I make the TFB Youtube Big Time

[Chuck Whitlock]

^^^

The dude I helped send to prison back in May looked a whole lot different in the courtroom than he did on the night in question. Cleaning up didn't really help him, but I'm sure it didn't hurt, either.

[Chuck Whitlock]

Glenn,

Do you think there has been a perceptional shift between now and the time of that study? I assume some, if any, would also be regionally individual, as well.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There may well be. Given the political polarization of the country, you might think that there would be more AR friendly folks in the right world or the left world who are responding to their perception of right-wing threat to them (hence the minority increase in purchasing). However, the drumbeat of AR shooting might push some folks the other way. Whom do you get on the jury? Do criminal defense lawyers try to discern such as voir dire? Not something I know. I was going to launch a lawyer opinion project but retired. I'm fine with that.

I've seen folks saying that the gun is the most popular rifles nowadays and in common usage is a factor. That might be for a Scotus case but with a polarized population. Polls say lots of support for and against AWBs.

The idea that a gun owning juror is going to be on your side is nuanced. More knowledgeable folks may:

1. Think one is a clown with such a gun. Plenty of Zumbo, Metcalfs out there. Or pro AR folks who think one's usage is stupid.
2. A p-f type who understands the SD scenarios - might well think one acted rashly. There is some support for that in the literature.

Curious - have the p-f folks been called to jury duty and asked about firearms training and our lawyers know of asking about such and what to ask?

Would I get on a jury for such? Psychology PhD, lots of gun training and writing, law enforcement relatives and friends. I get the old toot exemption nowadays, I think.

[Shawn Dodson]

Shawn, unfortunately you post only a surface appreciation of the issue and the study.

1. You and and many others make the mistake of thinking the factor is an absolute. You will get convicted if you use an AR - OMG!

2. That is not the case. If you read the study as presented in TJE, it states: On the verdict side, the percent of guilty judgments was approximately 65% for the AR-15 vs. 45% for the Ruger.

Thus, a large proportion of the mock jurors found the defendant not guilty, so the issue was the comparative rate and not an absolute. Many just don't get this.

3. Kyle's case is arguing from one anecdote that is quite different. He had clear video of being attacked. Unlike ours. He had video of a guy who admits having a gun - not like ours. Our scenario was much more ambiguous and based on legal discussions of SD and other research. It is not comparable and Kyle doesn't count unless you fall into the OMG - it's an absolute principle.

So to push this - the DC Sniper used an AR. The prosecution at opening made a big show of putting the gun together. OMG - if only the snipe used an Mini or maybe Grandpa's 30-30, he would have walked. No - that was not the case.

4. The models of jury processing suggest a summation of factors with those presented at opening, perhaps setting a cognitive agenda that focuses selective information processing for the rest of the presentations.

Some folks don't get the idea of a factor and want it to be an absolute process they can deny in a subconscious RKBA denial defense mechanism. Nope - it's a factor.

We just have to go back to Goetz in the subway. He used a revolver but with HP rounds and a tactical holster. He beat the shooting charge based on a brilliant defense but was convicted on the gun charge. IIRC, the lawyers chose not to fight that on RKBA grounds against the NYC ban. The jurors said they did consider the ammo and holster as motivational evidence of 'blood lust' (plus his big mouth) but discarded that as relevant after the SD case was strong. It was a factor of discussion. However, they did consider it as motivational in the carry charge and went for guilty. The judge considered it in determining sentence.

It is frustrating to read what are more emotional responses to the study - I had some fat fuck at our local gun club, where the president asked me to present it , go off on me being a gun banner and the ChiComs and UN will be coming down the road for his gun - despite me blazing away with an AR at matches.

Hope this clears up misconceptions. If apperance doesn't count - I recall a case where an officer was tried for shooting an intellectually challenged guy - details ambiguous. In his official picture - white sidewalls and a fearsome glare. On the stand, nicely grown out and styled hair, three piece suit and put on half granny glasses to read reports. WILL MY HAIRCUT SEND ME TO PRISON?

"I chose an AR15 for home defense because our local police, sheriffs, and state troopers use it to protect all of us."

[Glenn E. Meyer]

So Mr. Dodson, you consider yourself to be a policeman and that's why you shot the dude? Do you have the same training as law (hypothetical to a random defendant whose AR is the equivalent of an underwear gun)? Tenn. vs. Garner might argue to an officer not to shoot.

Also, there has been community negative reactions to AR as being a tool of a militarized state. City councils in progressive cities or progressive council member denounced the gun. As we discussed departments bought Mini-14s for that reason. The pump 223 Remington was advertised as being an easy transition for cops from 870 and looking nice. Same with the Beretta 9mm carbines, not an AR.

Quite a few people may not be sympatico to that argument.

[Caballoflaco]

"I chose an AR15 for home defense because our local police, sheriffs, and state troopers use it to protect all of us."

It’s pretty obvious to me that you’re a Walter Mitty cop wanna be who should be in jail before you kill someone else.

Also, lots of people hate cops and your use of “protect all of us” would fall on the deaf ears of someone who believes in their heart of hearts that all cops do is oppress and subjugate folks.

Eta: @Glenn E. Meyer beat me to it while I was typing.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

What's my split time?

[Caballoflaco]

What's my split time?

No clue, but pretty darn fast. Also, it would make it clear if you were asking me specifically if you kindly hit the “reply with quote button” it can be kinda hard to follow you in some threads, or maybe some folks don’t realize you responded to them.

[Shawn Dodson]

So Mr. Dodson, you consider yourself to be a policeman and that's why you shot the dude?

I fired only because the deceased words and actions led me to believe I and my family were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.

Do you have the same training as law (hypothetical to a random defendant whose AR is the equivalent of an underwear gun)? Tenn. vs. Garner might argue to an officer not to shoot.

I have no idea. I chose the AR because if it’s good enough for police then its good enough for me.

Also, there has been community negative reactions to AR as being a tool of a militarized state. City councils in progressive cities or progressive council member denounced the gun. As we discussed departments bought Mini-14s for that reason. The pump 223 Remington was advertised as being an easy transition for cops from 870 and looking nice. Same with the Beretta 9mm carbines, not an AR.

Quite a few people may not be sympatico to that argument.

I refer you back to all the adversities that Rittenhouse faced.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I fired only because the deceased words and actions led me to believe I and my family were in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.



I have no idea. I chose the AR because if it’s good enough for police then its good enough for me.



I refer you back to all the adversities that Rittenhouse faced.

Some jurors bought that, others didn't. The gun influence opinions.
You aren't the police.
Rittenhouse is not a relevant example.