From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: rec.guns
Subject: Re: Hand-loads for defense (was Re: Occasional Dud in Glock 20)
Date: 7 Sep 92 00:39:12 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <tmi.714981040@well.sf.ca.us> tmi@well.sf.ca.us (Peter Kasler) writes:
#In <1992Aug26.220729.10055@ke4zv.uucp> ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman) writes:
#
##BTW *all* 18 police departments that I deal with shoot and carry
##*reloaded* ammunition. If it's good enough for the cops, it should
##be good enough for the civies.
#
#	You certainly miss the point. Read Russ Kepler's post on this
#subject and perhaps you'll begin to get it. The cops can use reloaded
#ammunition with little or no fear of recriminations whereas civilians
#who attempt the same thing are inviting trouble in the event of civil
#litigation arising out of a defense shooting.

I can only speak from my experiences in Georgia. I work with a friend
who supplies reloaded ammo to 18 police departments as well as selling
custom loaded ammo to civilians. He's kept a close eye on the legal
situation and says that while there have been suits against *police*
officers and departments citing "excessive force" for using custom
handloaded ammunition, *or* factory hollowpoints, none have been 
brought against civilians here. No such suit against the police has 
ever been won here even though they are held to a higher standard of 
conduct than civilians. Local attorneys have told us that the precedents 
are such that you are at least risk if you use equipment similar to what 
police departments use if you have to use deadly force. Since the majority 
of police departments in our area use custom loaded ammo in Glock 17s, 
that's what civilians should use. Note they say that's true even though 
Glock specifically forbids the use of handloaded ammo in their weapons.

On the criminal side, the local DA says that if you are justified in
using deadly force *at all*, then the kind of deadly force you use
is not an issue. A legally owned bazooka or machinegun is just as
"reasonable" as a target .22, or just as unreasonable depending on
the threat. The conditions under which civilians are allowed
to use deadly force are extremely limited. Only immediate fear of
loss of life is grounds for use of deadly force. There is a large
body of case law on what constitutes a *reasonable* person's grounds
for immediate fear for his life. The acid test seems to be whether
a *reasonable* person would see a viable way to flee rather than
fight in a given situation.

#	If you think I'm arrogant, ignore everything I've posted in
#good faith for no reason other than to suggest things to do and to
#avoid doing for purposes of reducing liability exposure in connection
#with justified shootings, then compare my behavior with that of the
#plaintiff's counsel when you're the defendant (I hope you never are).

I was responding more to the tone, rather than the content of your
posting. It appeared to be extremely condescending and arrogant.
If you were just in a bad mood that day, I apologize.

#	If you would just set aside your defensiveness and beligerence
#and realize that once the bullet leaves the muzzle it and its
#consequences cannot ever be called back, you might appreciate the
#value of reasoned planning and rational behavior as a way of life.

While I don't believe that my post showed defensiveness, and was only
belligerent to the extent it was provoked by percieved condescension
and arrogance, I agree that *rational* planning and behavior when
dealing with deadly force situations is always warranted. I think,
however, that your Kalifornia viewpoint is out of line with the 
facts of the matter in other areas. Repeating what I said at the
top, experienced local attorneys say to use what the police use,
and they use custom loads, *not* factory ammo.

Gary