Additional legal defense difficulties with Class III?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I don't have any Class III gadgets ATM and hope to never be involved in a self-defense shooting. My "theoretical" question has perhaps been discussed to death, in which case apologies dredging it up again.

Perhaps because class III gadgets are relatively rare, I don't recall reading of civilian self-defense shoots involving for instance legal SBR, suppressor, or full-auto weapons. Surely it must occasionally happen but I don't recall reading about it.

"Common knowledge" holds that it is risky to be involved in a self-defense shooting using reloaded ammo, because the "unusual" aspect of the reloaded ammo could be twisted by unfriendly prosecutors or civil suit lawyers. Haven't the foggiest idea if that "common knowledge" is true.

Along similar lines, if a person happened to use an sbr, suppressor, or full-auto gun in valid self-defense, could the "unusuality" of the weapon pose greater legal challenge in staying out of jail or avoid getting wiped out in a civil suit?

I don't have any axe to grind one way or the other. If the weapon is legal and the facts surrounding the incident are legit, then if justice were truly blind, it wouldn't seem to make any difference. Because emotion does enter into dispensation of justice, just curious it it is generally regarded "more legally risky" to use class III for self defense?

Thanks!

[Capbyrd]

I think we need a lawyers opinion here.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I think we need a lawyers opinion here.

Thanks Capbyrd. Agreed.

Was wondering, for instance-- If a couple of home invaders were shot under justifiable conditions with a pump shotgun it might not draw much attention except maybe brief mention in local news. But maybe if all details of the incident were the same except the home invaders got shot by a full auto suppressed Mac-10, then at the very least it might tend to get more attention?

[Stegall Law Firm]

It probably would get more attention in the news but legally I think the rules of self defense are still more important. In Tennessee it's essentially reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. Worry more about that than about what weapon or ammo you're using.

Keep in mind too that in a self defense shooting your weapon will be collected as evidence and it could be a long time, if ever, til you get it back. If you have an expensive registered NFA firearm you'll be saying goodbye to it for a while.

[gjohnsoniv]

In a half serious tone, it might depend in that case how many times they were shot. With a shotgun hopefully you only had to fire a single shot against each invader, but with a Mac-10 if they were each shot 15 times or something that might look really bad.

[Caster]

I've thought about this many times, though not with a class III, just my EDC. I would, in court, at the end of the hearing, once I was cleared of any charges of wrongdoing and my name was cleared, RAISE MY HAND. The Judge will undoubtedly recognize me and I'd just ask plain and simple. "Your Honor, if I'm cleared of any wrong doing, is not a reasonable request to have my property returned to me immediately? If this trial is over and I've proven to be within my legal rights of self defense, then may I please have my property back sir?"

It would be a nice tool to have when going to the authorities to get you gun back: The judge said, on record, that I can have it back. So give it to me.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Caster

[midtennchip]

There aren't many cases in which a Class 3 weapon has been used. The only one I know of is the Gary Fadden case from 1984. He was a salesman for H&K and used a full auto Ruger AC556 in self-defense. It looked pretty clear that it was self-defense, but the full auto defense weapon was a political issue. From what Massad Ayoob has stated in his American Handgunner article on the case, the first 2 prosecutors on the case would not bring charges, but a third prosecutor was finally put on the case and brought a 1st degree murder charge. Fadden eventually won the case, but it was expensive (luckily, H&K paid for a large portion of the defense, even though the weapon was Fadden's personal weapon).

As Patrick stated, the type of weapon used doesn't really change the legal arguments. But the type of weapon certainly can have an effect on the prosecutor and/or jury.

As for handloaded ammo, Ayoob has argued for years that you shouldn't use handloaded ammo for self-defense. The reasoning is that handloads are almost impossible to replicate for evidence. The most famous case on this issue was the Danny Bias case. That resulted in 4 separate trials (including 2 hung juries, one overturned conviction, and finally a conviction for reckless manslaughter). The GSR evidence (or lack thereof) was the real problem in that case. However, realize that he was charged with killing his wife and he argued that she committed suicide. The lack of GSR on his wife's body was a BIG issue.

Obviously, you have to use your own judgment. The question is whether it is worth the POTENTIAL problem.

[1gewehr]

Let's not confuse issues here.

1) If your legally-owned MAC10/45 is the closest weapon to hand when a bunch of home-invaders burst down your door, hose them down and worry about legality later. Protecting yourself and your family comes first.

