Fine Figure of a Man
Member
I'm defiantly not anti factory ammo. Carry what you choose to and I'll do the same.
Perception is reality - does it matter what you carry?
- Thread starter webrx
- Start date
- Status
Again, the key is being aware that a prosecutor could possibly try to use caliber selection against a defendant (it has happened) and being ready with a good response. What you don't want to do is to get caught flat-footed if the question comes up. And you especially don't want to be on the record saying something ill-advised on the topic that can be used to call your motives into question, or discredit your response.
Zendude
Member
I would go through Mas Ayoob’s writings and videos on these subjects before going too far down too many of the “what if” rabbit holes.
sometimes I carry a CZ-70, cause I like the thing, and it amuzes me that it was from behind the iron curton, probably used to repress people who could not own firearms, and now someone in the free world can own it and use it to defend themselves.
If I change my oil every 3k (5k whatever) and don't want others opinions I probably should not post that on a car forum.
If I think a Bullmastiff is a good family dog and don't want other opinions I probably should not post that on a dog forum.
If I think Glock 19 is a good minimum carry and post it on gun forums, I'm receptive that I might get comments, questions, feedback, otherwise why do it. (rhetorical
)
Exactly, and I will say this again. You need a lawyer fully conversant with firearms issues. The lawyer should game plan the hardest questions and the technical details of your response. They should be tested against mock jurors. They should be rehearsed over and over.
That takes a buck to do. When I did scientific convention presentations, I was up against another from Stanford who held a different opinion on the mechanisms of a visual process. This person was a big deal and I was a lowly post doc. We had dueling Science papers. The researcher tried to get someone to spill the beans on what I would say. She was told to get lost. Anyway, with my mentor and my post doc colleagues went over everything we thought she could ask from her viewpoint and rehearsed it. Thus, when the moment of truth came I gave a great answer. Observers said: Boy, did you have your answer together!
Different domain but Rittenhouse had it together. Even his legit emotion worked for him. I note that Potter's didn't and the Arbery trial, the defendant's tears looked forced. All this has to be worked out at trial.
If an ammo choice, gun decoration or whatever, adds a touch of a risk without any noticeable benefit - why, except to posture? It's my choice is just a posturing answering, IMHO. Good for you.
As far as studying the use of lethal force - plenty of books on that from the gun popular - like Ayoob's excellent work to the highly technical law texts. Read
Killing in Self-Defence (Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice)
by Fiona Leverick | Feb 8, 2007
Expensive and really into the legal weeds.
FL-NC
Member
I think cloning your firearm and ammunition to exactly what your local LE uses is going a bit too far. I wouldn't use reloads for the simple reasons that I don't reload handgun ammunition, and I think our American ammo companies do just fine producing effective ammunition. Factory HP's (assuming your gun likes them) from a major American brand should be ample for the task, and just because maybe that isn't the same exact ammo your local PD uses, I'm sure it (or at least something by the same brand) is in use by SOME legit agency, or in this day and age- whatever was available. Same for the model of firearm. It also seems like guns that have "shady" names are often of "shady" quality anyway. And with a good lawyer, there are so many opportunities to argue these facts. Use of a 9mm when likely the PD, SO, state police, or even the bailiffs in the courtroom carry a 40, 45, or whatever (client used a "lesser caliber"). Used a dirty Harry magnum? Yes- the gun the client owns to carry while hunting for wild animal defense. Or whatever gun is/was a family heirloom, or selected due to familiarity and similarity to a gun he/she used in military service. How about the argument that the client used a certain type of gun when he or she owns something much more powerful (like a hunting rifle)? I don't know solid answers for any of this because I'm not a lawyer. But the best advice I can come up with on the matter is to hire a good one if you need one, and let him/or her do the job you are paying for.
As stated previously, I have to agree, if it ever happens, you need to be able to justify your choices and having a good lawyer, having CCW insurance also probably won't hurt.
Thanks again everyone for taking to time to respond to this "food for thought" thread.
d
Thanks again everyone for taking to time to respond to this "food for thought" thread.
d
BreechFace
Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2020
- Messages
- 3,548
Considering that Kyle Rittenhouse defended himself with a AR15 in 556 and was exonerated of any criminal charges (we will see on the civil side of things), I don't worry about what gun/ammo I'm carrying. There will be judicial scrutiny over anything, it will all boil down to whether it is a good shoot or not as it should.
My opinion is a person should be able to defend himself with a 50bmg, a victim is a victim and a perpetrator is a perpetrator.
My opinion is a person should be able to defend himself with a 50bmg, a victim is a victim and a perpetrator is a perpetrator.
The viability of a strategy cannot be validated by one occurrence.
Nope. It will come down to whether the triers of fact conclude that it was a good shoot or not, based on a totality of the evidence and on their impressions.
redcon1
member
Kyle Rittenhouse had high quality video evidence supporting every aspect of his story. Grosskreutz was video taped pointing a loaded gun at his head. Rosenbaum was video taped acting belligerent multiple times and then pursuing Kyle and lunging for his weapon. Multiple witnesses testified that he had threatened people's lives that night. Huber was video taped committing assault with a deadly weapon against Kyle. Jump Kick man was video taped kicking Kyle in the head. It goes on an on and on. You have to consider that it isn't likely that you will have the same amount of irrefutable evidence weighing down the scales of justice in your favor. It could go the other way for you in fact. Everything will be weighed and measured in determining if you satisfy the state's required burden of evidence. Everything. And, what's more, if you give a DA something that he thinks he can work with, he may be more inclined to file charges against you. If it's utterly clear that he has nothing, he will be more likely to determine that a trial is waste of the state's resources. And even if you do win the case, you will still be much much poorer for it because defending yourself against something like this ain't cheap. You could end up bankrupt and then there's the potential for civil litigation as well. I'm not saying that your choice of weapon and handgun will be the one thing that burns you but it definitely could be.
and btw, if you "defend" yourself with a 50 bmg, you're going to prison at a minimum even though it's your opinion that you should be able to do that. No if and or buts. You're going to prison.
Ditto to the two above posts. As I said, the decision isn't dichotomous based solely on gun, ammo, appearance issues. There are cases where such was brought up and the shooter was convicted. I fail to understand (but I really do understanding the psychology of human decision making) why folks fail to understand the actual processes and fixate on one vivid instance that confirms their view rather than looking at the totality of the processes.
In my area I am faced with multi departments. Approximately seven or eight police agencies plus the same number of sheriff departments. They all carry different weapons and ammo. I carry what I am comfortable with. In my thirty years as an officer I have never seen caliber or type of weapon being a problem in a self defense shooting, however my state is very pro gun.
redcon1
member
I think taking the statement "carrying what the local LEO's carry" literally is kind of like taking the bible literally. The point wasn't that you should call up your local PD and inquire as to what ammo and firearms exactly they are issued (although, that seems reasonable to me). The point is that if you are grossly deviating above and beyond what a prudent reasonable LEO in your community (who may very well be called as a witness in your trial) is carrying, you're opening yourself up to a legal attack and an unnecessary attack at that. It's foolish IMO.
And Kyle Rittenhouse's choice of weapon and ammo was brought up and discussed in detail for the benefit of the jury in order to establish a "utter disregard for human life" which, if established, would establish a "depraved mind" and would have severely undermined his self defense argument. The FMJ rounds that Rittenhouse had, it was argued, were likely to pass through intended targets and injure/kill unintended targets and, as such, demonstrated that Kyle had an utter disregard for human life and that was actually a critical component of the state's case. Kyle's attorney did state that a "a bullet is a bullet" but we all know that not all bullets are created equal. In this case, the state's argument didn't seem to influence the jury's decision but that's not to say that it couldn't or wouldn't in a different case involving different circumstances and different evidence. IMO, M855 or M193 ball ammuntion is so commonly available that any argument the state could make regarding its use in an AR15 is completely neutralized. What's more, we don't (as far as I know) know if Kyle used M855 or M193 and these two rounds, though both FMJ, behave differently terminally but that's probably a nuance that most attorneys would be unaware of and it might be difficult to make the argument that there's a difference between the M193 55 grain FMJ projectile and the M855 SS109 projectile.
Fine Figure of a Man
Member
Reloads for self-defense ammo are a lot like cloth masks. Neither one makes any difference at all but some people get worked up about both.
I think this nails it.
I use premium defensive loads, mostly those that meet the FBI protocols and are therefore widely used by law enforcement agencies. I will not carry gimmick loads or loads advertised to have unusual destructive power. I will not use ammunition with unusual bullet shapes that are advertised as having better performance than premium JHP loads.
I do not suggest that this would provide me with an advantage in the legal system--just that it would tend to eliminate one possible negative factor.
BIG difference.
Reloads will not make any difference in the vast majority of self defense cases. BUT--anyone who has studied (1) how self defense trials work; 2) how GSR pattern data can be used as evidence in use of force cases; (3) how the rules of evidence govern the admissibilty of forensic scientific trace evidence; and (4) the fundamentals of risk management; will understand why and how the subject of handloads can become very important indeed. Those who have not may continue in denial.
