Weapons type at trial

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think a lot of people miss the real takeaway from this topic.

Because, as we have seen in the Rittenhouse trial and in others, weapons choice can come up in trials, and because some people (jurors are people, after all) have been demonstrated to have biases against certain types of weapons and their use, it's important to be informed about the topic.

At the least, one would want to be ready with good answers for the questions that will likely be asked. Like Rittenhouse was obviously ready for the questions the prosecutor asked him.

A lot of people seem to think that someone is trying to tell them what weapons they're allowed to use and which ones they shouldn't but that's not really what they should focus on. The real message is to be prepared. A self-defense shooting isn't just an end to a violent attack, it's also the beginning of another potentially perilous situation. Just like we prepare for self-defense situations, we should also prepare for what comes afterwards--and for very similar reasons--there can be a lot at stake.
I conduct my life in such a manner that I'm unlikely to get into "ambiguous" self-defense situations.
Click to expand...
Imagine if you were discussing the potential need for a firearm in some self-defense situations and the person replied: "I conduct my life in such a manner that I'm unlikely to need a gun for self-defense."

How would you reply?
 
  • Like
Reactions: GEM
John nails the focus of what I was saying. As I said before, there was negative feedback implying a desire to ban guns. Duh. The take away was to know such effects and have legal counsel prepared to deal with such..

Since I am a documentable AR shooting - can go through a carbine match with only 3 points down, I'm not a poster child for non AR prejudices.

Also, well said, that you won't get into an ambiguous shoot - now how do you know that? The common bragging of supreme Spydersense situational awareness or perfect decision making under stress flies in the face of all we know about human behavior.
 
GEM said:
1. Some folks want to show opposition to the politics and beliefs of the demonstrators/rioters and perhaps threaten them.
Click to expand...
There is a concerted push to criminalize ANY opposition to the organized left, hence the use of the Department of "Justice" to intimidate parents protesting the actions of school boards and school administrators, and the attempts to lionize Ashlii Babbitt's killer as a "hero" by people who would otherwise hysterically condemn any killing by police.
 
danez71 said:
From my perspective, him going didn't give anyone any justification to attack him.

Sure, they could have and maybe should have called the police to report a person, maybe underage, walking around with a rifle.

But that's not justification to attack him just as it would not be reason for you to be attacked for open carrying with out threatening anyone.
Click to expand...
Weren't those the same people burning police cars and trying to burn down police stations?

Of course I have seen a number of occasions of Antifa types coming out on the short end of physical confrontations, running to the police for protection. Needless to say, along with human bodies, Marxism kills the ability to perceive irony...
 
This is like discussing the role of a miniskirt in a rape case, and whether the victim showed “poor judgement” by wearing one.

It doesn’t matter.
 
Guys and dolls, again (to me) the quintessential question for Kyle Rittenhouse is that when he entered the lion’s den with a loaded AR, what did he think was going to happen?
I live about 40 miles from a war zone called North St. Louis City. People of color are shot and killed their every day - guaranteed shootings and killings every single day - it is my local lion’s den. Now, I can drive into that area anytime I want; I can take an AR with me. I can park my car, get out with my AR and start walking the streets to “protect” - remember, it is a “kill box”. I absolutely will get challenged at some point by some degree and depending on that degree, somebody may get shot and/ or killed. The creepy thing is that I already know all of this is going to happen before I ever leave my home.
The point that I am missing with my example and Kyle Rittenhouse is when I am asked or when he is asked by a prosecutor of what did we think was going to happen, I (or we) will be able to justify the taking of life because (well dammit), I had a right to be there, “I didn’t do anything wrong!” That seems like an absolute crazy thought process to me.
 
Steve S. said:
Guys and dolls, again (to me) the quintessential question for Kyle Rittenhouse is that when he entered the lion’s den with a loaded AR, what did he think was going to happen?
Click to expand...

That isn't the question at all. The mini skirt example above is a good analogy.

By your logic, if your sister, daughter, or mother wears a mini skirt to a bar and gets groped or raped, the jury should just say 'what did she think would happen?".

What if she wears a bikini to spring break?

If she pepper sprays them or worse, she should go to jail because "what was she thinking wearing a miniskirt to a bar or a bikini to spring break?

What about you, your brother, or a guy friend that wears shorts and no shirt to spring break... do you/they deserved to be groped or raped? What were you/they thinking would happen?

His decision to go wasn't wise nor is going to rowdy spring break, imo. But neither rise to the level of being attacked justifiably by others, legally.

Being kicked in the head, hit in the head with a skate board, having a gun pointed at your head at point blank range, does rise to the level of being able to justifiably defend yourself.

And I'd be willing to bet that you'd defend yourself too even if you made a victimless unwise decision and were attacked with maiming/death force by multiple people.
 
By your logic, if your sister, daughter, or mother wears a mini skirt to a bar and gets groped or raped, the jury should just say 'what did she think would happen?".
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, jury research has found that such considerations impact their decisions on sexual assaults. For one example, juries found that overweight victims were less likely to be believed as who would attack an overweight woman and such a big person should be better to fight off an attacker. Go figure.
 
JohnKSa said:
Imagine if you were discussing the potential need for a firearm in some self-defense situations and the person replied: "I conduct my life in such a manner that I'm unlikely to need a gun for self-defense."

How would you reply?
Click to expand...
Engage in ambiguous behavior and you'll find yourself in ambiguous situations.

Like I said, I don't want to be around most NON-criminals, never mind thugs and hoodlums. I neither associate with dubious people nor do I go to dubious places where they congregate to do dubious things. I don't go to dive bars, or bars at all. I don't hang out with people who use drugs, get drunk or fight each other. I may find myself needing to shoot somebody in a bookstore, a family restaurant or a grocery store, but given that I won't even be TALKING to anybody that I don't need to, any accusations of me being the aggressor will require equal measures of deceit and mental illness. The ubiquity of video cameras makes that a hard sell.

I never said I'd never be in a self-defense situation. I said I'd never be in an AMBIGUOUS self-defense situation.

It's NEVER going to be in question who was the aggressor.
 
Deanimator said:
given that I won't even be TALKING to anybody that I don't need to, any accusations of me being the aggressor will require equal measures of deceit and mental illness.
Click to expand...
Do you somehow believe your having spoken to someone to be prerequisite to a violent criminal attack?

QUOTE="Deanimator, post: 12113173, member: 27847"]I never said I'd never be in a self-defense situation. I said I'd never be in an AMBIGUOUS self-defense situation.[/QUOTE]No one can reasonably say that.

Deanimator said:
It's NEVER going to be in question who was the aggressor.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not according to your recollection of the incident, but that will not suffice. The investigators, the charging authority, a grand jury, and a trial court will based on whatever piecemeal evidence that they can piece together. Some witnesses may not have seen any indications of a violent attack that you described as imminent. And what some of them do recall may differ markedly from what actually lead up to your use of force.

Further, not having been the required aggressor is but one element of the required elements of a legal defense of self defense.

And you have to satisfy then all.
 
Perception can be everything.

Enter the carrying of an AR15
with a 30-round magazine.

And a negative perception is rooted in the
numerous and horrendous school,
theater, and mall shootings involving
dozens and dozens and dozens
of people, many of whom were
children.

So that perception will be used by a
prosecutor.
 
GEM said:
Unfortunately, jury research has found that such considerations impact their decisions on sexual assaults. For one example, juries found that overweight victims were less likely to be believed as who would attack an overweight woman and such a big person should be better to fight off an attacker. Go figure.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that is true. The 'look how she dressed and where she went... she deserved it or wanted it' Neanderthal thinking used to be more common but still exists.

I remember many many years ago (decades ago, before DNA was a common thing) a case that a rapist wasnt convicted because some on the jury didn't believe the rapist would choose the grandmother over the younger females in the house despite the other physical evidence (fingerprints in grandmothers room) and witness testimony.

Jury members preconceived notions and bias is a real thing.
 
Kleanbore said:
Do you somehow believe your having spoken to someone to be prerequisite to a violent criminal attack?
Click to expand...
A large percentage of physical altercations involve alcohol and drugs and are preceded by verbal pissing contests.

As I said, I have absolutely no interest in most people. I don't want to talk to them, much less argue or physically fight with them. Apart from the "knockout game" and random mass shooters, lack of interaction precludes lack of conflict. Again, those things aren't ambiguous.

Kleanbore said:
Deanimator said:
I never said I'd never be in a self-defense situation. I said I'd never be in an AMBIGUOUS self-defense situation.
Click to expand...
No one can reasonably say that.
Click to expand...
Most people not looking for trouble can.

Deanimator said:
Further, not having been the required aggressor is but one element of the required elements of a legal defense of self defense.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to shoot or even strike somebody who bumps into me in the checkout line. I won't even do it if you hurl racial slurs at me. If you physically assault me after no interaction, it's junior rodeo on. Again, with the ubiquity of cameras, good luck prosecuting me.

People looking for trouble usually find it.
 
kwguy said:
This is like discussing the role of a miniskirt in a rape case, and whether the victim showed “poor judgement” by wearing one.

It doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...

While I appreciate your sentiment and want it to be true, it simply isn't. Court cases are not decided solely on the basis of facts, but also of emotions and perceptions of facts. In many cases, the prosecution and defense will play up ancillary issues as much as possible to sway the jury to arrive at their decision. That is reality.

With that said, my #1 concern in legal weapon (ammo, etc) choice has to do with how I think I can operate it to make it defend me best. I have to survive the fight before dealing with the possibility of any criminal accusations.
 
