Knife laws and actual enforcement.

[Roogalator]

I can't cite you chapter & verse, but given our adversarial justice system it only makes sense that both sides will use any and all means at their disposal to prejudice the jury in their favor. There are entire firms that do nothing but voir dire and trial counceling. They run focus groups to see how certain arguments play with certain types of jurors, they have wardrobe consultants to figure how to most effectively present their client, they test every concievable variable to see how it plays with various juries. All this is testament to the fact that in jury trials juror perception is critical to a successful defense. Don't for a minute imagine this is lost on prosecutors -- they too use every means at their disposal to prejudice jurors against the defendent. They are well aware that the general public knows precious little about knives and guns, and that they are easily swayed by sensationalistic and lurid depictions of even the most benign objects as horrific killing machines, the mere possession of which constitutes prima facie evidence of the defendent's guilt. It is no stretch at all to imagine that a particularly aggressive looking knife will make one's defense at trial measurably more difficult.

 

[Charlie_K]

Right. And as everyone knows, everyone who has ever used an AR-15 to defend themselves against violence or death has gone to court and lost because their black rifle was so scary and so politically incorrect, it terrified the jury into wetting their pants and they felt they had absolutely no option BUT to find the person guilty of something.

Deadly force is deadly force. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon, the law makes no distinction on the matter. You're either justified in the use of force or you're not. There's no legal in between in the matter.

Find and present a court case to back up this nonsense as factual and a real world obstacle that has to be contended with. Otherwise it's just nonsensical chatter from internet lawyers and armchair generals.

 

[Roogalator]

Charlie_K opines: A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon, the law makes no distinction on the matter. You're either justified in the use of force or you're not. There's no legal in between in the matter.

Horsefeathers. Regardless of what the law says, the dispensation of a trial is whatever the JURY says it is. If the prosecutor is better at painting you as a bad guy than your attorney is at painting you as a good guy then you'll be found guilty, the letter of the law be damned. Criminal trials have little to do with what the law says and everything to do with the jury can be made to believe. Just ask OJ Simpson about that.

 

[Charlie_K]

Then find and present such cases for review to prove the point you're trying to make. It shouldn't be all that hard if that's how it actually goes.

I don't believe something just because somebody says it's true. Without actual evidence it's just speculation. I've heard a ton of legal advice from other internet experts, and often it's all bad. Most of it boils down to dealing with the aftermath and making yourself look as unthreatening to the jury as possible, rather than dealing with the situation itself, that being the violent encounter. Or more accurately, ensuring your own survival and not worrying about the wellbeing of the attacker. If somebody's attacking you, you don't stop to worry about whether or not you might hurt them, you neutralize the threat they present to you.

 

[Roogalator]

Since I don't have access to LexisNexis or Westlaw, and wouldn't have the time to search either if I did, I'll decline your request to cite you specific cases. It really doesn't matter to me what you choose to believe or not believe. I sincerely hope you're never in the dock for a weapons violation though, since if you are you'll find out in the worst way possible just how critical management of juror perceptions is to your continued freedom.

 

[ChrisB507]

To answer the OP: I follow the laws of my state on blade lengths, types and locations that I can and can't carry. I don't think that the benefit of breaking the law is worth an extra .25" of blade. That's my take.

If I didn't like the knife laws in my state, I suppose I could try to get them changed or move. I don't really care much what "type" of cop I might run into and what they think of the knife laws.

 

[stabman]

Right. And as everyone knows, everyone who has ever used an AR-15 to defend themselves against violence or death has gone to court and lost because their black rifle was so scary and so politically incorrect, it terrified the jury into wetting their pants and they felt they had absolutely no option BUT to find the person guilty of something.

Deadly force is deadly force. A deadly weapon is a deadly weapon, the law makes no distinction on the matter. You're either justified in the use of force or you're not. There's no legal in between in the matter.

Perhaps, but as you said in another thread,

Scarier is the fact that you're always behind the eight ball, and never more than one bad encounter away from having to shell out ten thousand to one hundred thousand dollars just to prove that you did nothing wrong, going bankrupt in the process and losing everything you've worked so hard for.

So maybe you stay out of prison, but end up with nothing left in life.
Not much better.

 

[Charlie_K]

Perhaps, but as you said in another thread,

So maybe you stay out of prison, but end up with nothing left in life.
Not much better.

That was in relation to being harassed by police who think they're god, and left with no recourse but to hope and pray that the courts will resolve the situation and recognize the truth of the matter. But even if they do, you still had to plunk down your life savings in legal fees to clear your name, and you don't get that back.

That was about being victimized by those in charge of the system because the officer in question became annoyed by you and your actions. NOT about possibly going to court because you killed some crack addict or other thug while using a scary looking knife that looks like it came from a 1980s era movie. About half the states have the castle doctrine/stand your ground codified into law, putting the law more on your side than the side of the one that tried to victimize you and lost.

Unfortunately there are no laws shielding you from contempt of cop charges. Like the lady down in Texas being charged with resisting an officer, because she didn't know it was the cops grabbing her from behind on her jog because she was wearing her earbuds and couldn't hear them.