Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PigPen
...The primary argument made by opponents of removing the safety, is that of Mas........a jury of less knowledgeable firearms persons will be persuaded that the shooter was negligent in removing the safety, resulting in an AD....
|
No, that's really not the core argument.
It's all primarily about how the jury will view you and your story in light of their possible perception of you a possibly "reckless", "arrogant", "trigger happy" gun nut. It's about how a jury having a negative impression of you can affect how they evaluate the evidence you present that your actions were justified -- and how they evaluate the evidence the prosecutor presents that your intentional act of violence on another human was not justified. It's about how your disabling of a safety on your gun may suggest to the jury that you have little regard of life or for others.
For example, I wrote in post #21:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fiiddletown post #21
....[4] I can't not believe that a skillful prosecutor, having decided to prosecute you after a shooting which you claim was in self defense would fail to make whatever use he felt he could of the fact that you used a gun from which you removed a safety device ... A least a few of such jurors are likely to be uncomfortable with the fact that you tinkering with your gun, or the you have tinkered with your gun,... People unfamiliar with guns tend to have an exaggerated fear of them and are likely to see it as reckless to remove a safety device fitted by the manufacturer. Do you claim to know better than the company that made your gun?
[5] Remember also that a plea of self defense is different from most other defenses to a criminal charge. ... when you plead self defense, the first thing that you have effectively done is admitted that you did it. You must essentially say, "I shot the man." And the essence of the claim of self defense is, "But I was justified in shooting him."
[6] Because of the nature of a self defense plea, how the jury sees you can be very important. You will want them to be willing to accept your claim that you were justified in performing an act that is generally, in good society, repugnant -- an act of extreme violence against another human being resulting in the injury or death of that human being. ...
[7] ... I've had jurors tell me in post verdict interviews, that they didn't trust this witness or that they believe that witness because of personal characteristics of the witness that they either thought ill of or thought well of. That is the real world.
[8] At a trial, at the end of the presentation of evidence, each side gets to argue what the trier of fact should infer from the evidence. So a prosecutor might argue that a trier of fact should infer certain things about your character, your reckless disregard for safety and disposition for violence from the evidence that you modified the gun you used to remove a safety device that the manufacturer saw fit to incorporate.
[9] So Suzy Soccermom now asks herself, as she sits on your jury deciding whether to believe your story about what happened when you shot that nice gang member, why your gun wasn't lethal enough as it came from the manufacturer to satisfy your perverted blood lust. Remember, Suzi Soccermom and her friends are going to be deciding if the shoot was good....
|
And as I wrote in post #63
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fiddletown post #63
A lot of folks, including Suzi Soccermom and at least some of the folks on your jury, with no knowledge of or interest in guns, have a deep seated fear of them. ...Such people will tend to have a strongly negative emotional response to someone who has disabled a safety device on a gun. ... If you are on trial for a shooting in which you are claiming self defense, you'd rather not have members of your jury harboring such thoughts about you.
You have been charged with a criminal act of violence on another human being. ...you will at least have to put forward evidence establishing a prima facie case of justification according to the standard applicable to the use of lethal force in self defense in your jurisdiction.
The prosecution will seek to discredit, ...your claim of justification. Facts, like your having disabled a safety device on you gun, that might incline your neutral, but unsophisticated about gun matters, jury to think you might be a reckless, trigger happy gun nut obsessed with making your gun the most efficient instrument of violence possible will help the prosecutor in those efforts.....
|
And as I wrote in post #76
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by fiddletown post #76
...[Poseidon28] outlined some very valid reason why amongst folks knowledgeable about guns or willing to learn removing a magazine disconnect should not matter. BUT in a trial, you would be trying to make your pitch to folks unsophisticated in the ways of weapon craft. Many will intuitively react with horror at the very thought of someone actually, voluntarily turning off a safety device on a lethal weapon.
You are claiming self defense, so you have admitted committing an act of extreme violence on another human being. This is something that most people, probably including most of your jurors, naturally find repugnant. You stand before your jury bearing the mark of Cain. So while the words of the prosecutor, ""This man was so reckless in his wanton disregard for human life that he USED A WEAPON WITH A DEACTIVATED SAFETY DEVICE!" ... "HE, HIMSELF, DELIBERATELY DEACTIVATED THE SAFETY DEVICE ON A LETHAL WEAPON!" ring in their ears, you would expect them to sit and absorb a little lecture about why it's not a big deal. The words "uphill fight" and "tough sell" immediately come to mind....
|
And of course one implication is that if you have such a cavalier attitude toward human life and safety, might you not have been a little overanxious to shoot when it really wasn't necessary to use lethal force.