pitfalls

[Guest jackdog]

What are the best steps we can take prior to a shooting incident to avoid civil lawsuits. Lets cover as many pitfalls as possible. such as training/ bad training. Ammo, ETC. What we do and how we do can have a very real effect on a jury in a civil lawsuit. We have to assume that lawyers will do everything they can to make us look like gun slingers or wannabe LEO's

[Guest GlocKingTN]

I would say get all the training and qualifications you can possibly get!

[Marswolf]

With some trepidation, I'm going to post this. I'm not trying to be impolite or pile on anyone, but just make a legal point. OK?

I've been thinking about this training thing in light of a jury in a civil trial. Remember that a civil court just just has to have a majority of people why vote against you in the suit.

Of course I am for training. But the kind of training you take may affect the jury's view of you. Imagine yourself in a shooting related civil suit. They bring out the type of training you have taken. Stuff like gun safety would be good. Courses including reminders of what state law allows would be a plus. Classes that can be shown to help you avoid collateral damage should be in your favor.

But what happens when the plaintiff's attorney starts listing all of the "tactical" classes you took just for fun and to develop good gun skills. If they are not job related, that lawyer is going to try to paint you as some yahoo Rambo wannabee.

My point, if I have one, is that some training may help you survive but also be a liability in a courtroom after the event.

I'd like some input on this from the members.

[TGO David]

Chances are we'll see a pretty clear division between two prevailing schools of thought. On one side will be the people who consider things like what a jury might think and try to make prudent decisions designed to help their case should the unthinkable actually happen and they have to use deadly force against someone.

On the other side will be the "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" people and they will argue that they want every possible advantage at their disposal should the SHTF, be it training, military grade tactical equipment, etc. I would hazard a guess that not too many of the latter have actually done time in prison, otherwise they might tone down their response somewhat. From what I have heard, prison often makes one rethink whether it is a fate worse than death or not.

I'll go a step further. My dad, whom I admire and love greatly, made a pretty stupid mistake about 12 years ago and was sentenced to a few years at a minimum security prison in Kentucky for white collar, non violent crime. That's a fact that not very many people know about me because I don't advertise it. Who would?

His incarceration cost my family a ton of money. Had it not been for my grandfather's practice of saving far more money than he spent his entire life, and having had a sizable nest-egg to draw from, the legal fees and the cost of keeping my mom and brother's heads above water while my dad was incarcerated would have bankrupted the family. As it were, it depleted my grandfather's savings and investments to nearly zero. That's a lifelong investment and savings strategy reduced to near nothing. How much money do you have set aside???

Granted, my dad was in the wrong. He deserved jail time and he got it. He may not have deserved as much time as he was railroaded with by the crooked judicial system in my small old hometown, but that's what happens when you lock horns with the good ole boy system. And that brings to bear another point too: While incarcerated, my dad became very good friends with another inmate. An older gentleman who was a grandfather himself. This fellow was formerly the US Postmaster for his small town, and he was in prison because he defended himself with deadly force against a vicious attack by the town's mayor's son.

The mayor's son assaulted this gentleman with a baseball bat. He attacked him, forcing him to retreat to his pickup truck, being beaten every step of the way back into the vehicle. When he finally got there, bloody and battered, he retrieved a handgun and shot the mayor's son dead.

The court, rife with good ole boy politics, sentenced this man to prison for what they said was manslaughter due to use of excessive force.

He's out now, but he will also be a convicted felon for the rest of his life unless he receives a highly unlikely gubernatorial pardon. Could he have sought a change of venue for the hearing? Maybe so. Could he have appealed? Yes, but you can only continue appealing with your high dollar attorney until you run out of money. And then you're left to public defenders, and they generally aren't the best there is nor do they have the same interest invested in your case that your previous attorney for hire did.

So, just because you're ethically in the right to use force to defend yourself, you need to understand and accept the fact that the system can and sometimes will screw you over and bury your bones beneath the courthouse.

Is it truly better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6? Maybe, maybe not. My answer is still "Yes" but that's a decision that each of us has to make for ourselves.

[Donnie]

My opinion is that the right training will be better than no training at all. If you have had to shoot someone in defense of your life, and it is a clear cut case of self defense, I don't believe the state will go after you very hard. A lawyer in a civil case will be more apt to try and paint an ugly picture of you. In the civil case, a lawyer will use either the lack of training or the training classes you've had to make you look bad. If you haven't taken any training, the lawyer will portray you as reckless and an idiot with a gun. If you've taken classes, then they will more than likely go the rambo route. Even your choice of ammo will be a factor. They might say that the hollow points that you used to shoot their client's now dead husband were intended to cause more damage, rather than the argument from your side that they don't overpenetrate and endanger innocent bystandards. Your choice of firearm will play a role as well. They'll bring up that the defendant's weapon had 17 rounds in it and that they were looking for a firefight. There are so many variables that can go either way, depending on which way you want to look at it.

[TGO David]

PS: That little diatribe wasn't meant to discourage anyone from defending themselves. Despite what I've seen firsthand, I'd still be very much inclined to defend my own life and the lives of my family members using whatever means was available and appropriate. We'd just have to play the cards we were dealt as a result, with as much intelligence and patience as possible.

As for what training I think is appropriate? Gun safety classes. Classes regarding the legalities of defending oneself.

I'd also recommend volunteering with organizations like the NRA, and getting involved locally with the political party of your choice as a volunteer. Rubbing elbows with those in power is a wise move. Having friends in high places can never hurt.

[TGO David]

Even your choice of ammo will be a factor. They might say that the hollow points that you used to shoot their client's now dead husband were intended to cause more damage, rather than the argument from your side that they don't overpenetrate and endanger innocent bystandards.

I carefully chose to use ammunition in my handguns that is identical to what many local and non-local law enforcement agencies use in their own. If the worst ever happens and my lawyer has to defend me, I want him/her to be able to clearly state that I use the same ammo as XYZ police department does.

It sort of steals the opposition's thunder.

[Guest DEIMOS]

Worry about saving your life first, worry about everything else later. I want whatever edge helps me survive. Of course I will have to face someone, and the double bloody death dealer rambo crap will probably come up, the Libs thrive on that stuff.

Carry what the cops carry. Train how you fight, fight how you train, save your life and come home to momma and the young'uns. It may sound trite, but what does it matter if you catch one to the dome 'cause you were worrying about going to court instead of saving your life? You are dead now, your family is one member lighter, and underwear hanging out thug moves on to the next one.

[Guest Phantom6]

Marswolf wrote:

My point, if I have one, is that some training may help you survive but also be a liability in a courtroom after the event.

True, true. There is hope however, as a bill was introduced in the state house last year that would protect you from the "civil suit assault" from the mothers, brothers, sisters, wives, third cousins twice-removed, et aux that would sue you for defending your life when involved in an unprovoked attack from the likes of "poor ol' Johnny who (and they just don't understand why though he used to routinely set the neighbor's cats on fire as a child) just suddenly snapped" and tried his damnedest to make you a part of your family's historical record. It was passed out of the Judiciary Committee last year with the reccomendation that it be heard and passed. In a nut shell it said that if in the course of local and or state law enforcement investigation it is determined that criminal charges can not be brought against you then civil recourse is not available. In other words, if the local and/or state law enforcement agencies found that the shooting was justifyable under the laws of the state, i.e. unprovoked attack, you are in iminant fear of loss of life or serious bodily harm, etc. (just as you are (or should be) taught in your carry permit class) then the suit would be rejected by the court and could not be persued further. Unfortunately I have lost track of the bill and can't even find my notes on the bill number. Anyone else know anything about this? (I'll ask this question again in the legislative thread)

Personally, I believe that you should

1.) keep your training confined to defensive training only

2.) Refrain from using terms like "double tap" and "tripple tap".

3.) Never brag to anyone that you are "deadly"

4.) Keep your training "close to the vest" or at least don't broadcast it outside of the gun community.

I don't want my dance card for the Halloween Ball filled by an inmate named Bubba any more than anyone else does but I still would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I intend to live forever or die in the attempt.

[dkd83]

As do I Phantom, as do I.........

[Guest jackdog]

I think we all agree that survival is job Number 1. When I wrote the original thread I was hoping to get responses like those posted by Mars and Phathom6. I do believe in training but that training has to be defensible in court. For me the criteria for a good training school would be as follows.

1. Will this training help me survive a street attack or home invasion.

2. Will this training be viewed in court as sound defensive training.

3. If called to court to testify, will my school /instructor come off as a

valid training facility for self defense.

4. Does the school have a track record of reliable testimony in court.

In my opinion anyone that is performing an illegal action or felony crime should have no legal recourse in the civil courts, nor should there families. But until that becomes a matter of law as it now is in most states that have passed the castle doctrine, we also need to prepare for the 2nd fight.

[Guest jackdog]

Tungsten I commend you on your post, I know it can not be easy to tell a story like that. But you are very correct that being 100% right may have nothing to do with what happens in the court room.

[Guest drewi]

Very good thread.

I like to look to Ayoob for help and advice in these areas. I've read several of his books and a bunch of articles. He's always got insight and experience in these areas.

I notice that most if not all reputable trainers begin just about every sentance with, " you should avoid bad situations, etc. But if you should find yourself in one, this is what you should do." They go on to explain various methods of avoidance and de-escalation. And they do it for good reason, to help keep their students out of trouble. But it helps in court too.

Edited to add: I think that if you happened to be in a legal shooting, the jury will understand. But sometimes it's not going to work out no matter how justified it was. Proof of that was posted earlier.

[towerclimber37]

A majority of the people that live in communities rarely have anything bad happen to them directly. For the most part, they will go through their lives, obeying rules that are dictated to them..my point is, its hard for them to "see outside the boundaries" of their own lives.

I would think that a successful lawyer would be one that can make them understand that you had no choice in your actions. S/He would have to make it a very personal thing for them to understand..make them feel some of the emotions that you yourself felt when put in that position.

then give them a reasonable explanation of why things happened like they did.

I abhor the idea of some critters' family members taking a person to court because that person had to defend his life. Its infuriating to me simply because it reminds me of a bunch of jackals. Its simply another attack...and to be attacked twice is enough to make ANYONE angry.

I support the idea of deescalation, and to be aware of your surroundings...but like the postmaster, I will NOT be beaten like that. I don't know if I'd be able to deal with the "old boy" politics...but I'd do everything in my power to let them know that I had NO way to stop the attack other than to shoot said attacker. I would also make it clear that I did NOT solicit the attack, and when I thought that it was coming, I tried everything to prevent violence.

Even POLICE officers are open to civil suits. I'm not sure about the state of Tn, but I know of a case in NC where a police officer shot a tower tech who was working late at night in a bad area, and was armed..I'm sure the shooting was because of the airconditioners that cool the equipment...it makes it impossible to hear someone outside the shelters (the police officer, who was investigating suspicious activity) called to the tech to come out.

the tech, hearing something outside came out with his pistol..BAD idea. The police officer said he told the tech to drop the pistol but when he didn't, the officer shot and killed him.

the officer and the city of charlotte is now in a civil suit by the family of the tech.

I know I have NOWHERE near the money that tungstens' Grandfather had...I'd go down like nancy pelosi at a republican caucus....and that would make me angry as well...simply because I KNOW better than to look for trouble and all who know me, understand this about me.

but when I've had a belly full, I tend to be hell on wheels and totally ruthless. I never have started trouble..and never intend to..but when I'm in it..I tend to finish it...completely. My greatest fear is to be put into a situation where I would have to take someones' life. Not because I'm afraid to do it..but simply because I'm a part of a community..and we don't act like that to each other...its not the sort of person I want to be.

[Guest macho999]

I'd put watching what you say as important. It won't look great to the jury if you have a witness recounting that they heard you unleash a string of racial epithets or a cheesy hollywood "I'm going to blow your head off," type of line.

Don't let your mouth overload you ass is what I'm getting at. I can't really think of a reason you'd need to threaten anyone prior to a defensive shooting.