Told by a CCW instructor and cop that my size would make me guilty in court

[JLStorm]

To preface this, I am about 5'10" 240 pounds of mostly muscle and look like the kind of guy most wouldnt want to tangle with, but I am a kind and absolutely harmless person, I just enjoy going to the gym and happen to have genetics that promote muscle gain.

I took a CCW class in Nevada a few weeks back at "the gun store" and the instructor was very informative. He worked for the LVPD and spent most of the 9 hour class going over use of deadly force. At one point I asked him specifically about his comment on having to prove that the threat presented a REAL ability and had the capacity to carry out an act of great bodily harm. I asked him a question that I have often asked myself which is "can I consider someone who has assaulted me and who has found that I have a gun through physical contact such as pushing or striking and who has then attempted to take the gun from my hoslter while I try to escape or use equal non deadly force to protect myself as a threat attempting to do great bodily harm to me or my family?"

The instructor stated that I would have one hell of a time convincing any court or DA that another individual presented the capability and threat of great bodily harm due to my age, size, and strength. He then went on to say that as cop he "would not ask a single question if a 70 year old man fired his weapon in self defense, but if someone who was my size used a weapon there would be an arrest and there would be an investigation, and it would be damn near impossible to convince the DA or the court that anyone possessed the ability to do me great bodily harm unless they were pointing a gun at me at the time of the incident" I was pretty shocked, I then went on to say that "I had been an amature fighter and I have seen and experienced some lucky shots and some strikes of opportunity that incapacitated me or came very close to it and that size alone should not be the determining factor" He said "that is just the way it is and if there is no other weapon that was present during the attack other than my gun, I would be the one who got in the most trouble"

I am pretty pissed off about this line of thought. Someone can be very strong and very big, but still suffer strikes of opportunity, the element of surprise, and other physical elements like speed. I would like to think that I would not have to wait until my weapon was pointed back at me to defend my life with it, but in fact when I told him that exact thing he replied that "unfortunately that is what I would have to do in the eyes of the law". I do not think that my size should give me any less of a right to defend myself against a blow that would incapacitate me just as much as it would incapacitate a 120 pound man. Why does someone who is smaller have more of a right to defense than I do, that is just plain ridiculous.

 

[BullfrogKen]

Who said that? What were his credentials?

 

[JLStorm]

His name was Bob Eaton and his list of credentials was about a mile long, but I cant remember what they were...they were however by far the most impressive I have heard from any instructor I have been in a classroom setting with that I can recall. All I remember is LVPD cop/investigator, LVPD firearms instructor, NRA law enforcement instructor, first person authorized to teach the CFP class in Las Vegas, helped Bob Irwin write the book that is used for the course and about 15 or 20 other things.

 

[helpless]

So your muscles are bullet/knife proof? Awesome! So yeah I would say you are pretty much good to go.

 

[Valkman]

That's weird, I took the same class. I'm 6'3" 260 and no one said that to me, and I would have been very unhappy if they did. To me they're saying you don't need to carry when in real life a bat, knife or gun are just as deadly to you as everyone else.

I guess it's OK that half the morons taking the class have never shot the gun they brought though. One idjit was showing off the super-light snubby .357 he'd never shot, and of course failed to qualify.

I don't worry about it any more. I'm officially disabled and not running from anyone. I suggest you go about your business and carry and not worry about it. The standard is what a reasonable person would do, but if a cop who's a jerk shows up when you shoot someone you won't be able to do anything about that. But he can't charge you or convict you, so don't say anything.

 

[Geister]

To preface this, I am about 5'10" 240 pounds of mostly muscle and look like the kind of guy most wouldnt want to tangle with, but I am a kind and absolutely harmless person, I just enjoy going to the gym and happen to have genetics that promote muscle gain.

Hey, that's pretty cool. You're like what, 10 to 15% body fat? Ever go to a lab to get your body fat percentage? Besides the water tank, they have this new machine that scans your body to tell you how much fat is on you.

