Perception is reality - does it matter what you carry?

[Jeff White]

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 it that way at all. He would have been charged no matter what he used because of "who he shot defending himself". One huge factor in the decision to prosecute was the fact they were worried about more rioting if they didn't charge him. Another big factor is that there seems to be an unwritten rule that you can't interfere with a BLM/antifa riot because that violates their right to free speech. Giving the prosecution more credit then they probably deserved there is the factor of filing charges to discourage these armed protests because if it keeps up one is going to turn into a bloodbath. Believe it or not, prosecution decisions are often made to send a message to the public. I've related here before about the local business owner who shot 3 people who were fleeing after he caught them stealing anhydrous ammonia to make meth. There were a few reasons he wasn't charged:
1. He didn't kill anyone
2. They thieves weren't local, they were from KY so there were no families to complain at election time
3. We were facing a wave of thefts of anhydrous. I don't know if you are familiar with it but it's a very dangerous substance. We had to evacuate neighborhoods a few times then they broke a valve on a tank, we had officers and meth cooks injured when their makeshift containers ruptured. The states attorney wanted to send the message that if you stole anhydrous you might be shot. I got this information directly from the states attorney.

You can make a decision not to use an AR15 to defend yourself if you want, as for me, my Colt 6920 that rode in my squad car with me is stored cruiser ready and if there is an intruder that's what I'm grabbing.

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.

I've seen it, in fact I started this thread on it. https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/mas-ayoob-on-shoot-to-kill.898676/ We need to be clear about something, ALL AMMUNITION KILLS! Statistically the lowly .22 has killed more people in this country than any other caliber. If you use any firearm you are using deadly force. Tell me what ammunition is less likely to kill? .25 auto? lots of people killed by that round. .32, .380, how about .22 short, yep it kills too. If you use a firearm to defend yourself you are using deadly force.

And as far as the drug dealer goes, he was in his home and the legal premise that "a man's home is his castle" is so firmly rooted in American law that I am not at all surprised that he was acquitted.

He wasn't charged. There are lots of cases like that you shouldn't have problems finding one.

regarding a felon in possession using a firearm for self defense, I have researched this issue many times and I always come up with the same answers: a felon can pick up a firearm to defend his/her life and that's about the only time.

That's exactly what I've been saying. The tool one uses is immaterial to the act itself. It only becomes an issue if the act of self defense is questionable and the choice of tool can be used to lead into the premise that you were looking for the fight. Like I said upthread, you're more likely to get in trouble over online posts then you are over the gun you used.

 

[redcon1]

I don't see it that way at all. He would have been charged no matter what he used because of "who he shot defending himself".

I don't think so. I think the AR15 was on trial as much as he was and I feel strongly enough about this that, respectfully, I'm not going to be convinced otherwise. I agree that there were other factors involved but if he had been a 21 year old man with a handgun and a concealed carry permit, I'm not completely convinced this case would have gone to court. maybe. Regardless, the use of an AR15 was undeniably a factor in every aspect of this trial.

Another big factor is that there seems to be an unwritten rule that you can't interfere with a BLM/antifa riot

I agree 100% that that was another factor that led to this going to court but, again, if it had been a 21 year old man with a licensed handgun and not a 17 year old kid with an AR15, I'm not convinced it would turned into the political spectacle that it turned into and I'm not convinced it would have ended up in court if everything else was the same.

He wasn't charged. There are lots of cases like that you shouldn't have problems finding one.

I'm equally unsurprised that he wasn't charged since it involved self defense inside the home. Most of these cases don't go to trial. If the illegal weapon had been used outside of the home, it's anybody's guess what might have become of that. hopefully you'll have lots of ill gotten cash to pay for a good team of lawyers or some friends on the force perhaps. I don't have either so I think I'll stick with a good old Glock 9mm with factory JHPs and avoid trouble as much as possible.

You can make a decision not to use an AR15 to defend yourself if you want, as for me, my Colt 6920 that rode in my squad car with me is stored cruiser ready and if there is an intruder that's what I'm grabbing.

