Ayoobian Fallacies Challenge to Members...

[Double Naught Spy]

In another thread on factory versus handloads where the issues of legalities and potential pitfalls of using handloads in a self defense shooting, I noted the problem as being an "Ayoobian Fallacy" along with others such as 1911s bad for self defense because they are hard to defend in court (Ayoob's lawyer claimed this and Ayoob discussed the issue recently in one of the gun rags), light triggers will get you in trouble in court, don't use a race gun, your gun better be a stock model, etc.

Without wasting bandwidth on posting other sorts of things like opinions, or what you heard your brother-in-law's cousin's lawyer say while drinking after shooting ducks on a camping trip at high altitude, or what you read in some other forum that somebody believed to be true, without all that garbage, can anybody post justified self defense shooting cases or subsequent civil cases to the justified self defense shooting where it was the trigger, gun type, ammo type, or other supposed attribute or factor that caused the case to be turned against the self defense shooter?

I think it is all gunlore, propogated by Ayoob and a bunch of lawyers in some sort of manner so as to make gun owners paranoid and believe in the needs for lawyer services over unrealistic concerns. There are very valid reasons for lawyers, don't get me wrong, but not because of ammo choice. Sadly, this crap has gone on so long that it has become a part of the working knowledge of gun owners and many assume it to be true without ever verifying anything themselves. This is what is called a myth.

So, all I am asking is that if you have an exception example to my loudmouthed challenge, post it here with the basic summary, case information (who v. who, city, state, date, and any other relevant information) so that it can be independently verified by those of us who wish to read the information ourselves, and ideally a LINK if the information is on-line. If not on-line, then much can be garnished through basic information requests or FOI requests.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Well my brother-in-law's sisters cousins husband . . . .

(just messin with you - couldn't resist)

Read the same books, logic sounds reasonable, not sure it is backed by case law though. (which I guess is the challenge . . . )

 

[goalie]

I know that in Minnesota you have to meet certain criterea for a shooting to be self defense. They are as follows:

1. You had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm to yourself or another.

2. You had a reasonable fear of death (agian, to yourself or another).

3. You have to be an unwilling participant.

4. You have to clearly show that you had considered retreating.

If you are involved in a shooting and have met ALL the requirements listed that authorize deadly force, it doesn't matter what gun or bullets you use. Period. If you have not met the requirements listed, shooting a stock pistol with the same ammo your local PD uses will not help you at all. Minnesota fortunately is a state that has laws restricting civil suits against you if you are not found guilty of a crime (or not indicted/charged) in a self-defense shooting. In states without such protections results may vary.

Edit: If you CCW and do not know the number of a lawyer who is well-versed in self-defense law, and most are not, you are pretty much asking to go to jail if you ever pull your CCW, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Gray Peterson]

I don't know all of Ayoob's stuff in regards to what to use and how someone goes to jail for using handloads (huh?), but I know someone like him in regards to self defense.

I'll give you an example.

You do something to expose a criminal's activities. Say you're a parent with children. A sex offender (a child molester), for example, moves into your neighborhood. You observe him doing stuff like hanging out near schools and watching kids. You report it to his probation officer. When you're out and about (you're a CCW permit holder and carry a handgun), and the guy approaches you and pulls out a knife (my guess is that his probation has been revoked and he has to go back to jail in a day or two) and lunges with it at you. You shoot him.

The friend believes that the parent would be in prison, and would be sued. Why? Because apparently he believes reporting to the probation officer is something you shouldn't have done, because it weaken's your case of self defense.

Have any of you heard about anything like that before?

 

[El Tejon]

How many do you wish? There's Luis Alvarez for one.

 

[M1911]

As we've all discussed previously ad nauseum, you never will find such evidence because it will never show up in an appellate ruling.

But that doesn't mean it didn't effect the outcome of the original trial. Think about the mindset of the average northeastern soccer mom juror who thinks that only cops should have guns. Then think about what she'll think when the DA starts talking about how the accused hand-crafted his own "bullets." She never conceived that someone could load their own ammunition and would be terrified that someone would be working with such "explosives" in their own home (that's exactly what my mother-in-law thought).

If you wish to hand the DA that extra "ammunition," have at it. Personally, I'm a bit more conservative.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

El Tejon, excellent example. You failed to provide a single bit of relevant information about how folks could find the case and verify anything for themselves, so I will try to fill in some of the blanks. Do note one very critical aspect and that was that the officer in question was NOT found guilty and he was NOT found guilty because the charge was for manslaughter, an unintentional shooting and the officer and other officers argued in court that the shooting was intentional, in response to a furtive movement. Since the officer shot intentionally in self defense, the prosection had NO CASE on manslaughter and the light trigger because the officer INTENTIONALLY DISCHARGED the weapon. So your example, does not fly.

Here is my summary (modified) of the case from another post. I do not have the docket records, but pieced together information from on-line sources and Ayoob's writing...


Ayoob has used the case of the State of Florida v. Luis Alvarez to note that that modifications to a gun can get you in trouble and make the case go against you in a shooting. Contrary to his twisted view, it was not the modification of the gun, but the statement made by Alvarez.

Holding a suspect at gunpoint, Alvarez shot the suspect in the back and killed him. At the time, he commented that another officer bumped his arm and the gun discharged. Here it should be pointed out that Alvarez had the double action revolver cocked to single action, against department policy, and the gun was in fact modified with a lighter trigger. So, he was charged with manslaughter and this went to court. The gun was thought to have discharged because of the lightened trigger and single action cocking of the gun, hence Ayoob's contention modified guns will cause cases to go against you. HOWEVER, between his statements and court, the officer managed to get fellow officers to all read from the same script and the story change to Alvarez shooting the suspect because the suspect made furtive movement. Later, the officer noted that he had no idea why he said the gun discharged when he was bumped as he meant to shoot the suspect. Long story short, the light trigger pull issue and manslaughter charges were for naught as this was not a manslaughter case but one where the officer intentionally shot the suspect who made furtive moves and as such, modified trigger pull did not matter.

The case was State v. Luis Alvarez out of Dade County, Florida from an incident on December 28, 1982.

Alvarez may have had an overly modified gun that was so modified that the hammer dropped when he was bumped. That would make him liable for the shooting death of the suspect held at gunpoint, but contrary to Ayoob, the problem was not the light trigger, but a gun that did not function properly. But that all passed with the story change to the shooting being intention.

Right after the shooting, true or not, the officer made a statement that got him in a lot of trouble, saying the gun discharged when he was bumped. True or not, he would have been much better off if he had never uttered a word. Under the stress of the incident and surprise, he said something that WAS used against him and this was a person fully aware of his rights and fully familiar with the need for legal counsel. For that time after the shooting, he apparently lost his ability to measure his words to the proper statements. In fact, he probably thought he was doing himself a favor by noting the gun discharged from what he believed was no intentional act on his part.

So do you have any other examples with some real information that can be tracked down by others? You cited this case and it doesn't fly and Alvarez didn't lose because it WAS a self defense shooting and not manslaughter. He was not guilty of the charge and the modification of the gun was not relevant, even though argued in court, because the jurors believed he did actually fired INTENTIONALLY. I don't have too many summaries of cases at my fingertips, so some real information would be a lot more helpful to make your argument if you have other cases.

M1911, great, don't provide apellate rulings. Find some original rulings. That would be fine. At least that would definitely make the argument that there is a huge problem we need to be warned about and may take multiple proceedings to resolve.

 

[Mike Irwin]

I pretty much stopped listening to Ayoub many, many years ago.

One of the guys I worked with at NRA had an even dimmer view of him, calling him Mas da Boob...

 

[Pendragon]

I read his stuff religiously when I was younger, but he has an obsession with trigger pulls and action types and thinks anything unusual or modified is going to hang you in court.

From what I have seen - even reading his stories, what seems to hang people is their ignorance or fear or ineptitude - not so much their equipment.

Frankly, sometimes I think he is not inventive. If I shot someone with my 1911 and they brought up the light trigger pull and that I make my own ammo, I would turn it around and say I keep the gun for target shooting and I make ammo that virtually all target shooters make - if anything, that would make be appear more angelic to the jury since I am not keeping some ninja death-magnum with black-devil-talon bullets made only for shredding human flesh, etc.

But no - in Ayoobs world, I am hosed because I have a 3.5lb trigger and home made bullets.


I did learn some good stuff from him - if you call in a shooting, say "I'd like to report a shooting at 123 main street" not "I JUST KILLED A MAN!", etc

Also - not talking for at least 24 hours and having the mindset that it is better to lose face than draw your gun - gun is last resort, etc.

Also, one story I thought was interesting - a man had to kill someone and was acquitted because it was a good shoot - Ayoob said that he had observed that people of faith seem to bounce back much better from a good shoot than athiest/agnostic types - and he said he was saying that as a non religious person - I found that kid of an interesting obsevation (may or may not be so).

So as my daddy used to say:

eat the meat, leave the bones...

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay, how about another bend that might stimulate the minds of some readers. Can folks post some additional things Ayoob (or others) have said that should make a difference in court, but never seems to be a reality of court cases. One of my favorites to justify the ammo (and depending on some) the gun carried is justified to use for self defense...

"Carry what the LEOs carry and then you won't have to justify the ammo to the jury."

I like this one...as if the LEOs chose their ammo with the same self defense needs in mind that I have...which they did not. Plus, it has never been made clear as to which cops or law enforcement agency from which I should choose my ammothe police, sheriff, constable, dog catcher, state police, game warden, border patrol, FBI, military police, etc. Between the set for the LEOs I have locally and with some departments allowing various types of guns and ammo, my choices range between a .380 to .44 magnum, RNL, soft point, regular ball, hollowpoint, expanding FMJ, and Glaser.

I have never seen a case, read of a case, or been informed of a case where the shooter in a justified self defense shooting got hung out to dry for NOT carrying what the local cops carried.

FYI, from a local gun class run by a former LEO, I was specifically taught that it was in my interest to use a stock gun, not a combat-styled gun with things like night sights and an evil name, the same ammo as the local cops, and a gun with a standard trigger at least 5 lbs and better if closer to 8 for a single action (1911) or Glock. I was also taught that shooting a person in the head during a self defense shooting was evidence for intent to kill and not just to stop. What a bunch of gun fecal goo.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

The criminal matter in a self defense shooting is often cut and dry, but that is not the case in civil lawsuits.

Civil suits are where things like type of gun, ammo, etc might come into play.

There is no way of knowing why civil juries make the awards they do.

Lawyers will try to build a case that makes the jury think the shooter was reckless. So they will try to make someone out to be a "gun nut". They may talk about hair triggers, custom guns, handloads, etc.

The lawyer wants the shooter to look like he is out of the mainstream, a wack job, just walking around trying to find trouble. It doesnt matter if any of it is true, all that matters is what the jury believes at the end of the case.

Use your own judgement, but which is going to look more like a normal person to your average jury:

-- Shooter dressed in low drag black ninja suit armed with custom H&K SOCOM, an M4 clone, 15 mags of AP ammo, has 100,000 posts on THR, and "born to kill" printed on his dude rag

or

-- Man dressed in flannel pajamas with S&W 38 Special revolver.

At best the first guy is going to look weird to the jury. You don't want to look weird to a jury.

The jury doesnt have to explain why it made its judgement. So you will never know if any of that played into the decision.

 

[FPrice]

Double Naught Spy...

Your dislike of Ayoob is legendary. Even in these hallowed portals.

I'm not going to bother to try to change your mind. It ain't worth the effort.

All I'll say is, if you are so opposed to Ayoob, why don't you take your dislike straight to the man and correspond with him, tell him what you think, and post his reponse?

Might be a tennsy-bit more productive than tearing him down here behind his back. Of course, it's also more dangerous to your position cuz Ayoob just might respond with some information and logic to back his position. THEN where would you be???

Just a thought.

 

[c_yeager]

I keep hearing about all these "civil suits" that are the bane of law abiding people who defend themselves. Does anyone have any actuall sources for these suits that include the FINDINGS of the suit including appeals?

 

[STEVE M]

Thank you FPRICE, I to get tired of people bashing some gun writers. I

would much rather read constructive posts that I can learn from.

