Able to be sued for use of hollow point?

[jlperryusa]

The state of Tennessee actually suggests the use of hollowpoints do to the lowered risk of over penetration and richochet control as well as stopping performance.

 

[santa]

the use of hollow points is a safety issue as they are less likely to go through an assailent and strike a bystander. they are also a safety issue in that they are more likely to stop the assailent. perhaps you should contact a knowledgeable lawyer but with the exception of new jersy i think you are safe to use hollowpoints.

 

[Nightmare45]

Hollow points are legal in Texas and I would be happy to loan a bad guy a couple. Truth is you can be sued for anything. But I will portect myself and my family with whatever force is necessary.

 

[Hammerhead]

Luckily, IN also has a nice little statute stating that "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary." IC 35-41-3-2 Section 2a(2)

This means, according to Section 2a(2), if I have to shoot someone because they're perpetrating a crime that requires the use of deadly force, no legal action can be taken, civil or criminal. No BG or BG family lawsuits.

 

[handgonnetoter]

Luckily, IN also has a nice little statute stating that "No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary." IC 35-41-3-2 Section 2a(2)

This means, according to Section 2a(2), if I have to shoot someone because they're perpetrating a crime that requires the use of deadly force, no legal action can be taken, civil or criminal. No BG or BG family lawsuits.

Thats nice to know. I did not know that.

 

[handgonnetoter]

Hollow points are legal in Texas and I would be happy to loan a bad guy a couple. Truth is you can be sued for anything. But I will portect myself and my family with whatever force is necessary.

+1!

 

[MissouriShooter]

Use the same ammo your local LEO's do.

 

[MissouriShooter]

That's not a bad idea. I actually use the same sidearm the local LEO's do, the Glock 22. I guess I should ask what kind of ammo they use as well.

For SD, I use HP ammo for .380 and 9mm and ball ammo for .45.

For .380 because it's a lower-powered round and can use the help in expanding the wound track to disable an attacker. I don't use .380 for SD when Winter wear includes heavier clothing.

For 9mm because it's a very fast round and over-penetration is an issue. HP slows it down a bit, presuming you've made meaningful contact with the perp. Year round shooting.

.45 ball is, well, just because the .45ACP round is a pretty good stopper on its own and I don't have a lot of .45ACP HP on hand.

HD use includes a Taurus Judge, shot shells only, no .45Long.

I live in a small house in a subdivision where the homes are close together and I have no desire to shoot through neighborhood walls.

And in Missouri, if the police and the DA find you've made a righteous SD shoot, the law says you cannot be tried in civil court. Which makes me extra-extra-careful in both ammo choice and trigger pulling events. Training is important so you don't miss CBM when you're making sure you can stop the bad guy.

I'm an older, retired guy, somewhat disabled, by the way. But I will not be a victim.

 

[kelcarry]

Anyone can sue you anytime about literally anything in this crazy country--and that most certainly comes into play when a firearm and injuries or death occur. In SC a "good shoot" includes no liability--either civilly, or certainly criminally as a good shoot. Regardless, if you need to defend yourself, you must have the undeniable self-presumption of imminent danger of great bodily injury or death, and are using reasonable equipment (readily available commercial firearm and ammunition), there should be no problem. To somehow be thinking about a lawsuit when you should be thinking about your self-defense takes something away from your commitment to your safety.

 

[steelhammer]

99% of police officers carry hollowpoint ammo, are they eager to kill, or just using the best equipment they can? As stated, NJ does not allow them (for civilians), but every other state does AFAIK. It's the same argument about carrying extra magazines; cops do, so it's prudent for us to, as well. It doesn't mean a cop or myself wants to shoot 25 people at one sitting, we are just being reasonably prepared.

Intresting point, and good thread overall.
My brother and his buddy came by last night, they are both retired NYPD. We were talking about guns and what not, The friend had said in a conversation that when he went to qualify at the police range he had hollow points in his gun. He said the officer in charge told him "what are you crazy carring that ammo, (hollow points), you can lose a weeks pay and get in trouble"

Meanwhile im thinking, **** if he saw my little arsenal in the safe, evrything i have is loaded with hollow points. As others here brought up the idea, we read the mags and see the advertising of this defense hollow point ammo. Who is allowed to carry this?

Now i want to add these two guys have been retired for at least 20 yrs or so.

 

[G274me]

Just use the same JHP the cops use, Golden Sabers, Gold Dots. Don't use super expensive, maximum damage JHP. And if you have to shoot someone, only shoot until the danger is eliminated. No two to the chest + one to the head tactics. All this can be seen as an over use of force.

 

[nogods]

If you are worried about being sued from discharging your weapon then you probably shouldn't be discharging your weapon. That alone could be used against you: "Ladies and gentlemen, he wasn't concerned for his life, he was thinking about getting sued...."

 

[Nightmare45]

I carry hollow piont and always have, if two to chest does not stop threat the shot to head will. PS: You will be sued eitherway.

 

[S&W645]

I carry hollow piont and always have, if two to chest does not stop threat the shot to head will. PS: You will be sued eitherway.

Or they will try to sue. In Florida, civil and criminal protection are provided by FS 776.032 

JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection .



776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Even though we have some messed up laws, we also have some good ones.:biggrin:

 

[double.tap]

read your castle doctrine if your state has one. the one for texas IIRC states that you cannot be sued by a suspect or his family for using deadly force against the attacker in a justified self-defense shooting.

if they are going to sue you (assuming they are even allowed to), they will do it wheather you carry FMJ ammo or hollow points. i would carry depleted uranium bullets filled with semtex if i was allowed to. i carry ammo i feel best suited to efficiently stop an attacker, and that is not FMJs. ontop of that, FMJs will penetrate twice as far as hollow points (over 26 inches). this makes your risk of hitting unintentional targets even greater. and texas castle doctrine also states that you ARE legally and financially responsible for any injuries your weapon causes to innocent people, even in a justified shooting.

just FYI:
where the ammo hype comes from is the harold fish case from arizona back in 2004. harold fish was carrying a 10mm handgun with hollow points while he was hiking in the woods, and was attacked by a mentally unstable homeless man and his dog, he shot the man several times fearing for his life. as part of the prosecutors evidence, he said using such a powerful handgun with hollow points showed harold fish had murder and cruel intentions on his mind and blah blah blah. in the end, fish was convicted of murder in 2006, but 3 years later the verdict was overturned and he was released from prison in 2009 with a clean record.

firearm hystaria nuts interperet this as hollow points were the reason fish was convicted of murder without doing ANY legitimate research about the case. HE WAS NOT convicted of murder because of his bullets. he actually screwed himself partly. he spoke with detectives more than once without an attorney present (BIG...BIG...BIG MISTAKE). the other thing that got him was arizona laws were pre castle doctrine at the time, and burden of proof lied on harold fish to prove his case of self defence, and he was unable to do so. medical professionals testified the man appeared to have been shot in the fetal position, and fish could not dispute it. thankfully today, you dont have to prove you shot someone in self defence like fish had to do, the state has to prove that what you did was cold blooded murder.

side note: hollow points arent legal in all states. if hollow points are illegal to carry, then you CAN be prosecuted for that.

 

[Bighouse Doc]

Being a retired person, I want to make sure that I STOP my assailant quickly and effectively. Hollow points will help achieve that goal. I know there is a definite possibility that if I kill my assailant, I could be facing a wrongful death claim. As a retired attorney of 35 years of practice, I can also tell you that from a lawsuit perspective, the claim for damages is generally LESS if the assailant died. :fie: Also, as an FYI about hollow point ammo... it was banned under the Hague Convention of 1899 which prohibition is still followed by NATO members to this date.

This only applies to military combatants of signatory nations.

-Doc

 

[Bighouse Doc]

How often has this idiotic concept come up for discussion?

Always from "unknown" or "unverifiable" sources?

Never any legal cases or hard facts. It is always just weird theorizing, and off the wall "what ifs."

-Doc

 

[longnkrnchgm]

reloads and self defense

I have heard that carrying with reloaded ammo and consiquensually using it for self defense can cause you legal problems. Any thoughts on this?
Spellin don't count.

 

[BC1]

This is my take on it. To my knowledge, there is no law against hollow point bullets except in NJ. A clever prosecutor could use the fact that you have hollow points to say that you were planning to use your weapon (ala Dirty Harry). But, you could be in trouble with jacketed rounds if one happened to go through the intended target and strike someone else.
Just some thoughts on the subject.

Quite true. NJ doesn't allow hollowpoints. IF you were to shoot in self defesne using a hollowpoint, the perps attorney would have a hard time using that to paint you as a nut. Just the opposite. Your answer would be "yes I use hollowpoints, the same as all the police in this state. I use them to ensure safety to bystanders and others who may be injured hould the round pass through the perp. It's the same reason I use a laser sight, to ensure no innocent person is hurt."

 

[billwot]

Understand that the objective of personal injury attys and ambitious prosecutors is to win in court. So they will raise ANY issue that might cast the defendant in an unfavorable light, or stir up emotions in the jury. They might criticize the choice of weapon, the ammunition, how often the defendant practices, how many shots he fired, messages he posts on message boards, memberships in gun and sportsmans clubs, etc, etc.

And even if your state has legislation saying you cannot be tried civally if there was no criminal finding, I wouldn't even count on that to protect against a frivilous lawsuit from some hungry personal injury atty.

Ayoob has aften stated in print that if you shoot someone, you can count on being sued.