Stuff about self defense that internet lawyers wont tell you

[dukeofurl]

Out of sheer curiosity - and a non-self defense legal problem - I went to the range today. Shot a round of skeet with 2 people I like to call friends of mine from the range. They are both fairly high profile local attorneys specializing in all criminal defenses - DISCLAIMER, this applies to FL statutes only.

They gave me some tips that I'll type back here:

Never give a statement. NEVER. Lawyer up and let them handle it.

The stories you hear about - only use self defense ammo that local cops have, you will get prosecuted for use of anything marked LE only - are BS. No one case has been won or lost on choice of hollowpoint ammunition.

A clean shoot is a clean shoot.

Apparently, GSR tests can tell what the shot distance was plus or minus 7 feet. That can be the breaking point between a clean shoot and a bad shoot.

You have a better chance of winning if the bad guy is IN YOUR HOUSE. Take that for what you want it to, I've heard the "I'm dragging the mother***ker into my house if I have to...." story so many times I'm not going to even dignify it with a response.

Have lots of money. You have to be rich to defend yourself nowadays.

Read Massad Ayoob. They do. His books are a wealth of information that they have used, and will continue to use in the research for defense of their clients.

You can keep shooting till he hits the ground - but not after. In the end, only one story is preferred.

If you have an evil black rifle with a tricked out aimpoint, knights RAS, et al - dont use it to shoot anybody. It looks bad and can only hurt your case. Ditto for USPSA Open guns.

 

[F4GIB]

Exactly the same advice that you'd get from the "internet lawyers" that are members of this board.

THE GOLDEN RULE: Always "lawyer up" and never, ever "consent" to any search.

 

[BigG]

Keep your mouth shut. More people are convicted by what they say than what the do/did.

 

[HankB]

I've heard that if instead of giving a Miranda warning, cops were required to slap a piece of duct tape over a suspect's mouth as soon as they detained him, today's conviction rates would be cut AT LEAST in half.

Lawyer up and shut up.

 

[Treylis]

The stories you hear about - only use self defense ammo that local cops have, you will get prosecuted for use of anything marked LE only - are BS. No one case has been won or lost on choice of hollowpoint ammunition.

A clean shoot is a clean shoot.

Amen.

If you have an evil black rifle with a tricked out aimpoint, knights RAS, et al - dont use it to shoot anybody. It looks bad and can only hurt your case. Ditto for USPSA Open guns.

What exactly does a USPSA Open gun look like?

 

[Stebalo]

If you have an evil black rifle with a tricked out aimpoint, knights RAS, et al - dont use it to shoot anybody. It looks bad and can only hurt your case. Ditto for USPSA Open guns.

I read I think over on the fnhipower.com board about a guy who was charged after a self defense shooting. They claim the prosecutor tried to use the fact that he had removed the magazine safety from his BHP to demonstrate that he was a dangerous and irresponsible individual. The thing is, he hadn't even used that BHP in the shooting. Wish I had a url for you.

 

[BigG]

What exactly does a USPSA Open gun look like?

Something like a Colt 45 Auto morphed into a Han Solo blaster. HTH

Courtesy of USPSA

 

[Langenator]

If you have an evil black rifle with a tricked out aimpoint, knights RAS, et al - dont use it to shoot anybody. It looks bad and can only hurt your case. Ditto for USPSA Open guns.

Hmmm...what about a Rmington 870 with a pistol grip buttstock and a Surefire forearm light?

 

[geekWithA.45]

If you have ONLY an EBR/USPSA open gun handy, you BETTER use it to shoot, because if you don't you'll be dead. (Otherwise, it's not a clean shoot, is it?)

Seriously, the assertion that it's better to accept the consequences (death/serious bodily injury) of what would otherwise be a clean shoot because of the political incorrectness of the firearm-at-hand is ludicrous.

A clean shoot is indeed a clean shoot.


To be certain, you'll probably have to deal with some extra grandstanding y the DA, but one's life is too high a price to deny the DA the opportunity to granstand.

No one will praise you for the virtue of choosing not to wield your "evil" weapon at your funeral.


Taken in the spirit of "if you have a choice of armaments" though, it's something to bear in mind, and what it's speaking to is the dynamic that in some jurisdictions, the DA might try to leverage whatever is the political hot potato du jour to make a case where one would otherwise not exist.

