Perception is reality - does it matter what you carry?

[redcon1]

No, it is just something I choose to do. Is it important to you?

It's not but I am curious why you choose to carry reloads when you have to know it's going to become a topic of discussion for the DA. the carrying of reloads was never anything that I gave much thought to and I don't think it is, in and of itself a problem unless a DA can show that your reloads were painstakingly crafted by you so as to ensure that the young African American gentleman or gentlemen that you shot dead while they were walking to Church to praise the lord did in fact die. That's a bit of dark humor there obviously but you get my point that the potential is there for a DA to argue that you had premeditated to some degree and had a "guilty mind" i.e. intent and purpose most especially if the reloads could be shown to be significantly more lethal than what the local PoPo is carrying.

 

[DeepSouth]

So far I could have gotten away with no gun at all, I hope that doesn’t change.

But to the point of the OP, I heard someone say once “carry whatever you want, just be ready to defend your decision to 12 anti gun jurors.”

 

[Kleanbore]

I don't think it is, in and of itself a problem unless a DA can show that your reloads were painstakingly crafted by you..but you get my point that the potential is there for a DA to argue that you had premeditated to some degree and had a "guilty mind" i.e. intent and purpose....

That really should not be an issue at all, absent a stack of records showing that you had been trying to maximize the terminal effectiveness of you handloads.

The issue with reloads would arise if the evidence available after the fact are ambiguous, and if GSR test data of the defender's ammunition might prove helpful to a defense of justification.

The likelihood is remote but under certain circumstances, it could be materially greater than zero. However, the potential consequences could be extremely severe.

I would not take that risk with my 9mm. But if all I had to use for SD were handloads for a .38-40, I would accept the risk.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

the potential is there for a DA to argue that you had premeditated to some degree and had a "guilty mind" i.e. intent and purpose most especially if the reloads could be shown to be significantly more lethal than what the local PoPo is carrying.

The potential is always there for a DA to argue that someone used ammo that was "more deadlier".
Since you brought it up, racism can also be used against a defendant even if everyone involved in an incident is of the same race.

 

[redcon1]

The potential is always there for a DA to argue that someone used ammo that was "more deadlier".
Since you brought it up, racism can also be used against a defendant even if everyone involved in an incident is of the same race.

Correct, as it was in the Rittenhouse trial. Imagine if you will if one or all of the people he shot that night were African Americans AND he had used reloads that could be shown to be more likely to cause death. That entire case would have been different. The Zimmerman case could have turned out differently too if the DA could have argued that Zimmerman had crafted his own ammo and had crafted it to be especially likely to result in death. This speaks to the whole "shoot to kill" versus "shoot to stop the threat" discussion that Massad Ayoob recently started. He has a video on youtube where he discusses this and it's worth watching and Mr. Ayoob is always worth listening to in matters like this.

So, as has been my primary point all along, carrying reloads might not be an issue but carrying reloads that can be shown to be far and above what any law enforcement agency routinely uses might be and upon doing a cost benefit risk analysis, I don't see that the benefit to carrying reloads outweighs the risk. In fact, there is no real benefit as far I can tell, there is only risk.
But I hope you understand, this is all just an interesting and perhaps relevant to the times discussion to me and it certainly isn't something that I would want to fight with anyone here about.

 

[redcon1]

That really should not be an issue at all, absent a stack of records showing that you had been trying to maximize the terminal effectiveness of you handloads.

The issue with reloads would arise if the evidence available after the fact are ambiguous, and if GSR test data of the defender's ammunition might prove helpful to a defense of justification.

The likelihood is remote but under certain circumstances, it could be materially greater than zero. However, the potential consequences could be extremely severe.

I would not take that risk with my 9mm. But if all I had to use for SD were handloads for a .38-40, I would accept the risk.

Like I said, it's basically a cost benefit risk analysis that we're discussing here. What is the benefit to carrying reloads of any kind? What is the risk? what is the benefit of carrying, let's say for example, max load handloads that utilize the controlled chaos fragmenting projectile? What are the risks? I see no real benefit in either case as far as SD goes. What are the risks? I would say there's a variable potential for risk especially if your DGU enters the political realm. It only takes one angry juror to throw your case into a mistrial and that means no double jeopardy protection.

 

[WrongHanded]

Sometimes reloads don't go off.

SOMETIMES factory ammunition "don't go off".
Shoot what you trust to bet your life on it.

Yep. There's a big difference between factory ammunition and premium factory ammunition. And a big difference between poorly/carelessly assembled reloads, and carefully/diligently assembled handloads.

 

[Jeff White]

I think that it's more important to worry about what you post on gun forums and social media then it is to worry about what gun and ammo combination you use. They will search out everything you've ever said online looking for something to use against you.

 

[GEM]

We doing this yet again? Jeff makes good points. Sorry to say, the naivete about how the legal system will evaluate everything about you continues to disappoint me. Show me a case, if it's a good shoot - baloney cliches. History, the gun and ammo you used, have you trained, has you trainer spouting blood lust baloney that made you a killer, do you or did you compete, your appearance on the stand - all of these have come up in documented trials. If you haven't seen it, it is because you aren't hooked into the professional literature.

Let's look at the Potter case, for instance. Not to rehash her actions but an appearance issue. You see her in her police uniform but she testifies looking like a harmless, middle aged woman. Why? Jury perception.

When someone says that no one has been convicted because of the ammo or the gun - it shows that the poster does not understand that the decision process is a complex set of factors. You are on trial because your good shoot is ambiguous at best. What pushes a jury over to guilty? Your actions and part of that will be your motivations. Look at the Rittenhouse questioning. Thus, why add a little more to the negative perception of you. That your handloads are better significantly than premium factory is hubris. Your tough guy logos - BS. Your blather on the Internet - surprise. Start adding up some of that for your impression on a shoot that IS NOT clear and surprise. Well, you get free meals and medical care for a bit.

 

[Kleanbore]

Like I said, it's basically a cost benefit risk analysis that we're discussing here. What is the benefit to carrying reloads of any kind? What is the risk?

That's it in a nutshell.

I think that it's more important to worry about what you post on gun forums and social media then it is to worry about what gun and ammo combination you use. They will search out everything you've ever said online looking for something to use against you.

I agree.
I would want to avoid depriving myself of anything that could be used in my defense, and avoid adding anything that could be used against me. Andrew Branca opines that if a defender does everything right, he sill stands a 10% chance of conviction. Why make it worse?

 

[GEM]

Wonder how he came up with that number? I see the point but what's his standard error?

 

[JohnKSa]

The things you do, the company you keep and the places you go are far more important than the gun and ammo you carry.
Don't put yourself in bad places with bad people doing bad things and you are much less likely to be in a self defense situation.

I'd like to think that all of us here are smart enough to want to avoid being in a situation where our life is in danger and are taking reasonable steps to achieve that desire. Just like all of us want to avoid car accidents. Unfortunately, sometimes things don't go to plan.

Should the situation arise for me; I will be sober, I will not be engaged in illegal activity, I won't be in the company of people who engage in illegal activity.
My ammo won't a relevant factor so I'll take the nonexistent risk of carrying my reloaded ammo.

Unfortunately, sometimes things don't go to plan. Not that you would be drunk or engaged in illegal activity or hanging out with criminals, but as has been pointed out several times by others on the thread, the prosecutor decides what they will and won't try to make an issue of, not the defendant.

I would bet that no person has ever been sent to prison for defending themselves against death or serious bodily injury simply because of the ammunition they used.

It would be very difficult to prove such a case did exist--or that it did not.

But we do know that things like ammunition selection have been used against a defendant, complicating their defense, and we've just seen an example where a prosecutor attempted to bring up ammunition selection. Fortunately the defendant had a good answer for the attempt and as a result it came to nothing. The key is being able to give a good answer if the topic comes up. it's not that hard to give a good answer unless you get caught flat-footed when asked.

I support everyone's right to carry the gun and ammo of their choice.

It's not about rights or what you support. It's about having a good answer if the topic comes up in a context that could cause you "damage". Nobody's trying to restrict your rights.

Is it important to you?

If you ever use them, your life will be on the line. And then potentially afterwards, your freedom and financial wellbeing will be on the line. It should be important to you, whether it's important to anyone else.

Whatever you select will be wrong if the DA wants it to be.

The DA may try to spin your ammunition choice against you, as was tried in the Rittenhouse trial. The key is being able to provide a good answer if the topic comes up. It's not that hard to give a good answer--unless you get caught flat-footed when asked--or unless you make an ill-advised statement (on social media, to a friend, after the shooting, etc.) that is used against you.

It seems to me that if it's an obviously justifiable use of deadly force, with witness to confirm such, it probably doesn't matter what a person used.

Yup, just like the crash safety features of a car don't matter if you never get in a wreck. Unfortunately, sometimes things happen that are beyond our control.

Now the prosecution may argue that you were trying so hard to emulate the local law enforcement because you believed you had some right/duty/responsibility to "clean up" your town, just like you see the cops do.

The key is being able to give a good answer if the topic comes up. it's not that hard to give a good answer unless you get caught flat-footed when asked.

For example: "I'm not trying to be a police officer, I just needed self-defense ammunition and thought that the police would have more resources to study the topic than I did. So I asked them what they used."

So, following that logic, does it matter what pistol/revolver you carry if involved in an SD shooting?
Doesn't follow.

Maybe i was not clear i.e. if the Sheriff carries a 9 shot semi auto, and you carry a 15 shot - then why do you need more ammo than a cop - etc.

It could matter what you carry.

The key is being able to give a good answer if the topic comes up. it's not that hard to give a good answer unless you get caught flat-footed when asked.

For example: "I chose that pistol because it fit me well, it is reliable and I shoot it well."

Or, if you're concerned that you won't be able to articulate a good response, you could choose a carry gun similar to what is issued by an LE organization in your area.

Since you brought it up, racism can also be used against a defendant even if everyone involved in an incident is of the same race.

Excellent point, and the same remedy works.

The key is being able to give a good answer if the topic comes up. it's not that hard to give a good answer unless you get caught flat-footed when asked. Unless you make, or have made, ill-advised statements (on social media, to friends, family, at work, after the shooting, at the trial, etc.) that can be used against you.

 

[GEM]

Your lawyer should test your responses against a mock jury for potential effects. Now, that will cost you plenty. Dr. Miller charged $30,000 for his testimony in the Potter case, and it was for naught. A memory expert I know charges $600 an hour. The Rittenhouse defense ran mock jury simulations. Another runs $1000/day.

Think you will tell your tale by yourself - the prosecution has lots of many to call their experts who will tell their story about you.

I note there is starting to be significant push back on experts whose history is always for the defense, no matter what. In two major cases, Potter and Maxwell, the experts did their show and were not very convincing.

So how much did your handloads cost as compared to an expert who might defend your load? Some of us have folks who might stand up for us for just expenses. Do you?

 

[webrx]

Thanks everyone for you participation so far!

For the record, I carry a Security 9, 10 rounds, quality factory SD ammo, so, was not really trying to beat the old horse about reloads, or not, I do have some HP reloads that I put together to practice with, break in a pistol, etc since it has been so hard to find, but, my carry gun has been tested with what I carry and it is a factory load.

I was actually using the ammo argument as a jump off point to discuss the actual weapon being used, accoutrements attached, optics, lasers, capacity, etc. but as Kleanbore stated earlier, maybe I did not make the connection very well.

I have asked a couple LEOs I am/was acquainted with, and they had Glocks, 15 rounds, 9mm, HPs. I only asked a couple so I know that is not a true 100% every LEO does. Both said no optics were allowed on their duty guns at that time, lights were good to go though.

So with that in mind, I feel my selection of a 10 round 9mm with similar ammo is a solid one.

I am with you that the hope is to never have to be in a trial for a shooting or showing a weapon. Also, as with a lot of you, I agree a lot will depend on the situation, witnesses, etc and if the SD shooting is "clean" SD case if so, then life goes on. But there is always the possibility of the Prosecutor with an ax to grind or a political agenda, if you get that, well, its probably gonna be bumpy ride.

Here is an article on LEO optics/lasers I just found that you may also find an interesting read:
https://www.policemag.com/517629/exclusive-police-survey-weapon-lights-optics-and-lasers

d

 

[Old Dog]

reloads that could be shown to be more likely to cause death.

What the heck would these be?

reloads that can be shown to be far and above what any law enforcement agency routinely uses

Same question. Loaded to higher pressure? "Crafting reloads that are more likely to cause death?"

Both said no optics were allowed on their duty guns at that time, lights were good to go though.

RDS on handguns is becoming more and more common, the wave of the future in law enforcement. And yes, it makes for improved accuracy /

I think that it's more important to worry about what you post on gun forums and social media then it is to worry about what gun and ammo combination you use.

This is the only real important point made in this thread.

 

[redcon1]

What the heck would these be?
Same question. Loaded to higher pressure? "Crafting reloads that are more likely to cause death?"

I was specifically thinking of two things-ammunition/firearms that would be suitable for taking large bears e.g. the .44 magnum with hardcast lead or the Lehigh defense controlled chaos rounds. Seriously try to imagine explaining such a projectile choice to a jury. You can not argue that you you were only shooting to stop the threat if you're carrying these, you were most definitely shooting to kill so you have that going against you right from the get go. If you loaded them yourself, it's even worse optics for you. That DA is going to crush you. You're going to prison.

