Of course you're kidding, but it should be noted that altering the scene in ANY way, shape, or form is 1,000 times worse in the eyes of a prosecutor and jury than using an effective but scary-looking weapon, even if it would otherwise be irrelevant, because it shows a *guilty mind*; a way from which a jury could far more powerfully and fairly infer an intent to murder. Moreover, it is quite easy most of the time to prove ways in which people have altered scenes (crime scenes, if you're ultimately found guilty), using simple forensic science.
Don't worry about how powerful/effective/tacticool your weapon is - what you should worry about are your state's laws, exactly how they are worded, and following them (i.e. are you in IMMINENT danger?; does the attacker have a weapon, or do you reasonably believe that they do?; is your fear for your life or safety reasonable under all the circumstances / would others similarly situated feel threatened of life & limb?; Does your state allow you to defend others, or just yourself and immediate family members, or just yourself?, Does your state have a castle doctrine law or 'make-my-day' law? Are you in fact inside your home at the time? etc.). You see, the tacticoolness of your weapon is not an element of the crime you could be charged of murder or assault with deadly weapon; nor is it relevant to your defense of self-defense.
Second, besides the FACTS of the case and your state's specific laws and whether you TRAIN youself mentally and physically to only use deadly force in situations when your facts are within your state's laws, the next thing to consider is the political bent & beliefs of YOUR county's District Attorney. Some are far more pro-self-defense than others, and whether or not they levy a charge in the first place makes a world of difference, right or wrong. Very very low on the list is the tacticoolness of your gun. Yes, the jury COULD consider this fact, but it is ONLY relevant if they believe that you intended to murder, not in self-defense. It is NOT a relevant fact (or at least shouldn't be, in the jury instructions) in the far more common scenario, where the jury believes that YOU BELIEVED that you were in danger, but they don't agree necessarily that YOUR BELIEF was (1) reasonable, and/or (2) of *imminent* threat. In that situation, the type of weapon has nothing to do with the reasonable-ness of your fear, or the imminence of the danger to you. What facts WOULD matter in this far more common scenario is other things such as how dark or light, how close or far away to you is the attacker, how large or small or mean or scary-looking or lack thereof is the attacker - whether the attacker is facing you or not - whether the attacker is raising his hands with a weapon in such a way as to indicate immediate hostility or attack - whether the attacker in fact had a weapon, and which weapon, and if not, whether your belief that he did in fact have a weapon was reasonable or not under all the circumstances, etc., etc. Bottom line, weapon accessories or caliber choices is 99% much ado about nothing, IMO. FWIW, I am a lawyer, but not in the criminal defense area.
Having said all that - that's the criminal defense side of things (your freedom) - but you said suits (your money), so if you look at the civil side, then yes, it's a slightly bit more of a concern, only because the burden of proof is lower, but not much more. The defense of self defense is the same in the civil trial, and all of the same facts are equally relevant in exactly the same ways in a wrongful death case. But, having said that, if you have a lot of money/assets to protect, and are in such a high-crime place that an intrusion and use of your weapon is likely, then you just might want to err on the safe side and use a wood & blued steel 28" rem 870 or a winchester .30-30 levergun, provided you are proficient enough with it to feel comfortable using it in self defense.
