Deadly Force: Hollowpoint or FMJ?

[mpc12]

Massad Ayoob actually had an article in recent history discussing just that. A man shot another man in self defense at very close range. That shooter was subsequently "hung out to dry" when no powder marks or anything of the like could be found on the man that would have indicated he was shot from close range. The man was shot with handloads set up for bullseye with a very light load, so they would not leave those markings. Then, there was no standard to test against as the shooter saying "these are the specs that bullet was loaded to" was worth nothing as he could have just as easily been lying about the entire thing. Moral of the story being, using a factory load allows for repeatable results for investigating law enforcement personnel if a subject like this is ever called into question.

 

[expvideo]

Never use hand loads for self defense. Hand loads are will get a lot of attention from the prosecutor.

Please cite a source where hand loads were in any way detrimental to the final verdict in a self-defense shooting case.

I didn't say that it would be "detrimental to the final verdict" of the case. I said that the prosecutor would give it a lot of attention. And as it has already been stated, Massad Ayoob covered this very well in one of his articles, citing actual cases. Why don't you calm down and lose the aggressive tone.

 

[kingpin008]

My point is this - the prosecutor can give it all the attention he wants, that doesn't mean that it's going to mean jack squat when it comes down to the verdict being handed down.

So the fact that the prosecutor may argue that the loads were loaded this way or that way really don't matter, does it? Now, as I stated earlier - if anyone can provide citations regarding incidents where the particular load used in a self-defense shooting lead to the otherwise good shoot being ruled unlawful, I'll concede the point.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Use good quality, factory JHP ammunition.

[1] It will generally prove to be the most effective.

[2] It's defensible. That's what all law enforcement agencies use.

 

[expvideo]

My point is this - the prosecutor can give it all the attention he wants, that doesn't mean that it's going to mean jack squat when it comes down to the verdict being handed down.

So the fact that the prosecutor may argue that the loads were loaded this way or that way really don't matter, does it? Now, as I stated earlier - if anyone can provide citations regarding incidents where the particular load used in a self-defense shooting lead to the otherwise good shoot being ruled unlawful, I'll concede the point.

But my point is that no one is making that point. I only said that the prosecutor would use that against you, not that it would necessarily lead to a conviction.

 

[jaybeedubya]

Neither; Use a Franchi Spas-12 loaded with Frag-12 Shotgun shells. It might not look good legally but it'll sure as hell make the jury think twice before convicting you!

Kidding, I'd personally load up with hollowpoints. It might be a little hard explaining why you'd need a FMJ's penetration rating. Just kind of throwing that out there.

 

[LIQUID SNAKE]

"My question-- based on comments I've seen here and on a court case I saw on television-- is which round would be the better choice from a legal standpoint?"

From a legal standpoint?

Are you kidding? from a "legal" standpoint your automatically guilty until proven innocent for anything nowadays. If you want to be on the "legal" side of the law on this issue then just let the assailant kill you. After all dieing is perfectly "legal". Not in the case of suicide, that's actually illegal in most states interestingly. Though it's seldom you here of anybody actually being charged.

Seriously though, nothing is best from a "legal standpoint" except you dying or, just not being there in the first place. However from a "real life" stand point whatever you have with you at the time is the best choice. From what I've read a lot of you guy's don't pack as often as you should. Like, all the time for example. So chances are for most of you that you won't even be armed at all when a situation like that even happens. Kind of makes the whole discussion of ammo choice rather moot don't you think. I for example always pack, period. If a situation happened to me right now for example I'd be using HPs because that's what I got on me at this moment. You see? It's what you got at the time that you will probably use. HPs, FMJs, your kids 22 or, probably in most of you guys cases, nothing because you might not even be armed. Also, I say probably because whats to say if you were armed and in one of these situations that you could do anything about it regardless. You could be one of the hostages or most likely it would happen and be over so fast you couldn't respond fast enough to be any help anyway. Or you couldn't get to the scene at all. Or you were to far away to get there in time, like across the room, store/house, parking lot, or street.

I notice a lot of guys are literally drooling for a chance to test their metal. Being a hero is overrated. Out here in Nevada the last HERO we had was some dumbass armored truck driver who got robbed by professionals while he and his partner were on ATM duty. One of the robbers had got the drop on him and his partner while they were out of the truck and inside one of their delivery points. The Pro got the money and had already escaped to the getaway car outside, when Mr, Hero decided to go outside and stop them. Up to that point no shots were fired and nobody got hurt. His partner an older and wiser fellow told him not to follow but, he did anyway and payed with his life. Mr, Hero got shot dead by another suspect armed with an AK rifle who was posted outside as a sentry for just that very reason. His partner told investigators that our Mr, Hero said once that "he would gladly die for his job". He got his wish. **** like that happens so often in Nevada most doesn't make the news so as to not scare away the tourists. He could have stayed inside with everyone else and nobody would have ever said anything or though him a cowered for it. Also, he wouldn't be ****ing dead now. I wonder if he had HPs or FMJs?

 

[bullseye308]

Just find out what your local police carry and carry the same thing. If any question about your ammo is brought up just tell them that is what the locals carry.

 

[Bubba613]

Kingpin, Mas Ayoob has given details on several cases where it was a big problem.

Ayoob was able to cite about 4 cases that were 20 years old. Not a one of them was a classic "self defense" case. In one of them a man was accused of shooting his wife. His claim was that he was trying to get the gun away from her and it went off. Moral, never point your gun at your wife.
If your case hinges on whether you should have used fmj or jhp or handloads or factory loads then you probably shouldn't have done what you did anyway.

 

[kingpin008]

But my point is that no one is making that point. I only said that the prosecutor would use that against you, not that it would necessarily lead to a conviction.

Ok, I get that. What I'm trying to say (and I mean this with all due respect) is: who cares? It's a prosecutor's job to use things against you - of course they'd try to use the handload issue against you as well. I don't think anyone expects differently. Knowing that, why bother mentioning it, unless your point was that using handloads in a self-defense shooting could result in an otherwise good shooting being ruled criminal?

That's my point. Unless you (or anyone) brought it up intending to argue that it was an issue that could be used to successfully argue you into a conviction, (which so far, there is no evidence of) the entire thing is a non-issue.

 

[mljdeckard]

I agree with GEM. Nit-picking over things like hollow-points, trigger mods, handloads, etc. are what a prosecutor would try to use against you only if he has a very weak case, but for some reason wants to prosecute you anyway. Where I live, the laws, prosecutors, and precedents are very gun friendly. Defensive shootings are almost never prosecuted here. Defensive shootings rarely occur here. But ask yourself, really, if a case is reduced to the difference between the damage a hollow-point would do vs a FMJ, the prosecutor is really reaching for straws.He could TRY to push it either way. He could say JHP ammo is malicious. (But the police use it.) He could say people who carry JHP ammo are trying to be police, and want to do their job for them. If you use FMJ, they could say you are showing disregard for the safety of others. If a lawyer is gunning for you, they can TRY to say anything.

A few weeks ago, I was at the range with a friend of a friend, and he was worried about using defensive ammo that says "Law enforcement use" on the box. I told him he was being overly concerned, and needed to make sure the bullet went where he wants it to go.

I honestly split a few hairs depending on caliber. I use Federal 230 gr HSTs, but if I had to use 230 gr hardball, I would still be confident of the effectiveness of the round. On the other hand, if I carried 9mm, I would NOT feel as confident carrying 115 gr FMJ. 9mm is a good round today because of all the advances made in defensive bullets in the last couple of decades. I would be mostly concerned being painted as not taking the threat seriously by not carrying the most effective ammo I could. Then you would be explaining why you were sure you had to shoot to protect yourself, but the bullets you were shooting were not the most effective you COULD have been using.

 

[expvideo]

Ok, I get that. What I'm trying to say (and I mean this with all due respect) is: who cares? It's a prosecutor's job to use things against you - of course they'd try to use the handload issue against you as well. I don't think anyone expects differently. Knowing that, why bother mentioning it, unless your point was that using handloads in a self-defense shooting could result in an otherwise good shooting being ruled criminal?

