Do you carry with your own reloads?

[jmortimer]

All the hand load charges were tested. There were three different charges and all were tested. Bias is a guilty man who got what he deserved based on what I have seen. It is no surprise that his attorneys would both say that if he used factory ammunition that would have left GSR he would have been better able to defend himself - that goes without saying. The factory ammunition left GSR and a lot of it and the handloads did not. That is the reason the factory ammunition was favored by the defense as it for sure left GSR and the handloads did not. If it was reversed, and the handloads left GSR and the factory ammunition did not then the lawyers would have to favor the handloads and would say it would have been better for Bias if he used handloads as that would have proved his innocence. Amazing this simple fact is ignored. The fact that this murder/sucide case is used as an argument against using reloads for self-defense is unfortunate.
This article dated 4-11-06 by Shawn Dodson from Firearms tactical should put Ayoob in perspective.
http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03a.htm

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It is no surprise that his attorneys would both say that if he used factory ammunition that would have left GSR he would have been better able to defend himself - that goes without saying....

No one is saying that or said anything like that. Go back and re-read post 71.

...The fact that this murder/sucide case is used as an argument against using reloads for self-defense is unfortunate....

For the purposes of the legal point at issue, that makes no difference whatsoever. This is all about a rule of evidence and whether or not particular testimony will be heard by a jury. The evidentiary rule, and its application, is exactly the same whether it's a murder case, a self defense case, or even a civil lawsuit.

 

[pax]

Deleted at least one post. Guys, here's the thing: it is a violation of forum rules to insult other forum members.

Keep in mind, Massad Ayoob is a member of this forum, just like you are, and deserves the same courtesy required under the rules as any other member. You don't have to agree with him, you don't have to like him, you don't have to respect him, but you can and you will refrain from insulting him when you post here.

pax

 

[jmortimer]

"This is all about a rule of evidence and whether or not particular testimony will be heard by a jury. The evidentiary rule, and its application, is exactly the same whether it's a murder case, a self defense case, or even a civil lawsuit."
Yes by particular Judge in New Jersey. I think the Judge was wrong regarding the evidence even though I think Bias was guilty. You will not get uniform rulings say in a case from New Jersey and one from Montana.

 

[Don Glock]

Really? Then how do you explain the fact that he is a a former Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL), the only non-attorney ever to hold that position.

WOW, i stand corrected.......

 

[Pvt. Pyle]

Comparing an accidental discharge/murder/suicide whatever you want to call it is a whole different thing in self-defense. When pulling a gun in self-defense you are deliberately firing live rounds at an attacker posing an imminent threat. Whether its reloads or not, like others have said, a good shoot will be a good shoot. I dont get how you can make lethal force more lethal...

Its really sad to see where America is going after reading some of these posts, but not this thread I know, I am sorry.

 

[Sarge]

There are conflicting accounts here. If the ammo left in Bias 686 was not disassembled, then how could Leisinger testify that

the other three cartridges found in Bias' revolver were 133.7-grain cast lead semi-wad-cutter bullets with three grains of small-disc powder and loaded in federal casings.

A fourth federal cartridge was found on the dresser in the bedroom. Other 110.2 semi-wad-cutter bullets loaded in Remington-Peters casings were found in Bias' attic. Tests showed that these bullets were loaded with 3.1 grains of powder.

Now here's the killer...

Leisinger conducted gunpowder residue tests on both types of hand-loaded bullets at distances of 20 inches, 30 inches, 45 inches and 50 inches. Both types of bullets left heavy residue at 20 inches and medium residue at 30 inches. Leisinger noted that traces of residue were found at 45 inches and none was found at 50 inches.

Unless the Morning Call grossly misreported Lessinger's testimony, the rounds remaining in the gun were examined and tested. IF Leisinger is a lab rat, he did NOT guess at those powder charges- he said they were loaded with 'three grains of small-disc powder', which directly contradicts the Bias' account that they were 2.3 grain, 2.6 grain, and 2.9 grain loads.

I'm an old copper myself who did 12 years as the investigator for a prosecutor. I've seen some shootings, justifiable and otherwise, and I've live-fired some evidence guns myself, to establish that they were 'readily capable of lethal use' and to put the lie to some tall tales about 'I was pointing the gun over here, don't know how the bullets hit _____."

So let's cut to the chase on this. Bias' troubles run a lot deeper than the fact that he merely had reloads in the gun. There were reportedly four different reloads, loaded at random, in the gun. If there had been four different factory loads in the gun it would have complicated things enough.

He also left a loaded firearm where it could be accessed by an emotionally disturbed individual. They were arguing before the shooting. Then, son of a gun, we have an 'arm's length' suicide with a 6" (rather large) revolver and to save his wife from shooting herself, he says the he grabbed his wife's hand to 'pull away' the weapon. I have yet to hear if the revolver was cocked, or if the gun was fired via the DA stroke. Either way, shouldn't somebody who shot in matches, etc. have understood he had a better chance of deflecting the muzzle away from her head via the barrel?

At one point, he says that he opened the (bedroom) door and the gun went off. Then he says gun went off when he tried to grab it, then said he had "no idea" at what point the gun went off. Complicating this is his account that she was pointing the gun at herself with her left hand, when she was apparently right handed. The guy's story was all over the place.

To me, this has murder written all over it. I take exception to the notion that 'reloads' are what did this guy in.

Edited to add: quotes obtained by fishing through this pile of news articles.

 

[jmortimer]

Thank You Sarge for some hard work and common sense.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I think the Judge was wrong regarding the evidence even though I think Bias was guilty. You will not get uniform rulings say in a case from New Jersey and one from Montana.

[1] Actually, the judge in New Jersey in Bias was probably correct not to admit the defense GSR test results. In general under the rules of evidence in pretty much every jurisdiction, expert opinion based on scientific tests requires a very solid foundation establishing a close nexus between the test and a material issue in the trial.

[2] And yes, I would expect similar rulings in New Jersey, Montana, and elsewhere on this sort of issue. The rules of evidence are pretty similar from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and the hurdles that must be gotten over to get into evidence expert opinion testimony based on scientific tests will be pretty much the same everywhere.

Comparing an accidental discharge/murder/suicide whatever you want to call it is a whole different thing in self-defense. When pulling a gun in self-defense you are deliberately firing live rounds at an attacker posing an imminent threat....

Those different types of cases really aren't different at all, at least not with regard to the legal rules for introducing into evidence expert opinion testimony based on GSR testing.

Let's have a look at a hypothetical illustrating how expert opinion based on GSR test results could become material to the defense in a self defense case.

You shot someone. You claim he was attacking you, that a reasonable person would have been afraid for his life, and that you were therefore justified in using lethal force in self defense. The DA disputed your claim of justification, charged you and brought you to trial. You will need to establish that a reasonable person in like circumstances would have concluded that the person you shot was a genuine threat. His distance from you at the time you shot could be one factor.

GSR test results could be part of the equation and also important corroboration for your story and why the person you shot was a threat. For example, there could be a dispute about your distance from the target when you shot. You say you shot your alleged attacker when he was 6 feet away. A witness (or even your alleged attacker who survived) claims the alleged attacker was 20 feet away. Now a witness can be mistaken about such things. It could be a matter of angle. It could be that the witness has lousy skills for estimating distance. Or it could be the fact that we know that witnesses can suffer from the same stress induced perceptual distortions as participants.

If you can introduce an expert's opinion based on GSR testing that supports your story about the distance at which you shot your alleged attacker, it will add credence to your testimony. The jury will be more likely to accept your testimony, and you will therefore be more convincing to the jury. And by establishing the proximate of the assailant at the time you shot him, you help establish that he was reasonably a bona fide potentially lethal threat. But doubt regarding your story will damage your overall credibility.

But if you used handloads, you will most likely not be able to introduce such expert testimony into evidence because you will not be able to adequately satisfy the judge that the ammunition tested by your expert was the same as the ammunition you shot your assailant with.

