Ignore political correctness and put a Punisher Skull on it... But I'd stay away from any depiction of a 'Roman War Helmet'.
What?!
Ignore political correctness and put a Punisher Skull on it... But I'd stay away from any depiction of a 'Roman War Helmet'.
What?!
Last edited by MontWyDaho; 08-28-2017 at 08:03 PM.
I've investigated hundreds of shootings, presented findings to prosecutors for file/no file decisions, and am familiar with both the grand jury process, civil lawsuit depositions, etc. from experience.
If we're talking STRICTLY criminal, in my experience, it has not mattered. This answer could easily be different in another jurisdiction, if your case becomes "a media case", etc. However "the norm" has the file/no-file decision being made with the prosecutor having no idea what the weapon looks like. I have never been asked what color the gun was, if it has any alterations* or markings, type of firearm, etc.
Civil is different. The photos of your weapon are discoverable by the opposing side. They have much greater leeway in what they can ask in both the depo and the trial (I've been through depos, not to trial). I was asked about such personal things as hobbies, and that would not be asked in a criminal depo. You can bet your ass that if a photo showed something that could paint you in a bad light, it's going to come up in a depo and then come up in court. It is the opposing attorney's JOB to paint you as having some level of responsibility for the person's death, it not their job to discover and introduce the truth. It's their JOB to dig in depos for ways to find dirt on you. It's their JOB to ask questions that have no good answers, lock you into something, and then ask the same thing in court and beat you over the head as a liar or fool if your answer varies slightly.
There's also the notion that a good shoot is always identified as a good shoot. Particularly if you do the "don't talk to the police" routine, you may very well go to grand jury even if you don't end up going go to trial. A grand jury gets to ask their own questions. We've had a grand jury ask a cop why he didn't shoot the gun out of a bad guy's hand, and this was one where it started with a cop getting shot.
A jury will see photos of your weapon. Juries are unpredictable and are hugely influenced by what they think they know from watching TV. The grand jury member really expected a cop to shoot a gun out of a bad guy's hand because TV told him they could. And the cop had to answer how that's stupid and what reality was. What's your explanation for why there is a punisher skull on your weapon when that guy, the guy who is one of the people deciding if you indicted for murder or not, asks why you have a punisher skull on your gun. Do you want that subconscious association with a vigilante? Criminal juries get to ask questions, too, but they are much more constrained in which ones the judge/attorneys will actually allow to be asked in open court. I still get asked about why we didn't CSI some shit, and it's because TV.
From my experiences, there is no way in hell I'd put anything on a gun I couldn't explain to the biggest moron who could find the court house to serve on a grand jury to.
*not counting altered/obliterated serial number, which is illegal by itself
A reason why bleating "show me the cases" isn't really dispositive here is because you don't get a written opinion from a trial judge in a criminal trial that's later published in various reporters, nor do you get a similar written report of the jury's thought process. Another reason why bleating "show me the cases" isn't really dispositive here is because the "the prosecutor talked about the murder weapon having a Punisher skull/TiN bbl/Gadget/fiber optic sights" issue probably won't constitute grounds for an appeal and thus is unlikely to show up in case law.
Off the top of my head, the two most likely areas for a modification to show up in an appeal are a) a claim of insufficiency of the evidence and b) a claim of inappropriate comments/questions by the prosecutor. The former claim will involve a discussion of the evidence followed by laughter/frustration from the Court of Appeals and a summary dismissal of the claim after a cursory cut-and-paste of some case law and a "a reasonable juror could find..." line. The latter will first require an objection at trial from defense counsel followed by a ruling from the judge in order to be appealable. So, when he's busy trying to fuck over a good cop or citizen or something, the shitty DA must first get past both defense counsel and the judge to even get the Court of Appeals in order for that issue to show up in that case law thing whose presence or absence is apparently going to prove everybody's point. Neither route is particularly likely to show up in an appeal in my opinion because one is simply an appellate review of the evidence submitted at trial and the other is simply the prosecutor examining the evidence in front of the jury/commenting upon the same, so barring something outlandish from the State I think that's pretty safe. Finally, the Court of Appeals isn't generally going to go digging for other questions to answer: they only answer those they were asked, and they have rather strict rules which determine which questions you're allowed to ask them.
Of course, the above would require an understanding of both trial practice and appellate procedure but I suppose you could, like, pick that up from watching a trial or something.
I'm aware of a case where a shooter inscribed a particular symbol into the wooden grip of his revolver. Did we ask the witness used to lay a foundation for that gun about that at trial? Yup. Is that an improper comment meant to do nothing more than inflame the jury? Nope, that's simply asking the witness to describe the weapon the jury later brought with them to the jury room. Did we comment on it during closing arguments? Yup. Was our objective to use that inscription to make the jury's decision to convict easier? Absolutely. Are you going to find in the case of State v. Dickhead, 123 S.W.3d 456 (2015) a paragraph from the Court of Appeals saying "yeah, it's totally cool to have a stupid carving in your revolver grip" or "no, don't carve dumb stuff into your revolver grip because that makes it automatically murder?" No, because that's not the issue that was appealed.
Massad Ayoob noted in the Zimmerman thing that the absence of a safety on Zimmerman's PF-9 was indeed an issue at trial -- not a big one, but certainly something somebody (Zimmerman) had to pay somebody to explain. The point of mentioning that is that we do pay attention to things in order to help create a narrative for the jury, and we will use anything we can to paint the picture we want. Some of us do it poorly (Angela Corey). Others do it responsibly.
