Ranger T's for Self-Defense and a Prosecutors Viewpoint [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Ranger T's for Self-Defense and a Prosecutors Viewpoint


Glockman454
09-01-2009, 17:03
I have been wondering on the "what if's" scenario of using Winchester Ranger-T ammo for self defense and a prosecutors viewpoint. Recently I personally watched a week-long trial of attempted murder. It was not gun related, but I had the opportunity to see how over zealous and vindictive a prosecutor can be.

So, since Ranger T's are not illegal, but Winchester restricts it from the general public, I could see a prosecutor attempting to use that against someone. At least I would not put it past the local prosecutor I watched in court recently. She went after any and every shadow of impropriety.

I know every self defense shooting does not go to court, but for sake of argument let's say John Doe shoots a perp in self defense and for whatever reason it goes to court. I wonder what the real chances of a prosecutor using the type bullet to make any possible charges even worse than they are. Even though they are not illegal, I could see the prosecutor making a statement that they are restricted to LE only and then trying to cast a bad light upon the shooter to look bad to a jury.

I am aware of the history of the original Talon and a coroner making a statement in defense of the police that they were unremarkable and did not do any damage that most any other hollow point would do. See below.

"The forensic pathologist who performed the autopsies of the fatal shooting victims gave a detailed presentation about his findings at the 1994 IWBA Wound Ballistics Conference in Sacramento: "The 101 California Shooting: The Black Talon Bullet," Boyd Stevens, M.D., Medical Examiner, San Francisco, CA. He stated that the wound trauma produced by Black Talon was unremarkable, meaning the wounds were no different nor any more severe than wounds produced by typical JHP handgun bullets. Each of the victims incurred fatal injury because a bullet passed through a vital structure."

For anyone wanting to read the whole article here is the link.

http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs2.htm#Black-Talon

But back to the point of it being restricted by Winchester. Does anyone know of any history of a blood thirsty prosecutor making a big deal about the present day Ranger T's?

And secondly, any type ammo?

Kentucky_Guy
09-01-2009, 17:09
thats a "rule" not a "law" that winchester, and others, have to not sell their ammo to us lowly, un-worthy civilians......

it it legal for you and me to own it and use it....

JBP55
09-01-2009, 18:42
I use the ammunition and gun I like and I am not concerned with a BS prosecutor. Regardless of gun or ammunition I feel that: A good shoot is a good shoot and a bad shoot is a bad shoot.

Glockman454
09-01-2009, 18:55
thats a "rule" not a "law" that winchester, and others, have to not sell their ammo to us lowly, un-worthy civilians......

it it legal for you and me to own it and use it....

I do appreciate the reply - but I did mention that I already knew that it is not illegal. And yes, I see the sales lines on most website saying it is a Winchester rule, not a law and it is legal for us to own, on and on and so on.

That is not my point. That means nothing to a blood thirsty prosecutor. I would like to know if anyone knows of a case where someone did use it in self defense. And if they did, was it brought up by the prosecutor that Winchester restricts it to LE.

Until I recently watched an attempted murder case in which the accused did not attempt a murder, and the prosecution could not show any proof/evidence of attempted murder, that did not stop the prosecutor from pushing the charge. The accused was not convicted, but it took $50,000 to defend himself. See my point? Until I watched that trial I never knew such a thing could be allowed to even start let alone go for a week long trial...

That being said, I could see a anti-gun prosecutor making a big deal out of the LE restriction trying to make the defendant look like a ravenous psycho using extreme measures.

So again, my question is, does anyone have any knowledge of ANY court case where the defendant was pursued by the prosecution for using any certain type ammo? i.e. unreasonable force etc.

SIGShooter
09-01-2009, 19:02
I had an instrutor tell me once..."If you are worried about being prosecuted for defending yourself with a gun, don't carry one."

I liked his no BS point he made. A lot of people get wrapped around the axle about this and that ammunition to use for SD.

Let me ask you this...

What amuniton on the current market ISN'T used by LEOs? Whether it says LE AMMO only or not?

What's the difference?

What seperates a SD shooting with Gold Dot Personal Protection ammunition from a SD shooting with Gold Dot LE ammunition?

They are both from the same manufacturer right? They use the same cases? They use the same primers? They use the same powder? They use the same BULLET!

So what is the difference?

I have not found any cases related to your question.

I couldn't even imagine there being one. How messed up would that be...John Doe shoots an intruder who had a knife to his wife's neck and is now sitting in prison for life because he used Ranger LE ammo. But John Doe cop shot a man who had a knife to someones wife's neck and he is hailed as a hero and is cleared in the shoot.

Again, what's the difference?

kensteele
09-01-2009, 19:48
You might not want to wear those baggy pants, just in case you have to shoot someone while wearing them. After all, a blood thirsty prosecutor might make you look bad by showing that gang members who have no remourse often wear the same type of baggy pants. If you're in court from a shooting, the ammo you used is the least of your worries. It won't be the piece that sinks you.

Think about it. If a prosecutor brings up your ammo, you can effectively counter that defense in half a dozen ways with a good defense lawyer. It will make the prosecutor look bad, not you.

If you end up looking bad because of the ammo you used, it really wasn't the ammo that made you look bad...you know what I mean? ;)

Glockman454
09-01-2009, 20:58
I had an instrutor tell me once..."If you are worried about being prosecuted for defending yourself with a gun, don't carry one."

I liked his no BS point he made. A lot of people get wrapped around the axle about this and that ammunition to use for SD.

Let me ask you this...

What amuniton on the current market ISN'T used by LEOs? Whether it says LE AMMO only or not?

What's the difference?

What seperates a SD shooting with Gold Dot Personal Protection ammunition from a SD shooting with Gold Dot LE ammunition?

They are both from the same manufacturer right? They use the same cases? They use the same primers? They use the same powder? They use the same BULLET!

So what is the difference?

I have not found any cases related to your question.

I couldn't even imagine there being one. How messed up would that be...John Doe shoots an intruder who had a knife to his wife's neck and is now sitting in prison for life because he used Ranger LE ammo. But John Doe cop shot a man who had a knife to someones wife's neck and he is hailed as a hero and is cleared in the shoot.

Again, what's the difference?

I think you are getting out of context. First off I am not worried (overall) about prosecution God forbid I had to defend myself with a gun. You are preaching to the choir her as I have been shooting since I was four - thats 45 years of shooting.

To answer your question about any difference between civy and LE loads. There are no difference except LE loads are usually inspected one by one and possibly other quality checks. Other than that MOST ammo whether Civy or LE, there is no difference.

BUT, Ranger T has no civy counterpart. So we can't use the above concept to nullify the idea I mentioned. Sure they have another sxt, but even though the Ranger T is built on the basics of the SXT, they are not the same as one would compare a regular gold dot to a LE gold dot.

Here's the deal. Before watching the attempted murder trial I would have not given the Ranger T concern much thought. You were not at the trial and I was. If you would have seen and heard the utter BS that prosecutor was using and adding her own spice to it, it was totally amazing it was allowed to go on. I have zero, absolutely zero doubt if the above mentioned prosecutor was handing a case like I mentioned and she found out it is restricted to Leo's I guarantee she would attempt to make a mountain out of it.

Would it stick? Maybe not. But because if this over zealous prosecutor she caused a defendant to spend 50K versus, if he were charged with the battery he did git charged with he would have saved about 45K

So, please do not take my post out of context and read into too much.

It is simple. There are prosecutors out there that will lie, twist and use every bit, no matter how trivial. They try to persuade a jury with lies. The prosecutor told the jury this guy used to be a bouncer and it is in his blood to hurt people. That was 30 years ago. You get my point? And he has a totally clean criminal background. Or I should say did, until she got a hold of him.

So, if a woman prosecutor went after that, I would think it safe to say that this woman would use the bullet concern against someone and try to paint a picture in the jury's mind that John Doe is vicous and uses bullets only for law enforcement. After she got done with the jury and even though they are legal, she would have brainwashed the jury.

Being a bouncer is not illegal either, but she tried to use that against the guy.
If you would have been there and seen how this person twisted everything you too would make sure you were bullet proof (no pun intended).

People like her should not be allowed to hold such an office. Some of you say it is no big deal. Let's see how you feel IF a situation like this caused a unnecessary trial that cost 50K. I am basically covering my butt.

