Legality of using handloads defensively

[Frank Ettin]

I'm not in the legal field but now days it seems most of the time a defendant has to prove his innocence instead of the prosecution having to prove his guilt

That's not quite right, but it helps to understand how things work with self defense.

Pleading self defense is very different from the usual defense strategy in a criminal case. The usual criminal defense is basically "I wasn't there, I didn't do it, you can't prove that I did it." This essentially involves attacking the prosecution's evidence to create a reasonable doubt.

But the defense of self defense is basically "I did it, but I was legally justified." That involves affirmatively introducing evidence to support your claim.

If you have met your burden of producing evidence supporting, prima facie, your claim of justification, it is now the prosecutor's burden of proof. The prosecutor must now convince the jury that the defendant's homicide was not justified, i. e., that the defendant's act, which he has admitted, did not meet the legal standard for self defense with lethal force. The prosecution's burden of proof in rebuttal to the defendant's prima facie case will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions the prosecutor may have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. BUT in that may not be a great a burden as it sounds.

The defendant has admitted committing an act of extreme violence on another human being. This is something that most people, probably including most of the jurors, naturally find repugnant. The defendant stands before the jury bearing the mark of Cain. It may not necessarily be easy for the defendant to convince a jury that his act of violence was justified. It may well be easier for the prosecutor to convince the jury that it was not. So the more convincing the defendant can make his case of justification, the harder it will be for the prosecutor to meets its burden of proving, and convincing a jury, that the defendant did not act in self defense.

 

[Musketeer]

There is established precedent of hand loads not being admissible evidence. Shootings are not justified until the shooter is cleared, no matter how clean the shooter believes they are.

Any evidence which can corroborate my story but which would not be admissible is not something I would not want to depend on. The factory ammo does its job fine. I choose to load what I know the court can verify any of my pertinent statements against.

No reloads for defense for me unless the Russians parachute in or the zombies rise up.

 

[Al Norris]

This is just a duplicate of an already ongoing thread.

That thread started in the handloading section and immediately turned into a legal discussion. The thread was dead for a few days. Many of us thought it might just go away. But... it got revived and Bud decided to move it and host it in the General Gun Discussion area.

That thread is here. Go there and discuss all you want (or until things get out of hand and its closed ).

Closed for being a duplicate.