Um, that could be construed to be a felony in at least some jurisdictions, if an investigator and/or prosecutor decided to go in that direction. Altering or removing evidence is a tremendous gift to deliver to the prosecution!
Last edited:
Shoving the barrel into an attacker????
- Thread starter 19-3Ben
- Start date
- Status
I know it's not a sidearm but back in the day during basic we did the old fix bayonets and charge drill. We were told that if the bayonet stuck in the other fellow to pull the trigger to assist in withdrawal. Of course this was all fine and dandy if you had a round in the chamber! This was a L1A1 and thankfully never had the need
leadcounsel
member
Plugging the barrel is a different animal than having flesh on the end of the barrel.
Consider that in a plugged barrel, all of the massive amounts of kinetic energy has NOPLACE to escape and may damage the barrel. The bullet goes from 1000 fps (or whatever) to zero.
However, once it has exited the barrel, the energy can go in many directions. Let's also not forget that whether it's 10 yard or 1 millimeter from the barrel, a bullet won't be stopped by flesh or leather or whatever.
Consider that in a plugged barrel, all of the massive amounts of kinetic energy has NOPLACE to escape and may damage the barrel. The bullet goes from 1000 fps (or whatever) to zero.
However, once it has exited the barrel, the energy can go in many directions. Let's also not forget that whether it's 10 yard or 1 millimeter from the barrel, a bullet won't be stopped by flesh or leather or whatever.
If you consider keeping the gun from rusting important enough to tamper with evidence, the gun will have a lot of time to rust while you do 2-5. Even if you get off on self-defense for a killing, you can get sent away for playing games with the evidence or perjuring yourself.
I don't understand this excessive concern for the gun. I once posted that a person involved in a street shooting was going to be told by the police to drop his gun. One man replied that his Brand X cost $3800 and that he wasn't going to drop it and scar it up and the cops could go to h**l. Of course, if he didn't drop it, I am pretty sure a dozen police bullets would send him to that or some other place, and his $3800 gun would still fall on the pavement. But of course he wouldn't care any more.
Jim
I don't understand this excessive concern for the gun. I once posted that a person involved in a street shooting was going to be told by the police to drop his gun. One man replied that his Brand X cost $3800 and that he wasn't going to drop it and scar it up and the cops could go to h**l. Of course, if he didn't drop it, I am pretty sure a dozen police bullets would send him to that or some other place, and his $3800 gun would still fall on the pavement. But of course he wouldn't care any more.
Jim
ljnowell
Member
Of course its sarcasm, that didnt stop you from making insults about my reading comprehension did it? Thats real high road of you! Congrats!
As far as what I said, Mas Ayoob has pitched the campaign that handloads WILL be used against you every time. He even goes so far as to take a case where the guy plainly killed his wife and uses it as an excuse.
Float Pilot
Member
I had a couple cases where the firearms were cleaned after a shooting and we thought about charging the owner with evidence tampering... But in both cases they were smart enough to call their lawyer first and not say anything else. In both cases he evidence tampering was thrown out after their lawyer argued that they were only falling back onto prior training after a stressfull event. (Not to mention the fact that almost every police dept has a policy to clean guns used in shootings so they are not damaged in storage awaiting the slow wheels of the justice system) And of course the shootings were legit.. or at least considered to be legit by a grand jury.
Of course nothing in the justice system is based upon common sense.
Last edited:
The statement I made was an "either/or" sentence. That means that one or the other clauses separated by the "or" is correct, but not both.
Example: I say: "Your house is either white or black." If you respond that it's black, then my statement is true, and it would be meaningless for you to complain that I said your house was white. Clearly the statement I made does not allow for the house to be BOTH black and white since using "either/or" rules that possibility out.
Getting back to the specific comment in question: If you're going to claim that you were being intentionally obtuse then that would invalidate the reading comprehension clause and that, in turn, would mean that there was no insult.
Unfortunately, the fact that an explanation of a relatively simple grammatical concept was obviously required puts your claim on shaky ground--unless you were again, being intentionally obtuse in a vain attempt to falsely accuse me of a rules infraction.
