View Full Version : "Disturbing Legal Trend with Firearm Training"
Good info and channel via two pro 2A attorneys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vXeUUEDpvM
In a defensive shooting, the brand of shoes I happen to be wearing will probably be used against me if it can.
While I appreciate legal advice, how I hedge my bets towards surviving a shooting will always take priority. A lawyers job is essentially to distort an event and present it with a preferred narrative and no matter what you do or don't do that will still happen.
Remember the Duke LaCrosse case, AG Mike Nifong had DNA results which exonerated the defendants and rather than present to a judge for acquittal, he suppressed the evidence. A lab worker had to bring that evidence to light and that kind of oversight rarely happens, most people just STFU and keep doing their job.
So if you defend yourself against some peaceful protestors who were trying to peacefully kill you and peacefully burn down your home, your background won't mean shit in court. If you have no training, you simply become and untrained killer who began shooting anyone and everyone without regard...if you have training...you are a trained assassin who has been laying in wait for the opportunity to kill anyone with even the slightest pretext.
That is the world and how it works and lawyer tactics change and evolve over the years which is why so many started getting training in the first place.
In a defensive shooting, the brand of shoes I happen to be wearing will probably be used against me if it can.
While I appreciate legal advice, how I hedge my bets towards surviving a shooting will always take priority. A lawyers job is essentially to distort an event and present it with a preferred narrative and no matter what you do or don't do that will still happen.
Remember the Duke LaCrosse case, AG Mike Nifong had DNA results which exonerated the defendants and rather than present to a judge for acquittal, he suppressed the evidence. A lab worker had to bring that evidence to light and that kind of oversight rarely happens, most people just STFU and keep doing their job.
So if you defend yourself against some peaceful protestors who were trying to peacefully kill you and peacefully burn down your home, your background won't mean shit in court. If you have no training, you simply become and untrained killer who began shooting anyone and everyone without regard...if you have training...you are a trained assassin who has been laying in wait for the opportunity to kill anyone with even the slightest pretext.
That is the world and how it works and lawyer tactics change and evolve over the years which is why so many started getting training in the first place.
Completely agree.
In a defensive shooting, the brand of shoes I happen to be wearing will probably be used against me if it can.
While I appreciate legal advice, how I hedge my bets towards surviving a shooting will always take priority. A lawyers job is essentially to distort an event and present it with a preferred narrative and no matter what you do or don't do that will still happen.
Remember the Duke LaCrosse case, AG Mike Nifong had DNA results which exonerated the defendants and rather than present to a judge for acquittal, he suppressed the evidence. A lab worker had to bring that evidence to light and that kind of oversight rarely happens, most people just STFU and keep doing their job.
So if you defend yourself against some peaceful protestors who were trying to peacefully kill you and peacefully burn down your home, your background won't mean shit in court. If you have no training, you simply become and untrained killer who began shooting anyone and everyone without regard...if you have training...you are a trained assassin who has been laying in wait for the opportunity to kill anyone with even the slightest pretext.
That is the world and how it works and lawyer tactics change and evolve over the years which is why so many started getting training in the first place.
Exactly. If you're forced to shoot someone, STFU and let your lawyers do their jobs. Just make damn sure your lawyers know their job is NOT to give the prosecution any information. Their job is to refute any derogatory information the prosecution claims against you.
The police are told by their union to not speak at all about any shooting until an attorney is there to speak for them.
Every civilian has that same right.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-14-22, 16:09
I've gotten to know a former prosecutor pretty well. He said the facts, the law, all that was fine. He pretty much knew which way a case was going to go based on how well he was able to pick (and predict) what jury (and juror) was going to do before seeing anything.
Kyle was an example of the cleanest mechanics of a shoot that you could get, an inept prosecutor- and there was one Biddy on the jury that wanted to hang him, and almost did.
Just owning a gun and having a CCW, let alone CARRYING IT (oh my!), makes you a vigilante and SOF-wannab in a lot of people's eyes.
Averageman
10-14-22, 16:26
I think this stuff might be regional, not accross the board.
Texas is still very conservative outside of Austin.
"I was scared to death. I thought him/they were going to kill me."
This is the only statement needed until your lawyer shows up.
I would be like... "can I get autopsy pics to post my ammo performance on M4C?"
"I was scared to death. I thought him/they were going to kill me."
This is the only statement needed until your lawyer shows up.
Probably still the number one legal advice to keep in mind.
"I was scared to death. I thought him/they were going to kill me."
This is the only statement needed until your lawyer shows up.
My lawyer has instructed me to not even say that much. One thing about training is that I've remained mum about it on social media and the forums for the last 8 years. Unfortunately I didn't make that decision until it was too late, so there's FB and M4C postings about my training 8 to 10 years ago. After that I just quit posting stuff about any classes I've taken.
"I was scared to death. I thought him/they were going to kill me."
This is the only statement needed until your lawyer shows up.
That's a good idea. You can be 100% in the right and unknowingly not describe the incident in your favor. It's not only what you say, but how you say it. A good attorney is supposed to listen to your account of the incident, then guide you through the interview.
You should try to have your attorney picked out before something bad happens to you. I suggest asking people you respect who they would hire to defend them in court. If the same attorney's name keeps popping up, that's good. If you know a civil attorney, ask them who they would pick for a criminal defense attorney. I also suggest paying close attention to the names of attorneys who defend people in serious criminal cases when you watch the news on television and read the newspaper.
If you do a little homework ahead of time, it will save you a considerable amount of heartburn later on.
Another thing you should keep in mind is that even with an attorney present, you are not required to make any statements at all. If you see hunger in an interviewer’s eyes, just shut it down and exercise your rights. You’re not “refusing to cooperate with the investigation”, you’re exercising your constitutional rights.
If you know for a fact that your attorney is making a big mistake, quietly disengage and seek other counsel outside the view of the investigators. Don’t get blinded by the fact that you’re represented, therefore your counsel is effective and going to give you good advice.
Trust me, I’ve been on conference calls where attorneys have effectively turned out their own clients and screwed any chance they may have had. :(
You should try to have your attorney picked out before something bad happens to you.
While I agree with you, it makes me wonder if having a lawyer squared away in advance, specifically for a self defense situation, might also suggest pre-meditation? I'm thinking folks with the various types of CCW legal "insurance."
OutofBatt3ry
10-14-22, 21:44
In a defensive shooting, the brand of shoes I happen to be wearing will probably be used against me if it can.
While I appreciate legal advice, how I hedge my bets towards surviving a shooting will always take priority. A lawyers job is essentially to distort an event and present it with a preferred narrative and no matter what you do or don't do that will still happen.
Remember the Duke LaCrosse case, AG Mike Nifong had DNA results which exonerated the defendants and rather than present to a judge for acquittal, he suppressed the evidence. A lab worker had to bring that evidence to light and that kind of oversight rarely happens, most people just STFU and keep doing their job.
So if you defend yourself against some peaceful protestors who were trying to peacefully kill you and peacefully burn down your home, your background won't mean shit in court. If you have no training, you simply become and untrained killer who began shooting anyone and everyone without regard...if you have training...you are a trained assassin who has been laying in wait for the opportunity to kill anyone with even the slightest pretext.
That is the world and how it works and lawyer tactics change and evolve over the years which is why so many started getting training in the first place.
"Something, something, Damned if you don't."
fedupflyer
10-14-22, 22:48
The police are told by their union to not speak at all about any shooting until an attorney is there to speak for them.
Every civilian has that same right.
Cops are also civilians....No matter what they think.
Coal Dragger
10-15-22, 03:42
I will continue to seek training when and where I can.
If don’t do social media, so a prosecutor would have a tough time using Facepage or Instatard accounts against me. I sure as hell wouldn’t volunteer any information.
The only issue I see with some training classes, is the usual group picture at the end which seems common with everyone all kitted out....who knows where the photos go
Some training I attended was one on one at my clubs range.... I thought about attending a larger class but have held off so far.
I don't do social media as well....but even going on gun forums can show up in a laptop search if warranted..I
The only issue I see with some training classes, is the usual group picture at the end which seems common with everyone all kitted out....who knows where the photos go
Some training I attended was one on one at my clubs range.... I thought about attending a larger class but have held off so far.
I don't do social media as well....but even going on gun forums can show up in a laptop search if warranted..I
You can opt out of those photos. I’ve been to several classes where members opted out. I’ve even been to one class that said you’d be out with no refund if you took any pictures at all.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Diamondback
10-15-22, 14:27
While I agree with you, it makes me wonder if having a lawyer squared away in advance, specifically for a self defense situation, might also suggest pre-meditation? I'm thinking folks with the various types of CCW legal "insurance."
That's why why our chomo insurance commissioner banned "prepaid self-defense legal help" here in WA... may Kiddie Diddler Kreidler eternally suck piss.
Averageman
10-15-22, 14:35
Motorcycles, Sports Cars, Guns.
Pick your poison, but it's nice to have some formal training no matter what you choose.
I swear Hayabusa translated means "Die GI Die" so many young guys buy these things and dont have a clue.
The police are told by their union to not speak at all about any shooting until an attorney is there to speak for them.
Every civilian has that same right.
The cops are ALLOWED a couple days before they get interrogated, you aren't given that luxury.
Coal Dragger
10-15-22, 17:28
Just don’t give a statement and ask to speak with counsel. They can go **** themselves on interrogation.
The video is worth a watch.
They explain that you will be questioned as to if you have training or not. If the answer is no, they go after you on that angle. If the answer is yes they'll get more details and go after you on the vigilante angle.
They are both familiar with a case where this worked against someone.
But it was someone with a mindset similar to sometimes you see on this forum: carried all the time with backups for backups, trained all the time for defense scenarios, etc.
They're not saying to never train.
This is more of an awareness thing that almost anything you do in either direction will be used against you should the situation ever arise. So act accordingly.
While it is wise to keep that kind of stuff off of social media, do not be naive enough to think that that would prevent it from coming out.
What is infuriating is we are talking about people with presumably a legitimate defense dealing with a district attorney who is going after them with any trick they can like you are a hardened criminal. Yet we know hardened criminals oftentimes are getting away with a wave of the hand.
By the way they are also familiar with cases for someone's military training/service was attempted to be used against them by prosecutors.
The video is worth a watch.
They explain that you will be questioned as to if you have training or not. If the answer is no, they go after you on that angle. If the answer is yes they'll get more details and go after you on the vigilante angle.
They are both familiar with a case where this worked against someone.
But it was someone with a mindset similar to sometimes you see on this forum: carried all the time with backups for backups, trained all the time for defense scenarios, etc.
They're not saying to never train.
This is more of an awareness thing that almost anything you do in either direction will be used against you should the situation ever arise. So act accordingly.
While it is wise to keep that kind of stuff off of social media, do not be naive enough to think that that would prevent it from coming out.
What is infuriating is we are talking about people with presumably a legitimate defense dealing with a district attorney who is going after them with any trick they can like you are a hardened criminal. Yet we know hardened criminals oftentimes are getting away with a wave of the hand.
By the way they are also familiar with cases for someone's military training/service was attempted to be used against them by prosecutors.
Indeed it is, and I wonder how many here commented on it without watching it.
The video is worth a watch.
They explain that you will be questioned as to if you have training or not. If the answer is no, they go after you on that angle. If the answer is yes they'll get more details and go after you on the vigilante angle.
They are both familiar with a case where this worked against someone.
But it was someone with a mindset similar to sometimes you see on this forum: carried all the time with backups for backups, trained all the time for defense scenarios, etc.
They're not saying to never train.
This is more of an awareness thing that almost anything you do in either direction will be used against you should the situation ever arise. So act accordingly.
While it is wise to keep that kind of stuff off of social media, do not be naive enough to think that that would prevent it from coming out.
What is infuriating is we are talking about people with presumably a legitimate defense dealing with a district attorney who is going after them with any trick they can like you are a hardened criminal. Yet we know hardened criminals oftentimes are getting away with a wave of the hand.
By the way they are also familiar with cases for someone's military training/service was attempted to be used against them by prosecutors.
Valid points. If the course you attended is strictly developing firearm techniques, it may or may not be an issue. If you attended training where there was classroom discussion about the use of deadly force, that may be in your favor.
When asked about your training, your defense attorney can get into what the instructors presented concerning use of deadly force. If you were taught that the use of deadly force is a tool of last resort, and you operated with that mindset, I would think that would be in your favor.
A skilled attorney with extensive knowledge about rules of evidence would have a good idea about what can and cannot be used against you in a legal proceeding.
Choose your attorney wisely.
If anyone has first-hand knowledge concerning a case in which how many rounds were fired is an issue, I would love to hear about it. Location, case cite, case number, and anything else you can provide would be greatly appreciated and would certainly merit discussion.
I haven't take a class in 10 plus years. So you can't sell the idea that I've been looking for an excuse to shoot someone. :cool:
Would it be considered a reckless act if you had the time, money and opportunity to attend training, but you chose to not attend any training?
Unscrupulous lawyers can twist any issue to show you in an unfavorable light.
Valid points. If the course you attended is strictly developing firearm techniques, it may or may not be an issue. If you attended training where there was classroom discussion about the use of deadly force, that may be in your favor.
When asked about your training, your defense attorney can get into what the instructors presented concerning use of deadly force. If you were taught that the use of deadly force is a tool of last resort, and you operated with that mindset, I would think that would be in your favor.
A skilled attorney with extensive knowledge about rules of evidence would have a good idea about what can and cannot be used against you in a legal proceeding.
Choose your attorney wisely.
If anyone has first-hand knowledge concerning a case in which how many rounds were fired is an issue, I would love to hear about it. Location, case cite, case number, and anything else you can provide would be greatly appreciated and would certainly merit discussion.
OK, but why? Why discuss it at all, with anyone, ever? If I feel like investigators are looking to hem me up regardless of what my answers are going to be, I'm NEVER speaking to them. If they prosecute me, I'm not going to give them one iota of information. Even if I mount an affirmative defense of self-defense, I'm not giving the prosecution any statements that may be used against me. I'm not giving them any documents or information. They can go fish. All I have to do is prepare my defense counsel for any information they may find, and how to counter their use of it in court. If I do my job correctly and my counsel does theirs, it's quite possible I might not even have to take the witness stand, even for an affirmative defense.
If we're doing what we're supposed to do on the street, we're practicing threat avoidance. If that fails and we have to shoot someone, the very next threat to our continued prosperity is wearing a badge. That's simply an unknown contact that we have to manage. The way to do that is make no statements beyond the fact that we've been the victim of a crime, we protected ourselves, and we need time to obtain counsel and make a statement at a later time. Arrest or not, no statements should be made beyond that baseline. Even once you have counsel and are ready to speak with investigators, it's best to communicate through your legal counsel with prepared statements. Don't offer any additional information beyond what is necessary. The more you say, the more holes you dig for them to run down into.
You don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you acted within the laws on self-defense before a trial. You just have to make a solid case that you more likely than not, acted within the law so as to avoid charges. If they're coming after you then nothing you say or provide is going to dissuade them. At that point they're your enemy and you should give them nothing at all.
I haven't take a class in 10 plus years. So you can't sell the idea that I've been looking for an excuse to shoot someone. :cool:Yes but you learned to read in kindergarten and waited until retirement to read certain books, so there is that angle they could use.
[/sarcasm]
OK, but why? Why discuss it at all, with anyone, ever? If I feel like investigators are looking to hem me up regardless of what my answers are going to be, I'm NEVER speaking to them. If they prosecute me, I'm not going to give them one iota of information. Even if I mount an affirmative defense of self-defense, I'm not giving the prosecution any statements that may be used against me. I'm not giving them any documents or information. They can go fish. All I have to do is prepare my defense counsel for any information they may find, and how to counter their use of it in court. If I do my job correctly and my counsel does theirs, it's quite possible I might not even have to take the witness stand, even for an affirmative defense.
If we're doing what we're supposed to do on the street, we're practicing threat avoidance. If that fails and we have to shoot someone, the very next threat to our continued prosperity is wearing a badge. That's simply an unknown contact that we have to manage. The way to do that is make no statements beyond the fact that we've been the victim of a crime, we protected ourselves, and we need time to obtain counsel and make a statement at a later time. Arrest or not, no statements should be made beyond that baseline. Even once you have counsel and are ready to speak with investigators, it's best to communicate through your legal counsel with prepared statements. Don't offer any additional information beyond what is necessary. The more you say, the more holes you dig for them to run down into.
You don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt you acted within the laws on self-defense before a trial. You just have to make a solid case that you more likely than not, acted within the law so as to avoid charges. If they're coming after you then nothing you say or provide is going to dissuade them. At that point they're your enemy and you should give them nothing at all.
I am referring to a court proceeding if the prosecutor brings up training.
I would be really surprised if a criminal investigator asked any questions pertaining to training.
Locally, I've never heard of a criminal investigator bringing up trigger pull weight on your firearm. An overzealous prosecutor might ask that the crime lab check trigger pull weight, but I've never heard of the issue coming up in questioning. I've heard other instructors bring it up as an issue, but no one can cite any applicable case law. The same goes for citing case law pertaining to the number of shots fired.
Yes but you learned to read in kindergarten and waited until retirement to read certain books, so there is that angle they could use.
[/sarcasm]
:D True. A classic case of a sleeper cell type vigilante.
Have you taken firearms training (lessons) ? Yes, Just like I have taken Golf and Tennis lessons.
The cops are ALLOWED a couple days before they get interrogated, you aren't given that luxury.
In FL, a law enforcement officer's rights is specifically codified under State Statute 112.532 Law enforcement officers’ and correctional officers’ rights (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0100-0199/0112/Sections/0112.532.html).
(1) RIGHTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION.—Whenever a law enforcement officer or correctional officer is under investigation and subject to interrogation by members of his or her agency for any reason that could lead to disciplinary action, suspension, demotion, or dismissal, the interrogation must be conducted under the following conditions:
(a) The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably at a time when the law enforcement officer or correctional officer is on duty, unless the seriousness of the investigation is of such a degree that immediate action is required.
(b) The interrogation shall take place either at the office of the command of the investigating officer or at the office of the local precinct, police unit, or correctional unit in which the incident allegedly occurred, as designated by the investigating officer or agency.
(c) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation shall be informed of the rank, name, and command of the officer in charge of the investigation, the interrogating officer, and all persons present during the interrogation. All questions directed to the officer under interrogation shall be asked by or through one interrogator during any one investigative interrogation, unless specifically waived by the officer under investigation.
(d) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation must be informed of the nature of the investigation before any interrogation begins, and he or she must be informed of the names of all complainants. All identifiable witnesses shall be interviewed, whenever possible, prior to the beginning of the investigative interview of the accused officer. The complaint, all witness statements, including all other existing subject officer statements, and all other existing evidence, including, but not limited to, incident reports, GPS locator information, and audio or video recordings relating to the incident under investigation, must be provided to each officer who is the subject of the complaint before the beginning of any investigative interview of that officer. An officer, after being informed of the right to review witness statements, may voluntarily waive the provisions of this paragraph and provide a voluntary statement at any time.
(e) Interrogating sessions shall be for reasonable periods and shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary.
(f) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under interrogation may not be subjected to offensive language or be threatened with transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action. A promise or reward may not be made as an inducement to answer any questions.
(g) The formal interrogation of a law enforcement officer or correctional officer, including all recess periods, must be recorded on audio tape, or otherwise preserved in such a manner as to allow a transcript to be prepared, and there shall be no unrecorded questions or statements. Upon the request of the interrogated officer, a copy of any recording of the interrogation session must be made available to the interrogated officer no later than 72 hours, excluding holidays and weekends, following said interrogation.
(h) If the law enforcement officer or correctional officer under interrogation is under arrest, or is likely to be placed under arrest as a result of the interrogation, he or she shall be completely informed of all his or her rights before commencing the interrogation.
(i) At the request of any law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation, he or she has the right to be represented by counsel or any other representative of his or her choice, who shall be present at all times during the interrogation whenever the interrogation relates to the officer’s continued fitness for law enforcement or correctional service.
(j) Notwithstanding the rights and privileges provided by this part, this part does not limit the right of an agency to discipline or to pursue criminal charges against an officer.
I attended numerous training and and out of my LE career and as John Q Citizen. I still attend training courses and keep a record of them. Why? Because it is to my benefit. It shows to any possible State Attorney's Office that I fully grasp the implementation and implications of the laws of FL and how they apply to me.
The thing is, I attend training. Not Gun Bro GWOT Fantasy Camp. Some of the training I attend is legal seminars to discuss legal issues. No range is necessary for that, just a pen, notepad, and a brain.
Averageman
10-17-22, 16:12
How can you win?
If you have no training you're a danger, because you don't have a clue how to handle a dangerous weapon, that weapon BTW might at any moment jump off the table and begin killing people. Your totally irrespoinsible
If you do have training you were preparing to take the life of _______ . A fine young Man who had just turned his life around moments before you appeared.
So, I would assume if questioned, you can not answer, which is your right. Or, you can attempt to explain it to a bunch of people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
You go to class to know how to read and write, drive a car, hopefully you were trained at your job, but we would rather you not be trained on how to use your firearm.
I hope I never have to shoot anyone, but if I do, I have no intention of sticking around for the fun and games afterwards.
