# Legal ramifications for self defense



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

I've been reading some Massad Ayoob stuff lately and it's gotten me to thinking about the legal ramifications of self defense. For the purpose of discussion let's use a scenario: a person threatened your life and you killed them with your everyday carry defensive firearm. 

Now you have to go to court. The prosecution discovers that your gun was not stock and attempts to have a field day with it. Painting you as some crazy person who was just out to kill.

What's not normal about the gun? It could be several things.

Trigger job.

Special ammo such as handloads or even that gimmicky zombie max.

Weapon lights.

Pretty much anything that gives you an advantage..

Ayoob claims this could make your defense in court difficult. Especially in liberal strongholds like New York. I personally don't share this view so I start this thread to see what my fellow preppers think.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

If someone wants to push something it'll get pushed.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Glad I live in AZ. Anti gun nut states will do as anti gun nut states alway do and make the victim the bad guy if he had a firearm. But I'd rather take my chance with 12 of my peers instead of 6 pallbearers. All I need is one who thinks like me to acquit me.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

I think this is a serious possibility especially in anti-2nd A areas like Mr. Ayoob suggests. Take recent situations in Baltimore and Ferguson; what if you eliminate a threat in self defense and you happen to be in an area that is culturally similar to Baltimore and Ferguson and the mob mentality takes over. The local DA rushes to indict even when the facts don't support it?

Yeah, I believe the legal implications are huge in a self defense killing with a firearm in many areas.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

So.. what about that trigger job? Or the laser... or the handloads?


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

well your honor when they kicked in my front door at 3 am yelling I'm going to kill yah ----------------


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

OK, there has NEVER been a self defence case that went south because of the legal ammunition used or any legal gun that was used.

There is a very strong reason for that. If a court set a precedence that said one ammo was "more lethal" than another ammo then it would open up the courts to decide what makes that ammo or that gun more lethal and then there would be room for "less lethal" ammunition and guns. On the other hand if, under self defence, lethal force is an acceptable choice then the total lethality makes no difference. Either you have the right to use lethal force or you don't. Now if you used an 8 gauge shotgun you won't be convicted of murder but you might be tried on a second count of possession of, and the use of, an illegal firearm or "destructive device".

Get a grip! if you are forced to use deadly force in self defence, in most cases it will be cut and dry. If you do this in a politically charged area then you may be charged but it is doubtful that you would be convicted. You will still have to live with the fact that you killed another human being. You will go through all the emotional crap that goes along with taking a life - even knowing you did it to save your life or the lives of others. Self defence cases rarely end up in civil court because jurors are unlikely to side against a person who was threatened to the point that deadly force was justified. There is no benefit in suing when the odds of losing are so high. In most cases of civil suit the lawyer will takes the case on contingent basis. If you win he takes 30% off the top plus his fees and then you get what's left. The personal injury lawyers that I have known (my older sister worked with them and even married one) would never take a civil suit regarding death in a self defence shooting on a contingency basis. You would have to pay up front and before the trial began. Would you risk $10-20000 on a bet with odds that are as remote as getting hit by a semi in the middle of the Arizona desert?


----------



## Jakthesoldier (Feb 1, 2015)




----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

Thanks for adding weight to my statement!


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

Some of you under estimate a prosecutor. They are evil and will use anything against you to win a case.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

The answer to the OP question depends very much on the state. Here in NJ CCW permits are unobtainable by normal people, so let's further stipulate this is a home invasion. Basically if you have a shooting incident outside the home, you're going to prison. Note that we do not have either "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine". We do have "duty to retreat". As a result a dead home invader will place you in court facing murder 2 over the issue of whether you could have retreated. You may win the case, but you will be arrested and tried.

Trigger job will get used, but whether the jury buys it is their call. Ammo will definitely be an issue and if you have any sort of self defense load it will be an add on a charge about whether you are using "cop killer" or "ammo piercing" bullets. The weapon light will be legal, but will be used as part of the argument.

Personally, I would not worry about the side arguments. I'd worry about having the best lawyer I could get to handle my case.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

I agree that it shouldn't matter. I am one of those that believe in zero gun restrictions. I want to be able to have FA or short barrels or suppressors without any special taxes or other nonsense.

But it's easy for us, all Pro-2A people, to see no problem at all in carrying reloads or modified guns, but your jury is not going to be all Pro-2A people, and if the DA has their way... then they'd likely fill it with as many Anti's as possible who are likely ready to burn you as it is. This is the point that Masad Ayoob was making. I know, it's crazy. If I defend myself from great bodily harm or death it shouldn't matter what I used to do it with. Look at the reaction from the gun grabbers after Sandy Hook. They tried to place just as much blame on the weapons as they did the insane piece of trash that used them. Paul may be correct about there not being any cases like this. I'm not sure and haven't tried to find any. 

It's just food for thought. What made me remember this tidbit from the book of concealed carry was that I recently got setup for reloading. And the thought of loading my own carry ammo. If I was forced to defend myself would the DA use that little fact that I loaded my own to make me look like a cold blooded murderer to the jury?


