Advice from a lawyer


PDA






EddieCoyle
October 5, 2005, 11:50 AM
At the range before a recent sportsmen's club meeting, I was talking CCW's with an aquaintance who is a prosecutor working in the DA's office. He carries a S&W CS45. I'm thinking of buying one and he was gracious enough to let me try it out. To reciprocate, I let him try my S&W 642. He took a look at the hollowpoints I was carrying and told me that if I ever had to use the gun, I'd be in trouble if there was a civil suit against me. :eek:

His recommendation: Carry the most common, cheapest (non-hollowpoint) ammo you can get! (His carry gun was loaded with 230gr FMJ out of a Winchester white box).

His reasoning was based on what he'd seen in court. The attorneys for a plaintiff in a wrongful death or other civil suit will try to portray you as a lunatic.

Hollowpoints = "Killer bullets that are too deadly even for the military."

Hand loads are bad too:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury... Factory ammunition wasn't deadly enough for the defendant so he had to load his own."

I've since switched to 158gr lead semi-wadcutters (not because of his advice but because of what I've read about hollowpoints not expanding when fired from a snubbie).

Has anyone else heard this? Are there any examples of these tactics being used in court?

If you enjoyed reading about "Advice from a lawyer" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
P95Carry
October 5, 2005, 11:59 AM
I'm no lawyer and AFAIK we have yet to hear of an acredited case where use of reloads was a deciding fact against the shooter. I also do not know of any specifics regarding hollow points either.

My contention would be, that the ammo in the gun I carry (for use only in extremis) is to be the most effective way to save my butt. If therefore I can claim legitimately - ''I was in fear of my life'' then I would venture to suggest that an effective gun and ammo is the best way to achieve such.

Once above .380 (which I would use with FMJ) I would also bring in the factors regarding possible over penetration and thus risks to bystanders etc related to use of JHP's.

This is one lawyer with views - but I cannot right now accept those as other than a solo opinion. I am not going to prejudice my ability to survive an attack worrying solely about the aftermath. :)

NCP24
October 5, 2005, 12:06 PM
It definitely sounds like something an attorney would say, but I wouldn’t worry about it.

Camp David
October 5, 2005, 12:10 PM
At the range before a recent sportsmen's club meeting, I was talking CCW's with an aquaintance who is a prosecutor working in the DA's office. He carries a S&W CS45. I'm thinking of buying one and he was gracious enough to let me try it out. To reciprocate, I let him try my S&W 642. He took a look at the hollowpoints I was carrying and told me that if I ever had to use the gun, I'd be in trouble if there was a civil suit against me.

His recommendation: Carry the most common, cheapest (non-hollowpoint) ammo you can get! (His carry gun was loaded with 230gr FMJ out of a Winchester white box).

EddieCoyle: Thank you for your post, but I couldn't disagree more! Indeed I favor P95carry's words:
My contention would be, that the ammo in the gun I carry (for use only in extremis) is to be the most effective way to save my butt.

What ammunition you carry in your firearm is your own choice; worrying about the legal perspectives can be done later, while you are alive, rather than dead, from legal cheap ammunition malfunctioning!

This legal reasoning reminds me of a trip north several years ago through New Hampshire in the winter... I drove up through the White Mountains and was one of the few vehicles able to navigate the icy roads during a snow and ice storm since I had switched my tires to the studs on the rear. Though these tires are highly illegal now on roads, they have saved my truck on numerous occasions and only take minutes to switch and and much more effective than chains!

Use the best ammunition you can; let the legal chips fall where they may!

K-Romulus
October 5, 2005, 12:11 PM
JHP? Any competent defense lawyer will explain why they are better for bystander safety - and why the police use them.

Handloads: "more reliable than factory ammo", "experienced hobbyist who reloads his own ammo to save money," etc . . (?)

dolanp
October 5, 2005, 12:12 PM
Yeah he's thinking like a lawyer alright but if you have a good lawyer on your side he can squash that argument. Not to mention FMJ makes it a little more likely that the bullet would go through the target and possibly damage people/things behind it.

