lead cast for self-defense?

[40-82]

zxcvbob,

Thank you for appreciating my humor. I can just hear a lawyer telling me in the aftermath, "You will keep your mouth shut, and if I do direct you to speak, you will not use the opportunity to ask the police lab people if you can please have your lead back."

40-82

[Spats McGee]

The issue of using reloads for self-defense has been hashed and rehashed around here. That's why I put together An Archive Regarding Reloads and Self-Defense. If you're interested in seeing how some of the arguments play out, that's a good place to start.

Most of the objections to the use of reloads for SD or carry are legal, rather than ballistic or performance, in nature. There's a fairly specific constellation of conditions under which things can get pretty ugly for an SD shooter who uses reloads. In short, I'd call it a very low probability that it will ever become an issue for most shooters. However, for the unlucky guy in whose case the use of reloads does become an issue, that decision could turn out to be extremely costly.

[Real Gun]

Spats McGee - The issue of using reloads for self-defense has been hashed and rehashed around here. That's why I put together An Archive Regarding Reloads and Self-Defense. If you're interested in seeing how some of the arguments play out, that's a good place to start.

Most of the objections to the use of reloads for SD or carry are legal, rather than ballistic or performance, in nature. There's a fairly specific constellation of conditions under which things can get pretty ugly for an SD shooter who uses reloads. In short, I'd call it a very low probability that it will ever become an issue for most shooters. However, for the unlucky guy in whose case the use of reloads does become an issue, that decision could turn out to be extremely costly.

I recall the challenge of whether there has ever been such a case or if it internet legend.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by Real Gun

I recall the challenge of whether there has ever been such a case or if it internet legend.

If you're hoping for what appears to be a "perfectly clean" SD shoot, in which the use of handloads suddenly turns a "good shoot" into a murder charge "for using handloads," you've: (a) tossed out a red herring; and (b) missed the point. No two cases are exactly alike, and lawyers spend a great deal of time and energy attempting to predict possible outcomes based on a fact scenario, the law, and cases that have followed.

With that said: Daniel Bias, for starters. His case is an example of how using handloads can significantly complicate your defense.

[skizzums]

http://www.gunforums.net/forums/gene...mas-ayoob.html

check this post, it might change how you think.......probably not though. i'm still with the handloads. but it def shows that it can become an issue in court, especially in this new political climate against guns and the ppl that love them.

[Real Gun]

I expect that once someone was convicted for using reloads, the reload question would become a primary point of prosecution.

[Spats McGee]

Since using reloads isn't illegal in any state of which I am aware, nobody can "be convicted for using reloads." However, they still have the potential to significantly complicate one's defense, and increase legal fees accordingly.

[Real Gun]

Wording problem. See if we can avoid mincing "convicted on the weight of having used reloads".

[ChaperallCat]

cast lead bullets.

if a bullet cast drom lead was unsuitable for self defense, no company would sell bullets of cast lead labeled or advertised for self defense. I believe buffalo bore alone would loose 50 percent of their sales.

[Old Stony]

In previous posts I never insinuated that reloads wouldn't be effective or have ever been called into question in a trial. I simply want to avoid any and all legal problems that could effect the rest of my life. A lawyer is free to throw almost anything into a trial to sway the outcome and I just don't want to be on the darkside of that situation.
I'm sure we will all agree that almost any bullet can cause major damage and you are free to use whatever you want for whatever you want within the constraints of law.
I fear things like the civil suit after a shooting where a lawyer can distort a situation however he wants, to get you to pay a survivor or his family for the rest of your life.....over something you did to save your own life.
I have seen guys selling reloads at gun shows, where they loaded hollow base wad cutters upside down to do more damage and thought the lawyers would love that one in court.

[iraiam]

I don't think I agree with some of the legal hypothetical aspects of this thread. I mean if the use of cast bullets or hand loads could be used against someone, then so could the selection of commercial ammunition who's slogan is "Accurate, Deadly, Dependable." or "Hydra-Shock Hollow Point", or "High Performance Ammunition" these are just 3 examples I pulled off of boxes of SD ammo in my safe.

Why are there no hypothetical theories about how this marketing could be used against someone? It seems to me, if we are really that concerned about it, we better just start carrying ammo that is marketed as "Non-Lethal".

