Behoort jy kosmetiese veranderings aan jou selfverdedigingswapen te maak? | Legally Armed Firearms Licencing
Behoort jy kosmetiese veranderings aan jou selfverdedigingswapen te maak?
by Legally Armed | Nov 2, 2018 | News and Articles
Elke af en toe kom ek af op iemand wat op Suid-Afrikaanse vuurwapengroepe verwys na ‘n Amerikaanse artikel of video. Een so ‘n artikel is https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/robert-farago/cops-ar-15-dust-cover-inscription-used-against-him-in-court/ en meer onlangs het iemand na hierdie video verwys https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmYbV_7xGL4
Wanneer mense na hierdie tipe inhoud verwys, wil hulle gewoonlik weet hoe ons howe soortgelyke aangeleenthede sal hanteer, spesifiek waar dit kom by iemand wat sy vuurwapen vir selfverdediging gebruik. Die argument wat gebruik word, is dat deur kosmetiese veranderings aan jou selfverdedigingswapen aan te bring, sal die hof afleidings maak aangaande jou ingesteldheid of geestelike toestand wat dan teen jou gebruik sal word.
In die bogenoemde artikel het ‘n polisiebeampte ‘n verdagte geskiet en een van die eerste goed wat mense opgemerk het, was dat ‘n onwelvoeglike gesegde in die stofbedekking van sy geweer gegraveer was. Dit is dan verder vergelyk met iemand wat ‘n punishe-logo op sy wapen laat aanbring.
In die video praat ‘n Amerikaanse vuurwapenprokureur oor modifikasies aan vuurwapens, en spesifiek kosmetiese modifikasies. Hy gaan van die standpunt uit dat hy nie sodanige modifikasies aan ‘n jurie wil verduidelik nie aangesien hulle outomaties negatiewe afleidings sal maak aangaande die eienaar van die vuurwapen. Hy ontmoedig ook mense om pienk (of enige ongewone of helder kleur) vuurwapens te gebruik aangesien dit ook negatiewe indrukke kan veroorsaak. Dit is ook overmydelik dat iemand die Oscar Pistorius-verhoor sal noem gedurende sodanige besprekings.
Dit is uiters belangrik om te let op een fundamentele verskil tussen die Amerikaanse en Suid-Afrikaanse regstelsels. In Amerika word gebruik gemaak van ‘n juriestelsel In wese word jou lot bepaal deur ‘n groep van 12 mense, gewoonlik mense sonder enige regsagtergrond, wat uit die algemene publiek gekies word. In Suid-Afrika word die getuienis teen ‘n persoon deur ‘n landdros of regter opgeweeg, mense wat in die reg opgelei is and wat spesifiek na regsbeginsels kyk.
Die Amerikaanse vuurwapenprokureur in die video wys spesifiek daarop dat enige poging om die jurie te oortuig basies neerkom op ‘n gewildheidswedstryd en die manier waarop die jurie die beskuldigde sien (sonder om na regsbeginsels te kyk) ‘n daadwerklike invloed op die uitslag van die verhoor sal hê.
In Suid-Afrika is dit nie nodig om enige “gewildheidswedstryde” te wen nie, dit is slegs nodig om ‘n regter te oortuig dat jy binne duidelik gedefinieerde regsbeginsels opgetree het. ‘n Wysiging wat jy dae, weke of maande voor ‘n selfverdedigingsvoorval aan jou selfverdedigingswapen aangebring het, sal absoluut geen impak daarop hê of jy binne die wettige perke van die definisie van selfverdediging of noodweer opgetree het nie. Selfs in die Amerikaanse stelsel is daar wigte en teenwigte om ernstige vooroordeel te verhoed.
In die geval van die polisiebeampte in die artikel het die hof beslis dat enige getuienis aangaande die gravering op die geweer se stofbedekking ontoelaatbaar was aangesien dit vooroordeel vir die beskuldigde sou veroorsaak en aangesien dit geen impak op die relevante regsbeginsels gehad het nie. Daar is ‘n opvolgartikel wat op hierdie skakel gevind kan word: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2017/09/08/profane-etching-ex-mesa-officer-phillip-mitch-brailsford-gun-inadmissible-daniel-shaver-murder-trial/648709001/
Nou vra jy seker, maar wat van die Oscar Pistorius-verhoor? Gedurende die verhoor het die aanklaer en sy span klem gelê op Oscar se gebruik van sogenaamde black talon-ammunisie en die feit dat die spesifieke ammunisie ontwerp is om maksimum besering te veroorsaak. Hulle het ook voorvalle genoem waar hy nalatig ‘n vuurwapen in die openbaar afgevuur het, asook waar hy op waatlemoene teiken geskiet het saam met sy vriende en grappe daaroor gemaak het. Oscar se verdedigingspan het skaars op hierdie feite gereageer, en die feit is, dit was ook nie nodig vir hulle om te reageer nie. Geen van hierdie aantygings was relevant tot Oscar se ingesteldheid ten tyde van Reeva se dood nie. As daar ook na die uitspraak gekyk word, kan gesien word dat bogenoemde faktore min of geen rol in sy skuldigbevinding gespeel het nie.
