When I was a toddler, my father wanted me to be left-handed. Each time I picked something up with my right hand he would smack me, take it out of my right hand, then put it in my left hand. I quickly learned to pick things up with my left hand. I am a right oriented person who was trained to be left-handed. That was many years ago. I still write and eat with my left hand. While my writing is still poor at best, I manage to get the fork to my mouth without impaling myself.
 
After graduating from high school, I joined the military. I discovered a whole new world was obsessed with what I did with my right hand. The miliary conditions it’s member to always carry things in our left hands. We had to leave our right hands free to be able to render a salute when passing someone who is either due a salute or to respond to one.
 
If you have gotten this far you might be wondering how these two seemingly unrelated experiences in my life have anything to do with firearms training. First, thank you for sticking with me. I started thinking about this when I read an email from Jason Hanson’s Black Bag Confidential email list.
 
In that email Jason taught that concealed carriers should always keep their right (or shooting) hand free.
 
Enter the third experience…
 
My church had an U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations (OSI) officer in the membership. He participated in some shooting activities with the youth. As a concealed carrier and instructor, we talked about concealed carry in church. My church has communicated to the church members that firearms are not allowed. In that notice they exempted the different types of law enforcement officers.
 
In our conversation he told me that he has a requirement to carry all the time. The state law concerning concealed carry for law enforcement states it is only allowed when performing official duties. This didn’t sway my OSI friend. He said he is always on duty and has no concern about the state’s perceptions. He also said that he and his wife both understand he carries, and she always stays on his support hand side.
 
This takes Jason’s counsel a little further. In his article he instructs that someone who is carrying concealed should always have their right (shooting) hand free and clothing configured to allow for easy access.
 
I teach that starting out each day should include draw and dry fire (no ammunition in the area and a cleared firearm) practice with whatever is being worn that day. I will add keeping your shooting hand free and your shooting side open.
 
When this is practiced enough neural pathway memory (AKA muscle memory) will allow you to be always prepared and capable to deploy your firearm if needed. My early experiences set me up for this mindset.

It has been said many times that the only way to guarantee surviving a violent encounter is to not get in it in the first place. This perspective is focused on personal survival. It is, and will continue to be, not only correct but should a driving force when we are facing a potential threat.
 
Using deadly force is always the absolute last resort when all else fails. If you have received quality training, you should have this principle internalized. When we are faced with the use of deadly force to stop a threat our goal is just that, stop the threat. We should never have the intent to kill a threat, only stop it. Unfortunately, the threat will most likely not survive, especially if you have trained to the point of proficiency.
 
I am sure there are some who believe the legal aftermath is much simpler if there is only your side of the story. This is a dangerous line of thinking. As law abiding citizens, we don’t think like criminals who do everything they can (at least the craftiest ones) to avoid leaving evidence. In a self-defense encounter we do not have the pre-meditated planning the criminal has done. This lack of premeditated planning will have us leaving a significant trail of evidence.
 
This is a very good tool for your defense attorney. As the innocent victim you didn’t try to cover up the evidence. I heard one student of mine tell a story about a lawyer that told him that if he shot and killed a home invader that fell on the porch, drag the invader inside. I really hope that was not a true story, and if it was, I would be looking for a different lawyer.
 
I am way off my intended subject: the realization that pressing the trigger on a firearm pointed at a human may result in taking a life.
 
I had a recent conversation with a friend about this very subject. He is a hunter and has used a firearm to harvest wild game and taught his family the same skills. Hunting is a very different event than defending yourself from a human with intent to do you grave bodily harm. While anyone who enters the living room of apex predators knows that we are viewed as food to them as much as we view deer and elk as food for us. It is entirely possible that while we are looking for game (or just hiking trails,) an apex predator is stalking us with the intent to eat us.
 
Most of us in that situation will have little hesitation to point a firearm at that predator and press the trigger to stop an attack. Like a self-defense event with a human, the use of deadly force is only applied to an apex predator when other deterring techniques have failed.
 
