Lethal Force: You Had Seconds. The Prosecution & the Jury Have All the Time in the World

WEBVTT
00:00:00.160 --> 00:00:06.719
Shooters, whether it's civilian side or police, you have a massive responsibility to get it as right as you can.
00:00:07.200 --> 00:00:11.839
Understanding you're not going to have enough information to get it right every time.
00:00:12.000 --> 00:00:14.880
Not the assessment and not your response to it.
00:00:15.039 --> 00:00:16.960
Both have to be reasonable.
00:00:17.120 --> 00:00:19.440
Both are basically a probable cause standard.
00:00:19.600 --> 00:00:23.280
Does reasonable belief mean a rational reason to believe?
00:00:23.440 --> 00:00:24.800
Does it mean fair probability?
00:00:24.960 --> 00:00:26.559
Does it mean probable cause?
00:00:26.800 --> 00:00:30.160
And I've seen some courts that say it's actually less than probable cause.
00:00:30.320 --> 00:00:33.439
And other ones say, no, it neatly equates to probable cause.
00:00:33.520 --> 00:00:38.640
And so re- at the end of the day, was it reasonable for you to believe that?
00:00:38.799 --> 00:00:41.119
Understanding the belief does not mean no.
00:00:41.520 --> 00:00:44.240
So that's where our fight is quite a bit.
00:00:44.399 --> 00:00:46.560
The word like the concept of reasonableness.
00:01:13.840 --> 00:01:22.879
Today's guest, Louis von Klein, has spent more than 30 years at the intersection of policing, law, human performance, and use of force.
00:01:23.040 --> 00:01:34.079
He served as a police officer, prosecutor, military attorney, policy advisor, educator, and now works with force science on some of the most complex use of force cases in the country.
00:01:34.319 --> 00:01:48.959
In this episode, we're going to explore what reasonable really means, why video rarely tells the whole story, how civilians and officers are judged after using force, and what jurors misunderstand about violence, and it's quite a bit.
00:01:49.359 --> 00:01:56.480
Also cover why your training before an incident may determine whether you can defend your decisions afterwards.
00:01:56.719 --> 00:02:02.560
Whether you carry a firearm, serve in law enforcement, train others, or may one day sit on a jury.
00:02:02.719 --> 00:02:08.879
This conversation could fundamentally change how you understand force, fear, and accountability.
00:02:09.039 --> 00:02:13.599
Thanks for joining me for this episode of Making Shooters Better, brought to you by Laseramo.
00:02:14.080 --> 00:02:16.080
Hello and welcome Von Kleen.
00:02:16.719 --> 00:02:17.840
Yeah, good morning, Terry.
00:02:18.080 --> 00:02:18.479
Good to see you.
00:02:18.800 --> 00:02:19.280
You too.
00:02:19.360 --> 00:02:20.400
Appreciate you joining me.
00:02:20.560 --> 00:02:23.360
So how old were you when you first started shooting, mate?
00:02:23.759 --> 00:02:29.520
Oh, uh, I started a little late, I think, for maybe some of your audits, but I was probably about 20 years old.
00:02:29.680 --> 00:02:34.560
Uh was when I first started working for well, I was 19 when I first started working for a police department.
00:02:34.719 --> 00:02:38.639
And uh that was the first time I put hands on a gun and actually started shooting.
00:02:38.960 --> 00:02:39.680
That's funny.
00:02:39.840 --> 00:02:48.000
It's it's been, and I now know in hindsight that I that my interpretation of this has been wrong, but I always assumed all Americans grew up shooting.
00:02:48.080 --> 00:02:55.599
I grew up as a youngster in England shooting, which is actually fairly rare, but I always thought everybody here just grows up, and that's one of the things that you do.
00:02:55.680 --> 00:03:01.360
And it's funny because unless people have joined the law enforcement or military, it seems to actually be the opposite.
00:03:01.680 --> 00:03:11.199
Yeah, and it was well, mine was interesting because my dad was a Vietnam vet, so I grew up in the military for his entire career, and uh guns were very real to him.
00:03:11.280 --> 00:03:26.560
You know, he had he had come back from Vietnam, and uh they weren't toys, they weren't hunting tools, you know, we didn't do hunting because in the military growing up and moving so much, we really didn't get settled into shooting and hunting.
00:03:26.879 --> 00:03:43.680
My mom was against guns only because they she had been a nurse and they were also very real to her, not because they were opposed to you know the the honorable professions that required them, but they didn't want they didn't want us running around uh thinking they were toys.
00:03:43.759 --> 00:04:00.000
I remember that, but eventually they did get me, you know, a nice little uh starter set of toy pistols that I got to be it was westerns, you know, back in the 70s, all the black and white westerns, so I got to run around with toy guns for a little bit.
00:04:00.319 --> 00:04:05.919
But uh yeah, it wasn't until probably 19 years old when I first started actually shooting guns.
00:04:06.159 --> 00:04:07.840
And was it pistols you got started with?
00:04:07.919 --> 00:04:09.280
I assume it's been police force.
00:04:09.680 --> 00:04:13.520
No, actually, because I was nineteen, I started as a reserve police officer.
00:04:13.599 --> 00:04:14.319
So in the U.S.
00:04:14.479 --> 00:04:26.800
in that particular jurisdiction, you had to be 21 to carry a pistol and to shoot a pistol, but you could be 18 for a shotgun or a rifle um professionally.
00:04:27.040 --> 00:04:32.160
So I think personally you could own it almost at any age, uh, a rifle, but not a pistol.
00:04:32.240 --> 00:04:37.279
And so, yeah, I started out shooting rifles and shotguns before I could even shoot a pistol.
00:04:37.360 --> 00:04:39.360
So yeah, I didn't think that was all all that odd.
00:04:39.439 --> 00:04:42.560
But I grew up I I started in a really small police department, too.
00:04:42.639 --> 00:04:49.600
So I don't know that they'd had a shooting in the history of the department as far as I know, uh, but uh I went from there later.
00:04:49.680 --> 00:04:53.600
We can talk about went to a much bigger department, and shootings were not that infrequent there.
00:04:53.680 --> 00:04:58.319
So it got I went into the flat frying pan after that.
00:04:58.879 --> 00:05:03.040
So given your area of expertise, I am super curious now.
00:05:03.199 --> 00:05:12.000
There's a lot of things we're gonna cover during the course of the podcast, but when the law asks whether someone's fear was reasonable, what exactly is being judged?
00:05:12.079 --> 00:05:17.439
Is it the threat itself, the person's perception of it, or the decision they made because of it?
00:05:17.759 --> 00:05:18.959
Oh, it's all of that, right?
00:05:19.040 --> 00:05:20.079
So that's a great question.
00:05:20.240 --> 00:05:28.079
If we're if we're uh let's see, I I don't know how complicated you want me to get because that word reasonable gets complicated, right?
00:05:28.240 --> 00:05:33.759
If it's a if I'm gonna come back to what we actually do in court.
00:05:33.920 --> 00:05:41.120
Um the original concept of reasonableness for us was a Fourth Amendment balancing test, right?
00:05:41.199 --> 00:05:45.120
And so when you talk about reasonable, that word shows up in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
00:05:45.199 --> 00:05:46.000
Constitution.
00:05:46.240 --> 00:05:54.720
And what that meant was simply was the intrusion on the individual, how did that weigh against the government interest being served, right?
00:05:54.879 --> 00:05:58.399
So in a shooting case, it's got to be a pretty high government interest.
00:05:58.480 --> 00:06:01.199
You know, you don't shoot people for shoplifting sort of thing.
00:06:01.360 --> 00:06:25.360
And so was it reasonable was built on this balancing test and built into the concept of reasonableness, and this is going to be a consistent thread, whether you're talking constitutional reasonableness or just common usage of the word reasonable, like tactical reasonableness, versus reasonable interpretation of the facts, which goes into what you're talking about, the perception, the the sense making.
00:06:25.839 --> 00:06:35.680
Um when we talked about when we talk about this concept of reasonableness in the in the Fourth Amendment context, it's the balancing test.
00:06:36.399 --> 00:06:44.319
In the common usage reasonableness, that's where we start to get in trouble because people will say, well, that's just not reasonable.
00:06:44.560 --> 00:06:46.000
And we're all supposed to know what that means.
00:06:46.399 --> 00:06:46.639
Right?
00:06:47.040 --> 00:06:54.879
But reasonable in that context is more about rational, is a rational basis for that understanding.
00:06:55.040 --> 00:06:56.240
It doesn't have to be correct.
00:06:56.399 --> 00:07:05.040
So built into the concept of reasonableness, whether it's police or civilian, built into the concept of reasonable, says reasonable people can disagree, right?
00:07:05.279 --> 00:07:12.959
There's not a single uh a single tactical uh solution, there are tactical options, right?
00:07:13.199 --> 00:07:17.519
And so what we did, and to help crystallize, that's what I'll say.
00:07:17.600 --> 00:07:26.800
We want to crystallize the contours of reasonableness because it's just this weird word that doesn't have a a unit uh sort of a universal definition.
00:07:27.120 --> 00:07:34.240
But in court, and we're analyzing, we're saying, look, reasonable people could disagree, there's not a single tactical solution, there's just tactical options.
00:07:34.399 --> 00:07:39.120
Reasonable means there has to be a rational basis for it based on objective facts, right?
00:07:39.279 --> 00:07:41.920
So we start to layer all these things.
00:07:42.160 --> 00:07:52.160
Um, but when we talk about a rational basis, now this goes into a long in the entire spectrum of an imminent threat analysis.
00:07:52.399 --> 00:08:06.079
And most of your audience is going to know when we talk about an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, we're actually talking about some version of did they have is did they have the apparent intent or willingness to use deadly force?
00:08:06.319 --> 00:08:09.199
Did they have the physical ability to use deadly force?
00:08:09.439 --> 00:08:15.439
Uh do they have the means to use deadly force, which you know, a lot of times just be hands, fist, and teeth, right?
00:08:15.519 --> 00:08:17.279
Sometimes it doesn't have to be a gun.
00:08:17.439 --> 00:08:19.759
Um, and then they have the opportunity.
00:08:20.079 --> 00:08:27.439
Well, each of those, in order to determine whether the the ultimate decision was reasonable, we got to know was your perception reasonable?
00:08:27.680 --> 00:08:29.519
Was your orientation reasonable, right?
00:08:29.600 --> 00:08:31.360
We all you guys know the oota loop, right?
00:08:31.519 --> 00:08:34.480
Observe, orient, decide, act.
00:08:34.639 --> 00:08:36.399
Well, observation is perception.
00:08:36.559 --> 00:08:42.480
When you look around a room, like what is the bucket of information that the guy had to draw from?
00:08:42.639 --> 00:08:42.879
Right?
00:08:43.039 --> 00:08:46.000
And you don't, it's not what we see on a video camera.
00:08:46.240 --> 00:08:48.960
It's not what we what another witness sees.
00:08:49.200 --> 00:08:52.639
The bucket of information is what that individual perceived.
00:08:53.039 --> 00:08:56.960
And then the next phrase of that oodle loop is orientation.
00:08:57.039 --> 00:08:58.399
That's for us means sense making.
00:08:58.480 --> 00:08:59.440
Like, what did it mean to you?
00:08:59.519 --> 00:09:02.480
Okay, you saw that thing, what did it mean?
00:09:02.799 --> 00:09:04.559
And now we're on the second part of reasonable.
00:09:04.799 --> 00:09:06.480
Was that interpretation reasonable?
00:09:06.639 --> 00:09:06.879
Right?
00:09:07.039 --> 00:09:12.799
I saw the guy move in a in you know, in a manner that's consistent with a draw stroke, right?
00:09:12.960 --> 00:09:18.879
Uh draw stroke from a concealed weapon uh uh hidden behind his back or in his waistband behind his back.
00:09:19.120 --> 00:09:20.320
Okay, fine.
00:09:20.639 --> 00:09:23.919
When we interpret, was that a reasonable interpretation, right?
00:09:24.080 --> 00:09:27.200
Was that reasonable sense making, as we call it?
00:09:27.360 --> 00:09:30.559
Uh was that a reasonable meaning assigned to that movement?
00:09:30.799 --> 00:09:33.600
If you saw the movement, was that a reasonable interpretation?
00:09:33.840 --> 00:09:35.679
We go, well, what was the context?
00:09:35.840 --> 00:09:40.159
And so you can start to see how these simple questions get fleshed out in court.
00:09:40.240 --> 00:09:45.120
And what we're doing right now is exactly what I do on the stand over and over again.
00:09:45.200 --> 00:09:51.679
Is like, look, when we talk about what we're gonna hold him accountable to, we can only hold him accountable to the things that they perceived.
00:09:51.840 --> 00:09:54.320
We don't know what he perceived unless he tells us.
00:09:54.399 --> 00:09:58.480
We can't assume it from video, which is a big fight, because they want us to constantly.
00:09:58.559 --> 00:09:59.919
Well, we can see it on the video.
00:10:00.080 --> 00:10:01.919
Who who cares what we can see on the video?
00:10:02.080 --> 00:10:05.759
We got to know what the officer perceived, we got to know what the civilian perceived.
00:10:05.919 --> 00:10:12.159
And almost always we know that from the statements they ultimately give at some point, right?
00:10:12.960 --> 00:10:30.960
Um, and then the orientation, I call this when people who are familiar with violence, whether it's police, whether it's civilians, I used to say what cops know, and it's really kind of a misnomer because it's not about knowing, it's about what did the cop reasonably believe.
00:10:31.200 --> 00:10:37.600
Because the standard for using deadly force is did you reasonably believe they were a threat of death or serious bodily injury, right?
00:10:38.240 --> 00:11:00.480
Um and so when we talk about police or civilians, and we talk about um the concept of of reasonable belief, I'm we're gonna look at the observe orient, decide and act, we're gonna, or some version of of uh intent, ability means opportunity, or your your audience may think like ability, opportunity jeopardy, right?
00:11:00.639 --> 00:11:02.320
The AOJ model, right?
00:11:02.399 --> 00:11:04.480
All of those get you to the same spot.
00:11:04.720 --> 00:11:15.840
And so when we get in there, I say, look, understand the law also requires us in our reasonableness analysis to be reasonable through the lens of the shooter, right?
00:11:16.320 --> 00:11:18.320
Not through the lens of the person watching the video.
