Sd 38 ammo reloads.

[ChaperallCat]

better is a gualitative. in this case, if he gets his reloading gear out, and uses standard components and loading data. he can actually get amunition. versus "sorry out of stock" online and instore. or better yet, look in the bargain corner in your local paper.
in mine i have a fellow selling 325 round boxes of 22 lr for a low sum of 135.00 each.

[sandbag]

I generally keep the box my SD loads come in and I only use factory loads-I also stay away from stuff labeled "Zombie",etc for SD.The best bet is commercial ammo with the word "defensive"in it-25 years in LE taught me that prosecutors are often not to be trusted.They really don't care if your life was endangered if it can enhance their career to convict you.You can get some really good factory ammo from a number of companies including "flying ashtray" rounds that are good for HD because of low wall penetration potential.Another hint for HD-a large caliber single action revolver with a transfer bar firing system-you can dump almost anyone with a 45 Colt and single action makes you out to be someone who doesn't "spray and pray"-a 255 gr HP at about 750-800 fps will definitely put a hurt on an intruder.

[zxcvbob]

For home defense, I use 158 grain LSWCHP with 4.3 grains of American Select or 4.6 grains of Unique. If I ever run out of those bullets, I'll use 148 grain cast wadcutters, or 158 grain Lee RNFP bullets. (I like lead bullets)

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by mordis

I think its bullcrap that I cant use reloads for self defense. Why should it be a negative at all? Why, it makes no sense.

You can use reloads for self defense. Nobody's stopping you. It's completely legal.

Originally Posted by mordis

If some dude is coming at me with a knife, and I pop him, why would the da care if I was using reloads or not? Especially if its a clear case of Self defense.

The problem is that it isn't always a clear-cut case of self defense ... and you have no control over that. You can't control who might try to mug you, or where, or when, or under what conditions. You can't control how the investigating officer might view the circumstances, and you can't control how the prosecuting attorney might view the circumstances.

It isn't just that a prosecutor might try to portray your handloads as super-deadly-horrible weapons of mass destruction. Frank Ettin has written at length about the importance (more so in some cases than other) of gunshot residue evidence. When you shoot factory ammo, the forensic lab can take your gun and fire a bunch of rounds of the same ammo through it, at the distances purported to have been experienced in the incident, and report on whether the gunshot residue ("powder burns") are or aren't consistent with what was observed at the scene.

If you use handloads, they can't do that. Even if you keep meticulous notes, there's no way they can be certain that the rounds the investigating team found on your reloading bench are the same as the rounds you fired into that dead guy in the parking lot. If that evidence would have helped support your case ... too bad, because now you don't have it, and you can't get it. It doesn't exist.

Obviously, since the first rule of gun fighting is to bring a gun, if you absolutely, positively can't find any factory ammo anywhere, then by all means carry reloads. It's better than a pointy stick in the eye. But keep trying to find factory ammo, and change back as soon as you can. Why give an opposing attorney anything he can potentially use against you, and why deprive yourself of what might be exculpatory evidence if you don't have to?

[Poindexter]

Garry, I can't know the future any better than anyone else here. Personally I think you are fine and I did the same thing myself for years.

I had a 2" bbl .38Spec +P with fixed sights on it. I wanted to CCW 158gr cast SWCs (FBI load), but commercial loaded .38 Special hit below the the sight picture, .38 +P hit above the sight picture. So I dialed in a handload that hit point of aim out to 20 feet or so, loaded up thousands of them and practiced with what I carried. IIRC my personal load was real close to the top of the .38 Spec range, but not up into the +P range.

I later switched to .45 Colt. I am currently carrying 255gr SWCs laoded with black powder, same stuff my g-g-grandpa could have bought 13 years before my g-grandpa was born. Single action Ruger.

I don't test chamber all my rounds, I know that my sizing dies are appropriate to the chambers in my revolvers, and my COALs are fine; but I do test chamber my hunting rifle rounds. I seat the bullet pretty close to the lands on those and do bother to make sure before I take them out to the field.

