Ayoobian Paradigmatic Shift? Ammo Choice

[Double Naught Spy]

Maybe things are looking up?

Sometime back, I posted a challenge to members to come up with specific court cases that would support some of Ayoob's contentions that certain types of issues will get a justified self defense shooter in trouble and cause the case to go against him/her. The thread is here http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65021&highlight=ayoobian

One of the topics for consideration was the myth that somehow the use of handloads could be used against the good guy in a self defense shooting and so factory ammo should be used to protect against this potential legal liability. Nobody was able to show a case where this had happened and Ayoob, to my knowledge, had never posted a case in all of his years of publishing that supported the myth. Even so, several folks wanted to argue that just because it had not happened, it could. That is interesting logic and by the same argument, just because I haven't been abducted by space aliens from Ork, it still could happen. Uh, sure. With that in mind, folks did note that about anything surrounding a shooting could be introduced. Just because it is introduced does not mean it is relevant and will cause the case to go south.

Okay, I am hugely pleased to point out in the Sept 2004 "Combat Handguns" issue that Ayoob has published an example that pretty well shoots down the contention that handloads can be effectively used against you in a justified self defense shooting. Unfortunately, he posts vague references to many of his examples even though they are from public court records. So, I haven't been able to verify his examples, but they are HIS examples and not mine. On page 8, example number 1 is of an officer's use of a Glock loaded with Hydrashok ammo in a self defense shooting. Attacks on both aspects failed. What is interesting, while it has been pointed out in previous publications & discussions that lawyers might somehow claim that handloads were somehow super loaded killer death rounds, the prosecturing lawyer in the case was apparently going in that direction. In Case 9 on page 95, the lawyer was specifically arguing that Hydrashoks' purpose was to "tear great and terrible wounds," implying malice aforethought on the part of the officer for using the round. WOW!!!

So Ayoob presented two examples where there were attacks specifically against factory ammo!!! So if you can't use handload ammo and you can't use factory ammo, then what do you get to shoot??? Strangely, with two cases of factory ammo being attacked, Ayoob does not argue against its use. Given that he has given two examples of factory rounds being attacked and none for handloads, one might gain the impression that factory ammo poses a greater liability than handloaded. Of course, that would be poor reasoning and neither ammo is necessarily more problematic in terms of being factory or handload.

As Ayoob pointed out in case one, Things like attacking the officer's gun or ammunition are the sort of things that are predictably used by lawyers who have no substantive." Of course, whether the lawyer's attack is on an officer or citizen would equally apply. In other words, the lawyer is trying to throw out red herrings. Here, I would argue that it won't just be the gun or ammo that is going to be attacked in desparation. If the lawyers don't have anything substantive, then they will attack anything that might remotely work in their favor, logical, realistic, or not. Just because the perspective can be brought up in court does not mean it will be effective. Apparently, the attacks against factory ammo Hydrashoks went nowhere, but they were attacks in court.

If we take this a step further, attacking the ammo type used in a self defense shooting, is a desparate tactic on behalf of the attorney, regardless of whether the ammo is factory or handload.

While Ayoob did not say as much, I would like to believe that this article with the ammo issue being put as the first example used, is a first attempt at rectifying the myth that he propagated for so long that handloads are bad for self defense legal liability reasons. If not intentional on his part, at least bold face quote above should go a long way to squelching the myth since a major proponent of the myth is now an opponent of it.

 

[Boats]

Once again a not so secret secret is revealed--a lawyer will say anything within the bounds of heaven and earth if it will advance the goal of the case.

How do I know? I am one.

Watch this:

Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence will show. . .

. . .that the defendant here purposely used exploding hollowpoint ammunition to create the most grevious injuries to the deceased that he could. Such a selection of ammunition will highlight the defendant's murderous intent.