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by iraiam

I don't think I agree with some of the legal hypothetical aspects of this thread. I mean if the use of cast bullets or hand loads could be used against someone, then so could the selection of commercial ammunition who's slogan is "Accurate, Deadly, Dependable." or "Hydra-Shock Hollow Point", or "High Performance Ammunition" these are just 3 examples I pulled off of boxes of SD ammo in my safe.

The problem with using reloads relates to: (1) gunshot residue; (2) expert testimony; and (3) the rules of evidence. If you'll go through some of the Archive on Reloads and Self Defense, you can find posts where Frank Ettin, some of the other lawyers around here and I go through it in some detail. (I'd dig out the post for you, but I'm in a bit of a rush. If you can't find the one where I spell it out under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 703 (IIRC), I'll dig it up later if you'd like.)

Marketing/slogan issues, on the other hand, are more a matter of jury perception. Issues could arise from using "Mankiller 3000" ammunition, or something marketed as "extra deadly," but those are jury perception problems, not evidentiary problems. Those potential issues just were not the topic of this thread. Assuming comparable ballistic performance, I'll take something marketed as "reliable and accurate" over something marketed as "insanely deadly" for this very reason.

Originally Posted by iraiam

Why are there no hypothetical theories about how this marketing could be used against someone?

There are. See above.

[57K]

I don't think I agree with some of the legal hypothetical aspects of this thread. I mean if the use of cast bullets or hand loads could be used against someone, then so could the selection of commercial ammunition who's slogan is "Accurate, Deadly, Dependable." or "Hydra-Shock Hollow Point", or "High Performance Ammunition" these are just 3 examples I pulled off of boxes of SD ammo in my safe.

Why are there no hypothetical theories about how this marketing could be used against someone? It seems to me, if we are really that concerned about it, we better just start carrying ammo that is marketed as "Non-Lethal"

Given the logic of our current "Regime", "Junta" or whatever you want to call it. A man can be convicted by the press and administration rulers even when his state court found him innocent with local LE officials never having planned to arrest or charge him in the first place. You can dream up all kinds of potentialities when you start thinking about how many prosecutors are part of the same mindset that believes citizens shouldn't have the right to defend themselves in the first place.

Use of my own handloads for defense comes down to quality and performance issues where I trust my ability, and have for years, over any similar factory made product. Then there's the old axiom about it being better to be tried by 12 than carried out by 6. Having thought on this a bit, if I were ever in such a case where the prosecution was attempting to try me on the basis of using a handload, I would demand that my attorney request a recess so that I could guide him through a specific and relevant series of questions to ask me, allowing elaboration where possible, and I would take the stand and deal with the prosecutions feeble knowledge they were trying to use against me.

Old Stony, living in Texas you should know that in a shooting deemed justifiable by LE, you can't be tried in a civil court for "damages".

[zxcvbob]

Using handloads is not in-and-of-itself a legal problem. It really only becomes an issue if you need to admit gunshot residue tests into evidence to defend yourself. It is potentially a big problem there; but that means all the stars are aligning against already.

I consider it a non-problem when defending myself within my home. Outside the home I'd rather use factory ammo if it's available.

[Old Stony]

Right or wrong in a shooting situation, you will probably still lose. Justice is very expensive in this country and no matter what side of the situation you are on it can cost you everything you own. This is one reason I take the lawyer situations very seriously. Theoretical situations are one thing, but reality can be very different.
For example I once sold a guy some stuff I was collecting. He wrote me a check on sat and stopped payment on Monday. He refused to return my property and I sued him in small claims court where he didn't show up and I got a judgement. Unknown to me at the time he had a silemt business partner that was a lawyer and they sued me over the situation.
Long story short, I ended up spending $20,000 in lawyer fees and I finally had to agree to drop it all or face unending more legal bills. My lawyer even told me the guy could drop his suit and start it all over again later and we could go through it again. I never got my property back and the law just called it a civil matter.
I'm just using this to illustrate some of the legal things that can be done to people, that did nothing wrong. In the case of a shooting, a guy can lose everything he has worked for his whole life just defending himself ...whether it was a righteous shooting or not. Either way you lose....

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by 57K

. . . . Having thought on this a bit, if I were ever in such a case where the prosecution was attempting to try me on the basis of using a handload, I would demand that my attorney request a recess so that I could guide him through a specific and relevant series of questions to ask me, allowing elaboration where possible, and I would take the stand and deal with the prosecutions feeble knowledge they were trying to use against me.

Bold section -- Using handloads isn't illegal, so nobody will be trying you "on the basis of using handloads."

Underlined section -- In the scenario you've presented, if you're already in trial and just discovering that your handloads are an issue, your attorney has probably already messed up. That's something he or she should have discussed with the prosecutor and the crime lab technicians long before trial. As for taking the stand, I'm not sure exactly what you'd plan on testifying to, but the judge makes the decision as to whether a particular piece of evidence is relevant.

Also, precisely what makes you think the prosecution's knowledge of firearms is necessarily feeble? Even if the prosecutor's knowledge is feeble, he or she gets to visit with crime lab experts before trial, and gets to put them on the stand.

Originally Posted by 57K

Old Stony, living in Texas you should know that in a shooting deemed justifiable by LE, you can't be tried in a civil court for "damages".

Given your choice of phrasing here, I have to ask: Do you have a statute to back that up? Civil immunity rarely (if ever) actually works the way you claim in the above-quoted sentence.

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

Using handloads is not in-and-of-itself a legal problem. It really only becomes an issue if you need to admit gunshot residue tests into evidence to defend yourself. . . . .

Bingo. That is part of the "specific constellation of events" that has to occur before handloads become a problem. If they do, however, it can be very expensive and very complicated.

ETA: I mentioned in an earlier post that I would go back and dig up another old post of mine on this topic. Here it is:

The judge is the gatekeeper of evidence, and appellate courts typically afford the judge a high degree of deference when it comes to determining which evidence gets in, and which is excluded.

For purposes of this discussion, I'm going to stick with the Federal Rules of Evidence. I know that most of these cases come down on state law grounds, but I'd like to avoid veering off into discussions of one state's rules of evidence against another. Many states use the Federal Rules as a model, and they'll give us some common ground from which to work.

So, first off, relevance:

If it's relevant and not otherwise excluded, it gets in. If it's not relevant, it doesn't.

But (& this is a big but), GSR is specialized enough that it is considered "expert testimony. That means that Rule 702 governs it:

So, if scientific or specialized knowledge will help the jury, an expert's opinion is admissible if:
(1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data,
(2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.

You have to have all three to get the testimony of the shooter's expert in front of the jury. If the prosecutor files a Motion in Limine prior to trial, asking that it be excluded, he or she will simply argue that the opinion of the handloading defendant's expert is based on unreliable data. Specifically, what the prosecutor is saying is that because the data belongs to the defendant, it's inherently unreliable. I think there's a good chance that nobody was around when the cartridges were loaded, so there's no independent witness. If there is a witness, it's probably a good friend of the defendant. As a result, any data on which the opinion is based is suspect. The prosecutor may not argue with how the defendant's expert got from A to B, but what if A wasn't the right starting point? Then B becomes an unreliable conclusion. Anyway, if the motion in limine succeeds, there can be no mention of the defendant's expert at trial, and the jury will never hear about it.

[m&p45acp10+1]

I personaly know a person that used a hand load for self defense in the home. It was effective. One shot bad gun dead where he was hit. It went through his neck, and seved his spinal chord at the bottom of the brain stem.

Note this was an inside the home SD event. The bad guy had been harassing the woman that lived there. And had been served with a restraining order. He had a club, and was as he said "going to kill every person in the house."

Case went before a Grand Jury. Unanimous deciscion was Justifiable Homicide. He was then immune from civil liability claims made by the bad guys estate.

Two days afterwards his gun, and the remaing ammo were returned.

This was one of the clear cut cases. I myself carry handloads for woods defense. Store bought premium stuff for carry on the streets.

[HiBC]

I have read the archives in the past.The point that I took away was that some forensic evidence may be inadmissible in court.
An example might be the ballistics expert in the Zimmerman case that said the forensics supported Zimmermans story.

My personal preference would be to use the same 200 gr swc 45 ACP handload for everything.

But I think I would prefer to be able to use ballistic evidence in my defense,also.

[57K]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 57K
. . . . Having thought on this a bit, if I were ever in such a case where the prosecution was attempting to try me on the basis of using a handload, I would demand that my attorney request a recess so that I could guide him through a specific and relevant series of questions to ask me, allowing elaboration where possible, and I would take the stand and deal with the prosecutions feeble knowledge they were trying to use against me.
Bold section --

Using handloads isn't illegal, so nobody will be trying you "on the basis of using handloads."

Underlined section -- In the scenario you've presented, if you're already in trial and just discovering that your handloads are an issue, your attorney has probably already messed up. That's something he or she should have discussed with the prosecutor and the crime lab technicians long before trial. As for taking the stand, I'm not sure exactly what you'd plan on testifying to, but the judge makes the decision as to whether a particular piece of evidence is relevant.

Also, precisely what makes you think the prosecution's knowledge of firearms is necessarily feeble? Even if the prosecutor's knowledge is feeble, he or she gets to visit with crime lab experts before trial, and gets to put them on the stand.

I totally agree that no one in this state will be trying to prosecute me for using a handload after a shooting is deemed justifiable self-defense. I can't speak for the state of Clinton, MA, CA, NY, etc., and I don't recommend that shooters in states with draconian gun laws follow my practice. And my attorney should be aware of the prosecutions evidence, but do you really believe that some democommie prosecutor won't try to slip that in to sway the jury's opinion even while a defense attorney can object and have him overruled? If that occurred, I would do exactly what I stated rather than let it linger in some jurors minds even after a judge has instructed them to disregard it as inadmissable evidence. If a prosecutor has a thorough knowledge of firearms, that's even better, because you're even less likely to be prosecuted. And for some anti-gun prosecutor that has taken the time to learn something about firearms, you really think he's gonna be an expert on ammunition and handloads? Since we have a little organization called SAAMI where ammunition makers follow their guidelines and specifications, my handloads are loaded to those same EXACT specifications according to the same organization. With 28 years of handloading experience, I have the confidence to speak on my own behalf on any ballistic topic and am more than capable of arguing statements made by even an "expert" witness if the evidence was allowed to be used. In other words, your hypothetical's are contradictory to your statement of "facts".

Quote: Originally Posted by 57K
Old Stony, living in Texas you should know that in a shooting deemed justifiable by LE, you can't be tried in a civil court for "damages".

Given your choice of phrasing here, I have to ask: Do you have a statute to back that up? Civil immunity rarely (if ever) actually works the way you claim in the above-quoted sentence.

Yeah, I do, it's called the law of the land in Texas where anyone attempting to get a CCL is instructed in the laws regarding the use of deadly force. It's also legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle without a CCL because Texas passed a law several years ago declaring your vehicle to be "imminent domain" just as your home is. Since m&p45acp10+1 cited a specific example, if that's not enough for you, all you need to do is Google Texas law regarding the use of deadly force if you're so inclined. I'd rather you waste your time than mine since I stay abreast of the laws in my own state.

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by 57k

i totally agree that no one in this state will be trying to prosecute me for using a handload after a shooting is deemed justifiable self-defense. I can't speak for the state of clinton, ma, ca, ny, etc., and i don't recommend that shooters in states with draconian gun laws follow my practice. And my attorney should be aware of the prosecutions evidence, but do you really believe that some democommie prosecutor won't try to slip that in to sway the jury's opinion even while a defense attorney can object and have him overruled? If that occurred, i would do exactly what i stated rather than let it linger in some jurors minds even after a judge has instructed them to disregard it as inadmissable evidence. If a prosecutor has a thorough knowledge of firearms, that's even better, because you're even less likely to be prosecuted. And for some anti-gun prosecutor that has taken the time to learn something about firearms, you really think he's gonna be an expert on ammunition and handloads? Since we have a little organization called saami where ammunition makers follow their guidelines and specifications, my handloads are loaded to those same exact specifications according to the same organization. With 28 years of handloading experience, i have the confidence to speak on my own behalf on any ballistic topic and am more than capable of arguing statements made by even an "expert" witness if the evidence was allowed to be used. In other words, your hypothetical's are contradictory to your statement of "facts".

I'm going to guess that you don't have a lot of experience dealing with the rules of evidence. You seem to assume that your load data will be admissible. Confidence doesn't make your evidence admissible. The 28 years helps, but your load data will already be evidence created by an interested party.

