Hamilton Felix said:
Courts and juries may conclude excessive force in the form of bullet or powder charge was unnecessary to stop attack.
Interesting. I'd like to see cases where that argument was effective. If so, then all of us who sleep near 12 gauge shotguns should be trading them for .22 pistols, so we wouldn't be using something "too powerful" (or at least replacing the 00 Buck with #8 birdshot)...
Well I don't see the use of handloads as raising an issue of excessive force. But that still doesn't mean it's a good idea. Again, see the threads I've linked to in post 11.
Hamilton Felix said:
...Responding Officers are the servants of the Prosecutor. The Prosecutor wants to have a high conviction score and to punish anyone possible. It's nice if only the guilty are punished, but not really that important. In some political climates, it's actually a higher priority to punish the armed. Ask for the lawyer. Then shut up. ...
This subject has also been discussed extensively. See --
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=526511
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=532073
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=532286
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=565769
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=565811
In any case, I don't think saying nothing, or just asking for your lawyer, is necessarily the best idea following a self defense use of force.
[1] Call 911. Be the first to report the incident and do so immediately. If you don't report it, or if there's a long delay, you will appear to have a guilty conscience.
[2] While one has a right to remain silent, clamming up is what the bad guys do. Following a self defense incident, you'll want to act like one of the good guys. You also won't want the investigating officers to miss any evidence or possible witnesses. What if the responding officers miss your assailant's knife that you saw fall down the storm drain? What if they don't know about the guy you saw pick up your assailant's gun and walk off with it?
[3] At the same time, you don't want to say too much. You will most likely be rattled. You will also most likely be suffering from various well known stress induced distortions of perception.
[4] So ---
- Say something like, "That person (or those people) attacked me." You are thus immediately identifying yourself as the victim. It also helps get the investigation off on the right track.
- Say something like, "I will sign a complaint." You are thus immediately identifying the other guys(s) as the criminal(s).
- Point out possible evidence, especially evidence that may not be immediate apparent. You don't want any such evidence to be missed.
- Point out possible witnesses.
- Then say something like, "I'm not going to say anything more right now. You'll have my full cooperation in 24 hours, after I've talked with my lawyer."
Girodin said:
fiddletown said:
for some reason, gunshot residue (GSR) test results will be important to your defense, GSR test results will not be admissible into evidence if you used handloads. It won't matter how good your records may be. Thye are suspect, because they are yours. You will not be able to establish the necessary foundation for admission of GSR test results of your handloads because you will not be able to satisfactorily establish that the handloads tested were the same as the rounds fired in the incident.
I don't know about each states rules but based on the federal rules which the state with which I am familiar follows very closely I'm not sure that this is correct. I'm not sure that one per se could not establish a satisfactory foundation.
For something to be admissible one must offer sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find that thing is what it purports to be. With real evidence you have to prove the chain of custody—how it got from where it was to court. These do not seem like absolutely insurmountable obstacles to me...
It's not just a matter of demonstrating that what is offered in evidence is what it purports to be or establishing a chain of custody.
Say you may want to introduce GSR evidence to corroborate your story about how the event took place.
You therefore engage an expert to conduct tests reproducing the circumstances of the event. You want the test results to validate your story of how things took place. If you're claiming self defense, you're hoping that your expert witness can take ammunition which can be established to be substantially identical to the ammunition you shot the alleged attacker with under conditions replicating the shooting as you have contended it took place and produce GSR similar to the GSR produced at the scene. And that will, you hope, allow your expert to testify that in his opinion the shooting took place as you had described it.
That can only work, and you can get the sort of expert testimony you need in your defense, if the judge can be satisfied that the ammunition tested by your expert was substantially identical to the ammunition with which you shot the guy you claim attacked you.
If you used handloads, the only evidence you can offer to support the claim that the ammunition tested was substantially identical to the ammunition used in the claimed self defense event will be your testimony to that effect. Your testimony on that point would be suspect because you are vitally interested in the outcome and there can be no independent corroboration of your claim as to what was in the ammunition you used to defend yourself with.
On the other hand, if you had loaded your gun with Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto, identifiable from the fired cases, the rounds remaining in the gun, recovered bullets and the partially used supply at the defendant's residence, the you could show that Federal Cartridge Company manufactures large quantities subject to certain quality controls to a certain degree of uniformity. In addition, Federal Cartridge Company is a non-involved third party making ammunition for sale to the general public. That would most likely establish an adequate foundation to secure admission into evidence of GSR test results of exemplar Federal HST, 230 grain, .45 Auto ammunition in support of your expert's opinion.
It's all about being able to perform a test under conditions that a judge can be convinced mirror the event sufficiently to permit an expert to draw valid conclusions about the event from the test results.
Girodin said:
...the types of cases where GSR tests are going to be much of an issue are going to be fairly atypical cases with facts that are likely far outside the norm for self defense shootings....
[1] How do you know?
[2] Even if in most self defense cases, GSR test results won't be an issue, you can't know whether or not they will be an issue in your case, if you're ever that unlucky. You can avoid the problem by using factory ammunition.
[3] And see
this post on this board by Marty Hayes about a self defense case in which it was an issue.
Girodin said:
... Mr. Ayoob had to result to a non self defense shooting case to argue this point. It was a case where the defendant was charged with shooting his significant other and he claimed she had the gun to her head and he tried to pull it away and it went off. One issue was the amount of GSR on the deceased....
That is the
Bias case. But the point of
Bias, for our purposes, is a matter of evidence law. It doesn't matter what the underlying case was about. The evidentiary issue would be the same in a self defense case.
The point in
Bias that concerns us is that the judge refused to accept the defendant's authentication of the rounds test fired being identical to the rounds that were loaded in the gun and fired in the incident. So whether the underlying defense theory is "I didn't do it" or "it was self defense" a defendant could reasonably expect the same adverse evidentiary ruling in the case of handloads.
gordy said:
...You taylor a load to you gun, Factory junk is made to go bang in any and all guns. JMHO...
So use handloads if you want. It won't be my problem. I will not, however.
