Same gun and load as cops for carry?

[firestar]

I have heard several people state that it is best to use exactaly the same gun and load for carry/home defense as the cops in your town use so that you do not look crazy if you have to defend yourself in court after a shooting. What do you think about this srategy?

The idea is, if you use what the local cops use, you have don't look like a gun nut or someone who wants to get into a gun fight. If not the same gun then at least the same cal and load but never anything larger or more powerful.

This actually makes some sense to me. The only problem with this is, the local cops use Sigmas.

 

[boing]

Hogwash.

Use what you shoot best, not what you think will look good to a jury of hand-picked chowder-heads.

Lots of cop equipment decisions are made by know-nothing penny-pinching bureaucrats, anyway (NJSP and SW99, for example).

Enough hyphens for now.

 

[Kahr carrier]

From a civil liability stand point it would be a good idea. But use what you comfortable with. What ever I use I load it with factory ammo for reliability.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Criminal and civil liability don't mean a thing if you are dead because you used the same weapon and ammo of the local PD and you weren't able to shoot it well.

As noted, the selection of guns and ammo by your local PD may be made by some idiot who simply got a deal from the manufacturers and not because the guns are what is best for officers to defend themselves. Keep in mind that their gear is a package. They can radio in "officer down" or "officer needs assistance" and have lots of cops on scene in seconds. So they can be a little looser with choice of weapons and may opt for less lethal rounds or loads. You don't have that option. More than likely, there isn't going to be any help for you until long after the fight is over. You need whatever gun, caliber, load, and bullet type that works best for you for which you will be able to use most effectively as you can't count on help like cops.

When you choose the gun and ammo of the local cops, which set of local cops goodies will you be choosing? Will it be the local constable, sheriff's department, police department, state police, game warden, park ranger, or FBI? There is a real good chance that they carry different weapons and ammo. So how do you determine which is the most civil liability friendly?

Choosing the same gun and ammo won't change anything about criminal liability. Either you had the right to use lethal force or you did not. If you did, then it won't matter what weapon you used, such as has been the case in 4 recent NYC shootings where folks shot intruders and all were good shoots, only the shooters didn't have permits for the guns. In other words, they had the right to use lethal force and did so, but in the process revealed they had unpermited guns. They were charged with gun violations, but those violations did not change the fact that they had the right to use lethal force and so they were not charged in any way for the shooting of the bad guys. You have to remember that whether or not you had the right to use lethal force will NOT be based on the type of weapon you use, contrary to some popular writers.

As for using the same stuff as the local cops reducing your civil liability, that is also garbage. First of all, get straight that you can be sued in civil court for just about anything. Say you shoot a guy and the shooting is ruled okay by the grand jury but you get sued in civil court. Having read forums like this one, it comes up that you used the same gun and ammo as the local cops used and this comes out because you think it will reduce your liability. Then the opposing lawyer then starts to point out how you are a cop wannabe who was going around looking for a fight so as to dispense your vigilante justice and this is supported by the fact that your choice of gun and weapon was based on what the cops carry.

Do you see how that can be turned around on you? Just because some law enforcement group carries something does not mean it will reduce your civil liability, plus it can be turned to work against you as well.

Something else to keep in mind is that some departments may use powered down loads and some may use hot loads. A smart attorney may find that your local department chose a particular load because of the amount of tissue damage it will create, thereby being more likely to stop a bad guy more quickly. There you are on the stand talking about how you shoot what the local cops shoot and it comes out that they have chosen the most lethal ammo for that caliber they can find. Now you really look bad!

Find you a gun that works very well and that you shoot well in a larger caliber (no smaller than 9 mm if at all possible) with ammunition loaded as hot as you and the gun can handle well for shot placement and follow-up shots. Go ahead and assume that for every shot fired, you will be sued in civil court, regardless of gun, caliber, etc. you choose. Count on the opposition making you look like a monster. Maybe it won't happen, but be prepared anyway. Of course, none of this matters if you choose a gun and ammo that don't work well for you (but the local cops have to carry them) and you end up dead.

 

[Marko Kloos]

Here in TN, few people ever get charged with anything for righteous shoots, so it doesn't matter much what kind of gun you use as long as you acted in lawful self-defense.

 

[Tamara]

Besides, the Staties around here issue Sigmas! Blech!

 

[buzz_knox]

Actually, I'm seeing more and more Glocks riding in Smokie holsters these days. A bit of an improvement over the Sigma.

 

[Tamara]

buzz_knox,

Rumor has it (from a local gun shoppe who should know ) that what you're seeing is the new duty gun: the Glock 31.

 

[Sean Smith]

I dare anyone to show me evidence that the gun and ammo somebody used in a shooting had ANY impact on their civil or criminal liability one way or another. Just more baseless Ayoobesque paranoia.