[AL45]

I've never had a reload fail. I have had a few failures with factory ammunition. I don't think a court case is going to swing on "factory vs. reload". I would be much more afraid of the "man kills man of another race" case, or "man kills man outside his home." I hope this doesn't offend anyone, I'm just facing the reality of our society. I have also heard you shouldn't use reloads hunting. I'm sure glad no one told the deer my son killed or P.E.T.A. that it was a reload. Otherwise the deer might have survived and sued him.

[Winchester_73]

A key consideration here is whether or not the state has a castle doctrine or a stand your ground law, and whether or not you plan to carry the gun outside the home or not, since the expectations can change. Some states extend the "castle doctrine" to places a person is allowed to be at. I would have to think that a castle doctrine trumps a civil suit, or any allegations of super-kill ammo.

Here is a link to the PA castle doctrine, for anyone interested:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI...5.005.000..HTM

In all, I found that around 20 states have the castle doctrine, and about the same amount have the stand your ground law. One would think that many states who have one would have the other, BUT....

PLEASE research it yourself. Do not take legal advice from an internet message board! I know thats obvious, but do your own research before making any such deicsions. Keep in mind that each state has a few differences to the next. Be careful as well who you ask such questions. Many people who should "know" this kind of stuff may not.

[OldMarksman]

Essentially, if the defense has no compelling need to introduce GSR pattern test information and associated expert testimony to plead its case, there is no problem with the defendant's having used hand loads.

The issue arises when there is either incomplete or contradictory testimony or other evidence and GSR tests of the defendant's firearm and ammunition would make a difference, either in terms of helping to reconstruct what happened or of bolstering the credibility of the defendant or both.

[OldMarksman]

I would have to think that a castle doctrine trumps a civil suit, or any allegations of super-kill ammo.

How so?

[Winchester_73]

Because the castle doctrine alleviates civil suit against the home owner / defender in a SD scenario. Its a given that there would have to be evidence of legal SD for the castle doctrine to come into play.

If the perp was an intruder in a person's home, and was shot, in a state with a castle doctrine, explain how the perp could have a civil suit or explain why a DA would pursue the home owner who used reloads? It would not happen. Perhaps you should read up on it before asking about it. If you disagree with me, I would like you to cite an example of whatever theory you may have. A specific case, not some paranoid delusion of a theory, either.

[Spats McGee]

If we're going to discuss Castle Doctrine, why not start with OldMarksman's "Duty to Retreat, Stand Your Ground, and Castle Doctrine?"

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Winchester 73 If the perp was an intruder in a person's home, and was shot, in a state with a castle doctrine, explain how the perp could have a civil suit or explain why a DA would pursue the home owner who used reloads? It would not happen.

Let's forget castle doctrine here--it applies to things other than the subject.

I will address the two points made.

First, civil suits: the burden of proof for civil suit is a predominance of the evidence; for criminal conviction, the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. The state can fail to prove the latter, but that does not, in and of itself, stop civil proceedings.

Some states have a provision for civil immunity if an act involving the use of force was justified under the criminal code and applicable precedents; they may or may not also have a "castle doctrine", and not all states with a castle doctrine provide for civil immunity. What civil immunity provisions mean is that a defender can petition the court to stop a lawsuit before it goes to trial. That requires the defender to produce, and present to a judge, evidence to the effect that a plaintiff would not be able to meet the preponderance of the evidence threshold, were the trial to take place.

Now to hand loads in a shooting within the home: in my opinion, the likelihood that the defender would have a need to introduce GSR pattern evidence in such a situation is lower than if the shooting had occurred somewhere outside. But that does not mean that discrepancies among other evidence and testimony could make such evidence important.

To understand that point, one has to accept that the castle doctrine does not provide a defender with either a license to shoot or a get out of jail free card, but for that, we have to go to the link provided by Spats.

This should also cast some light on the subject. The main point is that the simple fact that the shooting takes place inside one's home is not sufficient to bring castle doctrine protection into play.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Winchester_73

Because the castle doctrine alleviates civil suit against the home owner / defender in a SD scenario.

Not necessarily. "Castle doctrine," broadly, is what allows you to defend yourself within your home without incurring a duty to retreat. A so-called "castle doctrine" law provides immunity from civil lawsuit ONLY if the laws of the state say it does, and very few castle doctrine laws say this. Perhaps your state's law does, but don't fall into the trap of extrapolating from your home state's laws to offer advice to people spread all across the country.

[Winchester_73]

The main point is that the simple fact that the shooting takes place inside one's home is not sufficient to bring castle doctrine protection into play.

Well I specifically mentioned, "evidence to support legal SD..." which basically meant, I was referring to instances which fall under the castle doctrine. Once again, a SD scenario, where the castle doctrine is state law, pretty much nullifies the chance of a perp bringing anything to court, esp an allegation of "ammo which was meant to kill" or anything like that. You seem like the type that likes to bring up the 0.1% chance, that the perp's brother was a lawyer, and was good, and tried something. I'm speaking for the high majority of the time and I was coming at from a common sense angle, that if the person was attacked in their own home, in a state with castle doctrine, and legally defended them self, the criminal would have very little recourse and esp NOT against the ammo used which is the actual subject of this thread.

How can we "forget the castle doctrine" when the difference between shooting someone, in a SD scenario, in a state with such laws vs a state without such laws is very meaningful?

I was simply saying that you have to look at the bigger picture before ammo type gets involved.

[Winchester_73]

Not necessarily. "Castle doctrine," broadly, is what allows you to defend yourself within your home without incurring a duty to retreat. A so-called "castle doctrine" law provides immunity from civil lawsuit ONLY if the laws of the state say it does, and very few castle doctrine laws say this. Perhaps your state's law does, but don't fall into the trap of extrapolating from your home state's laws to offer advice to people spread all across the country.

If you would bother to re-read my post, I re-iterated several times that the laws vary from state to state, and I actually said "look into it yourself." Thanks however for reading part of it, misunderstanding it, and then summarizing one of *my* key points. That added a lot of the discussion...

I was attempting to say "look at stand your ground laws and castle doctrine before over analyzing the ammo" and yet people still try to debate it. I purposely wrote the first post to NOT allow for any such arguments, and yet still, people try to nit pick it.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Aquila Blanca: A so-called "castle doctrine" law provides immunity from civil lawsuit ONLY if the laws of the state say it does, and very few castle doctrine laws say this.

That's true.

But is cannot be emphasized enough that the failure of the state to prosecute, or to succeed in criminal prosecution, does not prove that the act was lawfully justified--it just says that the BARD standard was not reached.

I think I have read one state code that said otherwise, but I would not bet a nickel on it. It hasn't been tested; it goes against some very key, longstanding legal principles; and when state laws that try to limit civil liability have been tested, the results have been very iffy indeed.

Tort law is generally the domain of the judicial branch and the juries.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Winchester_73: Once again, a SD scenario, where the castle doctrine is state law, pretty much nullifies the chance of a perp bringing anything to court, esp an allegation of "ammo which was meant to kill" or anything like that.... I was coming at from a common sense angle, that if the person was attacked in their own home, in a state with castle doctrine, and legally defended them self, the criminal would have very little recourse and esp NOT against the ammo used which is the actual subject of this thread.

Two things, one key.

One more time, the failure of the state to gain a conviction does not prevent civil action from proceeding, nor does a prosecutor's decision to not file criminal charges. The state fails if it cannot meet the BARD standard, but the civil litigant must only have a preponderance of the evidence on his side.

That's in any state. It's a very, very basic concept.

Second, I really think that the "ammo which was meant to kill" argument is a secondary one, and it applies just as much to factory loads with zombies on the box as to hot hand loads.

The more serious issue with hand loads is that should the defender need to introduce GSR test data to counter a piece of unfavorable witness testimony or an unfavorable item of evidence, his or her having used ammunition that was not assembled by a third party under controlled circumstances would mitigate against the admissibility of that data into evidence.

That's probably a rather remote risk in a home defense scenario, but the potential consequences are severe, and the cost of mitigation is miniscule.

[Ludwig Von Mises]

At least from the limited number of LEO's I know, as well as a federal judge relative, I've learned that in most states, exempting the commonwealths of new york and california, "ammo meant to kill" (e.g. JHP, same stuff cops use everywhere) is preferred in SD and HD situations versus "ammo meant to not kill" (whatever that means). One could even argue in court that ball ammo is less humane, if one considers the latency between the time of being struck by a round and the time of death to be a measure of humaneness. Also less likely to hit neighbors. Now, with reloads, this is a toss up, depending on wherever you live and what judge you might encounter. Hopefully one who reloads too haha.

I'm not sure as to how much of a margin of penetration/hydrostatic power is available in hot reloaded .38, but I do know that I can never trust .38 again as a defensive round.

It's for a good reason, and thank god it wasn't powerful enough to do more damage. A friend of mine was shot in a car, from the back seat, over the seat and downwards into the gap between his collarbone and shoulder, with what turned out to be a snub nose Smith of some sort, .38, with hollow point rounds, the report didn't specify which. Dumb kid who shot him still had the gun on him when caught 2 days later.

Regardless, my buddy, god bless him, was able to drive back to his house, and only went to the hospital when he realized that there was no exit wound. He tells me that he didn't even know he was shot until about 2 minutes after the confrontation. Also couldn't pull his own trigger, but that's another discussion entirely. Bottom line, he took a .38 JHP point blank horizontal to all of his vital areas, and not only lived, but was able to drive home before he went into shock. Mind you, not a vet or LEO, but a mid-twenties, perfectly normal kid. Now, the wound did end him up with a collapsed lung and major internal bleeding, but in terms of first round hit power, I can never trust it again. I have an uncle who swears by .38, because his wife can shoot it accurately, and I love it at the range, but its just underpowered.

Not to say this wouldn't have happened with a 9 or a 40, I am just giving my personal knowledge of an event. Handloads could solve all of this, I don't know, just my two cents.

EDIT: Also made me fear revolvers a little, as the amount of burn (not burnt powder, but actual burn) on the headliner of this beautiful german automobile, from the gap between the cylinder and the barrel I'd assume, makes me wonder about stray fingers and such.

[saleen322]

I am not a lawyer. I have been a LE firearms instructor for over 25 years and I have testified as an expert on training and the use of force. In the cases I have firsthand experience with I was never asked any specifics about the ammo but I am sure it does come up. IMHO, the following is of greater concern:
Was there justification for the use of force? (Consistent with the laws of the jurisdiction)
Was the amount of force used reasonable under the circumstances? (No lesser degree of force would have been sufficient, etc?)
Was force deescalated as soon as the threat was stopped or was no longer a threat?
Was first aid/medical assistance provided as soon as practical?
Was the incident properly reported/documented as soon as practical?

If the answer to all of the above questions is a clear yes, I have never had an issue.

To the issue of the ammunition, most ammunition marketed as self defense ammo is because it is designed to inflict maximum trauma on the person shot with it. As stated, I never got into a discussion about the ammo used but I would think a sharp lawyer could make an equal case that the self defense ammo was used because the shooter was looking for a confrontation and he/she wanted to seriously injure or kill someone—looking for a fight. Compare that to the guy who shot a home invader with the wad cutter target ammo loaded at home because he didn't get the gun with the prime idea of shooting someone, they just like to shoot targets and that ammo is what he had. It would be harder to make it look like he was trying to get into a confrontation and kill someone. FWIW, the last AAR I was involved with was a shooting with a .38 and the person was stopped when shot (only 1 center mass hit) and died in surgery the next day. There are many ways to look at things and YMMV.

[SgtLumpy]

I'm speaking for the high majority of the time

Um, no, you're not.

An "affirmative defense", which is the statutory language in most (all?) castle doctrine statutes, doesn't mean that you won't/can't go to criminal and/or civil trial. It simply means it's a defense. My state's language is word for word what several other states language is. The burden of demonstrating that the parameters of the castle doctrine is met falls on the defendant (that's you, the homeowner who shot the bad guy). In other words, you might very well still go to court and be tasked to defend yourself. And if you do, I'm confident that EVERY opposing atty, from expensive dream team to luck of the draw pro bono pool will bring the type of ammo used into evidence. That's their job. To discover everything they can about you, right down to "when was the last time you ate?" "Did you take an aspirin?" "How were you dressed?" "Do you practice shooting at human sillhouettes?".

They don't just decide on scene "Well you were in your castle, you're good - see you later".

Isn't it much simpler to use factory ammo, without ominous brand names, than to have to spend another several thousand dollars defending your hand loads?


Sgt Lumpy

[Winchester_73]

Two things, one key.

One more time, the failure of the state to gain a conviction does not prevent civil action from proceeding, nor does a prosecutor's decision to not file criminal charges. The state fails if it cannot meet the BARD standard, but the civil litigant must only have a preponderance of the evidence on his side.

That's in any state. It's a very, very basic concept.

A very basic concept indeed, which is not relevant to the discussion. I stated several times "...if the home defender/defendant followed all laws, acted in SD..." and you apparently dismiss that premise. My question to you is how could there be "preponderance of evidence" in favor of the perp if the home owner acted within the law and everything supported that? Once again, that was the only example I brought up, I was not attempting to discuss absolutes, and I understand the home owner is not infallible due to the castle doctrine. If the home owner does something questionable, of course the perp could have recourse. I am asking about the home owner who did everything right, and every piece of evidence supports their claim. I am suggesting that the castle doctrine would protect the defendant if they acted within the specific laws, correct? I feel like this is splitting hairs. Nothing you said can I disagree with necessarily, but isn't the perp suing the home owner HIGHLY unlikely? AND isn't it HIGHLY unlikely that it would become a civil suit when the perp has no evidence to support their story? I mean, how could that happen?

How about an example:

A guy breaks in, damaged a door with a pry bar. Enters home, with a gun. He gets shot, runs and is found bleeding outside of home. Police and medics arrive, he lies and said he was lost and wanted directions. All evidence points to the lie. His gun is found on his person. The home owner legally owned their gun. The evidence of the break in is found, and the pry bar is found. The state has a castle doctrine. Lets say it was Florida's. The police file criminal charges against the perp, and they write a report that says the home owner acted in self defense, legally. How could the perp then sue?

I hope for all of this discussion of what-ifs, I actually missed something. I would like someone to explain this to me. If the perp has no evidence on their side, how could they sue? I'm just wondering.

Second, I really think that the "ammo which was meant to kill" argument is a secondary one, and it applies just as much to factory loads with zombies on the box as to hot hand loads.

The more serious issue with hand loads is that should the defender need to introduce GSR test data to counter a piece of unfavorable witness testimony or an unfavorable item of evidence, his or her having used ammunition that was not assembled by a third party under controlled circumstances would mitigate against the admissibility of that data into evidence.

That's probably a rather remote risk in a home defense scenario, but the potential consequences are severe, and the cost of mitigation is minuscule.

That makes sense. I referred to it as "ammo meant to kill" because I also don't understand what a lawyer would say about reloads? I mean he is going to say "clearly this man wanted to take lives with these custom made cartridges" when really, there is some very lethal factory stuff. That's another aspect of this that I question, what could be said about reloads that would hold up?

I take it you are a lawyer? How much evidence does a perp need in this specific scenario, to go make a civil suit of the matter? If I am reading you right, you are saying very little evidence is needed?

Um, no, you're not.

An "affirmative defense", which is the statutory language in most (all?) castle doctrine statutes, doesn't mean that you won't/can't go to criminal and/or civil trial. It simply means it's a defense. My state's language is word for word what several other states language is. The burden of demonstrating that the parameters of the castle doctrine is met falls on the defendant (that's you, the homeowner who shot the bad guy). In other words, you might very well still go to court and be tasked to defend yourself. And if you do, I'm confident that EVERY opposing atty, from expensive dream team to luck of the draw pro bono pool will bring the type of ammo used into evidence. That's their job. To discover everything they can about you, right down to "when was the last time you ate?" "Did you take an aspirin?" "How were you dressed?" "Do you practice shooting at human sillhouettes?".

They don't just decide on scene "Well you were in your castle, you're good - see you later".

Isn't it much simpler to use factory ammo, without ominous brand names, than to have to spend another several thousand dollars defending your hand loads?

So you're saying that its "likely" that a common criminal will pursue a civil case when they clearly broke the law and caused them self to be shot OR that a lawyer will take on a case where the plaintiff has no evidence to support the perp's/plaintiff's civil suit? I mean, that is what I was referring to, for the 1000th time. I am only discussing cases where the home owner/defendant was 100% following the laws, and there was no doubt at all about what happened. I'm not discussing home owners who did something dishonest in the context of a "SD" shooting.

I understand your point, in a way. I don't think you understood my point. You can't honestly tell me that civil suits against home owners are common in states with a castle doctrine. Can you cite anything? I am saying if that it was a clear cut case of a SD act protected by the castle doctrine, the perp then will not have enough evidence of a civil suit to take it to trial. In addition, if the home owner followed the laws, what recourse does a criminal have in a state with castle doctrine? If I am wrong about this, I'd like you to explain. You evidently are saying that if the police report, and every piece of evidence supported the SD shooting, but the perp lived, he could find a lawyer who would attempt to get damages in a state with a castle doctrine? Can you cite an example? It just doesn't make any sense. I can appreciate anyone saying the perp may want to do that, but I am trying to ascertain the likelihood or possibility of it actually happening. Has this happened in a state with castle doctrine, where the home owner/defendant followed all laws? Anyone have anything other than a conjecture? If its never happened, perhaps that is a clue that its not worth discussing to this length.

Just to say it again, because I love repeating myself using plain simple English, that apparently needs translated for everyone - I am NOT discussing a home owner/defendant who made a mistake, broke a law, or did something questionable in a SD scenario. I am referring to a case where everything points to SD, as described in the castle doctrine, a cut and dry case (which I suppose could be rare) how could the criminal get enough together to sue? I mean wouldn't the police report, his weapon that he had, and him likely breaking in all counter his own civil suit? Once again, I am talking a black and white case ONLY.

[Old Stony]

"Theoretical" self defense situations concerning ammo are just a lot of hot air. You are going to deal with lawyers ( PAID..TRAINED...LIARS), and you figure some little theoretical scenario is going to save you the hundreds of thousands of dollars you are going to pay them? They are paid to distort facts and you will be on the sharp end of that stick.
For a 30 buck box of ammo, I sure wouldn't risk everything I have in life..including my freedom. There is no doubt in my mind there is a lawyer just waiting to do his slimy best to put you in prison and grab every asset you have. I'm surprised they aren't advertising this kind of service on TV, along with the medical lawsuits.
Go ahead and load your own SD ammo, there are some lawyers out there that would love for you to pay for their new BMW and maybe a house too.

[Dondor]

regarding the "ammo meant to kill" and "ammo meant not to kill" from an earlier post, as well as pertaining to the OP...

why do we not use hollow points in the "theater of war" ?

[OldMarksman]

Posted by Winchester_73: I stated several times "...if the home defender/defendant followed all laws, acted in SD..." and you apparently dismiss that premise.

Absolutely not.

The problem is that the investigators, the charging authority, and the triers of fact have to determine both guilt and civil liability on the basis of just what pieces of evidence can be gathered after the fact. They do not have a complete sound stage cinematic record, shot from all angles and recording every relevant fact, that can be replayed until everything is known and thoroughly understood and agreed upon. Thus, even if the defender did act entirely within the law, that will have to be determined on the basis of incomplete piecemeal evidence.

That's the nature of SD investigations and trials.

My question to you is how could there be "preponderance of evidence" in favor of the perp if the home owner acted within the law and everything supported that?

If "everything supported that", no problem.

How often do you think it turns out that way? "Everything" is very seldom available after the fact, and what is available may be contradictory.

If the home owner does something questionable, of course the perp could have recourse.

Or if enough of what evidence that could be reconstructed seemed to so indicate.

I am asking about the home owner who did everything right, and every piece of evidence supports their claim.

Again, if all of the evidence sorts the claim, no problem. But therein lies the rub.

I am suggesting that the castle doctrine would protect the defendant if they acted within the specific laws, correct?

It does reduce the evidentiary burden on the defender in a criminal case. See the thread in LC&R.

Nothing you said can I disagree with necessarily, but isn't the perp suing the home owner HIGHLY unlikely?

Depends upon the evidence.

AND isn't it HIGHLY unlikely that it would become a civil suit when the perp has no evidence to support their story? I mean, how could that happen?

It won't happen under those circumstances. A plaintiff will have to have some evidence.

How much evidence does a perp need in this specific scenario, to go make a civil suit of the matter? If I am reading you right, you are saying very little evidence is needed?

A "preponderance of the evidence" is one straw over 50% of the evidence that can be pieced together after the fact.

You can't honestly tell me that civil suits against home owners are common in states with a castle doctrine. Can you cite anything? I am saying if that it was a clear cut case of a SD act protected by the castle doctrine, the perp then will not have enough evidence of a civil suit to take it to trial. In addition, if the home owner followed the laws, what recourse does a criminal have in a state with castle doctrine? If I am wrong about this, I'd like you to explain. You evidently are saying that if the police report, and every piece of evidence supported the SD shooting, but the perp lived, he could find a lawyer who would attempt to get damages in a state with a castle doctrine?

It has been said more than once before, but apparently it has to be reiterated.

The castle doctrine provides a defender with certain presumptions that make a defense in criminal court somewhat easier in a case involving the shooting of someone who has unlawfully (and in some jurisdictions, with force) entered a domicile. Read the post on the subject in LC&R, and re-read Frank Ettin's post #24 in this thread. The castle doctrine per se does not have anything whatsoever to to do with civil suits.

Some states, such as Florida and Missouri, to name two just examples, do have laws that reduce the likelihood of someone suing a defender after a lawful use of force incident. Most of them provide the defender with a means for asking the court to prevent further civil action. Another thing they do is establish that the standard for reasonable force in a civil case is the same as that in the criminal code. Some of them go further by making a plaintiff who fails in a suit pay for all of the costs, and in some states, even compensate defendant for expenses and lost wages.

Such laws have materially reduced the number of frivolous lawsuits. That was the intent.

Has this happened in a state with castle doctrine, where the home owner/defendant followed all laws?

Yes. Again, castle doctrine has nothing to do with it.

Let's discuss how things might work. A defender hears someone banging on the door, calls 911, puts on his glasses, grabs his gun and flashlight, and unwisely heads out into the hall to investigate, rather than staying in a safe place.

He is suddenly surprised by a moving shadowy figure who should not be there and, fearing harm himself and to his family, fires. The police arrive.

Did he do everything "right" from a legal perspective, according to the statute and case law, and considering the natural right of self preservation? I should think so.

The wounded man and his accomplice both testify that they were looking for valuables and both testify that they were in the process of trying to leave when the resident shot one of them. No weapons are found. An earwitness who heard shots and screams is certain the she heard what sounded like "don't shoot" before the shots rang out; that does not mean she was right, but it will likely be credible. Perhaps the investigators are unable to say with certainty that the door had in fact been opened forcibly. Perhaps the burglars' account differs from the defender's account in terms of where he was when he fired, and where they were and what direction they were going.

Things would not look really good for the defender, whose justification for using deadly force was provided for in law on the basis of a presumption that is rebuttable, but it is nonetheless quite conceivable that under the castle doctrine (or even without it), either the charging authority will conclude that they would be unlikely to get a conviction, or the triers of fact will decide that there is a reasonable doubt regarding criminal action. They might well decide that the evidence admitted into testimony does not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defender did not have reason to believe that deadly force had been immediately necessary.

But, with testimony that the wounded man was trying to flee,with testimony that the shots were fired after someone had asked someone else not to shoot, with no weapons having been found, and with some question about the location of the shooter and the victim casting possible doubt on the credibility of the defender, the defender's case may not be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. That would be decided by others.

Once again, I am talking a black and white case ONLY.

...which is so rare that such discussion would be of academic interest only. If all of the evidence favored the defender, there would be no case, criminal or civil.

[Spats McGee]

The problem with holding up a "clear-cut case of SD" as an example by which to test a legal theory, any legal theory, is that SD shootings are almost never as clear-cut as we'd like them. Events unfold very, very quickly, and the SD shooter will have, at best, a couple of seconds to determine if shooting is warranted. As I've said before, "a good shoot is a good shoot if the police, investigators, prosecutors, grand jury, judge and a jury or two believe it is a good shoot." The SD shooter doesn't get to decide if it was a clean shoot or not. Someone else does that after the fact.

As to the likelihood of the bad-guy suing. As for the BG himself, I'll just say that it's far from "outside the realm of possibility." Should the SD shooter actually kill the BG, I would say that the odds of the shooter facing a lawsuit by the estate of the BG climb substantially. No, I don't have any stats to back that up, just a gut feeling formed over the last decade or so practicing law.