[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Using reloads in OC/CCW (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 7/16/2013 5:42:27 AM EDT
| I've always been told that reloads are a no-no in defensive carry, as prosecutors will use that against you if you are ever involved in a defensive shooting. After watching the Zimmerman trial for the past several weeks, I have come to appreciate that prosecutors are full of more shit than a poop thread and are more than happy to make shit up if they lack real evidence. With that being said, is there any actual case law where the use of reloaded ammunition was used (successfully) against a person in court? |
|
Paranoia.
Justified use of lethal force is justified use of lethal force. Sure...certain groups may call for your head based on irrelevant facts. You will win in the court of law, but may lose in the court of public opinion. Example: Zimmerman. Fully justified in using lethal force. Won in the court of law, lost in the court of public opinion. It's best to not have to use lethal force in the first place. |
|
Quoted:
Paranoia. Justified use of lethal force is justified use of lethal force. Sure...certain groups may call for your head based on irrelevant facts. You will win in the court of law, but may lose in the court of public opinion. Example: Zimmerman. Fully justified in using lethal force. Won in the court of law, lost in the court of public opinion. It's best to not have to use lethal force in the first place. I completely agree with this statement. I only ask because I imagine had GZ used "Winchester Ranger" or HST the prosecutor would have made a fuss over him using Law Enforcement ammo 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Paranoia. Justified use of lethal force is justified use of lethal force. Sure...certain groups may call for your head based on irrelevant facts. You will win in the court of law, but may lose in the court of public opinion. Example: Zimmerman. Fully justified in using lethal force. Won in the court of law, lost in the court of public opinion. It's best to not have to use lethal force in the first place. I completely agree with this statement. I only ask because I imagine had GZ used "Winchester Ranger" or HST the prosecutor would have made a fuss over him using Law Enforcement ammo And if he used reloads, they'd say he customer made ammo that was exceptionally lethal, thereby demonstrating premeditation. Any way you look at it, if you have to shoot, you're going to have a bad day, and likely, a bad year or possibly have that day haunt you for the rest of your life. I really don't think factory ammo vs reloads makes a difference in the big picture. |
|
Quoted:
Paranoia. Justified use of lethal force is justified use of lethal force. Sure...certain groups may call for your head based on irrelevant facts. You will win in the court of law, but may lose in the court of public opinion. Example: Zimmerman. Fully justified in using lethal force. Won in the court of law, lost in the court of public opinion. It's best to not have to use lethal force in the first place. This, a good shoot is a good shoot period. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Paranoia. Justified use of lethal force is justified use of lethal force. Sure...certain groups may call for your head based on irrelevant facts. You will win in the court of law, but may lose in the court of public opinion. Example: Zimmerman. Fully justified in using lethal force. Won in the court of law, lost in the court of public opinion. It's best to not have to use lethal force in the first place. This, a good shoot is a good shoot period. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I'm sure Zimmerman thought it was a good shoot.....and a couple of million dollars later a jury agreed with him...lucky him. 
|
|
Quoted:
As a reloader, I still only CCW factory ammo. Why give them anything to use against you if it comes down to that? Because you can save $2 a box and your reloads are more reliable than factory ammo and shoot minute of eyeball at 50 yards- which is critical in most defensive shootings. |
|
You know, the tool you just pulled the trigger on was designed to kill. Ammo is the same way. There is no such thing as wounding ammo. All ammo is designed to kill. To say one type of projo is more lethal than another is just wrong. Lethal is lethal. There is no such thing as more dead.
Carry what you are comfortable with and trust. If it's hand loads, that's fine. |
|
Quoted:
As a reloader, I still only CCW factory ammo. Why give them anything to use against you if it comes down to that? As a reloader myself I also carry factory rounds. I don't do it for the legal ramifications, but although I load some great ammo I do get the occasional bad case or bullet that will cause a stoppage. That's perfectly acceptable on the range but never on the street. As to the legal considerations you and I might be in more trouble by buying high performance factory ammo. If we shoot a couple hundred rounds of reloads a week then why are we buying the "special" ammo for our carry weapons? Kind of a Catch-22. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Paranoia. Justified use of lethal force is justified use of lethal force. Sure...certain groups may call for your head based on irrelevant facts. You will win in the court of law, but may lose in the court of public opinion. Example: Zimmerman. Fully justified in using lethal force. Won in the court of law, lost in the court of public opinion. It's best to not have to use lethal force in the first place. This, a good shoot is a good shoot period. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile An over-zealous prosecutor will use any detail to try to convict if that's his goal. Look at the case of Harold Fish. The prosecutor argued the caliber of his gun (10mm) was evidence he intended to kill his attacker. That said, as has been pointed out, use whatever you shoot best with. If you have a prosecutor who wants your ass they're going to find every minute detail as being worth using to indict your actions. Choosing a sub-optimal tool for the job based on the statistically insignificant possibility of that perfect storm coming together is bad decision making, IMHO. I think, often, gun folks (and particularly those who carry) overlook the fact that the odds of getting in a use of lethal force altercation are, really, statistically insignificant all by their lonesomes. The vast majority of people who get shot in this country are criminals and in the vast majority of those cases so are the shooters. Between the low numbers of people who actually carry, the low numbers of those who carry *all the time* and the general mindset of those who choose to arm themselves keeping them out of most trouble ..... well, the odds are very slim. Of course, for me, it's not about the odds; it's the stakes. |
|
So, we basically have a few choices.
1. Reloads - Ultra lethal custom made to kill babies 2. Factory CCW/Duty Ammo - Cop wannabe ammo designed to kill minorities 3. Factory Target Ammo - Used by horrible people to target the underprivileged 4. Factory Non-Duty JHP - Used by people that don't think FMJ ammo is deadly enough for their purposes... extra deadly Fuck it. If I ever need to draw, I'm just going with pistol whipping the perp into submission. 
|
|
Ayoob refers to one case where a man got convicted for murder, where he claimed the wife committed suicide. Subject gun was a revolver with reloads, and the prosecution used that fact to deny any ballistics evidence about the distance of the muzzle from the deceased, IIRC.
Claimed they "could not duplicate" the load, even though more cartidges were availabe ... |
|
Quoted:
Paranoia. Justified use of lethal force is justified use of lethal force. Sure...certain groups may call for your head based on irrelevant facts. You will win in the court of law, but may lose in the court of public opinion. Example: Zimmerman. Fully justified in using lethal force. Won in the court of law, lost in the court of public opinion. It's best to not have to use lethal force in the first place. another one who didn't watch the trial. the slimy prosecutor will throw ANYTHING at a jury to convict you. I reload. I've cooked up some loads that would make most of cringe. I've had .38 so fuckin hot it was at near magnum energy levels. I've cooked 10mm to 650 lbs of energy. what do i carry in my g19 and g17? remingtom umc hollow points. why? cop/prosecutor/whatever "why did you load your gun with this ammo?" "its what they had at walmart" |
|
Quoted:
Ayoob refers to one case where a man got convicted for murder, where he claimed the wife committed suicide. Subject gun was a revolver with reloads, and the prosecution used that fact to deny any ballistics evidence about the distance of the muzzle from the deceased, IIRC. I would *have* to assume there was more evidence than the lack of ballistic data to convict for murder. |
|
Who knows - had he personally handloaded deadly bullets capable of killing quickly, he may have been convicted. For want of a nail, the shoe was lost...for want of a shoe....
Quoted:
Paranoia. Justified use of lethal force is justified use of lethal force. Sure...certain groups may call for your head based on irrelevant facts. You will win in the court of law, but may lose in the court of public opinion. Example: Zimmerman. Fully justified in using lethal force. Won in the court of law, lost in the court of public opinion. It's best to not have to use lethal force in the first place. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Paranoia. Justified use of lethal force is justified use of lethal force. Sure...certain groups may call for your head based on irrelevant facts. You will win in the court of law, but may lose in the court of public opinion. Example: Zimmerman. Fully justified in using lethal force. Won in the court of law, lost in the court of public opinion. It's best to not have to use lethal force in the first place. I completely agree with this statement. I only ask because I imagine had GZ used "Winchester Ranger" or HST the prosecutor would have made a fuss over him using Law Enforcement ammo people who think like both of you WON'T be on your jury - you will have non-gun people, maybe 6 women.....so keep dreaming guys. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Paranoia. Justified use of lethal force is justified use of lethal force. Sure...certain groups may call for your head based on irrelevant facts. You will win in the court of law, but may lose in the court of public opinion. Example: Zimmerman. Fully justified in using lethal force. Won in the court of law, lost in the court of public opinion. It's best to not have to use lethal force in the first place. This, a good shoot is a good shoot period. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile that's what you (and I ) think. But you have to plan your self defense to be custom made for a jury. Using killer bullets you made yourself, or using black talons designed to clutch a young boy's heart in their hot, screaming, smoking talons, is not a good look for you in front of the jury. Hell I use FMJ round nose. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ayoob refers to one case where a man got convicted for murder, where he claimed the wife committed suicide. Subject gun was a revolver with reloads, and the prosecution used that fact to deny any ballistics evidence about the distance of the muzzle from the deceased, IIRC. I would *have* to assume there was more evidence than the lack of ballistic data to convict for murder. The problem was that there were no comparative exemplars outside of the defendants custody. The major manufacturers keep samples from every lot of ammo they load. In that particular case there was some question as to how far away the muzzle was from the decedents head- did SHE fire the shot or was someone else doing the shooting? The argument revolved around the amount of powder residue/stippling. IF the fired round had been a Speer Gold Dot from lot A2735 it would be an easy matter for a forensics tech to call Speer and request a sample. Fire the sample and compare it to the data they had. With Joe Bobs reloads that's not possible for a number of reasons. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ayoob refers to one case where a man got convicted for murder, where he claimed the wife committed suicide. Subject gun was a revolver with reloads, and the prosecution used that fact to deny any ballistics evidence about the distance of the muzzle from the deceased, IIRC. I would *have* to assume there was more evidence than the lack of ballistic data to convict for murder. NJ vs. Danny Bias. Read about it here. Nope. Just a lack of gun shot residue. Actual conviction was for Reckless Manslaughter. 4 trials. |
|
Our county Assistant Prosecutor did the legal portion of our CHL class. He said use what the local PD or SO uses. I carry Winchester T-series. I figure since his office would be the most likely to bring charges if I needed to use my CCW I might as well take his advice.
ETA Sample question and answer. Q: Sir, why did you load your firearm to maximum capacity with ammunition designed for LEO's? A: You told me to do so. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ayoob refers to one case where a man got convicted for murder, where he claimed the wife committed suicide. Subject gun was a revolver with reloads, and the prosecution used that fact to deny any ballistics evidence about the distance of the muzzle from the deceased, IIRC. I would *have* to assume there was more evidence than the lack of ballistic data to convict for murder. NJ vs. Danny Bias. Read about it here. Nope. Just a lack of gun shot residue. Actual conviction was for Reckless Manslaughter. 4 trials. Huh, thanks for that. Interesting read indeed. |
|
I do not doubt the reliability/effectiveness of reloads, but after seeing the nonsense the prosecutors brought up a the Z trial I will be carrying only factory ammo.
Would it even be brought up in court? Who knows. But I am confident enough in the Speer gold dots to not worry about it. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ayoob refers to one case where a man got convicted for murder, where he claimed the wife committed suicide. Subject gun was a revolver with reloads, and the prosecution used that fact to deny any ballistics evidence about the distance of the muzzle from the deceased, IIRC. I would *have* to assume there was more evidence than the lack of ballistic data to convict for murder. NJ vs. Danny Bias. Read about it here. Nope. Just a lack of gun shot residue. Actual conviction was for Reckless Manslaughter. 4 trials. That case is such crap, and only proof that with enough go arounds, a prosecutor can get whatever he want's. Note that in the Zimmerman trial, no GSR was found either. The real problem is the belief in the perfection of CSI. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ayoob refers to one case where a man got convicted for murder, where he claimed the wife committed suicide. Subject gun was a revolver with reloads, and the prosecution used that fact to deny any ballistics evidence about the distance of the muzzle from the deceased, IIRC. I would *have* to assume there was more evidence than the lack of ballistic data to convict for murder. NJ vs. Danny Bias. Read about it here. Nope. Just a lack of gun shot residue. Actual conviction was for Reckless Manslaughter. 4 trials. That case is such crap, and only proof that with enough go arounds, a prosecutor can get whatever he want's. Note that in the Zimmerman trial, no GSR was found either. The real problem is the belief in the perfection of CSI. It *is* however illustrative of the theory that if the state wants a conviction bad enough .... they'll likely get it. Even if it takes a decade and 4 trials for different crimes. ETA: Which was one of the points I made earlier. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ayoob refers to one case where a man got convicted for murder, where he claimed the wife committed suicide. Subject gun was a revolver with reloads, and the prosecution used that fact to deny any ballistics evidence about the distance of the muzzle from the deceased, IIRC. I would *have* to assume there was more evidence than the lack of ballistic data to convict for murder. NJ vs. Danny Bias. Read about it here. Nope. Just a lack of gun shot residue. Actual conviction was for Reckless Manslaughter. 4 trials. That case is such crap, and only proof that with enough go arounds, a prosecutor can get whatever he want's. Note that in the Zimmerman trial, no GSR was found either. The real problem is the belief in the perfection of CSI. no gsr on zimmerman''s hands. there were powder burns on martin's hoodie and skin |
|
Quoted:
dumb question but how would they even know? My thoughts exactly. I carry reloads is some of my defensive sidearms. The number one rule after a shooting (or any time you deal with the police) is to keep your mouth shut. All questions need to be answered through lawyer. Never volunteer anything; it will be used against you. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
dumb question but how would they even know? My thoughts exactly. I carry reloads is some of my defensive sidearms. The number one rule after a shooting (or any time you deal with the police) is to keep your mouth shut. All questions need to be answered through lawyer. Never volunteer anything; it will be used against you. and you don't think your firearm/ammo will be seized? |
|
Quoted:
Paranoia. Justified use of lethal force is justified use of lethal force. Sure...certain groups may call for your head based on irrelevant facts. You will win in the court of law, but may lose in the court of public opinion. Example: Zimmerman. Fully justified in using lethal force. Won in the court of law, lost in the court of public opinion. It's best to not have to use lethal force in the first place. this... good shoot is good shoot. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Paranoia. Justified use of lethal force is justified use of lethal force. Sure...certain groups may call for your head based on irrelevant facts. You will win in the court of law, but may lose in the court of public opinion. Example: Zimmerman. Fully justified in using lethal force. Won in the court of law, lost in the court of public opinion. It's best to not have to use lethal force in the first place. This, a good shoot is a good shoot period. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile I'm sure Zimmerman thought it was a good shoot.....and a couple of million dollars later a jury agreed with him...lucky him. and when his head was getting bashed on the concrete i doubt he cared about the legal cost. his only concern was to be breathing when help arrived. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
dumb question but how would they even know? My thoughts exactly. I carry reloads is some of my defensive sidearms. The number one rule after a shooting (or any time you deal with the police) is to keep your mouth shut. All questions need to be answered through lawyer. Never volunteer anything; it will be used against you. and you don't think your firearm/ammo will be seized? Of course it will. And in it they will find unfired cartridges. Gold dot bullets too. Just like in commercially available ammunition. Nothing out of the ordinary. I'm not saying everyone should do what I do, I'm just stating what I am comfortable doing. |
|
Quoted:
You know, the tool you just pulled the trigger on was designed to kill. Ammo is the same way. There is no such thing as wounding ammo. All ammo is designed to kill. To say one type of projo is more lethal than another is just wrong. Lethal is lethal. There is no such thing as more dead. Carry what you are comfortable with and trust. If it's hand loads, that's fine. My guns must not operate properly, then. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know, the tool you just pulled the trigger on was designed to kill. Ammo is the same way. There is no such thing as wounding ammo. All ammo is designed to kill. To say one type of projo is more lethal than another is just wrong. Lethal is lethal. There is no such thing as more dead. Carry what you are comfortable with and trust. If it's hand loads, that's fine. My guns must not operate properly, then.
every defensive gun is designed to kill. how you use it is the difference |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know, the tool you just pulled the trigger on was designed to kill. Ammo is the same way. There is no such thing as wounding ammo. All ammo is designed to kill. To say one type of projo is more lethal than another is just wrong. Lethal is lethal. There is no such thing as more dead. Carry what you are comfortable with and trust. If it's hand loads, that's fine. My guns must not operate properly, then.
every defensive gun is designed to kill. how you use it is the difference Thank you |