. . .that the defendant, with malice aforethought, fired military ball ammunition at the deceased because, in his own words pulled from an internet boast, "it feeds better and penetrates deeper" than ammunition such as that used by the local police, which is designed to not overpenetrate and endanger people beyond the target. His selection of military ammunition was to ensure that he could shoot the deceased with a decreased risk of malfunction and that the shot would likely go right through him, as it did doubling its lethal damage.

. . .used 9mm ammunition, so that he could "fire to slidelock" SIXTEEN TIMES!

. . .used .45ACP ammunition, to create wounds almost three quarters of an inch around when the killer hollowpoint expanded. That is the thickness of an adult man's thumb and shows a lethal turn of mind.

. . .used a hand concoted homemade round, because evidently, store bought ammunition wasn't lethal enough or reliable enough for his nefarious ends.

. . .used Golden Sabre, a bullet named after a sword and a selection indicative of his lethal intent.

. . .used an automatic pistol in order to have more rounds at his disposal.

. . .used a revolver, not just any revolver, but a MAGNUM, a specialized round designed to be more lethal than a normal round.

. . .you get the point.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Unfortunately, he posts vague references to many of his examples even though they are from public court records. So, I haven't been able to verify his examples,

Classic Ayoob.










Why is it that "rolleyes" is the only smilie I ever seem to use anymore? Hmmmm...

 

[CaesarI]

Good post. I don't read the gun rags err.... magazines, so I would not otherwise have been aware of this article by Ayoob.

-Morgan

 

[DigitalWarrior]

How the hell did this happen?

What the hell could happen to the world where a man can look into the mirror and know that he is going to go into a court of law in order to ruin a man's life with a lie.

Go ahead and tell me that intentionally misleading someone isn't lying.

 

[Standing Wolf]

We need to control assault lawyers.

 

[Specialized]

What the hell could happen to the world where a man can look into the mirror and know that he is going to go into a court of law in order to ruin a man's life with a lie.

Go ahead and tell me that intentionally misleading someone isn't lying.

You see, lawyers that are given to arguing in this manner will tell you that it's not necessarily a "lie", so much as a "point of view". They'll tell you that our court system is "adversarial", and that we just don't understand the vagarities and nuances that make it work out "for the best". That the truth isn't black and white, but shades of grey.

That's why I'm continually amazed that there's not a hunting season for them. A very long one, with no bag limit.

Fortunately, the best quality Ayoob posesses, besides a pretty commanding presence while speaking publicly, is that he's dedicated his career to formulating answers to such canards and untruths, and has made quite a living defending people like you and me when they "do it right" and some ambitious and enterprising State's Attorney or Prosecutor sets up and presents such a load of crap so that they can 1) take away our freedom, or 2) set the stage for extracting large sums of money from us in a civil trial, or 3) both, all because they want to advance their careers in a very public way, and/or the Dearly Departed supposedly "wouldn't do such a thing" as jeopardize the life of another.

An unhealthy consequence of this type of legal roulette is the highly unfair plea-bargaining environment that has come about as a result of it. If you'd like to see a good treatment of it, watch the recent Frontline episode on it (you can see it online here). It chronicles the games lawyers play to advance their careers and showcase their abilities for constituents and/or potential clients. As one legal expert asserts in the show, "… we have tens of thousands of cases. They can't all be tried. You have to get people to plead guilty. If you don't, the system breaks down." Unless somebody has rewritten the constitution lately, that doesn't square with the protections written into it having to do with everybody having a right to a fair trial. The coersion brought to bear by prosecutors, and in turn by their opposing counsel, has made a farce out of this "right". Given the politically charged atmosphere surrounding every one of these self-defense cases, the games are played for even higher stakes than the typical some-nobody-got-caught-doing-something-wrong cases that come up every day.

