Reloads for self defense

[Spats McGee]

For me, it's a matter of risk assessment. I'm a lawyer, and while I've never been counsel of record on a gun or SD case, I've done civil right defense, criminal defense, prosecution (traffic court, to be honest), and a smattering of other areas. Here's my take:

Is the use of handloads for SD illegal? No. Not in any state of which I'm aware, anyway.

Is the use of handloads for SD a good idea? No. Using handloads introduces a wildcard element into the potential criminal and civil trials that poses a risk that I judge to be greater than the potential benefit.

As far as the statement that "a good shoot is a good shoot," well, perhaps we should amend that statement to "a good shoot is a good shoot after the police, the prosecuting attorney, twelve jurors and a judge decide that it was a good shoot." That's the reality. It's not a good shoot until you convince at least several other people that it was a good shoot. And you can bet that the BG, if he survives, will tell them all that he's a church-going choirboy who was minding his own business when you decided to off him.

In Arkansas, we rarely use grand juries. Most state felonies are charged by felony information. We have a mechanism for grand juries, but they just aren't used in state court much. So, assuming that the police or prosecuting attorney remain unconvinced that it was as clear-cut as it seemed to you at the time, you're probably going to jail, at least until you can make bail. In and of itself, that's going to be expensive. That's not affected by the handload vs. factory issue, but it still means that you are going to be somewhat lighter in the pocketbook than you were before the shooting, and you may find yourself in need of funds for several trials. The prosecuting attorney will file a felony information, and suddenly, you're a felony criminal defendant.

When it gets to trial, probably after several months of legal wrangling, motions, and bills that your lawyer wants paid, you'll get to trial. Then we get to the evidentiary issue. If you're using handloads, your reloading records are suspect, no matter how meticulous you have been in keeping them. They will be seen as self-serving, and that's what the prosecuting attorney will tell the court. You'll have to convince the judge that the records kept were accurate, that the ammunition that you used was loaded in conformity with those records, and that the sample provided to your expert was the same as the ammunition used in the shooting. This is a case where the exact ammunition used is destroyed during the shooting. Assuming that your ammunition functions correctly, the powder burns and the bullet is expelled at high speed. The bullet may or may not ever be found. It's not like a knife case, where the knife survives the incident and can be tested later (provided that it can be located).

On the other hand, if you use factory ammunition, you can subpoena the records on the ammunition specs from the company that made your ammo, and suddenly, you've got third-party records. Those records will not be viewed as self-serving. That company doesn't have a dog in the fight, as it were. It should be much easier to get those records in, if you need them.

I'll grant you that there are a lot of ifs involved in this situation. Reloads only become an issue: (1) if you're involved in a shooting; and (2) you're charged or sued; and (3) the type of round you used becomes an issue. I will also agree that if I were confronted with the need to shoot while I had reloads in the gun, I'd rather face a court than a casket. However, given the stakes (my liberty, my finances, and the financial well-being of those who depend on me), I have a very hard time believing that reloads really provide enough of a benefit to outweigh those risks.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...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....

The issue isn't when the shooting is clearly justified. The issue can arise when in the aftermath there's a dispute about whether the shooting was justified. The thing is that you can't know in advance whether, if you need to resort to your gun in self defense, your use of force will later be found to clearly have been justified. You will have to make your decision in an instant. The authorities will be able to take their sweet time investigating, analyzing and second guessing your decision.

Go back and look at post 43. Review the cases of Larry Hickey, Mark Abshire and Harold Fish.

The laws related to self defense and the use of force were well defined in each of their States. Oklahoma was expressly a "stand your ground" State. Each of these men were trained and well understood the applicable law. They each thought they had no choice and were justified in using lethal force, but their claims of justification were hotly disputed by the authorities.

 

[thallub]

There are those who believe that our county prosecutor, who gave three passes on righteous shoots in an 18 month period, is going to come after me for using handloads in a righteous shooting case. Methinks you are very wrong.

This is one of those cases:

http://www.tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=071028_1_A27_hApro53278

 

[Frank Ettin]

There are those who believe that our county prosecutor, who gave three passes on righteous shoots in an 18 month period, is going to come after me for using handloads in a righteous shooting case. Methinks you are very wrong.

But how can you be so sure? How can you be so sure that if in the near future, if you need to use your gun in self defense, your case will be as clear cut as the three cases your county prosecutor decided were justified? Consider Mark Abshire in your State of Oklahoma.

How can you be sure that your current county prosecutor will still be the county prosecutor next week? next month? next year? after the next election? whenever you may need to use your gun in self defense? County prosecutors change jobs, go into private practice, seek other public office, get sick, retire, die in an accident, or lose elections.

And what if you need to use your gun in self defense in another county or another State? Don't you ever travel?

