Reloads for self defense

[jmortimer]

Bottom line, there is no case of a self-defense shooting with reloads leading to a conviction of an innocent person. Never - Ever. Further, if GSR or other ammunition related testimony is required you will need to retain an expert regardless of what ammunition is used. There is no huge disparity of cost. Expert witness testimony has a cost and market price like anything else. It will cost a bundle of $$$ regardless. You can't just introduce manufacturer data without a foundation. Join Ayoob's defense group if you are afraid as it seems like a good deal for the $$$. I'm not worried about it as I'm more likely to win a 100 million dollar lottery than be wrongfully convicted for using my own "home made" ammunition. If no one has ever been wrongfully convicted for using "self- loaded" ammunition then why all the fuss?

 

[kraigwy]

I believe he stated it adds $100,000 to the defense costs to document the reload issue.

I'd like to see the court case on this, frankly I think someone's CCW instructor is blowing smoke.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Your fundamental premise is just flat wrong

Number 1 - Will you even be charged with a crime by the DA if it was a justified defensive shooting.

Consider --

Larry Hickey, in gun friendly Arizona thought he was justified. He was arrested, spent 71 days in jail, went through two different trials ending in hung juries, was forced to move from his house, etc., before the DA decided it was a good shoot and dismissed the charges.

Mark Abshire in Oaklahoma thought he was justified. Nonetheless, despite this happening on his own lawn in a fairly gun-friendly state with a "Stand Your Ground" law, he was arrested, went to jail, charged, lost his job and his house, and spent two and a half years in the legal grinder before finally being acquitted.

Harold Fish, also in gun friendly Arizona, thought he was justified. But he was still convicted and sent to prison. He won his appeal, his conviction was overturned, and a new trial was ordered. The DA chose to dismiss the charges rather than retry Mr. Fish.

You don't have the final say. The reality is that sometimes there will be a disagreement about the question of your justification. Now it won't be a "good shoot" unless and until the trial jury says it is.

Number 2 - If the DA finds a reason to charge you, then it will go before a Grand Jury to indict you prior to you facing a jury trial. (You are in trouble for other reasons than your type of ammo.)

Not all States require indictment by grand jury. In some States, the DA can file a complaint, and you can be held to answer.

Yes, if you're charged and held to answer, you have more problems than just your handloaded ammunition. But the fewer problems you have to deal with the better. Handloads won't be any kind of a problem unless you use them.

Number 3 - If you get to the point of a jury trial, then most likely you have a lot more to worry about than what type of round you fired. (You are in a bunch of trouble now for reasons other than the type of ammo you used.)

Yes, but do you want more worries? Handloads won't be one of your worries if you don't use them.

Number 4 - If in a State like New Jersey, if it is a justified defensive shooting you could be charged if you used hollow points. I doubt the charges will be for murder but for the law you violated (I think; although this was not the question.)

Even in New Jersey one may lawfully possess hollow points in one's home.

Bottom line there is no case of self-defense shooting leading to a conviction of an innocent person....

Nope -- Harold Fish comes immediately to mind (see above).

...Further, if GSR or other ammunition related testimony is required you will need to retain an expert regardless of what ammunition is used...

The thing is that if you used handloads, your expert probably won't be able to help you.

...You can't just introduce manufacturer data without a foundation....

Of course, but you'll most likely get the evidence in. If you used handloads, you probably won't get your GSR test results into evidence no matter how much foundation you try to lay.

...If no one has ever been wrongfully convicted for using "self- loaded" ammunition then why all the fuss.

As Bartholomew Roberts has put it:

...The thing is, I can't control the number of attackers, whether I have witnesses, where the attack happens. What I can control is what kind of ammo I load/records I keep to make the forensic evidence less ambiguous. Although the risk may be small, it seems to me that the reward (advanatages of handloads over factory ammo) is even smaller...

I'd like to see the court case on this,...

Are you volunteering?

 

[kraigwy]

Originally Posted by kraigwy
I'd like to see the court case on this,...

Are you volunteering?

Volunterring for what, I said I want to see the court case where the guy had to spend 100K to defend his reloads.

But yes I do carry reloads, I carried them most of the time I was in LE and I carry them now in my pocket pistol.

I also got a ruling from the WY Attorney General on the subject. His response was if its not prohibited ammunition per federal law, then there is nothing wrong with reloads in a SD situation.

