I wonder if that particular model is on the California list of approved, "certified by the state" firearms? That would pretty much blow the "unsafe because it didn't have a safety" argument out of the water in court even for an unsophisticated jury, I would think.
Attorney blames the gun: IT ‘HAS NO SAFETY’
- Thread starter usmarine0352_2005
- Start date
- Status
Ed Ames
Member
If it is not, would you be fine with a jury taking that as evidence that there was a reasonable doubt he pulled the trigger?
I'm not, though I'll admit part of me thinks that if lawmakers step in to make such lists, there should be consequences. I usually just think in terms of not selling to LEOs what you can't sell to average joes, but your idea has a sort of fed up appeal.
Hardtarget
Member
The prosecutor should bring in a Sig engineer and have him show the workings of the firearm. Then tell the lawyer to stop the BS and SHUT UP!
Mark
If it was a Glock then bring in their engineer...or one for what ever company made the firearm.its up to the prosecutor to get it done right.
Mark
If it was a Glock then bring in their engineer...or one for what ever company made the firearm.its up to the prosecutor to get it done right.
Last edited:
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
Still don't know if it's really a Sig or a Glock do we?
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"While the gun was reported stolen to authorities, local law enforcement did not collect forensic evidence from the crime scene."
Anyone else thinking of that cop from The Big Lebowski taking the report for his stolen car? "Yeah, man, they'll have us working in shifts!"
TCB
Anyone else thinking of that cop from The Big Lebowski taking the report for his stolen car? "Yeah, man, they'll have us working in shifts!"
TCB
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
The story at your link has been updated to correct the information to state that the gun was in fact a Sig Sauer P239, and "Sig’s documentation on the P239 states the gun has a “4-point safety system with decocking lever, patented automatic firing pin safety block, safety intercept notch, and trigger bar disconnector.”"
The part I would like explained is "While the gun was reported stolen to authorities, local law enforcement did not collect forensic evidence from the crime scene."
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
Here are all the P239's currently on the list, from http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/safeguns_resp.asp. The rightmost column is the expiration date.
P239 (Blued) / Stainless Steel, Alloy Pistol 3.6" .357 SIG 1/1/2016
P239 (Blued) / Stainless Steel, Alloy Pistol 3.6" .40 S&W 1/1/2016
P239 (Blued) / Stainless Steel, Alloy Pistol 3.6" 9mm 1/1/2016
P239 DAK / Stainless Steel, Alloy Pistol 3.6" .357 SIG 1/1/2016
P239 DAK / Stainless Steel, Alloy Pistol 3.6" .40 S&W 1/1/2016
P239 SAS (2 Tone) 239-40-SAS / Stainless Steel, Polymer Pistol 3.6" .40 S&W 1/1/2016
What happened to the "safety between the ears"? Or is that too much to ask of a five time illegal alien who is not supposed to be in the country in the first place not to mention being ineligible to posses a firearm. If the current Washington and San Francisco politicians would uphold immigration laws we would not be talking about this. Too bad they can't be charged as accessories.
Red Wind
Member
cane said:
I am sure you do. Congrats. That's why I added this little guy.....
usmarine0352_2005
member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2005
- Messages
- 2,796
I think I saw this on the news and they said the forensic team stated they went over it and there was nothing to collect or that officers determined that there was nothing to collect.
You break a car window, steal a bag with the gun in it, and leave, there really is no evidence. No fingerprints, no DNA. Only stuff would be on the bag (or whatever the gun was in) or gun and the suspect took that with him.
Who knows what he used to break the window or if the window was broken at all.
tomrkba
Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,370
The gun did not have a MANUALLY OPERATED SAFETY. It has plenty of internal safeties that prevent the gun from firing without the trigger being pulled.
If it's a SIG, then the trigger was pulled. The circumstances permitting a SIG to fire without the trigger pulled are very, very unlikely (as in "Act of God" unlikely).
If it's a SIG, then the trigger was pulled. The circumstances permitting a SIG to fire without the trigger pulled are very, very unlikely (as in "Act of God" unlikely).
jrmiddleton425
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 663
Every person posting here is aware of that fact, and I'd bet that so is the lawyer. When you represent someone, the law dictates that you MUST defend them, even if you have evidence that could convict them.
Edit: Upon further thought, if all he has to work with is "it went off by itself" to establish reasonable doubt that his client pulled the trigger ON A GUN HE ADMITS TO POSSESSING, can his law license be revoked for sheer stupidity?
Let's suppose, for argument's sake, that the gun did go off by itself. Nobody made him pick it up.
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Okay, so it has no external manual safety (which as we know is what the attorney was talking about) and the trigger had to be pulled. Fair enough. The question is whether or not the defendant pulled the trigger with his finger or if he had an ND from it being wrapped in a shirt. People have pocket NDs, holster NDs, and even gear bad NDs where they didn't actually pull the trigger themselves, but the trigger got pulled.
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2015/09/08/attorney-in-steinle-case-blames-gun-it-has-no-safety/
--------------------
I do appreciate the juxtaposition of concerns here. Obviously, it is a flimsy argument, but we don't like the illegal alien and we don't believe his story and so we outright dismiss his attorney's arguments as being ignorant or stupid. HOWEVER, when equally ignorant or stupid comments are made by a prosecutor against a CCW person, we are all concerned about what colors our guns are, caliber, bullet type, capacity, etc.
Of course, we are worried about the swaying of a jury with such silly arguments. If we are that concerned that a jury could be swayed against us, then it would be equally concerning that the jury might be swayed in favor of this criminal?
Archie
Member
This is the Defense Attorney's version of a "Hail Mary" pass.
He knows his client did it. He knows the facts and evident are showing his client did it. This is his last attempt - not to show his client is actually not guilty, but - to sprinkle doubt in the minds of the jurors who really are totally ignorant. The Defense Attorney has already excluded all potential members of the juror pool who know anything about much of anything, especially firearms and usage.
It sometimes works. Has nothing to do with reality, just ignorant jurors.
He knows his client did it. He knows the facts and evident are showing his client did it. This is his last attempt - not to show his client is actually not guilty, but - to sprinkle doubt in the minds of the jurors who really are totally ignorant. The Defense Attorney has already excluded all potential members of the juror pool who know anything about much of anything, especially firearms and usage.
It sometimes works. Has nothing to do with reality, just ignorant jurors.
Yes, there have been but not in modern common usage. I'm too lazy to list them but here's one:
http://practicaleschatology.blogspot.com/2014/04/china-arms-its-police.html
http://www.tarnhelm.com/murabito.html
USAF_Vet
Member
Yes. There are hammer block safeties on most modern revolvers. There are internal lock safeties, available on a lot of Taurus and S&W revolvers.Are there any current (last 180 years) revolvers with a safety?
And yes, even used car and magazine salesmen (which I used to be} and politicians, have a higher standing in the public eye than attorneys.
However, it's unfair, There are some good ones, including my oldest,dearest friend since 1962. He's gotten me out of a lot of scrapes.
Just because there isn't a rotating switch on the side of the gun somewhere does not mean it has no safety device.
Safety is designed into guns, which is why we don't drop the hammer on an empty chamber of modern revolvers.
Bigdog57
Member
That attorney is either a total fool, or he is playing to the typical lack of gun knowledge of the common jury member. I have been kicked off the jury selection here in the local Federal Court because I did have knowledge of firearms. The last thing the legal beagles want is someone who KNOWS how a gun works.
And as my old Navy Seniorchief said, "The best safety is the one between your ears!"
The idea of a gun "just going off" is so much bunk...... but that jury will likely believe such a bald-faced lie. I expect this illegal perp to walk.
And as my old Navy Seniorchief said, "The best safety is the one between your ears!"
The idea of a gun "just going off" is so much bunk...... but that jury will likely believe such a bald-faced lie. I expect this illegal perp to walk.
TimSr
Member
Be aware of the bigger picture, which is the intent of the anti movement to continue to put focus on the gun and gun MFGs over individual responsibility.
Everybody RELAX. This is the way the adversarial system works. One side takes a position, makes a claim, tells their story, etc. Then the other side gets to prove it wrong. Lawyers make all kinds of outlandish arguments. People get worked up about the mere fact that the argument is made without waiting to see whether it survived after the other side gets hold of it. Even a semi-competent prosecutor ought to have no problem with this one.
stonecutter2
Member
He doesn't need a jury full of idiots, just 1 idiot will get the job done for the defense.
stonecutter2
Member
Look at what he said, there is no lie or nonsense spoken. That's the "beauty" (or ugliness) of the defense.
You are instantly making connections, as a juror would, to what is being said.
stonecutter2
Member
We have no information as to whether this lawyer and defendant are anti-gun rights, or anything. They're just trying to get a not guilty verdict.
Actually, the defense lawyer is trying to affect the jury pool by raising reasonable doubt.
My guess is that this claim doesn't actually show up in the real trial other than it could be possible for the story to be true. If you make outlandish claims in the opening statement as a defense attorney, the jury usually wants to see that proved via evidence in the actual trial--be aware that prosecutors will definitely make the defense pay for an unfounded claim by highlighting the falsity of such statement during the prosecution's case and then hammering the fact that the defense could not support the claim with evidence during the closing statement.
My guess is that this claim doesn't actually show up in the real trial other than it could be possible for the story to be true. If you make outlandish claims in the opening statement as a defense attorney, the jury usually wants to see that proved via evidence in the actual trial--be aware that prosecutors will definitely make the defense pay for an unfounded claim by highlighting the falsity of such statement during the prosecution's case and then hammering the fact that the defense could not support the claim with evidence during the closing statement.
- Status