 

[Kharn]

I've been wanting to rant about this one for a while. My cousin (my shooting buddy/instructor) always says I shouldnt carry (or use for home defense) anything but a DAO revolver or a Glock, as any other handgun would be impossible to defend in court (especially my 1911A1 Govt, my only viable self defense handgun at the moment).

Whats even odder: He says that anything with a trigger pull less than ~8lbs could lead to me getting sued for accidentily shooting someone, even if I meant to shoot them in self defense (and the shooting being in self defense wouldnt be a valid defense, so I'd be found guilty of accidentily shooting the individual). What kind of logic is that?

I'll definitely enjoy reading the court cases mentioned in this thread.

Kharn

 

[Bruce H]

He is a professional expert witness. Several upstanding humans run in that crowd. Everybody has to make a living somehow.

 

[ctdonath]

I have personally asked Ayoob about this several times. His whole point, which frequently gets twisted out of context, is that one COULD face trouble with such issues (handloads, modifications) and that he expects some day some creative DA will try such a legal tactic. His point is COULD, not will, COULD happen.

Ayoob is quick to point out that you should do what you feel is necessary to defend your life, even if that includes a modified race gun stuffed with hot reloads - just weigh ALL the issues together, including that anything you do can and will be used against you in a court of law.

This whole issue has been blown out of proportion for years. Find out what the man acutally said (I have, in person), and let the hype drop. He's just trying to be reasonable; some people are trying to make him look bad any way they can.

(FWIW, I'm an LFI-IV grad.)

 

[Double Naught Spy]

FPrice and Steve_M, got it. So you don't have any examples to support the claims either? Thanks for playing.

FYI, I don't dislike Ayoob, but I do dislike some of the garbage he writes. Such material as is the intended focus of this thread does not benefit us, although he does profit each time he publishes an article where he recites things about light triggers, handloads, etc. Every time, no supporting data, but he does get paid. He writes some good stuff as well and that stuff tends to be supported by real examples, real life events. There is good information in what he writes, but as evidenced by what gets written here at THR and on other gun forums, there is a lot a garbage that he has led people to believe to be factually true and hence valid concerns.

The Luis Alvarez case is a great example of keeping your mouth shut after a shooting. Ayoob has written on this and this is a proper use of information. It is a horrible example for the trigger pull argument as the shooting was deemed to be intentional self defense, not some unintentional discharge as was the charge because the officer stated that the gun went off when he arm was bumped.

I am sure that Ayoob and the others that pass on these unsupported claims are all fine people, some are professionals, and some are 'expert' witnesses, but that doesn't make the claims any more valid. The claims are still unsupported, oft repeated, and hence appear to be myths, unless some of y'all can come up with some real examples to show that they aren't myths but real life and valid concerns.

AND YES, you COULD get sued for just about anything within or without the realm of guns, but the claims Ayoob keeps making about this stuff is still just his fantasy. Aliens could come down from the sky and sue the Democratic party...but that is my fantasy.

 

[ctdonath]

I am sure that Ayoob and the others that pass on these unsupported claims

It's called "professional opinion". Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't disprove the concern that it reasonably could according to someone whose job it is to know and predict such things.

The claims are still unsupported, oft repeated, and hence appear to be myths,

I've been following this issue for years. Pretty much the only people who I've seen "oft repeat" these claims are people who clearly are out to badmouth Ayoob.

AND YES, you COULD get sued for just about anything within or without the realm of guns, but the claims Ayoob keeps making about this stuff is still just his fantasy.

Have YOU actually talked to Ayoob about this? I have, and can confidently observe that you are misrepresenting the issue, as you clearly do not understand what he said.

Ayoob readily admits that issue has not really occurred yet, and that one may reasonably dismiss the issue in favor for the self-defense benefits of handloads and modifications - he just wants people to consider a reasonable legal risk.

Quit blowing it out of proportion until you actually talk to him about it.

 

[grnzbra]

I keep hearing about all these "civil suits" that are the bane of law abiding people who defend themselves. Does anyone have any actuall sources for these suits that include the FINDINGS of the suit including appeals?

Bernie Goetz

 

[Highland Ranger]

This issue is a non-starter and I believe Mr. Ayoob's opinions are being misrepresented.

