Arms Locker

Arms Locker (https://armslocker.com/forums.php)
-   Gun Rights (https://armslocker.com/forumdisplay.php?f=639)
-   -   Lawyer Proof Ammunition (https://armslocker.com/showthread.php?t=55225)

Garand 07-04-2016 10:23 AM

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?

John in AR 07-04-2016 11:26 AM

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.

FordPrefect 07-04-2016 12:07 PM

Defensive Ammunition Choice..
 
Jurors in [U]civil[/U] 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..

John in AR 07-04-2016 12:57 PM

[QUOTE=FordPrefect;234865]...if it can be demonstrated that the ammunition used had been designed to cause extraordinary wounds...[/QUOTE]
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. :uhh:

FordPrefect 07-04-2016 01:38 PM

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..

John in AR 07-04-2016 02:29 PM

[QUOTE=FordPrefect;234889]...in some jurisdictions, a defendant can be held liable even if the plaintiff is "mostly" responsible for what occurred..[/QUOTE]

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.

FordPrefect 07-04-2016 02:55 PM

Modified Comparative Negligence vs Pure Comparative Negligence
 
[QUOTE=John in AR;234897]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.[/QUOTE]

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.

justme 07-04-2016 07:44 PM

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.

Terry G 07-05-2016 02:11 PM

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.

Garand 07-07-2016 09:14 PM

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?

Terry G 07-07-2016 09:40 PM

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?

John in AR 07-08-2016 05:05 AM

[QUOTE=Garand;236170]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?[/QUOTE]

Surely not as accepting as they would be of something hand-made with a dremel tool in the basement...

Hagar 09-10-2016 12:21 PM

What I heard about reloads used in SD were that the forensics cannot duplicate the loads for testing as to what distance and whatever.

justme 09-10-2016 12:38 PM

none of this is relevant if you dont hang around to be charged.

Terry G 09-10-2016 01:09 PM

[QUOTE=justme;249897]none of this is relevant if you dont hang around to be charged.[/QUOTE]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.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:22 AM.

Powered by vBulletin 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1

vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2003 - 2011 Arms Locker. All rights reserved.