I hope that it does turn out someone can tell me with authority that it is a non-issue because I have a bunch of RA45T.

Again, if you could have saw the Bitc# in action your jaw would have been in your lap. If she were against you in a shooting and she learned the are "restricted to Leo" oh buy! hold on, were going for a ride.

In the end you may get off fine. But that extra detail could mean tens of thousand of dollars difference in fees.

I sincerely hoe it is not a concern as I think I would prefer them over my Gold dots. But that woman freaked us out.

Glockman454
09-01-2009, 21:02
You might not want to wear those baggy pants, just in case you have to shoot someone while wearing them. After all, a blood thirsty prosecutor might make you look bad by showing that gang members who have no remourse often wear the same type of baggy pants. If you're in court from a shooting, the ammo you used is the least of your worries. It won't be the piece that sinks you.

Think about it. If a prosecutor brings up your ammo, you can effectively counter that defense in half a dozen ways with a good defense lawyer. It will make the prosecutor look bad, not you.

If you end up looking bad because of the ammo you used, it really wasn't the ammo that made you look bad...you know what I mean? ;)

Hey, how did you know I were baggy pants? :rofl:

Police Marksman
09-01-2009, 21:18
Glock454

I understand what your are saying!

Sometime shoots aren't black and white. Specially to a Jury!

If you don't feel comfortable with Law Enforcement only ammo you might try the excellent Speer Gold Dot. Speer makes their law enforcement ammo available to citizens.

Glockman454
09-01-2009, 22:35
Glock454

I understand what your are saying!

Sometime shoots aren't black and white. Specially to a Jury!

If you don't feel comfortable with Law Enforcement only ammo you might try the excellent Speer Gold Dot. Speer makes their law enforcement ammo available to citizens.

You say you understand what I am saying but I don't think you totally read my last post. You are recommending Gold Dots.

If you had read my post completely you would have read the last line which read.
Quote "I sincerely hope it is not a concern as I think I would prefer them over my Gold dots. But that woman freaked us out."

Key point - "over my Gold Dots". That implies I have Gold Dots.

I am not per se afraid of "law enforcement ammo". I have a truckload of it and carry it. I have LE Gold Dots and I am not afraid to carry it. Because the only diff between it and what you buy at Sportmen's warehouse is the LE has better quality control and checks. This is not a issue of LE rounds as a whole. It is about a round that has no civilian counter part and is restricted by the manufacturer.

Even though Speer and other offer LE rounds, they are not restricted and Speer does not have a hangup about civilians buying it. Winchester is the only one who frowns on civies owning their LE loads.

I am trying to keep this post on the context and scope of the concern. Although I appreciate replies, I am not looking for recommendations, suggestions etc. I am fishing for someone who may have heard directly or indirectly about any legal issues from using any type ammo in a self defense situation and nothing else.

bogey3737
09-01-2009, 22:57
Simple and truthful explanation...I've received instruction from LE officers who train others at their respective academies. I took this training because I felt that if I was going to carry a firearm, I had the obligation to learn to use it safely and effectively so as to limit the chances of injuring innocent bystanders in the unfortunate event that I was forced to use it. These LEOs told me the type of ammunition they use and why - it is effective at stopping a threat and is less likely to over-penetrate, reducing the risk to innocents. They recommended that I carry the same type of ammunition for the defense of myself and my family.

mongo356
09-02-2009, 01:04
Glockman454- I understand what you are saying....I'm LEO but NOT an attorney. I've seen some lawyers that will try to sell anything if they think the jury will buy it. The limits of what some attorneys (not all) will do is anyone's guess, as I'm sure you saw in your experience.

Just ask 5 Cops,Lawyers,Doctors,Judges, Auto Mechanics a question in their respective field be it law,medicine, or cars and you will likely get 5 different answers but they will all be for sure they have the correct answer.

FWIW-Ranger BONDED and PDX1 are suppose to be the same bullet & specs in different packaging.

Merkavaboy
09-02-2009, 04:02
Glockman454, it seems that you had a very educating experience watching an actual trial in progress and witnessing first hand what Prosecutors can and will do to try to win a case. What you witnessed is EXACTLY what Massad Ayoob has been teaching his students and has been writing/publishing articles about for several decades now.

And yet if you look at many of the responses in this thread, you'll realize that many people are in denial about what actually takes place at court trials and the type of tactics a proscutor may stoop to to try and get a conviction.

"If it's a good shoot, there's nothing to worry about". "The type of gun and/or ammo you use is a non-issue". "if you're worried about going to court then don't carry a gun".
Such statements are based upon ignorance; don't listen to people who spew such crap.

If you have or carry a firearm for SD, and you are willing and committed to using that firearm to protect yourself, a loved one or an innocent stranger, there may come the time that you may have to use it, and you had best be prepared to defend your actions in court, no matter what someone else tells you. Know how to defend your actions and your choice of equipment.

Anyone who doubts that the type of gun and/or ammo won't make a difference in court had best review the Harold Fish case out of Arizona and find a copy of the TV News program in which Fish's jury members were interviewed and pubically said that the fact that Fish used a "powerful 10mm" pistol and "hollow point" bullets had made a big impression upon them.

As Mas tells his students and anyone who cares to educate themselves: "Know thy gun and know thy ammo".

glocksterr
09-02-2009, 06:09
if the prosecutor is doing his job it shouldnt matter if you use a T, a toothpick, a golf club or a butter knife.

self defence is self defence no matter how you slice it.

isp2605
09-02-2009, 06:10
Fish had a lot more problems with that shooting case than using 10mm ammo. Fish was not on trial because he used a 10mm. The justification for the shooting was legally lacking. The prosecutor introduced a whole mirade of facts. So what. If you sit in any trial you'd hear the same type of statements in any case, shooting or not. In legal parlance it's called "throwing it against the wall and seeing what will stick."
I've investigated numerous shooting cases in my LE career. I've testified in both criminal and civil cases and presented cases in a lot more cases that never made it to either. Here's what was the concern in EVERY shooting case we investigated - "Was the shooting justified?"
Don't worry about what ammo the local PD carries. PDs change ammo for a variety of reasons. It may be due to unavailability of ammo. They may carry a certain rd because they can get a better price than another. They may have officers carrying different makes at the same time.
Now look at the LEAs in your area. How many PD, sheriff depts, state police, other LEAs are within 30 miles of where you currently live? There's a very good chance that each agency is carrying something different from the others. So which PD's ammo are you going to carry? Simple fact is it doesn't matter.
If you want to carry your worries even more, are you carrying it to the same extreme in selecting caliber? Are you carrying a 9mm or .40? Those are the most common LE issued calibers. But what about .45? Even the 10mm can be found authorized by many agencies. By using your worries then you could also have a problem if you grabbed the 12 ga instead of the .22.
The simple fact remains is when we investigate a shooting what is used is not an issue in determining whether the shooting was legit or not. A good shooting will not turn to a bad shooting simply because you used a .45 or 12 ga. On the other side, a bad shooting will not turn into a good shooting because you used the same ammo that your local PD uses. That kind of stuff is from TV and cheap dime novels. In real life it simply doesn't happen. Sure, you've sat in one trial and heard one case. The fact remains that in the case you heard, and in Fish, they did not end up there because they used a bullet or caliber that was not currently being used by the local PD. Again, that's cheap TV movie stuff. The caliber and bullet might be discussed during the trial but the person being charged isn't there because of such caliber or bullet.
You worry about things that aren't based on fact.

Merkavaboy
09-02-2009, 07:09
Morning isp2605. :wavey:

You are correct that there is more to the Fish incident, but the fact that his use of a 10mm and HP ammo was not lost on the jurors. It was not insignificant evidence that was discarded by the jurors. It had enough impact upon the jurors that they were quite vocal about those two items of evidence that they brought it up during their TV program/interview.

isp2605
09-02-2009, 07:18
Morning isp2605. :wavey:.
Good morning!

