reloading for personal carry

[Frank Ettin]

...How can the fact you used a handload possibly prove anything that needs to be proved to get a conviction?...

Sigh!

No, handloads don't prove anything; and that's not the issue. But the use of handloads can be played by the prosecutor to affect how the jury perceive you and thus how they evaluate your evidence, especially your testimony.

See post #25

This is much less about guns'n'ammo than it is about opinions and psychology of prosecutors, juries and lawyers....

See also post #69 in http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=413631

...The legal and jury research literature clearly indicates the role of emotional variables in influencing juries. There have been specific studies that indicate that weapons appearance and exposure issues can be detrimental to a defendant. It interacts with gender of juror, shooter and juror gun expertise....

And in post verdict interviews of jurors in cases in which I've been involved, jurors have explained how factors relating to their impression of the defendant or a witness affected how much weight or credence they gave a particular piece of evidence.

Of course, the use of handloaded ammunition isn't going to be the only issue. No capable and ambitious prosecutor is going to pursue a possible self defense shooting case if all he has is the fact the you used handloaded ammunition. If you're on trial at all, the prosecutor believes he has enough factors, and the evidence to prove those factors, to overcome your claim of justification.

I can't not believe that a skillful prosecutor, having decided to prosecute you after a shooting which you claim was in self defense would fail to make whatever use he felt he could of the fact that you used handloaded ammunition. Any capable prosecutor is going to, first of all, be excluding from the jury anyone who has any interest in, or knowledge of, guns. If he can get some folks on the jury who are a little afraid of guns, so much the better. A least a few of such jurors are likely to be uncomfortable with the fact that you handload your own ammunition. Some of the jurors may even have personal doubts about whether a private citizen should even be allowed to have a gun.

Remember also that a plea of self defense is different from most other defenses to a criminal charge. In general, the common defense to a criminal charge is essentially, "I didn't do it, and you can't prove that I did." But when you plead self defense, the first thing that you have effectively done is admitted that you did it. You must essentially say, "I shot the man." And the essence of the claim of self defense is, "But I was justified in shooting him."

Because of the nature of a self defense plea, how the jury sees you can be very important. You will want them to be willing to accept your claim that you were justified in performing an act that is generally, in good society, repugnant -- an act of extreme violence against another human being resulting in the injury or death of that human being. He may have been a criminal with a long history of violence, BUT in most cases any evidence to that effect will be inadmissible.

Yes, we know that the jury is supposed to decide on the basis of the evidence, not how they feel about you. But we also have to accept the fact that a juror's emotional perception of a witness will affect the credibility and weight given to his testimony. I've had jurors tell me in post verdict interviews, that they didn't trust this witness or that they believe that witness because of personal characteristics of the witness that they either thought ill of or thought well of. That is the real world.

And yes we know that there don't seem to be any cases that illustrate all this. But then again, how many defensive uses of a gun result in the gun being fired? And how many defensive shootings result in a trial (many are in fact clean cut "good shoots")? And of those that go to trial, in how many has the defendant (claiming self defense) used handloaded ammunition? I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people who keep and/or carry guns for self defense use stock guns and factory ammunition. In other words, the sorts of case we'd be looking for just doesn't happen often enough to be on radar.

At a trial, at the end of the presentation of evidence, each side gets to argue what the trier of fact should infer from the evidence. So a prosecutor might argue that a trier of fact should infer certain things about your character and disposition for violence from the evidence that you handloaded yourself the ammunition you used. Indeed, I'd expect a prosecutor to conjure up for the jury the image of you up late at night in your garage quietly assembling special super killer bullets.

So Suzy Soccermom now asks herself, as she sits on your jury deciding whether to believe your story about what happened when you shot that nice gang member, why store bought ammunition wasn’t lethal enough to satisfy your perverted blood lust. Remember, Suzi Soccermom and her friends are going to be deciding if the shoot was good.

...This is a slippery case because its going to be your word of what happened, ...(and there isn't going to be any evidence that the person was a threat other then your statement in this case). Now replace the ammo used with handloads. What changed? Nothing, other then the ammo. Your story is the same, the evidence of what happened is the same minus different ammo. Evidence that shows you weren't at risk of death or great bodily harm is whats going to get you convicted....

In your hypothetical, the only evidence that you felt in jeopardy will be your testimony. So whether you go home or go to jail may well depend on whether the jury sees you as an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person who reasonably believed the man you shot to have been armed, or sees you as a trigger happy gun nut anxious to manufacture or fantasize an excuse to try out his home made, super lethal ammo on a live human.

 

[GregGry]

No, handloads don't prove anything; and that's not the issue. But the use of handloads can be played by the prosecutor to affect how the jury perceive you and thus how they evaluate your evidence, especially your testimony.

So can anything else, why isolate it to hand loads? The fact you used a .357 mag means you wanted to kill someone, since you used a big powerul cartridge. Sure juries could be emotionally swayed with enough bs about handloads, however the fact is it doesn't provide evidence that proves anything. Almost any lawyer in the world would realize that. Just like in a knife fight, using a 3 inch knife VS a machete. The machete might get you more flack, but at the end of the day its not going to get you convicted based on what you used.

Indeed, I'd expect a prosecutor to conjure up for the jury the image of you up late at night in your garage quietly assembling special super killer bullets.

So Suzy Soccermom now asks herself, as she sits on your jury deciding whether to believe your story about what happened when you shot that nice gang member, why store bought ammunition wasn’t lethal enough to satisfy your perverted blood lust. Remember, Suzi Soccermom and her friends are going to be deciding if the shoot was good.

Without even a shred of evidence that this has happened, let alone happened more then .000009% of the time means that this is flat out a unfounded fear that has no basis in precedent of convictions. I have gone through numerous self defense cases on the local and state level, and I have yet to see any real hoopla over the gun that was used (such as cop killing .357 statements) let alone ammo comments. I have also read numerous court cases on the country level with the same results. I even found cases of people writing things on their bullets (smiley faces, eat lead, etc) without much bs in the court over that.

 

[MichiganShootist]

Will someone please kill this horse???????


I think it's been beaten enough!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Frank Ettin]

... why isolate it to hand loads? The fact you used a .357 mag means you wanted to kill someone, since you used a big powerul cartridge....

Yes, that's true. But some things provide a benefit that may warrant the risk. It's about risk management.

Without even a shred of evidence that this has happened,...

How often have handloads even been used in a self defense shooting that wound up in trial? But we do know that Meagan Elliot, one of the jurors that helped send Harold Fish to jail said in a post verdict interview, "The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill." (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/page/5/).

But use handloads, if you're so inclined. It's not my problem. I won't use handloads.

 

[GregGry]

A juror can believe anything they want. I was just in jury duty and was astounded at what I heard some people say in the waiting pool room. Your never going to have a jury thats completely unbiased. I still don't see where the "risk management" comes into play. If people want to be smart about risk management, they should take law classes and fully understand how the use of force works. That will help prevent anyone from ever being on trial in the first place, and you will have a good idea on whats going on if you do find yourself accused. Avoiding hand loads isn't going to be of any benefit to someone in self defense, and its not going to really be a detriment either. There are flat out too many variables, and too many angles to attack a person in court for a self defense shoot that you might as well not carry a gun if you really think handloads are going to be a problem. Weapon used, statements made, number of shots fired, why didn't you call 911 2 seconds sooner, why did you shoot when you could have killed someone with a stray bullet, why didn't you run away, etc.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If people want to be smart about risk management, they should take law classes and fully understand how the use of force works. That will help prevent anyone from ever being on trial in the first place, and you will have a good idea on whats going on if you do find yourself accused....

