Lawyer Proof Ammunition - Arms Locker
Arms Locker Gun Forum
Go Back   Arms Locker > Arms Locker > Gun Rights


Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By Terry G
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-04-2016, 10:23 AM   #1
Registered User
 Garand's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2004
From: Canadian Badlands

Posts: 8,084
Lawyer Proof Ammunition

In a self defence situation where the law enforcement community in North America is still intact, how "Lawyer proof" is the use of reloaded ammunition. Would the use of reloaded ammo be detrimental at any trial?
 
Remove Ads
Old 07-04-2016, 11:26 AM   #2
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,029
Been debated here in the states for as long as I can remember; to the 1970's at least. Shouldn't be any technical legal issue in a criminal prosecution or civil suit either one, but some folks worry about jury perception. IE, does it indicate to the jury that a person was so bloodthirsty that modern ammunition wasn't deadly enough and they wanted to come up with something more lethal. Stupid, but we're talking about rooms full of lawyers & sheep here.

Personally I carry factory ammo for personal defense ammo, but since most of my handgun reloads are cast lead bullets, if I were to have to use them defensively I'd try to play the "old-fashioned ammunition" card. Basically, that they're the same old-fashioned stuff that cops carried back in the 1950's.
 
Old 07-04-2016, 12:07 PM   #3
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Indiana

Posts: 102
Defensive Ammunition Choice..

Jurors in civil litigation could award additional damages if it can be demonstrated that the ammunition used had been designed to cause extraordinary wounds.. Jurors could also infer from the shooter's choice of ammunition, that the shooter may have had an unreasonable tendency to use lethal force without first considering non-lethal alternatives..
 
 
Old 07-04-2016, 12:57 PM   #4
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordPrefect View Post
...if it can be demonstrated that the ammunition used had been designed to cause extraordinary wounds...
Isn't that crazy? Not disagreeing at all; you're completely right. But assuming that the shooting was determined to be legally justified in the first place - meaning that lethal force was appropriate and acceptable - the choice of ammunition used (imo) matters only in the mind of sheeple.

It's basically saying "yes, it was okay for you to shoot the guy, but you should have used a lesser bullet".

What a retarded society we live in.
 
Old 07-04-2016, 01:38 PM   #5
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Indiana

Posts: 102
The standard for liability in civil litigation is generally much lower that the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard in criminal litigation.. Civil liability varies from jurisdiction-to-jurisdiction, but in some jurisdictions, a defendant can be held liable even if the plaintiff is "mostly" responsible for what occurred..
 
Old 07-04-2016, 02:29 PM   #6
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by FordPrefect View Post
...in some jurisdictions, a defendant can be held liable even if the plaintiff is "mostly" responsible for what occurred..
That's weird. I've only been on two civil cases in two different counties here in arkansas, but in both cases they used the term 'preponderance of evidence' applied; basically whoever is shown to be 50.1% 'right', wins.

In criminal cases, the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is the phrasing used here as well. And that's as it should be imo. I'd rather a hundred guilty guys get off than one innocent guy get convicted, and that means holding to a high standard for conviction.
 
Old 07-04-2016, 02:55 PM   #7
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2016
From: Indiana

Posts: 102
Modified Comparative Negligence vs Pure Comparative Negligence

Quote:
Originally Posted by John in AR View Post
That's weird. I've only been on two civil cases in two different counties here in arkansas, but in both cases they used the term 'preponderance of evidence' applied; basically whoever is shown to be 50.1% 'right', wins.

In criminal cases, the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is the phrasing used here as well. And that's as it should be imo. I'd rather a hundred guilty guys get off than one innocent guy get convicted, and that means holding to a high standard for conviction.
About half the states have some form of "modified comparative negligence" such as you've encountered in Arkansas.. The remaining states have "pure comparative negligence" in which a plaintiff may be able to recover if they are as much as 99% at fault.. I've been involved in civil litigation (via casualty insurance) for almost forty years, and have been appalled by some of the $$$ awarded to at-fault plaintiffs.
 
Old 07-04-2016, 07:44 PM   #8
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,430
you'd have to demonstrate that "somehow" the ammo was more wounding than the softpoint 223's used by the cops, or the 00 buckshot. :-) Aint gonna happen. If you're entitled to shoot the sob at all, you're entitled to blow him in half.
 
Old 07-05-2016, 02:11 PM   #9
Registered User
 Terry G's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004

Posts: 4,387
I have, and always will use whatever the brand and configuration of ammunition the Federal or State LEO's are using. It may be needless caution but it's one less thing to argue.
FordPrefect likes this.
 
Old 07-07-2016, 09:14 PM   #10
Registered User
 Garand's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2004
From: Canadian Badlands

Posts: 8,084
How do you think a jury would consider ammunition that was built to the standards of a specific shooting discipline like IDPA, IPSC, Cowboy Action, etc?
 
Old 07-07-2016, 09:40 PM   #11
Registered User
 Terry G's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004

Posts: 4,387
It would depend on how it was presented, in my opinion. But who knows with a jury? Look at the OJ trial, or Casey Anthony. I sat through one trial where an inmate, 6'2" 250 lbs. was video taped attacking a Correctional Officer. Three other Officers went to his aid. The Inmate punched. bit, kicked and spit. Not one blow was thrown by any Officer, just approved restraining techniques. Charged with four counts of assault on a Federal Officer, the jury found for the inmate. Gives you a lot of faith in the jury system, right?
 
Old 07-08-2016, 05:05 AM   #12
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garand View Post
How do you think a jury would consider ammunition that was built to the standards of a specific shooting discipline like IDPA, IPSC, Cowboy Action, etc?
Surely not as accepting as they would be of something hand-made with a dremel tool in the basement...
 
Old 09-10-2016, 12:21 PM   #13
Registered User
 Hagar's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2016
From: Texas

Posts: 24
What I heard about reloads used in SD were that the forensics cannot duplicate the loads for testing as to what distance and whatever.
 
Old 09-10-2016, 12:38 PM   #14
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2016
From: USA

Posts: 1,430
none of this is relevant if you dont hang around to be charged.
 
Old 09-10-2016, 01:09 PM   #15
Registered User
 Terry G's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004

Posts: 4,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme View Post
none of this is relevant if you dont hang around to be charged.
Now that's just dumb. If it's a lawful shooting, why would you run? If it's questionable, you have made yourself look in the wrong.
 
Reply

  Arms Locker > Arms Locker > Gun Rights


Thread Tools
Display Modes






Powered by vBulletin 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2003 - 2011 Arms Locker. All rights reserved.