Use AK-47 as my home defense gun

You could murder your own child, put it in a car, have the police find all the old blood and still get off

You could even have the car destroyed after you won the case and still no one would care

If you were a woman

>AK-47
no such gun

In a criminal trial, no. If it was a good shoot, there won't be one.

However, you will get reamed in civil court over a wrongful death lawsuit because they can award whatever the fuck they want financially.

Women are exempt from the law

Mas Ayoob recommends the Mini-14 over the AR or AK for pretty much this reason. While castle doctrine has expanded greatly, this doesn't give you a shield from liability in civil courts, where your use of a "non-sporting" weapon will be held against you. Only cops have immunity from civil suits when force is used.

another reason to use a shotgun or mini-14 or mini-30 over the AK is that AKs are expensive to replace now, whereas mini-14s aren't. And do you really want your AK to be abused in a police evidence locker where you probably will never see it again?

>Only cops have immunity from civil suits when force is used.

That's only when a shooting occurs as a result of them carrying out their duties.

I have a cop friend with a select fire MP5A3 (which is technically a duty weapon) that he keeps in his home. He said he'd still get raked over the coals for using a FA gun in a self-defense situation at his home or off-duty, even if it wasn't his personal firearm.

>And do you really want your AK to be abused in a police evidence locker where you probably will never see it again?
I'd rather my AK be abused than just about any other gun I own.

Depends on the state. As shitty as Illinois is, if you win the criminal case or the proscecution fails to bring up charges you are granted immunity against civil action.

Judges have way to much power. Must things should already have official interpretations such as the definition of a militia and so on. So that a judge is merely a guy who decides if your case meets that definition, not his own politically motivated bullshit interpretation. Our court systems should also be set up in such a way in that, if you do not have pure concrete evidence that puts the defendant beyond reasonable doubt that he did something wrong, the case should not go to the jury and it should be deemed dismissed. Instead what happens is the jury gets swayed by emotion rather than rationale and actual evidence by attorney's using pseudoscience such as "overkill" and "you use the same gun the police use, therefore you are a serial killer".

Everyone always bitches about the legislative and executive branches of the government, but in my opinion. The most fucked up branch that decays at the heart of this once great nation, is the judicial system. Where you are guilty until proven innocent, all that matters is the emotions upon the jury, and the Judges political bias's against you while further advancing his own politically motivated policies. I fear we have already reached the point where the only solution to reverse the wrongdoings of the powers that be is to invoke the use of the checks and balances between the government as a whole and the people of this nation. That checks and balance being the full use of the 2nd Amendment in its truest form. This century is shaping up to be an interesting one.

Attached: gumball smile and optimism.jpg (250x250, 44K)

>home defense
If you're home alone just bury the body in your back yard and never tell anyone

unless you have an extremely cynical lawyer who somehow manages to bring a civil rights or interstate commerce angle to drag you into federal court

>killing Chris Chan
>not watching him destroy himself
Besides, he said he was done with Megan when he found out she owned guns.

as much as I trust Ayoob I feel that sentiment may be hold over from another time. Using something "non-sporting" might not be as big of a deal these days due to how common guns like the AR-15 are

>Besides, he said he was done with Megan when he found out she owned guns.

holy fuck are you serious

megan is now my dream girl. I am going to dedicate my life to cucking CWC as a gun owner

in the current political environment you can be sure that any decent ambulance chaser worth his salt will try to hype up how many mass shootings have been done with "assault weapons" in order to scare the jury. Shenanigans that are absolutely not tolerated in criminal cases are allowed in civil court since you only can lose your entire livelihood instead of going to prison

It's important to keep in mind that juries are comprised of absolute normies. Any pro-gun jurors will be weeded out by the prosecution, so you need to understand that people who have no functioning concept of firearms will be deciding your fate.

If you boomers could provide cases that show this precedent, that'd be great. You won't, since it's pure fuddlore, like the fuddtards that say using handloads defensively will get you convicted.

The dispositions of civil court cases are obtainable, but regarding whether or not the judgment was influenced by the weapon used, or if it was, to what degree, it's almost impossible to find out.

t. background investigator who works for personal injury/wrongful death lawyers

im gonna look like an asshole here but
>the oj simpson case
is a perfect example of the court having the same evidence and the same suspect for the same crime and in criminal court he was held innocent while in civil court he was convicted guilty.

The preponderance of the evidence is handled differently, and subsequently, judgments issued in civil court have a WAY lower burden of proof than criminal convictions. The idea is that, since you're only getting financially raped and not going to jail, they don't need to tread as carefully with your rights.

They couldn't put OJ away for Murder (not the act of murder, the legal definition of Murder) because the preponderance of the evidence is very high.

I also forgot to add that if you were found to have wrongfully killed someone in civil court, if they find that the circumstances were more egregious, the victim's estate would likely get a larger judgment. So yeah, if they decided you were in the wrong and you were using a fucking MG42, they would probably award them bonus money because you were EGREGIOUSLY out of line.

