Legal problems with reloads

[FALPhil]

Harold Fish is an 'iffy' case.

- The dead guy had a long history of violence
- The dead guy was 'homeless'
- The dead guy was unarmed, but there were dogs with a history of aggression involved
- The M.E. said that the wounds indicated the dead guy was in a "defensive position when shot" - whatever that means...
- There were no witnesses, and Fish did not testify
- Arizona law did not allow deadly force as a self defense at the time of the shooting (this has been amended), and Fish was found guilty and sentenced under the law (which is not the same as justice)
- The judge refused to instruct the jury on the principle of jury nullification

This is probably a miscarriage of justice. In my mind, the dead guy was a violent psycho with no business out among society.

However, I do not think that the use of handloads would be an issue in this case. In fact, as near as I can tell, ammo did not come up at all.

 

[ShootingNut]

Seems To Me

eithe way, reload or factory, blowing a BG away will unfortunetly put you through Hell. The way our justice system is slanted towards the criminal, and lawyers will defend them to the end even knowing they were the purpetraitor.

 

[Rimrod]

I think I remember the thread newerguy is referring to, which is odd since I can't remember anything else. We also hashed out the Harold Fish case. While we are not lawyers here, not all of us anyway, we are a cross section of the community which is what juries are made of. Given the evidence presented in both cases I would have voted guilty for both defendants if I was on their juries.

There were too many discrepancies in the Fish case and it sounded as if he over-reacted out of fear and did kill the other guy without justification. Besides, as I recall his case was about him using a 10mm cannon, not reloaded ammo.

If I'm not mistaken the case newerguy is talking about was in an article by Masaad Ayoob, go figure. He was using it as an example of why you shouldn't use reloads for self defense but that wasn't what the case was even about. After reading the facts of the case, as Mr. Ayoob had presented them, it sounded like the guy murdered his wife. Apparently the readers mind was supposed to wander off while reading the story and buy into the load of B.S. that Mr. Ayoob was trying to pass off. Which my mind always did when reading one of his articles.

During both of these discussions someone had asked for proof of a case where a person was punished for using reloads/handloads and there never was one offered.

 

[Musketeer]

There were too many discrepancies in the Fish case and it sounded as if he over-reacted out of fear and did kill the other guy without justification. Besides, as I recall his case was about him using a 10mm cannon, not reloaded ammo.

I put forward Fish to counter the argument that a good shoot is a good shoot and is doubly so in a pro gun state. Good point on the 10mm "cannon." Fish was vilified by the prosecution for using something more powerful in order to kill people. Jurors mentioned that as part of the reason for their guilty verdict. If he was vilified for his gun choice and jurors bought into it what do you think they would have done regarding hand loads?

If I'm not mistaken the case newerguy is talking about was in an article by Masaad Ayoob, go figure. He was using it as an example of why you shouldn't use reloads for self defense but that wasn't what the case was even about. After reading the facts of the case, as Mr. Ayoob had presented them, it sounded like the guy murdered his wife. Apparently the readers mind was supposed to wander off while reading the story and buy into the load of B.S. that Mr. Ayoob was trying to pass off. Which my mind always did when reading one of his articles.

During both of these discussions someone had asked for proof of a case where a person was punished for using reloads/handloads and there never was one offered.

Obviously you never read the article. You also have a clearly preconceived notion regarding Ayoob... "go figure."

The case revolved around a guy who had reportedly loaded light hand loads for his wife/girlfriend to use in their revolver. The cases though were stamped 38 +P. The defendant said that she committed suicide with the gun using the light reloads in them, which threw minimal powder. Prosecution argued that the cases were marked 38 +P so that is what they were. The judge refused to allow any testing of the defendants reloads and did not allow reloaded ammunition to be used as a reason that there was not a significant amount of powder residue on the victim, which would normally be the case in a suicide. Note, the jury wasn't even allowed to HEAR this as a reason. Reloads as a topic were barred from the trial.

This was not a case of someone vilified for using reloads, this was a case where the forensic evidence could not be duplicated because reloads were used according to defense but not allowed for consideration by the judge and prosecution. Since there was no way to otherwise account for the lack of powder on the victim except for being shot at further than suicide distances his conviction was pretty much a slam dunk.

