Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by MUSICALGUNNUT45, Sep 19, 2011.
I cannot find fault with that reasoning.
That man in all likeyhood executed his wife.
...taken together with your other posts...
...indicates that you simply do not understand the issue at all.
Best of luck.
But that doesn't matter to us. We care about the Bias case because of what it tells us about evidence. And as far as that is concerned, it doesn't matter what kind of case it is.
a little from column "a",,, a little from column "b"
both columns are gold dot 45acp
Dunno if this has been said already...but...
If you carry a Cap & Ball, you really do not have any other choice ( than to be carrying it loaded with 'Hand Loads' ).
Also, far as conventional metallic Cartridge Hand Guns - how would anyone suspect or even know if one did ( carry 'Hand Loads' )?
Vis-a-vie 'remanufactured' Ammunition, for merely one example?
Actually it's not. In Bias the amount of GSR present on the victim was used to establish the distance between the muzzle of the gun and the victim when the shot was fired. Although in that specific case it was actually a suicide I can easily see it being used in an SD case. Like say if you were trying to argue that you were wrestling with someone trying to grab your gun when you shot them and they're claiming that they were 10 feet away and backing away from you with hands raised. The Bias case was entirely based on the idea that his wife couldn't have committed suicide because her arms were too short to have held the weapon far enough way from her to have not gotten GSR on her body when the shot was fired, based on the loads the prosecution tested, which were not identical to the handloads the defendant claimed to have in the gun. This same principle of distance as established by GSR residue could easily come up in an SD shooting.
Maybe, maybe not. I think he proved reasonable doubt pretty well. Either way it doesn't change the fact that the use of handloads and the court's interpretation of the evidence could have easily sent an innocent man to jail. The key point to me is this:
They police were ready to call it a suicide until they couldn't duplicate his handloads.
I don't carry hand loads because
1) the muddy legal issues stated above and
2) the bullet type I choose to carry is pretty expensive to reload.
There really is no benefit to rolling my own SD ammo.
Reviewing all of this after having posted above, I can see the logic in pre-emptively avoiding elements which an average Jury would not understand or which an average Jury could be led to feel is somehow unusual or suspicious or 'worse' than factory Ammunition as far as it's Humane-ness, were a prosecutor interesting in hyping it.
Hence, using name brand, Factory Ammunition for one's SD Carry has the advantages of pre-emptively eliminating those elements, as well as allowing admissible forensic re-creations of Gunshot-Residu or Powder Burns and related, if such were germain to the Case.
If one is to decide in advance, that every 'edge' available is good to have if one is ever to be in a Gunfight or ritcheous SD event-shooting, then, it would make sense to me to consider these points in that light.
Fiddletown: "I'm not afraid of courts. No lawyer can be. Courts are just one of the places we conduct our business. But I do know about courts, how they work and what they can do. And I also know what kind of stress being in court can put my client through".
I'm not either. I was a cop for 20 years, maybe have more time in court than you. Now that we have pissed on each others tree, let's just say that no two cases are the same, and evidence is what it will be. If you don't present a good case on either side, you may not get good results. I can articulate AND PROVE (duplicate, if you will) the ballistics of my handloads, and that is the issue at hand for those who reload their own defensive loads. If my attorney isn't competent to present my side of the case, I'm getting a new attorney. Bang your drum for the brilliance of our legal system. The truth is, sometimes it works as it should, and sometimes it doesn't. Don't ya just hate crapshoots? Oh, wait a minute. That is how attorneys make money!
You still don't get it. That's meaningless, and if you need GSR test results, it still won't get you anywhere. Why it won't get you anywhere has been outlined many times, and I'm not going to go through the analysis again. The bottom line, yet again, is that if you need expert opinion testimony based on GSR test results, the testimony will not be admitted into evidence if you used handloads.
Your attorney, no matter how brilliant, can work only with the law as it is and the facts as they exist. Give him tough facts, and even assuming that he does the best job possible, there are no guarantees. And if I have an opportunity to take a potential problem off the table ahead of time, without impairing my ability to effectively defend myself, I'll do it.
