Cast Boolits For Self Defense?

[2ndAmendmentNut]

If there where no legal issues with using reloads and self defense, would you use your own reloads? Would you use a cast boolit?

With the limited testing I have been able to do with my handguns (phone books, wood, pest control, etc) cast boolits consistently seem to perform right in-between a FMJ and a JHP. I mean cast boolits usually for me expand better then a FMJ and penetrate better then a JHP. Really a cast boolit seems like the best of both worlds. So, my answer to my own questions would be “yes” and “yes.”

[JSnover]

Yes to both questions. There are no legal issues unless you do something illegal with your reloads.

[Bucks Owin]

I'd be careful about the "legal" part. It's not illegal to defend yourself from an armed attacker, no. But I can visualize some lib leaning prosecuter claiming that you intentionally used a handload (of ANY kind) to inflict more "damage" to some poor criminal "victim" before the fact. Intent to grieviously wound or some other such nonsense. Besides, there are some pretty nasty self defense factory loads available to CYA with "legally"...JMO, Dennis

[76 WARLOCK]

I carry cast boolits in my carry gun, there is no evidence that anyone has ever been prosecuted for using reloads.

[deltaenterprizes]

"Legal" issues are not just criminal charges, there is a whole nother ball game after you are cleared in a justifiable homicide in CIVIL court where they take all you have worked for your entire life.
Any case law on that?

[superior]

The standard FBI load is a 158gr+p lead semi wad cutter. After a 9mm failed to penetrate during the infamous FBI shootout in Florida, they no longer use 9mm. In fact after the 9mm failed to penetrate the torso of the perp, ( the bullet went through his arm) he lived long enough to kill 2 more agents. He was finally killed by a .38 that completely penetrated and took out the spine before exiting. So yes, cast boolits can be very effective for defense, however, I wouldn't recommend using your own handloads. You will most like be described as a "Rambo" type. " ladies and gentlemen of the jury", Mr. (insert your name here) wasnt satisfied with todays high-tech ammunition, no..he had to go out into his garage and manufacture "his own KILLER BULLETS"...The proper response would be " The factory ammunition seemed to powerful", but why complicate an already precarious situation?
Just blow them away with a good condom load and be done with it! Remember:
"Better is the enemy of good enough"

[pdawg_shooter]

I will take my chances with my reloads, I can get out of jail, no so sure about getting out of dead!

[EMC45]

I know Massad Ayoob has blathered on and on about this topic. I would use my reloads for sure. In my state there is Castle Doctrine which prevents any repercussions for a shooting that is justified. I am not too worried about it.

[Jim]

I've been told by more than a few instructors AND lawyers that the other guy's attorney will make a big issue of you using a handload in self defense. They capitalize on the fact that you made this ammunition with intent to kill. The fact that it is or is not more lethal than factory loads is irrelevant.
A cat's got two ends and there's more than one way to skin 'im. To start with, if the projectile is a manufactured(JSP, JHP, FMJ, etc.), it has to be proven by a ballistics lab that it WAS a handload. It can be argued that the one round you fired was a factory and the rest are handloads. Then there are reasonable reasons for carrying handloads.
1- "That's what I had in the gun the last time I shot it and just didn't think to switch the loads."
2- "I didn't make it to kill anybody. I've been handloading for years and I haven't bought any factory manufactured ammunition in several years."
3- "I shot the last of my manufactured ammunition a few days before the incident and had not gotten to the store to buy more."

If the other lawyer wants to speculate that you intentionally made the handloads to kill, let him. Your lawyer should object on the grounds of assumption and challenge the other lawyer to prove it. THEY have the burden of proof.

[Recluse]

"Legal" issues are not just criminal charges, there is a whole nother ball game after you are cleared in a justifiable homicide in CIVIL court where they take all you have worked for your entire life.
Any case law on that?

The Castle Doctrine--protects you from civil liability in the ruling that it was a good or clean (ie justifiable) shooting.

:coffee:

[six_gun]

Have you ever tried a shot to the body of anything living and breathing, with a wadcutter. The best way to discribe it is "splash" They won't penetrate very far into a wall but on flesh they really do a job. A jackrabbit simply explodes. Gut shoot a bad guy with one and I don't think he will move farther then the floor.
Sixgun

[Russel Nash]

EMC 45 wrote:


I know Massad Ayoob has blathered on and on about this topic.

Massad Ayoob is nothing more than a paid shill for the gun and ammo manufacturers.

Of course he doesn't want you to use your own reloads and/or cast boolits in a self-defense type shooting. He would rather see that you buy the uber expensive over hyped jacketed hollow points from Federal/Remington/Winchester _____ (insert name of whatever ammo manufacturer who is giving him free ammo schwag for his "testing and evaluation purposes" for whatever the next article is going to write about).

I guess being paid to be an expert witness or to covertly advertise certain manufacturer's products or to sometimes "instruct" classes is more lucrative and more sexy than just being some average-ly experienced cop in some Podunk town near the East Coast.

Massad Ayoob once said that the Smith and Wesson Sigma was like the best gun ever.

:veryconfu

So I wouldn't go hanging on to every word and syllable that Mas utters or writes.

[softpoint]

Mas is the only one that has ever brought this up as far as I know. I know of no instances where this was used against anyone. Icarry cast in my .45, 452460, to be exact, over a stout charge of bluedot. Jeff Cooper once stated that a 200 gr. swc in a .45 was one of the best.
Here in Texas, if the defensive shooting is "no billed " by a grand jury, there will be no trial, and there will be no civil action either(there may be a civil suit filed, but if the shooting was dismissed by the grand jury, it won't go to court.) Even the police shootings go to the grand jury for review.
If you have misgivings about carrying your own loads, simple, don't. I have no problem with it here in Texas, anyway. And like the poster said, Recovering from a court issue is far easier than recovering from dead.:smile:

[dualsport]

Just my two cents, I use only factory ammo for my home defense loads. I can't see a good enough reason to leave myself open to a law suit when it can so easily be avoided. Slim chance of ever going there, but that's my opinion. If I was sued, maybe I'd prevail, but I'd rather not get sued in the first place. A shooting is bad enough without adding legal **** to it. JMHO

[mike in co]

"Legal" issues are not just criminal charges, there is a whole nother ball game after you are cleared in a justifiable homicide in CIVIL court where they take all you have worked for your entire life.
Any case law on that?

no.......

lots of hot air...no facts from a court decision

[mike in co]

I've been told by more than a few instructors AND lawyers that the other guy's attorney will make a big issue of you using a handload in self defense. They capitalize on the fact that you made this ammunition with intent to kill. The fact that it is or is not more lethal than factory loads is irrelevant.
A cat's got two ends and there's more than one way to skin 'im. To start with, if the projectile is a manufactured(JSP, JHP, FMJ, etc.), it has to be proven by a ballistics lab that it WAS a handload. It can be argued that the one round you fired was a factory and the rest are handloads. Then there are reasonable reasons for carrying handloads.
1- "That's what I had in the gun the last time I shot it and just didn't think to switch the loads."
2- "I didn't make it to kill anybody. I've been handloading for years and I haven't bought any factory manufactured ammunition in several years."
3- "I shot the last of my manufactured ammunition a few days before the incident and had not gotten to the store to buy more."

If the other lawyer wants to speculate that you intentionally made the handloads to kill, let him. Your lawyer should object on the grounds of assumption and challenge the other lawyer to prove it. THEY have the burden of proof.

self defense ....is implied intent to kill......you are in a situtation where your life or that of others is threatened.....one does not shoot to wound...one shoots to kill.

the intent is to stop the threat using deadly force( a loaded gun).......yes you do stop when the threat is eliminated.....but one does not shoot to wound unless one has a very big wallet.

[Echo]

Yes to both. I recommend silly WC's over 2.7 BE for the ladies carrying a .38 belly gun, and have no fear that if she shoots the perp several times in the body, he will lose interest in grabbing whatever he was intent on grabbing. Or she could emulate the Aussie grannie.

And for guys - whatever they are comfortable with, be it another belly gun or slabsides, or anything between or outside. With handloads. With J-word OR cast.

[mike in co]

Just my two cents, I use only factory ammo for my home defense loads. I can't see a good enough reason to leave myself open to a law suit when it can so easily be avoided. Slim chance of ever going there, but that's my opinion. If I was sued, maybe I'd prevail, but I'd rather not get sued in the first place. A shooting is bad enough without adding legal **** to it. JMHO


what make you think they will not sue you for using "sel-defense" ammo.....for using a gun, for not just getting out of his way and letting steal from you....


sorry no substance to your logic..as no one to date has been sued over hand loaded ammo...it is all internet bs.

mike in co

[oldhickory]

I feel very well armed with the right cast boolits, (and a few select swaged boolits as well). The only jacketed handgun loads I have are some Federal Hydro-shocks in 230gr. .45acp flavor...And a few boxes of Black Talons from several years ago.:mrgreen:

[GabbyM]

Hand loads is all I use. Don't trust anything made in a factory as much as I do my own bullets.
I'm no armature at loading ammo.

[EMC45]

EMC 45 wrote:



Massad Ayoob is nothing more than a paid shill for the gun and ammo manufacturers.

Of course he doesn't want you to use your own reloads and/or cast boolits in a self-defense type shooting. He would rather see that you buy the uber expensive over hyped jacketed hollow points from Federal/Remington/Winchester _____ (insert name of whatever ammo manufacturer who is giving him free ammo schwag for his "testing and evaluation purposes" for whatever the next article is going to write about).

I guess being paid to be an expert witness or to covertly advertise certain manufacturer's products or to sometimes "instruct" classes is more lucrative and more sexy than just being some average-ly experienced cop in some Podunk town near the East Coast.

Massad Ayoob once said that the Smith and Wesson Sigma was like the best gun ever.

:veryconfu

So I wouldn't go hanging on to every word and syllable that Mas utters or writes.


My point exactly! My post was not to defend his bankrolled theories at all!!

[AZ-Stew]

My lawyer's answers would be:

1.) Arizona law authorized the use of "deadly" force in this incident. While it's unfortunate that AZ-Stew's attacker died from the injuries he received during the lawful self-defense shooting, "deadly" means just that. The autopsy report and testimony of the medical examiner clearly shows that he would not have been less dead if he had been shot with different ammunition.

2.) AZ-Stew lawfully carries a light weight .41 Magnum revolver. Factory ammunition in this caliber is VERY powerful and makes the gun difficult to control. The forensics reports show that the ammunition in AZ-Stew's revolver and the rounds fired during his justifiable self defense were considerably LESS powerful than factory ammunition. He handloaded this ammunition to enable him to have better control over the revolver and lessen the chance that he would accidentally shoot an innocent bystander.

Regards,

Stew

[JSnover]

My lawyer's answers would be:

1.) Arizona law authorized the use of "deadly" force in this incident. While it's unfortunate that AZ-Stew's attacker died from the injuries he received during the lawful self-defense shooting, "deadly" means just that. The autopsy report and testimony of the medical examiner clearly shows that he would not have been less dead if he had been shot with different ammunition.

2.) AZ-Stew lawfully carries a light weight .41 Magnum revolver. Factory ammunition in this caliber is VERY powerful and makes the gun difficult to control. The forensics reports show that the ammunition in AZ-Stew's revolver and the rounds fired during his justifiable self defense were considerably LESS powerful than factory ammunition. He handloaded this ammunition to enable him to have better control over the revolver and lessen the chance that he would accidentally shoot an innocent bystander.