Beyond the vilification issue this points out clearly that the forensics issue comes into play. You could have all the ammo in the world loaded and on your shelves but if the court refuses to admit it then some other factory ammo that would be loaded in your brass will be the standard on which you are judged. If your story does not jive with the forensic evidence your credibility will suffer, and so may you!

 

[stinger]

A clean shoot is a clean shoot...

Of course, I live in a free state.

 

[Rimrod]

If he was vilified for his gun choice and jurors bought into it what do you think they would have done regarding hand loads?

He obviously needed a new attorney, but carrying a 10mm wasn't the reason he got convicted. It might have been on their minds but there was more to it. As I said earlier, given the information the jurors had I would have convicted him too.

Obviously you never read the article...

This may come as a surprise to you but I did read the article. Although I quit reading gun magazines years ago, I found it online.

Reloads as a topic were barred from the trial.

Because they had no bearing on the case. No matter what the powder charge was in the reloads they would have left some kind of residue and other evidence which was not present. The jury was presented with the "facts". Such as the defendant knew that his wife had attempted suicide with a handgun twice in the past but still loaded up lighter rounds so she wouldn't be afraid to shoot the gun. He then left the gun unsecured so she could get access to it without him being present. He claimed she shot herself in the back of the head with her left hand to try and make it look like he shot her. And didn't he have gun shot residue on his hands, claiming he tried to get the gun from her as she was shooting herself?

Since there was no way to otherwise account for the lack of powder on the victim except for being shot at further than suicide distances his conviction was pretty much a slam dunk.

Ayoobs testimony wouldn't have had any effect on that, it was geared more at confusing the jury. The defense lacked an expert witness, probably because none of them would touch the case.

This was not a case of someone vilified for using reloads

But that was what Ayoob was claiming it was in his article. Didn't you read it?

You also have a clearly preconceived notion regarding Ayoob... "go figure."

And so do you, but since mine isn't the same as yours I'm wrong?

In case you don't know it Masaad Ayoob is a member here so I can't fully express my opinions but he has been writing for gun magazines for a long time. And before that he was a martial arts expert. Yes I have a preconceived notion about him based on years of his writings.

But let's put all that aside, lets stick to the article in question. When the thread came up Ayoob entered the conversation as a forum member. When one of the other members asked him for details about the article because many of us hadn't read it, his response was 'buy the magazine'. I put him on my ignore list after that, if you want to discuss a thread that's one thing, but spamming your work for profit isn't supposed to be allowed. I did read his responses in that thread but they gave nothing to the discussion.

When researching the Fish case I found numerous articles, news video clips and related sites to get information from. When researching Ayoobs case I found nothing on the case except for his article. After reading his articles I could only guess that it isn't entirely true. But then my preconceived notion regarding Ayoob doesn't put him on Mt. Olympus either.

 

[newerguy]

Rimrod and Musketeer have the case I was thinking of, although I don't think I ever knew the "suicide" had been shot in the back of the head.

That is the only "reload" case I have seen offered as proof that someone has been convicted based on using reloads.

 

[Musketeer]

If the suicide was so clearly NOT a suicide then there should be no problem with the defense proposing the use of light reloads to the jury as a reason for the lack of powder residue on the victim.

Guilty or innocent does not matter in this. What matters is the jury was not allowed to hear anything about reloads and the court's position was that the bullets were factory +P because that is what was on the case. Not having the evidence match the story because the court chooses to disallow your reloads as admissible evidence is a BAD THING. Better to have a nice factory box full of ammo just like that which you used to coorborate your story.

As far as Mr. Fish and the evil 10mm... yes, his lawyer must have really messed up not to have counterred with the fact the the 10mm was also selected for some time to be used by the FBI. The fact is though jurors came out and admitted they thought worse of Mr. Fish and more likely guilty because of his selection of firearm. If anything it is easier to villify one for using their own reloads than it is any particular accepted caliber. Facts are only part of the case, trials are also popularity contests. The point is also made that Mr. Fish did not speak in his defense. HE DOES NOT HAVE TO!!!! Not everybody is a slick and polished speaker before a jury and the defense may have seen this in meetings with Mr. Fish. If he was going to come off poorly there was no reason to make him speak. Finally, you are allowed to use lethal force in AZ, even at the time of the crime, in defense of your life.