Its nice to know that, 6 years later, the unqualified denizens of the errornet are still arguing with one of the fields foremost experts, despite a fully supported and expertly reasoned 2,000 word (8 typed pages) essay to the contrary being freely available on the very website they inhabit.
Once again, for those too lazy to look it up, or too irresponsible to have actually read this thread:
I've read through pages and pages of this contentious topic and why would anyone would use the Bias case in an attempt to illustrate that reloads are a bad idea in a self defense situation? First off, how does Massad Ayoob, or anyone else for that matter, know for a fact that Dan Bias didn't shoot his wife either intentionally or accidentally? If I were on a jury listening to the evidence, as a gun owner, shooter and reloader, I'd have a hard time believing that a woman could shoot herself 2-1/2" behind and 1-1/4" above her left ear using a revolver and not leave any GSR or other evidence indicating a close range shot regardless of the load used. If Dan Bias shot his wife, the issue of reloads or factory ammunition is moot. The S&W revolver in question had a 6" barrel so it would be a neat trick to shoot oneself in the head with the muzzle of the revolver being anything more than just a couple of inches from the skull. Massad Ayoob discusses this case as if he has no doubt that Dan Bias is innocent, but then again, it serves his purpose of pushing his 'factory ammunition only' agenda so why bother with such petty things as the truth. It serves him to present Dan Bias as the victim of a heinous miscarriage of justice because he has a better chance of convincing others to think like him.
The other cases presented by Massad Ayoob are similarly weak in making an argument for the use of factory ammunition rather than reloads for self defense. It's ridiculous to state that it's not possible or it's inordinately difficult to reproduce the ballistics of reloaded ammunition for GSR testing. Frankly, I'm not impressed by any of the arguments presented in this thread or any of the others that have been linked to. I could care less if those presenting the arguments are well known firearms experts, moderators, lawyers or judges for that matter. I'll do what I want based on my understanding of the facts and risks involved. If I choose to carry factory ammunition or reloads, I certainly don't need the approval of anyone here.
As has been said several times, it doesn't matter.
True. The issue, which has been restated time and again here by those who are knowledgeable about the rules for the admissibility of forensic scientific trace evidence, is that one will not be able to introduce the results of the testing as evidence in court. The jury won't even know about them.
Interesting. Most of us do care.
And by the way, if you should ever need to have an expert witness testify in your behalf on any subject, in any kind of court case, civil or criminal, his or her standing as an expert in the subject area at hand will have to be established and agreed upon beforehand.
That's what we all do.
However, it seems that your understanding of the subject, and therefore most probably of the risks involved, is flawed.
Your obvious failure to have comprehended the issues here after all of the information that has been set forth to educate our members does lead one to wonder what other areas of the law that govern the lawful civilian use of deadly force and the conduct of an affirmative defense in a self defense case you may also may not understand.
That is certainly true.
Best of luck.
The danger of carrying a weapon at all is far greater than the danger of using handloads.
I have in the past. I've carried factory ammo in the past. Either one works for me.
When you try to do that, the PA will object because you "manufactured the evidence." The judge, liking the way that sounds, will say "objection sustained" and you'll not be allowed to present anything.
That's what we learned from the Bias case. If you don't need the GSR evidence for your case, you're still good to go. If the GSR is critical to your case, you are screwed. If it never makes it to trial because they rule it a righteous shoot during the investigation, all this is moot.
You don't get to choose the circumstances, so go in with your eyes open. That's all.
Why does that matter?
Daniel Bias' innocence or guilty is completely irrelevant to us. What matters to us is the rule of evidence law illustrated by the fact that the judge in the case would not allow the defense in Bias to present expert opinion testimony based on GSR testing of the ammunition Bias claimed was in the gun because that ammunition was handloaded by Bias. That testimony that the defense in Bias wanted to put into evidence was kept out by the judge based on a rule of evidence law that would apply in any kind of case -- civil or criminal.
That rule of evidence law and why it would also cause such testimony to be excluded in other cases, of any kind, has been explained at length.
