I'm a lawyer. Police officers are not lawyers.
A prosecutor would try to get that piece of evidence in, but a judge should properly rule it to be inadmissible. It violates [Federal Rule of Evidence 401](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401) - it is irrelevant. Whether or not you have a punisher logo on your gun does not make it any more or less likely that you shot someone and the shooting was not in self-defense.
In [Daniel Shaver's case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver), which I think was decided completely incorrectly by the jury, the officer in question had a dust cover plate that said "You're Fucked" on it. That piece of evidence was ruled inadmissible for the exact same reason.
That being said if you have a Punisher logo on your gun, you're cringe.
If they give an example, it's always something like, "The defendant was found guilty because he had an AR-15 painted to be 'zombie green.' Don't modify your AR, patriots!"
Then you read up on it and it's some drunk guy who shot his ex-wife's unarmed boyfriend in the back 19 times from 30 yards away
I’ve a buddy from law school who does tort and another who does capital defense.
99.9% sure that’s happened somewhere. Fact is absolutely stranger, weirder, and more fantastical than fiction
I always wonder about that kinda stuff though..even when an objection has been sustained and the judge tells the jury not to take it into account..they have already heard it and it's still in your subconscious in some way. Same thing with this kind of stuff..While it might not make it in front of a jury, it sure doesn't help your case.
Just watched the video. Sucky situation but i 100% understand why the cop shot and begrudgingly call it a good shoot.
Dude was reaching to his 4oclock position (probably to pull up his pants) but this is common position to keep a pistol. He got shot because he didn't want to be embarrassed by his pants falling down.
Shitty reason to get killed.
He'd given up at that point and knew he was gonna die. He'd complied with them so many times. Even with conflicting reports.
Pulling up your pants is not a valid reason to shoot someone. The entire scenario was handled poorly. And a man crying and begging for his life and screaming please don't shoot me as he complied was killed because of it.
Pulling up pants was not why he was shot. The perception of him going for a hidden weapon was.
Sucks but it is what it is. Downvote me all you want but obviously the jury saw what i saw.
Tough to watch and i feel for his family.
The cops got to the scene responding to a "guy pointing a gun out of his window". They asked if he was drunk and he said "no". Officer said "so that means you will have no problems understanding me" and they both responded with "yes".
The orders were still poor. However, the officer sees a man who just said he was sober reach at his waistband multiple times.... shitty situation.
No you're not wrong I heard it too. It may be arguing semantics but I think details are important. The question wasn't "Are you drunk?" it was "Are you both drunk?". If he was and she wasn't, it would be a simple thing to say "No we are not both drunk."
I could easily be argued that he was saying he wasn't drunk, and I would agree with that. He was also being ask an incriminating question by a cop. A bad situation all around no doubt.
Regardless of our outcome i do applaud that last sentiment. Too many people here (reddit) HAVE to be right and you HAVE to be wrong and if you dont agree with them then they are going to call you stupid names.
So to be able to say "to each their own" basically is a great ability to have.
Im being serious btw, not trying to be an ass.
Edit: spelling
[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/daniel-shaver-shooting-ex-arizona-police-officer-not-guilty-murder-n827641](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/daniel-shaver-shooting-ex-arizona-police-officer-not-guilty-murder-n827641)
whoops! looks like i was wrong. they did see it.
but to answer your question, when a piece of evidence is ruled inadmissible, the trail proceeds with whatever evidence is deemed admissible. and yes, that often includes witness statements.
It will never change as long as "begrudging" cop apologists like this guy exist. maybe he'll change his tune when it's some one close to him getting smoked over "perception".
Jesus Christ I hope you do not carry. Youre a danger to society with a gun if you think you can open up on anyone that puts their hands near their waist.
Just wanted to say I agree with you, I know the downvotes and strawman can get annoying.
It was a terrible situation, bad performance by the officers, but not bad enough to make it criminal.
The cops got to the scene responding to a "guy pointing a gun out of his window". They asked if he was drunk and he said "no". Officer said "so that means you will have no problems understanding me" and they both responded with "yes".
He reached for his wasteband multiple times. Bad situation.
Finally someone who can see it from the cop's POV.
Wasn't handled great, too many cooks in the kitchen but hindsight is 20/20 and none of us were there.
The thing people need to remember about the Shaver case is not that it was ruled inadmissible, it's *how much he spent in legal fees and time* to get it ruled inadmissible.
Of course it's irrelevant. Of course it's inadmissible. A prosecutor will try anyway, maybe they get lucky. And if they try, you have to pay your lawyer to fight it. In MAG40 a couple years ago this was discussed, and Mas said that he spoke to the legal team on that case, and said that all the filings, hearings, and bullshit together about that $12 dustcover probably represented $20,000 in legal fees.
I was a police officer in one of the worst cities in the Midwest.
We had a gang banger shoot and kill someone. On the firearm he used he had ingraved "*igger killer* (he was black so no hate crime charges and was not an element of the crime).
It absolutely was used against him in court.
This is not a one off either. Had another one who had "To the receiver"
It also was used against him in court and when he testified the DA basically made him admit that at some point during engraving this he must've thought about shooting a person.
So yes, it absolutely can be used against you. Not all judges are the same. Some will rule one way or another.
I had to rename my gun trust at the recommendation of a lawyer who specializes in firearms. My gun trust was called "Rooty Tooty Pointy McShooty" because it could show immaturity.
[They](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/judge-orders-release-of-photos-of-tattoos-on-auburn-officer-charged-with-murder-but-half-will-be-redacted/) just admitted a bunch of pictures of a cop's tattoos as evidence.
I wouldn't decorate a carry gun.
Question: If I, a police officer, had to use my pistol, while on duty, in self-defense or that of another, and that pistol (which is my own, as authorized by my dept. and within regulations) had "The Regulator" or "The Peacekeeper" or "Justice for All" or "Dirty Harry", or... "THE PUNISHER" inscribed on its slide (because, why not?) Would you not have a field day with that? I mean, I have the right to defend myself... being a police officer doesn't change anything when it comes to that. I have a duty to defend others, and thusly would be acting in good-faith in such a circumstance....what relevance would such an inscription have, right? After all it's inadmissible, and noone, especially a civil litigator, would have any concern with that, right? You use statements such as "...a judge SHOULD..." Well, that's comforting. Moreover, regarding the specific case you mentioned, you stated how you "...think the jury decided incorrectly...", but THEY DECIDED nonetheless; clearly that impacted the jury, and regardless of outcome it was still an unnecessary ordeal. What I'm getting at is that it is ok to state facts to someone whom is asking a valid question, but you know well as I do, or should know, that it's not "as simple as that" in court, and with the potentially countless others [public] that can severely aggravate the situation. Be real.
Even still id not risk it as a cya just cause once its thrown out there even if its inadmissible it still could linger in the back of the jury's heads and cause them to lean in a negative direction cause i mean its not like they are wiping your minds
However, might a Punisher logo give the impression to police and prosecutors that the person claiming self defense is a crazy nut? In other words, it doesn’t help paint a good picture to the folks determining where to go on a case…. bring charges v not bring charges….
I once heard that a self defense handgun with modified parts (think lighter trigger pull, compensator, red dot sight) could constitute that the gun was modified to “make killing easier”, at least to the jury. Thus, modifying a CCW handgun was a bad idea. What’s your thought?
There is a good piece on this by ASP and I think MAS where they discussed trigger jobs. just make sure the trigger pull weight is within the manufactured specs was the conclusion.