2) Understand that ANY attempt to protect yourself is liable to turn into a media circus. Whether you fight them off with a butter knife, or an Uzi, it can still get ugly.

3) Doing everything exactly right just means that you and your family stay alive. You may still have a legal nightmare to go through.

4) Have a lawyer's number to call IMMEDIATELY after any such event.

Keep in mind that prosecutors will seize upon anything they can find to accuse you with. Most jurisdictions want citizens to use the minimum level of force necessary to stop violence. You will need to be able to justify your actions. If you had an industrial-sized can of bear-spray in your hand when the door came down, you will need to explain why you didn't use that first rather than dropping it to pick up the MAC.

Remember that ANYTHING you say to the police can be used against you. That's why you need to call a lawyer ASAP!

I'm not a lawyer. The above is what I have garnered from many years of studying self-defense stories.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

It probably would get more attention in the news but legally I think the rules of self defense are still more important. In Tennessee it's essentially reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury. Worry more about that than about what weapon or ammo you're using.

Thanks Patrick

Yep, try as best possible to make such things unlikely to happen, and if the unfortunate occurs, try to think as clearly as possible if woken up at 3 am.

There aren't many cases in which a Class 3 weapon has been used. The only one I know of is the Gary Fadden case from 1984. He was a salesman for H&K and used a full auto Ruger AC556 in self-defense. It looked pretty clear that it was self-defense, but the full auto defense weapon was a political issue. From what Massad Ayoob has stated in his American Handgunner article on the case, the first 2 prosecutors on the case would not bring charges, but a third prosecutor was finally put on the case and brought a 1st degree murder charge. Fadden eventually won the case, but it was expensive (luckily, H&K paid for a large portion of the defense, even though the weapon was Fadden's personal weapon).

As Patrick stated, the type of weapon used doesn't really change the legal arguments. But the type of weapon certainly can have an effect on the prosecutor and/or jury.

As for handloaded ammo, Ayoob has argued for years that you shouldn't use handloaded ammo for self-defense. The reasoning is that handloads are almost impossible to replicate for evidence. The most famous case on this issue was the Danny Bias case. That resulted in 4 separate trials (including 2 hung juries, one overturned conviction, and finally a conviction for reckless manslaughter). The GSR evidence (or lack thereof) was the real problem in that case. However, realize that he was charged with killing his wife and he argued that she committed suicide. The lack of GSR on his wife's body was a BIG issue.

Obviously, you have to use your own judgment. The question is whether it is worth the POTENTIAL problem.

Thanks Chip

Didn't recall reading about reloads being inconvenient for forensics. That appears to to make sense. Had recalled arguments that reloads may not be reliable enough. Or that the "unusual" nature of reloads might induce undesirable preconceptions of intent among prosecutors or jury.

Thanks for the reference on the Danny Bias case. Never heard of that. Found ayoob's article and at least one discussion thread on "potential problems" of class III defense weapons. In case anyone is interested, here are links to accounts of two relatively recent civilian self-defense with full-auto weapons. Maybe there are better references.

http://www.davehayes...fadden-incident

http://www.afn.org/~guns/ayoob.html

Using a full-auto weapon for home defense might be vanishingly rare and possibly "over the top", On the other hand, never paid much attention to full-auto weapons and yesterday watched some youtube videos of suppressed Mac-10. Looks potentially addictive/expensive if a fella was to give it too much thought.

Had seen semi-auto Macs and Uzis at gun shows which gave the impression of dorky, shoddy-built, expensive and impractical. Not near as practical as a conventional hi-cap pistol. In addition, on many rifles or pistols a suppressor adds sufficient length to appear dorky and impractical. But a suppressor on a Mac 10 is still a fairly compact rigid package. Watching the videos, FA Mac 10 does seem to get the job done. Bullet hose indeed. Accuracy even at moderate distance appeared "close enough for rock'n'roll".

On another thread, the consensus was that SBR or suppressor on semi-auto guns would also be asking for unnecessary trouble in a defense shooting, but did not read detailed justification, aside from making the weapon even more politically incorrect than usual.

Lurking the class III forum, people's motivations for sbr or suppressor on semi-auto guns include both practical purposes and kewlness factor. An sbr would seem more useful in home defense if the weapon of choice happens to be a rifle. And if discharging inside the house, suppression would certainly help, especially with really loud calibers.

