Liable if Using Odd/Big Caliber???

[Jaybo]

I was told by a retired Sheriffs Deputy that using a pistol was an acceptable form of neutralizing a threat, however, if you use to large of caliber, or an odd caliber, you can be liable for cruel and unusual punishment or even pre-meditated murder!!??

It was explained to me that the whole theory behind concealed carry was to merely stop the threat, not remove appendages....? It's my belief if I am forced to draw.. its a life and death situation, and not just "wound" the attacker but shoot till they quit moving.

What are your thoughts, and is there any truth to this?

Read More

 

[Keane]

Typical fear-mongering. If a shoot is deemed justifiable, you don't get convicted of anything, other than illegal possession type stuff.

I'm going to say that this is bunk, and the Sheriffs deputy was talking out of the wrong side.

 

[pirateer2007]

Dirty Harry used a S&W .44mag "the most powerful handgun in the world" that could "Blow a man's head clean off" and he never got in any real trouble I say that if you can conceal it... carry it. I'm sure that the same guy would say that if you carry two or more hi-cap mags, then that's premeditated as well :nuts:

 

[Weebs]

There have been cases in the past where the DA will target "unusuals" to punish the shooter and not the shootee. Some instances that I heard about in my concealed carry class...

1) Handloaded ammo - DA established a case that the shooter was creating rounds that weren't designed for defense but were designed for destruction. The intent of the round was not to stop a target but to kill the target. The shooter was actively looking for someone to kill

2) Trigger modifications - DA established a case that a light trigger pull was for ease of destruction and not defense.

3) Carrying a knife - DA attempted to make a case (it was knife v. gun fight) that since the shooter was carrying a knife but elected to pull his gun and shoot his attacker instead of pulling his knife that he was actively looking for a kill and not for defense.

I guess my point is if the legal system wants to make you into the bad guy they will.

 

[Keane]

There have been cases in the past where the DA will target "unusuals" to punish the shooter and not the shootee. Some instances that I heard about in my concealed carry class...

1) Handloaded ammo - DA established a case that the shooter was creating rounds that weren't designed for defense but were designed for destruction. The intent of the round was not to stop a target but to kill the target. The shooter was actively looking for someone to kill

2) Trigger modifications - DA established a case that a light trigger pull was for ease of destruction and not defense.

3) Carrying a knife - DA attempted to make a case (it was knife v. gun fight) that since the shooter was carrying a knife but elected to pull his gun and shoot his attacker instead of pulling his knife that he was actively looking for a kill and not for defense.

I guess my point is if the legal system wants to make you into the bad guy they will.

A DA will use just about anything about you to try to sway the jury his way. Everything from "FMJ Bullet designed to go through the bad guy and into the next" to "HP Bullet designed to be cruel and unusual". No matter what you carry, the DA will come up with something to make you out as a blood-hungry homicidal maniac.

When it comes down to it, your lawyer can explain those things away, and should be able to convince the jury it was a clean shoot, as long as it was.

 

[Oro]

+1 for Keane. It's time to stop the internet-fear mongering by armchair lawyers. Deadly force is indeed supposed to be deadly. Once someone is dead, there's no arguing about the degree of lethality of the weapon - they are all 100% lethal. If the shoot is good (justified), it doesn't matter if it was with a .22LR, .44mag., or a legally-owned bazooka.

Remember, if a prosecutor is painting this story to a trial jury, that's because there's a determination already that the shoot was not justified...

 

[Flakman5000]

You may be cleared criminally but let the civil suit begin... CHEERS!!!

 

[Wierzbowski]

Here's a portion of the transcript from a Dateline NBC episode I watched a few years ago. "Lessler" was the prosecutor in the case against Harold Fish, the shooter. "Larson" is the interviewer. Full transcript here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221

And the jury had another issue to think about: Fish’s gun.

The firearms investigator said that Fish’s gun — a 10mm — is more powerful than what police officers use and is not typically used for personal protection. And the ammunition Fish used to shoot Kuenzli three times, called “a hollow-point bullet,” is made to expand when it enters the body.

When he decided to pull the trigger, the prosecutor said, Fish should have known what the consequences would be.

Lessler: Mr. Fish knew well what a hollow-point bullet does.

