Any reason not to use the Glaser Safety Slugs?

[Federal Farmer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gmH_fl3Pcj8

[Bud]

 

 

I personally would be reluctant to have to face a Coroner's inquest/Grand Jury and have to excplain why I used a non-standard pistol round.

 

I think Ayoob's statements that any modification to the gun or use of other than standard ammunition is an opening for an opposing attorney to make you look bad in front of a jury.

 

Most police departments are using pretty good ammo that provides more than adequate stopping power and being able to state to a jury that you used Gold Dots (or whatever) was because you checked to see what the local poice department was using and you chose that ammo because the police probably know what they are doing.

 

Glaser Safety Slugs are effective but theyt are also banned for civilian use in several states. That's all the room an attorney needs to make a shooter appear to be a bad guy.

[NakPPI]

Bud is right. A home owner in Florida shot a trespasser with glasers years back and the media reported that the home owner used "exploding bullets."

 

 

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[Ranger]

C Pulsar your atty explain just as easily that you used the Glasses for safety purposea to minimize the risk of injuring a bystander due to overpenetration?

[Ranger]

R Responded on phonewith autocorrect and not seeing what typed

[Federal Farmer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gmH_fl3Pcj8

 

I wonder why my embedding didn't work?

[Federal Farmer]

Here's a problem...they only sell them in packs of 6. No box or case quantities...oy.

[sleepercaprice1]

I agree with Bud on this. I have spoken to Mas Ayoob about this subject and his recommendation is exactly as Bud said. It's hard for the local police's choice to be criticized in court.

 

I think the good shoot/bad shoot decision is far more important than the choice of ammo, but there's no reason to potentially stack the deck against yourself and be tried by the media.

[Bud]

I agree with Bud on this. I have spoken to Mas Ayoob about this subject and his recommendation is exactly as Bud said. It's hard for the local police's choice to be criticized in court.

 

I think the good shoot/bad shoot decision is far more important than the choice of ammo, but there's no reason to potentially stack the deck against yourself and be tried by the media.

 

The other importatnt thing to remember is that penetration is critical to stopping an assailant and Glasers do virtually no penetration. The FBI determinbed years ago that a bullet needs to penetrate at least 12 inches in order to do real damage. Here's a link to the full report and the only ammunition identified in the entire report is the Glaser and not in a good way:

 

Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness

[GarandFan]

I also agree with Bud and Sleeper, but would further add that the potential unintended outcomes of using things like non-standard ammunition or modded guns in bona fide defensive situations will vary from location to location. I would venture to guess that ammunition choice would matter less if you were in, say, Lawton, Oklahoma than if you were in, say, Cambridge, Massachusetts. If I were to carry a handgun in Chicago, then I would be conscientious of such issues. If I were to carry a handgun in rural Kentucky, I simply wouldn't give the issue a moment of thought.

 

I don't carry Glasers and DTRs and the like largely because they are "strange and non-standard" projectiles. I carry Win Ranger Ts primarily because they are tried and true, and secondarily because they are packaged as LE ammunition.

 

On the other hand, it's interesting to consider some of the new mainstream ammunition, like Win PDX, who are now making duplex-type rounds in 5.56 for SD, designed to "explosively expand" and also to decrease risk of overpenetration. But I suspect that reasonable juries (in the increasingly unlikely event you'd find yourself in front of one for DGU) would accept the rationale that "I was using self defense ammunition" or "I was using ammunition recommended by police."

[Xwing]

It’s a sad statement of society that you must determine your self-defense ammo based on what you think an attorney would say if you ever were in a situation where you had to use it.

[Bud]

It's a sad statement of society that you must determine your self-defense ammo based on what you think an attorney would say if you ever were in a situation where you had to use it.

 

Not really.

 

Any time you take a position on any matter you have to be ready to defend your decision and thinking about the possible ramifications of your actions (or inactions) is merely part of the decision process. "If I do this, what will or may be the result?" That's just thinking ahead.

 

In this case. my decision to not carry Glaser safety slugs is based primarily on the fact that I don't think they work based on scientific evidence. But adding to that is the fact that if I ever had to fire, my actions would be subject to review by people who are probably not well versed in defensive pistol knowledge and would they base their decisions in any way a skilled attorney would want to lead them. Giving that attorney an easy advantage is not to my benefit.

 

Glaser are a neat idea for a specific application and that was way back in the '70s when the Sky Marshal program started. They wanted a bullet that would be effective but would not penetrate the skin of an aircraft at altitude. The Glasere was developed, a big noise was made about how neat they were and they were quietly put on the back burner when the Sky Marshals decided that the Glaser didn't really perform very well.

 

My personal belief is that I have absolutly no idea of what type of scenario will present itself causing me to actually fire my pistol in self-defense. For that reason, I carry ammunition that is pretty well suited to any situation no matter what the circumstances are or might be.

[oneshot]

Participation on this forum is probably enough for a lawyer to make you "look like a bad guy".

[NakPPI]

I have Triton quik shok copper hollow points that have a frangible steel core that splits into 3 pieces, so you end up with one hole and 4 wound trails. I stopped carrying them for the same reasons mentioned above. Try to explain that one to Joe States attorney...

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[BobS]

Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness

 

Sure am growing weary of legalities…

 

"FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT DISSEMINATION ONLY"

[Bud]

Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness

 

Sure am growing weary of legalities…

 

"FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT DISSEMINATION ONLY"

 

and the alternative is.........................? Chaos?

 

As far as the LE dissemination, that report is all over the Internet. Kind of hard to put it back in the barn now

[xmikex]

I'll use anything listed in the "Best Choices" page here:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

 

 

 

Honestly, bullet selection is fine and all but the time / money / effort people spend picking out their superuperperfectthugkiller round would be better spent taking some training classes and then practicing the new skills they've learned.

[Bud]

Honestly, bullet selection is fine and all but the time / money / effort people spend picking out their superuperperfectthugkiller round would be better spent taking some training classes and then practicing the new skills they've learned.

 

That +1

[stm]

+2

[oneshot]

I'd considered Glasers briefly, but I read that they really weren't that effective and reducing risk of penetrating a wall and hurting someone, bad.

 

Take a look at this, I wouldn't stand on the other side of the wall from this. Seems like false peace of mind to me.

 

 

 

[GarandFan]

I'll use anything listed in the "Best Choices" page here:

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm

 

 

 

Honestly, bullet selection is fine and all but the time / money / effort people spend picking out their superuperperfectthugkiller round would be better spent taking some training classes and then practicing the new skills they've learned.

 

+3

[RandyP]

+ whatever..... carry amunition that YOU have verified works in YOUR handgun of choice and if that is plain old FMJ I will assure you that there is a century of proof of the ability of FMJ to get the job done. Obviously there have been many real improvements in ammunition made over the years and most SD 'gurus' recommend hollow point ammo over FMJ but NONE of them, the great Ayoob included, have ever volunteered to be the practice target for either style or any make and model round.

 

Range time is a better investment IMHO. If you think this year's latest Captain Billy Whiz Bang Rhino Stopper round is the best? Wait till next year when they make the Super-Dooper Super Stopper version.

[Xwing]

Not really.

 

Any time you take a position on any matter you have to be ready to defend your decision and thinking about the possible ramifications of your actions (or inactions) is merely part of the decision process. "If I do this, what will or may be the result?" That's just thinking ahead.

 

 

I understand why you made that decision, and I'm not saying it was a bad choice in any way. Just saying that such a dynamic had to prominently factor into your decision was a negative point for American society, and the sue-happy people we have become. I long for some tort reform to bring some sanity. (If it was obvious that the person shot was the primary aggressor &/or criminal, both legal and civil action should be a moot point. And I realize this isn’t the way society currently is, but IMO the way it should be!)

 

 

Since it coincided with your scientific evidence from a defense standpoint, all was well. But when making the decision on what bullet to choose, it is unfortunate that “what will an attorney say” has to enter into the thought process at all.

[Bud]

Not really.

 

Any time you take a position on any matter you have to be ready to defend your decision and thinking about the possible ramifications of your actions (or inactions) is merely part of the decision process. "If I do this, what will or may be the result?" That's just thinking ahead.

 

 

I understand why you made that decision, and I'm not saying it was a bad choice in any way. Just saying that such a dynamic had to prominently factor into your decision was a negative point for American society, and the sue-happy people we have become. I long for some tort reform to bring some sanity. (If it was obvious that the person shot was the primary aggressor &/or criminal, both legal and civil action should be a moot point. And I realize this isn't the way society currently is, but IMO the way it should be!)

 

 

Since it coincided with your scientific evidence from a defense standpoint, all was well. But when making the decision on what bullet to choose, it is unfortunate that "what will an attorney say" has to enter into the thought process at all.

 

Well, if you consider this from being in Illinois, criminal and civil liability doesn't figure into it if it was a legal shooting. But, in the case of a Coroner's Inquest (which has a Jury) or in the case of a Grand Jury (which has a 23 person Jury) then it has to be consdidered because those are two of the avenues where a 'good' shooting shooting is deemed to be a 'bad' shooting and somebody ends up in jail.

 

You have to look at legal description of murder in Illinois to understand how/why an adversarial attorney could aim a Jury at a homicide opinion:

 

(720 ILCS 5/9-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 9-1)

Sec. 9-1. First degree Murder - Death penalties - Exceptions - Separate Hearings - Proof - Findings - Appellate procedures - Reversals.

(a) A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:

(1) he either intends to kill or do great bodily harm to that individual or another, or knows that such acts will cause death to that individual or another; or (3) he is attempting or committing a forcible felony So, if an attorney representing the deceadent's family (maybe at a Coroner's Inquest) is able to convince the Jury that it was obvious that you intended to kill someone, just look at the type of ammunition he loaded his weapon with" and your only comeback is, "well, I read that Glaser Safety Slugs will explode on contact and cause a massive gaping woulnd" then who do you think might prevail? But if you came back and said, "I use the same ammunition the local police use because i figure they knew what they were doing" or in my case, "I use the same exact ammo I used in my pistol while I was on active duty" then you sdtand a better chance of coming through the process unscathed.

 

Actually pulling a weapon out, aiming it and firing at an individual almost always will happen in a very short split second although when it happens, time seems to stretch out and slow.

 

But, the thinking process involving actually doing it should start long before you even buy the pistol let alone the ammunition. A shooting does not (not ever) end when the smoke clears. We actually have a pretty good 'shooting' law in Illinois but that doesn't mean you are off the hook automatically. Never underestimate the potential for some dimwit to decide, from pure ignorance, that you need to be prosecuted for doing the right thing.

[moparcardave]

It's my guess that more then half of those carrying don't pick any particular round for their handguns. Then there are those that research and want the most incapacitating round they can get their hands on. It's the same arguement what caliber is best. The bottom line is any firearm is better then no firearm. I have two elderly friends at chruch that both carry. He is a veteran of Battle of Osan, Task Force Smith promoted from PFC not on the battlefield but to first sargent because they saw his skills. He went battled in Vietname and holds 4 bronze stars with valor along with an personally given award from the Queen of England for saving 7 British troops. Retired in 74 and worked for the federal goverment undercover weapons buyer. He is 80 and his newlwed wife of a year is 79. What do they carry? 22 autos in is belt and her's in her purse. Why, well a gun is better then no gun. I guess it just is whatever you have or feel you can handle. I know I feel better carrying and just depends on the day, the weather and dress. The geneva convention states fmj, but that's up to you.

[es503IL]

Bud @ 4Feb2012 0602pm (for whatever reason the "Quote" function of the board is not working right now);

 

As you referenced from Illinois Criminal Code,

"(720 ILCS 5/9-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 9-1)

Sec. 9-1. First degree Murder - Death penalties - Exceptions - Separate Hearings - Proof - Findings - Appellate procedures - Reversals.

(a) A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:

(1) he either intends to kill or do great bodily harm to that individual or another, or knows that such acts will cause death to that individual or another; or (3) he is attempting or committing a forcible felony

 

So, if an attorney representing the deceadent's family (maybe at a Coroner's Inquest) is able to convince the Jury that it was obvious that you intended to kill someone, just look at the type of ammunition he loaded his weapon with" and your only comeback is, "well, I read that Glaser Safety Slugs will explode on contact and cause a massive gaping woulnd" then who do you think might prevail? But if you came back and said, "I use the same ammunition the local police use because i figure they knew what they were doing" or in my case, "I use the same exact ammo I used in my pistol while I was on active duty" then you sdtand a better chance of coming through the process unscathed."

/Budman

 

 

I understand your point of justifying the ammunition used as "being extra lethal", however, it completely ignores (a) which states "a) A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:...."

 

Granted, dealing with this may contitute going to Court, but if you are justified in using Deadly Force, the statute does not draw a distiction between how the BG ends up dead. Granted this is something for the lawyers to fight out.

[Bud]

Bud @ 4Feb2012 0602pm (for whatever reason the "Quote" function of the board is not working right now);

 

As you referenced from Illinois Criminal Code,

"(720 ILCS 5/9-1) (from Ch. 38, par. 9-1)

Sec. 9-1. First degree Murder - Death penalties - Exceptions - Separate Hearings - Proof - Findings - Appellate procedures - Reversals.

(a) A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:

(1) he either intends to kill or do great bodily harm to that individual or another, or knows that such acts will cause death to that individual or another; or (3) he is attempting or committing a forcible felony

 

So, if an attorney representing the deceadent's family (maybe at a Coroner's Inquest) is able to convince the Jury that it was obvious that you intended to kill someone, just look at the type of ammunition he loaded his weapon with" and your only comeback is, "well, I read that Glaser Safety Slugs will explode on contact and cause a massive gaping woulnd" then who do you think might prevail? But if you came back and said, "I use the same ammunition the local police use because i figure they knew what they were doing" or in my case, "I use the same exact ammo I used in my pistol while I was on active duty" then you sdtand a better chance of coming through the process unscathed."

/Budman

 

 

I understand your point of justifying the ammunition used as "being extra lethal", however, it completely ignores (a) which states "a) A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits first degree murder if, in performing the acts which cause the death:...."

 

Granted, dealing with this may contitute going to Court, but if you are justified in using Deadly Force, the statute does not draw a distiction between how the BG ends up dead. Granted this is something for the lawyers to fight out.

 

You're still missing the point. I could list all my experience and education to justify my position but that would sound like chest beating.

 

A Coroners Jury is enpaneled to make a decision on a death. They have two options, justifiable homicide (homicide in Illinois just means 'death of a person') or death thaty was not justifiable either because of murder, reckless homicide, misadventure, etc.

 

A Grand Jury can take the evidence presented by a State's Attorney and/or the Coroners Jury and also indict (a true bill) or not ( a no bill).

 

That is the stages that determines whether or not a shooting is justificable.

 

In your case, you are puttting the cart before the horse. The decision as to whether or not a homicide is justifiable is done by the Coroners Jury (absolutely) and possibly a Grand Jury if the States Attorney decides to proceed.

 

It is not decided by two cops looking at a dead body and after hearing your statement deciding, "sounds good to me". it is a formal process to rule a justifiable homicide. Therin lies the danger, especially for someone like me here in Illinois right now.

 

I have an Illinois concealed carry permit as a retired LEO. Let's suppose that for some insane reason I am in Cook County visiting family and friends and an armed robbery occurs while I am picking up carry out or something. The situation goes very bad (as opposed to pretty bad) and the perp orders everyone down on their knees or into a back rtoom or something. I decide far enough, produce my weapon and without warning open fire killing him.

 

The State's Attorney in Illinois would look first at making a big political event about it because she hates giuns and would not ever want a non-police officer (I have zero police powers) being allowed to get away with not only carrying a concealed weapon but actually using it in self defense. She would do everything in her power to prevent a positive concealed carry message to get out to the general public. How would she do that? By getting a Grand Jury to indict me for murder and I would \be making her job easier by carrying bullets that are actually illegal in some States. How would that sound to a Grand Jurty made up of 23 people who have not heard anything favorable about guns for the last forty years? And also know, that the 23 people on the Juryt don't have to make a unaminouis decision. It only takes 12 of them to vote for a true bill and indictment.

 

Do you have any doubt at all that in the current political climate, I would be in severe jeopardy?

 

I am scared to death that I will inadverently allow somebody to see my gun when I am out shopping because I know they would start screaming "GUN!!!" and I might get shot by some young hot dog patrol officer looking to make his street rep.

 

I could actually care less what anyone else carries. It's none of my business. But, the question was asked in the OP and I answered it. I also stressed that you better think of all of the ramifications of concealed carry before you start doing it because it is not as black and white as many of the people here think.

 

The whole reason we no longer have a death penalty in Illinois is because so many imnnocent people were convicted of murder who never did it. They were put in jeopardy of their lives by crooked cops and corrupt prosecuters.

 

Glaser are stupid. Stuipid because of the false information that they may convene to some Monday morning quarterback and also stupid because there is more than sufficient evidence that they don't work.

[Buzzard]

To further elaborate on what happens after a self defensive shooting - one of the instructors of the NRA Personal Protection In The Home class that I took at Darnell's emphasized that one needs to be careful what's said when the police arrive. This example was given - The police investigator asks you "So when you fired your weapon.... you were SHOOTING to KILL.... is that right?" We were told that a proper response would be "I was in fear for my life and I was shooting to LIVE."

[Gary]

I have never purchased any Glaser Slugs but if I were to do so, I would do it at a local gun store. If I was able to buy them, I would hope that my attorney would explain that "exploding" bullets are illegal in Illinois and then he would show the six packages that he had purchased in six different gun stores in Illinois. Then explain that the bullets do NOT explode but instead they disintegrate. He would produce documents comfirming that the bullets were invented to prevent over penetration in 1974. The reduced penetration is why they are called "safety" slugs. Now someone is going to show how they go through walls but I wonder if they would penetrate the walls on my house and then also penetrate the walls on my neighbors house. An FMG 38 will.

[oneshot]

Which is why I subscribe to the strategy of saying nothing to the police. I even had cards made up to explain my position.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk