Legal implications of Laser grips

[Cal44]

A new wrinkle on the age old debate about gun mods impact on a self defense trial.

I read there was some issue that adding laser grips could make defense more difficult in a self defense jury trial.

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

The only issue I could think of is it might look like you watch too many TV shows.

 

[richardw]

I think in a jury trial of a person who had any type of laser sight on the weapon is open to a prosecution claim that the defendant did so in order to increase the lethality of the weapon, and so did do with ill intent. With the prospect of having a jury that is could be swayed by assumption rather then proven evidence there could be some rick.

On the other hand the defense lawyer would argue that the laser sight was proof of the defendant's desire to assure better aiming of the gun in the event it was used in self defense and so protects innocent bystanders from deficient aim showing the defendant was a highly responsible gun owner.

 

[Watchdog]

A new wrinkle on the age old debate about gun mods impact on a self defense trial.

I read there was some issue that adding laser grips could make defense more difficult in a self defense jury trial.

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

The only issue I could think of is it might look like you watch too many TV shows.

Well, where did you read this? Do you have a source or a link for us?

The reason I ask is because it's hard to form an opinion on it based on something as vague as "there was some issue..."

Has this "new wrinkle" actually come up in any court case or cases? If so, where, and what was the outcome?

I think speculating on something like this is sorta pointless. May as well speculate on any issues that might come up from adding custom grips or night sights or a larger-than-stock-capacity magazine...all of which have the potential to make the gun more lethal by making the shooter more accurate or giving him/her more ammo to shoot someone with.

It's just like that thing of using high power ammo or hollow point bullets. Stuff like this is discussed almost endlessly on gun forums, but until it's tested in real life, in court, it's just people talking.

That's my opinion.

 

[SAFireman]

It could be argued that the laser was a non-violent deterrent to the attack and that shooting was the last resort.

How many bad guys are going to stand still very long when the realize that they have a laser dot on their chest?

 

[Cal44]

Well, where did you read this? Do you have a source or a link for us?

The reason I ask is because it's hard to form an opinion on it based on something as vague as "there was some issue..."

Has this "new wrinkle" actually come up in any court case or cases? If so, where, and what was the outcome?

I think speculating on something like this is sorta pointless. May as well speculate on any issues that might come up from adding custom grips or night sights or a larger-than-stock-capacity magazine...all of which have the potential to make the gun more lethal by making the shooter more accurate or giving him/her more ammo to shoot someone with.

It's just like that thing of using high power ammo or hollow point bullets. Stuff like this is discussed almost endlessly on gun forums, but until it's tested in real life, in court, it's just people talking.

That's my opinion.

Well it was mentioned in passing in this video.

And then never elaborated on.

If you are looking for specific trial info, or clear cut statements by firearms defense lawyers, you will be disappointing.

In fact, those kinds of things are what I was looking for from you and others in posting this thread.

If I had the answer already, I wouldn't have posted a question about it.

If you consider this pointless, feel free to move on to the next post.

THE GUN LAWYER - Don't Carry a Pink Gun - YouTube

 

[Rpg]

As in most sd shooting, the individual facts determine the issues: things might be quite different if you pick someone off at 40 yards with your laser sights as opposed to having a laser on a pistol used at 5 yards.

As a practical matter, I've never heard of a civilian sd shooting where a laser sight was used, let alone one in which it was an issue.

Laser sights are great for the range and for active fantasy lives (eg imagining a bg surrendering because of a red dot: great TV, not so much real life).

 

[Watchdog]

I read there was some issue that adding laser grips could make defense more difficult in a self defense jury trial.

Does anyone have an opinion on this?

I think speculating on something like this is sorta pointless.

If you consider this pointless, feel free to move on to the next post.

You asked for opinions. I gave you mine, stated why I think it's sorta pointless, and even ended my post by saying it's my opinion.

If you don't want opinions from other members, perhaps you shouldn't ask for them.

If you don't want to read my opinions, feel free to move on to an opinion by some other member.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend.

 

[Fishinfool]

My opinion, it's never a bad idea to use equipment used by the police, and some do use lasers to aid in targeting so as to avoid striking an innocent person.

Lots of talk about the legal dangers of using a legally "modified weapon", but show me one instance where said use resulted in a criminal conviction in an otherwise legit shoot.

Just don't be aiming at any airplanes...


Larry

 

[Whitwabit]

have there been any studies done on SD shootings that would list that information ??

 

[Cal44]

My opinion, it's never a bad idea to use equipment used by the police, and some do use lasers to aid in targeting so as to avoid striking an innocent person.

Lots of talk about the legal dangers of using a legally "modified weapon", but show me one instance where said use resulted in a criminal conviction in an otherwise legit shoot.

Just don't be aiming at any airplanes...


Larry

Good points.

Speaking of airplanes, the private range where my CCW weapons qualification takes place every two years, is close to a small general aviation airport.

So periodically, planes fly over on approach.

The range master/examiner calls a cease fire whenever he sees a plane coming.

I'm thinking you would most likely flunk the qualification if you shot down an airplane.

 

[Pisgah]

This sounds to me like the old "never use reloads for self defense, they'll say you were trying to make 'mankiller' ammo" crock. For decades, I have challenged anyone to cite a single case where this happened, and no one ever has. I doubt they will, because I have researched it myself and never found one. The only case where reloads have played a role was one in which the defendant claimed he shot at extreme close range, the prosecution claimed it was from a distance, and since the shooter was using a mixed bag of reloads there were no loads from the same lot to use in making a comparison of the powder stippling patterns on the decedent to prove or disprove the defendant's story. He won acquittal, by the way.

In court, the weapon used in self defense does not matter in the least as long as the killing itself is justified -- bare hands, rock, stick, knife, gun with reloads or laser sights, whatever.

 

[Lee in Quartzsite]

All of my SD guns have lasers and are loaded with hollow point bullets for the simple reason I don't want to hit innocent bystanders when I shoot and I want the bullet to stay in the bad guy and not go through and hit same innocent bystander.

 

[Doug M.]

It is possible that an unethical prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney will argue anything. From I have seen, this is especially true in LE involved shootings; there have been increasing numbers of baseless prosecutions and I have seen some staggeringly dishonest statements of both law and fact in suits against cops. One has to consider the political environment in which they live; where I live and work, the odds of a malicious prosecution are very slight. On the I5 corridor, higher.

The best defense is to have good defense counsel (and too many of those, especially in the civil rights cases, are not all that good), and a darned good ability to articulate the reason why you have any piece of equipment. It's just like being able to articulate the nuances of pre-assaultive cues; the staggeringly tight time lines in a defensive shooting, etc.

 

[Erich]

I've either worked as a prosecutor or in criminal defense for the past 25+ years. I can't imagine laser grips on a gun - by themselves - would be a problem for a user in a righteous defensive shoot.

 

[TomkinsSP]

You know, I have one simple request...
That is to have sharks with * laser beams attached to their heads.
Can you really tell me what I pay you people for...
- Dr. Evil

 

[cmort666]

I believe that Chicago at one time at least contemplated banning laser sights. That was merely an expected preference for violent criminals over their victims.

My mother once asked me about it. I told her there was no such law in Ohio, and that I didn't like "gimmicks" on my self-defense guns anyway.

 

[BAM-BAM]

Argue you could have/should have had it set on "stun"!

 

[Pondoro]

That video strikes me as excellent advice. He never says "be afraid to do this" with the exception of skulls, blood spatter paint jobs or "kill them all" epitaphs carved on your gun. He is right about that stuff. He recommends against some other stuff basically because he is a lawyer, and prefers no complications.

So I think the video is well reasoned. I wouldn't want him as my lawyer because of the beard and tattoo. Basically the same reason he doesn't want to have to explain your pink gun - it might bug some juror.

 

[TomkinsSP]

Two attorneys have basically told me the same thing, re: ammo. If you buy your SD ammo (rather than make it) it forecloses any questions regarding it, how much you shoot, specifications, everything...

If you have a stock firearm, zero questions can be asked on that subject...

Putting words into their mouths I think they would be more concerned if YOU mounted a laser, than if it came from the factory with one.

 

[Horn]

He'll Likely Not Know There's A Laser Dot On Him

It could be argued that the laser was a non-violent deterrent to the attack and that shooting was the last resort.

How many bad guys are going to stand still very long when the realize that they have a laser dot on their chest?

I doubt the perp would even know there's a dot on his chest unless he happened to look down there. There's no beam like the brochure shows. My advise is put it in the perps eyes! He'll know that instantly.
The argument about that? "You might injure his eyes!" So what?
Stay safe out there (I put it in his eyes)
Poli Viejo