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

PaulS said:


> OK, there has NEVER been a self defence case that went south because of the legal ammunition used or any legal gun that was used.


Sorry, PaulS, . . . history disagrees with you:

_On May 11, 2004, 57-year-old Harold Fish, a retired high school teacher, was completing a solo hike in a remote area of the Coconino National Forest near Strawberry, Arizona, when he saw 43-year-old Grant Kuenzli lying on the ground near a car. Fish waved at Kuenzli, whom he did not know, and two unleashed dogs came charging at him.

Fish yelled at Kuenzli to corral the dogs and, when nothing happened, he pulled a 10-millimeter semi-automatic pistol from his backpack and fired a warning shot into the ground. The dogs scattered, but then, according to Fish, Kuenzli himself charged at Fish, threatening to kill him.

Fish fired three shots and killed Kuenzli, a former firefighter who was living out of his car in the forest. Fish covered Kuenzli's body with a tarp and walked to a highway where he flagged down a motorist who summoned emergency personnel._

Harold Fish was prosecuted and *persecuted* because of three things: his assailant did not have a physical weapon (gun, knife, club), . . . Harold had a 10mm auto (which the prosecutor successfully portrayed as a super powerful, . . . above and beyond weapon), . . . and Harold used very effective hollow point ammo (again, . . . the prosecutor jumped all over this).

Mr. Fish was successfully portrayed by the prosecutor and the judge as a psycho, carrying too much firepower, willing to shoot at any provocation, and by the added firepower and hollow point bullets, . . . being just too lethal.

Ayoob and several others, . . . including of course the NRA, . . . all agreed that the prosecutor used those to his advantage, . . . and that Harold's lawyer shortchanged his defence.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

Like I said Prosecutors are evil.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

This topic reminds me of a what my instructor told us during our conceal carry class. It was about the ammo we chose to carry. The example he gave was _Hornady's ammo_ One was their _Critical Defense_ which Hornady claims is the most responsible ammo a law abiding citizen can carry, the other was their _Zombie Max_, now best I can tell, the only difference between the two is that the critical defense has a orange plastic like plug in the hollow points, and the zombie max has green.
However, as our instructor asked, if you are forced to take a life in your defense, and the law decides to put you on trial claiming the killing was unjust, as the prosecutor tries to paint a picture of you as the bad guy which ammo do you want to have had in your weapon? Remember some or most on the jury may not be very familiar with weapons ammo and such. I don't think I want to be seen as a zombie hunter just itching for a chance to use my new toys, so I go with the critical defense ammo.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

Exactly the point Dave. What's crazy about that is you're right about the ammo. Critical Defense is the exact same as Zombie Max. Other than the color of the plug. Just the names could confuse a jury who doesn't know about the ammo. One is designed to Defend yourself, the other is "designed " to Kill. An antigun prosecutor could use that to his advantage even though it is the same ammo. Same could be said about handloads. "He made his own super duper ammo just to kill innocent muggers!"


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

In my experience, and I have some, what matters in cases like this is that *you* are never in front of a jury. The way to do this is by knowing the laws of your state and acting within the constructs of that law. Tennessee, unlike New Jersey, implies no obligation to retreat from a threat. In some states you *have *to flee from a threat if there is an avenue of escape open to you. While I may avoid a threat I see coming, I will never turn my back to an imminent threat to myself or my family. Suck it New Jersey.

The thing that most often gets people in trouble in court is a lack of humility or hubris. Wearing a Punisher t-shirt with Punisher grips at the time you have to shoot someone is a bad idea. Wearing a "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" ball cap is also bad. After you pull the trigger saying: "I revoked that birth certificate!" or "Get Some!" while you are firing are both things that will color a Jury's opinion of you. Never portray yourself as a vigilante or some sort of death angel.

If you look unassuming, shout "Stop or I will shoot!" (if time allows), rendering immediate first aid after the threat is neutralized and calling 911 immediately are all good ideas. You should also respectfully decline to make a Police statement right away, seek legal council and be prepared to turn over your firearm for evidence. It will be inspected, function tested and drug fired for IBIS comparison. All modifications will be noted. If approached by the media do not cover your head and run away. You should look confident and say something like "I would really like to talk to you now, but I can't." Or "I will have a statement later but I have to confer with my lawyer first." If you do things like this and your actions were justified a Grand Jury will exonerate you. I just saw this very thing happen last month. A man watched his wife get gunned down by her brother, he responded in kind with a .38 revolver killing the brother in defense of his own life. My heart went out to this man, so did those of the Grand Jury. He made it plain that he never wanted anything like that to happen and he feared for his own life.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

csi-tech said:


