5 Reasons The Legal System is Not Your Friend After a Defensive Gun Use

handcuffs hand cuffs arrest

Shutterstock

From US LawShield . . .

Law-abiding gun owners should never have to fear arrest and prosecution. Unfortunately, in today’s America, even the most upstanding armed citizens can and do find themselves at the mercy of a hostile legal system.

If you own a gun, here are five reasons that you should be worried.

1) GUN CONTROL POLITICS INFEST THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

All you have to do is read the news, fake or not, to realize Second Amendment rights and the fundamental right of self-defense are under political fire. Your ride through the justice system often depends on the political and personal views of the police officer, prosecutor, and judge who may be assigned your case.

Your fate could lie with people who fundamentally disagree with your pro-2A politics. Sadly, a lot of Americans have been victims of this infested criminal justice system. Our Founding Fathers would never have believed how easy it is for a present-day American patriot to lose his or her gun rights.

These days, an accusation alone can strip you of your right to purchase a firearm AND suspend your license or permit to carry a handgun. In 2015 alone, 289,223 firearms were recovered by the police and traced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms. Simply being indicted makes it unlawful for a federal firearms licensee to sell you a gun under 18 USC § 922(d). You might even have to kiss your gun collection goodbye. In some situations, police can get a warrant to seize ALL of your firearms.

To make things worse, the legal system can take your guns even if you’ve never had to use them. Most gun owners don’t realize that a divorce, civil commitment, guardianship, or protective order can destroy their gun rights. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a collector or gang member, the system will treat your firearms the same.

2) THE SYSTEM CAN BE RIGGED AGAINST YOU…GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT?

The criminal justice system is designed for just that—criminals. We have all heard the phrase “innocent until proven guilty.” It’s a lofty ideal of our legal system, but in practical application this concept is of little help as you are getting chewed up and spit out by the conviction machine.

This happens every day to people who did nothing legally wrong. We have seen this firsthand in defending thousands of law-abiding gun owners. Don’t believe it? The U.S. Attorney’s Office reported that 99.8% of criminal cases where guilt or innocence was decided brought by the federal government result in conviction. Therefore, you’ve only got a .2% chance of escaping the white-hot “guilty” brand; and the states aren’t much better.

This is because the government has unlimited resources. Your attorney, on the other hand, is only one person and will be up against an army seeking to label you a criminal for the rest of your life. That army includes police, prosecutors, and yes, even judges who almost always rule in favor of the government.

Specifically, when it comes to self-defense, it will be you against that army to prove your actions were justified. Even though you are innocent until proven guilty, you may have to go to trial in order to to walk free…and the system can be rigged against you. This is the very reason why you need immediate legal help from experienced attorneys.

The U.S. Department of Justice reports that 99.8% of criminal cases where guilt or innocence was decided result in conviction.

3) BAD GUYS LIE AND GOOD GUYS MAKE MISTAKES. EVEN FLIMSY EVIDENCE CAN GET YOU ARRESTED

“As a criminal prosecutor, thousands of cases came across my desk. Over and over, I saw eyewitnesses lie or make mistakes… with potentially devastating consequences to the criminal defendant.” – Emily Taylor

There are an untold number of men and women in prison who have been wrongfully convicted. Many people are exonerated by DNA evidence in our country, but others may not be so lucky.

The Innocence Project reports:

70% of cases involved mis-identification by witnesses

32% of cases involved mis-identification by multiple witnesses

45% of cases involved mis-application of forensic science

We all know that bad guys always tell the truth, right? Wrong. Imagine you have just defended yourself or a family member from a violent attacker, but the perpetrator told the police it was the other way around. Who do the police believe?

The truth is, you can be arrested and charged based on nothing more than the word of the liar who just attacked you. In a self-defense use of force case, perps often lie and ordinary people go to jail. All a police officer needs to start an investigation is reasonable suspicion; and then, to make an arrest, probable cause.

Basically, we’re talking about police having a little more than a hunch. And the probable cause legal standard is met when a police officer gets enough information to reasonably believe that a crime PROBABLY happened.