That's my point. Unless you (or anyone) brought it up intending to argue that it was an issue that could be used to successfully argue you into a conviction, (which so far, there is no evidence of) the entire thing is a non-issue.

What the prosecutor uses against you in court is important and it is a valid point. Massad Ayoob addressed this very well with several citations in his article.

You have obviously never been prosecuted for a criminal violation, or you would understand the significance.

 

[kingpin008]

What the prosecutor uses against you in court is important and it is a valid point.

Agreed. You're still missing (or ignoring) my point though.

Massad Ayoob addressed this very well with several citations in his article.

Not quite. As Bubba613 stated earlier, Mas has cited cases, but none of them have proven that using handloads has in any way caused a jury to rule against a defendant. Thus, my point stands.

You have obviously never been prosecuted for a criminal violation, or you would understand the significance.

That's ridiculous. Never having been the subject of a criminal court proceeding does not equal ignorance of significant factors related to that proceeding, any more than never having been in a fist-fight would make me ignorant of what happens in a fist-fight.

Sure, I may not be able to grasp the finer details of some of the elements involved, but the idea that we're dealing with here - that even though a prosecutor may home in on the fact that handloads were used, if there has been no wrongdoing it wouldn't matter what loads were used - doesn't exactly take a rocket surgeon to understand.

BTW - My fiancee is an ex-court reporter, and I've sat in the courtroom many times, and witnessed many cases, from drunk driving hearings to a murder case. So please, don't try to tell me that I can't understand the significance of what a prosecutor does and does not focus on during a case.

 

[athensguy]

Hello, this is my first post. I've recently purchased a couple new firearms after having not done any shooting for about 10 years.

There is a case in AZ with a Mr. Harold Fish. He was convicted of second degree murder after shooting someone three times with 10mm JHP. They said his choice of round alone was an overreaction.

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/

The laws have since been modified, but he his still being tried under and older version of laws regarding SD. His case is on appeal.

 

[mljdeckard]

That case has a lot more wrong with it than hollowpoints. I doubt hollowpoints or otherwise would have made any difference at all.

 

[Frank Ettin]

This has been done to death here, and on other boards. Anyone who's interested can do some searching. But here are the highlights --

[1] I'm a lawyer, and I know about impugning someone's character in front of a judge and jury, and have participating in doing so (it's part of the job). And I'm also a shooter and NRA certified instructor. I’ve also taken Massad Ayoob’s LFI-1 class.

[2] It's not about the gun or ammunition per se. It's about how certain factors, like tinkering with your gun, using handloaded ammunition, putting "Punisher" grips on your gun, walking around wearing a "Kill Them All and Let God Sort it Our" T-shirt at the mall, or other "gun nut" stuff can be used to attack your character and credibility. This is important because if you're in trial at all, somebody in authority thinks that your claim of self defense is vulnerable, and your testimony might be crucial to establishing that your use of lethal force was justified. If the jury can be convinced by the prosecutor that you're a junior Rambo wannabe, they just might not be inclined to believe your story.

[3] At a trial, at the end of the presentation of evidence, each side gets to argue what the trier of fact should infer from the evidence. So a prosecutor might argue that a trier of fact should infer certain things about your character and disposition for violence from the evidence that you handloaded yourself the ammunition you used. Indeed, I'd expect a prosecutor to conjure up for the jury the image of you up late at night in your garage quietly assembling special super killer bullets.

[4] So Suzy Soccermom now asks herself, as she sits on your jury deciding whether to believe your story about what happened when you shot that nice gang member, why store bought ammunition wasn’t lethal enough to satisfy your perverted blood lust. Remember, Suzi Soccermom and her friends are going to be deciding if the shoot was good.

[5] Yes, we know that there doesn't appear to be a case documenting this, but this would be a trial court matter, and trial court activities are not well publicized or generally published in the official legal reporters. Only decisions of courts of appeals on matters of law are regularly published. In any case, I suspect that the great majority of private citizens who own guns for self defense, including those with CCWs, are not necessarily enthusiasts. They most likely own and carry factory stock guns loaded with ordinary, commercial ammunition. So in fact, it's pretty unlikely that there have been too many cases in which a modified pistol or handloaded ammunition were used.

[6] Of course, if it’s a clean shoot, it won’t matter. BUT why do we think that if we are unfortunate to have to fire our guns in self defense that everyone is necessarily going to agree that it was a clean shoot? Who decides? If we're on trial, someone doesn't think it's a clean shoot, and determining whether or not it was is what the trial is all about.

So you're well trained, did everything correctly and exercised proper judgment. But the physical and forensic evidence is unclear. The witnesses tell conflicting stories. Or for whatever other reasons, the DA or the grand jury has concluded that there is probably cause that a crime has been committed and that you committed it. And so you're held to answer and are now on trial. Now it's not a "clean shoot" until either the judge dismisses the charge or the jury acquits.

Yes there are clean shoots -- instances where the fact that it was legitimate self defense is so clear that things don't go beyond a preliminary investigation. But in real life we can't always count on things working out for us so nicely.

But if you find yourself on trial, someone in authority did not think it was a justified shoot. And this is where the details can get sticky. If you’re pleading self defense, you must, in effect, admit to the act and must demonstrate the factors that justify your use of lethal force, i. e. that you were reasonably in fear of being killed or grievously injured. This can place your perception, state of mind and disposition in issue. You will probably need to tell your story about how you were in fear for your life and had no choice, and whether or not the jury believes you depends in part on the impression you make on them.

[7] Of course, if one is unlucky enough to be on trial, whether or not he used handloads would be only a perhaps small factor. But personally, I'd rather avoid any of these sorts of "wild cards" altogether. Even though I may have an explanation, I know from experience that the less I have to explain, the better off I am.

[8] Whenever someone comes up with a hypothetical to support an argument as to why this isn't an issue, he seems to tell a nice, clean, simple "good shoot" story. Unfortunately, things aren't always that neat. Real life can be messy, and if you're on trial in the first place, the DA or grand jury didn't think it was "good shoot." So try this one on for size.

A guy in a parking lot 7 yards away from you is looking at you and making threatening gestures in your direction with a large butcher knife he's holding in his right hand. He shouts that he wants your money. You're holding your gun drawn in low ready and order him to drop the knife and go away.

At your trial for manslaughter you testify as to that and then say that in response to your order, he begins to raise the knife and move toward you. You further testify that you were in fear of your life, you could not effectively retreat because your back was to a group of closely parked cars, so you believed that you had no choice but to shoot. You shot several times, and he crumbled, dropping the knife as he fell. He never moved again and was dead when the EMTs arrived

However, an eyewitness testifies that the alleged assailant had actually broken off the attack before you fired. He had dropped the knife and started to turn away, and only then did you shoot.

And the forensic pathologist testifies that, based on the entrance wounds and position of the body, he was turning away toward his left when he was shot. Also, given the nature of the wounds, he would have most likely have retained his grip on the knife when he was shot, although it's not impossible that he would have dropped it.

Now your lawyer has to explain or overcome the eyewitness and the forensic pathologist to solidify your claim of self defense. It's also very useful to your case for the jury to believe your account of what happened and the way you perceived things. Do you think that whether members of the jury see you as a solid, responsible citizen or as a gun nut who spends his spare time concocting “special” killer ammo when store bought is good enough for the police would make any difference in how they evaluated your testimony?

Sure, you can explain. But do you really want your lawyer, in addition to having to deal with the testimony of the eyewitness and the pathologist, to also have to try to explain to the jury why handloading ammunition is a good, wholesome hobby? It’s one more thing to explain when there’s already some seriously bad evidence that needs to be dealt with.

 

[kingpin008]

I'm somewhat familiar with the Fish case - what I would like to point out in that case, is that there were a number of things that went wrong with his case - the most important, perhaps, the fact that the attacker's previous violent criminal history was not allowed to be presented as evidence.

