How to lessen the chances of prosecution following a self defense shooting.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Radny97 said:
Semantics, but yes i should have said “you generally can’t be successfully sued.”
Click to expand...
So that little distinction is, to you, "semantics"?

To most of us, I think, that's more than semantics. "You can't be sued" means you don't have to go to court to defend yourself, you don't even have to hire a lawyer, because no lawsuit can be filed. That's a very different affair from "You generally can't be sued successfully," because the later accepts that you can be sued -- and, once we accept that we can be sued, we know we're looking at hiring a lawyer and racking up thousands, probably tens to hundreds of thousands, of dollars in legal fees --- and that's if we win the lawsuit. That sort of "win" is pretty close to a textbook definition of a Pyrrhic victory.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Pyrrhic victory

Pyrrhic victory noun

Definition of Pyrrhic victory

: a victory that is not worth winning because so much is lost to achieve it
Click to expand...

I would venture to say that's more than just semantics.
 
Are you a lawyer? Are you qualified to say what constitutes good or bad legal advice?
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer. But I know several who would jump at the chance to represent a paralyzed shooting victim who received medical aid from the guy who shot him.
 
AB, valid point. Touche.

However... I think people are missing the point by focusing upon how he specifically worded his statement and quickly just dismissing his advice. Obviously in America anyone can sue anybody for any reason. Given his position and experience, I can see where he may say "you can't be sued", as he knows it would get tossed out based upon existing law, past precedents, etc.. He may have assumed the firing line members might know that, which obviously quite a few don't.

No different than when I stated to immediately call 911 in an earlier post, people began dismissing my advice with the "what if", and "I don't have cell service", all valid questions, IF you are unable to think what the next reasonable steps would be. I should have specified if one didn't have a phone or good service, to immediately try to render aid and or get to an area where a call could be placed. That was my mistake, not being specific, as I forgot that in an open forum, it's wrong to assume that all forum members would have the common sense to know they should take reasonable steps, act in good faith, render first aid, make every effort to summons help, authorities, etc., etc. Obviously some don't. My bad.

I'm hoping most are just arguing Semantics and enjoying open debate, poking the bear, etc. That I get. :D

But if people seriously don't understand how or why they should make every attempt to call 911 ASAP, or attempt to safely render first aid, get help, show compassion etc., after a use of force encounter, then perhaps they shouldn't be carrying a loaded weapon. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Okay, I have to ask....now that I have finished my coffee...

Radny97

1. How long have you been practicing?
2. How many actual cases have YOU successfully taken to trial in defense of a man/woman who LEGALLY employed lethal force in defense of their own life or other innocents?
3. Of those (If any, because as of yet I remain unconvinced, based on your distinct lack of expertise in the field of lethal force and justification...not to mention actual self defense techniques), in what state(s)?

Since I retired from my career as an LEO, I get paid a not inconsiderable sum to advise, evaluate evidence for, and often testify for, by several attorneys who ACTUALLY do self defense work, and have written and presented CLEs with my attorney partner to other attorneys. I have taught at three different academies, private sector, and taught courtroom survival to armed civilians for over two decades. I have more than a little experience in this area.

You claim to have "just filed a suit in federal court this week". Cool, happy meal...but I "gots ta tell ya" that an attorney who splits his/her time between actual defense work, which should pay the bills if you're any good and "amberlampse chasing" and tort work is NOT the one I would want defending me against a traffic ticket, let alone a life and death matter where my freedom and the financial security of my family is at stake.

I'm just mentioning that my finely honed BS Detector as an LEO is going off like a fart alarm at a chili cook off.
 
"Since I retired from my career as an LEO", 

"I'm just mentioning that my finely honed BS Detector
PHP:
as an LEO" (Frisco)

So which is it, alleged active or alleged retired LEO? Or, should we assume you meant your "BS detection skills" were honed during your active years? Semantics? Your claims of being an retired LEO are just as open to skepticism and doubt as the OP claiming to be an Attorney. Do you want to post your credentials? For all we know, you are a retired Mall cop. No disrespect intended (and I DO believe you, just making a point ;)), but this is the internet and the FL. Why should the OP be doubted? We either take each other at face value, or we don't.
 
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca said:
So that little distinction is, to you, "semantics"?

To most of us, I think, that's more than semantics. "You can't be sued" means you don't have to go to court to defend yourself, you don't even have to hire a lawyer, because no lawsuit can be filed. That's a very different affair from "You generally can't be sued successfully," because the later accepts that you can be sued -- and, once we accept that we can be sued, we know we're looking at hiring a lawyer and racking up thousands, probably tens to hundreds of thousands, of dollars in legal fees --- and that's if we win the lawsuit. That sort of "win" is pretty close to a textbook definition of a Pyrrhic victory.


https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Pyrrhic victory



I would venture to say that's more than just semantics.
Click to expand...


This is America. You can literally be sued for anything, and no laws prohibit it. Someone could sue you for walking down the sidewalk. And you’d have to spend $20k defending yourself for a Pyrrhic victory. So yes, it is semantics.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
shurshot said:
But if people seriously don't understand how or why they should make every attempt to call 911 ASAP, or attempt to safely render first aid, get help, show compassion etc., after a use of force encounter, then perhaps they shouldn't be carrying a loaded weapon. :cool:
Click to expand...

Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Frisco said:
1. How long have you been practicing?
2. How many actual cases have YOU successfully taken to trial in defense of a man/woman who LEGALLY employed lethal force in defense of their own life or other innocents?
3. Of those (If any, because as of yet I remain unconvinced, based on your distinct lack of expertise in the field of lethal force and justification...not to mention actual self defense techniques), in what state(s)?
Click to expand...


1. 15 years
2. None. As stated above it’s not my area of practice. I do civil rights in federal court, real property litigation, and fights with municipalities. I also do some personal injury and tort work.
3. See above.

So yes, I’m very aware of the risks of liability and what judges and juries in my state do. I’m in court all the time. I appreciate that you do CLEs regarding self defense scenarios. That is interesting. I’d be interested if you’ve ever acted as an expert witness in either a criminal or civil trial involving a self defense shooting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Started my career in Tucson, AZ, 1988. Tucson PD from which I retired in 2008. I then moved to a department in northern AZ for an additional 7 years, 10 months, 14 days when I finally "popped smoke" and retired fully. My oldest son works for Phoenix PD. My younger son works for a smaller department in the valley.
 
Radny97 said:
1. 15 years
2. None. As stated above it’s not my area of practice. I do civil rights in federal court, real property litigation, and fights with municipalities. I also do some personal injury and tort work.
3. See above.

So yes, I’m very aware of the risks of liability and what judges and juries in my state do. I’m in court all the time. I appreciate that you do CLEs regarding self defense scenarios. That is interesting. I’d be interested if you’ve ever acted as an expert witness in either a criminal or civil trial involving a self defense shooting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Since I retired from my career as an LEO, I get paid a not inconsiderable sum to advise, evaluate evidence for, and often testify for, by several attorneys who ACTUALLY do self defense work, and have written and presented CLEs with my attorney partner to other attorneys. I have taught at three different academies, private sector, and taught courtroom survival to armed civilians for over two decades. I have more than a little experience in this area.
 
shurshot said:
"Since I retired from my career as an LEO", 

"I'm just mentioning that my finely honed BS Detector
PHP:
as an LEO" (Frisco)

So which is it, alleged active or alleged retired LEO? Or, should we assume you meant your "BS detection skills" were honed during your active years? Semantics? Your claims of being an retired LEO are just as open to skepticism and doubt as the OP claiming to be an Attorney. Do you want to post your credentials? For all we know, you are a retired Mall cop. No disrespect intended (and I DO believe you, just making a point ;)), but this is the internet and the FL. Why should the OP be doubted? We either take each other at face value, or we don't.
Click to expand...
Your BS detector doesn't "switch off" simply because you have retired. But, I have made it clear in this and other posts that I am RETIRED now. There is no "alleged about it".
 
Last edited:
Relax Frisco, I was just trying to make a point. Not actually questioning your credibility, just drawing a comparison between you and the OP, pertaining to credentials.
 
I know there's a term for it, but I'm not looking it up now...

Whenever someone shifts from arguing the subject to attacking their opponent (and that includes "your just arguing semantics") to me it is an admission that they realize they have lost the argument.

Semantics is the study of what words mean and how we use them. This is how we communicate so that both parties clearly understand what the other means.

When one side makes a statement, and that statement, is pointed out that it is factually inaccurate, as stated, the proper response is either an apology and corrections (pardon me, I misspoke, what I meant was...) or a complete challenge demanding proof of inaccuracy.

The proper response should never be "now you're just arguing semantics" because that is just one small step from the childish "no fair! I gonna take my ball and go home!"

It does not win the argument. It is, in fact a sign they realize that they have lost the argument, and just don't want to admit it.

I think a lawyer should know this. ...:rolleyes:
 
I haven’t really disputed the concern that rendering aid may not be a good self defense tactical decision. I understand the concerns over continued personal safety in the moment etc. I’ll leave that there as I’m not an expert on self defense tactics, and don’t purport to be one. I’m talking about reducing the chance of being charged or successfully prosecuted. That’s it.

I AM an expert on the art of persuasion in litigation and in courtrooms. And my opinion on the effect of rendering aid upon the perception of investigator, prosecutor, judge and jury remains unchanged. Other than foolish claims that you could hurt more than help, or be accused of trying to finish the person off, I haven’t heard a single cogent argument as to how attempting to render aid would not tend to persuade an investigator, prosecutor, judge or jury that you aren’t a bad guy, that you care for human life, that you would only defend yourself with deadly force if you had no other choice, and that you haven’t committed a crime. I’m right in this. Period.

I’ve been attacked on the self defense tactics, my credentials have been questioned, some comments have attacked me personally, and some comments have been unworthy of a response. The fact remains, no one has presented a viable contrary opinion that reasonably rendering aid to your attacker after having to defend yourself from him/her will greatly reduce the chances of charges being brought or a conviction being attained.

So, the contrary commenters having spent all their breath blustering over something that may seem anathema to the natural sentiments one might have after being attacked (i.e. rendering aid to the attacker) no one has been able to say persuasively that I’m wrong. Only that they don’t like it.

Well, so be it. I hope none of us ever have to find out. But if you do get into a defense shooting, maybe someone reading will try to save their attackers life, and in doing so may not only help a person in a dark place, but may also save themselves a lot of heartache, money, and maybe even prison time.

I’m not coming back to this thread. I’ve said my piece. I wish all of you the best, even those who lacked civility in their responses.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
If you could have just come up with any sort of actual evidence to support your points beside repeatedly pointing out how you are a lawyer and challenging others as to whether or not they are lawyers, you might have gained some credibility. Your various really bad tactics, unrealistic assumptions, and outright incorrect statements did nothing to help your position.

You seemed to be of the impression that people should listen to your opinion solely on the basis of your profession, even if that isn't your specialty within the profession. That doesn't fly when you deal with people who have real world experience, and apparently, a better understanding of many of the matters on which you blustered.
 
Last edited:
I wish I could bottle up some of the collective "Real world experience" on this thread for the cost of what it is truly worth and then turn around and sell it for what the owners of said knowledge THINK it is worth. :rolleyes: $$$

I could retire, purchase my dream house in Boca Raton and hire a full time housekeeper and Chef. :D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top