Your Best Defense Is A Lawyer

[RR]

...

[JohnKSa]

Originally Posted by RR

...clients involved in self-defense shootings may be arrested, but they won't be charged. You won't see it. The one's who are charged will be those who shoot their spouse or someone they know, or were involved in an illegal activity.

This is either a blatant lie, an intentional exaggeration, or evidence of a truly amazing ignorance of reality, I'm not sure which.

The very first TX CHL shooting, one which received a good bit of publicity, resulted in the CHL shooter being charged. He was not involved in any illegal activity and didn't shoot his spouse or someone he knew. He went to trial and was acquitted.

Maybe you should spend more time working on your facts and less time coming up with creative ways to "slime" those you disagree with. Do you really think that filling your post with innuendo, "backhanded compliments" and thinly veiled personal attacks will make your case seem stronger?

If you want to continue this discussion as an exchange of information you're free to do so. However, you will not turn this into a "credentials contest". Especially not while you're posting anonymously.

[RR]

I deleted/edited the posts for the sole reason that some who may read them would view my comments as being derogatory toward Mas and Marty's abilities as writers, researchers, teachers and trainers. I disagree with the marketing hype.

[STAGE 2]

Get your CCW. Carry reloads if you want. Get a trigger job on your gun. Get training. Marty and Mas are good sources for training. Don't need CCW "insurance." Don't need a lawyer on retainer. Don't need your training "records" in a sealed envelope. And you don't need to spend $$$ to join a Citizen's whatever. Stop the nonsense. Stop exploiting gunowners to make a buck. Simple.

+1

Those who disagree are free to cite contradicting case law.

However, you will not turn this into a "credentials contest".

I completely agree. Arguments should be able to stand on their own. This should be equally applicable to BOTH sides.

[Mas Ayoob]

Methinks RR is becoming self-contradicting. Back at post 41, he wrote:

"Mas has actual experience with these cases. I do not."

Me, I'd be inclined to listen to the guy who has experience, over the guy who admits that he has none. But, hey, folks can take their info from whence they choose.



In a post early this morning, RR writes:

"There is no market for experts representing civilians in self-defensive shootings."

Well, if that's the case, there's nothing to worry about. No one will hire us, and RR has wasted his time posting.

Yet RR also writes:

"you will learn how an attorney uses experts. We carefully hire "experts" who will agree with our theory of defense. I could find and buy an expert who would testify the earth is square if I look hard enough."

RR has just unwittingly answered his own question. When his prostitute experts testify against you that the Earth is is square, you need honest experts who will testify that no, the Earth is in fact round.

RR writes:
"The hype Mas spews is nonsense, it is deceptive, it is wrong, it is false, it is hype, and it is pure marketing. "

Actually, if what I wrote was BS, there are far too many real attorneys and trained investigators reading it, for me to still be getting it published. But tell me, RR: IF I'M WRITING ABOUT LIABILITY TO BUILD BUSINESS FOR MYSELF, HOW DOES TELLING FOLKS HOW TO STAY OUT OF COURT ACCOMPLISH THAT?

Folks, we've got some trollery going on here. I dunno about RR yet, but a currently ongoing thread in TFL's Legal section on liability in regard to trigger pulls is convincing me more and more that Stage 2 not the attorney he claims to be. There, and in a Tactics section thread on carrying at home, he seems to be just another anonymous guy who likes to argue and put down others, and is showing signs of a poorly-founded superiority complex.

Yours for reality,
Mas

[Wuchak]

Finding a good self defense attorney who is also pro ccw shouldn't be too hard. If you have a good local online gun forum that is populated with instructors, attorneys, and leo you'll get some good recommendations. If not call a couple of firearms instructors in your area and ask who they would call. If you know of a pro ccw judge in your area this would be a good question to ask him/her as well.

Put the name and contact information of the attorney you choose on a card in your wallet. On the other side of the card put Massad Ayoob's list of 5 things to say if you are involved in a shooting:

1. This person attacked me (point out the attacker).
2. I will sign the complaint.
3. The witnesses are there (point out witnesses).
4. The evidence is there (point out evidence).
5. Officer, you'll have my full cooperation in 24 hours after I've spoken with counsel. (Repeat number 5 until attorney shows up)

I carry a card like this because it's not the point in time I want to begin the attorney search. I want to be able to call and get the attorney or someone from their office on the scene ASAP. I'm also sure that under the stress of such an incident I won't remember exactly what I'm supposed to say or do. Having the card to hold a read will help keep focus and prevent the blabbering that people do under high stress.

It is probably a good idea to contact the attorney you settle on and put them on retainer. I still need to do this. My understanding is that it's under $100 to do this and because you'll already have an established relationship with the attorney it will make things easier if you need to call them. You'll also get the number to call that will get them by your side at 3am.

