Fine Figure of a Man
Member
I'm defiantly not anti factory ammo. Carry what you choose to and I'll do the same.I'm certainly not anti-reloader.
I'm defiantly not anti factory ammo. Carry what you choose to and I'll do the same.I'm certainly not anti-reloader.
Again, the key is being aware that a prosecutor could possibly try to use caliber selection against a defendant (it has happened) and being ready with a good response. What you don't want to do is to get caught flat-footed if the question comes up. And you especially don't want to be on the record saying something ill-advised on the topic that can be used to call your motives into question, or discredit your response.By applying the logic found only in this and similar threads, the DA may argue that you carried a big deadly "three hundred eighty" instead of a common 9mm because you intended to kill.
I don't care what anyone else carries and am not interested in opinions on what I carry.
Again, we see that the key is being able to give a good answer if the topic comes up--and being aware of it in advance so that you don't say or do something ill-advised that could complicate a possible claim of self-defense.
The viability of a strategy cannot be validated by one occurrence.Considering that Kyle Rittenhouse defended himself with a AR15 in 556 and was exonerated of any criminal charges (we will see on the civil side of things), I don't worry about what gun/ammo I'm carrying.
Nope. It will come down to whether the triers of fact conclude that it was a good shoot or not, based on a totality of the evidence and on their impressions.it will all boil down to whether it is a good shoot or not as it should.
Kyle Rittenhouse had high quality video evidence supporting every aspect of his story. Grosskreutz was video taped pointing a loaded gun at his head. Rosenbaum was video taped acting belligerent multiple times and then pursuing Kyle and lunging for his weapon. Multiple witnesses testified that he had threatened people's lives that night. Huber was video taped committing assault with a deadly weapon against Kyle. Jump Kick man was video taped kicking Kyle in the head. It goes on an on and on. You have to consider that it isn't likely that you will have the same amount of irrefutable evidence weighing down the scales of justice in your favor. It could go the other way for you in fact. Everything will be weighed and measured in determining if you satisfy the state's required burden of evidence. Everything. And, what's more, if you give a DA something that he thinks he can work with, he may be more inclined to file charges against you. If it's utterly clear that he has nothing, he will be more likely to determine that a trial is waste of the state's resources. And even if you do win the case, you will still be much much poorer for it because defending yourself against something like this ain't cheap. You could end up bankrupt and then there's the potential for civil litigation as well. I'm not saying that your choice of weapon and handgun will be the one thing that burns you but it definitely could be.Considering that Kyle Rittenhouse defended himself with a AR15 in 556 and was exonerated of any criminal charges (we will see on the civil side of things), I don't worry about what gun/ammo I'm carrying. There will be judicial scrutiny over anything, it will all boil down to whether it is a good shoot or not as it should.
My opinion is a person should be able to defend himself with a 50bmg, a victim is a victim and a perpetrator is a perpetrator.
I think taking the statement "carrying what the local LEO's carry" literally is kind of like taking the bible literally. The point wasn't that you should call up your local PD and inquire as to what ammo and firearms exactly they are issued (although, that seems reasonable to me). The point is that if you are grossly deviating above and beyond what a prudent reasonable LEO in your community (who may very well be called as a witness in your trial) is carrying, you're opening yourself up to a legal attack and an unnecessary attack at that. It's foolish IMO.In my area I am faced with multi departments. Approximately seven or eight police agencies plus the same number of sheriff departments. They all carry different weapons and ammo. I carry what I am comfortable with. In my thirty years as an officer I have never seen caliber or type of weapon being a problem in a self defense shooting, however my state is very pro gun.
I think this nails it.I think taking the statement "carrying what the local LEO's carry" literally is kind of like taking the bible literally. The point wasn't that you should call up your local PD and inquire as to what ammo and firearms exactly they are issued (although, that seems reasonable to me). The point is that if you are grossly deviating above and beyond what a prudent reasonable LEO in your community (who may very well be called as a witness in your trial) is carrying, you're opening yourself up to a legal attack and an unnecessary attack at that. It's foolish IMO.
BIG difference.Reloads for self-defense ammo are a lot like cloth masks. Neither one makes any difference at all but some people get worked up about both
And Kyle Rittenhouse's choice of weapon and ammo was brought up and discussed in detail for the benefit of the jury in order to establish a "utter disregard for human life" which, if established, would establish a "depraved mind" and would have severely undermined his self defense argument. T
It's a terrible example.I don’t see the Rittenhouse prosecution as a good example.
I see it as being a legal weathervane showing us all which way the wind is blowing. Kyle's case entered the political realm, in large part though not entirely, because of the weapon he chose to carry. Had Kyle been carrying a handgun and a CCW permit (and I understand why that isn't possible), it might not have gone as far as it did because of all the other evidence working against the state. The weapon itself may very well have been the single most decisive factor that led to this case going to court. My liberal relatives didn't know anything about this case other than "some kid shot people with an assault rifle rifle". The AR15 was on trial as much as Kyle was IMO.I don’t see the Rittenhouse prosecution as a good example. The Rittenhouse case was probably the most politically charged self defense case in at least 10 years. All of the stops were pulled out to try to get a conviction for political reasons.
Mas Ayoob recently had a post on youtube discussing the concept of "shoot to kill" versus "shoot to stop the threat" and his opinion was that you would not want to give a DA evidence that you were shooting to kill because "shooting to kill" leads to a lengthy prison sentence for murder and shooting to stop the threat doesn't. Using ammunition that can be realistically shown to be more likely to result in the death of the person you shot opens you up to a "shoot to kill" argument. You've probably seen the video. I'll link to it if you haven't and want to.Mas Ayoob wrote a column in American Handgunner years ago where he related the story of a defensive gun use that involved a machine gun. I am personally aware of defensive gun use cases where illegal weapons (sawed off shotgun) and illegally possessed weapons (convicted felon in possession). The fact that the sawed off shotgun wasn’t legal to possess or that the drug dealer who shot home invaders trying to rob and kill him wasn't legally allowed to possess the gun and ammunition he used did not get them charged with murder, manslaughter of any other charge related to their legal use of deadly force in self defense. The fact that the tools used were illegal didn’t change the fact that their actions were within the law.
I don't think so and I just explained why.It's a terrible example.
I meant that his acquittal is a terrible reason for asserting that one should not be concerned about the adverse influence that an AR-15 may have in an SD case.I don't think so and I just explained why.
For sure. I felt like the case went political because the left can't let an AR15 be shown to be A) in common use or B) suitable for self defense. Their entire argument against Heller is premised on the argument that the AR15 is not commonly used and is not commonly used for self defense or even suitable for self defense. Their future plans to use Justice Scalia's words regarding M16s to ban semi-automatic AR15s and other MSRs hinges on the AR15 being "perceived" as fringe and wholly unsuitable for self defense. And yeah, plus he used that AR15 to defend himself against a mob of leftists. They can't have anyone not bowing before them like that. But Kyle won the case and it was a blow to their argument and even now they're trying to mitigate that damage through their favored fifth generation warfare tactics like the dissemination of disinformation through their media and social network sites.I meant that his acquittal is a terrible reason for asserting that one should not be concerned about the adverse influence that an AR-15 may have in an SD case.
GEM's jury simulations show us otherwise.