HankB
October 5, 2005, 12:26 PM
FMJ ammo: "This man is using HARD PENETRATING AMMO MEANT FOR MILITARY USE!!! HE WANTED TO FIGHT A WAR!!!"

Cop ammo: "This man used the SAME ammo the police use - he's a vigilate cop wannabe!"

Hollowpoint: " . . . extra deadly DUM DUM ammo . . . "

Handloads: " . . . super lethal homemade ammo . . ."

Softpoint: ". . . meant for hunting game, HE was hunting MEN . . . "

Any expanding ammo: ". . . Banned by the Geneva Convention . . . " (actually the Hague Accords, but . . .)

Any non-expanding ammo: "Irresponsibly overpenetrating for urban use, it can kill several with one shot."

Expensive ammo: " . . . Boutique ammo for killers . . . "

Cheap ammo: ". . . wants to get in some discount killing . . . "

Bottom line: If the case is weak, the opposing shyster will try to make ammo - ANY AMMO - an issue. They've tried to do this to LEOs, they'll try it on you. It's your shyster's job to stop him.

In the case of a good shoot, I've yet to hear any credible evidence that any reasonable ammo type will clobber you in court. So unless you're using handloaded depleted uranium sabots dipped in rattlesnake venom, I just don't see it being a real problem in a good shoot.

one-shot-one
October 5, 2005, 12:33 PM
dead on in Massachusetts, talk to a lawyer in texas and see what he tells you. :D

idakfan
October 5, 2005, 12:40 PM
My Two cents:

I use Hollow-Point because chances are the bullet will hopefully stop in the badguy and not go through him into somebody else.

Camp David
October 5, 2005, 01:05 PM
For home defense I use hollow-point ammunition tainted with poison; therefore in the unlikely case I only graze the target, whatever I aim at will die a horrible death. :)

Henry Bowman
October 5, 2005, 01:08 PM
His reasoning was based on what he'd seen in court. Excellent! then he can give us name, dates and case numbers for these (heretofor phantom) examples. :rolleyes:

buzz_knox
October 5, 2005, 01:10 PM
It definitely sounds like something an attorney would say. . . . .

Not this one, nor any of the others I shoot with.

Derek Zeanah
October 5, 2005, 01:14 PM
My take on it is this:

1) I shoot to stop

2) There's a correlation between number of shots fired, and likelihood of death.

3) I choose to use a bullet that's likely to end the threat with as few rounds fired as possible.

4) Doing this is actually in the perp's best interest. More holes = more chances to hit somthing vital.

I've read research that backs this up. I just don't remember where...

El Tejon
October 5, 2005, 01:18 PM
Is he telling what COULD happen or what he has SEEN happen?

Could be big trouble? I agree.

Have seen it happen? Never in 10 years of practice.

I'm with Henry. I would like to see an actual case first please instead of this Ayoobian "could" happen. :scrutiny:

Car Knocker
October 5, 2005, 01:20 PM
I've since switched to 158gr lead semi-wadcutters (not because of his advice but because of what I've read about hollowpoints not expanding when fired from a snubbie).

And how much does the lead semi-wadcutter expand out of a snubbie?

And like a couple of other folks mentioned, I'd sure like to have him share the citations for these cases where it made a difference that hollowpoint ammoe was used.

Old Dog
October 5, 2005, 01:38 PM
I don't buy into that crap, and I believe anyone who does is potentially doing themselves a huge (and possibly dangerous) disservice ... FMJs are far more deadly to bystanders; there is a plethora of documentation out there as to why law enforcement uses hollowpoints, and finally, there would be any number of expert witnesses lining up to testify on behalf of any citizen who kills a criminal in a righteous self-defense scenario ...

I'm with El Tejon on this ... sounds like a lawyer who projects liability issues into every aspect of his life and the lives of anyone dumb enough to listen to him.

NCP24
October 5, 2005, 02:21 PM
Not this one, nor any of the others I shoot with.Trial Attorney? If so you’re telling me that you have never made outlandish comments while trying to impeach a witness? I have heard them say far worse than that in open court. I have even heard LEO’s claim (in private) that they have intentionally qualified with lower scores to avoid some of these ludicrous claims made by defense attorneys.