It doesn’t stop there, the government can take you all the way to trial with nothing more than the bad guy’s word against yours…then it’s up to a jury to decide which one of you is the liar.

The sad truth is that a “he said/she said” situation can land a gun owner in prison. The perpetrator is only half of the equation. Even good police officers, juries, judges, and prosecutors make mistakes. Just ask Richard Phillips from Detroit who spent 45 years in a Michigan prison, because the real criminal lied, and the court got it wrong.

Or Michael Morton, who spent 25 years in a Texas prison before previously withheld evidence was discovered and he was exonerated. On just the federal level alone, of the tens of thousands of convictions each year, the number of exonerations can be counted in the dozens.

Michael Morton is now a highly regarded advocate for criminal justice reform and warns us all to “get legal representation right away because the vast majority of us have never had — probably will never have — a serious interaction with the police.”

4) AN ACCUSATION ALONE CAN RUIN YEARS OF YOUR LIFE

“In the criminal realm, you may eventually assert your right to a “speedy trial.” No such luck if you’re sued civilly. I’ve seen trials still pending ten years later.” – David Katz

Real-life criminal justice is nothing like an episode of Law & Order — the justice system is painfully slow and procedurally complicated. TV and movies would have you believe that if you are innocent, your case will be over in a matter of days or weeks.

In reality, if you have been falsely accused of a crime, you’ll be lucky to see your case go to trial in under a year. According to United States Courts Statistics, the average criminal case can last as long as two years in many jurisdictions.

Think getting to your trial was slow? How about if injustices are served upon you? An appeal of a criminal court’s decision, even if you are absolutely correct, can take more years. Then you can look forward to possibly being put through the wringer again in a new trial.

Even worse, if you lose your appeal, you’re a convicted criminal forever. And keep in mind, appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, don’t give you a new trial. They’re only looking for mistakes made by the jury, lawyers, or the judge. The fact is that if you are forced to pull the trigger in self-defense — right or wrong — you’ll be fighting for your freedom, and it could turn into a nightmare of years in court.

5) EVEN IF YOU WIN, YOU’VE STILL LOST

Congratulations. A jury has found you “not guilty” in your criminal trial! Unfortunately for you, lawyers are expensive. A competent legal defense can rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars. The government has zero obligation to pay your attorneys fees, lost wages, or medical bills even if you win your criminal case.

Then, just when you feel like your troubles are over…you get served. A jury saying you’re not guilty of a crime won’t stop you from being pulled into the civil justice system by your attacker. You’ve fought for your liberty and won, but now you have to fight for everything else you’ve worked your whole life to get.

Civil lawsuits are expensive, so even if you win the case and don’t have to pay the bad guy, between court costs, depositions, and expert witnesses (not to mention your time off work for repeated court appearances), it will feel like you’ve still lost.

To make matters worse, if not provided for by law, civil courts generally follow the “American Rule” for attorneys fees. That means YOU will be on the hook for paying your own attorney if you are forced to defend yourself in a civil case.

Once the dust has finally settled, you will learn the answer to the question asked by Ronald Reagan’s exonerated Labor Secretary, Raymond J. Donovan, “Which office do I go to to get my reputation back?”

 

US LawShield provides legal protection for law-abiding gun owners who defend themselves and their families. 

 

comments

  1. avatar Thixotropic says:

    Yep.

    And US LawShield is one of the best.

    I am a NEW member of ACLDN.

    1. avatar A-Argh15 says:

      ACLDN member here too. Three years now. I have the local ACLDN attorney’s contact info in my cell phn.

      Not only do they provide legal protection but they also provide you with a bunch of informative DVDs.

      1. avatar Join ACLDN says:

        Ditto–Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network was the best I found in my research. 1) it’s not insurance, so they can still pay if you plead to a lesser crime as part of a deal and 2) the bail benefit alone is worth it. Shameless plug, go check them out and think about joining

  2. avatar TommyGNR says:

    So say the man selling insurance

    1. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Guess you’ll learn the hard way… Don’t know about u but insurance on my house/truck/personal property have all been worth it in the past… Obviously “criminal defense” would be too.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Are those insurances worth it when you take into account the premiums you’ve paid every year and not used plus the appreciation you could have made on that money?

        If so, you’re the rare exception. If insurance was actually worth it to the consumer (financially), it wouldn’t be a business.

        1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          “If insurance was actually worth it to the consumer (financially), it wouldn’t be a business”

          You’re not WRONG wrong, but insurance is a special sort of product. A person without it is playing Russian roulette with their financial life and possibly their freedom in the case of a DGU.

        2. avatar Dude says:

          The house always wins.

        3. avatar Montana Actual says:

          I’m sorry, are we talking investments, or insurance? Do you understand the difference between the two?

        4. avatar George Floyd's ghost says:

          Yes…. we’re not ALL dumb rednecks…. we ate capable of understanding a insurance policy….. and yes, it’s worth it to people who can AFFORD IT….. BUT SOME PEOPLE CAN’T AFFORD IT….. THEY WOULD RATHER PAY ONE OF THEIR OTHER MYRIAD OF BILLS.. .
          So… enjoy your white privilege there you fat cat PIG….

        5. avatar RidgeRunner says:

          I think the question you have to come to terms with is can you afford NOT to have insurance, of whatever kind. I read a lot of “I would have shot the guy” type comments on here and elsewhere, and really it’s not a matter of whether a guy needs shootin’ or not, I think most of us here would pull iron only as a last resort. Even so, this article is sobering, and whatever the facts of the matter are, you pull that trigger and your life has changed forever. I think that’s more true if you’re away from your home, where witnesses can say whatever, like that guy in Austin who had an AK stuck in his face and took action. You’re in much better stead if you’re at home when you defend yourself, especially if you live and in a free state (like Tennessee, where I live).
          Insurance overall is usually a pretty good deal big picture, which you find out in a hurry when a tree falls on your roof or some idiot WITHOUT insurance hits your car. And i wouldn’t change my employer-paid health insurance for anything (the relationship between insurance companies and Big Health is another debate). Bottom line, this article is worth following up on if you carry, IMO.

    2. avatar GS650G says:

      Point out the falsehoods. I’ve seen the criminal legal system so a number on people and it’s no joke.

    3. avatar Rad Man says:

      The legal system is not your friend – ever.
      Rad Man, Attorney at Law

      That’s free advice.

    4. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

      The worst advice I ever got in a concealed carry license class was not to get insurance. The instructor already had an attorney picked out or so he told the class. I told him I hope you don’t mind losing your house and any other financial assets you may have if you want to take that route.

      It’s a little over $100 a year, that’s not even 2 billable hours for a lawyer. Not to mention US Law Shield has local attorneys you can talk to with questions. They have been extremely punctual and answered any questions I have had to my satisfaction.

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    If I have to use my pistol to defend myself, it will be a “righteous shoot”, a legal response to a threat of imminent death or grievous bodily injury. Cops can’t arrest me for legal actions. I will not go to court because I will be within my constitutional rights and the law. If you are acting legally, there is nothing to fear. You don’t need to give even a moment to all the stuff in this article. You don’t need no stinkin’ lawyer; just tell the truth. Good guys always win.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      A few years ago, one of my close relatives was accused of something that didn’t happen by a disgruntled ex-girlfriend. After a thorough investigation, detectives found that the charge was not applicable and was dropped due to insufficient evidence (because it never happened). Unfortunately, nearly all the LEO friends in our lives at the time turned their backs on us and completely disassociated themselves with our family. Not one of them has ever spoken to us again…my current LEO friends are all more recent and are not from that part of my/our life.

      As one of those former friends put it, “charges are usually correct, so if your relative is said to have done [insert suspected crime here], he likely did it and is guilty”. Except that he didn’t, the accuser changed her story, and the charge was dropped. But all the LEOs toed the Blue Line and went along with the arresting officer’s assumption of guilt.

