Your Best Defense Is A Lawyer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, some folks do seem to get awfully passionate when it comes to discussing the caliber of their favorite handgun ...

I sometimes wonder if such folks have invested a similar amount of attention and interest toward the subject of choosing the caliber of their legal representation. :D
 
appreciates firearms just as much as I, but refuses to use them for SD for that exact reason I stated.
Click to expand...

This is a little off topic, but isn't a gun for life or death situations?
How could you refuse to use a gun in defense of your own life or your family?
I'd hate to have my last thought while bleeding to death on a sidewalk be "ya know, maybe shooting someone in self defense wouldn't have been such a bad idea".
 
Daryl

The point I was trying to raise was the importance of being aware of the legal ramifications following the shooting of another person either justified or not. I believe we all have the right to defend ourselves. But the decision to use lethal force does have legal consequences. To shoot, or not to shoot? That's a topic for a whole new thread please.
 
Mas Ayoob has written volumes on this topic.
A good lawyer is your best friend.]
Click to expand...

Aren't these contradictory statements? Get your legal advise from real lawyers who practice in your jurisdiction, not from a gunrag-writer/seminar-giver.

I get my legal advice from real lawyers, and I'd strongly recommend that others do the same. I can't believe some of the folks on here who live their lives making fear-based decisions. To actually be more afraid of taking action and facing the consequences, than acquiescing to some uncvilized savage is unthinkable to me.

The last think you need on your mind, if your life is threatened, is the legal consequence of your defending yourself. If you're involved in a righteous shoot, the odds are greatly in your favor of not being charged, and, depending on the jurisdiction, not being sued.

I have a problem with taking advice from somebody who's existed in the New England culture. They're just not like the rest of us, when it comes to s.d.!!!
 
Aren't these contradictory statements? Get your legal advise from real lawyers who practice in your jurisdiction, not from a gunrag-writer/seminar-giver.
Click to expand...

Ayoob has testified as an expert witness in the aftermath of many self defense incidents in many different states (and not just in New England). Many attorneys primarily defend guilty defendants and try to plea bargain them out -- they don't have experience with defending a self defense incident.

Ayoob never claims to be an attorney. And he won't claim to know the details of the laws in your jurisdiction. He is not a substitute for a competent criminal attorney. But he probably knows a heck of a lot more about self defense law than the lawyer who wrote your will.
 
I have a problem with taking advice from somebody who's existed in the New England culture. They're just not like the rest of us, when it comes to s.d.!!!

And which galaxy are you from? NH, VT, Maine - all have a reputation as pretty decent gun law states.

If you went to trial, you would need a good lawyer - but many plain old lawyers don't know the intricacies of gun usage. Don't you think writings like Mas have some informative value? Or is it better to rant.

The righteous shoot argument is just forum BS - if you are charged, someone thinks it isn't righteous. And there are plenty of cases with folks charged in SD incidents.
 
Gee, it sounds like a voice of reason is required here, before this thread turns into a full-fledged Ayoob bashing.

First, I am the guy who has started www.armedcitizensnetwork.org. I do have a law degree, although I have not taken any bar, so I am not an attorney. But, having said that, I learned about 10 times more about self-defense law from Massad Ayoob and the Lethal Force Institute than I ever did in law school. Law school doesn't teach any attorney about defending justifiable homicides, so if an attorney wants to specialize in that field, they have to take additional training, (such as going to one of the gun-rag writers seminars). Having worked with Mas for almost 20 years now, and being an LFI staff instructor, I can say with some authority that each and every attorney who has taken the LFI courses when my training company, The Firearms Academy of Seattle, Inc. sponsored the course, felt they got a lot out of the training.

Ayoob has even taught Continuing Legal Eduacation courses for attorneys, and his LFI training is accepted as such in at least one state that I know of.

And, Ayoob himself will be the first to tell you not to give any statements about your actions to the police after a shooting, and to get your attorney there to interact with the police.

BTW, there is a distinct difference between legal education and legal advice. Legal education incompasses principals of law, and is generalized. For our purposes here, it would include when and when not to shoot in self-defense. Legal advice is specific to individual cases, (like when you actually shoot someone in self-defense). I took four years of legal education, but receive no legal advice. Most every gun school in American addresses the legalities of use of deadly force, some do it better than others, but in my opinion, none do it better than the Lethal Force Institute, my own company included.

Marty Hayes, President
The Armed Citizen's Legal Defense Network, LLC.
 
It's amazing how many gun people talk about "sheeple" yet have the same wooly thinking.

The "sheep" says of the potential armed encounter, "That'll never happen to me! If it does, I'll worry about it then! All that matters is that I don't go looking for trouble."

And then someone smart enough to realize that trouble comes to us without us looking for it, smart enough to carry a gun and know how to use it, says of the predictable legal aftermath:

"That'll never happen to me! If it does, I'll worry about it then! All that matters is that the shoot was righteous!"

Same syndrome, just two different levels of the game.

