Lasers and the Law [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Lasers and the Law


bspurs5
07-08-2010, 18:29
I was reading yesterday about an incident where a man had been convicted of manslaughter after shooting and killing his attacker, because his weapon of choice was a 10mm; "overkill" was the consensus of the jury.

That got me thinking about the aftermath of having to use your weapon, and what a high paid lawyer may find to use against a law abiding weapon carrier.

I am seriously considering adding a laser to my Glock, and was wondering if anyone has heard of any such cases, where having a laser installed was used against a gun owner in a self-defense case. Sounds crazy, but I'm sure lawyers could make a case out of it. If you made a lethal shot in self-defense, I could see a lawyer claiming that you were shooting to kill, rather than shooting to stop an attacker.

Any thoughts, or seen any similar stories?

mickdundie
07-08-2010, 18:36
Lawyers can make a mountain out of a mole hill. It's what they do.

They could make a case because your shoes were laced backwards if they wanted to...but the jury has to buy it.

Mick:thumbsup:

Jon_R
07-08-2010, 18:37
What are the laws on the use of deadly force in your state?

IMO it would not matter in FL.

The standard to use deadly force is that a reasonable person would be in fear of death or serious bodily harm in the situation they are in with the information they have or should have.

In that case deadly force is lawful. You can use a 10MM with a laser or you can use a shovel or a pointy stick whatever deadly weapon you want. If you are wrong and the deadly force was not lawful it won't matter you are screwed anyways.


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

meangreenlx50
07-08-2010, 18:48
I believe the case you are citing is the case involving a man named Fish and I believe the other things he did lead to his conviction. I'm sure someone else will chime in soon about this with more info.

Jon_R
07-08-2010, 18:53
I believe the case you are citing is the case involving a man named Fish and I believe the other things he did lead to his conviction. I'm sure someone else will chime in soon about this with more info.

If you are referencing the Fish case the most fundamental problem he had was at the time the burden was on the defense to prove it was self defense. In AZ and most places now the state must prove it was not self defense or that you acted unlawfully in your use of force.

That is a huge difference on the burden of proof. When the defense is trying to prove it was self defense the prosecution can throw all sort of flags up to bring in doubt the action was lawful.

8541/9999
07-09-2010, 06:38
Lasers on weapons systems are used for 2 purposes, sometimes both happen at the same time. 1 as a sighting device that lets the shooter focus on the threat not their weapon. 2 as a deterent so deadly force is not necessary. I work at a laser sighting company and we have loads of testimonials from LEOs and self defense minded Americans who used their lasers to deter someone from their course of action and surrender. If required to shoot they knew the shot would not endanger others. Also lasers speak the international language no translation needed for those that dont speak the same language you do. A good defense lawyer can use the presence of a laser on a firearm to show you did everything possible to deter the person from their course of action before you pressed/pulled the trigger.

bspurs5
07-09-2010, 06:43
That last post was helpful, and rather reassuring. Thanks for your perspective on that.

RayB
07-14-2010, 19:00
In Wiskonsin, it is a felony to point a loaded gun at anybody. Think about that for a minute. It is a felony to point a loaded gun at anybody. Who in their right mind, but a Lefty activist-lawyer (or former Lefty activist-lawyer), would even craft such a law? And who but Lefty antigun activists would support such law? Well, that is the law here, in Wiskonsin!

Do you mean to tell me that if a guy breaks into your home, and makes advances towards you or a member of your family, even pointing your loaded gun (which isn't of much use if it's unloaded) at the intruder is a felony? Yes, in Wiskonsin it is! :freak:

Now, whether or not they'll charge you with that felony depends on a number of things... But the point is, the victim of the violent crime described above, is immediately put on the defensive along with the perpetrator. You see, in Liberal-speak, it takes two to tango... But like so much Liberal-speak, it falls apart under the light of scrutiny; still, it is often the law of the land!

