Carry Ammo Survey -- Factory or Reloads?

ajpelz · #51 10-14-2009, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKFC05

There is no such law as "defense of home" (or property) with deadly force

Look up "the castle doctrine"

"We have case law of unarmed attackers..." "Two youths..."

Notice you used the plural, "attackers"? Certainly multiple attackers would create a situation of deadly force, where as one unarmed attacker would ALMOST NEVER be considered deadly force. Again, this is not that difficult BUT you need to read carefully, and think critically.

uncle norman · #52 10-14-2009, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajpelz

Living in AZ, where the Fish case took place, one of the most gun friendly states, (we can carry concealed in bars here, legally) a homicide is NEVER justified when there is a single UNARMED attacker. Period. If a 220 pound unarmed man is violently beating a 100 pound female, deadly force is not justified. They may be convicted of a lesser charge due to the circumstances, but they are criminally, and subsequently civilly liable nonetheless.

I would like to know in which states such actions are legally justified. At common law, force must equal force, thus a hands and fists beating cannot be defended by a gun, or knife, or rock, or bottle..... This is why people use pepper spray, stun guns and so on.

So why is the FMJ vs. HP a more compelling debate than reloads vs. factory ammo in a justifiable homicide? You brought up Fish, and then agreed it was a non-factor..... yet Bias was not even allowed the chance to provide evidence as to his account of the situation because his reload log nor testing of his reloads was allowed to be EVEN ADMITTED into evidence. Fish never contested that he used 10mm HPs, but as you said, it was a non-justifiable homicide, so ammo did not matter. If it was shown that Bias's reloads showed no GSR at say 18" to 30", an arms length, at least his story would be plausible, thus, suspect to suspicion BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Once again, LEOs, the gold standard to be compared to, all carry factory HPs. Why would a responsible citizen do any different?

I believe the info that came with my Florida concealed carry application kit makes it clear that you are justified in using lethal force when you (justifably) feel that you are in imminent danger of death or suffering great bodily harm. I don't remember it disqualifying your reasoning if the attacker is unarmed. What is "unarmed?" Muhammed Ali is "armed" with his fists. Am I supposed to defend from someone like him with my fists and nothing more?

OKFC05 · #53 10-14-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajpelz

You should also be glad to know that the castle doctrine has been adopted in Oklahoma, so your above assertion that no such law exists is completely 100% incorrect.

This is the OK Castle Doctrine, which provides for protection of people, not property. Read below:

Quote:

PHYSICAL OR DEADLY FORCE AGAINST INTRUDER
A. The Legislature hereby recognizes that the citizens of the State of
Oklahoma have a right to expect absolute safety within their own
homes.
B. A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril
of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when
using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great
bodily harm to another if:
1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in
the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had
unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or
occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was
attempting to remove another against the will of that person
from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to
believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and
forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

The entire OK Self Defense Act (SDA) is at this link:
http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA...OV_2007_2_.pdf

ajpelz · #54 10-14-2009, 01:36 PM

Read B1 of what you posted. When illegally inside a dwelling..... what is not clear about that? The fact that they are in YOUR HOME, is all that matters.

I never mentioned property, that was you. I said defense of one's home, like the statute.

ajpelz · #55 10-14-2009, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle norman

I believe the info that came with my Florida concealed carry application kit makes it clear that you are justified in using lethal force when you (justifably) feel that you are in imminent danger of death or suffering great bodily harm. I don't remember it disqualifying your reasoning if the attacker is unarmed. What is "unarmed?" Muhammed Ali is "armed" with his fists. Am I supposed to defend from someone like him with my fists and nothing more?

Armed, means capable of causing death or great bodily harm. Ali would no longer be considered armed today because of his physicality, but in his day, absolutely. Mike Tyson is always armed, because he has the ability to cause death or greatly bodily harm with no weapon. Same with other MMA fighters, or highly trained military combatants. Anyone reasonable capable of a quick kill with hands alone = an armed attacker.

This goes back to the force = force rule. Mike Tyson's force with bare hands is deadly, thus, deadly force would be justified.

Treeman · #56 10-14-2009, 02:10 PM

[QUOTE=ajpelz;1133667]. If a 220 pound unarmed man is violently beating a 100 pound female, deadly force is not justified. They may be convicted of a lesser charge due to the circumstances, but they are criminally, and subsequently civilly liable nonetheless.

I would like to know in which states such actions are legally justified. At common law, force must equal force, thus a hands and fists beating cannot be defended by a gun, mr knife, or rock, or bottle..... This is why people use pepper spray, stun guns and so on.

['QUOTE]

Aj, You have chosen a very bad example for your position. A 220 lb man beating a 100 pound woman is a huge disparity of force and the woman can very reasonably argue fear for her life or grievous bodily injury. I'm a 220lb man. I don't beat people-women or men- but if I were to attack someone with my fists and feet they would be in extreme peril of extreme bodily injury unless I were to excercise restraint....and how would they know my intent is not to maim or kill? Certainly things are less complex if the attacker has a gun knife or club-the threat and reasonable fear are very obviousi but the only real issue is whether law enforcement, prosecutor or ,worst case, the jury is convinced that there was a reasonable fear to justify the force used in self defense.

ajpelz · #57 10-14-2009, 02:14 PM

I agree that it may be a questionable example, but my point was to illustrate that there must be deadly force employed in order to return deadly force.

A lot would depend on the physique of the larger man. Ripped and muscle bound, much more likely it could be deadly force. Beer belly and flabby, not so much.

The general rule is that a single unarmed attacker is almost always considered to be non-deadly force.

"the only real issue iq whether law enforcement, prosecutor or ,worst case, the jury is convinced that there was a reasonable fear to justify the force used in self defense." I absolutely 100% agree.

Jellybean · #58 10-14-2009, 03:38 PM

Quoted from ajpelz:

Quote:

"A 250lb man can use lethal force against a 100lb woman if he felt he was in serious danger."
Incorrect.

The general rule is that a single unarmed attacker is almost always considered to be non-deadly force.

I know a 120 lb. woman that would rip most 220lb men up in a heartbeat, muscle bound or not. The question is how long would he stand there and let her beat him to death before he realizes what he is in for?

This is exactly like all the other threads on this subject, the more you are given to show you are wrong the more you want to argue about it. I'm going to go load up some self defense ammo and pray that you aren't a criminal lawyer.

Quote:

Here is a great excerpt written by Massad Ayoob that explains when lethal force is justified. I hope that this can clear up the debate for those having trouble with the force = force concept.

Just for your information, Mas didn't write Ohio's revised codes on the use of lethal force and he didn't write the training guide for police officers at the Ohio Police Officers Training Acadamy. I told you what they were and you claim they are wrong because they aren't agreeable to you.

I don't have a problem understanding the force=force concept, it just doesn't apply everywhere. Like here.

I'm done wasting my time on this one before it gets to page 20+. Adios Amigo, if you want me I'll be in reloading.

ajpelz · #59 10-14-2009, 04:42 PM

Let me know what lawyer tells you it is legally justifiable to shoot a 120 pound female that has no weapon.... The prosecution and press would be all over such a scenario and it would certainly end with a conviction. If anyone was to do this, they would be headed for the can.

Your contributions will be greatly missed.

I hope no 120 pound women mess with you for your own sake...

gwalchmai · #60 10-14-2009, 04:58 PM

ajpelz, are you licensed to practice law in AZ or anywhere else?

gwalchmai · #61 10-14-2009, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajpelz

I passed the bar exam with flying colors!!!

Great! So then you accept full liability for the legal advice you are handing out in this thread, yes? Remember, no one is anonymous on the web.

ajpelz · #62 10-14-2009, 05:07 PM

What legal advice is that? Discussion on an internet forum, not legal advice...

You think everything a lawyer ever says or writes is legal advice?

rather-b-huntin · #63 10-14-2009, 05:12 PM

I carry factory "on the street" and handloads "in the woods".

In town I'd most likely encounter a human threat and would rather not have to deal with any futher legal issues. In the wilderness, where I may have to defend myself against predators both two and four-legged, I carry handloads. Mainly because I can construct a heavy duty load for less money. And knowing that "out there" I'll likely be shooting an animal, it's not as big of concern to me as it is in the city when it comes to any legal issues (though I guess it probably should be).

Some have mentioned on this thread that they feel more comfortable with the reliability of factory over their own handloads? To which I say you need to reflect upon your own capabilities. No way do I trust any ammo a factory can produce and "quality control" over that of my own assembly. I KNOW that each and every one of my rounds is assembled as precisley as it can be. I've had duds' from factorys, not from my own hands. They make ammo for everyone. I make it for me.

gwalchmai · #64 10-14-2009, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajpelz

What legal advice is that? Discussion on an internet forum, not legal advice...

You think everything a lawyer ever says or writes is legal advice?

Me personally, no. I can't speak for a jury, though...

A statement like "Living in AZ, where the Fish case took place, one of the most gun friendly states, (we can carry concealed in bars here, legally) a homicide is NEVER justified when there is a single UNARMED attacker. Period. If a 220 pound unarmed man is violently beating a 100 pound female, deadly force is not justified" from an average citizen is a discussion, but from a practicing attorney it may well make a 100 pound female being beaten by a 220 pound male reluctant to use the only protection she has.

Of course, IANAL.

gwalchmai · #65 10-14-2009, 06:10 PM

In response to

Quote:

You can read Arizona Ethics Opinion,

97-04: Computer Technology; Internet; Advertising and Solicitation; Confidentiality.

Hope that clears things up.

It doesn't matter.

On one hand we have gun owners afraid to carry handloads because of a remote possibility of a jury ruling against them in a civil case. On the other we have attorneys afraid to discuss the matter on the web because of an equally remote possibility of the jury holding them responsible for their statements.

Silly? You betcha!

uncle norman · #66 10-14-2009, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajpelz

Armed, means capable of causing death or great bodily harm. Ali would no longer be considered armed today because of his physicality, but in his day, absolutely. Mike Tyson is always armed, because he has the ability to cause death or greatly bodily harm with no weapon. Same with other MMA fighters, or highly trained military combatants. Anyone reasonable capable of a quick kill with hands alone = an armed attacker.

This goes back to the force = force rule. Mike Tyson's force with bare hands is deadly, thus, deadly force would be justified.

In Tyson's case you could fear death, great bodily injury or having your ear bitten off!!

uncle norman · #67 10-14-2009, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ajpelz

Ali would no longer be considered armed today because of his physicality, but in his day, absolutely.

I know. I'm showing my age. Ali (aka Cassius Clay) was super man in the late 60s. I was in the service with a guy who had tickets for the Ali/Sonny Liston fight in '68 or '69. He didn't even get to his seat before Liston was on his back and out. Ali (aka The Louisville Lip) was and always will be the best.

Noah Zark · #68 10-15-2009, 06:36 AM

I edited the thread title to "Carry Ammo Survey" and elected not to delete the thread at the OP's request.

This question arises with frequency and this thread serves as a good record of the typical exchange that takes place when the question is asked and re-asked. IMO, the thread serves purpose for posterity.

Carry on,

Noah

josephthreedogs · #69 10-15-2009, 11:14 AM

Most of the time factory only, but I have been known to use my reloads on occassion.

Dogguy · #70 10-15-2009, 05:38 PM

I only use factory ammo. I used to handload but I found it to be boring and time-consuming.

Wayne M · #71 10-15-2009, 06:20 PM

Reloads exclusively.

bmcgilvray · #72 10-15-2009, 06:32 PM

I have no concerns with use of hand loads for self protection and am willing to use both factory loads and hand loads.

ImprovedModel56Fan · #73 10-15-2009, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by perrazi

after 40 plus yrs of reloading, only my loads. as stated earlier, i want to know what is in them. over the years i have had more duds with factory ammo than mine. if i have to use a gun, the last thing i will worry about is what ammo is in it.

I believe that this reasoning is correct. Unfortunately, the facts for (and about) me are different. Early on (over 40 years ago), I made two squib loads, on two different occasions, as I recall. I have revised my procedure and haven't had a repeat. Meanwhile, I have had NO malfunctions with factory CF handgun ammo. So, for most circumstances, it would seem that for me factory wins by a hair.

Also, it used to be that you couldn't get factory ammo with good bullets. Now, you have a hard time choosing. I would still use handloads if I thought mine were better than factory, which they are in CF rifle. For defensive handgun loads, I think that most of the factories have me beat.