I got the impression that some folks might be motivated toward sbr or suppressors specifically for home defense use. And therefore not unreasonable to wonder about the implications if such were actually used in home defense. If I ever had to set off a firearm indoors, the noise certainly ought to be less painful/disorienting with a suppressor.

[midtennchip]

The biggest issues in my mind are the practical effects on the prosecutor and the jury (assuming it gets that far). At least in Tennessee, there have been numerous self-defense shootings (especially those within a person's home) that prosecutors simply don't want to pursue. But if you add a Class 3 weapon into the mix, I think the likelihood of a prosecutor bringing a case goes up (by how much, I don't know). Essentially the same issue comes up for the jury. The likelihood of a successful defense in court is just diminished, in my opinion.

So, if the Class 3 weapon does not provide some additional benefit, I don't see a reason to choose a Class 3 over any other weapon. Obviously, a SBR might be slightly more effective in CQB situations, but is it worth the added risk of prosecution and/or guilty verdict? That's a personal decision everyone has to make.

[Hershmeister]

IMHO It's not the criminal charges you have to be concerned with, it's the civil suit.

Perhaps Patrick can comment more on the problems that an self defense killing with a registered nfa weapon in a wrongful death civil suit might look like.

[DaveTN]

I’ve never seen the weapon or the ammunition be a factor in a criminal case involving a self-defense shooting; that’s internet hype.

However a civil case is a free for all; they will try to use anything they can. If you are going to trial in a civil case in Tennessee on a self-defense shooting we have to assume there has been no ruling that your shooting was justified. If it’s a civil trial for an accidental or negligent shooting; everything will be thrown at you.

[midtennchip]

I’ve never seen the weapon or the ammunition be a factor in a criminal case involving a self-defense shooting; that’s internet hype.

However a civil case is a free for all; they will try to use anything they can. If you are going to trial in a civil case in Tennessee on a self-defense shooting we have to assume there has been no ruling that your shooting was justified. If it’s a civil trial for an accidental or negligent shooting; everything will be thrown at you.

The weapon and ammunition in the two cases listed above were certainly a factor, according to Massad Ayoob (who was an expert witness in the Bias case).

[Reservoir Dog]

I’ve never seen the weapon or the ammunition be a factor in a criminal case involving a self-defense shooting; that’s internet hype.

While rare, it is not hype. In addition to the cases Chip has cited above, there was also a case from Arizona (I think) where the prosecutor really played up the angle that the shooter used 10mm ammo.........calling it too powerful, and meant for LEO use. Ridiculous argument, but I think the guy was convicted. I saw that case profiled on Dateline, or one of those other news shows a few years ago.

[tnhawk]

While reducing my shooting expenses for practice by reloading, I don't want the added expense to needing to defend the type of ammunition used in self defense.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

In a half serious tone, it might depend in that case how many times they were shot. With a shotgun hopefully you only had to fire a single shot against each invader, but with a Mac-10 if they were each shot 15 times or something that might look really bad.

Thanks gjohnsoniv

Yes. Dunno nothin about it, but was wondering if the ordinary man on the street on a jury might consider a home invader dispatched by a burst of auto-fire "too unsporting"? Or "judge and jury" execution? Or perhaps the man on the street might infer a sociopathic homeowner who had been preparing and hoping for years for a home invader to come along so the homeowner would finally have an excuse to kill somebody?

I don't have a shotgun and dunno nothin about em. Have seen what shotguns do to the target backer boards at prentice cooper range when idiots sneak in against the rules and shoot their shotguns. The day after such an idiot, it looks like a few shotgun blasts tore up the backers more than days and days of pistol fire.

Supposedly a 12 guage 00 buckshot round has seven to nine 8.4 mm pellets with muzzle velocity perhaps 1325 fps. Some references claim better defense performance from #1 buckshot, with about sixteen 7.6 mm pellets perhaps 1250 fps. The damage from one shotgun blast might be "in the ballpark" of a pistol-caliber auto burst?

Wildly guessing, maybe an unmodified pump deer gun, non-militarized, non-tacticool-- Maybe that would be perceived more politically correct defense than a pistol? And of course an unmodified ordinary pistol perceived more politically correct than any type III weapon or even tacticool/unusual weapons?

Just thinking out loud, that it would be interesting if "the most politically correct" weapon happens to inflict about as much damage as "the least politically correct" weapon?