goalie
Member
I prefer to spend my time worrying about things that are likely to happen. Today, my big worry is getting hit by lightning.....twice......in one hour.
And that is why my client is a quadriplegic
.I follow Massad Ayoob's writing's quite frequently and can recall multiple times where he states it is not a good idea to use handloads
generally hand loads are actually different... they are more accurate, but their powder loads cant be anywhere near as consistent...
NC Dave said:Given that it could possibly be brought up as an issue (no matter how right or wrong that is) why would a person given any ammunition (no pun intended) to the prosecution?
Once in court, you will be fighting for you freedom and, quite possibly, your life. Don't you want as many of the chips stacked on your side of the table from the start?
Why would anyone willing give the prosecution something to question? The odds that you have someone on your jury that knows anything about hand-loading is pretty darn slim in most jurisdictions.
Why pay your defense attorney for an additional bunch of billable hours for doing all of the legwork to be able to mount a defense of your choice of ammunition?
Yes - I fully understand that there is no real difference between what we load at home and commercially loaded ammo, but, for me and for the reasons stated above, hand-loads are for the range and commercial ammo is for carrying.
Recently at a political rally in the the State of Texas
Is it so difficult to buy a box of good factory ammo?
Exactly what I was going to say. If a prosecutor is so inclined, for whatever reason, there are LOTS of things they can bring up to try to get the conviction.Handloads, "extra-deadly" hollow-points, the caliber used, an unrelated comment you made to your mother 6 months before the incident, a post on a forum, a picture on MySpace, Photobucket, still in your digital camera, etc. If a DA really wants to try and convict you, and wants to paint you in a bad light, there are TONS of things they can, and possibly will, use to do so.I think a "good" attorney will make use of whatever round you use. If it's the plaintiff's attorney he'll likely say you made "killer" handloads, and if you used JHPs, he'd say you used a bullet designed to inflict as much damage as possible. He (or she) also might use the caliber of the weapon you used in similar fashion...the PA in the Fish case in Arizona used such arguments...whether those arguments were instrumental in convicting him is debatable, but they were used.
I would like to see a documented case where a hand load or reload in any type of ammunition did the VICTIM IN BY SOME OVER ZEALOUS D.A., police force, judge, jury and/or criminal's attorney.
Can anyone SHOW me where this has happened or did I miss it on here? Years ago, on some other websites... a former LE MAN and a JAILER who both went into the ministry claimed that there was never a case where this happened... reload versus factory load. That is what I remember but I am NOT positive if my memory is that accurate. I used to read many boards years ago.
Quote:
I follow Massad Ayoob's writing's quite frequently and can recall multiple times where he states it is not a good idea to use handloads
.
I cannot find where Massad Ayoob has cited one docket number where the use of handloaded ammunition in a righteous shooting made any difference in the outcome of a trial. Sheriff Jim Wilson, Handgun Editor along with a retired federal judge tried for years to find a case where the use of handloaded ammo became an issue in a righteous shooting case. They could not find one such case.