Interesting article on lethal force

[herrwalther]

I agree with you on the "Punisher" grips. They would paint him as a vigilante "Punisher" out to get who he thinks is bad.

The same would be akin to an individual who had a Waffen-SS marked luger with Totenkopf (skull and crossbones) SS ruins and eagle and swastika and decided to carry it.

Could you imagine what you would go through if you shot someone with that in defense, and your assailent happened to be African American or Jewish? (Or a white guy they will say has "Jewish ancestors")

Yeah, you're pretty much screwed.

I don't. I see nothing wrong with putting designs on firearms for personal taste. And I doubt the grips or whatever bells and whistles someone has put on their firearm has done ill for someone in a self defense shooting. Just look at all the companies that make 1911 grips with Grim Reapers or the back slide plates on Glocks for zombies, skull and crossbones etc. I doubt all these companies would be popular if having a grim reaper grip separated justified shooting from non justified shooting.

 

[alsaqr]

The judge in the Fish case would not allow discussion of the perps previous bad behavior.

Gary Fadden used an NFA weapon to defend himself. Fadden was not aware the selector was set for rock and roll. The perp kept coming after Fadden fired a warning burst: He was stopped by a subsequent six round burst. Fadden was charged with first degree murder by an overzealous VA prosecutor.

Fadden was found not guilty.

On the stand, Papa Zoot and the woman had testified that Gary had tried to run their biker brother off the road, and they had just followed 22 miles to get his license tag. Defense lawyer Treanor took them apart on cross-examination. An undercover detective broke his cover to testify that the deceased and Papa Zoot “put a bomb in my car. They like to rough people up.” The prosecutor made such a show of waving the machine gun that the judge made a point of instructing the jury that the death weapon had nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the shooting was self-defense. The jury learned that Gary purchased the AC-556 personally and that it was perfectly legal to possess the weapon.

At the end, when it was announced that the jury had found Gary Fadden Not Guilty on all counts, Fadden recalls that the self-same prosecutor snapped–in open court, in front of Gary’s mother–”‘You’ve let a murderer loose!”

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................


Later identified as belonging to one of the “big four” outlaw motorcycle clubs, Too Loose and Papa Zoot were members of an armed subculture themselves. They did not fear guns. Zoot was about 6’4″ and 240 himself, and neither man feared big guys dressed like something off the cover of an L.L. Bean catalog.
....................................................................................................................

Gary Fadden sums it up today, “The mouse had run, and the cat was loose. Physical size was no deterrent. The gun was no deterrent with these people. If you pull a gun, you’d better be ready to use it.”

http://www.davehayes.org/2006/02/10/the-gary-fadden-incident

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by herrwalther: I see nothing wrong with putting designs on firearms for personal taste. And I doubt the grips or whatever bells and whistles someone has put on their firearm has done ill for someone in a self defense shooting.

See the link in Post 25. Or better yet, attend MAG-20.

Just look at all the companies that make 1911 grips with Grim Reapers or the back slide plates on Glocks for zombies, skull and crossbones etc. I doubt all these companies would be popular if having a grim reaper grip separated justified shooting from non justified shooting.

It's not the separation between justified and non justified shooting. It is the impression of such things, among many other things, on jurors who have to connect the dots in incomplete pictures on the basis of sparse and conflicting evidence.

They are the ones who will ultimately decide whether a shooting was lawfully justified.

Choosing such decorations could tip the scale, and it is a decision that cannot be undone after that happens.

 

[Manco]

Do you have a basis for that assertion?

How does one divine "when cases are in actuality instances of self-defense"?

I'm speaking hypothetically about what could happen in the worst case, so such instances are assumed for the sake of argument, not divined. Another reason I'm assuming legitimate self-defense is that this thread does, or at least it should unless our purpose here is to help those who are guilty of murder get away with it.

Do prosecutors not try to prosecute cases that are not "instances of self defense"?