I have asked the question before; can you point a firearm at a human and press the trigger? If you are honest (and haven’t faced the situation) your answer will most likely be “I don’t know.” As a retired military member, we were trained in the mindset that our job was to break things and kill people. In the Air Force we were much more detached from this “in your face” violence that our sister branches, the Army, and Marines. Their conditioning was much more intense than we got since their environment had them face to face with the threat.
 
In his book On Killing, The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society he addresses the military’s problem with getting drafted soldiers to point their weapons at the enemy and shoot to kill. The military studied (See Men Against Fire: The problem of Battle Command, Marshal, S.L.A., William Morrow & Company, New York 1947) the fire rates and looked for ways to turn off the safety switch. This safety switch prevents us from killing another human being.
 
There are plenty of examples of those who have this switch off, such as serial killers. For the rest of the non-psychopathic population, the switch is on. In World War II it is estimated that only 25% of soldiers fired directly at the enemy. At the time, training the new troops involved shooting at bulls-eye targets. These were trained soldiers and included seasoned troops.
 
By the Viet Nam war the rate was closer to 90%. What made the difference? Training, plain and simple. To be more specific, operant conditioning. The military started with using silhouette targets. Then they progressed to pop-up targets. The soldiers were graded on how quickly they hit the target after it popped up. This training moved the fire decision to neural pathways (sometimes known as muscle memory) so the soldiers didn’t think, they just shot the target.
 
When we do training, we (well, most of us) don’t use the popup targets. There are some advanced shooting courses that do. When I was certified, yhe NRA forbade us instructors from using even animal silhouette targets. Their program was strictly marksmanship focused. This is true to the roots of the NRA.
 
If we only shoot at a bulls-eye there is no assurance that we will be able to engage a human threat. That is why law enforcement training uses various human shaped targets and even some with human features.
 
The reality is, regardless of the training there is no guarantee that the average person will shoot at another person. We must train ourselves to engage a human shape. Remember, even with the advanced training, the Viet Nam era soldiers still had 10% who did not shoot the enemy.
 
Today, we have some operant conditioning that is teaching our population to engage human targets. We have first-person-shooter video games, LASER tag, and to really drive the point home paintball wars. There are many who deny the conditioning. However, in Columbine, the shooters stood flat-footed and shot at the students using the same techniques they used in video games. Paintball has us hunting each other. We are being conditioned to turn that switch off.
 
With all that being considered, the only way we can be 100% sure we can press the trigger is to face the choice. While I never want to be in that situation, I realize that situation is only presented when a threat has engaged me with intent to do great/grave bodily harm. We train so that in that event we can react and survive. The training we do must include a human analog to at least condition us to shooting a human target. Will that flip the switch enough that we can press the trigger? I hope none of us find out…

Every action taken during a violent encounter will be judged through the lens of a fictitious “reasonable person.” This lens is held up by the prosecutor at every opportunity as the defender’s actions against the threat are questioned.
 
            “Wouldn’t a reasonable person have run away?”
            “Would a reasonable person use a gun when they also had pepper spray?”
            “Would a reasonable person use more deadly hollow point ammunition?”
 
Reasonableness will be applied to each of the use of force criteria. Not only do defenders have to make sure they do not breach any of the legal bounds but also the bounds of a reasonable person.
 
This fictitious reasonable person is based upon the perceptions of the jury. These perceptions are the result of their life experiences and the picture painted by the prosecutor’s line of questioning.
 
For example, if a search of the defender’s home exposes multiple boxes of ammunition, the prosecutor can paint the picture that the defender had enough ammunition in his home to start a war. A juror who is not an experienced shooter may be disturbed by someone having that much ammunition. An experienced shooter may look at the claim for what it is, an attempt to scare people into believing the defender is dangerous and a threat to the public.
 
Responding to someone who punched you in the face with a ball bat not only violates the proportionality aspect of the use of force it can be deemed unreasonable. Likewise, using a firearm when you had pepper spray may be deemed unreasonable.
 