> In my experience, and I have some, what matters in cases like this is that *you* are never in front of a jury. The way to do this is by knowing the laws of your state and acting within the constructs of that law. Tennessee, unlike New Jersey, implies no obligation to retreat from a threat. In some states you *have *to flee from a threat if there is an avenue of escape open to you. While I may avoid a threat I see coming, I will never turn my back to an imminent threat to myself or my family. Suck it New Jersey.
> 
> The thing that most often gets people in trouble in court is a lack of humility or hubris. Wearing a Punisher t-shirt with Punisher grips at the time you have to shoot someone is a bad idea. Wearing a "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" ball cap is also bad. After you pull the trigger saying: "I revoked that birth certificate!" or "Get Some!" while you are firing are both things that will color a Jury's opinion of you. Never portray yourself as a vigilante or some sort of death angel.
> 
> If you look unassuming, shout "Stop or I will shoot!" (if time allows), rendering immediate first aid after the threat is neutralized and calling 911 immediately are all good ideas. You should also respectfully decline to make a Police statement right away, seek legal council and be prepared to turn over your firearm for evidence. It will be inspected, function tested and drug fired for IBIS comparison. All modifications will be noted. If approached by the media do not cover your head and run away. You should look confident and say something like "I would really like to talk to you now, but I can't." Or "I will have a statement later but I have to confer with my lawyer first." If you do things like this and your actions were justified a Grand Jury will exonerate you. I just saw this very thing happen last month. A man watched his wife get gunned down by her brother, he responded in kind with a .38 revolver killing the brother in defense of his own life. My heart went out to this man, so did those of the Grand Jury. He made it plain that he never wanted anything like that to happen and he feared for his own life.


So, laughing while twirling your gun around your finger is a definite no-no. Got it. Seriously Csi, this sounds like the best way to handle the situation and I have been told this exact same thing before. This is how I would handle it if I were in the situation myself. (Sigh) Guess I will have to get rid of all my T-Shirts that say " F--- it-Kill em all"


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Prepared One said:


> So, laughing while twirling your gun around your finger is a definite no-no. Got it. Seriously Csi, this sounds like the best way to handle the situation and I have been told this exact same thing before. This is how I would handle it if I were in the situation myself. (Sigh) Guess I will have to get rid of all my T-Shirts that say " F--- it-Kill em all"


Yes. Also quotes from Tombstone like: "I'm your Huckleberry", "You're no Daisy at all!" and "Say when!" should also be avoided.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

No one has yet mentioned the other aspect - a civil lawsuit.
So, you have used self defense, killed or wounded the aggressor, law enforcement agrees with what you did and does not charge you.
The criminal in the case may sue you if he's still alive. The family may sue you if he's dead. Even if the law declared you innocent of any charges.
You are going to be out big money to hire a lawyer.
You may be in debt for the rest of your life.

Just something to think about.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

You can always buy a liability bond. When I retire I will have a million dollars worth of liability insurance just in case. I will still train annually under LEOSA, but it pays to be smart. Usually if you are not held criminally liable the preponderance will lean heavily in your favor. Unless you are OJ. They stuck it to him in a civil trial because everyone knew he "probably" did it.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

This is also the reason why you should learn de-escalation skills, to avoid pulling a trigger.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

most states have a* castle doctrine law *.


----------



## slewfoot (Nov 6, 2013)

Medic33 said:


> most states have a* castle doctrine law *.


The key word here is most.
Some states as pointed out by others say you must retreat if all possible. I personally think that it would be very difficult for me to retreat if someone is coming after me or mine.


----------



## Diver (Nov 22, 2014)

Medic33 said:


> most states have a* castle doctrine law *.


While many states have the Castle doctrine, the states with duty to retreat tend to be larger urban states, e.g. NY, NJ so there is a large portion of the population that does not enjoy the benefit of the Castle doctrine.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

Diver said:


> While many states have the Castle doctrine, the states with duty to retreat tend to be larger urban states, e.g. NY, NJ so there is a large portion of the population that does not enjoy the benefit of the Castle doctrine.


Very true.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

Most of this stuff comes from crooks trying to sell self defense or CC insurance. pretty much unless IMO. But it fuels a lot of talk about the subject.
Trigger work, defeating safety devices, will become an issue only in an accidental shooting.


----------



## SDF880 (Mar 28, 2013)

I have wondered about this when I carry a 10MM, a round the FBI shelved! That may not look too good in court
but if I'm at that point I'm still alive.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Here is the defense. you have owned guns for 40 years, Have changed hand guards, sights, barrels..etc.. YOu like and respect guns. you also love and want to protect your family and yourself. You managed to go 40 (?) years without being FORCED by some crazy to shot them. You are sorry it happened and wish it never happened but if you were really a CRAZED gun nut..you could have found an excuse a lot sooner

In most cases prosecutors really (unless they are forced) do not want to file a losing case


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Yep..way too many commie libs inhabiting DA's offices.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

So let me get this straight, when I get the Barrett MRAD in .338 Lapua Mag; Will it or will it not be OK to use the defense, "I feared for my life", after making the 600 yard kill shot? :snipe:

:laughhard:

View attachment 11111


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

well slippy I can clearly see you were defending your persimmon tree from that thar looter at the back of your property.


----------