I recently heard Obama’s second Supreme Court appointee, Elena Kagan, state that a law should not be struck down by the Supreme Court "just because senseless...” Keep in mind that just recently, our Second Amendment rights were reaffirmed by the Supreme Court on a 5 to 4 vote… :shocked:

Why was the question of our Second Amendment rights even before the Supreme Court? Because those rights are under attack! They are always under attack! Keep in mind that Elana Kagan will eventually replace one of those above-mentioned 5 to 4 votes! Keep in mind that the Second Amendment will come under attack again! :wow:

So, you're sitting at a red light, doing just what you should be doing at a red light, and some piece of human garbage, brandishing a knife or gun, tries to jack your car, and you shoot the creep. [I]In Wiskonsin, you are in a pile of trouble! For Wiskonsin, like Illinois, has no concealed carry provision. And here, in my county, weapons must be transported in a case, unloaded, and separated from the ammunition.

In Wiskonsin, we've gone about as far as we can (without the outright banning of firearms) to make sure you never use your gun in a self-defense situation. Remember, it takes two to tango...

Sound too stupid to be true? I'm nearly a life-long resident of Wiskonsin, and I'm telling you it is not too stupid to be true--it's the way it is here!

Keep in mind that in today's England, self-defense is ostensibly illegal. You will be punished for using deadly force to protect yourself in England these days. And if you don't help us stem the flow of Liberalism here in the states, it certainly will get that bad here!

Not into politics, you say? Well, you'd better be! The same people that seek to deny you your Second Amendment rights, that same bunch that deems self-defense “unnecessary”, and wants to criminalize it, are very much into politics! And they seek to rule we the people! :steamed:

I've read an awful lot of material on this subject (prosecuting the justified use of firearms) over the years, and I do recall a case where a guy legally carrying a 10 mm handgun, encountered some psycho on a hiking trail...

The psycho had two very aggressive dogs with him, and decided to amuse himself by letting these dogs intimidate and harass the gun carrying hiker. Despite his frantic pleas to have the dogs back off, the psycho did no such thing! Emboldened by his power over this stranger in the wilderness setting, the psycho encouraged his dogs to keep the hiker pinned down!

When the hiker drew his weapon, rather than order the dogs to back off, the psycho ordered them to attack! The hiker shot and killed both dogs, and the psycho then attacked the hiker! The hiker shot and killed his human attacker as well...

If memory serves, the guy was acquitted of the charges levied against him by the DA, who made much ado about the fact that he was carrying a 10 mm handgun, with flesh mangling hollow point ammunition. This DA was clearly a Lefty activist-lawyer, with strong antigun leanings—an academic with an agenda and a reputation to build!

Commenting on this case was the famous Massad Ayoob. Ayoob's message--give thought to your own legal defense, should you ever need one! And be an active part of that defense, because the odds are your lawyer will know next to nothing about guns and ammo, and the jury will know even less!

This hiker-guy came within a heartbeat of serving a long prison sentence because of his 'unnecessary use of deadly force.' The court would not allow the long criminal history of his human attacker to be known to the jury... And indeed, his lawyer was ignorant of firearms and ammo. The hiker-guy left it to his lawyer to do it all, which almost proved to be a critical mistake!

What a difference it might have made early in the proceedings, to have pointed out to the jury that the .357 magnum revolver carried by the court's bailiff, was loaded with flesh mangling hollow point ammunition! Further, it would have been a simple matter to prove that hiker-guy’s 10 mm caliber was the semi-automatic equivalent of the bailiff’s .357 magnum revolver! Suddenly, hiker-guy’s choice of weapon and ammo, don’t seem so evil, do they?

While the hiker-guy, who shot in self-defense, did by close call win the day, his barely effective legal defense cost him his life savings... Free, but broke, the man that did nothing wrong, other than dispatch a known scumbag, would have to start over…

8541/9999's comments on this matter are important because they would turn a given prosecutor's attack (the fact that the shooter used a laser) right back on the prosecution, racking up a point for the defendant! This approach could have been used in the above-mentioned case regarding the hollow point ammunition, had the defense attorney been as sharp and as weapons savvy as 8541/9999 is!

