Supressed home defense SBR???

Moderators: gds, bakerjw, renegade

emmagee1917
Silent Operator
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 5:58 pm

Re: Supressed home defense SBR???

Post by emmagee1917 » Thu May 03, 2018 12:39 pm

Here is a story about a righteous shooting .
One December , decades ago , a city was getting hit by a string of pharmacy robberies . it got so bad the city assigned two man teams to some of the stores in the area to try to catch the crooks . One team was an older experienced man and a less experienced but capable partner . The older man had a sawed off 12ga over and under as well as his issued sidearm ( ok'd by the department ) . Well , they hit the store where they were at , hidden around the corner behind the counter . When they tried to rob the place , the druggist hit the floor and they came around the corner with the shotgun aimed at the crooks . " Freeze , police , you're under arrest , drop your guns ." said the older cop . One crook said to the other " shoot 'em " and turned and ran for the door . The other raised his gun and received a chest full of buckshot and went down . The first reached the door and then turned and pointed his gun at the cops . He , too , got a load of buckshot for his trouble .
When IA looked at the case , they interviewed the druggist and both officers as well as looked at the store's surveillance cameras . The three was questioned and requestioned about the events , then given lie detector tests about it . All gave the gist of what I said above and all passed the tests . The three then were allowed to view the camera footage . It was as described above except for the words spoken by the older cop as he came around the corner and raised his shotgun . It was not what everyone remembered him saying .



It was " Merry Christmas , M***** F****** . "

So beware of " what you know happened ."
Chris

BulletFlight for Android
User avatar
JFCisme
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Titusville, Florida

Re: Supressed home defense SBR???

Post by JFCisme » Tue May 15, 2018 8:49 am

For defense rounds use factory ammo, preferable something that is "for law enforcement"

Attorneys will argue that you were not satisfied with factory ammo and you wanted to cause additional pain and suffering by using loads of your own design. I would also suggest that you carry shooters insurance. It is fairly inexpensive and you will have a card with canned answers to questions and a 1-800 number for a lawyer near you.
JFCisme


"Moderation in all things, including moderation."
Mark Twain

User avatar
GunFunZS
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:14 pm

Re: Supressed home defense SBR???

Post by GunFunZS » Wed May 16, 2018 7:32 pm

Nope.

I used to work for the prosecuting attorney in my county, then later under another attorney who was a private firearms defense attorney.

Attorneys will pretty much never argue about that nonsense. It's beside the point.

We argue about whether you had good reason to fear for your life when you pulled the trigger, and whether you actually did fear for your life when you pulled the trigger. Also about whether you are an innocent party before you pulled the trigger.

That's basically it. All the fight is about whether you should have shot, not what you shot with.

People bang on about this crap forever, but it is all in your head. It's not the issue the law asks about, so it isn't what the attorneys ask about.

Lemme make it simple. If you were justified in using lethal force, you could have used a chainsaw. If you weren't justified in using lethal force, nothing about the nature of your weapon will get you off the hook.

BulletFactory
Silent Operator
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:03 pm

Re: Supressed home defense SBR???

Post by BulletFactory » Thu May 17, 2018 1:27 am

GunFunZS wrote:Nope.

I used to work for the prosecuting attorney in my county, then later under another attorney who was a private firearms defense attorney.

Attorneys will pretty much never argue about that nonsense. It's beside the point.

We argue about whether you had good reason to fear for your life when you pulled the trigger, and whether you actually did fear for your life when you pulled the trigger. Also about whether you are an innocent party before you pulled the trigger.

That's basically it. All the fight is about whether you should have shot, not what you shot with.

People bang on about this crap forever, but it is all in your head. It's not the issue the law asks about, so it isn't what the attorneys ask about.

Lemme make it simple. If you were justified in using lethal force, you could have used a chainsaw. If you weren't justified in using lethal force, nothing about the nature of your weapon will get you off the hook.

Since you worked on the inside, let me ask something that I have wondered about for a long time. Just like it says in your post they always want to ask if you were in fear for your life. But in Michigan you don’t have to only be in fear for your life. There are three qualifiers and then a stipulation. You must be in fear of your life of course, great bodily harm, or sexual penetration, and the force that you use must be necessary as well as the action you take must be necessary and proportionate to the situation at hand. That said, what if I am not in fear for my life, But I am in fear of great bodily harm? If a person is a lot bigger than I am being disabled, or there are several persons, I could forsee the prosecutor hammering over and over again about the fear of loss of life, while ignoring the bodily harm part, convincing the jury that the ONLY way you are allowed to use deadly force, is to be in fear for life. I was just afraid of great bodily harm which is also permissible under the statute. How do you defend against that sort of thing?

User avatar
plant.one
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 6704
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:31 pm
Location: Oakland County, MI

Re: Supressed home defense SBR???

Post by plant.one » Thu May 17, 2018 11:25 am

if they're in your home, its castle doctrine, and you were in fear for your life.

if you're outside the home in a CPL defense situation, you were in fear for your life.


any other answer is just asking to get yourself into trouble without your lawyer present. K.I.S.S.
Reloading info shared is based on experiences w/ my guns. Be safe and work up your loads from published data. Web data may not be accurate/safe.
This disclaimer will self destruct in 10 seconds.

golfindia
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1366
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Supressed home defense SBR???

