When it's all over said and done, "Is it worth it".
To me? No! To whomever? Maybe.
If it ever became an issue, you'd kick yourself!
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
They will get you lynched in court - don't do it
They may add weight to the prosecution depending on the circumstances
Doubtful they would have any significance in court, but fellow enthusiast may ridicule them
It won't make any difference either way - do what you want
When it's all over said and done, "Is it worth it".
To me? No! To whomever? Maybe.
If it ever became an issue, you'd kick yourself!
Some stuff like camo or benign markings are unlikely to be a issue but I wouldn't want to have to deal with the potential BS some markings could create. I think most of the random markings (often Internet memes) are retarded.
basically if you think it could possibly be used to paint you in a negative light, then don't do it. it is kind of sad that we even have to worry about this sort of thing... "oh he had a picture on his gun, he's a monster!"
You apparently did not watch the opening couple of days of the prosecution case.
Yes, they did try and argue that there was something sinister about carrying a 9mm with one in the chamber, and that the KelTec was small enough to be concealed...and that it was concealed to begin with.
It was ridiculous...but it was part of the case.
Fortunately in the cross examination, that whole line of questioning was destroyed, but it was thrown out there.
Last edited by HackerF15E; 07-20-13 at 08:36.
Please refrain from carving notches on the butt of your gun. That can be, uh, misconstrued...
Never sit at the bargaining table with an empty stomach.
In my opinion, the prosecution had to think that because it was all females on the jury, that they were not educated when it came to firearms and CCW.
Hence, they were trying to up the "scare factor" of the gun, as well as making it sound sinister that there was one in the pipe, that there was no safety, and that it was concealed.
Such tricks, despite the reputation of De La Rionda, aren't limited to that prosecutor or that case. IMHO, anything and everything that can be made to reflect poorly on the defendant will be leveraged to the max extent possible.
Unlike what Angela Corey said in the post-verdict press conference, defendants are not sent to trial "to get all the facts out there" -- that is why there are Grand Juries and Special Prosecutors. Trials are only commenced once the prosecution believes they can get a conviction, and their objective once the gavel comes down is to get that conviction. It is not to be fair...it is not to allow an honest presentation of the evidence...it is specifically to get a conviction.
IMHO, any feeling of paranoia that CCWers have about their firearm choice seems to be borne out by actual fact, and is a legitimate aspect to think about.
How many of those weapons are involved in shootings and end up as evidence?
I tend to agree that you can take it to extremes, but maybe in some cases it is better safe than sorry.
A jury may be told not to consider something after an objection has been sustained, but they can't unhear it. A zealous prosecutor or defense attorney knows that.
My take is that you cant say absolutely one way or another.
Bookmarks