Of course, but I'm not talking about those cases.

Do you propose as system in which the attorneys do not pursue their client's cases with every tool that they have available?

I'm saying that attorneys, including prosecutors, will sometimes say or do anything they can to win, so be prepared for the worst case scenario, even if you've done nothing wrong.

 

[Field Tester]

Frank,

Thank you for pointing all of that out on the previous page. I have no clue where the new guy got his facts and I was going to point them out as you did. The Supreme Court was never involved, where did that come from?
Mr. Fish passed away last October after having been free for 3 years due to complications of Cancer. It is mathematically impossible to have spent 10 years in jail, that was his sentence, not time served. Along with everything else that user posted.

I often wonder where some of these people get their "facts", or if they post pulling things out of thin air hoping people don't already know the details or won't fact check.
It shouldn't, but it really irks me.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

That sounds fine in theory, but it overlooks a few key factors.

[Deleted lots of good stuff in the interest of space.]

Those other factors are, indeed, important and I'd be silly to say otherwise. But my point is that the very basis for the justifiable use of deadly force in the first place is the cornerstone of any defense.

If more people would focus their attention on that and honestly learn what the law says and what it means, as well as how to apply it to a variety of circumstances, then they'd be a LOT better off than they would be by worrying about stuff like the things I pointed out.

It's a matter of priorities, in other words.


Which is more important: shooting the same ammunition a the police in one's 9mm, or knowing what the law says about when one can actually draw their 9mm and shoot someone?

Take a good look at the numbers of self-defense shootings that go to court and answer this question: Are these people going to court because they shot someone with a (9mm round that the police don't use) or because it was a bad shooting in accordance with the laws on deadly force?

And no, I don't have any statistics on this. Might be interesting to see if there are any out there. But every case I have ever seen or read about in the news wasn't brought to court over these issues...they were brought to court because there was at least the question as to whether or not the shooting itself was justified.


THAT is what I'm saying is the "meat and potatoes".

How many people, even on THR, have demonstrated that they don't even know or understand the laws on deadly force and when it's justified? I should think that fixing THAT problem is far more important than what ammunition they may put in their gun.


Yeah, if one posts "Trespassers will be shot...survivors will be shot twice" signs, they're inviting trouble if they ever have to show up in court over a shooting. Same for similar bumperstickers, window signs in the house, blog postings, having lots of guns, painting your gun camoflage, having tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition, reloading your own ammunition, or whatever.

But these things are secondary to the law, important though they may be under certain circumstances, even to the juries.


If I based my decisions on what may LOOK bad to a jury...then why would I ever carry a gun in the first place? I mean, guns are evil, right? Having a gun inthe first place therefore makes me an evil person, right? That's what many out there would have everybody believe.

 

[Trent]

I believe this conversation would be more fruitful if we kept it focused on lethal force instead of bickering over the integrity of attorneys.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Point well taken, Trent. I agree and have cleaned up the thread.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by RetiredUSNChief: Take a good look at the numbers of self-defense shootings that go to court and answer this question: Are these people going to court because they shot someone with a (9mm round that the police don't use) or because it was a bad shooting in accordance with the laws on deadly force?

In numerous cases that we have discussed here, neither.

They were in court because the evidence that they were able to produce after the fact was insufficiently convincing to prevent the case from going to trial when weighed against unfavorable evidence produced by the investigators and the charging authority.

And once they are in court, each and every piece of evidence that may tend to work against them can be disastrous.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

In numerous cases that we have discussed here, neither.

They were in court because the evidence that they were able to produce after the fact was insufficiently convincing to prevent the case from going to trial when weighed against unfavorable evidence produced by the investigators and the charging authority.

And once they are in court, each and every piece of evidence that may tend to work against them can be disastrous.

So, in these cases the evidence present or absent was insufficient to determine whether or not there was any legal justification to use deadly force?

So there was a prosecutor who brought forth charges, based on the wording of the law with respect to killing another human being, right?


That's where it all starts. And that's what's most important.


In an ideal world, everything would be clear-cut and determined solely on the word of a just and fair law. But I realize the world in not ideal and I realize that a jury can be swayed by other factors...sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

But if the foundation is not solid for the defense in the first place, then one's defense will be far more likely to collapse under the onslaught of the prosecution. Life will definitely suck for anybody who has to go to trial over an honestly justified act of self-defense, but Heaven help them if they weren't justified by the laws in the first place.

It's kind of like the adage about losing sight of the forest for all the trees...or forgetting one's primary objective was to drain the swamp when up to the keister in alligators.


There's a nuclear incident report review in the Navy that's aptly titles "Everything's important...but some things are REALLY important."

Everything's important in a court trial...but some things are REALLY important there as well.

 

[greenmtnguy]

Furthermore, I'm sure that a number of members here remember the Winchester Black Talon ammunition from some years back - great self defense ammunition to use. But, in the politically "hot" climate around the issuance of the Clinton AWB, this ammunition became persona non-grata and was pulled off the shelves, only to be re-introduced later in the Winchester Ranger series of ammunition products, which are only sold to law enforcement. So, the argument of "using the ammo that the cops use" is invalid - actually - if you were to be involved in a SD shooting with that ammunition and you were not, in fact, an LEO, I would think that you might be in a tougher situation explaining to the prosecuting attorney.

 

[Trent]

The fact that Ranger SXT's (black talons) are sold only to Law Enforcement should further illustrate that using a common "garden variety" hollowpoint is in fact not quite as bad as what police use.

(I carry Golden Sabers, FWIW. While I keep factory ammo in the gun, I can reload factory-equivalent velocity ammunition fairly cheap, to practice with. I don't keep reloads in the gun itself just in case mine were to test out slightly higher velocity, wouldn't want to get accused of being a blood-thirsty villain for loading 'hot' ammunition for self defense)

Then again, we're living in a society where every other small farm town in the Midwest is getting surplus'd MRAP armored vehicles "to deal with situations involving firearms." Which calls in to the question of whether Law Enforcement can even begin to be a standard by which "reasonable men" are judged.

Quite frankly, the world today is a much different place than it was 10 years ago.

Each state - and localities within - have different views on things. And both the jury that indicts and the jury that eventually hears your trial are drawn from a pool of normal civilians. With some areas being decidedly less friendly than others, the precautions we must take may be different.

In a small west Texas town, taking down an intruder with a "Punisher-gripped death machine using +P+ ammunition" may not matter one bit, if the shooting were on your property.

In a northern Illinois town, doing the same is going to get you life in prison.

In a central Illinois town, your fate might be far less certain, either way. It'll probably come down to many other factors - including social media, character testimonies, training (or lack thereof), etc.

Knowing the liberal tendencies of my state, I'm inclined to err on the side of extreme caution and use equipment and ammunition that will pass a "reasonable person" litmus test. The rest of my life is carefully constructed so that if my character or mindset is ever questioned, there should be no doubt. E.g., no bumper stickers that read "From my cold dead hands...", etc.

The thing is, when you are judged, IF you are ever judged, everything you've ever done in the past can (and probably will) get drug in to the courtroom.

The sum of all of this is simple: I try to live like I'm always on trial.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by RetiredUSNChief:So, in these cases the evidence present or absent was insufficient to determine whether or not there was any legal justification to use deadly force?

No, not "any", and not whether or not. There must be sufficient evidence, on balance, to support a conclusion that the act had been justified, or, depending upon the jurisdiction, to prevent the triers of fact from concluding that it had not been.

So there was a prosecutor who brought forth charges, based on the wording of the law with respect to killing another human being, right?