When the street attack comes, you won't have time to go home and get a gun. That's why you carry one now.

When the legal attack almost inevitably follows the street attack, you won't have time to formulate a strategy; it's best to have already prepared yourself with one.

+1, by the way, for Armed Citizens' Network.
 
So what makes for the most "legally benign" SD weapon?

A shotgun?

38 SPCL revolver?

I have an 1858 Remington in the garage. If I shoot some hoodlum trying to rob me in my driveway, will I stand accused of being a cowboy?
 
I don't think the gun has too much to do with it. (Unless, of course it's a mac-10.. or something equally absurd or illegal).
The point of this thread is being prepared for the legal ramification of a shooting that someone may not find "justifiable".
The problem I'm having is how exactly to go about finding a good local lawyer for this defense.
I haven't checked out Mr. Ayoob's stuff (which I will), nor Armed Citizens Network (which I will), but I doubt they can hook me up with a lawyer in my hometown who can handle a case like this (maybe you can?). I doubt that very many lawyers in my area would be competent to handle something this important.
Do you go around to a bunch of attorneys and set up fake cases and ask how they would handle the defense? Then decide based on a book you read or something?
I know that may sound silly, but you see what I mean. How do you decide?
 
ProtectedbyGlock, you might want to check with your local police department's or sheriff's office union or fraternal organization (FOP, PBA, etc.). Ask them who they, and other police groups in the area, hire on behalf of wrongly accused officers. That attorney almost certainly has a leg up on the dynamics of gunfights, and is thoroughly familiar with applicable law and local caselaw.

best,
Mas
 
I don't think the gun has too much to do with it. (Unless, of course it's a mac-10.. or something equally absurd or illegal).
Click to expand...

I understand that being prepared with legal council is the main topic here (and I am prepared in that sense), but I'm thinking the lawyers might have a tougher time defending someone that utilized a Desert Eagle in .50AE as opposed to an S&W Model 36.
 
I haven't checked out Mr. Ayoob's stuff (which I will), nor Armed Citizens Network (which I will), but I doubt they can hook me up with a lawyer in my hometown who can handle a case like this (maybe you can?). I doubt that very many lawyers in my area would be competent to handle something this important.
Click to expand...

One of the benefits from the Armed Citizens' Network is that they will have experienced self-defense lawyers and knowledgeable expert witnesses available for their members' lawyers to contact immediately after an incident. What this means is, even if there are no experienced self-defense lawyers in your area (and if you live in a quiet area there might not be), you may simply find yourself a decent trial lawyer instead, and then the Network can put him directly in touch with people who do have the experience of defending self-defense cases to help him figure out the best legal strategy in your particular case.

Down the road, the Network will have an attorneys' referral list for members, a list they're building right now. But even before that is in place or is extensive, the members will benefit from having access to resources which will help them educate otherwise-good but inexperienced lawyers about strategies specific to self-defense cases. That's a huge value right there.

pax
 
Finding a Good Lawyer: 101.

Another question people always ask me is, "How do you go about finding a good lawyer?" And, I'm glad it was asked on this thread, because it's actually REALLY EASY to find a good lawyer! You just have to know how the business works.

As a general rule, you can find a good lawyer the same way you would find a good doctor: By referral from another person in the profession. When you go looking for a brain surgeon, for example, you do not simply look at an ad in the phone book. And, you'd be STUPID to follow some TV ad to the nearest brain surgeon in your area. No! If you wanted a good brain surgeon, you'd go to your family doctor (or one in your neighborhood) and ask, "Can you recommend a good brain surgeon?"

Lawyers work the SAME WAY! The best way to find a good criminal defense lawyer is to look up the phone number for a divorce lawyer, or a real estate lawyer, or a corporate lawyer, in your area. Call them first, and explain to them, "I'm trying to get a referral to a good criminal defense attorney in this area. I know that you are much more familiar with the legal practice in this area than I am, and I was hoping you could recommend someone." They will (usually) give you the names of at least 2 or 3 good lawyers in your town.

It's that simple!!!

Then, call the recommended lawyer, explain who you are and what you're into, and ask if you can come by their office and pick up a business card, in case you ever need them. Most criminal defense attorneys will be THRILLED to shake hands with you and let you have their card. After you get the card, follow the instructions in my previous post in this thread.

Remember: Shop for lawyers by referral from other lawyers!
 
"ProtectedbyGlock, you might want to check with your local police department's or sheriff's office union or fraternal organization (FOP, PBA, etc.). Ask them who they, and other police groups in the area, hire on behalf of wrongly accused officers. That attorney almost certainly has a leg up on the dynamics of gunfights, and is thoroughly familiar with applicable law and local caselaw.

best,
Mas"

Mas, I read some of your work and am familar with what you teach in your classes-great stuff. However, I am very skeptical regarding this use of an expert witness in non-leo self-defense shootings. The need for an expert in such matters is, in my opinion, very rare. Most such shoots are may need such experts are incidents between bad guys, i.e., such as drug dealer rippoffs, spouse/significant other shooting the other.

I would appreciate if you would explain in very general terms such cases that went to trial that you were involved in. Again, non-leo self-defense shootings that didn't involve both the shooter and victim involved in criminal activity or a relationship.

Note I have never read that you espoused otherwise.

But again, I just don't see these situations happening.

Also, I see alot of this notion you should have an attorney on retainer that will come down immediately upon your arrest.

Before you get the chance to reach your attorney, they will already have attempted to get a statement from you.

It is not like the movies, where you and your attorney meet with the investigators and discuss the incident. I am a practicing criminal defense attorney and your response would be appreciated. Thanks.
 
RR, in my opinion, the only person who needs to keep a criminal defense lawyer on retainer is a professional criminal. However, it doesn't hurt to know who you're going to hire if you're in trouble, and pay him or her for an hour of their time to explain to you the "mood of the courts" (which is largely the mood of the prosecutor's office) as regards defensive shootings in your particular jurisdiction. That's an entirely different thing from having one on retainer.

While not every case needs an expert, many do. Rules of engagement as generally taught and practiced; speed of action/reaction and similar paradigms (explaining why an attacker might have been hit in the back, for instance), explaining why a suspect might have taken multiple hits and still presented a threat, demonstrating how quickly the defendant might have been killed if he or she had not fired, etc. The only difference between civilians and cops in this regard is that the police generally have more of their own trainers who can be brought in by the defense as material witnesses to explain why the officer was taught to do as he did.

For you, or anyone else who's interested in how the whole expert witness thing works, I can recommend Adam Kasanof's book "How to be an Expert Witness" (Ulpian Press, Arlington, VA, 2006). Adam is an attorney, a retired member of the NYPD, and a gunfight survivor, and he learned at the knee of his father, the late Bob Kasanof, whom I worked with back in the '80s and who was one of NYC's great defense lawyers.
 
"While not every case needs an expert, many do."

Thank you for your response.

I have worked with many experts. There are many areas where an expert is used in a firearms case. For example, the last expert I used involving a firearm involved the type and firing rate of a small automatic pistol. Another area is whether the shot(s) caused the death etc. But the use of an expert to testify regarding whether the use of force, or the level of force used was justified involving a self-defense shooting? Leo shooting, not uncommon. But a civilian shooting??? Not a bar fight where one party was injured or a stabbing.

I am an active member of the criminal defense bar. I have many years of experience. I am a practicing criminal defense attorney. I receive notices of all criminal defense decisions in all of my State's higher courts. However, again, I have not seen what you see, i.e., many civilian self-defense shootings where an expert was used to give an opinion as to whether the force used was justified and or whether the civilian shooter's training with the firearm was called into question. Nor am I aware of many civil suits where the same issue was called into question, in fact I cannot recall a single case.

Again, I would appreciate if you would explain in very general terms such cases that went to trial that you were involved in. Again, non-leo self-defense shootings that didn't involve both the shooter and victim involved in criminal activity or a relationship. Cases where the civilian's use of force, or level of force used, or the shooter's training, was called into question. Thank you.
 
the ultimate battle field _ in a court of law
Click to expand...

You should fight just as hard in the legal system as you did for your life. But, the first step is always to be alive for the court proceedings. Don't be worrying about lawyers at the moment of truth.

Afterwards, "Officer, I was in fear of my life. Now I would like to speak with my attorney before I answer any further questions."

And that is coming from a police officer. I want to hear this response from a law abiding citizen and would honor his wishes immediately. Why, because the shoe could always be on my foot. Police officers have to fight for their lives in the courtroom just as hard as citizens. There is always someone wanting to find flaw in your deadly force decision.
 
Again, non-leo self-defense shooting...
Click to expand...
Curious about your reasons for limiting this to non-leo shootings. Are you of the opinion/does your experience show that LEOs generally have a more difficult time justifying their actions in court than non-LEOs do? I would have thought just the reverse.
However, again, I have not seen what you see, i.e., many civilian self-defense shootings where an expert was used to give an opinion...
Click to expand...
Given that you're drawing an LEO/non-LEO line here I'll continue in that vein.

Wouldn't it be highly likely that the reason an LEO would call an expert witness is because those resources are available to him at the department's expense and because the department has ready access to such resources while a civilian is unlikely to have either of these advantages?

Again, I don't really see the point of trying to eliminate LEO cases. Isn't it instructive to use those cases to see how an expert witness can be of benefit to a defendant?
I am an active member of the criminal defense bar. I have many years of experience. I am a practicing criminal defense attorney. I receive notices of all criminal defense decisions in all of my State's higher courts. However, again, I have not seen what you see, i.e., many civilian self-defense shootings...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how these cases are classified, but would they really be referred to as "self-defense shootings" when the defendant is convicted? I would think that in order to answer the question it would be necessary for an expert to review all the homicide convictions to see which defendants might have had a chance of prevailing had they had the benefit of expert testimony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top