D5CAV wrote:matthew hopkins wrote:First, I clearly said that lethal force is only justified if you feel that your life is at threat
And I clearly said that it is not your place to decide whether the homicide is 'justified' or 'criminal'. It is for the prosecutor and the grand jury. They don't care how you feel. If they feel it wasn't justified, then you are going to trial for 'criminal homicide'.
And where did I imply that you might not face prosecution? This depends on the circumstances of the shooting and the laws where you live--like whether there is a castle doctrine and such. I'm not really sure what your point has to do with anything. It's up to you to know when you can legally defend yourself with lethal force whether you plan on using a .22 or a .44 magnum.
The original point was using something light so you can say you only used birdshot as though you didn't really want to hurt them can backfire because it implies that you did not feel justified in using deadly physical force when in fact any use of a firearm is dealy physical force.
It is your place to decide whether the situation justifies deadly physical force and to be able to articulate it through an attorney. Ayoob teaches what does and does not work, tactics to better avoid and survive lethal encounters as well as the legal aftermath.
BTW, I have taken three classes with Massad Ayoob so I think I have a handle on what he is saying. How many classes with him have you taken?
Then you know the answer to your original question. Massad Ayoob wrote books and articles which describe multiple cases where people were prosecuted for lethal force that they 'felt' was justified. If you can't find 'one example' where people were prosecuted for using some bullet or weapon that the prosecutor didn't like, then either 1. Mr. Ayoob doesn't discuss his writings in his classes, 2. you weren't listening, or 3. you didn't read anything he wrote.
Well, if you have so many of them, as you seem to imply, why not cite one or two here?
While your at it, please cite me any articles where Ayoob advises against using a modern high capacity handgun, rifle, or shotgun for home defense where the weapon is legal.
There is no example of a case where someone was prosecuted for 'using some bullet or weapon that the prosecutor didn't like,' providing the ammo or firearm was legal in their locale and legally possessed by the user. People are prosecuted for their acts that the prosecutor/grand jury felt did not meet the criteria for justifiable homicide.
In examining cases, Ayoob goes over the mistakes people have made in regards to the situations and the legal aftermath and how to do a better job yourself, both tactically and legally.
A common thread is that people said too much to the responding police in the aftermath of a lethal force situation, or did something wrong like kept the ball rolling in a dispute that led to an attack when they could have disengaged and left, or shot someone in a situation that did not warrant lethal force. This doesn't mean that you should not talk to the police at all, only minimize your comments to something like, "That man laying there broke into my house and attacked me. He smashed in that window. The gun/knife he had is laying there, etc." Just enough to let them know you were the legal defender.
Where people get in trouble is by making contradictory or inaccurate statements, especially since they have just likley experienced the most stressfull and frightening experience of their lives so their memory and recollection of the events may not be 100% accurate and other things may be remembered later on, or remembered differently.
For example, Harold Fish first told the police that the man charged at him screaming something like, "I'm gonna kill you, you son of a bitch." He later told the police that he did not remember exactly what the guy said. This makes it seem as though he is lying. He also told the police that the shooting happened around 6:30 when several people actually recalled hearing gunshots at 5:30 (in the aftermath of the terrifying event, Fish certainly did not check his watch and write down the time). Still, this was made to look like he was changing his story by the prosecution.
Another common problem is telling the police at what distance the attacker was when you shot him. According to Ayoob, given tunnelvision and tachypsychy effect, the attacker is likley to have seemed much closer. So when you tell the police that the guy was 6 feet away when you shothim and the gunshot residue tests show that he was more like 15 feet, it can seem that you were lying.
Prosecutors typically throw a lot of things at their targets. Trying to make a big deal out of the type of ammo or firearm used is weak, as I explained. By trying to demonize a particular weapon or ammo that is otherwise legal is a weak thing to do and can easily be countered as I previously explained, by pointing out that those hollowpoints are the most common rounds used by law enforcement nationwide and used because they are less likely to overpenetrate their target and endanger innocent bystanders, etc. Are you going to let the fear of prosecution prevent you from defending yourself or grossly underequip yourself in hopes that the prosecutor will give you a pat on the head?
I've not taken any classes from Mr. Ayoob, but I read his books and articles. Since you took three classes from him, you may be able to get him to testify at your trial if some prosecutor feels your 'lethal force' wasn't 'justified'.
Cute, but weak. Doesn't reinforce your argument that a prosecutor will prosecute you for what legal gun you use and not the particulars of the shooting itself--whether it meets the criteria for justified.
