Under responding to credible threats

[lklawson]

And this is part of why people under respond and hesitate even when it's clear action is needed. Has he ever represented a client who lost his job, life savings, house, family, and liberty for using legitimate justifiable use of force? I seriously doubt it.

Andrew Branca. If you google him, you'll mostly see his books but he's talked about some of his cases, in very general terms, on his webcast. I assume that you could probably look up his case record in the public records.

I'm not interested in what a defense attorney hypothetically thinks can happen in his zero risk, desk job mentally. None of that matters when you actually have a credible lethal force in front of you.

I'm not interested in defending him. He's capable of that himself. He's respected in several organizations specifically designed for legal defense in armed self defense law, which is sufficient for me.

The reality of what happens in the aftermath of lethal force incidents is almost universally misunderstood.

Armed, and often lethal, self defense, is Branca's niche.

I know a lot of defense lawyers who only understand how to represent guilty clients and know virtual nothing about legitimate self-defense. Part of the reason for this is that those legally using force almost never end up going to court. Which is good.

Funny thing is, Branca says pretty much the same thing. Apparently he lectures at the FBI and various law schools on exactly that subject.

There are a few other lawyers I know of who say the same things and are founders or founding members of organizations like Sean Maloney of Second Call Defense. The Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network has published some free videos which touch on it such as "Be the first to call 911" and "What to say and what not to say." available here: ACTV

In any case, it is a truism that no matter how justified the self defense action is, if you go to court there is a non-zero chance that you will be convicted, lose your job, life savings, house, family, and your liberty.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Jared Traveler]

Andrew Branca. If you google him, you'll mostly see his books but he's talked about some of his cases, in very general terms, on his webcast. I assume that you could probably look up his case record in the public records.


I'm not interested in defending him. He's capable of that himself. He's respected in several organizations specifically designed for legal defense in armed self defense law, which is sufficient for me.


Armed, and often lethal, self defense, is Branca's niche.


Funny thing is, Branca says pretty much the same thing. Apparently he lectures at the FBI and various law schools on exactly that subject.

There are a few other lawyers I know of who say the same things and are founders or founding members of organizations like Sean Maloney of Second Call Defense. The Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network has published some free videos which touch on it such as "Be the first to call 911" and "What to say and what not to say." available here: ACTV

In any case, it is a truism that no matter how justified the self defense action is, if you go to court there is a non-zero chance that you will be convicted, lose your job, life savings, house, family, and your liberty.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

He sounds great! Seriously. But there is a giant piece of the puzzle attorneys never ever see. I don't think it's wrong to consider an attorney's perspective, although most of them like the ones selling CCW insurance are of course selling a product.

 

[lklawson]

He sounds great! Seriously. But there is a giant piece of the puzzle attorneys never ever see. I don't think it's wrong to consider an attorney's perspective, although most of them like the ones selling CCW insurance are of course selling a product.

There's also the old saw that, "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride." There have been a number of high profile cases where the Defendant was proven to have acted legally and justifiably, as affirmed by the court, but still had their name dragged through the mud internationally, with court cases which cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. Their lives will never be able to be "normal." They beat the rap (by being determined to be not guilty by the court) but certainly didn't beat the ride.

This should also inform us when contemplating how to "respond to credible threats."

This is actually the whole point of the concepts of Justifiable Force and the Force Continuum.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Jared Traveler]

There's also the old saw that, "You can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride." There have been a number of high profile cases where the Defendant was proven to have acted legally and justifiably, as affirmed by the court, but still had their name dragged through the mud internationally, with court cases which cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars. Their lives will never be able to be "normal." They beat the rap (by being determined to be not guilty by the court) but certainly didn't beat the ride.

This should also inform us when contemplating how to "respond to credible threats."

This is actually the whole point of the concepts of Justifiable Force and the Force Continuum.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

You mentioned they were "high profile cases" and that's typically the issue. This is in my opinion a common things to confusing high profile cases with how things work 99.99 precent of the time. People don't see that, they only see headlines.

But regardless, one can make their own decisions on how to use force bases on what they expect to happen to them after. A lack of clarity on the probable outcome will like cause more hesitation. I certainly see that and know that it is a major reason for under responding to threats.

Convincing people how things actually work involves me combating deep entrenched misinformation. I suspect I'm not that powerful, so I understand most people believe bad things will likely happen to them after doing the right thing. Even if that conflicts with the vast majority of what I have actually seen happen.

 

[lklawson]

But regardless, one can make their own decisions on how to use force bases on what they expect to happen to them after. A lack of clarity on the probable outcome will like cause more hesitation. I certainly see that and know that it is a major reason for under responding to threats.

Or sometimes a clarity on what will happen, or rather what is believed will happen. The belief by police that, even if completely justified, that they would not be supported, would face unwarranted prosecution, and be the subject of national character assassination caused many to "under respond" or even ignore violence and crime; often now believed to be directly related to The Ferguson Effect.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Jared Traveler]

Or sometimes a clarity on what will happen, or rather what is believed will happen. The belief by police that, even if completely justified, that they would not be supported, would face unwarranted prosecution, and be the subject of national character assassination caused many to "under respond" or even ignore violence and crime; often now believed to be directly related to The Ferguson Effect.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

I certainly can agree that we are at a tipping point, where malicious prosecution is more of a viable concern. Will there be a backlash from this? I'm not sure. I think the key here is A. Know your "target size" and B. Know your city and county prosecutors.

I do think you will see a growing deveation between experiencing justice, based on what state or county you live in.

You make great points. However at the moment the truth on the ground is still in favor of those who justifiably use force. Based on supreme court rulings, state law, and city ordinances.

 

[Steve]

Or sometimes a clarity on what will happen, or rather what is believed will happen. The belief by police that, even if completely justified, that they would not be supported, would face unwarranted prosecution, and be the subject of national character assassination caused many to "under respond" or even ignore violence and crime; often now believed to be directly related to The Ferguson Effect.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

Ferguson effect has been pretty well debunked.

 

[lklawson]

Ferguson effect has been pretty well debunked.

So you claim.

This is where you post a bunch of stuff which isn't part of the conversation and no one but you seems to care about, generally stinking up the thread.

Here use this space: __________________________________________________________________

 

[Steve]

So you claim.

This is where you post a bunch of stuff which isn't part of the conversation and no one but you seems to care about, generally stinking up the thread.

Here use this space: __________________________________________________________________

You brought it up. And sure. I talk about things I care about. You don’t?

Your entire post was drawn from something that has been pretty well debunked by data.

 

[lklawson]

You brought it up. And sure. I talk about things I care about. You don’t?

Your entire post was drawn from something that has been pretty well debunked by data.

Sorry but I'm not interested in arguing with you. That's all you joined this thread for. I'm not interested in helping you kill this thread too.

So go ahead and do whatever it is your going to do. Thread's dead.

 

[Steve]

Sorry but I'm not interested in arguing with you. That's all you joined this thread for. I'm not interested in helping you kill this thread too.

So go ahead and do whatever it is your going to do. Thread's dead.

For pointing out that the thing you mentioned is probably not a real thing? I think you’re overreacting.