example of how choice of decorations can hurt you in court

rcmodel said:

No, I didn't say that.

I would say that if you said what you found to be the safest, (in your personal opinion) might open up a new line of questioning from prosecution.

Such as, if your Handloaded ammo is so much more reliable and safe?
Why isn't our police department reloading ammo like yours??

I never said there was no place in a legal defense.
Please read my post again.

rc

Click to expand...

They ask me that question, I'd tell them to ask the police chief because I'm not a police officer.

But they probably should look into loading their own ammunition to save tax money as it is cheaper.

TruthTellers said:

They ask me that question, I'd tell them to ask the police chief because I'm not a police officer.

But they probably should look into loading their own ammunition to save tax money as it is cheaper.

Click to expand...

Of which the Police Chief replies:

"We don't allow reloaded ammo in part because its a specialized technical field and we don't want the liability that comes with it."

Opening Post #1. Police officer had an aftermarket dust cover on his AR that when open displayed a profanity; he got involved in a questionable shoot. The dust cover was cited by opposing counsel.

Stuff like that can be used as evidence as demonstrating motive or intent or predisposition to use excessive or unnecessary force.

I'm 68 and my arthritis is not getting better. If I got an AR to replace my 12ga as designated home defense long gun, it would not be the AR with the magazine well molded to look like a skull. I can imagine that as evidence waved in the face of a jury.

(Darn. I had some good rants riffed off the mid-list comments til I decided to go back to OP#1 & stay on topic.)

Seems to me that this kind of evidence would be highly prejudicial and a strong argument (assuming you had a good lawyer) could be made to exclude it.

Frank Ettin said:

Exclude what? The gun?

The gun will be evidence, and it will be shown to the jury. The jurors will see the dust cover with its inscription. The prosecutor won't even need to comment on it.

In any case, excluding the evidence of the inscription on the dust cover can not be a foregone conclusion. It can be evidence of intent and state of mind -- both of which are relevant.

Click to expand...

Exclude the inscription

To my mind, every decision related to carrying a firearm needs to have some kind of risk-reward analysis behind it.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I was going to comment on the idiotic things some people put on their carry weapons, but couldn't do better than Spats' post.

Only slightly off-topic, for almost 20 years I trained law enforcement professionals in judgmental use of force and gunfighting tactics. I don't know how many hours I spent arguing with officers, and even trainers, that merely uttering the words, "I was in fear for my life." is not a magic "get out of jail free" card. Your fear has to be rational! It may take an expert on police tactics to explain to a jury of laymen the danger that exists in some situations which may outwardly appear benign, but it simply boggles the mind how some officers justify shooting when no threat is present except in the officer's adrenaline and fear-addled mind! :banghead::banghead::banghead:

In the present case, the inscription on the dust cover wouldn't turn a good shoot into a bad one, but it makes the defense's task of creating reasonable doubt staggeringly difficult!

OK, to begin legal arguments give me a headache and quite frankly make me wish Dick the Butcher and Jack Cade hadn't been throwing out one liners.

So, let me go at this from a simple viewpoint. First off, I see a firearm as a tool for a purpose. While a workman might become fond of his tools the idea of needing to "brand" one with a hint of it's purpose strikes me as either the owner is a little dense and needs to be reminded or he is attempting to imply the tool has some sort of special power. I believe the term is "magical thinking."

Now let's face facts, if you were to engrave the image of the Confederate battle flag on a one hand sledgehammer your motives may be the admiration of the idea of fighting for states rights, the dignity of the agrarian lifestyle or half a dozen other considerations. If you find yourself in a situation where you need to use it to defend yourself against someone of a different race neither the police nor the prosecutor is going to let you give a history lesson of what the flag means to you.

Freedom of expression is a wonderful thing, but like all freedom it comes with a duty tacked on to it. The first and possibly most important is make sure what you are expressing is what you mean to say. Simply because you have the right to express yourself in decoration of tools or property puts no one under the obligation to give long consideration of what you mean. Your choice, your consequences.

If you need to be reminded of the way an attorney plays the jury, go directly to the clothing an individual was wearing at the time of the incident and how he's dressed at trial.

Thugs wear new preppy clothes with a slight sense of not knowing how or what works. A citizen wears mostly what they already own, or gets a decent suit from a Mall store off the rack. His choices tend to resonate with the jury more as they see what they normally see in their lifestyle experience.

Now, add tats. The dude (ette) better have a high end professional education to show they aren't street gangbangers for the jury to discard it (slighlly.)

Jurors DO play the Dress for Success game and they will apply it mercilessly as they are charged by law to consider what the "reasonable" person would do. "Reasonable" being what they consider to be the current norm in behavior. Push the envelope and act out the part of an outlier with a leading edge lifestyle and it can result in a negative collective opinion.

Goes to behavior in court, too. Simply smiling because the events are finally the new norm and you are taking the trial in stride will be perceived as snarky egotism.

Now add a "Molon Labe" port cover during a trial where a SERT team got the address wrong (again) and there were shots fired between the homeowner and police. An anti gun DA prosecuting to protect the department's reputation and cover up their error will use it to prove the defendant is a (typlcal white male working gun owner) supremacist with ties to groups that discuss how to defend against home invasion and who actively pursue the defeat of certain government organizations (like the ATF.) What you put on the gun, how it's carried, what ammo, what you posted on the internet, what knives you own, whether you have tactical gear, and the huge arsenal of weapons at your disposal will be discussed ad infinitum to show that you are NOT the average reasonable guy who is just protecting his family.

And your handloads to increase pain and suffering, too, because they are downloaded to do that.

ANYTHING can and will be used against you in a court of law. Same as politics. Anything.

PS don't wear some kind of black tacticool sneakers into court. They add to the image of you being a flight risk.

Anything can and will be used against you in a court of law. Including your posts here.

A little off subject, but what you are recorded saying on the 911 tape can sway a jury too. You should sound like a victim and not an aggressor. Its hard for a guy to act scared but that would be a good time.

While everything you say/do/etc. can impact the case, if this officer gets convicted, it isn't likely that the dust cover going to be a significant factor what-so-ever. By the description given, this isn't an even remotely marginal case.

With that said, where I see the dust cover issue becoming most relevant will be in sentencing.

I am just slow on the uptake apparently. If, God forbid, I need to grab a weapon in defense of my life, like a forced home invasion, and I discharge that weapon in defense of my and my wife's lives you can bet I am hell bent on killing the intruder. It is not a matter of shoot to wound or aim for an arm or leg? You aim for the center of mass and whatever happens happens. If I ever aim a gun at a person you can bet I want them dead or why even aim and squeeze the trigger. What is the difference between using one of these guns:

or if I shoot and kill an intruder with this gun:

Wouldn't the object of shooting the intruder to kill them? Does it really matter what the gun looks like?

Ron

The object should be to STOP the attacker, not KILL the attacker. Reasonable people can agree that the first of those outcomes is best achieved by acts which often result in the second outcome. With regard to intent, however, there is a difference.

I would guess this one wouldn't go over very well with some juries
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...e&ref_=ox_sc_sfl_title_10&smid=A2L4SJFJPS9U4A

That may be true. One of the problems for us "civilians," though is that: (a) at the time we decide how to festoon our firearms; (b) we don't know how or when we might have to use them. If I choose the time and place for a gunfight, it's likely not really a "defensive" situation. (And if I get to choose the time and place, I'll take "none," thank you very much.) We also don't get to decide if it's going to be a "clean" shoot, a marginal one, or even a bad one. Someone else gets to decide that.

Click to expand...

Right, but maybe I didn't state my point clear enough. We can preach this all we want, but using this case as an example of how decorating your firearm will get you into trouble is bogus. The officer was in trouble long before the quote issue came about. The article is really sidestepping the salient points of the case in order to try to make a very ancillary topic seem germane.

It appears to me that bringing up the inscription on the dust cover is just some minor icing on the cake. if what the stories claims happened is really what happened, what was on the dust cover is completely irrelevant, although it might nudge a juror in the direction of a guilty verdict.

It would seem fairly clear that the need to shoot an unarmed person who is on his hands and knees and completely unresisting as described in the story is just plain not likely. That is what the real focus of the story should be, not some goofy inscription on a dust cover.

Also, if a prosecuting attorney "packs" the jury with idiots...

Click to expand...

The prosecuting attorney doesn't get to solely select the jurors. Jury selection is a kind of game played between the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney. Both attorneys are attempting to select the jurors they think will best suit their case - and they each get to make seven selections for the preliminary jury.

Six jurors and one alternate selection of their choice. Between the prosecutor and the defense attorney, that's how you get to fourteen. Then they get to wrangle over what seat you're assigned in the jury box. You are put into a specific seat as agreed to by both attorneys.

So, neither side can "pack" a jury.

If your lawyer is so bad at voir dire that all 14 members of the jury know nothing about guns, you probably don't have much of a chance winning your case regardless of the circumstances surrounding the shooting....

Click to expand...

Again, the defense attorney doesn't get to solely pick jurors. There is an extensive background document that you fill out when you are called for jury duty. The one I filled out was 12 pages long, and included questions about hobbies, organizations you belong to, voting party affiliation, job, etc.

Both the prosecutor and defense attorneys will already know that one of your hobbies is shooting, and that you belong to the NRA. They will pick you or object to you being on a jury based on the background information - questioning you may not even happen during jury selection.

Let me give you a real life example.

In one week, I was selected as a juror for four (4) separate trials. After the first two - I understood the game. I was being selected as one of the 12 jurors by the prosecuting attorney so that I would use up one of the defense attorney's uncontested juror objections.

This was solely based upon the information in my interview form. Job - engineer. Hobbies - trap shooting, pistol shooting, precision rifle shooting. Organization membership - NRA. Etc.

The prosecutor loved my background as it was an instant disqualification from the defense attorney. Both of attorneys, with no interaction with me, figured I was a "Hang all of them" kind of guy.

Which, as an engineer, couldn't be further from the truth. Engineers always want all of the information involved with an issue before making any kind of judgment. But, based upon my background information - I was never given that chance.

For each trial, I was purposely seated in the front row across from the defenses' table. In one case, every juror (except me) and five alternates were thoroughly questioned. I was never questioned because my outcome was predetermined - I was going to be disqualified. The prosecutor knew it and the defense attorney knew it - so, no need to ask me questions.

Of course, the defense attorney does the same thing - select specific jurors that they know the prosecutor will automatically object to because of their background information.

But, to be selected for, and disqualified from, four separate trials in one week has to set some kind of record. In fact, I was let out of the second week of jury duty specifically because I had been selected four times.

When the attorneys have a pool of over 200 jurors to select from and I get selected four times - that points to the prosecutor using me for a specific purpose - disqualification.

That is how jury selection really works...and what they're going for is not "packing a jury," and not including people educated in a specific area. What happens is each side agrees to the jurors that they have the least objections to.

Frank Ettin said:

1. As Jlr2267 wrote, the object is to stop the attacker, not necessarily to kill him. His death might be a consequence, but it's not your goal.
   
   
2. And yes, it appears that what the gun looks like can matter to a jury. See this article by Dr. Glenn E. Meyer, on a study he did about how the type of gun used in a self defense incident could influence a jury. Dr. Meyer is a member here (GEM), a moderator over at TFL, and a resident of Texas. He spoke on this subject at a continuing education program entitled "What Every Texas Lawyer Needs to Know About Firearms Law 2013", which was put on by the Texas Bar Association

Click to expand...

I guess that makes sense. If while stopping the intruder I happen to kill the intruder I guess it matters not as long as the law sees it as a good shoot. Works for me anyway. Sometimes. and not the present incident, I see our judicial system more enmeshed with the rights of the criminal than the victims. As to the current situation? Like I originally stated, a phrase on the dust cover of this deputy's AR it would appear is the least of his worries and not likely to be needed to convict the deputy. I see this guy as toast after reading several stories about the incident.

Ron

Like I originally stated, a phrase on the dust cover of this deputy's AR it would appear is the least of his worries and not likely to be needed to convict the deputy. I see this guy as toast after reading several stories about the incident.

Click to expand...

Very likely, but the point is that a wise person will not do things that might compromise his/her position after a violent or fatal confrontation.

In the case under consideration the dust cover is probably a very minor issue, but also it's not likely to do anything toward giving the defendant a favorable impression, and may contribute toward a negative one. Sort of like unnecessarily shooting yourself in the foot.