[answerguy]

Nearly every thread about self defense makes reference to the 'fact' that you will be sued if you ever shoot someone, even in a justified situation, and that it will cost you a minimum of $25,000 to defend yourself. I've yet to see any statistics showing any proof of this being true.

I recently purchased a handgun from an individual who had taken a CCW class from Ayoob and I was surprised when he told me he hadn't gone ahead and gotten his CPL. When I asked him 'why not?' he made mention of the "serious consequences" involved with carrying.

I finally put it together that Massad had 'scared' him out of getting the permit.

Why does he do this?

[Zundfolge]

Maybe its because his primary job is as an "expert witness" ... more law court cases/law suits, more work for him.

[CajunBass]

Perhaps because as an expert witness he sees those cases that do result in that type legal problems but not those that don't.

[Biker]

Say what you like about the man, but I've been sued twice and won both suits because of the advice I gained from "In The Gravest Extreme".


Biker

[another okie]

He's trying to get across the point that it can happen, though it won't happen every time. He's making the point strongly because there are so many people that have no experience with aggressive prosecutors and think that if they believed the shoot was good, so will everyone else.

[noresttill]

Is "In the Gravest Extreme" a book by Ayoob?

Jesse

[waterhouse]

yes, available by special order from amazon and I'm sure elsewhere.

http://www.recguns.com/Sources/VB3.html

It isn't just Ayoob who preaches this. . .my CHL instructor said that in Texas you weren't usually found civilly liable, but that just the lawyer fees and such averaged $18,000.

[Biker]

Yes, written in the early 80s.
Biker

[Rockstar]

Self-promotion of a layman dispensing legal advice. Just as simple as that. Ayoob potentially causes many more problems with his unsubstantiated drivel than he helps, should one actually become involved in an "event".

Believe what you will; grovel at his feet; beg to touch the Hem of his Cloth. I'll take my legal advice from real lawyers. :cool:

[Vex]

From my experience, some people get a CHL because they think it's a license to kill. These are not the types of people we want to represent other CHL holders. If Mr. Ayoob tells people they WILL get sued (and yes, it happens more often than not), and it scares the cowboy gunfighters back to Brokeback Mountain, then it saves face for other reponsible CHL holders. People who honestly understand the meaning of a CHL don't care about being sued after an incident, because to them they recognize the importance of being alive and broke as opposed to dead and rich. Furthermore, it puts the consequences of shooting too early into perspective, and will perhaps "scare" someone into resorting to other means of survival (i.e., peaceful conflict resolution, fleeing, calling the authorities, saying "i'm sorry", ignoring the problem, and/or not getting involved in someone else's argument/fight).

[answerguy]

(and yes, it happens more often than not)

What you said would mean to me that more than 50% of the time people will get sued when they use a gun to wound or kill in self defense. Again with no proof.

[answerguy]

Say what you like about the man, but I've been sued twice and won both suits because of the advice I gained from "In The Gravest Extreme".

Are those stories here? Can you provide a link?

[Guns_and_Labs]

Believe what you will; grovel at his feet; beg to touch the Hem of his Cloth. I'll take my legal advice from real lawyers.

Well, at least around here, the advice from a "real lawyer" is to act as if you know you will be sued and called upon to defend your actions in front of a gun-hating jury. This from one of the attorneys the cops call to defend their shooting incidents, but it sounds eerily similar to Mr. Ayoob. He also lectures at CCW & LE training classes.

As far as proof that it happens, I've yet to hear about a shooting, lawful or otherwise, that DIDN'T result in a lawsuit.

[massad ayoob]

Suppose I posed the question, "Why do Answerguy and the other people on TheHighRoad try to scare people by making them think they'll one day need to defend themselves with a gun?"

Your answer, I expect, would be a logical one: "Because we've seen, and some of us have experienced, cases where decent people DID need guns to survive criminal attacks."

My answer is exactly the same. A huge number of justified shootings, police and civilian alike, end up in unmeritorious lawsuits. Some also end up in unmeritorious criminal charges against the justified shooter.

The more an individual knows about how criminals operate, and how to defend himself on the street, the more likely he is to avoid a gunfight and if that's not possible, the more likely he is to win the gunfight.

The more an individual knows about how BS lawsuits and unfounded criminal cases work against those who fire in self-defense, the more likely he is to avoid going to trial and if that's not possible, the more likely he is to win the
trial.

Finally, people who are not prepared to face the aftermath may fear that aftermath so much that they hesitate in a moment when hesitation will get them or another good person killed. The person who knows what the aftermath will be, and knows how to handle it, is better prepared for the situation when force does have to be used.

It would be interesting if those who say I write about these things to increase my employment as an expert witness, would explain what they're talking about. Exactly how does giving advice on STAYING OUT of court get me hired for the trial...?

[Preacherman]

And in Mas' support (and as a proud student of his, multiple times - hi, Mas! :D ), let me assure you that felons in prison have an enormous amount of time, and vast legal resources, at their disposal to sue anybody and everybody they can think of. Thanks to Supreme Court rulings, we have to provide them with a law library, and there are many "inmate lawyers" - unqualified, but with twenty or thirty years' tort experience at their fingertips - who will be delighted to point out to them possible targets for a lawsuit. I've watched inmates spend four or five days a week, for years on end (and I mean that - YEARS!), plotting and planning and filing lawsuits.

They do, certainly, target those who caught them, and particularly those who hurt them in the process. I've seen them file multiple lawsuits, for astronomical sums in damages, against the private citizens who shot them, the cops who arrested them, the DA who tried them - even the court-appointed attorneys who represented them! They even target those who guard them in prison - one inmate I know filed a million-dollar lien against the home and possessions of a senior female executive at the prison because she wouldn't approve multiple requests by him, and he considered this "discrimination" and "harrassment". He didn't have to prove or win his case to file the liens! Needless to say, he didn't prove his case, and will doubtless suffer further legal sanctions as a result: but since he's in for life anyway, why should he worry? In the meantime, she had to deal with a whole bunch of legal hassles (not to mention the impact on her credit standing) before the matter was resolved.

You may be interested to know that whilst inmates and those under the criminal justice system (e.g. parolees, probationers, etc.) form only about 2% of the US population, they account for approximately one-third of all lawsuits filed in this country.

[answerguy]

Well, I'll tell ya, bro...

Hmmm... your name rings a bell.





Suppose I posed the question, "Why do Answerguy and the other people on TheHighRoad try to scare people by making them think they'll one day need to defend themselves with a gun?"

Your answer, I expect, would be a logical one: "Because we've seen, and some of us have experienced, cases where decent people DID need guns to survive criminal attacks."

My advice would be to carry because you might need it some day. That is different than what I am hearing that you will be sued if you shoot someone in self defense.

My answer is exactly the same. A huge number of justified shootings, police and civilian alike, end up in unmeritorious lawsuits. Some also end up in unmeritorious criminal charges against the justified shooter.
Could you define what a huge number means?


The more an individual knows about how criminals operate, and how to defend himself on the street, the more likely he is to avoid a gunfight and if that's not possible, the more likely he is to win the gunfight.

The more an individual knows about how BS lawsuits and unfounded criminal cases work against those who fire in self-defense, the more likely he is to avoid going to trial and if that's not possible, the more likely he is to win the
trial. No arguement there.


Finally, people who are not prepared to face the aftermath may fear that aftermath so much that they hesitate in a moment when hesitation will get them or another good person killed. The person who knows what the aftermath will be, and knows how to handle it, is better prepared for the situation when force does have to be used.
Not sure that I follow. How can I fear an aftermath that I'm not aware of yet?

It would be interesting if those who say I write about these things to increase my employment as an expert witness, would explain what they're talking about. Exactly how does giving advice on STAYING OUT of court get me hired for the trial...?
Again, no arguement there.

[answerguy]

let me assure you that felons in prison have an enormous amount of time, and vast legal resources, at their disposal to sue anybody and everybody they can think of. !

Is this an arguement to shoot to kill?:p

[orangeninja]

Just to toss my .02 in...........


