Evidence against me

Keep in mind also that, although you may despise mainstream media for biased coverage, they have a great opportunity for what would otherwise be jury tampering. If approached, be respectful and state that you have been advised that you should not comment.
 
Another point, I forgot to mention. One might think that having a 'gun' person on the jury would help. However, one study demonstrated that folks identified as 'hunters' might think that an EBR, reckless handling on a technical level, etc. would be more detrimental than a non-knowledgeable person. They might from their experience in the gun world think ill of some 'gun' antics and your presentation. Hard to parse that in voir dire, I would think.

In cases, if it could be afforded, mock juries help with argument development. It's debated if it is best to get the issues out first, so in openings, refer to how your training emphasized avoidance, deescalation, your choice of firearm was reasonable for the purpose, etc. If the prosecution starts with emphasizing you are a 'nut', you don't want to let that sit in their minds. Otherwise, it sets a them through which they will interpret all that follows. Mas has a good video on that.
 
As you all (obviously) know, there are a lot of moving parts when it comes to legal matters. That’s why I like to eliminate as many variables from them as I can. No Punisher grips, for example.

But going back to the OP, I think it was @Frank Ettin who once said something to the effect of: The best thing you can do is say the right thing; the second best thing is to say nothing, and the worst thing is to say the wrong thing.
 
And if it's a custodial interrogation, meaning you cannot leave any time you wish, invoke your right to have a lawyer present. Period.
People think that exercising your right to an attorney makes you look guilty. Don't even think that way.

I've never once seen someone talk themselves out of jail or an arrest. I cannot count the number I've seen someone talk themselves into it.
 
Last edited:
We are offered warned against making careless comments on a public forum because they could be used against you in a court of law.
My question is, what else in my daily life could be seen in the same light? Could the fact that I regularly take defensive shooting classes or that I practice weekly be construed as to looking for a fight? What about using siloulette targets or owning multiple weapons? Having 2 or 3 Glocks stashed around and an AR in the bedroom vs a shotgun and a revolver? How about just being a member of this forum?
To those of you familiar with cases involving defensive shootings are these justified concerns or is my wife just watching too many crime shows?

EDIT:

Forgot an important preface to my post: I am not an attorney. However, I consider myself to be a reasonably intelligent person who values an open-minded approach to learning, especially when it comes to the responsibilities inherent in the potential use of deadly force to save life or limb. This is a serious matter and ought to be approached accordingly.




Good question(s).

First of all, let's be clear that it's the prosecution's job to use every bit of evidence they can in order to gain a conviction when a case is tried. Within the limits of the system, they will put forth that evidence in a light which supports the side of the prosecution.

I say this to point out that living one's life under the paranoia such an understanding may engender is both impractical and stressful.


Second, it is a waste of time trying to approach every aspect which may be tied to anything involving the use of deadly force from an angle which would keep someone else from "using that against you". Instead, spend your time learning what the laws ACTUALLY say and what they ACTUALLY mean.

This means GO TO THE SOURCE. Actually look up your jurisdictional statutes on the matter and read them first hand. Do NOT go by "hearsay" or "word of mouth" via second hand sources. They are invariably wrong, incomplete, or misleading. Get in the habit of looking things up in the statutes when you have questions, when others have questions, or when someone makes some statement involving them.

Engage in meaningful dialog with knowledgeable people over the actual content of the statutes, it's meaning, and practical applications in real life. This doesn't require formal legal education or advice, but it DOES require an honest approach with an intent to learn what things mean in the legal sense.


Third, get in the habit of analyzing scenarios or reported events within the scope of the applicable jurisdictional laws. Learn to separate your emotional feelings on a given scenario from the actual events as you know them to be and how the jurisdictional laws apply or do not apply. Keep an open mind to these things as learning events.


And finally, engage your brain before opening your mouth or posting something. Most people can readily recognize something utterly stupid (though sometimes I wonder about that), but there's a bit more to it than that. Stick to the above points when you are engaging others, in person or via any form of media.

Behaving this way tends to make a person come across as mature and responsible and that's what you want.
 
Last edited:
While this is bit of a diversion, here is an interesting piece on why Alec Baldwin should have shut up!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/opinion/alec-baldwin-rust-5th-amendment.html

Shortly after a prop gun Alec Baldwin was holding fired a bullet that killed a cinematographer and wounded a director on the set of the movie “Rust,” in October 2021, he told the police in New Mexico that he’d be willing to do whatever they requested, including sitting for an interview at the station.

In an interrogation room later that afternoon, detectives began by informing Baldwin of his rights: He had the right to remain silent. Anything he said could be used against him in court. He was free to consult with an attorney; if he could not afford an attorney, one would be appointed for him. And he could stop the interrogation at any point he wished.

“My only question is, am I being charged with something?” Baldwin asked.

And so, without his attorney present, while the police recorded him, Baldwin talked. And talked. And talked. At that point, Baldwin knew only that the film’s director, Joel Souza, and its cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins, had been injured; detectives would inform him at the end of the interrogation that Hutchins had died. Still, for about an hour, Baldwin not only answered detectives’ many questions about the shooting but also offered his own theories about the incident and suggested the next steps the police might pursue in their investigation.

Not at all, the police said. Reading his rights, one detective told him, was “just a formality.”

Didn't work out so well for him. One point is that besides training in gun handling, a modicum of training on the legal aspects of gun usage should be part of your plan. The Internet cliche of "show me a case" and "if it's good shoot" isn't sufficient.
 
While this is bit of a diversion, here is an interesting piece on why Alec Baldwin should have shut up!

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/25/opinion/alec-baldwin-rust-5th-amendment.html

Didn't work out so well for him. One point is that besides training in gun handling, a modicum of training on the legal aspects of gun usage should be part of your plan. The Internet cliche of "show me a case" and "if it's good shoot" isn't sufficient.

Am I the only one who absolutely CRINGED while watching the video of his police interview that was on YouTube?

Not only didn't he shut up, he didn't have any sign of an attorney present with him.
 
Am I the only one who absolutely CRINGED while watching the video of his police interview that was on YouTube?
Yes. Just kidding, you're not alone. It was one of the most cringe-worthy exhibitions of trying to not be accountable for one's own actions I've ever seen. Blamed everyone else and clearly trying to manipulate the investigator and absolve himself of any responsibility.

First, he states he did not check the condition of the revolver, assuming it had been checked by others; seemed unclear about who handed him the gun, then states he did NOT pull the trigger, that the gun fired on its own (later to be categorically contradicted by the law enforcement forensics teams, who tested the gun and concluded that the revolver absolutely would not fire unless the hammer was cocked and the trigger was pulled).

Textbook example of self-incrimination due to massive ego and inability to own any share of culpability for the incident.
 
I think of these famous last words - "This has never happened or been brought up before." Well, that's true...until it has. While such arguments may never have been used before, how many times have we read a news blurb and uttered to ourselves, "well, that's a new one." ?

I don't think anyone should stop shooting or training, but you also may not want to be the person that has a dozen Glocks hidden around his house.
 
I think of these famous last words - "This has never happened or been brought up before." Well, that's true...until it has.
Yup. Or, more likely, it's not true but that the information to prove it happened isn't easily available on the internet. I've run into a lot of people who seem to believe that the fact something can't easily be found on the open internet is proof that it never happened.
 
Not a lawyer, I have often read of the "no prior bad acts" doctrine, i.e. a defendant's criminal record cannot be introduced as evidence, the idea being that the case will be decided solely on the basis of the facts directly relevant. Then there's hearsay.
 
"This has never happened or been brought up before."

Last thing posted on the DinosaurNet.

Good point, John. The simple, increased presence of a firearm has been shown to influence mock jurors. Just leaving on table, or having the jurors handle it (mock) did it. Now in the thousands of real trials, how would that be reported? It wouldn't.
 
Not a lawyer, I have often read of the "no prior bad acts" doctrine, i.e. a defendant's criminal record cannot be introduced as evidence, the idea being that the case will be decided solely on the basis of the facts directly relevant. Then there's hearsay.

Well, I am a lawyer, and that’s really not completely accurate. There are a lot of circumstances under which “prior bad acts”, and even hearsay, can be admitted into evidence. And even if something isn’t admissible, it can still be useful in the investigation.
 
Not a lawyer, I have often read of the "no prior bad acts" doctrine, i.e. a defendant's criminal record cannot be introduced as evidence, the idea being that the case will be decided solely on the basis of the facts directly relevant. Then there's hearsay.

There are certainly a list of hearsay objections available, but what many who are not in the legal field don't realize is that for that list, there are pages of exceptions that allow it in anyway. Not to mention if the evidence presented is not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, it's not hearsay at all.

And prior bad acts are certainly fair game in some situations. While according to the Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b), prior bad acts cannot be used to show that because of the prior bad act the defendant is more likely to have done so again (paraphrased), if the DA or prosecutor can convince the judge that the probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant, it gets in (FRE: Rule 403).

And that isn't necessarily an exhaustive list of times those things can get in, just a few examples.
 
If you read the report and watch the videos, the prosecution has made a point of displaying firearms that have little to do with the killings as they were not used. We know from research simulations that presentation of weapons can have a negative impact on jurors. One family member seeing a video of his gun room with a rack of many long arms, said he must be nuts. Not a gun person.

In the real world, this is a standard tactic. In the Bernhard Goetz trial, many years ago, much was made by the prosecution of Goetz wearing a 'tactical holster' and using hollow points. While he was acquitted on the shootings, the jury did discuss those aspects in evaluating his SD claim as to his mental state but it didn't lead to his conviction. BUT it did, according to after trial statements, influence the conviction on gun charges and later the judge in sentencing on those gun carry charges.

The Harold Fish case is a better example of this. There was much made by the prosecution of the fact that he was carrying a 10 MM Kimber while solo hiking in the Kaibab National Forrest and jurors are on record as having admitted that that factored into his conviction.
 
Keep in mind also that, although you may despise mainstream media for biased coverage, they have a great opportunity for what would otherwise be jury tampering. If approached, be respectful and state that you have been advised that you should not comment.

The media- this also highlights the danger of social media. How often do you see pictures from Facebook or other social media sites broadcast on mainstream media? Think of cases like Casey Anthony. People like Zimmerman were tried publicly in the press before there was ever a warrant issued. Harold Fish was another one who wasn't charged until the press showed who he shot.

Try getting a good jury amd a fair trial after you've been portrayed as a criminal for months beforehand. Anything you put online can be used by the news to paint you however they want. Amd they might do it anyway, but no reason to put more bullets in their gun.
 
...

The best advice here is to ensure your conduct does not allow for any adverse information to become relevant.

Very few legitimate cases of self-defense ultimately go to a criminal trial. Your greatest concern is the civil trial. There is a "Filtering" process to determine what evidence is ultimately presented to the trier of fact (the judge in a bench trial, or the jury in a jury trial). Start off by getting a good attorney to represent you, and to be involved before the "Filtering" starts. My below comments reflect observations from California state courts. You may find differences in other jurisdictions...

I just wanted to quote this because I personally think it's worth repeating. ;)

However, when it comes to the legal landscape, and the 50 states, Never Say Never.

Social media has created what may amount to a huge vulnerability for a lot of people who simply can't stop themselves from posting every single damned thought that may come across their mind ... and immortalize it online ... with posed camera pics, no less.

The freedom of personal expression doesn't necessarily come without potential consequences. Choose wisely.

If someone wants some legal advice, consider going and buying some from someone educated, licensed and trained in giving it.
 
"Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead." What Ben Franklin said then is even more true today.
Dean Grenell wrote that he had no pro-2a/RKBA bumper stickers on any of his cars, on another board there was a discussion of warning signs on one's residence, pretty much everyone agreed they were ego boosters but not really a good idea.
 
I've sat in on a few cases that involved shooting in what was purported to be self defense.
I have never personally saw this brought up, but I admittedly have a small sample size to go on.

Many of these questions and others such as handloads for self defense and carrying a powerful gun such as 10mm or .44 magnum, are just that, questions because we don't have examples of cases where these arguments are brought up (there is a small sample where more powerful than is the custom defense guns are used).
That is not to say it hasn't been brought up. The opinions we read are from appellate courts. Cases in the trial phase are not published and thus it is not feasible for us to know these things without extensive research.

All I can say is that from someone with nearly 10 years experience in the criminal law field, I haven't personally seen it. There has never been a question of how often someone practiced or how they practiced, or whether they took classes in self defense tactics or not.
But I do live in the south, where juries are sympathetic to self defense situations. I work on the defense side of things and I would spin that as a positive, that my client was educating himself so as to efficiently and safely protect himself and his family.
I can't speak as to how that would go over in a more liberal setting.

I would echo this. I’ve been a criminal defense lawyer for twenty years now and I don’t recall ever seeing anything about a persons practicing, his/her particular load or firearm used (despite what Ayoob says), or the like being used by the prosecutor (typically lazy anyway) or the investigation team to make a particular person or circumstances out to be anything more than what meets the eye. Hell, just tune into the Alex Murdaugh matter and you’ll see that guns are such an *insignificant* part of the overall trial.
 
As you all (obviously) know, there are a lot of moving parts when it comes to legal matters. That’s why I like to eliminate as many variables from them as I can. No Punisher grips, for example.

But going back to the OP, I think it was @Frank Ettin who once said something to the effect of: The best thing you can do is say the right thing; the second best thing is to say nothing, and the worst thing is to say the wrong thing.

Well said, and I wholeheartedly agree.
 
I just wanted to quote this because I personally think it's worth repeating. ;)

However, when it comes to the legal landscape, and the 50 states, Never Say Never.

Social media has created what may amount to a huge vulnerability for a lot of people who simply can't stop themselves from posting every single damned thought that may come across their mind ... and immortalize it online ... with posed camera pics, no less.

The freedom of personal expression doesn't necessarily come without potential consequences. Choose wisely.

If someone wants some legal advice, consider going and buying some from someone educated, licensed and trained in giving it.

Both of these posts bear repeating.
 
Everything you do or say can be used against you. How effective that will be will depend on how objectively reasonable and explainable what you do and say is and whether you and your legal defense team can convincingly explain it to a judge and/or jury.
I couldn't have said it better myself. This is the reason defense attorney's usually want to avoid trial because to some degree, its out of their control how things will be perceived.
 
Back
Top