Questions over assault weapon used by Mesa officer facing murder charge

[HCM]

Questions over assault weapon used by Mesa officer facing murder charge


Attorneys for the victim, Daniel Shaver, argued Brailsford was malicious during the shooting and raised questions about the gun used.

The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office said Shaver was on his hands and knees when Brailsford shot him five times inside a Mesa hotel. The gun used was a personal AR-15 assault weapon that had been approved for service use by the Mesa Police Department. However, Mesa police noted that their investigation of the shooting turned up a vulgar inscription on the rifle that doesn’t meet department policy.

“Inscripted on the officer’s gun, and I hate to use profanity, but it said, “you’re f*****,”’ Laney Sweet, Daniel Shaver’s wife said.

According to several sources, the rifle’s vulgar inscription is on the inside of the rifle’s dust cover. The inscription is only visible if the dust cover is open, which happens automatically in order to eject spent rounds while the weapon is fired.

“That statement tells me this is a person who’s enthusiastic about killing people," Marc Victor, lawyer for Sweet and her late husband, argued. "That’s what that inscription means.”

After court, Mesa police said it's launching an internal investigation into the gun's inscription.


http://www.cbs5az.com/story/31480834/questions-over-assault-weapon-used-by-mesa-officer-facing-murder-charge

I know both Gadfly and I have pulled similar, though less offensive accessories off duty weapons. Regardless of whether this would have been an issue in "Good shoot" it is pretty foolish.

[HopetonBrown]

Vickers has warned about Punisher grips and "surprise, c**k f*g" dust covers.

[voodoo_man]

This is a non issue.

[Chuck Haggard]

This is a non issue.

Actually it can very much be an issue. One is just stupid as hell to knowingly and with forethought be doing shit to make DAs, judges and/or jurors think you are a bloodthirsty douchebag.

[rob_s]

Actually it can very much be an issue. One is just stupid as hell to knowingly and with forethought be doing shit to make DAs, judges and/or jurors think you are a bloodthirsty douchebag.

This is my take, even from a non-LE standpoint. Adding tha kind of nonsense to a firearm always makes me question the individual doing it. The fact that they do it knowing full well that there *might* be an issue with it later on only makes me question them even more.

[Chuck Haggard]

This is my take, even from a non-LE standpoint. Adding tha kind of nonsense to a firearm always makes me question the individual doing it. The fact that they do it knowing full well that there *might* be an issue with it later on only makes me question them even more.

It's definitely what my drill SGT used to call "a gross error in judgement".

[voodoo_man]

The concept of someone putting something with a label on it on a firearm, duty or otherwise, is moot.

What if it was a christian cross or other religious symbol, or anything else that cannot be construed as nonviolent? Even the text in the OP on the dust cover, is that really something that is going to jam that person up legally? I cannot see how, legally speaking.

Is it stupid? Yeah thats not even up for debate, but legally I cannot see this being an issue.

What this really is about is a scumbag lawyer using anti 2a rhetoric to try to win a case. "Assault rifle" "violent person" gtfo...

[joshs]

The concept of someone putting something with a label on it on a firearm, duty or otherwise, is moot.

What if it was a christian cross or other religious symbol, or anything else that cannot be construed as nonviolent? Even the text in the OP on the dust cover, is that really something that is going to jam that person up legally? I cannot see how, legally speaking.

Is it stupid? Yeah thats not even up for debate, but legally I cannot see this being an issue.

What this really is about is a scumbag lawyer using anti 2a rhetoric to try to win a case. "Assault rifle" "violent person" gtfo...

Attorneys have an obligation to zealously represent their clients. Anything that can be used to discredit the character of the opposing party is going to be used. As long as the law is applied by people and not machines, things that aren't technically legally relevant are going to influence decisions.

[voodoo_man]

Attorneys have an obligation to zealously represent their clients. Anything that can be used to discredit the character of the opposing party is going to be used. As long as the law is applied by people and not machines, things that aren't technically legally relevant are going to influence decisions.

I was going to add that part, and I totally understand the lawyers responsibility to his client, to present the best case forward, that doesnt mean we should accept his anti 2a rhetoric.

If there is a legal basis for not have such labels on a firearm by all means show me, I love learning and discussing this type of stuff but I cannot see anything other than an "opinion" based emotional appeal here.

[LSP552]

Actually it can very much be an issue. One is just stupid as hell to knowingly and with forethought be doing shit to make DAs, judges and/or jurors think you are a bloodthirsty douchebag.

Anyone who has policed has seen jury decisions based on emotion and rhetoric instead of facts. Stupid and poor judgement has consequences.

[rob_s]

I was going to add that part, and I totally understand the lawyers responsibility to his client, to present the best case forward, that doesnt mean we should accept his anti 2a rhetoric.

If there is a legal basis for not have such labels on a firearm by all means show me, I love learning and discussing this type of stuff but I cannot see anything other than an "opinion" based emotional appeal here.

I don't think that anyone is saying that preparing to be bent-over by a lawyer means accepting their position as morally correct.

But I agree with you that there is a lack of actual case law for any of the "if you use xyz in an otherwise good shoot you'll get hosed" hysteria. That said, if it causes no issues but further obscuring the facts, as it may be in this case, that's good enough reason to skip the personal decoration. If nothing else, it's going to cost you more time and money for your own lawyer to defend the nonsense.

[41magfan]

My concern with gun "bling" - in any form - is and always has been; Why muddy the water with something that has the potential to be a distraction from the relevant facts and circumstances. The climate is hostile enough in most places without you willingly offering up fodder for the cannon.

Save the mud flaps, pinstripes, curb feelers and fuzzy dice for your car/truck.

[joshs]

But I agree with you that there is a lack of actual case law for any of the "if you use xyz in an otherwise good shoot you'll get hosed" hysteria. That said, if it causes no issues but further obscuring the facts, as it may be in this case, that's good enough reason to skip the personal decoration. If nothing else, it's going to cost you more time and money for your own lawyer to defend the nonsense.

That's because of the nature of legal opinions. No judge is going to openly admit to being persuaded by something that should be legally irrelevant, so nothing indicating fact-finder bias from gun modifications is going to be recorded. Jury studies have shown that juries will consider lots of legally irrelevant factors. The most on-point for firearms is the one by p-f member Glenn Meyer.

[TCinVA]

That's because of the nature of legal opinions. No judge is going to openly admit to being persuaded by something that should be legally irrelevant, so nothing indicating fact-finder bias from gun modifications is going to be recorded. Jury studies have shown that juries will consider lots of legally irrelevant factors. The most on-point for firearms is the one by p-f member Glenn Meyer.

This.

Trials are about competing narratives. Don't write the other guy's narrative for him.

[voodoo_man]

That's because of the nature of legal opinions. No judge is going to openly admit to being persuaded by something that should be legally irrelevant, so nothing indicating fact-finder bias from gun modifications is going to be recorded. Jury studies have shown that juries will consider lots of legally irrelevant factors. The most on-point for firearms is the one by p-f member Glenn Meyer.

Ok, sure, but thats if the officer gets charged, then it may be considered a bad shoot.

Remove the question of that, its a good shoot, guy has "i like to shoot fuckers" on his hanguard in bright orange - what is going to happen?

Nothing.

[BehindBlueI's]

Ok, sure, but thats if the officer gets charged, then it may be considered a bad shoot.

Remove the question of that, its a good shoot, guy has "i like to shoot fuckers" on his hanguard in bright orange - what is going to happen?

Nothing.

Until the administration gets pressured about the patrol rifle program due to mounting public opinion against it.

1) No more personally owned rifles
2) No more rifles, period

How many departments have given up sensible tools because "militarization" ? Stupid shit like this doesn't help us, no matter how it plays out in court.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I've said this quite a few times, so it is redundant.

1. Once you go to court, it isn't a good shoot.
2. Juries seem to decide on the basis of the story theme that best explains the action to them.
3. Appearance issues and biases influence the interpretation of prosecution and defense stories.

The Jury decision text books that I've mention elsewhere are full of examples of how appearance influences juries. For police, the incident I mentioned before is hair style and glasses. An officer shoots a man with a rake (the guy is developmentally delayed IIRC). He goes to trial. When on the job, he has a white side walls and some hair on the top haircut. His ID picture is a war face grimace. On the stand, he wears a three piece suit, very nice longer hair and half reading glasses to read things given to him. Why?

The case law point isn't really relevant. Not a lawyer but the ones I know say case law is made when you see appeals on some legal basis. That appearance goes into the sum of the jury's decision process is not something that appears in case law. Maybe in the future, there will be an appeal on a prejudicial basis of some gun evidence. Doesn't seem to have happened yet. You can be the test case.

We've seen training and competition brought up in court. Gun issues have been brought up in many. As HCM says, why increase risk for no practical benefit?

[voodoo_man]

Just so we are on the same page, as I stated already, I am not in favor of adding stupid things to duty guns (or any gun) but the fact some guns have this does not automatically mean the users are going to be prosecuted because of that specific label or logo.

Its stupid, not up for debate, but legally what is the recourse against someone? There isnt one.

I get the whole jury thing, I've done my fair share of testifying in violent felony cases.

[TCinVA]

Remove the question of that, its a good shoot, guy has "i like to shoot fuckers" on his hanguard in bright orange - what is going to happen?

Nothing.

In my area there was a criminal holding people up with what turned out to be a toy handgun. Numerous hits on the street in the same night, police already rolling to look for this dude. He comes upon another group of what he assumes are standard college kids and tries it with them...only one of them had a Ruger LCP. He pulled it and shot the guy right in the testicles. The police were literally a block away looking for the very dude who is laying on the ground bleeding from his balls. Multiple witnesses say the same thing...bad guy stuck a gun in the face of pedestrians and demanded money. Multiple victims from other robberies identified the perp as the same guy with bloody balls.

It's as good a shoot as it can get.

Except later certain authorities hear that the good guy who defended himself and his friends went out a couple of days later and people at the bar bought him drinks. And that he accepted them gladly and had a good time.

This made them unhappy. They believed it was unseemly for him to "celebrate" shooting another human being, or to accept accolades as a "hero". Nevermind that one of the people butthurt about this turn of events is the one dude in that department who shot somebody and his entire career was based on being the guy with "street" experience because he plugged a drunk illegal with an empty shotgun in a standoff where he had plenty of time to put a deliberately aimed round right through that guy's face. That's different. Somehow.

So these certain authorities decide that they are going to start looking at LCP carrier a hell of a lot more closely because, you know, he's "showboating" after having shot an "unarmed" teenager.

Thankfully they did not prevail in their efforts because they were checked by some people with some balls and brains. What Mr. LCP carrier does not know, though, is that if he is ever in any trouble again while these people are around they will crawl up in his colon and make camp. Because they don't like him. Facts be damned.

Over some seriously trivial bullshit. And Mr. LCP carrier would not be the first dude they've gone after on the basis of their personal dislike. (Which is why at least one of those authorities is no longer employed)

So when you ask "what is going to happen?" on a supposedly good shoot, I'd have to answer: You have no idea.


Nobody really does. Because truly objective fact only partially determines outcomes in the criminal justice system or the civil legal system. The personalities involved also have a lot to do with the outcome and there is no way for an outsider to really know how that will work out for him/her. Even people who work in it every day don't know how it will work out for them...which is why every experienced police officer I know would be the first people lawyering up if something went down. Because they know from experience how easily a fucked up outcome can happen in the system.

I used to think the same way...a good shoot is a good shoot. Because I was examining objective fact as if that was the sole consideration. When I realized that objective fact is, at best, only half the equation (and that's being generous) I started to rethink that considerably.

[Paul D]

As an aside, the attorney for the Shaver family Marc Victor is a pro-gun rights and defense attorney in Phoenix. I've seen him at the Crossroad gun shows giving lectures on legal rights in regards to self-defense with guns. So he knows what he is doing in regards to rifle's accessory. It's gonna cost the Mesa PD something. He is also wrongful death attorney too.

[rob_s]

Remove the question of that, its a good shoot, guy has "i like to shoot fuckers" on his hanguard in bright orange - what is going to happen?

Nothing.

Clearly this is not the case, as in the OP it's not "nothing".

[CCT125US]

It adds mud to the water, which takes time and effort to clear up. Some filters ain't cheap...

[Gadfly]

What if it was a christian cross or other religious symbol, or anything else that cannot be construed as nonviolent? Even the text in the OP on the dust cover, is that really something that is going to jam that person up legally? I cannot see how, legally speaking.


Have a Christian Cross on your rifle, and shoot a Muslim, and see if the families lawyers don't try and paint you as a religious "crusader" hell bent on killing in the name of your religion. We have a couple of locals who have personally owned ARs they built from lowers. One guy has a Texas Flag on his lower, the other guy had the Alamo on his lower. Texas Flag? Probably not an issue. The Alamo? Shoot a Hispanic suspect with the Alamo gun, and watch the "you must hate Mexicans" rhetoric fly. (For those not from Texas, The Alamo is a Texas revolution battle. It was a big deal here...)

Like HCM said, I too have had to pull two guns for having "Punisher skull" crap on them. Are something innocent inscriptions? Of course. But out policy is nothing added or drawn on the gun. Factory markings only. Because why risk it. At one time, I had a moral patch on my body armor, it was a tab that said "that guy" on it... that patch may or may not have ended up as "B roll" on TV. I removed it. I have since started to get on others that have moral patches that can be deemed inappropriate if they end up on TV.

Beating a dead horse here, but Why risk it? Why be the test case to see if it gets you convicted?

[voodoo_man]

Crap typed out a whole thing and my phone deleted it.

Long post short, nothing that is written or labeled on your gun with get you in legal trouble, only your actions will.

People can look hard at you and investigate you all day but if you followed the law there is nothing you need to worry about legally. Its not naive to believe this.

[BehindBlueI's]

Crap typed out a whole thing and my phone deleted it.

Long post short, nothing that is written or labeled on your gun with get you in legal trouble, only your actions will.

People can look hard at you and investigate you all day but if you followed the law there is nothing you need to worry about legally. Its not naive to believe this.

Civil suit?

[nalesq]

it's going to cost you more time and money for your own lawyer to defend the nonsense.

I am a lawyer, and in my experience, this is absolutely true - a disproportionate amount of time can be spent dealing with "nonsense" of one stripe or another. While the nonsense usually doesn't affect the final outcome of a case, it does add to the bill.

[voodoo_man]

Civil suit?

Is there such a case?

[nalesq]

People can look hard at you and investigate you all day but if you followed the law there is nothing you need to worry about legally. Its not naive to believe this.

This sort of assumes all litigation is initiated with solid legal foundations, which is definitely not the case.

Even meritless lawsuits are costly.

[BehindBlueI's]

Is there such a case?

You are making a lot of blanket statements. You comfortable there isn't?

[voodoo_man]

You are making a lot of blanket statements. You comfortable there isn't?

I am inquiring to gain knowledge.

Post the case or case law if it exists.

Again, I can see I am the one who doesnt agree with the hive, as usual, I am just trying to learn as everyone should. If such a case exists or such circumstances exist please post them.

[rob_s]

I am inquiring to gain knowledge.

Post the case or case law if it exists.

Again, I can see I am the one who doesnt agree with the hive, as usual, I am just trying to learn as everyone should. If such a case exists or such circumstances exist please post them.

You see no negative repercussions related to the modifications to the gun made by the officer in the OP?

[nalesq]

I am inquiring to gain knowledge.

Post the case or case law if it exists.

Again, I can see I am the one who doesnt agree with the hive, as usual, I am just trying to learn as everyone should. If such a case exists or such circumstances exist please post them.

The vast majority of lawsuits, especially the ones that involve stupid stuff you don't really want a jury, or the media, or even just the bookface/twitter hive mafia to see, get settled, so there isn't going to be a lot of case law on point.

[Dagga Boy]

Take this for what it's worth. In my experience a fishing expedition begins during the discovery phases and even pre dispositions by plaintiff counsel on civil cases. I have been blessed to have done a very good job with my people to skunk the opponents on my areas which were often training and the equipment used. Training backed up policy, and there were no policy violations involving the equipment and the lawyers went away to look for other paths (supervisory issues, lack of training on handling edp's are two popular ones). My point, do not give the Sharks food. They are looking for small chunks to bite on. Don't chum the water. The only things I put on my guns were often POLICE stickers to add further identifiers.

If a shooting is squeaky clean and without any cultural issues, a punisher thing is likely not enough for a lawyer to jump on by itself. If things are a little cloudy, it can be another piece of tinder on the bonfire under the stake they are burning you at.

[BehindBlueI's]

I am inquiring to gain knowledge.

Post the case or case law if it exists.

Again, I can see I am the one who doesnt agree with the hive, as usual, I am just trying to learn as everyone should. If such a case exists or such circumstances exist please post them.

I've been sued after the death of an offender. Three departments involved. Only one paid out in a settlement. Being stupid can cost you or your department. Have you been depo'd after a death of offender? A LOT of shit that's irrelevant to a criminal case is on the table.

After being through the process myself I won't be putting out blanket statements over what is a "non-issue."

[voodoo_man]

I've been sued after the death of an offender. Three departments involved. Only one paid out in a settlement. Being stupid can cost you or your department. Have you been depo'd after a death of offender? A LOT of shit that's irrelevant to a criminal case is on the table.

After being through the process myself I won't be putting out blanket statements over what is a "non-issue."


My phone deleted my post again, dont know if its the board or my phone...

Anyway, been through the process several times, yes they try to make irrelevant stuff big but thats their jobs as it never, ever, sticks.

Again, not sayings it a good idea to put stuff on your gun and I do not advocate it, but again, show me something in writing that will happen what you guys say will happen. There is no such law, rule, legal precident or otherwise to support such a claim.

This is an internet thing mostly, in my opinion, that people are giving legs without supporting facts.

[BehindBlueI's]

Again, not sayings it a good idea to put stuff on your gun and I do not advocate it, but again, show me something in writing that will happen what you guys say will happen. There is no such law, rule, legal precident or otherwise to support such a claim.

What are we saying will happen?

If it is so irrelevant, why do you think its not a good idea and you don't advocate it?

[HCM]

Is there such a case?

You mean is there such as case in addition to this one in Mesa, AZ ?

[nalesq]

This is a non issue.

How are you defining "non issue?" Are you fixated solely on an outcome of going to jail v not going to jail?

Or are you actually saying that the costs of litigation (e.g., time, money, reputation, livelihood, etc) are also "non issues?"

[Glenn E. Meyer]

the fact some guns have this does not automatically mean the users are going to be prosecuted because of that specific label or logo.

But the term 'automatically' is the problem. That implies that appearance is a dichotomous decision factor. That's not the way it works. I've said that the decision is a sum of the factors. You can think of it as an equation like Y = B0 +B1X1 +B2X2+B3X3 + .... BnXn. You have the decision to arrest, to prosecute and then the jury decision. At any of these, some factor like appearance is added based on the extreme nature of the appearance (the X term) and the value given to that appearance (the B term). Now straight linear models may not exactly apply, that's debated but the idea is that these things feed into the story.

Some have indicated that officers are more negative when finding an assault rifle in car while stopping for a minor offense. We found in our study negative views of various appearance factors by the mock juror student sample (oh, no - bad sample - but the research says they are pretty good as compared to the general populations).

So I think we are on the same page here if one just realizes that the factor is not what drives the charges and the jury process. If is a factor in the total gestalt and that is not seen in 'case law'. Lawyers think these things matter as when I talk to them. So they are in the trenches, so to speak.

The gun world has the problem of thinking that using an evil gun (EBR, decorations) will drive it as a 0,1. It will convict. It will not matter if it is a 'good shoot'. That's not the way it seems to work.

Another aspect. Police do have image problems with some folks. Even if it is good shoot, some may not believe it. However, even if it is - such killer logos will fed (maybe below the level of consciousness) to a negative attitude toward police. This guy had a good shot, how about the next one?

So let's drop the idea that appearance is a Yes, No decision factor.

[JR1572]

This is my take, even from a non-LE standpoint. Adding tha kind of nonsense to a firearm always makes me question the individual doing it. The fact that they do it knowing full well that there *might* be an issue with it later on only makes me question them even more.

Yeah, I'm with you on this.

JR1572

[voodoo_man]

I guess I am inadequately articulating my point through my cellphone, for that I apologize. We are on the same page, I am merely advocating the fact that mere appearance will not, in and of itself, constitute a charge or legal liability.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I will go out on a limb and say such decorations are dominance male behavior. It is a part of posturing to convince your opponent that you are not someone to mess with. Now obviously, in some of these cases, the opponent won't see it. But it is built into us to posture. It's like all of the display behavior in the animal world. Even if your potential opponent doesn't see it - you share it with your tribal group to maintain your Alpha status in the group.

It's like the fat old guy (not to talk) I saw in the market - with a Sneaky Pete man purse on his belt and a black form fitting (YUK!) Tee in black with GLOCK printed in giant letters. Oh, so scary.

[JR1572]

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

This whole thing is derpy and could have been easily avoided.

JR1572

[rob_s]

I guess I am inadequately articulating my point through my cellphone, for that I apologize. We are on the same page, I am merely advocating the fact that mere appearance will not, in and of itself, constitute a charge or legal liability.

I don't think anyone is saying that it would, only that there is zero benefit to such decoration, and that it clearly *can* create added stress, cost, distraction, time, and headaches if it is discovered and added to the equation, just like the cop in the OP.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

This is a non issue.
Actually, it's not.


I am inquiring to gain knowledge.
Post the case or case law if it exists.
Again, I can see I am the one who doesnt agree with the hive, as usual, I am just trying to learn as everyone should. If such a case exists or such circumstances exist please post them.

Caselaw. Oh, snap. You went there...
OK.
Leme ‘splain.

99% of all cases settle; therefore, no caselaw is made because caselaw is ruling of courts made on motions at the trial level which are reported (no all of them are) and the decision of appellate courts – which only occurs if a case went to trial and was then appealed (successfully of unsuccessfully).

