Study: an AR might send you to jail in SD case.

[BlueHeelerFl]

Here is a video showing a study where using an AR for SD puts you at greater risk of a jury conviction

How an AR-15 Can Send You to Prison

Believe it or not, if you defend yourself with an AR-15...straight to jail? In this video, I, James Reeves, Esq., go over the shocking results of a mock tria...

youtu.be

 

[CDW4ME]

A Glock 17/22 is about as big as I'm able to effectively conceal in the FL heat; carrying a AR concealed is out of the question for me.
Home defense? The pistol that is carried outside the house is conveniently on my belt or handy inside the house.
I have a AR that is locked in a safe, the odds of me using it for SD are extremely low to none.

 

[hoardingthemanual]

Anti gunners will use the AR as foot in the door for gun control. Gun owners are already split on them.

 

[lysanderxiii]

The problem is that many gun-owners don't believe the end game for the anti-gun lobby is elimination of all privately owned guns, to a point where the UK would look like a gun store. They believe that "compromise" is possible.

Compromise with the anti-gun lobby is like trying to compromise with Hitler . . .

 

[GEM]

Who did that study? What was the motivation!!!!

 

[dogtown tom]

When will people stop believing YouTube clickbait?
Apparently never.

James Reeves thanks you for your clicks.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The link to the video includes a link to an article dated 1 Sep 2009:
"Will It Hurt Me In Court? Weapons Issues and the Fears of the Legally Armed Citizen"
by Glenn E. Meyer, Ph.D. from Trinity University
in The Jury Expert, A publication of the American Society of Trial Consultants.

Will It Hurt Me In Court? Weapons Issues and the Fears of the Legally Armed Citizen

In 1995, Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp testified that her inability to legally carry a handgun prevented her from stopping a 1991 Killen, Texas restaurant massacre. Dr. Gratia-Hupp had a 38 SPL Smith handgun in her car and pointed that out to legislators after the murders shook the state of Texas. Her […]

www.thejuryexpert.com

Search "Will It Hurt Me In Court?" for threads on this subject in ths forum dated 2010-2013.

 

[Scrapiron45]

While the video shown was by someone selling insurance I would have no problem believing that there are people eligible for jury duty that would consider it a greater crime to shoot someone with an AR than with a handgun.

 

[AJC1]

Any angle or fear that a DA can use to end in conviction they will. Only own a 454, your obviously a mad man. You defend yourself with reloads because your an avid range shooter or competitor, your obviously intent on murder.... fact and perception are different, they can both work against you.

 

[The Night Rider]

Anti gunners will use the AR as foot in the door for gun control. Gun owners are already split on them.

Bro, they already used the NFA almost 100 years ago as a foot in the door for gun control

 

[LimaCharlie]

Anything can and will be used against you by a District Attorney in a criminal case or opposing attorney in a civil case. Subject matter experts can refute most of the acquisitions, but they are very expensive to hire.

 

[Kleanbore]

When will people stop believing YouTube clickbait?
Apparently never.

What??

The study employed much the same methodology that the top law firms often use before taking extremely important high-profile cases before juries.

It is unimpeachable.

The youtube presentation makes it available to people who have not read the study, or who could not understand it.

 

[Anchorite]

Jury selection begins at voir dire. Just in case any of you forgot.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

Priority #1:
Survive the conflict

Use the best tools at your disposal to accomplish this objective


After that, come what may.

 

[Elkins45]

Perceptions matter. They shouldn’t, but they do.

 

[JTHunter]

While the video shown was by someone selling insurance I would have no problem believing that there are people eligible for jury duty that would consider it a greater crime to shoot someone with an AR than with a handgun.

It doesn't help that, in far too many cases, the pool of potential jurors are dominated by low income, low educated people. They usually have the least objections to serving on a jury. Better educated people, who frequently are still gainfully employed, can avoid serving.

 

[jmr40]

A lot of the opinions stated above are from studies done 15-20 years ago. I wonder what a more up to date study would show. In 1994 the AWB passed by one vote, and only because they were such a small part of the gun market, had they been more popular there would have never been enough votes to pass. In 1994 I didn't own an Assault weapon, nor did I know anyone who did.

In 2023 I own several and don't know anyone who doesn't own at least one. The AR-15 rifle has now become the most popular rifle in the country. In just a few years more have been sold than 30-30's even though the 30-30 had a 100-year head start.

