Questions and Answers About Dum-Dum Bullets Pamphlet with Cover Letter

    Is the hollow-point bullet the same 
as the dum-dum bullet?
Yes. The hollow-points have the same charac­
teristics as the outlawed dum-dums: (1) The 
partial jacketing and wavy border between the 
jacket and expoised lead portions of the bullet, 
(2) the hollow point, and (3) the flattened top 
which is the result of a hollow point configura­
tion. And what is more relevant is the tendency 
to easily expand or mushroom in the human 
body.

Why is it wrong to shoot 
to kill?
Shooting to kill, if not actually necessary, is 
tantamount to a summary execution (execu­
tion without trial) and violates not only the hu­
man rights laws, but also the Fifth and Four­
teenth Amendments’ prohibition against the 
deprivation of “ life, liberty or property without 
due process of law.” The dum-dum bullet also 
violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of 
"cruel and unusual punishment” , and theNinth 
Amendment rights of all persons to freedom 
from cruel, inhumane or excessive death, inju­
ry orsuffering.

Does the public favor dum-dums?
No. A poll conducted by Connecticut Maga­
zine (Nov. 1974) showed that 66 per cent of 
those responding opposed the weapons while 
only 34 per cent favored them. The Hartford 
Courant said that 2 of 3 letters-to-the-editor 
oppose thebullets.

The anxiety and hostility produced by the 
weapons may damage and hinder the public 
support which the police need in order to per­
form their functions adequately. The police 
cannot operate effectively without public sup­
port and the decision to use inhumane weap­
ons is bound to be counter-productive.

What can I do?
You can write or call your state representative 
and state senator. Urge them to support bills 
which prohibit the use of dum-dum bullets 
against state c itizens or anyone else. You 
should also write to your representative in 
Congress to push for federal legislation.

Questions &  Answers 
About

cclu

Dum-Dum
Bullets

Connecticut Civil Liberties Union 
57 Pratt St., Hartford, Conn.

CONNECTICUT CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
57 PRATT STREET. HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 06103



What is a dum-dum or 
hollow-point bullet?
A “dum -dum " b u lle t is one tha t produces a 
mushrooming or expanding effect within the 
human body. The word “dum-dum” has, over 
the years, been used as a general term for bul­
lets which expand or flatten easily in the hu­
man body. As a result, they cause greater rip­
ping and tearing of human flesh -  and often 
death. Hollow-points are merely one type of 
“dum-dum” bullet. Such bullets are so cruel 
they are banned in time of war or peace by in­
ternational treaties and customs.

Why is there opposition to 
the dum-dum bullet?
The ACLU is opposed to the dum-dums be­
cause weapons which are impermissible or 
illegal in international warfare should not be 
used against Americans in peace time. The 
bullets cause unnecessary wounding and un­
necessary deaths. The ACLU believes that 
only the minimum force needed to protect the 
life of a police officer or that of a third person 
isproperand reasonable.

What international laws are violated?
The 1899 Hague Declaration on expanding 
bullets, the 1907 Hague Convention No. IV, the 
1949 Geneva Coventions, the United Nations 
Charter, and the Universal Declaration of Hu­
man Rights prohibit the use of dum-dum bul­
lets. The U.S. signed the 1907 Hague Conven­
tion, the 1949 Geneva Convention, and the 
U.N. Charter. Moreover, Article VI, Section 2 of 
the U.S. Constitution declares that all treaties 
to which the U.S. is a party are part of the “Su­
preme Law of the Land” , as is customary law.

What does the U.S. Army say?
The U.S. Army does not permit its troops, on 
foreign or domestic soil, to use dum-dum bul­
lets. U.S. Army pamphlet No. 27-200, Subject 
Schedule No. 27-1 and Army Field Manual 
27-10 all recognize this prohibition. The ban 
also applies to the military police. The Army 
cites the principles of the Hague convention as 
a basis for this prohibition.

How much more damage can the 
dum-dums cause?
The severity of a wound is directly related to 
the amount of kinetic energy it transfers to the 
body. .38 hollow-points transfer from 2'/2 times 
to more than 4 times the kinetic energy that a 
normal round nosed .38 bullet would transfer, 
as confirmed by a Dallas police report and 
otherstudies.

Since the severity of the wound and tissue 
damage will increase in direct proportion to 
increased energy transfer, the .357 magnum 
hollow-point bullet can cause, under the right 
circumstances, an increase in wound severity 
and tissue damage that is 10 times more than 
a .38 special. Suffering, obviously, will also 
increase.

Do all police departments 
use dum-dums?
No, there is a split among the police depart­
ments across the country as to whether they 
are proper. For example, Los Angeles Police 
Chief Edward Davis opposes the dum-dum 
bullets because he says that over 50 per cent 
of police officers who are shot are shot with 
their own weapons, and he doesn’t want his 
officers to be hit by a dum-dum because it most 
likely will cause death or cruel wounds. Davis 
says: “They make a great big hole in people.” 
The Los Angeles Police Department banned 
them under its own regulations.

Hartford Police Chief Hugo Masini declared 
that “ it’s not unlikely both of these officers 
would have been killed had they been shot
with a .357 magnum ho llow -po in t......... ” His
statement followed the shooting of two Hart­
ford police officers in 1974 by a person who 
had snatched away one of the officers’ .38 cali­
ber revolvers.

Form er Police Chief Jerry W. W ilson, of 
Washington, D. C. notes that 3/4ths of the 
police officers killed never fire a shot at their 
assailants. Wilson says that the “ increased 
firepower has had no practical effect on the 
problem.” He recommends the wearing of 
newly developed bullet proof vests.

Lt. McGee, commander of the New York Po­
lice Department firearms section, adds that

magnums can be “counter effective” , because 
of excessive recoil, muzzle blast and muzzle 
flash. The N.Y.P.D. refuses to switch from the 
.38 special.

Shouldn’t the police be the judge of 
what ammunition they use?
No, especially if the decision to use a notori­
ously cruel weapon is made casually in the ab­
sence of public standards and public scrutiny. 
At the least, police should have to prove at 
public hearings that nothing else will protect 
them and third parties.

What has the U.S. Justice 
Department recommended?
William Saxbe, while serving as U.S. Attorney 
General, told the national news media that he 
opposed the police use of dum-dum bullets, 
and he cited the arguments made by Los An­
geles Police Chief Edward Davis. Saxbe point­
ed out that the dum-dums created too great a 
risk to the life of police officers - since they 
often are hit with their own weapons.

What do national commissions say?
The National Advisory Commission on Crimi­
nal Justice Standards and Goals observed: 
“The police sidearm is primarily a defensive 
weapon intended to protect the lives of o ffi­
cers or other persons. It must be able to inca­
pacitate the individual against whom it is used.” 
It added that the standard weapon continues 
tobethenorm al .38special.

What about the Red Cross report?
The International Committee of the Red Cross, 
in a 1973 report, stated that the likelihood of 
death is “particularly” increased by “massive 
tissue destruction that may be caused by . . . 
projectiles which flatten, expand, or tumble on 
impact, or which enter the body with high ve­
locity . . .  the bullet will then exhibita truedum - 
dum effect even though it was not primarily 
designed to do so.” The Red Cross also recog­
nizes that hollow-point ammunition produces 
such effects within the human body.



Jordan J. Paust 
93 Towns House Rd 
Hamden, CT. 06514 Phone:(203)288-6576
Oct. 11. 1974

Dear Attorney Kendall:
Enclosed is a copy of an article that is relevant to the 
dum-dum controversy. It will be printed very soon in the 
Denver Journal of International Law and PolicyCNov. 1974)
Also of direct interest should be a forthcoming article on 
"Human Rights and the Ninth Amendment: A New Form of Guarantee," 
60 Cornell Law Review(Jan. 1975), copyright, Cornell University, 
1974. I could send you a copy if you agree to protect my 
intellectual property rights by quoting the piece and the 
Cornell copyright reference if you merely cite the article 
for a point or two, or by adding my name to your brief if 
you wish to substantially incorporate the material or 
arguments contained thereinCplus citing the piece somewhere 
and the Cornell copyright).
I also enclose a copy of a newspaper article that discloses the unabashed and egregious disconcern of the Connecticut 
State Police Commissioner for the difference in wound volume, 
temporary cavitational effect, hydrodynamic shock effects, 
rip-and-tear, and so forth with the .357s or any hollow-points 
as compared with the normal .38s. He doesn't care what these 
bullets do to humans I
I will keep you posted on other developments, but you should 
also keep in touch with Bill Olds and the trial attorneys for 
CCLUCsee enclosed letter from Frank Cochran).
This one we will wini Best regards. I

Assoc. Prof, of Int'l Law, Houston

P.S. Please publicize the fact that the porposed national 
legislation is before Rep. Hungate's Subcommittee on Criminal 
Justice. No formal sponsor of the legislation exists yet-- 
we could use a Congressional sponsor and a little lobbying.'I

cc: Bill Olds