Defense loads and the law

[Glock Fan]

I think we can all agree that even if you're "justified" to shoot, you will still incur legal fees, spend a lot of time talking to police and may possibly lose the use of your firearm for an extended period of time.

Best thing you can do for yourself is to familiarize yourself with the laws of your state as well as the places you'll be traveling. If you do end up having to use "lethal force" to defend yourself, be cooperative with LE, but the "deaf mute" card would be best played until you're assisted by a competent attorney.


gf

[{TEX}Hawaii((]

YES!!! The prosecutors and a jury can use your ammo choice against you in court...even if it's the same thing LE uses. Just ask Harold Fish. I watched a documetary on him a couple of weeks ago and could not believe the things some of the jurors who found him guilty said... specifically one said that they thought he wanted to kill someone because he had hollow points in his pistol..

This story made my wife and I sick to our stomachs.

Harold Fish Defense

[Boomboy007]

I am very happy that such a well informed individual (netentity) has done so much research that I can peruse at my leisure. With all due respect, what I think tatted and palm are forgetting is that net is not defending the laws and/or legal precedents set in consideration of this issue. I believe that net would agree that asinine would be the word to describe the issue of carry load liability. However, that is the reality in which we live.

Given your example, I would also describe the requirement to license a law-abiding citizen in order to carry a defensive force multiplier like a handgun ridiculous, and at least those in NH and AK would agree. That said, to follow your line of reasoning and simply "go packing" without consideration for the possible, or even probable consequences might seem..... foolhardy. Remember, there are lots of juries out there full of stupid people. They are just waiting for the chance to hang a _____ (white, black, asian, jew, christian, muslim, straight, gay) ____ (boy, girl, transgender) gun nut out to dry. After all, _____ (he, she, it) can not buy much in the way of guns or ammunition with a big, fat court ordered settlement hanging around their neck, can they?

After reading this entire thread, I can honestly say that we are all still on the same side!

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by {TEX}Hawaii((

YES!!! The prosecutors and a jury can use your ammo choice against you in court...even if it's the same thing LE uses. Just ask Harold Fish. I watched a documetary on him a couple of weeks ago and could not believe the things some of the jurors who found him guilty said... specifically one said that they thought he wanted to kill someone because he had hollow points in his pistol..

This story made my wife and I sick to our stomachs.

Harold Fish Defense

All the more reason to get a competent attorney who not only knows what he's doing, but can also pick the right jury.

[netentity]

Originally Posted by {TEX}Hawaii((

YES!!! The prosecutors and a jury can use your ammo choice against you in court...even if it's the same thing LE uses. Just ask Harold Fish. I watched a documetary on him a couple of weeks ago and could not believe the things some of the jurors who found him guilty said... specifically one said that they thought he wanted to kill someone because he had hollow points in his pistol..

This story made my wife and I sick to our stomachs.

Harold Fish Defense

I'm familiar with the Fish incident. I personally believe he had an incompetent defense attorney. I could have justified the reasoning for hollowpoint rounds in court and I don't have a JD nor am I a member of any State bar. AZ is a strange State with respect to RKBA. Based on what I have read on the case, he should have been acquitted.

Again, this is the case where even though you do everything right you may have a judge, prosecutor and jury against you. Given the merits of the case, I probably would have performed the same actions as Fish.

[tattedupboy]

Originally Posted by netentity

I'm familiar with the Fish incident. I personally believe he had an incompetent defense attorney. I could have justified the reasoning for hollowpoint rounds in court and I don't have a JD nor am I a member of any State bar. AZ is a strange State with respect to RKBA. Based on what I have read on the case, he should have been acquitted.

Again, this is the case where even though you do everything right you may have a judge, prosecutor and jury against you. Given the merits of the case, I probably would have performed the same actions as Fish.

BINGO! As I should have been saying on this thread previously, just because caliber choice, in theory, should not make a difference, that does not mean that the shooter should not get the best attorney he can afford or in any way assume that that the judge and jury will automatically be on his side.

[netentity]

Originally Posted by tattedupboy

BINGO! As I should have been saying on this thread previously, just because caliber choice, in theory, should not make a difference, that does not mean that the shooter should not get the best attorney he can afford or in any way assume that that the judge and jury will automatically be on his side.

What nailed Fish in this case was this;

• Use of hollowpoint rounds
• Use of 10mm
• Laundry list of suppressed evidence and testimony.

The incompetence factor IMO comes from the defense counsel not asking the testimony of the bailiff in the court room and the investigating homicide detective what types of rounds they use in the course of their duties. Odds are they are hollowpoint rounds. Having the bailiff strip a round from one of their spare magazines and showing the jury would have defused the use of hollow point rounds very quickly. Having the investigating homicide detective do the same thing would throw the hollowpoint ammunition completely out the door.

Justification of the 10mm caliber could be obtained from a game warden who is assigned the area as to what animals are indigenous to the area and what caliber is effective against them. There's also the argument that several law enforcement agencies have used the 10mm caliber and that some may still do. FBI and Kentucky State Police being the two agencies that immediately come to mind.

IMO, the defense counsel wasn't in tune with the jury and was ready to defuse every possible argument for Fish's perceived guilt by the prosecution.

There's also the issue of the judge allowing a laundry list of suppressed evidence. It was as if Fish was being tried in NJ or NY.

At the time the incident occurred, self defense in Arizona is a form of napoleonic justice. That has changed which is why they are demanding a retrial. I strongly suspect if the retrial is granted Fish will win on appeal but not at great cost to him in terms of time and money.

[{TEX}Hawaii((]

Don't forget that Fish is a teacher with 5 kids. He probably obtained the best attorney he could afford. Probably the sameone many of us could afford.

I have studied Mr Fishes case slightly. His mistake was opening his mouth. The jury was swayed by the use of hollow points. there is no doubt on that one. He should have kept his mouth shut, and he might have never gotten in front of a jury. Every one who knew the deceased said he was an insane idiot. Many people were afraid of him. Mr. Fish should have said nothing until he was in court.If it ever went that far.