AlexanderA
Member
rcmodel wrote:
What about firing a revolver with the barrel filled with water? I remember the scene in "Pale Rider" where Clint Eastwood hides under water in a horse trough and raises his gun to shoot the bad guy. Wouldn't the gun have blown up? Or would the water have leaked out through the cylinder gap? Could it have drained out fast enough?
What about firing a revolver with the barrel filled with water? I remember the scene in "Pale Rider" where Clint Eastwood hides under water in a horse trough and raises his gun to shoot the bad guy. Wouldn't the gun have blown up? Or would the water have leaked out through the cylinder gap? Could it have drained out fast enough?
ljnowell
Member
edit: nevermind, just noticed your username, seen you operate before, no sense in arguing with you.
OK, <disclaimer> I haven't read all the replies, so don't flame me for repeating if someone else said this - but don't try contact shots with a 1911 platform pistol! Push that barrel in, and it ain't gonna go bang.
But I can't even imagine the damage that all the muzzle blast entering a body might do to a person. As far as the gun blowing up? Last of my worries. I just don't see it happening, in fact with my .38 snubbie I'd probably plan for contact shot. Even a contact shot from a .22 revolver is bound to do some serious damage. All those hot gases blasting into a body? OMG. That'll take the wind out of anybody's sails.
But I can't even imagine the damage that all the muzzle blast entering a body might do to a person. As far as the gun blowing up? Last of my worries. I just don't see it happening, in fact with my .38 snubbie I'd probably plan for contact shot. Even a contact shot from a .22 revolver is bound to do some serious damage. All those hot gases blasting into a body? OMG. That'll take the wind out of anybody's sails.
michaelbsc
Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2012
- Messages
- 374
I've posted this before. God knows the police have a hard job, but this is good advice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
But back to the topic at hand, have we established that the gas will vent into the perp's body cavity on a revolver fine, but on something like a 1911 you risk getting the gun out of battery so you have no fire?
That's what I think I'm hearing.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Having been involved with rescue for over 30 years, I've sometimes been forced to end a dog's suffering when there was no hope and it was more stressful and/or painful to get the dog to a vet...or on a weekend when no vet was open. It's not something that I relish, and it fairly knocks me outta the hatframe for about a week afterward...but I've done it.
It has to be done properly so the dog feels nothing. Pressing the muzzle low against the back of the head to let the gas plug completely scramble the medulla oblongata and brain stem accomplishes that. Correctly done, it's unlikely that the dog even hears the shot.
For larger dogs, I use a Model 10 loaded with +P 125-grain JHP and press the muzzle tightly in order to seal off all possible gas escape. I've never had any tissue or blood get into the gun, and I've used the same revolver several times over the years.
With standard, non-magnum calibers, the peak pressure occurs early...within the first half-inch of bullet movement...and drops rapidly. Even the slower powders typical with magnum ammunition reach peak pressure within an inch or less. By the time the bullet gets to the muzzle, the pressure is at maybe 10-15% of peak, so slowing the bullet for an instant with something as yielding as flesh or clothing just as it reaches the muzzle isn't going to push the pressures up to the point of bulging the barrel.
It has to be done properly so the dog feels nothing. Pressing the muzzle low against the back of the head to let the gas plug completely scramble the medulla oblongata and brain stem accomplishes that. Correctly done, it's unlikely that the dog even hears the shot.
For larger dogs, I use a Model 10 loaded with +P 125-grain JHP and press the muzzle tightly in order to seal off all possible gas escape. I've never had any tissue or blood get into the gun, and I've used the same revolver several times over the years.
With standard, non-magnum calibers, the peak pressure occurs early...within the first half-inch of bullet movement...and drops rapidly. Even the slower powders typical with magnum ammunition reach peak pressure within an inch or less. By the time the bullet gets to the muzzle, the pressure is at maybe 10-15% of peak, so slowing the bullet for an instant with something as yielding as flesh or clothing just as it reaches the muzzle isn't going to push the pressures up to the point of bulging the barrel.
Cosmoline
Member
Of course under water when the bullet is pushing against the water column, barrels can bulge and at greater length will likely bulge. You can get away with it sometimes with short guns.
Once the firearm is out of the water, though, I *believe* the bullet and gas will simply spit any remaining water right out as droplets or steam. Which is why you don't have KB's because of heavy rain while hunting.
But I know of no scientific proof of that second thought. Just experience.
351 WINCHESTER
Member
We (myself and the brassfetcher) made a contact shot with my .38 640 shooting a +P as I recall. Pleantly of tissue damage to about 2" and then it just went away. The gun took a bath in gelatin, no matter as it cleaned right off.
ultramag44
Member
Rexster,
I have to respectfully disagree. As you too live in Texas, we have the castle law to protect us from such prosecution or law suit by the perps family.We do not have to retreat or prove we felt threatened. Since I committed no crime under the castle law, there is no issue of 'tampering'. Would unloading the gun after after the perp expired be tampering (not that it matters due to castle law pre-empting a crime) The perp has to break in through all my locked doors. He violated my home. I warned him to leave. He chose to advance. He grabbed me.
He got contact shot & killed. He chose to break in and attack.
I'm not going to stand in the living room with the bloody revolver in my hand, 5 in the chamber and 1 empty when LEO Arrive. It will be unloaded, washed & wiped clean. It will be sitting on a counter w/ open cylinder for LEO.
I'm just saying. I know lots of states don't protect honest citizens.
I have to respectfully disagree. As you too live in Texas, we have the castle law to protect us from such prosecution or law suit by the perps family.We do not have to retreat or prove we felt threatened. Since I committed no crime under the castle law, there is no issue of 'tampering'. Would unloading the gun after after the perp expired be tampering (not that it matters due to castle law pre-empting a crime) The perp has to break in through all my locked doors. He violated my home. I warned him to leave. He chose to advance. He grabbed me.
He got contact shot & killed. He chose to break in and attack.
I'm not going to stand in the living room with the bloody revolver in my hand, 5 in the chamber and 1 empty when LEO Arrive. It will be unloaded, washed & wiped clean. It will be sitting on a counter w/ open cylinder for LEO.
I'm just saying. I know lots of states don't protect honest citizens.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I don't believe it is at all fair to say that Mas has ever said anything of the sort. We've had a VERY in-depth thread on that subject (and the case you're describing) and the point made is that in a very few instances you could have a harder time presenting your affirmative defense of "self defense" because your handloaded ammo might not be able to be used to produce one, rather contentious, type of forensic evidence you might want to introduce to support your claims.ljnowell said:
That's about a million miles from him claiming that handloads will be "used against you" at all, let alone "every time."
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
You do realize that "castle doctrine" claims are rebuttable, right? They are not blanket declarations that any use of lethal force in your home is lawful. They are good things to have as they can help a defender, but they are bad things to RELY ON as they are not the safety blanket or "get out of jail, free" card they're often claimed to be.
All that to say, I'm not touching ANYTHING involved with the incident until the police have had their chance to investigate thoroughly. If my gun can't survive an hour or a day or whatever with a little foreign matter on it, I should pick a better gun. If there turns out to be a lengthy investigation and trial, the condition of the gun I used is the very least of my concerns.
ultramag44
Member
Sam1911 said:
"You do realize that "castle doctrine" claims are rebuttable, right? They are not blanket declarations that any use of lethal force in your home is lawful. They are good things to have as they can help a defender, but they are bad things to RELY ON as they are not the safety blanket or "get out of jail, free" card they're often claimed to be."
True enough sir, however in this hypothetical case, we are not discussing some drunk in the alley kicking a dumsptser because he staggered into it.
We are not discussing some fellow whom you invited invited into your home, who, after consuming one to many drinks made an off-color remark to your good wife.
In such circumstances, Castle Doctorine won't help you.
We are talking about a perfect stranger. He has forced your locked doors in the night. He most likely has a criminal record, is a substance abuser and associates with like minded criminals. He may be in a gang.
You are none of those things. You work, pay taxes, are a homeowner, you may be a member of the church. Your worst infraction is pushing the speed limit once or twice when you were younger.
You ARE a respected member of the community. And yes, the Castle Doctorine WAS written for YOU!
Since the perp has expired or is totally incopacitated, you did the responsible thing by unloading it. . It's in full view and the cylinder is open so LEO knows they are not in danger.
You've kept your mouth shut and called a lawyer. Your lawyer will explain to them that yes, you were the one who was forced to shoot. You do not deny it. Your training just kicked in and you responsibally unloaded it and cleaned it off.
No LEO or DA will try to jack with you for unloading a weapon and cleaning it. NO grand jury will buy into such rubbish.
"You do realize that "castle doctrine" claims are rebuttable, right? They are not blanket declarations that any use of lethal force in your home is lawful. They are good things to have as they can help a defender, but they are bad things to RELY ON as they are not the safety blanket or "get out of jail, free" card they're often claimed to be."
True enough sir, however in this hypothetical case, we are not discussing some drunk in the alley kicking a dumsptser because he staggered into it.
We are not discussing some fellow whom you invited invited into your home, who, after consuming one to many drinks made an off-color remark to your good wife.
In such circumstances, Castle Doctorine won't help you.
We are talking about a perfect stranger. He has forced your locked doors in the night. He most likely has a criminal record, is a substance abuser and associates with like minded criminals. He may be in a gang.
You are none of those things. You work, pay taxes, are a homeowner, you may be a member of the church. Your worst infraction is pushing the speed limit once or twice when you were younger.
You ARE a respected member of the community. And yes, the Castle Doctorine WAS written for YOU!
Since the perp has expired or is totally incopacitated, you did the responsible thing by unloading it. . It's in full view and the cylinder is open so LEO knows they are not in danger.
You've kept your mouth shut and called a lawyer. Your lawyer will explain to them that yes, you were the one who was forced to shoot. You do not deny it. Your training just kicked in and you responsibally unloaded it and cleaned it off.
No LEO or DA will try to jack with you for unloading a weapon and cleaning it. NO grand jury will buy into such rubbish.
Unfortunately that will all be in the past. When the police show up your worst infraction will be that you shot someone and tampered with evidence before the police arrived on the scene.
It makes no sense to risk jailtime over some finish damage to a firearm, so I would think a grand jury/LEO/DA would reasonably assume that there was something else going on.
At any rate, it's a moot point. It's illegal to tamper with evidence at the scene of a felony, and since you're "a homeowner, you may be a member of the church and a respected member of the community" you will follow the law.
And if a citizen willfully ignores the law to keep from having to refinish a firearm, maybe that citizen is not really all that upstanding and respectable--at least that's how the law would be likely see it...
BSA1
member
It is sad that comments like in #44 show how few people understand the three elements required for self-defense and why preserving evidence is important in supporting your version of events.
Oh the elements are opportunity, ability and jeopardy.
Oh the elements are opportunity, ability and jeopardy.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I think the funny-but-true way of saying it is, "No one else can see your halo."
Sure, you're the good guy, because you think you are, and you didn't mean to do wrong. To the rest of the world (including the responding officers, investigators, district attorney, grad jury, and trial jury) you're just a guy. The "good" part is yet to be determined, and when they first meet you, it is as someone who has just shot and maybe killed someone.
"Castle Doctrine" laws do help by offering the state a way that it can presume some things in your favor (mostly in eliminating the need for you to prove the intruder's bad intent), but they aren't such a blanket protection that you should feel free to alter the scene and tamper with or eliminate evidence because you're so clearly immune from prosecution.
Sure, you're the good guy, because you think you are, and you didn't mean to do wrong. To the rest of the world (including the responding officers, investigators, district attorney, grad jury, and trial jury) you're just a guy. The "good" part is yet to be determined, and when they first meet you, it is as someone who has just shot and maybe killed someone.
"Castle Doctrine" laws do help by offering the state a way that it can presume some things in your favor (mostly in eliminating the need for you to prove the intruder's bad intent), but they aren't such a blanket protection that you should feel free to alter the scene and tamper with or eliminate evidence because you're so clearly immune from prosecution.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Your Miranda rights state that anything you say can and will be held against you in a court of law. You can assume that includes anything that you do and/or say before, during, and after the fact. i.e. The sign on your door that says: "Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again." or: "Kill'em all. Let God sort'em out." won't help your cause. Bet on it.
Tampering with evidence is a very good way to get yourself a new roomie named "Mongo."
Let the gun rot.
Tampering with evidence is a very good way to get yourself a new roomie named "Mongo."
Let the gun rot.
BSA1
member
Tampering with evidence is a very good way to get yourself a new roomie named "Mongo."
And everyman in prison is innocent.
And everyman in prison is innocent.
- Status