Maximumbob54
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 7,202
- Reaction score
- 1,928
By the way, if you ever start selling your "screw you" bullets then sign me up for a box!!!
Self/Home defense loading
- Thread starter HELLSING
- Start date
- Status
I have enjoyed this thread immensely. The sad fact is that any fool can file a lawsuit; it takes a filing fee, paper and a service of process fee. It doesn't even require an attorney. The suit, even if frivolous, costs thousands, the emotional toll is heavy and the time expended is extensive.
I am a judge and regularly preside over frivolity.
++++++++++
To live as I choose is neither childish nor selfish; to require others to live as I choose is both.
I am a judge and regularly preside over frivolity.
++++++++++
To live as I choose is neither childish nor selfish; to require others to live as I choose is both.
jwk
Member
Like I said to you two earlier, stick your fingers in your ears and chant as loudly as you can "There isn't a case", "There isn't a law".
OK - let's go over the full course on this one.
Blujax, the reason that there aren't any reported cases on this type issue is because trials don't get reported and published. The only time that a criminal case gets reported in a searchable database is when there is an appeal. Factual issues are seldom the basis for an appeal. Appeals are generally based upon contentions that legal issues have been handled incorrectly. For those of you who have a question in their mind, call a friend who is an attorney and verify those statements.
In other words, this type thing could have made a huge difference in a lot of cases and we'd never know about it because it isn't reported or it may have only happened in the Byas case that we only know about because of Mas Ayoob. I don't know the answer to that and frankly don't care.
We know of the Byas case simply because Mas Ayoob was hired as an expert witness in either the 2nd or 3rd trial of the case. Ayoob wrote up the part of the trial that he was involved in (the handloaded ammo and ballistic evidence issues) in an article advocating not using handloads for carry ammo. My only concern with the Byas case is it is a case where the use of handloads made a difference that could have put the guy in jail. In other words, there's your case.
A brief synopsis of the Byas case as it involved handloaded ammo is as follows:
1. Ms. B allegedly shoots herself. Because there are no power burns on the side of her head police claim that Mr. B actually shot her.
2. Reason for no powder burns is that gun was loaded with some powderpuff handloads that Mr. B had loaded for Ms. B in teaching her how to shoot.
3. In case(s) before Ayoob testified, there apparently wasn't an expert who could explain to the jury that you could in fact lightly load a round of ammo to the point where it would still kill you if you shot yourself in the head but not leave powder burns on your head. That is where the issue of the handloads comes up.
Now that is a fact question. Fact questions are answered to juries by providing facts. There are rules of both evidence and procedure that you have to comply with in order to get evidence before a jury. There can be a lot of wrangling that goes on over those issues which can win or lose a case.
Expert witnesses often testify in both criminal and civil cases. There are rules for their qualifications and what they can testify as to. These rules are not written statute but are court made or case law so that there is a lot of interpretation that goes on and ultimately a judge decides if your expert gets to testify and the limits on his testimony.
In the Byas case since there was a handload involved, it wasn't as easy as simply going and buying a box of whatever flavor of factory ammo had been in the death gun and shooting it at a similar distance and seeing if it would powder burn someone. To prove that in court you have to have a qualified expert to perform the testing and then testify about it preferably introducing photos or videos of his experiments to educate the jury. Not rocket science but the complication is oh **** it wasn't a box of XYZ ammo, it was one of the defendant's handloads. Now how do you get the evidence in?
1. The police aren't going to give you the unfired ammo that was in the gun to test.
2. The only person who can testify as to what was in the particular handload is the defendant. Oh ****, now we have to put the defendant on the stand if the prosecution takes us over the course on the expert.
3. An expert can testify based upon facts that have come into evidence and his scientific testing based upon such facts. He has to have the predicate facts first however, especially if the opposing lawyer is doing his job and sees that laying the predicate facts gets that opposing counsel an opportunity that normally he doesn't have. In an instance such as a case involving handloaded ammo, that opportunity is the defendant having to get on the stand to testify what he loaded in the ammo. One the Defendant is on the stand though, the prosecutor gets a full shot at him, not just cross exam on the ammo which is good for the DA and bad for the defendant's case in most instances.
4. TV aside, defendants normally don't testify in criminal cases. Sometimes it is because the defendant has something in his past that can be brought up because he is testifying that can't be brought up if he doesn't testify that makes him look really bad. That isn't always true though. A bigger reason is that testifying or for that matter public speaking at all is scary for people. I do it all the time as do a lot of lawyers but for the average guy it is high up on the scary list. Now imagine that your public speech is to 13 people (12 jurors and a judge) who can put you in jail or maybe even take your life. That really makes that public speech scary. You don't get to plan your speech either, you have to wing it with someone adverse to you tossing questions at you trying to make you look bad. Even higher on the scary list. Now how well do you perform when you are scared? As a lawyer, I am not concerned about saving my client who is going through a criminal trial from fear, rather I want to make sure that he doesn't screw up during trial and get himself put in jail despite my efforts to the contrary. I don't want a witness who is so scared that he or she is going to do badly unless there is absolutely no way that I can help it. Scared people screw up when testifying. You can argue that all you have to do is tell the truth and not be scared about it but that isn't the way it works. If that was the case no one would ever be scared to speak publicly.
The fact that the Byas case involved the state's allegation that Mr. B murdered Ms. B when Mr. B was claiming that Ms. B had committed suicide makes absolutely no difference in the legal analysis of the issue. For those of you who don't know, your training as a lawyer is almost completely the reading of cases and then applying them to factual situations and explaining what the result should be. While there is some similar process with statutory law, it is a very small part of the process comparatively because statutes say what they say. Cases on the other hand are subject to interpretation.
When this process occurs if there is not a case that is exactly on point, the Courts look at cases that are close on the facts. In looking at the analysis of the Byas case being a murder v a suicide as opposed to a murder v a self defense shooting the analysis is
1. You have to get the facts in to prove up the handload so the expert can testify that it wouldn't leave powder burns
2. The only person who can lay that predicate is the Defendant since he loaded the ammo.
3. In a criminal case you don't want the Defendant testifying so what do you as the lawyer do?
Next to completely answer the contention that this isn't a self defense case, would the issue of the handload not leaving a powder burn in what was almost a contact shooting, be any different in a self defense contention if you and the bad guy were fighting for the gun when you managed to get the muzzle turned on him and you managed to pull the trigger? Hell no, same issue, is the ammo going to leave a powder burn at that distance to support your story.
OK I hear it now. I don't load little bitty lite loads that this would be applicable to so that issue wouldn't matter to me. Here is the answer to that. I don't know what you are going to load in your pistol. I don't know if you are going to load powderpuffs because you have bad wrists and can't take recoil or if you want to make sure that your wife can shoot the nightstand gun or if you load Elmer Keith Memorial Magnums. What I do know is that if there is any ballistic evidence that the police look at that is in question, that doesn't fit your story, it is a lot easier to prove what you are saying is true if you were shooting something that I can have the expert buy on the shelf than your handload. I want all the predicates laid so the expert can testify without having to put a scared defendant on the stand.
Now I see the wheels turning with one of the yahoos arguing about this thinking well you still have to prove up what factory load was in the gun so why doesn't the Defendant have to testify then? The reason is that when the cops unloaded your gun, they kept the unfired ammo as evidence. It is there to see. If it is a Winchester Silvertip it is obvious. Same with a Federal HydraShok, etc.
Next wheel spin - well why can't your expert break down a round of the unfired ammo and determine what is in it? That is called destructive testing. Most courts won't allow that on pieces of evidence. You can ask but you might not get it.
This same analysis can apply to any type ballistic evidence that the fact that you used a handload could change. Just off the top of my head I could see the problem coming up with any of the following
1. Powder burn issues
2. Shoot through / over-penetration where you shoot through the bad guy and hit someone behind him
3. Location of shooter v person being shot
In closing, I can see a handload causing evidenciary problems in a case. The argument that if it is a good shooting there shouldn't be a case doesn't work. A lot of good shootings end up before a grand jury. If the DA has a burr under his hide for you for whatever reason, you are going to get indicted no matter how good the shooting is. There is an old saying that a good DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. While most don't do that, you really don't want to be the unlucky one now do you?
OK - let's go over the full course on this one.
Blujax, the reason that there aren't any reported cases on this type issue is because trials don't get reported and published. The only time that a criminal case gets reported in a searchable database is when there is an appeal. Factual issues are seldom the basis for an appeal. Appeals are generally based upon contentions that legal issues have been handled incorrectly. For those of you who have a question in their mind, call a friend who is an attorney and verify those statements.
In other words, this type thing could have made a huge difference in a lot of cases and we'd never know about it because it isn't reported or it may have only happened in the Byas case that we only know about because of Mas Ayoob. I don't know the answer to that and frankly don't care.
We know of the Byas case simply because Mas Ayoob was hired as an expert witness in either the 2nd or 3rd trial of the case. Ayoob wrote up the part of the trial that he was involved in (the handloaded ammo and ballistic evidence issues) in an article advocating not using handloads for carry ammo. My only concern with the Byas case is it is a case where the use of handloads made a difference that could have put the guy in jail. In other words, there's your case.
A brief synopsis of the Byas case as it involved handloaded ammo is as follows:
1. Ms. B allegedly shoots herself. Because there are no power burns on the side of her head police claim that Mr. B actually shot her.
2. Reason for no powder burns is that gun was loaded with some powderpuff handloads that Mr. B had loaded for Ms. B in teaching her how to shoot.
3. In case(s) before Ayoob testified, there apparently wasn't an expert who could explain to the jury that you could in fact lightly load a round of ammo to the point where it would still kill you if you shot yourself in the head but not leave powder burns on your head. That is where the issue of the handloads comes up.
Now that is a fact question. Fact questions are answered to juries by providing facts. There are rules of both evidence and procedure that you have to comply with in order to get evidence before a jury. There can be a lot of wrangling that goes on over those issues which can win or lose a case.
