Convince me not to use hand loaded ammo for home defense

[BlvdKing]

That's exactly right. If, God forbid, I'm ever forced to use deadly force, my first course of action will be to file suit against the survivor or his estate, to make up for the mental anguish and trauma he forced upon me. Then, if his estate wishes to sue me, we can call it a wash!

That's a great idea! This would be one way to possibly bring balance back to the "justice" system.

 

[Stomper]

That's exactly right. If, God forbid, I'm ever forced to use deadly force, my first course of action will be to file suit against the survivor or his estate, to make up for the mental anguish and trauma he forced upon me. Then, if his estate wishes to sue me, we can call it a wash!

Sum-ah-na-gum (translation: "son of a gun") .... that's brilliant!

 

[deen_ad]

handloads, load your CC weapon with factory loads. That covers the cheaper practice and the problem of "killer handloads" from an attorney.

And Ayoob has coverd this exact thing in some of his articles, one in which the man was convicted of killing his wife because the forensics evidence didn't match the factory load evidence.

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

 

[deen_ad]

And no, I don't watch Law and Order or court TV, I don't read Massage-a-Boob's opinions either. I tend to take advice from those who are in LE, or involved in ballistics research, rather than random people with unqualified opinions.

certainly rather have Ayoob testify for me than you!

His credentials have been attested to in numerous courts of law as an expert witness, have yours?

Deen
NRA Benefactor/Recruiter
WAC member
SWWAC member

 

[riverrat373]

This subject was brought up by Massad Ayoob in one of his columns in Combat Handguns magazine several years ago. I can't remember whether the person defending himself was charged by a zealous DA or it was a civil suit, but he had to defend himself in court because he used handloads. Massad was an expert witness for the defense and the defendant won the case. However, think of the cost that that person must have incurred defending himself in court!
I reload but I only use factory ammo in my defensive handguns because of that case. I doubt that you can put together a better defensive load than the factory ammo available today.

 

[SBC97281]

It is hard to advise somebody to increase their risk profile without some
increase in potential rewards. There is no real reward in using reloads
for self defense, but there is a lot of potential increases in risk.

Here is the way I have had a couple good attorneys tell it to me.
And, I believe both were qualified as firearms friendly from where
the conversations happened.

Use Handloads and other self loads for practice, hunting, fun, and play.

Use the best factory rounds that you can afford in any self defence
weapon. Afford needs to include sufficient practice rounds to verify
function, accuracy, and reliability.

A good attorney has a billing rate of hundreds of dollars an hour for good
reason. They are in the business of protecting liberty. I will follow that
advice as it limits one line of questioning in the even things hit the doo doo
relocating device.

Also, it is my understanding that factory rounds are supposed to be slightly
more reliable. In my personal experience, I have never had a malfunction
in new centerfire premium rounds from mainstream manufacturers like
Winchester, Speer, and Hornaday. I have bought reloads from people that
do it for a living and have had misfires and other failures with those rounds.

The situation of last resort self defence should have the fewest things that
can be left to chance in the back up plan as possible.

-sbc

 

[mjbskwim]

I believe I understand the reasoning against hand loads for personal defense. I've read some well articulated explanations from legal professionals on the matter.

Consider some reality though...

The police arrive at my house after a 911 home invasion call, and there's a dead bad guy in my living room with a machete in his hand. It's not like the cops will ask to see my ammo, and use that as a decision point whether to take me into custody. Even under the best circumstances (all things considered following such an ordeal) I'd call an attorney and spend some money just to protect myself. Depending on the political climate, the D.A. could have an agenda - or not.

If it's really "go time", and I or loved ones face death or injury, I really don't care how I respond.

Being judged by 12 is better than carried by 6.

Thanks
-Sean

*Not disagreeing with any thing you said*

But in the first place you are trying to kill someone,right?
How can it be excessive force? You are trying to kill him and stop him from killing you.
Don't understand how they can be against reloads.
Wouldn't a quicker death for the perp be more humane?
I mean that's who they are worried about

There seem to be some great loads out there for most calibers.And if you can place a light load perfect,you can stop the threat

 

[fyrediver]

I'm not chiming in on what loads to carry. Your decision, there's certainly enough information to make an informed decision either way.

The fact is, as has been pointed out by other posts, whatever load you shoot with, you stand a very good chance of going to court. If that happens you'll be financially devastated. Unless you're independently wealthy, your attorney fees will break you. If you're independently wealthy, you'll probably make a more lucrative target for the "grieving" estate members.

If you've got to hire an attorney to represent you in court you'll be broke and/or spending years paying off the credit card debt.

You can be completely in the right, do everything correctly, and still end up being sued in civil court. Case in point: Utah search and rescue team finds dead child who wandered away after a nap while dad surveys a hunting area. Father is convicted of neglect and suicides in the same place as child was found. Grandmother of dead child sues almost EVERYONE in the SAR team for having not found the dead child prior to his/her death. Blamed the SAR team for not having prevented the tragedy which led to her son's suicide. Didn't matter they did the right thing, didn't matter that they found the child, didn't matter about anything. Each of these members had to hire their own attorney to fight the suit. $100-200 an hour for desk time, more for court appearances.

