Legal problems with reloads

[Frank Ettin]

First, it's not a "good shoot" unless the jury says so. If the jury convicts, they decided that it wasn't a "good shoot."

Yes, we know that there doesn't appear to be a case documenting jury bias because of the use of handloaded ammunition, but this would be a trial court matter, and trial court activities are not well publicized or generally published in the official legal reporters. Only decisions of courts of appeals on matters of law are regularly published.

But I know what I, as a prosecutor, could do with the information; and I also have seen lawyers significantly and effectively impugn the character and thus the credibility of witnesses. I know from post verdict interviews of jurors in matters in which I've been involved that jurors have discounted, and disbelieved testimony because of such attacks on a witness' character or because they found some aspect of a witness' conduct distasteful or inappropriate. And I have come to appreciate how important it can be to gain the trust and good will of a jury.

In addition, there really aren't a whole lot of self defense shootings, in the scheme of things, by private citizens. Most defensive uses of a gun by a private citizen do not result in the discharge of the gun. And of those cases that involve firing the gun, not all go to trial.

I would also suspect that the great majority of private citizens who own guns for self defense, including those with CCWs, are not necessarily enthusiasts. They most like own and carry factory stock guns loaded with ordinary, commercial ammunition. So in fact, it's pretty unlikely that there have been too many cases in which handloaded ammunition was used.

So as is often that case, it's unlikely that there is any real history that would help us predict how a case would play out in which handloaded ammunition were used. So we have to rely on general principles, and experience with other, reasonably analogous, fact situations. We have to do this sort of thing all the time: apply training, judgment and experience to novel situations.

Or someone could choose to go first. Personally, I think I'll pass up that opportunity.

 

[STAGE 2]

First, it's not a "good shoot" unless the jury says so. If the jury convicts, they decided that it wasn't a "good shoot."

But in saying that you've glossed over an important factor. If its a good shoot, then the case won't go to trial in the first place. If you have as much experience with prosecutors as you say you do, then you know full well that they aren't going to bother with a "good shoot".

So if a case actually does go to trial, then there is an additional factor that makes self defense questionable. If its a good shoot, then the police/DA isn't going to bother to look at what rounds were used. Thus its going to have to be somehting else that makes the action questionable.

Yes, we know that there doesn't appear to be a case documenting jury bias because of the use of handloaded ammunition, but this would be a trial court matter, and trial court activities are not well publicized or generally published in the official legal reporters. Only decisions of courts of appeals on matters of law are regularly published.

While trial court matters aren't published like other opinions, the cases and verdicts are researched and documented. So far I have never heard of a case where HP or reloaded ammo was the factor on which a case was decided, or even a contributing factor. That in itself speaks volumes.

If this was a winning argument, or even a substantial one, then prosecutors everywhere would be using it. They don't, and there's a reason for it.

So as is often that case, it's unlikely that there is any real history that would help us predict how a case would play out in which handloaded ammunition were used. So we have to rely on general principles, and experience with other, reasonably analogous, fact situations. We have to do this sort of thing all the time: apply training, judgment and experience to novel situations.

And this training, judgment, and experience suggests that reloads wouldn't be a factor at all because it too easy of an argument to dismiss.

Prosecutor: "And you didn't use factory ammo did you"
Defendant: "No"
Prosecutor: "You wanted to use ammo that was even deadlier didn't you"
Defendant: "No, I just do it cause its cheaper"

Or to appeal to the wonderful trendy theme of being "green" that everyone loves (including those soccer moms that will likely sit on the jury) "I reload because it allows me to recycle my casings and is more environmentally friendly."

If anything, its probably easier to dismiss the argument about reloads than it is to dismiss the argument about HP ammo. Any attorney worth his salt would not only make this a non issue, but could even make the prosecutor look foolish as well.

This argument is something gunwriters love to bring up because it sounds scary, fills pages, and gets the villagers talking. It does not, however, have any real world application. Should someone show me a case that says otherwise I'll reevaluate my opinion. Short of that however, this is a theory that is completely defunct.

 

[thallub]

But in saying that you've glossed over an important factor. If its a good shoot, then the case won't go to trial in the first place. If you have as much experience with prosecutors as you say you do, then you know full well that they aren't going to bother with a "good shoot".

