Sav .250
Member
Changing ones "home defense" weapon because of what people might think.............Interesting.
Has Anti-Gun Propaganda Made the AR15 a less viable defensive rifle?
- Thread starter CmdrSlander
- Start date
- Status
45_auto
Member
Hard to believe that there are people on here that base their choice on a self-defense weapon on how much it would cost them if they lost it to the police. If a gun saves mine or someone I care about's life, I don't care if it's absolutely destroyed in the next 30 seconds no matter how much it costs.
Was he happy to still have his wife? Did he value his gun more than her?
Was he happy to still have his wife? Did he value his gun more than her?
ThorinNNY
Member
Well, in New York State, you have the choice of either registering your AR 15 in an "assasult weapon" registry set up for the sole purpose,IMHOP, of confiscation at a later date or becoming a felon.
So, to answer the OP`s question, my answer would have to be : YES ,in New York State!
So, to answer the OP`s question, my answer would have to be : YES ,in New York State!
No, the AR15 is not any less viable as a self defense weapon because the antis are trying to demonize it.
If you have just saved your life and/or the life of your loved ones, the last thing you will be worried about is the cost of doing so.
Nice AR15? $1000 to $1500
Still alive? What a relief.
Loved ones still alive? Priceless.
Besides, you'll most likely get it back.
If you have just saved your life and/or the life of your loved ones, the last thing you will be worried about is the cost of doing so.
Nice AR15? $1000 to $1500
Still alive? What a relief.
Loved ones still alive? Priceless.
Besides, you'll most likely get it back.
No, the AR15 is not any less viable as a self defense weapon because the antis are trying to demonize it.
If you have just saved your life and/or the life of your loved ones, the last thing you will be worried about is the cost of doing so.
Nice AR15? $1000 to $1500
Still alive? What a relief.
Loved ones still alive? Priceless.
Besides, you'll most likely get it back.
I agree.
But most people's "nice AR15" will have cost them far more than $1,000. That wouldn't even buy you in to the stock rifle.
If I lost my go-to M4/AR style rifle I'd be out $3,445 (the cost to me to put it together).
That value is inconsequential next to the value of my and my family's safety and security, of course...but if we are going to use numbers they may as well be realistic.
GregGry
Member
These threads are fueled by lack of legal training and use of force training.
One of the biggest oversight many people have with the use of force, is if you shot someone and claimed it was self defense, your whole court case is going to be based on if what you did followed the law of your state for use of force. You are not on trial to find or prove intent! You already claimed you intended on doing what you did by invoking the privledge of self defense! Using a waffle iron to a ak47 is not of a concern if the other person was actually threatening you with something that could cause death or great bodily harm.
What does the weapon you used prove as far as what you did was justifiable based on having met the legal criteria of use of deadly force? All states laws say to invoke privledge of deadly force you must have a threat that a person would reasonably believe would cause death or great bodily harm. There are a few exceptions in some states such as protection of property. Even Zimmerman in flordia is claiming he shot in self defense and not because the kid was "just on his property". Had he said "I shot him because he didnt listen" he would have been convicted already.
Many people have speculated for years about court cases that prove the firearm someone used caused a conviction. However every case ever cited showed nothing that proved it was a issue. Even Harold fish was nothing more then a case where the jury came to the assumption he shot a unarmed man that didnt meet the "capable of causing death or great bodily harm" standard.
One of the biggest oversight many people have with the use of force, is if you shot someone and claimed it was self defense, your whole court case is going to be based on if what you did followed the law of your state for use of force. You are not on trial to find or prove intent! You already claimed you intended on doing what you did by invoking the privledge of self defense! Using a waffle iron to a ak47 is not of a concern if the other person was actually threatening you with something that could cause death or great bodily harm.
What does the weapon you used prove as far as what you did was justifiable based on having met the legal criteria of use of deadly force? All states laws say to invoke privledge of deadly force you must have a threat that a person would reasonably believe would cause death or great bodily harm. There are a few exceptions in some states such as protection of property. Even Zimmerman in flordia is claiming he shot in self defense and not because the kid was "just on his property". Had he said "I shot him because he didnt listen" he would have been convicted already.
Many people have speculated for years about court cases that prove the firearm someone used caused a conviction. However every case ever cited showed nothing that proved it was a issue. Even Harold fish was nothing more then a case where the jury came to the assumption he shot a unarmed man that didnt meet the "capable of causing death or great bodily harm" standard.
kyletx1911
Member
The ar all day, if i live, and they take it. So be it.