CHL holders will be sued (most likely) during any use of force incident because an ambulance chasing lawyer will take money "only if they win" to take the case because of the huge payoff potential....then you have the anti's who are well funded and motivated and can't wait for the perfect case to make an example of.

If you think CHL holders are special, think again...cops get sued too, even for use of force incidents not involving guns and sometimes when no weapons are involved at all. I recently heard of a 200,000,000.00 lawsuit for a surgeon who was handcuffed too tight and claimed that he could no longer operate because his fingers would begin to hurt stemming from the handcuffs being too tight. You read that right....I wrote TWO HUNDRED MILLION!!! Of course I don't think it settled for that, but it did settle for more than a lifetime of my paychecks.

Lawsuits are a part of life, it's the new American "get rich quick" for the unethical....so if you draw a gun, get ready to be sued....but that aside, work it out ahead of time that you are willing to be sued for your actions.

Lastly, being sued does not mean they will win, but you will always lose. A "no fee if no win" lawyer adds a huge incentive to sue...unfortunantly the same doesn't apply for your quid pr quo defense lawyer who wants his cash, upfront.:uhoh:

[FPrice]

Well, I'll tell ya, bro...

(with apologies to MC)

A cheap pistol for CCW: $300.

One box of ammo: $10

Shooting when you shouldn't: Priceless (for the other guy).

Some people will never listen.

For everyone else, there's LFI-1.

Knowledge and training. Don't leave home without them.

[ctdonath]

I finally put it together that Massad had 'scared' him out of getting the permit.I've spent a lot of time learning from Massad. Read several books, took 5 courses.

To the primary question: Massad teaches, unabashadly, everything that can and will happen when you pull that trigger on someone, right or wrong. Bluntly, some people review all that material - killing another human, autopsy photos (and for some classes, actual autopsies), natural psychological reactions, legal consequences, lawyer fees, being Bubba's bunkmate, social expulsion, etc. - and honestly decide that they'd rather just be the victim.

It's not that he's scaring people into not carrying, it's that he's letting 'em know exactly what they're up against - and letting them make informed decisions.

Would you rather encourage someone to carry without knowing what the consequences will be (most don't), only to ultimately pull that trigger and have the reaction "oh :what:! WHAT HAVE I DONE???" as they look at the body and get hauled off to jail and hand over their entire estate to a lawyer?

Yes, you have decided carrying a gun is the right thing. Honestly, it's not for everyone. Let them make an informed choice.

[Tokugawa]

Preacherman- That 2% of inmates/paroles etc. being responsible for 30% of lawsuits- YIKES !

[tellner]

I'm not Massad Ayoob, just a very satisfied customer :)

Near as I can tell, part of it is to inform you what you might be getting yourself in for when you pull the trigger - personal, psychological, financial, social and legal grief. If you know all that you can make the decision and say "I knew that all of these bad things could happen. Awful as they were I still believe it was better than what would have happened if I didn't shoot."

[Pafrmu]

I thought if you were sued and the other side loses, they have to pay your lawyer fees.

Is this not true?

[Vex]

What you said would mean to me that more than 50% of the time people will get sued when they use a gun to wound or kill in self defense. Again with no proof.

Again, I included the words, "In my experience..." and not "Oh, I read on the internet somewhere..." :rolleyes:

[Tower.58]

FWIW: The official training standard from the State of Michigan for CCW training courses include the following:

IX. Demonstrate an Understanding of the Potential Civil Liability Actions That an Individual May be Subject to Subsequent to a Defensive Encounter.

A. Explains that if they use deadly force, they will be sued.

The complete file is at: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CCWObj725_10608_7.pdf.

[V4Vendetta]

"I thought if you were sued and the other side loses, they have to pay your lawyer fees. Is this not true?"


Let's say for the sake of argument that you are right. The guy whom you shot is in jail behind bars. He has no job. If he's in jail for life there is no chance of him getting out & getting a job to pay you back. Even if he does get out & gets some money, who says he's gonna pay it to you? He evidently doesn't care what a court says so the judge can decide in your favor until the cows come home but in the end, you still lose money.

[Tower.58]

oops somehow I posted this twice

[CraigJS]

In Minnesota:
611A.08 Barring perpetrators of crimes from recovering
for injuries sustained during criminal conduct.

Subdivision 1. Definitions. As used in this section:

(1) "perpetrator" means a person who has engaged in
criminal conduct and includes a person convicted of a crime;

(2) "victim" means a person who was the object of another's
criminal conduct and includes a person at the scene of an
emergency who gives reasonable assistance to another person who
is exposed to or has suffered grave physical harm;

(3) "course of criminal conduct" includes the acts or
omissions of a victim in resisting criminal conduct; and

(4) "convicted" includes a finding of guilt, whether or not
the adjudication of guilt is stayed or executed, an unwithdrawn
judicial admission of guilt or guilty plea, a no contest plea, a
judgment of conviction, an adjudication as a delinquent child,
an admission to a juvenile delinquency petition, or a
disposition as an extended jurisdiction juvenile.

Subd. 2. Perpetrator's assumption of the risk. A
perpetrator assumes the risk of loss, injury, or death resulting
from or arising out of a course of criminal conduct involving a
violent crime, as defined in this section, engaged in by the
perpetrator or an accomplice, as defined in section 609.05, and
the crime victim is immune from and not liable for any civil
damages as a result of acts or omissions of the victim if the
victim used reasonable force as authorized in section 609.06 or
609.065.

Subd. 3. Evidence. Notwithstanding other evidence
which the victim may adduce relating to the perpetrator's
conviction of the violent crime involving the parties to the
civil action, a certified copy of: a guilty plea; a court
judgment of guilt; a court record of conviction as specified in
section 599.24, 599.25, or 609.041; an adjudication as a
delinquent child; or a disposition as an extended jurisdiction
juvenile pursuant to section 260B.130 is conclusive proof of the
perpetrator's assumption of the risk.

Subd. 4. Attorney's fees to victim. If the
perpetrator does not prevail in a civil action that is subject
to this section, the court may award reasonable expenses,
including attorney's fees and disbursements, to the victim.

Subd. 5. Stay of civil action. Except to the extent
needed to preserve evidence, any civil action in which the
defense set forth in subdivision 1 or 2 is raised shall be
stayed by the court on the motion of the defendant during the
pendency of any criminal action against the plaintiff based on
the alleged violent crime.

Subd. 6. Violent crime; definition. For purposes of
this section, "violent crime" means an offense named in sections
609.185; 609.19; 609.195; 609.20; 609.205; 609.221; 609.222;
609.223; 609.2231; 609.24; 609.245; 609.25; 609.255; 609.342;
609.343; 609.344; 609.345; 609.561; 609.562; 609.563; and
609.582, or an attempt to commit any of these offenses.
"Violent crime" includes crimes in other states or jurisdictions
which would have been within the definition set forth in this
subdivision if they had been committed in this state.

HIST: 1995 c 226 art 6 s 15; 1999 c 139 art 4 s 2

Copyright 2005 by the Office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota.

Sorry for length
CraigJS

[Pafrmu]

Let's say for the sake of argument that you are right. The guy whom you shot is in jail behind bars. He has no job. If he's in jail for life there is no chance of him getting out & getting a job to pay you back. Even if he does get out & gets some money, who says he's gonna pay it to you? He evidently doesn't care what a court says so the judge can decide in your favor until the cows come home but in the end, you still lose money.

Touche!

Maybe the losing lawyer should have to pay. That would end these frivolous law suits pretty dang quick.

[beerslurpy]

Florida punishes felons who try to sue people. Takes away their priveliges, visitation rights etc.

[Old Dog]

It seems to me that if you regularly carry a concealed handgun with the expectation that you might actually have to use it in self-defense some day ... and you do NOT expect that you may well -- and perhaps even almost certainly will -- be sued in civil court subsequent to a shooting (no matter how righteous) ... that you must be living in a cave somewhere and are singularly incapable of understanding the reality of our current culture of litigation in this country.

Good luck. I fully subscribe to Mr. Ayoob's common-sense advice and have never found his writings sensationalistic in nature or in any way an exaggeration of what could happen to me should I have to use a firearm in defense of my family or me.

