Reloads for self defense

[kraigwy]

Mr Fiddlemen, no I'm not a lawyer, but I am however a Certified LE instructor in CSI, I have testified in court on several shooting situations, but never in a case where whether reloads or factory ammo was a concern.

I agree lawyer can and do muddy the waters, they will muddy the waters regardless of what ammo is use. They will condemn the use of hollow points, they will condemn the use of magnums, they will condemn the use of LE ammo if you arn't a cop, thats their job, they get paid to muddy the waters.

But still, internet gossip notwithstanding, no one has shown me a court case was based on whether the shooter used reloads or factory.

What does come into play is that the shooter convinces the jury that he felt his or someone else's life was in danger, and his/her shooting was the last resort.

We all have opinions, including lawyers, that's why you have lawyers presenting differant sides of a court case, and normally 50% of the lawyers loose.

[Bamashooter]

I think if you are using lets say remingtom golden sabers and you are loading them to spec from a reloading manual then I dont see how it could be a problem. If you kill a deer with a handload is that an illegal killing. Come on man.....

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by kraigwy

...TI agree lawyer can and do muddy the waters, they will muddy the waters regardless of what ammo is use. They will condemn the use of hollow points, they will condemn the use of magnums, they will condemn the use of LE ammo if you arn't a cop, thats their job, they get paid to muddy the waters. ...

[1] No, we don't get paid to muddy the waters. We get paid to present the best case we can in the interests of our clients, subject to the rules of law, evidence and procedure, and consistent with what we actually have to work with.

[2] And yes, we will use whatever is available to use to further the interests of our clients, consistent with the rules of law, evidence and procedure, and consistent with what we actually have to work with.

[3] But 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.

[4] So --

• I use quality, JHP ammunition of the sort commonly used by law enforcement agencies. This could be used against me in court, but I have decided that the risk is warranted because of the generally superior terminal performance of such ammunition. Therefore, I am prepared to meet attacks on my use of such ammunition.
• I have sought out training, and I practice. I recognize that these things can be used against me in court, but I have concluded that by being trained I have a better chance to prevail in an emergency. So I have prepared to deal with attacks on my training.
• Using a heavily modified gun could be used against me. Furthermore, I have trained and practiced sufficiently to be effective with a stock gun. So I have no good reason to use a heavily modified gun and take any risks on that account.
• I gain no material advantage in the street using handloaded ammunition instead of good commercial ammunition. Therefore, I see no reason to take any risks, even if remote, by using handloaded ammunition.

Originally Posted by kraigwy

...But still, internet gossip notwithstanding, no one has shown me a court case was based on whether the shooter used reloads or factory....

Show me a case in which the shooter used handloads. As noted earlier, we have reason to believe that the use of handloads in self defense situations is very rare. In addition, I suggest that the vast bulk of people who keep guns for self defense aren't enthusiasts and use stock guns and commercial ammunition. Indeed, even many of the members here, who are enthusiasts, use commercial ammunition for self defense.

Originally Posted by kraigwy

...What does come into play is that the shooter convinces the jury that he felt his or someone else's life was in danger, and his/her shooting was the last resort....

But we also have reasons to believe that things like the ammunition used can have an effect on the way members of a jury will view matters and therefore on whether, or how, they can be convinced.

I also have personal knowledge, based on my participation in post verdict interviews of jurors, of how various things can affect how a juror views and evaluates evidence.

Originally Posted by kraigwy

...We all have opinions, including lawyers, that's why you have lawyers presenting differant sides of a court case, and normally 50% of the lawyers loose....

Actually the reason why about 50% of the lawyers lose in court is that if there are two sides, only one can win. And whether a lawyer wins or loses has less to do with his opinion than it does with the merits of his client's case. Not infrequently a client will insist that we pursue the matter in court even when we've explained how slim his chances actually are. We can do the best we can, but our client loses because he is wrong.

[kraigwy]

but our client loses because he is wrong

My you are naive if you believe the guilty don't get off or the incident don't get convicted.

When you or anyone else can come up with a case where someone was convicted do to using reloads instead of factory loads we can continue this conversation.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by kraigwy

My you are naive if you believe the guilty don't get off or the incident don't get convicted.

[1] It's "the innocent", not "the incident".

