USING HOLLOW POINTS FOR SELF DEFENSE

[johnny blaze]

I caught part of, I believe that it was Dateline. It really doesn't matter what show it was.
The news story was about a guy that had killed someone and was found guilty of murder.
The guy was walking along when two Rottweilers ran towards him.
The guy fired a warning shot to scare off the dogs.
The dogs owner, according to the shooter, came running towards him yelling that he was going to kill him. Only the shooter and the dead guy knows what really happened.
I guess that the attacker had a lenghty record which the jury was not told about.
The one thing that I found interesting, the jury was really upset about the fact that the shooter used HP ammunition. They were really upset about the testimony of a ballistics expert as to what a HP can do to a person.
I believe that the HP's were part of what convicted him.
I have been considering using standard ball ammo instead of HP's for self defense.
Any thoughts?

 

[RNB65]

JHP is fine for me.

As the saying goes, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[C96]

It's in this thread

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=205833

 

[Hanzo581]

that makes no sense, that type of projectile is made for that exact purpose. And is mean for personal defense

 

[DerringerUser]

Why the hell would you convict someone if there was two rotwilers running toward him and also a guy running toward him yelling "Im gonna kill you!!" with a criminal record. Thats pretty stupid.

 

[XavierBreath]

I don't think this one conviction should be enough to convince you to give up JHP ammo. Instead, consider using the same type as your local police, state police, or one that is billed as personal protection or self defense ammunition.

Why the defense attorney could not shoot down (no pun intended) this spurious argument is a mystery to me.

 

[FTF]

My personal carry ammuntion says "The choice for law enforcement" right on the box!

If it's ever used I'm going to be enforcing the laws against killing/maiming/assaulting me. Sounds fair enough.

 

[Handgun Midas]

In any event, the guy's lawyer should have countered and nullified the JHP arguement simply by asserting that they are talking about a gun, and deadly force is the only kind that one should ever expect from it.

Don't some cops carry JHP? If so, that sure as hell should have been brought up.

Another facet that the defendent's lawyer could bring up is that JHP is less likely to over-penetrate and harm bystanders. So his client made a responsible choice of ammo.

Maybe his lawyer tried but it didn't take. Some heads are thick.

 

[PythonFan]

I saw a bit of that show, it looked like federal hydra shoks that he had (saw the little post). They did not name them. I think they made a big deal about the little post in the hydrashok, kind of like they did with the Black Talon's back in the early 90's. Seriously though, this is a retarded argument. You go into any gun shop/wal mart or whatever and any type of ammo labeled "personal protection" is a JHP. Anything that is not JHP is labeled "target/range" or "hunting".

 

[Green Lantern]

I *think* Mas Ayoob talks about ball vs. HP in his book, The Truth About Self Protection.

I love his take on it - the JHP is actually MORE humane in that it takes fewer shots, with higher damage, to take the bad guy out of the fight. Where if you use ball, he says, you must put so many holes in so many vital organs to actually STOP the guy that there is little chance of him surviving!

Even before I thought of it that way, I always figured I would reply with the truth, that ball ammo has more risk of over-penetration and I didn't want to hurt an innocent bystander!

"Buy *insert favorite bad-a JHP load here* - FOR THE CHILDREN!!!"

 

[Tommygunn]

Historically, ammo has often caused a defender grief in court if the prosecutor (or plaintiff's lawyer if it's a civil suit) makes a big deal about it and the defense counsel doesn't effectively respond. A lot of juries are comprised of ignorant people, and are voir d'ired (SP?) off a jury if they belong to the "wrong" organization or have opinions contrary to what lawyers want.
One thing problematic has always been handloaded ammo. The opposing lawyer will make it seem you buiuld up super nasty rounds if he can. So I don't think it's good to use handloads in a self-defense purpose.
Hollowpoints should be OK. But if you need a lawyer, MAKE SURE he can and will deal with the hollowpoint issue effectively.

 

[mnrivrat]

I watched some of this also and since it was apparent that the use of hollow points did in fact play a roll in the jury's minds, it is something to take note of.

Apparently the prosecution was much better at demonizing the shooter because of the use of a hollow point ,than the defense was at countering. What was said and done during the trial I don't know, but my advise is to make sure your attorney is smart enough to defend against that type of crap . Or maybe just another OJ type jury who have there heads up their rears ?

 

[MachIVshooter]

I guess that the attacker had a lenghty record which the jury was not told about.

That right there should show you the credibility of this "example".

I call BS on the whole thing. If this guy was convicted of murder, there's a whole lot more to the case that your highlights.

Previous records of all shapes and sizes come up on both sides in any trial. Credibility is the only real currency in todays judicial system, and people dig up dirt on the other guy to destroy it. Does't matter whether he robbed a bank or pissed on the neighbors rose bush, a good attorney will bring it up in court to establish that he is of low moral character.

 

[Steve in PA]

"Why the hell would you convict someone if there was two rotwilers running toward him and also a guy running toward him yelling "Im gonna kill you!!" with a criminal record. Thats pretty stupid."

The guy shot a warning shot because the dogs were running towards him. No mention of them being aggressive.

Their owner was upset and yelling, as anyone would be in this situation.

Just how was the shooter supposed to know what type or record, if any the guy had, and what difference does that make?

The shooter over reacted and was found guilty. His story, much like his name stunk.

 

[proud2deviate]

A slick lawyer will be able to demonize any sort of ammo you might use.

Hollowpoints are extra-deadly expanding rounds, specifically designed to maximize injuries.

Ball rounds are extra-deadly military ammunition, designed to penetrate deeply and shatter bones.

Frangibles are extra-deadly rounds designed to shatter/explode, causing grievous injury.

Wadcutters are extra-deadly rounds designed to poke non-closing holes in people, greatly increasing the probability of bleeding out.

JSPs are extra-deadly rounds designed for hunting large, dangerous game, and are wholly inapproiate within the realm of lawful self defense.

You get the idea. Just so long as your lawyer expects this kind of tripe and knows how to deal with it, you should be fine.

 

[Cosmoline]

That's an old news story. It was covered here back when it took place. My sense is there were a lot of question marks. The business regarding HP's, assuming it actually came into court, should not have. But the fact is the man claimed to be defending against dogs that never bit him and against an unarmed man who never touched him. No witnesses. Lots of question marks there. Without a trial transcript, I'm not inclined to believe ANYTHING regarding what ballistics were discussed at trial, coming from some Dateline reporter. Those clowns are completely unreliable.

This business of "warning shots" has always seemed troublesome. You don't cap off rounds towards a man or his dogs unless they really pose an imminent deadly threat, and if they do you should simply shoot them. The whole episode seemed strange.

 

[scrapper]

"Steve in PA "Why the hell would you convict someone if there was two rotwilers running toward him and also a guy running toward him yelling "Im gonna kill you!!" with a criminal record. Thats pretty stupid."

The guy shot a warning shot because the dogs were running towards him. No mention of them being aggressive.

Their owner was upset and yelling, as anyone would be in this situation.

Just how was the shooter supposed to know what type or record, if any the guy had, and what difference does that make?

The shooter over reacted and was found guilty. His story, much like his name stunk. "

Hal, "the guy" shat a warning shot because "...when I look up, here come these dogs running very quickly, fangs showing, barking, running right at me."

That sounds like dogs being aggresive to me.

The guy that was shot was not the owner, he lied to the humane society about where he lived and checked the two dogs out to take them on a walk.

Have you ever seen someone get upset and "loose it?" I have. My nephew gets a crazy look in his eyes and goes berzerk. When you come up against someone like that you don't really care about their record, all you care about is your safety.

As for his name, he didn't choose it, his father did. He is named after his grandfather. Insulting him because of his name only makes you look like an idiot.

 

[Warren]

I think people need to remember that the main point of this thread is about the potential risks, in a courtroom environment, of having JHPs in your carry gun, not the merits of the Fish vs. Kuenzli incident.

As to the main point, I carry JHPs and I'm not going to stop. Whatever risks there are in terms of how a jury would view JHPs is more than balanced by their likely efficacy if I have to shoot somebody or something.

 

[Standing Wolf]

A slick lawyer will be able to demonize any sort of ammo you might use.

Bingo! We have a winner, ladies and gentlemen!

