Thought on using a suppressed pistol for HD

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The way the civil lawsuit protection works in Texas is:

1) The person files a civil suit, probably before or while the criminal
stuff is being sorted out.

2) You delay the civil suit until you are no-billed or otherwise acquitted (usually - I’m aware of one out of state case where they settled the civil suit before the criminal because in order to get insurance to pay, the attacker had to admit he was on the defender’s property and that admission was used to free the shooter in the criminal trial).

3) Your lawyer files a motion to dismiss based on the Texas law and the judge hears the motion. He can also go after the plaintiff for attorney’s fees if the plaintiff has anything to take.

So in procedural terms, you’d still need to pay a lawyer. In practical terms, no lawyer is likely to take such a case unless he is getting paid up front or thinks you are going to be found guilty criminally, so not many suits get filed.

 

[buck460XVR]

You shoot anyone, anyway, in a HD shoot and odds are there may lawyer fees. Still beats being dead. I doubt very much if a suppressor on any handgun(this is in the handguns forum) is going to turn any legitimate "good" shoot into a criminal act. Just as the non-use of a suppressor would not turn a "bad" shoot into a "good" one.

So much of this fear comes from Massad Ayoob's 30 year old advice about the use of reloads for SD/HD. 3 decades later his predictions still have not come true. Since then folks have advised against trigger jobs, custom guns and the taking of SD/HD classes, etc., as possible risks for increasing the chances of being found guilty of murder instead of legal SD. Most states have a legal description of what makes for a home invasion and gives what recourse is legal. Stay within those boundaries and you will be just fine......suppressor or not.

 

[ATN082268]

Fish won the right for a retrial after the law was changed (and that was retroactively applied) and the prosecution did not feel they could attain a guilty verdict given the new law.

That's because the new law required the prosecutor to prove the defendant's guilt in a self defense situation

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Ayoob’s main work is providing expert testimony, so he sees a lot of what goes wrong in officer-involved shootings and self-defense ahootings. And as somebody who has been reviewing court records of those types of things on the side myself, you do start seeing patterns.

However, what you don’t see is all the cases where that pattern didn’t lead to a problem. So you don’t have any real basis of how big a problem an issue is. Hypothetically, 100% of the cases you might see might involve someone arguing “hair trigger” but you aren’t seeing any of the situations that weren’t prosecuted.*

*Actually, the usual use of custom trigger jobs in trials is for a defendant to argue they shot someone accidentally (manslaughter) rather than deliberately (murder). As a result, you can usually find dozens of cases where the state’s firearms expert has testified that triggers as light as 4lbs are not hair triggers. So flipping that argument and making the case you shot someone you didn’t mean to shoot because of a too light trigger is difficult to do; but it does happen. Particularly if you’ve got the deep pockets of the state behind you to pay out a settlement.

Getting back to the OP’s question, I share cslinger’s view on suppressor use as a tactic. I want people to know I am shooting and I want the people I am shooting at to feel like I am hurling lightning bolts at them. If I wasn’t single and had to work as a team and communicate, I might be less inclined to go that route.

On the legal side, if you have a problematic shoot, they are going to use everything they can against you. One of Harold Fish’s jurors said his story was believable but the fact that he used 10mm JHPs influenced her to vote guilty. that’s far from an unreasonable defensive choice but the prosecutor used it and at least one person on the jury bought it.

Instead of trying to figure out all the potential problems, I advise just thinking out your choices and having a rational explanation you can explain to a non-gun person. And it doesn’t hurt to know your local culture - if your friends think you are some kind of gun nut/ninja assassin for owning a suppressor, strangers probably won’t take a kinder view. A trigger job or a suppressor can be explained and they provide a measurable advantage. Things like “Punisher” logos and “Kill ‘Em All!” stickers don’t provide any advantage but they do have some drawbacks.

 

[buck460XVR]

Ayoob’s main work is providing expert testimony, so he sees a lot of what goes wrong in officer-involved shootings and self-defense ahootings.

Actually, his expert testimony thing is limited to only a few number of civilian cases. Not anywhere close to his "main work". One needs to realize that "expert witnesses" are generally "paid" witnesses that has been hired to testify either for or against a defendant.