 

[Rimrod]

My biggest problem with the first case, not Fish, was the lack of information on what really happened during the whole trial. As I recall the woman was shot several inches behind the left ear and the bullet exited the right temple area. If you happen to have a 686 laying around try putting it to your head at a position that would recreate that bullet path and imagine someone doing that during a suicide. (Make sure the gun isn't loaded first!) Plus the fact that she wasn't left handed. The barrel would have to have been touching or very near her head which would have left unique evidence of it's own. For someone to come in and say the reason was the rounds were light loads would have been a waste of time. Any round would have left evidence on her but there was none. That was a non issue and should have been left out.

As for the Fish case, you summed it up yourself:

Finally, you are allowed to use lethal force in AZ, even at the time of the crime, in defense of your life.

"in defense of your life" That was the problem here, the defense couldn't prove his life was in danger at the time he shot the deceased. There was also a witness who's testimony conflicted with Mr. Fish's story about the time of the shooting and how Mr. Fish reacted after the shooting.

If his attorney knew anything about firearms, or the laws pertaining to them, he could have countered the 10mm claim very easily, but again he would have still sounded guilty.

I don't know about any other state than Ohio, but the CCW laws here do not restrict the use of any handgun nor the use of reloaded ammunition. If there is no law against it how can you be punished for it? Attorneys will stand in front of a jury and throw everything at them they can to sway them in their favor, it is up to the opposing attorney to say the right things to sway them back.

 

[Musketeer]

Rimrod said:

I don't know about any other state than Ohio, but the CCW laws here do not restrict the use of any handgun nor the use of reloaded ammunition. If there is no law against it how can you be punished for it? Attorneys will stand in front of a jury and throw everything at them they can to sway them in their favor, it is up to the opposing attorney to say the right things to sway them back.

You can be punished for it by the jury. You are not going to go to jail for the crime of using reloads, it will be because the jury believes the shoot was not justifiable based in part on your "bloodthirsty nature" because of your home made killer bullets. We are not talking reason here but emotion. If you have a factory loaded round, like what police use, it is much harder to paint you in a worse light than the police themselves. Handloads open up another option for the prosecution to assassinate your character.

Then there is the forensic aspect where the court may not accept your handloads as evidence... Together the two reasons are plenty to avoid them for carry.

With regards to the suicide/murder case... We are not talking about any of the other evidence. I don't care about the length of the barrel or any other item except the reloads and their inadmissibility in court. Perhaps he DID commit the crime, it sounds like it from the other evidence, but that does NOT matter with regards to this discussion. What matters is the defense contended that he had reloads in the gun and the court would not allow that to even be discussed with the jury. Forensic evidence that may have supported the defense's case was NOT ALLOWED because the court deemed the very subject of reloads inadmissible. The prosecution would have been free to attack the reload contention and counter it with other forensic evidence if it was presented but it was not even allowed to be brought up! That could happen to you very easily. If your story does not match the forensics you are in trouble because every other statement you made is now doubly suspect.

How can this affect someone with reloads in a "clean shoot?" Perhaps you carry a 10mm for which you load your own. You have plenty of brass that you recycle. Of course MOST factory 10mm is loaded to a much lower level than what the cartridge is capable of. It throws powder far less. You on the other hand have loaded the 10mm up to near its max. The resulting powder residue on the victim in your clean shoot is similar to a factory load at a foot. You were really more like 4 feet away though. You told the police you were four feet away and that is in the report but if reloads are a verbotten subject in a trial then the prosecution can attack the accuracy of your statement. Once one of your statements is proven, to the court, to be wrong your credibility with the jury goes downhill fast. Those statements about the dead criminal's threatening actions now are seen in a different light because YOU are a liar... See the problem here?

 

[BikerRN]

A clean shoot is a clean shoot...

Of course, I live in a free state.

Harold Fish lived in a "free state too.

 

[Rimrod]

Musketeer,

Paragraph 1. That was my point with the attorneys trying to sway the jury in their favor. The opposing counsel can and will say anything to get the jury to have the emotions you are talking about. It is up to your attorney to set them strait. It doesn't matter if it is about a gun or not, they will try and dupe an uninformed jury if they can.