Soap
October 5, 2005, 02:27 PM
I've seen a lawyer skip across the room with a monkey step, so what does that tell you about lawyer advice? :scrutiny:

;) to El T

MikeIsaj
October 5, 2005, 02:36 PM
You need to survive the attack in order to be sued. White box Winchester? Not a chance!

buzz_knox
October 5, 2005, 02:39 PM
Trial Attorney? If so you’re telling me that you have never made outlandish comments while trying to impeach a witness? I have heard them say far worse than that in open court. I have even heard LEO’s claim (in private) that they have intentionally qualified with lower scores to avoid some of these ludicrous claims made by defense attorneys.

Litigation attorney at the federal level for seven years, with going on three additional years in advisory work.

Outlandish comments? Never intentionally. One tends to lose credibility with a federal judge fast by doing so. Besides, I usually find that the truth is sufficient to impeach a witness. I have, however, seen a case turn in part on whether someone use foul language (one individual who testimony showed never cursed was misidentified as another who did curse).

I have heard instructors who didn't give scores because to do so opened up commentary about "he only missed failing by one point."

CAS700850
October 5, 2005, 02:44 PM
I have seen my share of stupid lawyer arguments in the past 11 years of practice. But, let me say this on the whole ammunition issue. I think that it falls to the type of jury you'll be dealing with. If you can expect some gun knowledgable people in the jury box (more rural communities, or maybe Texas), ammo will matter less than if you live in a community with people who are likely to not only be gun-illiterate, if you will, but possibly gun fearing.

An attorney I trust who handles civil matters told me to buy ammunition based upon sound research of the market, using sources that can be verified and dug up later. Or, buy ammo that has a history. Case in point: in .38, either the the 158 grain LSWHP +p, or the 110 grain jhp +p+. The first was used by the F.B.I. to protect Americans for years. The second was used by the Secret Service to safeguard the president for years.

Can't you see the testimony: "I chose that ammunition after reading in several publications how the Seceret Service had chosen it for its accuracy and ability to stop an aggressor from continuing his dangerous behaviors. That was exactly waht I was looking for to protect myself and my family."


As a side note, especially for the attorneys among us, do you really think that plaintiff's counsel is going tp push the intentional aspect in a wrongful death action? Strategically, isn't it more adventageous to prusue a reckless or negligent angle, and thus attempt to keep the insurance coverage available for damages. Win an intentional argument, and the insurance goes out the window, reducing the money available for damages.

buzz_knox
October 5, 2005, 02:49 PM
An attorney I trust who handles civil matters told me to buy ammunition based upon sound research of the market, using sources that can be verified and dug up later. Or, buy ammo that has a history.

+1

As a side note, especially for the attorneys among us, do you really think that plaintiff's counsel is going tp push the intentional aspect in a wrongful death action? Strategically, isn't it more adventageous to prusue a reckless or negligent angle, and thus attempt to keep the insurance coverage available for damages. Win an intentional argument, and the insurance goes out the window, reducing the money available for damages.

And again with the +1.

Spreadfire Arms
October 5, 2005, 03:23 PM
i think some of the legal eagles on this forum hit it right on the head, what is the TRUTH (hollowpoint being safer to innocent bystanders due to reduction in overpenetration) vs. what the jury is able to understand and make sense of are two different things.

it may take an expert witness to go on the stand on your behalf if this type of ammunition is brought up as an issue. i imagine in a wrongful death civil suit, anything can be brought up.

i think we are not differentiating the criminal issue vs. the civil issue. this D.A. in the original post said it may be an issue in a civil suit. i think he is correct, it can be an issue, but it may or may not. in a wrongful death civil suit, i think there are other issues as well, if this is going to be an issue, such as:

1. cocked-and-locked: the single action trigger has a lighter trigger, could this have been an issue in a wrongful death shooting?

2. .357 MAGNUM vs. .38 special: using a "full-powered" MAGNUM load to shoot the bad guy, when you had the ability to use a .38 "special" which doesn't sound as bad

3. Black Talon or similar "cop killer" designated ammunition: shooting a bad guy with any "cop killer" or similar bullet, as determined by the liberal left, or even worse, shooting someone with an SS109 "armor piercing" .223 round from your AR-15.

