|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 29, 2011, 01:45 AM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
Anytime a firearm is used to shoot someone, be it a good shooting, bad shooting, accident or suicide, the gun is taken (in every place I've ever heard about) and examined. Its tested with the ammo used, be it reloads or factory. Whether the lawyers see the results is a different matter. If the Coroner, prosecutor, or who ever in your area determines the "cause" is questionable, or they have questions they call in a firearms guy to ask if this or that can happen.
Based on the information he may or may not take the case to trial. If the questioned firearm used reloads then they have to be considered or there is no case. I've even seen cases where a bullet mold was brought in to be studies to see if the ammo in question came from that mold. One can not say NEVER when you talk about reloads or anything else not being used as evidence. Most of the time the "evidence never goes to court because it didn't show what the lawyer (which ever side) was looking for. Another example of a case I worked on. Some guy was found with a Mauser rifle. The serial number was listed in NCIC as stolen. The prosecutor was trying to charge the guy with possession of stolen property. Problem was if one knows Mauser's, they know that several can have the same serial number. Unlike our military rifles, different factories weren't issued a set of numbers but often created their own. We never knew if the rifle in question was stolen or not, but he couldn't prove it was so the case was dropped. (One reason an importer of surplus rifles have to add their own serial numbers) I've spent a great deal of time talking to lawyers on both sides, (not just in firearms, but regarding bombs, traffic accidents and so forth). Normally they are fishing. I state my opinion and why, and seldom go to court. The reason I didn't go to court was because I couldn't give them the answers they were looking for. Any time one talks about "NEVER" in court or anywhere else, some one is going to come up with the exception. Any lawyer worth his salt never ask a question he doesn't know the answer too. He gets his answers well before the trail, if it doesn't help his case, he certainly isn't going to ask it. That's why one should never lie to his lawyer, pastor, or doctor. All have to have the answers to help you.
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
December 29, 2011, 02:03 AM | #77 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Therefore, there is no independent way to verify what the weight of the powder charge was, among other things, unless it was a factory cartridge. If it was a factory cartridge the maker and type of which can be known, it can be authenticated as substantially the same as other such cartridges produced by that manufacturer. In other word, if you shot the guy with one round of .45 ACP Federal HST 230 grain, other rounds of .45 ACP Federal HST 230 grain would be substantially the same and thus serve as suitable exemplars for testing. Quote:
As described in his article on the Bias case, Massad Ayoob noted that all three loads were tested for the defense and they produced sufficiently similar results to be worthwhile as defense evidence, had the testing been admitted into evidence ("Handloads for self-defense: the Daniel Bias case", pp 1-2):
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||
December 29, 2011, 02:03 AM | #78 | ||
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,972
|
It's either a risk to use handloads or it's not. We've got a couple of lawyers and at least one well-known expert witness who says it's a risk and explained why.
Quote:
Quote:
It's pretty well accepted that in some cases it won't be an issue. That's the nature of risk. Sometimes a risk doesn't materialize to a genuine problem because risks are probabilistic in nature. Moreover, I think we can all see that under certain circumstances, even if it becomes an issue it might be favorably resolved even if the risk does "bite". Neither of those things precludes the fact that the risk exists, nor does it address the more pertinent point--not onlydoes the risk exist, it's an UNNECESSARY risk that can be eliminated easily and at very little cost.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
||
December 29, 2011, 08:54 AM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 1,337
|
OK, its finally sinking in a little bit. Its not that a jury or a judge would actually hold using reloads against you so much as that you would not be able to use any scientific evidence about your reloads in court. Simply put that is not because of the ability of a lab to reproduce the loads etc. but because of the rules of evidence. Let me ponder on that for a while.
|
December 29, 2011, 09:03 AM | #80 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, NRA Certified Pistol Instructor,, USPSA & Steel Challange NROI Range Officer, ICORE Range Officer, ,MAG 40 Graduate As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be. |
|
December 29, 2011, 11:27 AM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
Panfisher, from a layman's perspective... If I were to need to introduce ballistic evidence, it would imply that a prosecutor and a grand jury suspected there were something suspicious about a shooting in the first place. The prosecutor thinks I murdered somebody.
