Wormydog1724
ATAS Ninja
And I agree about not using your most expensive gun to kill them, that's why I bought a Glock. They're cheap and semi reliable. At least more reliable than a hi point. Lol
And I agree about not using your most expensive gun to kill them, that's why I bought a Glock. They're cheap and semi reliable. At least more reliable than a hi point. Lol
Any halfway decent lawyer could undermine your credibility and judgment if you used ammo that's marketed as it's designed for zombies. The circumstances of the shoot are irrelevant.
You gotta think like the opposition.
And in this case, you are giving them ammo (ha) to use against you!
Any halfway decent lawyer could undermine your credibility and judgment if you used ammo that's marketed as it's designed for zombies. The circumstances of the shoot are irrelevant.
You gotta think like the opposition.
And in this case, you are giving them ammo (ha) to use against you!
And I agree about not using your most expensive gun to kill them, that's why I bought a Glock. They're cheap and semi reliable. At least more reliable than a hi point. Lol
I dont want to go to jail because my tip was green not red....
Why would anyone think that the ammo name would have any bearing in court proceedings...
probably stay away from the zombie label. I dont want to go to jail because my tip was green not red....
Two real problems come up in court with handloads. In New Jersey v. Daniel Bias, whether the death of a young woman was suicide or murder at the hands of her husband came down to forensic evidence testing, to wit, the determination of how far the gun muzzle was from her head before the fatal wound was inflicted. However, the death weapon was a Smith & Wesson Model 586 revolver charged with very light reloads in 38 Special +P cases. The police insisted on doing their gunshot residue (GSR) testing with actual +P, which leaves GSR for a considerable distance, and there was none found on her head or hair. Defense experts tested reloads duplicating what the husband said he had made up and put in the gun, and could have shown that these wouldn’t have left residue at the distance the gun was when the defense believe it discharged in the victim’s own hand.
However, to make a long story short, that evidence never got in. It would have required the court to take the defendant’s word for the handload “recipe.†Even your reloading records, meticulous as they may be, won’t help. You see, the evidence was manufactured by the defendant, and that goes for the records as well as the ammo. You can’t prove it wasn’t some BS you came up with afterward to get away with murder. I have challenged many Internet advocates of defensive handloads to find a case where the defendant’s records or testimony as to load was accepted as GSR evidence. None has ever come up with a case.
...
Another thing to worry about with handloads is the argument, “This man was so intent in causing horrible, deadly wounds that regular bullets weren’t deadly enough, so he made his own extra-deadly bullets!†That was the BS pulled by the prosecution in State of NH v. Sgt. James Kennedy. That argument was shot down by Jim Cirillo as expert witness for the defense. However, every courtroom argument is like a gunfight: it’s better to avoid it than to have to fight it, and every now and then, the other side can get lucky and win. By the way, remember those two cases the next time you hear on the Internet, “There has never been a case of anyone getting in trouble for using handloads.†The Kennedy case ended with an acquittal, and that was justice. However, the Bias case went through three trials before the third jury found the kid guilty of Manslaughter and sent him to prison. Both his lawyers told me they felt that if he’d had factory ammo in the gun, they don’t think he would have been convicted.
Im not a lawyer, but if Im putting ammo into my firearm that I use for personal defense then I want the round I use to kill the guy, not instigate a tickling competition. If a judge asks me why I bought ammo labeled as "zombie killer" ammo, I can say it was a novel idea and I happen to like zombie movies, as millions of other Americans do, its ballistically the same thing as Hornady Critical Defense, which is a popular SD round and this was cheaper. I dont see how that could be used as "ammo" for the prosecution to tell me I used excessive force, or something along those lines. I used the force I deemed necessary, within the rights that are afforded me by the law. How is that going to be any more convictable than someone using a 12 gauge shotgun with 00 buck. Just seems like a non-issue.Any halfway decent lawyer could undermine your credibility and judgment if you used ammo that's marketed as it's designed for zombies. The circumstances of the shoot are irrelevant.
You gotta think like the opposition.
And in this case, you are giving them ammo (ha) to use against you!
Jerry and McGuire, you'd be terrible lawyers. You are too logical!
Thank God, I was getting worried for a minute there...Im much better at shooting people with super zombie ammo...OH I mean I plead the 5th...Jerry and McGuire, you'd be terrible lawyers. You are too logical!
Death valley magazine had an article on how not to act after a self defense shoot. He pretty much said don't be standing in your yard with your level iv stand alone plates in your Crye JPC plate carrier with your mich level iiia helmet and pvs 14 night vision with your AR15 and beta mag eating a ham and chese sandwich bragging to your neighbor how you capped his ass when the cops show up.
He said wetting your pants isn't a bad idea.
If somebody breaks into my house and I fear for my or my wife's safety, I'm going to shoot them. But I won't be happy about it. You know how hard blood is to get out of carpet??
Funny!
But I think the carpet issue is easy. Just a phone call away from the carpet guy coming in and replacing it!
I think with the amount of blood that would be involved, I'd just replace the carpet, and paint the walls.
One thing to consider is the civil case after you are cleared of criminal charges. I have heard of more lawyer nonsense coming up in these trials. Kinda like throwing everything out and seeing what sticks. There have even been cases where the argument was why did you shoot the bad guy more than once. I think the above referenced book had a case where the lawyers were arguing the defendant (good guy) had malice in his heart because he carried two back up magazines. The defense was that is what cops do. It worked.
Anything you can do to first avoid a bad situation and then minimize evidence against you is a good thing.
Actually you have to have special crime scene clean up people come in first to decontaminate everything. There's not telling what is in a person's blood ... blah
That's one nice thing about our laws. If your shoot is ruled justified, then you are immune from civil suits on that issue.