Self Defence Shooter gets 10 years ?

D

Dwight55

New member
I am just trying to get some sense out of the Date Line (I think) program aired late last week.

If I understood it correctly, . . . two folks meet on a trail, . . . one is confronted aggressively by two dogs, . . . then is charged by their owner. He shoots the owner, . . . goes for help, . . . then gets throwed in the slammer for 10 years.

Although I didn't get to see but glimpses of it, . . . it seemed the DA did a fairly good job of presenting disinformation (the killer used those hollow point bullets that are made for maximum destruction, . . . in his 10mm weapon that is far bigger than the weapon used by local police).

My question simply is this, . . . did I miss some real part of the protrayal that really painted the shooter as a killer?

Thanks & may God bless,
Dwight
 
You have a link to the incident?

My guess is that the "self defense shooter" used lethal force in a situation/state where use of said lethal force was not justified.

Uh, well, what do you think hollowpoint ammunition is for? It is made to expand in soft tissue. As such, thereby enlarging the dimensions of the permanent wound cavity which involves crushing more tissue along the way. By expanding, the round is ideally supposed to NOT overpenetrate, hence expending all off its energy inside the target, thereby doing the most damage, as opposed to zipping right through as sometimes happens with things like 9mm, .45, etc. ball ammo.

I don't know about you, but I use hollowpoint ammo for self defense purposes specifically because it is supposed to do more damage, hence a supposed greater chance of putting an end to the conflict, and less chance of overpenetrating. Most of the local police departments use the same reasoning.

10mm is probably bigger than what the police carry. If they carry 9mm, 1mm does not sound like much, but 9mm translates to an area of 63.6 sq mm and 10mm to 78.5 sq mm or roughly 23% more area than the 9mm round
 
Was a big fight over this at least a couple years ago. IIRC the argument was over whether the deceased had actually charged the shooter, or if the shooter had simply shot him in retribution for the dog "attack"... gimme a sec and I'll find the story. In fact, I am almost absolutely certain there are several threads on it around here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top