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...-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.