Expert witnesses often testify in both criminal and civil cases. There are rules for their qualifications and what they can testify as to. These rules are not written statute but are court made or case law so that there is a lot of interpretation that goes on and ultimately a judge decides if your expert gets to testify and the limits on his testimony.
In the Byas case since there was a handload involved, it wasn't as easy as simply going and buying a box of whatever flavor of factory ammo had been in the death gun and shooting it at a similar distance and seeing if it would powder burn someone. To prove that in court you have to have a qualified expert to perform the testing and then testify about it preferably introducing photos or videos of his experiments to educate the jury. Not rocket science but the complication is oh **** it wasn't a box of XYZ ammo, it was one of the defendant's handloads. Now how do you get the evidence in?
1. The police aren't going to give you the unfired ammo that was in the gun to test.
2. The only person who can testify as to what was in the particular handload is the defendant. Oh ****, now we have to put the defendant on the stand if the prosecution takes us over the course on the expert.
3. An expert can testify based upon facts that have come into evidence and his scientific testing based upon such facts. He has to have the predicate facts first however, especially if the opposing lawyer is doing his job and sees that laying the predicate facts gets that opposing counsel an opportunity that normally he doesn't have. In an instance such as a case involving handloaded ammo, that opportunity is the defendant having to get on the stand to testify what he loaded in the ammo. One the Defendant is on the stand though, the prosecutor gets a full shot at him, not just cross exam on the ammo which is good for the DA and bad for the defendant's case in most instances.
4. TV aside, defendants normally don't testify in criminal cases. Sometimes it is because the defendant has something in his past that can be brought up because he is testifying that can't be brought up if he doesn't testify that makes him look really bad. That isn't always true though. A bigger reason is that testifying or for that matter public speaking at all is scary for people. I do it all the time as do a lot of lawyers but for the average guy it is high up on the scary list. Now imagine that your public speech is to 13 people (12 jurors and a judge) who can put you in jail or maybe even take your life. That really makes that public speech scary. You don't get to plan your speech either, you have to wing it with someone adverse to you tossing questions at you trying to make you look bad. Even higher on the scary list. Now how well do you perform when you are scared? As a lawyer, I am not concerned about saving my client who is going through a criminal trial from fear, rather I want to make sure that he doesn't screw up during trial and get himself put in jail despite my efforts to the contrary. I don't want a witness who is so scared that he or she is going to do badly unless there is absolutely no way that I can help it. Scared people screw up when testifying. You can argue that all you have to do is tell the truth and not be scared about it but that isn't the way it works. If that was the case no one would ever be scared to speak publicly.
The fact that the Byas case involved the state's allegation that Mr. B murdered Ms. B when Mr. B was claiming that Ms. B had committed suicide makes absolutely no difference in the legal analysis of the issue. For those of you who don't know, your training as a lawyer is almost completely the reading of cases and then applying them to factual situations and explaining what the result should be. While there is some similar process with statutory law, it is a very small part of the process comparatively because statutes say what they say. Cases on the other hand are subject to interpretation.
When this process occurs if there is not a case that is exactly on point, the Courts look at cases that are close on the facts. In looking at the analysis of the Byas case being a murder v a suicide as opposed to a murder v a self defense shooting the analysis is
1. You have to get the facts in to prove up the handload so the expert can testify that it wouldn't leave powder burns
2. The only person who can lay that predicate is the Defendant since he loaded the ammo.
3. In a criminal case you don't want the Defendant testifying so what do you as the lawyer do?
Next to completely answer the contention that this isn't a self defense case, would the issue of the handload not leaving a powder burn in what was almost a contact shooting, be any different in a self defense contention if you and the bad guy were fighting for the gun when you managed to get the muzzle turned on him and you managed to pull the trigger? Hell no, same issue, is the ammo going to leave a powder burn at that distance to support your story.
OK I hear it now. I don't load little bitty lite loads that this would be applicable to so that issue wouldn't matter to me. Here is the answer to that. I don't know what you are going to load in your pistol. I don't know if you are going to load powderpuffs because you have bad wrists and can't take recoil or if you want to make sure that your wife can shoot the nightstand gun or if you load Elmer Keith Memorial Magnums. What I do know is that if there is any ballistic evidence that the police look at that is in question, that doesn't fit your story, it is a lot easier to prove what you are saying is true if you were shooting something that I can have the expert buy on the shelf than your handload. I want all the predicates laid so the expert can testify without having to put a scared defendant on the stand.
Now I see the wheels turning with one of the yahoos arguing about this thinking well you still have to prove up what factory load was in the gun so why doesn't the Defendant have to testify then? The reason is that when the cops unloaded your gun, they kept the unfired ammo as evidence. It is there to see. If it is a Winchester Silvertip it is obvious. Same with a Federal HydraShok, etc.
Next wheel spin - well why can't your expert break down a round of the unfired ammo and determine what is in it? That is called destructive testing. Most courts won't allow that on pieces of evidence. You can ask but you might not get it.
