I wish I could heart this more than once.

Well said

Amen!

Sometimes, running is the *smart* thing to do, not cowardly! If they give you no choice but to harm them, that is *their* mistake!

Well said I agree.

I mean it...it's a foreign language!

I'm reading a book on my states gun laws right now, and it's great because I can read the statute, then his interpretations, and then if there are any past cases. Keep up the good work!

I've spent HOURS looking up legal definitions of words used in law. It's mind numbing.

The CORRECT TERM is "Legalese" sir. You can always spot the rookie in Court because he doesn't speak fluent "Legalese." :)

Interestingly enough, the US Constitution can be understood by anyone with a solid high school education. But very few of the laws passed under its authority can be understood without a team of lawyers. Truly sad.

Joe Blow so long as no ones life is in immediate danger im with yah. Being a coward has served me well so far! At the same time if someone WAS in danger...i Cant say definitively that i would act, but what i can tell you is if someone got hurt......i dont know that id ever be able to forgive myself. Stranger or not. I would constantly think about how i could have or even should have done something. Say i was with my family though i would flee no matter what rather than get them involved for the sake of someone i don't know. Sry if that makes me a bad person or a coward. Still alive!

Joe Blow Sissy! (not).

As long as an innocent life is not in danger, then I agree with you.

So why carry? Why put that responsibility on your self? Not having a go. I wish we had the option to carry but as subjects we can't over here

Because sometimes it isn't about you, it's about others. And if it seems that statement can be taken with multiple interpretations, and from multiple angles, you are correct.

There might be some confusion by some as to what type of situations. This is an emotional topic. One part of the equation are prosecutors, states attorneys. Another is politics. A Chicago Police Officer was recently convicted of 2nd Degree murder and has been sent to prison for shooting a young man high on drugs wielding a knife at a group of officers with guns drawn. The last officer shows up and unloads on the kids. The officer performed poorly, no doubt. He should not have been a cop. The Chicago Police, the Mayor, the Chief, were a minimal corrupt with the reports, and release of body camera evidence. This is even admitted now my the administration. The officer may have committed manslaughter. But 2nd Degree murder? Laws are great, but justice is an entirely different question. A bad cop losses his life, in prison, to stop a city from being burned down is not justice. It is injustice. That example of injustice will only persuade good men and women from choosing to be officers. It will endanger the profession and the officers themselves.

Likely a less humble law enforcement officer... probably one of the ones that he is talking about.

There's always at least one moron, as a cop you should know this.. Thanks for dealing with some of our nation's finest idiots everyday!

The queens of cell block 3!

It was Bubba, mad that John is keeping dumb dudes from being his "close friends"

Good enough!

Excellent!

In hope the room was quiet. I travel a lot, this hotel is stay at in southern CA in always request the side on the side next to a cemetery. When I’ve check in they always laugh. But bib haven’t been woken up by a sprit yet.

Haha. Was going to type that. You beat me to it- by about 5 years, evidently lmao

Common sense is a superpower in these times.

Ya call me a nerd but I really enjoy learning something new everyday. At the dinner table dad made it a requirement to tell something new that you had learned that day. Now back in the 1970’s it wasn’t always easy for a kid. So I looked at the newspaper or popular magazines of the time or talked about a topic discussed in school.

Common sense and the law are opposing forces.

Just because he's a terrible boor doesn't mean his information is bad. As an opening read in self defense law, his book LOSD is reasonably good.

Thank you for the recommendation.

JAMES COOPER zen

+JAMES COOPER Sad state of affairs that you feel the need to express respect for that quality as though its exceptional, huh?

I AM A PART OF "X" POLITICAL PARTY ALL THE "Y" ARE WRONG I AM A PART OF "Y" POLITICAL PARTY ALL THE "X" ARE WRONG It is a back and forth motion of stupidity, not by the government, boy they got us again with that same old trick. Sit back pay your taxes to fund "projects" and "Nation building" in other people's countries, and don't do it with diplomacy, do it with hellfire and brimstone. Always makes me smile when I know my dollars head towards destroying someone's life across the world or having them killed in my place, while I am robbed of my money to fund it. And not only fund the senseless destruction of other people's countries (AND WOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT IN A COUNTRY THAT EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11) we also line the pockets of the people coordinating these things Refer to political party X and Y.