 

[Carlos Cabeza]

Well I've always said I'd rather be on the front page in my orange skivies with a big ???? eating grin, than 20 pages back with a 1"x 3.5" column stating my life's acomplishments, the church I attended, surviving relatives etc.. What's that saying again ????????????

 

[whm1974]

The stories you hear about - only use self defense ammo that local cops have, you will get prosecuted for use of anything marked LE only - are BS. No one case has been won or lost on choice of hollowpoint ammunition.

The case itself may not have been won or lost, but the DA might look at what kind of ammo you were using in order to decide to prosecute. Stick to facterory ammo and avoid anything with names like "ManSlayer" or whatever. And shoot for the chest, not the head.

You have a better chance of winning if the bad guy is IN YOUR HOUSE. Take that for what you want it to, I've heard the "I'm dragging the mother***ker into my house if I have to...." story so many times I'm not going to even dignify it with a response.

There are people in prison for doing this sort of thing. In all 50 states if the BG turns around and leaves once you show deadly force, you then can't shoot because that BG is no longer a threat to you.

Keep your mouth shut. More people are convicted by what they say than what the do/did.

Very true.

Seriously, the assertion that it's better to accept the consequences (death/serious bodily injury) of what would otherwise be a clean shoot because of the political incorrectness of the firearm-at-hand is ludicrous.

Agreed. In fact it may be that the more "evil" the weapon looks the less likely you may need to use it.

What's that saying again ????????????

It'sbetter to be tryed by 12 then carryed by 6.

-Bill

 

[larry_minn]

This is why I would suggest to never use handloaded ammo in carry gun. (If that is all you have of course) Thing is they can (within few feet) determin how far you were when shots fired. BUT they must have same ammo to do this. Now if you have Win STHP 9mm 115G they can get test ammo/use rest of mag/box. BUT if you handload you will have to waste court time (money for lawyer) IF the DA wants to paint you as killer who had to load your own super killer ammo the stuff local Police use not deadly enought (maybe comment it would not be allowed under Genevia/Hauge accords) (even thou Most LEO ammo not allowed either)
The arguement could be made the ammo COULD not be consistant so any measurements thrown out and confusion tossed to jury.
Factory ammo avoids that entire (possible) arguement and having the SIMPLE answer (remember most juries are folks too dumb to get out of jury duty or don't have job and can collect welfare anyway) (Apology to those good folks who DO their civic duty and take the major cut in pay to sit on jury)
Which would you like to have to give as answer "The ammo I used is same as the Police depts use I figure it is good enough for them its good enough for me) Or "Well I needed to save money so I loaded them just like the factory........"

 

[HankB]

I personally use premium factory ammo.

BUT . . . if a person uses handloads, it seems that if "they" can't use powder burns to clear you, they can't use powder burns to hang you, either. Powder burns would become a complete evidentiary "non-issue."

(If there are any actual lawyers reading this thread, I'd welcome their comments on the above.)

 

[gunsmith]

plus or minus 7 feet?

Are you trying to tell me if the BG is more then 7ft away not to shoot?

It's been a few yrs but my Armed Guard instructor told me about this "Dennis Tueller" study that said anyone in 21ft is fair game,especially if they have a knife, club or gun.
If some one is a deadly threat and I have a gun they're not getting anywhere close to 7ft if I can help it.

 

[DMF]

They claim the prosecutor tried to use the fact that he had removed the magazine safety from his BHP to demonstrate that he was a dangerous and irresponsible individual. The thing is, he hadn't even used that BHP in the shooting. Wish I had a url for you.

Sorry, but unless you can find a url to a court decision that shows this was a factor in the case I am inclined to write this off to more internet urban legend.

Here is the key if deadly force is justified, it's justified no matter what you use. Want a real scenario. Man on a subway in NYC is threatened by 4 young men, he is ILLEGALLY carrying a revolver. He uses the ILLEGALLY carried revolver to shoot the four men. He asserts self defense on the 4 counts of attempted murder and is acquitted. He is however, convicted on the one count of illegal carry of a handgun.

BTW, for those don't remember that was Bernard Goetz.

Again, if lethal force is justified by a threat of death or serious bodily injury, the tool you use to deliver that justified force is irrelevant.

 

[macman37]

Great info. One addition: The "shoot him and then drag him back inside" thing will stand up... until the cops get there. Modern forensics will prevail and you will look BAD. (watch any of the "cold case" shows on cable...)

Reminds me, I need to get the # of a Pro 2A lawyer in my area. Thanks for jogging my memory.

jim

 

[Trebor]

They claim the prosecutor tried to use the fact that he had removed the magazine safety from his BHP to demonstrate that he was a dangerous and irresponsible individual. The thing is, he hadn't even used that BHP in the shooting. Wish I had a url for you.

Mass Ayoob mentions this in one of his "Ayoob Files." There is service that allows you to search magazine articles. When I can find the URL for that service in my favorites I'll plug the info in and see if I can find the original article.

 

[Werewolf]

Mass Ayoob mentions this in one of his "Ayoob Files."

FWIW - which ain't much sometimes - a lot of what Ayoob says is what he thinks/assumes and not what is or has been...

 

[DMF]

Ayoob, has contradicted himself too many times for me take him seriously anymore. IIRC he's reversed himself several times on whether a 1911 is appropriate for self defense.

Also, as I tried to illustrate with my recounting highlights of the Goetz case, if lethal force is justified by a threat of death or serious injury, then the instrument used to deliver it is irrelevant. The problem with these legends about modifications to the gun, handloads, etc. is there is no case law to back that up. There's plenty of more case like Goetz though where the gun used was not modified or unusual, but outright illegal, and the person may have faced charges for the weapons violation, but was made a successful self defense case on the murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, etc. charges.

 

[JohnKSa]

The lethal force portion of my first CHL course was taught by a constable.

He must have repeated 20 times or more during the class that the most important thing after a shooting was to tell the police you want to cooperate but that you need to talk to an attorney before you make any statements. If you say ANYTHING at all, it should ONLY be that you were afraid for your life.

 

[Jim K]

It is always astonshing to me the number of people on these sites who think they are in some kind of Western movie, where the sheriff decides the shooting was justified and congratulates the shooter for eliminating the BG.

If it ever worked that way, it doesn't any more. Anyone who shoots at, shoots, or kills someone outside the home (or in it in some circumstances) can expect to be arrested, have to make bond to get out of jail, and more than likely be brought to trial. Even if criminal charges are not pressed or the shooter is found innocent, he can well face a civil suit for any injury or death he has caused. And, like OJ, he may win in criminal court and still lose a civil suit. For most of us, that would mean paying off a civil judgement for the rest of our lives.

Another aspect no magazine ever mentions is race. Racial tension is pervasive in the U.S., and can easily be a factor in a shooting. If you are in an area where most folks don't look like you, and you shoot someone, you are in deep trouble even if an objective viewer might call it a "good" shoot. The chances are the police don't look like you, nor does the prosecuting attorney, nor does the judge, nor do the jurors. Think your case will be decided in an unbiased manner? Dream on.

One of the more stupid statements I have read was from a guy who said that if he were confronted by police after a shooting, he would never drop his super duper custom gun, and that he would rather be shot than have his gun scratched. I can pretty well guarantee he would be shot if he refused to drop his gun on an order from a police officer.

Jim

 

[PATH]

Ditto!

 

[Burt Blade]

I am just a humble computer nerd. If there are any currently credentialed attorneys on this forum, I would be very interested to hear their opinions of what is being expressed here.

 

[AZgunstudent]

They claim the prosecutor tried to use the fact that he had removed the magazine safety from his BHP to demonstrate that he was a dangerous and irresponsible individual. The thing is, he hadn't even used that BHP in the shooting.

This goes along with Mas Ayoob's advice to never remove or deactivate a safety device. IIRC, the owner of the Browning was fiddling with his Commander at work and had an ND which sent a .45 bullet through the head of his secretary. The prosecutor used the uninvolved-but-modified Browning in an attempt to portray the shooter as "reckless" and prone to irresponsible behavior with firearms.

Mas is of the opinion that the same angle of prosecutorial attack is applicable to guns used in defense. Maybe he's right. I do note that many of the court cases he cites in his "Combat Handguns" columns today are the same cases he cited fifteen years ago in the same rag. I suspect that if prosecutions and lawsuits in self-defense shootings were as common as Mas implies, he'd have more cases to cite.

Mike

 

[Ant Mod]

Keep your mouth shut. More people are convicted by what they say than what the do/did.

I really dont agree with this and lawyering up when questioned. I read a lengthy article about a guy who did just that. He ended up being prosecuted and spending a long time in jail while it was all worked out.

The guy had been assaulted by two people, a man and women. The man came at the guy with a bat or knife and the guy shot the man. When the police came the women claimed that the guy just shot her man for no reason. When the guy wouldnt answer question and lawyered up they put him in jail thinking the women was right.