As an aside from another who works in the correctional field -- Preacherman is absolutely correct in his assessment of the lawsuits originating from our prisons. Frankly, if you ignore advice of the sort that Mr. Ayoob provides regarding lawsuits -- and you still blithely carry a firearm for defense, you should also continue to believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny.

[pax]

I recently purchased a handgun from an individual who had taken a CCW class from Ayoob and I was surprised when he told me he hadn't gone ahead and gotten his CPL. When I asked him 'why not?' he made mention of the "serious consequences" involved with carrying.

I finally put it together that Massad had 'scared' him out of getting the permit.

answerguy ~

Let me tell you about one of my range buddies.

A decade ago, she sometimes carried a revolver in her purse. She didn't know the law that and had never really considered the ethical or legal implications of actually using it to defend herself. She figured if anyone tried to rob her or even insult her, she'd just shoot him -- but she truly hadn't thought about what "just shooting him" meant. She hadn't thought an inch beyond pulling the trigger. She didn't know there was anything more to think of.

Then she took Ayoob's LFI-1 class. After the class, she put her firearm away and did not touch it again for several months. That's how badly the course shook her up.

She needed to be shaken up, because the beliefs she had going into the class were not solid. Her wrong beliefs about the law might have caused her to do something illegal. Her wrong beliefs about herself wouldn't have seen her through the aftermath of killing someone.

After listening to Ayoob, she realized how much she hadn't known, how much there was to think about. Then she needed time afterwards to consider and then come to terms with the significant consequences of carrying and perhaps using deadly force. She needed to count the cost and consider whether the cost was worthwhile to her. That was what she most needed to get out of Ayoob's class, and that's what she got.

Today, my friend faithfully carries her firearm just about everywhere she goes. She carries it on her hip (not in a purse), and she practices with it faithfully. She knows the laws and knows her own mind. She's far less likely to shoot unnecessarily, far more likely to be decisive when it's needed, and far more likely to shoot well if she shoots at all.

Will your friend be like that too? I dunno. I can tell you that soul-searching and counting the cost are both necessary steps along the road to becoming a truly responsible armed citizen.

I think that's why Ayoob does that.

pax

[bakert]

The possibility of being sued in civil court was stressed by the instructor when I took the class for carrying a concealed weapon. A number of police officers and their department in my city of Louisville have been sued in the last few years for shootings that were determined justified but questioned by minorities and anti gun people. You may not agree with Mr. Ayoob on many things but you had best heed his words on the possibility of being sued after a shooting whether justified or not.

[ctdonath]

I thought if you were sued and the other side loses, they have to pay your lawyer fees.
Is this not true?This is not true.

[depicts]

If all you learn from Massad Ayoob is to be aware of the possability of a lawsuit, and it makes you think about what you are doing, the price of "In the Gravest Extreme" is worth it.

I read it in the mid 80's, and recommend it to people all the time, even my lawyer when she was getting her LTC.

Even if 1% of us were subject to a civil suit due to a legal self defense shooting, it would be too much, maybe 50%, half, isn't a correct number, but do you want to risk your home, business, reputation and family on being in that 1%

Read the book. Read lots of books. When you start thinking you know it all, or more than anyone else, that's when you STOP learning!

Bill

[ctdonath]

She figured if anyone tried to rob her or even insult her, she'd just shoot him -- but she truly hadn't thought about what "just shooting him" meant.answerguy,

Think about that.

That's the mindset of most people. You've heard it before many ways. You know, they guy who says "whatcha gonna do, blow away someone for just cutting you off in traffic? or looking at you wrong?" THAT is the prevalent mindset about defensive gun use: kill for any reason, not a thought about the consequences.

Ayoob hammers the post-shooting facts home.
- Expect to be jailed. The cops will likely throw you in a cage until a judge figures out what happened & whether it was legal.
- Expect to be sued. You just terminated somebody's son/boyfriend/buddy/brother; they're going to view the situation differently than you did: both that you harmed someone they cared for, and that a good lawyer and dumb jury will strip you of everything you own & hand it to the plaintiffs.
- Expect to get hurt. The person trying to kill you may very well do part of the job; your emergency room & prolonged doctor's costs can be staggering.
- Expect to get mentally ****ed up. While some just shake it off as "he had it comin'; I did what I had to", most (as in nearly all) will suffer deep psychological chaos (likely traumatic).
- Expect to get mentally ****ed up. Yes it's worth repeating. Seeing half a body on the floor with half the head splattered across the wall won't do you much good - especially when you know YOU DID IT.
- Expect to be ostracized. You killed someone. Society doesn't like people who killed other people. They don't even like those who associate with people who killed other people - like your kids. And word gets around.

Most sane people, upon first being faced with the totality of post-shooting events, are likely to at least consider NOT carrying a weapon. It's a responsibility with consequences - and some responsibilities have consequences some people are simply not mentally equipped to handle.

Be informed. Unfortunately, being informed scares some people.

[GruntII]

Granted Ayoob has a personality cult that has grown up around him but so does Cooper and a few others. It's like this remember where Ayoob is based out of the North East, granted New Hampshire and Vermont are gun friendly but the rest of the area is at best gun tolerant and the worst down right hostile. As I was told by an instructor Ayoob teaches for the enviroment. Most the urban areas he instructs in you are more likely to be sued. I don't mind the philosphy because being liability aware does not automatically equeal less tactical awareness .In fact being liability aware helps remove any question marks that might be placed on your shoot. I beleive way too many people fail to take into account the unintended consequences of a shoot good or other wise. If your determination to take responsibility for your own safety is so weak because that an instructor who preached being liability aware scares you off from carrying then maybe you need to re examine the whole issue. You have a right to carry and I wouldn't take that form anyone but many never consider much more than buying the gun and a box of ammo. They then take the CCW course of their state and never take any serious training or attemtp to increase all their use of force skills. Ingnorance breeds fear.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

When I took my Texas CHL class in 2000, we were informed that out of 52 shootings involving CHL holders, there had been 51 no-bills (no indictment handed down) by the grand jury and 52 civil suits. At the time of the course, the defense costs ranged from $10k to $55k.

In at least one case, the long separated common-law wife of the dead bad guy, who had sought protection and restraining orders against him herself, came forward to sue the CHL holder for child support.

If you doubt this kind of stuff goes on, take a look at this link from the NRA Defense Fund. They discuss several cases of self-defense where they have aided the firearm owner against criminal and civil charges.
http://www.nradefensefund.org/docs/litigation.html

[ezypikns]

if you're the one being sued. Personally I'd rather be aware of the fact that I might be sued than not. It's not going to affect my decision to defend myself and my family if necessary.
Read Ayoob's book "In The Gravest Extreme". Carrying a firearm and being willing to use it is not cool, or tough. It's a terrible responsibility.

[Standing Wolf]

She needed to be shaken up, because the beliefs she had going into the class were not solid. Her wrong beliefs about the law might have caused her to do something illegal. Her wrong beliefs about herself wouldn't have seen her through the aftermath of killing someone.

Yep. I have a hunch an awful lot of us haven't thought our way through CCW.

I believe it's unfair to blame Ayoob for being the bearer of bad news, which seems to be that far too many assault lawyers are utterly shameless.

[CraigJS]

ez, +++++ to that!!

[Pafrmu]

Is there some sort of legal insurance you can buy to protect yourself?

[FPrice]

Is there some sort of legal insurance you can buy to protect yourself?

Probably some sort of liability insurance, just make sure that it covers shootings and such.

[ElTacoGrande]

In most cases lawsuits are business decisions. If the guy doing the shooting is broke, there's no reason to sue him. On the other hand, if the guy doing the shooting is a rich doctor (ie, lots of money but not much knowledge of how to defend himself in the legal system) then he would be an ideal target.

If the plaintif attorney takes this case it is usually "on commission" as it were, where he only gets paid depending on what he wins, and what he collects. They always do investigation of the defendant's assets before making a decision to go forward.

The other type of lawsuit is the revenge lawsuit. Those are just about revenge, not about money, but I doubt that the typical mugger has the resources to play that expensive game.

