What type of ammo do you use for carry/home defense?

[farmerboy]

All these people want to be scared about courts and reloads, getting sued after shooting, help in aftermath of lega crap, etc, etc and etc. if you're so scared of everything maybe you should leave your guns at home and start carrying a fly swatter.

 

[zxcvbob]

All these people want to be scared about courts and reloads, getting sued after shooting, help in aftermath of lega crap, etc, etc and etc. if you're so scared of everything maybe you should leave your guns at home and start carrying a fly swatter.

 

[Frank Ettin]

All these people want to be scared about courts and reloads, getting sued after shooting, help in aftermath of lega crap, etc, etc and etc. if you're so scared of everything maybe you should leave your guns at home and start carrying a fly swatter.

What drivel. I can dodge folly without backing into cowardice.

It's merely a question of being prepared. Folks here spend enormous amounts of time and energy trying to pick just the right gun, the right cartridge, the right holster, etc. Yet some some of those same people are reluctant to spend time learning to understand the legal issues and prepare for the possibility that they might have to fact the legal travail that will come if they every have to actually use that gun they spent some much time and effort to select.

Whether or not you want to bother learning about how the legal system works and whether there are things you can do to avoid unpleasant results if you happen to get involved with the legal system is entirely up to you. Of course, folks who carry or have guns for self defense probably are a little more likely than most other folks to come into contact with the legal system. But in any case, it won't be my problem.

I know that a number of my colleagues made a good deal of their money trying to sort out messes for folks who never worried about lawyers or courts -- messes, and legal expenses, that perhaps could have been avoided or minimized with a little care or attention. But at least that lack of care and attention helped enrich my colleagues.

 

[Marquezj16]

You will not have the final say on whether or not your use of lethal force was justified. Other people will be deciding that. So if you think you were justified but the DA and/or grand jury disagree, it's not a "good shoot" unless your trial jury decides that it was. See, for example --

With this sentence you imply all shooting incidents go to trial and therefore requires a trial by jury.

You pretty much make it as though a shooter is guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You will not have the final say on whether or not your use of lethal force was justified. Other people will be deciding that. So if you think you were justified but the DA and/or grand jury disagree, it's not a "good shoot" unless your trial jury decides that it was. See, for example --

With this sentence you imply all shooting incidents go to trial and therefore requires a trial by jury.

You pretty much make it as though a shooter is guilty until proven innocent.

I don't see how you can possible reach that conclusion.

[1] It is true that you will not have the final say on whether or not your use of lethal force was legally justified. The matter will be investigated.

[2] If the DA and/or grand jury conclude that there is probable cause to believe that your intentional act of violence was a criminal act and not legally justified, you will be prosecuted. That is a true statement.

[3] That is not to say that every use of force in self defense will be prosecuted. If the DA and/or grand jury conclude that you were justified to intentionally shoot that person, you will not be prosecuted.

[4] But in any case, intentionally hurting or killing another person is prima facie a criminal act. Our law recognizes that under some conditions such an intentional act of violence may be legally justified and thus relieve the actor of criminal responsibility. But if claiming self defense you will of necessity have admitted that you intentionally hurt or killed another human being. Your defense will be that your act of violence was legally justified. Thus unless and until your act of violence is determined to be justified, it will be investigated and processed as a crime.

[5] How Pleading Self Defense Works If You Are Charged

In general, if you're accused of a crime it's up to the State to prove your guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But things work a little differently if you are pleading self defense.

Basically --

[a] The prosecutor must prove the elements of the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt -- basically that you intentionally shot the guy. But if you are pleading self defense, you will have admitted that, so we go to step b.

Now you must present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. Depending on the State, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you may not have to convince the jury. But you will have to at least present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

[c] Now it's the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in justified self defense.

Let's go through that again.

