I just wanted to get everyone’s feedback, I’ve seen a couple of things from these guys on YouTube and they just posted another new video. What do you all think?
While I have had the personal opportunity to witness well-known providers compare their products and services while sharing the same space; the resultant take-aways informed my decision to align with what connects to the USCCA. This is not to say that the others were or are substandard; only that the aforementioned aligned with my needs more perfectly.
The advertisement above informs of a future opportunity, having said, “it’s coming” further indicating “it is not yet,” will allow for copious research to ensure the best possible choices can be considered so that when it’s time to press the trigger, out of an array of security packages and providers in the marketplace, you will be further advantaged, having been informed as a result of your research, to choose the best option for yourself as well as for your loved ones appertaining the same.
This lawyer Marc Victor was for several years the weekly legal discussion guy with John Correia on the John’s Briefs series on Active Self Protection Extra.
At about the time that Correia paired up with Firearms Legal Protection (FLP), Victor started promoting his new Lawyers on Retainer (LoR) service, the subject of this new video. When originally formed Victor’s new program was only available in Arizona and Hawaii. His announcement of being in all 50 states is the biggie in the above video.
Note that both FLP and LoR are in the same market space as USCCA/Delta Defense, CCWSafe, US Law Shield, ACLDN, and other post-self defense incident support programs.
My advice to friends and students has been to research them all, and select the one whose provisions, coverages, and costs meet your needs. When I teach classes I tell them I have such support; I believe they should, too. But I do not say which one, and do not recommend any particular one over the others.
I think I will stick with USCCA.
Misinformation aka fake news is what he is known for
Could you please provide specific examples with links? In the ASP Extra videos I watched he did not seem so bad, although I do disagree with some of his advice, specifically when he advised not to carry with a round in the chamber, and when he advised to say nothing at all without your lawyer after an incident. There are legitimate arguments for both positions on those to topics.
I like to suggest some specific things to find out about each option before making a decision, such as
- Coverage territory and do you need a permit for it to be in effect (it’s possible with certain ones you could not have a covered act using pepper spray simply because you can’t legally carry a gun for example that would suck)
- What weapons/not are potentially covered or excluded
- Is it defense expense or only attorney fees and if it’s defense expenses what all might that include
- Is it criminal defense, civil defense, or both (and what are the limits)
- Does it include civil or compensatory damages
- What are the exclusions
- Is it a reimbursement of expenses or are they paid as incurred
- Bail bond expense?
I don’t want to spread fake news or drive views but for example he is known for telling people that USCCA members would not be covered for an act of self defense if they are charged with a crime (older video he put out about the USCCA membership) and that is just plain incorrect
Another option for those who don’t like USCCA…
If they are going to represent me for free I’m in. Otherwise no reason to change whatever already has been working for me.
BTW. He was the guy who opened eyes of people who couldn’t read or understand USCCA’s agreement.
I am always reminded of this Regent University class about not talking to the police
I know both of the individuals in the video, professionally and personally. It is worth the time it takes to watch the video and recall it or plan for it should you ever be pulled over or have a police interaction. Prior exposure makes for a less dramatic encounter.
Yeah, but, in the real world, where do you draw the line?
I’m watched that video a bunch and it’s great, BUT (I just followed your link to see if it’s the one I thought and watched the first like 30 seconds)
“I will never talk to any police officer under any circumstances”
Is kind of hard for me personally to believe that he means what he says and says what he means. That’s a very absolute statement.
Somebody breaks into your car and uses tools to steal your secured firearm. Three other cars at the same time. By the time you get out from your procedure, there is an officer taking reports for the three other vehicles broken into also. What do you do?
You’re at the mall and a guy in a trenchcoat walks in and pulls out a rifle, but it goes click instead of bang so he runs off to the bathroom. Then a cop comes rushing in and says where is he…What do you do?
Get into a fender bender, the vehicles are not safely operable to drive away, or one anyway, a wrecker and a police officer show up for a report. What do you do?
You are attacked, blindsided as you walk through a doorway in which it was humanly impossible to see it coming, you get knocked down by the sucker punch and he and his accomplice with the phone run away…20 seconds later an officer comes around the corner, sees you bloodied, says he is looking for insert perfectly matching description of what you caught of the attackers…what do you do?
So, my question for an attorney…do you really never talk to the police in any circumstances at all? Do you really sit there and say “I will cooperate but first I need to talk to my attorney”?
Absolute statements are just so absolute…it’s strange for me to hear an attorney state something in such a broad brush yet also absolute manner
I had those questions too, the video looks like its a teaser? Maybe more information to come?
It looks like all his program covers is legal fees (lawyer costs).
Other programs do cover things like expert witnesses, home cleaning, bail, etc. as you listed.
You can probably find most answer at his prpgram page:
and the detail page:
As you note an absolute is absolutely the wrong answer as it gives an impression. That said, there is a time and a place for your reasoned defense. The examples given are from questions in a non hostile environment not in the middle of a gun fight. My inclination after the fact is to say “it all happened so fast.” or words to that effect to gain a little space and distance. Police officers are routinely given (not always, policies differ) 72 hours where they are told not to speak about the incident. Do you think that is a coincidence?
The point of the video is not to NOT talk to police about matters of life or death right now, but when you are pulled in for questioning hours or days later.
Anyone that has been in a dire situation will have immediately useful information and that should be relayed as soon as possible in the clearest context that you are capable of. Once it’s over then there is time to relax, reflect and seek council. THAT is the time to shut up.
There is a time to be a good witness (in the thick of it) and time to be a well counseled good witness when all is well and calm except your guts.
By all means cooperate with LEO but be aware of your rights and the power they hold to prevent your conviction by placing firm boundaries within those rights. Carrying a concealed weapon is more of a thinking man’s game than it is a game of chess which is calculated to the N’th degree, if you can’t think on the edge then maebby you need to rethink carry.
No one expects you to be able to detail the events perfectly minutes or days after the event but it would be prudent if you have the capability to describe external observations in the here and now ie: “Guy in a blue hoodie and grey jeans with white shoes went that way.” before you say “He turned away from me and I shot him 3 times.” or “There where 4 of them and I just shot as fast as I could.”
But what constitutes immediately useful information?
Would that include, in a situation where you were attacked, a description of your attacker(s)? How detailed? A description of the weapon used? How detailed?
What if you’re wrong?
Rhetorical question in a way, there is no definitive answer. But, the best course clearly lies somewhere in the middle. Identifying you were attacked, probably a good idea. Trying to describe the height weight age race shirt color pants color hair style eye color and how many notches in his belt was cinched probably not.
I’m just rambling now
While I will not comment about other Instructors teaching styles or methodologies; I am old enough, mature enough, and experienced enough to interpret what to do, and make decisions on the ground.
SCENARIO: Given an already tense situation on both fronts, i.e., your experienced incident and the Law Enforcement Officer(s) that has responded to it. The lasting impression you want to give is NOT that of a pissant! It will get you locked up quicker than quick and you can wait to get with your attorney when it becomes convenient for them to allow you in due course.
But neither should the encounter be met with smiles and pleasantries either, because there is a very serious matter pending, as is the reason for your interaction with them to begin with. So, that Officer is trying to gather preliminary information or as much information as he or she can be provided, so as to be able to forward that information to their detectives who will in turn follow up again with you, and for you to fill in the blanks.
The whole generic “Don’t talk to the police” is a farce! And it will not serve you well to adopt that kind of attitude with them either. Of course, you have to talk to the Police. It’s just what you talk to them about, is the larger point!
There are specific reasons why your conversations over the specific details of your actions should be shared with your Attorney before making official statements to Law Enforcement Officers that are of critical importance. And here’s why: You may have experienced a situation that triggered physiological effects. How and where those effects will present themselves is not determinative. It may be with what you remember, or a false memory; what you saw, or only think you saw; what you heard, or only think you heard; what you said, or only what you wish you hadn’t said. Remember, “everything thing that you say can and will be used…”
You cooperate with Law Enforcement because you are a responsibly armed American citizen; but you also realize the reason you submit limited information is because you do want to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, but it should be after you’ve had the benefit of Counsel regarding the incident and your part in it. In the interim, as the smoke clears and the dust settle and through that session with your Attorney other things will come to your remembrance, you may realize that you didn’t or wouldn’t have gotten right, or that you didn’t make a phone call that you were willing to swear you made before having had the benefit of Counsel and which also allows time to allow these things to surface from their repressed state, which is a physiological effect! Detailed information should be rendered when your head is clear, and your Counsel has advised you.
There’s no point in having an Attorney if you’re going to do the talking. Massad Ayoob is clear on what should be said, the USCCAs Concealed Carry and Home Defense Fundamentals Curriculum is clear on suggested actions to take and calls to make, etc. You are mature and responsible enough to package and present yourself in an intelligent, compliant, and respectful manner to Law Enforcement who will more aptly receive much better than a person who presents a cantankerous attitude.
I will say I have (and many others have as well I am sure) personally experienced a stressful situation where it took me two days to remember parts of it. Was vehicular in nature. But I had a specific thing-happen, my thought, my reaction, result, sequence that it literally took me two days to remember.
And yet I’m still not 100% sure it’s an accurate memory because stress and “it all happened so fast”
Don’t get into details at the time of a stressful or critical incident. High altitude. Low resolution. Then stop. If any doubt on what to say or if to say, don’t.
And that’s why, brother! But for some ne’er-do-well to suggest that one is never to talk to Law Enforcement without pertinent commentary or discourse is just not prudent in my professional opinion. Sometimes a person may be better to request medical assistance, to trigger necessary services being rendered on your behalf, and one of those services is “time.”
Because whatever you say will be remembered, and/or recorded, or written down.
You’re right, traumatic effects can be long-lasting and/or even permanent or presented back to you in fragments. And then, it’s how it comes back, even a fragment can be frightening, and hit you like a starburst, causing you to jerk violently with sweat popping. I’ll stop here. Thanks for sharing, brother. Blessings to you.
as i have said that when I joined USCCA it was to me the better choice,and as i have said is that one phone call and I had representation the next day and they saved me 3k of out of pocket expense, so yes glad that the funds paid did pay off!
I’ve looked at the other programs. They’re confusing, the plans aren’t completely laid out in front of you, you have to customarily choose your plans, meanwhile with USCCA it’s a one fits all size plan, and the memberships keep getting better and better.