Choice of weapon for home defense - potential legalities

[Dan 177]

Hi all, I'm starting this thread to discuss how people feel about how the choice of HD gun being employed versus potential legal aftermath if that weapon was used in a justifiable shooting.

 

Lets say in a home invasion scenario with an intruder carrying a weapon. You utilized your HD gun to dispatch that intruder, it was all justified.

 

The two scenarios are as stated:

 

A: You employed a .45 ACP 1911

 

B: You employed a .500 S&W Magnum revolver

 

Now I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but it is my understanding that after these types of scenarios, you may be open to be charged both civilly and criminally even if the shooting was justified.

 

Things like "wrongful death", "excessive force" come to mind.

 

With both of the above scenarios, which one would could add fuel to the fire. Which one would a prosecutor or lawyer be able to work with in trying to portray you in a negative character light. These areas of the law tend to have lots of gray, and it becomes an exercise in which side can convince the jury they are right.

 

Here is an excellent article that I found that touches quite a bit on the topic. The question at hand starts at "Problem Two" in the article. http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/choosing-self-defense-guns

 

I know we have had quite a discussion in the Good to Go Thread, sorry for that bit of threadjacking there Ray Ray! Starting fresh here.

[vladtepes 1,060]

While the article sites several hypotheticals that we briefly discussed in the other thread... and it goes to great lengths to demonize the use of an "assault rifle" as a HD gun due to the possibility of it being viewed in a negative light in court.. but it does not offer any specific cases in which the choice of firearm resulted in criminal or civil legal repercussions..

 

I stand by what I stated in the other thread...

 

* Were you justified in shooting as defined by NJ law...

* Was the gun used %100 NJ legal in every way?

 

if the answer to both of those questions is yes.. I fail to see how choice of caliber or weapon system would be relevant in any way..

 

I am sure that "the individual shot the intruder with his legally purchased Glock pistol which is similar to the service pistols used by many NJ police departments" will be received far differently than "the individual shot the intruder with a high powered AR military style sniper rifle loaded with baby killing hollow point bullets"

 

BUT even though the court may view those differently.. the end result IMO should be the same.. because the law is the law.. was it a legal shooting? was it a legal gun? yes and yes.. then what is to worry about..

[e80hydro 120]

If it's a justified shooting who cares. Tell the liberal douchebags you killed the scumbag with your S&W 500 because they dont make a 600.

[Dan 177]

I contend that the shooting was legal, and the weapon was legal also. You aren't being charged for homicide or illegal possession of a weapon. There are more implications than that, such as civil suits brought against you by the relatives of the intruder, like wrongful death or unlawful force as stated in the article.

 

My idea here isn't that you broke the law using your .500 S&W Magnum, it is all about if for some reason the DA chose to charge you, what is going to help or hurt your case in general.

[Malsua 1,422]

Deadly force is deadly force.

 

It can be a claw hammer, a pipe to the head, an ice pick to the brain stem, it doesn't matter. Once threatened with deadly force in your home, you can respond with deadly force of any caliber. I say this and then think that perhaps a 4 inch cannon ball _might_ be a problem. Other things such as a flame thrower, perhaps various ways of electrocuting someone, guillotine, chipper/shredders, etc. i.e. unusual ways of killing someone could be an issue.

 

I truly believe that if a prosecutor starts getting into details of powder charge, penetration, bullet diameter etc., he's probably already lost the case. The defense attorney has to simply say something like this:

 

"The prosecutor want's you to believe that shooting someone with a bullet that's half an inch in diameter is somehow wrong, but shooting them with something 1/10th of an inch thinner is ok? We're talking about a difference equal to the thickness of a quarter. My defendant was afraid for his life when a man he did not know broke into his home with a gun and was threatening him. He used the tools he had at hand to stop the threat, he didn't think that because his bullets were the thickness of a quarter too thick that he'd have to sacrifice his life in his own home to a stranger. I submit to you, the jury that my defendant's actions were quite reasonable under the circumstances, tragic as they are. He didn't want to kill that man but the decedent gave him no choice. "

[Sigman 41]

If it's justified I wouldn't worry about caliber selection having affect on a lawsuit outcome. I would however select a caliber that I could shoot effectively with follow up shots and wouldn't damage my ears. S&W 500 in the home would probably blow out your eardrum.