In an ordinary criminal prosecution, the defendant doesn't have to say anything. He doesn't have to present any evidence. The entire burden falls on the prosecution. The prosecution has to prove all the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

If the crime you're charged with is, for example, manslaughter, the prosecution must prove that you were there, you fired the gun, you intended to fire the gun (or were reckless), and the guy you shot died. In the typical manslaughter prosecution, the defendant might by way of his defense try to plant a seed that you weren't there (alibi defense), or that someone else might have fired the gun, or that it was an accident. In each case the defendant doesn't have to actually prove his defense. He merely has to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

But if you are going to be claiming self defense, you will wind up admitting all the elements of what would, absent legal justification, constitute a crime. You will necessarily admit that you were there, that you fired the gun, and that you intended to shoot the decedent. Your defense is that your use of lethal force in self defense satisfied the applicable legal standard and that, therefore, it was justified.

So now you would have to affirmatively present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In some jurisdictions, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you don't have to convince the jury. But you will at least have to present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all elements necessary under the applicable law to justify your conduct.

Then it will be the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury (in some jurisdictions, he will have to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt) that you did not act in justified self defense. And even if you didn't have to prove self defense (only present a prima facie case), the less convincing your story, and your evidence, is, the easier it will be for the prosecutor to meet his rebuttal burden.

 

[farmerboy]

Thanks for not hijacking this thread. Again, I carry 155 grain federal hydra shoks in my 40 cal. I have most every kind of ammo out there and all are prob just as good but I killed alot of animals with these and I seen firsthand their destruction. Plus I have about 75 boxes of the stuff.

 

[Marquezj16]

a] The prosecutor must prove the elements of the underlying crime beyond a reasonable doubt -- basically that you intentionally shot the guy. But if you are pleading self defense, you will have admitted that, so we go to step b.

Now you must present evidence from which the trier of fact could infer that your conduct met the applicable legal standard justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. Depending on the State, you may not have to prove it, i. e., you may not have to convince the jury. But you will have to at least present a prima facie case, i. e., sufficient evidence which, if true, establishes that you have satisfied all legal elements necessary to justify your conduct.

[c] Now it's the prosecutor's burden to attack your claim and convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that you did not act in justified self defense.

You're doing it again. You are assuming that after "b" the prosecutor will charge you with a crime. Don't they have a choice of looking at the evidence and determining "it was a good shoot"?

 

[Marquezj16]

@farmerboy - I carry 135 gr Hydra Shoks in my LC9. It shoots great with less perceived recoil than when I use Hornady or Winchester PDX in my LC9.

 

[farmerboy]

I also have a box of 135 gr hydra shok 40 cal and would carry 135s but have to buy them. You just about name it I pretty much have almost everything but carry what's free and that's what the FBI has provided me with. Long story but it seems like free and endless supply always shoots better ;-)

 

[Spats McGee]

All these people want to be scared about courts and reloads, getting sued after shooting, help in aftermath of lega crap, etc, etc and etc. if you're so scared of everything maybe you should leave your guns at home and start carrying a fly swatter.

Hogwash. It's not a matter of being scared. It's about understanding the legal ramifications of killing another human in SD. It is entirely possible to both: (a) do the research to understand the legal landscape; and (b) still be prepared to defend my family.

. . . .You're doing it again. You are assuming that after "b" the prosecutor will charge you with a crime. Don't they have a choice of looking at the evidence and determining "it was a good shoot"? . . . .

As a general rule, yes, the prosecutor does have the option of looking at the evidence and determining whether or not to charge. Just because the shooter claims it was a good shoot don't make it so, though.

One of the points that I think Frank is trying to get at is this: The shooter is not the final arbiter of whether a shoot was good. That role falls to someone else (judge, DA, jury, etc). Bear in mind that the prosecutor is not required to believe the shooter's side of the story. If I shoot a BG, who survives, and the BG survives and tells a different tale than I do, a prosecutor could well decide just to let a jury sort it out. (Sometimes, that's the politically safe move.) There could also be all sorts of political pressure for a DA to charge.

 

[Marquezj16]

As a general rule, yes, the prosecutor does have the option of looking at the evidence and determining whether or not to charge. Just because the shooter claims it was a good shoot don't make it so, though.

One of the points that I think Frank is trying to get at is this: The shooter is not the final arbiter of whether a shoot was good. That role falls to someone else (judge, DA, jury, etc). Bear in mind that the prosecutor is not required to believe the shooter's side of the story. If I shoot a BG, who survives, and the BG survives and tells a different tale than I do, a prosecutor could well decide just to let a jury sort it out. (Sometimes, that's the politically safe move.) There could also be all sorts of political pressure for a DA to charge.

No one ever said it was up to the shooter to call it a good shoot.

The prosecutor is required to take the evidence presented upon them to make their decision. It does not mean 100% of the time they will believe the shooter but the other side of that it does not mean they will not believe them either.

 

[farmerboy]

Who gives a crap? If I was staff like Frank, I'd ban both of you for a week just for being disrespectful to this post for so long. Back to it, yes I love the 135 grain hydra skoks in 40 cal.

 

[Spats McGee]

No one ever said it was up to the shooter to call it a good shoot.

The prosecutor is required to take the evidence presented upon them to make their decision. It does not mean 100% of the time they will believe the shooter but the other side of that it does not mean they will not believe them either.

Entirely true. It has no impact on the evidentiary questions raised by reloads, though.

With all of the research work that we (meaning CCers) put into gear, calibers, training, etc., one of the common themes is "hope for the best, but prepare for the worst," is it not? I treat the legal issues the same way.

 

[Marquezj16]

farmerboy - I started the thread and I think the discussion is valid. Plus Frank Ettin is part of the discussion.

About the hydra shoks - I did not know that the 40 cal came in 135 gr also. Mine is in 9mm.

 

[Smit]

Possible Situation?

Prosecuting Lawyer: "And sir, do you mind telling the jury what type of ammo you used when you shot and killed my client?"

Defense: "Sure, I used my hollow-points."

Prosecuting Lawyer: "Hollow-Point. Do you mind explaining what that is?"

Defense: "Sure, it expands when fired to produce a larger diameter projectile"

Prosecuting Lawyer: "So you are saying it has the potential to cause more harm and has a better chance at killing someone?"

Defense: "Well yes I suppose. If someone is trying to kill me, I would like the fight to be as unfair as possible."

Think of it first as a friendly sport tournament, such as tennis for example. If money was not a priority, are you going to go buy the cheapest/worst tennis racket you can find before the tournament? Probably not, you will want the best you can find because you want the upper hand.
Now put your life on the line as a wager to this tournament.......

 

[Spats McGee]

Who gives a crap?

You, apparently . . . given the fact that you are the one who jumped into complain that "those who were scared of courts should leave the guns at home." (paraphrasing)

 

[Marquezj16]

It has no impact on the evidentiary questions raised by reloads, though.

That evidence being allowed is up to the presiding judge as metioned earlier.

There is no ruling or law that states you cannot present your side of the story if your reloads come into question if you happen to be involved in a shooting.

 

[farmerboy]

Yes 40 cal hydra shoks do come in 135 gr also. I love them. They have less kick and bad to the bone. But like I said, I shoot the 155 correction 165 gr hydra shoks.

 

[Spats McGee]

It has no impact on the evidentiary questions raised by reloads, though.

That evidence being allowed is up to the presiding judge as metioned earlier.

There is no ruling or law that states you cannot present your side of the story if your reloads come into question if you happen to be involved in a shooting.

You can present your side of the story. No one said you couldn't tell your side of the story. However, the DA, judge, and jury are all entitled to disbelieve you, too. If the distance to the target is in dispute, you may also need expert testimony (using exemplars) to resolve that dispute. For example, I say I shot the BG from ~1 foot. As a defendant, I am allowed to testify to that. The BG (who survived) is also allowed to testify that he was no less than ~6 feet away. This can create a very serious credibility problem for the shooter/defendant.

We may need a GSR expert to tell us "what does the GSR say?" The problem is that any testing done by an expert will have to be done by an expert who is relying on my word that the rounds were loaded as I said they were. Again, we're talking about having an expert testify as to rounds created by a potential defendant. Or basing his conclusions on what the defendant says was in the load. Were I lead counsel on that case, what I'd really like is for a neutral third party to testify as to the composition of the lot used in the shooting for GSR testing purposes.

 

[Marquezj16]

However, the DA, judge, and jury are all entitled to disbelieve you, too.

Again, the other side of this is they may believe you.

There is no absolute. You can't just paint one side and expect others to take it as fact.