legal expenses and specific ammo manufacturers

[clofwv]

I got my cc license in Jan. As part of the lecture, the instructor said that Remington, Federal, and another ammo maker have set aside funds for the costs of ballistics, forensics tests for those who in self defense have a justified shooting. Is this known to be correct?

[Glock Fan]

Originally Posted by clofwv

I got my cc license in Jan. As part of the lecture, the instructor said that Remington, Federal, and another ammo maker have set aside funds for the costs of ballistics, forensics tests for those who in self defense have a justified shooting. Is this known to be correct?

Not sure if it's true or not. I'd go contact the ammo manufacturers and verify that info. If it's not true, I'd advise you to let your instructor know that the info is inaccurate. Don't need anyone getting "bad info" out there. If it's correct, let us know who the manufacturers are and to what extent they are willing to share their info. My guess is that the info would be used to clear the manufacturers of any accusations that their ammo is improperly manufactured, etc.



gf

[rrc1962]

I'm not sure if they would send a lawyer to every trial, but they will many times send one in a case where their ammo was used and did exactly what it was supposed to do. They do it because in some case they are named as defendants as well. That's one reason the argument that using hollowpoints is excessive force doesn't really hold up anymore. I don't know if they would do it if they were not named in the suit. I'd hope they would. Named or not, it's still their livelihood at stake when their product is questioned in court.

The ammo manufacturer brings in ballistics experts and show that the hollowpoint hit the bad guy and only the bad guy and properly neutralized the threat where a more "politically correct" round would have hit the BG, probably not taken him down, gone right through and hit what ever was behind him. Of course, the BG is still coming at you so you need to fire more rounds to neutralize the threat which will also go right through and likely cause more collateral damage.

[netentity]

I agree with the two above responders to the OP. It's more for their own protection if they do provide any type of expert witness services or testimony as in the more anti-RBKA jurisdictions they will probably be brought in a co-defendents in the civil case. I would confirm with them directly. I wouldn't rely upon it because of these tough economic times. Granted ammo makers are doing very well now.

If it's not a clear cut case of self defense then you're most likely on your own. They're not obligated to assist you. They probably will run to your rescue if they're named in a civil suit as a co-defendant.

The prospect of the ammo maker being brought into the suit as a co-defendent for at least the civil suit strengthens the argument not to use handloads for personal protection as you may have some additional legal assistance on your side. I personally would rather have that possibility of an additional legal umbrella of defense from the ammo maker than be guaranteed not to have it by using handloads.