QUESTION: Would / do you use a gun marked "Tactical" as your primary defensive gun?

[azpilot06]

So, here's the question:

Would you / do you use a gun marked "TACTICAL" in 1/2-inch high letters as your primary defensive handgun. Here's the basic pro/con arguments:

PRO:
Great gun, little slicker than the stock USP/USPc, looks hella mean in my hands.

CON:
"TACTICAL" + "Match Trigger" + Threaded Barrel = field day for the attorney who wants to hang you after your shooting. Shoot someone with Black Talons out of this gun, and they'll give you another 10 years in the electric chair.

Interested to hear the thoughts out there. Personally, I have to say "negatory" to this one.

[trenace]

I have significant agreement with your general point but I don't personally think the word "Tactical" is going to be a particular red flag to the liberal and/or stupid and/or anti-gunner mind.

What does it mean? Having to do with plans. Whoah.

And not really because of the logical reason, but simply what I believe the effect of words to be. Meaning has not that much to do with it: "Black Talon" is evil regardless of the claws of birds or other creatures and low reflectivity of light with no particular tint not being themselves significant.

However, for example, would I use a gun with giant letters carved 1/4" deep into the slide reading WILSON COMBAT, the answer is no, for precisely the reason you say. "He was looking for combat."

(And besides that, it's ugly and visually offensive. I don't buy "billboard' guns but that's another issue.)

But tactical?

Yes, to a mall ninja that's an appealing word, but personally I don't expect that to the type of antigun moron you're talking about, it registers one way or the other.

[hkbwb]

the way I look at it is if someone was to try to harm me or my familiy. The last thing I'm worried about is what happens afterwards.

[TheFatherland]

A very interesting question. I agree with the last post in I could care less to think about what happens afterward if faced with defending myself and family, but unfortunately I think an anti-gun nutjob lawyer would be try to equate the word "Tactical" with "Offensive Weapon" or "Just looking for a reason to shoot someone", couple that with bad jury selection and a little forthought might well make the difference in what happens afterward, the difference between "Not Guilty your honor" and going home with your family, as opposed to 10-20.

[Mark71]

the way I look at it is if someone was to try to harm me or my familiy. The last thing I'm worried about is what happens afterwards.
+1
Although it sad to say but I do agree that some scumbag lawyer would have a field day with a gun such as the Tactical.

[treelogger]

How many cases are there where (a) someone commits a shooting in what is clearly a defensive situation, and to an impartial observer it looks like a justified shooting, and (b) the type of gun used in the shooting (tactical, black, ugly, too tricked out, mall-ninja lock) actually contributed to the shooter being convicted for a wrongful shooting, or getting much more trouble in a civil case?

In the general atmosphere of paranoia and fear/hatred of authority that one finds in gun forums, this topic comes up all the time. It is said over and over again that using tactical-looking guns, or hollowpoint ammo, or military-style gear, or radical accessories will make it much more likely that you will get convicted by a jury of soccer moms. However, I have not heard of a single case where someone actually demonstrated such an effect. There are darn few documented cases anyhow where a person who committed a defensive shooting is tried afterwards, and in most cases the guns used are extremely boring (Ruger revolvers, cheap pistols, the common stuff).

It would be wonderful if someone could actually study this issue for a change, and post some facts, instead of everyone always operating under the assumption of fear and paranoia.

[azpilot06]

There is a case right now underway in Arizona, where a woman is in-court, attempting to protect her financial assets, because she shot a large, inebriated man who all but broke down her door in the middle of the night (after pounding on it for some time and demanding admittance). She took a defensive position in her hallway, and upon his entry, shot him with a .357 magnum handgun.

In the civil proceeding, she has spent several years defending against the notion that she was "lying in wait" for this "poor, drunken, confused man", and that only a "bloodthirsty" person would arm themselves with a "magnum" handgun (the tools of Dirty Harry, Charles Bronson, and othersuch executioners).

Now I make no bones about the fact that this is a distasteful bastardization of the law...but it happens quite commonly in courtrooms. Prosecuting attorneys -DO- twirl murder weapons in front of juries (Grand and otherwise), and -DO- attempt to capitalize on features and attributes of weapons for shock effect.

While we can debate whether or not it -should- be this way, to say otherwise is to ignore the realities of the modern legal system.

[trenace]

However, what is the evidence that this idiocy of the plaintiff's attorney is making the slightest difference in his client's favor and against this woman?

That is the point: not whether a moronic and ethically-garbage-pail attorney might try it, but whether it matters a lick. Or whether indeed the attorney may look such an ass in this attempt as to damage his credibility. (He certainly would damage his credibility with many intelligent people if he were to harp on this.)

I would tend to say that any jury that is so hopelessly stupid and anti-gun as to decide that whether a gun was a 357 Magnum instead of a 38 Special had important relevance to whether a shooting was justified or not, is so hopelessly stupid and anti-gun that it's extremely unlikely one isn't cooked anyway.

I would suggest subtracting the articles of one particular gun writer from this equation: you know, the one who bases most of his career on alleging this particular line, with 5 alleged cases per month with potentially-verifying details seemingly always made nameless/placeless etc, and I don't know of any examples where people have found them, the disasters of being convicted because of having an ill-named gun and so forth. And I do know of an extended effort by him that was found massively fabricated, the account of the Miami FBI shooting. Anyway if the argument is true, there can't be just one man in the nation that has the evidence for it. So let's subtract that one individual's endless claims on that, and what do we have then?

Not to say that I don't think there's some merit to the concept: if a case is marginal, and totally aside from this detail there's a reasonably arguable case for real reasons that you might have been kind of happy about the idea of going and shooting people rather than finding it a last and unfortunate resort, actual evidence that you were out looking for trouble etc, then the gun having COMBAT in giant letters on the side probably does not help. However, going to the extreme with this idea seems completely unsupported (unless buying everything that this one writer says.) And besides, I would strongly strongly suggest there not being this appearance or actuality of that anyway. That is much more important than the model or brand name, IMO, in terms of how I figure how others think, including how liberals think.

I think it would be very valid to ask oneself, Why did I choose this gun for self-defense in this instance?

If the answer is "Because I am a mall ninja type and I needed to be tacticool and I wanted to be able to fire 14 rounds of my Blitz-Action-Trauma bullets in 4.5 seconds and do a tacticool reload and shoot 14 more at him, while training my Picatinny-rail-mounted laser on his forehead" and that's the only honest answer you could give, well then maybe you ought to consider something that looks obviously like a hunting or target gun that you had to press into this unexpected service, so the jury might be less likely to catch on that in fact you were itching to shoot someone.

On the other hand if that's not even close to right and the answer is because if your life is threatened you don't want a gun that fails to operate, you know this one to be reliable and here is the evidence, you personally shoot well with it and you think that's important because missed shots endanger other people and fail to do anything to protect your life, and this truly is how you think, personally I think an attorney will make a fool of himself trying to hinge his case that your gun says "Tactical" on the side. Opinions can vary, but that's mine.

[Shakey]

I tend to agree with TreeLogger. You hear a lot of anecdotal stories that a 'tactical weapon', or hollow point exploding ammo was used and the victim became the criminal. I have yet to see much in the way of hard news showing it's a common occurance and you know they would be all over the story if it was out there. The press corps hates firearms. The only person I knew of that had trouble after a defensive shooting was a female firearms instructor that put 4 .38 cal rounds in a bad guy's heart as he was threatening to rape her. I guess it seemed too much like a day at the range for the DA to let it pass. I'm not sure what he expected her to do and eventually the charges were dropped. Something about the fool being in her bedroom with a knife just didn't settle right with the court I guess. Personally I wouldn't use my .45 Tac as a home defence weapon. It's made for longer range shooting and most home action would be up close and personal. I have a Colt 1991A1 .45ACP Compact, or my USPf 9mm that I'm more inclined to have beside the bed.

[Andrew_Dawson]

Good point treelogger, but until I hear some hard facts ill steer clear of running a tactical or modified weapon for personal defense I would hate to find out the hardway or be the first one to be sued because some ahole broke into my house and I shot him with a hair trigger.

[azpilot06]

The Arizona shooting I've referenced above is not anecdotal. The lady I mentioned shoots at the same range where I belong, and took her primary / CCW instruction there.

My central point and question lies around whether it's "wise" to use a "specialized" gun which may attract undue attention (for example, a .45 Tac), when the same guns exist out there, with almost identical performance (the USP45f), and a lower "profile."

This is the debate I have when I consider putting my .45 Tac in the nightstand as the "go-to" gun. Personally, I'd rather have something that looks very box-stock, and very similar to what the local boys in blue are carrying, rather than something that looks like I was "spoiling" for a shooting.

Again...I've no argument that it shouldn't be this way. But when we live in a world where ATF agents contemplated going after the guy who gave AR-15's to the LAPD in the North Hollywood shootings (he did not make the officers go through the waiting period or complete 4473's)...anything's possible.

[trenace]

I did not say it didn't happen.

What I asked was, what evidence is there that the plaintiff's attorney harping on it being a 357 Magnum instead of a 38 Special (or whatever) is making the slightest difference in the outcome of her case to her disfavor?

Just because he's flapping his mouth that way does nothing to prove it's impressing the jury favorably in his direction. It might even be persuading them he's an ass. Until someone demonstrates what effect has occurred, the example does not show that it causes a problem.

I don't suppose you're suggesting the scumbag wouldn't have sued if it had been a 38 Special?

[azpilot06]

You cannot measure the "effect" that this has on trials and juries, because the process is subjective, and it's difficult (if not impossible) to quantify the impact. It is, however, grist for the mill of a lawyer...some of which is going to be unavoidable if/when you have a defensive shooting.

What I'm talking about is avoiding the "easy" attention-getters...or to put it another way, not "borrowing trouble."

Before one dismisses the impact these (albeit silly) things may have on a jury, consider the following public phenomena:

"Cop-Killer Bullets" (KTW ammunition)....did these ever really kill any cops?
"Glocks can bypass airport security screening"....right....as long as you remove the barrel, slide, and internals....
"Assault weapons"...because an AR-15 is -much- less lethal without a bayonet.

The same public that can believe these things...are going to be on -your- jury. When it comes to dealing situations which involve human judgment, perception is reality.

[trenace]

All I am saying is that while I believe there is some merit to this general view, I do not believe it is demonstrated or likely is to anything like the degree advocated by the evangelists of it. (Or really, the evangelist, singular, and those that repeat what he says.)

And that the fact that an attorney may cite such nonsense is not proof that it is doing the defendant any harm.

When it comes to stuff that a reasonable person indeed would take as suggestive that someone was itching for a shooting, then of course.

When it comes to stuff that only a complete moron or total left-wing loon would, then what is the situation?

That you're doomed if you have 12 of 12 of them.

And btw, you're probably doomed if you have 12 of 12 of them with the 38 Special too, just as much as with the 357 Magnum.

IMO, if it were not for one single writer who does not show his examples actually occur yet nonetheless is accorded vast credibility by some, that I think it's fair to say have not generally checked it out but are simply being trusting, but decidedly not accorded this by others, there would not be extent of paranoia that there is among many of ideas such as that simply the word Tactical on the side of the gun is going to get them in jail. This is the work of one man -- not only very very unproven but very very unsupported despite the unending articles touting this line every month -- it's surprising what heavy propaganda can do over time.

[straightgrain]

Like it or not, if you are involved in a shooting, there will be legal issues to deal with. Play those legal issues wrong and you will be on the wrong side of a judgement. There is nothing inherently wrong about legally using a "Tactical" weapon or a "Combat" weapon (own several of each, thank you) in a defensive situation. Where things get screwy is when you open your mouth inappropriately.

If you have to discharge your weapon (of any kind) to take down a BG, do the following after you are sure that the threat is neutralized:

Call 911.
When the police arrive, tell them that you are the one that called and do what they say with your weapon.
Notify them of all threats and evidence that you are aware of.
Tell them that you will be happy to answer their questions *after* your lawyer has arrived.
Call your lawyer.

So much depends upon this initial report that you do not want to screw it up.

Sure, lawyers can play tricks and try to trip you up with words like "tactical", "combat", and "magnum". But a good lawyer will demonstrate that you exercised restraint and control beyond the minimu requirements of the law so as to minimize the possibility that innocents would be injured. That you learned how to control your particular weapon through diligence. That you did exactly what was necessary under the law and nothing more to neutralize the threat. If you managed to shoot the BG dead through the heart with a magnum round, would he somehow be less dead with .40?

Your biggest enemy after a shooting is your own mouth. Hire somebody that knows how to use theirs professionally. It is an absolute shame that in our society a justifiable shooting is only the beginning of the ordeal.

[Unbreakable]

"TACTICAL" + "Match Trigger" + Threaded Barrel = field day for the attorney who wants to hang you after your shooting. Shoot someone with Black Talons out of this gun, and they'll give you another 10 years in the electric chair.


That's why, when you get out you find the lawyer, judge, and jury members and shoot them too for screwing up your life. What've ya got to lose after 20 years in the pin for defending yourself? :D

After using your right to protect yourself and loved ones fails... just tell them the voices in your head said it was a good idea.

I think it's important to go through the proper check list. For instance... did this girl involved in the shooting call the police? I mean a drunk guy beating on your door would give you enough time to call the cops... not saying you rely on them to arrive in time.... but you make the call if time allows. Not that I'm defending the anti gun folk. Someone forces their way into my home, their just getting shot bottom line. No ifs ands or buts about it, they're getting shot. Killed... maybe. Once the threat is taken care of it's up to the shooter to continue with the check list... call an ambulance for the person shot. Make sure you "sound" concerned for the bad guys well being on the phone. If safety permits attempt to aid them in any way you can like wadding up a towle and placing it over the wounds to stop the bleeding. I assure you once they've been shot and are possibly near death they won't attack you for trying to help them. You want the cops/ambulance workers to enter your home to find you trying to help this bad guy. It'll go a long way. And the last thing you want to be is proud of the fact that you shot them. Don't say "You're damn right I shot him" "And I'd do it again" LOL. Even if you're not sorry... act like you are. Democrats get miles in public opinion polls by acting like they give a rats ass about poor people, or gay people, or none white minorities. Use the same tactic with those who fall for such things. Work up a few tears and say "That poor man"... "Is he going to be ok" Sniffle Sniffle, "He just wouldn't stop" "I told hime to stop" Sniffle "But he wouldn't listen". And then maybe stay with them that night at the hospital. Make sure as many people see you giving a damn as possible. And then tell them you bought that weapon and ammo because a police officer told you it was good. None of us use the most devastating weapon in our collection for home/self defense. I mean... who has a belt fed 308 as a night stand gun. If all else fails, show the jury what you could have deployed if you were really looking for some action. And then ask them why would you use just a pistol, carbine, or shot gun when you got big Bertha in the gun safe. If you were blood thirsty you'd sit in your living room with a grenade launcher with the front door standing wide open with a sign in the yard saying "Free Kittens... Come on in".

[azpilot06]

What....you mean it's -not- adviseable to do the Bernie Goetz and say "You don't look so bad...here, have another" after your shooting?

Great...now I gotta re-print the post-shooting cards I've been distributing at the range!

IMHO, gun and ammo manufacturers could take a cue when it comes to marketing their warez to the civilian and police markets. Federal's "Personal Defense" ammo sounds much better than "Thunderzap!" or "Turbo Grabbers" (both of which are the names of real ammo, BTW). The "Custom Defensive Package" sounds much better than "Combat Elite", or "King Cobra".

Same guns...different marketing. You can still shoot someone with your nickel-plated, long-slide .45 with mother of pearl grips and a skull on each side, with a laser sight, and thermal imaging scope, and a JDAM GPS-driven guidance package on the front of each one of the Black Talon rounds you launched.....but if that gun was Colt's "I Love Bunnies" edition....it'll play a little better in court :P

[psg1]

What is printed on your pistol is absolutely #$%@&*'n meaningless, and any good lawyer will articulate this well to any jury. The important part is the justification for the shooting. Any adult can recognize that a .45 is a .45, no matter who makes the pistol, in what country, or what it's called. There is still a dead man in your living room and they just want to know why.

I think we should give people a little more credit..

I dont think the prosecution will be recieved well if they're claiming that you, with no serious prior criminal record, dragged an innocent full grown man into your home so that you could execute him with your USP Tactical just for S&Gs, then unload the pistol and call the police immediately afterwards.

[Zebra 24]

My answer is "yes". I carry my Tactical on duty, SWAT, and off duty. The Brand/type of gun is not going to have a whole lot to do with any legal actions after a shooting. (Depending on where you live).

If your actions are legal and just then there isn't anything to worry about. After a shooting if the DA or Grand Jury doesn't indict you then the civil litigation isn't going to have much traction.

[Big Bore]

As far as a night-stand gun, no problem. It is hard to make a case against someone using any kind of weapon in a home invasion type setting.
But as to using the Tac as a CCW, not on my life. Remember, you will be judged by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. If you have ever been called for jury duty (I have been called multiple times) and have seen the types of people the lawyers (both sides) want to set judgement it will make your hair stand up.

[Fooboy]

In the civil proceeding, she has spent several years defending against the notion that she was "lying in wait" for this "poor, drunken, confused man", and that only a "bloodthirsty" person would arm themselves with a "magnum" handgun (the tools of Dirty Harry, Charles Bronson, and othersuch executioners).

Now I make no bones about the fact that this is a distasteful bastardization of the law...but it happens quite commonly in courtrooms. Prosecuting attorneys -DO- twirl murder weapons in front of juries (Grand and otherwise), and -DO- attempt to capitalize on features and attributes of weapons for shock effect.

I wonder if they also try to find and use your posts on gun forums as evidence ...

[Syntax360]

I wouldn't hesitate to carry it for a moment if it was suitable for CCW. This goes in the box with the myriad of other arguements that are tossed around gun boards every day about DA's going after the victims - it makes a great story and it is fun to have something to mull over lying in bed or sitting in front of a computer monitor, but if you were justified in pulling the trigger it isn't going to make -one bit of a difference- what you used provided it was legal to carry and own. If you broke no laws and were 100% justified in pulling the trigger, then it doesn't matter if the gun was on fire, had devil horns growing out the front of it, and a pitchfork for sights. The end result would be the same regardless of what you used and any two-bit attorney should have no trouble cutting through this unicorn arguement that comes up every other day.

[Unbreakable]

It really depends on where you live. I live in Georgia. If there is enough evidence to support that it was a defensive shooting, no one cares what you use here. This state is still a little old school and I love it. Wouldn't move for the world. "He needed Killin" is still a good excuse here. Especially in the small towns in NE Ga where it's who ya know not what you know. Now... New York City.... HELL NO! I'd want to carry a weapon that said fluffy kitty rainbow joy spreader or something. It'd be nice if all the Gun toating, meat eating, beer drinking and knife slinging folk would move to this side of the country and let places like California collect all the salad eating, scientology book toating, super aware and evolved folk. Then we could build a huge gun and pick them off from here. I bet after a few years our crime would be lower too. Crocks would be scared to death to break into a house in a state with a 99.99% gun owning population.

[Andrew_Dawson]

It really depends on where you live. I live in Georgia. If there is enough evidence to support that it was a defensive shooting, no one cares what you use here. This state is still a little old school and I love it. Wouldn't move for the world. "He needed Killin" is still a good excuse here. Especially in the small towns in NE Ga where it's who ya know not what you know. Now... New York City.... HELL NO! I'd want to carry a weapon that said fluffy kitty rainbow joy spreader or something. It'd be nice if all the Gun toating, meat eating, beer drinking and knife slinging folk would move to this side of the country and let places like California collect all the salad eating, scientology book toating, super aware and evolved folk. Then we could build a huge gun and pick them off from here. I bet after a few years our crime would be lower too. Crocks would be scared to death to break into a house in a state with a 99.99% gun owning population.

Amen brotha!

[trenace]

Where things get screwy is when you open your mouth inappropriately.

If you have to discharge your weapon (of any kind) to take down a BG, do the following after you are sure that the threat is neutralized:

Call 911.
When the police arrive, tell them that you are the one that called and do what they say with your weapon.
Notify them of all threats and evidence that you are aware of.
Tell them that you will be happy to answer their questions *after* your lawyer has arrived.
Call your lawyer.
Agreed. I also got a piece of what I considered good advice from a CCW instructor once: Don't answer 911's questions either and basically simply tell them that there has been (whatever crime was committed against you), someone has been shot (or is shot and down), medical help is needed, please send the police, provide your name and physical description and location, and say I'm going to leave the phone open for you so you can hear what's going on.

And then put the phone down, leaving it open so they can hear what's going on.

You do not need to answer to 911 questions such as did you do the shooting.

No matter how well judged one's words may ordinarily be, the stress of this condition is no time for you to be doing anything but something pre-planned such as above and nothing extemporaneous. The 911 call is most certainly recorded and if you say something that comes out wrong, it WILL be used against you.

[DesolateSoldier]

It really depends on where you live. I live in Georgia. If there is enough evidence to support that it was a defensive shooting, no one cares what you use here. This state is still a little old school and I love it. Wouldn't move for the world. "He needed Killin" is still a good excuse here. Especially in the small towns in NE Ga where it's who ya know not what you know. Now... New York City.... HELL NO! I'd want to carry a weapon that said fluffy kitty rainbow joy spreader or something. It'd be nice if all the Gun toating, meat eating, beer drinking and knife slinging folk would move to this side of the country and let places like California collect all the salad eating, scientology book toating, super aware and evolved folk. Then we could build a huge gun and pick them off from here. I bet after a few years our crime would be lower too. Crocks would be scared to death to break into a house in a state with a 99.99% gun owning population.

I should have NEVER left the lovely Ft. Benning, GA. Up here in Rhode Island, the state is in conflict with itself. Truly, within the next year, I should be relocating to Georgia... preferably Savannah.

Anywho, back on topic...

Agreed. I also got a piece of what I considered good advice from a CCW instructor once: Don't answer 911's questions either and basically simply tell them that there has been (whatever crime was committed against you), someone has been shot (or is shot and down), medical help is needed, please send the police, provide your name and physical description and location, and say I'm going to leave the phone open for you so you can hear what's going on.

And then put the phone down, leaving it open so they can hear what's going on.

You do not need to answer to 911 questions such as did you do the shooting.

No matter how well judged one's words may ordinarily be, the stress of this condition is no time for you to be doing anything but something pre-planned such as above and nothing extemporaneous. The 911 call is most certainly recorded and if you say something that comes out wrong, it WILL be used against you.

Very good point trenace. However, information pertaining to who actually commenced shooting would be thought of as useful information for the police arriving on-scene, don't you think? That is certainly something I would clarify with the 911-operator before police arrived thinking that I was the perp. While it would be visually clear who the victim is, (i.e. boxers, nightgown, disturbed, distraught, etc.) my pistol would stay drawn on the perp even as the officers were arriving on-scene. In my area, adrenaline-fueled officers are known to make a mistake on identity. Providence, Rhode Island, Cornell Young incident for example. http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/04/bp.00.html

[trenace]

What I meant to say was that the call to 911 should identify yourself as the victim of whatever crime there was and inform them of the medical needs and need for police to arrive but not to provide them with details of who shot who and how.

It seems to me that the police are doing fine knowing the description of the caller and name, that he says that he is the victim of such and such attempted crime, and that also that the perpetrator of the crime has been shot, and that the caller has not been. And certainly something else could be relevant such as that you are the homeowner, which would be part of stating yourself as the victim of a crime, e.g. home invasion / attempted robbery / what have you. If my above description left any of those needs out then it was lacking, I would agree they should know this. However, getting into a deposition with the 911 operator or making admissions of any kind to 911 regarding your acts is not the thing to do. The suggestion is to keep to reporting yourself as the victim of what crime, the location, the need for medical attention and police, and giving the police the info they need to recognize you as the caller and homeowner or assault victim or what have you. Fine to give brief incriminating info on what the bad guy did, but not to be talking about what you did at at all, not at this point yet. That was the suggestion I was passing on and believe myself.

Without having thought about that, if any have not, it would be very tempting and natural to try to explain yourself to the 911 operator right at the time, which could be unwise.

[PackerFan]

I wonder if they also try to find and use your posts on gun forums as evidence ...

Uh, oh!

[Unbreakable]

I should have NEVER left the lovely Ft. Benning, GA. Up here in Rhode Island, the state is in conflict with itself. Truly, within the next year, I should be relocating to Georgia... preferably Savannah.

We'll welcome you back. You'll just need to wash off that Yankee stink first.

I think our president put it best for any judge that would take our freedom for defending ourselves.
http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/images/smilies/bushbird4lh.gif

LMAO

[piebiter]

Very interesting discussion. Personally I would use whatever I needed to take some dirtbag(s) out if it were a life and death situation. Then I'd get on the phone to Masaad Ayoob.

[trenace]

Hmm, before investing money in that I would do a LEXIS/NEXIS search and see how much luck you have validating the court cases he claims on ongoing basis. If you try some reasonable number, like say you pick five that he claims to have been a witness in the cases, and all five of five or ten of ten or whatever really do exist, then I'll stand corrected. I'd also be interested in luck in verifying ones where he doesn't claim to be a participant, though that would be less relevant to hiring him, though still not irrelevant. As is I am quite dubious because of other things that to put it gently don't stand up and professional organizations that completely disavow (again, putting it gently) him.

[piebiter]

Hmm, before investing money in that I would do a LEXIS/NEXIS search and see how much luck you have validating the court cases he claims on ongoing basis. If you try some reasonable number, like say you pick five that he claims to have been a witness in the cases, and all five of five or ten of ten or whatever really do exist, then I'll stand corrected. I'd also be interested in luck in verifying ones where he doesn't claim to be a participant, though that would be less relevant to hiring him, though still not irrelevant. As is I am quite dubious because of other things that to put it gently don't stand up and professional organizations that completely disavow (again, putting it gently) him.
Actually I was only being facetious as to calling Ayoob. However I have to admit that I'm abit surprised by your post. I only know him from his column in Combat Handguns. Till now I had no reason not to believe he was on the up and up. I guess the fact that at one time he owned and praised two P9S 45's won me over.

[dmg311]

i use uspc40 or usp45f. im beginning to prefer the 40 b/c it's the caliber the police carry. and i carry the same hydrashock loads they carry. for one reason: a prosecutor cant come after me for my weapon caliber or load if i must defend myself.

[trenace]

I am not going so far as to say that that way, "not on the up and up," but I would (and did) go so far as saying that I'd absolutely want to see some verification beyond his own writings that his own writings are what they say, and can add to that also.

One principal reasons for this is he placed great emphasis on his account of the Miami FBI shooting case. I read it at the time. It seemed like truly great journalism, amazing how thoroughly he researched every detail. Only problem is, it turns out that much of the account is simply not what the official records have been found to show at all. It is not just one or two things that could be errors, but his account appears to be massive "creative writing" and at any rate, despite being something he expressed great pride in his work on it, quite false in many regards.

A second reason is that I understand that at least one significant law enforcement agency, or subpart of, the New York Firearms and Tactics section won't allow him on any of their premises. Not that strong a reason, as I don't know the inside story, but that kind of thing when added in with others suggests that someone lacks good standing with genuine law enforcement and justice system professionals (as opposed to gun rag writers and editors.)

A third is that ballistic and wound researchers actually having credentials, actually being recognized and consulted by professional organizations such as the FBI do not have any positive regard for him at all, and that's saying it lightly. Yet he writes endlessly on this subject.

A fourth is that the claims and figures of Marshall and Sanow have been shown to be virtually undoubtedly (odds of beyond millions to one) of being faked, and they refuse to supply their raw data to demonstrate otherwise, claiming they shredded it: and this fellow instead of acknowledging this, continues to support it as true though he must know better by now, the information to the contrary is widely available and he could hardly have missed it, and furthermore to claim that "his own data shows the same thing," his "own" data also being secret and you can't see it. This is not the stuff of credibility.

A fifth reason is that on this question of whether things such as the name of your gun really do do damage in court or not is certainly one that, if the court evidence was as overwhelming as he presents every month, it wouldn't be the case that no one else could ever find any evidence.

A sixth reason, which I can't back up well at all though at the time I could to my own satisfaction, I once read a refutation I found completely credible of one his claimed cases as just not remotely happening the way he said (even moreso than the FBI shooting, which at least had many elements of truth.) You can dismiss that one though, since I can't recall the details, but for me personally it counts.

Unfortunately, the gun magazines have little intellectual integrity. They printed the Marshall and Sanow fabrications, made great hay of them, and at that point this was honest error of them, though careless error as they should have asked to see at least some raw data to back up a couple of test examples of their choice, just to see that things are on the up-and-up. OK, they were careless, everyone can make a mistake. But the thing is, the honest will come back and print, "We have since learned..."

But the gun mags have never done so. This shows that once they've taken in a given position or writer as "their own," they aren't going to later acknowledge any fraud. Indeed, they'll keep publishing the same line forever. Ditto may be the case with this fellow's articles. If the claimed court cases or many of them are fabrications the gun magazines will not be the ones to tell you, nor will they ever bother checking, same as with the M&S data. Nope, just as they keep touting the M&S "one shot stopping power," they'd keep touting these alleged cases even if proven fabricated. So the fact that they keep appearing in the gun rags shows nothing. They cannot be trusted to "police" their own so to speak.

Do I know his repeated accounts of his dramatic lead roles in the courtroom saving all these people are untrue, and/or various other accounts are fabricated or largely so? I don't. But for the above reasons I would certainly do the simple check proposed (simple if one has that subscription, which I don't, but many do) before investing money and credibility in the courtroom on him. The simple fact is that those that fabricate their writings once often or usually do so habitually. At least in academic circles that's an observed pattern.

If nothing else, I would not want to have a witness that opposing counsel could demonstrate from his own writings to be a fabricator. Which, unfortunately, they could have some significant success with from his "creative" FBI account alone, but that was so many years ago that perhaps it wouldn't impeach him too much. However, if his current articles also have fabrications, then why should his testimony on the stand be believed? In that case, credibility is shot.

Personally, I feel that if (as is the case) the Miami FBI account was largely fabricated, and he expressed so much pride in that one, that the multiple cases presented each month are pretty unlikely to be "lacking in creative writing" themselves. I just don't find the individual credible, for the above reasons, but in fairness, the test proposed could add significant weight for or against.

[SCL]

I think Mas Ayoob is a hack - he has been for years and IMHO has pimped any professionalism he may have once had in order to be a martial arts master /gunwriter/tactics/law enforcement guru/quasi-ballistician/stopping power expet/lawyer - he knows a little about a lot of things but is not an expert in any of them IMHO. I know other's think differently, but I have my own experiences and agree with Trenace that he is not credible.

If you are justified to use deadly force then you were justified. Scumbag defense attorneys will use whatever tactic they can to cover up this fact (i.e. who would own a magnum? Use hollowpoints? etc.) but at the end of the day of you were justified all of the smoke and mirrors cannot change that key fact. You should educate your attorney on the gun facts if he is lacking in experience and give him data to back up your case - i.e. there is no significant difference between a plain jane USP and a "Tactical" - they both are semi automatic pistols, etc.

I would not lose a minute of sleep over this question - use the gun that you are most comfortable with and can get the hits with under stress.

SCL

[mefly2]

...you will be judged by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. If you have ever been called for jury duty (I have been called multiple times) and have seen the types of people the lawyers (both sides) want to set judgement it will make your hair stand up.

Hmmm ... not sure about being too stupid ... :300000000: ... to get out of jury duty ... some may feel that it is an honor and obligation of being a citizen in this great country where we live. In fact, it is a priviledge that convicted felons lose out on - serving as a juror!

The way it works around here in federal court is that they randonly call in 45-50 prospective jurors from the division. Then, they randomly select 28 of those. They are then questioned by the judge with regard to their background, etc (voire / dire). There may be some excused for legal cause - in which case a replacement would be randomly selected from the initial 45-50. Both the prosecution and defense are allowed to excuse (6 + 10) from those remaining (within guidelines) until there is a jury of 12 "peers" remaining.

Perhaps courts in your neck of the woods work a bit differently, but the federal courts likely would follow this same procedure.:901:

Isn't it a great system that not only will allow you to express your opinion, but protect that right to express it! It is easy to cheap shot it, but it is still the best system in the world. Yes ... I fought for it over 35 years ago!!

[trenace]

Many have said that most of the time, one side or the other (or both) will exclude every juror they can that seems capable and prone to independent logical thought, leaving all too often none that will make their decision based actually on reasoning and facts.

Which makes sense.

After all, in most cases, won't at least one side want to avoid jurors that will think?

[bordercop]

But tactical?

Yes, to a mall ninja that's an appealing word, but personally I don't expect that to the type of antigun moron you're talking about, it registers one way or the other.
Unfortunately, it's exactly that type of antigun moron that is going to be on your jury.

It's a sad thing to say, but you do have to pick your battles. If you are concerned about it, check into appeals decisions in your area to see how your courts interpret the second amendment. I for one, can't carry handloaded ammo in my carry gun, because the court of appeals has twice ruled that handloading ammunition equals planning to kill someone.

I, personally, wouldn't have any problems using a gun that said "tactical" on the side of it. It all comes down to whether or not the shot was justified, not the platform that delivered it. However, HK's tactical wouldn't be my first choice. IMHO a weapon with adjustable trigger and adjustable sights is a range gun. But I'm only one man, and you know what they say about opinions :)

[raising_arizona]

There is a case right now underway in Arizona, where a woman is in-court, attempting to protect her financial assets, because she shot a large, inebriated man who all but broke down her door in the middle of the night (after pounding on it for some time and demanding admittance). She took a defensive position in her hallway, and upon his entry, shot him with a .357 magnum handgun.


Off topic, but doesn't our castle doctrine law take care of that now? Or, has it been implemented yet? Just curious.

[azpilot06]

Wow...this thread's gone farther than I anticipated. Just a few comments if I may.

To those who say "a justified shoot is a justified shoot", I would submit that it's likely that you haven't spent much time around cops, attorneys, and judges. It's very easy to see the law as "black and white" from a lay perspective...but remember...it's the JUDGMENT of the cops to arrest you in the first place, it's the OPINION of the Grand Jury (or the judge in your initial appearance) to indict you, and it's what the "jury of your peers" -THINKS- about what you did that determines whether or not you go home. If you think that the platform doesn't matter, try machine-gunning an intruder with your MP5 (on second thought, don't...it's too expensive to rot in an evidence locker), versus capping one with your trusty model 66, and gauge the difference in your legal difficulties. Both may have been justified shoots....but will play vastly differently in the media, and the courts.

Chiefs of Police, Sherriffs, and prosecuting attorneys are -political- animals. If you're lucky enough to live in a reasonable jurisdiction where the DA isn't out to make a name for him/herself, you may never have a problem. There are times when the law has very little to do with the motives for taking a case to trial.

Last, but not least, remember that there's a criminal side -and- a civil side to our courts. Your shoot may be "blessed" on the criminal side, but anyone with the filing fee can sue you civilly. This is true anyways, even if you shot the guy with a squirt-gun...but the jury in your civil case does -not- have to make a unanimous finding, does -not- have to go "beyond a reasonable doubt", and can assign a percentage of blame (and therefore a percentage of damages) to you in spite of a lack of criminal liability.

Whether or not you decide to cap a certifiable bad-guy with your Tac, to me, the moral of the story is:

"Don't borrow trouble"

[trenace]

Off topic, but doesn't our castle doctrine law take care of that now? Or, has it been implemented yet? Just curious.
Don't know about Arizona, but in Florida what the new law does is create a presumption, in the case of home invasion, that the person in the home was in danger of their life or of grave bodily injury, with deadly force being permitted to defend against such danger. Deadly force is also permitted to prevent forcible felony. (Which, interestingly, in other statutes includes treason, but somehow I would expect no success arguing this if deciding to shoot someone to end their treasonous acts.)

Some people see that and think that means oh, shoot anyone invading your home and this law says it's OK.

Not so.

It's the same deal as presumed innocent until proven guilty. Doesn't mean one can't be proven guilty. It just means that the burden of proof is to show a person is guilty, rather than the burden being the other way around. Having the presumption your way beats by a mile not having the presumption, but it's not necessarily sufficient, and not sufficient when the opposite can be proved.

If it can be proven that a reasonable person would not have considered themselves in danger of their life or of grave bodily harm or to be preventing a forcible felony by the shooting, then there goes the presumption.

E.g., 8 year old kid comes in your bedroom window during the day to get his ball... stupid and not legal, but you were not reasonably in risk of your life or grave bodily injury, nor preventing a forcible felony, so it would be bye-bye for you (and rightly so) if you shot him.

I do not know that that is the case in Arizona but I'd be astonished if not.

A case many might be unclear on, suppose an unarmed burglar that isn't too believable to have been likely to cause you physical harm is found by homeowner and it appears the homeowner really should have seen that physical harm was unlikely, let's say this was daytime and physical appearances would really just not support the physical danger theory, and very plausibly the completion of the crime was preventable simply by, at gunpoint, telling the caught burglar to leave, but this was never done, the homeowner just blasted away.

Is the State's Attorney necessarily going to decide he can't defeat the presumption, or might he decide he can prove a reasonable person would not have seen a risk to person and no prevention of forcible felony was being accomplished by the shooting that hadn't already been accomplished? I would recommend don't shoot, and anyone who does I think might face the legal system under the new law as well as old. "Castle doctrine" or no.

Not that I'm saying the case described did not have the woman in a situation where a reasonable person would fear for her life or of grave bodily injury or sexual assault, etc. But just in general, "presumed" isn't all that many seem to take it to mean in such laws.

[BIGDUKE60]

always call 911 first(if you can)...and as fast as you can after!! yelling help!!
then slamming the phone down!!!!

never talk to the cops even after.they say its ok and bring you drink or food!(just say your in shock).and you want to talk to a atrny!

always make sure you feel as if he was going to hurt you (life death thing).

side note.. if you can call 911 .
tell them the bad guy has a gun!
should take only 3 to 4 min to get all the boys in blue on shift to your house.or apt.

[HK_Lova]

It's already been said but...

For that particular case, she should have called LE to try to get them to deal with it before the door was broken down and leave the 911 line open and very sternly say "Leave now or I will be forced to shoot; Lay on the ground. STOP" And even if he is right there in the door way, if he isn't pursuing you, don't shoot. And with the 911 line open if he was screaming or threatening her then it would all be recorded.

As for a "Tactical" for carry, nope. IMHO I like to have what I'm armed with to be as incognito and boring as possible but still get the job done, God forbid it ever has to be. Same reason I carry Winchester USA "Personal Protection" ammunition. Not an exotic, even though it may be marginally superior. But if you place your shots well Ranger T and Blazer FMJ will preform equally well.

It's just the sacrifice we make living in a litigious society.

Personal Experience.

I lived in a college town and happened to live in the part with all the Bars, 6 of them 300yds away. 6 months ago I got a bang on the door while I was half naked making a PB&J for a late night snack in the kitchen at about 3am. The guy kept banging and saying "Let me in, I gotta use the phone" I asked who it was and he said "It's Jeremy ****er, let me in." I told him I didn't know him and he wasn't getting in. I called the Sheriff, he banged on the door a little more and finally left. A LEO was there in about 5 min and said he saw a guy going into an apartment 4 doors down. Was it the same guy? Who knows. My 7mm-08 was in the kitchen because I had cleaned it earlier that day and unexpectedly became my defense weapon at that time. Had he entered I would have given him the chance to retreat once confronted with a rifle, (assuming he didn't have a weapon of course) and that could have made all the difference. With an intrusion that takes time, you have time to think, and it could save a life.

Sure some people might want to be a hero and take a BG off the street, but people are entitled to be stupid and not have to pay with their lives. Don't assume a drunk person is a hardened criminal and wants to hurt you. We don't need anymore incidences like the kid tricker treating and catching 00 Buckshot through the door. And of course that is an extreme example, but give people the benefit of the doubt, if she had waited a second or two the guy may have been like "WTF, this isn't my house, and left, maybe not, but if you are not about to die don't "jump the gun."

[Cooler]

I am screwed My home defence gun is a suppressed Mark 23, my CCW gun is a Glock 18 (the only good Glock) or on occasion carry an TRP Tactical Operator.
I don't think I am really screwed since my store is attached and shares an address with my residence if they break into my house they have broken in to my store where I where I store weapons. nasty evil black machine guns. The type of things we all don't want on the street i the wrong hands. And for my Glock 18, unless I flip the selector it's a Glock 17.

[TexasJim]

I have a USPfTach in 45 and I know when and when I cannot use it. It's real simple in Iowa it has to be life or death to myself or another. That is it and only it.

If I ever have to use any of my weapons, I would regret the day. But as someone menchened before (SHUT UP) law enforcement is not your friend then!! Even if you know the officer as a friend. just keep asking for your attorney and don't wait till that night to talk to one either. (You conservation before and after is confidentail, so no harm it having a guy or gal ready.) Tell them your name and address only other wise you will need your attorney present for questioning. Keep it simple.

Your not going to think to call 911, if one of your children is screaming bloodie murder. Don't play games with the 911 phone system, they do record what is being said and it you explete some foul language at an intruder who is about to murder your child, They, the jury, and everyone else willl have only heard you!!!

Wait to call 911 when you are sure your home is clear of intruders, and everyone in yoiur family is safe. Have a safe room planed for family to meet you in.

Do not leave the intruder alone if he's dead or just injured, have someone from the safe room call 911 after. TJ

[HK_Lova]

My home defense gun is a suppressed Mark 23, my CCW gun is a Glock 18 (the only good Glock)

Amen on the Glock, and the Beretta 93R; you lucky people and your FFL's ;)

You might be alright though, considering you own a gun store, you could say you have to familiarize yourself with merchandise. Plus it's more understandable (to those who sadly do not) that a gun store owner might be packing something more "exotic" than your run of the mill handgun, given weapons are the means of your income.

[TexasJim]

In Iowa they just recently re-did a case baise on the supreme court that was on "DatelineCourt TV," first.

The second trial was granted by the state supreme court because the guy who was shot and murdered, medical records were not allowed in court on the first trial.

Farmer A the supcet, bought a farm out from under farmer B who had rented the farm for years to run his cattle on durning the winter, till crop time come. Farmer A has to honer the lease with the selling farmer and farmer B till it expires.

Farmer A shuts off the water to the place that farmer B watered his cattle. Farmer A stating that the pump was acting up on the well there, and did not inform Farmer B about shutting the well off.

Farmer A & B are bitter rivals. Farmer A paied a rediculas sum for the property and Farmer B was getting closer to retirement so he didn't bid as high.


Farmer A wanted to plant crops sooner that the previous owner ever wanted to.

Farmer B after checking his cattle after Farmer A shut off the water, went looking for Farmer A,( to ask why he did that?)

They(A&B) met on a common gravel road, and Farmer B pulled his truck across the road blocking Farmer A's path.

Farmer B get out of his truck and approaches FarmerA's truck. Farmer A gets out of his truck and pulls a loaded 22 caleber rifel from his back seat and shoots Farmer B right between the eyes. Farmer A goes into a transe (according to expert tesamoney from an expert at the second trial) "it was like a fuge state."

Farmer A can lift the body of farmer B into his truck, so he hooks a log chain around FarmerB's feet and drags him up the road for 3.5 miles.

After he pulls Farmer B out into a field and stuffs his body into and old sisturn, covers the opening and covers his truck tracks. Leaving Farmer B's body all contorted and broken in this sistern.

Farmer A parks Farmer B truck in the ditch making it look like an accident.

Farmer A then goes home and goes in and gets his wife and drive to town, gets a haircut, goes grocie shopping with his wife and goes home to a normal evening.

The comunity spent 4 days looking for Farmer B's body before they found it.

The bring in Farmer A for questioning and he unloads the whole story. A said he was scared of B who had no weapon or club or anything in his hands.

He testifies on (Dateline Court TV) that he shot an unarmed man!! Then begins crying like a two year old. That trial ened with a conviction of first degree murder which in Iowa carries a Life sentence w/out parole.


The second trial was moved across state. Farmer A's confession was tossed. He didn't get on the stand this time and was found gulity of manslaughter in the first. He was sentenced to 14 years, with his good behavior Farmer A will walk out of prison a free man in October of 2007.

Farmer B's wife filed a wrongful death suit on Farmer A and has won a judgement of 12 million and counting, but Farmer A has transfered everything or hidden it all on relitives farms or places....

This guy got off with a large injustice!!! I will always remember to use the defence "I was scared of him!" TJ

[AviatorDave]

As far as a night-stand gun, no problem. It is hard to make a case against someone using any kind of weapon in a home invasion type setting.
But as to using the Tac as a CCW, not on my life. Remember, you will be judged by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty. If you have ever been called for jury duty (I have been called multiple times) and have seen the types of people the lawyers (both sides) want to set judgement it will make your hair stand up.

Either that or judged by one with at least a few people that consider jury duty a very important one. For the very reason that many people try to get out of it, and half the ones that can't are morons, I TRY to get on the jury. One was a federal case involving identity theft. GUILTY! The other was a child predator case. The other 10 people were worried about all the "ooh, but he had a hard life as a kid". I say other 10, because it was myself and one other guy against the 10. Everyone agreed that he did it, but wanted to go easy on him due to all the BS "mitigating circumstances" of the defense. It took 3 days, and my head nearly exploded listening to all the other whiny mamby-pamby apologists on the jury, but one by one, me and the other guy (Jarl, I think his name was) convinced the rest to throw the book at his sorry ass. GUILTY! The evidence against him was so undeniable, there was no way I was going to back down.

But generally, you're right - both sides want to win at all costs, regardless of guilt or innocence. It would be better if both sides really did want to know the truth, but the really just want to win, and suppress anything that hurts their side's case.

[diesel1959]

Thankfully, Texas has VERY strong laws and public opinion in support of defending the home. In addition to that, they've just added the Castle Doctrine which, I believe, will take effect very shortly. The Texas Castle Doctrine simply provides the presumption of reasonableness in use of deadly force in the favor of homeowner. It even goes beyond the home though, for it covers home, car, place of business/employment as well. The courts will have to come up with a way of dealing with this new tableau; however, it is far better to have this presumption working in your favor, IMHO, rather than having to take on the burden of having to prove the reasonableness of your self-defense actions.

I work every day as a cop and for me, in Texas, the last thing I'll ever do when off-duty and faced with an intruder, is to identify myself as such during "the moment" (doing so can seriously affect my rights under chapter 9 of the Penal Code). When I'm home, I'm home and I'm a homeowner--defending the family manse. It's really quite simple--if you come into my home at night, univited, it's either you or me. That's it. I won't retreat from my home and I have no legal requirement to do so--no matter what the scenario. My family and guests that stay with us are told that if that alarm goes off in the middle of the night, get low and stay low in whatever room you're located, and stay put because I'm coming . . . . It's up to me to protect my home and it's up to the responding officers to document what they find. My home has departmental "special" weapons in it and I've got at least eight NFA-registered corporate weapons as well. I feel duty-bound to protect them as well as my family and myself.

To the question at hand--I'll use what I've got at hand. Usually that is one of my P7-series or a shotgun. I have no qualms at all regarding what is engraved by a gun manufacturer on the side of a weapon with which I might arm myself . . .

[orfeo]

#1 DON'T SHOOT ANYONE if you can possibly avoid it. Run away if it's an option.

#2 If you must use deadly force to defend yours or someone else's life, feel free to use whatever object is readily at hand, no matter what words may be stamped on it, including "Tactical" or "Combat" or "Estwing" (carpenter's hammer) or even "Tiffany's" (mother's lamp).

#3 Use as much force as is required to DECISIVELY stop the threat, and no more. If you don't need to kill him, don't.

#4 Call the police, state the basic facts, but tell them as little as is reasonably possible without appearing evasive. Ask for your lawyer before you continue any detailed dialogue. :)

[NonConformist]

So, here's the question:

Would you / do you use a gun marked "TACTICAL" in 1/2-inch high letters as your primary defensive handgun. Here's the basic pro/con arguments:

PRO:
Great gun, little slicker than the stock USP/USPc, looks hella mean in my hands.

CON:
"TACTICAL" + "Match Trigger" + Threaded Barrel = field day for the attorney who wants to hang you after your shooting. Shoot someone with Black Talons out of this gun, and they'll give you another 10 years in the electric chair.

Interested to hear the thoughts out there. Personally, I have to say "negatory" to this one.


Massad Ayoob? Is that you?

A good shoot is a good shoot. At least in free states like Florida anyway

[AviatorDave]

#1 DON'T SHOOT ANYONE if you can possibly avoid it. Run away if it's an option.

#2 If you must use deadly force to defend yours or someone else's life, feel free to use whatever object is readily at hand, no matter what words may be stamped on it, including "Tactical" or "Combat" or "Estwing" (carpenter's hammer) or even "Tiffany's" (mother's lamp).

#3 Use as much force as is required to DECISIVELY stop the threat, and no more. If you don't need to kill him, don't.

#4 Call the police, state the basic facts, but tell them as little as is reasonably possible without appearing evasive. Ask for your lawyer before you continue any detailed dialogue. :)

#1 reminds me of Monty Python. RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

I don't like the run away option. Ok, maybe if it was a crippled intruder, or a one legged intruder or something, maybe a really fat intruder. Ok, or if one is chain smoking and has a horrible smoker's hack. But otherwise I'm not turning my back on someone to run unless I run out of ammo or the gun jams and I can't find something else to beat the crap out of them with.

[Syntax360]

Since this one has been resurrected, I thought it worth mentioning that I expressed the same opinion over on TheFiringLine that I did earlier in this thread and Massad Ayoob somewhat pounced on me for it and said it lawyers making cases based on the equipment happens way more than I would think. Just thought it might be worth mentioning since his name keeps getting dropped...

I still stand by my opinion.

[derekste]

#3 Use as much force as is required to DECISIVELY stop the threat, and no more. If you don't need to kill him, don't.


I would disagree. In my CCW class, they told us to shoot to kill. Again, this is in Iowa where the only way you can legally use deadly force to defend yourself is if you are confronted by deadly force.

[newgunner]

the same can be said of glocks... ARE YOU A GANGBANGER?

[H&K 4 LIFE]

I feel that if in the analysis of a shooting the defending party was found to do everything within their power to prevent having to use a firearm to defend themselves, including reasonable retreat, then the "looking to shoot someone" argument is null and void. If the ownership of some guns marked "tactical" or "combat" imply that the owner is itching to kill someone but there response to a situation dictates otherwise I see no reason why the words on the gun would take center stage in the issue.

Remember, actions speak louder than words.

[Max-the-Silent]

I'd worry about surviving the confrontation before I worry about a potential civil suit somewhere down the line.

Depending on your location, if you ever have to use lethal force you're going to be on the receiving end of a wrongful death suit in any case, so just get on with the real problem - living to fight the damn thing.

Seriously, I know what Ayoob wrote on the subject, but the WDS's I'm familiar with never hinged on the name on the weapon, or the ammo used.

Get out of hand out in the street and shoot up the city in the process of defending yourself, that you have to worry about. Get two or three x's solving the problem in a clean shoot, plaintiff’s lawyer will need something bigger than the words Combat or Tactical engraved on a slide

[bnsutton]

You're going to get on the stand and a lawyer(civil)/prosecutor(criminal) is going to hold up your weapon and try to make you look like a cold blooded killer.
"Sir, why did you kill my clients husband/citizen with this offensive man killing machine? I mean it says Tactical. Why would you need a tactical weapon? Why did you purchase a Tactical weapon? Isn't this overkill sir?"
"Well sir, it was on sale at my local gun store so I got it. It was a deal I couldn't pass up. It's just a factory pistol sir and it hasn't been modified in the least. Your client/scumbag was trying to kill me and I did what I had to do to save my life. Nothing more."
A lawyer/prosecutor is going to do this. Like it or not, that is his job. I believe that you may have a little more trouble with a jury(civil or criminal) if you used some souped up race gun with a 2 pound trigger. Some people react differently when they hear something like this and it makes them think that you may have been looking for the fight. It's a jury of people so it's hard to tell how things will shake out but if you have a unmodified factory pistol it should make things a little easier. This is just my opinion. Like others have said if I'm in a deadly force encounter I'm going to use whatever I have at hand to win. Know the laws of your state. If you did right then you did right. Where the race gun will hurt you is if there is any gray. I personally don't think the USP 45 Tactical is going to draw too much attention from a jury because the trigger is good but not that good. I love my Tactical. It's a tack driver but I normally carry my P2000 or sk off duty.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Ben

[Shakey]

It doesn't matter what is stamped on your gun, or how mean it looks. If you're involved in a shooting brace up. You will need a lawyer and odds are pretty good you will go to court to defend your actions. At least that's what you had better be prepared for if you choose to use deadly force. At the very least you're going to have a lot of explaining to do and you will be without your weapon for quite some time. As long as it is legal to possess in your state a shooting is a shooting. Doesn't matter if it is made with a USP45 Tactical, or a Colt Detective Special. You still have shots fired and a room temperature body in your house to discuss with the man. Hopefully you'll never have to find out. My house gun is either my USPf9, or a Walther P5 9mm. My Tactical 45 is a range gun.

[JLStorm]

Im thinking about getting a USPCT simply for the shorter grip, but extended barrel to make hopefully as accurate as my uspf. If asked, I would simply tell the truth

[Max-the-Silent]

You're going to get on the stand and a lawyer(civil)/prosecutor(criminal) is going to hold up your weapon and try to make you look like a cold blooded killer.
"Sir, why did you kill my clients husband/citizen with this offensive man killing machine? I mean it says Tactical. Why would you need a tactical weapon? Why did you purchase a Tactical weapon? Isn't this overkill sir?"
"Well sir, it was on sale at my local gun store so I got it. It was a deal I couldn't pass up. It's just a factory pistol sir and it hasn't been modified in the least. Your client/scumbag was trying to kill me and I did what I had to do to save my life. Nothing more."
A lawyer/prosecutor is going to do this. Like it or not, that is his job. I believe that you may have a little more trouble with a jury(civil or criminal) if you used some souped up race gun with a 2 pound trigger. Some people react differently when they hear something like this and it makes them think that you may have been looking for the fight. It's a jury of people so it's hard to tell how things will shake out but if you have a unmodified factory pistol it should make things a little easier. This is just my opinion. Like others have said if I'm in a deadly force encounter I'm going to use whatever I have at hand to win. Know the laws of your state. If you did right then you did right. Where the race gun will hurt you is if there is any gray. I personally don't think the USP 45 Tactical is going to draw too much attention from a jury because the trigger is good but not that good. I love my Tactical. It's a tack driver but I normally carry my P2000 or sk off duty.
Just my 2 cents worth.
Ben

Hire a competent attorney. Most will keep you off the stand. Hire experts to testify on your behalf (if things go that far.) - Not Ayoob!

WDS are generally filed against individuals with deep enough pockets to make it worth the effort for the attorney filing the suit - protect your assets ahead of time! If an attorney doesn't smell that easy payout, he may not take the case in the first place. If you got no billed by the grand jury, the bad actor has a record, and you don't look like an easy mark, he will absolutely look elsewhere for a pay day.

MtS, with a million dollar umbrella, trusts, and corp cover.

[Shakey]

I would disagree. In my CCW class, they told us to shoot to kill. Again, this is in Iowa where the only way you can legally use deadly force to defend yourself is if you are confronted by deadly force.

You never train your weapon on anything you don't intend to destroy. The operative word there is destroy. If you feel threatened to the point at which you draw your weapon and pull the trigger your intent is to stop the threat without regard to its survival. At that point your own survival is all that matters. The only place you'll see cops, soldiers, or armed civilians shooting to wound is in Hollywood and on the boob tube. I'm sure it happens on occasion that a bad guy is wounded, but that wasn't the intent of the shooter. If you have exhausted all of your options and are down to shooting in self defense all bets are off and the outcome can be deadly.

[Zebra 24]

I don't consider it a problem. I carry my TAC on duty and off duty. I can justify it by my department policy. Even if I were a civilian I could justify it by the fact that most of the departments around here allow it for the cops. The people around here don't consider carrying a gun or the defensive use of a gun a bad thing. As long as tyou are right when you pull the trigger...

[orfeo]

You never train your weapon on anything you don't intend to destroy. The operative word there is destroy. If you feel threatened to the point at which you draw your weapon and pull the trigger your intent is to stop the threat without regard to its survival. At that point your own survival is all that matters. The only place you'll see cops, soldiers, or armed civilians shooting to wound is in Hollywood and on the boob tube. I'm sure it happens on occasion that a bad guy is wounded, but that wasn't the intent of the shooter. If you have exhausted all of your options and are down to shooting in self defense all bets are off and the outcome can be deadly.

I agree. . . I wasn't intending to say that you should try to shoot to wound. Just to clarify, I was intending to say that if you've shot the BG and he is no longer a threat, you don't need to put 2 more into his head and kill him (like in the movies). Once you know the threat has been stopped, any further shooting at the BG is wrong, illegal, and unecessary.

[Bighunt1975]

After reading all of the post, I have to say it is a terrible thing that we have to always be concerned with the legality of defending our homes and loved ones. If someone enters your home uninvited they are not there to make you breakfast in bed or do your laundry while your asleep, they are entering with the intent to commit a crime, weather it be burglary, rape, murder, etc. I have all the respect in the world for the law enforcement community, though I find myself wondering what the hell is wrong with the individuals that interpret the laws. How often does a law enforcement officer have to go through a ton of grief in a justified shooting. How often does a criminal or the family of a criminal sue in civil court for a monitary award after they have been shot commiting a felony, even after the shooting was found justified. Laws are in place to protect us, unfortunately they protect the criminals as well.

[gunut45]

the way I look at it is if someone was to try to harm me or my familiy. The last thing I'm worried about is what happens afterwards.

Yes! And as long as the shooting is justified I don't think it really matters (unless you live in CA or the like)

[BanditSRT8]

I would disagree. In my CCW class, they told us to shoot to kill. Again, this is in Iowa where the only way you can legally use deadly force to defend yourself is if you are confronted by deadly force.

That instructor should lose his license.

You do not shoot to kill, you shoot to STOP the threat of imminent danger. Period.

If you ever uttered the words "shoot to kill" in court as part of your defense, you will not see sunshine for a very, very long time.


Back to the original topic....

A factory built gun, not modified by me afterwards that said "Tactical" should mean nothing. The attorney can state what he/she wants, but my response would be quite simple. "I bought the gun for its history of reliability if I ever needed it to defend my life I knew it would function. I did not buy it because it said "Tactical" on the slide, it was not even a factor."

I didn't buy my XD9 Subcompact because it has a pretty engraving on the top of the slide, I bought it because it fit my needs for safe concealed carry.

[Bighunt1975]

I totally agree with you Bandit, using a weapon in self defense should be your last resort, and only resorted too when you are in fear of your life. The definate purpose is to stop the attack and not kill the attacker.

[ulose2]

I wonder if they also try to find and use your posts on gun forums as evidence ...

+1, I was thinking the same thing.

[robert14]

I agree with the majority of the posters - the primary issue will be is the shooting justified. If not, then it will not matter the markings nor the caliber of the weapon.

[99999]

Good point treelogger, but until I hear some hard facts ill steer clear of running a tactical or modified weapon for personal defense I would hate to find out the hardway or be the first one to be sued because some ahole broke into my house and I shot him with a hair trigger.

So... I guess I better not be using my UMP as a home defense weapon then? =)

[cmdrdredd]

There is a case right now underway in Arizona, where a woman is in-court, attempting to protect her financial assets, because she shot a large, inebriated man who all but broke down her door in the middle of the night (after pounding on it for some time and demanding admittance). She took a defensive position in her hallway, and upon his entry, shot him with a .357 magnum handgun.

In the civil proceeding, she has spent several years defending against the notion that she was "lying in wait" for this "poor, drunken, confused man", and that only a "bloodthirsty" person would arm themselves with a "magnum" handgun (the tools of Dirty Harry, Charles Bronson, and othersuch executioners).

Now I make no bones about the fact that this is a distasteful bastardization of the law...but it happens quite commonly in courtrooms. Prosecuting attorneys -DO- twirl murder weapons in front of juries (Grand and otherwise), and -DO- attempt to capitalize on features and attributes of weapons for shock effect.

While we can debate whether or not it -should- be this way, to say otherwise is to ignore the realities of the modern legal system.

That's why I like FL. If there's an unwelcomed intruder in your home and you are in a state of fear, you legally are allowed to use force on that person. Can't do anything about it. You don't want them there, it's your property, end of story. Obviously you have to use your head. Look for a way out first. In other words, any ability you have to persuade the invader to stop and leave must be exhausted and that person must have intent to harm you or your family physically. Being unarmed, it's likely they'll run away if you brandish a gun at them. If they come at you with a knife and they won't back off when you're drawn down on them, then you know what's gonna happen. That's the difference. Someone unarmed being shot is a bit harder to overcome than someone who was armed. It will likely be assumed that a person breaking into a home with a weapon will have intent to harm someone.

It's not an "open season" but it does give homeowners and residents the ability to defend themselves.

[bullpup guy]

This whole it won't look good in court stuff was started by Massad Ayoob in the 1980s and has since been grossly used out of context--usually by people on internet forums.

When Ayoob brought up the issue, most cops were carrying revolvers and often did not have hollowpoints. If you look now, almost all cops have some type of high capacity semiautos loaded with hollowpoints and many have patrol rifles in their cars. So if a prosecutor or opposing attorney was to raise this point, it would be easy for your attorney to point out that you are using similar guns and ammo to the police.

If you want to carry this to its logical absurd conclusion only defend yourself with an over&under shotgun loaded with birdshot or maybe a target pistol & don't own any tactical type guns, lest a prosecuting attorney paint you badly, never mind that the firearms might not be something that would see you through a violent encounter.