Your defense team will offer counter arguments to move the jury’s perceptions of your actions from unreasonable to reasonable and necessary.
 
There are other, less obvious. Considerations. If the attacker has a known tendency for violent behavior or threatening the defender, actions that might have been considered unreasonable otherwise can be justifiable.
 
Your knowledge at the time of the event can lead to reactions that someone without that knowledge may think is unreasonable. Following the 2014 riots in Ferguson, Missouri there was a frenzy of police criticism. When officers shot and killed a mentally deranged man with a knife the criticism went up exponentially. After all, the man was mentally ill, only had a knife and was 15 feet from the officers. What the public and media didn’t know was the Tueller drill. The officers knew that the man with the knife could closed the distance quicker than they could react if he started moving towards them, which he did. Prior knowledge of the Tueller drill kept them from being injured or killed.
 
In Andrew Branca’s The Law of Self Defense Principles he shares some training he got from Massad Ayoob. The students in the class were instructed to put a copy of their notes in an envelope mail it to themselves. This documented the time and training they received. If they were in an incident and had to defend what they knew at the time, the sealed envelope could be opened in court. This would prove they acted based upon what they knew prior to the event.
 
It can also be considered reasonable to react based upon what was believed to be true at the time of the event. An example of this is the many times police have shot someone who had a toy firearm or something in their hands that looked like a firearm. It is reasonable for them to react based upon them believing they were being threatened with an actual firearm.
 
Likewise, not being aware of an escape route because it was hidden behind a large vehicle does not mean a defender violated the no means of escape principle. The prosecutor will show images that clearly show the escape route to prove the defender had means to escape but chose to shoot and kill the attacker. The defense will present the reality of what was happening at the time by showing an image of the large vehicle blocking the view of the escape route proving that the defender was acting reasonably.

You have purchased daily carry tools such as a firearm, OC or OC/CS spray, a reliable knife, maybe even a tactical pen. You have trained with all these tools. You have the mental attitude and confidence to deploy these tools.
 
In this training you should have been taught that the use of force is the absolute last resort. In Michael Martin’s Concealed Carry and Home Defense he states: “The only guaranteed method of surviving a violent encounter is to avoid it in the first place.”
 
If that is the case, why do we do all the training? Why do we spend so much money on gear? The answer is a simple one, we can’t always avoid the actions of a bad actor who intends to do us harm. Avoiding an encounter is always the best answer and the surest way of going home that day.
 
When avoidance is not possible, we need to be very knowledgeable about the laws in the jurisdiction of the encounter. There is a myriad of possible traps. Each jurisdiction will have laws that govern your responsibilities. They could be termed “Stand Your Ground,” “Duty to Retreat,” “Castle Doctrine” to name a few.
 
Duty to Retreat/Stand Your Ground
 
If your state, such as mine, has a law that states you do not have a duty to retreat, you do not have to retreat if you are lawfully where you are. You are protected from the prosecutor using your failure to retreat to deny you a self-defense determination.
 
However, if you are in a “Duty to Retreat” state things are different. If you have an opportunity to safely retreat, you must or lose the ability to claim self-defense. Note the ‘safely retreat’ in that statement. You are not expected to put yourself in a more hazardous situation to avoid defending yourself. A simple example is if the threat is advancing towards you and your only retreat would be into a street with heavy traffic, you do not have to enter the traffic and can defend yourself and claim self-defense.
 
There are other factors that may allow self-defense in lieu of a retreat. One obvious example is the protection of another innocent party. If I were out in public with my wife and someone is attacking her, I am certainly not going to just leave her and retreat. I will defend her and the justice system should allow me that option without using it against me.
 
Each state has their own nuances to duty to retreat. Your state may have laws that allow less than deadly force without a duty to retreat but require a retreat if deadly force is being used. Get to know your areas laws and the laws of any travel destinations.
 
Castle Doctrine
 
Castle Doctrine comes from Sir Edward Coke who said: “An Englishman’s home is his castle.” The first aspect of this is that you do not have a duty to retreat if you are in your home. That does not mean you can use deadly force to defend your home. In all states except one, deadly force cannot be used to defend property. If you are in Texas, don’t mess with a man’s truck or his dog. He can lawfully use deadly force to defend property.
 
Castle Doctrine has been extended to include place of employment and occupied vehicles. In all cases, for the Castle Doctrine to apply the occupation of the space must be legal. Legal status may be affected by impending divorce or other domestic issues. Someone who purchased a home with a spouse is the legal co-owner of the home, until. Until the marriage starts to fall apart. If one spouse moves out of the property, the legal status of being in that property relies upon an invitation of the one that has continued occupation.
 
As stated in the beginning, avoiding a violent encounter should always be the primary goal. Possessing the ability to exert deadly force against another elevates our responsibility in the eyes of the law. Even a verbal altercation’s prosecution can be elevated to a felony by the mere presence of deadly force, even if it was not used or even disclosed. Using deadly force is an absolute last resort after all other methods have been exhausted.
 
While there are many jurisdictions that have laws that support not retreating, these laws are not so clear-cut that a lay person cannot say they were legally within the bounds of that law without legal advice. That is why we need to do two things, evoke our right to remain silent (also derived from the Castle Doctrine) and get a lawyer.

Professional sports often divide athletes into separate divisions to ensure the competition is fair. It would be ludicrous to put a boxer from the heavy weight class in the ring with a bantam weight boxer.
 
When you are forced to use deadly force the legal system looks at the same thing. If someone attacks you with a bull whip and you respond with a firearm you have used disproportional force. To continue with the same line of thinking as above, your attacker is a bantam weight athlete, and you are responding as a heavy weight athlete.
 
That was a conceptual discussion. The literal example is you responded to a non-deadly force threat with deadly force. You have violated the proportionality aspect of self-defense and negated your self-defense justification for the use of force.
 
In a self-defense event you must respond with proportional force only. However, if the attacker is using deadly force the proportionality consideration is irrelevant. You may use any level of force at your disposal. If your attacker is using a .22 caliber pistol and you respond with a 50 BMG, you both are using deadly force. The prosecutor cannot use the proportionality argument to say your 50 BMG is a disproportional response. Both calibers are deadly.
 
Another aspect to proportionality a disparity of size. If your attacker is significantly more capable, such as a 90 pound, 80-year-old woman being attacked by a 200 pound 25-year-old male, there is a disparity of force. This gives the woman grounds to use lethal force in her defense.
 
If a single person is being attacked by multiple attackers, the defender can use deadly force to counter the disproportional force being applied.
 
Likewise, if an altercation, not involving weapons other than fists, results in one party being no longer able to defend but the other person continues the attack, the attack now meets the threshold of being deadly. Then an elevated level of force can be used by the person who is unable to defend otherwise.
 
When looking at a response, what is deadly force is somewhat ambiguous. For example, a baseball bat is normally not considered a deadly weapon. Yet, it can be used in a deadly manner. A person’s hands (no matter how many times you hear the Hollywood “these hands are registered as deadly weapons” line) are not considered deadly weapons. However, if the attacker grabs the victim by the throat and begins strangling the hand are now deadly weapons.
 
Punching someone with a closed fist is still not deadly force, if it were, most professional boxing matches would end quickly and with a death. Here another aspect comes in, duration. The professional boxing matches have a referee who stops the fight when a participant is getting repeatedly punched and unable to continue defending against the punches.

As you can see proportionality is a murky pond. This is why the best advice is to not get into an altercation in the first place. If it is unavoidable, be careful to not use more force than required to stop the threat. Consider law enforcement responses. They start off with de-escalation first. If that fails, they increase the level of response until the threat has been neutralized. You should do the same.
 
