Weapons used in self defense their effect on sentencing

[Nephrology]

A very interesting study done in an experimental (i.e. fake) court room setting. The weapons tested for their effect on guilty v. not guilty and sentence length were an AR-15, a Ruger Mini 14, A Winchester 1300 12 Ga pump action, a over/under sporting shotgun, a Glock 19, and a S&W 642 .38 snubnose. Link and excerpts below:

http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2009/09/will-it-hurt-me-in-court-weapons-issues-and-the-fears-of-the-legally-armed-citizen/


The Effects of Juror Gender and Weapon Type

Women delivered the homeowner defendants higher sentences than men (Male average = 3.9 years and female average = 5.7 years). Importantly the average recommended sentence when the homeowner used the AR-15 weapon was 7.2 years for male subjects and 8.5 for females. This was significantly higher than any of the other gun types. The handguns had the lowest recommended sentences (in the two to four year range).

We replicated the experiment with students from the local community college who were older and had different socio-economic status and life experiences than liberal arts students. We focused on two gun scenarios, the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14. Both are equally potent but the latter looks less aggressive to some. We also analyzed judgment of guilt versus innocence. In direct comparison – the AR-15 yielded significantly longer mean recommended sentences in the order of seven to nine years as compared to the Ruger (approximately two and a half years). On the verdict side, the percent of guilty judgments was approximately 65% for the AR-15 vs. 45% for the Ruger.

Sorry if this has already been posted, but I thought it would make for interesting discussion. Keep in mind these experiments were done using student "jurors" from Trinity University which is in San Antonio, Texas.

edit: pretty sure my threat title is missing a conjunction.....thats what I get for posting before my 2nd cup of coffee.

[Lon]

Do juries hand out sentences in Texas? I only ask becasue in Ohio the only sentence juries are involved in is the death penalty.

[Nephrology]

Do juries hand out sentences in Texas? I only ask becasue in Ohio the only sentence juries are involved in is the death penalty.

I'm not sure - I think the sentencing aspect might be more to use a form of continuous data by which to measure the effect of firearms on jury perception, as opposed to the discrete "guilty/not guilty" measure.

[TR675]

Defendants in Texas have the option of letting the jury or the judge assess punishment.

This study, although based on student jurors, is consistent with my observations of actual trials in Texas and discussions with several defense attorneys. Anyone who thinks that the type of weapon used in an ambiguous self-defense shooting will not impact the perceptions of police, prosecutors, courts, or jurors is fooling themselves.

[Tamara]

Branscombe, Crosby, and Weir (1993) conducted mock trial research involving a homeowner who shot a burglar, and found incompetent male shooters and competent female shooters were dealt with more harshly than the reverse pairing. The interaction seemed due to whether or not homeowners breached stereotypical standards (males being competent shooters and females incompetent).

I'm boned for learning how to shoot anyway, so I may as well use the most efficient weapon to maximize safety for myself and innocent bystanders.

[Nephrology]

I'm boned for learning how to shoot anyway, so I may as well use the most efficient weapon to maximize safety for myself and innocent bystanders.

By that dichotomy, I am too ;)

[Ed L]

Some of the things mentioned in that study should not be taken at face value.

In one of the studies they took two mock juries of TX college students and asked them how long a prison sentence they would give a homeowner for killing a burglar with different types of gun.

There is a problem here--under TX law it is legal to shoot a burglar. There is a castle doctrine.

We have numerous cases of homeowners who have shot burglars that did not go to trial. In fact one man shot and killed two burglars who were leaving a neighbor's house and were no-billed by the Grand Jury (btw, I don't suggest doing this)http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pasadena-news/article/Joe-Horn-cleared-by-grand-jury-in-Pasadena-1587004.php

Take a look at the situation of a homeowner in TX who shot through his door at someone who was pounding on his door who the homeowner feared was trying to break in. It turned out to be the drunken member of the band The New Bohemians who aparantly was a neighbor's boyfriend. But the homeowner had no way of knowing that at the time and claimed he was at fear for his life. The homeowner was not arrested or indicted: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295626,00.html

So someone is not going to be sentenced for shooting a burglar in their own house in TX unless they do something very wrong or say something like "I didn't mean to kill him the gun went off by accident," as opposed to "I feared for my life."

Hell, even under NY State Penal Law article 35.20 a shooter in this hypothetical case would be justified in using deadly physical force to terminate a burglary.

Here is a link to a shooting that took place inside of New York City where the storeowner used a shotgun to shoot 4 robbers, only one of whom had a gun, killing two of the 4. The shooting was not even brought before a grand jury:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/nyregion/14shoot.html

The man used a pistol-gripped shotgun to kill two robbers in NYC--something that looked like a sawed off shotgun and is more evil looking than any gun in the studies cited--yet he was not even indicted much less sent to trial.

There are certainly bad home defense shootings where people act inappropriately and go to trial--like that guy who shot two teenagers who broke into his house, moved their bodies and put a coup de grace into one of their heads after they were down on the floor and helpless, and then waited two days to call the police. In his case he was using a mini-14, a gun recommended by one of the studies since it looks less menacing, and the gun jammed. He would have been better off stopping at that point since the teen burglars were incapacitated. But he moved the body and delivered a final shot to the head with a .22 pistol. If the guy wants to do things like that, he should leave it to professionals like Richard Kuklinski.

[Tamara]

So someone is not going to be sentenced for shooting a burglar in their own house in TX...

Texas is a big place, Ed, with a lot of jurisdictions. Some of those college kids in Saint Tony's might wind up on, you know, a real jury at some point.


In his case he was using a mini-14, a gun recommended by one of the studies...

The studies didn't make any recommendations, but rather offered findings. Glenn's piece was not written to tell the prospective home defender what kind of gun to use, but to offer suggestions to attorneys to counter prejudices in case a prosecutor tried to manipulate these prejudices. You are absolutely misreading its purpose and intent.

[Ed L]

Texas is a big place, Ed, with a lot of jurisdictions. Some of those college kids in Saint Tony's might wind up on, you know, a real jury at some point.

I don't think they are going to wind up on a jury for someone who shot a burglar because doing so is legal in TX under castle doctrine. As mentioned, we had cases where someone did things that I would call inadvisable and beyond the realm of home defense--like the case shooting fleeing burglars from your neighbors house--and the guy got no-billed by a grand jury.

Cases that I have seen go to trial were grossly improper shooting where the shooter did nothing that resembled castle doctrine or self defense but tried to assert it. There was one case where some guy shot a teenager who was in his yard through his window. He went to trial, as I would expect. I am surprised the guy who shot the burglars fleeing from his neighbors unoccupied house did not go to trial.

If I started applying the mindset of this article and I were you, Tam, I would be worried. I mean you could be painted as someone obsessed with guns--given the number that you have--which of course means you ares just itching for an excuse to use one of them. Not that I believe that about you.

[Tamara]

If I started applying the mindset of this article and I were you, Tam, I would be worried. I mean you could be painted as someone obsessed with guns--given the number that you have--which of course means you ares just itching for an excuse to use one of them. Not that I believe that about you.

And if I shoot somebody and the case comes before a civil or criminal jury, there is a very good chance that will happen. They will paint me as a wannabe commando-SWAT-cop-gun-nut-whatever. What's your point?

Sticking my fingers in my ears and saying "LALALALALALALALALALALA!" isn't going to change the fact that the general public has a lot of bizarre preconceived notions about firearms and the law from the evening news and Hollywood, as should be amply clear to anybody with a functioning TV set right now. (Maybe you didn't hear? There was this shooting case in Florida...)

I can be cognizant of this and prepared to counter it with facts, or I can hope it will never happen. Of those two courses of action, I know which I prefer.

