Bolt action with a scope... Sounds like a sniper rifle! Why would any civilian need a ultra deadly super long range sniper rifle?
Weapons type at trial
- Thread starter GEM
- Start date
- Status
Bolt action with a scope... Sounds like a sniper rifle! Why would any civilian need a ultra deadly super long range sniper rifle?
Deanimator
Member
Back in the '90s in a full bore rifle mailing list, a Canadian demanded to know why I should have a sniper rifle like my Savage 10FP. I asked him to describe in detail the functional differences between his full bore "target" rifle and my "sniper" rifle. You can imagine the hemming and hawing which ensued.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Backtracking a bit:
QUOTE="Archie, post: 12110110, member: 2173"]Dillon Precision sells a linear cartridge loading device, not a speed loader. It is available in .38 Special, FIVE shot configuration. I would not think that would appear 'tactical'. Of course, it is five more rounds.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I've tried 'em all and settled on the HKS "rotary" one. Use them for all my revolvers, so habit patterns rule. It's not so much for "tactical" reasons, but simply a convenient way to store and load extra cartridges.
The only problems with the HKS loaders is they're slightly more bulky because they're round, but don't show up in my weak side pocket full of junk anyhow.
The other thing is the release knob turns clockwise to release the cartridges, which kind of violates the almost-instinctive "righty-tighty-lefty-loosey" muscle memory.
I'm aware there are other "rotary" loaders which release on counter-clockwise rotation, but I'll stick with the HKS.
Terry, 230RN
QUOTE="Archie, post: 12110110, member: 2173"]Dillon Precision sells a linear cartridge loading device, not a speed loader. It is available in .38 Special, FIVE shot configuration. I would not think that would appear 'tactical'. Of course, it is five more rounds.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I've tried 'em all and settled on the HKS "rotary" one. Use them for all my revolvers, so habit patterns rule. It's not so much for "tactical" reasons, but simply a convenient way to store and load extra cartridges.
The only problems with the HKS loaders is they're slightly more bulky because they're round, but don't show up in my weak side pocket full of junk anyhow.
The other thing is the release knob turns clockwise to release the cartridges, which kind of violates the almost-instinctive "righty-tighty-lefty-loosey" muscle memory.
I'm aware there are other "rotary" loaders which release on counter-clockwise rotation, but I'll stick with the HKS.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
Madcap_Magician
Member
Watching the Rittenhouse trial coverage is very enlightening for this. The ADA has attempted to use the FMJ ammunition to try and take a meandering ambush of Rittenhouse into saying something that would indicate culpability on the reckless endangerment charge, which he was more or less able to defuse by repeatedly stating that he thought one bullet was more or less the same as another and that he wasn't an expert in the different types of ammunition. Early on the ADA was also big on repeating the "AR-15 loaded with thirty FMJ bullets" line. Granted, the ADA was very big on repeating himself in general. He also made the attempt to link the AR-15 to first-person shooter video games.
The prosecutor was try to get KR to admit his intent was to kill, just as in the video games. It was an insult to everyone's intelligence watching. lol Then he gets to each individual time he fired his weapon and tried to get KR to answer "yes" that his intent was to kill when he pulled the trigger. KR never fell for any of it and I can't tell if KR was savvy, or was literally confused by the logic the prosecutor was using.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,680
Not only does his father live there, Kyle has (had?) a job there, i.e. he was driving there every day for work.
Phaedrus/69
Member
So I guess this was just an excuse to discuss the trial all along, huh? Virtually every post is about it. There must not be any real data about types of weapons and the effect on trials outside of this case?
Not my purpose if the current moderators let that happen. My purpose was to bring up that in the past, discussions of weapons type usually let to someone saying:
Show me a case
If it's a good shoot, blah, blah.
Thus, I wanted to show that these old objections were counter to this case as an example. You may recall some folks vigorous denying that weapons and ammo issues would have any effect!
Show me a case
If it's a good shoot, blah, blah.
Thus, I wanted to show that these old objections were counter to this case as an example. You may recall some folks vigorous denying that weapons and ammo issues would have any effect!
Madcap_Magician
Member
I think Rittenhouse was able to avoid that trap, but never quite cleanly enough to shut down the line of questioning. I've been armchair quarterbacking and admittedly I am not on trial, but my answer was "I recognized that I was using deadly force. I did not want to kill him, but I needed to stop him from attacking me, and immediate use of deadly force was the only way I saw that I could do that. I didn't want him to die, but I accepted that might happen as a result of defending myself and decided that was the least bad outcome I had in front of me. I wish he hadn't forced me to do that."
I think he accomplished what you wrote, but definitely not as succinct. But for a kid, I think the the jury got the point. I hope at least. I don't want to see this kid get wronged. If the leadership in the state at the time would have let LE do their job or if the Gov would have called in the NG after repeated nights of looting and destruction, maybe a 17yo would not have felt obligated to go and help and be in the vicinity in the first place.
I agree, but it's not really the topic at hand.
The antis have been demonizing the AR-15 for a very long time, so why would anyone be surprised there would be prejudice against it here, and that the prosecution would try to use that.
The defense just needs to do a good job of countering it. It seems they are doing a satisfactory job of that, but I'm no lawyer.
Give them time, but that's not really the subject at hand either.
Deanimator
Member
The prosecution is doing as good a job of torpedoing their own case as the defense. The prosecutor will be lucky if he avoids jail time for contempt, or worse. I've heard judges take a dim view of perjury and suborning it.
