10mm Self Defense: A Suitable Defensive Cartridge?
- Thread starter Talyn
- Start date
TEXASforLIFE
SAINT
Busy with new job.
conax
Master Class
Either a situation qualifies as a legitimate case of self defense or it doesn't. If you have the right to shoot a perp, you have the legal right to kill him. (God forbid)
The caliber of the gun isn't as important as the circumstances, the threat the perp presented and the actions of the shooter. IMO, 10mm is no worse than a .45 as far as legal ramifications go. Either you were in the right to shoot or you weren't.
The caliber of the gun isn't as important as the circumstances, the threat the perp presented and the actions of the shooter. IMO, 10mm is no worse than a .45 as far as legal ramifications go. Either you were in the right to shoot or you weren't.
Keystone19250
SAINT
Agreed
HayesGreener
Ronin
If the use of deadly force is justified, it does not matter if it is a .22, 12 ga, 10mm, baseball bat, or F350. You get in trouble when it is not justified, or reckless mishap, and that's when the legal weasels will paint the doomsday gun picture.
Jfal
Professional
I know we all agree on that fact, but a Soros-funded DA? Or any DA, for that matter? Or in the more likely scenario a civil suit, the ambulance chaser pleading with the jury to sway opinion? Just because something makes common sense does not mean lawyers won't lie, cheat and steal their way to a favorable verdict for their client...Let me end my thoughts on 10mm for personal defense by saying I am not ready (yet) to trust my life that lawyers will use common sense when arguing a case.
Keystone19250
SAINT
Exactly however if it’s the bat or the truck it would be about the person, when a gun is used it’s about the gun.
Bassbob
Emissary
Yeah, this is the exact same argument that has been made here many, many times regarding trigger jobs on carry guns. The problem is that after several years of the internet telling us this stuff there is still not one single example of it ever happening.
Jfal
Professional
Bob, I sent a request in to the Armed Attorneys regarding this issue...I'll let you know what (if anything) I hear back from them. Armed Attorneys are a law firm that deals exclusively with 2A issues (they also have a Youtube channel).
On a personal note, I would love to hear back that the Harold Fish case was the only case that has brought a negative light to 10mm. My personal interest is in fearlessly carrying 10mm...but my innate tendency is toward caution...will advise.
HayesGreener
Ronin
Yea though I walk through the valley.....
Jfal
Professional
In my search, prior to hearing back from the Armed Attorneys, I found this issues addressed by Mas Ayoub replying to the question of 10mm as a viable defense caliber:
Mas Ayoob said:
Vandros, I think this breaks down into two different questions: the argument of the 10mm choice as indicia of malice and overkill, and the injury to an innocent party.
The 10mm as overkill thing goes largely back to one highly publicized case, Arizona v. Harold Fish. The defense could have shot that argument down in minutes, but for whatever reason, did not, and subsequent TV interviews with the jurors show that the whole "such a powerful gun must mean malice" BS worked on them. I've seen the same with .45 and .357 Magnum in other cases. It's simply a matter of defendant and defense team being able to articulate their choice and intent. I never worried about that when carrying any of my 10mms, and wouldn't worry about it today.
The shooting of the bystander is the big thing. The old "bible of homicide law," Warren on Homicide said in essence that if the shot was responsibly fired in good faith, it should be treated as if it struck its intended target. The trick is convincing the triers of the fact that you were acting prudently and responsibly when you fired the shot in question. If you didn't need to shoot...or if you fired at a gunman among a tight crowd of bystanders from 25 yards away and investigation showed that you had never fired your 10mm and didn't even know where it would hit, you're toast. If, on the other hand, the circumstances were such that if you didn't try to neutralize the offender from your less than perfect position, he was going to machine-gun a classroom full of little kids, and the shot you had to make was so difficult that even a world champion might have missed, legal doctrine appears to indicate that you should be held harmless.
Alas, complicated questions never seem to have simple answers.
Best,
Mas
When wrong, I will always fess up...
Mas Ayoob said:
Vandros, I think this breaks down into two different questions: the argument of the 10mm choice as indicia of malice and overkill, and the injury to an innocent party.
The 10mm as overkill thing goes largely back to one highly publicized case, Arizona v. Harold Fish. The defense could have shot that argument down in minutes, but for whatever reason, did not, and subsequent TV interviews with the jurors show that the whole "such a powerful gun must mean malice" BS worked on them. I've seen the same with .45 and .357 Magnum in other cases. It's simply a matter of defendant and defense team being able to articulate their choice and intent. I never worried about that when carrying any of my 10mms, and wouldn't worry about it today.
The shooting of the bystander is the big thing. The old "bible of homicide law," Warren on Homicide said in essence that if the shot was responsibly fired in good faith, it should be treated as if it struck its intended target. The trick is convincing the triers of the fact that you were acting prudently and responsibly when you fired the shot in question. If you didn't need to shoot...or if you fired at a gunman among a tight crowd of bystanders from 25 yards away and investigation showed that you had never fired your 10mm and didn't even know where it would hit, you're toast. If, on the other hand, the circumstances were such that if you didn't try to neutralize the offender from your less than perfect position, he was going to machine-gun a classroom full of little kids, and the shot you had to make was so difficult that even a world champion might have missed, legal doctrine appears to indicate that you should be held harmless.
Alas, complicated questions never seem to have simple answers.
Best,
Mas
When wrong, I will always fess up...
Bassbob
Emissary
Which seems opposite the position he takes on trigger jobs on carry guns. Which I have pointed out 50 times here, there is no case in existence that I have heard of or read or that anyone has been able to point me to where a modified trigger hurt someone legally in court over a justified self defense shooting.
TEXASforLIFE
SAINT
On those restrictive states trigger jobs or anything other improvements could mean jail time if not 100% factory? Just never know with these states!
Bassbob
Emissary
Just one case of that happening? Ever?
HayesGreener
Ronin
Absent injury from negligent discharge, it is a non-issue and the product of the imaginings of pseudo lawyers and urban legend. I have been amused at the number of students in the past who have arrived with completely false assumptions about guns and the law. The B.S. Force is strong around such fallacies.