Loading Defense Rounds

[motosapiens]

If you are interested... Harold Fish was the defendant. He used a 10MM.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15199221/#.UvOGdIzTleU

When he decided to pull the trigger, the prosecutor said, Fish should have known what the consequences would be.

Lessler: Mr. Fish knew well what a hollow-point bullet does.

Larson: And the end product of his shooting is going to be death?

Lessler: Yes.

Don't know of where you can find the complete video.

you should really try to only shoot people that *really* need shooting. Then you won't have to worry about the courtroom, or a civil suit.

Unfortunately, in one second, in the dark, while you're being pummelled or

have a weapon threatening your life, it isn't quite as easy to tell if the

perp will be deemed "really needs shooting" as it will be a year later in

court, with the perp's parents in the room.

i don't know of any marginal shoots that went off like that. The Fish case was NOTHING like that.

[RDA]

I just read the Fish link, two lines stood out to me:

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.

and

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.

If this is indeed the case, factory or reloads don't matter. If you use a "high powered gun" (I assume this means just about anything greater than a pellet gun as any gun that shoots ammo is "high power"

and capable of causing a death) and you use "hollow point" bullets designed to do damage (I believe all bullets can do damage as they are a projectile traveling at high rates of speed), you are a murderer.

Nelson: One of our jurors, and I counted her as kind of the voice of reason there, she brought up, “You know, if this isn’t self-defense, then what is?”

According to the Fish jury, there is no "self-defense", you are a murderer if you use a gun with hollow point bullets.

[motosapiens]

I just read the Fish link, two lines stood out to me:

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.

and

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.

If this is indeed the case, factory or reloads don't matter. If you use a "high powered gun" (I assume this means just about anything greater than a pellet gun as any gun that shoots ammo is "high power"

and capable of causing a death) and you use "hollow point" bullets designed to do damage (I believe all bullets can do damage as they are a projectile traveling at high rates of speed), you are a murderer.

Nelson: One of our jurors, and I counted her as kind of the voice of reason there, she brought up, “You know, if this isn’t self-defense, then what is?”

According to the Fish jury, there is no "self-defense", you are a murderer if you use a gun with hollow point bullets.

I disagree. It seemed like a really marginal shoot in the first place. It is easy for a person to put themselves in fish's place and say "I would not truly believe my life was in danger and deadly force was justified." Apparently, that's what the jury did. OTOH, there are bonafide self defense cases all the time in AZ that never get near a courtroom. Why? because they are not bad or marginal shoots.

[Pasley]

If we assume that Fish was telling the whole and complete truth; it doesn't seem like a "marginal" shooting to me.

[RDA]

I just read the Fish link, two lines stood out to me:

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.

and

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.

If this is indeed the case, factory or reloads don't matter. If you use a "high powered gun" (I assume this means just about anything greater than a pellet gun as any gun that shoots ammo is "high power"

and capable of causing a death) and you use "hollow point" bullets designed to do damage (I believe all bullets can do damage as they are a projectile traveling at high rates of speed), you are a murderer.

Nelson: One of our jurors, and I counted her as kind of the voice of reason there, she brought up, “You know, if this isn’t self-defense, then what is?”

According to the Fish jury, there is no "self-defense", you are a murderer if you use a gun with hollow point bullets.

I disagree. It seemed like a really marginal shoot in the first place. It is easy for a person to put themselves in fish's place and say "I would not truly believe my life was in danger and deadly force was justified." Apparently, that's what the jury did. OTOH, there are bonafide self defense cases all the time in AZ that never get near a courtroom. Why? because they are not bad or marginal shoots.

You disagree with what part of what I said?

Why do you consider this a "really marginal shoot"?

[MarkCO]

Fish admitted he shot a "warning shot". In most jurisdictions, that is illegal, and it escalated from there. Combined with a changing story and time delays, there are some serious issues.

Any well-trained interviewer knows that the story may change over time...that is actually common. It is how the story changes and the trends of the change based on multiple factors over time that tells a good interviewer if the story is being changed due to stress, remorse, or lying. Remorse over the loss of life is normal, even if it was not your fault. The human condition seeks to figure out what went wrong and why and for the vast majority of people, those interjected biases alter the story. I have not read the transcripts of the Fish interviews, however the inconsistencies are abnormal.

[RDA]

Fish admitted he shot a "warning shot". In most jurisdictions, that is illegal, and it escalated from there. Combined with a changing story and time delays, there are some serious issues.

Any well-trained interviewer knows that the story may change over time...that is actually common. It is how the story changes and the trends of the change based on multiple factors over time that tells a good interviewer if the story is being changed due to stress, remorse, or lying. Remorse over the loss of life is normal, even if it was not your fault. The human condition seeks to figure out what went wrong and why and for the vast majority of people, those interjected biases alter the story. I have not read the transcripts of the Fish interviews, however the inconsistencies are abnormal.

I generally agree based on just the article, but I personally wasn't defending Fish or the shoot, I was focusing on the one comment made by the prosecutor and comments made by the jurors that essentially characterized all shoots/gun/bullets as murder irrespective of Fish.

[MarkCO]

RDA, that is the culture we are in. That is also why I posted in this thread in the first place. When the gun culture itself "shoots us in the foot" due to flawed logic and misplaced advice, the potential peril to those who choose to defend innocent life with a firearm is increased. We need education, logical thought, not some ill-conceived pandering to Ayoob or others who have proffered a very flawed argument for many years.

20 years ago, Ayoobs advice might have been "better", but times changes. In fact, the majority of law students are taught that the law is fluid, and adapting, that there is no foundation or absolute. We know on what American law was founded, but the lawyers are no longer taught that and the public schools no longer teach that. Just look at where all that has landed us...Point is, the responsible gun owner makes choices that can have serious consequences. We must continually learn, think, plan and evaluate the risks and the perceptions in society, regardless of our agreement, or disagreement with those perceptions. If we disagree, I say we have a responsibility to discuss, educate and alter the perceptions.

[RDA]

MarkCO, very well stated, thanks for your input in this thread. And thanks to others as well, even if I disagree

Edited February 6, 2014 by RDA

[racerba]

Handloads vs factory loads...

Considering the possible outcome and possible litigation of the use of handloads, I would not use them for self defense. It's one less problem I don't need to deal with if it comes to that. So I spend a little more for a box of factory loads that will save me a whole lot more later...no big deal.