Why not reloads for self defense?

[stinkeypete]

I think there could be a distinction between firing in public and firing in your home.

Home defense: when I was shooting in my bullseye league, I was making several hundred .45acp wadcutters a week. They were made with more care and reliability than any factory ammunition. It wasn’t “self defense” ammunition yet a .45 cal 185 grain swc going 800 fps is formidable. It’s a “target” load. If someone broke in to my house, I would not feel I had to purchase boutique bullets for legal reasons. We have legal precedents that give a home owner benefit of the doubt.

CC: if one is wandering in public with a gun, to some extent one has an expectation of encountering trouble. There is a much greater likelihood of complications- what if an innocent bystander is injured by direct fire or ricochet? You can imagine many other complications. In this case, you have less protection from the allegation that you are acting as a vigilante. Using the defense “I just bot bullets for muh gun” is a much simpler explanation about the exact circumstances.

As a hand loader I know that anything I made and tested myself is as reliable or better than factory ammunition. But when dealing with lawyers, fine details are to be avoided.

 

[Spats McGee]

. . . .He bought up a good point. When the line has been crossed authorizing deadly force, why would it matter how deadly force was executed? . . . .

You skipped a step. The issue of handloads & GSR goes into the question of whether deadly force was ever proper in the first place, as JohnKSa correctly notes.

. . . .Not trying to discount you Spats and really appreciate your input. You know much more about this than myself. However (here it comes), it still begs the question as to 'excessive' deadly force? I mean, can a knife be too sharp, what if a ball bat were homemade on a lathe by a wood worker, you get my drift. . . . .

With the exception of the "overzealous prosecutor and deadlier handloads" specter that is raised from time to time, that's not really the problem. The problem is an evidentiary one in which GSR could have been used to corroborate a SD shooter's version of events, and the use of handloads gets in the way of that evidence.

. . . . I'm sure after reading your response you will sway me back to store bought ammo because you make great points. One of your best, for me, is the basic argument that is it really worth risking having to defend this at the cost of thousands of dollars, just because you choose to shoot reloads. I get that. I live a predominantly rural/conservative area who have no sympathy for idiots caught in houses beside their own in the wee hours of night.

So, I'd like your take on excessive deadly force as I've presented it.

I'm not concerned about "excessive deadly force." Once that threshold has been crossed to warranting shooting someone, I don't think it matters if I shoot them with a .22 or a 10MM, though obviously a juror in the Harold Fish case disagreed. I do think it's worth spending a few bucks now and again on store bought defensive rounds so that I can let Remington (or Speer, or Hornady) do my record-keeping on how my rounds were loaded.

 

[Frank Ettin]

....When the line has been crossed authorizing deadly force, why would it matter how deadly force was executed?....

This is the venerable "it was a good shoot" fallacy.The thing is the you don't get to decide if the use of lethal force was justified. That decision will be made by others who will be second guessing at their leisure the decision you had only a fraction of a second to make. In deciding whether or not to prosecute you they will be looking at all the evidence, including, if they choose, your use of handloads or any evidentiary issues perhaps presented by your use of handloads.

I think there could be a distinction between firing in public and firing in your home...

Yes and no.

If someone broke into you house, it will usually not be difficult to establish that the use of lethal self defense was appropriate.

But if someone originally entered you home as a social guest or as a business invitee (e. g., a repairman), and somehow things get ugly, you'll need to be able to establish justification for the use of force in essentially the same way as if it happened anywhere else.

 

[2wheelwander]

I've read at some length the Harold Fish musings. IMHO that guy got royally screwed.

Reading the responses makes me realize how much I assumed was taken for granted - and what wasn't. A clean shot in fear of ones life or grave bodily injury seems like it should be cut and dry. Seems like it. When I say authorized deadly force, this was my meaning. Not in a LE sense.

Stinkeypete, you brought things around again regarding a public shooting. I assume this would be much easier for a Prosecutor to make a case against.

Up until a year ago I was head of security for a 2,00 member church. I was the only person with any voice who was former LE or military. Our sanctuary is designed to seat 3,000. When I requested a minimum of 8 people signed off to carry I was scoffed at. The church was also home to a school so the legal issues were an utter nightmare to get around and make the school board see at least a sliver of common sense.


I was asked the question why I needed more than one, or even two people signed off to carry. In their minds, one person able to pass the states law enforcement pistol qualification course twice a year should be able to hit center mass of an aggressor across the sanctuary in the middle of a mass shooting with 2,000 people running for their lives. It took me a minute to pick my jaw off the floor and respond in a "Christian manner". The rest of that story is another post for another time, but highlights the point that what one takes for a simple truth others either miss it or simply refuse to see it. A big gamble when you've taken a life.


However, this is very encouraging

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20190212/indiana-self-defense-bill-passes-house-on-to-senate