[Babaganoosh 192]

I think the main issue with the disagreements on this issue is that some people are arguing their sides with common sense. While I agree with these people I also understand that common sense has ZERO place in a courtroom. Even if the majority feel that you had a legal, proper home defense shoot it will not matter if it goes to court. The prosecuters do not care about justice or right and wrong. They care about winning. Simple as that. Winning cases is what gets them promoted and looks good on their resumes. They will do whatever they can to win in court. Even if they personally think what you did was right or even legal they will do everything in their power to take you down.

 

 

 

edit. I remember a post on here a few months ago about a guy who was attacked by two females and a male in his front yard. He pulled a concealed pistol, fired, then even performed first aid on the lady that he shot. What he went thru at the hands of the prosecuters was insane. If I cant find the link maybe someone else can. It really sheds light on the whole process.

[Jon 264]

If it's justified I wouldn't worry about caliber selection having affect on a lawsuit outcome. I would however select a caliber that I could shoot effectively with follow up shots and wouldn't damage my ears. S&W 500 in the home would probably blow out your eardrum.

 

You wouldn't hear it. In the heat of the moment you wouldn't hear or feel anything. When I fire a shell out of my shotgun while hunting I never remember an ounce of kick or any sound out of the gun, and that's just with a deer in front of me. Can you imagine if you're fighting for your life?

[vladtepes 1,060]

edit. I remember a post on here a few months ago about a guy who was attacked by two females and a male in his front yard. He pulled a concealed pistol, fired, then even performed first aid on the lady that he shot. What he went thru at the hands of the prosecuters was insane. If I cant find the link maybe someone else can. It really sheds light on the whole process.

 

I remember part of that case just not the details.. I think it was even posted on here..

it was Arizona or something.. and it was one male and a female as far as I recall.. and it was outside in a driveway.. so he could have escaped.. backpedaled.. etc.. also it was deadly force against someone with no weapon.. there were lots of additional variables.. and as far as I recall the shooter ended up being cleared.. and the gun was a Glock or something similar.. a normal common gun..

 

the magic court case you are looking for.. is one in which someone with a highly modified evil black rifle.. loaded with hollow points.. that were hand loaded.. and so on.. where the court addressed the type of weapon.. and there were legal repercussions even though it was a "clean" "legal" shoot.. I have personally not heard of such a case..

[Dan 177]

I think the main issue with the disagreements on this issue is that some people are arguing their sides with common sense. While I agree with these people I also understand that common sense has ZERO place in a courtroom. Even if the majority feel that you had a legal, proper home defense shoot it will not matter if it goes to court. The prosecuters do not care about justice or right and wrong. They care about winning. Simple as that. Winning cases is what gets them promoted and looks good on their resumes. They will do whatever they can to win in court. Even if they personally think what you did was right or even legal they will do everything in their power to take you down.

 

 

 

edit. I remember a post on here a few months ago about a guy who was attacked by two females and a male in his front yard. He pulled a concealed pistol, fired, then even performed first aid on the lady that he shot. What he went thru at the hands of the prosecuters was insane. If I cant find the link maybe someone else can. It really sheds light on the whole process.

 

This is the type of thing I'm thinking about, not the black and white legality on whether it is legal to employ a .500 S&W Magnum for self defense when deadly force is justified. If the DA chooses to go after you, now its up to the jury to decide if it was justified, along with any civil suits that may be brought against you. The DA, or lawyer in a civil suit will bring to question everything and anything about the shooting and your life that they will feel helps their case.

