What should you not use in self defense?

[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.

[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...tt-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.