Carry Ammo Survey -- Factory or Reloads?

[flop-shank]

It seems that gun magazines would want to encourage the use of factory ammo since the more-than-a-buck-a-shot ammo makers (the same people who, often as not, are too cheap to use nickel plated brass) advertise in them. Follow the money.

 

[flop-shank]

That man attacking Fish was bigger, younger, stronger and coming at him from higher ground. He very arguably had the ability to disarm Fish and kill him with his own weapon, so even unarmed, in many, if not most states, Kuenzli was fair game.

 

[Jellybean]

Exactly, except for the pompous, pretentious response part. Harold Fish didn't go to prison because he used a 10mm loaded with hollow points and Daniel Bias didn't go to prison because of handloaded ammunition.

The only information available on the Bias case was from Masaad Ayoobs articles. As a client of Bias' attorney the only information he could give is from the defenses version of the truth. There were other factors present that got him convicted, just like the Fish case.

 

[gwalchmai]

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.

So then if you attacked me with a 9mm I would not be justified in defending with a 9mm +P, huh?

Pretty silly theory you have there, isn't it?

 

[OKFC05]

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....

OK, TX, and KY are three that I know of for sure that allow lethal force to be used when life and limb are in imminent danger from unarmed disparity of force in an unprovoked attack. In OK, if someone breaks into your house, the only justification you need for using any force you choose is that they broke in and you felt "any danger, however slight."

Mutual combat (Like a barfight) is another matter entirely. I suspect your "common law" interpretation is not so common as you think. IANAL.

 

[elcruisr]

Add FL to the list. You can defend without retreat against a forceable felony, car intrusion or home intrusion. The burden of proving you wrong is also placed upon the state. In an incident you are really innocent unless they prove you guilty.

 

[Jellybean]

In Ohio you are allowed to use deadly force if you feel you or another person is in immediate danger of serious physical harm or death. A 100lb woman being attacked by a 220lb man would be justified in using lethal force if she felt she was in serious danger. A 250lb man can use lethal force against a 100lb woman if he felt he was in serious danger. Fortunately we don't have to sustain life threatening injuries in a fist fight if one of Don Kings fighters up the street decides to test his mettle. Private citizens aren't allowed to carry batons or stun guns here either.

Even the police aren't restricted to equal force on force, they are trained to go to the next highest level they can. ie, if a suspect is being passively non-compliant you can spray him, if he's fighting with his hands you can taser him or use a baton, depending on what you are carrying. If he pulls out any kind of weapon, or takes your baton or taser the only step higher for most officers is lethal force.

What I was getting at is both arguments are a non-issue. People are running around saying you must carry factory ammo to prevent an attorney from trying to villify you, but it's never happened. It has happened that in one case a prosecutor did try to villify a suspect for using hollow point factory ammo, and the suspect got convicted. But it wasn't because of the accuastions of the ammo, he got what he deserved.

Mr. Ayoob stated you should not use reloads for self defense carry. Then presented the Bias case as evidence...becuase there was never a case where carrying reloads for self defense has presented a problem. Did you get to read the article when it was presented? Mr. Bias did get to present his side of the story and the court recognized it as the total B.S. that it was. The wound to his wife was about one inch behind her left ear, and was made with a 6" revolver. If you happen to have a 6" revolver available put yourself in her position and see how far away from your head you can get it. Plus the fact that she was right handed and he claimed she did that to blame him for her death. Not to mention a whole lot of other highly doubtable claims.

There was no GSR on her. Defense tried to say this was because of the light loads he claimed he had in his gun. Mr. Ayoob tested similar rounds and claimed that he could duplicate the results. One of our forum members in one of the previous threads did the same but couldn't get the same results, there were always trace amounts of residue. Mr. Ayoobs testimony was never presented at trial, and everything he knew about it came from the defense team. The investigators took a lot of evidence from Mr. Bias' house, he claims the ammo they tested wasn't in the gun, how would anyone but him know any different, other than the person that opened it up after the shooting? His claims weren't substantiated by the evidence, big surprise, so why is it so many people are willing to look at his side of the argument and not at any of the evidence presented against him and proclaim him innocent? I had a teacher once whose favorite saying was the "medium is the message", meaning people tend to believe what they read because of the opinions of who wrote it and will totally ignore the facts presented.

Fish and Bias are the same, and they got what they deserved for it.

 

[ajpelz]

So then if you attacked me with a 9mm I would not be justified in defending with a 9mm +P, huh?

Pretty silly theory you have there, isn't it?

9mm = deadly force. 9mm+P = deadly force. Same force. If someone attacked to with a 9mm, and all you had was a 50 BMG handy, you would be justified using that. In the legal community, force is not the foot-punds of energy, only the consequential damage.

"In OK, if someone breaks into your house, the only justification you need for using any force you choose is that they broke in and you felt 'any danger, however slight.'"

Now this addresses the defense of the home, not self-defense. It would be a justified homicide on completely different grounds. In AZ, you may THREATEN deadly force for a mere trespass, and use deadly force on a burglar. All that one has to do to become a burglar is, 1. Enter a walled or gated in yard or, 2. Enter ones place of residence or attachment.

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

The danger must be from an objective standpoint, not subjective. If some guy looks at you funny and YOU feel that you are in serious danger, justifiable homicide? It is up to those "12 people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty" to determine if your fear was reasonable and justified.

As for the FMJ vs. HP argument, look up the case McCarthy v. Olin Corp. There a judge dismissed a lawsuit against the company that made Black Talon bullets based on the grounds any bullet is lethal, therefore a bullet that expanded and fragmented upon impact was not excessive. The concept of bullets are to kill, and Black Talons achieved this quite well. That decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

"Add FL to the list. You can defend without retreat against a forceable felony, car intrusion or home intrusion. The burden of proving you wrong is also placed upon the state."

Those justifications are specifically created by statute, and are thus, an exception to the common law. AZ has those also, but you can add kidnapping, rape, arson of an occupied structure, and a few others to that list of specific scenarios where it is in the state statute that deadly force is justified. These are state exceptions to the common law, and each state has their own. The common law is what is used when there is no specific statutory justification, ie, a hands and fists beating that I describe above.

 

[OKFC05]

"In OK, if someone breaks into your house, the only justification you need for using any force you choose is that they broke in and you felt 'any danger, however slight.'"

Now this addresses the defense of the home, not self-defense. It would be a justified homicide on completely different grounds

There is no such law as "defense of home" (or property) with deadly force in OK law. Your statement that "deadly force cannot be used against an unarmed attacker" is entirely false in OK law and case law.
OK law provides that deadly force can be used when "in emminent danger of death or serious bodily harm."
http://www.ok.gov/osbi/documents/SDA_Lawbook_NOV_2007_2_.pdf

We have case law of unarmed attackers being shot on public streets without any charges being filed against the person who defended themselves. On the other hand, people who pulled a weapon because they were losing a barfight HAVE been charged, since it was mutual combat.

In TX, one of the first cases tested in Dallas was a truck driver who was beating up another driver on the road, and was fatally shot by the beating victim, in front of witnesses. The Dallas DA took it to the Grand Jury as a test case, and, as expected, no charges were brought.

In KY, I know a fellow pistol competitor who happens to be a bank branch manager. He has fatally shot three bank robbers. One had a weapon, the other two were bluffing. In KY, if you walk up with your hand in your pocket and make a credible threat, you may wind up shot on the spot for your actions.

Two youths accosted a couple on the streets in KY and demanded money. One was shot and the other ran away, to be picked up later. Both youths were charged with strongarm robbery, and no charges were filed against the couple. I personally know the couple.

The assertion that "a weapon cannot be legally used against an unarmed attacker" is simply wrong under the laws of many states.

Now in MA, you may be right.

 

[ajpelz]

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.

"Lethal force is justifiable only in a situation of immediate and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself, or to another innocent person one has the right under law to protect....Only when killing or crippling force is used or is about to be used against the innocent can a similar level of force be employed by the citizen defender."

Taken from, Explaining the deadly force decision: "self defense in a nutshell." - part 10 - Lethal Force - Column
Shooting Industry, March, 1992 by Massad Ayoob

 

[ajpelz]

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]

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]

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:

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_Lawbook_NOV_2007_2_.pdf

 

[ajpelz]

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]

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]

. 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]

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]

Quoted from ajpelz:

"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.

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]

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]

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