Originally Posted by 57k

Yeah, i do, it's called the law of the land in texas where anyone attempting to get a ccl is instructed in the laws regarding the use of deadly force. It's also legal to carry a firearm in your vehicle without a ccl because texas passed a law several years ago declaring your vehicle to be "imminent domain" just as your home is. Since m&p45acp10+1 cited a specific example, if that's not enough for you, all you need to do is google texas law regarding the use of deadly force if you're so inclined. I'd rather you waste your time than mine since i stay abreast of the laws in my own state.

Well, you've already wasted my time, but I'll take your response as a "no." You made the following claim:

Originally Posted by 57K

Old Stony, living in Texas you should know that in a shooting deemed justifiable by LE, you can't be tried in a civil court for "damages".

If you make a claim around here, as you did, you can reasonably be expected to provide the proof. However, while you're not totally wrong, you're far enough off the mark that I can't resist the urge to step in. Your claim misses at least one significant issue.

Here's the statute:

A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 83.001 (West)

So far, there's not a whole lot of caselaw on Westlaw under this section. However, your claim was that "in a shooting deemed justifiable by LE, you can't be tried in a civil court for 'damages.'" That is not correct. Immunity from liability does not automatically mean "immunity from suit." As I read this, the shooter can still be sued, at least up until the point of establishing that the shooting had been ruled "justified." Whether a judicial determination is required to trigger that immunity, I don't know. It may or may not be triggered by LE or the prosecuting attorney declining to file charges. Either way, at least one claim of immunity from suit has been denied. See In Re Smith, 2009 WL 723505. A shooter may still have to prove that he or she is immune to the claim for damages.

[40-82]

Spats McGee,

I looked up the posts you referred to by yourself and Pax from the earlier thread on the same subject. I find it more than a little chilling to realize how little I knew about the subject. Thank you for your efforts.

I feel compelled to comment on your defense of lawyers. I've had a fair amount of experience in suing government agencies in property rights cases, and I imagine in several government agencies, I'm viewed as far worse than a garden variety felon. Government lawyers hate to lose. I see the practice of the law as a profession that tends to polarize people. It attracts the brightest and the best(of which you can be clearly counted), individuals who put everything on the line in the pursuit of justice. Practice of the law can also wear down too many normal enough people who are too willing to use their talents to work for causes that they know are wrong because they can't turn their back on billable hours. I'm not talking about defense attorneys defending career criminals; in that case, they're defending the principals of the Constitution and everyone's right to a fair trial more than the individual they happen to represent at the moment. The practice of the law is a moral whirlpool and not everyone has the strength to fight the currents.

[57K]

Well, Spats, keep on disagreeing with yourself! It's amusing, and obviously, moderator status gives you the right to do that! Specifically, I wasn't going to take the time to search for a "statute" number while knowing Texas law. Any Texas CCL holder should be completely clear on this issue. The statute is quite clear with NO precedent to think otherwise even though you still wanna play "what ifs." You seem to be trying to make a case for a civil liability lawsuit before a criminal court has even tried a defendant which can't even occur without said person being charged with homicide.

A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 83.001 (West)

Just what is it that you can't seem to understand here?

[Spats McGee]

Originally Posted by 57K

Well, Spats, keep on disagreeing with yourself! It's amusing, and obviously, moderator status gives you the right to do that! Specifically, I wasn't going to take the time to search for a "statute" number while knowing Texas law. Any Texas CCL holder should be completely clear on this issue. The statute is quite clear with NO precedent to think otherwise even though you still wanna play "what ifs." You seem to be trying to make a case for a civil liability lawsuit before a criminal court has even tried a defendant which can't even occur without said person being charged with homicide.

You don't have the first clue what you're talking about.

[HiBC]

My angle/question is not about whether handloads are legal for SD.

If I am involved in an SD shoot,I have admitted"Yes,I shot him".If he dies,its a homicide.Then,I am in court trying to convince a jury it is a justifiable homicide.(see Zimmerman).

If I use a factory load,forensics can testify"Powder burns,etc of a Fed Hydra Shok as used in this case indicate the distance......etc"

That may be very helpful in proving my case.

If I use a handload,I get no ballistic help,as I understand it.

Am I wrong?

[57K]

LOL Spats! My background is in design and engineering and I would feel comfortable on the stand countering any expert witness or any prosecutor who might decide to make it an issue procedurally or otherwise. Obviously, I'm not an attorney. Here's hoping that you aren't either!