Deadly Force: Hollowpoint or FMJ?
- Thread starter Dirty Dawg
- Start date
- Status
As I've said before:
Here is the key if deadly force is justified, it's justified no matter what you use to deliver that force.
Want a real scenario?
Man on a subway in NYC is threatened by 4 young men, he is ILLEGALLY carrying a revolver. He uses the ILLEGALLY carried revolver to shoot the four men. He asserts self defense on the 4 counts of attempted murder and is acquitted. He is however, convicted on the one count of illegal carry of a handgun.
BTW, for those don't remember that was Bernard Goetz.
Again, if lethal force is justified by a threat of death or serious bodily injury, the tool you use to deliver that justified force is irrelevant.
I have NEVER seen any caselaw that supporst the notion that the instrument used to deliver deadly force is a factor in determining whether deadly force was justified. I have NEVER seen any caselaw that supports the idea that the instrument used to deliver deadly force is a factor in a civil tort, if the person intended to deliver deadly force. I have heard of one case where modifications to a firearm were a factor in a civil tort involving an accidental discharge. However, the key distinction there is that the delivery of deadly force was UNINTENTIONAL, not an intentional use of deadly force for self defense.
Here is the key if deadly force is justified, it's justified no matter what you use to deliver that force.
Want a real scenario?
Man on a subway in NYC is threatened by 4 young men, he is ILLEGALLY carrying a revolver. He uses the ILLEGALLY carried revolver to shoot the four men. He asserts self defense on the 4 counts of attempted murder and is acquitted. He is however, convicted on the one count of illegal carry of a handgun.
BTW, for those don't remember that was Bernard Goetz.
Again, if lethal force is justified by a threat of death or serious bodily injury, the tool you use to deliver that justified force is irrelevant.
I have NEVER seen any caselaw that supporst the notion that the instrument used to deliver deadly force is a factor in determining whether deadly force was justified. I have NEVER seen any caselaw that supports the idea that the instrument used to deliver deadly force is a factor in a civil tort, if the person intended to deliver deadly force. I have heard of one case where modifications to a firearm were a factor in a civil tort involving an accidental discharge. However, the key distinction there is that the delivery of deadly force was UNINTENTIONAL, not an intentional use of deadly force for self defense.
And who decides if it's justified? No one has to take your word for it. If you're on trial there's some dispute about whether or not your use of lethal force was justified, and if the jury doesn't think so, you go to jail. All sorts of factors will affect the thinking of the jury and may dispose them in your favor or against you. Why make your situtation any more difficult than it needs to be?DMF said:
From what I know of the Fish case, he was justified in using lethal force. But in his case, the jury didn't buy it. He had a number of problems, including the issues the prosecutor made of the type of ammunition he used (and there were of course others). And another problem is that his lawyer didn't deal effectively with those issues.
Trials are complicate exercises with a lot of moving parts. One thing that you will want, if you're ever a defendant, is to get the jury as much on your side as possible. Things that can get in the way of the jury getting on your side aren't good things for you. If you can avoid such things ahead of time, you can help yourself later on.
Some things may be worth taking risks over. Getting training and using good quality, commercial JHP ammunition can help increase your chances of prevailing in a lethal encounter; so they're worth the risk.
Using handloads, compared with quality factory ammunition, or embellishing your gun with vigilante symbols won't improve your chances of prevailing in a lethal encounter; but they may not sit well with a jury. So why do such things?
This isn't about case law. It's about trial tactics and how lawyers tell their clients' stories to juries.
rscalzo
Member
More urban myth.
Not urban myth. Professional judgment -- mine and others who have training and experience in the law. Also see point [5] in post #41.rscalzo said:
In any case, do what you want. It's not my problem. I, however, won't use handloads for self defense myself.
Cyborg
Member
What Do You Mean By FMJ?
I am not any sort of gun "enthusiast". I had basic firearms training at OCS at Quantico in 1971 and again at USAF BMTS at Lackland AFB. I know that FMJ means "full metal jacket". I was not aware that handgun ammunition is available in FMJ. The ammunition which I carry is Speer Gold Dot - a type of jacketed hollow point. The copper cladding extends to the rim of the cup in the tip and the rim is scored in (IIRC) 8 places to facilitate controlled expansion. As I understand it, the copper cladding helps keep the projectile in one piece during the expansion process.
I know what a FMJ means for long gun ammunition. In a war fighting situation it helps assure the round will penetrate the target. Since any sort of expanding ammunition is expressly prohibited by the Laws Of Armed Conflict, all U.S. troops are allowed to use is "ball ammunition".
Now, will someone PLEASE tell me - PM is fine - what FMJ means in the context of handgun ammunition? Since, so far as I am aware, BGs for the most part do not wear ballistic vests, penetrating power would not seem to be important.
I am not interested in killing anyone but I do want to stop them from hurting me or my family. So stopping power would seem to be of paramount importance. Hollow point ammunition is better for that.
Cy
I am not any sort of gun "enthusiast". I had basic firearms training at OCS at Quantico in 1971 and again at USAF BMTS at Lackland AFB. I know that FMJ means "full metal jacket". I was not aware that handgun ammunition is available in FMJ. The ammunition which I carry is Speer Gold Dot - a type of jacketed hollow point. The copper cladding extends to the rim of the cup in the tip and the rim is scored in (IIRC) 8 places to facilitate controlled expansion. As I understand it, the copper cladding helps keep the projectile in one piece during the expansion process.
I know what a FMJ means for long gun ammunition. In a war fighting situation it helps assure the round will penetrate the target. Since any sort of expanding ammunition is expressly prohibited by the Laws Of Armed Conflict, all U.S. troops are allowed to use is "ball ammunition".
Now, will someone PLEASE tell me - PM is fine - what FMJ means in the context of handgun ammunition? Since, so far as I am aware, BGs for the most part do not wear ballistic vests, penetrating power would not seem to be important.
I am not interested in killing anyone but I do want to stop them from hurting me or my family. So stopping power would seem to be of paramount importance. Hollow point ammunition is better for that.
Cy
kingpin008
Member
Cyborg - FMJ is the same for handguns as it is for rifle - Full Metal Jacket.
Any decent attorney won't have a problem arguing against using JHP ammo.
JHP has less penetration, and is actually less 'deadly' on average because you don't need to shoot someone as much (There is actually a govt. study on this you can dig up. They analyzed police departments that used FMJ and switched to JHP and found that they had to shoot people less times which caused less deaths (most deaths are from bleeding.. less holes means less bleeding)).
JHP has less penetration, and is actually less 'deadly' on average because you don't need to shoot someone as much (There is actually a govt. study on this you can dig up. They analyzed police departments that used FMJ and switched to JHP and found that they had to shoot people less times which caused less deaths (most deaths are from bleeding.. less holes means less bleeding)).
kurtmax, I agree. JHPs are defensible and worth defending. That's what I use in my self defense guns.
Cyborg, you've kind of hit on the crux of the great debate. The proponents of FMJs for self defense argue that they need reliable penetration. The proponents of JHPs argue that modern JHPs provide enough penetration and usually expand to make bigger holes so they're more effective. Any way, I go with the JHP crowd.
Cyborg, you've kind of hit on the crux of the great debate. The proponents of FMJs for self defense argue that they need reliable penetration. The proponents of JHPs argue that modern JHPs provide enough penetration and usually expand to make bigger holes so they're more effective. Any way, I go with the JHP crowd.
GregGry
Member
Under the rules of evidence, the fact that the assailant had screwdriver in his back pocket would have been inadmissible as irrelevant. Fish didn't know about it.
For some reason I thought I read that he knew about it. If he didn't know then it wasn't included in his basis to shoot, and you are right it has no relevence in the case. Thanks for clearing that up.
If you really think that the investigator and the forensic team won't be able to figure it out, good luck.
