Who has a defense attorney already picked out?

[Lester Polfus]

Over on another thread here (http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?11398-Losing-Your-Gun-to-the-Evidence-Locker/page3), I started talking about the legal costs of being involved in a self defense event.

Rather than hijack that thread further, I thought I'd move it over to here.

I started it off with:

"There are many reasons why I quit carrying custom 1911's and started carrying Glocks, but this isn't one of them.

I've had the pleasure of attending a gun school where one of the instructors was a County DA for many years, then became a defense attorney. One of the first things I asked him for was a business card. Then I asked questions about the cost of a legal defense.

His estimate for a competent legal defense in an "uncomplicated" even, to get you to the point where a grand jury comes back with "no true bill" was $15K to $30K. When you are talking numbers like that, the line item for "gun" isn't that significant, whether it is a custom 1911 or a ratty old Glock.

When I asked about how much a trial, with things like independent forensics examiners and dueling expert witnesses, might cost, the answer was "As much money as you have, and if you don't start out with at least a half million, you should probably just take a plea deal."

Again, if I'm sitting there considering whether to 1) roll the dice on a jury trial, where the BEST outcome is I will be penniless at the end or 2) Take a plea to some kind of charge where I might do a two or three year stretch, and get out before my kids forget what I look like and my wife has to sell the house, the gun is gonna be the last thing on my mind.

That's before we talk about civil stuff. "

I realized I had that conversation with the lawyer almost ten years ago (so adjust for inflation accordingly) and that since then I've moved to a different state, albeit one that borders the original.

So it's time to revisit my legal defense plan. I think the first thing I'm going to do is email the first guy, and find out if he practices in this state. If not hopefully he can recomend one.

I'm willing to spend thousands of dollars on guns, ammo, holsters, training classes and etc. I think it would be smart for me to spend a couple hundred bucks for an hour of the new lawyers time, both to see him or her face to face, to get a feel if this is someone I want to trust with my life, and to ask some questions.

For example, it was pointed out in the other thread that many states have laws shielding people who act in self defense from civil liability. I'm actually ignorant of whether my new state has that. I can google it, but I'd also like to know what it MEANS. Has it been tested? Is there case law? Are there exceptions? Will it cost me a couple thousand dollars of a lawyers time to even invoke the protection?

As a cop, the legal aftermath of a use of force was in many ways more frightening than the actual fight, because it was more drawn out and I felt like I had less control. But I at least had the city picking up the tab for the lawyers, and the benefit of acting under the color of the law.

As Joe Blow Private Citizen? I have neither of those things. My wife and I do pretty well, but every penny we have could be gone in a matter of months during a criminal trial.

It seems like the immediate aftermath of a shooting or similar event is exactly the wrong time to pick out your legal counsel.

I'm curious if anybody here has gone through this process. How did you select an attorney? Did you meet with attorney before hand? if so, what questions did you ask?

[jrm]

I can't see why $15k would get racked up before a "true bill". What are you getting for that $15k? Is there much more than advice to keep your mouth shut and maybe a bond or preliminary hearing? I can see things getting pricey after indictment or of course in a civil case but I'm not seeing it pre-indictment.

[Lester Polfus]

I can't see why $15k would get racked up before a "true bill". What are you getting for that $15k? Is there much more than advice to keep your mouth shut and maybe a bond or preliminary hearing? I can see things getting pricey after indictment or of course in a civil case but I'm not seeing it pre-indictment.

Dunno. I'm not an attorney. :D

[Don Gwinn]

Illinois is one of those states with a civil liability shield, often cited when people bring up the idea of "adding Castle Doctrine" or "adding Stand Your Ground" (we also have no "duty to retreat" in our self-defense law, so those are generally considered unnecessary here.) But I'm not aware of any case law that further clarifies that shield. My question about it has been (and I guess I'd better get moving on getting an answer!) whether there's any good guidance on what activates that defense. For instance, if I've shot an attacker, and the DA has declined to bring charges, is that enough evidence that I acted in self-defense to activate my protection against civil suits? Or am I going to have to be sued and claim my civil immunity--and maybe even go to a trial and raise it as a defense? I can't claim to be sure.

[Don Gwinn]

I can't see why $15k would get racked up before a "true bill". What are you getting for that $15k? Is there much more than advice to keep your mouth shut and maybe a bond or preliminary hearing? I can see things getting pricey after indictment or of course in a civil case but I'm not seeing it pre-indictment.

Doesn't "true bill" or "no true bill" imply that you've been through a grand jury? That would imply investigation, depositions, motions, etc.

[Tamara]

I have picked out the person who will pick out my attorney, should I need one. I even tested the system (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2011/11/how-not-to-answer-phone.html) once already.

[Dagga Boy]

Yes I have one in case of "Plan B". Plan A is to do whatever it takes to not need Plan B. Others differ with me, and that is fine as this is another one of the topics I have become agnostic on. You want to have an attorney call 9-11 for you, rock on.

[Tamara]

You want to have an attorney call 9-11 for you, rock on.