[TexasSeaRay]

Here's what some folks just either don't get, don't accept, or have been too charmed/sheltered to have experienced. . . .

I'm a pilot and airplane owner. If you are a smart pilot, you are a member of Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association. It goes without saying that it is analogous to being a smart gun owner and being a member of the National Rifle Association.

One of our benefits that is offered to AOPA members is Legal Services. It costs something like an extra $29 per year in addtion to your normal dues.

In the event that you run afoul of the FAA or local aviation rules/regulations and you get notice from the government that they are coming after you for administrative or punitive action, you call up AOPA and they will supply you with an experienced attorney who specializes in aviation law. For free.

I've been flying for I don't know how long and have never needed this. But knowing the damn government the way I do, I pay this extra legal fee on my membership gladly and without hesitation every year when I renew my dues.

I wish the NRA had a similar deal.

What RR and Stage2 fail to disclose is that prosecutors are political animals and that most Americans live like an ostrich--our heads are either stuck in the sand or up our butts most of the time when it comes to the reality of how things are all around us.

And rather than accept and prepare, we choose to believe "That stuff won't happen to me, it always happens to someone else."

If THAT'S the case, then why do so many of us choose to carry a weapon when our statistical odds of EVER needing it are remote?

One thing IS FOR CERTAIN, and hear me out because I'll guaran-damn-tee you that I know this FIRSTHAND better than almost any one of you participating in this discussion--

When/if you have to use your weapon, you want every available resource ON YOUR SIDE WORKING FOR YOU! I cannot emphasize this enough.

As I said earlier in agreeing with Mr. Ayoob, self-defense doesn't end when you draw your gun and fire it to save yourself or someone else. In most jurisdictions, that's when TRUE self-defense is just beginning, thanks to our f'd up legal system.

As far as the marketing hype? I honestly don't see it as "hype." In fact, I rarely even see it. Granted, I do not subscribe to any gun rags other than Handloading and the NRA publications, but I'm trying to recall the last time I saw Mas Ayoob's smiling countenance peering at me through an ad or TV commercial or billboard, or even through some junk mail (which, before I retired from that industry, I would call "direct marketing").

And if anyone does see it as marketing hype, so what? I would see it as a natural extension of having more and more law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons, and thus, wanting to be more fully prepared for the entire process of self-defense.

And isn't that a good thing?

Jeff

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Those who disagree are free to cite contradicting case law.

That statement shows that someone doesn't understand the issue as many folks have pointed out. If you are tried, there is some doubt as to legit nature of your action. You haven't pulled off a definitional good shoot - now have you?

At trial, there is a mountain of evidence from simulations that appearance factors - clothes, race, age, blah, blah - and weapons issues influence juries. It is also clear from legal experts here and other ones, that such processes don't make 'case law'.

In fact, the application of such implicit biases is just now being picked up in terms of racial bias and being argued in court. It's a pretty new area.

The inability of some folks to understand this point is rather stunning and shows how biases work.

BTW, if Mas or Marty have expertise and try to use it to make a living - what's wrong with that? I have expertise and try to sell it honestly. When I've testified, I've given my evaluation and if the lawyer doesn't like it - too bad.

[STAGE 2]

What RR and Stage2 fail to disclose is that prosecutors are political animals and that most Americans live like an ostrich--our heads are either stuck in the sand or up our butts most of the time when it comes to the reality of how things are all around us.

I'm not quite sure what this is other than a fallacious argument. Sure there have been examples of bad prosecutors, but they are the very limited exception and not the rule. The people that I have worked with were stand up folks who were doing a job that they (mostly) loved because they wanted to see justice done. This idea, that seems to be very very prevalent on boards like this, that all prosecutors are chomping at the bit to have another notch on their briefcase regardless of whether they think the person is innocent or not. Thats pure bunk.

That statement shows that someone doesn't understand the issue as many folks have pointed out. If you are tried, there is some doubt as to legit nature of your action. You haven't pulled off a definitional good shoot - now have you?

Very true, however without dragging another discussion into this one, the factors that RR listed are not sufficient to create the type of doubt that is necessary to be charged. If I shoot someone and have a trigger job on my gun, that alone isn't going to get me charged. If I shoot someone with reloads that alone isn't going to get me charged. If I have both, that alone isn't sufficient to get me charged.

At trial, there is a mountain of evidence from simulations that appearance factors - clothes, race, age, blah, blah - and weapons issues influence juries. It is also clear from legal experts here and other ones, that such processes don't make 'case law'.

Not true at all. There are plenty of these issues that present themselves in appellate cases as well as ways of finding convictions from cases that don't make it to the appellate level.

In fact, the application of such implicit biases is just now being picked up in terms of racial bias and being argued in court. It's a pretty new area.