With enough looking at a shell casing I am sure you can figure out it was a reload. Double extractor/ejector marks, and duplicate sets of marks on other parts could be an indication. However, comercial reloaded ammo would show the same signs, or rounds that are chambered and ejected numerous times without being fired. Sure if they outright asked they would likely find out. If you are justified in using deadly force it doesn't matter if you used a ar15, a shotgun, or a pistol. Sure depending on your choice you might be grilled a bit, but if you meat and potatoes stack up (You were reasonable with using deadly force) then your fine. If your meat and potatoes don't stack up, it really isn't going to matter what gun you used.
For some reason I thought I read that he knew about it. If he didn't know then it wasn't included in his basis to shoot, and you are right it has no relevence in the case. Thanks for clearing that up.
If you really think that the investigator and the forensic team won't be able to figure it out, good luck.
With enough looking at a shell casing I am sure you can figure out it was a reload. Double extractor/ejector marks, and duplicate sets of marks on other parts could be an indication. However, comercial reloaded ammo would show the same signs, or rounds that are chambered and ejected numerous times without being fired. Sure if they outright asked they would likely find out. If you are justified in using deadly force it doesn't matter if you used a ar15, a shotgun, or a pistol. Sure depending on your choice you might be grilled a bit, but if you meat and potatoes stack up (You were reasonable with using deadly force) then your fine. If your meat and potatoes don't stack up, it really isn't going to matter what gun you used.
Your first concern should be having the ammunition most effective at stopping people from commiting violent acts that is within the limits of your budget. But if you can afford to buy the $500+ gun you can at least buy $100 worth of ammo. Hollowpoints help keep the bad guy down better and the bystanders safer from shoot throughs. What's not to like?
And what about this argument: "I could have used fmjs in which case I may have had to shoot five into him to stop him because they punch neat holes, but instead I used jhps and only had to shoot him twice and he lived."
And what about this argument: "I could have used fmjs in which case I may have had to shoot five into him to stop him because they punch neat holes, but instead I used jhps and only had to shoot him twice and he lived."
WardenWolf
member
The question I have is why soft points weren't even mentioned? Soft points have the advantage in that they usually feed as well as FMJ, and also tend to do significant damage. They may not be quite as effective as modern hollowpoints, but they will certainly be more effective than FMJ.
Deanimator
Member
That used to be the ONLY commonly available handgun ammunition for semi-automatic pistols. It has always been extremely common, and still is.
Go to Walmart and see what kind of 9x19mm, .40 S&W and .45acp ammunition they have. Most of it, certainly the most affordable, will be FMJs. Even their cheapest .38 Special ammunition is loaded with a 130gr. FMJ, similar to the GI .38 Special load formerly used by aviators and female MPs.
Deanimator
Member
1. I can't name a widely available soft point 9x19mm, .40 S&W or .45acp load.
2. Almost all of the ammunition with soft points or soft point bullets for reloading that I've seen are for revolvers. The Winchester White Box .44 Magnum that I buy at Walmart for my Model 29s is jacketed soft point.
Plus, if they search your house, which they might, especially if you've been charged, they will find your reloading set up and probably things like broken boxes of the same type of bullet in the rounds remaining in the gun and the extra ammunition you caried on your person. If they decide to analyze the powder in the remaining rounds from your gun, they will probably find that it matches a type of canister powder found among your reloading supplies. I think that they'll figure out you loaded the ammunition.GregGry said:
Who decides if you were justified? And if you're on trial, there's some dispute about whether you were justified, and now it's not a "good shoot" until the charges are dismissed or you're acquitted. At trial, things like the type of gun, may, with the urging of the prosecutor, affect the thinking of the jury and may dispose them in your favor or against you.GregGry said:
Be my guest, Bubba. As I've said before, it's not my problem. I've had a very good career helping my clients avoid trouble while at the same time achieving their goals.
Using reloaded ammunition should be no problem legally either. A prosecuting attorney may come up with anything. You need to get a good attorney, and don't be afraid to 'point out' things to him if he's not completely familiar with firearms terms at whatnot.
I wouldn't use reloads... not for legal reasons, but for reliability reasons. Bulk primers and such seem to have a higher fail rate than good quality factory ammo (I use Speer Gold Dot 9x19).
I wouldn't use reloads... not for legal reasons, but for reliability reasons. Bulk primers and such seem to have a higher fail rate than good quality factory ammo (I use Speer Gold Dot 9x19).
Fiddletown is so on the money.
I would add that instead of internet arguments - one can turn to real professional level literature.
1. The legal and jury research literature clearly indicates the role of emotional variables in influencing juries. There have been specific studies that indicate that weapons appearance and exposure issues can be detrimental to a defendant. It interacts with gender of juror, shooter and juror gun expertise.
2. Defending the role of HP rounds - there are forensic science journals that will demonstrate the risk of overpenetration of FMJ rounds in actual shootings and the expert scientists state recommendations for HP rounds because of that.
3. As Fiddletown so ably states - if you are on trial - a lot of folk don't think it was a clear cut good shoot - that's a big DUH. For civilians and police, you can find a good number of trials on shootings that were thought to be ambiguous - thus the cliche of if it is a good shoot is absolute BS.
4. If you get a lawyer - you should be sure that they are familiar with this body of knowledge. You should also plan your self-defense strategies with a modicum of common sense to limit your vulnerability to such attacks over marginal gains because you think you are the Einstein of reloading and/or you think you need FMJ to shoot through some Zombie or other nonsense.
I would add that instead of internet arguments - one can turn to real professional level literature.
1. The legal and jury research literature clearly indicates the role of emotional variables in influencing juries. There have been specific studies that indicate that weapons appearance and exposure issues can be detrimental to a defendant. It interacts with gender of juror, shooter and juror gun expertise.
2. Defending the role of HP rounds - there are forensic science journals that will demonstrate the risk of overpenetration of FMJ rounds in actual shootings and the expert scientists state recommendations for HP rounds because of that.
3. As Fiddletown so ably states - if you are on trial - a lot of folk don't think it was a clear cut good shoot - that's a big DUH. For civilians and police, you can find a good number of trials on shootings that were thought to be ambiguous - thus the cliche of if it is a good shoot is absolute BS.
4. If you get a lawyer - you should be sure that they are familiar with this body of knowledge. You should also plan your self-defense strategies with a modicum of common sense to limit your vulnerability to such attacks over marginal gains because you think you are the Einstein of reloading and/or you think you need FMJ to shoot through some Zombie or other nonsense.
GregGry
Member
Plus, if they search your house, which they might, especially if you've been charged, they will find your reloading set up and probably things like broken boxes of the same type of bullet in the rounds remaining in the gun and the extra ammunition you caried on your person. If they decide to analyze the powder in the remaining rounds from your gun, they will probably find that it matches a type of canister powder found among your reloading supplies. I think that they'll figure out you loaded the ammunition.
Ok so they proved that you reloaded your ammo. Show me a court case where this A) was ever brought up, and B) it had a bearing on the case. I still don't understand why so many people have this fear, it is completely irrational. I fail to see why the money and time would be spent trying to figure out if its dreaded handloaded ammo rather then just factory stuff. Not to mention what about black powder rifles/guns? Since you loaded the gun powder and the ball/bullet, it would be the same thing as handloaded ammo. Yet I don't hear anyone saying don't do it.
Who decides if you were justified? And if you're on trial, there's some dispute about whether you were justified, and now it's not a "good shoot" until the charges are dismissed or you're acquitted. At trial, things like the type of gun, may, with the urging of the prosecutor, affect the thinking of the jury and may dispose them in your favor or against you.
any lawyer worth his salt could overcome any prosecuting attorney's weak attempts at making you seem guilty because of the gun and ammo your using. I mean honestly what is all of this fear based off of? I have never read a court case where handloaded ammo caused a conviction, nor the choice in firearm. If your justified in using a .22lr your justified in using a 44mag. We can play games all day about what justified means, and we aren't going to get anywhere. Thats why unless someone can find court cases to back up that you wouldn't be justfied in a self defense shoot because of your choice in firearm, ammo type, if you reload, etc it is just a myth.
Ok so they proved that you reloaded your ammo. Show me a court case where this A) was ever brought up, and B) it had a bearing on the case. I still don't understand why so many people have this fear, it is completely irrational. I fail to see why the money and time would be spent trying to figure out if its dreaded handloaded ammo rather then just factory stuff. Not to mention what about black powder rifles/guns? Since you loaded the gun powder and the ball/bullet, it would be the same thing as handloaded ammo. Yet I don't hear anyone saying don't do it.
Who decides if you were justified? And if you're on trial, there's some dispute about whether you were justified, and now it's not a "good shoot" until the charges are dismissed or you're acquitted. At trial, things like the type of gun, may, with the urging of the prosecutor, affect the thinking of the jury and may dispose them in your favor or against you.
any lawyer worth his salt could overcome any prosecuting attorney's weak attempts at making you seem guilty because of the gun and ammo your using. I mean honestly what is all of this fear based off of? I have never read a court case where handloaded ammo caused a conviction, nor the choice in firearm. If your justified in using a .22lr your justified in using a 44mag. We can play games all day about what justified means, and we aren't going to get anywhere. Thats why unless someone can find court cases to back up that you wouldn't be justfied in a self defense shoot because of your choice in firearm, ammo type, if you reload, etc it is just a myth.
And it's helpful to remember that the prosecutor will be doing everything he can to systematically exclude from the jury anyone who knows anything about guns. Some members of the jury might well have doubts about whether private citizens ought even have guns.GEM said:
+1, the lawyer works for you.GEM said:
Also, one needs to be sure that his lawyer knows how to handle a self defense case. Even an able and experienced criminal defense lawyer may not have much experience with, or know how best to manage, a self defense case.
The typical defense in a criminal case is, "I didn't do it." So criminal defense lawyers have a lot of experience dealing with alibi and mistaken identity defenses, and they tend to be skilled at attacking the prosecution case and creating a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. That's what the best criminal defense lawyers know how to do and can do very well.
But in a self defense case, the defendant says, "I did it, but I was justified." So now his lawyer's jobs are to demonstrate that the defendant satisfied the elements necessary to legally justify his actions and to defeat the prosecutor's attacks on the defendant's contentions. This is a very different sort of defense, and most criminal defense lawyers have little or no experience with it.
GregGry,
The points you're trying to raise have all been covered -- see posts 41 and 53. I've fully laid out the bases for my opinion and for why I won't use handloads for self defense.
If you think it's just a myth, you and anyone else is welcome to use handloads for self defense. It's not my problem.
The points you're trying to raise have all been covered -- see posts 41 and 53. I've fully laid out the bases for my opinion and for why I won't use handloads for self defense.
If you think it's just a myth, you and anyone else is welcome to use handloads for self defense. It's not my problem.
GregGry
Member
I understand where you are coming from, limit all of the potential risks to your credibility. However I still stand firm that it is more of a myth then something that is reality. There are more knowledgeable people here on firearm cases that have been tried in the past then 99% of websites, and after years of people asking if handloaded ammo is a legal liability nothing has ever come up other then don't do it.
I have been witness (And part of) cases where lawyers brought up all sorts of things that had little to nothing to do with the case. IT happens, but its not going to get a conviction without other evidence.
I have been witness (And part of) cases where lawyers brought up all sorts of things that had little to nothing to do with the case. IT happens, but its not going to get a conviction without other evidence.
Unless you live in someplace like New Jersey (which bans civilian use of HPs in handguns)--use the hollowpoints--because of the fact the police use them, they stop the person quicker and they are less likely to over penetrate. Most jurors will find use of the handguns and ammo the police use more acceptable than something more exotic (using Ruger, Smith, GLock, Taurus revolvers/pistols in39/357/9mm/40/45/10mm is going to be easier to justify than an Xframe Smith or a 44mag Desert Eagle for instance)
GregGry
Member
So you know if all the criteria are met and you can use deadly force, it doesn't matter if you use a truck or a .22lr to stop the threat. Even if you use a caliber handgun that you aren't allowed to carry you are going to be charged/lose your ccw for that, but you can't base a shooting on it being justified by what caliber is used. There are many reasons why a .44mag revlover isn't the idea weapon to use, none really have to do with legal liability unless you shoot though your intended pers or miss.
- Status