In teaching classed, I don't make recommendations, I put out the options, included the Ruling from the WY AG, and any ligit court case I can find.

That's why I asked for the case.

But I only present court cases not internet rumors. If someone in my class ask me what I carry I tell them "safe ammo that I have shot enough to feel confident with".

 

[jmortimer]

"Harold Fish comes immediately to mind"
Not my mind or his attorneys' minds. The issues for Mr. Fish revolved around the exclusion of evidence and jury instructions not reloads. The only issue relating to the ammunition was the prosecution making hay over the fact that he used 10mm hollow point ammunition and that the ammunition was "more powerful" that that used by the local police. So again, no one ever in the history of the United States was wrongfully convicted of using their own ammunition. Never - Ever. BTW I use flat point hard cast bullets, compliant with the Hague Convention, so the dumb @ss prosecutor and judge in the Fish case could not have made a big deal over my non-hollow point ammunition.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I asked for the case....

And if you'd bothered to read this thread, the question of "a case" was addressed in posts 15 and 38.

The reality is that it appears that reloads are very seldom used in self defense. Al Norris did some research on the subject. In a period of over 30 years in Idaho handloads were used in only 12 self defense shooting incidents. Six weren't prosecuted; apparently they were clearly justified. Six were prosecuted, resulting in six convictions -- four on pleas and two on jury verdicts (see http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=388901). In the cases that resulted in a conviction, drugs and/or alcohol was apparently also involved.

...I also got a ruling from the WY Attorney General on the subject. His response was if its not prohibited ammunition per federal law, then there is nothing wrong with reloads in a SD situation...

[1] An AG opinion is not law.

[2] An AG opinion will not solve your evidentiary problem is GSR test results would be helpful.

[3] An AG opinion is limited to the exact facts posited in requesting the opinion.

[4] Handloads are not prohibited ammunition. That doesn't mean that GSR test results will be admissible. That doesn't mean the the use of handloads could not have a negative effect on a jury.

Not my mind or his attorneys' minds. The issues for Mr. Fish revolved around the exclusion of evidence and jury instructions not reloads...

Your original statement in post 41 said nothing about handloads:

Bottom line, there is no case of a self-defense shooting leading to a conviction of an innocent person. Never - Ever....

...The only issue relating to the ammunition was the prosecution making hay over the fact that he used 10mm hollow point ammunition and that the ammunition was "more powerful" that that used by the local police....

And in a post verdict interview a Harold Fisher juror commented that the members of the jury were troubled by Fish's use of JHPs. That illustrates that such things as the ammunition used can have an effect on the jury.

I suspect the Fish's lawyer didn't deal with the JHP issue too well. I think it's manageable.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

BTW I use flat point hard cast bullets, compliant with the Hague Convention, so the dumb @ss prosecutor and judge in the Fish case could not have made a big deal over my non-hollow point ammunition.

Of course they could. The judge won't make a big deal out of it -- although as fiddletown and others have noted he CAN prevent you from admitting expert testimony about your home-brewed ammo.

But the prosecutor can certainly make a big deal out of it. The thing about lawyers is, they get paid to use words in the way that presents THEIR (or their client's) view in the way most advantageous to them. If you're on trial, the deck is already stacked against you because many members of the jury start with the assumption that you would NOT be on trial if you didn't do something wrong. I know it isn't supposed to be that way ... but it IS that way. So you need to convince the jury that you did NOT do something wrong.

Whatever bullets you choose, if you handload you're screwed. If you use hollow-point, the prosecutor will portray you as a bloodthirsty killer who deliberately chose the bullets guaranteed to do the most damage and to cause the most pain and suffering.

"But I use flat point hard cast bullets, compliant with the Hague Convention," you say.

And the prosecutor turns to the jury and says, "AHA! Do you hear that, ladies and gentlemen? The Hague Convention, which governs the conduct of WAR!. This man before you didn't go to the local gun shop and buy commercial, self defense ammunition. No, that wasn't good enough, wasn't deadly enough for him. No, ladies and gentlemen, he deliberately loaded his own ammunition using BULLETS THAT WERE DESIGNED TO BE USED IN A WAR. These bullets weren't designed for self defense, ladies and gentlemen, they were designed for KILLING HUMAN BEINGS!"

Spent much time in courtrooms? I have, as an expert witness. And I promise you, no matter how clearly and rationally you think you have stated or explained something, if the opposing attorney is worth anything at all, he'll tie you up in knots. And if your attorney isn't extremely good at UNtying knots, game over.

(I have gotten to where I loathe being an expert witness, because in my field my own client's attorney usually doesn't know anything, and usually doesn't want to spend the time with me upfront to learn enough to untie the knots. So when anything gets twisted while I'm on the stand, it's all I can do to keep from jumping out of the witness stand during re-direct and strangling my client's attorney for allowing the opposition to blatantly misconstrue what I just testified to.)

 

[kraigwy]

An AG opinion is not law

Nor is there a law that says you can't use reloads,

HOWEVER,

Being the State AG is the highest LE Officer in the State, I will take his opionion long before I take the opinion of someone on the internet.

Carry what you want, but no one has ever shown me a court case where carrying reloads instead of factory ammo has lead to a conviction.

I think one who is really concerned should research the subject his or her self, make you decission on case law, not internet gossip.

 

[jmortimer]

"Spent much time in courtrooms?"
Yes and a good expert is worth every penny. My favorite involved a mechanical engineer who testified one way for Ford Motor and when he testified for my friend from law school, the defense attorney pointed out how he changed his testimony 180 degrees and his answer - "Yes I did and it cost Ford a bundle" - made my friend a bundle. So things do not alwys turn out how you suggest.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Nor is there a law that says you can't use reloads,

HOWEVER,

Being the State AG is the highest LE Officer in the State, I will take his opionion long before I take the opinion of someone on the internet....

We understand that you are not a lawyer so you can't really be expected to understand what an AG opinion is and its limitations.

Yes, there is no law against using handloads. That's true. But that is not the point. The points are:

• The ammunition used can have an effect on jury perception. This point was touched upon by Glenn Meyer in post 39.
• If handloads were used and GSR test results would have been helpful to your defense, you'll be out of luck. This point was discussed in several posts in this thread, by Bartholomew Roberts, OldMarksman and I.

I'll wager that your AG opinion doesn't touch on either of those points.

...I think one who is really concerned should research the subject his or her self, make you decission on case law, not internet gossip....

Bartholomew Roberts and I are not basing our conclusions on Internet gossip. We are lawyers and have some professional understanding of the subject. Massad Ayoob is not basing his conclusions on Internet gossip, but rather on his years of experience as an expert witness and as Vice Chairman of the Forensic Evidence Committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

The reality is that there is precious little case law even remotely on point. That's not necessarily a guarantee that the use of handloads is benign. It merely illustrates that the question hasn't come up to an appellate court.

When lawyers are faced with situations in which there is no good case law for guidance, which happens fairly regularly in real life, we simply have to fall back on our professional judgment.

 

[kraigwy]

Mr Fiddlemen, no I'm not a lawyer, but I am however a Certified LE instructor in CSI, I have testified in court on several shooting situations, but never in a case where whether reloads or factory ammo was a concern.

I agree lawyer can and do muddy the waters, they will muddy the waters regardless of what ammo is use. They will condemn the use of hollow points, they will condemn the use of magnums, they will condemn the use of LE ammo if you arn't a cop, thats their job, they get paid to muddy the waters.

But still, internet gossip notwithstanding, no one has shown me a court case was based on whether the shooter used reloads or factory.

What does come into play is that the shooter convinces the jury that he felt his or someone else's life was in danger, and his/her shooting was the last resort.

We all have opinions, including lawyers, that's why you have lawyers presenting differant sides of a court case, and normally 50% of the lawyers loose.

 

[Bamashooter]

I think if you are using lets say remingtom golden sabers and you are loading them to spec from a reloading manual then I dont see how it could be a problem. If you kill a deer with a handload is that an illegal killing. Come on man.....

 

[Frank Ettin]

...TI agree lawyer can and do muddy the waters, they will muddy the waters regardless of what ammo is use. They will condemn the use of hollow points, they will condemn the use of magnums, they will condemn the use of LE ammo if you arn't a cop, thats their job, they get paid to muddy the waters. ...

[1] No, we don't get paid to muddy the waters. We get paid to present the best case we can in the interests of our clients, subject to the rules of law, evidence and procedure, and consistent with what we actually have to work with.

[2] And yes, we will use whatever is available to use to further the interests of our clients, consistent with the rules of law, evidence and procedure, and consistent with what we actually have to work with.

[3] But if I am preparing for the possible eventuality of being the defendant in a criminal or civil case arising from my use of force in self defense, I can make some decisions ahead of time. I can make those decisions based on an assessment of the risks compared with the utility of certain conduct. That's call risk management. The point is to lay as strong a foundation for my defense as possible, while preserving my ability to accomplish my purpose. I want to stack the deck in my favor as much as I can.

[4] So --

• I use quality, JHP ammunition of the sort commonly used by law enforcement agencies. This could be used against me in court, but I have decided that the risk is warranted because of the generally superior terminal performance of such ammunition. Therefore, I am prepared to meet attacks on my use of such ammunition.
• I have sought out training, and I practice. I recognize that these things can be used against me in court, but I have concluded that by being trained I have a better chance to prevail in an emergency. So I have prepared to deal with attacks on my training.
• Using a heavily modified gun could be used against me. Furthermore, I have trained and practiced sufficiently to be effective with a stock gun. So I have no good reason to use a heavily modified gun and take any risks on that account.
• I gain no material advantage in the street using handloaded ammunition instead of good commercial ammunition. Therefore, I see no reason to take any risks, even if remote, by using handloaded ammunition.

...But still, internet gossip notwithstanding, no one has shown me a court case was based on whether the shooter used reloads or factory....

Show me a case in which the shooter used handloads. As noted earlier, we have reason to believe that the use of handloads in self defense situations is very rare. In addition, I suggest that the vast bulk of people who keep guns for self defense aren't enthusiasts and use stock guns and commercial ammunition. Indeed, even many of the members here, who are enthusiasts, use commercial ammunition for self defense.

...What does come into play is that the shooter convinces the jury that he felt his or someone else's life was in danger, and his/her shooting was the last resort....

But we also have reasons to believe that things like the ammunition used can have an effect on the way members of a jury will view matters and therefore on whether, or how, they can be convinced.

I also have personal knowledge, based on my participation in post verdict interviews of jurors, of how various things can affect how a juror views and evaluates evidence.

...We all have opinions, including lawyers, that's why you have lawyers presenting differant sides of a court case, and normally 50% of the lawyers loose....

Actually the reason why about 50% of the lawyers lose in court is that if there are two sides, only one can win. And whether a lawyer wins or loses has less to do with his opinion than it does with the merits of his client's case. Not infrequently a client will insist that we pursue the matter in court even when we've explained how slim his chances actually are. We can do the best we can, but our client loses because he is wrong.

 

[kraigwy]

but our client loses because he is wrong

My you are naive if you believe the guilty don't get off or the incident don't get convicted.

When you or anyone else can come up with a case where someone was convicted do to using reloads instead of factory loads we can continue this conversation.

 

[Frank Ettin]

My you are naive if you believe the guilty don't get off or the incident don't get convicted.

[1] It's "the innocent", not "the incident".

[2] Of course I know that sometimes the wrong side loses. Of course sometimes that's remedied by the court of appeals, as it was with Harold Fish. But the real point is that your statement in post 51

We all have opinions, including lawyers, that's why you have lawyers presenting differant sides of a court case, and normally 50% of the lawyers loose.

is simple nonsense. It means nothing.

...When you or anyone else can come up with a case where someone was convicted do to using reloads instead of factory loads we can continue this conversation.

This point as also been addressed multiple times.

 

[FrankenMauser]

I think if you are using lets say remingtom golden sabers and you are loading them to spec from a reloading manual then I dont see how it could be a problem. If you kill a deer with a handload is that an illegal killing. Come on man.....

This isn't a question of how "legal" handloads are for SD. It's a question of whether you want to deal with the additional legal issues that will arise, should you use your handloads in an SD shooting (up to, and including: increased costs, potential lack of evidence to support your testimony, and more attacks on your choice of ammunition).

I am an avid reloader. It is one of my primary hobbies.
I like reloading. It's not just a way to save money. I enjoy doing it, and I enjoy creating "perfect" loads for any given situation.

Yet...
All of my SD weapons contain factory ammunition in their chambers and/or magazines. Every one of those types of ammunition is:
A: An extremely common load, most shooters of that type of firearm (and cartridge) would be expected to have on hand, and would be very reasonable for the average person to grab in an emergency situation. (For example: I have 1 1/8 oz #8 shot "Pheasant Loads" in my 12 ga shotgun.)
or
B: A commercial SD load.



Back to your irrelevant analogy that prompts a good point about handloads:

If you kill a deer with a handload is that an illegal killing. Come on man.....

In some states, it can be. Some states require certain measures of energy at the muzzle, or a designated distance down range (especially for handguns and small rifle cartridges). Often times, "standard" handloads don't meet those requirements.

That's the problem with handloads - You are on trial. Any testimony you give about how meticulous you are in loading your ammunition will be completely useless. Handloaded ammunition can vary from incredibly light, to horrendously vicious (low power, to high power). Who can say, besides you, that the ammunition left over for testing is the same load you used in the shooting?

As previous posters have detailed quite well....
It doesn't matter. Even if you can find an "expert" that will testify to the uniformity and quality of your handloads, the testimony will likely never be admissible.


"Handloads for SD" is not an issue of legality. It's an issue of risk assessment. Is it worth it, to you, to take on the extra risk that may be involved in using your handloads for SD?
That's all that matters. If you don't want to use factory ammo, then don't. Those of us that want to simplify the aftermath and fallout of an SD shooting will make a different decision.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by jmortimer: Bottom line, there is no case of a self-defense shooting with reloads leading to a conviction of an innocent person.

I think you have missed the entire point.

There is nothing illegal at all about using hand loads in self defense. The use of them will not lead to anyone's conviction. That's not the point.

Heck, even in New Jersey, where carrying FMJ ammunition outside the home is unlawful, the use of such loads would not lead to the conviction of an innocent person for manslaughter or murder.

That's not the issue.

The issue is whether potentially favorable information not being introduced due to the rule of admissibility of scientific forensic trace evidence could become important in a case in which the evidence produced by the defendant is otherwise insufficient for the success of his defense of justification--in a perfectly justifiable action.

That did happen in the Bias case; we know about it, but only because Massad Ayoob was involved in the trial and has written about it more than once. The hand loads issue may also have been mentioned in one of the appellate court decisions, but I don't know--I have not looked.

Has it happened other times and not been reported? Neither you nor I can know. You would have to read the transcripts of every relevant trial in the country to see if the issue has ever arisen. That would be like looking for a needle in a haystack. But that would not help you at all. You would then have to talk to each of the jurors afterwards, because juror comments and deliberations transcribed and recorded for analysis.

And depending upon the jurisdiction and the circumstances, an attorney's move to introduce scientific forensic trace evidence, and a judge's decision to refuse, may be made without the knowledge of the jury. The jurors would have no way of even knowing about it.

Now, let's agree that such an unfolding of events, about which we cannot know, would be very, very rare, for the reason pointed about more than once by fiddletown: the use of hand loads in shootings that come to trial is very infrequent.

So, why does that fact not make this all a non issue? It's very simple. It has to do with conditional probability. If one does use hand loads, the fact that they have rarely been used is no longer at all relevant to his case!

Nor is the fact hat something has not occurred, for whatever reason, any indication that it will not occur. That's also a function of conditional probability.

So, when might this become an issue? First, the actor would have to be otherwise lacking in his or her ability to produce evidence in support of his account of a justified shooting, or to counter state's evidence against him. That won't happen very often if the perp kicked down the door to the actor's house.

Then, if the distance at which the shooting took place is disputed; if evidence and tesitmony regarding the distance would mitigate for or against a finding of justification; if a lack of gunshot residue on the person shot is used as an argument about that distance; and if the loads used by the actor would not have left GSR at the actual distance claimed by him, then the admissibility or inadmissibility of that last fact would no doubt be pivotal.

A lot of ifs? Yeah, but if shooting did take place outdoors without favorable witnesses, and if there were unfavorable witnesses, there are a lot fewer, and that is not an unrealistic situation for one who ends up shooting one of more than one assailants out doors. And if the actor used hand loads, he has contributed to a possible problem when it comes to presenting his defense.

I hope this clears up some things.

 

[Sarge]

The interested reader would do well to review the threads referenced by Fiddletown in Post 38.

[1] The legal issues regarding the use of handloads for self defense have been discussed here. See:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=423771

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=391656

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=394682

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=397127

50% of clients lose. Lawyers only 'lose' if they don't get their money.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I think if you are using lets say remingtom golden sabers and you are loading them to spec from a reloading manual then I dont see how it could be a problem.

Here is how it could be a problem. Let's say you shoot someone charging at you with a tire iron at 10'. When police arrive, his passenger says that you were the aggressor and you shot him from a distance as he was yelling "Don't come any closer." Now police have two different stories about what happened, so they go to the forensic evidence.

If you are using Remington Golden Sabers from the factory, police can obtain an identical load of that ammunition from the factory and see what kind of gunshot residue it deposits at different distances. Based on the testing of the victim's clothing and skin for gunshot residue, they can then estimate at what range (and sometimes position) the shooting took place.

If you are using reloaded Remington Golden Sabers loaded according to a manual, the police now have several problems. The first is that the police don't necessarily know what kind of ammo you had loaded in the gun. You can tell them the details; but since you are also the suspect in a shooting, they may not be willing to take your word on it.

If they decide to instead use whatever factory ammo would normally be used in cases with those headstamps, they might get a totally different GSR pattern than your reloads. The different pattern can lead them to different conclusions about distance - and once your story stops matching the evidence, the chances a jury gets to sort out the facts go way up.

So, you'll just explain you used reloads in court, right? The problem is, it will be next to impossible to get the GSR pattern from your reloads admitted in court. First of all, there is no independent third party who conducts regular QA and maintains records on your handloads. This creates a foundation problem that can make scientific or expert testimony on the subject inadmissible. Second, it can be very difficult to prove that the rounds you say were loaded were the ones that were actually loaded. These two factors may mean that the jury never even hears your explanation - which can be a major problem if it goes to a jury and the distance you fired is a key issue.

So far there don't seem to be a lot of cases on the subject because you need all of the following factors have to be in play:

1. There is a factual question of what distance the shooting took place and GSR evidence is critical to resolving it.
2. Handloaded ammunition was used.
3. The defendant wants to dispute the GSR tests conducted by the State.

There is one case I am aware of that meets all three criteria (the Bias case mentioned above) and another case that meets the first 2 criteria (the Pease case out of Virginia). As a result, you can make the argument that this is such an incredibly rare circumstance, you don't need to worry about it.

On the other hand, I can point to a number of self-defense shooters who were eventually acquitted (Mark Abshire, Larry Hickey) where the distance at which the shootings took place were absolutely critical to their cases. Admissibility of GSR evidence didn't come up in those cases because they used factory ammo.

It seems to me that this debate boils down to two major issues:

1. Will the defense be able to get its own GSR tests admitted into evidence if handloaded ammunition is used?

2. What advantages do I gain from handloaded ammunition and how do they balance against the above risk?

From my perspective, there doesn't appear to be any advantage to using handloaded ammo. Perhaps a tiny sliver more confidence in reliability and some cost-savings. So it doesn't take much risk to outweigh those advantages in my mind.

As to risk, it seems this is where there is a lot of disagreement. It seems the first step to solving this disagreement would be to show a case where the defense was successful in getting its own GSR tests of handloaded ammo admitted into evidence. Once we have that case, we can look at the motions related to that evidence, figure out what it cost in terms of expert witness fees and attorney trial time and have a rough idea of what kind of extra cost it adds.

If we cannot find ANY case where that has happened, then we have to assume a very real risk that such evidence will not be admissible and that we are going to be at the mercy of the state forensic examiner on any case where the distance the fight happened is relevant.

So if anybody out there has some information that clarifies these issues, I would love to learn more and I imagine it would help all of us get a better picture of the risk/reward involved.

The hand loads issue may also have been mentioned in one of the appellate court decisions, but I don't know--I have not looked.

No, I don't think it was. At least I went through 17 pages of appellate cases on Google Scholar one by one last night discussing GSR evidence admissibility and the Bias case was not one of them.

 

[madmo44mag]

I normally do not get involved in these kind of threads for various reasons.
I can say that few if any of you have been a victim of a violent crime and or have ever had to draw your weapon in self defense - I have.
My experience tells me that if you drew your weapon in accordance with state law, ballistic is not as big an issue as you might think.
The use of deadly force is well defined in my home state (Texas) and if the shoot is clearly justified the case will most likely never see court.
This is just MHO here but I think what gets folks in trouble is they 1st don't fully understand the law as it pertains to drawing and using their weapon.
2nd they allow fear to cloud their judgment and over react.
When some one has a gun/ knife pointed at you; fear for your life takes hold but fear must be tempered with common sense and good judgment.
Some of you will understand what I am saying and others will not.
I do love to read these threads and mean no ill towards anyone here!!!!