Deadly Force: Hollowpoint or FMJ?

[rscalzo]

which bans civilian use of HPs in handguns

That is not quite correct. HP ammo is allowed for use on the range, hunting and in one's home/business which are areas that allow CC without any permits.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...limit all of the potential risks to your credibility....

And why not do so when it doesn't impair your effectiveness?

...There are more knowledgeable people here on firearm cases that have been tried in the past then 99% of websites...

One of whom is Massad Ayoob, and he recommends against the use of handloads for self defense. Part of his recommendation is based on the likelihood that gunshot residue from exemplar handloads would not be admissible if GSR is material.

...after years of people asking if handloaded ammo is a legal liability nothing has ever come up other then don't do it...

And how many self defense shooting are you aware of in which handloaded ammunition was used? And as far as you know, in how many self defense shootings that went to trial were handloads used? As I've said before, I strongly suspect that in the substantial majority of self defense shooting, ordinary factory ammunition was used. There is most likely no good data on handloads at trial. Without data, we have to rely on professional judgment.

...where lawyers brought up all sorts of things that had little to nothing to do with the case. IT happens, but its not going to get a conviction without other evidence....

If you're on trial following a self defense shooting, there is other evidence. No prosecutor is going to pursue a possible self defense shooting case if all he has is that handloads were used. He will have to have additional evidence in order to feel confident enough that he can rebut your claim of self defense to take the case to trial. Without more, he's not going to spend the taxpayers' money and risk his reputation.

 

[BADUNAME37]

If handloads are not permitted as evidence,

how about different lots of "manufactured ammunition?"

Suppose I have six rounds in my defense gun that are all 20 years old and the only other "same ammo" I have at all, I purchased just last week.

How are "they" going to test the lot from 20 years ago with the lot that I bought last week. Everything is identical, although I'm sure after 20 years, the powder and primers may be different!

Or, as someone else mentioned, suppose I use my blackpowder rifle for self defense? That is hand-loaded to my specifications, and I don't even write down those specs.

 

[QuickRick]

I would use the best HPs money can buy. What is your/your family's lives worth? As to the legal advice, good council can be had from this forum. Keep in mind however the states from which your advice originates. This is also a factor to consider from the TV shows. Most of the settings are big cities in liberal, anti gun states. Los Angeles and New York City come to mind. Also remember the entertainment industry in general, and Hollywood in particular are as anti gun, puke liberal as they come... Be thankful you reside in Texas. They have the castle doctrine and they believe in it. They actually feel that citizens who are attacked/assaulted by criminals are victims. Imagine that! I doubt you could reside in a better state if called upon to defend yourself with a firearm...Lord willing, you will never have to.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...how about different lots of "manufactured ammunition"...

The major manufacturers retain quantities from each lot.

Suppose I have six rounds in my defense gun that are all 20 years old and the only other "same ammo" I have at all, I purchased just last week.

How are "they" going to test the lot from 20 years ago with the lot that I bought last week. Everything is identical, although I'm sure after 20 years, the powder and primers may be different!

Or, as someone else mentioned, suppose I use my blackpowder rifle for self defense? That is hand-loaded to my specifications, and I don't even write down those specs...

Then if it's important to your case that you establish that you were a certain distance from your assailant, you won't be able to use GSR to do it. Maybe that hurts you and maybe it doesn't. But it is what it is. If you don't have admissible evidence with which you might be able to prove something that you have to prove, you'll just be out of luck.

 

[BADUNAME37]

All I know is the gun does not show unless

it is either me or them.

Period.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...it is either me or them...

As you wish. But I think of all this as really two fights. The first is on the street. The second is the possible legal aftermath.

I'm often puzzled by the amount of time and energy folks are willing to spend on preparing for the former, while hoping that the latter will just kind of take care of itself. People spend untold hours of research trying to pick just the right gun/holster/cartridge. We train and practice. But when we start talking about dealing with the legal aftermath, often the response is "a good shoot is a good shoot."