This same analysis can apply to any type ballistic evidence that the fact that you used a handload could change. Just off the top of my head I could see the problem coming up with any of the following
1. Powder burn issues
2. Shoot through / over-penetration where you shoot through the bad guy and hit someone behind him
3. Location of shooter v person being shot
In closing, I can see a handload causing evidenciary problems in a case. The argument that if it is a good shooting there shouldn't be a case doesn't work. A lot of good shootings end up before a grand jury. If the DA has a burr under his hide for you for whatever reason, you are going to get indicted no matter how good the shooting is. There is an old saying that a good DA can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. While most don't do that, you really don't want to be the unlucky one now do you?
I'm dyin' here (LOL). Are there any politicians on the boards who would like to chime in next?
I feel reloads are a personal choice, and a personal responsibility. I only keep factory ammo for house guns because they're made with the freshest components on modern equipment with more safeguards and testing than I can provide. That said, any bad guy would be the worst kind of fool to stand in front of one of my handloads.
I feel reloads are a personal choice, and a personal responsibility. I only keep factory ammo for house guns because they're made with the freshest components on modern equipment with more safeguards and testing than I can provide. That said, any bad guy would be the worst kind of fool to stand in front of one of my handloads.
"State (NJ) v Byas."
I don't know that I'd expect a case outcome in NJ (or NY, IL, or CA for that matter) to be indicative of what the rest of the more common-sense states would conclude. And I understand jwk's point of reducing/eliminating any possible points that may be used against you. But at the same time, any decent defense lawyer should be able to clearly demonstrate that type of ammo used is pointless and irrelevant in the overall use of deadly force in self-defense.
The fact that one is in court over a shooting generally indicates that something at least appeared amiss in a claimed SD event. The issue will be much larger than the type ammo used.
Back to the OP:
My "understanding" is the faster rates (1-7, 1-9, etc.) will stabilize lighter bullets, whereas the faster rates (like my 1-12) will not stabilize the heavier bullets.
I don't know that I'd expect a case outcome in NJ (or NY, IL, or CA for that matter) to be indicative of what the rest of the more common-sense states would conclude. And I understand jwk's point of reducing/eliminating any possible points that may be used against you. But at the same time, any decent defense lawyer should be able to clearly demonstrate that type of ammo used is pointless and irrelevant in the overall use of deadly force in self-defense.
The fact that one is in court over a shooting generally indicates that something at least appeared amiss in a claimed SD event. The issue will be much larger than the type ammo used.
Back to the OP:
My "understanding" is the faster rates (1-7, 1-9, etc.) will stabilize lighter bullets, whereas the faster rates (like my 1-12) will not stabilize the heavier bullets.
jwk
Member
Forrest, if you read back through my posts you will see that I mentioned that I could destroy the argument by a prosecutor or plaintiff's lawyer about someone trying to make more deadly ammo, well you hit on the response but you overdid enough that you would get yourself in trouble doing it. Do yourself a favor. If you ever get in legal trouble, shut up, lawyer up and don't say a word that your lawyer doesn't tell you to say. With the mouth you have, you'll do a whole lot better.
Here is what you miss though. You give your big mouth speech if your lawyer lets you do it in a shoot through case where you shoot X with your monster screw you bullet, it goes through gangbanger now referred to as GB and hits little old lady (LOL) who unfortunately is walking behind GB. You don't get indicted or sued for shooting GB. LOL is another story though.
LOL gets seriously injured. Because you shot your mouth off about your screw you devastator bullets and because LOL now has a zillion dollars in medical expenses, you get sued for negligently hurting LOL with your over-penetrating bullets. I can get an expert easily on how much penetration you really need for self defense issues and your screw you bullets clearly exceed what any reasonable man needs. The dangers of overpenetration are widely known (read any gun rag with an ammo article and you'll see it) and it is clear that you were negligent in loading over penetrating ammo in your roscoe.
Now here is where it gets fun. Since you are being sued based upon negligently shooting LOL you turn over the defense to your homeowners carrier that pays for a defense in cases where you are sued for negligence and pays any damages caused by negligence. Now the question comes up as to whether you injured LOL because you were negligent or was it as a consequence of you committing an intentional act? You didn't intend to hit LOL but you did intend to load a bullet that would overpenetrate like no one's business. Intentional acts aren't covered by your homeowner's insurance and since you are going to have a judgment against you for shooting LOL do you want your insurance company paying it or do you want LOL taking your property away from you to pay the judgment? Don't think your insurance company would do that to you? Don't believe it for a minute. Before being a plaintiff's lawyer I was an insurance defense lawyer. Trust me they always look for any hole in coverage.
Now as for shoveling sidewalks, I don't know where the poster is located. Frankly it sounds like BS to me. Where I'm from and where I practice law, you don't get sued for trying to do the right thing and not doing it perfectly. In fact here in Texas you can't get sued for naturally occurring ice or snow or failure to remove same or a negligent failure to properly remove it if you tried to do so. You can get sued for creating the ice (i.e. washing down your sidewalk when it is below freezing creating an ice sheet on the walkway when there has been no precipitation that caused it) but that is a different story. My guess is that is urban legend BS just like the urban legend BS about not using a handload because the prosecutor will take you to trial because you were trying to make more deadly bullets. Frankly though it is safer not to shovel. When you shovel if you don't do it correctly you end up with just this really thin sheet of ice covering the walkway rather than snow that you can walk on safely. Even someone from south Texas knows that.
