How do jurors see armed citizens who have to shoot criminals in defense of self or others? And how does the type of gun we use impact their impressions?
My old friend Glenn Meyer retired from a distinguished career as a psychology professor, during which he was involved in a number of mock trials reflecting just such situations.
Read about his findings here, from a respected professional journal.
I am reminded of the advice my late friend and colleague, famed criminal defense lawyer Jim Fleming, constantly had to share with his clients: “We don’t have to like reality, but we do have to face it.”
As suppressor ownership and use has increased substantially in the last few years, it would be interesting to see the same methodology used re: suppressed vs. unsuppressed firearms.
Good question. My home-defense carbine is a Kel-Tec Sub-2000, in 9mm, fitted with a weapon light/laser combo, a suppressor, and subsonic ammo.
It is not a member of the “Hated” AR or AK platforms, but it still looks the part of a “Black Rifle”. Would I be targeted for prosecution merely because of the way my home defense carbine looks?
Note that, while I live in a “Red” State, I also live in a “Blue” City run by a typical Democrat political machine.
Maybe I should take my own advice, given in a comment below, and swap my Kel-Tec for a more inoffensive-looking Henry Homesteader? Trade my existing “Black” carbine for a more acceptable one with a Wooden stock?
The funny part is, it would make no difference functionally. The two carbines are basically the same idea but with different looks. Heck, if I got the threaded-barrel version of the Henry, even my suppressor could be swapped over. Which sparks another question. If I take a Henry Homesteader and then load it up with Red Dot sight, light/laser combo, and a suppressor, will I be defeating my purpose? Will my “Good” Henry Homesteader be suddenly turned into an “Evil” Assault-Weapon? Sort of like Dr. Jekyll turning into Mr. Hyde? 🙂
The only reason that I have not already made the change, is that I hate to spend a bunch of extra money on a different firearm that gives the same functionality as my existing model. Especially if any mods made to the new platform negate any “Public Relations” benefit.
Paint the Kel-Tec white.
I think I would want to exclude women from any jury in such cases, barring other indicators. A related issue would be are women more influenced by the media and does this have implications beyond gun cases.
It’s an interesting study and I think I remember this first from either MAG-40 or 80?
In effect, though, how people feel about various firearms is a representation of their culture, and I think one aspect that may not be represented enough in a study like this is the effect of locale on that culture.
According to the paper “participants in this study were students in introductory psychology classes,” which would typically imply that their cultural background is: young, urban, probably not widely exposed to firearms, and left leaning.
How would the results change if prospective jurors were sampled from, say, most of Idaho or Wyoming versus San Francisco or Seattle? I expect that the results would be very different because the culture and all those factors of firearms exposure and perception would be very different.
It would be good to have a study with distilled results (e.g. a geographical heat map) to back up intuition and common sense about how likely it is — on average — that you might be be maliciously prosecuted or viewed favorably or unfavorably by a jury based on location.
I’ve been a gun owner since I was NINE and Dad gave me the family Colt Woodsman. No magazine but hey they just slows a kid down! 🙂
Over the years I have done some trading and PASSED on things with carry handles and plastic stocks in favor of older clunky looking beat up looking wood furniture weapons.
The other parties would be AMAZED and I’d tell them;
“Some day I may have to actually SHOOT somebody with the thing and I don’t want to hear those fateful words while a prosecutor holds the thing up…’LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY!’, so no thanks”.
Hi Lou
I think that if you “have” to shoot someone in self-defense with your clunky looking beat-up wood stock gun…you’re going to hear the prosecutor say, “LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY!” anyway.
My daily carry is a Glock handgun, and I have a flashlight mounted 20″-barrel AR-15 in my closet, with two 30 round mags attached.
If I survive problem #1 (being attacked), I am ready (with knowledge) to survive problem#2-the courtroom.
Good luck with your self described beat-up self-defense guns.
I believe that it doesn’t take much for a gun type to look extra scary to a non-shooter due to ignorance and naivete. My carry and house gun for self defense is a “Plain Jane” Glock 19 with no doo-dads, cute decals, or outrageous paint jobs. If I have to face a jury in a self defense case, I want them to see the same exact pistol that law enforcement carry. I don’t even want a red dot on the pistol, so no inferences can be made about how easier it is to shoot and kill an aggressor. Make your edge in handgun defense all about skill, not tech – law enforcement excluded. Make your pistol look as uninteresting as a carpenter’s hammer.
At one time it was very difficult to buy a VEPR AK-47 without having to buy the models that were “sporterized” with wood thumb stocks so they would look less like an assault weapon.
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/1120867250
I put only night sights on mine, and possibly custom grips if a revolver. I know weapon lights are all the rage now but unless I were issued one I opt out.
Paul, I must confess I have night sights on my Glock also and they are raised for suppressor use when needed. However, I don’t suspect that would draw any attention from a prosecutor even if he knew his way around a gun shop. I shy away from weapon lights because I live alone and know where all the furniture is when its dark. A weapon light would give the intruder info about where I was when confronted. However, if you live with family members, a light could possibly avert a tragedy. It’s more likely your teenage child sneaking into and around the house after curfew than an intruder. YMMV.
Covered this in my radio show last week. Interesting fact was the women tending to give higher sentences. Cindy wanted to know why women did this, and the study makes no reference to this. Maybe you could point us in the right direction for the answer Mas.
Chuck – Host of Shooters Corner, Fairbanks AK
Chuck, do a Google search for more work by Dr. Glenn Meyer, and for the published research of law professor Elizabeth Bochnak. Also the work of Dr. Lenore Walker. Good luck!
It is sobering and eye-opening to absorb the points raised, but it is a good reminder that emotions are often more important than cold logic in jury cases. Once we accept the idea that one could be convicted for defending oneself and family in one’s own home from a robbery, we must then come to terms with the reality that a .223 bullet from an AR-15 may net us an additional 2 years in prison compared to the same bullet from a Ruger Mini-14. And while in Florida the sentence would likely be determined by the judge (not the jury), the judge is a human and presumably susceptible to the same unconscious biases.
You are right, Mas: I don’t like that reality. And while I can intellectually accept it, I pray we never need to actually face it.
I did have a good friend who was a sailor and a gun enthusiast who sold me his AR cheap in the late 1980s and bought a Ruger Mini-14 after he discovered that, sailing to the Bahamas, the police there became very agitated over his possession of an AR but were entirely accepting of the possession of a Mini-14. As any sailor of the waters off Florida and in the Carribean should be aware, modern pirates are still quite active–one should never sail there unarmed. While the Ruger Mini-14 used proprietary mags, they were functionally the same the capacity and utility as STANAG mags. We shared a good laugh at the expense of the ignorance of the Bahamian police force. My friend traveled well-armed, but now more socially-acceptably so.
One can even imagine a select-fire M-14 going unrecognized and being disinterestedly passed over by authorities whose attention was captured by a “deadly-appearing” AR-style or AK-style semi-auto rifle. Appearances are important…and sometimes deceiving.
Education and access to information were supposed to solve some of the problems in the world. Apparently, education only works for some people.
Ancient people were superstitious. Modern people simply have different superstitions than ancient people had.
Schooling and education are not the same thing. Hopefully schooling results in education, and sometimes it does, but not always.
I like Mini 14s as well and you’re right, perception is indeed very often “reality”. I would even be careful not to buy a firearm which has a potential inflammatory name and I think Mas has written about this as well. The same goes for engraving things on guns or even a folder type knife.
“Firearms also can prime aggressive ideation and reactions (weapons effect). The mere presence of a weapon may cause folks to act more aggressively to others (Anderson, Benjamin & Bartholow, 1998; Berkowitz, 1993; Berkowitz and LePage, 1967).”
This article is full of good information but I question the statement quoted above. My experience is that responsible people become more cautious when carrying a firearm not more aggressive. I suggest that this so-called result may be an artifact of bias by the researchers (Hoplophobe Bias effect).
It is interesting that AR style rifles are often portrayed as ideal for women to use for home defense since they combine excellent firepower, low recoil, and adjustable ergonomics. Yet, this study indicates that it would be highly counter-productive (legally) for any woman to arm herself with such a home-defense weapon.
I have never been in love with the concept of the AR platform as a home defense firearm. The excessive muzzle-blast of these rifles, especially when used indoors, works strongly against this platform whatever other benefits it offers.
I would recommend the following as about as ideal as possible given the current market options:
1) Home-defense Carbine – Henry Homesteader (Glock Mag. Version) with wood stock in 9mm Parabellum.
2) Home-defense Handgun – Glock 19 or Ruger RxM – also in 9mm. Thus, magazines would be interchangeable between carbine and handgun.
With modern defensive ammo, these firearms would be highly effective with very good firepower. Muzzle-blast would be acceptable, indoors, especially with the longer-barreled carbine. The Glock or Ruger handguns would appear like standard (Police-style firearms) while the Wooden-stocked Henry carbine would look like an overgrown .22 (i.e. Sporting appearance).
This combination would give the best of both worlds. Excellent fire-power with acceptable recoil/blast combined with an appearance that makes it hard for the prosecutor to sell the jury that you are some kind of “crazed killer” looking to rack up a high body count.
Also, if I am ever forced into court for a self-defense shooting, I am going to instruct my attorney to strike every female off the jury that he possibly can. Clearly, a 12-MAN jury is the ideal approach. (No offence intended to the Lady Readers of this blog. 🙂 )
As Mr Spock would say: “Fascinating”.
However, having had to trudge through studies published in peer reviewed journals, I’d REALLY like to read the methodology sections of the studies. That section pretty much establishes the reliability of the results and/or application to the real world. The sentence about the situation involving the (attempted) theft of a VCR is highly troubling. That’s not a deadly force situation-unless the thief escalates- but that’s not mentioned. Nor is any possible informative testimony. Was there any consideration of disparity of force?
The situation of a police office shooting persons fleeing the scene of an armed robbery seems contrived, unless there’s some evidence of weapons. Which might be the reason for the reaction of the officers to the situation. Rather than speculating why the officers reacted as they did, it would have been interesting if the researchers had asked the officers why they decided as they did.
They do mention role related expected behavior. Are men expected to rely more upon physical force than a weapon? Are women expected to be permissive of theft? If so, how about physical assault/sexual assault? Again, was there any consideration of disparity of force? Again, asking the subjects for an explanation of the results seems missing.
Given the brief summary of the study, it’s kind of hard to take it too terribly seriously. OTOH, it does act as a basis for more studies:) There’s also a mention of the Amadou Diallo shooting which they labeled “mistaken”. That case was extensively covered in the ASLET Journal and that wasn’t the jury verdict.
All that said, I am quite willing to believe that the use of particular firearms can be a problem. Even if you use carefully selected expert witnesses (like having the LLEA explain why they use ARs as long guns*) the jury pool might not be receptive. In some places the Red Queen thing (hanging first, trial later) might be quite evident.
*Maybe 20 years ago the local college PD adopted ARs. The paper interviewed the new Chief about why. Suffice it to say you don’t want him as your expert witness.
Jeff wrote:
‘One can even imagine a select-fire M-14 going unrecognized and being disinterestedly passed over by authorities whose attention was captured by a “deadly-appearing” AR-style or AK-style semi-auto rifle. Appearances are important…and sometimes deceiving.’
It was what Mike Plattt used to devastate an FBI team
The TV film; https://youtu.be/zwCZ02cGsh0?si=MSzHb0wPzg-fPe5U
Reminds me of the Old Irish Saying;
‘What do you really want? To steal the gold, or to kill the watchmen? If it’s to kill the watchmen; you are a spree killer, who thinks he’s a robber and you are going to die bloody’.
njk
@ nicholas kane – “It was what Mike Plattt used to devastate an FBI team”
Actually, the weapon used by Mike Platt, in the 1986 FBI shootout, was a semi-automatic Ruger Mini-14 not a select-fire M-14.
The M-14 is a U.S. Government Military rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO. Indeed, it is a select-fire rifle. As a military weapon, these have never been sold to civilians. They are restricted by the National Firearm Act (NFA).
The Ruger Mini-14 looks somewhat like a scaled-down M-14 but it is chambered in the smaller .223 Remington caliber (also a few other calibers like 7.62×39 Russian, etc.). The Mini-14’s sold to the public have all been semi-automatic firearms (to comply with U.S. Law) although Ruger did make a select-fire version of the Mini-14. However, it was targeted toward Military/Law-enforcement sales not civilian sales.
Even so, Mike Platt did a lot of damage with his civilian-style Mini-14. OTOH, if he had actually used a select-fire M-14, in the larger 7.62 NATO caliber, I expect the results would have been even worse.
My mistake; since everyone was talking about mini-14s I read Jeffs’ post as that.
In the film at least, Platt had made the mini-14 full auto.
Part of the reason the army abandoned the M-14 was its uncontrollability on full auto. Though maybe at bank robbery distances that didn’t matter.
Clyde Barrow outgunned the cops with his BAR.
Maybe the FBI should have adopted that eras approach :-):
wikipedia:
‘The six lawmen opened fire while the vehicle was still moving. Oakley fired first, probably before any order to do so. Barrow was shot in the head and died instantly from Oakley’s first shot and Hinton reported hearing Parker scream. The officers fired about 130 rounds, emptying each of their weapons into the car.’
