This is a discussion on Massad Ayoob ... within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Originally Posted by HotGuns If the use of factory ammo eliminates some stupid discussion about it in a courtroom by people that don't have a ...
I can tell you right now that if I'm ever in a courtroom, without a doubt, I'd like to have Ayoob on my side.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
"Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage
GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself
i have not voted in the poll because i have not read enough of anyone on personal defense except Chris Bird, i will read and study more as time goes on.i am sure MR.Ayoob is as expert as one can get though.
Last edited by stormbringerr; April 6th, 2008 at 11:29 PM.
The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong.
Hi, gang. Mas Ayoob here at the request of edr9X23Super.
Not much I can add, except to clarify some of the concerns about reloads for SD. (And no, I didn't vote in the poll.)
The Bias case was the canary in the mine shaft that showed us our reloads would probably not be admissible for defense testing as to gunshot residue to determine distance and back up our account of what happened. In many Internet debates since, NO ONE has been able to show me a case where a court DID take a defendant's word, or his reloading records, for what was in the gun at the time of the shooting.
Thanks to those who had kind words.
Back in 1979 I was stationed at McCord AFB in Tacoma Wa. I made friends with John Lawson a custom pistol smith who had built a couple of guns for Mr. Ayoob. I had him build a couple of .45s for me too. That is how I got interested in CCW, .45 ACPs and into really thinking about self defense of myself and family. As far as I'm concerned Massad Ayoob has paid his dues and is well versed on self protection. If I ever have to go on trial for self defense, I want him on my side.
Life member NRA since 1983
I carry a Kimber Ultra Carry II in a Crossbreed SuperTuck. My wife carries a Walther PPS .40 w/Crossbreed holster.
You would have to think, that sooner or later, there would be precident set with regards to the reloading issues ... particularly since reloading has now become so much more common due to ammo costs.
For that matter, quite frankly, in a rightious shooting, the question of "what kind of ammo" should never even enter into the disucussion imho. Who cares if you killed the bad guy with a cannon, or a sword, or a daisey cutter ... all that matters is that the bad guy is dead and not the good guy.
What you think about, you do ... what you do, you become.
Most attorneys are not gun people.
They aren't all that familiar with firearms except as to "This is the firearm being admitted into evidence. It is a Smith and Wesson M5906. It was taken off the defendant in the course of a search incident to arrest. I will be filing a motion to suppress based on lack of probable cause..."
The mention at trial of hand loads, extra magazines, the name of the ammunition...those are trial tactics.
While evidence being admitted in a trial does have to be disclosed, trial tactics are NOT disclosed.
Note, I did not say "do not have to be disclosed" - I said they are NOT disclosed.
The gun/magazines/ammo is marked into evidence. The witness lists are exchanged.
As to what someone is going to do with those articles of evidence, you do not know.
An attorney may do weeks of preparation for a trial focusing on attacking the chain of evidence, trying to suppress the evidence, finding a witness to say the deceased really did act in a threatening manner toward the defendant, brushing up on use of force cases to be able to get the proper testimony into evidence so that the jury is instructed they may consider self defense as a viable defense...
And it all goes to hell because the prosecutor looks at their witness, a police officer, and asks "What is the purpose of carrying hollow point bullets in a nine millimeter pistol?" and his answer is "To cause grave and terrible wounds..."
Then the prosecutor asks "Are hollow points more deadly than regular bullets?" to which the witness sagely answers "Oh, yes. Very much so. They are so deadly that the police didn't have them until about 20 years ago, when the crack cocaine trade exploded and we had to keep up with the criminals..."
Now, take that into hand-loaded ammo and you can see how things go south really fast.
Easy for you to say "Well, any attorney should be able to deal with that!!"...but have you ever prepped for a trial?
A lot of issues are in play, not just the hollow points or hand loads.
A lot of prep work may have gone into the case, but anyone can be blindsided.
Now, if your attorney has some advanced warning of the issue...like you telling him to get in contact with an expert (and writing a check for him to use the expert) this can be dealt with.
But don't just blindly assume every lawyer knows what to do at all times in every case.