 

[thallub]

There are all kinds of ifs, ands and buts. Abshire was not prosecuted for using handloads; big difference. Abshire did not make a good impression on the county sheriff who states that he may have been drinking. Someone in the Abshire crowd threw a bottle at the Jeep.

BTW: i'm 72 years old. Twice in my lifetime i have found it necessary to defend my family and my home from armed home invaders: Perps got shot both times. Once i used those awful handloads in my S&W model 27. One case did not go to the grand jury. The grand jury refused to indict in the other case. Both these shootings took place in other states. i was never sued.

 

[Spats McGee]

thallub, I am glad that you were able to successfully defend your family, and that the incidents worked out in your favor. I hope that this latest one does, too.

However, that doesn't change the analysis on whether to use handloads for SD. Doing so still introduces yet one more variable into an equation that's already full of them.

 

[Frank Ettin]

There are all kinds of ifs, ands and buts....

Yes, there indeed are. And if I have the opportunity to eliminate an "if, and or but" that could be problematic for me, without interfering with my achieving my purpose, I will do so.

 

[thallub]

More on Abshire:

Abshire escalated the situation. He went to his home, got pepper spray and a gun and went back outside. All Abshire had to do was stay in the home and call the cops.

The day of the shooting, after attempts to get Case to slow down failed, Abshire reportedly went into his home, retrieved a chemical spray and a handgun and waited outside his home with a friend, authorities said.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/arti...leid=20091222_11_A17_hShots521130&archive=yes

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Bottom line - I don't care if someone goes to jail for adding a risk factor in an ambiguous self-defense shoot.

It's well known that appearance issues influence juries. That subtle influence is not going to show up in the legal data bases that deal with appeals, etc.

Like I said, for the reload crowd - when your lawyer tells you to dress up for court, are you going to show up dressed like Rambo because you think it was a good shoot? There are no cases in Lexis-Nexis about dressing like Rambo?

It's Darwin time - choose your survival strategy for your 'good' shoot. Choose how much you want to spend for expert testimony if it comes up.

Or be stubborn. Psych fact - when you hold a strong belief in spite of reasonable evidence, when presented with more evidence, your irrational belief becomes more entrenched due to a threat to your ego.

 

[madmo44mag]

I understand what is being stated and I think we all know and understand that if a shoot is called into question then the game is on so to speak.
Factory ammo, hand load ammo, tire iron, baseball bat; the prosecutions job is to call into question anything that may help their case.
At this stage it becomes a roll of the dice.
You may even prove that the hand loaded ammo you used is less powerful / lethal than factory ammo; a well placed shot kills just a good as factory ammo.
With that said, it’s all up to the lawyers and how well they present their case.
Here is my primary point in all of this: know the laws that govern deadly force in your state. Train, train, train and prepare yourself mentally to deal with the stress and trauma of a shooting. Most folks train and can place their shot on target but fail to mentally train for the event. Mental training is often over looked and leads to mistakes.
If the shoot does not pass the “smell” test and goes to trial, then as I stated it is a roll of the dice and how good an attorney you have.
There are innocent folks serving time for crimes they did not commit because their attorney, funding, or forensic evidence got them convicted.
There is no magic answer to the OP’s question, just personal preference.
Will factory ammo save you in a trial – maybe?

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by thallub: There are those who believe that our county prosecutor, who gave three passes on righteous shoots in an 18 month period, is going to come after me for using handloads in a righteous shooting case.

Who on earth would believe that? There's nothing unlawful about using hand loads.

However, it is clear from that statement that you have either not read the above explanations, or that you do not comprehend them.

If there is sufficient evidence to indicate that a "shoot" was "righteous", there is absolutely no reason for any county prosecutor anywhere to pursue a conviction. It is when the defendant cannot produce evidence of justification, or the investigation shows that there is enough contradictory evidence, that charges will be filed.

Note that neither the sparsity of evidence of justification nor the presence of contradictory testimony will change what actually happened in a "righteous shoot", but taken together, both can strongly influence what others conclude about what happened.

If charges are filed, they will most certainly not come about because someone used hand loads. Under certain limited conditions, however, the use of hand loads may deprive the defendant of the use of key evidence that could tilt the judgment in his favor, as has been thoroughly explained in posts above.

As Spats McGee points out, it is a simple matter of risk assessment. One identifies the risks, and analyses them with regard to likelihood of occurrence and the severity of the potential consequences. One then steps into the rest of risk management: one decides whether to accept the risks or to try to mitigate them.

That process leads me to carry a gun, outdoors and in.

How would that process apply to the question at hand?

Well, in step one, one would identify as a risk that he or she may be the victim of a serious attack. One would identify as a risk that in the event of a defensive shooting, there is a possibility that favorable evidence of justification may be sparse, and that witness testimony may be lacking or contradictory. One wouldidentify as a risk the possibility that in a shooting, GSR evidence may turn out to be important in a defense of justification.

One would then analyze the likelihood of occurrence of each identified risk.

Regarding the risk of being attacked, it may be less than remote, or possibly as high as remote--probably no higher. The decision of whether to accept or mitigate that risk will therefore come down to an assessment of the potential consequences.

Regarding the GSR question, if the "righteous shoot" took place indoors in one's home, with evidence of forced entry, in a castle doctrine jurisdiction, the likelihood that it would become an issue would be far less than remote. The likelihood increases if the "shoot" takes place out doors, depending upon who else was present, who saw what, whether the person shot is found to have had a weapon, and other factors.

One then analyzes the potential consequences of each risk.

Regarding the risk of being attacked, the consequences could include serious injury or even death.

Regarding the evidentiary issue, they can range from an astronomically costly and drawn out trial, with all of the things associated with that, to some time in confinement while the case plays out, to conviction and imprisonment for a crime, even when you know that it was a "righteous shoot."

So, should one accept the risks, or try to mitigate them? That's up to the individual.

Concerning the first risk (risk of being attacked), one might choose to carry a gun and know how to use it, and one might try to stay out of certain places at night. The second of those may also help mitigate the second risk (absence of favorable witnesses). Of course, one might choose instead to accept the risk and do neither. I know plenty of people who do make that decision.

Regarding the GSR issue and factors involving the admissibility of scientific forensic trace evidence, one can choose to accept the risk or mitigate it. I choose the latter. It is the one thing that I can control.

Likelihood? Low, very low. Potential consequences? Far too severe for my liking. I carry a gun, I have taken training, I exercise situational awareness to the best of my ability, I keep the doors locked, I try to avoid bad areas (particularly at night), and I do not carry hand loads.

By the way, I would not have a problem with using hand loads solely for home defense.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

More on Abshire:

Abshire escalated the situation. He went to his home, got pepper spray and a gun and went back outside. All Abshire had to do was stay in the home and call the cops.

Based on more complete reporting of that case, as discussed in this TFL thread, I don't think either of your blurbs are correct (or at least they are reporting only one side of the testimony in a case where several different accounts were given).

However, I don't understand why you are bringing it up at all in this context. What does this have to do with THIS conversation we are having?

 

[Frank Ettin]

More on Abshire:

Abshire escalated the situation. ...

... I don't understand why you are bringing it up at all in this context.

The only* relevance that Abshire (and Hickey and Fish) have to this discussion is to illustrate that not all self defense shootings that are ultimately resolved in favor of the shooter are immediately decided by the authorities to be justified.

*ETA: Oops, I forgot that Fish also illustrates that ammunition choice can be a factor for a jury.

I understand what is being stated and I think we all know and understand that if a shoot is called into question then the game is on so to speak.
...At this stage it becomes a roll of the dice...

No, it's not just a "roll of the dice." It's not going to be random chance. There are things you can do to increase your likelihood of a favorable result in the legal aftermath.

• You can train, learn the laws and be prepared to exercise good judgment.
• You can understand the legal process and the legal issues involved in a self defense case.
• You can form a relationship with a lawyer ahead of time, making sure that he understands the unique nature of a self defense plea.
• You can avoid potential "wild cards", like hair triggers and handloads.

There are no magic answers. But there are answers that can improve your chances. Proper prior planning prevents poor performance -- in the street and in the legal aftermath that may follow.

 

[jmortimer]

So far, in the history of the United States, no one was ever convicted in a self-defense shooting for using reloads or having evidence of reloads used against them. Hollow point bullets yes so why not be afraid of using hollow points where that has been a factor?. Even though I don't use hollow points that makes no sense either. Further, the couple few cases cited for the proposition in question, have nothing to do with using reloads for self-defense. So, again, why all this over something that is a theory and has never, ever happened, not once ever, never? Why be afraid of somehting that has never ever happened in the history of the United States? I think there are better issues to be afraid of and for those who are scared, Ayoob's defense group makes a lot of sense and is a good deal for the $$$.

 

[Frank Ettin]

So far, in the history of the United States, no one was ever convicted in a self-defense shooting for using reloads or having evidence of reloads used against them...

As far as we know. In any case, so what? That doesn't mean it can't be an issue. A prosecution of a claimed self defense shooting using handloads is likely to be a "Black Swan" event. Why would you want it to happen to you?

...Hollow point bullets yes so why not be afraid of using hollow points where that has been a factor?...

Because JHP ammunition is generally a better choice for self defense applications. That's why virtually all law enforcement agencies use it. And that makes it more likely that I will be able to successfully deal with the issue at trial if it comes up. And I know who the potential expert witnesses on that point are and that they are likely to be available.

...Why be afraid of somehting that has never ever happened in the history of the United States? I think there are better issues to be afraid of and for those who are scared,...

I'm not scared of using handloads for self defense. I have no reason to be. I simply don't use them and thus avoid the possible problem completely.

Why is it so important to you to use handloads for self defense?

(I am concerned about using JHPs for self defense. But I've concluded that they are a better choice and that the possible issues are manageable; and I've prepared to manage them.)

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .Hollow point bullets yes so why not be afraid of using hollow points where that has been a factor?

Good point. In which case(s) were the decision to use hollow points an issue? I ask not to be argumentative, but simply because none spring to mind.

. . . .Why be afraid of somehting that has never ever happened in the history of the United States? . . . .

Because I don't care to be the test case.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by jmortimer: So far, in the history of the United States, no one was ever convicted in a self-defense shooting for using reloads or having evidence of reloads used against them.

If you say so---but that is not the issue, at all. You just do not seem to understand the problem at all.

The issue is the possibility that a defendant may not be able to introduce evidence that could tilt a judgment in his favor.

So, again, why all this over something that is a theory and has never, ever happened, not once ever, never?

The rules of admissibility of scientific forensic trace evidence are not theory. They have been established by high court rulings resulting from appeals of real court cases, and judges are bound to abide by them.

Why be afraid of something that has never ever happened in the history of the United States?

While it is impossible for anyone to know that, because one cannot read all of the trial court transcripts, know all of the rulings on whether to admit scientific forensic trace evidence, discuss with each juror the different things that led to his vote, in every trial in the country, and one cannot find out all of that via Google, none of that makes any difference.

The facts are, (1) gunshot residue evidence is routinely used in investigations and trials involving the use of firearms, whether they have to do with alleged self defense, accidents, negligent discharges, suicides, murder, whatever, and (2) the same rules of evidence apply in all criminal trials in a particular jurisdiction, regardless of what kind of case is at hand.

By the way, just to make it clear: if someone is "convicted in a self defense shooting", the incident will not be classified as a self defense shooting.

Would you care to hazard a guess as to what proportion of shootings involved hand loads versus factory ammunition in self defense cases? Murders? Accidents? Negligent shootings? Suicides? Do you have any idea of how many trials resulting in manslaughter convictions involved claims of self defense? Do you know how many of those involved hand loads? Do you think you would have a way of finding out? Not hat any of that matters....

 

[madmo44mag]

I also stated "it’s all up to the lawyers and how well they present their case."

I spent almost 15 years dealing with lawyers and understand how the courts work and how lawyers and jury's think and act.

I have seen cases where there was undisputed evidence that ended up meaning absolutely nothing because the other sides attorney did a better job convincing the jury.

In a jury trial people and their emotions are involved.
Facts do not always prevail.

I do not disagree that if you can stack the odds in your favor go for it but at the same time the bottom line is "what can you prove or disprove and how will the jury interpret that information.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The legal data bases will not surface cases where the simple mention of a factor influences a jury. DAs all the time use the practice of exposing the weapon to the jury as research demonstrates it influences people.

The decision to convict is made up of a sum on interactive factors. Simple longer exposure to a firearm on a DA's exhibit table influences juries, for example. Research shows that and it won't make it to a data base based on legal and appeal nuances.

That's why there is a vast literature on such factors. So the never in history mantra is as silly as the good shoot mantra. But like I said, it's your survival, not mine.

 

[kraigwy]

I enjoy these (and other) discussions, but we too often confuse what happens on TV CSI shows with reality.

As I said, I don't recommend any ammo, I just like to put out the options, and advise each make his own choice, base on their own circumstances, state laws, and the firearms environment in their state/locality.

But self defense aside, this GSI and range determination stuff is interesting.

There are several books out there on the subject but the best I've found, and the one I used was "FIREARMS INVESTIGATION, IDENTIFICATION, and EVIDENCE" by Hatcher,Jury & Weller. Granted its an older text but gun powder hasn't changed, it all boils down to Nitrates.

There too many variables involved. If one doubts that, take any box of ammo, even the same lots, run them through a chronograph, they are different, granted match ammo will be closer, but still the SD & ES is still there.

If you want to have fun. Shoot a series of targets at different ranges, paint the targets after firing with a layer of paraffin. Now mix up a mixture of 1 gram of Diphenylamine, and 100 c.c of Sulphuric acid. If nitrates are present, the paraffin will turn blue. Now compare that (GSR or nitrates) to actual powder residue at different distances.

Now go back and read the book mentioned above, section on Range Determination on Powder Marks. I think you'll find your test coincide with the book.

"In General, burning is a phenomena which does not occur under any circumstances at all when the distance from the muzzle is greater then 7 inches. Few Pistols will burn at a distance beyond about 2 inches regardless of the loading"--Firearms Investigation, Identification, and Evidence

Doing your own studies, and test will convince you that TV CSI is just that, TV, the same can be said regarding all our Internet opinions.