Prosecutors use their interpretation of your mindset as part of their decision making in whether to prosecute. And they use emotional arguments to sway the jury. The use of something like the APX won’t itself lead to a prosecution because, as you point out, it was legal for you to purchase, posses, and use for self-defense. But if the prosecutor finds other grounds to charge you with a crime (and it could be something very minor in your action), they may (and I will assert will) consider the APX marketing material as an indicator that your actions weren’t as righteous as you claim, and they will blow those marketing pages up into giant posters that they put right in front of the jury box while they argue you “could have de-escalated, but noooo the defendant thought they were an “operator” and they were on a mission to find someone to shoot. Why else would they use a gun that even the manufacturer says is only for the military, police, and other professionals?”
In an unrelated glimpse into a prosecutor doing this…I sat on a jury in an attempted murder case. The prosecutor had pictures of the blood pool from the victim’s apartment blown up into giant posters that he placed on easels. It wasn’t that he just used these as part of questioning a witness, he then left them visible in the courtroom for much of the multi-day trial. And when it came time for closing arguments he put those posters back right in front of the jury box for his entire argument. There was no factual basis for this, he wasn’t trying to prove a fact, he was trying to appeal to jurors’ emotions. And it worked. When we went in for deliberations several of the jurors were so charged up they were ready to personally go put a noose on the defendant’s neck and pull the lever. It did not matter to them that the facts didn’t support the most serious of the charges (premeditation). That’s the kind of tactic you should expect from a prosecutor should they ever question your defensive use of a firearm. You can’t eliminate this problem, after all if you defended yourself with a Red Ryder a prosecutor would still make a case that you used an evil BB gun known for decades by parents’ warning their children that “you’ll put your eye out”, but you can avoid giving them unnecessary rope to hang you with. Ok the Red Ryder one is an argument a defense attorney can easily counter, not so much the APX argument. The marketing material for the APX is unnecessary rope.
Not only is it a popular self-defense choice, but since we are over focused on marketing materials at the moment the first paragraph of the web page contains “the Hellcat is designed specifically for every day carry”. I’m sure a defense attorney wouldn’t mind a prosecutor blowing that up into a poster and setting it in front of a jury
Now if you are a woman carrying one, then you might be giving the prosecutor some material to work with as to your state of mind. Because the actual definition is:
But still that feels like it would be lost in a world where we name cars Hellcat, and a prosecutor would have to weigh the possibility of offending jurors. What are they going to do, waste their limited preemptory challenges to try to keep a “car guy” off the jury? So this one seems like a very minor risk; so minor I would never have even thought to worry about it had you not brought it up.
BTW, I do not understand naming a product Hellcat in this day and age. When you use an evocative name for something you have to pay attention to the negative imagery as well as the positive. When reading the dictionary definition of Hellcat I conclude that it could be seen as misogynistic. There are cases where, even by today’s standards, Hellcat was probably appropriate such as the WWII Grumman F6F. The name was intended to send a message to the Japanese, and it really did torment Zero pilots. But such cases are few and far between.
I want a gun named ICV (Internet Cat Video) with the top of the website having a picture of a Mom sitting on her porch crafting, gun in a sling hanging on her chair, while her children play in the yard and a cat stalks something under the porch. Dad is up on a ladder cleaning the gutters. A coyote can be seen nearby eyeing the children, while a pack of them can be seen in the distance. The verbiage is all about being able to defend your family, be it from a lone predator or a pack of them. This is why you own a defensive firearm. This is why you carry. Right?
I’m going for extremes here because the messaging on the APX was at an extreme. So I put ICV at the other. I think S&W does a good job of using the M&P nomenclature but clearly positioning its products for civilians. Most other firearms, even if sold/used heavily by the police and military are designed and messaged just as much for civilian use. Many are civilian market first, then adopted by professionals. Etc. I’m picking on the APX because there are numerous, perhaps dozens, of direct competitors that are (a) as good or better and (b) don’t carry the unnecessary baggage of their marketing. The (already in the civilian market) SIG P320 beat the APX to become the U.S. new service sidearm. What does its website say? “you can be confident in the fact that your P320 will be ready to protect you and your family.”
That’s exactly how SIG does it for the P320. The full paragraph on their website is:
Through its adoption by the U.S. military and countless other military and law enforcement agencies around the world the P320 has been put through some of the most rugged and grueling testing protocols in the history of firearms. Each P320 is tested to these same exacting standards so you can be confident in the fact that your P320 will be ready to protect you and your family.
A friend bought a former USCG Defender (RB-S) and it still has the M240 mounts. I teased him that about getting an M240 for it, but now you have given me a better idea
I really find it kinda sad we’re even discussing this topic, but just a quick drive down the interstate and seeing what feels like 90% of billboards advertising lawyers and how to sue someone it’s valid whether we like it or not…I’m still gonna buy the gun I want regardless of name or marketing though. The whole angle taken by some prosecuters that we’re discussing just agitates me. What’s the slogan/marketing got to do with it in reality? They were all created with the same end goal if used in a defensive situation. But that’s our society…
Glock and FN in coyote color not good because it’s military color
Is there any firearm we own that could be used in self-defense and not be questioned by prosecutor? Probably not. I guess he is gonna question the firearm that maybe he or his family is using.
With the case I was a juror for (no shots fired), the prosecutor kept pointing out how the defendent had JHP’s. No brand was given, no name was given, but the prosecutor kept suggesting how deadly JHP’s were. So… knowing this, would you consider switching to FMJ’s?
No, as I think any semi-competent defense attorney could make the prosecutor look silly on this point. Like just ask the arresting officer what type of bullets he carries. Both on and off duty. And if he carries them because he wants something “more deadly”? But if one does worry about this, go with a good self-defense design like Hornady Critical Defense which are not technically JHP. BTW, I think there is lots of discussion about this elsewhere in the forums.
Damn, what a gun! You gotta be joking. How would you conceal it?