4. how many extra magazines were you carrying?: the police report stated not only were you armed with a Glock 23, that holds 13+1 rounds of ammunition, you were also wearing it in a shoulder holster (legal concealed carry) with TWO additional loaded magazines on the off-side, with an additional 26 rounds. that meant you were carrying 40 rounds! how many people were you intending to kill?

etc......

the argument can be made for pretty much anything you do, or don't do, in a civil suit.

i'm not 100% convinced that my carrying of Federal Hydra-Shok's in my .45 carry pistol are going to make me out to be a psychotic killer. my argument for this? this is the SAME ammunition i carried when i was a police officer. that city ISSUED me that ammunition. THEY told me it was effective. i have no reason to believe otherwise. in fact, one of my favorite carry pistols is the SAME gun i carried in the police department (Sig P220). so if the choice of pistol is an issue, again, it was the ONLY authorized semi-auto i could carry, and i could only carry the Hydra-Shok rounds in it.

while that argument may or may not hold water, i think it is a fairly convincing argument to a jury.

but i think i speak for the masses on THR when people say, "I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six."

TonkinTwentyMil
October 5, 2005, 03:43 PM
Some key points:

1. Nearly ALL American LEO's carry hollowpoints... even the NYPD (after their lefty pols and police commissioners finally Saw The Light and authorized hollowpoints for their cops' Eeeevil Semi-Automatic Glock Assault Pistols). The FBI, Secret Service, and other key federal agencies ALL issue hollowpoints as standard ammo -- for documentable performance and safety reasons.

2. In poster Eddie Coyle's case, the subject state (no pun intended) was Massachussetts... as in The People's Republik Of. Is their ANY state where Ballistic Illiteracy is more widespread? Any state more hostile to privately-owned weapons of ANY type? (Okay, maybe New Jersey can match Mass., as hollowpoints are generally "banned" there for civilian carry -- the only state where any such silly "ban" exists.)

3. No U.S. citizen OR police dept. is bound or guided in ANY way by the Geneva Accords. Technically, the U.S. is not even a signatory to it, though our military generally abides by its provisions. However, certain (SpecOps) U.S. military units have used/do use hollowpoints for certain tactical situations. In fact, overwhelming evidence exists that hollowpoints are SAFER (see NYPD) and, thus, more politically correct (and Ballistically Correct, too).

Summary: the "eeeevil hollowpoint" issue has long been defeated in court, according to most court-tested self-defense experts like Ayoob, etc. Any prosecuting attorney who tries to press this in court can be gutted by any number of credentialed experts who'll crush the prosecution if they try to raise this issue.

Old Fuff
October 5, 2005, 03:45 PM
>> I was talking CCW's with an acquaintance who is a prosecutor working in the DA's office. <<

This guy is not just "an attorney," and Eddie C. has the misfortune to live among sheelple (who would make up a jury) and a pack of left-wing Socialist Democrats who'd like to keep criminals as pets (at a safe distance of course.) :barf:

Consequently I'd advise Eddie to take his advice, or move somewhere else like Texas or Arizona ... ;)

In the meantime it might be wise to remember the old saying, "when in Rome do as the Romans do ... :scrutiny: ;)

NCP24
October 5, 2005, 03:46 PM
Litigation attorney at the federal level for seven years, with going on three additional years in advisory work.- One tends to lose credibility with a federal judge fast by doing so Of course, federal courts are a bit stricter than state courts and again it all depends on the judge.

Besides, I usually find that the truth is sufficient to impeach a witness It’s definitely the best policy to follow, unfortunately many people lack the virtue.

This is the kind of crap that goes on in many state/local criminal and civil trial courts.
FMJ ammo: "This man is using HARD PENETRATING AMMO MEANT FOR MILITARY USE!!! HE WANTED TO FIGHT A WAR!!!"

Cop ammo: "This man used the SAME ammo the police use - he's a vigilate cop wannabe!"

Hollowpoint: " . . . extra deadly DUM DUM ammo . . . "

Handloads: " . . . super lethal homemade ammo . . ."