"So if a case actually does go to trial, then there is an additional factor that makes self defense questionable. If its a good shoot, then the police/DA isn't going to bother to look at what rounds were used. Thus its going to have to be somehting else that makes the action questionable."




Exactly. Here in OK the prosecutor is not even required to take the case to a grand Jury. The prosecutor of Comanche county, Robert Schulte, recently declined to take two righteous shooting cases, one fatal, to the grand jury.



"While trial court matters aren't published like other opinions, the cases and verdicts are researched and documented. So far I have never heard of a case where HP or reloaded ammo was the factor on which a case was decided, or even a contributing factor. That in itself speaks volumes."

"If this was a winning argument, or even a substantial one, then prosecutors everywhere would be using it. They don't, and there's a reason for it."



Sheriff Jim Wilson, Handgun editor of Shooting Times magazine has researched this for years: So has a retired federal judge who collaborated with him. They could find no case where the use of re-loaded ammunition was an issue in a righteous shooting. Sheriff Wilson says to use reloaded ammo if that is what you want to use.

 

[Mas Ayoob]

As Fiddletown has aptly pointed out, very few people get shot with handloads, limiting the database.

A justified shooting SHOULDN'T go to trial, but they often do. It might be a political prosecution (can anyone have forgotten Mr. Nifong this soon?). It might be a misunderstanding of the evidence, as in the Bias case. Things like crime scene analysis, gunshot residue testing, and all of that, are what DETERMINE in the eyes of the criminal justice system what is or is not a "bad shooting." In the Bias case, the Court's refusal to allow GSR testing of the handloads in the weapon, which would have been consistent with Bias' account of what happened, led to his conviction according to both of his attorneys.

If you're going to be swimming with the sharks, why put more blood in the water than necessary? The use of easily replicable modern factory ammo prevents the GSR admissibility problem that got Bias convicted, and the "regular bullets weren't deadly enough for you" argument as well.

Thallub, I chatted with Jim Wilson and filled him in on the Bias and Kennedy cases. I haven't seen him recommend handloads for self-defense since. No one can find every case that's ever gone to court.

 

[HankB]

If you have as much experience with prosecutors as you say you do, then you know full well that they aren't going to bother with a "good shoot".

Not true. In Austin a couple of years ago there was a shooting where a CHL holder shot a guy who'd broken into his girlfriend's vehicle . . . the DA pulled out all the stops to prosecute, and despite his best efforts, the shooter was acquitted; it was a good shoot - a jury said so - but they still prosecuted him. Politics prompted this prosecution.

 

[Frank Ettin]

No one factor by itself is determinative. The factors are cumulative, and you try to control as much as you can. I’ll want to eliminate, to the extent possible, factors that could possibly have a negative effect on my position, at least those that don’t offer a compelling enough advantage to warrant the risk.

I don’t see that I gain anything using handloads for self defense compared with quality, commercial ammunition. (I do gain a material advantage using HPs, and can also point to the fact that virtually all police agencies use HPs.)

If I have to use my gun for self defense, it is a certainty that my conduct will be subject to intense investigation by the police and the district attorney. It is very likely that my conduct will come before the grand jury. It is a distinct possibility that I will be required to answer criminal charges and also defend my conduct against a civil claim for damages. My freedom and property will be at risk. I will have to spend at lest tens of thousands of dollars, and possibly a hundred thousand dollars or more, to defend myself. So it strikes me as prudent to do whatever I reasonably can do ahead of time to lay as good a foundation as possible for a good result for me.

Of course, anyone who wants to use handloads for carry ammunition is welcome to do so. It won’t be my problem. However, I will not.

 

[STAGE 2]

A justified shooting SHOULDN'T go to trial, but they often do.

What do you quantify as often?

It might be a political prosecution (can anyone have forgotten Mr. Nifong this soon?).

If thats the case, then handloads will be irrelevant (since the prosecutor will try and take the case to trial and will likely lose as Nifong did)

In the Bias case, the Court's refusal to allow GSR testing of the handloads in the weapon, which would have been consistent with Bias' account of what happened, led to his conviction according to both of his attorneys.

But with all due respect Mr. Ayoob, we are talking about self defense cases here. The Bias case has nothing to do with self defense. When a wife gets shot in the head and at the time she was shot both the husband and wife were holding the gun, that is going to go to trial no matter what. Thats not a matter of self defense, or a "good shoot". Thats a whacked situation that is guaranteed to see the inside of a courtroom.

If you're going to be swimming with the sharks, why put more blood in the water than necessary? The use of easily replicable modern factory ammo prevents the GSR admissibility problem that got Bias convicted, and the "regular bullets weren't deadly enough for you" argument as well.

I don't reload as I dont have the time or the patience. However what I don't like is when a single instance (or lack thereof) gets magnified to something it clearly is not. Saying people shouldn't carry reloads because of the potential liability is no different than saying that people shoudn't carry or own a gun because of the potential liability. No one here accepts the former (even though there are plenty of cases where firearms have resulted in liability), so why should they accept the latter.

No one factor by itself is determinative. The factors are cumulative, and you try to control as much as you can. I’ll want to eliminate, to the extent possible, factors that could possibly have a negative effect on my position, at least those that don’t offer a compelling enough advantage to warrant the risk.

Thats both legally and generally dishonest. There are many factors that are determinative. Its fine to control as many factors as you want to, but there a difference between doing something because it makes you feel better and doing it because there is a legitimate legal liability.

If I have to use my gun for self defense, it is a certainty that my conduct will be subject to intense investigation by the police and the district attorney. It is very likely that my conduct will come before the grand jury.

Thats not true either. There have been many documented good shootings that have had zero investigation other than what was formally required because the conditions were obvious.

It is a distinct possibility that I will be required to answer criminal charges and also defend my conduct against a civil claim for damages.

And again, that depends on what the conditions of the shoot are.

My freedom and property will be at risk. I will have to spend at lest tens of thousands of dollars, and possibly a hundred thousand dollars or more, to defend myself. So it strikes me as prudent to do whatever I reasonably can do ahead of time to lay as good a foundation as possible for a good result for me.

Here's the straight dope. As a private citizen, the odds that you will be involved in a defensive shooting are less than 1%. Assuming that you are a prudent person and not some trigger happy moron itching for a fight (which I assume a majority of gun owners aren't) if you pull your gun its because you had a legitimate fear of serious bodily injury or death. As such, its likely (as proven by the stats) that the DA will never touch the case, let alone send it to the grand jury.

So in order for reloaded ammo to even come into play, all these things which are completely unlikely to happen, must happen. And if it does come into play, your attorney has to be incompetent enough to let it slide without addressing it.

I don't think I'm off base by saying that this is in the league of being struck by lightning, except with this you have some discretion in the matter if it does occur. The fact that no one, including Mr. Ayoob, can't point to a case where reloads where the major issue, or where they were even a factor in a defensive shooting, is definitive.

Folks should do as they please, however calling this a problem (or even an issue) isn't accurate.

 

[Mas Ayoob]

Stage Two, I have to respectfully disagree with you on a few points.

I don't think it's right for you to call Fiddletown's assessment of cumulative argument factors "legally and generally dishonest." Most anyone who works regularly in the justice system, particularly at the trial level, would tell you the same thing he wisely told you.

You misunderstand the relevance of the Bias case. He had loaded home-made ammo in a gun intended for home defense, and that gun ended up being used by a member of the household in a way he had not expected. That could happen to any of us.

In any case, what makes Bias relevant is that it's a clear cut, documented case where the court refused to accept the word of the handloader for what was in the fatal cartridge. This precluded testing that would probably have exonerated Bias. NO ONE HAS YET BEEN ABLE TO SHOW, IN ANY OF THESE FORUMS, A CASE WHERE A COURT DID ACCEPT THE WORD OF THE DEFENDANT FOR THIS. Thus, if distance determination becomes critical to the judgment of who's telling the truth and whether it was indeed a "clean shoot" -- as often happens -- the defendant with reloads is hamstrung.

 

[Wildalaska]

We tend to forget how some ordinary folks see the world.

And those are the folks sitting on juries.

Voir direing (look a madeup legal term ) yourself into 12 sophisticated gun owners is a statistical impossibility

WildhaveyouhuggedyourS&W15todayAlaska ™

 

[STAGE 2]

I don't think it's right for you to call Fiddletown's assessment of cumulative argument factors "legally and generally dishonest." Most anyone who works regularly in the justice system, particularly at the trial level, would tell you the same thing he wisely told you.

I do work regularly in the justice system including time in the district attorneys office. To say that everything is cumulative and nothing determinative is simply not true. There are some factors that will be determinative.

You misunderstand the relevance of the Bias case. He had loaded home-made ammo in a gun intended for home defense, and that gun ended up being used by a member of the household in a way he had not expected. That could happen to any of us.

And again, if we are going to inject some reality into this discussion, the odds of any one of us coming home at the very moment a family member is pointing a gun at their head, and then having the time to struggle and ultimately having the gun go off is so incredibly small that it doesn't even statiscally register.

To use this as a basis for stating that people shouldn't carry reloads would be no different that stating that people shouldn't carry condition 1 with 1911's because of the potential for the safety to fail. Both of these are lightning striking situations.

But if we are going to pick at nits, then Bias himself does shoulder some responsibility for his fate as it was irresponsible for him to allow someone who was suicidal to have access to his firearms despite the fact that a year had passed. That (an obvious common sense measure) more than anything could have prevented this mess.

In any case, what makes Bias relevant is that it's a clear cut, documented case where the court refused to accept the word of the handloader for what was in the fatal cartridge. This precluded testing that would probably have exonerated Bias. NO ONE HAS YET BEEN ABLE TO SHOW, IN ANY OF THESE FORUMS, A CASE WHERE A COURT DID ACCEPT THE WORD OF THE DEFENDANT FOR THIS. Thus, if distance determination becomes critical to the judgment of who's telling the truth and whether it was indeed a "clean shoot" -- as often happens -- the defendant with reloads is hamstrung.

My guess is that there is no other case simply because handloads are not an issue in 99.9% of situations. But again these are apples and oranges. The Bias case was an attempted suicide. Self defense is an entirely different matter. There will be other physical evidence such as the identity of the attacker, any injuries to the shooter, and possibly a weapon.

There is also a problem with how you phrased your statement. Aside from taking judicial notice of something, a court isn't going to "accept the word of a defendant" for anything. Thats why parties present evidence. Its the job of they jury to determine which facts it finds believable.

In light of this, I have several questions. First, did Bias take the stand. If so, did he testify as to what the rounds were loaded with. Secondly, did the defense attorney have its own gun expert? Did the defense attorney bring up the fact that the loads that were tested were not the loads in the gun?

You see the problem that I have with this case is that with all this conflicting evidence I don't see how the prosecution could get beyond a reasonable doubt unless there are either facts that we haven't heard, such as any motive Bias might have had to kill his wife, or the attorneys were asleep at the wheel.

However, to address the larger issue, it is not accurate to take a single case such as this one and use it as a rule for what other courts will do. Zero IS statistically significant when trying to prove something it not the case. One is NOT statistically significant when trying to prove something is the case.

What happened to one man in a bizarre set of circumstances cannot be carried over to be representative of the liability of handloads in general.

 

[Mas Ayoob]

Stage 2, if that were true, don't you think after years of debate on this issue that SOMEONE would have found a case where a court took the defendant's word for what was in the loads? It doesn't seem to have happened.

We agree that the vast majority of self-defense shootings don't involve handloads. Which would make the defendant something of a test case.

Don't know about you, bro, but my momma didn't raise me to be a test case. More over, evidence admissibility won't change between an "is it self-defense or murder" case and an "is it a suicide or a murder" case. Bias is the test case we have so far, the canary in the mine shaft that's warning us it's very dangerous to go there.

Needing GSR evidence to prove distance is hardly a "lightning strike occurrence." Most armed citizen self-defense shootings occur at close range.

 

[nobody_special]

Mr. Ayoob, here's what I don't understand... the defense has the right to introduce evidence, right? In the Bias case, why didn't the defense introduce the ammunition as evidence, possibly with the results of an independent forensic lab attesting to the composition of the ammunition?

If it was ruled as inadmissible, why? What's the basis for such a ruling? This seems to be an issue of fact, not law, and as such should be presentable to the jury. At the very least, a ruling that such evidence is inadmissible would seem to be grounds for appeal.

 

[STAGE 2]

Stage 2, if that were true, don't you think after years of debate on this issue that SOMEONE would have found a case where a court took the defendant's word for what was in the loads? It doesn't seem to have happened.

We agree that the vast majority of self-defense shootings don't involve handloads. Which would make the defendant something of a test case.

Don't know about you, bro, but my momma didn't raise me to be a test case.

With all due respect, you really didn't address any of my questions or anything that was said.

Saying you don't want to be a test case sounds great but doesn't really mean anything in light of how rare these situations are. I don't know about you, but if I lived my life trying to avoid the less than 1% I could never leave my house, much less carry or own a gun.

As far as there not being a case where the court "took the word of the defendant" (which I have already pointed out is something that they don't do) you assume that such a case is out there. I dont know that there is. If there isn't, then that should tell you how irrelevant handloads usually are.

More over, evidence admissibility won't change between an "is it self-defense or murder" case and an "is it a suicide or a murder" case. Bias is the test case we have so far, the canary in the mine shaft that's warning us it's very dangerous to go there.

Needing GSR evidence to prove distance is hardly a "lightning strike occurrence." Most armed citizen self-defense shootings occur at close range.

Admissibility doesn't change, but motives and appearance do. If an intruder is shot in a persons home at 3 in the morning, it looks alot different than when a wife is shot in the head and her husbands prints are on the gun. Thats why this isn't a test case for reloads and self defense. There was no self defense here, and that is a HUGE factor with juries. That frames the entire issue.

But I would still like my questions answered with the specifics of the Bias case.

 

[Frank Ettin]

[1] Stage 2, I don't know what you've done in the justice system, but it's certainly my guess that you're not a lawyer.

FWIW, I practiced law for over 30 years. My views are based on my fairly intimate familiarity with the realities of our legal system. Understanding those realities is how I've supported myself and family for over 30 years -- keeping a roof over our heads and food on the table, and allowing me to retire before the age of 60.

For almost 15 years leading up to my retirement as of the first of last year, I was a senior lawyer and vice president of a Fortune 200 company. My responsibilities included managing and controlling litigation and making tactical decisions with trial counsel. This included: deciding what potential witnesses for our side would most likely make a favorable impression on a judge or jury; deciding how to rehabilitate witnesses for our side who could make an unfavorable impression on a judge or jury; and deciding whether and how to impugn opposition witnesses. I also guided management in the formulation of policies and practices that would resonate favorably with a jury if it came to that. The stuff we’ve been discussing here is all stuff I earned my living doing. I was very good at my job.

[2] Saying someone shouldn't carry reloads because of possible legal risks is very different than saying that someone shouldn't have a gun because of the potential liability.

Actually, what some of us have been saying is (1) if you have to use your gun, your use of reloads could possibly make your task of effectively accounting for your actions more difficult, more complicated and more uncertain; and (2) since you really gain nothing over good quality, available factory ammunition by using reloads, it is therefore unwise to do so. Things could be very hard for you (or maybe not -- but how much do you want to bet on having an easy time of it?), why voluntarily do something ahead of time that could just possibly make things even harder?

On the other hand, we here are all sold on the utility of having a gun. At the same time, we still pay attention to safety, become familiar with applicable law, train and practice, and maintain and store our guns as appropriate consistent with minimizing risk while preserving utility.

[3] It seems that you are prepared to assume that, based on statistics, a private citizen who uses a gun in self defense is unlikely to be pursued by the DA.

First, I'd be curious to know where you found your statistics. Beyond that, we would of course all hope that if we had to defend ourselves or a loved one, the situation would be so obvious that it would not be pursued. But personally, I'm not inclined to fully trust my fate to statistics. If I could do something ahead of time that would improve my position, however slightly and however speculatively, in the event I became caught in a statistical anomaly, while at the same time not disadvantaging myself, why should I not do it?

[4] Of course a competent defense attorney would address the question of reloads if that's what you were carrying.

But why even create the situation so that your defense attorney may have to address it? Everything he has to deal with increases the risk and expense. The more complicated things are the harder it may be get the jury to focus on the things that may really matter the most to your defense.

I'm glad you don't think that carrying reloads could be a problem. Of course it's not for you, since you don't reload. And it's not for me, since I wouldn't carry reloads in any case. The folks reading this thread, including my arguments, those of Mas Ayoob and yours, can decide for themselves.

 

[Wildalaska]

But why even create the situation so that your defense attorney may have to address it? Everything he has to deal with increases the risk and expense.

Bingo.

First lecture I always gave to a potential Defendant or an actual Defendant was:

"Don't say or do anything that may need MORE explaining at trial"

WildhaveyouhuggedyourSAloadedtodayAlaska ™

 

[Mas Ayoob]

What Fiddletown said.

And...

We 2, your argument as to likelihood doesn't hold. If YOU are the one carrying handloads, and YOU are the one involved in a very close range shooting, the chance that gunshot residue evidence will play a key part in supporting your testimony of what happened now approaches 100%.

The chance of needing our gun is LESS than 1% on any given day. If you "prepare for the worst so you can live your best," that's still worth carrying the gun. Our chances of being involved in a car crash are LESS than 1% on any given day, but we still fasten our seatbelts. Preparing for post-shooting attacks and cutting them off before they happen is a directly analogous practice.

Nobody Special: The Bias defense tried desperately to get it introduced. The prosecution argued successfully that what was in the fatal cartridge was not necessarily what was in the other rounds remaining in the cylinder of the death weapon. "The defendant literally manufactured the evidence." There is also the argument that testing what is left in the death weapon is consumptive testing that destroys the evidence. My own feeling is that such testing is what the evidence is FOR, but I don't make the rules of evidence.

We all need to remember that the reality of the fight -- in the street first, in the courtroom second -- won't be about how we think things should be, it will be about how things are. I don't like it any better than We 2, but this is how things are.

 

[Perldog007]

We all need to remember that the reality of the fight -- in the street first, in the courtroom second -- won't be about how we think things should be, it will be about how things are.

+1 Just thought that was worth repeating.

Until you have had a ride through the system courtesy of some progressive anti-gun types you can't imagine how things will be. You don't want to imagine it. Winning does not always mean victory it can hurt even if you win the court fight. Losing always means loss.

Free Country, do what you will. I stoke up on factory. YMMV. Call me scared? Yup, guilty.

 

[STAGE 2]

Stage 2, I don't know what you've done in the justice system, but it's certainly my guess that you're not a lawyer.

Then you'd be guessing wrong. I am a practicing attorney whos experience includes working in the district attorneys office. Since what we are talking about here is what a prosecutor is likely to do, then firsthand knowledge is certianly something that is relevant don't you think?

For almost 15 years leading up to my retirement as of the first of last year, I was a senior lawyer and vice president of a Fortune 200 company. My responsibilities included managing and controlling litigation and making tactical decisions with trial counsel. This included: deciding what potential witnesses for our side would most likely make a favorable impression on a judge or jury; deciding how to rehabilitate witnesses for our side who could make an unfavorable impression on a judge or jury; and deciding whether and how to impugn opposition witnesses. I also guided management in the formulation of policies and practices that would resonate favorably with a jury if it came to that. The stuff we’ve been discussing here is all stuff I earned my living doing. I was very good at my job.

Thats all well and good, but have you ever tried a criminal case?

Saying someone shouldn't carry reloads because of possible legal risks is very different than saying that someone shouldn't have a gun because of the potential liability.

Why? You are advocating not doing something because there is a theoretical risk involved. There are legal risks to carrying a gun. That is beyond argument. You are simply making an arbitrary distinction based on your personal preference.

Actually, what some of us have been saying is (1) if you have to use your gun, your use of reloads could possibly make your task of effectively accounting for your actions more difficult, more complicated and more uncertain; and (2) since you really gain nothing over good quality, available factory ammunition by using reloads, it is therefore unwise to do so. Things could be very hard for you (or maybe not -- but how much do you want to bet on having an easy time of it?), why voluntarily do something ahead of time that could just possibly make things even harder?

And as I've said, I personally don't use reloads. However what I have been objecting to is the definitive tone in which you and Mr. Ayoob have stated your conclusions. You of all people should know that the single case which is being used as this basis would not be considered as either authoritative or on point.

Nowhere have I said that under any circumstances reloads will not be a problem. What I have said is that the attention that this issue is getting is completely disproportionate to its actual impact on real life, legally or otherwise.

It seems that you are prepared to assume that, based on statistics, a private citizen who uses a gun in self defense is unlikely to be pursued by the DA.

While I have no doubt that there are some localities that may buck convention, yes I believe that an overwhelming majority of cases in which a citizen uses a gun because they legitimately believed they were in fear for their life the DA won't do anything.

First, I'd be curious to know where you found your statistics. Beyond that, we would of course all hope that if we had to defend ourselves or a loved one, the situation would be so obvious that it would not be pursued. But personally, I'm not inclined to fully trust my fate to statistics. If I could do something ahead of time that would improve my position, however slightly and however speculatively, in the event I became caught in a statistical anomaly, while at the same time not disadvantaging myself, why should I not do it?

Personal experience. 9 times out of 10, when our office became involved in a shooting case, it was because there was a plus factor. It was usually something along the lines of an argument prior to the shooting, prior animosity between the parties, alcohol, etc. Contrary to what seems to be the popular belief on this board, prosecutors aren't a bunch of people with loads of time to sift through cases, looking for someone to stick it too. Quite the opposite, they are usually the cliche of the overworked and underpaid bunch. As a result, cases are prioritized and the average office isn't going to looking for impropriety.

To address your second point, there are 2 arguments going on here. First is what people should do as their personal choice. Second is what the potential liability of using reloads. My disagreement is with the latter and not the former. I would never begin to tell anyone what rounds to choose or what gun to carry. If not carrying reloads make you feel better, thats perfectly fine. What bothers me is when people start telling others what to do with what seems to be a serious lack of foundation.

But why even create the situation so that your defense attorney may have to address it? Everything he has to deal with increases the risk and expense. The more complicated things are the harder it may be get the jury to focus on the things that may really matter the most to your defense.

Because you are ignoring the fact of what makes others comfortable. I have no doubt that there are many on this board who "roll their own" and only feel comfortable carrying their own loads for defense. Manufacturers turn out duds now and again, and they have the ability to eliminate this possibility. You are effectively telling them their fear is irrelevant but yours is real without any tangible justification.

We 2, your argument as to likelihood doesn't hold. If YOU are the one carrying handloads, and YOU are the one involved in a very close range shooting, the chance that gunshot residue evidence will play a key part in supporting your testimony of what happened now approaches 100%.

I assume this was directed towards me. Your assertion doesn't really make sense. The closer the distance between two parties, the greater the perception of danger becomes. In other words someone claiming they were in fear for their lives at a distance of 5 yards is much more believable than at a distance of 20 yards.

But here is the even bigger problem, and what distinguishes the Bias case from traditional self defense cases. Self defense is an affirmative defense. That means the shooter admits that he shot the perp. In the Bias case, the defendant's contention was that he did not shoot his wife, but that the gun went off in the struggle.

As a result, gunshot residue isn't going to be the sticking point upon which the prosecutor rests his case. Rather its going to be on whether the shooters perception was reasonable. This will be determined by physical evidence such as a weapon or any eye witness testimony.

The chance of needing our gun is LESS than 1% on any given day. If you "prepare for the worst so you can live your best," that's still worth carrying the gun. Our chances of being involved in a car crash are LESS than 1% on any given day, but we still fasten our seatbelts. Preparing for post-shooting attacks and cutting them off before they happen is a directly analogous practice.

But at what point do we consider reality. I don't wear a bulletproof vest when I go out in public. It could one day save my life, but the odds of it ever being needed are so remote that it wouldn't make sense.

As I said before, you are ignoring the opinions of people that use or prefer reloads. That is what they feel comfortable using. As I'm sure you'll agree, feeling comfortable with your carry weapon is very important. So, at the end of the day you are telling people to give up their sense of comfort. It would be one thing if there was a mountain of evidence to support your assertion. However to do this for a single case that isn't on point isn't realistic.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Well Stage 2, let me put it this way, I simply don't buy your position.

Litigation and jury psychology are substantially the same in criminal and in civil matters, albeit the standard of proof is different.

My posts speak for themselves, and I'm content to leave it at that.

 

[Wildalaska]

As I said before, you are ignoring the opinions of people that use or prefer reloads. That is what they feel comfortable using. As I'm sure you'll agree, feeling comfortable with your carry weapon is very important. So, at the end of the day you are telling people to give up their sense of comfort. It would be one thing if there was a mountain of evidence to support your assertion. However to do this for a single case that isn't on point isn't realistic.

Ah, but Stage moi droog, arent you ignoring by that argument, my clear adage:

"Don't say or do anything that may need MORE explaining at trial"

"Handloads" are just one other little thingy that needs to be explained...

Simple is better, sometimes.

WildhaveyouhuggedyourDaewooK1todayAlaska TM