Would my ammo choice mean anything in court?

[DasFriek]

Winchester Ranger 40 cal 165gr RA40TA in 50rd box
Winchester Ranger T-Series 45 Auto +P RA45TP 50rd
These are both the "Talon" series that is rather nasty during expansion.

I just placed this order for a box of 50 for each of my 2 ccw guns.
www.sgammo.com BTW is where i was able to find them cheaply, They are easy to find but not at a good price.

Currently i carry Hornady 230gr +p TAP in my 1911 i carry 3/4 of the year when its not so hot.
And i have Winny PDX1 165gr in my XD SC .40 which is just the bonded version of the Ranger series.

I ask this question as this round is normally LE ONLY ammo but still sold to the public. And due to the possibility of the round doing much more damage than normal can this be look at badly in court if i ever had to use my handgun?

Ive always been one of those people who thought " No, It wont matter as a bullet is a bullet as long as its justified"
But using an unusual round that the public normally doesn't have access to does make me wonder.

 

[Manco]

I ask this question as this round is normally LE ONLY ammo but still sold to the public. And due to the possibility of the round doing much more damage than normal can this be look at badly in court if i ever had to use my handgun?

As long as it's not expressly illegal in your jurisdiction (check your state and local laws), and it isn't in most (I have no idea where it might be), then I think the current consensus is that using the same ammo as law enforcement does not make one look bad in court, and may actually make one look good unless the round is designed for special purposes such as piercing armor. A common LE hollow-point should be fine, as should any marketed specifically to civilians by the major ammo manufacturers.

Unfortunately we can't account for every weird and stupid case like the media demonization of the Black Talon (now called the Ranger-T) as a cop-killer bullet when in reality it was a bullet made for and commonly used by cops. But still, using your own homebrewed loads or weird "mall ninja" stuff like Extreme Shock ammo is asking for trouble, in my opinion. Assuming that a prosecutor doesn't jump on the fact that Ranger-T is really the dreaded Black Talon, you should be fine (as long as everybody knows that it's used by LE).

 

[rooter]

No. And that includes reloads.

 

[HappyHunting]

Factory ammo is fine. Wiser men than I have said things like "don't carry reloads in your CCW piece". Prosecution could turn that into something like using a round modified for killing or maiming.

This was only in Massad Ayoob's books, and is AFAIK there are no documented cases of the specific ammo causing trouble unless it is outright illegal.

HH

 

[Frank Ettin]

Whatever ammunition you may use, the prosecutor will find something bad to say about it. BUT, if you use factory ammunition of the same type that is generally used by law enforcement, you will have a much better chance of explaining your choice in a way that will make sense to a jury of folks who probably don't know much about guns and who aren't interested anyway.

 

[TexasRifleman]

This was only in Massad Ayoob's books, and is AFAIK there are no documented cases of the specific ammo causing trouble unless it is outright illegal.

Well, it came up in the Harold Fish case, but that one was such a mess all the way around it's hard to know how much it mattered. MA's argument makes sense, use factory loads and maybe even what local LE uses.

Moral is you never know what a prosecutor will think of if he's out to get you.

Harold Fish defended himself from an irate attacker, while walking on the Arizona Trail, with a 10mm Handgun and is currently in prison after being found guilty of Second Degree Murder. In the court case the 10mm pistol he used was demonized as well as his choice of hollowpoint ammo for it.

 

[Manco]

Whatever ammunition you may use, the prosecutor will find something bad to say about it. BUT, if you use factory ammunition of the same type that is generally used by law enforcement, you will have a much better chance of explaining your choice in a way that will make sense to a jury of folks who probably don't know much about guns and who aren't interested anyway.

Right, it is a wise precaution for exactly that reason. The worst-case scenario, however, would be having certain members of this forum on the jury who may, based on my experience in discussing the matter, be highly suspicious of those who use LE ammunition, as it is often designed to penetrate barriers, and according to them ONLY LEOs ever have the need to do so. Well, perhaps the context of a trial would be a different matter than talking about things in a forum , but my point here is that anything can be used against you, so pick something that would be readily defendable in court and don't worry too much about it in the meantime because they'll drag you through the mud no matter what you do. :banghead:

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by DasFriek: I've always been one of those people who thought " No, It won't matter as a bullet is a bullet as long as its justified"

Bingo!

Of course, it must be decided on the basis of the evidence whether the use of deadly force was justified.

If the circumstances were ambiguous, and/or if the evidence were contradictory, anything that might appear to shed light on what happened and why could well be brought up.

My preference is to carry a name brand factory JHP round that functions reliably in my weapon.

Posted by Manco: As long as it's not expressly illegal in your jurisdiction (check your state and local laws),...

I seem to recall that weapons loaded with JHP ammunition may not be carried outside the home in New Jersey. Don't rely on that without checking.

 

[CHEVELLE427]

just use what your local cops use then they cant say anything about what was in the gun



FYI i never use my reloads in any carry gun while carrying it

 

[azyogi]

AFAIK Harold Fish was released from prison on 7/21/09 after Gov. Jan Brewer signed a retroactive castle doctrine bill on 7/13/09.

 

[DasFriek]

Thanks for the reply guys, It at least settles my restless mind on the subject.
Normally id never worry about it, But with the "Black Talon" name in its past it did concern me. But seeing today is today and not yesterday when it was called that and LE still highley regard this round i feel it will serve me well.

In all reality it is a 1 in a million chance that this round would even give me an advantage over the Hornady TAP or PDX1 i currently use.
But thats not a lottery i wanna loose.

 

[JellyJar]

We all need to understand this. Many, if not most people, are not good at logic or reason. They are very likely to decide issues based on their emotions instead of just the facts. This of course includes people who serve on juries.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...In all reality it is a 1 in a million chance that this round would even give me an advantage over the Hornady TAP or PDX1 i currently use....

Actually, if such a difference even exists, it really isn't meaningful. Every real life situation is a little different. It may be that bullet A will tend to perform slightly better in one situation, but then again bullet B might tend to perform slightly better in another. The thing is, you don't know what kind of situation you may be facing.

Pretty much all good quality, modern JHP bullets from the major manufacturers will give very good performance over a wide range of possible circumstances. What's most important is that the ammunition functions reliably in you particular gun.

Unless you have the luxury of being able to choose ammunition meeting very specific performance parameters for a specific application under well defined conditions, any ammunition choice involves some compromises. But reliability should not be one of them.

 

[Owen Sparks]

If anyone asks, "It is just what the store had when I asked for .45's."

 

[ArfinGreebly]

LEO Recommended

In general, hollowpoint ammo shouldn't raise any eyebrows.

However, I seem to recall that there are certain jurisdictions that still prohibit things like Teflon-coated rounds ("cop killer" bullets), and possibly other ammunition perceived to be specifically designed to penetrate vests. It is always a good idea to check the laws for your state for any silly (but serious) prohibitions of "evil" ammo. Remember, the ammo in question may have only ever appeared in a movie, but that's no reason we can't have a law against it.

If you worry that your choice of ammo might seem "extreme" in the eyes of the law, you might want to ask someone from your local PD what they carry, and why that ammo was selected.

If it becomes an issue later, a complete rational answer would seem to be, "well, I asked the police what they carry for protection, and this is what they recommended." If the follow-up question is "why would you carry police ammo?" then a reasonable response might well be, "I've got to believe that if it's good enough for law enforcement, it's good enough for me."

Of course, I suppose it's possible to find a jurisdiction somewhere that specifically forbids the use of "law enforcement only" ammo. I've not ever personally seen anything like that, though.

 

[Gouranga]

A couple important reasons I got the ammo I got in my gun.

1. they are highly rated by the FBI ballistic tests
2. They are designed for less penetration than FMJ which is important to me because I have neighbors and I want to minimize the chance of harming them if I am forced to defend myself against a potentially lethal threat.
3. Accuracy when matched with my gun is excellent.

I leave out "they kill better" or anything like that because, i do not care what ammo you use on a 40 cal handgun, it is going to be potentially very lethal to the threat you are engaging in if you hit them.

Unless you have explosive rounds in your gun or something unusual I cannot see it being an issue in court. if it is, I have rational reasons for it. I also have a similar rationale for my choice of caliber and sidearm (being a very common LEO firearm and caliber).

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Could be if your in a Ungun friendly state. So far it has not come up according to MA. DA's are a odd bunch sometimes.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...If it becomes an issue later, a complete rational answer would seem to be, "well, I asked the police what they carry for protection, and this is what they recommended." If the follow-up question is "why would you carry police ammo?" then a reasonable response might well be, "I've got to believe that if it's good enough for law enforcement, it's good enough for me."...

And that's a straightforward, simple explanation that a non-gun savvy jury can easily deal with. More exotic ammunition, and correspondingly more exotic explanations, can make things a good deal more difficult.

 

[alsaqr]

Whatever ammunition you may use, the prosecutor will find something bad to say about it.

This is most likely true in an anti-gun state. It is probably not true of most states. Here in OK the prosecutor is not required to take the righteous shoot to a grand jury. Our former prosecutor gave three passes in an 18 month period in cases where the perp was killed.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Whatever ammunition you may use, the prosecutor will find something bad to say about it.

This is most likely true in an anti-gun state. It is probably not true of most states. Here in OK the prosecutor is not required to take the righteous shoot to a grand jury. Our former prosecutor gave three passes in an 18 month period in cases where the perp was killed.

[1] Harold Fish was hung out to dry in good old gun friendly Arizona. (He did win his appeal and is now free.)

[2] The prosecutor did make an issue of the fact that Fish used JHP ammunition. One of the jurors, in a post verdict interview, said that the use of JHPs bothered him.

[3] The prosecutor was initially not going to prosecute Fish, but he came under significant political pressure to do so.

[4] Yes, if the evidence is clear that your use of lethal force was justified, the ammunition won't matter. But what if there's disagreement about whether or not you were justified. What if the evidence is equivocal or unclear. Now it's not a "good shoot" until the jury says so.

[5] You have no way of knowing, if you have to defend yourself or someone else, whether or not everyone who matters is going to agree that you were justified. Remember you don't have the final say.

[6] If the prosecutor takes you to trial, he is going to do anything he can do, within the rules, if he thinks it might help him win.

 

[DasFriek]

At this point im satisfied its just another bullet in a sea of ammo, Unless my justification of force isn't substantial enough that ill be screwed no matter what ammo was in the gun.

I know the .40 is a nasty round, But id hate to see what a Talon 230gr +P .45acp would do.
I gotta look for some gelatin testing on the two rounds so i learn even more. I mean i knew enough going in when i chose these that if i ever got the chance to buy them they would be my ammo of choice.
But since odds seemed low of finding them i didn't research deeper to see the rounds full potential.

 

[Buck Snort]

Fiddletown wrote: "If the prosecutor takes you to trial, he is going to do anything he can do, within the rules, if he thinks it might help him win."

You can forget the "within the rules" crap. He's going for the win no matter what, he's facing relection soon.

 

[alsaqr]

[3] The prosecutor was initially not going to prosecute Fish, but he came under significant political pressure to do so.

That right there says it all. The prosecutor caved in to political pressure and the judge did not allow proper testimony about Kuenzli's prior agressive acts. The judge was criticized by the appeals court because he refused to define the term "defense" when asked to do so by the jury. Fish was dog meat.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/30/20090630selfdefense30-ON.html

The panel also noted that the lower court had "sanitized" evidence of prior incidents in which Kuenzli had become enraged and had frightened people during encounters with the dogs. Many times, in criminal trials, such "prior bad acts" are excluded. But in this case, the appellate judges felt it was relevant, especially since there were no witnesses to the event.

The appeals court also felt that Moran could have allowed the defense to classify dogs as potentially "dangerous instruments," furthering Fish's self-defense claims.

You cannot take one isolated case and make a legitimate claim that every prosecutor in the USA will come after you in a self defense case because of the type of ammo that was used to kill the perp.

In my rather long lifetime i have been involved in two home invasion shootings. i was not prosecuted in either case.

 

[TexasRifleman]

In my rather long lifetime i have been involved in two home invasion shootings. i was not prosecuted in either case.

But that has a lot to do with where you live, and it's not necessarily related to pro or anti gun states either. Oklahoma is very pro self defense, probably one of best from that angle.

If you shoot someone in Texas and they die you WILL be charged and go to the Grand Jury, there is no prosecutor discretion here, and Texas is generally very pro gun and pro self defense.

There is ALWAYS the chance a prosecutor will come after you or a Grand Jury will find something that worries them about the shooting. To believe otherwise is foolish.

Does that mean you have to overthink every choice made as far as ammo, sights, grips etc? No, but it's not crazy to at least consider the possibility that it might come back to haunt you.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You can forget the "within the rules" crap. He's going for the win no matter what, he's facing relection soon.

Except being cited for contempt of court or being disciplined by the his Bar isn't going to help his career. The guy trying the case is most likely an assistant district attorney, a hired employee of the elected District Attorney.

That right there says it all. The prosecutor caved in to political pressure...

It doesn't matter why the DA finally decided to prosecute Fish. It only matters that he did (in gun friendly Arizona). How can you know that if someday in the future your particular defensive gun use won't raise political issues?

...You cannot take one isolated case and make a legitimate claim that every prosecutor in the USA will come after you in a self defense case because of the type of ammo that was used to kill the perp...

I didn't say that it will happen in every case. The point is that it did happen, and what has happened once can happen again.

Furthermore, I didn't say that Fish was prosecuted because of the ammunition he used. But it was a factor in his case, and therefore it can be a factor in others.

...In my rather long lifetime i have been involved in two home invasion shootings. i was not prosecuted in either case.

Very good. In the great majority of defensive gun uses there will no prosecution. The prosecutor isn't going to be anxious to press the matter (absent political pressure) if the use of force was clearly justified. But there can be no guarantee that possible future violent encounter will be clear cut.