The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 24, 2021, 05:47 PM   #1
sfwusc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2013
Posts: 211
Recent cases question

Does anyone know if the ammo was discussed in KR case?

What brand or bullet grain? I always wonder if they talk about that? I have always heard don’t use reloads for SD, but do they discuss the type/ manufacture of ammo at trial.
sfwusc is offline  
Old November 24, 2021, 06:25 PM   #2
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,119
The court discussed the use of 55gr FMJ pertaining to the endangerment charge. The judge sounded as if he might have been a shooter.

I don't think the issue of reloads surfaced.
zukiphile is offline  
Old November 24, 2021, 11:37 PM   #3
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 9,473
It was brought up by defense upon expert cross-examination as I recall (I think Balch), at one point they defended the relative "ineffectiveness" of an AR as compared to a handgun, and the likelihood that an fmj bullet would pass through relatively harmlessly compared to a pistol's hollow point (despite the defendant's obvious evidence to the contrary).
__________________
If you’re ever hiking in the woods and you get lost, just look up and find the brightest star in the sky and you’ll know which way space is.
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 08:14 AM   #4
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 9,473
Since the verdict--Rittenhouse has clearly proven he is saddened for being forced to kill people, and also gone to great lengths to prove that he has no far right or political associations that he benefits from.

Attached Images
File Type: jpeg FE_JMOxXoAEFFD0.jpeg (70.6 KB, 222 views)
__________________
If you’re ever hiking in the woods and you get lost, just look up and find the brightest star in the sky and you’ll know which way space is.
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 09:56 AM   #5
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,119
Quote:
Since the verdict--Rittenhouse has clearly proven he is saddened for being forced to kill people, and also gone to great lengths to prove that he has no far right or political associations that he benefits from.
He seems most conspicuously to be the beneficiary of the jury system and video evidence.

If you are expecting an 18 year old who just recently learned that he wouldn't be spending his entire adult life in prison to be unhappy, or not to meet with the former president who accurately assessed the event that had him on trial, you might ask whether your expectations are reasonable or fair.
zukiphile is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 10:16 AM   #6
stagpanther
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2014
Posts: 9,473
Quote:
beneficiary of the jury system
I can totally agree with that--here's why.
__________________
If you’re ever hiking in the woods and you get lost, just look up and find the brightest star in the sky and you’ll know which way space is.
I am NOT an expert--I do not have any formal experience or certification in firearms use or testing; use any information I post at your own risk!
stagpanther is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 10:47 AM   #7
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 16,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by stagpanther
Since the verdict--Rittenhouse has clearly proven he is saddened for being forced to kill people, and also gone to great lengths to prove that he has no far right or political associations that he benefits from.
Apparently you are still unwilling to accept that the jury arrived at the correct verdict.

Put yourself in the kid's position. You have just been on trial for two charges of murder, plus an assortment of other charges. The verdict's were all Not Guilty. That, alone, has to be cause for immense relief.

Then you get an invitation from the former President of the United States to visit him at his home. Meanwhile, the current president has made statements suggesting that your acquittal was somehow wrong, and that despite your acquittal you are nonetheless a white supremacist vigilante. Would you decline the former preident's invitation? I don't think I would. Would you cheer Biden's pronouncements about you? I certainly wouldn't.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 10:53 AM   #8
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 16,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by stagpanther
Quote:
beneficiary of the jury system
I can totally agree with that--here's why.
Because his defense team did what most (if not all) defense attorneys do in high stakes cases, and hired a jury consultant? There is nothing unusual or sinister or underhanded about this. In a case like this, an attorney who didn't use a jury consultant might well be open to accusations of not doing his or her job.

Quote:
According to Dimitrius, the "perfect juror" in the Rittenhouse case was someone who was willing "to listen to what was presented in court and to make their decision based solely on that evidence."
Imagine that! They wanted a jury who would actually listen to the evidence. Why do you see something inherently wrong with that?

There's an old saying in trial law that when the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. In this case both the facts and the law were on Rittenhouse's side, so the defense basically just had to show the jury that the prosecution had no case. And the prosecution's own witnesses made that case.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic

Last edited by Aguila Blanca; November 26, 2021 at 01:16 PM. Reason: typo
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 11:32 AM   #9
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,801
I’m confused, are there other videos out that didn’t show the defendant being pursued and/or attacked by criminals at each point the weapon was fired? Or are people inserting their own bias into their opinion?

Anyway, the use of FMJ ammunition was discussed and associated with penetration ... but if the defendant would have used hunting ammunition, I’m sure there would have been attempts to use that against him.
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!!
rickyrick is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 12:52 PM   #10
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 24,305
The thing about ammo is there is always something "wrong" with your choice to someone, no matter what your choice is.

There is nothing that can be said that can't be twisted by someone into something else if they think they can gain some kind of advantage, doing so.

Use FMJ and you're "reckless" (if you're a private citizen, if you're a govt employee and it issued to you by the govt, then it's not reckless, apparently)

Use a SP or "hunting" ammunition, then "regular ammo wasn't deadly enough" for you because you wanted to KILL, KILL, KILL....

use what the cops use and you're a vigilante, wanna be cop, or what ever invective laced terms they can think of.

Ammo is never mentioned in the courtroom, UNLESS one side or the other thinks they can gain some kind of advantage from bringing up the subject.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 12:53 PM   #11
101combatvet
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 25, 2011
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by stagpanther View Post
Since the verdict--Rittenhouse has clearly proven he is saddened for being forced to kill people, and also gone to great lengths to prove that he has no far right or political associations that he benefits from.

Did you expect him to being standing with Biden?
__________________
Special Operations Combat Veteran
Gunsmith, BS, MFA - I can outsmart you!
Competitive Shooter - and out shoot you!
NRA Certified Firearms Instructor [8 Courses]
101combatvet is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 01:07 PM   #12
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 7,628
Quote:
Since the verdict--Rittenhouse has clearly proven he is saddened for being forced to kill people, and also gone to great lengths to prove that he has no far right or political associations that he benefits from.
Totally off topic from the OP question on ammo
Quote:

I've expressed my views multiple times on this thread, and frankly have grown tired of being the "token antifa BLM socialist terrorist" for people to unload on--so I'm taking the 5th.
Your words,not mine. Truth hurts?

Nice pic. Two fine Men,falsely maligned

Last edited by HiBC; November 25, 2021 at 01:13 PM.
HiBC is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 01:13 PM   #13
rickyrick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 15, 2010
Posts: 7,801
Yeah I’ve heard fmj ammunition being referred to as “cop killer” bullets and hollow points as being “exploding bullets”
__________________
Woohoo, I’m back In Texas!!!
rickyrick is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 01:29 PM   #14
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 7,628
In general terms that may vary state to state,there are some specific ammo types ("cop killer bullets",for example) that may be unlawful to carry.

There may be bullet types banned by the BATF as "destructive devices" (true exploding bullets)

And I am not a lawyer,do not rely on this as legal advice.

But generally, factory loads,hand loads,etc, there typically is no difference as far as the legality of carrying them for self defense.

Home cast lead SWC target loads MAY be what you have in the moment. Its probably "Legal SD ammo"

As Massad Ayoob has written about, sometimes forensic evidence,Gunshot residue,etc may be critical to your SD claim.

With a factory load,the firearms expert witness can buy off the shelf ammo,conduct tests, and bring admissable evidence to court that might prove,yes,the deceased was within two feet,or ?

With handloads,there is no evidence that will be considered "admissible"

That is the difference.Its not about whether handloads are legal. Its about whether they are the best choice.
HiBC is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 04:46 PM   #15
Rob228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Hampstead NC
Posts: 1,191
It was a pretty interesting exchange when the prosecution was asking him about the "why" behind having a magazine full of FMJ. Something to the effect of:

"These bullets penetrate and can harm other people unlike hollow points that (prosecutors words) explode inside of the target"

Defense spoke up and said hollow points don't explode.

Kyle said something to the effect of "I don't know, bullets are bullets"- probably the best possible answer he could have given.
Rob228 is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 05:01 PM   #16
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 23,925
Quote:
The thing about ammo is there is always something "wrong" with your choice to someone, no matter what your choice is.
It's really not that difficult at all. The key is that if you are an informed gun owner you need to make a common-sense choice and be able to explain it.

The other option is to make a reasonable choice and not know much about it at all, then your motives can't be called into question for the selection you make. The problem is that most of us here know a good bit about ammunition.

There are some choices that are really hard to attack.

Two pretty much unassailable options for someone who doesn't really know about guns:

1. If you can truthfully say that you just went to the gun store and asked for self-defense ammunition for your gun, and you ended up with something mainstream (as opposed to Super Maximum Zombie Destruction Killer Chainsaw Bullets with Razor Tip Cutting Features or some such nonsense) that's going to be really hard to attack from a legal standpoint. You have a gun, you want to use it for self-defense, you bought ammo that the expert behind the counter told you was good for self-defense. The lawyer can try to go track down the dude who sold it to you and try to prove that he didn't know what he was doing and that you should have known he didn't know what he was doing, but imagine how that's going to go over with the jury.