Nice to live in a castle doctrine state and not have to worry about civil suits.

Attached: image0.jpg (750x869, 79K)

>you need to understand that people who have no functioning concept of firearms
At that point, you need to make sure that the jury knows that your gun doesn't matter.

>castle doctrine prevents you from civil liability

haha wait til he finds out that California is a castle doctrine state too

Attached: 1545243159144.jpg (670x671, 79K)

>excessive force
Not applicable in this situation. Deadly force is deadly force, no matter what gun it comes from. If you used deadly force, you're either justified or you aren't. The gun you use has nothing to do with it.

Depends on the law. In NY, self defense only distinguishes between two types of force: "Physical Force" and "Deadly Physical Force". Once you're authorized to use deadly physical force you can defend your home with a 50cal; There's no such thing as "Excessive Force".

The only thing that stops a woman is getting on the wrong side of Hillary Clinton.

Those are criminal distinctions. I think we've already established ITT that the law is hard to run afoul of just defending yourself. It's civil liability everyone should be worried about.

If you think you may ever have to shoot a dude in self defense, get a lawyer on retainer right fucking now.

What did they mean by this?

Attached: AK-47.png (606x495, 434K)

>letting a jury decide if you murdered a man who tried to murder you
I'd rather a competent judge than a group of 12 who were too stupid to get out of jury duty

100% fuddlore. I think that's actually the most common piece of fuddlore there is.

besides fuddy-five that might be

Some times the people breaking in will sue for excessive force. My uncle shot a .44 magnum at a guy breaking into his truck and hit the guy in the leg then got sued and lost. It was viewed as excessive force because big scary magnum and big scary bullet

stand aside hitler user is taking the reigns

So he really managed to rob your grandpa after all... Damn.

>if you kill someone with an AK the police may view it as excessive force
We live in a world were someone was convicted for using 10mm because it's a big scary round.

I mean uncle, damn I'm high.

You're both gay faggots. All the women in Evangelion are trash and that's the point.

to the gas chambers with you homosexual-san

Attached: best girl.jpg (855x1200, 279K)

>missing the point of the series this hard

Eva was literally 2deep4u.

tfw homeless schizo saga will be how the story ends

this desu
fuddlore

Attached: big.png (432x606, 78K)

what's wrong with Rei besides that one time she was really mean to that scientist lady that Shinji's dad was banging on the side?

Attached: rei smug.jpg (410x416, 87K)

She's an emotionless doll

She's a player character.

Attached: npc_waifu.png (1080x4000, 3.16M)

An interesting proposition, given that Rei's essential motto is "I will do it if I'm ordered to." I'm not saying it's without merit, but I AM saying that it seems a contradiction to this narrative. Further on, I think as well that Asuka eventually does break out of that state with a desire to live for herself, after reflecting, alone, on past traumas.

That's only IF it goes to civil court, won't mean shit in criminal court and it likely won't in civil court either

The other half of the lore:
>Dead men tell no tales

If you're going to shoot a man trying to run away with your TV, make absolutely sure he doesn't get to go in court and swear to dah lawd that he was just trying to find some college money and get his life back on track.

Get a 12g AK then.

Attached: 302pev5.jpg (1024x768, 147K)

>trying to run away with your TV
Can you guys explain this to me? I live in eastern europe (eu), but in my country it would be clean shot, because the guy is still trying to run away WITH YOUR PROPERTY. Also how it is possible to sue someone for injuries suffered while he is stealing/robbing/commiting criminal activity? Also which states are bad in that regard and which are good? I always thought california is worst, but now I read here it has castle doctrine, but that it deosnt matter in the end anyway. Explain yourselves burgers.

use a 12ga that you granpa would use, wooden stock, no extra mag tube.
an old model is better but if it is a new model make it look old and somewhat "rusty" so you look like a nice pal that use is granpa old and unused shotgun to defenf himself and you will be fine

Im from eu and if you shoot someone in the back for stealing your TV, you gonna get sentenced for murder.

Eu has 20+ countries with different laws, usually it is western caliphates that are cucked and people barely have any self defence rights (and only against kaffirs), eastern countries have it better for now and you can even realistically get firearms there for self defence reasons while being common citizen. If you can afford it.

This

Or or or, make burgers

Germany is based af. If you, someone else or something very important is in immediate danger you are allowed to use whatever force neccessary to defend against it.
If you happen to own an AR-15 then be sure to use it. If you by any chance just "find" an AK lying around there use it to blast him into oblivion. German self defense laws are dope

True, EU is far from homogenous. But shooting a nigga in the back, when he no longer threatens your life is not gonna fare well for you no matter what country you're from. European law does not have legal tradition od US, where you pretty much can shoot a person for being on your property.

"Immediate danger" being an important part of defining wheter there use of deadly force was justified or not.

Guy in oklahoma mag dumped on a couple teens while using a full length AR15 and did fine. Thats oklahoma though.

As a lawyer, this is the only correct answer in this thread.

>Massad Ayoob
That nigger is the king of fuddlore legal advice.

He probably lost because lethal force to stop an automobile break in isn't legal in your state. The gun had nothing to do with it.

A lot of people like using pump action shotguns for home defense. Personally I like the Winchester Model 1897, because
1. I love the classics and
2. In a court case scenario, this gun will make me look way less suspicious than something with an extended magazine tube and the word "tactical" stamped on the side of the receiver.
So if you're choosing a home defense weapon, always take into consideration how it will make you look in court.

Attached: 1543100747686.jpg (1564x1564, 1.2M)

OP, youre using some kind of frangible round in your AK right? 5.56x45 has lots of options but 7.62x39 is kind of lacking.
You know golden tiger goes through 32" of gel and keeps going right? thats like 3 people, through your wall, then into the car in your garage.

If by AK-47 you mean specific american-made frankenstein kalashnikovs that call themselves "AK-47" then whatever but it just sounds wrong

So basically the consensus here is that if I use my AR for home defense I’m fucked?

My wife and I have always had the plan that if someone broke in, she gets her gun and moves across the hall to the baby’s room, scoop the baby and hide in the closet while I hold the hallway. Our plan has always been let them do what they will in the kitchen/living room, but the second they come down the hallway towards us, the plan is to blind them with the weapon light and engage them in the funnel of the hall.

Would that really get me in trouble if I’m preventing them from moving towards us? It isn’t like I was clearing room to room looking for a fight. I can see some DA making a case for the “ambush style” attack or something

What if the people in your home are wearing 3A body armor?
Your shotgun won't stop them then

Slovakia. Actual case was that some gypsy tried to steal agricultural equipment from property and since he didnt give a fuck as 70+ yo owner was shouting at him, grandpa went back to house, took sons 7.65 cz and shot at him as gypsy was leaving with stuff loaded on cart of his bicycle. Sadly hit him only to the leg, but it was enough to make gypsy run away without gate. Wasnt even charged with bodily harm, only illegal possesion of weapon and afaik he was declared innocent as he acted in defense. This was 10y ago though, if you just look badly at gypsy (or anyone nonwhite) these days, you are going to get charged with racism and extremism.

Has anything new happened with Chris? Last I heard he was about to lose his house.

He was in court yesterday for unpaid debt

Attached: cwcd.jpg (750x1076, 250K)

this. also, as retarded as it sounds, careful what ammo you use. there is precedent of charging people using guns in self defense as homicide because they used whatever meme super special super pricey exploding rounds.

stick to whatever your police use.

Oh shit, it's finally tumbling down.

Attached: end of cwcgelion.jpg (480x360, 21K)

I sure hope not. I'm in WA and I use my FAL as my HD gat. He's going to hear the drums echoing tonight I'll tell you what.

Attached: 14230211.jpg (306x423, 45K)

Probably just being pedantic. They switched from making AK47s to AKMs in 1959.

So you're saying to get a PSA AR for home defense so you won't mind losing it?

>not having a small pig farm on your property

Attached: 1536881708086.jpg (400x462, 26K)

Rare loss.

>in the current political environment you can be sure that any decent ambulance chaser worth his salt will try to hype up how many mass shootings have been done with "assault weapons" in order to scare the jury
Point out that he's lying and handguns are the most used mass shooting weapon?

I don't think this is as big of an issue as you think. Many defense rounds are marketed as such, for use in defensive scenarios.

You can make up any and everything on how some dumb prosecutor is going to grasp at straws for anything irrelevant to stir up shit but at the end of the day any defense lawyer is going to easily rebuke them all.

What's so hard to understand about "fucked up characters will resonate with fucked up people"? Why do people fail to understand this still?

>there is precedent of charging people using guns in self defense as homicide because they used whatever meme super special super pricey exploding rounds.
There is absolutely no precedent for this in any court and I would be pressed for you to find me any case where a da successfully argued a guy murdered another person based on what caliber or type of ammo used.

No they won't. You use self defense and win in criminal court there is no way some family or who ever is going to bring and sue you for damages in civil.

>So basically the consensus here is that if I use my AR for home defense I’m fucked?
No why would you think this?

okay, well i'll stick with ayoob's suggestions and reasoning just the same. if he says it has influenced court decisions in the past, i'm gonna trust it.

Here's how you get away with this

>I DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER GUNS

but that is fine, ak47 is all you need

You are a fucking idiot

Except what he said was just conjecture based on some cherry picked cases that aren't anything but straw grasps. It's not the norm or the rule to somehow get convicted based on caliber, gun or what ever choice. There are hundreds of thousands of self defense cases every year over every state and the only ones he actually goes out of his way to find these specific ones that are scrupulous.

Says you. What fucking damages are they gonna bring?

>ur honor I'm suing the defendant because he killed my brother that broke into his house and died but was also found to be not guilty.

What fucking damages? That's all civil court is about.

What were you charged with?