What should you not use in self defense?

[MTechnik]

Just to start building the list -

Rock Salt - it'll just piss them off
Your own reloads - I've heard this a lot. Is this because of loading consistency? Or because making your own man killing bullets is less evil than buying them at the store?
a fully automatic weapon - I read about a ruger employee servicing an AC556 that had to use it, and the DA went ape shit over it.
"less than lethal" rounds (bean bag shotgun rounds) - they're not un-lethal, and if you had to use something potentially lethal, why didn't you?

What else should be added or debunked and removed from the list?

And yes, if your life is in danger, and ALL you have is a Glock 18 with reloads - by all means, use it.

[David]

What should you not use in self defense?



Poor judgment

Any language which could be construed as "Hate Speech"

Lines from movies

A CCW badge

A weak caliber

Celebrating (Such as screaming "GET SUM!" while they're twitching on the ground)

[ToddG]

Rock Salt - it'll just piss them off

The primary issue is that it's not even marginally effective, yet will be considered lethal force. If you're justified in using lethal force, don't throw salt.


Your own reloads - I've heard this a lot. Is this because of loading consistency? Or because making your own man killing bullets is less evil than buying them at the store?

The common argument against reloads is that it makes you look evil and/or can't be "ballistically compared" after a fight. Then someone finds one or two bizarre outlier cases and uses them as an example of this so-called rule.

The reality is that almost all self defense claims are very straightforward and things like weapon selection, ammo selection, what you're wearing, etc. will never be relevant or admissible. CSI:Toledo aside, the odds you'll need to worry about ballistic trajectories and GSR are practically nil.

The main reason to choose factory ammunition over reloads is because factory ammo, especially premium JHP ammo from major manufacturers (ATK/Federal/Speer, Remington, and Winchester), is:

using the latest, most tested, most successful JHP technology
quality control tested with equipment that no home loader could possibly hope to replicate
built with features like case mouth sealant and low flash powders that are unavailable or beyond the capability of most handloaders.



a fully automatic weapon

Same as above, except that there's a more obvious tug at the heart strings of a jury when they're told you're using a machine gun... a highly regulated machine gun that most people aren't even allowed to own because of their tremendous destructive potential. Of course, the flipside to that is if you own an NFA weapon, you can demonstrate that you've been fully vetted by ATF and -- unlike most gun owners in America -- you have explicit approval from ATF to own such a device.

[LittleLebowski]

I would not use reloads in self defense. Todd covered most of the reasons for using quality factory SD rounds above.

[jslaker]

The main reason to choose factory ammunition over reloads is because factory ammo, especially premium JHP ammo from major manufacturers (ATK/Federal/Speer, Remington, and Winchester), is:

using the latest, most tested, most successful JHP technology
quality control tested with equipment that no home loader could possibly hope to replicate
built with features like case mouth sealant and low flash powders that are unavailable or beyond the capability of most handloaders.


I would add to this that most modern JHPs are designed to perform at their best within a particular velocity envelope. Push them too fast and they're less likely to expand optimally -- petals start to peel back or break off. So reloading doesn't really gain you any advantages since quality factory JHPs will be loaded in their optimal range to begin with.

[MTechnik]

Adding (at least in urban or suburban areas): warning shots. Some places say you can't shoot at all (unless you are actively defending yourself), making you a criminal.

[jslaker]

Adding (at least in urban or suburban areas): warning shots. Some places say you can't shoot at all (unless you are actively defending yourself), making you a criminal.

Also: Hollywood notions of shooting at the legs to disable, etc.

Generally if someone seriously suggests this it says to me that A. they don't realize how difficult hitting a target like moving human legs really is and/or B. they haven't fully accepted the gravity of using a firearm on a human being and haven't completely accepted that all gunshot wounds have a significant probability of being lethal.

B is actually worse, IMO, since it increases the likelihood of that person using a firearm in a situation that might not warrant it.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

RE: Reloads - They don't matter in and of themselves.

If the shooting is justified - Grade A 100% Kosher, it doesn't matter what was used.

If the shooting isn't that clean, and other factors are in play, like it was a former domestic partner or your significant other's ex/baby-daddy or someone who you owe money to or owes you money...or if the guy turned as you were shooting him resulting in entry wounds in the back, or you fucked up and made a statement which confused the police...the use of handloads adds to the sum of errors in the situation.

Your actions are the use of force - deadly force - by one citizen against another. It's going to be looked at, poked, prodded and examined by people who may or may not agree with your actions, and possibly have to be reviewed by more than one government office, then maybe by a jury if it goes that far.

It's an additional factor that someone need to look at, then wonder how if fits into the event, if it fits in at all.

The reason to not use handloads is simple - simplicity itself.

The situation will be confused enough. Don't add another factor, even if it's something people feel can be explained.

An issue you don't have to deal with...is an issue you don't have to deal with, regardless if it can be justified, explained or rationalized.

[MTechnik]

Also: Hollywood notions of shooting at the legs to disable, etc.

Generally if someone seriously suggests this it says to me that A. they don't realize how difficult hitting a target like moving human legs really is and/or B. they haven't fully accepted the gravity of using a firearm on a human being and haven't completely accepted that all gunshot wounds have a significant probability of being lethal.

B is actually worse, IMO, since it increases the likelihood of that person using a firearm in a situation that might not warrant it.

Even then, what about ricochets? It's a "perfect" angle, aiming towards knees and feet.

[jar]

The story you're thinking of with the AC556 was Gary Fadden: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_168_28/ai_112685749 Gary was a salesman for H&K.

[MTechnik]

The story you're thinking of with the AC556 was Gary Fadden: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_168_28/ai_112685749 Gary was a salesman for H&K.

That was it. I did a quick hunt this AM and couldn't find it. Thanks!

[David Armstrong]

The main reason you shouldn't use reloads, certain gun modifications, full auto, and so on is that you end up having to pay me or someone like me lots of money for no reason. Anything out of the norm or expected that your lawyer has to prepare for means more time which means money for the lawyer. Since your lawyer doesn't know anything about guns it then means time with an expert, which in turn means more money. Like Todd and some others have said it really doesn't matter to most good, clean shootings. But it may require some research and prep time, be it a criminal case or a civil case, and that means money.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

The main reason you shouldn't use reloads, certain gun modifications, full auto, and so on is that you end up having to pay me or someone like me lots of money for no reason. Anything out of the norm or expected that your lawyer has to prepare for means more time which meansBIG money for the lawyer. Since your lawyer doesn't know anything about guns it then means time with an expert, which in turn means more BIG money. Like Todd and some others have said it really doesn't matter to most good, clean shootings. But it may require some research and prep time, be it a criminal case or a civil case, and that means BIG money.

Fixed your post.

[Aray]

What kind of certain modifications? I'm not looking for an inclusive list, just some examples.

[YVK]

The main reason you shouldn't use reloads, certain gun modifications, full auto, and so on is that you end up having to pay me or someone like me lots of money for no reason. Anything out of the norm or expected that your lawyer has to prepare for means more time which means money for the lawyer. Since your lawyer doesn't know anything about guns it then means time with an expert, which in turn means more money. Like Todd and some others have said it really doesn't matter to most good, clean shootings. But it may require some research and prep time, be it a criminal case or a civil case, and that means money.

Seems like this can be extended to many aspects, and would largely depend on how aggressive plaintiff's attorney is. For example, if I use an AR-15, instead of 12 gauge shotgun, it can give an opportunity to vilify my choice, and, by extension, me. If I use 12 gauge Remi with side-saddle, it can be "unfavorably" compared to, say, over-and-under or side-by-side. Both "attacks" should be repelled in otherwise justifiable self-defense case, albeit at higher cost to a defendant. However, since there is no legal definition what constitutes a "non-excessive" firearm, I get an impression that just about anything can be used for such attacks with resultant increased cost, as long as plaintiff's lawyer thinks it is worth pursuing?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Seems like this can be extended to many aspects, and would largely depend on how aggressive plaintiff's attorney is. For example, if I use an AR-15, instead of 12 gauge shotgun, it can give an opportunity to vilify my choice, and, by extension, me. If I use 12 gauge Remi with side-saddle, it can be "unfavorably" compared to, say, over-and-under or side-by-side. Both "attacks" should be repelled in otherwise justifiable self-defense case, albeit at higher cost to a defendant. However, since there is no legal definition what constitutes a "non-excessive" firearm, I get an impression that just about anything can be used for such attacks with resultant increased cost, as long as plaintiff's lawyer thinks it is worth pursuing?

