July 10, 2009, 08:44 PM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
My local department doesn't carry .380's as far as I can tell, but...I only reload in the daylight.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
July 10, 2009, 08:48 PM | #52 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
One is that certain facts surrounding the load selection and development might be used to help establish state of mind--to indicate that the shooter may have had some predisposition toward harming someone. Fact of the matter is, choosing an exotic factory load that is advertised as causing maximal tissue damage could be introduced for the same purpose. The other is the likelihood that scientific forensic trace evidence from hand loads would not be admitted in court. If the lack of gunshot residue on someone who had been shot were to be used by the prosecution to try to prove that the distance of the shot indicated against justifiability (too long=apparent lack of imminent danger), but the loads used would not have left GSR even at a shorter range, the inability of the defense to use that evidence could prove critical. As has been previously stated, those factors would not prove very important if there were ample evidence supporting the shooter's claim of self defense. But in cases in which the evidence supporting the shooter's claim is sparse, either one or both just might matter a lot. Does this help? |
|
July 10, 2009, 09:03 PM | #53 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
||
July 10, 2009, 09:46 PM | #54 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Good post, OldMarksman.
Quote:
Everyone who has ever been on trial after a self defense shooting probably thought (at least somewhere in the back of his mind) as he pulled the trigger that he was right -- that he had no choice. But the fact that he wound up on trial shows that in the aftermath the prosecutor found good reason to challenge the claim of justification and to believe that he could get a jury to agree. It also may help to think of the issue in terms of a paraphrase of Pascal's wager: I don't know if using handloads (or disabling a safety device on my gun, or adjusting my trigger to be very light) will adversely affect the outcome if I am on trial for using my gun in what I claim was self defense, but I really have nothing to gain by using handloads, (etc.) even if it won't affect the outcome (because I can get adequate performance without engaging in those behaviors -- i. e., by using quality, commercial ammunition, by using a different gun, learning to better manage the one I have, etc.). However, I have a great deal to lose if using handloads (etc.) would adversely affect the outcome. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
July 12, 2009, 09:45 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 15, 2009
Posts: 360
|
Handloads for self defense = bad idea. You also want to avoid factory loads that produce duds on a regular basis. I have never had a dud from Speer Gold Dot, though I have had a few from Remington Golden Saber and Winchester.
|
July 19, 2009, 10:08 PM | #56 |
Junior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2009
Posts: 8
|
That's a lot to take in. I'm actually sorry I asked. And I will try to research old posts for information before asking questions.
I do appreciate all the information, and the research required to establish case law precedent. Hopefully it will never be an issue. |
July 19, 2009, 10:44 PM | #57 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 20, 2009, 12:07 AM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2008
Location: happy Camp CA
Posts: 133
|
it's a real mess......it makes a good man REAL mad to see what could happen to him in case of self defense, regardless of what was use for ammo. May as well walk around with a baseball bat, maybe bash a few lawyers for creating all this mess, specially zealot prosecutors.....Look at what the nice democrat and republican bunch in Sacramento have created in California. Truly, American people are being pushed too far. This is a very intructional thread and I'm very gratefull to you people for your input. So be it, I'll have to buy factory ammo.....Thanks, Dan
|
July 20, 2009, 03:48 AM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
|
|
July 20, 2009, 08:05 AM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 22, 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,619
|
Fiddletown...that's as good a summation of the argument against handload use for self defense as I've ever heard. Thanks from all of us.
The phrase often quoted by of us is: "better judged by twelve, than carried by six". My vote is for neither. Good planning and common street sense always help but may not prevent an incident. Use of factory loads in an arm of suitable but not extreme design will also help. Regards, Rodfac
__________________
Cherish our flag, honor it, defend it in word and deed, or get the hell out. Our Bill of Rights has been paid for by heros in uniform and shall not be diluted by misguided governmental social experiments. We owe this to our children, anything less is cowardice. USAF FAC, 5th Spl Forces, Vietnam Vet '69-'73. |
July 20, 2009, 08:20 AM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2004
Location: oklahoma
Posts: 342
|
my own reloads
I have never had any failure with my own reloads...