Last edited by ssb; 08-28-2017 at 08:12 PM.
Asking for cases isn't mere bleating. When I'm told something is a fact based on opinion and conjecture, I grow skeptical, especially when my questioning incurs a strong emotional response along the lines of "YOU MUST BE AN IDIOT IF YOU CANNOT SEE THE OBVIOUS!!" (To be clear, I'm not being told this in this forum.) As a kid, I was fed a lot of gun mythology and was embarrassed to learn the real facts. What I am trying to do is separate what people believe will happen from what actually happens. There are some excellent, eye opening answers in this thread, in response to my questions.
Personally, I don't care if someone has a skull on their firearm. I have one lower with some sort of "tribal skull" engraved on it, but that's because there was a drought of AR parts and it was the first one to come along at a reasonable price, like $70 when everything else was $200 or more.
Am I wrong in thinking this subject is given far more weight than it deserves?
Last edited by MistWolf; 08-28-2017 at 08:43 PM.
We wish to thank the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement, without whose assistance this program would not have been possible.
If you mean the "Punisher skull on a carry gun" issue specifically, unequivocally yes.Originally Posted by MistWolf
If you mean, in general, "Think carefully about the image you are portraying to the world, as it could come back to haunt you in a criminal or civil proceeding," then no. If somebody wants to walk around in attired in 5.11 from head to toe, carrying a gold plated taurus with an engraved swastika and a CCW badge with a Punisher logo while wearing a "I don't dial 911" T-shirt, that's their lookout. A prudent person would examine each one of those choices and ask whether the juice is worth the squeeze.
Here's an example: I'm going to get a clinch pick. It's a knife designed for one purpose: stabbing people. The average asshole from Berkeley would have an attack of the vapors at there mere thought. I think it's reasonable to think that I might run into some image issues with it as opposed to the ordinary, garden variety pocket knife if a actually cut somebody with it. But I can articulate why as I responsible gun toter I have an obligation to be prepared for a fight over the gun, etc. So I've decided the juice is worth the squeeze.
For purely cosmetic things, it's harder for me to justify. The Punisher logo isn't going to make you more accurate or faster, or help you make better decisions.
Just the mere fact that you are toting a gun around can get you painted as a junior danger ranger that is looking for an excuse to cap somebody, so the safest bet there would be to just not carry one at all. But obviously the juice is worth the squeeze there for alot of us.
Last edited by Lester Polfus; 08-28-2017 at 08:55 PM.
My opinion is simple.
1. There is nothing I can put on my pistol like a Punisher skull, "Smile and wait for the Flash" or the like that will improve the gun's performance or capabilities. Therefore I find it pointless to do so.
2. While no one can site case law where some adornment caused a problem for the owner there is a first time for everything. Better safe than sorry.
I agree. However, when you (generally) paint yourself into a corner of "I need to see XYZ in order to prove to my satisfaction," and you don't actually know what goes into XYZ (i.e. what makes the sausage), you may find your position wanting. A lot of self-appointed experts do that, including in this thread -- thus my ire, since this forum is one of those ones where you're expected to, you know, be qualified about the things you talk about and stuff.
I think it's a mixed -- and very polarizing -- bag, one that isn't helped by taking the topic from extreme A (the backplate which paints you as a wannabe avenging hero) and extreme B (a Gadget, night sights, or other commonplace purpose-driven modification). Glenn Meyer has published research on the impact of appearance before a jury, and in my opinion is worth listening to. Personally, I wouldn't want to put anything on my gun that The Average Registered Voter might notice and say "hey, that's weird/scary/questionable/objectionable." So, no "inspirational" Bible verse grip plugs or Punisher skull back plates or Molon Labia slide engravings or anything of the sort for me. Does that mean I won't put a Gadget on my Glock? No. It's an object which adds an additional layer of safety to the pistol, and it says that right there in the product literature.Personally, I don't care if someone has a skull on their firearm. I have one lower with some sort of "tribal skull" engraved on it, but that's because there was a drought of AR parts and it was the first one to come along at a reasonable price, like $70 when everything else was $200 or more.
Am I wrong in thinking this subject is given far more weight than it deserves?
Why would someone over the age of 14 want a Punisher skull sticker on anything he owns?
A fellow has to start someplace
Glenn's response is among the excellent. It feels as if it has the weight of first hand experience and knowledge]Glenn Meyer has published research on the impact of appearance before a jury, and in my opinion is worth listening to
We wish to thank the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement, without whose assistance this program would not have been possible.
I don't have expert opinions to add to this, but the one opinion I have is related to this so I'm gonna say it anyway!
Dude; the Clinch Pick is a great blade for gardening and fruit/veggie eating. Seriously, peel an apple or something with it and you will get it.
The example is explanation. If you have an easily articulable explanation that can be so obvious it's hard to argue with, the item or mod is not worth worrying about. I use my Clinch Pick regularly, in front of friends, family and coworkers, to do everyday stuff like eat or sharpen my kids pencils. That's an explanation in and if itself before you even gave to go to the responsibility to not let some fuckwit gangbanger take my firearm explanation level.
The Punisher skull is a particularly poor example, because it is the symbol of an admitted murderous vigilante. It's easy game for a civil attorney. It's a rotten can of worms with all downside zero upside.
I would heed the memorandum Breakingtime mentioned above re: appearances in a frakking combat zone.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote