Gun Type, Gender, Jury Trials

[Ben]

A two-part series by James Reeves, who besides doing youtubz videos in ranger panties, is also an attorney who does firearm self-defense cases.

He breaks down a study that was done on jury bias based on both firearm type and gender, using a home burglary as an example, with the assumption that the burglar was unarmed. The videos are only tenish minutes each and worth watching. A couple of main, interesting points:

While looking at several gun types, the most interesting discrepancy in jail time if a home defender were found guilty of shooting a burglar was between the Mini-14 and the AR-15, with the AR-15 owner getting significantly more jail time, despite the nearly identical function of both rifles.

In the gender video, in most instances, female jury members gave significantly more jail time to males who defended themselves. One noticeable point was that females absolutely hammered female defendants who used an AR-15, while there was little difference in what male jurors recommended for females vs males.

One, if not both of the mock trial experiments appears to have used mostly Texas university students, so there might be some liberal bias. On the other hand, it's not like you're gonna be able to get twelve NRA members as your jury, and in many jurisdictions, especially urban, I would guess the college students are closer to the average citizen than are self-defense proponents.

The gun type video:

https://youtu.be/0gUcF5KhtQM

The gender video:

https://youtu.be/GlIamnGDA-M

[T.O.M.]

If someone was bored, a d dug way back over on THR, they would find a thread or two where I said tge type of firearm used in a defensive shooting didn't matter, so long as the defender legally possessed the firearm, the firearm itself was legal, and the shooting was good.  I stand by that today, but only in legal theory.

In the real world, I can guarantee the firearm used will be judged at every step along the way, from the responding officer to the prosecutor to jury and judge.  For better or worse...okay, just for worse, the term "assault weapon" has become a part of the vocabulary, and is used to label pretty much any semi-auto firearm.  And when applying that label, because of media crap, when the term is applied, too many people will subconsciously, or consciously decide it is a killing gun, designed and built to kill people.  And that thought is going to make a coo/prosecutor/juror/judge too often see a person who uses such a firearm as a killer, not a defender. And that's not a good thing.

Been thinking about this for a while, in terms of my choices in defensive firearms.  Haven't let it impact my decisions yet, but I am thinking about it.  No, it's not right.  But it is reality.

[WLJ]

Wasn't there a recent case where the prosecution tried to use the Punisher grips the defendant had on his gun against him?

[dogmush]

I watched those videos and read the linked report.  They are interesting, but I noted that the report was from 2009 and many of the studies it was building on were from the early and mid 90's.  With the increasing acceleration of social attitude changes we've seen this century, I'm not sure how reliable (in either direction) that mock trial data is.

For perspective the "crime" in the mock trial was stealing a VCR.  How many college students in 2023 would need that explained to them.

[Ben]

Been thinking about this for a while, in terms of my choices in defensive firearms.  Haven't let it impact my decisions yet, but I am thinking about it.  No, it's not right.  But it is reality.

Seems like that's where Reeves, as an attorney is, though he seemed to indicate he wouldn't be making any changes at this time.

I certainly won't be, but I wouldn't knock someone in a blue area doing so. Where I live, I could mag dump a full auto MP5 into a burglar and walk away with a handshake from the Sheriff. Of course, were an opposing attorney, whether criminal or civil (if the bad guy's family wanted to sue) change jurisdictions and put me in a court in Boise, I might not be so lucky.

When I lived in Santa Barbara, besides not wanting to own a Calif abomination of an AR, living in a condo, my best choices were the nightstand pistol and a Mossberg 500 with Dead Coyote shot to mitigate penetration. Even with the "nice" gun, I would still go to prison there, but probably not for as long as if I were using an AR or similar.

So much depends on where you live, I think. I can't imagine a better gun for my home defense than an SBR or AR pistol, as for rural environments, it's not always about two-legged varmints breaking into the house, and there are justifiable reasons for stepping out the door instead of hunkering down and calling 911 as you might do in a city. Like bears or wolves or mountain lions, or even raccoons or coyotes for that matter.

[Ben]

For perspective the "crime" in the mock trial was stealing a VCR.  How many college students in 2023 would need that explained to them.

I think Reeves clarified the age of the studies. I think you could replace "VCR" with "DVR" or "laptop" for modern times. If anything, IMO, it seems like EBR hate has grown, not lessened, from the early 2000s, or even 1990s. Or at least it has grown on the left as much as "EBRs are legit" has grown on the right, so you're still in the hands of the "jury of your peers" whether they're actually your peers or not.

[230RN]

So my  5-shot factory load J-Frame, by all that is right and good and and just and pure should get me home with a handsome reward, right?

Oh, wait... no... I just realized they are +P loads!!!

Hang the cruel bastard who needlessly shot and wounded that young paragon of virtue who was tithing 10% of his robbery proceeds to his church.

I'm not signing this one so nobody will know who posted it.

[WLJ]

So my  5-shot factory load J-Frame, by all that is right and good and and just and pure should get me home with a handsome reward, right?

Oh, wait... no... I just realized they are +P loads. Hang the cruel bastard who needlessly shot and wounded that young paragon of virtue who was tithing 10% of his robbery proceeds to his church.

And if they're HPs I've heard it being said that the only reason someone would use HPs is if they want to kill someone

[HankB]

And if they're HPs I've heard it being said that the only reason someone would use HPs is if they want to kill someone

So we should all use Glaser SAFETY slugs?  (Wasn't it Clinton's surgeon general, Jocelyn Elders, who called for "safer guns and safer bullets?")

[dogmush]

I think Reeves clarified the age of the studies. I think you could replace "VCR" with "DVR" or "laptop" for modern times. If anything, IMO, it seems like EBR hate has grown, not lessened, from the early 2000s, or even 1990s. Or at least it has grown on the left as much as "EBRs are legit" has grown on the right, so you're still in the hands of the "jury of your peers" whether they're actually your peers or not.

I think it's harder to predict than that, which is why I added the parenthetical to my original response.

I know when I started buying guns in Alaska in the mid 90's the Fudd was strong.  Buying my first (ban compliant)  Bushmaster auto-magicilly made me the enemy of about 1/3 of the Issac Walton shooting club I was a member of.  The NRA membership was the ONLY way to be pro gun.

Contrast that with now, in central FL where I routinely see suppressed SBRs as a bumper sticker.

Certainly the David Hogg following crowd has latched on to EBRs as the devil incarnate, but there's a LOT of normie acceptance of it as the basic starter rifle that wasn't there 10-15 years ago,  I suspect the change in the African-American community is even more profound.

Hopefully I'll never find out, but from what I see in my corner of America, acceptance of the 2A as an amendment helping you to kill people (robbers, Revenuers, UN tops, you pick) is on the rise vs. a hunting gun that may be pressed into service for defense.  And if you want to kill people, 9 our of 10 Taliban agree, you want an M4.

[Pb]

I have no doubt using one would prejudiced a jury against you, as stupid as it is.  Juries, like everyone else, makes their decisions based on emotions and values and not on reason.  The purpose of reason is to justify what your emotions and values have already decided.

[zxcvbob]

[snip]
Hopefully I'll never find out, but from what I see in my corner of America, acceptance of the 2A as an amendment helping you to kill people (robbers, Revenuers, UN tops, you pick) is on the rise vs. a hunting gun that may be pressed into service for defense.  And if you want to kill people, 9 out of 10 Taliban agree, you want an M4.

How do they feel about the M14?  (not Mini-14)  I guess it would have to be an M1A or M14M.

[230RN]

So we should all use Glaser SAFETY slugs?  (Wasn't it Clinton's surgeon general, Jocelyn Elders, who called for "safer guns and safer bullets?")

From my point of view, the safest gun would be one of large capacity, shooting high power large hollowpoint bullets that I get plenty of practice with.

[dogmush]

How do they feel about the M14?  (not Mini-14)  I guess it would have to be an M1A or M14M.

My original post was half joking. IME with Hadji, They wanted an M4, some saw it as a status symbol, others thought it was magic.  They had decided that the difference in effectiveness had to be the gun, otherwise they might have to face the fact that the Americans were better warriors than them, and that just can't be.  So the M4 is magic and they needed one.

That's part of the reason you see so many Kyber Pass abominations dressed up as M4s.