The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

View Poll Results: Is the saying it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 derogatory?
Yes 1 2.27%
No 43 97.73%
Voters: 44. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old March 23, 2018, 07:17 AM   #1
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
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?
ATN082268 is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 07:26 AM   #2
Lohman446
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
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.
Lohman446 is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 07:42 AM   #3
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATN.
Is the saying it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 derogatory?
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?
zukiphile is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 08:21 AM   #4
jimsouth
Member
 
Join Date: February 22, 2018
Posts: 77
Always better to end up in court than to end up in the morgue.
jimsouth is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 10:25 AM   #5
Evan Thomas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
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
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.
Evan Thomas is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 11:08 AM   #6
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evan Thomas
It's an irritating cliché, but in what sense can it possibly be derogatory?
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 is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 11:39 AM   #7
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile View Post
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?

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.
ATN082268 is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 11:45 AM   #8
cjwils
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 28, 2010
Location: Washington state
Posts: 401
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 by cjwils; March 23, 2018 at 11:55 AM.
cjwils is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 11:45 AM   #9
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,685
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...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 11:46 AM   #10
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 12:01 PM   #11
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATN
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.
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 by zukiphile; March 23, 2018 at 12:15 PM.
zukiphile is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 01:52 PM   #12
UncleEd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2013
Location: N. Georgia
Posts: 1,150
Never think it nor have I used it.

It does connote an attitude, for some at least, of
"shoot first, ask questions later."
UncleEd is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 02:17 PM   #13
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
Quote:
It does connote an attitude, for some at least, of
"shoot first, ask questions later."
I agree. It doesn't matter what I think, but it may matter to those charged with determining if shooting was justified.
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 02:50 PM   #14
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 10,792
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.
__________________
"If you're still doing things the same way you were doing them 10 years ago, you're doing it wrong"

Winston Churchill
jmr40 is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 03:41 PM   #15
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,685
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....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old March 23, 2018, 09:56 PM   #16
tony pasley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 13, 2006
Location: western north carolina
Posts: 1,641
It is a statement of fact. When tried by 12 there is some kind of future, when carried by 6 there is no future.
__________________
Every day Congress is in session we lose a little bit more of our Liberty.
tony pasley is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 09:28 AM   #17
acelaw
Member
 
Join Date: August 27, 2008
Posts: 22
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.
acelaw is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 09:46 AM   #18
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleEd View Post
Never think it nor have I used it.

It does connote an attitude, for some at least, of
"shoot first, ask questions later."
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.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 11:52 AM   #19
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
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.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 12:09 PM   #20
TXAZ
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
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”.
__________________

Cave illos in guns et backhoes
TXAZ is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 01:20 PM   #21
K_Mac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
Quote:
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".
TXAZ, I think that is a reasonable conclusion. It is certainly not the only one though. Law enforcement, a prosecutor, grand jury, judge or jury might conclude your statement indicates a lack of respect for the law, a premeditated decision to shoot first and ask questions later, or even a desire to use lethal force. The "blatant truth" is any statement other than, I was afraid for my life or the life of someone in my in my charge, to justify using lethal force is unnecessary and unwise. Why make provocative statements?
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin
K_Mac is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 02:42 PM   #22
manta49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2011
Location: N Ireland. UK.
Posts: 1,809
I am not sure about derogatory, but its predictable and irritating. A bit like a unloaded gun is a paper weight.
manta49 is offline  
Old March 24, 2018, 06:30 PM   #23
SonOfScubaDiver
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 391
All it means is "I'd rather stand before a jury than be dead." Nothing derogatory about it all.
SonOfScubaDiver is offline  
Old March 25, 2018, 02:14 PM   #24
Big Motor
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2018
Posts: 11
No, it is not derogatory; since I would not be belittling anyone, or disparaging them.
It is an opinion that is being voiced, and nothing else.
Big Motor is offline  
Old March 26, 2018, 08:32 AM   #25
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP View Post
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.
A discount for career criminals?
ATN082268 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.10433 seconds with 11 queries