Based on the fact that the accused necessarily admitted having used deadly force against another human being, which, absent immediate necessity and several other things constitutes a crime, and the fact that the piecemeal evidence available to him after the fact was sparse, or was perhaps contradicted by testimony that may well have been untruthful.

That does not mean in any way that the act was not lawfully justified.

Yes, that's where it starts. And that's when the little things can become critically important: the pistol grip on the shotgun (see Dr. Meyer's treatise); the three magazines on the belt (from a real case related by Ayoob); the zombie ammo; that tattoo.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Those little things CAN end up biting one in the keister, I'll admit that.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Those little things CAN end up biting one in the keister, I'll admit that.

And in that vein it wouldn't be a bad idea to remind folks to be careful about what they post on the Internet. See this article headlined "Bay Area prosecutors increasingly using social media posts in criminal cases" from the 16 August 2013 edition of the Contra Costa Times:

PLEASANTON -- A teenage driver originally accused of vehicular manslaughter now faces a murder charge in the death of a bicyclist, partly because prosecutors say he bragged on Twitter about driving dangerously.

His case is part of a growing trend of social media posts being used as evidence against suspects, authorities said Friday.

....

As suspects feel compelled to post their misdeeds online for audiences to see, investigators have taken advantage, using the online quasi-confessions to bolster their cases, Bay Area prosecutors said.

In San Francisco, a cyclist in March fatally struck a 71-year-old pedestrian in a crosswalk after speeding through three red lights in the Castro District. Chris Bucchere, who eventually pleaded guilty to felony vehicular manslaughter, received a stiffer charge after he posted his explanation of the crash on a cycling group's website....

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Yeah...kinda hard to call something you've posted for the world to see as "hearsay", isn't it?

Sheesh...

 

[Frank Ettin]

Yeah...kinda hard to call something you've posted for the world to see as "hearsay", isn't it?

Sheesh...

Actually, it is hearsay. But people have a lot of misconceptions about hearsay. The are many exceptions to the rule that hearsay isn't admissible.

So, among other things, out of court statements by the defendant are generally admissible. Also, hearsay is admissible to show state of mind.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Huh! I learns me something new every day!

I knew that even directly hearing what a person says is "hearsay" when reported, but I didn't know that something actually documented in writing by the originator could also be considered hearsay. Must have something to do with how it's documented, then...whether or not it's somehow legally "certified" as having been by/from a specific person.

 

[herrwalther]

Kleanbore I looked at the study that you linked. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective, public perspective of firearms can change faster than any other hot button topic. Most of the papers referenced in that article you posted came from the 90's, a time period when the Clinton AWB was at its height and popularity. During that time, the majority of people thought cops were being killed with "cop killer" Black Talon bullets and assault weapons were slaughtering thousands of people a day. Public perception has changed since the 90's. Firearm ownership is at the highest in decades. I am not discounting the article and study, merely questioning the methodology.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by herrwalther: Kleanbore I looked at the study that you linked. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective, public perspective of firearms can change faster than any other hot button topic. Most of the papers referenced in that article you posted came from the 90's, a time period when the Clinton AWB was at its height and popularity. During that time, the majority of people thought cops were being killed with "cop killer" Black Talon bullets and assault weapons were slaughtering thousands of people a day. Public perception has changed since the 90's. Firearm ownership is at the highest in decades. I am not discounting the article and study, merely questioning the methodology.

I see no reason to question the methodology, but it is true that the study is not current.

However, I do not think there is a basis for concluding that either public perception or the the impressions of jurors would be much different today. Polls indicated strong support for magazine restrictions as recently as last winter; while more people do own firearms than before, the increase is really not very significant. And it is unlikely that people who really know anything about firearms will ever end up on a jury for a trial involving a shooting case.

 

[GoWolfpack]

The fact that Ranger SXT's (black talons) are sold only to Law Enforcement should further illustrate that using a common "garden variety" hollowpoint is in fact not quite as bad as what police use.

Someone should really give CDNN a call about that.