Is the saying it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 derogatory?

Is the saying it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 derogatory?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 2.3%

  • No

    Votes: 43 97.7%
  • Total voters
    44
Status
Not open for further replies.
No. Some may view it as threatening but I would argue any law that prevents you from defending your very life is of questionable validity.
 
ATN. said:
Is the saying it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 derogatory?
Click to expand...

Yes. To assert that A is better than B is categorically derogatory with respect to B.

Is the question whether the assertion is improperly derogatory?
 
Derogatory to whom? Pallbearers??

It's an irritating cliché, but in what sense can it possibly be derogatory?

Definition of derogatory
1 : expressive of a low opinion : disparaging
derogatory remarks
a derogatory term
2 : detracting from the character or standing of something —often used with to, towards, or of

… abstained from saying a word derogatory to his new friend's religion … —Anthony Trollope​
 
Evan Thomas said:
It's an irritating cliché, but in what sense can it possibly be derogatory?
Click to expand...

If the implicit meaning is that it is better to act and incur a risk of criminal penalty than to hesitate and be killed, it disparages one impulse relative to the other.

It offers a false choice and is derogatory toward one of them, but why does that matter?

ATN, why do are you asking this?
 
zukiphile said:
If the implicit meaning is that it is better to act and incur a risk of criminal penalty than to hesitate and be killed, it disparages one impulse relative to the other.

It offers a false choice and is derogatory toward one of them, but why does that matter?

ATN, why do are you asking this?
Click to expand...


I can't recall where (online) but someone was saying that using a phrase like that would be bad for you in court. I personally don't find it incriminating but was curious about what others thought about it.
 
I don't think derogatory is the right word. But I don't trust cops who make a point of using this old saying. I think they might sometimes use it to justify an attitude of being too trigger happy.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how that phrase would be bad for you in court. The most I can see is that it could be used to show that you had considered the matter, before the action in question. It MIGHT be used to try and show premeditation, but that isn't automatically a bad thing.

"Kill them all, let God sort them out" on the other hand, is one that I can't see an upside to using, in court...:rolleyes:
 
It would matter what a jury thought of it. So what gun folks thought of it might not be the issue. This devolves down to the issue of whether your past history and utterances can be brought up against. Marty Hayes's ACDL newsletter had a series of lawyers discussing whether such things would be brought up, not allowed or have influence.

Frank or Spats might comment.
 
ATN said:
I can't recall where (online) but someone was saying that using a phrase like that would be bad for you in court. I personally don't find it incriminating but was curious about what others thought about it.
Click to expand...

OK. That makes more sense.

It is certainly possible that a prosecutor who decides to proceed against you for a self defense incident could use your use of this cliche to paint a picture of you as relatively unconcerned with shooting someone.

All sorts of things could push a prosecutor toward that decision, of influence a jury after that, but these are possible influences, not binary determinants that guaranty a result. People get very wound up about single factors and sometimes seem to lose sight of the total picture. If you are a homocidal nut setting a murder trap for burglars in your garage, not using "Better to be judged by 12..." isn't going to be what saves you.

Where you are weighing a probability of prosecution, the variables are numerous. When you are thinking about introducing a new variable, you might consider whether that variable will be a detriment. I could imagine being a blowhard who makes flippant comments about killing people as a detrimental variable.

My real objection* to the aphorism is that it leaves out the better alternative, not being carried or judged by anyone.


____
* I have very little criminal experience, and even my scant criminal experience may not apply well where ever you are.
 
Last edited:
Never think it nor have I used it.

It does connote an attitude, for some at least, of
"shoot first, ask questions later."
 
It does connote an attitude, for some at least, of
"shoot first, ask questions later."
Click to expand...

I agree. It doesn't matter what I think, but it may matter to those charged with determining if shooting was justified.
 
There is always the possibility that if you are ever involved in a shooting that a prosecutor will have social media searched and things you've posted printed. Those comments could be presented to a jury as evidence that you are guilty of more than self defense.
 
just out of curiosity, if a prosecutor can search social media, to pick and choose what to show a jury, cannot your lawyer do the same???

I realize every statement will carry different weight with different people on a jury, but I don't see how a court can disallow a criminal's history (rap sheet) and yet allow selected quotes from the accused to be used as evidence. Just seems like a double standard to me, but then, I never went to law school....
 
Jesus... More rogue prosecutor talk? Even if this was somehow introduced in trial, how is it incriminating? If you're going with self defense, I think this dovetails nicely. The implication is that they only other option you had left was to die. That's literally what you're likely to be arguing anyway.
 
UncleEd said:
Never think it nor have I used it.

It does connote an attitude, for some at least, of
"shoot first, ask questions later."
Click to expand...

Like K_Mac, I tend to agree. I think it's also one of those things that "chest beaters" shout along with "From my cold, dead hands" and "Molon Labe" when they try to show their enthusiasm for firearms. While within specific context, it is a good thing, within other context, it makes us all look like idiots.
 
As mentioned in the intense discussions of jury decision making in the professional literature, juries decide on the basis of emotion, prejudices, cognition, evidence, presentation by the lawyers, how you look and what you said, etc.

If the shoot is ambiguous (That's why you are on trial!! Get it, someone thinks it is a bad shoot, your motivations - was it self-defense or you were trigger happy is going to be part of it. Does the jury believe the prosecution that you were wrong in shooting or you saying you were in fear of grievous bodily harm. If they can present that you were yakking about shooting someone (which has happened) or your training presented a good deal of shoot'em up blood lust (which has happened), it won't do you any good. Thus, in the abstract pro-shooting rhetoric is probably a negative.

Do some empirical research and ask potential jurors what they think it means.
 
The truth is antiseptic, and for many if not most people, the implication of the saying is blatantly true:
“I’m willing to defend my life against an aggressor if necessary with their life”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top