Nobody has suggested anything anywhere close to that in this thread, dude.

There's a country mile between kooky stuff like having an "Adnarim" flash card to read to the cops after you've had your lawyer call 911, and just knowing who you were going to call if you were in danger of getting Zimmerman-ed.

[TR675]

Doesn't "true bill" or "no true bill" imply that you've been through a grand jury? That would imply investigation, depositions, motions, etc.

It does, and not really. Every state has different proceduresm but here most of the heavy lifting is done after the grand jury indicts, although like with anything if you're willing to pay an attorney to go all out ahead of time you can spend some serious coin. It can pay dividends though. A local prominent person just had charges no-billed after his attorneys presented a packet to the grand jury that included video of his lady friend throwing herself out of a moving car.

[TheTrevor]

I have picked out the person who will pick out my attorney, should I need one.

This is my plan as well. I have a close relative who has a distinguished career spent in federal and state law enforcement and is a lawyer as well. My wife has instructions to make that call first if I'm ever detained after a "critical dynamic incident".

[Dagga Boy]

Nobody has suggested anything anywhere close to that in this thread, dude.

There's a country mile between kooky stuff like having an "Adnarim" flash card to read to the cops after you've had your lawyer call 911, and just knowing who you were going to call if you were in danger of getting Zimmerman-ed.

I never suggested that it was in this thread. I have seen these deride to that level of advice on gun forums. My point was that these threads often turn into an "I know best", or "this is what I would do". I have sort of just given up. I have been blessed that in the multiple shooting investigations that I was the guy sitting at with table with the detectives on the other side, Plan A worked. I have a Plan B, just in case. I think my best advice is to have a couple of plans, as you never really know how things are going to go.

[Lester Polfus]

Illinois is one of those states with a civil liability shield, often cited when people bring up the idea of "adding Castle Doctrine" or "adding Stand Your Ground" (we also have no "duty to retreat" in our self-defense law, so those are generally considered unnecessary here.) But I'm not aware of any case law that further clarifies that shield. My question about it has been (and I guess I'd better get moving on getting an answer!) whether there's any good guidance on what activates that defense. For instance, if I've shot an attacker, and the DA has declined to bring charges, is that enough evidence that I acted in self-defense to activate my protection against civil suits? Or am I going to have to be sued and claim my civil immunity--and maybe even go to a trial and raise it as a defense? I can't claim to be sure.

Exactly. For example, a quick google search in my home state of Washington shows:

"(1) No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030."

Man. That just makes me feel all sorts of warm and fuzzy.

But, further:

"(2) When a person charged with a crime listed in subsection (1) of this section is found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the state of Washington shall reimburse the defendant for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, legal fees incurred, and other expenses involved in his or her defense. This reimbursement is not an independent cause of action. To award these reasonable costs the trier of fact must find that the defendant’s claim of self-defense was sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. If the trier of fact makes a determination of self-defense, the judge shall determine the amount of the award."

This makes me feel less warm and fuzzy. Because to my non-lawyer eye, to be found not guilty, there has to have been a trial. Having a trial is on my list of things not to do in life.

Let's hypothosize that I go to trial, and am found not guilty, and the judge says I get a million dollars to cover my lawyers, having Massod Ayoob and Dr. Henry Lee come testify and etc.

Then what? Is there a pot of money sitting in the state coffers for this? What if it's a contentious, highly publicized trial, and no state official wants to sign the check and wake up to headlines the next day saying "Gunman's legal fees paid by state."

I can see the issue being "studied" and deferred, and the can kicked down the road. Meanwhile no check is forthcoming and the lawyers want their money. My remedy would be to sue the state, which takes more lawyers....

[Lester Polfus]

You want to have an attorney call 9-11 for you, rock on.

Totally not my plan. But I know enough about the legal system to know I'm out of my lane, and I think it makes sense to spend a few hours and maybe a couple hundred bucks picking somebody out ahead of time.

[Lester Polfus]

I never suggested that it was in this thread. I have seen these deride to that level of advice on gun forums. My point was that these threads often turn into an "I know best", or "this is what I would do". I have sort of just given up. I have been blessed that in the multiple shooting investigations that I was the guy sitting at with table with the detectives on the other side, Plan A worked. I have a Plan B, just in case. I think my best advice is to have a couple of plans, as you never really know how things are going to go.

Whoops I missed this reply.

I'm really not looking for legal advice, as far as "this is what I would do."

I actually posted this with a little trepidation, because I've seen some pretty whacky stuff said on internet forums too, but the signal to noise ratio on this site is pretty good, so I thought I'd give it a try.

I am interested in the process anybody else has used in picking an attorney, and how it worked out.

[Lester Polfus]

Had to google "Adnarim." Wow.

[Tamara]

Had to google "Adnarim." Wow.

See? ;)

[TheTrevor]

I am not at all certain that the Adnarim statement is a bad idea, though "have lawyer call 911" is ridiculous. What am I missing here?

[Tamara]

I am not at all certain that the Adnarim statement is a bad idea, though "have lawyer call 911" is ridiculous. What am I missing here?

I wouldn't be so bold as to answer for nyeti, but I think what he was getting at with his "Plan A/Plan B" thing was this:

The nature of interfacing with the responding officers can vary wildly with the nature, location, and et cetera of the incident. There's guys that go through televised nightmare trials and guys that practically get high-fived* on the way to the station house to make a statement.

A sighthound sees something running and it looks like prey. A cop hears somebody give a boilerplate non-answer about "I got nothin' ta say to ya. I wanna talk to my lawyer," and he hears every habitual offender he's dealt with (not to mention every Guilty Mook in a screenplay ever) and he's gonna start looking for what really happened. At best, he's going to see you read or recite a canned response and think "Oh, a jailhouse lawyer, eh?"

I don't want to be Chatty Cathy, but I don't want to look like an extra from The Godfather, either. I want to get on the phone with a lawyer, but I don't want to look like I'm a crook in the process.


*Dude in DeKalb Co., GA back in the '90s. Shot a carjacker in the neck in a Wally World parking lot.

[TheTrevor]

Makes sense. Having grown up in a household with an FBI interrogator (true story) I look at stuff like this as common-sense guidelines for how to handle the discussion, not a script to be recited ad nauseam when the first guys in the scene just want to know if there are any more perps bleeding out elsewhere in their patrol area. The key is knowing how to be cooperative while sticking to safe topics of discussion, such as the number of miscreants you personally encountered.

I'd be pretty annoyed if I called PD for service and the responding officers would only answer me with scripted responses. Even more than they already do, I mean.

[Doublestack45]

A couple years ago I asked an attorney who had handled something for me previously if he would be willing to be the guy I called first. I knew his background and liked how he handled himself. He agreed while assuring me that he had been approached by others with the same question. At some level, I immediately felt like I was better off for taking the first step. I did a lot of reading on the subject around that time and view it like an insurance policy with no guarantee. I'll be watching this thread closely.

[Dagga Boy]

Also keep in mind that once an attorney is involved, it is now an adversarial relationship with law enforcement. In my mind, there is going to be a time and a place (hopefully, it is never) for that adversarial relationship. I just don't know if I want that right out of the gate, unless the situation is really bad with L/E or I know I am in trouble.

[TR675]

You've also got a much better understanding of what to say and how to say it when dealing with police than most regular folks, no? I've seen smart, competent folk absolutely fall apart justifying themselves to Craig after ECQC evos; I can't imagine what Joe Average would say to the cops after a shooting at 7/11.

[ToddG]

I think TR has the most important bit, there, DB. If you see flashing lights in your rearview when you know you'd been speeding, does your pulse race? If you get pulled over, are you nervous as the cop walks toward your car? I'm betting it's about as stressful for you as taking a nap. But for a whole lot of people, just seeing those lights immediately puts them into territory that is as foreign as the surface of the moon.

You've been through multiple shooting reviews. Most folks haven't ever really been honest with themselves to think through the possibility that it could happen to them. You know what to say, how to say it, and to whom. They just know they're in for the ride of their lives.

Do I think lawyering up is the best option in every situation? No. But as a default decision for someone who just had -- by orders of magnitude -- the most stressful event of his life suddenly vomit itself all over his otherwise normal Friday night out with the wife, who is possibly literally standing over the corpses of the men he just killed, who doesn't really understand the law and has nothing but TV to tell him what the next 24 hours of his life might be like... Yeah, getting a trained professional to help guide you through that morass would be my default suggestion.

[Dagga Boy]

I agree wholeheartedly. The problem I have seen is that gun shops/forums/show and other places where "experts" reside in our world are handing out a lot of advice that they don't understand either. I try to be the other side of that. Trust me, I didn't make up the "if I get in a shooting I am having my lawyer call 911". I am a big fan of the "if you are a victim, act like it" and "if they are talking to you like a suspect" respond accordingly. In my shootings I started the conversation with the investigators with confirming in a very non-confrontational manner that I was being interviewed as a victim. There is nothing wrong with finding out where you stand and what mindset the investigators are in. If the answer was "no", "we are still trying to figure things out", or some other non committal or negative communication, that would have changed my game plan. The problem comes in when they say "yes, we are interviewing you as the victim or at the scene every single indication is that they know you are the good guy (the other guy being in cuff's or all his/her friends being in cuff's while the LEO's are being very nice to you is a "clue"), I would suggest to really keep the victim status. There are ways to ask for council without being an adversary. I don't want to hand out legal advice, but pre thought is a good thing.

[Luke]

I believe there are insurance companies specifically to cover the cost of going to court over legally defending yourself with a weapon.

[Lester Polfus]

So, this is going a little off the skids, but no where near as bad as it might've on other gun related fora.

First, I think I have, to a certain extent, a duty to provide a certain amount of information to law enforcement. If for example, there are armed dangerous criminals running around, I think I should tell the cops that. I'd hate to have a police officer get shot because instead of sharing a description of a suspect, I was sitting there saying "miranda" backwards, hoping it would transport me to bizzaro-land.

Second, there's some information I would share out of self interest. For example "The guy that tried to stab me dropped the knife in the bushes over there."

Third, I can't think of too many circumstances where it wouldn't make sense to at least provide some basic information. Stuff like: "he kicked in my front door so I shot him" or "He hit me in the back of the head with a socket wrench as I was getting my car keys out, so I shot him." This kind of stuff will likely be told to the first responding officers at the scene.

When we get to sitting down to talk to detectives, doing some kind of video taped walk through, answer questions about the EXACT order that things happened or who was standing where, when, I want a lawyer. I also want to some time getting my thoughts in order to make sure I don't say something stupid Ill regret later. I've had "dynamic" incidents where in the immediate after math I couldn't quite remember exactly how it all went down.

All of it is pretty institutional. If I wake up to a crash in the middle of the night and discover a guy I don't know, with a upside down cross tattooed on his forehead swinging a battle axe as he runs up my stairs, I'll shoot him to the ground and not feel real stressed about talking to the cops.

Here's a war story for you:

About 10 years ago I was driving on a country road with my ex-wife and then 8 year old daughter. I was about 2 years out of LE and was lawfully carrying a gun with a CHL. We got a flat tire. I pulled over into the driveway of a house to get off the road. the house was set back about 200 yards from the road.

I always crack the lug nuts free before jacking the car. About the time I got the last one loosened up and was about to jack the car up, a pickup comes bombing down the driveway. It stops and an old dude in his 50's or 60's starts screaming at me from his open drivers window. I told him I had a flat.

He got out and produces an honest to god axe handle and commences to tell me he's going to split my head open from about 50 feet away. I draw, but hold the gun behind my leg and tell him to "Stay the F Back."

Fortunately he did, and I elected to get in the car, with a flat tire and 4 loose lug nuts, sans jack, spare, and lug wrench. We made it a quarter of a mile down the road before the tire gave out completely. We stopped in front of another guy's house. He listened to my story, knew the 1st guy and believe it or not, drove down and got my jack, wrench and tire for me. He allowed as how the neighbor was crazy and figured it was a matter of time before something bad happened.

My point to telling all this? If he had gotten out of the truck with a gun, I would have shot him. If he had gotten out come much closer to me with the axe handle, I would have shot him. If he had followed me in his truck to the place where my car gave out, I probably would have shot him.

Then I would have been in a situation of shooting a guy, on HIS property. I think I would have been much less inclined to talk to law enforcement in that case, and much more inclined to "lawyer up" quickly.

So anyway, we drifted into "what to say to the cops right after a shooting." So far we haven't done too bad though.

What I'm after is:

I'm curious if anybody here has gone through this process. How did you select an attorney? Did you meet with attorney before hand? if so, what questions did you ask?

[Totem Polar]

Not much to add, save this: the friendly local range where I shoot and train (also brings in people like Farnam and Janich) has these member clinics once a month. One of the clinics a while back involved a panel with a sitting prosecuting attorney and an experienced defense lawyer going over several hypothetical shooting scenarios from their respective positions.

I made sure to grab the defense guy's card afterwords, and it's tacked up on the bulletin board in the office along with numerous other contacts, our Mini Cooper mechanic, etc., where my wife and I can both find it.

[ford.304]

I don't have my defense attorney picked out. I do, however, have my normal attorney (the guy who did my will and home purchase) on speed dial, and I trust him to get me set up with a competent defense attorney for the short term if I call and say "OMG I just shot someone."

Does anyone have experience with the various forms of legal insurance available, or the armed citizen's legal defense network? The first few google searches I found either a) didn't mention shootings or b) said that it was up to the discretion of the group how much legal financial support to provide.

[Erik]

Those of you who don't have a lawyer with specific expertise picked out but have your regular lawyer on tap and trust that s/he can set you up with the right person when the time comes, have you ever asked him or her if s/he could actually do that? You might be surprised how many lawyers don't know much about their local legal community or don't know many lawyers beyond those who practice in the same field as them. The lawyer who drafted your will, closed on your house or helped you sell your business may not know who to call in the middle of the night when you shoot somebody. It's worth checking out in advance.

[joshs]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I think an often overlooked aspect of this subject is that you don't "have a lawyer" unless he or she is on retainer. If you call and their current case load is too heavy, or they refuse to take your case for any other reason, it's good to have other options. Also, unless you spend all of your time in one place, a lawyer from county A might not be the best option in county B. this is obviously even more true when thinking about different states. Some pro-gun organizations offer attorney referral services that can help recommend an attorney in almost any jurisdiction.

[KeeFus]

In my own experience, when LE or civilians have used force the best thing to do is give the investigators enough information to get started in the right direction...then STFU.

Being read Garrity and then more-or-less forced to give a statement is one thing...I've had mine read to me and it was unnerving at first. Being read Miranda for the first time was distressing to say the least. The next time, not so much. Each time I have had an attorney that I knew could defend me should the investigation end up in court. If someone is reading you Miranda then STFU. Having a lawyer to guide you through your statement with investigators, if you choose to make one, is the safest bet. What may seem innocuous at first can some times be turned around by investigators and DA's.

Wanna get the best attorney? Watch who defends cops. LE usually know who to call when trouble finds them. Or take a day at a Superior Court during a trial and watch how said lawyer performs in court.

[Lester Polfus]

So there are some really good points being made here. I particularly like the point about finding out who defends cops, and finding a lawyer via firearms related activities.

Because we are not only 1) looking for a criminal defense attorney but 2) looking for one that has some experience defending people who aren't dirt bags who got busted selling crack. I think it would be tough to find somebody who "specializes" in civilian self defense cases, as they generally aren't too many of them in a given area.

Good point about not really having an attorney unless there is a retainer.

[Tamara]

Those of you who don't have a lawyer with specific expertise picked out but have your regular lawyer on tap and trust that s/he can set you up with the right person when the time comes, have you ever asked him or her if s/he could actually do that?

Yes.

I'm fortunate to know a few people who I trust, though.

[Hatchetman]

From my perspective this stuff is pretty situational. I volunteer as a role player/tackling dummy at the local criminal justice academy and a lot of LEOs roll through the gun shop I teach out of so post incident the first words out of my mouth are likely to be "Hey, what's up? This dude here tried to kill me." I'm an hour west of DC, however, and the closer I get to it the more likely I'd be to go into "never talk to the police" mode as many of those DC suburban municipalities aren't all that gun friendly to begin with.

[Totem Polar]

Conveniently enough, I am promoting trainer Rory Miller here this weekend, and he briefly addressed this topic this afternoon.
takeaway: armed citizens legal defense or find out who your local police union uses. FWIW.

[Shellback]

Does anyone have experience with the various forms of legal insurance available, or the armed citizen's legal defense network?


takeaway: armed citizens legal defense or find out who your local police union uses. FWIW.

Both Claude Werner (HeadHunter) and Tom Givens have endorsed ACLDN over on the TPI forum.


Marty Hayes, in this podcast (http://www.balloongoesup.com/blog/epi032_marty_hayes/), gives an excellent overview of the difference between the Armed Citizen Legal Defense Network (http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/), CCW insurance (e.g., USCCA (https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/) and NRA (http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/defense.htm)), and prepaid legal services.


I believe in the ACLDN. I believe the tally of people helped out of legal trouble so far is three, all successful. The legal defense fund now has over $200,000 in it. (Actually over $300k now)

The educational materials one receives are worth the membership fee, in my opinion.

[Marty Hayes]

The Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, Inc. (www.armedcitizensnetwork.org) now has over 8000 members, over $400,000 in the legal defense fund, and have assisted 8 members in the last five and a half years.

[Shellback]

Thanks for the updated info Marty.

[vcdgrips]

I am very late to the party. The post below is a combo of postings I have made in the past on this issue and related issues. I am not your lawyer. I am not giving legal advice.





If I was looking for a good criminal def atty, I would ask LEOs I knew who they would hire for themselves ( both on and off duty conduct) and their families. Sometimes, this is not the same lawyer. Like anything else, quality costs. Cheapest is rarely best.

Many of the best defense attys were prosecutors or public defenders before they went into private practice.
This can be key because these attys can have a level of familiarity and access with judges and former colleagues that many other lawyers simply do not have. In my 20 years as and atty (15 as a fed prosecutor), the most capable attys are those who are have the skill to be effective in court and in front of a jury coupled with the experience of knowing when they should not try a particular case and push hard for a non trial resolution (which can be anything from dismissal to diversion to a misdemeanor plea to a lesser felony depending on the facts and circumstances.)



The notion that there are attys who specialize in defending "innocent" people in the vast majority of jurisdictions is misplaced as the vast majority of people charged are in fact guilty of a crime relating to that offense notwithstanding recognized constitutional defenses i.e. No PC on initial stop, bad search/seizure etc.. I am not saying that there is not some independently wealthy guy who specializing in defending truly innocent folks because of his heartfelt and justified sense right and wrong, I simply have not see him in my locale. To the extent such an advocate exists,

I strongly suspect he cut his teeth on defending less than innocent folks, honing his skills, both in terms of advocacy and gleening the truth from his clients re their involvement in the crime charged.


Many of the best criminal defense attys are very parochial in their practice i.e. do their best work in certain counties of a metropolitan area as opposed to others, do their best work at a certain level, i.e. municipal DUI v. state violent crime v.federal narcotics etc. The guy in my town I would hire if I shot someone in a late night encounter is not the same atty I would hire if I got sucked into a mortgage fraud case.

In the civil context, I would be very inquisitive as to how many "first chair" jury trials a lawyer has under their belt. Many civil lawyer partners in law firms around a town are making really good money telling clients what a court or judge or jury is going to do in a particular case yet have never picked a jury in their legal lives.


All of this to say, it behooves us to be very familiar with the lay of land where we happen to be. In some parts of the country, if you shoot a known bad guy, "who deserved to get shot", you are going to get a ride home from the police from the scene. In other places, you are going to spent the night in jail but that will likely be it. In other places, all dead body cases resulting from gunfire mandate that the "shooter" gets arrested and that the "shooter" gets charged. A jury is simply going to get the opportunity to figure out what happened.



While Mas is particularly know for the legal aspects of his training, he is not a practicing atty at all and has a relatively narrow law enforcement experience set relative to many police officers/agents. From my very limited training with him personally (4 hr block, Tactical Conf, Tulsa 09 or 10), coupled with my reading of his many articles over many years, I would assert that much of his general advice is a good starting point but may be completely off base in your neck of the woods. At the expense of being accused of trying to gin up business for lawyers, it is imperative you talk to a experienced person from your area re your rights/responsibilities/liabilities should you become involved in a shooting.



On of Mas' gems I see trotted out constantly is- "I will sign the complaint."

The thing is, in many jurisdictions, the victim NEVER signs a criminal complaint EVER.
You, as the victim, may ultimately sign your statement, a miranda waiver, a consent to search form, perhaps even an affidavit, a request for reimburshment from a crime victim compensation fund, but NEVER a complaint.

Think about whatever you do for a living. Think about the time somebody talked with you about what you did for a living and acted like they knew what they were talking about but clearly did not. What did you think of that person and anything they said after that when they proved to you beyond a shadow of a doubt the had a case of crainial/rectal inversion re your job/profession/talent/work etc. Saying that you will do something that is a legal impossibility in your juridiction is simply not wise.

People say they are going to do this without any regard to the local custom, practice and controlling law, because:

1. They saw it on the internet
2. They heard from a friend etc
3. They got it from an instructor who simply may not know what they lay of the land is like TODAY, as opposed to sometime in the distant past, in a particular jurisdiction etc.
4. They think they sound like they know what they are talking about when they do not. (It is a first cousin offense to the guy that always tries to use big words/phrases but fails miserably.)



Finally, IMHO Castle Doctrine laws notwithstanding, if you shoot someone, you have likely bought yourself a 5 or 6 figure lawsuit, civil, criminal or both. I fully understand that we have to solve the "carried by 6" problem before tackling the " tried by 12" problem.



YMMV greatly,



David Barnes

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I am very late to the party. The post below is a combo of postings I have made in the past on this issue and related issues. I am not your lawyer. I am not giving legal advice.





If I was looking for a good criminal def atty, I would ask LEOs I knew who they would hire for themselves ( both on and off duty conduct) and their families. Sometimes, this is not the same lawyer. Like anything else, quality costs. Cheapest is rarely best.

Many of the best defense attys were prosecutors or public defenders before they went into private practice.
This can be key because these attys can have a level of familiarity and access with judges and former colleagues that many other lawyers simply do not have. In my 20 years as and atty (15 as a fed prosecutor), the most capable attys are those who are have the skill to be effective in court and in front of a jury coupled with the experience of knowing when they should not try a particular case and push hard for a non trial resolution (which can be anything from dismissal to diversion to a misdemeanor plea to a lesser felony depending on the facts and circumstances.)



The notion that there are attys who specialize in defending "innocent" people in the vast majority of jurisdictions is misplaced as the vast majority of people charged are in fact guilty of a crime relating to that offense notwithstanding recognized constitutional defenses i.e. No PC on initial stop, bad search/seizure etc.. I am not saying that there is not some independently wealthy guy who specializing in defending truly innocent folks because of his heartfelt and justified sense right and wrong, I simply have not see him in my locale. To the extent such an advocate exists,

I strongly suspect he cut his teeth on defending less than innocent folks, honing his skills, both in terms of advocacy and gleening the truth from his clients re their involvement in the crime charged.


Many of the best criminal defense attys are very parochial in their practice i.e. do their best work in certain counties of a metropolitan area as opposed to others, do their best work at a certain level, i.e. municipal DUI v. state violent crime v.federal narcotics etc. The guy in my town I would hire if I shot someone in a late night encounter is not the same atty I would hire if I got sucked into a mortgage fraud case.

In the civil context, I would be very inquisitive as to how many "first chair" jury trials a lawyer has under their belt. Many civil lawyer partners in law firms around a town are making really good money telling clients what a court or judge or jury is going to do in a particular case yet have never picked a jury in their legal lives.


All of this to say, it behooves us to be very familiar with the lay of land where we happen to be. In some parts of the country, if you shoot a known bad guy, "who deserved to get shot", you are going to get a ride home from the police from the scene. In other places, you are going to spent the night in jail but that will likely be it. In other places, all dead body cases resulting from gunfire mandate that the "shooter" gets arrested and that the "shooter" gets charged. A jury is simply going to get the opportunity to figure out what happened.



While Mas is particularly know for the legal aspects of his training, he is not a practicing atty at all and has a relatively narrow law enforcement experience set relative to many police officers/agents. From my very limited training with him personally (4 hr block, Tactical Conf, Tulsa 09 or 10), coupled with my reading of his many articles over many years, I would assert that much of his general advice is a good starting point but may be completely off base in your neck of the woods. At the expense of being accused of trying to gin up business for lawyers, it is imperative you talk to a experienced person from your area re your rights/responsibilities/liabilities should you become involved in a shooting.