Post by golfindia » Thu May 17, 2018 11:55 am

It's still tied up in courts, but last year FL passed a rule that required prosecutors to prove the defendent was NOT using the force as an act of self defense.

Some Interesting thought experiments there.

User avatar
GunFunZS
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:14 pm

Re: Supressed home defense SBR???

Post by GunFunZS » Thu May 17, 2018 1:00 pm

plant.one wrote:if they're in your home, its castle doctrine, and you were in fear for your life.

if you're outside the home in a CPL defense situation, you were in fear for your life.


any other answer is just asking to get yourself into trouble without your lawyer present. K.I.S.S.
IAAL, however, I am certainly not giving you specific advise as your lawyer, and I am probably not licensed to practice in your state.

That said, this is an issue I know pretty well and I have done the analysis on the laws of many states. Really we are all pretty much the same, and the people who assert that the rules are different in their states are engaging in a lot of wishful thinking and don't understand how to do legal analysis.

That is multiplied by 100, when people drop the phrases "stand your ground" and "castle doctrine" which people misunderstand very badly.

Those are basically officially stating the presumptions about a couple of the factors/elements. Presumptions are rebuttable. Some states also have rules that are a little different about the affect of a criminal case on a civil suit, or vice versa, and when those can be filed. The terms tend to get muddled among both the press and the gun community. Just because "they" have it wrong, does not mean that "we" don't have it wrong most of the time too.

The analysis for justifiable homicide or justifiable use of lethal force (i.e. threats) works the same.

1) it is an affirmative defense. You basically are pleading guilty as step 1. ~Yes I admit that I did it, but that is okay because...

2)The person using the defense has to be an innocent party, AND be protecting an innocent party (including himself).

3) The person had to be in fear for their life from immediate danger of death, severe bodily harm, or rape. (defense of property is not enough, but if using justifiable force in defense of property exposes a reasonable fear of death, etc...)
This is objective AND subjective.
3a) This is objective meaning that another reasonable person in their position would have had the same fear
3b) Subjective meaning that the specific person actually feared for their life...

4) the force was necessary. - This one varys a little bit state to state, but not as much as most people think. I'll bullet point out the highlights:
-If you are safe, and you go to the fight, it isn't necessary. i.e. you unlock your door and go to confront the guy, after the lethal threat is apparent, then the fight was not necessary.
- no state has a duty to retreat, but a couple used to.
-this is situational. In short, if the threat could have been completely avoided in some way after the threat arose then it wasn't necessary.


Castle doctrine is really simple, and it isn't what people think. It does NOT mean you can shoot anyone in your house because its your house. Of course it doesn't that would be insane.
But I have had a lot of morons argue that it does mean that, so I am addressing it here. The remedy for tresspass is not lead. It is calling the cops, and getting them arrested, and cash damages. You don't get to shoot the neighbor's kid when he's getting his frisbee just because he crossed your magic property line. If we had a law like that, I would be very much on board to change it, because it would be flamingly retarded.

What it does mean is that 3a) is automatically passed, and 3b) has a heavy thumb on the scale. We presume that if you wake up at 4:27 am with a stranger in your house that this person is there for no good, and a normal person would be afraid. Don't be like my old boss's client who went from a won case to a lost case by saying. ~"yeah, I knew he was up to no good and a normal person would be afraid, but I knew I could take him no problem." he rebutted his own fear, by stating that he didn't believe his life was actually in jeopardy.

Stand your ground law- is just a statutory codification of the common law rule that all states in the US have which is that you have no duty to flee. In other countries with similar legal structure, self defense is not available until an attempt to flee has been made, even if that attempt is futile. I.e. turning your back on a guy with a knife two feet away, with no-where to run.


Several states have rules to the effect that if you win at criminal, you may not be charged civil, and *I think* all of them now have the Micheal Jackson rule that the civil suit may not start or has to pause until the criminal case is done. This is commonly confused with stand your ground law, but it is a different thing.

Credibility is everything:

This stuff always boils down to the facts of the case and whether other people believe you. It's a credibility thing. Any dishonesty is the stupidest thing you can do. Nonsense like dragging a body inside your doorway so that the shoot would be OKAY, is legaly ignorant, and shows that you are willing to be deceptive. It would come out for sure, and then your credibility is shot.

