Weapons type at trial

[Madcap_Magician]

And a "woke" prosecutor will say you're a "cop wannabe".

There's nothing that can't be turned back on you given enough malice and stupidity.

I think the overarching point is that you should be able to rationally and reasonably explain why you have what you have, why you carried what you carried, and that you should not make it easy for a malicious or stupid prosecutor to have a field day painting you like a nut job. Are they going to attempt to do that? Yes, and all the more reason you shouldn't make it easy by posting stupid things on social media, adding violent or aggressive decorative imagery to your guns, etc.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

Traveling to other states to protect the property of total strangers really isn't on my to-do list.

The kid was in town because his father lives in Kenosha, but I see the false narrative put out has taken hold

 

[Kleanbore]

So if you were a defendant and your jury will probably be made up of regular folks (i.e. not THR members), would you want the prosecutor to hold up an AR or a lever action rifle?

That's the crux of the matter.

 

[Kleanbore]

To the larger question: I have severe doubts about the type of sidearm used in self defense having much play in criminal court.

The results of scientifically-conducted jury simulation experiments tell us that the appearance of a weapon shown in court can influence trial outcomes.

 

[Deanimator]

The kid was in town because his father lives in Kenosha, but I see the false narrative put out has taken hold

Does HE live in Kenosha?

Regardless, the kid is manifestly not guilty of that with which he's been charged.

 

[GEM]

We are wandering off my point, but that's ok. The DA tried to make the point that Kenosha wasn't 'related' to Kyle but Kyle pointed out significant ties and relatives in the area. I thought that point was negated.

As far as the rifle type and THR members - gun knowledge is a double edged and complex issue. Don't assume a gun owner will be on 'your side'. We know from the AWB debates that the Zumbo type and some other gun writers denounced the military style semi automatic rifles as inappropriate for civilians and as weapons of war. They later recanted as commercial pressure was brought on their periodicals. In research, some knowledgeable gun owners looked askance at 'assault' weapons as indicating the user didn't know what they were doing and were 'blood lusted' so to speak. Be a Punisher skull type and the more sophisticated gun owner may not think highly of you.

Archie - both actual trials and simulation studies indicate gun type and ammo types are brought up and influence opinion. If you don't read the legal and behavioral literature, personal severe doubts are not a good indicator. Now, folks will 'say' if it's a good shoot, blah, blah.

It is not a good shoot if you are on trial, so forget that. It isn't like professional legal and behavioral minds haven't tested these concepts.

Madicap gets the point very well.

 

[danez71]

Does HE live in Kenosha?

He does part time.

 

[Deanimator]

My salutations to Ohio. Some states have no such protection.

Violent criminals and their survivors should never be allowed to profit from their own inadequate predatory skills.

 

[danez71]

both actual trials and simulation studies indicate gun type and ammo types are brought up and influence opinion.

I cited an example of a real case on page 1.

Mr Fish. AZ, 2006. 10mm.

That he used a 10mm was brought up as issue in the case a cited as being influential in the original conviction.

 

[Archie]

The results of scientifically-conducted jury simulation experiments tell us that the appearance of a weapon shown in court can influence trial outcomes.

Whereas I am sure that is correct, as far as it goes, the influence is probably greater where the circumstances of the event are less settled.

 

[Archie]

Violent criminals and their survivors should never be allowed to profit from their own inadequate predatory skills.

I quite agree. Nor should incompetence be a mitigating factor.

 

[codytrucker]

I AM NOT AN EXPERT!
The type of weapon used will end up being irrelevant anyway . If you use anything ever military issue , or style it will be portrayed as a weapon of war , and your a bad guy. If you use a revolver or semi-auto , it will be a "saturday night special" preferred by thugs and criminals , and your a bad guy. Use exactly what the local police use and your a vigilante , and a bad guy. whatever your choice of ammunition , it will be wrong ,meant to cause excessive damage , and /or be designed for war. A prosecutor is NEVER going to turn to the jury and say " well , at least the choice of weapon and ammo was perfect and give a big thumbs up.
So you had better make your best choice and live with your decision. Heaven help anyone who ends up in a politically motivated trial. I hate to think of this young mans fate if it weren't for video .

 

[Kleanbore]

Violent criminals and their survivors should never be allowed to profit from their own inadequate predatory skills.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it is a longstanding principle of law that a victim of a tort should be made whole, and the courts are the place in which that is done.

The burden of persuasion is lower than for a criminal conviction, requiring only a preponderance of the evidence than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" judgment. Also, a unanimous verdict is not required. Therefore, that a prosecutor fails to obtain a criminal conviction does not mean that the act was justified from the standpoint of a civil judgment.

Some states do have a provision that provides for immunity from criminal prosecution and/or from civil liability in the case of a justified use of defensive force. To obtain such immunity, defendant requests an immunity hearing. Both sides present evidence in court; the threshold for judgment is a preponderance of the evidence.

If immunity is granted, the case will not go to a full blown trial. If not, it will.

There are reasons why defendant may choose to not request an immunity hearing.

 

[Kleanbore]

I AM NOT AN EXPERT!

Right. You have offered conjecture where we already have expert opinion supported by evidence.

An you have misunderstood the point, which is that the mere showing of certain kinds such firearms, perhaps pistol grip shotguns or shotguns with perforated barrel jackets, can influence a jury unfavorably. The prosecutor need say nothing about it

 

[GEM]

That is the case, in simulations - increasing levels of exposure to the weapon in the same scenario were negative to the actors in the trial.

 

[reddog81]

would you want the prosecutor to hold up an AR or a lever action rifle? Forget about the lawyers, put yourself in the shoes of the jury members.

Why would you bring a hunting rifle to a protest? Were you planning on hunting people? What about that hunting ammo you were using? Of course none of this would be relevant because Kyle would probably have been shot by Gage G. or beaten by protesters if he had been armed with a lever action and had to take the time to reload.

 

[Deanimator]

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but it is a longstanding principle of law that a victim of a tort should be made whole, and the courts are the place in which that is done.

Nobody should be able to mitigate their failure to profit from harming an innocent person outside of the courtroom by having a second go in a civil court.

If you're harmed trying to rob, maim, rape or murder somebody, you should never get to recoup your losses incurred from your own attempt to harm another, in civil court.

Your ineptitude as a predator imposes no financial obligations on your intended prey.

 

[Kleanbore]

Nobody should be able to mitigate their failure to profit from harming an innocent person outside of the courtroom by having a second go in a civil court.

No, and that is not what civil liability is about.

There are limits on what we allow people to do in use of force incidents.

The fact that someone has been harmed in an altercation does not make him a bad guy. The courts decide that.

 

[GEM]

As far as bringing a hunting rifle to some public brouhaha, in past civil rights demonstrations, the African-American protestors brought hunting rifles and sporting shotguns. See the occupation of Cornell University. People bring what they have at the time.

 

[readyeddy]

Why would you bring a hunting rifle to a protest? Were you planning on hunting people? What about that hunting ammo you were using? Of course none of this would be relevant because Kyle would probably have been shot by Gage G. or beaten by protesters if he had been armed with a lever action and had to take the time to reload.

You're comment shows how a juror with gun knowledge might react. This is important because it is possible that you might find like minded people on the jury. So although we try to make general observations of how a "typical" jury might react to a particular gun type, every jury is unique, and jury selection will ultimately determine how the evidence is viewed by the decision maker.

Also, the typical jury makeup will change based on location. So how my community would likely react to an AR is likely different from how your community would react. I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer on this topic.

 

[Deanimator]

No, and that is not what civil liability is about.

There are limits on what we allow people to do in use of force incidents.

The fact that someone has been harmed in an altercation does not make him a bad guy. The courts decide that.

The unlawful infliction of death or great bodily harm, or the use of threat of same to dispossess or physically impose on another isn't an "altercation", any more than Pearl Harbor was "an airshow gone wrong".

And yes, trying to rob, rape, maim or murder somebody makes you a bad guy. You deserve no sympathy, much less extortion after the fact of your victim, if harm comes to you while doing it.

 

[Kleanbore]

The unlawful infliction...trying to rob, rape, maim or murder somebody....You deserve no ... if harm comes to you while doing it

Who would contend otherwise?

That's why we have courts.

 

[Deanimator]

Who would contend otherwise?

BLM, Antifa, a bunch of big city prosecutors... shall I go on?

Violent predators should never be allowed to recoup in civil court what they lost through their willful attempts to harm the innocent. Failing to rob me on the street shouldn't be an open invitation to rob me in civil court.

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

Why would you bring a hunting rifle to a protest? Were you planning on hunting people? What about that hunting ammo you were using? Of course none of this would be relevant because Kyle would probably have been shot by Gage G. or beaten by protesters if he had been armed with a lever action and had to take the time to reload.

Strangely enough there was at least one person with a hunting rifle in Kenosha the night of the shooting. In a video of the immediate aftermath of the shooting people gather around the people shot and a guy had a synthetic stocked bolt action action with a scope. He took a shooting type stance and kept scanning the area through his scope I guess looking for threats.

I can only assume that he was one of the "peaceful protesting" regulars because the rest of the crowd were not concerned about him

 

[BlueHeelerFl]

Does HE live in Kenosha?

Regardless, the kid is manifestly not guilty of that with which he's been charged.

When I was a teenager, including at age 17, my parents had long been divorced and I would spend part of the summer at my Dad's, who resided in another state.

So during the summer I lived in my Dad's town.