View Single Post
Old July 23, 2012, 02:28 AM   #47
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
With regard to competition creating potential legal problems:

According to Massad Ayoob and Marty Hayes, they would much rather defend a trained person than an untrained person. It's easier to justify and explain to the jury why the defendant reasonably believed what he did, if they can show that the defendant is aware of such things as:

1) body language and other warning signs of imminent attack;

2) advantages of hollow points, that include less likelihood of ricochets and overpenetration (protecting society) and greater likelihood of stopping the assailant with fewer rounds (protecting the assailant; we had MDs and RNs in the class confirm that it's easier to save a gunshot victim if he has fewer, rather than more, holes in him);

3) disparity of force;

4) knowledge of what the local police carry, and why (another example they gave was a former marine who had a 1911 and 2 spare mags; when asked why, the answer was that he had always been trained to carry that - the jury found that answer reasonable).


Also, they felt that competition could be a positive factor in a trial: the defendant is honing his skills so that, in a crisis, he is less likely to cause harm to bystanders.

So, could training and/or competition be used against you? Yes. But it could also be used for you.

If you ever get involved in an SD event, find a competent SD attorney (one who has experience in defending people who really aren't guilty, as opposed to one who normally deals with society's dregs - the legal tactics used are not the same), and pay the money for good expert witnesses.
MLeake is offline  
Page generated in 0.05643 seconds with 8 queries