TexasCHLforum.com

Excaliber wrote: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.

I haven't read the magazine article. How many times is "often enough"?

I haven't read the magazine article. How many times is "often enough"?

Mas thinks it comes up often enough that folks should be aware of it because he wrote an article about it. His editors must think so too because they published the article. You may or may not agree with what he has to say, but he's hard to impeach as an authoritative source.

Here's a link to a teaser version of the beginning of the article on the magazine's web site:

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/com ... et-demons/

Please give the full article a read and then share your thoughts.

Excaliber wrote:

I haven't read the magazine article. How many times is "often enough"?

Mas thinks it comes up often enough that folks should be aware of it because he wrote an article about it. His editors must think so too because they published the article. You may or may not agree with what he has to say, but he's hard to impeach as an authoritative source.

Here's a link to a teaser version of the beginning of the article on the magazine's web site:

http://www.tactical-life.com/online/com ... et-demons/

Please give the full article a read and then share your thoughts.

I can not impeach Masaad Ayoob's credentials and would not even try, but I am not going to treat a magazine article as gospel, just because it was written by Ayoob. He must be under tremendous pressure trying to find fresh ideas for the magazine articles he has written month after month, year after year.

It is common practice that he and the magazine editors sensationalize issues so that people buy their magazines. If you believe the hype, the title of the article "Beware of the Bullet Demons" is enough to give you nightmares. I realize that selling product is the American way, but I think that this type of article leads to excessive hand wringing and paranoia. It's just a matter of "following the money."

The teaser states "Anyone involved in a lot of criminal court and civil court cases involving shootings has seen it happen." How many has he actually seen it happen? If someone has been involved in 5,000 court cases and has seen one or two incidences of where ammunition type has been a factor does that mean we should be overly concerned about this issue? I think not. Just because it has happened doesn't mean it's common place or people should be overly concerned. "Bullet Demons" won't keep me awake at night.

People get struck by lightning every year. That doesn't mean I am always going to stay inside during bad weather. On the other hand, it doesn't mean that I am going to fly a kite in a thunder storm.

WildBill wrote:
I can not impeach Masaad Ayoob's credentials and would not even try, but I am not going to treat a magazine article as gospel, because it was written Ayoob. He must be under tremendous pressure trying to find fresh ideas for the magazine articles he has written month after month, year after year.
...
doesn't mean that I am going to fly a kite in a thunder storm.

Massad is an east coaster living in New Hampshire, What he writes about is relevant to a lot of people. There were a few cases where evil Black Talon extra deadly bullets were brought up in testimony. But this is Texas. It is not the East coast. Our courts, laws and legislature look upon issues of guns self defense and criminals getting shot up a lot differently than they would in Connecticut or even New Hampshire. Ayoob is writing to folks throughout the whole country. I believe he speaks from good authority, I also believe that when he speaks of legal issues he isn't talking about Texas.

OK, so discounting Ayoob as a qualified expert on Texas law and court system. When a man that wrote much of Texas Self defense law, says that legally defense ammo should never be an issue in a court of law. I tend to take his word on it. When amongst a group of people that watch gun and self defense cases can't recall a court case where ammo selection was an issue. I tend to believe it isn't much of an issue.

There are no guarantees. There are new benchmark cases all the time. Arizona is typically considered gun friendly but apparently the Sedona hippys and a lousy lawyer screwed over Harold Fish. Things happen and there are no guarantees but I still believe that it is pretty unlikely that ammo choice is gonna hurt a good defensive shoot case .

Things happen and there are no guarantees but I still believe that it is pretty unlikely that ammo choice is gonna hurt a good defensive shoot case .

It's unlikely to ever be a "make or break" issue if the underlying facts are clearly in your favor. Where it can make a difference is when the circumstances that justification hinges on can be interpreted for or against the CHL holder, as happened in the Fish case. Then it can be used to cast doubt on your motives and sway a jury of folks who are unlikely to be highly educated in firearms related issues.

If it's never been made an issue in Texas, that's great (and I don't have a lot of years in this state yet), but remember that the Texas mindset may not carry over into a reciprocity state you exercise your privileges in.

It's simply something to be aware of. It shouldn't keep you up at night, but I'm more comfortable knowing that my choices, which were made for performance reasons, do fall within the ammo types that are easiest to defend if someone decided to make an issue of it.

Excaliber wrote:...remember that the Texas mindset may not carry over into a reciprocity state you exercise your privileges in....

Good point. Texas is Texas and nowhere else is. Texas is totally unique and sometimes we tend to forget that. Look at the news coverage of Joe Horn here vs. the rest of the country. Even the rather left-leaning Houston Chronicle is a lot more evenhanded than papers elsewhere that are vilifying Mr. Horn as the criminal.

"That's how we do it in Texas" is not going to fly in Connecticut or Oregon.

In the Harold Fish case, is there any proof that the hollow-point ammunition played a part in the verdict?

WildBill wrote:In the Harold Fish case, is there any proof that the hollow-point ammunition played a part in the verdict?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/page/5/:

Michael Lessler, prosecutor: Mr. Fish shot him three time in the chest with this high powered gun, hollow point bullets and caused his death. That’s murder.

That's from the closing arguments. And from the mouth of one juror interviewed by NBC:

Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill.

So, there is ample evidence that the caliber and type of bullet used by Mr. Fish was considered and that it played against him.

Arizona's new law, crafted and passed in response to this case, requires that the State prove, in addition to the facts that the defendant shot someone, that a shooting was NOT in self-defense, instead of only requiring the facts proving a homicide was committed by the defendant, forcing the defendant to prove it was justifiable. That doesn't mean the prosecutor is barred from introducing evidence about the power of the handgun or the type of bullet used, but it does mean that if self-defense is asserted, the defendant is presumed to be justified no matter what they used to defend themselves.

Liko81 wrote:Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill.

That's what I was looking for. Thanks.

Excaliber wrote: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.

Frankie knew him...

In some of Mas' other articles, he gave TEN case accounts where he was asked to testify as an expert witness. He typically gives case examples of issues that he brings up, both for and against.



I agree that the Harold Fish story is just a travesty of justice. If he had a competent lawyer he never would have been found guilty in the first place. I think a point can be made about finding a good lawyer now, while you're still free and can shop around...