Finally, you can get sued for anything by anyone with the filing fee in their pocket. That is the cost of being an American. Piss your neighbor off and you have a lawsuit. I've defended a lot of those in my career. Out of all the lawsuits I have filed, I haven't ever filed one of those however. Just like we have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, we also have a right under the Bill of Rights to sue each other. I find it amusing that gun folks want to scream about how important the 2nd is but they want to ignore others of the Big Ten as I like to call them when it doesn't make them happy. Take out your copy of the Bill of Rights and read it. You not only have a right to a trial in a criminal case but you also have a right to a trial in a civil case. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Now about those stupid lawsuits, you don't need a 30 round magazine to go deer hunting do you? It's just common sense, right?
Here is what you miss though. You give your big mouth speech if your lawyer lets you do it in a shoot through case where you shoot X with your monster screw you bullet, it goes through gangbanger now referred to as GB and hits little old lady (LOL) who unfortunately is walking behind GB. You don't get indicted or sued for shooting GB. LOL is another story though.
LOL gets seriously injured. Because you shot your mouth off about your screw you devastator bullets and because LOL now has a zillion dollars in medical expenses, you get sued for negligently hurting LOL with your over-penetrating bullets. I can get an expert easily on how much penetration you really need for self defense issues and your screw you bullets clearly exceed what any reasonable man needs. The dangers of overpenetration are widely known (read any gun rag with an ammo article and you'll see it) and it is clear that you were negligent in loading over penetrating ammo in your roscoe.
Now here is where it gets fun. Since you are being sued based upon negligently shooting LOL you turn over the defense to your homeowners carrier that pays for a defense in cases where you are sued for negligence and pays any damages caused by negligence. Now the question comes up as to whether you injured LOL because you were negligent or was it as a consequence of you committing an intentional act? You didn't intend to hit LOL but you did intend to load a bullet that would overpenetrate like no one's business. Intentional acts aren't covered by your homeowner's insurance and since you are going to have a judgment against you for shooting LOL do you want your insurance company paying it or do you want LOL taking your property away from you to pay the judgment? Don't think your insurance company would do that to you? Don't believe it for a minute. Before being a plaintiff's lawyer I was an insurance defense lawyer. Trust me they always look for any hole in coverage.
Now as for shoveling sidewalks, I don't know where the poster is located. Frankly it sounds like BS to me. Where I'm from and where I practice law, you don't get sued for trying to do the right thing and not doing it perfectly. In fact here in Texas you can't get sued for naturally occurring ice or snow or failure to remove same or a negligent failure to properly remove it if you tried to do so. You can get sued for creating the ice (i.e. washing down your sidewalk when it is below freezing creating an ice sheet on the walkway when there has been no precipitation that caused it) but that is a different story. My guess is that is urban legend BS just like the urban legend BS about not using a handload because the prosecutor will take you to trial because you were trying to make more deadly bullets. Frankly though it is safer not to shovel. When you shovel if you don't do it correctly you end up with just this really thin sheet of ice covering the walkway rather than snow that you can walk on safely. Even someone from south Texas knows that.
Finally, you can get sued for anything by anyone with the filing fee in their pocket. That is the cost of being an American. Piss your neighbor off and you have a lawsuit. I've defended a lot of those in my career. Out of all the lawsuits I have filed, I haven't ever filed one of those however. Just like we have a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, we also have a right under the Bill of Rights to sue each other. I find it amusing that gun folks want to scream about how important the 2nd is but they want to ignore others of the Big Ten as I like to call them when it doesn't make them happy. Take out your copy of the Bill of Rights and read it. You not only have a right to a trial in a criminal case but you also have a right to a trial in a civil case. Surprise, surprise, surprise. Now about those stupid lawsuits, you don't need a 30 round magazine to go deer hunting do you? It's just common sense, right?
jwk
Member
SMSgt said
"But at the same time, any decent defense lawyer should be able to clearly demonstrate that type of ammo used is pointless and irrelevant in the overall use of deadly force in self-defense."
My response to that is that I would hope so but that supposes a clearly good shoot. In an absolutely righteous shooting, the type ammo doesn't even get looked at. It isn't the clearly righteous shooting that I am worried about having to defend a murder case or a civil case on. It is the case where the client was probably right but the evidence isn't absolutely conclusive. Unfortunately those happen too often, the grand jury sorts some of them out but in some of them, the guy who made a good shoot goes to trial. That is when the problems that I see happen.
Now if you can figure out a way to have someone bless your shooting as clearly righteous before you pull the trigger, you're absolutely safe in using handloads. Make sure whoever does the blessing gives you a good warranty though.
I've made it clear that my advice is based upon what could happen under a fairly narrow set of circumstances. You have to weigh in your mind the risk v reward of using handloads. By the same token I tell folks not to hang signs over their reloading bench that have the jokes about not dialing 911, or trespassers being shot, survivors being shot again etc. Yeah, some folks think they are funny but shoot someone on your property in what isn't clearly an absolutely righteous shooting and it can help get you indicted.
It's up to you to make your own decision. You have a lawyer who handles court cases for a living telling you it isn't the best idea and you, with all the experience you have in law enforcement and trials arguing to the contrary (Not you in particular but the "you" as the list). You also have Mas Ayoob who has testified in a bunch of court cases as an expert telling you not to do it. I've talked this over with a lot of lawyers at one time or another mostly sitting around campfires at hunting camps and the only lawyer that has ever disagreed with me was on an internet forum. I pulled some info on him and found out that not only was he not a criminal defense lawyer or a trial lawyer but that he was a real estate lawyer who had never been to trial in a case in his whole career. He also thought a SAA was the perfect carry gun. Choose wisely. If you ever have to drop a hammer on someone for real, it might make a big difference in your life. Decide how smart you are compared to folks who have been there, done that (Ayoob), went to school for years and got trained to make such analysis and then have experience with the process at work (lawyers). And your qualifications are ...?
"But at the same time, any decent defense lawyer should be able to clearly demonstrate that type of ammo used is pointless and irrelevant in the overall use of deadly force in self-defense."
My response to that is that I would hope so but that supposes a clearly good shoot. In an absolutely righteous shooting, the type ammo doesn't even get looked at. It isn't the clearly righteous shooting that I am worried about having to defend a murder case or a civil case on. It is the case where the client was probably right but the evidence isn't absolutely conclusive. Unfortunately those happen too often, the grand jury sorts some of them out but in some of them, the guy who made a good shoot goes to trial. That is when the problems that I see happen.
Now if you can figure out a way to have someone bless your shooting as clearly righteous before you pull the trigger, you're absolutely safe in using handloads. Make sure whoever does the blessing gives you a good warranty though.
I've made it clear that my advice is based upon what could happen under a fairly narrow set of circumstances. You have to weigh in your mind the risk v reward of using handloads. By the same token I tell folks not to hang signs over their reloading bench that have the jokes about not dialing 911, or trespassers being shot, survivors being shot again etc. Yeah, some folks think they are funny but shoot someone on your property in what isn't clearly an absolutely righteous shooting and it can help get you indicted.
It's up to you to make your own decision. You have a lawyer who handles court cases for a living telling you it isn't the best idea and you, with all the experience you have in law enforcement and trials arguing to the contrary (Not you in particular but the "you" as the list). You also have Mas Ayoob who has testified in a bunch of court cases as an expert telling you not to do it. I've talked this over with a lot of lawyers at one time or another mostly sitting around campfires at hunting camps and the only lawyer that has ever disagreed with me was on an internet forum. I pulled some info on him and found out that not only was he not a criminal defense lawyer or a trial lawyer but that he was a real estate lawyer who had never been to trial in a case in his whole career. He also thought a SAA was the perfect carry gun. Choose wisely. If you ever have to drop a hammer on someone for real, it might make a big difference in your life. Decide how smart you are compared to folks who have been there, done that (Ayoob), went to school for years and got trained to make such analysis and then have experience with the process at work (lawyers). And your qualifications are ...?
jwk
Member
SMSgt also said
"I don't know that I'd expect a case outcome in NJ (or NY, IL, or CA for that matter) to be indicative of what the rest of the more common-sense states would conclude."
This isn't a state specific issue. Evidence and procedure rules, while differing from state to state are very similar. The issue of getting the proper factual predicate laid so that your expert can testify is the same if not identical in most states. It is also universal that you, as a criminal defense attorney don't want to put your client on a witness stand if you don't have to do so. Too much risk, not enough reward.
Jim
"I don't know that I'd expect a case outcome in NJ (or NY, IL, or CA for that matter) to be indicative of what the rest of the more common-sense states would conclude."
This isn't a state specific issue. Evidence and procedure rules, while differing from state to state are very similar. The issue of getting the proper factual predicate laid so that your expert can testify is the same if not identical in most states. It is also universal that you, as a criminal defense attorney don't want to put your client on a witness stand if you don't have to do so. Too much risk, not enough reward.
Jim
"By the same token I tell folks not to hang signs over their reloading bench that have the jokes about not dialing 911, or trespassers being shot, survivors being shot again etc. Yeah, some folks think they are funny but shoot someone on your property in what isn't clearly an absolutely righteous shooting and it can help get you indicted." (Stated by jwk)
To some jurors this may show a reckless indifference to human life, not a desirable perception.
What ever your position on this issue, the above is excellent advice.
To some jurors this may show a reckless indifference to human life, not a desirable perception.
What ever your position on this issue, the above is excellent advice.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,009
- Reaction score
- 7,080
Anyone can do anything he wants, but I would buy factory "varmint" rounds for use in the .223. They are shown not to over penetrate, which is a desirable characteristic for a home- or self-defense round.
As to the use of reloaded ammunition, I personally would not do it, and I could not and would not recommend it.