...To me, this has murder written all over it. I take exception to the notion that 'reloads' are what did this guy in....

But for our purposes, whether or not Daniel Bias was guilty is irrelevant.

What is relevant for our purposes is that in Bias the trial judge, applying common evidentiary principles, would not allow Bias to introduce into evidence his own expert's testimony based on his expert's GSR testing of ammunition that Bias claimed was the same as the "death round."

And the judge refused to allow the testimony of Bias' expert because, since the ammunition was handloaded, the judge did not find that Bias had established an adequate foundation, i. e., Bias' claim was not sufficient to establish that the ammunition Bias' expert tested actually matched the death round.

 

[Sarge]

But for our purposes, whether or not Daniel Bias was guilty is irrelevant.

Oh, but it is relevant. The assertion here is that the conviction was a result of his use of reloads. I assert that there was plenty of 'ammunition' for a conviction, regardless of what that 686 was loaded with.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Oh, but it is relevant. The assertion here is that the conviction was a result of his use of reloads....

No, that is not the assertion. The assertion is that the trial judge would not allow into evidence Bias' expert's opinion testimony based on testing of Bias' reloads.

And the relevance of that for our purposes is that if you use reloads, and if your expert's opinion based on his testing of your reloads would materially help your defense in court, you'll be out of luck because your expert's opinion will not be allowed into evidence. You will not have the benefit of that testimony.

There's no way of knowing how badly that could hurt you. That will depend on the exact situation. But it certainly won't help.

 

[WESHOOT2]

bases covered

This 'issue' is one where Mr. A and I disagree, but I respect his writings so much that years back I acquired my FFL06 and became a manufacturer.
I'm retired from that now.
But....
I carry my own ammo, the good stuff


Odd truth: right now my major-caliber carry gun has its mag full of 124g Winchester PDX. Just because I had a box for testing....

 

[Mas Ayoob]

Fiddletown and Spats McGee have nailed it.

In all these years of heated internet arguments, NO ONE has ever come up with a case where the courts DID accept the words or self-generated loading records of the handloader when gunshot residue evidence to determine distance became an issue in load testing.

 

[Nitesites]

Uh...awesome! Mas Ayoob...

 

[acelaw]

So... if im ever in a situation where I'm loading powderpuff rounds and my defense will be that the victim committed suicide and the GSR from the handloads would prove it, I could be in trouble.

Otherwise, I wouldn't personally be concerned about carrying reloads. The situation where you *may* find yourself in trouble is so rare that it's not worth worrying about IMO.

 

[treg]

the reason it's not the best idea to carry your own reloads is they won't have the same consistency, or reliability as quality factory loads. ]

Some here may take offense to that.

 

[overkill0084]

I certainly think it's safe to say that an odd selection of reloads did Mr. Bias no favors. In a situation where your conduct may be called into question, rightfully or not, reloads simply muddy the water. Hate and discontent aside, what is the upside of using reloads?
A couple boxes of (insert favorite SD ammo brand here) are a lot cheaper than even one hour of a good attorney's time. The last time I spent an hour with a lawyer, it was $275. How many additional billable hours did Mr. Bias pay for as a result of his odd selection of ammo? All other arguments aside, those reloads were some of the most expensive ammo ever.

 

[kraigwy]

the reason it's not the best idea to carry your own reloads is they won't have the same consistency, or reliability as quality factory loads.

Some here may take offense to that.

And I'm one of those.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

There's no way of knowing how badly that could hurt you. That will depend on the exact situation. But it certainly won't help.

Actually, you have no way to know if the evidence will necessarily help or hurt depending on the spin and counter spin put on it as well as the other details of the case and how they are perceived in court. Since the evidence wasn't allowed, no counter was made to it in the context of the situation. One thing is certain, if disallowed, you certainly can't use it to try to help you, however.

 

[.357SIG]

The only shoots that I really worry about are the ones in which I may one day have to become involved. I take the time to learn about the rest so that I have a more educated idea of what obstacles I may face.

