MODS: time for a recommendation here.

[TangoBravo605]

For those of you waiting with breathless anticipation of my last response to this thread, you can now relax. If you decide to read it, be advised that what I write is NOT legal advice because I am not an attorney. I offer it to you all for educational purposes only and so that as you choose an attorney (or, even if you already have one) you may have some goal specific questions you can ask, the answers to which will assist you in your decision to hire, or continue with, him or her.

First, I again want to thank each of you for responding, irrespective of its content. Your responses have provided me with an answer, shared by colleagues of mine across the country, as to how it is that there exists such a discrepancy between course offerings for weapons training relative to course offerings in the law of self-defense. That discrepancy, as I noted in my initial post, favors dramatically the acquisition of weapons proficiency.

Perhaps equally surprising, while of course law school spends no time on teaching budding lawyers how to use weapons, it also teaches virtually no formal course work on the legal issues involved in use of force, especially as to deadly force. Read Andrew Branca’s commentary on this phenomenon in his book “The Law of Self Defense.” (For those of you who are cash-strapped, it’s $9.99 in the Kindle version last time I bought a copy for a relative month or so ago.)

The practical implication of the absence of formal instruction in self-defense law means that the vast majority of attorneys will have had no formal training in the critical issues having to do with use of force, especially deadly force. So where will those lawyers have gotten their experience? By practicing in the criminal arena, which, by definition, means they will have acquired it working with criminals as their clients. Indeed, and this is something you may not have known, but the overwhelming majority of statutory and case law, and hence, the jury instructions that govern and control the jury’s deliberations as to guilt or innoncence of a user of force, is based upon clearly criminal behavior. Not the behavior of an “otherwise innocent person” who faced imminent danger of grave bodily harm or death, and who had no means of escape or other options in that moment to forestall his or her own grave injury or death. (Read Branca www.lawofselfdefense.com)

The obvious implication for the “otherwise innocent” defendant of his or her attorney’s not having been specifically trained in
self-defense law is that said defendant will be represented by an attorney who may well advise you, as with former criminal clients, to “Just keep you mouth shut upon initial contact with arriving officers. If you do that, you will of course have then carried out the best possible representation of criminal behavior you could do, when viewed from the perspective of countless prior contacts by LE with defendants in similar situations. Here’s a case where defendant’s “silence” was used against him in the case in chief. It’s a great read https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-246

The other issue that arises with respect to “keeping your mouth shut” is this: Hopefully the soon to be defendant will have gotten to 911 and made the obligatory first call to advise the operator of what just happened (you had your cell with you and knew enough that it would be in your best interest to get to the Operator before the BG’s buddies whom you didn’t see standing nearby, but off to the side). So, you will have already given your first statement which, importantly, depending upon defendant’s ability to tell 911 what just happened. In essence, you have already admitted to a homicide to an official arm of the government, and you are on record in having done so. If you get the narration correct of what took place, that can work to your good, assuming you have a good attorney to meet with down the “post-arrest pipeline.” But, I digress.

In the context of these issues, Massad Ayoob recorded an excellent podcast on Ballistic Radio here. http://ballisticradio.com/2018/04/24...ril-22nd-2018/. It is well worth the time it takes to listen to him provide information on the two issues I’ve mentioned here. If the commentary appears redundant with what I’ve said that is an outcome of the training I’ve gotten from him and from Branca as well. Note in his commentary what Ayoob says about “keeping silent.” And, as an aside, note what he says about case law existing that precludes a defendant from testifying at trial on his own behalf. E.g., http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/473/473mass173.html

Couple other things I‘ll mention. I have had the privilege numerous times to meet with family members of persons who have employed deadly force. I can tell you this: in the aftermath of the use of that force, even where it has been a police officer who is eligible for Summary Judgment and Qualified Immunity rulings, and even where he or she has been exonerated in all post-shooting investigations including grand juries as to criminal culpability in his or her shooting, in those cases, the overshadowing experience of the forthcoming civil suit, especially where the officer(s) is/are named specifically and individually as culpable for a wrongful death, the psychological impact on the family, including and especially children has been overwhelming. For private citizens who do not enjoy the protective umbrella of SJ and QI (such as they are), you can expect that the psychological impact is at least equally profound.

And these issues I’ve mentioned? They are just the beginning. Read the publicly available material on the Spencer Newcomer shooting, 2013 if memory serves. You will find it by googling or duck duck go’ing the York Daily Record, IIRC. Similarly, if interested, the YDR’s coverage of Commonwealth v. Torres, John, 2016. If interested, you can also check out the aftermath of the NYS v Pennington trial outcome, I think his case was a parking lot shooting in protection of his wife in an altercation whose onset had to do with a parking space challenge. Google scholar will help although you may only find some of the subsequent appeals, each of which appear to have gone bellying for him. Long and short of Pennington is that he was found guilty of homicide and sentenced to 20 years to life.

So, end of the day: I don’t care, one way or the other, what choices any one of you makes as to how to address the issues I’ve mentioned; how to spend your $ as to the kind of training you take. As some of my colleagues and I are wont to say: “God said: ‘you makes your choices and you takes your consequences.’”

Couple other things: I represent no law firm. The attorneys I have named are in the public record as offering their services in self-defense cases, but you are responsible for your own choices in that regard. That said, SD cases can run easily into the six figures, large, no never mind the bail you have to put up, both initial %, as well as collateral for the remainder, should the DMJ order it. Hence, if you don’t have Use of Force insurance, you will begin the whole process way behind the curve. You can make that choice amongst those you know about from google searches and the like. Also, I offer no instruction to anybody not personally referred to me, and then only privately, and I accept no referrals from this site (or any others). I regard Force on Force instruction, from sources who are vetted as to their knowledge of self-defense law for private citizens, as critically important to one’s defensibility.

Last: Branca has written: You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill; Know the law, so you are hard to convict.” ™

I argue: “ The Use of Deadly Force is not simple, and Defenders are not stupid. Not unless they choose to be.” ™

THE FOREGOING IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. IT IS OFFERED FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. IF YOU NEED LEGAL ADVICE CONTACT A LAWYER SKILLED IN REPRESENTING PRIVATE CITIZENS IN CASES INVOLVING THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE.

TB605

[:-)]

Reading is hard.

It's a good idea to get educated, so you know what the consequences will be if you have to protect yourself or others.

[Gun]

Last: Branca has written: You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill; Know the law, so you are hard to convict.” ™

A person writing this also has a bag full of pixie dust.

Carrying a gun will NOT make you safe, OR harder to kill.

Ditto on the law part.

I've read the book Self Defense Laws of All Fifty States. Common thread with all states is what a reasonable person would believe HAD lethal self defense NOT been employed. Ohio, IIRC, is the only state where a defendant has to prove the assertion of that reasonableness.

With that said, it boils down to the mindset of an individual, his understanding of violence of action, and when it is truly necessary. Without actually being caught in this scenario, nobody really knows how they will react, just like if they had never been punched in the face.

[Walleye Hunter]

It was dark, all I could see was a silhouette coming at me. Ooops, I mean I need to talk to my lawyer first.

[Walleye Hunter]

For those of you waiting with breathless anticipation of my last response to this thread, you can now relax.

You overestimate my interest.

[ExFlyinguy]

A person writing this also has a bag full of pixie dust.

Carrying a gun will NOT make you safe, OR harder to kill.

Ditto on the law part.

I've read the book Self Defense Laws of All Fifty States. Common thread with all states is what a reasonable person would believe HAD lethal self defense NOT been employed. Ohio, IIRC, is the only state where a defendant has to prove the assertion of that reasonableness.

With that said, it boils down to the mindset of an individual, his understanding of violence of action, and when it is truly necessary. Without actually being caught in this scenario, nobody really knows how they will react, just like if they had never been punched in the face.

But the man in the white suit told me different. "It works on just about anything"