It's a really overblown fear.

The case has to be worth pursuing, and for that to occur a lot of things have to go wrong.

You need to be unjustified in your use of force, for one.

For another, you need to have insurance or assets worth going after, and the victim needs to be sympathetic.

If you weren't justified in your use of a firearm, forget the civil side. You are in jail.

If you weren't totally justified and somehow the state declined to prosecute, it's still a difficult burden to overcome.

Can it occur - yes.

But you should be more worried about being crushed to death by an elephant while having sex with identical twin cheerleaders.

These cases make headlines because they are rare, not common, and even more rarely does the media report correctly, or even understand exactly what went wrong resulting in the lawsuit and the victory for the plaintiff-criminal.

[MTechnik]

And I presume there is no negative stigma to carrying a full sized pistol with a TLR-2 light+laser, correct?

[BCL]

And I presume there is no negative stigma to carrying a full sized pistol with a TLR-2 light+laser, correct?

I'm not a lawyer by any definition, but it seems like it would be pretty easy to explain in a positive light (i.e. the light helps you ID the who the shooter is; the laser can help you be more accurate under low-light/high stress situations).

[YVK]

The case has to be worth pursuing, and for that to occur a lot of things have to go wrong.


Yes, I understand that, the premise of that happening is that the case is deemed worth pursuing by plaintiff's attorney. That's exactly what I said in the last sentence of my previous post.


It's a really overblown fear.



The problem is that, given overall lack of accurate public reporting of such cases, one has to rely pretty much on his common sense to decide what's overblown and what's not. I can tell you that I know a number - such as, in pleural - of LEOs and people in industry who, while carry ARs at work, keep a 12 gauge shotguns as their HD long arms. No case references, no loud stories, just simple actions by men who had to respond to shootings, file police reports and testify at hearings. While this is purely anecdotal reporting and it doesn't fully withstand case-evidence critique, if anecdotal evidence is all you got, then it is all you got.

P.S. It is probably worth mentioning that I look at our judicial system through a prism of my personal experience. While I have not been sued (yet), I am privy to a number of medical malpractice suits and had to participate as expert in pre-litigation hearings. I've seen a most tangential stuff brought in and played out in such a way that lay people in hearings couldn't be convinced otherwise.

[MTechnik]

I've seen a most tangential stuff brought in and played out in such a way that lay people in hearings couldn't be convinced otherwise.

Probably some great stories there.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Yes, I understand that, the premise of that happening is that the case is deemed worth pursuing by plaintiff's attorney. That's exactly what I said in the last sentence of my previous post.



The problem is that, given overall lack of accurate public reporting of such cases, one has to rely pretty much on his common sense to decide what's overblown and what's not. I can tell you that I know a number - such as, in pleural - of LEOs and people in industry who, while carry ARs at work, keep a 12 gauge shotguns as their HD long arms. No case references, no loud stories, just simple actions by men who had to respond to shootings, file police reports and testify at hearings. While this is purely anecdotal reporting and it doesn't fully withstand case-evidence critique, if anecdotal evidence is all you got, then it is all you got.

P.S. It is probably worth mentioning that I look at our judicial system through a prism of my personal experience. While I have not been sued (yet), I am privy to a number of medical malpractice suits and had to participate as expert in pre-litigation hearings. I've seen a most tangential stuff brought in and played out in such a way that lay people in hearings couldn't be convinced otherwise.

This is the result of a compilation of factors.

Yes, lawyers do try to keep an aura of confusion around most things. It is was simple, the people wouldn't pay us...then hunt us for sport.

(Use $20's a bait, then go for a double lung shot as the lawyer bends to pick up the $$. Go for the older ones because the meat is pre-marinated with good whiskey...)

Law related to lethal force isn't all that complex. The application of it as the situation is occuring can be, and what is really needed in my opinion is a classroom & force on force scenario training block of instruction on the application of the law to help people sort out the bullshit from the real-shit.

