Self Defense Over Kill?

[withdrawn34]

Deadly force is deadly force. Use what you can hit with, get follow up shots relatively quickly with, afford to practice with regularly, and won't present an excessive risk to your neighbors.

 

[JohnBiltz]

I don't see a problem with rifle calibers for self defense as long as you are using a rifle.

 

[Diggers]

Really, what is the point of using one of those calibers? Heck you could use a 40 mm cannon, it sure would work, but its hard to carry around.

Sure those calibers are pretty powerful (for a handgun) but that energy will just be wasted.

Seems to me a .44 mag and above is just going to pass right through a person. All the energy that bullet has after it passes through the BG is pointless, it does nothing for you.

Will any of that ammo even expand in a BG? If not then a .40 or .45 that stops in inch or two short of passing through a BG and expanded to .65 cal going to do a better job for SD.


The power of those calibers are intended for longer range shots of larger and tougher animals than humans.

If you really want the whole power thing than a shotgun really is it. Load up with 000 buck and have at it.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by paul34: Use what you can hit with, get follow up shots relatively quickly with, afford to practice with regularly, and won't present an excessive risk to your neighbors.

Posted by Diggers: those calibers are intended for longer range shots of larger and tougher animals than humans

Yes to both.

 

[BeerSleeper]

cracking nuts with a sledgehammer, anyone?

 

[CZguy]

cracking nuts with a sledgehammer, anyone?

I like over kill.............it's kind of an American tradition.

 

[Uteridge]

I personally would not use any of the mentioned because I am rather attached to my hearing. Some people experience auditory exclusion in gunfights and they suffer no ill effects of firing a gun indoors but some people hear everything and there is nothing like shooting a 45-70 indoors to make you buy stock in a company that makes hearing aids. Plus I live close to neighbors and even though we are good friends, I don't want to explain any bullet holes in their house that happen as a result of a gunfight in mine.

And yes while there is no law stating that you cannot shoot someone with a S&W 500, you might find yourself in a situation where a prosecutor finds are reason to charge you with a crime and spends days in court waiving your huge gun around telling everyone how much of a danger to society you are. It may not be illegal but if there is anything in the gray area about your shooting at all you might well find yourself regretting your choice of gun in court because the jury are going to be made up of people who may think your choice of weapon was overkill whether it is legal or not. Keep in mind that the jury of your peers is a misnomer. The guy that handgun hunts elk in Colorado every fall with a 454 Casull will never make it in the jury box; he will be weeded out in jury selection in favor of someone who has never seen a gun but thinks that they are kind of scary.

 

[JohnBiltz]

If I had a .50 Beowolf AR it would replace my shotgun without a doubt. I like guns that stops things at close range for self defense but again long gun rounds should be fired from long guns. If I'm using a pistol I want a gun in a decent caliber that I can control and put fast repeat rounds on the target. Really I want fast repeats on whatever I'm using because people miss and you are never too close to miss. The ability to control the gun is more important than caliber.

 

[McCall911]

Would a Magnum Research BFR (460 SW, 500 SW, 45-70, 450 Marlin,etc) or a Taurus Raging Bull (44 Mag, 454 Casull, etc) be excessive?

Well, technically the .45-70 and the .450 Marlin began as rifle rounds...

I guess by excessive and overkill you might mean "messy" or potentially damaging to whatever might be behind what you're shooting. As far as I'm concerned, there's only one degree of "killed." You can't go "over."
In the cases I mentioned I would say likely most, or all, of these rounds would be excessive, unless you loaded down some of the handgun rounds more towards .45 Colt/.44 Special levels. But I have little doubt that they would work.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Uteridge: And yes while there is no law stating that you cannot shoot someone with a S&W 500, you might find yourself in a situation where a prosecutor finds are reason to charge you with a crime and spends days in court waiving your huge gun around telling everyone how much of a danger to society you are. It may not be illegal but...

Excellent point!

The use of a 10MM pistol has influenced at least one juror in an actual trial. How many similar situations have there been? No one can know.

Is it likely that the choice of firearm will influence the outcome of a defense of justification if there is some doubt about whether deadly force had actually been necessary? I think so. See this.

Would I choose a .500 S&W for defensive purposes? NO! However, recoil, penetration, and muzzle (and cylinder gap) blast would have eliminated it long before the issue of image would ever come up.

