Harrychristopher
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2020
- Messages
- 32
- Reaction score
- 106
Fifteen years ago I took a training class with the title of The Art of Concealed Carry. One half of the class time was spent on the finer points of small arms management and tactics during the employment of one's handgun of choice in a perceived self-defense situation. The other half of the class was devoted to the legal ramifications of choosing to carry a handgun in a concealed manner and what to expect the legal system reaction to be in the unfortunate event one did in fact have to shoot at another human being.
The legal information was presented by a criminal defense attorney who was experienced in the defense of citizens caught up in the legal entanglement of a self-defense shooting aftermath. He was a competitive shooter himself and had quite a bit of boots on the ground experience in this field.
One of the more eye opening points he made was that if you shot somebody in your honest belief that you were facing an imminent and unavoidable threat of death or serious bodily injury and the person doing the threatening had the ability, opportunity and jeopardy to carry out the threat then you should expect to face legal bills of at least $50,000 if the shooting was determined by the legal "reasonable person" standard to be an honest to God case of the necessity of employment of lethal force in an effort to save your life or that of a member of your family. He went on to say that if the police and prosecuting authorities believed that there was in fact anything "hinky" about the circumstances surround the underlining facts of the shooting situation then you should not be at all surprised to face a legal bill starting at $200,000 and quickly escalating from that point onward.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once stated that "courts are courts of law and not courts of justice.". The class defense attorney was trying to make the point that even if you were legitimately defending your life you should expect to pay a rather steep fiduciary price for the implementation and execution of your belief that you acted upon.
Mr. Grant Cunningham sent out a link this week to a article written by Mr. Greg Ellifritz:
The Gas Station Clerk | Active Response Training
Mr. Ellifritz is a LEO who also trains both police and citizens in the management of small arms. I found it interesting that in this article the $50,000 figure again raises its head as the entry level cost of involvement in a perceived self-defense shooting situation.
Even if you are completely right to fight for the life of yourself and family you will at the very least pay a measurable price for doing so. This again drives home the point that it really behooves one to practice situational awareness and avoidance when out and about in the public venue as well as in one's home. It seems to me that I would rather prefer not getting into a deadly force affray if at all possible as opposed to becoming another victim of a judicial system that really does not care whether my heart was pure or not.
Every individual has to appraise the costs that can occur in a self-defense situation and decide for themselves what they believe is the correct course of action to take in one of these incidents. This is another case of there not being a one size fits all solution to this situation. In the proverbial cold light of dawn the only opinion that really carries any weight is the one arrived at by the individual who will have to live with the consequences of that decision. In view of the severity of the potential penalties that can accrue from defending oneself it certainly would seem to merit some calm rational thought analysis on the part of one who has freely chosen to carry concealed on a daily basis.
Harry
The legal information was presented by a criminal defense attorney who was experienced in the defense of citizens caught up in the legal entanglement of a self-defense shooting aftermath. He was a competitive shooter himself and had quite a bit of boots on the ground experience in this field.
One of the more eye opening points he made was that if you shot somebody in your honest belief that you were facing an imminent and unavoidable threat of death or serious bodily injury and the person doing the threatening had the ability, opportunity and jeopardy to carry out the threat then you should expect to face legal bills of at least $50,000 if the shooting was determined by the legal "reasonable person" standard to be an honest to God case of the necessity of employment of lethal force in an effort to save your life or that of a member of your family. He went on to say that if the police and prosecuting authorities believed that there was in fact anything "hinky" about the circumstances surround the underlining facts of the shooting situation then you should not be at all surprised to face a legal bill starting at $200,000 and quickly escalating from that point onward.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once stated that "courts are courts of law and not courts of justice.". The class defense attorney was trying to make the point that even if you were legitimately defending your life you should expect to pay a rather steep fiduciary price for the implementation and execution of your belief that you acted upon.
Mr. Grant Cunningham sent out a link this week to a article written by Mr. Greg Ellifritz:
The Gas Station Clerk | Active Response Training
Mr. Ellifritz is a LEO who also trains both police and citizens in the management of small arms. I found it interesting that in this article the $50,000 figure again raises its head as the entry level cost of involvement in a perceived self-defense shooting situation.
Even if you are completely right to fight for the life of yourself and family you will at the very least pay a measurable price for doing so. This again drives home the point that it really behooves one to practice situational awareness and avoidance when out and about in the public venue as well as in one's home. It seems to me that I would rather prefer not getting into a deadly force affray if at all possible as opposed to becoming another victim of a judicial system that really does not care whether my heart was pure or not.
Every individual has to appraise the costs that can occur in a self-defense situation and decide for themselves what they believe is the correct course of action to take in one of these incidents. This is another case of there not being a one size fits all solution to this situation. In the proverbial cold light of dawn the only opinion that really carries any weight is the one arrived at by the individual who will have to live with the consequences of that decision. In view of the severity of the potential penalties that can accrue from defending oneself it certainly would seem to merit some calm rational thought analysis on the part of one who has freely chosen to carry concealed on a daily basis.
Harry
