Ayoobian Fallacies Challenge to Members...


PDA






Double Naught Spy
February 13, 2004, 07:15 PM
In another thread on factory versus handloads where the issues of legalities and potential pitfalls of using handloads in a self defense shooting, I noted the problem as being an "Ayoobian Fallacy" along with others such as 1911s bad for self defense because they are hard to defend in court (Ayoob's lawyer claimed this and Ayoob discussed the issue recently in one of the gun rags), light triggers will get you in trouble in court, don't use a race gun, your gun better be a stock model, etc.

Without wasting bandwidth on posting other sorts of things like opinions, or what you heard your brother-in-law's cousin's lawyer say while drinking after shooting ducks on a camping trip at high altitude, or what you read in some other forum that somebody believed to be true, without all that garbage, can anybody post justified self defense shooting cases or subsequent civil cases to the justified self defense shooting where it was the trigger, gun type, ammo type, or other supposed attribute or factor that caused the case to be turned against the self defense shooter?

I think it is all gunlore, propogated by Ayoob and a bunch of lawyers in some sort of manner so as to make gun owners paranoid and believe in the needs for lawyer services over unrealistic concerns. There are very valid reasons for lawyers, don't get me wrong, but not because of ammo choice. Sadly, this crap has gone on so long that it has become a part of the working knowledge of gun owners and many assume it to be true without ever verifying anything themselves. This is what is called a myth.

So, all I am asking is that if you have an exception example to my loudmouthed challenge, post it here with the basic summary, case information (who v. who, city, state, date, and any other relevant information) so that it can be independently verified by those of us who wish to read the information ourselves, and ideally a LINK if the information is on-line. If not on-line, then much can be garnished through basic information requests or FOI requests.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ayoobian Fallacies Challenge to Members..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Highland Ranger
February 13, 2004, 07:25 PM
Well my brother-in-law's sisters cousins husband . . . .

(just messin with you - couldn't resist)

Read the same books, logic sounds reasonable, not sure it is backed by case law though. (which I guess is the challenge . . . )

goalie
February 13, 2004, 07:41 PM
I know that in Minnesota you have to meet certain criterea for a shooting to be self defense. They are as follows:

1. You had a reasonable fear of great bodily harm to yourself or another.

2. You had a reasonable fear of death (agian, to yourself or another).

3. You have to be an unwilling participant.

4. You have to clearly show that you had considered retreating.

If you are involved in a shooting and have met ALL the requirements listed that authorize deadly force, it doesn't matter what gun or bullets you use. Period. If you have not met the requirements listed, shooting a stock pistol with the same ammo your local PD uses will not help you at all. Minnesota fortunately is a state that has laws restricting civil suits against you if you are not found guilty of a crime (or not indicted/charged) in a self-defense shooting. In states without such protections results may vary.

Edit: If you CCW and do not know the number of a lawyer who is well-versed in self-defense law, and most are not, you are pretty much asking to go to jail if you ever pull your CCW, regardless of the circumstances.

Gray Peterson
February 13, 2004, 08:48 PM
I don't know all of Ayoob's stuff in regards to what to use and how someone goes to jail for using handloads (huh?), but I know someone like him in regards to self defense.

I'll give you an example.

You do something to expose a criminal's activities. Say you're a parent with children. A sex offender (a child molester), for example, moves into your neighborhood. You observe him doing stuff like hanging out near schools and watching kids. You report it to his probation officer. When you're out and about (you're a CCW permit holder and carry a handgun), and the guy approaches you and pulls out a knife (my guess is that his probation has been revoked and he has to go back to jail in a day or two) and lunges with it at you. You shoot him.

The friend believes that the parent would be in prison, and would be sued. Why? Because apparently he believes reporting to the probation officer is something you shouldn't have done, because it weaken's your case of self defense.

Have any of you heard about anything like that before?

El Tejon
February 13, 2004, 09:01 PM
How many do you wish? There's Luis Alvarez for one.

M1911
February 13, 2004, 09:11 PM
As we've all discussed previously ad nauseum, you never will find such evidence because it will never show up in an appellate ruling.

But that doesn't mean it didn't effect the outcome of the original trial. Think about the mindset of the average northeastern soccer mom juror who thinks that only cops should have guns. Then think about what she'll think when the DA starts talking about how the accused hand-crafted his own "bullets." She never conceived that someone could load their own ammunition and would be terrified that someone would be working with such "explosives" in their own home (that's exactly what my mother-in-law thought).

If you wish to hand the DA that extra "ammunition," have at it. Personally, I'm a bit more conservative.

Double Naught Spy
February 13, 2004, 09:18 PM
El Tejon, excellent example. You failed to provide a single bit of relevant information about how folks could find the case and verify anything for themselves, so I will try to fill in some of the blanks. Do note one very critical aspect and that was that the officer in question was NOT found guilty and he was NOT found guilty because the charge was for manslaughter, an unintentional shooting and the officer and other officers argued in court that the shooting was intentional, in response to a furtive movement. Since the officer shot intentionally in self defense, the prosection had NO CASE on manslaughter and the light trigger because the officer INTENTIONALLY DISCHARGED the weapon. So your example, does not fly.

Here is my summary (modified) of the case from another post. I do not have the docket records, but pieced together information from on-line sources and Ayoob's writing...


Ayoob has used the case of the State of Florida v. Luis Alvarez to note that that modifications to a gun can get you in trouble and make the case go against you in a shooting. Contrary to his twisted view, it was not the modification of the gun, but the statement made by Alvarez.

Holding a suspect at gunpoint, Alvarez shot the suspect in the back and killed him. At the time, he commented that another officer bumped his arm and the gun discharged. Here it should be pointed out that Alvarez had the double action revolver cocked to single action, against department policy, and the gun was in fact modified with a lighter trigger. So, he was charged with manslaughter and this went to court. The gun was thought to have discharged because of the lightened trigger and single action cocking of the gun, hence Ayoob's contention modified guns will cause cases to go against you. HOWEVER, between his statements and court, the officer managed to get fellow officers to all read from the same script and the story change to Alvarez shooting the suspect because the suspect made furtive movement. Later, the officer noted that he had no idea why he said the gun discharged when he was bumped as he meant to shoot the suspect. Long story short, the light trigger pull issue and manslaughter charges were for naught as this was not a manslaughter case but one where the officer intentionally shot the suspect who made furtive moves and as such, modified trigger pull did not matter.

The case was State v. Luis Alvarez out of Dade County, Florida from an incident on December 28, 1982.

Alvarez may have had an overly modified gun that was so modified that the hammer dropped when he was bumped. That would make him liable for the shooting death of the suspect held at gunpoint, but contrary to Ayoob, the problem was not the light trigger, but a gun that did not function properly. But that all passed with the story change to the shooting being intention.

Right after the shooting, true or not, the officer made a statement that got him in a lot of trouble, saying the gun discharged when he was bumped. True or not, he would have been much better off if he had never uttered a word. Under the stress of the incident and surprise, he said something that WAS used against him and this was a person fully aware of his rights and fully familiar with the need for legal counsel. For that time after the shooting, he apparently lost his ability to measure his words to the proper statements. In fact, he probably thought he was doing himself a favor by noting the gun discharged from what he believed was no intentional act on his part.

