"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...

[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...

I got 45 rounds on me right now...

[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.........