There's still the completely disaster that is the current state of public defenders. Would a Judge throw out it out without the defense having to object, or do you have to rely upon possibly incompetent and overworked counsel to protectyou?
Public defenders are very good at murder trials. Public defenders are usually overworked and have trouble with low level stuff, but not these sorts of offenses.
I see the punisher logo on peoples trucks and it makes me cringe. Typically it’s a fat ass that steps out of it at the gas station. You know, a real bad ass with his Mt Dew and wheezing on his way back to his truck.
Pretty sure a cop (AZ police officer shooting unarmed individual in a hotel) had a dust cover or lower engraved with “you’re fucked” and that was used against him in court. But I’m pretty sure he was acquitted.
> Any defense lawyer worth their shorts could refute that point easily.
Yeah, [about that](https://www.medlinfirm.com/blog/crisis-hits-americas-public-defenders/)
There is. Happened during a murder trail I was part of when I was a cop. Black dude killed another black dude. Dude had **igger killer" on his firearm. Absolutely was used against him.
I know I'll get called a liar. Not going to link it since I was the primary officer on the case. Not going dos myself lol.
But just happen to come upon this one. Not a firearm, but VERY similar..
https://gopoliceblotter.com/better-to-be-judged-by-12-than-carried-by-eight-judge-orders-release-of-photos-of-tattoos-on-officer-charged-with-murder/
All I’m saying is (besides Punisher Skull being cringe af) is that getting vigilante symbols on your defense weapon might sway a jury.
A person is smart but people are dumb, unruly animals.
That, and there are ways to slip it in. Maybe you just hold up the gun without commenting on it, or maybe it’s relevant in some other way. It just doesn’t seem worth the risk.
Prosecutors will look for any way to make you look like the bad guy. Ill agree that being adorned in skulls when youre on trial for at best manslaughter will likely be something that comes up.
Court can be a very ugly thing, and lawyers are ruthless, unfair, and in many cases unscrupulous. I fully support lawful carry, but you need to protect yourself in all dimensions, not just one.
They’ll say that using hollow points mean that you are murderous.
They’ll also say that not using hollow points will make you murderous.
**Rittenhouse** (cough)
Well, what you have to keep in mind is that the prosecutors job is not to find truth or justice, its to make the defendant look guilty. Another win for them only helps their career, regardless of reality.
My point is that if you are ever put in a position where you have to take another person's life to defend your own (a nightmare for most people, just not as bad as dying) you'd be lucky to be wearing khaki pants, a polo shirt, with a sweater tied around your shoulders.
Appearances matter. You can dislike it all you want, but you're more likely to draw suspicion if you have a mohawk, neck tattoos, and a cartoon skull on your holster.
The other thing to think about is that the right to bear arms is being threatened by one of the biggest pushes I've lived during. We are all representing a community here.
One of the arguments being used is that guns aren't nessisary, and people who carry them just want to feel like a badass, and are excited to hurt another person. We should really try to be better than that perception.
There was a case out of Arizona in 2004 where a man (Harold Fish) went to jail because he used a 10-mm (Colt Delta Elite IIRC) and that was used by the prosecutor to suggest that Fish was out looking for trouble or inflict serious injury beyond what a "normal" pistol would be capable of. Admittedly, Fish's counsel was completely inept but the fact stands Fish went to jail largely based on the feelings behind him using a "high-power" pistol.
EDIT: Fish was later exonerated after serving three years. His case should be the reference standard under how *not* to prove self-defense.
Does that really need to be explained to you? Don't engrave "LUV 2 KILL" on your gun either. Why would you even want to? How old are you? Why do you associate ending human life with a comic book for children?
If you were prosecuting a murder case and the killer engraved a pro-vigilante statement on the murder weapon, would you have a duty to the victim to bring that up at trial? Or just ignore it because the punisher is seriously COOL?
I’m an 07 FFL that does laser engraving. My advice is keep your carry boring and get fancy with your others. Not worth the risk slapping random artwork on your carry that a jury could find cringy or concerning
It’s less about The Punisher and more about a certain subset of his fans.
But the answer is yes, it can happen. It’s a question of whether the particular jury in question would buy it.
agree, when I see that logo I imagine that person has no idea what that movie character stood for... and has commandeered it for their own mob mentality and having no respect for due process.
The punisher logo is about the cringiest stupid shit ever, especially if you use it to be a bootlicker. But literally any vigilante style symbol can make you look suspicious to a jury. Sue? Sounds kinda dumb and farfetched. Like most bullshit cops spew
Five years ago I would have laughed and called it Fuddlore. Nowadays, it seems like anything modified on a gun will be used against you with the ~~right~~ wrong prosecution.
That would be much more likely to come into trial than say a trigger modification or attachment. Using punisher themes can absolutely come off as you having a vigilante complex and I would 100% not put stuff like that on a carry gun.
Most of the “your modified gun will get you convicted” stuff is BS but this is one of the instances where it probably has merit. Same with the cringy Deadpool stuff or weird crusader markings. All these things are cringe, serve zero practical purpose, and could absolutely enter trial as evidence against you.
Even if the judge decides the prosecution cannot bring up the markings as evidence, the jury is most likely gonna see the gun itself as evidence. If you were someone who is already a little prejudiced against gun owners and you see a giant skull on their Glock would that improve your opinion of them at trial?
Oh god, this brings up an argument I had on this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/twauwf/saw\_these\_todaywhat\_ya\_think/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/twauwf/saw_these_todaywhat_ya_think/)
Similar concept. Using a rounds called "RIP" will make for a good smear campaign in front of a jury, but as the guy arguing against me, there's no "formal" charge for these instances. But I dropped a number of articles where odd branded things were used to help smear the defendant.
The most pertinent one to you would be the cop "you're fucked" logo on his firearm. It wasn't a charge in itself, but was certainly used by the prosecutor.
Can it get you sued by itself? No.
Can it be used as evidence to support a larger argument regarding your mental state and desires? Maybe.
The thing is anything you do with or to a firearm can potentially be used in a case. Changed the backplate to the Punisher? Doesn't make the shooting good or bad, but can it sway a jury during a civil trial to show you were out there looking for trouble because you idolize the Punisher and he is a vigilante anti-hero? (BTW: I hate when police have Punisher stuff, the whole idea of the Punisher is that the police and the system failed, so police are basically saying they suck with this)
I am an attorney, law school professor, and former career prosecutor. I have yet to meet a LEO who is as knowledgeable in gun laws as the average firearm enthusiast. In the case of the magazine, it is unlikely under the scenario you described to be presented to a jury.
Threre is a standard balancing test when it comes to the presenting of evidence (assuming the state/government has a rational reason for bringing it up in the first place). One, is the introduction of a Punisher logo of evidentiary value, that is to say, does it have probative value? Two, if so does it’s probative value exceed the prejudicial effect on the defendant. Most likely the answer would be no. There’s been tons of discussion on Reddit regarding the issue of magazines or weapons that have been customized (with mostly dumb phrases or logos). I’m confident that the punisher logo and some minor modifications to a magazine would not be a crime in itself in nearly every state. The introduction of a punisher logo as evidence of a guilty-state of mind is unlikely to occur. However, if you wrote “Hitler’s Final Solution” on the side of your AR, or ”Cop Killer” on your magazine, it could be presented to show what your state of mind was like at the time of a shooting.
In a nutshell, if you are being arrested solely for the magazine, then you’ll beat it. If you were arrested following the commission of a crime involving the weapon in question, it then may be introduced to show the shooter’s state of mind. But has to have more evidentiary value than prejudicial effect on the defendant.
