Doc, I hope you have some kind of self defense insurance because with all the hypothetical's you come up with, it would be a bad choice not to have it at this stage of your life.

Doc, I hope you have some kind of self defense insurance because with all the hypothetical's you come up with, it would be a bad choice not to have it at this stage of your life.

As for USCCA winning the cases that go to trial, I wonder how many of the defendants/customers took plea deals -- which avoids a trial?

Insurers only take cases that are self-defense shootings according to the law.  So, it makes sense they should win all of the cases they fund.

They aren't allowed to pay for legal expenses unless the case is one of self-defense.  If the charge had to do with premeditated murder, and there is no affirmative defense that he acted to defend himself or others, USCCA can't take the case.  To do so would be effectively paying the defendant for committing the crime.

Just like DAs are reluctant to go to trial with cases they don't think they can win, USCCA will only take cases they know are provable self-defense cases.

Doc, I hope you have some kind of self defense insurance because with all the hypothetical's you come up with, it would be a bad choice not to have it at this stage of your life.

DocM vs CMO "what if" challenge would be interesting. . . 

DocM vs CMO "what if" challenge would be interesting. . . 

I'm president of the Tin Foil Club. This is way diff from the What If Club. Focus.

I'm president of the Tin Foil Club. This is way diff from the What If Club. Focus.

Thinking way too much club. . . you're definitely a card paying member. . .

DocM vs CMO "what if" challenge would be interesting. . . 

noooooooooooooooooooooo

The "What If" challenge today is What Would Hawaii do to you (the defender) in this situation?:



Mr. Jackson has a T-Shirt, proclaiming, Nope, Not Today, and he shoots a perp in the back, 3 times, and misses a shot at the other perp, who attempts to escape. In Hawaii, you need to wear a shirt, Crime Victim, if you intend to demonstrate that you are in fear of grave harm. I meet that requirement, check the box. Second, the prosecutor will charge you with murder because you shot one of the robbers in the back. In Hawaii, you need to give the perp a verbal warning, shoot your pepper spray, and then wait for the attacker to brandish his weapon at your head. Then and only then, you are allowed to fire your gun. But, wait, you must wait between shots to escalate the level of force. Third, you will be charged with reckless endangerment for shooting at perp #2. In summary, this is the difference between South Carolina and Hawaii, not to mention the fact that we rarely issue CCW permits.

The "What If" challenge today is What Would Hawaii do to you (the defender) in this situation?:



Mr. Jackson has a T-Shirt, proclaiming, Nope, Not Today, and he shoots a perp in the back, 3 times, and misses a shot at the other perp, who attempts to escape. In Hawaii, you need to wear a shirt, Crime Victim, if you intend to demonstrate that you are in fear of grave harm. I meet that requirement, check the box. Second, the prosecutor will charge you with murder because you shot one of the robbers in the back. In Hawaii, you need to give the perp a verbal warning, shoot your pepper spray, and then wait for the attacker to brandish his weapon at your head. Then and only then, you are allowed to fire your gun. But, wait, you must wait between shots to escalate the level of force. Third, you will be charged with reckless endangerment for shooting at perp #2. In summary, this is the difference between South Carolina and Hawaii, not to mention the fact that we rarely issue CCW permits.

Rare implies happens, but not often. HI never issues ccw permits.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

And keep your mouth shut if cops ask questions if the situation does happen. Talk to a lawyer before making any statements.

I would not say to go that far. One can still provide basic information like name, contact information, etc.

I would not say to go that far. One can still provide basic information like name, contact information, etc.

That is implied. I should clarify, provide name, contact info, and date of birth.  Then state you will cooperate after speaking to an attorney. Then keep your mouth shut.  Unless you're a mouth breather, then it's OK to open your mouth to breath.  So keep any vocal sounds from happening.  And don't give any non-verbal answers like head nodding, thumbs up, etc...Keep writing instruments out of your hands.  Did I miss anything else?

That is implied. I should clarify, provide name, contact info, and date of birth.  Then state you will cooperate after speaking to an attorney. Then keep your mouth shut.  Unless you're a mouth breather, then it's OK to open your mouth to breath.  So keep any vocal sounds from happening.  And don't give any non-verbal answers like head nodding, thumbs up, etc...Keep writing instruments out of your hands.  Did I miss anything else?

Better to state it specifically rather than have it be implied. Some people take instructions very literally and if it isn't explained they may sit there refusing to identify themselves to the officers at the scene which could end up hurting them.

Better to state it specifically rather than have it be implied. Some people take instructions very literally and if it isn't explained they may sit there refusing to identify themselves to the officers at the scene which could end up hurting them.

Instructions?  I thought these were discussions, not "how to" guides.

The information on how to talk to the police has been linked in this forum time and time again.  If you haven't taken the time to view those ACTUAL instructions and recommendations, I can see how you'd have to have all of that regurgitated by the members here.

Don't blast someone for not spoon-feeding you the whole set of "instructions."  If you really cared, you'd have looked it up yourself.

Back to reality.

When someone shoots another person, the best advice is to not give an account of the shooting until you've spoken to your lawyer.  Just answer questions OTHER THAN "walk us through what happened" or similar. 

Is that simple enough?

Better to state it specifically rather than have it be implied. Some people take instructions very literally and if it isn't explained they may sit there refusing to identify themselves to the officers at the scene which could end up hurting them.

What's even better is to talk to an attorney before the situation happens and ask them what one should do and keep them in your phone so you can call them if the need arises.  Then call the same attorney at least annually just to make sure they didn't retire or stop practicing.  1 should take any legal advice on a forum with a grain of salt.

But in your situation, does the right to remain silent only apply after someone gives their name, date of birth, and contact info?  Or does this right remain prior to that?  I can play this game too.

What's even better is to talk to an attorney before the situation happens and ask them what one should do and keep them in your phone so you can call them if the need arises.  Then call the same attorney at least annually just to make sure they didn't retire or stop practicing.  1 should take any legal advice on a forum with a grain of salt.

But in your situation, does the right to remain silent only apply after someone gives their name, date of birth, and contact info?  Or does this right remain prior to that?  I can play this game too.

I think I can answer that.

The duty to ID yourself varies by state, but in most cases, if you are being detained or arrested under the suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed, you are required to ID yourself in these states:

Hawaii is not a "stop and identify" state.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify_statutes

Without a reasonable, articulable suspicion as stated above, you're not required to ID yourself to police...period.

Having shot someone at your home is enough of a reasonable suspicion that a crime may have been committed, so you are required to at least give the Cops that much.

The frustrating cases IMO are when the Cops are called, and the 911 caller says they think you are doing something illegal.  At the point, the Cops are only investigating the call.  They have no other information upon which to form any suspicions.  They will demand your ID just so they can put it in their report, even if they determine you're the wrong suspect.  If you match a vague description, it's arguable they don't have enough to go on to force you to ID yourself ("between 5' 6', 140-170 lbs, Caucasian, Wearing shorts and a T-Shirt").  Not exactly narrowing down the suspect list.

The flip side to that is, if you know that identifying yourself can lead to the Cops finding out you committed a crime (outstanding warrants), you are not required to ID.  You would be self- incriminating.  Same holds for not registering your guns if you are a prohibited gun owner.  Law-abiding people have to forfeit their 4th Amendment rights, while criminals get to ignore the law.

Better to state it specifically rather than have it be implied. Some people take instructions very literally and if it isn't explained they may sit there refusing to identify themselves to the officers at the scene which could end up hurting them.

says the guy who states that proof and evidence are interchangeable...

says the guy who states that proof and evidence are interchangeable...

You typed a whole string of letters without actually saying anything

What's even better is to talk to an attorney before the situation happens and ask them what one should do and keep them in your phone so you can call them if the need arises.  Then call the same attorney at least annually just to make sure they didn't retire or stop practicing.  1 should take any legal advice on a forum with a grain of salt.

But in your situation, does the right to remain silent only apply after someone gives their name, date of birth, and contact info?  Or does this right remain prior to that?  I can play this game too.

As best I understand it, the right to remain silent doesn't apply to identifying yourself to officers when they have cause to stop you. Imagine if you got arrested for something and refused to give them your name, would they just have to release you without charging you since they couldn't know who they were charging? I guess they could arrest you as "john doe" but I think at some point it comes back to bite you. Refusing to provide any information could be seen as an attempt to conceal identity which looks suspicious and may lead to other charges.



How many people are going to shell out a couple hundred dollars a year just so they can ask an attorney what they should say if they end up shooting someone?

Instructions?  I thought these were discussions, not "how to" guides.

The information on how to talk to the police has been linked in this forum time and time again.  If you haven't taken the time to view those ACTUAL instructions and recommendations, I can see how you'd have to have all of that regurgitated by the members here.

Don't blast someone for not spoon-feeding you the whole set of "instructions."  If you really cared, you'd have looked it up yourself.

Back to reality.

When someone shoots another person, the best advice is to not give an account of the shooting until you've spoken to your lawyer.  Just answer questions OTHER THAN "walk us through what happened" or similar. 

Is that simple enough?

Get off your high horse. We have new members all the time and people who visit but don't join. They might not go back and read all the previous posts that have covered this topic.

Time and time again you can't help but pick a fight where none is needed. I added a simple clarification to CMO's comment to help a reader better understand the advice. It didn't need any correction, it didn't need your snark, it didn't need your pontification. Yet you just can't resist.

Maybe you didn't need the clarification but when is it bad to have more information than less if that might help someone on this forum?

Get off your high horse. We have new members all the time and people who visit but don't join. They might not go back and read all the previous posts that have covered this topic.

Time and time again you can't help but pick a fight where none is needed. I added a simple clarification to CMO's comment to help a reader better understand the advice. It didn't need any correction, it didn't need your snark, it didn't need your pontification. Yet you just can't resist.

Maybe you didn't need the clarification but when is it bad to have more information than less if that might help someone on this forum?

High horse?    If anything, I'm admitting we DON'T have all the answers nor post everything in 100% formatted and fact-checked bullets for quick consumption.  If anything, "high horse" is the exact opposite of what I posted.

Sorry you can't comprehend the words and their meaning.  Better to ask for clarification before posting incorrect opinions.

You sound an awful lot like OG, who regurgitated every single opinion he held on every single topic ad nauseam with the HIGH HORSE OPINION that it was his duty to make sure everyone saw them lest they didn't read but that one single thread.

Glad we have "keepers of the flame of academic instruction" on here who assume "new users" can't navigate the forum and find the information that's relevant to their interests.

As best I understand it, the right to remain silent doesn't apply to identifying yourself to officers when they have cause to stop you. Imagine if you got arrested for something and refused to give them your name, would they just have to release you without charging you since they couldn't know who they were charging? I guess they could arrest you as "john doe" but I think at some point it comes back to bite you. Refusing to provide any information could be seen as an attempt to conceal identity which looks suspicious and may lead to other charges.



How many people are going to shell out a couple hundred dollars a year just so they can ask an attorney what they should say if they end up shooting someone?

Read what ur example again and come back with another.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk