ODT attorneys....Can your dust cover prove premeditated murder in a self defense scenario?

[poopdaddy]

how about just having a gun? you have it with the intent to use it if needed.
so having a gun is just as bad, right? (sorry, its the odt) write?

 

[TresMonos]

This is a ridiculous question based on us being afraid of liberal legal terrorists....

What if my dust cover said "I didn't want to have to kill him"?

Would that warrant an automatic acquittal?

 

[gh1950]

found it
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...-cover-inscription-used-against-him-in-court/

If you read the story, it's the dead guy's wife and HER attorney making the stink about the inscription.

I suspect that this is a lot bigger factor in his prosecution than his dust cover.

Police reports state an unarmed Shaver was on his knees, begging police, "Please don't shoot me," seconds before Brailsford opened fire, striking Shaver five times after he made a movement with his hands near his waistband.

I suspect Brailsford would be in the same situation if he had the Virgin Mary on his dust cover.

 

[GAgunLAWbooklet]

If you're going to display a bloodthirsty message, like "BORN TO KILL,"

At least mitigate it with something with an opposite message, like the peace symbol.

That way, you can claim that you're just making an observation about the dualtiy of man.
You know, based on the philosophy of Carl Jung.

 

[gh1950]

In 2004, Harold Fish, a retired school teacher in AZ, carried a 10mm pistol while hiking in hills where mountain lions are known to prey. He had an encounter with a mentally disturbed homeless man and two dogs. He shot and killed the man under controversial circumstances, claiming self-defense. Ended up convicted of 2nd degree murder. Conviction was later overturned, after Fish had served 5 years.

At trial, the prosecutor made a big deal out of how "deadly" the 10mm pistol Fish carried was, as an indicator of intent to do harm.

Point being: A prosecutor can use nearly ANYTHING you do or say, to paint a picture for the jury. If you put "tough guy" slogans on your weapons, and then get into a scrape that lands you in court, you can expect the jury to hear about it.

The Fish case is a real anomaly. It defies any easy rationalization. We can blame the DA (and I do), but it took a jury of 12 to convict him.

The best thing that can be said about the Fish case is that it is the exception that proves the rule. The case occurred in 2004, and it still is the only reported case with this particular set of facts, meaning that there is no epidemic of DA's prosecuting people because of their ammunition choices.

 

[Tactical Beaver]

you'r jerk

you misspelled dip **** LOL

 

[napp]

Everything is relative. Jurors will have preconceived notions, whether they know it or not. I grew up in an era when a girl who smoked cigarettes was automatically considered "easy". Likewise, a guy with ink was immediately identified as a hood rat. Old perceptions die hard, if you walk into a courtroom as a defendant wearing tattoo sleeves, you probably don't want me on the jury. A smart prosecutor recognizes quirks of human nature and will play on them to get his desired result.

 

[Tactical Beaver]

Hey everyone.....FIFY!

ODT attorneys....Can your dust cover prove premeditated murder in a self defense scenario?

 

[Tactical Beaver]

you're = you are.

View attachment 1082268

haha...went back and read my post, never looking at the actual title....then I saw it. FIFY!

 

[PA4476]

I suspect Brailsford would be in the same situation if he had the Virgin Mary on his dust cover.

Agreed