      LE is not your friend. If you ever find yourself involved in a defense shooting, state only what is required of you by law at the time the report is taken, and nothing more until you speak with your attorney.

      1. avatar Uh huh... says:

        I how do you know he didn’t do it? We’re you there?

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Read my comment again. The ex changed her story and admitted it never happened.

        2. avatar Uh huh... says:

          That’s because she was intimidated into changing her story

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Uh huh…were you there?

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “LE is not your friend.”

        Had several opportunities to talk to groups of LE. My take away was that every non-LE was considered an unarrested criminal. I asked why they were willing to talk to me. The response was along the line of, “Oh, you’re military; you’re ok.” That was scary, as being in the military was term-limited.

        1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

          I work around LE several times in a week. My experience as well is they tend to give you a pass once they know you’re retired military.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I work around LE several times in a week. My experience as well is they tend to give you a pass once they know you’re retired military.”

          Nice to know. Been thinking my Kryptonite expired at retirement.

        3. avatar TheBSonTTAG says:

          Somehow I doubt you were in the Military. If you were and somehow managed to make it through basic without being kicked out they got rid of you as soon as you got to your initial assignment.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          Isn’t that interesting, when veterans actually are more likely to have committed the crimes.

          “Veteran status was associated with increased levels of interpersonal violence, motoring offences, anxiety disorders and hazardous drinking patterns. Veteran status was associated with decreased levels of acquisitive offending, schizophrenia, ADHD, and substance misuse.”

          LEOs giving a break to veterans is just another form of selective prosecution, playing favorites with their legal authority.

      3. avatar Ned Pepper says:

        Sounds like your “LEO friends” weren’t really friends at all.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Unfortunately, true. My new group of friends are thru church, however, so our bond is on a different level other than casual friendship.

    2. avatar Bubba says:

      That is so far from the truth I hope you just forgot your sarc tag

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “That is so far from the truth…”

        What? Hang on. Where’d you get that?

        Say it isn’t so, Joe.

    3. avatar Montana Actual says:

      Might be the first time Sam actually made me laugh. Good guys always finish first, obviously.

    4. avatar Kyle says:

      lol…thats a good one.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Glad you liked it.

  4. avatar MouseGun says:

    Depending on your location, just take his wallet and shoes after you shoot him, and you’ll be back in the streets in an hour.

  5. avatar LKB says:

    Yup, all very true. I’m a civil trial lawyer with over 30 years in grade, but nevertheless I am a US LawShield customer.

    And with Travis County slated to have it’s own Soros-backed-hack as DA starting in January, St. Louis-style justice (or rather, the lack thereof) is coming to Austin, so this kind of insurance is gonna be crucial.

    1. avatar John78723 says:

      And our Austin silly council just approved a 34% cut to police funding.

      So long to being one of the safest big cities.

  6. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Click bait to sell insurance.

    1. avatar tommy2fer says:

      One buys insurance to shift the liability in instances where one cannot withstand the liability…..financially or otherwise. Do you CCW? Own a gun for possible self defense? Can you self insure with cash up front the cost of your defense….starting at $50,000, running to maybe $1,000,000? Probably not.
      Maybe you call this article “click bait”, well it may be, but you also may very well need it. Probably you can’t afford it or are not smart to recognize and manage liability. Probably have nothing worth anything…..an empty hole.

      1. avatar 9x39 says:

        I can attest to, after the fact, and during the remaining consequential’s. I wish I had before. This is, in a few words, is financially crushing. Regardless of whether or not it’s a shill piece, it’s an important fact that even if you’re in the right in the eyes of the law, that can & sometimes is completely disregarded by the system.

        I will never get back what it’s cost me thus far, and it’s not over. Far from it.

      2. avatar George Floyd's ghost says:

        Oh…. so you’re one of THOSE “people”…. even worse than a ghetto criminal….
        Your white privilege has you using the fact that someone “can’t afford” something as a weapon against them….
        Well, I’m thinking your little paper money fetish is about to take a turn for the worse…
        Better start stuffing that mattress….JS

  7. avatar Darkman says:

    The system in and of itself is not corrupt. It is nothing more than a tool. Like a Firearm. The corruption/danger comes from those allowed to operate the system. Like a Firearm. The answer to the problem involves those effected by those in control of the system. Either stand by and obediently allow the system to be used in a corrupt/unjust manner or remove those corrupting the system. It doesn’t get much clearer than that.

  8. avatar Prndll says:

    Being arrested does not mean your guilty.

    Being guilty does not in itself mean serving time.

    You can be arrested for almost anything just like you can be fired from your job for almost anything.

    Too many people think that if your not doing anything wrong, cops can’t arrest you.

    Too many people think arrest=guilt.

    Cops are charged with a task. That task is not necessily to understand the law. Although they can usually perform better if they do. Most of what they do is interpretation and documentation. They can’t arrest people without any reason though. Suspicion and probable cause are major components in their jobs.

    1. avatar Don from CT says:

      In summary, you can beat the wrap, but you can’t beat the ride.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Yeah and with the advent of cancel culture and social media, the ride has gotten worse (even if there’s less slaps upside the head during it).

        People get fired and have their careers ended for the stupidest things (and tweets)

        1. avatar RidgeRunner says:

          “just like you can be fired from your job for almost anything…”
          Not if you’re in the protected class. I’ve found some people are damn near impossible to fire, in fact, you may well find the tables turned if you even try.

    2. avatar 9x39 says:

      That’s how it’s supposed to work. I am here to tell you it is not always how it works. I myself am an example of the latter. Statute’s state I am perfectly within the defined limits of legality in action, and yet I was arrested regardless of the fact. In a supposedly very pro-self defense state.

      Let me put this a little more succinctly: a victim of the crime was arrested, while the perp walked.

      1. avatar Prndll says:

        As I said
        Being arrested does not mean guilt.

        1. avatar 9x39 says:

          Wasn’t disagreeing, but enforcing your point.

      2. avatar RidgeRunner says:

        Wish you the best, and please let us know how it turns out.

  9. avatar Anon says:

    It is a corrupt system. Cops get info on judges and prosecutors and lawyers. This is then turned to their advantage down the road.
    I’ve been an expert witness in court, civil cases. Great evidence is excluded because of the law.
    I live in a Dem county, I won’t talk to the police without a lawyer.

    1. avatar Prndll says:

      I agree. Not only do we have a right to say nothing to the police. Talking to them without a lawyer is likely to make things worse.

      Too many people misinterpret that as meaning they need to ‘run’ from cops. All that does is make officers think there is something to hide.

  10. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    We could really use an article or series of articles comparing the various self defense insurance companies. I do think such insurance is a good idea. I have no clue which one is the best or if any are scams.

  11. avatar Ralph says:

    “5 Reasons The Legal System is Not Your Friend. Period.”

    FIFY. The legal system is a swamp. When I was practicing, I needed waders.

  12. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    Get carry insurance. I pay $180 a year. Peanuts. And well worth it.

    LE is not your friend. Never talk to cops. Never. Under any circumstances, even if the circumstances and cops seem friendly. I know this blows a hole in the whole “community policing” thing, but anything beyond “Hello” is dangerous. If you’re stopped, never answer questions about where you’re going or what you’re doing. Give them your license and insurance and required info, and then clam up. If you’re arrested, just say one word: lawyer. Do not try and justify anything, even though you’re innocent. The cops, lawyers and judges will f* you if they can.

    1. avatar God, the almighty says:

      Yes THIS…..
      This must be changed though…. this is NOT what the founding fathers had envisioned for this country….I can assure you!

  13. avatar enuf says:

    Carry insurance? Sounds like a good idea. And, it’s not offered by Wayne La Pierre, so that’s a plus.

