Reloads a legal nightmare?

Status
Not open for further replies.
ANd fact, most people's account of their shooting experience varies widely from what actually happened (did I fire 3 or 4 shots??). Does that invalidate their whole story and make them suspects in murder? No, I don't think so.

We get into the area of risk assessment. How much risk am I likely to take carrying reloads? Everyone will answer the question for himself. Personally I don't see a lot of risk and nothing here has persuaded me otherwise.
 
Your first topic opens a whole new can of worms, best suited to another thread some other day..:what:

Good luck to ya, Bubba.

best,
Mas
 
Defensory and Bubba, we must also consider that there are so very few cases not because the use of handloads is benign, but because it's most likely that only a very small percentage of people who have had to use their guns in self defense were using handloads.

If the vast majority of people who have been involved in a defensive shooting were using factory ammunition, of course handloads won't be an issue. But that doesn't mean if won't be an issue for you if you do use handloads and are involved in a defensive shooting.
 
True but there are many many other issues that come into play. This is why I say the chances the handloads will be THE deciding issue are close to zero.

Of course a person could show that police officers on the scene ask about what ammo was used and make that part of their report. They could show that prosecutors give special attention to any case involving hand loads. They could have people involved in defensive shootings say they were quizzed as to what kind of ammo they used and if they used handloads could report they received hostile attention from authorities.
If anyone did that I would have to retract my position.
 
I would say it may depend on what state u live in, and weather the prosecutor wants to be a rising star, or knows a good shoot when he sees it.. too many variables to estimate..anything can happen..Just carry what you know will work and makes you safe.. thats the end result were looking for.
 
First, no one said the use of handloads will be the deciding factor, but rather, the position is that if handloads are used, they can be a negative factor. Things are cumulative, so it's pretty much impossible to identify any one factor as the "one straw that broke the camel's back."

And we get back to the threshold question of why introduce one more wild card into a situation that is already fraught with uncertainty and risks that can't well be anticipated. I certainly don't for myself.

Whenever someone comes up with a hypothetical to support an argument as to why this isn't an issue, he seems to tell a nice, clean, simple "good shoot" story. But try this one on for size.

A guy in a parking lot 7 yards away from you is looking at you and making threatening gestures in your direction with a large butcher knife he's holding in his right hand. He shouts that he wants your money. You're holding your gun drawn in low ready and order him to drop the knife and go away.

At your trial for manslaughter you testify as to that and then say that in response to your order, he begins to raise the knife and move toward you. You further testify that you were in fear of your life, you could not effectively retreat because your back was to a group of closely parked cars, so you believed that you had no choice but to shoot. You shot several times, and he crumbled, dropping the knife as he fell. He never moved again and was dead when the EMTs arrived

However, an eyewitness testifies that the alleged assailant had actually broken off the attack before you fired. He had dropped the knife and started to turn away, and only then did you shoot.

And the forensic pathologist testifies that, based on the entrance wounds and position of the body, he was turning away toward his left when he was shot. Also, given the nature of the wounds, he would have most likely have retained his grip on the knife when he was shot, although it's not impossible that he would have dropped it.

Now your lawyer has to explain or overcome the eyewitness and the forensic pathologist to support your claim of self defense. It's also very useful to your case for the jury to believe your account of what happened and the way you perceived things. Do you think that whether members of the jury see you as a solid, responsible citizen or as a gun nut who spends his spare time concocting “special” killer ammo when store bought is good enough for the police would make any difference in how they evaluated your testimony?

Sure, you can explain. But do you really want your lawyer, in addition to having to deal with the testimony of the eyewitness and the pathologist, to also have to try to explain to the jury why handloading ammunition is a good, wholesome hobby? It’s one more thing to explain when there’s already some seriously bad evidence that needs to be dealt with.

The less you have to explain, the better off you are.
 
The solution is to shoot the eye witness and claim he was an accomplice.

Plus one on CDignition's comment.
 
