Carrying "law enforcement" ammunition.

[Inebriated]

Just wondering what everyone's take is on carrying "LE" branded/marketed ammo such as Federal HST or Winchester Ranger. Has that ever played a role in a self-defense case? I just can see it as being used to play to the simple minds out there. Similar to hand loads.

 

[wishooter]

I think the fact that it is commercially available is a big part of the factor. At the end of the day most of it is all says "JHP" on the box.. Ammo is either made for paper/steel targets or soft tissue. It is unfortunate that some people must read into marketing hype or the fact that you reload ammo. The fact that I reload only makes me guilty of being a tight wad!!


However, I am sure that if you happened to carry Brand X's "game stopper" or " Hunter Supreme" those simple minds would just say that you were out hunting for an altercation or a reason to use it. Those simple minds would imply that both Hunting and LE branded ammo are both purpose driven when manufactured, and therefore reflect your intentions. So just to be safe, you better carry only blanks that way you could never be accused of wanting to hurt someone.....or stop a threat for that matter. I sure hope none of those lawyers ever have their house broken into or need to fight for their life at some point. I work for the Sheriffs Dept, I can honestly say that I have never heard of us stopping a home burglary in progress or a rape. We get called after the suspect leaves generally. Take care of yourself until we get there.

 

[DPris]

I can't see it ever being a problem.
Would you not carry a Glock because the police do?
Denis

 

[Inebriated]

wishooter - I agree man, it's awful these days. I am slightly annoyed that jury manipulation is even a consideration when discussing self defense. Apparently reloading is just like building a bomb...

DPris - That's my point. Having seen the crap that comes with some people using handloads, I have to wonder what a jury could be made to think. I wouldn't base my carry ammo off of it. Tried by 12 > carried by 6.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

It is hard to believe that even the most predatory/unscrupulous - combined with a good bit of ignorance - lawyer could bring this into play. After all, it is commercially available to everyone, just marketed to LE. Continuing on this premise, an anti-gun news media might make something of it, as was done with Winchester Black Talon.

(BTW, that same predatory/unscrupulous lawyer is the one I want if I need one. )

 

[Lawdawg45]

The sad fact is that most Defense Attorney's will try and make a case where there usually isn't one, and ammo choice is no exception, but compared to Corbon, Hornaday and Buffalo Bore, LE labeled ammo is quite tame. I'm waiting for a bottom feeder to make a case that a person used a weapon with adjustable sights rather than fixed, to get a more lethal shot. You laugh, but just wait!

LD

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

What about a civil suit? The burden of proof is lower, and if there is a jury at all, only nine of them have to be convinced one way or the other.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I think (IANAL) that it would be very defensible. Any claim made that the ammo was cruel, extra-deadly, vicious, etc. could be easily countered: "Is that why all those police departments have chosen it? To be extra deadly and cruel to their suspects?"

Best would be if you were carrying the same ammo that the bailiff was carrying--just swear him/her in to testify about his especially vicious ammo.

 

[Remllez]

Loosed makes a good point...."that's what many police departments use" is hard to argue with.

 

[Mike1234567]

I'm with Loosedhorse on this one. In fact, I'd think it hilarious for a prosecutor to make that mistake and be embarrassed in that manor.

 

[357 Terms]

+1 with Loosedhorse.

Carry whatever you feel gives you the best performance, accuracy and control. If that is L.E ammo or handloads whatever.
Give yourself the best chance at surviving a SD encounter. If the lawyers (@#%*$$!) wanna make a big deal in court afterward at least you and your loved ones will still be around.
Slim to none that it will be a big deal anyway.

 

[scaatylobo]

I still carry the load my agency does [ and the one I quall'ed with ] .

My reason being that if EVER questioned as to why I shot that 'poor individual' with such a horrific round of ammunition,my answer is "ask the police dept why THEY carry it".

I was just doing as they did and if its good enough for the police,its good enough for me.

Then an attorney [ ambulance chaser ] has to mess with the police and their choice of ammunition.

Bet he wont go there.

I am sure that any factory ammo you like, can be found on the belt of SOME agency in this country.

I would find that agency and see if they will send you the T&E stuff that led them to buy and use that ammo.

If ,heaven forbid you need to use it in S/D.

Just keep a copy and give it to the defense AND the prosecution.

 

[Inebriated]

All good points.

I don't even know what my local dept. carries. I'll be finding out soon, if nothing else, for the sake of knowledge.

 

[camsdaddy]

Tell the like most police agency you are having to make cuts in the budget. Tell them LE is all you can afford

 

[harmon rabb]

I think (IANAL) that it would be very defensible. Any claim made that the ammo was cruel, extra-deadly, vicious, etc. could be easily countered: "Is that why all those police departments have chosen it? To be extra deadly and cruel to their suspects?"

Best would be if you were carrying the same ammo that the bailiff was carrying--just swear him/her in to testify about his especially vicious ammo.

I read about a funny case where a prosecutor, ignorant of guns, argued that the defendant (in a self defense case) had to rack the slide before each shot, so it was deliberate and planned. The defense attorney called every cop in the room as a witness, and asked him how his sidearm functioned, and if he had to rack the slide between shots Talk about owned.

 

[Steve C]

If its good enough for the police its good enough for civilians. No police department will ever state that they buy the most lethal ammo they can find so they can kill the perpetrators they have to shoot in making an arrest. Their reasons for ammo selection is the most effective in protecting the lives of their officers and the public by stopping criminals not killing them.

Other than +P+ loads there are few types of ammo a civilian cannot buy the personal defense equivalent at any local sporting goods store be they +P Gold Dots, Golden Sabers, Winchester SXT's or PDX1's.

 

[PabloJ]

I have seen that stuff at gun shows marked Ranger +P, +P+. I have never considered that ammo as I thought police departments bought cheapest stuff they could get. In addition when I buy pack at Walmart I know it's fresh like their vegetables due to high turnover (I will not buy their fish or meat). Who knows how old that gun show stuff is.

 

[PRM]

If its a good shoot its not going to matter what handgun round you use to defend yourself. In fact if it is a justifiable case of self defense, you could use anything from a baseball bat to a Pepsi bottle.

If its a bad shoot, there is nothing you can do or say to make it right.

 

[Loosedhorse]

If its a good shoot its not going to matter what handgun round you use to defend yourself.

True...but the only persons who decide if it's a good shoot are the prosecutor and the jurors.

As long as you can guarantee that they will consider your shoot a good shoot, then nothing matters. If, however, they will consider all the evidence--including ammo used--before making their own determination, then anything could matter.

Just because it's a good shoot to you doesn't mean it'll be seen as a good shoot by others. (But as I said, using police-issue ammo should work for you, not against you, in any case where questions have been raised.)

 

[ATLDave]

Loosedhorse's comments echo something I read recently by Mr. Ayoob, who said that explaining bullet choice was easy if you went with what the local LE use. "Why did I pick that ammunition? Well, I figured the police want to protect their officers and civilians by ending shootings quickly and without posing undue risk to 3rd parties. I wanted the same thing, so I chose what they chose."

 

[Lawdawg45]

This thread has an interesting similarity to the new water saving toilet I just installed. It may only use 1 gallon of water, but you have to flush it 3 times to take care of business. Whether you use 1 or 2 hot JHP's or 6 mouse phart FMJ's, the suspect is still shot and greedy unscrupulous Lawyers will smell the blood.

LD

 

[Remllez]

PRM has a good point as well, a righteous shoot should be open and closed in a "criminal" case, however many good shoots end up in "civil" proceedings where everything about a shoot is challenged. So the use of LEO bullets is one less thing some ambulance chaser has to use against you for "shooting the supposed victim."

 

[Inebriated]

That is true. Castle Doctrine goes into effect here in December, so any instance would, theoretically, be covered both criminally AND civilly (positive that's a word). But we all know how that goes. I just would like to see the questionable cases (either by victim's actions or incompetent prosecutors) where things like hand loads or any marketing (Law Enforcement plastered on the side, max expansion, etc) have played a part in the altering of the victim's image for a simple-minded jury.

Again, I will not be basing my carry ammo choice off whether twelve people will like it. Heck, that Federal Tactical ammo is some of my favorite, but they say it is LE only. Nothing about it makes it unlawful for Joe Everyman... Federal just doesn't seem to sell to anyone not LE (ammunition to go always has it, though). That's the kind of thing that I can imagine being beat to death in any questionable case.

 

[scaatylobo]

If any here doubt the wisdom of carrying LEO ammunition/

PLEASE sit in a courtroom during a real trial for use of DPF and then get back to us here.

The ambulance chasers will rip up your defense in ANY manner and form that they deem viable.

Less to worry about menas = LESS TO WORRY ABOUT.

 

[Manco]

I think (IANAL) that it would be very defensible. Any claim made that the ammo was cruel, extra-deadly, vicious, etc. could be easily countered: "Is that why all those police departments have chosen it? To be extra deadly and cruel to their suspects?"

That's true with regard to the nature of the ammo itself, but then I suppose the prosecutor could claim that the defendant has delusions of being a police officer, and fantasized about dishing out vigilante justice. This pertains to ammo that is specifically marketed to police departments, as opposed to their equivalents in the consumer market. This, too, is defensible, but my point is that sufficiently zealous prosecutors can always find ways to try to nail you, if only for the cumulative effect it may have on jurors.

Not that this is a huge deal--at less than half the cost per round for me, I think I'll stick with LE-specific ammo (legally purchased, of course), myself, and take my chances.