*Actually, the usual use of custom trigger jobs in trials is for a defendant to argue they shot someone accidentally (manslaughter) rather than deliberately (murder). As a result, you can usually find dozens of cases where the state’s firearms expert has testified that triggers as light as 4lbs are not hair triggers. So flipping that argument and making the case you shot someone you didn’t mean to shoot because of a too light trigger is difficult to do; but it does happen. Particularly if you’ve got the deep pockets of the state behind you to pay out a settlement.

Again....not really. When used for the argument against having a custom trigger for SD it has to do with intent. Kinda like the "Punisher" and the "Kill 'em all" stickers you refer to later. I'd assume this is the same argument the OP is asking about concerning the use of a suppressor. Gotta be a sicko out walking around looking for a victim, or inviting intruders into your home somehow to have a custom gun, trigger job reloads or a suppressor on your SD/HD gun. Some call it the "Taxi Driver" syndrome. Same as what many accused George Zimmerman of doing when he shot Travon Martin. They claimed his original intent was not SD, but to "clean up the filth in the city!".

Lots of things have changed in those 30 years since Ayoob stated his opinion. Back then "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand your Ground" where not the household words they are now. Nor did states have laws on the books stating such. Many still did not allow the average civilian to carry concealed. Reloaders were far and few between, except in the organized shooting sports and suppressors were not even a option for most civilians. The use of firearms for SD/HD has expanded greatly and the sentiment toward the use of deadly force has become much more accepted.

As for knowing what your local gun culture is, I restate what I said in my previous post. Know what constitutes a threat to you legally in your locality and the legal recourse to defeat that threat. Doesn't really matter what your neighbor thinks....chances are, no lawyer is going to let him on the jury anyway. I know my local D.A.. He tells me he rolls his own for his Nightstand gun. How that would help me get out of a bad shoot, I don't know.

Suppressors only work well with sub-sonic ammo. Do folks really use sub-sonic ammo for SD/HD? Not me. But then I also use my own reloads, in a gun that had a trigger job done.

 

[AK103K]

Suppressors only work well with sub-sonic ammo. Do folks really use sub-sonic ammo for SD/HD? Not me. But then I also use my own reloads, in a gun that had a trigger job done.

Suppressors work very well, with sub or supersonic ammo. Subsonic is a little quieter, but its generally not that dramatic a difference.

With something like 147 grain 9mm or 45acp, which are already subsonic for the most part, youre not giving up anything just because they are subsonic.

That suppressor makes a major difference in sound and flash suppression, especially in enclosed places and in low light. Even if you were using a full power round that was supersonic, youre still way ahead with the suppressor on there.

 

[Nanuk]

the prosecutor would have a field day, especially if that suppressor were attached to an AR.

Prosecuting what violation of law?

Then there is the civil suite.

What civil suit? For using a can? What law is that?

What state? Since many states have qualified immunity for SD shootings. What relevance does using a can have?

An AR, suppressed or not, is not suitable for HD in most places. Far too much penetration.

That Sir is an uneducated and wrong statement.

He'll probably fail, but you'll still have an attorney bill to pay.

Depends on the state, know the law where you are.

So much of this fear comes from Massad Ayoob's 30 year old advice about the use of reloads for SD/HD. 3 decades later his predictions still have not come true. Since then folks have advised against trigger jobs, custom guns and the taking of SD/HD classes, etc., as possible risks for increasing the chances of being found guilty of murder instead of legal SD. Most states have a legal description of what makes for a home invasion and gives what recourse is legal. Stay within those boundaries and you will be just fine......suppressor or not.

Amen.

That's because the new law required the prosecutor to prove the defendant's guilt in a self defense situation

Actually self defense is an affirmative defense. You must admit to killing the BG in order to claim it was self defense.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Actually, his expert testimony thing is limited to only a few number of civilian cases

How many cases have you offered expert testimony in on any subject?

Again....not really. When used for the argument against having a custom trigger for SD it has to do with intent. Kinda like the "Punisher" and the "Kill 'em all" stickers you refer to later.