For a criminal case, self defense is well defined by state law. If you meet self defense criteria, any legal weapon is ok. If you are not involved in a clean shoot, well then you may get into the whole evil handload/hair trigger discussion. I'm not doing the research on the relevant case law, you can do your own research - I'm saying that this sounds REASONABLE; so I'll take Ayoob's advice. Bought my first SD gun based on his advice - an HK USP.

For a civil case, anything goes when you are judged by a jury of your peers.

As a peer, and as such owning a valid opion as does Mr. Ayoob, I'd say that it's again REASONABLE that guy in his PJ's with a 38 says "self defense" and no civil liability Vs Joe Mall Ninja and his Socom says "looking to shoot someone" and get ready to loose your house.

For reference, in his book, "In the Gravest Extreme" I believe it was (haven't read it in a few years) he addresses how to be prepared (weapon selection, mindset et al.) He also addresses why you should practice avoidance because your life will never be the same afterwards and although you may avoid jail, you may also loose your house when the civil trial get's through with you.

So for the criminal issue, shoot clean and keep your mouth shut.

Additionally, for the civil side, leave your Socom in the safe. Wear pajamas.

I don't need case law to recognize reasonable advice.

 

[Jeff Thomas]

With respect, I don't think any of us are interested in doing the legal legwork to justify what we believe is logical. Especially for those of us who have participated in criminal and / or civil trials. Sometimes people are looking for the magic, cut and dried answer to legal issues ... unfortunately, in the real world, black and white legal answers are often tough to find. I've never seen stat's on the point that made a jury rule one way or the other ... although attorneys are always wise to ask (and usually do) following a trial. Happened to me when I was foreman on a jury in a criminal trial.

I'll cast my lot with M1911, Lone_Gunman and ctdonath ... with the observation that whether it's a civil or criminal trial, the jury's mindset is key. Agreed ... the more the defendent appears out of the mainstream, the more risk in their trial.

If any of us has to use a firearm to defend innocent life, we will be at risk because of the ignorant (re: firearms) jury pool available in most venues. Lone_Gunman's examples are apt. Nice thing is ... each of us can choose how to live our lives, and we'll each be responsible for the results.

I've met Ayoob, and taken a class from him. I can see where some may view him as a bit over the top ... but I really don't see the big deal. I've had the honor of meeting Col. Cooper as well, and benefited from many other trainers, as well as experts on this forum and TFL. I've learned a bit from each of them, and I appreciate them all. We'll never know how many innocent, decent people are alive today because of the lessons from such men and women. We don't have to agree with everything these trainers and writers say.

Regards from TX

 

[BigG]

"You have the right to remain silent."

Doublenaught, we have been here before. When Mas hit my radar screen he was trying to break into gunwriting. Unfortunately for him, all the premo spots were taken by the likes of Elmer Keith, Charles Askins, etc. In order for him to get column space he had to have an angle. I don't know whether Mas really is interested in what he says as much as getting that ink published and whatever it pays. So, in my mind, we have the situation of the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" variety. Did Mas become a gunwriter because he had relevant things to say about forensics or did he write about forensics so he could become a gunwriter? I would hazard the latter, but what do I know?

 

[joelr]

Me, I don't dislike Ayoob. I like him. I've met him, and he's a heck of a nice guy, and a terrific speaker. I've read his writings, and occasionally checked his sources, and sometimes found him right -- and sometimes definitely wrong; he's provably mistaken on his claim that the IACP recommends that 72 hours elapse between an officer-involved shooting and an interview. (That's not what they say; the recommendations are online. Check for yourself.)

It's not, or shouldn't be, about Ayoob, but about the issue involved. The theory is that custom modifications and/or handloaded ammo may make a difference in court after a civilian self-defense shooting.

Fair enough. When has it? Alvarez doesn't apply; he was a cop, and what he was accused of doing was, at least supposedly, against department policy. It can be argued, at least in theory, that a cop violating department policy is being irresponsible just because of that.

I'm not a cop. I don't have a department policy to violate. How's that relevant to my situation?

I'd love to see some examples of where this has been an issue in a civilian self-defense shooting, but nobody has been able to point to them.

 

[ctdonath]

It hasn't been a real issue - yet. Ayoob himself admits that.

That doesn't mean it won't be.