how would you describe this?

[befsquire]

this is something that could make or break a case i have. i need to know how you would describe this gun (http://www.smith-wesson.com/wcsstore/SmWesson/upload/images/firearms/120025_large.jpg).

it doesn't have to be a detailed description. assume a guy pulled this gun on you, and you are describing it to the police. also, keep in mind he can't stare at a photo first.

i figured it's a slow night, and i'd give ya'll something to do.

[TurdBerglar]

toy like


by the way... SMITH AND WESSON IS FROM MY CITY!!! so im an expert

[Bob]

if some guy pulled this gun on ME?

um, it has a barrel, it looks like a gun, it's pointed at my organs

i'm sorry, given those terms, i can't roleplay this in a way that's favorable to the defense

[Yeti]

If it was dark I would call it a---piss my pants gun.

[Bob]

If it was dark I would call it a---piss my pants gun.


aka, a gun

[zorra_chiflada]

woah, it's a gun. it looks black and rubbery

the only time i've seen a gun in real life was when this crazy girl at my high school brought a gun to school and showed me it.

[befsquire]

i'm not looking for favorable or unfavorable. just an honest answer.

it's daylight.

[hitmonlee]

black and silver, kind of squarish in shape

[befsquire]

thank you zorra, for being the first to provide a description.

*note -- there is no right answer here.

edit -- and thanks to you too, hitmonlee.

[TurdBerglar]

i fucking said toy like

[befsquire]

but that could describe anything and isn't a real description. but thank you turd for saying it's toy like.

[Yeti]

In the daylight huh? I would call it a--piss my pants gun.
Your client is in trouble.

[Yeti]

It looks like a semi-automatic handgun with a clip.

[befsquire]

In the daylight huh? I would call it a--piss my pants gun.
Your client is in trouble.
see, that's the thing though. there are 2 VERY different accounts of how this weapon came to be in the vic's face.

3 year minimum mandatory on this charge (aggravated assault with a firearm).

[Bob]

thank you zorra, for being the first to provide a description.

*note -- there is no right answer here.

edit -- and thanks to you too, hitmonlee.


err, i was serious about my description FYI

if something gun-shaped is pointed in your vicinity, it's difficult to be descriptive, i'd assume

[befsquire]

i thought you weren't getting my question, bob.

i agree that it would be hard to describe it, but that sorta becomes your focus all of a sudden, knawmean?

[Yeti]

see, that's the thing though. there are 2 VERY different accounts of how this weapon came to be in the vic's face.

3 year minimum mandatory on this charge (aggravated assault with a firearm).

Can you comment in a vague way?

[befsquire]

vic says he walked up to my client's car and it got pulled on him. witness says vic parked behind my client, then they drove around apt complex circle, then my client parked and got out of the car with the gun, put it in his pocket, then walked back to the vic's car, pulled the gun back out and pointed it at him.

[Bob]

i thought you weren't getting my question, bob.

i agree that it would be hard to describe it, but that sorta becomes your focus all of a sudden, knawmean?

ok, well i'll do the best i can then

it looks like a barrel pointed at my face

i'm being serious, that's my answer. granted i've never had a gun pulled on me, but i just don't think it's fair to ask the victim to have to describe it in any sufficient detail. it looks like a gun, and it's pointed at you. i wouldn't expect a reasonable person to start memorizing details, i'd expect them to piss their pants, as yeti puts it

[kaiser soze]

I would call it "see ya! I wouldn't want to be ya!"

and then I would karate chop them in half

end of story, you're out of a client

[befsquire]

i totally agree with you bob. i'd make the worst witness / vic ever. i'd be all "um, it was gun shaped."

but they both do describe it, using one word.

[Yeti]

I'm no lawyer but I would think the victim's account would help your client more. The witness account sounds more devious...put the gun in his pocket then back out.

If it was in my face I would notice the silver barrel and black body. I would also notice the clip and slide barrel. It would appear to a novice like me to be a semi.

[Bob]

i totally agree with you bob. i'd make the worst witness / vic ever. i'd be all "um, it was gun shaped."

but they both do describe it, using one word.

yeah, i mean...it's just the way you phrased the question "assume a guy pulled this gun on you, and you are describing it to the police". with the picture and angle you provided in the link, i could say A B and C, but if it were pointed at me and i weren't expecting a gun-shaped object to be pointed at me at that particular moment in time, i'd only be able to focus on A, where A is "it looks like a gun".

i mean even if i were being totally objective, let's assume that i'm just looking at a picture of the gun via the internet, only it was a picture of the gun where i'm looking at it down the barrel. i honestly can't say with any confidence that i'd be able to tell you what color it was or how realistic it looked. i'm not a firearms expert (few people are, which is useful to remember), but to me, most handguns look very similar when you're looking down the barrel of them.

it's the "a guy pulled this gun on you" aspect that's influencing my answer.

[befsquire]

would it help if you assumed you saw a guy pull a gun on someone?

the vic never says my guy got out of the car. the vic walked up to my guy's car. the witness sees, or claims to see, my guy walk to the vic's car.

alternate scenario a: i think the witness really saw the vic with a gun (since i believe the victim would have mentioned it if it had been the other way around).

alt b: it happened like the vic said, but the witness was trying to be a hero and made shit up. how would the witness see the gun when, according to the vic, my guy didn't get out of the car?

alt c: the vic and witness both know and hate my client, know he has a gun in his car, and set him up. this is the least plausible, since they'd have had plenty of time to get their stories straight.

[Bob]

well now we're getting into a whole other area, also i'm drunk and having a hard time critically evaluating your hypotheticals

i'll come back to this thread when i'm sober

basically i'm just having a hard time understanding the facts of the case (insofar as any mortal knows for sure what the facts actually are which i guess is at the heart of a lot of cases)

give me a break, i'm a 1L :(

[Bob]

also, i'm perturbed at the fact that i'm treating this case as a thought exercise. i'm getting way too comfortable with that. like in my classes, we read cases, and we evaluate them as though they were fictional, and we laugh and we ponder and we oh ho ho, but wait, hang on a second, these are real people, these are lives at stake. for example, grimwold v. whoever, oh ho ho, poor bastard should have learned to swim, man that's hilarious, but wait a second, the guy drowned to death, that's not funny, it actually happened

i guess this is a whole other thread though, i'll stop.

my point is, i don't envy you, having your job. i do, though, respect you, like, a lot, because someone has to do it.

also, i've mentioned you to one of my classes. not by name, but it's just that the plight of the public defender is an interesting one, and i can't help but mention the fact that i know one. so, you're famous now

[befsquire]

for example, grimwold v. whoever
connecticut. sorry, had to do it.

also, i've mentioned you to one of my classes. not by name, but it's just that the plight of the public defender is an interesting one, and i can't help but mention the fact that i know one. so, you're famous now
yay! i've always wanted to be famous. you may refer to me as the lovely and talented beth, if you need a name for the stories. :)

being a PD has its highs and lows just like being in private practice. private attorneys get this line of crap: "what, i paid you all that money and you can't get my case dropped?" clients don't expect that from me because they don't even think i'm an attorney. they ask me if i have to go to a special school to be a PD.

i like bouncing ideas off of everyone here, because it lets me know whether something will work with a jury. since it carries a minimum mandatory term of 3 years, he's gonna want a trial (max penalty is 15 years).

both the vic and the witness describe it as black. when i looked at it, i wouldn't have said that. but when i looked, i pictured a hand covering the grip, so all i could see was the stainless steel. there are so many various answers in here that it probably isn't a good idea to harp on the description of black and claim they never really saw a gun because if they'd seen it, they'd have called it chrome / steel / something other than black.

[Bob]

connecticut. sorry, had to do it.


yay! i've always wanted to be famous. you may refer to me as the lovely and talented beth, if you need a name for the stories. :)

being a PD has its highs and lows just like being in private practice. private attorneys get this line of crap: "what, i paid you all that money and you can't get my case dropped?" clients don't expect that from me because they don't even think i'm an attorney. they ask me if i have to go to a special school to be a PD.

i like bouncing ideas off of everyone here, because it lets me know whether something will work with a jury. since it carries a minimum mandatory term of 3 years, he's gonna want a trial (max penalty is 15 years).

both the vic and the witness describe it as black. when i looked at it, i wouldn't have said that. but when i looked, i pictured a hand covering the grip, so all i could see was the stainless steel. there are so many various answers in here that it probably isn't a good idea to harp on the description of black and claim they never really saw a gun because if they'd seen it, they'd have called it chrome / steel / something other than black.

i've actually talked about you in more detail than i'd care to admit (FYI i'm about to admit it), more or less focused around the idea that you graduated law school just like any other lawyer, and you performed admirably (at least i assume you did, based on your posts, hey, i'm a law student, i think critically, don't blame me), yet people still look down their nose at you because you're a "public defender" instead of a "lawyer" (i use the quotation marks extraordinarily judiciously), but what the fuck is that?! what kind of incentive is that for people to become public defenders? just because clients have no cash, they can't afford "laywers"? bunch. of. bullshit. i respect you so goddamn much for being what you are, because "these people" deserve just as much defense as the people who can afford "real lawyers" (again, using the quotation marks juidiciously).

shit ain't fair. you rock for doing what you do.

but, to answer your question, i just can't get behind your client. sorry

[befsquire]

thanks, bob. i really, really appreciate that. :)

look what i'm wearing (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y58/befsquire/lolz.jpg). :D

for real though, i'm not getting shit on nearly as much. i've been around long enough that i have a good reputation at the jail. all the guys in the work area know me and know i'm good, so people request me. one guy came in after he got out of jail to thank me and to tell me that all the inmates think i'm great. i believe him, because the newest trick up the inmates' sleeves is to file a grievance with the bar against their attorney because they think that'll make the attorney work harder. i know one guy who's had 4 in the one year he's worked there, and didn't deserve any of them. i know another guy who's had one grievance, and like 7 nelson hearings (it's a hearing to say your attorney is not providing effective assistance).

zero grievances, zero nelson hearings in the 1.7 years i've been there. but as a pd, it's not a matter of if you get grieved, it's a matter of when.

[Bob]

thanks, bob. i really, really appreciate that. :)

look what i'm wearing (http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y58/befsquire/lolz.jpg). :D

for real though, i'm not getting shit on nearly as much. i've been around long enough that i have a good reputation at the jail. all the guys in the work area know me and know i'm good, so people request me. one guy came in after he got out of jail to thank me and to tell me that all the inmates think i'm great. i believe him, because the newest trick up the inmates' sleeves is to file a grievance with the bar against their attorney because they think that'll make the attorney work harder. i know one guy who's had 4 in the one year he's worked there, and didn't deserve any of them. i know another guy who's had one grievance, and like 7 nelson hearings (it's a hearing to say your attorney is not providing effective assistance).

zero grievances, zero nelson hearings in the 1.7 years i've been there. but as a pd, it's not a matter of if you get grieved, it's a matter of when.

so basically, you're wrecking the curve

you bitch

no, but seriously, it's such a sad statement for society that my joke even has any weight. theoretically, everyone has a right to a defense. practically, only those with enough cream have access to an effective one.

and yet, here you are, bucking that set-up. i'm really not kidding, i respect you a ton for it. doing what one person can. gotta be rough, but there you are. fucking stick with it

[marsdaddy]

It's daylight? The thing has a shiny metal strip. I'd probably describe it as shiny.

[Yeti]

It's daylight? The thing has a shiny metal strip. I'd probably describe it as shiny.

and then a HUGE Milwaukee's Best can would fall on your head.

[ET]

I'd say it reminds me of a more modern Makarov (http://www.a-human-right.com/makarov.jpg). With a design similar to a USP pistol. The distinguishing feature was it's polished sheen. :cool:

[befsquire]

so the client whose case this is based on went to trial today. minimum mandatory sentence if convicted is 3 years, which would be day for day (no gain time). max sentence would be 5 years.

the jury was out for an hour and a half. they had the agg assault with a firearm charge, or 3 lesser included offenses they could have found him guilty of.

not guilty.

[jackrock]

dun dun dun!

[Bob]

so the client whose case this is based on went to trial today. minimum mandatory sentence if convicted is 3 years, which would be day for day (no gain time). max sentence would be 5 years.

the jury was out for an hour and a half. they had the agg assault with a firearm charge, or 3 lesser included offenses they could have found him guilty of.

not guilty.

when law school breaks me and i end up killing a bunch of people, i want you in my corner, ok?

[beastieangel01]

not sure how large it is, I get the impression that it's small. I'd just say small gun?

[backwoods]

so the client whose case this is based on went to trial today. minimum mandatory sentence if convicted is 3 years, which would be day for day (no gain time). max sentence would be 5 years.

the jury was out for an hour and a half. they had the agg assault with a firearm charge, or 3 lesser included offenses they could have found him guilty of.

not guilty.

amazing. :eek:

[befsquire]

bob, i'll be in your corner without any crime spree on your behalf.

crystal: it looked normal size in court, but it was even more apparent that what you are going to see when holding it is chrome, not black. when it was shown to the alleged vic in court, he claimed he never described it by a color, and that a maintenance man told him it was a 9mm, and when the prosecutor asked him what color it was, the dude said "black and some other color." not the first thing he did to make him look like a liar, and it wasn't the last, either.

backwoodskra: thanks :) it wasn't so much me and what i did as it was the alleged vic just totally came off as a lying motherfucker.