You are correct that there is more to the Fish incident, but the fact that his use of a 10mm and HP ammo was not lost on the jurors. It was not insignificant evidence that was discarded by the jurors. It had enough impact upon the jurors that they were quite vocal about those two items of evidence that they brought it up during their TV program/interview.
It's a good thing Fish didn't use a 12 ga loaded with slugs. Just think of the field day the prosecutor could have had with that. Or used a .22 which 'everyone' knows is a hitman's weapon used by both the mafia and the Israeli intelligence. Or used a Beretta M-9 with FMJ ammo which would mean Fish thought he was a military killer. Or if Fish had used what the local police uses then he could have been painted as some kind of cop-wannabee vigilante. No matter what was used it could have been turned against him. In Fish's case it just happened to be a 10mm.
Fish had a lot of problems in justifying the use of deadly force. The 10mm wasn't the real issue.

rns-glock37
09-02-2009, 08:42
imho you answered your own question. it is legal to own so therefore the prosecutor would have to come up with another type of excuse to prosecute. the answer to the question of type of ammo is that it's the best sd round available, it's within my rights to own and use, and anyone would want the best equipment possible (legal wise) when your life is on the line. certainly any jury in the world would understand that. a good shoot is a good shoot.

tripl_b
09-02-2009, 08:48
why would they only sell the rounds to LEOs anyway? If they're not different what's the point?

BadAndy
09-02-2009, 08:54
I am aware of the history of the original Talon and a coroner making a statement in defense of the police that they were unremarkable and did not do any damage that most any other hollow point would do.
I ran into a little bit of trouble when I was younger and I had 9mm Black Talons loaded in my gun. I was very surprised that the prosecutor didn't call them "cop killer bullets". Interesting experience...

Matt Berry
09-02-2009, 09:37
You know the Ranger T's that I have all say "Law Enforcement Ammunition", it says nothing about LE only (except for the 127 +p+ because of the higher pressures).

Between the markings on the box and the ease at which they can be purchased without even being aware of winchesters silly rules. You could easily just say that you saw the ammo designated as ammo that is used and trusted by LEO, figured with all of the research and training they do, this must be the best and safest ammo for any situation that requires deadly force without endangering others.

9x19jhp
09-02-2009, 10:47
Hello Glockman454, I would like to thank you for bringing up for discussion some very important points in a well thought out presentation in your posts. However, there is a serious problem with this discussion, you are having it on the Internet. Unfortunately this not a reliable source of intelligent information on any subject beyond Glock pistols, and even that is sometimes debatable.

There is no accountability in government in the U.S. (probably nowhere in the world) and because of that anything can happen. Our politicians can make bad laws, our LE can make mistakes, and our prosecutors have almost unlimited power.

(Duke LaCrosse case: http://news.duke.edu/lacrosseincident/

It took wealthy clients, four powerful defense attorneys, A powerful University, and a State Attorney General to stop this wilfull and blatant false prosecution.)

This is not a recipe for any type of guaranteed outcome. Anything, even the smallest detail, can and will be used against you if you are a target.

Warp
09-02-2009, 10:51
I have absolutely no reservations about carrying/loading Ranger T's....or any other "law enforcement" ammunition....for defensive purposes. The Glock that lives on my coffee table, sitting about 10" from my hand as I type this, as always, is loaded with Ranger T's. And my carry gun is loaded with Gold Dots.

Use what you are comfortable with.

Glockman454
09-02-2009, 11:01
Glockman454, it seems that you had a very educating experience watching an actual trial in progress and witnessing first hand what Prosecutors can and will do to try to win a case. What you witnessed is EXACTLY what Massad Ayoob has been teaching his students and has been writing/publishing articles about for several decades now.

And yet if you look at many of the responses in this thread, you'll realize that many people are in denial about what actually takes place at court trials and the type of tactics a proscutor may stoop to to try and get a conviction.

"If it's a good shoot, there's nothing to worry about". "The type of gun and/or ammo you use is a non-issue". "if you're worried about going to court then don't carry a gun".
Such statements are based upon ignorance; don't listen to people who spew such crap.

If you have or carry a firearm for SD, and you are willing and committed to using that firearm to protect yourself, a loved one or an innocent stranger, there may come the time that you may have to use it, and you had best be prepared to defend your actions in court, no matter what someone else tells you. Know how to defend your actions and your choice of equipment.

Anyone who doubts that the type of gun and/or ammo won't make a difference in court had best review the Harold Fish case out of Arizona and find a copy of the TV News program in which Fish's jury members were interviewed and pubically said that the fact that Fish used a "powerful 10mm" pistol and "hollow point" bullets had made a big impression upon them.

As Mas tells his students and anyone who cares to educate themselves: "Know thy gun and know thy ammo".

Yes, it was very interesting. In fact totally amazing that a prosecutor has the power to push such a charge that the evidence (which was all taped on security cameras) had not one bit of evidence to imply attempted murder, yet the prosecutor pushed it.

You mentioned Massad Ayoobs book. I bought that book five years ago and have read it many times. That book is why I have a concern about that specific ammo. Massad (as you know) shows everything in the light on how a prosecutor and jury can and often looks at thing. He even claims that one should never ever load his own ammo as he can be made out to look bad and it all be blown out of proportion.

I think people are still taking this thing out of context. I am not afraid of being taken to court over a justified shooting in general. I usually carry Gold dots in either my Glock 30 or Glock 20. All I am saying is after watching this particular prosecutor in action I guarantee if she were handing a shooting case she would attempt to make a mountain out of the fact that someone used ammo that Winchester restricts to Leo's

Before watching this trial I would have not given it any thought. And there is no way I can give all the example of a five day trial on every mountain this prosecutor tried to make out of the most rivial and stupid thing.

If she were handling such a case, maybe she could not get you charged with anything, but I bet she would double the cost and time of the trouble. She kept pushing so many things the judge kept getting on her case. She kept it up and she did convince the jury enough that he got criminal confinement (grabbed someone for a total of 5 seconds) versus the battery he should have got. That takes it from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Anyone that does not consider this ammo issue a possibility I doubt you read the book "In the gravest extreme". It is not all about the law. It is how a jury can be inclined to see things.

c5367
09-02-2009, 11:03
I have absolutely no reservations about carrying/loading Ranger T's....or any other "law enforcement" ammunition....for defensive purposes. The Glock that lives on my coffee table, sitting about 10" from my hand as I type this, as always, is loaded with Ranger T's. And my carry gun is loaded with Gold Dots.

Use what you are comfortable with.

+1 (only replace Ranger-Ts with super-deadly Double-tap 10mm)

But what do I know?

I'm just an ignorant guy spewing crap, my J.D. and time actually doing prosecutorial work notwithstanding. All that education and experience was wasted, since I could have just asked the local PD dispatcher. :rofl:

Glockman454
09-02-2009, 11:03
I have absolutely no reservations about carrying/loading Ranger T's....or any other "law enforcement" ammunition....for defensive purposes. The Glock that lives on my coffee table, sitting about 10" from my hand as I type this, as always, is loaded with Ranger T's. And my carry gun is loaded with Gold Dots.

Use what you are comfortable with.

I am not implying anything, but why is one loaded with T's and the other (carry gun) Gold Dots?

Glockman454
09-02-2009, 11:06
Hello Glockman454, I would like to thank you for bringing up for discussion some very important points in a well thought out presentation in your posts. However, there is a serious problem with this discussion, you are having it on the Internet. Unfortunately this not a reliable source of intelligent information on any subject beyond Glock pistols, and even that is sometimes debatable.

There is no accountability in government in the U.S. (probably nowhere in the world) and because of that anything can happen. Our politicians can make bad laws, our LE can make mistakes, and our prosecutors have almost unlimited power.

(Duke LaCrosse case: http://news.duke.edu/lacrosseincident/

It took wealthy clients, four powerful defense attorneys, A powerful University, and a State Attorney General to stop this wilfull and blatant false prosecution.)

This is not a recipe for any type of guaranteed outcome. Anything, even the smallest detail, can and will be used against you if you are a target.

Thank you,

there are at least a couple people who replied now that are open and broad minded enough to consider the possibilities.

Warp
09-02-2009, 11:10
Yes, it was very interesting. In fact totally amazing that a prosecutor has the power to push such a charge that the evidence (which was all taped on security cameras) had not one bit of evidence to imply attempted murder, yet the prosecutor pushed it.

You mentioned Massad Ayoobs book. I bought that book five years ago and have read it many times. That book is why I have a concern about that specific ammo. Massad (as you know) shows everything in the light on how a prosecutor and jury can and often looks at thing. He even claims that one should never ever load his own ammo as he can be made out to look bad and it all be blown out of proportion.

I think people are still taking this thing out of context. I am not afraid of being taken to court over a justified shooting in general. I usually carry Gold dots in either my Glock 30 or Glock 20. All I am saying is after watching this particular prosecutor in action I guarantee if she were handing a shooting case she would attempt to make a mountain out of the fact that someone used ammo that Winchester restricts to Leo's

Before watching this trial I would have not given it any thought. And there is no way I can give all the example of a five day trial on every mountain this prosecutor tried to make out of the most rivial and stupid thing.

If she were handling such a case, maybe she could not get you charged with anything, but I bet she would double the cost and time of the trouble. She kept pushing so many things the judge kept getting on her case. She kept it up and she did convince the jury enough that he got criminal confinement (grabbed someone for a total of 5 seconds) versus the battery he should have got. That takes it from a misdemeanor to a felony.

Anyone that does not consider this ammo issue a possibility I doubt you read the book "In the gravest extreme". It is not all about the law. It is how a jury can be inclined to see things.

The lesson here is that it is impossible to get rid of the molehills.

Warp
09-02-2009, 11:13
I am not implying anything, but why is one loaded with T's and the other (carry gun) Gold Dots?

I like both rounds. The chances of me needing either one incredibly small, the chances that the difference between them alters the outcome even smaller. That said, the carry gun gets bonded ammo virtually all of the time. I figure it has the highest probability of needing to shoot through an intermediate barrier and for that I would prefer a bonded bullet.

Also, I have several different premium rounds that I trust and, to me, it seems less wastefull if I load different guns with different rounds. Otherwise I would look at my pile of boxes of Ranger Ts (if, say, I had Gold Dots in all the guns) and wonder why I even had them.

c5367
09-02-2009, 11:15
The lesson here is that it is impossible to get rid of the molehills.

Actually, it is.

These are the Federal Rules of evidence, but most states have adopted them in substantially similar form.

Rule 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"

"Relevant evidence" means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

Notes

Rule 402. Relevant Evidence Generally Admissible; Irrelevant Evidence Inadmissible

All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution of the United States, by Act of Congress, by these rules, or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

Notes

Rule 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time

Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

The type of ammo used is not at all material or of any consequence to whether the shoot was justified. Any defense attorney worth his salt would have any discussion of the brand of ammo barred from discussion in front of the jury via a simple pre-trial motion in limine.

Warp
09-02-2009, 11:26
The type of ammo used is not at all material or of any consequence to whether the shoot was justified. Any defense attorney worth his salt would have any discussion of the brand of ammo barred from discussion in front of the jury via a simple pre-trial motion in limine.

Yes, it would be nice if everybody had an attorney worth his salt.

It would have been especially nice for Fish.

BTW: In case some reading this did not realize back in June Fish's case was reversed and remanded by the court of appeals and AZ's governor signed a bill making a castle doctrime law retroactive enough to apply to Fish's case in the event of a re-trial then, on July 21, Mr. Harold Fish was released from prison and returned home to his family.

:)

c5367
09-02-2009, 11:29
Yes, it would be nice if everybody had an attorney worth his salt.

It would have been especially nice for Fish.

BTW: In case some reading this did not realize back in June Fish's case was reversed and remanded by the court of appeals, in June AZ's governor signed a bill making a castle doctrime law retroactive enough to apply to Fish's case in the event of a re-trial, and on July 21 Mr. Harold Fish was released from prison and returned home to his family.

:)


Fish's case had nothing to do with the type of ammo.

It had everything to do with the fact that Fish said the guy charged like a crazy person, the prosecution said "no, he didn't. You're lying"

The jury never was allowed to hear evidence that he was in fact a crazy person, and Fish was telling the truth. The version of events they heard didn't involve a crazy person but rather a lovable old bum with his dogs strolling through the park.

Warp
09-02-2009, 11:32
Fish's case had nothing to do with the type of ammo.

It had everything to do with the fact that Fish said the guy charged like a crazy person, the prosecution said "no, he didn't. You're lying"

The jury never was allowed to hear evidence that he was in fact a crazy person, and Fish was telling the truth. The version of events they heard didn't involve a crazy person but rather a lovable old bum with his dogs strolling through the park.

Yes, I know.

However the prosecution also used the fact that fish carried a 10mm as well as the fact the he used JHPs against him. His lawyer, apparently, really sucked. Prosecution even claimed the 10mm was so powerful that not even law enforcement would use it. Yet there are agencies in AZ that use 10mm. Or at least one was at the time of hte trial. I guess Fish's lawyer didn't know how to figure that out. :upeyes:

The character witnesses against the deceased were, in this case, staggering. There were even LEOs formerly involved with the deceased who volunteered to speak on Fish's behalf when they heard what had happened. Yet they were denied ability to do so.

IndyGunFreak
09-02-2009, 13:48
I sat on a jury for a murder trial this week.. It was an interesting experience. Unfortunately, the guy was almost definitely guilty, but the prosecution was horrible and they had absolutely zero evidence other than 1 gang banger, who I think might have turned on them on the stand... Their case was so flimsy, the defense atty didn't even cross examine the detective.

Anyway, my point.

Inside the victims(who was unarmed) house, several boxes of ammo were found, Remington .22lr, and half a box of 40 S&W WWB FMJ. They also proudly displayed the magazine of a .40 S&W Sig Pistol, despite the fact there was no .40 caliber weapon involved at all. The victim, was shot by someone who wasn't in the house, using CCI .22lr. Their own firearms expert testified the ammo used in the murder, was completely unrelated to any ammo found in the house.... However, the Prosecutor puts it out on a table in front of us, pounds on photographs of it, etc, etc.. like they've really found something. Even to my fellow jurors, who it was pretty clear had no firearms experience, they didn't understand why they made such a big issue out of the ammo in the house, when it was totally unrelated.

It honestly really disheartened me, because all of us felt he was guilty, but there was just nothing we could do. They had absolutely zero evidence.

When it was all over, the judge came back and talked to us for about 20min, and said with the evidence we had, we made the right decision and basically answered some other questions we had...

If this is how murders are handled by prosecutors here, I'm amazed anyone ever gets convicted of murder here.

IGF

DaveA
09-02-2009, 14:06
why would they only sell the rounds to LEOs anyway? If they're not different what's the point?

Sometimes they want you to buy the older stuff because they can if you know what I mean.

Alot of the time you CAN get the same cartridge but it comes in boxes of 20 for a premium price. LE boxes are the same thing for about the same price but you get 50. I've seen that alot.

9x19jhp
09-02-2009, 15:03
I sat on a jury for a murder trial this week...

Indy, Thanks for telling the world about your experience. Maybe it will help some of the sheeple here get their heads out of the sand. As you said they had zero evidence and yet the prosecutor choose to put this man on trial anyway. This can and does happen to good people too... That is an important point that many people here refuse to acknowledge.

If a prosecutor decides to go after you, you will most likely end up in jail, or be broke, or both. Basically, your life will be ruined. When you choose to defend yourself in the USA, you are deciding that you would rather live and face our evil justice system, than die. The type of ammo you use will not matter, it all depends on the whims of a justice system that is out of control with no accountability.

In the Duke LaCrosse case the accuser was a mentally unstable black prostitute and the accused were all white college students. The motivation for the false prosecution was a white DA who wanted to be re-elected in a black majority county. Yes it really was that simple, and yes he was re-elected before he was eventually disbarred. And by the way, the Durham PD who knew this case was bogus stood by and did nothing to help the accused and stop this. So it was in fact a complete failure of the justice system from the top down.

IndyGunFreak
09-02-2009, 15:40
Indy, Thanks for telling the world about your experience. Maybe it will help some of the sheeple here get their heads out of the sand. As you said they had zero evidence and yet the prosecutor choose to put this man on trial anyway. This can and does happen to good people too... That is an important point that many people here refuse to acknowledge.
.

First, I want to be clear on something, I'm 100% convinced this guy was guilty. I think the guy absolutely should have been charged, and I think they went over there knowing they were going to commit a murder. All but one of the jurors was convinced the guy was guilty. A few of us privately during dinner(since we were told we could discuss the case so long as all were present) mentioned after his testimony, that we thought he was telling the truth.. then the defendants lawyer put him back on the stand and ripped him apart. Made pretty clear he could not be trusted..