The sad, sorry, simple truth of the matter is that no matter how we law-abiding American citizens defend our lives from the predators, there's an abundance of parasitic lawyers who are all too glad to prey upon us all over again.

What's needed is "make my day" laws in all states to prevent criminals and/or their survivors from attacking us after we defend ourselves. The lawyers, of course, would have hissing fits over the very idea.

 

[Deanimator]

If you can, use what your local or state PD uses. I use the Federal .38Special "FBI" load in all of my revolvers.

Let plaintiff's attorney argue that the cops are all murderers...

 

[highlander 5]

That "slick lawyer" happened to be the prosecuter and Mr Fish's lawyer should have pressed the issue BUT some of the jurors had a pre concieved oppinion of hp ammo. Civilians will believe the prosecuter because he represents the state and he wouldn't make a big deal out of this fact if it weren't "relivent".
Most people don't know that all LEO's use HP ammo.
Some think it's ILLEGAL for anyone to use hp because of Geneva Convention tho it is illegal in some states for civilllan use

 

[StuckInMA]

I'd worry more about having the funds to hire defense attorney who is well versed in this type of lawsuit than picking and choosing your carry loads.

Even if you move past the ammunition they'll go after the type of weapon, your need to carry it, your desire to install a laser/flashlight/tritium sights, your training & ability, your choice to join the NRA, etc., etc.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Hollowpoints only played a role because the jury felt the guy shot the bad guy AFTER he stopped being a threat. The supposition was bolstered by his inconsistent accounting os the events, discrepancies with other data (other campers heard shots considerably prior to when claimed, hence a delay of a long period before he reported the event), and his bizarre behavior (he put his pack under the guy's had as a pillow, but didn't provide first aid even though he was trained in first aid as a scout master).

So, hollowpoint ammo was NOT the reason for conviction. Conviction was because he was believed to have fired after the guy stopped being a threat.

 

[DogBonz]

HP's are the more socialy responsible chioce.

With a HP you have less chance of overpenetration, which reduces the risk to "civilians" in the area. Because they have the potential to stop a fight quicker (all else being equal), less shots may need to be fired, also reduceing the risk of colateral damage. Keep in mind that you are responsible for every round that leaves your barrel. Even if you are justified in shooting, if you miss, or a round goes through your intended target, you can still expect a long civil suit.

 

[progunner1957]

Yes, the prosecutor sang and danced about the HydraShok HP ammo. If the guy had used FMJ and would have had to shoot the attacker 6 times instead of 3, the prosecutor would have sang and danced about that, too. Either way, a jury of sheeple would buy into it - and they did. He also tried to make an issue out of the shooter's caliber choice (10mm) "Much more powerful than the guns police use," he said.

The one thing that ocurred to me was if the convicted would have been carrying pepper spray and used it before "going to guns," he would most likely never been put on trial in the first place. If the pepper spray would have stopped the dogs and the attacker, fine. If not, he tried to use a non lethal method of defense and was left with no choice but to shoot. The grand jury would have most likely no-billed him.

I read a column where the author - Masaad Ayoob, I believe - said if you carry a gun, you must absolutely carry pepper spray and use it before drawing your gun and shooting. Of course, some situations will demand passing up the pepper spray and going directly to the gun, such as a crazed assailant running at you with a hatchet, ready to split your skull down the middle.

IANAL, but IMHO the shooter messed up big time when he decided to "cooperate" with police and let them question him for hours on end with no legal counsel present. THE POLICE ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS in a situation like this!!! As they say, "Anything you say will be used against you," so SAY NOTHING other than "My attorney will answer all your questions after I have consulted with him/her. I will remain silent until then."

My take on the situation?

1: Always carry and use pepper spray first.

2: Always load with FACTORY hollow point ammo, not handloads or FMJ.

3: If you have to shoot after using pepper spray, LAWYER UP.

4: Get some professional training in the use of deadly force - Lethal Force Institute, Thunder Ranch or Gunsite. Yes, it is expensive, but not nearly as expensive as the $150,000 to $300,000 to hire a COMPETENT legal team to defend you in a murder trial. Don't even think about using a public defender - as in everything else, you get what you pay for, one way or another.