I'm sure your friends on the force will back you up on that choice but again, I don't have any friends on the force so I'm only interested in using the minimum amount of force necessary to stop any threat that I might encounter. If that means AR15, then that's what it means. I believe it is a useful self defense weapon for sure and the Rittenhouse trial and the 2020 riots all illustrated that well. And I don't mean to tease you about having connections on the force. I don't know if you do or don't but if you were a cop, I have to assume that you also have the kind of enemies that I wouldn't have so I can 100% see how/why an AR15 would be what you would choose. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

 

[herrwalther]

I have had several hundred students in firearm marksmanship classes. I would rather they carry a 22LR they can hit a target 10/10 times with than a 9mm they never carry or can't shoot well. That has been my belief on caliber for as long as I have been an instructor. On the same hand, carrying something over powerful like 10mm will look bad to a jury as well. Just ask Harold Fish. While 10mm worked against Mr. Fish, I would not let a single case go against my personal choice to carry a 10mm. If I had one. It would be in the back of my mind though.

https://www.glocktalk.com/threads/l...n-self-defense-and-injuring-innocent.1476711/

As far as preparing for the court troubles following, Mas Ayoob has done a lot of coverage in his career over little things that look legitimate to a jury in a self defense case. Here is a semi-recent write up about handloads he did, with one supporting link going right here to THR.

https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/the-problem-with-handloads-for-defense/

Mas also covers how decorations are not usually a good idea on firearms either. This one does not get nearly the attention it deserves. As I see a lot of SD firearms that would turn a jury against a defendant quickly when used in a situation. There is a fine line between making a firearm more useful and custom (grip texturing, lights) to trouble "Kill them all!" on the slide. There was a case a couple years ago where a police officer in Arizona got in trouble for using a personal AR in an on-duty shooting with something engraved on the dust cover. Eventually the officer was acquitted, but the dust cover decoration did muddy the waters for the defense.

https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2018/04/ayoob-gun-decorations-jury/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/09/us/police-shooting-video-arizona.html

There is a point where it isn't realistic to overthink your firearm choice. I remember during the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin shooting trial, it was brought up that Zimmerman's firearm (a Kel-tec PF-9) did not have a manual safety. Safety or not, bad shoot or not has been covered on these boards quite a bit. But in this case I remember the prosecution bringing up the manual safety issue. I have made my choice to not have outlandish decorations on my carry pistols. I also do not carry handloads, nor will I. But I won't go so far as to have a safety on a firearm because of Zimmerman's case.

 

[Jeff White]

here is a fine line between making a firearm more useful and custom (grip texturing, lights) to trouble "Kill them all!" on the slide. There was a case a couple years ago where a police officer in Arizona got in trouble for using a personal AR in an on-duty shooting with something engraved on the dust cover. Eventually the officer was acquitted, but the dust cover decoration did muddy the waters for the defense.

One of my corrections officers showed up for work one morning and walked into my office to show off the new custom grips he bought for the 1911 he had been recently authorized to carry on duty. A coffin cutout with a silver death's head. He was a little upset when I told him he couldn't carry that gun on duty with those grips on it. I actually had to explain to him how that would look to the public, not to mention what a plaintiffs attorney would make of that to the jury if he ever used that gun in a line of duty shooting............................

 

[herrwalther]

One of my corrections officers showed up for work one morning and walked into my office to show off the new custom grips he bought for the 1911 he had been recently authorized to carry on duty. A coffin cutout with a silver death's head. He was a little upset when I told him he couldn't carry that gun on duty with those grips on it. I actually had to explain to him how that would look to the public, not to mention what a plaintiffs attorney would make of that to the jury if he ever used that gun in a line of duty shooting.........................

Those sound cool. And I would probably have something like them on a range gun. Or swap them out for regular-ish grips for carry.

 

[Jeff White]

Those sound cool. And I would probably have something like them on a range gun. Or swap them out for regular-ish grips for carry.

They were cool looking, just not appropriate for duty use.

 

[GEM]

It has been a good conversation. I do like the point that in the Rittenhouse, the use of the AR may have contributed to the decision to prosecute him.

I know that in a study, when police officers were asked if they would take action against a person that had a weapon improperly stored in their car as a minor violation, they were more likely action against an AR than a shotgun or handgun. For the latter two, almost no officer would arrest. For the AR, most would.

If Rittenhouse had a sporting focused long arm, who knows - he might have still been prosecuted but that whole line of the prosecution would have been eliminated.

In the tragic killing of the 14 year old girl in the dressing room of the mall store that just happened, some of the newspaper comments by folks were clearly against the use of the AR. These folks were ignorant of firearms technicalities. Several argued for handgun usage as those rounds penetrate walls less than 223. Another argued that the officers should have loaded up with frangible rounds before entering the store. And so on. Those folks could be on your jury. Hopefully you get jurors smart enough to understand the arguments. It's been found that if the expert's testimony is too complex for the jury, they tend to go by appearance and even may be more influenced by the lower qualified testimonials. In the Potter trial, Miller's action error story was not convincing. Potter's lawyer actually admitted that he couldn't understand Miller. That was stupid as it really played into the junk science claim of the prosecution.

When municipalities saw that they had to equip law with long arms, there was definite push back by some against ARs as militarizing the police. That led to weapons choices like Mini-14s (which is actually ok), the early 9mm carbines like the PC9 or Beretta or the pump action Remington 223 rifle.

All were ploys to avoid the ARs due to appearance. I recall in TX driving down the road and seeing a myriad of law officers and cars. They charged into a nearby field - all with Mini-14s (they were looking for an escaped very evil person). I decided to keep driving on my merry way.

There is no denying that such issues may come into play and has many have said so well, no reason to add to risk for no significant increase in efficacy. Now, the ARs do give you added efficacy as a weapon, so be prepared and your lawyer needs to be prepared and your expert witnesses need to be prepared to deal with that issue if it comes up. Handloads, if that is a focus here - yet again, give you no significant increase in weapon efficacy.

BTW, the police discussions indicate that the benefit of the doubt given to police officers in suspect shootings might be fading due to recent cases. That's another discussion.

 

[Jeff White]

When municipalities saw that they had to equip law with long arms, there was definite push back by some against ARs as militarizing the police. That led to weapons choices like Mini-14s (which is actually ok), the early 9mm carbines like the PC9 or Beretta or the pump action Remington 223 rifle.

That wasn’t the case here. The only agency in Illinois that adopted the Mini 14 over the AR was the state department of corrections who replaced their 30-30 lever action carbines with Mini 14s because the Mini was a less expensive option.

The first patrol rifle course approved by the state Law Enforcement Standards and Training Board was an AR based class. It was also more suitable as an introduction to high power rifle competition then as tactical use of the carbine. I was in the first class they conducted in Southern Illinois and there were only ARs in the class. Of course this was a couple decades before militarization of the police became an issue.

When DOD started passing out M16s in the 1033 program the die was cast. Few departments were going to pay for Mini 14s when they could get M16s for free.

 

[GEM]

It seems to have depended on the political atmosphere of the department. If, in those days, it was a 'defund the police' mindset (although that wasn't the term), you could see the city council denouncing the guns. Two things probably turned that for the most part:

1. The expense and cheap guns as you pointed out.
2. The North Hollywood shootout indicated that pistol caliber carbines weren't going to cut it. I recall one gun rag discussion about the Rugers and Berettas saying that it was a point that the 9mms wouldn't work but with one of them, you could have a higher probability of a leg or head shot. That wasn't convincing.

The Remington pump never took off. It was sold to be politically gun correct but it was argued that officers knew how to run 870s so would easily transfer that to the pump rifle. However, with so many folks having service exposure to the ARs, that seemed not a real factor.

It still comes up. When the police were searching for the Boston Bomber brothers there were a few complaints about military looking and armed police in their nice areas.

