Defense loads and the law

[Glock Fan]

Originally Posted by kwo51

I really dont believe it would go down this way.Even in the state that brought us obma. The appeal would overturn it.

Many folks are surprised to see some of the c*rap that goes on here in the PRHI court system. Remember that you are tried by a "jury of your peers". The greater majority of folks here in HI are brainwashed into thinking that "guns are bad". With this mentality, finding a jury that would be "fair and imparital" where firearms are concerned is very difficult. I work within the legal system and see a lot of things that disturb me.

You should have seen the crowds turning out to see "barry" obrhama. Many are so clueless that they're mantra is "vote for obrhama because he's from Hawaii". Unbelieveable! Keep in mind that these are the same clueless folks that will end up on your jury should you be accused of a crime.



gf

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by netentity

This poster is in HI with is not a right to carry State and to my knowledge has no castle doctrine or stand your ground statute. It's also one of the reasons I won't visit HI. FL gets my vacation dollars.

If you're in AK or another wilderness or rural area where you have to deal with the threat of medium to large animals as well as products of a correctional system, carrying a 10mm, .44 magnum all the way up to a .500 S&W would be much more reasonable in the eyes of the investigating LEOs, prosecution and jury. It would not be reasonable in HI so the shooting would be placed under a greater scrutiny.

Part of the factor of how the case goes down is where the incident takes place. If the incident happens in an anti-2A jurisdiction then you may lost your freedom and the farm in the process.

Now you're starting to make sense. Now that I think about it, I could not conceive of a lawyer successfully suing someone on grounds of using an "unsuitable caliber" in a pro 2A state such as FL, AK, ID, UT, or AZ. Only in people's republics such as PRCA, PRHI, PRNY, PRNJ, PRIL, PRRI, PRMD, PRMA, and PRDC (and possibly WI) could I possibly see such a ridiculous line of reasoning even having a chance of being successful in a lawsuit.

[netentity]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

Now you're starting to make sense. Now that I think about it, I could not conceive of a lawyer successfully suing someone on grounds of using an "unsuitable caliber" in a pro 2A state such as FL, AK, ID, UT, or AZ. Only in people's republics such as PRCA, PRHI, PRNY, PRNJ, PRIL, PRRI, PRMD, PRMA, and PRDC (and possibly WI) could I possibly see such a ridiculous line of reasoning even having a chance of being successful in a lawsuit.

Even some right to carry States have a warped court system or statutes. I could quite feasibly see this being an issue in NC or OH. Neither of them have castle doctrine or stand your ground statutes with civil suit immunity. OH just passed their castle doctrine law with civil suit immunity which goes into effect 9/8/2008. As I have stated before, civil suit immunity will most likely not be an issue if you live in a pro-2A State with a stand your ground statute with civil suit immunity, however not all States have that.

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by netentity

Even some right to carry States have a warped court system or statutes. I could quite feasibly see this being an issue in NC or OH. Neither of them have castle doctrine or stand your ground statutes with civil suit immunity. OH just passed their castle doctrine law with civil suit immunity which goes into effect 9/8/2008. As I have stated before, civil suit immunity will most likely not be an issue if you live in a pro-2A State with a stand your ground statute with civil suit immunity, however not all States have that.

Finally, we have found some common ground on this issue. Obviously, the aformentioned people's Republics are hopeless for law abiding citizens who are defending themselves, but pro 2A states I would not worry about. OH and NC, even though they are shall issue, are still among the worst states for lawful concealed carry by virtue of the long list of off limits places in each as well as Ohio's ridiculous requirements for off person vehicle carry.

[Dhaught]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

Finally, we have found some common ground on this issue. Obviously, the aformentioned people's Republics are hopeless for law abiding citizens who are defending themselves, but pro 2A states I would not worry about. OH and NC, even though they are shall issue, are still among the worst states for lawful concealed carry by virtue of the long list of off limits places in each as well as Ohio's ridiculous requirements for off person vehicle carry.

Yes NC does have some crazy restrictions on where you can carry. I was really surprised to find out just how restricted it is here when I was taking my class. The worst part is even the local Sheriff's Dept. employees don't have it straight according to the state's website and posted carry laws. Even the handout they give you with your license that has all the carry restrictions is different from the states website. Basically you can't carry anywhere you are likely to go in public without being in violation. Places of assembly, where admission is charged(theatres), places where alcohol is sold and consumed(almost any restaurant), parades, gatherings, funerals, parks, state grounds. on and on. I just weigh the consequences and decide if I'd rather feel safe or naked and follow unreasonable restrictions.

I'm glad you guys have finally started to agree. I think you are thinking too much like a gun owner/ carrier, who wants to think other people will see things the way he see's them, when you should be more realistic and imagine how a shooting situation will look to more liberal, anti gun crowds since that is a big part of the populus.