So do you have any other examples with some real information that can be tracked down by others? You cited this case and it doesn't fly and Alvarez didn't lose because it WAS a self defense shooting and not manslaughter. He was not guilty of the charge and the modification of the gun was not relevant, even though argued in court, because the jurors believed he did actually fired INTENTIONALLY. I don't have too many summaries of cases at my fingertips, so some real information would be a lot more helpful to make your argument if you have other cases.

M1911, great, don't provide apellate rulings. Find some original rulings. That would be fine. At least that would definitely make the argument that there is a huge problem we need to be warned about and may take multiple proceedings to resolve.

Mike Irwin
February 13, 2004, 09:53 PM
I pretty much stopped listening to Ayoub many, many years ago.

One of the guys I worked with at NRA had an even dimmer view of him, calling him Mas da Boob...

Pendragon
February 14, 2004, 12:59 AM
I read his stuff religiously when I was younger, but he has an obsession with trigger pulls and action types and thinks anything unusual or modified is going to hang you in court.

From what I have seen - even reading his stories, what seems to hang people is their ignorance or fear or ineptitude - not so much their equipment.

Frankly, sometimes I think he is not inventive. If I shot someone with my 1911 and they brought up the light trigger pull and that I make my own ammo, I would turn it around and say I keep the gun for target shooting and I make ammo that virtually all target shooters make - if anything, that would make be appear more angelic to the jury since I am not keeping some ninja death-magnum with black-devil-talon bullets made only for shredding human flesh, etc.

But no - in Ayoobs world, I am hosed because I have a 3.5lb trigger and home made bullets.


I did learn some good stuff from him - if you call in a shooting, say "I'd like to report a shooting at 123 main street" not "I JUST KILLED A MAN!", etc

Also - not talking for at least 24 hours and having the mindset that it is better to lose face than draw your gun - gun is last resort, etc.

Also, one story I thought was interesting - a man had to kill someone and was acquitted because it was a good shoot - Ayoob said that he had observed that people of faith seem to bounce back much better from a good shoot than athiest/agnostic types - and he said he was saying that as a non religious person - I found that kid of an interesting obsevation (may or may not be so).

So as my daddy used to say:


eat the meat, leave the bones...

Double Naught Spy
February 14, 2004, 07:51 AM
Okay, how about another bend that might stimulate the minds of some readers. Can folks post some additional things Ayoob (or others) have said that should make a difference in court, but never seems to be a reality of court cases. One of my favorites to justify the ammo (and depending on some) the gun carried is justified to use for self defense...

"Carry what the LEOs carry and then you won't have to justify the ammo to the jury."

I like this one...as if the LEOs chose their ammo with the same self defense needs in mind that I have...which they did not. Plus, it has never been made clear as to which cops or law enforcement agency from which I should choose my ammothe police, sheriff, constable, dog catcher, state police, game warden, border patrol, FBI, military police, etc. Between the set for the LEOs I have locally and with some departments allowing various types of guns and ammo, my choices range between a .380 to .44 magnum, RNL, soft point, regular ball, hollowpoint, expanding FMJ, and Glaser.

I have never seen a case, read of a case, or been informed of a case where the shooter in a justified self defense shooting got hung out to dry for NOT carrying what the local cops carried.

FYI, from a local gun class run by a former LEO, I was specifically taught that it was in my interest to use a stock gun, not a combat-styled gun with things like night sights and an evil name, the same ammo as the local cops, and a gun with a standard trigger at least 5 lbs and better if closer to 8 for a single action (1911) or Glock. I was also taught that shooting a person in the head during a self defense shooting was evidence for intent to kill and not just to stop. What a bunch of gun fecal goo.

Lone_Gunman
February 14, 2004, 08:02 AM
The criminal matter in a self defense shooting is often cut and dry, but that is not the case in civil lawsuits.

Civil suits are where things like type of gun, ammo, etc might come into play.

There is no way of knowing why civil juries make the awards they do.

Lawyers will try to build a case that makes the jury think the shooter was reckless. So they will try to make someone out to be a "gun nut". They may talk about hair triggers, custom guns, handloads, etc.

The lawyer wants the shooter to look like he is out of the mainstream, a wack job, just walking around trying to find trouble. It doesnt matter if any of it is true, all that matters is what the jury believes at the end of the case.

Use your own judgement, but which is going to look more like a normal person to your average jury:

-- Shooter dressed in low drag black ninja suit armed with custom H&K SOCOM, an M4 clone, 15 mags of AP ammo, has 100,000 posts on THR, and "born to kill" printed on his dude rag

or

-- Man dressed in flannel pajamas with S&W 38 Special revolver.

At best the first guy is going to look weird to the jury. You don't want to look weird to a jury.

The jury doesnt have to explain why it made its judgement. So you will never know if any of that played into the decision.

FPrice
February 14, 2004, 08:07 AM
Your dislike of Ayoob is legendary. Even in these hallowed portals.

I'm not going to bother to try to change your mind. It ain't worth the effort.

All I'll say is, if you are so opposed to Ayoob, why don't you take your dislike straight to the man and correspond with him, tell him what you think, and post his reponse?

Might be a tennsy-bit more productive than tearing him down here behind his back. Of course, it's also more dangerous to your position cuz Ayoob just might respond with some information and logic to back his position. THEN where would you be???

Just a thought.

c_yeager
February 14, 2004, 08:24 AM
I keep hearing about all these "civil suits" that are the bane of law abiding people who defend themselves. Does anyone have any actuall sources for these suits that include the FINDINGS of the suit including appeals?

STEVE M
February 14, 2004, 08:31 AM
Thank you FPRICE, I to get tired of people bashing some gun writers. I

would much rather read constructive posts that I can learn from.

Kharn
February 14, 2004, 09:37 AM
I've been wanting to rant about this one for a while. My cousin (my shooting buddy/instructor) always says I shouldnt carry (or use for home defense) anything but a DAO revolver or a Glock, as any other handgun would be impossible to defend in court (especially my 1911A1 Govt, my only viable self defense handgun at the moment).

Whats even odder: He says that anything with a trigger pull less than ~8lbs could lead to me getting sued for accidentily shooting someone, even if I meant to shoot them in self defense (and the shooting being in self defense wouldnt be a valid defense, so I'd be found guilty of accidentily shooting the individual). What kind of logic is that?

I'll definitely enjoy reading the court cases mentioned in this thread.

Kharn

Bruce H
February 14, 2004, 09:48 AM
He is a professional expert witness. Several upstanding humans run in that crowd. Everybody has to make a living somehow.

ctdonath
February 14, 2004, 10:27 AM
I have personally asked Ayoob about this several times. His whole point, which frequently gets twisted out of context, is that one COULD face trouble with such issues (handloads, modifications) and that he expects some day some creative DA will try such a legal tactic. His point is COULD, not will, COULD happen.

Ayoob is quick to point out that you should do what you feel is necessary to defend your life, even if that includes a modified race gun stuffed with hot reloads - just weigh ALL the issues together, including that anything you do can and will be used against you in a court of law.

This whole issue has been blown out of proportion for years. Find out what the man acutally said (I have, in person), and let the hype drop. He's just trying to be reasonable; some people are trying to make him look bad any way they can.

(FWIW, I'm an LFI-IV grad.)

Double Naught Spy
February 14, 2004, 10:32 AM
FPrice and Steve_M, got it. So you don't have any examples to support the claims either? Thanks for playing.

FYI, I don't dislike Ayoob, but I do dislike some of the garbage he writes. Such material as is the intended focus of this thread does not benefit us, although he does profit each time he publishes an article where he recites things about light triggers, handloads, etc. Every time, no supporting data, but he does get paid. He writes some good stuff as well and that stuff tends to be supported by real examples, real life events. There is good information in what he writes, but as evidenced by what gets written here at THR and on other gun forums, there is a lot a garbage that he has led people to believe to be factually true and hence valid concerns.

The Luis Alvarez case is a great example of keeping your mouth shut after a shooting. Ayoob has written on this and this is a proper use of information. It is a horrible example for the trigger pull argument as the shooting was deemed to be intentional self defense, not some unintentional discharge as was the charge because the officer stated that the gun went off when he arm was bumped.

I am sure that Ayoob and the others that pass on these unsupported claims are all fine people, some are professionals, and some are 'expert' witnesses, but that doesn't make the claims any more valid. The claims are still unsupported, oft repeated, and hence appear to be myths, unless some of y'all can come up with some real examples to show that they aren't myths but real life and valid concerns.

AND YES, you COULD get sued for just about anything within or without the realm of guns, but the claims Ayoob keeps making about this stuff is still just his fantasy. Aliens could come down from the sky and sue the Democratic party...but that is my fantasy.

ctdonath
February 14, 2004, 11:06 AM
I am sure that Ayoob and the others that pass on these unsupported claims

It's called "professional opinion". Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't disprove the concern that it reasonably could according to someone whose job it is to know and predict such things.

The claims are still unsupported, oft repeated, and hence appear to be myths,

I've been following this issue for years. Pretty much the only people who I've seen "oft repeat" these claims are people who clearly are out to badmouth Ayoob.

AND YES, you COULD get sued for just about anything within or without the realm of guns, but the claims Ayoob keeps making about this stuff is still just his fantasy.

Have YOU actually talked to Ayoob about this? I have, and can confidently observe that you are misrepresenting the issue, as you clearly do not understand what he said.

Ayoob readily admits that issue has not really occurred yet, and that one may reasonably dismiss the issue in favor for the self-defense benefits of handloads and modifications - he just wants people to consider a reasonable legal risk.

Quit blowing it out of proportion until you actually talk to him about it.

grnzbra
February 14, 2004, 11:20 AM
I keep hearing about all these "civil suits" that are the bane of law abiding people who defend themselves. Does anyone have any actuall sources for these suits that include the FINDINGS of the suit including appeals?

Bernie Goetz

Highland Ranger
February 14, 2004, 11:22 AM
This issue is a non-starter and I believe Mr. Ayoob's opinions are being misrepresented.

For a criminal case, self defense is well defined by state law. If you meet self defense criteria, any legal weapon is ok. If you are not involved in a clean shoot, well then you may get into the whole evil handload/hair trigger discussion. I'm not doing the research on the relevant case law, you can do your own research - I'm saying that this sounds REASONABLE; so I'll take Ayoob's advice. Bought my first SD gun based on his advice - an HK USP.

For a civil case, anything goes when you are judged by a jury of your peers.

As a peer, and as such owning a valid opion as does Mr. Ayoob, I'd say that it's again REASONABLE that guy in his PJ's with a 38 says "self defense" and no civil liability Vs Joe Mall Ninja and his Socom says "looking to shoot someone" and get ready to loose your house.

For reference, in his book, "In the Gravest Extreme" I believe it was (haven't read it in a few years) he addresses how to be prepared (weapon selection, mindset et al.) He also addresses why you should practice avoidance because your life will never be the same afterwards and although you may avoid jail, you may also loose your house when the civil trial get's through with you.

So for the criminal issue, shoot clean and keep your mouth shut.

Additionally, for the civil side, leave your Socom in the safe. Wear pajamas.

I don't need case law to recognize reasonable advice.

Jeff Thomas
February 14, 2004, 11:25 AM
With respect, I don't think any of us are interested in doing the legal legwork to justify what we believe is logical. Especially for those of us who have participated in criminal and / or civil trials. Sometimes people are looking for the magic, cut and dried answer to legal issues ... unfortunately, in the real world, black and white legal answers are often tough to find. I've never seen stat's on the point that made a jury rule one way or the other ... although attorneys are always wise to ask (and usually do) following a trial. Happened to me when I was foreman on a jury in a criminal trial.

I'll cast my lot with M1911, Lone_Gunman and ctdonath ... with the observation that whether it's a civil or criminal trial, the jury's mindset is key. Agreed ... the more the defendent appears out of the mainstream, the more risk in their trial.

If any of us has to use a firearm to defend innocent life, we will be at risk because of the ignorant (re: firearms) jury pool available in most venues. Lone_Gunman's examples are apt. Nice thing is ... each of us can choose how to live our lives, and we'll each be responsible for the results.

I've met Ayoob, and taken a class from him. I can see where some may view him as a bit over the top ... but I really don't see the big deal. I've had the honor of meeting Col. Cooper as well, and benefited from many other trainers, as well as experts on this forum and TFL. I've learned a bit from each of them, and I appreciate them all. We'll never know how many innocent, decent people are alive today because of the lessons from such men and women. We don't have to agree with everything these trainers and writers say.

Regards from TX

BigG
February 14, 2004, 12:15 PM
"You have the right to remain silent."

Doublenaught, we have been here before. When Mas hit my radar screen he was trying to break into gunwriting. Unfortunately for him, all the premo spots were taken by the likes of Elmer Keith, Charles Askins, etc. In order for him to get column space he had to have an angle. I don't know whether Mas really is interested in what he says as much as getting that ink published and whatever it pays. So, in my mind, we have the situation of the "which came first, the chicken or the egg" variety. Did Mas become a gunwriter because he had relevant things to say about forensics or did he write about forensics so he could become a gunwriter? I would hazard the latter, but what do I know? :uhoh:

joelr
February 14, 2004, 12:17 PM
Me, I don't dislike Ayoob. I like him. I've met him, and he's a heck of a nice guy, and a terrific speaker. I've read his writings, and occasionally checked his sources, and sometimes found him right -- and sometimes definitely wrong; he's provably mistaken on his claim that the IACP recommends that 72 hours elapse between an officer-involved shooting and an interview. (That's not what they say; the recommendations are online. Check for yourself.)

It's not, or shouldn't be, about Ayoob, but about the issue involved. The theory is that custom modifications and/or handloaded ammo may make a difference in court after a civilian self-defense shooting.

Fair enough. When has it? Alvarez doesn't apply; he was a cop, and what he was accused of doing was, at least supposedly, against department policy. It can be argued, at least in theory, that a cop violating department policy is being irresponsible just because of that.

I'm not a cop. I don't have a department policy to violate. How's that relevant to my situation?

I'd love to see some examples of where this has been an issue in a civilian self-defense shooting, but nobody has been able to point to them.

ctdonath
February 14, 2004, 12:21 PM
It hasn't been a real issue - yet. Ayoob himself admits that.

That doesn't mean it won't be.

joelr
February 14, 2004, 12:37 PM
And what firearms are most useful if we're attacked by aliens from the Planet Zorb hasn't been an issue, yet.

But will it be?

I've talked with a few very experienced criminal attorneys, and their take has been that the issue in a self-defense case, at least hereabouts, is always going to be the four requirements of Minnesota law, not the flavor of the ammunition or even the lethality of the weapon.

Quick check on that last: shotguns are, statistically, far more lethal than handguns. Do we have any evidence that one is more likely to be convicted when using a shotgun in self-defense than a handgun?

All in all, this worry about customization, handloads, non-PD issue ammo sounds to me like a solution in search of a problem.

goalie
February 14, 2004, 01:10 PM
Joel,

I finally bought your book. It was a good read, and it pretty much was dead on with the training I have had. Good to see you here on THR.

joelr
February 14, 2004, 01:26 PM
Many thanks; glad you liked it.

(If you too your class from an AACFI instructor, there's no coincidence that the book was in line with the training; the book was the source for the course. I'm pleased that quite a few non-AACFI instructors are using it, too. I think the next edition, when we get around to it, will be better; there's quite a bit of stuff that I think needs to be expanded on, and a couple of minor things that are errors.)

And, getting back to Ayoob, I'm certainly not badmouthing him. I do respect his opinion, but until and unless there's some real-world events to point to that bear it out, his opinions are just that. And until they come from a burning bush, they're certainly subject to real-world checking -- and maybe even then.

HBK
February 14, 2004, 03:03 PM
If we're attacked by aliens from the planet Zorb, we won't need any firearms, just some very loud Slim Whitman music.

Ayoob is a heck of a nice guy, knows his stuff. He also has opinions and they seem to make sense to me, even if they are only opinions.

FPrice
February 14, 2004, 05:34 PM
"If we're attacked by aliens from the planet Zorb, we won't need any firearms, just some very loud Slim Whitman music."

No, NO, NO!

Slim Whitman makes MARTIAN brains explode. Zorbians are affected by other music. What kind of music, we'll have to experiment with.

Mike Irwin
February 14, 2004, 05:46 PM
(best warbling falsetto...)

Una paloma blanca.....


Next up in the horrific singers line up...

Boxcar Willie!

M1911
February 14, 2004, 06:20 PM
M1911, great, don't provide apellate rulings. Find some original rulings. That would be fine. At least that would definitely make the argument that there is a huge problem we need to be warned about and may take multiple proceedings to resolve.Which, of course, you can't find on FindLaw. And, of course, nothing would show up in the written rulings. Neither of us have time to start going through trial transcripts and even then, that would only show you who said what, not what convinced the jury to convict.

Are handloads likely to be a problem? I doubt it. Could they offer an gun-grabber DA more ammunition? I suspect so. Consequently, I'll stay with factory ammo and use my handloads for the range. I don't think I'm losing anything there, but YMMV.

BigG
February 14, 2004, 06:51 PM
Most of the premier finishing schools teach MINDSET MINDSET MINDSET. Situational awareness, etc. Could not Ayoob's admonitions be a subset of that? It seems to me he is urging people to take responsibility and think through their choices. In other words, have a pre-arranged idea of what you are going to say before anything happens.

In driving, they call that mindset defensive driving. You not only watch out for your driving, you pay attention to the other guy's. It seems to me to be a good idea. Of course, reading it or hearing it over and OVER can begin to sound like a sermon after 20 or 30 years. Think of Jeff Cooper you newly minted 1911 pattern fans: Jeff beat the drum for the 45 Auto for a good 25 years, with most of his admonitions falling on deaf ears. Now people act like he wrote the Holy Bible. Go figger. :uhoh:

joelr
February 14, 2004, 07:01 PM
Yup; no easy answers. It's important to listen to what people say, then make up your mind for yourself. I think Cooper has a lot of interesting things to say, but I find him more interesting when he's actually putting together reasoned arguments, and less so when he's speaking ex cathedra, as the Pope of the Church of the Holy Cooper.

HankB
February 14, 2004, 10:54 PM
I may be wrong on the timeline, but I seem to recall starting to see Ayoob's recommendations against using handloads about the same time he had some financial interest in one of the "boutique" high performance ammo companies - IIRC it was Cor-Bon. A connection? Maybe - just maybe - a little bit of "Don't handload, buy MY stuff instead!"

I DO remember he indignantly defended his interest there, with words to the effect that he knew a good thing when he saw it, and made no apologies for buying in.

I think he later had some sort of relationship with another one of the small high-performance ammo companies . . .

In any case, unless I do something exotic, I don't believe I can load a 9mm or .45 that will be more effective than the best commercial loads available today. So I use factory ammo. (But none of my pistols are DAO with 12 pound pulls. ;) )

FPrice
February 14, 2004, 11:54 PM
"Una paloma blanca....."

Uh, Mike....don't quit yer day job yet.

Speaking of which, hopefully there is good news.

QuarterBoreGunner
February 15, 2004, 12:11 AM
"Una paloma blanca....."

Now if only I could figure out a way to type out the yodeler from 'Raising Arizona'...

Double Naught Spy
February 15, 2004, 06:51 PM
Personal endorsements for or against Mas Ayoob as a person are not in the remotest element relevant to this discussion.

ctdonath stated, "Just because something hasn't happened yet doesn't disprove the concern that it reasonably could according to someone whose job it is to know and predict such things. "

Ah, the chant of the dataless. The alternate chant of the dataless, rather the counter argument I am using that is just as valid for the same reasons as you believe Ayoob's argument to be valid is that just because he says it could happen does not mean it will. He does promote the aspect that it is a very real likelihood and hence suggests specific behaviors on the parts of gun owners. These are apparently based on his premise, for which he has no data that he has ever published, that it will happen. My counter argument is simple. He has had 30 years of shooting data from which to gather court information and that as the professional witness gunwriter law enforcement officer, you would think that if there was supporting data to his claims, he would be one of the first to know about them and they would be published as proof of his prognostication abilities in his writings. He has lots of LEO and student fans out there who are in contact with him. Some have responded here. If any of those had the information, they would likely share it with him. So his potential reference network is HUGE. Still no data.

He made his predictions and repeats them in print like he repeats information on people needing to keep their mouths shut after a shooting, as if they both carry comparable weight.