I hope I never have to shoot anyone, but if I do, I have no intention of sticking around for the fun and games afterwards.
Make sure you pick up any shell casings, hope no cameras caught you, and leave no tire tracks/footprints. Hmmm, perhaps not the best advice but everything depends on the circumstances and location of your incident.... you may not have a choice of not sticking around for 'the fun and games afterwards'.
"I was scared to death. I thought him/they were going to kill me."
This is the only statement needed until your lawyer shows up.
Fear is not justification for deadly force in Texas (maybe it is in your state). This is why you STFU until lawyer tells you what to say, maybe even talk to them before any shooting so you will know the minimum to say. If you STFU, expect to go to jail. But many justified shooters who speak the minimum in Texas do not get arrested or charged. So see a lawyer for how it works in your state. And if lawyer does not tell you to refrain from posting about these topics on social media, get a new lawyer.
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-17-22, 18:49
That's why why our chomo insurance commissioner banned "prepaid self-defense legal help" here in WA... may Kiddie Diddler Kreidler eternally suck piss.
And other stars want mandatory insurance…. Not the same kind, but you get the idea.
Indeed it is, and I wonder how many here commented on it without watching it.
F them and their click bait title “Stop Training’. Sorry I took them at their word. Plenty of long titles on you tube videos. They could have called it “Watch out for the training trap”, something nuanced. But they went for an absolutist message STOP training. I read that title and know it is BS, I’d never use them as legal counsel.
Diamondback
10-18-22, 02:13
And other stars want mandatory insurance…. Not the same kind, but you get the idea.
And then they regulate it so it's liability only and can't cover mounting a civil or crim defense, and so expensive only the connected can afford it... if these human-shaped sacks of dogshit can't grab our guns by ban, they'll do it by making it too expensive to keep them.
The police are told by their union to not speak at all about any shooting until an attorney is there to speak for them.
Every civilian has that same right.
I'm not sure how many police shootings you've been in, but your personal experience does not match up with most of us wearing a badge.
You do have the right to remain silent if you are a suspect, no question about it. HOWEVER, if myself and any other cop shows up on a fresh shooting scene and you have a smoking gun with a dead guy by your feet, and you say "F you, I ain't saying nothing", you can expect to be booked into jail based on the scene and evidence that you shot someone for no apparent reason.
I don't think that is what you are saying, because in quote another person and agree you should state you were in fear for your life.
People need to understand they will be under stress, and will most likely be traumatized and possibly in shock. They also need to understand that giving a basic statement is probably in their best interest. Of course if the shooting was sketchy, or outright bad, lawyer up and hope you can make bail ASAP.
Diamondback
10-18-22, 16:17
I'm not sure how many police shootings you've been in, but your personal experience does not match up with most of us wearing a badge.
You do have the right to remain silent if you are a suspect, no question about it. HOWEVER, if myself and any other cop shows up on a fresh shooting scene and you have a smoking gun with a dead guy by your feet, and you say "F you, I ain't saying nothing", you can expect to be booked into jail based on the scene and evidence that you shot someone for no apparent reason.
I don't think that is what you are saying, because in quote another person and agree you should state you were in fear for your life.
People need to understand they will be under stress, and will most likely be traumatized and possibly in shock. They also need to understand that giving a basic statement is probably in their best interest. Of course if the shooting was sketchy, or outright bad, lawyer up and hope you can make bail ASAP.
Back to the Ayoob Standard Post-Shooting Speech, if I'm recalling it right: "Officer, that man attacked me. I want him arrested. I will sign the complaint. I will cooperate with the investigation, but first I request medical evaluation for shock and trauma and 24 hours after that to consult with legal counsel."
I have the summary:
Keep training. Scrape off those punisher skull stickers on your truck. STFU until you have your attorney. Done and dusted. See y'all at the range.
And then they regulate it so it's liability only and can't cover mounting a civil or crim defense, and so expensive only the connected can afford it... if these human-shaped sacks of dogshit can't grab our guns by ban, they'll do it by making it too expensive to keep them.
That is essentially what happened in Europe, only the upper-middle class, and above, regularly use firearms for recreation or hunting.
I have the summary:
Keep training. Scrape off those punisher skull stickers on your truck. STFU until you have your attorney. Done and dusted. See y'all at the range.
And the "**** You" dust covers. LOL.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.