- Joined
- Jul 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,411
- Reaction score
- 1
Huge difference between a trigger job and using exotic extra maiming ammo for self defense... You probably think a flame thrower would be ok to use ....... dude.
Huge difference between a trigger job and using exotic extra maiming ammo for self defense... You probably think a flame thrower would be ok to use ....... dude.
Well not in the house but maybe in the back yard. Save the State money from having to bury him. Just bag the ashes and toss them in the dumpster on the way out.
And a lot easier too as it removes the SHOVEL from the SSSU equation.
This is a good reminder for people to go pattern their shot/choke pattern on their HD Shotty.
It's not correct to say that at 20' that everyone can expect a 2"-3" pattern.
For HD, that slug is gilding the lilly. OO buck is cheap, absolutely adequate for HD and probably has limited potential for over penetration related injury to bystanders beyond the intended recipient of the pellets.
Type of ammo used can put you in prison!
A couple of years ago, i watched a special about a guy in AR that was hiking a trail, shot and killed what he said was an attacker and was using hollow points in a kimber .45.
He decided to go to trail because he knew it was self defense and he surely would be found innocent.
The result of the trial is that he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
They interviewed the jurors and here is what they said: Women jurors said what helped them decide to vote for guilty, among other things, was the fact that the shooter used those vicious uncalled for hollow point bullets. That a guy using those bullets has to have had to be a bad guy and needed to be punished.
Now you and i will decide to use hollow points for all the understood reasons. BUT, you do not know what people on a jury will decide. Are they uninformed, not knowledgeable, defense attorney did a poor job explaining hollow points,
YES - all true but the result is that he is spending 10 years in jail.
One lady juror basically said that she voted guilty because anyone using hollow points and knowing the inhumane damage they do, had already decided and made preparations to take a life. Therefore he is guilty.
Give consideration that the jury, judge, and maybe defense attorney may not come to the same conclusion that you have about what type of defense cartridge to use.
A couple of years ago, i watched a special about a guy in AR that was hiking a trail, shot and killed what he said was an attacker and was using hollow points in a kimber .45.
He decided to go to trail because he knew it was self defense and he surely would be found innocent.
The result of the trial is that he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
They interviewed the jurors and here is what they said: Women jurors said what helped them decide to vote for guilty, among other things, was the fact that the shooter used those vicious uncalled for hollow point bullets. That a guy using those bullets has to have had to be a bad guy and needed to be punished.
Now you and i will decide to use hollow points for all the understood reasons. BUT, you do not know what people on a jury will decide. Are they uninformed, not knowledgeable, defense attorney did a poor job explaining hollow points,
YES - all true but the result is that he is spending 10 years in jail.
One lady juror basically said that she voted guilty because anyone using hollow points and knowing the inhumane damage they do, had already decided and made preparations to take a life. Therefore he is guilty.
Give consideration that the jury, judge, and maybe defense attorney may not come to the same conclusion that you have about what type of defense cartridge to use.
I saw that story, and the comments of the jury. There were other mitigating circumstances that led to the conviction if I remember right.
There were appeals in progress, and I wonder how that came out. Inept representation by the defense attorney was one of the appeals.
One of our legal scholars could check in on this, and confirm that with the Castle Doctrine, this would not be possible in Okla in a SD situation.
There were appeals in progress, and I wonder how that came out. Inept representation by the defense attorney was one of the appeals.
One of our legal scholars could check in on this, and confirm that with the Castle Doctrine, this would not be possible in Okla in a SD situation.
Harold Fish, it was a 10mm, one juror Meagan Elliot said: "The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill."
Thrown out on appeal in 2009 in part because the county attorney specifically prevented the detective on the case from pursuing anything that might have damaged a jury's view of the (deceased) aggressor.
Fish was railroaded; he would have still been in prison if he had killed the aggressor with marshmallows.
Arizona passed their castle doctrine within a couple of years, largely believed to be in response to the Fish conviction.
Agreed. As I stated before "low recoil" does not mean "poor/weak performance".
A good shoot is a good shoot. Maybe not in AR (did you maybe mean AZ - the Fish incident happened there if that is the case being referred to).
Please post a cite. there must be more to the story.
