Legal To Use Hornady Zombie Max Ammo for Defense?
OK, I decided to switch threads from my previous question since it led me to ask, "Is it legally ok to use Hornady's Zombie Max ammo for self-defense?" The NRA-certified instructor with 50 years of teaching experience who taught my CCW class warned us never to use handloaded or oddball ammo in our concealed carry guns. Rationale: slip-and-fall lawyers would rip a shooter apart if they used anything but factory ammo for self-defense. According to our instructor, using oddball ammo or hotly loaded handloads could signify premeditation to cause unusual harm to a person. In other words, if you badly wounded an attacker instead of killing him/her, the lawyer could argue your intent was to disfigure and maim, making you financially liable for your attacker's wounds for the rest of your life. Supposedly, there are recorded cases of this happening. So, one could certainly argue that Hornady's Zombie Max ammo is oddball stuff, even though it's close in design and performance to its Critical Defense round. In fact, as I pointed out in my other thread, Hornady seems to have put themselves in a pickle with this Zombie ammo. Leveraging America's bizarre Zombie craze, Hornady marketed this stuff for Zombie defense and even trumped up the packaging with Hollywood-style graphics. As a result, goofballs started buying the stuff and using it as if it were a toy. Enter Hornady's lawyers, I'm sure, who had the company issue an official warning against using their ammo on anything but Zombies (which don't exist, BTW), i.e. "But please note, Hornady Zombie Max ammunition is not a toy. It is intended only to be used on zombies, also known as the living dead, undead, etc. No human being, plant, animal, vegetable or mineral should ever be shot with Zombie Max ammunition." Notice the warning, no human being should ever be short with Zombie Max ammunition. So, if Hornady, one of America's premier ammo manufacturers, is telling customers not to shoot a human with this ammo, is it advisable to use it for self-defense or concealed carry? Now, I'm assuming if Zombie Max ammo will rip through undead Zombie flesh, it would have a similar effect on a human attacker, but that's not my question. Has Hornady opened self-defenders using this particular ammo to law suits or other legal issues? I guess I can see a lawyer stating in court, "But Sir, didn't you read the manufactures warning not to use this ammo on human beings? If so, then why did you disregard the warning and shoot my innocent client?" I don't mean to make too much of this, but it appears Hornady has only made more problems for itself and its customers. Thoughts?
0
-
quote:But Sir, didn't you read the manufactures warning not to use this ammo on human beings? If so, then why did you disregard the warning and shoot my innocent client?
Quick answer: "Because he jumped at me with a knife, I was in fear of my life, and I had no other choice. If I didn't shoot him, I'd be dead.".
Better answer: You exercise your fifth amendment privilege and don't answer that misleading deliberately inflammatory question. Any lawyer worth two cents would get it instantly tossed out.
Long answer:
Yes, despite the manufacturer warning, its perfectly legal to use this ammo for defense. Its also legal to use a "chainsaw" "axe" or "speargun" for defense. . .if your life is on the line, and that's what you have available for you for defense.
What matters isn't what type of ammo you use, nor what type of weapon, but HOW you use these things with respect to the laws of defense in the jurisdiction in question.
When you shot, was the use of deadly force legally justified or not?
If it is, in an otherwise "clean" shooting, the brand of ammo is going to be irrelevant.
This issue of type of ammo comes up in a more ambiguous circumstance. . .lets say the shooting circumstances are a bit more murky, or for some political or other reason (eg what happened recently in South Florida) someone decides that they want to make an example of you.
In a case like that a gung-ho prosecutor might try to say that since you loaded your gun with "zombie" rounds, you were a lunatic looking for trouble.
Would that charge stick? It might. . *IF* there were other evidence to suggest this. But if not, no, it wouldn't. If the bulk of the evidence shows that you were a responsible person acting reasonably, the jury should respond to that.
If it were me, if this issue came up in court, I'd have my lawyer simply introduce evidence that no other form of ammo was commercially available at the time you made your purchase (which actually would be easy to do. . .your last thread documents this in a public place), and that except for the packaging, the "zombie" ammo is no different than ordinary personal defense ammo. So I think it would be pretty easy to make a strong case that a. Despite the packaging, this ammo actually IS a good choice for self-defense, and b. that it was the best choice available at the time you made the purchase.
My bottom line, I'd still rather be tried by 12 than carried by six.
Given the choice, I'd prefer the regular "critical defense" ammo, but if "Zombie max" is the only premium ammo available, I'd still pick it over low-powered target or ball ammo, and I'd use it without hesitation (on zombies, or non-zombies) if the situation required it.0 -
My Dad's favorite line was "I didn't want to hurt them so I used soft nosed bullets." 0 -
Only against Zombie's. Obama and Holder would have you in Gitmo, with the towel heads in a New York minute. If they found out you violated the written instructions on the box.[:D] 0 -
If there was a modification to this round such as unique powder charge, bullet weight or design i would get nervous.
The Zombie rounds are a market ploy feeding the craze at the time, In your defense a good lawyer would show in evidence that with the exception of packaging it is a common defense load. The evil Black Talons are a example, at the time it was a new design coming out, the hype to sell it aided in the demise of the round yet if you look today they are readily available under the name Ranger SXT.0 -
I was a juror on a murder trial & I lost count of the number of times the prosecutor mentioned (& showed pictures of the bullets & the box they came out of) the hollowpoint bullet that was used. Any .45 bullet fired point blank into the back of the man's head would of done just as well. 0 -
I have never seen a published report of any criminal trial in which the type of ammunition used was a factor.
Neal
"Show it to me in black-and-white, & I'll take your word for it."---Neal0 -
quote:Originally posted by nmyers
I have never seen a published report of any criminal trial in which the type of ammunition used was a factor.
Neal
"Show it to me in black-and-white, & I'll take your word for it."---Neal
What he said.
But if you are really worried about it, find out what the FBI, your state police, your local police or sherrifs department, etc. use and use that in your carry gun.0 -
My friend called me to t ell me that he had shot a coyote at 58 yards from his CZ 40 cal CCW. He did not have time to set up his rifle, boom there it was. Hornady Critical Defense 40 cal. He hit mid shoulder broadside 25-28# michigan coyote, and said he was shocked at the damage it did, and could not imaging using it in a real life self defense situation. I then told him, the bullet did not continue on after pass through? he said no, and I told him, you copper jacketed target loads or hollow points may have continued on, and keep in mind, the responsibilities that you may be liable for if that bullet continues on. I also told him, ammo kills without prejudice and when your life is on the line, you want ammo that performs good enough to stop someone trying to harm you. I have a 9mm and 40 and both loaded with Critical Defense, until I hear otherwise. Good Topic. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by gruntled
I was a juror on a murder trial & I lost count of the number of times the prosecutor mentioned (& showed pictures of the bullets & the box they came out of) the hollowpoint bullet that was used. Any .45 bullet fired point blank into the back of the man's head would of done just as well.
If that's what the prosecutor keeps going on about, then you know he doesn't have much of a case.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that as a juror, you weren't exactly impressed by his ranting about ammunition.
Bottom line is, if you're afraid that the package labelling (and that's really all we're talking about here) could potentially increase legal exposure in a defensive shooting, then spend your money on something else.
Even if the real legal risk here is negligible (and IMO it probably is), you still have to have confidence in your choice of weapon and ammo, and you don't want to be worrying about this factor before, during, or after a shooting incident.
So, if you have a choice to get something you prefer then get that instead. If not, you have to use what you can get and take your chances.0 -
Here in Oklahoma if it is ruled a justified shooting that's it, no civil suits.
We do have a DA (two meanings
) in Tulsa that will try his best to press charges.
I use what works the best in my gun. That is my biggest worry.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments