Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Handguns Fight Stopper ??

gene,
<br>
<br>Better yet. Use a cell phone.
<br>
<br>Even better still. Don't run out of gas.
<br>
<br>Norm

Gene, I think your legal analysis is correct as for criminal law. If the shooting was justified, and you hit your target, what happens to the bullet after that is not considered your responsibility in most jurisdictions. I believe this also applies even if you miss your intended target. The analysis still goes to justification, and only to justification.
<br>
<br>In civil law, a plaintiff might be able to get you on negligence for selecting a round which the reasonable prudent person would have anticipated might harm an innocent bystander due to over-penetration. That would be a question for the jury to decide.

Then I will settle for," Twelve judging rather than six carrying".

Hawk,
<br>
<br>That's what I was thinking.
<br>
<br>My brother is a Detective on the Indianapolis PD. He has 30 years on the force. In his younger more agressive days he managed to get into 4 shootings.
<br>All of which were investigated by multiple agencies including the FBI on the last two.
<br>
<br>After the investigations of his last shooting he was returned to duty. Later that year he was sued and the plaintiff (the mother of the deceased) was awarded $450,000. There was no logic to the award. After the virdict came in one of the city's lawyers said "I wonder where they (the jury) were all week."
<br>
<br>Civil liability can be tricky. Ask OJ.
<br>
<br>N

There is only one defense which is effective against all regulatory agencies- even the IRS - plantiff lawyers,ex-wive's lawyers,and any action calculated to take your money. That defense is abject poverty.
<br>
<br>I am not concerned with civil suits!

Gene,
<br>
<br>Not a bad position to be in. They can't take somethin'
<br>from nothin'.
<br>
<br>Fortunately, for my brother the damages awarded were actual damages according to the jury. The city pays actual damages but not punitive.
<br>
<br>If they'd hit Wayne with punitive, they'd have gotten nothing because that's exactly what he's got.
<br>
<br>N

"......freedom's just another word for...nothin' left to lose...."
<br>
<br>Name the song and singer - show your age.
<br>
<br>-FreeMe

Me and Bobbie MaGee. Lot of singers did it but one I remember best is Janis Joplin. Is that old enough for you?
<br>
<br>BCR

"Oh, Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes Benz." "All my friends drive Porches and I must make amends!"

BCR - you win the prize! (How 'bout a pair of used reading glasses )
<br>
<br>-FreeMe

T LEE - you get extra credit.
<br>
<br>-FreeMe

Just don't get me started on the real oldies and C&W like Patsey Kline, I was in LOVE!

The song was written by Kris Kristofferson and sung by him first.I WIN!!!!

Well Gene, that would certainly make you older than me.
<br>
<br>I first heard it performed by Janis - and I'm just guessing she did a better job of it...
<br>
<br>-FreeMe

TRH,
<br>
<br> Yesterday, a DNR Conservation Officer from the county north of us, brought in a ziplock bag with a seven inch diameter piece of deer hide in it to verify what it was shot with. The purpetrator of the infraction was carrying three firearms at the time he was caught in the act, a .44Magnum revolver, a 20 gauge slug gun and a 7mm rifle with scope.
<br>
<br> The entrance hole perfectly matched the 7mm bullet I slipped into it and the case goes to the Prosecutor's Office now, as it is illegal to shoot deer with a high power rifle in Indiana. I asked if there was an exit wound and was told there was none. That tells me the bullet expended all of it's energy internally and efficiently. It had also fragmented to the point where it was irretrievable. The deer had travelled only a few yards from where it had been poached, again a testimony to bullet design .
<br>
<br> We're all entitled to our own prefferences and opinions on what works best and how they accomplish the task at hand, and I'll stick to my Glock 19C and 23C with the more exotic bullets that don't exit to solve any potential disaster that heads my way.

one decent.45 costs as much as two comparable.357s...

Well,Boggy,I got to ruminating over my list of aqqauintences and there are some I would want to just barely shoot,so yesterday I bought a S&W model 410 in 40 cal.I'm still going to have my 41 mag handy for the majority.
<br>The new pistol fits real well in my carry vest.
<br>
<br>However,does any one make a belt holster for this model that any of y'all are particularly fond of?Them IWB types are not to be considered.By the time I get me in my levi's there ain't room for any company!

Hi guys. One of my favorite topics. I am very hard headed about this. I don't like putting up with the BS after a shooting, and I dislike burying my friends alot more. I can explain any death but my own - period.
<br> I like the idea of staying out of these things. Really. But, sometimes that option has been removed by others.
<br> Which one works best ? Coinsider the target and the conditions. A very emmotional situation. Vaguely similar to that huge buck breaking cover unexpectedly, but only vaguely. The big differnce, of course, is/are the threats to you.
<br> Add the wildcard. Some people are just dam# tough. Tough is very often brought on, or enhanced by, chemical help. Very often. And, he could have help with him.
<br> So which is best? Whatever you shoot best. The more powerful the better. Frankly, I'm not giving up penetration. Heavy clothing, cheap body armour, car doors, walls, and other things can interfere with the bullet getting to the bad guy, thus robbing it of some of it's abilities.
<br> The rule is, one to the solar plexus/heart area. If that doesn't do it, then one between the headlamps. Multiple hits in the body cavity rarely work. Particularly on druggies, and psychos.
<br> I'm with Gene and Boggy. I've got no time and can't afford to consider the possible victim beyond the bad guy. The Bad Guy must have all my attention. It has been proven time and again. Anything less than than 100% of your best, can easily result in a 2nd place award.
<br> Good luck, gentlemen. I shall pray that none of you will have to deal with such things. I can assure you they are not fun. E
<br>

I think Ken has explained his position precisely, and yet, the "energy" folks still haven't answered his basic question.
<br>
<br>How can a bullet that stays in the body cause more damage than the same bullet exiting?
<br>
<br>There IS such a thing as "interior" ballistics. A bullet entering the body immediately starts slowing down. As it loses velocity (thus energy) it's ability to cause damage is reduced. If it slows to a stop at some point in the body, it has been losing velocity (momentum) along it's path, and thus, causing less and less damage. It's slowed from, say 1200 fps to 0 fps. At 0 fps, this bullet isn't doing any more damage.
<br>
<br>Contrast that with the same bullet that exits, it has reached the other side of the body with velocity to spare. When it exits, it's still going 300 fps, thus, it was doing greater damage at the same point in the wound path as the first bullet.
<br>
<br>Now because this bullet exited at 300 fps you "energy" folks say that this remaining energy is wasted. Well, yes, but so what? Why do we care how much energy our bullet left in the body? Are we energy conservationists? It's NOT how much energy is "deposited", but how much damage is done. The second bullet caused more damage, so how is this a bad thing?

mattc, what you are not factoring in is that the same bullet cannot exit unless it has more energy to start with. We are not saying you should reduce the energy in order to have greater effect. We are saying, let's take every bit of energy we do have, and design the bullet so that ALL of that energy is dumped inside. That is to say, design it to cause maximum disruption as it passes through flesh and bone, while staying together enough to push well into the vital organs. If the bullet regularly passes all the way through, and keeps on going, the bullet was not designed right for this job. It held together too well, and didn't disrupt enough tissue.