ZeSpectre
Member
answer that seeks to provide a "fits all" answer is foolhardy
And here I thought that "shut up and call your lawyer" WAS the "fits all" answer
answer that seeks to provide a "fits all" answer is foolhardy
cosmoline,
Can you post a cite?
(citation to a previous case, i.e. ILL. V. Jones, 1987)
What I wonder about, is why so few lawyers actually address this topic on various forums. Is it the case that lawyers tend not to be both gun owners and gun forum posters? Perhaps this is to avoid anyone assuming that they had posted "legal advice".
Quote:
answer that seeks to provide a "fits all" answer is foolhardy
And here I thought that "shut up and call your lawyer" WAS the "fits all" answer
Yes, I know “this doesn’t matter if it’s a good shoot.” And I agree, it doesn’t matter if it’s a good shoot; but who decides if it's a good shoot?
So how do you envision a light trigger coming into a case where the defendant admits right off the bat that he did shoot, and that he intended to shoot?
So how do you envision a light trigger coming into a case where the defendant admits right off the bat that he did shoot, and that he intended to shoot?
Focus on proficiency with your gear and tactics, understand how to manage the police, and have a good attorney onhand for any and all questioning.
To summarize: a worked-on trigger will allow either a prosecutor or a plaintiff's attorney to claim that the gun went off accidentally, because of a hair-trigger. This contention, if "proven," would immediately negate the self-defense claim--you can't accidently kill someone in self-defense, by law.
You simply can't be that categorical. If you're on trial at all, it means that the grand jury and/or the DA didn't buy the self defense story. The grand jury and/or the DA decided that there was probable cause to conclude that a crime had been committed and that you did it. Exactly what crime of crimes you'll be charged with, and the prosecutor will try to prove at trial, will depend on exactly what the circumstances were and exactly what evidence may be available. Depending on exactly what the evidence is, and the law in the particular jurisdiction, in a homicide case you might be charged with everything from murder to reckless endangerment, and you could be charged, in the alternative, with various crimes between those two extremes.Steve C said:No prosecutor or lawyer in their right mind would try to overturn a self defense or justifiable homicide defense and argue that "Yes the defendant says he intended to shoot the victim and had every legal right to do so in self defense but the state believes the defendant is lying about their intent and the shooting was accidental and caused by negligence....
What kind of lawyer, what kind of cases, ever been involved in a criminal trial trying to defend against claims of intent by the prosecutor? Being a lawyer does not necessarily make someone suddenly an expert on whether or not something like this would be a moot point in court.2) We get the rare "I am a lawyer..." post that suggests this is a non-issue, but I have yet to see one that says "I was a defendant and I lost my posterior because I had a non-stock gun."
this entire thread is fueled by the FUD of laymen trying to play lawyer