Weapons type at trial

[Deanimator]

I agree to a point but that's not the point I was getting to.

What the back and forth is really about is 'what is reasonable' and while that is subjective from person to person, there is a line, somewhere, that most will agree is reasonable or not.

If a person genuinely believes that I'm an alien from the Pleiades and concludes that therefore he needs to behead me with a Hudson Bay axe, that may be a sincerely held belief. It's also in all likelihood a manifestation of mental illness, absent proof. That doesn't negate my right to shoot him in self-defense.

If a prosecutor chooses to prosecute me based on my assailant's assertion that I'm an alien, in all likelihood that's an indication of dishonesty and malice on his part. It may also be an indication of mental illness.

None of this invalidates my choices to avoid mental hospitals and UFO conventions and to not talk to crazy people. My avoidance of crazy people is apt to serve me well in avoiding both self-defense against them and unhinged Marxist prosecutors with axes to grind.

 

[tarosean]

but I was informed by an NRA licensed CHL instructor that it is legal to CC an AR pistol in Ohio. Seemed kinda dubious to me

Legally its a handgun. So if its legal to open carry a handgun in your state you are okay.

 

[Kleanbore]

If a person genuinely believes that I'm an alien from the Pleiades and concludes that therefore he needs to behead me with a Hudson Bay axe, that may be a sincerely held belief. It's also in all likelihood a manifestation of mental illness, absent proof. That doesn't negate my right to shoot him in self-defense.

If a prosecutor chooses to prosecute me based on my assailant's assertion that I'm an alien, in all likelihood that's an indication of dishonesty and malice on his part. It may also be an indication of mental illness.

None of this invalidates my choices to avoid mental hospitals and UFO conventions and to not talk to crazy people. My avoidance of crazy people is apt to serve me well in avoiding both self-defense against them and unhinged Marxist prosecutors with axes to grind

That's getting far, far afield. What on Earth can it have to do with the OP?

 

[Deanimator]

Oh, I get that, certainly. I was just generally addressing that blind faith in video isn’t necessarily all it’s cracked up to be. We’ve seen this to be the case.

People will tell the stupidest, most unconvincing lies about anything if they think it will get them something. Hence the attorney for the Chicago cop who tried to stomp the barmaid to death, claiming in the face of the video of his client's attack, that the 100lb. barmaid tossed her 300lb. assailant around "like a rag doll" and the savage beating was in "self-defense". Needless to say, neither the criminal nor the civil courts were impressed with his "ripping yarn", especially given the universal exposure of the video.

I'm going to stick with judicious behavior and associations and the ubiquity of video cameras rather than hide in my closet in fear that I'm going to be prosecuted for stopping somebody from dismembering me. Even if that happens, the alternative if far worse.

 

[danez71]

If a person genuinely believes that I'm an alien from the Pleiades and concludes that therefore he needs to behead me....

Like this guy?

Canada cannibal says he believed victim was an alien
A Chinese immigrant who beheaded and cannibalised a Canadian bus passenger in front of horrified travelers four years ago spoke out for the first time Tuesday, saying he believed his victim was an alien.

<snip>

.....cutting off his head, removing his internal organs, pocketing his nose, tongue and an ear, and taunting police and bystanders with the severed head....

That doesn't negate my right to shoot him in self-defense.

I think its reasonable to defend yourself as needed.

 

[JohnKSa]

You obviously desperately want to ignore that I conduct myself the same, whether I'm in Chicago or Chardon.

REGARDLESS of how you conduct yourself and REGARDLESS of where you are, you can't control the circumstances well enough to ensure there will NEVER be ambiguity. It's not possible unless you just decide you will never defend yourself and NOBODY is advocating that approach.

One of my core guiding principles is to ... when my strategy doesn't work.

I can't decide if you aren't reading what I post, are intentionally ignoring the content, or if you simply can't understand it. None of that has anything to do with what I have posted.

If a person genuinely believes that ... nst them and unhinged Marxist prosecutors with axes to grind.

This is all pure nonsense. You need to spend more time reading and thinking and less time composing fantasy. There's absolutely no value to you making stuff up and claiming that's what someone else has said when it's not. It's a waste of your time, and it's a waste of other people's time.

This is a discussion about things that can be factors in real world trials--it's not a test of what kind of bizarre strawmen you can think up and post.

I'm going to stick with judicious behavior and associations and the ubiquity of video cameras rather than hide in my closet in fear that I'm going to be prosecuted for stopping somebody from dismembering me.

OF COURSE. You should always be smart about what you do and who you associate with. And there's no need to hide in a closet nor is anyone advocating that--that's simply another strawman you dreamed up.

What you need to understand is that your strategy has limitations. You firmly believe that it will ensure that you could never be in a self-defense situation where the circumstances are ambiguous but you are overestimating what it can do as I have illustrated with logic, thought experiments and a real world example.

Your strategy is good--stick with it. But you need to understand its limitations AND, more importantly, you need to be prepared for the possibility that it might not work perfectly--because it might not.

 

[Deanimator]

What you need to understand is that your strategy has limitations. You firmly believe that it will ensure that you could never be in a self-defense situation where the circumstances are ambiguous but you are overestimating what it can do as I have illustrated with logic, thought experiments and a real world example.

What strategy DOESN'T have limitations?

It may fail. It's unlikely to fail because of my actions. I don't control the evil or mental illness of others.

 

[JohnKSa]

What strategy DOESN'T have limitations?

That's been my point all along. You claimed your strategy would ensure you NEVER (your emphasis, not mine) end up in an ambiguous self-defense situation. The fact is that there's no way to make such a claim and be accurate--people simply can't control the future or circumstances that well.

I don't control the evil or mental illness of others.

EXACTLY! That's why topics like this can be very important to think about. If, through no fault of your own, you end up being prosecuted for self-defense, doesn't it make sense to know about the possible ways the prosecutor might try to tip the scales against you? I think it does.

 

[mistermills357]

I was tried for brandishing a weapon, it was a .357 and the prosecutor snidely asked, “And what were you going to do with this gun.” I said that I was going to make a citizens arrest.

I got jumped by 4 fatsos when I lived in the projects, so I ran upstairs and got my gun. I was acquitted.

 

[danez71]

That's been my point all along. You claimed your strategy would ensure you NEVER (your emphasis, not mine)

Not contradicting you, but in fairness, he did say once

Is this a 100% guarantee? No.

 

[JohnKSa]

The context of that statement wasn't about what can happen in self-defense trials or the circumstances of a self-defense case, but rather how he tries to avoid being targeted in the first place. That's why I responded to that section by stating that none of it had anything to do with what I was talking about.

Ignoring the fact that it was in a context that isn't really relevant to the topic of the thread, I do agree with the statement--that strategy is not going to be 100%. No strategy will be.

 

[kwguy]

People will tell the stupidest, most unconvincing lies about anything if they think it will get them something. Hence the attorney for the Chicago cop who tried to stomp the barmaid to death, claiming in the face of the video of his client's attack, that the 100lb. barmaid tossed her 300lb. assailant around "like a rag doll" and the savage beating was in "self-defense". Needless to say, neither the criminal nor the civil courts were impressed with his "ripping yarn", especially given the universal exposure of the video.

I'm going to stick with judicious behavior and associations and the ubiquity of video cameras rather than hide in my closet in fear that I'm going to be prosecuted for stopping somebody from dismembering me. Even if that happens, the alternative if far worse.

I understand. Often, it simply doesn’t matter.

There is the “actual truth” and “perceived truth”. As much as many people want to say that there are “different truths”, that’s a bunch of nonsense. There really is only one truth in every situation, because there is one reality. That being said, most of the idiotic world has “their” truth, and operate and run things that way, and put people on trial, and sentence them based, not on reality, but on “their truth”. Even in the perception of videos. They will parse frames and try to invent a reality that may not actually be true. When that happens, and you are being tried on a lie, it doesn’t really matter what the truth is anymore.

I’m not saying to hide, but don’t put your faith in video, and realize that trouble can find you, no matter what you do.

 

[GEM]

There is legal vs. stupid risks. The jury wants to look at videos which means that the Internet blather that this was a slam dunk was BS. How many times in this debate, have we heard: IF IT'S A GOOD SHOOT! - no other factor matter. Your shoot will obviously be a good shoot.

Seems it doesn't work that way.

 

[danez71]

There is legal vs. stupid risks. The jury wants to look at videos which means that the Internet blather that this was a slam dunk was BS. How many times in this debate, have we heard: IF IT'S A GOOD SHOOT! - no other factor matter. Your shoot will obviously be a good shoot.

Seems it doesn't work that way.

Deleted. Saw a news update.

 

[Deanimator]

There is legal vs. stupid risks. The jury wants to look at videos which means that the Internet blather that this was a slam dunk was BS. How many times in this debate, have we heard: IF IT'S A GOOD SHOOT! - no other factor matter. Your shoot will obviously be a good shoot.

Seems it doesn't work that way.

And the prosecution is intentionally showing low quality videos.

Roland Friesler and Andrei Vyshinski would be proud.

 

[kwguy]

And the prosecution is intentionally showing low quality videos.

Roland Friesler and Andrei Vyshinski would be proud.

Exactly. That’s the problem. The reality gets twisted with lies and fabrications by people with agendas, under the guise of the law.

Here is a great read on that very topic:

https://cdn.mises.org/thelaw.pdf

 

[brickeyee]

Legally its a handgun.
So if its legal to open carry a handgun in your state you are okay.

Do not confuse federal law with state law.

This is all in STATE courts.
There may, or may not, be state (or lower) case law, or even statute
law governing AR actions as pistols or rifles.

Remember how far the case had to go to allow Thompson-Center to sell
a gun that could be a pistol or rifle.

ATF could not figure out how to treat this.
Their regulations (that carry the force of Federal law for the most part)
did not consider this case.

Notice they lost at SCOTUS.
No law or regulation addressed the issue.
ATF tried cramming the old regulations on Thomson-Center.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

There is legal vs. stupid risks. The jury wants to look at videos which means that the Internet blather that this was a slam dunk was BS. How many times in this debate, have we heard: IF IT'S A GOOD SHOOT! - no other factor matter. Your shoot will obviously be a good shoot.

Seems it doesn't work that way.

Even if it is a good shoot, that doesn't mean you don't end up in a jail cell. What those folks are always forgetting is it doesn't matter what actually happened unless you can convince the district attorney, grand jury, or trial jury.

Plus with the justice system, half of it is that the process is the punishment.

 

[Deanimator]

Even if it is a good shoot, that doesn't mean you don't end up in a jail cell.

You can always NOT defend yourself and trust to the good judgement and basic human decency of an armed robber, jihadi or homicidal psychopath. After all, what's the worst that can go wrong...?

Of course the fundamental underlying principle of the Rittenhouse prosecution appears to be that there is no right to self-defense against "heroes" like Joseph Rosenbaum.