But anyway, on the topic, if you shot an unarmed 5'6", 130 lbs. guy in self-defense, yeah, it wouldn't look good at all. But other than that, if you are justified in using deadly force, it doesn't really matter how big you are. You're still just flesh. Someone can still give you serious injury by hitting you in the head.

The instructor is full of smoke.

 

[mnrivrat]

So your muscles are bullet/knife proof?

I believe the question was in regard to defense against an unarmed assailant, not an armed one.

When that is the case , there is likely a strong factor involving size & strength of both parties involved. And use of leathal force against someone of less stature. Not fair perhaps, but you can't fault the instructor for telling real world fact regarding that issue.

 

[jeepmor]

You best let someone bludgeon you pretty good first I suppose. As a big fellow myself, 6'2" 220, I face the same issue. My CCW instructor stated that there needs to be some overriding evidence that your life is indeed in danger.

If some gorilla that completely outsizes and classes me stirs up life threatening trouble, then no problem. If some guy knows karate and starts whoopin my can, again no problem, but I have the burden of proof. So, if someone just wants to kick your can, you can only kick his can back, even if you are carrying a CCW. You can pretty much equal their force level, beyond that, its pretty mirky water and you want to be darn sure of your actions, because big people don't get the same privs as little people or senior citizens in that regard. Just the way it is.

But let's face it, carrying a CCW instantly makes you a darn good diplomat and you have to let crap go, period. Confrontations that in your unarmed days would go to fisticuffs over bravado, principle or any other seemingly justified excuse to brawl no longer apply and thats just the way it is.

 

[JLStorm]

Geister, I have no interest in a body fat test and no, I am nowhere near 10%, but I'm still in decent shape by most peoples standards and my pants still fit fine which is how I gauge my dieting lol. When I used to fight and train I was closer to about 14 - 16%, now I just eat like a normal person (well maybe a bit more) and lift 5 days a week, so I look noticeably look like I lift weights often, but certainly not a bodybuilder by any means.

I dont care if someone is 130 pounds...what if they are a lean fast 130 pounds that manages to get there hands on my gun...I fail to see how that does not show the capability and opportunity to do grave bodily harm. If one of use will be drawing a weapon, and the weapon is mine...why shouldnt I be the one who should be doing the drawing???

 

[JLStorm]

Jeepmor,

The situation that I specifically stated wasnt an escalated arguement or anything, it was if someone jumps out of nowhere unprovoked and attacks me and while I try to escape or use equal force they grab for my gun and have the opportunity and ability to take it through either a well aimed strike, the element of surprise, luck, or a combination of all three. So no time to be diplomatic. I dont see why the threat can grab my weapon and attempt to do me great bodily harm by attempting to draw it and use it against me...and all I can do is respond with less than lethal force. All it takes is him being faster than I while I am responding with less than lethal force for him to take my gun and respond with lethal force, retention holster or not...if this happened to a cop they would be permitted to fire regardless of size...and for a damn good reason.

 

[jeepmor]

I know it's not fair man, I'm not arguing that. Actually, I'm arguing guys our size are pretty much screwed no matter what in the eyes of the law simply because we are big. About the only scenario smaller folks could mug us and we get away with justified self defense is if there are multiple attackers.

I used to be in Karate and I've seen plenty of smaller guys whoops bigger guys due to better speed.

But it's kinda a moot point, you will be carrying concealed....right? So how it the BG to know as he attacks you. He shouldn't, right. It's hard to win in this situation, no doubt. Be careful.

 

[Working Man]

That is such a crock.

First and foremost survive the situation. The rest (even if expensive) should
not be a concern at that exact moment. Keeping a person from taking your
CCW not only protects you but may also protect others.

And the size thing big vs. little.... when I was in top shape I was 160, 5'9",
and hot maxed a bench of 365 at will. I'd pump out sets of 50 to 75 push-ups
all day long and curled more than 2/3 my body weight as a regular work out.
I looked ity-bity dressed but could out dip, out sit-up, push-up, anybody around.

Size means nothing, a threat is a threat.

I've known guys with heavy hands weighing in at 170 that hit a lot harder than
guys at 220 within the same fitness level.

Survive the situation, worrie about the rest after.

 

[LAK]

He then went on to say that as cop he "would not ask a single question if a 70 year old man fired his weapon in self defense, but if someone who was my size used a weapon there would be an arrest and there would be an investigation, and it would be damn near impossible to convince the DA or the court that anyone possessed the ability to do me great bodily harm unless they were pointing a gun at me at the time of the incident"

I would have asked Mr Eaton; "What if the circumstances were exactly the same - except I was wearing an LVPD uniform and badge on duty at the time?"

-----------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Leadbutt]

I was a cop for 33+ years and I can understand your angry about the comments made by a "expert",,,,

But in all honesty he was probably telling the truth in your area,, much the same would happen here in my AO.

This is one reason among many to have a working relationship with an EXCELLENT CRIMINAL ATTORNEY!!!!.

This is where it comes down to ARTICULATION!! First and foremost and if in fact you where the victim and the proof shows you acted like any other "reasonable" person in the same situation, then more than likely you will go about your way after a very long and costly trail,

This is why any CCW worth his/her salt will stress the need for non/less leathal force equipment/training

 

[buzz_knox]

I believe the question was in regard to defense against an unarmed assailant, not an armed one.

If someone assaults you and discovers that you are armed, it's no longer a fight between an armed individual and an unarmed aggressor, it's two people fighting for the same weapon.

The advice was . . . questionable (I'm feeling charitable).

 

[Dravur]

here it is in the extreme....

Scenario....

Little dude, 140 lbs and 5'2 with a 14' chip on his shoulder picks a fight with you, the big man. You scuffle and he is just fighting like a rabid bulldog. You are holding him off the ground by his neck and his little legs are running in the air like Wil E Coyote.

You pull your peice and pop a cap.....

What's going to happen? lot's of court time. I think this is what the instructor was trying to say. One of the things that we were taught was.... there has to be proxmity and ability to harm. You can't whack a guy standing 200 ft away with a knife and be justified and you cannot be sitting on a little dude and snap his head off if he did not have the ability to cause you harm.

If he DOES have the ability and is in proximity and this is demonstrable in court, then by all means. But the instructor is saying that you will probably have a much greater problem proving this in court than someone shaped like your average pear.

 

[ADKWOODSMAN]

JLStorm--I feel for you big guys. My son is 6'2" 300, works steel, and wouldn't hurt a fly.

 

[Correia]

It isn't that your instructor is right or wrong. Sadly, a lot of self defense cases come down to the perception of the jury.

I feel your pain. I'm 6'5", 310. A little fat around the middle now, but still I just look like a great big, intimidating, scary bald dude.

I'm a CCW instructor, and this comes up a lot. Basically the more black and white, good vs. evil, your situation, and the more reasonable your actions appear in the eyes of the jury, the better off you're going to be in court.

It is when you get into the areas that they perceive as grey, that you start to run into problems.

This is why it is very important to have a good attorney. A good attorney can point out that though you are strong and fit, a blow to the head could still disorient you, and you can lose your firearm.

You've got two problems. Problem #1. Stay alive. Problem #2. Stay out of jail. So take care of 1 first. So if you're in a fight for your weapon against a smaller opponent, and you need to shoot them, shoot them.

And size is pretty irrelevant anyway. I got the living snot knocked out of me by a guy that I outweighed by 100 pounds. He hit me at that intersection of jaw and throat. It was like somebody had set off some big fireworks in my brain, and I woke up ten seconds later with him choking me.

 

[Lonestar49]

Possession is 9/10's of the Law

...

I see what he's saying, in that, if you had no witness/s to the actual event, or it was not caught on camera, 2 things come to mind.

If you shoot and kill the perpetrator of the fight/violence upon yourself, then it just "your word" as to what happened, and of course, a DA drools at convicting anyone/everyone.. That's their job, and how they sleep at night

Second, say the perpetrator of the fight/attack survives a gunshot/s from you, he is still going to say, without any witness/s that either you started the incident, or that, you just shot him when he was gaining the upper hand in your physical confrontation.

