pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Sued for using reloads or having mods?
#21
GregorOneEye;63698 Wrote:What about the Harold Fish case? The 10mm case. I think you could possibly use that as evidence.


I know that WE know that mods and ammo and shit like that doesn't really matter, but juries don't know that, and I think a prosecutor will use anything extra to make you seem like a murderer if they have the chance. I do believe the chance is slim though.

Link to facts?

I'm not trying to be a smartass but I would like to see any evidence either for or against either side of this argument.
I've seen a lot of argument and still have not seen any proof or documentation.
There are three types of people in the world:
Those who make things happen,
Those who watch things happen,
And those who wonder what happened.
Reply
#22
GregorOneEye;63698 Wrote:What about the Harold Fish case? The 10mm case. I think you could possibly use that as evidence.


I know that WE know that mods and ammo and shit like that doesn't really matter, but juries don't know that, and I think a prosecutor will use anything extra to make you seem like a murderer if they have the chance. I do believe the chance is slim though.

It looks like Fish was released on appeal..., doesn't that provide evidence that you wouldn't be held accountable for the type of load you carry?

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#23
No, I understand completely. I didn't have the time to look it up, just thought of it as a reference point. I believe there were people interviewed on TV, jurors, who said why would he need such a powerful gun and such, but I'm trying to find the actual info itself.

Typical prosecutor BS about hollowpoints and powerful rounds was muttered I'm sure.
Soldats ! Faites votre devoir ! Droit au cœur mais épargnez le visage. Feu !
Reply
#24
Yeah it looks like Fish was railroaded, but that later, rational minds prevailed, and laws were changed.

Justin
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#25
Camper;63704 Wrote:I didn't say you or I, and the Geneva convention applies to military. I was merely suggesting the guy heard info in one place and is applying it to another.

I'm confused.

Camper;63674 Wrote:You are not allowed to make your weapon more deadly per the Geneva convention, but that's more directed at using glass or poison or the like.
Reply
#26
I just typed a god damn paper about this then deleted it by accident. Fuuuck.


Basically what I said was it was a small and slightly possible factor that his weapon choice hurt. They cost him a primary conviction of second degree murder and half a million in court costs to eventually win on appeal. Whoop dee fuckin doo. The bigger factors were certainly other things, but it could POSSIBLY hurt. That's all. Here are some quotes from an MSNBC story.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/ns/...OoDAndFDSg

"And the jury had another issue to think about: Fish’s gun.

The firearms investigator said that Fish’s gun — a 10mm — is more powerful than what police officers use and is not typically used for personal protection. And the ammunition Fish used to shoot Kuenzli three times, called “a hollow-point bullet,” is made to expand when it enters the body.

When he decided to pull the trigger, the prosecutor said, Fish should have known what the consequences would be.

Lessler: Mr. Fish knew well what a hollow-point bullet does.

Larson: And the end product of his shooting is going to be death?

Lessler: Yes.
"


"Michael Lessler, prosecutor: Mr. Fish shot him three time in the chest with this high powered gun, hollow point bullets and caused his death. That’s murder."


"And this juror was disturbed by the type of bullets Fish used.

Elliot: The whole hollow point thing bothered me. That bullet is designed to do as much damage as absolutely possible. It’s designed to kill.
"



So yeah this could be a problem for any of us with a bad prosecutor and a bad jury. Just a possible factor and not something I would worry about. Just saying it COULD possibly hurt maybe.
Soldats ! Faites votre devoir ! Droit au cœur mais épargnez le visage. Feu !
Reply
#27
Before the Harold Fish case, people who used a gun in self defense were put on trial and made to prove they acted in self defense. The law has since changed and the state has to have enough evidence to prove it wasn't self defense before they can bring the person to trial.

There are defenses one can use if the prosecution tries to make you out to be a monster for using hollow points. Two being that cops use them. The other being they prevent overpenetration and reduce the risk of the bullet exiting the attacker and hitting an innocent person.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Reply
#28
I'd say that Fish's defense should have countered the idea that the hollow point is designed to inflict as much damage. Since part of their design is to not over penetrate the target. Damage is just a side effect of that design.
Reply
#29
They should have done a lot more the first time no kidding. My problem is that it cost him half a million dollars to be in the right.

Further proof to just leave the scene. 5th amendment.
Soldats ! Faites votre devoir ! Droit au cœur mais épargnez le visage. Feu !
Reply
#30
GregorOneEye;63749 Wrote:They should have done a lot more the first time no kidding. My problem is that it cost him half a million dollars to be in the right.

Further proof to just leave the scene. 5th amendment.

It wasn't his lawyers fault. The judge threw out a bunch of evidence that proved his defense.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Reply








Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.