Anyway, none of this matters. If you pull the trigger at someone, you're going to be out a lot of money in legal fees. You'll need to start talking with a crim. defense attorney IMMEDIATELY, like right after you have made a very very brief statement to the police. Right there that's a $10k retainer probably. If it goes on to a grand jury (even if it's going to be a no-bill) you're looking at another $10k and up. And then comes the civil questions if any.

It's expensive!

You can't talk with the cops without the help of an attorney and that's expensive.

[Hawk]

Civil suits being the rule rather than the exception is what I recall from the TX CHL course as well. Big bucks.

You will get sued and the opposition will run with anything they can. No point in giving them more ammo, as it were, by disabling safeties or whatever.

But I do wish we could be more consistent.

In rattling around the forums I get the distinct impression that shedding a BHP's magazine disconnect is smiled upon benignly but tossing a 1911's series 80 or type II parts generates gasps from the horrified. Aren't they really the same to a lawyer on the charge?

But then, where do you draw the line? Kimber's owner's manual says don't carry with a round in the chamber, but "cocked and locked" is routinely advocated here. In direct contradiction with the manufacturer's (lawyered up, CYA) safety instructions?

I guess it's all playing the odds.
:confused:

[answerguy]

Expect to be ostracized. You killed someone. Society doesn't like people who killed other people. They don't even like those who associate with people who killed other people - like your kids. And word gets around.


You really think that is true? Afterall many of the people elected (or running for) POTUS have killed someone.

[TexasRifleman]

You really think that is true? Many of the people elected (or running for)POTUS have killed someone.

Killing someone in the line of duty while serving your country is hardly the same.
Unless you're showing more of your personality by suggesting something silly.


As for the topic, the last numbers I saw for Texas was about a 75% civil suit rate for self defense shootings by CHL holders.

I'd say that's "more often than not" as offered in another post.

"In The Gravest Extreme" gives you plenty to think about, and as a non-LEO carrying a gun, with the chances of being sued very high, you better be thinking a lot.

Does Mas seem a bit paranoid about the details? Yes. Why? Details are what kill you in a civil suit. Remember that the evidence rules are vastly different for civil suits and there's no "reasonable doubt" in most states, just "doubt". Hell I can spin all kinds of stories to put "doubt" in someone's mind. It doesn't have to be "reasonable".

His thoughts on ammo, for example, are widely debated. But, if there is a 1 in 100 chance of losing a lawsuit because you used handloaded ammo, do you want to risk being the 1? All it takes is some grandmother on the jury being convinced that you were a gun nut. Remember, they don't have to be "reasonable".

Unless you live in a state that clearly prevents civil suits against those that use deadly force to defend themselves, you'd best be armed with information as well as a firearm.

[Master Blaster]

Two reasons

1. he makes money off scaring folks so that they want to pay him big bucks for his training on how not to get sued.

2. So after he trains you and you get sued anyway, you cant sue him because he warned you repeatedly.

[GruntII]

Quote:
Expect to be ostracized. You killed someone. Society doesn't like people who killed other people. They don't even like those who associate with people who killed other people - like your kids. And word gets around.



You really think that is true? Afterall many of the people elected (or running for) POTUS have killed someone.



In many cases yes. There is a world of difference in killing by dropping bombs on someone or pulling a lanyard on a field piece. The politicos aren't looked upon as soemone who killed but in generalized terms of military service. Look how the people react when a cop shoots someone, sure ther eis a small minority who want to wait and see , who want maybe even to give em a medal, but there is a vocal group who immediatedly do everything to turn cops more evil than the bad guy. People will look at you differently, people will in many cases be uncomfortable around you because they just don't
know how to address the situation. Our society is a kindler gentler society than it once was, very few seriously consider the effect of being involved with or doing hard violence. Even here where we have people who have considered it to varying degrees from casual I got my gun to defend myself, to the people who put money time and sweat for training and preperation for this sort of thing. We realize there are monsters under the bed and it might take violence ot deal with them.Most of the grasseaters out there don't.

[RaetherEnt]

The root of the entire problem is the fact that the United States is home to 3/4 of all the lawyers in the world, and 96% of ALL lawsuits in the entire WORLD originate here in the US.

"Kill all the lawyers...except mine".

[answerguy]

Unless you're showing more of your personality by suggesting something silly.


Hah! Little do you know, I was born without a personality.

Killing someone in the line of duty while serving your country is hardly the same.

Killing a criminal that is threatening you or your family isn't far removed from a LEO protecting you with deadly force or from a military person using his 'kill or be killed' option.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

In rattling around the forums I get the distinct impression that shedding a BHP's magazine disconnect is smiled upon benignly but tossing a 1911's series 80 or type II parts generates gasps from the horrified. Aren't they really the same to a lawyer on the charge?

But then, where do you draw the line? Kimber's owner's manual says don't carry with a round in the chamber, but "cocked and locked" is routinely advocated here. In direct contradiction with the manufacturer's (lawyered up, CYA) safety instructions?

If it is a good shoot, neither of those should make a difference in the outcome. The problem usually comes when the opposing lawyer in a civil suit seeks to show everyone you shot the guy accidentally, regardless of whether it was true or not.

If you shoot somebody accidentally, your insurance coverage kicks in and they can get more money from you. If you shoot someone intentionally, that generally isn't covered by insurance. So any lawyer who is going to sue you in civil court has an interest in showing that you didn't really mean to shoot and it was only because of your negligent carry of the firearm in cocked and locked mode and dangerous removal of the magazine safety that you accidentally ended up shooting his poor unthreatening client and creating this fiction of being assaulted to cover it up.

Having said that, I carry a BHP cocked and locked.

[Lennyjoe]

And I carry a Kimber cocked and locked.;)

On that note, I am fully aware of the potential law suits should I have to defend myself with a firearm and shoot someone.

My life is more important than personal posessions so if I kill your criminal boyfriend, husband or whatever then so be it. You can sue me for whatever as long as I'm alive. It will cost me alot in defense funds should that occur but I'd rather be above ground than below.

98% of self defense is situational awareness. Know whats going on around you and how to spot trouble before it happens.


Is there some sort of legal insurance you can buy to protect yourself
That's a good question. WIll have to do some research on that.

[tulsamal]

Oklahoma is currently in a middle of a debate about a proposed new law. They are trying to pass a version of the Florida "stand your ground" law. And part of that law limits your liability.

That sort of law may well be the best we can hope for as CCW holders. Of course the media is always determined to make such laws sound like Dirty Harry in action.

Gregg

[ElTacoGrande]

In every lawsuit they look at many many factors. A disabled safety might not come up at all, or it might be central. These things can go so many ways. I also hear the same nonsense about "don't carry with handloads or you'll get sued." Maybe, but who knows what could come up in a suit. It could be anything: what the guy had for lunch even.

[halvey]

I also hear the same nonsense about "don't carry with handloads or you'll get sued." Maybe, but who knows what could come up in a suit. It could be anything: what the guy had for lunch even. :eek: Here we go again! :evil:

[Gunfire]

Oklahoma is currently in a middle of a debate about a proposed new law. They are trying to pass a version of the Florida "stand your ground" law. And part of that law limits your liability.

Georgia also has pending legislation.

I would be interested in Mr. Ayoob's opinion on the Florida law that provides protection from civil and criminal suits in a justified self defense.

[JMusic]

This is a big todo about nothing. Mas is right you shoot someone you will get sued. Probably not by the BG but by the family. Take it into contex though to evaluate the risk .What do you think your liabilities are driving a car, You have insurance or at least should have so the chances of being sued are high in an accident. Now what are your chances of an automobile accident compared to shooting someone to save your life?

People mistake wrong doing with suits. Thats not the truth, anyone can sue anybody for anything. I've been sued several times, never lost a one but still sued. That is the price you pay for living in the USA.
Jim

[Lennyjoe]

As is Arizona.

[albanian]

Ayoob is in the house! How cool is it to have Massad Ayoob in our forum? I want to say hi to Mr. Ayoob and I want to thank him for his great writing. It has informed as well as entertained many of us.

