Just put my hand on my pistol!
- Thread starter Owen Sparks
- Start date
- Status
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
That quote is attributed to a USMC general officer* who has something of a reputation for fire-breathing. What might be an appropriate philosophy in a genuine combat zone is probably not what you'd want to be known to endorse in what passes for normal society in the US...
* http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Mattis
* http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Mattis
Very well put.
That quote proved troublesome when used out of context by the prosecution in the trials of Larry Hickey in Arizona after what should have been a relatively clear case of self defense involving disparity of force.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Yeah but anything can be troublesome if used by the prosecution against a legitimate self defense shooting...
True - but there's no reason to supply potential prosecutors with online quotes to use against you. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=604948
True - but there's no reason to supply potential prosecutors with online quotes to use against you. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=604948
Gordon
Member
What goes thru my head is " is it a justified good shoot?"
"Is the back stop clear " "what are the appropriate mechanics I must use to present and aim in this situation"
"is there another way out of this?" " is the red line of no return when I see a weapon or when I hands laid upon me ? "
"is it justified ?"
"Is the back stop clear " "what are the appropriate mechanics I must use to present and aim in this situation"
"is there another way out of this?" " is the red line of no return when I see a weapon or when I hands laid upon me ? "
"is it justified ?"
Not sure what that is supposed to mean.
The shooter will affirm that he or she did the deed; the forensic evidence will prove it.
The shooter will--must--present evidence that his or her action was justified. Since the deed did not happen on a movie set, the evidence will likely be fragmentary.
The state will look for other evidence. The triers of fact will cosider all of the evidence presented to them.
The reason that evidence that the shooter has used the quote in question or ones like it, or even that it was presented in training that he has taken (as in the case of the Hickey trials) is that it can be used as an indication of state of mind.
It may only take one more piece of evidence on one side or the other to decide the question of reasonable doubt.
My point is that anything you do, or don't do, can be construed as a desire to use your weapon to kill. If you use JHPs, a prosecutor can say you're using cop-killer bullets that even the Army doesn't allow. If you use FMJs, a prosecutor can say you're negligent because you obviously don't care if anyone behind your target gets hit.
So yeah, I worry primarily about what's legal and what's right when I approach self defense, not about what could potentially be used subjectively against me. I overanalyze and play devil's advocate too well; I'd spend all my time focused on that.
So yeah, I worry primarily about what's legal and what's right when I approach self defense, not about what could potentially be used subjectively against me. I overanalyze and play devil's advocate too well; I'd spend all my time focused on that.
Not everything, and certainly not with damaging effect.
That has happened, and it is easily countered by expert testimony.
More likely to happen in a civil trial, but if you do injure someone in a manner in which evidence of reckless disregard indicates criminal negligence, it could come up.
Never underestimate the importance of not creating evidence that you do not want to have used against you.
Signs, posters, bumper stickers, email, letters, internet posts, and T-shirts....
The slogan we have been discussing was in fact used with damaging effect against one defendant.
Anyone who has any familiarity at all with the judicial process should have been concerned the first time it was ever presented to him or her; I would have raised an objection on the spot. It sounds terrible to the average person, and it paints a picture of a dangerous person who may well be predisposed towards violence.
If you read the texts on jury psychology, I hate to tell you but there is good evidence that the objections and instructions to ignore said evidence or statement don't work well. In fact, they may cause the jury to pay MORE attention to the nasty rhetoric or fact.
Thus, why give the prosecution an opening to attack you. There is a disconnect between I OBJECT and what the jury takes away. They may think the objection is legal baloney to cover your bad action.
Been shown. A reasonable expert is a different story as the best model of jury decision making is the story model. The jury has to construct a schema of your actions. Your lawyer has to tell a sensible and compelling story from the start that channels the rest of the trial in your direction. If the jury hears you are a nut, blood lusted or reckless, they will fit your actions into that schema and you are screwed.
There are enough cases out there and research simulations to make one be aware of such.
Thus, why give the prosecution an opening to attack you. There is a disconnect between I OBJECT and what the jury takes away. They may think the objection is legal baloney to cover your bad action.
Been shown. A reasonable expert is a different story as the best model of jury decision making is the story model. The jury has to construct a schema of your actions. Your lawyer has to tell a sensible and compelling story from the start that channels the rest of the trial in your direction. If the jury hears you are a nut, blood lusted or reckless, they will fit your actions into that schema and you are screwed.
There are enough cases out there and research simulations to make one be aware of such.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
