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.
Ayoobian Fallacies Challenge to Members...
- Thread starter Double Naught Spy
- Start date
- Status
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
Member
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
Moderator In Memoriam
One facet of this discussion - - -
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
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
Last edited:
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.
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
Member
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
Member
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?
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
Member
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.
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
Member
ctdonath- Ah! I get it, I think. They were concerned about sharp jacket edges right?
Ok that makes sense.
Ok that makes sense.
OP
OP
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
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?
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
Moderator In Memoriam
I"m sorry folks, but this is just going around and around and around and getting no-bleeping-where...
Sayonara,
Art
Sayonara,
Art
- Status