[ToddG]

I don't think the results are supposed to tell us what happens in burglary self-defense sceanrios in Texas. The results demonstrate that potential jurors obviously walk into court feeling differently about the legitimacy of certain types of firearms compared to others when it comes to self-defense. That the particular facts in this mock trial don't constitute a criminal offense is moot. (And given recent events in Florida, one might be wise not to count on something as simple as obvious legal justification to keep himself out of court)

[David Armstrong]

There is a problem here--under TX law it is legal to shoot a burglar. There is a castle doctrine.
And yet there are a number of folks in prison in Texas for shooting burglars. Having said that, this is an area that Glenn has been working with for quite a while and it is worthwhile to pay attention to what he says regarding his findings, even if you disagree with the methodology. IIRC, that article is just one small part of his research into things that impact jurors during shooting trials.

[TR675]

I'm boned for learning how to shoot anyway, so I may as well use the most efficient weapon to maximize safety for myself and innocent bystanders.

I used to buy into this reasoning until I took a carbine class and realized that me using a carbine is like a monkey kittenning a football. I know how it's supposed to work and all of the mechanics, but it's still kind of clumsy.

In terms of skill level, hours spent on the subject, and general intent and opportunity to practice, the most efficient weapon for me is a pistol.

[41magfan]

Much in line with the old adage, “bad cases make bad case law”, we tend to hear a lot about “compromised” cases of self-defense and not the majority of cases that are never subjected to formal jurisprudence.

If you live a reasonably benign lifestyle - any defense of life, home or business should be fairly straightforward if you don't muck it up. But if you must live close to any ragged edge or spend your life in sketchy places with sketchy people, I’d VERY conservative in ALL my personal equipment choices.

I think it’s often too easy for us to make choices based on the way we wished things were instead of the reality of how things are. While I will not compromise my choices to the overall detriment of my personal security, I’m still cognizant of the general public’s ignorant perceptions and I would in no way intentionally poke a sleeping giant in the name of principle if I lived in a "sensitive" environment.

[Tamara]

I used to buy into this reasoning until I took a carbine class and realized that me using a carbine is like a monkey kittenning a football. I know how it's supposed to work and all of the mechanics, but it's still kind of clumsy.

In terms of skill level, hours spent on the subject, and general intent and opportunity to practice, the most efficient weapon for me is a pistol.

Perhaps I was not clear. I intend to use the most efficient weapon to maximize my safety and that of innocent bystanders. I did not say what that weapon was. For me, what exactly that weapon is will be highly dependent on the situation (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?8838-HD-AR-How-do-you-quot-store-it-quot&p=149455&viewfull=1#post149455), what is available, et cetera.

I wouldn't presume to guess what it would be for you.:cool:

(Like you, I devote a lot more training and practice time to the pistol, but in my case it is because I find that, for me at least, acceptably accurate pistol shooting is a much more perishable skill. :o )

[TR675]

Gotcha. Apologies for being presumptuous.

After spending too much time at another "tactical" forum and dealing with their "shorty AR plus a can = best raccoon defense EVAR" attitude I've got an ingrained response to this kind of thread.

[TGS]

(And given recent events in Florida, one might be wise not to count on something as simple as obvious legal justification to keep himself out of court)


Have you personally been considering this?

[ToddG]

Have you personally been considering this?

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. But yes, the Zimmerman case definitely caused me to rethink just how bad things could get in what should otherwise have been a pretty straightforward justified shooting. By "straightforward" I mean the initial investigator, then the police chief, and then the district attorney all found insufficient evidence to charge Zimmerman with any crime.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I think people are reading into this article things that aren't present.

It's an article regarding the effect of weapon selection on juries - and it's for lawyers, to show the pitfalls they may encounter with a variety of guns and defendants as factors in a relatively simple situation - and how to address them professionally.

