What would you say in court?

[Guest canynracer]

What would your response be as to why you have a HCP, or probably in an attorney's words, "Why do feel you need to carry a gun? Are you looking for trouble, or something?"

Simple... if asked the way you stated I would simply say "No sir, Im not"

then shut my mouth.

when he forced the issue by asking Why do feel you need to carry a gun? I would say "Why do you have insurance?" then shut my mouth.

[Guest HexHead]

I would ask what having a HCP has to do with the current business before the court....

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

Same here, only I would ask the judge directly assuming my lawyer didn't object.

[Guest TurboniumOxide]

My Favorite:

"I feel the need to carry a gun because dragging it on the ground would be just silly."

My answer would be that I want to be as legal as possible when going to the range.

[LagerHead]

Same here, only I would ask the judge directly assuming my lawyer didn't object.

Unfortunately, I think the old "It goes to establishing character" argument is going to be upheld by the judge. My guess is, in most cases you're going to have to answer the question.

My Favorite:

"I feel the need to carry a gun because dragging it on the ground would be just silly."

My answer would be that I want to be as legal as possible when going to the range.

Personally, I don't like this type of approach. Not picking on you; yours just happens to be the last one of this type in the thread. Anyway, that's not why most of us carry, so why pretend you only shoot at the range? Besides, if they push the issue and ask if you ever carry in stores, etc. you are going to either backpedal or perjure yourself, both of which work against you.

The fact is, stuff happens. You wear a seat belt because even the best drivers get broadsided by folks running a red light. You buy insurance because even the most frugal of us get hit with unexpected illness, fire, accidents, and death. You lock your doors because even the best neighborhoods get robbed. And you carry your gun because even the most unlikely of us get victimized by criminals.

My point is, even in court you need to stick to your guns, if you'll pardon the pun. Don't let some scumbag lawyer (not all lawyers are scumbags, just the scumbag ones) put you in a position where you say something you either don't mean, or will later regret. Remember, lawyers are skilled at making you say something you don't want to, no matter how much we (myself included) love to dog them.

Just my . Hope it's worth at least half that much.

[Guest Muttling]

Unfortunately, I think the old "It goes to establishing character" argument is going to be upheld by the judge. My guess is, in most cases you're going to have to answer the question.

No it's not and I would be overjoyed to have them try to make such an argument.

Doing law abiding things and complying with the laws while doing them "should" establish good character (even if people don't like the laws.)

If the judgement does not go in your favor, the prosecution has done a wonderful job of establishing you a basis for appeal as the jury's view of you could have been slighted by lawful behaviors which the DA tried to paint as wrong.

You can't appeal a judgement per se. You can only appeal methods that were used to arrive at said judgement, that the laws are in opposition to higher laws such as the Constitution, or (in extreme circumstances) that the judgement was in blatant opposition to the written law. Making an issue out of lawful behavior to the jury is a very inappropriate action that can taint a jury and would be an easy appeal.

For example, if a woman is an exotic dancer but her employment has nothing to do with the case then it's not going to be brought up in court unless it's related to some sort of criminal activity. Doing so may taint the jury against her and lay perfect groundwork for a court of appeals to declare a mistrial and the DA would have to do the trial all over again if he wanted to pursue it.

Questioning character is an issue of questioning law abiding character, not moral character in the opinion of individuals.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Muttling

[Guest HexHead]

Unfortunately, I think the old "It goes to establishing character" argument is going to be upheld by the judge. My guess is, in most cases you're going to have to answer the question.

Fine, then my answer would be "because it's a legal option available to me. "

[Guest justme]

The attorney would say to "establish character of the victim, witness, etc" and if the judge agrees, then what would you say?

If the judge agrees, which he should not do--Then in that case I would respond "I have a HCP because the world is a dangerous place, and I have a responsibility to my family to protect and defend them, as well as myself. I take my personal safety seriously, as every law abiding person should."

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

Edited August 25, 2009 by justme

[tntnixon]

I would say "Like you I once had my doubts about whether or not non-law enforcement officials should carry weapons on/or about their persons. But then something happened. I remember it like it was yesterday.

I was standing in my patient's room and the television was on Good Morning America. They were reporting about a plane that had accidentally flown into a building in New York City. And as I glanced up at the television a second plane ran into another building. I remember thinking to myself 'What the hell is wrong with these pilots?'

Then it hit me like a ton of bricks. This was no accident. A shiver ran along my spine and I knew we were a nation at war. The realization that my way of life will never be the same swept over me like a flood and it found a home in my heart.

Several changes in me were made that day. First, I realized that we, as free people, have a responsibilty to each other and to our society than I ever imagined. Secondly, I realized that it is beyond the scope of our government to protect it's citizens from all harm. And thirdly, that if each and every passenger on one of those jets had been armed, none of it would have ever happened and so many innocent lives would have been saved.

Later, I further extrapolated that if we had a continuously armed citizenry banks would never get robbed, covenience store clerks wuld always be able to go home and hug their children after their shift, women wouldn't get raped in the park and a married couple wouldn't get gunned down on the street for $5.00 and some credit cards.

So when you ask me "why do you feel the need to carry?" I say it's my responsibilty as a good citizen of this country. And then I'll ask you "why don't you carry? Do you feel that you have no responsibily to our lives and freedoms other than to go to work and pay your taxes?"

[Guest 3pugguy]

We have a scenario we've discussed at work and I wanted your opinions.

Pretend you are a plaintiff in a courtroom on the witness stand during a trial that has nothing to do with you involving hand guns, or gun ownership, like a Workers Compensation case. The opposing attorney, you feel, wants to paint you as a bad guy by bringing up that you have a HCP.

What would your response be as to why you have a HCP, or probably in an attorney's words, "Why do feel you need to carry a gun? Are you looking for trouble, or something?"

Well, I would simply state I am exercising my right to keep and bear arms, am doing so in compliance with all laws, and given the nature of attacks on civilians, feel it wise to do so for reasons of personal safety.

Kind of how I answer anyone who asks if it comes up in discussions with those who either don't have an HCP but maybe are thinking of it or ones oppose HCP or guns in general - but do so not in the "in your face" kind of way (i.e. those with whom you can have a discussion not a shouting match).

But I do wonder where you work to have such a discussion?

Edited August 26, 2009 by 3pugguy

[Guest tedbo]

.

Edited September 1, 2009 by tedbo

[Guest marine77]

I'd say, "Nunya!"

Amen, my answer exactly.

[Guest jdavis]

to deal with nosey lawyers who ask stupid questions. no seriously,

because i am a god fearing law abiding citizen who wants to continue enjoying my life no matter what circumstances get between me and that life that i enjoy.

[LagerHead]

No it's not and I would be overjoyed to have them try to make such an argument.

Doing law abiding things and complying with the laws while doing them "should" establish good character (even if people don't like the laws.)

If the judgement does not go in your favor, the prosecution has done a wonderful job of establishing you a basis for appeal as the jury's view of you could have been slighted by lawful behaviors which the DA tried to paint as wrong.

You can't appeal a judgement per se. You can only appeal methods that were used to arrive at said judgement, that the laws are in opposition to higher laws such as the Constitution, or (in extreme circumstances) that the judgement was in blatant opposition to the written law. Making an issue out of lawful behavior to the jury is a very inappropriate action that can taint a jury and would be an easy appeal.

For example, if a woman is an exotic dancer but her employment has nothing to do with the case then it's not going to be brought up in court unless it's related to some sort of criminal activity. Doing so may taint the jury against her and lay perfect groundwork for a court of appeals to declare a mistrial and the DA would have to do the trial all over again if he wanted to pursue it.

Questioning character is an issue of questioning law abiding character, not moral character in the opinion of individuals.

Fine, then my answer would be "because it's a legal option available to me. "

See? Both of you would give a reasonable answer, thereby establishing your character. In this case, it works against the opposition. If however, you gave answer like "Cuz I like ta shoot ****." then it would not be so much in your favor. The point is, when lawyers ask questions that have nothing to do with the case, they're trying to paint you into a corner. It's Interrogation 101 - misdirection.

They will ask as many questions of you that have nothing to do with the case as your lawyer and the judge allow. So you should answer every single question, no matter how mundane or irrelevant with a view that they are not on your side, and every answer can and will be used against you.

[Mike.357]

because it makes me look cool

[Guest HexHead]

So you should answer every single question, no matter how mundane or irrelevant with a view that they are not on your side, and every answer can and will be used against you.

Oh, you mean just like when talking to cops. :D

[Guest mn32768]

"I feel the need to carry a gun because dragging it on the ground would be just silly."

Personally, I don't like this type of approach. Not picking on you; yours just happens to be the last one of this type in the thread.

Just my . Hope it's worth at least half that much.

I made the original comment, and you're absolutely right. The lawyer would be trying to rile the witness up and there's no need to play that game.

Thinking again, my answer would probably be "I carry a gun the same reason I've got insurance. I pray that I never need it, but at the same time, I don't have to worry about not having one when I do need it. I don't look for trouble any more than a home-owner looks for an arsonist."

If I was asked why I frequent at a gun range and read gun-related internet forums, I would say "I want to be a responsible and informed gun owner, who knows how to lawfully and legally handle his firearm in all situations."

I hope that'd work out better

[Guest Muttling]

One other point to make concerning testimony.....

As was pointed out before, the opposing attorney is NEVER your friend and you never know where he's going with a question.

What's more, he gets to choose the order of the questions and attorneys are masters of confusion. They often ask one line of questions then swap to a different line then swap to a third and back to the first....... They keep jumping around to screw you up and to catch liers, rest assured they have made notes of your every answer and have their questions well planned.

Tell the truth, but keep your answers very short and don't volunteer information to the opposing attorney. Don't think you can out dance him while under examination. The more you say, the more you open yourself up for him to take you down.

Short, sweet and get your butt off the stand when it comes to answering questions from the opposing attorney. Let your attorney worry about making the points and the arguments that will win your case (I don't care what kind of court case you're in.)

[Guest Muttling]

If I was asked why I frequent at a gun range and read gun-related internet forums, I would say "I want to be a responsible and informed gun owner, who knows how to lawfully and legally handle his firearm in all situations."

I hope that'd work out better

I would stop at the responsible and informed part. It's really splitting hairs here, but I think you communicate everything you want to say with half the words and don't get into commenting about your level of legal knowledge (which could open a dangerous door if you are guilty of a minor infraction.)

[DaveTN]

"Why do feel you need to carry a gun? Are you looking for trouble, or something?"

I would pause a couple of seconds before answering and during that time the other Attorney would object because it is immaterial and leading.

I also doubt that attorney would a) Ask you a question that he didn’t already know the answer to, and Give you the opportunity to make him look like a fool.

But don’t ever let an attorney goat you into getting pissed off.

[Guest canynracer]

I wanna retract my original statement...

I would actually say "I need to go to a hospital, I think I am having a heart attack"

[eapking]

We have a scenario we've discussed at work and I wanted your opinions.

Pretend you are a plaintiff in a courtroom on the witness stand during a trial that has nothing to do with you involving hand guns, or gun ownership, like a Workers Compensation case. The opposing attorney, you feel, wants to paint you as a bad guy by bringing up that you have a HCP.

What would your response be as to why you have a HCP, or probably in an attorney's words, "Why do feel you need to carry a gun? Are you looking for trouble, or something?"

I'd say that if I were looking for trouble, I would not have bothered getting an HCP.

[Guest rabidrhino]

One other point to make concerning testimony.....

As was pointed out before, the opposing attorney is NEVER your friend and you never know where he's going with a question.

What's more, he gets to choose the order of the questions and attorneys are masters of confusion. They often ask one line of questions then swap to a different line then swap to a third and back to the first....... They keep jumping around to screw you up and to catch liers, rest assured they have made notes of your every answer and have their questions well planned.

Tell the truth, but keep your answers very short and don't volunteer information to the opposing attorney. Don't think you can out dance him while under examination. The more you say, the more you open yourself up for him to take you down.

Short, sweet and get your butt off the stand when it comes to answering questions from the opposing attorney. Let your attorney worry about making the points and the arguments that will win your case (I don't care what kind of court case you're in.)

Great points. It's amazing how many people think they can "win" a case on the stand and end up getting crucified by opposing counsel. The shorter and the least information the better, the goal is to get off the stand ASAP.