All these discussions point to the factors that may impact your 'good shoot' and you should be aware of them. Denial isn't a plan for your legal defense.

 

[Jeff White]

The Remington pump never took off. It was sold to be politically gun correct but it was argued that officers knew how to run 870s so would easily transfer that to the pump rifle. However, with so many folks having service exposure to the ARs, that seemed not a real factor.

If you saw officers on the range with their 870s you’d know that “knowing how to run an 870” was not a big selling argument. Of course we had the same problem with ARs. Most departments don’t train enough with their long guns to be really competent with them. The influx of GWOT veterans into the police ranks might have eased that some, but unless the veteran had an Infantry MOS he probably didn’t bring much more to the table then knowing the basics. All MOS’s had people who were interested in shooting, but by and large, unless your job was shooting i.e. Infantry, they take the same attitude a lot of cops do, it’s just a job requirement.

I know that’s blasphemy on a gun forum, but not everyone who carries a gun as part of the job is all that interested in being an expert with it.

 

[JFrank]

I think that it's more important to worry about what you post on gun forums and social media then it is to worry about what gun and ammo combination you use. They will search out everything you've ever said online looking for something to use against you.

This is interesting and to give a thought towards screen names and personal information , my question is how would a prosecutor know whose who without assistance from the owners or moderators of a forum?

 

[Jeff White]

This is interesting and to give a thought towards screen names and personal information , my question is how would a prosecutor know whose who without assistance from the owners or moderators of a forum?

You aren't anonymous online. Far from it. The system is set up to track you across the internet, that's the business model of many companies. You have an ip address that follows back to whatever device you post from. If you use a VPN there are other ways. Lets not forget that it's almost SOP for search warrants to include PCs and other digital devices. A good computer forensic investigator can track you down without ever serving a subpoena to an online forum.

 

[BreechFace]

You aren't anonymous online. Far from it. The system is set up to track you across the internet, that's the business model of many companies. You have an ip address that follows back to whatever device you post from. If you use a VPN there are other ways. Lets not forget that it's almost SOP for search warrants to include PCs and other digital devices. A good computer forensic investigator can track you down without ever serving a subpoena to an online forum.

...now where did I put that tinfoil...

Of course you are right, computers combined with the internet and databases were/are the quintessential pandora's box for loss of privacy.

 

[JFrank]

Well there you go in a nut shell, in todays world I suppose a 12 year old kid knows more about Computers then us old guys

 

[Jeff White]

...now where did I put that tinfoil...

Of course you are right, computers combined with the internet and databases were/are the quintessential pandora's box for loss of privacy.

Open source intelligence gathering i.e. the internet has been a "thing" in law enforcement for 15 years. Large police departments have units just for that. If you post it online it's there forever and it will be found and looked at in a criminal investigation of a defensive gun use. Chest thumping posts on gun forums have been used in both criminal and civil trials. If your defensive gun use passes criminal scrutiny you can still be sued in civil court if you have any assets. A long online history of chest thumping aggressive posts might be the thing that persuades a judge to allow a suit against you to go forward despite any protections against civil actions you have in your state's self defense laws. You may know you were just blowing off steam and having fun online, we might know that but a judge and a jury are going to look at it differently. It's not something you want to defend.

 

[Kleanbore]

Open source intelligence gathering i.e. the internet has been a "thing" in law enforcement for 15 years. Large police departments have units just for that. If you post it online it's there forever and it will be found and looked at in a criminal investigation of a defensive gun use. Chest thumping posts on gun forums have been used in both criminal and civil trials. If your defensive gun use passes criminal scrutiny you can still be sued in civil court if you have any assets. A long online history of chest thumping aggressive posts might be the thing that persuades a judge to allow a suit against you to go forward despite any protections against civil actions you have in your state's self defense laws. You may know you were just blowing off steam and having fun online, we might know that but a judge and a jury are going to look at it differently. It's not something you want to defend.

Jeff's post is now attached to our sticky on internet posing.

 

[redcon1]

You aren't anonymous online. Far from it. The system is set up to track you across the internet, that's the business model of many companies. You have an ip address that follows back to whatever device you post from. If you use a VPN there are other ways. Lets not forget that it's almost SOP for search warrants to include PCs and other digital devices. A good computer forensic investigator can track you down without ever serving a subpoena to an online forum.

I researched this issue with Kyle Rittenhouse out of curiosity and try as I might, the only reference to his online activity coming under scrutiny that I could find was him asking the police to delete his social media accounts the day he turned himself in. This was the most information I could find regarding Kyle's online history:
'Can you guys delete my social media accounts?' Rittenhouse asked. 'Like after you guys get your warrant to go through all my sh**? Can you make sure everything like my social media is deleted?'
The officer responded: 'We can't discuss the case with you but we will look into it.'

It's hard to believe that that was Kyle's only online account. Given the difficulty/impossibility of finding any information via google regarding this subject of Kyle's subpoenaed online activity which has likely (I would think) been searched millions of times in reference to Rittenhouse and in general, it kinda seems like the powers that be would prefer to keep us all guessing as to just what aspects of Kyle's online activity was subpoenaed. maybe not. It just seems pretty unobtainable though.
It's also worth mentioning that the officer(s) who were fired for donating money to Kyle's defense fund did so anonymously. Their identities were obtained by "hackers". in fact, a whole bunch of supposedly anonymous donations turned out to be not so anonymous.

But for some reason, I haven't heard anything about the identities of the people sending threatening emails to Judge Schroeder. shocking.

 

[Jeff White]

Let’s stay on topic, you’re getting into politics.

 

[redcon1]

Let’s stay on topic, you’re getting into politics.

Well, I don't mean to but it's bound to happen to some extent when discussing the gun rights battle. Regardless, we're discussing the legal fight that may or may not ensue after a gun fight and the topic has come up now that the things we write on forums such as this may end up becoming evidence in such a battle regardless of our belief that we are posting anonymously. You have suggested that it may not even have to be subpoenaed to be obtained. I don't know that it would be useful as evidence were it obtained in such a way but I have no doubt that it is obtainable. The example I provided of the law enforcement officers being "outed" by alleged hackers is evidence of this as well.
I still find it interesting that there is nothing to be found on the internet regarding just exactly what online activity the state of Wisconsin was able to subpoena and use as evidence against Kyle. I watched most of the trial but I missed some moments. I saw Judge Schroeder refuse to allow some video evidence that was alleged to show Kyle fantasizing about shooting looters 15 days before the Kenosha event. His reasoning was that statements 15 days before the shooting in question couldn't be used to speak to the defendant's state of mind on the night in question. There's no guarantee that another judge would have ruled the same way. And there's still no evidence of Kyle's online activity being entered as evidence. That being said, it would seem that statements made days before a DGU might be more admissible than statements made weeks, months or years before a DGU.
Another thing that is relevant to this, a fun little personal story about a cop who lost his badge and was involuntarily committed to the state mental institution. He was trying to get his life back. I was present for his mental competence hearing. The prosecutor had evidence that he was heard saying things in the locker room regarding a desire to use deadly force. His counter argument was that he was just talking like guys talk in the locker room. He didn't deny the statements. Needless to say, he didn't get his life back and he remained involuntarily committed in the state mental hospital. There's probably a pretty good lesson there about bravado.

 

[Jeff White]

I don't know that it would be useful as evidence were it obtained in such a way but I have no doubt that it is obtainable

Have you ever heard of plain view? If you post something on a public forum it’s admissible the same as the dead body wrapped in a blanket in the back of your pickup truck is if you’re stopped on the way to dispose of it.

I’ve seen search warrants issued in burglary cases when the burglar was stupid enough to post photos of himself with some of the loot on his Facebook page.

