Hand Loads for Self Defense

[Crapshoot]

...The real advantage of the immunity law is in its application in the real world. Most civil cases are taken on a contingency basis, where the lawyer gets paid out of the winnings. If there is little or no chance to win, the lawyers won't take the case. But a person does not really need a lawyer to file, or the plaintiff himself may be an attorney. The discouragement would not affect them. Nor would it affect some agencies that are truly anti-gun and think they might have a chance. Look at some of the shootings that the Brady Campaign has gotten behind. A third group it might not discourage is the ambulance chasers who know that a homeowner has insurance and they will offer $25,000 instead of going to court, simply because it is cheaper.

So, be prepared for the mental aggravation of a law suit after any use of force. You will probably win, but there is always the chance of the lawsuit and its hassles anyway.

This is absolutely the best explanation I have seen, concerning the likelihood of civil action, following a self defense shooting. Thanks for the reply.

Would you also address the question of whether the use of hand loads for self defense would be any more likely to put a person in civil jeopardy, than say, having attended a hand gun self defense school?

The reason I ask for this comparison is that so many of the self defense writers that advise most stridently against the use of hand loaded ammo, will then recommend that a concealed handgun permit holder attend as many self defense classes as possible. To me, this is a bit of a contradiction, in that either could be 'spun' to suggest that a person was seeking a deadly confrontation.

From what I've read it seems to be that from a legal and I guess a social stand point that the more educated and trained you are, that the more likely it is you made the best decision possible when you were put in that position. But I guess that can swing both ways. If you made a poor judgement call you might get less understanding because "you've been trained, you should know better". But I suppose if it were clear and easy to understand and made perfect sense then we would have more unemployed lawyers in the world. Can't have that now can we.......

[F_L]

We do live in a society where a women gets $200,000 from McDonald's after she spills hot coffee in her lap. Stupid people means stupid jurys so we are all at risk. I won't worry about it and load my own SD ammo. If I ever have to defend myself in civil court, so be it.

Lawyer story: My wife was in a VERY minor traffic accident. Total damage to both vehicles was under $700. As my wife was entering an intersection, the car in front stopped suddenly. My wife was checking for cross traffic and bumped it from the rear. No citations were issued and there was a police car right behind my wife at the time. The LEO even asked the other women why she stopped. I think it was a set up. We are sued and our cell phone records are subpoenaed. The other lawyer tries to make an issue out of the fact that my wife made a call "about" the time of the accident. The only call on the records was to me about 10 min later to tell me what happened. The idiot lawyer also tried to serve my wife at the plaintiffs address in San Antonio. We live at Canyon Lake, my wife works in New Braunfels. At our insurance company's request, we had to contact the server and tell them where to find her. Our insurance company ended up settling for some measly amount. Dang ambulance chasers!

Fred

[Bisley]

I don't really know if handloads would be used against you in court because almost everyone has bought into this theory and we all recommend using standard ammo, preferably the same ammo the local police use in the same caliber. Are we right or are we just a self-fulfilling prophecy?

I suspect the latter. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Personally, I'm still carrying factory ammo, and I will likely continue to for as long as it is readily available in a type that works well in whichever handgun I might choose to carry for self defense. I think it's a close call whether this is really necessary, but still, "an ounce of prevention..."

[Crapshoot]

I don't really know if handloads would be used against you in court because almost everyone has bought into this theory and we all recommend using standard ammo, preferably the same ammo the local police use in the same caliber. Are we right or are we just a self-fulfilling prophecy?

I suspect the latter. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Personally, I'm still carrying factory ammo, and I will likely continue to for as long as it is readily available in a type that works well in whichever handgun I might choose to carry for self defense. I think it's a close call whether this is really necessary, but still, "an ounce of prevention..."

Good Call.

[dac1842]

The law does state if in layman's terms that if you shoot and you were right, then no one can sue you. However while everyon agrees that the shooting itself was good, the point of having self defense loads is a different matter. IMNAL, thank God, but you can bet there is one out there who would make a case that you having rounds you loaded yourself. that were loaded above and beyond manufacture specs, you had intent, and you were negligent. THe law wont mean squat if he can effectively sell that to a jury. While in some areas of our state that would be a hard sell, in others it would not.

[heliguy972]

I've given depositions several times in cases of workplace harassment and discrimination. Let me tell you flat out, you don't want to give a lawyer any data that they can twist and distort, because that's their job. The legal process is not rational or reasonable, the lawyers job is all about persuading a jury to see their side of the story, right or wrong. After the depositions I came out shaking and that's after a lot of prep by my lawyers.