I can hear people asking, "if it's so bad, what are you doing about it, Specialized?" Well, the answer is this: I'm doing all I can by voicing my opinion wherever and whenever I can, doing so in a civilized manner, and voting responsibly at every opportunity. As such, please note that I do not in any way advocate harming anyone, lawyer or not, unless that person has put you in immediate and grave life-threatening jeopardy. Lawyers pulling this kind of crap in court do not meet this standard, because while they're trying their damndest to do you in for the betterment of their careers or to "keep the system moving along", the jeopardy they're going for is not directly immediate or life-threatening. Why do I include this "legal disclaimer" in my post? Because it's been my experience that lawyers cannot resist throwing their skills and influence around when they think they've been insulted or wronged, and because they are insiders in the "system" that can put the lay person in this sort of legal danger quite readily. And also because there is not, in fact, a legal hunting season for them anywhere that I know of, even despite the fact that they hunt us on a regular basis in a fashion sanctioned by our federal, state, and local governments.

Think I'm a little "over the top" with my opinions here? Try this: go to criminal court in your city or town for a day or two and watch the proceedings all day. Watch how cavalierly these "bargains" are negotiated, and the little inside jokes and snickers that the participants in the process trade, and then try to figure out what in the world the judge was thinking on the more unbelievable decisions that are made. It's an education, especially in a larger city.

Just my opinion. As with all opinions, your mileage may vary.

 

[Smoke]

Paradigmatic

Is that really a word?

Smoke

 

[Boats]

FWIW, we are not all like that.

It really is a chicken and the egg kind of problem. A lawyer cannot make someone litigious, those clients come from somewhere. People just don't turn the other cheek anymore or accept that sometimes bad things happen to good people. It begs the question if legal professionals are the catalyst or just tools in the hands of increasingly aggreived individuals.

As for overzealous prosecutors? Punish them at the polls, that's what voting is for.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Maybe to clear things up a bit, I will say what I have said in the past. The legal liability in a self defense shooting is NOT in the choice of gun or ammo, but in the choice of pulling the trigger.

The significant point to all this is that folks who have been reading Ayoob over the years and making legally silly self defense decisions based on some of his unsubstantiated concerns may want to rethink their decisions. There is NO reason to carry the same guns or ammunition that the local LEOs carry for legal purposes. You should carry the best gun, caliber, and ammo that you can afford and can shoot well. Their reasons for chosing ammo may have zero to do with your particular self defense issues and needs and as Ayoob is pointing out, the choices of gun and ammo don't represent any sort of relevant weakness when it comes to going to court.

Once again, the legal liability is not in the gun, caliber, or ammo, but in pulling the trigger. If you have the right to use lethal force, then these are non-issues. Yes, lawyers may attempt to say things about each and it won't matter if you have handloads, factory, or hollowpoints. In the end, their attacks on these issues is because they have nothing of substance dealing with the legality of the actual issue of self defense.

 

[whm1974]

Maybe to clear things up a bit, I will say what I have said in the past. The legal liability in a self defense shooting is NOT in the choice of gun or ammo, but in the choice of pulling the trigger.

While this is the Law, prosecutors may try to use the fact you used exotic ammo with the name "Manslayer" that's adventised to make sure that the person you shoot is dead against you. However I would use run of the mill hollow-points from a brand name maker.

-Bill

 

[ksnecktieman]

Sorry about the choice of ammo, sir,,,, I was loaded with "silver tips" because I was expecting some vampires?

 

[Specialized]

Huh... That's Funny...

Your first post:

Once again a not so secret secret is revealed--a lawyer will say anything within the bounds of heaven and earth if it will advance the goal of the case.

How do I know? I am one.

...aaand, your next post:

FWIW, we are not all like that.

Which one of you is being truthful?

I'm really not trying to pick on you or anyone else. I just have to wonder sometimes, what is the typical layman (like me) supposed to think? Can it be that after their training, lawyers can no longer identify the truth? Out of curiosity, how is a lawyer supposed to reconcile the societal moral obligation to do right with the "secret" in your first post above? I get the same irritation when watching these high-profile trials on TV, like the OJ trial and the current Petersen case, where the defense attorneys are throwing every far-flung theory they can dream up against the wall, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, just to see what will stick with the jury. No proof, no evidence, just pure, unadulterated sleight-of-hand. How can that possibly be considered responsible, or even in the best interests of justice?

Maybe we should try this: attorneys should be able to forward any provable theory they want in order to further the interests of their client (the state, or the defendant). In the event that the defense's theory can be proven to be wrong or if he/she can't prove it, the attorney should suffer the same punishment as the defendant. In the case where the prosecutor forwards a theory that turns out to be provably wrong or if he/she can't prove it, the prosecutor should get the same punishment the defendant would have gotten had the defendant been found guilty. It seems to me that unless the lawyers have some skin in the game, they will have no incentive to even try to be truthful, and we'll continue to escalate the current Bullsh*t Olympics. Make sense?

The state of our legal system has gotten every bit as stupid as CEO pay and professional athletes' salaries. Where does it all end? I can refuse to go to pro games anymore, but we have little or no control over the other two.

I agree with you on one point, though -- people in this country cannot accept that bad things do happen sometimes, and that otherwise good people sometimes do very bad things. This is the only country I know of where people believe they have the right to a happy life. Life is hard, in some way or another, for everyone. We just don't seem to understand that sometimes.

As to whether lawyers are catalysts or merely tools of disgruntled people, I believe the two feed on one another. And the only ones that consistently profit from it are the lawyers, no?

 

[Boats]

Uh, no.

Your insurance companies are by far the biggest players in the legal services market. Every one worth its salt is in the multibillion dollar behemoth class. You could pay your premiums to your auto insurer dutifully for thirty years and get the third degree if you were struck by an uninsured motorist. I see that happen multiple times a year.

As for my first post, it was sarcasm, playing off the popular perception that lawyers will say anything. Of course there are logical and ethical constraints on that, not that our critics will bother to notice. The second post merely states that we do not all neatly fall into convenient stereotypes people have of us as a profession. It is amusing to read in L&P that when the JBTs are harassing open carriers or CCW'ers who flashed that the first thing said is to get a lawyer. Who do you suppose these people hire? Answer: Criminal defense attorneys, those scum of the universe on all of the cases you prejudge based on press accounts. "But, no, wait, this time they are falsely accusing ME!"

As for this:

Maybe we should try this: attorneys should be able to forward any provable theory they want in order to further the interests of their client (the state, or the defendant). In the event that the defense's theory can be proven to be wrong or if he/she can't prove it, the attorney should suffer the same punishment as the defendant. In the case where the prosecutor forwards a theory that turns out to be provably wrong or if he/she can't prove it, the prosecutor should get the same punishment the defendant would have gotten had the defendant been found guilty. It seems to me that unless the lawyers have some skin in the game, they will have no incentive to even try to be truthful, and we'll continue to escalate the current Bullsh*t Olympics. Make sense?

Great. Apply it accross the board. You the mechanic couldn't fix my car based on your theories about what was wrong with it? You buy it. You the doctor who didn't catch my mother's breast cancer in time for lack of ordering a test? You die. You the school teacher who failed to teach Johnny to read? Do his armed robbery sentence. A businessman denies receiving the shipment and then it is proven he did? Make his mother pay for it for raising him wrong.

Would you care to elucidate as to what, exactly, a provable theory, or position, or defense is? Don't bother. Clients tell the attorney what to say. There hasn't been a client yet in my experience who has said something like, "Hey dude, I really hurt myself moving my girlfriend's couch on the weekend and I staged my lifting accident at work on Monday. Here's how we overturn the insurer's denial." To promulgate that lie of the client's under oath would be subourning perjury and it is a disbarrment level offense in most states to willingly do it. However, that exact scenario is what happened and I was used to advance the lie he never let me in on. He was only discovered after a broader search of the region's medical centers turned up a visit to an urgent care clinic two days before the work accident. What happened there was nothing of my doing, though I championed what he told me until it was proven he was lying. Why should my skin be in on that scenario? Certain clients will lie to me, to the judge, to you, be proven totally wrong in the end and still maintain their version of "the truth." I suppose I could subject all my clients to a prescreening polygraph, but it becomes hard to establish a trust relationship that way.

Perhaps people should raise their kids to be moral and tell the truth. The world would be a damn sight better for it.

And as long as insurance companies continue to say injured workers weren't really hurt at work, but are hurt due to "predispositions," aren't hurt as badly as their doctors say they are when no one denies they were hurt at work, or their future working prospects were never worth a damn in terms of retraining following a career ending injury, I'll be fully employed thanks.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Quote,
"While this is the Law, prosecutors may try to use the fact you used exotic ammo with the name "Manslayer" that's adventised to make sure that the person you shoot is dead against you. However I would use run of the mill hollow-points from a brand name maker.

-Bill"

I think you read the point and completely missed it. The prosecution can try to portray any aspect of a case in a negative light. That does not mean that such an attempt is correct or effective. What is salient here is that Ayoob has essentially backed down as a long time proponent that gun or ammo choice is going to be a legal nightmare in a self defense shooting. I think this is a correct move on his part as he has never put forth cases where such factors have caused a case to go against the self defense shooter. When I queried folks from THR in the link above, none had any knowledge of actual cases where handloads had gone against the self defense shooter.

Conceptually, it might have been a very cautionary view that ammo choice might be problematic, but that has not turned out to be the case.

What is so cool is that now Ayoob is specifically saying is that when lawyers try to pull this crap, they basically are without anything substantial in the case against the shooter. Why would that happen? Well maybe after years of cautioning otherwise, Ayoob has seen that nobody seems to be getting hung out to dry for using handloads in self defense or using a particular gun like a Glock with no safeties. If you have the right to use lethal force in a self defense situation, ammo choice and gun type will not alter the fact that you had the right to use self defense.

What really scares me about the myth is portrayed quite well by you, Bill. As I understand from your post, you would not use an ammo called Manslayer because of the name and advertised super performance. Assuming the super performance was actually true, what I am gathering is that you would still use another brand of ammo that did not perform as well because of some perception that you might have more troubles with Manslayer brand ammo in the legal system after surviving the fight, undoubtedly after slaying your aggressor in a self defense shooting. Is that right? So in other words, you would be willing to use less effective ammo to defend your life because of the fear of what might happen later to you in court. That is very dangerous reasoning! And it is reasoning that is based on no actual track record of legal precedents. As I pointed out, there is more evidence presented by Ayoob that using run of the mill factory Hydrashoks is more likely to cause you problems than handloads, but when that has happened, as Ayoob has now noted, it has gone nowhere...so long as the shooter had the right to use lethal force.

Potential legal concerns about absolutely hypothetical negative court events should NOT be a deciding factor in what ammo you choose over that ammo's performance and your ability to manipulate that ammo in a firearm in an effective manner. Worry about saving your life first, not mythical legal problems. Specifically, ammo names are NOT going to get you in trouble any more than the brand name on your tennis shoes. Such information isn't salient and doesn't change the circumstances of the shooting.

 

[trapperjohn]

what people seem to be forgetting is that if you are brought up in either a criminal or civil trial your fate is in the hands of a jury! and each jury can be different. One jury may not think handloads show evil intent, others may. More than likely you will have a group of common citizens deciding your fate that you would not want doing so. The lawyer on the other side will Say WHATEVER he things wil inflame the jury against you. One of the best defenses in any lawsuit is to show that what you did, and the decisions you made, are exactly like what any other person would have made. I am nto a lawyer, but i have worked as an engineering expert in many cases, beleive me, anything a defendant does that varies from what his peers do will be used against him. How effect that is is totally dependant on the jury. Assuming that your choice of ammo will be brought out and used against you, the best thing i think you could say is "I am no vigilante, and am nto interested in inflicting great harm, when deciding what self defense rond to use I chose the round that most law enforcement people use because they are the experts in the legal use of firarms for self defense" or some such line.

 

[Wild Bill]

FWIW …

Seems like a hundred years since I’ve read a gun rag. Not a big fan of any of the writers – Ayoob included – but IIRC his original objection to handloads had more to do with technical evidentiary issues than with perceptions.

His argument way back when was that manufactured ammo lots had technical testing data on file. Blast patterns, burn rates, velocity … all were repeatable and relatively uniform within the lot batch. In the aftermath of a shoot this data could be used to clarify factual issues (distance, direction of shot…) and could in some cases make a critical difference in the eventual verdict.

Handloads, by contrast, have neither the consistency nor the available test data in such a form as could be used in court. Hence the advice against their use in a defensive application.

End of contribution.
We return you now to your regularly scheduled lawyer bashing.

 

[flatrock]

Sorry, but I don't see how Ayoob contradicts himself.

The assertion that handloading self defense ammo MAY cause problems for you in court is related to how the jury may preceive your actions.

Yes, it is possible that a lawyer may point out that you used factory ammo specifically designed for maximum damage.

With reloads they can point out that you methodically loaded rounds with bullets which were designed for maximum damage, and tested these self created bullets of death to make sure they would have the maximum effect of tearing a huge hole in human flesh.

A jury isn't likely to have people on it that understand why people handload ammunition, and the jury is going to be making judgement calls on your character. The prosecutor, or lawyer for the family of the deceased in a wrongful death suit, may very well do everything they can to paint you as some radical person that doesn't fit right in society, and has a callous disregard for human life.

Will the fact that you handloaded the ammunition factor in to the jury's opinion of you? No one knows for sure. However, Ayoob has a lot more experience in dealing with juries than I do, so I think his opinions are worth considering.

It sounds like it hasn't been used as a major factor in convicting anyone yet.
Even if it is used, it will be almost impossible to tell if it had a large factor in the jury's decision. Even if one jury does say that it was a factor in their decision, that doesn't mean that wasn't a unique situation.

There just aren't that many cases of where handloaded ammunition was used in a shooting to guage how a jury will perceive that situation.

Ayoob's opinion on this is simply his opinion based on what he's learned. It's not an undisputed fact, and it's unlikely to be proven or disproven any time soon.

 

[buzz_knox]

What is so cool is that now Ayoob is specifically saying is that when lawyers try to pull this crap, they basically are without anything substantial in the case against the shooter. Why would that happen? Well maybe after years of cautioning otherwise, Ayoob has seen that nobody seems to be getting hung out to dry for using handloads in self defense or using a particular gun like a Glock with no safeties. If you have the right to use lethal force in a self defense situation, ammo choice and gun type will not alter the fact that you had the right to use self defense.

I'm with flatrock. Ayoob didn't contradict himself at all. He has consistently said that a lawyer with no substantive case will use any means necessary to sway the jury. That's what he says in his courses, that's what he's said over lunch and dinner, and that's what he's said in the various articles I've read. His whole point was not to give the bad guys extra ammunition (pardon the pun) to come after you. It's not as if handloads are universally better than factory loads, or that a pistol with "death dealer" enscribed on the side is more effective than an unengraved one. But hey, if you want to assert the right to use those, or even to yell a racial epithet at your attacker (which also should have no effect on the justification of the shoot in a perfect world), go for it. Just be prepared to explain to everyone why you did that. That's his whole bloody point: understand why you are doing something and be prepared to explain it to a jury.

Just remember: you aren't the one who decides if a shoot is legitimate, it's the trier of fact who determines if you were justified. They weren't there, and all they have is the evidence. If their interpretation differs from yours, guess who wins? It ain't you. Once again, and with feeling this time, what you think about the shoot doesn't matter, it's what the jury, judge, DA, investigator, etc. thinks that will determine whether you walk away or become someone's cell mate.

As for the "it's not happened before so it won't happen now" argument, I'm sorry, but that's plain ignorance speaking. New law is made every day in courts. I know, as I've helped do it.

