what are the odds....?

**7thmoosefromtheleft** · December 23rd, 2014, 03:19 PM

I started carrying about a month ago, and while having a discussion with a friend of mine( ya same from last post I made) I made mention of a few upgrades I plan on making to my ppq. He said anything but stock is a bad idea for a carry pistol. I expected him to say because I might depend on it or it could fail. He argues a DA will try to say I was "hunting " due to having a laser sight / red dot, trigger job or anything that will give an advantage in a gun fight....
If a shoot that goes to court will a DA use the fact that I have attachment to my firearm against me.
What are the odds this will succeeded in making a good guy look like a thug looking for a fight? Any one herd of this actually happening?

p.s. Sorry for typos, I'm on mobile, I will fix when I get a chance

**bill gray** · December 23rd, 2014, 03:44 PM

Massad Ayoob often writes about prosecutors who will use ordinary practices and make them out to be proof that the (legal) shooter was looking to kill. "Ordinary store bought ammo wasn't good enough. The defendant went and made super-duper killer ammo." (R.e. hand loaded ammo) "The gun has a hair trigger so it went off accidentally and there was no real danger to defend against." (R.e. trigger job) Ayoob advises labeling and storing the rest of your carry ammo so it can be used in lab testing if there is any controversy. He advises against trigger jobs lighter than the police standard. He advises using the same ammo as your local or State police. I think he wrote of a case where a uniformed cop on the stand was testifying about the horrible hollow points used in the case at hand. He was asked to show what he had in his spare magazines. It was the same ammo which kinda took the wind out of his sails. The point is not to give any "ammunition" to the prosecutor or attorney for the poor ute who failed at the victim selection process. You want to be that "reasonable man" and nothing but.

**Sam1911** · December 23rd, 2014, 04:39 PM

There's certainly truth at the core of the concern not to hand a prosecutor any levers to use in tainting your image in the eyes of the jury.

But there's levels to this. You talking about Punisher skull grips and a huge "medieval" spiked and saw-toothed compensator on your shotgun? A "Kill Em All" t-shirt and a "Trespassers will be Shot, Survivors will be Shot AGAIN!" sticker on your front door?

Or... just a decent trigger and a set of night sights or white light?

Do your choices stand out as outliers indicating absurd aggression or anti-social attitudes, or are they minor technical details the jury can't even see from their box?

Gotta hit some kind of balance. If you find a pistol you shoot very well in box-stock form and you train and practice with it? Great! Use that. If you need better sights and minor improvements? No serious risk. It isn't like a prosecutor is going to even know whether you had your pistol slicked up a little bit -- so long as it isn't so scary light and that the investigators start to think maybe you fired accidentally. It would a pretty long shot that mentioning that you made some minor interior improvement is going to really resonate with a jury well enough for the prosecutor to bother pushing that idea.

And so long as the gun isn't tramped up with flaming skulls or the grim reaper so you look like a nut when the prosecutor holds it up in front of the jury.

As I said in another thread:

Originally Posted by Me

Dr. Glenn Meyer has done some very interesting research on the effects of the presentation of different "scary" vs. "normal" firearms to jurors in test trials, and how different weapons seem to lead to higher or lower conviction rates. http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2009/09...armed-citizen/ (He's a member of another forum where I participate and he posts regularly on these matters.)

He would suggest that if you're on trial and anyone's really discussing your gun and ammo choices in that trial, you're in a bad way. It's never good for the defendant.

Extrapolating, he'd suggest that you keep your choices very middle-of-the-road, normal, simple, expected and so easily explained that no one even thinks to ask about them.

**ray h** · December 23rd, 2014, 04:48 PM

Isn't a trigger job to make sure you can shoot the weapon out of the bad guys hand?

**Mitch10mm** · December 23rd, 2014, 04:51 PM

Thanks Sam, I didn't want to do all the typing.

The advice given to the op reminds me of the guys in The Worst Tactical Video thread. Not that the buddy is but some have opinions formed from hearing the same exaggerated information time and time again.