Imagine a jury of younger liberal types that have never owned guns and aren't particularly fond of them listening to testimony from the BG's family and friends about how so and so was such a great guy and would never hurt a fly, never got in any fights and everybody that knew him loved him and how it is not in his character to have assaulted anyone in a deadly manner. Meanwhile they are showing pictures of the exit wounds of multiple .44 magnum rounds, (The most powerful handgun in the world and it'll blow your head KLEEN off.) to the jury and describing you as some gun nut that carries an ultra powerful, hand cannon that not even police can carry because of it's massive killing power. Not to mention the expert witness that describes the power of the .44 magnum and how it is more than twice the gun local LEO's carry (9mm, .40 S&W) and how most experts don't recommend carrying such a powerful weapon for self defense. Only a Dirty Harry type looking for vigilante justice would carry such a gun. What would you say to that on a witness stand? "I wanted maximum stopping power!" ?
Or would it be an easier defense if the pictures weren't as graphic and the expert witness described your choice of carry gun as being in line with what the majority of Law Enforcement professionals and instructors recommended as a proper caliber weapon for concealed carry and self defense?

It seems more reasonable to me to think that option two would be the better defense when you know in reality a .40 or .45 has excellent stopping power and wouldn't look near as bad in court to a bunch of possibly anti, or just non gun owning jurors, as a .44 magnum or .50 cal hand cannon.

The guy I read about in AZ or wherever it was carried a 10mm because he hiked in the mountains all the time and wanted defense from wild animals and they still used it against him in court in a self defense case.

[Glock Fan]

Originally Posted by Dhaught

The guy I read about in AZ or wherever it was carried a 10mm because he hiked in the mountains all the time and wanted defense from wild animals and they still used it against him in court in a self defense case.

Sad part is that the 10mm cartridge uses the same bullet as the .40 s&w. It's too bad that the guy's attorney wasn't able to successfully argue that there are LE agencies that still use the 10mm as a duty or suplimental firearm. :-(



gf

[netentity]

Originally Posted by Dhaught

I'm glad you guys have finally started to agree. I think you are thinking too much like a gun owner/ carrier, who wants to think other people will see things the way he see's them, when you should be more realistic and imagine how a shooting situation will look to more liberal, anti gun crowds since that is a big part of the populus.

Imagine a jury of younger liberal types that have never owned guns and aren't particularly fond of them listening to testimony from the BG's family and friends about how so and so was such a great guy and would never hurt a fly, never got in any fights and everybody that knew him loved him and how it is not in his character to have assaulted anyone in a deadly manner. Meanwhile they are showing pictures of the exit wounds of multiple .44 magnum rounds, (The most powerful handgun in the world and it'll blow your head KLEEN off.) to the jury and describing you as some gun nut that carries an ultra powerful, hand cannon that not even police can carry because of it's massive killing power. Not to mention the expert witness that describes the power of the .44 magnum and how it is more than twice the gun local LEO's carry (9mm, .40 S&W) and how most experts don't recommend carrying such a powerful weapon for self defense. Only a Dirty Harry type looking for vigilante justice would carry such a gun. What would you say to that on a witness stand? "I wanted maximum stopping power!" ?
Or would it be an easier defense if the pictures weren't as graphic and the expert witness described your choice of carry gun as being in line with what the majority of Law Enforcement professionals and instructors recommended as a proper caliber weapon for concealed carry and self defense?

It seems more reasonable to me to think that option two would be the better defense when you know in reality a .40 or .45 has excellent stopping power and wouldn't look near as bad in court to a bunch of possibly anti, or just non gun owning jurors, as a .44 magnum or .50 cal hand cannon.

The guy I read about in AZ or wherever it was carried a 10mm because he hiked in the mountains all the time and wanted defense from wild animals and they still used it against him in court in a self defense case.

That is the argument I've been making the whole time throughout this thread. It also seems that with the 10mm incident that we may have a case where caliber did play a factor. We also have an acknowledgement from Glock Fan on what a HI deputy DA instructs his staff to do. If you know and are reasonably certain that caliber will not be an issue in your jurisdiction or any jurisdictions you may travel to then fine, carry a large bore above .45 or a .44 magnum. If not, then carry what the local LEOs carry.

A side benefit that I did not mention is that if you carry a mainstream firearm that is likely to be on the LEO approved list it will be much easier to replace should it "disappear" after the dust settles. Your firearm involved in the incident will most likely be impounded as evidence in a homicide investigation until the decision has been made not to file charges by the DA's office, the judge dismisses the case during the arraignment hearing or the grand jury returns no bill in the grand jury States.

