If a DGU ever were necessary, and understanding that jurors are picked because of lawyer perceptions of persuadability, would prosecutors or civil lawsuit attorneys be able to make something out of this beyond mere humor? [More]
[Via Thaddeus F]
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Perhaps some elaboration would be helpful. Such a sign could be used as evidence that you had a predisposition or even eagerness, to use deadly force by an anti gun prosecutor seeking to make an example out of you or seeking to build a political career in a location with an antigun electorate.
It also indicates there is something valuable on the premises. For example you wouldn’t post a sign stating “Gold bars and drugs stored here”. Determined adversaries will just plan better to overwhelm you with superior force if they know the reward justifies the effort and risk.
Similarly, I do not advocate signs that you have a security system protecting your home because they allow a determined adversary to plan ahead. I believe it is best to deny an adversary as much intelligence about your defenses as possible. Hopefully, uncertainty about the risks taken to achieve an unknown reward will be better protection than the deterrent effect of signs.
I really don't get jury selection tactics.
My idea of common sense: The attorney who has the facts on his side wants an intelligent jury, the attorney who needs the jury to decide contrary to the known facts of the case wants a gullible jury.
The reality of the situation: Both attorneys strive to empanel a jury of gullible fools. Why? Because they all know that their powers of persuasion are better than their opponent's.
Post a Comment