What type of ammo do you use for carry/home defense?

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Marquezj16

I never said there were no legal concerns, I was questioning the reason why some people state you should not use handloads for SD/HD. I also question opinions which some people seem to put out as facts.

Technically, what you said was that my argument for not using handloads had no solid evidence:

Originally Posted by Marquezj16

Spats - you are entitled to your opinion but that does not make it a fact. Your argument for why one should not carry hand loads have no solid evidence.

I pointed you to my analysis of Rule 703 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Did you read it?

What, exactly, is the "fact" that has bothered you so much? You've mentioned it several times. I think I've been pretty consistent in my opinion that handloads present a legal risk.

Originally Posted by Marquezj16

Are those cases in which handloads were excluded accessible to us non-lawyer types?

Is there a specific case in which you're interested? If so, I'll do what I can to help you get the information. As a general rule, court records are public records, available to everyone.

There's Bias and another one (name escapes me right now) that I think Frank mentioned. I'll dig around and see if I can get it. As far as Bias goes, you could call the court and get the records, but the case never went up on appeal, so there's no detailed legal analysis. Other than that, there's really not much that I've ever been able to find that meets the requisite criteria of GSR/Distance/handloads.

It's late and I'll take a look at the links that you just posted some time tomorrow.

Cheers.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Marquezj16

I never said there were no legal concerns, I was questioning the reason why some people state you should not use handloads for SD/HD....

And the primary reason is those legal concerns. Those legal concerns can complicate your defense if your use of force is not immediately accepted as justified and you then have to defend yourself in court. Any such complication increases uncertainty of outcome and your risk of a bad legal result. And it's a risk that can be avoided.

Originally Posted by Marquezj16

I pointed out your statement that handloads could get the shooter in trouble and the shooter will not be allowed to present their load data as evidence. Also, your statements imply that statements made by the shooter will not be taken as the truth by the prosecutor. Those as not hard facts, they are your opinion....

[1] They are the opinion of a qualified professional. The opinion of a professional within the scope of his education, training and experience is far different from the opinion of a person without those professional qualification. The opinion of my doctor regarding matters related to my health carries a lot more weight than that of my mechanic. All opinions are not equal.

[2] Spats and I make our livings (well in the past tense for me since I'm retired) forming considered professional opinions and acting on them. We have been successful because are opinions have been sound.

[3] What would you consider a hard fact in this context?

Originally Posted by Marquezj16

There is no ruling or law that states you cannot present your side of the story if your reloads come into question...

It's not just a matter of telling your side of the story. It's a matter of being able to introduce third party testimony corroborating your story. See post 75 for a discussion of how that worked in the case of Randy Willems.

[Marquezj16]

Spats and Frank - it's great that you guys are professionals that have dealt with this sort of issues. I am but an enthusiast and one who likes to question the norm. I can ask all day why this is not allowed and try to find loopholes. It's not meant to be in any way disrespectful or annoying. It's more for the education. Whether I'm wrong or right is not my biggest concern, but whether I learned something.

What I've taken away from this thread is most people are not overly concerned about having to explain to a jury their ammo choice. Their concerns is more about having ammo that is effective and functions with the gun of their choice.

[farmerboy]

You guys must really feel proud of your selves. Both feel like a lawyer on trial and the courts could really be swayed by what y'all say. This is just a bunch of jibberish that won't never mean a hill of beans. Never can prove anything except both would stand and argue to a tree for a day. Why don't we have a staff member close this kind of garbage and get on with something more productive ? It would help us all.

[Spats McGee]

Marquezj16, I finally got around to reading (Ok, skimming ) the links you posted.

Originally Posted by Marquezj16

. . . .
http://thedailyreview.com/news/shave...hter-1.1352848

In this case (Shave), there's mention of relaods, but it doesn't fall into that constellation of events that forms the basis for my reluctance to use reloads. There does not appear to be any dispute as to the distance from which the round was fired, nor any need to use an expert on GSR to establish distance.

Originally Posted by Marquezj16

Here's another.

http://www.gunatics.com/forums/gener...mas-ayoob.html

Was there one in this thread about which you had questions? I've read that thread before, and it's got some good cases in it. The problem (in terms of verification) is that most of them are state-court, trial level cases. If we want the actual documents, someone will likely have to call the court and order (& pay for) copies.

There's one issue that Frank mentioned that may or may not be entirely clear, and I'd like to make sure that it is. We've posted at some length about expert testimony and the testimony of the defendant. It's important to understand that only experts get to offer opinions at trial. Lay (non-expert) witnesses only get to offer facts. In order to testify to opinions, the shooter/defendant would have to be qualified as an expert. That means presenting sufficient training, education, or experience to the court that the court believes that he or she is an expert, and qualified to offer an opinion that the court and jury would find both competent and helpful.

