Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jmortimer
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spats McGee
" Reloads present a unique problem, though, in terms of evidence."
|
No, not true, all of the issues referenced present "unique evidentiary problems" - all of them. Just read the link to the Hickey case, the fact that Mr. Hickey had advanced firearms training bit him in the arse big time.
|
As far as uniqueness goes, what other piece of evidence in an SD shooting would you expect to deal with using exemplar evidence where (1) the original piece of evidence has been destroyed in the shooting, and (2) the only evidence as to the composition of that piece of evidence can only come from the defendant? Not training. Not gun mods. Not caliber choice.
I've read the materials on Hickey, though it's been a while. Training can be explained by the defendant, who will likely have to testify to assert SD. Some gun mods can be explained satisfactorily, and the gun will still be available for testing. (Unless someone has the incredibly bad luck to have a kaboom at the very moment that he's involved in an SD shooting). Evidence of all of those things can be introduced without the shooter/defendant taking the stand, and by persons other than the shooter. And nobody has more incentive to lie than a shooter facing a murder charge.
I have never claimed that reloads were the only problem a defendant could face. However, just because there's lots of other stuff that can cause a defendant problems doesn't make reloads a good idea. It just doesn't hold water, logically, to claim: "Excessive training can get you in trouble. Therefore, there's no risk in using handloads."