Self Defense Ammo Law

[danez71]

This is a murder case rather than self defense but it shows that it appears it was a factor.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CCIwAw&usg=AFQjCNEeGT-Kj2j0KKKq1A2xOhquFqruqQ

We agree with Taylor that his apparent lack of motive for shooting five people is
disturbing, to say the least. That said, “motive is not an element of the crime of attempted murder.” Wilson v. State, 611 N.E.2d 160, 165 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993), trans. denied. Taylor fired at least twelve .45-caliber jacketed hollow-point bullets into a crowded elevator at point-blank range. From this evidence, a reasonable trier of fact could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Taylor specifically intended to kill all his defenseless victims.
Therefore, we affirm his attempted murder convictions.

If you Google " hollow point bullets cited in conviction" you findon't sever court cases that hollow points were a negative for the bad guy; such as the one above.

But if you look at the reasoning ( or lack of) you can see how it could be used against a self defense shooter.

I look more tomorrow.

 

[Frank Ettin]

This is a murder case rather than self defense but it shows that it appears it was a factor....

A flaw in that reasoning is that the court didn't focus on the use of JHP ammunition. The court merely concluded that the evidence in the aggregate, i. e., that the defendant fired at least 12 .45 caliber JHP rounds at point-blank range into a crowded elevator, supported the jury finding an intent to kill. It looks like the jury finding was based on the combination of factors -- a large caliber, a lot of shots, the fact that the elevator was crowded, the shots were all at close range, and the use of JHP ammunition.

Given the other factors, I would not be surprised if the jury would have found an intent to kill even if the defendant had used FMJ ammunition.

On the other hand, we know that in Fish Fish's use of JHP ammunition was a factor for the jury because a juror said so in a post verdict interview.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by danez71:

But if you look at the reasoning ( or lack of) you can see how it could be used against a self defense shooter.

I see no such reasoning. The statement of fact that the appellant had used JHP bullets does not seem to be phrased in such a manner that the court believed that the type of ammunition would have necessarily meant anything to the triers of fact, or that it would have been a distinguishing factor.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by WardenWolf:

That's mere semantics and the subject of this thread is self-defense. They're effectively banned because you cannot legally carry them for self-defense, and even using them to defend yourself in your home would be questionable; it wouldn't take much of a stretch for a prosecutor to claim that a weapon used for self-defense in the home was effectively carried, regardless of whether the ammo is legal to store in your home or not.

How can you conclude that they cannot be used for self defense? Here's the law:

However, hollow-point bullets may not be carried outside of a place of target practice, dwelling, premises or land possessed by a person, even if one has a valid permit to carry a handgun, except when being transported directly to and from these places.

(Emphasis added)

 

[BSA1]

"Overpenetration" is way over rated.

Unless you are shooting into a area where a lot of people are present the odds are no one will be hit. In addition using JHP is no guarantee the bullet(s) will not pass through the target.

What should be of most concern are the bullets that do not hit the intended target.

I recently read a interesting report for a Medical Examiner. He commented that in many of the autopsies he had done the deceased had gunshot wounds to their hands and arms. He said they wounds came for them having their hands and arms in front of the body attacking someone when they got shot.

The significance of this means the bullet will first pass through the hand / arm hitting flesh and bone, then exiting and then reentering the body. So the hollow point may be clogged enhancing deeper penetration or if it is starting to open will not penetrate as deep.

The biggest danger with using hollowpoint is modifying it to expand more. How many remember the movie "Taxi Driver" where he is altering the hollow point bullet by filling it with mercury? The issue in the courtroom won't be use of hollowpoints but how the defendant was not satisfied with commercial ammunition but made his own, more deadly bullets proving premeditation. Imagine sitting on the stand trying to explain to the jury why factory JHP's are not deadly enough.

Also the "one shot stop" is a total myth.

 

[danez71]

A flaw in that reasoning is that the court didn't focus on the use of JHP ammunition. The court merely concluded that the evidence in the aggregate, i. e., that the defendant fired at least 12 .45 caliber JHP rounds at point-blank range into a crowded elevator, supported the jury finding an intent to kill. It looks like the jury finding was based on the combination of factors -- a large caliber, a lot of shots, the fact that the elevator was crowded, the shots were all at close range, and the use of JHP ammunition.

Given the other factors, I would be surprised if the jury would have found an intent to kill even if the defendant had used FMJ ammunition.

On the other hand, we know that in Fish Fish's use of JHP ammunition was a factor for the jury because a juror said so in a post verdict interview.

I understand that I didn't word I well.... but, Right!

My opening statement was

This is a murder case rather than self defense but it shows that it appears it was a factor.

I meant that as it was part of the aggregate, as you said. I was not intending to imply it was THEE reason or even a majority of the reason.


I think you may have misworded that 2nd bolded part....?

Originally posted by Kleenbore

I see no such reasoning. The statement of fact that the appellant had used JHP bullets does not seem to be phrased in such a manner that the court believed that the type of ammunition would have necessarily meant anything to the triers of fact, or that it would have been a distinguishing factor.

Crud.... my post was not as I intended it.
I should not post in the Legal section when I'm tired.

Let me try to do better with this post.


I was meaning to reference this (below) too. Again, its not a self defense shooting. And I'll add that this is in regards to the sentencing of the defendant.




IMO, the court obviously views 'hollow-points' with some sort of prejudice from the reference below.

http://www.freelawreporter.org/procases/F2/948/948.F2d.1292.90-3115.html

In challenging his sentence, Mr. Tinker's basic contention is that in determining his sentence the district court improperly relied on the nature and purpose of the hollow-point bullets. At the hearing, the court remarked: "I'm not sure why you wanted hollow point ammunition. As far as I know, hollow points are only good to kill people with."

It was that above that spurred my comment below.

Originally said by me/danez71
But if you look at the reasoning ( or lack of) you can see how it could be used against a self defense shooter.

The court obviously had a preconceived idea of what hollow points are used for -

As far as I know, hollow points are only good to kill people with

He lost his appeal.

In his appeal, the court seems to be a bit dismissive, IMO, and it appears his lawyers didn't do a good job (also, IMO) preparing for the appeal. (I'll explain below.)

In evaluating Mr. Tinker's contentions, we first note that it is highly improbable that the nature of the bullets played a significant role in the district court's decision to impose a sentence greater than that recommended by the government. Although the district court commented on the hollow point bullets involved in Mr. Tinker's earlier conviction, the court explicitly relied on the weapons conviction itself, the conviction in state court, the other drug activity, and Mr. Tinker's violation of the conditions of his bond. The court also noted that the 93 month sentence recommended by the government would not be proportionate to sentences he had meted out to other defendants convicted of similar charges.


Secondly, even if the nature and purpose of the hollow point bullets did influence the length of the sentence given to Mr. Tinker, he makes no effort to show that he was prejudiced. When asked, his appellate counsel could think of no purpose for hollow point bullets, other than killing people. As Justice Frankfurter said, we "should not be ignorant as judges of what we know as men." Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 52 (1949). Neither can we expect that an experienced district court judge will forget what it means to carry a gun loaded with dumdum bullets.

My interpretation -

The 1st bolded part is denying that it was influenced by the HP's even though the court made they comment that HP are 'only good for killing people, as far as they know'.


The 2nd bolded part is saying that even IF is did influence the court in sentencing, the defendant failed to prove it and didn't even offer another reason HP's are good for.
(This is why I commented on that, IMO, his lawyers failed to prepare for his appeal. They specifically cited the courts comment in the appeal and offered nothing to support themselves.)

The 3rd bolded part - Maybe I'm misreading it, but it seems a bit dismissive in the sense that I take it as the court say "hey, judges are just men too" alluding to that we all have prejudices/misconceptions etc etc .... what ever the right words I'm looking for. While true, we are all just men, they are supposed to be above that as part of their job of being a judge.



Now... tying this all back around.....


The fact that the court made the comment of

As far as I know, hollow points are only good to kill people with.

is undeniable.

It clearly proves that the this thinking is out there and is not limited to your 'stupid liberal anti next door' or 'Mayors Against Guns' etc etc.


And, that if Judges are mortals like juries are, and can have the preconceived opinion that 'HP are only good for killing people'...... IMO.... it stands to reason that HP 's could (I'm not saying "will") be an influence.


Did HP's influence this case?

Well, paraphrasing, the court said 'No.. but even if it did... the defendant didn't prove it.'

But it doesn't take away the fact that Court, in the original trial, made the comment of "As far as I know, hollow points are only good to kill people with."



So lets go back to the OP

This threads intended purpose is to explore whether or not there is any history of cases that show prejudice towards particular ammunition in self defense situations. Or, if anyone knows current statutes (if there are any) on such situations.

I know there are several lawyers on here so without sounding like a cheapskate I wonder if one or more might chime in. My particular curiosity is FMJ's versus HPJ's. I have heard that since FMJ's tend to not do as much damage as "defense" rounds that it could make a difference in a courtroom. I have heard that with a lot of modern JHP's prosecutors have shown or claimed 'premeditated intent' by carrying such rounds.


Any informative input would be appreciated.

I said from the beginning that this wasn't a self defense case.

However, I think it fits the spirit of the OP and at least I cited a legal case in my 1st post, which, I thought, is what the Legal section is desiring.


If the mods feel that post, or this post, it isn't appropriate, then delete it.


But before you do, Ill ask, why do comments like this continue to be unchallenged by any Mod/Admin/Staff and allowed in the legal section?


http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=802983&page=3

This is a no-no in my State, but in Colorado how about a non-lethal load of salt rock in the perp’s ass for trying to kill or injure your guard dogs or attack cats for that matter?

Just sayin'...

I can find a 1/2 dozen of those just in the last couple days.

Heck, I can point out probably point out a 1/2 dozen posts in this thread alone that are BS-y and left unchallenged by Mods.



I thought we're supposed to bring our "A game" to the legal section?


While I may only be capable of providing a "B- or C+ game", it seems kind of asinine.... actually, I'll say 'very asinine', to allow those posts in the Legal section and then take the time to discredit someone/post that is actually trying to follow the Legal section spirit and even take the time to provide some type of legal document for reference.


But hey, what do I know... I just visit here. You get to choose the quality of your guests.

Choose away!

Or in more hip lingo... "Keep Calm, Choose On".

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I think you may have misworded that 2nd bolded part....?...

You've got me there. It should have read:

Given the other factors, I would not be surprised if the jury would have found an intent to kill even if the defendant had used FMJ ammunition.

I fixed it in my post. Thank you.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I said from the beginning that this wasn't a self defense case.

However, I think it fits the spirit of the OP and at least ....

And I agree with that, especially with regard to Tinker. Those cases do show that prosecutors, courts, and juries can be aware of and consider the type of ammunition. Exactly how and to what effect of course depends on the exact circumstances. But clearly we can not assume that ammunition type will necessarily be ignored.

 

[Kleanbore]

The idiotic comment about rock salt was effectively handled by a member. No need for anyone else to pile on.

Yes, the court's statements about JHP ammunition is relevant.

I'm not at all sure that the fact that defendant had not attempted to justify the shooting as self defense would make any difference.

 

[Spats McGee]

....I said from the beginning that this wasn't a self defense case.

However, I think it fits the spirit of the OP and at least ....

And I agree with that, especially with regard to Tinker. Those cases do show that prosecutors, courts, and juries can be aware of and consider the type of ammunition. Exactly how and to what effect of course depends on the exact circumstances. But clearly we can not assume that ammunition type will necessarily be ignored.

I've highlighted a few sentences for emphasis here. These three sentences, IMHO, highlight one of the recurring problems that I run across in the legal sections of gun forums. (This isn't a shot at you, danez71. You just happen to be the lucky one Frank quoted with this.)

I frequently run across statements by posters in which the poster asks for a citation to a case in which X, Y, and Z happened. These usually take the form of something like the following: "Show me a SD case where the shooter was convicted because he used hollowpoints." Typically, if I then post a citation to a case involving anything other than exactly a case in which X, Y, and Z happened, the other poster will promptly dismiss me as not having the case he or she wants to see as proof of whatever. For example, if I post a link to a murder case involving hollowpoints, I get the reaction of "that's not an SD case." If I show an SD case involving a 10mm, the reaction is "those weren't hollowpoints." What I frequently want to post after that is "that's not how the legal system works. It's not how any of this works."

There's some backdrop to our legal system that ought to be considered when looking at caselaw. First, the type of case will not typically affect the rules of evidence. There are some exceptions, and variations from state to state. However, many states have the rules of evidence codified as their own little body of law. It's then up to the lawyers to argue over which rules apply, and how, in each case. That means, for example, that an expert has to be qualified before he or she can testify as to an opinion in a case, and that holds true regardless of whether the case is a car wreck case or a murder case.

Second, we don't always know what a jury considered or didn't consider in a given case. Jurors don't write out little cheat sheets to tell us what evidence they thought was important or not. We read the appellate opinion, and that will detail the evidence adduced at trial, and what the appellate court thought of it, in light of the arguments in the parties' briefs. Most importantly, though, appellate opinions only deal with those issues raised on appeal. That means that if an issue isn't raised on appeal, the appellate court won't be talking about it.

It's against this backdrop that attorneys have to exercise something of a predictive function. Typically, we'll find the most exact fit in statute and caselaw that we can, but then have to draw from established legal principles and cases that may seem unrelated at first blush. We may not know for certain exactly how a court will rule, but we read all of these statutes and cases and throw in known legal principles, we can make an educated assessment of whether something could, or is likely to, cause problems down the road.

 

[danez71]

Again, sentence related.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...ggnMAM&usg=AFQjCNGUi2St9T8UHsvrw3XgGbKxnsi09g

In imposing the upper term for the firearm enhancement, the trial court stated, "In this case, 1, [Park] is carrying an unlicensed weapon. *2, He's carrying a concealed weapon. *3, He's carrying a loaded concealed weapon. *4, It is a 40-caliber, but the ammunition used is hollow point. *Very dangerous ammunition

ETA: Not enormously relevant but some things the lawyers here bring up from time to time.

It's 30 pages.

From:

Ballistics - American Bar Association

Just a partial snip

Examiners may also be asked to describe bullets and ammunition to juries explaining different ... hollow-point designs.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CDEwBw&usg=AFQjCNGyt2lyEJjwCBi-SxU5b7rmdWqQww

 

[GRIZ22]

Wardenwolf, in addition to those responses you've received from the moderators, there has been no prosecution's in NJ of anyone using hollowpoints in a legitimate home defense shooting. If you think there is please find me one. Just one.

If a shooting case is going to trial there are already questions about its legality. I worked as a Federal LEO in about 10 states. This was done with local enforcement in many cases. Prosecutors usually are pretty much overburdened with case load. Few, if any, have have the time to "dream up" a case. The Duke lacrosse team case was dreamed up by the prosecutor but it had nothing to do with shooting.

If you find yourself in court because of a shooting it's because of the shooting not what kind of ammo you used. A prosecutor is only doing their job if they figure out a way to make the ammunition used beneficial to their case. This would include states where use of hollowpoints is controlled. If the prosecutor finds a way to make your use of fmj, AP, tracer, or any type of ammo useful to making their case they will do it. You really don't see it because you're on trial for shooting someone, not for what ammo you used.

 

[basicblur]

The only other worthwhile suggestion in this thread so far might be the Martin case. But I've yet to find anything on the net quoting any kind of argument from the prosecution about ammo type, and I've been searching/reading for the last hour.

I did a quick search last night, but apparently my search-fu is not up to snuff.

I wasn't narrowing it down enough to find what I was looking for.

I do remember during the trial that all the things I mentioned came up (don't know how hard the prosecutor pushed them or wanted to push them), but I think they were all shot down pretty quickly by the fellow that trained Zimmerman.

I think the fellow Zimmerman got his training from was a U.S. Marshall or Sky Marshall (possibly retired) and pointed out all items the prosecutor was bringing up (HP's, topping off, round in the chamber) were SOP and what he taught Zimmerman in his class.

 

[PRM]

deleted

 

[Sam1911]

Most prosecutors will tell you if it is a good shoot, ammo is not an issue. If it is a bad shoot, it's not going to matter what round you use. It's still a bad shoot.

Actually, I think most will tell you it isn't a "good shoot" until the triers of fact have weighed everything and decided what they think of you, your claims, and the totality of the situation and made such a determination.

So the issue at hand is whether or not a particular type of ammo may be an influencing factor in whether your event was a "good shoot" or not -- as decided by the only people who's final opinion really matters.

Just because under the circumstances you were completely justified, in your own mind, in shooting someone, that's not a "good shoot." When the jury looks at those circumstances, and at you, and at your gun, your ammo, the deceased, the crime scene photos, and all the other things the prosecution will present, and then they decide that they do or don't believe your story, do or don't believe you bore partial responsibility for the circumstances of the shooting, and they do or don't feel that the claims you've presented meet the legal standards for a self-defense claim in your state, then they'll decide if it was a "good shoot."


We do ourselves a disservice (over, and over, and over again) when we try to answer questions of what makes for a successful self-defense claim by first declaring that it is or isn't a successful self-defense claim. (i.e.: a "good shoot")

 

[PRM]

Never mind... I have better things to discuss other places.

 

[Spats McGee]

But the prosecutor can also look at the shooter's ammo selection in deciding whether to proceed.

