Ammo in court...

chakragod · Feb 13, 2011

I'd been thinking about this before, so I figured I would ask everyone. Is there any documented cases where ammo has come into play for a shooting?

What I mean, is that say you use the run of the mill hollowpoints in your gun, and you end up shooting and killing someone, in self defense or otherwise. Now what if the opposing council brings up the fact you used HP's and not 'normal' ammo, which are way more harmful to the body? e.g. "In using HP's, he was trying to inflict more harm/kill."

GlockMeisterG21 · Feb 13, 2011

chakragod said:
I'd been thinking about this before, so I figured I would ask everyone. Is there any documented cases where ammo has come into play for a shooting?

What I mean, is that say you use the run of the mill hollowpoints in your gun, and you end up shooting and killing someone, in self defense or otherwise. Now what if the opposing council brings up the fact you used HP's and not 'normal' ammo, which are way more harmful to the body? e.g. "In using HP's, he was trying to inflict more harm/kill."

Reply with the fact that you used HPs to help minimize collateral damage in any defensive situation you encountered. If FMJs were used they would have ripped through your attacker and possibly injuring someone else. By using HPs you were in fact being a responsible carrier.

If you don't like that then use the "Cop/Training" defense. It goes something like this, "I carry two reloads and use HP ammo because that's what I was trained to do. Most LEO's also use the same amount of reloads and use HP ammo. Is my life worth less than a LEOs? Do I not have the same right to defend myself as they do?"

SIGguy229 · Feb 13, 2011

First of all, your attorney should be speaking for you. Secondly, if HP is good enough for LEO, it's good enough for me.

SouthernBoy · Feb 13, 2011

Yes, I'm pretty sure that has been cases where the use of certain types of ammunition have come into question and used against the victim in legal proceedings. I would check Massad Ayoob's writings for this as a starter. And I would start your search by suggesting that handloads and exotic types (both exotic names and designs) are the loads that have been the subject of prosecution.

As an aside, I'm also pretty sure that New Jersey still bans the use of hollow point ammunition for citizens' self defense, but I think they may be alone in their nonsensical law. If you use quality name brand ammunition which is both legal and acceptable in your state, you should be fine.

flintlock tom · Feb 16, 2011

http://www.icarry.org/ftopict-877-.html

6 or 7 years ago Harold Fish was convicted partly because he had his gun loaded with hollow-point ammunition.
Later he was granted a new trial because the laws of self-defense had changed in his state. (Illinois, I believe)

Grapeshot · Feb 16, 2011

The Black Talon debacle was front page news for a while - some prosecutors called them "cop killer" bullets - gross distortion, but some of the public drank the Kool-Aid.

"Winchester officials used research to show that the Black Talon was no more deadly4 than any of the other hollow point bullets on the market, but they pulled the ammunition from the shelves to quiet public concern. Black Talon was the first product Winchester had ever removed from the market for reasons other than manufacturing defects in the almost 130-year history of the company."
http://www.thegunzone.com/black-talon.html

VetteFreakC5 · Feb 16, 2011

and contrary to popular belief, the black coating on black talon bullets was NOT teflon. The current Winchester Ranger T is a direct descendent of the Black Talon. Hell, you can even still get boxes of Black Talons at gun shows and sites like gunbroker

I do find it quite funny, and a little disturbing, that the use of hollow point or expanding rounds are forbidden for uise in war becauise they are "inhumane" and "are designed to cause undo pain and suffering"

Butch00 · Feb 16, 2011

I still use Black Talons in my carry guns,

Grapeshot · Feb 16, 2011

VetteFreakC5 said:
and contrary to popular belief, the black coating on black talon bullets was NOT teflon. The current Winchester Ranger T is a direct descendent of the Black Talon. Hell, you can even still get boxes of Black Talons at gun shows and sites like gunbroker

I do find it quite funny, and a little disturbing, that the use of hollow point or expanding rounds are forbidden for uise in war becauise they are "inhumane" and "are designed to cause undo pain and suffering"

Some units are authorized special ammunition i.e. hollow point, expanding.

Re full metal jacket only, I have read that the US technically didn't sign that part of the Hague Convention, but we generally adhere to it.

rodbender · Feb 16, 2011

I use Federal HSTs or Tactical Bonded. Both are hollow point bullets. I don't want over penetration and harming or killing some one on the other side of my target by mistake.

Gunslinger · Feb 17, 2011

A good defense attorney would object to any introduction of ammunition type as irrelevant and possibly immaterial, which it is. Affirmative defense for self defense use of a deadly weapon is not mitigated by 'type' of weapon. The entrenching tool the Green Berets use is often employed by them as a weapon. If you were justified via self defense for killing a threat with a shovel, whether it was a surplus entrenching tool or the shovel your wife uses to plant daiseys is a fact of no issue.

Nutczak · Feb 17, 2011

First of all, your attorney should be speaking for you

SIGguy229 said:
First of all, your attorney should be speaking for you. Secondly, if HP is good enough for LEO, it's good enough for me.

Yup! STHU without proper legal representation. Let the lawyer do his job to the best of their ability without you making it harder for them.

On another note, I originally put S-T-F-U instead of STHU and the forum edited it out ? Really, does WTF get edited out too?

Gunslinger · Feb 17, 2011

Nutczak said:
Yup! STHU without proper legal representation. Let the lawyer do his job to the best of their ability without you making it harder for them.

On another note, I originally put S-T-F-U instead of STHU and the forum edited it out ? Really, does WTF get edited out too?

Evidently not.

Grapeshot · Feb 17, 2011

Nutczak said:
Yup! STHU without proper legal representation. Let the lawyer do his job to the best of their ability without you making it harder for them.

On another note, I originally put S-T-F-U instead of STHU and the forum edited it out ? Really, does WTF get edited out too?

Gunslinger said:
Evidently not.

Not yet. :lol:

I think the intent and purpose relates to the very broad slice of the public reading these forums. That and I was always admonished that cursing, vulgarity and slang usage was a sign of not possessing a good vocabulary or being lazy. No flame intended, seriously.

Gunslinger · Feb 20, 2011

Grapeshot said:
Not yet. :lol:

I think the intent and purpose relates to the very broad slice of the public reading these forums. That and I was always admonished that cursing, vulgarity and slang usage was a sign of not possessing a good vocabulary or being lazy. No flame intended, seriously.

Sometimes, irrespective of you vocabulary/education/breeding, nothing says it quite as well as, e.g., '**** schumer.' Keeping in mind that not capitalizing the first letter of a last name indicates you hold that person beneath contempt.

eye95 · Feb 20, 2011

Gunslinger said:
Sometimes, irrespective of you vocabulary/education/breeding, nothing says it quite as well as, e.g., '**** schumer.' Keeping in mind that not capitalizing the first letter of a last name indicates you hold that person beneath contempt.

Actually, something always says it better than the two-word sentence that you suggested. Your quote only communicates disdain for the person. It tells us nothing about you, him, or why you feel about him the way you do.

Grapeshot · Feb 20, 2011

Gunslinger said:
Sometimes, irrespective of you vocabulary/education/breeding, nothing says it quite as well as, e.g., '**** schumer.' Keeping in mind that not capitalizing the first letter of a last name indicates you hold that person beneath contempt.

eye95 said:
Actually, something always says it better than the two-word sentence that you suggested. Your quote only communicates disdain for the person. It tells us nothing about you, him, or why you feel about him the way you do.

Equally important I think is the way it reflects on the character of the writer, and collectively OCDO, as perceived by the general public. It is a war of public relations and convincing others to embrace our POV.

eye95 · Feb 20, 2011

Grapeshot said:
Equally important I think is the way it reflects on the character of the writer, and collectively OCDO, as perceived by the general public. It is a war of public relations and convincing others to embrace our POV.

There is also a war, internal to the person, of achieving the feeling of smugness versus the much less glamorous result of swaying of another's heart and mind just a few scant degrees. Feeling smug and affecting the thinking process of another are usually mutually exclusive.

Gunslinger · Feb 22, 2011

eye95 said:
There is also a war, internal to the person, of achieving the feeling of smugness versus the much less glamorous result of swaying of another's heart and mind just a few scant degrees. Feeling smug and affecting the thinking process of another are usually mutually exclusive.

Disagree. There are times when the imperative statement says it like nothing else can. It's not meant to convince others, win hearts and minds, or fill in for a lack of articulative ability. It is what it is. Simple, elegant and unequivical in its meaning. Generally best used as a summation after a discussion of the relevant points of the argument. Clean, innocent, ad hominem attack. Assuming the user has presented his bona fides as to communication skill, a wonderful sense of peace and closure will be the ultimate reward for its usage.

eye95 · Feb 22, 2011

Gunslinger said:
Disagree. There are times when the imperative statement says it like nothing else can. It's not meant to convince others, win hearts and minds, or fill in for a lack of articulative ability. It is what it is. Simple, elegant and unequivical in its meaning. Generally best used as a summation after a discussion of the relevant points of the argument. Clean, innocent, ad hominem attack. Assuming the user has presented his bona fides as to communication skill, a wonderful sense of peace and closure will be the ultimate reward for its usage.

And it will still change no one's mind. Except maybe the person who overhears and was on the fence, but now has a cemented opinion of the issuer of the "imperative" and all open carriers.

I have no expectation of changing your mind on the matter. However, there are many who will overhear this conversation. That is why I have treated you with respect and not hurled a smart-aleck response your way. It is their minds I hope to sway.

To continue this conversation would only serve to annoy them, so, having fully made my point, I will now stop.

All the best to you. 'Til we chat again.

Ammo in court...

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Well-known member

Legendary Warrior

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member