Yes, it;s important to be very familiar with 'use of force" laws, but that's not necessarily going to keep you out of trouble. Hopefully it will reduce the risk, but you can never be sure that after an event that you reasonably felt required you to use deadly force in self defense, someone in authority might decide to second guess your actions. You may well have been right, and if you are well trained, understand the law and use good judgment, you will probably be vindicated. But there are never any guarantees.

...There are flat out too many variables, and too many angles to attack a person in court for a self defense shoot ...

Yes there are a great many variables. I'm going to eliminate one of those variable by not using handloads. That's part of risk management.

 

[Kleanbore]

Avoiding hand loads isn't going to be of any benefit to someone in self defense, and its not going to really be a detriment either.

That comment certainly substantiates the following:

I still don't see where the "risk management" comes into play.

Let me try starting with the basics: Risk management involves several steps:

• Identification of risks. In the case of the discussion at hand, two risks are (1) that the inadmissibility of forensic trace evidence could weaken the argument that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary due to imminent danger, because it may remove from the defense the ability to show that the distance may have been short enough to support that contention even in the absence of residue on the deceased (or surviving assailant); and (2) that the selection of ammunition, whether handloads or .460 Magnums, might be seen as one indicator of state of mind.
• Evaluation of risks. This involves the assessment of both the likelihood of each risk occurring and the potential consequences of each risk should it occur. For the foregoing, I think that the likelihood is probably somewhere between less than remote and remote; however, since the consequences could involve conviction or the loss of a civil judgement at worst case, or simply a more difficult and expensive ordeal for the defense, the consequence at worst case is extremely severe.
• Analysis and selection of handling options. One could choose to simply accept the risks or to mitigate them. The low likelihood might indicate in favor of acceptance, but considering the severity of the potential circumstances, and since ammunition selection is an extremely simple mitigation and doesn't cost anything, I'll go that way.

Back to the original statement: if the rest of the evidence is sufficiently persuasive, selection of ammunition is certainly not going to be of any meaningful "benefit to someone in self defense." If, however, there is a lack of supporting evidence (your word against his, for example), or worse, if some of the evidence turns out to be unfavorable to the defense, the selection may influence the outcome.

There are flat out too many variables, and too many angles to attack a person in court for a self defense shoot that you might as well not carry a gun if you really think handloads are going to be a problem.

Well, I don't "really think handloads are going to be a problem", but while not selecting them makes sense to me, choosing to not carry a gun does not.

Yes, there are a lot of variables, and I think many of the others are a lot more important, including understanding the law, proficiency in the draw and in shooting, situational awareness, avoidance, and so on.

Nonetheless, I won't add to the risks by potentially weakening my case by using handloads, making bellicose statements on the internet about what I would do, knowingly getting into a confrontational situation, or shooting except as a last resort. If you choose to do any of those , be my guest.

 

[NavyLCDR]

So how about these arguments in a trial:

The defendant chose to purchase and use the most lethal factory ammo that he could find.

The defendant chose to carry the most lethal caliber that he could reasonably conceal.

Therefore, the defendant was really out to gun for blood and not for self defense.

I go back to a statement I made earlier. If you REALLY want to mitigate a prosecuting attorney's arguments, then we would carry .22's with subsonic, lead free, FMJ rounds, and not more than a standard 10 round magazine capacity.

 

[Frank Ettin]

So how about these arguments in a trial:

The defendant chose to purchase and use the most lethal factory ammo that he could find.

The defendant chose to carry the most lethal caliber that he could reasonably conceal....

I guess you missed what I wrote in post #54

...some things provide a benefit that may warrant the risk. It's about risk management....

And it helps to blunt that argument if you use either the same ammunition used by your local police, or at least a commercial JHP cartridge similar to that commonly used by ordinary LE. Nothing's perfect, but I don't see any reason to make things tougher than they already are. Handloads can be another uncertainty in a drama fraught with uncertainty. So I'd prefer to eliminate that particular uncertainty and focus on the other, less avoidable uncertainties.

 

[GregGry]

Hypothetical situation. You have a man that has a t-shirt that says I want to kill someone, and they tell everyone they know that they can't wait to kill someone. One night they are approached by a man with a gun, and ordered to release their wallet. They decline and shoot the person. They are on trial for murder because the local police department believes the person is a danger to society and should be locked up.

Will the persons mentality and overall demeanor paint a bad picture? Yes it will, but if the person was at risk of death or great bodily harm he can legally use deadly force. Even criminals have the right to self defense in some cases. Just like if you are approached by a person with a gun, who says do what I say or I will kill you. The fact you chose to use any weapon at all (from a bat/truck/gun/knife etc) is going to be grilled. Why didn't you just leave the scene? Even in states that have no duty to retreat, you will still be questioned about why you did what you did.

And it helps to blunt that argument if you use either the same ammunition used by your local police, or at least a commercial JHP cartridge similar to that commonly used by ordinary LE. Nothing's perfect, but I don't see any reason to make things tougher than they already are. Handloads can be another uncertainty in a drama fraught with uncertainty. So I'd prefer to eliminate that particular uncertainty and focus on the other, less avoidable uncertainties.

Using the same ammo as the local police ehh? So your trying to take the law into your own hands, and you made the horrible mistake of killing my client!!.

There is no end to what if situations. The fact is even a bad lawyer will get through it. Your threat assessment is way off.

 

[GregGry]

If using a stolen gun to protect yourself doesn't make you automatically guilty of murder (it can't get you convicted as itself, other evidence can) I fail to see how having reloads will. The legality of you using a stolen guns, or handloads (if somehow there is a law against it in a state for CCW) is a separate issue that has nothing to do with a murder trial. How many states have mentioned limitations in law when it comes to what ammo you can and can't use to defend yourself? The answer is there are no limitations when it comes to a murder trial. Even if you used a howitzer to stop the threat (and we will assume howitzers are illegal) your murder trial is going to be based on if you were or weren't justified in using deadly force. Again the legality of the weapon you used (such as in the case of it being illegal to posses) is a SEPARATE issue that does nothing to prove you were or weren't justified in a murder trial.

Even in my state which has no CCW laws, people that have used a illegal CCW to stop a threat have not been convicted of murder on that basis, however they have faced legal ramifications dealing with CCW laws. To assume that handloaded ammo will somehow be used against you to an effect that your found guilty of murder, despite a complete lack of evidence proving even a small chance of it happening, the likely possibility that the fact you were using handloaded ammo might not even make it into court, and that lawyers trying every angle to get a conviction is to be expected and not very effective (when it comes to trying to make a case off of things that show no proof of justification), is a troubled threat assessment.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...but if the person was at risk of death or great bodily harm he can legally use deadly force....

But if there's a trial deciding whether or not that was the case is what the trial is all about. In most cases, your testimony is going to be a central part of the evidence for your defense. It would be nice if you've done what you reasonably influence the jury in your favor.

...Using the same ammo as the local police ehh? So your trying to take the law into your own hands, and you made the horrible mistake of killing my client!!...

I'd rather deal with that then handloads. the fact is that you're going to have to use some kind of ammunition. Your explanation that you used the same kind of ammunition that the police have decided is appropriate for the purpose is going to be a lot more manageable to a lay, non-gun oriented jury than the sort of "inside baseball" explanations for using handloads. If I'm going to have to explain something, I'd rather have to explain using the type of ammunition selected by LE for defensive use.

There is no end to what if situations....

That may be true, but some choices are better than others.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...the legality of the weapon you used (such as in the case of it being illegal to posses) is a SEPARATE issue that does nothing to prove you were or weren't justified in a murder trial....

