What's "legal" in court for home defense

[ackackadak]

I was at my local indoor range today and found myself next to a couple of young guys with tricked out shotguns; folding stocks, laser sights, etc. I was always under the impression that the courts don't look to kindly on something this tricked out for home defense. They may be technically legal but not too acceptable if one finds themselves defending their use. I took the pistol grip off of my Maverick 88 home defense just for this reason. Anyone have an answer?

[novus collectus]

I was at my local indoor range today and found myself next to a couple of young guys with tricked out shotguns; folding stocks, laser sights, etc. I was always under the impression that the courts don't look to kindly on something this tricked out for home defense. They may be technically legal but not too acceptable if one finds themselves defending their use. I took the pistol grip off of my Maverick 88 home defense just for this reason. Anyone have an answer?

A prosecutor may try to use the aspect that it was "tactical" to try and sway a jury with rhetoric, but I doubt there is any precedence that it increases either the sentence or the charge in any way.
Basically if the shooting in the home was questionable in the first place enough for the district attorney to prosecute beyond a preliminary hearing, then it being a "tactical" shotgun is the least of the worries.
Personally, I would not worry about the pistol grip being on it. A gun is a gun if it is used for self defense.

[Redneck]

My CX4 Storm is "tricked out" if you would, bc of my preference and what I like. It is my home defense weapon for many reasons, its compact, semi-auto, I put the light/laser on it bc more than likely if my home gets broken into when im there its going to happen at night. The flashlight is quicker than getting up to hit the switch on the wall, it is blinding which could stop the intruder alone, and the laser helps make it easier to aim and the person will know where your aiming. I would encourage a home defense weapon to be comfortable and what you feel will be the best for you and your family if the time ever comes. If it looks cool thats just a bonus :gun1:

[ChannelCat]

My CX4 Storm is "tricked out" if you would, bc of my preference and what I like. It is my home defense weapon for many reasons, its compact, semi-auto, I put the light/laser on it bc more than likely if my home gets broken into when im there its going to happen at night. The flashlight is quicker than getting up to hit the switch on the wall, it is blinding which could stop the intruder alone, and the laser helps make it easier to aim and the person will know where your aiming. I would encourage a home defense weapon to be comfortable and what you feel will be the best for you and your family if the time ever comes. If it looks cool thats just a bonus :gun1:

Dittos for my Remmington 870 pump: Lasermax police tactical light/laser, 18" barrel, and extended magazine. This shotgun is my home defense weapon, and is at easy reach. My remaining firearms reside in my safe and are, essentially, toys. My 870 is a tool, a tool that I pray to God that I'll never use. It is kind of cool to check out and to look at though. I've been thinking about adding a laser to my CX4 storm, a very sweet weapon without the added hardware.

[SamW]

I would use nothing that is changed much from the factory and I wouldn't use reloaded ammo. It would just be used against you.

[ackackadak]

That's been my basic belief all along. I think I read in a magazine somewhere (no flames, please) that modifications indicated the user was more willing to harm someone than not. Perhaps it was in a civil context but when you read "self defense" stories written up in reputable magazines there is always mention made of lawsuits no matter whether it was a lawful shooting or not. I think I even read "tactical ammo" was not recommended.

[smores]

Oh man, then you guys don't want to see what I have on my gun right now :X ..... getting pics....

I just FINALLY got it the way I want yesterday!

[ackackadak]

Post your pics! I have an 88 and I was looking at that stock. What else have you done?

[pauln]

I took Mas Ayoob's LFI class in which he covers the liabilities of gun modifications when used in a defensive shooting scenario. Altered safeties, lightened triggers and handloaded ammo is not defensible in court. Modifications to grips, sights to increase accuracy is defensible. But you don't want the weapon to look too scary when it's held up in front of a jury.

[VNVGUNNER]

202

[pauln]

If they held that up in court, the sheeple in the jury would crap their pants.