 

[Don Gwinn]

I keep factory ammo in my defensive guns because I've made at least one squib round that I know of (because it lodged the bullet in a USP .45 barrel with six rounds left in the magazine! )

 

[halvey]

I'd think it would depend on the state a lot. Big anti states you'd have more of a pool that would convict on this.

I guess bottom line is use what you think is best.

 

[Specialized]

Oh, I Get It!

You've forwarded several lines of reasoning, Boats. I appreciate your staying with it so I can understand how my perceptions must be wrong, or impossibly simplistic, or caused by other forces like that evil old insurance industry. But I'm still not catching on.

So if you don't mind, I'll just ask a few questions and maybe you can show me the error of my ways with the answers. Okay?

First of all: How do you figure the "popular perception" that lawyers will say anything got started? Was it just a smear campaign by somebody who feels they got shafted by one? Maybe by the Evil Insurance Industry (EII)? I mean, you don't think it got started because lawyers have, over the years, shown any great willingness to say anything they have to in order to win, do you? Maybe that explains why lawyer jokes enjoy their own genre?

Also: How can I understand your line of reasoning if you cherry-pick examples from all over the legal spectrum? First it's insurance fraud. Then it's CCW's and JBT's. Then it's disability fraud. Sorta reminds me of the Petersen and OJ cases' defense strategies again, for some reason.

The overall theme of your reply seems to be that lawyers have been dealt this lot by all manner of other, outside influences. I just cannot buy that. I know alot of people don't raise their kids well. I know people sometimes do bad things. I know some people would rather do wrong than right. And I know defense attorneys can be saviors for the innocent, just as prosecutors can be angels of justice for their constituents and the families of victims, etc. But all of that masks a greater truth that puts a significant number of innocent people in legal jeopardy, simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time: our legal system has degenerated into a bargaining and negotiation venue in which legal decisions often have very little to do with the actual guilt or innocence of the defendant, and everything to do with politics, public perception, and the personal desires and viewpoints of the custodians of that system.

And as far as applying the legal example to mechanics and doctors and teachers, there's a hint of truth in some of what you said but your conclusion seems wrong. A mechanic would not normally take the customer's word for it as to what is wrong with their car, as I see it. Doctors are supposed to order tests based on accepted medical practice and their own observations. Teachers are supposed to teach children, not raise them. I get it. But where your leap of logic misses the edge of the canyon is this: none of those people take their clients' word at face value, because they have more knowledge on their specialties and are ultimately responsible for the outcome of their services. Why is it, then, that laywers are allowed to do so? What is so wrong with looking at your client and saying, "I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Try again."? So many of the lawyers in these cases on both sides -- prosecutors, defendants, counsels for the plaintiff -- just blithely push a position because it works for them politically or financially or because their lowlife doofus client tells them some far-out tale with no basis in reality whatsoever. And then both sides argue it to the n-th degree trying to sway the opinions of a group of jurors or a judge and end up ...

Mechanics check your car out, using your description of the symptoms as their starting place. Doctors don't treat patients based on patients' diagnoses, they use their input as a starting place and diagnose based on medical investigation. Why can't lawyers take their clients' versions of events as a starting place, and do a little investigating on their own to weed out the ridiculous from the valid before going into court to represent the client?

Am I wrong? Maybe we're saying the same thing from wholly different viewpoints: maybe the root problem is the lack of personal responsibility in society today. I mean, why should we care? Everybody else is doing it, right?

 

[Mute]

Not again. Does Ayoob really say that if you use exotic ammo or reloads that it WILL be used against you by the prosecution or does he say it MIGHT be used against you. Big difference there. I never got the idea from reading his articles that it's the former.

Mind you I don't agree with everything said by Ayood, but this is really making mountains out of molehills.

