Punisher emblems on firearms?

[fiddletown]

...If someone is going to admonish others or insist that they curtail their actions they they have the burden of proof. No such proof has been provided...

I haven't admonished anyone to do anything. I've merely suggested that a risk-benefit analysis is in order.

... I submit that the very fact that you have to delve in to psychology rather than legal precedent illustrates that there isn't any factual legal support for the notion that having something engraved on your firearm will cause you to be convicted of an otherwise good shoot....

Submit all you want. My prior comments speak for themselves. This is an issue of jury psychology. That is not the sort of thing that shows up in "precedent." In any case lawyers are aware of the influence that extraneous matters can have on juries, and you admit that

...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....

So a lack of a sour self defense case involving a Punisher skull (or something similar) on a gun could also be due to no one who shot someone with a gun with a Punisher skull (or similar) being on trial and claiming self defense. Or do you know of any such case?

...Two points. First I haven't misrepresented anything. Your online CV has you listed as a member of the "Massad Ayoob Group". Unless someone has hacked your profile I can only assume you stated that yourself...

Are you referring to my public profile on this board? If so, exactly where, or how, have I referred to myself as a member of the "Massad Ayoob Group"? I list several of the classes I've taken (misspelling "Gunsite" I see), including Ayoob's LFI-1 class. How does that make me a member of the "Massad Ayoob Group", i. e., his training business?

Oh, it just occurred to me where may be getting this nonsense from. I am on the professional networking site, Linkedin. On that site is a discussion group consisting of persons who have taken classes given by Massad Ayoob. It is referred to on the Linkedin site as the Massad Ayoob Group. It is not, nor is it in any way affiliated with, Massad Ayoob's business. In fact, I don't even think that Ayoob is a member of the group. (And I'm also on a Linkedin discussion group made up of former Gunsite students and at least one Gunsite staff member.)

Oh, and I'm also a member of the Calguns forum.

...Second, why would pointing out your affiliation with him be discrediting if you adhere to his opinions as you clearly do?

It wouldn't. But you dishonestly attempted to make it appear that I had failed to disclose that affiliation.

And yet despite all of your protestations I bet you still use HP ammo in your defensive gun even though that juror was fixated on how those evil bullets were designed to tear flesh.

I do use JHP ammunition. I do so, because it is the best choice for self defense applications. This is a function of a risk-benefit analysis.

JHP ammunition improves my chances of prevailing and surviving. And I am prepared to meet attacks on my use of JHP ammunition. So I consider the risk to be worthwhile.

[Scratch705]

this wouldn't be an issue if more gun owners or at least sane minded people would stop trying to skip out on jury duty.

companies these days are required by law to pay for jury duty absences or at minimum grant you the days off without any repercussion. so short of being self-employed, there isn't an excuse.

[STAGE 2]

I haven't admonished anyone to do anything.

I never said you did.

Submit all you want. My prior comments speak for themselves. This is an issue of jury psychology. That is not the sort of thing that shows up in "precedent." In any case lawyers are aware of the influence that extraneous matters can have on juries, and you admit that So a lack of a sour self defense case involving a Punisher skull (or something similar) on a gun could also be due to no one who shot someone with a gun with a Punisher skull (or similar) being on trial and claiming self defense. Or do you know of any such case?

More fluff. We already have jury psychology about HP ammo, but that seems to be fine. I can show you jury psychology about those plastic glock pistols that can shoot underwater and can pass through metal detectors. Yet no one is saying don't carry a glock. And then theres always the evil black rifle.. ahem, excuse me... assault weapon. Or how do you think some soccer mom from the suburbs is going to react when she sees your 870, resplendent with tactical light and shell carrier.

The bottom line is that I can paint an evil scenario for any weapon you decide to use. That doesn't mean its true, or logical, or successful.

While I'm sure that you are correct that there aren't many shootings involving pistols with a punisher logo, there are more than enough pistols with definitive markings and modifications for a single case to be found. There isn't one.

Furthermore, if this was some sort of honey hole for DA's it would be common practice. Its not for the simple reason that is doesn't work and the potential for abuse is massive. If the DA was fixated on this, the first words out of my mouth during closing are, "ladies and gentlemen the prosecution spent much of his time talking about what this firearm looks like because he doesn't want to talk about what the law says".

Oh, it just occurred to me where may be getting this nonsense from. I am on the professional networking site, Linkedin. On that site is a discussion group consisting of persons who have taken classes given by Massad Ayoob. It is referred to on the Linkedin site as the Massad Ayoob Group. It is not, nor is it in any way affiliated with, Massad Ayoob's business. In fact, I don't even think that Ayoob is a member of the group. (And I'm also on a Linkedin discussion group made up of former Gunsite students and at least one Gunsite staff member.)

Bingo. Putting that on your CV goes a bit beyond "I took a class" or "I helped once".

It wouldn't. But you dishonestly attempted to make it appear that I had failed to disclose that affiliation.

In other threads perhaps, but you've failed to be as forthcoming in the various threads that you and I have discussed his methodology and positions. It doesn't really do any good to mention it over there when the conversation is going on over here. That and the fact that you run to the mans rescue any time I question his opinions is slightly weird.

I do use JHP ammunition. I do so, because it is the best choice for self defense applications. This is a function of a risk-benefit analysis.

JHP ammunition improves my chances of prevailing and surviving. And I am prepared to meet attacks on my use of JHP ammunition. So I consider the risk to be worthwhile.

Perfectly legitimate but no less so than the person who states that engraving their firearm is of no risk because A) the law is on their side and B) there is no evidence to suggest that jurors convict because of "scary guns".

There cant be a risk without any evidence.

[Garand1911]

There is so many other skull designs i dont know why people stick with the way over used punisher one.
I agree that having that one design on a self defense gun looks real bad. And could haunt you in court and with media.

[Mr. Meeseeks]

There is so many other skull designs i dont know why people stick with the way over used punisher one.

To each his own. But I totally agree. Its like those Transformer logos on cars, it was cool for the first guy...

I agree that having that one design on a self defense gun looks real bad. And could haunt you in court and with media.

They're gonna use what ever they can, especially attack your character.

[diginit]

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.

Skull grips will not be the reason the person is in court, Not admitted as evidence, But will sway the jury. This is California, Remember? You used the term "Soccer moms" yourself.
Having any gun as evidence in court is bad. Having a skull or other death related paint job is worse. Most people have see the movie "The punisher". With this in mind, When the jury sees this well known symbol, They will immediatly assume that you want to be like him and kill for revenge without remorse. This will not help your case. Get It??? Please do not ask for PC or court cases when common sense should tell you the answer already.

[ubet]

Tenpercent, you really shouldnt post things like you have been, your posts just piss me off. They are logical and show a thorough thought analysis of what is going on, of what is and isnt. Sometimes that is just to much for the shtf, zombie killer, uber super ccwer these days.....

If its a good shoot and you arent in SF, its a good shoot and you shouldnt make it to court. IF its a bad shoot, lube up, cause your going to jail. What is on your gun be damned.

[Maddog5150]

In honor of this thread, I bought and installed a punisher emblem on my glock from the glock store in san diego

[STAGE 2]

Skull grips will not be the reason the person is in court

Agreed. So whether its there or not is irrelevant.

Not admitted as evidence, But will sway the jury.

Your demonstrate your ignorance of how things at trial work. If the firearm in question is admitted into evidence, then whatever engravings are on that firearm are obviously part of that. Similarly, there can be given on the appearance of the weapon which is also evidence.

This is California, Remember? You used the term "Soccer moms" yourself. Having any gun as evidence in court is bad. Having a skull or other death related paint job is worse. Most people have see the movie "The punisher". With this in mind, When the jury sees this well known symbol, They will immediatly assume that you want to be like him and kill for revenge without remorse. This will not help your case. Get It??? Please do not ask for PC or court cases when common sense should tell you the answer already.

And even in california we still have to follow the law, and that includes things like proving elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Having the punisher on your glock doesn't go to any element of any crime.

The problem here is that most people know what they know about the courtroom from watching too much Perry Mason & Law and Order. They have little to no experience of what it is actually like. Combine that with gun people like "the boob" who want to turn everything into some huge crisis and you get a skewed version of reality.

Again, if you defend yourself lawfully, then what your gun looks like is irrelevant.

[tenpercentfirearms]

Tenpercent, you really shouldnt post things like you have been, your posts just piss me off. They are logical and show a thorough thought analysis of what is going on, of what is and isnt. Sometimes that is just to much for the shtf, zombie killer, uber super ccwer these days.....

If its a good shoot and you arent in SF, its a good shoot and you shouldnt make it to court. IF its a bad shoot, lube up, cause your going to jail. What is on your gun be damned.

You are going to make my head explode! Stop it!

[fiddletown]

...Again, if you defend yourself lawfully, then what your gun looks like is irrelevant.

But the question can be how and when it is finally decided that your actions were justified. Many times, it your defense of yourself will be quickly found to be justified.

But if there's some disagreement on whether or not your intentional act of violence against another person was justified, your establishing that might well take some doing. If you're really unlucky, the lawfulness of your conduct won't be decided until your trial jury acquits you.

The uses of force by Mark Abshire, Larry Hickey, Harold Fish and Gerald Ung (post 83) were ultimately found lawful. But it took those gentlemen a lot of time, anxiety and expense to get there.

[chim-chim7]

If you guys keep making up these scenarios in your head about petty items eventually you will be too worried to even carry a gun. Maybe even to worried to go outside in the dark of night. Life is way to short to worry about such nonsense. Feel free to paint or dress up your firearms any way you choose.

[STAGE 2]

But if there's some disagreement on whether or not your intentional act of violence against another person was justified, your establishing that might well take some doing. If you're really unlucky, the lawfulness of your conduct won't be decided until your trial jury acquits you.

The uses of force by Mark Abshire, Larry Hickey, Harold Fish and Gerald Ung (post 83) were ultimately found lawful. But it took those gentlemen a lot of time, anxiety and expense to get there.

And in those cases what landed these men in the courtroom had nothing to do with what their firearm looked like. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Fish should have been found guilty. There was no disparity of force, he gave no warning to the perp and made no attempt to back away before shooting.

Your entire argument rests on the proposition that we never know when and under what conditions we will have to defend ourself so you shouldn't carve on your gun. I get that. The problem is that 1) you dont have any evidence that suggests that this has ever occurred in any substantial way and 2) it is not only more likely but even proven that making responsible choices about how you defend yourself (choosing a reliable pistol like a glock, using hollowpoint ammo) can be turned on you.

So your position boils down to the fact that you expect people to ignore whats happened when they shoot a tuperware pistol or use HP ammo, but then be wary about decorating their firearm even though there isn't any evidence on the matter. Thats not logical.

More importantly, advising on stuff like this is preparing for the .000000000000001%. Its just not feasible to live life like that. Its far more likely that I get hit in the eye with something today but I'm not going to live my life in safety glasses even though it would guarantee my protection. This is the same thing.

Its a theoretical risk. Nothing more.