Defense loads and the law

[LVLouisCyphre]

Interesting.

I find it interesting that those who posted on this thread that caliber would not be a factor made personal statements to the contrary in this thread here.

The statement that really drove the point home was this one.

I definitely would not carry this caliber in a heavily populated urban area, as the chance of overpenetration, even with HPs, is simply too great to justify carrying it there. I could see carrying it in bear country or in a thinly populated rural area.

It all boils down to what 12 think in the jury deliberation room. Get 12 that think along those lines during the civil suit and you've lost the farm and then some.

 

[tattedupboy]

I find it interesting that those who posted on this thread that caliber would not be a factor made personal statements to the contrary in this thread here.

The statement that really drove the point home was this one.



It all boils down to what 12 think in the jury deliberation room. Get 12 that think along those lines during the civil suit and you've lost the farm and then some.

I made that statement, but on another thread. Yes, I have previously stated on this thread, that no reasonable person would take caliber into consideration when determining a person's liability in a self-defense shooting. However, I also believe that it is generally understood that the biggest self defense caliber that is practical for carrying is the .45. I did not say that it should not be carried; I was only suggesting that its size makes it impractical for everyday carry. And, yes, it is risky in that it can overpenetrate; how is that being contradictory? Would you carry a caliber that you know is capable of overpenetration, and run the risk of killing or injuring a bystander, particularly in a densely populated urban area?

 

[LVLouisCyphre]

I made that statement, but on another thread. Yes, I have previously stated on this thread, that no reasonable person would take caliber into consideration when determining a person's liability in a self-defense shooting. However, I also believe that it is generally understood that the biggest self defense caliber that is practical for carrying is the .45. I did not say that it should not be carried; I was only suggesting that its size makes it impractical for everyday carry. And, yes, it is risky in that it can overpenetrate; how is that being contradictory?

Anything you do or say in any context can be used against you in a criminal or civil trial. You're in private security, if you get involved in a shooting off duty in a jurisdiction that has no civil suit immunity do you think your personnel records or the very firearms you own that you did not use in the self defense act may come into play during a civil suit. Absolutely.

It is being contradictory by your blanket statements that caliber is not a factor. You've just pointed out a civil liability factor in the other thread. The plaintiff will be asking that very same question to a jury in a civil trial. It's much easier to win a civil judgment.

We also have an HI instructor that has first hand information from his DA's office that the shooting would be put under much greater scrutiny if the caliber is in question. I also pointed out that a NC DOJ attorney who is an expert in defending LEOs in use of force in his State and teaches NC CHP instructors suggests using the same caliber as what LEOs carry. If it can be twisted by a good attorney, it will. If you do or say anything that can be used against you in court, it might happen.

Would you carry a caliber that you know is capable of overpenetration, and run the risk of killing or injuring a bystander, particularly in a densely populated urban area?

Exactly. You do not want a prosecutor or plaintiff to be asking that question of a jury. If that question is put into the minds of the majority of the jury then you may end up losing the case, especially a civil case.

 

[wuzfuz]

Defense loads

I keep seeing the statement that you can't carry anything over .45 calibre, but is that really a law anywhere but Oklahoma, and is it even a law there? While in San Diego, I attended a security academy and one of the instructors was a SDPD detective who carried a Desert Eagle in 50AE in a shoulder holster. He was 6'4" and was able to conceal the wepaon, I would have to have aq wagon to carry it. I carry a compact .45 that is the same size as a Colt Commander, and i still have a bit of trouble concealing it at times. As for the statement someone made about an 80 year old woman with a .45, that is absurd. I used to compete in combat shooting, and most of the weapons were.45 Colt 1911s or clones. The 1911 is the most carried, andavailable pistol arouind, and one of the easiest to use. We had a kid who competed with us, and he was a whiz with a full-house .45 Govt model, and he was 12 years old. I also keep seeing people say not to use reloads for liability and reliability reasons. Liability, mayb, but reliablility? Horse puckey. I had more malfunctions with factory ammo than i ever had with my hand-rolled rounds. Our department at one point issued WW Silvertips in the calibre you carried. One day, while reloading my magazines, I picked up a rond that just didn't feel right. I took it to the department armorer and we discovered that the aluminum jacket had no lead in it. The armorer said it would have gone like a bat out of you know where if fired, but would probably bounce off the guy I fired it at. I have no problem with the dicision between criminal and civil. I worked with a man whose fiance was dragged into a doorway by a guy intent on raping her. She had a French-made .32 auto and shot the guy through the neck after he broke her arm. She was not prosecuted or sued, she got her gun back and the illegal alien who tried raping her is serving his time in the California penal system prior to his being deported. there was a woman in Ruidoso, NM who found a bear in her living room and got a neighbor to take care of it. the guy shotthe bear with an 8mm rifle, and the game warden criticized him for using such a big gun. The guy said, If I had had an anti-tank gun, I would have used it. It's what you got when TSHTF that counts.

