That's certainly a novel way to characterize murder.Bubba613 said:
Reloads a legal nightmare?
- Thread starter HisSoldier
- Start date
- Status
And beyond all the explanations already give, if the lack of cases is simply the result of there having been incredibly few instances in which handloads were carried for self defense, the gun was fired and a prosecution followed, it means nothing.Defensory said:
We know that of all the times in which a gun is successfully used in self defense, it's very seldom fired. And few of the times the gun is fired results in prosecution.
If you ever have to fire your gun in self defense you have no way of predicting how the encounter will happen. Each case is unique, as will yours be.
Nor will I, because I don't use them for self defense. Nor will I be paranoid about keeping or carrying a gun for self defense -- not because I don't appreciate the risks; but rather because I understand the risks and do what I can to responsibly manage them.Defensory said:
I've done some googling and managed to come up with four cases related to reloads:
New Jersey v. Bias---It took THREE trials for the state of New Jersey to convict Mr. Bias, and even then ONLY on a REDUCED charge of "Reckless Manslaughter". The murder charge was thrown out. So it clearly appears that the question of him using reloads was utterly irrelevant, since TWO juries of his peers refused to find him guilty of ANYTHING.
Iowa v. Willems---Willems used reloads, and was ACQUITTED.
New Hampshire v. Kennedy---Kennedy used reloads, and was ACQUITTED.
Tennessee v. Barnes---Barnes used reloads, and was ACQUITTED.
Four cases involving reloads---three of the four defendants were ACQUITTED. It took THREE trials to convict the fourth one, even then only a conviction on a reduced charge of Reckless Manslaughter.
The hypothesis that "reloads are a legal nightmare", has FAILED MISERABLY.
Thus avid reloaders should NOT allow failed "Chicken Little" hypotheses to stop them from carrying reloaded ammo.
New Jersey v. Bias---It took THREE trials for the state of New Jersey to convict Mr. Bias, and even then ONLY on a REDUCED charge of "Reckless Manslaughter". The murder charge was thrown out. So it clearly appears that the question of him using reloads was utterly irrelevant, since TWO juries of his peers refused to find him guilty of ANYTHING.
Iowa v. Willems---Willems used reloads, and was ACQUITTED.
New Hampshire v. Kennedy---Kennedy used reloads, and was ACQUITTED.
Tennessee v. Barnes---Barnes used reloads, and was ACQUITTED.
Four cases involving reloads---three of the four defendants were ACQUITTED. It took THREE trials to convict the fourth one, even then only a conviction on a reduced charge of Reckless Manslaughter.
The hypothesis that "reloads are a legal nightmare", has FAILED MISERABLY.
Thus avid reloaders should NOT allow failed "Chicken Little" hypotheses to stop them from carrying reloaded ammo.
loneviking
Member
Maybe we all need to take a deep breath in, step back and take a look at the big picture. For reloads to even become an issue, the following has to occur:
1. A shoot that is declared 'bad' or 'uncertain' by the investigating LEO's. BTW, the LEO's will always take the weapon, count rounds fired and if there are any spare rounds, will likely keep those for evidence.
2. A grand jury willing to indict or a prosecutor willing to bring charges.
3. A state where there is a distinct bias against handguns and/or the carry of handguns.
4. An affirmative defense, which brought the issue in too play in the aforementioned case.
5. The critical issue, the key to the affirmative defense, revolves around a GSR issue and NOT whether there were circumstances that justified a self defense response.
That's a pretty long list of issues to have to occur for reloads to be an issue. I'll take my chance with reloads, as I can't get a commercial load with the reload characteristics I load for (actually, I carry some commercial and some reloads).
It should also be pointed out that you can reload using commercial type bullets such as Hornady XTP's, and Winchester Silvertips, Speer Golddots, etc. The resulting cartridges can look just like the commercial ones. The cops are going to have to do some very detailed analysis of those rounds to discover (if they even do discover) that these are handloads.
1. A shoot that is declared 'bad' or 'uncertain' by the investigating LEO's. BTW, the LEO's will always take the weapon, count rounds fired and if there are any spare rounds, will likely keep those for evidence.
2. A grand jury willing to indict or a prosecutor willing to bring charges.
3. A state where there is a distinct bias against handguns and/or the carry of handguns.
4. An affirmative defense, which brought the issue in too play in the aforementioned case.
5. The critical issue, the key to the affirmative defense, revolves around a GSR issue and NOT whether there were circumstances that justified a self defense response.
That's a pretty long list of issues to have to occur for reloads to be an issue. I'll take my chance with reloads, as I can't get a commercial load with the reload characteristics I load for (actually, I carry some commercial and some reloads).
It should also be pointed out that you can reload using commercial type bullets such as Hornady XTP's, and Winchester Silvertips, Speer Golddots, etc. The resulting cartridges can look just like the commercial ones. The cops are going to have to do some very detailed analysis of those rounds to discover (if they even do discover) that these are handloads.
If the Bias shooting had happened in Texas, he would've been promptly no-billed by a Grand Jury.
In a rabidly anti-gun state like New Jersey, you'd better be deeply concerned REGARDLESS of what you shoot somebody with. I don't care if it's FACTORY .22LR ammo that you bought at Wal-Mart. It has NOTHING to do with reloads. It has EVERYTHING to do with anti-gun legislators, judges, and prosecutors. Not to mention a general population that on average, is one of the most liberal in the country.
Several guys at my range reload ammo. I think I'll go out there tomorrow and pick up a few hundred rounds from them, and start loading it in my carry guns!
In a rabidly anti-gun state like New Jersey, you'd better be deeply concerned REGARDLESS of what you shoot somebody with. I don't care if it's FACTORY .22LR ammo that you bought at Wal-Mart. It has NOTHING to do with reloads. It has EVERYTHING to do with anti-gun legislators, judges, and prosecutors. Not to mention a general population that on average, is one of the most liberal in the country.
Several guys at my range reload ammo. I think I'll go out there tomorrow and pick up a few hundred rounds from them, and start loading it in my carry guns!
justice4all
Member
Kleanbore writes, "Do you think perhaps you should consult with the attorneys involved before reaching a conclusion on the basis of a synopsis?"
Are you seriously suggesting that someone has to consult with the attorneys involved in a case before one can offer an opinion on what precedential value, if any, the case has? Why don't you tell me what is incorrect with the synopsis. I did start with, "correct me if I am wrong..." If my understanding of the facts is correct, then it is not the fact that he used handloads that caused the GSR testing to be inadmissible, but the fact that he could not state, with any degree of reliability, what particular round caused the injury. There's a big difference. I'd like to hear from massad ayoob on this aprticular point.
Are you seriously suggesting that someone has to consult with the attorneys involved in a case before one can offer an opinion on what precedential value, if any, the case has? Why don't you tell me what is incorrect with the synopsis. I did start with, "correct me if I am wrong..." If my understanding of the facts is correct, then it is not the fact that he used handloads that caused the GSR testing to be inadmissible, but the fact that he could not state, with any degree of reliability, what particular round caused the injury. There's a big difference. I'd like to hear from massad ayoob on this aprticular point.
massad ayoob
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 374
Wow, the tone of a thread can certainly change in one day.
Bro, you've misinterpreted and mischaracterized.
Let's say it one more time: Bias was CONVICTED AND SENT TO PRISON when all evidence but the GSR indicated he should not have been. His attorneys have flatly stated that without this factor - if his gun had been loaded with factory ammo - this almost certainly would not have happened.
Willems did not use reloads. He used factory ammo which could be replicated in GSR testing and greatly contributed to his acquittal.
Barnes' reloads didn't hurt him as bad as they might have because the investigators didn't realize he used them. Don't EVER be counting on that.
Kennedy was acquitted after a financially, emotionally and occupationally crippling ordeal. His very use of handloads was one reason he was put through that torment in the first place.
I'm seeing people say "two cases on one side versus no cases on the other side means nothing." That is simply illogical, unreasonable, and frankly, desperate.
I'm seeing the argument, "One guy who takes the opposite position is not infallible." Straw man argument: no one said any of us is infallible. It ain't about who's making the argument, it's about the facts in evidence. There are still NO CASES FROM ANYONE where courts accepted the reloader's word for what was in the rounds when GSR became an issue.
I hear people saying, "The judge should have allowed it in." Hell, I thought so too. It ain't about what we think they should have done, it's about what has been done, why it was done that way, and why we can expect the same to happen next time.
Stay with the facts, fellas. The facts right now do not favor use of handloads for defensive purposes.
Kleanbore and Fiddletown nailed it.
I made the statement, "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."
I posed the question to Defensory, "Do you understand that?"
Defensory has come back with "I've done some googling and managed to come up with four cases related to reloads".
Do I have the answer to my question?
I posed the question to Defensory, "Do you understand that?"
Defensory has come back with "I've done some googling and managed to come up with four cases related to reloads".
Do I have the answer to my question?
Yeah, unless you know a better way to obtain the facts. I don't think we have a full accounting of them.
On what basis would I do that?
Would if I could. Don't know enough to do so, or to concur.
I can draw that conclusion also from Ayoob's note, but I do not know what was actually introduced, how the objection was framed, or what the trial judge said in making his or her determination.
It was for those reasons that I suggested that you might want to find out more. If the attorneys involved are not the best source, act accordingly.
I'm sure you are aware that there has been later precedent involving the admissibility of scientific forensic evidence and the latitude granted to the trial judge in that regard. Whether that would strengthen or weaken the position of either side is not for me to say.
No, you don't have the answer. You just think you do.
Your illogic is laughable.
Can you imagine Kleanbore as a prosecutor in court, addressing the judge:
"Gee, your honor and members of the jury, we have virtually no evidence, case histories or legal precedents to present---but they're out their somewhere. We just can't find them. But you should believe us any way."
If I were on the jury, I'd go in the jury room and have a good belly laugh, then promptly vote NOT GUILTY.
And as long as the jury always contains someone who has a knowledge of firearms and ammunition, that would probably be the outcome.
Failing that, I'm of a mind that I'd avoid reloads for defense use as well....
Why not eliminate a possible problem?
And the prosecutor will be systematically excluding all such people from the jury during the jury selection process.Elmer said:
I'm not your "Bro".
I've misinterpreted and mischaracterized NOTHING.
I DO admit to making a simple mistake about Willems. You are correct that he used factory ammo. However, Harold Fish ALSO used FACTORY ammo, and he was convicted and is currently in prison. You made the serious allegation that Mr. Fish's legal team didn't represent him properly, but you have thus far failed to respond to my simple request for documented evidence of same.
Not surprisingly, you failed to mention that it took THREE TRIALS for the state of New Jersey to nail down a conviction, and only then on a REDUCED charge of Reckless Manslaughter.
Every other reload case has ended in ACQUITTAL---Barnes and Kennedy.
I stand corrected on Willem not using reloads. However, Fish used FACTORY ammo, and is now languishing in prison. Tit for tat.
MANY cases involving a self-defense shooting that go to court, end up as a "financially, emotionally and occupationally crippling ordeal", REGARDLESS of the type of ammunition used. Just ask Mr. Fish, who used FACTORY ammo and is now sitting in prison, with a legal bill of over half a million dollars.
Do I have to keep reminding you that ONLY ONE of your two cases ended in a conviction?
Attempting to scam us into believing that "reloads are a legal nightmare", based on ONE trial that resulted in a conviction, in the ENTIRE history of American law---is EXTREME DESPERATION on YOUR part.
That's because there are virtually NO cases in American legal history where reloads were relevant to the case! Sorry, but your ONE LONE CASE resulting in a conviction does NOT constitute an "epidemic" or "legal nightmare".
I'm sorry, but I refuse to bask in paranoia about using reloads, based on ONE court case.
Expecting "the same to happen next time" is sheer assumption on your part. In a more conservative state like Texas, many judges would've ruled in Mr. Bias' favor as to the admission of evidence. It was clearly a matter of judges in the Bias case, not reloads.
Your inability to name even one reloader who has been convicted in the many years since the Bias case, clearly exposes your fallacious "slippery slope" logic.
A very clear case of Mr. Ayoob needing to heed the very advice he so often gives.
Name ONE court case SINCE NJ v. Bias, where somebody went to prison because they used reloads.
And let me remind everybody here, that it hasn't even been established that Bias went to prison because of reloads.
He went to prison because he happened to shoot somebody in a rabidly anti-gun state like New Jersey. In Texas, a Grand Jury would've no-billed him in a quick minute. Reloads had virtually NOTHING to do with it.
In your obviously biased opinion.
Last edited:
massad ayoob
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 374
No, Bubba, it was the case where he tried to get the gun away from the suicidal wife who was pointing the gun at her head when it discharged.
Defensory, you seem to be taking this a bit personally. I had assumed -- erroneously, it now appears -- that we were all brother shooters here, debating facts in an issue. Try not to turn it into a debate team thing where one side has to win at all costs, including the high cost of deviating from the path of reality.
The Bias case, as I and others have said repeatedly, was a canary in the mineshaft that warned us all about evidence admissibility issues relating to handloads as "evidence manufactured by the defendant."
The demonizing of hollow point and/or large caliber ammunition, as occurred in the Fish case, is an apples and oranges comparison. Different dynamics at work. It is defendant Harold Fish and his family who take the position that the original trial attorney failed to address these issues adequately for the defense; feel free to do some more research in that direction, even though it has nothing to do with the topic at issue here.
Because the GSR issue is an evidentiary issue, it has nothing to do with overall tone of state attitudes toward gun ownership. The rules of evidence will be applied the same way in gun-friendly Texas as in gun-hating New Jersey.
Anyone who has been through the ordeal of a false accusation and resultant trial(s) knows the fallacy of the "he was acquitted, so it doesn't matter" argument. Long before the third trial that convicted him, Danny Bias was bankrupt and financially ruined by the huge legal expenses of the first two trials. Sgt. Kennedy went through a wrenching ordeal before the acquittal vindicated him.
BTW, for those who came late to this unnecessarily long thread, handloads-for-defense proponents STILL have not found a SINGLE case where the court has taken the shooter's word for what was in the load.
In hopes of maintaining perspective,
Mas
Defensory, you seem to be taking this a bit personally. I had assumed -- erroneously, it now appears -- that we were all brother shooters here, debating facts in an issue. Try not to turn it into a debate team thing where one side has to win at all costs, including the high cost of deviating from the path of reality.
The Bias case, as I and others have said repeatedly, was a canary in the mineshaft that warned us all about evidence admissibility issues relating to handloads as "evidence manufactured by the defendant."
The demonizing of hollow point and/or large caliber ammunition, as occurred in the Fish case, is an apples and oranges comparison. Different dynamics at work. It is defendant Harold Fish and his family who take the position that the original trial attorney failed to address these issues adequately for the defense; feel free to do some more research in that direction, even though it has nothing to do with the topic at issue here.
Because the GSR issue is an evidentiary issue, it has nothing to do with overall tone of state attitudes toward gun ownership. The rules of evidence will be applied the same way in gun-friendly Texas as in gun-hating New Jersey.
Anyone who has been through the ordeal of a false accusation and resultant trial(s) knows the fallacy of the "he was acquitted, so it doesn't matter" argument. Long before the third trial that convicted him, Danny Bias was bankrupt and financially ruined by the huge legal expenses of the first two trials. Sgt. Kennedy went through a wrenching ordeal before the acquittal vindicated him.
BTW, for those who came late to this unnecessarily long thread, handloads-for-defense proponents STILL have not found a SINGLE case where the court has taken the shooter's word for what was in the load.
In hopes of maintaining perspective,
Mas
No, according to your own summation of the case the gov't's theory was that he pointed the gun at her and pulled the trigger thinking the chamber was empty. And it wasn't. That was what he was convicted on.
It is an odd case and that is probably why the prosecutor was attracted to it.
Loosedhorse
member
Yup.
I stopped posting at page 5. I appreciate the subsequent posts, for their amplification and clarification, but nothing in them has really swayed me from the two conclusions I had reached by page 1 (and, in full disclosure, well before then):
1. Handloads for practice and factory loads for SD use is a very reasonable choice.
2. We are all adults, and we will do--and pay for--whatever we choose to do.
One side says the consequence of not doing it their way is that you will have your word successfully impeached at trial because of GSR; the other side says that if you don't do it their way you'll be dead long before trial, because of the inaccuracy and jam-tendencies of factory ammo compared to handloads.
Pick the risk you want--whichever seems less to you. And be prepared to live with the consequences. I have, and I am.
Raising the difference between "facts" and "opinion" has never helped me in a debate--except rhetorically--because my opponent usually does not accept my "opinion" of what defines a fact. (Facts are those things that can't be disputed. Well, I'm disputing it. Facts are those thing that aren't generally disputed. Me and my whole family and all my friends dispute it. Facts are those things that cannot be reasonably disputed. You calling my MOM unreasonable? Besides, you're just talking about the facts we know about--what about all the facts we DON'T know about? Etc.)
