Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The 10 Ring' started by CCantu357, Feb 26, 2014.
AZson, Harold Fish's conviction had virtually nothing to do with his use of a 10mm.
Read jurors comments in this transcript from Dateline ABC.
I saw this program in full, I could not believe how stupid and ignorant the jury members where. They where no ware close to being his peers.
As the sleaze-bag anti-gun prosecutor Prosecutor Michael Lessler argued this case was not about character—it’s about behavior" and the behavior was talking about having a 10mm to defend himself not the fact the so called victim had a history of violence.
Harold passed away not long after we got him out of jail. we lost a good guy there.
Very nice article Andrew.
I don't see how a 10mm could be overkill when you look at the ballistics [the real ballistics] that the big ammo manufactures are putting out. they are running about 100-150fps over the .40 S&W. unless you are getting ammo from Underwood or some of the smaller ammo manufactures the 10mm is just a .40+P.
So much BS about the 10mm. They said the same crap back when 357 magnums were starting to take over from 38 specials.
Run what ya brung and be happy. But always remember nobody forced you to talk about it online. Most of us are here because we're opinionated a55holes. Otherwise we'd be doing other things
Self defense is based on if you are in a life or death situation. The weapon used is irrelevant and completely off topic. If a gang of thugs busted in your house armed with rifles aimed at you (to keep it clear cut for most jurisdictions and situation sake) you could shoot them with a 10mm, stab them with a knife, throw acid at them etc to defend your life. What you use does not determine if defense was warranted.
My mistake. I still think he would have been railroaded no matter what gun he carried.
Thank you, sir.
Some folks here seem to denigrate anything other than what they personally carry. Don't worry about it. Carry whatever you want. I would love to carry a 10mm when I go into the mountains.
Wow. I'm a life member of the NRA, send as much money as I can to every pro-2A organization I can, and would prefer it if everyone carried. After reading transcripts of the Fish case and reading his own words, I'm astonished anyone would think he shouldn't have gone to prison--regardless of what weapon he had on hand. Haven't seen anything yet that would even remotely justify the use of lethal force--even against the dogs. Must be missing the "I'm afraid I'm going to get the crap slapped out of me, so I'm okay to shoot somebody" portion of the right to defend myself.
Pretty much the same as the recent Florida Zimmerman case and the more recent Dunn case. Really little wonder we're losing here. Harsh language and snarling dogs, and your fear of being beaten up, doesn't really translate well (for me) to using a gun. Probably need to get some balls before you decide to carry, I'm thinking.
There was lots of testimony given by people who knew the "victim" stating he was a hot head. His boss the fire marshal testified he was a afraid of him and had acted aggressively towards him in the same way and his ex-girl friend he stocked.
There was a lot of testimony against the guy, I'm not sure what the judge suppressed but there was enough given that proved the victim was not a nice guy.
In the end it was the jury member's who thought he was out to kill some one because he carried the 10mm. The prosecutor brings them to trial but it is all the jury in then end and this one was ignorant.
Now in AZ, with our new law, unless it is done while committing a crime a prosecutor must go through a grand jury just to bring the person to trial when they claim self-defense.
Hopefully the person does not get two sets of ignorant people.
Self defense utilizing lethal force is about last resorts, at that point you have no choice, assuming living is the only one, regardless of caliber.
If you end up with an agressive prosecutor, it won't matter what gun you use. There was a case where the prosecutor argued that a defender who used a .45 ACP 1911 was a Rambo wanna be because the .45 ACP was a "huge military round."
Defense counsel refuted that by citing that the bailiffs in the courtroom they were standing in all carried .45 Smith and Wesson pistols.
The problem with the Fish case was that the defense counsel didn't refute the steaming BS offered by the prosecutor. Remember that any jury we might face won't be 12 folks from the local 3-gun league.It'll be twelve brain dead jurors who get their gun knowledge from Lethal Weapon Movies. Unless a defender can logically articulate why they carried what they did in a way understandable to perfect strangers, problems await!
A game I like to play to illustrate the point- pick twelve random coworkers , and imagine explaining your reasons for killing a man in self defense to them. If the thought scares you- and it certainly does for me!-take the time now to mentally rehearse what you'd say. I don't mean to dictate how or what gun someone should carry, but explaining to gun ignorant people why you used a police trade in Glock 22 .40 is a lot easier then explaining a gunsmith modified 10mm 1911 with a 3.5lb trigger .
I'm not quite sure where to begin. The time to use deadly physical force is BEFORE you are grievously injured. Your post makes it appear that you don't believe a person has the right to defend themselves until they have already been beaten or stabbed or are already staring down the barrel of a gun. Moreover, the standard for using force against an aggressive animal is far lower.
Fish shot the dogs because he reasonably believed that he was about to be bitten. He shot the man because he reasonably believed that he was about to be attacked. There was a substantial disparity of force (Google it) between the two. Fish's attacker communicated the intent to do harm, possessed the ability, and advanced quickly and menacingly.
The forensic evidence was entirely consistent with Fish's account. Though Fish didn't know it, his attacker had a long screwdriver in his pocket. Screwdrivers are often carried as weapons by convicted felons like him. Fish's attacker had a lengthy history of violence and unstable behavior, especially concerning his dogs. Fish had no criminal record whatsoever and all who knew him described him as a kind and levelheaded man.
I love my 10mm Glocks, but will agree with some that there isn't a lot of difference between 9, 40, 45, 10mm, and 357 Glocks for self defense. I usually carry my 9mm or 357 Glocks as they hold the most ammo, have light recoil, and are compact.
The 10mm really shines as a hunting and trail pistol.
10mm is the best semi-auto caliber ever, ignore the haters, get a g20 and a g29. Do not go .45 with the 10mm conversion. Get the 20 and/or 29.
Nobody was sent to jail for using 10mm, absolute myth. 10mm is great for all defensive situations.
If you read that, and that's what you got from it, you need to work on reading comprehension. Yes, the writer wrote some BS about the 10mm, but the only mention by the prosecutor, quoted there, was that he used an evil "hollow point bullet." The 10mm hate in that article was very little and was by John Larson, the author. It may have been from the prosecutor, but it was insignificant to the reason Fish was convicted, as he should have been.
Sorry for the side track, but I'm curious just how much harm you believe needs to be done to a person before they are justified in using deadly physical force.
As I mentioned above, the physical evidence was consistent with Fish's account and he claimed that the dogs charged him, barking and snapping. Should he have waited to see if they intended to shower him with kisses? What level of blood loss is sufficient to use force in your estimation? I would have shot both dogs dead. I will not tolerate a vicious animal. If you don't want your dogs shot, you should train them and leash them. Nevertheless, Fish did not shoot the dogs. A man with a long record of violence came running at him and yelled "I'm going to kill you." Now maybe on some other planet that isn't a threat but on this planet them's fightin' words. Literally. Fish's attacker possessed the ability to cause grievous bodily harm and communicated his intent both vocally and through his actions. At that point, Fish reasonably believed that he was about to sustain grievous bodily injury or be killed, which is exactly the level of justification required for use of deadly physical force in Arizona.
Fish was convicted because he could not prove that his account was correct. At the time, the burden of proof lay on the accused in a self defense homicide in Arizona. Let me be clear: there was no evidence that contradicted Fish's account. The deceased was a violent man and was well known to irrational and unstable behavior. Fish had no such history. The deceased had a weapon concealed on his person with which he clearly had intended to do harm to Fish. But because there were no witnesses and because Fish could therefore not positively prove that some other series of events had occurred, he was convicted.
How many times should Fish have been punched or stabbed before you believe that he would be justified in using deadly physical force?
First, as others have noted, there's a lot of B.S. about the 10mm out there.
Understand that 99.9% of this B.S. isn't new at all, but consists of the same old disproven cliches, internet myths, and regurgitated claims from the gunrags of the late '80s & early '90s, way before there was an internet.
Second, Fish's case was an isolated instance of prosecutorial overreaching, in which agressive dogs were shot, or shot at, and a human attacker killed, with the state's "proof" consisting of a showcase trial of the caliber of the firearm involved and not, regardless of the caliber, whether the firearm was properly used for reasonable and legitimate SD in order to repel a threat of serious physical harm or death. As far as I know, the law (Arizona, IIRC?) was amended in various ways (such as the burden of proof) after his conviction to correct such overreaching.
Regarding the 10mm itself, this is a cartridge that chooses you - not the other way around. And by "10mm," I mean the cartridge in its unadulterated, non-diluted form (whether factory or handloaded), which is to say, loads at or near full-power.
I've been w/ the 10mm since the late 1980s - yea, I'm one of the oldsters here who got to shoot plenty of Norma's 10mm ammo and the other early factory stuff that were plentiful back in the day. Over the years I've come to the conclusion that there are a certain amount of shooter-folks among us for whom this round is simply incompatible. It doesn't work for them and they are best served by avoiding it and defaulting to one of the other so-called "service cartridges" for CCW, duty use, and/or self-defense (i.e., 9mm, 40S&W, .357Sig or .45acp).
That's why I've also stressed over the years that the 10mm is a "harsh mistress." You have to train up to the capability of the cartridge on a regular basis to maintain proficiency if you want to EDC it for CCW or duty use. For the "once-a-month warrior," who shoots one box at the range and packs up, he's probably better off w/ something else, perhaps a 9mm or .380.
Yes, it's certainly true that because of the 10mm's huge power-curve, it is a highly versatile round for many tasks; yes, both 10mm Glocks make versatile platforms for barrel-swapping in other 10mm-derivative calibers, e.g., .40S&W; yes, the 10mm exhibits superb accuracy, more so as the FBI discovered in its ammunition trials than the 9mm or .45acp; yes, 10mm factory ammo is available at every energy level and in a wide variety of bullet-weights, loaded from "mild-to-wild" as they say; yes, the 10mm is an excellent & very forgiving round to reload for ... yadda, yadda, yadda ...
But these considerations are all secondary.
You first have to go hands-on with the 10mm and shoot it a while, and then decide if it's for you.
Most who have done so liked it immediately and haven't looked back.
As for the 10mm-haters, they've been sniping at this cartridge since its inception. And since they're obviously not going away, just ignore them. Do your own shooting and thinking and decide for yourself.