The problem was, the entire case, boiled down to whether we could believe this one guy, and nothing else. They had absolutely nothing else. Several times during the case, the prosecutor mentioned they had more evidence out that was being tested, it just had not been returned yet(the accused had requested a fast and speedy)... I asked the judge after the trial why they didn't just dismiss the charge, get their crap together, and recharge him when they were ready, she just looked at me and nodded her head in agreement. They had one shot at this guy, and put it on the shoulders of a guy who was probably telling the truth about the incident, but was clearly lying about other things.

I felt horrible for the family, listening to them weep, knowing this guy killed their son/brother... I literally wanted to throw up after the verdict was read. I could not believe a case of that magnitude, even if the deceased was likely a gang banger himself, was handled that haphazardly by the State.

IGF

bogey3737
09-02-2009, 16:27
(Duke LaCrosse case: http://news.duke.edu/lacrosseincident/

It took wealthy clients, four powerful defense attorneys, A powerful University, and a State Attorney General to stop this wilfull and blatant false prosecution.)


Just for the record...the University let these guys twist in the wind. Really irked me...

kensteele
09-02-2009, 18:11
If this is how murders are handled by prosecutors here, I'm amazed anyone ever gets convicted of murder here.

IGF

confessions.

IndyGunFreak
09-02-2009, 18:19
confessions.

You're probably right... this guy kept his mouth shut from the second he was arrested, until trial.

IGF

shotgunred
09-04-2009, 00:44
When i was attending the university during a crimj class a prosecutor was giving a lecture. he made the statement that he didn't care if you were innocent of guilty. the only thing he cared about was if he could convict you. he blatantly said even he he knew you were innocent if he could win the case he would prosecute you. his win stats and clearing cases was what was important to him and he figured you did something else and got away with it anyway. so in the end it was a wash.

I for one has no faith or trust in the criminal system.

Warp
09-04-2009, 00:45
When i was attending the university during a crimj class a prosecutor was giving a lecture. he made the statement that he didn't care if you were innocent of guilty. the only thing he cared about was if he could convict you. he blatantly said even he he knew you were innocent if he could win the case he would prosecute you. his win stats and clearing cases was what was important to him and he figured you did something else and got away with it anyway. so in the end it was a wash.

I for one has no faith or trust in the criminal system.

It's not a criminal justice system.

It is a legal system.


The fact that you left the word "justice" out of your statement, either conciously or subconciously, is not lost on me.

Currahee
09-04-2009, 06:01
Dude, you only have to worry about carrying Extreme Shock ammo.

http://personaldefensecenter.com/cart/images/categories/extremeshok.jpg

jtull7
09-04-2009, 07:03
Someone in this thread mentioned "blood-thirsty prosecutor."

Every prosecutor in this nation takes an oath "not to secure convictions, but to see that justice is done."

Obviously there exceptions (the prosecutor who brought trumped-up charges against a lacrosse team just get some publicity comes to mind) but they are very rare.

Almost every prosecutor I have known (and I've been in the prosecution business for about half my career) were dedicated public servants who could making a lot more dough in the private sector.

Further, almost all the prosecutors I have known are pro-law-enforcement, pro-cops, pro-guns, and pro-2A. They are not going to go on some crusade to bury some poor CCW-type because of the ammo he's carrying, the trigger-pull of his gun, the slogans on the gun, or any of the other things that GTers seem to worry about incessantly. There is too much real crime to worry about.

Only my opinion, of course, but an educated, reasoned, and well-thought-out opinion based on long, actual experience.

jtull7, former elected posecutor (Potter County Attorney), former member of the National Association of District Attorneys, the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, the New Mexico District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners International Task Force on Insurance Fraud, Founding Director of the New Mexico Insurance Fraud Bureau, Special Assistant New Mexico Attorney General, Member of the New Mexico Insurance Fraud Bureau Policy Advisory Group, Memberof the Advisory Board of the Texas Prosecutor's Coordinating Council, member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Permanent Peace Officer, Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards and Education, Instructor of search and seizure law for the Amarillo Police Academy, and Instructor for the Executive Prosecutors Course for the National Association of District Attorneys.

Nah, I really didn't do all that stuff. Jusy kidding.

c5367
09-04-2009, 07:11
Someone in this thread mentioned "blood-thirsty prosecutor."

Every prosecutor in this nation takes an oath "not to secure convictions, but to see that justice is done."

Obviously there exceptions (the prosecutor who brought trumped-up charges against a lacrosse team just get some publicity comes to mind) but they are very rare.

Almost every prosecutor I have known (and I've been in the prosecution business for about half my career) were dedicated public servants who could making a lot more dough in the private sector.

Further, almost all the prosecutors I have known are pro-law-enforcement, pro-cops, pro-guns, and pro-2A. They are not going to go on some crusade to bury some poor CCW-type because of the ammo he's carrying, the trigger-pull of his gun, the slogans on the gun, or any of the other things that GTers seem to worry about incessantly. There is too much real crime to worry about.

Only my opinion, of course, but an educated, reasoned, and well-thought-out opinion based on long, actual experience.

jtull7, former elected posecutor (Potter County Attorney), former member of the National Association of District Attorneys, the Texas District and County Attorneys Association, the New Mexico District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners International Task Force on Insurance Fraud, Founding Director of the New Mexico Insurance Fraud Bureau, Special Assistant New Mexico Attorney General, Member of the New Mexico Insurance Fraud Bureau Policy Advisory Group, Memberof the Advisory Board of the Texas Prosecutor's Coordinating Council, member of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, Permanent Peace Officer, Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Standards, and Instructor of search and seizure law for the Amarillo Police Academy.

Nah, I really didn't do all that stuff. Jusy kidding.


pfft, what would you know? According to the experts, you're just an "ignorant (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13699756#post13699756)" "Sheeple (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13703001#post13703001)" that is "spewing crap. (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13699756#post13699756)" And when I say experts, these guys have REAL experience. They watched a trial or two, or heard someone say something in one of their criminal justice classes.

(please note dripping sarcasm)

shotgunred
09-04-2009, 09:35
pfft, what would you know? According to the experts, you're just an "ignorant (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13699756#post13699756)" "Sheeple (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13703001#post13703001)" that is "spewing crap. (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13699756#post13699756)" And when I say experts, these guys have REAL experience. They watched a trial or two, or heard someone say something in one of their criminal justice classes.

(please note dripping sarcasm)

well at least we are basing our opinion on something real that happened in our lives. You are simply acting like a child and throwing out insults without adding anything to the conversation. grow up or go back and play with your legos.

IndyGunFreak
09-04-2009, 09:38
well at least we are basing our opinion on something real that happened in our lives. You are simply acting like a child and throwing out insults without adding anything to the conversation. grow up or go back and play with your legos.

Reading is fundamental..

IGF

Warp
09-04-2009, 09:48
well at least we are basing our opinion on something real that happened in our lives. You are simply acting like a child and throwing out insults without adding anything to the conversation. grow up or go back and play with your legos.


Agreed.

c5367
09-04-2009, 12:12
well at least we are basing our opinion on something real that happened in our lives. You are simply acting like a child and throwing out insults without adding anything to the conversation. grow up or go back and play with your legos.

That's funny, because all the insults I've seen in this thread came from the "prosectors are scum" crowd. I even made a point to link back to each one.
I'm basing my opinion on my legal education and experience, which includes prosecuting a case or two. Further I've added the actual rules of law apply to this sort of thing. I should have known better that the only "valid" contributions are those that agree with your own opinion, and are of the "this one time at band camp" anecdotal stuff. Opinions based on actual legal education and experience are obviously just "sheeple spewed crap" according to some posters here. (unless of course they agree)
Speaking of childish...
It's also remarkable that you presume to take me to task for "insults" while resorting to them yourself. I do love irony. : :rofl:

But I suppose I could adopt the "logic" here. I once saw a cop beat guy up, and frame him too. Ergo, all cops are just out to brutalize people and frame them :cool:

Warp
09-04-2009, 12:22
Yeah, that is some irony there

Glockdude1
09-04-2009, 12:25
I had an instrutor tell me once..."If you are worried about being prosecuted for defending yourself with a gun, don't carry one."

I liked his no BS point he made. A lot of people get wrapped around the axle about this and that ammunition to use for SD.



:agree:

Excellent post.

shotgunred
09-04-2009, 15:28
I'm basing my opinion on my legal education and experience, which includes prosecuting a case or two.

I'm basing my opinion on my legal education also.

