example of how choice of decorations can hurt you in court

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Jlr2267:

I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

We have provided it to you at least once. The link to Dr. Meyer's studies provides evidence that the appearance of a firearm can effect the outcome of trials, both in the determination of guilt or innocence and in the severity of sentencing.

If there are cases where a gun's inscription was a key factor in a conviction, I've not seen nor heard of them.

How on Earth would you expect to have seen or heard of them? Or of anything else that contributed to the weighing of evidence by jurors? Have you interviewed jurors after trials? How many of them?

Until then, I have to assume the risk is nil.

That is an extremely poor basis for the assessment of risks of any kind.

yes, [a prosecutor is likely to cite the lawful carrying of a firearm as an indicator of state of mind]

Do you have a basis for that belief? Do you think that any competent trial attorney would ever try to present a credible argument that every law abiding citizen who carries a firearm for protection is predisposed to violence?

why not?

Because it is unlikely to sway any juror. One does not hear it.

Seems as likely as citing a gun's lawful inscription, if not more so.

Come now! If a defender's muzzle is engraved with "Smile and wait for flash", do you really not think that the inscription might tend to sway the jurors? Really?

I can see it now: "I leave you with this, ladies and gentlemen of the jury...the defendant, Mr. Kleanbore, by his own admission, is trained to kill. He practiced his kill shots on human silhouettes weekly, longing for the day when he could put his hard-earned kill-skills into practice"

You are apparently imagining a closing statement, or perhaps and opening statement.

But if the training had come up, it would have been discussed in testimony by expert witnesses.

One of the things that would have come out is that defensive training does not "train to kill". That's a fact.

More importantly, the testimony would likely have had to do with such things as what would lead to a reasonable belief that the presentation of a weapon had been necessary; how many shots a reasonable person might fire under similar circumstances, knowing what the defendant knew at the time; what the defendant had learned about the lawful and proper use of force for self defense; and so on.

And these things would likely be very much to the defendant's advantage.

I was simply asking if there were legal cases where a gun's decoration played a key role in conviction.

Unless one has interviewed all of the jurors in all of the trials in the country and determined just what things influenced them in what ways, one cannot know what things have led to the outcomes of jury trials.

Also, the number of trials that may have actually involved a particular factor such as decoration is unknown, and it is quite possible that the factor in question has only existed in a very small number of cases, or that it was not necessarily an important factor at all. Trial outcomes, both criminal and civil, are decided by persons assessing the totality of the evidence, and it can rarely be assumed that the use of force would have been ruled justified but for a single factor. Many factors may affect the outcome, and it is the aggregate that will rule the day.

However, controlled scientific jury simulation experiments, such as those conducted by Dr. Glenn E. Meyer, have been conducted in which all variables but one have been kept the same, and those have given us a very good idea of how the issues tested would influence real juries.

 

[Jlr2267]

:We have provided it to you at least once. The link to Dr. Meyer's studies provides evidence that the appearance of a firearm can effect the outcome of trials, both in the determination of guilt or innocence and in the severity of sentencing.

Sentencing, yes...conviction, well here's the quote:

" Our analyses of guilty and non-guilty verdict decisions found that females were more likely to find the defendant guilty (regardless of defendant gender). The other effects didn't reach statistical significance (though some were close) but there was some indication that the AR-15 usage was detrimental to a defendant's chances of acquittal. "

So, actually, by the author's own words, the effect of weapon type was statistically insignificant. If there is a discussion in the article that directly addresses weapon appearance, rather than type, I may have overlooked it.

How on Earth would you expect to have seen or heard of them? Or of anything else that contributed to the weighing of evidence by jurors? Have you interviewed jurors after trials? How many of them?

Post trial interviews and analyses are common. I see/hear/read them constantly.

That is an extremely poor basis for the assessment of risks of any kind.

Better than relying on statistically insignificant variables, I'd say

Do you have a basis for that belief? Do you think that any competent trial attorney would ever try to present a credible argument that every law abiding citizen who carries a firearm for protection is predisposed to violence?

Again, from the article: " Branscombe and Weir (1992) argued that behavior which does not fit classic schema of the female stereotype will be construed as abnormal. It is then easier to assign alternate outcomes and blame to the supposed victim."

Behaviors which do not "fit the classic schema" can cause victim blaming.

Because it is unlikely to sway any juror. One does not hear it.

The article suggests otherwise

But if the training had come up, it would have been discussed in testimony by expert witnesses.

One of the things that would have come out is that defensive training does not "train to kill". That's a fact.

More importantly, the testimony would likely have had to do with such things as what would lead to a reasonable belief that the presentation of a weapon had been necessary; how many shots a reasonable person might fire under similar circumstances, knowing what the defendant knew at the time; what the defendant had learned about the lawful and proper use of force for self defense; and so on.

And these things would likely be very much to the defendant's advantage.

What does the study say about this directly?:

" McCaughey (1997) in a feminist analysis of women who train in self-defense tactics suggest they are at risk at trial for not seeming womanly and victim-like. "

 

[danez71]

I'm open to evidence to the contrary. If there are cases where a gun's inscription was a key factor in a conviction, I've not seen nor heard of them.

You made the initial claim so the duty of proof is on you.

If you don't have anything to base of off of, then it is a baseless claim.

Until then, I have to assume the risk is nil.

You're choosing to make / believe a statictic based on none info.... unless you do have some to present in support of your claim?

Ad-hominem aside, I prefer facts, not speculation.

Apparently, only when it's convenient?



Question

 

[Jlr2267]

You made the initial claim so the duty of proof is on you.

If you don't have anything to base of off of, then it is a baseless claim.




You're choosing to make / believe a statictic based on none info.... unless you do have some to present in support of your claim?





Apparently, only when it's convenient?



Question

I also assume that flying dragons don't exist, for the same reason(s)

 

[danez71]

Any lawyers care to give any insight as to something like this .... IF it can be used to convince the jury that there was some premeditation, that the conviction could be something worse like Murder 1 vs Manslaughter?

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

One of the things here that seems to define a sharp dividing line in individual beliefs over this subject is that many believe we should be judged by what we DO as opposed to the stuff we may say/get that is otherwise intended to be some kind of humorous expression.

And even though some people believe that's how things should be, in the real world it simply doesn't work like that.

How you present yourself to the world is not free of social consequences. Others are also free to form opinions, and do form opinions, about you, your credibility, character, values, or beliefs based on how present yourself to the world.

How you do so is up to you. But you can't complain when people form impressions of you or make judgments about you based on such.

ED-ZACHARY my point! Thank you!

It seems to be that people are getting caught up in the specifics of any given case here and forgetting (or ignoring) the general principles behind the legal system and the perceptions of the public.

We can all likely find any given case which went one way or another, based on certain factors. But isolated cases do not make up a firm foundation in which to make absolutist statements.

 

[danez71]

I also assume that flying dragons don't exist, for the same reason(s)

That's silly don't you think? To base your beliefs in fairytales in the same way you base your beliefs of factual evidence (or not).?

I think everyone one would agree that flying dragon is widely accepted to be folklore.


The fact that this subject is 5 pages long is a great indication that your view isn't widely accepted.

 

[JohnKSa]

Any case law where a gun's decoration resulted in conviction?
...
I was simply asking if there were legal cases where a gun's decoration played a key role in conviction. You did not directly answer that question.
...
What I ask is if it has affected a *conviction*.

I can tell you think you're making a telling point by repeating this question. What is actually happening is that you're demonstrating that you can't understand, or are rejecting out of hand, the evidence and the very simple and logical reasoning being presented by people with experience in the field of interest.

More importantly, you're doing so not on the basis of logical arguments or evidence--just the reverse. It's done on the basis of an admitted lack of information on the topic.--i.e. "...I've not seen nor heard of them..."

When you have no knowledge/experience/qualifications regarding a specific risk, the proper solution is not to dismiss the risk. (e.g. "...I've not seen nor heard of them. Until then, I have to assume the risk is nil.") The solution is to gather information from people who are experienced/qualified to provide information on the topic and from any other reliable sources of information.

Unfortunately, sometimes the information doesn't come in the desired form and/or doesn't provide the desired answer. That's how TRUE research works--sometimes you learn something that causes you to change your views.