Further, you have like…50 different states, 94 Federal District Courts (trial courts) in 13 Federal Circuits – and guess what?
An appellate court case – actual caselaw – in one state isn’t binding on a court in another state.
A federal appellate court ruling from a Federal Circuit isn’t binding outside that circuit.
Trial court cases aren’t binding on anything except the case in which the ruling was issued.

So, with that as a backdrop, back to the 99% of cases (criminal and civil) which settle – that is never reported, so you don’t know what happened to make the respective sides settle the case.

You don’t know what the insurance company decided in a civil case to make them settle.

You don’t know what happened in that tense, emotional conversation in the empty courtroom between the defendant and his attorney was all about.

You don’t know what the judge and the prosecutor and the defense lawyer talked about in chambers that made the state drop the charges. In some states, criminal cases which do not lead to conviction are sealed and reports destroyed by statute – so the motion to suppress which would have been precedent setting? State dropped the case. Records sealed. Damage contained. Moving on.

Further, the facts of the case are not how reported cases are indexed.

In a self-defense shooting that does make caselaw it would likely be indexed by the headings like, “Reasonable Man”, “Subjective Belief”, “Objective Reasonability” so that attorneys can identify the issue and search for those headings on lexis or westlaw.
“Tricked out murder weapon” is not a search term because although YOU may think it is important, it’s really under something like “Defendant’s Reasonable Belief” which is the real topic and I’d get…lots of search results from that.

Plus when using caselaw lawyers cherry pick for quotes, so sometimes the actual facts of the case from which we are picking aren’t even relevant. I don’t care if the case I’m mining has to do with a felon in possession of a firearm (for which he was convicted) while appealing the denial of a self-defense instruction to the jury (on the murder charge which is on appeal) and the judge commented how the trial court should have given that self-defense instruction because, “The frame of mind of the defendant is paramount to the reasonable man inquiry…”

Caselaw is important, yes…but not in the way you think it is.

Now…
As to the, “non-issue” – someone thinks it is an issue.
Assuming I need to spend 1 court date on this “non-issue” you can assume that is:
4 hours prep for court finding reasonable, academically credible articles, expert affidavit and the like to show the judge and opposing counsel why it is a non-issue (whatever it is).
1 Hour travel to court
2 Hour at court
1 Hour travel back to office.
That is 8 hours. I am billed out at $250-$275 per hour by my firm. (No, not my take home...)
8x$250 = $2,000. Plus Parking. ($13)
$2,000 is like…
Gee. That’s a new rifle, 2/3 the cost of a Wilson 1911 or Shivworks ECQC, a hotel room, food, entertainment and a rental car.
Or you can spend that on a “non-issue”

[Mitchell, Esq.]

And on a personal note - Keep that kind of stuff off your gun.

It is all fund and games till the jury is looking at the death weapon and thinking how you don't take the death of another human being seriously.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Actually, it's not.



SNIP

Now…
As to the, “non-issue” – someone thinks it is an issue.
Assuming I need to spend 1 court date on this “non-issue” you can assume that is:
4 hours prep for court finding reasonable, academically credible articles, expert affidavit and the like to show the judge and opposing counsel why it is a non-issue (whatever it is).
1 Hour travel to court
2 Hour at court
1 Hour travel back to office.
That is 8 hours. I am billed out at $250-$275 per hour by my firm. (No, not my take home...)
8x$250 = $2,000. Plus Parking. ($13)
$2,000 is like…
Gee. That’s a new rifle, 2/3 the cost of a Wilson 1911 or Shivworks ECQC, a hotel room, food, entertainment and a rental car.
Or you can spend that on a “non-issue”

And brother, your firm's hourly rate is a stone bargain. I'm used to seeing rates in the $400-500/hour range for an attorney. Your explanation of the real world of jurisprudence and its many other moving parts is (or should be) golden to the guys here who haven't been in the middle of a civil or criminal proceeding as an actual participant. Something I learned over 25 years in LE and some more in corporate security is that it's NOT the Justice System, it's the Legal System (with appropriate credit to Nyeti for that characterization). The "truth" is not what's being sought. A WIN is what the sides are after in these proceedings, with the "truth" only being a garnish on the entrée.

Bottom line is don't do stupid shit and make things more problematic than they already are or will be.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Here is a Connecticut Supreme Court case quoting a bunch of other cases from different Federal Circuits which are cherry picked for quotes.

We also must determine, therefore, whether the statutory ban on transporting dirk knives and police batons from a former residence to a current residence satisfies the appropriate level of means-end scrutiny. As a general matter, the applicable level of scrutiny depends on “how close the law comes to the core of the [s]econd [a]mendment right and the severity of the law's burden on the right.” Ezell v. Chicago, supra, 651 F.3d at 703; accord Peruta v. San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144, 1191 (9th Cir.2014) (Thomas, J., dissenting); Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197, 1218 (10th Cir.2013) (Lucero, J., concurring); see also Heller v. District of Columbia, supra, 670 F.3d at 1257 (level of scrutiny applicable under second amendment “depends on the nature of the conduct being regulated and the degree to which the challenged law burdens the right” [internal quotation marks omitted] ); United States v. Chester, supra, 628 F.3d at 682 (same). “In analyzing the first prong of [this test, namely], the extent to which the law burdens the core of the [s]econd [a]mendment right, [the court relies] on Heller's holding that the [s]econd [a]mendment has the core lawful purpose of self-defense, [District of Columbia v. Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at 630, 128 S.Ct. at 2818–19], and that ... [the primary interest protected by the second amendment is] the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in **205 defense of hearth and home. [Id., at 635, 128 S.Ct. at 2821]....

State v. DeCiccio, 315 Conn. 79, 140-41, 105 A.3d 165, 204-05 (2014)

Ezell, Peruta, Peterson & Chester are all federal cases which are not binding on the Connecticut Supreme Court.

Heller, which is, hasn't been fully expounded on, and therefore is binding only for what it says, not for the tone it offers because in the Second Circuit, "Accordingly, we decline Plaintiffs' invitation to strike down New York's one-hundred-year-old law and call into question the state's traditional authority to extensively regulate handgun possession in public." Kachalsky v. Cty. of Westchester, 701 F.3d 81, 101 (2d Cir. 2012) - Contrast Peruta from the 9th circuit, "county's requirement that person had to show sufficiently pressing need for self-protection before permit to carry concealed weapon would be granted infringed Second Amendment right to bear arms."
Peruta v. Cty. of San Diego, 742 F.3d 1144 (9th Cir. 2014)

Peruta & Kachalsky are direct, 180 degree opposing cases.

Both are "Caselaw"

[voodoo_man]

Actually, it's not.



Caselaw. Oh, snap. You went there...
OK.
Leme ‘splain.

99% of all cases settle; therefore, no caselaw is made because caselaw is ruling of courts made on motions at the trial level which are reported (no all of them are) and the decision of appellate courts – which only occurs if a case went to trial and was then appealed (successfully of unsuccessfully).

Further, you have like…50 different states, 94 Federal District Courts (trial courts) in 13 Federal Circuits – and guess what?
An appellate court case – actual caselaw – in one state isn’t binding on a court in another state.
A federal appellate court ruling from a Federal Circuit isn’t binding outside that circuit.
Trial court cases aren’t binding on anything except the case in which the ruling was issued.

So, with that as a backdrop, back to the 99% of cases (criminal and civil) which settle – that is never reported, so you don’t know what happened to make the respective sides settle the case.

You don’t know what the insurance company decided in a civil case to make them settle.

You don’t know what happened in that tense, emotional conversation in the empty courtroom between the defendant and his attorney was all about.

You don’t know what the judge and the prosecutor and the defense lawyer talked about in chambers that made the state drop the charges. In some states, criminal cases which do not lead to conviction are sealed and reports destroyed by statute – so the motion to suppress which would have been precedent setting? State dropped the case. Records sealed. Damage contained. Moving on.

Further, the facts of the case are not how reported cases are indexed.

In a self-defense shooting that does make caselaw it would likely be indexed by the headings like, “Reasonable Man”, “Subjective Belief”, “Objective Reasonability” so that attorneys can identify the issue and search for those headings on lexis or westlaw.
“Tricked out murder weapon” is not a search term because although YOU may think it is important, it’s really under something like “Defendant’s Reasonable Belief” which is the real topic and I’d get…lots of search results from that.

Plus when using caselaw lawyers cherry pick for quotes, so sometimes the actual facts of the case from which we are picking aren’t even relevant. I don’t care if the case I’m mining has to do with a felon in possession of a firearm (for which he was convicted) while appealing the denial of a self-defense instruction to the jury (on the murder charge which is on appeal) and the judge commented how the trial court should have given that self-defense instruction because, “The frame of mind of the defendant is paramount to the reasonable man inquiry…”

Caselaw is important, yes…but not in the way you think it is.

Now…
As to the, “non-issue” – someone thinks it is an issue.
Assuming I need to spend 1 court date on this “non-issue” you can assume that is:
4 hours prep for court finding reasonable, academically credible articles, expert affidavit and the like to show the judge and opposing counsel why it is a non-issue (whatever it is).
1 Hour travel to court
2 Hour at court
1 Hour travel back to office.
That is 8 hours. I am billed out at $250-$275 per hour by my firm. (No, not my take home...)
8x$250 = $2,000. Plus Parking. ($13)
$2,000 is like…
Gee. That’s a new rifle, 2/3 the cost of a Wilson 1911 or Shivworks ECQC, a hotel room, food, entertainment and a rental car.
Or you can spend that on a “non-issue”

Thanks for posting, though you did not tell me anything new, maybe some members here learned something.

As I've already considered this, again, its a non issue, legally.

[Kukuforguns]

Thanks for posting, though you did not tell me anything new, maybe some members here learned something.

As I've already considered this, again, its a non issue, legally.

I think we have a difference in perspective regarding the term "legally."

Inscribing some sort of motto on your firearm is not going to be the basis for an independent crime. Nor will a motto serve as an enhancement to a crime. In that sense, it is not an issue legally.

On the other hand, I would expect a court to admit evidence that a shooter modified his weapon to include the motto "Better you than me" on the ground that it reflects the shooter's opinion regarding when use of force is appropriate. Moreover, since juries are supposed to consider all evidence before them and are allowed to make inferences, evidence that a shooter inscribed some sort of a motto on a weapon is legally relevant. I would much rather defend a shooter whose weapon was inscribed with "For use only to defend life" than with "Helping Evolution One Perp at a Time." Accordingly, as evidence on the issue of guilt versus innocence, a motto can be legally relevant.

Moreover, prosecutors have substantial discretion in prosecuting people who claim they acted in self-defense. Evidence that indicates the shooter doesn't value human life by inscribing an unsympathetic motto on a gun will move the balance towards prosecute. To this extent, the motto is a legal issue.

So, when you say "inscribing a motto is a non-issue, legally," I think you're talking like Humpty Dumpty (“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’"). The rest of us have a different view of what the word "legally" means.

[voodoo_man]

I think we have a difference in perspective regarding the term "legally."

Inscribing some sort of motto on your firearm is not going to be the basis for an independent crime. Nor will a motto serve as an enhancement to a crime. In that sense, it is not an issue legally.

On the other hand, I would expect a court to admit evidence that a shooter modified his weapon to include the motto "Better you than me" on the ground that it reflects the shooter's opinion regarding when use of force is appropriate. Moreover, since juries are supposed to consider all evidence before them and are allowed to make inferences, evidence that a shooter inscribed some sort of a motto on a weapon is legally relevant. I would much rather defend a shooter whose weapon was inscribed with "For use only to defend life" than with "Helping Evolution One Perp at a Time." Accordingly, as evidence on the issue of guilt versus innocence, a motto can be legally relevant.

Moreover, prosecutors have substantial discretion in prosecuting people who claim they acted in self-defense. Evidence that indicates the shooter doesn't value human life by inscribing an unsympathetic motto on a gun will move the balance towards prosecute. To this extent, the motto is a legal issue.

So, when you say "inscribing a motto is a non-issue, legally," I think you're talking like Humpty Dumpty (“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’"). The rest of us have a different view of what the word "legally" means.

I've explained my stance several times in this thread, yet I am being continually singled out as being for this type of weapon modification, even though I stated:



Is it stupid? Yeah thats not even up for debate, but legally I cannot see this being an issue.


Since then I have seen everything from emotional appeals to financial appeals to anecdotal evidence. When all I asked for was case law, court cases or anything that will prove that having anything inscribed on a weapon used in a lawful or otherwise "good" shoot is going to, in some way, make the shoot bad/negative and/or affect the otherwise "good" shoot status of the shooter by them being charged with a crime.

I have yet to see a single piece of evidence in reference to this.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

George Zimmerman went on trial for murder in a use of force friendly jurisdiction.

Imagine if he had creative scribbling on his handgun...

[Kukuforguns]

I've explained my stance several times in this thread, yet I am being continually singled out as being for this type of weapon modification, even though I stated:



Since then I have seen everything from emotional appeals to financial appeals to anecdotal evidence. When all I asked for was case law, court cases or anything that will prove that having anything inscribed on a weapon used in a lawful or otherwise "good" shoot is going to, in some way, make the shoot bad/negative and/or affect the otherwise "good" shoot status of the shooter by them being charged with a crime.

I have yet to see a single piece of evidence in reference to this.Please refer to Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3). You now have your legal citation.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Searching all State and Federal cases for the term, "inscribed on the gun" we have one winner


State v. Harris-Lee, No. A-4406-07T4, 2011 WL 780880, at *1-3 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Mar. 8, 2011)

A NJ appellate division case.


STATE of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent,v.Shamar HARRIS-LEE, a/k/a Shamar Lee, Al S. Harris, Alneil Harris, Amin Slaten, Al-Neil Shamar Harris, Defendant-Appellant.Submitted Oct. 18, 2010.Decided March 8, 2011.On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Indictment No. 05-03-00470.Attorneys and Law FirmsYvonne Smith Segars, Public Defender, attorney for appellant (Elizabeth H. Smith, Designated Counsel, on the brief).Robert D. Laurino, Acting Essex County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent (Lucille M. Rosano, Special Deputy Attorney General/ Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief).Before Judges C.L. MINIMAN and LeWINN.OpinionPER CURIAM. *1 Defendant Shamar Harris-Lee appeals from his convictions for first-degree armed robbery, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:15-1; third-degree unlawful possession of a sawed-off shotgun, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-3b; and second-degree possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, contrary to N.J.S.A. 2C:39-4a. The unlawful-purpose conviction was merged into the robbery conviction, and defendant was sentenced to a term of fifteen years on the first-degree robbery subject to the No Early Release Act (NERA), N . J.S.A. 2C:43-7.2, and a concurrent term of five years for the unlawful possession of a weapon. We affirm.On December 11, 2004, Hany Elgendy was selling hot dogs from a cart on Broad Street in Newark. Around 2:30 p.m., defendant approached Elgendy, put his arm around Elgendy's neck, and demanded his money. At first, Elgendy refused to surrender his money. Defendant tightened his grip and opened a bag he was carrying to reveal an operable sawed-off shotgun. Defendant continued to fumble with the shotgun, trying to remove it from the bag. Elgendy ran from the scene. As he did so, he heard a loud noise, like a bomb, when defendant discharged the gun into the pavement beside Elgendy's cart. Elgendy hid under a car.Newark Detective Miguel Arroyo was traveling north on Broad Street with two other officers when he heard the shotgun blast. They made a U-turn, exited the vehicle, and approached Elgendy's cart. Elgendy and bystanders identified defendant as the shooter. Defendant then ran into a stereo store on Broad Street, where he was arrested. Elgendy followed the police to the store, where he identified defendant as the man with the shotgun who tried to take his money. He also identified his money belt and cell phone, which were on the floor near defendant.The store clerk, Felix Sanchez, observed defendant enter the store carrying a duffle bag followed by police officers, including Detective Arroyo. He saw defendant throw the duffle bag over the counter. Arroyo also said defendant threw a money pouch onto the floor. The police retrieved the shotgun and noted that “187 slob” was etched on it. Police officers later brought Elgendy to the police station, where he made a statement and identified a photograph of defendant as the man who robbed him.During the trial of the matter, defense counsel cross-examined Arroyo about the etching on the gun, eliciting testimony that the designation was gang related. The judge intervened and called counsel to side bar to inquire why defense counsel was pursuing this line of questioning. Defense counsel explained that, when the prosecutor asked Arroyo whether S-1 in evidence was the firearm, he replied, “Yes.” The prosecutor then asked him to “[t]ake it closer, make sure.” Arroyo said, “That's it, I remember it, 187 slob on the shotgun.” Defense counsel told the judge that he believed he had to make the inquiry about the etching because he did not want the jury to think he was “hiding anything because [defendant's] not in a gang.” The judge commented that he was “opening something,” and defense counsel replied: *2 I understand that, but she could have at least given him some kind of-said something to him in advance of it, that's a reference-I don't know if anybody on that jury has any knowledge, but I don't want them tying him to it, that's why I'm making that reference[.]After some further colloquy, defense counsel stated that he wanted to ask Arroyo “whether or not he sought out whether or not my client was a member of a gang.” Counsel recognized that the prosecutor had made no reference to gang membership, but he “want[ed] to make sure the jury knows that he's not a member of the gang. He's already referred to the number.” Defense counsel then proceeded to ask Arroyo whether he investigated defendant's membership in a gang, and Arroyo replied, “No.” The officer then testified that the number is a reference to a gang, but he never checked to ascertain whether defendant was a gang member.After the remaining witnesses testified, the case was submitted to the jury, which returned its verdict of guilty on all three counts. This appeal followed.Defendant raises the following issues for our consideration:POINT ONE: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL SUA SPONTE (NOT RAISED BELOW).POINT TWO: THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON ... DEFENDANT WAS MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE.In his first point, defendant contends that the judge failed to exercise his discretion to sua sponte declare a mistrial, as he is permitted to do when a trial event causes substantial prejudice to a party. State v. Loyal, 164 N.J. 418, 435-36 (2000). He urges that the failure to declare a mistrial sua sponte was clearly capable of producing an unjust result and constitutes plain error. R. 2:10-2. He argues that “this error is of such magnitude that it raises a doubt as to whether it lead [sic] the jury to a result it would otherwise not have reached.”There can be no doubt that a judge had the discretion to declare a mistrial sua sponte, even over the objection of defendant, Loyal, supra, 164 N.J. at 435-36, based on the gang-affiliation testimony. However, we are satisfied that this is not a case where the failure to exercise that discretion constitutes plain error because it was not of such a magnitude as to raise a doubt regarding whether it led the jury to a result it would otherwise not have reached. State v. Taffaro, 195 N.J. 442, 454 (2008); State v. Burns, 192 N.J. 312, 341 (2007); State v. Brown, 190 N.J. 144, 160 (2007).Declaring a mistrial is an extraordinary remedy that should be avoided except where necessary to prevent “an obvious failure of justice.” State v. Ribalta, 277 N.J.Super. 277, 291 (App.Div.1994) (citation omitted), certif. denied, 139 N.J. 442 (1995). A trial judge has the discretion to grant a mistrial only to prevent a “manifest injustice.” State v. Harvey, 151 N.J. 117, 205 (1997) (citation omitted). Furthermore, we should defer to the trial judge's decision because he is in the best position to gauge the effect of an alleged impropriety. Ibid. A failure to declare a mistrial sua sponte only rises to the level of reversal error if the error was clearly capable of producing an unjust result. Ibid. *3 Here, there was strong evidence of defendant's guilt. The victim identified defendant at the scene immediately after he was apprehended. At that time, he had in his possession the sawed-off shotgun and the victim's money belt and cell phone. The police arrived at the scene of the crime before the defendant had fled and chased him into a stereo store. The passing reference to gang affiliation and the inscription on the gun were not likely to have any effect on the trial. Thus, the alleged error was not capable of producing an unjust result. State v. LaPorte, 62 N.J. 312, 318-19 (1973). Defendant suffered no prejudice from the judge's alleged failure to declare a mistrial or from any strategic miscalculation by his trial counsel.With respect to defendant's second point on appeal, we find no manifest injustice in defendant's sentence. It was not at the top of the sentencing range and was entirely appropriate in light of his prior criminal record. The judge acted well within his discretion in sentencing defendant to a term of fifteen years. State v. Cassady, 198 N.J. 165, 180-81 (2009).Affirmed.All CitationsNot Reported in A.3d, 2011 WL 780880

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Got any other search terms you'd like ran?

[voodoo_man]

...am I not being clear here?

I do not know how else to explain it at this point.

Please reread my posts and consider what is written without malice.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

...am I not being clear here?

I do not know how else to explain it at this point.

Please reread my posts and consider what is written without malice.

You are being abundantly clear. I am attempting to illustrate the absurdity of your position because the documentation you are asking for is not available for the reasons I and others have stated.

You want a case that says but for X, this would have been a good incident, but because of X it is now considered questionable.

I and others have told you that is not something that makes it into caselaw, but you are looking for it all the same; therefore, you are taking an absurd position and demanding others provide proof you consider adequate to yourself that your position is absurd when no such proof can exist and proclaiming it a win because same cannot be provided.

What other search terms would you like ran through westlaw. I can sent the filters to all state and federal to get as much as possible.

[voodoo_man]

You are being abundantly clear. I am attempting to illustrate the absurdity of your position because the documentation you are asking for is not available for the reasons I and others have stated.

You want a case that says but for X, this would have been a good incident, but because of X it is now considered questionable.

I and others have told you that is not something that makes it into caselaw, but you are looking for it all the same; therefore, you are taking an absurd position and demanding others provide proof you consider adequate to yourself that your position is absurd when no such proof can exist and proclaiming it a win because same cannot be provided.

What other search terms would you like ran through westlaw. I can sent the filters to all state and federal to get as much as possible.

I have access to lexisnexis and have already done the searching.

It is your opinion that I am taking "an absurd position" where I am actually just asking for something I know that does not exist, rhetorically, in hopes of getting people to realize that this entire conversation has been designed to show how absurd the concept of an inscription or logo on a firearm cannot, in and of itself, be used against you. The position I am seeing people take here is one of complete disregard for logic and the legal system, attempting to state that, through lack of any evidence, that my "stance" was false, invalid and that I lack the proper understanding or education to make such an argument.

Let me restate my position, since we are on the same page now, after 6 pages.

Putting non-OEM inscriptions on firearms is perfectly legal, but ill advised because of possible legal hurdles if the owner/user may face if they would ever be charged with a crime involving the use of that firearm (or any other applicable crime, potentially).

[joshs]

Since then I have seen everything from emotional appeals to financial appeals to anecdotal evidence. When all I asked for was case law, court cases or anything that will prove that having anything inscribed on a weapon used in a lawful or otherwise "good" shoot is going to, in some way, make the shoot bad/negative and/or affect the otherwise "good" shoot status of the shooter by them being charged with a crime.

I have yet to see a single piece of evidence in reference to this.

All I can say after looking on Westlaw is don't inscribe your intended victim's name onto the bullets you intend to use ;). State v. Santiago, 305 Conn. 101, 148, 49 A.3d 566, 601 (2012), judgment set aside, opinion not vacated (Aug. 25, 2015), opinion supplemented on reconsideration, 318 Conn. 1, 122 A.3d 1 (2015).

But, as I mentioned earlier, there isn't likely going to be caselaw on something that doesn't raise a legal question. The only way this could generate an appellate opinion would be for defense counsel to object to the inscription being entered into evidence (or possibly failing to object and raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on appeal). As Kukuforguns already pointed out, such an objection is unlikely to be sustained or be the basis for an appellate court to grant review because it is pretty clearly admissible evidence under the FRE 803(3) or the state analogue "state of mind" hearsay exemption. Although, I guess in the case of a particularly bad inscription, you might be able to raise FRE 403 by claiming that any probative value would be substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect. In that case, a really vulgar inscription might be better than one that is just a little bit crude. :)

[voodoo_man]

All I can say after looking on Westlaw is don't inscribe your intended victim's name onto the bullets you intend to use ;). State v. Santiago, 305 Conn. 101, 148, 49 A.3d 566, 601 (2012), judgment set aside, opinion not vacated (Aug. 25, 2015), opinion supplemented on reconsideration, 318 Conn. 1, 122 A.3d 1 (2015).

But, as I mentioned earlier, there isn't likely going to be caselaw on something that doesn't raise a legal question. The only way this could generate an appellate opinion would be for defense counsel to object to the inscription being entered into evidence (or possibly failing to object and raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on appeal). As Kukuforguns already pointed out, such an objection is unlikely to be sustained or be the basis for an appellate court to grant review because it is pretty clearly admissible evidence under the FRE 803(3) or the state analogue "state of mind" hearsay exemption. Although, I guess in the case of a particularly bad inscription, you might be able to raise FRE 403 by claiming that any probative value would be substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect. In that case, a really vulgar inscription might be better than one that is just a little bit crude. :)

You mean engraving "lawgiver" on the side my duty gun is perfectly fine? :cool:

[Kukuforguns]

...am I not being clear here?

I do not know how else to explain it at this point.

Please reread my posts and consider what is written without malice.


The trio took several steps to prepare for the robbery. First, Jones (in Hawkins's presence) sawed off the barrel of a 12 gauge pump-action shotgun to make it easier to handle during the robbery. Second, the trio filed the serial number off the shotgun. Third, the trio added a strap to the shotgun and Jones carved the words “MONEY MAKER” into its side.

United States v. Jones, 612 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2010)


Here, the Winchester was found in plain view hanging over the closet door in Isom's den or computer room. The Remington was found in the master bedroom closet. The gun had “Jimmy” carved in the side.

Isom v. State, No. 91A05-0509-CR-557, 2006 WL 2425322, at *2 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2006) (inscription relevant to defendant's possession of gun)


Moreover, Moliere's personal papers and a gun with the initials R.R. carved into the handle were recovered in the vicinity of the house where *555 Reddick was staying on the night of the murder.

State v. Reddick, 94-2230 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/29/96), 670 So. 2d 551, 554-55 writ denied, 96-0799 (La. 9/13/96), 679 So. 2d 103 (initials relevant to determining defendant owned gun)


Appellant asserts in his fifth point that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence the warning inscribed on the air rifle. He contends that the warning constituted hearsay. The warning provided as follows: “Warning: Misuse or careless use may cause serious injury or death.”

Cruz v. State, No. 11-11-00100-CR, 2013 WL 4052674, at *4 (Tex. App. Aug. 8, 2013) (warning on air rifle admitted to establish defendant knew air rifle was capable of causing serious injury)


The stock on the rifle was inscribed with the letters “WLC,” which stood for Ward Lane Crips. Mauricio and Edwards were known members of the Ward Lane Crips.

People v. Preciado, No. B226362, 2012 WL 946872, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2012)

There were so many cases involving the use of inscriptions used to establish ownership/possession that I stopped collecting them. There were also several cases in which the defendant carved victim's names/initials on bullets but I did not include citations to these cases because there was no discussion regarding the relevance of these inscriptions (nevertheless, they support the conclusion that all sorts of prejudicial evidence gets in at trial).

You assume that people (presumably including me) are acting with malice towards you. Frustration on my part, perhaps, but not malice.

Carving stupid mottos on a gun is stupid precisely because the stupid motto can be legally relevant.

Again, I think we have different conceptions what the term "legally" means. However, since many people have a different understanding of what the term means, I am concerned that readers will see what you write and conclude that carving stupid shit on a gun won't have any legal repercussions. I'm not trying to convince you, I am trying to prevent readers from doing something stupid (all without providing free legal advice).

[HCM]

You mean engraving "lawgiver" on the side my duty gun is perfectly fine? :cool:

I know you are referring to judge Dredd but it, and this thread made me think of this :

http://www.bartleby.com/1001/12.html


XII. The Sayers of the Law


Not to go on all-fours; that is the Law. Are we not Men? “Not to suck up Drink; that is the Law. Are we not Men? “Not to eat Fish or Flesh; that is the Law. Are we not Men? “Not to claw the Bark of Trees; that is the Law. Are we not Men? “Not to chase other Men; that is the Law. Are we not Men?” 18
And so from the prohibition of these acts of folly, on to the prohibition of what I thought then were the maddest, most impossible, and most indecent things one could well imagine. A kind of rhythmic fervour fell on all of us; we gabbled and swayed faster and faster, repeating this amazing Law. Superficially the contagion of these brutes was upon me, but deep down within me the laughter and disgust struggled together. We ran through a long list of prohibitions, and then the chant swung round to a new formula. 19
“His is the House of Pain. “His is the Hand that makes. “His is the Hand that wounds. “His is the Hand that heals.” 20

[Mitchell, Esq.]

United States v. Jones, 612 F.3d 1040, 1043 (8th Cir. 2010)


Isom v. State, No. 91A05-0509-CR-557, 2006 WL 2425322, at *2 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 22, 2006) (inscription relevant to defendant's possession of gun)


State v. Reddick, 94-2230 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2/29/96), 670 So. 2d 551, 554-55 writ denied, 96-0799 (La. 9/13/96), 679 So. 2d 103 (initials relevant to determining defendant owned gun)


Cruz v. State, No. 11-11-00100-CR, 2013 WL 4052674, at *4 (Tex. App. Aug. 8, 2013) (warning on air rifle admitted to establish defendant knew air rifle was capable of causing serious injury)


People v. Preciado, No. B226362, 2012 WL 946872, at *1 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2012)

There were so many cases involving the use of inscriptions used to establish ownership/possession that I stopped collecting them. There were also several cases in which the defendant carved victim's names/initials on bullets but I did not include citations to these cases because there was no discussion regarding the relevance of these inscriptions (nevertheless, they support the conclusion that all sorts of prejudicial evidence gets in at trial).

You assume that people (presumably including me) are acting with malice towards you. Frustration on my part, perhaps, but not malice.

Carving stupid mottos on a gun is stupid precisely because the stupid motto can be legally relevant.

Again, I think we have different conceptions what the term "legally" means. However, since many people have a different understanding of what the term means, I am concerned that readers will see what you write and conclude that carving stupid shit on a gun won't have any legal repercussions. I'm not trying to convince you, I am trying to prevent readers from doing something stupid (all without providing free legal advice).

I want your collection of quotes...

[BehindBlueI's]

I have access to lexisnexis and have already done the searching.

It is your opinion that I am taking "an absurd position" where I am actually just asking for something I know that does not exist, rhetorically, in hopes of getting people to realize that this entire conversation has been designed to show how absurd the concept of an inscription or logo on a firearm cannot, in and of itself, be used against you. ...Putting non-OEM inscriptions on firearms is perfectly legal, but ill advised because of possible legal hurdles if the owner/user may face if they would ever be charged with a crime involving the use of that firearm (or any other applicable crime, potentially).

So if it can't be used against you, what are those possible legal hurdles?

You seem to keep saying you are against it because bad things may happen, but bad things can't happen so we "the hive" are foolish for suggesting bad things can happen. At this point I'm not sure even you agree with you.

[voodoo_man]

Since we need some humor here and I'll leave it at that...

http://i.imgur.com/RF2SvGy.png


edit...was supposed to be "charged 5 years..." stupid png files and formatting.

[peterb]

Putting non-OEM inscriptions on firearms is perfectly legal, but ill advised because of possible legal hurdles if the owner/user may face if they would ever be charged with a crime involving the use of that firearm (or any other applicable crime, potentially).

Agreed.

I want all the evidence to show that I'm the most responsible, peaceful, nonaggressive person they've ever seen.

[voodoo_man]

Agreed.

I want all the evidence to show that I'm the most responsible, peaceful, nonaggressive person they've ever seen.

Of course! Why else would you carry a concealed pistol for the protection of your community? ;)

[Dagga Boy]

Let me restate my position, since we are on the same page now, after 6 pages.

Putting non-OEM inscriptions on firearms is perfectly legal, but ill advised because of possible legal hurdles if the owner/user may face if they would ever be charged with a crime involving the use of that firearm (or any other applicable crime, potentially).

Yes. This can range from establishing state of mind, intent, prejudice, or a host of other things to cloud "reasonableness". Legal and reasonable can be two very different things when we attach a shooting to an event.

The statement "I want to kill people who piss me off" is perfectly legal to say. If uttered before grabbing a gun and shooting a person who angered you can be a factor in the difference between manslaughter and pre-meditated homicide.

[Coyotesfan97]

It'll get you fired from your Department the day you plead not guilty to 2nd Degree Homicide.

[El Cid]

Bottom line is its all about perception. But it's not my perception that matters after an event. It's the perceptions of the prosecutor, the judge, and the jury. We cannot expect any of those people to be gun owners much less shooting enthusiasts. Many regular every day people will be horrified by things such as what's been discussed in this thread on firearms.

What we can expect is the other party's attorney and the media will spin those perceptions out of control to fit their agenda. And most places the prosecutor is a politician. We know how their backbones turn to mush under pressure. Zimmerman was already mentioned. His was a clear good shoot and months later he was prosecuted because he was vilified in the media. Being right doesn't always keep you out of jail. And I'd rather not lose my life savings on lawyer and court fees hoping to not lose my freedom.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[JR1572]

Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea.

That looks similar to something said earlier.


Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

I'm noticing a trend.

JR1572

[idahojess]

George Zimmerman went on trial for murder in a use of force friendly jurisdiction.

Imagine if he had creative scribbling on his handgun...

Or if Darren Wilson had an emblem on the back of his pistol. ...

[Erick Gelhaus]

Oh, For Kitten's Sake ... NOT on a work gun. This is why agencies go overboard and ban any modification to a duty weapon .. like sights, grips that fit, etc.

[nycnoob]

Agreed.

I want all the evidence to show that I'm the most responsible, peaceful, nonaggressive person they've ever seen.

Can you imagine if you put: "I'm a responsible, peaceful, nonaggressive person" on your gun.
Probably will have the opposite interpretation when examined during a trial.

[Josh Runkle]

It is legal for me to own a destructive device in Ohio. I could also get an explosive handler's license (county), FEL, have an appropriate explosives magazine inspected by BATFE, and then theoretically purchase a 40mm grenade for an M203. If I were legally working with the items and my life were suddenly in danger, I have a legal right in Ohio to defend my life (with a few caveats, but let's assume that I meet all of that criteria, and wasn't concealing the destructive device or something, but I had it in the open and was legally working on it or testing it or something and it was what happened to be at hand...) This would, in my understanding be, according to the law, a perfectly legal use of self defense, and yet I can guarantee that I would end up spending every cent I have to prevent going to prison or losing everything in a lawsuit, despite the fact that I would have done nothing wrong, and would not have broken any laws.

If, instead, I dropped the DD and pulled a legally concealed pistol, I might be home by the next day.

If I focused on passive target hardening and mitigation, I might never have to face any sort of situation.

We should focus less on how to be a "law abiding warrior" and more on being simply "law abiding", and even more so, to an extent, on being completely uninvolved with the law.

[Lex Luthier]

I guess my plan of getting a molested/repaired MAS 49/56 and engraving "Je Suis Charlie Martel" is probably not gonna fly, then.

[JR1572]

What about all of those Larue rails with "Live Free Or Die" on them?

JR1572

[Wondering Beard]

I guess my plan of getting a molested/repaired MAS 49/56 and engraving "Je Suis Charlie Martel" is probably not gonna fly, then.


That assumes that the SJW folks in your area understand the mix of references you're putting together.

Not something I would count on.:cool:

[Dave J]

Just write it in cursive :)

[Lex Luthier]

Just write it in cursive :)

D'accord. Sinon, il ne se fait pas.

6749

[Doc_Glock]

8 million dollar settlement to widow:

https://www.dcourier.com/news/2022/nov/23/wife-texas-man-killed-police-arizona-settles-suit/

"
PHOENIX — The widow of an unarmed Texas man fatally shot by police outside his suburban Phoenix hotel room in 2016 has agreed to settle her wrongful death lawsuit.
A notice of settlement filed Tuesday in federal court in Arizona shows that Laney Sweet, the wife of Daniel Shaver, and her two children will receive $8 million from the city of Mesa.
A probate court has approved the settlement’s terms and appointed a temporary conservator.
In exchange, all of Sweet's legal claims will be dismissed with prejudice.
In a statement released by her attorneys, Sweet acknowledged the settlement will help her family financially. But “no amount of money can undo the transgressions that cruelly removed Daniel from his family's lives forever.""

[Totem Polar]

That was an expensive dust cover.

[CCT125US]

This is a non issue.

This didn't age well.


8 million dollar settlement to widow:

https://www.dcourier.com/news/2022/nov/23/wife-texas-man-killed-police-arizona-settles-suit/

[Sammy1]

Two towns away from me a Sergeant shot a stolen car suspect in the jaw with his authorized but personally owned 45acp while on duty. The State prosecutor made an issue out of him carrying a larger caliber (with a lighter trigger pull) than the issued duty weapon. He was eventually criminally charged, and the suspect brought a civil tort against him. The prosecutor had magazine articles with phrases like "man stopper" which he presented to the jury, referring to the 45acp that the sergeant used. This was an apparent effort to predispose his mindset and cast doubt on his UOF. The sergeant was acquitted on the criminal charges but ruined in the civil suit. Settlement found against him. Don't give anyone, anything to cast doubt on your UOF!

[jnc36rcpd]

The settlement doesn't surprise me. If I recall correctly, the decedent was not guilty of anything but aggravated drunken stupidity. Truth be told, I suspect the complex verbal commands confused me, I suspect they were even more confusing to the decedents and the other subjects. While I very much believe in following high risk protocols, I think some deviation might have been in order in this case, given the multiple suspects and the close quarters of the hallway.

If I recall an article (by Mas?) correctly, the idiotic personalization of the officer's dust cover was never admitted at trial, but it cost a substantial amount in legal fees to keep it out of evidence. That's money that could have been better spent.

I'm not familiar with the case Sammy mentions, but I think we need to ready to defend reasonable decisions which may require an attorney knowledgeable about weapons and deadly for and police administrators and, if need be, expert witnesses willing to defend us. While not my choice of sidearm the selection of a .45 1911 pistol is both reasonable and defensible. For instance, FBI SWAT agents were issued .45 Springfield pistols until several years ago. Their transition to the Glock 9mm was not because the .45 was a "man stopper", but because there is little practical difference between 9mm and .45. The 1911 is arguably the most accurate weapon the sergeant could have chosen, indicating his intention to shoot precisely to mitigate risks to the public from stray rounds.

There is a significant difference between selecting or modifying gear for a reason and doing so carelessly or decorating it with offensive stickers (even if we're not offended).

[Wise_A]

There is a significant difference between selecting or modifying gear for a reason and doing so carelessly or decorating it with offensive stickers (even if we're not offended).

With regard to Sammy's reference, I think the lesson is that any deviation from the standard, issued item carries an element of risk in today's legal climate.

[167]

Looked back through the thread, didn't see the video of the shooting posted so I googled it up to add to the record. Links are age restricted, so you have to have a YT account to watch them.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCdRL6bqSKI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCdRL6bqSKI

I wonder how much of that 8 million actually goes to the family vs the lawyers.

[Coyotesfan97]

Looked back through the thread, didn't see the video of the shooting posted so I googled it up to add to the record. First link is age restricted, so you have to have a YT account to watch it.

I wonder how much of that 8 million actually goes to the family vs the lawyers.

Between the agreed upon percentage plus fees I’d be willing to bet the attorneys are getting more.

[SCCY Marshal]

Looked back through the thread, didn't see the video of the shooting posted so I googled it up to add to the record. Links are age restricted, so you have to have a YT account to watch them.

Replace the "youtube.com" part of the URL with "yewtu.be" and the need for an account goes away.

[sickeness]

Two towns away from me a Sergeant shot a stolen car suspect in the jaw with his authorized but personally owned 45acp while on duty. The State prosecutor made an issue out of him carrying a larger caliber (with a lighter trigger pull) than the issued duty weapon. He was eventually criminally charged, and the suspect brought a civil tort against him. The prosecutor had magazine articles with phrases like "man stopper" which he presented to the jury, referring to the 45acp that the sergeant used. This was an apparent effort to predispose his mindset and cast doubt on his UOF. The sergeant was acquitted on the criminal charges but ruined in the civil suit. Settlement found against him. Don't give anyone, anything to cast doubt on your UOF!

Calling BS.
This doesn't sound right to me at all, there must have been more at play than a simple caliber swap or the story didn't get passed on correctly. 45acp is a commonly used duty caliber all across the country by large agencies. I could understand if the gun was something uncommon like a .454 casul or .50ae but 45 no way.

[willie]

The settlement doesn't surprise me. If I recall correctly, the decedent was not guilty of anything but aggravated drunken stupidity. Truth be told, I suspect the complex verbal commands confused me, I suspect they were even more confusing to the decedents and the other subjects. While I very much believe in following high risk protocols, I think some deviation might have been in order in this case, given the multiple suspects and the close quarters of the hallway.

If I recall an article (by Mas?) correctly, the idiotic personalization of the officer's dust cover was never admitted at trial, but it cost a substantial amount in legal fees to keep it out of evidence. That's money that could have been better spent.

I'm not familiar with the case Sammy mentions, but I think we need to ready to defend reasonable decisions which may require an attorney knowledgeable about weapons and deadly for and police administrators and, if need be, expert witnesses willing to defend us. While not my choice of sidearm the selection of a .45 1911 pistol is both reasonable and defensible. For instance, FBI SWAT agents were issued .45 Springfield pistols until several years ago. Their transition to the Glock 9mm was not because the .45 was a "man stopper", but because there is little practical difference between 9mm and .45. The 1911 is arguably the most accurate weapon the sergeant could have chosen, indicating his intention to shoot precisely to mitigate risks to the public from stray rounds.

There is a significant difference between selecting or modifying gear for a reason and doing so carelessly or decorating it with offensive stickers (even if we're not offended).

I watched but did not study the video. If this was a legit or defensible shooting, perhaps someone can explain the justification. It appeared to be a tragic error.

[HCM]

Two towns away from me a Sergeant shot a stolen car suspect in the jaw with his authorized but personally owned 45acp while on duty. The State prosecutor made an issue out of him carrying a larger caliber (with a lighter trigger pull) than the issued duty weapon. He was eventually criminally charged, and the suspect brought a civil tort against him. The prosecutor had magazine articles with phrases like "man stopper" which he presented to the jury, referring to the 45acp that the sergeant used. This was an apparent effort to predispose his mindset and cast doubt on his UOF. The sergeant was acquitted on the criminal charges but ruined in the civil suit. Settlement found against him. Don't give anyone, anything to cast doubt on your UOF!


Calling BS.
This doesn't sound right to me at all, there must have been more at play than a simple caliber swap or the story didn't get passed on correctly. 45acp is a commonly used duty caliber all across the country by large agencies. I could understand if the gun was something uncommon like a .454 casul or .50ae but 45 no way.

@sickness do you have any direct personal or professional experience with the criminal or civil legal system?

Because I’ve been involved with them for 25 years and it is plausible to me.

Technical merits aside, prosecutors are either elected officials or work directly for elected officials, elected officials care about what’s gonna get them reelected.

The other thing is that while almost any reasonable choice like a personal choice to use an authorized optional 45 caliber pistol can be countered, you don’t wanna have to do more countering than you have to.

Despite the Perry Mason public image of our legal system, jury trials, particularly civil jury trials, tend to be as much about emotion and creating a compelling story as they are about facts.

If I remember correctly, Sammy1 is in the Northeast. Regional politics, attitudes, and norms (and who makes up the jury pool) have real effects on legal outcomes.

[TGS]

I watched but did not study the video. If this was a legit or defensible shooting, perhaps someone can explain the justification. It appeared to be a tragic error.

If you're asking about the Daniel Shaver shooting, it was both tragic and defensible....as are many LE shootings.

Defensible:

Police were called to Shaver's hotel room after reports of him pointing a gun at people. He failed to follow commands, and after reaching to his rear waistband he was shot by Officer Brailsford, as the officer believed he was reaching for a gun.

Tragic:

Shaver was being a drunk asshole, and was pointing a gun at people...which was later determined to be a BB gun after being recovered post shooting. The sergeant giving the commands was giving commands that were difficult to follow, as well as being non standard; I, and many of the other LEOs on the forum, have never been taught or heard of making someone crawl to you. Shaver reached behind his back because he was trying to pull up his sweat pants, which were sagging because of trying to crawl in them.

So, tragic yet defensible. A jury agreed, and acquitted Officer Brailsford. Everyone reading this would do well to remember that civil suits for money are a separate matter from criminal courts, and almost everytime a LEO shoots someone there is a civil suit following it regardless of however justified the LEO was....and every single time the city will settle out of court, regardless of however justified the officer was.

[idahojess]

Settlement found against him.

What do you mean by "Settlement found against him"? I'm unfamiliar with that phrase. Was the case settled or was there a verdict?

[HCM]

What do you mean by "Settlement found against him"? I'm unfamiliar with that phrase. Was the case settled or was there a verdict?

IME in civil cases it would be “Judgement” found against him, or rendered against him.

[idahojess]

IME in civil cases it would be “Judgement” found against him, or rendered against him.


That is why I asked him what he meant....

[DDTSGM]

So, tragic yet defensible. A jury agreed, and acquitted Officer Brailsford. Everyone reading this would do well to remember that civil suits for money are a separate matter from criminal courts, and almost everytime a LEO shoots someone there is a civil suit following it regardless of however justified the LEO was....and every single time the city will settle out of court, regardless of however justified the officer was.

Just to be clear, are you saying that the officer was legally justified in firing? Or simply that another reasonable officer in the same or similar circumstances would have done the same?

I think there is a difference.

[TGS]

Just to be clear, are you saying that the officer was legally justified in firing? Or simply that another reasonable officer in the same or similar circumstances would have done the same?

I think there is a difference.

Both. I'm not sure I understand your question, though, since the reasonable man standard is generally the standard for legal justification.

[willie]

If you're asking about the Daniel Shaver shooting, it was both tragic and defensible....as are many LE shootings.

Defensible:

Police were called to Shaver's hotel room after reports of him pointing a gun at people. He failed to follow commands, and after reaching to his rear waistband he was shot by Officer Brailsford, as the officer believed he was reaching for a gun.

Tragic:

Shaver was being a drunk asshole, and was pointing a gun at people...which was later determined to be a BB gun after being recovered post shooting. The sergeant giving the commands was giving commands that were difficult to follow, as well as being non standard; I, and many of the other LEOs on the forum, have never been taught or heard of making someone crawl to you. Shaver reached behind his back because he was trying to pull up his sweat pants, which were sagging because of trying to crawl in them.

So, tragic yet defensible. A jury agreed, and acquitted Officer Brailsford. Everyone reading this would do well to remember that civil suits for money are a separate matter from criminal courts, and almost everytime a LEO shoots someone there is a civil suit following it regardless of however justified the LEO was....and every single time the city will settle out of court, regardless of however justified the officer was.


Good explanation. Thank you. I regret that the officer was indicted and then tried in criminal court as if he acted out of malice.

[sickeness]

@sickness do you have any direct personal or professional experience with the criminal or civil legal system?

Because I’ve been involved with them for 25 years and it is plausible to me.

Technical merits aside, prosecutors are either elected officials or work directly for elected officials, elected officials care about what’s gonna get them reelected.

The other thing is that while almost any reasonable choice like a personal choice to use an authorized optional 45 caliber pistol can be countered, you don’t wanna have to do more countering than you have to.

Despite the Perry Mason public image of our legal system, jury trials, particularly civil jury trials, tend to be as much about emotion and creating a compelling story as they are about facts.

If I remember correctly, Sammy1 is in the Northeast. Regional politics, attitudes, and norms (and who makes up the jury pool) have real effects on legal outcomes.

Yes I am full time LE and I work in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States.
The administration for the agency I am currently assigned to have some of the strictest policies in the nation regarding use of force.
I have testified in court and been involved in use-of-force investigations as both a subject and a witness.

So now that's out of the way, I don't see how someone can get jammed up in court over using a department approved firearm in a caliber that is probably the second most common used by LE all across the US. Any union rep or lawyer worth his salt could easily establish these facts and make it a moot point. Now like I said if we were talking about a oddball caliber, an oddball or modified gun, or possibly an incriminating statement by the Officer involved, then that's a different story. Being in LE, as I assume you are as well: you often hear wild BS stories like this from your co-workers about how so and so got hemmed up for XYZ, often once you discover the actual facts of the situation you also often discover additional fault at the hands of the Officer that was not initially disclosed or that the rumor mill was unaware of. I would hope this is not the sort of forum where people would spread obvious BS like "using a .45 can get you sued and fired". Give me a damn break.

Regardless of regional politics or viewpoints, a civil conviction based solely on the use of a commonly-used larger caliber than what was issued is extremely unlikely and if it did indeed occur would be a easy appeal to win.

[Sammy1]

What do you mean by "Settlement found against him"? I'm unfamiliar with that phrase. Was the case settled or was there a verdict?

He lost and the suspect was awarded a monetary settlement. Like the OJ case, he was found not guilty in criminal court but lost the civil case.

[Sammy1]

Yes I am full time LE and I work in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States.
The administration for the agency I am currently assigned to have some of the strictest policies in the nation regarding use of force.
I have testified in court and been involved in use-of-force investigations as both a subject and a witness.

So now that's out of the way, I don't see how someone can get jammed up in court over using a department approved firearm in a caliber that is probably the second most common used by LE all across the US. Any union rep or lawyer worth his salt could easily establish these facts and make it a moot point. Now like I said if we were talking about a oddball caliber, an oddball or modified gun, or possibly an incriminating statement by the Officer involved, then that's a different story. Being in LE, as I assume you are as well: you often hear wild BS stories like this from your co-workers about how so and so got hemmed up for XYZ, often once you discover the actual facts of the situation you also often discover additional fault at the hands of the Officer that was not initially disclosed or that the rumor mill was unaware of. I would hope this is not the sort of forum where people would spread obvious BS like "using a .45 can get you sued and fired". Give me a damn break.

Regardless of regional politics or viewpoints, a civil conviction based solely on the use of a commonly-used larger caliber than what was issued is extremely unlikely and if it did indeed occur would be a easy appeal to win.

The car was eventually stopped, and he ripped open the door, grabbing the suspect with his left arm while his right arm holding the 1911 unintentionally discharged into the suspect's mandible during the struggle. It wasn't an intentional act but he was eventually charged and made to look like an intentional act. There was a big deal made out of the sergeant not using his dept. issued revolver and using a 1911 in 45 acp. He was acquitted because the prosecutor over charged. Then he had to go through this all over again with the civil tort, which he lost. Morale of the story don't give the lawyers any extra ammunition to work with.

[Mas]

Sammy1 is telling you true. The case was in the late 1970s. The auto pistol on duty was largely an anomaly in that part of the country. The only state police in the nation issuing auto pistols for duty was Illinois (Model 39) and the .38 Special was the predominant duty sidearm caliber. (During that period, one NYPD guy who was hired as chief of a small department in NH discovered that officers there carried .357s and .45s and exclaimed "Whaddaya shoot up here, trees?") When I carried a Colt .45 auto on duty (privately owned/department approved) in the same state, there were those who muttered "radical" and "maverick."

Sgt. James Kennedy, the involved officer in the case Sammy1 cites, was a department firearms instructor, probably the best shot on the force, and a gun enthusiast who had recently shot in the IPSC Nationals. Among other things he had attended Smith & Wesson Academy, the SIG Academy of its time. I knew him as a good man and a good cop. The prosecution tried to paint him as a cowboy and overaggressive, and used the higher capacity/larger caliber/handloaded ammo as part of their strategy to establish that theme. Jim Cirillo came up from New York and did a splendid job for the defense as an expert witness, establishing that among other things Sgt. Kennedy's .45 ACP was less powerful than the .357 Magnums issued to the State Police detectives who investigated the case.

Do not underestimate the potential for opposing counsel to pull this sort of thing to paint the accused officer as someone obsessed with violence and prone to excessive force. Jim Kennedy was a good cop who risked his life to protect the public. What happened to him could happen to any of us.

[AMC]

Does it feel to anyone else like Mas has been trying to warn us about this for a couple of decades, and some folks still aren't listening? The point isn't that making silly and immature decisions with firearms and equipment WILL get you jammed up...its that depending on circumstances it's a factor that can contribute to you getting jammed up, especially in civil court where the standard of proof is much lower and judgements are far more about how the jury 'feels' about the case because of that. And frankly, under current California law, you'd better make sure your equipment decisions are department approved and in compliance with your training.

Again this is not a question of "They're gonna hang ya Fer that!" Its just a matter of not giving the opposition any more handles to grab onto for leverage.

sickeness, not sure how long you've been a cop, but have you ever been sued in state or federal court?

[HCM]

Yes I am full time LE and I work in one of the largest metropolitan areas in the United States.
The administration for the agency I am currently assigned to have some of the strictest policies in the nation regarding use of force.
I have testified in court and been involved in use-of-force investigations as both a subject and a witness.

So now that's out of the way, I don't see how someone can get jammed up in court over using a department approved firearm in a caliber that is probably the second most common used by LE all across the US. Any union rep or lawyer worth his salt could easily establish these facts and make it a moot point. Now like I said if we were talking about a oddball caliber, an oddball or modified gun, or possibly an incriminating statement by the Officer involved, then that's a different story. Being in LE, as I assume you are as well: you often hear wild BS stories like this from your co-workers about how so and so got hemmed up for XYZ, often once you discover the actual facts of the situation you also often discover additional fault at the hands of the Officer that was not initially disclosed or that the rumor mill was unaware of. I would hope this is not the sort of forum where people would spread obvious BS like "using a .45 can get you sued and fired". Give me a damn break.

Regardless of regional politics or viewpoints, a civil conviction based solely on the use of a commonly-used larger caliber than what was issued is extremely unlikely and if it did indeed occur would be a easy appeal to win.

You seem fixated on the .45 ACP thing. It’s not about a .45 ACP or any other specific choice. It’s about an unscrupulous prosecutor or attorney spinning details for perceived political or financial gain. If the facts are not on their side they appeal to emotion.

Attorneys can (and do) make ridiculous emotional arguments to juries all the time. They even hire psychologists as jury consultants to figure out what will and will not emotionally impact juries. You can counter those arguments but do you want to increase your burden if you don’t have to ? It’s unlikely to be the sole factor but why give the other side a freebie ?

PS. As noted above the incident in question occurred in the 1970s when 38/357 revolvers were THE dominant LE guns. While it has pockets of regional popularity, .45 ACP is a distant 3rd behind 9mm and .40 in LE use today.

[vcdgrips]

Slight thread drift

1. Life can be hard, decline the opportunity to invite life to kick you in the junk unnecessarily.

2. If I was issued/mandated a gun i.e. Glock 17, my off duty gun would be a version of the same loaded with my issue round. PERIOD. It is simply not that hard to dress around a full size gun when you are already presumably a professional LEO. Perhaps, a G19 or 26 if that was the "plainclothes" issue.

3. LEOS today have to run at least five gauntlets simultaneously in real time re uses of force

a. civil liability
b. criminal liability
c. dept policy
d. getting home safe or not
e. living with what they did despite "passing" a-d

4. Ergo see #1

Blessings to you all in this time.

[CWM11B]

The original post re the .45 reads as if the caliber choice resulted in the charges/lawsuit. I'd call BS too. Mas jumped in with the rest of the story, which shed a lot of light. ND. THATS what led to the charges and lawsuit. The adversarial attorneys used the .45 thing as an aggravating/enhancement factor to paint their case in the most favorable light for them. That there was more to the story is the point. No argument that lawyers will try and do most anything to win. I can think of a lot of things to bring up about any weapon or ammunition combo that could play to the emotions of a jury if it was allowed into the record. I am frequently asked in some of the programs I present in questions about such choices. Without being flippant or sarcastic I simply reply : if it comes to an adversarial trial situation, anything you say or do can and will be used againt you in court.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

HCM said:


They even hire psychologists as jury consultants to figure out what will and will not emotionally impact juries. You can counter those arguments but do you want to increase your burden if you don’t have to ? It’s unlikely to be the sole factor but why give the other side a freebie ?

Wise words. The usual statement is show me case where someone was convicted because of equipment variable X. But that's not what the decision research says. The jury decision is probably the sum of the presentations, so the appearance issue is part of the sum. Next, opinions are based on the coherent story that grabs the jury from the beginning and they interpret facts selectively to confirm their internal narrative. That's hard to break at time. It takes very savvy jurors. You can counter some arguments but in some jurors' minds the counter is interpreted as: Why are you making a fuss about this? The other side must have a point. It takes a bright juror to logically parse as compared to emotionally processing.

The standard model of the mind is two fold: Quick emotions usually dominant slower rational cognitions. An initial presentation of some blood lusted BS is nasty.

Look at the Bernhard Goetz case, way back when. There was strong evidence that he might have been a touch extreme in his actions, esp. his utterances. However, the defense was pretty brilliant in making the self-defense case. However, they had to overcome the negative impact of his using hollow points and a 'tactical' holster. Jurors later said they were predisposed to conviction because of them. But they thought through it. However, he was convicted on the weapons charges and the jurors said these equipment issues influenced that decision and the judge said they influenced his sentencing.

[Erick Gelhaus]

Because we're past page 5 ...

I'd be leery of carving decisions in stone based on a single case. While I will do an occasional meme-like post on case law decisions, one really needs to read the complete ruling to understand & opine on it;

Settlements are agreements between involved parties before trial or (possibly) during the post-trial appeal process. Verdicts are decisions from the trier of fact - either jury or judge. Words do have meaning;

I'll add another problem to vcdgrips list ... the court of public opinion. It can lead quickly to organizational and community betrayal;

Reference the original post - I've already commented on the ejection port cover. I place a tremendous amount of blame on the supervisor in the hallway that night. He doesn't get to be called a sergeant. While the officer pressed the trigger, the supervisor drove that whole mess and caused the tragic outcome. "We" need to be spending a lot more time addressing that.

[Coyotesfan97]

Reference the original post - I've already commented on the ejection port cover. I place a tremendous amount of blame on the supervisor in the hallway that night. He doesn't get to be called a sergeant. While the officer pressed the trigger, the supervisor drove that whole mess and caused the tragic outcome. "We" need to be spending a lot more time addressing that.

Erick speaks the truth. The Officer made the decision to shoot. My belief is he was heavily influenced by the Sergeant’s commands and his inability to deal with a highly intoxicated suspect.

[Hambo]

Reference the original post - I've already commented on the ejection port cover. I place a tremendous amount of blame on the supervisor in the hallway that night. He doesn't get to be called a sergeant. While the officer pressed the trigger, the supervisor drove that whole mess and caused the tragic outcome. "We" need to be spending a lot more time addressing that.

Amen, brother.

[vcdgrips]

Erick G is again dropping Platinum. I will add his point as a sixth gauntlet going forward for sure.

DB

[sickeness]

The original post re the .45 reads as if the caliber choice resulted in the charges/lawsuit. I'd call BS too. Mas jumped in with the rest of the story, which shed a lot of light. ND. THATS what led to the charges and lawsuit. The adversarial attorneys used the .45 thing as an aggravating/enhancement factor to paint their case in the most favorable light for them. That there was more to the story is the point. No argument that lawyers will try and do most anything to win. I can think of a lot of things to bring up about any weapon or ammunition combo that could play to the emotions of a jury if it was allowed into the record. I am frequently asked in some of the programs I present in questions about such choices. Without being flippant or sarcastic I simply reply : if it comes to an adversarial trial situation, anything you say or do can and will be used againt you in court.

Couldn't have said it any better, thank you.

This information was originally posted without context which makes sense now that it is revealed that this occurred during the 1970's when he was using what would have been considered an "oddball" caliber with an "oddball" gun and there also being a Negligent discharge involved.

Unfortunately in today's environment, lots of LE have this negative and fearful attitude, leading them to sit on their hands and not be pro-active for fear of civil consequences or their career. Spreading misinformation or information without context only fuels this type of BS.

[Sammy1]

The original post re the .45 reads as if the caliber choice resulted in the charges/lawsuit. I'd call BS too. Mas jumped in with the rest of the story, which shed a lot of light. ND. THATS what led to the charges and lawsuit. The adversarial attorneys used the .45 thing as an aggravating/enhancement factor to paint their case in the most favorable light for them. That there was more to the story is the point. No argument that lawyers will try and do most anything to win. I can think of a lot of things to bring up about any weapon or ammunition combo that could play to the emotions of a jury if it was allowed into the record. I am frequently asked in some of the programs I present in questions about such choices. Without being flippant or sarcastic I simply reply : if it comes to an adversarial trial situation, anything you say or do can and will be used againt you in court.

I offered it as an example of using something, anything, different or changed against you in court. Like the dust cover, the caliber and weapon being different than issued was used against the officer in criminal and civil court. Dust cover or caliber or different firearm being used to insinuate motive. I've been through a 1983 action and it isn't pleasant.

[CWM11B]

And I didnt disagree with you.

[Sammy1]

Be safe everyone

[CWM11B]

🤦*♂️

[jnc36rcpd]

Like Erick, I think a significnt amount of culpability lies with the sergeant. Leaders, formal or informal, have a significant influence on the outcome of tactical scenarios. The sergeant should have realized that his instructions were unclear and difficult to follow, especially for a bunch of drunks in a hotel room. Simpler commands and having the suspect walk forward might have entailed some risk, but avoided the kabuki dance that this takedown entailed. Moreover, his instructions were setting the tone for his officers and likely priming them to use deadly on a "go" movement rather than evaluating the suspect's actions. The sergeant wasn't just issuing commands to the suspect; he was inadvertently issuing commands to everyone else.

It's easy to blame the officer, but to avoid repeats of this cluster, we need to look at the whole. This wasn't just one cop who made a tragic decision. It's about overall tactics by everyone.

I put this solidly in the lawful, but awful column.

[Mas]

I don't think it's fair to either of the involved officers under discussion, Sgt. Kennedy in NH and Officer Brailsford in AZ, to call their shootings negligent. In the end, both appear to have been victim precipitated: probably intentionally in the NH case, almost certainly unintentionally in the AZ case.

In the NH case, Kennedy had been in pursuit of a wildly erratic driver, one Soucy (perhaps "Soucie"? All these years later I don't recall the exact spelling). Motorists had been run off the road by this suspect and Kennedy believed it was only a matter of time before he killed someone. Backup was distant. When Soucy ran off the road and got stuck, he was revving the engine and trying to get back on the road. Kennedy felt he could not allow the danger to the motoring public to continue. That was when he approached the driver's door. (The prosecution painted that as recklessness. I thought it was courage, but I digress.) His privately owned/department approved Gold Cup .45 was drawn per protocol at the end of a high speed pursuit, and held in retention position. He testified that it was on-safe, his right thumb poised above the safety lever and his index finger on the front edge of the trigger guard exactly as he had been taught at Smith & Wesson Academy.

They were in close proximity at the driver's door when Soucy's right hand was seen to go under his right thigh as if reaching for a pistol. (It turned out later that all he had there was a liquor flask, but it was a clear-cut furtive movement.) Not wanting to kill the guy, Kennedy reached in with his left hand to grab the driver's right wrist. That was when the driver reached up with his left hand, grabbed the .45, and forcibly pulled it toward himself. Kennedy's hand reflexively tightened, which brought the thumb down releasing the safety and tightened the trigger finger, which was held taut at the front of the guard, snapping the finger back onto the trigger and causing the single shot of the event to be fired into Soucy's face.

It taught me among other things that finger on the front of the trigger guard was dangerous as hell, but that's a corollary discussion. The officer had done exactly what he was trained to do.

In the Arizona case, Brailsford was designated lethal cover, which explains why he was the only one who fired. If we review the bodycam video of the officer whose camera caught Daniel Shaver's movement...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUUx0jUKxc

...we can see that on or about 3:46 Shaver's hands start to go behind his back. (The guy had serious alcohol problems and a history of DUI arrests. It is theorized with 20/20 hindsight that in the past he had been ordered by police to put his hands behind his back prior to cuffing, and may have been trying to just be cooperative.) This is what triggers the sergeant to yell at him -- repeatedly -- that if he does that again he will be shot.

Imagine that you are the two-year patrolman next to the 20-or-so-year sergeant, your supervisor, your Alpha who shouts that statement repeatedly. Would you not take that as a command to shoot this man if he does that again? It's hard to imagine how an officer in Brailsford's position could take it any other way.

On or about 4:25, as Shaver is crawling toward the police, his right hand is seen to flash down toward his right hip, exactly mimicking a draw from hip/behind the hip position. It is at this time that Brailsford fires the rapid burst from his .223.

20/20 hindsight leads most of us to believe that the friction of crawling along the floor was pulling Shaver's tennis shorts down and his hand went reflexively to the waistband. This would make it a classic furtive movement shooting: the alleged victim -- suspected to have been a pointing gun at people, which is why the police were there -- made a movement consistent with going for a gun and not reasonably consistent with anything else in that very brief window of time.

We can see why good defense teams won criminal court acquittals in both cases. We should also note that both officers' police careers were destroyed in the aftermath nonetheless.

[AMC]

Mas coming strong with the facts.

I tend to agree with Erick Gelhaus on the Sergeants handling of the AZ incident. Having been in that position on multiple occasions, you begin to realize that one of the most important roles of a supervisor in that type of environment is to maintain and project calm control. If the senior officer present isn't maintaining a calm demeanor, you can't expect the young guys to do so. There has been a great deal and discussion and study the last few years of the effect of 'Dispatch Priming' on officer actions at the scene of a critical incident. I think this was a perfect example of 'Supervisor Priming'.

[AMC]

Mas coming strong with the facts.

I tend to agree with Erick Gelhaus on the Sergeants handling of the AZ incident. Having been in that position on multiple occasions, you begin to realize that one of the most important roles of a supervisor in that type of environment is to maintain and project calm control. If the senior officer present isn't maintaining a calm demeanor, you can't expect the young guys to do so. There has been a great deal and discussion and study the last few years of the effect of 'Dispatch Priming' on officer actions at the scene of a critical incident. I think this was a perfect example of 'Supervisor Priming'.