Attorney Andrew Branca: WRONG: “You just need to be able to articulate self-defense!”

[oljames3]

One of the most common misconceptions I see held in the gun community by the ill-informed is the belief that if they are ever facing a criminal charge for the use of force against another person, all they need to do to escape criminal liability is “articulate their narrative of self-defense.”

Well, no, I’m afraid that’s completely inadequate. What matters is not that a defender has some narrative of self-defense. That’s naturally required, but it’s not sufficient. What matters is whether that narrative also meets the legal conditions required for the justified use of force against another.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/wrong-you- ... f-defense/
<Pay-Walled after 3 days>

[K.Mooneyham]

I'll say what I said before on this topic. I cannot afford a high-priced lawyer to defend me against a DA who only cares about putting check marks in the "win column". But I'm still going to do what I have to do to defend my family, even if said DA and the legal system care more about actual criminals than a decent citizen who is an honorably "retired" veteran with a clean record. And again, that is a major problem in this nation, we don't have a justice system, we only have a legal system that people can buy their way through.

[montgomery]

IANAL and this is not legal advice: the issue is not what you think you need to do to defend yourself. The issue is whether or not your actions in the totality of circumstance met the legal standard to use justifiable deadly force as a LEGAL DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION - and you need to be able to articulate to a judge and jury what you did was what you were trained to do under those circumstances and the training was the right thing to do is all Branca is saying.

[K.Mooneyham]

IANAL and this is not legal advice: the issue is not what you think you need to do to defend yourself. The issue is whether or not your actions in the totality of circumstance met the legal standard to use justifiable deadly force as a LEGAL DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION - and you need to be able to articulate to a judge and jury what you did was what you were trained to do under those circumstances and the training was the right thing to do is all Branca is saying.

So, you're saying we all need to get legal degrees, then? I can't out-talk some slick DA who's going to make me out to be a monster (though my background shows just the opposite), and unfortunately, the level of lawyer I can afford probably can't either. All I can hope for is to get lucky with a jury, and that's a mighty slim hope. Look, maybe what's being said is merely beyond my level of understanding as I'm just an aircraft mechanic and electronics technician. In the world of aircraft, things say what they say, and don't say what they don't say. So, I'm going to guess that Mr. Branca wouldn't understand me discussing how an aircraft autopilot system works, either. The concept of an autopilot, that's simple...how it really works, not so simple, without a lot of training.

Seriously, I'm not sure what it would be that I am supposed to say if a person violently attacks me and/or my loved ones, and I use deadly force to stop that attack. I'm also certain that I am far from alone on this one. If it takes the equivalent of magical incantations, or a lot of money to hire someone to chant those things, to not be put in a prison with hardcore repeat felons, then a whole lot of us are probably done for.

[DynamicDan]

That's what carry insurance is for.