 

[LVLouisCyphre]

I keep seeing the statement that you can't carry anything over .45 calibre, but is that really a law anywhere but Oklahoma, and is it even a law there?

Yes; OK Statute §21-1290.6. In other states it's an issue of what is mainstream practice. Part of what's mainstream practice is cost. While the 10mm was a mainstream LE caliber at one time, I don't have my three 10s on my NV CFP or shoot them regularly because of ammunition costs. When I start reloading again that may change for my practice ammo.

While in San Diego, I attended a security academy and one of the instructors was a SDPD detective who carried a Desert Eagle in 50AE in a shoulder holster.

Was the detective's name Link Removed or Link Removed by any chance? :wacko:

 

[45fella]

It is only a matter of time before some dirtbag ACLU (anti-Christ's Legal Unit) atty. brings it to the jury that you loaded that round to be a MORE EFFECTIVE killing machine. It ain't worth the hassle.

Really though, all attorneys have that bad side.

If you go to a defense attorney for advice on what gun/ammo to use he will tell you the best combination so he will have the easiest time getting you off in court.

But take that same attorney.......A guy walks into his office that used a 12 gauge shotgun and put 5 shots into someones torso that came after him with a bat, with 50 witnesses saying the first shot killed him. That same attorney, as long as he's making money, will fight and say that that loser career criminal was totally in the right, and try to get him off.

Attorneys are necassary for us who try like hell to follow the law and get caught up in a bad situation, but attorneys are also responsible for the thousands of scumbag career criminals still waliking our streets.

 

[toreskha]

But take that same attorney.......A guy walks into his office that used a 12 gauge shotgun and put 5 shots into someones torso that came after him with a bat, with 50 witnesses saying the first shot killed him. That same attorney, as long as he's making money, will fight and say that that loser career criminal was totally in the right, and try to get him off.

Who is it that's coming at you with a bat so that you need to use more than 2 rounds of buckshot to put them down?

Link Removed

 

[tattedupboy]

Who is it that's coming at you with a bat so that you need to use more than 2 rounds of buckshot to put them down?

Link Removed

Most likely it is somebody who is hyped up on drugs.

 

[[email protected]]

Deadly force is deadly force. You are either justified or you are not. Try very, very hard to pay attention to what your ccw instructor tells you concerning when you can and can not shoot. Do not shoot them after they have fallen down and are begging for mama. Do not ever pull your pistol if you can run away without getting yourself killed. Caliber that may or may not be carried in NC is not specifierd, so it is a non issue. Shooting when deadly force is not authorized is very clearly a crime. Davy crockett had the best advice on this matter" Make sure you are right, then go ahead." enough said.

 

[tattedupboy]

Deadly force is deadly force. You are either justified or you are not. Try very, very hard to pay attention to what your ccw instructor tells you concerning when you can and can not shoot. Do not shoot them after they have fallen down and are begging for mama. Do not ever pull your pistol if you can run away without getting yourself killed. Caliber that may or may not be carried in NC is not specifierd, so it is a non issue. Shooting when deadly force is not authorized is very clearly a crime. Davy crockett had the best advice on this matter" Make sure you are right, then go ahead." enough said.

This is what I've been trying to explain to netentity. If you shoot in self defense, the caliber used to defend yourself will not matter.

 

[Glock Fan]

I think we can all agree that even if you're "justified" to shoot, you will still incur legal fees, spend a lot of time talking to police and may possibly lose the use of your firearm for an extended period of time.

Best thing you can do for yourself is to familiarize yourself with the laws of your state as well as the places you'll be traveling. If you do end up having to use "lethal force" to defend yourself, be cooperative with LE, but the "deaf mute" card would be best played until you're assisted by a competent attorney.


gf

 

[{TEX}Hawaii((]

YES!!! The prosecutors and a jury can use your ammo choice against you in court...even if it's the same thing LE uses. Just ask Harold Fish. I watched a documetary on him a couple of weeks ago and could not believe the things some of the jurors who found him guilty said... specifically one said that they thought he wanted to kill someone because he had hollow points in his pistol..

This story made my wife and I sick to our stomachs.

Harold Fish Defense

 

[Boomboy007]

PLEASE remember the original point.....

:stop:

I am very happy that such a well informed individual (netentity) has done so much research that I can peruse at my leisure. With all due respect, what I think tatted and palm are forgetting is that net is not defending the laws and/or legal precedents set in consideration of this issue. I believe that net would agree that asinine would be the word to describe the issue of carry load liability. However, that is the reality in which we live.

