Shooting Competition Used as Evidence?

Looks like someone in Washington is on trial for shooting someone in a road rage incident, and the prosecutors are using his participation in a shooting competition as evidence against him. This reminds me of a story Bitter tells about cops she knew who were competitive shooters, and could ace their qualifications, but deliberately pulled shots so as to avoid the possibility of a jury questioning why they drilled several bullet holes in Sumdood’s center of mass. Probably not a bad idea in some states, considering I once had a coworker from New Jersey that was upset about that very thing serving on a jury for a police shooting.

9 thoughts on “Shooting Competition Used as Evidence?”

  1. I wonder about modifying our behaviors based on what a potential prosecutor or jury member could think or do. Given the broad range of the human condition, that would limit us to rubber-band guns and plastic knives.

    I was bounced (thankfully) from a jury for knowing about the “Glock thing” that one cherub used to great effect on another. Another pool juror was empaneled even though she expressed the thought that merely owning a gun was evidence of criminal intent. (Not the sharpest marble in the deck.)

    You never know.

    1. Why would it be unusual for someone to be convicted on “quite a bit of circumstantial evidence?” Another way of saying that is “quite of bit of evidence.”

      1. I could have been more clear. This sort of murder is extremely rare for people that are in the upper level of income and have asian and european cultural backgrounds.

        Murder rates tend to follow cultural patterns, and to be independent of gun availability.

        The difficulty in this case is that the acused comes from a mixed cultural background, so he may not fit the stereo types.

        When we kept records (probably a historical artifact) of homicides by cultural Japanese in the United States, their homicide rate was almost identical, but a little lower than Japanese in Japan.

  2. Looking closely at it, the real claim here doesn’t seem to be “he must be the murderer because he likes guns and shooting”, but “the fact that he shoots so well in the competition makes us more comfortable with the conclusion that he’s the shooter here, because the shooter her shot real good“.

    It’s corroboration, that’s all – which is not a standard sufficient for conviction, but does help make the case that charges are warranted, which is the stage they’re at now.

  3. A point of clarification please, “deliberately pulled shots so as to avoid the possibility of a jury questioning why they drilled several bullet holes in Sumdood’s center of mass. ” Is my understanding correct that when this officer was involved in a real life shooting purposely shot slightly off COM?

    If so that is control under pressure! Wow!


    1. I think the idea is that they pulled several shots when shooting qualification, so that if they ever had to shoot someone, the legal idiots couldn’t ask, “You’re a great shot, why didn’t you shoot the gun out of his hand?”

  4. The firearm qualification test for a Texas CHL provides only “Pass” or “Fail,” not the score. Most instructors will encourage you to discard your target.

    The reason for these “rules” should be self-evident: Your prowess – or lack thereof – can never be used against you.

Comments are closed.