 

[HalfNutz]

I'm not chiming in on what loads to carry. Your decision, there's certainly enough information to make an informed decision either way.

The fact is, as has been pointed out by other posts, whatever load you shoot with, you stand a very good chance of going to court. If that happens you'll be financially devastated. Unless you're independently wealthy, your attorney fees will break you. If you're independently wealthy, you'll probably make a more lucrative target for the "grieving" estate members.

If you've got to hire an attorney to represent you in court you'll be broke and/or spending years paying off the credit card debt.

You can be completely in the right, do everything correctly, and still end up being sued in civil court. Case in point: Utah search and rescue team finds dead child who wandered away after a nap while dad surveys a hunting area. Father is convicted of neglect and suicides in the same place as child was found. Grandmother of dead child sues almost EVERYONE in the SAR team for having not found the dead child prior to his/her death. Blamed the SAR team for not having prevented the tragedy which led to her son's suicide. Didn't matter they did the right thing, didn't matter that they found the child, didn't matter about anything. Each of these members had to hire their own attorney to fight the suit. $100-200 an hour for desk time, more for court appearances.

You got a link on this Utah case? I did a pretty diligent Google/internet search and came up with zilch.

Seems to me that Duty to Rescue would absolve all rescuers of liability.

 

[fyrediver]

I was active in SAR at the time and this case was obviously talk of the town. Can't find the court the end resolution, although it doesn't matter if you're defending yourself in court. Expensive even if you're right and win.

Well, that took some time:
Comments on 12843 | MetaFilter
http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/o...p://www.ericdsnider.com/snide/blame-everyone/
JUST - When you think you've heard it all
<broken link removed>

 

[riverrat373]

My mind is made up so don't confuse me with facts!

 

[revjen45]

The only reason I can see to use handloads for defence is because that's all you had available. If you are hiking in bear country and you're carrying 300 gr hard cast bear loads in your .44 Mag when you are attacked by the meth head whose production facility you have stumbled upon then you have no choice. It's not even a good SD load but you have no other options. Or you are assailed when you have only range ammo you can't go buy premium SD loads - it's run what you brung.

Post by mjbskwim
But in the first place you are trying to kill someone,right?
How can it be excessive force? You are trying to kill him and stop him from killing you.
No, you are not trying to kill him. You are indeed trying to stop him from killing you, and the need is so great that whether the perp lives or not is irrelevant.

 

[U201494]

I will not try to convince you to "not use handloads for self defense". I think you should use whatever provides you the confidence you'll need to perform in a defensive situation. I will use handloads because there is no better ammunition available to me than the ammo I build myself. A cartridge is a pretty simple thing and it is easy to have 100&#37; quality control over the the assembly of it. As far as any possible legal issues go, I am not concerned. The odds of the subject even coming up are almost nil and if it does almost any attorney can argue it in your favor.

 

[spengo]

As far as any possible legal issues go, I am not concerned. The odds of the subject even coming up are almost nill and if it does almost any attorney can argue it in your favor.

Carry the ammo you think gives you the best unfair advantage.

 

[mjbskwim]

The only reason I can see to use handloads for defence is because that's all you had available. If you are hiking in bear country and you're carrying 300 gr hard cast bear loads in your .44 Mag when you are attacked by the meth head whose production facility you have stumbled upon then you have no choice. It's not even a good SD load but you have no other options. Or you are assailed when you have only range ammo you can't go buy premium SD loads - it's run what you brung.

Post by mjbskwim
But in the first place you are trying to kill someone,right?
How can it be excessive force? You are trying to kill him and stop him from killing you.
No, you are not trying to kill him. You are indeed trying to stop him from killing you, and the need is so great that whether the perp lives or not is irrelevant.

Yeah yeah semantics,or I guess ,which side of the bench you are sitting on.

This was a problem with the old "Black Talons"
Well they cut arteries and make the person shot,bleed profusely.
Yeah,that's the idea. No?
And as you said,revjen, that was improper thinking.
That's why we can't buy those rounds (with that name on the box) any more.

 

[Trlsmn]

You got a link on this Utah case? I did a pretty diligent Google/internet search and came up with zilch.

Seems to me that Duty to Rescue would absolve all rescuers of liability.

Duty to rescue will no absolve you of anything. Show the applicable law not a concept, hint there is none. Did you even read that wiki?

Here is the only part of the Wiki relating to US law:

U.S. example

In an 1898 case, the New Hampshire Supreme Court unanimously held that after an eight year old boy negligently placed his hand in the defendant's machinery, the boy had no right to be rescued by the defendant. Beyond that, the trespassing boy could be held liable for damages to the defendant's machine.[12]