**7thmoosefromtheleft** · December 23rd, 2014, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Sam1911

There's certainly truth at the core of the concern not to hand a prosecutor any levers to use in tainting your image in the eyes of the jury.

But there's levels to this. You talking about Punisher skull grips and a huge "medieval" spiked and saw-toothed compensator on your shotgun? A "Kill Em All" t-shirt and a "Trespassers will be Shot, Survivors will be Shot AGAIN!" sticker on your front door?

Or... just a decent trigger and a set of night sights or white light?

Do your choices stand out as outliers indicating absurd aggression or anti-social attitudes, or are they minor technical details the jury can't even see from their box?

Gotta hit some kind of balance. If you find a pistol you shoot very well in box-stock form and you train and practice with it? Great! Use that. If you need better sights and minor improvements? No serious risk. It isn't like a prosecutor is going to even know whether you had your pistol slicked up a little bit -- so long as it isn't so scary light and that the investigators start to think maybe you fired accidentally. It would a pretty long shot that mentioning that you made some minor interior improvement is going to really resonate with a jury well enough for the prosecutor to bother pushing that idea.

And so long as the gun isn't tramped up with flaming skulls or the grim reaper so you look like a nut when the prosecutor holds it up in front of the jury.

As I said in another thread:
Originally Posted by Me
Dr. Glenn Meyer has done some very interesting research on the effects of the presentation of different "scary" vs. "normal" firearms to jurors in test trials, and how different weapons seem to lead to higher or lower conviction rates. http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2009/09...armed-citizen/ (He's a member of another forum where I participate and he posts regularly on these matters.)

He would suggest that if you're on trial and anyone's really discussing your gun and ammo choices in that trial, you're in a bad way. It's never good for the defendant.

Extrapolating, he'd suggest that you keep your choices very middle-of-the-road, normal, simple, expected and so easily explained that no one even thinks to ask about them.

so im guessing all these guys who carry with an rmr are more or less asking for trouble?
like this gun/person
http://25.media.tumblr.com/fd932cc1b...2gk5o1_500.jpg
:/

**streaker69** · December 23rd, 2014, 05:53 PM

Another good reading is the saga of Harold Fish and his 10mm.

**Bang** · December 23rd, 2014, 06:06 PM

Ayoob seems quite the expert re shooting and firearms, but he is a big disappointment with his courtroom fabrications. He has also been unable to back some of his stories.

An attorney can make an assertion based on facts known, but cannot offer speculation. He/she can ask a question in an effort to form a foundation but they seldom will ask a question that they do not know what the answer will be. They cannot "testify" and if questions are outside of scope, they will not be allowed.

He/she can put on an "expert" and ask the expert's opinion regarding certain facts of the case, but the expert also may not speculate with any degree of success because the expert witness too can be neutralized either by objection or cross/re-cross, or countered with another expert.

I have read of one nitwit's warning that having a handgun in a holster was "proof" that the carrier was "hunting".

**donm** · December 23rd, 2014, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by Bang

Ayoob seems quite the expert re shooting and firearms, but he is a big disappointment with his courtroom fabrications...

I won't claim to have read everything that Ayoob has written, but I did spend four days in his class a few years back and I've heard a lot of things attributed to him that directly contradict what I personally heard him say. Pretty much everything was backed up with specific case references. As for your carry gun, he said that it's OK to do anything except 1) disable a factory-installed safety or 2) install a very light trigger. [If the DA can convince a jury that the shot was accidental, you have an obvious problem with your self-defense claim.] Night sights, optics, lasers and most trigger jobs are fine. As for ammo, he strongly advised against loading your own because it compromises the forensics. He'll also say that these issues, if raised by the DA, can usually be overcome -- though you may come out of the process minus your retirement savings and your home. That expert witness can easily cost you as much as a very nice car.

**Yellowfin** · December 23rd, 2014, 07:51 PM

Even better than all of this is to find out if your local DA is anti gun and against citizen self defense and have them kicked out of office and run out of town. We need exactly ZERO of them to keep their jobs. Talk to your local law firms and see who is on our side to support them if they are thinking of running. Also, if any law firms have anti gun lawyers on their payroll, try to get as much business directed away from them as possible.