Gun safety psa!!!

Easy there, lawman. Your thinking is right down my alley. I like the way you put things into words. I can understand where you are coming from. I don't have much to say about home defense as everyone has already made up their minds about what they shall use against the zombies. Carry on!
 
"Please continue to pay your lawyer for real advice. Be sure to bring your checkbook."

Pay? He's my fishing and poker playing bud. I think I still owe him a free steak dinner for doing my divorce for nothing but court costs in 1990.

I appreciate everybody's input, but some are closer to the action than others. Like being in court everyday.

I hope I never end up in court; I was invited to a poker game once and cleaned out 5 judges. I wonder why I didn't get invited back. :confused:
Hey, I was just lucky.

John
 
Uncle Buck said
Retired Lawman,
I thought what you wrote was sound, simple and very accurate. I read a lot of your post and I appreciate your experiences and even more, appreciate you sharing them with us.
Click to expand...

+1 ;) Hang in there big guy.......Don't get yer Blood Pressure up :D
The right to an Open Discussion is a Proud Heritage around these parts:cool:
 
My Experience

Many, many years ago I worked as an armed guard. I know it was a stupid job, but I was going to college. I worked at night and went to school in the day.

I had to have a gun permit in order to be armed. To get that, I had to go to a three day course. A large part of the course dealt with the legal and moral implications of shooting someone. The instructor gave us some good advice.

If the shooting was obviously justifiable, most DA's wouldn't make an issue of it. But, a law suit was just about guaranteed. During the civil trial the family of the person shot and their attroney were going to do everything in their power to make me look like some crazy, blood thirsty killer and the victim the salt of the earth. The gun and the ammo would be part of their evidence.

The instructor told us that having "magnum" ammo or hollow-points, or any fancy stuff would be a nail in our coffin.

One more point. In a criminal trial, all twelve jurors have to agree on guilty verdict for it to count. In a civil trail, only a majority of the jury is needed for the verdict.
 
Bella, your post is good advice. I've known of good folks that have lost it all because they felt they needed to use deadly force. One of them was an on duty police officer that was cleared of wrongdoing by internal affairs. He went by the book all the way. He won the civil lawsuit at the cost of several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees. Plus, he was suspended until all the legal battles were settled. He was ruined financially. Yet, he had violated no rules and was using issued ammo. He is retired now and has none of the property his father left him due to the lawsuit. He is working a part-time security job to make ends meet.

I have a retired LEO concealed carry permit. According to the rules for CCW, it is almost worthless for anything. You open yourself up to all kinds of legal ramifications if you ever need to fire the weapon in defense of your life or property. According to the rules of CCW, you can't fire the weapon to defend property, only your life or the life of someone else who is imminent danger. I seldom carry anymore due to the fact that when I go into a bank, courthouse, school, etc., I can't carry the weapon. When a traffic cop stops you, the fact that you have a CCW permit is alerted and the cop acts stupidly as if he's afraid you are going to shoot him.

Sorry for the rant, folks. The legal system is in a mess. If a person has some property or a few shekels in the bank, the legal system will soon soak it up. As stated before, homeowner's insurance won't cover but so much and you are on your own when that reaches it's limit. Then no insurance company will want to cover you after the fact.
 
Being broke beats being dead; to me anyway. And people do get killed during robberies and muggings. Life is a series of trade-offs. You can't stay in the house all of the time.

John
 
Retired Lawman said:
...For HD, use your favorite hunting piece with the ammo that you normally hunt with and you will be much safer from prosecution when the DA reviews the case. If you are an uplands hunter, have #6 or 7.5s in the magazine. If you are a clays shooter, have 8s or 9s in the pipe of your favorite shooter. A specialty gun equipped for combat with gadgets all over it loaded with combat loads will almost assure you at the very least a civil action, or at worst a criminal prosecution.

