Laser = Intent?

[eastwood44mag]

I was talking to a guy at the shop the other day, who said LEO's cannot use laser sights/grips in our area, because they "show intent" to kill and "victim's rights" attorneys are able to crucify them in court.

Can anyone confirm or deny this? It sounds like BS, but I wouldn't be surprised by the stupidity of the Chicago-land public.

 

[Low-Sci]

I think that's a load of ponyloaf.

While this wasn't a police application, I was reading an article by Massad Ayoob wherein a citizen stopped an aggressor with a single shot to the head, and was able to do so because of a laser sight he had on his pistol.

When the whole mess went to trial the attorney did try to crucify the guy by saying his laser sight indicated intent, but it didn't fly.

If it didn't fly against a citizen, I doubt it would against a cop, whose duty weapon is carried all the time.

I would think its much more likely that cops in your area can't use laser sights or grips because their particular department has rules for standard equipment that are narrowly read.

 

[bowfin]

I don't think intent can be proven by pointing a laser sight at a person. I guess it means that the weapon was drawn and aimed, but I pull up my shotgun when a bird flushes up at my feet, but don't decide to shoot until I see it is a rooster or a hen. No game warden equates shouldering a gun with the intent to poach a hen.

Actually if I were the defense attorney, I would use the laser dot as a sign that the deceased guy was given a clear heads up and one last chance to bow out of the confrontation, and that deadly consequences were imminent but ignored.

However, Navy pilots are taught to use deadly force when "painted" by targeting radars of aircraft and missile sites, when flying regular patrol or intercept missions. What, if any, of that could be carried over to the debate at hand I don't know.

 

[Steve in PA]

So........pointing a gun without a laser is okay, but pointing a gun with a laser violates someone's rights?

Pure BS.

 

[steelhead]

I was talking to a guy at the shop the other day, who said LEO's cannot use laser sights/grips in our area, because they "show intent" to kill and "victim's rights" attorneys are able to crucify them in court.

Sounds like the guy who was telling me he was a sniper in Vietnam, at the age of 15, because he was so good in JROTC......

Bunk
Balderdash

 

[geekWithA.45]

The bottom line is that you don't point a gun @ someone unless they've satisfied the criteria of

* means
* proximity
* jeopardy

in terms of their ability to cause you death or serious bodily harm.

 

[Jeff White]

It's not statewide. I know several officers down here who have lasers. It's either a department policy or someone trying to impress the guys at the gunshop with his knowledge of these matters.

Jeff

 

[tepin]

Sounds like crap to me. Same logic could be applied to anyone with a permit to carry and carrying a gun. You could play it the other way and suggest the laser is used to increase accuracy and thus save lives.

 

[WYO]

In your area, does:

gun=intent?
bullets=intent?
loaded gun=intent?
tritium sights=intent?
ccw=intent?
carrying a gun=intent?

If the answers to all of the above are in the negative, I don't see how laser signts could equal intent.

 

[answerguy]

You could play it the other way and suggest the laser is used to increase accuracy and thus save lives.

Increased accuracy certainly isn't going to save the life of the bad guy.

 

[Hardtarget]

Careful now...next thing you know we'll be required to use lasers. That way we can just shoot the gun out of the BG's hand. Or maybe just wound them...that way we can be sued in court for violating his "thugs civil rights".
Mark.

 

[Cosmoline]

Absolute, total, complete and utter HOGWASH. Of course, that doesn't mean people won't be bringing it up again and again and again because a friend of their neighbor's brother's dog told them you can't use lasers. Stop getting all worked up over intent. Worry about whether your use of lethal force is justified, don't worry about "intent." Just trust me that the question of whether a shot was justified as self defense has nothing to do with whether you "intended to kill" when you aimed the weapon and pulled the trigger. Your intent will be presumed from your actions, and lethality will be presumed from the dead guy. Don't shoot anybody you don't mean to kill. Comprende?

 

[Stevie-Ray]

However, Navy pilots are taught to use deadly force when "painted" by targeting radars of aircraft and missile sites, when flying regular patrol or intercept missions. What, if any, of that could be carried over to the debate at hand I don't know.

When did this change? ROE for any service pilot was always not to fire until "fired upon." Being "painted" wasn't good enough until there were actual birds in the air.

Has US ROE changed since the war on terror?

 

[thexrayboy]

If a DA can roast you for putting a laser on your gun to improve your aim he can roast you for putting on tritium night sights, or any other aftermarket
device that improves your ability to hit point of aim. Sounds like a big steamin pile from a guy with a defective connection between frontal lobes and larynx.

 

[GRIZ22]

LE agencies I know of who ban lasers do so as they are worried about litigation because of eye damage not intent.

 

[bubbygator]

However, think about the implied threat in a reverse situation. A LEO arrives at an apartment complex on the report of a shooting. He steps out of his car & sees a laser dot on his chest. What does he do?? I believe there was a case like this in FL (Ft. Lauderdale??) where the LEO fired at the body who was sighting him from a 2nd floor window & the court ruled it was a justified shooting - even though the laser had not been attached to a gun.

But I couldn't find the reference I thought I read, so maybe it's all hypothetical.

 

[CrackerJim]

I believe it was on this forum, that somebody brought up the argument (not sure if argued in court) that having a laser for a civilian was actually a legal benefit in a self defense situation. The laser allowed for better control of the weapon and less risk of innocent bystanders getting hit.

Jim

 

[orionengnr]

Dang it. I just bought a Crimson Trace for my 1911.

Now I probably won't be able to give it away...

Just my luck.

 

[ripcurlksm]

This is true for LE in CA... under "mayhem"

It is legal for CA residents to use laser sights at the range or for HD however.

 

[ecbaatz]

New Crimson Trace Grips

Hey, I will take the grips off your hands. I can put them on my other 1911 to match the ones I just got. (GRIN)

Eric

I know I am being too helpful.

 

[Zoogster]

I wouldn't want a laser on a defense gun anyways. If you have a laser pointed in your direction you instantly have the exact location of the source even without looking in that direction. It is also subconciously going to draw fire to you in a gun battle I would imagine as the bright red glowing source would be attracting, and distracting the perps attention to you. Your point of aim also is constantly changing while your pointing a gun at the target and although the mere milisecond it takes to aim and fire while already aiming at the target is a non issue, it might give confidence to someone when you shift slightly and the dot goes off them to take some sort of action. Your giving them a little too much information. In a self defense situation firing often never is necessary, but making phone calls, detaining/securing the perp, or any number of other actions while holding the weapon are. If there is a perp in your home and shooting was unnecessary but you now have a criminal in your home what are you going to do? Just stand there aiming forever unsure if they have a weapon hidden, are going to charge you at any moment, or are going to flee? Better have someone else living with you to make the calls if that is the extent of your plans. More than likely you are going to have several more steps to accomplish while covering the perp. Giving them a good indication when your aim is not directly on them by having a laser informing them is probably not the best idea.

Now for hunting/pest control I think they are much more useful.