I will get another,,
I will get another,,
Unfortunately in the real world it does seem that the tool/weapon used CAN play a factor in determining whether or not you are prosecuted.
At least according to Mas Ayoob.
loneviking
Member
Remember though that a lot of the cases that Mas testified in and his police background are all east coast, New York, Boston and those areas. The laws and political climate are very different out west in places like Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, the Dakotas..etc.
In one of the premier courses in use of force law (MAG-20), the influence of the type of weapon on juries is pointed out.
The investigators and the triers of fact will determine that, but they will base the decision on the totality of what evidence can be gathered after the fact.
True--and the triers of fact will decide whether or not a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, would have believed that the use of deadly force had been immediately necessary.
Absent a 360 degree audiovisual record, the triers of fact will have to form conclusions of what you knew and reasonably believed at the time on the basis of forensic evidence and testimony that may be incomplete and contradictory.
Therein lies the problem.
Indications that you may have been predisposed to use deadly force given the opportunity could help fill in the blanks.
...and if you had no other alternative, and if the totality of the evidence so showed.
Possible indication of mens rea.
Do not forget immediate necessity and whether the defender may have initiated the confrontation.
The type of firearm will never "cause a conviction". However, it is one piece of a likely incomplete collection of evidence.
To conclude that the type of weapon has never entered into the decision process in a trial would require the interviewing of every juror who has ever sat on a homicide trial. That has not been done.
But trials involving claims of self defense are few and far between, and there are more variables than there have been trials. In that kind of situation, experts turn to controlled experiments using jury simulation.
That has been done regarding the potential influence of weapon selection on juries.
Not that that has anything to do with it. Mas does not base his opinion solely on the basis of cases in which he has testified.
Mas did testify in a trial in Arizona in which a man being beaten senseless by multiple assailants used a firearm and was charged, prosecuted, jailed, and tried twice. Different subject altogether, but it does illustrate the following.
It would be a mistake to base any decision on the assumption that either the use of force laws or the prosecutorial climate is necessarily "better" in one part of the country than another. We have seen accounts of some very unsettling prosecutions in Arizona, Florida, and Oklahoma, to cite just a few examples. New York provides a much lower threshold for the use of force on a fleeing felon than does Florida. Both California and Illinois have stronger castle doctrine provisions than does Virginia. And Massachusetts is one of two states that I know of in which evidence about the attacker that was not known to the defender may, under some circumstances, be introduced to support a defense of justification.
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
One thing that folks overlook and Mr. Ayoob points out (both in class and various articles), is being able to articulate your choices in equipment.
Prosecutor: Tell the Jury Mr. Defendant, why you used a deadly assault rifle filled with evil hollow point bullets to shoot Mr. Bad Guy?
Defendant: Well sir, the local Sheriff's Department issues the same rifle and ammunition combination and I trust their choice of equipment.
Or, I used an AR-15 due to the lack of over penetration as I was concerned for me neighbor's safety......
CYA is "Can you articulate or Can you authenticate"......
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=686118&highlight=mag
Prosecutor: Tell the Jury Mr. Defendant, why you used a deadly assault rifle filled with evil hollow point bullets to shoot Mr. Bad Guy?
Defendant: Well sir, the local Sheriff's Department issues the same rifle and ammunition combination and I trust their choice of equipment.
Or, I used an AR-15 due to the lack of over penetration as I was concerned for me neighbor's safety......
CYA is "Can you articulate or Can you authenticate"......
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=686118&highlight=mag
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
Just to re-emphasize what Kleanbore stated, we just recently got a horrible conviction over turned here in South Carolina that our Supreme Court ruled should never have even gone to trial.
Cost the poor guy 5 years of his life in the slammer for a "good shoot" to be ruled as such.
Acelaw
Member
I know there are several attorneys on here - out of curiosity, how many attorneys would let this influence their home defense weapon choice?
Obviously I can be counted in the 'not concerned' category. Just wondering if I'm in the minority among other defense lawyers on here
Obviously I can be counted in the 'not concerned' category. Just wondering if I'm in the minority among other defense lawyers on here
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
Ace, Rob Butler with GrassRootsSC conducted a seminar for Prosecutors a while back and he was shocked at the misinformation those folks had as regards firearms use.
One "gem" I recall was one participants statement that the use of two hands on the firearm was evidence of malice......
One "gem" I recall was one participants statement that the use of two hands on the firearm was evidence of malice......
Acelaw
Member
In my experience, prosecutors aren't really gun people as a rule. They rely on their LE witnesses to explain gun issues. As most here are aware, LE aren't necessarily gun guys either so cross examination can become a target rich environment. ANY defense attorney worth his salt that takes gun cases will have a basic understanding of firearms and/or will consult with experts.
Blackbeard
Member
Actually it's not speculation. There was an experiment done with mock juries hearing a self-defense-or-murder case, where the only facts of the case that varied were the sex of the shooter and the type of weapon used. Juries were more likely to convict and gave longer sentences when the weapon was an AR-15 that if it was a wood-stocked Mini-14. Fascinating study, really. Basically they found that the more scary-looking the gun was, the more likely you are to be convicted of murder.
http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2009/09/will-it-hurt-me-in-court-weapons-issues-and-the-fears-of-the-legally-armed-citizen/
it really depends on the shooting itself.
if you are attacked/invaded in/on your own property, then self-defense is self-defense. Even if the juries and the police would turn their noses up at you for using an AR, it would all be a moot point in any state.
Now, if the shoot was bad or extremely grey, you could have flicked his ear with a BB gun and you're still in a lot of trouble.
For example, if you shot someone with an AR that you retrieved from your truck over a situation that you could have exited (like a yelling contest in public, even if he came at you and hit you, etc.), then that is not the same kind of shooting that may have SD laws apply. Deadly force has to be a clear factor in any defensive shooting.
if you are attacked/invaded in/on your own property, then self-defense is self-defense. Even if the juries and the police would turn their noses up at you for using an AR, it would all be a moot point in any state.
Now, if the shoot was bad or extremely grey, you could have flicked his ear with a BB gun and you're still in a lot of trouble.
For example, if you shot someone with an AR that you retrieved from your truck over a situation that you could have exited (like a yelling contest in public, even if he came at you and hit you, etc.), then that is not the same kind of shooting that may have SD laws apply. Deadly force has to be a clear factor in any defensive shooting.
I am in the not concerned category.
We make our living in the arena. We see thousands of suits filed and see them disposed. A lot of crazy things get said in and out of court. And contrary to the media and common belief, the vast majority of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and jurors are normal and intelligent people. Cases with no merit are often dismissed or zeroed out in trial. Of course, exceptions happen. But that is true with everything in life.
Another thing. There are thousands of cases involving firearms that Mas Ayoob is not involved in. I've seen a self defense case where the shooter used a semi auto AK type rifle. He wasn't even charged because it was deemed self defense by the prosecutor.
As has been said, it all boils down to the threat being posed by the bad guy. If you shoot someone who is unarmed, then it wont matter how PC your gun appears. You will likely be charged.
We make our living in the arena. We see thousands of suits filed and see them disposed. A lot of crazy things get said in and out of court. And contrary to the media and common belief, the vast majority of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and jurors are normal and intelligent people. Cases with no merit are often dismissed or zeroed out in trial. Of course, exceptions happen. But that is true with everything in life.
Another thing. There are thousands of cases involving firearms that Mas Ayoob is not involved in. I've seen a self defense case where the shooter used a semi auto AK type rifle. He wasn't even charged because it was deemed self defense by the prosecutor.
As has been said, it all boils down to the threat being posed by the bad guy. If you shoot someone who is unarmed, then it wont matter how PC your gun appears. You will likely be charged.
If you are attacked in your domicile and defend yourself by using deadly force, you are presumed, in most states, to have acted in lawful self defense. In some states, forcible entry or an attempt at same may be required for that presumption to exist. In some states, that presumption may extend to your occupied automobile, and in some, to your place of business.
That presumption is rebuttable.
You lawfully defend yourself, if is immediately necessary, in states in which no such presumption is provided. The evidentiary burden will be different.
In states in which the castle doctrine specifies that the presumption exists only when an unlawful entry has been made with force, a defender may nonetheless be justified in the use of deadly force, if such force had been immediately necessary, even if no forcible entry had occurred. The evidentiary burden is different.
In all states, you may lawfully defend yourself when it is immediately necessary anywhere you have a legal right to be, though in some jurisdictions you may be obligated to retreat if safe retreat is possible.
The aforementioned provisions do not apply if the actor had entered into mutual combat, or had instigated the altercation that led to the use of force and had not made clear his intention to disengage.
