This doesnt directly answer the question, but may bear on the question, and some of the answers, such as, "You dont always know exactly why things turn out the way they do with juries".
http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2009/09...armed-citizen/
This doesnt directly answer the question, but may bear on the question, and some of the answers, such as, "You dont always know exactly why things turn out the way they do with juries".
http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2009/09...armed-citizen/
I'm not going to cite case law on this because there isn't going to be any. Whether a gun has a Punisher skull on it is not an element of an offense that is going to show up in a judicial opinion.
A similar question came up at the HiTS Shotgun class this weekend - "should I use an AR (or NFA weapon) in a self-defense situation." FWIW, a former street police officer (DB) and a practicing attorney with prosecution, criminal defense and civil litigation experience (me) both said "probably not a great idea" (and "NO"). Glenn's studies were mentioned. Others who didn't have our (very different) experiences with the legal system were not convinced. That's fine. Not my role to convince anyone of anything in that setting.
The bottom line is this: if ISIS terrorists are shooting toddlers in a mall playground it doesn't matter what kind of gun you shoot them with or what is written on it. But if you shoot an unarmed black teenager who broke into your garage it very well might. You don't get to control how other people are going to react to the facts. But you can, to some extent, control certain aggravating or mitigating facts before an incident happens. The cops, the ADA, the judge, the jury - they all bring their own perceptions to the dance and a lot of them do not like guns, period, really don't like evil black rifles, and are horrified at the idea that you can own a silenced SBR.
I have, in fact, seen this with my own eyes in one of the reddest counties in Texas. Easily half of a recent jury pool in a criminal trial HATED guns. If the shoot isn't "good" but is maybe, maybe-not "ok", how might their perceptions change if the shooter is an 86 year old with a six-gun? If he is a fit 27 year old with face tattoos and "Kill 'em all, let God sort them out" on the side of their SBR?
To me, it makes sense to mitigate unnecessary risk whenever possible. Other people don't seem to care about that. That's fine with me. I call some of those people "clients."
Last edited by TR675; 08-28-2017 at 09:47 PM.
Ok, but let's scale it back. The extremes help illustrate the point, but at the risk of getting off topic, what about a mid fifties guy with no tats, grey hair, dad bod and armed with a suppressed AR pistol? Not trying to be confrontational, I'm actually curiousOriginally Posted by TR675
We wish to thank the United Network Command for Law and Enforcement, without whose assistance this program would not have been possible.
^^^ Ive considered that point. My conclusion isnt authoritative by any means, but I decided Id prefer to have a shortened model 11 Remington than an AR pistol for similar perceived use, or a common pistol, classic S&W revolver as likely as anything. Short Winchester lever carbines are also pretty handy.
I also just happen to like any of those things more than AR pistols. Heresy, I know.
Last edited by Malamute; 08-28-2017 at 10:08 PM.
I think it was Massad who talked about an attorney making hay because of a weapon mounted light, comparing it to a well known serial killer who had taped a flashlight to a shotgun. However the individual was able to explain the utility of a light for someone in their position. Can you explain the utility of a suppressor as someone in your position?
Do you have tinnitus or hearing loss? Do you have something from a doctor that says so? Something like that makes it an easier sell.
Attorney: MW, why do you have a silencer on your firearm?
You: Sir, I have (hearing issue) and have been advised by my doctor that exposure to loud or repeated noise could further exacerbate (hearing issue). A suppressor isn't actually a "silencer" and the gun still makes a fairly loud sound when fired, but it does reduce the noise of a gunshot to hearing-safe levels. As such, I use a suppressor routinely, in combination with other safety measures, to protect my remaining hearing.
That leaves the attorney without much to hook on to. Joe the Juror knows that guns are loud and he knows Papaw has hearing loss because he worked at the noisy factory. He'll probably understand and potentially empathize with that answer. It paints you as human (good), you admitting weakness/injury means you're not trying to play the badass (good), and you've given a reason that doesn't sound like an excuse to play ninja-assassin with cool toys.
If don't have hearing loss, can you convincingly make the point about protection from hearing loss preemptively?
Remembering there are no absolutes, try this with any hypothetical you have.
Pretend you have to explain to someone has never seen or held a real gun, and who knows nothing about guns other than what he's seen on tv. He may believe you can stick your finger in the barrel and make a gun pointed at you explode when the bad guy pulls the trigger. Can you explain the modification/accessory you have to his satisfaction and without getting emotional yourself or potentially raising negative emotion in them? Is having to explain that, and knowing there are no absolutes, worth whatever real or perceived advantage you have from using that equipment?
I think it's significantly easier to explain a regular long gun or handgun than most anything NFA or anything that resembles NFA to the uninformed.
It should be noted that a practical "trial of your peers" won't equate to twelve members of your local USPSA club.
Just because one lives in a "Red" area does not automatically translate to "universal acceptance of all firearms". Many NRA affiliated, taxpaying residents of red state America take a dim view to any use of arms not involving a skeet or gun range.
The Minority Marksman.
"When you meet a swordsman, draw your sword: Do not recite poetry to one who is not a poet."
-a Ch'an Buddhist axiom.
That was an excellent discussion this weekend, and one of the great reasons to attend training.
There is a lot of learning that occurs "at" the range, but not "on" the range.
For what it is worth, I know of two studies that indicate gun friendly folk are more negative to incompetent or 'evil' gun users than the average schmuck. Since they know about guns, if you are a doofus, they pick it up.It should be noted that a practical "trial of your peers" won't equate to twelve members of your local USPSA club.
Don't assume that looking like a gun clown will look good to gun knowledgeable people. How many of you would be friendly to the Chipolte Twins if one of them came in front of you in an ambiguous situation. Don't say that you would be coldly rationale as that is a laugh in decision making processing?
This is an old debate. I will say that the Jury Expert article was one of its top downloads for its time period. I don't want to move away from the OP charge of can you find a case where a clearly innocent person was charged and convicted because of a specific logo. How many of you have such logos as we need to establish that population and then sample how many of them were in a 'good shoot' and charged.
I've only seen one 'professional' with a chromed up 1911 and skulls engraved on his grips. Looked cool. Hope it works for him.
Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; 08-29-2017 at 09:23 AM.
You are asking the wrong question. I am going to hit and run this thread because of my schedule for the next week, but I will add this from a guy who did the gun stuff in support of litigation and criminal court preparation for a police agency for almost two decades in a highly litigious area. You assume there are court cases. Reality.....very few cases go to juries. Most are settled well ahead of time either via a plea bargain, dropped charges, or some other adjudication. That is on the criminal side. On the civil side it is a game of adding and subtracting zero's and coma's. Most are handled in arbitration of some sort well before trial, and even when they go to jury trial, they are often bargained again prior to the jury deliberating.
So....only the outlier cases ever see a courtroom. If we based police policies on criminal court cases, you would see massive differences in those policies and training protocols. Those are often based on litigation settlement on civil cases as to what areas have been questioned and attacked by plaintiff counsel.
My short answer is this...can you beat a Punisher logo in a criminal case...yep. How much time and money is that worth? Can you beat it in civil court....maybe, but again, how many zero's and coma's and attorney's fees is that logo worth?
I have been the guy that has had the Chief's administrative guy hit me up regularly in meetings to answer lots of insane questions that have come out of depositions and discovery. The one area where I actually made somebody's Christmas card list was making those questions go away with my answers to them and the plaintiff's attorney's had to look for a new chink in the armor to find dollars. You can take that experience as relevant, or not. Doesn't bother me either way. If you want your criteria to be "show me the court case"...you will be getting some very skewed info. The shenanigans I have seen within the total legal system regarding firearms and use of force is simply astounding. How much you want to add tinder into that fire pit is up to you.
Just a Hairy Special Snowflake supply clerk with no field experience, shooting an Asymetric carbine as a Try Hard. Snarky and easily butt hurt. Favorite animal is the Cape Buffalo....likely indicative of a personality disorder.
"If I had a grandpa, he would look like Delbert Belton".
Derail to add a funny note, we had scout sniper team attached to us in Helmandfest '09 and their M40A3 has "Blood For the Blood God" in red paintpen on the fore-end. It was awesome.
Reply With Quote