Further I've added the actual rules of law apply to this sort of thing. I should have known better that the only "valid" contributions are those that agree with your own opinion, and are of the "this one time at band camp" anecdotal stuff. Opinions based on actual legal education and experience are obviously just "sheeple spewed crap" according to some posters here.


your the only one calling people sheep. Personally I find the whole sheep, sheepdog thing insulting.



It's also remarkable that you presume to take me to task for "insults" while resorting to them yourself. I do love irony. : :rofl:

irony is one of the spices of life. Also you cast the first stone. Also speaking of irony that prosecutor was arrested in vegas for soliciting prostitution. there are good and bad people in every occupation, surprisingly enough even lawyers.:ambulance::exercise:

c5367
09-04-2009, 15:33
I'm basing my opinion on my legal education also.



your the only one calling people sheep. Personally I find the whole sheep, sheepdog thing insulting.



:

Actually, no, I'm not. Like IGF mentioned, reading is fundamental. :tongueout:

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13703001#post13703001

My use of the word was sarcasm directed at that poster. (along with Mr. "you're ignorant and spewing crap" Two for one.) I would think that the fact that it was linked to in the post itself, on top of the tone and the obvious sarcasm disclaimer should've made that abundantly clear.

As far as casting the first stone, please show me where I used insults at all, let alone before mr "you're ignorant and spewing crap" and Mr. Sheeple.

IndyGunFreak
09-04-2009, 16:23
I would think that the fact that it was linked to in the post itself, on top of the tone and the obvious sarcasm disclaimer should've made that abundantly clear.


If it means anything.. I picked up on it w/o reading the links or the disclaimer..lol.

IGF

BrokenArrow
09-04-2009, 17:12
If you find yourself in court, your haircut could have more to do w what eventually happens to you than your ammo. Worry about it accordingly.

I say this form the perspective of one who has served on several juries and watched what really happens back there.

kensteele
09-04-2009, 17:23
If you find yourself in court, your haircut could have more to do w what eventually happens to you than your ammo. Worry about it accordingly.

I say this form the perspective of one who has served on several juries and watched what really happens back there.

No one is listening. I said similar in post #6 your baggy pants mean more. Folks just don't want to deal with the facts and reality, they're more into the glamour and sensationalism of it all.

c5367
09-04-2009, 17:39
You might not want to wear those baggy pants, just in case you have to shoot someone while wearing them. After all, a blood thirsty prosecutor might make you look bad by showing that gang members who have no remourse often wear the same type of baggy pants. If you're in court from a shooting, the ammo you used is the least of your worries. It won't be the piece that sinks you.

Think about it. If a prosecutor brings up your ammo, you can effectively counter that defense in half a dozen ways with a good defense lawyer. It will make the prosecutor look bad, not you.

If you end up looking bad because of the ammo you used, it really wasn't the ammo that made you look bad...you know what I mean? ;)

Here's the post, one worth re-reading. :thumbsup:

IndyGunFreak
09-04-2009, 17:51
If you find yourself in court, your haircut could have more to do w what eventually happens to you than your ammo. Worry about it accordingly.

I say this form the perspective of one who has served on several juries and watched what really happens back there.

No doubt what you say is true.... The guy we were judging was very nicely dressed, etc..

Like I said, my biggest problem w/ the whole issue, other than having no choice but to let a murderer walk, was the Prosecutor parading all this ammo in front of us like it really meant something, when it had absolutely nothing to do with anything. It almost felt like they were trying to confuse us to the fact that other than a thug who was shown to be a liar, they had nothing.

I'm not saying this is the norm, or at least I hope its not.

IGF

c5367
09-04-2009, 18:02
No doubt what you say is true.... The guy we were judging was very nicely dressed, etc..

Like I said, my biggest problem w/ the whole issue, other than having no choice but to let a murderer walk, was the Prosecutor parading all this ammo in front of us like it really meant something, when it had absolutely nothing to do with anything. It almost felt like they were trying to confuse us to the fact that other than a thug who was shown to be a liar, they had nothing.

I'm not saying this is the norm, or at least I hope its not.

IGF

hmmm, I just re-read your post about the trial. The prosecutor paraded the Victim's ammo around?

Inside the victims(who was unarmed) house, several boxes of ammo were found, Remington .22lr, and half a box of 40 S&W WWB FMJ. They also proudly displayed the magazine of a .40 S&W Sig Pistol, despite the fact there was no .40 caliber weapon involved at all. The victim, was shot by someone who wasn't in the house, using CCI .22lr. Their own firearms expert testified the ammo used in the murder, was completely unrelated to any ammo found in the house.... However, the Prosecutor puts it out on a table in front of us, pounds on photographs of it, etc, etc.. like they've really found something. Even to my fellow jurors, who it was pretty clear had no firearms experience, they didn't understand why they made such a big issue out of the ammo in the house, when it was totally unrelated.

What kind of defense did the guy present? It almost sounds like the prosecutor was parading all this ammo and the expert (who said none of the ammo in the house was used) around to rebut a possible defense. Remember, they want to present their case all upfront since they have to go first. If they lay the groundwork that none of the ammo in the house was used as definitively as they did, then "the roommate did it, not me" (or any other number of possible alternatives designed to plant seeds of reasonable doubt) is a lot less plausible

Couple of other things didn't quite make sense from the short description. :dunno:

IndyGunFreak
09-04-2009, 18:29
Edited for clarity

Sorry.. didn't read your whole post. It really wasn't even the victims ammo, it was just in the house the victim came from... The victim was at a friends house and was unarmed at the time.

The other evidence did not add up with anyone in the house committing the homicide, so that wasn't gonna fly. There actually was one other bit of evidence, that proved the suspect was not from the house, thus like I said, the ammo inside the house, had absolutely NOTHING to do with anything. If they were trying to keep the defense from saying something, I don't know what it was, and really all it done, was make them look like idiots.

The Defense was very very weak, actually it was weaker than the prosecution. The only thing his lawyer done right, was tear the 1 eye witness in the case to shreds. When he was clearly lying, the prosecution had nothing else...

Like I said earlier, the Defense lawyer didn't even cross examine the lead investigator on the case... It was a very frustrating case. The one piece of irrefutable evidence they had, still required the testimony of the thug, and it could not be verified any other way..

IGF

c5367
09-04-2009, 18:49
Ok, I see what is going on.

I don't think the prosecutor was trying to "hoodwink" you. Eliminating reasonable doubt means eliminating alterntive explanations or possibilities. You bring up stuff that doesn't seem relevant and address it so that jurors don't ask "what if" during deliberation.
The fact that they called an expert to say none of the victims ammo was involved indicates that their Whole purpose was to eliminate alternative possibilities and reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. They clearly failed at that though, given your impression as a juror.

IndyGunFreak
09-04-2009, 19:09
Ok, I see what is going on.

I don't think the prosecutor was trying to "hoodwink" you. Eliminating reasonable doubt means eliminating alterntive explanations or possibilities. You bring up stuff that doesn't seem relevant and address it so that jurors don't ask "what if" during deliberation.
The fact that they called an expert to say none of the victims ammo was involved indicates that their Whole purpose was to eliminate alternative possibilities and reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. They clearly failed at that though, given your impression as a juror.

I guess you had to be there.... cuz thats not what they were doing at all. Like I said, they pounded on this ammo like they found something, parading pictures of it to us during closing arguments, spreading it out on a table, etc.. It just didn't make sense.

Here's a brief rundown...

Victim is at the house with a friend..

4-5 people drive to the house, 2 are armed, one with a .22, one with a .32.

They park about a block down from the house. Right as they get out of the car, one of the people in the car(w/o a gun) unexpectedly gets a call on his cell phone from the Marion County Jail, that was recorded. In this call you hear someone yell something and then a ton of shots ring out. Everyone begins running back to the car, and the guy forgot to end the call. So he is running w/ the phone his his hand, and his phone is recording them yelling and running back to the car. They are getting in the car, when one of them yells for him to turn his phone off (he says it was the defendant).

Victim was shot several times, dies. Lots of shell casings, etc..

