Custom Handgun just as bad as Handloads for protection?

What's more, the Bias rulings (excluding the GSR evidence from the defendant's handloads) are consistent with my knowledge of the rules of evidence
Click to expand...

Bias's handloads were allowed in court as evidence.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=634817&highlight=why+jhp%3
You should read this thread, has some info you don't seem to be aware of.

So why do we have people arguing that if a shoot is justified, then the modifications to the gun won't be an issue.
Click to expand...

Well, because so far we don't know of a single "good shoot" that a person was involved in that a modified gun has been an issue.
You can piont to cases involving the police all you want (mostly lawyers seeking big paydays by suing the dept.)
I personally don't do trigger jobs on my carry guns, thats only because I worry more about functional problems more than legal one's.
 
I haven't had time to review that thread in depth, but I will try to do so by day's end. It does appear to contain information of which I was unaware. Thanks for the link, as I'm always interested in learning more about this type of legal issue.

However, based on what I have read about the Bias case, which has been basically everything I have been able to find, it is my understanding that the GSR evidence from testing Bias' handloads was excluded, at least from the first trial. From the link that you posted, in Mas Ayoob's January 6, 2012, 07:07 PM post, he writes:
Mas Ayoob said:
The inescapable elephant in the room is, we have a case on point -- NJ v. Bias -- in which testing of the loads the handloader said were in the gun was not accepted.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have phrased it thus: Exclusion of evidence based on testing of a shooter's handloads is entirely consistent with my knowledge of the rules and principles of evidence.

That, however, was not the subject of this thread. Handloads and custom guns are both potentially problematic for the shooter, but potentally problematic in different ways.
 
357 Terms said:
...Bias's handloads were allowed in court as evidence.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=634817&highlight=why+jhp%3
You should read this thread, has some info you don't seem to be aware of...
Click to expand...
Spats,

Read the thread by all means. A lot of the information offered about what went on in various of the Bias trials came from a series of local newspaper articles. It turns out that it was a very extensive series of articles, only some of which were cited in the thread. At the time, I looked into getting access to all the articles, but that would have required a paid subscription to the newspaper.

Of course, as usual with newspaper accounts, a lot gets left out, and the possible technical importance of some omitted details might not have been recognized by the reporter. For example, I seem to recall that one article mentioned Bias' handloads coming up in court, but it wasn't clear whether or not the jury was present at the time. You and I understand that often questions concerning whether or not offered evidence would be admitted are discussed in court with the jury absent.
 
Well, because so far we don't know of a single "good shoot" that a person was involved in that a modified gun has been an issue.
Click to expand...
First of all, what happened to "An overzealous D.A. can make an issue out of anything."??

Are you now saying that an overzealous D.A. can only make an issue out of anything if the shoot isn't a good shoot?

As far as your comment about what we don't know about, that's a logical fallacy called begging the question. What you're saying is that if the modified gun is an issue it's only because the shoot wasn't a good shoot and therefore the modified gun isn't the real issue. In short, you're hiding the assumption that a modified gun can't be a real issue in the statement that you're trying to use as proof that a modified gun can't be a real issue.
However, the norm would suggest that these have not been or are not currently prevalent issues; but probably a very small minority of outliers.
Click to expand...
What makes me think it's not really a very small minority is how fast the effects of a case like the ones I pointed out rippled through the law-enforcement community. It's hard to believe that an issue that qualifies as a "very small minority" and not "currently prevalent" would have such a sweeping and immediate effect.

I'm also interested to know what the lawyers say about how often a civil settlement involves an order to both sides to keep their mouths shut about how the judgement worked out. I suspect that this is a big reason that it's hard to get information on the outcome of civil cases.
 
First of all, what happened to "An overzealous D.A. can make an issue out of anything."??
Click to expand...

LOL!

Well first of all it is poking fun at all of this wild speculation.

If a DA had a defendant on the stand and asked him why he had a crewcut, then proceeded to try to portray him as a military wannabe, I can assume that you would post on a forum that crewcuts MAY be an isssue at trial if you are involved in a shooting.
 
357 Terms said:
If a DA had a defendant on the stand and asked him why he had a crewcut, then proceeded to try to portray him as a military wannabe,...
Click to expand...
First, the lawyers here have some understanding or what one could make an issue of for a jury, and what one could probably not. We also have some understanding of how, and under what circumstance, we might have reason to do so.

Second, it's not always necessary for a lawyer to actually point something out to a jury or base on argument on that. For example, the jury sees the defendant, the way he's dressed and groomed and his demeanor. The jury will form opinions about the defendant from what they observe. So a good defense lawyer will give his client some suggestions about how he should appear for court.
 
Crewcuts and appearance. Please before you expound - go look at the both the jury simulation literature and the legal literature.

You will see quite a bit about how appearances matter to a jury. Ignorance and snark is cute on the Internet and stupid in real life. Appearance influences don't make it into case law and searches for the most part but they do influence simulations. For example, there are studies about how eyeglasses can be to your benefit.

Now to crew cuts and military appearance. A few years ago CourtTV (as it was called in those days) had a trial of a police officer who shot a EDP who was waving a rake (IIRC). In pictures of him at the time, he had a crew or whatever you call that with that pancake of hair on your otherwise shaved head. Glaring into the camera into his official police phote.

Guess what he wore when he testifed. He had a three piece. His hair was grown up and styled in a business like manner. He took out reading glasses when he examined the exhibits.

Now why did he do that?
 
I don't speak for any other lawyers, but I have always taken an active hand in "appearance management" for my clients. In private practice, I made sure that my clients understood just how much appearance matters, not only to the jury, but to the judge.

There's a story that I read on the listserv (sp?) for the Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers some years ago. One of the listserv members had a client who was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The client showed up for trial wearing a T-shirt . . . with a big ol' pot leaf on the front, and there was a dollar sign on top of the leaf. Wanna guess how that trial turned out?

So that's my off-topic, but funny story for the day . . . at least I thought it was funny.
 
Posted by Lost Sheep: In Criminal cases, to even get near the question of "Did the shooter use handloads and what does that say about his state of mind or intentions?" you have to get past the question of "Was deadly force justified or not?"
Click to expand...
You have it completely backwards. To get to the question of "was deadly force justified or not", you have to put together all of what evidence can be produced after the fact.

Each element of the evidence will be evaluated for consistency. The defendant's testimony may be supported by the other pieces of evidence, or it may not. And indications of his state of mind or intentions are likely to play a very big part in the ultimate determination.

Regarding custom handguns, I would be a lot less concerned about their weight in determining state of mind than I would about the use of guns that may give jurors a poor impression of the the shooter--see this for a good discussion of the subject. And no, you do not need to look for actual cases--lawyers employ the results of jury simulation all the time, and you can rely on it.

On the other had, if you have disabled a safety (any safety) or modified the trigger, you do have to worry about challenges to your claim that your shots were not only justified but were in fact intentional. A plaintiff;s lawyer may see a pot of gold at the end of the proverbial unintentional discharge rainbow.
 
Now, who wrote that silly article!

Funny, the reactions you get. I presented this to my local gun club. One guy had a big hissy fit and thought I was trying to ban ARs and tell him to get rid of his. A Fed LEO and a safety expert from a large corporation tried to explain the point but he just kept stewing and fuming. Same thing happened on some forum. Some guy claimed it was BS and an evil plot by moi and Mas. :confused:

When I gave versions at the Polite Society and NTI - those experts seemed to get the point about appearances.
 
OldMarksman said:
...Regarding custom handguns, I would be a lot less concerned about their weight in determining state of mind than I would about the use of guns that may give jurors a poor impression of the the shooter--see this for a good discussion of the subject....
Click to expand...
And some of these negative impressions won't require the prosecutor make any comment. They will be apparent to the jury.

So the gun used will be put into evidence. If it was an AR, the jury will see that it's what they've been conditioned to perceive as an "assault weapon" or an "evil black rifle", and some members of the jury will draw inferences about the defendant from that.

Or perhaps the handgun used has Punisher grips. Now some members of the jury won't be able to help wondering why the defendant wanted to embellish his gun with the logo of a comic-book vigilante.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top