Legal problems with reloads

I like HankB's statement above #37---

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?



Depending on whether or not the day you go to trial ends in Y.:D
 
Don't ask, don't tell...They won't know it's a reload unless you bring it up...so don't....

BTW, gotta love Texas...The House as your castle doctrine is now law. If there is an intruder in your home, you can shoot em...armed or not. you are not required to prove your life is in danger to use deadly force.
 
They'll just ask you, in open court, under oath, if you used reloaded ammo.
Click to expand...

Your lawyer isn't going to let you testify.

The one aspect I see as being valid in regard to Ayoob's claims is that lawyers will use whatever they can to get the result they want and so if you use reloads, they will try to use reloads to work in their favor for their arguments. HOWEVER, they will do that with every nuance of the situation and of your person.

Heck, there are folks who think Harold Fish was convicted for murder because he used hollowpoint ammo. Hollowpoint ammo was villified by the prosecution as well as was Fish's actions. However, there are folks who believe that the use of hollowpoint ammo by Fish for self defense changed a perfectly legitmate SD shooting into a murder conviction. Never mind the fact that his accounting of the story did not match the forensic evidence and his accounting of the story portrayed him as being the good guy.

The point here is that if you look around, you can find cases where some facet is harped on by the lawyers and the media and people will believe it to be the all important smoking gun point that resulted in a conviction of a perfectly valid act of self defense, but usually those acts are far from being perfectly valid.

Another aspect is that from the arguments Ayoob has presented, none have shown that reloads caused a conviction for an intentional shooting. Points he does make is that because of the use of reloads, certain parameters could not be verified that would actually have vindicated the defendent. So it isn't so much that they caused the conviction as much as they failed to validate the defense.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I've seen you bring up that username issue with other crititcs. This is the first forum I found when I became disabled and when I registered it asked for a username. Since there were no other real names that I saw, I thought it was the thing to do. I have heard members here say that they don't want to use their real name because they talk about the guns they own and post pictures of them and are concerned about security. I understand that and for the most part it doesn't matter what name we go by since nobody has ever heard of me and I've never heard of them. However in your case it is different. Being a professional writer that happens to write firearms stories you have an instantly recognizable name, which is why it benefits you to use it here. If you used a different "net ninja" name nobody would read your posts. I believe there are other writers here that don't use their pen names and it is hard to tell them apart from anybody else because they are one of "us". It seems to me that I would rather be a coward then a braggard who has to let people know who he is to gain more attention than he deserves.

And for throwing in the towel. Well let me just say that I've been in some World Class Peeing matches with people on this forum, even to the point of moderator intervention, but there isn't one of them I wouldn't go to the range with or sit down and have a cup of coffee with. But you're different. You've been writing magazines articles for a very long time, I'm somewhat familiar with you and the stuff you have written long ago, before I quit reading you and all the other "Police Tactical Experts" and eventually magazine writers in general. I never really cared if civillians bought into your story but when I heard police officers quote you it really got to me. These guys are not well trained and are very impressionable and your advice is the last thing they need.

I have long forgotten most of your articles but there is one that still sticks with me. It was about Gangsta shooting and why it doesn't work. You said every time your students tried it there were only one or two fatal shots out of a whole magazine. That article came out just after a police officer was killed in Ashtabula, Ohio. He spotted a wanted fugitive and started chasing him on foot. The fugitive spun around and fired at the officer "Gangsta" style, according to witnesses, and fired most of his magazine. One round, the one you said didn't work, hit him in the head. It wasn't fatal, but the one the fugitive shot into his head at point blank range after he couldn't move was. I heard a couple of officers from a different county mention your article and the "fact" that they were safe if confronted by a gangsta shooter.

If you're wondering why I didn't PM you, it's because I've written to magazines you've written for before, long before the cyber age, and actually used my real name and address. But since you kept writing, and didn't die from a colon blockage, I assumed you never got my letters, or at least didn't care for my opinons.

I don't hang around the Tactical forum but I'm not going to start a flame war why, I already did that once. But now that I am disabled and spend most of my time in a recliner maybe I can be a Police Tactical Expert too. This forum stuff is getting real old.

The funny thing is, if you had used a net ninja name, we might have been friends.

And P.S. Mr. Bias was charged with murder, found guilty of murder by a jury, that finding was accepted by a judge and he went to prison for murder. That does make him a murderer until the court says otherwise. If you have any other information about this case, and any appeals, I would like to read it. Since I have nothing better to do.
 
Wow, Rimrod, you keep backpedaling that fast and you'll aggravate that disabling injury. For what it's worth, my condolences on your disability.

You mention that my students found only one or two vital hits out of a magazine gangsta style. You then write about a genuine gangsta firing most of a magazine and only scoring one vital hit. And this refutes me...HOW?