00:11:18.480 --> 00:11:24.559
So the lens of the shooter is a a reasonable officer standard, a reasonable person standard.
00:11:24.879 --> 00:11:34.720
And and so when we talk about that, we're like, well, what would a cop know, or on a civilian side, what would someone familiar with violence understand that fact to mean?
00:11:34.960 --> 00:11:47.279
And so we're going back to reaching behind the back and being familiar with that drawstroke, um, interpreting that to determine whether it's reasonable to believe that's a drawstroke is the context with which it occurs.
00:11:47.759 --> 00:12:03.440
So if it occurs after you told them do not move, if it occurs after they broke into your house, if it occurs after during an argument, um you're going to interpret it in a light of the context of the all the circumstances surrounding it, right?
00:12:03.519 --> 00:12:11.200
And we call that the totality of the circumstances, but I'm interpreting that that movement consistent in the context with which it occurs.
00:12:11.360 --> 00:12:22.320
So if it's at the cash register, right, at a gas station, guy does the exact same movement, you're like, is he reaching for his wallet because it's consistent with that, right?
00:12:22.480 --> 00:12:24.159
Or is he reaching for a gun?
00:12:24.480 --> 00:12:29.759
And the answer to whether it was reasonable or not can only be interpreted in context.
00:12:30.080 --> 00:12:40.879
And so we do a lot of times setting the context so that we could say, This is the observation you made in this context, this is what it reasonably believed that could mean, right?
00:12:41.039 --> 00:12:41.360
Yeah.
00:12:41.840 --> 00:12:49.120
And going back to reasonableness, where reasonable people can disagree, it's it's interpreting context, that's not a single solution.
00:12:49.279 --> 00:13:01.600
But the other thing is we always have to overlay that with the legal requirement is reasonableness, but the reality is there's a human involved.
00:13:01.840 --> 00:13:08.399
And so how do humans respond to ambiguity if things aren't clear and certain and you don't know what's happening?
00:13:08.639 --> 00:13:12.879
Well, the law doesn't require you to know, it just requires you to reasonably believe.
00:13:13.120 --> 00:13:21.600
But if you don't know, we also have to layer that with all of us interpret ambiguity as that which is most dangerous to us.
00:13:21.840 --> 00:13:26.799
It's just sort of like you know, the rustling of the bush on the side of the hiking path.
00:13:26.960 --> 00:13:30.559
You know, your body reacts and it looks and you're waking to see, is that a snake?
00:13:30.639 --> 00:13:31.519
Is that a fox?
00:13:31.679 --> 00:13:32.960
Is that a bunny rabbit?
00:13:33.120 --> 00:13:34.799
You know, what is it coming out there?
00:13:34.879 --> 00:13:37.919
But your initial response to it is, is that dangerous to me?
00:13:38.080 --> 00:13:39.120
And you're you're looking.
00:13:39.279 --> 00:13:40.960
And you might even run the other direction.
00:13:41.120 --> 00:13:45.360
You've seen people, their initial reaction isn't to freeze and assess, right?
00:13:45.759 --> 00:13:48.639
It's to get out of there, we'll figure it out later.
00:13:48.799 --> 00:13:56.720
Yeah, so you have to layer on this legal requirement for reasonableness, which is a rational process, right?
00:13:56.799 --> 00:14:00.720
Did your was your interpretation rationally based, right?
00:14:00.960 --> 00:14:03.600
In circumstances where you're not thinking rationally.
00:14:03.759 --> 00:14:06.559
You're thinking intuitively, you're thinking fast, right?
00:14:06.960 --> 00:14:08.480
Yeah, it's a heuristic element, right?
00:14:08.639 --> 00:14:12.480
You've got minimal data, maximal response, potentially.
00:14:12.799 --> 00:14:13.360
100%.
00:14:13.840 --> 00:14:14.159
Yeah.
00:14:14.399 --> 00:14:18.080
And and that that heuristic, as you call it, right?
00:14:18.159 --> 00:14:20.000
We call it a rule of thumb, right?
00:14:20.080 --> 00:14:30.320
That that I I I have a I've a I have this information that I got in this amount of time, and I've got I've got to quickly recognize what I think it is, and then I've got to do something.
00:14:30.399 --> 00:14:39.919
And that's called sense making, but that I've seen enough, I need to do the the first good enough solution, is we call that satisficing, right?
00:14:40.159 --> 00:14:42.159
So I've seen enough.
00:14:42.240 --> 00:14:43.840
This is what I call heuristics.
00:14:44.000 --> 00:14:46.080
I've seen enough, I need to do the first good enough thing.
00:14:46.159 --> 00:14:48.480
I need to solve this problem with the first good enough thing.
00:14:48.720 --> 00:14:57.919
And in hindsight, when we go back, every one of us can in a tactical after action review or or an AAR, right?
00:14:58.240 --> 00:15:02.480
Every one of us could think of something we would have done different the next time, oh, if that happens again.
00:15:02.639 --> 00:15:04.720
And you should be learning, right?
00:15:05.279 --> 00:15:11.279
And uh and we work really hard in court to keep keep the trier a fact, right?
00:15:11.440 --> 00:15:22.080
Keep the juror, keep the judge focused, or police chief or internal affairs, to keep them focused on reasonable belief does not mean you have to be right.
00:15:22.320 --> 00:15:23.840
You have to be reasonable.
00:15:24.159 --> 00:15:33.679
And if there is a rational basis for your judgment, for your for your assessment, for the meaning you assigned, then that's what the law supports.
00:15:33.919 --> 00:15:46.960
And then we have to fight to keep people in that world because in a shooting scenario, nobody likes to hear this, but probable cause, reasonable belief is a very low investigatory standard.
00:15:48.000 --> 00:15:55.679
Because you don't have to be right, you just have to be reasonable and you have very little time to gather information to make that assessment.
00:15:56.080 --> 00:16:03.679
So we can legally shoot people on very little information that's coming at us very quickly.
00:16:04.000 --> 00:16:18.320
And that means shooters, whether it's civilian side or police, you have a massive responsibility to get it as right as you can, understanding you're not going to have enough information to get it right every time.
00:16:18.639 --> 00:16:22.240
Not the not the assessment and not your response to it.
00:16:22.399 --> 00:16:26.960
Both have to be reasonable, both are basically a probable cause standard.
00:16:27.039 --> 00:16:31.679
Or, you know, and I know my lawyer friends out there, there's sort of an academic discussion.
00:16:31.759 --> 00:16:35.440
Does reasonable belief mean a rational reason to believe?
00:16:35.600 --> 00:16:36.960
Does it mean fair probability?
00:16:37.120 --> 00:16:38.720
Does it mean probable cause?
00:16:38.960 --> 00:16:42.320
And I've seen some courts that say it's actually less than probable cause.
00:16:42.480 --> 00:16:45.600
And other ones say no, it neatly equates to probable cause.
00:16:45.679 --> 00:16:50.799
And so re at the end of the day, was it reasonable for you to believe that?
00:16:50.960 --> 00:16:53.279
Understanding a belief does not mean no.
00:16:53.600 --> 00:16:54.240
Yeah.
00:16:55.120 --> 00:17:00.399
So that's where our fight is quite a bit, the word like the concept of reasonableness.
00:17:00.720 --> 00:17:23.839
And for the attorneys watching, um, and those who may be working with attorneys at some point, one of the I think effective um comparisons for court purposes is you know, those cops in the room or those familiar with criminal justice know that a criminal case might start with what we call a preliminary hearing, right?
00:17:23.920 --> 00:17:26.240
It's a it's just a probable cause hearing.
00:17:26.400 --> 00:17:36.079
Is it is a reason to believe this person met each element of the offense so that we can take the case and move it forward to the next phase of trial, right?
00:17:36.640 --> 00:17:43.440
Well, at a preliminary hearing, there's a judge, not a jury, and the judge hears evidence, hears says okay.
00:17:43.519 --> 00:17:56.319
Uh it's just getting enough information to kind of get a general sense of the of the what happened, and then make it determine on well, it's reason to believe this guy met each element, and that's a far cry from proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
00:17:56.480 --> 00:17:56.720
Right?
00:17:56.880 --> 00:18:07.359
So lots of cases that make it through preliminary hearing are gonna end up in an acquittal or get dropped later, but because it's a very low investigatory standard.
00:18:07.680 --> 00:18:18.799
What's interesting about that is if you as the defendant don't like the preliminary hearing outcome, the judge says, Yes, I find there's probable cause.
00:18:19.359 --> 00:18:23.759
You can appeal that decision for what's called an abusive discretion, right?
00:18:23.920 --> 00:18:36.240
Or it's it's basically you appeal it, say he got it wrong, he abused his discretion, um, there was insufficient facts to find probable cause, and you send it to the appellate court, the court of appeals.
00:18:36.480 --> 00:18:58.880
The court of appeals looks at it, and this is what's important for all of us is the Court of Appeals will look at it and say, even if I disagree with that judge, even if I think the evidence shows something different, so long as that judge's decision fell within a reasonable range of options, then I can't overturn it.
00:18:59.119 --> 00:19:05.680
I'm required to show deference to the trial court's judgment because they were there to listen to the witnesses.
00:19:06.000 --> 00:19:11.519
They were seeing the demeanor, they were hearing the evidence and listening to the arguments.
00:19:11.759 --> 00:19:23.279
They're closest to the decision itself, and so the only way they can overturn it is based on an abuse of discretion because those judgments are discretionary, right?
00:19:23.440 --> 00:19:24.559
It's just judgment.
00:19:24.720 --> 00:19:27.279
I mean, by definition, judgment has to be, right?
00:19:27.519 --> 00:19:36.400
So I use that to kind of explain to judges and to attorneys the decision people using force have to make.
00:19:36.480 --> 00:19:58.160
It's reasonable belief, and even if you disagree with them, they're the ones in the moment, they're the ones seeing the demeanor, they're the ones hearing the tone of voice, they're the ones who are feeling that atmospheric shift, they're the ones who are feeling the heuristics and all of the various sources of that schemas and cues, right?
00:19:58.799 --> 00:20:00.960
Patterns and the heuristics.
00:20:01.759 --> 00:20:06.559
And we're not going to overturn that judgment unless it's clearly an abuse of discretion.
00:20:06.799 --> 00:20:12.480
And for us, the standard we typically look at is meaning no reasonable person could have believed that.
00:20:12.720 --> 00:20:27.039
Like it was so far outside of judgment, it had to be for a cop and qualified immunity, it's it's it had to be so outside of reasonable judgment that no officer could have believed that was okay.
00:20:27.200 --> 00:20:33.359
Every officer would have recognized that to be excessive, and that question has to be answered beyond debate.
00:20:33.519 --> 00:20:35.359
So it's a very high standard.
00:20:35.519 --> 00:20:43.440
The court's like, we're not going to overturn their judgment on the street unless any reasonable officer would have known that was not okay.
00:20:43.680 --> 00:20:44.799
That's very high.
00:20:44.960 --> 00:20:55.839
And so we're constantly, my job with work as a litigation consultant is constantly working with the attorneys and the investigators to say, keep asking the right question.
00:20:56.000 --> 00:20:59.519
The question isn't whether the guy was a threat of death or serious body injury.
00:20:59.680 --> 00:21:01.039
That's that's the shorthand.
00:21:01.359 --> 00:21:08.559
The question is, could a reasonable person have believed that based on what they knew, based on the meaning they assigned?
00:21:08.880 --> 00:21:11.200
Was there a rational basis for their judgment?
00:21:11.440 --> 00:21:16.559
And was and understanding its tense, uncertain, rapidly evolving circumstances.
00:21:16.799 --> 00:21:37.039
Even the courts say, look, we're asking for a rational judgment, but because we expect these decisions to be made in tense, uncertain, rapidly evolving circumstances by a human who is influenced by stress, who's influenced by time constraints or perception of time constraints, um, we're gonna give great deference to them.
00:21:37.200 --> 00:21:43.519
We're gonna say the only way we're gonna overturn that judgment, if it would have just been obvious that any reasonable officer couldn't do that.
00:21:43.599 --> 00:21:49.759
And on the civilian side, we're gonna say no reasonable person could have believed that that's what that meant.
00:21:50.400 --> 00:21:52.480
That's one of our biggest hurdles.
00:21:52.720 --> 00:21:59.759
Um I see it way too frequently that a judge will say, Well, a jury couldn't.
00:22:00.240 --> 00:22:03.119
Could find that this person did not pose an imminent threat.
00:22:03.359 --> 00:22:08.319
A jury could find that the person standing within 21 feet with a knife who says I'm going to kill you.
00:22:08.400 --> 00:22:15.039
Uh, it was unreasonable to believe they could have crossed 21 feet before you could have ended the threat, right?
00:22:15.519 --> 00:22:35.359
And when we see stuff like that, I'm like, one, they're asking the wrong question because they have to interpret that question, not could a reasonable juror believe that based on the evidence produced at court, but could a reasonable jury bel uh believe that no reasonable person in those circumstances could have believed it, right?
00:22:36.000 --> 00:22:46.319
And this was huge, and then I'll stop, wait for the next question because I know we're there's a lot a lot going on here, but the uh or I should just say I talk a lot.
00:22:47.680 --> 00:22:50.000
There's not a lot going on, it's just me talking.
00:22:51.440 --> 00:22:58.880
Uh no, but we had a case recently where we kept hammering that, hammering it.
00:22:59.039 --> 00:23:10.960
It is not based on what you think in this courtroom, it's not based on the information you have, it's based on the training, education, experience, and reasonable inferences of that officer at that scene.
00:23:11.599 --> 00:23:20.480
Could they have reasonably believed that their threat assessment was was correct and that their response was was reasonable?
00:23:21.039 --> 00:23:27.519
And one of the jurors afterwards came and essentially said, and we gave him permission, we said, you might have done something different.
00:23:27.599 --> 00:23:34.640
You might believe you would have done something different, and that's okay, because back to first principle, reasonable people can disagree, that's okay.
00:23:34.880 --> 00:23:37.920
You can disagree on the on the threat assessment, that's okay.
00:23:38.079 --> 00:23:41.440
You can disagree on the response and say, I want to try something different, that's okay.
00:23:41.599 --> 00:24:02.799
But as long as it fell within a reasonable range of options, as long as uh a person in that officer's position could have reasonably believed um based on their training, their education, their experience, inferences they drew, then you are required to find them not guilty.
00:24:03.039 --> 00:24:08.160
And this juror came back and he says, you know, I just kept looking at it and I did not like the outcome.
00:24:08.240 --> 00:24:15.200
I didn't like what he did, but I kept looking at the law and thinking, well, I understand why he did it.
00:24:15.440 --> 00:24:17.519
I mean, he was trained to do that.
00:24:17.759 --> 00:24:19.200
He was trained to believe that.
00:24:19.279 --> 00:24:20.559
And I even said that from the stand.
00:24:20.640 --> 00:24:31.440
I said, not only was it reasonable for him to believe, in that case, a Taser's capable of inflicting death or suspicious injury, not only was it reasonable for him to believe that, he was literally trained that.
00:24:31.839 --> 00:24:35.920
It's really in the warnings, it's literally in the warnings that Taser puts out.
00:24:36.079 --> 00:24:37.519
It's in their training manual.
00:24:37.599 --> 00:24:42.240
We have the video of them saying, you know, you know, in some cases saying that to the class.
00:24:42.480 --> 00:24:50.880
So whether you think that's true or not, the question isn't whether a taser can cause death or serious bodily injury, although we know it can.
00:24:50.960 --> 00:24:51.119
Yeah.
00:24:51.279 --> 00:24:53.440
But that's not even the question a jurors asked.
00:24:53.519 --> 00:24:57.440
The question that jurors asked is, was it reasonable for that person to believe that?
00:24:57.759 --> 00:25:02.880
And I said, well, not only reasonable to believe it, but he was actually trained to believe it, right?
00:25:03.200 --> 00:25:07.359
So it was a not, you know, most it was it was a great outcome in that case.
00:25:07.519 --> 00:25:13.119
Uh, but that's because we just kept hammering and hammering the question you guys are being asked.
00:25:13.279 --> 00:25:25.440
Because the opposing side, the opposing experts will come in and they'll they'll say things like, yeah, they'll say things like, uh, well, this this guy didn't uh a taser can't inflict death, it's just by the injury.
00:25:25.599 --> 00:25:30.559
And and no reasonable person could have believed that, you know, sort of thing.
00:25:30.640 --> 00:25:33.680
Or or the guy was not an actual threat, it's a toy gun.
00:25:33.839 --> 00:25:35.039
Or he's not an actual threat.
00:25:35.119 --> 00:25:37.039
He had dropped the gun before the bullets impacted him.
00:25:37.279 --> 00:25:42.880
Forget that the cop shot the gun before he dropped it, or made the decision to shoot before he dropped it.
00:25:43.119 --> 00:25:47.920
Um, they'll take a picture of the gun falling from the guy's hand and they'll go, aha.
00:25:48.160 --> 00:25:55.920
See in that still frame photo right there, the gun's not in his hand, and no reasonable officer could believe you can shoot somebody who's unarmed.
00:25:56.240 --> 00:26:04.559
And we're like, well, that you just stripped all humanity out of the investigation and out of the analysis, and you try to weaponize a still frame photo.
00:26:04.720 --> 00:26:09.039
And unfortunately, you know, for your audience, I'm not exaggerating.
00:26:09.279 --> 00:26:20.400
These same experts continue to weaponize still photos, they continue to make these ridiculous arguments in an effort to put cops in prison, to put civilians in prison.
00:26:20.559 --> 00:26:35.039
Um, and they can they will strip out uh all uh of the human aspects of the people involved in these in these cases, and it's uh it's a fight, you know, every single time it's a fight.
00:26:36.079 --> 00:27:10.720
Well, looking at the complexities of that answer, if nothing else, it affirms for anyone who has any doubt that your objective in the moment, or should I say, subjective in the moment decision to shoot in a what you perceive as a life-threatening situation is going to echo into the halls of justice where people have potentially weeks, months, or maybe even years to assess the reasonableness of your decision.
00:27:10.960 --> 00:27:25.200
So you may feel, and this, you know, sometimes I I run into this with people you know learning to shoot or hat carrying guns, there's an oversimplification of I felt threatened, so you know, my response needs to be I shoot the dude.
00:27:25.519 --> 00:27:39.680
But you may feel it's reasonable, but does the judge, opposing counsel, fury the the frozen picture that shows the gun was falling out of the assailant's hand at the time, all of these pile on top.
00:27:39.759 --> 00:27:52.079
So it's not it's not just how you think of was this reasonable, it's how it is going to be perceived as reasonable as it gets kind of passed around all these various people.
00:27:52.319 --> 00:28:14.480
It's astounding to me that in that one answer, I think you've revealed how truly traumatic after something like that has happened, your life is going to effectively devolve as you try to defend the decision you made in a fraction of a second or seconds against people who have months and weeks to assess your decision.
00:28:14.799 --> 00:28:21.279
Just a quick reminder if you're enjoying the episode, don't forget to go ahead and hit that like button, subscribe, and share with a friend.
00:28:21.440 --> 00:28:22.640
We appreciate the support.
00:28:22.799 --> 00:28:24.000
Now back to the episode.
00:28:24.319 --> 00:28:26.559
Yeah, and you weren't wrong about years.
00:28:26.799 --> 00:28:27.920
And Dr.
00:28:28.079 --> 00:28:38.160
Mark Green, um, he was expert, is an expert in perception, cognition, decision making, and he focused a lot on how we drive cars.
00:28:38.319 --> 00:28:48.079
The difference between driving cars on a calm sunny day and the difference of driving a car when the when the brake lights suddenly smash on in front of you, right?
00:28:48.319 --> 00:28:56.799
And you go from what he what we what we all refer to as this dual process system of decision making, system one and system two, right?
00:28:57.119 --> 00:29:03.519
System one is fast, it's that heuristic decision making, it's recognition primed, it's naturalistic, it's just very fast.
00:29:04.079 --> 00:29:08.400
And system two is slow, deliberate, rational decision making.
00:29:08.640 --> 00:29:10.319
Well, Mark, Mark, Dr.
00:29:10.400 --> 00:29:14.640
Green's work was uh well, Dr.
00:29:14.720 --> 00:29:16.880
Green was gonna come teach for us, and he had a conflict.
00:29:16.960 --> 00:29:20.640
And I said, Well, is there anything you want me to tell the audience if you could boil it down?
00:29:20.799 --> 00:29:28.000
He says, Yeah, remind them that these decisions are being made in system one and always evaluated in system two, right?
00:29:28.160 --> 00:29:59.039
In an air conditioned office, and you know, and with fast forward and pause and and and reverse, and and that is something we have to fight in court every time because you can't put them back in the context of that the person was making that decision in, the speed of that, the the uncertainty, the unpredictability, the permanence of getting it wrong, the threat to your own life, the the ambiguity and lack of clarity where you just gotta pick, you gotta make a decision, right?
00:29:59.519 --> 00:30:02.559
And we're all sort of driven towards survival.
00:30:02.640 --> 00:30:04.720
So the decision is gonna be one towards survival.
00:30:04.880 --> 00:30:09.680
And for a lot of people, for other people, they freeze, they get that I don't know, I don't know, I don't know.
00:30:09.759 --> 00:30:12.960
And in the meantime, violence is happening, right?
00:30:13.119 --> 00:30:23.039
And so I sit across from people way too frequently, civilian band police who I look at the case and I'll tell them this.
00:30:23.119 --> 00:30:25.119
I'll tell them this from the stand if I'm given an opportunity.
00:30:25.200 --> 00:30:26.480
But this isn't a close case.
00:30:26.720 --> 00:30:30.559
If we follow the law, the question is, was it reasonable to perceive this as a threat?
00:30:30.640 --> 00:30:35.759
And I'm just like, well, not only is it reasonable, in many cases it was the benefit of being right, you know.
00:30:36.319 --> 00:30:44.000
And and and yet I'm sitting across from people in criminal trials that they're looking at me like, I don't know what I did wrong.
00:30:44.160 --> 00:30:45.119
And I'm like, nothing.
00:30:45.279 --> 00:30:47.599
You did nothing wrong, and you might go to prison.
00:30:47.920 --> 00:31:05.359
And it rarely, but it does happen, I want to say I would say rarely in my experience, I would say maybe more so across the board, but rarely have any of our clients gone to prison um after a four a full exploration of the case, right?
00:31:05.519 --> 00:31:12.799
It's just doesn't luckily we've you know we get good attorneys who are able to convince these these jurors.
00:31:13.039 --> 00:31:32.720
But every now and then the jurors will what we call split the baby, and they'll charge these people with a first-degree attempted or first degree murder for an on-duty shooting, and they'll manufacture just absolutely crazy stories of how this guy intentionally escalated this just so he could shoot the person.
00:31:32.880 --> 00:31:46.319
You know, after a a 70-plus minute negotiation with the guy, after, you know, trying to de-escalate for 70 minutes, uh they're like, well, no, he intentionally escalated it just so he could have an excuse to murder it.
00:31:46.400 --> 00:31:47.920
And that's that's their theory.
00:31:48.160 --> 00:31:56.000
The cop shows up with a video recorder on, five of his closest, you know, five, actually not even closest friends, five other cops from different jurisdictions.
00:31:56.160 --> 00:32:01.839
And their theory of the case is he intentionally escalated and made the guy mad just so he could shoot him.
00:32:02.240 --> 00:32:18.960
And and a juror might think in some jurisdictions, and this is just the reality of the world we live in, okay, maybe I won't find him guilty of murder, first degree murder, but I gotta find him guilty of something because there's somebody dead here.
00:32:19.279 --> 00:32:24.160
And we all know once it makes it in front of a jury, it's anybody's game.
00:32:24.319 --> 00:32:24.480
Yeah.
00:32:24.720 --> 00:32:39.279
And if a juror says, well, we just want to hold him accountable because someone died, and if we give him a choice, well, put him in prison for 40 years of his life, or put him in prison for two years, they're like, well, let's just go with the two years.
00:32:39.680 --> 00:32:43.599
And the answer is no, this is a legally justified shooting, he needs to go back to work.
00:32:43.759 --> 00:32:44.000
Yeah.
00:32:44.240 --> 00:32:45.680
And and that happens rarely.
00:32:45.759 --> 00:32:54.319
We did have one officer recently spend uh uh he was ultimately sentenced, I think, to six years on a case.
00:32:54.480 --> 00:32:55.519
Well, he didn't do anything wrong.
00:32:55.599 --> 00:32:58.000
It was a hundred percent legally justified shooting.
00:32:58.160 --> 00:33:04.720
He actually shot a guy while the guy was trying to stab another officer, and it was a Colorado case.
00:33:04.880 --> 00:33:09.680
That is a that is a tough jurisdiction with jurors in Colorado.
00:33:09.920 --> 00:33:23.279
Um people think of talk about California and Washington State, and and I could tell you Colorado right now is the toughest jurisdiction for cops, um, at least in the cases I've recently seen.
00:33:23.440 --> 00:33:25.680
But uh, you know, this guy's like, I what did I do wrong?
00:33:25.759 --> 00:33:26.559
I'm like, nothing.
00:33:26.720 --> 00:33:34.079
His own sheriff came in and said, or deputy uh under sheriff, he did exactly what he was trained to do, exactly what we expected to do.
00:33:34.160 --> 00:33:37.839
I would not have expected my officers to run the other way or retreat.
00:33:38.000 --> 00:33:39.839
He he acted according to his training.
00:33:40.000 --> 00:33:43.119
They still convicted him of something, right?
00:33:43.599 --> 00:33:49.920
And he ended up he ended up spending uh I think eight eight months uh in prison.
00:33:50.480 --> 00:33:53.200
And that's the reality of the world.
00:33:53.359 --> 00:34:08.719
That's the no matter how compelling the law is on your side, no matter how compelling the facts are on your side, once it gets to a jury, you have experts out there who will come in and say, Well, in hindsight, there's a lot of other things they could have done.
00:34:09.199 --> 00:34:10.639
Well, that's you can't do that.
00:34:10.800 --> 00:34:20.320
Like that's and and what because we all we can all do that in hindsight, you know, when you know the outcome, it's easy to say that, you know.
00:34:20.480 --> 00:34:30.960
Um, but they'll come in and say silly things like, well, no reasonable person would have would have thought that was okay, or no reasonable person would have engaged in that tactic, even though tactics are discretionary, you know.
00:34:31.199 --> 00:34:38.800
Um, he went too fast when he should have gone slow, he went too slow when he should have gone fast, he went left instead of right, he went high instead of low.
00:34:39.679 --> 00:34:43.360
All of these arguments, I'm not I'm not exaggerating.
00:34:43.440 --> 00:35:02.480
This is what the opposing experts will come in, and they're academics, they're law professors, they're they are uh progressive reform activists, and they just think anytime a cop shoots somebody that they have to be held accountable.
00:35:02.559 --> 00:35:06.079
And accountability means they have to be convicted, they've got to go to jail.
00:35:06.320 --> 00:35:16.239
They won't they won't characterize their positions that way, but the practical effect of it is that that's exactly what it what happens when they get involved in most of the cases I've seen them involved in.
00:35:16.400 --> 00:35:20.320
Now, I'll just, you know, so I don't get I'll say this is my opinion.
00:35:21.039 --> 00:35:25.599
I'll say, I'll say that uh I don't know all the cases they see behind the scenes.
00:35:25.760 --> 00:35:34.480
You know, I certainly work a lot of cases that don't make it a trial, so maybe behind the scenes they're they're fighting lots of police use of force to be reasonable and justified.
00:35:34.639 --> 00:35:50.159
Uh but all the high profile cases I've been involved in, um, they're invariably going to be on the other side, and the stuff they claim gives me no confidence that they have any idea how to assess a use of force case, taking the human into account.
00:35:50.480 --> 00:35:56.480
Um and so, yeah, the complexity of it, I mean, we just scratch the surface, as you can imagine.
00:35:56.800 --> 00:35:58.320
We just scratch the surface.
00:35:58.960 --> 00:36:06.559
Yeah, but scratching the surface is is uh one of those areas that reveals how complicated things get after the fact.
00:36:06.800 --> 00:36:18.639
In fact, by comparison to the actual defensive situation where you may be called upon, whether you're in law enforcement or an armed civilian, to shoot a threat that you reasonably think this person could do me damage.
00:36:18.800 --> 00:36:23.440
They're nine feet away from you with a butcher's knife and they're running at you screaming, I'm gonna hack your head off.
00:36:23.599 --> 00:36:26.000
That's reasonable in most people's books.
00:36:26.239 --> 00:36:37.920
It gets unreasonable very quickly, in my opinion, after the fact, with all these people who could get to render opinions in the cold light of day without the human elements even being a factor.
00:36:38.320 --> 00:36:39.760
Yeah, a hundred percent.
00:36:39.920 --> 00:36:44.079
And you know, not I I I hope this is an I hope this is unusual.
00:36:44.159 --> 00:36:45.360
I hope it's an anomaly.
00:36:45.440 --> 00:36:53.760
But we had a jury foreman in a case say, and I'll I I have the exact quote in my slide deck because it was so ridiculous.
00:36:53.920 --> 00:36:57.920
She gave an interview with the media after our trial.
00:36:58.159 --> 00:37:07.199
And uh the she essentially said, I would have let that guy stab that officer or slashed that officer every time before I think it'd be okay to shoot that that guy.
00:37:07.679 --> 00:37:13.440
She just prioritized the life of the suspect over the officer, and she was the jury foreman.
00:37:13.519 --> 00:37:19.280
So you can make your case that he was actually facing death that serious bodily injury, and her position was, so what?
00:37:19.519 --> 00:37:20.159
So what?
00:37:20.400 --> 00:37:51.199
I would have let that officer get slashed every time before I shot that boy because they are convinced by these opposing experts that the guy's suffering mental health issues, you don't get to shoot him, and they forget that the reality of people suffering from mental health issues in some of these cases is they are less predictable, less certain, they are uh less they they're they engage in or or experiencing disorganized thinking such that verbal persuasion is very difficult, if not impossible.
00:37:51.360 --> 00:37:52.880
They're harder to deal with.
00:37:53.039 --> 00:37:59.360
You know, in layman's terms, they're harder to deal with, not easier, and oftentimes more dangerous, not less.
00:37:59.440 --> 00:38:06.400
And so people are like, well, we want to reduce the population of people that the police lawfully kill.
00:38:06.559 --> 00:38:18.159
Like, not just the ones that are on the but this effort to reduce the population of people that cops are legally shooting, and we're like a third of them are suffering mental health issues, whatever that means.
00:38:18.239 --> 00:38:22.079
And they keep changing the definition of that to be like, well, they're drunk at the time.
00:38:22.480 --> 00:38:30.079
So instead of just mental health issues, it's it's were they engaged in disorganized thinking, or were they in mental health crisis, including were they angry?
00:38:30.480 --> 00:38:33.920
Were they was the disorganized thinking or what you know Dr.
00:38:34.079 --> 00:38:36.239
Thompson called it brain damage?
00:38:36.480 --> 00:38:50.800
Um, but is it that such that they're not thinking the way they would under better circumstances in that moment, whether it's drug-induced, anger-induced, or suffering from mental health issues, um, or experiencing mental health issues.
00:38:51.039 --> 00:38:56.159
Well, when you broaden it like that, who is trying to kill cops that's not experiencing one of those things?
00:38:56.320 --> 00:38:56.639
Right?
00:38:56.880 --> 00:39:07.920
It's like, you know, it's that's everybody who tries to engage in in conduct that you believe is capable of inflicting serious body injury or death.
00:39:08.159 --> 00:39:25.840
And so they broaden it so much now that and they've got these experts running around trying to tell people, well, any reasonable officer would know that when someone's suffering mental health issues, you slow down, create space, buy time, negotiate from position to cover, call in mental health resources, and all the while you forget that the person gets a vote to.
00:39:26.000 --> 00:39:31.760
He gets to vote on who he's gonna stab, he gets to vote on who he's gonna shoot, on whether he remains contained or not.
00:39:32.079 --> 00:39:36.320
And we don't just let them dictate the time, place, and manner of their own arrest.
00:39:36.559 --> 00:39:51.199
And yet these experts will come in and and convince a jury, work hard to convince a jury that any reasonable officer or any reasonable person would have known that this person was suffering mental health issues, and you have to do something different.
00:39:51.440 --> 00:39:58.639
They won't tell you what that difference is, except they'll say, slow down, create space, buy time, negotiate from position to cover.
00:39:59.280 --> 00:40:12.800
And that overlay has become sort of a rhythmic little you know, answer to every possible problem on the street, so so much so that I've got a case right now, so I won't get into the facts too much.
00:40:12.880 --> 00:40:14.079
It'll come out more.
00:40:14.480 --> 00:40:42.880
Um but just in in the the issues in the cases, if you got a guy who is is uh you know trying to break into homes, say he's got a weapon, he's trying to break into strangers' houses, the police show up, it's a it's a busy residential neighborhood, cars are going, and the guy still has the weapon in his hand, basically mean mugs the officers as you're looking at him and starts to walk away, and you know, you keep this hypothetical, and the officers are like, drop it, drop it, drop it.
00:40:43.119 --> 00:40:47.360
And the opposing experts' ideas are you can't shoot the guy, you gotta slow down.
00:40:47.519 --> 00:41:07.280
You can hide behind the the parked vehicles on the side of the road while the guy's walking away from you into the neighborhood of the houses he just tried to break into of strangers, where people are out in their yards and witnesses are out watching the police activity, cars are driving by, any one of which could be stopped and and taken over by this guy.
00:41:07.519 --> 00:41:22.079
He could take off running and all the other things that cops should be interested in protecting and and and avoiding, um, these experts will come in and say, well, they should have just slowed down, create space.
00:41:22.159 --> 00:41:24.639
I'm like, how does create space prevent escape?
00:41:24.960 --> 00:41:30.719
How does creating space and hiding behind a car prevent him from assaulting the guy in the yard?
00:41:30.960 --> 00:41:32.639
But these experts don't care.
00:41:32.880 --> 00:41:41.840
They they say and will say from the stand, in a modern progressive police department, if someone takes off running from you, you just wave goodbye.
00:41:42.000 --> 00:41:43.199
Just let him go.
00:41:43.599 --> 00:41:46.239
And we have to fight that nonsense.
00:41:46.400 --> 00:41:53.199
Like, you know, all of your audience is probably thinking, What are you just gonna defer the the protection of the community to the community?
00:41:53.360 --> 00:41:54.880
Isn't that what you're there for?
00:41:55.199 --> 00:41:55.840
Right?
00:41:56.480 --> 00:42:07.360
You're gonna abandon your own defense of your family, you know, in a civilian use of force case, so that you can call the police who are then gonna be told later that they should abandon it to the community, right back to you.
00:42:07.599 --> 00:42:16.400
I mean, it's it's it's absolutely ridiculous what uh what these experts are willing to say and what attorneys are willing to say.
00:42:16.480 --> 00:42:20.880
And as an attorney, it's it's insulting some of the stuff these prosecutors come up with.
00:42:21.119 --> 00:42:31.519
Some of their theories of liability, they they just make up a theory, and you know, I get to look at them and go, I don't know what happened that day, but either do you.
00:42:31.760 --> 00:42:36.000
You can't just make something up and then hope you can convince a jury to pick a story.
00:42:36.159 --> 00:42:47.599
That's that's not the system, and you should have a higher ethical duty if you're not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that your story's right and that you have admissible evidence to prove that story, then don't bring the case.
00:42:47.760 --> 00:42:53.119
You can't just use court as a testing ground and see what sticks and hope you can convince a jury.
00:42:53.440 --> 00:42:56.639
And um, you know, I'm not naive.
00:42:56.719 --> 00:42:58.159
Our your audience isn't naive.
00:42:58.320 --> 00:43:04.639
That is a big part of the criminal justice process, is what jurisdiction are we in?
00:43:04.800 --> 00:43:06.400
What kind of jurors could we get?
00:43:06.559 --> 00:43:09.519
Are they gonna be the kind of jurors who're gonna believe my story?
00:43:09.760 --> 00:43:10.159
Right?
00:43:10.400 --> 00:43:13.119
And it it really shouldn't be that way.
00:43:13.280 --> 00:43:18.159
Um, a lot of these cases should be disposed of prior to trial.
00:43:18.320 --> 00:43:22.320
I mean, I think every attorney knows if you make it to a jury, you can't predict the outcome.
00:43:22.480 --> 00:43:23.440
You just can't.
00:43:23.679 --> 00:43:27.679
Um Colorado, again, being the perfect example of that.
00:43:28.320 --> 00:43:34.880
So does that same I suppose say something derogatory about Colorado?
00:43:35.199 --> 00:43:51.519
But do you see the same type of problems and challenges, legally speaking, for civilian self-defenders in Colorado as well as law enforcement, or does it tend to lean that people are more biased against law enforcement during jury trials, or is it just a bit of both?
00:43:51.679 --> 00:43:52.719
Both sides are getting it.
00:43:53.599 --> 00:43:55.199
Well, both sides are getting it.
00:43:55.280 --> 00:43:59.840
And of course, if we're involved in the case, a lot of cases get disposed of before it makes it to trial.
00:44:00.159 --> 00:44:05.679
But once it makes it to trial, um, somebody thought they had a story to tell.
00:44:05.920 --> 00:44:10.880
And when it gets to the jurors, I mean, look, I I'll be I can be very optimistic.
00:44:11.199 --> 00:44:23.039
Um, most most of the jurors, once we explain our case, once we explain how people who are familiar with violence would perceive the case, they come to the right answer.
00:44:23.280 --> 00:44:25.519
Or or they can't agree, and that's fine.
00:44:25.599 --> 00:44:28.480
They can hung, they can have a hung jury, that's fine.
00:44:29.119 --> 00:44:40.320
But we have on the civilian side, really only one case in the last five years did I was I surprised by the outcome.
00:44:40.480 --> 00:44:41.679
All the other ones are not guilty.
00:44:41.840 --> 00:44:43.760
Not guilty, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty.
00:44:43.840 --> 00:44:48.320
And we we we tell our stories and we get good outcomes in most of these cases.
00:44:48.559 --> 00:44:55.920
Um you have to redefine what a win is, because our job isn't to win or lose these cases, we're just informing the triers of fact.
00:44:56.239 --> 00:44:57.519
We have our opinions.
00:44:57.679 --> 00:45:07.679
I mean, we see hundreds of these cases, and so eventually you you could literally just analyze the case and say, yeah, this is this is obviously excessive, right?
00:45:07.920 --> 00:45:10.719
And that's if that's the same thing, this is obviously excessive.
00:45:11.199 --> 00:45:17.760
Most of the cases, though, when people ask me for my opinion, I'm looking at it going, well, I think it falls within a reasonable range of options.
00:45:17.840 --> 00:45:22.239
I can see how he got there, and if I can see how he got there, then that's a rational basis.
00:45:22.400 --> 00:45:25.760
I might have done something different, which none of us should say.
00:45:25.920 --> 00:45:29.840
We have to discipline ourselves not to analyze a case and think, what would I have done?
00:45:30.000 --> 00:45:32.159
You weren't there, then you weren't there, you know.
00:45:32.400 --> 00:45:37.840
And and it's very difficult to recreate the feelings and the interpretation in the moment.
00:45:38.000 --> 00:45:43.039
Uh, even if you try to discipline yourself to keep that focus, you're just not there.
00:45:43.119 --> 00:45:45.039
You're in system two, also, right?
00:45:45.119 --> 00:45:45.440
Yeah.
00:45:45.760 --> 00:45:56.000
And so um the jurors recently in Washington State, which is notoriously anti-police, right?
00:45:56.320 --> 00:46:00.960
We uh we had a police use of force case.
00:46:01.119 --> 00:46:10.159
The short version is uh they're prosecuting a cop for what is just a normal, everyday use of force against the guy who doesn't want to be arrested.
00:46:10.320 --> 00:46:12.239
There was nothing exceptional about the case.
00:46:12.400 --> 00:46:16.079
It was there was no racial math problem that they tried to politicize.
00:46:16.159 --> 00:46:27.280
You know, there was no shooting, it was just a uh hands-on uh uh use of force was punches and knee strikes, was the height of it.
00:46:27.519 --> 00:46:31.840
Well, the state came after that guy and the feds came after him, right?
00:46:32.079 --> 00:46:38.239
Which is you should think that's a big deal for the feds to bring a federal criminal case against a cop.
00:46:38.480 --> 00:46:46.079
You would think they have a strong case, and there's some big overarching federal interest in this case.
00:46:46.320 --> 00:46:57.760
Um, the jurors came back in that case very quickly with not guilty across the board on the state case, and and they didn't even think it was close.
00:46:57.920 --> 00:47:18.159
So we we made our case, the jurors saw it, they saw it clearly, uh, and we asked them for a special verdict in Washington State to say uh because the audience knows there's there's a difference between being not guilty, which means I'm not sure what happened, but I think the government just didn't prove their case, and we're gonna follow the law, which means not guilty.
00:47:18.320 --> 00:47:25.199
And then there's a in some places you can do a special finding of innocence, meaning we think what he did was reasonable.
00:47:25.280 --> 00:47:30.559
We have enough information to believe he was reasonable, he was justified, therefore he was innocent.
00:47:30.639 --> 00:47:33.519
So not just not guilty, but actually innocent.
00:47:33.679 --> 00:47:40.239
And when you get those cases, uh they're exceptional because they don't have to do that, they could just hang out and not guilty.
00:47:40.320 --> 00:47:42.079
It's the same outcome in most places.
00:47:42.239 --> 00:47:53.840
But in Washington State, if they come back with a special finding, a special verdict of uh reasonable, justified, and essentially innocence, this government has to pay all the attorney fees, right?
00:47:54.559 --> 00:48:04.159
And it makes it very difficult for the feds because the feds have a policy that's the petit policy.
00:48:04.400 --> 00:48:21.679
Essentially means if the state tries the same case under the same facts and it's not guilty, you uh by policy, the feds aren't gonna try that same case unless they're they meet certain criteria, one of which has to be a pretty strong federal interest that wasn't already protected at the state trial.
00:48:21.920 --> 00:48:30.719
So if it's the same facts, same, you know, nothing's gonna change, the feds should not be taking that case under their own policies.
00:48:30.880 --> 00:48:56.239
Um, but in that state, so the jurors come back with a special finding of innocence, uh, which was phenomenal, in a case that the state and the feds thought were so bad that they've criminally charged this guy, tried to put him in prison, and now the feds want it, and the feds watch the trial, and they're they as we right now we don't know whether they're still gonna take it or not.
00:48:56.400 --> 00:49:05.280
They have a big uphill battle, and I think they should just drop their case, of course, but that's gonna be between the attorneys and them to figure out.
00:49:05.519 --> 00:49:10.159
Um, and in fairness, you know, I don't want to misstate the prosecutor, the state prosecutor.
00:49:10.239 --> 00:49:12.400
He was a good he was a good guy.
00:49:12.559 --> 00:49:15.679
Uh I'm I I think he got assigned the case.
00:49:15.760 --> 00:49:19.280
Uh I won't question his motives or his sincerity.
00:49:19.760 --> 00:49:25.360
Um, but I'll say whether he was sincere or not, he didn't have a choice, I don't think.
00:49:25.679 --> 00:49:28.320
Um there was a lot of pressure to take the case.
00:49:28.480 --> 00:49:30.639
His theory of the case kept changing.
00:49:30.800 --> 00:49:40.320
The more he got he I will tell you this, I spent three hours with him, and it became very clear to me he was not analyzing that case like someone familiar with violence.
00:49:40.639 --> 00:49:54.400
Um I won't say what his name is because I like the guy, but he says, you know, he says something like, uh, if there was any any indication of violence, you know, if it was me, I would have just left.
00:49:54.480 --> 00:49:57.039
But you know, then maybe you maybe that makes me a coward.
00:49:57.199 --> 00:50:02.559
And what was I gonna say, other than I think I just said, yeah, this job isn't for everybody.
00:50:02.800 --> 00:50:04.480
You know, what do you want me to say, man?
00:50:04.559 --> 00:50:06.639
You you just described it better than I could.
00:50:06.800 --> 00:50:06.960
Yeah.
00:50:07.199 --> 00:50:11.840
Police don't see situations that are dangerous and flip and and run.
00:50:12.320 --> 00:50:27.440
Um I don't know that I would say it's cowardice if you know that you're not competent with your handgun, you're not competent with violence, you don't have the skill set necessary to respond to it, that's not cowardice, it's just a recognition that you you're overwhelmed.
00:50:27.519 --> 00:50:29.599
This isn't a situation you're capable of dealing with.
00:50:29.760 --> 00:50:30.719
Okay, fair enough.
00:50:30.880 --> 00:50:34.159
That's true for every 16-year-old boy out there, right?
00:50:34.400 --> 00:50:42.639
And between being a 16-year-old boy and a 21-year-old cop, there's a lot of things you should be doing to prepare yourself to deal with that.
00:50:42.719 --> 00:50:44.960
And even then, you're only going to get better over time.
00:50:45.039 --> 00:50:52.159
So, you know, giving the guy a lot of grace, because I understand he's a really he's a good guy, he's been a great prosecutor, uh, he was handed this case.
00:50:52.239 --> 00:50:54.559
I'll give him as much grace as as possible.
00:50:54.639 --> 00:50:59.280
Uh, but you know, to your question, are they are these jurors getting it right or wrong?
00:50:59.440 --> 00:51:00.960
Um, they're not dumb.
00:51:01.119 --> 00:51:12.000
If we if we if we get them familiar with what cops know, what people what people who are familiar with violence know, we frequently get them to the right answer.
00:51:12.079 --> 00:51:15.840
And again, for a lot of your civilian audiences, it's true for them too.
00:51:15.920 --> 00:51:23.440
I need them to document their training, you know, like what familiar with violence?
00:51:23.519 --> 00:51:24.880
Is did they forget training?
00:51:24.960 --> 00:51:26.400
Did they grow up in the inner city?
00:51:26.559 --> 00:51:28.320
Are they did they grow up around violence?
00:51:28.480 --> 00:51:38.559
Did they grow up in a, you know, I don't care what the city demographic is, whether you grow up in a trailer park or you grew up in a ghetto, violence is often a part of those cultures.
00:51:38.880 --> 00:51:43.840
And you understand, you know, for example, we had another case in Montana.
00:51:44.559 --> 00:51:46.639
The whole state was against this guy.
00:51:46.719 --> 00:51:48.719
You know, that's the cases we get involved with.
00:51:48.800 --> 00:51:52.079
We show up and we're like, what if everybody's against these people?
00:51:52.159 --> 00:51:54.559
They're naming state parks after the deceased, right?
00:51:54.639 --> 00:52:05.039
Some of these we come in before the case is even tried, they've already designated a special day for the guy who died and named a state park after him, literally, in in some of these places.
00:52:05.119 --> 00:52:11.760
And it's just like they're trying to stack the deck of public opinion against the police officer or the civilian right off the bat.
00:52:11.840 --> 00:52:12.079
Right?
00:52:12.239 --> 00:52:21.599
We saw that all your your audience will know many high-profile cases where the verdict was not guilty and cities that already burned, right?
00:52:21.920 --> 00:52:24.400
Because of the narrative that was surrounding it.
00:52:24.559 --> 00:52:27.119
Um so we have to contend with that.
00:52:27.280 --> 00:52:34.079
Not one case, not one single high-profile case we've been involved in looked anything like the public presentation of it.
00:52:34.239 --> 00:52:34.880
Not one.
00:52:35.199 --> 00:52:44.239
So people are getting murdered, riots, buildings are burning based on intentional lies being told about those cases, both civilian.
00:52:44.480 --> 00:52:46.159
I mean, you guys saw Kyle Rittenhouse case.
00:52:46.239 --> 00:52:47.360
We were involved in that one.
00:52:47.519 --> 00:52:50.559
Um, the Wendy's getting burned down down in Atlanta.
00:52:50.639 --> 00:52:51.760
We're involved in that one.
00:52:52.000 --> 00:52:57.840
Uh, everything that stemmed from the Kenosha riots was based on the Jacob Blake shooting, right?
00:52:58.079 --> 00:53:03.039
Which was an absolute lie that they told about that case, uh demonstrable lie.
00:53:03.199 --> 00:53:22.159
The morning they that the media grabbed that case, and you know, I think it was Kamala Harris and Joe Biden uh in the run-up to their uh to the election, they went up there and visited the guy who got shot in jail and said, This is an example of a two-tiered system of justice.
00:53:22.400 --> 00:53:32.559
And we're looking at it and looking at the media portrayal, and they got everybody genned up and everybody mad, and and riots and protests broke out, which led to the Kyle Rittenhouse shootings, right?
00:53:32.719 --> 00:53:37.760
Uh but we looked at that and there's a two-tier system of justice, and then you looked at the facts of that case.
00:53:37.840 --> 00:53:41.199
It's one of the most egregious examples we can come up with.
00:53:42.000 --> 00:53:52.159
Uh the guy had warrants for his arrest, I believe he had he was suspected of having sexually assaulted his baby's mom.
00:53:52.320 --> 00:53:57.360
Um, he shows up there, gets in a disturbance with her, calls the they call the police to get him out of there.
00:53:57.440 --> 00:54:01.760
He's got a warrant for his arrest, he has no contact order, he's not supposed to be there.
00:54:01.920 --> 00:54:04.480
The police try to go physical hands-on with the guy.
00:54:04.559 --> 00:54:05.119
He fights them.
00:54:05.199 --> 00:54:10.800
They try to tase him, he he fights through the taser, he pulls a knife off of his necklace.
00:54:10.960 --> 00:54:13.760
You see him walking around the van on video with a knife in his hand.
00:54:13.840 --> 00:54:15.519
You can tell they all draw down on him.
00:54:15.599 --> 00:54:16.800
They're walking around the van.
00:54:16.960 --> 00:54:21.039
He's trying to get inside a van with two kids that are her kids, her van.
00:54:21.119 --> 00:54:22.960
He's trying to steal the van with the kids.
00:54:23.119 --> 00:54:26.239
The officer's behind him, doesn't shoot him right away, tries to grab him.
00:54:26.480 --> 00:54:36.880
The guy's armed with a knife, so you know how close you are, grabs him by his t-shirt, tries to pull him out of the car to keep him away at great risk to himself, and finally he shoots the guy.
00:54:37.519 --> 00:54:47.199
Those were the facts that were known that morning because the neighbor across the street, whenever I said they shot him because they thought he might be reaching a weapon in the van.
00:54:47.440 --> 00:54:54.559
They kept saying he was just trying to uh calm down this disturbance.
00:54:54.639 --> 00:54:56.800
He was there trying to be the peacemaker.
00:54:56.960 --> 00:55:03.599
They left out the fact that he was the disturbance, that he wasn't allowed to be there, that he had warrants for his arrest, that he'd armed himself with a knife.
00:55:04.000 --> 00:55:06.880
They left out the fact that those were not kids he was allowed to take.
00:55:06.960 --> 00:55:08.079
It was not his van.
00:55:08.320 --> 00:55:16.239
And they left out the fact that the neighbor that morning in a media account said the police kept saying, drop the knife, drop the knife, drop the knife.
00:55:16.480 --> 00:55:18.320
So they knew he had a knife.
00:55:18.559 --> 00:55:22.159
They knew why the police were doing what they were doing.
00:55:22.719 --> 00:55:24.639
And we demonized the cops.
00:55:24.800 --> 00:55:31.599
We demonized the entire national police, you know, industry by saying this is an example of two-tier system of justice.
00:55:31.920 --> 00:55:37.519
They had the guy handcuffed at the hospital because this guy just pulled a knife on a bunch of cops.
00:55:37.679 --> 00:55:39.519
He was wanted for sexual assault.
00:55:39.599 --> 00:55:45.360
Uh, he was, you know, potentially arguably kidnapping or whatever you want to call that scene.
00:55:46.000 --> 00:55:55.840
Um, it was probably pretty standard that if you have a guy who's under arrest in a hospital for serious, violent felony offenses, that he's handcuffed.
00:55:56.000 --> 00:55:57.840
But they made that a big race issue.
00:55:57.920 --> 00:56:01.039
They said it's a, you know, again, two-tier system of justice.
00:56:01.119 --> 00:56:04.880
And these are politicians at the highest level of our country.
00:56:05.039 --> 00:56:14.559
And you gotta think you guys aren't dumb, you guys know what you're doing, and cities are burning because of it, and these are the cases we we have to come into.
00:56:14.719 --> 00:56:16.480
So you talk about complicated.
00:56:16.719 --> 00:56:26.719
Um at some point, all that has to get, you hope all that gets, you know, flushed aside, and you can focus on the elements, the actual elements.
00:56:27.039 --> 00:56:36.000
And when we do that, I will say with confidence, um jurors are getting it right.
00:56:36.239 --> 00:56:40.719
Overwhelmingly, jurors get it right, um, despite all of that.
00:56:40.800 --> 00:56:54.480
But we do have cases where uh a single juror might not, you know, got eleven people saying not guilty, and one saying guilty, and you're like you're looking at that, like what what is it that you're seeing that nobody else is seeing?
00:56:54.559 --> 00:57:02.960
And it's because of the way these cases have been portrayed politically, you wonder whether or not they got politically captured, you know, is a nice way.
00:57:03.119 --> 00:57:05.199
Um, but we're getting good outcomes.
00:57:05.360 --> 00:57:16.880
The civilian cases, uh I will tell you, you know, your audience, those cases I think have turned on, particularly where you shoot an unarmed person.
00:57:17.440 --> 00:57:36.239
If it's a fist fight against a gun and and your audience member has the gun, well, the reality of fist fights by adults is is is one of the areas where we have to spend a lot of time because the way I will frame it, it's about vulnerability, it's about your vulnerability.
00:57:36.480 --> 00:57:40.880
Nowhere is the law requiring you to take a beating, right?
00:57:41.199 --> 00:57:50.480
Because we want to bring in the doctors, the uh emergency room nurses, the the police, the bouncers, because what I want the juror to understand is the reality of violence.
00:57:50.639 --> 00:57:59.519
And the way I framed it in a recent civilian-on-cion case where a guy shot an unarmed man, um, and I say unarmed, but not not dangerous.
00:57:59.599 --> 00:58:02.239
He was dangerous, but he was he wasn't he didn't have a weapon.
00:58:02.400 --> 00:58:05.039
He says, you know, basically I'm gonna beat the F out of you.
00:58:05.280 --> 00:58:17.599
And uh the guy with the gun wasn't a fighter, he'd never been in a fight, and this guy was angry, he was, you know, threatening in the middle of the night, like 11:30 at night, pitch black.
00:58:17.840 --> 00:58:21.360
He's in his own neighborhood, he's never seen this guy before.
00:58:21.679 --> 00:58:27.039
And uh I said, many of you are are imagining this case right now.
00:58:27.119 --> 00:58:34.960
I talked to the jury, that if you get punched in the face, you know, you get a black eye, you put a bag of peas, frozen peas on it, and you get to brag about it for the next.
00:58:35.360 --> 00:58:40.480
I said, people familiar with violence know that that single punch can kill you because we've seen it.
00:58:40.639 --> 00:58:43.119
We've seen cases with single punch death.
00:58:43.280 --> 00:58:49.599
We've seen cases where your jaw has you have to have surgery because your jaw needs to be rewired because it's broken on a single punch.
00:58:49.760 --> 00:58:57.920
We see cases where you have a lifetime of neurological problems, eyesight problems because of a single punch or multiple punches.
00:58:58.079 --> 00:59:00.400
But you know, we make our case with a single punch.
00:59:00.480 --> 00:59:10.159
It doesn't have to, and we know the unpredictability is once you get knocked out, people will continue to beat you because either they don't know you're knocked out or they don't care.
00:59:10.400 --> 00:59:10.960
They don't care.
00:59:11.199 --> 00:59:11.440
Yeah.
00:59:11.679 --> 00:59:33.119
And so we look at the reality of violence, and we have to educate the jury, whether again, through its emergency room doctor, whether it's through the cops, whether it's through the bouncer, whether it's through the nurses, on what punches actually do to humans, not what you learned on TV, where you know, we watch people punch each other a dozen times because it makes for good good action, right?
00:59:33.599 --> 00:59:42.079
But if you're the person standing against that guy and you can't fight and you feel vulnerable, maybe you're injured, maybe you maybe you're a big dude.
00:59:42.159 --> 00:59:44.800
I hate this, like, well, you're you were bigger than him.
00:59:44.960 --> 00:59:46.880
What does that mean if you can't fight?
00:59:47.119 --> 00:59:49.519
Like it means very little.
00:59:49.679 --> 01:00:02.800
And and uh so we have to educate the jurors on that, and we gotta say, look, people familiar with violence believe people familiar familiar with violence, consider the following this is how I say it actually.
01:00:03.039 --> 01:00:14.960
People who are familiar with violence will consider the following possibilities because you don't know, I can't speculate what's actually gonna happen, but we we do consider the following possibilities that if I get hit one time, that's it.
01:00:15.199 --> 01:00:18.320
There's no two punches, you know, once is enough.
01:00:18.480 --> 01:00:27.119
And so, what is the reasonable amount of force then, if that's the threat you're facing, to immediately and decisively stop that threat?
01:00:27.440 --> 01:00:32.400
And they'll say, Well, you could have tackled him, and that what you could have boxed him.
01:00:32.480 --> 01:00:34.400
Well, I'm not a boxer, I don't do jujitsu.
01:00:34.559 --> 01:00:36.559
I I what is tackling the guy gonna do?
01:00:36.719 --> 01:00:37.440
Well, you could have run.
01:00:37.519 --> 01:00:47.599
Well, there's no duty to retreat, and and and you can kind of see how that goes, but you've got to break through the other side saying, Well, it's just a punch.
01:00:47.760 --> 01:00:52.000
We don't train cops to shoot people just because the guy balls up his fist.
01:00:52.480 --> 01:00:56.719
And I was like, that's not entirely true, actually.
01:00:56.960 --> 01:01:11.199
You know, like if we call him IBOs, if you're an itty bitty officer or you just can't fight, and the guy looks like he can, you know, maybe he has maybe you know he has a special skill set, but he doesn't need to be an MMA fighter to beat you.
01:01:11.360 --> 01:01:23.199
You know, he could be a junior in high school who just is unrestrained, and if you can't stop it, just because you're police doesn't make you capable of fighting.
01:01:23.360 --> 01:01:31.599
Just because you're concerned with your self-defense and you practice with your firearm doesn't mean you can fight and overcome violence.
01:01:31.760 --> 01:01:35.199
Um, and so we have to spend a lot of time with the jurors reminding them of that.
01:01:35.280 --> 01:01:40.800
And I'm saying, look, whatever rule you apply to this man today applies to your daughter, applies to your wife.
01:01:40.960 --> 01:01:51.360
Do you think if your wife stood there and some man came up and said, I'm about to F you up, that she's supposed to like get into a fighting stance, or she's supposed to take her gun out and be like, No, you're not, you're just not, right?
01:01:51.679 --> 01:01:53.840
Um, and I think that was really compelling.
01:01:53.920 --> 01:02:02.000
So in those cases, we've had a a couple um the the jurors came back not guilty, not guilty, not guilty.
01:02:02.079 --> 01:02:02.880
That's been great.
01:02:03.039 --> 01:02:15.599
Uh, but I do want to go back, you know, with your audience and let them know recently we had a case where it was not a good outcome, and it was shocking.
01:02:16.159 --> 01:02:27.199
The uh a guy's wife was dragged to the ground by her hair and beaten well by a by the neighbor, was just punched in the face repeatedly.
01:02:27.440 --> 01:02:42.480
The husband was behind them, had a shotgun, and he racked the shotgun, he warned them, get off of my wife, racks the shotgun, fired a warning shot into the ground, um, which I don't recommend, but he was trying not to shoot this guy.
01:02:42.719 --> 01:02:50.960
Um, and then eventually comes up, the guy gets kicked off of his wife, he returns to her, grabs her again, and starts punching her again in the face.
01:02:51.199 --> 01:02:59.199
A doctor said the way manner in which he was punching her was absolutely capable of inflicting death or serious bodily injury.
01:02:59.280 --> 01:03:02.400
That's that was not unreasonable to believe that.
01:03:02.559 --> 01:03:05.119
And uh so he shoots the guy in the chest.
01:03:05.440 --> 01:03:09.119
And the jurors came back and said that that was not reasonable.
01:03:10.159 --> 01:03:10.639
Yeah.
01:03:10.960 --> 01:03:32.559
So and the prosecutor made up a theory that, well, this guy who uh who provoked him was just jealous because the guy beating his wife was a professional athlete and so he was just jealous of him, and so he was looking for an excuse to just shoot the guy.
01:03:33.599 --> 01:03:36.639
And it's just the most ridiculous theory, right?
01:03:36.800 --> 01:03:37.679
But yeah.
01:03:38.239 --> 01:03:47.360
And but they did find him uh during the second trial, they found him guilty of basically imperfect self-defense.
01:03:47.519 --> 01:03:50.480
Like you could have done something, but you didn't need to do that.
01:03:51.280 --> 01:03:54.320
So those kind of cases happen.
01:03:54.480 --> 01:03:56.960
They're uh luckily for us, they're rare.
01:03:57.119 --> 01:04:07.920
Um but again, when you get it to a jury and you have a prosecutor on the side just making up stories, and I love it when the prosecutors will tell me, Well, you're just speculating.
01:04:08.000 --> 01:04:09.199
I'm like, so are you?
01:04:09.519 --> 01:04:10.400
We don't know.
01:04:10.559 --> 01:04:15.280
Like in many of these cases that aren't on video, or and that one was on video, by the way.
01:04:15.360 --> 01:04:18.400
That that shotgun case was actually on ring cameras.
01:04:18.639 --> 01:04:29.199
So um, but but the uh the cases were civilian on civilian, where there's no body cam footage, there's oftentimes no surveillance cameras, and the prosecutor comes up with a story.
01:04:29.360 --> 01:04:30.559
Well, this is why he did it.
01:04:30.719 --> 01:04:34.239
You know, like okay, well, one, I don't know why he did it, but either do you.
01:04:34.480 --> 01:04:37.920
You know, you don't know what quotes were said or who was the initial aggressor.
01:04:38.000 --> 01:04:48.320
You can't just make that up, but they do, and they lead jurors to believe that uh they just get to pick which story they think is most entertaining or most believable.
01:04:48.559 --> 01:04:54.320
Um not to discredit jurors, because I think, like I say, most of them do a really good job.
01:04:54.559 --> 01:04:57.280
Um, but it's unpredictable.
01:04:57.360 --> 01:05:03.519
And all of us attorneys, you know, if you've been around the block more than once, you all know you do not want to send cases to jurors.
01:05:03.599 --> 01:05:04.159
You just don't.
01:05:04.239 --> 01:05:05.519
You can't predict the outcomes.
01:05:05.920 --> 01:05:06.880
That's a lot.
01:05:09.199 --> 01:05:16.960
Fotional accuracy from a holster, whether that's outside the waistband or carrying concealed or inside, comes down to one thing: reps.
01:05:17.280 --> 01:05:19.920
How many reps are you putting in each week?
01:05:20.079 --> 01:05:29.280
If you can't draw from either concealed or expected outside the waistband in less than a second and hit your target every single time, you have to do it.
01:05:29.679 --> 01:05:32.960
And when it matters most, you're not going to get a warm-up rep.
01:05:33.440 --> 01:05:37.280
Later out of this law enforcement and responsibly armed systems.
01:05:44.000 --> 01:05:46.639
15 minutes today could make all the difference.
01:05:47.280 --> 01:05:53.840
Building your draw speed, building your score after speed, and building your confidence, that your performance will be there.
01:05:54.320 --> 01:06:01.760
Every single cost, trying more, trying smarter, trying to run up, To find out more.
01:06:02.000 --> 01:06:03.519
And now back to the episode.
01:06:04.960 --> 01:06:09.119
Yeah, but just you know, there's so much more that we could explore here.
01:06:09.280 --> 01:06:17.440
I think in order to kind of find a a way to summarize this, because I'm getting you know a multitude of things out of it.
01:06:18.159 --> 01:06:31.679
Account for your classes and go and take training, but let's make sure some of that training does include you figuring out how to extricate yourself from a situation if at all possible and avoiding this, if it can be done.
01:06:31.760 --> 01:06:32.880
And that's a big if.
01:06:33.119 --> 01:06:48.079
I had a guest very early on in the podcast who attended a tactical training class at a very reputable school, and they went first during one of the scenario training uh class sort of setups.
01:06:48.159 --> 01:06:58.239
And it was, I don't know if it was a restaurant or a cafe, but it was one of those classes where they had set up the environment to portray and then have a scene play out.
01:06:58.480 --> 01:07:06.800
And these two uh ladies that went, they're both firearms instructors, they were in the middle of this scene and realized they could bug out.
01:07:06.960 --> 01:07:07.679
And they did.
01:07:07.760 --> 01:07:08.639
They did exactly that.
01:07:08.800 --> 01:07:12.000
They were like, hold on a minute, there's a door right there, I'm out.
01:07:12.159 --> 01:07:17.599
And they were the only people during the course of this particular sort of test who did that.
01:07:17.760 --> 01:07:26.000
And then at the end of this class, all the guys had gone through, they had, you know, engaged multiple attackers during the context of this scenario.
01:07:26.239 --> 01:07:29.599
Everybody had shot all the bad guys and they felt pretty good about themselves.
01:07:29.760 --> 01:07:32.239
But the only two who left were the women.
01:07:32.400 --> 01:07:35.440
They had decided, no, I can extricate.
01:07:35.679 --> 01:07:43.519
And the instructors basically, you know, politely chastised every single one of the guys for simply just immediately thinking I have to engage.
01:07:43.679 --> 01:07:43.920
Yeah.
01:07:44.159 --> 01:07:52.800
And the women also made the choice, no, I'm not going to, because there's a there's an avenue of escape and I should explore it and try and get out if possible.
01:07:53.039 --> 01:08:09.920
And so there's arguments to be made that although you may end up in a situation where there are no choices left to you, if you have undergone training that puts you in a stressful situation, but you do have options, you know the outcome of this class is not going to result in you dying.
01:08:10.079 --> 01:08:20.720
That's the place to find out how you think you're going to respond so that you can make perhaps hopefully better decisions in the moment if a real situation were to unfold.
01:08:21.039 --> 01:08:27.359
Because if you don't train that decision-making process under stress, we tend to default.
01:08:27.439 --> 01:08:29.680
And what's the quickest thing to default to?
01:08:29.840 --> 01:08:31.279
Well, I can start shooting people.
01:08:31.359 --> 01:08:31.920
I have my gun.
01:08:32.000 --> 01:08:41.680
If I can get to my gun in time, that's what I'll do, rather than, okay, I have four ways out of this, and I should explore, you know, all four of them before I get to that place.
01:08:42.000 --> 01:08:50.800
Because going, getting charged with a crime, your point to the the wife being beaten by the neighbor and the guy has a shotgun.
01:08:51.039 --> 01:08:55.119
I don't know how a jury finds that unreasonable.
01:08:55.439 --> 01:08:56.000
Yeah.
01:08:56.319 --> 01:08:56.640
Yeah.
01:08:56.800 --> 01:09:10.720
Well, you it's it's because you have a prosecutor who uh told a story that was just fantastical, you know, and led them to believe that uh if you believe my story, then you have to find him guilty.
01:09:10.800 --> 01:09:12.079
Well, that's not the rule, right?
01:09:12.159 --> 01:09:13.600
The rule is not whether you believe it.
01:09:13.680 --> 01:09:15.840
You have to you have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
01:09:15.920 --> 01:09:17.039
It's not one or the other.
01:09:17.119 --> 01:09:18.880
But I I do want to hammer something.
01:09:19.039 --> 01:09:21.279
I think I think what you just said is really important.
01:09:21.600 --> 01:09:23.760
There's a guy named Andrew Bronca.
01:09:23.920 --> 01:09:25.760
I don't know if you've had Andrew Bronca on your show.
01:09:25.840 --> 01:09:26.239
You should.
01:09:26.399 --> 01:09:27.600
I'll make introductions.
01:09:27.840 --> 01:09:35.119
He is a he is an expert in civilian use of force and police, but he focuses, he wrote a book called Law of Self-Defense.
01:09:35.359 --> 01:09:37.439
I get no money, but it's his book is free.
01:09:37.680 --> 01:09:40.720
Law of Self-Defense, Andrew Bronca, you can get a free copy of his book.
01:09:40.800 --> 01:09:42.720
I recommend your audience do that.
01:09:42.960 --> 01:09:46.239
Um, but he has five principles he's identified.
01:09:46.399 --> 01:09:58.960
He's an attorney, he's a shooter, he's a jujitsu guy, and so he's he's familiar with physical skills, he's familiar with five, and he's like, look, you gotta focus on in analyzing it after the fact.
01:09:59.119 --> 01:10:02.720
You're gonna look at whether you were innocent, right, or you're the primary aggressor.
01:10:02.800 --> 01:10:04.640
You're gonna look at was the threat imminent?
01:10:04.800 --> 01:10:07.359
That's the intentability means opportunity, that's how I look at it.
01:10:07.520 --> 01:10:11.039
So you're looking at innocence, we got to show imminence of the threat.
01:10:11.119 --> 01:10:14.880
We gotta show that you now we gotta show, I'm gonna be careful here.
01:10:15.039 --> 01:10:18.319
One of the things that's gonna be analyzed is avoidance, what you just talked about.
01:10:18.479 --> 01:10:20.319
What did you do to try to avoid it?
01:10:20.399 --> 01:10:36.239
Because we're going to argue it was necessary, which I hate that word, because the word the law requires necessity in some places, but they define it as reasonable to believe to be necessary to immediately and decisively stop the threat, right?
01:10:36.399 --> 01:10:39.279
So, but necessary doesn't mean there was no other options.
01:10:39.439 --> 01:10:46.399
It meant was it reasonable to believe that deadly force was a proportional response to the threat I was facing, right?
01:10:46.640 --> 01:10:48.399
But avoidance goes into that.
01:10:48.560 --> 01:10:50.000
I'm gonna come back to avoidance.
01:10:50.079 --> 01:10:56.640
So we're looking at innocence, immanence, uh, avoidance, and then we're looking at proportionality and then reasonableness.
01:10:56.720 --> 01:10:58.720
And reasonableness is what we've talked about already.
01:10:58.960 --> 01:11:04.399
Proportionality is based on the threat you faced, and if it's a lethal threat, then lethal response.
01:11:04.479 --> 01:11:06.079
Like that's that's proportional.
01:11:06.319 --> 01:11:10.800
If it's something less than that, your response needs to be less than deadly as well.
01:11:10.880 --> 01:11:13.039
So that's all proportionality gets at.
01:11:13.520 --> 01:11:22.319
But when we look at these cases in places where I'm talking to the civilian, I'm like, man, I wish I would have had you ahead of time.
01:11:22.560 --> 01:11:29.920
Because I want you to imagine there's a scale, and there's a there's there's no requirement that you warn them verbally, right?
01:11:30.239 --> 01:11:34.319
But if you can do it because that puts a rock on the side of that scale, right?
01:11:34.479 --> 01:11:36.880
And if I say, well, there's no duty to retreat, okay.
01:11:36.960 --> 01:11:44.479
But if you tried, you tried to avoid, if you tried to retreat, if you tried to create space, those are big rocks on that side.
01:11:44.640 --> 01:11:49.600
And you can tell me all day long, and cops, well, I don't have to warn them, I don't have to avoid, I don't have to retreat.
01:11:49.840 --> 01:11:50.399
Great.
01:11:50.640 --> 01:12:01.520
I'm saying if you do make any effort to recognize it, document it, make it intentional, we'll put those rocks heavy on the side of your defense.
01:12:01.840 --> 01:12:18.000
Um, if you try to do de-escalation, verbal persuasion, give a warning, presentation of deadly force before use, if you try to avoid whether those things are required under the law or not, they are good for you.
01:12:18.079 --> 01:12:24.159
And so I make that distinction because you know we're all gonna recognize you have a duty to retreat, and we're gonna exploit that.
01:12:24.239 --> 01:12:26.000
We're gonna make sure that's clear to the jury.
01:12:26.399 --> 01:12:43.520
But we're gonna say, even so, they still tried, they still ran behind the car, they still backed up, they still and when you can throw all those rocks on the side, I've got to tell your audience, throw as many as you can, build those into your scenarios, give the warning, give the presentation of deadly force, create space when you can.
01:12:43.920 --> 01:12:51.279
And having said all that, also recognize if you didn't do those things, that we're gonna explain why you didn't.
01:12:51.439 --> 01:12:54.880
Like you're gonna know the circumstances after the fact.
01:12:55.119 --> 01:12:59.600
And the way that works, we've talked about heuristic decision making.
01:13:00.079 --> 01:13:06.079
In training and education, and um we're building those heuristic file folders, right?
01:13:06.239 --> 01:13:09.760
We're gonna get you in those scenarios, we're gonna get you thinking through these things.
01:13:09.840 --> 01:13:17.039
We're gonna give you the law, we're gonna give you the reality of violence, we're gonna show you what what death destruction and mayhem looks like in a classroom setting.
01:13:17.199 --> 01:13:22.720
We're gonna put you, we're gonna show you animations of speed, we're gonna put you in simulators, we're gonna get you on force-on-force strength.
01:13:22.960 --> 01:13:30.239
All of this is to build those file folders because in the moment, there's no rational decision making taking place in many of these cases.
01:13:30.399 --> 01:13:32.399
It's I recognize the file folder.
01:13:32.479 --> 01:13:45.520
I I built it over here, over here, and and now I just simply recognize it in this heuristic decision making, and I make a good enough decision, but then after we have to reconstruct the file folder.
01:13:45.680 --> 01:13:48.159
Okay, now why did I think that that guy was too close?
01:13:48.399 --> 01:13:52.560
Because how many of us, you don't have to do the you don't have to do time, distance, and speed analysis.
01:13:52.720 --> 01:13:56.560
If the guy's got a knife and he's 15 feet from you, he's he's close enough.
01:13:56.640 --> 01:13:56.880
That's it.
01:13:56.960 --> 01:13:57.600
He's close enough.
01:13:57.680 --> 01:13:58.319
I recognize it.
01:13:58.560 --> 01:14:00.479
Heuristically, I just recognize it.
01:14:00.800 --> 01:14:07.119
Because in the classroom setting, in stuff like this, I did the I built the file folder.
01:14:07.199 --> 01:14:11.600
I took the time to familiarize myself with the reality of violence.
01:14:12.000 --> 01:14:16.880
And but afterwards, your your audience is going to have to reconstruct it.
01:14:17.039 --> 01:14:20.560
It's not enough to just say, uh, I felt hinky.
01:14:20.800 --> 01:14:22.560
Well, I knew it when I saw it, right?
01:14:22.880 --> 01:14:28.239
That would be great, but the law is going to require us to deconstruct it as much as we can.
01:14:28.720 --> 01:14:35.520
And the more terminology you have, the more file folders you build, the better in that reconstruction.
01:14:35.760 --> 01:14:44.880
Um and so we we construct it, we recognize it, we we we deconstruct it in terms of how these events unfold, and we have to present them.
01:14:45.039 --> 01:14:52.399
But that deconstruction doesn't take place if we didn't engage in what are called law-driven tactics.
01:14:52.560 --> 01:15:02.880
So when I talk about did you give the warning, did you retreat, did you de-escalate, did you use verbal persuasion, uh, and you're like, I didn't know I was supposed to do any of that stuff, then we failed you.
01:15:03.119 --> 01:15:03.439
Right?
01:15:03.520 --> 01:15:14.159
That's that's our job is to let you know before the event, here's the things you should be considering so that in the event, you don't have to think about them, you're just doing it.
01:15:14.319 --> 01:15:17.199
And then after the event, you're smart enough to know to include it.
01:15:17.359 --> 01:15:20.159
You know, but I did back up, I did try to get around a car.
01:15:20.319 --> 01:15:23.760
And if you left that out, it's because you didn't you're thinking, well, I don't have a duty to retreat.
01:15:23.920 --> 01:15:29.359
And I'm watching the case, and I've seen this in a recent Texas case or sorry, Florida case.
01:15:29.520 --> 01:15:34.319
Um I'm like, but he did retreat, he did avoid, he did try to de-escalate.
01:15:34.399 --> 01:15:37.199
And now we stacked all the things this guy did.
01:15:37.439 --> 01:15:51.119
He spent four years in jail before he finally got his self-defense hearing, his his standard ground hearing, and he was he was let out of jail and privileged with self-defense after four years of sitting in jail.
01:15:51.279 --> 01:15:53.039
Um, that's the fight, right?
01:15:53.119 --> 01:16:02.000
But we were able to go into that case and show even in a state where there's no duty to retreat, no, you know, he did all these things.
01:16:02.239 --> 01:16:06.479
Now he didn't know he was, you know, he didn't know he was doing all those things.
01:16:06.640 --> 01:16:13.359
But when we investigate the case, it'd be easy if you did know you were supposed to do them and you were intentionally doing them, right?
01:16:13.439 --> 01:16:13.840
Yeah.
01:16:14.000 --> 01:16:21.920
Uh but even if you're not, you probably are doing a you know, just in self-defense and self-preservation, you're probably backing away, you're probably presenting your gun first.
01:16:22.079 --> 01:16:25.439
Yeah, you know, the presentation of deadly force is a warning, you know.
01:16:25.520 --> 01:16:30.399
So we'll highlight all the things you did before the shot was fired if there's things to highlight.
01:16:30.560 --> 01:16:34.079
Um, it's better in a law-driven tactics standpoint.
01:16:34.159 --> 01:16:39.520
Um, I think I came up with that term, I'm not sure, but I've been teaching law-driven tactics for 30 years now.
01:16:39.760 --> 01:16:50.479
And uh it's teaching people on the front end the things they need to do that they can't recreate after the fact, but that you won't do if you don't know you're supposed to, you know.
01:16:50.800 --> 01:16:53.039
Um so I think that's critically important.
01:16:53.199 --> 01:17:01.279
Andrew Bronca's book is great, it's a great starting point, it's a great framework for analyzing your your training tactics.
01:17:01.439 --> 01:17:04.399
Are you including those things like you just mentioned with those ladies?
01:17:04.479 --> 01:17:05.840
Well, why did you leave?
01:17:06.079 --> 01:17:09.600
Well, because one of the things I want to be able to argue is that I avoided this.
01:17:09.760 --> 01:17:10.720
I tried to avoid it.
01:17:10.800 --> 01:17:12.239
Well, there's no duty to retreat.
01:17:12.479 --> 01:17:15.760
Okay, but don't you think it's stronger if you did?
01:17:16.079 --> 01:17:17.840
If you can, you know.
01:17:18.159 --> 01:17:20.800
Uh we're never gonna argue you had to.
01:17:20.960 --> 01:17:32.960
We're gonna argue you had no absolutely no duty to retreat, but they assumed the risk on their behalf, they tried to save this guy's life, they retreated, they hid behind a car, they pulled their gun out, they did they did a lot of things to avoid shooting this person.
01:17:33.119 --> 01:17:37.600
Even if in your head, all you're thinking is guy got a knife, back up and shoot him.
01:17:37.920 --> 01:17:40.720
Like, okay, that's what it looks like in real life.
01:17:40.800 --> 01:17:48.800
But at the end of the day, we're gonna recon deconstruct it for you and try to highlight all the things you actually did, whether you did it consciously or not, right?
01:17:48.960 --> 01:17:50.000
We won't make up stuff.
01:17:50.079 --> 01:17:51.600
If you didn't do it, you didn't do it.
01:17:51.840 --> 01:17:58.640
But if you did it, whether you did it consciously or just in self-preservation, we're gonna we're gonna find those, we're gonna we're gonna highlight them.
01:17:59.039 --> 01:18:08.000
So I definitely think there's a case here to be made for especially um concealed carry holders, having self-defense insurance.
01:18:08.159 --> 01:18:31.520
And I mean that in a true linear fashion, self-defense insurance by an insurance company, because if the worst case happens and you are on the receiving end of a life-threatening situation, then you have to engage that threat and ultimately then you as you will be arrested, but have to defend yourself to a jury, being able to afford the defense that comes after.
01:18:32.319 --> 01:18:48.159
And getting experts in on your behalf to argue these types of merits of the case for you most can still carry holders, I don't think, have any concept of how complicated it's gonna get after the fact.
01:18:48.319 --> 01:18:53.439
And they don't even know the questions they should be asking because they just don't know.
01:18:53.680 --> 01:19:07.119
And it's having experts like you in the field that are able to highlight, okay, this could be our approach, this should be our approach, this is our counter-argument, there's gonna be some insane argument made by the prosecution about why you did this in the first place.
01:19:07.359 --> 01:19:14.800
You don't even know that's all coming down the pipe until you have somebody standing in your in your corner going, here's how it's gonna play out.
01:19:15.119 --> 01:19:15.520
Yeah.
01:19:15.680 --> 01:19:17.840
Yeah, and whether you should give a statement or not.
01:19:18.000 --> 01:19:20.800
And if you do give a statement, when do you give that statement?
01:19:20.960 --> 01:19:25.359
Who do you filter that through and with and consider there's there's a lot of things.
01:19:25.439 --> 01:19:37.039
And I'll just, you know, we're one of the because of the because I talk in police practices, I talk in law, I talk in threat assessments, responses, human performance issues, video analysis.
01:19:37.199 --> 01:19:40.960
If you come to us, it's there's like a one-stop shop sort of in our consulting division.
01:19:41.039 --> 01:19:45.439
So, but I just I want to make it clear to your audience for us to even look at a case.
01:19:45.680 --> 01:19:47.359
Well, let me let me let me say this.
01:19:47.520 --> 01:19:50.960
We've never turned down a case for for pay for inability to pay.
01:19:51.039 --> 01:19:51.920
Like we just haven't.
01:19:52.000 --> 01:19:57.199
We'll find a way to support if our calendar and our time and we'll can support it.
01:19:57.439 --> 01:19:59.199
But we we intake a case.
01:19:59.359 --> 01:20:03.039
If anyone wants me to just look at a case, it's ten thousand dollars just to look at it.
01:20:03.199 --> 01:20:07.760
And then I'll sit down with your attorneys, we'll look at it, we'll go through the issues, and we'll talk about the other experts.
01:20:07.920 --> 01:20:12.720
And in one of our trials, we had a biomechanical engineer have to come in.
01:20:13.039 --> 01:20:21.680
We had uh an electrical engineer have to talk about the weapon systems, we had an uh exercise physiologist have to come in and talk about the effects of exhaustion.
01:20:21.840 --> 01:20:26.960
We had me come in and talk about the law, police practice, or uh threat assessments responses.
01:20:27.199 --> 01:20:31.520
We had video analysts come in and talk about the capabilities and limitations of video.
01:20:31.760 --> 01:20:38.560
I mean, it was a who's who of expert witnesses on just an ordinary case.
01:20:38.800 --> 01:20:53.520
And it was because all those things were required to educate the trier of fact who don't do not understand the dangerousness of weapons, who don't understand the permanence of weapons, who don't understand the decision making during stress, right?
01:20:53.840 --> 01:20:58.960
And so those bills racked up, and luckily though there was insurance involved, right?
01:20:59.199 --> 01:21:07.600
And having said that, almost everybody I work with, they do as much as they can to educate the triers of fact.
01:21:07.680 --> 01:21:11.119
And and like I said, we've never turned the case down for inability to pay.
01:21:11.199 --> 01:21:28.239
But we also don't, you know, we also understand the value of what we're doing, and we want your audience to know that it's going to get very expensive very fast, not because anyone's trying to milk you for money, but because that's just what it's required now to overcome this massive political onslaught.
01:21:28.399 --> 01:21:38.479
The it's what's required to overcome the moment we're in relative to the activism and the progressive reforms and all the political side of this.
01:21:38.720 --> 01:21:42.319
And then not to mention just the normal human performance stuff.
01:21:42.560 --> 01:21:46.159
Like uh, you know, what what are you expected to see?
01:21:46.239 --> 01:21:47.199
What are you expected to hear?
01:21:47.279 --> 01:21:50.479
How are you expected, what are you expected to feel in a critical instant?
01:21:50.560 --> 01:21:52.800
And someone has to come in and explain that.
01:21:52.960 --> 01:21:58.000
Um, so yeah, and that doesn't all those things I just mentioned don't even include your attorney fees.
01:21:58.239 --> 01:22:02.880
You have an attorney who's also going to be billing you, you know, whatever their rate is.
01:22:03.039 --> 01:22:05.600
Um, it gets expensive very fast.
01:22:05.760 --> 01:22:18.159
And the people we've had who've had insurance and didn't have to worry about that side of it, um got to sit back confidently knowing they had a massive team on their side to put forth some of these issues.
01:22:18.239 --> 01:22:21.359
And these are again, these are not simply high-profile cases.
01:22:21.439 --> 01:22:28.159
You know, some of these cases are uh Tuesday night in your neighbor's backyard, you know, that's all they are.
01:22:28.319 --> 01:22:32.399
Two civilians, and it just came unexpected, no warning.
01:22:32.560 --> 01:22:33.680
Your life just changed.
01:22:33.760 --> 01:22:40.319
And if you've got that insurance, um, and I don't know if you recommend who you work work with, who you recommend from an insurance standpoint.
01:22:40.479 --> 01:22:49.520
Do you have anybody that you're uh you're recommending or uh right to bear is what the one I carry currently because they do uh they expand it beyond just firearms.
01:22:49.600 --> 01:22:52.399
I used to teach Muay Thai edge weapons, a bunch of other stuff.
01:22:52.479 --> 01:22:53.520
I want to be covered.
01:22:54.640 --> 01:22:55.119
Yeah.
01:22:55.359 --> 01:22:58.640
Covered on all of the aspects of okay, what might I use?
01:22:58.720 --> 01:23:04.880
And if it comes down to just you know elbows and knees, then okay, I want to know that my elbows and knees are are also covered.
01:23:05.039 --> 01:23:05.600
I think U.S.
01:23:05.680 --> 01:23:09.920
Law Shield also does a similar thing, but right now with uh right to bear.
01:23:10.319 --> 01:23:12.159
Yeah, we uh we work with U.S.
01:23:12.239 --> 01:23:13.760
Law Shields, I'll tell you to tell that.
01:23:13.840 --> 01:23:15.760
We're actually helping write curriculum for them.
01:23:15.840 --> 01:23:17.199
We do conference presentations.
01:23:17.359 --> 01:23:28.159
I've been they they they are the only one I know right now that also uh ensures police officers for on-duty shootings and civilians for off.
01:23:28.479 --> 01:23:30.880
Uh I've got I've really enjoyed what they're doing.
01:23:30.960 --> 01:23:35.119
We're building out a big university with them uh down in Houston.
01:23:35.199 --> 01:23:45.920
It's gonna be for expert witnesses, attorneys, uh conceal carry instructors, you know, that want to that whether they like it or not, will be called as expert witnesses if they're the ones that did the training.
01:23:46.319 --> 01:23:58.479
Um they've got they've got their eye really on setting themselves apart in their training world as having developed their training in in consultation with force science and consideration of human performance issues.
01:23:58.560 --> 01:24:00.560
So we do a lot of work with them.
01:24:00.720 --> 01:24:09.119
Um I've done some, was on the as a was an attorney, uh program attorney with Masada Yub's group, Armed Citizen Network.
01:24:09.359 --> 01:24:11.520
Um so there's some good ones out there.
01:24:11.760 --> 01:24:12.640
Compare them, you know.
01:24:12.720 --> 01:24:13.680
I think that's all you can say.
01:24:13.760 --> 01:24:22.239
Compare them and see what what's what not just what their premiums are, but the biggest thing to look at is do you get to choose your own attorney?
01:24:22.399 --> 01:24:23.760
Because sometimes that's not good.
01:24:23.920 --> 01:24:35.039
And some of them will say, no, you have to use one of our attorneys, not because we get paid by them, but because we can say they know self-defense, they specialize in self-defense.
01:24:35.199 --> 01:24:36.720
Um, it can't be your cousin.
01:24:36.800 --> 01:24:42.000
You know, we're not gonna pay for you to hire your cousin, you know, who's who's a Wills and Trust attorney.
01:24:42.479 --> 01:24:44.319
So there's a little bit of that.
01:24:44.399 --> 01:24:48.000
Um figure out what is their system for taking the case.
01:24:48.079 --> 01:24:57.039
Some of these insurance companies will evaluate the strength of your case first, and if they decide you're not that you're not justified, they won't defend it.
01:24:57.600 --> 01:25:10.640
Many of those people that on cases we've seen, we've been able to get not guilty verdicts and find out that the case had been had been kicked down by the insurance company because they didn't think it was a viable claim.
01:25:11.039 --> 01:25:16.720
They're they're not experts in in human performance, they're not experts in considering all the things we consider.
01:25:16.960 --> 01:25:25.600
So definitely um compare those insurance companies, ask some good questions, but I think whether you have insurance or not is not the question.
01:25:25.760 --> 01:25:28.560
Who you have it with is a is a legit question.
01:25:29.119 --> 01:25:37.600
Whether you have it should not unless you're individually wealthy, uh then you you have to have insurance in 2026.
01:25:37.840 --> 01:25:43.039
You just cannot afford a legitimate self-defense uh team without it.
01:25:43.520 --> 01:25:44.399
Yeah, agreed.
01:25:45.119 --> 01:26:02.880
So my last question, I think statistically speaking, uh, an individual who may be a concealed carry holder or not, that individual is more likely to end up on a jury on a case for something in self-defense or maybe law enforcement, rather than actually being the person involved in a shooting in self-defense.
01:26:03.119 --> 01:26:17.600
So let's say you right now you have the ear of a whole bunch of potential jurors, what is the last thing you want to leave them with before they end up potentially sitting on a case with either law enforcement or a concealed carry holder assessing the merits of it?
01:26:18.960 --> 01:26:32.079
Um understand that what you know about violence, and understand there's a big wide audience, most I'm comfortable saying most of us have learned about violence watching TV.
01:26:32.720 --> 01:26:49.760
Understand that what you've learned about violence on TV looks nothing like the reality of violence and really be open to hearing about the reality of violence, the permanence, the uncertainty of the threat assessment itself, or the the uncertainty of the threat assessment itself, and then the permanence of getting it wrong.
01:26:49.920 --> 01:26:50.239
Right?
01:26:50.399 --> 01:26:55.520
If if jurors come in and they are conscious incompetent, right?
01:26:55.760 --> 01:26:58.560
They know what they don't, they know there's things they don't know.
01:26:58.800 --> 01:27:02.880
Um that's that's the that's the best starting point we can have.
01:27:03.039 --> 01:27:13.760
Now, better than that is those of you who are familiar with violence, who understand you've been in fights, you've seen the shootings, you've seen the dead bodies, and I know you that's in your audience too.
01:27:13.920 --> 01:27:24.800
I I I love reformed gangbangers, you know, like they they are so they understand the permanence of death, you know, more than any of us should.
01:27:25.039 --> 01:27:29.119
Um there are people who know violence.
01:27:29.439 --> 01:27:47.439
Be willing to educate your fellow jurors on violence, be able to hear that evidence, and when it's time for deliberation, uh understand that you're gonna be surrounded by people who were educated by T V and who do not want to face the reality of violence.
01:27:47.680 --> 01:27:56.960
And so I think some of their jurors are are swayed, you know, they're they're persuaded by a world as they wish it was versus a world as it is.
01:27:57.199 --> 01:28:00.479
And so uh if that's if That's helpful.
01:28:00.560 --> 01:28:01.199
And then follow the law.
01:28:01.279 --> 01:28:02.079
That's the last thing I could say.
01:28:02.159 --> 01:28:02.720
Yes, for one thing.
01:28:02.800 --> 01:28:03.600
I'm going to give you two.
01:28:03.760 --> 01:28:07.920
The best jurors we've had are the ones who disagree with the outcome, but they follow the law.
01:28:08.239 --> 01:28:09.359
They follow the law.
01:28:09.520 --> 01:28:18.479
And if and if you want reform and you want the law to be different, do not hang that on the back of the individual in that courtroom.
01:28:18.640 --> 01:28:20.159
It is not their responsibility.
01:28:20.319 --> 01:28:22.960
They followed the law as it was at the time.
01:28:23.039 --> 01:28:26.960
If you don't like that, then you can go to your politicians.
01:28:27.039 --> 01:28:35.119
You can you can become an active voice in the community about change and constant, never-ending improvement.
01:28:35.279 --> 01:28:37.760
But that is not the place in a criminal trial.
01:28:37.840 --> 01:28:42.880
That is not the place to do that on the back of the individual who was following the law at the time.
01:28:43.119 --> 01:28:54.000
Whether you like the outcome or not, if you follow the law, and we've had some great jurors who are like, I did not like the outcome of this case, but I read the law, and what they did wasn't illegal.
01:28:54.239 --> 01:28:55.119
You go, perfect.
01:28:55.279 --> 01:28:56.239
That's all we want from you.
01:28:56.479 --> 01:28:57.039
That's great.
01:28:57.199 --> 01:29:01.359
Well, thank you so much for joining me today because this has been absolutely eye-opening.
01:29:01.520 --> 01:29:02.560
I knew it would be.
01:29:03.199 --> 01:29:05.039
I persevered because I know you were traveling.
01:29:05.119 --> 01:29:08.640
You're literally traveling again tonight, I understand, for another trial.
01:29:08.800 --> 01:29:13.439
So getting you on the hot seat, so to speak, has been phenomenal and really eye-opening.
01:29:13.520 --> 01:29:14.479
Thank you very much.
01:29:14.720 --> 01:29:15.199
Of course.
01:29:15.359 --> 01:29:15.520
Yeah.
01:29:15.760 --> 01:29:17.520
You guys come if you get a chance.
01:29:17.600 --> 01:29:19.119
We have a conference coming up, Terry.
01:29:19.199 --> 01:29:23.199
It's uh it's September 22nd to 24th out in Austin, Texas.
01:29:23.359 --> 01:29:25.439
I think Brian Baxter might have talked about it a little bit.
01:29:25.920 --> 01:29:26.880
That's coming up quick.
01:29:27.039 --> 01:29:29.279
You know, civilians, police, all of you come.
01:29:29.600 --> 01:29:31.439
It is going to be phenomenal.
01:29:31.600 --> 01:29:41.760
We Brian and I went through the instructors and had to make selections, and we had to end up just splitting it and getting two tracks going because we there were so many we did not want to we did not want to say no to.
01:29:41.920 --> 01:29:46.880
Uh, our conference is the top conference in the country in these areas.
01:29:47.039 --> 01:29:51.039
We're gonna have you know some of the top experts in their industries talking.
01:29:51.199 --> 01:29:57.279
We uh lots of smart people could talk about the same subjects, but we're bringing in the top experts in many cases.
01:29:57.439 --> 01:29:58.640
Um fantastic.
01:29:58.720 --> 01:30:01.199
So September 22nd to 24th.
01:30:01.439 --> 01:30:04.640
Um also, like you mentioned, our our our courses.
01:30:04.720 --> 01:30:07.920
You know, Brian probably brought it up, so I know a lot of the same audience members.
01:30:08.079 --> 01:30:12.960
Go to forces.com, uh check out our course listings.
01:30:13.039 --> 01:30:26.640
There's de-escalation courses, there's force encounters courses, which is like the the baseline levels of human performance issues in critical instance to start to understand those issues and then build those into your training programs.
01:30:26.800 --> 01:30:28.800
Um, start to get honest.
01:30:29.760 --> 01:30:36.399
When we talk about honest accountability, make sure your training reflects the reality of the operating environment you expect to make those decisions in.
01:30:36.560 --> 01:30:39.199
Um, we have again our de-escalation programs.
01:30:39.279 --> 01:30:50.479
Don't think it doesn't apply to you as civilians because uh those issues of did they de-escalate come up now in civilian trials and in civilian charging decisions.
01:30:50.560 --> 01:30:55.199
And it's crazy because we're like, well, what do they know about de-escalation?
01:30:55.279 --> 01:30:56.319
That's a skill set.
01:30:56.479 --> 01:30:57.600
You have to be trained.
01:30:57.760 --> 01:31:01.760
I mean, we can intuitively like kind of calm people down, you know.
01:31:01.920 --> 01:31:13.359
We might all have some, but but to be effective in a critical instant where the threat is against you, to have the wherewithal to know what to say, how to say it, and when to say it, um, that's a skill set.
01:31:13.439 --> 01:31:21.760
So communication, persuasion, and de-escalation are three different skills that our tr our classes will start to expose you to.
01:31:22.079 --> 01:31:28.479
Um and then those of you who want to who are instructors, come to our certification course in civilian or police.
01:31:28.640 --> 01:31:35.279
Um, that's a week long well, it's three days in person with some online training to supplement it.
01:31:35.439 --> 01:31:39.439
Uh, but come to that's a broader one, get your certification.
01:31:39.600 --> 01:31:43.359
You'll really get immersed in the human performance issues.
01:31:43.600 --> 01:31:44.960
So don't miss those.
01:31:45.199 --> 01:31:48.800
Um and the trainers who also want to have re realistic training.
01:31:48.880 --> 01:31:51.680
We have the advanced instructional methods course and aim course.
01:31:51.760 --> 01:31:54.800
So read the read the courses, read their descriptions.
01:31:54.880 --> 01:31:58.000
If anything seems interested in you, uh reach out.
01:31:58.159 --> 01:32:03.119
Uh, you know, Terry, we'll give them a discount if they come out through your through your through your program.
01:32:03.359 --> 01:32:05.119
Just let us know they came out through your program.
01:32:05.359 --> 01:32:12.000
You guys let us know the time and date that you guys watch the program, and uh we'll we'll credit uh Terry Vaughn with it.
01:32:12.079 --> 01:32:13.680
Uh and we'll give you guys a discount.
01:32:13.760 --> 01:32:15.920
But get a hold of us, for science.com.
01:32:16.319 --> 01:32:20.399
Uh give us a shot give us a note and go through Terry and we'll give you a discount.
01:32:20.560 --> 01:32:21.199
That's fair.
01:32:21.359 --> 01:32:21.920
That's awesome.
01:32:22.000 --> 01:32:22.560
Thank you, mate.
01:32:22.800 --> 01:32:23.359
I appreciate it.
01:32:24.079 --> 01:32:24.720
Of course.
01:32:24.960 --> 01:32:27.119
All right, thanks to everyone who's tuned in for today's episode.
01:32:27.199 --> 01:32:28.399
Don't forget to like and subscribe.
01:32:28.479 --> 01:32:33.199
It helps support the channel and help us keep bringing you the guests and the information that you want to learn for now.
01:32:33.439 --> 01:32:34.479
That's the end of today's episode.
01:32:34.640 --> 01:32:35.600
We'll see you in the next one.
01:32:35.840 --> 01:32:36.159
Cheers.