Like I said, there really was no way any of that ammo inside the house was going to come into play. The tape was reasonably clear, and you could tell the shooting came from folks in that little group.

isp2605
09-04-2009, 19:17
That's one trial done by attorneys who sound like they didn't get their message across. As a juror you don't see what's really going on during the trial and discussions you aren't privy to. Sitting as a juror what you think might have been going on may in no way occurred. When you've been in lots of trials and pre-trials, behind closed door discussions, and months and months for just one case preparation then you might have a different understanding what's going on.
People tend to get their knowledge of the legal system from TV and the movies. Then when they're exposed to real life trial they don't understand the procedures or rules of evidence. One trial sitting as a juror won't give you that knowledge either.

c5367
09-04-2009, 19:33
Well it sounds like an epic fail from the standpoint of convincing the jury.
However, it sounds implausible that they were trying to impugn the victim because he had ammo, but then called an expert to say none of that ammo was involved. That makes zero sense at all. They wouldn't parade around ammo as if they found something only to call an expert to say it wasn't involved unless the whole point of the exercise was to eliminate guns/ammo in the house as murder weapons. Even in my most piss drunk state, I'd know better than to present evidence as "something" and then call an expert to testify it wasn't. They certainly failed to communicate effectively for sure.

I'm assuming from this that the actual Murder weapon was never recovered. (if it had, then eliminating other possibilities and parading the ammo would have been unnecessary. Unless of course they didn't have ballistics results yet)) I'm also betting that the defense attorney tipped his hand in depositions that his case theory was to pin it on someone in the house.

IndyGunFreak
09-04-2009, 19:34
That's one trial done by attorneys who sound like they didn't get their message across. As a juror you don't see what's really going on during the trial and discussions you aren't privy to. Sitting as a juror what you think might have been going on may in no way occurred. When you've been in lots of trials and pre-trials, behind closed door discussions, and months and months for just one case preparation then you might have a different understanding what's going on.
People tend to get their knowledge of the legal system from TV and the movies. Then when they're exposed to real life trial they don't understand the procedures or rules of evidence. One trial sitting as a juror won't give you that knowledge either.

I understand exactly what you're saying. Personally, I had no trouble separating "Law and Order" from a real case. I'm sure for others, it could have been a problem.. Most of the folks on the jury I was on, were older and seemed reasonably intelligent, with the exception of one really young person, probably 23, 24, but he seemed very sharp for his age.

All I know is after the case, we were back in the deliberations room waiting to be dismissed and the judge came back to talk to us, ask if we had any questions, etc.. One of the questions I had was why the prosecution didn't dismiss the case, and then refile when they had more evidence(which they kept saying was out for testing during the trial)... The judge just looked at me and nodded her head in agreement. So I don't think it was just juror inexperience, although that is a real possibility. All of us felt like the prosecution failed to really tie up the loose ends, and really if you didn't believe the thug witness they put up... all they really had was a bunch of boxes of unrelated ammo, some shell casings, and a dead body.

Very sad..

IGF

c5367
09-04-2009, 19:41
That's one trial done by attorneys who sound like they didn't get their message across. As a juror you don't see what's really going on during the trial and discussions you aren't privy to. Sitting as a juror what you think might have been going on may in no way occurred. When you've been in lots of trials and pre-trials, behind closed door discussions, and months and months for just one case preparation then you might have a different understanding what's going on.
People tend to get their knowledge of the legal system from TV and the movies. Then when they're exposed to real life trial they don't understand the procedures or rules of evidence. One trial sitting as a juror won't give you that knowledge either.


Agree 1000%

This man speaks the truth.

isp2605
09-04-2009, 19:45
All I know is after the case, we were back in the deliberations room waiting to be dismissed and the judge came back to talk to us, ask if we had any questions, etc.. One of the questions I had was why the prosecution didn't dismiss the case, and then refile when they had more evidence(which they kept saying was out for testing during the trial)... The judge just looked at me and nodded her head in agreement. So I don't think it was just juror inexperience, although that is a real possibility. All of us felt like the prosecution failed to really tie up the loose ends, and really if you didn't believe the thug witness they put up... all they really had was a bunch of boxes of unrelated ammo, some shell casings, and a dead body.

Very sad..

IGF

What you may not have known was the rules of evidence of what will be admitted was discussed long before the jury was ever selected during pre-trials. Just because the prosecution may have had more evidence they might not have been able to enter it into the case. That's what jurors don't understand. They think both sides can do the "5PM Surprise" like Perry Mason and pop in with new evidence. Doesn't happen that way. Jury doesn't know that and they should not even be discussing it since it's not part of the trial case.
C5367 is correct too. Long before the case ever goes to trial the prosecution knows what the defense is going to raise just like the defense knows what the prosecution is going to present. Everyone knows a head of time what the other side has and both sides have talked to each side's witnesses and know what they're going to testify to. There are no surprises. As c5367 suggests it sounds like the prosecution was trying to counter the defense claim that someone else committed the crime but the prosecution did not do a good job of getting their story across. I've seen both prosecution and defense screw up some pop fly cases because they couldn't get their message across in simple language that a juror could understand.
Easy example is the OJ Simpson murder case. The prosecution baffled the jury with all the needless DNA evidence which lost the jury. The minutae overwhelmed the facts. Also as an example, in the OJ case the prosecution had a bunch more evidence they either weren't allowed to admit or decided not to admit. Just because the prosecution has evidence doesn't mean they have to use it in the case.

writwing
09-05-2009, 09:29
Anything and everything will be used againest you in court. If you practice a lot, your gun nut. If you dont practice a lot, you are unsafe. Ive been there so I speak with experience. The problem is that you dont know how the jury will view evidence. To think a jury believes in the same freedoms as you is a foolhardy opinion. The DA in my case, a Brit with politcial ambitions, told my lawyer that she did not believe in the right to carry.

kensteele
09-05-2009, 11:25
Anything and everything will be used againest you in court. If you practice a lot, your gun nut. If you dont practice a lot, you are unsafe. Ive been there so I speak with experience. The problem is that you dont know how the jury will view evidence. To think a jury believes in the same freedoms as you is a foolhardy opinion. The DA in my case, a Brit with politcial ambitions, told my lawyer that she did not believe in the right to carry.

How do you think a jury would feel about a shooter who wears his firearms at home 24/7?

Warp
09-05-2009, 11:27
How do you think a jury would feel about a shooter who wears his firearms at home 24/7?

Like it may well have saved his or her life when their home was violently invaded?

writwing
09-05-2009, 13:22
How do you think a jury would feel about a shooter who wears his firearms at home 24/7?


The prosecuter made a big deal that I wore concealed in my backyard. But as stated, who knows how a jury will act!

BrokenArrow
09-05-2009, 14:26
When you've been in lots of trials and pre-trials, behind closed door discussions, and months and months for just one case preparation then you might have a different understanding what's going on.
People tend to get their knowledge of the legal system from TV and the movies. Then when they're exposed to real life trial they don't understand the procedures or rules of evidence. One trial sitting as a juror won't give you that knowledge either.

Exactly. Listen to folks in the system complain about the "CSI effect" on juries!

If your gun and/or ammo combo is or has been used/approved by the law (city/county/state/fed) anywhere it might be better than if you have a gaudy pimp gun and loaded your own and stuffed the JHPs w mercury/botox... or not. ;)

Somebody might try to make something of your guns and ammo. It may or may not have an effect on what happens to you. Your concern w it should be closer to "not at all" than "can't sleep at night" on the worry continuum.

Warp
09-05-2009, 15:38
Exactly. Listen to folks in the system complain about the "CSI effect" on juries!

Yes, it is quite sad

kensteele
09-05-2009, 16:19
The prosecuter made a big deal that I wore concealed in my backyard. But as stated, who knows how a jury will act!