Only you can make the judgement call at the time of the event. If you carry pepper spray but use a pistol first, you (actually your lawyer) must defend that decision.
 
Remember, I am not a lawyer and none of this should be taken as legal advice. This is training only.

In order to use lethal force, the person using that force must be in imminent danger. The Blacks Law Dictionary (https://thelawdictionary.org/imminent-danger/) defines imminent danger as:
 
In relation to homicide in self-defense, this term means immediate danger, such as must be Instantly met, such as cannot be guarded against It calling for the assistance of others or the protection of the law. U. S. v. Outerbridge,27 Fed. Cas. 390; State v. West, 45 La. Ann. 14, 12 South. 7; State v. Smith, 43 Or. 109, 71 Pac. 973. Or, as otherwise defined, such an appearance of threatened and impending injury as would put a reasonable and prudent man to his instant defense.State v. Fontenot, 50 La. Ann. 537, 23 South. 034. 09 Am. St. Rep. 455; Shorter v.People, 2 N. Y. 201, 51 Am. Dec. 280.
 
I see the words; “immediate danger,” “instantly met,” and “threatened and impending injury.” I also see “cannot be guarded against it by calling for the assistance of others or the protection of the law.”
 
Massad Ayoob teaches about the AOJ triad in his MAG-40 training and Andrew F. Branca discusses it in his book, The Law of Self Defense. This triad consists of ability, opportunity, and jeopardy.
 
The elements of the triad are considered when determining if self-defense actions meet the immediacy test.
 
The first element is ability. Does the threat have the ability to cause you harm? Of the three legs of the traid, this one is least likely to negate the self-defense argument. Having the ability to harm someone else is just about universal. The degree of harm can certainly be a point of discusson, but that is a different leg of the triad.
 
The next element is opportunity. Does the threat have the opportunity to cause you harm? Someone seeing you walking on the ground floor of a mall and begins threatening you with a knife from the second or third floor doesn’t have the opportunity to carry out the treat immediately. That is a very simplistic example. Branca’s The Law of Self Defense gives several examples to include case law from various states in how opportunity is adjudicated.
 
The third element is jeopardy. Does the threat, with ability and opportunity, show intent to cause harm to you or another innocent party? That places the innocent party in jeopardy.
 
An example in Branca’s book is a security guard in a bank. He has the ability and opportunity to do harm but, unless you are a threat yourself, has no intent to cause harm. Thus, no jeopardy.
 
Once these three elements exist, deadly force can be used. That is, as long as it is proportional to the threat.

When someone is attacked and forced to defend themselves it isn’t always presumed that they are the innocent party. The trial argument of self-defense relies upon the accused being the innocent party.
 
What does it mean to be the innocent party?
 
It means that you did not start or escalate the attack. For example, if someone makes a verbal threat you are the innocent party. If you respond to that verbal threat by some form of physical contact such as striking or shoving the person, you have escalated the attack and lost your status of innocent party.
 
That seems simple enough. However, the prosecutor looks at more than the actual event. If there is a pattern of verbal confrontations between you and your attacker, no matter how far in the past, you may not be perceived as the innocent party. The prosecutor may get the jury to believe you were the instigator just looking for your opportunity to strike out.
 
If you are party to a conflict, you know, the let’s take this outside invitation, you are not an innocent party. Rather you are a mutual combatant. Your status changes if you clearly withdraw from the conflict and the other party continues the attack. At that point you become the innocent party. Once again, this puts you in a risky territory since your status is dependent upon what the jury believes.
 
In The Law of Self Devenses Principles, Andrew Branca offers a nuanced example where a person comes out of the darkness violently charging towards another person. The intended victim attempts a punch that misses but trips the attacker. The attacker jumps up and charges again. The intended victim connected with a glancing blow after the attacker threw a punch that missed. The intended victim delivers a knee to the groin, ending the attack.
 
Who is the innocent party in this exchange?
 
It may seem obvious on the surface. The man who charged out of the darkness was the aggressor, right? But, who was punched first?
 
The prosecutor could very well present the presumed attacker on the stand. He can claim he is the innocent victim that was merely defending himself against an attacker that punched him before kneeing him in the groin.
 
The jury will be told that the only person who made contact was the one accused unfairly. The future looks bleak for the guy who was just walking down the street.
 
A good defense attorney will present a different picture. Since the guy charging out of the darkness was the aggressor, he cannot claim self-defense.
There is another aspect to this type of scenario. In the above scenario the aggressor and defender are using the same amount of force. Remember you can lose the ability to claim self-defense if you are not the innocent party or escalate the conflict.
 
If, in the scenario above, the defender presented a weapon in response to the charging attacker that could risk his innocent party status. I say could because there are other factors. If there is a disparity of force a defender may use a greater degree of response than being presented by the attacker.
 
An example might be an elderly woman who uses a firearm to defend herself against multiple young attackers who have not presented a weapon. There is a disparity of force in the younger, multiple attackers. She does not lose her innocent party status.
 
Escalating responses can flip the innocent party status back and forth. Who the innocent part is at any given moment can be complicated. Some areas may consider your language to indicate aggressive behavior and negate the innocent party status.
 
My best advice is to be careful what you say to everyone, avoid conflict where ever possible and rely on sound legal counsel.

 
In my training I emphasize our desire to keep our students out of prison. This can be translated to mean, hard to convict. To be hard to convict we must operate within the law. To operate within the law, we must know the law. This is where the challenge comes it.
 
We shouldn’t have to be lawyers to protect ourselves, our families and others who are under the threat of death or great/grave bodily harm. However, I just threw in a legal concept we must understand; threat of death or great/grave bodily harm. This concept is one of five elements that must all be met for a use of deadly force to be considered justifiable.
 
Now that I have started talking about legal concepts, I need to make the following statement: I am not a lawyer and therefore cannot give legal advice. I am familiar with use of force law, but if you are facing prison you don’t want to get advice from someone who is familiar. You want a lawyer with a deep working knowledge of the law and courtroom procedures.
 
Over the next period of time, I am going to post articles addressing these five concepts:
 
            Innocence
            Imminence
            Proportionality
            Avoidance
            Reasonableness
 
Like most of you, I am, relying upon the wisdom and knowledge of others who can be considered experts on the subject. The text I use for my concealed carry training both in Illinois and Utah is the USCCA book Concealed Carry and Home Defense Fundamentals by Michael Martin. I have taken several online and DVD e-Learning courses. Another resource is The Law of Self Defense Principles by Andrew F. Branca. He is endorsed by Massad Ayoob in the forward of that book. Mr. Branca is a lawyer as well as a certified firearms instructor, Mr. Ayoob is one of the premier self-defense instructors in the nation and has an extensive background in law enforcement training and was a prosecutor for the police department.
 
By learning the materials these sources present we don’t have to be a lawyer to make ourselves hard to convict. If the situation arises where we have used deadly force we need to rely upon a very critical resource, a lawyer. We must not rely upon ourselves and the knowledge we have gained for our defense. The knowledge we have gained, especially that which comes from such noteworthy sources, should be used to ensure we are acting within the use of force guidelines. At that point we should rely upon our lawyer’s knowledge and experience.
 
I am going to address general principles of the use of force. While this is a good foundation it cannot be considered the whole picture. Each state, and sometimes municipalities, have unique laws governing the use of force withing their boundaries. For example, in most states it is not legal to use deadly force to defend property. In Texas it is wise to not mess with someone’s truck or dog. Deadly for is authorized to protect property in Texas. When we travel armed it is critical that we know the laws of the lands we travel through. If I were from Texas and traveling in Wyoming, I need to know that Wyoming prohibits the use of deadly force to protect property.
 
This example is another reason we need a lawyer for our defense. Your lawyer should be fully intimate with the laws of the land where you had to use deadly force. Your actions up to and during the incident should help the lawyer in your defense. Your complete compliance with his advice will solidify your defense.
 
In the next posting I will address what it means to be the innocent party. It is not as obvious as it seems.

Carrying a firearm concealed takes some accommodations. Often wardrobe changes are needed to fit an IWB holster or prevent printing. That is only one aspect of changes a new concealed carrier may experience.
 
Another aspect is that it takes getting used to. That is one reason for the title.
 
If you intend to carry concealed, do it! Do it every day in everywhere it is legal. By carrying all the time, you will get used to the extra bulk and weight. You will get over the need to pat your gun. A pickpocket watches their mark for the pat that tells them where the valuables are. The pat will only draw attention to where you have something valuable or remove any doubt that the bulk is a firearm.
 
Carrying every day will condition you to the point where it becomes natural. It will get to the point where when you don’t carry you will feel if something is missing. At that point it will have become comfortable. Well, mostly.
 
When you are carrying regularly you will experience what all of us do, what do I do when…
 
This list starts with the inevitable “I need to go to the bathroom.” We have seen multiple news reports of a gun found in a bathroom stall. We need to make that aspect of carrying in public something we don’t have to think about, we just do what we need to and maintain control of our firearm at all times. There are many others we will come across.
 
I always check event venues for any restrictions. One time I did my due diligence and was confident I could carry. Even though the venue did not have a restriction (by my states law they couldn’t) the event put up metal detectors. All we had to do was put all the metal we had in our hands as we went through. While I can legally carry into the venue this put me in a situation where I would be disclosing that I was carrying, or I would be brandishing.
 
You need to have a plan for how you will handle these situations. While a mental exercise can get you thinking about options, facing the situation will give you experience.
 
There is another, with more serious ramifications. We carry and get training, so we are hard to kill. We know the law, so we are hard to convict. If you only carry occasionally, when you feel you are going somewhere less safe, you are inadvertently giving ammunition to the prosecutor.
 
Imagine the scenario where the prosecutor says; “You went in there armed just looking for trouble, didn’t you?” By concealed carry being a regular part of your day-to-day life you totally negate that argument.

 
When you hear those words, you have entered an interaction with some level of law enforcement after what that officer perceives is a crime you have committed. Even being completely innocent you are in a significant amount of financial peril, not to mention facing imprisonment.
 
At this point there are two things that are critical to keeping yourself out of prison, not talking and a good lawyer.
 
The Miranda statement is very clear in that “Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.” [Emphasis is mine] For some people this is not a prohibition about making statements that support their defense. Here is the issue. The prosecution cannot and will not entertain any evidence that supports your defense. Their focus is on prosecuting a crime and it could be considered malfeasance if they presented evidence in your defense. That is the job of your attorney.
 
We have all played the telephone game. You know, the one where a message is passed around the room and comes out unrecognizable at the end. While we call it a game, it is deadly serious when something said at the time of arrest or later to a family member or friend seals your fate in court. It is absolutely critical that you speak about what happened to no one except your lawyer. You don’t want the prosecutor to have the ammunition to say “were you lying then or are you lying now?” when a contradictory statement is presented.
 
When faced with the need to defend against a self-defense incident you are going to need a good attorney, and they cost lots of money. Ask Kyle Rittenhouse. His successful legal battle cost him more than $200,000! His battle is not over, he is now facing the civil suits. That adds more legal fees.
 
Defending yourself is not cheap. It takes a team of lawyers and investigators. It can take months and over those months the fees add up. As a hedge against these fees, it is prudent to have insurance. We insure our homes but do not plan on having a house fire. We insure our cars but do not plan on crashing into something. Yes, I realize that lenders and laws require insurance, but we all know someone who didn’t have it when an event happened.
 
If you carry a firearm, you should have some form of self-defense insurance. As a USCCA instructor and partner I fully endorse USCCA membership, which comes with a very good insurance program and dedicated emergency response team that includes lawyers. Membership also includes online training, lots of it!