You may take this at face value or I have wasted my time typing this post. I don't like to see people get into trouble because they are stubborn about their beliefs. Remember, I have been through many reviews with the DA. He can ruin your life with the stroke of a pen. I always recommend that there be no prosecution for a burglary or home invasion. That carries some weight but the DA, when he sees the photos of a loaded with buckshot pump gun owned by a quail hunter, lots of visions cross his mind. Visions of glory at issuing a warrant for involuntary manslaughter.

The shotgun blast may not kill your bad guy, but it will put instant brakes on even a drug crazed perp with a heavy coat on. A shotgun blast to a guy with a bullet proof Kevlar vest will knock the breath out of him and leave bruises that you wouldn't want to believe. The Kevlar factory is about 20 miles from my home and they have excellent testing facilities. A shotgun blast at 30 feet is effective with any size shot. No, the shot won't penetrate but it leaves some very nasty bruises. I've read many posts that complain that the perp may be wearing a heavy coat, thus the need for buckshot. Not to worry. Any shotgun blast will change his plans. A shotgun expends its energy on the outside while a rifle projectile expends it's energy inside the body. If a bad guys comes acalling, I don't want to kill him. I just want to protect my home. I'd rather visit him at the ER or the courtroom than to go to his funeral.

Gebtlemen, I am a retired cop that has seen lots of lives ruined by the judicial system in both civil and criminal actions though the homeowner thought he was acting properly. The Castle Doctrine does not protect you if you act outside the confines of reasonableness. That is why I suggest that you have the gun that you use in your normal shooting routines loaded with the ammo you use for that routine. It will save your life if a bad guy visits and a lot of grief when the prosecutor makes a decision on whether to have you arrested.

Not all of you, maybe none of you, will agree me....
Click to expand...

Well, I agree, as is obvious by my earlier post suggesting a skeet shotgun loaded with the usual reloads that folks who shoot skeet and trap have around in lots of 25, along with a Mec 600 Jr. and a few pounds of Blue Dot. A target .45, with all the accessories might be acceptable as well, along with a membership in a gun club that supports target competition, and evidence you participate in it. Any gun, if it looks like its entire purpose was putting holes in paper or game animals or breaking clay targets will not suggest you're a "cowboy" ready to draw down like John Wayne on the bad guy as the primary reason you have it...

If the weapon you use to shoot an intruder looks like a weapon with no other use than shooting people, then the DA will wonder (in front of a grand jury) if you were too anxious and too prepared to shoot at people and did so before all the other ways out of the situation were explored. So will the grand jury, and believe me, the non-gun citizenry are NOT sympathetic to uses of firearms in even legit circumstances against people, especially if the guns used had only that purpose. That's why a CCW situation is fraught with legal potholes, and almost makes CC too risky of one's future, at least in most of the situations I've ever encountered.

You better have an innocent justification for having the gun in the first place and an iron-clad justification for using it against a person no matter how nefarious the person is.

Been there, learned a lot.
 
While I don't mean to be argumentative...

... the assumption that a weapon designed solely for anti-personnel purposes could cause image problems isn't necessarily wrong, but if we're going to base all decisions on the criteria of "will it be viewed as a hunting arm or an anti-personnel weapon?" then we might as well get rid of....

Snubnosed revolvers - after all, who shoots targets with a snub? Wouldn't a competitive shooter want at least a 4" if not a 6" or longer barrel?

Most semiauto handguns - clearly, .380 and 9mm are not hunting rounds; .45acp really isn't either.

Then again, the Desert Eagle .44 might be a great hunting handgun, but it looks so mall ninja...

I guess what I'm saying is most of us are not going to limit our inventories to "strictly hunting" arms; those of us who CCW will very rarely carry a handgun that's truly suited for hunting, unless we are hunting. Big magnum revolvers don't lend themselves well to concealment for many people. (And don't load them with magnum rounds, you wouldn't use magnum rounds for hunting... oh, wait...)

