Questions over assault weapon used by Mesa officer facing murder charge

[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.