[2] Of course I know that sometimes the wrong side loses. Of course sometimes that's remedied by the court of appeals, as it was with Harold Fish. But the real point is that your statement in post 51

Originally Posted by =kraigwy

We all have opinions, including lawyers, that's why you have lawyers presenting differant sides of a court case, and normally 50% of the lawyers loose.

is simple nonsense. It means nothing.

Originally Posted by kraigwy

...When you or anyone else can come up with a case where someone was convicted do to using reloads instead of factory loads we can continue this conversation.

This point as also been addressed multiple times.

[FrankenMauser]

Originally Posted by Bamashooter

I think if you are using lets say remingtom golden sabers and you are loading them to spec from a reloading manual then I dont see how it could be a problem. If you kill a deer with a handload is that an illegal killing. Come on man.....

This isn't a question of how "legal" handloads are for SD. It's a question of whether you want to deal with the additional legal issues that will arise, should you use your handloads in an SD shooting (up to, and including: increased costs, potential lack of evidence to support your testimony, and more attacks on your choice of ammunition).

I am an avid reloader. It is one of my primary hobbies.
I like reloading. It's not just a way to save money. I enjoy doing it, and I enjoy creating "perfect" loads for any given situation.

Yet...
All of my SD weapons contain factory ammunition in their chambers and/or magazines. Every one of those types of ammunition is:
A: An extremely common load, most shooters of that type of firearm (and cartridge) would be expected to have on hand, and would be very reasonable for the average person to grab in an emergency situation. (For example: I have 1 1/8 oz #8 shot "Pheasant Loads" in my 12 ga shotgun.)
or
B: A commercial SD load.



Back to your irrelevant analogy that prompts a good point about handloads:

If you kill a deer with a handload is that an illegal killing. Come on man.....

In some states, it can be. Some states require certain measures of energy at the muzzle, or a designated distance down range (especially for handguns and small rifle cartridges). Often times, "standard" handloads don't meet those requirements.

That's the problem with handloads - You are on trial. Any testimony you give about how meticulous you are in loading your ammunition will be completely useless. Handloaded ammunition can vary from incredibly light, to horrendously vicious (low power, to high power). Who can say, besides you, that the ammunition left over for testing is the same load you used in the shooting?

As previous posters have detailed quite well....
It doesn't matter. Even if you can find an "expert" that will testify to the uniformity and quality of your handloads, the testimony will likely never be admissible.


"Handloads for SD" is not an issue of legality. It's an issue of risk assessment. Is it worth it, to you, to take on the extra risk that may be involved in using your handloads for SD?
That's all that matters. If you don't want to use factory ammo, then don't. Those of us that want to simplify the aftermath and fallout of an SD shooting will make a different decision.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by jmortimer: Bottom line, there is no case of a self-defense shooting with reloads leading to a conviction of an innocent person.

I think you have missed the entire point.

There is nothing illegal at all about using hand loads in self defense. The use of them will not lead to anyone's conviction. That's not the point.

Heck, even in New Jersey, where carrying FMJ ammunition outside the home is unlawful, the use of such loads would not lead to the conviction of an innocent person for manslaughter or murder.

That's not the issue.

The issue is whether potentially favorable information not being introduced due to the rule of admissibility of scientific forensic trace evidence could become important in a case in which the evidence produced by the defendant is otherwise insufficient for the success of his defense of justification--in a perfectly justifiable action.

That did happen in the Bias case; we know about it, but only because Massad Ayoob was involved in the trial and has written about it more than once. The hand loads issue may also have been mentioned in one of the appellate court decisions, but I don't know--I have not looked.

Has it happened other times and not been reported? Neither you nor I can know. You would have to read the transcripts of every relevant trial in the country to see if the issue has ever arisen. That would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. But that would not help you at all. You would then have to talk to each of the jurors afterwards, because juror comments and deliberations transcribed and recorded for analysis.

And depending upon the jurisdiction and the circumstances, an attorney's move to introduce scientific forensic trace evidence, and a judge's decision to refuse, may be made without the knowledge of the jury. The jurors would have no way of even knowing about it.

Now, let's agree that such an unfolding of events, about which we cannot know, would be very, very rare, for the reason pointed about more than once by fiddletown: the use of hand loads in shootings that come to trial is very infrequent.