Regards,

Stew

That's all I'm sayin: "Your Honor, that store-bought stuff is way too deadly. I'm makin' up some 'powder puffs' but at the time when he busted in, my load development had not been completed."

[Ricochet]

Any instructor or lawyer who's warned about this is just repeating what they read from Massad Ayoob, or from someone else who's repeating what Massad Ayoob said. This is a single source myth.

[Jim]

All good points. GOOD points.

[EMC45]

Any instructor or lawyer who's warned about this is just repeating what they read from Massad Ayoob, or from someone else who's repeating what Massad Ayoob said. This is a single source myth.



Brilliantly put Ricochet!

[Rocky Raab]

As just another "paid shill for the ammo companies" my opinion clearly is worthless.

But I WOULD have said that cast bullets are ineffective for defense. That's why we've never heard of Bill Hickok, Doc Holladay, Wyatt Earp, Tom Threepersons ...

[Jim]

I love Rocky's sarcasm! Well said, Rocky,well said!

[OutHuntn84]

IMHO It does not matter what a perp is shot with. The point is justified deadly force. They will try and say you have made it a life long goal to manufacture your own deadliest ammunition and have been just itching to use it, or they will say you went out of your way to purchase the deadlies ammunition on the market. Or even military grade ammunition FMJs. No matter if it is cast jacketed swaged HP what ever it is they will try and show a dark side, that you have been planning all your life just to kill some poor helpless criminal. Any decent defence attorney will be able to squash it easly.

[Blammer]

to the question at hand, na I'd use factory stuff, why? because I'd buy the best there is, my reloads and lead are for plinking and practice cheap.

Yes I hunt with them, but that's a bit different.

I am an instructor for CCH permits and I will tell my students that with any shoot that is "good'' you need not worry about the ammo that was used. With any shoot that is not "good" you will have bigger fish to worry about than the ammo that was used.

[mike in co]

As just another "paid shill for the ammo companies" my opinion clearly is worthless.

But I WOULD have said that cast bullets are ineffective for defense. That's why we've never heard of Bill Hickok, Doc Holladay, Wyatt Earp, Tom Threepersons ...

shame on you rocky.....

[Bret4207]

IMHO It does not matter what a perp is shot with. The point is justified deadly force. They will try and say you have made it a life long goal to manufacture your own deadliest ammunition and have been just itching to use it, or they will say you went out of your way to purchase the deadlies ammunition on the market. Or even military grade ammunition FMJs. No matter if it is cast jacketed swaged HP what ever it is they will try and show a dark side, that you have been planning all your life just to kill some poor helpless criminal. Any decent defence attorney will be able to squash it easly.

That gets to the core of the matter. No matter what you use, even if it's in front of 1000 ministers, CMH winners and the entire Supreme Court who all say you had no choice, your life as you know it will end. I've been int he position several times where I would have been more than justified in shooting, but the knowledge of what's on the other side kept me from shooting just a second longer and by then the situation had changed. Good for me, good for the BG.

As it happens one of the ones I could have, and probably should have, just died the other day- at 30 years old. He was living on borrowed time I guess.

I only load target and hunting loads.

[mtnman31]

Yes I'd use handloads/cast since that is about 95% of what I shoot. I have 100% confidence in my handloads. I also believe that if I was ever faced with a self defense situation, there is a good chance that a gun won't be handy (I don't have a CCW permit) so I'd have to use whatever I could get my hands on - be it the candlestick, lead pipe, or wrench. No need to worry too much about the legal ramifications of something that may or may not happen. Just be prepared and have the right mindset to live another day.

I think all the worry about handloads vs. factory loads in regards to getting sued is just a crock of internet myth. I guess if I ever did have to use my gun in self defense and it was with my handloads, my trial defense would be simple, "They are factory loads - designed, thoroughly tested, and laboriously assembled in the MTNMAN31 ammunition factory".[smilie=s:

[2ndAmendmentNut]

IMHO It does not matter what a perp is shot with. The point is justified deadly force. They will try and say you have made it a life long goal to manufacture your own deadliest ammunition and have been just itching to use it, or they will say you went out of your way to purchase the deadlies ammunition on the market. Or even military grade ammunition FMJs. No matter if it is cast jacketed swaged HP what ever it is they will try and show a dark side, that you have been planning all your life just to kill some poor helpless criminal. Any decent defence attorney will be able to squash it easly.

Well put.

[Jim]

..... in the MTNMAN31 ammunition factory".[smilie=s:

I like that!

[Russel Nash]

@ EMC... oops, when I first read what you wrote, I thought you were advocating Mas's position.

Kind of a knee jerk reaction on my part. Sorry.

I am on another internet gun related forum. One of the regular posters there is a gun writer for several periodicals and he has even written a book.

My opinion of gun writers and their periodicals was already pretty low, and then via that particular forum's rumor mill I had heard two things:

1. He kinda got his hand caught in the cookie jar when manufacturers found out that the schwag that they were sending him for free that he was supposed to be writing and getting published on (read as "disguised advertising") was ending up either on eBay or in the classified section of that forum

2. Again, via that same rumor mill, this "writer" started a thread where he was asking the forum members about a particular match. They were all chiming in with what they thought of it, what the stages were like and how they shot. And then I guess some people caught on. He was going to write an article about this match, and get paid for it, even though he himself did NOT actually attend and compete in that particular match.

[Rocky Raab]

Well, Russell, that's a bit like saying there is a guy near St Louis who is a child rapist and murderer. Now, YOU're near St Louis, so ...

And that's about how much your story applies to all other gun writers.

[shdwlkr]

Massad Ayoob has never been in a shooting where anything was in danger. Are you going to believe anything he has to say? I read an article he did on the ithaca model 37 shotgun and how dangerous it was. Well I have owned at least one for 40 years and never had any of the issues he was stating and also played with one in the Army and never had any issues. But I grew up close to the factory at that time and was taught by WWll and Korean vets how to shoot so that might be why I had no problems.
As to using your own bullets and loads I am not a lawyer or a judge so I am not sure if it is an issue or not. Me if I liked my loads better then factory then that is what I would use as in most of pistols they are less then the factory and in the one they are way better then factory.
I use heavy bullets so that when they connect they do so with impact.
If my life is on the line I don't really care who made the cartridges as long as they go bang everytime I pull the trigger. The baddie needs to realize I will not go peacefully into the night it is going to be a fight to the death his or mine. If some of his/her kin feel I acted out of sorts they are dam right, I don't intend to be a willing victim.

[dualsport]

Since his name has come up so many times, maybe somebody knows how to reach him and let him have his day in court, here. I admit being influenced by his writings from way back. Now I want the facts. Who was sued? Where and when? I took it for granted up 'til now he knew what he was talking about, he surely must know something to go and give so many people the idea handloads are a bad idea for defensive ammo. It only seems fair to give the guy a chance to defend his statements, he's getting a ass whipping here!! Let's invite him to visit our forum.

[theperfessor]

If a shooting happens in your home you should just explain that you could have used a 12 gauge instead of a pistol....

[Recluse]

Since his name has come up so many times, maybe somebody knows how to reach him and let him have his day in court, here. I admit being influenced by his writings from way back. Now I want the facts. Who was sued? Where and when? I took it for granted up 'til now he knew what he was talking about, he surely must know something to go and give so many people the idea handloads are a bad idea for defensive ammo. It only seems fair to give the guy a chance to defend his statements, he's getting a ass whipping here!! Let's invite him to visit our forum.

The primary case he bases his opinion(s) on was a case in which a wife committed suicide using her husband's reloads. (Deceased) wife's attorney made a big deal about the "lethality" of handloads, blah blah blah. Ayoob testified in the case, to the best of my recollection, but no joy--husband was convicted or sued for some sort of negligence, etc etc.

Deal is, I would've appealed that case before the ink dried on the verdict. The judge was an idiot, the (deceased) wife's attorney was an *******, and on and on.

But one case, while making for a case study, does not set precedent for all fifty states. Good example are the states which were smart enough to pass the Castle Doctrine laws that nullify any attempts at prosecution--civil or criminal--when a grand-jury no-bills the shooter. In other jurisdictions, if the DA decides not to prosecute, civil liability also goes out the window.

As it should be.

Ayoob, I'm sure, is used to getting trashed every bit as much as he's used to being worshipped.

I would much rather listen to the opinions of someone with Jeff Cooper's background and experience, or anyone who has had to fire his or her gun in anger/defense of self.

:coffee:

[dualsport]

I would take Jeff Cooper's advice any day on the subject of winning gun fights. Legal advice is another thing. There's a lot of emotion around this issue for some reason, I would just like to know what the facts are. Whether or not cast bullets or handloads are effective isn't the point, exposure to liability unnescessarily is. Maybe there's some legal professionals here who have some knowledge on the subject. If that suicide case is all there is this is a real tempest in a teacup. If someone knows what magazine Ayoob writes for let me know and I'll try contacting him, maybe we'll get to the source. It'd be kinda funny if it turns out he can back up his position with facts. In the mean time I'll continue to keep factory ammo for home defense, I don't see any good reason not to. And I love my boolits as much as the next guy, just about all I shoot. EDIT; Just saw the post"help me find the truth". Looks like I'm beating a dead horse, I'll probably stop worrying about this now. It really doesn't sound like handloads can get you in all that much trouble, like the man said, depending on where you live, you'll get sued anyway. Might as well use some ammo you're proud of!

[Russel Nash]

Rocky Raab wrote:


Well, Russell, that's a bit like saying there is a guy near St Louis who is a child rapist and murderer. Now, YOU're near St Louis, so ...

And that's about how much your story applies to all other gun writers.


Rocky Raab also has as his signature line:


Please visit my shooting articles at www.reloadingroom.com and my Vietnam novels at www.rockyraab.com

Well, if your writing ability is anywhere near your ability of compiling comparisons/analogies...well... I guess I won't be clicking on your links any time soon.

And for what it is worth to ya... I have been published myself. No, it wasn't anything to do with guns, but I was still under pressure from the publisher to mention certain advertisers in my article. And the editors made dang sure they were in there as well as adding their own embellishments.

It is not too much of a stretch in my imagination to picture gun writers under the same pressure especially when they receive free gear and gadgets (aka a bribe) as part of their "testing and evaluation" process.

I will stick with Bill O'Reilly's mantra from several years back: the purpose of any medium is to sell you something.

The moment that I feel I am being advertised or marketed to and it feels like someone is trying to pry into my wallet... I go "shields up". Also, my BS meter swings to about the 7/8ths mark.

[vanilla_gorilla]

Massad Ayoob has never been in a shooting where anything was in danger.

Well now, how many times have you shot somebody? Been shot at? These things are certainly important to know before I take your opinion of anything seriously, right?

In answer to the original question, I would gladly carry my own cast boolits to defend myself. In fact, my S&W Model 27 is currently loaded with a 358429 boolit.

[Rocky Raab]

Russel, you have one thing dead right: it's in your imagination. Why you seem so bitter about people who write is beyond me. Envy, perhaps?

Don't bother denying it. Because you've been published, you must have an ulterior motive; by your own claim.

[jlchucker]

Unless I can't avoid it (ex. 22 long rifle) I don't buy factory ammo. Also, unless I really need to, I don't load much else except boolets that I've cast for myself and my own guns. I've never shot anybody but I guess that if that came up, what would come out of the barrel would probably be a cast bullet from a handload. The lawyers would love it, I'd go bankrupt, and I really don't know what would happen next--but then again, neither would the perp know who'd have started it all in the first place.

[Recluse]

Well now, how many times have you shot somebody? Been shot at? These things are certainly important to know before I take your opinion of anything seriously, right?

Couple of thoughts:

1. There are a number of us around here who have been shot at and who have returned fire, however

2. We do not hold ourselves up to be end-all authorities on such matters such as Ayoob and other gun-writers do.

And that, sir, is the difference.

I often look at such writers as "unmarried marriage counselors."

:coffee:

[MT Gianni]

If your answer is no, would you ask the person assaulting you to stop so you could go get some factory ammo if you only had cast in your gun?

[Doc_Stihl]

I think the old mantra of "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" holds all the points.

If the worst case scenario happened and you had to use a weapon, it's a null point on what's in the pipe. Your life is gonna get turned on it's head anyhow, might as well use what you feel comfortable with.

Just my $.02 from my ignorant view.
(FWIW, my 1911 is loaded with 225Gr Soft cast HP's. If I need to use it, I want the 2nd and 3rd shots to be ineffective, ie the problem was solved with the 1st one)

[oldhickory]

My view is to use the most effective arm and ammunition possible. By effective I mean I want any attack STOPPED NOW no matter how much damage is done to the leftist criminal! If that means carrying around a 12lb Napoleon loaded with double canister...So be it!

[Trey45]

The way I see, you shoot to stop the threat. If 6 shots of my handloads through my Dan Wesson don't stop the threat, I'll grab my shotgun that has factory loads in it, if that doesn't stop the threat, I'll grab my M4 with 30 rounds of factory in it. If that doesn't stop the threat, I'm calling arty or air support or something, because apparently I'm in the wrong fire fight.

Someone said, are you going to ask the bad to stop his advance so you can reload with factory ammo? There's no TIME OUTS in a fire fight, you use what you have loaded and shoot to stop the threat.

[vanilla_gorilla]

Couple of thoughts:

1. There are a number of us around here who have been shot at and who have returned fire, however

2. We do not hold ourselves up to be end-all authorities on such matters such as Ayoob and other gun-writers do.

And that, sir, is the difference.

I often look at such writers as "unmarried marriage counselors."

:coffee:

But the point remains, does Clint Smith not know what he's about, since he hasn't shot anybody? Does Joe the Crackhead that lives on the street know what he's talking about because he has?

I think using such a thing is a pretty poor indicator of determining whether somebody knows or doesn't know about defense.

[sundog]

Well, let's see. In the days before jacketed bullets existed, people who defended themselves successfully and legally with a firearm used..., hmmmm..., what?

Soooo, what's changed?

[Char-Gar]

This thread makes me very happy. As a former Criminal Defense Lawyer and Prosecutor, I fought the Ayoub generated myth for many years, with the result, that many folks told me I didn't know what Iwas talking about. Ayoub was the authority as far as they were concerned.
It is utter nonsense and always has been. It wasn't just me, as other shooter/lawyers joined the fray.

It took time, but at last folks are understanding just how bogus all of this nonsense about using handloads for defensive purposes is.

Some folks will continue to use factory loads because they want the R and D that goes into that stuff.

Me... A Keith SWC in 44 and 45 caliber are awsome defense loads. I keep my 1911 loaded with good old 452423 over 4.8/Bulllsye. In a 38 Spl., .380 ACP or a 9mm I want some of that good stuff made by Cor-Bon or Buffalo Bore.

[softpoint]

IMHO, the point is , if you DO wind up in court , you'will get everything thrown at you that can be thrown at you by the opposing attorney or prosecutor. So you used a 12 guage rather than a .22 or a .25 auto. Weren't you aware that a 12 guage is much more deadly than a .22.? You used a 12 guage, (or a .45, or a .50AE, or.....fill in the blank) because you fully intended to kill. Do you own a smaller weapon than the one you used? This is mantra intended to make you look bad, and in the end ,a competent jury /and or judge should see it for what it is. Again, States are different.Maybe Charger, who has more legal experience than I ,as I'm not an attorney ,can weigh in on this? Here in Texas, if the shooting was justifiable in the first place, and the grand jury declined it, there is near 100% chance that that will be the end of it
Depending on the circumstances, and maybe the location the outcome may be different. Still, better to get "the coals raked over you" than 6 feet of soil raked over you! Always better to watch the grass grow from the top side!:redneck:

[EMC45]

The primary case he bases his opinion(s) on was a case in which a wife committed suicide using her husband's reloads. (Deceased) wife's attorney made a big deal about the "lethality" of handloads, blah blah blah. Ayoob testified in the case, to the best of my recollection, but no joy--husband was convicted or sued for some sort of negligence, etc etc.

Deal is, I would've appealed that case before the ink dried on the verdict. The judge was an idiot, the (deceased) wife's attorney was an *******, and on and on.

But one case, while making for a case study, does not set precedent for all fifty states. Good example are the states which were smart enough to pass the Castle Doctrine laws that nullify any attempts at prosecution--civil or criminal--when a grand-jury no-bills the shooter. In other jurisdictions, if the DA decides not to prosecute, civil liability also goes out the window.

As it should be.

Ayoob, I'm sure, is used to getting trashed every bit as much as he's used to being worshipped.

I would much rather listen to the opinions of someone with Jeff Cooper's background and experience, or anyone who has had to fire his or her gun in anger/defense of self.

:coffee:

If I'm not mistaken this happened in Phillipsburg NJ in the early 80s. IIRC the load was 2.7gr. Bullseye under a hollowbase WC. Definitely not a barn burner. Typical knee jerk reaction from the NJ crowd though!

[acemedic13]

Well, let's see. In the days before jacketed bullets existed, people who defended themselves successfully and legally with a firearm used..., hmmmm..., what?

Soooo, what's changed?

Very good point there......

I never shot anybody on the civilain side but I have been in more than a few firefights, and have often heard some very fundamental ...lets say.....Irregularities with Mr. saddam the boobs theories..... Only saying what I know from what i have done, not what I think or heard. And I darned sure dont know it all.


I'm also not a lawyer. I do know the laws here where I live. I have asked this very same question to one of our D.A.'s and several police officers. They all told me it makes no difference what round was used, though they said it could possibly be argued, but what cant be argued in court? A jury might think different, but if it's not allowed to be used as evidence, it really does'nt matter. What does matter is your confidence and ability in your ammo in a firefight. If your hung up on "is this gonna do what I want" thoughts. Your not thinking the right thoughts. I like to carry ammo I shoot regulary and know is consistent with my arms and abilities. Thats what is really important. I promise you, cast, jacketed, rubber or whatever you get shot with is gonna cause some harm when it hits the right place with enough force...Just saying...

[mike in co]

IMHO, the point is , if you DO wind up in court , you'will get everything thrown at you that can be thrown at you by the opposing attorney or prosecutor. So you used a 12 guage rather than a .22 or a .25 auto. Weren't you aware that a 12 guage is much more deadly than a .22.? You used a 12 guage, (or a .45, or a .50AE, or.....fill in the blank) because you fully intended to kill. Do you own a smaller weapon than the one you used? This is mantra intended to make you look bad, and in the end ,a competent jury /and or judge should see it for what it is. Again, States are different.Maybe Charger, who has more legal experience than I ,as I'm not an attorney ,can weigh in on this? Here in Texas, if the shooting was justifiable in the first place, and the grand jury declined it, there is near 100% chance that that will be the end of it
Depending on the circumstances, and maybe the location the outcome may be different. Still, better to get "the coals raked over you" than 6 feet of soil raked over you! Always better to watch the grass grow from the top side!:redneck:


again...it does not matter that the defense is whinning...your attorney should point out the use of deadly force MEANS JUST THAT. shoot to kill...the intent is to stop the threat . there is no such thing as the "threat was only enough for a wounding" or "only enough for a small gun".....this is a stupid concern......
get real with your senarios......

[JSnover]

Well, let's see. In the days before jacketed bullets existed, people who defended themselves successfully and legally with a firearm used..., hmmmm..., what?

Soooo, what's changed?

Plenty has changed, but when cast/black was all we had it was perfect.... until something else came along.

If I aim a .36 caliber cap and ball revolver at someone, he'd better behave. But it won't be my first choice for defense because I have other options.

[softpoint]

again...it does not matter that the defense is whinning...your attorney should point out the use of deadly force MEANS JUST THAT. shoot to kill...the intent is to stop the threat . there is no such thing as the "threat was only enough for a wounding" or "only enough for a small gun".....this is a stupid concern......
get real with your senarios......

You are right that that is stupid whining,but it goes on all the time in courtrooms. Not on this particular subject, but on lots of things. So it is a possible real scenario, And yes, your lawyer should immediately object to the relevancy of such, and point out what you just said.
While I'm no attorney, I did own a public shooting range and was sued over the noise issue by a landowner near me. I heard all kinds of whining from his attorneys. And now there is a law in this state that would preclude that kind of suit even being filed, as long as the range is outside the corporate city limits and is not in an otherwise restricted area such as a subdivision.
FWIW, we did win against that suit in a bench trial. At a cost of 10,000, though:sad:, not much by todays standards, but a lot of money to try to make back out of a small public range.
And like I said earlier, I carry my own reloads in my carry pistols with my own cast bullets. I hope I never have to use them, but whatever will be ,will be.
Dang, I was just thinkin' how many wheelweights and nice molds I coulda had with that 10K. Plus a couple of rifles!☺

[Russel Nash]

@ Rocky Raab... me? Do I have an ulterior motive?

Ha! Ha! That is almost laughable. No I do not have an ulterior motive.

I guess if anything it comes down to this... I loath preach-ey people. And people who have stepped up on a soapbox via some gun periodical just rub me the wrong way.... because they come off to me, anyways, as preachey... "Oh, hey, look at me... I am an authority on this because I am a paid professional gun writer." I guess any perceived integrity issues I have with a gizmo or gun they are writing on takes a back seat to that... ya know... the old saying..."he who pays the piper gets to pick the tune".

Anywhooo... I have droned on here long enough. Really what Recluse wrote on page 3 was pretty much spot on to what I have been thinking. And a lot less verbose to boot:



.......2. We do not hold ourselves up to be end-all authorities on such matters such as Ayoob and other gun-writers do.

And that, sir, is the difference.

I often look at such writers as "unmarried marriage counselors."

[sundog]

JSnover, perhaps you missed my point. Application of reverse technology. Prior to the lead bullet, and black powder, there were knives, and swords, and spears, and arrows, bludgeons, clubs, and, and, and, any of which were, and still are acceptable for self defense depending on the circumstances. To argue otherwise negates the idea that an individual has the right to self defense. So, if a person were to defend them self with a .36 BP cap & ball, what would be the ramifications? The assertion that a cast boolit for self defense is somehow wrong is counter to the right of a person to self defense - even though odd things can happen in court. The only thing that has changed is the **** lawyers and lawmakers get away with.

[Tazman1602]

Yes to both questions. There are no legal issues unless you do something illegal with your reloads.

YES there are. Prosecutors. IF you use your own handloads in self defense, an overzealous Prosecutor will say you loaded those bullets ON PURPOSE in order to KILL that person, NOT protect yourself. Now you're saying "That's stupid". Absolutely agreed.