Softpoint: ". . . meant for hunting game, HE was hunting MEN . . . "

Any expanding ammo: ". . . Banned by the Geneva Convention . . . " (actually the Hague Accords, but . . .)

Any non-expanding ammo: "Irresponsibly overpenetrating for urban use, it can kill several with one shot."

Expensive ammo: " . . . Boutique ammo for killers . . . "

Cheap ammo: ". . . wants to get in some discount killing . . . "

I have heard instructors who didn't give scores because to do so opened up commentary about "he only missed failing by one point." The last I heard our Criminal Justice Standards was seriously considering changing the method of qualification scoring from a 70 percent minimum to a pass or fail grade. Reasoning behind the change/ proposal was due to attorneys attacking both ends of scale, darned if you do and darned if you don’t.

Hawkmoon
October 5, 2005, 04:38 PM
This sounds like a man who's been reading too many of Mas Ayoob's articles.

Burt Blade
October 5, 2005, 09:44 PM
I am still waiting for someone to site one of these cases as "Aye vs Bee, in the court of Cee, year 19whatever".

NCP24
October 5, 2005, 10:39 PM
This sounds like a man who's been reading too many of Mas Ayoob's articles. or maybe just spent too much time in a courtroom.

I am still waiting for someone to site one of these cases as "Aye vs Bee, in the court of Cee, year 19whatever" I don’t know of any “case” law pertaining to the “general” use of hollow points, after all Walmart still sales them.


Old news, but still interesting.



CLINIC OPPOSES USE OF HOLLOW POINT BULLETS BY U.S. BORDER PATROL
January 17, 2003

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), the nation's largest network of charitable legal immigration service offices is requesting that the U.S. Border Patrol discontinue its use of hollow point or "controlled expansion" bullets.

While doing research for a comprehensive report on the U.S.-Mexico border, CLINIC learned of migrants who had been shot by Border Patrol agents using hollow point bullets.

In a letter to the Chief of the U.S. Border Patrol, Gustavo De La Viña, CLINIC detailed the disadvantages of the bullets. "Hollow point bullets expand upon hitting a target," wrote CLINIC's Executive Director Donald Kerwin. "The impact forces the bullet to mushroom open, expanding to 160 percent its original size. This causes a large wound cavity, and usually results in death."

Kerwin also pointed out that many police departments in major cities use the hollow point bullets, including New York City because the bullets are less likely to ricochet or pass through a target, thus reducing the likelihood of hitting innocent bystanders. However, he argued, "[t]hese justifications do not hold true in the border area patrolled by INS agents, which is characterized by remote, unpopulated areas."

The bullets have been controversial for more than a century. During the Hague Disarmament Conference of 1899, representatives of 26 nations decided to disallow the use of hollow point bullets during wartime. The subsequent Versailles and Geneva peace treaties also outlawed the use of the ammunition.

CLINIC also voiced its opposition to the use of the bullets to the Chief of Policy for the INS Firearms and Force Board, the INS entity that deals with all matters of policy for the use of force by INS employees. Chief J. Michael Sheehan, Jr. replied to CLINIC that all INS law enforcement officers are issued ammunition with a controlled expansion Ðhollow point - projectile as their official duty ammunition. Sheehan added, "Further, there are no initiatives to change or alter this standard INS issued handgun ammunition."

"We are discouraged to hear that the INS uniformly uses this ammunition and has no plans to limit or discontinue its use," said Kerwin. "We urge that this policy be reconsidered given the vastness of the American desert borderlands, its sparse population and the lethal consequences of hollow point bullets."

The Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., a subsidiary of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has 148 affiliates in 242 field offices around the country. http://www.cliniclegal.org/content_n011703.shtml

beerslurpy
October 5, 2005, 10:42 PM
You live in taxachussets. In Florida, as long as it wasnt an unlawful shooting, the perp cant sue in civil court.

LAR-15
October 5, 2005, 10:50 PM
New Jersey is one place where you do not want to use hollowpoints.

It's virtually illegal to use them there.

Father Knows Best
October 5, 2005, 10:57 PM
I'm a trial attorney, licensed at various times in Michigan, Arizona and Tennessee, and numerous federal courts. I've also had the honor of serving on a jury in a felony case in Wayne County, Michigan. I carry Winchester Ranger SXT .45ACP hollowpoints (RA45T). That should tell you everything you need to know about my stand on the issue.

