handloads vs. commercial: defending yourself in court

[Gunner3456]

Before the trial there is a deposition taken under oath. It's literally considered a fishing expedition, and unlike during trial, they can ask you questions which are irrelevant if the question is likely to lead to information which is relevant. You have to answer or they'll file a motion to compel, and a motion for contempt.

You can bet your bippy the type of ammo you used will be known.

Now, if it comes out that you're a reloader (which you don't have to volunteer unless they ask) then you'll be all the more a redneck.

How much the heck does a box of factory ammo for each one of your defensive weapons cost, anyway? Considering the number of people you're going to shoot in your lifetime, a box should last a long time, LOL. Your reloads should be tuned to hit where your factory ammo does, for practice.

The very fact that most jurors won't understand why you carry 24/7 puts you one down and the prosecution one up for openers. You must not come across as a redneck or a Rambo. You have some serious selling of yourself and your carry to do in addition to justifying the shooting.

 

[MarkAd]

You must not come across as a redneck

UH OH.... i am in big trouble cause all I am a Christ loving, Bible believing, gun loving REDNECK.

You might be a redneck if you name your kids after your favorite guns.


Riddle me this -
In this circumstance, the handload produced vastly different performance than the factory ammo. So the ballistics lab, using factory ammo, concluded that the shooting couldn't have happened the way the defendant described.

What about if you happen to use a black powder firearms. Since BP by it's nature is a hand load where does the factory ammo theory fit?

 

[Browning55]

Considering everything a person can be put through after a shooting event will hopefully make one much less likely to overreact. Ultimately, the key issue must be whether deadly force was justified.

If it really comes down to whether the bowstring was drawn half way back or all the way back then we're probably safer in prison.

 

[Gunner3456]

It's easy to be flippant now, especially if you've never been reeled in by the legal system. All the BS bluster will go away fast if you ever are.

I have been and I won but I don't ever want to risk it again.

You'll get real humble real fast the first time you're charged with something serious. You'll also get real broke paying for your defense unless you're made of money.

Internet commandos and smart***** are a dime a dozen.

 

[Browning55]

Hope you're not thinking there was any flippancy to my comment. This is a serious subject and I directed my comment to the board topic of handloads vs. commercial.

 

[Gunner3456]

I'm referring to anyone who carries and who might someday be involved in a shooting. The aftermath won't be any fun. A lawyer will be hired immediately to speak for the shooter and advise the shooter. It will be expensive.

This isn't a game. It's death. The shooter will go through hell emotionally due to the nightmares of shooting someone, and the nightmares of dealing with the legal system. The shooter will forever be changed. He may also be bankrupt. If he gets unlucky with the police, DA and jury, he may go to prison.

Please don't allow the weapon or the ammunition to become part of the conversation beyond "I carried it because that's what the police (or military) use and I figured they know best." Don't be in a position to defend your choice of ammo or even caliber.

Be in a position to have to defend the justification to shoot, period. Please.

 

[pchewn]

Before the trial there is a deposition taken under oath. It's literally considered a fishing expedition, and unlike during trial, they can ask you questions which are irrelevant if the question is likely to lead to information which is relevant. You have to answer or they'll file a motion to compel, and a motion for contempt.

You can bet your bippy the type of ammo you used will be known.

For a CRIMINAL trial (e.g. being charged by the state for a crime such as assault), you would not be required to testify (in court, or by deposition), because of the 5th Amendment.

For a CIVIL trial (e.g being sued by the person or family of the person you shot), your statement is correct, you would most likely be required to testify under oath by deposition.

What we really need is a law that protects justified self-defense actions from further civil liability.

 

[Browning55]

Please don't allow the weapon or the ammunition to become part of the conversation beyond "I carried it because that's what the police (or military) use and I figured they know best." Don't be in a position to defend your choice of ammo or even caliber.

Be in a position to have to defend the justification to shoot, period. Please.

Agree 100%
Maybe - if you wish to - it would be interesting and helpful to relate details of your experience whether here or on another thread. Of course, if the situation is ongoing that should wait.

 

[Gunner3456]

For a CRIMINAL trial (e.g. being charged by the state for a crime such as assault), you would not be required to testify (in court, or by deposition), because of the 5th Amendment.

For a CIVIL trial (e.g being sued by the person or family of the person you shot), your statement is correct, you would most likely be required to testify under oath by deposition.

What we really need is a law that protects justified self-defense actions from further civil liability.

I agree. But taking the 5th in front of a jury or on the record in deposition unfortunately makes you look guilty to a lot of people. "If you have nothing to hide, why not tell what happened?"

Your justification for shooting has to be the story of what happened. Without that story, there is no evidence that it was justified. It's obvious you shot someone and you're going to need a defense if you're charged with a crime. Innocent until proven guilty is all in they eyes of the jury.

I also agree that we need a law to block civil suits after one is found not guilty in a criminal trial, or even dismissed by a grand jury. I've never understood how that isn't double jeopardy even though it's ruled to not be.

 

[Toxic6]

Considering the number of people you're going to shoot in your lifetime, a box should last a long time, LOL.

yeah I'm hoping personally that it stays at 0.......I've had the same couple boxes of hollow points for 10ish years. Probably due for an update

 

[Gunner3456]

Agree 100%
Maybe - if you wish to - it would be interesting and helpful to relate details of your experience whether here or on another thread. Of course, if the situation is ongoing that should wait.

I've told my story as much as allowed in another thread. I've never shot anyone; I was accused by a LEO of threatening to shoot someone and that was enough to convince me that I want to stay away from trouble. I lost my CHL, spent $100k on defense, and spent two years of my life thinking of little else.

Even after we proved that the charges were 100% lies and I was 100% exonerated before trial and the case dismissed with prejudice (meaning for good) it took my lawyer another 13 months to get my CHL back because, I believe, the sheriff and LEO were buddies. It felt like payback. I counter sued and settled and that settlement is sealed and confidential by mutual agreement.

That's the story. Imagine how much worse it could have been had I actually shot someone, and the system turned against me?

You folks in the larger cities would do well to realize you are in liberal, anti-gun territory where you may have two strikes against you with the whole system starting with members of the grand jury. Be sure whatever you do that you can prove you had no choice, were "reasonable" and then hope for true justice.