If a bunch of lawyers with no gun handling experience came on here and started telling people how to shoot, they'd get shouted down at warp speed. But when a bunch of gun guys with no legal training "teach" students about criminal exposure (a.k.a. "liability") issues related to self-defense, it makes more sense?
If the gear you used or the manner in which you were carrying it before a threat appeared has an impact on the decision of your guilt or innocence, you either (a) have the worst lawyer in the known universe or (b) were involved in an already questionable shooting. Most self-defense cases are very clear cut. An obviously justifiable use of lethal force doesn't get become manslaughter just because you were carrying DeathShok bullets or because you had a +2 magazine extension on your pistol.
Can you make things harder on yourself (read: more money paying your lawyer to handle more issues) by walking around town with a suppressed G18 rather than a j-frame? Yes. Will things drag on if you are known to walk around wearing a t-shirt that says "I can't wait to kill a minority!" if you shoot a minority during a mugging? Yes. Will any of these things matter in the end if the evidence clearly indicates you were justified in using lethal force at the moment you pulled the trigger? No.
(I am not your lawyer and this is not legal advice)
Bookmarks