Legal Question: Laser Sights

[Highland Ranger]

The marketing for laser sights is that use of them often stops agressors in their tracks more so than just brandishing a weapon.

The down side is: I read somewhere that the use of laser sights in a home defense situation could have legal ramifications because "you started it" type of thing.

Doesn't make sense to me that the laser sight represents more agression on your part over and above pointing a gun at someone but I have heard the argument more than once.

Can anyone point me to the definitive answer on this one . . . . my 1911 is begging for a Lasermax but I don't want to do it if it negates the gon for SD.

 

[P95Carry]

First and foremost .. IANAL!! No definitive answer.

But ....

"you started it" type of thing

To be honest, if that were a risk then why should LE use them? It could arguably affect their ''mission status'' too.

I have CT's on three revo's ... and to be honest think this is in the same ball park as the old dilemma over factory ammo vs homeloads. In the end ... come the day that you might have to use your piece ''in extremis'' .... the bottom line is .... you save your a$$ and the BG runs away or finishes up a fertilizer. The odds are that very, very few of us will (it is hoped) ever have to test this out.

For me .... I want a set-up that works and works well .... and if anything helps give me an ''edge'' ... then I'll take/use it.

I'll be interested tho to see what legal eagles have to say.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I read somewhere that the use of laser sights in a home defense situation could have legal ramifications because "you started it" type of thing.

Sounds like another internet rumor to me.

 

[artherd]

Practice FTS. Remove laser site while waiting for PD to arrive if you want.

Use whatever gives you an edge, I don't think there's any legal prescedent for the use of a laser being any different than already pointing a gun at someone.

Combine it wtih a light, get an Insight M6 !

 

[BluesBear]

... the use of laser sights in a home defense situation could have legal ramifications ...

Uhhhh, excuse me but wouldn't the intruder who is INSIDE your home be considered the one who "started it"?
Or would they use the logic that, if you hadn't moved into that house you wouldnt' have been there for them to burgle?
It's all your fault for having such nice stuff worth stealing, ya know.

 

[sendec]

This sounds vaguely Ayoobian

While attorneys can and will make an "issue" of anything, including the fact that you had a "deadly killing machine" with a "science fiction ray attachment" it is a non-issue that would be more smoke and mirrors. I have never heard of lasers being an issue, and if they were to be any competent barrister could easily deflect it and probably turn it to your advantage.

I do not like lasers, but if I did this would not even be on the radar as an issue.

 

[Zach S]

Sounds like BS to me.

On a side note, I've handled a lasermax in a G17(?) and wasnt at all impressed. I have been tempted to take the CT plunge for one or more of my 1911s though...

 

[HankB]

I read somewhere that the use of laser sights in a home defense situation could have legal ramifications because "you started it" type of thing.

I think BluesBear nailed it - in a home defense situation, you've got a criminal intruder who's either illegally entering, or has already illegally entered, the home. HE STARTED IT AND PLACED YOU AT RISK!!!

How in the WORLD could ANY sane individual say that the HOMEOWNER who's defending his home against the intruder "started it" in any way, shape, or form, because of the type of sight on his gun???

The inmates really ARE running the asylum.

 

[Highland Ranger]

This sounds vaguely Ayoobian

Yes, I think that may be where I got it from - can't remember.

As far as what makes sense legally or not, I just want to know the rules so I can play the game.

Frankly many of the laws I run across in my day to day existence make no sense to me and I have pretty good imagination.

But if red light = bad shoot, then I don't want one.

 

[ysr_racer]

If you can't hit a man sixed target within the distance of your house without any sights, you

A. Shouldn't own a firearm for self defense.
B. Need to spend more time at the range.

Take your pic. Laser sights / night sights are a waste of money.

 

[Zundfolge]

The marketing for laser sights is that use of them often stops agressors in their tracks more so than just brandishing a weapon.

I've never understood this ... your target can't "feel" the laser, and in a conflict situation I somehow doubt they will notice a little red dot dancing on their chest.

Maybe if you can get them in the eye with it you'll blind them.



As for legal issues, here in Colorado we have the "Make My Day" law which pretty much authorizes me to use lethal force against an intruder ... if it became an issue I'd think a good lawyer could counter the "you started it" argument with "my client has a laser sight on his gun to avoid missing an intruder and launching a stray projectile into the neighborhood".

 

[ctdonath]

This sounds vaguely Ayoobian

I've spent a lot of time training under Ayoob, and don't recall him saying any such thing.

Remove laser site while waiting for PD to arrive if you want.

Ayoob DID make it clear: DON'T SCREW WITH EVIDENCE, and DON'T LIE. You WILL be found out (10 seconds of incoherent thought won't beat multiple professional full-time forensic scientists).

 

[BluesBear]

Laser sights / night sights are a waste of money.

NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING that enables you to be better prepared and to operate more efficiently, under stress, in a time of crisis is a waste of money.
I am reminded of the story where 2 pigs thought the 3rd was wasting his time building his house out of bricks.


I'll wager that most, if not all, of you who are poo-pooing the use of a laser have never used a good one.
If the BG can see your gun in your hand, pointed at him, he can see the laser!
Since most burglaries, of occupied homes, occur at night, in a darkened house, that "little red dot" will look like a kleiglight to an intruder.


As for night sights being a waste... I am severely handicapped by the lack of ability to shoot from the hip and only graze the Bad guys wrist enough for him to stop in his tracks and drop his gun like Roy, Gene, Cisco, Hoppy, Lash and The Lone Ranger could. I'll take any advantage I can get to ensure my muzzle is indeed on the target.

Y'all do what you want to CYA. Just don't tell me what I do is a waste.

 

[flatrock]

Practice FTS. Remove laser site while waiting for PD to arrive if you want.

Sounds like a good way to end up in jail to me. What happens is the perp lives and tells the cops about the laser sight along with some story about how confronted him and shot him while he wasn't threatening you and just wanted to flee.

They find out from someone else that you commonly had a laser sight on your gun, and you're caught in a lie.

Self defense often comes down to your word against theirs. Lying to the cops, or hiding the facts is not a good idea.

 

[ysr_racer]

I don't know about you guys, but at the distances in my house I don't need ANY sights to hit a man sized target. Of course I shoot a lot of IPSC.

P.S. I'm not talking about shooting from the hip either.

Try this, with an unloaded gun, and without using the sights, draw and point your gun at a safe target. Now close one eye and see how close you are. Do this a couple of thousand times, and you won't need any "light-up" sights.

It's like shooting a shotgun with both eyes open. Watch the target, not the sights.

I'm able to hit a target out to 15 yards without the sights. I doubt I'll have to engage anybody past that in my house. If it's so dark that you need a Laser or night sights, you probably shouldn't shoot.

brad g.

 

[Boats]

"Contrary to your assertions Mr. Tortking, I have a laser on that pistol out of a concern for innocent bystanders who might have come to harm had I missed your client. You know, the guy I had to shoot after he broke into my home with that crowbar he died with?"

Case closed. What? Do you have night sights to better ambush unsuspecting home breakers? Why do you have sights at all? To better kill what you point your gun at?

I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to show me a lawsuit citation where an attorney took up the case of a home burglar after he'd been shot by a homeowner who was first cleared by a grand jury or where charges were never even brought because of prosecutorial discretion.

 

[sendec]

Uh, I really do not like lasers, but I like the idea of not using ANY sighting device even less. If it works for you, rock on, but the only thing worse than standing up in court and admitting tampering with evidence is admitting not using any practicable means to aim the gun.

To try to re-engage the original concept, one gunwriter in particular has made statements to the effect that your choice of weapon or accessory may somehow "taint" the quality of the shooting and cast the defendent (you) in a negative light. Well, ANYTHING can be called into question, but a competent attorney and a cogent judge will only introduce or allow evidence that is germane, reliable and competent. Establishing the relevence of a laser sight or the fact that you dumped the guy with a gun with a particular name, is necessary before it would be admitted into evidence, there is no garantee that it will, or that the judge or jury will give it any credence. There are plenty of more important things to consider, but hey, the writers need to make a living.

Just once I'd like to see a gun journal, that required things like "standards" and evidence and peer review. pretty much anybody can right anything and someone will read it and take it seriously. Kinda like forums.....

 

[Matthew Courtney]

I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to show me a lawsuit citation where an attorney took up the case of a home burglar after he'd been shot by a homeowner who was first cleared by a grand jury or where charges were never even brought because of prosecutorial discretion.

01/06/2004
Judge Won't Dismiss Wehde Suit
New developments in a wrongful death lawsuit in the shooting death of Dustin Wehde.

A judge has denied a motion by Tracey Roberts to dismiss the suit.

Two years ago, Roberts says Wehde broke into her Early, Iowa, home and tried to strangle here.

She shot and killed him during the incident, and now the Wehde family's attorney has filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

A trial date has not yet been set.

http://www.ktiv.com/News/NewsDetail64.cfm?Id=26,7027

 

[sendec]

Maybe the statement should have been: "Show me a case where a civil jury decided in favor of a burglar after the homeowner was "cleared" by a Grand Jury. "

Trash, nuisance suits get filed all the time. Good judges are'nt afraid to dismiss or assign a summary judgement. I do not know the case cited, but weird things happen.

 

[P95Carry]

and now the Wehde family's attorney has filed a wrongful death lawsuit.

Damn!! That stuff really cranks me up ....... WHEN oh when ... will we have some sensible blanket law that stipulates that in a (proven) justifiable defence shooting ... neither the perp (if still alive) .. NOR any of his family ..... can be permitted to file suit.

The criminal action should in itself automatically remove such rights from the perp and family ..... he/she has committed a crime, and suffered the consequences.

PERIOD!

 

[sturmruger]

I read that story a while ago. It is sad that she is getting sued like this. Too bad the NRA isn't trying to help her out.


I have two lasers now. When shooting I still use my regular sights, but the laser is there just incase I need it. When aiming my gun the laser is just above my front sight. It works out pretty nice.

 

[PaladinVC]

The whole "you started it" argument seems silly. After all, you're already pointing a freaking gun at the dude. What difference can a tiny spotlight make?

I think I'd rather have a weaponlight, though. Maybe that M6 combo would be nice, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'll take 120 lumens of Surefire any day. Sure a laser might blind the guy, but a Surefire definitely will!

 

[Boats]

Des Moines Register

Well, we're up to one whole case where the lawsuit hasn't been dismissed via summary judgment. The refusal to dismiss could have to do with Mrs. Roberts emptying the contents of a Beretta 92 with a Klinton mag or 96fs (account says 9mm but reports only 11 shots in mag) and a revolver into the perp. At an SJ hearing the judge has to view the allegations and evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and should only dismiss if there is no disputed question of law or fact for any reasonable jury to make findings upon. Ironically, many of us complain about activist judges and the power of juries and this rule is to restrain the power of judges and to ensure a jury hears even marginally contentious cases.

Other sources indicated that the NRA has provided assistance and the perp's father killed himself in a gun suicide in grief over the death of his son.

 

[sendec]

Interesting

16 to 17 rounds could cause one to wonder. People can do the right thing the wrong way, and vice versa.

I am aware of a case in which a jury aquitted a man of aggravated assault charges after he shot a burglar. In the back. Running away. From about 75 yards. The guy had broken into the shooter's business, not his residence, and IIRC was unarmed.

I am all for self defense, but that means self defense, not trying to make a bag limit or Boone & Crockett for bad guys.

 

[BluesBear]

A good friend of mine's 16 year old son, who goes shooting with me every week, commented to me just last week about his high school sophmore civics class. He asked me if I was aware that in the United States of America, ANYBODY can sue ANYONE for ANYTHING? He was actually shocked to learn that you needed no evidence whatsoever to instigate a civil suit. I replied to him, "America... Land of the Free and Home of the Lawsuit."

16 to 17 rounds could cause one to wonder. People can do the right thing the wrong way, and vice versa.

I recall reading about a case about 20 years ago, in a state that normally looked rather kindly on crimes of passion, about a gentleman who came home to find his wife in bed with another man. Neither of which were asleep. In a fit of jealous rage* he shot them both a combined total of 18 times.
The judge remarked, after the man was sentenced, that normally this would have been looked upon as a simple and possibly forgiveable, crime of passion. However since he killed them by using a 2 shot over & under derringer, that having to reload EIGHT times somewhat impacted the jury's decision.







*Or as the great Inspector Jacques Clouseau said, "Maria Gambrelli shot her lover in a rit of fealous jage!"