The likelihood of the risk is remote, but the potential consequences are extremely high. One can only know the impact after the fact.
I don’t see the Rittenhouse prosecution as a good example. The Rittenhouse case was probably the most politically charged self defense case in at least 10 years. All of the stops were pulled out to try to get a conviction for political reasons.
I’m not saying a local prosecutor wouldn’t go to that extreme in a “routine” self defense case, I’m just saying it’s not likely.
GEM already addressed the cost of expert witnesses and scientific analysis of the evidence. While it’s true that the prosecutor doesn’t pay for the state’s use of those resources out of pocket, his office does have a budget.
Given the video evidence I doubt there would have been a prosecution in most jurisdictions.
The Rittenhouse case is an example of what “can happen” but I don’t see it as an example of what’s likely to happen.
Mas Ayoob wrote a column in American Handgunner years ago where he related the story of a defensive gun use that involved a machine gun. I am personally aware of defensive gun use cases where illegal weapons (sawed off shotgun) and illegally possessed weapons (convicted felon in possession). The fact that the sawed off shotgun wasn’t legal to possess or that the drug dealer who shot home invaders trying to rob and kill him wasn't legally allowed to possess the gun and ammunition he used did not get them charged with murder, manslaughter of any other charge related to their legal use of deadly force in self defense. The fact that the tools used were illegal didn’t change the fact that their actions were within the law.
It's a terrible example.
redcon1
member
I see it as being a legal weathervane showing us all which way the wind is blowing. Kyle's case entered the political realm, in large part though not entirely, because of the weapon he chose to carry. Had Kyle been carrying a handgun and a CCW permit (and I understand why that isn't possible), it might not have gone as far as it did because of all the other evidence working against the state. The weapon itself may very well have been the single most decisive factor that led to this case going to court. My liberal relatives didn't know anything about this case other than "some kid shot people with an assault rifle rifle". The AR15 was on trial as much as Kyle was IMO.
Mas Ayoob recently had a post on youtube discussing the concept of "shoot to kill" versus "shoot to stop the threat" and his opinion was that you would not want to give a DA evidence that you were shooting to kill because "shooting to kill" leads to a lengthy prison sentence for murder and shooting to stop the threat doesn't. Using ammunition that can be realistically shown to be more likely to result in the death of the person you shot opens you up to a "shoot to kill" argument. You've probably seen the video. I'll link to it if you haven't and want to.
And as far as the drug dealer goes, he was in his home and the legal premise that "a man's home is his castle" is so firmly rooted in American law that I am not at all surprised that he was acquitted. I can't really imagine any other outcome in fact. I'll have to look for the case though. It sounds interesting. regarding a felon in possession using a firearm for self defense, I have researched this issue many times and I always come up with the same answers: a felon can pick up a firearm to defend his/her life and that's about the only time.
redcon1
member
I don't think so and I just explained why.
I meant that his acquittal is a terrible reason for asserting that one should not be concerned about the adverse influence that an AR-15 may have in an SD case.
GEM's jury simulations show us otherwise.
redcon1
member
For sure. I felt like the case went political because the left can't let an AR15 be shown to be A) in common use or B) suitable for self defense. Their entire argument against Heller is premised on the argument that the AR15 is not commonly used and is not commonly used for self defense or even suitable for self defense. Their future plans to use Justice Scalia's words regarding M16s to ban semi-automatic AR15s and other MSRs hinges on the AR15 being "perceived" as fringe and wholly unsuitable for self defense. And yeah, plus he used that AR15 to defend himself against a mob of leftists. They can't have anyone not bowing before them like that. But Kyle won the case and it was a blow to their argument and even now they're trying to mitigate that damage through their favored fifth generation warfare tactics like the dissemination of disinformation through their media and social network sites.
I don't necessarily like or agree with everything I have liked in this thread, but, I do "like" that those of you that replied have done so in the spirit of the thread, and have presented both sides of the argument - whether I or anyone else agrees with your position or not.
IMO - it is good to have a discourse that looks at both sides and if nothing else gets you thinking about things you may not have considered before. I have seen things here that have provided me additional insight, I hope others also have and that perhaps I (and you) can take something away that may help in the future should we ever find ourselves at the wrong place and time.
Another Thanks!
d
IMO - it is good to have a discourse that looks at both sides and if nothing else gets you thinking about things you may not have considered before. I have seen things here that have provided me additional insight, I hope others also have and that perhaps I (and you) can take something away that may help in the future should we ever find ourselves at the wrong place and time.
Another Thanks!
d
- Status
Similar threads