 

[Specialized]

From what I can remember of it, Ayoob told us in his Judicious Use of Deadly Force class (the first part of LFI-1) that any ammo could be defended in court fairly readily unless it was some sort of outlawed or banned round, like armor-piercing or phosphorus (in some states, like IL). His big thing was that the defense needs to anticipate the arguments that will be applied by the prosecution, and then be ready to counter them with knowledge and common sense. In effect, he excels at turning prosecutors' own arguments against them this way.

The first tenet of all of these choices was that, in the case of a responsible self-defense shooting, the legal basis for shooting to kill has already been established and the justification for taking a human life exists and only then the decision to fire is made. At that point, it is a reasonable expectation for the shooter to desire that the rounds he's shooting have the best chance of being fatal to his target.

His reasoning on the choice of ammo went something like this: What your local police use is a smart choice because they, with the higher standard of care that goes along with their status as protectors of society, have determined the rounds to be the best and most responsible choice when taking a life with a firearm is necessary. As such, it's totally defensible for anyone responsibly in that position to do the same.

That was a great course, by the way, well worth the time if you haven't already taken it. I wouldn't recommend the Stressfire (shooting) portion of LFI-1 unless you're a fairly new or brand-new shooter, because it's pretty basic, but if so it's a very good introduction.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Mute, what Ayoob has published on for quite some time is that the use of race guns, modified guns (trigger job=bad), handloads, exotic ammo, etc. may/can be used against you by opposition attorneys. The problem is that it has been spouted for so long that it has become a commonly accepted 'fact' that such things will get you into trouble in otherwise legal self defense shootings. This is a misperception that has never been shown by Ayoob or anyone else to actually have come true as noted in the thread link I made in the first post.

If you read various forums and their threads on ammo and guns, you will get folks who have bought into the myth lock, stock and barrel. whm1974's post above is classic in that he won't use some exotic ammo because he thinks it might cause him some problem and so he would use regular hollowpoint ammo. This is scary stuff. We have good people making self defense ammo choices based on unsubstantiated legal paranoia insteand of basing their decisions on the effectiveness of the ammo.

Specialized, note only does Ayoob say in his classes that you should consider using the ammo and guns the local police use, but he has published this as well. What sort of bogus reasoning is that? How many of us actually know the reasoning going into the ammo choices of their local police departments? Is it because of a higher standard of care for society or because some company slipped in a lowest bid to supply the department with ammo? Is the decision actually made based on ballistic performance or based on cost? I think you will find that cost becomes a huge factor in ammo selection by police departments.

Also, if you are a non-police officer, do you have the same resources as the local cops when you are carrying their type of guns and ammo? For example, Dallas Police carry a round and caliber I think isn't too great, but they can get on the radio and call 'shots fired' or 'officer down' and have a hundred cops respond immediately. I can call 911 in Dallas and expect the response time to be greater than 20 minutes, even if shots are fired. It would be a lot more prudent to carry ammo significantly more powerful than the local Dallas cops because I don't have the resources they have to back me up.

The next aspect is just what local LEO agency do you use to make your decision? Our local dog catchers are LEOs and they have .22s. The Federal Marshals use .357 sig. The cops use 9 mm. The FBI uses a variety of calibers as does the sheriff's office. What is my justification for choosing ammo from a given agency?

So Ayoob suggest using what the local cops use. Like his references to NOT using handloads and exotics, he has absolutely no court examples to support the notion that carrying what the local cops carry will somehow present you in a better light. It is just as much of an unsubstantiated myth. How is carrying the same ammo as the cops going to affect a self defense shooting. If you had the right to use lethal force, will ammo choice change that in any way? Nope.

I think it is very cool that Ayoob has finally come out and said in print, hopefully getting over the myth that has mutated into this sort of know factual reasoning, that if the opposition lawyer goes after your ammo choice or gun choice in a self defense shooting, it is because that lawyer doesn't have anything substantive about the shooting to indicate that you did anything wrong. He may go after your skin color as well, but if a white guy attacks a black guy and the black guy defends himself with the appropriate force, that doesn't make it a racial response, but the lawyers may try to play that angle. So what? It is just background noise.