Reloads a legal nightmare?

"But in any case, it's not my problem."

Click to expand...

Yup.

Lot of emotion here over nothing. If you believe that using reloads could possibly prejudice a jury, or a prosecutor, unconsciously or consciously, then the prudent thing to do, would be to use factory ammo for SD.

If you think it's a non issue, not only for you, but for un-knowledgeable, or even rabidly anti-gun folks you might have to deal with in the aftermath of a shooting, womp up a batch of yer favorite Zombie killers, and load up.

A few years ago, here in SoCal, there was a self defense shooting where the shooter used a semi auto AK. Now I didn't investigate it, and I've never seen the actual reports, but from talking to folks that did, it was a pretty clear case of self defense. But since the guy used an AK47, the media, and the prosecutors, took a larger interest in the case than usual, and although the guy was cleared, the consensus was that if he hadn't been using the AK, things would have gone easier on him.

Should it have mattered? No.

But can I see how it did? Yup......

I have a friendly looking Mini 14, with politically correct 10 round magazines loaded in my closet for any issues the handgun or 870 can't handle. If the food riots or Russian attack comes, I have plenty of other things to use, but for now, I think I'm well equipped for both Goblins around my home, and for the fun that comes after, which if you've experienced before, (I have), you will do anything to minimize.

I realize I am a little late to the party, but here's my 2 cents worth:

I work for a law firm (not criminal stuff, mostly medical related things...) and can tell you juries can come up with stuff totally unrelated to the facts at hand, usually based on the emotional arguments and trial staging of a good attorney. For example, we had one case (med malpractice) where the jury recognized (and acutually admitted) that the facts did not support the verdict of negligence but felt "sorry" for the loss and awarded a large settlement anyway. We were able to get the "correct" verdict but it took several months and cost a great deal. So, the lesson is, don't discount the influence of an emotional argument, especially when the issues may be beyond the technical knowledge of most folks who would serve on a jury. I'm not saying it's right, or that you won't be able to reverse such a "bad" ruling, just that it happens. Personally, while the risk of using handloads may be low, like wearing a suit to court, I'd rather not risk making a bad impression that may adversely affect the jury's decision making process if I can avoid it.

The spectre of some forensic evidence snafu (such as the GSR issue) only bolsters my personal decision to use factory stuff and avoid even the slighest risk that may have the jury doubting my version of the circumstances.

I do have a bit of a question since the issue of the affirmative defense was brought up. Hawaii seems to have a bit of, for lack of a better word, a hybrid type of statue with regards to the legal use of deadly force. It states(sorry for the length, I wanted to make sure I didn't leave out any pertinent section/comment):

§703-301 Justification a defense; civil remedies unaffected. (1) In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in sections 703-302 through 703-309, is a defense.

(2) The fact that conduct is justifiable under this chapter does not abolish or impair any remedy for such conduct which is available in any civil action. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1]

COMMENTARY ON §703-301

This section does not attempt to define the defense of justification. An extended definition is given in the sections which follow. Subsection (1) merely establishes that justification is a defense. This places the burden of producing some credible evidence of the existence of justification on the defendant. If the defendant produces such evidence, or if it appears as part of the prosecution's case, the defendant is entitled to have the defense considered by the jury. The prosecution, however, must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, facts which negative the defense.

Subsection (2) preserves civil remedies for conduct which may give rise to a defense of justification. Civil standards of conduct are higher than we propose for criminal liability. For example, unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant might suffice for civil liability whereas criminal liability will turn on the defendant's own subjective mental state. It therefore seems desirable explicitly to preserve civil remedies.

Prior Hawaii statutory and case law recognized some of the defenses which the Code unites in this chapter under the defense of justification. Reference to such recognition will be made in the commentary under the sections which follow. There is some language in old Hawaii case law which indicates that the defense of justification is affirmative in nature;[1] to the extent that this language would be followed today, the Code represents a change.

Case Notes

Justification is not an affirmative defense and prosecution has burden of disproving it once evidence of justification has been adduced. 60 H. 259, 588 P.2d 438.

Defendant's claim of justification, in defense against prosecution for terroristic threatening, was established regardless of whether or not defendant used deadly force. 1 H. App. 167, 616 P.2d 229.

"Choice of evils" defense applies to violations. 9 H. App. 115, 826 P.2d 884.

Click to expand...

The justification(s) are threat/fear of "death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape or forcible sodomy" against the themselves or an innocent third party. Given all of this, it seems more like an affirmative defense ("yes, I did it, but here is the 'justification'...") but yet the dicta states that it isn't.

I would like to be more informed about this issue, so any comments from the legal folks would be appreciated. Thanks.

Speer 135g Gold Dot Hollow Point Bullets

I just looked on my reloading bench at a new box of 100 Speer bullets that are .38 135g Gold Dot Hollow Points, ready to load, NOT MANUFACTURED AMMO.

On the top of the box, along with the Speer logo, it clearly states:
"Short Barrel Personal Protection"

Now, if I didn't know better, and I don't, I would think these bullets are actually made for my protection. I suppose I could put them in a slingshot and use them that way, or hit the burglar in the head with the plastic box of 100 bullets, or I could load them up on 38 or 357 cases and use them in a pistol (the way they were intended to be used).

In light of all the discussion in this thread, doesn't that mean SOMETHING?

In light of all the discussion in this thread, doesn't that mean SOMETHING?

Click to expand...

It means that the bullets are designed for performance out of short barrels, and are the same ones used in Speer's personal protection line.

The issues being raised above deal with the evidentiary value of handloads that may or may not be consistent from batch to batch and may mislead an investigator (or be advantageous to a prosecutor/plaintiff). They also deal with perception issues. The name of the bullet might go to the latter concern, but have no bearing on the former one. Only your skill at reloading and documentation would affect that.

OK, I'll continue to use FACTORY AMMUNITION in all defensive situations.

Thanks guys!

And the real answer is...

..The real answer is - avoid deliberate use of reloads in defensive situations, if possible. Not for the legal issues raised, but for something even simpler...

Take a good long look at factory loads - see that red or blue lacquery looking stuff around the primer? And in may cases, the bullet? It's call "sealant", and almost all handloaders don't use it, almost all factory new and reloaded ammo does. It keeps oil (and water) out of the inside of the round. Got a 1911? Well-lubed, like it should be? Carrying it muzzle down in a holster? Guess where gravity is going to take any lubricant that seeps out of the firing pin hole...right to the primer of the chambered round! Good way to get a "click" instead of a "bang"...

Very good point richyoung. Is the sealant available at a reloading supply store? If anything, I would think it would be good to do my pistol bullets, as we live in Michigan and humid and wet is often the daily weather in these parts.

I've never seen sealant for sale. I don't think it would change the behavior of the round when applied to the primer pocket, but it could easily change the "bullet pull" of the round when used to seal the projectile, thereby altering the pressure curve. I've never even seen a handloading manual address the issue. If one WERE to go "out on one's own" and start experimenting with sealants and their handloads, I would reccommend working up from reduced charge starting loads,.. chrono'ing the rounds, and getting pressure data - somehow,.... I don't know how factories deal with the issue - they probably stick with a sealant they are familiar with and already know how it will effect bullet pull.

Looks like we've wandered away from the original subject...