 

[JeeperCreeper]

Can someone share a source with me clarifying the legal ramifications of "shoot to kill" vs "shoot to stop the threat".

It's been a decade since I've taken criminal law classes and LEO courses.

But it was always "lethal force". Once a firearm was introduced, it was lethal force.

I could be shooting pink and purple rainbows out of a smiley face Glock... It's still lethal force.

Unless I'm missing something...

 

[JohnKSa]

Lethal force is defined as force likely to cause serious injury or death. Force is categorized as lethal or less than lethal. That categorization is independent of INTENT. You can use lethal force without even intending to use it, as Officer Potter demonstrated. You could also use it on purpose with the intent to assault or kill someone. Or you could use it on purpose with the intent to stop a violent attack because you had no other reasonable option.

The point of "shoot to kill" vs. "shoot to stop the threat" is a difference in INTENT, not necessarily a difference in terms of the weapon used or even the aiming point. As we can see in the Rittenhouse trial, a prosecutor may try to confuse the issue by trying to say that the defendant wanted to kill someone--fortunately Rittenhouse was able to point out that he was defending himself, that he wasn't trying to hurt anyone, he was just doing what he had to do to get his attackers to stop attacking him.

Again, we see that the key is being able to give a good answer if the topic comes up--and being aware of it in advance so that you don't say or do something ill-advised that could complicate a possible claim of self-defense.

 

[jdc1244]

Unfortunately, in my state, whether one ends up before a jury or not depends on whether one’s act of self-defense was captured on video – regardless how lawful that act of self-defense was.

To the OP, as already correctly noted, the question is moot if one is restricted to what he can carry.

I can only pocket carry, for example; that means .380 Auto or .38 SPL – neither considered ‘mankillers.’

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

Imagine if you will if one or all of the people he shot that night were African Americans AND he had used reloads that could be shown to be more likely to cause death. That entire case would have been different.

From the big "AND", are you implying that just one of those two variables would not have made a difference?

 

[JohnKSa]

I can only pocket carry, for example; that means .380 Auto or .38 SPL – neither considered ‘mankillers.’

It's less about what you carry and more about being aware of the issue.

As far as video goes, it can help or hurt one's case depending on the circumstances. Potter, for example, immediately stated on video that she didn't intend to use deadly force (in so many words) which made it essentially impossible to claim self-defense since the use of deadly force in self-defense is obviously an intentional act.

From the big "AND", are you implying that just one of those two variables would not have made a difference?

Either one might, or both might, or both might not. The point isn't being able to predict the future, the point is looking at POSSIBLE outcomes and being ahead of the game.

If you're going to carry reloads, for example, it would be wise to have a good answer ready in case the question ever arises as to why you are doing it. A good answer being one that doesn't call your motives into question, that doesn't lend itself to being spun by a prosecutor, and one that plays well with a jury.

For example, ranting about how it's your right to carry whatever the hell you want to defend yourself probably isn't going to score points with a jury, but it's quite possible that there are some thoughtful responses that could really resonate.

In some cases, you might think about the possible questions you could be asked and decide that it's easier to just avoid that possibility altogether by avoiding that particular pitfall.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

.380 Auto or .38 SPL – neither considered ‘mankillers.’

What are they considered? Nonlethal?

 

[jdc1244]

What are they considered? Nonlethal?

In response to the OP’s question, they’re chamberings a DA would have a difficult time construing to be ‘unlawfully excessive’ – both are perfectly lethal, but not the stuff of criminal prosecution.

 

[redcon1]

From the big "AND", are you implying that just one of those two variables would not have made a difference?

I think one would have been bad enough but two would have been a disaster and it would have certainly drawn a lot of negative attention to all of us who reload. As an NRA member, I'm quite used to weathering negative perceptions and I guess I'm also used to managing my battles which is all this is. I'm tumbling .308 right now so I'm certainly not anti-reloader. I love reloading. It is highly entertaining and it may even be more addictive than this web site in fact.

 

[Fine Figure of a Man]

In response to the OP’s question, they’re chamberings a DA would have a difficult time construing to be ‘unlawfully excessive’ – both are perfectly lethal, but not the stuff of criminal prosecution.

By applying the logic found only in this and similar threads, the DA may argue that you carried a big deadly "three hundred eighty" instead of a common 9mm because you intended to kill.