The inability of some folks to understand this point is rather stunning and shows how biases work.

I'd say just the opposite. That the inability of people who work with the justice system to understand what it takes to get a conviction is rather stunning.

BTW, if Mas or Marty have expertise and try to use it to make a living - what's wrong with that? I have expertise and try to sell it honestly. When I've testified, I've given my evaluation and if the lawyer doesn't like it - too bad.

Nothing at all. However there also isn't anything wrong with people making legitimate objections to the information they present.

[Lawyer Daggit]

I practice in Australia. I can see a lot of use in people doing a course on defence before getting a CCW permit.

I think there is limited scope for an 'expert' in respect to civilian court matters.

The only caveat I would add to that is when one is using a good attorney (perhaps a QC with particular skills you want) and he has limited experience with firearms. A few sessions with an 'expert' could provide him with a necessary education.

[JP Sarte]

I am no lawyer and because of that I refuse to give legal advice as such. I can only tell you what we were taught when I was in the LE business. If you have to shoot someone. I hope you never have to. Call the police, and regardless of how badly you wan't to "state your side" or how badly the police would like you to make a statement, REMAIN SILENT.

GET AN ATTORNEY as soon as time and money permits.

JP

[RR]

..

[BikerRN]

I'm going to jump in here with both boots.

I've never met Mr. Massad Ayoob, but I have talked with him once on the telephone and corresponded with him regarding a shooting I researched, and I've found him to be knowlegable, courteaous and likable. I find you, RR, to be none of those things.

I had a nice long scathing reply, but truth be told, you aren't worth my time. I vote for a "Ban" on a troll.

Biker

[Rifleman 173]

One of the things that I have always thought appropriate was to have your attorney's phone number on speed dial. If I am ever involved in a serious incident my order of priority responses will be:

1. Call my attorney.
2. Tell him what happened.
3. Let HIM call the police for me.
4. The first words to the police will be, "I will be more than happy to talk to you after my attorney has arrived here." Then remain silent.

[Keltyke]

And you're ALL forgetting one thing...

After you're acquitted, make sure you get a shark-toothed CIVIL attorney, because you will most probably be sued by the perp's family.

And...I'm beginning to get really tired of the constant personal attacks in discussions that should be FACTUAL. Come on, Moderators, do your job and help keep the mudslinging out of here!

[Master Blaster]

After you're acquitted, make sure you get a shark-toothed CIVIL attorney, because you will most probably be sued by the perp's family.

Actually that depends on the state you live in and where the shooting takes place. In Delaware there is a law that says you may only be sued if you are convicted. If Self defense is ruled justified, or you are no billed, or not arrested, the perp CANNOT SUE YOU period. Thats Factual information.

What state do you live in Keltyke? Do you know the law in your state???

[Keltyke]

Do you know the law in your state???

No, but I DO know just about anyone can be sued for just about anything. Whether it will ever get to court or be won or lost is another thing. It's like all those extra magazines some of you carry, it's good insurance to have a civil attorney's name in your pocket.

I won't assume to interpret the law, even if it looks plainly stated on the books. I'll get the civil attorney, lay out the situation, and ask him, "Can I be sued?"

[M1911]

Actually that depends on the state you live in and where the shooting takes place. In Delaware there is a law that says you may only be sued if you are convicted. If Self defense is ruled justified, or you are no billed, or not arrested, the perp CANNOT SUE YOU period. Thats Factual information.

Be careful about that. I'm not familiar with the Delaware law on this. However, I am familiar with the MA law, and while it provides a defense against a lawsuit, it does not prevent one:

Chapter 231: Section 85U. Death or injury to unlawful dwelling occupants; liability of lawful occupants

Section 85U. No person who is a lawful occupant of a dwelling shall be liable in an action for damages for death or injuries to an unlawful occupant of said dwelling resulting from the acts of said lawful occupant; provided, however, that said lawful occupant was in the dwelling at the time of the occurrence and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall not be a duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.

This does not prevent a lawsuit but it does provide a possible defense. From the law, you can see the types of arguments that the plaintiff's attorney would use: 1) you were not in "reasonable belief" that the perp was about to inflict grave bodily injury or death upon you, 2) you did not use "reasonable means" to defend yourself.

Some of these laws might either prevent a lawsuit from being filed or result in them being thrown out quickly. Others, such as the MA law shown above, provide less of a shield.

[pax]

This antique thread was bumped to the top by someone who immediately edited his own post.

I'm closing it as the antique that it is. If you'd like to discuss this topic, feel free to start a fresh one.

pax

[JohnKSa]

Just for the record, once you hit submit on your post, it's preserved for posterity.

Editing it may conceal the original contents from the public but the staff can still see what was posted.

Just something to think about...