The FBI got rid of the 10mm handgun because they found it was to much gun for most of thier agents...
The FBI got rid of the 10mm because it was too much recoil
for some agents, and because the 10mm frame is too large for those with smaller hands. At no time however has the FBI said that the 10mm was excessive
for a service round, and a defense attorney should have done his homework and had an FBI witness to testify as such so as to counter the allegations that the 10mm round was an excessive
caliber for personal defense.
Very few LE agencies in the US ever adopted the 10mm, much less kept it around.
I don't know upon what you base this statement, but my personal experience differs. My agency is the largest on our half of the state, and was issuing the 10mm when I started in 1999. We switched to the .45 around 2003, which is by the way only a year prior to the incident in question, and did so because our Smith and Wesson 10mm's were not functioning well. I'm told that it was more cost effective to switch to stay with Smith and Wesson and switch to the .45 than to switch companies altogether and stick with the 10mm. However, our decision had nothing to do with the cartridge being in any way excessive, which is the argument the prosecution made.
Someone should have cried foul and confronted this allegation showing first of all that some agencies have and do use the 10mm as a service cartridge, and I'd suspect that in 2004 there would have been an even larger number of agencies still using the 10mm. Our agency alone could have provided an example of one sizable department that was doing so only a year before this incident. But if one is to argue that there is a case in support of the 10mm being excessive because some agencies have moved away from it, then that claim too needs to be confronted by examining the reasons why
said agencies moved on from this cartridge.
I'd submit that if you talk to those actually in the know, those making decisions at an agency level to make these changes, you'd find that no one has suggested that the 10mm was excessive
. Is the recoil sharp? Sure. Is the frame of a 10mm too large for those with smaller hands? Sure. Is the 10mm a more expensive round than other possible service rounds? Certainly. However, none of this has to do with the round itself being excessive
in the sense this prosecution argued. This trial should have been about Fish's decision to use lethal force, and this prosecutor should not have been allowed to cloud that question with this whole issue of caliber. Ridiculous, irrelevant, and one more indication that the judicial system is broken.:barf: