|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 15, 2012, 11:23 AM | #76 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2008
Posts: 557
|
Speer Gold Dots in a 38 Airweight (135grain) and 9mm auto (124 grain).
Quote:
In my old home town (Jacksonville NC) earlier this year some thugs had their home invasion career cut short when the residents returned and shot them both dead. The matter of ammo used was never mentioned and law enforcement said the shooting was justified. The residents were also active duty Marines. |
|
September 15, 2012, 11:42 AM | #77 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
"If you used handloads, your expert probably wouldn't even get to testify, and certainly not as you suggest."
I believe this opinion is wrong. My opinion is that most trial judges would allow significant leeway on this issue if only to prevent a reversal on appeal. My experience is that trial judges in criminal cases will give more, not less, latitude on expert testimony on behalf of a defendant. As far as I know, there has been only one case where the trial judge, wrongly in my opinion, would not allow expert testimony on the issue in question. I don't believe the 10mm testimony being more "powerful" should have been allowed. Do you recommend that no one carry a 10mm? Are there any other cases other than the single case (Bias I believe)? I don't believe there are any appellate cases on this issue. Do you recommend that no one reload due to the fact that there are more accidental shootings than self-defense shootings, and that you are up the creek if you use reloads because accident do happen, more often? |
September 15, 2012, 11:45 AM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 22, 2012
Posts: 1,031
|
Defense ammo seems to be made to a higher standard, therefore less likely to fail...
Crap ammo isn't a huge deal at the range when your life isn't on the line. |
September 15, 2012, 11:46 AM | #79 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,342
|
Quote:
On this we agree. But, IMHO, the decision to CCW and the consequences that could arise from that decision is more important than what kind of ammo one uses. One needs to know from day one that if the need to use deadly force ever comes up, it will be a rough row to hoe for many years. The decision to take a life as opposed to losing yours, seems to be simple. Thanks to greedy lawyers and bleeding hearts it is not, and unfortunately for us law abiding citizens, the Bad Guys still have the advantage, even when they're dead. Good examples given Frank of what can happen, even when one uses deadly force appropriately, but none of the final decisions made in any of those cases was based on ammo type. I assume one could find thousands of cases where innocent folks were wrongly accused and exonerated in the end after years of grief and tons of money spent on defense. I bet tho, in any of them, whether the ammo was store bought or legal handloads made any difference. Oh I know, could happen, might happen, always the first time. While I agree and accept the fact that if the need ever arises for me to use deadly force, that my butt will be in a wringer for years to come, I have very little fear that my use of handloads will have any bearing on the outcome of whether the shoot was good or bad. Right or wrong it is the choice I have made and I will live with the consequences. |
|
September 15, 2012, 11:54 AM | #80 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 3, 2011
Posts: 2,088
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
September 15, 2012, 12:12 PM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 2, 2010
Posts: 375
|
I think a lot of people here are focusing on a criminal trial, rather than a civil trial.
The argument that "if lethal force was justified, it won't matter what kind of ammo I was using" is probably pretty valid for a criminal prosecution. If you are justfied in using deadly force, then it's not going to matter whether you killed them a little bit or a whole lot. Dead is dead. Where I can see ammo choice coming into play is in a civil lawsuit. Specifically - if one of your rounds misses the bad guy but hits a bystander, or goes through the bad guy. Or in a wrongful death suit. The burden of proof is much lower in a civil wrongful death suit, and there is also the concept of joint and several liability, in which you can be found partially at fault. So suppose the bad guy was found to be 70% at fault for his own death, but you are found to be 30% at fault. They are suing you for 10 million. So now you only have to pay 3 million, not all 10 of it. That's where a lawyer might try to come up with a "the defendant used the most deadly ammo he could find, and even created his own special blend" sort of thing. If you have never served jury duty, I strongly recommend it. You'd be surprised how many people have pre-conceived ideas about things, and how a lawyer can plant ideas in their heads. Turns out that a "jury of your peers" is composed of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty. Some of them will fall for that "he used extra-deadly hollow point ammunition that should only be reserved for professionally trained police officers". So don't worry so much about jail time. Worry about losing your house and everything else you own due to a civil verdict. |
September 15, 2012, 12:15 PM | #82 |
Member
Join Date: September 14, 2010
Posts: 30
|
Winchester PDX1 or Hornady Critical Defense in some of my foreign guns.
__________________
Dave Green
NRA Benefactor Member |
September 15, 2012, 01:05 PM | #83 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,342
|
Quote:
Here is Wisconsin, if the SD shoot is deemed "good", there will be no civil suit. They may have been slow at giving us the right to CWC, but they got it right when they did. If in the process of SD, one hits an innocent bystander, it is not going to be a "good" shoot no matter what the ammo. Odds are, being a civilian, you will get hit with a nasty civil suit along with a criminal conviction regardless of how many BGs you took out or how many other lives you saved. Again thanks to greedy lawyers and bleeding hearts. The decision to pull one's firearm and shoot should not be taken lightly and other options always need to be thought out. Knowing your target and beyond is one of the basic rules of gun safety. Personal protection does not exclude this. Shoot a innocent bystander while protecting yourself and expect to be punished.....and rightfully so. This is a no brainer and again, has nothing at all to do with ammo choice. |
|
September 15, 2012, 01:18 PM | #84 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
September 15, 2012, 01:18 PM | #85 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
And indeed, Marty Hayes, in his analysis of the Hickey case, to which I linked, pointed out that Hickey's defense was made more difficult because of the lack of gunshot residue samples (at pg 20):
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; September 15, 2012 at 02:04 PM. |
||||
September 15, 2012, 01:35 PM | #86 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
The other thing that makes the legal analysis of this issue so difficult is the particular sequence of events that must happen for a handload/sd case to come to light. To go up on appeal and make good, useful caselaw, the sequence goes something like this:
Alternatively, the expert witnesses could write an article about the case. While that's much, much simpler, it provides an explanation but no precedent.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
September 15, 2012, 01:54 PM | #87 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
"Originally Posted by jmortimer
...Good examples given Frank .." No, not my post. Setting aside your animus, none of the cases you cite have anything to do with ammunition except Fish and the too "powerful" 10mm. Again, I ask, do you recommend that no one use a 10mm, .44 mag etc, for self-defense? We know for sure that can get you in trouble for using "too much gun." Also, do you agree that no one should even chamber a reload as someone might get shot, even by accident, and even accidents will be investigated? As was pointed out, all of the cases you cited were good shoots and all shooters have been exonerated. Also, the much discussed Hickey case, stands for the proposition that taking firearms training, e.g. Gunsite etc, can for sure get you in trouble. Do you recommend that one should avoid training classes like Mr. Hickey took, because it got him in a whole lot of trouble, and he had to have expert witness testimony in order to convince two juries that he was not some highly trained whacked out killer? His attorney/experts never convinced both juries to the point that he was found innocent, both juries were hung. The more I study this issue, the more I'm convinced that the least of your worries is what ammunition you use unless it is "too powerful," and that advanced firearms training can and will be used against you. I am fully convinced that the best course of action is to use exactly what the local police use, guns and ammo, and if they change, you change. Don't reload, and don't take a lot of advance firearms training. I would also avoid IDPA, Three Gun, etc. And in the end, a good shoot is a good shoot. Last edited by jmortimer; September 15, 2012 at 02:00 PM. |
September 15, 2012, 02:37 PM | #88 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
[2] But you might want to study up a bit on Fish. In Fish there were two ammunition related factors: the using a 10mm; and using JHPs. Quote:
Quote:
[1] Lawyers will use whatever is available to use to further the interests of their clients, consistent with the rules of law, evidence and procedure, and consistent with what they actually have to work with. The prosecutor's client is the State, and if he is prosecuting you for an act of violence against another human which you claim was in self defense, he will use whatever is available to further the State's interesting in getting you convicted. [2] If I am preparing for the possible eventuality of being the defendant in a criminal or civil case arising from my use of force in self defense, I can make some decisions ahead of time. I can make those decisions based on an assessment of the risks compared with the utility of certain conduct. That's call risk management. The point is to lay as strong a foundation for my defense as possible, while preserving my ability to accomplish my purpose. I want to stack the deck in my favor as much as I can. [3] So --
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||||
September 15, 2012, 02:46 PM | #89 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
I can agree with all that. My point, and I don't think you disagree, is that many things one might do, can and will be used against you: powerful ammunition, expanding bullets, training, firearms modifications, reloads...In the end, any time you pull the trigger, your life can become a great big hassle. A good shoot may be a good shoot but it still may be one gigantic headache.
|
September 15, 2012, 03:03 PM | #90 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 3, 2011
Posts: 2,088
|
Quote:
|
|
September 15, 2012, 03:10 PM | #91 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 9, 2011
Posts: 1,250
|
In my light J-frame I carry my own cast bullets (lee mold) with a dash of tightgroup. It's not very powerful but it's the most accurate load I've shot and the recoil is low too.
|
September 15, 2012, 03:26 PM | #92 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 1,343
|
40 cal hydra shok.
|
September 15, 2012, 03:27 PM | #93 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
September 15, 2012, 03:35 PM | #94 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 3, 2011
Posts: 2,088
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
September 15, 2012, 03:36 PM | #95 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
September 15, 2012, 03:47 PM | #96 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
" 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. |
September 15, 2012, 04:13 PM | #97 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
And my statement in post 85 was (emphasis added): Note the use of the qualifiers, "necessarily" and "possibility." You're really grasping at straws if you need to quote others incompletely and out of context to support your position. Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||||
September 15, 2012, 04:19 PM | #98 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,821
|
Quote:
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."
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
||
September 15, 2012, 04:28 PM | #99 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
With the other issues, training, etc., the evidentiary issues will be around effectively presenting an explanation that will be intelligible and acceptable to a jury made up largely or entirely of people who don't know anything about guns and who have no interest in guns.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
September 15, 2012, 04:36 PM | #100 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 9, 2011
Location: "In the swamps of Montana" with the gators
Posts: 84
|
What do I use?
Long-time established .38 Special 158-grain semiwadcutters, no hollow points, various retailers.
-or- Long-time established Remington 9mm JHP 115-grain L9MM1. "It's old-school, but it works." |
|
|