Type of Ammo = Premeditated if CC Fired - Page 4
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 51

Thread: Type of Ammo = Premeditated if CC Fired

  1. Quote Originally Posted by Jay View Post
    Remedial reading.. I said nothing of the sort. I said I"m not an expert. I indicated that by your own posts that you contradicted yourself.
    Yes, remedial reading... Since Kennedy was not self-defense, where is the contradiction?

    I'll put much more credence in Ayoob's writings and opinions that I will yours. There comes a time that some folks who are thought to be a fool should remain silent, so as not to prove it.
    I noticed you did not dispute anything I said. Perhaps you could point out what I said that proves me a fool.

  2.   
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    N. Central Indiana
    Posts
    512
    first you said handloads were NOT a factor... then you said, "I don't know if handloads were a factor or not". Which is it?

    I would be a fool to dispute Ayoob, given his experience, and knowledge. I think for you or anyone else to show up on a forum and purport to equate yourself with Ayoob, lends credence to the observation by many here that you may well be a fool.

    ...the rest of the story re Kennedy.......

    Defense counsel hired the expert I (Ayoob) suggested, Jim Cirillo, who did a splendid job of demolishing that argument and other bogus arguments against Kennedy at trial, and Kennedy was acquitted.
    Only when our arms are sufficient, without doubt, can we be certain, without doubt, that they will never be employed....... John F. Kennedy
    Life Member NRA Life Member Marine Corps League

  4. Quote Originally Posted by Jay View Post
    first you said handloads were NOT a factor... then you said, "I don't know if handloads were a factor or not". Which is it?
    What I wrote: "simply because ammo is not a factor in a self defense case."

    Perhaps you should revisit your "remedial reading".

    I would be a fool to dispute Ayoob, given his experience, and knowledge. I think for you or anyone else to show up on a forum and purport to equate yourself with Ayoob, lends credence to the observation by many here that you may well be a fool.
    I never attempted to equate myself with Ayoob. I simply pointed out that he sometimes writes nonsense, and gave examples.

    ...the rest of the story re Kennedy.......
    So, you agree with Ayoob, that Kennedy would have been justified if he had used commercial ammo.

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    We're discussing that sort of thing every few months. It's an Internet myth, nobody can find a real case reference to where that has actually happened.
    New Hampshire v. James Kennedy
    Arizona v. Harold Fish
    New Jersey v. Daniel Bias
    Arizona v. Larry Hickey

    It's not a myth at all, and anyone with some knowledge of legal documentation and practice can tell you that the absence of published cases online means nothing, something akin to proving a negative. It's very much like to the publicizing and statistical tracking of the defensive use of handguns. Just because it isn't commonly tracked and is rarely publicized doesn't mean it isn't happening. Most issues of ammo selection in self defense cases aren't going to be all that obvious unless the case singularly hinges on that issue. A case can spend hours, days or weeks on the subject of ammunition choice, but you are unlikely to hear about it unless guilt or innocence was decided by that issue alone. Even then it's unlikely to be highly publicized. But even if an ammo issue is never critically important to your case, time spent on it can still cost you dearly. Lawyers aren't cheap, and neither is court time. People have lost their entire life savings defending righteous self defense shootings, even though they did everything right. And don't discount the times that ammo choice can simply be a deciding factor over whether a case goes to court or not. You may never see it in a court transcript, but it sure affects you. It's a prejudicial thing, and if you don't think people can be prejudiced about guns or ammunition, you've been living under a rock. Those same kinds of people are prosecutors, serve on grand juries and decide criminal cases as jury members. It's a play on prejudice, and prejudice most definitely plays a role. It's legal marketing. Otherwise lawyers wouldn't be trying to 'sell' their cases to a jury.

    That same prejudice also means even people who never get prosecuted can pay dearly for things such as ammo choice. You can still get arrested and go through lengthy and expensive legal proceedings before being cleared by a grand jury or before a prosecutor decides not to take you to court. People have lost their jobs and life savings over that too, not to mention spending time in jail. So you can argue that ammunition choice shouldn't be an issue and you'd be right. You can argue that it technically isn't an issue and you'd be wrong in a legal sense because, among other things, the use of reloads negates the use of gun shot residue evidence in court, and has on numerous occasions. Other types of ammo choices have been used to demonize defendants in various ways which, successful or not, will negatively affect you in some way. But the real issue is whether or not it's smart. There is a documented and distinct disadvantage to the use of handloaded or 'specialty' types of ammunition when it comes to court cases. The chances of that ever happening are indeed very low, but if it ever does, the stakes are extremely high and the track record is not good. Since there is little to no real advantage to using that kind of ammunition in a carry gun, you just have to ask yourself if it's smart to load it in your carry gun. In my opinion the answer is a resounding no.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  6. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    New Hampshire v. James Kennedy
    Arizona v. Harold Fish
    New Jersey v. Daniel Bias
    Arizona v. Larry Hickey

    It's not a myth at all, and anyone with some knowledge of legal documentation and practice can tell you that the absence of published cases online means nothing, something akin to proving a negative. It's very much like to the publicizing and statistical tracking of the defensive use of handguns. Just because it isn't commonly tracked and is rarely publicized doesn't mean it isn't happening. Most issues of ammo selection in self defense cases aren't going to be all that obvious unless the case singularly hinges on that issue. A case can spend hours, days or weeks on the subject of ammunition choice, but you are unlikely to hear about it unless guilt or innocence was decided by that issue alone. Even then it's unlikely to be highly publicized. But even if an ammo issue is never critically important to your case, time spent on it can still cost you dearly. Lawyers aren't cheap, and neither is court time. People have lost their entire life savings defending righteous self defense shootings, even though they did everything right. And don't discount the times that ammo choice can simply be a deciding factor over whether a case goes to court or not. You may never see it in a court transcript, but it sure affects you. It's a prejudicial thing, and if you don't think people can be prejudiced about guns or ammunition, you've been living under a rock. Those same kinds of people are prosecutors, serve on grand juries and decide criminal cases as jury members. It's a play on prejudice, and prejudice most definitely plays a role. It's legal marketing. Otherwise lawyers wouldn't be trying to 'sell' their cases to a jury.

    That same prejudice also means even people who never get prosecuted can pay dearly for things such as ammo choice. You can still get arrested and go through lengthy and expensive legal proceedings before being cleared by a grand jury or before a prosecutor decides not to take you to court. People have lost their jobs and life savings over that too, not to mention spending time in jail. So you can argue that ammunition choice shouldn't be an issue and you'd be right. You can argue that it technically isn't an issue and you'd be wrong in a legal sense because, among other things, the use of reloads negates the use of gun shot residue evidence in court, and has on numerous occasions. Other types of ammo choices have been used to demonize defendants in various ways which, successful or not, will negatively affect you in some way. But the real issue is whether or not it's smart. There is a documented and distinct disadvantage to the use of handloaded or 'specialty' types of ammunition when it comes to court cases. The chances of that ever happening are indeed very low, but if it ever does, the stakes are extremely high and the track record is not good. Since there is little to no real advantage to using that kind of ammunition in a carry gun, you just have to ask yourself if it's smart to load it in your carry gun. In my opinion the answer is a resounding no.
    I will have to read up on that, thank you. Actually I am carrying CRITICAL DEFENSE so I should be golden in court - albeit I will surely receive a trashing from the ammo gurus ;-)
    Knarren und Zigarren!!!

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Southwest Ohio
    Posts
    3,348
    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    I will have to read up on that, thank you. Actually I am carrying CRITICAL DEFENSE so I should be golden in court - albeit I will surely receive a trashing from the ammo gurus ;-)
    Excellent. Your ammo choice should present no problems should you ever find yourself in that position. And there seems to be no way to avoid trashing from some faction or other on this issue. Apparently there's no such thing as a neutral position here.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Florida Panhandle
    Posts
    3,096
    Carrying factory loaded ammo usually is not the issue except in NJ where hollow points are illegal.
    I try to carry what the local LEO's are issued...they cannot argue too much bullet if that is what we are giving the guys in blue to defend their lives if need be.
    FESTUS
    IN OMNIA PARATUS

  9. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by festus View Post
    Carrying factory loaded ammo usually is not the issue except in NJ where hollow points are illegal.
    hollow points are illegal in NJ. they are illegal if carried in a weapon that is being carried in public places other than ranges or I believe hunting as well.
    the moron cops and politicians up there don't grasp the over penetration issues associated with FMJ rounds and they truly believe that hollow points, or as they put it, "dum dum" bullets are cop killers. don't argue with me I am only conveying what is said there

  10. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by apvbguy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by festus View Post
    Carrying factory loaded ammo usually is not the issue except in NJ where hollow points are illegal.
    hollow points are illegal in NJ. they are illegal if carried in a weapon that is being carried in public places other than ranges or I believe hunting as well.
    the moron cops and politicians up there don't grasp the over penetration issues associated with FMJ rounds and they truly believe that hollow points, or as they put it, "dum dum" bullets are cop killers. don't argue with me I am only conveying what is said there
    How dare you argue with the all knowing authority of the state legislature. Obviously hollow points have magical Kevlar penetrating abilities, just like Teflon-coated bullets or they wouldn't have been made illegal in several states. Oh, wait...

  11. Quote Originally Posted by r1derbike View Post
    I use what the local police use. If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for me.
    In a class I took many years ago taught by Massad Ayoob this is the advice he gave. That way IF by chance you end up in front of a jury and the prosecutor asks you why you where using such deadly ammo you can reply because that is what the police use..

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast

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