Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Talk' started by Balrog, Apr 23, 2017.
I highlighted two words in the quote that I think point out the issue.
Both of those were covered in my class. In Texas, you can only carry open if you have a CC permit, and we covered where and when. We also covered what to do post-shooting: be the one who calls 911, don't have the weapon in your hands when the police arrive, expect to be handcuffed, don't make any statements other than to identify yourself and that you will make a full statement after you have talked to your lawyer, etc. Pretty much the same thing Massad Ayoob advocates:
1. Call 911
2. Officer this person attacked me, I will sign the complaint,
3. Officer here is the evidence (knife, gun, ball bat, whatever).
4. Officer these are the witnesses.
5. Officer you will have my full cooperation in 24 hrs after I see my attorney.
See I disagree with that.
IMHO you are better off showing some cooperation and giving a short statement
I didn't say don't cooperate. Full cooperation throughout. But don't give a detailed statement until you talk to your lawyer. In Ayoob's 5 steps that I quoted, the first four are sufficient to get you through the field interview. The in-depth will come with the investigators, and you need a lawyer by your side at that point in time. Actually, there should be six steps: step 1a should be added after call 911, and it should be call your lawyer.
Did you edit....or did I just miss the 6 steps and you mentioning Ayoob?
I agree with most of that except giving a statement to the responding officer....if you are only giving one statement give it to the investigator.
And most detectives aren't going to let your attorney be present with you in the interview.
The problem I see a lot is instructors having absolute zero background in lethal force encounters and are only regurgitating info heard elsewhere. Ayoob is an expert in the field and has the credentials and background to back it up.
For example, I know of one instructor who teaches to provide your identification and your CC permit but nothing else until you have spoken to an attorney.
I don't think they do. IMHO, many or most of the people against mandatory gun registration are against it because they believe gun registration leads to gun confiscation, not because it is mandatory. If that concern (confiscation) is a valid one, then the means by which the list is assembled makes precious little difference.
Now, if one is opposed to mandatory gun registration simply because they object to it being 'mandatory' and have no fears or concerns of future misuse of that list (for example, the newspaper that published the names and home addresses of registered gun owners in one state, which it obtained as 'freedom of information') then fine. But my understanding of the objections to gun registration has been much different.
As I am also of the opinion that gun registration always starts well and ends badly (Canada, Australia, Germany), I would not voluntarily list myself as a gun owner on a government-maintained list by obtaining a CPL. But to each their own.
I have never been completely happy with any CCW class I have been involved in. Most of the time it was the lack of professionalism that the instructors had. Some of it was the teaching for the written test and the inability of the instructor to present the material cohesively. I am sure there are good CCW instructors out there but to this point I have not met them. I will however say that my current firearms instructor is exceptional. Professional and knowledgeable with great credentials. He does CCW classes but they were not the ones I attended. As a firearms instructor myself he is a good role model and the one I follow.
My thing is if you want to teach something have a background in it first.
If someone wants to teach what a person should do after a lethal force encounter they need to have some experience in that field first.
Too many CC instructors teach what they assume will happen during the investigation when they dont know themselves.
Take the time and study some shootings...interview people who have been involved in them...sit in on some civil and criminal trials....etc...build a background into the subject.
this is my opinion on statements, feel free all to correct me if i am wrong.
the responding officer will try to gather as much information as possible. he may even be a little deceptive in his tactics. if you seem to be willing to cooperate and start talking he will try to get as much as possible from you. most people WANT to tell their story and start going on and on.
now what i learnt was that "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law"
you have no idea how the prosecution will twist anything and everything you say later in court.
the kicker is anything you say that you think will be in your favor..will not be allowed in court it will be deemed "here say". so if that is correct, everything you say that will hurt you will and anything you say that could help you wont be allowed in court.
best to give your name and feign emotional trauma and that you will cooperate fully later when your in the right state of mind. (ie when your lawyer is present)
Ok but realize by not giving a statement you run the risk of being arrested and held on a half million dollar or more bond.
In the state I live in we have 180 days to take it to grand jury after the arrest....so don't make plans
I think they should, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, I want to know that the person has had to demonstrate something of their ability to hit something they intend. Even the "hit the paper" requirement would disqualify some folks I've seen at the range. Secondly, I think people need to know the laws before they are allowed to carry. Those two points are societal. The rest (knowing what to do after using your weapon, etc.) is for their protection, and something they should want.
I've noticed that, too. I used to be against registration on principle - just a gut reaction. But when I thought about getting a CCW, I realized the idea of it didn't actually bother me. Not sure why, it just doesn't. Knowing that, I decided I apparently don't really care about registration.
For the first point, I'd just say I think the classes should be required in both cases. I know some folks justify the difference by the fact that we can see it if it's open carry, but that's a pretty small difference in a practical situation.
For the other, if they are simply repeating content they were provided by an appropriate authority, I don't have a problem with it. If they are answering questions beyond that content, they need some additional qualification for doing so.
My first CCW class was by a retired LEO. I suspect he was an instructor of some sort while an LEO, as well, because he was a good presenter, used good stories to reinforce points without wasting time, and was a stickler on gun handling during the qualification. Of course, his LEO background gave him the experience to be authoritative on use of force and other topics.
I guess I'm a little different.
Chart: Gun permit data accessibility in all 50 states | Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
This sort of thing doesn't make me happy. On the one hand, public records are public records. On the other, it is apparent that some people take great delight in 'doxing' citizens who legally own guns (states and cities which require registration) and carry concealed permit holders. I'm not up to be on that list. And that's setting aside the notion that historically, registration has led to confiscation. Let's pretend that never happens and say that I am not ready to have angry citizens pounding on my door to complain about my supposed gun ownership or carriership, etc. Nobody's business is what.
I have given back to my society in many ways. And that is all society gets. I don't ask for thanks, but I do require that my privacy be respected.
This is exactly what I've been saying regarding self defense for a long time. We have at least one guy on this forum with little to no experience actual experience, who purports to be experts in the field. It's nuts.
Based in this information, I do think she should have her license revoked and maybe even some jail time. She sure seemed to display poor judgement. Shooting out the tires?! Really? Wow. In this scenario I do not see how the property loss warrants her response.
Thank you for the added information.
Random thought... since you can't constitutionally restrict gun ownership to people who are educated in the proper use of firearms and the legal considerations involved,
...then wouldn't it be a good idea to mandate universal firearm education/training in our schools. If we live in a society where guns are widely available, it makes sense. You know, kinda like requiring a civics course. Or am I just nuts?
I like it. NRA would jump on a chance to support that as well.
Some schools have 4-H shooting sports (Skeet/Trap Shooting, Archery, Airguns) and teach a safety. Could help cut down on accidental shootings involving children as well.
Even if you don't own a firearm...you should still teach your kids basic gun safety because there is still the chance they come into contact or be around a gun at some point.
I like that as well Geezer. Firearms training is some thing that I believe very strongly in. As a firearms instructor I can honestly say that quality firearms instruction can go a long way to limiting tragedies. From knowing how firearms work, to how to properly carry them, to how to safely store them, etc. All citizens I believe would benefit from some basic firearms safety.123
Separate names with a comma.