No, but it may suggest something to the jury about your character that would have an effect on how they evaluate your evidence and whether or not they believe your testimony. If you would knowing break the law with regard to the weapon you used, might not the jury think that you would be willing to perjure yourself? If you would steal a gun, might not members of the jury be more strongly inclined to believe that you'd lie under oath -- especially when motivated by your desire to save your hide from prison.

 

[sniper5]

Well, I don't carry. If I did I would carry factory.

As far as HD, I don't ACTUALLY keep a gun for HD, I don't have any kids in the house so I just throw my handgun in the nightstand drawer after practice because it's a convenient place to store it. I have some ammo there too for the same reason. It happens to be handloads because that's what I have. I don't have any factory ammo in the house. I just buy components because of the cost and the fact that I like to reload as a hobby. If someone breaks in I will defend myself with what I have: Kitchen knife, poker, cane, and if I happen to be within reach of my handgun. . .well, I guess I could use that too. I don't PLAN to shoot anyone.

That's my official version.

 

[GregGry]

You can't prove perjury without evidence to contradict a statement. Depending on the trial the fact you used a stolen gun to commit the crime could be kept out because the fact the gun is stolen doesn't have any bearing on the case, and would likely cause issues (such as in the case of a rapists past history being admitted into court in a current offense). Even if it was introduced its not going to change the cold hard facts, aka the distance the parties were apart, witness statements, your statements/testimony, etc.

the fact is that you're going to have to use some kind of ammunition. Your explanation that you used the same kind of ammunition that the police have decided is appropriate for the purpose is going to be a lot more manageable to a lay, non-gun oriented jury than the sort of "inside baseball" explanations for using handloads

This sums it up. Members of the jury, mr smith used handloads which were loaded to maximum killing potential. Your lawyer: There is nothing illegal with using hand loaded ammo. Your erroneous statements have nothing to do with the matter at hand. My client used what he had available to him at the time he needed to defend himself. The law states that one can use deadly force (deadly force being anything that can cause death or great bodily harm) to defend themselves or others from great bodily harm or death. All firearms regardless of the ammo used are considered deadly force, and my clients ammo or firearm were used in a legal self defense manner.

If you think claiming you used the same ammo the local cops used (because its effective), is going to be a good excuse for why you used hollow point ammo, then your setting yourself up for just as much fictional threat assessment problems as handloads. Murder trials don't turn into pissing matches over what kind of ammo was used. There are much more important issues at hand such as whats needed to invoke the privilege of self defense (aka evidence that either confirms or denies the legal right to self defense). Lawyers can say anything they want, and they will do just that. Its nothing new and is nothing another lawyer can't easily counter.

Again if you can find some evidence that proves that handloads are a risk, I will reconsider my position. Until then handloads stand as a unfounded risk.

 

[9x23]

Reloads? They were reloads?!?

"Reloads? They were reloads?!? All I know is when I went to the flea market (not gun show) a fellow had a bunch of odds and ends on his table and I saw a box marked (enter one - Remington/Federal/Winchester/etc.). When I opened it all the bullets (don't say cartridges) looked like new to me and since the price was very reasonable I bought them."

fiddletown - A few folks here, including me, were not very pleased with what you had to say, but that doesn't belie the fact that it is TRUE. I've spent numerous hours in courtrooms and I can tell you first hand that a jury's opinion can be swayed for the smallest of reasons - and that goes for the benefit of the defense as well as the prosecution.

Reloads vs Factory - Caveat Emptor.....9x23

 

[Frank Ettin]

You can't prove perjury without evidence to contradict a statement....

There's no need to prove perjury. A juror is free to conclude for his purposes that you're a liar without proof of perjury. And if the fact that the gun was stolen stays out, you're ahead of the game. If it gets in, there's an excellent chance that the jury is not going to have a whole lot of faith in your testimony.

...if you can find some evidence that proves that handloads are a risk, I will reconsider my position....

Why should i care whether or not you reconsider your position? I've made my choice based on my 30+ years experience in the practice of law, and that's good enough for me. You do as you please.