I use good components and equipment and use good practices in the loading process...personally, I have no hesitation using my own reloads. I can understand why general advice would be no, as the quality and skill of the loading may vary a great deal and may be of unknown sourcing, but good, proper reloading should not be a big concern for anyone. just verify your sources and reliaibility, or even better, do your own and do it right and be happy. |
July 20, 2009, 05:23 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2008
Location: happy Camp CA
Posts: 133
|
It does not have to be a reload used in self-defense that will get a zealot to put you in jail. I forget where I read this report, but it was about a school teacher taking a walk in a desert trail near Phoenix AR , and he shot a man dead with a 10 mm . He stopped a driver on the fwy and ask him to call the sheriff to report the shooting. After investigation , he was arrested and convicted of murder for shooting a criminal in self defense with a gun that was more powerfull than the one carried by local sheriff dept. What else is new...??? Dan :barf:
|
July 20, 2009, 06:31 PM | #63 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
But before you all go trading in your JHPs, remember risk versus utility. Quote:
But the Fish case does have some lessons for us: [1] The type of ammunition used can influence jurors. [2] You're not safe just because you're in a gun friendly state. Arizona is a gun friendly state, and an Arizona jury convicted Harold Fish the first time around. |
||
July 20, 2009, 10:00 PM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
3. Don't hire a bozo of an attorney who makes no attempt to make a case for the use of HP ammo by pointing out that the Police use it for a reason, or bring in testimony who can. 4. Don't hire a bozo of an attorney who makes no attempt to debunk the "10mm is unnecessarily powerful" contention by pointing out he was hiking in bear and lion country where it wouldn't be too powerful at all. |
|
July 20, 2009, 10:08 PM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
Aside from what's been pointed out, once a shooting takes place, ammo in your gun is now evidence that won't be used for testing that could prove your case. None of your other handloads will be accepted as evidence, either, since you can't prove it's the same ammo. I believe that happened in the aforementioned suicide case where the husband was arrested for murder. Full power factory ammo , used for testing, showed lot's of stipling and powder residue on the victim. The handloaded target ammo that killed her would have shown much less stipling, but that ammo was not used for the test--it was evidence! The prosecution contended she was shot at too long a distance for it to have been a suicide. Correct analysis with factory ammo, but not for the light target load that killed her. Tests with the ammo actually used in the suicide would have produced stipling consistent with the crime scene. Last edited by Nnobby45; July 20, 2009 at 10:17 PM. |
|
July 21, 2009, 01:14 AM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2008
Location: happy Camp CA
Posts: 133
|
Nnobby45 's remark makes me feel worse as he points out what the lawyer should have done. So now, that poor man is in jail ( not you Nnobby45 ). Fiddletown, I'm sorry if my remark about lawyer hurt you, I understand that there are good and bad guys in the profession...BG are popping out every where...But as I reload too, I'll use your advice and buy factory ammo, but NOT hollow point as I have read enough articles about hollow point not being THAT good....I'll use .45 cal 230 gr for ccw and 255 gr flat point for practice and that is not a common load for the LEOs. In my corner of Norhern Cal, the deputies seem to carry .40 cal. guns. I read that hollow point have a tendency to get the cavity filled by cloth or bones or meat , whatever is worn by BG, so the projectile does not always behave the way it was design. I'll pick up my G36 this week-end and buy a 9mm Hi-Point ( heheheheh, I know, I know :barf: ) so I wont loose much if it is confiscated for evidence. Dan
|
July 21, 2009, 03:01 AM | #67 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
[1] Based on my reading of Fish's appeal brief and the court of appeals decision tossing out the verdict, it's probably unfair to blame everything on Fish's lawyer. It looks like Fish's lawyer was prevented from putting on some evidence and making some appropriate arguments by certain rulings of the trial judge. The court of appeals found at least some of those rulings to have been erroneous and therefore overturned the verdict. So Fish's lawyer tried to do some of the things he needed to, but he was blocked. [2] We've talked here about the ways in which a claim of self defense is unique. The thing is that criminal defense lawyers usually have very little experience with self defense claims. The typical defenses in criminal cases are: I wasn't there (alibi); I didn't do it (some other dude done it); It was an accident; I was insane. Criminal defense lawyers have a lot of experience with these defenses, and they do them well. But self defense is completely different. If you claim self defense, you admit you were there, you did it, you intended to do it, and you knew what you were doing. Handling a self defense claim is unique, and few lawyers have much experience with them. Last edited by Frank Ettin; July 21, 2009 at 05:26 AM. |
|
July 21, 2009, 07:19 AM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 22, 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 3,619
|
Just another thought...with no offense to fiddletown meant...the whole object of this ammunition and gun discussion is to avoid the possibility of being charged for anything in the event that we are forced to use a weapon in self defense. Given a gun and ammunition choice that satisfies the first priority...defense of one's presonal safety and that of his family...the best choice is one that raises no potential issues with police, prosecuters and the criminal or civil court system. Fiddletown may agree...even if we're vindicated in court, the cost will be enormous, bankrupting most of us... I vote for a choice that saves me fiddletown's "enormous" fee, and my family the potential expense of travel to see me in an orange jumpsuit! From my perspective, and from Ayoob's apparently, that means factory ammunition.