Mitchell ... that makes sense - thanks. Bottom line is that apparently, there is no common sense used in criminal trials - it is all smokes and mirrors and whomever might be the better trickster wins.
What you think about, you do ... what you do, you become.
I have read Mas for years and although I don't always agree with him he tells it like it is. I think in the PC world we live in today his advice is well worth listing to.
Criminal lawyers and civil lawyers who try a lot of killing cases inevitably pick up a lot of firearm knowlege. The experienced ones will anticipate most of the questions you have mentioned and will have consulted with qualified experts, and perhaps even Mr. Ayoob himself.
And of course some of the more fun questions that the defense attorney will follow up with (to be adapted to the facts of the case of course):Then the prosecutor asks "Are hollow points more deadly than regular bullets?" to which the witness sagely answers "Oh, yes. Very much so. They are so deadly that the police didn't have them until about 20 years ago, when the crack cocaine trade exploded and we had to keep up with the criminals..."
"Mr. LEO, you are not saying that LEO's shoot people just for the [hell/heck - depending on the court] of it, are you?"
"If you are not in danger, you would not shoot someone just because you thought he needed killing?" "In other words you would shoot someone only because you believed your life or the life of another was in danger?"
"You would not use more force that is justified under the circumstances?"
"You would not use a more powerful weapon or ammunition than is reasonable under the circumstances?"
"You do not use hollow points merely because the person is an undesirable?"
"In reality you use hollow points because of a better chance of stopping capability?" "Any other reasons -- such limiting the potential of a secondary hit of a bystander?"
"Asumming that [insert assumed defensive facts], you would not dispute the fact that Mr. Jones had a right to protect himself?" "You would not dispute the fact that Mr. Jones had a right to use deadly force, if [insert assumed defensive facts]?"
"Assuming that ________, would you have waited as long as Mr. Jones, before shooting Mr. BG?"
"Would you agree that Mr. Jones' life is just as valuable as Mr. BG's?" "You also would agree that Mr. Jones' life be just as valuable as yours?"
"Would you agree that Mr. Jones should have the same right to protect his life as you have to protect yours?"
"You would agree that Mr. Jones should be entitled to use the same resources to protect himself as you have to protect yourself?"
"And you would agree that if the justification for use of hollow point ammunition by you is reasonable, the use of hollow points by Mr. Jones' or any other person in this courtroom also is reasonable?" "Oh you wouldn't?" [Here the fun is just beginning, ad infinitim because each answer - right or wrong will lead to another].
"So Mr. LEO, in summary would you agree that your only reason for injecting the subject of the effects of hollow points was to inject prejudice into this case even though you know that the type of ammunition used by Mr. Jones has absolutely nothing to do with whether he used excessive force?" "OPPOSING COUNSEL: Objection!"
In summary, I am just a country lawyer. Think what the big city defense lawyers would/should do.
You are absolutely correct.But don't just blindly assume every lawyer knows what to do at all times in every case.
Mas (if I can take the liberty to be that informal) is one of the good ones. My wife and I have changed a few things about our habits because of his writings (ammo, cell phones, GOOD attorney's phone number with each of us, what we would/wouldn't say after a bad situation, and other things).
I even feel guilty about carrying my beloved SA 1911 instead of a more politically correct DA/DAO!
Last edited by UtahRSO; April 7th, 2008 at 03:14 PM. Reason: Clarification.
"None who have always been free can understand
the terrible fascinating power of the hope of freedom
to those who are not free."
UtahRSO, please take the liberty. "Mas" is preferred to "Mr."
And don't feel guilty about being a competent person with a 1911. I often carry one, and have been a 1911 shooter since age 12, though I make a point of having at least a four-pound pull weight to avoid "hair trigger" arguments.
Best to all,
Would it be reasonable to say that your main advice in regards to carry guns, ammo and other accessories is to do what you can to minimize claims of excessive force, negligence or uncomfortable questions by avoiding as many such things as possible that would give rise to such issues in the aftermath of an incident, provided such modifications to your carry gear do not significantly harm your combat effectiveness?
I said 100% but only because there wasn't a 90-95% option.