To compare and contrast two threads.

[The Tourist]

Recently we have had two threads here. One touched on a warning by attorneys about being careful with your verbiage in public, and the other asked about defending a stranger. I found the responses odd considering the idea of "risk."

In one thread there seemed to be a great concern about facing opposing counsel in open court, with the fear that "your own words" would be thrown in your face. The other thread asked about strangers and having hot lead thrown into your body.

Taken as a whole, it seems we would risk potential injury easier than have someone talk harshly to us. In effect we would rather face the muzzle of a gun than the invective of some shyster. To me, that's quite a disconnect.

And frankly, I was amazed on how "uncaring" I appeared, even to myself. I actually do believe that if someone is dense enough to fall to a predator when walking in condition white then I am a fool to risk my health. To the contrary, being threatened with a stack of paperwork is a big yawn.

But let me ask this question. Has this country slipped to the point where we'd rather be shot than insist upon our enumerated rights? Have we lost so much faith in our country that the chance of being shot by a perp is preferable to a day in court?

And make no mistake about it, discharging a firearm in public, for any reason, will undoubtedly land you right into the very court arena so many of us seem to fear.

I really do try to be a good person, but reading these two threads back-to-back makes me wonder even more. It would appear from your prose that if we did have to defend a stranger, and were then thrown to the wolves, most of you guys would think this was "America as usual."

Is that what we really believe now in our free society?

[bblatt11]

First: Not all lawyers are shysters.

Second: As a lawyer, I do have some confidence in the legal system. If you you check your respective state statutes, you may find yourself protected in such a situation, as in Indiana: (Please do not rely on the following as legal advice. I am not your attorney, you are not paying me to advise you, I only practice in Indiana, and we have no attorney-client confidential relationship.)
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

If your defense of a third person is determined to be justified in Indiana, the statute prohibits subsequent civil suits. Your main problem, shyster lawyers, is thus negated.

In these United States, business as usual should be just like this. If you live in a state that would punish you for the protection of the self evident right of Life, you might consider moving to a friendlier locale.

[JohnKSa]

Taken as a whole, it seems we would risk potential injury easier than have someone talk harshly to us. In effect we would rather face the muzzle of a gun than the invective of some shyster.

The idea that having your own words used against you in a prosecution amounts to nothing more than someone talking harshly to you, using invective against you, or being threatened by a stack of paperwork is so extremely oversimplistic that it borders on the nonsensical.

To answer the real question.

Yes, there are probably many people who fear the idea of losing their freedom and/or everything they own in life much more than they fear being wounded or killed trying to help someone.

[zukiphile]

It seems only prudent to know that what we say and write is bound to have an effect on how others view us. Indeed, that is one reason people do speak.

a great concern about facing opposing counsel in open court, with the fear that "your own words" would be thrown in your face.

...talk harshly...

...the invective of some shyster.

...a day in court?

...threatened with a stack of paperwork ...

I don't believe the manner in which you've presented your question accurately represents the risks associated with being a criminal defendant.

[The Tourist]

Originally Posted by bblatt11

Not all lawyers are shysters.

I know that, and that's not the part of the debate I'm interested in discussing.

My post wants to uncover what people think. In the thread about defending a stranger, many people opined that, yes, they would make the effort.

However, in the thread about facing your own words most folks thought that curbing your speech in a public setting could come back to haunt you in court.

It seems like gunfire is preferable to the possibility of a courtroom.

We have lots of threads here similar to "Glock vs. Colt" in discussing people's likes and dislikes. You really can't 'prove' which product is superior in the final analysis. You are asking people for their preference.

That is my goal. The two threads do, in fact, exist. They seemed to have generated an area of concern. Many of us carry firearms. Many of us have been to court. It is logical that a certain number of us have been to court and own firearms. Win or lose, we vote, we read editorials, we face ever widening scrutiny of 2A, and we have demonstrated we are a litigious society.

I am not asking you to provide data on the legal system, I'm asking on how we feel about our exposure to perceived danger and this scrutiny.

So, why will some of us risk facing a bullet but parse our own speech?

