Spoke to a Judge... What is he talking about?

[jerryinoregon]

Just a thought. Was the judge referring to you emptying your gun on an assailant who was no longer a threat? If you stop someones unlawful agression by legal gunfire then continue to fire illegally after they are no longer a threat then you have become the agressor and yes you will be charged with manslaughter. Sorry thats the facts.

 

[HunterLee]

I always stagger my loads. JHP, then a FMJ, then a JHP, then a... you get the picture. You will never have the time to load what is required (as you will never know what is required). So, I know for a fact that every second round will either penetrate the door, window, wall (if required); or will be able to give maximum stopping power to a soft target.

 

[eng]

I read somewhere that cocked and locked carry was illegal in Clark county, Nevada. No verification on that.

I wouldn't carry reloads for two reasons: Commercial manufacturers hav e stringent standards for processes and components which even the most careful home reloader would be hard pressed to duplicate. Also, there will always be that prosecutor who says something like "Oh, Mr. Guntoter, so commercial ammunition wasn't deadly enough for you. You had to go home and brew up extra-lethal bullets of your own". Makes defending you harder.

While we're on the subject, mark the box from which you take your carry ammo as being carry ammo, date it and sign it. Stay with that lot number when you replace any round such as the round in chamber. If there is a dispute with the prosecutor over the circumstances of the shooting (such as distance), gunshot residue could be a crucial part of the case. Not being able to recreate those circumstances also makes your lawyer's job harder.

 

[echoawake]

There was a shooting in my home town in Pennsylvania. A man walks out of a bar after shooting pool. Another man follows him outside yelling slurs at him. After the man tries to leave, the other individual stands in front of his truck. The first man then gets out of his truck, pulls out a 25 auto and shoots into the ground. The man comes at him yelling shoot me, so he does, right in the stomach. Sounds like self defense?
The D.A. charges him with attempted murder. I would love to be called for that jury:angry:

 

[Neal]

Self defense is not a crime of violence, is it?

 

[Neal]

I guess I need to be careful then, because I bought a Kimber 45 as my carry gun on Wednesday. I can't fathom that the caliber would have anything to do with it.

 

[Aresye]

There was a shooting in my home town in Pennsylvania. A man walks out of a bar after shooting pool. Another man follows him outside yelling slurs at him. After the man tries to leave, the other individual stands in front of his truck. The first man then gets out of his truck, pulls out a 25 auto and shoots into the ground. The man comes at him yelling shoot me, so he does, right in the stomach. Sounds like self defense?
The D.A. charges him with attempted murder. I would love to be called for that jury:angry:

I'm kind of confused as to why the man got out and fired a warning shot? Being in the military, even within a self-defense case we are held liable by SECNAVINST 5500.29 (Use of Deadly Force). According to that instruction, the use of warning shots is not authorized.

When regarding the right to carry, drawing your weapon means you have intent to use deadly force. Warning shots, regardless if you're military or not, are not a good idea. Was this man a lethal threat standing in front of his truck? I don't think so. If he was holding a gun or knife and blocking his path, it would be different.

 

[echoawake]

The warning shot was not the point I was trying to make. The other man has had problems before with beating up people and is a known bully. The shooter tried to get away. Even after being shot, the man was advancing and trying to beat him. There was mention of a weapon on the man that was shot but no one is talking.

 

[Aresye]

In that case, the man definitely should not have been charged with attempted murder.

 

[Booga]

Self defense is not a crime of violence, is it?

Depends on the state.
Let me use Washington state as one example of where the judge the OP quoted is absolutely correct.

In Washington state, homicide is a crime. If you shoot someone dead, you have just committed homicide. State law provides an exemption to the penalty of that crime when it has been shown that it was justified.

If it is not 100% obvious to the DA that it was justifiable, you may very well be charged with homicide or even murder, as the bar incident mentioned a few posts up shows us. At that point a judge might toss out the charges if it is clear enough to the judge that it was justifiable. If he doesn't think it's clear enough, he's going to let a jury decide.

MOST of the DA's out there look at the situation and not so much at the tools used. There are some that will be clueless and assume "scary/macho named bullet" shows prior intent to kill. Others will say to themselves, "I can get another conviction for my scorecard if I play this just right. I'll be running for mayor soon if I can keep this pace up."

The problem isn't necessarily the judge, but the DA in your area.

 

[eagleks]

Some "liberals" have argued against hollow points, as they are intentionally to provide more killing power, so therefore you must intend to be kill theml. Like you are supposed to only wound them, ya know ? I think if you shoot someone with a gun, you are not trying to wound .. but stop them from killing you and whatever goes along with that. Period.

He must be of that ilk.... and an idiot.

 

[Daugherty16]

Probably Time for a Scenario Discussion Re: Use Of Lethal Force

The Fish case was complicated. There were big dogs running loose adding to the threatening posture of the aggressor, and even a screwdriver on the aggressor's person, but the evidence pointed to him not being an immediate threat, not having touched or struck Fish, and the "reasonable man" test failed. Any time you use lethal force that evaluation will be part of the DA decision to charge or not. What would a "reasonable man" have felt, or done, in the same circumstance? Unfortunately, that evaluation is aided by hindsight (which you don't have the benefit of as the situation is evolving around you) and flavored by the personal beliefs and prejudices of the evaluator and ultimately the jury, if it goes that far.

That said, you definitely could be steered by determining what ammo the cops use. Or a check of your statutes. I recommend both and if you still don't get it, you could consult your attorney. Preferably one schooled in, and favorable to, matters concerning firearms and self-defense.

And never stop your own education on matters concerning use of lethal force. Would really suck to be placed in a life/death situation, shoot and survive, only to be charged, convicted, lose your wife, family and freedom. Like Mr. Fish. Did he make a bad decision to shoot? Did the guy in the parking lot? Bet they didn't think so at the time, but i bet they do now...

