Concealed Carry Loads

[Meeko]

If deadly force is justified to defend yourself, it doesn't matter whether you use an AR-15, a 12 GA, a 22LR, or a handload.

Yes, True for criminal charges however, what some of us are suggesting is when the family members sue you in civil court (and in a shooting you will get sued) If you used handloaded ammunition you run a risk of the lawyers trying to paint a picture of unnessesary suffering/malice whatever on your part. That you went above and beyond just defending yourself and having to pay civil damages to said family member. Remember civl court does not take "as much" to be found guilty/negligent in. If you use factory manufactured ammunition you take that part of the accusation out of it.

I've been sued in civil court a number of times due to my job (in general not over the rounds I carry). I have a department that as long as I am within policy will represent me however, you would be surprised at what departments pay/agree to to get the court actions dropped.

When I carry off duty my department does not cover me so I am just a private citizen as it should be. As a private citizen no one has that "buffer"
of a department to throw cash/lawyers at it.

I'm saving my retirement and thrift savings for my family and me not some thugs family.

But everyone can do what they think they are comfortable with!

 

[Pal Val]

"Your Honor, I had no intention of shooting this assailant with a powerful, factory-level load, so I loaded my own .44 magnums to 100 fps less than the factory standard. Even so, the man died. It must have been an acident."

Sound ridiculous? It is. Now, explain that to the anti-gunners. :roll:

 

[steve b]

Hmmnnn..never been in court, and would like to keep it that way. Also did not sleep in whatever hotel would make me an expert on this subject. Sooo, we all draw the line in different places. I will carry handloads for my revolvers, but not my pistols. No real good reason for such, just that volume-wise, I can't keep up with the pistols. I'd recommend not messing with triggers on carry pieces, but again, haven't been in court, so... Stay safe folks. You do have to be alive to find yourself in court. steve b

 

[wwb]

Back to the original post.... as the OP is in Wisconsin, this would be relevant...

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=7192

The way they wrote "Castle Doctrine" in Wisconsin, you are not only free from criminal liability in a justified shooting, but you are immune from civil prosecution as well. It hasn't had to face the courts yet, however.

It sure took us a while to get concealed carry, but we went right ahead then with Castle Doctrine, as well.

 

[Larry from Bend]

I always thought that "type of ammo used" was a red herring, also. I was wrong. I closely followed a shooting in Colorado a few years ago where a (slightly) mentally disabled man was shot and killed after he attempted to assault an armed man who he thought had just shot this fellow's aggressive dog.

The shooter got like 20-30 years. No one seemed to think he'd be convicted once the facts were known --- they were wrong. -----

BUT WHAT STUCK WITH ME about the case (and very contraversial verdict) was the interview with the jury forewoman afterwards.

She stated unequivocally that it was the prosecution's point that the shooter used hollowpoint bullets that changed her vote to guilty. To her, the shooter showed malice by using those wicked hollowpoint bullets. The shooter wanted to kill someone. She obviously was ignorant about self defense and probably anti-gun. BUT that doesn't matter, she's one of your peers and could end up on your jury.

Please spare me the tough talk about ammo choices and the "That's not right" garbage. Welcome to the real world.

 

[skeeziks]

She stated unequivocally that it was the prosecution's point that the shooter used hollowpoint bullets that changed her vote to guilty.

Well, hopefully my lawer will have the brains to point out to the jury that the Speer Gold Dot hollowpoints that I used to shoot my assailant are the very same bullets that are used by a good majority of police depts. And also that all depts. use some kind of hollowpoint.

 

[Larry from Bend]

She stated unequivocally that it was the prosecution's point that the shooter used hollowpoint bullets that changed her vote to guilty.

Well, hopefully my lawer will have the brains to point out to the jury that the Speer Gold Dot hollowpoints that I used to shoot my assailant are the very same bullets that are used by a good majority of police depts. And also that all depts. use some kind of hollowpoint.

You live in a very tiny world, don't you?

 

[steve b]

Should also have been pointed out that HP designs are meant to retard penetration, to be more safe amongst crowds,etc.. Facts and reality perceived often clash though. steve b

 

[JWhitmore44]

I don't believe she changed her mind just because she heard "hollow points". May be the excuse she made when confronted, but I'm sure if they would have said they used the same thing the police use she would have deemed the person a vigilante. I think the response in itself showed her intelligence (or that lack there of). I also thought the jury had to all be in agreement, did all the jurors believe he was innocent until they heard he used hallow points? There's more to this story than the one line.

 

[Vic]

When I posted this, I stated the "suggestion" made by the author of the book I referenced regarding concealed carry.

Everyone is entitled to their respective opinion(s) on these issues and it's fine to agree to disagree on ammunition choices and why. The author makes a "suggestion" and nothing more.

There's not a right or a wrong answer.

Regards, Vic

 

[Larry from Bend]

Should also have been pointed out that HP designs are meant to retard penetration, to be more safe amongst crowds,etc.. Facts and reality perceived often clash though. steve b

Oh Yeah ---- That would have REALLY helped ---- You're kidding: Right?

 

[Larry from Bend]

I don't believe she changed her mind just because she heard "hollow points". May be the excuse she made when confronted, but I'm sure if they would have said they used the same thing the police use she would have deemed the person a vigilante. I think the response in itself showed her intelligence (or that lack there of). I also thought the jury had to all be in agreement, did all the jurors believe he was innocent until they heard he used hallow points? There's more to this story than the one line.

I don't care what you believe or what you're "sure of"---- but I strongly suspect that you don't believe it because it conflicts with your narrow point of view of how people should think and reason. When they don't think your way ---- you don't believe it. Not believing it relieves you of any responsibility for understanding other points of view.

I don't recall if the other jurors reasoning for the guilty verdict was discussed. They were not interviewed as I remember.

I DO remember what she said. She said it with authority and conviction and determination.

 

[skeeziks]

We love you too, Larry....

 

[JWhitmore44]

I DO remember what she said. She said it with authority and conviction and determination.

That obviously makes it right then

from one narrow point of view to another.

 

[Jimbo357mag]

It is not about the ammo it is about the documentation that ammo manufactures keep. 8) 8)

...Jimbo

 

[WESHOOT2]

Yep.

 

[scary]

I would use factory loads more often but it takes too long to get my Hawken .50 cal. back from the factory loaded.

:lol: