Jump to content
308AR.com Community
  • Visit Aero Precision
  • Visit Brownells
  • Visit EuroOptic
  • Visit Site
  • Visit Beachin Tactical
  • Visit Rainier Arms
  • Visit Ballistic Advantage
  • Visit Palmetto State Armory
  • Visit Cabelas
  • Visit Sportsmans Guide

Careful how you accessorize


blue109

Recommended Posts

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/robert-farago/cops-ar-15-dust-cover-inscription-used-against-him-in-court/

Will be interesting to see if his dust cover plays a role in the trial. Been following this one and I'm not making any comment until they release the body cam footage, but maybe a bad idea to have "you're fucked" on your duty or HD weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, blue109 said:

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/robert-farago/cops-ar-15-dust-cover-inscription-used-against-him-in-court/

Will be interesting to see if his dust cover plays a role in the trial. Been following this one and I'm not making any comment until they release the body cam footage, but maybe a bad idea to have "you're fucked" on your duty or HD weapon.

Yea that's a touch unprofessional

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even though it wasn't authorized by his P.D. and they can discipline him, it's not a criminal violation in any way, shape or form. That being said, it can and WILL be used by the attorneys to sway the jury and could definitely play a role in a civil suit. Putting that on a rifle intended for duty use was not a good idea!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, careful how you accessorize and even more so what you say online. Personally, if an officer were to ever point an AR of any type at me, I'm pretty sure I would get the message without needing to call a time-out to walk over and see what they have printed on their dust-cover ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, one story is the guy was on all 4s when the officer pumped 5 rounds into him. Again, I'm waiting for the body cam footage to judge, but initial reports look like it was a bad shoot. Just read the officer has been terminated for his unauthorized modification of a duty weapon. 

Will be interesting to see how the criminal case plays out. The civil case is already won before it starts. You can't replace a lost loved one/father, but they are going to be millionaires this time next year. 

Edited by blue109
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stupid, childish mistake on the cops part with that dust cover.  That one little part could very well be a defining factor in the rest of his life at this point.  As if the actual shooting wasn't bad enough without having something like that on display.  I wonder if right now he is kicking himself over a potentially bad shoot or for his poor choice of dust cover.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed.  He might as well just right "killer" on his forehead as far as the courts will be concerned on that one.  Stupid damn mistake and it's going to cost him in a bad way.

Civilians/Vets, all of us - should keep this kind of thing in mind as well.  If you are deployed in the military, that's one thing.  But if you are back home and just defending your own at this point, anything along those lines spelled out on your home defense "go to" weapons may also not be the best idea.  No matter how justified the shooting may be, death slogans on your weapons will give smart attorneys a foot in the door to argue an anxiousness and intent to do harm.  No one wants to have to defend themselves against those kinds of arguments.

I know people will say they will write any damn thing they want on their weapons but if they ever end up in court, those types of little slogans will absolutely cost you THOUSANDS of dollars more when paying your defense attorney as he attempts to make light of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, planeflyer21 said:

"On his hands and knees" may be able to be demonstrated away as justifiable.

They are going to hammer him for that dust cover though.

I tend to think that their characterization of his being "on his hands and knees" was in reality something more like "scrambling for a weapon he had stashed under the bed". Could be entirely wrong I know but I always give the LEO's the benefit of the doubt, at least until it is otherwise brought to light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Frankh252 said:

I tend to think that their characterization of his being "on his hands and knees" was in reality something more like "scrambling for a weapon he had stashed under the bed". Could be entirely wrong I know but I always give the LEO's the benefit of the doubt, at least until it is otherwise brought to light.

The guy may have been on all fours, scrambling towards the officer for all we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a cop and I don't make "judgements" about what happens in the field.  I've got no room to talk frankly.

My thoughts are more about the dust cover.  Nowadays, whether he was right or wrong, that damn dust cover is going to make his job of walking away unscathed INFINITELY more difficult because whoever is prosecuting is going to have a field day with the implications of a cop CHOOSING to have something like that printed on his weapon.

With things the way they are nowadays, they can almost call the dust cover ALONE intent.  Painting a picture of a cop looking to kill.

Whether it was true or not is irrelevant.  In court, the truth is determined by whoever paints the most believable picture and one way or another, that kid is going to suffer, good shoot or not, because he made a stupid choice when he put that dust cover on there.  No one will paint him as having made a "stupid choice" though.  They'll do their best to paint him as "anxious" to end someone and they'll go after it like a rat after a chunk of meat and the press and the jury will eat it up.

Poor kids got trouble I think.  Even if it was a righteous shoot.  He's in for a tough time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sharkey said:

I was a cop and I don't make "judgements" about what happens in the field.  I've got no room to talk frankly.

My thoughts are more about the dust cover.  Nowadays, whether he was right or wrong, that damn dust cover is going to make his job of walking away unscathed INFINITELY more difficult because whoever is prosecuting is going to have a field day with the implications of a cop CHOOSING to have something like that printed on his weapon.

With things the way they are nowadays, they can almost call the dust cover ALONE intent.  Painting a picture of a cop looking to kill.

Whether it was true or not is irrelevant.  In court, the truth is determined by whoever paints the most believable picture and one way or another, that kid is going to suffer, good shoot or not, because he made a stupid choice when he put that dust cover on there.  No one will paint him as having made a "stupid choice" though.  They'll do their best to paint him as "anxious" to end someone and they'll go after it like a rat after a chunk of meat and the press and the jury will eat it up.

Poor kids got trouble I think.  Even if it was a righteous shoot.  He's in for a tough time.

Thought you were a fire fighter?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Sharkey said:

Simmer down?  Really?  Nothing wrong with me at all.  Takes more than internet foolishness to get me going.

Again I was just asking because I thought you were a fire fight EXCUSE ME! Your rebuttals tell me OTHERWISE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...