The prosecutor might think I had deliberately created some specialty load that would have different characteristics from my usual loads, in order to dupe the CSI guys. Remember, he would believe I were shady, or he would not have charged me. That being the case, what are the odds he would think me capable of premeditated murder or attempted murder, but not maintaining false logs or altering a small portion of my reloads? Last edited by MLeake; December 29, 2011 at 11:43 AM. |
December 29, 2011, 11:44 AM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 5, 2011
Posts: 350
|
I don't claim to be an expert on reloading or legalese... But in reading threads like these whenever they crop up, I don't think I've seen a really compelling reason in favor of using reloads. On the other hand, there are quite a few compelling reasons against.
|
December 29, 2011, 11:45 AM | #83 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 20, 2001
Posts: 494
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
“You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas.” – David Crockett “If I owned Texas and hell, I'd rent out Texas and live in hell.” - General Phillip H. Sheridan |
|||
December 29, 2011, 11:53 AM | #84 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
And you still have the problem of proving that the round that was fired was the same as your self-created exemplar ammo. |
|
December 29, 2011, 12:04 PM | #85 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
However, it is extremely doubtful that any competent attorney would recommend appealing an admissibility ruling that had been made in accordance with decisions regarding court cases that had already been appealed to the United States Supreme Court. I would bet on a different horse. Quote:
So the question is, are you unable to comprehend the several explanations provided in above posts. or are you unwilling to accept that those explanations accurately reflect the rules for admissibility of scientific forensic trace evidence? Quote:
|
||||
December 29, 2011, 12:24 PM | #86 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 20, 2001
Posts: 494
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
“You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas.” – David Crockett “If I owned Texas and hell, I'd rent out Texas and live in hell.” - General Phillip H. Sheridan |
||
December 29, 2011, 12:25 PM | #87 |
Member
Join Date: April 4, 2010
Posts: 32
|
I live in Texas and can honestly say I have never heard of a self defense shooting decided on by the choice of bullet involved. When it comes to reloading some hand-loaders do cast their own bullets out of a lead mixture to save on the cost of ammunition. However, these lead bullets are usually very hard and would preform more like a full metal jacket bullet with little expansion. The same companies that manufacture factory ammo supply some of their bullets to hand-loaders, but these bullets are not usually the newest and most expansive bullets like the Guard Dog, Hydro Shock, CorBon, etc. If you chronograph and test some of these factory loads for penetration and expansion you will find that the majority of factory ammunition intended for self defense is quite adequate. Creating a hand-loaded self defense round that is superior to a factory round is possible, but requires a good deal of time and testing. Basically, the only thing a handloader can do is increase the velocity of a given weight projectile and balance that with accuracy. I have found there is little reason to try to improve on the factory ballistics of the more powerful calibers like the 45 acp, 357 magnum, etc. However, the ballistics of the popular .380 acp can most definitely be improved by hand-loading, bringing it close in power to a 9 mm. So, when I occasionally carry a .380 it is loaded with my handloads, which start out with new factory primed brass. My take of carry is the odds are that you will never have to draw your firearm for self defense, but if I do, I want to be the one that walks away. At that point I will at least be around to deal with the consequences of my actions.
|
December 29, 2011, 12:25 PM | #88 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
|
Quote:
Since just about every firearm and its ammo is tested when any one is shot, I find it hard to believe "all" reloaded ammo test are discarded.
__________________
Kraig Stuart CPT USAR Ret USAMU Sniper School Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071 |
|
December 29, 2011, 12:28 PM | #89 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
I suspect that most shootings are either pretty clearly justified, or pretty clearly criminal in nature.
Choice of weapon and ammo really won't matter, there, although they can add to additional charges depending on the criminal status of the shooter (prohibited person, illegally modified weapon, etc), assuming the gun and ammo are not illegal for some other reason in that jurisdiction. The problem will be in the grey area cases, or in cases that might look bad to somebody who was not there when the events took place. I suspect those are the minority of cases, and that reloads make up a very small portion of those. |
December 29, 2011, 12:53 PM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 20, 2001
Posts: 494
|
Old Marksman...
The Daubert case which you mentioned puts the judge in the position of gatekeeper to determine whether scientific or technical evidence is reliable enough to be admitted, based on an inquiry into the methodology used. There is a lot of flexibility in the Daubert standards that have resulted in inconsistent and unpredictable results. It’s not, as you seem to think, a “black and white” test for admissibility, and it’s certainly not the basis for a blanket statement that “it is almost certain that no judge would ever admit evidence based on testing of ammunition loaded by the defendant.”
__________________
“You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas.” – David Crockett “If I owned Texas and hell, I'd rent out Texas and live in hell.” - General Phillip H. Sheridan |
December 29, 2011, 01:25 PM | #91 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Several are attorneys. In my case, I once had the responsibility of ensuring that certain records produced by the systems of a major corporation would meet the standards for admissibility established in Daubert v. Merrell Dow. By the way, the records in question at the time were financial. That brings up a point, for those who may not understand the way legal precedence works. The case of Frye v. United States was about polygraph test results, but the ruling in that case established principles that applied to all scientific forensic evidence. The case(s) of Daubert v. Merrell Dow revolved around pharmaceutical testing, but the ruling(s) apply to all scientific forensic trace evidence and to the certification of expert witnesses. They most certainly apply to ammunition testing as well as to fibers, drugs, DNA, and even computer reports (one could go on and on). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Regarding the second ("ammunition loaded by the defendant"), there is really very little question about it. Without going into all of the details, "loaded by the defendant" makes the evidence a non-starter by itself. If you are unwilling to accept what has been stated here, I think you have two choices:
|
||||
December 29, 2011, 02:15 PM | #92 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 20, 2001
Posts: 494
|
Quote:
You may well be correct that most judges, when addressing this issue, would not allow exemplar handloads as evidence, but that premise so far just has not been borne out by case law. So it's really just opinion, albeit professionally grounded opinion, that testing of handload exemplars would never be allowed. I personally think you stand a reasonable chance of having the evidence admitted if you can provide detailed records showing how, when, where, etc. Would I personally carry handloads for self defense purposes? No, because I agree with the general consensus that by carrying factory loads, you remove one line of inquiry that a prosecutor could go down. But I also think it's disingenuous to make blanket statements about how courts will rule on evidentiary matters, since admissibility of evidence can be one of the most hotly contested issues in a trial. That's all I'm saying... Well, it's time to go shooting...let's see...factory loads or handloads? Hmmmm...
__________________
“You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas.” – David Crockett “If I owned Texas and hell, I'd rent out Texas and live in hell.” - General Phillip H. Sheridan |
|
December 29, 2011, 02:27 PM | #93 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The issue here is the use of expert opinion about how something happened based on the testing or exemplars. The only way such opinion could be relevant and therefore admissible evidence in a trial would be if it could be established to the satisfaction of the judge that the exemplars were substantially identical to whatever was used in the event that is the subject of the trial. So when the question is the distance from which a shot was fired, and the expert will be offering an opinion on that question based on GSR produced by firing exemplar rounds, that opinion can only be relevant if it can be established that the exemplar rounds were substantially identical to the round or rounds fired in the event that is the subject of the trial. Otherwise, how could the expert form a meaningful opinion about what actually happened? If handloads were fired in the event, the only evidence of the characteristics of those rounds must come from the defendant, an extremely interested party. And therefore the only way the rounds fired could be connected with any exemplars used for testing would be through the defendant, an extremely interested party. The claim that the exemplars tested matched the round fired in the event is therefore suspect and inadequate to establish an acceptable foundation for the admission into evidence of expert opinion testimony based on the testing of those exemplars. There would be no independent verification that what was tested was anything like what was used in the event. If identified commercial ammunition was fired in the event, there would be independent verification, through the manufacturer, that the exemplars tested substantially matched what was used in the event. Quote:
There are differences between professionally grounded opinions and opinions of unqualified persons pulled out of the air. The opinion of my doctor about my health is far more meaningful than that of my mechanic. If that weren't the case, I'd want another doctor. All opinions are not equal. |
||
December 29, 2011, 02:30 PM | #94 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2000
Location: In a state of flux
Posts: 7,520
|
Quote:
pax |
|
|
|