Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/2/2001 7:46:38 AM EDT
I am currently involved in a legal situation non-related to firearms, but from the type of "verbal judo" and language of "Legalese" spoken by lawyers and how they manipulate the truth, it's absolutely appalling! I can only imagine the type of manipulation a prosecutor could do with an event of a person shooting a goblin in self defense or in a justified manner with reloaded ammo!
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 8:40:04 AM EDT
They can very easily make you out to be a bloodthirsty monster for using especially mean ammo that you loaded to create excessively nasty, horrible wounds. Never mind that some of the commercial stuff is just as nasty. Then there are the evil plaintiffs attorneys who will go after everything you have civilly.
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 10:17:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/2/2001 12:58:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dave_G: They can very easily make you out to be a bloodthirsty monster for using especially mean ammo that you loaded to create excessively nasty, horrible wounds. Never mind that some of the commercial stuff is just as nasty. Then there are the evil plaintiffs attorneys who will go after everything you have civilly.
View Quote
This is such a red herring. Where have you heard of this in an actual case, being probative to the outcome? And I'm not talking about some B/S hyperbole fueled by frustration such as exhibited by Garoyle in this thread.
Link Posted: 9/3/2001 3:26:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA:
Originally Posted By Dave_G: They can very easily make you out to be a bloodthirsty monster for using especially mean ammo that you loaded to create excessively nasty, horrible wounds. Never mind that some of the commercial stuff is just as nasty. Then there are the evil plaintiffs attorneys who will go after everything you have civilly.
View Quote
This is such a red herring. Where have you heard of this in an actual case, being probative to the outcome? And I'm not talking about some B/S hyperbole fueled by frustration such as exhibited by Garoyle in this thread.
View Quote
Well there Mr. Tactful. I guess this is a sore subject for you. I was by no means trying to "rebel rouse" or spat words of frustration. I was just thinking in the abstract, relating the type of "truth manipulation" I have seen in my experience with other potential situations that could fall under the same type of truth twisting. Ultimately, I was trying to see if anyone had experienced any such experiences related to self defense and reloads in actual trial cases. However, from reading your rather provocative post, I guess there haven't been enough cases to prove either way.
Link Posted: 9/3/2001 4:03:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/3/2001 5:57:25 PM EDT by Steve-in-VA]
Originally Posted By Gargoyle: I was trying to see if anyone had experienced any such experiences related to self defense and reloads in actual trial cases.
View Quote
Bullshit. You were just venting over some bad experience you had, and it continues. I simply pointed out the obvious. Please feel free to vent even further if you wish, but don't pass it off as some altruistic thought provoking query. BTW, I do have the experience needed to give an informed opinion on this subject and that is why I made the "red herring" statement. Sorry if my observations lack the "tact" you desire.
Link Posted: 9/3/2001 4:12:39 PM EDT
I think the problem is that if a "shoot" is clearly proper there is very little liability civil or criminal. But so few "shoots" are cut and dry, lack of witnesses, physical evidnce that is "interpreted" etc. The problem is the shoot may not be questionalbe enough to be pursued criminally, but esp. if the "shootee" lives, ther may be "wiggle room" to sue. If the shooting can be questioned then the issue of ammo use may be brought up. The jury may read mindset into situation involving home made .44 mag rounds that they wouldn't if the "shootee" was hit with a .22 LR round. Even if there is nothing illegal about the act it might appear sinister. Juries are made up of a cross section of people so it is possible that 50% of the jury knows nothing about guns. When they hear about home made ammo and see a picture of a pool of blood and the "shootee's" wound(s) they may have a "oh that poor man" reaction.
Link Posted: 9/3/2001 4:32:58 PM EDT
So far as traditional criminal and civil self-defense theories, it makes no difference. You have no duty to limit the type of deadly force used to meet either real or apparent deadly force percieved. That's from a legal standpoint, objectively. Subjectively, I do not know of this ever having a probative impact in a civil suit (and certainly not in a criminal suit). Not in my 11 years of litigation experience or in reading caselaw from the many (too many) trade publications I scan from month to month. If anyone does have some authority, please give it to me and I will comment.
Link Posted: 9/3/2001 4:39:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/3/2001 4:40:29 PM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Yes, I don't quarrel with that, however I think it COULD be an issue. Why not just use factory loads for self-defense, the extra cost of those rounds will be offset by the peace of mind. Would you really know if it had an effect on a civil jury awward?? monetarily speaking.
Link Posted: 9/3/2001 5:10:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: . . . however I think it COULD be an issue. Why not just use factory loads for self-defense, the extra cost of those rounds will be offset by the peace of mind.
View Quote
Good point.
Would you really know if it had an effect on a civil jury awward?? monetarily speaking.
View Quote
Wait, I was referring to whether it had an effect or not, even relevant, in determining whether the defense of self-defense applied. If I assume self-defense does not apply and the shooter is civilly liable, then it would be hard to tell, unless you polled the jury. I ALWAYS poll my juries, when allowed.
Link Posted: 9/4/2001 6:43:33 AM EDT
Well...at least indirectly I got some info on the subject. Steve, Ok...I had no knowledge of your legal experience and I see how you could have perceived my comments as insults. "lawyers manipulating the truth" kind of speak. I like to make more friends, or at least positive acquaintances, than I like making enemies. So please, take no offense to what I had posted. Guess I could have exercised some courtesy and tact from the beginning. Shoot True
Link Posted: 9/4/2001 11:31:16 AM EDT
I think I may have read (how's that for being noncommittal?) Massad Ayoub's writing about reloads in a shooting situation. I can't remember the particulars though. Steve, since you are asking it "being probative to outcome" do you know of any cases where it was raised for possible influence? How about the weapon used? I keep hearing about if you have trigger jobs and custom work done on a weapon, in a shooting it may be used to try to make it look like you were looking for an excuse to shoot someone.
Link Posted: 9/4/2001 12:11:13 PM EDT
Gargoyle, No offense taken. Glad you are here. Looks like your skin is as thick as mine. If I can help you out in your situation, drop me and email and I'll give you what advice I can. Steve
Link Posted: 9/4/2001 12:28:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/4/2001 12:34:19 PM EDT by Steve-in-VA]
Originally Posted By BKinzey: Steve, since you are asking it "being probative to outcome" do you know of any cases where it was raised for possible influence? How about the weapon used? I keep hearing about if you have trigger jobs and custom work done on a weapon, in a shooting it may be used to try to make it look like you were looking for an excuse to shoot someone.
View Quote
Honestly no. I constantly hear, within the firearms community, things similar to this, but it's always "I heard that . . ." I remember when I went to get my CCW, the instructor for the safety course kept making statements about VA law, as if they were fact, that were WAY off. I kept my mouth shut. I will say this. If I were involved in a suit where self-defense was at issue and the credibility of the defendant's "explaination" was at issue, these factors could be used to argue that the defendant was lying about self-defense. "Look at the hardware used and the type of bullet fired at poor Mr. Victim, look at the number of bullets put in his body. Mr. Defendant obviously planned this killing and is trying to fool you people into thinking that he was actually being attacked . . ." That is a tough sell argument save very specific facts. Such as where the victim was the defendant's enemy, or astranged lover or whatever. That would be a case where the self-defense argument was tenuous already, dispite the "factors". The "factors" would not mean spit in a traditional self-defense case, such as a home invasion or attempted robbery. Those types of shootings happen weekly in America- you don't hear about them 'cause arrests generally do not follow them.
Top Top