LAR-15
October 5, 2005, 11:08 PM
Carry what the cops do and forget about it.

Trebor
October 5, 2005, 11:13 PM
This sounds like a man who's been reading too many of Mas Ayoob's articles

Actually, Ayoob reccomends hollow point ammo. He says this is an argument they might bring up, but you counter it by pointing out the advantages of HP's in stopping the threat before anyone else is injured and the reduced risk to bystanding by reducing the chances of overpenetration. He does NOT reccomend FMJ ammo.

Standing Wolf
October 5, 2005, 11:15 PM
Fear of assault lawyers is one of the nation's worst diseases.

NCP24
October 5, 2005, 11:29 PM
Winchester Ranger SXT .45ACP hollowpoints (RA45T)Excellent round!

BowStreetRunner
October 6, 2005, 10:21 AM
I would use HP ammo and not worry about it. Yeah, if you shoot someone the opposing atty. could say lots of bad things about you and your killer ammo, but you can counter them with a good lawyer and expert witness expaining it all. Besides, if the "he had killer bullets people, and he wanted to use them!" argument works on your jury, you were going to lose anyway!!!
BSR

Erich
October 6, 2005, 01:57 PM
Another lawyer here (former prosecutor, appellate criminal defense now): the lawyer referred to in the original post sounds like an idiot.

Remember, the guy who got the lowest score on the Bar exam is still called "Esquire" . . . :rolleyes:

CAPTAIN MIKE
October 6, 2005, 02:03 PM
The police use hollowpoints for two reasons: (1) effective stopping power and (2) to avoid over-penetration, and thus limiting damage to only the target perpetrator.

Use exactly what the cops use.

Sam
October 6, 2005, 02:05 PM
I guess that my GS handloads with the cyanide pellet and pigfat filler for the HP are out huh?

Sam

Northslope Nimrod
October 6, 2005, 02:21 PM
I have some experience with attorney-types (trust me). Contrary to popular belief....some are idiots. However, that said:
I belief that it is probably prudent to simply purchase what the police use. If you are using something extraordinarily powerful or narly....then yes....an attorney will try to use it against you in a civil lawsuit. I think it is fine to simply respond....."I just buy the same stuff the police use to protect themselves"
Comparing us to "the military (ie: NATO regulations) is just DUMB. Why? Because NATO is DUMB. Nuff said.

EddieCoyle
October 6, 2005, 02:50 PM
Carry what the cops do and forget about it.

I think I'll follow this advice.

Atticus
October 6, 2005, 02:56 PM
Hollowpoints = "Killer bullets that are too deadly even for the military."

Conversely- "I am a civilian- I use the recommended over-the-counter civilian defense ammo and NOT miltiary ammo designed to penetrate, kill, and wound as many bodies as possible."

Tory
October 6, 2005, 02:58 PM
"Remember, the guy who got the lowest score on the Bar exam is still called "Esquire" . . ."

Nonsense. There is ALWAYS a minimum acceptable score. Those who don't equal or exceed it don't get admitted.

And some states cap the number of times you can try! :uhoh:

Otherguy Overby
October 6, 2005, 03:26 PM
A thought occurs: When the suspect lawyer tells you hyperbole, you might ask: "could I retain you?" Give him a buck and get a receipt.

When he asks further questions tell him it's about a shooting.

Look around, make sure no one is in sight and when he asks: "you shot someone?" Answer "not yet, and hold still." :evil:

NCP24
October 6, 2005, 07:19 PM
With all these attorneys, I can’t believe someone hasn’t suggested that you should always carry the same type of ammunition that you qualified and practice with. Plus if you are involved in a shooting incident say as little as possible to LEO, claim self-defense and then request medical assistance for possible post traumatic stress syndrome.

You have just been through a very traumatic event which impairs your ability to think clearly, besides you should never make voluntary statements to LEO without your lawyer present. If you end up being charged criminally or civil, follow your lawyer advice to the tee and be double sure he subpoenas expert witnesses' to testify on your behalf.

Just my two cents worth.

Baba Louie
October 6, 2005, 09:47 PM
Unless you're quite well off I would think that any attorney in his/her right mind (i.e., those who follow the money) would be looking at where you purchased your ammunition (hopefully WalMart or someone with deep pockets) and who manufactured your ammunition. Whether it's ball, LSWC or JHP.
Unless your State, County or City have laws on the books outlawing HP ammunition for the common folk, as in NJ (pointed out earlier), I would lose no sleep in regards to this matter.

artherd
October 6, 2005, 11:47 PM
His recommendation: Carry the most common, cheapest (non-hollowpoint) ammo you can get! (His carry gun was loaded with 230gr FMJ out of a Winchester white box).

HUGE HUGE HUGE MISTAKE!

Ammo (handgun AP exempting) is not a verdict-determinant issue in any court of law I have ever studied. (I dare you and your prosecutor to cite me a case that shows otherwise.)

You should ask him what he will do at the OTHER civil trial of the 13 year old girl he shot accidentally when his FMJs penetraded clean through a mugger? :what: :what: :what:

XLMiguel
October 7, 2005, 07:53 AM
Well, just consider the source and understand that the dumb ones go into practice, just like the smart ones :rolleyes:

Erich
October 7, 2005, 12:12 PM
Tory, of course you're right. I meant the lowest passing score.

Sam, remember to call me if you run into any problems with those reloads.

GunGoBoom
October 7, 2005, 12:30 PM
It's your shyster's job to stop him.

Why would you call one's own defense lawyer in this situation a 'shyster'?

Falstaff66
October 7, 2005, 02:01 PM
For a civil case, expect the evil of your ammo will be made an issue, whether the "even the military doesn't use this" argument against hollowpoints, or the "overpenetration" arguments for FMJ. My suggestion is to document the choice of JHP and the valid reasons (reduced risk of overpenetration, transfer of energy "stopping power") in advance. A desire to kill the perp is going to be asserted as your reason for using that ammo, if you can document your decision, show Ayoob's articles that you read, etc., then you can more effectively rebut the argument that you really chose JHP to kill. Imagine how thoughtful and reasonable (and how much less dangerous) you will appear to the jury if you can document your decisionmaking process? Remember, in civil court the "reasonable person" standard will be critical.

ScottsGT
October 7, 2005, 02:26 PM
You need to survive the attack in order to be sued. White box Winchester? Not a chance!

Nope! Slime bag lawyer contacts parents of dead gang banger, wife of bad guy, 12 illegitimate children the bad guy didn't know he had, fourteen cousins, three dogs, two cats and a partridge in a pear tree and drags them all in court on "you violated bad guys civil rights and now you have to support everyone I've brought in here today."

scout26
October 7, 2005, 07:26 PM
GGB,

My sister is a lawyer. She refers to herself as a "Shyster b*tch lawyer."

Remember: 99.9% of lawyers give the other .01% a bad name.

Just remember, the advice offered by the lawyer in the original post is worth exactly what you paid for it. ;)

Robert Hairless
October 8, 2005, 04:10 PM
So what do the nice people who load their own carry ammunition do? I suppose that they can argue in court some of what they say here: "I make better ammunition than the big companies." Will that be convincing in a civil suit, do you think?

beerslurpy
October 8, 2005, 04:46 PM
I buy whatever is on sale. 40 rounds of 7.62x39 > 20 rounds of 40S&W, regardless of bullet design.

I will probably switch from FMJ to JSP if my crate of Wolf ever arrives. Nothing like fragmenting 30 cal to put the hurt on someone.

If someone criticizes my selection of ammunition, I will just innocently say "gosh I just bought it because it was on sale, I had no idea there was a difference!" And hope they dont find the articles I wrote on wikipedia lol evil bullet scientist. Even so, I am pretty confident that my use of rifles is politically correct at least as far as any form of self defense can be said to be politically correct.

I think poison would be largely wasted since you have to hit someone to deliver it. Additionally, the effect of the poison will be directly proportional to the distance the hit is to the target organ (usually CNS). A hit which would cause a rapid poison incapacitation would be even more likely to instantly kill someone from the wound trauma (a neck, face or chest hit for example). Natural drainage and clotting around the wound will also interfere with the poison's ability to spread to the rest of the body.

