"Stupid Things On Guns." = Legal Woes? [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : "Stupid Things On Guns." = Legal Woes?


SR25MK4
01-03-2013, 01:33
I have a serious question about what I consider, "Stupid Things On Guns."
Does anyone know of a case where someone who used a firearm in defense ever ended up going to trial - or have actually been convicted - because of SKULLS, Reapers, certain Flags or 'Kill'em All...Let God Sort‘em Out' (etc.) displays on the weapon they used in said defense? I think some eager (Liberal) DA would LOVE to tell a jury how this shows a pre-existing disregard for human life or at least a general tendency towards violence … or even a specific - ‘HATE’ - towards various groups or races etc.
What say you?

http://i859.photobucket.com/albums/ab155/SR25MK4/Firearms/Montage.jpg

Sensai
01-03-2013, 05:59
I say in that situation, the Prosecutor is not your friend. He will use every bit of anything he can find and twist to use against the defendant. Anything on your computer,stickers on your car,type of ammo, gun,anything you have said to friends, family,in short,ANYTHING, and can make even the most innocent little thing look very ,very bad.His goal is not to help the defense bring out the truth, but to put that guy in prison. Don't know anyone in that situation, but in talking to criminal defense attorneys in a classroom setting, this is what I am told.:dunno::crying:

SouthernBoyVA
01-03-2013, 06:10
I say in that situation, the Prosecutor is not your friend. He will use every bit of anything he can find and twist to use against the defendant. Anything on your computer,stickers on your car,type of ammo, gun,anything you have said to friends, family,in short,ANYTHING, and can make even the most innocent little thing look very ,very bad.His goal is not to help the defense bring out the truth, but to put that guy in prison. Don't know anyone in that situation, but in talking to criminal defense attorneys in a classroom setting, this is what I am told.:dunno::crying:

Don't know which part of Virginia you're in but in my part, our commonwealth's attorney makes no bones about the fact that he doesn't like BG's doing evil things to good people.

Don't forget that in our state, we have an affirmative defense. If you are the victim and are charged with homicide, your attorney, if he is any good, is going to put you on the stand and ask you a few questions;

HIM: "Did you shoot Mr. Jones?"
YOU: "Yes I did."
HIM: "And why did you shoot Mr. Jones?"
YOU: "Because I was in apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm by Mr. Jones."
HIM: "Under the same set of circumstances, would you shoot Mr. Jones again?"
YOU: "Yes I would."

You have effectively destroyed the prosecutor's case because you freely admitted that you shot Mr. Jones and would do so again under the same set of circumstances. Your actions were deliberate and not the result of negligence, bare fear, or accident. The prosecutor is going to have a very hard time trying to convince a jury that this was anything but an excusable homicide.


As to the OP's question, oh please don't go there. That sort of thing creates a very negative opinion and response in the the public eye. That and the fact that it is very immature.

xmanhockey7
01-03-2013, 06:31
Don't know which part of Virginia you're in but in my part, our commonwealth's attorney makes no bones about the fact that he doesn't like BG's doing evil things to good people.

Don't forget that in our state, we have an affirmative defense. If you are the victim and are charged with homicide, your attorney, if he is any good, is going to put you on the stand and ask you a few questions;

HIM: "Did you shoot Mr. Jones?"
YOU: "Yes I did."
HIM: "And why did you shoot Mr. Jones?"
YOU: "Because I was in apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm by Mr. Jones."
HIM: "Under the same set of circumstances, would you shoot Mr. Jones again?"
YOU: "Yes I would."

You have effectively destroyed the prosecutor's case because you freely admitted that you shot Mr. Jones and would do so again under the same set of circumstances. Your actions were deliberate and not the result of negligence, bare fear, or accident. The prosecutor is going to have a very hard time trying to convince a jury that this was anything but an excusable homicide.


As to the OP's question, oh please don't go there. That sort of thing creates a very negative opinion and response in the the public eye. That and the fact that it is very immature.

Long video but a good one.
Dont Talk to Police - YouTube

Also...
Massad Ayoob (Aftermath Shooting) - YouTube

md2lgyk
01-03-2013, 06:39
Why would anybody put stickers on a firearm in the first place?? I've been a shooter for over 50 years and have never seen even one sticker.

beatcop
01-03-2013, 06:42
-best bet, use plain language understood by jury...you will be cross examined on your knowledge of "apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm". Should you fail to articulate, you will be made to appear foolish, reckless, whatever else they can.

What happened?
Guy had a big knife pointed at me and came toward me...I told him to stop, but he tried to stab me.


You should prob direct it to Mas in the GATE forums.
My .02 is that anything appearing to indicate "death" is probably not going to help. In and of itself, it may not be a "big deal", but if the scenario isn't quite cut and dry, aka Travon, you will now have to address unecessary crap.

FireForged
01-03-2013, 13:25
HIM: "Did you shoot Mr. Jones?"
YOU: "Yes I did."
HIM: "And why did you shoot Mr. Jones?"
YOU: "Because I was in apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm by Mr. Jones."
HIM: "Under the same set of circumstances, would you shoot Mr. Jones again?"
YOU: "Yes I would."


HIM: when you say apprehension, are you saying anticipation of a threat? Apprehension can be defined as ( fear of a future dread). You anticipatied that there was "going" to be a threat? So there actually wasnt a threat "yet"? is that what you are saying?

cowboywannabe
01-03-2013, 13:53
any half way descent defense attorney can dismiss any questions about a justified use of lethal force without having to put his client on the stand.

even the most anti self defense prosecutor must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the lethal force was not justified.

before the case even goes before a jury a descent attorney can get the case tossed out during pre-trial. lethal force is either justified or it is not....the case will expose the elements.

larry_minn
01-03-2013, 14:13
Is there any reason they (The Police) want to tell you about that gal "Miranda"? Something along lines of "ANYTHING you say, CAN and WILL be used against you"

Lawyers get paid to mess up jury. If you can't use facts use emotion. (kinda like anti gunners)
I recall reading that all these "smoke screens" CAN be contested in court. BUT the Jury will hear them.

Next time you are called for Jury Duty don't get out of it. See how things go from jury point in court. (and how jury members are swayed by the most stupid crap)
Why give any more "ammo"? I don't carry handloads, "super/destroyer/max death" ammo. Heavy modified guns. (safety removed, trigger to half lb, bump fire, sbr....)

Bren
01-03-2013, 14:49
Rather than try to answer, I'll ask some questions and you decide for yourself.

If you shoot somebody, the case will usually be seen by a grand jury that will decide whether you are formally charged.

The grand jury is made up of people like you, except they mostly know nothing about guns. What kind of impression do you think "gun accessory X" or "gun decoration Y" will have on people like that, when they decide whether to indict you (the point where things get expensive)?

If the grand jury indicts you, your case can then proceed to a trial with a petit jury. The petit jury is made up of people like you, except they mostly know nothing about guns. What kind of impression do you think "gun accessory X" or "gun decoration Y" will have on people like that, when they decide whether to convict you and send you to prison for up to the rest of your life? Is it a good impression, or one that might not be worth the cool factor of Punisher Grip and a Glock bayonet?

Knowing that your CCW gun's purpose is either to shoot somebody in self defense or to pull down your belt all day, pretty much shooting somebody in self defense is why you have it, right? When you add something to it, just ask yourself if that benefits you more than it hurts you, if you use the gun to shoot a person.

Keep in mind, "I'm right and the law says so" isn't necessarily enough to save you. I can think of one Kentucky case, where a self defense shooter was, under undisputed facts, 100% justified as a matter of law. Both the trial court and the court of appeals disagreed, using reasoning that was ridiculous and self-contradictory on its face. he spent years in prison before the Supreme Court pointed out that the lower courts were very obviously wrong and what they said was plain silly (basically that a guy who stated he was about to perform all of the eleements of burglary, then attempted to do so, was not attempting a burglary). The scary part is, the supreme court did not have to take his case, it was entirely discretionary.

Bren
01-03-2013, 14:54
Don't forget that in our state, we have an affirmative defense. If you are the victim and are charged with homicide, your attorney, if he is any good, is going to put you on the stand and ask you a few questions;

HIM: "Did you shoot Mr. Jones?"
YOU: "Yes I did."
HIM: "And why did you shoot Mr. Jones?"
YOU: "Because I was in apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm by Mr. Jones."
HIM: "Under the same set of circumstances, would you shoot Mr. Jones again?"
YOU: "Yes I would."

You have effectively destroyed the prosecutor's case because you freely admitted that you shot Mr. Jones and would do so again under the same set of circumstances. Your actions were deliberate and not the result of negligence, bare fear, or accident. The prosecutor is going to have a very hard time trying to convince a jury that this was anything but an excusable homicide.

This is very, very bad legal advice.

The overall problem is that "yes it was intentional and I would do it again" only helps if the jury agrees that you were justified.

Aside from that, trying to mimic the words of the statute will always make a bad impression.

I will also point out that you don't have a clue about what a "good attorney" will do, or what will "destroy the prosecution's case", and since you are starting at the point of a jury trial, you've already lost more than you'd want to (all you have, for the average Joe) even if you win from there (which is statistically unlikely).

unit1069
01-03-2013, 18:26
beatcop hit the nail on the head in post #6.

Think of yourself in George Zimmerman's situation. Think of all the media concentration on every aspect of his life and in particularly every last detail of the fateful rainy night when he shot and killed Travon Martin.

Now imagine what that same media would do with the fact that you had a skull and crossbones decal on the CCW weapon used to defend yourself.

A person doesn't really need to search for actual cases; all one has to do is recognize that the vast bulk of the mainstream media is controlled by a political apparatus with a clear agenda.

I always try to consider the worse case scenario and go from there.

Edit to add: Remember that the mainstream media for days (if not weeks) deliberately propagated the falsehood that Zimmerman exhibited no visible head injuries from the altercation. When I wrote of considering the worse case scenario it bears remembering that going forward in today's political climate a defender is potentially putting him/herself into the hands of the media and will be at the mercy of that rabid, indoctrinated pack of wolves.

SouthernBoyVA
01-04-2013, 06:22
HIM: when you say apprehension, are you saying anticipation of a threat? Apprehension can be defined as ( fear of a future dread). You anticipatied that there was "going" to be a threat? So there actually wasnt a threat "yet"? is that what you are saying?

The word "apprehension" is actually used in one of the legal definitions I have been taught. You could just as easily substitute the phrase" in imminent fear of..." for this and should be fine.

SouthernBoyVA
01-04-2013, 06:29
This is very, very bad legal advice.

The overall problem is that "yes it was intentional and I would do it again" only helps if the jury agrees that you were justified.

Aside from that, trying to mimic the words of the statute will always make a bad impression.

I will also point out that you don't have a clue about what a "good attorney" will do, or what will "destroy the prosecution's case", and since you are starting at the point of a jury trial, you've already lost more than you'd want to (all you have, for the average Joe) even if you win from there (which is statistically unlikely).

Well let's see. The attorney I got this from specializes in defending cases of victims using deadly force in their defense. He is quite good and quite successful. While the verbiage I used may not be precise or exact, the idea conveys. This attorney also holds classes on the use of deadly force in my state of which I have attended three. He will put you on the stand and ask questions of this nature (I obviously shortened this part for expediency).

The point being is with an affirmative defense, you will be affirming that you used deadly force because you were in fear of serious bodily harm and saw no other alternative. Your actions were deliberate and under the same, or similar, set of circumstances, you would act in the same manner again.

Hope this helps to clear things up.

Bren
01-04-2013, 09:11
Well let's see. The attorney I got this from specializes in defending cases of victims using deadly force in their defense. He is quite good and quite successful. While the verbiage I used may not be precise or exact, the idea conveys. This attorney also holds classes on the use of deadly force in my state of which I have attended three. He will put you on the stand and ask questions of this nature (I obviously shortened this part for expediency).


That also describes me. I teach classes on the legal use of force to law enforcement agencies and regularly defend their officers in lawsuits in state and federal court for the same.

I don't necessarily trust a private lawyer who claims that as a "specialty" because the cases are far to rare in private practice.

beatcop
01-04-2013, 09:20
^ The goal is to not get to the point where you're in court, at your trial, invoking an affirmative defense.

I have seen a couple things in my area. The court will send out an investigator to check out the facts that have been gathered and bring them back to a prosecutor...that day. The prosecutor will generally make the call as to whether he is interested in pursuing a prosecution. So there you have it, a dilemna...clam up totally, give a statement, or a combination of both w/a lawyer to help.

In a clear cut self defense scenario most people cannot summon the willpower to clam up 100%. They know they are "right". Police have the lattitude to conduct general on-scene questioning, so they're going to as, "What happened?". A reply of, "Because I was in apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm by Mr. Jones" may be fine at a trial, but will not suffice on scene...usually a plain language answer will get everyone on board. If the guy is your brother in-law and is laying on your front lawn with a hole in his back, you may want to reconsider my advice and invoke silence.

At a trial, invoking legal phrases is generally a no-go. You will be cross-examined at length...been there. I used the term "dying declaration" during one trial and was familiar w/ the definition and subtleties, however I was not allowed to fully explain a fine point due to the defense lawyer's agenda....which included actually lying about case law in the hope of no one picking up on it.

SCmasterblaster
01-04-2013, 10:35
Long video but a good one.
Dont Talk to Police - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

Also...
Massad Ayoob (Aftermath Shooting) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCZXZMYyRl4)

Excellent advice by Mass.

Cream Soda Kid
01-04-2013, 10:48
Rather than try to answer, I'll ask some questions and you decide for yourself.

If you shoot somebody, the case will usually be seen by a grand jury that will decide whether you are formally charged.

The grand jury is made up of people like you, except they mostly know nothing about guns. What kind of impression do you think "gun accessory X" or "gun decoration Y" will have on people like that, when they decide whether to indict you (the point where things get expensive)?

If the grand jury indicts you, your case can then proceed to a trial with a petit jury. The petit jury is made up of people like you, except they mostly know nothing about guns. What kind of impression do you think "gun accessory X" or "gun decoration Y" will have on people like that, when they decide whether to convict you and send you to prison for up to the rest of your life? Is it a good impression, or one that might not be worth the cool factor of Punisher Grip and a Glock bayonet?

Knowing that your CCW gun's purpose is either to shoot somebody in self defense or to pull down your belt all day, pretty much shooting somebody in self defense is why you have it, right? When you add something to it, just ask yourself if that benefits you more than it hurts you, if you use the gun to shoot a person.

Keep in mind, "I'm right and the law says so" isn't necessarily enough to save you. I can think of one Kentucky case, where a self defense shooter was, under undisputed facts, 100% justified as a matter of law. Both the trial court and the court of appeals disagreed, using reasoning that was ridiculous and self-contradictory on its face. he spent years in prison before the Supreme Court pointed out that the lower courts were very obviously wrong and what they said was plain silly (basically that a guy who stated he was about to perform all of the eleements of burglary, then attempted to do so, was not attempting a burglary). The scary part is, the supreme court did not have to take his case, it was entirely discretionary.

Excellent insight Bren.

Thanks.

SouthernBoyVA
01-04-2013, 10:54
That also describes me. I teach classes on the legal use of force to law enforcement agencies and regularly defend their officers in lawsuits in state and federal court for the same.

I don't necessarily trust a private lawyer who claims that as a "specialty" because the cases are far to rare in private practice.

Okay, perhaps the word "specializes" was not well chosen if it created the idea that this is all he does. But he does tend to get a number of cases in this area and not all of which are specifically deadly force (one comes to mind involving an armed individual who did not in any way use his firearm).

But this escapes the point a bit which I intended. Several years ago I asked this attorney a question about trigger modifications and how this might affect a case where someone has been charged with a homicide. We constantly see questions and comments on this topic and lot of them occur on this website which is where I saw enough bantering about to raise this question.

His comment was that the 800 pound gorilla in the room is not going to be what modifications you made to your trigger, but whether or not it was a good shoot. He went on a little explaining an excusable homicide and the affirmative defense concept, which at the time I was not aware of, and reiterated the fact that a valid use of deadly force is just that.

blk69stang
01-04-2013, 11:04
Harold Fish. Look it up.

In a nutshell, the d-bag prosecutor got a conviction based partly on the assertion that because Fish used a 10mm to defend himself, and the 10mm is more powerful than average, that it proved "premeditation" and that Fish went out looking to murder someone. Never mind the fact that he was charged by an insane vagrant who was screaming that he was going to kill Fish, and that Fish was backed up against a cliff and had no avenue of escape.

The law has since changed in AZ stating they can't use caliber of a firearm to prove "intent", but the law doesn't say anything about the "stupid stuff on guns". I would say that a "Kill 'em all" sticker would be pretty easy to use to "prove" intent.

Cream Soda Kid
01-04-2013, 11:16
^ The goal is to not get to the point where you're in court, at your trial, invoking an affirmative defense.

I have seen a couple things in my area. The court will send out an investigator to check out the facts that have been gathered and bring them back to a prosecutor...that day. The prosecutor will generally make the call as to whether he is interested in pursuing a prosecution. So there you have it, a dilemna...clam up totally, give a statement, or a combination of both w/a lawyer to help.

In a clear cut self defense scenario most people cannot summon the willpower to clam up 100%. They know they are "right". Police have the lattitude to conduct general on-scene questioning, so they're going to as, "What happened?". A reply of, "Because I was in apprehension of imminent serious bodily harm by Mr. Jones" may be fine at a trial, but will not suffice on scene...usually a plain language answer will get everyone on board. If the guy is your brother in-law and is laying on your front lawn with a hole in his back, you may want to reconsider my advice and invoke silence.

At a trial, invoking legal phrases is generally a no-go. You will be cross-examined at length...been there. I used the term "dying declaration" during one trial and was familiar w/ the definition and subtleties, however I was not allowed to fully explain a fine point due to the defense lawyer's agenda....which included actually lying about case law in the hope of no one picking up on it.