So yes, the issue of Mr. Fish's handloads was brought up, but it still does not prove that using handloads during a self-defense shooting will negatively affect the final outcome of a court case.

 

[mpc12]

To be fair, the case I citied per the Massad Article did result in a guilty verdict. Reason being the defense made the case that the shooting was from such a distance that the use of deadly force was not justified and jury felt the same way. IIRC the ballistics were tested using the factory load that corresponded to the case the gentleman had reloaded in.

 

[gregormeister]

Hydroshocks...

 

[GregGry]

That harold fish case did not use the bullets caliber or construction to convict him. People keep using this case as proof that a caliber can be used as proof of intent, and that just by using a certain caliber you will be found guilty. All of which is complete BS. The fact that you had a gun is enough to prove intent if you have a bad self defense shooting, there is no need to start talking ammo type.

Also that harold fish case site has a lot of things on it that could be grounds for a mistrial. However they seemed to want to base their case off of the dead persons previous records, which have no real basis in what happened in that self defense shoot. Fish failed to prove that he was justfied in the shoot. Now the evidence of the screw driver was not allowed in, that obviously could have had a different outcome. However we need to get over this caliber/bullet construction is going to get you convicted myth.

the fact that the attacker's previous violent criminal history was not allowed to be presented as evidence.

What a attacker has done in the past does not prove innocence or guilt in the current case, therefore it has no reason to be in the case. If you allowed the previous history on serial rapists/burglers, etc into a case they are being tried on, the second the jury hears that information the person is going to be viewed as guilty (if they haven't already).

 

[GregGry]

Never use hand loads for self defense. Hand loads are will get a lot of attention from the prosecutor.

How would the prosecutor be able to find out they were hand loads? How is this going to affect a self defense shoot when it comes a guilty or innocent verdict? What court cases exist where a handload was a key peice of evidence? As far as never using handloads for self defense because it is incriminating, it is a myth.

Sure a lawyer can try any angle of a case to achieve what their goal is. Your not going to get a conviction on just a handloaded round of ammo. No lawyer is going to try to have that the meat and potatoes of their case, unless its a case where someones gun blew up and they are suing the manufacture.

 

[MD_Willington]

Using HP's is like a safety feature, HP's tend to stay put once inside the target, yet ignorant people on juries will never understand this...

 

[BADUNAME37]

I think this whole argument boils down to

whether the person was JUSTIFIED in the shooting to save his life and/or save the lives of others.

That is why it is extremely important NOT to even pull out your weapon unless you are CERTAIN it is going to be "them or you."

I really believe I would rather die with my gun still concealed than pull it out and shoot someone in the wrong circumstances thereby causing me to be the person on trial.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...So yes, the issue of Mr. Fish's handloads was brought up,...

AFAIK, Fish didn't use handloads. He used commercial, JHP, 10mm ammunition. The prosecutor made an issue of both his use of JHP ammunition and his use of a "powerful" cartridge.

...the most important, perhaps, the fact that the attacker's previous violent criminal history was not allowed to be presented as evidence....

In most cases that would be inadmissible under the rules of evidence.

...That harold fish case did not use the bullets caliber or construction to convict him....

The thing is that the prosecutor made an issue of both Fish's use of JHPs and a "powerful" cartridge, BUT Fish's lawyer did not deal with those issues properly.

How would the prosecutor be able to find out they were hand loads?...

If you really think that the investigator and the forensic team won't be able to figure it out, good luck.

...How is this going to affect a self defense shoot when it comes a guilty or innocent verdict?...

See post #41.

After practicing law for over 30 years, I will not use handloads for self defense. Of course, if anyone wants to use handloads for self defense, that's his prerogative. I don't care. It won't be my problem.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...Now the evidence of the screw driver was not allowed in, that obviously could have had a different outcome....

Under the rules of evidence, the fact that the assailant had screwdriver in his back pocket would have been inadmissible as irrelevant. Fish didn't know about it.