Hypothetical question about hollow points

Use of any and all types of ammunition can and will be used against you by the prosecutor. FMJ becomes armor-piercing; JHP becomes expanding extra-lethal ammunition.

The only way to guard against it is to have a competent defense attorney. Remember, YOU may know what JHP and FMJ are and what their intended uses are, but the Jury may (and most likely does) not.

If it were a justifiable shoot, then there would be no reason for the DA to prosecute you.

What do the police use?

If you're in New Jersey and you ain't a copper, you're in major trouble. Don't think it's a problem anywhere else in the country.
In the criminal court business, a justified shooting case with a good attorney on your side (if it goes to court) ought to come out on your side. In civil court, now...

I don't think the use of JHP would be an issue in criminal court, but it certainly could be an issue in civil court when you're sued by the victim or their family. However, if your attorney can convince the jury that the shooting was a justifiable case of self defense, the type of ammo used becomes irrelevant.

Hollowpoints can absolutely be an issue at trial. Ever heard of Harold Fish?.......

Most jurors are ignorant of firearms, and any good prosecutor will use every angle at trial, including harping on the "excessive injury" caused by hollowpoints compared to other ammo.

Although I never understood why Fish's lawyer didnt work hard to refute the portrayal of his clients using hollowpoints as a bad thing. I can think of a few ways a good defense attorney could refute that so that it was basically a mute point.

If your local cops use JHP's you can use that to your advantage at trial. Accentuate the reasons why they use them rather than FMJ's. The reasons they cite are the same reasons why any citizen also carries JHP's.

Hollowpoints are specifically designed to penetrate to a set depth and then stop, expending all of their energy inside the target and minimizing overpenetration.

Imagine a shoot where a round of FMJ ammo enters the perp, leaves the other side, travels through a wall and hits and kills a small child in his/her bed.

Now, if only the shooter had been using a hollowpoint round, the shot would have stopped inside the bad guy, and the child would still be safe asleep in their bed.

So please, use hollowpoints in your guns. It's for the children.

If it were a justifiable shoot, then there would be no reason for the DA to prosecute you.


A good shoot is a good shoot, hollow points should not play a part in criminal prosecution. A decent attorney will easily defend you in a civil case. Handloads can be a factor if there is some question with forensics regarding distances between you and your assailant etc.

If you're in New Jersey and you ain't a copper, you're in major trouble

If you're one of the few in NJ with a carry permit yes you'd be in some kind of trobule. Maybe. It would probably depend on the totality of the circumstances. If you shot some terrorists that were killing innocent people the prosecutor and AG wouldn't care what type of ammo you were using. Hollow points are legal to buy, possess, and shoot at the range. If your shooting was in your house the hollow points will not be a factor. See NJSP.org, click on firearms.

No matter what you use, some crap-weasel lawyer will find fault with it.

So, your honor. The defendant has stated that s\he chose to apply lethal force upon my client with a fmj projectile, which had failed to be lethal and caused my client to continue to live...

I figure in court it's basically "damned if you do, damned if you don't" so you may as well stick to hollowpoints.

And I can't really fault a DA for taking such a position, as much as I'd like to. He's using an advantage (in this case the ignorance of the jury) to help him win his case. Most jurors don't know a damn thing about firearms.

And I can't really fault a DA for taking such a position, as much as I'd like to. He's using an advantage (in this case the ignorance of the jury) to help him win his case.

Click to expand...

Here is one reason why the system is seriously broken. The prosecutor is NOT interested in the truth or actual guilt or innocence of the accused. Most just care about winning and will use any falsehood they can get away with in order to do so. Your average prosecutor will happily send an innocent person to prison if it means keeping their conviction rate high, thus securing their political future. AND, even worse, most Americans have the same attitude as gotarheels03, "I can't really fault a DA for taking such a position..."

[/rant]

I am not sure, but I think most of this arguement is about the exceptions rather than the rule. Oklahoma, where I live, a good shoot is a good shoot regardless of what you use. It is too easy to make a DA's arguement against your choice of loads look like the DA is just fishing.

Hollowpoints can absolutely be an issue at trial. Ever heard of Harold Fish?.......

Click to expand...

Every aspect of a shoot will likely be brought up in trial, but that doesn't mean the information necessarily is good or bad. As for Harold Fish, yes, a couple of the jurors did not like the fact that he used hollowpoints, but that did NOT convict him. What got him convicted was the fact that his accounting of the events that supposedly proved him innocent didn't match forensic evidence. The jury believed the forensic evidence, not Fish's story.

If you want to press the matter, one of the jurors didn't understand why Fish had a gun in the first place while hiking. So it could be argued that having a gun will work against you in court as well.

Getting back to the original context of a "presumably" good shoot. If you are in court, it isn't a presumably good shoot. It is a potentially bad shoot. If it is a good shoot, the law does not stipulate what forms of lethal force must be used to make the use of lethal force legal. It may be a bullet, frying pan, or Chevy.

Hollowpoints

While it's true that any ammunition is subject to be cast in a bad light, a hollowpoint leaves a prosecutor or civil litigator a little bigger window of opportunity...all else being equal.

As far as the overpenetration question goes...it's probably an instance of swallowing a camel and gagging on a gnat. Missing the intended target...no matter what the bullet style...would probably be the greater concern.

Depends on the jurisdiction and how your local prosecutor views citizen SD.

If it's a good shoot, it shouldn't go past a police investigation.

Find out what the cops in your area are carrying and buy yourself a supply.

Carry what the local LEO's carry . Could help .

If it is a good shoot it shouldn't matter if you hit the perp with a 105mm.

However, there are no guarantees in life, and if you live in a jurisdiction with an anti-freedom District Attorney you are going to be subject to an absolute living hell no matter what you use.

Here is one reason why the system is seriously broken. The prosecutor is NOT interested in the truth or actual guilt or innocence of the accused. Most just care about winning and will use any falsehood they can get away with in order to do so. Your average prosecutor will happily send an innocent person to prison if it means keeping their conviction rate high, thus securing their political future. AND, even worse, most Americans have the same attitude as gotarheels03, "I can't really fault a DA for taking such a position..."

Click to expand...

I am an attorney. I have MANY friends/classmates who are DAs in various cities around the state and not ONE of them would knowingly send an innocent person to prison in order to keep their #s high. You imply that MOST would lie/deceive/etc. just to win..and that is just NOT the case.

Maybe you are ignorant of attorneys, maybe you've had a bad experience with one, or maybe you just regurgitate the lines that other lemmings throw out there...but whatever it is it is NOT the truth.

There are SOME DAs out there that are so focused on keeping their #s high that they disregard the truth, but those people are a minute percentage of the DAs in practice.

JHPs reduce the risk of over penetration by being specifically designed to stop inside the human body. A bullet that over penetrates has the risk of hitting unintended and innocent bystanders. Seems like a pretty logical reason to justify using JHPs to me.

re:

Quote:

>JHPs reduce the risk of over penetration by being specifically designed to stop inside the human body. A bullet that over penetrates has the risk of hitting unintended and innocent bystanders.<
**************

Assuming that we never, ever miss the intended target. If we do, it won't make a lotta difference.

not ONE of them would knowingly send an innocent person to prison in order to keep their #s high.

Click to expand...

It only matters if it's the one that prosecutes my case would do it, not what 99% of them would do.

How many Nifongs are there?

Does anyone have any legitimate statistics?

How does one play these odds effectively?

My wife and I suffered a rare personal tragedy earlier this year (nothing involving the legal system). It didn't matter worth a lick that it "seldom ever happens" when it happened to us.

I don't care about what motivates attorneys. I do care about keeping them from ruining my life when I'm innocent.

I do care about keeping them from ruining my life when I'm innocent.

Click to expand...

...by relying on another attorney. People always forget that.

Maybe we need laws passed MANDATING the use of hollow points for guns intended for self defense. The lower chance of penetrating a wall and hitting an innocent bystander makes HP's the safer choice. After all, if it saves just one child's life.......