Steve S. said:
Guys and dolls, again (to me) the quintessential question for Kyle Rittenhouse is that when he entered the lion’s den with a loaded AR, what did he think was going to happen?
I live about 40 miles from a war zone called North St. Louis City. People of color are shot and killed their every day - guaranteed shootings and killings every single day - it is my local lion’s den. Now, I can drive into that area anytime I want; I can take an AR with me. I can park my car, get out with my AR and start walking the streets to “protect” - remember, it is a “kill box”. I absolutely will get challenged at some point by some degree and depending on that degree, somebody may get shot and/ or killed. The creepy thing is that I already know all of this is going to happen before I ever leave my home.
The point that I am missing with my example and Kyle Rittenhouse is when I am asked or when he is asked by a prosecutor of what did we think was going to happen, I (or we) will be able to justify the taking of life because (well dammit), I had a right to be there, “I didn’t do anything wrong!” That seems like an absolute crazy thought process to me.
Click to expand...
You think a lot like me. That kid went looking for trouble and sure enough, he found it.
 
Deanimator said:
A large percentage of physical altercations involve alcohol and drugs and are preceded by verbal pissing contests.
Click to expand...
Okay.

Deanimator said:
Apart from the "knockout game" and random mass shooters, lack of interaction precludes lack of conflict.
Click to expand...
Get real.

Deanimator said:
Most people not looking for trouble can.
Click to expand...
No one can say it with certainty.

Deanimator said:
I'm not going to shoot or even strike somebody who bumps into me in the checkout line. I won't even do it if you hurl racial slurs at me.
Click to expand...
Excellent thinking.

Deanimator said:
If you physically assault me after no interaction, it's junior rodeo on. Again, with the ubiquity of cameras, good luck prosecuting me.
Click to expand...
That would leave all of the remaining requirements for a legal defense of self defense to be satisfied.
 
Boattale said:
That kid went looking for trouble and sure enough, he found it.
Click to expand...
His wisdom may have been questionable, but there is no basis for saying that he went "looking for trouble". He took a risk that I would not have taken, but he was there as a concerned citizen trying to help.

A couple of years ago, a hose cough fire a couple of blocks away. An amateur mountain climber driving by scaled the walls and rescued a dog trapped dog trapped in an upper level porch. Was he "looking for trouble"?

I live extremely close to the City of St. Louis. I do not go there unless I really have to. But when I do, and many people have to go there every day, I do not "look for trouble".
 
Kleanbore said:
His wisdom may have been questionable, but there is no basis for saying that he went "looking for trouble". He took a risk that I would not have taken, but he was there as a concerned citizen trying to help.

A couple of years ago, a hose cough fire a couple of blocks away. An amateur mountain climber driving by scaled the walls and rescued a dog trapped dog trapped in an upper level porch. Was he "looking for trouble"?

I live extremely close to the City of St. Louis. I do not go there unless I really have to. But when I do, and many people have to go there every day, I do not "look for trouble".
Click to expand...
Baloney.
 
Boattale said:
Baloney.
Click to expand...
I doubt anyone here believes his judgement going there was sound. But I'll ask this:
Did he have any less right being there than the guy who pointed a gun at him or the one that hit him with a skateboard? What about the folks who truly were peaceful?

There are certainly times when exercising our rights can draw unwanted attention to ourselves. Most of us here understand that, and choose to avoid unwanted attention. But there's a difference between should not and cannot.

This case just simply isn't about what rights he should or shouldn't have exercised or when/where.
 
Last edited:
Call me crazy but I think anybody who goes to a problem area on his own and brings an AR is up to no good. Regardless of whether or not it's his right to go there.
 
Boattale said:
It was as nice as I can get on your reply
Click to expand...
It was very rude, yes, but it is in no way supportive of your of your assertion.

You have asserted that persons who go where their training may be needed to assist people in need do so "looking for trouble". Why, I do not know.

I do think we can conclude that you would not do that.

That does indicate a lot about your tolerance for risk, and it may speak well about your judgment, but not so much about you s a responsible citizen.

And your accusation does not reflect a high degree of deductive reasoning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
Stockpiled weapons mesmerize jurors in Mexican Mafia trial
Replies
10
Views
1K
foghornl
F
B
  • Locked
New trial requested,or let the games begin
Replies
3
Views
946
Fred Thompson
F
P
  • Locked
Beginning of Widespread Acceptance of "Castle Doctrine"?
Replies
5
Views
941
Aguila Blanca
A
D
  • Locked
(MO) DA's Office on Trial
Replies
6
Views
726
YankeeRebel
Y
C
  • Locked
U.k.: "opinion Divided On Trials Without A Jury"
Replies
2
Views
696
pax
P
Back
Top