[Dan 177]

I've been trying to find cases as an example. It is proving difficult as I believe the argument is never the single nail in the coffin. It is something that would be used as part of the culmination of evidence when building up your character. It would be used to inject a hint of prejudice to the jury, which in NJ are most likely apathetic to 2A rights or laws.

 

Found a good thread on another forum. Good read http://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/forum/topic/scary-guns

[Babaganoosh 192]

I remember part of that case just not the details.. I think it was even posted on here..

it was Arizona or something.. and it was one male and a female as far as I recall.. and it was outside in a driveway.. so he could have escaped.. backpedaled.. etc.. also it was deadly force against someone with no weapon.. there were lots of additional variables.. and as far as I recall the shooter ended up being cleared.. and the gun was a Glock or something similar.. a normal common gun..

 

the magic court case you are looking for.. is one in which someone with a highly modified evil black rifle.. loaded with hollow points.. that were hand loaded.. and so on.. where the court addressed the type of weapon.. and there were legal repercussions even though it was a "clean" "legal" shoot.. I have personally not heard of such a case..

 

 

It was two females and a male. I remember him being sucker punched by the guy as well. He might not have a weapon but there was a "disparity of force" which led to a justifiable shoot. How many unarmed people beating this **** out of you does there have to be before you can react with deadly force? 2? 4? 6? 12? Just because they werent armed it doesnt mean you were not in danger of losing your life. There have been plenty of cases where someone had been punched once, fell back, smacked their heads on the curb and died. I personally rememeber one in Long Branch. Guy literally got hit once and died. Happened outside a bar.

 

However those details of one guy one girl, 2 guys one girl, evil black rifle vs pistol arent the issue here. You arent seeing my point. The point is that if there is a case brought against you they will use EVERYTHING they can against you. Used an AK cuz that happened to be accesible? They will show video of terrorists firing AKS. Used hollow points? They will try to paint you as someone who uses cop killer bullets. Again I am not saying I agree with any of it. I personally feel if someone is in your house you can use a full auto AK if you have one, that it shouldnt matter in court. But the reality of the situation is it does matter. What firearm you choose might be the difference between you going to jail or remaining a free man. I think it's wrong but it is what it is.

[tuktuk 16]

Unfortunatly after dealing with the state and court system ( work related ) for substantial period of time I have to agree with statement that common sense or even law itself have liltle place in the court room. It's all about statistics such as conviction rate for the DA, when the judge is leaving for vocation and other stupid things that you Wud never think of. Again not say that it will def happen but I have seen too many times some krazy verdicts ... Trust me when I say this, God forbid any if us ever get involved with NJ court system for anything serious... My point about "exotic" not "common" firearms/calibers (for non gun owners that is ) is that they can always say that by using that particular weapon/round you intended to cause severe pain, more damage and certain death thus you didn't want to scare intruder away but to kill him. Remember they will be more concerned with the rights of that dead thug than safety of your family. Again v2 I don't have any cases to back it up but I've seen DAz come up with weirdest allegations. That said I pretty sure with the good lawyer you will beat the system...

[vladtepes 1,060]

is that they can always say that by using that particular weapon/round you intended to cause severe pain, more damage and certain death thus you didn't want to scare intruder away but to kill him. Remember they will be more concerned with the rights of that dead thug than safety of your family. Again v2 I don't have any cases to back it up but I've seen DAz come up with weirdest allegations. That said I pretty sure with the good lawyer you will beat the system...

 

 

Does NJ law require us to brandish a firearm to scare someone?

Does NJ law require us to shoot to injure?

 

I think in fact the law is just about opposite and that it clearly defines the use of deadly force.. If I point a gun at someone.. it better be with regard to the law a life or death situation.. and at that point.. the intention IS to kill.. it is to kill because at that moment I believe my life hangs in the balance.. in fact.. not to jump to a different state.. but the FL ccw information I received with my permit tends to go along with what I am saying here.. there is no instance of law NJ OR FL that I am aware of where the law wants you to use a firearm or the threat of a firearm to gain leverage.. the intention of the law is to use deadly force only when confronted with the need to use deadly force.. and at that point the force is exactly as described.. deadly.. the intention is to kill.. to kill to save ones own life.. as I stated before.. a DA can want all they want to hang you at noon in the town square.. but if you did nothing wrong.. good luck.. everyone can do what they want.. if someone breaks into your home and you want to carefully select the least intimidating gun you own more power to you.. for me.. I am grabbing the closest thing I see, because I will not waste seconds worrying about the outcome..

 

the DA can claim I am a lunatic fringe anti government militant bent on killing everyone in the world.. but if someone breaks into my home with a weapon.. and puts my life at risk.. all that nonsense fluff isn't going to matter..

[Dan 177]

I agree you should defend yourself with whatever you have immediate access to. Whether it be a shovel or full out tacticooled AR type. If you are justified to use deadly force to defend yourself, so be it.

 

My mitigation strategy is why the front of my safe always has the Mossy 500 ready to go. Assorted EBRs are behind it. My finger-push lockbox in the BR contains a glock pistol. Easy access to both, so I don't have to stop and think. They are the most convenient and quickest to equip in an emergency.

[vjf915 456]

Caliber has absolutely no bearing on a justifiable shooting whatsoever. This is not common sense, this is how the law works. If it was a legal shooting, with a legal gun, then there is nothing wrong with it. As I stated in the other thread, and as some stated here....deadly force is deadly force. If it can kill you, you can respond with something that can kill them. Bottom line, end of story, period. There is no discrepancy of deadly force between a midget with a 2 inch knife, or a 6'6", 300 pound linebacker with a AA12. If your life is threatened, then you can respond with whatever form of deadly force that you see fit. There is absolutely no legal difference between defending your life with a .50 Desert Eagle or a 1911 in .45, or my grandpa's single shot bolt action .22.

 

What you SHOULD be concerning yourself with is making sure you understand the laws surrounding defending your life in your home, and what you should do if the situation arises. Do you know what constitutes as threatening your life? Do you know what a deadly weapon is? Do you know what the distance is that you may shoot an intruder who has a knife? Do you know how to articulate that this intruder was threatening your life? These are just some things that you NEED to know if you ever plan on defending your life inside your home, or outside if CCW ever comes to NJ.

[Dan 177]

Caliber has absolutely no bearing on a justifiable shooting whatsoever. This is not common sense, this is how the law works. If it was a legal shooting, with a legal gun, then there is nothing wrong with it. As I stated in the other thread, and as some stated here....deadly force is deadly force. If it can kill you, you can respond with something that can kill them. Bottom line, end of story, period. There is no discrepancy of deadly force between a midget with a 2 inch knife, or a 6'6", 300 pound linebacker with a AA12. If your life is threatened, then you can respond with whatever form of deadly force that you see fit. There is absolutely no legal difference between defending your life with a .50 Desert Eagle or a 1911 in .45, or my grandpa's single shot bolt action .22.

 

What you SHOULD be concerning yourself with is making sure you understand the laws surrounding defending your life in your home, and what you should do if the situation arises. Do you know what constitutes as threatening your life? Do you know what a deadly weapon is? Do you know what the distance is that you may shoot an intruder who has a knife? Do you know how to articulate that this intruder was threatening your life? These are just some things that you NEED to know if you ever plan on defending your life inside your home, or outside if CCW ever comes to NJ.

 

I'm not saying the issue is the legality of using the theoretical .500 Magnum as I stated above. I've said time and time in the thread that if you are justified in using deadly force, and you utilized that .500 magnum legally possessed gun, to the letter of the law you are within the bounds. I agree there are no laws stipulating that a particular legal firearm is too powerful/large/scary to use for HD.

 

What I'm saying is IF the DA chose to push for charges, perhaps there's some questionable circumstances, etc. if you are civilly sued by the crook's family. You may find yourself in court, where the DA/lawyer is looking to get you behind bars or take all your money. My conjecture is by using a non-"scary" firearm as your HD strategy, you are mitigating risks of feeding the other side from painting you as some kind of blood thirsty gun nut just pining at the chance to shoot someone.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

Deadly force is deadly force.

 

It can be a claw hammer, a pipe to the head, an ice pick to the brain stem, it doesn't matter. Once threatened with deadly force in your home, you can respond with deadly force of any caliber. I say this and then think that perhaps a 4 inch cannon ball _might_ be a problem. Other things such as a flame thrower, perhaps various ways of electrocuting someone, guillotine, chipper/shredders, etc. i.e. unusual ways of killing someone could be an issue.

 

I truly believe that if a prosecutor starts getting into details of powder charge, penetration, bullet diameter etc., he's probably already lost the case. The defense attorney has to simply say something like this:

 

"The prosecutor want's you to believe that shooting someone with a bullet that's half an inch in diameter is somehow wrong, but shooting them with something 1/10th of an inch thinner is ok? We're talking about a difference equal to the thickness of a quarter. My defendant was afraid for his life when a man he did not know broke into his home with a gun and was threatening him. He used the tools he had at hand to stop the threat, he didn't think that because his bullets were the thickness of a quarter too thick that he'd have to sacrifice his life in his own home to a stranger. I submit to you, the jury that my defendant's actions were quite reasonable under the circumstances, tragic as they are. He didn't want to kill that man but the decedent gave him no choice. "

 

 

I object your honor! No really, this thread should've ended with this post.

When I was a kid, the store on the corner was robbed on my block and the perp killed the owner with a hammer. I remember my dad saying there was more blood in the store than a blood bank. I'd rather be shot than killed with a pipe or hammer or brick.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I agree you should defend yourself with whatever you have immediate access to. Whether it be a shovel or full out tacticooled AR type. If you are justified to use deadly force to defend yourself, so be it.

 

My mitigation strategy is why the front of my safe always has the Mossy 500 ready to go. Assorted EBRs are behind it. My finger-push lockbox in the BR contains a glock pistol. Easy access to both, so I don't have to stop and think. They are the most convenient and quickest to equip in an emergency.

 

 

your theory works till they introduce my Mossberg as evidence.. to the general anti-gun loon my 500 is pretty scary.. all black.. collapsible stock.. heat shield.. and that is before they show pictures of what said gun did to the perpetrator.. I can only imagine the mess buckshot or slugs would do to a human being at 20 feet.. shooting someone is probably a messy mind altering complicated situation.. I will agree to disagree and continue with the mindset of whatever happens to be there.. as I stated.. I have my Glock within arms reach most of the time.. I don't have any small children.. so for me non issue.. but if I did happen to be by the safe.. and my handgun did not happen to be right next to me.. it would be whatever I grabbed first.. ideally it would be my CX4 I think that would make for a good HD gun..

 

so I appreciate your views.. and as stated will just agree to disagree..

[RecessedFilter 222]

This thread is going to go nowhere whether it ends up being 2 pages or 10 haha.

[Dan 177]

Its all good. I think the best we'll do is to agree to disagree as you said Vlad. Regardless, good discussion thanks everyone for the feedback. All points well taken.

[vjf915 456]

What I'm saying is IF the DA chose to push for charges, perhaps there's some questionable circumstances, etc. if you are civilly sued by the crook's family. You may find yourself in court, where the DA/lawyer is looking to get you behind bars or take all your money. My conjecture is by using a non-"scary" firearm as your HD strategy, you are mitigating risks of feeding the other side from painting you as some kind of blood thirsty gun nut just pining at the chance to shoot someone.

I understand where you are coming from.....but I refuse to use a gun that is "not as scary" and risk not being able to defend myself. The extremely overwhelming odds are that I will NOT have to even draw my HD weapon, let alone fire it. So given this probability, I will opt to use whichever firearm meets the middle grounds of being comfortable to use, and effective against a possible human target....and not even consider whether it is "scary" or not.