 

[Sam1911]

The prosecutor who chooses not to press a prosecution is merely making an assumption about what s/he thinks a jury is most likely to decide. It still is not on you, the shooter/defendant, to decide that it is a "good shoot" and trying to couch any of these discussions about what might influence a jury in terms of deciding that it is already a "good shoot" is completely pointless.

Kind of like trying to predict who will win an election by starting out saying, "assuming that Jim wins this election ... " It's completely circular logic.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

... it wouldn't take much of a stretch for a prosecutor to claim that a weapon used for self-defense in the home was effectively carried....

It would be a huge stretch in Tennessee. By court rulings on Tennessee Constitution Article I Section 26 there is an absolute right of the citizen to be armed in their home or business. In the case law around the "going armed" statute and handgun carry permit, "carry" is going armed in public, outside one's home or one's business. I don't need a handgun carry permit to be armed for self defense in my home; I do need a handgun carry permit "to carry" that is: to be armed for self defense in public.

 

[joem1945]

I buy whatever the gun store has for self defense.

 

[gun_with_a_view]

BSA wrote:

[I recently read a interesting report for a Medical Examiner. He commented that in many of the autopsies he had done the deceased had gunshot wounds to their hands and arms. He said they wounds came for them having their hands and arms in front of the body attacking someone when they got shot./QUOTE]


You write undoubtably of deadmeat2. His posts appear to be pure fiction. No way to perform the number of autopsies per day he claimed to average. When called on it, he claimed to have merely "witnessed" those autopsies, dropping in on each one being performed by other coroners. There are many other indicators deadmeat2 was a put-on. I was surprised at the time how many folks gobbled his b.s. up. Unfortunately, his work is ingrained on the net, still feeding false information.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

OK, color me silly here, but I'm going to try something in layman's terms, since I'm not an attorney by any stretch of the imagination.

The actual attorneys among us may feel free to correct my understanding, of course.


With respect to the effect of any particular prejudice any given type of ammunition may have in a trial, I submit that this is only one factor in a great many which would come up in any given self-defense shooting trial.

As humans, being governed by human nature, we tend to latch onto one or the other issue almost to the exclusion of all others when it comes to determining what may have a significant effect on the outcome of a trial. For some, this issue would seem to be the use of certain types of ammunition in a self-defense shooting trial.


A self-defense trial for a shooting happens first and foremost because of one of two MAJOR issues:

1. A person is accused of a violation of the law having to do with the use of deadly force against another, such as assault with a deadly weapon or whatnot.

2. A person is accused of some form of homicide (like manslaughter or murder).


When a person goes to trial for issues such as these, any single bit of evidence or testimony is only a part of the whole. And typically, any single bit of evidence outside of that whole is meaningless and useless. Yes, some evidence and testimony is weighted more heavily than others.

It is therefore the job of the prosecution and the defense to not only assemble all the bits of evidence into a coherent whole, but to do so with appropriate interpretations which supports THEIR legal supposition.


The purpose of the defense is to defend his client against the charges against him, while the purpose of the prosecutor is to achieve a conviction for the charges brought forth. They will EACH color the picture to best support their own supposition and use that to sway a jury one way or the other.

Who decides the case in the end? The jury.


That said, EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY will be pursued in order sway the jury one way or the other. JHP or FMJ is just one bit of evidence that will be considered for this. But all the evidence and testimony is supposed to be considered in light of what the law says is justified with respect to the use of deadly force.


In the end, what a jury is SUPPOSED to decide is whether or not the use of deadly force was, in fact, justified in accordance with the laws. This has far more to do with the circumstances surrounding the actual event than what was actually used to commit the act. What was used to commit the act is really more of a supporting role...important, but ONLY so far as it supports (or refutes) that justification.


In the end, the clearer the evidence is for the defendant, the less important all the other little bits of evidence are. The cloudier the evidence is for the defendant, the more important all the other little bits of evidence are.


SO...now we have a question wherein the OP asks "...whether or not there is any history of cases that show prejudice towards particular ammunition in self defense situations."

I submit that such a prejudice has an insignificant effect on the outcome of self-defense trials.

Why? Because it's so difficult to find empirical evidence to support it in the first place.

If it DID have a significant effect, then we'd clearly be able to find such evidence by examining the outcomes of various trials. And we clearly are not able to do this. This thread alone has several attorneys, plus moderators, who are quite familiar with both the question and many examples of trials/shootings that have taken place in the past. Yet they are not able to clearly cite any such trend.

This is not to say that it has never happened...just that it's apparently not happened with enough of a frequency, or media spectacle, as to be easy to find.

Therefore, my conclusion is that it is NOT the significant factor that some assume it to be.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Good Ol" Boy:

But I've yet to find anything on the net quoting any kind of argument from the prosecution about ammo type, and I've been searching/reading for the last hour.

What makes you think that there would be anything on the net about it? Do you somehow think that all prosecution comments, including opening and closing arguments, in all trials in all courtrooms in the country, are for some reason transcribed by people and entered into some database somewhere?

 

[Spats McGee]

Very well said overall, RetiredUSNChief. I'll make just a couple of points.

. . . .With respect to the effect of any particular prejudice any given type of ammunition may have in a trial, I submit that this is only one factor in a great many which would come up in any given self-defense shooting trial. . . .

True.

. . . .It is therefore the job of the prosecution and the defense to not only assemble all the bits of evidence into a coherent whole, but to do so with appropriate interpretations which supports THEIR legal supposition.

The purpose of the defense is to defend his client against the charges against him, while the purpose of the prosecutor is to achieve a conviction for the charges brought forth. They will EACH color the picture to best support their own supposition and use that to sway a jury one way or the other.

Who decides the case in the end? The jury. . . . .

True. My dad used to say, "one lawyer paints the picture black, the other paints it white, and the jury decides what shade of gray came out."

. . . .SO...now we have a question wherein the OP asks "...whether or not there is any history of cases that show prejudice towards particular ammunition in self defense situations."

I submit that such a prejudice has an insignificant effect on the outcome of self-defense trials.

Why? Because it's so difficult to find empirical evidence to support it in the first place.

If it DID have a significant effect, then we'd clearly be able to find such evidence by examining the outcomes of various trials. And we clearly are not able to do this. This thread alone has several attorneys, plus moderators, who are quite familiar with both the question and many examples of trials/shootings that have taken place in the past. Yet they are not able to clearly cite any such trend. . . . .

It may be safe to say that "it has not been significant on a large scale." It may also be safe to say, "It has been difficult to find." I'm not convinced that it's safe to say, "It's not an issue." Trials are not automatically posted to the internet. I'll bet that tens, if not hundreds of thousands of trials occur every year in the US, some (small) fraction of which might be SD cases, that never show up in the internet in any way.

Typically, the only cases that can be located in the major legal databases are the ones that go up on appeal, at least at the state level. At the federal level, trial-level decisions have begun to show up in Westlaw the last few years. (Chief, somewhere I've got a post detailing some of the finer points of how things show up in appellate cases. I can dig it up and PM you if you'd like, but I don't really want to derail this thread with that.)

That means that while the type of ammo may have been a factor in cosidering whether to charge, and may have been a big issue for the jury, it may only be glossed over by an appellate court.

Besides, if I'm ever in a SD shooting, I'm not going to care whether ammunition choice is a trending issue nationwide. What I'm going to care about is whether it's going to be a problem for me and my (possible) trial.

. . . . This is not to say that it has never happened...just that it's apparently not happened with enough of a frequency, or media spectacle, as to be easy to find.

Therefore, my conclusion is that it is NOT the significant factor that some assume it to be.

There's very little caselaw on the issue. Just because it hasn't become some kind of nationwide trend in the law doesn't mean that it can't become an issue in your case. There are a handful of cases in which ammunition has played a role in complicating the defense. Anybody who carries a firearm needs to be prepared to explain his or her choice of ammo to his or her lawyer and, if necessary, to a jury.

 

[Taurus 617 CCW]

It is going to be difficult to find any information such as this. Most of these court cases are low profile cases without media coverage. One would have to go through court record transcriptions and read line by line to find out if there is any ruling based on ammo type.

The owner of a local indoor gun range flies around the country because he is an expert shooting witness for court cases involving self defense shootings. He told me of two cases where the prosecution tried to incriminate the plaintiff by saying that they used hollowpoint rounds and that it was justification for premediated intent to do harm. He simply explained to the jury why hollowpoint ammunition is used in law enforcement and that point was dropped.

I saw one court case published online about a year ago where a guy used a 10mm to defend himself against an attacking dog while hiking and ended up having to shoot the dog's owner as well. The jury focused on the caliber more than the ammunition type saying that he used a caliber way in excess than was necessary (if there's such a thing as knowing what caliber will be just enough for an unknown event that may or may not happen sometime in the future). I believe he lost the case because he could not articulate why he used such a caliber.