With rising anmo cost, is there also a rising case for using reloads as SD ammo?

[Walkingwolf]

There's never any case law. It's an empty objection. People keep using that word, and I don't think they know what it means.

Remember the LEO that got charged for shooting a guy in a hotel, had "blank you" on the inside of the aftermarket dustcover on the AR-15 he used? Much was made of that little dustcover, and his attorneys spent many hours and thousands of dollars making sure that it was concealed from the jury.

None of that was "case law". Yet it was very relevant to the trial.

Citation, IIRC the shooting was ruled justified, we must be considering two different shootings.

No matter if I was that worried I would not even be on a gun forum talking about shooting people. Think about that.

I found the one you posted about, so the judge ruled it as inadmissible, what proof you have that money spent was involved in the judges ruling? I am guessing he would have ruled the same way if the defendant had wore pink socks without the defense spending any more money as if he had wore tie died socks. If anything this case shows exactly why it has not been successful on any other than a minute scale. Shootings boil down to justification, not silly BS, or fictional gun writers.

 

[Walkingwolf]

Here is my advice, DON'T shoot people who are unarmed, and are not very, very, very clear threat. Cases where there is very little doubt to justification rarely get charged. Most times they do not even make it past the local news. In NC there are numerous justified shootings that barely make local news. For it to get further than that there has to be some inconsistencies, as there was in the hotel shooting case. I am not sure I would have ruled not guilty in that case, I don't care what ammo he used or what was on the gun. IMO a non LEO would have been convicted.

To give you a recent example the handicapped case in Florida. That man whether justified, or not should not have engaged in behavior that led to a shooting. This happens again, and again that people who think about shooting people get their body parts in a wringer because they are the ones more likely to get into a shooting situation that most of us avoid. Same for George Zimmerman, while he was found not guilty he still did something so ignorant he probably should not have been armed. His social media history was used against him, his round in the chamber was used against him(do you carry with one in the pipe?) everything in the book was thrown at him. He was still found not guilty, why? Because the shooting was clearly justified, though it was easily avoidable. In short avoid situations that may end in a shooting even if you carry the most socially acceptable factory ammo. Because? If I am on the jury and you have a history of talking about shooting people, and the shooting is not clear I am voting guilty.

 

[Massad Ayoob]

Citation, IIRC the shooting was ruled justified, we must be considering two different shootings.

No matter if I was that worried I would not even be on a gun forum talking about shooting people. Think about that.

I found the one you posted about, so the judge ruled it as inadmissible, what proof you have that money spent was involved in the judges ruling? I am guessing he would have ruled the same way if the defendant had wore pink socks without the defense spending any more money as if he had wore tie died socks. If anything this case shows exactly why it has not been successful on any other than a minute scale. Shootings boil down to justification, not silly BS, or fictional gun writers.

With all due respect, sir, you don't seem to understand the issues.

The case you're talking about with the dust cover on the AR15 is Arizona v. Brailsford. The statement engraved on the dust cover of his rifle was seen as "indicia of malice." It was cited by the officer's department as one of the reasons they fired him. It is generally believed to have been a significant factor in the prosecutor's decision to charge him with murder.

The officer's defense lawyer, Michael Piccarreta, told me it took at least ten hours of his own time to craft and present the motion in limine which kept the dust cover evidence out of the trial. At several hundred dollars per hour of the attorney's time, that does not include time and charges for his paralegals and his expert assisting in that effort.

Last March, I led the Panel of Experts on Firearms/Deadly Force Training Issues at the annual conference of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association in St. Louis. This case came up in discussion there. One of the panelists was Emanuel Kapelsohn, the expert witness for the defense in this case. An attorney himself, Manny told us that he estimated the total cost of JUST winning that one motion to keep that ONE item of evidence out probably cost $15,000 to $20,000.

 

[Walkingwolf]

Don't do stupid things, and win stupid prizes. Don't talk, use paraphernalia about killing people. Don't get involved in shootings. Pretty simple rules to follow to NOT get indicted. People are rarely indicted for shootings they were not involved in. OTH social media history has been accepted in court, don't talk about shooting people with any ammo. If you shoot someone you will have bigger problems than ammo. OTH if you are a woman, and an escaped convict breaks into your home, and you use deadly force you will most likely not be charged. And the ammo will never be the reason.

The cop in that case shot an unarmed man who IMO was not a threat. IMO the engraving was no different than talking about shooting on the internet. In a questionable shooting IMO it should have been accepted as evidence. Attorney's are known to stretch billing hours, they will find one reason or another. Don't be one of those guys.

There is a reason I go on, and on about NOT shooting people instead of talking about shooting people.

 

[mg357]

I suggest reloads for practice factory ammo for carry.

 

[amazingflapjack]

I would think that many folks up for jury duty would think that "hand loads" meant that you put them into the gun by hand. I have some critical defense stuff for guns where accuracy isn't an issue, ie. belly guns, but I would trust my hand loads more than the average factory stuff at this point. More importantly, where accuracy is a real possibility, I prefer to "load to the gun" (revolver), and that will not happen taking a box off the shelf a Walyworld, or anywhere else.

 

[Walkingwolf]

I would think that many folks up for jury duty would think that "hand loads" meant that you put them into the gun by hand. I have some critical defense stuff for guns where accuracy isn't an issue, ie. belly guns, but I would trust my hand loads more than the average factory stuff at this point. More importantly, where accuracy is a real possibility, I prefer to "load to the gun" (revolver), and that will not happen taking a box off the shelf a Walyworld, or anywhere else.

So far handloading has not been an issue with the anti crowd. Though the more we discuss in this line of thinking it will be. We seem to be our own worst enemies at times. I have no doubt that they read our forums. One issue that has come up(Zimmerman trial) and other non gun forums is one in the pipe. Where do we suppose they got on this theory that one in the pipe is more deadly than empty chamber? From us.

 

[bigggbbruce]

I reload to published data from bullet and powder manufacturers within SAMMI guidelines. Not going to give shooting my handloaded SD ammo any more thought than that. And yes, much cheaper.

 

[Wise_A]

Exactly. If you can afford any gun, you can afford a box of cheap jhp like wwb. Besides reloading requires some gear to do it right so more $$$$. The math doesnt work out for the 100rds a year folks.

Well, there are some folks carrying gifted guns and such, and folks living on fixed incomes. But yeah, the overwhelming majority of people could either really afford to carry good ammo, or step back and select cheaper ammunition or a cheaper-to-carry gun (like a revolver).

But basically, I'm being a social justice warrior wailing about being nice to everybody, and the sentiment is correct. I just get touchy because I know a bunch of people like that and, in general, they feel very excluded from CCW culture.

Of course, I also know a couple guys that don't have two pennies to rub together, but practically vomit .357 Sig and are all about uber-pricey exotic-metal ultra-velocity ammo in their 9s.

Pretty simple rules to follow to NOT get indicted. People are rarely indicted for shootings they were not involved in. OTH social media history has been accepted in court, don't talk about shooting people with any ammo. If you shoot someone you will have bigger problems than ammo. OTH if you are a woman, and an escaped convict breaks into your home, and you use deadly force you will most likely not be charged. And the ammo will never be the reason.

The only way to avoid prosecution for a DGU is to not have a gun. Many of us don't feel that's an option, so I guess we'd better consider what happens if we do get prosecuted.

I have friends that think, "Oh, the [political party] is in charge in our county--judge, sheriff, and prosecutor! We don't have to worry!"

Well, local judge is James A Murphy. Murphy recently started signing the NY equivalent of CCW permits--an "unrestricted" pistol license--so everyone thinks he's on our side. And to be fair, that was a super-nice thing for him to do. But if Mas is reading this, that name might be somewhat recognizable.

In 2011, a woman named Lydia Salce got into a fight with her husband. He's a 6'1" Hells Angels biker. She stands about 5'0" tall. I'll let you read the details here:

False Positive: The Salce-McKee IncidentAmerican Handgunner | American Handgunner

And here's her mugshot:

Bruises courtesy of being stomped. After he threatened to kill her (not for the first time), and holding a knife to her throat. She manages to get a hold of the knife after he drops it while beating her, and uses it. When he gets arrested later, he's got two more knives on him.

Here's the scorecard:

*Lydia has bruises and footprints, literally, from head to toe. That's not a black eye from being punched, that was done with a boot.
*Her husband has injuries consistent with her account.
*His story changes---"I didn't hit her", "Okay, maybe I hit her once", etc etc.
*Lydia calls 911, and cooperates fully with police.

Slam dunk, right? It's got all the hallmarks of legit self defense: physical disparity between attacker and victim, armed attacker/unarmed victim, male attacker/female victim, position of disadvantage, attacker changes his account several times, physical evidence confirms victim's story. The knife used, a Ka-Bar, didn't even belong to Salce. Her husband dropped it while he was stomping her.

James A Murphy presses attempted murder charges against Lydia Salce. Here's what he said:

"This could have very easily been a murder case, but fortunately, the victim was alive to tell the judge what happened," he said. "Imagine your spouse stabbing you to near death and then having to face them in court. Rather than serving 16 years in prison for trying to kill her husband, I think divorce would have been a simpler option. "

Lydia Ann Salce sentenced for stabbing ex-husband | News | troyrecord.com

Well, Lydia did bring up divorce with her husband, dude. And look what happened.

Lydia Salce was convicted in 2013, and sentenced to 16 years. People do less than half that for murder all the time. Her conviction doesn't get overturned until 2015.

So why bring it up? Two reasons:

First, what happened to Lydia Salce can happen to any of us. Nobody is immune from unjust prosecution. Therefore, we should be aware of that when we make decisions regarding our concealed carry. That includes ammunition selection.

No, handloading defensive ammo isn't that bad, but it's not as good an idea as some mainstream factory options.

Second, it would be nice if prosecutors charged themselves with seeking the truth. But the truth is that they are political animals. Murphy's prosecution of Lydia Salce shows you what he really thinks. His signing of CCW permits shows you that he really wanted the Sheriff to get re-elected.

 

[Walkingwolf]

The only way to avoid prosecution for a DGU is to not have a gun. Many of us don't feel that's an option, so I guess we'd better consider what happens if we do get prosecuted.

Incorrect having a gun does not get one prosecuted unless there are laws against possession a gun. Even then one gets prosecuted for crimes related to possession.

BUT there have been very few cases of prosecution for shootings when the person was not involved in a shooting. Most gun carriers are not the ninjas that some think they are. They are law abiding civilians who do not get into shooting situations. Even if they are unarmed those who use common sense are likely to not be victims, or get prosecuted. Those with the mentality that they will get into a shooting, and think they are tactical ninjas most likely will be prosecuted when they do.

IMO people who think a lot about shooting people whether self defense or not, might fall under red flag laws.

As far as Lydia this was not a case about shooting, when I get time to read more about the case I will comment. But right off hand she was in a situation that most women are not in. Why, because she chose her situation, who stays married to violent felon, and expects for them not to be violent. Many LEOs have seen this, women who stay in abusive relationships, they choose to be victims. Don't be in situations that may end up making you a victim.

Jury acquits in Saratoga County attempted murder trial Jury acquits in Saratoga County attempted murder trial - Times Union

 

[Wise_A]

Okay.

Incorrect having a gun does not get one prosecuted unless there are laws against possession a gun. Even then one gets prosecuted for crimes related to possession.

BUT there have been very few cases of prosecution for shootings when the person was not involved in a shooting. Most gun carriers are not the ninjas that some think they are. They are law abiding civilians who do not get into shooting situations. Even if they are unarmed those who use common sense are likely to not be victims, or get prosecuted. Those with the mentality that they will get into a shooting, and think they are tactical ninjas most likely will be prosecuted when they do.

So you're saying that...we should just choose not to be in a life-or-death struggle?

Look, I preach avoidance, disengagement, and de-escalation as much as anybody. But to think that you can reasonably avoid 100% of life-threatening confrontations is...well, wrong. If it were possible, we wouldn't need to haul a gun around.

And no--it's not just tactical timmies with double Molon Labe sleeve tattoos (not busting out Windows Characters for this) that get prosecuted.

Will you get prosecuted? Maybe, maybe not. But making certain choices helps avoid the prospect, and can help get you acquitted later.

As far as Lydia this was not a case about shooting

There's no difference. Deadly force is deadly force. Which is a certain irony I find common in CCW+SD enthusiasts--mention a case of self-defense with a knife, they presume guilt. Mention self-defense with a gun, they presume innocence.

That innate bias, in my estimation, is the strongest argument against carrying a knife for self-defense. I wonder if it's not the same bias "regular" folk hold against DGUs? But I digress.

Jury acquits in Saratoga County attempted murder trial Jury acquits in Saratoga County attempted murder trial - Times Union

I'd point out she was found not guilty at her second trial.

What this means is that she was incarcerated for two years, that the public defender had to file for an win an appeal, and then she had to go through a whole second trial.

I don't think that doing two years is an acceptable situation for most folk.

But hey, if you want to walk around thinking that, despite all the cases of unjust prosecution happened to people that aren't you, that you're somehow different and special, and that your elected public officials can be trusted more than these other ones, good luck. I would, however, point out that if all that were true, the ACLDN and USCCA probably wouldn't be as busy as they are.

 

[Muss Muggins]

I suggest reloads for practice factory ammo for carry.

In the words of my old football coach, "You play like you practice . . . "

I would consider modifying your approach to some degree . . .

 

[BC38]

In the words of my old football coach, "You play like you practice . . . "

I would consider modifying your approach to some degree . . .

Yup.

Make practice reloads that closely duplicate the power, POA, blast and other characteristics of your carry load.

You sure don't want to practice with light recoiling bunny-toot reloads and carry mule-kick dragon's breath SD ammo.

 

[Walkingwolf]

So you're saying that...we should just choose not to be in a life-or-death struggle?

YES!

 

[Wise_A]

While I'm at it, I think I'll also choose not to get in car accidents. Save myself the seatbelt.

 

[fredj338]

The only way to avoid prosecution for a DGU is to not have a gun. Many of us don't feel that's an option, so I guess we'd better consider what happens if we do get prosecuted.


IMO people who think a lot about shooting people whether self defense or not, might fall under red flag laws.

I will say that anyone carrying a gun or having one in the house had better have thought about shooting another human, probably more than once, PRIOR to carrying said gun. In the fight is not the time to figure this crucial aspect of self defense.

 

[fredj338]

In the words of my old football coach, "You play like you practice . . . "

I would consider modifying your approach to some degree . . .

Yet there is little to no diff between factory jhp defensive ammo & cheaper ball or equiv handloads for practice. All you do is practice less because the expensive JHP cost quite a bit more. What is important is to practice so your skills are as automatic as possible to free your brain to solve the problem.

 

[Walkingwolf]

I cannot possibly agree with that opinion.

That is like saying that anybody who buys fire insurance on their home must be contemplating arson and insurance fraud, by burning down the house and asserting a claim. ...or, if you buy collision insurance on your car, you intend to crash the car.

No, they are being prudent.

The issue that determines whether a shooting is murder or self defense is not whether or not a person thinks about shooting often, the issue is whether the person intends to kill, or intends to save a life by use of a firearm or other deadly weapon at the time of the shooting at issue.

It is the intention of the shooter that differentiates between a justified self defense shooting and a murder.

Obsessing over how a fire starts, or what accelerant to use would raise red flags. Owning a gun, or ammo does not raise flags, continually discussing the best ammo to shoot humans raises red flags. The objection to avoidance, and using SA/common sense to avoid confrontations raises red flags.

Take into account the lack of successful prosecution, low percentage of being the victim of a deadly encounter for most of us, ammo that will not be used, is not illegal, is just downright silly. Besides the fact talking endlessly about it may end getting reloading outlawed.

 

[fredj338]

I cannot possibly agree with that opinion.

That is like saying that anybody who buys fire insurance on their home must be contemplating arson and insurance fraud, by burning down the house and asserting a claim. ...or, if you buy collision insurance on your car, you intend to crash the car.

No, they are being prudent.

The issue that determines whether a shooting is murder or self defense is not whether or not a person thinks about shooting often, the issue is whether the person intends to kill, or intends to save a life by use of a firearm or other deadly weapon at the time of the shooting at issue.

It is the intention of the shooter that differentiates between a justified self defense shooting and a murder.

When I went thru the police academy decades ago, we had a guy wash out during scenarios because it was a shoot or no shoot, depending on how you handled the scenario. He needed to shoot & could not pull the trigger, even though it was roll playing. Yes, you better think about as many possible outcomes as you can in your head so you are not caught flat footed & dead meat because you had to think about it just a bit too long.

 

[Walkingwolf]

When I went thru the police academy decades ago, we had a guy wash out during scenarios because it was a shoot or no shoot, depending on how you handled the scenario. He needed to shoot & could not pull the trigger, even though it was roll playing. Yes, you better think about as many possible outcomes as you can in your head so you are not caught flat footed & dead meat because you had to think about it just a bit too long.

I am going to take a guess that most people who have used deadly force successfully are not members of gun forums, and do not discuss shooting people. Yet they still did what they needed to do. Gun forum members are a very small segment of people who carry a gun legally, or have a firearm in the home for self defense.