I was lucky enough to read "In the Gravest Extreme" when I was about 18 years old. That is when I first started carrying a handgun for self defense. Before I read the book, I had some pretty stupid ideas about carrying a gun for protection. I thought that it was "cool" to carry and I wanted to show and tell my friends about my gun. I was somewhat immature even though I have been around guns most of my life. After I read the book, it was like an eye opener. I looked at everything in a different light. I no longer thought it was cool to carry a gun and I never told anyone that I had a gun. I used to get into fist fights when I was younger but I learned to avoid a fight because I was carrying a gun. I learned one of the most important things that Massad Ayoob tried to get across in his book, that pride and ego are not what you want to listen to when you are in a situation that can quickly get out of hand.

I still carried a handgun for defense but my attitude was changed by the book. I hate to admit it but in some small way, I almost wanted to get into a gunfight or be able to use my gun. I can admit it now looking back but I see some older people that should have learned from Mr. Ayoob because they still have the Dirty Harry attitude that they are the good guy and they can do whatever they want to the "bad" guy.

I could ramble on and on because I am so excited to see Mr. Ayoob here but I will save it for another post. Just let me say that the value of Massad Ayoob is not in the techniques he teaches or the specifics about guns and ammo that he knows about, it is in his wisdom. There are probably people that kow more than him about shooting or are better shots. As far as I have seen there isn't a writer that gives as good advice as he does. You don't have to agree with everything he has to say but I think it would do most people some good to at least listen and here what he has to say.

P.S., I have a Massad Ayoob Spyderco knife that Ayoob designed and it is one of the most unique knives I have ever seen. Like Mr. Ayoob himself, unique.

[V4Vendetta]

Albanian, don't take this the wrong way, but if you suck up any harder you will inhale ayoob.:neener:

[waterhouse]

Oklahoma is currently in a middle of a debate about a proposed new law. They are trying to pass a version of the Florida "stand your ground" law. And part of that law limits your liability.

Anyone have any ideas about who we need to write to in Texas to get this sort of thing started? (Hopefully a specific legislator who might be sympathetic to the cause?)

[71Commander]

http://www.locktonrisk.com/nrains/selfdefense.asp




Join today.

[Hawk]

The problem usually comes when the opposing lawyer in a civil suit seeks to show everyone you shot the guy accidentally, regardless of whether it was true or not.

I hadn't considered a claim that an intentional shooting was accidental but find it all too plausible.

Cocked and locked certainly looks like an accident waiting to happen among the uninitiated.

The BHP mag disconnect would take an extra step: accidental shooting following accidental magazine insertion.

But chunking type II safety parts doesn't have anything to do with the weapon discharging, unless the plaintiff is claiming that the shooter played a bank shot off the sidewalk when the gun was thrown muzzle first on the pavement. I'm sure an attorney could paint the FPB removal as irresponsible but wouldn't connecting it to "accidental" be more difficult than with mag disconnects or condition 1?

Assuming "degrees of exposure" in litigation in re accidental discharge, wouldn't an FPB removal be the most difficult to imply, followed by mag disconnect, followed by "cocked and locked"?

Which would be the exact opposite of what one would glean from most gun forums where C&L is promoted, mag disconnects are "iffy" and mention of FPB removal almost guarantees a dozen warnings being posted?

You're undoubtedly right, and I'm likely overlooking how creative a plaintiff attorney can be, but it does seem to me that those items which cause the greatest angst in the 'smithing forum (FPB removal) are precisely those that would be hardest to sell a jury as contributory to accidental discharge.

Applies to commercial concerns as well: most gunsmiths I know will flat out refuse to remove series 80 parts, but will cheerfully bypass the BHP mag disconnect. Puzzling.

[YellowLab]

Better to be judged by 12 than buried by 6.

I was a COT for all of 4 months and I was listed as a defendant is a B.S. lawsuit by an inmate, in FEDERAL court. INMATES HAVE NOTHING TO DO EXCEPT GO TO LAW LIBRARY. When was the last time you craked open a journal of law to read up on the latest court rulings?

If nothing else they will 'settle' for a move to a new jail.... a 'Y' code (lifer) has nothing to lose by filing a lawsuit.

If you are training to an acceptable level, you reaction in a defensive situation will be that, a reaction. You should have ALREADY decided if you are gonna pull the trigger, or simply have a 3 pound paperweight on your belt.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

You're undoubtedly right, and I'm likely overlooking how creative a plaintiff attorney can be, but it does seem to me that those items which cause the greatest angst in the 'smithing forum (FPB removal) are precisely those that would be hardest to sell a jury as contributory to accidental discharge.

Except you and I know something about guns. If the plaintiff's attorney does his job, you can bet that there will be noone on the jury who will know the first thing about guns and probably at least one or two with some broad uninformed biases against guns.

If you are in an area where knowledge of guns isn't common (or even worse where what is passed down as heresay from people who own guns but know nothing about them is common), then the plaintiff's attorney doesn't have to strike too many knowledgable people to get a gun-ignorant jury.

At that point, it is up to your attorney and your expert witnesses to educate them on why those things don't make a difference - and you can bet the other side will be doing their best to obfuscate that point by playing on the emotional angle.

Despite all that, plaintiff's attorneys are rarely successful in making a good shooting look like an accidental shooting in civil court. Mostly they are less concerned about winning than they are with being enough of a nuisance that you settle. I think the main point here is not "Don't ever do anything that a lawyer might use against you!" The main point is to make people aware so they don't get blindsided by things they have never considered. Just understand it is a common enough tactic that you should be aware of it and decide in advance how much you are willing to change the way you do things to remove certain facts from the debate.

[F4GIB]

Self-promotion of a layman dispensing legal advice. Just as simple as that. Ayoob potentially causes many more problems with his unsubstantiated drivel than he helps, should one actually become involved in an "event".

Believe what you will; grovel at his feet; beg to touch the Hem of his Cloth. I'll take my legal advice from real lawyers.

Jealous are you?

I AM a lawyer. I also teach self-defense law to CCW classes. Ayoob is 95% correct and his speculations on the other 5% aren't much different from mine. He certainly has an "attitude" but he's good enough to make up for it.

I'd hire him as an expert in a New York minute.

[MillCreek]

As I have mentioned before on this site, I do insurance and liability for a living, on the defense side of medical malpractice cases, and have done so for over twenty years. I know most of the local plaintiff personal injury bar who do medmal claims. In making a decision to file a civil lawsuit for personal injury, most experienced plaintiff counsel first look at the amount of damages: are the damages high enough to make the case worth my time? Only after that do they look at liability and causation to determine if the case is worth further pursuing. Clear liability but not much in damages = most experienced counsel will not find it worth their while. Big damages and arguable liability = most experienced counsel will find it worth their while to pursue. In this context, damages are a proxy for the value of the case in monetary terms. Most of the plaintiff attorneys that I know will not even touch a medmal case unless the damages are in excess of $ 250,000, and for some of them, the floor amount has to be $ 1 million. This is because these cases are vigorously defended, and the plaintiff counsel has a pretty good chance of walking away with nothing if it goes to trial. So if the plaintiff counsel is going to roll the dice, it has to be worth it.

It is pretty much a given, in most areas of the country, that a healthcare provider or facility will have insurance that covers medmal claims. So a plaintiff attorney knows that there will be an insurance policy to tap into in a medmal claim. As I have also said on this board, for an intentional shooting, even in self-defense, there is likely no insurance coverage for a private citizen under your homeowners or other personal insurance coverages due to the 'intentional acts' exclusion in your policies. The plaintiff personal injury bar is aware of this, and knows that there generally will not be an insurance policy to tap into.

So for most of us, if there is no insurance, we are not otherwise wealthy or well-paid, and our assets such as a house, car and personal assets are either not worth much, or encumbered up the wazoo with mortgages or loans, why would plaintiff counsel contemplate suing us for personal injury in a shooting? As a business decision, and most plaintiff counsel are good businesspeople, it would not necessarily make financial sense. I could see a financial argument to do so if the shooter has a good job, is well-off or has lots of unencumbered personal assets.

Of all of these suits filed after a shooting, it would be interesting to learn how many of them are against a governmental entity, as opposed to a private citizen, and how many of them have the plaintiffs represented by counsel, as opposed to filing the suit pro se.

I emphasize that I am not an expert on this particular area of civil litigation, but from where I stand, most of these suits against private citizens would not make financial sense. There just is not a very big payoff potential, at least from the standpoint of available assets available to pay for any judgement or settlement.

[alan]

What some would describe as Mr. Ayoob trying to scare people, others would characterize as Ayoob making mention of what can happen, and the fact that if it does, it can prove expensive.

Readers are free to interpret for themselves.

[Warren]

He is not scaring people, he is educating people, many of whom have given no thought to the consequences of harming someone in self-defense, to the realities of the real world.

[GEM]

Hello, Mas - if you are still reading. I took LFI-1 with Preacherman. I was the guy with the broken arm.

Anyway, the info is well worth it and I've now read a great deal of the professional legal literature and the jury simulation literature.

If you don't think these factors are important and should be part of your knowledge base - you are deluding yourself.

Glenn E. Meyer PhD

[Templar223]

Hi Mas!

Yes, I'm an LFI graduate and learned a great deal there. Furthermore, I try to impart some of this training on my students.

Frankly, I like to let my students know what the potential ramifications of pulling the trigger are - and how they can be dramatically different than if they simply tell the bought-and-paid-for bad guy to "LEAVE!".

Sure, if you're lucky, you won't be sued or prosecuted if you shoot. You can't take that to the bank, so to speak.

It's not fair to the students to not tell them of the potentially life-altering things that can happen to them even if they are completely righteous in stopping an attack.

I'd urge "Answerman" to take LFI. I'm sure he'd learn a thing or two, at the least.

John

[answerguy]

He is not scaring people, he is educating people, many of whom have given no thought to the consequences of harming someone in self-defense, to the realities of the real world.

Scaring people can be necessary, educating people is desirable, encouraging people to think of the consequences is great.

But what I want are accurate facts.

If someone says "You will be sued if you shoot someone in self-defense" I want to see the proof that 99.9% of people who shoot in self-defense are sued. If someone says it will cost you $25,000 to defend yourself I want to see the evidence.

[Cosmoline]

Do a search. We had a very detailed thread about this several months ago, to which Mas contributed.

[albanian]

"Albanian, don't take this the wrong way, but if you suck up any harder you will inhale ayoob."

I'm not sucking up. Ayoob is one of the very few gun writers that I think is worth reading. 99% of what I have seen out of the gun rags is a waste of ink and paper. I always read and enjoy what Ayoob. He is heads and shoulders above most of the other writers in the gun rags.

Don't get me wrong, he is no Jeff Cooper. Nobody can compare to the profound knowledge of such a master as Cooper. His writing is at least two steps above what the average Joe Six-Pack in the local bar can do.:neener:

It just blows me away that some people here will slag off Ayoob when they haven't done 1% of what Ayoob has done. The net is a great place for arm chair cowboys and mall Ninjas to hang out. It seems that everyone here is an expert and has all the answers. It seems that so many people know the "Right" way to do things when they are sitting in front of there computer screen.

All I am saying is give the guy some respect, he deserves it a lot more than most. We are lucky to have people of his caliber on our forum and I want him to stick around so we can pick his brain.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

OK, here are a few cases from the first page of 395 returns. I have eliminated the ones involving on-duty police officers and one case where both parties were armed and stupid:

Kendzierski v. Carney, Slip Copy, 2005 WL 3482397, Ohio App. 9 Dist.,2005. - Bad guy tries to break into house of sheriff's deputy. Deputy warns BG; but he keeps coming. Deputy shoots and kills bad guy. Wife of bad guy sues in civil cour claiming husband wasn't really trying to break into home. Nationwide, the deputy's insurance company immediately filed saying "Hey not our problem. Neither deputy or bad guy is entitled to money from us." Trial court killed this in summary judgement. BG's wife appeals. Appeals court kills it again.

Alexy v. Stein, 16 A.D.3d 989, N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept.,2005. - BG breaks in through back door and attacks homeowner with vaccuum cleaner. Homeowner fires warning shot (with RIFLE!). BG keeps coming and homeowner kills him. Grand jury calls it a good shoot in criminal court. Parents of poor, misunderstood youth sue homeowner in civil court claiming their son entered house "for blameless reasons" and was shot dead by the bloodthirsty tyrant. Trial court grants summary judgement for defendant (good guy). Plaintiff (BGs parents) appeals. Appeals court upholds trial court.

Auto Owners Ins. Co. v. Grier, 593 S.E.2d 804 (N.C.App.,2004). - Business owner makes series of dumb mistakes allowing three men to steal money and keys from him. Business owner uses pistol to detain one of the men. Guy gets froggy and business owner shoots him in leg. Thief sues business owner. Business owner claims he meant to fire only a warning shot at trial and gets nailed for a judgement against him. Business owner then claims because he didn't mean to shoot thief, insurance company must pay. Business owner loses at trial court and on appeal and pays out money to thief from his own pocket.

Whitten v. Cox, 799 So.2d 1 (Miss.,2000). - Landowner is out with buddies. They have "assault rifles" and pistols. They spot a truck trespassing. Shots are fired by landowner. They drag the guys out of the truck and get tough guy with them while detaining them. The trespassers sue in civil court for false imprisonment and assault & battery. Jury awards them $80k in damages. Landowner appeals and appeals court says that damages should be reduced for his damages in trespass. They award landowner $10.

If someone says "You will be sued if you shoot someone in self-defense" I want to see the proof that 99.9% of people who shoot in self-defense are sued. If someone says it will cost you $25,000 to defend yourself I want to see the evidence.

Talk to a criminal defense lawyer and price out his services to get you through the grand jury (a la case 2 above). Now talk to the lawyer about handling your case through summary judgment to both the trial court and appeals court, along with discovery, depositions, expert testimony, etc. That should give you a pretty good case of what to expect even in a relatively clean shoot like #2.

[DavidBR]

Any responsible person that carries a weapon for self defense should be aware of the potential consequences. Yes, I have a CHL and carry, but that just means that I have made an educated decision. It also means that should I ever (G-d forbid) have to actually shoot someone in self defense I will have a better idea of what to expect and how to protect myself in the aftermath.

If you want documentation, you need look no further than "The Concealed Handgun Manual" by Chris Bird (Privateer Publications) in which Chris documents numerous self-defense shootings an their aftermath.

[Ryder]

I'm from the same area as anserguy and I do not expect to get sued either. I don't doubt there are places like that but our yellow pages are not filled with lawyers and psychologists.

People who can afford lawyers aren't the ones we expect to shoot. Their bereaved familys aren't any more likely to be rolling in the bucks either. There is no prevailing attitude of sympathy for badguys here. I don't see mention of any such lawsuits in our local news. If the badguy lives he goes to prison. Not too many people around here getting rich in prison to my knowledge. If he dies I won't pay for his burial (maybe the cleanup if it's in my house).

They must not be from around here answerguy :D

[trapperjohn]

Self-promotion of a layman dispensing legal advice. Just as simple as that.

Believe what you will; grovel at his feet; beg to touch the Hem of his Cloth. I'll take my legal advice from real lawyers

you obviously know nothing about civil litigation

Massad works as an expert witness in this field. Typically an expert educates the attorneys in many matters in a civil Suit. Massad has participated in more litigation involving self defence than most lawyers. heck he has participated in more than most 20 lawyers combined.

I know a little about this as I have worked as an expert in product liability in over 100 cases. anymore it is rare that I run into an attorney that knows more about the particular issues than I do. Yes they may be more familiar with particular state laws.

As a matter of fact, most attorneys will hire an expert before filing suit to get an opinion about the strength of the suit.

Before you so conclusively slam someone like Mr Ayoob for being a "layman" go learn a little bit about how the system works especially regarding Torts.

[dcloudy777@aol.com]

I also have to ask... if a person can be scared into disarmament by the threat of legal action, how well could they be expected to do in the face of an armed felon bent on doing them harm? I think Mr. Ayoob scares readers and students because he's writing or teaching about scary stuff. Taking responsibilty for the physical safety of yourself and potentially others is not for the faint of heart, and not a choice to be made without careful contemplation and self-examination.