"There are some mistakes no one can make for you; you have to make them yourself."
Peace, and thanks.
massad ayoob
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2005
- Messages
- 374
Loosed Horse:
+1
Bubba:
I'm afraid you're a bit out of context. As you know if you've read the account you quote, the prosecution's theory in the first two trials was that Bias had cold-bloodedly murdered his wife. The first jury deadlocked, the second erroneously compromised on a Manslaughter verdict, and when the appellate court appropriately overturned that conviction, Manslaughter was the highest the prosecution could go for in the third trial.
Therefore, they completely changed their theory of the case to the one you described. Experienced trial advocates know that when the accuser changes horses in midstream like that, it's obvious "they got nothin'", but the jury didn't know that. With the defense unable to introduce GSR evidence that would have decisively exonerated Bias, because of the handload issue, the last jury found him guilty of Manslaughter.
I'm off to work. Have a good day, gang.
+1
Bubba:
I'm afraid you're a bit out of context. As you know if you've read the account you quote, the prosecution's theory in the first two trials was that Bias had cold-bloodedly murdered his wife. The first jury deadlocked, the second erroneously compromised on a Manslaughter verdict, and when the appellate court appropriately overturned that conviction, Manslaughter was the highest the prosecution could go for in the third trial.
Therefore, they completely changed their theory of the case to the one you described. Experienced trial advocates know that when the accuser changes horses in midstream like that, it's obvious "they got nothin'", but the jury didn't know that. With the defense unable to introduce GSR evidence that would have decisively exonerated Bias, because of the handload issue, the last jury found him guilty of Manslaughter.
I'm off to work. Have a good day, gang.
Let's see. A person is dead, killed by the defendant's gun. No trace element of GSR on the deceased to indicate very close range. No evidence showing that said lack does not disprove the defendant's story.
I wouldn't laugh, and I sure don't know enough about the evidence to know how I would have voted.
It's always good to remember at times like this that this is the internet, where a lack of actual trial experience or even an understanding of the way the legal system works is no deterrent against posing as an expert.
To put in the vernacular, following the legal advice offered by anonymous posters in the internet would meet the definition of "Epic Fail".
To put in the vernacular, following the legal advice offered by anonymous posters in the internet would meet the definition of "Epic Fail".
Darth AkSarBen
Member
Interesting read. Wonder how they would react to me shooting the BG intruder to my home with my .44 Remington Black Powder replica. It's strictly hand load.
I would imagine, though, that my hand loads in Remington cases with factory Remington 185 gr Golden Saber bullets would look and act like store bought Golden Saber, in standard velocity. I have the GS in +P, but they are a bit much for my Taurus 24/7 Pro in .45 Remington also makes them in a standard velocity. I have shot and recovered both factory and hand load in these bullets and for all intense and practical purposes, they are identical. I am sure if they were examined by the police they wold conclude that they are "factory" ammo, since they match all the rest of the Golden Saber 185 gr line of retail ammo. In one sense they are "Factory" made Remington bullets, but the powder and amount are a recipe from reloading manuals, and not one I cooked up by myself.
I would imagine, though, that my hand loads in Remington cases with factory Remington 185 gr Golden Saber bullets would look and act like store bought Golden Saber, in standard velocity. I have the GS in +P, but they are a bit much for my Taurus 24/7 Pro in .45 Remington also makes them in a standard velocity. I have shot and recovered both factory and hand load in these bullets and for all intense and practical purposes, they are identical. I am sure if they were examined by the police they wold conclude that they are "factory" ammo, since they match all the rest of the Golden Saber 185 gr line of retail ammo. In one sense they are "Factory" made Remington bullets, but the powder and amount are a recipe from reloading manuals, and not one I cooked up by myself.
Darth, imagine what you like, but I don't think that the police would have any trouble figuring out that your ammunition isn't factory. Among other things, they'd be able to determine that the powder is probably different. They also find your reloading set up, hand loaded ammunition, manuals, and perhaps notes, etc., when they search your house.
But in any case, it's not my problem.
But in any case, it's not my problem.
- Status