So, why does that fact not make this all a non issue? It's very simple. It has to do with conditional probability. If one does use hand loads, the fact that they have rarely been used is no longer at all relevant to his case!

Nor is the fact hat something has not occurred, for whatever reason, any indication that it will not occur. That's also a function of conditional probability.

So, when might this become an issue? First, the actor would have to be otherwise lacking in his or her ability to produce evidence in support of his account of a justified shooting, or to counter state's evidence against him. That won't happen very often if the perp kicked down the door to the actor's house.

Then, if the distance at which the shooting took place is disputed; if evidence and tesitmony regarding the distance would mitigate for or against a finding of justification; if a lack of gunshot residue on the person shot is used as an argument about that distance; and if the loads used by the actor would not have left GSR at the actual distance claimed by him, then the admissibility or inadmissibility of that last fact would no doubt be pivotal.

A lot of ifs? Yeah, but if shooting did take place outdoors without favorable witnesses, and if there were unfavorable witnesses, there are a lot fewer, and that is not an unrealistic situation for one who ends up shooting one of more than one assailants out doors. And if the actor used hand loads, he has contributed to a possible problem when it comes to presenting his defense.

I hope this clears up some things.

[Sarge]

The interested reader would do well to review the threads referenced by Fiddletown in Post 38.

[1] The legal issues regarding the use of handloads for self defense have been discussed here. See:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=423771

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=391656

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=394682

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397127

50% of clients lose. Lawyers only 'lose' if they don't get their money.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Bamashooter

I think if you are using lets say remingtom golden sabers and you are loading them to spec from a reloading manual then I dont see how it could be a problem.

Here is how it could be a problem. Let's say you shoot someone charging at you with a tire iron at 10'. When police arrive, his passenger says that you were the aggressor and you shot him from a distance as he was yelling "Don't come any closer." Now police have two different stories about what happened, so they go to the forensic evidence.

If you are using Remington Golden Sabers from the factory, police can obtain an identical load of that ammunition from the factory and see what kind of gunshot residue it deposits at different distances. Based on the testing of the victim's clothing and skin for gunshot residue, they can then estimate at what range (and sometimes position) the shooting took place.

If you are using reloaded Remington Golden Sabers loaded according to a manual, the police now have several problems. The first is that the police don't necessarily know what kind of ammo you had loaded in the gun. You can tell them the details; but since you are also the suspect in a shooting, they may not be willing to take your word on it.

If they decide to instead use whatever factory ammo would normally be used in cases with those headstamps, they might get a totally different GSR pattern than your reloads. The different pattern can lead them to different conclusions about distance - and once your story stops matching the evidence, the chances a jury gets to sort out the facts go way up.

So, you'll just explain you used reloads in court, right? The problem is, it will be next to impossible to get the GSR pattern from your reloads admitted in court. First of all, there is no independent third party who conducts regular QA and maintains records on your handloads. This creates a foundation problem that can make scientific or expert testimony on the subject inadmissible. Second, it can be very difficult to prove that the rounds you say were loaded were the ones that were actually loaded. These two factors may mean that the jury never even hears your explanation - which can be a major problem if it goes to a jury and the distance you fired is a key issue.

So far there don't seem to be a lot of cases on the subject because you need all of the following factors have to be in play:

1. There is a factual question of what distance the shooting took place and GSR evidence is critical to resolving it.
2. Handloaded ammunition was used.
3. The defendant wants to dispute the GSR tests conducted by the State.

There is one case I am aware of that meets all three criteria (the Bias case mentioned above) and another case that meets the first 2 criteria (the Pease case out of Virginia). As a result, you can make the argument that this is such an incredibly rare circumstance, you don't need to worry about it.

On the other hand, I can point to a number of self-defense shooters who were eventually acquitted (Mark Abshire, Larry Hickey) where the distance at which the shootings took place were absolutely critical to their cases. Admissibility of GSR evidence didn't come up in those cases because they used factory ammo.

It seems to me that this debate boils down to two major issues:

1. Will the defense be able to get its own GSR tests admitted into evidence if handloaded ammunition is used?

2. What advantages do I gain from handloaded ammunition and how do they balance against the above risk?

From my perspective, there doesn't appear to be any advantage to using handloaded ammo. Perhaps a tiny sliver more confidence in reliability and some cost-savings. So it doesn't take much risk to outweigh those advantages in my mind.