Dan O
LFI- I graduate (Hi Mas)

[Professor Gun]

I think that Mr. Ayoob talks a lot about potential lawsuits and criminal charges related to justifiable shootings because: 1) He is trying to get people to realize all possible consequences of their actions while armed and hopefully be prepared for the worst, 2) he is being honest.

These possibilities cause me to be very careful about avoiding problems when I am carrying. My hope is that my pistol will always remain in it's holster because there will be no need for it to come out. But just in case things go really bad for me or my family, I have it and have already decided I will use it in that scenario.

[OldShooter]

My personal opinion is that there is FAR to much personal criticism going on here!

OK - some of you don't like Mr. Ayoob, and some of you do. But, that's not the point.

Carrying a gun is serious business. It's probably the most serious thing anyone of us will EVER do! Way above buying property, way above getting married, and way above thinking so highly of yourself.

Peace officers carry guns to stop crime. We carry guns for personal protection. Heaven help me if EVER, I have to kill someone to protect my self or my family.

Thank you Mr. Ayoob for helping us be more vigilant.

Regards,
OldShooter

[FPrice]

My personal opinion is that there is FAR to much personal criticism going on here!

For some strange reason, any post which mentions Mr. Ayoob at all seems to come to that. There are some people who can't separate the man from his teachings and opinions.

[Hypnogator]

Thank you Mr. Ayoob for helping us be more vigilant.

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! :D

[Templar223]

Answerguy says:

If someone says "You will be sued if you shoot someone in self-defense" I want to see the proof that 99.9% of people who shoot in self-defense are sued. If someone says it will cost you $25,000 to defend yourself I want to see the evidence.

Templar223 says:

Who says you WILL be sued, for sure? Show me the quote from Ayoob.

As for defending yourself, have you priced counsel lately? My lawyer has told me he will want $15K to defend just the criminal aspect of a shooting -- for starters.

I'm expecting at least that much for starters for representation in a civil matter, and given than most of the nuisance suits are so often settled for nuisance value after three or four years of court appearances, motions and continuances, I would expect 25K for legal representation to be the minimum.

Answerman: You don't seem to be the answer man to me.

Furthermore, Senior Member Ryder doesn't seem to get that people filing nuisance suits DON'T NEED MONEY to get ambulance chasing attorneys to file their junk suits in the hopes of settling for the nuisance value. That or he just didn't think that through before hitting his send button.

John

[Warren]

Look people, would rather have him tell his students that they won't be sued?


That there is no chance they will be sued, not even a little itty bitty chance of a lawsuit?

No?

Because that would be irresponsible, right?

So since there is a chance of being sued why not make sure his students know exactly the sorts of things that might happen after a shooting? One of these things is being sued. By being, maybe, a bit over the top with the issue he plants the idea directly into their brain. Hell, it is mine and I 've never taken his class.

When he speaks of this what is subliminanally being said is "Be responsible Be Responsible" over and over again. It's like doing multiple reps of a shooting drill until you get it, he makes sure his students get it and that anyone that does not is essentially unreachable.


Many many times on THR I've read that if I shoot someone I WILL spend some time in the local jail regardless of how the shoot looks. Are the people who say this just scaring me for their own benefit? No they are doing to mak sure people know what could, but may not always, happen after a shoot.


That is all Ayoob is doing: making sure people understand what could happen and to conduct themselves accordingly.


As soon as I am able I'll be taking a lot of classes and LFI will be on the schedule.


For some reason some of you have a big hate on for this guy, but I am 99.9999% certain I'll learn more about how to handle a stressful (shooting or apres shooting) situation from him in a weekend than I would learn from you in a lifetime.

[GEM]

Louis Pasteur said something like:

Chance favors the prepared mind.

Mas' classes and writings are part of being prepared. Many training classes clearly stress all the legal aspects as being quite important.

[Rockstar]

trapperjohn: Obviously, I think your assessment of Ayoob's abilities is incorrect; however, I would be interested in knowing the ACTUAL number of cases in which Ayoob has testified. Do you have that information. How about the ACTUAL number in which the shooter wasn't l.e.?

I don't think you'll find the numbers to be significant. And yes, I do know a little something about civil litigation, and yes, I do believe that I've probably been in court more than has Ayoob.

[trapperjohn]

I am unaware of the actual number of cases. I am under the impression it is a significant numbermeasuerd in 10s or more likely 100's.

How many self defense shooting cases do you think the typical lawyer has benn involved in ? I am sure that 99% of the attorneys out there have had a number of cases, if any, that could be counted on one hand.
If that is true, than Mr Ayoob has been involved with a number of cases that are an order of magnitude or more than your typical lawyer.

Do you know what a lawyer does when he takes a case of a nature he has not doen before? He pulls out the relevant law and reads it. Yes it is in English. anyone with an education can read it. Anyone who tesitifies as an expert will become educated on the pertanant laws in the state in which he is retained.
I challenge you to find one attorney that has handled more self defense cases than MAssad Ayoob has handled, Heck I challenge you to find one that has handled half that number.

I have no stock in Mr Ayoob, I havent read his books (just some of his articles). I just think you need to stop bowing down to people simply because they have a law degree rather than real experiance in a courtroom setting with a case that is relavant to the topic of self defence.

[Carl N. Brown]

The old saw goes "I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."

But some folks don't seem to go far into what "being judged by 12" means.

It means spending time in court. And money on lawyer(s) or hoping
for a good public defender.

In a case of justifiable homicide, I have been told to expect an initial
charge of voluntary manslaughter until the case is adjudicated. Even
if the police investigator believes you were justified.

Adjudication can occur at several levels: the district attorney, the
grand jury, the judge, the trial jury. Every step means time and money.

And winning in criminal court may be easier than winning in civil court,
based on jurisdiction. Tennessee has a law that a person perpetrating or
attempting to perpetrate a felony on the property of another person
has no grounds to sue for accidental or intentional injury as a result of
perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate felony.

Why does Massad Ayoob try to scare people about potential law suits?

Massad Ayoob wants people to be aware of potential law suits because
they do occur with significant frequency and can be devestating or at
least as annoying as some of Ayoob's critics. Beating a frivolous lawsuit
still takes time and money.

Self defense is serious, it is life or death. I have read Ayoob advising
people to be aware of the dangers and to act responsibly; I do not
consider that scaring people.

[halvey]

Because it sells books.

[cavman]

You've done the deed. Justified self defense. Now someone wants to take you to Civil court. Can one counter sue?

There is a lot of talk of how traumatic the shooting is to the good guy. That mental suffering and anxiety should be worth at least the $$ that BG/BG's relatives are forcing you to shell out in Civil court lawyer's fees.

It's not your fault that someone put your life in jeopardy, and you needed to do what was required to get out of harm's way. But along the way you have suffered from the consequences of your actions, too. Mental anguish ect.


cavman

[pax]

"Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six."

Personally, I intend to survive first, and to stay out of court afterwards if I can. And I want as many tools as possible to help me do that.

Step one: survive the gunfight.

Step two: survive the legal issues.

If I ever need to defend myself, I intend to do both.

pax

That's the first step. First we get you out of the hands of the six pallbearers. Then we need to get you out of the hands of the twelve jurors. You want to keep the rest of your life, too – watching your kids grow up, sleeping with your spouse, driving your nice car and living in your warm house in a good neighborhood. We want you to keep all of it. An 8 by 12 cell isn't much of a life. -- Mas Ayoob

[Carl N. Brown]

If someone put you through the trauma of having to kill them
in self defense, the mental pain and suffering should be actionable
against the cause of your pain and suffering . . . . but they're dead.:D

Suing their estate or heirs would be a possibility, but if they were a
really bad guy--and someone who would put a reasonable person in
fear of death or bodily harm probably is a BG--would their estate
probably be the result of ill-gotten gains?:confused:

[Rockstar]

trapper: Your knowledge of the defense bar is probably surpassed only by Ayoob's knowledge of the law. His "expertise", as was pointed out to him in a fairly recent case, comes not from any real l.e. experience or formal education, but rather, from his having attended seminars similar to those from which he derives a significant portion of his revenue.

