Extreme Shock ammo and legal considerations

[Frandy]

Okay, so let's assume that this Extreme Shock ammo does what the demos claim:

Extreme Shock demo on Stefani site:

My question is, if a citizen shoots a bad guy with this stuff, do they leave themselves open to any "additional" legal problems because of the choice of ammo?

By the way, I don't use this stuff. Just curious.

Frandy

 

[The Drew]

Honestly, If you are worried about liability, the best advice I have heard is find out what local law enforcement is using, and carry the same bullet type. Like Hydroshok, golden sabre, or gold dot, then if you get called on it, bring subpeona the local law enforcement officer who chose the rounds and have him tell you why...

 

[Sean Smith]

My question is, if a citizen shoots a bad guy with this stuff, do they leave themselves open to any "additional" legal problems because of the choice of ammo?

If the ammo itself is legal in the jurisdiction the shoot takes place in, no. And nobody has ever provided any evidence to the contrary; all the crying on gun boards about "ammo-based liability" in a legally justified shoot is just a bunch of speculative wanking.

 

[HankB]

If the shoot is good, ammo is not going to be an issue unless it's really off the wall - for example, I wouldn't fill the hollow points of my carry ammo with rattlesnake venom.

If the DA or some civil lawsuit attorney has it in for you, he can try to make ANY ammo an issue.

Use handloads? What, factory ammo isn't deadly enough for you?

Use hollowpoints? Aren't dum-dums BANNED for use in WAR?

Use what the cops are using? What are, you a vigilante cop wannabe, handing out his own justice?

Use FMJ? This is WARFIGHTING ammo - do you think you're fighting a WAR?

All of these arguments can be shot down with good lawyering.

As for specialty commercial ammo . . . generally speaking, it's been my observation that the more impressive the name, the less impressive the performance. It wouldn't surprise me if the worst ammo on the market came with a name like "Extreme Tactical Rhino Ninja Dragon Supreme."

 

[GEM]

Standard legal answer:

1. Ayoob talks about ammo influencing cases. Some folks don't like him.
2. Legal data bases don't come up with much. However, legal databases may not code this issue.
3. DAs do emphasize weapons type issues to juries. You can see this in trial tapes.
4. Jury simulation research indicates that weapons type issues can affect simulated juries. This is especially true in ambiguous shoots (like should you have retreated, etc.)

Thus, there may be some small risk possible. If you were in a shoot, a good lawyer should be aware of the research.

You decide if you care what internet 'experts' say.

 

[dasmi]

You should probably more worried about the extreme bull???? marketing getting all over you.
Any good hollow point will be just as effective, and cost less.

EDIT:
Maybe it's just me, but I would skeptical of any instructor that displays this on their homepage.

http://www.stefanidefensivefirearms.com/default.asp

 

[Tim3256]

If the ammo used is commercially available and the shoot is clean, get a good lawyer who is experiaenced in this arena, and you'll be fine. The details of the shoot are what matters.

However, Extreme Shock is junk. Check out what the seasoned shooters in your area use, and just use one of those brands.
Have fun, be safe.

 

[Sean Smith]

1. Ayoob talks about ammo influencing cases. Some folks don't like him.

And some folks don't like the fact that he CITES NO EVIDENCE to back up his claim.

2. Legal data bases don't come up with much. However, legal databases may not code this issue.

Actually, they come up with nothing at all. You can't spin "no evidence" into being evidence itself... but people still try.

3. DAs do emphasize weapons type issues to juries. You can see this in trial tapes.

To no apparent effect.

4. Jury simulation research indicates that weapons type issues can affect simulated juries. This is especially true in ambiguous shoots (like should you have retreated, etc.)

Can you cite a source to back this up? "I think I remember something done by somebody sometime" doesn't count. And anyway, what is the point of "simulation" if there are all the real cases that can be studied? To create hypothetical evidence where real evidence doesn't exist?

 

[M2 Carbine]

I load my guns with the baddest defense ammo I can find.

We're talking about killing someone to stop them from harming your or yours.
That's what is important, not worrying about what some lawyer has to say later.

I'll be ALIVE to have my say and that's all that matters.

 

[Cosmoline]

Only if the bullet ends up maiming but not killing the bad guy. The only legal problem I can see with this ammo is that it might fail completely, leaving only nasty wounds. The equivalent to shooting someone with a handgun shotshell. Otherwise, lethal force is lethal force is lethal force. Whether it's a brick or fancy handloads is irrelevant.

 

[DarkKnight01]

the Fang Face's ability to release all it's energy into the soft target causing neurological collapse resulting in instant incapacitation.

Ahhh so this is where the stories of getting shot in the hand causes instant death...... all this time ive been wondering....

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Simply put, the liability isn't in the ammo, but in pulling the trigger and striking your opponent with what you fire.

In regard to Ayoob, check the following thread. Ayoob has managed to show that at least one of his own ideas or idea sets has turned out to be untrue. Ayoob has proposed that folks carry what the cops carry in regard to guns and ammo choices, no reloads, with the notion that there will be some liability protection. However, the only liability cases he has ever presented regarding ammo were cases where the cops used factory ammo. He has not presented a single liability case where a non-LEO was sued for ammo choice, but 2 where cops were...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=89289&highlight=paradigmatic+shift

Note that in the cited article that Ayoob also notes this, "Things like attacking the officer's gun or ammunition are the sort of things that are predictably used by lawyers who have no substantive."

Extrapolated to civilian use, if the lawyer is attacking your ammo choice, it is becasue the lawyer has nothing substantive and is wildly swinging blindly.

 

[BerettaNut92]

From their website:

It's a new war, and our nations best warriors now carry the world's most devastating ammunition!

They do??

 

[Cosmoline]

LOL

 

[GEM]

Sean:

I will be glad to provide you with the references if you pay my consulting fees. Or you could sign up to take my course on Aggression and Violence.

As far as saying the prosecutor's weapons evidence have no effect. Could you cite the references and studies that have proven this?

I'm really not worried about Ayoob. DNS makes a valid point about his Combat Handgun articles and the like. I do know the professional jury simulation literature and studies on priming effects by weapons type and exposure. There are effects there. Such things would not be picked up in the purely legal data bases because they don't code that stuff.

And BTW, Sean, I might have given you the references if you were mildly polite. I have for many other professionals in the field. I was just making a quick point, not writing a report.

 

[Rockstar]

The ONLY places that weapon or ammo choice figures into any legal liability are between the ears of Ayoob and his equally-vacuous minions. (Maybe it's all those years of beer-swilling and chainsmoking!)

 

[Cosmoline]

In a pure self-defense case, where the details of the killing are admitted, the type of weapon used and the ammunition have no relevance at all. A prosecutor trying to admit "deadly bullet" theories would run headlong into both the relevance rules and Rule 403. I have never been able to find a SINGLE REPORTED OPINION in 100+ years of caselaw where any DA or plaintiff attorney made an "extra deadly bullet" argument. On its face the argument is absurd. There is no such thing as "extra" deadly. If it killed him, it was deadly. Lethal force is lethal force is lethal force.

In cases where the facts of the killing are not admitted, prosecutors do like to parade around the courtroom with big evil rifles. It shouldn't be allowed, but it often is under the pretext that if the shooting is at issue, the jury should be allowed to see the firearm that the state says was used. So while there is nothing to support Ayoob's theory that handloading will get you into trouble, there is something to be said for using a "friendly" levergun.

 

[Elmer]

Hmmmm....

I do think Ayoob is a little full of it most of the time, but I've been to court enough times to know that lawyers do make issues of lots of immaterial things. A defense attorney representing a gang banger, I arrested for felon in possession of a firearm, once asked me why I was carrying a gun in court. Before I could answer, the judge said, "Ahhhh... maybe because he's a police officer?" Jury laughed... crook convicted.....

I remember when PMC introduced the Starfire, and ran ads calling it the "worlds deadliest handgun ammunition". Don't think I'd want to have used that if I was being sued.

 

[Cosmoline]

All rounds, from the .22LR to the big fifty, are lethal weapons if they kill someone. If you don't want to kill a person, don't shoot them. There is no such thing as "extra" dead, so there is no relevance to "extra deadly" ammunition. Dead is dead. If you used lethal force, you had better be prepared to justify it. Using factory standard ammunition is no defense to anything. You can't shoot a man dead then claim you didn't expect him to actually die because you were only using ball ammo.

 

[StrikeEagle]

Well... I don't know if it's any good, but I wouldn't carry it.

"Extreme Shock Fang Face"??? Puh-LEEEZ!

I don't really believe in Trick Bullets... even when they don't have pimp names. Nor was I swayed by the raging tac team crashing onto the front page of the site amidst lightning and presumably, thunder.

