The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 12, 2019, 10:22 AM   #76
OldMarksman
Staff
 
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HisSoldier View Post
How many thousands of cases have shooters lost over hand loaded ammo? 20,000?

10,000?

5,000?

10?

What are the odds?

I'm not afraid of meteors.
I'm not concerned about the odds. I'm concerned about the stakes. If you want to carry handloads, feel free to do so. That won't change the legal realities, though.
Yep. Odds, stakes, and legal realities.

If one were to base risk management decisions solely on an assessment of the likelihood that risk will materialize, one would not try to mitigate the risk at all.

if one were to decide whether to carry a firearm solely on the basis of the likelihood that will ever be needed for self preservation, one would not carry a firearm at all.

If one were to base the decision on whether the firearm will ever be fired if it is needed, one would be ell served to carry it empty.

If the question is about the likelihood of whether one will ever have to use a firearm with effect in a defensive encounter, one would never take the time to learn to shoot.

But every now and then, not very often at all, but very occasionally, it becomes necessary to actually shoot a firearm with effect for self preservation.

And unless the event is captured on video in its entirety, it will be necessary to piece together small bits of evidence to decide what likely happened.

Enter the very common reality of inaccurate witness recollection, if there were eye witnesses at all.

Enter the reality of biased testimony, even from persons who arrived after the fact.

Among the questions to be weighted include such little factors as innocence (who initiated it), necessity, and so on. If the distance of the shooing is in question, and in some places even if it is not, forensic evaluation will routinely include gun shot residue pattern analysis.

Routinely.

And when all of that has come into play, there is the possibility that the defendant will best be served by expert testimony on the subject of GSR.

Enter the legal realities of the rules of evidence. BIG problem, if handloads were used.

Bit the problem at that point goes back to being a very unlikely one, though still very serious in terms of consequence.

That's because the use of hand loaded ammunition in defensive encounters is very rare indeed.
OldMarksman is offline  
Old February 13, 2019, 08:23 PM   #77
2wheelwander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2018
Posts: 228
I haven't chimed in here for a while, but want to share a conversation I had with my Fed LE buddy regarding this. He has worked for 4 Federal LE agencies including international.

He bought up a good point. When the line has been crossed authorizing deadly force, why would it matter how deadly force was executed? He brought up a case of a gunman shooting at people (I don't recall the details), and a responding officer ended up deliberately hitting the gunman with his car running him over to end the shootings. Of course he and the department were sued, but won the case because it was deemed deadly force was appropriate.

Not trying to discount you Spats and really appreciate your input. You know much more about this than myself. However (here it comes), it still begs the question as to 'excessive' deadly force? I mean, can a knife be too sharp, what if a ball bat were homemade on a lathe by a wood worker, you get my drift.

If my home were broke into and I had the option, I would hold my ground at the end of the hallway guarding entrances to all bedrooms and wait for the calvary to arrive. I can understand the political consequences of using a bump fire stock to fill an intruder with 30 rounds "just because you can" or stabbing an intruder 53 times and desecrating the body. A prosecutor would have a field day.

I'm sure after reading your response you will sway me back to store bought ammo because you make great points. One of your best, for me, is the basic argument that is it really worth risking having to defend this at the cost of thousands of dollars, just because you choose to shoot reloads. I get that. I live a predominantly rural/conservative area who have no sympathy for idiots caught in houses beside their own in the wee hours of night.

So, I'd like your take on excessive deadly force as I've presented it.
2wheelwander is offline  
Old February 13, 2019, 08:38 PM   #78
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 19,867
I’ m not a lawyer but there have been several cases where the issue has been the continuation of force usage when the attacker or alleged attacker seems to have been stopped in the view of the prosecutor. In one case,a pause of seconds switched the action from SD to premeditated murder.
An action that seems clear to you may be ambiguous.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old February 13, 2019, 11:19 PM   #79
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 22,097
Quote:
When the line has been crossed authorizing deadly force, why would it matter how deadly force was executed?
This is all about when whether or not deadly force is authorized has not yet been established.

Yes, if you assume that it's all good, then it's all good. If you assume that deadly force is authorized, then deadly force is obviously authorized.

But if you start with some assumption OTHER than "it's all good" then the circumstances can matter. If you don't assume that deadly force is authorized, then the circumstances can be very important in the quest to show that deadly force was authorized.
Quote:
However (here it comes), it still begs the question as to 'excessive' deadly force? I mean, can a knife be too sharp, what if a ball bat were homemade on a lathe by a wood worker, you get my drift.
None of those has anything to do with this topic. No, a knife can't be too sharp, and it doesn't matter if a bat is homemade. You can have "excessive deadly force" (as Glen mentions) but that's really a different topic.

This topic is not really about excessive deadly force or about situations when it has already been established that deadly force is authorized. It's about the (admittedly unlikely) possibility of muddying the water that needs to be clear to prove that deadly force is authorized.

Besides, there's a much more important reason not to use reloads for self-defense--and one that's much more likely to come into play. And one that has nothing at all to do with legality.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old February 13, 2019, 11:31 PM   #80
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 19,223
Pardon my confusion, but I do not think "authorized" can apply to private citizens, and generally authorized means permission granted before the act.

A police officer can be authorized, in advance, with standing orders, that if A, then B is authorized. A private citizen isn't authorized before the fact, they can be justified, after the fact.

