Punisher emblems on firearms?

[Equis]

i keeps it nerdy with the portal grips on my stainless gat, aint no jury in the world gonna convict a nerd, we keep da internet running

That is the most awesome thing I have ever seen on a 1911!!! Did you have to make those custom? Send me a PM about those. Thanks.

[STAGE 2]

Back on topic...Love all the showoffs, But a skull on your grips will not be a good thing in court. Subclassing you like a prison tatoo saying death is no big deal and I just want to kill something. Lets be real...This is a courtroom. Not a cool gun contest.

So then do us all the courtesy of citing the case in which someone was convicted of a crime or lost a civil case because of what was engraved on his firearm/grips.

[fiddletown]

...The simple facts are that why your gun looks like it does, or even what gun you use don't go to any element of any crime. ...

On the other hand, if you're unlucky enough to be on trial, what your gun looked like could have an effect on your jury. See this article by Dr. Glenn E. Meyer. BTW, Dr. Meyer is a moderator on TFL.

Anyway, embellishing my gun with the sigil of some comic book vigilante isn't going to help me defend myself, so I see no reason to do so.

But if you want to festoon your roscoe with all manner of signs or symbols -- Punisher skull, the Jolly Roger, etc., have at it.

[Maddog5150]

So much hateraid about a symbol. I'd rather see the punisher, jolly roger, micky, hell I'd rather see elton john on my rifle than have it decked out with magpul junk...


Chances are if someone has those little symbols on thier "roscoes" then its probably a fun gun and not their uber cool SHTF homeland defender tacticool rig
BTW, yes I have a punisher rifle No its not my defense weapon. naked mossberg and glock are.

[dieselpower]

There is a guy in Camarillo with the Punisher emblem on his SUV... with a roof rack filled with gear 24/7. I pass the house and its always there so its not weekend camping gear unless he camps every weekend.

[Mute]

In a criminal trial, I probably won't worry too much. A competent lawyer should be able to defend you if a shooting is indeed justified. A civil trial on the other hand..who knows. The opposition is going try to paint you in the worst light possible and I'm not particularly confident in some of the jurist that gets pulled to court duty.

[tenpercentfirearms]

On the other hand, if you're unlucky enough to be on trial, what your gun looked like could have an effect on your jury. See this article by Dr. Glenn E. Meyer. BTW, Dr. Meyer is a moderator on TFL.

A few snippets from the article.

Branscombe, Crosby, and Weir (1993) conducted mock trial research involving a homeowner who shot a burglar, and found incompetent male shooters and competent female shooters were dealt with more harshly than the reverse pairing. The interaction seemed due to whether or not homeowners breached stereotypical standards (males being competent shooters and females incompetent). Shooters who violated gender roles were perceived more negatively for their use of a firearm than those who did not breach normal gender roles.

Note it was mock trial research.

Can the appearance and characteristics of a firearm influence a jury decision? Legal scholars have suggested that appearance of excessive force in a self-defense situation (i.e. the martial arts) can affect tort liability (Whitaker, 1995-1996) and that might apply to firearms. Certainly, there is ongoing discussion of banning so-called 'assault weapons' even though past legislative endeavors seem to have no effect on crime rate indices (Koper & Roth, 2001).

After reading this paragraph, I got nothing out of it. Appearance of excessive force in a martial arts scenario would be no different than appearance of excessive force in a shooting scenario. However, that is excessive force and it would be a stretch to say I used excessive force just because I had a skull on my rifle or handgun. And then to state since people want to ban "assault weapons" means some people look at some guns more harshly so what gun you choose might make a difference in court is correct. It might. Still no evidence it has.

We tested this in our article that recently appeared in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology (Meyer, Banos, Gerondale, Kiriazes, Lakin, & Rinker, 2009).

Again more mock trials. The problem with their study is it doesn't say why a gun owner would be found guilty when someone breaks into their home and they shoot the intruder.