The Harold Fish case also illustrates how the legal aftermath can go south. It was reported to me, when I was recently in Arizona, by people apparently knowledgeable, that Fish was initially advised by both the investigating officer and the DA that it looked like a "good shoot." The DA was not planning to prosecute. But then friends of the man Fish shot put pressure on the DA to prosecute. So Fish went on trial and is now in jail.

In any case, everyone here is an adult and able to both make his own decisions and bear the consequences of those decisions. Of course, one might reflect that one's family and those who might depend on him will also bear those consequences.

 

[Japle]

All I know is the gun does not show unless it is either me or them.

Period.

Maybe, maybe not. If you think you can decide what's going to happen in a confrontation that's started and largely controlled by someone else, I wish you luck. Things aren't always as cut and dried as we might wish. Lots of variables. Lots of decisions being made by people who don't have your best interests in mind.

 

[BADUNAME37]

I believe God has things happen for a reason. We might not understand now what that reason is, however someday we shall "know as we are known."

 

[altitude_19]

How don't you see this?

It's a matter of simple rhetoric for me.

The INARGUABLE factors:
1.) Many a self defense cases have come down to the question of how far away the deceased (or injured) party was when they were shot.
2.) Gun Shot Residue (GSR) is often admissible as evidence to determine distance from firearm to target at time of discharge.
3.) Accurate calcualation of distance based upon GSR depends upon knowing what specific charge (amount AND composition) was in the cartridge(s) fired.
4.)The charge in handloaded cartridge(s) fired CANNOT be assumed to have been the same as the remainder of the cartridges carried on the person of the shooter (I know MANY pistoleers who carry multiple calibers/loads, especially when it comes to reloads for revolvers) nor can it be assumed to be accurately documented in a reloader's logbook (your handwritten "bullet diary" is INADMISSIBLE).
The (seemingly) OBVIOUS conclusion:
If you are involved in a righteous shooting, where you did everything right (as I hope all of you would), you WANT all the facts about the encounter to be accurately deduced by an investigating official. Said investigating official won't have much to go on if he cannot even establish how far you were from the person you shot. After all, you would hardly be justified in shooting a knife wielding attacker who was 30+ paces off at time of discharge, and those are exactly the types of facts that tend to be distorted with the introduction of faulty GSR evidence.
BOTTOM LINE:
Handloaded ammunition makes it difficult to establish certain forensic elements of any given investigation as its load and composition is virtually impossible to verify beyond a reasonable doubt. Handloads are a variable in an equation that you need to be SOLID if you hope to walk away a free citizen. If you want an investigator to be able to prove the crowbar-swinging maniac was right on top of you when you pulled the trigger, give him to tools to do it; stick with a personal defense load whose GSR characteristics can be established beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[BADUNAME37]

I now use new factory ammo for my defense loads, thanks to the knowledge I gained from this site!

 

[Bubba613]

The Harold Fish case also illustrates how the legal aftermath can go south. It was reported to me, when I was recently in Arizona, by people apparently knowledgeable, that Fish was initially advised by both the investigating officer and the DA that it looked like a "good shoot." The DA was not planning to prosecute. But then friends of the man Fish shot put pressure on the DA to prosecute. So Fish went on trial and is now in jail.

As he should be.
When I first heard of the case it sounded bad to me. I wondered how he would avoid prosecution and jail.
Note that the jury's decision had nothing whatsoever to do with caliber, action, bullets, reloads or anything else. It had to do with the fact that the coroner's evidence contradicted the claim of self defense.

 

[GregGry]

(((And how many self defense shooting are you aware of in which handloaded ammunition was used? And as far as you know, in how many self defense shootings that went to trial were handloads used? As I've said before, I strongly suspect that in the substantial majority of self defense shooting, ordinary factory ammunition was used. There is most likely no good data on handloads at trial. Without data, we have to rely on professional judgment.)))

Handloaded ammo has been used in self defense and in homicides. The way that some people make out handloads to be a danger to you if you have to use them, is based on opinion and not fact. If handloads are so dangerous to a persons case there would be evidence to support it, not just opinions, since handloads have been used in cases.


