Carrying Handloads, yes or no?

[James2]

Carrying Handloads, yes or no.

In my case, yes. I am not going to put up an argument either way, just let you know what my decision was.

 

[Cosmoline]

I doubt that the defense will be able to meet its burden of showing substantial similarity when the claim that the exemplars match the incident ammunition rests solely on the interested defendant's word.

But why would it rest solely on the defendant's word? Presumably the rest of the handloads, marked and boxed, will be available to inspect. If 48 loads are identical, there's every reason to conclude loads 49 and 50 were the same. Under Daubert and Kumho Tire these would be reliable conclusions. Whether or not they are generally accepted under Frye is another matter, and I get the sense that the main opponents of handload evidence are gun experts not judges.

Are you aware of a case in which it was offered and admitted?

No, as I said it doesn't seem to have ever even registered on judicial radar. But it's a huge issue here. Which makes me conclude it's not really a major legal issue, but one for gun nuts to argue about.

There are hundreds--HUNDREDS--of other issues to worry about in a self defense shooting. First and foremost whether or not you are behaving within the law of self defense. Handloads, if they're on the list at all, are so remote as to never even register in the case law. So I'd suggest we've blown this issue way out of proportion.

 

[41 Mag]

All the case facts and links in the world will not matter one iota if your rear is sprawled out on the ground with a smoking hole in your chest.

Like I mentioned back somewhere on another page, before this went into more or less a discussion only topped by religion, I'm going to use whatever is loaded at the time as will anyone else here. No one can predetermine when, or where, or any other circumstance, when a BG decides to do a dirty deed.

Case in point,

I was sitting at a stop sign on a busy city street when a fellow walking across the cross walk eased right up to my driver side window and stuck a revolver in my face. Not much to do in that situation but give him what he wants and hope for the best. No concealed handgun would have changed anything about it. Even if I would have had one, I would not have been able to use it until he backed away, at which time he high tailed it away through the traffic. No way to shoot him other than in the back and that would not be self defense but murder, or in the very least manslaughter.

In that time frame, again, they aren't going to wait for you, me, or anyone else to remove handloads and replace them with factory ammo. Right, wrong, or indifferent, if my or my family's life is at stake, or anyone else who has posted to this thread for that matter, unless you simply give up hope and leave your fate in the hands of who knows what, your going to shoot first and then hope and pray for the best, factory ammo or not.

I do not have but a few boxes of factory ammo period, never have and never will. What I DO have is mostly for my deer rifles. Like I mentioned I handload, mostly for everything, always have and probably always will. It will be pretty easy to determine how any of my loads shoot as I pick one load and stick with it. Just pick the box for the caliber I used and there ya have it. I hope and pray I am never forced into the circumstance where I have to use deadly force, but if so, I'll use whatever I have to defend myself, as will just about anyone else.

Oh yea, I forgot, that is a YES from me.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Cosmoline: If 48 loads are identical, there's every reason to conclude loads 49 and 50 were the same. Under Daubert and Kumho Tire these would be reliable conclusions.

Not according to what I was taught or what I did for a living.

Which makes me conclude it's not really a major legal issue, but one for gun nuts to argue about.

And chemical companies, and makers of surgical instruments, and makers of genetically modified seeds, and CFOs, and many, many other people--mostly lawyers

There are hundreds--HUNDREDS--of other issues to worry about in a self defense shooting. First and foremost whether or not you are behaving within the law of self defense.

Very true, and that applies to the use of any kind of deadly force.

Handloads, if they're on the list at all, are so remote as to never even register in the case law. So I'd suggest we've blown this issue way out of proportion.

But the case law issue is not about hand loads. It is about any kind of evidence or related expert testimony.

And as mentioned, it is not even about how some kind of evidence was created. It is about by whom, and under what circumstances, and about custody of records.

 

[Frank Ettin]

There are hundreds--HUNDREDS--of other issues to worry about in a self defense shooting. First and foremost whether or not you are behaving within the law of self defense...

I agree completely. I think that by not using handloads I've taken one possible concern off the table.

...Handloads, if they're on the list at all, are so remote as to never even register in the case law...

Or they don't register in case law because they're used so seldom. Remember Al Norris found only 12 cases over a 37 year period in Idaho (only 6 of which were prosecuted).

 

[buck460XVR]

Or they don't register in case law because they're used so seldom. Remember Al Norris found only 12 cases over a 37 year period in Idaho (only 6 of which were prosecuted).

Did Al ever say how many of those 12 were deemed a bad shoot because of the use of handloads?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Presumably the rest of the handloads, marked and boxed, will be available to inspect. If 48 loads are identical, there's every reason to conclude loads 49 and 50 were the same. Under Daubert and Kumho Tire these would be reliable conclusions. Whether or not they are generally accepted under Frye is another matter,...

I don't think it's that clear.

It's a question of under what circumstances would an expert, for the purposes of conducting scientific tests and forming an opinion, rely on the assumption that if a group of widgets he can examine have certain specifications, some widgets not subject to examination would have the same specifications. It might be one thing to make that assumption when the widgets were all made by a commercial manufacturer selling widgets to the general public and using set quality control protocols. It might be another thing to make that assumption when the widgets were all made by an individual who is personally interested in the outcome of the tests for his own use, and the connection between the widget tested and the widget in the case is thus made by the claims of that individual.

I'm not sure that Daubert (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993)) or Kumho Tire (Kumho Tire v Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999)) necessarily make it easier to support that sort of assumption under the second set of circumstances:

1. Both address the role and scope of the trial judge's discretion to allow or exclude expert opinion testimony based primarily on Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (held in Daubert to supercede Frye in federal court).
   
   
2. Neither involved exemplar testing as the bases of the experts' opinions at issue.
   
   
3. In Daubert the Supreme Court in effect ruled that the trial court applied too strict a standard by excluding opinions of some eminent experts. The opinions of those experts were based on certain data developed through experiment, and it contradicted another expert's opinion based on epidemiological data.
   
   
   • But the Court in Daubert still noted (at 597):

     ...but the Rules of Evidence—especially Rule 702—do assign to the trial judge the task of ensuring that an expert's testimony both rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand...

     
     
   • The Court in Daubert also noted (at 591):

     See also United States v. Downing, 753 F.2d 1224, 1242 (CA3 1985) ("An additional consideration under Rule 702—and another aspect of relevancy —is whether expert testimony proffered in the case is sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute").

     
     
   • This seems to suggest that even under Daubert, if an opinion is based on exemplar testing to be relevant and admissible it must be shown that the exemplar is the same as the thing in the case and the conditions of testing sufficiently mimic the events of the case.
   
   
4. In Kumho Tire, the Court upheld the trial court's exclusion of expert testimony. The issue concerned the manner of the plaintiffs' expert's examination of an allegedly defective tire. The defendants objected on the grounds that the plaintiffs' expert's methods were unreliable. The trial court agreed, and the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's exercise of its discretion to exclude the expert's testimony.
   
   
   • While this does not involve exemplar testing, it does suggest that it would he proper for the trial court to consider the reliability of an expert's conclusion that an exemplar tested was sufficiently like the thing in the case to support his opinion.
   
   
5. And the Court in both cases notes that if expert opinion is admitted it is still subject to vigorous cross examination and challenge. Thus any the less solidly an exemplar tested is validated as matching the thing in the case, the less useful the expert opinion is likely to be.

Did Al ever say how many of those 12 were deemed a bad shoot because of the use of handloads?

First, only six were prosecuted; the others were apparently clearly enough self defense. We don't know anything else about the six that were prosecuted except (1) there were convictions in all (four on pleas and two on jury verdict); and (2) drugs and/or alcohol might have been involved.

But the real point is that 12 claimed defensive shootings with handloads over a 37 year period suggest that it's a very rare event.

 

[beatledog7]

In case I wasn't clear (someone might be keeping track of responses), I don't carry handloads as of today, but will when I run out of the factory stuff I like (unless another affordable source presents itself).

 

[JB357MAG]

NO!!

 

[357 Terms]

First, only six were prosecuted; the others were apparently clearly enough self defense. We don't know anything else about the six that were prosecuted except (1) there were convictions in all (four on pleas and two on jury verdict); and (2) drugs and/or alcohol might have been involved

Yes alcohol was involved, the chareges against those men had absolutly nothing to to with carrying handloads.

