Able to be sued for use of hollow point? - Page 4
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 87

Thread: Able to be sued for use of hollow point?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by benjammin View Post
    99% of police officers carry hollowpoint ammo, are they eager to kill, or just using the best equipment they can? As stated, NJ does not allow them (for civilians), but every other state does AFAIK. It's the same argument about carrying extra magazines; cops do, so it's prudent for us to, as well. It doesn't mean a cop or myself wants to shoot 25 people at one sitting, we are just being reasonably prepared.
    Intresting point, and good thread overall.
    My brother and his buddy came by last night, they are both retired NYPD. We were talking about guns and what not, The friend had said in a conversation that when he went to qualify at the police range he had hollow points in his gun. He said the officer in charge told him "what are you crazy carring that ammo, (hollow points), you can lose a weeks pay and get in trouble"

    Meanwhile im thinking, **** if he saw my little arsenal in the safe, evrything i have is loaded with hollow points. As others here brought up the idea, we read the mags and see the advertising of this defense hollow point ammo. Who is allowed to carry this?

    Now i want to add these two guys have been retired for at least 20 yrs or so.

  2.   
  3. #32
    Just use the same JHP the cops use, Golden Sabers, Gold Dots. Don't use super expensive, maximum damage JHP. And if you have to shoot someone, only shoot until the danger is eliminated. No two to the chest + one to the head tactics. All this can be seen as an over use of force.

  4. #33
    If you are worried about being sued from discharging your weapon then you probably shouldn't be discharging your weapon. That alone could be used against you: "Ladies and gentlemen, he wasn't concerned for his life, he was thinking about getting sued...."

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Houston Metro Area, Texas
    Posts
    3,004
    I carry hollow piont and always have, if two to chest does not stop threat the shot to head will. PS: You will be sued eitherway.
    Last edited by Nightmare45; 04-13-2011 at 04:20 PM. Reason: correction

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare45 View Post
    I carry hollow piont and always have, if two to chest does not stop threat the shot to head will. PS: You will be sued eitherway.
    Or they will try to sue. In Florida, civil and criminal protection are provided by FS 776.032 
    JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
    776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
    (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
    (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
    (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection .



    776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

    776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
    (1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
    (a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
    (b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
    (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
    (a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
    (b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
    (c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
    (d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
    (3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
    (4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
    (5) As used in this section, the term:
    (a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
    (b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
    (c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.


    776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
    (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
    Even though we have some messed up laws, we also have some good ones.

  7. read your castle doctrine if your state has one. the one for texas IIRC states that you cannot be sued by a suspect or his family for using deadly force against the attacker in a justified self-defense shooting.

    if they are going to sue you (assuming they are even allowed to), they will do it wheather you carry FMJ ammo or hollow points. i would carry depleted uranium bullets filled with semtex if i was allowed to. i carry ammo i feel best suited to efficiently stop an attacker, and that is not FMJs. ontop of that, FMJs will penetrate twice as far as hollow points (over 26 inches). this makes your risk of hitting unintentional targets even greater. and texas castle doctrine also states that you ARE legally and financially responsible for any injuries your weapon causes to innocent people, even in a justified shooting.

    just FYI:
    where the ammo hype comes from is the harold fish case from arizona back in 2004. harold fish was carrying a 10mm handgun with hollow points while he was hiking in the woods, and was attacked by a mentally unstable homeless man and his dog, he shot the man several times fearing for his life. as part of the prosecutors evidence, he said using such a powerful handgun with hollow points showed harold fish had murder and cruel intentions on his mind and blah blah blah. in the end, fish was convicted of murder in 2006, but 3 years later the verdict was overturned and he was released from prison in 2009 with a clean record.

    firearm hystaria nuts interperet this as hollow points were the reason fish was convicted of murder without doing ANY legitimate research about the case. HE WAS NOT convicted of murder because of his bullets. he actually screwed himself partly. he spoke with detectives more than once without an attorney present (BIG...BIG...BIG MISTAKE). the other thing that got him was arizona laws were pre castle doctrine at the time, and burden of proof lied on harold fish to prove his case of self defence, and he was unable to do so. medical professionals testified the man appeared to have been shot in the fetal position, and fish could not dispute it. thankfully today, you dont have to prove you shot someone in self defence like fish had to do, the state has to prove that what you did was cold blooded murder.

    side note: hollow points arent legal in all states. if hollow points are illegal to carry, then you CAN be prosecuted for that.

  8. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by RenoDude50 View Post
    Being a retired person, I want to make sure that I STOP my assailant quickly and effectively. Hollow points will help achieve that goal. I know there is a definite possibility that if I kill my assailant, I could be facing a wrongful death claim. As a retired attorney of 35 years of practice, I can also tell you that from a lawsuit perspective, the claim for damages is generally LESS if the assailant died. Also, as an FYI about hollow point ammo... it was banned under the Hague Convention of 1899 which prohibition is still followed by NATO members to this date.
    This only applies to military combatants of signatory nations.

    -Doc

  9. #38
    How often has this idiotic concept come up for discussion?

    Always from "unknown" or "unverifiable" sources?

    Never any legal cases or hard facts. It is always just weird theorizing, and off the wall "what ifs."

    -Doc

  10. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Bighouse Doc View Post
    How often has this idiotic concept come up for discussion?
    It ranks up there with discusions about sheepdogs and CCW badges.

  11. reloads and self defense

    I have heard that carrying with reloaded ammo and consiquensually using it for self defense can cause you legal problems. Any thoughts on this?
    Spellin don't count.

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Hollow Point Question
    By MateMike in forum New Jersey Discussion and Firearm News
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 04-04-2017, 11:17 PM
  2. New Video on U-Tube on how to Point Shoot with a pistol.
    By 5shot in forum Handgun Tactics, Training, and Practice
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-15-2011, 04:01 PM
  3. 50 cal Desert Eagle - Hollow Point vs FMJ
    By Spencer R. in forum Handgun Ammunition and Reloading
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-02-2010, 01:22 PM
  4. 5 Point Check List:
    By wolfhunter in forum Concealed Carry Discussion
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-11-2010, 08:22 AM
  5. Glossary of gun related terms
    By DrDavidM in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 08-24-2008, 11:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast