Reloading for Self Defense

[UnspokenVendetta]

Originally Posted by Boris

Yes you are claiming. You are reading the law and are not comprehending what they say.

Instead you read the law and some how read it that you will be put on trial, sued, and convicted for shooting a hand load. I will now compound your challenge. Show me anywhere in the law, written or case law where it supports what you are saying. Then show me the actual written law that supports what you are saying.

You fail to understand. There is no law that supports what you are saying. There is no case law that supports what you are saying. Just one, thats it ONE. Thats all i want. Show me one law, show me one case. The later will be tough because there is no law against it to put someone on trial for it. Incase you have not learned it yet. There must be a law restricting something in order to break that law.

Instead of rabble tabble rabble, show me facts. Not your misguided interpretation.

I can't resist the urge to feed a troll...

I'll give you one: State of New Jersey versus Daniel Bias.

Go read, and then give Attorney John Lanza and Attorney Elisabeth Smith a call and ask them a little bit more about the case.

The truth of the matter is that handloads can cause different issues, whether it be picture that the prosecution tries to paint of you, or whether it becomes an evidence issue, like it did with Mr. Bias. And guess what, he was convicted of manslaughter and bankrupt now.

Also, let me get this straight. You'll pony up for plinking ammo, but not the $20 for a box that you may possibly use to defend your life? Here I was thinking you were living big, given that you can't be bothered to take an hour out of your week. I'm sorry, but if that $20 was so precious to you, you'd be reloading your plinking ammo as well. Sounds pretty assbackwards to me.

[Boris]

Originally Posted by UnspokenVendetta

I can't resist the urge to feed a troll...

I'll give you one: State of New Jersey versus Daniel Bias.

Go read, and then give Attorney John Lanza and Attorney Elisabeth Smith a call and ask them a little bit more about the case.

The truth of the matter is that handloads can cause different issues, whether it be picture that the prosecution tries to paint of you, or whether it becomes an evidence issue, like it did with Mr. Bias. And guess what, he was convicted of manslaughter and bankrupt now.

Also, let me get this straight. You'll pony up for plinking ammo, but not the $20 for a box that you may possibly use to defend your life? Here I was thinking you were living big, given that you can't be bothered to take an hour out of your week. I'm sorry, but if that $20 was so precious to you, you'd be reloading your plinking ammo as well. Sounds pretty assbackwards to me.

Rabble rabble rabble

What self defense law does this case refer to? From what i read it was harder to prove it was murder for the prosecution and thats about it. He must have slipped up somewhere to be accused of murder. Its pretty hard to make suicide look like a murder, but alot harder to make murder look like suicide.

What does this post have to do with you giving everyone a law or a case where handloads gave a legal self defense shoot a murder conviction?


Incase you missed it I will help you out again. Show us a law that makes handloads illegal. Go read that last sentence again. After providing a law that makes handloads illegal give us one conviction of murder for the use of handloads in a legal use of deadly force case.

After you find these laws and cases read the law i posted for you in post 80. This is the law i must live by, right along with the prosecutor.

[Cuda66]

Ye gods, Boris.

Nobody, not once, anywhere in this entire post--besides you, that is--has used the words "handloads are illegal" in conjunction with each other. get off that hobby horse already.

And again--if you don't think one can be convicted of murder in a fairly clear cut self defense case, and that the weapon and ammo one uses can't be used against you by an overzealous prosecuter--look up Harold Fish.

[UnspokenVendetta]

Originally Posted by Boris

Rabble rabble rabble

What self defense law does this case refer to? From what i read it was harder to prove it was murder for the prosecution and thats about it. He must have slipped up somewhere to be accused of murder. Its pretty hard to make suicide look like a murder, but alot harder to make murder look like suicide.

What does this post have to do with you giving everyone a law or a case where handloads gave a legal self defense shoot a murder conviction?


Incase you missed it I will help you out again. Show us a law that makes handloads illegal. Go read that last sentence again. After providing a law that makes handloads illegal give us one conviction of murder for the use of handloads in a legal use of deadly force case.

After you find these laws and cases read the law i posted for you in post 80. This is the law i must live by, right along with the prosecutor.

You keep repeating yourself, and consequently causing everyone else to repeat themselves as well.

There is no law against carrying handloads. No one has ever claimed there was. What has been claimed is that handloads open doorways that otherwise don't exist, and that problems can arise with regard to an overzealous DA or even with problems in evidence.

In the case that I cited, which you asked for, handloads caused an issue because the data for the handloads couldn't be verified as the court would not take the defendant at his word, and consequently the ballistics couldn't be verified. Had he been using factory loads, ballistics would have verified his story, which boiled down to the distance at which the incident took place. Don't ask for a case and then ignore it's relevance, it just makes you look ignorant.

You're trying to make this about one law and one situation in one location. That's simply not the case. Not everyone lives in your state, and not every handgun will be used for self-defense. Different circumstances arise, and I've given you a legitimate case in which handloads played a crucial role in causing a man to be convicted and bankrupt. If you can't understand that, I have legitimate concerns for your well being.

[Boris]

Originally Posted by UnspokenVendetta

You keep repeating yourself, and consequently causing everyone else to repeat themselves as well.

There is no law against carrying handloads. No one has ever claimed there was. What has been claimed is that handloads open doorways that otherwise don't exist, and that problems can arise with regard to an overzealous DA or even with problems in evidence.

In the case that I cited, which you asked for, handloads caused an issue because the data for the handloads couldn't be verified as the court would not take the defendant at his word, and consequently the ballistics couldn't be verified. Had he been using factory loads, ballistics would have verified his story, which boiled down to the distance at which the incident took place. Don't ask for a case and then ignore it's relevance, it just makes you look ignorant.

You're trying to make this about one law and one situation in one location. That's simply not the case. Not everyone lives in your state, and not every handgun will be used for self-defense. Different circumstances arise, and I've given you a legitimate case in which handloads played a crucial role in causing a man to be convicted and bankrupt. If you can't understand that, I have legitimate concerns for your well being.

That was a was it murder or suidide case, not a self defense case. Different laws apply.

Harold fish only proves my point Cuda66. He was found to be innocent.

Handloads being used against you in court means one thing. You broke a law to be put on trial. When that happens, as I said before your pure black cat could be used to make you a murderous cold blooded killer. If you use handloads within the laws of deadly force you can not be put on trial. Its too easy to prove. A prosecutor has to obey the laws, he can not put you on trial for the use of handloads when all else is legal.

You been reading too many rags trying to get you to look real hard at them extreme shok full page ADs a little closer. Not your style then get some of them new under penetrating hornady contraptions. They got you hook line and sinker. Scare tactics work very well on those who are illinformed on the actual legality about anything.

To perpetuate a myth and down right lie does no one any good here. If you can back up your opinion then do us all a service in reality and provide truthful information. Not lies spread by aboob.

[agalindo]

[lharrell79]

Originally Posted by agalindo

[Cuda66]

Originally Posted by Boris

That was a was it murder or suidide case, not a self defense case. Different laws apply.

Harold fish only proves my point Cuda66. He was found to be innocent.

Handloads being used against you in court means one thing. You broke a law to be put on trial. When that happens, as I said before your pure black cat could be used to make you a murderous cold blooded killer. If you use handloads within the laws of deadly force you can not be put on trial. Its too easy to prove. A prosecutor has to obey the laws, he can not put you on trial for the use of handloads when all else is legal.

You been reading too many rags trying to get you to look real hard at them extreme shok full page ADs a little closer. Not your style then get some of them new under penetrating hornady contraptions. They got you hook line and sinker. Scare tactics work very well on those who are illinformed on the actual legality about anything.

To perpetuate a myth and down right lie does no one any good here. If you can back up your opinion then do us all a service in reality and provide truthful information. Not lies spread by aboob.

Eventually.

He was convicted first, Boris. One of the things the prosecution used to win the initial conviction was the gun and ammunition he used.

He was found guilty by the jury.

Mr. Fish did nothing illegal, yet he was convicted, and was sent to prison for it. Fortunately, an appeal overturned it--but it does not change the fact he was tried by a prosecutor and convicted by a jury.

Are you seriously unable to admit this has contradicts your numerous statements of "if you don't do anything illegal, no prosecutor can bring charges against you, and no jury would convict you"?

[Boris]

Originally Posted by Cuda66

Eventually.

He was convicted first, Boris. One of the things the prosecution used to win the initial conviction was the gun and ammunition he used.

He was found guilty by the jury.

Mr. Fish did nothing illegal, yet he was convicted, and was sent to prison for it. Fortunately, an appeal overturned it--but it does not change the fact he was tried by a prosecutor and convicted by a jury.

Are you seriously unable to admit this has contradicts your numerous statements of "if you don't do anything illegal, no prosecutor can bring charges against you, and no jury would convict you"?

Do you know why? It was not because of handloads. It was because the prosecution and court would not allow detectives to gather all the evidence and ignore evidence of the persons history he killed. The trial itself was tainted and illegal. Once another court got ahold of it it was easily overturned.

Now look at Harolds other option. Mauled to death by two dogs and or mirdered by his attacker, or defend himself legaly. Are you saying Harold broke a law? And was wrongfully found innocent?

Still waiting for my questions to be answered.

[UnspokenVendetta]

Originally Posted by Cuda66

Eventually.

He was convicted first, Boris. One of the things the prosecution used to win the initial conviction was the gun and ammunition he used.

He was found guilty by the jury.

Mr. Fish did nothing illegal, yet he was convicted, and was sent to prison for it. Fortunately, an appeal overturned it--but it does not change the fact he was tried by a prosecutor and convicted by a jury.

Are you seriously unable to admit this has contradicts your numerous statements of "if you don't do anything illegal, no prosecutor can bring charges against you, and no jury would convict you"?

How does he not get it? How is it possible for an adult human being to continue to make such an ignorant statement?

Again, the lawyers in Mr. Bias case said that had he used factory loads, they were convinced the case would have never gone to court. Not really sure how much more cut and dry it could get. And those sentiments ARE from actual lawyers.