  14. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    I have no problem with US LawShield’s product, or them trying to sell more of their product. What I have a problem is allowing them to write what amounts to an advertorial in what is ostensibly a neutral, factual, objective gun blog — “The TRUTH About Guns.” There is a massive conflict of interest involved for both US LawShield and TTAG.

    Are there other products out there? Perhaps better ones? Are there drawbacks to US LawShield’s product? Are there any facts that might mitigate the sense of fear that US LawShield is obviously trying to instill?

    You’re sure not going to learn the answers to any of those questions from an article written by US LawShield.

    1. avatar RidgeRunner says:

      Is there anything inaccurate in this article? I, for one, appreciate it.

  15. avatar The Rookie says:

    What? You want me to buy “Murder Insurance”?!? Clearly, anyone who buys this is already planning on committing violent acts! Think of the children!

    (uh, do I really need a sarcasm tag here?)

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “(uh, do I really need a sarcasm tag here?)”

      Well…..

  16. avatar Peter Gunn says:

    The first thing that crossed my mind when I found out that one could purchase “self-defense” insurance was how the “system” would view/treat the holder of such a policy- undoubtedly as someone exhibiting premeditation. They would be compared to a driver who sought out “suspicious” insurance analogous to “excessive speeding”, “DUI”, “fleeing”, “racing”, “repeat offender”, or “manslaughter/homicide” coverage before being charged with felony traffic violations.

    I am curious to hear how “self defense” policy holders have actually fared in courtrooms.

    1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      Other good questions: How often has US LawShield paid out and how much? How does this compare to other insurers? What is the likelihood of them paying out? How much does the average policy holder pay over a lifetime compared to the benefit provided? How have US LawShield customers fared legally and financially compared to uninsured customers or customers of other insurance? How many people are involved in self-defense shootings vs. how many are actually charged and have to defend themselves in court?

      You are probably not going to find the answers to those questions in an article written by US LawShield.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “You are probably not going to find the answers to those question in an article written by US LawShield.”

        Have you seen such comparisons on any other type “insurance”, actual insurance?

        Seems there are three choices:
        – Do nothing, and ride the odds
        – Create a half-million+ emergency fund only for legal expenses
        – Pay the monthly fees into some sort of legal defense arrangement from a commercial company

        I just cannot find being informed of options, or cautioned about risks to be unimportant, avoided.

        1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          Have you seen such comparisons on any other type “insurance”, actual insurance?

          Yes, I have. Magazines like Consumer Reports do objective comparisons about different products, including products like insurance.

          If you’re trying to do real journalism and not just hoover up clickbait, that’s your job. A website called “The Truth About Guns” should not just lazily publish advertorials and press releases, it should do the legwork to publish articles that actually provide truth and objectivity and more value than I can get than by going to US LawShields website and read them tell me how great they are.

          Gun enthusiasts are traditionally not very strict about the standards to which they hold gun magazines — that’s why so many gun magazines got embarrassed so badly for giving glowing reviews to the Remington R51 — they were doing advertising, pleasing the people who buy their ad space, not doing journalism. A lot of gun magazines are just mouthpieces for the product manufacturers. If you’re happy with that, fine. I’m not.

          I’m not arguing against the idea of carry insurance. I think it’s a fine idea. I’m arguing against biased advertorials for one particular company.

          This particular article seems really deceptive to me, too, as it discusses overall conviction rates for *all* crimes, not people who are in a disputed self-defense shooting. That seems designed to scare people and not necessarily representative of what their actual experience will be.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “…it should do the legwork to publish articles that actually provide truth.”

          Truth is not diminished by the reputation, or actions of the source. Where in the the article was untruth?

          The first four words of the article disabused everyone of the idea that the writing was a TTAG effort/product. Given your dislike of infomercials, the lead words should have led you to hit the delete button, and move on. The actual article just might be the first time some readers have ever considered the outcome of a DGU, and the risks.

          BTW, TTAG is a blog, not a journalistic endeavor, expecially not investigative journalism.

        3. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          Blogging is journalism. Only a very archaic, limited definition of journalism says otherwise. Blogs are in most cases doing the valuable work that investigative journalists and reporters for the mainstream media used to do or should have been doing.

          I’m sorry you have such low expectations for TTAG. I prefer to push them to do better.

          Also, way to go, a partial quote of a sentence that doesn’t give the full context of a sentence is prime misleading journalism. I never claimed anything in the article was untrue — you selectively trimmed the sentence. But something in the article might be untrue. How would I know? It wasn’t vetted for truth, being a paid advertorial.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Blogging is journalism.”

          No, it is just a bully pulpit, an electronic soap box, at best an information exchange…good, bad and ugly. It is the old BBS, with a GUI.

        5. avatar Geoff "Ammo. LOTS of ammo..." PR says:

          “Blogging is journalism.”

          By that metric, Rush Limbaugh is automatically respected broadcast journalism.

          Does it need to be said he isn’t? He’s *opinion*, and doesn’t hide it.

          This article identifies what it is up front, and provides unlimited room below (where we are now) to argue for, against, and refute it’s veracity.

          So far, there hasn’t been one claim that what the company offers is in any way substandard, fraudulent, or ineffective. If you are aware of such information, please do all of us a favor and spell out the verifiable details.

          Something tells me that those who hate the 2A would love very much to have the ability to shut down services like this company offers, leaving those who needed to defend themselves open to vengeance prosecutions by those who despise us.

          You know, the same folks who called similar services “Murder Insurance” :

          “The National Rifle Association will have to appear for a regulatory hearing over allegations it violated New York law by marketing an insurance policy for shootings that critics have dubbed “murder insurance.”

          A federal judge in Albany, New York, on Monday denied a request by the gun-rights group to block the July 29 hearing before the New York State Department of Financial Services.”

          https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-14/nra-must-face-murder-insurance-regulatory-hearing-judge-says

    2. avatar John Boch says:

      Frankly, they don’t usually get to the courtroom because they’ve got an attorney representing them while prosecutors and investigators mull things over.

      And they tend to be exceptionally law-abiding.

      But it happens.

      John

      1. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

        Bingo. The attorney I spoke with said her job is to get to the DA and argue that the case shouldn’t even go to trial. The majority of cases are dealt with this way, because people with carry insurance are very law-abiding.

        That’s worth $180 a year to me.

        However, if I’m accused and it goes to trial, the insurance covers everything. Attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, bail, etc., and defense in a civil trial. They program I’m with will even stand with you if you’re red flagged.

        1. avatar Peter Gunn says:

          One of my concerns would be becoming the target of prosecution specifically due to having “self defense” insurance. The system seems to thrive on “making examples” of those standing in opposition to the “politics du jour”. While expenses play an enormous role, so must the realities of perception and concomitant effects/results. The legal system is a self-perpetuating money machine in which personnel get paid based upon the court staying in operation- no cases=no money. It is the defendants, plaintiffs, litigants, (insurance) etc.that produce the cheese that grease the wheels that keep the behemoth rolling.

          I’d like to see the hard numbers relating to actual outcomes involving “self defense” insurance from pre-charge to post-trial before forming an opinion on the matter.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’d like to see the hard numbers relating to actual outcomes involving “self defense” insurance from pre-charge to post-trial before forming an opinion on the matter.”

          Just run the risk of only being able to afford an attorney to represent you at the bail hearing. You are guaranteed to die, so life insurance (death insurance?) makes sense (providing you are replacing your financial contribution to your family). You are highly unlikely to ever be involved in a DGU, and gambling everything on that is not unreasonable.

          But, if you insist, contact each of the offerors and ask your questions. It wouldn’t take that much time.

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “The first thing that crossed my mind when I found out that one could purchase “self-defense” insurance was how the “system” would view/treat the holder of such a policy- undoubtedly as someone exhibiting premeditation.”

      There are a coupla things at play, here: legal representation and “insurance”.

      Insurance is generally a replacement of something of value (life, property). Legal representation insures nothing. It is the sloppy language that permits paying a retainer for legal representation to be considered synonymous with insurance. However, the companies selling legal representation sometimes confuse the issue themselves.

      From my reading, there are two types of self-defense programs: reimbursement of expenses; absorbtion of expenses. In the first instance, you pay the defense costs, and the self-defense assistance company evaluates whether or not to pay the expenses. In the second instance, all costs are paid by the legal firm to which you paid the retainer. If you chose to acquire self-defense legal assistance, be sure you know exactly how the money flows.

      In a pure “insurance” scenario, you pay a fee, and the insurance company reimburses your loss, even if the fee you paid in is grossly less than the actual reimbursement.

      Among the insurance types is “personal liability insurance”. This insurance protects you against the paying damages for your actions (not including criminal acts). For instance, you have a guest in the residence who is severely injured taking a shower. Obtaining such insurance, regardless of timing of the purchase and the event, has been a long standing practice. It appears to be extremely rare that an injured party was able to collect damages on the claim that you premeditatedly purchased personal liability insurance in order to cover your legal costs of causing your guest to fall in the shower. Indeed there is no legal principle allowing people to claim that you bought auto insurance because you intended to run people down.

      The whole “murder insurance” trope is a media construct designed to milsead/dupe the willfully ignorant. The theory is that pre-paid legal insurance (or re-imbursed payment of legal fees) entices people to go around shooting others when minus the pre-paid legal assiatance (sometimes called “insurance”), the shooting would not have happened. Even that a gun owner will commit a crime that would not have happened, if not for the promise of “insurance” to keep them out of jail.

      1. avatar Peter Gunn says:

        Could one not argue that the legal system actively employs, and axiomatically relies upon, the “willfully ignorant”?

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Could one not argue that the legal system actively employs, and axiomatically relies upon, the “willfully ignorant” ”

          That should be expected when the majority of the culture functions that way.

  17. avatar John Boch says:

    I’m a member of Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network.

    I also signed up a year and a half ago with US Law SHield. Why? Because they cover Red Flag hearings. THAT is important to me. Especially as I’m higher profile than the average gun owner.

    Both are outstanding.

    USCCA is good too. It’s comprehensive. It’s also a little pricey.

  18. avatar GS650G says:

    We’ve a legal system in the country, not a justice system . They can a call it DOJ all day long but we know the truth.

  19. avatar Wally1 says:

    This subject is exactly why you should only carry to defend your life or your family from an immediate threat. . Anybody else is on their own.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      Justice is in the eye of the bench holder.

  20. avatar Bigus Dickus says:

    I went with CCW Safe. What I’m paying for with CCW Safe is basically legal defense on retainer.

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      Same here. I received those small membership keychain cards but didn’t put them on, can’t be advertising CCW Safe to any potential Antis.

    2. avatar RidgeRunner says:

      I did a little research on this; CCW Safe claims to be the only such insuror to have successfully defended a murder charge, so that tells you a lot about how often this insurance is actually used.
      It feels like a smart move, and should be perceived as being a responsible carrier as opposed to anticipating shooting somebody. You’re not really protecting your family if it ends up costing you everything you own.

  21. avatar Jeff says:

    With all of the Soros supported DA’s flooding the legal system I would think it not prudent to not have some kind of insurance if you use or carry a gun. The second amendment supporters are being charged and rioters are being let loose recently.

  22. avatar possum says:

    Hangman , wait a little while, I think I see my brother riding, ride a many mile. Didn’t bring no silver, couldn’t get no gold. ,,,,The system works for the rich

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      No money, no justice.

      No justice, no peace.

      How about another multi-trillion dollar tax cut for the wealthy, to ‘stimulate the economy’…

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Hangman , wait a little while, I think I see my brother riding, ride a many mile.”

      Isn’t it…”Slack your rope, hangman. Slack it for a while…..”

  23. avatar Red says:

    Why you make sure that when you do defend your life, ensure the bad guy is at room temperature when everything is finished. Dead guys can’t dispute your actions in court.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email