TexasCHLforum.com

Liberty wrote:

dac1842 wrote:Liberty, I agree with what you say. I used to reload my own ammo as well. But the one thing you cant predict is the ability of a silver tongue devil (lawyer) to twist it in front of jury. I get deposed frequently as an expert witness in my job. It amazes me to this day how a plantiffs attorney can twist the simplest and most innocent of details.

I agree it is more economical to reload yourself. I agree for the responsible reloader who gives his the better quality and accuracy. But, not using common over the counter preloaded ammo could and I emphasize could, be a great liablity.

Liberty you have a distrust of LE, I have one of lawyers and the courts. Both are due to personal experiences in each. I really have a major dislike of Plaintiff Personal Injury lawyers, I would not bother to urinate on one of them if they were on fire.

My distrust isn't of LEOs in particular but of the agencys themselves and government in general.. I can't say I have ever had a very bad experiaece with an LEO and I have met quite a few that I truly liked. I also known a few lawyers and judges ,they are all very fine people. Its the system which reward deceipt and dishonesty which is corrupt. I don't know how to fix it, just know it should be done.

On the lawyers, I believe in weighing the risks. Keeping in mind that this has never ben in an issue in a Texas Court before. and the fact that its very unlikely a justified shooting would ever go to a civil court. Against the benefits of being able to afford practicing with the very same rounds that one uses for defence, One must honestly wieg in their skills as a reloader.. Will their reloads be as reliable as the store bought.

BTW: I don't reload.

Bisley wrote:

srothstein wrote:

Bisley wrote:I don't really know if handloads would be used against you in court because almost everyone has bought into this theory and we all recommend using standard ammo, preferably the same ammo the local police use in the same caliber. Are we right or are we just a self-fulfilling prophecy?

I suspect the latter. Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Personally, I'm still carrying factory ammo, and I will likely continue to for as long as it is readily available in a type that works well in whichever handgun I might choose to carry for self defense. I think it's a close call whether this is really necessary, but still, "an ounce of prevention..."

Bisley wrote:

srothstein wrote:...The real advantage of the immunity law is in its application in the real world. Most civil cases are taken on a contingency basis, where the lawyer gets paid out of the winnings. If there is little or no chance to win, the lawyers won't take the case. But a person does not really need a lawyer to file, or the plaintiff himself may be an attorney. The discouragement would not affect them. Nor would it affect some agencies that are truly anti-gun and think they might have a chance. Look at some of the shootings that the Brady Campaign has gotten behind. A third group it might not discourage is the ambulance chasers who know that a homeowner has insurance and they will offer $25,000 instead of going to court, simply because it is cheaper.

So, be prepared for the mental aggravation of a law suit after any use of force. You will probably win, but there is always the chance of the lawsuit and its hassles anyway.

This is absolutely the best explanation I have seen, concerning the likelihood of civil action, following a self defense shooting. Thanks for the reply.

Would you also address the question of whether the use of hand loads for self defense would be any more likely to put a person in civil jeopardy, than say, having attended a hand gun self defense school?

The reason I ask for this comparison is that so many of the self defense writers that advise most stridently against the use of hand loaded ammo, will then recommend that a concealed handgun permit holder attend as many self defense classes as possible. To me, this is a bit of a contradiction, in that either could be 'spun' to suggest that a person was seeking a deadly confrontation.

Kevinf2349 wrote:I thought that if there was no criminal case then there couldn't be a civil case as this would break the law in and of itself?

CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC g 83.001. ClVlL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or
deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the
defendant's use of force or deadly force, as applicable.