example of how choice of decorations can hurt you in court
- Thread starter old lady new shooter
- Start date
- Status
If you mean the person the defendant is charged with shooting, that person isn't on trial. The defendant is on trial, and his legal defense will be based on his claim that, based on what he observed the "suspect" do, he [the defendant] reasonably concluded that the "suspect" was an immediate, lethal threat.Reloadron said:
How receptive jurors might be to the defendant's arguments will be influenced by evidence of the defendant's character and values -- including anything which might suggest a cavalier attitude toward violence.
Reloadron
Contributing Member
No Frank, I was referring to the deputy. Granted, the deputy is innocent until proven guilty. I guess we wait and see how it all plays out.
Ron
The main facts of the case are that the deputy shot an unarmed man on his hands and knees and that he shot him more times than warranted.
Given the fact that juries can have a strong tendency to give LEOs the benefit of the doubt, an expert witness might be able to convince the jury that:
1. The position of the suspect at the time of the shooting is irrelevant if the officer really did believe that the suspect was making a movement that could reasonably be construed to be an attempt to retrieve a weapon. The other officers do agree that the suspect was moving at the time that the shooting took place, although only the officer who fired claims there was a "furtive movement".
2. It's not really possible for an observer to determine that someone is unarmed until a thorough search is performed. i.e. It's not reasonable to expect that the deputy knew at the time of the shooting that the suspect was unarmed.
3. That under extreme stress it is common for someone to fire more shots than they intended to fire. This can be easily documented.
A good explanation from a credible expert witness might be enough (as the article's author states) to get a hung jury, especially in a state like Arizona. It might even be enough to get a full acquittal.
But once you add in the complicating factor of a weapon decoration that suggests the deputy is out to "f@#$" someone or doesn't take human life as seriously as he should, then it becomes much harder to see the deputy as someone who simply made a mistake (or mistakeS) under extreme stress. It becomes much easier to see him as someone who was looking for an opportunity to do exactly what was done.
One thing that seems to get lost in all of this is that people aren't declared INNOCENT at a trial. The jury is choosing between two options.
GUILTY: The defendant did it and there's no reasonable way to explain the evidence in such a way as to show that they could be innocent.
NOT GUILTY: The defense presented an explanation of the incident that doesn't contradict the facts of the case, that is reasonable, and that doesn't imply the guilt of the defendant.
NOT GUILTY does NOT mean that the jurors believe the defendant is innocent, it just means that they have to acknowledge that the story presented by the defense is reasonable, that it is consistent with the evidence and that IF it happened like the story says, the defendant isn't guilty.
That's a lot of latitude for a defendant. It offers a LOT of wiggle room--unless the defendant does, or has done, things that make it hard for the defense to come up with a story that fits the evidence and doesn't imply the defendant's guilt. Or if he/she does things that make the defense's story sound less credible.
So the defense in this case is going to paint a story of a hard-working, dedicated officer who made (a mistake/some mistakes) in the heat of the moment--I mean, who here hasn't EVER screwed up under pressure, right? With some expert testimony that might have done the trick.
But you tell me how well is that story going to play when the prosecution holds up the "murder weapon" with the inscription "YOU"RE F#@#^!" on it and then they show the jury a picture of the "victim" who is certainly well and truly f!#$^#.
It very well could be what makes the difference in the verdict.
Given the fact that juries can have a strong tendency to give LEOs the benefit of the doubt, an expert witness might be able to convince the jury that:
1. The position of the suspect at the time of the shooting is irrelevant if the officer really did believe that the suspect was making a movement that could reasonably be construed to be an attempt to retrieve a weapon. The other officers do agree that the suspect was moving at the time that the shooting took place, although only the officer who fired claims there was a "furtive movement".
2. It's not really possible for an observer to determine that someone is unarmed until a thorough search is performed. i.e. It's not reasonable to expect that the deputy knew at the time of the shooting that the suspect was unarmed.
3. That under extreme stress it is common for someone to fire more shots than they intended to fire. This can be easily documented.
A good explanation from a credible expert witness might be enough (as the article's author states) to get a hung jury, especially in a state like Arizona. It might even be enough to get a full acquittal.
But once you add in the complicating factor of a weapon decoration that suggests the deputy is out to "f@#$" someone or doesn't take human life as seriously as he should, then it becomes much harder to see the deputy as someone who simply made a mistake (or mistakeS) under extreme stress. It becomes much easier to see him as someone who was looking for an opportunity to do exactly what was done.
One thing that seems to get lost in all of this is that people aren't declared INNOCENT at a trial. The jury is choosing between two options.
GUILTY: The defendant did it and there's no reasonable way to explain the evidence in such a way as to show that they could be innocent.
NOT GUILTY: The defense presented an explanation of the incident that doesn't contradict the facts of the case, that is reasonable, and that doesn't imply the guilt of the defendant.
NOT GUILTY does NOT mean that the jurors believe the defendant is innocent, it just means that they have to acknowledge that the story presented by the defense is reasonable, that it is consistent with the evidence and that IF it happened like the story says, the defendant isn't guilty.
That's a lot of latitude for a defendant. It offers a LOT of wiggle room--unless the defendant does, or has done, things that make it hard for the defense to come up with a story that fits the evidence and doesn't imply the defendant's guilt. Or if he/she does things that make the defense's story sound less credible.
So the defense in this case is going to paint a story of a hard-working, dedicated officer who made (a mistake/some mistakes) in the heat of the moment--I mean, who here hasn't EVER screwed up under pressure, right? With some expert testimony that might have done the trick.
But you tell me how well is that story going to play when the prosecution holds up the "murder weapon" with the inscription "YOU"RE F#@#^!" on it and then they show the jury a picture of the "victim" who is certainly well and truly f!#$^#.
It very well could be what makes the difference in the verdict.
Last edited:
Swing
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2012
- Messages
- 1,644
I always thought those added "scary" doodads and slogans were immature, tacky, and a waste of money. But the added possibility of it becoming a topic in a courtroom really makes them a bad idea.
And it is one thing when the mall ninjutsu set does it, but a LEO adding it to a duty weapon? That is unbelievably unprofessional.
And it is one thing when the mall ninjutsu set does it, but a LEO adding it to a duty weapon? That is unbelievably unprofessional.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,803
Taking your skull-and-crossbones gun to the range would be a hobby activity. Using it for self-defense, um, not a hobby.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,803
They take your gun. I assume (despite what we know about assuming) they look at the remaining rounds.
I'd be interested to know whether they can tell anything from what they find in the body of the person you shot.
Posted by MaterDei:
True, it is unlikely that you will ever shoot anyone. But should you do so, the odds that it will of to trial are by no means insignificant. And should it go to trial, and should there be any evidence presented the could indicate that you may have been predisposed to violence, the issue could become the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.
Always think in terms of conditional probabilities.
Should you choose one, and should it ever become an issue, you will likely regret the decision very much indeed.
That is not a prudent way to work with statistical probabilities.
True, it is unlikely that you will ever shoot anyone. But should you do so, the odds that it will of to trial are by no means insignificant. And should it go to trial, and should there be any evidence presented the could indicate that you may have been predisposed to violence, the issue could become the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.
Always think in terms of conditional probabilities.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
One of the things here that seems to define a sharp dividing line in individual beliefs over this subject is that many believe we should be judged by what we DO as opposed to the stuff we may say/get that is otherwise intended to be some kind of humorous expression.
The problem is that when what we have DONE is kill someone else, regardless of the reason, we've very clearly DONE something that necessarily involves a very close scrutiny by the legal system, as well as the public in general.
What you may DO will very rarely ever be more serious than killing another person.
As with all things we DO, what we DO is judged by both the circumstances and our personal history. This includes everything from our day-to-day routine actions as well as such rare events as killing someone, God forbid that should ever happen.
The impact of this necessarily scales up with the severity of whatever it is we DO.
The sentiment is "It's meant to be funny. I obviously don't go around killing people all the time."
The reality is, in the case of this officer as an example, "You DID kill someone and what you said isn't funny at all in that light."
The problem is that when what we have DONE is kill someone else, regardless of the reason, we've very clearly DONE something that necessarily involves a very close scrutiny by the legal system, as well as the public in general.
What you may DO will very rarely ever be more serious than killing another person.
As with all things we DO, what we DO is judged by both the circumstances and our personal history. This includes everything from our day-to-day routine actions as well as such rare events as killing someone, God forbid that should ever happen.
The impact of this necessarily scales up with the severity of whatever it is we DO.
The sentiment is "It's meant to be funny. I obviously don't go around killing people all the time."
The reality is, in the case of this officer as an example, "You DID kill someone and what you said isn't funny at all in that light."
Last edited:
Jlr2267
Member
This same logic could be used to discourage almost anything...training, for example...even the act of carrying a firearm could be argued to show a predisposition.
Posted by Jlr2267:
It's a matter of balance and value--as is everything in risk management, and perhaps created other unnecessary risks.
Don't carry a gun? You have given up one way of defending yourself, should the need arise.
Do not avail yourself of training? You have likely made your mitigation choice less effective.
Do not decorate our firearm (or truck, tee shirt, skin, etc) with slogans and symbols? You have given up nothing of any defensive value.
It's a matter of balance and value--as is everything in risk management, and perhaps created other unnecessary risks.
Don't carry a gun? You have given up one way of defending yourself, should the need arise.
Do not avail yourself of training? You have likely made your mitigation choice less effective.
Do not decorate our firearm (or truck, tee shirt, skin, etc) with slogans and symbols? You have given up nothing of any defensive value.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Yes, and I think things like training and carrying have been argued to show predisposition, when they were less of a norm or expected behavior.
Personally, I think we spend too much time worrying about the straw that breaks the camel's back and not enough time on the fundamentals that are truly what seem to get people into the most trouble.
Given the number of cases in recent years of officers breaking the law, committing obvious illegal acts, and violating civil rights, often documented on video, I think the heyday of the officer being giving a benefit of a doubt free pass because he is an officer has passed us by.
Jlr2267
Member
I agree that inscriptions and such add no value, but at the same time, carry infinitesimal risk. If one regularly trains and carries, those factors would seem to present a much more convincing "predisposition" argument. After all, training and regular carry require effort, time and resources...a silly dust cover slogan, not so much.
danez71
Member
Worse even..... he used it in an offense role after choosing it over a LE issued weapon.
If it comes up in court, he could say that the LE DEPT approved the weapon.... but ....
What could be even worse though is if the police say that the dust cover in question wasn't on the rifle when they OKd it for use.
BSA1
member
This is what stands out as the key point in why he is charged with murder;
While the Dust Cover is offensive to some and poor judgment on the officer's part the fact that none of the other officers present saw the victim as a threat to their safety or life is going to be the crucial fact.
While the Dust Cover is offensive to some and poor judgment on the officer's part the fact that none of the other officers present saw the victim as a threat to their safety or life is going to be the crucial fact.
UpperAtmosphere
Member
Yes - I wouldn't put anything on a carry weapon that might raise eyebrows. No Punisher skulls, no grim reapers, no Infidel, no melon lobby.
Sights? Sure, if it doesn't come with night sights I'll swap those out. Internals? Maybe, maybe not. But as far as external cosmetics go, no changes.
Posted by Jlr2267:
Read this.
Now, if a defendant went home, retrieved a gun, and went forth to the place in which the precursor of an incident took place, he will likely have a big problem. But that would be more an indicator of intent than of predisposition.
Regarding training, yes, it can come up, but it's a matter of which risks to try to mitigate, and how. I would much rather have some degree of competence than not, and I would prefer to be able to cite my training as the basis for my actions in a use of force incident.
Do you have a basis for that assertion? Are you familiar with the part that literature in the possession of Larry Hickey that spoke of killing people played in his trials? Have your read the works of Dr. Glenn E. Meyer on how the appearance of different firearms has affected the outcomes of mock trials in controlled psychological experiments?
Read this.
Do you really think that a prosecutor is likely to cite the lawful carrying of a firearm as an indicator of state of mind?
Now, if a defendant went home, retrieved a gun, and went forth to the place in which the precursor of an incident took place, he will likely have a big problem. But that would be more an indicator of intent than of predisposition.
Regarding training, yes, it can come up, but it's a matter of which risks to try to mitigate, and how. I would much rather have some degree of competence than not, and I would prefer to be able to cite my training as the basis for my actions in a use of force incident.
Putting on a bumper sticker requires very little effort, but the sticker can paint the owner as a rather undesirable citizen.
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,100
....and according to other officers at the scene, the victim made no "furtive movement" to justify being shot.
There was a time in the past when police shootings were not scrutinized as closely as they are now. With all the negative shootings in the Media lately, even highly justified shootings are picked over with a fine tooth comb. There is a lot more to this story than some stupid inscription on the officers dust cover. If the inscription is a nail in the officer's coffin, it is a very small nail and one that has little effect on holding the lid down. The prosecuting attorney will also bring other evidence trying to show the officer had previous malice towards other suspects in an attempt to discredit him. The defense could make the claim that if the dust cover is open, the defendant is the one that is "f*#%ed" and that is the real meaning to the inscription. Will the dust cover change the juries verdict? I highly doubt it with the amount of other evidence that is there.
As for do-dads on your firearm changing a verdict in a civilian case of a SD shoot, about as likely/unlikely as paying $400 for a training course from a professional or having a trigger/action job done on your SD firearm.
And even though some people believe that's how things should be, in the real world it simply doesn't work like that.RetiredUSNChief said:
How you present yourself to the world is not free of social consequences. Others are also free to form opinions, and do form opinions, about you, your credibility, character, values, or beliefs based on how present yourself to the world.
How you do so is up to you. But you can't complain when people form impressions of you or make judgments about you based on such.
Jlr2267
Member
I'm open to evidence to the contrary. If there are cases where a gun's inscription was a key factor in a conviction, I've not seen nor heard of them. Until then, I have to assume the risk is nil.
yes, why not? Seems as likely as citing a gun's lawful inscription, if not more so.
As would a zealous prosecutor. I can see it now: "I leave you with this, ladies and gentlemen of the jury...the defendant, Mr. Kleanbore, by his own admission, is trained to kill. He practiced his kill shots on human silhouettes weekly, longing for the day when he could put his hard-earned kill-skills into practice"
Last edited:
Please do. I guess you have so little experience of ordinary, social interactions to be unaware of how things like how you dress or jewelry you might wear or how you groom yourself or how you embellish your gun can affect how folks perceive you and your character, beliefs and values. But there is a good reason why lawyers want their clients to show up neatly dressed and groomed for court appearances.Jlr2267 said:
Jlr2267
Member
Ad-hominem aside, I prefer facts, not speculation. Any case law where a gun's decoration resulted in conviction?
Who obviously don't understand enough about how the law works to understand that something like that would not show up in case law, i. e., an opinion of a court of appeal on a disputed matter of law.Jlr2267 said:
That sort of thing shows up only in post verdict jury interviews. For example, in a post verdict interview of a juror in the Fish case the juror commented that Fish's use of hollow point ammunition troubled the jury. Things that "trouble" a jury affect how the jury evaluates evidence.
Such material is almost never published. But it should be within the common experience of humans who live in society that such things affect perception.
It has also been shown in psychological studies that such things can have an effect (see post 68).
Do as you wish. It won't be our problem.
W L Johnson
Member
Juries all too often convict, or not, to a large extent based on emotion. Lawyers know this all too well.
Jlr2267
Member
Correct, I'm not a lawyer. You obviously don't understand, or apparently respect, common folks enough to try to understand the intent of their questions without demeaning and attacking them as ignorant. Hopefully, you did not treat your clients this way.
I was simply asking if there were legal cases where a gun's decoration played a key role in conviction. You did not directly answer that question.
No one has claimed it does not affect perception, this is simply your strawman. What I ask is if it has affected a *conviction*.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
