View Single Post
Old August 28, 2009, 06:39 PM   #103
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Recoiljunkie44
..Personally rather be a armed citizen than an unarmed subject ...
Mas really beat me to it, but I also don't see that as the choice. There are plenty of guns suitable for self defense that won't tempt to to tinker with them. And BHPs have been used successfully with the magazine disconnect in place for a very long time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake
...The defense witness could point out that removing a disconnector safety from a BHP is a fairly common practice, to improve trigger pull and feel.

The defense witness could point out that the majority of semi-automatic pistols on the market do NOT come with disconnector safeties, and so the modification to the BHP would have brought it into line with the majority of pistols in the US market.

The defense witness could point out that the only scenario in which a disconnector safety would come into play as a safety would be with a magazine removed, which is NOT how the defendant was carrying the weapon.

The defense witness could point out that while some people claim the intent of the disconnector safety is so that one can drop the magazine if overpowered, to disable the gun, that's a bit of a reach; the magazine can be retrieved in short order. The real point of the disconnector safety was to prevent accidents during disassembly and cleaning, neither of which are factors in a defensive shooting....
Those are indeed the defense arguments. But as both Mas and I have said, they are nice, technical arguments of interest to people who have some knowledge of, or interest in, guns. But your jury is unlikely to include such people.

Your jury will most likely be made up of people who know little about guns, except what they think they've gleaned from TV and the movies, and they probably care little about the technical working of these infernal machines of death and destruction.

So you're much better off if you don't have to make them because the subject never comes up. And the only way to assure that the subject never comes up is to not disable a safety device.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PigPen
I know **** happens but don't forget that your lawyer gets to participate in jury selection too.
Yes, the defendant's lawyer does participate in jury selection. Here's how it works --

You start with a group of people. The prosecution and defense each asks questions of the prospective jurors, and each side gets to challenge (i. e., have removed) people he doesn't want on the jury. Challenges can be either for cause, i. e., when a prospective juror has expressed or demonstrated a clear prejudice, or peremptory, i. e., without cause (just because I feel like it). Each side has a specified number of peremptory challenges.

Now, while going through voire dire, the process of questioning prospective jurors, the prosecutor will be using his peremptory challenges to remove anyone who is an IPSC competitor or who has gone to Gunsite or has a gun, etc. And indeed, the prosecutor might even be able to successfully challenge some of those folks for cause and not have to use some of his peremptory challenges. (My wife, as a prospective juror, was once successfully challenged for cause by the defense in an armed robbery trial when she said that she was an NRA member and had strong negative feelings about someone misusing a gun for criminal activity.)

In the meantime, the defense will be kicking off the jury the Brady Campaign contributors and those who think guns should be banned.

So when this process is all done, who is going to be left on the jury -- a bunch of folks who are middle of the road, fence sitters, people not necessarily virulently anit-gun, but probably with no special knowledge of, or interest in guns. At least a few, and maybe many, of your jurors may have never even fired a gun. They may be willing to grant that someone could properly defend his life using a gun. But too many technical arguments about the attributes and mechanisms of guns -- how they work and what qualities are tactically desirable -- will cause their eyes to glaze over like the Easter ham.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PigPen
...there are factors on the side of removing the safety...
But those are "gunny" factors. They are not "Suzi Soccermom" factors.

Last edited by Frank Ettin; August 29, 2009 at 12:14 AM.
Frank Ettin is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02362 seconds with 7 queries