Excellent advice beatcop, thank you, it's always good to hear from those who've BTDT.

SCmasterblaster
01-04-2013, 12:10
The only sticker on my CCW G17 is a white muzzle cover with a smiley face printed on it.

Gunnut 45/454
01-04-2013, 12:55
As we've seen even with imphactic proof that one acted in selfdefense -Zimmerman case- when the laws spells out in great detail that the state must prove you acted in other then selfdense BEFORE they can charge you they will anyways! When the politics/public opinion mandates a charge! Remember one thing they will and can find someway to charge you if they want! Now will it stand up in court maybe, maybe not! Either way you be on the hook for thousands of dollars in legal fees and maybe jailed for a long time- loose your job, etc.:faint:

fuzzy03cls
01-04-2013, 14:00
This has been beaten to death for things like 3.5lb connectors & punisher cover plates... I have only seen 2 cases posted where this came up.That thread has long been closed though. Maybe someone has access to them still.

larry_minn
01-04-2013, 14:58
............................
But this escapes the point a bit which I intended. Several years ago I asked this attorney a question about trigger modifications and how this might affect a case where someone has been charged with a homicide. We constantly see questions and comments on this topic and lot of them occur on this website which is where I saw enough bantering about to raise this question.

His comment was that the 800 pound gorilla in the room is not going to be what modifications you made to your trigger, but whether or not it was a good shoot. He went on a little explaining an excusable homicide and the affirmative defense concept, which at the time I was not aware of, and reiterated the fact that a valid use of deadly force is just that.

I could agree to point.. IF you have a "hair trigger" the arguement can (much easier) be made that you didn't INTEND to fire. You had his poor client at gunpoint and failing your training had finger on trigger. Then when you hear a sound,tried to dig out cell phone.... you ACCIDENTLY touched trigger killing the poor man. So you made up story.... Yep they can try it even on factory guns/find experts who will testalie its possible.
Do you recall how Glocks IIRC "Overfire"? That its so easy to fire multiple rds on target that the claim was made they "almost fire themselves"..
IMO if a person ever is forced to use deadly force the less "red herrings" that can be pulled into mix (to confuse jury) the better. If gun/ammo is basicly same as everyone else (including Police) have its a non issue. If they can get jury thinking you had mercury dipped,cynide laced, depleted Uranium slugs......

I content myself that a person is going to have to force me to shoot them. In that case my options are act and life or not. I don't see the advantage any mods would have for me over factory. (in under stress self defense) I reload to save $$ (ok shoot more for same $$$) :) Few guns with lite triggers are reliable enough for me.

Glockrunner
01-04-2013, 16:09
Is there any reason they (The Police) want to tell you about that gal "Miranda"? Something along lines of "ANYTHING you say, CAN and WILL be used against you"

Lawyers get paid to mess up jury. If you can't use facts use emotion. (kinda like anti gunners)
I recall reading that all these "smoke screens" CAN be contested in court. BUT the Jury will hear them.

Next time you are called for Jury Duty don't get out of it. See how things go from jury point in court. (and how jury members are swayed by the most stupid crap)
Why give any more "ammo"? I don't carry handloads, "super/destroyer/max death" ammo. Heavy modified guns. (safety removed, trigger to half lb, bump fire, sbr....)

Man I have tried. But when they find out I am retired military, they run like rats and excuse me.
All that stuff is just more arguing your defense lawyer will get paid for to argue. If it was a just shoot, you'll moct likely get off but why work the jury and your lawyer.

I don't put stickers on any of my tools. Why have them on my gun, it too is just another tool.

Alpine
01-04-2013, 18:36
The only sticker I can recall seeing is hello kitty a woman put on her rifle stock. I think a hello kitty sticker or dixie flag grips are pretty innocent.

SouthernBoyVA
01-04-2013, 19:57
I could agree to point.. IF you have a "hair trigger" the arguement can (much easier) be made that you didn't INTEND to fire. You had his poor client at gunpoint and failing your training had finger on trigger. Then when you hear a sound,tried to dig out cell phone.... you ACCIDENTLY touched trigger killing the poor man. So you made up story.... Yep they can try it even on factory guns/find experts who will testalie its possible.
Do you recall how Glocks IIRC "Overfire"? That its so easy to fire multiple rds on target that the claim was made they "almost fire themselves"..
IMO if a person ever is forced to use deadly force the less "red herrings" that can be pulled into mix (to confuse jury) the better. If gun/ammo is basicly same as everyone else (including Police) have its a non issue. If they can get jury thinking you had mercury dipped,cynide laced, depleted Uranium slugs......

I content myself that a person is going to have to force me to shoot them. In that case my options are act and life or not. I don't see the advantage any mods would have for me over factory. (in under stress self defense) I reload to save $$ (ok shoot more for same $$$) :) Few guns with lite triggers are reliable enough for me.

But that's the point of admitting your deliberate actions. Yes you could lie and make up a story that would fit this description if you had actually fired your gun inadvertently. But your story is going to have to get past your attorney and others. And there's an old adage which I live by. If you never tell a lie, you never have to remember what you told people.

There is a huge difference between accidentally firing your gun with a lighter trigger and doing this with deliberately because it needed to be done. The lawyers point was that a trigger mod or (and he mentioned) special sights or anything else is not going to be the deciding factor if your actions were excusable and, where applicable, justified.

CA Escapee
01-04-2013, 20:43
"Miranda" wasn't a gal. Miranda was Ernesto Miranda.

RPVG
01-04-2013, 21:25
"Miranda" wasn't a gal. Miranda was Ernesto Miranda.
Not Carmen Miranda?

larry_minn
01-04-2013, 21:30
"Miranda" wasn't a gal. Miranda was Ernesto Miranda.

Sorry. I saw Arnie on TV last night. Thought of RED HEAT IIRC Arnie "Do you know Miranda?" Street punk "Never heard of the (female dog)" Arnie decks him.

The Fed
01-04-2013, 21:42
;The only sticker I can recall seeing is hello kitty a woman put on her rifle stock. I think a hello kitty sticker or dixie flag grips are pretty innocent.

In Florida Stars and Bars proves you're a racist. Hello Kitty is OK because the liberals like girly guys.

I have a laser warning sticker - it's required.

Glockrunner
01-05-2013, 05:56
;

In Florida Stars and Bars proves you're a racist. Hello Kitty is OK because the liberals like girly guys.

I have a laser warning sticker - it's required.

Well, in Florida the jury is made up of people. The Confederate Flag(Stars and Bars) is a sign of my heritage. I have family that fought in the civil war for the South. I believe with that information, a Florida jury would understand that and if not maybe they are the Racist.

Again, I don't do stickers but I had to say something on that.

steveksux
01-05-2013, 08:28
Well the Florida Stars and Bars can kiss my butt. I have family that fought in the civil war for the South. But that just shows Florida Stars and Bars have a problem with being Racist.

Again, I don't do stickers but I had to say something on that.


Regardless of what the stars and bars mean to you, what matters is what it means to a jury and the media.
I can just imagine if Zimmerman had stars and bars on his pistol.

Randy
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

beatcop
01-05-2013, 12:42
Real simple...make the discussions hinge on the facts, not the distractions.

...try not to bring distractions to the table, whether they are engravings, black talons, stupid bumper stickers, or excited utterances. Either you're on board with this or you have decided that this stuff won't matter...take your chances...like everything else in life.

SCmasterblaster
01-05-2013, 13:25
Real simple...make the discussions hinge on the facts, not the distractions.

...try not to bring distractions to the table, whether they are engravings, black talons, stupid bumper stickers, or excited utterances. Either you're on board with this or you have decided that this stuff won't matter...take your chances...like everything else in life.

You got that right beatcop.

Bren
01-05-2013, 14:49
The only sticker I can recall seeing is hello kitty a woman put on her rifle stock. I think a hello kitty sticker or dixie flag grips are pretty innocent.

This one? It's my wife's rifle, that I painted for her.
http://www.fewpb.net/~brenn/ambersrifle.JPG

I'm pretty confident that one won't work against her (plus it's a range rifle, she uses a pistol and shotgun for home defense) - a punisher skull would be a different story.

Alpine
01-05-2013, 20:30
This one? It's my wife's rifle, that I painted for her.
http://www.fewpb.net/~brenn/ambersrifle.JPG

I'm pretty confident that one won't work against her (plus it's a range rifle, she uses a pistol and shotgun for home defense) - a punisher skull would be a different story.

Haha! No, but that's a good looking rifle if you ask me.

NMPOPS
01-05-2013, 21:27
I spent my LE career in the southwest, where we believed in the right to self defense long before specific laws were put in place. I agree with Beatcop, use plain language, don't parrot the law or someone else, be plain and simple. As for the the OP original question, I my career I never saw slogan, tatoos, t-shirts or whatever come into play by the prosecution. If they charge you, they have enough against you that they don't need to worry about the skull and crossbones you have engraved on your Python.

Glockrunner
01-06-2013, 05:36
Regardless of what the Confederate Flag (Glockrunner replaced stars & Bars) mean to you, what matters is what it means to a jury and the media.
I can just imagine if Zimmerman had stars and bars on his pistol.

Randy
posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

Naw, we saw pure racism on TV after that incident without any reference to race from the shooter.

Bren
01-06-2013, 06:45
Haha! No, but that's a good looking rifle if you ask me.

She used it in a TDSA Urban Rifle class. I rebuilt the whole thing from an old beat up Camp 9 and a bunch of new parts. They use S&W 59-series magazines, so she has 20 and 30 rounders.

Bren
01-06-2013, 06:55
If they charge you, they have enough against you that they don't need to worry about the skull and crossbones you have engraved on your Python.

True, in clear cut cases. But where things are not? I have seen cases where a justified shooter, in his own home, spent years in prison before the supreme court finally said that 2 lower courts had completely ignored the law that justified the shooting. The case is Mondie v. Commonwealth, KY Supreme Court version, if you know somebody with westlaw access.

EDIT: Actually I remembered a way everybody can read these:

Mondie Court of appeals (http://162.114.92.72/COA/2001-CA-000994.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=10678&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cIndices%5cBoth%5fCourts%5fIndex&HitCount=20&hits=19+3a+3b+4e+5a+64+70+88+91+be+dc+117+190+277+28f+2a6+2ca+337+35f+446+&hc=55&req=mondie)

Mondie Supreme Court (http://162.114.92.72/Opinions/2002-SC-000534-DG.pdf#xml=http://162.114.92.72/dtsearch.asp?cmd=pdfhits&DocId=990&Index=D%3a%5cInetpub%5cwwwroot%5cindices%5cSupremeCourt%5fIndex&HitCount=12&hits=534+535+693+694+732+733+92b+92c+94c+94d+972+973+&hc=52&req=503%2E080)

Those are not about stuff on guns, just about how crazy it can be, and how you can go to prison, even when you are absolutely justified by the letter of the law. My wife wrote that majority of the supreme court one (hint, justices don't actually write them).

As for being charged, the impression you make on the police and/or a grand jury has a lot to do with that. For the same shooting, a local business man may get a pass from the grand jury while a local thug goes to prison. It's not all black and white law and there is rarely a case that can't go either way. I've seen a guy get 10 years with a state trooper on the witness stand saying the shooting was absolutely necessary and the guy was justified.

SgtScott31
01-08-2013, 11:22
Real simple...make the discussions hinge on the facts, not the distractions.

...try not to bring distractions to the table, whether they are engravings, black talons, stupid bumper stickers, or excited utterances. Either you're on board with this or you have decided that this stuff won't matter...take your chances...like everything else in life.

It's a shame many of the ones running around videotaping police interactions with their firearms don't have the forethought about this. If they ever have to use their weapon what do you think is the first thing that's going to come up in litigation? Their videotapes, blogs, confrontations, and anything else that can sway the jury in a wrongful death action. All that attorney needs is 51% in the civil suit.

mingaa
01-08-2013, 11:54
;

In Florida Stars and Bars proves you're a racist. Hello Kitty is OK because the liberals like girly guys.

I have a laser warning sticker - it's required. If not a racist then a social separatist fixated on war and a violent time in our history.

Hello Kitty infantilizes the gun to the level of a toy and demonstrates that the user is unable to comprehend the seriousness of gun ownership.

"...the liberals like girly guys." Would you like to explain that to the jury further? Now it's a hate crime!!

SCmasterblaster
01-08-2013, 13:26
I have a big American flag sticker on the side of my Mossberg Model 500 pump-action 12ga shotgun. It looks very nice there.

broncobuddha1
01-08-2013, 14:24
Harold Fish. Look it up.

In a nutshell, the d-bag prosecutor got a conviction based partly on the assertion that because Fish used a 10mm to defend himself, and the 10mm is more powerful than average, that it proved "premeditation" and that Fish went out looking to murder someone. Never mind the fact that he was charged by an insane vagrant who was screaming that he was going to kill Fish, and that Fish was backed up against a cliff and had no avenue of escape.

The law has since changed in AZ stating they can't use caliber of a firearm to prove "intent", but the law doesn't say anything about the "stupid stuff on guns". I would say that a "Kill 'em all" sticker would be pretty easy to use to "prove" intent.

Thank you for nearly making me soil my shorts:faint:.....I carry a 10mm 1911.
:supergrin:

Glad the law changed there. However much like caliber I would imagine ball vs. Hollow point still gets tossed around in court.

larry_minn
01-08-2013, 17:01
Thank you for nearly making me soil my shorts:faint:.....I carry a 10mm 1911.
:supergrin:

Glad the law changed there. However much like caliber I would imagine ball vs. Hollow point still gets tossed around in court.

Thing is except for states that (for some insane reason don't allow expanding ammo to mere mortals)
This is a "red herring" that any halfway decent lawyer should be able to make those who brought it up look stupid/uninformed, etc.
Such FACTS as less rds needed to STOP threat, (less danger to others not only from less rds, but also rds going thru suspect) Most PDs use HP/expanding ammo......

broncobuddha1
01-08-2013, 19:55
Thing is except for states that (for some insane reason don't allow expanding ammo to mere mortals)
This is a "red herring" that any halfway decent lawyer should be able to make those who brought it up look stupid/uninformed, etc.
Such FACTS as less rds needed to STOP threat, (less danger to others not only from less rds, but also rds going thru suspect) Most PDs use HP/expanding ammo......

Yep. Hollow points are a no brainer on the street.

Gray_Rider
01-12-2013, 04:34
Harold Fish. Look it up.

In a nutshell, the d-bag prosecutor got a conviction based partly on the assertion that because Fish used a 10mm to defend himself, and the 10mm is more powerful than average, that it proved "premeditation" and that Fish went out looking to murder someone. Never mind the fact that he was charged by an insane vagrant who was screaming that he was going to kill Fish, and that Fish was backed up against a cliff and had no avenue of escape.

The law has since changed in AZ stating they can't use caliber of a firearm to prove "intent", but the law doesn't say anything about the "stupid stuff on guns". I would say that a "Kill 'em all" sticker would be pretty easy to use to "prove" intent.

Harold Fish

MASSIVE MISCARRAGE OF JUSTICE.

And I am being extremely kind. The jury....well let's not go there on a public website.

May hell be paid....to the penny, by all who destroyed this poor brave man. Travon Martin case on steriods. My three year old could have seen the truth. That it came to court in the first place was a travesty of out and out foolery and outright malace. Yes. I am that angry about it, and I don't have a farthing lost on it.


Gray_Rider

Gray_Rider
01-12-2013, 04:55
Well, in Florida the jury is made up of people. The Confederate Flag(Stars and Bars) is a sign of my heritage. I have family that fought in the civil war for the South. I believe with that information, a Florida jury would understand that and if not maybe they are the Racist.

Again, I don't do stickers but I had to say something on that.


You mean the "Southern Cross" dear brother. The Confederate battle flag to most. The 'Stars and Bars' is the 1st National Flag of the Confederacy. It features a blue field with seven stars and a red stripe/white stripe/red stripe. 1st flown on the inug. of Lincoln.

Thanks for remembering the fallen, and the cause.

Gray_Rider

SCmasterblaster
01-14-2013, 15:45
Harold Fish

MASSIVE MISCARRAGE OF JUSTICE.

And I am being extremely kind. The jury....well let's not go there on a public website.

May hell be paid....to the penny, by all who destroyed this poor brave man. Travon Martin case on steriods. My three year old could have seen the truth. That it came to court in the first place was a travesty of out and out foolery and outright malace. Yes. I am that angry about it, and I don't have a farthing lost on it.


Gray_Rider

Wow. I had forgotten about this old story.

Bren
01-14-2013, 15:55
Harold Fish

MASSIVE MISCARRAGE OF JUSTICE.

And I am being extremely kind. The jury....well let's not go there on a public website.

May hell be paid....to the penny, by all who destroyed this poor brave man. Travon Martin case on steriods. My three year old could have seen the truth. That it came to court in the first place was a travesty of out and out foolery and outright malace. Yes. I am that angry about it, and I don't have a farthing lost on it.


Gray_Rider

I agree with you about many things, but not that case. I firmly believe Fish was a nut and was clearly not legally justified in using deadly force.

If Fish had used a .22 revolver, it still wouldn't have been legal for him to use deadly force against an unarmed man for looking angry and yelling, which is about all the justification he had at the point he shot him.

SCmasterblaster
01-14-2013, 18:50
I agree with you about many things, but not that case. I firmly believe Fish was a nut and was clearly not legally justified in using deadly force.

If Fish had used a .22 revolver, it still wouldn't have been legal for him to use deadly force against an unarmed man for looking angry and yelling, which is about all the justification he had at the point he shot him.

If I recall correctly, he had a 10mm Auto.