In other words, yes, choice of gun matters, but it is A factor, not THE factor, and not the MOST IMPORTANT factor.

The points of this article are "How do you address the situation" and "Counsel, you need to look out for this..." rather than "M-4 style rifles for women = conviction; therefore, women should use something else!"

Female defendant used an M-4 and for some reason is on trial for shooting a home invader?
Beware of this kind of thinking: "women will be seen by both males and females as probably over-reacting and misperceiving the nature and extent of a threat in an ambiguous situation. This is because we aren't entirely out of the woods with our stereotype that when something goes horribly wrong, women are less able to think in a cool and rational manner. " and be prepared to smash it flat.


Also be aware of "Best would be the pump action shotgun, as there is no deterrent better than the sound of a shotgun being racked. Moreover, both .223 assault-style weapons are liable to go through walls and harm neighbors. Women are better served by "long" guns in general, as pistols require much more skill and a steady hand. The 9 mm is easier to be accurate with, but there is always the chance of a jam. The .38 is more reliable but harder to be accurate with, due to the barrel length. So a trial lawyer may want to "school" the jurors on the fact that while the .38 is "cuter" the "mean" looking pump action is a much better weapon for both men and women." thinking which I'm sure we can debate to death about how wrong it is, and have the ability to educate a jury on how things really are.


Put another way:

You have just been hired as counsel and need to address a female defendant's choice of a particular firearm as part of the case.

Would knowing that a general perception may exist in the minds of the trier of fact that may prejudice said trier of fact against your client's choice of weapon assist you in preparing your defense and questions for the experts and defendant (should she testify)?

Yes...

And that's all I get from this article.

[TCinVA]

That's kinda what I was thinking.

Tell me if I'm wrong, Mitchell, but I'm guessing it would be prudent to have some information on hand about why you selected the weapon and ammo you used in an incident (assuming you had a choice..."Well I grabbed the .44 magnum because I had just been cleaning it and that's what was in my hand when the dude holding a human head and a machete broke into my house" would probably work) would be of some use to your attorney should the question come up, right?

Even if it's nothing more than referencing DocGKR's writeups and saying that if the NYPD thought the Glock 19 was a good option for protecting their police officers it seemed like a good idea to you, too...

[ToddG]

Would knowing that a general perception may exist in the minds of the trier of fact that may prejudice said trier of fact against your client's choice of weapon assist you in preparing your defense and questions for the experts and defendant (should she testify)?

Mitchell -- I understand what you're saying and agree that the main lesson here is that a defense attorney needs to be aware of these prejudices so they can be addressed. Sure, needing to call more expert witnesses and pay your attorney to research and prepare to deal with these issues will cost more money but it's still something that can be addressed.

However, as a criminal defense attorney, you certainly can't say that you're capable of dissolving every prejudice of every juror, can you? If you had a white murder defendant who'd just killed a black man, would you rather he got caught wearing a shirt that said "kill all the N*****s" or one that said "Rainbow Coalition District Captain, 2004-2013" in giant letters?

[Tamara]

I think people are reading into this article things that aren't present.

It's an article regarding the effect of weapon selection on juries - and it's for lawyers, to show the pitfalls they may encounter with a variety of guns and defendants as factors in a relatively simple situation - and how to address them professionally.

In other words, yes, choice of gun matters, but it is A factor, not THE factor, and not the MOST IMPORTANT factor.

The points of this article are "How do you address the situation" and "Counsel, you need to look out for this..." rather than "M-4 style rifles for women = conviction; therefore, women should use something else!"

I feel so smart! :D


The studies didn't make any recommendations, but rather offered findings. Glenn's piece was not written to tell the prospective home defender what kind of gun to use, but to offer suggestions to attorneys to counter prejudices in case a prosecutor tried to manipulate these prejudices. You are absolutely misreading its purpose and intent.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

That's kinda what I was thinking.