Alex Halbleib very well said

Well said

The Lake Wobegon Syndrome is real.

Exactly. The moment you think that you know everything is the moment you quit learning. Been an auto mechanic for 22 years, and I learn something new every day.

Being able to say “I dont know that” is a big step toward being actually knoweldgable.

Subjective AND objective is significant.

Is fear really that necessary? I remember a gun instructor told me a story that his friend, who was a cop, went to investigate a shooting. A homeowner shot an intruder dead. The guy refused to say he feared for his life, because he's a tough guy and all. Frustrated, he tried to subtly get him to claim he feared for his life. I thought it was BS because he's an intruder...do you really need to fear your life if someone broke into your house.

Amen.

Drywall hanger here, I don't plumb houses and i approve this message.

I'm an electrician. I don't plumb and I don't hang drywall.

I’m a cook and I don’t... well you get the point..

Definitely. Seen it all the time.

Exactly right, even knowing the local laws won't save you if it's politically expedient for the officials.

It is amazing the number people who say they carry a gun and think they are invincible and would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six. Surely, these people weren't born of a mother. Maybe hatched on the street?

Thanks Kyle me too. Take care and be safe.

SmittyM14, your comment was very intelligently stated, BUT I'm taking the most Libertarian view of carrying, and that said, I disagree with 'every confrontation you have is now an armed confrontation'. It's ONLY an 'armed confrontation' IF the armed civilian PRESENTS that firearm into the confrontation; if it's concealed, or never used as leverage in the confrontation, then the confrontation is an ORDINARY confrontation, regardless of whether one is armed or not. Also, most states protects individuals against civil penalty phase, upon that person the defeating criminal penalty phase.

mackman1245 Thanks for the reply. We have the same mindset. I misstated the "armed confrontation" statement. It should have come across as they have the potential of becoming one.

SmittyM14, ok, that's true TO A CERTAIN POINT. I can see ordinary confrontations turning into armed force happening mostly in two cases: One, with people ILLEGALLY carrying (gang members mostly)...and two, maybe with a few ROOKIE carriers, when they FIRST start out...they (mostly) just turned 21, they just got their carry permits, they still have a young mindset...BUT I think once they turn older, get used to carrying all the time, the 'excitement' wears off, and they (like me) forgets that a gun is even being carried, so if an argument is about to start (let's say like what happened to me about a week ago, when I was cut in line at the store), most people who's been armed for a while would just totally ignore the fact that they have a gun on them. At least that's what I do. Based on how sensible most ppl's comments on here seems (I'm guessing most ppl on here also carries), I'm guessing most of them would totally not even think of their gun simply because of a simple confrontation.

mackman1245 Right. I'm not saying they should consider implementing their firearm for a simple verbal confrontation. I think people should be aware that if a verbal confrontation goes to physical, which has been shown on here several times, that your weapon can be used against you. There are several instances were someone carrying a firearm is disarmed during a physical confrontation and the firearm is used against them. We're on the same page I believe just saying it differently. :-)

(*^#%(*^%QOI^&%)(^Q)WE%

Smurfs on Saturday morning FTW!

@@ASPextra Smurfs were the best.

Get a copy of Deadly Force: amzn.to/2teOu9t Get a copy of Straight Talk on Armed Defense: amzn.to/2toq6S6 Get a copy of the Law of Self Defense: amzn.to/2MJbaXp

Active Self Protection Extra thanks John!

I was fortunate to run across Mas Ayoob at 18 or 19 before I began carrying years ago and have been so thankful the wealth of a jump start he gave me. I'd highly recommend his 2+ hr lecture titled the "Judicious use of deadly force" (I think) as a great free overview for anyone to get started on the subject. it's on youtube, then buy his books to support the man, he's done an awful lot for defenders and law enforcement over the years. A true seasoned expert in the legal side of defending yourself with lethal force in the United States. I share your frustration when I see gun owners brash doing our community and culture a disservice with their public ignorance on the law. Ayoob is my go to first suggestion when people are receptive to learning about something that doesn't include stroking their own pride.

John- car jacking is lethal force offence in KY. Correct me if needed.