[ChannelCat]

202

Don't tell me, let me guess: You found this on Michael "Cut & Paste" Moore's website as a "documentary" of that we, as a "civilized society", should be banning. :lol: :lol2: :rofl:

[DD214]

This would win the hearts of the jury every time....
.
.
.
.
.

[navycrna]

:lol: :rofl: :rofl: :clap:

God I love this site

[novus collectus]

I took Mas Ayoob's LFI class in which he covers the liabilities of gun modifications when used in a defensive shooting scenario. Altered safeties, lightened triggers and handloaded ammo is not defensible in court. Modifications to grips, sights to increase accuracy is defensible. But you don't want the weapon to look too scary when it's held up in front of a jury.

I was wondering how long it would take before Ayoob's name came up. I have read this debate argued to death on TFL and THR boards and the one biggest thing people used to dismiss Ayoob's assertions was that there was a lack of a case or an example to cite.
Not saying that Ayoob isn't citing actual cases, but the challenge to other posters to find one was never met that I saw.
Also, Ayoob does not live in MD with MD law and court precedence. What might apply in Massachusetts or Texas for instance, will probably not apply here (except for issues involving the US Constitution).

The factor of handloading ammo, or using "more deadly" ammo, or "tactical" modifications would apply to a viscous murder or even a negligent homicide case if the safety was altered and that was the excuse used for accidentally shooting, but for legitimate self defense I cannot envision it being an issue whatsoever.
Sure, the jury may be swayed a little more if the the shooting was questionable enough to go to court and the prosecutor held up the scary looking shotgun, but like I also said before, if it gets that far the scary looking shotgun is the least of the worries IMO. Almost any gun will look scary and "designed to kill" to the general public and most juries.

[SamW]

This just keeps getting better.

[ackackadak]

I guess my question is regarding CIVIL liability and not legal liability. I'm assumming some legal cases are deemed justifiable but then end up in civil court afterward. This is what my question stems from. Let's assume it is a legal kill from here forward... is that scary looking weapon going to cost me money as opposed to my mom and pop shotgun that sits in a lot of closets?

[RnRFreak]

202

Oh Yeah?

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/5742/justbecauseef0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[RobMoore]

202

Yearbook picture?


Back on topic: Any gun is lethal forcein the court's eyes, so its the situation that matters, not how tricked out the firearm is. Unlike shooting game, the state of Maryland doesn't madate that you shoot intruders with a minimum caliber to ensure a quick death. Use whatever you want.

My opinion on pistol gripped shotguns is that they are less easy to manipulate in tight spaces.

[smores]

Post your pics! I have an 88 and I was looking at that stock. What else have you done?

I'm trying to find my camera, to take better pics (of all sorts of crap) but I have NO CLUE where it is. So for now my camera phone will have to suffice:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v324/sm0r3s/ak_moss.jpg

I just put my AK there as a size comparison. I have the SpecOps stock, which I like a lot because the pistol grip is basically the same shape as a Glock grip, but has a different texture. I've only had it at the range once, but it did soak up a lot of recoil. I fired 25 Remington 1oz. slugs and didn't feel anything until later in the day. Usually I'm sore by the 15th round or so with slugs :(

I also threw on an 18.5" barrel, because 28" is just ridiculous for HD. A heat shield, because when the zombies attack that tube is going to be pretty warm and I wouldn't want to touch it directly...

The most recent addition is the TacStar sidesaddle. This is a pretty neat thing. I used to have one of the standard "butt cuffs" when I had the full stock on there, but this one holds 6 shells, and they're right up against the receiver so you can reload quickly, with the weapon aimed or at the ready or whatever.

The only downside to the stock is that it makes the action release hard to reach. With a full stock, I could just reach my middle finger behind the trigger guard to hit it, but now I have to hold the gun at a sort of inverted "port arms" position so my thumb can reach it. It's easy to hit if you have it at low ready though.

