ATF Raids Larry Vickers? Anyone know anything about this?

[HCM]

Question for the lawyers...

Going forward, now that LAV is going to be a convicted felon in the nearish future how detrimental is it it have received training certs / taken classes from him if involved in a self defense shooting?

I know this is a highly hypothetical question and depends on the totality of the circumstances and such but it seems to me like not only did LAV screw over himself and his family but all those who have ever trained with him as he has introduced a line of attack on a person during court proceedings after a use of force.

I know for myself public conduct and bearing has always been a consideration for anyone that I have sought training from as I sometimes think about would I want that guy to have to testify on my behalf and have his conduct be associated with mine.

Am I thinking too far into this in reality or did self defense claims just become a touch tougher for some because of his actions?

AFAIK LAV primarily taught technical shooting skills. Something he is certainly qualified to teach. I.e. how to shoot rather than if/when to shoot.

I agree with you re: public conduct but in this case his misconduct occurred after your training so you could not know what the future would hold re:LAV. What the attorneys might call “ex-post facto.”

I think it’s less that training with him could be used against and more that his compromised credibility means he would no longer be effective in testifying in your behalf.

[LockedBreech]

Question for the lawyers...

Going forward, now that LAV is going to be a convicted felon in the nearish future how detrimental is it it have received training certs / taken classes from him if involved in a self defense shooting?

I know this is a highly hypothetical question and depends on the totality of the circumstances and such but it seems to me like not only did LAV screw over himself and his family but all those who have ever trained with him as he has introduced a line of attack on a person during court proceedings after a use of force.

I know for myself public conduct and bearing has always been a consideration for anyone that I have sought training from as I sometimes think about would I want that guy to have to testify on my behalf and have his conduct be associated with mine.

Am I thinking too far into this in reality or did self defense claims just become a touch tougher for some because of his actions?

Honestly, it's probably not a big deal. If that came up somehow in court, your attorney on redirect and/or cross could help you establish the timeline that all the training with him predated those issues. Pretty unlikely that's ever an issue. I've only ever really seen past gun culture involvement come up in those cases where someone entirely lacks discretion (punisher backplate on duty weapon was one I saw from an officer and friend of mine, for which I really got on him about and he did change, or the whole "you're fucked" cover plate case). As far as I know LAV didn't do super gung ho training that an anti-gunner could really latch on to.

That being said, given that ongoing training is always a good idea anyway, if someone ONLY had training from LAV it might be worthwhile for them to schedule a class with someone good and credible, that way it could never be said LAV was their only source of training.

[BehindBlueI's]

If you’re worried about the prosecution bringing it up to use against you, how would they know you attended his classes?

Depositions on the civil side would be the most likely avenue, IMO. At least for LE, what training you've attended, what social media presence you have, etc. are pretty common questions IME.

That said, I wouldn't worry about it. Relevancy low, etc. as others have already stated.

[WobblyPossum]

Depositions on the civil side would be the most likely avenue, IMO. At least for LE, what training you've attended, what social media presence you have, etc. are pretty common questions IME.

That said, I wouldn't worry about it. Relevancy low, etc. as others have already stated.

I should have been more clear in my initial response. The point I was trying to make was how would the prosecution know to ask about your open enrollment training from a private citizen aspect? It’s 100% a typical thing for LE incidents but I don’t have much of a basis on the court system from a private citizen aspect. Is that something that’s now common for prosecutors to ask in depositions of non-professional gun carriers in a use of force trial?

[DocGKR]

[DocGKR]

A long long time ago, in another age, Dumpster used to offer some superb LE/Mil training--then he became LAV......

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Mas discusses this and references:

Defending the Self-Defense CaseBy Lisa J. Steele in Champion Magazine March 2007, Page 34

"The client does not have to be a clean-cut pillar of the community who carries a lawfully-owned firearm in order to qualify for self-defense, but it is helpful. Often, the defendant will need to testify in order to establish his subjective belief about the threat and need to respond defensively. This can be done through circumstantial evidence, but it is difficult.
Ideally, the client will also have some formal training in the use of deadly force which will allow the client’s teacher to testify about the client’s training in order to show that the client’s actions were subjectively reasonable. If the client has not had any formal training, counsel may still seek an expert to testify about use of force issues. However, the attorney may encounter difficulty showing that the expert’s opinion is relevant if it was not the basis for the client’s subjective decision. The attorney could offer expert testimony to show that the client’s actions were objectively reasonable. "

Also

https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/ima...ey_Booklet.pdf discusses how the defense dealt with Lacrry Hickey's training to present to DA and jury.

In addition, the defense team needed to counter the picture that Hickey’s accusers painted of him as a crazed gun nut. Initially, hoping to discourage prosecution, the defense team disclosed all the information they
had about firearms classes he had completed. “From day one we wanted
to avoid trial, so we disclosed all of Larry’s training, that he’s an instructor
who has taught all these people, he has been training all these years, and
he knows when it is proper and when it is not. We disclosed all that to the
prosecutor,” Messmer stresses.
They learned early on that they would have to take care to explain how
Hickey’s training led to tactical decisions he made during the attack. In an
effort to find the best strategies for Hickey’s defense, Messmer, Rosenbluth
and their team hired a Phoenix firm that puts on mock trials in which attorneys practice their presentations and watch the reactions of a test jury to
their arguments. “The practice jury said that Larry had too much training
and he should have known better. So how much we were going to get into
[his training] was always very difficult to figure out because it was absolutely
important to show Larry as this person that isn’t just out there with a gun
and doesn’t know how to handle it.”

Even if the defense had chosen to give only cursory mention to Hickey’s training, the prosecutor would have forced their hand at trial. He harped
endlessly on the various shooting classes Hickey had completed. “It worked
to our advantage in both trials because we disclosed all that to the prosecutor from Day One,” Messmer states. “In trial, the prosecutor went overboard
with that and he really disgusted the jury because he wasted their time,”
Messmer explains, relating how, like a broken record, the prosecutor asked
each expert and material witness about each class Hickey had completed,
what it covered, challenging why a private citizen would need that knowledge.
Messmer believes the jury eventually thought, “Get to the point. We
know that!” He adds, “It made the prosecution look bad because Larry was
getting training and doing his job and they were attacking him for that. It
blew up on them in the first trial, and they went back to it and it blew again
in the second trial. We knew they were going to bring it up, but it actually
helped us out.”

---------- Whether a LAV class is a particular vulnerability, I can't speculate but that stuff does come up, it seems.

[Outrider]

I should have been more clear in my initial response. The point I was trying to make was how would the prosecution know to ask about your open enrollment training from a private citizen aspect? It’s 100% a typical thing for LE incidents but I don’t have much of a basis on the court system from a private citizen aspect. Is that something that’s now common for prosecutors to ask in depositions of non-professional gun carriers in a use of force trial?

If you recall the George Zimmerman trial, Zimmerman had (relatively limited) training in firearms and martial arts. The people who provided the training were called as witnesses. I think the firearms training was from a friend who was (or had been) a LEO. He was a witness for the defense. The martial arts instructor was from a local gym where Zimmerman had gone for a few weeks. I cannot remember which side brought him in.

It is what it is. If you're involved in a clean shoot, they probably will not be looking at who your firearms instructor was years ago or if you took Karate in 7th grade. If you were involved in a questionable shooting and you trained with a fame-seeking youtube personality a few months earlier, that could be made into an issue by a prosecutor with an agenda.

With LAV, we should distinguish between his work and the person.

I have taken a couple of classes from him. It was time well spent. He knows his stuff. He was a good instructor. There's nothing he taught in the classes I attended that I would be worried about answering in court. If anything, he counseled discretion. I think he was like the other instructors who remind us every round sent down range in the real world has a lawyer attached to it. I think in some online postings or videos he has recommended not having Punisher type logos or similar "gun culture" stuff on guns intended for serious work. He was like Massad Ayoob in that respect. Don't give an anti-gun prosecutor anything that could make you seem like a dirtbag looking for an excuse to shoot someone.

Larry's conduct as an individual in this matter is disappointing. From what I have read, he knew what he was doing. He knew the rules and the risks. He proceeded and he got caught. These were unforced errors. It is a bad ending for a solid career. It is sad to have achieved so much and just throw it all away.

The whole thing is such a waste.

[BobM]

I should have been more clear in my initial response. The point I was trying to make was how would the prosecution know to ask about your open enrollment training from a private citizen aspect? It’s 100% a typical thing for LE incidents but I don’t have much of a basis on the court system from a private citizen aspect. Is that something that’s now common for prosecutors to ask in depositions of non-professional gun carriers in a use of force trial?

There will very likely be a very deep and detailed dive into any social media activity you might have. I’ve been doing some part time bailiff work since retiring. Earlier this year I worked a homicide trial and I was amazed at what the prosecution was able to find.

[Flashman]

Maybe it was the new Porsche?