- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4
- Likes
- 1
LAW & SELF DEFENSE INSTRUCTION
By Mitchell Lake, Esq.
In terms of a use of force incident, the legal profession suffer from it’s own marketing.
Lawyers do this in part by overselling the complexity of the situation to the general public, in that we explain all the possible pitfalls, perils and things that can go wrong in the aftermath of a use of force incident, and we expect you to be overwhelmed…and thus hire us.
Yes. Attorneys are out to make money. So are shooting instructor, plumbers, prostitutes, engineers and the guy who installs your HVAC system. (Of them all, prostitutes are the most honest and have the best reputation.)
This over-marketing, seems to have produced a side industry of people in the tactical instruction marketplace who as part of their classes attempt to reduce the legal aspects of self defense easily digestible components for their students.
Unfortunately, those attempting to reduce the volume & complexity of information to the retail tactical consumer do not always have the best grasp of the information they purvey, nor are they always cognizant of how the actual statutes are applied in court, or understand the reasoning behind the information they purvey.
You shouldn’t go to a law office to learn gun fighting (…Well, not yet. Let me get some more classes in and I’ll fix that…Personal Injury Legal Services may just get a whole new meaning in a few years…), and you really shouldn’t go to a tactical school to learn about law.
However; gun fighting schools would be negligent if they didn’t give their students basic information regarding use of force laws; but how will the student know if the teacher is saying anything worth listening to?
I) Simplicity
This is self defense, not Federal Administrative Procedure Act litigation or Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. (Shudder. Bad law school memories…) The area of self defense law is not overly complex.
It’s not SIMPLE, and it does require significantly more mental effort than “tried by 12 or carried by 6, and to hell with all the legal mumbo-jumbo…” – but overly complex? No.
The subjective/objective test, Ability/opportunity/intent/jeopardy, applicable retreat statutes or castle doctrine laws and rules for what constitutes reasonable force are not overly complex in practical application.
They should not be so in explanation.
You need instruction that is simple, applicable to a broad variety of situations, easily usable under stress (like…after shooting someone…maybe?) and able to be understood at a bone deep level so you can use it to filter the data from the situation as it comes in subconsciously.
If your instructor is not providing you with that, then they are doing you a disservice.
II) Source material
Another factor you should be on the lookout for - is an instructor providing you with a copy of statutes for you to read absent any legitimate source’s interpretation of them.
Perhaps your state has a law of retreat – it’s probably no different in drafting and language from 15 other state’s laws (legislatures are not the most inventive…they tend to copy a lot from other states…) but in application? How is it applied in your area? Have courts made it a narrow, almost archaic provision that is merely given lip service allowing you to effectively ignore it and stand your ground in practical application – or is it adhered to strictly, making your rules of engagement very tight?
You will not be able to tell by a copy of the law. If you are not given recent, citable sources applicable to your jurisdiction, you have questions that need to be answered.
Teaching general principles of use of force is one thing. Many instructors do classes in multiple states, and asking them to be fully up to par on the minutia of all the states they travel to would be asking too much.
However, your local instructor purporting to teach the law of his state to his class absent proper interpretation, quite another.
Legitimate sources to look for are the state’s jury instructions, American Jurisprudence excerpts, court cases, and Law Review Articles.
Be aware that while this area of law doesn’t change very much, it does evolve. Material from 15 years ago may still be accurate – or not.
If you aren’t receiving info on how up to date your instructor’s material is, question the freshness of the product you are getting.
III) Reasoning for choosing the instructor’s line of thinking.
As an example of this, let’s look at advice on post incident behavior/statements.
This is an area in which I respectfully disagree with Mr. Ayoob because of my training and experience as a criminal defense attorney. I believe the less spoken to the police, the better (my thinking lies toward #1 Shut up. #2 Lawyer up, #3 Shut up again...); however, I know & understand the reasons Mr. Ayoob has for his advice, and I am further familiar with his qualifications for offering it.
Beware of people merely parroting his advice on statements, or offering alternative advice without the ability to explain the reasoning behind the position they take or the qualifications to make that allow them to make a decision intelligently on the subject.
If an instructor is unable/unwilling to explain why he follows a particular line of thought - beware. Further, if they do not have the qualifications to make that choice intelligently, the same.
Being a current or former police officer is not enough. Being an attorney – the same.
What experience do they have in the area of investigations or criminal representation? I don’t ask anyone to blindly accept what I’m saying based on a piece of paper on my wall. If I can’t explain why I’d suggest a course of action to your satisfaction, they I wouldn’t ask you to follow it.
Should you get less from an instructor?
Further, as to explanations for a given course of action – be sure they are applicable to you.
If, for example, an instructor’s experience in this area is that of a large city tactical officer who was involved in multiple job related shootings, his post shooting experiences may be greatly influenced by his point of view, and his experiences will probably not be a 1:1 correlation to what you may experience in the aftermath of a situation.
Everyone has a point of view. Make sure you know what the instructor’s is before adopting it for yourself.
A self defense instructor does not have to be an attorney to provide a competent level of instruction to the retail training consumer in the area of law surrounding use of force.
However, that’s no excuse for handing a student
a line of outdated, oversimplified bull... or a confusing mass of information under the theory that the student won’t understand it anyway.
It’s your life and your freedom.
Demand better.
By Mitchell Lake, Esq.
In terms of a use of force incident, the legal profession suffer from it’s own marketing.
Lawyers do this in part by overselling the complexity of the situation to the general public, in that we explain all the possible pitfalls, perils and things that can go wrong in the aftermath of a use of force incident, and we expect you to be overwhelmed…and thus hire us.
Yes. Attorneys are out to make money. So are shooting instructor, plumbers, prostitutes, engineers and the guy who installs your HVAC system. (Of them all, prostitutes are the most honest and have the best reputation.)
This over-marketing, seems to have produced a side industry of people in the tactical instruction marketplace who as part of their classes attempt to reduce the legal aspects of self defense easily digestible components for their students.
Unfortunately, those attempting to reduce the volume & complexity of information to the retail tactical consumer do not always have the best grasp of the information they purvey, nor are they always cognizant of how the actual statutes are applied in court, or understand the reasoning behind the information they purvey.
You shouldn’t go to a law office to learn gun fighting (…Well, not yet. Let me get some more classes in and I’ll fix that…Personal Injury Legal Services may just get a whole new meaning in a few years…), and you really shouldn’t go to a tactical school to learn about law.
However; gun fighting schools would be negligent if they didn’t give their students basic information regarding use of force laws; but how will the student know if the teacher is saying anything worth listening to?
I) Simplicity
This is self defense, not Federal Administrative Procedure Act litigation or Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. (Shudder. Bad law school memories…) The area of self defense law is not overly complex.
It’s not SIMPLE, and it does require significantly more mental effort than “tried by 12 or carried by 6, and to hell with all the legal mumbo-jumbo…” – but overly complex? No.
The subjective/objective test, Ability/opportunity/intent/jeopardy, applicable retreat statutes or castle doctrine laws and rules for what constitutes reasonable force are not overly complex in practical application.
They should not be so in explanation.
You need instruction that is simple, applicable to a broad variety of situations, easily usable under stress (like…after shooting someone…maybe?) and able to be understood at a bone deep level so you can use it to filter the data from the situation as it comes in subconsciously.
If your instructor is not providing you with that, then they are doing you a disservice.
II) Source material
Another factor you should be on the lookout for - is an instructor providing you with a copy of statutes for you to read absent any legitimate source’s interpretation of them.
Perhaps your state has a law of retreat – it’s probably no different in drafting and language from 15 other state’s laws (legislatures are not the most inventive…they tend to copy a lot from other states…) but in application? How is it applied in your area? Have courts made it a narrow, almost archaic provision that is merely given lip service allowing you to effectively ignore it and stand your ground in practical application – or is it adhered to strictly, making your rules of engagement very tight?
You will not be able to tell by a copy of the law. If you are not given recent, citable sources applicable to your jurisdiction, you have questions that need to be answered.
Teaching general principles of use of force is one thing. Many instructors do classes in multiple states, and asking them to be fully up to par on the minutia of all the states they travel to would be asking too much.
However, your local instructor purporting to teach the law of his state to his class absent proper interpretation, quite another.
Legitimate sources to look for are the state’s jury instructions, American Jurisprudence excerpts, court cases, and Law Review Articles.
Be aware that while this area of law doesn’t change very much, it does evolve. Material from 15 years ago may still be accurate – or not.
If you aren’t receiving info on how up to date your instructor’s material is, question the freshness of the product you are getting.
III) Reasoning for choosing the instructor’s line of thinking.
As an example of this, let’s look at advice on post incident behavior/statements.
This is an area in which I respectfully disagree with Mr. Ayoob because of my training and experience as a criminal defense attorney. I believe the less spoken to the police, the better (my thinking lies toward #1 Shut up. #2 Lawyer up, #3 Shut up again...); however, I know & understand the reasons Mr. Ayoob has for his advice, and I am further familiar with his qualifications for offering it.
Beware of people merely parroting his advice on statements, or offering alternative advice without the ability to explain the reasoning behind the position they take or the qualifications to make that allow them to make a decision intelligently on the subject.
If an instructor is unable/unwilling to explain why he follows a particular line of thought - beware. Further, if they do not have the qualifications to make that choice intelligently, the same.
Being a current or former police officer is not enough. Being an attorney – the same.
What experience do they have in the area of investigations or criminal representation? I don’t ask anyone to blindly accept what I’m saying based on a piece of paper on my wall. If I can’t explain why I’d suggest a course of action to your satisfaction, they I wouldn’t ask you to follow it.
Should you get less from an instructor?
Further, as to explanations for a given course of action – be sure they are applicable to you.
If, for example, an instructor’s experience in this area is that of a large city tactical officer who was involved in multiple job related shootings, his post shooting experiences may be greatly influenced by his point of view, and his experiences will probably not be a 1:1 correlation to what you may experience in the aftermath of a situation.
Everyone has a point of view. Make sure you know what the instructor’s is before adopting it for yourself.
A self defense instructor does not have to be an attorney to provide a competent level of instruction to the retail training consumer in the area of law surrounding use of force.
However, that’s no excuse for handing a student
a line of outdated, oversimplified bull... or a confusing mass of information under the theory that the student won’t understand it anyway.
It’s your life and your freedom.
Demand better.