.............but..............the person that gave me that information is a retired county Prosecutor who was teaching our CCW class. His advice was always use factory ammo and never say you meant to kill someone, you meant to STOP them and save yourself. The fact he has 7 in a paper plate size group at center mass then has nothing to do with it. "He kept coming"....

Otherwise I'd use my own loads and some of those Winchester Black Talons I hoarded a LONG time ago for self defense.

Art

[Russel Nash]

Tazman wrote:


YES there are. Prosecutors. IF you use your own handloads in self defense, an overzealous Prosecutor will say you loaded those bullets ON PURPOSE in order to KILL that person, NOT protect yourself. Now you're saying "That's stupid". Absolutely agreed.


slight thread drift... maybe people in general have become wiser to the antics that prosecuting attorneys pull ever since the Duke rape case.

I sure hope so... and if those same people go on to serve as jury members, I hope that Duke rape case incident makes them put their BS detectors firmly in place....regardless of which attorney, defense or prosecution, they are being forced to listen to at the time.

Realistically, though, I suspect that jurors are, unfortunately, closer to that old yarn about "the 12 dumbest people who couldn't come up with a good enough excuse at the time to get out of jury duty."

(sigh)

[Russel Nash]

Here's my proposition:

I will give, yes, give, 1,000 pieces of either 9mm, .40S&W, or .45 ACP brass (your choice) to anyone who can provide a link to an actual for real legitimate case and/or newspaper article that cites that a person in a self-defense shooting used their own handloaded ammunition/cast boolit and the prosecutor is bringing that up during the trial.

That's one thousand pieces, already cleaned and tumbled, shipped for free....

Any takers?

[Doc_Stihl]

YES there are. Prosecutors. IF you use your own handloads in self defense, an overzealous Prosecutor will say you loaded those bullets ON PURPOSE in order to KILL that person, NOT protect yourself. Now you're saying "That's stupid". Absolutely agreed.

Kill the person and protect yourself are same thing when it comes to a self defense shooting.

What's the difference between stopping the person instantly and killing the person?

There one in the same if you double/triple tap to center mass with a .45 expanding projectile it's going to be hard to tell if he was dead before he stopped or stopped before he died.

[JSnover]

JSnover, perhaps you missed my point. Application of reverse technology. Prior to the lead bullet, and black powder, there were knives, and swords, and spears, and arrows, bludgeons, clubs, and, and, and, any of which were, and still are acceptable for self defense depending on the circumstances. To argue otherwise negates the idea that an individual has the right to self defense. So, if a person were to defend them self with a .36 BP cap & ball, what would be the ramifications? The assertion that a cast boolit for self defense is somehow wrong is counter to the right of a person to self defense - even though odd things can happen in court. The only thing that has changed is the **** lawyers and lawmakers get away with.

First, I don't think we disagree that 19th century technology will work as well now as it did then. So will a shod foot. Any of the weapons you mentioned are appropriate, as far as I'm concerned. Personally, I'd choose something more modern but if my neighbor defended his family with a poleaxe I'd be the last person to tell him he screwed up.
Maybe I did miss your point but the question that started this thread was "If there were no legal issues, would you...?" Sure I would. But as it turns out, my defensive weapons are loaded with store-bought ammunition.

[mike in co]

YES there are. Prosecutors. IF you use your own handloads in self defense, an overzealous Prosecutor will say you loaded those bullets ON PURPOSE in order to KILL that person, NOT protect yourself. Now you're saying "That's stupid". Absolutely agreed.

.............but..............the person that gave me that information is a retired county Prosecutor who was teaching our CCW class. His advice was always use factory ammo and never say you meant to kill someone, you meant to STOP them and save yourself. The fact he has 7 in a paper plate size group at center mass then has nothing to do with it. "He kept coming"....

Otherwise I'd use my own loads and some of those Winchester Black Talons I hoarded a LONG time ago for self defense.

Art

sorta right but big time wrong...its called the use of DEADLY force for a reason.

you do not say anything till you have a lawyer...there is nothing said till then. you likely will not take the stand.

"but..............the person that gave me that information is a retired county Prosecutor who was teaching our CCW class. His advice was always use factory ammo "
BASED ON WHAT TRIAL CASES ?? WHAT ???....LIKE ALL ELSE HERE an opinion...with no facts.

[Doc_Stihl]

Here's my proposition:

I will give, yes, give, 1,000 pieces of either 9mm, .40S&W, or .45 ACP brass (your choice) to anyone who can provide a link to an actual for real legitimate case and/or newspaper article that cites that a person in a self-defense shooting used their own handloaded ammunition/cast boolit and the prosecutor is bringing that up during the trial.

That's one thousand pieces, already cleaned and tumbled, shipped for free....

Any takers?


AAAHHHAAA!!!!!
LOL You're gonna love this.

LINK TO THE "Facts" (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2129976&postcount=140)

[Tazman1602]

Kill the person and protect yourself are same thing when it comes to a self defense shooting.

What's the difference between stopping the person instantly and killing the person?

There one in the same if you double/triple tap to center mass with a .45 expanding projectile it's going to be hard to tell if he was dead before he stopped or stopped before he died.

NO, they are NOT. That part was made PERFECTLY clear to us during class. This general attitude *may* have changed but I don't know to tell the truth. You have to be able to say you were trying to stop the attack here, not that you wanted to kill the dipstick to stop him from hurting you. We were taught to shoot until "the threat was gone". When someone asked the prosecuter who was teaching the class if they could just "shoot him in the leg" to stop the attack the answer was; "I wouldn't do that. That is intentionally wounding him and the the civil suit will bankrupt you. I can't condone nor advise you to do anything other than stop the attack until the threat is gone. Were it I, I would shoot the person center mass until he wasn't moving and threatening to kill me". That was enough to suit me. Besides, if you wound the idiot you are GOING to get sued and it is GOING to cost you everything.

Now that being said, Michigan has enacted "no duty to retreat" laws in the last five years THANK GOD.

Here's an example; six years ago a guy who lives down the road woke up because his dog was barking. Walked outside with his 12-gauge to find three teenage hoodlums trying to steal the 4-wheeler out of the back of his truck. He hefted that 12-gauge and managed to pepper two of them in the butt.

When the police arrived? ARRESTED FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER. PROSECUTED FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER! The good thing here is almost every citizen in this county hounded the prosecuter until they had to plea down to aggravated assault.............eventually.........after a while.............and after the attorney fee's had bankrupted the poor guy. Wouldn't happen now. It's of worthy note that every single store up and down the highway by where the guy lived put stickers on their front doors after that saying: "We don't use birdshot".....................

I know that's a little of topic but it's an example of how these idiots work. Since then, like I said, we do not have a "duty to retreat" and no longer have to drag the bad guys back through the front window when we blow his a** to hell after trying to break in -- which, in all reality we would have had to do ten years ago.

I don't agree with ANY of this -- please keep that in mind, BUT, with the amount of manufactured self defense ammo on the market, why take the chance? I worked my whole life for this farm and I'll defend it with my life...........but I'll shoot my guns with my handloads and practice a LITTLE with that expensive factory stuff. When I carry, it's always Winchester or Remington that is going to bear the ammunition liability though.

Just my point of view man, wasn't trying to raise your hackles. If I had it my way we'd still have hangings in the town square.......

Respects,

Art

[Doc_Stihl]

NO, they are NOT. That part was made PERFECTLY clear to us during class. This general attitude *may* have changed but I don't know to tell the truth. You have to be able to say you were trying to stop the attack here, not that you wanted to kill the dipstick to stop him from hurting you.
One in the same. Can you tell me the quickest way to stop an attacker? Making him unable to move. How do you do that? You can insert any wording you want but killing the aggressor is the result. The bad guy might get lucky and live, but the intention of the shots is to make the bad guy go down We were taught to shoot until "the threat was gone". When someone asked the prosecuter who was teaching the class if they could just "shoot him in the leg" to stop the attack the answer was; "I wouldn't do that. That is intentionally wounding him and the the civil suit will bankrupt you. If you have time to wound you had time to do something is more worrying to me in a courtroom. I can't condone nor advise you to do anything other than stop the attack until the threat is gone. Were it I, I would shoot the person center mass until he wasn't moving and threatening to kill me". That's good thinking. And goes hand in hand with what I was saying. I just pointed out the resultThat was enough to suit me. Besides, if you wound the idiot you are GOING to get sued and it is GOING to cost you everything.

Now that being said, Michigan has enacted "no duty to retreat" laws in the last five years THANK GOD.

Here's an example; six years ago a guy who lives down the road woke up because his dog was barking. Walked outside with his 12-gauge to find three teenage hoodlums trying to steal the 4-wheeler out of the back of his truck. He hefted that 12-gauge and managed to pepper two of them in the butt.

When the police arrived? ARRESTED FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER. PROSECUTED FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER! The good thing here is almost every citizen in this county hounded the prosecuter until they had to plea down to aggravated assault.............eventually.........after a while.............and after the attorney fee's had bankrupted the poor guy. Wouldn't happen now. It's of worthy note that every single store up and down the highway by where the guy lived put stickers on their front doors after that saying: "We don't use birdshot".....................

Whatdya figure woulda happened if he killed 4 kids over a 4-wheeler? Right wrong or idifferent
I know that's a little of topic but it's an example of how these idiots work. Since then, like I said, we do not have a "duty to retreat" and no longer have to drag the bad guys back through the front window when we blow his a** to hell after trying to break in -- which, in all reality we would have had to do ten years ago.

I don't agree with ANY of this -- please keep that in mind, BUT, with the amount of manufactured self defense ammo on the market, why take the chance? I worked my whole life for this farm and I'll defend it with my life...........but I'll shoot my guns with my handloads and practice a LITTLE with that expensive factory stuff. When I carry, it's always Winchester or Remington that is going to bear the ammunition liability though.

Just my point of view man, wasn't trying to raise your hackles. If I had it my way we'd still have hangings in the town square.......

Respects,

Art


I think we're saying the same thing pretty much, but not seeing the end result the same.

[mtnman31]

Re; Doc Stihl's link,
The case of NJ v Bias, which is often used as an example to the darkside of using handloads is not a reasonable argument for not using handloads. Their case wasn't focused on his use of handloads. The handloads were merely something the prosecution had as an obstacle of trying to convict him of murdering his wife. i.e. the prosecution couldn't place the gun in his hand but tried to convince the jury via scientific proof (GSR evidence) that he had fired the shot. The use of handloads hindered the evidence used against him in the case. This case was not a good example, it is like comparing apples to oranges in a self defense case. This was clearly not a self defense shooting case - he was on trial because they believed he killed his wife.

Basically, in my uneducated opinion, those cases simply show that the use of factory ammo will somehow provide them with more reliable forensic evidence to be used for or against you.

Does it really matter? Not in the least bit - the simple answer is to keep your gun loaded with whatever you are comfortable and competent with.

[Doc_Stihl]

EXACTLY MTNMAN. Who cares if you can put Federal Hydra shocks in your gun and avoid a line of questioning in a courtroom. It's a long shot that you'll ever pull a weapon in defense, a longer shot that you'll shoot someone, and a longer even yet shot that you'll see inside a courtroom on a justifiable shoot.

Carry a weapon, Practice, Be competent. After that, it's trivial.

[Tazman1602]

"but..............the person that gave me that information is a retired county Prosecutor who was teaching our CCW class. His advice was always use factory ammo "
BASED ON WHAT TRIAL CASES ?? WHAT ???....LIKE ALL ELSE HERE an opinion...with no facts.

Who cares if there were ANY cases at all if that prosecutor can make the case against your handloads to 12 undereducated people. You will still be bankrupt at the end of it.

Not trying to jerk anyones chain here man, just putting forth a point of view.

Has it been done? Probably not. Will it ever be done? Well, I'd have to say there's an idiot lawyer/prosecutor somewhere who will eventually try and the poor guy on the other end is going to go broke.

Respects,

Art

PS -- No disrespect intended to any Honorable Forum Attorneys

[Tazman1602]

I think we're saying the same thing pretty much, but not seeing the end result the same.

I think you're pretty much right Doc. Now that we're friends, Husky EATS Stihl for breakfast........<GRIN>

My only concern is getting sued by some dipstick because of my "deadly" handloads.

I'm still looking for a "nice" bullet to shoot bad guys with. The whole thing is stupid, it's part of what's wrong with our legal system.

Respects,

Art

[mtnman31]

The whole thing is stupid, it's part of what's wrong with our legal system.

There is a thought that we can all agree with.

[Doc_Stihl]

I'll use the most effective stopping round for the situation and worry about courtroom drama when it happens.

I don't believe anyone who has a clearcut justifiable shooting on their hands is every going to get to the "what's yer muzzle velocity and ballistic coefficient" part.

Besides, if we were scared about repurcusions of having reloads around, we'd all be making fishing sinkers instead.

p.s.

Stihl's are less lethal therefore the only logical choice.....or something like that.

[mike in co]

Here's an example; six years ago a guy who lives down the road woke up because his dog was barking. Walked outside with his 12-gauge to find three teenage hoodlums trying to steal the 4-wheeler out of the back of his truck. He hefted that 12-gauge and managed to pepper two of them in the butt.

When the police arrived? ARRESTED FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER. PROSECUTED FOR ATTEMPTED MURDER! The good thing here is almost every citizen in this county hounded the prosecuter until they had to plea down to aggravated assault.............eventually.........after a while.............and after the attorney fee's had bankrupted the poor guy. Wouldn't happen now. It's of worthy note that every single store up and down the highway by where the guy lived put stickers on their front doors after that saying: "We don't use birdshot".....................

Art
the man in question was PROPERLY CHARGED!...STEALING IS NOT A DEADLY THREAT TO HIM OR HIS FAMILY.
SHOOTING WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY WHAT YOU LISTED.
A POOR EXAMPLE.

mike in co

[mike in co]

AAAHHHAAA!!!!!
LOL You're gonna love this.

LINK TO THE "Facts" (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=2129976&postcount=140)


sorry but i do not see this as support for not using handloaded ammo.

in the last case it was about department ammo, not my reloads, the other two are gsr...lack of data in the charging depts data base.
and in the first, he was aquitted for using handloads that duplicated factory loads.

now.....show me a case where the use of handloaded ammo has been the CAUSE of a guilty verdict.

mike in co

[Ricochet]

Some folks seem to be confusing prosecutors (who represent the state and prosecute defendants on criminal charges) and plaintiff attorneys who sue for damages in civil suits on behalf of someone claiming they were harmed, negligently or intentionally.

[Russel Nash]

Thanks Doc-Stihl....

Yeah, I did love the source....:groner:

It was Massad Ayoob... imagine that....:groner::groner:

If I read the descriptions of those 3 cases correctly, 2 out of the 3 "shooters" were law enforcement.

And as correctly pointed out, I think, by Mike In Colorado, still none of them were plain ol' vanilla self defense shootings... where a simple civilian was attacked by some ne'er-do-well just out of the blue.

as far as the Michigan four wheeler incident goes... in some states where there is Castle Doctrine or Stand Your Ground laws, the "shooter" would not have been charged.

Now, Texas with its laws is a whole 'nother ball of wax... i.e. the Joe Horn incident.

Luckily for the Michigan ATV guy and Joe Horn, the prosecutors received plenty of heat from the local citizenry. And rightly so!

[Recluse]

the man in question was PROPERLY CHARGED!...STEALING IS NOT A DEADLY THREAT TO HIM OR HIS FAMILY.
SHOOTING WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY WHAT YOU LISTED.
A POOR EXAMPLE.

mike in co

Maybe in YOUR opinion and maybe where YOU live. . .

But not down here.

:coffee:

[dualsport]

I'm lookin', got to find something! I want that free brass for my ol' .45. How about a accidental discharge with handloads killing the neighbors dog? Do I win? Somebody could get sued over that, right?

[Tazman1602]

the man in question was PROPERLY CHARGED!...STEALING IS NOT A DEADLY THREAT TO HIM OR HIS FAMILY.
SHOOTING WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY WHAT YOU LISTED.
A POOR EXAMPLE.

mike in co

Edited because Mike ticked me off and I blasted him back. I'm human and respect your point of view Mike but it isn't mine.

The point is that no matter what you do, if you use your firearm in defense of ANYTHING you are going to get sued and go broke. It's better than being dead but that's just the way it works.

Respects,

Art

[Doc_Stihl]

Woah....I don't think Mike in co was attacking your taz, the examples validity was the point. He was making a good point. Imminent danger is a threshold in self defense.

Maybe shooting teenagers over a 4 wheeler or vandalism is a justifiable shoot. Not everywhere though.

[ruger44]

the only real problem might be will your ammo go bang everytime ?/ . I been reloading for about 30 yrs and occasionally 1 per year depending I get a misfire. not the best time ot be clearing a round when bad guy after you jmtc

[softpoint]

Actually, if I recall right, The Texas law does allow deadly force to protect property, if:
1 someone is stealing at night
2 there is no reasonable expectation of ever recovering the property
Someone correct me if this has changed. Using either one is risky, #2 is more risky. :hijack:

[softpoint]

I'm lookin', got to find something! I want that free brass for my ol' .45. How about a accidental discharge with handloads killing the neighbors dog? Do I win? Somebody could get sued over that, right?

LOL!:bigsmyl2:

[odis]

As far as the original question that was posted, I have always believed that hollow points can fail to expand, semi wadcutters will always do their job. As to the other subjects posted well the civil lawyer could also turn to the jury and say look at the weapon used, an automatic or a snub nose revolver with laser sites these weapons have no other use but to kill humans with! They have no sporting use whats ever!! which brings me back to the original question, I think a .429 or a .452 caliber slug at 850 to 950 fps. is ideal.

[mike in co]

As far as the original question that was posted, I have always believed that hollow points can fail to expand, semi wadcutters will always do their job. As to the other subjects posted well the civil lawyer could also turn to the jury and say look at the weapon used, an automatic or a snub nose revolver with laser sites these weapons have no other use but to kill humans with! They have no sporting use whats ever!! which brings me back to the original question, I think a .429 or a .452 caliber slug at 850 to 950 fps. is ideal.

another silly comment in my opinion......it is not a hunting gun, the second ammendment is not about hunting, it is about gun ownership.

my gun, with its laser sight is used to protect my property and defence of my family, you are right it is not a hunting gun, but this is not a trail about hunting , is it , so why bring it up unless you are trying to confuse the facts in front of the judge/jury ?

yes in my state deadly force can only be used against deadly force...so thieft is not covered. whe do have a "make my day law".

[Tazman1602]

Woah....I don't think Mike in co was attacking your taz, the examples validity was the point. He was making a good point. Imminent danger is a threshold in self defense.

Maybe shooting teenagers over a 4 wheeler or vandalism is a justifiable shoot. Not everywhere though.

Hey I realize that, I've enjoyed most of Mike's posts but there was no reason to type that response in all caps, it's the equivalent of yelling at someone face to face or when you're really trying to SHOUT out something.

Personally I wouldn't have shot them, might have let off a round to scare them Doc but I just don't believe the prosecutors have to take it that far.

If one of those boys had been mine? I would have talked to the prosecutor and asked him NOT to press charges and that little turd would have been waxing the guys truck for a month after I slapped him upside the head for doing something so stupid which probably would have landed me in jail.

For anyone reading this who might think I'm a jerk, none of the boys was seriously hurt and none spent even the night in the hospital.

Art

[odis]

another silly comment in my opinion......it is not a hunting gun, the second ammendment is not about hunting, it is about gun ownership.

my gun, with its laser sight is used to protect my property and defence of my family, you are right it is not a hunting gun, but this is not a trail about hunting , is it , so why bring it up unless you are trying to confuse the facts in front of the judge/jury ?

yes in my state deadly force can only be used against deadly force...so thieft is not covered. whe do have a "make my day law".I believe you misunderstand the meaning of my post, on the civil end of it a lawyer will try any angle to make hi next BMW payment, so don't even worry about it just choose your weapon and my preference is toward large bore at medium velocities.

[badgeredd]

I've avoided this thread in the past, but now I must comment. I believe that it is in the best interest of each individual to understand and know their "state" laws concerning deadly force and self defence.

By definition, property defence is not self defence. Although it would thoroughly P me off to find someone trying to steal my property, I don't believe "stuff" is worth killing over. A warning shot into the air will likely get the desired results. It may also cause the perp or perps to return fire if they are armed...just a thought. BUT...if a person attempts to enter my home or assault me or my family, I will use deadly force to eliminate the threat. I go with the old saw, "better tried by 12 than carried by six." My self defence weapons may or may not be loaded with handloads in my home and may or may not be loaded with factory ammo in my carry piece. In my CCW class, the police officer that taught it did say "in my opinion, I wouldn't use handloads." he further said in his mind, he felt more comfortable with commercial ammo for reliability. I pointed out that hand loads should be as reliable as commercial ammo and there is no reason for it not to be IF a person loads their ammo correctly. He agreed.

In Michigan, only exotic handloaded ammo will come under scrutiny if used in a defensive situation, according to my instructor. By that I mean ammo not crafted for normal use...for example fletchett loads or unusual shot loads.

Edd

[dualsport]

I realised although I replied to this post I didn't really just answer the question posed in the first place. My answer is yes and yes. I'm confident I can make cast bullet handloads that I would stake my life on. Now, about that free brass, is there a time limit? I'm thinking of a way to get my neighbor to sue me over a handload issue. I can't resist free stuff and my .45 gets hungry.:D

[Bucks Owin]

He would rather see that you buy the uber expensive over hyped jacketed hollow points from Federal/Remington/Winchester

How many rounds does one need for self defense? Worrying about expense is a non issue. As to the guy who says load a reload AND factory ammo, I expect that forensics could tell just from the residue in the case and the primer that it was a reload, even if they somehow missed the fact that the case had been resized. C'mon people, do you REALLY believe that you can cast a lead projectile that's any more (if as!) effective than what's available over the counter? If so, I'd like to hear why with SPECIFIC FACTS. I'm not slamming cast bullets or reloaded ammo BTW, been rolling my own for 45 years and have perfect confidence in them. I just think why expose yourself to some antigun liberal prosecuter or judge, (with perhaps a jury to match), that may hold your fate in their hands in a courtroom someday.....Dennis BTW, here's some interesting reading http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_181_30/ai_n26806104/?tag=content;col1

[Doc_Stihl]

Why would you practice with reloads and depend on factory?
Especialy in an autoloader.
I'd rather have several hundred rounds of ammo feed and be happy before loading a couple mags and carrying it.

I depend on my ammo hunting dangerous game, why not depend on it to protect against 2 legged idiots?

[lead_her_fly]

First off, forensics is only going to get involved if: #1, The shooting is bad, #2, You live in a state that limits your legal right to defend yourself with a handgun, like Kalifornia (and I was born there), #3, You go around telling folks how "magnum" your standard firearm is now that you carry handloads in it.

I know, I know, Massad Ayoob says not to carry them, the Bice Case and yada, yada.

Let the "experts" take away your freedoms without batting an eye. The case STILL doesn't exist where handloads was a factor criminally in a self defense shooting, period.

Remember this, it wasn't that long ago, when everyone that loaded a firearm for self defense HAD to use handloads to do so. They loaded from the muzzle end is all!

In every handgun I carry in my state, with my Indiana Lifetime CCW License, I have handloaded cartridges in them, period. Lead bullets in revolvers, plated or jacketed in some of my autos.

I refuse to be a casualty to the liberal even if they espouse themselves as experts in the gun industry.

Do as you wish.

[JSnover]

Why use factory loads? Because I'm a cheapskate. A box of that expensive factory stuff costs less than I'd spend developing the 'perfect' defensive load on my own. The Big Guys already did the R&D.
The longest distance I'll ever have to shoot someone inside my house is maybe 25 feet and at that distance it's pretty easy to keep them all in the same place, so the shifting point of impact is a non-issue. Everything shoots to Minute-of-bad-guy in my living room.
In my state, the question won't be "Why did you use handloads?" anyway. It will be "How did you get that gun so quickly? It was supposed to be locked up."

[Doc_Stihl]

A 38SWC going 1100FPS is a pretty "perfect" defense load.

[dubber123]

the only real problem might be will your ammo go bang everytime ?/ . I been reloading for about 30 yrs and occasionally 1 per year depending I get a misfire. not the best time ot be clearing a round when bad guy after you jmtc

This is the single biggest reason I have for using my handloads. I personally have had rounds from the "Big Three" ammo companies fail to fire. I am not sure I can ever recall a handload malfunctioning on me, Especially my "carry" ammo. I pay VERY close attention to those. Making sure there is compound in the primer, an anvil in the primer, powder in the case, all stuff machine loaded ammo cannot reliably control.

[Doc_Stihl]

The range I frequent gave me a 5 gallon bucket an inch deep with loaded rounds with dents in the primers. Winchester win clean, Fiochi and even a couple cor-bon defense loads. Might be a busted gun here or there, but anything that can fail, will fail. I'd rather load mine and know what I got.

[Char-Gar]

Softpoint. The new Texas Castle Law allows the use to deadly force against a person under certain circumstances on his/her property, business or car. Those circumstances are set out in the statute. One of those circumstances is to prevent robbery (simple or aggravated) or attempted robbery. It does not differentiate between day or night.

The law creates a legal presumption the use of deadly force was reasonable. This means the burden in not on the shooter to prove it was reasonable, but on the state to prove it was not reasonable.

The law also creates an Affirmative Defense to civil litgation by an injured person or his/her family if the shooting was lawful under the Texas Castle Law. This means if the scumbag or his family sues you and you can prove it was a righteous shooting under this very broad law, you are immune from civil process.

The law also does away with the duty to retreat if a reasonable person would retreat. No need now to retreat if you are on/in your property, business or car.

The law is quite broad and if a person is seeking protection under this statute, it does not refer to personal property, just to the various crimes or attempted crimes. 'Robbery of course deal swith personal property, but it is the offense that gives rise to the protection, not the nature of the property.

There are lots of other Texas laws dealing with the use of deadly force, but if the shooting falls withing the parameters of the Castle Law, that is the law that will control. Move off your property, business and car and the other laws control.

[missionary5155]

Good afternoon
I use a near pure lead boolit at a moderate velocity in all my pre-positioned revolvers. About 900-950 fps. I use HEAVY for caliber boolits and figure there should be no issues with the law. I have yet to read a court case where the defender was cited for the use of lead. Maybe the EPA will one day want to do a toxic cleanup... OLD technoligy to the rescue.

[lead_her_fly]

Doc,
I'm with you on this one. I have several 38spl loads with a 158gr LSWC doing 1100fps from a 3" barrel.

If that don't git r dun, notin will! ;)

[Russel Nash]

Chargar wrote:


Softpoint. The new Texas Castle Law allows the use to deadly force against a person under certain circumstances on his/her property, business or car. Those circumstances are set out in the statute. One of those circumstances is to prevent robbery (simple or aggravated) or attempted robbery. It does not differentiate between day or night.

The law creates a legal presumption the use of deadly force was reasonable. This means the burden in not on the shooter to prove it was reasonable, but on the state to prove it was not reasonable.

The law also creates an Affirmative Defense to civil litgation by an injured person or his/her family if the shooting was lawful under the Texas Castle Law. This means if the scumbag or his family sues you and you can prove it was a righteous shooting under this very broad law, you are immune from civil process.

The law also does away with the duty to retreat if a reasonable person would retreat. No need now to retreat if you are on/in your property, business or car.

The law is quite broad and if a person is seeking protection under this statute, it does not refer to personal property, just to the various crimes or attempted crimes. 'Robbery of course deal swith personal property, but it is the offense that gives rise to the protection, not the nature of the property.

There are lots of other Texas laws dealing with the use of deadly force, but if the shooting falls withing the parameters of the Castle Law, that is the law that will control. Move off your property, business and car and the other laws control.

I need to be looking for jobs in Texas. And get my heinie moved down there.

[Russel Nash]

A guy I used to shoot competitions with once told me that he bought a 100 round value pack of Winchester White Box .40 S and W from Wally World. He got to the range to practice. He opened the box only to discover that none of the rounds had extractor grooves milled in the brass. :shock:

I wish I had been there to see it, and I especially wish I had a camera along to snap a picture of it.

[Bulletlube]

In Michigan we are told to use factory ammo so if you ever have to go to trial you just have to say that you bought self defence ammo from the dealer.

[Russel Nash]

As far as I know, in most states, claiming self-defense is an affirmative defense, which means that you as the now defendant have to take the stand and tes-a-lie...I mean testify...

So, I have to ask.... for those states where you have Castle Doctrine or Make My Day Laws or Stand Your Ground, if you are involved in a self-defense shooting are you still compelled to take the stand if you are claiming self-defense.

Anyone here know?

Anyone?

anyone?

Bueller...Bueller??

[dualsport]

Looking back, the question was "If there was no legal issues....". A hypothetical question for sure, and a good one. Still the legal question has been thoroughly(almost had to look that one up) discussed, indicating to me that the legal issues are a big concern for a lot of people. I'd like to set that aside for a minute and just ask what is your first choice for a close encounter defense weapon. Going one more step, (you knew this was coming), I'd like to make a case for my personal favorite, the club. Having had some high dollar training in the use of a club and the opportunity to put that training to good use:-P let me say it is something everyone should consider. A simple small aluminum or hickory bat is a fearsome defensive weapon and well used can nuetralize multiple attackers. Just the sight of a determined man with a bat will discourage a lot of dirtbags. The club is legal in all jurisdictions, is a traditional approach to problem solving, and doesn't pose much of a safety hazard unattended. It's cheap, dependable, and recyclable too! I do honestly keep several strategically located around the place for quick acquisition in case of a confrontation. You can even keep one in your car, just throw a mitt and a ball in and you're set for some fun in case things go well. I'd reccomend the smaller kid size bats over the full size Louisville Slugger for quickness, but a big bat would be right for some of you big guys. I know it sounds like a joke or I'm just strange, but I'm serious. Then of course, there's swords, my favorite is the Roman short sword...[smilie=l:that's another day. In keeping with cast boolit thinking you could make your own club, something to be proud of, a working piece of craftsmanship. Put the fun back in kicking &*$ and try a club next time, you'll see what I mean. (Next week: "Walking Sticks, Handy as Hell")

[Bret4207]

As far as I know, in most states, claiming self-defense is an affirmative defense, which means that you as the now defendant have to take the stand and tes-a-lie...I mean testify...

So, I have to ask.... for those states where you have Castle Doctrine or Make My Day Laws or Stand Your Ground, if you are involved in a self-defense shooting are you still compelled to take the stand if you are claiming self-defense.

Anyone here know?

Anyone?

anyone?

Bueller...Bueller??


I'm not sure where the idea that an affirmative defense requires the actor to testify comes from. In laymans terms an affirmative defense means that the action is recognized as a "get out of jail free" card by the courts. I know of nothing that would require a person to testify in any matter that might be used against him. That's strictly the defendants decision.

I'd also like to point out there's a wide difference between robbery, burglary and larceny. If someone is stealing your ATV from your back yard that's a larceny. If someone enters your garage to steal it thats a burglary. If some one knocks you off your ATV and steals it that a robbery. The specifics vary from state to state, but that's the gist of it. Obviously there's a big leap from stealing something from the back 40 to physically taking something from your person. If someone breaks into your home while you were at work, you weren't robbed, you were burglarized. Differences like that are very important to know when you read those laws outlining your rights and responsibilities.

[EMC45]

As far as I know, in most states, claiming self-defense is an affirmative defense, which means that you as the now defendant have to take the stand and tes-a-lie...I mean testify...

So, I have to ask.... for those states where you have Castle Doctrine or Make My Day Laws or Stand Your Ground, if you are involved in a self-defense shooting are you still compelled to take the stand if you are claiming self-defense.

Anyone here know?

Anyone?

anyone?

Bueller...Bueller??



Here in GA we have Castle Doctrine. It was signed into law in 06 by our governer. From the way the OCGA (Official Code of Ga) reads there won't be a trial. No court for that matter. If it's justifiable then no intervention needed.

[Char-Gar]

Russell... I think I can answer your question.

An Affirmative Defense is a defense to a charge or allegation that if proven will defeat the charge or allegation. The burden to prove the substance of the Affirmative Defense is on the party asserting it. In this case it would be the shooter.

There are Affirmative Defenses that defeat criminal charges and Affirmative Defenses that defeat civil allegations/law suits.

The Texas Castle law creates an Affirmative Defense to a civil lawsuit by a person injured or his family, who was shot. When such a lawsuit if filed, the defendant/shooters pleads the Affirmative Defense under the Texas Castle Law. If he (the defendant) can prove his shooting was legal under the Texas Castle Law, the lawsuit is defeated and would be dismissed with prejudice. That means it could not be refiled.

The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution give everyone the right not be forced to give testimony against himself. This applies to Criminal Charges. The Constituton is a restriction on what the goverment can to do a citizen. It has much less bearing on what citizens do to citizens.

In Civil Law either party can call the opposing party to the stand to testify. That is the way it has always been and the 5th. Amendment does not come into play. Never has!

Always remember that Criminal Law and Civil Law are entirely different creatures. Far to many folks mix them up in their minds.

The most common Affirmative Defense in Criminal Law is insanity. In general the burden of prof is on the state to prove each and every part of the allagation "beyond a resonable doubt", in order to find the person guilty/culpable of the crime.

If the Defendant to a Criminal Charge asserts the Affirmative Defense of insanity. The burden of proof fall on him to prove he is unsane under the law. However the Defendan'ts burden or proof is the Civil burden of proof "by the perponderance of the evidence" which is a much lighter burden than "beyond a resonable doubt. The only time when the burden of proof shifts from the state to the Defendant in a Criminal case, is when the defense asserts an Affirmative Defense.

That is probably more information that you want, but that is the only way I know to explain it. Mind you were are talking Texas law here.

