The fact is, an over zealous prosecutor will come after you for having hollowpoints, or for having FMJ - whichever promotes his/her career. The defense for carrying hollowpoints is that police carry them, and also that they are much less prone to overpenetrate or ricochet if they pass through their target. FMJ is much harder to defend, it is proven to over penetrate and bounce to hell and back when it goes through the target. Much better to have to mount a defense from strength instead of weakness.Brother Michigan said:I get sick and tired of prosecutors in cases like this trying to make people who carry hollowpoints out to be murderers just looking for someone to kill. He's hiking alone in the wilderness, is he supposed to just hope that a hardball round will be enough to stop a bear or a bobcat?
I saw that quote at the end of the transcript and it made me wonder. I'm not a lawyer and I didn't spend the night in a Holiday Inn Express but what happend to the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence? This was a murder case, Fish was charged with killing the vagrant. Fish's statements to police claim was he was attacked by the "victim's" dogs, then by the victim after firing a warning shot. The prosecutor's responsibility is to disprove that claim. Based on the msnbc article he did not disprove it at all. He colored the emotions of the jury by scaring them with the evil "hollow point bullets". That being said Fish's attorneys let him down by not bringing in expert witnesses to testify about the ammunition choice and by not getting the "victims" medical history brought into evidence after the ME mentioned the pharmaceuticals in the corpse. I will admit this may have been omitted for time or other reasons, it was a television show and not court records. This seems to me to be a case of a judge and a county attorney sharing an anti gun agenda and using this case to further it.NYPD in AZ said:At least when lawmakers witness a case like this they have the balls to actually make a change. (see below)
I think I understand where you're coming from but you may want to add qualifiers to that. There are times when it would be legally and morally justifiable to shoot an "unarmed" man. Are you saying it would be allowable for your wife to do it because she is giving up size and strength to a male attacker? This could very well be the reason Fish used his weapon. I did not see the program, I only read the transcript, so I don't know how the two men involved compared physically. Some PD's discourage their officers use of fisticuffs for fear the BG captures the officer's service weapon and turns it against them. The defendant in this case had a CCW and had undergone training. There was nothing in the transcript which stated he violated any protocols of that training. If what Fish said is true he was flanked by a pair of dogs who had already made agressive moves towards him and the "victim" was making verbal threats, threatening gestures and moving towards him. Did Fish react inappropriately? Maybe, I wasn't there I can't say for certain. Was it Murder 2? I really don't think so.mp3mogul said:I can't say that I agree:
There is "NO" way that I would ever shoot an unarmed person... there is absolutely no way. Yes, perhaps my wife could with an angry person such as this, but myself... no way.