I know a lot of slang terms for firearms: gat, heater, strap, piece, jammy, roscoe, iron, chopper, smoke wagon, hog leg.
Those are just the ones I can come up with off the top of my head from my own experience. If I Google it, I find a couple more I’ve heard before, like boom stick, hand cannon, and smoke pole.
I know from conversations with other ATF agents (like my favorite one: https://lnkd.in/gwrXGrKU) that there are also regional terms, like “jawn” in Pennsylvania. (Though I’ve come to understand that jawn can mean almost anything in Philadelphia.)
But today the Michigan Court of Appeals taught me a new slang term for a gun: a “blick.”
I’ve written before about what a great professional experience I had in Detroit (https://lnkd.in/gD7HPBiz). Apparently I didn’t stay long enough because I hadn’t heard “blick” before.
Like many shooting investigations, this one began with a ShotSpotter alert. Police responded and found casings but no gunshot wound victim. That’s because the victim had been driving a car. He fled the scene but succumbed to his injuries and was dumped into the roadway some distance away.
(His brother was the passenger in the car and as well as I can tell from the facts, he shoved his dying brother out into the street then drove home to get their mom. By the time him and mom returned, the cops had found the body in the road.)
Police identified the shooter right away and he was charged with murder. At trial, prosecutors introduced audio from “jail calls.”
Jail calls have long been an invaluable source of evidence. Inmates are notified at the outset of their phone calls that they are being recorded but that doesn’t stop them from talking about their crimes. (Of course, some of these masterminds even post evidence of their crimes on social media: https://lnkd.in/gpMZX5qy.)
In the calls, the shooter asked someone to ditch his blick (which the court helpfully interpreted in footnote 3). The shooter objected, arguing the prosecution had not disclosed the calls in discovery. This was a factual dispute but the trial court had no problem admitting the calls and the appellate court affirmed.
The defendant also protested his conviction for AWIGBH, which is shorthand for “assault with intent to do great bodily harm.” (Seriously, what’s with these ridiculous acronyms? https://lnkd.in/gMU5FDHq)
The appellate court rejected that argument, a related self-defense claim, and several other arguments. As the Volokh Conspiracy recently noted, “When a Party Comes to Us with Nine Grounds for Reversing the [Trial] Court, That Usually Means There Are None.” That was the case here.
Anyways: Blick.
You can read the opinion here.
(BTW, after I wrote this post someone reminded me about “cuete,” which I can’t believe I forgot because I memorized every word to La Raza back in the day!)