2. If you can truthfully say that you bought ammunition for shooting the gun at the range and that was all you had so that's what you kept loaded in the gun for self-defense, that's going to be pretty difficult to argue with. It's pretty hard to argue with the idea of having a gun for target shooting but recognizing that it might be useful for self-defense but just using whatever ammo you have. In this case, if someone asks about the difference in ammo, you would truthfully say that you don't know much about ammo; that you just used what you had.

From the informed gun owner perspective, you have a couple of good options.

1. If you can truthfully say that you just bought what the police use because you figure they know about ammo, that's hard to attack from a legal standpoint. You truthfully say you don't have the ability to test ammunition for self-defense performance, so you went with ammo chosen by an organization who has generally similar requirements to you and that has the ability to test and research ammunition carefully.

2. If you buy mainstream self-defense ammunition and can articulate why you think it was a good choice for self-defense then that's going to be hard to attack as long as your explanation makes sense and your choice was not a stupid one. As far as explanations go, you wouldn't want to wander off into a discussion of the killing power of one kind of ammunition vs. another or start talking about so-and-so who makes video on youtube and shoots meat with clothes on it to show how deadly ammunition is. You'd want to say things like--"I picked premium self-defense ammunition from a major ammunition manufacturer because they should know how to make good self-defense ammunition." If pressed for details about the specific ammo (as when Rittenhouse was asked about FMJ vs. JHP) you could say that you picked a hollowpoint bullet because that's what most police departments use and what most experts seem to recommend for self-defense. Or you could just say that you picked hollowpoint bullets because self-defense ammunition is nearly exclusively loaded with hollowpoint bullets.

Now, if you make a stupid choice, then yes, it gets more complicated and you may not be able to give a good explanation that makes sense to the jury.

One thing to keep in mind is that if the evidence shows that you are an expert on ammunition (let's say you actually know how to make your own ammunition--i.e. handload), then it becomes even more important that you make good choices and that you can explain them clearly and in a way that makes sense to the people on the jury who almost certainly won't know much about the topic.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 05:43 PM   #17
cdoc42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 13, 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,254
Is it not a hazard when the prosecutor asks what did if you self-load, and you describe a 147gr bullet in 9mm loaded to a velocity of 1200 fps and he counters with the non-existence of any commercially-manufactured round and suggests you purposely loaded that round with the intention of destroying another human being should the occasion arise, circumstances notwithstanding, of course, which suggests to the jury that YOU are the villain?
cdoc42 is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 07:06 PM   #18
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 24,305
Its the prosecutor's job to convict. To aid in doing that, they will lie, cheat and steal if they think they can get away with it. (sure this is an exaggeration, but only just a bit )

They will use any and everything they can think of to call your judgement into question, particularly when their target audience (the jury) has specifically been selected to exclude anyone with expert knowledge of the subjects.

Never, EVER forget that the prosecution is NOT UNDER OATH, and so is not required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 07:21 PM   #19
HiBC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 7,628
What sort of prosecutor you will get is a roll of the dice.

I don't think you can watch KR's prosecutor and jump to conclusions about what a future prosecutor might ask.

You might notice a moron who misrepresented the truth. His inaccurate descriptions of what FMJ ball might do vs "Hollow Point" were rather ridiculous.

Match BTHP, SierraGameking,or frangible varmint ammo all perform differently.

However,to engage the prosecutor in a discussion of it seemed like it could have been a trap.

"If you find yourself in a hole,stop digging" "I do not know much about bullets" was a good exit.

I think a true expert on gun shot wounds might have said "Bullet performance in variable human tissue at 10 feet and over 3000 fps cannot reliably be predicted"
HiBC is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 07:52 PM   #20
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
Its the prosecutor's job to convict. To aid in doing that, they will lie, cheat and steal if they think they can get away with it. (sure this is an exaggeration, but only just a bit )

They will use any and everything they can think of to call your judgement into question, particularly when their target audience (the jury) has specifically been selected to exclude anyone with expert knowledge of the subjects.

Never, EVER forget that the prosecution is NOT UNDER OATH, and so is not required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I realize that this is the common (mis)conception, but it's also mostly untrue. The prosecutor is not under oath, but neither is the judge, the defense attorney, or the jury. And as between prosecution and defense, it is only the prosecution that carries additional ethical obligations. And all attorneys have a duty of candor before the tribunal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ABA, Rule 3.8
The prosecutor in a criminal case shall:

(a) refrain from prosecuting a charge that the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause;

(b) make reasonable efforts to assure that the accused has been advised of the right to, and the procedure for obtaining, counsel and has been given reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel;

(c) not seek to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of important pretrial rights, such as the right to a preliminary hearing;

(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing, disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal;

(e) not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or other criminal proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless the prosecutor reasonably believes:

(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any applicable privilege;

(2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and

(3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information;

(f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.

(g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the prosecutor shall:

(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or authority, and

(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction,

(i) promptly disclose that evidence to the defendant unless a court authorizes delay, and

(ii) undertake further investigation, or make reasonable efforts to cause an investigation, to determine whether the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.

(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor’s jurisdiction was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor shall seek to remedy the conviction.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.
Spats McGee is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 09:36 PM   #21
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 23,925
Quote:
Is it not a hazard when the prosecutor asks what did if you self-load, and you describe a 147gr bullet in 9mm loaded to a velocity of 1200 fps and he counters with the non-existence of any commercially-manufactured round and suggests you purposely loaded that round with the intention of destroying another human being should the occasion arise, circumstances notwithstanding, of course, which suggests to the jury that YOU are the villain?
I would never put myself in a situation where I might have to answer a question like that. For, I think, very obvious reasons.

Some people think it will never come up, or perhaps feel like they have a really good answer. Everyone gets to make their own decisions.

I like to keep in mind that experience is something you get right AFTER you really needed it. I prefer to learn by other means. Experience is, without question, an excellent teacher, but at the same time a very hard teacher.
Quote:
"If you find yourself in a hole,stop digging" "I do not know much about bullets" was a good exit.
It was because there was no way for the prosecutor to show otherwise.

For someone who spends a lot of time discussing ammunition and self-defense online or who can be shown to reload their own ammunition, attempting an exit like that could easily be shown to be disingenuous which could be very damaging to one's defense.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old November 25, 2021, 10:21 PM   #22
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 16,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnKSa
Quote:
"If you find yourself in a hole,stop digging" "I do not know much about bullets" was a good exit.
It was because there was no way for the prosecutor to show otherwise.

For someone who spends a lot of time discussing ammunition and self-defense online or who can be shown to reload their own ammunition, attempting an exit like that could easily be shown to be disingenuous which could be very damaging to one's defense.
For Kyle Rittenhouse, it was a perfect answer, and I'm sure it was also the truth. He's 18 years old and was only 17 at the time of the incident. I'm sure there are 17 year olds who know how to reload, but I don't think that's common. He didn't even keep the rifle at his own home.

I reload -- but for handgun. If someone asked me about the ammo in my AR-15, my answer would be that XM193 is the cheapest, most available ammunition for the AR-15, and it was good enough for the government to issue to me to defend myself in Vietnam, so it should be good enough to defend myself here at home.
__________________
NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor
NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO
1911 Certified Armorer
Jeepaholic
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old November 26, 2021, 02:19 PM   #23
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 24,305
Must be the different times. When I was 17 I was reloading for .308 Win, .30-30, and .22-250 along with .45acp, .357 magnum/.38 Spl and .38 Super.

Quote:
,,and he counters with the non-existence of any commercially-manufactured round...
I understand your point, and your concern and I understand the prosecutor's point and motives, but the fact remains that the absence of a factory produced round means exactly doodlely squat. The prosecutor is counting on the jury not knowing this and so accepting his implication as if it were valid, when it is not.

I'm pretty sure that, were I to respond to such kinds of questions honestly, I'd probably wind up facing contempt of court charges,...

Things like this always remind me of the old joke,
Lawyer: Did you check the victim's breathing?
ME (testifying) : No, I did not.
Lawyer: Did you check his pulse?
ME: No, I did not.
Lawyer: Did you check his blood pressure?
ME: No, I did not.
Lawyer: SO, in fact, you did nothing to determine if the victim was still alive.
ME: No, Councilor, I did not. The man's brain was sitting in a jar on my desk, but I suppose he could have been out there practicing law, somewhere....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old November 26, 2021, 04:06 PM   #24
Double Naught Spy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,491
Quote:
but the fact remains that the absence of a factory produced round means exactly doodlely squat.
But there are the Ayoobian warnings to the contrary that everybody worries about...
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011
My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange
Double Naught Spy is offline  
Old November 26, 2021, 04:57 PM   #25
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 23,925
Quote:
I reload -- but for handgun. If someone asked me about the ammo in my AR-15, my answer would be that XM193 is the cheapest, most available ammunition for the AR-15, and it was good enough for the government to issue to me to defend myself in Vietnam, so it should be good enough to defend myself here at home.
If asked about the difference between JHP and FMJ, you would need to give a better answer than KR because it could easily be shown that you have a lot more knowledge on the topic than KR. Yes, it was a perfect answer for him, but it wouldn't work for any of us.

Second, I don't think I would be interested in having to say that I picked a particular type of ammunition for self-defense because the military issues it. The military performs offensive operations, not just defensive operations and personally, I wouldn't care to answer questions in a self-defense case about why I thought I needed "military ammunition" in my self-defense gun.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12730 seconds with 11 queries