As to risk, it seems this is where there is a lot of disagreement. It seems the first step to solving this disagreement would be to show a case where the defense was successful in getting its own GSR tests of handloaded ammo admitted into evidence. Once we have that case, we can look at the motions related to that evidence, figure out what it cost in terms of expert witness fees and attorney trial time and have a rough idea of what kind of extra cost it adds.

If we cannot find ANY case where that has happened, then we have to assume a very real risk that such evidence will not be admissible and that we are going to be at the mercy of the state forensic examiner on any case where the distance the fight happened is relevant.

So if anybody out there has some information that clarifies these issues, I would love to learn more and I imagine it would help all of us get a better picture of the risk/reward involved.

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

The hand loads issue may also have been mentioned in one of the appellate court decisions, but I don't know--I have not looked.

No, I don't think it was. At least I went through 17 pages of appellate cases on Google Scholar one by one last night discussing GSR evidence admissibility and the Bias case was not one of them.

[madmo44mag]

I normally do not get involved in these kind of threads for various reasons.
I can say that few if any of you have been a victim of a violent crime and or have ever had to draw your weapon in self defense - I have.
My experience tells me that if you drew your weapon in accordance with state law, ballistic is not as big an issue as you might think.
The use of deadly force is well defined in my home state (Texas) and if the shoot is clearly justified the case will most likely never see court.
This is just MHO here but I think what gets folks in trouble is they 1st don't fully understand the law as it pertains to drawing and using their weapon.
2nd they allow fear to cloud their judgment and over react.
When some one has a gun/ knife pointed at you; fear for your life takes hold but fear must be tempered with common sense and good judgment.
Some of you will understand what I am saying and others will not.
I do love to read these threads and mean no ill towards anyone here!!!!

[Spats McGee]

For me, it's a matter of risk assessment. I'm a lawyer, and while I've never been counsel of record on a gun or SD case, I've done civil right defense, criminal defense, prosecution (traffic court, to be honest), and a smattering of other areas. Here's my take:

Is the use of handloads for SD illegal? No. Not in any state of which I'm aware, anyway.

Is the use of handloads for SD a good idea? No. Using handloads introduces a wildcard element into the potential criminal and civil trials that poses a risk that I judge to be greater than the potential benefit.

As far as the statement that "a good shoot is a good shoot," well, perhaps we should amend that statement to "a good shoot is a good shoot after the police, the prosecuting attorney, twelve jurors and a judge decide that it was a good shoot." That's the reality. It's not a good shoot until you convince at least several other people that it was a good shoot. And you can bet that the BG, if he survives, will tell them all that he's a church-going choirboy who was minding his own business when you decided to off him.

In Arkansas, we rarely use grand juries. Most state felonies are charged by felony information. We have a mechanism for grand juries, but they just aren't used in state court much. So, assuming that the police or prosecuting attorney remain unconvinced that it was as clear-cut as it seemed to you at the time, you're probably going to jail, at least until you can make bail. In and of itself, that's going to be expensive. That's not affected by the handload vs. factory issue, but it still means that you are going to be somewhat lighter in the pocketbook than you were before the shooting, and you may find yourself in need of funds for several trials. The prosecuting attorney will file a felony information, and suddenly, you're a felony criminal defendant.

When it gets to trial, probably after several months of legal wrangling, motions, and bills that your lawyer wants paid, you'll get to trial. Then we get to the evidentiary issue. If you're using handloads, your reloading records are suspect, no matter how meticulous you have been in keeping them. They will be seen as self-serving, and that's what the prosecuting attorney will tell the court. You'll have to convince the judge that the records kept were accurate, that the ammunition that you used was loaded in conformity with those records, and that the sample provided to your expert was the same as the ammunition used in the shooting. This is a case where the exact ammunition used is destroyed during the shooting. Assuming that your ammunition functions correctly, the powder burns and the bullet is expelled at high speed. The bullet may or may not ever be found. It's not like a knife case, where the knife survives the incident and can be tested later (provided that it can be located).

On the other hand, if you use factory ammunition, you can subpoena the records on the ammunition specs from the company that made your ammo, and suddenly, you've got third-party records. Those records will not be viewed as self-serving. That company doesn't have a dog in the fight, as it were. It should be much easier to get those records in, if you need them.

I'll grant you that there are a lot of ifs involved in this situation. Reloads only become an issue: (1) if you're involved in a shooting; and (2) you're charged or sued; and (3) the type of round you used becomes an issue. I will also agree that if I were confronted with the need to shoot while I had reloads in the gun, I'd rather face a court than a casket. However, given the stakes (my liberty, my finances, and the financial well-being of those who depend on me), I have a very hard time believing that reloads really provide enough of a benefit to outweigh those risks.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by madmo44mag

...My experience tells me that if you drew your weapon in accordance with state law, ballistic is not as big an issue as you might think. The use of deadly force is well defined in my home state (Texas) and if the shoot is clearly justified the case will most likely never see court.
This is just MHO here but I think what gets folks in trouble is they 1st don't fully understand the law as it pertains to drawing and using their weapon....

The issue isn't when the shooting is clearly justified. The issue can arise when in the aftermath there's a dispute about whether the shooting was justified. The thing is that you can't know in advance whether, if you need to resort to your gun in self defense, your use of force will later be found to clearly have been justified. You will have to make your decision in an instant. The authorities will be able to take their sweet time investigating, analyzing and second guessing your decision.

Go back and look at post 43. Review the cases of Larry Hickey, Mark Abshire and Harold Fish.

The laws related to self defense and the use of force were well defined in each of their States. Oklahoma was expressly a "stand your ground" State. Each of these men were trained and well understood the applicable law. They each thought they had no choice and were justified in using lethal force, but their claims of justification were hotly disputed by the authorities.

[thallub]

There are those who believe that our county prosecutor, who gave three passes on righteous shoots in an 18 month period, is going to come after me for using handloads in a righteous shooting case. Methinks you are very wrong.

This is one of those cases:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/print...A27_hApro53278

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by thallub

There are those who believe that our county prosecutor, who gave three passes on righteous shoots in an 18 month period, is going to come after me for using handloads in a righteous shooting case. Methinks you are very wrong.

But how can you be so sure? How can you be so sure that if in the near future, if you need to use your gun in self defense, your case will be as clear cut as the three cases your county prosecutor decided were justified? Consider Mark Abshire in your State of Oklahoma.

How can you be sure that your current county prosecutor will still be the county prosecutor next week? next month? next year? after the next election? whenever you may need to use your gun in self defense? County prosecutors change jobs, go into private practice, seek other public office, get sick, retire, die in an accident, or lose elections.

And what if you need to use your gun in self defense in another county or another State? Don't you ever travel?

[thallub]

There are all kinds of ifs, ands and buts. Abshire was not prosecuted for using handloads; big difference. Abshire did not make a good impression on the county sheriff who states that he may have been drinking. Someone in the Abshire crowd threw a bottle at the Jeep.

BTW: i'm 72 years old. Twice in my lifetime i have found it necessary to defend my family and my home from armed home invaders: Perps got shot both times. Once i used those awful handloads in my S&W model 27. One case did not go to the grand jury. The grand jury refused to indict in the other case. Both these shootings took place in other states. i was never sued.

[Spats McGee]

thallub, I am glad that you were able to successfully defend your family, and that the incidents worked out in your favor. I hope that this latest one does, too.

However, that doesn't change the analysis on whether to use handloads for SD. Doing so still introduces yet one more variable into an equation that's already full of them.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by thallub

There are all kinds of ifs, ands and buts....

Yes, there indeed are. And if I have the opportunity to eliminate an "if, and or but" that could be problematic for me, without interfering with my achieving my purpose, I will do so.

[thallub]

More on Abshire:

Abshire escalated the situation. He went to his home, got pepper spray and a gun and went back outside. All Abshire had to do was stay in the home and call the cops.

The day of the shooting, after attempts to get Case to slow down failed, Abshire reportedly went into his home, retrieved a chemical spray and a handgun and waited outside his home with a friend, authorities said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic...30&archive=yes

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Bottom line - I don't care if someone goes to jail for adding a risk factor in an ambiguous self-defense shoot.

