Why you might need a gun in Detriot

DanM said:

You evidently have a misconception of the types of questions and the latitude you would have in answering a prosecutor's examination of you as the defendant and a hostile witness. The prosecutor will not ask you a question to which he does not already know the answer, and the questions will rarely be open-ended. You will give the answers that the prosecutor already knows are coming and that damns you the most. If you attempt to give an explanatory answer to a closed-ended question, you will be cut off. If you do not answer, you will be ordered to answer. If you don't give the correct answer, you will be impeached. All of which will just make you look worse to the jury.

While my hypothetical may not be exactly what would be said, it is a good representation of how it would go down. You would be asked air-tight questions designed to make you look dumb or, better, guilty. And it's not that you're "dumb enough" to give those answers, it's that you have no choice other than to not answer or to lie, which are even more dumb than giving the prosecutors the answers they know are coming from you.

Of course, if you don't take the witness stand at all, the prosecutor is merely going to make the same points to the jury about your comments in another fashion.

Click to expand...

TheQ said:

You can't prove in a court of law that what anyone says here on their screen name was written by them. Accounts get hacked, shared, lots of reasons. A good lawyer could toss things written here as hearsay.

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

Gee, I wonder why lawyers always instruct their clients to NOT post potentially incriminating things on the net then. Oh and you can be tracked to your front door too.

Further, a prosecuting attorney does not have to prove that you made the statements - just convince a judge or jury that you most likely did. You can be buried under a ton of evidence, one grain at a time.

Ymmv - your choice.

Click to expand...

DanM said:

With a good lawyer, this is possible but not certain as you portray.

Click to expand...

Beerme said:

So you have made your point that your original point is irrelevant

Click to expand...

Evil Creamsicle said:

...thanks. I almost forgot why I haven't visited in a while.

Click to expand...

kryptonian said:

unfortunately i have had to shoot and he is right. whatever scenario you have in your head of your legal self defense shoot it is scary, hard and a feeling you can't fully describe unless you've been there. my shot hit my assailant in the hand. i didn't know til later i even got him. we learned as LEO that shootings are 3's. 3 shots, 3 feet away and 3 seconds. it's not a tv Die Hard roll around duck and shoot.

Click to expand...

NHCGRPR45 said:

it refers to a study done by some federal agency that most police shooting averaged 3 shoots fired, by officer in a total of 3 seconds, from an average distance of 3 feet away.

i don't know if this was includeing civilian self defense shootings but i would guess not.

Click to expand...

Michigander said:

I would think that most muggings would have be well within bad breath distance. Most of the crime victims, SD teachers and publications I've talked to/read have indicated to me that up close hip shooting is the rule, not the exception for concealed carrier defensive shootings, at least for those circumstances which are defensive, rather than an intervention into an assault on someone else.

Click to expand...