Tell me if I'm wrong, Mitchell, but I'm guessing it would be prudent to have some information on hand about why you selected the weapon and ammo you used in an incident (assuming you had a choice..."Well I grabbed the .44 magnum because I had just been cleaning it and that's what was in my hand when the dude holding a human head and a machete broke into my house" would probably work) would be of some use to your attorney should the question come up, right?

Even if it's nothing more than referencing DocGKR's writeups and saying that if the NYPD thought the Glock 19 was a good option for protecting their police officers it seemed like a good idea to you, too...


You have a problem with a man holding a machette delivering you a human head? For some, a problem. For others-lunch...just sayin...An oven bag, brown sugar, cherry juice and hot peppers...mmm

Self defense is premised on reasonability - reasonable choices under unreasonable circumstances.

In my view, reasonable people make educated decisions as to the use of deadly force, and the equipment they use in such force so as not to be acting in a negligent way.

Write up on the internet? That's cute. Really...

I think you mean you were reading The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery, 6th Edition http://www.amazon.com/Digest-Book-Combat-Handgunnery-Edition/dp/0896895254/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1374499611&sr=8-1&keywords=combat+handgunnery, and your class notes from MAG-20/40 indicate that your choice of handgun was within the common course of practice for this kind of activity, that you could perform to an acceptable standard with that weapon (Todd, you get to go on the stand before Mas, because we want Mas to talk about the FAST Test, and need that in evidence prior to his testimony - good. Now, wear a suit and a tie that is non-offensive to the jury...), and that your equipment choice was one of many acceptable choices that an expert has found to be reasonable.

I never liked the "If it's good enough for the police, it's good enough for me!" argument.

Cops are commissioned by the state to poke into other people's lives, supposedly have training the ordinary person does not, have regular qualifications to insure a baseline of skill, as well as regular education on what they can and cannot do in contact with the people they supposedly serve, and the equipment they are issued is either not something they have input into, or if so, then they have a few accepted choices from which to chose from - all under the control of superiors.

You don't.

That your choice to use a similar weapon/ammo is similarly reasonable does not always follow.

You chose your weapon/ammo/gear because it was right for YOU.
Because YOU perform well with it.
Because YOU made an evaluation of your likely threats and dangers, and are responding correctly to YOUR situation.

Once you have made this evaluation of your performance and situations in which you may use said weapons (you are doing some decision making intensive training like ECQC and other FOF training in which you end up in situations in which you don't know if you are going to have to shoot, and if so, what the threat will be, right?) the fact that you end up with a weapon/gear combo similar to X-police department is a happy coincidence.

Also, if your local PD uses Glocks & Gold Dot, and you can't swing a dead cat in your city without running into Glock parts, armorers, gold dot ammo, holsters and everything you'd need to keep a Glock running...yeah. That's a factor too...

But the simplistic "They use it so it must be great!" reasoning leads you back to "OK. Cop wannabe. Got it."

Make your own choices. (Even if your choice ends up being the same as everyone else's.)

[JAD]

Now, wear a suit and a tie that is non-offensive to the jury...
-- C'mon, Mitch, Todd's a lawyer.

Everything he does is offensive to the jury.

[Nephrology]

Yes...

And that's all I get from this article.

Yup, I hope my OP wasn't coming off as implying much else. It's an experiment - like all experiments, they are descriptive, not prescriptive.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Mitchell -- I understand what you're saying and agree that the main lesson here is that a defense attorney needs to be aware of these prejudices so they can be addressed. Sure, needing to call more expert witnesses and pay your attorney to research and prepare to deal with these issues will cost more money but it's still something that can be addressed.


Todd - I have been the champion of treating certain things like land mines for a LONG Time ("Don't want to defuse it so you don't blow your foot off? Don't step on it!")

However, there is always a cost/benefit trade off in effective equipment in the use of force question.

Carry a shivworks blade? An effective, fast on the draw, custom made knife for a close quarter's fight? You are a knife fighting phyco. Does that mean we shouldn't carry something very useful for self defense if it's legal to do so?

Carry a H&K P-30, spare mag all loaded with Ranger Talon? A very effective handgun and ammo combination...went looking to kill people, didn't we...else why would you take a spare magazine?

Oh, you train in fast shooting...want to get them in the head before they can back off, right dead eye? Once you get the slightest provocation - Boom-Headshot!

Anything can be used against you, especially if you are serious about your gear and training.

If you are carrying good gear, then you are carrying efficient killing tools.
Lawfully owned, lawfully carried...sure - but personalized, efficient killing tools carried in the course of your daily life. (Excuse me...PC says I must say they are lifesaving tools...and I drowned PC in the sink and need to dispose of it's body)

Your training in the use of force for self protection, is, for the most part, the application of said force as efficiently, quickly, and effectively as possible.

Fast draw to shot times on low probability targets...drawing from the gun grapple...accessing a knife at close quarters...practical unarmed combative...Under the appropriate circumstances, sure...but it's killing none-the-less.

Vicious circle - the more effective you are, the better your gear is, the greater the risk of it being used against you as if you are "looking for the excuse".

But what's the alternative? To be a bungling moron?

When dealing with an insurance company regarding a PI case, if the plaintiff doesn't treat with a doctor all that much, he's not injured because he didn't get treatment. Claim denied.

If he does treat, he's milking it, he's a malingering, money grubbing thief who just wants to get paid. Claim accepted, but treatment disputed (Thus, claim denied in terms of damages...).

So to here.

No matter what you do, someone's going to go after you for doing it - so position yourself as best you can toward excellence, toward training in the proper context, in an environment in which you need to make decisions regarding the use of lethal force prior to making it in addition to pure skills based training and conforming yourself to the standard of reasonable (as defined by law and people in the industry) as well as possible.

Some landmines you don't have to step on...others are just the price of doing business.

If you don't want to deal with the question of "Why were you carrying a custom made handgun, 2 spare magazines of the most deadly bullets on the market in a speed rig and training to shoot people at high speed?" Don't do that - but also accept that by not carrying a Springfield 9mm 1911 A-IWB, 2 spare mags of Federal HST and pushing yourself to be able to shoot quickly, you are handicapping yourself.

Sometimes their isn't an easy answer...or even a particularly good one.




However, as a criminal defense attorney, you certainly can't say that you're capable of dissolving every prejudice of every juror, can you? If you had a white murder defendant who'd just killed a black man, would you rather he got caught wearing a shirt that said "kill all the N*****s" or one that said "Rainbow Coalition District Captain, 2004-2013" in giant letters?

Well, I prefer clean, nicely inked strippers who look about 25, sans needle marks, that can hold a conversation with me as they are taking my money to skanky looking, unshaven chimpanzees with needle tracks that can barely grunt in semi-educated English as they motion toward my wallet too.

I mean, if you are going to give me one optimum choice vs one terrible choice, I prefer the optimum choice.

The better you (or your defendant) positions yourself before the fight, in all likelihood, the better the outcome. No, you can't determine or successfully address every prejudice a juror may have.

You can avoid obvious problems, but not every problem.

Further, as I stated above, some "problems" simply can't be avoided if you want to be effective in defending yourself.

What you can do is mitigate them by training in context, and be prepared to present why your choices or actions, which may seem irrational, extreme or over the top...are lawful, rational and reasonable.

Will you always be successful?

No.

But what is the alternative?


The way to mitigate the equipment question is to change the issue and focus more on the decision making process leading up to the use of force incident.

Make good choices and good evaluations of the situation supported by training, and the equipment questions should be less in focus, and more in context.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

-- C'mon, Mitch, Todd's a lawyer.

Everything he does is offensive to the jury.

OK...

Todd. No biting jurors in the hallway.

MMM'K?