Beteken dit dat dit ‘n goeie idee sal wees om onwelvoeglike gesegdes op jou vuurwapen te sit of om jou vuurwapens met bloedspatselontwerpe te verf? Nee, dit is waarskynlik nie ‘n goeie idee nie, aangesien die hof dit wel in aanmerking kan neem gedurende vonnisoplegging (wat slegs gebeur nadat ‘n persoon skuldig bevind is), veral as ‘n patroon vasgestel kan word. Een vuurwapen met ‘n bloedspatselontwerp sal waarskynlik steeds nie veel uitwerking op die vonnis hê nie, maar as al jou vuurwapens sulke ontwerpe het en as jy ‘n geskiedenis het waar jy bloeddorstige aanmerkings aan jou vriende maak of op sosiale media plaas, kan dit wel die uitwerking hê dat daar ‘n paar jaar by jou vonnis toegevoeg kan word of dit kan die verskil beteken tussen ‘n opgeskorte vonnis of tronkstraf.
Should you modify your self-defence firearm?
Every now and again I come across someone referencing an American article or video on South African social media firearm groups. One such article was https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/robert-farago/cops-ar-15-dust-cover-inscription-used-against-him-in-court/ and more recently someone referred to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmYbV_7xGL4
When people reference this type of content they usually want to know how our courts would view similar issues especially as it may relate to someone using a firearm in self defence. The argument is that by modifying your self defence firearm the court would draw some kind of inference regarding your mindset or even your mental state and use it against you.
In the first article mentioned above a police officer shot a suspect and one of the first things people noticed, is that the dust cover on his rifle had an obscene inscription. That was then further equated to having a punisher logo on your firearm. In the video an American firearms lawyer discusses modifications made to firearms, and more especially cosmetic modifications, he goes on to say that he would not want to try and explain such modifications to a jury as they would automatically draw negative inferences regarding the owner of the firearm. He also discourages people from using pink (or any unusual or bright colour) firearms as it may cause negative impressions. Inevitably someone would also refer to the Oscar Pistorius trial during these discussions.
It is important to highlight one fundamental difference between the American legal system and the South African legal system. In America they use a system of trial by jury. Essentially your fate is decided by a group of 12 people, usually people with no legal background, selected from the general public.
In South Africa the evidence against someone is weighed by a magistrate or a judge, a person who is legally trained and who will specifically look at legal principles. The American firearms lawyer in the video mentions the fact that trying to convince a jury is essentially a popularity contest and that the way the jury sees the defendant (absent of any legal considerations) will influence the outcome of the trial.
In South Africa you do not need to win any “popularity contests”, you only need to convince a judge that you acted within clearly defined legal principles. A modification you made to your self defence weapon days or months or even years before being involved in a self defence shooting would have absolutely no effect on whether or not you complied with the legal definition of self defence or private defence.
Even in the American system there are checks and balances in place to ensure that severely prejudicial evidence is not seen by the jury, in the case of the article mentioned above it was ruled that the dust cover inscription was inadmissible as evidence as its inclusion would be prejudicial to the accused and does not have an impact on the legal principles which needed to be ruled on. A follow up article can be found on this link: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/mesa/2017/09/08/profane-etching-ex-mesa-officer-phillip-mitch-brailsford-gun-inadmissible-daniel-shaver-murder-trial/648709001/
Now you would ask me, what about the Oscar Pistorius trial? During his trial the prosecution team made a big deal about his use of so called black talon ammunition and the fact that this specific ammunition was designed to cause maximum injury. They also brought up incidents of him negligently discharging a firearm in public and they also brought up the fact that he would shoot at watermelons with his friends and laugh about it. Oscar’s defence team hardly responded to these facts placed before the court by the prosecution, and the fact is that they didn’t have to. None of these things had any relevance to Oscar’s mindset at the time of him shooting Reeva. And an examination of the verdict will show that these factors played little or no role in his conviction.
Does this mean it is a good idea to put offensive slogans on your firearm or have your firearm painted in a blood spatter pattern? No, it is probably not a good idea as this is something that our courts may take into account during sentencing (which only happens after you are convicted), especially if a pattern can be established. Having one firearm painted in a blood spatter pattern would likely still not have much effect on sentencing, but having all your firearms painted in different blood spatter patterns and having a history of making blood thirsty comments on social media or to your friends could very well have the effect of having a couple of years added to your sentence or could mean going to jail instead of serving a suspended sentence.