‘Each of us six officers had a shotgun and an automatic rifle and pistols. We opened fire with the automatic rifles. They were emptied before the car got even with us. Then we used shotguns. There was smoke coming from the car, and it looked like it was on fire. After shooting the shotguns, we emptied the pistols at the car, which had passed us and ran into a ditch about 50 yards on down the road. It almost turned over. We kept shooting at the car even after it stopped. We weren’t taking any chances.’
I have heard that there are nearly 100 select-fire M-14s registered under the NFA in civilian hands and approximately 2000 clones that were manufactured (and later registered under the NFA) before the 1968 law stopped the creation of civilian-legal machine guns. I have never fired an M-14, but I have been told that they are not the most controllable of select-fire weapons, although I suspect there are some who can control such guns on full-auto quite effectively. Select fire AR-10s (.308) with fire-control units that were registered prior to 1968 are reportedly much more controllable, thanks to bore axis to stock alignment and the pistol grip. A skilled owner of one at a range I frequent can keep a full magazine nicely in the center of a silhouette target at 10 yards. I cannot, unless I release the trigger after 5-6 rounds. We refer to that gun affectionately as “the Thunder Stick”.
@ Jeff – “I have heard that there are nearly 100 select-fire M-14s registered under the NFA in civilian hands and approximately 2000 clones that were manufactured (and later registered under the NFA) before the 1968 law stopped the creation of civilian-legal machine guns.”
Yes, I have no doubt that some M-14’s (or clones) managed to get registered on the NFA for civilian use before the Hughes Amendment took effect. Certainly the movie-prop houses have some that can be rented for movie production.
I have never fired one either. I expect that, given the 7.62 NATO caliber, they would be a handful when fired full auto.
The only automatic firearms that I have fired, myself, are the Thompson Submachine gun (in .45 ACP) and the H&K G36 (in 5.56 NATO). I found that even the Thompson wanted to “climb” under full auto. However, the G36 was not bad at all. I had no trouble keeping hits on the target (a shot-up, old automobile) with the G36.
I think that the 7.62 NATO round works best, full auto, when belt-fed and placed on a tripod! 🙂
BTW, it was the 1986 Hughes Amendment (to the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act) that banned the registration and sale of any new machine guns to the public (military and law-enforcement excepted). I am not a legal scholar but, IMHO, given the Supreme Court decision in Bruen, the Hughes Amendment is a violation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I keep hoping that someone will challenge the Hughes Amendment, in Court, and get the SCOTUS to STRIKE IT DOWN!
How about that, Mas? When can we expect the 2nd Amendment Foundation to challenge the Hughes Amendment? I know that the SAF has a full plate already, but the Hughes Amendment (also) ought to be in their cross-hairs.
TN, keep an eye on the website, saf.org.
Who cares if a gun climbs on full auto? Full auto would only be necessary at close range (house clearing). Aim low, like at the groin, and let the barrel rise. Problem solved.
@ Roger Willco – “Who cares if a gun climbs on full auto? Full auto would only be necessary at close range (house clearing).”
Well, I am certainly not an expert on military matters. However, my understanding is that full auto fire is mostly used (in the military) for fire suppression. In other words, to keep the heads of the enemy down while troops move forward to a more advantageous position.
For fire suppression, having a automatic firearm “climb” excessively IS A PROBLEM! To be effective, suppression fire needs to be, more or less, on target. If the rounds are all being fired into the sky, why would the enemy keep their heads down?
In any event, full auto fire may have some military utility, but it is not very useful in the civilian world. About the only use that a civilian has for full auto fire is to shoot up a target for FUN! In that case, it is MORE FUN when you can put your full auto fire on target rather than just shoot rounds off into the sky.
So, I must (with respect) disagree with you on this point. It is better for a fully automatic weapon not to have excessive “climb” in my opinion. YMMV.
Uh, photo exhibit 15 in Ed Mireles book on the firefight (available from edmireles.com) shows the rifle to be a Mini 14.
The book makes excellent reading and dispels a great many common misbeliefs about how that event happened.
FWIW, I used a Mini in 3 gun for a couple of decades. We whipped a lot of AR butt.
That article is from 2009 -16 years ago. There have been lot of changes since then, including about 20% of the population being replaced, and a very substantial increase in the proportion of gun owners.
I would regard those conclusions as a useful guide, but not authoritative until confirmed by more recent research.