As I said, we're all the same here. That's part of the beauty of a forum. I said that badmouthing someone by name while hiding behind the yellow net ninja mask of anonymity is cowardly. You've said nothing to refute that, either.

Bias went to prison for manslaughter, not murder, after his third trial. His attorneys flatly said that it almost certainly wouldn't have happened if his gun had been loaded with factory ammo. And, if you really read the article as you said you did, you KNEW that when you posted otherwise.
 
You said Gangsta shooting doesn't work, I said it does and it did. Doesn't that refute your statement in your book? Or do you just like to hear yourself talk?

Bias went to prison for manslaughter, not murder, after his third trial. His attorneys flatly said that it almost certainly wouldn't have happened if his gun had been loaded with factory ammo.
Click to expand...

So his attorney said if his gun had been loaded with factory ammo she wouldn't be dead? Given the same circumstances with any ammo I would think the outcome of the shooting would have been the same. There was enough question there that even if she had GSR on her, the shooting would still have been questionable as to who shot her. Are we to believe that he was innocent because he was "your" client and that we should ignore everything else?

And he's been through three trials and hasn't been able to get the reload evidence in at any of them? Wow, they must be out to get him.

And, if you really read the article as you said you did, you KNEW that when you posted otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I have been on a steady diet of Vicoden, Percoset and now Morphine for the last 2 1/2 years and my memory isn't as good as it used to be. Exactly how old is that article anyway? I think it's been at least a year now and I've never seen any of your articles that have ever been worthy of a second reading, or even a first for that matter.

But thanks for your sincere concern for my health just the same.
 
I said that badmouthing someone by name while hiding behind the yellow net ninja mask of anonymity is cowardly. You've said nothing to refute that, either.
Click to expand...

I forgot that part because I have to log out to read your posts. First of all I came out from behind the "yellow net ninja mask of anonymity" by identifying myself earlier. Then I devoted a full paragraph to your comment two posts ago. Is there such a thing as SRS, selective reading syndrome? So I guess to answer the quote above I don't refute it, I agree with you, and since we now know each others names are you still calling me a coward?

I really appreciate the time you are spending with this childish catfight, I know you are really busy being a full time instructor/teacher, magazine writer and police officer, not to mention an expert witness. But like I said before 'whatever'. You can continue this arguement by yourself, since you are doing such a good job at it so far.
 
Mas Ayoob wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
"Probably" doesn't cut it. What are the attorney's probabilities based on? It could be more probable that he would have been convicted depending on a variety of things related to the ammo.
Mas Ayoob wrote:
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.
Click to expand...
I am a little confused. My understanding was that courts never take any prosecuted party's word for anything unless it is corroborated by other testimony or evidence. After all, have you ever met a suspect who admitted to guilt before the trial was over? :rolleyes:
 
Quote:
Mas Ayoob wrote:
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.

"Probably" doesn't cut it. What are the attorney's probabilities based on? It could be more probable that he would have been convicted depending on a variety of things related to the ammo.

Quote:
Mas Ayoob wrote:
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.

I am a little confused. My understanding was that courts never take any prosecuted party's word for anything unless it is corroborated by other testimony or evidence. After all, have you ever met a suspect who admitted to guilt before the trial was over?
Click to expand...

Phil, let me respond to your comments above.

There's really nothing to be confused about. If factory ammo had been in the gun, as the State's crime lab presumed it was, that ammo would have left GSR consistent with the gun having been in the hand of the deceased when it discharged, and would have been consistent with Bias' account of the gun discharging as he tried to pull it out of her hand. They tested with Federal +P consistent with the headstamps of the reloaded brass, not with the ultra-light handloads that did not leave GSR at that distance. The refusal to take the defendant's statements or reloading records into account left the false impression that because of the lack of GSR on the body, she must have been shot from a greater distance by her husband, the only other person present. This led to his conviction on the lesser count of manslaughter, despite the facts that she had attempted gun suicide before and he had no motive to kill her.

Trial attorneys' assessment of outcomes if critical evidence had been allowed instead of being excluded as it was here "doesn't cut it"??? What DOES "cut it" by your standards." The opinions of internet speculators with axes to grind and little if any understanding of the case?
 
Rimrod, you sure jump around a lot for a guy who claims to be disabled. You ask if I think you're still a coward after you finally put your name on your attacks. No, I don't. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you gave your real name, and I think that should expiate previous cowardice. Doesn't make up for your unwarranted attacks on two railroaded fellow armed citizens Danny Bias and Harold Fish, though. (You could, however, cover that with a simple apology.)