On the other hand, both the .223 round and the twelve gauge shotgun would make excellent HD weapons, but I would not opt for an AR or for a shotgun with a pistol grip with rails if I could avoid doing so.

By the way, Dr. Glenn Meyer is member GEM on THR.

 

[BushyGuy]

you can carry whatever you can, but remember the bigger the bullet the more it cost to practice, and big wheel guns are very difficult to carry all day, biggest wheel gun i would carry is a GP100 with 4-6 inch barrel no larger. A bos of 20 rds of .454 Casuall or .500 SW cost over 50 bucks for 20 shots!

i am satisfied with my "lowly" 9mm, i trained long and hard with it , if SD would arise, first thing that comes to my mind is try to keep a cool mind - thats the greatest weapon of all...

 

[Strykervet]

Why not just use a 40mm Bofors?

Deaf is deaf and blind is blind. BG is dead either way, and collateral damage is obviously of no concern. Go for the gusto.

I keep SINCGARS next to the bed and call in a Spectre gunship for a free-fire mission at my eight digit grid when I hear a bump in the night.

 

[Strykervet]

Excellent point!

The use of a 10MM pistol has influenced at least one juror in an actual trial. How many similar situations have there been? No one can know.

Is it likely that the choice of firearm will influence the outcome of a defense of justification if there is some doubt about whether deadly force had actually been necessary? I think so. See this.

Would I choose a .500 S&W for defensive purposes? NO! However, recoil, penetration, and muzzle (and cylinder gap) blast would have eliminated it long before the issue of image would ever come up.

On the other hand, both the .223 round and the twelve gauge shotgun would make excellent HD weapons, but I would not opt for an AR or for a shotgun with a pistol grip with rails if I could avoid doing so.

By the way, Dr. Glenn Meyer is member GEM on THR.

Is that 10mm juror decision the one where a guy was approached by dogs and some guy that either tried to stop the dogs or attack the man on a trailhead? Arizona or NM maybe? If so, then the 10mm arguement was made, but the real problem was that the man he shot had multiple defensive wounds and was unarmed.

If we are talking about the same man, then I read the whole story. If I were a juror, I'd have a hard time not finding him guilty too. He could have had an .22 or a .44 and I believe I'd have felt the same.

I think that in court, I could be wrong, I'm not a bottomfeeder, lethal force is lethal force. It is more important why you felt the need and the evidence that supports that, than the calibre used in the shooting.

 

[Uteridge]

If your shoot is cut and dry then you will be alright but if anything is not copasetic and you have a hostile prosecutor it could come back to bite you.

No you and I would not have a problem with someone using a 10mm vice a 38 special because we are gun people and that decision to go with the best weapon available makes sense to us. You have to remember that anyone with any significant shooting experience is going to be weeded out during jury selection and the other jurors are going to believe whoever makes the best argument.

Personally I would be at least as fearful of the criminal justice system in some states as I would be of the person who is trying to take my life. My first unit in the Marine Corps had several murder trials during the time I was there stemming from combat operations in Iraq. A hostile prosecutor trying to make a name for himself, mixed with a media that does not like you can make your life truly miserable. Don't assume a jury of your peers will have anyone with an IQ higher than their age.

 

[Strykervet]

Well said, well said.

Still, better to be tried by twelve than carried by six (or so I'm told).

 

[gamestalker]

My only concern is to reduce the chance of shooting an unintended target. Outside of that, I would use what ever weapon is available to me. I would rather not use my 7 mag. if I can avoid it because of the likelyhood of the bullet traveling through several other house's after going through the BG. But that is one of the reasons I keep my S.D. weapon on me every second, and under the pillow when I'm sleeping. I would explain why I'm so seemingly excessive in this manner, but all I can say in short is I've faced deadly circumstances more than once or twice in the last 40 years, so I won't let my guard down for a second.

 

[Prosser]

Good article on juror perception. I find it rather strange that shotguns are recommended as home defense weapons, yet handguns that are near their power are considered overkill?

While I don't much like AR 15's, I fend it offensive that we, as Americans, can't own the rifles our military use. Their is a long history and precedent for battle rifles in private ownership, for the protection of this nation from invasion. What California has done is offensive, and I believe unconstitutional.

The idea behind selling our surplus battle rifles to the American people is to make sure firearms are ready, and, ammunition use is common with our military stockpiles.