 

[trapshooter]

It's been a while since I was in a squadroom as a club member, but when I was, if you shook down the next shift, you would find all kinds of interesting 'non-issue' ammo in pockets, briefcases, etc. Also, the BUG's were almost never in issue caliber. In spite of existing policies to the contrary.

Just a thought. And things might have changed.

 

[10-Ring]

I guess in theory, it makes some sense. But I think you should use what you feel most comfortabl with & works best in your firearm.

 

[buzz_knox]

And yet another dead horse is resurrected to be beaten to death once more.

Here's a trial lawyer's take on it. If you are serious about carrying a weapon, you should have made rational decisions about what you are using. You should thus be prepared to defend those decisions to an investigator, trier of fact, jury of your peers, whatever. Whether or not a panel of bureaucrats would have made the same choice is irrelevant if you can prove that you made reasonable decisions based on your circumstances. And trying to link yourself to law enforcement/military decisions can be problematic. "You carry a 1911 because Delta Force decided that it's be the best thing? Isn't it true, sir, that Delta goes intensive training far beyond anything that you've undertaken? Isn't it true that their intensive training is designed to enable them to operate effectively and safely with this weapon?" Yes, it's a leading question, but it will play to a judge and jury very well.

Having the evidence upon which you based your decisions is very handy, to show knowledge and state of mind. For example, you want to carry a 1911? Good choice, for a myriad of reasons. It helps to have articles discussing said reasons to show the jury. Anything you can give the jury that will help educate them and get them up to your level of knowledge is great.

Of course, there's a "but." If you haven't made rational choices (i.e. "I carry a 1911 simply 'cause it's cool!") and/or you haven't thought through the problem, then you've got trouble. After the fact rationalizations can be spotted a mile away, and stink twice as far.

Try this on for size. Take someone whom you trust to be honest and run down the reasons why you've chosen the weapon/ammo that you have, or that you are considering. See if it makes sense to them. It helps if they aren't a gun nut. If it makes sense, good. If it doesn't, evaluate whether it's your presentation that's the problem or the decisions themselves.

 

[DDGator]

I am also a trial lawyer. I wouldnt worry about this issue too much. Unless you go to an extreme -- i.e. carrying a .454 Casul or something else totally inappropriate -- you choice of weapon is probably not that important.

However, if a lawyer chooses to do so, he will make you look bad no matter what weapon you pick -- its all in spinning the facts -- that is what lawyers do.

If you pick the same gun as the local cops, I say you are an obsessed copy wannabe. If you chose anything with the word "Magnum" associated with it, I will say you think you are Dirty Harry. If you pick a Glock, I will call it a plastic gun for going through metal detectors. If you pick a small caliber, I will say you were carrying a Saturday Night Special.

Ultimately, must make a sound choice with sound reasoning and you selection of gun will be the least of your worries in a civil or criminal action.

 

[cratz2]

Well... I have heard that before but I think you'd be just as likely to use ammo issued in any fairly large metropolitan area or major jurisdiction, FBI, CIA etc...

Lebanon, IN police used to make available 200 Gr Gold Dots and that is what I carry. The firearms trainer is very knowledgable and a big fan of 1911s and the Gold Dots. Many jurisditions issue 230 Gr Rangers and that is my second choice or for guns that won't reliably consume the 200 Gr Gold Dots.

 

[Navy joe]

Local Pd carries S&W DA 45ACP, Think I'll pass. State carries SIGs in .357sig, don't like the cartridge. Pass again.

 

[Sean Smith]

To quote my old history teacher, "Be specific. Cite examples. Or don't waste my time."

Of course, in theory a lawyer could twist things around to make a defendant look bad. That could be said about ANY aspect of the defendant. But can anyone cite an example where it actually made a difference in a justified self-defense shooting? Has a jury ever actually said, in effect, "hey, you were right to defend yourself, but because you used a .480 Ruger we are finding you guilty anyway?" Is there any example where anything remotely similar to this actually took place? Or is this all just mental masturbation?

Rule Zero is that you have to live to have to worry about the trial in the first place. In that light, you should choose what is the best weapon for you to defend yourself with, without regard for any strictly theoretical concerns about how it could be portrayed in court. Because anything you choose will look bad if someone wants to make it so (and the jury is sufficiently stupid)...

.22 LR, pocket pistol, target pistol: Assassin.
Cheap and/or small revolver: Saturday Night Special
Expensive and/or really big revolver: Dirty Harry wannabe.
Glock: X-ray avoiding terrorist.
Any big-bore semi auto: Perverse desire for overkill.
Any high-capacity semi auto: Spray-and-pray lunatic.
Any customized gun: Obsessive kill freak.
Any law enforcement style gun: Unstable cop wannabe.
Full metal jacket ammo: Military-issue ammunition.
Hollowpoint bullet: Sick desire for maximum harm.
Hunting ammo: Overkill maniac.
Shotgun: Street-sweeper.
Hunting rifle: Sniper rifle.
Semi-auto rifle or carbine: Machine gun.

You get the idea.

 

[DDGator]

Sean,

Of course you are right -- most any aspect of the defendant could be given a negative spin. Manipulation of the jury by attacking the choice of firearm is particularly effective though becasue most people fear and don't understand them.

I am sure no one will come up with as obvious a situation as what you described. Frankly, if a juror were to say that, it could be the basis for an appeal. The use of tactics like this is much more subtle. I think an attack on the type of gun used, even if heavily veiled, makes the defendant look more guilty--because they are more wierd or more looking for a fight or whatever.

When the prosecutor/plaintiff's attorney holds up the gun for the jury to see -- isnt that a form of this? Many times there is not an issue that the "victim" was shot -- why is the gun relevant proof? Because the lawyer wants the jury to see it and be scared by it and wonder-- who would own such an item?

I conclude this thought by saying that I wouldnt worry about it. Your choice of gun, so long as it is rational and within reason, is the least of your worries in the legal arena.

 

[blades67]

That's easy for me, the DPS issues SIG Sauer P220's to the troops.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The only reason why you should carry the same type of gun and same ammo as the local cops is because that particular type of gun and ammo actually suit you abilities and needs. Just because they pick a particular gun or ammo does not mean that either will match your needs. A lot of departments go with 9 mm. Personally, I would prefer something a little more effective. When I call 911, I can't be certain that 'back-up' will arrive in anything less than 45 minutes and on arriving are likely to think me the bad guy because I am armed.

Of course Sean, you forgot to add the corrolaries to the gun types:

If you are a hunter or have had a gun class, then you are a practiced/trained killer.

If you served in the military and have been in battle, then you already have a taste for human blood (killing people, not eating them, although maybe that too).

If you like to live off the land and hunt with guns, then you are a militant isolationist.

If you have had more than one gun class or trained with more than one type of gun in gun classes, you are an extremist with a gun fetish.

If you own more than one gun and one box of ammo for it, then you have an arsenal. If the guns, ammo, and associated gear are safely stored in the basement, then you have your arsenal located in a bunker.

------

Completely disassociate yourself from the potential post shooting concerns about what lawyers may or may not do based on your gun and ammo type. If both are legal, then the only liability stems from your actual actions. After all, guns are pretty well defined as lethal weapons in every state, at least if you pull the trigger or make a threat with one. There is your liability. Now if you are going to worry about things, keep in mind that ball ammo is not see nearly so badly as the dread hollowpoint round that is obviously meant to kill. Keeping with the logic, 6 shots to the chest are simply meant to stop a bad guy but if you shoot the bad guy just once and shoot him in the head, then you were obviously trying to kill him, not stop him.

BOGUS BOGUS BOGUS BOGUS BOGUS BOGUS

 

[buzz_knox]

But can anyone cite an example where it actually made a difference in a justified self-defense shooting? Has a jury ever actually said, in effect, "hey, you were right to defend yourself, but because you used a .480 Ruger we are finding you guilty anyway?" Is there any example where anything remotely similar to this actually took place? Or is this all just mental masturbation?

No one will ever be able to provide such an example because that isn't how cases are decided, or reported on. The idea of "no reported case equals no cause for alarm" is just as mythical as Janet Reno's second X chromosome.

 

[El Tejon]

DD and buzz made the points I wanted to make.

fire, if you have questions, re-read what buzz posted.

Sean, your answer is, as always, it depends. Of the dozens upon dozens of variables that one has to be concerned about at trial, it is present, but do not know how large a factor it is.

 

[JohnBT]

I've never wanted to copy the locals.

I carry concealed...IWB or pocket.

The majority of the police officers I see get to carry on the OWB and a big ol' thick gun isn't a concern.

John

 

[STEVE M]

I think Buzz explained best what Ayoob has tried to say, and

that is: be able to articulate your reasons for your choice of gun

and load. If you had ever talked to Ayoob about this you would

know he doesn't recomend that you blindly use what the local

LE's use.

Yes, everyone agrees that you must survive the street first and

formost. But if you think that just because you did do the right

thing that a jury will always see it that way, uhoh: then get

your head out of the sand.

 

[Sean Smith]

Yeah, that's me, the dew-eyed idealist. You've got me pegged, ladies.

 

[Dr.Rob]

I know of one security service that used the same ammo as the cops, however that was revolver loads and not many cops carry revolvers anymore.

Use ammo that goes bang every time, and feeds reliably.

The rest is armchair quarterbacking.