But that’s what happened in the Daniel Bias case.
But what you said was:
But either way the Danial Bias only proves you shouldn’t reload any ammo. There are twice as many suicides in the US every year than there are homicides. If you’re afraid of carrying reloads you should also be just as afraid of those reloads ending up in the hands of someone who might decide to off themself.
(Emphasis supplied.) I don't think that Bias proves that 'you shouldn't reload any ammo.' It does, however, demonstrate that the use of handloads in an SD situation can significantly complicate your defense. If memory serves, Daniel Bias was eventually exonerated, but only after he was broke, unemployed, and had spent 3 years in jail. Were there other factors involved? Sure. But the use of handloads led to the crime lab testing the wrong ammo and coming to the wrong conclusions and that certainly didn't help.
As far as 'being afraid of carrying reloads,' I don't think of it as being afraid. I think we all understand that there are certain risks associated with, well, everything. We make certain risk-reward-mitigation assessments in our daily lives. Think about driving. Maybe I could shave 2 minutes off my commute to work by taking Street X, but it's narrow and people like to park on both sides.
Risk: Street X is crowded and I could hit one of those cars, a door could get opened in front of me, or someone might step out from between those cars.
Reward: 2 minutes shaved off of my commute
Mitigation: Taking Street Y takes me 2 extra minutes, but it avoids all of the Risks.
So we balance all of these things in deciding whether to take Street X or Street Y. Personally, I take Street Y. Firearms are dangerous. They have certain inherent risks associated with them. And yet everyone on TFL does something with them. We accept the risks, we mitigate them by practicing The Four Rules, and we enjoy the rewards.
For me, carrying handloads gets an assessment that looks something like this:
Risk Point #1: Using handloads could make an already complicated defense even more complicated and require the use of additional experts at civil and criminal trials. Thus, potentially $$$, maybe in the tens of thousands to pay those experts.
Risk Point #2: It's not just about the nature of the risk; it's also about the probability of that risk materializing. For some people, the whole issue is moot because the probability of it occurring is pretty low. It all revolves around the use of GSR evidence to establish shooting distance. If that's not a factor in a particular shooting, it's not going to matter whether the shooter used handloads. Unfortunately, SD shooters don't get to choose the time and circumstances under which they'll have to shoot. And as we've seen in the past, even if the Bad Guy is killed, there may be unreliable eyewitnesses who are all too happy to give their unreliable statements.
Reward #1: Performance -- I carry factory ammo from a reputable manufacturer and have tested it in my gun. While those tests are not a guarantee of future performance, my factory rounds have proven accurate and reliable so far. Thus, the reward from carrying handloads is minimal.
Reward #2: Cost -- Handloads are (or at least can be) cheaper. But we're talking about a couple of boxes for testing and a couple of boxes for carry per year. Even if we take the cost of handloads to be $0 (which they're not), we're looking at maybe $100 per year? So Reward #2 might be $100 per year saved by carrying handloads. That's much less than the cost of expert witnesses.
Mitigation -- Carry factory ammo. That's pretty easy mitigation.
Taking that as a whole, I view carrying handloads as "low probability of occurrence, high stakes ($$$ that I don't have to experts), minimal reward, easy mitigation." I choose to mitigate that risk.