I have to believe that people's perceptions have changed. Any competent lawyer should be able to explain to a jury that it is perfectly normal for someone to have the most common rifle in the country in their possession. After all, today someone is more likely to own an AR than a lever action cowboy rifle. Twenty years ago, it would have been easier to portray that person as an outlier.

 

[herrwalther]

Full text of the cited study referenced in the video. For the naysayers.

https://www.thejuryexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/MeyerTJESep2009Volume21No5.pdf

 

[rust collector]

The study reflects the imagery that has been created for certain types of guns. ARs are bad because they are associated with military, they are black, they have been vilified by the press, and they are more capable. Using this logic, we should all arm ourselves with bear spray and phones kept under the bed. As has been pointed out, however, the facts are different in every case, as is the testimony, the appearances and personalities. This is an exercise in predicting human behavior in a series of hypothetical situations, to assist counsel. Although seasoned lawyers can do amazing things, none will ever guarantee the outcome of a case submitted to a judge, much less a jury.

 

[GEM]

I have to believe that people's perceptions have changed. Any competent lawyer should be able to explain to a jury that it is perfectly normal for someone to have the most common rifle in the country in their possession. After all, today someone is more likely to own an AR than a lever action cowboy rifle. Twenty years ago, it would have been easier to portray that person as an outlier.

That was not an issue in the study. There was no mention of the characteristics of the gun as being evil. The prosecution presentation did not bring such issues up. The gun was simply shown (as an image) to the study participants. Other research has shown that the more presence of a weapon influences juries. It would be foolish if the prosecution did not bring up the gun and simply presented it, for a defense lawyer to start talking about the gun characteristics. That might actually be counterproductive. One might say - oh, it is a most common gun. Prosecution - oh, the most common gun used in the rampages today.

Counter intuitively, some studies indicate that if the defense makes a big point about this or that, a juror might think that if they have such tantrum, so to speak, the initial point might be a good one or why are you complaining. OR - they only remember the initial negative and not your counter.

One might make a point before the jury presentation, that the prosecution should not be allowed to rant and rave with prejudicial statements. IIRC, in the case of the cop with the evil writings on his gun, the judge didn't allow that be used in court. Now, if the jury saw that in media - who is to know?

However, recall that the study did not make a point of the gun being evil - GET IT! It was just the image and the knowledge that the mock participants brought to the study.

Given the lawsuits running over AR advertising, the evil gun mantra is not dead in the legal world. Lawyers should be aware and the message isn't to go all nervous Nellie and only have bear spray. Just be aware of what is operative if you do end up in court.

Weapons, training, ammo types, competition have all been brought up to describe defendants as blood lusted. Just a fact of life. If you can afford it, mock jurors to test defense strategies (and for the prosecution) is a good idea. Any competent lawyer is not a magic spell. It is an empirical question what works. Your lawyer will be competent only after the fact of your trial outcome.

 

[bdickens]

It doesn't help that, in far too many cases, the pool of potential jurors are dominated by low income, low educated people. They usually have the least objections to serving on a jury. Better educated people, who frequently are still gainfully employed, can avoid serving.

You've never been on a jury, have you?

 

[theotherwaldo]

Coincidentally, I'll be on call for federal jury duty this month... .

 

[JTHunter]

You've never been on a jury, have you?

Called twice but never served. Both times it was the prosecutor that objected. It may have been my comment to one of his questions when I said something about "reasonable doubt".

 

[hso]

The study may or may not have different results with the increase in AR ownership since then, but I would wager there is a greater likelihood that there would be more juror/participants that own an AR now than then.

 

[GEM]

Interesting question is whether the attorneys will ask about attitudes towards firearms. The odds that a positive gun owner on ARs get past the prosecution is a question. If you delve deeper into the dynamics, being a firearms owner has risks for the defendant. It isn't that if you own guns, you would ignore appearance issues.

1. A hunter type, such a gun might offend - such as the famous Zumbo and Metcalf incidents. You can find quite a few commentators who have experience with the gun and think it is not relevant for civilians.
2. You could have a skilled, educated and trained SD oriented gun owner who could offer a nuanced view of why your ambiguous shoot (why you are on trial) is bad as compared to a naive person, not knowledgeable and might just say - OH, good - shoot 'em.

It's a crap shoot and why understanding the dynamics of SD usage is more important than debating whether a Garand or a snubby is better for home defense.