I doubt it was even brought up by the DA.

 

[45_auto]

News comments on George Zimmerman's ammo below (factory hollow points - 115 grain S&B). Just think how much more fun it would have been for him if he had been using some kind of "custom hand-loaded deadly killer ammo".

It may not have made any difference in the trial, who knows what a jury will do, but it sure wouldn't have helped.

Not worth it to me.

According to other reports, Zimmerman's gun was loaded with hollow-point bullets--bullets that expand upon impact, maximizing internal damage and the chances of death. You don't need hollow-point bullets to stop a pit bull. And you don't need hollow-point bullets to stop a robber.

Sure, some gun enthusiasts may warn that if you face an armed bad guy, hollow points minimize the chances of his returning fire after being shot. But how likely is it--in real life, not the movies--that this would actually come into play? And, anyway, there was no evidence that the robbers who had afflicted the neighborhood were armed; they were burglars, not muggers, and when in danger of being caught they'd fled. (And as for the reason police sometimes use hollow points--to cut the chances that the bullet will harm bystanders after passing through the victim's body or after ricocheting: that makes a lot of sense in a crowded urban environment, but not much in Zimmerman's neighborhood.)

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/george-zimmermans-ammunition/256509/

 

[Frank Ettin]

First, only six were prosecuted; the others were apparently clearly enough self defense. We don't know anything else about the six that were prosecuted except (1) there were convictions in all (four on pleas and two on jury verdict); and (2) drugs and/or alcohol might have been involved

...Yes alcohol was involved,...

Yes, and you know that because Al Norris reported it, and then I reported it. Or do you claim some independent reason to know that alcohol was involved, and if so what is it?

...the chareges against those men had absolutly nothing to to with carrying handloads....

How do you know? Do you have any evidence? If so what is your evidence? Or are you just guessing?

I don't think you actually know, because Al Norris didn't know, and he did the research.

...I doubt it was even brought up by the DA.

You might doubt it, but you don't really know it. Do you?

 

[BullfrogKen]

After I got done mowing my lawn, I called my colleague who headed the Pennsylvania State Ballistics Lab to confirm a thing or two about "exemplar" ammunition; the testing of evidence ammunition; and what their lab could get from a factory when they submitted a request.



Frankly I'm just too tired right now to craft a complete and adequate response.


But rest assured that by the morning all of your presumptions about factory ammunition - all the lies you've been told about it; what you think you can request and receive from the factories - even the big ones; all you think you know from what you've been told by speculative masters that happens in a state Ballistics Lab regarding testing; and your imaginations surroundings about the tests that they actually perform and how they conduct them are about to be torn apart and laid waste before you.


Sleep well.

I know I will.


See you in the morning.

 

[357 Terms]

You might doubt it, but you don't really know it. Do you?

You obviously don't.

Yet you reference these cases as a warning against carrying handloads.

Odd.

 

[Frank Ettin]

After I got done mowing my lawn, I called my colleague who headed the Pennsylvania State Ballistics Lab to confirm a thing or two about "exemplar" ammunition; the testing of evidence ammunition; and what their lab could get from a factory when they submitted a request...

I'll be looking forward to it. It would be helpful if you'd also address not only the procedures followed in that laboratory but also how those procedures relate to the rules of evidence applicable to the introduction of expert opinion testimony.

Yet you reference these cases as a warning against carrying handloads.

No, I reference those cases to help illustrate that self defense shooting using handloads are rare (12 in Idaho in a 37 year period) and that prosecutions are even rarer.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by buck460XVR: Did Al ever say how many of those 12 were deemed a bad shoot because of the use of handloads?

Why would any defensive use of force action ever be deemed a "bad shoot" because of the use of hand loads?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Posted by buck460XVR: Did Al ever say how many of those 12 were deemed a bad shoot because of the use of handloads?

Why would any defensive use of force action ever be deemed a "bad shoot" because of the use of hand loads?

The real question is much more subtle. If there is a dispute about whether your use of force was or was not justified, are there reasons your use of handloads could make it more difficult for you to establish that it was justified?

In other words, if everyone doesn't agree that it was a good shoot and you need to show it was a good shoot, could your use of handloads make that harder for you to do?

 

[357 Terms]

No, I reference those cases to help illustrate that self defense shooting using handloads are rare (12 in Idaho in a 37 year period) and that prosecutions are even rarer.

Yet you reference these cases in a discusion regarding the dangers of carrying handloads and point out that six were prosecuted, yet these prosecutions had nothing to do with their choice of ammunition, you failed to mention that.

Again...odd.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Yet you reference these cases in a discusion regarding handloads and point out that six were prosecuted, yet these prosecutions had nothing to do with their choice of ammunition, you failed to mention that.

I never claimed that those prosecutions had anything to do with choice of ammunition. I referred to those cases to show some evidence suggesting that defensive shootings using handloads were rare.

 

[357 Terms]

I never claimed that those prosecutions had anything to do with choice of ammunition. I referred to those cases to show some evidence suggesting that defensive shootings using handloads were rare.

Yet you mentioned the fact that six were prosecuted, for what? ...were handloads even an issue? please elaborate!!!

Why bring up the fact that charges were brought up if you have no idea if they pertain to this discussion.

Once again ...odd

 

[Frank Ettin]

I never claimed that those prosecutions had anything to do with choice of ammunition. I referred to those cases to show some evidence suggesting that defensive shootings using handloads were rare.

Yet you mentioned the fact that six were prosecuted, for what? ...were handloads even an issue? please elaborate!!!

Why bring up the fact that charges were brought up if you have no idea if they pertain to this discussion...

Here's exactly what I wrote the first time I brought the subject up in this thread (post 64):

...relying on historical research is helpful only if there's sufficient historical data. If the question is something like, "Is a private citizen who shoots someone and claims self defense more likely to be charged if he used handloads compared with factory ammunition?", or "Is a private citizen who shoots someone and claims self defense more likely to be convicted at trial if he used handloads compared with factory ammunition?", the availability of useful data depends on (1) a large enough population of private citizens having shot someone in claimed self defense; and (2) a large enough subset of those private citizens having used handloads. I suggest that the vast majority of people who keep guns for self defense aren't enthusiasts and use stock guns and commercial ammunition. Indeed, even many of the members here, who are enthusiasts, use commercial ammunition for self defense.

In fact we have some evidence that reloads are very seldom used in self defense. Al Norris, a member here and a moderator on TFL, did some research on the subject. In a period of some 37 years in Idaho handloads were used in only 12 self defense shooting incidents. Six weren't prosecuted; apparently they were clearly justified. Six were prosecuted, resulting in six convictions -- ...

 

[357 Terms]

Six were prosecuted, resulting in six convictions -- ...

Yes, I know what you said.

You mentionted that they were prosecuted.

In the context of this discution, does it apply?

Why mention that they were carrying handloads, and were prosecuted, IF THE FACT THAT HANDLOADS DID NOT IN ANY WAY PERTAIN TO SAID PROSECUTION??

just asking

 

[Frank Ettin]

just asking

And I answered. Everyone can read my answers and decide.

 

[357 Terms]

You also said;

Six weren't prosecuted; apparently they were clearly justified.

Does that mean the other six were not justified?

Or does it mean all 12 were justified, yet six were drunk?

Again, please elaborate.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You also said;

Six weren't prosecuted; apparently they were clearly justified.

Does that mean the other six were not justified?

Or does it mean all 12 were justified, yet six were drunk?

Again, please elaborate.

Apparently in six of the cases the district attorney decided not to file charges and prosecute. The most likely reason for that is that in those six case the actor would have been able to demonstrate that their use of force was legally justified.

And in six cases the district attorney apparently decided that the actors were not legally justified in shooting someone and would not be able to sustain their claims of self defense. Therefore they committed crimes by shooting someone. The district attorney therefore decided to charge them with crimes and take them to trial. All six of these people were convicted of crimes -- four on pleas and two by juries.

And the term "actor" is a term of art in legal discussions referring to a person who does, or has done, some act.

To understand how use-of-force law works see here.