No one has said anything of the sort, and the ability to do so is not the issue at all. You could do all the testing or handloaded ammunition you wished, but the jury will never hear about it. If you want an expert to testify about an opinion based on that testing of handloaded ammunition, that will be too bad. The jury will not hear that testimony.
Fine with me.
This whole conversation reminds me of the law suit filed by Wile E. Coyote against Acme Co. in federal court in Tempe Arizona back in 1995. We're all going Looney Tunes!!!!!!!!
I use factory ammo for my self defense loads, at least for my concealed carry weapon.
At home, while I would use factory ammo if I was expecting a need, my magazines are loaded with a mix of factory and reloads. In a hurry, I might not take the time to make sure I have factory ammo. My reloads are just standard loads, but might not be identical to the factory loads.
I also buy commercially reloaded ammunition. Some of which I would use for self defense if the need arose. What are the legal risk for that?
That puts it very succinctly.
For those who have not read the entire thread, what that means in practice is that (1) if the evidence and testimony are such that the shooter's defense of justification is not clear cut, and (2) if according to shooter's account the shooting occurred at a close range from a particular location, and (3) if other evidence or testimony is not consistent with the shooter's account in terms of that aspect of the case, and (4) if GSR test data of the shooter's ammunition would support the shooter's account, then the shooter had better have used factory loads.
How can the stars line up so negatively if the shooter is telling the truth in the first place? Consider these very real possibilities:
If there is a witness other than someone involved, that witness will likely have seen absolutely nothing until he or she heard the sound of the shot. At that point, what she or she sees is a person holding a gun (must be a bad guy). Perhaps the shooter had moved very quickly before being seen, or perhaps the witness will in his or her own mind fill in things that are more consistent with what he or she assumes must have happened, and will actually believe it when giving his or her flawed testimony.
Witnesses from the neighborhood who may be sympathetic to the person shot will tend to see things differently.
The person shot, and if he or she has one, an accomplice, will almost certainly testify against the shooter.
Wind, gravity, or someone's boot may cause the shooter's empty cases to end up in a location that is not consistent with the shooter's account of the incident.
Any one of these, I'm afraid, is not unlikely.
And this has certainly happened. See post 81 for the story of the case of Cpl. Randy Willems.
Ah yes, that thread. I remember it now. Four pages with eighty four posts on the subject of reloads for CCW.
That was six moths ago.
A lot of very carefully crafted, thorough explanations were provided then. One could probably use them as raw material for an NACDL white paper on the subject.
What I had forgotten was that our friend 357 Terms repeatedly made the very same irrelevant and nonsensical arguments then as now, over and over and over, without indicating that he or she ever understood the subject matter at all.
I have to conclude either that he or she is lacking something that would be necessary for most laymen to gain at least some understanding of the principles involved, or that he or she just likes to be argumentative.
If it is a case of the former, I give up. I do not know of any other way to explain the subject matter.
If it is a case of the latter, it is not worth carrying on a conversation with him or her.
LOL it's a nonsensical argument to say that THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED. Keep your lawyeresse bs coming though maybe you can still scare someone.
Sound legal advice will have you crawling into a hole everytime the sun goes behind a cloud.
It's just like sound medical advice, that will have us turning vegan.
I'm not letting the doctors or the lawyers run my life, and I'll answer for my actions without crying....
You do as you like.
I have known a number of people who think that way. Too many of them who opted to not follow the advice of their attorneys ultimately learned the hard way that they had dug for themselves holes out of which they could not climb, and out of which no one could help them. Afterwards, they could not remember any good reasons for their decisions, but beforehand, they were always supremely confident that they would if necessary be able to justify their actions convincingly and avoid trouble should it come their way.
It's a matter of risk management. How serious are the consequences? If the risk is one of high legal costs, possible conviction, and incarceration, you want to avoid that hole, and if doing so is a simple, low cost thing to do, taking that course is not "crawling into a hole."
If you ignore your attorney's advice now, well, remember the oil filter ad, "pay me now or..."
One can buy a lifetime's supply of factory loads for the cost of mounting a legal defense even if you prevail. And, of course, you may not prevail.
It is always better to find out the law and how to comply with it and the consequences of not doing so beforehand.
Separate names with a comma.