The Importance of Pistol Caliber in Home Defense

[Gadsden]

Most the time it’s the scumbags family that does the suing

Yep, it's the ghetto lottery.

 

[Ready_fire_aim]

These types of conversations are fun! Going round and round on these topics we’ve all discussed and read about lots and lots. Never gets old... haha

I know from shooting critters that I prefer to have more gun as opposed to less gun. Even perfect shot placement with small calibers can be a slow kill. More power along with good placement, and things fall dead into their own shadow.

For defense use whatever you’re comfortable with and whatever you have. A hit with a .22 is better than a miss with a .44 mag.

Thankfully most of us shouldn’t ever have to use a weapon against another human. If we’re referring to being at home, invest in home security, door strengthening, alarms, etc.. probably won’t ever have to use a gun.

as a side note.... I hate how these type of conversations always turn into a bunch of discussion about the law. It disgusts me that good citizens can’t defend themselves without fear of imprisonment.

 

[Tanis143]

And, as stated in the other thread, you need to read the actual law. Aries quoted the pertinent section: "I believe the relevant section is page 42
TITLE 21 § 1289.25 PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER.."



Your assumptions are predicated upon whether a DA decides to prosecute.

Our comments are predicated upon the lawfulness of the self defense shooting.

If the SD shooting is unlawful, then, it no longer applies to the earlier conversation (to which you alluded). The earlier thread was entitled, "At what point are you justified 2 use force?"

The title presupposes a legal shooting. That's all. Any other speculation is an entirely different topic.

If one is justified, he is immune. But, if anyone (foolishly) accepts your comments as legitimate, then no one will attempt to defend himself against aggression.

And that perspective belongs in The People's Republic Of Kalifornistan. Not in a free state.

And again, incorrect. You, along with PBramble are not looking at the difference between a criminal case and a civil case. Remember, in a criminal court you have to be found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Just because a DA doesn't pursue charges does not mean the act was justified, they just may not have enough evidence to guarantee a conviction. The threshold in a civil court is much different and requires less evidence to rule for the plaintiff.

This is exactly why section H of 1289.25 of the SDA exists. Simply not getting charged by the DA does not mean you won't or can't get sued in a civil court. Even IF a DA said it was justified, that is not a judgement by a court and you can STILL get sued. Until a judge rules your act as justified, you can be sued.

 

[StLPro2A]

As far what will and will not be used against you at trial, the Prosecutor will use everything so yes, IT, whatever IT maybe will be used against you, you and your attorney will have to convince the jury of the legitimacy of IT.

In the Rittenhouse trial the Prosecutor tried to use Ritterhouse's use of FMJ ammo against him. In the Zimmerman trial the prosecutor tried to use the fact that Zimmerman's pistol had a round chambered against him.

Yes, anything and everything will be used against you. It's up to you how much you give the Prosecutor to use against you and how a jury will perceive it.

The only Defensive Gun Use you will win, is the one you avoided. Enter that world judiciously. Your life will never be the same.

 

[StLPro2A]

Yep yep...that sh*t will definitely get you 20yrs to life if you blast an intruder and exsanguinate him in your home, car, barn etc.

That flare launcher is gonna be a ***** to convince the prosecutor was necessary. Wanna watch that argument in person.

 

[Aries]

And again, incorrect. You, along with PBramble are not looking at the difference between a criminal case and a civil case. Remember, in a criminal court you have to be found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Just because a DA doesn't pursue charges does not mean the act was justified, they just may not have enough evidence to guarantee a conviction. The threshold in a civil court is much different and requires less evidence to rule for the plaintiff.

This is exactly why section H of 1289.25 of the SDA exists. Simply not getting charged by the DA does not mean you won't or can't get sued in a civil court. Even IF a DA said it was justified, that is not a judgement by a court and you can STILL get sued. Until a judge rules your act as justified, you can be sued.

Beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Snattlerake]

I' have been waiting several years for someone to use that line in this forum.

Precisely why I have bowed out. The internet is forever.

 

[ricco]

as a side note.... I hate how these type of conversations always turn into a bunch of discussion about the law. It disgusts me that good citizens can’t defend themselves without fear of imprisonment.

I agree it is disgusting but it is a fact of life.

I hate that this month I will spend the cost of a new gun or some other toy on self defense insurance. Given my lifestyle, my age, where I live and the very few things in which I will become involved, no white knight or sheepdog here I mind my own business, the chances of me needing a firearm are practically zero. But should that unlikely event occur and a Prosecutor thinks he/she can get a conviction I don't have the five or six figures for bail and another 6 figures for a legal defense so I choose to get the insurance. At my age pretty much any sentence is a life sentence so a plea bargin probably won't work. In these times where everything is political there is every reason to assume there will be an attempt to prosecute. In a self defense incident there will be three attacks from the outside, the attack from the bad guy, the attack from the criminal justice system and the attack from the civil justice system. All of these attacks have the potential to be life destroying and to not prepare for all of them is only being partly prepared.

 

[El Pablo]

I don't want to kill anyone either. But I also don't want some scumbag, who breaks into my house, wind up suing me for shooting him.

Their family could instead.

 

[Steelers Fan]

From what I understand self defense ammo is not designed to necessarily kill, it is about energy transfer, in theory. The shock of the bullet striking them is supposed to incapacitate the attacker, knocking them out much like a punch to the jaw. In practice all sorts of strange things occur. Guns and Ammo had an account years ago of a drug addled axe wielding assailant hit 18 times with a .357 Magnum, the person defending themselves used speed loaders 2 times! Finally after being struck by the 18th round the assailant fell.

Sounds like a real "Scarface". Had to be on angel dust, meth, cocaine, etc. Or if caliber was correct, ammo was not - rat shot.