Of course if you tell a bunch of mock jurors, "A burglar breaks into a homeowner's house and the homeowner shoots the burglar. The homeowner is found guilty. What kind of sentence do you give him?" they are going to give varying types of sentences based on gun type. Guilty of what? What is the scenario? And even then, if he is guilty, he broke the law. We aren't sure which law he broke, but we are just to assume the gun owner is guilty for shooting an intruder in his home.

Talk about a weak study. In fact the whole article pretty much revolves around how the type of firearm you use in a crime might increase your sentence. Well that is a pretty decent study for criminals. I think most of us here tend not to be criminals.

After reading that article, I think Stage 2 has it.

You can have the punisher logo, pink fairies, or engrave the "deathgiver 3000" on the side of your firearm and it wont matter. Gunwriters, especially "the boob" do these things to fill pages.

The simple facts are that why your gun looks like it does, or even what gun you use don't go to any element of any crime. Moreover, there has never been a single case where a gunowner was convicted of an otherwise good shoot because of what his gun looked like. If this was an epidemic, or even something that warranted advise there would be at least a single case in the 200+ years of american jurisprudence to point to.

Again, this is stuff certian people constantly drag out to keep themselves relevant.

[STAGE 2]

On the other hand, if you're unlucky enough to be on trial, what your gun looked like could have an effect on your jury. See this article by Dr. Glenn E. Meyer. BTW, Dr. Meyer is a moderator on TFL.

A couple of points. First, with all due respect to Dr. Meyer, when I want legal advise I'm not going to ask a psychology professor. In that same vein when I'm discussing issues of criminal law I'm not going to consult a tax attorney or a legal services attorney for blue cross for that matter.

As far as the article itself, its 100% speculation and assumption. Case in point, it states...

Can the appearance and characteristics of a firearm influence a jury decision? Legal scholars have suggested that appearance of excessive force in a self-defense situation (i.e. the martial arts) can affect tort liability (Whitaker, 1995-1996) and that might apply to firearms.

The good professor here fails logic 101. The question is "can the appearance of a firearm influence a jury decision". The answer they give is "excessive force can effect tort liability". Objection nonresponsive.

The amount of force used has nothing to do with what a firearm looks like so thats moot. Moreover they have to look at tort liability (which is a civil action) since there is no criminal precedent. On top of all that, the best they can say is it "might". I might get hit by a bus today. I might win the lottery. Thats not statistically definitive by any measure.

So in short, this piece proves exactly what I said.

Anyway, embellishing my gun with the sigil of some comic book vigilante isn't going to help me defend myself, so I see no reason to do so.

But if you want to festoon your roscoe with all manner of signs or symbols -- Punisher skull, the Jolly Roger, etc., have at it.

No one is telling you to do anything with your weapons. The issue is whether doing so will make you face criminal liability. There is no real world evidence that it will.

[HighLander51]

I like this better

[SanPedroShooter]

I had to look up the cake reference...

[MrExel17]

C'mon you saw the movie! The logo is a must for revenge.

[fiddletown]

...when I want legal advise I'm not going to ask a psychology professor....

On the other hand, for advice on jury psychology, one would be well advised to consult a psychologist. Dr. Meyer is not offering legal advice. He is offering information about the psychology of jurors -- something that good trial lawyers want to know about.

The top trial lawyers I've worked with all understood and effectively used psychological considerations, both as an aid in jury selection and in framing how they presented their clients' cases. The O. J. Simpson defense team hired several psychology consultants (one of whom was a neighbor of mine in Pasadena at the time), for help during jury selection and trial. Doing such a thing is not uncommon.

Any lawyer who has participated in post verdict jury interviews should realize that seemingly legally extraneous factors can affect juror perception. We indeed know from a post verdict interview of a Harold Fish juror that Fish's use of JHP ammunition had a negative effect on his jury..

[STAGE 2]

On the other hand, for advice on jury psychology, one would be well advised to consult a psychologist. Dr. Meyer is not offering legal advice. He is offering information about the psychology of jurors -- something that good trial lawyers want to know about.

The top trial lawyers I've worked with all understood and effectively used psychological considerations, both as an aid in jury selection and in framing how they presented their clients' cases. The O. J. Simpson defense team hired several psychology consultants (one of whom was a neighbor of mine in Pasadena at the time), for help during jury selection and trial. Doing such a thing is not uncommon.

Here's the problem. This is a legal question. Since our justice system is made up of humans, theres undoubtedly a human/psychological factor involved. This factor, however, does not trump the limits of the legal elements of a crime, and thats why even this study could offer no evidence that "scary guns" increase the chance of conviction. There are examples of how juries view race, wealth, and other factors, and there are examples of how verdicts have been altered as a result. There is no such example for this and thats why its irresponsible for people to insist its an epidemic.

Any lawyer who has participated in post verdict jury interviews should realize that seemingly legally extraneous factors can affect juror perception. We indeed know from a post verdict interview of a Harold Fish juror that Fish's use of JHP ammunition had a negative effect on his jury..

And yet JHP is the recommended ammo of choice by everyone including "The Boob". Fish has been hashed out here before and its not really indicative of anything other than the fact that if you shoot an unarmed man in public and then offer different versions of events you're going to land in court. And despite all of that, Fish was ultimately not convicted.

Furthermore, as one of those attorneys who has participated in those post verdict interviews, I'm very much aware of juror perceptions. And contrary to what has been asserted here its my personal belief that it would actually be advantageous to defense counsel if some DA decided to go down the road of "this evil guy use xy & z to kill the rapist" because there are countless ways to make said DA look foolish.

In fact I believe that this potential blowback is why most DA's don't use this line of argument. They know its not going to get anywhere because it doesn't prove any element.


BTW: It would have been far more honest of you to disclose the fact that you were a member of the "Massad Ayoob Group" in our various discussions about these issues. At least other readers would be able to have a more informed judgment about your opinions on these various things, if not explain your voracious defense of the man and his positions.

[Cali-Shooter]

I like this better

That looks like a gun straight out of Quake II. Badass.

[GettoPhilosopher]

As usual, Wash wins!

Same with TenPercent and Stage 2. The point's been hashed out. Some people feel it's best to have a virgin, unmodified, more "mainstream" weapon for a HD/SD shoot. There is--apparently, as none has been cited--absolutely no evidence of any cases in which weapon accessories have caused a conviction on an otherwise clean shoot.

I agree with TenPercent's point--if not necessarily his strong choice of words--on the matter of elitism. I'm glad some of you can afford to buy a virgin handgun solely for the purpose of clean SD/HD shoots. Me, I own what guns I can afford, and I buy them because I enjoy firearms (especially building them). That's all, that's the only reason. I don't know, I'd rather tell a jury that I was surprised to find someone in my house with a weapon, grabbed the nearest gun (whether my 20" AR, my 16" AR, my 7.5" AR Pistol, or my 19" Saiga 12), and defended myself with reasonable force than to explain why I have a clean, unmodified pistol solely for the purpose of potential self-defense.

My dream home defense weapon is a gold plated Saiga 12 AOW with a ten round drum magazine and Thompson style wood furniture and a visible laser sight (so I can shoot from the hip).

If it has it's tax stamp and is otherwise legit, I wouldn't be worried about it in a self defense shooting.

If there are any questions, I'll ask "would he rather have been shot by my pink 1914A4? How about my .475 Linebaugh revolver? Maybe he would prefer my .458 SOCOM AR pistol?"

If they understand that you are a collector and have all manner of effective and 100% legal guns, they will realize that you have the gun because you like guns, not because you were hoping to shoot someone.

Now if you have one gun and it seemed like you were looking to get in to dangerous situations, it might look worse with Punisher grips. If I were on the jury all it would do is give me a slight negative impression because I like some nice CNC Micarta, Ivory or exotic wood grips on a 1911.