**********

[Cokebottle]

And if it causes a police officer (who has the whole department backing him) grief, imagine what it would cause for a regular citizen.

Rather amusing when someone counters with, "No one tells me what I can or can't do to my gun" or, "Using handloads won't turn a good shoot into a bad shoot." Logically, it won't but when you're charged & prosecuted, logic won't be part of the equation.

Even if not charged or prosecuted, there WILL be a civil trial.

My concern about the jury is far greater than my concern about the DA.
The plaintiff's attorney only has to make 7 jurors believe you are a blood-thirsty gun nut... not all 12.

[EastCoaster]

Hmm. I should engrave a peace sign on my defensive CCW.

There is some precedent.

[Wicked Pete]

Hmm. I should engrave a peace sign on my defensive CCW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I put a crucifix on my carry holster. This is not blasphemy; I would ask Christ to "make my gun (skills) save lives." If I need a clear shot, so be it.

[.45 ACP]

**** being PC. If the shoot was good, who cares. If the shoot was bad, who cares.

Because of all the PC liberal types in here crying about "inscriptions on a dust cover" , I'm going to plaster my back window of my truck with Molon Labe stickers now.

[EastCoaster]

**** being PC. If the shoot was good, who cares. If the shoot was bad, who cares.

I care about both, and I am about as PC as a Glock.

If the shoot was good, then I'm happy that (an) law abiding person(s) and lawfulness have prevailed.

If the shoot was bad, then a tragedy has occurred. Remember this idiot?

Because of all the PC liberal types in here crying about "inscriptions on a dust cover" , I'm going to plaster my back window of my truck with Molon Labe stickers now.

I understand your position, but all politics is perception, to include that of gun politics. This is the very reason why California has the Mulford Act.

[Bakerloo]

Anything stupid that you do to your gun can and will be used against you in a court of law.
Not exactly in the Miranda warning, but...

[Dvrjon]

FIFY:

Anything stupid that you do to your gun can and will be used against you in a court of law California.
Not exactly in the Miranda warning, but...

[GM4spd]

Well stated.

A lesson that also shouldn't be lost upon those who post their questionable commentary online.

Good point but this is Calguns. If you removed all the questionable
commentary,there would be 50% more bandwidth. Pete

[RandyD]

Bingo! Attorneys are scum.........

Except Randy D and a few others......

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

On this issue, an attorney's job is to analyze and present the evidence to the trier of fact (judge or jury). I often tell my clients every piece of evidence is like a two edge sword, the defense counsel will have it cut one way, and the plaintiff's attorney will have it cut the other way. One of the factors in being a professional, is that you avoid giving your opponents ammo to use against you. In the case of the Mesa, AZ police officer putting that inscription on his rifle, he handed the opposition a gift that will be used against him and his department.

[retiredAFcop]

Wait.

Wouldn't the inscription fall under the First Amendment?

What does this have to do with he FACTS of the shoot (I haven't read or heard anything about this case)?

It arguably shows both intent and mindset.

Let's say that a white guy with a "Wetbacks Must Die!" tattoo smacks a Hispanic man with a baseball bat in a parking lot behind a bar, and then tries to use the defense that he was surprised by a stranger in the dark, and was acting in self defense because he thought he was being attacked.

How are you going to get a "reasonable person" to believe that it wasn't a) intentional, and b) racially motivated?

[Chewy65]

Even if not charged or prosecuted, there WILL be a civil trial.

My concern about the jury is far greater than my concern about the DA.
The plaintiff's attorney only has to make 7 jurors believe you are a blood-thirsty gun nut... not all 12.

Last I looked, and it has been a while, they have to get 9 out of the 12 to agree.

[Cokebottle]

Last I looked, and it has been a while, they have to get 9 out of the 12 to agree.

7 or 9, it's not as simple as a criminal trial where your attorney only needs to persuade ONE to hang the jury.

[stix213]

Looks like the trouble he's in has little to do with the dust cover.

[Victor Cachat]

So, would they go easy on me if I engraved "I Don't Want To Hurt Anyone" on my lower?

I understand that they will do everything allowed to obtain a guilty verdict, but I only understand it when there is clear-cut guilt.

I figure I would not be on that jury but, if I was, that move would make me lean more in favor of the rifle's owner.

[Dvrjon]

It arguably shows both intent and mindset.

Let's say that a white guy with a "Wetbacks Must Die!" tattoo smacks a Hispanic man with a baseball bat in a parking lot behind a bar, and then tries to use the defense that he was surprised by a stranger in the dark, and was acting in self defense because he thought he was being attacked.

How are you going to get a "reasonable person" to believe that it wasn't a) intentional, and b) racially motivated?

Wouldn't the tattoo have to say, "Wetbacks must be smacked with a baseball bat", to support intent and state of mind?

The defense should be easy. The tattoo supports intent to kill; he didn't kill. Must have been a mistake.