Best shotgun stock to put in front of a jury?

[Lichter]

If you ended up being prosecuted, the DA would demonize the gun reguardless of the stock.

As for juror perception, I'd pick the least menacing looking one, the wooden stock.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

If the only thing between a conviction or not is the color of your gun I have to wonder how much doubt the jury has in your "reasonable use of force".

If it is a good shoot it should not make it past the Grand Jury. If the only thing that kept you out of jail was yellow gun then I have to think you committed homicide and got away with it.

More importantly instead of wondering about the color of your stock urge your state to pass a "Castle Doctrine Bill" that covers the 5 major points:
1) You have no duty to back down or run away
2) Anyone entering your home unlawfully is assumed to have intent to do you harm and lethal force can be used without further determination of intent.
3) Any use of force in situation #2 is presumed to be because shooter reasonably feared for his/her life, personal safety or safety of another person.
4) Any person in such situation can not be prosecuted.
5) Any person in such situation is immune to civil liability.

 

[gym]

Lets assume that the only state that a yellow shotgun is sold would have to be California. Leading questions should never be answered, if you don't already own a gun, of some kind, and you are already worrying about how it's going to look if you shoot someone. Just think how it will look to the jury after they show this evidence in court.

 

[barfer]

Thank you all for your responses and votes. It seems abundantly clear that wood furniture is the way to go.

I agree with the notion that this "shouldn't matter" as a factor in the post-shoot analysis. But what "should be" and "what is" are often very different.

All of us on this board are thinking about the 1% "what-if" situations--what if there is a break in, what if there is a fire, what if this, what if that--and we plan for those "what ifs."

To ignore planning for what happens "after the shoot" is just plain unwise. Especially in California, where our average jury will not be made up of the same type of people who frequent this page. I will continue to plan for that last 1% of unlikely problems, because that is what we're all doing, right?

As for the post on Castle Doctrine, I'm not going to let this thread perpetuate more internet misinformation from some wannabe lawyer. Every California gun owner should be familiar with California's Castle Doctrine (yes, we have one). It is explained very well in California's own Department of Justice pamphlet starting on page 27, link attached for your reference.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

 

[Smith]

Definitely not the yellow, because that could give away your position. That aside, I would chose the wood stock over the black because it looks more like a "I use this for hunting, but I needed to defend my family with it" shotgun. I don't know if it would make any difference really, though.

Edit: Thanks for posting that link!

 

[misANTHrope]

If I had to pick, I'd go with the wood, but not by any clear margin. As has been said, synthetic stocks are pretty common these days, and not really indicative of anything.

I agree that the type of shotgun would be more likely to have an effect. On the one hand, you've got a guy who blasted a burglar with a Franchi over/under. On the other hand, you've got a guy who was toting a SPAS-12, or some other short-barrel tacticool shotty. I tend to think that that difference is more likely to make an impression upon a jury.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Wood stock. It would probably say "Duck hunting" most to those that aren't familiar with guns. Second choice: 8" Tromix Saiga 12...in full auto Lean into it
I agree that with a good shoot it shouldn't matter and a good attorney should be able to deflect any bloodlust accusations, but it still wouldn't be fun to be a test case when your freedom is on the line.

 

[ragtopdog]

just shoot first, ask questions later
dead men tell no tells

 

[Bobo]

Any bright colored plastic will look more toy-like and less scary than black or even wood to most people not familiar with guns.

Personally, I would prefer a black synthetic stock for its utility. I wouldn't be very concerned about a jury.

Bobo

 

[CannonFodder]

Here's my opinion. Remember, I am not a lawyer, and more importantly, I am not YOUR lawyer.

It really shouldn't matter.

If at any time during a trial you hear the prosecution talking about the color of the stock on your shotgun, things have either gone very well for you or very badly. They either have you dead to rights and they're just looking to ensure sentencing, or they're grasping at straws and this is their last ditch attempt at making something stick.

Of all the pieces of evidence that they can bring before the jury, this is so circumstantial that they'll exercise all other options before going for it.

So, yeah. If the prosecutor is talking about your choice of gun stock, then you're either going home free that night, or you should surely hope that the plea bargain is still being offered.

 

[ArmedBear]

I think you should move upscale a bit. This is a fine example of what one ought to use for home defense.

 

[Golden Hound]

Then you'll look like an evil spoiled rich guy who shot the poor, poor burglar who was just trying to steal a loaf of bread to feed his family.

 

[Zoogster]

Wel, the grand jury will usually render a "no bill" or "no true bill", if it even makes it that far, in what we term a "good shoot," meaning, the shooter was in immediate fear for their life or the lives of their family at the hands of the shootee.

Those are just some of the potential situations, well except on the internet, then they are the primary ones.

There is a great possibility that a threat you will face in life is someone that is known to you. Whether associate, employee/co-worker, friend, ex lover or someone acting on thier behalf, neighbor or neighbor's kids, etc Basicly someone that you are around in life, and as a result have had the opportunity to at least meet. There is a greater chance of a stranger in some locations, or living some lifestyles, but most people do not fit those circumstances.

Most situations where a person defends themselves against someone they know will be suspicious to detectives. They will look for motive to murder, and they may actualy find one, or even a few, even if it really was self defense (some motives you don't even realize exist.) Bottom line is if someone knows someone else and has any relationship whatsoever a motive for murder can be created. That clouds up the whole clear self defense thing.

The total stranger that breaks into your home, robs a store, or tries to carjack someone, poses a lethal threat and is dispatched are the 'ideal' use of deadly force situations, and why they are posted on the net and passed around.
When the indviduals involved are known to eachother the press story is usualy that it was a murder, or just a shooting, or is not even reported on, and it only becomes clear it was self defense months later, long after it has lost its press appeal and is a current story of something that just happened.

To expect a no bill in a self defense case, with circumstances you cannot forsee is setting yourself up for failure.
Does that mean you should use something less likely to allow you to even make it before the jury, or restrict yourself as a free person for the tiny possibility of what may but probably will not happen?
Well that is up to you.
That is why being an American is so great, you get a lot of individual choices and others have not predetermined what is acceptable or most suitable for you in advance.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

As for the post on Castle Doctrine, I'm not going to let this thread perpetuate more internet misinformation from some wannabe lawyer. Every California gun owner should be familiar with California's Castle Doctrine (yes, we have one). It is explained very well in California's own Department of Justice pamphlet starting on page 27, link attached for your reference.

Castle Doctrine isn't a magic get out of jail free card. My comments on castle doctrine included the 5 tenants that make a STRONG self defense statute.

The self defense statutes in CA are extremely weak. First the term "Castle Doctrine" appears nowhere in CA statutes. Lets forget the whole term CD and just look at self defense statutes comparing a state (FL) with strong self defense rights (very low chance of prosecution) with CA (vauge self defense rights).

FLORIDA

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

776.032
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, [... exceptions for force against LEO]. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

CALIFORNIA

A person may defend his or her home against anyone who attempts to enter in a violent manner intending violence to any person in the home. The amount of force that may be used in resisting such entry is limited to that which would appear necessary to a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances to resist the violent entry. One is not bound to retreat, even though a retreat might safely be made. One may resist force with force, increasing it in proportion to the intruder’s persistence and violence, if the circumstances apparent to the occupant would cause a reasonable person in the same or similar situation to fear for his or her safety.

The occupant may use a firearm when resisting the intruder’s attempt to commit a forcible and life threatening crime against anyone in the home provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the intruder intends to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there is imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the occupant acts under the belief that use of a firearm is necessary to save himself or herself or another from death or great bodily injury.

So looking at the two states three things should instantly become clear.
1) In FL you are PRESUMED to be have reasonable fear if someone breaks in. You don't need to determine their intentions. You don't need to rely on what a "reasonable person" believes is acceptable force. Pure and simple. Someone breaks into your house a) you are presumed to be in fear of imminent danger (even if you are not) and b)the person breaking in is PRESUMED to have the intent of violence (even if they are not).

2) In FL you can't even be detained if you abide by the statues. Which in terms of home invasion PRESUME you to be compliant and PRESUMES the intruder to have intent to commit a crime. It would take a substantial set of circumstances to even be detained in FL (i.e investigation determines you lured the defendant to your house to execute him).

3) In CA you have NO protection from detainment, or prosecution. More worrisome you entire defense rests on what "a reasonable person would consider". What if the DA reasonably considers a firearm was not an acceptable level of force? What if the jury reasonably considers that the intruder did not intent to commit a life threatening crime?

To say a state has "castle doctrine" (a term which has no legal basis simply because virtually every state has SD statues differently) so you are protected is like saying all firearms will make all people safe in all circumstances.

Not all states laws on self defense are created equal. Like it or not the laws in CA are not only weak they and subject to interpretation. What a DA who is member of NRA, has a carry permit, carries daily, and practices self defense shooting at range monthly thinks is "reasonable" is very different from what a DA who is member of Brady Campaign, believes all guns are evil, had a friend killed by handguns and is physically sickened at the mere sight of a gun thinks is "reasonable".

The entire defense if CA comes down to the word "reasonable" which in itself is weak.

Rather than worrying about the color of the stock (which likely will not be allowed into evidence by any competent counsel) your time would be better spent working with a lobbying group to chance CA self defense laws to include stronger language like FL that actually provides some real protection rather than being based on what is "reasonable" for 12 people in a box who likely have never been in a life & death situation.

For the record VA has no "castle doctrine" in place. However I would rather wait a few years and get laws on the books with real meat like FL has than end up with a paper dragon of protection that CA has.

 

[barfer]

HappinessBeatleWarmGun: Please don't hijack my thread. This thread has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine. Please start a new thread if you want to debate/explore/otherwise verbally masturbate about the Castle Doctrine. I already went to lawschool once--I'm not anxious to dive into more amateur law blather.

Thanks,

Barfer

 

[jakemccoy]

You guys are all potential jurors. I'm taking notes and taking into consideration where this poll is taken.

By the way, the actual poll question is different than the thread title. That discrepancy has probably skewed the poll results a bit. The actual question of the poll explains why some folks chose black. I have not yet seen an explanation as to why black would look better in front of a jury. Also, we have to account for a certain percentage of trolls.

 

[Prince Yamato]

It's largely irrelevant. You could shoot them with a machinegun in self-defense and again, if it's self-defense and it's unquestionably justifiable, you won't be going to jail. Personally, I'd want the scariest damn looking gun I had to be at my disposal. I'd hope that maybe it would scare the person away and I wouldn't have to shoot, but if I did, well, my life was threatened and it was justified. I honestly don't understand the hullabaloo about what the gun looks like. For all the fear mongering about anti-laden juries, how often has this been encountered?

If questioned, I would simply tell the truth. Except for in a couple states, there are very few laws saying that you can't have a scary looking weapon.

 

[Happiness Is A Warm Gun]

HappinessBeatleWarmGun: Please don't hijack my thread. This thread has nothing to do with Castle Doctrine. Please start a new thread if you want to debate/explore/otherwise verbally masterbate about the Castle Doctrine. I already went to lawschool once--I'm not anxious to dive into more amateur law blather.

The color of the stock has absolutely no bearing on the case what so ever.

Based on the CA statute in order to sustain an indictment the DA would have to show your level of force wasn't "necessary for a reasonable person in a similar situation".

If you ever find yourself being judged by 12 it was either another detail in the scenario or the statutes being open to interperation that put you there.

Worrying about the color of the weapon would be like committing a triple homicide and then worrying if you stay at the crime scene they might charge your for loitering also.

If you can't get the connection that since law is weak in CA you MAY end up being prosecuted (regardless of the color of the stock) because the DA believes your level of force was unreasonable then fine.

If you are in front of a jury it is because the DA presented some sort of evidence that indicates (in CA) that your actions were not "reasonable". That is the only way you get there.

So there are three scenarios
1) The police & DA determine you actions are reasonable = no bill from grand jury.
2) Your actions are proven to be unreasonable based on some other factor = conviction.
3) The DA argues your actions are unreasonable based on the color of your weapon.

In #1 it doesn't matter what color your weapon is. If either police/DA/judge/jury think your actions are reasonable then you are not going to be convicted.
In #2 it also doesn't matter what color you weapon is. If police/DA/judge/jury think your actions are unreasonable then you are going to be convicted.
In #3 if the only fact sustaining the indictment is the color of your weapon don't you think your counsel is going to file a motion to dismiss? Since you are a "law student" don't you think a judge would grant a motion to dismiss if the only evidence to you being "unreasonable" is the color of your stock.

My answer to your poll is the color of the weapon doesn't matter. The bigger issue is that you live in a state where the entire decision on if you will or will not be charged/prosecuted/convicted rests on the single word "reasonable". If that does concern you then lobby to change it. If it doesn't concern you then bug the yellow gun and hope for the best.

 

[mljdeckard]

I'm racking my brain trying to imagine circumstances where I would be convicted because I have a synthetic stock, as opposed to wood. Where I'm from, synthetic stocks are not at all out of the ordinary.

 

[Guns and more]

If I were on the jury I'd feel like the wood stock was a "normal" shotgun. Not one You purchased for the purpose of killing someone. I think that's how most citizens would feel. Forget that I have a Mossy 500 with the pistol grip, a side saddle, and a LED light in the safe. I'd never make it to the jury.

 

[prefetch]

interesting legal issues warmgun, and you are probably technically/legally correct (then again, i'm not an attorney, and neither are you) but i do think it's naive to think that being technically correct is the only thing that matters in our legal system.

all i know is that perception is reality, and i don't have a lot faith in the jury system, so yeah, i think if you are involved in something with an "evil black assault rifle" then what the jury thinks about your weapon matters - even if you technically didn't do anything against the law.

remember the gary fadden incident? "Politically incorrect "assault weapons" make politically incorrect defendants."

so does a shotgun stock color make a difference? technically, legally, no.
but does it make a difference in perception? common sense says yes, and based on this poll, it seems like most people on THR think so too.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Hairless, If you're standing there with a shotgun in your hand and a dead BG on the floor, what in the he** do you mean " It's not your lucky day?" Would you feel lucky if the positions were reversed? If it were me, I'd be buying lottery tickets, because I COULD, and HE COULDN'T.If you survive a shootout things aren't exactly going against you.Nobody WANTS to shoot someone, but I don't want someone to shoot me more. If I have to shoot, I'll try my best to be right, but I'll be alive to defend my actions. That's the entire premise of SELF DEFENSE.

Thanks. I guessed at the meaning of the words "self defense" and it turns out that I was pretty close. As soon as I figured out "defense" had nothing to do with a reference to that wood thing somebody is always asking me to paint I had it made. But I appreciate your lecture anyway.

I was responding to someone who quoted that famous saying emblazoned on the nighties of every redblooded macho guy in every redblooded macho gun forum: "A good shoot is a good shoot."

The thing about that statement is that it's a judgment made by one or more other people after the fact of the shoot. I doubt that anyone here would try to do anything other than "a good shoot." But it's not the shooter who determines whether he did a bad shoot, a good shoot, an indifferent shoot, or merely a passable shoot.

I'm aware that my transmissions are not being received clearly by your antenna so I'll give a simple example.

There you are, with your tacticool shottie dripping with so many accessories that it droops to the living room floor. Suddenly you hear a noise outside. You manipulate the shotty's pistol grip so you can make it to the door. You fling it open and there in front of you is your worst nightmare: your girlfriend's baby's grandpa once removed. He screams "You ruined my little girl and I'ma gonna getcha!" and runs right at you with a butcher knife flashing. You ignore the flashing butcher knife, although you think it's peculiarly attractive and would love to get one to complement your outfit, and fire four slugs and a round of #00 buck into the murderous elder who was intent on taking your life.

He falls to the ground, dead. You plant your right foot on his chest, wave your shotarooni above your head in the traditional gesture of victory, thump your chest with your other hand, and shout "It was a good shoot! Verily, I have laid low the varlet! Drinks are on the house!"

When suddenly the police arrive after having been called by the neighbor who has always hated your guts and reported to them that she saw you murder a helpless old man and plant a knife on him. Her statement is supported by the troupe of Mongolian hairdressers she has been stowing under her bed until Christmas and her ambidextrous cousin who she called to come help her put you under the jail. The rest of the neighborhood assembles to join the fun of telling wierd stories about having seen it all. And it turns out that you ran over the District Attorney's cat a few years before, an tragedy which he has vowed to avenge.

But you, I take it, shrug modestly and invite the responding officers to a celebration for your good shoot. And those cops, in whatever version of the real world in which the innocent always are cheered and never have anything bad happen to them, say "Yea, dude, you done good. Where's the X-Box?" And so the story ends.

Meanwhile, back on the Earth variant in which there are neither pixies nor pixels, everybody who knows me will tell you that I am a wimp. I would prefer not to shoot anyone at all. That's why I say--and continue to say--that any day on which one is forced to shoot someone is not a good day. Interesting that there are people who don't agree. It's one of the many oddities that makes me special, I guess. (If you're interested in the others, ask me nicely and I might do the entire Nibelungenlied on my Sistercian nose flute with only one breath. My breaths are often admired.)

 

[barfer]

Hairless that was so funny I didn't mind that it had nothing to do with the thread.

HappyWarmGun, please control yourself on this thread & go start a new thread on activism and law somewhere else if you can't stop talking about it. You think the stock doesn't matter--I get it. You said that already. Please stop saying it over and over again. Please. Please. Please.

Sorry if I'm extremely grumpy on this subject, but I've been practicing law since last century, so I know a little about CA law and am seriously tired of arguing, thinking, or hearing about it and I am especially tired of clearing up misinformation spread by non-lawyers. By the way, I generally hate lawyers as well, if it makes you feel any better.

I have a black belt in law and am qualified to tell you that in "real life" the black letter law usually goes out the window and appearances and arguments take over. A legal battle becomes an ugly mess of truth, rumors, legends and lies and every goshdamn detail can be used to crucify you.

 

[yeti]

ask me nicely and I might do the entire Nibelungenlied on my Sistercian nose flute with only one breath. My breaths are often admired

Sorry, if you are not going to do Wagner's ENTIRE Ring Cycle on one breath, I will not be impressed.

 

[jakemccoy]

Actually, barfer, that was funny and with some good points too, even though you'd probably hate me.