I'm sorry that you have to take all those opiates, and I hope you get better, and I can even accept for the sake of argument that they caused you to forget critical points about the matter under discussion. Didn't know they made the patient so vitriolic. Perhaps it was a side effect that caused you to write:

If you're wondering why I didn't PM you, it's because I've written to magazines you've written for before, long before the cyber age, and actually used my real name and address. But since you kept writing, and didn't die from a colon blockage, I assumed you never got my letters, or at least didn't care for my opinons.
Click to expand...

Nice. Good that we're not getting personal, huh?

You were unclear on the concept, though. Nobody is going to die from a colon blockage because of YOUR overproduction of fecal matter here.

This thread might, though.
 
Mas Ayoob said:
If factory ammo had been in the gun, as the State's crime lab presumed it was, that ammo would have left GSR consistent with the gun having been in the hand of the deceased when it discharged, and would have been consistent with Bias' account of the gun discharging as he tried to pull it out of her hand. They tested with Federal +P consistent with the headstamps of the reloaded brass, not with the ultra-light handloads that did not leave GSR at that distance.
Click to expand...
Hmmm . . . given the way they tested things, if the defendant had used super-hot handloads and they tested with factory ammo consistent with the headstamps, might they not conclude that the shooter was a bit closer than he actually was?
 
Rimrod, you sure jump around a lot for a guy who claims to be disabled.
Click to expand...

I guess you saw me out back on my trampoline, huh.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you gave your real name, and I think that should expiate previous cowardice. Doesn't make up for your unwarranted attacks on two railroaded fellow armed citizens Danny Bias and Harold Fish, though. (You could, however, cover that with a simple apology.)
Click to expand...

You have a real hangup with the username and I don't understand that. The people here that do use their real name is in a vast majority, or am I the only person you talk to? No moderator has ever said anything to me about using a 'net ninja' name but for some reason you come onto this thread and think everyone should abide by your rules. This is a forum and on forums it is accepted to use an alias, when I go to your forum I'll be sure to use my real name though. And if a ninja ever jumped out in front of me and said his name was Rimrod I would probably laugh myself to death. I'm surprised to see you find it so threatening.

If I apologized to Harold Fish and Danny Bias I would have to apologize to O.J. Simpson and Paris Hilton, along with a host of other people. Or are people only railroaded if they happen to own a gun? I have seen a lot of crimes committed by legal gun owners that weren't innocent and weren't railroaded. If you believe they were that's fine, but I don't have to agree with you. Wether you know it or not.

Nice. Good that we're not getting personal, huh?
Click to expand...

You've called me a coward, blamed me for backpedaling when you were obviously not ready my posts, mocking my disability and taunted me into a discussion when I tried to back out because I didn't want to talk to you and now you are saying I am getting personal? It has nothing to do with my use of opiates, the Percosets were the ones that made me irratable. Morphine makes you relaxed and not bitter at all, maybe you should try some.

You call yourself a master of self defense but here you are nothing but offensive, why? I have repeatedly tried to let this go but you just have to keep coming back.

If you really want to know why I don't want to talk to you, which I thought was clear enough, it's because I don't like to read fiction. And if Steven King ever said his stories were true, I wouldn't want to talk to him either. But if you do want to tell stories here why don't you tell us the one I heard about you getting thrown out of the Ohio Police Officers Training Academy? That was a real knee slapper. Or is your memory getting as bad as mine?

You want this closed I'll see what I can do.

Mods, this troll is stalking me.
 
Hank B: Not sure what you're getting at. The point at issue is courts refusing to accept the user's account of what was in the handload when it becomes critical to determine distance based on GSR evidence.

Rimrod: The Bias and Fish cases speak clearly to anyone who familiarizes themselves with the issues involved there. You badmouthed me by name from behind a net ninja mask; I called that cowardice; you offered what you said was a real name; and I said that as far as I was concerned that expiated the cowardice. You need to actually read the posts.

No one mocked your disability. I sincerely wish you recovery.

And, speaking of fiction, I would like to hear your story alleging that I got kicked out of OPOTA. Never happened. That's a new one.
 
Mas Ayoob wrote:Trial attorneys' assessment of outcomes if critical evidence had been allowed instead of being excluded as it was here "doesn't cut it"??? What DOES "cut it" by your standards." The opinions of internet speculators with axes to grind and little if any understanding of the case?
Click to expand...

"Doesn't cut it" means that someone made a statement [you] that was nebulous and without supporting information. The "probably...if..." construct is relatively meaningless without a "because...". I want the "because" part. That's my standard.

All that being said, I am an internet speculator, and I have little understanding of the case. Most of what I have to go on is right here in this thread. I think you can see my dilemma.
 
You badmouthed me by name from behind a net ninja mask...
Click to expand...

And this is what the whole thing is about, because you felt I soiled your name. It had nothing to do with Dan Bias because the statements I made were derived from the information you gave. There was nothing there that said he didn't do it and plenty that said he did. But the reason you kept attacking me, apparently looking through the forums to see where I was at and what I was printing and came into the forum in the first place was because you were mad that someone was saying something about you didn't like. You were only trying to taunt me to say what I really think to get me thrown off of here becaused I expressed an opinion that was unfavorable to you. Your attacks on "net ninjas" for using alias' and me for what I said about Fish and Bias were the same thing. You don't like people saying or doing stuff that goes against your grain and you get overly offensive when they do because you aren't able to handle criticism.
 
Rimrod:
You need to think before you post. Hell, dude, I'm handling the criticism now.;)

I still think you owe apologies to Bias and Fish. I never expected one from you myself.

And you apparently never expected to be called on your BS, which could explain why you're ricocheting all over the place. Anyone reading this can simply review the thread from beginning to end, see who started this, and see your pattern of evasion.

If you get thrown off of here, it'll be your own doing, not mine.

FALPhil:
Fair enough. Please go back over the thread, beginning to end, and tell me which parts you feel need to be further explained.
 
Rimrod, simmer down. No one is stalking you, least of all Mas.

As far as using real names, Rich Lucibella, our beloved host (:D), has often commented upon saying things behind a user name that we wouldn't say if our own names were attached to the post. And he's correct. So it's not just Mas who calls BS when he sees it. And just in case, you'll find my real name in my sigline. It's been there for some time now.

Now, just so you don't get the wrong idea... Mas and I disagree on this particular issue. At least as far as it goes by region. I don't htink it's an issue here in Idaho. Mas says it can be an issue anywhere. I'm still waiting for all the district courts, to respond to my querries from over a year ago... And I've sent reminders!

So far, reloads have never been an Issue at Trial, in Idaho. But I don't have all the data yet to say it conclusively.

The issue with the Bias Case seems to be conclusive for that court in that area. That much I'll agree with Mas. In general, I'm beginning to lean towards what Mas says on this, specificly because of the way certain areas of the country view firearms and their owners.

I may be all wet, and time will prove or disprove my beliefs on the matter.

But... Agree or disagree, and do it with civility. This is not a request. It is what we, at The Firing Line expect of each and every member.
 
Regardless of potential legal issues, I fail to understand why folks would be using reloads for self defense. I can imagine only a few realistic times in which reloads might be used and these scenarios are going to happen on an extremely rare basis such that you end up using handloads/reloads for self defense.

1. Your gun no longer has commercial ammo made for it.
2. You truly can't afford to own a few rounds of non-commercial ammo
3. You truly feel your reloads are better than any commercial ammo.
4. You are on the way to, at, or coming home from hunting and use your hunting gun in self defense.
5. You are on the way to, at, or coming home from a range session and are have your gun loaded with range ammo when you have to defend yourself.
6. For some reason, the only ammo you own or possess at the time is reloads.

While Ayoob and I disagree a bunch on the issue of reloads and their potential nightmares in court, one point he has made the point several times is that by and large, factory ammo is better ammo in regard to consistent performance. This I wholeheartedly agree with. So you can avoid a potential legal hassles, or at least stave off a bunch of concerns by using factory ammo and more often than not, factory ammo is going to be the ammo that gives you the best performance and so it is the better choice for protecting your life. You may not have any legal concerns using reloads if they fail to perform properly. Dead folks don't go to court.

1-3 might be valid reasons for using reloads for self defense, especially 1 & 2 might be reasons that you can't get away from. 3 is just an opinion. If you truly think your ammo is better than anything commercial, then I think that is the best way to defend yourself, but there is a lot of commercial ammo out there that is very good. I have met enough reloaders to know that few folks ever consistently produce ammo that is better that commercial defensive ammo. I am not sure that I have ever met one. Reasons 4-6 can be bypassed by having commercial ammo with you when you head out.

Even though I feel the odds are quite slim that a person will ever be in a situation where GSR evidence will be foiled by the use of reloads (and yes, I know Ayoob has a couple of cases and so we know it is a potential risk, just rare) and cause problems for a self defense shooting trial, would it not just be in a person's best interest to spend a few bucks on factory ammo and bypass the crap? Reloads may not result in additional legal risk to you in the final analysis, but do you want to have to pay for your lawyer to justify your use of reloads?
 
Double Naught, you left out:

7. It's what I practice with to the tune of 5K to 7K rounds a year and anything else I would use, I would have no idea about how it performs.

All in all, any defending attorney worth half of what he is getting paid should be able to shut down the ammo issue quickly. I think HankB got it right. How do you measure lethality objectively? Any deer hunter knows that terminal energy is not prima facie evidence of lethality. Almost all measures, even empirical ones, are subjective and situational, and that includes Marshall & Sanow, Fackler, etc.

Believe me, in the big scheme of things, when you kill someone with a firearm, ammo will probably not be in the top 10 things you have to worry about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top