Ayoobian Paradigmatic Shift? Ammo Choice

[benEzra]

I have quite a collection of Ayoob's articles and books on the shelf, and a fairer summary of what he says would be be prepared to defend your choices in court. He doesn't actually say don't ever use a single-action auto for defense; he says that an opposing lawyer CAN bring up the light-trigger/negiglent-discharge argument, and you should be prepared to give your good reasons why you chose the SA auto ("I found that I can shoot an SA auto much more accurately, thereby minimizing the risk to innocent bystanders," and so on). See also "Ayoob's Law of Necessary Hypocrisy" (his words).

BTW, I carry a 9mm DA/SA auto (S&W 3913LS) loaded with Cor-Bon 115-gr +P JHP's, in a Bianchi Black Widow holster (when feasible), and two spare mags. I can logically defend every aspect of those choices than an unscrupulous opposing lawyer could bring up. So I'm not worried. I would recommend that whatever you carry, you be able to articulate a reason why, which is what I read Ayoob as saying.

Off topic--as far as lawyers, I know there are good and bad, but I believe our tort system itself is a huge part of the problem; it's better than the lottery. My 5-year-old son is one of the silent victims of the tort system; he absolutely requires the digestive motility drug Propulsid (cisapride) to function, and (thanks to much pushing by Ralph Nader's Public Citizen HRG) the tort system drove it off the market. We now travel 1700 miles round-trip every four months to get it on an investigational-access basis, and our continued access hangs by a thread.

 

[Specialized]

Double Naught Spy said:

not 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.

That's a good point you've made. My experience has been that they spend more time and effort evaluating bullet performance than that spent on the characteristics of the issue guns themselves. In our department, the officers can carry a pretty flexible range of sidearms, but the ammo used is dictated based on testing and research. That's the way it is with most of the major departments around here, though most "borrow" the research from other PD's who've done the math or they just co-opt another department's choice. The lowest-bidder phenomenon is no doubt common as well.

 

[buzz_knox]

So what? It is just background noise.

That "background noise" is the difference between walking free and spending the next few years as a prisoner's toy. I once saw a wrongful death case turn on whether one person cursed or not. You think I'm not going to take everything into consideration BEFORE I get to court, you're crazy.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

The lawyer on the other side will Say WHATEVER he things wil inflame the jury against you.

No, he is restrained by the legal requirement that all questioning, evidence and testimony be relevant to the issue at hand. If you, the defendant, claim it was a legit shooting, evidence has to go either to show that you were or were not justified, and cannot be unfairly prejudicial, i.e., cannot tend to inflame a jury beyond its evidentiary value. If such questioning, evidence or testimony is introduced, it will be properly objected to on that basis. What is the evidentiary value of the destructiveness of the bullet design? It shows that the bullets were designed to destroy tissue. What are bullets designed to do in general? Destroy tissue. Not relevant to the issue of justification. Not admissible evidence.

 

[BigG]

how could this happen?

Bill Clinton was a liar, um, lawyer, wasn't he?

 

[BigG]

AFAIK, court cases are usually only reported on appeal, and then only in certain cases. Appeals are about specific mistakes alleged against the prosecution in procedure, etc. Therefore, the actual arguments advanced in the lower court would be unrecorded and not even taken into consideration in the Appeals Court. JMTC

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Buzz, taking everything into consideration before you go to court is 100% fine, AFTER you are involved in an incident. Making self defense choices, such as what ammo to carry, based on what might happen in court based on a cautionary myth is not practical and it is counter intuitive to self defense issues.

The cautionary warnings, such as not using handloads because they could be used against you in court, or to only use what the LEOs use because such stuff will be seen favorably in court is just theoretical fluff with absolutely no bearing on any reported reality. If handloads are the best self defense ammo you have, would you abandon the ammo to use something less effective because you think things might go better for you in court, assuming the case ever gets to court? As already noted in this thread, folks have been taking Ayoob's cautionary statements as factual reality and making decisions on self defense loads and weapons, not based on performance, but based on what might possibly happen in court even though no such cases have been reported. That is bad.

So, that is why it is so exciting that Ayoob is specifically noting that gun and ammo choices, when it comes to court and being challenged by the opposition, are going to be issues when the opposition has nothing of substance to use.

Hey, in the cases mentioned, the prosecutor's went after factory hollowpoint ammo (Hydrashok). Since it now has a history of being challenged in court and we know it can be brought up and potentially cause us some problems, should we not carry Hydrashok ammo for that reason? Of course not! You may choose not to carry Hydrashok, but it should not be because a couple of lawyers tried to present it in a negative light.

 

[buzz_knox]

Since we are all speaking about evidentiary value, what will happen in court, etc., let's all remember one thing: a person who takes legal advice from the internet is not particularly bright and a person who says "this is what will happen in court and such evidence won't be presented to the jury" has read the textbook, but not been before too many judges or juries. It's all BS. What determines what gets to the jury is whether or not the judge has 'roids that morning, whether the defendant irritated the judge or looks like the person who ditched his daughter, etc. Judges are people, not textbooks. Speaking as someone who has had a judge ignore the law because my boss made him mad years ago, I can honestly state that the one thing you can never say is "this will happen." As soon as you state what will happen beyond a procedural issue, you're engaged in a fantasy. Want to state a probability, fine. Want to state a surety, you're doing your client a big disservice.

 

[buzz_knox]

Buzz, taking everything into consideration before you go to court is 100% fine, AFTER you are involved in an incident. Making self defense choices, such as what ammo to carry, based on what might happen in court based on a cautionary myth is not practical and it is counter intuitive to self defense issues.

Really? Impractical and counter intuitive? Hmmm. I don't carry a weapon or ammunition unless I can explain to a jury why I do so, in excrutiating detail. The benefit of that is it makes me really think about my choices, and to gather supporting evidence to show why those choices are valid. This has led me to reevaluate why I do things, and to do them for the right reasons. So, personally, I think that if you haven't done exactly what you say is impractical, you're doing yourself a disservice. But given the fact that you haven't offered to indemnify anyone for your free legal advice should they rely upon it and suffer, it's only your tail on the line.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Sure enough, I am expressing opinion that sounds like offering free legal advice on the internet, as are you in suggesting folks be wary of free legal advice on the internet, as are many folks expressing opinions in this thread (not all), as is Ayoob in his writings. Often, such is worth what you pay for it. No doubt that everyone should be duly cautioned to seek appropriate legal representation, etc. etc. etc. Okay, disclaimer over.

Taken as whatever type of advice you want to take it as, pick the carry ammo that will work best for you in your gun and that you think will provide the best protection/stopping power for you. Now, if you think that your ammo choice may somehow be problematic in court somewhere down the line, consult a lawyer now and work on your legally tight justification for its use. Then you will be adequately prepared on both the self defense and legal fronts.

Choosing an ammo, gun, etc. for self defense based on what might happen in court later because of unsubstantiated, perpetuated myths by gun writers over what ammo will best serve to protect your life and the lives of your loved ones is bassackwards reasoning and is unsound. And yet, this is exactly what a lot of people do. Ayoob and others have played on the legal fears of folks for a long time and now they are more afraid of a criminal court case going south than of the results of not being able to stop an attacker. So they choose what they think is legally sound ammo and not necessarily what is going to provide the best stopping power. While such writers felt they were providing a nice service to the general public on how to keep their potential legal hassles lower, they were providing a disservice in that they were not promoting folks choose the best self defense ammo for their abilities, platform, etc. They were putting legal issues over life by suggesting folks not use certain types of ammo or guns because some issues about the guns or ammo might be brought up in court and might be portrayed in a negative light. None of the writers ever showed where a justified self defense shooting got thrown out or railroaded into some sort of criminal conviction for the shooting because of ammo use or gun. Granted, some folks received weapons charges for illegal weapons (several examples from New York and Chicago), but those aspects never managed to change anything about the circumstances of the self defense acts. Imagine that, and yet gunwriters like Ayoob intimated that it could happen, but never provided examples of where it did.

Hey, if you don't survive the fight, then what does it matter that you chose the poor performing Miss Prissy brand Safe Ammo to use in your gun so as to avoid potential legal issues?

So once again, that is why I think it is so cool that Ayoob is showing court cases where even supposedly safe factory ammo can be attacked in court, but notes that such attacks on ammo or gun come when the prosecution really has no case against the self defense shooter and are bascially fishing. Ayoob now appears to be intimating that the liability isn't with the gun or ammo when it coms to self defense shootings. Imagine that.

 

[buzz_knox]

Ayoob now appears to be intimating that the liability isn't with the gun or ammo when it coms to self defense shootings. Imagine that.

Follow that up with a reminder that liability will be determined solely by the trier of fact, who can be influenced by many things, and you are getting closer to the truth. If your gun says "death dealer" or "Kill them all. God's on a coffee break", you'd better be prepared to explain that to a cop, DA, grand jury, judge or criminal/civil jury. Because they won't be at the scene of the shooting when it happens but they will be reviewing the evidence based on their own preconceptions and what the more influential lawyer convinces them of. Good men and women are in prison today because a perfectly justifiable homicide was twisted around in court.

Here's my last point: it is a fundamental error to believe that every fact concerning the shooting, whether seemingly harmless or inconsequential, won't come in. Go to take a look at El Tejon's postings concerning how much his clients' appearances concerned him, in non-capital cases. Do you think he was overreacting or is he just an experienced litigator who knows that everything you do or did is under scrutiny?

 

[Mute]

I've read more than my share of Ayoob's writings and though I agree with some of his stuff I've never felt the need to seek out my local PD's ammo of choice or to avoid any kind of customization on my self defense firearms. Perhaps the people who quote Ayoob as gospel just needs to brush up on the reading skills and acquire some common sense.

 

[benEzra]

No, he is restrained by the legal requirement that all questioning, evidence and testimony be relevant to the issue at hand. If you, the defendant, claim it was a legit shooting, evidence has to go either to show that you were or were not justified, and cannot be unfairly prejudicial, i.e., cannot tend to inflame a jury beyond its evidentiary value. If such questioning, evidence or testimony is introduced, it will be properly objected to on that basis. What is the evidentiary value of the destructiveness of the bullet design? It shows that the bullets were designed to destroy tissue. What are bullets designed to do in general? Destroy tissue. Not relevant to the issue of justification. Not admissible evidence.

I know this is true in a criminal case, but a civil case may follow. Wouldn't these restrictions on the opposing lawyer be less strict in a civil case?

Choosing an ammo, gun, etc. for self defense based on what might happen in court later because of unsubstantiated, perpetuated myths by gun writers over what ammo will best serve to protect your life and the lives of your loved ones is bassackwards reasoning and is unsound.

True. But thinking through your choices ahead of time with civil liability in mind is not necessarily a bad thing. Doesn't mean you should change you choices, but you should be able to rationally defend them.