((((4.)The charge in handloaded cartridge(s) fired CANNOT be assumed to have been the same as the remainder of the cartridges carried on the person of the shooter (I know MANY pistoleers who carry multiple calibers/loads, especially when it comes to reloads for revolvers) nor can it be assumed to be accurately documented in a reloader's logbook (your handwritten "bullet diary" is INADMISSIBLE).)))))

You can't assume that all rounds in commercial remanufactured ammo, or even cheap factory ammo is 100% identical. The remaining ammo that is in your gun (Provided you have some left) could still be used in an attempt to prove your distance with some degree of accuracy.



((((The (seemingly) OBVIOUS conclusion:
If you are involved in a righteous shooting, where you did everything right (as I hope all of you would), you WANT all the facts about the encounter to be accurately deduced by an investigating official. Said investigating official won't have much to go on if he cannot even establish how far you were from the person you shot. After all, you would hardly be justified in shooting a knife wielding attacker who was 30+ paces off at time of discharge, and those are exactly the types of facts that tend to be distorted with the introduction of faulty GSR evidence. )))

If they can't establish evidence contrary to what you have stated how is it that you will be found guilty? GSR evidence is something that can be used to establish distance, however mostly at closer range. The presence or lack of it could used to prove or disprove claims of distance. However you are missing a key element in GSR. That it is not 100% accurate, and that it can be proven wrong. With a handloaded round, if you can prove that a low loaded round would leave little to no GSR at close distances, then there is a hole in the claim that the lack of GSR means the person was shot at a further distance. Yes in an ideal world you would want the GSR to go along with your statements, but there are circumstances with even factory ammo that might not be possible (Such as shooting through your coat if that was your only option).

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the jury's decision had nothing whatsoever to do with caliber, action, bullets, reloads or anything else. It had to do with the fact that the coroner's evidence contradicted the claim of self defense.

Cite the facts and the sources on which you base this claim.

Harold Fish is an older, slighter man. His assailant was a younger, heavier man, angry and charging downhill at Fish.

I also find it interesting that you would take that view. You seem to be prepared to shoot an unarmed man smaller than you, in a situation otherwise not unlike Fish's.

...I am 6 ft tall and 210 lbs. If another guy comes rushing up to me cursing and threatening and he's 5'8" and 165 lbs does that mean I can't defend myself with deadly force? Is there some kind of contest you have to go through first to see whether he really is stronger or more fit?

...Did you actually think that one through? You're going to let some guy pummel you to the ground and only then think about drawing your weapon?
Hello?
No, I don't think so. Do what you want. I'm drawing and firing if the situation arises....

Also, what is "unarmed"? Just because someone doesn't appear to have a weapon doesn't make it so. I'd hate to get shanked by an "unarmed man."

See the following posts:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5165522&postcount=10

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5166029&postcount=19

http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5165720&postcount=15

Basically, Bubba, you've said the you'd shoot in Harold Fish's situation.

 

[GregGry]

Also, back to my black powder question. If GSR is so important and has to be in your favor, what about black powder guns? Who knows if you put a load +/- 10 grains in it, extra eye of newt, or even some raw meat for flavor when shooting on the range. There is just about no way to prove how much of what was in the gun when you pulled the trigger. People have used BP weapons in self defense, and they have not been found guilty. Obviously with a variable of black powder being way more of a variable then smokeless powder in a modern case/firearm, there are ways to deal with GSR problems.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Handloaded ammo has been used in self defense and in homicides....

Prove it. Cite the cases.

You can't assume that all rounds in commercial remanufactured ammo, or even cheap factory ammo is 100% identical...

Then you might have problems if you're hoping to use GSR in your defense. Personally, I use quality, commercial ammunition.

...The remaining ammo that is in your gun (Provided you have some left) could still be used in an attempt to prove your distance with some degree of accuracy....

Only if you could establish that it is the same as the rounds fired. That was, for example, a problem in the case of New Jersey v. Bias. Because handloads were involved, the judge would not accept that the rounds remaining in the gun were the same as the round fired and would therefore not admit evidence related to GSR from firing any of those remaining rounds. For an extensive recitation of the facts of that case, see post http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2129976&postcount=140 .