The use of force laws do not distinguish between actions that occur out doors "on your own property" and those that take place on the town square or in a parking lot.
And yes, "self defense is self defense"--unless the state is able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was not lawfully justified.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
One thing that probably should be added as a coda to almost every thread on self-defense issues is this:
Avail yourself of good education into how self-defense law REALLY works, buy yourself a professional understanding of your state's specific laws on the subject, and then resolve to act in as conservative and restricted a way as you can without forfeiting your own life or that of your loved ones. If you only draw a weapon and shoot when you absolutely MUST in order to keep on living, these other concerns become significantly less important.
Avail yourself of good education into how self-defense law REALLY works, buy yourself a professional understanding of your state's specific laws on the subject, and then resolve to act in as conservative and restricted a way as you can without forfeiting your own life or that of your loved ones. If you only draw a weapon and shoot when you absolutely MUST in order to keep on living, these other concerns become significantly less important.
I agree with the other that are saying the AR-15 is more widely accepted, and mainstream now. Twenty years ago, even I considered the AR-15 something of a novelty. I remember looking at one in a gun shop with a friend and I asked the question "what are you going to do with that?"
A few years later, I bought one and realized how much fun they were to shoot. I think a lot of people have realized this fact.
A few years later, I bought one and realized how much fun they were to shoot. I think a lot of people have realized this fact.
GregGry
Member
Provide court cases that show evidence to suggest that the firearm used played a role in a conviction. In the often cited Harold fish case he shot a unarmed man, and only found out about a screwdriver incident after the fact. The screw driver was omitted from evidence due to Harold not having personal knowledge of the the instrument.
If you are suggesting that a firearm choice could be used to suggest a premeditated murder that was planned to be done in a way to suggest self defense, yes the fact a firearm was used could play a viable roll. However in such a situation that would suggest this (i am thinking oscar pistorius had it happened in this country) there are a lot bigger things to worry about then is my gun common to the general public. I have went through all the court cases that people have submitted on here in the last few years, and not a single one has enough evidence to suggest that you are at a increased liability of being found guilty of murder by using one gun or another. Sure looking for such evidence is a slippery slope since it is true true we don't have jurors opinions and we weren't there. However absent of a miss trial (blatant screw ups of the justice system) I have never seen a case that could be cited. MA has talked about it, but I have never seen the cases he talked about. He has said a lot over the years that has been taken and turned into policies and use of force for police departments. However a lot of this comes from liability and effectiveness of the use of force.
The biggest risk for a gun owner in use of deadly force is to be ignorant of their states laws. To have no training on the use of force from a legal perspective as well. Nit picking over what guns you used, and what ammo you used to make sure it's the same stuff the local cops use is not going to keep you from a significant error in the use of force. Significant errors in the use of deadly force will get you convicted.
To my knowledge there has never been one case ever citing the use of reloaded ammo either. Yet MA says don't use it because it can be used against you. He is a very knowledgable person, but many of his opinions have no backup from a actual case basis.
Anything can and will be used against you if your case goes to trial. You can turn anything from the fact you used a 22lr in a effort to hide the gunshots from the neighbors, to the light trigger on your ar15 was ment to make it easy to shoot 3 rounds into a person. The reality is it comes down to were you justified in using deadly force. That law says what it takes to invoke the privilege of self defense. If the key factors are there (person had the ability, and intent) to cause great bodily harm or death to you, your defense will be successful. If those are there and you combat it with deadly force to stop the threat you are presumed to be lawful. 100% of all cases I have seen posted (dealing with trials over the use of deadly force that suggest significant roles are played by the tools used) are grey area cases such as shooting unarmed people, or situations that the person had other options. Such situations are very bad to have to defend in court (think Zimmerman) and the least of your worries is what bullets were loaded in your hi cap gun.
But there was. It wasn't a self defense case, but there was a case where the precedent set was that ammunition/evidence literally manufactured by the defendant may not be admissible. If, for example, the distance of your attacker from your/your firearm at the time of the shooting is in contention, the use of reloaded ammunition could hurt you, going by that case as an example. Or so the argument goes.
GregGry
Member
Also the fact you bought a gun and have a ccw could be used against you to suggest you were a vigilante. In the grand scheme of things what do you think could say jurors opinion of you more, a person on trial for using a firearm they ccwed or the fact you used a common semi auto rifle like a ar15 to defend your home? The what if games are fun to play all day , but they don't substitute actual evidence.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked