To All Conceal Carriers,
In relation to my writing it should be understood I’m addressing the working class, and folks that don’t necessarily have the discretionary income to hire a lawyer. What I’m offering is another approach you may want to explore. If you can afford a lawyer then disregard everything I’ve posted, and stop reading this.
This is the
Tactics and Training forum:
“When your best defense is a quick, hard offense, the lessons learned here may prove invaluable. This is a "no holds barred" training area.”
You can learn from this thread by recognizing that what you’re witnessing here is no different from the troupe of performers you’ll encounter after a Use of Force event.
The trained animals will arrive. These sheepdogs will be the first ones on scene. Most have instinctive intelligence, these are spectacular sniffers so cleanse yourself of wolf odor. Some only have obedience intelligence, and can be mislead down false trails…witting or unwitting - so always be wary.
For now, you are the cat walking a tightrope, but to the kings, queens, and their royal guests, you are just a jester who is expected to amuse. Though always remember, while you enjoy privileged status, excessive behavior could get you whipped for insulting the court. ENJOY THE CIRCUS.
Lets begin…
My arguments have been called stupid; silly; lousy; terrible; awful; nonsense; and my mock interrogation was hailed a “fantasy”.
This is all in attempt to devalue and diminish your argument. Attorneys and skilled interrogators use this tactic to make you look uneducated. They want you to feel shame and foolishness for trying to match wits with them. Remember, they see you as a jester and view your arguments as buffoonery and
“hooey” (#80).
Ignore it and stand tall. If your argument is solid do not bend and be firm in your belief.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
I believe in an old saying “rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6”
OldMarksman said:
That's a neat cliche, but don't put too much stock in it.
A cliche promptly dismissed and and now we are to put more stock in the "stupid juror" cliche. Why? Because kings and queens believe we are jesters incapable of deciding their case.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
DannyB1954 said:
...If there were witnesses, they should be able to state that you gave fair warning to a perceived threat. If there are no witnesses, who says you put your hand on your gun?...
OldMarksman said:
Why? What do you know about eyewitness psychology?
In fact, the unreliability of eye witnesses is well studied and well known. See, for example the article "The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony" as published in the Stanford Journal of Legal Studies. An eyewitness might easily conclude that you were the assailant and that you threatened an innocent man with your gun.
And even if there are no third party witnesses, there will always be a witness besides you -- the guy you threatened with your gun.
Should the defendant choose to take the stand, and I do not see any other way that those "cues" could ever be presented as part of a defense of justification, most defendants would most likely have a terrible time describing the "cues" and why he or she happened to be qualified to interpret them as an indication of criminal intent. There are multiple possible explanations for each of them, and frankly, some people just act that way. I would dread being put in that position.
That's right, we know nothing, we give terrible descriptions, and why should we we even possess the skills and knowledge to give such descriptions? Because it's "fact" that's why.
[I'm getting nauseous - literally]
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
I have to break for dinner. I will be back shortly and rip to shreds their arguments on substantive law, and the ohhhhh-so-offensive word "kill". I'll even use it in a mock trial, so that you all may weigh in with a verdict on who's keeping things real.