Cop’s AR-15 Dust Cover Inscription Used Against Him in Court

[mammynun]

I would say a majority of departments dont issue rifles. But then again...most arent properly funded.

My son is an Indiana State Trooper. Want to guess who built the AR that rides with him?

ETA: The dust cover isn't engraved.

 

[MarkC]

My son is an Indiana State Trooper. Want to guess who built the AR that rides with him?

ETA: The dust cover isn't engraved.

Similarly, when I was an Indiana State Trooper, my AR was built by some union craftsmen in Hartford, and was purchased on my own dime. It sported its unadorned, factory dust cover. There were fairly detailed standards on what weapons and ammo could be carried, and I doubt they have loosened them much since I retired in 2014.

Given that troopers haven't had a substantial raise since 2008 (not counting the 2% in 2014), I don't foresee the department being in a strong position to equip the ~600-800 road troopers with a state-issued patrol rifle any time soon.

 

[mammynun]

Similarly, when I was an Indiana State Trooper, my AR was built by some union craftsmen in Hartford, and was purchased on my own dime. It sported its unadorned, factory dust cover. There were fairly detailed standards on what weapons and ammo could be carried, and I doubt they have loosened them much since I retired in 2014.

Given that troopers haven't had a substantial raise since 2008 (not counting the 2% in 2014), I don't foresee the department being in a strong position to equip the ~600-800 road troopers with a state-issued patrol rifle any time soon.

I gave it to him when he graduated the academy. I did contact the ISP armor at the academy to ensure what I was building met the standard (he graduated in Dec. 2012).

But I have to say that I was pretty shocked that the ISP didn't supply long guns.

 

[oldpink]

My son is an Indiana State Trooper. Want to guess who built the AR that rides with him?

ETA: The dust cover isn't engraved.

It seems crazy that ISP doesn't supply long guns, yet places parameters on exactly what is allowed if you buy one on your own.
Since they won't supply them, it would seem fair to have anything, just as long as it doesn't have the already mentioned unflattering statements or images on it.
Hell, I'd get myself a .220 Swift bolt action.

 

[in625shooter]

It seems crazy that ISP doesn't supply long guns, yet places parameters on exactly what is allowed if you buy one on your own.
Since they won't supply them, it would seem fair to have anything, just as long as it doesn't have the already mentioned unflattering statements or images on it.
Hell, I'd get myself a .220 Swift bolt action.

At least ISP allows personal rifles. Not to get away from the topic but funny story. A lot of old heads refuse to. I know when I was a municipal LEO in the early mid 90's we had department AR 15' new chief and mayor took them out, then mayor and chief went to a conference and one of the LE trainers looked out and asked which city didn't allow rifles. Several raised their hand. The speaker basically told them they were stupid and why (in a professional articulated way). They called and said put the rifles back in the cars. A week later the BOA Shootout happened in LA.

 

[Alamo]

It's a bond hearing. All kinds of crap gets thrown up (I had a prosecutor bring up a late parking ticket in Chicago once, I nearly went though the ceiling). The rules of evidence are more open than a trial.

Pffft. I use it to argue my guy isn't a flight risk. He not going anywhere, in fact he sticks around too long.

You're assuming it wasn't Kirk's parking ticket... maybe that's why he went thru the ceiling.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You're assuming it wasn't Kirk's parking ticket... maybe that's why he went thru the ceiling.

No, he was African-American, that's why they brought it up as a way to get "Chicago" into the transcript. It drives me nuts.

Anywho, looking bleak for the defendant: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...-killing-released-article-1.2640029?cid=bitly

 

[Guncraft]

Though common sense and the law says (as Kirk could more accurately illustrate than I) if the need to shoot is determined to be reasonable considering the totality of the circumstances, the inscription will not trump that. HOWEVER, as a police officer and a firearms/use of force trainer, I would not ever allow something like that to adorn a service weapon. Sure the officer, like all citizens, has the right to free speech. The inscription is correct in the sense that when the dust cover is open you might be having a bad day if you are down range. The problem with those kind of things is what the officer has to deal with now while he tries to defend his actions in court when he will likely have a jury full of mouth-breathing liberals who are more concerned with the inscription than the facts.

Andy

 

[HoughMade]

Regarding the OP incident. the officer's murder trial is set for next month.

New October trial date set in Daniel Shaver murder case

Also, in case you haven't seen the dust cover in question, see prosecution exhibit "A":

View attachment 58905

 

[INPoolPlayer]

I was watching Handguns and Defensive Weapons on Sportsman channel the other day, and they mentioned in a segment about how having the punisher logo or something similar on your gun could possibly be used against you in court. At the time I thought that preposterous, but I guess not. Although if the guy was clearly an armed threat I'm not sure it wpuld be an issue. However it does make you think a little bit more about memes you may like or post on social media, patches you display, etc even though we shouldn't have to prove that no responsible gun owner really wants to take the life of another human being.

