Revisiting Self Defense "Insurance"

[OldMarksman]

A recent thread entitled "Carry Insurance" began with the assertion that a use of force incident will lead to great expenses. Some respondents took issue with that, citing the usual "clean shoot" idea and the possibility of immunity from prosecution.

But unless the person involved ignores good advice and is incredibly lucky, the only question is about the amount.

If you are involved in an incident involving the use of force, the threat of force, or the exposure of a firearm or other weapon, you will be well advised to (1) be the first to report, and (2) obtain and engage competent legal representation immediately. That will cost money, up front.

Will you need "insurance"? That depends entirely upon how much cash you can access. That means access immediately--attorneys do not work on the installment plan.

How much? Well, as a benchmark, it you have done something with a firearm or other weapon, perhaps presenting it but not necessarily so, and you are innocent, getting to a pretrial hearing can set you back around $50,000. That's right, $50,000, cash. That number comes from people who know what they are doing.

That's just for getting to a pre-trial hearing. It may stop there, or it may not. Should you want to request an immunity hearing, the cost will be much higher, even if there is no trial. Don't forget the cost of a full blown trial or two, and maybe an appeal. You do not want to be impoverished after your first trial, and be unable to mount an effective defense in a second. The stakes are far too high

And that's for a clean incident with no shots fired, where the charge would be limited to aggravated assault. Attorney Andrew Branca says that that is the most common kind of case on which he is consulted.

If someone is killed, the multiplier can be very large indeed.

Most, and really all, of the people I know would be a whole lot better off with a plan that provides monetary assistance. They are not insurance per se, in a strict sense. They are contracts that may provide money for your defense, depending upon the terms. They do not cover other liabilities.

The plans are not all the same. In choosing one, consider the following:

• Does the plan pay up front, which is when you need it, or do they "promise" reimbursement much later, if you are found innocent?
• Can you choose your own attorney, or are you stuck with one of their choosing, who may well be ill equipped to defend you competently?
• Does the plan pay for expert witnesses, private investigators to search for exculpatory evidence and witnesses, fees associated with deposing prosecution witnesses (that's what saved Zimmerman), consulting attorneys, staff work, and so on?
• How much will they cover?
• How solvent are they?

There's more, but that's enough to chew on for now.

The best way I know to evaluate your alternatives is to take the Law of Self Defense Course on self defense insurance. I just did. I took at least a couple of hours on line. It was worth it.

They compare several leading plans, and provide to a link to a tabular comparison.

How can you tell other your attorney is equipped to serve you all in a self defense case? Few attorneys are. Take the LoSD Level One Course on Self Defense. That should help you know how to go about the interview. I was able to reject a couple of well-regarded criminal defense attorneys long before having taken this course.

Oh, and one other thing. When you are allowed that one phone call, do not call your attorney. The likelihood that he or she will be available when you call is not very high. Instead, call someone whom you know you can reach, and let them keep calling until they make contact. I learned that from Massad Ayoob years ago.

[OldMarksman]

"...Will you need "insurance"?..." That is 'legal fees' insurance that has nothing to do with CCW.

Yes, that is the subject at hand. Has to do with providing resources for legal representation in the event of a lawful use of force incident of any kind.

And if we do carry, we may need it.

I'm thinking it should cover stuff like 'wrongful death' suits and liability issues too.

Entirely different subject.

"...$50,000, cash..." Is cheap. I'd be thinking 6 figures.

$50,000 may be "cheap" to you, but for most of us, it's a lot to come up with.

It could amount to more, but remember, we're talking only about the lawful presentation of a weapon and the issuance of a warning bu the defender.

And all of it depends on where you are and what the local DA's attitude.

That will factor in, but there is a lot more to it than that. Little things like witness testimony....

I'd be very surprised if there is such a thing as "immunity from prosecution".

Several states provide for it, but getting it will cost money and require good evidence.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by OldMarksman

The plans are not all the same. In choosing one, consider the following:

• Does the plan pay up front, which is when you need it, or do they "promise" reimbursement much later, if you are found innocent?
• Can you choose your own attorney, or are you stuck with one of their choosing, who may well be ill equipped to defend you competently?
• Does the plan pay for expert witnesses, private investigators to search for exculpatory evidence and witnesses, fees associated with deposing prosecution witnesses (that's what saved Zimmerman), consulting attorneys, staff work, and so on?
• How much will they cover?
• How solvent are they?

There's more, but that's enough to chew on for now.

The best way I know to evaluate your alternatives is to take the Law of Self Defense Course on self defense insurance. I just did. I took at least a couple of hours on line. It was worth it.

They compare several leading plans, and provide to a link to a tabular comparison.

I provided a link to such a comparison in the other thread to which you referred:

https://www.concealedcarry.com/self-...rams-compared/

[Ruark]

Even though this thread is aging somewhat, I feel I should post this.

Nice link, but that table is incorrect with regard to CCW Safe. Their programs start at $199. $499 is their absolute, top-tier coverage that pays for things like wrongful death lawsuit awards. Also, their bail/bond coverage goes up to $1,000,000, not $100,000.

Another plus for CCW Safe is that they cover any liability for damage or injury from your bullets that pass through or miss the target. I don't know if others do this.

Another factor that this table doesn't reflect is the experience and knowledge of the company's attorneys. For example, go to CCW Safe's web site (www.ccwsafe.com) and read the links in the "About" menu.

Their blog page contains many extremely helpful articles and advice, as well. These provide hours of fascinating reading; it's amazing how sometimes a single act or a single comment can make the difference between going home and getting 99 years.

[USNRet93]

I'll ask the question, cuz I have talked to a local LEO friend of mine. Middle of night, guy breaks my glass back door and comes in. I grab handgun, go upstairs and am approached by guy who has a big knife. I shoot him dead, I call 911...you're saying I will be arrested and charged? My LEO friend says no. I will surrender my gun, I will go 'downtown' to write statement but not be arrested or charged with any criminal offense. Colorado..am I wrong?

[Don Fischer]

I haven't a clue if your right or wrong, I'd guess your right. But weather right or wrong, your alive! Hard to arrest a dead guy!

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

I'll ask the question, cuz I have talked to a local LEO friend of mine. Middle of night, guy breaks my glass back door and comes in. I grab handgun, go upstairs and am approached by guy who has a big knife. I shoot him dead, I call 911...you're saying I will be arrested and charged? My LEO friend says no. I will surrender my gun, I will go 'downtown' to write statement but not be arrested or charged with any criminal offense. Colorado..am I wrong?

The answer is that it may depend on the jurisdiction, and it may depend on factors you didn't mention in your brief scenario.

The reality is that, based on exactly the scenario you described -- with no complicating factors that might be observed by a homicide investigating team -- you probably would not be arrested. But you might be. In that event, more than likely you would not be convicted at trial, but you would still have to pay to defend yourself in court. As has been mentioned, we can't assume that responding police officers will view what we consider a "good shoot" in the same light.

There's an old saying: "You may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

[TXAZ]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

The answer is that it may depend on the jurisdiction, and it may depend on factors you didn't mention in your brief scenario.

There's an old saying: "You may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride."

BINGO!
There are no absolutes. The Travis County (Austin) Texas announced he was going to pursue every self defense shooting in court.

[Ruark]

There are no absolutes. The Travis County (Austin) Texas announced he was going to pursue every self defense shooting in court.

I assume you meant the "D.A.", right? Anyway, I've often heard of Austin's extreme anti-gun attitude, and how even in a rock-solid self defense shooting, you can expect to be dragged into court and charged with a serious crime. Would you mind posting a few specifics about who this was and what they said?

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Ruark

I assume you meant the "D.A.", right? Anyway, I've often heard of Austin's extreme anti-gun attitude, and how even in a rock-solid self defense shooting, you can expect to be dragged into court and charged with a serious crime. Would you mind posting a few specifics about who this was and what they said?

I'm Not in Texas but

Texas' castle doctrine, or castle law, protects you from legal troubles if you are ever placed in a situation where you have to use force or deadly force to protect yourself against an intruder who poses a threat. ... "And the law is going to assume you had the right to do so."

?

[Dufus]

Believe it or not, Austin (not all of Travis county) is the most Liberal area of the state. The folks over yonder want to be just like San Francisco in every way possible.

If I lived in Austin, I would want all the insurance that I could afford.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

In Texas, whether it is in Austin or Amarillo, if you shoot someone, it is 99% going to be presented to the grand jury.* You may not be arrested or charged initially; but it will go to the grand jury. Last time I looked, the price to have competent representation (i.e. someone who knows what they are doing if it goes past the grand jury phase) just to hold your hand through the grand jury process only is around $8,000.

Now, you don’t have to hire a lawyer for that and many people do not. However, when facing a chance of being indicted for murder, many people don’t feel very comfortable about stepping into the lion’s cage on their own.

*Historically, this has been 100% but since there isn’t an actual law requiring prosecutors to do it, it is technically possible a DA might choose not to present.

[Don Fischer]

Best advice I ever got about shooting someone came from a NYC cop. He told me they know most of us truck driver's have a gun. If we have to shoot someone just leave them lay, don't call them. They will find them and if we call in there's just to much paper work. That has always sounded like good advice to me!

[Bartholomew Roberts]

That’s not only bad advice. It is a good way to turn a legitimate self-defense shoot into a manslaughter conviction.