(Jaw hanging agape with wonder,)

Call me a sucker hero worshipper, but am I the only one in here astounded by people who want to come in here and argue with Massad Ayoob's advice? I don't care if you took a criminal statistics in college or got a law degree through night school, I find it VERY unlikely that any of you have had as much real world experience in court fighting for good people who have been charged with crimes as he. My lawyer, whom I have already consulted, would be on the phone to him as soon as charges were filed against me in a defensive shooting. I know, I asked him.
 
I say the chances the handloads will be THE deciding issue are close to zero.
Click to expand...

Could well be. Consider this: The number of deaths in Explorer accidents involving Firestone tires (including those that were not necessarily tire related) was .0000027 per tire. Is that close enough to zero for you? But they recalled the tires, and Firestone ceased to exist as an independent entity.


Of course a person could show that police officers on the scene ask about what ammo was used and make that part of their report.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised that you would wonder about that.

Practical Homicide Investigation: Tactics, Procedures, and Forensic Techniques by Vernon Geberth is considered to be the recognized protocol and is used by investigative divisions of major police departments throughout the world and the FBI.

Gathering ammunition evidence, documenting the type and manufacturer, and submitting it to the laboratory for analysis is one of the subjects covered. SOP. Same with any evidence on the deceased, from hair to wound information.

Now, my lay opinion, which is worth what you pay for it, is that if the evidence you are able to provide in your affirmative defense is overwhelmingly convincing (for example, unshakeable witness testimony supporting your story, a security camera, etc.), little will probably be made of the ammunition analysis and GSR evidence. It's when your evidence is less convincing that it would become a significant issue, as Fiddleback points out.

Remember, you are not contesting the fact that you killed the deceased. You are mounting an affirmative defense and providing evidence that the homicide was justified--that you were required to use deadly force as an emergency measure to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm to yourself or your family (castle doctrine situations differing, of course.)

and if they used handloads could report they received hostile attention from authorities.
Click to expand...

How is that relevant to your being able to use GSR evidence in your defense? By the way, regardless of what is used, I might characterize being on trial for homicide as having "received hostile attention from authorities."
 
Last edited:
Call me a sucker hero worshipper, but am I the only one in here astounded by people who want to come in here and argue with Massad Ayoob's advice?
Click to expand...
Ayoob is a recognized authority in the gun world. But that doesn't make him infallible.
If you want to have fun, go read his book on combat shotguns and then go look at Awerbuck's video on the same topic. They frequently say exactly the opposite things. That doesn't make one right and one wrong.
I'll also point out that lawyers don't get sued for telling clients not to do something.
 
massad ayoob wrote, "In NJ v. Daniel Bias, defendant went to prison for manslaughter because court would not accept his word for what was in the reloads. Issue turned on GSR (gunshot residue) on the deceased. Light loads in +P cases, so crime lab testing was done with factory +P which deposited GSR much farther from the muzzle."

Does anyone have a link for the apellate court's review of this case? Under the rules of evidence, as used in virtually every state in the union, if the defendant or someone else testifies that the ammo used was reloaded 158 grain semi wadcutters, with X grains of Bullseye powder (as an example) that should be more than enough foundation for laboratory and GSR testing of that ammo. The trial judge should not be deciding whether or not he or she personally believes that is what the defendant actually had in his gun at the time of the shooting. Such a factual determination is the province of the jury. If the trial judge said, "I don't believe you when you say that is the ammo you used, so I am not allowing the GSR testing to come in as evidence at this trial, than the judge was in error, and the defendant should have received a new trial.

I looked, albeit briefly, for the appellate decision, but I could not find it.
 
Posted by Bubba613:
I'm sorry. Two cases do not outweigh anything. They are not significant in the totality of legal literature. The chances of GSR being the decisive factor in a shooting are effectively nil. The chances of being in a defensive shooting are already low enough for most folks. It's like arguing that people shouldn't fly on United or American Airlines because their most recent fatalities killed more people than any other accident.
Click to expand...

AMEN, Bubba!

And don't forget that one of those two cases ended in an ACQUITTAL.

One known minor state-level case in American legal history where one man was found guilty, and the fact he was carrying reloads wasn't even the primary factor in the verdict, does NOT outweigh ANYTHING.

