TexasCHLforum.com

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I cannot imagine a competent judge even allowing that question in a trial.

Chas.

Welp, it helped sink Fish, so obviously it could be allowed at trial. And you'd be treading in dangerous waters a la the "No True Scotsman" fallacy (not to mention contempt of court) if you in any way implied a judge allowing that question to be asked was incompetent. I know you're a lawyer and that only the stupidest man alive would accuse the judge of incompetence to his face during the trial, I'm just saying.

As I said before, the Fish case resulted in the Arizona Legislature passing a bill that forbids the consideration of type or caliber of firearm in determining justification. The Legislature itself thus recognized the trial as a serious miscarriage of justice. BUT, that's Arizona, not Texas; you get a Houston DA and a hangin' judge and it could very well happen here. And you're durned tootin' if the Feds find an excuse to get involved, they will be sure to consider every feature of that gun as they have no such compunction even if the State did.

I mean, can't you just hear the DA? "You carried, and used, a Kel-Tec subcompact. It doesn't have a safety. Therefore, wouldn't you agree that in buying such a gun, you have demonstrated a clear disregard for the safety of those around you? It's a yes or no question, Mr. Liko". "Let's move on to the caliber. The gun fires .380ACP rounds. The FBI has discounted this ammo as having insufficient power to physically incapacitate. It would have no greater power in your hands, would it, Mr. Liko? So, wouldn't I be reasonable in assuming that you chose this gun knowing it would only incapacitate through pain? And yet the bullet does permanent damage whereas other pain-compliance weapons or techniques leave little if any permanent damage. Tell me, Mr. Liko, why would you use such an inhumane method of stopping an attacker?" I could go on and on, but as U.S. v. Olofson demonstrated, if a federal judge wants to railroad you, the DA can paint any picture he wants and use any brush to do so.

Ayoob just had an article on this in one of the gun mags. While he recommends using the same bullet used by the local police, he also points out that if you did your homework in choosing a round, you and a competent attorney should be able to successfully defent the use of the round in court.

"Special" ammo, custom guns, laser sights, ngt sights, weapon lights, etc etc.

Me thinks if they are after you they will get you. No matter WHAT you use. I also think though that 98% they aren't going to try and "get you".

This topic or ones just like it come up just ALL THE TIME. I haven't commented on them in a while because they generally go nowhere. I the use of force is justified any which means which can be used to bring that force to bear the fastest is justified. Not my opinion that is a rulling handed down by a judge in Dallas.

If you are involved in a shooting and you find yourself on trial, you better bet they are "trying to get you". They are going to try and convict you (they being the prosecutor). That's their raison d'etre after all. District Attorneys don't get elected as a result of failure of their prosecutors to convict.

pbwalker wrote:Any validity to this? Or is it just more garbage?

I vote for garbage.

If some DA exercises poor judgement in prosecuting a shooting and makes ammo type an issue, he'll do it no matter what you use.

* Use hollowpoints, and you're using "dum-dums, banned even in war!"

* Use FMJ, and you're using "penetrating warfighting ammo."

* Use the ammo police use, and you're a "police wannabe."

etc. etc.

I would just tell the court that my wife picked out the ammo for me because she liked the pretty package.

Little CHL ammo selection humor and the perfect answer in court:

Lawyer: "Mr./Mrs. CHL why did you select this killer/police/warlike ammunition"

Mr./Mrs. CHL: "Well, when I received my CHL I was obliged to do a Wally Walk. During the course of this "Wally Walk" (and because I had to spend 45 min shopping in Wal-Mart) I bought several items including a box of ammo. The ammo I found was on sale so I bought it, thus it was the ammo in my firearm at the time of the incident."

Lawyer: "Huh?"

KaiserB wrote:Little CHL ammo selection humor and the perfect answer in court:

Lawyer: "Mr./Mrs. CHL why did you select this killer/police/warlike ammunition"

Mr./Mrs. CHL: "Well, when I received my CHL I was obliged to do a Wally Walk. During the course of this "Wally Walk" (and because I had to spend 45 min shopping in Wal-Mart) I bought several items including a box of ammo. The ammo I found was on sale so I bought it, thus it was the ammo in my firearm at the time of the incident."

Lawyer: "Huh?"

I like this one

Prosecutor: So, you used these dum-dums/armor piercing/military bullet, why did you use this specified massive-ultra-uber damage causing round?

Me: Because it was the one in my magazine, and I wasn't able to reload to my other magazine with (choose any other type of horrific bullet) in it because he fell down before I ran out of bullets.

Little CHL ammo selection humor and the perfect answer in court

I've gotten quite a chuckle over some of the proposed testimony ideas forwarded here once all the ultra serious stuff was beaten to death.

The most interesting thing is that an "I'm not an expert" approach that explains the ammunition used as "what my wife bought at WalMart because of the pretty package" or "a good deal I found at a gun show when I went looking for something that would fit in the gun" would likely shut this down as a productive area for competing expert witnesses to drag a trial out with, because it would make any contention about especially "homicidal intent" moot.

I'd be very interested in what Mas Ayoob would have to say about this, since he has done so much expert witness work. If anyone knows him personally, please do us the favor of asking and share his response.

I can't take credit for this, but if I were forced to give an answer I would say that I chose the particular ammunition because it was the safest available. It was designed so that it wouldn't over penetrate objects and hurt innocent people.

" I asked for Personal Defense ammo at Acadamy, and that's what they gave me."

" I asked for Personal Defense ammo at Acadamy, and that's what they gave me."

I like that too.

In an article entitled "Beware of the Bullet Demons" in the September issue of Combat Handguns Magazine (page 8) Mas Ayoob addresses the issues that have been discussed here in some detail.

Here's my quick paraphrase of the major points:

1. Prosecutors and plaintiff's attorneys (in criminal and civil courts, respectively) may well try to use your ammunition choice to demonize you. It's been done often enough.
2. Don't downscale your ammo selection below the power necessary to decisively deal with a hostile attack just for liability concerns.
3. It's not hard for a competent attorney to neutralize demonizing arguments with straight facts.
4. Avoid inappropriate ammo (e.g., FMJ and armor piercing)
5. Use of even unusually high powered weapons (e.g., .44 Magnums) can be shown to be reasonable under appropriate circumstances.
6. The happy medium in cartridge choice is usually found in rounds widely used by police (generally 9mm through .45 ACP and .45GAP). He specifically notes that .38's, .357 magnums, .41 magnums, and 10MM cartridges are also appropriate and defensible choices.
7. Most experts consider the .22 too light for defensive use, and .38 special as an acceptable baseline.
8. Gather as much reliable information as you can, and make your choices according to your own needs. If you do that, you should be able to show that your choice was reasonable if it is ever questioned in court.

Don't just take my word for what it says. There's lots more great information, lots of additional detail and citations of specific cases to illustrate important points in the full text. Like all of Mas' writings, the article is well worth reading in its entirety, and all by itself it's well worth the price of the magazine.