zombie-themed guns/ammo: fun or legal liability??

[JERRYS.]

ok, I see I wont get the last word in here, but I think most of us are on the same page of decisions based on: law and fact versus opinion and emotion.

let it not go without saying, facts are no match against enthusiasm and ignorance.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Explain the idea of premeditation as compared to unsupported fact.

That will be demonstrated by statements, writings and actions.

If you haven't noticed there are hate crime nuances in various crimes.

 

[JERRYS.]

Glenn, I agree to a point.

somebody posting on the internet that they want to kill blacks then goes out and shoots a black is going to have a tough time convincing people that it was self defense (generally).

if somebody says on the internet that they don't like blacks because of XYZ, then shoots a black and claims self defense, he will still have a tough time in the social court, but by law there is a lack of premeditation even though it could be argued as a predisposition.

 

[rickyrick]

I draw he line at the Metallica tshirt hahaha

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by JERRYS: if somebody says on the internet that they don't like blacks because of XYZ, then shoots a black and claims self defense, he will still have a tough time in the social court, but by law there is a lack of premeditation even though it could be argued as a predisposition.

That does not make much sense.

The outcome will be based upon the totality of the evidence. The shooter's claim of self defense will require supporting evidence. On the other side of the coin, any facts that indicate predisposition may be relevant and may help decide the case.

Do not confuse "emotion" with informed judgment.

 

[JERRYS.]

rickyrick, for you we will pretend he had a Billy Ray Cyrus t-shirt on while sporting a mullet.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...if somebody says on the internet that they don't like blacks because of XYZ, then shoots a black and claims self defense, he will still have a tough time in the social court, but by law there is a lack of premeditation...

No, that is really not correct.

Things like premeditation, intent, justification, etc., if the matter is in trial, will not be decided as matters of law. They will be decided by the trier of fact (i. e., the jury if it's a jury trial) as matters of fact based on all evidence presented. And we've been discussing the various factors, from the defendant's haircut to the embellishments on his gun, which can color a juror's perception and evaluation of that evidence.

The only times a matter, like the question of premeditation, might be decided by the judge as a matter of law would be when there is no evidence on one side of the question so that the fact can not really be in dispute.

...supported fact: this bullet was fired from this gun.

unsupported fact: this man fired this gun 'out of anger and hate'...

Nope. If whether the defendant acted "out or anger or hate" is at issue, there will be evidence to support the inference.

...depends on if your town is full of people easily duped. some locales have educated people, logic and reason determine most things for them. others have rather simple minded folks who are governed by emotion more than anything else....

Also wrong. Pretty much everywhere will be populated by a wide range of people -- some educated, some less so, some prejudiced and some broadminded. Any jury will be made up of folks remaining after those challenged for cause (objectively unsuitable) and those eliminated by each side as the least desirable to its interests (up to the limits of each side's respective peremptory challenges).

 

[Tom Servo]

We've had some good discussion here, but we're running around in circles at this point.

Folks will do what they want to do, but I strongly urge anyone who keeps a firearm for self-defense to read back over what's been posted by actual lawyers in this thread.