[Palmach]

Originally Posted by Dhaught

Yes NC does have some crazy restrictions on where you can carry. I was really surprised to find out just how restricted it is here when I was taking my class. The worst part is even the local Sheriff's Dept. employees don't have it straight according to the state's website and posted carry laws. Even the handout they give you with your license that has all the carry restrictions is different from the states website. Basically you can't carry anywhere you are likely to go in public without being in violation. Places of assembly, where admission is charged(theatres), places where alcohol is sold and consumed(almost any restaurant), parades, gatherings, funerals, parks, state grounds. on and on. I just weigh the consequences and decide if I'd rather feel safe or naked and follow unreasonable restrictions.

I'm glad you guys have finally started to agree. I think you are thinking too much like a gun owner/ carrier, who wants to think other people will see things the way he see's them, when you should be more realistic and imagine how a shooting situation will look to more liberal, anti gun crowds since that is a big part of the populus.

Imagine a jury of younger liberal types that have never owned guns and aren't particularly fond of them listening to testimony from the BG's family and friends about how so and so was such a great guy and would never hurt a fly, never got in any fights and everybody that knew him loved him and how it is not in his character to have assaulted anyone in a deadly manner. Meanwhile they are showing pictures of the exit wounds of multiple .44 magnum rounds, (The most powerful handgun in the world and it'll blow your head KLEEN off.) to the jury and describing you as some gun nut that carries an ultra powerful, hand cannon that not even police can carry because of it's massive killing power. Not to mention the expert witness that describes the power of the .44 magnum and how it is more than twice the gun local LEO's carry (9mm, .40 S&W) and how most experts don't recommend carrying such a powerful weapon for self defense. Only a Dirty Harry type looking for vigilante justice would carry such a gun. What would you say to that on a witness stand? "I wanted maximum stopping power!" ?
Or would it be an easier defense if the pictures weren't as graphic and the expert witness described your choice of carry gun as being in line with what the majority of Law Enforcement professionals and instructors recommended as a proper caliber weapon for concealed carry and self defense?

It seems more reasonable to me to think that option two would be the better defense when you know in reality a .40 or .45 has excellent stopping power and wouldn't look near as bad in court to a bunch of possibly anti, or just non gun owning jurors, as a .44 magnum or .50 cal hand cannon.

The guy I read about in AZ or wherever it was carried a 10mm because he hiked in the mountains all the time and wanted defense from wild animals and they still used it against him in court in a self defense case.

Each time I see these arguments made on this thread there is always one aspect missing. You speak about pictures of the BG and the exit wounds, and all the testimony of what a great guy he was. However, you forget that in a case of justifiable use of deadly force the defense attorney is going to be showing pictures of the BG lying in the street or in my home clutching a loaded firearm which he intended to use to cause great harm to me or my family. This kind of gives those liberals another perspective.

[kwo51]

If you had a bigger gun it was not a fair fight

[Dhaught]

Originally Posted by Palmach

Each time I see these arguments made on this thread there is always one aspect missing. You speak about pictures of the BG and the exit wounds, and all the testimony of what a great guy he was. However, you forget that in a case of justifiable use of deadly force the defense attorney is going to be showing pictures of the BG lying in the street or in my home clutching a loaded firearm which he intended to use to cause great harm to me or my family. This kind of gives those liberals another perspective.

You hope the defense attorney will have pictures like that to show and work that angle. How good of an attorney can you afford? Maybe a really good one, maybe a mediocre one, maybe none.
Maybe he didn't have a gun. The guy in the case that was shot with a 10mm didn't have a weapon, or at least he didn't wield the screwdriver he was found to have in his back pocket. The defendant in the case claims the guy was charging him and acting insane saying he was going to kill him and that he had no good retreat path because he was on a mountain trail. No other witnesses.

I wish someone would chime in that remembers that case, I read about it a month ago but I can't find it now.

I think the defendant was a teacher, at the least he was a family man and well regarded. The other guy was a loner and lived in his car or in the mountains or something like that but the prosecutor brought in all these character witnesses saying how nice the guy was and that he volunteered at the local animal shelter and all that. I'm trying to find a link to that article.

I just think it would be slightly wreckless to not consider many possible angles in the court case that most likely will follow even a totally justified self defense shooting and to prepare yourself in the best way possible. In a perfect world you get attacked, you shoot in self defense, it's seen as totally justified, you go home and live a normal life. We don't live in a perfect world, and innocent people go to jail or lose all their posessions in court cases quite often. Just take those things into consideration when choosing a firearm and defensive methods. Crazy big caliber guns can look just as bad in court as you downing the BG with two center mass and one to the head. It has a strong possibility of looking bad in court.