PaladinX13
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 747
"Weapon of opportunity" is not a legal concept and is instead typically used to describe the modus operandi of psychopaths who kill without provocation (and thus no premeditation in weapon selection). Defense is justified by the amount used not the method chosen.
The fear of weapon perception, within reason, is mostly unjustified. The only way "premeditation" enters the picture as an issue is where you basically lured the victim to you to kill them, which would require a pretty extraordinary set of facts to substantiate (and, if they can even make that case out, your priority should be living differently rather than bat or not).
In addition, Prosecutors are forbidden from prejudicing the jury with irrelevant information not tied to the substantive charge... or attempting to confuse the legal issue. As there's no legal difference between a sword or bat, if the prosecutor tries to do it, he can be subject to discipline, disbarred, and end up granting you mistrial (where they're unlikely to retry you) or appeal.
Perception's largest role is in the discretion of the LEOs and Prosecutor, who out of personal prejudice or discretion may elect to charge you or not. If it "smells" wrong to them, they might arrest/charge when another weapon would otherwise cause them to let you go even if technically identical under the law. But when you're at the level of a baseball bat, you're so far along the force continuum that it's unlikely they're going to turn a blind eye. This'll vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and the circumstances, of course, but it's a narrow and unpredictable distinction not worth betting on. You do not have a presumptively valid use of a baseball bat as a weapon while swords or "bad" guns are presumptively invalid.
The law doesn't work that way and if it did we'd basically be living in a country where justice was meted out by dice roll. Results are far more consistent than that... and realistically, in either case, if the prosecutor doesn't exonerate you, it'll come down to a mechanical plea or settlement (if civil). There might be the odd case that is extraordinarily unjust or abnormal for that rare person who decides to gamble with a jury that isn't properly instructed... but those are so rare and would be like assuming every criminal case ended up like OJs and every civil case was like multi-million dollar suit against dry cleaners for one missing pair of pants. And you can't structure your life around those outcomes otherwise you'd never leave your house in anything less than Class III armor and drive to work in an Abrams.
The fear of weapon perception, within reason, is mostly unjustified. The only way "premeditation" enters the picture as an issue is where you basically lured the victim to you to kill them, which would require a pretty extraordinary set of facts to substantiate (and, if they can even make that case out, your priority should be living differently rather than bat or not).
In addition, Prosecutors are forbidden from prejudicing the jury with irrelevant information not tied to the substantive charge... or attempting to confuse the legal issue. As there's no legal difference between a sword or bat, if the prosecutor tries to do it, he can be subject to discipline, disbarred, and end up granting you mistrial (where they're unlikely to retry you) or appeal.
Perception's largest role is in the discretion of the LEOs and Prosecutor, who out of personal prejudice or discretion may elect to charge you or not. If it "smells" wrong to them, they might arrest/charge when another weapon would otherwise cause them to let you go even if technically identical under the law. But when you're at the level of a baseball bat, you're so far along the force continuum that it's unlikely they're going to turn a blind eye. This'll vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and the circumstances, of course, but it's a narrow and unpredictable distinction not worth betting on. You do not have a presumptively valid use of a baseball bat as a weapon while swords or "bad" guns are presumptively invalid.
The law doesn't work that way and if it did we'd basically be living in a country where justice was meted out by dice roll. Results are far more consistent than that... and realistically, in either case, if the prosecutor doesn't exonerate you, it'll come down to a mechanical plea or settlement (if civil). There might be the odd case that is extraordinarily unjust or abnormal for that rare person who decides to gamble with a jury that isn't properly instructed... but those are so rare and would be like assuming every criminal case ended up like OJs and every civil case was like multi-million dollar suit against dry cleaners for one missing pair of pants. And you can't structure your life around those outcomes otherwise you'd never leave your house in anything less than Class III armor and drive to work in an Abrams.
