Do you carry handloads or factory ammo?

[Dnaltrop]

10 rounds.... California comes to mind right off the bat there.

Light trigger(and less brain) http://www.spike.com/video-clips/gmcuxn/officer-shoots-himself-infront-of-classroom!

http://ostti.com/Hickey Booklet.pdf I'm not an Ayoob junkie, just exercising google-fu.

"“This was the Pima County Prosecutor’s Office putting the concept of the armed lifestyle
on trial because Nicolini attacked the whole concept of taking training, carrying a gun 24/7. He tried to paint the picture that anybody who would do that is really out
of whack with society. There was a lot of discussion in his closing about the type of training that Larry took. Nicolini called Larry a liar; he called him a wannabe cop, a wannabe soldier."

Hollowpoints. It only takes the wrong person with the right pen to make us all rise up in a collective snit there. "The Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration III, prohibits the use in warfare of bullets that easily expand or flatten in the body."

Radium-dial Wristwatches!

Subrogation when using the shotgun in public.... So many pellets.

Enough google twiddling for now, baby needs a change

 

[Loosedhorse]

10mm- Harold Fish was found guilty, and a big reason for that was his use of a 10mm auto. Are we to assume that the carrying of a 10mm invites prosecution if used in a SD situation?

Off-topic, but there are two things about the Harold Fish case: first, he was (under law active at the time of his shooting) compelled to prove by preponderance of the evidence that he had acted in self-defense, yet (second) he declined to testify at trial.

Had he testified, I think he would have been able to explain his choice of 10mm. At least I hope so: it's my preferred SD caliber.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by 357 Terms: It seems that one could cast these broad worst case scenario's on many aspects of gun ownership, certainly after one is used in a self defense situation, some of which do have legal precedent.

Not one of the items you list has any legal precedent.

To be fair, legal precedent involves a ruling by a higher court on principles of law that had been (1) the subject of an appeal of a ruling, instruction, etc, in a trial court, or (2) the subject of the appeal of a ruling by a lower appellate court. Decisions in a trial court do not establish legal precedent.

Thus, while the opinion of one juror on the 10MM pistol and the JHP ammunition after the trial of Harold Fish can teach us something about prosecutions and jury psychology, it did not involve legal precedent in any way, shape, or form.

However, there is legal precedent that impacts the admissibility of GSR test results from ammunition other than factory loads. One such precedent involves the SCOTUS rulling in the case(s) of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Those rulings, which resulted from an appeal of civil trials involving pharmaceuticals, established what is know as the Daubert standard, which governs the admissibility expert witness testimony and of forensic scientific trace evidence in those states that have adopted the Daubert rule.

In most other states, the precedent stems from a ruling in Frye v. the United States, which had to do with the admissibility of polygraph test results.

As it relates to the subject at hand, there is no substantive difference between the two.

It may come as a surprise to some who are not familiar with the concept of legal precedent that a ruling on a case that involved pharmaceutical evidence and expert testimony on same could apply to wide range of other subjects, but as fiddletown an others have explained repeatedly, that's the way the legal system works. To illustrate the diversity over which a particular legal precedent can apply, my formal training in the Daubert rule involved ensuring the admissibility of computer-generated financial records. That's quite a bit different from pharmaceuticals or ammunition, but the rule applies.

Yet not one case in which a defendants load data was not allowed/denied by a judge to be presented in a court of law in a Self Defense shooting.

Perhaps the above discussion of legal precedence can help you understand what numerous other explanations by others, presented in many different ways, have failed to do.

In Post #70, we explained (1) why there have been no such cases that we know of, and (2) that it makes absolutely no difference whether a case involved murder, manslaughter, or an accident, nor does it matter whether or not there was a claim of self defense. Perhaps the discussion of how Daubert v. Merrell Dow governs court cases involving financial data, of all things, will persuade you that others just may know what they are taling about.

In Post #70, we also pointed out the case of a shooting in which the admission of the results of GSR tests performed on factory ammunition resulted in an acquittal. If you cannot deduce from that that had the test results not been admitted there would likely have been a conviction, I do not know what to tell you. Of course, you have to accept the fact that the case does not have to involve a case of self defense to apply. Accept it!

I'm stumped!

OK. Many of us have tried in as many ways as possible to help you. To be frank, I have not been able to tell whether you have not been able to understand what has been explained to you in so many ways, or whether you have just not been willing, or whether you have just been argumentative.

No matter. This has been useful. You have given us the opportunity to help others who do not have a working knowledge of the legal system (and that includes a lot of good people) as well as those who are not professionals in risk managment.

Thanks for the contribution.

 

[Super Sneaky Steve]

Here's my take on evidence. Being the defendant it's all used to hang you. I want as little as possible because I'm presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Therefore, I don't want to use a factory load because they will use shady residue or burn rate damage to say I was standing somewhere I shouldn't have been.

I even train to retain my brass in my revolvers, instead of dumping it on the ground. Again no evidence will be used to prove I'm innocent.

It may even be a good idea for people to use semi-autos to load their magazines with gloves on, so your finger prints don't go flying everywhere.

It's the same theory when talking to the police. Everyone knows the first rule of dealing with cops and that is, DON"T TALK TO COPS! Why? Because any thing you say will be evidence used against you. Physical evidence is no different. Leave as little as possible.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Here's my take on evidence. Being the defendant it's all used to hang you. I want as little as possible because I'm presumed to be innocent until proven guilty....

... DON"T TALK TO COPS! Why? Because any thing you say will be evidence used against you. Physical evidence is no different. Leave as little as possible.

Nope, sorry. You don't understand how it works if you plead self defense. If you are claiming self defense, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't mean anything. (see this post)

A lot of folks point to the "Don't Talk to the Police" video that is making the rounds on gun boards. But it is about a police contact in general. It works fine when you aren't claiming self defense, and it's up to the State to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. But things work differently if you are pleading self defense.

Basically --

[1] The prosecutor must prove the elements of the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt -- basically that you intentionally shot the guy. But if you are pleading self defense, you will have admitted that, so we go to step 2.

[2] Now you must present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. Depending on the State, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you may not have to convince the jury. But you will have to at least present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

[3] Now it's the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in justified self defense.

Let's go through that again.

In an ordinary criminal prosecution, the defendant doesn't have to say anything. He doesn't have to present any evidence. The entire burden falls on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the crime you're charged with is, for example, manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that you were there, you fired the gun, you intended to fire the gun (or were reckless), and the guy you shot died. In the typical manslaughter prosecution, the defendant might by way of his defense try to plant a seed that you weren't there (alibi defense), or that someone else might have fired the gun, or that it was an accident. In each case the defendant doesn't have to actually prove his defense. He merely has to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

So in such cases, it probably doesn't pay for you to say anything to the police, at least early on. Let them do the work of trying to amass evidence to prove the case against you. There's no reason for you to help.

But if you are going to be claiming self defense, you will wind up admitting all the elements of what would, absent legal justification, constitute a crime. You will necessarily admit that you were there, that you fired the gun, and that you intended to shoot the decedent. Your defense is that your use of lethal force in self defense satisfied the applicable legal standard and that, therefore, it was justified.

So now you would have to affirmatively present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In some jurisdictions, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you don't have to convince the jury. But you will at least have to present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

Then it will be the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury (in some jurisdictions, he will have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt) that you did not act in justified self defense. And even if you didn't have to prove self defense (only present a prima facie case), the more convincing your story, and your evidence, is, the harder it will be for the prosecutor to meet his rebuttal burden.

So for example, Randy Willems (see post 41) needed GSR evidence to show that his story about how it had to defend himself was true.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Super Sneaky Steve: Here's my take on evidence. Being the defendant it's all used to hang you. I want as little as possible because I'm presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Therefore, I don't want to use a factory load because they will use shady residue or burn rate damage to say I was standing somewhere I shouldn't have been.

I even train to retain my brass in my revolvers, instead of dumping it on the ground. Again no evidence will be used to prove I'm innocent.

Steve, if someone intends to murder someone, and I presume that you do not, that's the philosophy to adopt.

However, a self defense case is fundamentally different. If you end up shooting someone in self defense and have to mount a defense of justification, you will have to admit to having done so, and you will have to present at least some evidence on each of the elements of justification, or you will not even get a favorable jury instruction.

That's the way it is.

Bookmark, read, re read , and study this, this, this, and this.

Here are some excerpts that are directly relevant to your comment:

Many assumptions about trial tactics are inverted in a self-defense case. If the defendant presents some evidence on each of the elements of self-defense, then he or she is entitled to a jury instruction on the issue, which places the burden of proof squarely on the prosecutor to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

At a minimum, the defense must include some evidence, generally viewed in the light most favorable to the defense, on each of these factors in order to receive an appropriate jury instruction.

I hope you find this helpful.

I see that fiddletown has given a much better answer, but I will post this for completeness and to provide the links.

 

[357 Terms]

fiddletown
Yes, we know you're confused. It's been explained multiple times, but you still can't seem to get it. I guess the idea of risk management is simply beyond your understanding.


What you dont understand is that without proof all you have is opinion.
No case in which a SD shooter had issues with handloads and a DA

Speculation

Opinion

No facts

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by 357 Terms: No case in which a SD shooter had issues with handloads and a DA

That means absolutely nothing, as has been explained numerous times in numerous ways.

But the fact that a shooter using factory loads was able to introduce exculpatory evidence that resulted in his acquittal, and the fact that the rules of evidence would have prevented the introduction of that evidence had something other than factory loads been used, should prove the point very plainly even if an example involving a self defense case were required.

Speculation Opinion

No--just a very thorough knowledge of the way the legal system works.

No facts

The facts are these:

• It is up to the defense to introduce evidence to support each element of a self defense case.
• If faulty witness testimony contradicts the account of the defendant (quite possible), or if the or the testimony of the person shot contradicts the account of the defendant (highly probable), the contradiction will put the credibility in doubt, endangering his case.
• GSR patterns are routinely examined in cases involving shootings and have been accepted in court as an indicator of the distance at which shots were fired.
• The rules of evidence prevent the introduction as evidence of tests of ammuntion that was not loaded by a factory.

Fiddletown and some others here are highly qualified to render educated opinions based on facts and based on the law. It is becoming increasingly clear from your continued insistence on repeating the same meaningless and discredited arguments over and over that you are somehow either not willing or not able to understand any part of the subject at hand at all.

 

[beatledog7]

Sounds to me like we'll never solve this here. So, with apologies to the Moderators, here's how we do solve it:

Hypothetically, two guys have known each other for thirty years, went to college together, served in the Army together, retired the same day, and married each other's sisters. They've always borrowed each other's clothing as they are identical in physique. They always vote for the same political candidates, and they sing in the same church choir. Both are NRA pistol instructors with CCW permits in their state.

Tonight they go out together, both carrying a NL S&W 442 which they bought from the same dealer yesterday and which they both test fired just this morning, firing 10 each of the rounds they always carry. They use identical cross-draw holsters, both worn lefty. One is loaded with 125gr factory JHP SD rounds and the other with handloaded 125gr JHPs that closely match the other guy's factory ammo, even using the same bullet. Neither carries any spare rounds.

The worst happens, and they have to shoot somebody in self defense. They both fire two shots, all four striking center of mass, and the bad guy dies at the scene. There's no way to know in which order the shots were fired, as all twenty reliable eye witnesses who watched the bag guy threaten and then draw a gun on the pair say it happened too fast to be sure.

Now we have a case with as many of the possible variables removed as conceivable. When they're both in court, we'll see if using handloads vice factory loads makes any difference. That assumes, of course, that they have the same defense attorney, are prosecuted by the same DA, are on the same judge's docket (and the judge is in the same mood for both trials), and the same jury is seated for both trials. Oh, and what about the order in which they are tried? Could that be a factor that skews our scenario?

Of course, this simply will never happen. You just can't control all the variables. So we'll never know if using handloads is a greater risk or not.

Hypothetically, of course.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Sounds to me like we'll never solve this here....

There's nothing to solve. We're providing information. Maybe some people will find it useful, and maybe others won't.

At the end of the day, it won't matter to me what anyone else here does. I've decided what I will do.

 

[beatledog7]

Granted. And for that I for one am grateful. The free exchange of ideas is another at-risk Constitutional right, and I'm happy it is alive and well here at THR.

 

[357 Terms]

At the end of the day, it won't matter to me what anyone else here does. I've decided what I will do.

I have to agree with you on that.

 

[RedAlert]

I couldn't vote because there wasn't an option I could choose. It wasn't a matter of trusting one or the other.

In my case, I don't reload, so I'm forced to rely on factory ammo.

 

[Super Sneaky Steve]

I think in most cases there would be lots of evidence to prove a SD case without me putting more things on the table.

Lets say a guy breaks in my home with a gun intending to rob or murder me. My lawyer could use the broken door as evidence of forced entry, the gun in his hand as an intent to commit murder and a lot of other stuff.

What I don't want the prosecutor to say is that I shot him in a non defensive manner. And I think he'd use powder evidence to try and prove that. Even if it wasn't true.

I know it's debatable that's just how I see it.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I think in most cases there would be lots of evidence to prove a SD case without me putting more things on the table....

Why would you think that? What do you base your opinion on? How long and closely have you studied the law regarding the use of force in self defense? How well and how closely have you studied actual self defense incidents? Did you even read the Lisa Steele article at the links provided by Kleanbore?

In other words, what makes you think that you know anything at all about this subject?

...Lets say a guy breaks in my home with a gun intending to rob or murder me. My lawyer could use the broken door as evidence of forced entry, the gun in his hand as an intent to commit murder and a lot of other stuff...

And let's say that it didn't happen in your home. Or what if the intruder gained entrance without breaking down the door, but instead in a less obvious way? And what if the intruder doesn't have a gun or knife or other obvious weapon? What if the intruder's weapon is never found because when you shot him it fell down the heater grate or slid under a chair, and without information from you the police have no reason to look for it?

...I know it's debatable that's just how I see it.

That may be how you see it, but that doesn't mean it's anything like that in real life.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Super Sneaky Steve: I think in most cases there would be lots of evidence to prove a SD case without me putting more things on the table.

As fiddletown points out, there is really very little realistic basis for that belief.

Lets say a guy breaks in my home with a gun intending to rob or murder me. My lawyer could use the broken door as evidence of forced entry, the gun in his hand as an intent to commit murder and a lot of other stuff.

What I don't want the prosecutor to say is that I shot him in a non defensive manner. And I think he'd use powder evidence to try and prove that. Even if it wasn't true.

Let's take the second part first.

If the shooting of a burglar occurs within your home, it is most unlikely--not impossible, but at least very unlikely--that you would face the need to introduce GSR test data in your defense of justification.

My assessment is that the use of something other than factory loads in such a situation would not introduce a significant risk.

You are correct in believing that evidence of a break-in, if it is incontrovertible, would go a long way toward establishing your case. However, if the investigation shows prior dealings between you and the person shot, which could indicate motive, you had better hope that the evidence proves that he, and not you, caused the damage.

Read the Lisa Steele articles and the other links provided by fiddletown, and do not reply on uninformed opinions.

However, we're off track. The most likely scenarios for a shooting in which the evidence that the shooter can provide in support of justification is scarce or the totality of the evidence is contradictory, are those that occur outside.

That's where the possibility that the defendant may need to introduce ammunition test data to counter the prosecution's evidence is most likely to exist.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Factory loads. Trust my own loads far more, but do not care for even the possibility of liabilities in that regard.

 

[P5 Guy]

Question?

For Kleenbore & Fiddletown,
You've mentioned GSR and it being used against the defendant.
Maybe I missed the link, when posted. What is the physics, chemistry behind the GSR and how it is used as evidence? I think I understand the powder stippling and how it varies according to distance. What I'm failing at is how does one determine between powders which type caused the stippling? At what range this can occur?
Is there a way to tell the differences in chemical composition in spent gun powder?
I thank you for the information, P5

 

[Cosmoline]

Every once in a while I do have a handload with some problem. Either a dud primer or a case that got bulged or something tough to identify. It may only be one in two hundred, but that's sufficient for me to stick with factory loads provided they can be obtained.

The hypothetical legal problems are pretty remote and do not concern me either way. Any choice you make can theoretically be an issue at trial, and you'll go crazy trying to second guess every potential bit of nonsense a hypothetical prosecutor might try to bring in.

Are we to assume that the carrying of a 10mm invites prosecution if used in a SD situation?

Shooting an unarmed guy dead invites prosecution. The rest involves too many variables to predict. Just concentrate on the basics. Have a very good knowledge of your state's gun and self defense laws. Make darn sure you don't shoot unless you have to to protect yourself from imminent, unlawful deadly force or are otherwise permitted under law to use deadly force in defense.

 

[Marlin 45 carbine]

I carry my own loads, mostly rem GS or Nosler jhp.
if grilled about them I'd say I bought 'em at the fun show. because they were cheap.

 

[Frank Ettin]

For Kleenbore & Fiddletown,
You've mentioned GSR and it being used against the defendant.
Maybe I missed the link, when posted....

No, we didn't.

The issue is when you are the defendant and it would be in your interest to introduce expert testimony based on GSR test results. If you used handloads, you most likely won't be able to get such testimony into evidence. This is discussed by me at length in post 41.

 

[357 Terms]

If you used handloads, you most likely won't be able to get such testimony into evidence

please note: "most likely"

speculation.

 

[Frank Ettin]

If you used handloads, you most likely won't be able to get such testimony into evidence

please note: "most likely"

speculation.

More of your usual nonsense. One is always well advised not to make absolute statements. I've covered the topic extensively in post 41.

As Kleanbore has pointed out in post 83:

...Fiddletown and some others here are highly qualified to render educated opinions based on facts and based on the law....

As you, yourself, pointed out here, you have no professional qualifications to suppot your opinions:

...I am a meager bluecollar.

 

[357 Terms]

As you, yourself, pointed out here, you have no professional qualifications to suppot your opinions:
Quote:

Well then...

Please provide your credentials.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Well then...

Please provide your credentials.

Kleanbore knows them and has commented that I am professionally qualified. In more detail, however:

[1] I practiced law for over 30 years. So I'm pretty familiar with the realities of the legal system. Understanding those realities is how I've supported myself and family for over 30 years -- keeping a roof over our heads and food on the table, and allowing me to retire before the age of 60.

For almost 15 years leading up to my retirement (as of 1 January 2007), I was a senior lawyer and vice president of a Fortune 200 company. A large part of that practice consisted of preventive law/legal risk management: helping find ways of doing things that would accomplish the client's purposes while reducing legal exposure; and helping the client to do things in ways that would put it in the best position if problems did arise. Another big piece of that practice was managing complex and high exposure litigation.

I also handled a number of criminal law matters. On behalf of the company I helped both federal and state authorities with the investigation and prosecution various Medicare/Medicaid fraud and insurance fraud matters.

[2] I've taken Massad Ayoob's LFI-I class (now MAG-40). I later served as an assistant instructor at one of Ayoob's classes in Sierra Vista, Arizona and recently gave, at his invitation, a short guest lecture at one of his classes in Sacramento.

[3] I've trained at Gunsite and taken classes with Louis Awerbuck.

[4] I'm an NRA certified instructor in Basic Handgun, Personal Protection Inside the Home, Personal Protection Outside the Home and Shotgun.