Thought on using a suppressed pistol for HD
- Thread starter Hal
- Start date
As already explained in the thread, intentionally altering the scene of a crime is illegal. TFL members agree not to advocate illegal activity when they register.
This is now the third time this has been discussed in this thread and that's really more than sufficient reminder of the rules. No more reminders.
If you know how to use one and can keep the range tight, that's really not a bad idea.
In close quarters, I think I would be more concerned about someone armed with a sword than with a pistol. Once the range opens a bit, of course, things change.
And here I thought all the worry about the image of someone here with a suppressor on their gun was going to play out poorly in court and be an issue?
Now we're onto "Ninjas".
I had a little "Kendo" experience in the past. You bring your sword, Ill show you how a gun works.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
While I’m not entirely a fan of that rule, I think it is worth noting that it is for the benefit of the person violating the rule. JohnKSa makes it sound all strict and parental
; but everything you write here is quite traceable to you and will be used against you.They'd certainly try to play on that, if you used a real samurai sword and were youngish and somewhere close to physically fit.
Now what if you're 60+, with a medical condition, but still able to give someone a good swat or a sharp poke with an unsharpened decorator sword??
and you have several within easy reach? I'd not choose Sting or an Abingdon Viking sword against a gun, but 3feet of 3 inch wide flat steel bar with a point on the end is nothing to sneer at, within its range, I think. Overpenetration isn't a issue, either!
Remember the point of legal self defense is to STOP the attack. And here's something to consider along those lines, the "psychological stop". This covers everything that causes the bad guy to stop the attack that doesn't physically incapacitate them.
Unlike most animals, people know what gunshots are and possibly the muzzle blast could have a deterrent effect. I recently read someone's opinion that possibly part of the reason the 125gr .357 Magnum jhp got such an impressive one shot stop record was not just due to the bullet performance but also due to the huge, stunning muzzle blast acting on an attacker below the conscious level.
I won't say its true, and I can't say its not, but there's been talk!
If you use anything well outside the "normal" for self defense, expect the prosecution to try to make you into a blood thirsty monster over it. They will use any trick they can think of.
Also remember that those people on the stand, giving testimony are sworn to tell the truth. The Prosecutor, is not.
Neither is your lawyer, either,
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I don't agree that it only benefits the person violating the rule. None of us participating here have any control over what any other member may believe when he/she reads it, or which members other readers may choose to regard as reliable sources for information. Thus, if (for example) Bartholomew Roberts decides to repeat the old wive's tale that if you shoot a potential robber on your front stoop it's better to drag the corpse into the house before calling the cops ... some will read that and laugh, while someone else might look at that and think, "Gee, he's been a member here since 2000 and he has more than 8,000 posts. He probably knows what he's talking about, so I should pay attention."Bartholomew Roberts said:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
The issue is that the prosecution doesn't have to prove that you committed a crime. The crime is "homicide," which is simply the taking of a human life.ATN082268 said:
TFL moderator Frank Ettin, who is an attorney, wrote a fairly lengthy and very much on-point explanation of how this works quite some time ago. In short ... as has been mentioned in this thread, self-defense is an "affirmative defense" against a charge involving some sort of homicide: murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc. That catch with an affirmative defense is that, in order to use it, you have to start by admitting that you performed that act you stand accused of. THEN you go on to claim that even though you did it, you were justified in doing it because ____.
So you shoot a bad guy. Your claim is that he was trying to rob you and that he threatened you, so you shot him in self defense. Let's say you're a good shot and he died. The police and the prosecutor, for whatever reason, aren't convinced that your story is true, so you find yourself charged with murder.
If you are claiming justified self-defense, you have already admitted that you shot the guy. And shooting the guy is what you're being charged with. When you get into court, you're not arguing that you didn't do it -- you're arguing that you were justified in having done it because ____. That's what the law refers to as an "affirmative defense."
The crime you are charged with was committing a homicide. You have admitted that you committed a homicide. So the argument before the court is not whether or not you killed the guy, the argument is over whether or not the killing was justified under whatever the applicable state law says regarding self defense and the use of deadly force. And we have fifty states, plus the District of Columbia. In your state (meaning each reader), in a case where you are claiming self defense as an affirmative defense, who has the burden of proof? Does the prosecution have to prove that it was NOT a justifiable act of self defense, or does the defendant have to prove that it WAS a justifiable act of self defense? That can make a huge difference.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Aguila Blanca said:
Well, I didn’t say “only.”
So if I gave bad advice by suggesting something illegal, that would be bad because a novice member might believe it. But if I repeatedly told people that .223 is unsafe to use for home defense and never responded to a single factual counterpoint, I bet I could get away with that for decades. And members would just have to use their judgment in evaluating that info. That strikes me as ironic.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I think this link is the post I was thinking of in which Frank discusses how affirmative defense claims work:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6145032&postcount=7
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6145032&postcount=7
Theohazard
New member
I agree. It’s not that Aguila Blanca is wrong in his points, but the fact that T. O’Heir has been allowed to constantly spout the same bad information for many years despite constant corrections shows some inconsistencies with the spirit of TFL rules. Maybe we need a new “T. O’Heir Rule”...
Why would it be? What does "raise some eyebrows" mean where you live?
No, but it can certainly have a severe impact, especially in the short term, on someone's state of mind.
There is no TFL rule against holding opinions which are not supported by the evidence or that aren't popular, or that are unique. There's also no rule against being wrong. Which is good because most anyone who posts very much is going to be wrong eventually--maybe more than once.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
However ... there IS a rule against "Knowingly and willfully advocating violation of a standing federal or state law (any state)."JohnKSa said:
am reminded of the old joke about the women who killed her husband...
prosecutor: Madame, why did you shoot your husband with a bow and arrow???
Woman: "I didn't want to wake the children..."
Right or wrong, the general public associates silencers/suppressors with murder by stealth. NOT something "good guys" do.
The lone avenging hero so popular in movies/TV doesn't use a silencer, he doesn't care who hears the shots, because he's in the "RIGHT"! (and he suffers no hearing loss, its in the script!)
The public has been trained for several generations now, that only bad guys use silencers (and machineguns...) so even though it breaks no LAW, it breaks "accepted" social convention, and that's one strike against you in their minds.
Another point to consider, in real life, what about OTHER people in the house?? If there are any? Wife, children, etc., if they HEAR gunshots, they know something bad is going on. If they don't, they may have no clue and unknowingly out themselves at greater risk....
The upside of using a silencer for HD is that it protects your hearing. The downsides are numerous, and all potentials, until they show up in court.
prosecutor: Madame, why did you shoot your husband with a bow and arrow???
Woman: "I didn't want to wake the children..."
Right or wrong, the general public associates silencers/suppressors with murder by stealth. NOT something "good guys" do.
The lone avenging hero so popular in movies/TV doesn't use a silencer, he doesn't care who hears the shots, because he's in the "RIGHT"! (and he suffers no hearing loss, its in the script!
)The public has been trained for several generations now, that only bad guys use silencers (and machineguns...) so even though it breaks no LAW, it breaks "accepted" social convention, and that's one strike against you in their minds.
Another point to consider, in real life, what about OTHER people in the house?? If there are any? Wife, children, etc., if they HEAR gunshots, they know something bad is going on. If they don't, they may have no clue and unknowingly out themselves at greater risk....
The upside of using a silencer for HD is that it protects your hearing. The downsides are numerous, and all potentials, until they show up in court.