I think you are asking for trouble in the admittedly unlikely event you use your reloaded ammunition in a shooting.
As much as we would all like to think it just shouldn't matter (and it should not matter), the fact is that according to well-known court expert and Forum member Mr. Massad Ayoob, it has become an issue in some cases. It apparently comes in the form of an argument that you made up your own especially deadly ammo, etc. The argument is made apparently by the lawyer for one side who is either hoping to confuse the jury, who may not know about guns or reloading, and to thereby gain an advantage and a win. Since the jury gets to decide the veracity of the facts and what they mean, the judge will usually let the jury hear the testimony and the jury decides what weight to give those facts.
For the record, I agree that often carefully handloaded ammo is more reliable, more accurate and better suited to your needs than factory ammo, but the simple fact of life is that the issue can come up. No, I cannot cite you to a case, but Mr. Ayoob can if you will read his writings, and I happen to trust him on these issues.
Will you get to explain your use of your "handloaded ammo made up to be especially deadly in order to kill a man?" Well, that depends on whether you actually take the witness stand, and sometimes, for other reasons, you might not.
That said, it is a free country and you are always free to take risks. Just weigh the possibility that the use of your high quality, well-made reloads, which are better and more reliable than crappy factory ammo may be something that some lawyer makes an issue of in a case, should you be involved in a shooting that has a lawsuit in its aftermath.
And, before you all go bashing all lawyers in general, please remember that there are many more gun friendly lawyers than you might think, many of whom are on this Forum, and you will hopefully have one on your side.
Often, the solution to the perceived "trouble with the legal system" is not the lawyers at all, but the lay people who give out silly huge and seemingly unjustified awards. If the lay people on the jury would "just say no," the trial lawyers who get a percentage will go elsewhere since they do not get paid if no money is collected.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,009
- Reaction score
- 7,080
Thank you Mr. Keene for taking your time to give us the legal point of view. Often the clients do not like the advice a lawyer gives. Sometimes, ignoring that advice gets them into trouble.
I have read through all of this thread twice, and can see the disagreements and hostility directed to you because of what you said, which is common sense cautionary advice.
I would like to remind everyone that the amount of time spent in considering the issues and offering an opinion to all of us by taking the time to type it up without charge is a good and considerate thing for Mr. Keene to do and he obviously understands the gun and ammo issues and can relate those to the typical court setting.
If you think he is wrong (and I do not), that is up to you to decide in your particular circumstances, but I hope we all at least appreciate that a professional has taken the time to tell us all how this issue can conceivably come back to haunt us.
I, for one, appreciate you speaking up on this issue.
Shawn McCarver
All Judges are politicians, we just dress differently.
To live as I choose is neither childish nor selfish; to require that others live as I choose is both. I am neither.
Hawker Man
Member
And let's see, lawyers....I trust them like the last two that were in the Whitehouse and the current two in there!
Listen, I get the whole idea of the testing and all of that BUT, Mr. Lawyer, what do they call a "good shooting"?
They call it a "good shooting", period. If you were justified, and God forbid that it ever has to happen, in taking another person's life, and all of the indicators show that it was a good shoot, then, ammo isn't even going to play into it.
The case that EVERYONE, and that is including one of our beloved own (supposedly), uses to scare weak, spineless folks into capitulation with no law on the books, had so many other factors in it that the guy was lucky to get away with just the manslaughter charge!
Truth be known, with all I have read on that one case, he should have gotten the death penalty for premeditated murder in the first degree!
As far as this goes, you nor I am most likely ever going to have to shoot someone anyway. If it happens, know your state and local laws on the use of deadly force and carrying your firearm.
If you live in a liberal minded state, NY, CA, IL, my only suggestion to you is to move to a free one........or, decide on letting the bad guy win if a situation arises.
Just my opinion, no legal expertise here. I sleep just fine most nights too.
If you ever get your tit in a ringer, you better be able to find a lawyer you trust. If you do go to court for a shooting, the prosecutiion will do EVERYTHING they can to find you guilty, good shooting or not, gun friendly state or not. You know what they say, Anyone who represents themself in a court has a fool for a client.
Maximumbob54
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2010
- Messages
- 7,202
- Reaction score
- 1,928
This thread is so full of
that it's become ridiculous.
It's so well established that you can't make a handload that kills deader than a factory load and there are some straight nasty factory loads.
I'm out.
It's so well established that you can't make a handload that kills deader than a factory load and there are some straight nasty factory loads.
I'm out.
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2005
- Messages
- 8,009
- Reaction score
- 7,080
That is the funniest thing I have seen today! Actually made me laugh out loud!
Skip Sackett
US Veteran
Don't worry Hawker,
I live everyday in a way that I won't get that body part even near a wringer!
The case that is used to support the other side, those folks exchanged them daily and sometimes more than that.