Regards, Rodfac
__________________
Cherish our flag, honor it, defend it in word and deed, or get the hell out. Our Bill of Rights has been paid for by heros in uniform and shall not be diluted by misguided governmental social experiments. We owe this to our children, anything less is cowardice. USAF FAC, 5th Spl Forces, Vietnam Vet '69-'73. |
July 21, 2009, 01:34 PM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2008
Location: happy Camp CA
Posts: 133
|
Seems like we're giving up to the lawyer/prosecuter. Us who are living in the boondocks have a build-in reason to handload, and that is the 4-legs predators. Black bears are not too dangerous if one live them alone and stay away from their wanderings, but mountain lions are another story;neighbors told me of the big cat roaming on my lawn and black bears are a common sight. The big cat is a problem as you never know if it is trailing you until it's too late. Therefore, I load my .45 acp for those critters and if burglar /s happen to break -in while I'm home , I will not have time to look for my ccw gun.... the hpC9mm. I could be in the room where my shotgun is...too bad.
That another example of self defense and a good one for the defense lawyer, as it involve home invasion , armed robbery etc...So , all is not lost after all as one can always claim that " I misplace my dedicated ccw piece " or " I forgot it was loaded for bear ". I sure hope I never have to find myself in such situation and I'm sure all of you guys do too...Nice talking to you, Dan |
July 21, 2009, 02:05 PM | #70 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
In an incident involving the forcible entry of one's home, it would seem to me that the likelihood that a claim of self defense would be somewhat less likely to be challenged than might be the case in some other scenarios. It would usually be rather evident that the person who broke in was in fact the assailant, I think. And if it were challenged, one factor that as been discussed--admissibility of GSR evidence--might be a lot less critical. Other forensic evidence would likely establish the distance of the shot, should that even become, for some reason, relevant to the investigation. And the other factor (state of mind)? Well, you loaded (those rounds) for bear (and had every reason to have done so)! Last edited by OldMarksman; July 21, 2009 at 02:23 PM. |
|
July 21, 2009, 02:22 PM | #71 | |
Staff
Join Date: June 8, 2008
Posts: 4,022
|
Quote:
My other reason is increased effectiveness. I've never shot anyone and hope never to do so, but I do want them to stop if I do. That means a balance of penetration and expansion, which would seem to call for hollow points that do not clog. For that reason, I've chosen Hornady Critical Defense rounds for the .38 and 9MM. That hasn't been easy to find on the shelves, and dealer I trust just recommended Glaser's Pow'RBall in .45 ACP. It too has a polymer insert. and as an old user of .45 ACP ball ammo I like the shape. Haven't tried it yet but the guys at the store say it works in their .45s. Here's a link. http://www.dakotaammo.net/products/glaser/powrball.htm Tad bit off the original topic but I hope it proves helpful. |
|
July 21, 2009, 04:08 PM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2004
Posts: 3,150
|
Quote:
To have just one jury member predjudiced against extremely court defensible HP's, because it wasn't properly explained to them, after the prosecution made an issue of it, is the travesty. Would you rather have your attorney be forced to make a case for over-penetrative ball ammo that richocetts more wildly, and requires more citizen endangering shots to be fired, that the police won't even use for those reasons? Since an opposing attorney could try to make a case against any ammo you use, go with that which is proven court defensible. Hollow points--which is to your advantage inside or outside of the courtroom. Last edited by Nnobby45; July 21, 2009 at 04:38 PM. |
|
July 21, 2009, 04:29 PM | #73 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 28, 2008
Location: happy Camp CA
Posts: 133
|
Thank you for all the factory ammo tips Old Marskman. Very educative thread for Ran....heheheh and me ...Dan
|
July 21, 2009, 06:23 PM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 9, 2008
Location: Southern California
Posts: 228
|
Old Marksman, no one in my mind (my opinion) could have said it better! I really enjoyed your information, opinion and comment of which I fully AGREE!!!! Thanks,
|
July 21, 2009, 07:12 PM | #75 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
It's like choosing JHPs. They are generally regarded as the best overall choice for two legged nasties, but they have some potential downsides in court as Harold Fish discovered. Nonetheless, I choose them for my SD needs and, if the worst happens, will need to rely the argument that I use them because they are the overwhelming choice of LE. But remember, no matter how good your argument for using handloads is, if you need GSR evidence, you're still out of luck. |
||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|