On of Mas' gems I see trotted out constantly is- "I will sign the complaint."

The thing is, in many jurisdictions, the victim NEVER signs a criminal complaint EVER.
You, as the victim, may ultimately sign your statement, a miranda waiver, a consent to search form, perhaps even an affidavit, a request for reimburshment from a crime victim compensation fund, but NEVER a complaint.

Think about whatever you do for a living. Think about the time somebody talked with you about what you did for a living and acted like they knew what they were talking about but clearly did not. What did you think of that person and anything they said after that when they proved to you beyond a shadow of a doubt the had a case of crainial/rectal inversion re your job/profession/talent/work etc. Saying that you will do something that is a legal impossibility in your juridiction is simply not wise.

People say they are going to do this without any regard to the local custom, practice and controlling law, because:

1. They saw it on the internet
2. They heard from a friend etc
3. They got it from an instructor who simply may not know what they lay of the land is like TODAY, as opposed to sometime in the distant past, in a particular jurisdiction etc.
4. They think they sound like they know what they are talking about when they do not. (It is a first cousin offense to the guy that always tries to use big words/phrases but fails miserably.)



Finally, IMHO Castle Doctrine laws notwithstanding, if you shoot someone, you have likely bought yourself a 5 or 6 figure lawsuit, civil, criminal or both. I fully understand that we have to solve the "carried by 6" problem before tackling the " tried by 12" problem.



YMMV greatly,



David Barnes

YES.

This.

Yes...

[Lester Polfus]

Thanks gentlemen.

[Shellback]

While Mas is particularly know for the legal aspects of his training, he is not a practicing atty at all and has a relatively narrow law enforcement experience set relative to many police officers/agents. From my very limited training with him personally (4 hr block, Tactical Conf, Tulsa 09 or 10), coupled with my reading of his many articles over many years, I would assert that much of his general advice is a good starting point but may be completely off base in your neck of the woods. At the expense of being accused of trying to gin up business for lawyers, it is imperative you talk to a experienced person from your area re your rights/responsibilities/liabilities should you become involved in a shooting.



On of Mas' gems I see trotted out constantly is- "I will sign the complaint."

The thing is, in many jurisdictions, the victim NEVER signs a criminal complaint EVER.
You, as the victim, may ultimately sign your statement, a miranda waiver, a consent to search form, perhaps even an affidavit, a request for reimburshment from a crime victim compensation fund, but NEVER a complaint.

Pertaining to Ayoob, I thought this was rather interesting (http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03a.htm), and pertains to the accuracy of various statements and assertions he's made.

[Tamara]

Pertaining to Ayoob, I thought this was rather interesting (http://www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/2006/04/03/0604-03a.htm), and pertains to the accuracy of various statements and assertions he's made.

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120402225423/random-ness/images/3/34/Michael_Jackson_popcorn.gif

[Unobtanium]

What's wrong with "I was terrified he/she was going to kill me/mine. I want my lawyer" ? I mean, aren't you expected to say SOMETHING on the scene to explain the blood and casings and body?

[justintime]

Texas law shield

[RevolverRob]

I have a defense attorney here in Austin, I have a family attorney in Chicago and will be looking for a defense attorney there.

Vis-a-vis giving a statement to police/investigators: Following my father's self-defense incident, I learned to call your attorney quickly and provide a minimal statement to police. I understand that involving an attorney might be "adversarial" and make you look "guilty", but whatever. I'll be happy to cooperate fully with my legal counsel present, but I want them present. I have learned over the years nothing can replace a good adviser during a stressful situation. Don't get me wrong, call 911 and ask for the police yourself. When they arrive, make a very minimal statement explaining the gross details of the situation, and say you will provide a full and detailed statement when you have legal counsel present.

-Rob

[David Armstrong]

Having worked with a number of attorneys over the years I have a line-up that I will go to. Regarding Ayoob vs. Dodson, I know which one I'd want on my side as an expert witness....and his initials are not S.D. YMMV.

[RevolverRob]

Since it was brought up - Has Dodson ever served as an expert witness and/or has he ever been qualified to provide expert witness testimony in a court of law?

-Rob

[Tamara]

Having worked with a number of attorneys over the years I have a line-up that I will go to. Regarding Ayoob vs. Dodson, I know which one I'd want on my side as an expert witness....and his initials are not S.D. YMMV.

I am in absolute agreement with David's post.

[KevinB]

I'm not a lawyer and do not play on on the internet or TV.

But I do have a pre arranged defense council.
I also will note the FBI and most other Federal LE entities do not require agents to give statements prior to 24hrs after the incident, and I will take all 24hrs of that if required

I have three plans
A) nothing happens as result (other than buddy at local Sheriff offices goes for a beer with me)
B) my attorney
C) I sue the family, estate etc of the person I felt compelled to use a weapon against.

