That's not the risk issue with handloads.
Would you rather come up with the high cost of a legal defense on your own?
Carry Insurance
- Thread starter D.B. Cooper
- Start date
- Status
Blackbeard 44
Member
a good friend of mine had to shoot someone who was kicking down his door with a splitting maul.
the guy was his neighbor and was high on drugs.
after succesfully beating the door open with the maul he came inside the house.
my friend pointed his gun at him and told him he will shoot if he doesnt leave.
for a split second the guy stopped and than charged at him with the maul raised.
my friend than fired off 1 round at his shoulder blade because he didnt want to kill him, the bullet bounced off the shoulder and went into a lung and ended up killing him.
there was surveilance cameras that caught everything leading up to the point entry into the house was made, pretty clear case of self defense.
he still went to jail for 11 days while the cops and prosecutors sorted everything out, he never got charged and eventually got his gun back.
for me I would not want to use or be associated with a company-service that is in the crosshairs of the electic lunatics that run WA state.
the thought of having an adittional insurance to help with legal stuff in the event the unthinkable actually does happen sounds good and all, but I can just see that service being used against you there fore i will not buy it, I will continue to pray that I never have to use my weapons on anyone.
the guy was his neighbor and was high on drugs.
after succesfully beating the door open with the maul he came inside the house.
my friend pointed his gun at him and told him he will shoot if he doesnt leave.
for a split second the guy stopped and than charged at him with the maul raised.
my friend than fired off 1 round at his shoulder blade because he didnt want to kill him, the bullet bounced off the shoulder and went into a lung and ended up killing him.
there was surveilance cameras that caught everything leading up to the point entry into the house was made, pretty clear case of self defense.
he still went to jail for 11 days while the cops and prosecutors sorted everything out, he never got charged and eventually got his gun back.
for me I would not want to use or be associated with a company-service that is in the crosshairs of the electic lunatics that run WA state.
the thought of having an adittional insurance to help with legal stuff in the event the unthinkable actually does happen sounds good and all, but I can just see that service being used against you there fore i will not buy it, I will continue to pray that I never have to use my weapons on anyone.
That's ridiculous.
Do you think that your legal defense will not cost you a fortune?
Anything can be used against you. Nothing prohibits a prosecutor from mentioning something to try to influence a jury.
"Help with the legal stuff"? Have you any idea about how much legal fees, private investigators, and expert witnesses can cost?
Tens of thousands if your legal team can prevent the case from going to trial. And they do not charge on the installment plan.
Blackbeard 44
Member
how would the insurance have done anything to help my friend??
they couldn't even have posted the bail bond, because there wasnt any.
they couldn't even have posted the bail bond, because there wasnt any.
If he consulted an attorney--which he should have done--and if they billed him--which is what they do--he would have been reimbursed.
That's not what they cover.
BTW, they are not "insurance" policies. They are pre-paid legal defense plans
Those policies do not cover intentional acts, and the defender must admit to having intentionally used force to mount a legal defense of self defense.
Last edited:
Blackbeard 44
Member
I really would like to have a policy, I am not 100% against them, but with the way the powers that be in this state are acting twords them, It makes me stay away, who knows I might pay for years and than all of a sudden their plans are not offered in this state anymore.
my insurance is myself, and my dogs, my dogs come with me when I go most places, i am not out late at night, and I am not against a fist fight before I unholster my weapon.
my insurance is myself, and my dogs, my dogs come with me when I go most places, i am not out late at night, and I am not against a fist fight before I unholster my weapon.
Perhaps this will explain some things:
[URL="https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/self-defense-insurance-is-it-a-good-idea.856200/"]Self Defense "Insurance"--Is it a Good Idea?[/URL]
[URL="https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/self-defense-insurance-is-it-a-good-idea.856200/"]Self Defense "Insurance"--Is it a Good Idea?[/URL]
One pays for the period of coverage.
wiscoaster
Member
The "powers-that-be" change every few years. They tend to say more than they do. Your first responsibility is to you and yours. When you decide what you need to do, put what they say and do in distant perspective. It's going to change anyway.
OP
OP
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
Check your local laws. In my state, if you engage in a fist fight, but you are concealed carrying, it's aggravated assault-the same as if you had used your gun-even if the gun is never presented or in view.
Good put, but checking the laws won't suffice.
One would have to know the details of the rulings in any appellate court cases in which the appeal was based on that aspect of a trial court verdict.
Blackbeard 44
Member
maybe starting a fist fight, but I would always try to defend myself with my hands and arms before just instantly pointing a weapon at someone
so far in my life my 2 hands have been all I have needed to protect myself, I feel you should at least try to use all lesser lethal options before unholstering a weapon.
I still carry a gun in the off chance a gun gets pointed at me, at least than I might be able to match the amount of force that is directed at me in a worst case senario
so far in my life my 2 hands have been all I have needed to protect myself, I feel you should at least try to use all lesser lethal options before unholstering a weapon.
I still carry a gun in the off chance a gun gets pointed at me, at least than I might be able to match the amount of force that is directed at me in a worst case senario
Do not assume that you would have the time.
Your "worst case scenario" may be someone drawing a knife. If you and draw and fire in a second and a half, you will have to start your draw while he is still about 20 ft away from you.
Stopping him will prove a real challenge.
Your hands and arms would just give him things to cut.
Blackbeard 44
Member
this thread has been hijacked by speculation and what if scenarios, I feel having cuts on my arms would be a good thing if I was trying to prove that my life was actually in danger.
being scared is a feeling, it is not articuable.
I think that "fearing" you life is in danger is imaginary, it is not something that is easily provable.
I have been a project manager for a construction company for quite sometime, I have had to fire hostile employees, kick contractors off of jobsites, and deal with druggies trying to steal, in all of those instances I have had people become aggressive, yell and ocassionally get in my face. I never felt the nees to possibly end someone else life over any of that.
Like I said earlier, my opinion is pulling a weapon is the very very last resort I would, and hopefully i have some cuts of a swollen eye to help me establish I was indeed in danger and defended myself
being scared is a feeling, it is not articuable.
I think that "fearing" you life is in danger is imaginary, it is not something that is easily provable.
I have been a project manager for a construction company for quite sometime, I have had to fire hostile employees, kick contractors off of jobsites, and deal with druggies trying to steal, in all of those instances I have had people become aggressive, yell and ocassionally get in my face. I never felt the nees to possibly end someone else life over any of that.
Like I said earlier, my opinion is pulling a weapon is the very very last resort I would, and hopefully i have some cuts of a swollen eye to help me establish I was indeed in danger and defended myself
If not fatal or permanently injurious.
There is a reason why a knife attack is considered deadly force.
Good, but after someone is charging you is too late.
That's absurd.
Search on THR forLisa Steele. Frank Ettin has posted links to "Defending the Self Defense Case". Read and heed.
Blackbeard 44
Member
lets just agree to disagree.
I feel sorry for the OP for having this thred hijacked.
I feel sorry for the OP for having this thred hijacked.
Don’t feel bad. It’s pretty obvious @Kleanbore is pretty passionate about this topic, sees this issue as black and white, wrong and right.
The first 47 posts were on topic. Then it was suggested that having a policy at all could have serious negative consequences. Not a bad post, and it deserved addressing.
I'm not sure what you think we disagree on.
We agree that deadly force should always be a last resort.
What that means is that one should try evasion, deescalation, and avoidance (that means retreat) first.
Trying fists first and and then going to the gun could easily get one killed, and if it doesn't, it could seriously weaken a legal defense of self defense.
I suggest three things:
- Read the Lisa Steele paper.
- Watch some videos of Tueller Drill exercises
- Read some of Massad Ayoob's books.
No, just more informed than those who have just started looking into the subject.
Nothing is black and white.
OP
OP
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
You're correct, but I take a slightly different view of it. It is my goal to completely avoid running afoul of the law. If an appellate court has previously overruled said law, it would no longer be on the books. I do not wish to be the test case that is first to go before the appeals court. So, for me, I'm concerned about the law as it is written, not as it may be interpreted by the court.
OP
OP
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
In my state, it doesn't matter. If you engage in a fist fight, while also armed, even if you don't use your weapon, you have committed aggravated battery because you were in possession of a weapon. At least that is what was taught in my CCW class.
OP
OP
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
It happens. This is probably a very personal issue (carry insurance) and I just need to make my own decision. My needs are not the same as another's needs.
True in so many things.
AlexanderA
Member
Lots of confusion here. What we're talking about is not truly "insurance," but rather something like "subscription legal services." You get the same effect by having your own criminal lawyer on retainer. This would cost you more up front (typically $7-8,000, depending on the part of the country) but at least you would potentially get it back if you never actually used the services.
I question the need for any of this if you act responsibly and sanely. (Minimize exposure by carrying as little as possible.)
I question the need for any of this if you act responsibly and sanely. (Minimize exposure by carrying as little as possible.)
OP
OP
D.B. Cooper
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2016
- Messages
- 4,396
Yes and no. Sure, I could drop several grand on an attorney's retainer, however, that up front fee will barely scratch the surface of legal fees in a self defense case on a manslaughter or similar charge. (Ayoob estimates that the average total cost of such a legal defense is upwards of half a mil.) I could never cover all of that. So y $7-8k in retainer would be burned up int he first couple days/weeks.
Acting responsibly and sanely. We should all act responsibly and sanely, however, you just never how things are going to go after an event. I don't feel it necessary to cite a bunch of recent cases of self defenders who stood trial, or at least went to the grand jury.
True.
Not true. See D. B. Cooper's clear response.
Acting responsibly and sanely cannot prevent the need for legal representation.
WHAT????
- Status
