Self Def Law: Is One Shot of .45 better than 2 Shots of 9mm?

[dubious]

God forbid I should ever have to fire a gun in Self Defense... but when I do think about the possibility of self defense, my thought process invariably leads to what would happen in court. Is it a better bet to use .45acp than 9mm because you'll be less likely to have to use followup shots? Don't followup shots look bad to a jury?

I've always considered the handgun caliber war to be interesting but not really that applicable to most civilian self D situations. I like both .45 and 9mm. But if the difference between one shot with a .45 vs 2 shots with 9mm may be the difference between walking free vs being convicted or sued. If that's true, then caliber DOES matter to civillian self D situations.

To apply this line of thinking to another more powerful caliber, I would still avoid using my .44 Magnum for self def because of the "Dirty Harry" stigma a jury would probably have... even though the .44 mag would be a more effective stopper.

To me, the legal ramifications of certain weapons are just as important as many other qualities, like accuracy and firepower. I personally would take a wood stocked Mini-14 over an AR-15 any day because even though the AR may be the better gun, they attract undue attention. But I'm glad there are other folks out there who are standing up for our 2A rights and showing the public the EBR isn't inherently E.

 

[RKBABob]

Good point... I think I read in a book somewhere (Massad Ayoob, perhaps) that things would go very badly in a courtroom, if you had to shoot someone 14 times with a .25 to stop an attack. Sounds plausible.

I think 2 or 3 shots would be seen as a reasonable response by someone who is in fear of his or her life, though.


You know... it sounds like you just want someone to talk you into buying a .45.
.
.
.

 

[Action_Can_Do]

The cartridge that would look the best to a jury would be the 22lr. DAs like to make 38s and 45s sound like cannons. The best bet is to use what works and worry about court room politics after the fact.

 

[K3]

No offense, but this reminds me of a scene from 'Hamburger Hill'.

Goes like this: 'Biletski, do you stay awake at night thinking of the things you should worry about?'

 

[dubious]

Oh I'm getting a nice Springfield 1911 .45, dont you worry about that...

But I'm really much more interested in punching paper... this is just an excercise in tactical thinking.

 

[dubious]

The cartridge that would look the best to a jury would be the 22lr.

Yeah, but what if you had to shoot 5 or 10 times with a .22? Some people on your jury might think you're a maniac... imagine the prosecutor!

 

[Deanimator]

10 rounds of .577 Nitro Express will look just fine to the jury if you've got the right lawyer. With the wrong lawyer, cowering and begging for you life can be made to look aggressive and malicious.

 

[RedLion]

Practice will decide if you need more than a couple shots. Also I would follow the saying 'its better to be judged by twelve than carried by six', so get what you can use best, regardless of its political appearance.

 

[GearHead_1]

I voted for the .45 but not really because I believe it appears any better to the jury. I just like the .45. It would be interesting to know if there had been any self defense statistics put together that indicates what number of rounds the average person shoots to stop the threat. I'm thinking that if someone is emptying 12 or 15 (exaggeration) shots of 9 mm to stop someone they ought to be investing in some shooting lessons along with the firearm.

 

[SundownRider]

I voted for the .40 because many law-enforcement agencies use it and I want to be seen as Law-abiding.

 

[JaxNovice]

I was taught to keep shooting until the attacker is no longer a threat. Let the lawyer figure out how to articulate the reasoning. Hell if lawyers could convince a jury that Rodney King really needed to have crap beaten out of him, Then I am sure that my lawyer could convince a jury that some cracked out maniac needed to be shot 7 times with a .45 to stop him.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

"I shot him the first time because he was trying to kill me. I shot him the second time because he was trying to kill me. I shot him the third time because he was still trying to kill me. Then he stopped trying to kill me, and I stopped shooting him and did everything I could to save his life."

 

[American_Pit_Bull]

If your placement is good enough to stop the threat with one shot by a .45, then it would have been good enough to stop them with one shot by a 9mm.

 

[GRIZ22]

The caliber or number of shots is not important in this regard. The end result is what matters.

Vern's response sums up a reasonable defense to having to have shot multiple times.

 

[jwr_747]

if you look back at LEO reports,in a real life and death shoot out,BG's shooting at cops,and cops shooting back,a lot of the time the number of shots fired by the LEO's is more than they thought.back in the old "wheel gun days" double tap was the norm.LEO's taught double tap,if BG still a threat,do it again.but some reports show the LEO said he fired one "double tap" and the threat was eliminated.come to find out,4 or 5 shots had been fired.adrenalin does funny things,keeping count isn't one of them. jwr

 

[Gunnerpalace]

I said 9mm (police) but otherwise I could care less. Better to be alive than dead any day of the week wrong caliber or right.

 

[Evil Monkey]

You shoot until there is no longer a threat. In my opinion, don't worry about how many rounds you fired and all that non sense.

If it took you 20rds from a WASR AK to stop a drugged out, adrenaline filled thug, then that's what had to be done. You or your lawyer or whatever will be able to explain your side to the jury on how you stop a threat and so forth.

I find it hard to believe that you can be convicted of a crime based on how well the prosecutor demonizes you. A good shoot is a good shoot.

 

[RNB65]

Doesn't matter. Most jurors don't know enough about guns to care one way or another -- a gun's a gun. Also, society is fed up with violent crime and most of the folks on a jury wouldn't care if you used a minigun and blasted the thug with a couple hundred rounds.
.

 

[Blakenzy]

In regards to the jury's perception anything may go, and it doesn't have to even make any sense: what the bad guy is armed with may play a more important role than what you are armed with, or how many times you use it.

BG armed with "only" a kitchen knife gets shot three times by you with your "hicap" 9mm looks worse than:

BG armed with Evil Black Assault Rifle(with bayo lug and pistol grip) gets shot six times by your .44mag

Emotion, emotion, emotion...

 

[ozwyn]

All of this presumes the police actually prosecute. A good shoot usually means the police don't even charge.

I went for .357 to be contrary, and because it is a old school "police" caliber and considered pretty darn good at its job.

 

[NG VI]

No caliber will look good, because the prosecuting attorney (and these days there will be a prosecutor) will use the most loaded language known to man to make whatever equipment your life was saved with out to be worse than mustard gas in kindergartens. and the jury will likely not know any better, so it looks like you'd be hung by the emasculation of society.

have a good afternoon

 

[RP88]

it's more the gun that will influence or apall the jury. I vote .357 since it has good power, and the ammo means it usually came from a nonsemi-auto gun, which are apparently the only guns we're trustworthy with

 

[PvtPyle]

I dont see 5.56....... And if they are worth shooting once they are worth shooting twice.

In most cases, the situation and presentation of the defense is what has a real effect on the jury. Not the caliber used. In our state, if it goes before a jury the caliber you use is the LEAST of your worries.

 

[sm]

What a prudent person would do in this situation ...

I don't see caliber mentioned in that often courtroom cited statement.

 

[strat81]

I once had a co-worker tell me that she was "okay with people owning guns, but not 9mms." When I asked why, she said "They are really dangerous and unnecessary."

Sadly, I think a jury of my peers might be made up of morons.