"A lawyer attached to every bullet" - How have instructors previously addressed this?

[Mitchell, Esq.]

A lawyer attached to every bullet.

I’ve heard that gem forever.

I know it’s thrown around with pretty much crazed abandon by some people when they talk about the consequences of a use of force incident, but I’d like to hear how some instructors you’ve trained with addressed it.

So.

Who’s heard it?
From who, and in what context?
Has anyone adequately addressed any issues which that phrase has raised?

Additionally, if it has not been adaquately addressed, what would you like to see to have the issue addressed? (Lecture/Force on Force/Scenario Training/Combination of all...)

Thanks.

[Mr_White]

I’ve heard it forever too, and a couple other variations of it, but by now I struggle to remember exactly who said it to me.

I think this phrase speaks to two issues: the intentional use of force against the intended person, and the unintentional use of force against an unintended person.

I don’t think the phrase was expanded upon particularly, and was simply used in basic classes as a pithy phrase in lieu of ‘when you shoot your gun at someone there is extremely significant risk of criminal and civil liability attached to that act, and it’s very expensive to deal with those liabilities in court and in preparation for possible court.’

While it is obviously important to recognize that basic point, I would actually go further. What I believe and what I teach now, is that extremely significant risk of criminal and civil liability starts when you use, threaten to use, or visibly prepare to use force, and especially deadly force, against anyone, even when thoroughly justified. Significant risk of criminal and civil liability exists before shots are fired.

The target/threat background and the overall environment must be taken into account.

Sometimes that’s going to mean that there can be no misses, period, without a huge disaster.

Other times, like when it’s just you, the other guy, and a huge brick wall behind him, there isn’t as high a penalty for an errant shot.

Background needs to be taken into account, whatever it is.

And, same as you seem to express frequently Mitchell, I get some peace of mind from having studied use of force doctrine and integrating that into the self-protective actions I practice and train to potentially undertake, so that what I train to do comports with the standards by which I’ll likely be judged (some amount of rephrasing of Ayoob there.)

Having done that, and being aware of (through study and training) important aspects of human dynamics under stress and in physical conflict, hopefully will allow me to act with the necessary decisiveness when I perceive that there’s no other practical choice and I know I am, and should be found under legal review, to be justified. And the flipside is that I should know well when there are practical alternatives to force or deadly force, and can avoid what would ultimately be judged an overreaction under the laws governing self-defense.

I also practice and teach to lean very hard on avoidance, escape, evasion, and de-escalation at the very first sign of danger. Not only might that ultimately prevent the need to use or threaten to use force, if force does become necessary, it will increase society’s (and all it elements, including those in the legal system) acceptance of your justification. You don’t get arrested for leaving, running or driving away, or telling people to stay away or leave you alone. Not like you do for shooting them or pointing guns at them.

[Mr_White]

Additionally, if it has not been adaquately addressed, what would you like to see to have the issue addressed? (Lecture/Force on Force/Scenario Training/Combination of all...)

Addressing your edit: combination of all.

Lecture and intellectual study is where the calculus of use of force doctrine and the legal issues surrounding it can comfortably be explored.

Scenario/decisionmaking training is where the student gets any big mistakes out of the way if they are going to make them at all (hopefully) and essentially dials up their under-reactions that get them hurt unnecessarily, and dials down their over-reactions that expose them to huge criminal and civil liability unnecessarily.

[MDS]

I haven't taken nearly as many classes as many folks here. I've heard it in exactly one class: Randy Cain's Handgun 101. I don't remember the whole speech, but what I took away from it was that I need to know what shots I can make consistently, in terms of speed and accuracy, so that I can decide whether the gun I'm carrying will be useful. If I make the wrong call, i.e., if I take a shot that I can't deliver consistently - whether because I underestimated the difficulty or overestimated my ability - then the repercussions are severe.

I'm sure Randy covered some of the legal requirements, it's just that his class wasn't a legalities class. It was a shooting class, and that colored how I heard everything. I'd love to take a class that focused on the legalities, like the class you seem to be putting together. I'd also love to take a hybrid that focused on both - imagine drills like an El Pres with a background full of no-shoots, so that you have to carefully line up your shots to avoid shoot-throughs; or evolutions like in ECQC where it's a mugging that escalates slowly, so the student can decide when to "flip the switch." After each drill, you discuss the legal and moral implications, arming the students to really clearly and explicitly draw their own lines in the sand, as far as when to call upon that lawyer attached to each bullet.

Just thinking out loud here...

[JodyH]

I wish it was there's a bullet attached to every lawyer...
:cool:

[Jay Cunningham]

A lawyer attached to every bullet.

I’ve heard that gem forever.

I know it’s thrown around with pretty much crazed abandon by some people when they talk about the consequences of a use of force incident, but I’d like to hear how some instructors you’ve trained with addressed it.

So.

Who’s heard it?
From who, and in what context?
Has anyone adequately addressed any issues which that phrase has raised?

Additionally, if it has not been adaquately addressed, what would you like to see to have the issue addressed? (Lecture/Force on Force/Scenario Training/Combination of all...)

Thanks.

I've heard the phrase from many instructors, but they haven't all regarded it with the same seriousness IMO. Some kind of just pay lip service to it, then teach techniques which are more appropriate to situations outside of "civilian" and don't make that big of a deal about throwing the occasional shot. Other trainers give the concept much more weight.

I take the concept very, very seriously, and in my Transitional Pistol and Transitional Carbine classes I hammer it constantly. I make a big deal out of poor marksmanship, and I also have a brief legal lecture from a lawyer (who is also a trained shooter). We have students shoot through scenarios with 3 dimensional reactive targets which are surrounded by no-shoots. We also discuss the reality of techniques like shooting-on-the-move vs. "moving and shooting" and then work students through exercises so that they can judge for themselves the effects on their accuracy.

[JodyH]

I use the phrase in my ccw classes as a launching pad into a discussion on why you need be able to articulate that every shot you fired (hits and misses) met the reasonable man standard.

[MD7305]

As a LEO I've heard the phrase in training on an academy level in reference to almost any firearm usage. The context, in my comprehension, has been being aware of your shots, where are your shots going and who are your shots landing on. As an example, most recently I've heard the phrase used in explaining the spread of buckshot expelled from a shotgun, as in your responsible for each pellet and there's a lawyer and potential lawsuit attached to each one that wizzes past your intended target to strike an innocent bystander.

In my mind, I interpret the phase in that I'm responsible for my rounds, regardless of scenario, and subject to litigation whether criminal or civil action as a result of my firing those rounds .

My appologies if I'm thinking of this out of the context you meant, but this is how I interpret the phrase when it's used.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

I wish it was there's a bullet attached to every lawyer...
:cool:

I got 45 rounds on me right now...:cool:

[Odin Bravo One]

I don't necessarily hear that exact phrase, but I don't think I have attended any credible civilian training where it isn't addressed at some level or another.

But I also believe that some courses are better suited to it than others. When addressing an audience that is struggling to grasp the fundamentals of safety and manipulation, adding an in depth look at the legal aspect of the aftermath would make their heads explode.

This is where courses like CD's are worth their price times ten. Any force on force with detailed debrief's, not just on the TTP's, but also the justifications for escalation, etc., is time and money well spent. I am a huge fan, and firm believer in FOF training, and having to justify to a jury of your peers (classmates), along with expert (Prosecutors and CDA's with experience in DF cases) opinions will make life much easier when the time comes you are subject of a homicide investigation.

An interesting misunderstanding around the shooting world is that our SOF type guys can hose whoever, whenever. Certainly there are legal ways to make that so, but generally it couldn't be further from the truth. Expecially in CQC/Hostage Rescue and Sniper operations, each and every round fired has a lawyer (or JAG) attached to it. Being right, properly trained, and able to properly articulate your justification to the blood sucking lawyers will keep you out of prison. I hear Kansas is nice, but I'll pass thanks.........

[Mitchell, Esq.]

My reason for asking this is we keep hearing this uttered, so it must matter...but does training reflect it?

When you look at it, good training seems to follow this idea:

1) Identify and define the problem
2) Identify the solution to the problem
3) Identify any obstructions to the problem
4) Teach the student how to solve the problem while avoiding, overcoming or adapting to the obstructions as efficiently as possible.

So...if a lawyer attached to every bullet means that the use of a firearm in self defense will be analyzed and possibly litigated, so why aren't people "teaching to the test?"

I mean, we do it all the time, right?

People look at "how gunfights happen" and develop tactics and techniques and gear to optimize themselves for "the gunfight".

Yes, sometimes it may become very specialized, like with XS Sights - you give up some long range for a very visible front sight optimized for low light, close in shooting - but it is still a reflection of identifying the problem, identifying the solution to the problem, identifying the obstructions, and giving someone a tool to solve that problem.

When I hear "lawyer attached to every bullet" I usually hear in my mind a cop-out by an instructor who can't adequately explain the context of what he's teaching, when it should be used, or how what he's teaching will be reconciled with the aftermath, and is not fair to the students.

[ToddG]

Like so many things in the firearms training world, "a lawyer attached to every bullet" began as a reasonable shorthand training tool which has now, for some people, taken on a life of its own.

We live in a litigious society. Every brake pedal on every car has a lawyer attached to it. Every fork at every restaurant has a lawyer attached to it. Every visit to the doctor, every job interview, even every marriage has a lawyer attached to it. On its face, those are all reasonable truths. Few of us let the legal risk involved keep us from going out to dinner or getting medical treatment.

"Lawyer attached to bullet" served a two-fold purpose:

It reflects the harsh reality that if you fire a gun and something bad happens, you own it. People get sued and even go to prison over tiny mistakes they make in an instant during the most stressful moment of their lives. Hell, sometimes it happens when they haven't even made a mistake! So lesson number one from "lawyer attached to bullet" is don't shoot unless you have to.
It counters the way some people approach (or even teach) "defensive" shooting, laying down a wall of suppressive fire and hoping some of the bullets kill or at least dissuade the BG(s). It discourages people from taking a nonchalant attitude toward marksmanship. So the second lesson is work hard so you can hit what you aim at.


Both of those are good lessons. Then some people who don't really understand those lessons instead become dogmatic about "lawyer attached to bullet" and before you know it, you've got a new religion.

[Al T.]

My 2 cents is that I've heard that phrase used more to get the student away from the Hollywood mythology and to focus on the "when and why" real world aspects of using force for self defense.

[Jay Cunningham]

It discourages people from taking a nonchalant attitude toward marksmanship. So the second lesson is work hard so you can hit what you aim at.
[/LIST]

I feel strongly about this. People *really* need to get their fundamental accuracy down before chasing off in other directions. Even just a couple hours on steel targets will show shooters getting sloppy when you reel them back in onto paper.

This topic is broader than simply marksmanship, however that's one of *my* focus areas. I'm not going to try and teach some sad version of Managing Unknown Contacts or Handgun CQB when I can just recommend those classes to my students.

[NETim]

The first time I heard the phrase was at Thunder Ranch back in '04. I heard it the first day and everyday thereafter for the rest of the class. I'm quite certain that I've heard the phrase repeated everyday in every class at TR I've taken since that time. (That, and "Two is one. One is none." :) )

For me anyway, the phrase is simply a catchy and easy to remember distillation of reality. We are responsible for every round we fire, regardless of circumstance. Expect to be held accountable.

Avoidance is where it's at.

[Jay Cunningham]

Expect to be held accountable.

My question to you is: Were you held accountable in class? What did that look like?

[Jcs3151]

I have heard it many times and use it sometimes when teaching new recruits or shooter as the entry into the topic of liability, which must be covered. I also believe that if we are going to use terms like this, we must let our students know that the use of force when justified is OK. In the litigious society we live in today, there are officers out there who would never fire their weapons because of their fear of the aftermath. This is a problem, the term " every bullet has an attorney attached to it" is one of the causes of this. As instructors we must be aware of this.

[Jay Cunningham]

I also believe that if we are going to use terms like this, we must let our students know that the use of force when justified is OK. In the litigious society we live in today, there are officers and normal Earth people out there who would never fire their weapons because of their fear of the aftermath. This is a problem, the term " every bullet has an attorney attached to it" is one of the causes of this. As instructors we must be aware of this.

I think this is a very legitimate point, and should be carefully considered.

[NETim]

My question to you is: Were you held accountable in class? What did that look like?

I certainly was expected to operate and behave in a safe manner. Otherwise, I would have earned an early trip home. That's "accountability" isn't it?

Society will hold us accountable for every round fired. It's part of the deal. Depending on the jurisdiction, it could get ugly. (I'll use the fairly recent shooting (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120222/NEWS01/302220033/-1/FAMOUSIOWANS/Update-Man-acquitted-shooting-happy-free-now-homeless?nclick_check=1) in west Des Moines IA as an example.)

[Gary1911A1]

I heard it from Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn several times when they would stress accuracy. I've done some thinking on my own and have concluded even if you do everything right, hit the BG so only one round was needed to end the threat, used good ammo, and the LE and counts didn't charge you you could still be sued over that one round over penetrating the threat that hit an innocent you couldn't of seen. If it's a child expect a jury to award 1/2 of everything you own or will ever own. Unlikely yes, but it could happen.

[voodoo_man]

Accuracy is extremely important, however, in a range/training setting for learning purposes it can be suspended. (Speed vs. accuracy vs. tactics to gauge benchmarks)

For the conceal carrying citizen, it is very important to understand the consequences of pulling the trigger, or even pulling a gun on someone. This needs to be figured out in great detail before a loaded firearm is carried because nothing should be a surprise to that person once they made up their mind to use that firearm.

[Odin Bravo One]

I think that is something that "should" be left up to the individual.

If a new shooter wants to study the legal aftermath of lethal force, then so be it.

If they choose to focus on safety, fundamentals, and manipulation, that is there choice.

Obviously, a balance would be ideal.

Should it be addressed? Yes. Absolutely. But, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

That is not my area of expertise. I will relay what I can, but it's also not what my courses of instruction are about. I get less than 2 days in most cases, and can barely make it through the curriculum I have. At my 16 week police academy class, we spent 2 weeks on the same topic.

Not sound completely cliche, but I am betting I am in the minority on this board, where I have been involved in a full blown criminal investigation based off of a decision to use deadly force. And "better judged by 12 than carried by 6" has a lot of simplistic truth to it. If you don't have the ability to use the gun, then the rest of it is completely irrelevant. Being dead means someone will be arguing on my behalf. At least I am still vertical and breathing to defend myself in court.

If someone wants training on the legal aspect, they should seek out the experts in that field. A firearms trainer needs to address it, but only within the confines of their expertise, and their best suggestion is likely to be additional training for their students from legal SME's.

This topic especially, more so than many others is one where the trainer needs to:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v690/SavageHunter/Stayinyourlane.jpg

I don't want a lawyer running # 2 man in my stack during a hostage rescue, regardless of how many weekend warrior courses he has attended, and I don't want my # 2 man in the stack representing me at my homicide trial, regardless of how many episodes of Law & Order he has watched.

[Surf]

I will give some of my thoughts on both the civilian and LE side of training. I will be the first to say that I chose not to do much instruction at this point in my life that is civilian based. This is mostly factored around time, logistics and my own personal choice. I will add that this is not meant to be negative as I am very supportive of quality civilian based training and supportive of the civilian shooting world, be it defensive, recreational or sporting in nature.

As far as my thoughts on civilian training I believe that an instructor has a duty to themselves, their students and the public to provide instruction in regards to liability when providing firearms instruction and especially in regards to using a firearm for defensive purposes. The type of instruction / curriculum should dictate the amount of attention paid to the liability topic in general. By this I mean that the emphasis placed on this area of training should be more comprehensive when talking about a CCW, personal or home defense type of course as opposed to a basic firearms familiarization type of course, however by all means I am not saying that the topic in general should ever be downplayed. For defensive or similar based training, use of force and local laws should be a part of the curriculum and at the least the current acceptable standards for that jurisdiction in which the class is held is good to be relayed. Now I am not talking about conducting a dissertation on laws in this area, but it should at least comprehensive enough that students understand the basic laws and concepts being stressed.

Now as a student, the majority of my experiences for instructional training has LE based so indeed this topic has been heavily stressed. For myself as an instructor my normal student base dictates that I stress the importance of liability etc...I do not instruct at an intro or new recruit level so most of my students, at least from the LE side of things, are seasoned and already have a decent understanding of liability in regards to firearms, use of force, policy, procedure, etc.. The military personnel that I teach have a slightly different take on the topic with various degrees of ROE depending on their function and where they are operating, but I do still provide them with the same instruction in this area as I would any of my students from Local, State or Federal LE.

In brief and on a student level (not admin concerns) I will stress much of the base foundational case laws that have shaped this topic in general and make it a point to cover all of the court noted deficiencies cited in training and obviously at an advanced level take their training much further beyond what might be considered the minimum. I stress the importance of understanding use of force, current policy and procedure, as well as reinforcing the understanding of probable cause and how all of this may factor into or relate to "qualified immunity". I also stress understanding various factors such as current intel, past actions / history, relaying and logging of real time current intel / information and its importance as to how it may shape an individuals mindset / beliefs and how it may relate to "reasonableness" and how and why it may vary from person to person.

Having said the above, here is a bit of an anecdote that may relate to your original saying of "A lawyer attached to every bullet". Within my field and in my jurisdiction, we almost take it as a given that we are going to be involved in some type of a suit no matter what the circumstances. I have been named on a few occasions, my longest lasting 5 years, two running at one time. No matter how small or frivolous that they may be at face value, going through the entire process even when the outcome is a "win", it is also some type of a loss for the persons named. How heavy a toll it takes on a person, their professional and personal lives and how it may affect their families may vary from person to person and from situation to situation but something is always taken out of you. I can only recall one incident where we were not named, but then again the guy had been shooting at people on and off for a week and on the day we were involved he shot at the guys in uniform before we got there and he made the mistake at shooting at us a few times, plus he was high on just about every drug. Sad but this day in age it seems like that is the circumstances needed in order to not be named even when everything is done right. People sue for everything, so as far a LE is concerned we understand that there is often going to be an attempt to put hands into the "deep pockets", so in my own personal experiences the saying "a lawyer attached to every bullet" isn't too far from truth and it has been some type of an influence in how I operate / train and how I teach. I like to think despite the negativity that I was on the receiving end, helps me in a positive way as an instructor and benefits my students.

[TGS]

I've never heard the phrase used in a course I've attended, but the basic premise that you own what shoot has definitely been covered. The best I've heard is this:

"Everything you shoot today has to end up in the berm. It's okay if it goes through all of us, as long as it ends up in the berm. Why? Because everyone here signed a waiver. You all signed away saying that you know you could be killed participating in today's activity. Joe Farmer living over the hill, finally being able to sleep in for once this month on the weekend? He didn't sign the waiver. He's an innocent bystander, and you owe it to all innocent bystanders to not shoot them either."

I'm not posting the instructors name simply because I know there's some douche-nozzle internet commando here who's going to take his "you all signed the waiver so it's okay to die" thing and run with it out of context stating that he's an irresponsible instructor who doesn't care about the safety of his students. Context is everything, and I thought it was a pretty good way to reinforce the idea that you're handling a deadly weapon and after you fire the shot, that round is on its own. The instructor also demonstrated excellent safety protocols, and unlike most intro tactical/self-defense courses he uses an assistant instructor for added safety supervision.

[BLR]

Anyone, military, law enforcement or private individual, who could possibly pull the trigger of a gun pointed at another person, should schedule time with the appropriate attorney. In addition to this, of all the classes that could be taken, Ayoobs at LFI is tippy top of the list for me. Coupled with the NRA's insurance policy.

Proper (and timely) use of the "reasonable man" rule comes wit practice. In fact, if you compete in IDPA/IPSC, a critical evaluation of the scenario is great practice.

The point being, the lawyers are the ones who evaluate your use of the "ROE" - so time spent with them is well spent.

At least that's my opinion, which is worth exactly what you paid for it.

[Rodrigo21]

I have heard that phrase. My significant other said that “there’s a lawyer attached to every bullet” when talking about firing your weapon at any time/circumstance, aside from going shooting outside of city limits. download gb whatsapp (https://gbfmapps.com/gbwhatsapp-apk/)
But isn't you and only you responsible for every bullet that leaves your barrel?

[BWT]

11 years old.

Man - I miss the days when posters such as these posted.

I’d think everyone in this thread would agree that you’re responsible for what you do with a gun.

[PNWTO]

11 years old.

Man - I miss the days when posters such as these posted.

I’d think everyone in this thread would agree that you’re responsible for what you do with a gun.

Agreed, helluva necrobump but good names have contributed. Their absence is telling.



But isn't you and only you responsible for every bullet that leaves your barrel?

It’s an old thread and there are other threads that also parse this out, especially by DB. My take is that it is indeed a responsibility (task-oriented) but there is a significant accountability (post-task) that may reckoned, and life-changing. This point is often ignored by training/marketing/sales folks and that’s why I’m grateful PF has the wisdom recorded.

[DaBigBR]

I have heard it in the context of shot accountability. I think the post-2020 version is that there is an Antifa led mob following every bullet.

D'oh...ancient thread...

[Paul Blackburn]

I have heard it in the context of shot accountability. I think the post-2020 version is that there is an Antifa led mob following every bullet.

D'oh...ancient thread...

And and Soros funded DA.