Equipped To Survive Equipped To Survive® Presents
The Survival Forum
Where do you want to go on ETS?

Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#148110 - 09/09/08 04:07 PM Re: A couple of videos I saw today [Re: Doug_SE_MI]
Paragon Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 10/21/07
Posts: 231
Loc: Greensboro, NC
Originally Posted By: Doug_Botimer
I wasn't prepared to survive the legal battle that followed. I got lucky, and by serendipity, was socially acquainted with a good lawyer. I was also lucky to have the emotional and financial support of my employer and family.

Ignatius Piazza told me several years ago during a Front Sight 4 day defensive handgun course that the moment you use lethal force to protect your life or the life of another, plan on spending $50-$100k in legal fees to defend yourself in criminal and/or civil litigation. He also suggested that your past better be squeaky clean when you decide to pull the trigger, because any dirt that can be dragged up by a prosecutor/plaintiff's attorney most certainly will be.

I'm amazed anytime I see someone posting their latest firearm modification on the internet. The absolute last thing in the world that you would ever want to do while defending yourself in court for the use of deadly force is to explain why you reduced the trigger pull/throw, explain away the mall ninja cell phone photographs that you posted of yourself in the mirror with your latest tactical vest, or anything else that made it appear that you had bought a bunch of gear and were just itching to use it.

Jim
_________________________
My EDC and FAK


Top
#148190 - 09/10/08 05:06 AM Re: A couple of videos I saw today [Re: Paragon]
TheSock Offline
Addict

Registered: 11/13/07
Posts: 471
Loc: London England
I've given up explaining that on this site Paragon. People think by saying you don't have a gun purely to kill, you are advising to shoot to wound.
They repeatedly insiste on a public web site that one can only have a gun to kill people but are expecting a jury to believe they tried to disarm a burglar, only shot when they were forced to and stopped shooting as soon as he was incapacitated.
The Sock
_________________________
The world is in haste and nears its end Wulfstan II Archbishop of York 1014.

Top
#148212 - 09/10/08 01:07 PM Re: A couple of videos I saw today [Re: TheSock]
thseng Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 03/24/06
Posts: 900
Loc: NW NJ
Originally Posted By: TheSock
People think by saying you don't have a gun purely to kill, you are advising to shoot to wound.
They repeatedly insiste on a public web site that one can only have a gun to kill people but are expecting a jury to believe they tried to disarm a burglar, only shot when they were forced to and stopped shooting as soon as he was incapacitated.


I have no qualifications to comment on this but I just have to ask...

So, Mr. Sock, did you shoot to kill him?
No, not at all, I only wanted to stop him.
But surely you knew that he would be likely to die as a result of your shooting?
Well, yes, I guess so...
So, you only neeeded to stop him, but you shot and killed him, anyway? I rest my case, your honor.

--OR--

So, Mr. Sock, did you shoot to kill him?
Yes.
But why?
I didn't want to, but the only way left to stop him was to kill him.


I'm not a lawer or a judge, but I might be a jury member some day.

_________________________
- Tom S.

"Never trust and engineer who doesn't carry a pocketknife."

Top
#148223 - 09/10/08 01:27 PM Re: A couple of videos I saw today [Re: thseng]
Doug_SE_MI Offline
Newbie

Registered: 01/05/08
Posts: 35
Loc: Michigan
Great point Tom, and one my attorney made before trial. It isn't always what you say, but the way you say it.

Questioners, whether police or prosecutor will often try to get you to say something in a way that looks bad for you. In addition to the previous advise about having an attorney, remember, you control the questioning.

Take your time and consider each question. You can decline to answer the question as stated or ask for the question to be stated differently if it is loaded or misleading or requires you to give an incomplete and misleading answer. Don't argue, just state you can't answer the question that was asked. You don't have to answer yes or no to a question that requires explanation.... "I didn't shoot with the intention to kill, I shot for center mass to stop as I have been trained to..." "I fired two shots, as I've been trained, paused to reassess the situation and fired another shot as it appeared the attacker was still coming at me...." There will be lots of loaded questions trying to trick you into admitting something.

And when you have a prosecutor who is trying to fluster you or make you angry during cross-examination, like I did, it frustrates the hell out of them to have to slow down and restate questions so you can answer accurately and completely.

Top
#148227 - 09/10/08 01:44 PM Re: A couple of videos I saw today [Re: Doug_SE_MI]
thseng Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 03/24/06
Posts: 900
Loc: NW NJ
Originally Posted By: Doug_Botimer
You don't have to answer yes or no to a question that requires explanation

But on TV the attorney is always cutting off the witness and shouting "Just answer yes or no!"
_________________________
- Tom S.

"Never trust and engineer who doesn't carry a pocketknife."

Top
#148228 - 09/10/08 01:49 PM Re: A couple of videos I saw today [Re: thseng]
Jeff_M Offline
Addict

Registered: 07/18/07
Posts: 665
Loc: Northwest Florida
Originally Posted By: thseng
Originally Posted By: TheSock
People think by saying you don't have a gun purely to kill, you are advising to shoot to wound.
They repeatedly insiste on a public web site that one can only have a gun to kill people but are expecting a jury to believe they tried to disarm a burglar, only shot when they were forced to and stopped shooting as soon as he was incapacitated.


I have no qualifications to comment on this but I just have to ask...

So, Mr. Sock, did you shoot to kill him?
No, not at all, I only wanted to stop him.
But surely you knew that he would be likely to die as a result of your shooting?
Well, yes, I guess so...
So, you only neeeded to stop him, but you shot and killed him, anyway? I rest my case, your honor.

--OR--

So, Mr. Sock, did you shoot to kill him?
Yes.
But why?
I didn't want to, but the only way left to stop him was to kill him.


I'm not a lawer or a judge, but I might be a jury member some day.



I am a lawyer and a concealed permit holder. Fortunately, in my community, the authorities and jurors seem to grasp the basic concepts of armed self-defense.

If, God forbid, I am forced into a situation where my only remaining reasonable option to prevent imminent death or incapacitation by an attacker is the use of deadly force, my intention will be solely to stop the attack. I have no desire to harm anyone, much less kill a fellow human being.

But I already made a decision that I will defend my life, if forced to, with deadly force, when I decided to own and carry a firearm for self defense. If an aggressor's death is the tragic result of that, I will have to be be prepared to live with all the psychological, legal and moral consequences of my decision. But I will live.

I understand that the proper and accepted technique is to shoot center of mass, and to keep shooting until the attack STOPS. That's how I have been trained, and that's how I practice, and I pray that's how I will perform if my life ever depends upon it.

I deeply and sincerely pray that it never, ever, comes to that. But my decision is already made. I will live, for myself, for my wife, and for my family. A robber can have my stuff, a carjacker can have my car, a bully can insult me or push me around. If I can avoid using deadly force, I will.

But if I must, I will. Hopefully, the facts will be clear, the aggressor will survive, and my actions will be judged as legally and morally justified.

Jeff

Top
#148235 - 09/10/08 02:30 PM Re: A couple of videos I saw today [Re: thseng]
Paragon Offline
Enthusiast

Registered: 10/21/07
Posts: 231
Loc: Greensboro, NC
Originally Posted By: thseng
I have no qualifications to comment on this but I just have to ask...

The basic premise of the force continuum (force pyramid, etc.) be it for a LEO, a soldier, or simply an average law abiding citizen, is defensive, and only authorizes the use of as much force as is appropriate for a given situation.

Although it varies from state to state, the moral and ethical use of lethal force (or deadly force, or whatever it is termed where you happen to live) is generally authorized only when:
  • There is a real and immediate threat of death, serious injury, or sexual assault such that a normal person believes deadly force is necessary.
  • The threat must be otherwise unavoidable (except for "castle doctrine" exceptions that stipulate one need not retreat from their residence).
  • You must not have instigated the dispute (often may not apply to sworn LEO's).
  • You cannot use more force than is necessary.

Most jurisdictions actually define lethal force to be anything that is "likely to result in death or serious/permanent injury". Technically, most police departments consider striking someone on the head (or knee, or any other bony area) with an impact weapon constitutes the use of lethal force.

Even though there is a very high probability that a double tap to the thoracic cavity (or cranial ocular cavity for someone wearing body armor) will result in death, the intent is merely to stop someone's action. Whether someone lives or dies as a result of being shot should not be of any consequence whatsoever, so long as the immediate threat is stopped.

DISCLAIMER: Every situation is unique, and laws vary greatly from state to state, so do not rely on anything that you think that you know or understand regarding the use of deadly force without first consulting an attorney familiar with the laws of your particular jurisdiction.

Jim
_________________________
My EDC and FAK


Top
#148275 - 09/10/08 05:12 PM Re: A couple of videos I saw today [Re: Paragon]
Jeff_M Offline
Addict

Registered: 07/18/07
Posts: 665
Loc: Northwest Florida
Originally Posted By: Paragon
The basic premise of the force continuum (force pyramid, etc.) be it for a LEO, a soldier, or simply an average law abiding citizen, is defensive, and only authorizes the use of as much force as is appropriate for a given situation.

Although it varies from state to state, the moral and ethical use of lethal force (or deadly force, or whatever it is termed where you happen to live) is generally authorized only when:
  • There is a real and immediate threat of death, serious injury, or sexual assault such that a normal person believes deadly force is necessary.
  • The threat must be otherwise unavoidable (except for "castle doctrine" exceptions that stipulate one need not retreat from their residence).
  • You must not have instigated the dispute (often may not apply to sworn LEO's).
  • You cannot use more force than is necessary.

Most jurisdictions actually define lethal force to be anything that is "likely to result in death or serious/permanent injury". Technically, most police departments consider striking someone on the head (or knee, or any other bony area) with an impact weapon constitutes the use of lethal force.

Even though there is a very high probability that a double tap to the thoracic cavity (or cranial ocular cavity for someone wearing body armor) will result in death, the intent is merely to stop someone's action. Whether someone lives or dies as a result of being shot should not be of any consequence whatsoever, so long as the immediate threat is stopped.

DISCLAIMER: Every situation is unique, and laws vary greatly from state to state, so do not rely on anything that you think that you know or understand regarding the use of deadly force without first consulting an attorney familiar with the laws of your particular jurisdiction.

Jim


Well stated, and I concur, including the disclaimer.

Jeff


Edited by Jeff_McCann (09/10/08 07:04 PM)

Top
#148294 - 09/10/08 06:38 PM Re: A couple of videos I saw today [Re: thseng]
TheSock Offline
Addict

Registered: 11/13/07
Posts: 471
Loc: London England
Originally Posted By: thseng
Originally Posted By: TheSock
People think by saying you don't have a gun purely to kill, you are advising to shoot to wound.
They repeatedly insiste on a public web site that one can only have a gun to kill people but are expecting a jury to believe they tried to disarm a burglar, only shot when they were forced to and stopped shooting as soon as he was incapacitated.


I have no qualifications to comment on this but I just have to ask...

So, Mr. Sock, did you shoot to kill him?
No, not at all, I only wanted to stop him.
But surely you knew that he would be likely to die as a result of your shooting?
Well, yes, I guess so...
So, you only neeeded to stop him, but you shot and killed him, anyway? I rest my case, your honor.

--OR--

So, Mr. Sock, did you shoot to kill him?
Yes.
But why?
I didn't want to, but the only way left to stop him was to kill him.


I'm not a lawer or a judge, but I might be a jury member some day.



You'd have to be a pretty dumb jury member to fall for that twisting of what I said.
If I was asked 'But surely you knew that he would be likely to die as a result of your shooting?' I'd answer the truth: 'No I didn't. There are plenty of places in the centre of the body you can get shot without dying and that's where I aimed like the police recommended firearms course I took advised me to'.
To the question 'did you shoot to kill him?' I'd answer the truth: 'no, I shot to stop. As soon as he stopped I stopped shooting. See the answer to my your previous question as to whether he was bound to die by being hit in the main body mass'.
The Sock
_________________________
The world is in haste and nears its end Wulfstan II Archbishop of York 1014.

Top
#148306 - 09/10/08 07:46 PM Re: A couple of videos I saw today [Re: thseng]
Jeff_M Offline
Addict

Registered: 07/18/07
Posts: 665
Loc: Northwest Florida
Originally Posted By: thseng
Originally Posted By: Doug_Botimer
You don't have to answer yes or no to a question that requires explanation

But on TV the attorney is always cutting off the witness and shouting "Just answer yes or no!"


That's what cross or redirect examination is for, explaining and expanding your answers to opposing counsel's hostile questions with the friendly and intelligent guidance of your own attorney.

Jeff

Top
Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Moderator:  Alan_Romania, Blast, chaosmagnet, cliff 
April
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
Who's Online
1 registered (hikermor), 302 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
GaryF, PaulHarney, ghost, Delvis, NiceOldGuy
5335 Registered Users
Newest Posts
Tornado season, Tornado preps
by LesSnyder
1 second ago
Comfort items in your kit
by haertig
35 minutes 50 seconds ago
Mine vs. theirs - the Get Home Bag
by TeacherRO
Today at 10:43 PM
Why building your own 72 hour bag is better...
by TeacherRO
Today at 10:37 PM
Far sighted or Foolish??
by hikermor
Today at 04:29 PM
Youtube review of Seventy2 Pro
by M_a_x
04/15/21 11:31 AM
CB Radio. No, really.
by chaosmagnet
04/15/21 12:48 AM
Disposal Issues
by Tin
04/14/21 10:47 PM
Newest Images
Tiny knife / wrench
Handmade knives
2"x2" Glass Signal Mirror, Retroreflective Mesh
Trade School Tool Kit
My Pocket Kit
Glossary
Test

WARNING & DISCLAIMER: SELECT AND USE OUTDOORS AND SURVIVAL EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND TECHNIQUES AT YOUR OWN RISK. Information posted on this forum is not reviewed for accuracy and may not be reliable, use at your own risk. Please review the full WARNING & DISCLAIMER about information on this site.