Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 9/23/2002 6:41:10 PM EST
Ok, it's been awhile, but I could not find in the search engine the topic that related to using Reloaded ammo in self defense because using reloads implied "intent". I'd like to re-read that post(s), anyone know were it might be? also,IIRC, there was someone offering a 'reward' for proof that someone was processed in court on such bs. The reason I ask, is that durring a CCW class today, we were told to use only commercial ammo due to "liability issues".
Link Posted: 9/24/2002 4:13:14 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 10:06:37 AM EST
That's what's great about this board, you can get those types of opinions here as well, but over time you can see who's opinions come from knowledge. The law & firearms? Steve's "the guy." BTW, Steve it was you who gave the challenge and on that basis I have asked the same question when confronted by the liability issue on defensive reloads by others. As yet, nobody can state a case, they heard this myth somewhere but can't even state "My brother-in-law knows this guy who..." Thanks for the heads up Steve.
Link Posted: 9/25/2002 11:04:50 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 4:57:02 PM EST
a shameless BTT. thanks for the replies.. BUT, I'd like to know darn it! :) I think I'll write the NRA....
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 5:03:33 PM EST
Write the NRA, wait, wait, wait, wait some more, never get a response. Call them, get the run-around to talk to someone that isn't in their marketing department. Give up. Dread going to mailbox because its so full of NRA "please donate more money because we wasted all we had on mailing this crap out" letters. That said, I'm a member, will probably continue to be a member, but I'm not satisfied with their "customer service". FOTBR
Link Posted: 9/26/2002 5:24:57 PM EST
Reloads and self defense should never be mentioned in the same sentence due to our lovely litigatious society . What ever happened to "send lawyers , guns money " ?
Link Posted: 9/27/2002 2:55:37 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/27/2002 3:13:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/27/2002 3:28:37 AM EST by TheWind]
Massad Aayob reccomends that you do not use reloads as a factory load is consistant and uniform. When the gun is checked they can get no reliable ballistics as there is no evidence that the rounds you have left, were loaded the same as factory. You should always leave a few rounds in the box for a ballistics check. Also it is good fuel for an attorney, so the factory loads were not powerful enough? you had to make your own! I have testified at local and Federal levels, it is h*ll, they twist everything around. I had an attorney out to convinve the jury that an argument happened that never did. He swore to the jury that it happened. Remember that the the jury will not be fellow shooters and NRA members. THey will be people that have their gun education from Hollywood. I would rather be safe with common sense and being cautious, and being cleared before it goes to court.
Link Posted: 9/28/2002 7:08:34 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2002 8:23:01 AM EST
How about in a civil case, Steve? While a shooting maybe found justifiable in a criminal court a civil case is usually held to less strict standards. Right? While a person may win the criminal case they sure would hate to lose everything to the dead perp's family just because they got a bottom feeder that pushed the "reloaded his own ammo because the factory ammo wasn't deadly enough" BS.
Link Posted: 9/28/2002 10:37:21 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/28/2002 1:13:20 PM EST
Thanks Steve. I just wanted to be sure. After all, some times juries will do weird things in civil court.
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 6:24:20 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/29/2002 11:05:09 AM EST
Even if you had some ammo from the same batch, you are an involved party. THe ammo company is disinterested, therefore a powder burn test could help you, in a reload, you have no proof that it is the same as. If you can't afford factory ammo, how can you afford a lawyer?
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 5:38:49 PM EST
Although any defense ammo I keep in my pistol is factory... I trust my own handloads MUCH more than I do ANY factory.. I've had factory fail on me, on several occasions. Never so with home grown.. Only reason I use factory for defense, is from hearing all the liability BS... I'm just counting on Speer's reputation for great ammo, and because it's so popular with the LE community... so I'm making an exception. [;)]
Link Posted: 9/30/2002 9:28:37 PM EST
My question is this.....if you load with a common bullet (such as Speer Gold Dot) and use Speer cases, then how in the hell would anyone know that they were reloads to begin with? While I choose to use commercial ammo, because I think it's good enough, I think this stuff about liability is total horse-doo-doo. If you are justified in using lethal force to begin with, then what does it matter if you used whatever? I mean if the components you use are legal, this shouldn't even be an issue. Any attorney who would attempt to even consider prosecuting someone for a matter like that should be disbarred for being a moron! What the hell is wrong with this country anyway? But I think that using reloads isn't as much a criminal problem as it is a civil matter. That's where all the true BS starts spewing. Lawsuits have gotten totally out of hand in this country.
Link Posted: 10/11/2002 7:41:54 PM EST
If deadly force is justified based on actual or reasonably percieved deadly threat, it DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOU USE.
View Quote
I keep saying this everytime someone posts a thread like this or someone at the range talks about it. They just don't listen, because their favorite gun magazine author or "my buddy the cop" says otherwise. As Stave said, you're either justified in using deadly force or you're not. It doesn't matter whether you use a brookstick, a car, a frozen chicken (home-raised or "factory") over the head, or a .50BMG to effect that force. Perhaps when I pass the bar next year (which, of course, has nothing to do with whether I know anything about this area of the law), people will listen to me.
Link Posted: 10/11/2002 8:00:37 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 4:02:44 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 4:29:47 AM EST
Well it is best to cover your bases. Yes Deadly force could be required, but the family of that poor misunderstood victim of your induced violence, will try to get your house car and bank accounts. The problem with handloads is that is an opportunity for a lawyer to sensationalize. Why give them any ammunition? Factory ammo puts an outside party on it. Look they are suing gun companies for violence caused by their legally produced product. Even though it is used illegally, outside of their control. We are the targets of the liberal anti-gun folks. The case in FL, over the 'saturday night special', has a Brady bunch lawyer. And as for law school, learn one thing the law in school and the law on the streets are different. Until you have a few years of court room time, you don't know jack. And as for shooting an innocent bystander, you are guilty. If you discharge a weapon even when deadly force is warranted, you are responsible for the actions of that bullet until it comes to rest.
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 10:41:12 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 4:58:45 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/12/2002 6:27:18 PM EST
A preponderence of evidence is a lesser standard than reasonable doubt. THere is more feeling of what happened in a civil jury. You can beat the criminal and losre the civil. THe point is simple, Why take a chance, might just be enough to push a juror over if the picture is you are a nut, reload your own super powerful ammo and can't wait to shoot someone.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 6:25:15 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 5:55:52 PM EST
I was speaking in generalities and not at you and your partners. as I will continue to. Well as for reloaded Ammo, I will relent to Massod Aayob. He is a well respected writer and expert witness, he says don't. Mostly for the powder test to determine distance. As for Lawyers, I have dealt with many, as a LEO and Union President. Many with years before the bar, and from the mouth of two judges..... we should file a complaint and sue them for screwing up several cases. So time in is not necessaryily an indicator of competence. In fact in a recent Federal case, a very respected and long practicing Lawyer made statements on the record that were inappropriate, 'this is a party and he is a party judge' and 'the only form I do not object to is the form of a woman' As for law students, some are very intelligent, but you know that the deals are made in the offices and that there are tactics you need time to learn, in front of a court. It is a real world out there, no book can teach that.
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 2:51:31 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 11:35:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/14/2002 11:37:48 AM EST by TheWind]
He seemed to want instant respect.....cause I am in Law school. BTW we won the lawsuit anyway, it was a 1st amendment case.
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 11:48:36 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 12:06:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/14/2002 12:07:22 PM EST by dissipator556]
Hey Steve, leave him alone... he's just jealous of the law student. BTW, I take the bar in 2004. [;)] How hard is it to find a job with the NRA there in VA (or anywhere else the NRA is located)?
Link Posted: 10/15/2002 2:42:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 2:09:26 AM EST
Steve, so we don't get into a lawyer-cop bashing post. I am not jealous of a law student. My choice was to be a cop. I have been trained as a cop. We are taught to be careful with what you say. In the morning you joke about 'I want to kick some ass today' Later that day you get in a fight and someone who overheard your statement, brings it up. Now you had intent, you were lookinng for a fight. My point was that reloads are like that, you can introduce intent and state of mind into court. I have seen it done in several cases. DBrown gives legal advive on it is ok to use reloads. I paraphrase Massod Aayob, a nationally known witness and writer. You do not address his opinion. I would like you to respond to his view.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 2:57:12 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 6:48:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2002 6:54:41 AM EST by TheWind]
What we have here is two different states. NJ is real stricct and my county is one of the strictest. As a LEO if I was to use a firearm in VA to defend myself, I would still have to answer to my department by our standards. Here a felon has the right to flee much of the time. And I have seen cops get several months of investigations for shootings that were obvious. Here reloads would be a very bad choice. You would be cruicfied by the PO. They don't even like LEOs with guns.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 7:59:30 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 9:37:48 AM EST
Several lawyers have told me never ever use reloads for self defense. The prosecution attorney will tear you apart and make you look like a cold blooded killer that loads "killer" bullets with only one purpose, to kill people. Several people, including two lawyers suggested you use the same exact factory ammo as the local PD. From your CCW training, you'll remember you always shoot to "stop". You never shoot to "kill". In Portland, the PDs also shoot to stop, usually it means they stop because the magazine is empty....really. Just my 2 cents
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 12:52:11 PM EST
I appreciate the offer, but right now I have too much invested in NJ.
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 3:22:49 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/17/2002 5:20:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2002 5:22:31 PM EST by TheWind]
Well this is one cop that disagrees, and I am not alone, there are lots of us that think the laws are stupid. Here if you have a handgun loaded with hollow points, it is one count per round. A BB gun is considered a firearm. A BB pistol requires a Permit to purchase a handgun. An NJ might put Frank Launtenberg back in the US senate. So you guys on here from NJ get out and vote because he is one voice that all of us do not need in DC.
Link Posted: 10/18/2002 2:19:47 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/18/2002 3:59:58 AM EST
That I didn't hear, but he is the much lesser of a very big evil. I do suspect that Lautenberg might suddenly retire, letting McGreevey put some one inhis place
Link Posted: 10/18/2002 8:15:59 PM EST
Originally Posted By TheWind: My point was that reloads are like that, you can introduce intent and state of mind into court. I have seen it done in several cases. DBrown gives legal advive on it is ok to use reloads. I paraphrase Massod Aayob, a nationally known witness and writer. You do not address his opinion. I would like you to respond to his view.
View Quote
Could you give me some cites for those cases you've seen? I can pull them up right now on Lexis. Actually, I've looked pretty thoroughly on an array of databases that only a law student or professor would have access to, and I have not found any of these nightmare cases. In case you're wondering, I've done 3 classes at LFI, and I believe that Ayoob greatly overstates the liability issues for several areas (ammo being the biggest, and trigger weight being the next). GSR is not an issue if you have other reloads from the same batch, either in the gun at the shoot scene or at home. I post on several boards and I like to avoid pissing contests with LEOs, but they always seem to go after me personally, downplay my "real life" experience, piss on me because I'm a law student, etc., instead of addressing the real issues. This, even after an experience trial attorney (in my state, no less) says the same thing. Guess what - nobody here except you, seems to care that I'm a law student, so stick to the topic. You say you're trained to be careful what you say...well, I'm trained to scrutinze, analyze, and then articulate. Since LFI-I I have done so, and concluded that Ayoob is wrong in several areas. Ammo liability is one of them. Trigger liability and reliance on Marshall/Sanow statistics are the others. I await those cites. Please feel free to choose any state, I'm very interested to know if this boogieman really exists.
Link Posted: 10/18/2002 9:31:12 PM EST
Originally Posted By VA-gunnut: OK, here is a change in direction for the discussion. What if you are forced to use your weapon in self-defense, but during the exchange of fire you miss the intended target, and you hit an innocent bystander and they die? Do you feel that there could be an increased chance that your choice of ammo could be used against you? You will definitely not be justified in killing the innocent bystander.
View Quote
Ammo choice aside, it's more complicated than what you state above. The way I read most authorities, you must have acted in a reckless or negligent manner w/ respect to the 3rd party's safety, in order to be held criminally liable (involuntary manslaughter). If your actions were otherwise justified, and you acted in a reasonable and prudent manner WRT third parties, but still you hit an innocent bystander, then you may be off the hook criminally. The classic case is where the innocent suddenly jumps into the line of fire (or the attacker suddenly jumps OUT of it). http://www.mslawyer.com/mssc/ctapp/970701/9500233.html http://www.maricopa.gov/legaldef/Documents%5CRick%20Miller%20Article.pdf In the civil area, an illustrative case: "As between a person upon whom a battery is being perpetrated and an innocent bystander, if the person attacked injures the bystander while acting in the lawful exercise of his right of self-defense, the question arises as to whether he acted with reasonable care so as not to injure such bystander; in such case the question of negligence on the part of the person unlawfully attacked and contributory negligence on the part of the injured bystander may become an issue, and the defense of contributory negligence may be available." artosh v Banning (1967) 251 CA2d 378, 59 Cal Rptr 382. There is no liability for intentional tort, because the use of force is "privileged" and therefore no intent exists to be transferred to the innocent person. As the cite above points out, however, negligence still applies. Your actions will be judged by whether you exercised reasonable care under the circumstances. In a contributory negligence state (such as CA or VA), if the "innocent" bystander does something negligent that helps lead him to his demise, then he (or his estate) is SOL. Back to your question: I think in order for ammo alone to support a negligence claim, a plaintiff's attorney would need to articulate a reason why your choice of ammo or weapon, in and of itself, was unreasonable under the circumstances. I would think that it would take more than a mere showing that the ammo was "more dangerous" than other ammo...the plaintiff would need to show why the ammo you used was unreasonably dangerous to innocent bystanders in particular. Examples might include armor piercing ammo that can go through a wall, or wildly inaccurate loads. The above discussion is based on my own research and thoughts, and should not be considered legal advice. Cases cited are good law in their respective states, but are not authoritative elsewhere.
Link Posted: 10/19/2002 10:27:59 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/19/2002 4:42:46 PM EST
Maybe my department is extreme, but I had to break down my off duty weapon and it was checked for having a lighter trigger or any changes to the weapon. I most likely will look for some cases nextweek, since I am beat form work. Personally I will use factory loads for carry purposes, I think Aayob, does a very good job. As a LEO we stand the chance of being taken to court more often than you or any civilian, and our training towards covering our actions.
Link Posted: 10/20/2002 4:51:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/20/2002 4:53:03 AM EST by VA-gunnut]
Top Top