Quote:
Originally Posted by .357SIG
. . . . If you go to court, there is something questionable about your conduct during the incident.

* Either that, or
* the BG survived; or It would be very big stretch to link your load to this issue in any way that is realistic.
* the BG survived and wants $$; or True for all things legal. Lots of people sue for lots of reasons, and anything in life you do from the time you get up to the time you go to bed can lead to a civil suit. Do we go through the day worrying about it? Also, some states have preemptive laws preventing this from occurring, should SD be found justified.
* the BGs family is mad that you killed him; or Same as above.
* the BGs family is mad and wants $$; orSame as above.
* the police aren't convinced that things went down the way you claim; or . . .This is the same thing I said originally, but in different words. Because of that, I agree here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by .357SIG
Do you think you will be taken to court over a modification to your vehicle, should you get into a car crash? Are you looking at wreckless driving and 3rd degree homicide because you T-boned someone with your supercharged Mustang, as opposed to a factory stock version?
It's not a question of being charged or sued for using handloads. It's a question of admissibility of evidence. My example was to show a modification outside the norm that has no bearing on the subject at-hand. You get in a wreck, and the charge will be based on your conduct, not your vehicle's state. Should you get into trouble because of lying, or modification the facts in your favor (ex. claiming the car's gas pedal was stuck, or you were going 30, but evidence shows 60+ and careless control of the vehicle), the mod may be icing on the cake (goes to prove carelessness), but if you hit someone going 30 MPH in a 30 MPH area, you will not face some trumped-up charges, or somehow get less due process because you have that car.We're not talking about parts used in the shooting or accident. To make the situation more comparable, imagine that you were involved in that accident and that you had used your own special blend of fuel, which included some jet fuel. (I don't have a clue if the Mustang would run, but bear with me). Then you've got a situation where you would not be able to get expert testimony on how your Mustang should have preformed with your proprietary blend.Again, if you need expert testimony, then something threw up a red flag during investigation. Stay within the confines of the law and don't get hot-headed or mouthy before the incident; then things will go a different way. Change it to a diesel truck and homemade biodiesel...does this have any bearing on a normal, run-of-the-mill car wreck? I think not. If you want to claim something absurd, like the fuel made you wreck, then it might come into play.

Whether you're charged with a crime or sued civilly, and whether it's a SD shooting or murder, the rules of evidence remain the same. The closest case on point is the Daniel Bias case. It says that expert testimony using handloads from the defendant's sample is inadmissible. Daniel Bias suffered through several years of court cases, on top of having his wife commit suicide. He paid tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. It's also the only real legal guidance we have on reloads. Not having seen the court case in question, I can't comment accurately. I will ask this: what were the exact circumstances that landed Mr. Bias in the hot seat? If I'm getting this right from the clips of info posted previously, was it that his conduct was in question, as it pertained to this incident, or not? (IOW, did he say one thing, but evidence contradicted it, requiring an expert to be called upon, which otherwise would have been unnecessary?)

It's not so much I disbelieve that reloads can be an issue, but it would be a hindrance in very select cases where something related needs to be addressed. (Such as a claim like, "It was a suicide from a foot away," when all evidence shows it probably came from 4 feet away, making it impossible for the person to shoot theirself.) This is a very specific issue to be addressed, and I could see how you need all the help you can get. The moral of the story is to tell the truth and not straddle the fine line between crime and justified homicide. In most cases, they will test your weapon, etc., but that is SOP. Believe it or not, the state is not out to get everyone for any reason.

My point is not to say that it can never, or will never, come up in court, but that most SD cases never get this far, or this detailed. Follow a simple set of rules, and you will probably never see the inside of a courtroom:

• do not shoot unless you have fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself or another,
• do not lie to the investigators on the scene;
• do not allow your conduct just prior to the incident become an item of question for the investigators.

The idea that firearms instructors (not all of them) run around in panic about the dangers of modified triggers and reloads is what I shake my head at, because they try to make a blanket statement without using their heads, and getting down to the real issue behind it. It's all about the way it is presented.