Home Defense Long Guns Question

[joshs]

I just get tired of hearing the same old, baseless arguments about how a gun looks.

Did you actually look at the article posted in this thread? Whether or not you agree is one thing, but there is certainly evidence that weapon appearance can sway juror opinions.

For a case to go to trial, you need to have charges filed against you and the prosecutor will need to secure an indictment. For either of those things to happen, they'll need to have reasonable, articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed. "Big, scary gun" does not meet that standard.

Shooting someone is against the law in every jurisdiction in the United States. Whether or not you have a viable affirmative defense is only rarely required to be considered in the probable cause determination. Even in those states where it is required, it's questionable how this should actually be applied by a court.

Also, you've articulated the standard for reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.

[TR675]

I just get tired of hearing the same old, baseless arguments about how a gun looks...They are stupid, fallible arguments as we all know. They are easily refutable. They would be of no use whatsoever unless there were other mitigating factors.

Andrew - I strongly suggest you read and digest Dr. Meyers' article, which summarizes a lot of research that is pertinent to this topic. In short, there are real differences both in rates of conviction and punishment ranges assessed by mock jurors in Texas in psychological experiments depending on gender, type of firearm used, and level of training. Another experiment using experienced police officers in Texas - self described as "gun friendly" - found a strong bias towards arrest in cases involving the improper transport of weapons when the mock defendant was transporting an AR instead of a shotgun.

I can tell you from personal experience as well as third-party anecdotes that prosecutors can and will lambaste a defendant for using an evil assault rifle if they believe that it will help win a conviction or harsher punishment.

All that this really means is that the people you will be dealing with in the aftermath of a defensive shooting - cops, attorneys, judges, and jurors - will have preexisting biases and prejudices that are going to impact their frame of reference - which is what they will then filter all of the facts through. You should take that into account when selecting a defensive firearm. You should also - in advance - be able to cogently explain why you selected that particular firearm and its accessories and why you did so.

I got a lot of grief on another forum from people who don't like this reality. They tried to poke holes in Dr. Meyers' research or otherwise simply insist that a "good shoot is a good shoot." Those people have staked out their position and are rejecting evidence that doesn't support it, without being able to point to any countervailing facts. In my opinion, this is a failure of critical thinking which may end up harming them down the road.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Did you actually look at the article posted in this thread? Whether or not you agree is one thing, but there is certainly evidence that weapon appearance can sway juror opinions.



Shooting someone is against the law in every jurisdiction in the United States. Whether or not you have a viable affirmative defense is only rarely required to be considered in the probable cause determination. Even in those states where it is required, it's questionable how this should actually be applied by a court.

Also, you've articulated the standard for reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.

Yeah, it's a good thing I'm not a lawyer. You're missing the bigger picture, though. Yes, the weapon used might sway jury opinions if your defense attorney is an imbecile but the cases where it is mentioned also had several other complicating factors at work. I have yet to see someone show evidence of anyone going to trial, let alone getting convicted when they acted legally and there were no complicating factors but the gun was scary. Perhaps I missed it. Would you be willing to point me in the right direction?

[joshs]

Yeah, it's a good thing I'm not a lawyer. You're missing the bigger picture, though. Yes, the weapon used might sway jury opinions if your defense attorney is an imbecile but the cases where it is mentioned also had several other complicating factors at work. I have yet to see someone show evidence of anyone going to trial, let alone getting convicted when they acted legally and there were no complicating factors but the gun was scary. Perhaps I missed it. Would you be willing to point me in the right direction?

Yes, if there are no "complicating factors," you probably won't even be charged, but, to me, this is the same argument made by people who complain about additional safety devices on guns, cars, etc. If you make zero mistakes, then there won't be any problems.

[TheTrevor]

The whole article can be downloaded here: http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2009/09...armed-citizen/

OMFG does "Wendy Saxon" (author of a follow-up analysis below the original article) need to stay in her lane regarding firearms. I kept wanting to play "stupid gun meme bingo" while reading her contribution.

The original paper is definitely thought-provoking, especially considering where I live and the likely reaction of the local jury pool to defensive use of an AR-15.

[nalesq]

Yeah, it's a good thing I'm not a lawyer. You're missing the bigger picture, though. Yes, the weapon used might sway jury opinions if your defense attorney is an imbecile...

It is unwise to assume that even a normally great attorney isn't occasionally capable of making unfortunate blunders. In the world of civil litigation I currently inhabit, I have seen lawyers from giant law firms who bill four-figures an hour jack up pre-trial motions and even voir dire, occasionally to the point where they were forced to stip to a bench trial. Plenty of multi-million lawsuits have been swayed in one direction or another because one piece of prejudicial evidence or another was allowed to be shown to a jury. Sometimes such a thing may get thrown out on appeal, sometimes it may not, but it will always take years and lots of money to resolve. This may be fine for a billion-dollar Fortune 500 company to deal with, but as an individual defendant, I would not want to go there.