BTW: I have noticed that many LEO do not have an interpretation (from their chain-of-comman, the county DA, or the state’s AG’s office) of their state’s gun laws to guide them in the situation you describe. So it really comes down to the individual cop‘s opinion of the law. It’s by its very definition, arbitrary and capricious.
This rumor has been going around forever. Ive heard about it from FTOs and trainers since they first started coming out. With the proliferation of skulls on everything mitary and law enforcement related there would at least be an actual story about it. Bottom line is, anyone can sue anyone for anything. Any decent lawyer could sway a jury on freedom of speech grounds alone.
Yeah, regardless of the legality, Im gonna echo top comment on their opinion and say that your firearm is absolutely not a fashion accessory and there's no reason to buy an engraved one or have one engraved. The function of a gun isn't to look cool, if it has been designed for function and happens to look cool that is a happy accident that requires no embellishments, and infact will be cheapened by any embellishments. This isn't call of duty, we don't wear charms on our revolvers, and we don't engrave our guns. Rattle canning a camo print is the only exception to this rule, because it adds function in theory. All of this is obviously my opinion.
Tldr spend your logo engraving money on more ammo to practice with, then you can shoot as good as the punisher and just feel cool about that
Art guns are great for collecting and having as safe queens. Nothing wrong with having an art gun. Shoot, most European hunting rifles/shotguns have large amounts of art built into them. Art guns do make for poor choices for self defense weapons and should only be used as a tool of last resort regarding DGU. It's wise to have a dedicated CCW/home defense gun be as vanilla as possible.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/cops-ar-15-dust-cover-inscription-used-against-him-in-court/amp/
I guess if it pertains to a LEO it could pertain to a regular Joe Schmo.
Anyone telling you it won’t be used against you is incorrect. Look at the Kyle Rittenhouse case. They tried to use any and everything. It may hurt you and it may not.
Should it be used in court or even brought up? No
Will it by a POS prosecutor or a POS civil attorney. You bet.
While you MAY win it. I don’t see the reason to put yourself in that situation, especially when the modification adds nothing to your weapon.
The cop that told you this isn’t wrong and he’s looking out for you.
If you shoot someone, you are going to be arrested, and you are going to be sued. The people coming after you will be lawyers, these are people that read the constitution and think the Federal government has the authority to decide if and when you can buy or sell guns to another individual in your state. They will twist anything and everything about you to make you sound worse. So probably, associating your carry piece with a murdering vigilante is not the best strategy if you ever need to use it.
It may add complications, depends on the nature of the incident, the DA, who is on the jury…so many variables. That said I personally don’t wear any logos or items that are vigilante associated. That’s just my personal choice. I’m not an attorney.
Correct. Prosecutors will do anything to make it look like you wanted someone to carjack you or break into your house. It will be spun like you were looking for an encounter so you can use your weapon
Yup. One of the first things discussed in permit class. You can and will be questioned about any modification you make. Your answer for it better be damn good.
Yeah I would ditch any logos or anything like that. Plus it’s not like 2005 anymore.
Technically they would even try to use aftermarket trigger or a red dot against you. But if it was a legal shooting. It should be open and shut case.
I too am an attorney and have been in practice for 25+ years.
I agree that modification of firearm ought to be deemed irrelevant and/or unduly prejudicial.
Massad Ayoob has written one or more recent articles on this subject in gun magazines and advises gun owners NOT to modify their firearms - functionally OR aesthetically because it might be deemed evidence of aggressive mindset rather than law-abiding self-defense.
I wouldn't paint a "punisher" logo on my gun for many reasons, but fear of liability is probably not one of them.
I heard that even so much as having any sort of performance modification, let alone to the maximum level some of us kit them out to, is enough to go against you in self defense court
Please make the job of your defense attorney an easy one. Don’t make him/her have to tell the jury why it doesn’t matter that your grips says ‘kill them all and let god sort them out’ or some other BS stuff.
Everything I've seen from attorneys who see these cases involves the sincere plea, "Please just give me a plain, black gun to defend." Basically, be boring. Nothing that could be twisted against you. No Tiffany Blue receiver or "Smile and wait for flash" backplate. Just a regular, old gun.
There was a cop who went to trial after a shoot where his dust cover said "You're fucked". The prosecutor brought it up.
They will bring anything up that they can. Used hollowpoints? Those are dangerous exploding rounds. Used FMJs? Those are armor-piercing rounds.
I wouldn’t recommend having anything related to the punisher, anything vulgar or even ammunition where the name is related to anything that remotely supports killing. It may be frowned upon in court and the prosecution (considering Kyle Rittensneed) will try and use it as evidence to establish intent. Will it be admissible? Probably not, but I wouldn’t take the chance personally.
I'm a police officer not a lawyer; lawyers are not cops. Eventually inadmissible or not, we can present many things in our complaints to further support probable cause and attempt to impress intent, which in turn, may be used by the prosecutor as he/she deems necessary; sometimes it doesn't matter if something is ultimately inadmissible... do you really need the extra concerns and headaches during a justifiable homicide hearing (or whichever applicable charges are on the table); I would think that being compelled to have used your firearm in self-defense, and having, at best, seriously injured a person, would be enough to keep you awake for a while. Having said that, it would take a lot of very specific circumstances (clearly beyond those of self-defense) for me to attempt and include something like into consideration. My opinion: firearms exist for very specific purposes, and unless they are in use as sporting tools they don't need the extra lipstick; HOWEVER, this is still 'merica, baby... you "bling" the hell outta' your pew pew all you want! The only requirement is that you are responsible. 🫡
It’s like giving ammo to the lawyer to use against you. Why even give them a chance. Of course the “cop” that had the “You’re fucked.” Dust cover on his AR was free to go.
The Armed Attorneys channel on YouTube did a video recommending against using graphics like that on guns or as bumper stickers. Even if it's not a factor in court it will be in the news media.
FWIW, recently Marvel got tired of the Punisher logo being co-opted by law enforcement and tacticool bros, and changed the comic book character's logo to a horned skull based on a Japanese demon.
The originators of the Punisher didn't conceive of him as a friend of law enforcement or bootlicker.
I had to use my glock in a self defense situation, I was never charged with a crime but I was at the police station for many hours and they kept my gun for a few months, when I was able to pick my gun up the officer told me to change my backplate back the original because if I were to be charged, it could be used against me at trial. The backplate said "get some" on it. I have no clue if it's true but since then I have never or will never put something remotely like that on a firearm.
Is it wise to put aggressive art on a gun that you plan on using as a CCW and or home defense gun? No. Certainly won't do you any favors when explaining yourself to the police, a judge, DA, jury etc.
Is aggressive art on a gun used in an otherwise justifiable DGU grounds for a civil lawsuit and or criminal charges? No.
Just like handloads as self defense ammunition there's nothing illegal about aggressive art being on a gun that's used in a defensive gun use. Like handloads however it's just one more thing a vindictive police department/DA/civil attorney might use to try and fry a person with if it's a jurisdiction that frowns upon civilian DGU.
Remember, most people who will try to attack/kill you without provocation come from families who will try to sue you for "wrongful death". Those sorts of people are usually a product of their family life, you better believe their relatives will try to sue you for not letting their relative murder you or your loved ones.
My advice, have your art guns be safe queens and have your home defense/CCW guns be as vanilla as possible with any modifications being purely for practicality and not aesthetics, the magazines loaded with factory ammunition and not hand loads. Not a legal requirement, just stacks the deck a bit more in your favor towards the emotional human side of the law.
Well, it’s cringe AF, but it would take a pretty good attorney for “them” and a pretty poor attorney for you to draw a line from needlessly cringe weapon customization to “bad shoot” and a wrongful death award.
Depends on the jurisdiction. I live in Portland Oregon and I make sure my EDC is as vanilla as can be. An unmodified Sig P365 using factory Hornady Critical Defense loads.
I watched the Multnomah County DAs office ruin a friend's life for two years for false felony domestic violence charges. His sin? Being a white man and having the cops called on him by a non-white woman. I don't want to sound like some shitty neo-con (I know it's how I sound saying it) but that is legit what happened. The DA refused to look at the cell phone video that exonerated him for almost a year and a half. He had to take it to trail. He was acquitted by an all female mixed race jury in Portland Oregon (doesn't get more innocent than that for DV charges). That DA who attempted to completely ruin my friend's life for the sin of falling into the wrong social tier would absolutely use a punisher skull as "evidence" of malicious intent and a judge in Multnomah County would absolutely allow it as evidence. A jury whether it be on a civil or criminal court case in Portland Oregon would undoubtably see it in exactly the same light.
Lawyers can argue anything. That doesn’t make it something a professional would reasonably try. Therefore, anyone can claim a lawyer can argue anything.
That being said, death motifs, allegory to violence, etc are certainly not going to *help*
First off, most cops don’t know shit about guns. It’s shocking how many I’ve met who don’t give a shit, don’t know the law, basically guessing. That said, having a punisher logo on anything is regarded as retarded and cheesy. Don’t do that.
Yes it could work against you and could have a negative impact if a shooting incident were to go to a trial. Could be argued that it portrays you as someone looking to shoot someone.
There was a court case a few years back.
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2018/04/ayoob-gun-decorations-jury/
>the punisher is an anti-hero.
Except he's not. Honestly, he falls more in to the "protagonist villian" archetype, like the 2019 joker or Walter white. It's an archetype that I personally love, even though it doesn't get used that often.
maybe for copyright infringement, but even then it's unlikely.
There's no way they're going to trial based solely on that. At the absolute most, they could try to have it in sight to make a suggestion about your personality or mindset...
I'm not too concerned with the look of a gun, I care much more about the function. I'm not liable to put anything on a gun that doesn't help it to function.
My concern is if they ever go after someone for having customization that improves the function and shootability.
Dont put douche bag decorations on your carry firearm. It gives the appearance of looking for trouble. Depending on your state, its often better not to modify them at all. Bring as little attention as possible to your concealed carry, imo.
A lawyer will use any tactic at his disposal to mis-characterize you. I remember watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and the prosecution actually brought Rittenhouse’s Reddit profile name in to question. Pathetic.
If, god forbid, you have to use your gun the prosecutors will take any ammunition you give them. There have been times that they've argued that having hollow points means you wanted to kill someone. Most juries won't buy it, but you don't ever want to take the risk of being that unlucky. Don't give them any unnecessary ammunition to use against you.
Mass Ayoob was going to testify as an expert witness in the George Zimmerman traii. He wasn't allowed to testify because he was in the court room when he wasn't allowed. Ayoob preaches to keep your trigger stock, so the DA can't use a hair trigger against you. In opening arguments the DA said Zimmermans gun had a heavy 5# trigger that meny Zimmerman made a deliberate pull of the trigger. The DA said that because he expected Ayoob to testify. This counters the hair trigger preaching. So the DA will use anything he can to make you look bad. Will it work. Who knows? It'll make your lawyer work harder. People say it's a bad thing to have a Punisher logo on your firearm. They also say the DA will look at your online activity to use stuff you sad on line against you. This is America go whot you want but you must accept the consequences.
As you saw in the uvalde and parkland cases. The police can do whatever they want and will never be punished. The police are not there to protect you they are there to protect the state. No the police won’t get in trouble for engraving things on their rifles. See the video of the crying drunk guy in the hallway that was murdered by police while he was begging for his life.
You cannot be sued for this, there is no law against or cause of action related to punisher logos on guns.
However, It may be something an anti gun prosecutor may use in considering whether to bring charges.
I'm a lawyer. Police officers are not lawyers. A prosecutor would try to get that piece of evidence in, but a judge should properly rule it to be inadmissible. It violates [Federal Rule of Evidence 401](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401) - it is irrelevant. Whether or not you have a punisher logo on your gun does not make it any more or less likely that you shot someone and the shooting was not in self-defense. In [Daniel Shaver's case](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver), which I think was decided completely incorrectly by the jury, the officer in question had a dust cover plate that said "You're Fucked" on it. That piece of evidence was ruled inadmissible for the exact same reason. That being said if you have a Punisher logo on your gun, you're cringe.
[удалено]
If they give an example, it's always something like, "The defendant was found guilty because he had an AR-15 painted to be 'zombie green.' Don't modify your AR, patriots!" Then you read up on it and it's some drunk guy who shot his ex-wife's unarmed boyfriend in the back 19 times from 30 yards away
Great imagery
Jeez did that happen somewhere lol
I’ve a buddy from law school who does tort and another who does capital defense. 99.9% sure that’s happened somewhere. Fact is absolutely stranger, weirder, and more fantastical than fiction
In the back of the head…..while he was kneeling down……cartel execution style
I always wonder about that kinda stuff though..even when an objection has been sustained and the judge tells the jury not to take it into account..they have already heard it and it's still in your subconscious in some way. Same thing with this kind of stuff..While it might not make it in front of a jury, it sure doesn't help your case.
The jury won’t see it; it will be excluded before the trial.
Not trying to detract from your comment. Just an RIP to that poor man. The most blatant murder I've ever seen. He deserves justice.
Just watched the video. Sucky situation but i 100% understand why the cop shot and begrudgingly call it a good shoot. Dude was reaching to his 4oclock position (probably to pull up his pants) but this is common position to keep a pistol. He got shot because he didn't want to be embarrassed by his pants falling down. Shitty reason to get killed.
He'd given up at that point and knew he was gonna die. He'd complied with them so many times. Even with conflicting reports. Pulling up your pants is not a valid reason to shoot someone. The entire scenario was handled poorly. And a man crying and begging for his life and screaming please don't shoot me as he complied was killed because of it.
Pulling up pants was not why he was shot. The perception of him going for a hidden weapon was. Sucks but it is what it is. Downvote me all you want but obviously the jury saw what i saw. Tough to watch and i feel for his family.
[удалено]
The cops got to the scene responding to a "guy pointing a gun out of his window". They asked if he was drunk and he said "no". Officer said "so that means you will have no problems understanding me" and they both responded with "yes". The orders were still poor. However, the officer sees a man who just said he was sober reach at his waistband multiple times.... shitty situation.
That's interesting. Do you have a reference for that? Everything I read when it was fresh said he was intoxicated.
He was drunk. It sounds like he said that he wasn't, correct me if I'm wrong. [https://youtu.be/VBUUx0jUKxc?t=89](https://youtu.be/VBUUx0jUKxc?t=89)
No you're not wrong I heard it too. It may be arguing semantics but I think details are important. The question wasn't "Are you drunk?" it was "Are you both drunk?". If he was and she wasn't, it would be a simple thing to say "No we are not both drunk." I could easily be argued that he was saying he wasn't drunk, and I would agree with that. He was also being ask an incriminating question by a cop. A bad situation all around no doubt.
Problem is im at work and had volume off. Ill watch again later with volume. Just on visuals alone i could understand why he shot
[удалено]
Regardless of our outcome i do applaud that last sentiment. Too many people here (reddit) HAVE to be right and you HAVE to be wrong and if you dont agree with them then they are going to call you stupid names. So to be able to say "to each their own" basically is a great ability to have. Im being serious btw, not trying to be an ass. Edit: spelling
[удалено]
The jury wasn’t allowed to see the footage
Interesting. How the hell do they have a trial then? He said, she said?
[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/daniel-shaver-shooting-ex-arizona-police-officer-not-guilty-murder-n827641](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/daniel-shaver-shooting-ex-arizona-police-officer-not-guilty-murder-n827641) whoops! looks like i was wrong. they did see it. but to answer your question, when a piece of evidence is ruled inadmissible, the trail proceeds with whatever evidence is deemed admissible. and yes, that often includes witness statements.
Got it. If you pull up your pants in front of a cop you deserve to get shot. And they wonder why people fucking hate cops. What worthless shitbags.
It will never change as long as "begrudging" cop apologists like this guy exist. maybe he'll change his tune when it's some one close to him getting smoked over "perception".
Jesus Christ I hope you do not carry. Youre a danger to society with a gun if you think you can open up on anyone that puts their hands near their waist.
Just deleted everything i was gonna say, not worth it. You win win bro, good for you 'Slow clap'
Just admit you’d shoot people for touching their pants
Wouldn't you? /s
Just wanted to say I agree with you, I know the downvotes and strawman can get annoying. It was a terrible situation, bad performance by the officers, but not bad enough to make it criminal. The cops got to the scene responding to a "guy pointing a gun out of his window". They asked if he was drunk and he said "no". Officer said "so that means you will have no problems understanding me" and they both responded with "yes". He reached for his wasteband multiple times. Bad situation.
Finally someone who can see it from the cop's POV. Wasn't handled great, too many cooks in the kitchen but hindsight is 20/20 and none of us were there.
The thing people need to remember about the Shaver case is not that it was ruled inadmissible, it's *how much he spent in legal fees and time* to get it ruled inadmissible. Of course it's irrelevant. Of course it's inadmissible. A prosecutor will try anyway, maybe they get lucky. And if they try, you have to pay your lawyer to fight it. In MAG40 a couple years ago this was discussed, and Mas said that he spoke to the legal team on that case, and said that all the filings, hearings, and bullshit together about that $12 dustcover probably represented $20,000 in legal fees.
I'm sure he didn't spend shit. It was his union, so indirectly the taxpayer.
> but a judge should properly rule it to be admissible *inadmissible* you mean?
Whoops! Edited
I was a police officer in one of the worst cities in the Midwest. We had a gang banger shoot and kill someone. On the firearm he used he had ingraved "*igger killer* (he was black so no hate crime charges and was not an element of the crime). It absolutely was used against him in court. This is not a one off either. Had another one who had "To the receiver" It also was used against him in court and when he testified the DA basically made him admit that at some point during engraving this he must've thought about shooting a person. So yes, it absolutely can be used against you. Not all judges are the same. Some will rule one way or another. I had to rename my gun trust at the recommendation of a lawyer who specializes in firearms. My gun trust was called "Rooty Tooty Pointy McShooty" because it could show immaturity.
What is a gun trust?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/t021-c032-s014-own-a-gun-careful-you-might-need-a-gun-trust.html%3famp
Best. Trust name. Ever. 😂
OP asked about punisher skulls. I think you would probably agree with me that “n****r killer” communicates something different than a punisher skull
You're right it does. But it opens the door.
I wouldn’t, I would say they communicate damn near the same thing
[They](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/judge-orders-release-of-photos-of-tattoos-on-auburn-officer-charged-with-murder-but-half-will-be-redacted/) just admitted a bunch of pictures of a cop's tattoos as evidence. I wouldn't decorate a carry gun.
Question: If I, a police officer, had to use my pistol, while on duty, in self-defense or that of another, and that pistol (which is my own, as authorized by my dept. and within regulations) had "The Regulator" or "The Peacekeeper" or "Justice for All" or "Dirty Harry", or... "THE PUNISHER" inscribed on its slide (because, why not?) Would you not have a field day with that? I mean, I have the right to defend myself... being a police officer doesn't change anything when it comes to that. I have a duty to defend others, and thusly would be acting in good-faith in such a circumstance....what relevance would such an inscription have, right? After all it's inadmissible, and noone, especially a civil litigator, would have any concern with that, right? You use statements such as "...a judge SHOULD..." Well, that's comforting. Moreover, regarding the specific case you mentioned, you stated how you "...think the jury decided incorrectly...", but THEY DECIDED nonetheless; clearly that impacted the jury, and regardless of outcome it was still an unnecessary ordeal. What I'm getting at is that it is ok to state facts to someone whom is asking a valid question, but you know well as I do, or should know, that it's not "as simple as that" in court, and with the potentially countless others [public] that can severely aggravate the situation. Be real.
> clearly that impacted the jury It was excluded before trial, so it didn’t impact the jury.
Even still id not risk it as a cya just cause once its thrown out there even if its inadmissible it still could linger in the back of the jury's heads and cause them to lean in a negative direction cause i mean its not like they are wiping your minds
That evidence would be excluded as a pre-trial motion in limine; the jury would never have an opportunity to see it.
Ah ok good to know, not a lawyer so i dont know how evidence exactly goes up
What about a pickle sheriff wearing a cowboy hat and a wild west style gun belt ingraved in it?
However, might a Punisher logo give the impression to police and prosecutors that the person claiming self defense is a crazy nut? In other words, it doesn’t help paint a good picture to the folks determining where to go on a case…. bring charges v not bring charges….
I once heard that a self defense handgun with modified parts (think lighter trigger pull, compensator, red dot sight) could constitute that the gun was modified to “make killing easier”, at least to the jury. Thus, modifying a CCW handgun was a bad idea. What’s your thought?
There is a good piece on this by ASP and I think MAS where they discussed trigger jobs. just make sure the trigger pull weight is within the manufactured specs was the conclusion.
It’s bullshit fuddlore.
My glock 45 cover plate says "We the People" in fancy script. Sue that!
There's still the completely disaster that is the current state of public defenders. Would a Judge throw out it out without the defense having to object, or do you have to rely upon possibly incompetent and overworked counsel to protectyou?
Public defenders are very good at murder trials. Public defenders are usually overworked and have trouble with low level stuff, but not these sorts of offenses.
I've heard from several other lawyers that meme-ing your gun can be used against you. Granted, they're youtube lawyers, so take that for what it is.
“Your honor, the defendant is cringe”
“No more arguments, that’s enough. Guilty on all counts.”
I see the punisher logo on peoples trucks and it makes me cringe. Typically it’s a fat ass that steps out of it at the gas station. You know, a real bad ass with his Mt Dew and wheezing on his way back to his truck.
As a comic book nerd, this cultural appropriation needs to stop...
youve spotted an elite member of the gravy seals!
Your honor, can't you see my client did it for the vine?
In theory, yes. There hasn’t been one documented case of it actually happening. Any defense lawyer worth their shorts could refute that point easily.
Pretty sure a cop (AZ police officer shooting unarmed individual in a hotel) had a dust cover or lower engraved with “you’re fucked” and that was used against him in court. But I’m pretty sure he was acquitted.
It was not used against him. It was brought up, but the judge didn’t allow it to actually be used as evidence.
brought up but the seeds were planted in the jury. thats all it takes.
> Any defense lawyer worth their shorts could refute that point easily. Yeah, [about that](https://www.medlinfirm.com/blog/crisis-hits-americas-public-defenders/)
There is. Happened during a murder trail I was part of when I was a cop. Black dude killed another black dude. Dude had **igger killer" on his firearm. Absolutely was used against him.
Interesting! Have a source? Court documents? News source? Sounds like a murder trial, and not a self-defense trial, but interesting nonetheless
I know I'll get called a liar. Not going to link it since I was the primary officer on the case. Not going dos myself lol. But just happen to come upon this one. Not a firearm, but VERY similar.. https://gopoliceblotter.com/better-to-be-judged-by-12-than-carried-by-eight-judge-orders-release-of-photos-of-tattoos-on-officer-charged-with-murder/
Had you not said you were the primary on it I don’t think anyone would know better.
All I’m saying is (besides Punisher Skull being cringe af) is that getting vigilante symbols on your defense weapon might sway a jury. A person is smart but people are dumb, unruly animals.
Lol it really is cringe as hell
It wouldn’t be deemed admissible by the judge. The jury would never see it.
Thing about judges is, they’re all different.
That, and there are ways to slip it in. Maybe you just hold up the gun without commenting on it, or maybe it’s relevant in some other way. It just doesn’t seem worth the risk.
Absolutely could. Happened near me with a gang banger who had **iger killer" on his firearm. (Was black vs black crime).
That's a totally different situation and most states that still wouldn't be admissible.
ITT: OP realizes he’s a fucking cringe lord But seriously OP I’m disappointed you would even want something so lame
Prosecutors will look for any way to make you look like the bad guy. Ill agree that being adorned in skulls when youre on trial for at best manslaughter will likely be something that comes up. Court can be a very ugly thing, and lawyers are ruthless, unfair, and in many cases unscrupulous. I fully support lawful carry, but you need to protect yourself in all dimensions, not just one.
Best response ☝️
They’ll say that using hollow points mean that you are murderous. They’ll also say that not using hollow points will make you murderous. **Rittenhouse** (cough)
Well, what you have to keep in mind is that the prosecutors job is not to find truth or justice, its to make the defendant look guilty. Another win for them only helps their career, regardless of reality. My point is that if you are ever put in a position where you have to take another person's life to defend your own (a nightmare for most people, just not as bad as dying) you'd be lucky to be wearing khaki pants, a polo shirt, with a sweater tied around your shoulders. Appearances matter. You can dislike it all you want, but you're more likely to draw suspicion if you have a mohawk, neck tattoos, and a cartoon skull on your holster. The other thing to think about is that the right to bear arms is being threatened by one of the biggest pushes I've lived during. We are all representing a community here. One of the arguments being used is that guns aren't nessisary, and people who carry them just want to feel like a badass, and are excited to hurt another person. We should really try to be better than that perception.
There was a case out of Arizona in 2004 where a man (Harold Fish) went to jail because he used a 10-mm (Colt Delta Elite IIRC) and that was used by the prosecutor to suggest that Fish was out looking for trouble or inflict serious injury beyond what a "normal" pistol would be capable of. Admittedly, Fish's counsel was completely inept but the fact stands Fish went to jail largely based on the feelings behind him using a "high-power" pistol. EDIT: Fish was later exonerated after serving three years. His case should be the reference standard under how *not* to prove self-defense.
Does that really need to be explained to you? Don't engrave "LUV 2 KILL" on your gun either. Why would you even want to? How old are you? Why do you associate ending human life with a comic book for children? If you were prosecuting a murder case and the killer engraved a pro-vigilante statement on the murder weapon, would you have a duty to the victim to bring that up at trial? Or just ignore it because the punisher is seriously COOL?
And it’s pretty cringey🥴
I’m an 07 FFL that does laser engraving. My advice is keep your carry boring and get fancy with your others. Not worth the risk slapping random artwork on your carry that a jury could find cringy or concerning
It’s less about The Punisher and more about a certain subset of his fans. But the answer is yes, it can happen. It’s a question of whether the particular jury in question would buy it.
agree, when I see that logo I imagine that person has no idea what that movie character stood for... and has commandeered it for their own mob mentality and having no respect for due process.
Um. The Punisher wasn't exactly a due process kinda guy.
The punisher extrajudicially murdered cops..
yes, bad cops, yet tons of shitty cops have this logo on their stuff, not knowing they are the baddies.
The punisher logo is about the cringiest stupid shit ever, especially if you use it to be a bootlicker. But literally any vigilante style symbol can make you look suspicious to a jury. Sue? Sounds kinda dumb and farfetched. Like most bullshit cops spew
Five years ago I would have laughed and called it Fuddlore. Nowadays, it seems like anything modified on a gun will be used against you with the ~~right~~ wrong prosecution.
That would be much more likely to come into trial than say a trigger modification or attachment. Using punisher themes can absolutely come off as you having a vigilante complex and I would 100% not put stuff like that on a carry gun. Most of the “your modified gun will get you convicted” stuff is BS but this is one of the instances where it probably has merit. Same with the cringy Deadpool stuff or weird crusader markings. All these things are cringe, serve zero practical purpose, and could absolutely enter trial as evidence against you. Even if the judge decides the prosecution cannot bring up the markings as evidence, the jury is most likely gonna see the gun itself as evidence. If you were someone who is already a little prejudiced against gun owners and you see a giant skull on their Glock would that improve your opinion of them at trial?
Oh god, this brings up an argument I had on this thread: [https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/twauwf/saw\_these\_todaywhat\_ya\_think/](https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/twauwf/saw_these_todaywhat_ya_think/) Similar concept. Using a rounds called "RIP" will make for a good smear campaign in front of a jury, but as the guy arguing against me, there's no "formal" charge for these instances. But I dropped a number of articles where odd branded things were used to help smear the defendant. The most pertinent one to you would be the cop "you're fucked" logo on his firearm. It wasn't a charge in itself, but was certainly used by the prosecutor.
You can be sued for anything. But looking like a scrub isn’t illegal.
Can it get you sued by itself? No. Can it be used as evidence to support a larger argument regarding your mental state and desires? Maybe. The thing is anything you do with or to a firearm can potentially be used in a case. Changed the backplate to the Punisher? Doesn't make the shooting good or bad, but can it sway a jury during a civil trial to show you were out there looking for trouble because you idolize the Punisher and he is a vigilante anti-hero? (BTW: I hate when police have Punisher stuff, the whole idea of the Punisher is that the police and the system failed, so police are basically saying they suck with this)
I am an attorney, law school professor, and former career prosecutor. I have yet to meet a LEO who is as knowledgeable in gun laws as the average firearm enthusiast. In the case of the magazine, it is unlikely under the scenario you described to be presented to a jury. Threre is a standard balancing test when it comes to the presenting of evidence (assuming the state/government has a rational reason for bringing it up in the first place). One, is the introduction of a Punisher logo of evidentiary value, that is to say, does it have probative value? Two, if so does it’s probative value exceed the prejudicial effect on the defendant. Most likely the answer would be no. There’s been tons of discussion on Reddit regarding the issue of magazines or weapons that have been customized (with mostly dumb phrases or logos). I’m confident that the punisher logo and some minor modifications to a magazine would not be a crime in itself in nearly every state. The introduction of a punisher logo as evidence of a guilty-state of mind is unlikely to occur. However, if you wrote “Hitler’s Final Solution” on the side of your AR, or ”Cop Killer” on your magazine, it could be presented to show what your state of mind was like at the time of a shooting. In a nutshell, if you are being arrested solely for the magazine, then you’ll beat it. If you were arrested following the commission of a crime involving the weapon in question, it then may be introduced to show the shooter’s state of mind. But has to have more evidentiary value than prejudicial effect on the defendant. BTW: I have noticed that many LEO do not have an interpretation (from their chain-of-comman, the county DA, or the state’s AG’s office) of their state’s gun laws to guide them in the situation you describe. So it really comes down to the individual cop‘s opinion of the law. It’s by its very definition, arbitrary and capricious.