If they can't establish evidence contrary to what you have stated how is it that you will be found guilty? ...

Well for one thing, the jury might not believe you without corroborating evidence. Remember, you're pleading self defense. You have to demonstrate that you were justified.

 

[Bubba613]

Cite the facts and the sources on which you base this claim.

I will not do your research for you.

Basically, Bubba, you've said the you'd shoot in Harold Fish's situation.

I said absolutely no such thing. Please do not put words in my mouth or distort what I said, even if that is your job.

When the story first broke I thought he would have been very justified shooting the dogs and not at all justified in shooting the other guy. Nothing I've seen since then has contradicted that. The jury obviously thought so too.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I will not do your research for you.

I've done the research. And my research has told me that Fish was justified in shooting. If you think differently, it's your burden of proof.

I said absolutely no such thing. Please do not put words in my mouth or distort what I said...

I did not put words in your mouth. I quoted from your posts in the disparity of force thread and provide links to the posts I quoted from.

The quotes are there. You've described Harold Fish's situation -- an assailant charging, cursing and threatening. In Fish's case, the assailant was bigger and younger than Fish. But you ask, "...I am 6 ft tall and 210 lbs. If another guy comes rushing up to me cursing and threatening and he's 5'8" and 165 lbs does that mean I can't defend myself with deadly force?"

 

[BADUNAME37]

Did Fish shoot the guy's dogs

first, then the guy got pissed at Fish and started coming after him?

I guess I would be rather pissed myself if someone shot my two dogs, however, had I been on the other side (Fish), I would try to befriend the dogs, even if they were growling and snarling at me.

I once had a neighbor whose dog would run over to my house when I came outside and I felt so threatened by that dog that it would attack me, that I finally loaded my shotgun with buckshot and left inside the front door, just in case.

Fortunately, I was never attacked and that person moved, however, before they moved a kid came to my door one evening with his face in shreds and blood all over the place. That dog had attacked that young guy.

I didn't want to bloody-up my vehicle, so I believe I called the ambulance, or his parents or some such thing.

 

[BADUNAME37]

Fiddletown,

I take that statement from Bubba as asking whether force would be justified.

"...I am 6 ft tall and 210 lbs. If another guy comes rushing up to me cursing and threatening and he's 5'8" and 165 lbs does that mean I can't defend myself with deadly force?"

"does that mean I can't defend myself with deadly force?"

I take that as Bubba "asking the question" -- kind of a rhetorical question -- not so much as a statement that he would absolutely DO IT!

 

[altitude_19]

You can't assume that all rounds in commercial remanufactured ammo, or even cheap factory ammo is 100% identical. The remaining ammo that is in your gun (Provided you have some left) could still be used in an attempt to prove your distance with some degree of accuracy.

Come now, I know you know what the jury is more likely to believe. Ammo manufacturers make their living by making millions of rounds nearly identical to eachother (ESPECIALLY premium PD ammo). MAYBE they'll believe the remainder of the ammo (as you said, if any) in your weapon and use it to establish distance. But they will almost DEFINITELY believe samples from remaining factory PD ammo (WHICH, BTW I've NEVER had issues with [so why not use it?]).

If they can't establish evidence contrary to what you have stated how is it that you will be found guilty? GSR evidence is something that can be used to establish distance, however mostly at closer range.

Isn't closer range where most gunfights take place? "Conversational distances" is the way I've heard it described. Come to think if it, 3 out of 4 of the times I've drawn a pistol have been close enough for GSR to be a factor.

The presence or lack of it could used to prove or disprove claims of distance. However you are missing a key element in GSR. That it is not 100% accurate, and that it can be proven wrong.

Perhaps, but the incident wherein the poor man was convicted of shooting his wife (actually a suicide) was dependant on this less-than-100%-reliable evidence. Would you take an accused murderer's word for what the charge in the cartridge was? Who's to say a shooter didn't load the round to spit excess GSR to make it seem like he was closer than he really was? In any case, a conviction based on GSR evidence frought with misinformation happened to him, and it can happen to you.

With a handloaded round, if you can prove that a low loaded round would leave little to no GSR at close distances, then there is a hole in the claim that the lack of GSR means the person was shot at a further distance.

Absolutely true, IF you manage to prove it was low loaded. Maybe you could, but it's been established that others have failed to do so. You really wanna roll those dice? Think I'll hang on to my Golden Sabre. Maybe it costs a little more, but it's CHEAP insurance in the grander scheme of things.

Yes in an ideal world you would want the GSR to go along with your statements, but there are circumstances with even factory ammo that might not be possible (Such as shooting through your coat if that was your only option).

Maybe there are circumstances with factory ammo where GSR evidence is dubious or even useless, but I GUARAN-DAMN-TEE you that it is EXPONENTIALLY more likely to be the case with handloads. Oh, and if I had to shoot through my coat, I think I'd be pretty hasty to point out my ruined leather to cover that base.

 

[Bubba613]

I've done the research. And my research has told me that Fish was justified in shooting. If you think differently, it's your burden of proof.

I thought you were in a different state from Fish? How do you know what the jury saw or didnt see?
I have no burden of proof. The jury voted to convict. Everything I've seen so far tells me that was correct. If you think differently maybe you could write and volunteer your time and expertise for an appeal.

I did not put words in your mouth. I quoted from your posts in the disparity of force thread and provide links to the posts I quoted from.

Of course you did. Please acknowledge this obvious fact before I write you off as a troll.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Did Fish shoot the guy's dogs
first, then the guy got pissed at Fish and started coming after him?

I guess I would be rather pissed myself if someone shot my two dogs, however, had I been on the other side (Fish), I would try to befriend the dogs, even if they were growling and snarling at me....

Of course Fish didn't shoot the dogs. He fired into the ground to scare the dogs off. Sure, that would have ticked off his assailant, but Fish did not injury the dogs, and the assailant, larger and younger than Fish, came charging down a hill threatening Fish.

take that statement from Bubba as asking whether force would be justified.

"...I am 6 ft tall and 210 lbs. If another guy comes rushing up to me cursing and threatening and he's 5'8" and 165 lbs does that mean I can't defend myself with deadly force?"
"does that mean I can't defend myself with deadly force?"

I take that as Bubba "asking the question" -- kind of a rhetorical question -- not so much as a statement that he would absolutely DO IT!

First, in context, I think it all suggests that he thinks he ought to be able to use lethal force in such a situation. Look at the entire post.

I dont get the concept. I am 6 ft tall and 210 lbs. If another guy comes rushing up to me cursing and threatening and he's 5'8" and 165 lbs does that mean I can't defend myself with deadly force? Is there some kind of contest you have to go through first to see whether he really is stronger or more fit?

Also, read that together with his statement in post http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost....9&postcount=19.

...You're going to let some guy pummel you to the ground and only then think about drawing your weapon?
Hello?
No, I don't think so. Do what you want. I'm drawing and firing if the situation arises....

...If GSR is so important and has to be in your favor, what about black powder guns? Who knows if you put a load +/- 10 grains in it, extra eye of newt, or even some raw meat for flavor when shooting on the range. There is just about no way to prove how much of what was in the gun when you pulled the trigger...

What that means is that if GSR is important to your defense, you're out of luck. GSR isn't going to be important in every case. But you have no way of knowing ahead of time whether it will be in your case. If it's important to you and you don't have a way to get in good GSR evidence, well that will be just too bad.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Of course you did. Please acknowledge this obvious fact before I write you off ...

If you want to write me off, that's your privilege. Everything is out in the open for all to see.

 

[stevereno1]

If your intent in carrying a defensive weapon is to STOP a threat, and you can legally purchase hollow-point ammo in your state...By all means, carry the most effective round that you can. My only warning would be to NEVER put hand-loaded ammo into your carry gun, EVER. as long as you carry commercial, factory manufactured ammunition, in a legal manner, yu are good to go.