As for cases where the particular weapon used made a difference in a decision to bring a case to trial, while I can't think of any criminal ones, there are certainly some civil suits that have been brought over specific weapon design for reasons that anyone member of this forum would find completely ridiculous. Take, for example, Dix v. Beretta, where a kid negligently shot and killed his friend with a Beretta 92, after ejecting the magazine but failing to clear the chamber. Because the Beretta 92 lacks a magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator, Beretta was sued on a defective design, products liability theory. Yes, it was an idiotic theory. And yes, Beretta won in the end. (9-3 in favor of Beretta at trial, which tells you that there were at least 3 people in the jury who actually subscribed to said idiotic theory.) But it took many years and several post-trial legal adventures to resolve. And now every Beretta pistol manufactured for the commercial market suffers an unsightly scar from the case - a wordy engraving warning the user that the pistol is capable of firing with the magazine removed.

I have yet to see someone show evidence of anyone going to trial, let alone getting convicted when they acted legally and there were no complicating factors but the gun was scary.

To flip it the other way, when in a citizen self-defense shooting has using, say, a 5.56mm carbine over a shotgun, or even a pistol, really made a definitive difference? And in what specific citizen use of deadly force in self defense incident has being able to shoot sub quarter second splits or drawing in under 2 seconds made the difference between life and death? I bet one would be hard pressed to find that case, too. Yet even in the absence of such hard evidence of the necessity of such skills in actual shootings, most of us would agree that a carbine is worth learning how to use well, and these pistol shooting skills are worth developing to increase the likelihood of success, however marginally, in the unlikely event of a life-or-death self-defense event.

In a similar fashion, my point (and I think the point some others are trying to make here) is that even in the absence of a case exactly on point to what you are looking for, there are numerous clues in the legal world today that the possibility of the ignorance or blundering of lawyers, judges, and jurors making something out of what shouldbe nothing, should be taken seriously, even if the likelihood of such ignorance or blundering screwing up a "no complicating factors" self-defense shooting is relatively marginal.

[Andrew Wiggin]

Good point on that last bit. The scale tips the other way for me, though. I consider it unlikely that the weapon I choose will be a factor because I consider it unlikely that I will end up in court in the unlikely event that I find it necessary to use deadly physical force within my home. In my neck of the woods, you almost never hear of anyone even being charged or transported after a home defense shooting. Remember that both the Fish case and the Fadden case were defense shootings outside the home. On the other hand, the carbine does offer slight, but numerous technical advantages over a shotgun. The suppressor offers a substantial benefit to myself and my family. If I do have to discharge the weapon, there is a significant chance it could be in very close proximity to my wife and children. Given the opportunity to prevent lifelong hearing damage, I'll take it.


You're right that the choice between a carbine and a shotgun has probably never made any substantive difference in tactical outcome, assuming proper defensive ammo for both. I'll bet there are a few cases that a person was injured where they might have had a better chance of putting their attacker down more quickly had they selected a carbine or shotgun instead of a pistol, though. Pistols are more difficult to hit with and have dramatically inferior terminal ballistics to carbines and shotguns. It's a good point that the difference is unlikely to cause any significant difference in outcome, though. Armed resistance of any kind, even with a very ineffective weapon wielded by a very poorly trained person has a statistically high probability of ending an attack.


Outside my home, though, I carry a G23 loaded with 180 gr Gold Dots because it is a very useful and effective combination and because it is a very popular choice for police departments. The likelihood that I could end up in a shooting with no witnesses or hostile witnesses outside the home is much higher so I think it's far more important to have everything on my side outside the home.

[Glock17JHP]

Although I have only been next to someone who fired an AR without hearing protection, it was bad enough (to me) that I would not want to do it indoors. If I had to shoot a long gun indoors without hearing protection, I would choose a 12 gauge with low-recoil buckshot.

[cclaxton]

The FBI has gone public that "patrol rifles" are the preferred equipment in an active shooter situation: "Being prepared to use force also means having the equipment needed to act effectively. The data clearly support equipping officers with patrol rifles. Many ASE sites involve open spaces or long hallways that create engagement distances beyond the ability of most officers to effectively engage a suspect with a pistol. Add this to the possibility that the officers may have to place precision fire on a suspect while avoiding hitting fleeing or injured victims, and the need for patrol rifles is clear. Additionally, about a quarter of attackers are armed with rifles. Officers ought to have firepower at least equivalent to what they will face if they go in harm’s way." http://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/active-shooter-events-from-2000-to-2012

While they were referring to active shooter situations, the same principles apply to defending your home or defending others. Here is an interesting view from Massad Ayoob: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/Massa...-home-defense/
Cody

[Jay Cunningham]

The FBI has gone public that "patrol rifles" are the preferred equipment in an active shooter situation: "Being prepared to use force also means having the equipment needed to act effectively. The data clearly support equipping officers with patrol rifles. Many ASE sites involve open spaces or long hallways that create engagement distances beyond the ability of most officers to effectively engage a suspect with a pistol. Add this to the possibility that the officers may have to place precision fire on a suspect while avoiding hitting fleeing or injured victims, and the need for patrol rifles is clear. Additionally, about a quarter of attackers are armed with rifles. Officers ought to have firepower at least equivalent to what they will face if they go in harm’s way." http://leb.fbi.gov/2014/january/active-shooter-events-from-2000-to-2012

While they were referring to active shooter situations, the same principles apply to defending your home or defending others. Here is an interesting view from Massad Ayoob: http://backwoodshome.com/blogs/Massa...-home-defense/
Cody

Which principles, specifically?