Second, you do want to call the cops if you use your gun in any way. The 911 call is possibly admissible as an excited utterance and also as contemporaneous record. It is likely to get into court, so you want the 911 call to be telling your perspective on what happened. More importantly, you get to tell the cops who show up what to expect, and that will make a big difference on how they look at the situation and at you. Facts and evidence are what wins cases, but what facts get noticed and how they are perceived, is largely shaped by the first cop on scene. Tell him what to think before he gets there. "911! Send cops and an ambulance to my house at _address_ I'm really scared. Some guy broke into my place and attacked me. I shot him, and he probably needs medical attention. I don't know if there are more robbers. I'm upstairs in the bedroom with my wife and kids and will be waiting for you to get here. Send help fast. I'm the big guy in a white t-shirt and red (&brown) boxers...." Similarly, your statements at the time, can shape how the other witnesses see and remember the situation. If you are saying "this guy just attacked me! did you see that? call an ambulance and the cops. Are there more of them? Is he going to be okay? This is terrible..." v.s. numbly standing over a corpse with a smoking gun and a stunned look on your face. (that's a blank slate that the witness can read a lot of different stories into.) Again, be honest. When the cops get there, say that you do want to help and will make a statement, but want to get your head straight and have a lawyer present just like they would with an officer involved shooting. Don't let any pressure convince you to do otherwise.
Last edited by GunFunZS on Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
GunFunZS
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:14 pm

Re: Supressed home defense SBR???

Post by GunFunZS » Thu May 17, 2018 1:16 pm

p.s. A lot of the issue will come out in 3b) and all of the story is probably going to be relevant.

I was scared because he had a really crazy look on his face, because I had _____ history with him and knew what he could do, because I just had a break in a week ago, and was on edge. Because I had training about this circumstance and knew how dangerous it could be. because he was really big, .... because I have a bad back and know that I could get it rebroken in a struggle.... Whatever the actual facts are. Because I am a woman and there was a strange man in my bedroom. Because my crazy ex has been making threatening calls and said she would be sending her new boyfriend to teach me a lesson....

You get the picture.

People think that the law is arbitrary and is like beating a genie, but the rules around murder and self defense are actually very fair, and really well thought out. Our rules are based on English common law, which in turn was based on the bible. We've literally refined them over thousands of years to a point where there aren't any holes. we hear and get outraged about the rare exceptions, but generally justice happens. If you were justified in your actions, tell the truth and get a lawyer who specializes in the type of case.

I can also say that having worked in a prosecutor's office, the prosecutors and the cops generally want the good guys to win, and don't like violent attackers. I have read a lot of police narratives, witness statements etc. in which the victim did shoot or shoot at the bad guy in times and ways that were not legally justified. Most often admitting shooting after the bad guy has broken off threat and started to flee. I never heard any discussion of prosecuting them. I am not saying you should do this, but I am saying that if you are the good guy and act like it, life will probably be okay.

I know of one case to the contrary, and have talked with the attorney who successfully defended it. It was in Spokane a few years ago. Basically a guy came outside as his tahoe was being stolen. car owner pulled a pistol and shot the driver who was stealing his truck about a half a block down the street through the back window. It really looked like he was shooting someone over stuff when there was no threat to his life. However, victim said that the driver looked back at him and seemed to be reaching over his shoulder. Victim said he thought that driver was pointing a gun at him. Tahoes have dark tinted rear windows. Press made victim look bad, and there was a prosecution, because cops really didn't believe him. lawyer was able to get corroborating witnesses, and recreate the scene well enough to show that driver's story made sense. Prior to talking with the attorney, I thought the guy probably had killed when he wasn't afraid for his life. The attorney really felt that he had saved the man from a major injustice, and I believe him.

BulletFactory
Silent Operator
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:03 pm

Re: Supressed home defense SBR???

Post by BulletFactory » Thu May 17, 2018 9:46 pm

Thank you. That is very insightful. Valuable stuff I will read a couple of times. It and posts from others are changing my viewpoints. Have you ever thought of teaching or assisting in. CCW classes? Your experience would prove to be valuable. I got a raw deal in court a couple times over small stuff, so I dont really trust the courts. It makes things difficult for everyone when someone in law enforcement has it out for someone. Then you see them get away with so much all the time like politicians do.

User avatar
GunFunZS
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 317
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:14 pm

Re: Supressed home defense SBR???

Post by GunFunZS » Sun May 20, 2018 5:44 pm

I have done something kind of like that, and have been to citizen training sponsored by our local cop shop. The lawyer I mentioned above gives CCW training lectures, or at least used to. I haven't offered them myself, but I have thought about it. Mostly, I haven't taken the time to assemble the curriculum, figure out what to charge or how to advertise. Most of the guys I've seen do lectures on this are former/current cop training officers with 5 page resumes. Most of them are pretty good, but they spend a lot of time talking from the perspective of how to be a cop that doesn't get shot, and doesn't get in trouble for shooting someone when they shouldn't have.

I've worked with LE too a bit, and my undergrad is 1/2 how to be a paralegal, and the other 75% how to be a cop, and the other third how to analyse crime policy and statistics. ;)

I can say that a lot of the cop training is a mix of good information and lore, and that the good info tends to leak out while the lore sticks.

Most people have a fairly good grip on the law they need to do their own job, but not much else. This is very true for cops. They know the law that they need to know to keep from getting in trouble with their job, and not necessarily the laws they are trying to enforce. They know probable cause, and search and seizure stuff pretty well. They aren't going to know everything else. Same as your contractor has a better grasp of how county building code works for setbacks from power lines, and how to not get in trouble with LNI. This is why cops both need and get a lot of training on this stuff, but are also really bad sources of information about the actual law. The investigators are a good source of information about how they make decisions about what they see.

Post Reply