[zukiphile]

So, why will some of us risk facing a bullet but parse our own speech?

Reflecting on your own words and what they communicate is a part of critical thinking. Why wouldn't a person do that?

[The Tourist]

You could be maimed or killed by even the smallest bullet. More people die in this country from wounds inflicted by the .22LR, .25 ACP and the .32 ACP.

I see absolutely no downside for defending yourself in court. If you just give up, you lose.

Death or paperwork?

Edit: But this isn't about me. My choice is well documented. I'm asking why potential death is even considered by some members here.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by The Tourist:

I'm asking why potential death is even considered by some members here.

If you are referring to the string about what to do if someone is shooting at a store clerk, consider that "potential death" is already part of the equation--a man is shooting people--and that some of the members have said that they would shoot to reduce the probability of their being shot next.

It also seems that some people have the impression that they will prevail unharmed in any situation, whether they are shooting at a gunman in a store or mall, drawing from concealment against a man holding a gun, traipsing around the house with gun in hand looking for who knows how many people who may be waiting in ambush, or going outside with a gun to confront a man standing next to a truck, not knowing who else may be out there.

If there's an explanation for the psychology of this, perhaps Glenn E. Meyer can help us.

Death or paperwork?

Paperwork???

As Zukiphile pointed out, that does not accurately represent the risks associated with being a criminal defendant. The risk there is loss of personal fortune and reputation regardless of the outcome, and a criminal record and loss of personal freedom in the event of an unfavorable outcome in a criminal trial.

One must keep in mind that in the shoot or run and hide scenario, the situation has been thrust upon the actor, and he must decide what is best to do--even to survive. He could be shot no matter what he does.

In the scenario of a trial in which one's prior statements may become pivotal, the actor himself has made the decision to say what he has said.

Internet sites are relatively new, and provide either authorities or plaintiffs (or civil defendants, for that matter) with greater ease and automation for gathering evidence, but the principles are as old as court trials themselves. Letters, file notes, invoices, cancelled checks, entries in appointment books, you name it, have all been used in court trials. Also relatively new are cell phone records, both the call lists and the cell tower records that document where one has been at particular times. And, of course, security cameras....

[zukiphile]

I see absolutely no downside for defending yourself in court.

Has it been suggested that you should not undertake a defense in a criminal case if you are named a defendant?

The downside to having to defend yourself in a criminal case can include being locked up for the rest of your life and losing everything.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I don't think there's an "insistence" that we hold our tongue. There's LOGIC that we hold our tongue.

Those two threads are different in a lot of ways. One way being that the stranger defense scenario is PURELY hypothetical. Very few of us know with certainty how we would react. Some of us who say that we would retreat would in fact be the "hero" of the day, others who say that they'd play the hero would in fact wet their pants and beg for mercy.

The idea of words coming back to bite you is wholly different. The "odds" might be similar but the FACTS are different. In the defense scenario there are hundreds, 10's of thousands of unknowns. In the "words" scenario, there is only one thing.... your words. If you are ever involved in a questionable shooting then those words WILL be used by a defense attorney. It's not a maybe, it's not uncertain, it's a WILL be used.

If someone feels the need to blather away on the internet about how they shoot first and ask questions later then, hell, more power to them. On the other hand, basic logic dictates that we wouldn't do that to ourselves. It serves no purpose, it cannot help and can only hurt us. Why?

[The Tourist]

My position (and again you know my take) is that both actions have a downside. Why are so many willing to risk a slug?

Is the idea of "going out in a blaze of glory" more palatable to some of us than a deposition and our day in court?

Edit: And yes, Peetzakilla, I realize that there is lots of "blather." However many here have also been soldiers and LEOs. They have documented records of their actions both in service and in court. And that uncovers another problem, can I really believe what I read?

[Brian Pfleuger]

Taking a slug is likely to be cheaper?

[OldMarksman]

Why are so many willing to risk a slug?

Again--that risk may be thrust upon you, and you then have to decide how to avoid a slug.

Personally, I will most likely never intervene to assist someone I do not know (the exception being a uniformed policeman), but if I am in a store in which someone is shooting people, I'll probably shoot if I can--to prevent being shot first. I would not characterize that as being willing to risk a slug.

[The Tourist]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

to prevent being shot first. I would not characterize that as being willing to risk a slug

Thank you, Oldmarksman, that is the type of thought process I was asking for.

There is always risk. Even in your scenario the gunman could have a buddy who shoots you in the back once you have stepped forward. And anyone could be sued at anytime by anyone.

Here's a dirty little secret. I was stung by a bee at the age of three, and we found out that I am one of those people who should carry an epi-pen (sp?).

Factually, I am in more serious danger next to a beehive than I am in a honky-tonk saloon or a courtroom.

I believe we react to perceived danger.

[CowTowner]

I believe we react to perceived danger.

Isn't that what fear causes us to normally do?
Then determine if fight or flight is the correct response?

[The Tourist]

Originally Posted by CowTowner

Isn't that what fear causes us to normally do?
Then determine if fight or flight is the correct response?

A forum entry usually speaks in generalities, or elements of a debate, like this one.

Many of my friends who have military service or were LEOs inform me that they "react as they were trained." I have no military experience, I run from gunfire. They run toward it.

Again, age and experience color that instinctual reaction. I'm finding fewer and fewer things to fight over as I age. Things I would have fought to death over at the age of 20 don't even appear as a blip on my 'lexicon of life' now, and truthfully, not for many years.

Oddly, I'm calmer. There are also fewer things to fear. And from my perspective, it's been a good trade off.

[sixgun67]

OldMarksman, out of curiosity, what makes a 'uniformed police officer' any different to you than a member of the general public? Crap, he has one hell of an advantage over the public--he already has a gun, pepper spray, TRAINING(I dearly hope), and a radio with many more police at the other end. A cop would be the last person on my mind to need help from a civvy.
Tourist, I personally, will not intervene for anyone else, unless it clicks in my head that I am in the same boat, and then, I will only do what i gotta do to protect me and my family at the exact moment it's needed, be that run or use force. Everyone else takes their own risks, just as I DO. The law of nature, I feel, the strong survive, whether that is me or another.
I will not risk my life for another human other than my family. I also will not risk a civil suit for what meager earnings and possessions I have. I have no intentions of 'risking a bullet' if I can help it.
I may be considered heartless and inhuman, but I wasn't born yesterday.
And, I also don't post much info in writing and never will. I'm careful--I know it will come back to haunt a person, fair or not. First hand experience there.

[The Tourist]

Originally Posted by sixgun67

I personally, will not intervene for anyone else...in writing...to haunt a person...First hand experience there.

Thank you for being honest. I remember reading about one man's experience at Gunsight Raven. He stated that it felt good to walk anywhere with a loaded firearm and speak his mind without compromise.

How far we have fallen.

[sixgun67]

Tourist, I must also say, I do not speak this way with pride or good feelings. It is personally a shame that, in our society today, a person must feel this way at all. As I've experienced before, too much can go the wrong way, and not enough can go the right way. So I am very selective about what positions I put myself into.

[Wagonman]

I am much more concerned with the lawsuit than the actual scenario. Worst case in the moment is my death, but, my family will be taken care of.



Now, when you look at the downside of the civil process...bankruptcy....bad media coverage...family upheaval..loss of job.

[DRice.72]

I do tend to agree that actions are easier to defend than words. If words were so cut and dry, there would be no constitutional law. There would only be one faith etc. Actions that are seen and recorded will be harder to refute. We have sayings that back that up, "actions speak louder than words". Of course there is, "the pen is mightier than the sword" for what its worth. I guess that means a stack of paper filled out by a shyster can in the end do more damage to you than the bullet can.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by sixgun67: OldMarksman, out of curiosity, what makes a 'uniformed police officer' any different to you than a member of the general public?

Good question.

My answer is that his identity provides significant clarity regarding what is happening.

If it appears that an apparent "bad guy" is attacking someone, and you intervene, you may be in for one heck of an unpleasant surprise.

If what you have actually seen is a domestic disturbance, and you intervene, you will likely have both parties testifying against you and perhaps seeking damages.

If what you have actually seen is a caretaker or parent trying to intervene in the case of a grand mal seizure or choking situation, and you intervene, you may end up contributing to the death of that person.

If what you have actually seen is a dispute between members of two rival gangs, and you intervene, your problems may extend way beyond civil and criminal liability.

If what you have actually seen is an off-duty policeman trying to apprehend a dangerous felon who has just committed a heinous crime, and you intervene, you may end up contributing to the death of the officer and to the escape of the felon.

These examples are indicative of the reason why attorneys where I live strongly advise against trying to defend someone unknown to the actor, or a policeman who has requested help--even though it is lawful to use deadly force when immediately necessary to protect an innocent third party from imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

Depending of course upon the circumstances, I would likely not wait for a request for help from the officer.

Does that help?

I will not risk my life for another human other than my family.

I would extend that to any child in my care at the time.

However, if a uniformed law enforcement officer is under fire, letting the perp prevail by not acting could well put one's life at risk. If I could neutralize the threat immediately without putting myself at risk of being mistaken for one of the attackers, and without endangering innocent citizens "down range", if you will, I think it might well be prudent to try to do so.

And, I also don't post much info in writing and never will. I'm careful--I know it will come back to haunt a person, fair or not. First hand experience there.

While I think it more important to be careful what you write than to limit how much (Jim Wilson, Rob Pincus, and Mas Ayoob write quite a lot), that's not bad advice.

[OldMarksman]

Posted by The Tourist: How far we have fallen.

You are apparently under impression that use of one's letters, other writings, speeches, check registers, appointment books, diaries, event logs, files and memoranda, subscriptions, prescriptions, order forms, bank records, and so forth as evidence in courts of law, either civil or criminal is (1) a bad thing and (2) a relatively new development.

Neither is the case. We haven't "fallen" from anything.

It is true that the ability to gather a lot of data by computer from the internet or email databases has made the process easier, but subpoena power and the requirement to comply with court-ordered requests for documents have been with us for a very, very long time.

[The Tourist]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

You are apparently under impression that use of one's...writings, speeches...is...a bad thing and...a relatively new development. We haven't "fallen" from anything.

Hmmm. I can understand this position, but at some important level my opinion is visceral. One of the books I read as a boy--that really had a profound impact on me--was Orwell's book, "1984." While I still believe that surveillance and airport security is manned by Barney Fife and Elmer Fudd, I see us moving to a point where we are "guilty until proven innoccent."

To that end, I have lots of friends in law enforcement, and many professional relationships. But those are individuals who have passed the smell test. Yikes, I've ridden with some Blue Knights that liked to party harder than we did. Overall I wonder just who watches the watchers. Who guards the guards. Who polices the police. And admittedly, I have a deep distrust.

I'm not even embarrassed by what I have said over the decades. The only issue I have in you dredging up something I have said is that in my twenties I would deliver a point of view in its raw and uncensored form. My message is still much the same, it's my delivery that has changed.

Fighting to repeal our helmet law and trying to get a CCW provision for Wisconsin has taught me quite a bit. As a young bill collector using a telephone I softened my youthful edges but still got results. And that's what I still proffer to the younger crowd.

But at the end of the day I still believe in as much freedom as I can devour, I believe picking through my trash is for bottom feeders, and if I have I have done something wrong then let your case speak for itself.

As for the other half of the equation, hey, your life amid violence is your own problem. I have been inside a courtroom and I have no wish to throw my life away to save yours.

[OldMarksman]

One of the books I read as a boy--that really had a profound impact on me--was Orwell's book, "1984."

The reason that attorneys advise clients to be careful about that they write, what they send via email, and what they post has a lot less to do with the possibility that "big brother" may be "watching" than it does about the fact that such information is discoverable and would be brought out in the event of a subpoena.

By the way, the internet and computer files have not only made discovery a whole lot easier, but the "track changes" mode in some applications have made it possible for plaintiffs and prosecutors, for example, to compare versions as documents have been developed and edited. An attorney might have a field day with the early existence and later disappearance of something like "these results indicate that there is considerable risk of product liability" in a draft document, for example.