Larger claiber deeming "too aggressive"?

The "What Works, What Doesn't," "Recommendations & Experiences"

Moderators: carlson1, Crossfire

User avatar

Robert*PPS
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:10 pm
Location: Lubbock, TX

Re: Larger claiber deeming "too aggressive"?

#31

Post by Robert*PPS »

I think it was already eluded to here, but after watching the Zimmerman trial, I'm convinced that a prosecutor will use anything they can against you. Some of the simple, everyday facts of concealed carry were used to paint Zimmerman in a negative light such as:

the fact that his gun was semi-automatic
It had no external safety
carrying the gun "topped off" with one in the chamber and a full magazine
The fact that the gun had a 4.3 lb trigger

I'm sure I'm missing something, but those are the ones that I recall sticking out in my mind. Ultimately though, I don't think the caliber will matter much. If you have a DA that's ready to prosecute you on a self-defense case, then he'll paint any caliber out to be bad.
User avatar

JALLEN
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 3081
Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 4:11 pm
Location: Comal County

Re: Larger claiber deeming "too aggressive"?

#32

Post by JALLEN »

Those are just arguments. Are they persuasive? Probably not to this crowd, but to a jury of those not as familiar with handguns, maybe.

The attorney's job is to make the argument (s)he judges best suited to persuade the trier of fact to see things her(his) way. The opponent's job is to make the counter arguments, poo-poo the other gal's(guy's) arguments, point out the exaggerations, half-truths, misstatements, non-sequiturs, emphasize the facts counter to that argument, "if the glove don't fit, you must acquit!" It is a battle of wits, and sometimes half-wits, skill and judgment, persuasion, and very, very serious.

When you are standing there in court with your client's life and fortune in your hands, it's serious!
Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me.
User avatar

G26ster
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2655
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:28 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Larger claiber deeming "too aggressive"?

#33

Post by G26ster »

ajwakeboarder wrote: However, a group of friends and i have been wanting to go on a hiking/camping trip in the Colorado mountains sometime. We've discussed bear defense and both the .44 mag and the .454 Casull have come up in discussion.
The U.S Fish & Wildlife published this:

"The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a growling bear, for even a skilled
marksman with steady nerves may have a slim chance of deterring a bear attack with a gun. Law
enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality --
based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and
defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons
defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured
experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries. Canadian bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero
reached similar conclusions based on his own research -- a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from
a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired
versus when bear spray is used."

K.Mooneyham
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 2574
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:27 pm
Location: Vernon, Texas

Re: Larger claiber deeming "too aggressive"?

#34

Post by K.Mooneyham »

G26ster wrote:
ajwakeboarder wrote: However, a group of friends and i have been wanting to go on a hiking/camping trip in the Colorado mountains sometime. We've discussed bear defense and both the .44 mag and the .454 Casull have come up in discussion.
The U.S Fish & Wildlife published this:

"The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a growling bear, for even a skilled
marksman with steady nerves may have a slim chance of deterring a bear attack with a gun. Law
enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality --
based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and
defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons
defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured
experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries. Canadian bear biologist Dr. Stephen Herrero
reached similar conclusions based on his own research -- a person’s chance of incurring serious injury from
a charging grizzly doubles when bullets are fired
versus when bear spray is used."
I'd like to see a caliber versus no injury/injury comparison. If someone is carrying a "popgun" (in relation to the size of the bear), and shoots said bear with it, then I would imagine the bear is going to get VERY, VERY upset while not being all that injured...and want to take it out on the person that injured them. Good to know that pepper spray does seem effective against bears, though.

TexasCajun
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1554
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 4:58 pm
Location: La Marque, TX

Re: Larger claiber deeming "too aggressive"?

#35

Post by TexasCajun »

Robert*PPS wrote:I think it was already eluded to here, but after watching the Zimmerman trial, I'm convinced that a prosecutor will use anything they can against you. Some of the simple, everyday facts of concealed carry were used to paint Zimmerman in a negative light such as:

the fact that his gun was semi-automatic
It had no external safety
carrying the gun "topped off" with one in the chamber and a full magazine
The fact that the gun had a 4.3 lb trigger

I'm sure I'm missing something, but those are the ones that I recall sticking out in my mind. Ultimately though, I don't think the caliber will matter much. If you have a DA that's ready to prosecute you on a self-defense case, then he'll paint any caliber out to be bad.
The more I read about the Zimmerman trial, the less valuable it becomes as a teaching/experience aid. The prosecutors were forced to try the case. In the overwhelming absence of facts & evidence they had to resort to misdirection, manipulation, and hysterical theatrics. None of which worked. Can a zealous ADA argue caliber = cowboyish bloodlust? Yes they can. But the defense can just as easily argue that X caliber is commonly available and widely used by sportsmen and law enforcement, so it doesn't indicate anything of the sort.

I think the actions of those involved in an incident will come under much more scrutiny than the size of the gun/bullet. In other words, why did you shoot will be a bigger question vs what did you shoot.
Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.
NRA TSRA TFC CHL: 9/22/12, PSC Member: 10/2012

Stratman
Junior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 5:00 pm

Re: Larger claiber deeming "too aggressive"?

#36

Post by Stratman »

I agree with others who have commented that agressive prosecutors will use anything they can to skewer the defendant. Pointing out the fact the defendant was carrying some type of "cannon" would be a good point to make to swing a jury picked in part by the prosecutor to be possible gun haters. My personal opinion is something like a .380 or 9mm is perfectly adequate for carry protection. The 9mm round has been dispatching threats satisfactorily for thousands of shooters for over 100 years and it is also more safe to use with others around because it probably stays in the bad guy. The prosecutor would maybe have no case if a person legitimately shot a clear threat but if that round, say a .44 magnum or some other large "hot" round also killed the person behind the BG the story could be different.

IMHO carrying unnecessarily big cal pistols is not necessary and it opens a person for several different problems. While I would not cary a .22 cal for protection the truth is a well placed .22 LR old school lead nose will kill a threat just as dead and instantly as a .45 JHP+P from an 1911 Colt.

texanjoker

Re: Larger claiber deeming "too aggressive"?

#37

Post by texanjoker »

Youtube and the internet are full of experts. IMO one should carry what they are comfortable and proficient with
User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: Larger claiber deeming "too aggressive"?

#38

Post by VMI77 »

An ethical prosecutor wouldn't use that argument, but then in a case of legitimate self-defense he wouldn't bring charges in the first place --so if you're charged in such a case I'd expect every dirty trick in the playbook, including the "aggressive gun." But then, there's always the Joe Biden defense that a handgun isn't as powerful as a 12 ga shotgun, and our VP says shotguns are the cat's meow for self-defense.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com

Cedar Park Dad
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 2064
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:19 am
Location: Cedar Park Texas

Re: Larger claiber deeming "too aggressive"?

#39

Post by Cedar Park Dad »

XGC Radioactive wrote:I watched this video on youtube about a guy and his experiences carrying. He was an older gentleman, whom had been carrying for many years.

he did start by saying that anything said in his video was his own personal thoughts, but it got me thinking.

He said in the court of law, he believes that the state attorney may come at you for carrying a large caliber (.44mg? I don't think anyone is concealing a 500S&w) with the attack of you being "aggressive", even though it was self defense, and that it may be better to carry a smaller one, like a .380.

This confused me. Has anyone ever heard of such action taken by a court?
I mean I don't plan on taking a Desert Eagle and shoving down my pant leg, but it's the process that counts. It's perfectly legal.
i think if you're wielding a WWII 20mm Oerlikon or such, that might be considered "too aggressive" :mrgreen:

rockinar

Re: Larger claiber deeming "too aggressive"?

#40

Post by rockinar »

XGC Radioactive wrote:I watched this video on youtube about a guy and his experiences carrying. He was an older gentleman, whom had been carrying for many years.

he did start by saying that anything said in his video was his own personal thoughts, but it got me thinking.

He said in the court of law, he believes that the state attorney may come at you for carrying a large caliber (.44mg? I don't think anyone is concealing a 500S&w) with the attack of you being "aggressive", even though it was self defense, and that it may be better to carry a smaller one, like a .380.

This confused me. Has anyone ever heard of such action taken by a court?
I mean I don't plan on taking a Desert Eagle and shoving down my pant leg, but it's the process that counts. It's perfectly legal.

Sound like a typical claim some clueless old fart would make. Sounds like nonsense you would hear in a CHL class or at the counter in a gun shop. Carry whatever you are comfortable with.
User avatar

fickman
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 1710
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 2:52 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Re: Larger claiber deeming "too aggressive"?

#41

Post by fickman »

Funny.

I haven't seen this thread in almost a year. I was reading it and formulating a response in my mind when I ran across my own post (having forgotten that I contributed to the conversation). . . it was almost exactly what I was planning to write.

Guess I'll have another cup of coffee with the time I saved myself.

:tiphat:
Native Texian

Dan20703
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1033
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:26 pm
Location: Katy, Texas

Re: Larger claiber deeming "too aggressive"?

#42

Post by Dan20703 »

In this case, Yes.

Image
There will always be prayer in schools as long as there are tests.

"It's all about shot placement."- David (Slayer of Goliath)

Image
Post Reply

Return to “New to CHL?”