When you go looking for information on a topic you're uninformed about, it's not productive to start with the idea that "I'll reject any information that doesn't fit within the rigidly defined boundaries I've set up without any useful a priori knowledge of the topic." That's because:

1. The fact that you're uninformed means that rigidly defining the type of information you'll accept is likely to screen out useful information.

2. Excluding information during research turns research from an information gathering effort into a method for reinforcing pre-conceived ideas. That is a total waste of time if the goal is to learn something.

That all assumes an honest attempt to expand one's knowledge base. Of course, most often the reason such techniques are employed has nothing to do with learning and everything to do with insuring that pre-conceived notions/beliefs aren't shaken.

I also assume that flying dragons don't exist, for the same reason(s)...

There's a huge difference. People experienced/qualified in the field of zoology aren't providing logical arguments and evidence for the existence of flying dragons.

...I think the heyday of the officer being giving a benefit of a doubt free pass because he is an officer has passed us by.

I think there's a lot of truth in this statement, but the problem in this case is that there's not much chance of any other defense succeeding. Whether it's a great chance for success or not, it's probably still the best chance in this case. And the dustcover motto will make it a really hard sell--if it doesn't completely blow it out of the water.

In other words, the motto took a hard case and made it a nearly impossible case. Given the value that it provided to the defendant--zero--that seems like a pretty horrible trade off.

I think of it a little like being on a ship that's in really serious trouble and might sink in the middle of the North Atlantic with no lifeboat. The passengers are all given the choice of putting on some lead shoes.

Many people take them based on the following reasoning:

If the ship doesn't sink, the lead shoes won't hurt anything.

If the ship sinks, the water is so cold that you probably won't live long anyway, there's a really good chance that you'll die even without the lead shoes. Many passengers say that when your ship sinks in the middle of the North Atlantic without a lifeboat, the least of your problems is that you're wearing lead shoes.

Those are valid points. But I still won't be putting on the lead shoes. It might not be much of a chance, but I'll take it anyway.

Yes, and I think things like training and carrying have been argued to show predisposition...

Good point. This goes to support the fact that virtually anything might hurt a person in court if the jury perceives it negatively.

When faced with that kind of a problem, the solution is to do a cost/benefit/risk assessment. i.e. What will X cost me, how might/will X benefit me, what risk might/will X expose me to?

In the case of training, by all accounts, the value added is considerable--enough to justify the considerable up front cost in time and money. The risk that it might play against you in court is there, but to some extent that can be ameliorated by the use of a good expert witness.

So considerable cost, considerable benefit, some risk. That's an assessment that different people will work out different ways based on how they feel about risk, how much time and money they have available to spend on training, etc.

In the case of an obscene/aggressive motto engraved onto a gun, you're paying a small price for something that provides is no added value at all and that incurs a risk at trial that will be difficult to explain away.

So a small cost providing zero benefit and non-zero risk. When something costs you something, provides you essentially nothing and increases your risk, that should be the easiest kind of cost/benefit/risk assessment.

So, actually, by the author's own words, the effect of weapon type was statistically insignificant. If there is a discussion in the article that directly addresses weapon appearance, rather than type, I may have overlooked it.

A useless distinction to the average person for whom the appearance of the gun is very important while the specific type information is essentially meaningless to them. The appearance of the gun IS the type from that perspective.

Post trial interviews and analyses are common. I see/hear/read them constantly.

This is a red herring/non sequitur unless you are claiming that you have asked a juror/heard a juror asked if the appearance of the firearm made a difference in the outcome of the case.

Better than relying on statistically insignificant variables, I'd say.

Could you please cite/provide the analysis on which you base the claim that weapon appearance is a "statistically insignificant variable" in the outcome of court cases?

Behaviors which do not "fit the classic schema" can cause victim blaming.

Correct. Which is why behaviors that do not fit the classic schema AND provide no benefit are an unwarranted risk.

What does the study say about this directly?

It says that it is a risk. This is why it's important to distinguish between risk that has benefit vs. risk that provides no benefit.

A risk that comes with considerable benefit (training) may be worth the risk of incurring negative juror perception and the cost of an expert witness to explain it if it gives you a significantly improved chance of saving your life in a violent encounter.

Engraving an obscene/aggressive motto on your gun provides no tangible benefit which means that even a tiny amount of increased risk outweighs it.