 

Tell me......if your comfort level lays with a .45 1911, would you use a .22 for HD for fear of being civilly sued by the family? As much of a cliche as it is, I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

[Babaganoosh 192]

I remember reading in one of these threads that someone literally has a gun in his holster at all times when in his house. I am sure that whoever it is, is going to be offended and have a lot of reasons why he does this, but to me that's kinda paranoid. I would never want to be in the state of mind that required me to carry a handgun in my house all the time. Yup, your gonna be prepared if someone ever kicks in the door but in my opinion its a little much. Then again if you live in Camden of Newark then my opinion doesn't apply to you. hhaha.

[Dan 177]

 

 

Tell me......if your comfort level lays with a .45 1911, would you use a .22 for HD for fear of being civilly sued by the family? As much of a cliche as it is, I would rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

 

I get what your saying here. My view is to draw the line so to speak by using weapons and ammunition that are in current and common usage in the various LE agencies in the state or even country. I also consider what a jury made up of apathetic or even anti-gun NJ citizens would feel when they held up the weapon in question during a trial. So that in my mind would exclude AR types even though police commonly use them. I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6 as well, just I'd like to stack the odds in my favor when it comes to the getting tried part.

[Krdshrk 3,883]

I object your honor! No really, this thread should've ended with this post.

When I was a kid, the store on the corner was robbed on my block and the perp killed the owner with a hammer. I remember my dad saying there was more blood in the store than a blood bank. I'd rather be shot than killed with a pipe or hammer or brick.

 

http://gawker.com/5721693/robbery-with-­a-giant-stick-is-way-funnier-than-it-sho­uld-be

[vladtepes 1,060]

I remember reading in one of these threads that someone literally has a gun in his holster at all times when in his house. I am sure that whoever it is, is going to be offended and have a lot of reasons why he does this, but to me that's kinda paranoid. I would never want to be in the state of mind that required me to carry a handgun in my house all the time. Yup, your gonna be prepared if someone ever kicks in the door but in my opinion its a little much. Then again if you live in Camden of Newark then my opinion doesn't apply to you. hhaha.

 

 

that was me.... I carry my Glock all the time.. here is why.. I live in a reasonably nice area.. it is quiet.. mostly older people... and no one really causes problems.. less than 10 minutes from my home there was a home invasion.. where two men kicked in the door at least one armed... shotgun... I don't know what ninja skills you possess but I can not dive and somersault over bullets flying at me.. to get to my safe to retrieve my weapon.. a gun is of no use if you can't get to it at the exact moment you need it.. there are no children in my house.. and I have a reasonably high level of gun safety.. the gun is holstered... it is not going to shoot itself..

 

don't ever fool yourself into thinking you are safe.. in your own home.. in your own town.. there is no reason to dwell on it.. but hope for the best.. prepare for the worst..

[tony357 387]

I only read the 1st two posts..

 

I would not go digging too look for ways law abiding citizens could be charged for justifiable shootings..

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Any one ever consider less then leathal ammo? Like bean bag shot shells? Dunno if you guys ever saw the jackass episode where johnny Knoxville got shot with one, he didn't look to good afterward.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Any one ever consider less then leathal ammo? Like bean bag shot shells? Dunno if you guys ever saw the jackass episode where johnny Knoxville got shot with one, he didn't look to good afterward.

 

I would have concerns that you would open yourself up to permanantly injure someone or fail to be effective against someone under the influence of drugs.. or worse someone with a firearm with standard lethal ammo..

[vjf915 456]

Less than lethal ammo has absolutely no purpose in a home defense situation. In law enforcement? Yes. But in no way does it serve a purpose for HD. Just as Vlad stated, you are opening up a whole bunch of possibilities that you just don't want. If you are going to use a firearm to defend your life, you shoot center mass until the threat is stopped. That's it, nothing else to it.