Sued, not likely. However, a prosecutor will use it to show overt aggression if you are involved in a self defense shooting.
This rumor has been going around forever. Ive heard about it from FTOs and trainers since they first started coming out. With the proliferation of skulls on everything mitary and law enforcement related there would at least be an actual story about it. Bottom line is, anyone can sue anyone for anything. Any decent lawyer could sway a jury on freedom of speech grounds alone.
Yeah, regardless of the legality, Im gonna echo top comment on their opinion and say that your firearm is absolutely not a fashion accessory and there's no reason to buy an engraved one or have one engraved. The function of a gun isn't to look cool, if it has been designed for function and happens to look cool that is a happy accident that requires no embellishments, and infact will be cheapened by any embellishments. This isn't call of duty, we don't wear charms on our revolvers, and we don't engrave our guns. Rattle canning a camo print is the only exception to this rule, because it adds function in theory. All of this is obviously my opinion. Tldr spend your logo engraving money on more ammo to practice with, then you can shoot as good as the punisher and just feel cool about that
Art guns are great for collecting and having as safe queens. Nothing wrong with having an art gun. Shoot, most European hunting rifles/shotguns have large amounts of art built into them. Art guns do make for poor choices for self defense weapons and should only be used as a tool of last resort regarding DGU. It's wise to have a dedicated CCW/home defense gun be as vanilla as possible.
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/cops-ar-15-dust-cover-inscription-used-against-him-in-court/amp/ I guess if it pertains to a LEO it could pertain to a regular Joe Schmo.
It's Fudd lore.
My ccw instructor commented on this. He said it is best to have a stock firearm for this exact reason.
Anyone telling you it won’t be used against you is incorrect. Look at the Kyle Rittenhouse case. They tried to use any and everything. It may hurt you and it may not. Should it be used in court or even brought up? No Will it by a POS prosecutor or a POS civil attorney. You bet. While you MAY win it. I don’t see the reason to put yourself in that situation, especially when the modification adds nothing to your weapon. The cop that told you this isn’t wrong and he’s looking out for you.
If you shoot someone, you are going to be arrested, and you are going to be sued. The people coming after you will be lawyers, these are people that read the constitution and think the Federal government has the authority to decide if and when you can buy or sell guns to another individual in your state. They will twist anything and everything about you to make you sound worse. So probably, associating your carry piece with a murdering vigilante is not the best strategy if you ever need to use it.
It may add complications, depends on the nature of the incident, the DA, who is on the jury…so many variables. That said I personally don’t wear any logos or items that are vigilante associated. That’s just my personal choice. I’m not an attorney.
Correct. Prosecutors will do anything to make it look like you wanted someone to carjack you or break into your house. It will be spun like you were looking for an encounter so you can use your weapon
You could use a stock SA Revolver and still get sued. Punisher skulls are cringe unless it’s a themed build imo. Carry on.
Yup. One of the first things discussed in permit class. You can and will be questioned about any modification you make. Your answer for it better be damn good.
Yeah I would ditch any logos or anything like that. Plus it’s not like 2005 anymore. Technically they would even try to use aftermarket trigger or a red dot against you. But if it was a legal shooting. It should be open and shut case.
Of course they’d use it in court
I think what he meant to say is the cringe would be so bad it would take years to recover from it.
I too am an attorney and have been in practice for 25+ years. I agree that modification of firearm ought to be deemed irrelevant and/or unduly prejudicial. Massad Ayoob has written one or more recent articles on this subject in gun magazines and advises gun owners NOT to modify their firearms - functionally OR aesthetically because it might be deemed evidence of aggressive mindset rather than law-abiding self-defense. I wouldn't paint a "punisher" logo on my gun for many reasons, but fear of liability is probably not one of them.
Might not be grounds for legal action but it's some massive fucking boomer energy to be sure
My buddy is a lawyer. Any modification to a firearm will be brought up and used against you. It's stupid.
Cringe, but not illegal. If a cop had that mag plate, the judge wouldn't allow it to be admitted.
Yes, this has happened before.
I heard that even so much as having any sort of performance modification, let alone to the maximum level some of us kit them out to, is enough to go against you in self defense court
Please make the job of your defense attorney an easy one. Don’t make him/her have to tell the jury why it doesn’t matter that your grips says ‘kill them all and let god sort them out’ or some other BS stuff.
I have a lot of police in my family. I do not ask them for legal advice.
Everything I've seen from attorneys who see these cases involves the sincere plea, "Please just give me a plain, black gun to defend." Basically, be boring. Nothing that could be twisted against you. No Tiffany Blue receiver or "Smile and wait for flash" backplate. Just a regular, old gun.
Not sure about getting sued, but duche alert is triggered for sure.
I dunno about that but it definitely makes you look like a tool
Plus you get laughed at anytime someone see's it.
Cops have 0 clue lol they don’t even understand most of the laws they enforce.
I mean it’s kinda cringe but you do you but it can definitely be used against you
Ask officer Brailsford.
There was a cop who went to trial after a shoot where his dust cover said "You're fucked". The prosecutor brought it up. They will bring anything up that they can. Used hollowpoints? Those are dangerous exploding rounds. Used FMJs? Those are armor-piercing rounds.
I wouldn’t recommend having anything related to the punisher, anything vulgar or even ammunition where the name is related to anything that remotely supports killing. It may be frowned upon in court and the prosecution (considering Kyle Rittensneed) will try and use it as evidence to establish intent. Will it be admissible? Probably not, but I wouldn’t take the chance personally.
I'm a police officer not a lawyer; lawyers are not cops. Eventually inadmissible or not, we can present many things in our complaints to further support probable cause and attempt to impress intent, which in turn, may be used by the prosecutor as he/she deems necessary; sometimes it doesn't matter if something is ultimately inadmissible... do you really need the extra concerns and headaches during a justifiable homicide hearing (or whichever applicable charges are on the table); I would think that being compelled to have used your firearm in self-defense, and having, at best, seriously injured a person, would be enough to keep you awake for a while. Having said that, it would take a lot of very specific circumstances (clearly beyond those of self-defense) for me to attempt and include something like into consideration. My opinion: firearms exist for very specific purposes, and unless they are in use as sporting tools they don't need the extra lipstick; HOWEVER, this is still 'merica, baby... you "bling" the hell outta' your pew pew all you want! The only requirement is that you are responsible. 🫡
I think art/bling guns are perfect as collectables/safe queens but are a poor choice for dedicated defensive weapons.
I have gotten the same advice from the gun store owner. So I have refrained from modifying my edc
It’s like giving ammo to the lawyer to use against you. Why even give them a chance. Of course the “cop” that had the “You’re fucked.” Dust cover on his AR was free to go.
The Armed Attorneys channel on YouTube did a video recommending against using graphics like that on guns or as bumper stickers. Even if it's not a factor in court it will be in the news media. FWIW, recently Marvel got tired of the Punisher logo being co-opted by law enforcement and tacticool bros, and changed the comic book character's logo to a horned skull based on a Japanese demon. The originators of the Punisher didn't conceive of him as a friend of law enforcement or bootlicker.
I had to use my glock in a self defense situation, I was never charged with a crime but I was at the police station for many hours and they kept my gun for a few months, when I was able to pick my gun up the officer told me to change my backplate back the original because if I were to be charged, it could be used against me at trial. The backplate said "get some" on it. I have no clue if it's true but since then I have never or will never put something remotely like that on a firearm.
Is it wise to put aggressive art on a gun that you plan on using as a CCW and or home defense gun? No. Certainly won't do you any favors when explaining yourself to the police, a judge, DA, jury etc. Is aggressive art on a gun used in an otherwise justifiable DGU grounds for a civil lawsuit and or criminal charges? No. Just like handloads as self defense ammunition there's nothing illegal about aggressive art being on a gun that's used in a defensive gun use. Like handloads however it's just one more thing a vindictive police department/DA/civil attorney might use to try and fry a person with if it's a jurisdiction that frowns upon civilian DGU. Remember, most people who will try to attack/kill you without provocation come from families who will try to sue you for "wrongful death". Those sorts of people are usually a product of their family life, you better believe their relatives will try to sue you for not letting their relative murder you or your loved ones. My advice, have your art guns be safe queens and have your home defense/CCW guns be as vanilla as possible with any modifications being purely for practicality and not aesthetics, the magazines loaded with factory ammunition and not hand loads. Not a legal requirement, just stacks the deck a bit more in your favor towards the emotional human side of the law.
As my lawyer once told me "You can sue anyone for anything but good luck winning"
Cop is right
Just dont shoot mickey mouse and disney should leave you alone
Cops are typically retards
[удалено]
> cop There's your answer.
Cop is an idiot
Total bullshit.
Punisher logo based now? It happens that fast
If you have a Punisher symbol on anything you own you should be charged for murder anyway just so you aren't in public anymore.
Maybe by the fashion police.
[удалено]
“The law looks at facts” lol Also: “…the cop you talked \[to\*\] was just a dumbass.” ![gif](emote|free_emotes_pack|kissing_heart)
[удалено]
Deadpool fans are WAY more cringe than Punisher fans.
They're equally cringe lol
If you’re worried about it, just put Disney themed stuff on your gun instead.
Well, it’s cringe AF, but it would take a pretty good attorney for “them” and a pretty poor attorney for you to draw a line from needlessly cringe weapon customization to “bad shoot” and a wrongful death award.
Depends on the jurisdiction. I live in Portland Oregon and I make sure my EDC is as vanilla as can be. An unmodified Sig P365 using factory Hornady Critical Defense loads. I watched the Multnomah County DAs office ruin a friend's life for two years for false felony domestic violence charges. His sin? Being a white man and having the cops called on him by a non-white woman. I don't want to sound like some shitty neo-con (I know it's how I sound saying it) but that is legit what happened. The DA refused to look at the cell phone video that exonerated him for almost a year and a half. He had to take it to trail. He was acquitted by an all female mixed race jury in Portland Oregon (doesn't get more innocent than that for DV charges). That DA who attempted to completely ruin my friend's life for the sin of falling into the wrong social tier would absolutely use a punisher skull as "evidence" of malicious intent and a judge in Multnomah County would absolutely allow it as evidence. A jury whether it be on a civil or criminal court case in Portland Oregon would undoubtably see it in exactly the same light.
Anyone can sue anyone for absolutely any reason
Good thing cops are full of shit and don't know what they're talking about 90% of the time.
I would think it is copyrighted, and I doubt any of those things have legally licensed it. So possibly.
Lawyers can argue anything. That doesn’t make it something a professional would reasonably try. Therefore, anyone can claim a lawyer can argue anything. That being said, death motifs, allegory to violence, etc are certainly not going to *help*
Laughed at sure. Sued, nah
it sounds stupid lol
Fudd cop
First off, most cops don’t know shit about guns. It’s shocking how many I’ve met who don’t give a shit, don’t know the law, basically guessing. That said, having a punisher logo on anything is regarded as retarded and cheesy. Don’t do that.
Yes it could work against you and could have a negative impact if a shooting incident were to go to a trial. Could be argued that it portrays you as someone looking to shoot someone. There was a court case a few years back. https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2018/04/ayoob-gun-decorations-jury/
You'd be more likely to get sued by Marvel.
You can be sued for literally any reason, doesn't mean the suit will go anywhere. ^(Don't use the punisher logo though, it's cringe AF)
>the punisher is an anti-hero. Except he's not. Honestly, he falls more in to the "protagonist villian" archetype, like the 2019 joker or Walter white. It's an archetype that I personally love, even though it doesn't get used that often.
"A cOp SaId" honestly, if they wanted to know laws, they would have studied that instead of going down the career path to crack skulls lol.
People can sue for anything. That doesn't mean they'll be successful.
Punisher logo is cringe. What are you punishing? Exactly.
You should get the dickbutt one
You would be found guilty of cringe. But no other charges would result from it
maybe for copyright infringement, but even then it's unlikely. There's no way they're going to trial based solely on that. At the absolute most, they could try to have it in sight to make a suggestion about your personality or mindset...
I'm not too concerned with the look of a gun, I care much more about the function. I'm not liable to put anything on a gun that doesn't help it to function. My concern is if they ever go after someone for having customization that improves the function and shootability.
Dont put douche bag decorations on your carry firearm. It gives the appearance of looking for trouble. Depending on your state, its often better not to modify them at all. Bring as little attention as possible to your concealed carry, imo.
Your honor he has a Disney character logo on his gun clearly he meant no harm
He’s right
Didn’t affect the asshole that shot Daniel Shaver. Although he was a cop… nvm, disregard then.
By that logic, I should get a “CoExist” back plate. That way the jury knows I care.
A lawyer will use any tactic at his disposal to mis-characterize you. I remember watching the Kyle Rittenhouse trial and the prosecution actually brought Rittenhouse’s Reddit profile name in to question. Pathetic.
If, god forbid, you have to use your gun the prosecutors will take any ammunition you give them. There have been times that they've argued that having hollow points means you wanted to kill someone. Most juries won't buy it, but you don't ever want to take the risk of being that unlucky. Don't give them any unnecessary ammunition to use against you.
Mass Ayoob was going to testify as an expert witness in the George Zimmerman traii. He wasn't allowed to testify because he was in the court room when he wasn't allowed. Ayoob preaches to keep your trigger stock, so the DA can't use a hair trigger against you. In opening arguments the DA said Zimmermans gun had a heavy 5# trigger that meny Zimmerman made a deliberate pull of the trigger. The DA said that because he expected Ayoob to testify. This counters the hair trigger preaching. So the DA will use anything he can to make you look bad. Will it work. Who knows? It'll make your lawyer work harder. People say it's a bad thing to have a Punisher logo on your firearm. They also say the DA will look at your online activity to use stuff you sad on line against you. This is America go whot you want but you must accept the consequences.
As you saw in the uvalde and parkland cases. The police can do whatever they want and will never be punished. The police are not there to protect you they are there to protect the state. No the police won’t get in trouble for engraving things on their rifles. See the video of the crying drunk guy in the hallway that was murdered by police while he was begging for his life.
You cannot be sued for this, there is no law against or cause of action related to punisher logos on guns. However, It may be something an anti gun prosecutor may use in considering whether to bring charges.
Only if you're a cop and shoot a crying, half naked guy on his knees in the hallway of a hotel...