April 22, 2011, 03:07 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
Quote:
Everyone must make their own decisions, but from all the discussions it appears that the ammo is not going to turn a "good" shoot (there's no such thing as a good one, but I mean one considered legally justifiable) into a "bad" one. However, if the facts of the event are in serious dispute and can be equivocal, your freedom might well hinge on such things. |
|
April 22, 2011, 03:36 PM | #27 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
|
Interesting thread. I suppose a good question at this point would be, does anyone have any knowledge of any SD cases that GSR was looked at?
Why does it matter if GSR was looked at in a suicide/homicide? The Dan Bias case was not a SD situation so the don't use handloads because of Bias doesn't apply I would think. Self defense is a much different event than finding a family member dead at home. Perhaps it was a wise thing for the ME to look at the GSR in his case...but how is that relevant to being muggged or attacked on the street? I surmise that GSR is moot at SD shootings where there will be witnesses and the perps weapon etc.. |
April 22, 2011, 04:14 PM | #28 | ||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Quote:
The GSR "splatter," which is what we're talking about, can be used to help in determining the distance from the muzzle to the target. Hypothetical: I work late one night, and am confronted by a homeless man with a stick between my office and my car. The homeless guy threatens me with his stick, and takes a swing at my head. I shoot him from a distance of 3.5 feet. I'm a terrible shot and the stress of the encounter takes its toll on my shooting, so I wind up putting one bullet through his knee. He goes down. Threat ended, I quit shooting, and back away. Police show up and he tells them that he was at least 15 feet away. No useful prints on the stick, and no witnesses. This is the kind of situation in which that GSR evidence could be very important, as I could face aggravated assault, or even attempted murder charges. |
||
April 22, 2011, 04:27 PM | #29 | ||||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
To date, it looks like the answer to that question is "No." Quote:
Given what the Rules of Evidence are for the admission of expert testimony, it appears that it would be exceedingly difficult to establish a proper foundation to the degree a court would allow such evidence. The problem is that the key factor in the investigation (your handloads) have been totally under your control, and you are on trial - making your claims suspect at best. Quote:
Here is another good case to read on how the legal system works: Larry Hickey. Note that this took place in gun-friendly Arizona. In this case, Hickey chose to follow a popular Internet recommendation and exercise his right to remain silent. As a result, investigators at the scene missed many key details that would have helped them sort out which of the eyewitness stories was correct. Luckily for Hickey, they documented the evidence so well that most of it was still preserved when he went to trial; but he ended up going through two hung juries. Note also that Hickey claimed he was attacked in his own driveway while his attackers claimed they were attacked by Hickey while standing in an alley. While it wasn't mentioned as a major issue in this trial (possibly because of the very close range of the shots and the use of factory ammo), you can easily see how the distance between the shooter and the shootee could become an issue. |
||||
April 22, 2011, 04:33 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
A little slightly OT side note:
The best way I know to avoid liability exposure is to train hard and safe, have great equipment, avoid situations that are likely to compromise my safety in the first place, and keep a clear mind and a fit body, so that I don't shoot someone accidentally or for the wrong reason in the first place. Buy conducting my life that way, I have just exponentially reduced my risk of being sued. Not that it's impossible, just extremely unlikely. |
April 22, 2011, 06:38 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,889
|
Hi fiddletown.
In fact I do know something about the legal system, and know what constitutes deadly force and what justifies it. As long as I am within the legal guidlines for the use of deadly force, I am not going to spend time attempting to figure out the jots and tittles of what might happen if I have to use it. I do not have a lot of confidence in lawyers, but have a lot of confidence in friends, at least one who is an internationally recognized expert on the subject. It is my view that folks that write for the magazines, although maybe experts, just need something to write about, such as the handloads issue. If someone can show a couple of cases where using handloads made the difference in the outcome of the case I might reconsider. The Fish case was a result of poor defense, and was overturned later. That was not about handloads, however. The anticipated problems with handloads seem to center around the premise that the handloader must be a killer at heart and wants to load mankilling ammunition. Such stuff could be easily refuted. Of course, in places like NY and NJ nothing might be good enough to be found not guilty regardless of the ammo or guns. Here in southern NM it is a different story. I understand that there was once a problem as to powder burns and distance to the target, but I do not worry about such things either. So let the lawyers "eat cake" when it comes to ammo and modifications that are not unsafe in themselves. The odds of my ever having to defend myself are one in many millions so to lose sleep over some of these concerns is something I am not going to do. Regards, Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. |
April 22, 2011, 07:08 PM | #32 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The problem comes when there is a dispute that could be resolved by the use of GSR evidence, but the handloader/shooter's expert is not allowed to testify. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
April 22, 2011, 07:11 PM | #33 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
And IMO, the evidentiary issues are the main problem. I don't really see the killer at heart claim as being a major issue; but it does highlight one of the disconnects that I think makes this difficult to explain - evidence can only be heard if the judge allows it. I think many people have this impression that they will be able to present all aspects of their side of the story; but that isn't necessarily the case. The Larry Hickey link above demonstrates that well. |
|
April 22, 2011, 07:17 PM | #34 | |||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Here's part of what I posted in another thread on this subject. It is an attempt to lay the groundwork for this discussion, without writing a treatise on it.
Quote:
|
|||
April 22, 2011, 08:03 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,889
|
Hi Spats.
Lose all the sleep you want to. I am not concerned in the least about using handloads. If that was the only issue I am 100% sure the case would not go to trial with the attitudes we have here in southern NM. Lawyers never see black and white, but only shades of gray. But notice that lawyers win some and lose some. If they knew what they were talking about who would lose? Regards and out, Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. |
April 22, 2011, 09:00 PM | #36 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Hi, JerryM.
I'm not losing sleep. I'm comfortable with the risk assessment that I've done. Cheers. |
April 22, 2011, 09:38 PM | #37 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona thought he was justified. He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges. Mark Abshire in Oklahoma thought he was justified. Nonetheless, despite this happening on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal grinder before finally being acquitted. Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona, thought he was justified. But he was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish. Three men familiar with the rules of the use of lethal force in self defense and in gun friendly States thought they were justified in using lethal force in self defense. And in fact each was ultimately vindicated. Nonetheless, each went through a long, arduous and very expensive ordeal before he was vindicated. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And yes, handloads weren't an issue in Fish. But in a post verdict interview a juror did state that the jury was very troubled by Fish's use of JHP ammunition. And that illustrates that in a gun friendly State, ammunition used in a claimed self defense shooting can have an impact on how a jury evaluates the evidence. (And the OP's question concerned ammunition and types of guns in general, not just handloads.) Quote:
So if you wind up on trial, your lawyer will have a number of issues to deal with. He wouldn't also have to deal with handloads if you didn't use them. Now I don't lose any sleep about these things because I don't use handloads for self defense, nor do I use a heavily modified gun. I've taken these potential wild cards off the table, so there's no need for me to concern myself about them. Quote:
Last edited by Frank Ettin; April 23, 2011 at 09:18 AM. |
|||||||
April 22, 2011, 09:44 PM | #38 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Fiddletown and Bart, thanks for the insight. I was aware of the Bias case, but not the others.
Taken on its own merits, I considered the Bias case to be an anomaly. In context, however, you've put forth a compelling argument. Fortunately (?), I don't handload defensive ammunition any more, and as such, I carry factory ammo. Still, it lends credence to an old piece of advice I once got from a lawyer/shooter: "If you're going to carry a gun, carry the same ammunition the local cops carry."
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
April 22, 2011, 09:58 PM | #39 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Forgive me for emphasizing that point. But I think this point bears emphasizing because, as Bart pointed out in post 29, folks seem to have difficulty separating the somewhat bizarre circumstance of Bias, and the ultimate conviction of Daniel Bias, from the evidentiary principles of general application that the case illustrates. |
|
April 23, 2011, 12:27 AM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Fiddletown, thanks for searching for that Pulins case, whatever it is (or isn't).
|
April 23, 2011, 06:51 AM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 21, 2009
Location: West Central Missouri
Posts: 2,592
|
Quote:
I have found out that if I follow my lawyers advice, I tend to not have to worry about going to court to begin with.
__________________
Inside Every Bright Idea Is The 50% Probability Of A Disaster Waiting To Happen. |
|
April 23, 2011, 07:04 AM | #42 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
I don't see the advantage to handloads for carry.
I see a huge theoretical advantage to making handloads for range use that have similar recoil and POI to whatever commercial SD loads I carry, for those guns I have in which I would use reloads. (I say theoretical because I am only just getting into handloading, so it will probably be a while before I have the full setup, plus the skill to come close to duplicating a load.) It's not like one has to buy tons of SD ammo. A box or two, every now and then, aside from the initial function testing, is all one needs. Range ammo is something else. So, I guess the question I have is: Even though the legal risks are small, what would I gain by carrying handloads for SD? This is not to say I follow every bit of advice out there, even when it's not bad. The magazine disconnect safety has been removed from my BHP, but in that case I do see a clear advantage - the trigger is much smoother, and it's easier to hit the target and not hit things that are not the target. So while there may be some potential risk of being accused of not caring about safety, I feel there's a perfectly good counter argument for the safety of bystanders. But like I said, I get a clear performance edge in that case, against a pretty low theoretical risk. Given the quality of current SD ammo, I don't see what the performance edge would be for SD handloads that would offset the pretty low theoretical risk. Just my $.02. |
April 23, 2011, 07:24 AM | #43 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
I realized that fiddletown has posted a lot of links, so here is a repost of the handload cases as well as their original source:
Quote:
|
|
April 23, 2011, 11:43 AM | #44 | |||
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
Quote:
The real question is, if one did have to employ deadly force to defend oneself, might the evidence available after the fact and the testimony given at trial raise sufficient question about the justification? From that follows the OP's question: might the equipment used by the shooter have an influence on the outcome of a trial? For example,
Quote:
The outcome will depend upon a number of things other than whether the attorney "knew what they were talking about", including
If a self defense shooting occurs indoors in a castle doctrine jurisdiction, and there is clear physical evidence of forced entry, and there is no forensic evidence or other indication that the resident fired when it was not necessary, and there is no prior connection between the shooter and the person shot, none of those issues are likely to arise. But otherwise, any of them could help determine the shooter's future. An attorney cannot create evidence that he does not have, or use evidence that cannot be admitted, or change history to correct things that his client may have done to put himself in a less than favorable light. |
|||
April 23, 2011, 12:14 PM | #45 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Swamp dweller
Posts: 6,187
|
Quote:
I'll take what Mas. has posted to heart on this subject
__________________
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. |
|
April 23, 2011, 12:15 PM | #46 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
This Abshire thing keeps cropping up on this forum. Abshire played self appointed traffic cop: When a driver refused to slow down; Abshire went into his home, got a gun, came back outside and confronted folks by yelling and shining a light into a car. Abshire could have stayed in the house and called the cops. The police report states that Abshire had been drinking.
Abshire is not a role model for a righteous self defense case. Yep, Abshire was found not guilty in criminal court. It also broke him financially. Quote:
|
|
April 23, 2011, 01:27 PM | #47 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Anyone interested, can follow the links posted in this thread (posts 37 and 46) and decide for himself. Last edited by Frank Ettin; April 23, 2011 at 02:39 PM. |
|
April 23, 2011, 01:41 PM | #48 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Bart, thanks for post 43 with that lengthy quote from Massad Ayoob. I'd like to take the liberty of focusing on part of Mas' write up on Iowa v. Cpl. Randy Willems because it focuses on how GSR test data could be vital in a self defense case. Mas wrote, in pertinent part (emphasis added):
Quote:
|
|
April 23, 2011, 02:35 PM | #49 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Thallub, Abshire keeps cropping up not as a "model for a righteous self defense shoot" but as an example of someone whose self-defense shoot came at great personal cost even though he was found "not guilty."
Abshire was attacked on his own lawn by six men. He was knocked into a ditch and one man pummeled him while another kicked him. Only after having his front teeth cracked did he draw and use a gun. Last time I looked, the penalty in Oklahoma law for yelling and shining a light at a car wasn't any of those things. I'd agree it could have been handled smarter - and that is one reason it comes up in self-defense discussion a lot - there are a lot of lessons to learn from it precisely because while it was ultimately a good self-defense shoot, it isn't "the model of a righteous shoot." |
April 23, 2011, 03:35 PM | #50 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Quote:
How much 9mm handloads does it take to save up $5000 for example? Same old arguments, BTW - as I thought. Thanks for the rational folks who point out the logic and evidence for avoiding court risks for little real world gain. Also, thanks for blowing holes in the old chestnut about finding cases given the way legal databases work and I wonder why good lawyers read the simulation research and there are journals and newsletters for them. Of course, if you don't read that because you know better and will also have a GOOD shoot - let your appropriate deity shine over you. Also, if you have an expert - cite that mysterious genius by name - that's how real research works.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|