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

Status
Not open for further replies.
"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.
 
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
 
V4Vendetta said:
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.
Click to expand...

Touche!

Maybe the losing lawyer should have to pay. That would end these frivolous law suits pretty dang quick.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
Hi Mas!!

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
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
It's only "scary"........

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
The latest from Massad Ayoob
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
Al Thompson
A
Gary Slider
  • Locked
Montana Preemption. . . Tribal Gun Laws. . . Massad Ayoob
Replies
3
Views
556
tommy.duncan
tommy.duncan
M
  • Locked
Massad Ayoob
2 3 4
Replies
84
Views
6K
The Wiry Irishman
T
Trunk Monkey
  • Locked
Massad Ayoob Video "Don't Answer That Door"
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
Sauer Grapes
S
K
  • Locked
Massad Ayoob on Two Aspects of Home Defense
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
6K
Simple Shooter
Simple Shooter
Back
Top