FL-NC
Member
LOL- maybe some people, but I doubt they would have much success trying that with the jury looking at me. I was an actual for real "operator" in the mil. Why would I want to pretend to be anything less, especially when I have turned down "cop jobs"?
Deanimator
Member
Makes no difference. They'll accuse you of having been at Sand Creek, Wounded Knee and My Lai. Fortunately, that level of insane dishonesty is working more and more against them every day.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
I scanned the thread and I've been trying to stay tuned into the Rittenhouse case (although I missed yesterdays proceedings).
my take away is that no matter what you use, did, etc, the prosecution will make it some kind of problem (i'm not talking about punisher skulls and silly stuff like that).
The prosecution made the argument that Kyle's life wasn't in danger because, even though the guy with pistol was pointing it at him, Kyle had the bigger gun and therefore he was not in danger.
Prosecution criticized (challenging character) Kyle for not providing medical aide to his attacker. In the middle of a mob.
This particular case has been a roller coaster.
my take away is that no matter what you use, did, etc, the prosecution will make it some kind of problem (i'm not talking about punisher skulls and silly stuff like that).
The prosecution made the argument that Kyle's life wasn't in danger because, even though the guy with pistol was pointing it at him, Kyle had the bigger gun and therefore he was not in danger.
Prosecution criticized (challenging character) Kyle for not providing medical aide to his attacker. In the middle of a mob.
This particular case has been a roller coaster.
But you and I have to LIVE through the event before anyone can hold up anything.
Aikibiker
Member
I feel fortunate to work in a profession where I carry an issued firearm. If I ever have to go to court for a shooting, I can honestly say I used the gun and ammunition I was issued for my work, or if I have to use my CCW on my personal time, I used a gun and ammunition substantially similar to my issued weapon and ammunition, because that is what I have trained with and have hundreds of hours of education and practice using.
Similarly if for some reason I did use an AR style rifle in a defensive situation I could testify to hundreds of hours of training on that type as well as experience carrying one all over the world. I didn't reach for that rifle because of video games or because they are "cool". I reached for it because the US government was very insistent that I become familiar with, and skilled in the use of that rifle and I know both the abilities and limitations of the weapon and how best to employ it safely.
Similarly if for some reason I did use an AR style rifle in a defensive situation I could testify to hundreds of hours of training on that type as well as experience carrying one all over the world. I didn't reach for that rifle because of video games or because they are "cool". I reached for it because the US government was very insistent that I become familiar with, and skilled in the use of that rifle and I know both the abilities and limitations of the weapon and how best to employ it safely.
What might lead them make to such an accusation? How would a defendant's use of a handgun lead to a discussion of whether such a choice might go to mens rea?
Jury simulation experiments have shown that the mere sight of an AR-15-type rifle or some other kinds of long arms in court can color the opinions of jurors. The prosecutor tried to capitalize on that. That shouldn't surprise anyone.
Some time back, when I was picking up a new LCP Max, my wife asked me about some shotguns on the rack in the store that looked like they belonged in an action movie with Stallone or Arnold Schwartzenegger. I mentioned to her that a person who had used one of those could expect a very negative jury reaction.
A clerk behind the county replied glibly "a good shoot is a good shoot".
bdickens
Member
There ain't no such thing as a "good shoot...."
danez71
Member
M&P engraved on the slide, maybe?
Plus model could = standard model not enough killing power
Ruger Max models could = max killing potential wanted
The sharks are circling, they smell blood in the water. The prosecutor probably felt he was losing and tried to blame it on the "evil" gun and ammo. We all know how acquiring ammo is right now. But that is not all, the prosecutor also tried to introduce evidence that was banned. Why? He was losing at that point. He knew it. So force a miss-trial and he gets to start over. In Wisconsin, in some cases, even a miss-trial with prejudice can be re-tried. May be the "evil" gun trick might work...it's up to the jury. I noticed the prosecutor has now informed the jury, he would accept a lesser charge.
It may or may not matter whether the prosecutor is 'woke.' It may or may not matter whether the prosecutor ever comments on your choice of firearm. Make no mistake, though. The jury will see your firearm. They will have their own ideas about who should be allowed to carry what, and what your choice of firearm says about you.
Madcap_Magician
Member
I about lost it right at the start of cross-examination when the ADA tried to insinuate that Kyle was making up his testimony... because he had not yet testified about it anywhere else. The judge obviously also lost it at the backhanded but not very subtle attempt to use Rittenhouse's fifth amendment rights against him.
Will Munny
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
- Messages
- 336
Which is a good example of the fact that prosecutors need not represent the truth accurately in their statements. FMJ ammunition is mandated for use in armed conflict by international agreements for the express purpose of reducing human suffering. The idea that someone would load up FMJ if their intent was to do as much damage to combatants as possible is rather absurd on its face. But its a big scary phrase that can be used to mislead and obfuscate the truth and there is no mechanism in the judicial system to prevent such abuse.
Will Munny
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2021
- Messages
- 336
Arguably the best point, that juries consist of a random selection of persons, and the odds are very high that at least some of them are completely unqualified to judge a firearms related case but will be tasked with doing so anyway.
From a practical standpoint, the most inoffensive firearm possible is probably a good idea when it comes to presenting it in court.
From a normative standpoint, I would like to see states introduce legislation making any information about the weapon used inadmissible in court. The jury is only told you shot them, no distinction can be made if it was a 25 ACP or a 50 BMG.
- Status