I'm not an expert, but I'll take a stab at this- Plausible deniability. People often think that if someone is carrying a self defense weapon, they are out looking for trouble, or are inclined to poke their noses into other people's business when they shouldn'tOriginally Posted by Chance
We wish to thank the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement, without whose assistance this program would not have been possible.
I'm not against a thread like this or having a reasonable and respectful conversation. However I am a bit surprised that this topic has made 14 pages. This for an item that has only aesthetic value. The addition of such an item makes zero difference in function,speed or accuracy of the weapon or system of use and can be viewed negatively in some prosecutor,judge,juries or general public eyes so what is the point?
At best it doesn't have a negative impact. At worst it has people making critical decisions about the person using a tool and their choices look poorly,unprofessional,biased,blood thirsty/trigger happy etc... All for what vanity?
I originally typed out a much longer response, but realized it boils down to this for my jurisdiction:
1) You don't. Carrying a knife for self-defense is as accepted as carrying a gun. Trial and screening prosecutors have both told me it doesn't seem to make any difference to local juries. It has also not made any difference if it was a "dual use" item, carried for work or not, etc. I figured box cutters would be seen as "evil" due to association with 9/11, but the prosecutors said it hasn't made a difference, either.
2) If you make some "it's a gardening tool" claim and I call you on it, you better have proof. Lying to the investigator is a good way to get him against you, particularly if it's a "insult your intelligence" type lie. It makes me question your integrity, wonder what else you're covering up, and I'll use it to impeach you if I can. Victims lie almost as much as suspects, we're watching for it.
And I would certainly admit that self defense is a factor for carrying my CP, especially the position of the knife.
Mine isn't a gardening tool. It's a knife that I keep very accessible, that I use everyday in the garden and at the dining table. It's also very good for cutting clothes off someone, or a seatbelt.
To me, as long as I'm not obfuscating that it is a weapon and has a self defense role, the fact that I use it a lot for everyday tasks is the opposite effect of the Punisher logo stuff. Basically no downside with possible upside.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I didn't fully explain myself. On movies and TV shows, it's common to give the badguy a better weapon than the goodguy. Badguys get selfloading pistols and rifles, while the goodguy has to do with running and hiding while armed with a baseball bat or other improvised weapon. Writers do this to create tension through a disparity of arms. Goodguys almost never arm themselves before being put into mortal danger. If they do, it's because they needed the tool for some other job. So, John Q. Public, even if it's subconscious, tends to think the only reason for a civilian to go armed is for nefarious purposes.
Then, there are those who think they are clever when they tell others "No, that's not for self defense. It's a gardening tool." Wink, wink
Last edited by MistWolf; 09-04-2017 at 05:13 PM.
We wish to thank the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement, without whose assistance this program would not have been possible.
Don't worry about the public.
Worry about the people who take the reports, write the reports, them the decision makers who read the reports.
If they are writing & reading things like "Condescending", "Untruthful", "Indicative of a lie" then they will take one path.
If they are writing & reading things like "Polite", "Asked for his attorney, then was cooperative once same arrived" & "Statement was consistent with the evidence - Actions consistent with the law" things take another.
Plausible deniability...isn't.
It is for when the POTUS meets with the President of the Russian Federation at a summit meeting and tells him "We didn't assassinate Ivan the Nuke Scientist who was selling H-Bomb tech to Iran." relying on the fact the bullet that killed him was a genuine, 100% Russian manufactured bullet fired from a former South African SF guy who lived in Thailand who was suspiciously friendly with a Brazilian who worked for an Israeli import/export firm...paid in Euros.
Sure.
OK.
Can't pin it on you.
Know what happens when a prosecutor sees plausible deniability?
He takes the case to trial because that is what he does.
You aren't guilty?
No problem. Get acquitted.
You know what we call that in real life? stupid. I'm referring both to the disparity of arms fantasy and the idea of lying to investigators or a grand jury. The cover up is always worse than the crime.
Yes. I'm not trying to justify it. If I can see through the thin veil of "plausible deniability", I know the investigating officer can as well. I was just trying to answer why someone would play that kind of ridiculous game in the first place. Some people think it's clever. It's not
Yes
Last edited by MistWolf; 09-04-2017 at 06:59 PM.
We wish to thank the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement, without whose assistance this program would not have been possible.
That has not been my experience.
I agree.
They tend to want to know more about why someone was with someone, or what they were doing at "That motel..."
Reply With Quote