Given your example, I would also describe the requirement to license a law-abiding citizen in order to carry a defensive force multiplier like a handgun ridiculous, and at least those in NH and AK would agree. That said, to follow your line of reasoning and simply "go packing" without consideration for the possible, or even probable consequences might seem..... foolhardy. Remember, there are lots of juries out there full of stupid people. They are just waiting for the chance to hang a _____ (white, black, asian, jew, christian, muslim, straight, gay) ____ (boy, girl, transgender) gun nut out to dry. After all, _____ (he, she, it) can not buy much in the way of guns or ammunition with a big, fat court ordered settlement hanging around their neck, can they?

After reading this entire thread, I can honestly say that we are all still on the same side!

leasantry:

 

[tattedupboy]

YES!!! The prosecutors and a jury can use your ammo choice against you in court...even if it's the same thing LE uses. Just ask Harold Fish. I watched a documetary on him a couple of weeks ago and could not believe the things some of the jurors who found him guilty said... specifically one said that they thought he wanted to kill someone because he had hollow points in his pistol..

This story made my wife and I sick to our stomachs.

Harold Fish Defense

All the more reason to get a competent attorney who not only knows what he's doing, but can also pick the right jury.

 

[LVLouisCyphre]

YES!!! The prosecutors and a jury can use your ammo choice against you in court...even if it's the same thing LE uses. Just ask Harold Fish. I watched a documetary on him a couple of weeks ago and could not believe the things some of the jurors who found him guilty said... specifically one said that they thought he wanted to kill someone because he had hollow points in his pistol..

This story made my wife and I sick to our stomachs.

Harold Fish Defense

I'm familiar with the Fish incident. I personally believe he had an incompetent defense attorney. I could have justified the reasoning for hollowpoint rounds in court and I don't have a JD nor am I a member of any State bar. AZ is a strange State with respect to RKBA. Based on what I have read on the case, he should have been acquitted.

Again, this is the case where even though you do everything right you may have a judge, prosecutor and jury against you. Given the merits of the case, I probably would have performed the same actions as Fish.

 

[tattedupboy]

I'm familiar with the Fish incident. I personally believe he had an incompetent defense attorney. I could have justified the reasoning for hollowpoint rounds in court and I don't have a JD nor am I a member of any State bar. AZ is a strange State with respect to RKBA. Based on what I have read on the case, he should have been acquitted.

Again, this is the case where even though you do everything right you may have a judge, prosecutor and jury against you. Given the merits of the case, I probably would have performed the same actions as Fish.

BINGO! As I should have been saying on this thread previously, just because caliber choice, in theory, should not make a difference, that does not mean that the shooter should not get the best attorney he can afford or in any way assume that that the judge and jury will automatically be on his side.

 

[LVLouisCyphre]

BINGO! As I should have been saying on this thread previously, just because caliber choice, in theory, should not make a difference, that does not mean that the shooter should not get the best attorney he can afford or in any way assume that that the judge and jury will automatically be on his side.

What nailed Fish in this case was this;

• Use of hollowpoint rounds
• Use of 10mm
• Laundry list of suppressed evidence and testimony.

The incompetence factor IMO comes from the defense counsel not asking the testimony of the bailiff in the court room and the investigating homicide detective what types of rounds they use in the course of their duties. Odds are they are hollowpoint rounds. Having the bailiff strip a round from one of their spare magazines and showing the jury would have defused the use of hollow point rounds very quickly. Having the investigating homicide detective do the same thing would throw the hollowpoint ammunition completely out the door.

Justification of the 10mm caliber could be obtained from a game warden who is assigned the area as to what animals are indigenous to the area and what caliber is effective against them. There's also the argument that several law enforcement agencies have used the 10mm caliber and that some may still do. FBI and Kentucky State Police being the two agencies that immediately come to mind.

IMO, the defense counsel wasn't in tune with the jury and was ready to defuse every possible argument for Fish's perceived guilt by the prosecution.

There's also the issue of the judge allowing a laundry list of suppressed evidence. It was as if Fish was being tried in NJ or NY.

At the time the incident occurred, self defense in Arizona is a form of napoleonic justice. That has changed which is why they are demanding a retrial. I strongly suspect if the retrial is granted Fish will win on appeal but not at great cost to him in terms of time and money.

 

[{TEX}Hawaii((]

Don't forget that Fish is a teacher with 5 kids. He probably obtained the best attorney he could afford. Probably the sameone many of us could afford.

 

[[email protected]]

I have studied Mr Fishes case slightly. His mistake was opening his mouth. The jury was swayed by the use of hollow points. there is no doubt on that one. He should have kept his mouth shut, and he might have never gotten in front of a jury. Every one who knew the deceased said he was an insane idiot. Many people were afraid of him. Mr. Fish should have said nothing until he was in court.If it ever went that far.