This kinda stuff doesn't appeal to me, though I concede it might have knocked me dead when I was 12.

StrikeEagle

 

[TimboKhan]

yeah, its legal, but you can't for one second tell me that if something should happen and you get stuck with a liberal jury, a prosecuting attorney won't make a point of pointing out that you used "Black Talon" or whatever your using and how that is "armor-penetrating" ammo or some other BS claim. You guys that are this ammo is legal and should be used are right in everything you say, and that idea about talking too and perhaps subpoening the recommending officer is a really, really good one, but I still maintain that if you get shafted by a liberal jury it works against you. Besides that, you also have to consider the inevitable civil case against you, and I really do think that it will work against you in that case. This, of course, is just my opinion, and take it for what its worth. By the way, on Mas Ayoob, I am less and less interested in what he has to say. I am sure he knows what he is talking about and all, but I get the sense from him that he pumps himself up more than necessary.

Timbo

 

[The_Antibubba]

A Rose by any other name?

If it's about the name, maybe I'll start a new line:

Hello Kitty's Pretty Petal Hollowpoints!

After all, what could be warmer and cuter than Hello Kitty, right?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I have a question to the people who think that ammo choice makes no difference in jury verdicts...

How do you know what the jury was thinking, especially in a civil suit, where jurors are not usually interviewed?

If a plaintiff's lawyer tries to make the point that you were out looking for trouble when you shot someone in self defense, he will try to make you look as bad as possible. He may make references to the type of gun, magazine capacity, ammo choice, whatever, to help establish that you were a Rambo-wannabee out looking to shoot someone. He may point out that you are an NRA member, read Soldier of Fortune, and attended a shooting school. He is going to do whatever he can to make you look bad, even if it bears no relevance. Even if the defense attorney counters these points, the minds of the jury might be swayed and the damage done anyway. The rules in civil court are loose, and they can ask about almost anything.

As an example of the plaintiffs attorney trying to make someone look bad, I remember a medical malpractice case I provided expert testimony in a few years ago. The plaintiff's attorney asked the doctor being sued if he was a member of the country club, what kind of car did he drive, and did he own an airplane. These questions were asked in the deposition, and had no bearing whatsoever on the issue of malpractice. He asked these questions to make the doctor look like a rich man who was detached from his patients and medical practice. He wanted to show that he was different than the people on the jury, someone they could not relate to. So my point is, lawyers will do anything if they think it will help their case.

The chances of ammo selection being used against you in court by a lawyer is unlikely, I agree. Even if it used against you, it still may not impact the jury decision. I am not so naive as to think it is not possible though. I think anyone who says for sure that this WILL or WILL NOT affect a civil law jury's verdict is pushing their own agenda.

Now handwringing aside, I still carry hollowpoints. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[GEM]

Cosmoline makes the point that I was making. His argument is based on no one finding a case where the bullet type was overtly raised.

That may not be the point. The jury sim literature tests more subtle issues. If the jury has more exposure to the weapon - for example:

1. They just see it once
2. It is constantly present on the DA's table, not making a big deal of it
3. It is given to the jury to hold and examine

There are more negative consequences for the defendant in #3.

That kind of effect won't make the case law.

There have been similar studies based on kind of weapon used. No exaggerated posturing, just a different weapon used in a self-defense shooting and you get effects. That wouldn't make case law.

There are strong gender effects that interact with these.

While it hasn't been tested to my knowledge, such subtle effects could exist with ammo type.

In the DC snipe case, the DA started the case by slowing assembling the AR for the jury in his opening statement, wonder why?

Would that make case law? Probably not.

I've studied this literature very intensively and have concluded such effects are possible. I also think that a knowledgeable defense team should be aware of such and can deal with it.

 

[Gunnutz13]

In the movies, TV, or...

any other medium you prefer, I always get a kick out of when the lawyer, whether he be the prosecutor or defending the client, introduces something questionable as evidence...the other lawyer objects...and the judge warns the jury to disregard the evidence. The damage is already done...and it's not going to be disregarded...it's going to be in the back of their mind when a decision is being considered.

Bottom line: if I use a ( insert favorite brand ) HP to drop a BG, my lawyer can introduce the fact that I knew said bullet would dump most of, if not all of it's energy in the BG, and not over-penetrate like a FMJ, thereby making sure no innocents would be jeapordized. I myself carry Black Talon 45acp ... ( Just Joking )