AR v. Shotgun for Home Defense Stigma???

[NS2]

With regards to using an AR platform weapon v. a shotgun for home defense, do you think there is a greater likely-hood of prosecutorial manipulations between the two weapons? 

Do you think that using the AR platform makes one more likely to be branded a, "para-military kook," or a person wanting to use a, "more extreme," level of deadly force?  (yes, I know how absurd that sounds.)

In my mind, the application of deadly force is just that.  One is either justified, or not, in the application of said force.  The tool used to apply deadly force is not in question as long as it is acquired and possessed in a lawful manner. 

Mas, and others, please help out here.  Based on precedent, are those people using an AR system for self defense at greater risk for prosecution?  Is this a regional thing?  If so, which regions are more or less likely to be accepting of the rifle for self defense.

Thank you,

[BikerRN]

I'm not part of the Pro Arms crew, a Gun Dude, or anyone else whose opinion really matters although I do have one that I'm willing to share.

While I agree with you that the platform shouldn't be an issue it often very well may be. Mas can elaborate more on specific cases and such but each jurisdiction will have their own mindset in regards to defense and the platforms used, "the mood of the court." With that in mind the most begnign platform I can think of is the pump action shotgun. It is also the one that has the least amount of range if loaded appropriately. I like a shotgun at handgun distances so to speak.

While the shotgun can be used at longer distances I personally opt for the rifle for distance. The shotgun, and it's use at closer distances, is the only platform I'm aware of that brings to the table the level of stopping power that it does with the least amount of danger to innocents beyond the target. As much as I like firepower I'm more inclined to want to stop whatever threat I'm faced with RIGHT NOW! At handgun distance the shotgun does that admirably.

I was reading an article that may help to shed light on this. Leopard hunters, if they have to follow a wounded chui in to the bush often opt for a shotgun with 00. Leopards are about the same size as a man. If a rifle was the better option why wouldn't they take that for the close in and fast work that such endeavors require?

The mood of the courts will vary and while some won't care what platform is used, some will. That should be a factor in your consideration however I'm not aware of any that won't see a shotgun as a viable option. One can stand in court and point to many "experts", HCI included, that say the shotgun is the best option for home defense. Some of us consider that a clue.

Biker

[MasAyoob]

Scott & Biker, I agree with you both.  It SHOULDN'T make a difference, but I can guarantee you that if it goes to trial, the jury will hear the words "deadly assault rifle" so often, it will take a court reporter going over the transcript to keep count.  We shouldn't be surprised. Lawyers know that for decades now, that "deadly assault weapon" crap has gotten such heavy play in the media that it has influnced the lay public, which of course constitutes the jury pool.

Can it be overcome?  I think so.  Being able to show that you compete with it, for instance, certainly helps.  The rifle's precision shooting capability reduces the danger of a spreading buckshot charge sending pellets past the bad guy toward unseen innocents if a medium distance shot is taken.  The telescoping stock found on most ARs better fit the rifle to smaller statured shooters -- remember, the alpha male of the household is not necessarily the sole wielder of the gun -- and the mild recoil of the .223 likewise makes it more controllable by smaller family members.

Google the jury research by Dr. Glenn Meyer on this issue. I've taken his classroom presentation on the topic.  It's sobering information.

That said, the prime directive is to survive the homicidal attack that required recourse to a gun in the first place.  If the individual can articulate why they chose the AR instead of the SG for that, I would consider them defensible.  I suspect that trainers such as myself, Scott, or someone more local to you would readily testify that the AR type rifle is becoming hugely more popular as a home defense rifle among private citizens, putting it more in "the mainstream of common custom and practice" for home defense.

best,
Mas

[flop-shank]

Vets who used M-16 series weapons can also point out that they are using the very platform that the government trained them to use and that, as a result, they are more comfortable with it.

A good defense attorney ought to be able to explain that there are advantages to the AR platform and that for some people they are a very logical choice.

Look to law enforcement. There has been a huge shift toward the use of rifles. Many of the reasons cops like them apply to homeowners.

[Teamklr2bar]

It seems to new that that would be easily defended in court simply by using the factual ballistic data between a. 223 round and a shotgun at a given distance.  In most home defense type distances the shotgun with any type of load will be exponentially more lethal. If one were to use an evil black rifle they could use the inherently weak performance of the 223 to their advantage.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

[Devereaux]

Unfortunately, what we are talking about here is perception, not effectiveness. I recollect reading an article not long ago (and it may well have been the one Mas alludes to) that showed that juries can be negatively swayed by the "evil black rifle" as opposed to same calibre Mini-14.

Unlike 100 years ago, a large portion of the population of America today are non-shooters. They not only don't own weapons, they have never FIRED weapons. Instead, they have been fed a steady stream of idiotic anti-gun propoganda year in and year out. This builds in certain inherent prejudices. While this can be overcome in court, it simply means more work.

[Teamklr2bar]

DEV....

Yes unfortunately you are correct.   My statement,  I believe still holds true.  If the "EBR" is excessive force the defense attorney can use past cases to establish where a shotgun was used and was not deemed excessive.  Once this established it is simple, factual, scientific data that proves how much more powerful a shotgun (with any given load @ typical home defense distances) than a 223 fired from an EBR.  Now,  this defense may not be plausible with some of the other caliber choices for the AR.  like 6.8, 300 black out, 6.5 Grendel, etc. ..

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

[Devereaux]

TK

Not saying you're wrong. Just saying that in much of the land, especially in the more urban areas, there will be an ingrained prejudice against an AR. This is much like what Grossman described as a human ingrained response to not want to kill another human. You listen to the anti-gun mantra of nasty "assault weapons" all your life, you will tend to associate an AR or AK with "evil".

Like SD, these are things that can be overcome, but that is work. And it is still hit or miss whether or not you will be successful. Your comments are those of logic and reason, especially here where we are all shooters. Makes perfect sense to us. Might not work out there where emotion can trump reason.

I would expect that along the South the tendency would be the least. And I would extend that to mean much of the south, not just the Old South. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and then maybe Utah, Oklahoma. Colorado and Nevada would be more of a toss-up. I would expect Montana, Wyoming, and idaho to align with the pro-gun people. Maybe Kansas. Rest of the country would more likely be more antagonistic.

For whatever advantages the modern, all-volunteer army brings, one big DISADVANTAGE is that many of the people who would have otherwise been exposed to firearms, and AR's in particular, are now without that experience. A professional warrior class tends to concentrate weapon experience within it. Just look at how many people here fit in the warrior class with military experience, then look at the populace in general.

[NS2]

Avoiding the caliber/ballistic argument, it really comes down to knowing what is going to hold up in court.

CYA doesn't mean what you think.  It means can you explain why you made the decisions you made.  These decisions include everything you do to prepare for the encounter, what you actually do during the 3-5 seconds of the encounter and the things you say and do afterwards.

Can you explain why you chose the weapon in a manner that reasonable people would be able to understand.  Can you explain and prove, your degrees of training.  Can you explain why you chose to use deadly force at the moment you did.

I'm certain that some areas of this country are less likely to maintain an open mind about the use of an AR system.  I think it is about knowing the precedents in your area and keeping a close watch as things change, along with being able to clearly articulate why the decision was made to use such a weapon.  

In my region, nearly all LE has gone to the 5.56 caliber AR style patrol rifle.  They load the same ammunition I use in my rifle and that is what I recommend to others.    I'm just as comfortable in explaining my decision to use and recommend the AR as I am in my ability to explain why I carry the sidearm I do.  All of those decisions are backed up by local custom and precedent.  Your mileage will definitely vary in your area, so check it out, listen to what the ACLDN has to say about things and develop a relationship with a local attorney that can help you should you need it.  More over, document your training, use factory ammo for SD and include what you will do and say after using deadly force as a regular part of your training.

Rhetorical...When was the last time you finished a string in competition, safely holstered after scanning for more work and then practiced getting your cell out and calling 911?  Do you know what you will say to the 911 operator?  Do you know how to preserve the scene and identify witnesses?  Plan ahead...please!

[Dave.45]

Back to topic, I think that there really is a pretty serious bias in the non shooting world. When my shooting friends find out I have an AR the usual question is "What kind?" or even "How many?" - for non shooting friends the question is "Why?" (To which I reply "It's fun to shoot!") Perhaps as the AR becomes more and more prevalent in the shooting culture it will be seen as more "normal" in the rest of our society. At the moment, however, I am guessing that defending the AR/AK in court would be dicey. At least here in Western Washington, where the general population gets most of their information about guns from CNN and Hollywood.

[BikerRN]

I'm along the Mexican border and even here it would be dicey at best to use an AR and then articulate to a jury of twelve people why I used the same platform that is being used in the drug wars just across the line.

For me the AR is for four legged coyotes and the shotgun is for the bipedal intruder. I can articulate either platform but anytime you have to rely on another person understanding your reasoning you are gambling. I myself don't like to gamble.

[Teamklr2bar]

For me the end all be all answer is: I am going to use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to protect my family and myself at all times,  always!  I will use whatever is the closest to me and the threat regardless of if it is a rock, axis, cross bow, pistol, rifle,  shotgun,  grenade. ...  well maybe not a grenade.  Haha

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

[Charlie Foxtrot]

   
Interesting article on how juries perceive gender, training, and weapons used in self defense. 

Will It Hurt Me In Court?

Still -- you and yours have to survive to get to court...

[Tennessee Jed]

Interesting material.  I saw a string of posts on a social network site recently, where a group of people were talking about guns and concealed carry permits.  One woman said she understands the need for defending one's self, but said there was no good reason for a civilian to have a semi-auto.  Pretty much everyone on the thread agreed with her.  To them, it's ok to carry a revolver, but not ok to carry a Glock. 

Of course, such thinking is illogical, but I think it shows what one could be up against.  I would not want to be involved in a home-defense case with an AR, and have any of these people on the jury.

[Teamklr2bar]

Jed, its a good thing we live in TN!  Haha

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

[Tennessee Jed]

Teamklr2bar --- To paraphrase a bumper sticker: I may not have been born here, but I got here as fast as I could.

[Teamklr2bar]

I like that.  I am originally from Arkansas so it was a win win for me.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk