Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
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.
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.