Able to be sued for use of hollow point?

[Blooze]

In this litigous society you can be sued for anything. However I believe it's extremely irresponsible to use anything but a self defense load for self defense. Using a JHP helps to insure that you will not kill unintended victims with passthrough shots. So a good defense attorney could rebut.

 

[agrippakc]

In the class I took they only recommended hollow points. The best way to avoid trouble is to call your loval police department and ask what ammo their officers use and go with that.

Don't bet on it. A number of departments go with the lowest bid. Do you want to trust your life to that? Better to do your research and spend a good amount of time at it. You'll benefit from your efforts. Besides, why would you think that police are experts when it comes to firearms and ammunition?

The police arent experts nor did I say they were. If somebody is on my property and I feel threatened the law is on my side. Kansas is awesome loke that.

 

[SouthernBoy]

The police arent experts nor did I say they were. If somebody is on my property and I feel threatened the law is on my side. Kansas is awesome loke that.

Understand that I was only saying that just because someone is an LEO does not necessarily confer firearms/ammunition expert credentials upon them. Many are well informed but I can assure you that many are not when it comes to firearms and the best choice in loads.

Stay safe and never stop learning.

 

[Raider-3]

I have had some friends tell me that you can get sued if you use hollow point or exotic ammo in a defense situation. Does anyone know if that is true? Is there have any info out there about this subject?

The leo world also uses hollow point ammo. I've never of a suit against them for type of ammo used

 

[longslide10]

I have had some friends tell me that you can get sued if you use hollow point or exotic ammo in a defense situation. Does anyone know if that is true? Is there have any info out there about this subject?

Then every cop out there should be sued. Only a Richard Head D-A will go that route and it seems they have in NJ

 

[stevenmetzger]

I have several customers that are attorneys, I have asked them to research about using hollow points for self defense. To their knowledge and research based in wisconsin, there are no laws pertaining to the use of hollow points. They did say that each bullet has an attorneys name on it. If you were to fire and hit your target and bullet goes through the individual and hits someone else, chances are you could be sued and charged with that persons injuries. My aacfi instructor advised me to always use ammo where it says on the box for home defense or personal protection.

 

[SouthernBoy]

I have several customers that are attorneys, I have asked them to research about using hollow points for self defense. To their knowledge and research based in wisconsin, there are no laws pertaining to the use of hollow points. They did say that each bullet has an attorneys name on it. If you were to fire and hit your target and bullet goes through the individual and hits someone else, chances are you could be sued and charged with that persons injuries. My aacfi instructor advised me to always use ammo where it says on the box for home defense or personal protection.

In Virginia, we have no such concerns about which ammunition to use so it is up to us, those who choose to make use of a defensive firearm, to take the right decision as to type and design of defensive ammunition. If I found myself in a situation where I had to use my sidearm and in the encounter one of my rounds struck an innocent party, I cannot be held legally liable for that. My attacker(s) would be charged with this. Now it is possible I could be sued but unlikely as long as my actions were deemed excusable... but still possible.

 

[longslide10]

Any bullet good enough for police use is good enough for personal protection and I see they use hollow points.

 

[nca_mm]

if you use your gun you will get sued from the one you shoot or the familey

This is sooooooo frustrating!!!!

 

[BC1]

You can get sued today for just about anything. Whether or not the suit will stand or be dismissed is based on how good your attorney is. Once you're sued the financial damage is already done.

Best to remember there's a lawyer attached to every round you fire., whether at the range, hunting or in defense.

 

[anvil6]

. . . As a retired attorney of 35 years of practice, . . . 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.

Exactly what the "victims" attorney may bring up in a civil lawsuit. Prosecutor may even use it in a criminal trial. Pretty damning stuff for the jury to hear, isn't it?

*"Chief Smith, can you tell The Court what kind of ammunition is issued to your officers?" "Yes. Every officer is issued Federal Hydra-Shock hollow points for their duty and off-duty handguns." "Why?" "Because we need to STOP criminal acts, while firing the fewest number of shots possible and law enforcement studies have shown that this kind of ammunition does that reliably." "Did your Departments' investigation find out what kind of ammunition was used by the defendant?" "Yes. Federal Hydra-Shock." "your Departments' mission is to protect and serve?" "Yes." "With Federal Hydra-Shocks?" "Yes".

*Fictional. Burden of proof is held to a higher standard in a criminal trial than in a civil trial.

 

[anvil6]

You can get sued today for just about anything. Whether or not the suit will stand or be dismissed is based on how good your attorney is. Once you're sued the financial damage is already done.

Best to remember there's a lawyer attached to every round you fire., whether at the range, hunting or in defense.

Best to safe-side that to at LEAST two lawyers - yours and the "victim's" - and perhaps more than once (criminal and civil cases)!

 

[SouthernBoy]

You can get sued today for just about anything. Whether or not the suit will stand or be dismissed is based on how good your attorney is. Once you're sued the financial damage is already done.

Best to remember there's a lawyer attached to every round you fire., whether at the range, hunting or in defense.

In my state, suits brought by the assailant or his family against the victim for having used deadly force are quite rare. I posed this very question to a commonwealth's attorney and a candidate for county sheriff and neither one of them could recall such a case in the commonwealth. Not saying it can't happen but with our affirmative defense case law, it's pretty darned rare.

 

[FN1910]

In my state, suits brought by the assailant or his family against the victim for having used deadly force are quite rare. I posed this very question to a commonwealth's attorney and a candidate for county sheriff and neither one of them could recall such a case in the commonwealth. Not saying it can't happen but with our affirmative defense case law, it's pretty darned rare.

I can agree with the rarity of the lawsuits actually happening in such cases and can see where it would probably be the exceptions rather than the rule. If you think about what all it would take you can imagine what the likelyhood of a attacker's family suing the victim. When ther is such a shooting you often hear that there will be lawsuits but usually things get changes. First there would probably have to be some evidence that it was not a "clean shoot". People run their mouths about "he was such a good boy" but the truth usually starts to creep out. Even though it only takes a few dollars to file a lawsuit you will need a lawyer. Unless it is a good case now lawyer is going to take the case on a contigency basis and require some money up front. Since it is unlikely that the family of the BG had much to start with or he would not have been out committing crimes of that type, it is doubtful that the family will have the funds to pay a lawyer up front. If they do pay the lawyer up front how much can they expect to get out of the "victim" if they win the case. If it is such that they have a chance of winning the case then probably the "victim" is already broke from paying his legal fees in the criminal case. So the fact is seldom would it be worth the family suing the victim. However there is an exception to every rule so it is always possible and you never can be sure of anything so even if there has never been a case of it happening there is always the possibility and I doubt anyone on here wants that distinction.

 

[S&W645]

Winchester Ranger Law Enforcement Ammunition .45 ACP 230gr SXT will get tried next time at the range in the Sig C3. :biggrin:

 

[SouthernBoy]

I can agree with the rarity of the lawsuits actually happening in such cases and can see where it would probably be the exceptions rather than the rule. If you think about what all it would take you can imagine what the likelyhood of a attacker's family suing the victim. When ther is such a shooting you often hear that there will be lawsuits but usually things get changes. First there would probably have to be some evidence that it was not a "clean shoot". People run their mouths about "he was such a good boy" but the truth usually starts to creep out. Even though it only takes a few dollars to file a lawsuit you will need a lawyer. Unless it is a good case now lawyer is going to take the case on a contigency basis and require some money up front. Since it is unlikely that the family of the BG had much to start with or he would not have been out committing crimes of that type, it is doubtful that the family will have the funds to pay a lawyer up front. If they do pay the lawyer up front how much can they expect to get out of the "victim" if they win the case. If it is such that they have a chance of winning the case then probably the "victim" is already broke from paying his legal fees in the criminal case. So the fact is seldom would it be worth the family suing the victim. However there is an exception to every rule so it is always possible and you never can be sure of anything so even if there has never been a case of it happening there is always the possibility and I doubt anyone on here wants that distinction.

Your points are right and I should have added in my post to which you responded that the victim's use of deadly force was either no billed or found to be excusable. If the victim overstepped his legal bounds then the use of deadly force would be questionable and he could be in hot water, which could open him up to a possible winning civil suit.

 

[S&W645]

Use the same ammo your local LEO's do.

In that case, I need some Winchester Ranger Law Enforcement Ammunition RA45T. Which I have a box of. :biggrin:

 

[bryanf23]

I would rather have my hollow point stop inside the BG instead of a FMJ going thru the BG and into the neighbors house or worse.

 

[sn2112]

ammo use

I have had some friends tell me that you can get sued if you use hollow point or exotic ammo in a defense situation. Does anyone know if that is true? Is there have any info out there about this subject?

I would say NO. Specially if it's store bought ammo ,and not re-loads beefed up.

the four conditions for use of deadly force?

1. Be innocent of instigation or provocation. You must be a reluctant participant. Do not go looking for a fight. If you are guilty of instigation but then withdraw, you REGAIN your ...right to self-defense.
2. Attempt to withdraw or retreat if you are able. (this is not a requirement in Wisconsin but it is in some states) We don’t want to shoot anyone if we can safely escape. While you are not REQUIRED to retreat in Wisconsin, juries are allowed to consider this aspect.
3. No lesser force will do or use only sufficient force to deliver oneself from evil.
4. You must be in immediate and reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death or had an immediate and reasonable fear of death. Grave danger must be imminent.

 

[SouthernBoy]

I would say NO. Specially if it's store bought ammo ,and not re-loads beefed up.

the four conditions for use of deadly force?

1. Be innocent of instigation or provocation. You must be a reluctant participant. Do not go looking for a fight. If you are guilty of instigation but then withdraw, you REGAIN your ...right to self-defense.
2. Attempt to withdraw or retreat if you are able. (this is not a requirement in Wisconsin but it is in some states) We don’t want to shoot anyone if we can safely escape. While you are not REQUIRED to retreat in Wisconsin, juries are allowed to consider this aspect.
3. No lesser force will do or use only sufficient force to deliver oneself from evil.
4. You must be in immediate and reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death or had an immediate and reasonable fear of death. Grave danger must be imminent.

As you mentioned, these criteria will vary from state to state but in general, your list can be taken as pretty valid. In my state, reloaded ammunition is not going to make any difference should you be charged. What IS going to matter is whether or not it was an excusable homicide. Trigger mods, night sights, compensated barrels... none of this is going to be a factor in your trial.

Your #2 in my state is more for your own safety than anything else. Virginia is a "true man" state, which equates to a stand your ground state with no duty to retreat. However if an avenue is open to you to safely retreat, it would be prudent to do this since there is never any guarantee that you will win in a gun fight. Best to not allow any extra orifices artificially introduced into your body.

As for your #4 I know that many times on sites like this one, folks have pondered what constitutes serious or grave bodily harm. Here are a few examples of this. The apprehension of broken bones, disfigurement, lacerations, burns, temporary unconsciousness, and/or internal injuries. Any one of these or a combination thereof suffice for one to use deadly force against an attacker(s). In my state, you needn't be in imminent fear of death.... serious bodily harm is sufficient, which automatically means that death suffices.