I agree that ideally, any weapon used for SD will look at least reasonably innocuous. On the other hand, a lot of innocuous guns are impractical for defensive use. And some add-ons that could trigger a DA would include laser sights, for instance; yet a lot of older shooters, with weakening vision, use lasers because they have a hard time focusing on iron sights and the target...

My take on all this is that if a shooting isn't necessary, even if it might be legal, do your best to avoid putting yourself in a position where you have to take the shot. If a shooting is necessary, be mentally prepared to explain why you felt your life, or the life of another (assuming you are in a state that allows defense of third parties) was in jeopardy, AFTER you've consulted with an attorney, and in the presence of your attorney.
 
RetiredLawman, learning from the experience`s of an 'old man' is something I hope I never get to old to do. Thanks for your sincere post, Shortwave.
 
Shortwave, another vote for common sense. I love to read retiredlawman's posts. He makes more sense than I can explaining the consequences. I am an old man myself and am willing to listen to reason. I am a retired detective that will agree with every word he said. When you've been on the scene and observed the consequences, it makes a difference.
 
Note to RetiredLawman

I really don't mean to disparage your advice, and I do appreciate both the effort you took to post it, and your 30 year career. Thanks for both.

But I do think, based on a lot of the posts I've read in any number of threads, that for many posters, the choice of gun is going to be the least of their legal worries. Review of what legally constitutes valid self-defense, and a review of the results of civil cases that followed "not guilty" verdicts, are things you implied were worthwhile, and I think doing that kind of research will have more benefit, than selection of arms.

That said, I think you are right that a non-military looking firearm will scare the anti crowd less. I just don't always think a non-scary firearm is an option. In some cases, "hunting" weapons are just too large. Hunting handguns are hard to carry concealed; long-barreled shotguns and rifles are hard to maneuver with in potentially close quarters.

This is why I think the most important thing is knowing when not to shoot, and understanding the value of avoiding threats when possible. That, and understanding what NOT to say, should the worst case come our way.
 
About fifteen years ago, a good friend of mine had to shoot someone in his house. He was home one afternoon when he heard his front door crash open. He immediately retreated to his bedroom. He grabbed his weapon, got along side his bed facing the door, and called 9-1-1.

He was on the phone with the dispatcher when someone came through his bedroom door. Even though he had his gun trained on the door, he paused for a second. It was a kid that was barely 15. That delay almost cost him his life. The kid shot at my friend, luckily for him, he missed. My friend immediately fired back, he did not miss.

He gun was a Remington 11-87 trap model. It was loaded with trap loads. He was a champion trap shooter. He missed making the Olympic team by one target. He was an alternate for that year.

The 911 tape saved his bacon from any criminal prosecution. You could hear his bedroom door open, a small bang from the punks .22 revolver, then a loud bang from the shotgun on the recording.

The shot immediately dropped the kid. It had hit him in the belly. He survived but ended up in a wheelchair and having to use a plastic bag to go the bathroom for the reat of his life. So much for birdshot being harmless. Here is the kicker.

The family of the kid sued my friend. He had to go to court to fight this. Thanks to his good lawyer, the weapon he used, and the 911 tape, he won.

You shoot someone, you will be sued. What you use and how you use it will be used against you. That is reality!!!
 
What, why, and how.... with some relation to where.

What you use, while it may be important, is less important than why you use it, and how you use it.

All things being equal, I'm more concerned with using a weapon that I shoot well and instinctively, over using a weapon that the DA will like.

Then again, I don't live in a criminal-friendly state; it's not so easy to bring a civil suit against a legally justified SD case where I live. Since my state does have a Castle Doctrine, I can focus my concern virtually 100% on the why and the how, and not worry so much about the what.

If my why and how aren't good, then the what isn't going to matter. If the why and how are good, state laws won't make distinctions re Castle Doctrine over the what.
 
re:MLeake

You can be sued at anytime for any reason. There are enough greedy, unethical lawyers to take any case.