Larson: And the end product of his shooting is going to be death?

Lessler: Yes.

I think that this goes along with what Keane said. If he can, the prosecutor is going to use your choice of gun against you in a trial. Whether or not your defense lawyer is able to shoot the prosecutor's reasoning down, he won't be able to remove the impression from the non-gun-savvy juror's mind that you used a "gun more powerful than what police officers use."

Having said that, I agree that the best strategy is to make sure that the shooting is so justifiable that the DA would not file charges against you.

 

[Keane]

You may be cleared criminally but let the civil suit begin... CHEERS!!!

Same battle, different battlefield. The civil suit is going to be 'wrongful death' or something of the sort. All you have to do, is show that the guy deserved to be shot/die, and you're clear. Your "image" matters a bit, but you can game that a little if you go with a Bench trial instead of a jury trial if you think its going that way.

 

[Flakman5000]

and at the end of the day you owe 500k instead. for most of us that is death.

 

[Keane]

and at the end of the day you owe 500k instead. for most of us that is death.

Yep, but that happens no matter whether you shoot him with a .32 ACP (Specifically carried to cause additional suffering!), a 9mm (He's a cop wannabe who was out to kill everyone who said boo), or a .45 (Its a big round, he was obviously compensating for something, he NEEDED to kill someone tonight to feel like a man!).

When it comes down to it, the other attorney is going to do whatever it takes to make you sound like a bad guy. You are better off doing whatever is going to keep you safest, and alive.

 

[Flakman5000]

Not to say people shouldn't carry, because I believe anyone should, and without a License. But I think laws need to be better first. I won't carry due to the way the person defending themselves is treated. Your guilty before being proven innocent. What is it that Ted Nudgent say's? "An armed society is a polite society". But laws are made by the Nancy Pelocis' of the world.

 

[Keane]

Not to say people shouldn't carry, because I believe anyone should, and without a License. But I think laws need to be better first. I won't carry due to the way the person defending themselves is treated. Your guilty before being proven innocent. What is it that Ted Nudgent say's? "An armed society is a polite society". But laws are made by the Nancy Pelocis' of the world.

I personally would rather deal with the law suits than a severed artery. YMMV

 

[pdxjohann]

What Caliber do the LEO's of the city, county, and state use - "To Serve and Protect?" That caliber, I think, may have been well thought out.

 

[bwells]

It's time to stop the internet-fear mongering by armchair lawyers. Deadly force is indeed supposed to be deadly.

I agree 100%. But just to be safe, I use a bone stock 1911 shooting factory loaded ammo. A defense gun doesn't need to be highly customized, and I consider it to be a little added safety against a lawsuit.

You may be cleared criminally but let the civil suit begin... CHEERS!!!

True, but a civil suit will be quite a bit tougher to win. A criminal suit must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, while a civil suit only has to be show a preponderance of the evidence, meaning greater than 50%.

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

I will never draw my concealed carry unless:

• I am in fear of my life

• The only reasonable option I see is to defend myself or others

• The only reason to shoot another person is to terminate their ability to attack

• Wounding may not stop the attack

• I would never use any weapon that I didn't intend to be non lethal

All bets are off in that scenario so the bigger and badder the better!

And like they've said earlier in the thread, the other attorney will attempt to smear you no matter what. Better that there is no one to testify from the perpetrators’ side.

I pray I never have to cross that bridge.

 

[Flakman5000]

Not the same Tuefel from Lansdale are you?

 

[Teufel_Hunden]

No sir. From Albany.

 

[RallySoob]

it really shouldn't matter how big the caliber if it's a plain case of self defense. Just make sure never to draw on someone unless it's the last line of defense in saving your life. With the way the laws are I dont even think its safe to try and save someone else's life because you might just be throwing yours away.

 

[SheepDog223]

Using an uncommon weapon, or caliber may raise eyebrows of the jurry. I'm sure in some extreme cases a case could be made agains wierd weapons and ammo. Example: What would you think if you were on a jurry deciding my fate on a justified self defence shooting (and here is the catch) with an AK-47 pistol with a 20 rnd mag? Fully legal but if I were on the jurry, I would have some raised eyebrows.

Another thought. If you carry the odd stuff your limited by the ammo you carry with you.