Niche ammo in court(Buffalo Bore,etc)

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are surely aware that, unless those facts were known to the defendant before the incident, they will not support a defense of justification.
Click to expand...

I never implied they would. The DA would certainly consider those facts on considering if he thought a crime had been committed by the victim in the first place. Anything you use as an affirmative defense is something you need to articulate ie; "He was charging me with a big knife shooting some religious expletive and I swear to God he had made it to within 4 feet of me before I could get my gun out and fire as I stepped behind a display counter."

In this situation does 4 feet or 10 feet change anything?
 
In this situation does 4 feet or 10 feet change anything?
Click to expand...

When a jury either watches me lie on the stand or hears that I lied to the investigators it in fact does influence things. There is a reason that lawyers BEG their clients not to make a statement without representation and that those statements are carefully considered before being made.

Are you really arguing that it does not?
 
Your actions are argued and that's it. Someone will cite one or two cases but what I am saying is that it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

I agree Wild-Cat. Never heard of 'boutique' ammo being the reason someone was convicted. I doubt they will find a case anywhere to show that was the reason.

Deaf
 
Nanuk said:
. . . . I swear to God he had made it to within 4 feet of me before I could get my gun out and fire as I stepped behind a display counter."

In this situation does 4 feet or 10 feet change anything?
Click to expand...
Does it change anything? That depends. Who do I represent? ;)
 
Never heard of 'boutique' ammo being the reason someone was convicted. I doubt they will find a case anywhere to show that was the reason.
Click to expand...
I cannot imagine how it could ever be the reason.

I suppose that some ammunition and its packaging could perhaps combine with other things to tip the scales in a case in which the case for the defense was not convincing.

You won't find me carrying it--I like high quality stuff that has been tested to meet FBI standards, if I can get it.

Now, if I were in a position in which I had to carry a .32-20 or a .38 S&W for some reason, I might have to use an off brand.

Is there any such stuff out there that might pose a risk? I don't know, but I rend to doubt it.
 
Not directly on the topic of this post - but if you are ever called up for jury duty, don't try to get out of it. Just do your civic duty and serve. It is VERY educational, especially to be involved in the discussions and dynamics that go on inside a the jury deliberation room, and how people can apply completely different weightings, pre-conceptions, and their own brand of "common sense" to the evidence presented.

It's a sobering experience, and will make you think several times about what is and is not important.

The old saying about better to be tried by 12, was from someone who was not tried by 12. I would try to avoid that as much as the part about being carried by 6.

To the original topic - I carry Buffalo Bore products in a couple of my self-defense firearms and don't worry about it. In one case, a .38, I carry the 158gr lead semi-wadcutter HP, which used to be called the "FBI round" because they still make it and nobody else seems to. In another, a .380, their hotter loads tend to improve the effectiveness of a marginal round. Still weaker than a 9mm by a fair margin.

So the argument would have to be along the lines of "so, you carried a "hot" cartridge to try to make your weak gun a little closer to being useful?" Yep.
 
So it is impossible to use an affirmative defense if the "victim" does not have a criminal record?
Click to expand...

Was the "victim" a mutual combatant, initial aggressor, some actions preclude you from that. Someones record has no bearing on the current situation other than to indicate that a person with no past criminal association is very unlikely to try and rob a 3 time convicted felon.

More to the point, in a criminal trial, is a record that the defendant was not aware of ALWAYS admissible?
Click to expand...

Ohhh you used always...... Generally speaking, information unavailable at the time cannot be used to justify anything. Many times as an LEO I knew in advance who I was stopping.

I was led to believe years ago that it was generally not because the defendant's frame of mind could not be influenced by facts he or she did not know.
Click to expand...

Exactly
And really? Did you just assert, as a matter of fact, that no violent criminal attack has been carried out by someone without a criminal record?
Click to expand...

No, that would be pretty stupid. There are many ways someone can be made more prone to violence, emotion being the most common. However, as I stated, armed robbery is not a threshold crime. Nobody wakes up and says " I am gonna go rob 7-11 instead of going to work."
 
The part people seem to be missing is that a violent attacker will have a lengthy record of criminal association and crime leading up to this.
Click to expand...

I was questioning this statement. Is this statement true as it was made because there were no caveats with it?

Armed robbery for example is not a crime one starts with
Click to expand...

This is not a caveat. This is a premise made to support the above statement. Is this statement, by itself, true?

I think you are taking some broad generalizations and passing them off as truths. I'm not certain they are.
 
I was questioning this statement. Is this statement true as it was made because there were no caveats with it?
Click to expand...

You left out the rest of the paragraph with gives it context.
 
The part people seem to be missing is that a violent attacker will have a lengthy record of criminal association and crime leading up to this. Armed robbery for example is not a crime one starts with. The BG in this case may be well known to the local police, may even be currently wanted.
Click to expand...

There is the rest of the paragraph. I see a statement there (the first sentence) followed by a supporting premise, followed by a theoretical possibility based on the first two sentences. What is the context that gives some caveat to the first sentence that I am missing? Did you simply mistype in leaving out some caveat or am I missing something?
 
There is the rest of the paragraph. I see a statement there (the first sentence) followed by a supporting premise, followed by a theoretical possibility based on the first two sentences. What is the context that gives some caveat to the first sentence that I am missing? Did you simply mistype in leaving out some caveat or am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Ok, lets play the game your way. In the example I have used what 2 times? You show me where a person without a criminal record committed an armed robbery. I am not talking about any crime of violence because that water is far too muddy since many people have been charged with crimes of violence for punching a wall or sofa during a domestic disturbance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top