You also keep mentiong DA. DA has nothing to do with civil litigation. OJ walked on his criminal trial and lost his civil trial. These are two very different animals.

I
 
Roy Reali... you aren't necessarily correct.

I understand the concept of civil vs criminal law. However, where I live, if the DA (the one I keep mentioning) decides it was a lawful SD shooting in the home, the homeowner enjoys civil immunity. Or, if it goes to trial, but the trial judge/court find that the shooting was justified SD, the homeowner enjoys civil immunity.

This was true where I used to live, and it is true where I currently live.

Florida law actually shields homeowners against civil suits resulting from SD in the home.

From what I've read under Georgia's SD laws, a valid SD defense against an intruder also provides immunity from civil suits.

Again, I'm much more concerned with whether a shooting is justified, than I am with the implement used in the shooting, so long as the implement is legally possessed. If the shooting wasn't justified, then criminal and civil floodgates are open. If the shooting was justified, at least in my neck of the woods, then I have legal immunity from civil suits.

Know the laws of your state. If you live in a state with laws that favor the bad guys, become politically active.
 
...I know bird shot WILL go through walls... especially because the bedroom walls in my house arent even particle board... they are maybe 1/4 inch "looks like wood" boards... but on the outside of the apartment the walls WILL catch the birdshot... but I know my house... there is one wall that is the connection to the neighbors but has storage tubs and a book case against it... on their side it is a cabinet covered wall... there could be penetration through it all and still hurt the neighbor... but I dont think it would have much velocity... but yet again I know my house... its another variable... I have shot 22 short round nose bullets through doors when the 22lr hollow points stop visibly... yet again though I have birdshot, buck shot, and slugs on my gun... they are all going to go through and hurt someone if I miss... but thats what practice is for... so I do agree that people who think it wont go through need to shoot something first before they say it wont go through...
 
MLeake said:
Know the laws of your state. If you live in a state with laws that favor the bad guys, become politically active.
Click to expand...
Well said -- in a sea of what ifs, it's nice to see a suggestion for a positive action.
 
A good lawyer can find loopholes big enough to throw a horse through in the "Castle Doctrine" states. What is a valid SD shooting will be determined by an inquest after thousands of hours of billable hours by bottom feeding shysters. Don't get over confident just because there is a castle Doctrine. The validity of your actions is wide open as to the definition of "valid".
 
Perhaps you don't understand "immunity from civil suit"

But the courts are supposed to throw out such suits with prejudice, if a self-defense claim is substantiated.

And if a BG, or his survivors depending on how the SD case initiated, file suits, there is always the threat of countersuits for the mental anguish, legal hassles, etc caused by the BG breaking in, attacking etc. If the BG's actions warranted a finding of self-defense, I'd think I'd have better odds on the countersuit.

Meanwhile, my point remains - hunting guns aren't always practical or even possible.

If I decide to compete with my M1 Garand, does that mean that I should use it as my first choice for HD since it's a weapon I'd regularly use for a recognized sporting purpose? If so, how is an 8-shot semiauto .30-06 less scary than a 6-shot pump action 12ga?

I could always have an attorney consult a Massad Ayoob type self-defense expert witness, so he'd know to point out things such as: What do local police departments carry as squad car weapons? (12ga pump with short barrel and extended mag, or AR-15 variant, or Mini-14) OR Why does the defendant have an AR-15? (Defendant bought it so he could practice between military deployments, and later so he could practice prior to deployment as a defense contractor; defendant prefers the AR and the short barreled pump because he received military training on them and is most proficient in their uses, as far as long guns go) etc.

Again, my biggest worry isn't the hardware, it's making sure I have exhausted reasonable options prior to pulling a trigger with whatever weapon I use, and in making sure that my rationale is made clear, after consultation with and in the presence of my attorney. (Theoretically; haven't had to use a weapon for SD, and hope I never have to)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top