That was it. I did a quick hunt this AM and couldn't find it. Thanks!Originally Posted by jar
That was it. I did a quick hunt this AM and couldn't find it. Thanks!
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.
"PLAN FOR YOUR TRAINING TO BE A REFLECTION OF REAL LIFE INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT REAL LIFE WILL BE A REFLECTION OF YOUR TRAINING!"
Fixed your post.
What kind of certain modifications? I'm not looking for an inclusive list, just some examples.
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.
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).
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.
Last edited by YVK; 03-03-2011 at 12:11 AM.
Probably some great stories there.
Reply With Quote