FYI, Ayoob is not in the legal business except as a tech. He is a cop, gun writer, and testifies in court, but is NOT a lawyer. He also is not in futures trading or an odds maker in Vegas. It is not his job to predict such things professionally except in gun writing and as an odds maker, he is right up there with Chicken Little. The sky may fall. Just because it hasn't fallen yet does not mean it won't. That's the logic, right? I could contend that since we have a long history of the sky not falling, that it is something of a myth, even comparable to a children's story.

grnzbra, I appreciate your offer of Bernie Goetz. I have no idea as to the specifics to which you are referring, but as I recall, he was acquitted of the shooting (but I don't know the reason for being acquitted), but lost the civil suit. He used a regular Beretta and supposedly used hollowpoint ammo (not handload). I don't recall any aspects relevant to handloads, race gun, or anything like that. He did have the right to use lethal force, but did so with an illegal weapon for which he did jail time. It was argued, and I don't know if it was verified, that he used ammunition that was illegal in New York and said ammunition was what he used to shoot the attacker that was paralyzed. Said ammo was hollowpoint ammo. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cas91.htm Maybe somebody can state the basis for the loss of the civil suit, but I don't know it. No doubt it did not help that he told NBC that he was on a halluncigenic drug at the time of the shooting. http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/89/132/09_2_m.html

PAOLO721
February 15, 2004, 07:15 PM
In another thread on factory versus handloads where the issues of legalities and potential pitfalls of using handloads in a self defense shooting, I noted the problem as being an "Ayoobian Fallacy" along with others such as 1911s bad for self defense because they are hard to defend in court (Ayoob's lawyer claimed this and Ayoob discussed the issue recently in one of the gun rags), light triggers will get you in trouble in court, don't use a race gun, your gun better be a stock model, etc.

Massad Ayoob is a LEO (captain), prolific gun writer and a very much in demand expert witness in self-defense with a firearm cases. His testimony (based on many years of experience) have in hundreds of court cases helped to acquit many falsely accused (of a bad shoot) citizens.

When he says that "light triggers will get you in trouble in court, don't use a race gun, your gun better be a stock model, etc" he is saying that in some venues the judiciary is just looking for any reason to rule against you and in many cases he is correct.

I have personally witnessed his testimony in court and I have also seen his skill at several NH ranges with a variety of different weapons and I can assure you that in both cases, the man is highly skilled. I know it really bothers some people, for some unknown reason (I highly doubt that it could be jealousy :rolleyes: ) but he is the real deal.

ctdonath
February 15, 2004, 07:16 PM
DNS,
It has been obvious (at least to some here) from the beginning of this thread that you were not actually interested in locating cases (there are none, and you know that), but instead making an opportunity to bash Ayoob. This becomes even more obvious in your latest post, wherein you put a lot of energy into stating what is already understood.

As has been repeated, Ayoob himself states there has not been any such case, but that in his professional opinion there eventually will be one and that factor should (at least momentarily) be considered in choice of tools. Ayoob himself says take it or leave it. Accept or discount his opinion as you like. Read or don't read his articles as you like (which, oddly, you seem to do a great deal of despite expressing many reasons not to).

As such, I have to ask: why do you push this point so hard? why did you bring it up in the first place?

joelr
February 15, 2004, 07:22 PM
I fully agree that personal endorsements are irrelevant, and, frankly, ditto for whatever interest he may have had in any ammo manufacturer, if any. There's enough real-world data to look for -- and either find or not find -- to discuss without taking swipes at folks' motives.

PAOLO721
February 15, 2004, 07:42 PM
.........that there are jurors who will be swayed by post mortem photos of exit wounds caused by a .357 magnum firing JHP.

I have seen Judges allow them to be admitted into evidence, even photos not actually of the victim. Counsel for the defense objects. Judge overules. Photos are shown to the jury. Is that grounds for appeal later? You bet it is. Is it going to cost you thousands to appeal it? You bet it is.

Has Ayoob been up against these types of tactics in court before. You bet he has.

BowStreetRunner
February 15, 2004, 08:39 PM
ill play

i think this would have a lot to do with how much the plaintiff's lawyer or prosecutor knew about guns and how much they wanted to do you in after a self-defense shooting. is there any LEGAL significance to using handloads or factory ammo?
not at all, the issue is whether or not your life was in danger and you used the appropriate force at the right time.
but things that normal people dont understand, like handloaded defensive ammo, race guns, light triggers, etc. could all be used to sway a jury........i mean imagine yourself as a sheeple in a jury box hearing about all the destructive things this mean gun owner did so he could "defend himself"
(this could be refuted with expert witnesses, if you can afford them)
a jury can be fickle and dumb........or smart and full of common sense.......
the handloads, race gun, and single action issues are all jury fodder........all a lawyer has to do to use them against you is tand up at closing arguments and rail on about how evil your gun is because you did this to it and that to it........and by then its too late for witnesses.....
im not saying this has ever happened, i dont know, and it might not ever, but it doesnt take a creative imagination to see that it could happen......so maybe ayoob has a point.......maybe not :uhoh:

Art Eatman
February 16, 2004, 12:11 AM
I was on a jury in a Voluntary Manslaughter case. The weapon was a .38 Special snubbie. The ammo was HydraShok. (Shock?)

The prosecution did indeed try to make an issue of the selection of ammunition. Evil and badnasty, etc., etc. Buying such ammo showed bad intent...

This was not an issue in the jury room during deliberations, however; not even for the non-shooters.

This was a west Texas jury. One of the other jurors was a gunsmith. had it been in Austin, the jury might have viewed the gun issue differently.

Anyhow, Ayoob does have a point about one's choice of equpment--but it's definitely situational as to the local culture.

Art

PS: As it turned out in this case, we found the guy not guilty on account of his daughter did the shooting--and she wasn't on trial. The consensus of the jury, privately, was that the deceased needed killing, anyway. I think the women on the jury held that view more strongly than the men.

Cellar Dweller
February 16, 2004, 01:31 AM
OK, fine, I'll play too:

Use what your local PD uses? You're a cop wannabe.
AND
1911 or Beretta 92? Military wannabe.
AND
Anything any agency uses? Appropriate agency wannabe...
AND
Cheap; small; 9mm? Gangbanger wannabe.

Handload? You must want to make super-duper killer bullets, factory loads aren't deadly enough for you.
AND/OR
Hollowpoints? Sadistic, with a desire to inflict undue pain and suffering.
AND/OR
FMJ? Irresponsible (except for NJ) because you "could have" injured someone downrange because of overpenetration.

Practice at the range? Only "so you can kill better."
BUT
Don't practice? You're an irresponsible gunowner.

That should cover all the bases. Any questions? :evil:

Trebor
February 16, 2004, 05:33 AM
I was on a jury in a Voluntary Manslaughter case. The weapon was a .38 Special snubbie. The ammo was HydraShok. (Shock?)

The prosecution did indeed try to make an issue of the selection of ammunition. Evil and badnasty, etc., etc. Buying such ammo showed bad intent...

Ok, we now have one confirmed case where the ammo choice did indeed come up as a factor in the trial. Even though the prosectutor's argument didn't seem to matter, it is interesting that it did indeed come up.

cracked butt
February 16, 2004, 08:06 AM
maybe we need to start lobbying ammunition manufacturers to rename their bullets, instead of hydrashocks or bearclaws, they could be named powderpuffs and ticklers. Colt could rename their famous autoloader to be "My Pretty Pony." No civil lawyer would be able to say with a straight face that defenedant meant to seriously maim or kill his assailant in a premeditated manner with his Pretty Pony shooting cop killer Powder Puff bullets.

I think some of what Ayoob says makes sense.
Jury=lowest common denominator.

braindead0
February 16, 2004, 09:12 AM
Anybody ever think that perhaps Mas keeps harping on this issue cause his lawyers told him to get it into everything he can so as to avoid being sued? He's in the business of giving advice (basically), and he's a well known expert.. if somebody uses his advice and gets in trouble they may be able to sue him..the magazine..book publisher...etc...

I think that it's all a case of CYA, and I would never hold that against someone.

Ridiculing someone for covering their backside (even if it's more coverage than in *your* opinion is necessary) is just plain wrong.

Sean Smith
February 16, 2004, 09:27 AM
So essentially we have a theory that everyone seems to agree has NO evidence to support it, yet we are supposed to uncritically believe it?

:rolleyes:

braindead0
February 16, 2004, 09:33 AM
Nope, everybody has their opinion on the matter. Mas's opinion just happens to be likely very safe from a liability standpoint.

My point is making personal attacks against anyone for stating their *opinion* on this subject is wrong.
theory that everyone seems to agree has NO evidence to support it
Seems several people agree, and some had personal experience related to it (even if it had no affect on the outcome).

Mute
February 16, 2004, 10:43 AM
Not this again. I'm neither an Ayoob defender or detractor, but I've always been under the impression, from reading his articles, that he wants readers to think about their self-defense choices and make sure that they can answer to a jury if it ever comes to that. No more no less.

braindead0
February 16, 2004, 10:59 AM
What I want to know is how the subject made it past "The High Road" criteria.. This might as well be a Troll post

PAOLO721
February 16, 2004, 06:19 PM
by braindead0 What I want to know is how the subject made it past "The High Road" criteria.. This might as well be a Troll post

I think it "made it" because, reasonable people can always reasonably disagree and that appears to be what is going on in this thread. IMO it's just a healthy discussion.

braindead0
February 16, 2004, 06:35 PM
Repeating authors that were calling Massad Ayoob names is reasonable? Immediately coming off with the assumption that there are 'Ayoobian Fallacies' to be discussed?

I just think the title is going off on a premise that is unfair, ie: troll-like.

joelr
February 16, 2004, 06:54 PM
I think that the title is unfair, but the subject matter, by and large, is quite the opposite. The issue isn't whether Ayoob's a god or a charlatan, but whether specific advice he's given is either a: backed up by real-world data, or b: sensible anyway.

I think folks should, generally, be a bit wary of received beliefs. I'm not pointing at Ayoob in particular, or at anybody in particular.

To pick things that I've never heard or read Ayoob say (and doubt that he believes), just to make the point:

How many times have you heard something like, say, "Never carry in a fanny pack; anybody can spot that you're carrying"? or "Never wear a photog vest; that's a clear giveaway that'll get you in trouble"? or "If he falls down outside your house, drag 'im back in"?

All of those are, basically nonsense, and the latter is dangerous nonsense. (And, incidentally, something that Ayoob's written, rather persuasively and with documentation, is nonsense.)

He's probably the best writer of the well-known gunwriter crowd -- I think Dean Speir is a much better writer, but that's a discussion for another day; he's no longer active, and he's not nearly as well known -- but I strongly doubt that Ayoob would disagree with the notion that it makes sense to check out anything somebody says; research, think, examine.

Often, what he says makes a lot of sense; often, it can be backed up by real-world data; sometimes, it's just plain wrong.

Double Naught Spy
February 17, 2004, 12:59 AM
Okay, so we are to 1300+ views and 50+ replies and still no cases where light triggers, race guns, handload ammo, carrying what the cops carry, etc. have been shown to have any real life examples of where they were the critical factors of a case that caused the case to go south.

So without the pro and con assessments of Ayoob as a person, does ANYBODY actually have some court cases where these things have come up to support Ayoob's claims? Whether or not any of us like him or not, like his writing or not, I don't care. I just want to see if there really is any basis or not and so far, things don't look good for the Ayoob's warnings.

Come on, this is the time for some of you legal eagles to shine!


Trebor noted,
"Ok, we now have one confirmed case where the ammo choice did indeed come up as a factor in the trial. Even though the prosectutor's argument didn't seem to matter, it is interesting that it did indeed come up."

Actually, I don't think we had any issue that weapon and ammo information could come up in a case. There should be testimony as to what the wounded or shot person was hot with, so the information should come up in court...if there is a case. Lots of information comes up in a court experience. The clothing of the actors in the case may come up, hair color, where they were, cars involved, etc. That is just part of it.

Lone_Gunman
February 17, 2004, 01:21 AM
Double Naught Spy,

I am not sure what this thread is going to accomplish. Your mind isn't going to change, and no one elses is either.

From a practical standpoint, it problem doesnt matter if you are carrying a tricked out custom 1911 with handloads or an old stock S&W 38. Chances are you will never need either, and if you do, the outcome will probably be the same no matter which you have.

We have a tendency to focus on hardware at the expense of more important factors.

If someone could find 3 real cases where custom guns or handloads played into the verdict, would it change what you carry?

Double Naught Spy
February 17, 2004, 02:29 AM
Lone_Gunman, so you don't have anything either? I appreciate all of you wanting to post on anything other that have some citations, but those posts go no where. It is an emotional issue and sadly people want to argue emotions and not information.

It isn't about my views. It is about whether or not the claims actually have any real validation.

3 cases Lone_Gunman? At this point, 3 is a stretch when nobody can produce 1.

JPM70535
February 17, 2004, 04:30 AM
Given that a juror's mindset can never be fully depended upon,what Ayoob advocates as being the prudent course of action to minimize one's chances of being found guilty criminally, or liable in a civil action makes perfect sense. For the same reason that a Biker appears in court wearing a suit and tie when his normal apparrel is black leather and a bread mans wallet, perception is everything. Using Glaser "SAFETY" slugs in a shooting incident sounds much better to a juror with no firearms experience, than using "BLACK TALON" Just seems to me to be a little extra insurance.

Trebor
February 17, 2004, 04:35 AM
The only related example I can think of is an accidental shooting described by Ayoob in one of his recent articles. The shooter was a businessman who was showing his new pistol to his secretary. Somehow (I don't recall the details from the article), the gun discharged and his secretary was killed.

When the police investigated, they searched not only the office where the shooting occured, but also the shooter's car in the parking lot. From the car, they recovered a Browning HP which had the magazine safety disconnect removed. Even though this gun had NOTHING to do with the accidental shooting, the prosecutor argued that the shooter's possesion of a firearm with a deactived safety safe showed a deliberate and willfull disregard for the safety of others and that the accidental shooting was just another example of that "recklass disregard." In the end, the shooter plead out to a lesser charge.

Now, this doesn't directly relate to handloaded ammo/ammo selection, but it is an example of how a prosectutor used a modified gun to 'attack' the character of the owner. I can't say how things might or might not have been different if the Browning had not been present or had not been modified.

Art Eatman
February 17, 2004, 10:41 AM
Double Naught Spy, I realize the example I gave was only one, anecdotal, experience. However, I certainly can't say that it has been or will be the only time in history that a prosecutor siezes upon some little issue to help win his case.

There are just too many uncertainties to make any sort of categorical statements. What's the mindset of a prosecutor about individual ownership of firearms in the first place? Or, the type of people on a jury? Then again, I'm almost 70 years old and have never really needed any form of self defense.

I'm happy with my worked-over LW Commander and its "social event" ammo, and I'll take my chances. Were I in an area where there is a lot of general anti-gun sort of political climate, I might well reconsider.

Again, there just ain't no "one size fits all" in this sort of deal...

Art

braindead0
February 17, 2004, 10:47 AM
Doesn't this really boil down to whatever you are comfortable with? For example, using handloads is possibly a risk (I think we can agree that the possibility is there, however small it may be) if you are willing to accept that risk then you'll use handloads.

Some people who carry handloads even go as far as to seal a sample from each session for later use in court, I don't think there is any evidence that this is necessary either but that's what some people do.

I have a feeling that the problem here is those people who state it like it's a fact "don't do this" or "don't do that". Probably most of us here don't like to be told what do do ;-)

Sean Smith
February 17, 2004, 11:07 AM
The problem is that it seems like nobody can provide any evidence at all to support some of the theories in question. It seems to boil down to this:

"I speculate X bad thing will happen if you do Y."

"Do you have any actual evidence to support that proposition?"

"Uh... no ... BUT YOU'RE A MEANIE!!!"

:neener:

ctdonath
February 17, 2004, 11:11 AM
00Spy,
How many times does it have to be stated?
1. There are no clear solid unquestionable cases where it has been a factor in the past. (You win on that one; be happy and stop harping.)
2. Given the current climate regarding such cases, a reasonable and prudent person may conclude that the given issue may very well become a central factor in the future. (Comparable things have already happened, so stop the implied insults.)

It hasn't happened.
It's not stupid to think it could happen.

:banghead:

braindead0
February 17, 2004, 11:12 AM
There's plenty of evidence to support idiotic jury decisions in Civil trials, which is probably the big concern here. Considering some of the things that happen in civil cases (burglers getting money from victims for injuries seems to happen all the time) I think there is no such thing as being too paranoid.

I remember a case in Redding California years ago where a burgler fell through a skylight in the gym..sued the school district and won $250,000. This is just plain wrong.

buzz_knox
February 17, 2004, 11:26 AM
I keep hearing about all these "civil suits" that are the bane of law abiding people who defend themselves. Does anyone have any actuall sources for these suits that include the FINDINGS of the suit including appeals?

Without intending to bash anyone, exactly what "FINDINGS" are you looking for? Do you believe that there is some mysterious piece of paper where the jury details each and every reason they voted one way or another? It doesn't exist! That's not the way the system works when you have a jury trial, and not even all the time when you have a bench trial. It's usually negligent/not negligent, end of story.

As for Ayoob, I've heard a lot of crap about him. But having met and trained with him, I'm a lot more likely to listen to him than some anonymous voice on a bulletin board.

Lone_Gunman
February 17, 2004, 11:58 AM
Double Naught,

No, I dont have a case to point to, and quite frankly dont intend to spend my spare time looking for one.

The reason for a verdict is not usually even stated, so I dont think even if there was a case like that, the reason for the verdict would ever be known.

If someone could present a single case where a custom gun or handloads played into the verdict, would it change what you carry?

If you aren't worried about what you carry, why even start this thread?

John Ross
February 17, 2004, 12:21 PM
http://www.john-ross.net/hldefense.htm

JR

Kamicosmos
February 17, 2004, 12:46 PM
*sarcasm and tin foil hat on*

How about the Kennedy Assisination? They sure harped on the gun and the bullet(s) used in that!

*sarcasm and tin foil hat off*

I posted a thread way back about factory vs handloads for defensive loads. I carry factory stuff, and my line was 'It's what the Gun store sold me to use and/or it's what the local PD uses'.

Then I envisoned a trial lawyer, or more accurately, a civil court lawyer saying "Exhibit A your honor, is the defendants Reloading Equipment."

How would THAT look to a jury? Mr. PJs with his 38 special LIED and PLAYED DUMB?! that's premeditated!! He went and bought 'protective' ammo to hide the fact that he makes nuclear tipped baby killing wall penetrating cop killer thug widow maker bullets!! Run for the hills, but hang him first!!!!

Seriously, it's a CYA by all of us. It could happen. I often look at my 130 grain HydraShok ammo, and wonder how that is 'Nicer and More PC' than say my handloaded 158 grain FMJ stuff simply because it's made by Federal instead of me.

I think it boils down to if the shooting was justified, the ammo and gun used won't matter. BUT, if there was a question about the shooting, the civil case that more than likely will happen, WILL most likely go after all the little details, including your handloads and what type of dog you have, color of your curtains etc.

Remember Micky D's had to pay that little old lady that spilled the coffee on herself in a civil suit. I don't think there were any Real Courts involved!

Smoke
February 17, 2004, 03:51 PM
He uses handloads = derranged killer
He uses JHp = derranged killer
He uses FMJ :what: thats what the military uses!

He used a 1911 - hair trigger
HE used a Glock - LEO wanna be
He used a Revolver - Cowboy wanna be.

The point is spin can be created on any gun and any weapon. As for Ayoob talking up what could happen - its speculation. Nobody can guess how any particular case will be presented and how that particular jury will interpret it.

Location plays a major point as Art demonstrated.

Pick what you want from any particular gun guru and chalk up the rest as "fluff"

Smoke

Double Naught Spy
February 17, 2004, 07:53 PM
This is so much fun!

ctdonath, thank you so much for helping to make the point I was wanting to make, but I was hoping for something a little clear cut. You are a supporter, but note there is no known evidence. Cool. Thanks for playing.

You also continue to go with the "Chicken Little" logic that some evil evet is about to befall gun folks in a shooting because of the Ayoob's prognosticated claims. You are telling me that you know Ayoob has no evidence to support his case, you don't believe you can find any evidence, but you believe him. More so, you defend the suggested course of events without any evidence. That sir, is called acceptance on faith and faith is the basis for religion. No doubt, you are a Believer!

I have to admit that the most fun part is looking at the logic. Sure, jurors may not disclose their reasoning, but often they do. Lawyers also talk about what did and did not influence juries. Even so, I find it hugely ironic that Ayoob (and others) can document how specific events actually do get people into trouble and cause the cases to go against the prosecuted/sued, but he is unable to materialize data for issues like triggers.

azrael
February 17, 2004, 07:58 PM
Never met Mas Ayoob...never heard him talk in court..I have read some of his gunarticles though so HERE is My .o2 cents....I reload...I shoot my reloads at the range...in my carry gun I use "bought" bullets...why?? one less thing that can be brought up..simple as that...

My "Cool weather" gun?? springfield Armory XD-9Compact..box stock from the factory...works well the way it is...

My "COLD" gun?? Taurus pt145 (trigger job)
Other Cold gun?? Norinco .45 1911 customized all to he**:D

Mas Ayoob say's that carrying "homerolled" ammo isnt a good idea...sounds right to me..My local police force can't carry there own so why should I??

I do use my handloads when hunting...Heavy hitting .45 colt rounds are expensive:D


Funny thing...The area you live in will probably dictate how much "heat"you get for having a customized gun w/ handloads..this is sad but true..:(


your opinions may vary

Cosmoline
February 17, 2004, 08:30 PM
This topic has sure been around! I remember getting into heated debates on the point over at TFL. I know of no legal reason to be concerned about whether or not handloads are used. There may be more practical reasons such as limitations on testing, but these can be overcome with good record keeping. I'd be much, much more concerned with the initial question of whether deadly force is really justified or not.

grnzbra
February 18, 2004, 09:33 AM
claim that the IACP recommends that 72 hours elapse between an officer-involved shooting and an interview. (That's not what they say; the recommendations are online. Check for yourself.)

I looked it up and couldn't find it. I guess that means you must be mistaken.

Actually, it doesn't mean you are mistaken, only that it is an invalid reference. What it boils down to is that Ayoob says that IACP says 72 hours with no reference that I can find and you say that IACP says something else with no reference that I can find. Therefore, since I've spoken with Ayoob and attended his classes, and I have absolutely no idea who you are, I'll choose to believe Ayoob is correct.

Someone asked about my mention of Bernie Goetz. Bernie Goetz was my response to someone seeming to imply that the civil suit possiblity was exagerated. As I recall, (it's so tempting to say "Look it up") it took two grand juries to indict him and he was let go on the attempted murder charges but nailed on the gun charge. After that, he lost the civil suit and had to declare bankruptcy. I don't remember hearing anything about what kind of ammo he used, but there was a lot made of his statement to the NH police agency that he said to Cabe, "You don't look too bad; here's another." and then shot him again.

My attitued is that I would rather assume that Ayoob is correct and have him be wrong than assume that he is wrong and have him turn out to be right. I don't want to be the test case on any of the "can't find any reference to it actually happening" cases being discussed here.

ctdonath
February 18, 2004, 11:28 AM
DNS,

LOSE THE ATTITUDE.

Ayoob spends a lot of time in court defending people against really outrageous and stupid accusations - and has repeatedly seen absurditiy win out over reason repeatedly.

While this thread has not revealed exactly what you ask, it has revealed cases where very similar things have been attempted, some successfully.

We've seen people killed over barrels that are 1/4" too short.
We've seen people caged, beseiged or killed over a $200 tax.
We've seen "shall not be infringed" get flushed.
We've seen AWs get banned because of flash suppressors.

We've seen millions of $$$ awarded to people who dump coffee in their laps or put smoke in their lungs.

The question isn't "has absurdity X ever worked in court?"
The question is "now that we've seen absurdities A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, and W win in court (and eventually become law), what will absurdity X be and when will it happen?"

"Reconsider using handloads for SD" is just a suggestion. If you choose not to follow it, fine - just don't insult those who, having read history and see patterns, choose to take the suggestion into account.

buzz_knox
February 18, 2004, 11:37 AM
Lawyers also talk about what did and did not influence juries.

You are exactly correct. And you've now given yourself a way of proving your theory. Ayoob discusses a lot of lawyers by name. Go track them down, and ask if he's a liar. Then you'll either have the evidence to prove your claim or not. Be sure to report back when you're done.

Alex
February 18, 2004, 12:34 PM
My glock 27 works fine right out of the box plus it feeds reliably with any of the factory ammo I've cared to feed it, if ammo costs for testing reliablility were a concern I'd go with a revolver and a couple boxes of good defense ammo. Both are stock options and my skin is worth a hundred bucks to test them with premium defense ammo, as for the trial information, who knows, maybe its never happened, but I see no good, logical reason to test the theory personally.

Johnny Guest
February 19, 2004, 01:28 PM
Ammo used being brought up in court? Or, is the question, does it make any difference in the outcome?

I served over 19 years as a prosecutor's investigator in Texas courts. I saw quite a few death-by-gunshot cases tried in court. In the shooting death cases which which I am familiar, there were only a few in which the ammo was a factor - - - -

One guy was fired from a construction crew. He borrowed a shotgun with several rounds of birdshot. He went to a sporting goods shop and bought a five-pack of Remington slug loads. He loaded up and returned to the work site. Unclear whether the foreman saw the gun, or simply didn't want to talk with the defendant. Anyway, defendant shot the foreman in the back from about 20 feet. Slug struck just to the side of his spine and exited the chest. Foreman turned around, then dropped. Dead on scene.

There was testimony elicited that 12 ga. slugs are better suited for the shooting of large animals than birdshot. The clerk recalled the sale of the slugs but no comment from defendant as to intended use. The jury was out only briefly and found defendant guilty of murder, a first degree felony. I believe the sentence was 60 years.

Jurors later commented that the borrowing the gun was significant, but it might have been "just to scare the victim." The purchase of the slugs was important in that it indicated premeditation to actually kill as opposed to frighten or wound.

Need to check my recollection on a couple of other fact situations.

Best,
Johnny

joelr
February 19, 2004, 01:35 PM
I've long thought that there should be better names available.

Me, I'd like to carry a S&W "Innocent Bystander" pocket snubby, loaded with 158-grain Federal "Innocent Fluffy Bunny" +P semiwadcutter rounds, to complement my Kimber "Conflict Avoidance" Officer Model, that stoked with 230-grain Winchester "Friendly Neighbor" EFMJ cartridges.

QuarterBoreGunner
February 19, 2004, 02:08 PM
"Innocent Fluffy Bunny" +P semiwadcutter rounds
Heh...gotta get em some o' those.

In my only (fingers crossed only) SD shooting, the issue of ammo was never raised by the either the defense or prosecution during the trial of the bad guy.
Interestingly enough, the only people who were concerned were the responding EMTs at the scene. For some reason they were very interested to know what I had shot the BG with. Never could figure that out.

ctdonath
February 19, 2004, 04:00 PM
00Spy:

There's your case! Johnny Guest gives a case where selection mattered significantly (perp had birdshot, replaced with slug, replacement was critical to jury decision). Happy?

ctdonath
February 19, 2004, 04:03 PM
QuarterBore:
At the time, medics were alarmed that the then-notorious Black Talon rounds exposed sharp edges when expanded. They'd want to know about that if they had to dig around in there.

QuarterBoreGunner
February 19, 2004, 04:04 PM
ctdonath- Ah! I get it, I think. They were concerned about sharp jacket edges right?

Ok that makes sense.

Double Naught Spy
February 20, 2004, 10:42 PM
No, not happy. Not even a smile, ctdonath. Johnny Guest did not give me the case. Go back and read the very first line of the thread.

I think you missed the fact that the perp was using factory ammo, not a handload.

You also missed out on the fact that the shooting was not a justified self defense case. The perp in question, as Johnny Guest described, got fired and apparently went back to the office to get retribution with the shotgun. He was committing a felony. What Johnny described was simply that the purchase and use of the factory slugs helped solidify the jury's belief that the perp wanted to kill the former boss...as if bird shot wasn't lethal.

Ayoob's warnings are for handloads in self defense shootings, NOT factory loads in attempted murder. If the example did comply somewhat with Ayoob's stuff, then it would be contrary to Ayoob in that it is obviously proof that factory loads will get you into trouble so we better all start using handloads.

What Johnny Guest did substatiate is the fact that there is information out there and that factors in cases are not necessarily secret in some manner. Jurors talk. Lawyers talk. Transcripts of the trials are public record.

Want to try again?

Art Eatman
February 21, 2004, 11:28 AM
I"m sorry folks, but this is just going around and around and around and getting no-bleeping-where...

Sayonara,

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "Ayoobian Fallacies Challenge to Members..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!