I wasn’t attempting to describe a complete example of every legal argument that might be made with regard to a custom trigger. Also, from a business standpoint, the point of civil litigation is to get paid. Arguing the homeowner intentionally shot your client is going to mean you let the insurance company off the hook and they have deeper pockets than the homeowner as well as being more likely to settle.

If your client was intentionally shot by the homeowner in the process of breaking into the home, you’re going to have to show some act of surrender or retreat on your client’s part before you even bet to argue the homeowner was bloodthirsty. And even if you collect, you get what’s left after the homeowner has paid his attorneys - and only the property that’s not subject to exceptions (houses, cars, even guns in Texas...)

Suppressors only work well with sub-sonic ammo. Do folks really use sub-sonic ammo for SD/HD?

Subsonic .45 and 9mm JHP ammo is fairly common even among people who don’t own suppressors and it performs well. I’m not sure what you mean by “works well” but even in rifle calibers, supersonic is going to be noticeably quieter with a suppressor (about 30db).

 

[ATN082268]

Actually self defense is an affirmative defense. You must admit to killing the BG in order to claim it was self defense.

I was referring to who must bear the burden of proof in a self defense situation, which, under this new law, switched from the defendant having to prove they acted in self defense to the prosecutor who must prove they didn't.

 

[dogtown tom]

buck460XVR

Suppressors only work well with sub-sonic ammo.

I would argue that silencers work well with ANY ammo. While silencers are quietest with subsonic ammunition, you shouldn't discount what effect they have on standard velocity ammunition.

My 11.5" 5.56 AR has an obnoxious blast outdoors. With a silencer its quieter than an unsuppressed .22 pistol. I wouldn't hesitate to use it indoors if needed. You just need to know what to expect in terms of sound reduction.

Do folks really use sub-sonic ammo for SD/HD?

Sure they do......good ole Winchester/Remington/Federal .45acp 230gr ball ammo from WalMart IS subsonic)

 

[44 AMP]

I was referring to who must bear the burden of proof in a self defense situation, which, under this new law, switched from the defendant having to prove they acted in self defense to the prosecutor who must prove they didn't.

This is probably a good thing, but its doesn't change the fact that to claim self defense, you have to admit to intentionally shooting the bad guy.

It is a nuance of our legal system but a private citizen shooting anyone is almost always "a crime" of some level. An accidental shooting is a crime of negligence. Intentional shooting in self defense is also a crime, BUT maybe (and hopefully is) found justified. But in order for such a finding, you have to admit to committing the "crime".

 

[FishinLuke]

Wow. How many times over the years have you regurgitated this nonsense? And how many times have we told you this is nonsense? Not only are you a treasure trove of bad information, but you repeat that bad information ad nauseum no matter how many times you’ve been corrected here. Good grief...

My thoughts exactly, I've seen this response from him time and time again with repudiation and it still comes up in conversation again when the situation arises.

 

[buck460XVR]

Suppressors work very well, with sub or supersonic ammo. Subsonic is a little quieter, but its generally not that dramatic a difference.

FME, and in MHO, suppressors work best with subsonic ammo because they do nothing to suppress the sound when a supersonic bullet leaves the barrel and creates its sonic boom. I didn't say they don't work with supersonic loads, just that IMHO, they don't work the best. But that has nuttin' to do with the question in the OP.....'' - would it have an impact in civil proceedings?''.

 

[AK103K]

FME, and in MHO, suppressors work best with subsonic ammo because they do nothing to suppress the sound when a supersonic bullet leaves the barrel and creates its sonic boom. I didn't say they don't work with supersonic loads, just that IMHO, they don't work the best. But that has nuttin' to do with the question in the OP.....'' - would it have an impact in civil proceedings?''.

Contrary to what you keeps saying they DO suppress the muzzle blast, which is the bulk of the noise.

Yes, supersonic rounds do have a crack as the round goes downrange, and that can vary with distance, but thats not near as noticeable as the muzzle blast.

Case in point, I can shoot one of my suppressed 10.5" AR's from inside my carport, "without" earplugs, and I can still hear the round hit what Im shooting at before I notice the "crack" of the supersonic 5.56. I cant shoot an unsuppressed .22LR from the same spot without losing hearing for a couple of days. If I were to do that with the AR without the suppressor, I would likely lose what little hearing I have left.

AAC claims 95-97% in muzzle blast with the AAC M4-2000, and I believe them too.

Same goes for my 9mm's from a handgun. No muzzle blast, and a slight bit of difference in sound between the sub and supersonic rounds.

The big reduction is in the muzzle blast.

I only keep bringing it up too, because you keep making statements that arent actually true and correct.

Yes, they do work best with subsonic ammo. But they still reduce the "muzzle blast" from the supersonic rounds, to about the same levels.


Will it have an effect in court? Whos to say? Im still of the thinking,"why even bring it up?", but I seem to be in the minority.

 

[JohnKSa]

Im still of the thinking,"why even bring it up?", but I seem to be in the minority.

If it is going to be brought up, it won't be your decision.

If you are still suggesting that someone intentionally alter the scene of a crime, that is a non-starter, if for no other reason that it is against the TFL rules to suggest that people should engage in criminal behavior.

 

[ATN082268]

This is probably a good thing, but its doesn't change the fact that to claim self defense, you have to admit to intentionally shooting the bad guy.

I don't see an issue with admitting to shooting the bad guy in self defense if the prosecution has to prove you committed a crime

 

[Double Naught Spy]

That's the rub. They don't have to prove it. The just have to convince a few people on the jury pool. That isn't the same as proving it.

The Innocence Project gets people out of wrongful convictions each year. https://www.innocenceproject.org/justice-2018/

And, it is believed that 5% of folks convinced are wrongfully convicted.

So when you speak of proving a crime was committed, it isn't like clear cut math. Sometimes 2+3=7 in court.

 

[44 AMP]

I think it was Twain who said something like "a trial is where a jury decides which side has the better liar"...

The big problem is not what violation of law using a suppressor in self defense might be, I doubt there is any law saying you can't use one, the problem is in the appearance of premeditation.

Generally speaking, if the prosecution can spin a fanciful tale about how you planned to shoot someone (or could have planned it) it can go a long way to negating the claim of justifiable self defense.

IF they can convince a juror(s) that you were "lying in wait" and hoping for just such an opportunity, you could be convicted and/or found liable even when the actual facts are different.

If there is a trial, you will face a jury of your peers, but always remember that they are only your peers in the sense that you all live in the same area.

It's unlikely that anyone who admits to any knowledge of firearms, or the law, will be allowed on the jury to begin with. Both sides want jurors who will only know what they tell them in court.

Using a suppressed firearm for self defense breaks no law I know of, because it is suppressed, but the impression it can have on the undereducated might be enough to send you to jail, or render you liable for a huge civil judgement, the way having "Kill them all, let God sort then out" engraved on your pistol could.

It doesn't matter to the facts of the case, or the law, but you face more than just those things when you are in court.

As a deliberate choice, using a suppressed firearm for self defense is a poor choice. Not because of the law, but because of what some people are going to think.

 

[Sharkbite]

the problem is in the appearance of premeditation.

Simply having a loaded gun avail for HD use could give the same impression.

 

[JohnKSa]

Yes and no.

Having a loaded gun for self-defense is pretty mainstream. Most people "get it" and understand why the gun is there and why it is loaded.

Having a suppressed gun for self-defense is not mainstream. I mentioned the stats earlier and it's pretty obvious that even amongst gun owners, suppressors are not at all common. People using them for self-defense is even less common. So the average person isn't going to "get it" in the same way they immediately understand why people keep loaded guns for self-defense.

The idea that suppressors are used to conceal the noise of the shot so as to not attract attention is pretty heavily ingrained in the average person's mind by the way silencers are portrayed in the media. The idea that they're merely an alternate approach to hearing protection is going to be a new concept for the vast majority of people.

In my opinion, the first thing the average person will think when they hear someone shot someone else using a silencer is that the shooter was trying to keep anyone from hearing the shot and that sort of predisposes them to thinking that the shooting could have been premeditated. Can you change their minds? Probably, but that will cost money.