[Deacon51]

A few month back I was reading about the conviction of a Hiker in Texas. This hiker was walking a trail in Texas when he encountered two large dogs and the dogs owner. The dogs attacked, and the hiker drew his weapon and shot them. Then, holding a stick over his head the dogs owner charge the hiker and he two was killed.

The Dog owner was know to be a little off, his dogs where known to be hostel. The Dog owner had a reputation of assaulting and harassing park visitors. The shooter was a teacher or something, I can't remember, but a fine and upstanding member of the community.

He is now server 15 years for murder.

Now, the main issue was he did not "Prove" he was unable to retreat. But, I read the account of one of the jurors, and they stated that the shooter was using hollow point ammo as part of her decision to convict.

Now, personally, my self defense load out in Gold Dot's. But, the reason I use them is because if I am defending myself, I will be doing so in my home, where my wife, kids and dog live. I use a hollow point round due to it's resistance to overpenetration and endangering others.

Remember that.

[ThePhantomPatriot]

you said he killed the guy at the park. all that he had to do was fire a neutralizing shot into his thigh to drop him. 15yrs for murder... america's legal system is a joke he'll be out in 5 years, 2 on good behavior lol.

[novus collectus]

A few month back I was reading about the conviction of a Hiker in Texas. This hiker was walking a trail in Texas when he encountered two large dogs and the dogs owner. The dogs attacked, and the hiker drew his weapon and shot them. Then, holding a stick over his head the dogs owner charge the hiker and he two was killed.

The Dog owner was know to be a little off, his dogs where known to be hostel. The Dog owner had a reputation of assaulting and harassing park visitors. The shooter was a teacher or something, I can't remember, but a fine and upstanding member of the community.

He is now server 15 years for murder.

Now, the main issue was he did not "Prove" he was unable to retreat. But, I read the account of one of the jurors, and they stated that the shooter was using hollow point ammo as part of her decision to convict.

Now, personally, my self defense load out in Gold Dot's. But, the reason I use them is because if I am defending myself, I will be doing so in my home, where my wife, kids and dog live. I use a hollow point round due to it's resistance to overpenetration and endangering others.

Remember that.

I think there is more to the story than that. http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/archives/2004_05_01_archive.html#108523344190027633

After the trial, jurors said they didn't believe Fish's claim of self-defense, mostly because testimony from a medical examiner indicated Kuenzli's wounds were probably defensive.

He testified that Kuenzli's side was turned toward Fish when the first shot struck him.
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/frontpage_lead/story/24609

The first vote revealed the jury was split, four to four. Some of the jurors, because of the defense testimony, saw Grant Kuenzli as an aggressive, violent "monster" rushing at Fish that day.

"Then there were some of us who just didn't buy it," Nelson said, adding that Kuenzli was a dog lover, a volunteer for the animal shelter in Payson and had friends in the community.

Nelson said the jury decided to review what the medical examiner had to say on the subject. Fish's version was that Kuenzli was rushing at him and he feared for his life, which is why he shot Kuenzli three times in the chest, one of the bullets hitting Kuenzli's hand.

"(The medical examiner) said Mr. Kuenzli was (sideways) to Mr. Fish when the first shot occurred," Nelson said. "I thought that was pretty remarkable testimony."

The medical examiner explained that Kuenzli was not facing Fish at the time of the first shot, and actually had his hands out in front of him.

"So (Kuenzli) was like protecting himself, and they were defensive wounds," Nelson said. "They were not antagonistic. That's really what swayed the jury."

Additionally, the jury was troubled by several discrepancies in Fish's version of what happened that varied from separate investigator interviews and grand jury testimony.

"We came to distrust his testimony," Nelson said. "I wish he had gotten onto the stand to explain the discrepancies."
http://www.paysonroundup.com/section/localnews/story/24567

I think the man got the shaft and he should have testified in his own defense. I don't buy the coroner's detail of events. If the man was running, then just how the hell is it possible to know he didn't shift his body weight or lower his hands at that exact moment?

[Deacon51]

Fish... yeah, that's the case. Thanks for taking the time to research and provide links!

That trial was really f*ed up. Fish did not testify, the defense didn't seem to offer a counter to the medical examiner, the testament that the dog walker was nuts was not allowed.

From the MSNBC story...
The jurors believed Fish did the right thing in helping Kuenzli after the shooting, but some were troubled about whether he could have done more.

Nelson: Why didn’t he try to stop the bleeding? Why didn’t he try to pack the wound? He was a scout master.

And this juror was disturbed by the type of bullets Fish used.

Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill.




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/
Page 5

See that's what struck me, the juror said "It’s designed to kill"...
Remember, and make sure your lawyer remembers and all the jurors remember, that Hollow Point is NOT designed to kill, it's designed to resist over penetration! It's a safer round!

[smores]

Wow, I really hope I never have to defend myself. On top of the burden of taking someone's life, then to be accused of murder? That must be horrible :(

[novus collectus]

Fish... yeah, that's the case. Thanks for taking the time to research and provide links!

That trial was really f*ed up. Fish did not testify, the defense didn't seem to offer a counter to the medical examiner, the testament that the dog walker was nuts was not allowed.

From the MSNBC story...


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/
Page 5

See that's what struck me, the juror said "It’s designed to kill"...
Remember, and make sure your lawyer remembers and all the jurors remember, that Hollow Point is NOT designed to kill, it's designed to resist over penetration! It's a safer round!
I agree, it is important to use the proper semantics when speaking to the police and the jury.

[novus collectus]

Wow, I really hope I never have to defend myself. On top of the burden of taking someone's life, then to be accused of murder? That must be horrible :(

Yeah, but there is one upside to the story. In ten years Fish will still be alive as well as free, but if he didn't shoot he might have been dead for a few years now.

[Deacon51]

If you carry, you shuold read up on the Fish case.

[smores]

Agreed. I have read some stuff from the usual guy, Massad Ayoob, and I get the gist. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. Still, what a nightmare. I get mad when I'm accused of making paperwork errors at work, and then I have to go dig through the stuff to prove I'm right.

It is better to be able to defend yourself though.

[pauln]

But Mas Ayoob also will tell you, if you have any doubts, don't shoot.

[smores]

But Mas Ayoob also will tell you, if you have any doubts, don't shoot.

I agree 100% :thumbsup: Once rounds fly, there's no going back. It's gotta be the absolute last resort, down to the survival of you vs. survival of him/her/them.

[Redneck]

+1

[pauln]

Mas Ayoob has his LFI-I and LFI-II classes scheduled for June near Harrisburg, PA this year if anyone is interested. I planning on going up for the LFI-II class. They're 40 hr. classes and cover a lot of information on the use of deadly force in a defensive shooting situation. It's not often that these are offered anywhere close to here.

[jpk1md]

Mas Ayoob has his LFI-I and LFI-II classes scheduled for June near Harrisburg, PA this year if anyone is interested. I planning on going up for the LFI-II class. They're 40 hr. classes and cover a lot of information on the use of deadly force in a defensive shooting situation. It's not often that these are offered anywhere close to here.

More info or a link?

[pauln]

The LFI-I class is June 21-24. I'm not sure about the exact location yet. His website is www.ayoob.com When you complete his course, he will appear as an expert witness free of charge is you have to go to court over a good shoot. The LFI-I class is $800 but is money well spent if you are ever involved in a defensive shooting IMO.

[VNVGUNNER]

231

How about a 130 lb. Schutzhund trained Rotty, who
sleeps up side down in his crate. 2 yrs. old.

[nighthawk2099]

:lol:

That picture alone would scare the heck of me.

Jesus is Watching You! (http://funcop.net/theif.swf)