[Ed L]

And if I shoot somebody and the case comes before a civil or criminal jury, there is a very good chance that will happen. They will paint me as a wannabe commando-SWAT-cop-gun-nut-whatever. What's your point?

Sticking my fingers in my ears and saying "LALALALALALALALALALALA!" isn't going to change the fact that the general public has a lot of bizarre preconceived notions about firearms and the law from the evening news and Hollywood, as should be amply clear to anybody with a functioning TV set right now. (Maybe you didn't hear? There was this shooting case in Florida...)

I can be cognizant of this and prepared to counter it with facts, or I can hope it will never happen. Of those two courses of action, I know which I prefer.

I want to publicly apologize to Tam, as my previous post seems like I am pointing an accusatory finger at her. This was never my intent.

In her case it would be a matter of pointing out that she is a long time history geek who enjoys collecting various weapons, as well as modern firearms most suited for recreational shooting and her personal protection, similar to way that tens of millions of Americans do. In Tam's case she chooses to rely on the S&W M&P, which is quickly becoming the second most popular sidearm among police agencies. She chooses to load it with the same modern hollowpoint ammo that is in use with virtually every police agencies to guard against over penetration and ricochet and provided the best chance of quickly incapacitating any threat with the minimal number of rounds fired. Her go to carbine is similar to that carried in many police cars to deal with sever emergencies, and she also uses it for recreational shooting,

If they did any digging in my case. I would have to procure the services of an expert cat witness to explain that the cat actually enjoy wearing diving masks like the one I have on her in a picture where she is posed with the HK416,

[Ed L]

And yet there are a number of folks in prison in Texas for shooting burglars. Having said that, this is an area that Glenn has been working with for quite a while and it is worthwhile to pay attention to what he says regarding his findings, even if you disagree with the methodology. IIRC, that article is just one small part of his research into things that impact jurors during shooting trials.

Absolutely right.

Claiming home defense is not a 'get out of jail free' card in TX. The circumstances and situation have to match the definition and justification. A lot of people claim home defense in situations that are far from it, and there may be other questionable factors present. People also act improperly, as was the case I mentioned of the elderly man who was inside his home and shot some kid who was in his yard. Or here is another shooting that would hard to do worse which I'm sure was mentioned on this messageboard: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/26/15458995-minnesota-man-who-killed-teens-in-break-in-charged-with-murder?lite

[Ed L]

I'm not sure what you mean, exactly. But yes, the Zimmerman case definitely caused me to rethink just how bad things could get in what should otherwise have been a pretty straightforward justified shooting. By "straightforward" I mean the initial investigator, then the police chief, and then the district attorney all found insufficient evidence to charge Zimmerman with any crime.

I've seen a lot of cases of people getting in trouble in Self defense shootings that occur after they have left the safety of their house or car to knowingly enter into a questionable, dangerous, or antagonistic situation. Unless it is to rescue someone who is under direct attack, the question often arises about how committed this shooter was to avoiding the situation when they left a safe location and entered into a dangerous one which ultimately resulted in the shooting.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Unless it is to rescue someone who is under direct attack, the question often arises about how committed this shooter was to avoiding the situation when they left a safe location and entered into a dangerous one which ultimately resulted in the shooting.


Yes...

As well as "How reasonable were this person's choices, in that they knew of the danger, and went anyway..."

[ToddG]

Make good choices and good evaluations of the situation supported by training, and the equipment questions should be less in focus, and more in context.

Forgive me for responding in general to your post rather than point by point, but it seems I didn't communicate what I was trying to say.

1 -- This study demonstrates that jurors have preconceived notions about the appropriateness of various types of firearms for self-defense.

2 -- Overcoming those preconceived notions is going to require time, effort, and money for someone being dragged into court, whether criminal or civil, to defend himself for defending himself.

