fastbolt
Member
You know, there's always room for the unexpected and weird when it comes to what happens in a court room.
Also, there's potentially a bit of a difference when it comes to criminal versus civil cases, in some respects.
I think that whoever selects this particular ammunition for defensive usage may have bigger 'issues', though ...
You don't have to look very far to see how words, labels and context are used in interesting ways inside a courtroom, and how jury perception may be influenced.
I wouldn't want to have the words "Black Talon" used in a civil case, and have the horrific media coverage of the shooting in SF several years ago play through the jurors' memories ... but I carry the latest generation of the Ranger T-Series ammunition. It's not coated in lubalox, though, and nowhere do the words "Black Talon" appear in any of the company's L/E ammunition literature. It's one of the best selling ammunition lines in current production, and I'm not particularly worried about it being 'defensible', or most attorneys even knowing what it is, anyway. Even a lot of firearm's enthusiasts don't know the actual specifications and differences between the early Black Talon, and the later series of bullets produced in this line. The boxes aren't graphic labeled, the L/E catalog literature is 'toned down' ... and most folks would be hard pressed to even identify a current production T-Series cartridge from an assorted group of various brands & loads displayed.
I wouldn't be carrying any of the older Black talon ammunition in my pistols, though ... not while I'm working in the SF Bay Area. That's one potential 'perception issue' I'd prefer not to have to ever face in a civil case ...
On the other hand, when it comes to civil cases and influencing a jury to be swayed by issues beyond the actual 'facts' involved ...
I personally know of a case where an agency, and individual K-9 officer, had a real problem in a civil court case involving an injury received from an on-duty dog bite. The dog bite wasn't a 'bad bite', and wasn't out of policy. A significant injury was suffered, though, and a civil suit was filed for damages. The jurors in the civil suit were apparently influenced in their decision by the officer having named his dog something like "Fanged Death" (real dog name not used for professional reasons, but it was equally macho, graphic and intimidating). It might've been different if he'd named the dog "Fluffy", and reportedly the officer, and the agency, did indeed regret the name given to that dog because of the effect it had on the outcome of the civil case. As I understand it, a policy was later instituted that prevented such graphic and intimidating names being given to their K-9's.
Perception can sometimes be reality ... especially when presented to a jury in a civil matter.
This question, however, isn't one where you should reasonably expect an answer from the internet ... or, the errornet, as it were ... but should be asked of your own attorney. If you ever want legal advice, get it from a source educated, trained, experienced and licensed to offer it. Hopefully, your selected attorney has some experience and familiarity with this particular subject. It might not hurt to ask your insurance agent, either ... presuming you've decided it would be helpful to have an umbrella policy to protect you in the event you actually have to use your weapon for lawful defensive reasons.
Words mean things, to different people ... even if people argue over the meanings.
Just my thoughts.
Also, there's potentially a bit of a difference when it comes to criminal versus civil cases, in some respects.
I think that whoever selects this particular ammunition for defensive usage may have bigger 'issues', though ...
You don't have to look very far to see how words, labels and context are used in interesting ways inside a courtroom, and how jury perception may be influenced.
I wouldn't want to have the words "Black Talon" used in a civil case, and have the horrific media coverage of the shooting in SF several years ago play through the jurors' memories ... but I carry the latest generation of the Ranger T-Series ammunition. It's not coated in lubalox, though, and nowhere do the words "Black Talon" appear in any of the company's L/E ammunition literature. It's one of the best selling ammunition lines in current production, and I'm not particularly worried about it being 'defensible', or most attorneys even knowing what it is, anyway. Even a lot of firearm's enthusiasts don't know the actual specifications and differences between the early Black Talon, and the later series of bullets produced in this line. The boxes aren't graphic labeled, the L/E catalog literature is 'toned down' ... and most folks would be hard pressed to even identify a current production T-Series cartridge from an assorted group of various brands & loads displayed.
I wouldn't be carrying any of the older Black talon ammunition in my pistols, though ... not while I'm working in the SF Bay Area. That's one potential 'perception issue' I'd prefer not to have to ever face in a civil case ...
On the other hand, when it comes to civil cases and influencing a jury to be swayed by issues beyond the actual 'facts' involved ...
I personally know of a case where an agency, and individual K-9 officer, had a real problem in a civil court case involving an injury received from an on-duty dog bite. The dog bite wasn't a 'bad bite', and wasn't out of policy. A significant injury was suffered, though, and a civil suit was filed for damages. The jurors in the civil suit were apparently influenced in their decision by the officer having named his dog something like "Fanged Death" (real dog name not used for professional reasons, but it was equally macho, graphic and intimidating). It might've been different if he'd named the dog "Fluffy", and reportedly the officer, and the agency, did indeed regret the name given to that dog because of the effect it had on the outcome of the civil case. As I understand it, a policy was later instituted that prevented such graphic and intimidating names being given to their K-9's.
Perception can sometimes be reality ... especially when presented to a jury in a civil matter.
This question, however, isn't one where you should reasonably expect an answer from the internet ... or, the errornet, as it were ... but should be asked of your own attorney. If you ever want legal advice, get it from a source educated, trained, experienced and licensed to offer it. Hopefully, your selected attorney has some experience and familiarity with this particular subject. It might not hurt to ask your insurance agent, either ... presuming you've decided it would be helpful to have an umbrella policy to protect you in the event you actually have to use your weapon for lawful defensive reasons.
Words mean things, to different people ... even if people argue over the meanings.
Just my thoughts.
Last edited:
