How an AR-15 Can Send You to Prison

[pneuby]

[samnev]

The conclusion presented by this video doesn't surprise me the way the media always portrays the AR15.

[Joe_Blacke]

He doesn’t even address if it was a justified use of force. It only really applies if you are unlawfully using force. He talks about using the AR in a self defense shooting, but nothing he describes is self defense. You can’t shoot someone over verbal threats alone.

So if you are truly in a self defense shooting, there isn’t really a problem. Far more important to really know when force is reasonable and necessary. Also learn AOJ prosecutorial standard for charging in deadly force use cases.

[aroyobob]

Anyone here have a subscription to Lawshield or any other similar service? Any experience with using them or another service? Thanks.

[QuietM4]

He doesn’t even address if it was a justified use of force. It only really applies if you are unlawfully using force. He talks about using the AR in a self defense shooting, but nothing he describes is self defense. You can’t shoot someone over verbal threats alone.

So if you are truly in a self defense shooting, there isn’t really a problem. Far more important to really know when force is reasonable and necessary. Also learn AOJ prosecutorial standard for charging in deadly force use cases.

If use of force was justified, there in no guilty verdict (or even a trial)....and thus no jail time. The entire premise of the video was about convicted people and their sentence(s), and scenarios with potential jurors where people were convicted.

[Joe_Blacke]

He doesn’t even address if it was a justified use of force. It only really applies if you are unlawfully using force. He talks about using the AR in a self defense shooting, but nothing he describes is self defense. You can’t shoot someone over verbal threats alone.

So if you are truly in a self defense shooting, there isn’t really a problem. Far more important to really know when force is reasonable and necessary. Also learn AOJ prosecutorial standard for charging in deadly force use cases.

If use of force was justified, there in no guilty verdict (or even a trial)....and thus no jail time. The entire premise of the video was about convicted people and their sentence(s), and scenarios with potential jurors where people were convicted.

Pretty much my point. However the premise of the video is using it in “Self defense” and implies a legit shooting. However the studies cited are not about self defense but instead a shooting because someone was stealing a vcr.

[pneuby]

I believe one should view it with the intention of, "What if I dork-it-up?"
A legit shoot is a legit shoot, granted. However, what if your choice of gat
influences how they view your justification? Always remember that axiom:

You fate is being decided by folks not smart enough to shirk jury-duty.

[Joe_Blacke]

I believe one should view it with the intention of, "What if I dork-it-up?"
A legit shoot is a legit shoot, granted. However, what if your choice of gat
influences how they view your justification? Always remember that axiom:

You fate is being decided by folks not smart enough to shirk jury-duty.

First off, your chance of being in an actual self defense shooting is incredibly low. Gun people way over estimate their chances of being in an armed encounter. The chances of being charged as a result are even lower.

The biggest things people are charged with are things like negligent discharges, and aggravated assault from using a gun when there wasn’t justification.

It all goes back to really understanding “reasonable and necessary”. Necessary being the biggest component. As well as the AOJ standard.

It’s just the 9mm vs .45 debate in a different form. Gun people spend way too many cycles over inflating the importance of this stuff. Reeves in a lawyer for that “self-defense” insurance, which is actually one of the biggest scams I’ve ever seen.

Having been on the “other side” of this argument, I’ve seen way too many actual crimes go unprosecuted to even be worried. Legit cases of things like murder for hire, that actually ended up with people dead that never even made it as far as a grand jury. Closest thing I could ever recall about a self defense case that got charged was that hiker who shot the guy with the dog. Still even in that case, the “reasonable and necessary” standard was not fully met.

[Tenring]

The evil black gun at the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse ... that horse was thoroughly beaten.

[BigNate]

The evil black gun at the trial of Kyle Rittenhouse ... that horse was thoroughly beaten.

The Rittenhouse trial shows two things...
1) That prosecutors (particularly in leftist / liberal jurisdictions) WILL attempt to vilify people for using a scary black gun.
2) That not every jury is susceptible to this nonsense (thankfully)...

[knockonit]

LOl, the author was successful in his scam, he managed to get a gun forum to post this article and give it air time, it serves imo no purpose for real 2A folks, its nothing most who are responsible gun owners and informed gun owners should know, any howz, their movement is succeeding mean while the gun community can't come to terms on how and where to fight the loosing battle.
again, just an old fools comments,
Rj

[Lobo2087]

Regardless of criminal prosecution and right or wrong criminally you will still contend with civil litigation with a much lower bar for people suing you to hurdle. I suppose I could see the wrong civil jury disliking a dangerous black rifle

[Joe_Blacke]

Regardless of criminal prosecution and right or wrong criminally you will still contend with civil litigation with a much lower bar for people suing you to hurdle. I suppose I could see the wrong civil jury disliking a dangerous black rifle

ARS 13-413 makes that bar pretty high. If your conduct is justified, there isn’t civil liability. Several cases I’m aware of have been dismissed based on that statute. It effectively requires the other party to prove the force wasn’t justifiable.

It still comes back around to making sure you follow the reasonableness and necessary standard when using force.

Too many people think “I can” use force under ARS 13-4. When they really should looking at under the mindset “must I use this force” to prevent death or serious bodily injury.

[pneuby]

Necessary being the biggest component. As well as the AOJ standard.

....a lawyer for that “self-defense” insurance, which is actually one of the biggest scams I’ve ever seen.

AOJ = Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy...we do get new folks from time-to-time.

Is my assailant able to DO harm to me?
Does he have the chance to do so, R.F.N. (if I don't act)?
Is he doing something to put me at risk, RFN? (e.g. reaching for possible weapon)

Our local counselor Marc Victor has his own service to promote. That said, he has a series of analysis vids on the other popular services out there. They are worth watching before you decide to pony-up for one, or even if you have already done so.
https://www.youtube.com/@AttorneysForFreedom