EmGeeGeorge
October 9, 2005, 11:37 PM
How about granulated rat poison(in place of the buffering material) with bb's in 12 gauge "home defense loads"? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

bogie
October 9, 2005, 11:50 PM
Ahh... The "Ayoob Defense."

I wonder how many hits one would get on Lexis with the words "hollow, point and hollowpoint."

I'm guessing not a great number will hinge on self-defense ammuntion.

ScottsGT
October 10, 2005, 09:08 AM
So what do the nice people who load their own carry ammunition do? I suppose that they can argue in court some of what they say here: "I make better ammunition than the big companies." Will that be convincing in a civil suit, do you think?

Our CWP class instructor could not stress to us enough to NEVER carry "roll your own" due to litigation you will be facing in a civil suite after teh PD clears you. BTW, He is a Captain on out local city PD, and an NRA instructor. Our class was in REAL GOOD hands.

Sam
October 10, 2005, 09:38 AM
Erich,
Which part will I get the most hassle from, the Golden Sabre bullet, the cyanide or the pigfat?

I keep your card in my wallet at all times.

Sam

Highland Ranger
October 10, 2005, 09:57 AM
Living in NJ where hollow points and concealed carry (for all intents and purposes) are illegal . . . . . I really enjoy discussions like this . . . . . .

Erich
October 11, 2005, 11:40 AM
Sam, the cyanide. :D

Sam
October 11, 2005, 01:38 PM
I'll have to change the recipe.
It was a hard load to develop, originally started out with Compound 1080 but went to the cyanide because I figured it would be more humane.

The pigfat bullet lube was a recent addition based on world events.

Might possibly leave out the pigfat and the Cyanide and use a filler of pig crap. Gives that lingering infection effect while retaining the psychological deterrent effect for a third of the worlds population.

We got any more case law on pigcrap than we do on handloads?

I have searched and searched and searched and searched and cannot find any precedents on the handloads or the pig crap.

Sam

Double Naught Spy
October 11, 2005, 06:01 PM
EddieCoyle, all that I can tell from what your lawyer told you is that your lawyer would like to settle your estate. Your wife doesn't spend a lot of time over at his office, does she?

Basically, your lawyer has told you that the most important criterion in a gun fight is the legal case afterwards. That is garbage. As a lawyer, he should know that. He won't have a client if you don't survive the fight, not unless he has arranged with your wife to settle your estate.

I simply can't imagine a person honestly telling you to use the cheapest non hollowpoint ammo you can find for self defense and not to use reloads. This actually sounds like he is trying more to get you to fail surviving the fight than he is worried about your financial matters later.

My advice, as a non-lawyer, it that you use the baddest, most kickass ammo you can control very well and that is reliable out of your gun for self defense. All that legal stuff means nothing if you shoot el cheapo ammo that doesn't always ignite or doesn't do the necessary damage to stop your attacker. Heck, just to be safe, maybe you should carry less lethal rubber ball or bean bag rounds to prove that your intent was never to kill?

Seriously, use the ammo that works best for you and that you think will do the best job of stopping your attacker. If you have legal problems later, find another lawyer that knows what he is talking about and who cares about keeping you as a living client, not a dead one.

Hey, but if you don't take my advice, then please find you lawyer and ask him to provide you with the documented cases that he claims to know and share those with us. None of the other lawyers on the board have seen them either.

Eddie, and just like your lawyer doesn't have any real proof, there is no proof that carrying what the cops carry will limit your liability either. This is the same sort of myth, but from the other end of the continuum. Nobody has ever shown that carrying what the police carry will limit your liability. The great Ayoob himself he says not to use reloads or handloads and who suggests you carry what the cops carry has NEVER documented a case where handloads were a problem, but he has documented at least two cases where the cops were sued for their choice of factory ammo. Of course, the cops didn't lose the suits as the concept is pretty stupid. And yes, they were using evil hollowpoint ammo.

If you enjoyed reading about "Advice from a lawyer" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!