Consider that hollow point ammunition is designed to fragment and fall apart when it encounters the slightest resistance, versus a solid slug, which might easily penetrate soft obstacles and travel a considerable distance to do dreadful, even lethal damage to an unintended target! Hollow point ammunition is the only thing a responsible shooter would carry! Would your lawyer know that? Don’t count on it!

God forbid, you ever find yourself in a similar situation, log the names of some possible expert witnesses to speak on your behalf! Be prepared to convincingly and honestly explain your choice of weapon, your ammo, your light, your laser, and your actions!

And please, get active, follow the issues, and vote these antigun Libtards out of office at every opportunity!

Every state in the union should have a Castle Doctrine! Every state in the union should have a Stand Your Ground Doctrine too!

This is still the United States of America! Let's keep it that way! :patriot:

--Ray

Alaskapopo
07-14-2010, 19:59
Not really a big deal. My gun stays at the low ready and never gets pointed in at someone unless I am about ready to shoot them and that is justifiable self defense. You should not point your gun at someone to make a point.
Pat

RayB
07-14-2010, 21:21
Not really a big deal. My gun stays at the low ready and never gets pointed in at someone unless I am about ready to shoot them and that is justifiable self defense. You should not point your gun at someone to make a point.
Pat


Ah, Pat... :wavey:

First, look again at your qualifications... :shocked:

Plus, nobody said anything about whipping out a gun to make a point. :whistling:

Second, I either did a complete fly-by, or you didn't read my post at all. I do apologize for its length, but some things can't be explained with, "It sucked!" Please elaborate, "It sucked hard!" Please expand on that, "It sucked really hard!" :upeyes:

Third, you are greatly oversimplifying things. If I'm in bed, and there's a crash in the night, and my wife's beside me, I couldn't give a rat's behind about muzzle sweeping the intruder, be it man or beast! In my state, if it was a man, I would technically have committed a felony by pointing my gun at him--which in that situation is asinine! :shakehead:

--Ray

Alaskapopo
07-15-2010, 00:49
Ah, Pat... :wavey:

First, look again at your qualifications... :shocked:

Plus, nobody said anything about whipping out a gun to make a point. :whistling:

Second, I either did a complete fly-by, or you didn't read my post at all. I do apologize for its length, but some things can't be explained with, "It sucked!" Please elaborate, "It sucked hard!" Please expand on that, "It sucked really hard!" :upeyes:

Third, you are greatly oversimplifying things. If I'm in bed, and there's a crash in the night, and my wife's beside me, I couldn't give a rat's behind about muzzle sweeping the intruder, be it man or beast! In my state, if it was a man, I would technically have committed a felony by pointing my gun at him--which in that situation is asinine! :shakehead:

--Ray

No offense was meant sorry about that. I don't know the fine details of the law down there, but it seems similar to what we have here with Assault in the 3rd degree a felony. If you place someone in fear of imminent physical injury by means of a deadly weapon you have broken the law. Now if you are defending yourself you are fine obviously. This law was meant to punish those who threaten others with weapons.
Pat

Black Magick
07-15-2010, 14:26
Lasers on weapons systems are used for 2 purposes, sometimes both happen at the same time. 1 as a sighting device that lets the shooter focus on the threat not their weapon. 2 as a deterent so deadly force is not necessary. I work at a laser sighting company and we have loads of testimonials from LEOs and self defense minded Americans who used their lasers to deter someone from their course of action and surrender. If required to shoot they knew the shot would not endanger others. Also lasers speak the international language no translation needed for those that dont speak the same language you do. A good defense lawyer can use the presence of a laser on a firearm to show you did everything possible to deter the person from their course of action before you pressed/pulled the trigger.
I think this is a great point....