TexasCHLforum.com

Heartland Patriot wrote:

PostShooter wrote:I can say from personal experience. I was serving on a jury in an armed robbery case last fall and the prosecutor zealously made the point that the perp was carrying a weapon loaded with hollow-point bullets. I can quote from memory that he called them "man-killing" rounds, even though they were only .22LR. I say "only." I guess a .22 HP can be just as deadly as a fist-sized rock, so ANY round is potentially a man-killer. No offense to .22 carriers.

IMHO, if a prosecutor in the State of Texas has to rely on some trivial detail like .22 LR hollowpoint bullets to make his case, it must be pretty lousy to start with and now he or she is just trying some rhetorical drivel. Now, IANAL nor LEO, but on a human being the difference between a .22 HP and solid lead bullet just ain't going to be all that big a difference...

The DA's job is to win = to convict. They will used what ever legal means they can. The DA will try to use emotion as well as the facts convince a jury. If they have to resort to "drivel", they will. Again, winning in their primary goal, not justice.

PostShooter's experience on a Texas jury does give credence to the claim that some DAs will resort to rhetoric about "man-killer" bullets and other such nonsense.

PostShooter wrote:I can say from personal experience. I was serving on a jury in an armed robbery case last fall and the prosecutor zealously made the point that the perp was carrying a weapon loaded with hollow-point bullets. I can quote from memory that he called them "man-killing" rounds, even though they were only .22LR. I say "only." I guess a .22 HP can be just as deadly as a fist-sized rock, so ANY round is potentially a man-killer. No offense to .22 carriers.

I had asked if it had even been an issue in a self defense case, but thanks for sharing this example.

Did the defendant's lawyer counteract this foolish statement, or did he let it slide? Do you think it made an impact on whether the man was convicted or not?

** deleted **

74novaman wrote:

PostShooter wrote:I can say from personal experience. I was serving on a jury in an armed robbery case last fall and the prosecutor zealously made the point that the perp was carrying a weapon loaded with hollow-point bullets. I can quote from memory that he called them "man-killing" rounds, even though they were only .22LR. I say "only." I guess a .22 HP can be just as deadly as a fist-sized rock, so ANY round is potentially a man-killer. No offense to .22 carriers.

I had asked if it had even been an issue in a self defense case, but thanks for sharing this example.

Did the defendant's lawyer counteract this foolish statement, or did he let it slide? Do you think it made an impact on whether the man was convicted or not?

I was wondering if the DA was using the "man-killer" bullets for establishing an element of the crime "aggravated robbery", i.e. uses or exhibits a deadly weapon. He may have wanted to convince the jury that the .22HP is a deadly weapon. That would make more sense.

I don't know anything about the case that PostShooter talked about. Whether the defendant actually shot a person or just had the firearm during the robbery.

Hey Wild Bill and Novaman,
I believe the prosecuting attorney used the information to show that, if the the weapon had been fired, these two perps went into an aggravated robbery situation with ammunition that "could" be considered more "dangerous" than other rounds (I use quotation marks to indicate a perceived idea). Now, I plinked rabbits and armadillos with .22LR JHP when I was a kid, but I had to chuckle to myself in the courtroom when he made the proposition that these were "man-killing" rounds, even though they potentially are. The case was decided in the minds of the majority of the jury before he ever made mention of this aspect of the case, including mine. I think he did it to put a little icing on the cake, as it were, in the minds of the jury who may or may not have intimate knowledge of firearms. I don't think many of them did, because I had to explain hollowpoints to many in the jury room during deliberations. I missed your point, asking if this had been used in a self-defense case. I was merely trying to point out that prosecutors DO use type of weapon, ammo and possible mods to demonstrate that a person is more dangerous than would be ordinarily, armed in such a manner. I think I'm on the verge of hijacking this thread from the grip safety issue. To demonstrate I still have faith in juries today, the assigned public defender did not even make an attempt at countering the "man-killing round" aspect the prosecutor brought up. I don't think it made THAT much of a difference in his conviction, the prosecutor had done his job well. He never fired a shot, although his partner did and he is completely complicit in that, according to Texas law. 35 years in Club Texas, with a possibility of parole when he is in his 70s. Please return to your regular programming.

WildBill wrote:

george wrote:What Andy said. The last "American Handgunner" has an article concerning the 1910 prototype, without thumb safety.

So, would you carry the 1910 prototype without the thumb safety?

No! I'd have my 1910 prototype locked away in a big vault! Drum roll please, and don't forget to tip your waitress/waiter.
To answer your original query I probably would carry a 1911 w/o the grip safety. That said it's such an iconic weapon it would seem almost sacrilegious to make a 1911 with out one.