"You wouldn't know her, she goes to another school."
That's about the quality of evidence you provided after calling my statement "bull".
Your NPE gun and the active shooter
- Thread starter GEM
- Start date
"You wouldn't know her, she goes to another school."
That's about the quality of evidence you provided after calling my statement "bull".
According to a news article, police intervened within "5 seconds" of the shooting. Police must have been right there. Not exactly an active shooter situation, but definitely a don't-have-a-gun-in-your-hand-when-the-police-show-up situation.
And one more data point to show why I don't go to the mall on black Friday.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
Madcap_Magician
Member
This is pretty reasonable.
I thought about this post for a while before deciding to respond.
Folks, I think a lot of things can be simultaneously true rather than mutually exclusive.
It is morally praiseworthy to intervene to protect yourself and others in an active shooter situation and doing so carries a substantial physical risk (and legal and financial risk) not just from the shooter but from responding police and other would-be victims attempting self defense. Only a person actually in that scenario can decide the balance between moral obligations, prudence, and practicality that determines their course of action. We can talk about it and think about it. Hopefully the talking and thinking goes beyond the superficial hero fantasy. But our responses will be dictated by the facts on the ground, and those just aren't knowable ahead of time.
Still, some ideas are generally true. For example, I think we can all agree that in a scenario like this, the longer you are physically displaying a weapon, the more danger you are in of being shot by responding officers or other armed citizens. So if you do use force in a situation like this, you can help yourself out by putting away your firearm as quickly as safely possible. I think we can all agree that if you are not in immediate danger yourself and do not have the imminent probability of being able to use a firearm to effectively engage an active shooter, that drawing it and pointing it in a general direction rather than at a specific threat, especially in a position like high ready, also increases the danger to you of being shot because responders mistake your intentions.
If one person claims something doesn't exist, and the other person claims they do, the burden is on the person claiming they do, because you're the only one who can actually prove your point. If I have an empty bucket I can't prove water doesn't exist. If you have a full bucket you can prove it can.
Yeah, I gave you an impossible task--to prove a negative. And you made an assertion that is impossible to support.
The subject of gun modifications has been discussed here and in the literature at great length. Modifications fall into two main categories:
- Cosmetic--some are fine, some are risky. Adding stag grips or some tasteful engraving should be benign. Put on Punisher grips or a statement that sounds threatening, and one takes one's chances.
- Functional--little could be made of putting on a grip sleeve. Bobbing a hemmer should reduce risk. Smoothing a trigger would be okey. But should one monkey with the trigger pull weight, one would be taking risks in a number of areas. The firearm will be tested and compared with the factory specification. Risks involve both civil and criminal liability.
Then prove the positive. If my assertation is impossible to support, that should be easy.
How many empty buckets do I need before I can prove a negative to your standards? The great thing about your position is that you can constantly increase that number to infinity.
This is a slightly different discussion.
If I have a 2-pound trigger and I use my gun in self-defense, I don't see how having a 2-pound trigger is going to change the fact of whether the shoot was good or not. Unless that modification itself is illegal and that's how I got caught.
If I have a 2-pound trigger and there's a negligent discharge, then I can certainly see how that would be something I would be liable for. However, this is again a different discussion. We're talking about negligent discharges instead of self-defense. In that case, it's not the 2-pound trigger that's getting me in trouble, it's the result of it.
This all goes back to the general point of RKBA. It's not the tool, it's how its used. A gun used in the hands of a criminal is bad. A gun used negligently is bad. A gun used properly in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is good. The gun itself, with whatever modifications, is not the problem. It's what the gun does that potentially can be.
Again, this has been discussed at length over the years.
Here are a couple of possibilities:
- The state believes that the modification, probably along with a couple of other things, can be used to portray you as having been predisposed to violence, which could bring into question your claim that you, as an innocent party, had used deadly force only as a last resort.
- The state may believe that, because the element of malice need not be proven, it would be easier to obtain a verdict of involuntary manslaughter than something more severe, or to put it forth as a lesser included offense.
A civil plaintiff may also be highly motivated to argue that a shooting had been unintentional rather than intentional.
You may be interested to know that these reasons led to the adoption of DA-only revolvers by some police departments. I'm sure you have already guessed that they are the raison d'etre of the Glock New York trigger.
I hope you find this helpful.
Should you want to know more, here are three possible avenues:
- Search THR for the hundreds of prior posts on the subject
- Research the literature
- Take the next available opportunity to attend MAG-20, and ask Massad Ayoob about it during a break.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
The issue of modifications does come up periodically, and it quite often engenders quite the...ummm..."debate".
My personal view is that it is the job of the prosecution to gain a conviction and to that end they will pursue everything under the sun which they perceive will increase the odds of that happening.
That list is long. It's long and the details that go into each entry on that list are numerous.
You can't control that...it's going to happen, no matter what you do. If it isn't a gun modification, it's the choice of gun. If it's not the choice of gun, it's the choice of ammunition. If it's not the choice in ammunition, it's the reloaded ammunition. If it's not the gun or ammunition, it's what's been posted online somewhere. If it's not that, it's your reason for being where you were at the time you were there. If it's not that, it's race. It's ALWAYS something. And you cannot counter them all...it's a waste of time and effort and distracts from what REALLY matters.
What really matters? Any person's best legal defense with respect to the use of deadly force in an act of defense is to KNOW the jurisdictional laws on the subject, UNDERSTAND what those laws REALLY mean, and ensure they act WITHIN those laws. THESE are things you CAN control.
And even then, that will be subject to interpretation. Not to mention the fact that it's rare that an entire event is thoroughly captured in 3D IMAX video clearly showing all angles and all participants relevant to the attack leading up through the defensive act.
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."
- Old lawyer's adage
My personal view is that it is the job of the prosecution to gain a conviction and to that end they will pursue everything under the sun which they perceive will increase the odds of that happening.
That list is long. It's long and the details that go into each entry on that list are numerous.
You can't control that...it's going to happen, no matter what you do. If it isn't a gun modification, it's the choice of gun. If it's not the choice of gun, it's the choice of ammunition. If it's not the choice in ammunition, it's the reloaded ammunition. If it's not the gun or ammunition, it's what's been posted online somewhere. If it's not that, it's your reason for being where you were at the time you were there. If it's not that, it's race. It's ALWAYS something. And you cannot counter them all...it's a waste of time and effort and distracts from what REALLY matters.
What really matters? Any person's best legal defense with respect to the use of deadly force in an act of defense is to KNOW the jurisdictional laws on the subject, UNDERSTAND what those laws REALLY mean, and ensure they act WITHIN those laws. THESE are things you CAN control.
And even then, that will be subject to interpretation. Not to mention the fact that it's rare that an entire event is thoroughly captured in 3D IMAX video clearly showing all angles and all participants relevant to the attack leading up through the defensive act.
"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table."
- Old lawyer's adage
The fact that it's been discussed on this forum only proves the first part of the point I made: it's been discussed on forums as internet legend.
You're giving me possibilities, maybes, and homework. I'm more inclined to just not believe you. Because as far as I can tell, all you are is someone on a forum repeating urban legends. Unless you provide something more than that in your argument, of course.
That's ridiculous.
That, of course, is your prerogative.
I have described how things can play out in court. The subject is well understood by police armorers, shooting instructors, people who understand use of force law, and expert witnesses who have testified in real cases. No one can provide any more. If for whatever reasons you choose to ignore all of this, you are welcome to do so.
Do you attribute the adoption of DA-only revolvers to something else? Why do you think the Glock New York trigger came about?
Do you believe that because you say you fired deliberately in self defense, a prosecutor would necessarily accept that? Do you understand why he or she may well choose to argue otherwise/? How about a civil plaintiff?
I have followed numerous self defense trials , trials in which self defense jury instructions were denied, and a large number of related appellate cases over the years. I know something about the subject.
There are good reasons why attorneys in the field of use of force law and the law of self defense recommend against some kinds of handgun modifications. i mentioned them in a previous post, and that was not an "internet legend".
I cannot tell whether you are remaining deliberately ignorant or are just being argumentative for its own sake.
You're confusing the myth itself with the response to the myth. People used to burn suspected witches at the stake. Is that proof that witches exist?
I have been referring to the myth that these modifications would be seen as signs you committed premeditated murder. You're making a case about negligence. These are two different things, albeit related.
