I saw the story too.
What bothered me about it, is the guy was hiking in bear country....he had a damn good reason to be carrying a 10mm!!!
Also, when they go after someone for using JHP's....why don't they bring in a firearms expert to talk about ballistics?
Evidently it's going to take a couple of high profile shootings, where innocent people are injuried due to overpenetrating FMJ's going through a perp and killing someone on the other side. Then the DA's will be arguing that he should have been using expanding ammunition that wouldn't have overpenetrated.
You can find plenty of documentable evidence that shows handgun wounds to be ineffective at stopping an immediate threat. The FBI study detailed that w/o a CNS hit, you have to cause a rapid drop in BP to stop a determined threat. How else are you going to do that except with bullets that create maximum tissue dammage?
People have this idea in their heads that you can shoot a perp in the leg while they're running at you with a knife, and "wound" the suspect. People have no idea how shootings under stress happen. I'd really like to see the NRA fund a study on this. Have 100 cops, from all over the country, fire simmunitions at a threat running towards them, intending to "wound the threat", and see what they could hit.
People that have never even held a gun before will be the ones who judge us on how we use it. And they'll judge us by what they've seen and heard on TV for years, without having 1 lick of real world experience with it.
Lastly....so what if the bullets are designed to infilict maximum damage? If you draw and fire your gun, you've decided to use lethal force. Why limit the effectiveness of that lethal force?
I'm sorry, but any attorney I hire is going to be a shooter.
The fact that a juror walked away with a bad taste in their mouth because the defendant used 10mm HydraShok's shows how poor a job that lawyer did at defending his client.