The Real Hawkeye
member
Objection!! Lacks relevance to the self defense justification issue, and assumes facts not in evidence. Motion to strike from the record.
Should you practice quick draw/one hand fire?
- Thread starter The Real Hawkeye
- Start date
- Status
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Objection!
Hawk wrote:
>Objection!! Lacks relevance to the self defense justification issue, and assumes facts not in evidence. Motion to strike from the record.<
***********
Won't matter. Once Briefcase Bob, Soccermom Sue, and other members of the honorable jury has heard it, they can't un-hear it...and the judge can't make'em forget they heard it.
Hawk wrote:
>Objection!! Lacks relevance to the self defense justification issue, and assumes facts not in evidence. Motion to strike from the record.<
***********
Won't matter. Once Briefcase Bob, Soccermom Sue, and other members of the honorable jury has heard it, they can't un-hear it...and the judge can't make'em forget they heard it.
Geronimo45
Member
Yes... theyll probably ask you why you didn't shoot the gun/knife out of his hand instead.
I would answer the question quite directly.
"You have something mixed up or perhaps mistaken - a laser sight does not ensure that the bullets will strike anywhere. It simply replaces the rear and front sight on a firearm and is used in the same manner with hand and eye coordination."
So slick now puts more rope around the neck of his tactic by trying to elaborate and put more emphasis on this laser sight.
Now I object.
.... [eye contact each jury member] Deadly force is justifiable under the law. It is very clear to each and every member of the jury what means of deadly force was used; the issue at hand is whether deadly force was justified - or not - under the law."
Desired result: Slick's ignorance about laser sights is exposed - and the jury is now awakened to the fact that, yes, killing someone is justifiable under the law. It's called a justifiable homicide, and your job today is to decide whether this one was or was not accordingly. Not "how it was done" or "what kind of sight was on the gun".
---------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Juries
I hear ya, LAK...but juries are odd beasts that often turn on a dime or a phrase...or even a facial expression. Like a criminal defense lawyer told me once: "All I have to do is create a doubt, a suspicion, or a question. Doesn't matter if it's based on fact or conjecture. Murderers have been aquitted...Innocent men have hanged...and juries have been sequestered for weeks over a tiny doubt."
Consider an aggressor that required multiple hits before he was stopped. Sue and Bob have both seen the results of shootings on TV, where the victim is hurled over the top of a car. They have their minds made up and very often won't be bothered with facts.
People shot with guns instandly pile up into quivering masses of dying flesh. Why did they have to shoot two or three times?
Answer...in their minds..."You WANTED him to die, and you made sure that he WOULD die by shooting him more than once."
Remember that they know all about it because they saw it on TV.
I hear ya, LAK...but juries are odd beasts that often turn on a dime or a phrase...or even a facial expression. Like a criminal defense lawyer told me once: "All I have to do is create a doubt, a suspicion, or a question. Doesn't matter if it's based on fact or conjecture. Murderers have been aquitted...Innocent men have hanged...and juries have been sequestered for weeks over a tiny doubt."
Consider an aggressor that required multiple hits before he was stopped. Sue and Bob have both seen the results of shootings on TV, where the victim is hurled over the top of a car. They have their minds made up and very often won't be bothered with facts.
People shot with guns instandly pile up into quivering masses of dying flesh. Why did they have to shoot two or three times?
Answer...in their minds..."You WANTED him to die, and you made sure that he WOULD die by shooting him more than once."
Remember that they know all about it because they saw it on TV.
The Real Hawkeye
member
Ok, so the argument is that more force was used than was necessary. This opens up the door for rebuttal evidence, i.e., expert witnesses to testify that it is in fact not the case that one round is always enough. They can also testify that police are trained to fire repeatedly till the attacker is down, which can often mean six or more rounds in rapid succession. All that's required to acquit is a reasonable doubt that the extra rounds were excessive.
Certainly so IMO.
1911Tuner
Ultimately put each juror in your shoes and convince them that they would have most certainly done as you did, and that to do so was lawful and moral.
------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
1911Tuner
Very true; demeanor, eye contact, choice of each and every word, voice tone as appropriate are all important.
Ultimately put each juror in your shoes and convince them that they would have most certainly done as you did, and that to do so was lawful and moral.
Agreed, and a key issue would be the debunking of the myth of handgun "stopping power", and another short introduction to just how iffy in fact on average a single bullet from a handgun is.
------------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
The Real Hawkeye
member
Keep in mind also that if you cannot afford an expert witness, you can spend a few minutes establishing the credentials of an expert and then introduce passages from their books and training manuals, clarifying the point that one round is rarely enough to stop a determined attacker, and that you should fire till the attacker is down. You can also introduce passages from police academy training manuals to the same effect. A smart prosecutor would not wish to open the door to such evidence, however, which is why a smart prosecutor would not imply that you were blood thirsty because you fired more than one round. This implication opens the door to a mountain of experts to the contrary, making the prosecutor look ignorant. By the way, prosecutors are not allowed to communicate to the jury any "information" about the effectiveness of handguns or laser sights. That would be considered testimony (or, if merely implied in a question, "assuming facts not in evidence"), and attorneys on both sides are barred from doing that.
You could also gather cases from the public record - people shot with medium to larger caliber pistol rounds who have gone on to murder their victims. Any autopsy record photos of these victims and their injuries will help.
You could obtain as public record or subpoena the police reports and records of the prosecuting jurisdiction's police agency for all cases where an officer fired and struck an assailant more than one time with a handgun, and the DA's, grand juries', or courts final dispositions on each case.
---------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
You could obtain as public record or subpoena the police reports and records of the prosecuting jurisdiction's police agency for all cases where an officer fired and struck an assailant more than one time with a handgun, and the DA's, grand juries', or courts final dispositions on each case.
---------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
- Status