From the perspective of the defense bar, that means that the shooter/defendant could testify to things like:

• I heard a noise at ~3 a.m.
• I walked downstairs.
• I saw Bobby Badguy run at me with something shiny in hand.
• I shot Bobby Badguy from a distance of appx 1 foot.

Those are facts to which any lay witness can testify. Now, assume that Bobby Badguy doesn't agree with my story. He claims that he was slightly intoxicated (having finished off the communion wine at church, of course), and simply wandered into the wrong house. He claims that he never ran at me, never held a shiny object, and was no less than 4 feet from me when I shot him.

Unless I (as the shooter/defendant in this case) have training, education and experience sufficient to allow me to analyze the differences in GSR, I will not be allowed to offer any opinion as to what the GSR on Bobby's shirt demonstrated. What I want (as shooter/defendant) is for someone to be able to get on the stand and say, "I have PhDs in all of the relevant disciplines, 25+ years in law enforcement, and I have analyzed GSR on 100s of occasions. I have analyzed the GSR on Bobby's shirt, and compared it to tests that I performed using XYZ Home Defense Ammo, and exemplars sent to me by the factory. My opinion, based on my training, education and experience, is that the GSR on Bobby Badguy's shirt, is consistent with a shot having been fired from a distance of approximately 1 foot." A lay witness cannot offer an opinion like that.

If reloads have been used, then the question becomes whether the expert has a sufficiently reliable sample on which to base his or her opinion. If there is no sufficiently reliable sample, then the expert's opinion can be excluded. If the expert had an unreliable sample (created by a murder suspect) to begin with, there's a danger that the court will not find the expert opinion to be reliable, and may simply exclude it.

Does that clarify anything?

Originally Posted by Marquezj16

. . . .What I've taken away from this thread is most people are not overly concerned about having to explain to a jury their ammo choice. Their concerns is more about having ammo that is effective and functions with the gun of their choice.

Clearly, effectiveness and function are the #1 priority at the moment when the machete-wielding maniac kicks in the door. Modern factory ammo is pretty reliable, though. I have a hard time believing that reloads are sufficiently more effective, or sufficiently more accurate, as to warrant the legal risks posed by using them.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by farmerboy

You guys must really feel proud of your selves. Both feel like a lawyer on trial and the courts could really be swayed by what y'all say. This is just a bunch of jibberish that won't never mean a hill of beans. Never can prove anything except both would stand and argue to a tree for a day. Why don't we have a staff member close this kind of garbage and get on with something more productive ? It would help us all.

If you're not interested in it, ignore the thread. I someone twisting your arm and making you read it?

Originally Posted by farmerboy

. . . . This is just a bunch of jibberish that won't never mean a hill of beans . . . .

Perhaps it is jibberish to you . . . . However, there are a few folks that are concerned about the legal aspects of shooting at others, and it just might mean a hill of beans to one of them.

[farmerboy]

You think I'd have you represent me or either take your legal advice then? I think NOT.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by farmerboy

You think I'd have you represent me or either take your legal advice then? I think NOT.

I don't care if you would or not. That might be why I never asked if you would.

Your failure to either recognize or understand the legalities doesn't have any bearing on whether it will amount to a hill of beans for some other shooter. I strongly suspect that, regardless of whether the trial judge ruled rightly or wrongly, the issue of handloads did amount to a hill of beans to Daniel Bias.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by farmerboy

You think I'd have you represent me or either take your legal advice then? I think NOT.

What makes you think I'd want you for a client. And in fact, I don't need to work for a living anymore and haven't for a number of years. My legal services must have satisfied some folks in order to allow me to do that.

And of course your rantings in this thread have just been a bunch of meaningless twaddle. It's obvious that you're not interested in the subject, so it's also obvious that you've only been posting here for the purposes of insulting Spats, me and anyone interested in learning about these things. That really says more about you than it does about us.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you've really given no one any reason to pay attention to it.

[6mm]

In the 9mm's, Winchester Ranger 124gr +p, Winchester 115gr Silvertip or Federal 9BP, depending on pistol.

In the old Model 10, Federal Nyclad.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

This one is closed.

Wonder why?

For those of you who ignore cogent legal analyses, good for you. It's your fun turn in the orange suit and watching your finances vanish.

One last thing:

Defense: "Well yes I suppose. If someone is trying to kill me, I would like the fight to be as unfair as possible."

Don't say that. Some of you might and chortle. The jury will think you are an idiot. I hope and think that post was in jest. We have cases of folks in trouble for having some stupid gun cliches found in their records during discovery.