In the overall scheme of things in the American legal system, it is VIRTUALLY IRRELEVANT.

Based on the fallacious logic of the "reloads are a legal nightmare" crowd, I suggest that all Glock owners get rid of their guns immediately.

After all, there are SCORES of documented cases of Glock KABOOMS. Many of these KABOOMS have been documented by law enforcement personnel, and some of them occurred with FACTORY ammo.

This would include a SLAM FIRE with FACTORY AMMO, documented by law enforcement personnel. Some police departments have returned entire shipments of Glocks because of KABOOMS and other problems and defects.

If I were a reloader, one relatively insignificant New Jersey case isn't going to make me paranoid about carrying reloads. I have far more important things to worry about in this life.
 
Thousands of people have been accidentally shot (and died in many cases) with handguns.

Thousands of people have committed suicide with handguns.

Thousands of people have been murdered with handguns.

Thousands of robberies have been committed with handguns.


Yet no avid gun owner and 2nd amendment advocate would suggest we quit carrying guns. I'm certainly not going to quit carrying mine.

So why should those who enjoy reloading for their carry guns, and save a lot of money doing it, get all paranoid and stop carrying reloads because ONE man using them was convicted in an anti-gun state?! Not to mention that the fact he was using reloads wasn't even the primary reason for his conviction.

Sorry, but I refuse to submit to a simplistic and paranoid fear of carrying reloads, based on ONE lone court case.
 
Sorry, but I refuse to submit to a simplistic and paranoid fear of carrying reloads, based on ONE lone court case.
Click to expand...

Respectfully, Defensory, I should think that the arguments that led the trial court judge to not allow the admission of the hand load data to explain the lack of GSR trace evidence on the deceased in Bias' trial would likely prevail each time reloads are used in a shooting and GSR evidence becomes an issue in court.

So--it would seem to me that the risk analysis should center less on the number of cases involving reloads and more on how likely it is for GSR evidence to become a critical issue in a trial involving the defense of justifiability of homicide. Does that make sense to you?

Of course, no one is going to be able to provide any stats on that, any more than on outcomes in cases involving hand loads. Not the way trial court records work. We can't just ask, "how many times has something like that come up in court?" and expect anyone to be able to answer.

Without trying to defend a preconceived position or to sound argumentative, I submit to you for your consideration that to show that shooter was in fact in imminent danger, which is indeed critical to the outcome, evidence regarding the distance of the shot may well become important. Was I three feet from where the deceased fell (consistent with my contention that I had good reason to fear for my life because I was being rushed), or thirty?

Might not GSR evidence become mighty important to the shooter's case in that situation?

Now, I worry a lot more about other things that may happen in an investigation and trial, but at least this is one risk that I can mitgate in advance.
 
Last edited:
Posted by Kleanbore:
That's the gist of what the Ford memos said about the Pinto....

And do you know how many safe flights that Lockheed Electras made? But they were grounded due to a few structural failures.
Click to expand...

Posted by Kleanbore:
Could well be. Consider this: The number of deaths in Explorer accidents involving Firestone tires (including those that were not necessarily tire related) was .0000027 per tire. Is that close enough to zero for you? But they recalled the tires, and Firestone ceased to exist as an independent entity.
Click to expand...

Kleanbore's above quotations are completely irrelevant to this topic. "Apples and oranges", as Mr. Ayoob would say! :)
 
Posted by Kleanbore:
Respectfully, Defensory, I should think that the arguments that led the trial court judge to not allow the admission of the hand load data to explain the lack of GSR trace evidence on the deceased in Bias' trial would likely prevail each time reloads are used in a shooting and GSR evidence becomes an issue in court.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

This relatively minor case at the STATE level, IN NO WAY established any sort of legal precedent.

If it had, Mr. Ayoob, Fiddletown (practicing attorney) and yourself should be able to cite NUMEROUS more recent cases where reloaders were convicted in court.

It has been almost TWENTY years since the Bias case, yet nobody on your side of this argument can cite even ONE case since then that resulted in a conviction.

Sorry, but your "slippery slope" logical fallacy fails miserably.

I will not live in paranoid fear of using reloads, simply because of ONE nearly twenty year old court case.
 
Can we summarize the arguments by saying "there exists an element of risk in using reloads which is balanced by personal comfort in doing so. Everyone decide for himself which is more important"?
No one can deny there is an element of risk. We can argue on how significant that risk is and whether a prudent person would take it or not.
 
There's an element of risk in virtually everything you do in life, Bubba.

Taking a shower is a risk. There are NUMEROUS documented cases of people being seriously injured and even killed after falling and striking their head. Should we stop taking showers?

There are tens of thousands of people maimed or killed every year in car accidents. Should we stop driving cars?

Two women I know personally lost their sons in motorcycle accidents. Thousands have been maimed and killed over the years on motorcycles. Should we stop riding motorcycles?

Thousands of people are seriously injured and killed every year with handguns and other firearms. Should we get rid of our firearms?

Contact the FAA, and I'm sure they can provide you with NUMEROUS cases where people were killed when aircraft plummeted from the sky and landed on their home, motor vehicle etc. Should we move underground?

Should people who enjoy reloading and save lots of money doing it, stop simply because ONE person in a relatively minor New Jersey court case almost twenty years ago, was convicted (and the PRIMARY reason he was convicted didn't have anything to do with the reloads)?

DON'T THINK SO!

On a risk assessment scale of 0 to 10 (with 10 being the highest risk), I would place reloads usage at nearly zero. BELOW such things as taking showers, swimming, walking in mall parking lots etc.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the problem in Bias was not that he had handloads, but that he had several different powder charges all intermingled, so he couldn't actually say what particular round killed his wife. If someone could testify that the round in question was this bullet, and that powder charge, then GSR testing could be done, and it should be admissible.
 
Defensory, you are right. There is risk in everything. Some risks are acceptable (like driving to work), some are not (Russian roulette), some will vary based on the individual's preference, like riding a motorcycle.

I agree I perceive the risk from handloads to be minimal. So I wouldn't have any problem using them. Others perceive more risk and so stick to factory loads. I don't see a problem with that either.
 
This relatively minor case at the STATE level, IN NO WAY established any sort of legal precedent.
Click to expand...

Pardon me. I base my opinion not on legal precedent, but on the idea that the principles and particular technical aspects regarding the admissibility of the scientific forensic evidence we are discussing as they relate to hand loads sare generally the same whenever hand loads are involved.

Fiddletown (practicing attorney) and yourself [Ayoob] should be able to cite NUMEROUS more recent cases where reloaders were convicted in court.
Click to expand...

No one can know how many cases in trial court may have hinged on what issues. That information is just not publicly available. Fiddletown has explained the issue. Do you understand that?

Yet nobody on your side of this argument can cite even ONE case since then that resulted in a conviction.
Click to expand...

One more time: No one can know how many cases in trial court may have hinged on what issues. Period. That's the way things work. But--why does that matter? The issue is whether or not evidence vital to you will or will not be admitted.

I will not live in paranoid fear of using reloads, simply because of ONE nearly twenty year old court case.
Click to expand...

Nor will I. But if you choose to use them and are prosecuted and need GSR evidence to win your case, good luck to you, Defensory.
 
Originally posted by justice4all: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the problem in Bias was not that he had handloads, but that he had several different powder charges all intermingled, so he couldn't actually say what particular round killed his wife. If someone could testify that the round in question was this bullet, and that powder charge, then GSR testing could be done, and it should be admissible.
Click to expand...

Do you think perhaps you should consult with the attorneys involved before reaching a conclusion on the basis of a synopsis?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

il.bill
  • Locked
Deactivated Safety Legal Troubles?
2 3
Replies
72
Views
4K
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
C
  • Locked
Lethal force against attempt at disarm
Replies
8
Views
1K
dayid
D
B
  • Locked
for Pax, Legal Jeopardy.
Replies
2
Views
465
pax
P
K
  • Locked
Notify 911 you're armed?
Replies
23
Views
1K
gunsmith
G
HarryB
  • Locked
Harold Fish Gets New Trial Finally!
2 3 4
Replies
83
Views
5K
Ryder
R
Back
Top