It's what the Jury will see, both in looking at you, your size, vs the BG's smaller size, along with, as most guilty-party's, twist the truth, or their Lawyer does, and try and paint a much different picture to the jury, anyway they can to get his client off, or get you convicted, via whatever it takes a DA, or a DL, as I said, it's their job and how the sleep at night..


Not saying this is what to do, but if it were me, but I'm more of a pilot, size wise, or horseman that horse's love on their backs, that if it ever presented itself to me, and with the many hours and rounds I enjoy practicing each week, I'd take 2 - 3 shots, making sure that in my fear of bodily harm, at that moment, that the attacker would, or could, not talk.

It's a sad state of affairs when one has to defend himself both, out in the concrete jungles, along with, against over zealous DA's that only live for their one-way thinking of justice, "convict, no matter.."



LS

 

[TexasRifleman]

His name was Bob Eaton and his list of credentials was about a mile long, but I cant remember what they were...

Frankly if they didn't include years of practice as a defense attorney working self defense cases they don't amount to much.

And folks like that are few and far between.

He sounds very qualified to teach shooting, but not to give legal advice.

 

[camslam]

Size does matter...

While I understand where JLStorm is coming from, I run at 6'7'', 235 lbs and pretty good shape, my thought process is pretty simple on this.

1. If I can avoid a fight I will.

2. If it is 1 person that I have to deal with rather than multiple, I will be less likely to use my weapon. I thought a lot about this after getting my permit to carry and didn't want to have to use my gun in situations where it was just 1 guy or 2 smaller guys that were coming at me. That being said...

3. If the situation calls for it, (wife and kids with me, or some other situation) I would pull the weapon with hopes of discouraging further escalation. At that point if a person is still interested in pursuing their course of action, I would consider them to be a very real threat. Given that just presenting a gun resolves most situations, if someone were still interested in coming at me after I showed my weapon, something just isn't right. At that point I would use it regardless of their size.

4. I agree that my fate would then be sealed with what type of attorney I had. Sadly, when we choose to carry a gun, we open ourselves up to these types of questions. A point that is made all the time is, at least you'll be alive to fight the law issues.

 

[GarandOwner]

My CCW when addressing situations like this told us this: "the way you know when you are justified in using your CCW, is when you are in a situation where you do not care if using it means jail time" Which makes sense if you think about it, if you dont care if you go to jail, then you must be in a bad situation. Back to the main point, I think your CCW guy was correct in this situation, if someone is trying to take your gun from your holster, as soon as you draw on them, you are using force far in excess of what your would be assalent has in this case, you are NOW the bad guy, and the attacker becomes a harmless victim. Does that suck? yes it does, but it is the way of the world. < If it were me I think I would keep shoving until I could get away, drawing on the man would only result in a fight for the gun>

 

[buzz_knox]

Back to the main point, I think your CCW guy was correct in this situation, if someone is trying to take your gun from your holster, as soon as you draw on them, you are using force far in excess of what your would be assalent has in this case, you are NOW the bad guy, and the attacker becomes a harmless victim.

The rules for self-defense require ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.

If someone is attempting to get your weapon, they clearly have the opportunity to harm you, have the ability to acquire your weapon, and you are in jeopardy. If the struggle is clearly for the weapon, you are clear to use that weapon.

 

[ArmedBear]

Look, their logic seems sort of silly, assuming you are a moral and ethical gun owner.

If someone truly threatens your life, you are justified in using a gun, morally and legally.

If all you have to to to stop someone is put your hand in their face, then you aren't morally justified in shooting him, even if someone half your size would be able to skirt the charge against him in court.

Stay out of brawls. Walk away from drunken idiots who want to pick a fight with the big guy. Use a gun only when appropriate, legally and morally, all things considered including your physical ability. The gun is for stopping a deadly criminal, not a mouthy little s***head. I'm sure you know all that.

I would keep what they said in mind, for your own sake. But if a criminal assailant has a gun, it doesn't matter if you're 7'10" and 480 lb. of muscle!

 

[hankdatank1362]

Don't sweat it.... as long as you (or your lawyer) can eloquently articulate in a convincing and charismatic manner to the jury why you did what you did, and why you are 100% justified in doing it, you'll be fine.