This is true. People that are on the fence when it comes to making a decision need only to hear one thing that will topple then over. My wife for example was listening to CNN on a certain topic and suddenly started ranting. I than told her to watch Fox News and she got to hear a different angle on the same topic, she went back to being on the fence. People will believe what they going to believe .
Defending yourself with anything more than 9mm: Go to jail
- Thread starter Corpral_Agarn
- Start date
- Status
This is true. People that are on the fence when it comes to making a decision need only to hear one thing that will topple then over. My wife for example was listening to CNN on a certain topic and suddenly started ranting. I than told her to watch Fox News and she got to hear a different angle on the same topic, she went back to being on the fence. People will believe what they going to believe .
WestKentucky
Member
Use more than (insert caliber) and it’s a premeditated desire to kill. Use less than (insert caliber) and it’s a premeditated desire to pump more bullets into a guy. Use (insert caliber) and your copying law enforcement or military groups who have been known to kill people shooting them with said caliber, so your trying to imitate law enforcement because they got away with it and you think you can too. Spray the guy raping and murdering your children with the vegetable sprayer from your sink and if he drowns then I’m sure you intended that too
buddyd157
Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2020
- Messages
- 454
it has not been mentioned, but the "what if" might apply here.
like, "what if" you have a 9 MM and the thug is jacked up on meth, or whatever. he keeps coming at you, so you keep shooting, to end that threat.
"what if" you have maybe a .45 ACP, or .50, or 44 mag, and it still takes more than one shot to end the threat?
still over-kill in weapons used?
like, "what if" you have a 9 MM and the thug is jacked up on meth, or whatever. he keeps coming at you, so you keep shooting, to end that threat.
"what if" you have maybe a .45 ACP, or .50, or 44 mag, and it still takes more than one shot to end the threat?
still over-kill in weapons used?
RickD427
Member
There's a real danger in trying to win the "What If?" game. That's because there is no identifiable avenue of conduct that will escape scrutiny. My agency had to defend a great many shooting cases where the deputy's level of training was argued to be deficient. Our sister agency is now defending a lawsuit where an officer, who was a competitive shooter, is alleged to have been pre-disposed to shooting because of her high level of training. If you don't train - that's bad. If you do train - that's bad. See where I'm going with this?
The best answer isn't to try to outsmart the future plaintiff's attorney. It's to conduct your affairs in the most responsible and defensible manner that you reasonably can. Then you have to count on making a clear explanation of your actions in the civil case.
The system isn't perfect. The Harold Fish case being a good example. But your best chances are when you follow the best practices.
Last edited:
1942bull
Member
Prosecutors advance by getting convictions. Accordingly, those prosecutors who ignore the concept of justice will attempt to fabricate any argument that will help them get a conviction. The reality is that caliber has nothing to do with intent to defend oneself. If the gun is legal it makes no difference what the caliber in it was. Any decent defense attorney would shred to pieces the prosecutorial notion that intent can be asked in whole or part by the caliber of a bullet.
I should hope so.
danez71
Member
I'll try to clarify where this stuff gets started....
It's posts like this one... and then not taking into consideration the input from people such you and GEM.
Predictably, you missed the point. Saying, "...If a shooting is ruled justified, it probably doesn't matter." Is meaningless because what was used to defend oneself can influence the thinking of those who will be the ones ruling if the shooting was justified.
In other words you don't understand how things work in a trial.
A trial is an adversarial proceeding. Each side has an ethical and professional obligation to, within the framework of the applicable rules, zealously and vigorously represent the interests of his client. And therefore:
- The lawyer on each side of a dispute has an incentive and professional obligation to put forth, consistent with the applicable ethical standards, and the applicable rules of evidence and procedure, every fact that will be helpful to his side's interests.
- The lawyer on each side of a dispute has an incentive and professional obligation to argue, consistent with the applicable ethical standards, and the applicable rules of procedure, the law as most favorable to his side's interests.
- The lawyer on each side of a dispute has an incentive and professional obligation to challenge, consistent with the applicable ethical standards, and the applicable rules of evidence and procedure, the other side if he thinks that the other side has overstepped the rules or if he thinks the evidence put forth by the other side is not credible.
- The judge is there to rule on disputed matters of law and generally see that the rules of evidence and procedure are followed.
- Thus the adversarial system encourages that all facts material to the deciding of the dispute get out on the table.
- As far as honesty and integrity goes, in every State, in order to practice law, a lawyer must adhere to rules of professional responsibility and ethics enforced by the courts and/or the State Bar Association.
- Lawyers who don't operate in accordance with the rules can lose the right to practice law (either temporarily or permanently). They can thus lose their livelihood.
- Lawyers work long and hard to earn the right to practice law and to build their careers and professional reputation.
- The practice of law is highly competitive (and lawyer by their nature are competitive). It is not in our interests to have other lawyers getting away with ethical or professional violations.
- Just for an example, the June, 2013, edition of The Journal of the California State Bar lists 16 now former lawyers who have been disbarred and 17 lawyers placed on suspension or probation.
- Lawyers who don't operate in accordance with the rules can lose the right to practice law (either temporarily or permanently). They can thus lose their livelihood.
That of course will be the defense argument. Could a prosecutor find in a particular case evidence upon which to base a counter argument? Maybe yes, or maybe no.
The point of all this to not take things for granted. Don't fall in love with your assumptions. The unexpected and the inconvenient happen all the time.
And again, this should not lead one to the conclusion that he should choose a "mouse gun" or FMJ ammunition or something else that might compromise his effectiveness defending against a violent attack. Rather he should recognize that he might need to be able to articulate why he made certain choices.
earlthegoat2
Member
Maybe or maybe not relevant since the source is not a lawyer but Paul Harrell also has an opinion on that. It in the “Why I don’t like hyper ammo” video.
Whether a defense attorney will shred an argument is an empirical question. That’s why in major cases specialist firms run intensive simulations and focus groups to test their ‘shredding’.
Some studies indicate that the sheer presence of an item influences the jury.
Some studies indicate that the sheer presence of an item influences the jury.
Some off topic posts have been deleted, and I think we’ve squeezed this lemon dry.
- Status