Paragraphs 2 & 3. We don't know for sure if that is the case. The reason the court threw out the testimony for the reloads might have been because they didn't recognize the expert witness as an expert witness. It might have been for any number of procedural errors that could have been avoided, there are many reasons testimony is withheld, including a lame attempt at trying to confuse the jury and make them get emotional about something other than the "facts". Juries have to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the person is quilty of the crimes he is charged with. If the defense brought Paris Hilton in to say she killed herself because she was blonde do you think that might affect at least one person in the jury? If you think the answer is no, then you haven't met many jurists. Also I've said it several times, there was only one source for the information for that case, and I know this hurts you to hear it, but it is of questionable accuracy.

Paragraph 4. If the first case had need of ballistic testing they might have done it. But there wasn't really an issue of if there was a reload or not. The issue was, the medical examiner determined she didn't shoot herself so who did? The defendant was the only other person there so what is his story? She shot herself because blah blah blah blah reloads. He thinks the medical examiner is an idiot that doesn't know anything about gunshot wounds? I would like to see a retrial of that case, if it's real, to see how it goes. And I would like to see two real expert witnesses give their testimony on the reload evidence, but I don't think you'll find two that will do it. An expert witness has a reputation to think about or he will no longer be an expert witness. If he goes into a courtroom and starts blowing sand at the jury, and is shown to be doing just that by the other expert witness, guess what? His credibility as an expert witness is gone.

And once again you summed it up yourself.

Once one of your statements is proven, to the court, to be wrong your credibility with the jury goes downhill fast. Those statements about the dead criminal's threatening actions now are seen in a different light because YOU are a liar... See the problem here?

Harold Fish's statements to the police didn't coincide to the witness's. He sounded like a liar and his statements about the dead (alledged) criminals threatening actions were seen in a different light. That was the problem there.

Do you yourself feel that Harold Fish was justified in shooting that man? If you were on the jury, and even knowing that the 10mm isn't a death ray device, would you have said he did nothing wrong?

And presented with the evidence as was given in the other case, would you say he was innocent? That he was not responsible for his wifes death? This came up in an earlier thread: even if he didn't pull the trigger, given her past history of attempted suicides he loaded light ammunition, taught her to shoot and left the gun out for her to have access to it. Would you have done the same thing if it was your wife? He claimed he loved her too.

As shooters and gun owners we get too wrapped up in some of these cases to look at the whole picture. A man is not guilty becasue he owns a gun or reloads his own ammunition, but he isn't innocent because of it either. When the question of using reloads comes up these two cases are brought in as "proof". Neither case is about the issue and they are both bad examples because the person sounds guilty in spite of the claims otherwise.

And I for one do not think it is good for the average citizen to carry what the police carry. Everytime there is a police shooting there are countless hours wasted trying to sort out who shot which rounds. But I won't offend you with who's idea that is.

 

[Rimrod]

Musketeer,
This has been beat to death several times since I joined TFL.

It all boils down to there has never been an incident that anyone could ever produce where a person suffered for using reloads for self defense. Mr. Ayoob writes about it and the only case he can give isn't even about carrying reloads for self defense. You read the article, did it make sense to you how the connection was made?

If you want to keep discussing it look up my previous posts, there is nothing new here. But hey, at least I'm not telling you to buy my magazine.

 

[Mas Ayoob]

Ya know, Rimrod, whatever obvious dislike you have for me is one thing -- and you're free to PM me on any such issues, and even to use your real name -- but to falsely characterize the cases against Danny Bias and Harold Fish and to imply Bias is a murderer is really low.

Sure, I told folks read the magazine: it had a 3000 word article on the Bias case, the one where gunshot residue was an issue, and a 1000 word article on the Kennedy case, where the "regular bullets weren't deadly enough for this defendant" card was played due to defendant's use of handloads. You expected maybe a 4000 word post?

To the unbiased folks reading this: Rimrod says he read the article, yet he conveniently ignores Bias' own lawyers saying he probably never would have been convicted if he had loaded his defense gun with factory ammo. (His wife had threatened suicide by gun before, documented, and Danny had no reason to harm her. He stated that when he found her with the gun to her head and tried to pull it away, it discharged and killed her. The wound was consistent with her head turning away from him at the shot. With his light load of bullseye, no GSR at arm's length would be deposited, and none was found. However, Federal +P deposits GSR at that distance, and the court's refusal to take his word for what loads were in the gun led to him being convicted and serving time.)

State of New Jersey v. Daniel Bias was the canary in the mine shaft that let the rest of us know the courts would not take your word for what was in the cartridge, any more than they would take your word that it was your blood in the vial that your lawyer dropped off for DNA analysis.

In the course of these BS arguments by Rimrod and others over the last couple of years, I have repeatedly asked them to cite a case where any court DID accept a handloader's word for what ammunition was in the gun at the time of the shooting. THEY HAVE NEVER FOUND ONE. I doubt that they will.

If you've got a beef with me, Rimrod, bring it to me directly. Badmouthing poor Bias and Fish, and mischaracterizing their cases, impresses no one and does no one any good.

Anyone interested in discussing the reloads for self-defense issue will find ample threads at TFL and at www.thehighroad.org. It's all been done to death.

 

[Rimrod]

Mas Ayoob,

You only seem to appear to defend yourself when someone is talking about your articles but never have the time to devote any "free" information on other discussions. So my response to you is 'whatever-I only talk to real members of this forum'. And just because everone doesn't recognize my name doesn't mean I know less about firearms than you do.

And as I recall you didn't tell them to read the article, you told them to buy it. Which is what I will do if I want to hear more of your expert opinions.

Rodney B. Tackett

 

[Al Norris]

We've moved pretty far from actually discussing reloading self defense ammo to discussing the legal issues involved in a self defense shooting.

This thread is now off topic for this forum... Perhaps it was off topic to begin with.

At any rate, I'm moving it to L&P, where it can continue or die a well deserved death.

 

[HankB]

I Am Not A Lawyer

But I do recall police officers being attacked for good shoots for using standard, police-issue hollowpoint ammo; anything is possible.

So I figure if the opposition council wants to, they can argue . . .

*You used reloads? What, ordinary ammo wasn't DEADLY enough for you?

* You used the same ammo as the police? AHA, you're a COP WANNABE!

* You used FMJ? Isn't that WARFIGHTING ammo, used by the MILITARY?

* You used HOLLOWPOINTS? Good grief, that stuff is BANNED even for soldiers!

* You used ammo from Wal Mart? What, you're trying to kill people on the cheap?

*You used expensive premium ammo? Sparing no expense to KILL, correct?

These are all emotional arguments, and your counsel darned well better be coached - by you, if nobody else - and ready to answer this line of attack in a rational manner. Unless you're blindsided, or using explosive bullets dipped in rattlesnake venom, a competent defense lawyer will be able to make the other side look like jerks for even bringing up your choice of ammo. (Assuming its a good shoot to begin with.)

 

[Alleykat]

The Fish case is totally irrelevant to this discussion. Many states (as I stated previously) preclude civil litigation in cases where prosecutions is not warranted. I'm fortunate enough to live in such a state.

I do get my advice from real lawyers and judges, not from seminar-givers and gunrag writers. I'm pretty confident that my legal advice comes from truly sound sources.

 

[redhawk41]

Or, like many do, including myself, save yourself the potential hassle and use factory SD ammo.

Pick your battles carefully. Do you really want to be the test case?

If we could pick our battles there would be no reason to prepare for one-on-one situations with those who care not whether we live or die.

I, personally would rather be alive and poor than dead. I will use whatever means at my disposal to postpone the inevitable, even if it means using personally manufactured ammo (or pointed stick) and succumbing to expensive and lengthy criminal and civil trial.

It is prudent however, if one can afford, to practice with and carry factory ammo, preferably that used by local law enforcement agencies.

 

[Mas Ayoob]

You only seem to appear to defend yourself when someone is talking about your articles but never have the time to devote any "free" information on other discussions. So my response to you is 'whatever-I only talk to real members of this forum'. And just because everone doesn't recognize my name doesn't mean I know less about firearms than you do.

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner on your statement above, Rimrod. It took me a while to stop laughing.

Are you surprised that people defend themselves when attacked? What else would you expect on The Firing Line, of all places?

No "free information"? You're still failing to do your homework. Within the last few days I commented on a thread in the tactics section here called "self defense article" or some such. Didn't have a dog in the fight, just felt I might have something useful to add. If someone else has already said what I was going to say, I keep my mouth shut.

And, please, don't play the name recognition card. This is a forum. We're all equals here, Mr. Tackett. It's just that attacking others by name while hiding behind a net ninja nickname seemed unacceptably cowardly.

So, you're going to fold your hand? Well, I suppose that's the "tactical" thing to do when you don't have any cards of value.