 

[Jlr2267]

That's silly don't you think? To base your beliefs in fairytales in the same way you base your beliefs of factual evidence (or not).?

I think everyone one would agree that flying dragon is widely accepted to be folklore.


The fact that this subject is 5 pages long is a great indication that your view isn't widely accepted.

No, I don't think it is silly at all to "not believe" in things for which there is no evidence. Is it not a reasonable position to disbelieve based on lack of evidence, but remain open to any evidence (as I stated above)?

In this case, the only evidence presented (the study linked by Kleanbore) actually states that the effect of "gun type" was statistically insignificant w/regard to conviction rate. Granted, I'm assuming that "gun type" is synonymous with "gun appearance" in the above discussion. Here is the quote:

" Our analyses of guilty and non-guilty verdict decisions found that females were more likely to find the defendant guilty (regardless of defendant gender). The other effects didn't reach statistical significance (though some were close) but there was some indication that the AR-15 usage was detrimental to a defendant's chances of acquittal."

Also, the number of adherents to a belief is no indication of its validity.

 

[Jlr2267]

Could you please cite/provide the analysis on which you base the claim that weapon appearance is a "statistically insignificant variable" in the outcome of court cases?

see Kleanbore's link above:

"Our analyses of guilty and non-guilty verdict decisions found that females were more likely to find the defendant guilty (regardless of defendant gender). The other effects didn't reach statistical significance (though some were close) but there was some indication that the AR-15 usage was detrimental to a defendant's chances of acquittal. "

I read the above to say that "gun type" was not statistically significant, but we think it might have proved to be if we'd conducted a sufficient power DOE.

 

[JohnKSa]

...see Kleanbore's link above:...

The only way to reach that conclusion from the link is to pretend that sentencing is not part of the outcome of a court case. Clearly nonsense.

No, I don't think it is silly at all to "not believe" in things for which there is no evidence.

This is a correct statement. The problem comes when a person goes into the evidence collection process having rigidly defined what they will and won't accept as "evidence".

Also, the number of adherents to a belief is no indication of its validity.

That is correct. However, when a number of qualified and knowledgeable persons espouse a particular belief related to their qualifications and experience, it's at least worthwhile to listen to what evidence and arguments they present rather than rejecting it out of hand as not being evidence.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Jlr2267:

Post trial interviews and analyses are common. I see/hear/read them constantly.

Not that common. Jurors are generally rather closed mouthed. Ever hear a juror say "I decided he was guilty because of the tattoo"? But if you have served on a jury, have you noticed how the appearance of a defendant may have influenced the way in which other testimony was received?

The fact that you may not have ever seen or heard of a particular aspect of a trial cannot and will not provide you with any basis whatsoever for discounting the potential importance of that aspect of how jurors may have come to their conclusions regarding guilt or innocence.

You can learn a lot about this subject from Massad Ayoob in MAG-20, a classroom course on use of force law. Some of the things that influence jurors will be discussed--including, for example, markings on the barrel of guns. Some of the things that one should document as having learned in formal training will be outlined. And you will have time during the instructor's smoke breaks to personally discuss this particular issue with him, as long as he continues to find the interaction worth while.

From your comments, it is clear to me that you really need it.

http://massadayoobgroup.com/mag-20-classroom/​

Every decision that every citizen makes regarding self defense is a matter of risk management.

Do I go to that store at night, or stay home to avoid the risk exposure, and go tomorrow ?

Do I make it a point to carry a firearm most of the time, or so I choose to accept the risk of a violent criminal attack unmitigated?

Do I carry when walking on ice, or do i reduce the risk of serious injury by leaving it at home?

Do I learn how to draw and shoot effectively, to increase the effectiveness of my defensive ability and to reduce the risk of collateral damage, or do I worry about someone making an issue of my having trained?

The Meyer study indicates that the appearance of certain guns may, all other her things being equal, influence jurors adversely---"there was some indication that the AR-15 usage was detrimental to a defendant's chances of acquittal". The likelihood may not be great, but when one considers the finality of conviction, that is a risk to be concerned with.

And it really does not take very much in the way of discussion with other people, including many long-time shooters, to make one realize that "black rifles" and black pistol grip shotguns with lights and cartridge holders on them, and other "mean guns", can leave a rather bad taste in the mouths of many people. I suggest that an AK-47 would likely be worse.

Don't get the idea that the prosecutor will say anything about it. It will simply be shown to the jurors, and it will remain in the courtroom for their contemplation for the duration of the trial.

Does that mean that one should not choose an M-4 carbine for self defense? Well, we learn at training sessions that an M-4 is a lot easier for many people, and for many women in particular, to use effectively and safely than a small DA revolver, or a 12GA pump shotgun.

So, it is a matter of balancing risks and benefits. I think that on balance, an M-4 is a very good choice, all things considered, for home defense, with one exception: it will not be where you need it all the time unless you want to walk around with it all the time.

I don't see any benefit whatsoever in inscriptions and symbols on firearms.

But I see plenty of risks.

Let Mr. Ayoob explain it to you. Arguing the point here is not helping you at all.

Or anyone else.

 

[Jlr2267]

The only way to reach that conclusion from the link is to pretend that sentencing is not part of the outcome of a court case. Clearly nonsense.

Ok, to be clear, my point is that "gun type" is not a statistically significant variable in determining *conviction* rate (per the study). Your precise question moved the goalpost a bit by recasting the dependent variable as "outcome" as opposed to "conviction"

If you'd read through the entire thread you would know that this distinction has already been noted.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Reloadron:

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.

Anyone who has done any serious reading, studying, or thinking about the lawful use of force knows very well that any indication of an intent to kill can be extremely damaging to a defense of justification.

One's having made such a statement in permanent, discoverable electronic ink in a public forum would constitute just such an indication.

What is the difference between using one of these guns:

well, that's what we have been discussing: what difference will be perceived by those who judge the facts available afterward.

 

[danez71]

No, I don't think it is silly at all to "not believe" in things for which there is no evidence. Is it not a reasonable position to disbelieve based on lack of evidence, but remain open to any evidence (as I stated above)?

.

That is not what you have done.

What you have done is chosen to fabricate an answer (the risk is nil) in absence of narrowly specific info*.


*Relative info has been presented to you but you're dismissing it as its not the sole piece of info that you requested.

 

[Jlr2267]

Posted by Jlr2267:

Not that common. Jurors are generally rather closed mouthed. Ever hear a juror say "I decided he was guilty because of the tattoo"? But if you have served on a jury, have you noticed how the appearance of a defendant may have influenced the way in which other testimony was received?

The fact that you may not have ever seen or heard of a particular aspect of a trial cannot and will not provide you with any basis whatsoever for discounting the potential importance of that aspect of how jurors may have come to their conclusions regarding guilt or innocence.

You can learn a lot about this subject from Massad Ayoob in MAG-20, a classroom course on use of force law. Some of the things that influence jurors will be discussed--including, for example, markings on the barrel of guns. Some of the things that one should document as having learned in formal training will be outlined. And you will have time during the instructor's smoke breaks to personally discuss this particular issue with him, as long as he continues to find the interaction worth while.

From your comments, it is clear to me that you really need it.

http://massadayoobgroup.com/mag-20-classroom/​

Every decision that every citizen makes regarding self defense is a matter of risk management.

Do I go to that store at night, or stay home to avoid the risk exposure, and go tomorrow ?

Do I make it a point to carry a firearm most of the time, or so I choose to accept the risk of a violent criminal attack unmitigated?

Do I carry when walking on ice, or do i reduce the risk of serious injury by leaving it at home?

Do I learn how to draw and shoot effectively, to increase the effectiveness of my defensive ability and to reduce the risk of collateral damage, or do I worry about someone making an issue of my having trained?

The Meyer study indicates that the appearance of certain guns may, all other her things being equal, influence jurors adversely---"there was some indication that the AR-15 usage was detrimental to a defendant's chances of acquittal". The likelihood may not be great, but when one considers the finality of conviction, that is a risk to be concerned with.

And it really does not take very much in the way of discussion with other people, including many long-time shooters, to make one realize that "black rifles" and black pistol grip shotguns with lights and cartridge holders on them, and other "mean guns", can leave a rather bad taste in the mouths of many people. I suggest that an AK-47 would likely be worse.

Don't get the idea that the prosecutor will say anything about it. It will simply be shown to the jurors, and it will remain in the courtroom for their contemplation for the duration of the trial.

Does that mean that one should not choose an M-4 carbine for self defense? Well, we learn at training sessions that an M-4 is a lot easier for many people, and for many women in particular, to use effectively and safely than a small DA revolver, or a 12GA pump shotgun.

So, it is a matter of balancing risks and benefits. I think that on balance, an M-4 is a very good choice, all things considered, for home defense, with one exception: it will not be where you need it all the time unless you want to walk around with it all the time.

I don't see any benefit whatsoever in inscriptions and symbols on firearms.

But I see plenty of risks.

Let Mr. Ayoob explain it to you. Arguing the point here is not helping you at all.

Or anyone else.

Kleanbore I appreciate your detailed and civil responses. I'm constantly amazed at how dissenting opinion is met on THR with personal attacks (by mods no less).

I also appreciate the link. I will look into it.

Apparently, somehow, somewhere, someone *has* in fact interviewed jurors, otherwise one could not make the claim that these aesthetic variables have an influence on juries. I am simply seeking that evidence rather than opinions...something that is evidently not tolerated very well on THR.

 

[JohnKSa]

Ok, to be clear, my point is that "gun type" is not a statistically significant variable in determining *conviction* rate (per the study). Your precise question moved the goalpost a bit by recasting the dependent variable as "outcome" as opposed to "conviction"

If you'd read through the entire thread you would know that this distinction has already been noted.

I've read the thread and I know when you started trying to make the distinction.

All the way through your last post on the fourth page--made just a few hours ago, you were still focused on gun decoration (as opposed to gun appearance/type). And it wasn't until your first post on the fifth page that you started explicitly differentiating between sentencing and conviction.

I can see why you want to narrow the topic and exclude the evidence pertaining to sentencing since it doesn't support your initial premise. But at some point don't you think your efforts would be better spent examining and assimilating the available evidence instead of trying to find reasons to exclude it?

I am simply seeking that evidence rather than opinions...something that is evidently not tolerated very well on THR.

Excluding all evidence that you disagree with and calling it opinion is not seeking evidence. It's the opposite of it.

Opinions and evidence are all tolerated very well on THR, but those who hold opinions that don't match the evidence shouldn't expect to be able to voice those opinions without the inconsistency being pointed out.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Jlr2267, quoting from the study that I cited:

" Our analyses of guilty and non-guilty verdict decisions found that females were more likely to find the defendant guilty (regardless of defendant gender). The other effects didn't reach statistical significance (though some were close) but there was some indication that the AR-15 usage was detrimental to a defendant's chances of acquittal."

You have taken out of context one statement that addresses only one part of the study.

You seem to have missed the following entirely. Quoting Dr. Meyer:

Finally, after the case presentations, participants were asked to render a verdict by assessing guilt and/or assigning a sentence. Mock jurors were drawn from two separate populations: college students at Trinity University – a liberal arts college in San Antonio, Texas; or community college students at the Alamo Community College, also in San Antonio, Texas. In the first study with Trinity University liberal arts students, the burglar was male and the homeowner was male. We presented the case scenarios and asked mock jurors to recommend sentencing judgments (time periods of incarceration) for the homeowner-defendant based on six different possible guns used in the shooting.

The Effects of Juror Gender and Weapon Type

Women delivered the homeowner defendants higher sentences than men (Male average = 3.9 years and female average = 5.7 years). Importantly the average recommended sentence when the homeowner used the AR-15 weapon was 7.2 years for male subjects and 8.5 for females. This was significantly higher than any of the other gun types. The handguns had the lowest recommended sentences (in the two to four year range).

We replicated the experiment with students from the local community college who were older and had different socio-economic status and life experiences than liberal arts students. We focused on two gun scenarios, the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14. Both are equally potent but the latter looks less aggressive to some. We also analyzed judgment of guilt versus innocence. In direct comparison – the AR-15 yielded significantly longer mean recommended sentences in the order of seven to nine years as compared to the Ruger (approximately two and a half years). On the verdict side, the percent of guilty judgments was approximately 65% for the AR-15 vs. 45% for the Ruger

 

[danez71]

Apparently, somehow, somewhere, someone *has* in fact interviewed jurors, otherwise one could not make the claim that these aesthetic variables have an influence on juries. I am simply seeking that evidence rather than opinions...something that is evidently not tolerated very well on THR.

The issue really boils down to (as already pointed out) is the issue of whether or not visual appearance of firearms can have an affect on the perception of a person that sees it.

There is overwhelming evidence that is in fact the case.


For decades, people have been falsely lead to believe that pistol gripped semi auto rifles (AR15 .556) are more deadly than traditional stocked rifles (Mini30 .308)

Not because of the caliber or capacity or rate of fire; but because of how they appear.


It's not that requesting evidence isn't tolerated here.... its that you don't want to provide any to support yourself and are narrowly defining what you'll accept as evidencefor other is what's having a hard time being tolerated.

 

[Jlr2267]

The problem comes when a person goes into the evidence collection process having rigidly defined what they will and won't accept as "evidence".

I agree. I do not consider forum member opinions as evidence. The only evidence (in my opinion) presented in this thread is the one study linked which actually contradicts the assertion that "gun type" affects conviction rate. That study concluded that "gun type" does affect sentence length, which I accept as good evidence, and have previously acknowledged.

So, what evidence have I rigidly refused to accept? Please point it out and I will reconsider.

That is correct. However, when a number of qualified and knowledgeable persons espouse a particular belief related to their qualifications and experience, it's at least worthwhile to listen to what evidence and arguments they present rather than rejecting it out of hand as not being evidence.

Ok, who are you refering to as qualified and knowledgeable, and how do you assess their qualifications and knowledge...or do you just accept an argument from authority? This is a serious question, not trying to argue, but I know nothing of the qualifications of any person posting in this thread. To accept random forum comments as authoritative seems naive at best.

 

[Jlr2267]

Posted by Jlr2267, quoting from the study that I cited:



You have taken out of context one statement that addresses only one part of the study.

You seem to have missed the following entirely. Quoting Dr. Meyer:

​

Did I not explicitly acknowledge that gun type was shown to contribute to sentence length? I don't see how, given that acknowledgement, you would characterize my citation as "out of context"

 

[Jlr2267]

I've read the thread and I know when you started trying to make the distinction.

All the way through your last post on the fourth page--made just a few hours ago, you were still focused on gun decoration (as opposed to gun appearance/type).

Are they not the same thing, and didn't you say as much yourself ?

And it wasn't until your first post on the fifth page that you started explicitly differentiating between sentencing and conviction.

Yes, that's because after reading the study (ie, evidence), it was clear that the gun type had an effect on sentence, but not conviction. Would you rather I continue to argue the point, or acknowledge the facts and move on?

I can see why you want to narrow the topic and exclude the evidence pertaining to sentencing since it doesn't support your initial premise.

That's a rather cynical and defensive conclusion to reach. I clearly acknowledged the sentencing aspect...what else would you like me to do? Do we need to continue arguing a settled point?

 

[Jlr2267]

That is not what you have done.

What you have done is chosen to fabricate an answer (the risk is nil) in absence of narrowly specific info*.

I don't have a definitive answer, which is why I use the word *assume*

*Relative info has been presented to you but you're dismissing it as its not the sole piece of info that you requested.

[/QUOTE]

where did I dismiss evidence?

 

[danez71]

Ok, who are you refering to as qualified person <snip>. This is a serious question, not trying to argue, but I know nothing of the qualifications of any person posting in this thread. To accept random forum comments as authoritative seems naive at best.

If you didn't selectively read what you've selectively quoted from, you'd have read the following

Dr. Glenn E. Meyer is a Professor of Psychology at Trinity University, located in San Antonio, Texas. His areas of research are cognitive psychology and visual perception. Recently he has focused on the social cognition of aggression as it relates to the legal ramifications of firearms usage and has participated in several high end training events involving critical incidents.

Just a cpl minutes of Google turns up all kinds of credential info.

 

[Jlr2267]

If you didn't selectively read what you've selectively quoted from, you'd have read the following





Just a cpl minutes of Google turns up all kinds of credential info.

I read the entire article. Some relevant conclusions:

1) gun type affects sentence length
2) gun type is not a statistically significant factor in conviction rate
3) behaviors considered "outside the norm" can have a negative effect on juries
4) women who train with firearms face more negative outcomes by jury

I accept all of this as a legitimate study at face value...so what is your point?