So, a police officer might speak about deadly force being authorized, because for him, it could be. But for civilian (non-LEO) situations, I think saying "authorized use of deadly force" isn't the best way to phrase it. "Justified / justifiable use of deadly force gives a better, and more clear impression.

Doesn't it??
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 14, 2019, 10:41 AM   #81
stinkeypete
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 22, 2010
Location: Madison, Wisconsin
Posts: 120
I think there could be a distinction between firing in public and firing in your home.

Home defense: when I was shooting in my bullseye league, I was making several hundred .45acp wadcutters a week. They were made with more care and reliability than any factory ammunition. It wasn’t “self defense” ammunition yet a .45 cal 185 grain swc going 800 fps is formidable. It’s a “target” load. If someone broke in to my house, I would not feel I had to purchase boutique bullets for legal reasons. We have legal precedents that give a home owner benefit of the doubt.

CC: if one is wandering in public with a gun, to some extent one has an expectation of encountering trouble. There is a much greater likelihood of complications- what if an innocent bystander is injured by direct fire or ricochet? You can imagine many other complications. In this case, you have less protection from the allegation that you are acting as a vigilante. Using the defense “I just bot bullets for muh gun” is a much simpler explanation about the exact circumstances.

As a hand loader I know that anything I made and tested myself is as reliable or better than factory ammunition. But when dealing with lawyers, fine details are to be avoided.
stinkeypete is offline  
Old February 14, 2019, 11:43 AM   #82
Spats McGee
Staff
 
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 7,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2wheelwander View Post
. . . .He bought up a good point. When the line has been crossed authorizing deadly force, why would it matter how deadly force was executed? . . . .
You skipped a step. The issue of handloads & GSR goes into the question of whether deadly force was ever proper in the first place, as JohnKSa correctly notes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2wheelwander View Post
. . . .Not trying to discount you Spats and really appreciate your input. You know much more about this than myself. However (here it comes), it still begs the question as to 'excessive' deadly force? I mean, can a knife be too sharp, what if a ball bat were homemade on a lathe by a wood worker, you get my drift. . . . .
With the exception of the "overzealous prosecutor and deadlier handloads" specter that is raised from time to time, that's not really the problem. The problem is an evidentiary one in which GSR could have been used to corroborate a SD shooter's version of events, and the use of handloads gets in the way of that evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2wheelwander View Post
. . . . I'm sure after reading your response you will sway me back to store bought ammo because you make great points. One of your best, for me, is the basic argument that is it really worth risking having to defend this at the cost of thousands of dollars, just because you choose to shoot reloads. I get that. I live a predominantly rural/conservative area who have no sympathy for idiots caught in houses beside their own in the wee hours of night.

So, I'd like your take on excessive deadly force as I've presented it.
I'm not concerned about "excessive deadly force." Once that threshold has been crossed to warranting shooting someone, I don't think it matters if I shoot them with a .22 or a 10MM, though obviously a juror in the Harold Fish case disagreed. I do think it's worth spending a few bucks now and again on store bought defensive rounds so that I can let Remington (or Speer, or Hornady) do my record-keeping on how my rounds were loaded.
__________________
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 February 14, 2019, 03:34 PM   #83
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2wheelwander
....When the line has been crossed authorizing deadly force, why would it matter how deadly force was executed?....
This is the venerable "it was a good shoot" fallacy.The thing is the you don't get to decide if the use of lethal force was justified. That decision will be made by others who will be second guessing at their leisure the decision you had only a fraction of a second to make. In deciding whether or not to prosecute you they will be looking at all the evidence, including, if they choose, your use of handloads or any evidentiary issues perhaps presented by your use of handloads.


Quote:
Originally Posted by stinkeypete
I think there could be a distinction between firing in public and firing in your home...
Yes and no.

If someone broke into you house, it will usually not be difficult to establish that the use of lethal self defense was appropriate.

But if someone originally entered you home as a social guest or as a business invitee (e. g., a repairman), and somehow things get ugly, you'll need to be able to establish justification for the use of force in essentially the same way as if it happened anywhere else.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old February 14, 2019, 04:01 PM   #84
2wheelwander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 9, 2018
Posts: 228
I've read at some length the Harold Fish musings. IMHO that guy got royally screwed.

Reading the responses makes me realize how much I assumed was taken for granted - and what wasn't. A clean shot in fear of ones life or grave bodily injury seems like it should be cut and dry. Seems like it. When I say authorized deadly force, this was my meaning. Not in a LE sense.

Stinkeypete, you brought things around again regarding a public shooting. I assume this would be much easier for a Prosecutor to make a case against.

Up until a year ago I was head of security for a 2,00 member church. I was the only person with any voice who was former LE or military. Our sanctuary is designed to seat 3,000. When I requested a minimum of 8 people signed off to carry I was scoffed at. The church was also home to a school so the legal issues were an utter nightmare to get around and make the school board see at least a sliver of common sense.


I was asked the question why I needed more than one, or even two people signed off to carry. In their minds, one person able to pass the states law enforcement pistol qualification course twice a year should be able to hit center mass of an aggressor across the sanctuary in the middle of a mass shooting with 2,000 people running for their lives. It took me a minute to pick my jaw off the floor and respond in a "Christian manner". The rest of that story is another post for another time, but highlights the point that what one takes for a simple truth others either miss it or simply refuse to see it. A big gamble when you've taken a life.


However, this is very encouraging

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2019...e-on-to-senate
2wheelwander 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 01:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08190 seconds with 8 queries