I'm not very concerned about the aspects of a lawsuit -- mainly as I have several friends etc that have been thru multiple CONUS shootings and they still walk, talk and work like before. I'm also very judicious with what I do and where I go, so IF I need to shoot someone CONUS I will be the guy in the white hat.

[Lester Polfus]

Ok. It's my thread so I will contribute to the drift...

I think regarding Ayoob, we have to look at him in context.

Let's set the way back machine to the late 70's and early 80's. I was but a wee lad, staying up late at night to read copies of American Handgunner under the covers with a flashlight. There were very, very few avenues for your ordinary average citizen to receive professional level handgun training, geared towards using a handgun in defense of their lives. You could go to an NRA course and learn which end the bullets came out of, and that's it. Your primary source of information about guns, and how to use them, was gun magazines.

Entire Mas, who, was an honest-to-God Police Occifer, who advocated for Joe or Suzy Homemaker to receive training on how to defend themselves with a gun and even (gasp!) carry one CONCEALED out on the street. He started some good dialogues on what that really means, including dealing with the legal aftermath. Much of the defensive info in gun magazines back then was absolute crap, and he raised the bar on that.

I very much appreciate that about Ayoob. He presented questions about the realities of using and carrying a gun, I would have never thought of, and even though ultimately I may have come to different answers than him, that is still valuable.

I think the biggest issue I have with Ayoob is this: he made a substantial part of his living as a gunwriter. The only way to do that is to fill column inches, and lots of them. So he was prolific, but often you could tell he was working hard to fill those column inches. I lost track of the number of guns he advocated for as the ultimate carry gun etc. Sometimes things got a little wonky. One of the biggest examples of this I can remember is an article where he expounded about how while Colt revolvers were great, they could cause an issue in court because they were named after snakes (Python, King Cobra, Diamondback, etc) and that sounds "scary," whilst the numerical models of Smith And Wesson were much more innocuous...

Let's fast forward to today. There are few areas of the United States where you can't drive a couple of hours and receive professional level use of force training. Cops and former cops routinely teach Joe and Suzy Homemaker how to shoot. For that matter, we've got former CAG guys hosting classes that are open to the public. There's alot of crap out there in internet land, but if you are judicious, you can also find yourself soaking up information from people like Craig Douglas and Darryl Bolke.

Honestly, if Ayoob was just getting his start today, he wouldn't be that big of a deal. But I guess I look at him sort of like Freud, maybe we don't cling to many of his conclusions today, but he got the ball rolling.

[Tamara]

Out of curiosity, have you taken a class from Mas?

[Lester Polfus]

Nope. But honestly, I would sure think about it if he came to town. I think there are some things I could learn from him, and I respect the fact that he taught mere civilians when nobody else could, and I'm sure there are people who are alive today because of that.

The problem is, there are a bunch of trainers out there that don't have the same level of divisiveness attached to their name. So if I'm gonna get time away from the family to train, do I do it with the guy who has a mixed reputation, or with the guy that makes everybody nod their head when you mention his name.

[TR675]

What Mr Ayoob brings to the table - as I see it - is years of real thinking about legal and practical issues related to self defense, and years of teaching those issues to laypeople and even attorneys. You do not have to agree with everything he says - and I do not - to get real, immediate and obvious value from his classes or lectures - which I have.

Mr Ayoob suffers a bit from a syndrome common among people writing about legal problems, namely, overly-enthusiastic identification of perceived risks and trying to avoid them. This would be the previously mentioned "use a Smith and not a Colt revolver because of the snake names" comment. The need to fill column issues feeds this, but I fall prey to the exact same problem fairly routinely so I won't cast stones.

As far as I know nobody else in the training field presents the same level, depth and quality of information on selected topics that Mr Ayoob does. Offhand, I don't know of any trainers of note who wouldn't agree that Ayoob has a lot of valuable information to teach, a lot of which is not really available anywhere else. I've read Dodson's critique of Ayoob...I am not impressed.

If I had a choice, today, between another shooty class and an Ayoob lecture, I would spring for the lecture.

[TR675]

Doubletap.

[Tamara]

Nope. But honestly, I would sure think about it if he came to town. I think there are some things I could learn from him, and I respect the fact that he taught mere civilians when nobody else could, and I'm sure there are people who are alive today because of that.

The problem is, there are a bunch of trainers out there that don't have the same level of divisiveness attached to their name. So if I'm gonna get time away from the family to train, do I do it with the guy who has a mixed reputation, or with the guy that makes everybody nod their head when you mention his name.

I have to say that it's been my observation that most of the divisiveness surrounding Ayoob generally involves things the internet is sure he said, but didn't. I wouldn't take a class from Straw Mas, either. ;)

[Lester Polfus]

That's a fair point, right there. I think I came out sounding a little harsh on the guy. I do respect him, and I know that when I got back and read things I wrote a long time ago, it doesn't generally reflect how I feel now. I'm certainly glad my views on defensive firearms in 1985 or so aren't archived for everyone to read...

He has said some things* I found to be pretty goofy, but he's certainly said quite a bit more that has moved things forward.

*That he really did, fer shure say...