Posted by GregGry: Every case that I have seen posted where people use it as evidence to show what firearm a person used could sway a jury, are cases where individuals shot a unarmed person or something similar.
I have not looked at any cases to draw a conclusion. I put a lot of stock in Dr. Meyer's controlled experiments. And so should any qualified defense attorney.
([In response to "There have been very few cases in which claims of self defense have been raised as justification in homicide trials; there have been convictions in fewer yet; and the circumstances in those vary and are not written about."]): Unless I am misreading this your suggesting if a gun owner used a gun to stop someone, that they wouldn't be claiming self defense during their trial?
No. He may or may not have a basis for doing so.
First, there aren't that many gun use incidents in which an actor claims self defense in the first place; in a fair number of those in which that does happen, the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate justification at the investigation stage, and there are no trials; when there are trials, the defendants are often acquitted, though it may well be a lengthy and costly process; and finally, one cannot Google the cyberspace to find out the reasons for the verdicts.
What do you think a person is on trial for if their "shoot" makes it to court? They are on trial for homicide or attempted homicide, because the legal system viewed that case (like Harold fish) as not having enough evidence to suggest legal use of deadly force. Using deadly force against someone in a illegal manner is called homicide or attempted homicide.
They are on trial for murder of some kind, manslaughter, unlawfully injuring someone, or the negligent use of deadly force. "Homicide" is defined as the killing of a human being; it may or may not be lawfully justified.
You are correct that an actor's inability to produce sufficient evidence of justification can lead to charges and a trial.
If a use of force case makes it to court there is more then likely significant issues such as shooting unarmed individual. In most cases a situation outside of the home where a individual shoots a person that they said didnt have a clear cut knife or gun, there should be a trial (absent of significant disparity of force). In most states you can't shoot a individual unless they are capable of causing you death or great bodily harm and they have the intent to do so. Again your overlooking the fact that the grey area situations like shooting a unarmed person will be looked down by your average individual regardless of what gun is used.
Not at all.
You are correct in saying that the lack of a weapon makes it more difficult to prove that an assailant had the ability to seriously harm a defender. The disparity of force defense is often a difficult one. But you are incorrect in saying "you can't shoot a individual unless they are capable of causing you death or great bodily harm and they have the intent to do so"; it is a matter of what the actor
reasonably believed, and a furtive movement by an assailant can combine with other evidence to provide a reason for the belief that an asssailant was in fact armed.
But that is only one of many reasons that a defense of justification may be difficult. Eyewitnesses may have seen only part of the incident. They may claim that the assailant was farther away than he ws and that he did not pose an imminent threat. They may believe that the defender provoked the incident. There may be indications of an earlier dispute among the parties.
That's where the lack of admissible evidence, or an item of unfavorable evidence, can come into play. In one famous case in which three persons were overpowering a defender (a clear case of disparity of force), the training material that had been used in the defendant's self defense class were used with great effect by the prosecution in trying to establish state of mind, and that had nothing at all to do with what happened on the street.
[(In response to "The rules of admissibility mitigate against the admission of GSR pattern evidence from exemplar rounds, unless the ammunition used was manufactured by someone other than a party to a trial; the manufacturing and inspection records were prepared by someone other than a party to a trial; and those records were securely stored and maintained by someone else, also. Reloads do not meet those criteria."])
Where is the precedent that says this?
Frye v. United States and
Daubert v Merrell Dow.
I would not waste the time trying to get from the highly scientific and legalistic wording in those cases to the words I have used. There is a large body of literature on the subject, and one has to have a fairly extensive knowledge of manufacturing and quality systems.
By the way, I have spent more hours in formal classroom discussion of
Daubert alone than most lawyers have spent on the subject of self defense law.
Of course, that is not true for those who have attended MAG-20.
Some states use
Frye rules; others use
Daubert; others use their own. In some states, one set of rules is used in criminal courts and another in civil cases. But you asked for
precedent.
The key thing in self defense is to actually know how to defend yourself in court.
The key thing in self defense is to avoid touble in the first place. Failing that, make sure you can produce the necessary evidence. And do not have any baggage that can be used against you.
Same thing when it comes to use of force, having training records to back you up will add significant credibility that what you did was reasonable, much more so then having a "common gun with factory ammo".
As long as the training records are good ones.
I strongly suggest that you look into attending MAG-20.