 

[HoughMade]

A clear-cut case, truly clear cut, will likely remain clear-cut, regardless.

...but if it isn't as clear, don't give the other side anything to argue.

 

[Excalibur]

This is the main reason why my go to fighting guns are not in different colors than stock or have any different parts that could be use for defensive function. Like I bought triggers for my Glock that (on the box) says they are Self Defense trigger. Not ghost trigger or fast trigger but something if brought to the attention of court can not be used against me.

 

[actaeon277]

Brailsford's gun etching inadmissible in Shaver murder trial

Inadmissible

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I was watching Handguns and Defensive Weapons on Sportsman channel the other day, and they mentioned in a segment about how having the punisher logo or something similar on your gun could possibly be used against you in court. At the time I thought that preposterous, but I guess not. Although if the guy was clearly an armed threat I'm not sure it wpuld be an issue. However it does make you think a little bit more about memes you may like or post on social media, patches you display, etc even though we shouldn't have to prove that no responsible gun owner really wants to take the life of another human being.

Civil court is also an issue, and the rules of what gets admitted are more lax.

To recycle some posts:

If we're talking STRICTLY criminal, in my experience, it has not mattered. This answer could easily be different in another jurisdiction, if your case becomes "a media case", etc. However "the norm" has the file/no-file decision being made with the prosecutor having no idea what the weapon looks like. I have never been asked what color the gun was, if it has any alterations* or markings, type of firearm, etc.

Civil is different. The photos of your weapon are discoverable by the opposing side. They have much greater leeway in what they can ask in both the depo and the trial (I've been through depos, not to trial). I was asked about such personal things as hobbies, and that would not be asked in a criminal depo. You can bet your ass that if a photo showed something that could paint you in a bad light, it's going to come up in a depo and then come up in court. It is the opposing attorney's JOB to paint you as having some level of responsibility for the person's death, it not their job to discover and introduce the truth. It's their JOB to dig in depos for ways to find dirt on you. It's their JOB to ask questions that have no good answers, lock you into something, and then ask the same thing in court and beat you over the head as a liar or fool if your answer varies slightly.

There's also the notion that a good shoot is always identified as a good shoot. Particularly if you do the "don't talk to the police" routine, you may very well go to grand jury even if you don't end up going go to trial. A grand jury gets to ask their own questions. We've had a grand jury ask a cop why he didn't shoot the gun out of a bad guy's hand, and this was one where it started with a cop getting shot.

A jury will see photos of your weapon. Juries are unpredictable and are hugely influenced by what they think they know from watching TV. The grand jury member really expected a cop to shoot a gun out of a bad guy's hand because TV told him they could. And the cop had to answer how that's stupid and what reality was. What's your explanation for why there is a punisher skull on your weapon when that guy, the guy who is one of the people deciding if you indicted for murder or not, asks why you have a punisher skull on your gun. Do you want that subconscious association with a vigilante? Criminal juries get to ask questions, too, but they are much more constrained in which ones the judge/attorneys will actually allow to be asked in open court. I still get asked about why we didn't CSI some ****, and it's because TV.

From my experiences, there is no way in hell I'd put anything on a gun I couldn't explain to the biggest moron who could find the court house to serve on a grand jury to.


*not counting altered/obliterated serial number, which is illegal by itself

A thread on another forum I frequent has a *lot* of good info from LEOs and attorneys/prosecutors on both the criminal and civil ramifications: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?27448-Punisher-Skull-on-a-Self-Defense-Firearm

Worth the read, but the take away is "don't, it will never help you and could hurt you".

 

[hpclayto]

But....if you don't put cool sayings on your gun how will everyone know how operator you are?

 

[Hohn]

I think the quote needs to be something like "I'm begging you with tears in my eyes, please don't make me use this."

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Thanks for the updates and insight. If I write something on my rifle it is my name and/or comeups.

 

[HoughMade]

Brailsford's gun etching inadmissible in Shaver murder trial

Inadmissible

Interesting. I can see that ruling...it's likely legally correct, I just don't expect too much of that sometimes.

The issue shouldn't be his general mindset or the mindset at the time he installed the dust cover, but what was his mindset when he pulled the trigger...several times.

 

[wildcatdd]

A clear-cut case, truly clear cut, will likely remain clear-cut, regardless.

...but if it isn't as clear, don't give the other side anything to argue.

^ This. Ashamed to say this happened in my home state.

 

[phylodog]

His mindset has nothing to do with it (or shouldn't). The legal (criminal) standard is whether or not his actions were reasonable given the circumstances, everything else should be saved for civil court.

All of the chest thumping macho BS in the world, regardless how idiotic it may be, does not render a reasonable use of force unreasonable. Just as the best of intentions do not render an unreasonable use of force reasonable. Its either lawful or its not and the yardstick is Graham V Connor.