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

[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:

1. 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.
2. 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 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.