a particular weapon plays a major role in outcome of a self defense shooting.

The same sort of thing could happen if you shot through someone and hit someone unintended down range. You might not be *criminally* liable as you were acting in self defense, but the parents of the little girl you paralyze might take everything you own and half your check for the rest of your life. Choosing a rifle for home defense carries with it serious responsibility. If the bullet can conceivably leave your property it is a serious problem. Most rifles I own will travel a long, long way, and last I checked, none of us have x-ray vision to determine what is behind our target.

This isn't relevant to whether or not using a "politically incorrect" weapon for home defense plays a significant role in the outcome of a trial. Losing a trial for shooting a innocent as a result of choosing 30-06 as opposed to .556 for home defense is different than being convicted for using an AK-47 in what was otherwise a good shoot.

 

[Trent]

Good points Comedian.

 

[NG VI]

Yes, but prosecutors can, and will, waive weapons around in front of the jury (if they are allowed, if not, pictures, and still if not, they'll convey the biggest scariest words they can conjure).

Sure they can, but in the example you cited, the man amazingly avoided going to prison for three or twelve decades but then rightfully lost a wrongful death suit because of his use of deadly force, not because he was marginally in the clear for firing but because he used deadly force period.

The weapon itself was irrelevant, in your example if he beat the guy to death he most likely would have been in even more trouble, but it doesn't appear that the firearm in question ended up making any difference in the final outcome of his cases.

I've personally seen AK47 rounds travel through a LOT of material. We've shot at just about everything you could ever want to shoot at, excepting people, obviously. But cars, logs, lumber, computers, masonry blocks, you name it. 11" of solid pine. 1/4" mild steel.

Gentleman said he'd settled on the Hornady V-Max as the bullet he would stoke his defense gun with. The V-Max is a much more fragile bullet than all the Russian JHP bullets that are basically open-tipped match bullets, behave in media like FMJ, not like a typical JHP bullet.

Probably not quite as shallow a building material penetrator as some of the .223/5.56 loads, but not far off.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Or a kitchen knife or a baseball bat or a tire iron.

That sounds like the weapons used at the end of a slasher film.

 

[JHenry]

i think a 45 handgun(take your pick) loaded with hollow points and a mounted flashlight would be the best option for home defense, unless you live in a neighborhood where things go bump in the night more than occasionally.

 

[Art Eatman]

As far as the original question for this thread--and stay with that question or see a bunch of deletions--my opinion is that the AK is as good a defensive weapon as any other. AK, SKS, AR, Mini, you name it.

Like the fella said, Mindset, Skillset, Toolset--in that order.

 

[Adam123]

Adding to Trent's points, I'd suggest that you get this...



... from THESE GUYS and hope you never have to resort to its lethal power.

The AK might be an OK idea as well.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

I think it's a good platform and decent cartridge. The problem, as everyone else has said, is in front of a jury you'd have to get past the decades (since like 1947) of the media portraying the AK as the "bad guy" weapon. Possibly to the point of your attorney having to dismiss jurors who served in Vietnam (who may have sided with you otherwise) with horrible memories of that thing.
If it was a jury of your THR peers you'd be golden, but sadly, it's not.
A possible solution if you don't want to change platforms: dress it up like a desparate prom date so it's not as recognizeable as an AK to the untrained eye (since the trained eyes will probably side with you anyway).

 

[henschman]

No, it's not a great cartridge for home defense. It would have a high tendency to penetrate walls, even after penetrating a bad guy. If you like the AK platform, you would be a lot better off with a '74. You want something that fires a very light bullet at a high muzzle velocity, so it will dump energy quickly and tend to fragment. Not only does this do more damage to a bad guy at close range, but it also has a much less tendency to penetrate barriers. 5.45x39 fits the description perfectly, as does 5.56x45.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I use a AK74 Tantal for my go to rifle for Home Defense. 5.45 V-Max will do the trick.

 

[henschman]

^^ That's more like it. V-max is great, but even the 7n6 Russian air pocket ammo would be a good chocie, as it penetrates barriers VERY little and has very good terminal performance.

 

[mf-dif]

If you chose to use an ak you should evaluate if they are going to attack or have a weapon first. If they are unarmed warn verbally before shooting. If you live on a stand your ground state then do whatever you want lol.

 

[msrfrog]

I have my saiga 7.62 right now for HD duties,
but I want a hi point or kel tec sub 2k in .40 cal when I can.

 

[LAK]

Personally I do not concern myself with image, I concern myself with concentrating on only using deadly force in accordance with the law, and being able to articulate that clearly.

I think an AK in any cartridge is a fine weapon for home defense.

 

[Girodin]

If I'm ever in front of a jury on a self defense issue, I can point to "countless postings" I have made in public saying "shoot to incapacitate, not to kill"

Actually under the rules of evidence you most likely can't. But, at least there won't be "bad" posts to use against you.

 

[NG VI]

If you don't think they're going to attack you or someone else than firing makes you a murderer.

Regardless of what kind of weapon you have.

Warnings aren't generally mandatory either, since it doesn't have any bearing on your attacker's behavior, and that is what makes the use of deadly force justifiable.

There's no checklist of things you have to do before you get to use deadly force. Whether it is acceptable to use deadly force or not is entirely dependent on your attacker's actions, not your own, provided you have not intentionally escalated the situation in some illegal way.

If you tell a guy to pound sand and he decides to brain you with a hammer over it, that's not on you.

If you and a guy have a disagreement and you take him up on an offer to go a few rounds out back, you are not an innocent party, you are a mutual combatant, and you're about equally responsible for whatever happens during the fight.

Anyway, to the OP, though it's harder to properly load an AK in conventional Soviet calibers for home defense, and though the control layout and sights make it less best than an AR, the best thing for you is to use a weapon you are comfortable with and enjoy practicing with. The Hornady V-Max loads will do as well as anything in 7.62x39mm to stop a fight.

It's important to be confident in the weapon you have handy. If you ever need it in your home, the last thing you need to worry about is your proficiency with the tool you are depending on and the capability of the weapon you are stuck with.

 

[Girodin]

Had nothing at all to do with the weapon in question, the reason he lost the civil suit (and probably should have lost the criminal proceedings) is because he used lethal force against someone when there was no justification for doing so.

Strangers approaching your home on Halloween is not something that would surprise or alarm a reasonable person in this country.

I remember this case. IIRC the guy went outside, and as the exchange student walked towards the front door he told him to stop but the kid had a language barrier. The home owner then shot him outside in the yard simply because a kid dressed up as Travelota walked towards him.

I understand your point about the weapon making it look worse, but every case where I see people trying to say that, there are sooooo many bigger take away lessons, in both terms of legalities and tactics.

Also have you seen if LA law is the same today as it was in '94?