Always use factory ammo, it takes away one element that might negatively affect your case. There's likely to be plenty of other facts that the lawyers will work to distort in their favor....

[lonewolf]

Don't give the other side an inch. Buy the best factory SD ammo, in whatever style you prefer. Most ballistic studies are subject to interpretation, so make your decision on what you will use and buy it. Reload for the range and practice.

Carry the discussion to far, and you get into all kinds of things the other lawyer can play with. Did you get your CHL knowing you were going to shoot someday? Isn't this premeditated? Weren't you looking for trouble by getting it? Why did you have a lawyer on retainer? Did you have an idea you were going to shoot someone someday?

Good lawyers are professionals when it comes to creating doubt. That's their job. It's how they earn their money. I am not lawyer bashing, but I want my lawyer to be better at creating doubt, diverting back to the other side, etc, etc.

While I, like most, have not heard of a case where a SD shooter was hammered for using handloads, I won't set myself up to be a test case. One of these days some legal beagle is going to go down that road, and I don't want to be on it when he does.

[Liberty]

The law does state if in layman's terms that if you shoot and you were right, then no one can sue you. However while everyon agrees that the shooting itself was good, the point of having self defense loads is a different matter. IMNAL, thank God, but you can bet there is one out there who would make a case that you having rounds you loaded yourself. that were loaded above and beyond manufacture specs, you had intent, and you were negligent. The law wont mean squat if he can effectively sell that to a jury. While in some areas of our state that would be a hard sell, in others it would not.

The idea of most reloaders isn't to load above and beyond maufacturers specs but to exceded them in consistantly and quality all the while hoping to save money. Reloaders hope to use the higher quality materials that give more consistant results. Manufactured loads can be boought that are far hotter than what most reloaders would ever consider. Moist defensive bullets that one would reload with are the same bullets that the police and everyone else are using.. Unless the ammo happens to blow up and injures a bystander I can't understand how any arguement how good reliable reloads would be a liability issue. There is a reason we can't find any Texas case law, and its because it would be a loser in court.

Prosecuting lawyer. Could you explain why you reload your own ammunition?
Defendant. Its an economical way for me to practice using the exact same ammunition that I carry, I believe its safer to practice a lot so that I won't miss when I need to defend myself from crimminal scum.

Prosecuting Lawyer: but aren't these bullets meaner and deadlier than what the police or other citizens carry?
Defendant, The police may be carrying more powerful ammunition but mine is more accurate and tunned to work best with my chosen gun, I feel That I am more accurate than most officers are with their own guns and ammo. Because of my choices of training ammo and weaponry, I would be less likely to to injure or hurt innocent people.

[dac1842]

Liberty, I agree with what you say. I used to reload my own ammo as well. But the one thing you cant predict is the ability of a silver tongue devil (lawyer) to twist it in front of jury. I get deposed frequently as an expert witness in my job. It amazes me to this day how a plantiffs attorney can twist the simplest and most innocent of details.

I agree it is more economical to reload yourself. I agree for the responsible reloader who gives his the better quality and accuracy. But, not using common over the counter preloaded ammo could and I emphasize could, be a great liablity.

Liberty you have a distrust of LE, I have one of lawyers and the courts. Both are due to personal experiences in each. I really have a major dislike of Plaintiff Personal Injury lawyers, I would not bother to urinate on one of them if they were on fire.

[Liberty]

Liberty, I agree with what you say. I used to reload my own ammo as well. But the one thing you cant predict is the ability of a silver tongue devil (lawyer) to twist it in front of jury. I get deposed frequently as an expert witness in my job. It amazes me to this day how a plantiffs attorney can twist the simplest and most innocent of details.

I agree it is more economical to reload yourself. I agree for the responsible reloader who gives his the better quality and accuracy. But, not using common over the counter preloaded ammo could and I emphasize could, be a great liablity.

Liberty you have a distrust of LE, I have one of lawyers and the courts. Both are due to personal experiences in each. I really have a major dislike of Plaintiff Personal Injury lawyers, I would not bother to urinate on one of them if they were on fire.

My distrust isn't of LEOs in particular but of the agencys themselves and government in general.. I can't say I have ever had a very bad experiaece with an LEO and I have met quite a few that I truly liked. I also known a few lawyers and judges ,they are all very fine people. Its the system which reward deceipt and dishonesty which is corrupt. I don't know how to fix it, just know it should be done.

On the lawyers, I believe in weighing the risks. Keeping in mind that this has never ben in an issue in a Texas Court before. and the fact that its very unlikely a justified shooting would ever go to a civil court. Against the benefits of being able to afford practicing with the very same rounds that one uses for defence, One must honestly wieg in their skills as a reloader.. Will their reloads be as reliable as the store bought.

BTW: I don't reload.

[Crapshoot]

Liberty, I agree with what you say. I used to reload my own ammo as well. But the one thing you cant predict is the ability of a silver tongue devil (lawyer) to twist it in front of jury. I get deposed frequently as an expert witness in my job. It amazes me to this day how a plantiffs attorney can twist the simplest and most innocent of details.

I agree it is more economical to reload yourself. I agree for the responsible reloader who gives his the better quality and accuracy. But, not using common over the counter preloaded ammo could and I emphasize could, be a great liablity.

Liberty you have a distrust of LE, I have one of lawyers and the courts. Both are due to personal experiences in each. I really have a major dislike of Plaintiff Personal Injury lawyers, I would not bother to urinate on one of them if they were on fire.

My distrust isn't of LEOs in particular but of the agencys themselves and government in general.. I can't say I have ever had a very bad experiaece with an LEO and I have met quite a few that I truly liked. I also known a few lawyers and judges ,they are all very fine people. Its the system which reward deceipt and dishonesty which is corrupt. I don't know how to fix it, just know it should be done.

On the lawyers, I believe in weighing the risks. Keeping in mind that this has never ben in an issue in a Texas Court before. and the fact that its very unlikely a justified shooting would ever go to a civil court. Against the benefits of being able to afford practicing with the very same rounds that one uses for defence, One must honestly wieg in their skills as a reloader.. Will their reloads be as reliable as the store bought.

BTW: I don't reload.

I second that.

[The Annoyed Man]

I've just started reloading... ...or rather... ...I've just bought all the stuff, and I'm about to start...

Anyway, I don't have anything against carrying hand loads from a moral or technical perspective, but I am wary of the potential legal liabilities. Ammunition manufacturers spend large amounts of money on liability insurance - money I can't afford. I am confident that I could, with practice, build loads that meet or exceed the performance of the high end PD ammo I buy commercially; but there is that pesky liability thing, and I am equally confident of the power of an attorney to make my life very difficult.

It may be that there is no legal precedent in Texas establishing that liability, but I don't want to be the test case.

[mr surveyor]

if there are no confirmed, documented cases of a self defense shooter being on the losing side of a legal battle for using handloads, then where is this percieved liability?

I would seriously doubt that the "liability" insurance carried by the major ammunition manufacturers is over the issue of their bullets being too deadly.

just my nickle's worth

surv

[Liberty]

if there are no confirmed, documented cases of a self defense shooter being on the losing side of a legal battle for using handloads, then where is this percieved liability?

I would seriously doubt that the "liability" insurance carried by the major ammunition manufacturers is over the issue of their bullets being too deadly.

just my nickle's worth

surv

Liabilty would for the manufacturer would more likely involve the ammo not doing its job, more than doing its job too effectively.

[lrb111]

if there are no confirmed, documented cases of a self defense shooter being on the losing side of a legal battle for using handloads, then where is this percieved liability?
surv

I'm not so sure it's liability at all. The best reasoning I have heard for factory loads, is because of the balistic database for factory loads. There is no database that a prosecutor would look to for my handloads.

Let's say a BG had one of my bullets in him, and it was one from the factory loads database. They could make a pretty fair conjecture on how close/far away I was based on known ballistics for that round.
OTOH, if a BG had one of my handloads in him, there is no way the court is going to allow my shoddy record keeping on my loads as an evidential database.

Let's go with BG has bullet in him that traveled diagonal through his upper torso, penetrating 12 inches of tissue. If it is a Brand name bullet, they might conclude I was pretty close to the BG, and at a high threat level to myself.

Now, if I had been in the same spot, same threat level, and used one of my light target loads. The reduced load would have less penetration.Let's go with 4 inches.
The trick is, the court will not have a basis to judge how far away I was. Based on their known average ballistics for my caliber in factory loads, the court could assume I was much further away from the BG when shot. In fact, may conclude he was far enough away that he was not an immediate threat,

So, for me it's not about quality of the rounds, it's about being able to use the known balistic databases to my advantage, should I ever end up in court.