"Scary" Guns-question for lawyers or those who follow cases

[sar]

Is there any indication that the gun's appearance has an effect on the outcome of a courtcase? It would seem like a jury may respond better to something like my kimber grand raptor II, as opposed to say, a glock. I know some will say that antis wouldn't know the difference, but I can promise you they do(since I'm a former anti) (of course now that I got my "gateway" guns, I could care less about their appearance)

Given how perception oriented/emotionally driven the media and court cases are, I wondered if anyone has ever looked at this objectively in case law?

[HerbM]

Is there any indication that the gun's appearance has an effect on the outcome of a courtcase? It would seem like a jury may respond better to something like my kimber grand raptor II, as opposed to say, a glock. I know some will say that antis wouldn't know the difference, but I can promise you they do(since I'm a former anti) (of course now that I got my "gateway" guns, I could care less about their appearance)

Given how perception oriented/emotionally driven the media and court cases are, I wondered if anyone has ever looked at this objectively in case law?

Caveat: I am not a lawyer, but have studied jury selection and jury influencing and can especially recommend the following comprehensive (at the time) source:
Courtroom communication strategies. Smith, Lawrence J. and Loretta A. Malandro. Kluwer Law Book Pub., c1985. [KF 8915 .S59 1985]

I cannot predict how this will play out in a specific case, but it seems highly probable that it can and will exert (significant) influence in some cases, and that one firearm might be problematic in one case and the same firearm might be helpful (or not harmful) in another.

This also relates to my supposition (belief really) that a "knife" defense in the exact same situation as a legitimate defense with a firearm against criminal attack could be harder to explain to a Grand Jury or at trial. (There is a presumption that anyone with a knife is "knife fighting" as opposed to defending their self.)

And the Brady Bunch propaganda might be used (at trial) to make any firearm seem worse.

They will not ban your hunting rifle. First they will redefine it as a sniper rifle, then ban that. Similarly they will not try you for defending your family from criminal home invasion with a hunting rifle, but rather using a sniper rifle to kill a neighborhood youth who accidentally entered the wrong home (at 3:30 AM through a locked door.)

This is the same (or similar) fear that some people have against "hand loads", or "hollow points", or "black talon" (and the descendent Ranger SXT) etc.

Can the actual firearm be demonized? Yes. Can your attorney try to make your firearm seem normal? Certainly.

Probably this isn't going to be a large issue for anyone here at trial -- but it is directly related to the propaganda that the Brady Bunch has largely sold to politicians and the press -- and by extension to the public at large.

All the lies of Assault rifles or weapons, high capacity magazines, high powered or caliber firearms (even if it is a .380), gun show loophole, arsenal (any group of 2 or more firearms or more ammunition than will fit in the magazine/gun), etc.

Even gun enthusiasts buy into these either completely or at times -- heck, even those of us here do it (myself included on occasion.)

All of these lies and fallacies are heard even among those who own or even carry firearms:
"Who needs an uzi for home defense?" "Who would hunt with an AK?" "Why would anyone need more than 10 rounds if they have good shot placement?" 'I won't OC or CC because CC or OC is better -- and no one else should."

Even the 'reasonable sounding' NICS/Brady background checks has never been proven to work -- and isn't even enforced on criminals.

[seamusTX]

If a prosecutor wants your sorry caracass in prison, your life as you know it is over. Whether you are found guilty or not guilty, you're going to buy some lawyer a new Mercedes, and you'll find out what your relatives and friends really think of you.

The most recent example is the case of Harold Fish (http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/). The jury in that case stated that they took the caliber of his weapon (10 mm) into account.

The case could be made that a "Grand Raptor" (a large bird of prey) sounds scary, whereas the police carry Glocks.

The bottom line for me is that you have to be very sure of your justification (which is a defense to prosecution, not a get-out-of-jail-free card).

- Jim

[srothstein]

There are always things that can be used against you. With pistols, the ones that have already been demonized are bad news if the shooting is at all questionable. Think of the way the public will see a TEC-9, an Uzi, or a Raven 25 (Saturday Night Specials were the old demons before the assault weapon thing). Compare that with a Glock or a "Government Model .45".

The names like Raptor might also be used against you, which is one reason most companies avoid those names in pistols sold for the defense market. The ammo can be used against you too, as in why carry Magnum rounds, or using the name Dum-Dum instead of hollowpoint.

All of these things play into how the jury will perceive the shooting. If the DA wants to prosecute, he will know exactly how to spin it to the public during the media trial to make you look bad. Even emphasizing the way the 911 clerk told Joe Horn to stay inside, as if that had any legal bearing on the case.

There was a case a few years back in San Antonio, when Steve Hilbig was the DA. An off duty officer was involved in a problem with some gang members repeatedly vandalizing his house and car and trying to terrorize him (at least partly due to his teenage son who was no angel). After reporting it to the police several times and calling for help, he started trying to protect himself. He set up a watch post on the roof of his house and when the gang attacked again, he shot them. Hilbig played it as an ambush and went for a murder conviction. Jury saw through it in this case and found the officer not guilty, but the DA knew how to get the public stirred up.

My advice is to try to make things look as best you can. Watch how you refer to your weapons and watchfulness. Watch what you say, especially to the media. Event he "no comment" can be made to look bad by them. Get your lawyer to advise you before anything does happen, so you know in advance what to say.

EDIT: You also need to rememebr that the DA is a politician. He will respond to what the media makes you look like to the public most of the time. How will they play your case and weapons is one thing you also need to consider.

[seamusTX]

You also need to rememebr that the DA is a politician. He will respond to what the media makes you look like to the public most of the time.

That was exactly the case with Harold Fish. People in the community agitated for his prosecution, and the media picked it up.

- Jim

[mr.72]

You know without categorizing people as either "antis" or on your side, there is a vast majority of people who are somewhere in the middle, and this will likely be most of your jury pool. These people, by and large, may own a gun or more than one gun but don't really consider them to be necessary for self defense, and don't have strong opinions about it but it just never occurred to them that they might have to defend themselves. Maybe they don't own a gun, because they just never thought about it, don't care to hunt or shoot targets, and don't feel any need for that type of self defense. This was the way I was just a year ago, and this is my experience with most people in TX. You have some small fringe who are actually consciously anti-gun, and a small fringe who are agreeable to the CCW mindset, but a vast majority in between.

OK, so given that, many of these "in between" people form their opinions or preconceptions based on media. If you have no direct experience with guns, you haven't taken any proactive steps to become educated about guns, then you are likely to just have this background idea of what guns are and are useful for. So they see that in the movies, police officers have revolvers and gang bangers have Glocks. Bad guys have black rifles or military surplus rifles with big scopes ("sniper rifles"), good guys have long-barrel 20ga shotguns and wear orange vests when they carry them. James Bond carries a Walther PPK, so if a little .32ACP is enough gun for a super spy then your .380 is overkill. Riggs was a maverick "bad cop" and carried a Glock or other automatic, Murtough was a good cop and carried a revolver. Al Powell killed the bad guy who was about to shoot John McClane with just one shot from his .38 revo, not to mention the fact that later on the bad guys had a "ceramic" "Glock 7" that they used to sneak through the Dulles metal detectors. OK, so in the movies, the bad guys have autos, the good guys have revolvers. The really bad guys have Glocks, especially if they plan to sneak through metal detectors, or other German guns (often bad guys have H&K or Sigs as well). The only good guy we know of who carries a German automatic is Jack Bauer and it's just because he's a bad mamajama. Regular CTU agents don't need such a deadly weapon.

So I think for most of us who have figured out that autos offer the best balance of size, weight, capacity, stopping power and concealability for us will have the deck stacked against us. Particularly if we find that a Glock is the best choice of autos, we are going to really be looking like a bad guy. Particularly if we have an auto that can use a high-cap or low-cap mag (like my Sigma, either 10 or 16 rounds), and we picked the high-cap. Why do we need all that ammo unless we're out bad guy hunting?

Anyway, I think this is what we should be careful of. Carrying some kind of pistol that does not pop up in movies or TV shows in the hands of bad guys routinely can't hurt. The jury's perception has to have an effect. Their cultural experience may be that Glocks are bad guy guns, and snub-nose .38s are for good guys.

[HerbM]

...My advice is to try to make things look as best you can.

Watch how you refer to your weapons and watchfulness. Watch what you say, especially to the media. ...

Even this! Call it a handgun, or a defensive handgun, not a weapon.

Or, "you fired at the criminal attacker", not "You shot the sucker dead".

"Shoot center of mass" in place of the infamous and wrong Shoot to kill).

Or: Shoot to make the threat go away. To stop the attack.

"Well Mr. Defendant, why did you shoot that fine young man 13 times?"

Don't say: "Cause I ran out of bullets then."

"Because, It was after the 13th shot that the attacker stopped trying to kill me."

[Wildscar]

Anyway, I think this is what we should be careful of. Carrying some kind of pistol that does not pop up in movies or TV shows in the hands of bad guys routinely can't hurt. The jury's perception has to have an effect. Their cultural experience may be that Glocks are bad guy guns, and snub-nose .38s are for good guys.

It could also be how you present yourself. Take myself for example. Everyone always tells me a I’m a big scary guy that they would not want to meet in a dark alley. Most people can’t get past that but the ones that do can’t believe that I would be one of the good guys so to speak. Even when I dress up people thing I’m in the mob or something. But then you have the other side of the spectrum. People that you never thought would harm a fly turn out to be mass murders. Because of perception generated by society people can make the wrong assumption about people character.

Riggs was a maverick "bad cop" and carried a Glock or other automatic,

That was a Beretta. (The original standard issue good guy / bad guy gun.)

[mr.72]

I didn't think Riggs carried the same gun in all *four* movies did he?

Anyway I'm not exactly an expert on the guns of Lethal Weapon.

[Wildscar]

I didn't think Riggs carried the same gun in all *four* movies did he?

Anyway I'm not exactly an expert on the guns of Lethal Weapon.

Yeap. It was the same one. The only scene where he had a diffrent one was the scene where Jet Li pulls the slide off the Beretta. They had to make the tear down latch slightly longer and thicker so Li could activate it and pull the slide off.

I just one of those guys that point out the little thing in movies. Drive my wife nuts.

[DoubleJ]

ahthankyou.

[casingpoint]

The jury in the Harold Fish trial weighed heavily the testimony of a ballistics expert for the prosecution who demonized the hollow point bullets Fish used to shoot his attacker. Message board chatter has lots of folks gone to carrying ball ammo on account of what happened to Fish. But as my attorney points out, if you are statutorily empowered to use deadly force, it is a legal absurdity to be found guilty for having done so. At any rate, Fish's lawyer, Melvin McDonald, noticed the lower court during trial of a significant reversible error, which appears sufficient to upend the conviction. Meanwhile, Fish remains incarcerated serving a ten year sentence. The Fish case remains the kind of decision you expect to emanate from a place like New York or Massachusetts, not Arizona. It simply does not fit the legal landscape of the western states.

With all the hyperbole in the Fish case involving a 10mm semi automatic, a .38 Special snub nose revolver has the appearance that seemingly evokes that classic line by Joe Friday in Dragnet:

[seamusTX]

The irony is that if you use hollowpoints, you can be accused to using "dum-dums," which the military is prohibited from using (according to the Hague Convention). If you use FMJ, you can be accused of using military ammunition. You can use the same ammunition as the local cops, in areas where they have standardized ammunition requirements, and be accused of being a "police wannabe." You can't win this kind of thing.

- Jim

[Wildscar]

And this one always cracks me us becase the image is inverted and it a bad one since he has his bugger hook on the bang switch.

[KD5NRH]

So they see that in the movies, police officers have revolvers and gang bangers have Glocks. Bad guys have black rifles or military surplus rifles with big scopes ("sniper rifles"), good guys have long-barrel 20ga shotguns and wear orange vests when they carry them. James Bond carries a Walther PPK, so if a little .32ACP is enough gun for a super spy then your .380 is overkill. Riggs was a maverick "bad cop" and carried a Glock or other automatic, Murtough was a good cop and carried a revolver.

Are you sure the good guys don't carry automatics?