From: forda@gtephx.UUCP (Andrew Ford @ AGCS, Phoenix, Arizona)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Shotguns vs Handguns (was: Gun Recommendations Sought)
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:17:43 GMT
Organization: gte

In article <52979@mimsy.umd.edu>, bbx!bbx.basis.com!russ@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Russ Kepler) writes:
# 
[...] 
# As a long time participant in civil cases, I'll make a few comments in
# regard to this thread:
# 
# 1.  Perry Mason aside, the participants in a case don't enter the
#     courtroom without having gone through discovery.  Discovery is
#     where you get all of the dirt out of you're opponents case without
#     exposing all of your good stuff.  You won't really be able to
#     surprise anyone (except the jury) in a case.  If you try, it's
#     likely that there will be countering testimony in your deposition,
#     allowing your opponent to make a big deal of it.
# 
# 2.  In any case such as this there are the hired guns: "expert"
#     witnesses.  In many cases (all I've ever seen) the "expert"
#     witness will support his side regardless of the facts.  You see,
#     if you select your facts carefully enough you can damn near force
#     a decision.  But even a bad expert will be able to give advice to 
#     a ignorant lawyer.
# 
# 3.  You might be able to logically refute a claim, but the emotional
#     point has already been made in the jury's mind.  Taking this
#     "case" into consideration I'd suggest that if you could keep the
#     prosecution from making you out to be a monster you can then play
#     on the jury's emotions and make them feel that you are the victim
#     in this case, and deny any award (and maybe get your legal fees
#     back - but that almost never happens).

Precisely the issue: by making an emotional argument about your concern
for killing an innocent bystander, you appeal to the ignorance of the
jury and play on their emotions.  This covers the selection of JHP.
The cost comparision ($30.00 US for 100 .357 JHP factory rounds vs.
about $12.00 to reload 100 rounds) is an issue that most jurors relate
to.  Also, complaining that factory rounds are too powerful and are
uncomfortable to shoot makes you look more like a wimp than a monster.

# These final notes are for anything thinking like Andrew's quote above:
# 
# Look: if you shoot someone, even in the most justified defense, you'll
# be investigated at the least.  Making that investigation as painless
# involves having as few questions about your motivation as possible. 
# If, at the end of the investigation there's no questions that you
# *had* to do it, and were about as reasonable as you could be,
# minimizes the chance of a civil trial.  If there's a criminal trial
# you can bet that there'll be a civil trial as well (probably waiting
# on the findings from the criminal trial).
# 
# Get a copy of Mas Ayoobs _In the Gravest Extreme_.  That'll tell you
# more than all of usenet, and tell you why these things are important
# as well.  Then come back and chat.
# 

The biggest single factor is the attitude of the jury towards with gun
self defense.  If they are all for it, you'll have little trouble getting
off; if, on the other hand, they are dead set against it, you are in deep
caca regardless of the facts.

Most of the people I know from around here would have a hard time awarding
money to the family of a dead criminal because someone was forced to shoot.

One more thing, police around here seem to accept the self-defense motive
fairly easily.  In one case, a shop owner who fired on a fleeing robber (and
missed) was simply told by the police why he should not have fired (his gun 
was not taken from him, either).  I also recall a case where two guys,
who had been evading police all night, ran into an old couple's home, stole
their car keys at gunpoint, and got in the car to leave.  The old man came
out with a handugn and shot them both: I think one was killed and the
other wounded (or were they both wounded????).  In any case, the police
thanked the old guy and then warned him that he was on thin ice shooting
the crooks as they left.  

[You can threaten deadly physical force to protect property/prevent theft
in Arizona, but you cannot use it until your life is threatened.  Since the
old guy knew the crooks had guns, he felt threatened by trying to stop them
but was not willing to just let them go (exercised his right to threaten
deadly force and fired as soon as he felt threatened - like as soon as he
saw them).  He was not arrested or charged.  Even the local TV news praised
his actions! ]

Another case which comes to mind was last summer when a local resident noted
to persons entering Randy's Liquors wearing overcoats [and, as he put it,
since there was no snow on the ground I became suspicious].  This person
went and got his gun, went into the store, and shot and killed both suspects
when they pointed their guns at him.  This person was questioned at the scene
and released (with his gun) and no charges were pressed.

I guess there are states where each of the citizens above would have been 
prosecuted and sued: I just don't follow that logic and I really don't see
it happening here. 8^)

Maybe this explains to all you guys who think I'm crazy why using handloads
is not an issue to me.
-- 
It's a wonderful feeling when you voted for the winner, but the time to vote for
the guy who "could win" is past: vote your conscience - Marrou/Lord in 92!
Andrew Ford INTERNET: gtephx!forda@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
            UUCP: !uunet!samsung!romed!asuvax!gtephx!forda