THR, TFL, Arfcom, Glocktalk are all public forums. What you post on those forums is as private as if you’d bought an ad in your local paper to say it. The old adage about not saying anything online that you wouldn’t want to see on the front page of your local newspaper with your name attached is as true today as it was when the internet became a thing.

There isn’t a lot of case law around what online content requires a warrant and what doesn’t. Police departments and prosecutors are still getting around that pesky 4th amendment by buying data they would have to get a warrant for if it wasn’t available to the public for sale. Until the courts put a stop to it it will continue.

This causes all kinds of contradictions. I was looking for a runaway teenage girl and I wanted to know who owned a cell phone number that was on her parents landline caller ID. Verizon required me to certify she was endangered and follow up with a court order in 72 hours. I found out a few weeks later I could have simply purchased the information from them just like anyone else.

And there's still no evidence of Kyle's online activity being entered as evidence. That being said, it would seem that statements made days before a DGU might be more admissible than statements made weeks, months or years before a DGU.

That they didn’t choose to present it isn’t the point. The thing to take notice of is that they collected it.

As for how relevant online statements are, that’s going to be up to the prosecutor, plaintiffs attorney, judge and jury. Every case will be different.

The lesson to take away from all this is; Don’t put yourself in the position of having to defend the things you say online. Maybe you will get a judge like Schroeder and maybe you won’t.

 

[redcon1]

As for how relevant online statements are, that’s going to be up to the prosecutor, plaintiffs attorney, judge and jury. Every case will be different.

The lesson to take away from all this is; Don’t put yourself in the position of having to defend the things you say online. Maybe you will get a judge like Schroeder and maybe you won’t.

There may be another lesson: the internet sucks. On the surface it appears to be some great miracle of first amendment empowerment but dig a little deeper and you see that it is just one more engine being used to drive us all into slavery and subservience to "organized moneyed powers operating from secret conclaves". It's nothing but a tool to collect data on all of us which is to be compiled and stored in order to be used against us in one way or another. And as bad as it is now, you can be sure, in 20 years, it will be straight out of 1984. It will be like "Mr. redcon1, we see here that you posted on the High road pictures of a colt handgun and a Kimber handgun back in 2022. Where are those firearms now exactly?" It's a clear pattern of technological tyranny that is developing here. We're barely even humans anymore. We're becoming nothing more than data.
I'm reminded of Teddy Roosevelt's words often but especially when it comes to this technological tyranny:
"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.”

Theodore Roosevelt
I hope that wasn't too political. I didn't mean for it to be because I hate politics. Let me gun it up a little with another great TR quote:

"The great body of our citizens shoot less as times goes on. We should encourage rifle practice among schoolboys, and indeed among all classes, as well as in the military services by every means in our power. Thus, and not otherwise, may we be able to assist in preserving peace in the world... The first step – in the direction of preparation to avert war if possible, and to be fit for war if it should come – is to teach men to shoot!"
Theodore Roosevelt

 

[Kleanbore]

There may be another lesson: the internet sucks.

Do not forget every note pad, every file, every letter or other memorandum.....

 

[redcon1]

Do not forget every note pad, every file, every letter or other memorandum.....

.
"Knowing the place and the time of the coming battle, we may concentrate from the greatest distances in order to fight."
Sun Tzu

 

[bdickens]

Down this way in Harris County a DA lost his job over some supposedly private emails he should have known better than to send.

 

[GEM]

On another forum, there is a discussion about the legal liabilities of SA/DA revolvers. Now, that's slightly off and the discussion is whether the SA ability is useful or more of a liability. Training to use DA seems to trump trying to use SA for 'precision' - but that a diversion. My point in this comment is that well known trial of an officer, Luis Alvarez, in part hinged on whether he did fire SA. So he needs a technical defense in part:

So here's a quote from the discussion by someone very well known:

BTW, the two superb lawyers who won him his freedom, Mark Seiden and Roy Black, worked on that case for about fourteen months before the eight- or nine-week trial. That sort of skilled representation in today's dollars would have easily cost seven figures.

That's lots of money. Why add to your risk for little gain?