 

[Uteridge]

Yes I also find the AR 15 arguments by the drivel on the left offensive. I carry an M-4 every day when I am deployed and I am trusted to use deadly force while representing our country but as soon as I step out of uniform and drive home some of the liberals out there must think I magically turn into a raging maniac who can't possibly be trusted with a deadly "assault rifle".

The reason by shotguns are viewed as acceptable personal defense weapons and powerful handguns are not is because lots of people hunt birds with shotguns, granddaddy owned a shotgun, and they are as American as apple pie. Large revolvers are excessive to the point of being practically immoral to use on a human being. That type of firearm is only acceptable to be used when walking in brown bear country with salmon fillets tied around your neck. Even then you should try and pull a Timothy Treadwell (or whatever his name was) and try not to hurt or otherwise offend the bear in his natural habitat. It doesn't have to make sense it is all perception; shotguns kill birds and a S&W 500's kill brown bears.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Uteridge: If your shoot is cut and dry then you will be alright but if anything is not copasetic and you have a hostile prosecutor it could come back to bite you.

Your "shoot" will likely be "cut and dry" (clearly justified) if you have shot someone who has unlawfully and forcibly entered your house with a weapon.

If you have shot someone outside, and there are a number of unbiased witnesses, and all of their testimony is favorable to you, you will likely still be OK.

If, however, the "shoot" takes place somewhere where there are no witnesses other than you and the person you shot, it will likely only be "cut and dry" to you, and you do not need a hostile prosecutor for things to come back and bite you.

Don't assume a jury of your peers will have anyone with an IQ higher than their age.

I'm not quite sure where the term "jury of your peers " originated, but the constituional phrase is "fair and impartial jury."

OK. Suppose the jury is composed of twelve very fair minded, intelligent persons. They are presented with a case in which one person has shot another, and he claims that it had been immediately necessary for him to use deadly force to defend himself against imminent danger of death or serous bodily harm.

He has no corroborating witnesses, and the only evidence is forensic; it involves bullet wounds, shell casings, blood, gunshot residue on the shooter. If the other person survives, his testimony will contradict that of the shooter. If he had an accomplice, it's two to one.

So, what did happen? Did a mugger or two descend upon the shooter and threaten him, or did the shooter start an argument with them and end up shooting? Had the shooter gone out looking for the person or persons who were shot? The jury has to try to determine that, based on the evidence and testimony presented in court.

If the person who was shot turns out to have been armed, that will help the defendant (we are now in the trial stage), but if not, the jury may not conclude that the defendant had had reason to believe that he was in danger. If the defendant claims he fired as a last resort at arms length, but there is no gunshot residue on the person shot, his credibility may be in question. No one thing is likely to be determinative; it will depend entirely on the totality of the evidence. But under these circumstances, the righteousness of the shooting (and suppose that the defendant is telling the truth) is clear after the fact only to the defendant. After all, there is no reason for a fair and impartial jury to believe the testimony of one witness over that of another without some corroboration.

But before there is a jury trial, there will have to be charges. Given the scenario described, what would lead even the most fair minded prosecutor to accept the claim of the shooter, who has just performed what would without justification be a serous criminal act, that he fired in self defense and had had no other choice? Won't they all say that?

No, it is very unlikely to be cut and dried.

One factor that may impinge upon the outcome is that of mens rea, or state of mind. Is there any evidence that the shooter had a predilection for violence and the use of weapons against someone else? Such evidence could be very damaging to the shooter's case, should the other evidence and testimony be sufficiently ambiguous.

Internet postings indicating a belief that "bad guys" have forfeited their right to live, or some such; and racist posters, or signs saying that trespassers will be shot, are the kinds of things that could bear unfavorably against the defendant's case.

Glenn Meyer's jury simulations indicate rather conclusively that the jurors' perceptions of the weapons used can also make a critical difference. And remember, there was only a small amount of ambiguity introduced into the experiment, which otherwise involved unlawful entry into a home at night in a castle doctrine jurisdiction.

No, you do not need a hostile prosecutor to get you into trouble, and no, unless the evidence is all rather clear, it is most unlikely that one's "shoot" will ever by all that "cut and dry', and yes, carefully conducted jury simulations indicate that the choice of weapon may very well influence the outcome, and none of that is a function of having jurors with low intelligence quotients. It's just the way things are.

Now, the perception part may appear very unfair. If I were on a jury and were presented with an ambiguous case, the fact that a man walking in bear country had been carrying a .500 or .460 Smith and Wesson would not influence me at all. It would not matter to me if he had used hot handloads. I would of course never be empaneled, but I doubt that the gun would make a difference to the majority of potential jurors.

Take the case out of bear country and the balance may start to change. Why? The motivation for the choice of weapon may be seen differently.

The question of long arms probably only really applies in home defense, there the circumstances are less likely to be ambiguous, but Glenn Meyer's experiments are convincing enough for me. I have friends who have been shooting for years who do not like "black rifles". That may change as they become more prevalent, but at present the use of one could put one more pebble on the wrong side of the scale.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I was trying to decide today if there is such a thing as too much power in a handgun meant for home defense/self protection. Would a Magnum Research BFR (460 SW, 500 SW, 45-70, 450 Marlin,etc) or a Taurus Raging Bull (44 Mag, 454 Casull, etc) be excessive? Just wanted to toss out the question and see what you all think. Thanks for the opinions.

Assuming the gun is reliable and concealable (if you carry concealed), just about any medium to large cartridge would do.

The question I would ask is, can you shoot it accurately and fast? A cumbersome weapon that is slow to draw and get into action is a liability. So is a gun with so much recoil that you can't get off fast second and third shots.

 

[Jeff White]

Assuming the gun is reliable and concealable (if you carry concealed), just about any medium to large cartridge would do.

There is a lot of wisdom in this sentence. With modern ammunition any caliber .38 special and above in any reasonable platform will do the job for you. the deciding factor is what weapon/ammunition combination fits you and your lifestyle the best. It's more about what you personally handle the best then it is about caliber or power or platform. What works for me may not be the best choice for you.

 

[Uteridge]

I doubt very much that a large revolver that is used as a house gun will fall into the no witnesses/ambiguous circumstances type of self defense situation that Kleanbore used as a hypothetical. Many, if not most, house shootings in Castle Doctrine states are relatively "cut and dry" and the type of gun would not play a role. Where you run into problems is more along the lines of a home defense situation where your life is in danger you press the cool little pressure switch on the back of your surefire flashlight, the guy looks you in the eye and starts to come towards you, you begin your trigger press (focusing intently on your from sight of course), and then he suddenly realizes you are serious and turns away.

This does happen with some regularity and there is quite a bit of case law on the situation I just described. The reason why there is case law is because a prosecutor is almost always going to take a case to court if the man you shot has an entry wound in the back instead of the front in a "self defense" situation (it just doesn't look very good). A prosecutor where I grew up in rural Missouri is not likely to try and crucify you for the gun you used and will stick more the simple facts of the case. The same case in a more liberal jurisdiction with a populace that is not familiar with guns and possibly a liberal prosecutor that doesn't think you should own guns in the first place is going to waive your big revolver around and tell the jurors that you used a weapon that could be used to shoot down aircraft.

The important part of the defense in this case is an expert witness testifying that action beats reaction and there is no way once you started to squeeze the trigger that you could react in time to the guy turning to run away to stop your shot. This is the key witness/piece of evidence that determines whether or not your shooting is legal but if the prosecutor is throwing up a bunch of red herrings about the type of gun you used, what type of flashlight you used, and what you post on internet forums he can muddy the water and take the focus off of the real facts of the case. Yes a jury that included people who own guns and would be able to see the type of gun as unimportant and the facts of the situation as the real issue would be ideal but you are not going to get Massad Ayoob and Clint Smith on your jury. Your jury will probably know next to nothing about guns; they may be well intentioned people but they will be allowed to be on the jury specifically because of their ignorance on the subject matter.

Jury of your peers does not come from the Constitution it comes from the Magna Carta and English common law which is the basis for our legal system and has been referenced many times in U.S. courts. You do in fact have a right to a jury of your peers but according to Duren vs Missouri, a Supreme Court case in 1979, a jury of your peers only requires the ability of representation from the entire cross section of society. I am an officer in the Marine Corps; that does not mean that I can only be tried by a jury made up of other Marines or other officers (though under UCMJ in military law that is exactly how that works). What Duren vs Missouri hinged on was that the Missouri law exempting women from jury duty upon request was unconstitutional because it violated the 6th and 14th Amendments and did not ensure that the jury could be made in a way that was fairly representative of society.

 

[Uteridge]

Perhaps we should lobby that weeding potential jurors out in jury selection using gun ownership or levels of training should also be unconstitutional. There are some questions that should never be asked in jury selection. Ask me enough questions to ensure I don't know the defendant or the plaintiff. Make sure I am not a racist or would otherwise give a ruling based on prejudice against certain types of individuals and make selection based off of that.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Uteridge: I doubt very much that a large revolver that is used as a house gun will fall into the no witnesses/ambiguous circumstances type of self defense situation that Kleanbore used as a hypothetical. Many, if not most, house shootings in Castle Doctrine states are relatively "cut and dry" and the type of gun would not play a role.

Agree--that's precisely what I said in my first sentence in Post #44.

This [entry wounds in the back] does happen with some regularity and there is quite a bit of case law on the situation I just described. The reason why there is case law is because a prosecutor is almost always going to take a case to court if the man you shot has an entry wound in the back instead of the front in a "self defense" situation (it just doesn't look very good).

Has that actually been the subject of judicial appeals? Certainly the triers of fact in the courtroom will have to weigh the circumstances, but what kind of case law is there on that?

The important part of the defense in this case is an expert witness testifying that action beats reaction and there is no way once you started to squeeze the trigger that you could react in time to the guy turning to run away to stop your shot.

Yep.

Yes a jury that included people who own guns and would be able to see the type of gun as unimportant and the facts of the situation as the real issue would be ideal but you are not going to get Massad Ayoob and Clint Smith on your jury.

Not so fast. Take an ambiguous case in which a person has gone outside and shot an unarmed person who probably should not have been there. The defendant claims self defense (and of course, he could be right, depending upon why he was outside and upon what actually happened), but he can present no tangible evidence to support a reasonable belief that he was actually in imminent danger, or that the person shot had done anything wrong other than possibly unintentional trespass. Was it self defense, or was it a criminal act? The question of state of mind may well become critical. I seriously doubt that, just because a juror happens to own guns, he or she would not take into account internet postings that suggest unlawful action, posters in the defendant's gun room, the guy's movie collection and T-shirts, fake SOCOM paraphernalia, etc. as indicators of state of mind; I certainly would not.

You can add to that the type of weapon--an M4-like carbine with attached lights, bayonet, wire cutters, and magnifying night sights useful in night combat in the out of doors just might tip the scales, even if the juror were a top shot who used a top of the line AR platform in competition.

That is not just conjecture on my part. As Glenn Meyer points out, "Bartholow, et al (2005) found that hunters had negative views about assault weapons as compared to guns primarily designed for sport". He goes on to say, "Clearly, some believe the decision to use a certain weapon type may be an indicator that a user's mindset is more aggressive than simple self-defense." He then refers to his tests of that hypothesis. They are convincing to me.

His mock jury participants came from the San Antonio area. Nowhere did he say that the participants were all unfamiliar with, or opposed to the ownership of, firearms.

 

[Cosmoline]

Seems to me a .44 mag and above is just going to pass right through a person. All the energy that bullet has after it passes through the BG is pointless, it does nothing for you.

That's why you use expanding rounds. At high enough velocities they perform very well.

I don't see much point in trying to predict jury reactions. Any prosecutor or plaintiff's counsel can, with a permissive judge, introduce evidence to make *ANY* choice you make seem questionable. Trying to second guess that by altering your choice of defensive weapon is pointless. Heck, what if they find out you bought that .38 for home defense because you WANTED TO LOOK GOOD IN FRONT OF A JURY! LOL I'd rather stick with choices based on what will keep me alive. It's simple and I have no problem explaining it to a jury if it comes up. I choose the biggest baddest beast I have because I want to breath and have a heart beat. That's all there is to it.

They're making people a heck of a lot bigger than they used to. Right now there's a civil trial going on where an LEO shot a guy who was screwing around with a pellet rifle. The round that hit him fell apart on the "kid's" massive arm. If he'd actually had a real rifle, he could have spun and shot the LEO dead even after being hit. Use enough gun to stop the attack in ONE SHOT because ONE SHOT may be all you ever get. Gear up for the 400 lb linebacker because you may actually be dealing with someone of that magnitude who's trying to kill you.