To each his own though.
jwk
Member
CMD, Shawn & Hawker,
Thanks,
Jim Keene
Thanks,
Jim Keene
jwk
Member
Skip, if you ever have to pull the trigger on someone, no matter how good a life you have lived up until then, no matter how righteous you think your shooting is, your tit is in the ringer. I don't care if the shooting takes place in your home. Your tit is in the ringer. I don't care how many witness you have. Your tit is in the ringer. The only question at that point is the DA going to turn the handle?
Lawyer up immediately. Let me say that again loudly just in case it isn't clear - LAWYER UP IMMEDIATELY!
That isn't just advice to you. That is advice to anyone in that situation.
A good lawyer might be able to keep you from getting indicted if there is anything questionable about your shoot. The questionable can be as simple as you shot a minority member, there are enough minorities in the area to make a voting block and the DA is up for election this year. Now tell me whether you have been living right made a difference on that one. No one can blame a DA for letting the Grand Jury decide and that is a **** shoot since you don't get to cross examine whoever the DA wants to present to let the Grand Jury decide whether or not to indict you. Also, if you want to pitch your witnesses into the Grand Jury room, the DA is the one that asks them whatever questions he wants to ask them, not the questions that you want them asked.
Keeping you from getting indicted in the first place means a whole lot more than getting you a not guilty 18 months later at time of trial. What you initially say to the police makes a huge difference. What you say to the press the next day can make an even bigger difference since the court of public opinion can indict you and leave the DA with no choice but to drag you in front of a grand jury and then have him push hard to indict you.
Do what you want to do and what you feel is in your best interest. It is your life and you do have the right to screw it up if you decide to do so. Me, on the other hand, wants to take any reasonable precaution that I can take to make things easier for me. I advise my clients to do the same thing. Filling my carry gun with factory ammo is real easy. Might never need it but the cost of a box of factory ammo once a year is just too easy for me to bypass because my carefully crafted handloads might be better.
I'll leave you with another thought as well. You really won't like it but it is true. Despite the fact that all of us seem relatively normal to each other because we're all gun guys, there are a lot of folks in the world who aren't gun guys. Some of them are cops. Some of them are DAs. Some of them end up on Grand Juries. To those folks, gun people are a little different. OK to a lot of them, we're nuts or even worse, we're scary to them. Do you really want them thinking you are even further out there on that scale because you make your own ammo if they are making decisions about your life, your liberty or your death?
Again do what you want. I know you are smarter than every lawyer that I have ever discussed the situation with except one. I know that you're more knowledgeable about trials that either Mr. Ayoob or me. I know that you live so right that nothing bad is ever going to happen to you, or uhhhh, if you got involved in a defensive shooting something bad did happen to you despite you living well.
Jim
Lawyer up immediately. Let me say that again loudly just in case it isn't clear - LAWYER UP IMMEDIATELY!
That isn't just advice to you. That is advice to anyone in that situation.
A good lawyer might be able to keep you from getting indicted if there is anything questionable about your shoot. The questionable can be as simple as you shot a minority member, there are enough minorities in the area to make a voting block and the DA is up for election this year. Now tell me whether you have been living right made a difference on that one. No one can blame a DA for letting the Grand Jury decide and that is a **** shoot since you don't get to cross examine whoever the DA wants to present to let the Grand Jury decide whether or not to indict you. Also, if you want to pitch your witnesses into the Grand Jury room, the DA is the one that asks them whatever questions he wants to ask them, not the questions that you want them asked.
Keeping you from getting indicted in the first place means a whole lot more than getting you a not guilty 18 months later at time of trial. What you initially say to the police makes a huge difference. What you say to the press the next day can make an even bigger difference since the court of public opinion can indict you and leave the DA with no choice but to drag you in front of a grand jury and then have him push hard to indict you.
Do what you want to do and what you feel is in your best interest. It is your life and you do have the right to screw it up if you decide to do so. Me, on the other hand, wants to take any reasonable precaution that I can take to make things easier for me. I advise my clients to do the same thing. Filling my carry gun with factory ammo is real easy. Might never need it but the cost of a box of factory ammo once a year is just too easy for me to bypass because my carefully crafted handloads might be better.
I'll leave you with another thought as well. You really won't like it but it is true. Despite the fact that all of us seem relatively normal to each other because we're all gun guys, there are a lot of folks in the world who aren't gun guys. Some of them are cops. Some of them are DAs. Some of them end up on Grand Juries. To those folks, gun people are a little different. OK to a lot of them, we're nuts or even worse, we're scary to them. Do you really want them thinking you are even further out there on that scale because you make your own ammo if they are making decisions about your life, your liberty or your death?
Again do what you want. I know you are smarter than every lawyer that I have ever discussed the situation with except one. I know that you're more knowledgeable about trials that either Mr. Ayoob or me. I know that you live so right that nothing bad is ever going to happen to you, or uhhhh, if you got involved in a defensive shooting something bad did happen to you despite you living well.
Jim
To make sure that "Standard" factory ammo will do the job, I just dip the tips in some on my wifes home cooked food.......
Now I never said she is a bad cook,in case this gets back to her, but it lets say it's a..................
"Killer".
Now I never said she is a bad cook,in case this gets back to her, but it lets say it's a..................
"Killer".
- Status