Even then, where are the examples of this actually changing a trial from being a legitimate self-defense shoot to either murder or negligent discharge? Can you cite sources? Or provide me with the mind reading powers so I can know what you know?
They say it, but do they cite examples when they say it? All of the sources I've seen are just references other people who are just saying it. Where are the concrete examples of these getting people into legal trouble?
Other than times where there is a negligent discharge, in which case we're talking about a negligent discharge and not a good shoot with a light trigger. Which is why I assume it's good prudence to have a safe trigger (whether that's through manual safety, passive safeties, or a long trigger pull), and not because "some guy said you might get into an argument with an attorney."
I could easily say the same about you, but I have chosen not to. Just like I haven't called "bull" and have addressed your arguments. Please tell me who is debating and who is arguing.
Hint: usually the person slinging insults is the one doing the arguing.
It is not a myth. and I did explain how that can happen. Premeditated? Perhaps not , but murder.
Same shooting.
Still in denial? Think! The state and a a plainitiff will have the obvious motivation to do that. Why would you beleive othersise?
Are you under the impression that attorneys actually do that? They have nothing to prove, and they will not violate privilege.
Who decides which it was?
That one misses by a mile. The potential issues are an unfavorable charging decision, a costly and possibly unsuccessful defense at trial, a criminal record and incarceration, or a large civil judgment--or all of the foregoing.
You're still giving me "what ifs" instead of sources.
How it can happen, not proof it happened.
More argumentative than debate. And the fact someone is motivated to argue a point doesn't mean the point is valid or will hold weight. Again, can you give me a concrete example of when this tactic was used successfully?
I am very much under the impression that an attorney would say, "My client should be innocent, this trigger charge is malarkey."
So then provide an example where it was controversial. Can you even provide that?
Back to what I said at the top. You're giving me a lot of what-ifs. "The potential issues...a possibly unsuccessful defense." Do you have any real-world examples where this actually happened? Or am I just supposed to believe you because you say so?
I'm fine to agree to disagree. But you seem to be taking this very personal that I disagree with you and have been very hostile towards me as a result.
How it can happen, not proof it happened.
More argumentative than debate. And the fact someone is motivated to argue a point doesn't mean the point is valid or will hold weight. Again, can you give me a concrete example of when this tactic was used successfully?
I am very much under the impression that an attorney would say, "My client should be innocent, this trigger charge is malarkey."
So then provide an example where it was controversial. Can you even provide that?
Back to what I said at the top. You're giving me a lot of what-ifs. "The potential issues...a possibly unsuccessful defense." Do you have any real-world examples where this actually happened? Or am I just supposed to believe you because you say so?
I'm fine to agree to disagree. But you seem to be taking this very personal that I disagree with you and have been very hostile towards me as a result.
luzyfuerza
Member
I agree with this statement of the problem. It really is all about risk mitigation. For what its worth, here's how I have chosen to minimize these risks:
1. I carry defensive tools to protect me and those I love. Not the general public. There are just a couple of exceptions to this: a cop that is clearly overwhelmed and in trouble, a defenseless child.
2. I train and practice enough to know what I can and can't do with my defensive tools. Right now. In unusual body positions, while moving, on moving targets, etc.
3. I have enough training in tactics to know that "an army of one" is at a huge disadvantage in life or death situations. I won't go "hunting" a mass murderer or other attacker who is not an imminent threat to me or my loved ones.
4. If I can safely put a locked door, cover, or distance between my loved ones and a mass murderer, I will take that choice, and my defensive tools will never come out.
5. I train to scan, move, and reholster in the immediate aftermath of every shooting drill. (see https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/not-hearing-the-law-to-drop-it.912800/#post-12490682)
6. I train to carefully listen to, and to immediately follow commands from uniformed LEOs.
Waiting until the moment a critical situation begins is probably not the safest time to start making decisions like this.
I am not in the business of police investigations, charging decisions, trials, or appeals. Do not llok to me for any more information than I have provided.
However, I have several times more relevant education on self defense law than is taught in law school, and more than most criminal defense attorneys have studied in Continuing Legal Education classes.
I have corresponded with and studied under several of the attorneys and expert witnesses who have provided guidance, expertise, and aid to trial attorneys and appellate court counsel in many self defense cases,. What they have said cannot reaonably be characterized as "internet folklore".
I know what I am talking about on this subject.
Now, to your specific question on "real world cases...actually happened". There is no way for anyone to know how many involuntary manslaughter cases or civil suites at the trial court level started out with self defense pleas. The charging decision and grand jury processes are completely confidential. Discussions between attorneys and clients are privileged.No one studies and reports on all of the transcripts of all of the trials in all of the county courtrooms in the country. No one has asked all of the jurors in all of the causes what things most influenced their verdicts. And for out of court settlements, we will never be informed about anything at all. Only the lawyers can tell us anything meaningful about what has actually happened, and they will not release any specifics without the approval of their clients.
That's why I have framed my discussion in terms of the analyses of risks. Do not assume that those risks are wither remote or without severe potential consequences.
I hope you find this helpful.
I'm not asking for how many or statistics. I'm asking for one concrete example.
1. Wrong. The person who makes the initial claim has the burden of proof. Period. If they set themselves an impossible task, well, then that wasn't very wise--but it doesn't give them an out. Otherwise people would have carte blanche to make any sort of negative claims that amused them and impose the burden of proof on others. It doesn't work like that.
If you don't want to try to prove your claim--or believe you can't do so, then the only fair thing to do is to concede it. Making a claim without evidence and then belaboring someone else to disprove your point is unreasonable. As Hitchens' razor says, "That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Or, to quote an old proverb, "A fool throws a stone down a well and a hundred wise men can not pull it out."
2. The fact that your claim is negative doesn't mean you can't support it, it just means you won't be able to find a specific example to prove your point. Assuming your point has merit and that you are willing to put in the effort, you should still be able support it with some or all of the following:
A. Reasoning (Explain why it's not possible or is extremely unlikely for a firearm modification to become an issue in criminal or civil court. It goes without saying that making such a claim credible would require being able to demonstrate at least some level of expertise on the topic.)
B. Logic (Demonstrate that it is not logical for a criminal or civil attorney to try to make an issue of a firearm modification) The logic must be sound, of course.
C. Proper appeal to authority (Verifiable statements from someone qualified as an expert witness in firearm modification/firearm safety, an attorney who has experience litigating firearm related criminal cases or civil cases relevant to your assertion, someone with considerable first person experience with trial cases involving modified firearms, etc.).
D. Examples of real-world cases where firearm modifications should have reasonably been expected to play a part in the outcome or proceedings of a trial but either came up and didn't have any effect or never came up.
B. Logic (Demonstrate that it is not logical for a criminal or civil attorney to try to make an issue of a firearm modification) The logic must be sound, of course.
C. Proper appeal to authority (Verifiable statements from someone qualified as an expert witness in firearm modification/firearm safety, an attorney who has experience litigating firearm related criminal cases or civil cases relevant to your assertion, someone with considerable first person experience with trial cases involving modified firearms, etc.).
D. Examples of real-world cases where firearm modifications should have reasonably been expected to play a part in the outcome or proceedings of a trial but either came up and didn't have any effect or never came up.
Old Dog
Member
John, the guy is simply asking for some documentation.
Look, I kinda get what member @Skribs is saying. We hear so much about, if we have to go to a criminal or civil trial, firearms modification, type of ammunition (especially handloads) to come up in the trial as it could be construed as speaking to mindset, propensity towards wanting to use a firearm against another, desiring to inflict the most damage possible, et cetera, ad nauseum. Fact is, unless the client has committed a monumentally stupid act, an attorney experienced in firearms cases can counter all of the jello the prosecutor throws on the wall.
We basically have all accepted a lot of "internet lore" based on really, a paucity of cases.
The fact remains, that there is a distinct lack of documentation out there that these things can be damning evidence against one who uses a firearm in self-defense/defense of another. We have discussed, on this forum, not even a handful of cases where these things actually made a difference, and then only because of truly biased, highly motivated prosecutors in politically high-profile cases in liberal jurisdictions. The Fish case in Arizona and the cop with the tacticool slogans on his rifle's dust cover notwithstanding, juries seem to be pretty good at sniffing out the BS and getting to the real points of the case.
But we all understand the "why risk it" factor, and most here probably understand that putting one's future residence and/or financial status in the hands of a jury of one's peers is almost always a crapshoot.
By the time any case gets to trial, there's rarely a need to talk about modifications to a firearm or the type of ammunition used. One suspects that most prosecutors understand that going down this road typically means they do not have a strong case and have to pull out all the stops. The Rittenhouse trial was surely a good lesson to prosecutors who try to use the type of firearm as a key factor in determining mindset and guilt of an accused. And prosecutors simply do not want to take a case to trial if it's a 50-50 or worse prospect. That's what I've personally seen in my area.
My point: show us documentation of some more cases where this stuff actually played a significant role in a criminal conviction or winning civil litigation. Quit putting it on those who question the "internet lore" to come forth with the documentation. We can all talk about our legal education, our training and conversations with Mas Ayoob or Andrew Branca, but at the end of the day, it's about what's actually happening on a regular basis.
No, he wants his assertion to be taken as truth without actually having to support it.
First of all, we don't know that it's a paucity of cases. All we know is that it's really hard to find that specific type of case data on the open internet because that kind of detailed information about trials is almost never put on the open internet.
Second the paucity of cases (should it actually exist) is not relevant. There's no claim that this is happening all the time--no claim that it's a high-probability event--the issue is that it's just a potential risk--one that can very easily and very cheaply be dealt with in advance but that if it becomes an issue later could be expensive and complicated to deal with.
True. A really good attorney can counter nearly anything the prosecutor brings up. But:
1. Really good attorneys aren't free, and you and I aren't rich.
2. Everything you ask/expect/need your attorney to do will cost you money.
3. This kind of thing potentially adds complication and risk, none of which makes any sense in a situation where you want to, perhaps more than at any other time in your life, minimize complication and risk.
Yes, of course that's true. In fact, it's true that it's unlikely that any of us will ever go to trial. Nobody is claiming that it's common for law-abiding people to go to trial or for them to be held up over modifications to their guns if they do. The point is minimizing risk--and more importantly, minimizing risk when there's essentially no cost for doing so.
Transcripts from court cases aren't available online to be searched. How do you propose that this documentation be obtained?
The person who makes the claim supports the claim. That's how it works.
The key is, as I pointed out explicitly in my last post, it doesn't have to be with documentation, in fact, demanding only one specific type of support isn't reasonable unless providing that type of support is actually feasible.
Problems with this topic:
1. As I stated earlier, it is a topic that involves nuance and risk--people who can't tolerate shades of gray and probability have real trouble with it. No one is claiming that every gun modification is going to result in a conviction. Not even that really obviously stupid ones will for sure. No one is even claiming that it is known with a certainty that someone at some point in history absolutely went to jail because they made a really obviously inadvisable modification to their gun. The whole issue of self-defense involves reducing risk. Not just in terms of physical risk but also when it comes to exposure to criminal prosecution and civil liability. This is one way to reduce that risk--that's all. But some people can't grasp that concept. Somehow they feel like if they can't totally dismiss all possibility of a legal risk resulting from a firearm modification that they have failed as a person--or something. I don't really understand it but for them it MUST be black or white. Either everyone who modifies guns and ends up in court goes to jail for it or no one could possibly ever have any sort of legal issues as a result. Either changing my trigger will result in an instant conviction if I ever shoot someone in self-defense or it can't possibly even come up at trial. Either we find someone who went to jail for it or there's zero risk and we can totally dismiss the topic.
2. People who don't like the idea of this topic for one reason or another frequently argue against a strawman version of it and are absolutely impervious to anything that might actually expose them to the actual issue. So they aren't even really discussing a real issue, they're discussing some twisted version of the real issue but stolidly refuse to do anything other than that.
3. People who don't like the idea of the topic for one reason or another, frequently try to shut down discussion of it by demanding a very specific type of documentation and refusing to listen to anything else. Not because demanding that very specific type of documentation is remotely reasonable, or because it makes sense that that type of documentation would be readily available to be searched through by anyone on the internet, but merely because that tactic has been somewhat effective in the past. It's a really valuable tool for people who can't support their position with logic or reasoning, or who can't find someone with expertise on the topic who supports their viewpoint, or who doesn't have any sort of experience or knowledge about how the legal system works. They can put all that behind them and just keep saying: Show me the court case! Show me the court case! Hah! I win! (I remember some years back, a similar tactic used to be employed by people who were trying to pretend that there was no danger of a criminal grabbing someone's openly carried firearm. In any discussion where ideas were being exchanged and viewpoints explored, sooner or later you'd have someone saying: "If you can't find any case where it's ever happened then that proves it has never happened and also that it can't happen." Obviously some really serious logical problems there--but remember, these people were, right up front, rejecting logic as a tool for discovering truth and demanding only one specific type of evidence. Anyway, fast forward awhile and now we have lots of cases where people open carrying have gotten their guns grabbed. It's not because something magically happened to holsters or guns that made guns more "grabbable" or to criminals' hands that made it easier for them to grab guns, or to their reflexes that made them quicker, or to open carriers that made them less observant or slower to react. No, it was possible all along, and was almost certainly happening all along, there just weren't cameras everywhere to document it like there are today. The argument was totally bankrupt even if it did seem, at least to a certain type of person, to be unassailable)
Anyway, even if somehow, tomorrow all the trial transcripts from U.S. criminal and civil cases and associated material magically turned up on the open web, available for search by anyone willing to put in the effort and we looked through ALL of it and it turned out that it was really rare for weapon modifications to send people to jail--that still wouldn't change anything. Remember, there's no claim that that this is a common legal complication.
The assertion is merely that it's a potential risk factor and most importantly, that it's one that can be eliminated really easily.
But yes, I know in advance saying that won't be enough--there are those who won't be able to rest unless they feel satisfied that they have totally and completely dismissed any possibility of it ever occurring... And since that's not possible to do with logic or reason (a fact that would give them pause if they stopped to think), they're going to have to resort to other means--like repeatedly demanding that someone show them a court case.
I fully understand that sentiment.
The documentation is not to be had, for good reason.
When I was engaged in legal compliance in a major corporation, it was not at all uncommon for executives skeptical of what they were being advised by attorneys to ask for real examples of how a particular course of action had actually led to problems in litigation. That is perfectly natural.
I have explained some of the reasons why the desired answers are just not readily available: confidentiality in the investigative and prosecutorial processes; attorney-client privilege; the fact that out-of-court settlements are accompanied by strict and severe instructions that nothing, nothing ever be mentioned in public, lest the entire award be forfeited.
As it happens, i am just completing another law course, this one on evidence law. The professor has mentioned a couple of trial cases, after having received express permission to do so from his clients, who are serving prison terms. Absent that permission, he cannot say a word about it.
There is, of course, another reason: one may ask whether a "mean looking gun" can have any real effect in a criminal trial. Glenn E. Meyer's jury simulation experiments tell us that it can, but one is unlikely to be able to divine the effect on the trial outcome by looking at trial transcripts. The reason is simple: trials are decided on the basis of the totality of the circumstances, and the totality of the evidence. Those Punisher grips would probably not, by themselves, result in a guilty verdict due to assumptions regarding mens rea. There will be more. How much with was assigned to each of the various factors by each juror will be known by him or her alone. The closest thing I have seen to a meaningful input was a remark by one juror in one trial that she had found the use of a 10MM gun troubling.
There's one other factor that I learned in the corporate world: are loathe to put in writing anything to the effect that a particular thing could be dispositive, particularly if there is any chance, and there always is, that they may be arguing otherwise in the future,
"Show me an example" is not a fruitful gambit for researching the goings on in the criminal justice system or in litigation, except when it applied to appellate decisions, which address matters of law and not matters of fact.
Technically, the first claim was that gun modifications can lead to problems in court. I'm challenging that claim. So burden of proof is on those that are professing this internet lore.
Then everything exists, because nothing can not exist without evidence, according to this.
If I say unicorns don't exist, does that mean they do, because I can't prove they don't?
A and B I've done. We can argue A and B all day long. But if I believe X and you believe Y, then arguing reasoning and logic isn't going to change either of our minds 99.99% of the time.
C is what I'm challenging. I'm challenging that those who are speaking with authority on the subject are perpetuating this internet lore instead of actual fact. What I'm looking for is actual fact.
D - I'll go back to my bucket analogy. How many empty buckets does it take to prove something doesn't exist, vs. how many full buckets does it take to prove that it does?
Or a unicorn. If you have a unicorn, and I have a thousand animals that aren't unicorns, who has a more convincing argument as to whether or not unicorns exist?
No. You and Kleanbore want your assertation to be taken as truth without actually having to support it. I'm asking you to support, and you can't, so instead you make it my fault I don't agree with you.
How do we get legal precedent then? We have public trials and publicly released documents and records. It's not like this kind of data doesn't exist. Maybe some of it is protected. But if it were something that mattered in court, I would expect there to be one example of it doing so.
As far as urban legends about what influences trials - I give you (as I have before), Bernhard Goetz, the NYC subway shooter.
He had two legal issues:
1. A self-defense claim - this was debatable but his lawyer team pulled it off.
2. A gun carrying charge - he was convicted.
He used hollow point bullets and a 'tactical' holster. They were brought up at trial. From jury interviews and statements from the judge, that had influence. They influenced the discussion of SD at first convincing some of his evil intent but eventually that was talked through. However, they influenced the jury on the carry charge, demonstrating that he was quite aware of the law and decided to flaunt it, esp. with his ammo and holster choice. The judge also mention the exact same rationale in determining his sentence on the carry charge.
So that's one - easy to find if you go read the literature on Goetz. Training and classes have been brought up in trials. Marty Hayes' has documented that. So has Mas. It is not hypothetical. The jury simulations show the influence of many appearance issues of all sorts.
He had two legal issues:
1. A self-defense claim - this was debatable but his lawyer team pulled it off.
2. A gun carrying charge - he was convicted.
He used hollow point bullets and a 'tactical' holster. They were brought up at trial. From jury interviews and statements from the judge, that had influence. They influenced the discussion of SD at first convincing some of his evil intent but eventually that was talked through. However, they influenced the jury on the carry charge, demonstrating that he was quite aware of the law and decided to flaunt it, esp. with his ammo and holster choice. The judge also mention the exact same rationale in determining his sentence on the carry charge.
So that's one - easy to find if you go read the literature on Goetz. Training and classes have been brought up in trials. Marty Hayes' has documented that. So has Mas. It is not hypothetical. The jury simulations show the influence of many appearance issues of all sorts.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
No...what's really at issue here is whether the prosecution will use ANYTHING to cause problems for the defendant in court. Gun modifications are only part of that, as I posted earlier. And there really isn't much to providing proof of this. Let's look at Kyle Rittenhouse's trial:
- The prosecution tried to talk about the ammunition choice, bringing up FMJ and JHP ammo and tossing in words to the effect of the "explosive" effect of JHP ammunition for shock value...even though Kyle didn't have JHP loaded in his rifle.
- Kyle's gun had a sling on it (a modification) was an argument AGAINST self-defense against an unarmed attacker. Why? Because it would make Kyle harder to disarm.
- The very fact that Kyle had and used an AR-15 was used to imply criminal intent, and was contrasted with a handgun as an alternative. Even though handguns have a higher age limit to purchase than long guns.
- The fact that Kyle had a TikTok account named "4doorsmorewhores" was presented to make him look like a bad guy. The fact that he had a rifle in his profile picture was also used to this end.
- Playing first-person shooter video games was used to put forth the intent to commit premeditated murder.
AND THE ONLY REASON WE KNOW ABOUT ALL THIS IS THE FACT THAT THIS TRIAL WAS SO HIGHLY PUBLICIZED.
Does anybody here SERIOUSLY believe that if Kyle Rittenhouse's AR-15 had been modified IN ANY WAY more than the addition of the sling to it that those modifications would not have ALSO been brought up?
This is a silly argument to bring up and to continue to beat. It is the JOB of the prosecution to prosecute and gain a conviction in a trial. They will use whatever means they can to do that. And the plain fact of the matter is that he's playing as much to the Jury's feelings/emotions as he is to the plain legal facts of the case.
And trying to relate any given case to another case in order to predict the outcome of any given tidbit of data to a trial, like a specific modification, is folly. A trigger modification of a gun in one self-defense trial may or may not mean anything in another self-defense trial.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