It's well known that appearance issues influence juries. That subtle influence is not going to show up in the legal data bases that deal with appeals, etc.

Like I said, for the reload crowd - when your lawyer tells you to dress up for court, are you going to show up dressed like Rambo because you think it was a good shoot? There are no cases in Lexis-Nexis about dressing like Rambo?

It's Darwin time - choose your survival strategy for your 'good' shoot. Choose how much you want to spend for expert testimony if it comes up.

Or be stubborn. Psych fact - when you hold a strong belief in spite of reasonable evidence, when presented with more evidence, your irrational belief becomes more entrenched due to a threat to your ego.

[madmo44mag]

I understand what is being stated and I think we all know and understand that if a shoot is called into question then the game is on so to speak.
Factory ammo, hand load ammo, tire iron, baseball bat; the prosecutions job is to call into question anything that may help their case.
At this stage it becomes a roll of the dice.
You may even prove that the hand loaded ammo you used is less powerful / lethal than factory ammo; a well placed shot kills just a good as factory ammo.
With that said, it’s all up to the lawyers and how well they present their case.
Here is my primary point in all of this: know the laws that govern deadly force in your state. Train, train, train and prepare yourself mentally to deal with the stress and trauma of a shooting. Most folks train and can place their shot on target but fail to mentally train for the event. Mental training is often over looked and leads to mistakes.
If the shoot does not pass the “smell” test and goes to trial, then as I stated it is a roll of the dice and how good an attorney you have.
There are innocent folks serving time for crimes they did not commit because their attorney, funding, or forensic evidence got them convicted.
There is no magic answer to the OP’s question, just personal preference.
Will factory ammo save you in a trial – maybe?

[OldMarksman]

Posted by thallub: There are those who believe that our county prosecutor, who gave three passes on righteous shoots in an 18 month period, is going to come after me for using handloads in a righteous shooting case.

Who on earth would believe that? There's nothing unlawful about using hand loads.

However, it is clear from that statement that you have either not read the above explanations, or that you do not comprehend them.

If there is sufficient evidence to indicate that a "shoot" was "righteous", there is absolutely no reason for any county prosecutor anywhere to pursue a conviction. It is when the defendant cannot produce evidence of justification, or the investigation shows that there is enough contradictory evidence, that charges will be filed.

Note that neither the sparsity of evidence of justification nor the presence of contradictory testimony will change what actually happened in a "righteous shoot", but taken together, both can strongly influence what others conclude about what happened.

If charges are filed, they will most certainly not come about because someone used hand loads. Under certain limited conditions, however, the use of hand loads may deprive the defendant of the use of key evidence that could tilt the judgment in his favor, as has been thoroughly explained in posts above.

As Spats McGee points out, it is a simple matter of risk assessment. One identifies the risks, and analyses them with regard to likelihood of occurrence and the severity of the potential consequences. One then steps into the rest of risk management: one decides whether to accept the risks or to try to mitigate them.

That process leads me to carry a gun, outdoors and in.

How would that process apply to the question at hand?

Well, in step one, one would identify as a risk that he or she may be the victim of a serious attack. One would identify as a risk that in the event of a defensive shooting, there is a possibility that favorable evidence of justification may be sparse, and that witness testimony may be lacking or contradictory. One wouldidentify as a risk the possibility that in a shooting, GSR evidence may turn out to be important in a defense of justification.

One would then analyze the likelihood of occurrence of each identified risk.

Regarding the risk of being attacked, it may be less than remote, or possibly as high as remote--probably no higher. The decision of whether to accept or mitigate that risk will therefore come down to an assessment of the potential consequences.

Regarding the GSR question, if the "righteous shoot" took place indoors in one's home, with evidence of forced entry, in a castle doctrine jurisdiction, the likelihood that it would become an issue would be far less than remote. The likelihood increases if the "shoot" takes place out doors, depending upon who else was present, who saw what, whether the person shot is found to have had a weapon, and other factors.

One then analyzes the potential consequences of each risk.

Regarding the risk of being attacked, the consequences could include serious injury or even death.

Regarding the evidentiary issue, they can range from an astronomically costly and drawn out trial, with all of the things associated with that, to some time in confinement while the case plays out, to conviction and imprisonment for a crime, even when you know that it was a "righteous shoot."

So, should one accept the risks, or try to mitigate them? That's up to the individual.

Concerning the first risk (risk of being attacked), one might choose to carry a gun and know how to use it, and one might try to stay out of certain places at night. The second of those may also help mitigate the second risk (absence of favorable witnesses). Of course, one might choose instead to accept the risk and do neither. I know plenty of people who do make that decision.

Regarding the GSR issue and factors involving the admissibility of scientific forensic trace evidence, one can choose to accept the risk or mitigate it. I choose the latter. It is the one thing that I can control.

Likelihood? Low, very low. Potential consequences? Far too severe for my liking. I carry a gun, I have taken training, I exercise situational awareness to the best of my ability, I keep the doors locked, I try to avoid bad areas (particularly at night), and I do not carry hand loads.

By the way, I would not have a problem with using hand loads solely for home defense.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by thallub

More on Abshire:

Abshire escalated the situation. He went to his home, got pepper spray and a gun and went back outside. All Abshire had to do was stay in the home and call the cops.

Based on more complete reporting of that case, as discussed in this TFL thread, I don't think either of your blurbs are correct (or at least they are reporting only one side of the testimony in a case where several different accounts were given).

However, I don't understand why you are bringing it up at all in this context. What does this have to do with THIS conversation we are having?

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Roberts

... I don't understand why you are bringing it up at all in this context.

The only* relevance that Abshire (and Hickey and Fish) have to this discussion is to illustrate that not all self defense shootings that are ultimately resolved in favor of the shooter are immediately decided by the authorities to be justified.

*ETA: Oops, I forgot that Fish also illustrates that ammunition choice can be a factor for a jury.

Originally Posted by madmo44mag

I understand what is being stated and I think we all know and understand that if a shoot is called into question then the game is on so to speak.
...At this stage it becomes a roll of the dice...

No, it's not just a "roll of the dice." It's not going to be random chance. There are things you can do to increase your likelihood of a favorable result in the legal aftermath.

• You can train, learn the laws and be prepared to exercise good judgment.
• You can understand the legal process and the legal issues involved in a self defense case.
• You can form a relationship with a lawyer ahead of time, making sure that he understands the unique nature of a self defense plea.
• You can avoid potential "wild cards", like hair triggers and handloads.

There are no magic answers. But there are answers that can improve your chances. Proper prior planning prevents poor performance -- in the street and in the legal aftermath that may follow.

[jmortimer]

So far, in the history of the United States, no one was ever convicted in a self-defense shooting for using reloads or having evidence of reloads used against them. Hollow point bullets yes so why not be afraid of using hollow points where that has been a factor?. Even though I don't use hollow points that makes no sense either. Further, the couple few cases cited for the proposition in question, have nothing to do with using reloads for self-defense. So, again, why all this over something that is a theory and has never, ever happened, not once ever, never? Why be afraid of somehting that has never ever happened in the history of the United States? I think there are better issues to be afraid of and for those who are scared, Ayoob's defense group makes a lot of sense and is a good deal for the $$$.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jmortimer

So far, in the history of the United States, no one was ever convicted in a self-defense shooting for using reloads or having evidence of reloads used against them...

As far as we know. In any case, so what? That doesn't mean it can't be an issue. A prosecution of a claimed self defense shooting using handloads is likely to be a "Black Swan" event. Why would you want it to happen to you?

Originally Posted by jmortimer

...Hollow point bullets yes so why not be afraid of using hollow points where that has been a factor?...

Because JHP ammunition is generally a better choice for self defense applications. That's why virtually all law enforcement agencies use it. And that makes it more likely that I will be able to successfully deal with the issue at trial if it comes up. And I know who the potential expert witnesses on that point are and that they are likely to be available.

Originally Posted by jmortimer

...Why be afraid of somehting that has never ever happened in the history of the United States? I think there are better issues to be afraid of and for those who are scared,...

I'm not scared of using handloads for self defense. I have no reason to be. I simply don't use them and thus avoid the possible problem completely.

Why is it so important to you to use handloads for self defense?

(I am concerned about using JHPs for self defense. But I've concluded that they are a better choice and that the possible issues are manageable; and I've prepared to manage them.)