Active Self Protection Extra The"Yes-but" is I gave up on the legal system in 95 with O.J. walking. Justice is for the Rich. Poor man gets screwed, almost every time. Best you can do- try to stay out of harm's way.

Darth Platypus Well said!

I don’t understand why people want to actually have to use their firearm defensively. First of all you could die, second of all you have to deal with the repercussions of every decision you made in those moments, and then you have to live with taking a life. Those people are looking for a moment to shoot someone and they probably shouldn’t be allowed to carry!

I doubt it. Paul is a trained professional.

OspreyBravo18 I completely disassociated myself from Facebook. I closed my Facebook account and have zero social media accounts for that specific reason.

It's knowing who is who that's the tricky part!

Sean Brown Carrying a firearm requires an average citizen to THINK, be extra polite, not consider yourself "law enforcement", not needlessly escalate situations,& be aware of at least a dozen other responsibilities.

@@Chief2Moon because that requires the thinking and we don’t do that round here

Thanks Steve! Keep fighting the good fight, man. :)

Most lawyers couldn't defend you very well on a speeding ticket. True story from my life experience databank.

LuvBorderCollies Why would you hire a lawyer for a speeding ticket? The lawyer will cost you much more than the ticket and it’s damn difficult to get around a radar gun. It does beg the question though were you speeding?

I wrote the ticket. The loaded real estate developer got his corporate lawyer to go to court with him. Pretty obvious the attorney had no idea what he was doing.

LuvBorderCollies There’s a big difference between a transactional attorney and a trial lawyer. Very few transactional attorney’s even know how to present evidence or question a witness on the stand. I Don’t know what was involved but I can guarantee you an experienced trial attorney would be difficult to beat if he/she had any facts to work with. But again, it’s tough to get around a radar gun and an experienced LEO In a traffic court regardless of the attorney’s experience. (Don’t mean to be difficult but I am married to a very good patent litigator and I have seen the difference between a transactional attorney and a true trial attorney - it’s night and day) So the bottom line is if you need legal advice find a competent lawyer that practices in the area that you need advice on. Have a really great day.

One piece of advice I got as a rookie was you don't need to be worried about any attorney if you have your act together. That is so true. But most are fairly normal folks trying to make a living. So attorneys don't bother me. Few attorneys specialize in criminal court since it doesn't pay very well because of the clientele. The real money is in probate from what I've been told.

That's a good rule of thumb.

What about great bodily harm? You may want to rethink your rule of thumb. Here is where I disagree with active self protection.

Richard Kimble great bodily harm is defined as bodily injury which creates a high probability of death. Your question isn’t open and shut, there needs to be more context to it. Again, we shoot to save a life not to take one.

One Chance T/S Okay, let's say you are outside a club and there are 32 eye witnesses. There is also Audio and video recordings. A man thinks you tripped him on purpose. The man gets a metal pipe and says he is going to break your legs. The man then starts swinging the pipe low at your legs. What do you do?

Richard Kimble .... let's say you stay out of the club ... it's just looking for trouble to go into a place like that.

Your dad sounds like a great guy!

Ain't that the truth. :)

👍👍

Agree 100%, ya just can’t fix stupid!!

Right?!?!

Active Self Protection Extra proverbs 18:2 bible! This not about you sir. The point this is too convey is don't argue with a fool, they think their opinion is above the sense a person tries to give them. Thx, Craig

I think this rule of thumb goes with any complex skill or industry. This attitude serves well in the aviation field.

Believing your in the "right" does not entitle you to do as you please. Even soldiers must maintain ethics or face the consequences.

I would absolutely agree that believing that we are in the right does not entitle us to do as we please. That is why it is absolutely important for us to have a thorough understanding of self defense law in order to make sure that we are justified if we were to ever use any level of force, especially if we were to use force as dramatic as deadly force.

Suppose the insurance company refused to pay you the insurance, because you 'failed to prevent the theft of the insured vehicle, while within your legal power and ability to do so'?

@@mackman1245 would love to see a citation where his has happened? Or where even argued?

What a wimp.

I personally would be OK with having to buy a new car before killing someone over one. It would suck, but I'm sure I would sleep better at night fuming about the lost car rather than reliving killing a guy.

I think that is a fantastic distinction!

it is a tool of last resort.

Absolutely

Agreed 100%. I don’t get how some people can talk about possibly taking a human life like it’s no big deal by making some of the arguments John called out in this video.

@@Texan1981 it depends on one's background... some people have had certain... protocols, drilled into their brains about where force is allowed... and have been intentionally desensitized to the thought of killing another... Infantry vet here. Some people are programmed that way, whether it be by employment, or culture. I would say though, that this is A part of emotional fitness, to be able to come to terms with the fact that someday, you may be in danger, and may have to kill to escape that danger, and the last thing you want during that fight for your life, is a "moral compass" in the back of your mind distracting you with "MAYBE HE WILL STOP! MAYBE HE WILL GO AWAY! WHAT IF HE HAS KIDS?!" And this is just your primal brain saying "Hey! Shut up or we are going to die! He made this choice to attack us, we get to decide to be at his mercy, or end the threat."

As of last count, a minority of states enforce a duty to retreat in public (16).

I'm not 100% on this, but I believe MO just revised their statute where you now have no duty to retreat. That being said, one should NEVER use their firearm to protect ANYTHING other than imminent threat to their lives or their families or innocents.

Yeah big difference between education and training!

Bobby Bowden I think this should be clarified. I think I know what you're saying but there's a difference between shooting someone who you see is stealing your car in the parking lot and shooting someone who is stealing your car in the parking lot with your wife and kids still in it. Or like there's a difference between shooting someone who's robbing the store you're in with a knife and shooting someone who's waving a gun around as they rob the store.

Every single situation is unique and I think Bobby was referring to questioning the mentality of people who might want or choose to shoot people over property alone.

Jared Cowan right

The WHOLE POINT of why cops carry guns with them is NOT for 'protection'...(they don't carry large cash or jewelry with them, so they're not regularly 'targeted', well, at least not until BLM came around!)...the whole point of why they carry guns is to 'stop and prevent crime'... Simply put, when criminals read your comment about "I'm not willing to shoot somebody over property", all that does is ENCOURAGE criminals to think they would have a 'free pass' to either start, or continue, to commit robberies, as long as they maintain their 'robberies' as property crimes.

@@mackman1245 Even a cop cant shoot someone to prevent a car from being burgled. Officers are only allowed to use deadly force in a situation where deadly force would be a reasonable response to some threat being posed to them or the public. If a cop sees you stealing a car they cant just kill you. If a cop sees you stealing a car, engagea you, and you attack the cop then deadly force might be reasonable. Police do not carry a gun to prevent or stop crime. They carry a gun to deal with situations where a reasonable threat of physical harm or death exists.

J M nope you gotta pay for a class first or buy you a fancy book.

What about it is a family heirloom? Or your sole means of transportation liability only insurance?

That's a good distinction.

Good on you for doing the work, Scott!

Thank you John!

Sad but extremely true. I lost a case of an auto accident because the statute was interpreted nearly opposite to what it said.

Absolutely true, case law is extremely important. The law is a living thing. People who read statutes and think they've got it all figured out are clueless.

What's a cpl?

A lot of fudds own gun stores. Stopped by one store where the old lady said you can’t hold the “assault weapons” in the store. That shop didn’t last much longer. Another shop in town was owned by this old fart who was always grouchy and was a nazi at his little range, forcing everyone to buy ammo from him. That place closed too.

Yikes!

Sorry to hear it, man.

That's stupid. You must live in a hardcore democratically controlled state with stupid ass gun control and self defense laws. Don't get me wrong, I'm not necessarily saying that you should've shot the guy unless it was absolutely necessary ( he was armed with a weapon and an immediate threat) but still....I find it unreasonable to get put in jail just for protecting your property from theft. However I digress because I don't fully know the circumstances of your situation. Where I'm from you have that right from a law called, my castle statute.

That's pretty much the standard everywhere.

They're all awesome. Glad you're reading!

I lost. and my only dream is to one-day meet Jesus Christ.That is good news! Jesus!

Ugh! :) I hate that people automatically equate the two... I kept my CCW when Arizona went Constitutional Carry for a host of reasons, but do love living in a Constitutional Carry state.

I know a lot of companies who take that tack. I am not a lawyer, so take my input for what it is here. I think that the "say nothing" approach has the merit of not making you say too much, and that's good. I prefer the say MINIMAL approach to the say nothing approach, and saying it to the right people. 1. CAREFULLY establish the active dynamic. "That man attacked my wife with a hammer." 2. Establish that you're the victim. "I will sign the complaint, sir." 3. Point out evidence. "The hammer fell right there." "I kicked his gun over behind that wheel." 4. Point out witnesses. "That man saw what happened." 5. Tell the officer you'll offer your full cooperation once you've spoken to counsel. This invokes your rights and the officer can't keep questioning you at this point. Anything more, "Officer, I will cooperate fully once I have spoken to counsel. Thank you." This isn't a script, but a path to say the RIGHT things to the RIGHT people at the RIGHT time.

Active Self Protection Extra ...ok. God forbid I should ever have to use my firearm, but I understand that it is imperative that I handle the situation correctly if I ever have to. Thanks for your response and also thank you for the work you do on your channels. I watch a lot of your vids in an effort to be as prepared as possible for something I hope will never happen. Again Thank you.

Active Self Protection Extra I read something alarming about “the right to remain silent” on the internet (yeah, I know) recently. It was not about shooting or killing in self defense. It was more of non-violent crime sort of thing. I’ll try to find a link if you’re interested . I honestly don’t know if the following is true and has been used/misused in prosecutions. But I suspect it has been used and may be used on anyone at any time. The gist of it was as follows. During questioning, much of the time the police/investigator may have not decided if you have committed a crime at all. They are just looking for info about the particular incident. They may think you are not involved at all. So Miranda rights will probably not be told to you. But if you are involved in any way, no matter how insignificant it may seem to at the time, and you have not confirmed whether they are investigating you, at all, for any reason...you must ask them overtly if you are being investigated or are under suspicion, in any way. If they say yes, verbally express to them that you are invoking the Right to not self incriminate. If they say no then you need to be very, very careful. They could change their mind at any time and legally not inform you. The article that I read said that invoking the right to not self incriminate must be done at the beginning of the questioning. Stopping mid questioning may not be allowed especially in court. The court vs field investigation application of this advise was unclear. My impression was that this was only an absolute for testimony under oath in court but that was not made clear. The article did state, however, that the following similar tactics may be used by field investigators as a trap. Field investigators may legally lie outright that you are not under suspicion or being investigated. They can legally lie to you about other people’s statements or testimony. They can lie to you about evidence. They can claim they have your fingerprints or DNA or hair or ballistic evidence as evidence when that is a complete lie. That is legal in most jurisdictions. Hence the need for extreme caution. By asking you simple information like name, address, DOB, etc. and you answering voluntarily allows them to further question you without telling you that you are a suspect or being investigated. In other words, simply giving that information has given them a legal implication/excuse that you are cooperating and not exercising your right to remain silent. After giving the minimum obligated information required in the jurisdiction you must formally tell them that your are invoking your right to not self incriminate and will remain silent. And then you must remain totally silent. Say nothing. Nothing at all. Answer no questions. No matter how unrelated to the incident they may seem to be. In court you are not allowed to stop in mid testimony, I believe. You can’t start answering benign questions including stating your name, age, address, DOB and then invoke your right to not self incriminate. Because you’ve already been testifying as to your name, etc. Especially, you can’t answer a bunch of softball questions and when they ask something you didn’t expect that may incriminate you suddenly invoke your right to not self incriminate. After using a firearm in self defense, I understand your advice about presenting yourself as the victim, calling 911 first, etc. Most likely you will be in an exaggerated sense of awareness and may feel eager to talk about it to help relax you or to help others confirm your proper decision making. You must use your maximum skills to remain calm. And to Shut Up. If you have shot someone for any reason, no matter how legitimate it may seem to you. You are definitely under investigation. Politely telling any questioning officers or investigators that you do not want to answer ANY questions at all until you have spoken to an attorney is very important. And that means ANY questions. You should if possible inform your spouse or relatives, if witnesses or have secondary seemingly, to them, unrelated or unimportant information, that you would prefer them not to answer any questions at that time, until you have spoken with a lawyer. The police/investigators may not be happy at all about that. Try to avoid antagonizing them. But do not give in. Always err on the side of not speaking. That’s it. Sorry it’s a long response/question. What do you think?

ASP - In your response to Melon Rain, you sound very reasonable, but the seminars I attend through U.S.Law Shield advise against making such statements -- you have been involved in a critical incident and may exhibit the result of all the physiological/emotional turmoil that comes with it. I think it would be difficult to invoke your right to silence until you have spoken to counsel because we law-abiding citizens want to cooperate with law enforcement. However, I was once mugged at knifepoint, called 911 immediately afterwards, and reported I had been mugged at GUNPOINT! I had NO recollection of having said that--apparently, in the stress of the moment, I said 'gunpoint' instead of 'knifepoint.' The responding LEO treated me as if I were making up the whole thing after that.

+Michael Meyers ...couldn't read all of that, just goes on too long. However most people will hang themselves by saying too much, but saying too little will cause the police to start to investigate you as the perpetrator and then the DA will back them up. John's advice is good ...you've got to tell them "he attacked my wife with a hammer"... or whatever. Establish that you're the victim, THEN shut up.

josh benware ...actually it isn't, you're another one of the internet idiots who thinks the Second Amendment doesn't include the first four words.

Nathan Stevens I've heard that BS, NRA spin before. Instead of being a parrot why don't you think for yourself? The gun industry doesn't need to hide from government regulation. You guys all have your little talking points that you all recite and regurgitate just like a tape recorder. No thought behind it.

Nathan Stevens I agree with neither of you, in different ways. But feel strongly that the community represented by Mr. Stevens and his vitriol, and the backlash to it, is a much greater threat to my 2A rights than the one represented by Mr. Sevieria

Bradley S ...I would say you are correct! 😉 I'm only in favorable of reasonable firearm control, such as universal background checks and training before someone carries a weapon in public. What is really so bad about discovering if someone is a criminal or psycho before selling them a weapon? Don't you want people to understand gun safety and the law before they carry a deadly weapon with them? The whole "domino effect" argument went out with Vietnam in my opinion (for those who are too young to remember, the domino effect was "once Vietnam falls, then it'll be another country, and another country, until everything's communist". A lot of lives were wasted by that false logic). We can have some reasonable controls without the hysterical fear that all guns are going to be taken away.

Steven Sevieria your "domino effect" analogy is a misused ref herring. I think what you really mean to dismiss is a "slippery slope" argument. Which is actually a valid concern as its been a proven tactic of the left. Especially when folks like you who argue for "common sense" gun laws (whatever that means) also get lumped into the same crowd who openly write op-ed articles opining about repealing the 2A. Slippery slope indeed. I do believe there is a difference between a "legal" gun owner and a "responsible" gun owner. It is responsible to get proper training. But regulating that, in practice, can easily become a de-facto infringement on my 2A right to self-defense.

mhfisc I try to study the area self defense law from all available sources. Who are the experts that don't agree with Ayoob?

That's why I like Paul Harrel...he speaks from actually living through being on the defensive shooters end.He shot and killed someone after his wife.

Google is your friend. I don't want to get into an anti-Ayoob discussion here. Just want to make the point that there are varying opinions.

I've googled alot. People may disagree with Ayoob but I've not found an expert who disagrees

mhfisc ....you sound like one of the internet lawyers. Oversimplify and talk with confidence. Not good enough. I don't think any expert is going to tell you using a gun with a trigger job is "going to get you convicted". Oversimplification. HOWEVER, the district attorney is going to call out to the jury the fact that you're gun has a trigger job to INCREASE HIS CHANCES of convicting you. That's a subtlety that seems to escape internet lawyers such as yourself.

I don't want to get to know any prison culture, howbowdah? ;)

That works for me! Aside from doing Gracie Jiu Jitsu since 1995, I practice a particular knife system. I see other people showing these techniques where the opponent is down and their stabbing away..... rrrrrrrrrrrrrrRRRIIIGHT to prison---is what I always think!

rrp925 ...you can almost smell it from here

Steven Sevieria lol 😂 Steers and queers

Hawaii!!

Always has to be someone that has a smart ass comment about Texas. Grow up people.

Glad to help!