 

[hardballer]

This is why; if you have the opportunity to vote against a liberal judge and you sit home and suck a beer down or find some other lame excuse for not voting, this is what you end up with. Maybe everyone here votes on a regular basis. Wish that were true.

This missive is for those lazy A's who think someone else will do it.

 

[crstrode]

Of course "you could be charged with manslaughter".

Anytime a person kills another they "could be charged with manslaughter"

Run over someone in your car - "could" be manslaughter.

Your poodle bites a hemophiliac - "could" be manslaughter

Your lwqn mower slings out a rock and conks the neighbor - "could" be manslaughter.

However, simply put, that judge is a maroon.

 

[maybejim]

Some "liberals" have argued against hollow points, as they are intentionally to provide more killing power, so therefore you must intend to be kill theml. Like you are supposed to only wound them, ya know ? I think if you shoot someone with a gun, you are not trying to wound .. but stop them from killing you and whatever goes along with that. Period.

He must be of that ilk.... and an idiot.

That's because some liberals are total idiots. Hollow points are used to stop over penetration. They are used so if you shoot someone that needs shooting, you don't accidentally shoot the guy behind him who didn't need shooting. So it's a safety issue. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[xzeler8]

from what i've read and gathered, your best bet is to carry what your local law enforcement carries, whether that be sherrif, local pd, or state pd. They usually carry different ammo, so find which one works best for you and carry that. It's just another "precaution" you can take in an effort to eliminate BS claims by the prosecutor should you ever be in the unfortunate situation that requires you to use your gun. It's really hard for a lawyer to even attempt the "crazy super killer bullet" angle when he'd be lumping your local law enforcement in the same bunch...my .02

 

[BradAnderson]

So, I had an interesting conversation with a local district magistrate. He informed me that if I were to use my .40 cal Taurus for self defense (which is what it is for), with a full magazine of federal HydraShocks, I could be charged with manslaughter?

Does it matter how many rounds are in your self defense carry gun? Does it matter what type of ammunition it is? I am confused by the whole deal. Is he just telling me something so he can hear himself talk or what? I have never found any type of written rules to govern such a statement.

Anyone help me out? I am just trying to find the truth. Has anyone ever even heard of soemthing like this?

Also what are the rules for a properly permitted concealed carry weapon? are they to be unloaded when carried or is it ok to have a concealed carry cocked and locked?

Thanks for any input.

Jordie

I have NO idea.

In order to be guilty of manslaughter, you have to have killed someone via some type of negligence-- i.e. you shot wildly and hit the wrong person.
However when you discharge a firearm, it's a given that you are USING DEADLY FORCE-- and so you can't be held accountable beyond that. If your plea of self-defense is upheld, then you are ABSOLVED from your use of deadly force against the person in question; and so it wouldn't matter WHAT type of weapon you used.

You might get collared if the weapon was ILLEGAL for you to have in the first place; but that would be for the charge of possession-- not manslaughter: deadly force is deadly force.

Now if you used it recklessly and killed the attacker AND an innocent person, then yes, you could be found for manslaughter due to negligence, if it was reasonably forseeable that this coudl result from that type of weapon and ammo. However that's the ONLY way; again, you can't be absolved for using deadly force, but still found guilty for KILLING the person you were permitted to use it AGAINST-- that's just too retarded even for the government.

 

[BradAnderson]

from what i've read and gathered, your best bet is to carry what your local law enforcement carries, whether that be sherrif, local pd, or state pd. They usually carry different ammo, so find which one works best for you and carry that. It's just another "precaution" you can take in an effort to eliminate BS claims by the prosecutor should you ever be in the unfortunate situation that requires you to use your gun. It's really hard for a lawyer to even attempt the "crazy super killer bullet" angle when he'd be lumping your local law enforcement in the same bunch...my .02

If that were true, no one would need gun-permits, since no jury would convict an innocent person for carrying WITHOUT one. Believe it or not, however a jury wil often convict you for doing ANYTHING that the cops are permitted to do; they see the cops as the "guardians of justice," the "good guys" etc who "know what they're doing, etc; meanwhile they'll consider you to be just a plebian idiot who shouldn't even HAVE a gun. So they judge by a double-standard.

First rule of law: it doesn't HAVE to make sense; the jails are FILLED with people who were locked up for NO good reason. A simple trip to traffic-court should clear up any such illusions.

 

[BradAnderson]

Depends on the state.
Let me use Washington state as one example of where the judge the OP quoted is absolutely correct.

In Washington state, homicide is a crime. If you shoot someone dead, you have just committed homicide. State law provides an exemption to the penalty of that crime when it has been shown that it was justified.

If it is not 100% obvious to the DA that it was justifiable, you may very well be charged with homicide or even murder, as the bar incident mentioned a few posts up shows us. At that point a judge might toss out the charges if it is clear enough to the judge that it was justifiable. If he doesn't think it's clear enough, he's going to let a jury decide.

MOST of the DA's out there look at the situation and not so much at the tools used. There are some that will be clueless and assume "scary/macho named bullet" shows prior intent to kill. Others will say to themselves, "I can get another conviction for my scorecard if I play this just right. I'll be running for mayor soon if I can keep this pace up."

The problem isn't necessarily the judge, but the DA in your area.

That would apply to ANY use of deadly force, not just the gun and ammo mentioned in the OP.
If you discharge a firearm, that's DEADLY FORCE; and either it was justifiable self-defense or it wasn't.

NO prosecutor is going to argue that you can only discharge a firearm with NON-deadly force-- it would just defy all credibility. Even the stupidest jury wouldn't buy it.

 

[kn1080]

Lets all be very careful not to violate the criminals rights.... or, even worse, hurt their feelings.