That's what I meant, people continue to carry 24/7 despite what a jury might think; people will use Ranger T's despite what a jury might think.

luger1920
11-29-2009, 14:52
Well I am not an attorney. But, looking at it from the perspective of the prosecutors standpoint: If your using the same LE ammo that is issued to the local police officers in your area, and lets say the prosecutor(s) push the issue that your ammo is "militaristic and sadistically over kills people". You can always revert the the defense that that SAME ammo you used in the SD incident is issued for duty carry to your local police department through purchase orders to said ammo companies using tax payer dollars. So if it's so sadistic and militaristic why are the local police departments buying it with tax dollars and using it in their duty guns? Just a thought.

rns-glock37
11-29-2009, 19:16
i don't know of any case that was decided on the type of ammo used in a self defense shooting; however i must say that your fear/concern about an over zealous, anti-gun prosecuter is founded. with that said i think any defense lawyer that's worth a grain of salt could really make the prosecuter embarrassed if he/she tried to use the fact that you used ranger t as your carry ammo. first off you haven't broken any laws and you obtained it legally as any other person could.

i think the thing that would be your main concern is like has been posted before is was it a good shoot or not.

if you want to know of a real self defense case that involved an over zealous, anti-gun prosecuter out to prove a point then just follow the link in my signature line and read about the case of jason dickey. read through the whole case and it will scare you. imho it was a clear cut and dry self defense shooting but.......

the story starts with the heading "what would you do". after you read the full story then read his appeal brief.

beforeobamabans
11-30-2009, 14:13
I learned something interesting this past weekend from my son, a third year law student. We both have carry permits. I have only been carrying for a year but take a very meticulous approach to my equipment and my knowledge of the state code. My son challenged me on my knowledge of the "law". When I responded chapter and verse with the state code, he informed me that the code was not the "law". The law is formed by the historical case law that "interprets" and modifies the code. He stated that unless I knew the case law, I didn't know the law at all. In other words, there is literally no way your typical conscientious, law-abiding citizen can know the current state of any particular law. How about that?

fastbolt
12-01-2009, 11:48
I learned something interesting this past weekend from my son, a third year law student. We both have carry permits. I have only been carrying for a year but take a very meticulous approach to my equipment and my knowledge of the state code. My son challenged me on my knowledge of the "law". When I responded chapter and verse with the state code, he informed me that the code was not the "law". The law is formed by the historical case law that "interprets" and modifies the code. He stated that unless I knew the case law, I didn't know the law at all. In other words, there is literally no way your typical conscientious, law-abiding citizen can know the current state of any particular law. How about that?

I'd think that this probably isn't uncommon, although the ordinary private citizen may not be aware of it.

LE generally has to try to keep up on case law decisions that set precedent in affected state courts when it comes to understanding how statutes are interpreted for enforcement and prosecution. Sometimes case decisions and resulting case law can change how statutes are interpreted, even if the language of the statutes doesn't change.

The difference in court proceedings between criminal and civil might give someone pause, though, especially when it comes to how a verdict can be reached.

cowboy1964
02-02-2010, 21:49
If it's legal ammo, it's legal ammo. PERIOD. If you're that concerned, as someone else said, then choose an ammo that the manuf. oks for civilian sale. Problem solved.

If you're going to trial because of a shooting and this is the biggest thing the prosecutor can come up with I think you're in pretty good shape.

texas 48
02-02-2010, 22:17
Glockman454- I understand what you are saying....I'm LEO but NOT an attorney. I've seen some lawyers that will try to sell anything if they think the jury will buy it. The limits of what some attorneys (not all) will do is anyone's guess, as I'm sure you saw in your experience.

Just ask 5 Cops,Lawyers,Doctors,Judges, Auto Mechanics a question in their respective field be it law,medicine, or cars and you will likely get 5 different answers but they will all be for sure they have the correct answer.

FWIW-Ranger BONDED and PDX1 are suppose to be the same bullet & specs in different packaging.

In states like mine that believe in the 2nd amendment and have the castle doctrine (Stand Your Ground Law) in effect Sept 2007 if it is in defense of home, car, business or anyplace you have the right to be or in the deterrance of a felony and do not instigate chances are you won't even be detained by police much less prosecuted. With the possible exception of the city Austin:dunno:. Therefore, the choice of ammo is a mute issue. It won't make it to court. In this state. the perp or families of perps cannot even file a lawsuit against you if the shoot is lawful on your part. I beleive that is in the Texas Penal code 46.3.

thegriz18
02-02-2010, 22:38
Does anyone think that it is weird how we brush off the possibility or potential issue of an over zealous prosecutor trying to hang us for using Ranger T or HST, but then get into heated debates about what type of Glock connector to use, the 3.5 or 5.5.

We don't worry about the ammo, but make a huge deal out of the lighter trigger. I think that is weird.

IMO, the fact that you even used a gun is enough for some prosecutor to try and hang you.

Eagle22
02-03-2010, 07:44
I learned something interesting this past weekend from my son, a third year law student. We both have carry permits. I have only been carrying for a year but take a very meticulous approach to my equipment and my knowledge of the state code. My son challenged me on my knowledge of the "law". When I responded chapter and verse with the state code, he informed me that the code was not the "law". The law is formed by the historical case law that "interprets" and modifies the code. He stated that unless I knew the case law, I didn't know the law at all. In other words, there is literally no way your typical conscientious, law-abiding citizen can know the current state of any particular law. How about that?


That is basically what I also learned in my CHP class.

There are some common "rules" about personal defence, but the law decided case by case from 12 ppl of ordinary firmness.

One thing that was mentioned over and over again, don't use hand loads for SD. Use only factory loads of common ammunition.

Glockdude1
02-03-2010, 08:17
Does anyone think that it is weird how we brush off the possibility or potential issue of an over zealous prosecutor trying to hang us for using Ranger T or HST, but then get into heated debates about what type of Glock connector to use, the 3.5 or 5.5.

We don't worry about the ammo, but make a huge deal out of the lighter trigger. I think that is weird.

IMO, the fact that you even used a gun is enough for some prosecutor to try and hang you.

:agree:

hotpig
02-03-2010, 09:04
Even though Speer and other offer LE rounds, they are not restricted and Speer does not have a hangup about civilians buying it. Winchester is the only one who frowns on civies owning their LE loads.

We are verboten from selling Gold Dot LE to non LE. ATK has the same sales policy as Winchester does for Ranger ammo.

Warp
02-03-2010, 12:57
Does anyone think that it is weird how we brush off the possibility or potential issue of an over zealous prosecutor trying to hang us for using Ranger T or HST, but then get into heated debates about what type of Glock connector to use, the 3.5 or 5.5.

We don't worry about the ammo, but make a huge deal out of the lighter trigger. I think that is weird.

IMO, the fact that you even used a gun is enough for some prosecutor to try and hang you.


You are, of course right on all counts.


HOWEVER, there is a logical and quantifiable reason why some view the trigger different than the JHP ammo. There are plenty of LEAs that issue Ranger T (and many other popular JHPs) to their officers. For example, my major local PD issues Ranger T.

However, I do not know of any PDs that issue...or even allow...a lighter trigger on the Glock pistol. There are, however, many easy examples of PDs that make their Glock triggers heavier. For example, my major local PD issues Glocks but does not allow a 3.5 lb connector.

thegriz18
02-03-2010, 13:39
You are, of course right on all counts.


HOWEVER, there is a logical and quantifiable reason why some view the trigger different than the JHP ammo. There are plenty of LEAs that issue Ranger T (and many other popular JHPs) to their officers. For example, my major local PD issues Ranger T.

However, I do not know of any PDs that issue...or even allow...a lighter trigger on the Glock pistol. There are, however, many easy examples of PDs that make their Glock triggers heavier. For example, my major local PD issues Glocks but does not allow a 3.5 lb connector.

You are also right. However, if we follow the PD model we should then all install 5.5# connectors with NY2 springs. You get my point. If you look hard enough you will find some LEA that uses your set up or authorizes it. We worry about it too much. Everything and anything will be an issue if you have to use your gun. I personally think we hype this crap up way too much.

Eagle22
02-03-2010, 15:19
Does anyone think that it is weird how we brush off the possibility or potential issue of an over zealous prosecutor trying to hang us for using Ranger T or HST, but then get into heated debates about what type of Glock connector to use, the 3.5 or 5.5.

We don't worry about the ammo, but make a huge deal out of the lighter trigger. I think that is weird.

IMO, the fact that you even used a gun is enough for some prosecutor to try and hang you.

Not really. If you live in a castle doctrine state, that does help. If you had to defend your self, yes there will be an investigation to determine "if your actions were warranted."

If Your actions were warranted for self defense, case closed. If were actions were questionable, then it might go to a grand jury to determine probible cause for indictment.

I think if your self defense actions were questionable, and a grand jury indited you, THEN your choice of ammo might help the prosecutor.

the iceman
02-03-2010, 19:28
I think many of you worry about stuff too much.

I highly doubt any of the factors will ever make a difference in anyones life.

thegriz18
02-04-2010, 07:15
I think many of you worry about stuff too much.

I highly doubt any of the factors will ever make a difference in anyones life.

:goodpost: That was my point exactly.