3 -- No matter how awesome your experts and reasons are, at least some members of the jury probably walked in with those preconceived notions and there is absolutely no guarantee that your evidence will outweigh those opinions.

Does that keep me from carrying a custom, tuned pistol? No.
Does it keep me from carrying JHP ammo? No.
Does it keep me from practicing a lot? No.

I could get killed driving on the highway, it doesn't keep me from driving on the highway. But it does force me to be more thoughtful about exactly what I will and won't do on the highway compared to, say, a closed race track.

[Drang]

You have a problem with a man holding a machette delivering you a human head? For some, a problem. For others-lunch...just sayin...An oven bag, brown sugar, cherry juice and hot peppers...mmm

I suspect there's something in here (http://choppingblock.keenspot.com/random_comic.php) about this...

[Sparks2112]

Gotcha. Apologies for being presumptuous.

After spending too much time at another "tactical" forum and dealing with their "shorty AR plus a can = best raccoon defense EVAR" attitude I've got an ingrained response to this kind of thread.

I'm certainly better with a rifle. Also I'd point out that if you take someone who sucks with a rifle, and take someone who sucks with a pistol and compare who is making more effective shots, the sumdood with the rifle will probably win. Bad with a rifle beats bad with a pistol any day, IMHO.

/tangent


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I suspect there's something in here (http://choppingblock.keenspot.com/random_comic.php) about this...

You are "hatin".

Please. Don't be hatin.

Yo.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

1 -- This study demonstrates that jurors have preconceived notions about the appropriateness of various types of firearms for self-defense.

Jurors, like many members of the general public, are filled will ideas that sound great, but aren't true. It's just in this case, they get to make the call regarding your life...you get your chance to convince them, but it is a gamble.

2 -- Overcoming those preconceived notions is going to require time, effort, and money for someone being dragged into court, whether criminal or civil, to defend himself for defending himself.

Yes, which is why it is key to conform one's conduct according to the law as best as possible, taking into account not only that which is legal, but that which is considered to be best practices for a given situation in context.

I prefer to be relatively conservative with actions, which is why I'm in the STFU school of thought when it comes to post incident statements, and when it comes to a Zimmermen-ish situation, have been saying that if you have seen something that merits a call to 911, stay the hell away from it.

The better your choices before, during and after the use of force, the less your weapons should matter.

In my opinion, most times the weapon comes into the question, the person holding it made at least one questionable choice which set the situation in motion.

See this link: http://www.downrange.tv/blog/neighborhood-watch-scenario-from-the-best-defense/23886/ and if you go to approximately 02:31 you will see a questionable choice which is likely to bring the weapon into issue.



3 -- No matter how awesome your experts and reasons are, at least some members of the jury probably walked in with those preconceived notions and there is absolutely no guarantee that your evidence will outweigh those opinions.

And that's a gamble you take when you enter the use of force arena. Things go wrong.

We all know that sometimes people turn after you have made the choice to shoot, before you can stop the shot from breaking, and thus you get entry wounds in the back.

I can come in with all my scientific data, including an LAPD shooting report from the DA that I've got stashed somewhere just in case I ever get a case with those facts and need something for the state's attorney (I'm an information packrat. I find articles and stash them like a squirrel does with nuts...) but a jury may not believe my "pseudo-science" article, and say the defendant shot little 'G' as he was runnin away.

Things go wrong.

Even when you have the best arguments & facts.

One ugly part of use of force is that sometimes, the bull gets you. Even if you have done everything right, sometimes you don't win.

Does that keep me from carrying a custom, tuned pistol? No.
Does it keep me from carrying JHP ammo? No.
Does it keep me from practicing a lot? No.

Then you have made certain decisions about your weapons exclusive of possible juror perception because the benefits to you outweigh any possible downside of your weapons being entered into evidence based on a possible future event which could stem from anything from a 3 on 1 gun grapple to your responding to being caught in a stop & rob incident while you were buying motor oil & bacon jerky.