Further, people are very gear-centric when they should be software-centric.

It's easier to buy gear than it is to understand how & when to use it. We know from the text of the law what size the gun can be, how many rounds it holds...but the intangables surrounding it aren't as well documented in an easily searchable format.

That's partly because the legal reporting is very fucked up. Only cases which are tried make it into case reporters, and then usually only appealed cases. Plead out cases aren't reported, nor are settled cases (which are usually confidential).

Further, they are only aplicable within that state, so people are SOL if something on point didn't go down in your state, then it's just advisory, not binding.

Even if you wanted to search for it, you can't just google it because the companies who run the search engines charge, so you'd have to hit a library which has westlaw or lexis-nexis to even start.

This, and other factors, result in people getting a somewhat skewed view, to one degree or another, based on partial information which they may or may not know is partial, which also may or may not be on point to that person's situation.

Also, people may know something was important in a case - but not why it was important.

Take Harold Fish and the infamous 10mm.

The 10mm was a talking point. It didn't make the case be prosecuted...the 4 hour confusing, rambling, self contradicting statement, and the statement of people who's timeline contradicted his did that.

The 10mm was used in the trial argument, but that's because it offered a nice hook for a closing argument.

As to the AR v. Shotgun debate for the home...to me, it's a false argument. One is an assault rifle, the other is the next best thing to a machine gun.

If you have screwed the pooch to the degree your weapon is being discussed, you are way beyond the point the other would have helped you.

Actions matter.
Post incident statements matter.

What the gun look like, what it was loaded with...that's important, but not to the degree it's made out to be, nor for the reasons people believe.

As to things brought out in a way lay-people would think about it, that's very true; however, more than one thing has to go wrong before you start doing that.

Once you are in the clusterfuck...olive oil & vegtables are used differently, shall we say...than the common usage. But you have to get to the clusterfuck first.

Same thing with your dreaded Glock with the sniper sights (warren tacticals) loaded with bullets outlawed by our military (WWB 115 JHP).


I hope I'm making things a bit less confusing, and that I'm not trying to talk down to anyone, because it's not my intention to do that.

The view is a bit different from the other side of the fun-house mirror, and I'm just trying to convey that to get across that people have a LOT more lee-way in weapons and use of force than they might sometimes believe.

[David Armstrong]

Seems like this can be extended to many aspects, and would largely depend on how aggressive plaintiff's attorney is. For example, if I use an AR-15, instead of 12 gauge shotgun, it can give an opportunity to vilify my choice, and, by extension, me. If I use 12 gauge Remi with side-saddle, it can be "unfavorably" compared to, say, over-and-under or side-by-side. Both "attacks" should be repelled in otherwise justifiable self-defense case, albeit at higher cost to a defendant. However, since there is no legal definition what constitutes a "non-excessive" firearm, I get an impression that just about anything can be used for such attacks with resultant increased cost, as long as plaintiff's lawyer thinks it is worth pursuing?
So why give them anything extra to think about pursuing? That is my only point. You do what you need to do, but if there is a choice go with whatever is easier to explain or what seems more normal. I had a civil case a while back where the fact that a guy had decided to carry in an ankle holster ended up being about an $800 decision because of "Why didn't he carry on his waist like most people do?"

Like Mitchell said in the above post, you have a lot of lee-way and most anything can be explained and rationalized. But the less there is to explain or rationalize the less chance you have to NEED to explain or rationalize things. I sort of present it to my students like this: you can load up your gun with the new SuperDeathDealerManvaporizerMagnumRhinostomper round or you can load it up with the same Gold Dot ammo your local police use. If you have to use your gun, will the Rhinostomper really work that much better than the Gold Dot? If not, why give the other side something to make an issue of?

[jslaker]

Further, people are very gear-centric when they should be software-centric.

I think this gets right to the heart of the matter. Great post.

[ToddG]

If you have screwed the pooch to the degree your weapon is being discussed, you are way beyond the point the other would have helped you.

This is so excellently concise that you should have it turned into a tattoo, Mitchell. :cool:

[MTechnik]

Yeah, excellent post, Mitchell!

[SLG]

you should be more worried about being crushed to death by an elephant while having sex with identical twin cheerleaders.


I was always worried about that happening, until I got married, that is. Though I admit, I do still worry about it. Sometimes:-)

[MTechnik]

I was always worried about that happening, until I got married, that is. Though I admit, I do still worry about it. Sometimes:-)

Is that called worrying? Hrmm... I think later I'm going to worry about Jenna Jameson...

[SLG]

Well, we all have our fears in life.

[LittleLebowski]

Well, we all have our fears in life.

Spiders and women. Spider women.

[Ed L]

I think the biggest problems I have seen in home defense shootings is when people leave the safety of their locked house to confront someone.

In many places lethal force is only justified if faced with the unavoidable threat of death or serious bodily injury. It's hard to argue that it was unavoidable if you've left the safety of your locked house to confront someone when armed with a weapon. Exceptions would be if they are firebombing you house or endangering the life of a third party outside of your house who you must leave the safety of your house to rescue.

There was the famous case of the person in Louisiana who went outside to confront the Japanese student who had come to knock on his front door by mistake and now was going around to the side of the house. Had he stayed in the locked house and called the police the shooting would have been avoided. It is a different issue if the guy has forced his way in or is in the process of doing so that it looks like he is about to break in.

Laws vary from state to state, as do legal attitudes. it is important to be knowledgeable of those of anywhere you might be.

I have a friend her in TX who shot an intruder who had broken his home window and was in the process of slipping his leg in. He was not indicted. Another friend here in TX stepped outside to confront someone attempting to break into his car and shot him, wounding him, and was not even indicted.

Contrast this with the case of someone in NY state who went out with his licensed handgun to confront three 18 year olds who were breaking into cars in his neighborhood. One of them tried to rush him and he shot and killed the person. He wound up standing trial for manslaughter. He was found not guilty, but the financial and emotional toll must have been terrible. Here is a link to the case:
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/

But generally, you want to be seen as doing everything possible to avoid situations and any confrontations that have the potential to turn deadly if you can safely do so. This extends to things like not mouthing off to people or getting embroiled in arguments when out and about carrying a concealed firearm.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Stand your ground laws aside - the standard for using lethal force is that it is only justified when you are confronted with imminent, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave harm.

The trick is have a base of knowledge which allows you to make that determination sooner.

You are judged on what you know at that time, and then if your judgment is reasonable to those reviewing the facts of the case.

What is reasonable? Depends on the person's basis of knowledge and background.

Person A "just knows" he's going to be attached.

Person B has taken instruction on pre-assault cues and that information is solidly grounded on statistics, and police-criminal interactions of the instructor sharing the material with the students. He knows he is going to be attached.

Person C "just knows" he's going to be attached...because he spend 8 years of college as a bouncer in 14 different bars during the time it took for him to get his masters in women's studies (Don't laugh, the ladies thought he was sensitive and he had a good time...).

Both A, B & C respond in exactly the same way to the same situation.

Who is having an easier time explaining why he put someone in the hospital?

[David Marlow]

Stand your ground laws aside - the standard for using lethal force is that it is only justified when you are confronted with imminent, otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave harm.

The trick is have a base of knowledge which allows you to make that determination sooner.

You are judged on what you know at that time, and then if your judgment is reasonable to those reviewing the facts of the case.

What is reasonable? Depends on the person's basis of knowledge and background.

Person A "just knows" he's going to be attached.

Person B has taken instruction on pre-assault cues and that information is solidly grounded on statistics, and police-criminal interactions of the instructor sharing the material with the students. He knows he is going to be attached.

Person C "just knows" he's going to be attached...because he spend 8 years of college as a bouncer in 14 different bars during the time it took for him to get his masters in women's studies (Don't laugh, the ladies thought he was sensitive and he had a good time...).

Both A, B & C respond in exactly the same way to the same situation.

Who is having an easier time explaining why he put someone in the hospital?

I'm certainly not smart, but in terms of who will have the easier time explaining, as in articulating, why he/she chose that course of action, then the second person probably will. If I'm not mistaken, the law sees justification based on what a reasonable person with similar education, background, training, or experience would do given the same information available to the accused at the time, right? It seems that someone who is trained and certified with a proven method would have an easier time explaining his or her thought process that led up to the shooting than someone who graduated from "The School of Hard Knocks". Assuming everything else about the three is the same (i.e. age, size, gender, physical limitations, etc), my vote goes to number two.

Or was this a rhetorical question?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I'm certainly not smart, but in terms of who will have the easier time explaining, as in articulating, why he/she chose that course of action, then the second person probably will. If I'm not mistaken, the law sees justification based on what a reasonable person with similar education, background, training, or experience would do given the same information available to the accused at the time, right? It seems that someone who is trained and certified with a proven method would have an easier time explaining his or her thought process that led up to the shooting than someone who graduated from "The School of Hard Knocks". Assuming everything else about the three is the same (i.e. age, size, gender, physical limitations, etc), my vote goes to number two.

Or was this a rhetorical question?

No, it wasn't rhetorical.

B & C will have the easier time explaining why they did what they did, likely because B has the benefit of being able to explain what and why in terms someone reviewing the incident will understand, i.e. "imminent & unavoidable threat of death or grave injury...ability, opportunity, intent...";

C's opinions and judgments of the situation, if based on longstanding personal experience in dealing with violent people, once explained in similar terms to B's, will produce the same results - each reacted based on what they reasonably believed to be a substantial likelyhood they were going to be attacked, and based upon the training & experience they had, the belief was reasonable.

Self defense does not require you to be RIGHT, but it does require you to be REASONABLE, both subjectively (to yourself based on your training & experience) and objectively (to the reviewer of your incident if he were to imagine himself in your shoes).

The subjective part - you, and your basis of information - allows you to justify faster action and responses, maybe even preemptive striking if called for, provided it's based on solid reasoning and can be shown to be reasonable within a framework that a reviewer can understand.

"I just knew I was going to be attacked" isn't enough...

How did you know?

If "How did you know?" can be answered in a rational, fact based way, such as "I recognized his bladed body stance, mono-syllabic responses, his failure to keep distance when I told him to stay the fuck back, 'grooming behavior', target glancing, and his matching my movement as I stepped sideways were classic signs of a set up to an attack as I was taught by XXX who is a recognized self defense instructor/as I learned in Y-number of years working the door at bars in college as a bouncer dealing with violent people..." then hitting someone before they get the chance to hit you isn't outside the realm of reasonable.

A person who reasonably believes that another is
about to use physical force upon him/her need not wait until
he/she is struck or wounded. He/she may, in such
circumstances, be the first to use physical force, so long as
he/she reasonably believed it was about to be used against
him/her [or someone else]. He/she is then not considered to
be the “initial aggressor,” even though he/she strikes the first
blow or inflicts the first wound.

NYS Jury instructions - http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/1-General/Defenses/CJI2d.Justification.Person.Physical_Force.pdf

Basically, the better trained you are, the easier it is to act because you can effectively say "I was just doing what established, recognized, peer reviewed instructors told me to do in that situation...I didn't just make this shit up on the fly."

If following the lesson's of established, peer reviewed, nationally recognized instructors isn't reasonable, I'd like to know what is.

[DrDave]

There was the famous case of the person in Louisiana who went outside to confront the Japanese student who had come to knock on his front door by mistake and now was going around to the side of the house.
This even made headlines in South Africa. IIRC the guy shot him with a .44 Magnum, which went down like a cold glass of vomit.

+100 on the warning shots issue. There seems to be a misperception on our side of the duckpond that warning shots are mandatory. This is a no-brainer. If you are justified in using deadly force, you shouldn't be purposefully sending off rounds in a potentially unsafe direction

[MikeO]

The stuff hanging on my walls: horsebow, crossbow, battle axe, spiked ball and chain mace, boar spear, katana, rapier, gladius, battle axe, tomahawk... unless I really, really have to.

I know what should not matter to a jury when they are deliberating, I don't know what will... my attorney said she has to be prepared for every argument, prep takes time, and her time is my money. So I KISS by using what the local law (not local SWAT) used/uses: 38 revolver, 9x19 auto, 12g pump.

We don' need no stinkin ARs... ;)