Recent cases question

[JohnKSa]

Is it not a hazard when the prosecutor asks what did if you self-load, and you describe a 147gr bullet in 9mm loaded to a velocity of 1200 fps and he counters with the non-existence of any commercially-manufactured round and suggests you purposely loaded that round with the intention of destroying another human being should the occasion arise, circumstances notwithstanding, of course, which suggests to the jury that YOU are the villain?

I would never put myself in a situation where I might have to answer a question like that. For, I think, very obvious reasons.

Some people think it will never come up, or perhaps feel like they have a really good answer. Everyone gets to make their own decisions.

I like to keep in mind that experience is something you get right AFTER you really needed it. I prefer to learn by other means. Experience is, without question, an excellent teacher, but at the same time a very hard teacher.

"If you find yourself in a hole,stop digging" "I do not know much about bullets" was a good exit.

It was because there was no way for the prosecutor to show otherwise.

For someone who spends a lot of time discussing ammunition and self-defense online or who can be shown to reload their own ammunition, attempting an exit like that could easily be shown to be disingenuous which could be very damaging to one's defense.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

"If you find yourself in a hole,stop digging" "I do not know much about bullets" was a good exit.

It was because there was no way for the prosecutor to show otherwise.

For someone who spends a lot of time discussing ammunition and self-defense online or who can be shown to reload their own ammunition, attempting an exit like that could easily be shown to be disingenuous which could be very damaging to one's defense.

For Kyle Rittenhouse, it was a perfect answer, and I'm sure it was also the truth. He's 18 years old and was only 17 at the time of the incident. I'm sure there are 17 year olds who know how to reload, but I don't think that's common. He didn't even keep the rifle at his own home.

I reload -- but for handgun. If someone asked me about the ammo in my AR-15, my answer would be that XM193 is the cheapest, most available ammunition for the AR-15, and it was good enough for the government to issue to me to defend myself in Vietnam, so it should be good enough to defend myself here at home.

 

[44 AMP]

Must be the different times. When I was 17 I was reloading for .308 Win, .30-30, and .22-250 along with .45acp, .357 magnum/.38 Spl and .38 Super.

,,and he counters with the non-existence of any commercially-manufactured round...

I understand your point, and your concern and I understand the prosecutor's point and motives, but the fact remains that the absence of a factory produced round means exactly doodlely squat. The prosecutor is counting on the jury not knowing this and so accepting his implication as if it were valid, when it is not.

I'm pretty sure that, were I to respond to such kinds of questions honestly, I'd probably wind up facing contempt of court charges,...

Things like this always remind me of the old joke,
Lawyer: Did you check the victim's breathing?
ME (testifying) : No, I did not.
Lawyer: Did you check his pulse?
ME: No, I did not.
Lawyer: Did you check his blood pressure?
ME: No, I did not.
Lawyer: SO, in fact, you did nothing to determine if the victim was still alive.
ME: No, Councilor, I did not. The man's brain was sitting in a jar on my desk, but I suppose he could have been out there practicing law, somewhere....

 

[Double Naught Spy]

but the fact remains that the absence of a factory produced round means exactly doodlely squat.

But there are the Ayoobian warnings to the contrary that everybody worries about...

 

[JohnKSa]

I reload -- but for handgun. If someone asked me about the ammo in my AR-15, my answer would be that XM193 is the cheapest, most available ammunition for the AR-15, and it was good enough for the government to issue to me to defend myself in Vietnam, so it should be good enough to defend myself here at home.

If asked about the difference between JHP and FMJ, you would need to give a better answer than KR because it could easily be shown that you have a lot more knowledge on the topic than KR. Yes, it was a perfect answer for him, but it wouldn't work for any of us.

Second, I don't think I would be interested in having to say that I picked a particular type of ammunition for self-defense because the military issues it. The military performs offensive operations, not just defensive operations and personally, I wouldn't care to answer questions in a self-defense case about why I thought I needed "military ammunition" in my self-defense gun.

 

[44 AMP]

The military doesn't issue anyone ammunition to defend themselves with. Forget that idea, right out of the gate.

The logic is simple, if a bit brutal. Protecting the individual soldier's life is not priority #1. Completing the mission, is.

We use FMJ ("ball") simply because it functions the best under all possible conditions. The fact that it also complies with the Hague accords (which we never signed) is simply a plus. The military accepts the fact that the FMJ bullet is the least efficient in stopping power, compared to SP and HP designs, but in their view, the reliable feeding of FMJ over other designs outweighs its inefficiency.

Put another way, a ball round that feeds and fired is worth more than an SP or HP that jams and doesn't fire.

As a civilian, I take the opposite view, protecting my personal posterior (and my loved ones) is job #1. we just have different priorities is all.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Second, I don't think I would be interested in having to say that I picked a particular type of ammunition for self-defense because the military issues it. The military performs offensive operations, not just defensive operations and personally, I wouldn't care to answer questions in a self-defense case about why I thought I needed "military ammunition" in my self-defense gun.

The military also (generally) adheres to a Hague convention that prohibits the use of anti-personnel ammunition with expanding bullets that cause unnecessary suffering -- which is generally interpreted to mean no hollow-point ammunition.

http://www.weaponslaw.org/instruments/1899-hague-declaration

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/irrc_849_coupland_et_loye.pdf

 

[HiBC]

These days, an honest response might be "Thats what the store had in stock"
In KR's case,it seemed thats what his friend had purchased. What options did KR have?

In the case of KR, What difference in outcome would a different bullet or load have provided?

I think those who died would have died if expanding bullets had been used.

Maybe Gaige's arm would have been worse.

No "collateral" injuries were reported. The prosecutor's line of questioning was irrelevant barn carpet. What was the point?

 

[44 AMP]

What was the point?

The point of that kind of question, in court, is to elicit an answer that can be made to support your argument. And, it's kind of the "magician's force" sort of thing.

If the answer is you chose FMJ bullets, then the prosecutor points out to the jury how they "penetrate through people" and therefore, using them shows a "reckless disregard" for the safety of others.

If the answer is soft points or hollow points, then the prosecutor points out how those bullets cause huge horrifying wounds, and so your intent was to kill people, because "regular" (fmj) ammo wasn't "deadly enough" for you!!...


Both arguments are easily refutable with facts, HOWEVER, once heard, the cannot be "unheard". Even if the judge rules the jury must disregard them, once heard, that bell cannot be "unrung"...

 

[Metal god]

44 nailed it , I’ll also add that Rittenhouse had two different brands of ammo loaded in the mag . They did not specify if they were loaded staggered or if it was one brand all together in the mag then the next . Staggered or mixed “could” indicate understanding and or intent of what each type is designed to do . Like I’ve heard guys staggering buckshot and slugs in the tube of there shotgun .

If he had one box of 20 rds of ammo A and simple topped off his 30rd mag with 10rd from a different manufactured ammo . That to me would indicate Kyle really did think a bullet is a bullet is a bullet .

 

[JohnKSa]

The point of that kind of question, in court, is to elicit an answer that can be made to support your argument. And, it's kind of the "magician's force" sort of thing.

If the answer is you chose FMJ bullets, then the prosecutor points out to the jury how they "penetrate through people" and therefore, using them shows a "reckless disregard" for the safety of others.

If the answer is soft points or hollow points, then the prosecutor points out how those bullets cause huge horrifying wounds, and so your intent was to kill people, because "regular" (fmj) ammo wasn't "deadly enough" for you!!...

I provided good answers that will bypass that sort of nonsense.

This isn't really complicated at all and there are simple approaches to dealing with the situation and for answering questions that arise.

The military also (generally) adheres to a Hague convention that prohibits the use of anti-personnel ammunition with expanding bullets that cause unnecessary suffering -- which is generally interpreted to mean no hollow-point ammunition.

Another great reason (just one of many) not to get involved with discussing what the military issues as ammunition in the context of a self-defense case.