[labnoti]

Instead of speculating about how it will cost $50,000 or $8000, why not identify the actual lawyer you would be most likely to use and discuss this with them?

My experience with lawyers is that it can be extremely hard to find one willing to do $50,000 worth of work. You really have to have quite a case to generate that much work, and while that in itself is not inconceivable, finding a lawyer willing to do it is no simple task.

The reality is that not many attorneys can make that kind of money handling those kinds of cases. How often does it happen that a law-abiding citizen is involved in a shooting? A lot less often than DUI, injury, divorce, estate planning, trusts and corporate law. Now how often does the law-abiding citizen involved in a shooting actually have $50,000 cash or $500,000 for their legal defense? Yeah, I don't see many lawyers coming out of law school planning their careers around a high-frequency of that scenario.

If you find a steady source for these super criminal defense lawyers at any price who will actually answer a phone call from me, let me know.

[OldMarksman]

My experience with lawyers is that it can be extremely hard to find one willing to do $50,000 worth of work.

I do not understand that statement

You really have to have quite a case to generate that much work,...

According to Attorney Andrew Branca, legal expenses in an aggravated assault case involving the mere presentation of a gun can easily cost $35,000, and perhaps $50,000, if the accused is innocent and the case is dismissed before trial.

....and while that in itself is not inconceivable, finding a lawyer willing to do it is no simple task.

The real issue will be finding one who can do it.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Don Fischer

Best advice I ever got about shooting someone came from a NYC cop. He told me they know most of us truck driver's have a gun. If we have to shoot someone just leave them lay, don't call them.....

Phooey! That is some of the worst possible advice.

People tend to equate flight with guilt. Post incident conduct is evidence and can be argued as evidence of guilt. For example see:

1. U.S. v. Perkins, 937 F.2d 1397 (C.A.9 (Cal.), 1990), at 1402:

   ...the instruction explicitly stated, "the jury may consider [the false statements] as circumstantial evidence of the defendant's guilt." Id. at 1104. Second, we have approved the use of this instruction on false exculpatory statements. See United States v. Boekelman, 594 F.2d 1238, 1240 (9th Cir.1979) (court noted approval of standard Devitt & Blackmar instruction and distinguished Di Stefano in upholding a variation from the standard instruction); United States v. Wood, 550 F.2d 435, 443 (9th Cir.1976)....

2. State v. Wimbush, 260 Iowa 1262, 150 N.W.2d 653 (Iowa, 1967), at 656:

   ...In Wigmore on Evidence, Third Ed., section 276, Volume II, page 111, under the title 'Conduct as Evidence of Guilt' the editor states: 'It is today universally conceded that the fact of an accused's flight, escape from custody, resistance to arrest, concealment, assumption of a false name, and related conduct, are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt, and thus of guilt itself.'
   
   McCormick on Evidence, section 248, pages 532, 533, puts it thus: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth.' Many acts of a defendant after the crime seeking to escape the toils of the law are received as admissions by conduct, constituting circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and hence of the fact of guilt itself. In this class are flight from the locality after the crime, assuming a false name, resisting arrest, * * *.' See also Jones on Evidence, Fifth Ed., section 386, page 717.
   
   We have held many times that evidence of escape from custody and flight of an accused is admissible as a criminating circumstance. State v. O'Meara, 190 Iowa 613, 625, 177 N.W. 563, 569; State v. Heath, 202 Iowa 153, 156, 209 N.W. 279, 281; State v. Ford, Iowa, 145 N.W.2d 638, 641. See also 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, section 280, and 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 625 a....

3. State v. Lonnecker, 237 Neb. 207, 465 N.W.2d 737 (Neb., 1991), at 743:

   ... Although Clancy involved evidence of the defendant's attempted intimidation or actual intimidation of a State's informant or witness, evidence which was admissible under Neb.Evid.R. 404(2) ("other acts"), the rationale for "conscious guilt" evidence is equally applicable in Lonnecker's case.
   
   Lonnecker's hiding in the crawl space was evidence of his "conscious guilt" concerning the marijuana located on the premises which were under his control, that is, a conscious guilt concerning possession and cultivation of marijuana as a controlled substance. ...

4. Martin v. State, 707 S.W.2d 243 (Tex.App.-Beaumont, 1986), at 245:

   ...In 2 RAY, TEXAS LAW OF EVIDENCE CIVIL AND CRIMINAL sec. 1538 (Texas Practice 3rd ed. 1980), we find:
   
   "Sec. 1538 Conduct as Evidence of Guilt
   
   "A 'consciousness of guilt' is perhaps one of the strongest kinds of evidence of guilt. It is consequently a well accepted principle that any conduct on the part of a person accused of crime, subsequent to its commission, which indicates a 'consciousness of guilt' may be received as a circumstance tending to prove that he committed the act with which he is charged." ...
   
   See also Cuellar v. State, 613 S.W.2d 494 (Tex.Crim.App.1981)....

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by USNRet93

...I'm Not in Texas but

....

I have no idea where that quote comes from, but it's not really accurate.

• It confuses Castle Doctrine laws with immunity laws. Castle Doctrine laws eliminate the duty to retreat. Immunity law protect people who have used justified force in self defense from liability.
  
  
• But all immunity laws have conditions which must be satisfied for immunity to apply. If there's a dispute about whether those conditions were satisfied you'll still be in court to decide the question.
  
  
• And no, the law won't assume you had the right to use force. But Castle Doctrine laws can make it easier to make your case.

[Brit]

On the advice of a good friend, I applied for USCCA? I think that's its name, I am not near my wallet at this time. Call the number in my Cell phone, a Criminal Lawyer will be dispatched! They do not say do not talk to Police but lean towards keeping it brief.

I had a head-on collision, totally the fault of the other driver, the paramedics took my vitals, disengaged me from the Police Officer "Bye" off to the Hospital. He said, "I just want more info?" They buttoned me onto a stretcher, and off to Dr Phillips.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

I have no idea where that quote comes from, but it's not really accurate.

• It confuses Castle Doctrine laws with immunity laws. Castle Doctrine laws eliminate the duty to retreat. Immunity law protect people who have used justified force in self defense from liability.
  
  
• But all immunity laws have conditions which must be satisfied for immunity to apply. If there's a dispute about whether those conditions were satisfied you'll still be in court to decide the question.
  
  
• And no, the law won't assume you had the right to use force. But Castle Doctrine laws can make it easier to make your case.

From here.

http://ianinglis.com/article-texas-c...doctrine.shtml

[OldMarksman]

This, from the link:....

"In Texas, a person can justifiably and potentially use deadly force against another individual if: he or she believes deadly force was necessary at the moment, believes he protected him or herself against attempted deadly force, prevented an act of kidnapping, homicide, rape, aggravated rape, robbery, or aggravated robbery."

...is a rether sloppy way of summarizing the law. Do not overlook fact that the defender must produce evidence showing a basis for that belief, and that said belisf must be considered reasonable (by others).

This....

"Texas' castle doctrine, or castle law, protects you from legal troubles if you are ever placed in a situation where you have to use force or deadly force to protect yourself against an intruder who poses a threat. ..."

...is only true if you define "protects you from legal troubles" as not requring you to go through a complete trial if you are aa able to convince the court in an immunity hearing that a preponderance of the evidence supports your case.

Getting through that immunity hearing will cost a lot of money

This....

"And the law is going to assume you had the right to do so."

...is not true at all.

[Don Fischer]

Never said it was right, said it was good advice and came from a NYC cop.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by Don Fischer

Never said it was right, said it was good advice and came from a NYC cop.

Well clearly you were wrong about it being good advice. Now drop it.

[labnoti]

If you can produce a written statement of Andrew Branca's that he is willing to work for you, then you've got me. I know better than to pin my hopes on someone like Andrew. It would be foolish to even consider his estimate of something about which he knows nothing. He certainly knows absolutely nothing about you or me. He can pull any number he wants out of thin air and he probably puts those kind of numbers on the bills he send to fools, but what difference does it make if he won't do anything for you? Find someone who is actually willing to help you, to do anything for you at all, and then discuss price with them, rather than some dude on Youtube that won't give you the time of day.

[OldMarksman]

If you can produce a written statement of Andrew Branca's that he is willing to work for you, then you've got me.

You can get that by subscribing to his Consult service.

He will not represent you (he may not be licensed to practice law in your particular state) but he will provide valuable advice to your principal attorney.

I know better than to pin my hopes on someone like Andrew. It would be foolish to even consider r his estimate of something about which he knows nothing.

Know nothing? Really!

He certainly knows absolutely nothing about you or me.

What does that have to do with it?

He can pull any number he wants out of thin air and he probably puts those kind of numbers on the bills he send to fools,...

He sends bills to defense attorneys who have availed themselves of his help. The bills are based on hourly rates.

And he knows what those attorneys have had to charge, at every step along the way,

...but what difference does it make if he won't do anything for you?

What's that all about?

Find someone who is actually willing to help you, to do anything for you at all, and then discuss price with them,...

We are discussing the legal defense of self defense here. There are very few attorneys with any experience in that subject.

That's why your attorney will requre the expertise of people who do. That costs money.

And so do the expert witnesses and iinvestigators that your attorney will need.