Incendiary Image of the Day: First Things First Edition

That would be the First Amendment. But try explaining that to a jury when the DA pulls you up on murder charges for a self-defense shooting.

comments

  1. avatar IndyEric says:

    If it’s a first amendment issue – you would never HAVE to explain that to a jury. This “evidence” would be kicked out long before you even got to a pre-trial.

    Post Obliterated.

    1. avatar Chris Dumm says:

      Not so simple. A defendant’s First Amendment activities are often admissible to prove other matters at issue, such as motive, intent, or modus operandi.

      As a prosecutor, I once asked a marijuana defendant to show the court his wallet, which had a huge marijuana leaf emblem on it. It was a close call, but the judge let it in because the defendant’s claim was that he didn’t know the pot was in his backpack. The judge ended up finding him not guilty, based on the location of the backpack (which I knew was going to be a challenge for me.)

      A weapon will almost always be shown to the jury, although as a defense lawyer I would move the court to order that the death’s-head grips not be shown to the jury on the basis that they were unfairly prejudicial and not probative of innocence or guilt. If the identification of the gun or its ownership were in question, however, the grips would be highly relevant and the jury would see them unless the defendant conceded those issues. Which may be a bad idea for other reasons.

      It’s been said before: you don’t want to engrave your defensive gun with “Kill ‘Em All And Let God Sort ‘Em Out.” It simply doesn’t play well with juries.

      1. avatar BC; MT says:

        I’m sure that pot defendant really needed some state discipline. Thanks for your service.

  2. avatar Robert Farago says:

    So they wouldn’t show the jury the gun? Post resurrected.

    1. avatar The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit says:

      “Show?” No.

      “Wave at them like it was a bloody banner from hell?” Yes.

  3. avatar IndyEric says:

    No. Actually, they wouldn’t. In fact, there would probably be an order from the Court to show the jury an identical model without the “first amendment” artwork. This isn’t a mod that makes the weapon more “lethal,” it’s a picture. It’s incredibly prejudicial. I couldn’t think a jurist (at least, here in the midwest”) that would ever let this get into evidence.

    BOOM! Buried.

    (just kidding….)

  4. avatar IndyEric says:

    Think of it like this. My wife carries a Lady Smith .357 with rosewood grips. She had custom flowers engraved into the wood. Now, let’s say she was forced to use her weapon, and she was charged with murder, etc. Could her engravings be used to show that she was actually a pacifist hippy commie to prove intent absent? No. The ADA would move to suppress those grips, which in his/her mind is prejudicial and simply a “first amendment” form of “peaceful” expression. Simple expression cannot be interpreted as intent. Actual action/planning is intent.

    Now I’m confused.

  5. avatar Anon says:

    Yeah, those scary guns, with all those scary aesthetic features, that scare lots of people… yeah, no one should ever have one of those!

    I swear… does anyone read their articles at this site before they post them? Or do you enjoy sounding like a gungrabber?

    1. avatar Robert Farago says:

      Is that a trick question?

  6. avatar Ralph says:

    I’m going to have little bunnies painted on all my guns. Just in case.

    1. avatar IndyEric says:

      Like.

    2. avatar Bob H says:

      Why would pictures of naked women help? {blink} {blink}

  7. avatar Buuurr says:

    Imma get a digitized paint of Will Farrell being eaten by wolves while Karl Urban stands over his semi-eaten body portraying himself as the Viking he was in the movie The Pathfinder. I figure a forested background would be okay but I think a post-apocalyptic Chicago with Teddy Ruxbin biker gangs and 80’s paraphernalia would be nice.

    Boom! Art.

  8. avatar jay says:

    should have listened to M A know he’ll go to jail for 25 years.

  9. avatar DesertRat says:

    Like Mas said once about gun modifications: “Don’t make it easy for the opposition.”

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      “Don’t make it easy for the opposition.”

      That’s why I use hollowpoints.

  10. avatar Dave says:

    It’s funny, I always hear that a DA will rake someone over the coals for a modified gun of any sort, or even shooting handloads; yet I’ve never seen any evidence of this actually happening. Not a single article.

  11. avatar Magoo says:

    First, why a death’s head on such a sissy-ass airweight revolver? Compensate much?

    Weapon choice aside, only an imbecile would use this as a carry handgun. Let’s say you are interacting with the local law enforcement community. Could be anything — traffic stop, noise complaint, whatever. The LEO is trying to decide if he should give you the benefit of the doubt or throw you under the bus. And then he sees this. You just made up his mind.

    This is what I don’t get about gun loons. They go out of their way to portray themselves as creeps and then wonder why society regards them as creeps. Yeah, I’m a badass. Look at the grips on my pansy revolver.

    1. avatar Rob Crawford says:

      This is what I don’t get about lefties: they look at an extreme and extrapolate it to cover the entire class of gun owners.

    2. avatar Ralph says:

      Uh-oh. Magoos got his panties in a bunch again. Hey mikey. You can come out of the woodwork now.

      1. avatar Buuurr says:

        Lulz! Where is MikeB90210Warhammer40K anyways?

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email