Ammo issued by Houston PD or Harris County Sheriff?

[Idjut]

I will carry Hydra-Shok (in 9mm) when my plastic arrives. I have been reading a lot of Massad Ayoob lately and am curious about what local law enforcement carries. I probably won't switch as the HS feeds greats in my SIG 239, but I am interested in the issue of ammo choice and its impact on lawsuits/prosecutions.

What about other jurisdictions?

[G.C.Montgomery]

IIRC, HPD had planned to start issuing ammo as far back as 1997, about the same time they started requiring all officers to carry .40cal pistols. Because he shoots so little and so poorly, I never bother to ask my cousin if his ammunition is issued by the PD. I do know that as of 1994, it was NOT issued at that time.

[Stupid]

I am no lawyer, so my comment is as stupid as it goes.

Massad needs to be taken seriously, but to a degree. When the shooting is justified, the type of ammo/weapon would not be considered either way - you can see this point from the Gary Fadden who shot a knife weaving guy with a full auto - Gary was a HK salesman.

When the shooting is questionable, then every angle will be twisted, including the problem of the ammo. If you use reload, there will be "killer/evil ammo" twist. Would you think anybody would question Doug when he shot the serial killer Wayne Nance with a antique black power gun he was reloading with?

I would focus more how to make sure my shot is justified than what ammo I carry. Of course I carry the popular hollow point. Just keep in mind, if someone wants to, they can say: you carry police ammo? You are a policeman wannabe and a vigilant who is just to look for someone to shoot at. The proof? your post here is the excellent proof.

I will carry Hydra-Shok (in 9mm) when my plastic arrives. I have been reading a lot of Massad Ayoob lately and am curious about what local law enforcement carries. I probably won't switch as the HS feeds greats in my SIG 239, but I am interested in the issue of ammo choice and its impact on lawsuits/prosecutions.

What about other jurisdictions?

[txinvestigator]

I am no lawyer, so my comment is as stupid as it goes.

Massad needs to be taken seriously, but to a degree. When the shooting is justified, the type of ammo/weapon would not be considered either way - you can see this point from the Gary Fadden who shot a knife weaving guy with a full auto - Gary was a HK salesman.

When the shooting is questionable, then every angle will be twisted, including the problem of the ammo. If you use reload, there will be "killer/evil ammo" twist. Would you think anybody would question Doug when he shot the serial killer Wayne Nance with a antique black power gun he was reloading with?

I would focus more how to make sure my shot is justified than what ammo I carry. Of course I carry the popular hollow point. Just keep in mind, if someone wants to, they can say: you carry police ammo? You are a policeman wannabe and a vigilant who is just to look for someone to shoot at. The proof? your post here is the excellent proof.

I will carry Hydra-Shok (in 9mm) when my plastic arrives. I have been reading a lot of Massad Ayoob lately and am curious about what local law enforcement carries. I probably won't switch as the HS feeds greats in my SIG 239, but I am interested in the issue of ammo choice and its impact on lawsuits/prosecutions.

What about other jurisdictions?

Logic would dictate that you are correct; however, a rabid DA could try to make a case that you wanted to guarantee a kill by the ammo you chose. It HAS happened. With a good defense, it can be overcome, but why leave that avenue open?

[Idjut]

Stupid, I appreciate the points you make. I also understand that most nuance in conversation is lost when typed between faceless strangers across the Internet, so I'll just assume that you're not making any implications as to my being a wanna-be cop or a vigilante.

If ever forced to defend myself, I am not overly concerned with the prospect of criminal prosecution. I know that wrongful prosecutions and convictions of individuals who defended themselves with justifiable deadly force have occured. I don't have any numbers (can anybody in cases like this), but I suspect that this occurs very rarely to people who are truly in the right.

No, my main concern is with slimy personal injury lawyers who don't really care about truth and have to meet a low standard of proof for liability. Aside from general curiosity, it is with this in mind that I asked my question. It is my general feeling that if the issue of ammunition ever came up in a civil case, then all other things being equal it would be better from an 'image' point of view that the ammo be carried by thousands of 'Houston's Finest' rather than a handful of 'gun nuts' that have to purchase their killer bullets from special gun stores rather than at Academy.

So to summarize, I have a hunch that if a distinguished personal injury lawyer wanted to make a point that a person's ammunition choice indicates that they are a cold-blooded murderer who deserves to lose his life savings that point would be harder to make if doing so would require making the same accusation of the entire police force.

[Idjut]

...but why leave that avenue open?

TXI,

Would you please clarify what you mean by this?

[srothstein]

I think what he is saying is that you don't need to give the opposition an opening you can prevent. In most court cases, the prosecution will try to prepare a strong case to prove their side. They will raise as many different issues as they can, in a technique called (ironically) the shotgun approach. They know that you will be able to stop some of the charges easily, and they know a better lawyer can stop more of them. A really good lawyer can even stop all of them BUT if he misses just one, they have a case that can win. The more arguments you have to defend against, the better the chances of missing one by sheer accident and overlooking it.

Consider the people who buy knives with weird multiple points and names like "The Exterminator". If that person uses the knife in self-defense and kills someone, could the DA say that he had thought it out in advance and deliberately tried to get a knife he could use to kill. Otherwise, he would have had a Boy Scout or Swiss Army knife to use as a tool. You, I, and the DA all know this is not really true, but it is the type of logic some use. And, if you think the same thing will not happen with guns, go to your local store and see if they carry Black Talon ammo.

So, if you have the chance to help your lawyer prepare your defense in advance by choosing the ammunition carefully, why would you not take it and leave the avenue open for a rabid DA to attack with? It is just helping yourself.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Consider the people who buy knives with weird multiple points and names like "The Exterminator". If that person uses the knife in self-defense and kills someone, could the DA say that he had thought it out in advance and deliberately tried to get a knife he could use to kill. Otherwise, he would have had a Boy Scout or Swiss Army knife to use as a tool.

Hmmmm..... I guess I'm good with my carry gun then. It's a Colt Gold Cup Custom Edition Commander in stainless steel.

A "Gold Cup". Where do you run into "gold cups"? Well, sometimes, they are awarded as the top prize in a SPORTING EVENT.

[Idjut]

So, if you have the chance to help your lawyer prepare your defense in advance by choosing the ammunition carefully, why would you not take it and leave the avenue open for a rabid DA to attack with? It is just helping yourself.

Thanks for the reply, Stephan. This is pretty much what I had in mind when I asked the question.

I guess there are no Houston LEOs willing to answer this?! What, no internet in the patrol cars? (obviously kidding guys/gals; keep up the good work)

[frankie_the_yankee]

No, my main concern is with slimy personal injury lawyers who don't really care about truth and have to meet a low standard of proof for liability.

Sept. 1 this concern goes away, at least here in TX. The new law provides civil immunity as long as the shooting is OK on the criminal law side.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], 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.

So forget the civil case angle.

But it is STILL better to carry what the cops carry. It's one less thing that a rabid DA can throw at you on the criminal side.

So to summarize, I have a hunch that if a distinguished personal injury lawyer wanted to make a point that a person's ammunition choice indicates that they are a cold-blooded murderer who deserves to lose his life savings that point would be harder to make if doing so would require making the same accusation of the entire police force.

Good to know when you're in other states too.

[txinvestigator]

No, my main concern is with slimy personal injury lawyers who don't really care about truth and have to meet a low standard of proof for liability.

Sept. 1 this concern goes away, at least here in TX. The new law provides civil immunity as long as the shooting is OK on the criminal law side.

SECTION 4. Section 83.001, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, is amended to read as follows:

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY. A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9 [Section 9.32], 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.

So forget the civil case angle.

But it is STILL better to carry what the cops carry. It's one less thing that a rabid DA can throw at you on the criminal side.

So to summarize, I have a hunch that if a distinguished personal injury lawyer wanted to make a point that a person's ammunition choice indicates that they are a cold-blooded murderer who deserves to lose his life savings that point would be harder to make if doing so would require making the same accusation of the entire police force.

Good to know when you're in other states too.

That does not mean you cannot be sued. Whether or not your use of force was justifed is still a matter of fact for a jury or judge in the civil case.

[Stupid]

Like we said, why leave the door open?

Why do you have to choose one that is used specifically by police? By doing that, you leave the door open for scum lawyers to dream up a statement in court that you were a police wannabe - I am in no way implying that you are - just hypothetically.

I would just go to a store and buy the federal hydro-shok and be done with it. If ever asked why I picked that ammo, it is because it says "self defense" on the box and it runs good in my gun.

Stupid, I appreciate the points you make. I also understand that most nuance in conversation is lost when typed between faceless strangers across the Internet, so I'll just assume that you're not making any implications as to my being a wanna-be cop or a vigilante.

If ever forced to defend myself, I am not overly concerned with the prospect of criminal prosecution. I know that wrongful prosecutions and convictions of individuals who defended themselves with justifiable deadly force have occured. I don't have any numbers (can anybody in cases like this), but I suspect that this occurs very rarely to people who are truly in the right.

[Idjut]

I would just go to a store and buy the federal hydro-shok and be done with it.

Done!

[Venus Pax]

I don't know the brand, but the officer on our campus carries 9mm hollow points.

[frankie_the_yankee]

That does not mean you cannot be sued. Whether or not your use of force was justifed is still a matter of fact for a jury or judge in the civil case.

I don't read it that way.

It says you have civil immunity if your actions were justified under the criminal code.

I believe the legal meaning of this is that if you are either not charged, no billed, or aquitted of criminal charges, you are immune from being sued civilly for the incident.

I do not think it is within the jurisdiction of a civil court to decide if you are in violation of the criminal code.

You're immune unless someone can find as a fact that you are not immune. But the only way to do that is to show as a fact that you were convicted. If you were not ever convicted, there is no way to establish that you were. A civil finding that you "should have been" convicted will not cut it.

OJ Simpson was not found by the civil court fact finders to have been "guilty" of murdering Brown and Goldman. They did not find as a fact that he should have been convicted of murder. The whole concept of murder was not even on the table. He was merely found civilly liable for "wrongful death". To do that, the plaintiffs had to prove by a preponderence of the evidence that he wrongfully caused the deaths of Brown and Goldman. And they did find that as a matter of fact.

Here is the distinction. Causing a "wrongful death" is not a crimnal offense. The jury in Simpson's civil case never proved that he violated any part of the CA criminal code. OJ walks the streets a free man today.

But as to the TX law, you are immune from such a lawsuit if your use of force was justified under the criminal code. And the fact of whether or not it was justified under the criminal code is a matter for the criminal justice system to decide.

If your actions are in conflict with the criminal code, you can subsequently be sued, and you will probably lose. But if they are not in conflict, you can't be sued, because the plaintiffs would have no standing to do so.

I'm not a lawyer, and I'm not giving legal advice here. But the law reads pretty clearly in this instance.

FWIW, Ayoob recommends "watchful waiting" on the part of the CHL community to see what kind of case law precedents develop in various states over the next few years. The language varies considerably from state to state. And his advice is usually pretty good. That said, the language that TX adopted is about the strongest of any state that I am familiar with to this point.

I'd say we have a good law here.