Would I get in more trouble (in court) if I shot someone with this .50 Desert Eagle vs. some standard 9mm pistol?
Assuming everything was done in legitimate self-defense situation. I hear court makes you sound like a blood thirsty gun nut if you deviate from any standard self-defense branded models. Is this true?
No.
If it goes to a full trial, the prosecution will try to slander you in any way they can get away with. On the other hand, clear cut self defense usually doesn't go to trial. On the third hand, some user blasted a home invader with a 20mm anti-material rifle.
Yes. You shoot someone with a competition grade pistol, or any customized firearms, opposing attorney will use that against you. Much harder to defend yourself in court to justify.
If you're in a legitimate self defense situation and a silly gun happens to be closest at hand, a silly gun is perfectly legal to defend yourself with.
>20mm anti-material rifle.
>Desert Eagle
kek
I'd be less likely to give a guilty vote while sitting on the jury if someone was using a nice gun...
Nah,he was being serious. There's some green from a few years ago where some user was cleaning his rifle in the garage or something, someone broke in and he loaded a round and blasted the guy as he walked through the door.
Legal yes but you're going to have a hard time defending it unless you've got "turns out my lawyer drinks with the DA" tier luck.
Whether or not you have a hard time defending it depends entirely on the circumstances.
If it's a cut-and-dried legit self defense sitation it won't go to trial.
If that's iffy then is exactly right and the prosecutor will try to use it against you. The same could be said in a civil trial if you are sued over the shooting. In that case it all comes down to the details of the situation. Like user said above, if your defense situation is legit and the deagle, custom gun, whatever, was the closest thing at hand then you have a sound explanation for it.
>with this .50 Desert Eagle
Claim it's anti antisemitism if they try to give you hard time over what gun you used.
>opposing attorney will use that against you
And they tried to use "fully loaded" against Zimmerman, It doesnt matter from KelTec to Deagle it's all the same, if it has bullets it's bad
Lmao what faggot state do you live in.
I think the idea that 'if you shoot someone legally with a cool gun, you will go to jail' meme comes from the fact that legal defensive shootings aren't talked about anywhere NEAR as much as shootings that lead to a court case.
I can only imagine how much sobbing and screaming OP would receive from a jury of 50-year-old cool wine aunts.
I'll take
>What never happened for $5000 ,Alex.
yeah i feel like if it was legit it would have made headlines
fake shit is still hilarious to imagine though
Just say as little as possible and let your lawyer do most of the talking.
Idk guys
I feel like if youre using your suppressed .300 blackout AR15 Pistol, you're going to have a bad time trying to convince a jury that you were fearing for your life
Versus you who used a humble shotgun.
Then again even if you did use the shotgun, the prosecuters will probably demonize you for owning scary shit at all so I guess we're all toast.
Yeah right. "I put money into my self-defense piece" is a perfectly valid excuse.
Also Phil Fish
theyre from minnesota, not (((our greatest ally)))
move the fuck out of new jersey jackass
I dont even live in New Jersey
Im just afraid of trusting my freedom to box wine soccer moms amd fudds
then buy a fudd approved gun dipshit, compete in IDPA
Good thing I only own fuddshit
This. Only aproved home defense stuff have to be made of steel and wood. And no fancy extras or calibers.
For carry, you can pack a regular plastic semiauto, but no punisher t-shirt, no gun mods apart from maybe night sights and no obscure or badly seen calibers.
Of course never use ammo with "killer names" as RIP or other silly stuff.
Best bet for home defence, a wooden pump 12g shotgun with some kinda powerful birdshot.
Serious answer, they did a psych study where they gave subjects "you're a juror" and then an identical vignette except for the guns used. Home invasion scenario if I recall correctly. Half were scary guns (AR, black shotgun, black handgun) other half were not scary (mini 14, wood stock shotgun, revolver).
The subjects assigned worse outcomes to the scary group. The authors weren't complete idiots, they pointed out that the cartridges used were equally powerful and so it wasn't which is more dangerous, it was which was perceived as more dangerous.
There's no $5000 questions on Jeopardy!
Yes. Harold fisch.
Yeah, but they smashed that shit in Appeals
This is the opinion of someone who watched court dramas and thinks that's actually how it works IRL
I guess you just paint your black gun a different, happy colour
that hello kitty AR looked more attractive after reading that.