[Russel Nash]

^^^ Thanks Chargar and Bret... I appreciate your posts, and NO, they were NOT too long or too detailed.

slight thread drift ahead.... as a veteran from Illinois, I can go back to school for free. I used a little bit of my "credit" a few years back when I was trying to go to grad school for psychology. I probably have 80 something credits left... so here I am at 37 and contemplating going back to school. The law thing has always kinda intrigued me, but I stop and think, "Does this world really need another lawyer?"

Anywhoo.... either way... It doesn't hurt to know a little bit about the law... yeah, unfortunately I am all too familiar with civil law stuff.... bubbling over into the criminal realm.

And that's all I got to say about that.

[Bret4207]

Well done Chargar! That's pretty much how it is here too as far as criminal goes, not that we have anything like a Castle Doctrine of course! Oh my, no! Better to leave these things in the hands of an elected DA who may or may not choose to take a case to the Grand Jury.

What gets done in civil courts is beyond my comprehension sometimes and the rules are muddled.

Hey Russ- They need Prosecutors too ya know. The money isn't anywhere near as good, but a pro-gun common sense Prosecutor might do well these days.

[archmaker]

Reloads and cast boolits for self-defense yes.

I can spend the time and effort to fully understand the way the boolit behaves and shoots. I know exactly where it will go when I pull the trigger, with no confidence issues.

For me to know exactly where it is going is a big factor in the confidence of my loads, Knowing how the load groups is important to MY confidence. Just like carrying a self-defense gun that you know has only had a box of ammo shot through it does not give me a lot of confidence in the gun. I have to know in my head where my rounds are going.

I shoot silhouettes most of my early year and a factor load that shoots an inch lower than my reload at 10yds will cause you to miss every single target. I know an inch at 10 yds is not a big issue in a self defense load, but in MY head it is, personal hangup.

Loads that shoot where I want them to go no matter what they are, will be the ones I carry. I just know I can spend more time and effort getting my boolits to accomplish that goal with a fixed sight defense weapon than I can with factory loads in most cases.

[Char-Gar]

Russell... Every profession, trade and craft needs good men and women. None of them needs bad men and women.

The law DOES NOT need another self centered, grasping, person of low morals who is out to use the law to enrich themselves.

The law DOES need good people who use their legal education to help people through the legal maze of this country.

There are all kinds of opportunities for public service law in this country. You will make a decent living, but you will never grow wealthy in public service law. You will however sleep well and at the end of the road, you can look back on a life well lived.

These days I am using my legal education to teach in the Legal Studies program at the local University. We are training Para-Legals. Most are folks in 30s, 40,s and 50s, who have decided they need an education and a profession in this world. They are serious hard working students and it is a joy and an honor to help their down the road toward their goals and dreams.

One of the courses I teach is Texas Criminal Law and Procedure, so I have to stay "up" on this stuff.

If you feel a pull toward the law, I would counsel you to follow your heart and your dreams. There is always a place for a round peg in a round hole.

[StarMetal]

I think if I had to do it all over I'd been an undertaker. Never out of work, the work really isn't that hard, they make lots of money, jobs everywhere, and rarely get sued.

Joe

[Ricochet]

They are, however, on call pretty much all the time.

[BruceB]

I think if I had to do it all over I'd been an undertaker. Never out of work, the work really isn't that hard, they make lots of money, jobs everywhere, and rarely get sued.

Joe

Yeah, but.....

When I was a kid, I knew a man who'd been an undertaker in Rouyn/Noranda, in northern Quebec. Following an underground mine disaster, some of the bodies weren't retrieved for over three weeks.

When I knew him, he'd become a dry-cleaner.

[StarMetal]

Yeah, but.....

When I was a kid, I knew a man who'd been an undertaker in Rouyn/Noranda, in northern Quebec. Following an underground mine disaster, some of the bodies weren't retrieved for over three weeks.

When I knew him, he'd become a dry-cleaner.

I knew you would have a colorful story Bruce. Reckon one would have to have a stomach for it too.

Joe

[geargnasher]

I'm lookin', got to find something! I want that free brass for my ol' .45. How about a accidental discharge with handloads killing the neighbors dog? Do I win? Somebody could get sued over that, right?

Folks, if you live in Texas, (Recluse, Chargar, Softpoint, any others) BEWARE. SHOOTING A DOG UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES (EXCEPT IF IT IS YOUR OWN DOG) IS A STATE JAIL FELONY. PERIOD. NO DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION.

I was attacked by my neighbor's dog at my front door in 2004 in the middle of the night, shot it dead with my front-door defense pistol, and found myself indicted by the DA and grand jury because I did what I always do and cooperated when LE showed up. Had no idea it was illegal to defend myself in my own doorway against a collarless, angry cur. It is a bad law, one that I have been fighting to overturn, but it is the law here none the less, section 42-1 of the criminal code, under Cruelty to and Animal IIRC.

OH, and I used factory ammo, which was never even a factor. The main fact of case wasn't the ammo I used, but that I emptied my 1911 on the dog. The DA told my lawyer that it wouldn't have looked so bad if I'd only shot it once. My lawyer's response was how many times would he have shot it if it had been attacking HIM. I'll tell everyone here that I had fired to lock and dropped the clip and was going for another one before I got control of my adrenaline and realized he was dead, probably after the first or second shot. Blew my threshold to bits. Some people can't understand real duress. So I learned you never know what particular detail of a deadly shooting incident is going to save you or crucify you, it all depends on the people involved, and laws are extremely subjective and emphasis is greatly varied by the situation.

Our recent Castle Doctrine wouldn't have protected me either, because that involves human attacks, and the basic right to self-defense doesn't extend to other species specifically protected under animal cruelty law.

Just thought y'all should know...

Gear

[leftiye]

Yep, jest like them ther shoot a bear or cougar that is attacking you laws. They violate the basic law of right to life. They force you to chose to be "tried by twelve" rather than be dead. Boils down to an unenforceable law, any sane person will break it, every time. DUH

[Char-Gar]

Gearnasher

For ages, some folks felt they had the right to kill any dog or cat that came on their property with impunity. One one gun board that has been numerous threads about handloads used for killing cats in the neighborhood. There was at one time a web site dedicated to urban cat hunting, with instructions on how to skin them and even a receipi or two if you want to eat one.

The Texas Legislature had enough of this conduct and passed the law under which you have been charged. The dog and cat killers got a big suprise the next time they did it.

It is obvious the Law Enforcement officials and the District Attorney did not believe your story of self defense. You can defend yourself against animal attack in Texas. There is far more to this story than your short post indicates. A jury is the ultimate decider of disputed facts. Tell your story to them and see if twelve of your local peers find it credible. If they do, you are home free. If they don't, then you must pay the fiddler. That is the American way.

[dualsport]

Haven't really shot the neighbor's dog, just wishing I could find a way to win that free brass.(Their dog is a poodle).

[softpoint]

Charger, you are right on about the castle doctrine taking precedent if any action can be placed under it. There are also laws that pre-date the castle law that have to do with theft at night. I've been told they were passed because a property owner did not need to positively identify a perp in his home or on his property as being armed or not if that person was stealing at night. Perp COULD be armed, you may not be able to tell until it was too late.
There were two cases that made the news some years ago, both generated some controversy on the law. In one case a mans car was being re-possessed. Would have been legal in the daytime, but the guy decided to get in the car and hot wire it and take it at night. Owner killed him. Owner was let go because of law. Another case, really kind of sad, kids out drinking, got thier buddy real drunk and dropped him off at the wrong house. Kid couldn't get in the house and stumbled around outside , got in the flower bed next to the house and banged on the window. Homeowner shot him. Home owner was not charged even though the kid was outside the house, because it was night time.
I'm not up to date on this at all. Some of these things may have been changed, but I don't think so ,as they were in the law long before the castle doctrine.
(still hijacking, sorry):smile:

[Flinchrock]

I'm not sure where the idea that an affirmative defense requires the actor to testify comes from. In laymans terms an affirmative defense means that the action is recognized as a "get out of jail free" card by the courts. I know of nothing that would require a person to testify in any matter that might be used against him. That's strictly the defendants decision.

I'd also like to point out there's a wide difference between robbery, burglary and larceny. If someone is stealing your ATV from your back yard that's a larceny. If someone enters your garage to steal it thats a burglary. If some one knocks you off your ATV and steals it that a robbery. The specifics vary from state to state, but that's the gist of it. Obviously there's a big leap from stealing something from the back 40 to physically taking something from your person. If someone breaks into your home while you were at work, you weren't robbed, you were burglarized. Differences like that are very important to know when you read those laws outlining your rights and responsibilities.

Very useful point of knowledge!!!

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

To the original question - Yes, and Yes!

"Yes, my intent judge was to "stop the threat", and I did it with what I had handy."

The person who gets shot with a hand loaded w/cast 357mag in the head is still gonna be as dead as if he got shot in the head with 357 mag 125gr jhp! Or wacked over the head with a baseball bat very hard!

Dead is dead!

When you shoot someone the intent is to kill . . . if it is not . . . are you ready for them to get up and kill you? (I'd be quite "cranky" if someone shot me, and if I had the oportunity, I'd do something about it!) Also legally if you don't shoot to kill, the the jury can say "see you didn't really believe that they were gonna kill you, so you should not have wounded them", and then you got trouble on your hands. Doesn't matter what you use, if your in the "right" to defend yourself, if you use a 25 auto, 44 mag 12 ga, or 50 bmg! Dead is dead, and you have stopped the threat.

[Pip]

Wouldn't putting rounds through the kneecaps be easier to defend than putting a round in each eye? I understand about wanting to completely eradicate the threat, and the risk of the scumbucket getting off some last ditch effort to murder you and your family, but I can imagine if you have a weapon, a seriously wounded BG, and control of him and the situation, you'll be able to negate any such stupidity) I'm honestly asking by the way... no devil's advocate.

I'm new here, and new to being a firearms owner... so please be nice. I completely agree with self defense and the defense of loved ones and ones property, but I'm still trying to come to my position on this issue.

:cool:

[softpoint]

Wouldn't putting rounds through the kneecaps be easier to defend than putting a round in each eye? I understand about wanting to completely eradicate the threat, and the risk of the scumbucket getting off some last ditch effort to murder you and your family, but I can imagine if you have a weapon, a seriously wounded BG, and control of him and the situation, you'll be able to negate any such stupidity) I'm honestly asking by the way... no devil's advocate.

I'm new here, and new to being a firearms owner... so please be nice. I completely agree with self defense and the defense of loved ones and ones property, but I'm still trying to come to my position on this issue.

:cool:

:hijack: I wouldn't intentionally try to wound a bad guy. One reason is that intentionally wounding can go so wrong. First, someone's life is in danger, or you shouldn't be using your weapon. You cannot be certain that plinking some bad guy around the edges will stop him,or incapacitate him in time to keep him from doing harm. You may just increase his resolve to harm (tick him off). A lot of criminals are not sissies. Several stints in prison usually cures them of that.
Secondly, you should have no concern for the perps health after he has escalated the situation to a lethal showdown. He is no longer another human,he is a threat. Jeff Cooper once said"When confronted with violence, one should respond with a level of violence that totaly overwhelms it"

[Char-Gar]

Pip.... It is good you are trying to think your way through the issues of defensive shooting. This is something tht needs to be "pre-thunk". There won't be time when the balloon goes up to do any thinking and deciding. You will need every nano-second to save your life or the life of a loved one.

Softpoint is of course correct that shooting to cripple or wound can be very difficult under the stress that goes along with such occurances. What would be a simple shot otherwise will be very, very difficult in a real world defense shooting. YOur fine motor control often goes out the window.

The whole point of defense shooting is to stop whatever life treatening act the bad guy is up to. The surest way to do that under the stress, is to shoot for center mass. In Texas police officers are trained to shoot for center mass.

The most defenseable shot would also be center mass. It would be easy to get a string of police trainers to come into court and testify, they train their officers to shoot for center mass as the best way to stop the agressive act.

In every Texas concealed handgun class I have attended, we have also been taught to shoot for center mass to stop the agressive act.

The death of the agressor should always be an unintended consequence of the shooting. Remember that all crimes require a requisite state of mind. The grade of the offense often depends on the culpable state of mind. In Texas those are. 1. Intentional 2. Knowingly 3. Recklessly and 4. Negligently.

Should a shooter make a mistep in judgment while shooting and it be a crime rather than a justifiable act of self defense, the state of mind becomes very, very important. If the shooting is intentional and the person dies, that is a Capital Felony. If the shooting is knowingly it is a 1st. degree felony. The difference being, did you intend to kill when you pulled the trigger or did you pull the trigger knowing that death might insue. That may seem like a small difference, but it could mean the difference between lethal injection and 20 years.

Never, never, never beat your chest on the internet, or in private saying you would shoot to kill and that the death of the scumbag is the desired result. Such conversations have a way of finding their way into courtrooms and that is how the DA will prove your state of mind.. Intentional or Knowingly. The State has subpeona powers and they can rummage through every nook and cranny of your life looking for the rope with which to hang you. More folks are convicted of crimes because of their mouth than by all the forensic evidence in the world. They key to the jail house is the tongue.

[Pip]

I like this place. Thanks for the answers guys.

[jsizemore]

This is a bunch of pasture pies. No matter what I put in my gun, I intended for the scum to DIE if I use my gun. This ain't pillows or mashed potatoes. If I didn't intend to kill him I would have called Dr. Phil. What's wrong with ya'll?

[shdwlkr]

Pip
In all my training I have been taught to shoot center of mass when threatened. You don't care about the baddie as they have already made their decision to be a threat to you.
Before taking any class for CCW make sure you have made the decision in your own head to never be a victim no matter what it takes to accomplish this.
Also make sure that you can accept the fact that some day you might have to kill another human being to keep yourself or loved ones safe. If you can't deal with this don't ever carry a firearm as it will be used by the baddies to deal with you.
Sorry but when it comes to being the one alive when it all settles down you want to be that person no matter what has to happen to the others who started the whole thing. If I never have to kill another person then I have done what I should have and learned when it was time to get out of someplace, some area or situation because it was not safe. If I have to fight to get out or to protect my loved ones then so be it but my goal is to never be in that situation.

[shdwlkr]

jsizemore
You sound like you load your firearms with the intent of killing someone not in defending yourself or loved ones. Personally I would not want to be on jury where they brought that up as it would have a large influence on how I viewed your shooting another person.
I don't know if you have ever been around a shooting but there is nothing exciting or glamorous about it you do it because you have no other choice not because "No matter what I put in my gun, I intended for the scum to DIE if I use my gun. " I do understand where you maybe coming from but you just have to be careful how you say it.

[Char-Gar]

jsizemore... Nothing is the matter with me..really! I am 67 years old and spent much of that time in and around the criminal justice system. I am very familiar with death, dying, and the effects if killing and being killed. I am also familiar with prisons and the life therein.

Life is not a John Wayne movie! I want no part of spending the rest of my retirment years locked away from those I love. I don't want a bunch of thugs, gang bangers, child molestors, dope dealers, thiefs, and murders for associates. When I die, I want to be in my own bed surrounded by those I love and not in the death chamber or the hospital ward of some prison.

I really don't think there is anything the matter with me. How about you? How do you want to spend the rest of your life?

A person can defend themselves and be smart about it. A person can defend themselves and be stupid about it. We do that have choice, don't you know!

[softpoint]

Wow,what a thread. Being involved in a life -death situation, Bill Jordan sums it up in the title of his book; No Second place Winners.:coffee:

[dualsport]

OK, I'm way off base with the clubs and swords thing. Still, I like having options. Just for grins, anybody ever heard of a case of lawful self defense with a sword? I know darn well at least a couple of you guys have one. No, I don't play dressup with my ninja costume.:grin:

[9.3X62AL]

Dualsport--

Actually, I do know of a sword-involved self-defense incident--if machetes count as swords.

Late 1980's, in Riverside, CA.........a mid-teen mixed-race boy had been the recipient of threats and harassment from a group of Skinheads his same age at school. The victim had issued a couple butt-kickings to his tormentors, so the Skinhead contingent pooled their manpower and resources and showed up on the victim's doorstep about 5 deep, one of whom had a machete in hand to push the odds in their favor.

The victim answers the door--sees who is calling--and slams the door in their faces, locking it behind him. He grabs a machete of his own, returns to the door, opens it and sallies forth. The Skinheads scatter, with the victim in foot pursuit of his opposite number--both with machetes. Riverside PD gets 9-1-1 calls in good volume, and was on scene shortly thereafter. Responding officers later dubbed the incident the "Errol Flynn Movie".

[waksupi]

Within the past month, there was a a case of a student defending himself with a samurai sword. Bad guy died.

[Leadforbrains]

Wow,what a thread. Being involved in a life -death situation, Bill Jordan sums it up in the title of his book; No Second place Winners.:coffee:

I have an old autographed copy of that book. I need to find it and reread it.

[9.3X62AL]

Within the past month, there was a a case of a student defending himself with a samurai sword. Bad guy died.

Spool up the golf course applause sound track.

[dualsport]

That's what I'm talking about. Remember the good ol' days when a rumble usually meant everybody lived? I understand the seriousness of the use of deadly force, not bringing a knife to a gun fight, and all that. I've been in some tight spots myself and know it's not funny. I'm just saying we should be prepared for less than lethal responses too.

[softpoint]

Within the past month, there was a a case of a student defending himself with a samurai sword. Bad guy died.

I read about that too, pretty rough on the bad guy, severed some limbs,

[Adam10mm]

Threads like this always get me confused.

I own a company that manufactures ammunition.

I carry the same ammunition I sell.

Handloads or factory?

Who cares?

[blaster]

Legally speaking it doesn't matter if they are hand loads or factory, if you have the right to defend yourself then you have the right. As far as shooting to wound you are far better off killing them. I had a self defense shooting case go to trial 3 weeks ago. Father and daughter live in a duplex. Dad comes home exboyfriend has thrown a brick through the window. Exboyfriend keeps calling the daughter she doesn't answer so he starts calling the dad. Dad tells him to stay away from his daughter and his property, exboyfriend (.18 bac of course) says you just signed you death warrant, dad says you know where I live. EX and 2 of his buddies roll up and he jumps out and takes a swipe at dad with a knife. Dad shoots to wound and pops him in the abdomen. Dad gets arrested for criminal recklessness with a deadly weapon. The victim (who racked up 8 more felony charges while this was pending, no mention allowed under evidence rules of course) is the star witness and rolls into court 2 years after the fact in a wheel chair and tells the story about how he was attacked with a deadly weapon. Did I mention we got a request for insurance information on my client from a civil lawyer looking to sue on victim's behalf? Prosecution goes with the theory that the knife must have been planted since our incompetent police couldn't lift prints and you heard the "victim's" testimony. 3 days of jury trial and $1000's in wasted taxpayer's and defendant's money for a 5minuite deliberation and a finding of not guilty. Had he put a couple in his face and dropped him where he stood there would never have been a trial. Oh, FYI and the scumbag didn't get so much as a trespassing charge from the incident.

[Bret4207]

Wouldn't putting rounds through the kneecaps be easier to defend than putting a round in each eye? I understand about wanting to completely eradicate the threat, and the risk of the scumbucket getting off some last ditch effort to murder you and your family, but I can imagine if you have a weapon, a seriously wounded BG, and control of him and the situation, you'll be able to negate any such stupidity) I'm honestly asking by the way... no devil's advocate.

I'm new here, and new to being a firearms owner... so please be nice. I completely agree with self defense and the defense of loved ones and ones property, but I'm still trying to come to my position on this issue.

:cool:

I think I can say with some certainty that only true masters of the gun like Barnaby Jones, Frank Cannon, Mannix, Gene Autry, Roy Rogers and Steve McGarret are capable of shooting to wound. I especially like Barnabys "off hand/gunmans crouch/70 yards shoot the BG in the wrist shot" and Roys "shoot their gun belt off" shot. But that's for experts like them. For anyone else it's just not real life to think you could do it in a stressful situation.:bigsmyl2:

[Three-Fifty-Seven]

I think I can say with some certainty that only true masters of the gun like Barnaby Jones, Frank Cannon, Mannix, Gene Autry, Roy Rogers and Steve McGarret are capable of shooting to wound. I especially like Barnabys "off hand/gunmans crouch/70 yards shoot the BG in the wrist shot" and Roys "shoot their gun belt off" shot. But that's for experts like them. For anyone else it's just not real life to think you could do it in a stressful situation.:bigsmyl2:

Mostly agree . . . if the above had the words "On purpose" as there have been many shootings when people were injured, but did not die, even though the shooter intended to kill . . . things don't always go as planned, I've never been in a shoot out, and pray I never am, but I have heard that the stress of the situation is so much more than just shooting at the range.

I hope I never have to draw my gun, I carry because if I need it I don't have time to get it.

[JSnover]

Shooting to wound can also go wrong, especially if the perp dies anyway. You might be charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter. Not as bad as murder, but also not as easy to beat, if I understand correctly.

[Bret4207]

Our current Governor at one times introduced legislation REQUIRIING police to shoot to wound. Thankfully it went nowhere, but it shows the mindset. I don't care what kind of combat you're in, it never goes as planned.

[dubber123]

Our current Governor at one times introduced legislation REQUIRIING police to shoot to wound. Thankfully it went nowhere, but it shows the mindset. I don't care what kind of combat you're in, it never goes as planned.

I can only imagine the friendly fire casualties. Given the difficulty that some recruits have hitting center mass, imagine them trying to hit a shoulder or knee? Our local departments won't even issue a single box of cheap reloads for our cops to practice with, resulting in alot of cops who just can't shoot. It's not a high paying job, and expecting them to practice on their own time, out of pocket is stupid.

[mike in co]

I can only imagine the friendly fire casualties. Given the difficulty that some recruits have hitting center mass, imagine them trying to hit a shoulder or knee? Our local departments won't even issue a single box of cheap reloads for our cops to practice with, resulting in alot of cops who just can't shoot. It's not a high paying job, and expecting them to practice on their own time, out of pocket is stupid.

actually its a great defense if dragged into court...

my employer failed to properly train me..i did the best i could without thier support.

[JSnover]

We had an incident in Boston last year (year before?) where a person was killed by a crowd control device (bean bag load). If I recall, two officers handed the shotgun off to a senior officer; They refused to fire it because they hadn't been trained. The department took the brunt of the legal fallout.

[DLCTEX]

There was a case in Eastern Oklahoma in early 80's where a small store owner stopped a robbery by shooting the perp in the knee with a shotgun. Perp, in prison for the robbery, sues for use of excessive force and wins $500,000. Lesson learned is shoot to kill, dead men don't sue or lie in court. Cases of this type are what prompts passing of castle doctrine. Good legislation.