YOUR lack of understanding of civil litigation is underwhelming. I'll take the advice of seasoned criminal and civil defense lawyers and experienced judges over a self-promoting, largely-uneducated guy like Ayoob, any day.

No point in continuing this discussion further, as I'm sure neither of us is going to sway the other.

Do a little research and find out how many cases Ayoob's REALLY testified in as an expert witness. Also find out how many of those cases involved an l.e.o. as the shooter. Most of Ayoob's legal "theories" are made up by him from whole cloth...pretty much the same way that stories are made up in freshman college dorm discussions.

[Cosmoline]

The single most important legal factor in a self-defense shooting is LOCATION. The second and third most important legal factors are also LOCATION. If you're in a state or city where you cannot trust the DA, the jury pool or the police to be fair, the most effective thing you can do to be prepared is LEAVE.

[Rockstar]

Cosmoline "gets it!"

[boxcab]

Massad Ayoob has been a sworn police officer for more than 26 years, serving the last ten as a captain and prosecutor with a municipal department in Northern New Hampshire, and two years as co-vice chair of the forensic evidence committee of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. For more than a decade he has chaired the firearms/deadly force training committee of the American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers. He has lectured repeatedly for the International Homicide Investigators’ Seminar and the International Association for the Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors. Named the Outstanding American Handgunner in 1998, Ayoob is the holder of multiple national, regional, and state combat handgun championship titles. Ayoob developed the StressFire combat shooting system that was adopted in the 80's by the United States Army as their course of instruction.

Ayoob is the author of “In the Graves Extreme: the Role of the Firearm in Personal Protection,” widely considered the authoritative text on judicious use of deadly force by private citizens. He has testified as an expert witness in numerous high profile homicide cases, including the defense of Officer Walter Budzyn in the Malice Green case.

Rockstar said:
Your knowledge of the defense bar is probably surpassed only by Ayoob's knowledge of the law. His "expertise", as was pointed out to him in a fairly recent case, comes not from any real l.e. experience or formal education, but rather, from his having attended seminars similar to those from which he derives a significant portion of his revenue.

I would not call 26 years on the force a "layman". He has a very impressive resume, even without the expert witness history.

Ayoob is not the only author that makes statements about the legal issues after a shoot, they all seem to mention it.

-Dan

[Preacherman]

Rockstar, you're either completely ignorant about Ayoob, or so biased against him that you refuse to acknowledge reality. I assume you're aware that Ayoob is used as an instructor by various trial lawyers' associations? He teaches the lawyers about this stuff! And still you pontificate as follows:

Most of Ayoob's legal "theories" are made up by him from whole cloth...pretty much the same way that stories are made up in freshman college dorm discussions.

I'm afraid your credibility about Ayoob is just about zero right now. I suggest you quit while you're ahead.

:fire:

[SteveS]

There is no prevailing attitude of sympathy for badguys here. I don't see mention of any such lawsuits in our local news.

I honestly don't know how prevelant these types of suits are, but you should pick up a copy of Michigan Lawyers Weekly. I think you will find that most civil litigation, unless it involves some well known party, does not make it into the papers.

[coat4gun]

This thread makes me wonder how this country has sunk so low as to allow these kind of Law suits to happen....!!! Very sad indeed. Lawers should be ashamed of themselves as well as Judges who would allow this kind of stuff in the first place.
And of course, the media never points this kind of stuff out. I knew Civil suits were out of hand, but didn't think it was this bad. Makes me loose all respect for lawyers... they do not represent me as a US citizen. I guess I can add them to the traiter list.
Dang this pisses me off. Punished for taking my God given responsibility seriously, protecting my family and friends from harm. This is just plain wrong... and it is not Justice.
</rant>

[Zero_DgZ]

I'm with you on the lawsuits front.

Bottom line: If you were doing something wrong to someone (read: illegal, as per written law, and not some BS 'victimless crime' like posession) and your gluteus maximus got handed to you on a little silver platter for ANY reason, be it the schmuck breaking into a house and falling through a skylight, the robber stealing the old ladies' purse and getting maced, or the guy trying to mug someone and getting shot - You should have absolutely no right to any sort of compensation whatsoever for injuries, physical or 'emotional' (BS, in most cases), monetary loss, &c. Zero. Zip. You buys your ticket and you takes your chances. If you roll snake eyes - Too bad. Shouldn't have been out robbing/attacking people in the first place, you dip.

Someone on the Totse forums, of all places (don't get curious and go there, I'm serious), came up with what I think is the most apt couplet ever written on the subject:


Massad Ayoob
Is a boob


I'll let you take that however you like.

[pax]

Massad Ayoob
Is a boob

I'll let you take that however you like.

Zero_dgZ ~

I take it as an insulting personal attack on another member of this forum, which is against forum rules.

Moderator Note

Guys, if you have a problem with what Ayoob has taught, written, or said, by all means tell us.

If you have a problem with the way he spells his name, his personality, his hairstyle, or anything else -- don't post it here. Insulting other members on a personal level is grounds for banning.

pax

[massad ayoob]

Hey, Trapper, welcome to the wonderful world of "Rockstar."

Don't let him get under your skin. He seems to have a long pattern here of vicious personal attack -- ranging from condescending, to insulting, to downright defamatory -- against anyone he disagrees with. Must be some sort of personality disorder...:rolleyes:

He tends to question the credibility of others, and pontificate about how educated and knowledgeable he is, but steadfastly refuses to let us know his identity. He likes to hide safely behind the yellow curtain of his grandiose Net Ninja Nickname (?!?"Rockstar"?!?) and sling mud at others including Jeff Cooper, Chuck Taylor, and particularly Dean Speir and me. So, don't feel bad. We're in good company.

I'm kinda new to this gun forum thing, and still getting my bearings. Historically, a member of a community who was found to be sending anonymous poison pen letters would be shunned by the rest of the community, or even banished from the village. In the global village of Internet forums, apparently, they are quaintly called "trolls" and allowed to stay and continue their unethical behavior. Perhaps they are seen as adding a tacky sort of color to the community, rather like a ceramic gnome on the lawn by the mailbox...

In any case, don't be bothered by his insulting comments to you. No one seems to take him seriously, except a small handful of his own ilk.

Thanks to you and other posters for the kind words.

best wishes,
Mas

[Auslander]

Pafrmu


Actually no, the loser doesn’t have to pay. In most states each side pays for their own lawyer. You have to sue to get your expenses back and you may not be able to sue for them unless there are some grounds in addition to your simply wanting your defense expense money back.

http://www.pointoflaw.com/loserpays/

So a prisoner gets a pro bono anti-gun lawyer or just pays the $350 or so fee and files the suit in civil court himself. You get stuck with the cost of defending yourself. He is destitute. So even if you won both the initial case he filed and your countersuit, where is the money to pay off your countersuit going to come from?

IANAL and this should be in no way considered legal advise but you really need to know the criminal and civil laws in your state.

[Auslander]

I also hear the same nonsense about "don't carry with handloads or you'll get sued." Maybe, but who knows what could come up in a suit. It could be anything: what the guy had for lunch even.

First IANAL but…

The type of ammo you use is a detail too. Just like "what the guy had for lunch even".

You need to minimize your exposure. Anything a lawyer can use to show you in a bad light is something you need to look at. In a civil suit there is no “presumption of innocence” or “reasonable doubt”. You have to meet a standard called “preponderance of evidence”. If the lawyer can pile up enough little details like “Your Honor, he used Mega-Death-Extreme type cartridges in gross and depraved disregard to the damage and suffering they caused” you are going to lose. Then you get to pay through the nose, lose your house and have to sell every firearm you own to pay the judgment.

I carry Speer Gold-Dots. Why because that is what the local LEO’s use. Why use what they use? Because it will make it more difficult in the event I have to defend myself to twist the stupid little detail of what ammo I many have used into a piece of negative evidence.

People that carry guns really need to know the state and local criminal and civil laws of their state and need to talk to a real lawyer about how to protect themselves from civil liability suits..

[Preacherman]

I think enough.