jwk
Member
Rule 3 said
"There is not one case that anyone can cite that found a person at fault based only on using handloads. Maybe for some other technical term but not solely for using hand loaded ammo."
I'm a trial lawyer with almost 30 years experience. I handle personal injury, family law, and criminal defense matters. If Rule 3 is a lawyer, I'll welcome a debate with him on this issue. If not, non-lawyers shouldn't give legal advice.
Reread Rule 3's comment. He wants to limit a conviction or verdict to one sole factor. In a whole bunch of cases settled, tried or just watched for the heck of it over the course of my career, no case is based upon one sole factor. In other words it is a chickencrud use of words to frame the argument. Technically Rule 3 makes a correct statement but the premise is something you find in a pile in a cow pasture.
Next, there is a case where handloads being used in the death weapon sure did make a difference. State (NJ) v Byas. Not sure if I recall the cite correctly but if anyone wants to make issue out of it and will pay me for my time, I'll go dig for the cite just to prove it exists. The question in the case was whether Ms. B committed suicide or whether Mr. B murdered her. Due to a particular quirk of the particular handload in the firearm, ballistic evidence that would normally exist didn't. Defense finally got Mas Ayoob involved in the 2nd or 3rd trial of the case and finally got the guy acquitted. Of course being in jail, getting convicted at least once, stress on him and his legal fees before he was acquited broke the guy. Ayoob wrote the case up in one of his articles so the information has been out there for some time even though the "show me a case" jackasses ignore it because it doesn't fit into what they are harping on and most people don't know about it to challenge them on it.
Here in Texas and probably a lot of other states, the ultimate result received by Byas (an acquittal) might not have happened. The reason has to do with evidence rules and expert witness testimony and limits on what an expert can testify upon. Expert has to have a basis in fact to form his opinions. You have to be able to get those facts into evidence through a competent witness. With a handload, it can be a little difficult to prove what went into that particular load without the defendant having to testify which generally isn't a good idea in a criminal case. That isn't because he is guilty. It is because folks are not used to public speaking. Public speaking is scary under any circumstances for most people. Now, imagine your audience, instead of laughing at you can kill you. Kind of turns the heat up on a defendant in a witness stand, now doesn't it? If you can't prove up the load, expert's testimony might not come in. Big problem if your case turns on ballistic evidence.
It doesn't have anything to do with a prosecutor or plaintiff's lawyer trying to make an argument that you tried to make more deadly ammo. Hell, I'd love a prosecutor to be dumb enough to walk into that trap and let me rip him a new one on that argument. Same thing if I was defending the shooter in a civil case. I sure wouldn't do it if I was representing someone who was shot suing the guy who shot him.
Guys the reason for not using handloads is because of evidence problems if you have a shooting where your story might be judged on ballistic evidence. With a box of factory ammo, you can buy another box have your expert shoot it to test what you are saying and be on safe grounds in his opinions. When you use a handload, you might have to personally testify to set a basis for your expert's opinions depending upon which jurisdiction you are in.
This is not an every case situation either. It is a fairly rare situation admittedly. It is a possible problem however.
Now here is where the lawyer advice part comes in. Lawyers do what they can to keep their clients out of trouble. It is easier to keep a client out of trouble before they are in it than it is to get a client out of trouble once he has already stuck his foot in it. We leave a margin of safety between what you absolutely can do and probably get away with it and what you should do to make sure you don't end up on the BBQ getting roasted.
Here's the advice. Don't be a cheapskate. Buy a box of good quality factory ammo for your carry gun and your nightstand gun. Replace it once a year. Since you are a handloader, work up a duplication load for practice. Might not ever make a difference. Heck, if you just want to play averages, you wouldn't have a gun in the nightstand or carry because the odds of you needing to use it are in your favor. Of course being prudent, if I have pants on and am not in the Courthouse, I carry. In my carry gun and my house gun, I keep factory ammo which I rotate on a regular basis. I'll shave every point off that I can just like I advise clients to do.
Finally the next piece of legal advice. Don't get your legal advice from someone who doesn't have a law degree and a law license. That is particularly true on the internet because it can be hard to tell if someone is actually knowledgeable or if they are just a loud mouth with a keyboard and an opinion.
FYI, it's James W. Keene, 625 N. Alamo, San Antonio TX. My State Bar ID Number is 11165600. You can verify that at the State Bar of Texas website. Next time you hear someone spouting off about the legal aspects of using a handload in a shooting, ask them where they went to law school, where they are licensed and what their Bar card number is. If they can't answer those questions, take their advice for what it is worth which is $0, not $.01 but $0.
"There is not one case that anyone can cite that found a person at fault based only on using handloads. Maybe for some other technical term but not solely for using hand loaded ammo."
I'm a trial lawyer with almost 30 years experience. I handle personal injury, family law, and criminal defense matters. If Rule 3 is a lawyer, I'll welcome a debate with him on this issue. If not, non-lawyers shouldn't give legal advice.
Reread Rule 3's comment. He wants to limit a conviction or verdict to one sole factor. In a whole bunch of cases settled, tried or just watched for the heck of it over the course of my career, no case is based upon one sole factor. In other words it is a chickencrud use of words to frame the argument. Technically Rule 3 makes a correct statement but the premise is something you find in a pile in a cow pasture.
Next, there is a case where handloads being used in the death weapon sure did make a difference. State (NJ) v Byas. Not sure if I recall the cite correctly but if anyone wants to make issue out of it and will pay me for my time, I'll go dig for the cite just to prove it exists. The question in the case was whether Ms. B committed suicide or whether Mr. B murdered her. Due to a particular quirk of the particular handload in the firearm, ballistic evidence that would normally exist didn't. Defense finally got Mas Ayoob involved in the 2nd or 3rd trial of the case and finally got the guy acquitted. Of course being in jail, getting convicted at least once, stress on him and his legal fees before he was acquited broke the guy. Ayoob wrote the case up in one of his articles so the information has been out there for some time even though the "show me a case" jackasses ignore it because it doesn't fit into what they are harping on and most people don't know about it to challenge them on it.
Here in Texas and probably a lot of other states, the ultimate result received by Byas (an acquittal) might not have happened. The reason has to do with evidence rules and expert witness testimony and limits on what an expert can testify upon. Expert has to have a basis in fact to form his opinions. You have to be able to get those facts into evidence through a competent witness. With a handload, it can be a little difficult to prove what went into that particular load without the defendant having to testify which generally isn't a good idea in a criminal case. That isn't because he is guilty. It is because folks are not used to public speaking. Public speaking is scary under any circumstances for most people. Now, imagine your audience, instead of laughing at you can kill you. Kind of turns the heat up on a defendant in a witness stand, now doesn't it? If you can't prove up the load, expert's testimony might not come in. Big problem if your case turns on ballistic evidence.
It doesn't have anything to do with a prosecutor or plaintiff's lawyer trying to make an argument that you tried to make more deadly ammo. Hell, I'd love a prosecutor to be dumb enough to walk into that trap and let me rip him a new one on that argument. Same thing if I was defending the shooter in a civil case. I sure wouldn't do it if I was representing someone who was shot suing the guy who shot him.
Guys the reason for not using handloads is because of evidence problems if you have a shooting where your story might be judged on ballistic evidence. With a box of factory ammo, you can buy another box have your expert shoot it to test what you are saying and be on safe grounds in his opinions. When you use a handload, you might have to personally testify to set a basis for your expert's opinions depending upon which jurisdiction you are in.
This is not an every case situation either. It is a fairly rare situation admittedly. It is a possible problem however.
Now here is where the lawyer advice part comes in. Lawyers do what they can to keep their clients out of trouble. It is easier to keep a client out of trouble before they are in it than it is to get a client out of trouble once he has already stuck his foot in it. We leave a margin of safety between what you absolutely can do and probably get away with it and what you should do to make sure you don't end up on the BBQ getting roasted.
Here's the advice. Don't be a cheapskate. Buy a box of good quality factory ammo for your carry gun and your nightstand gun. Replace it once a year. Since you are a handloader, work up a duplication load for practice. Might not ever make a difference. Heck, if you just want to play averages, you wouldn't have a gun in the nightstand or carry because the odds of you needing to use it are in your favor. Of course being prudent, if I have pants on and am not in the Courthouse, I carry. In my carry gun and my house gun, I keep factory ammo which I rotate on a regular basis. I'll shave every point off that I can just like I advise clients to do.
Finally the next piece of legal advice. Don't get your legal advice from someone who doesn't have a law degree and a law license. That is particularly true on the internet because it can be hard to tell if someone is actually knowledgeable or if they are just a loud mouth with a keyboard and an opinion.
FYI, it's James W. Keene, 625 N. Alamo, San Antonio TX. My State Bar ID Number is 11165600. You can verify that at the State Bar of Texas website. Next time you hear someone spouting off about the legal aspects of using a handload in a shooting, ask them where they went to law school, where they are licensed and what their Bar card number is. If they can't answer those questions, take their advice for what it is worth which is $0, not $.01 but $0.
