Quote:
Originally Posted by 1buba
I'm NOT a lawyer - don't have the brains to be one.
I'm curious though...
isn't there a thing called "re-direct", and depending on the views of the officer, would the re-direct be something like...
"Officer Smith - is the defendant a law enforcement officer?"
|
OBJECTION- LEADING. SUSTAINED
Quote:
"Officer Smith - does he have a need for the same equipment as an LEO?"
|
OBJECTION- LEADING. SUSTAINED
Quote:
I'm using factory for the reason you state, but the arguments for it have always intrigued me. it seems like if they are talking about your ammo, and your lawyer has already laid waste to that discussion, you probably have already lost... again, depending on the officer and the DA.
|
OH... PLEASE let him say something that stupid! Not only is it hard for a line of questioning like that to come in -You cant ask leading questions on direct, and I dont know HOW I would get around that if I were asking the questions- but If they were:
Re-cross-
"Officer smith- The police are issued guns to protect themselves correct?"
"Yes"
"And Mr Jones has A CCW issued by your department's Cheif, Correct?"
"Yes"
"And the Cheif issues those permits at his discretion, correct?"
"yes."
"And CCWs are issued to people showing cause that they have heightened need to defend themselves correct?"
"Yes."
"Then why are you of the opinion that police deserve better protection than ordinary citizens who have gone through training, had extensive background checks performed, and demonstrated a need for them to defend themselves?"
"uh, uh, uh.... We deal with bad people every day in the scope of our business."
"But Mr. Jones met a very bad person in the scope of his daily activities, and you want him to be less able to defend himself than you are despite the fact your boss says its within his right to carry the weapon in question?"