"Charged with a Crime" and "Convicted of a Crime"

Someone please explain this problem. I have been with USCCA for 7 years and enjoy all it benefits, but
things are still not clear with coverages. I am legal, but do not understand this nightmare.

“Charged with a Crime” and “Convicted of a Crime” are very different.

1 Like

What specifically do you need explained? These guys/ lawyers are being deceitful about many things.
It sounds to me that USCCA is saying you have to trust us to do what is in your best interest if you are not guilty of the crime you are accused of. Financially that would also be in their best interest because that helps their reputation. If you are guilty of what you are being charged with you are not covered because that is not in their best interest or societies best interest. The guy in the video seems to think insurance should try to get you off even if you are guilty. Which technically is not insurance.
If one wants insurance go with USCCA. If one wants someone to get them off if they are guilty get something else.


Why don’t pay both?
If Insurance leaves you alone, because you have been “charged with the crime”… you still have Marc Victor who will save your a$$… :pray:

It is not only USCCA he tries to discredit. Just go to YT and watch his videos.
Actually those are really valuable… but the final decision is yours…

1 Like

Based on the details of the Kayla Giles case that I have seen it is my understanding that the discovery process revealed that she joined USCCA right about the same time she was researching on her computer the best ways to get away with murdering someone.

She ended up being convicted of 2nd degree murder and tampering with evidence for trying to delete her searches from her computer.

She then sued Delta Defense for withdrawing coverage and her case was thrown out with prejudice by the judge. Meaning the judge felt her case had no merit.

If her not getting coverage is the best example people can put up against the USCCA coverage, I feel pretty good about my chances of being covered. Especially given the several positive cases I have read about. But insurance companies are in it for the money so I would never put all my faith in one. Best to avoid self defense situations if at all possible which I think is why USCCA puts so much emphasis on training.


Sounds like a sales pitch to me – he’s pitching an alternative to USCCA by pointing out what he believes are deficiencies in its policy and ends the pitch with “Dump your crapping USCCA coverage and hire me to be your criminal defense attorney!” But, (1) criminal defense attorneys do not cover civil judgments and (2) his criminal defense services are available to you if you live in Arizona or Hawaii. What a deal.


Paying insurance premiums sucks.

But, think of it in terms of economics. A run-of-the-mill attorney will charge you $350-$400/hour to defend you against criminal charges and in civil litigation. And, if you lose a civil case (or just choose to settle one), your damages – again, your money loss --could easily run into 6 figures.

USCCA membership is, say, $350/year. If it’s all junk and never pays a claim (as the YouTube defense lawyer seems to be claiming), you’re out $350. If the YouTube legal expert who is trying to convince you to buy his plan that only works in Arizona and Hawaii is wrong, the $350 premium paid to USCCA protects you to the tune of avoided hourly attorney fees and potential 6 figure civil liability. In my view, a small financial gamble when the stakes are so high.

Of course, you could opt to not have any coverage at all, which is what most Americans do.


I have taken 7 years of classes and the main course and class is When can I use lethal Force and many When
to shoot or not to shoot scenarios and this is on
when you can use your firearm in self defense.

Many people are in fear and they have and will shoot through front doors, back doors, and windows without
reasons except fear of being hurt by ex boy friends,
ex husbands, and top that off people that are innocent
and they do not have any desires to hurt or carry firearms. They do not have much help in education,
because they are to good to train some in their life.
They know everything all ready.

Texas, shooting 13 times at the bad guys trying to break
into a persons apartment. That was through a front door that it would take a Bull Dozer to Break down the door. The bullets hit the next door neighbors wall, all
13 times. I am trained in commercial buildings and equipment, buildings and apartments do have some security and strength.

You may loose your Liability Insurance Coverage here for committing a bad crime and if convicted you will not be covered with anyone’s liability insurance, due to
that conviction.

Our Education helps us stay keep us from getting
killed or put in jail.

Those videos that I showed you, they are literally
Lying and need to be stopped, but Freedom of Speech
gives the their Rights.


I am a member of USCCA and to opt out is suicide
and the education is much needed. Truth is needed,
not the lies.


As you say in the title, being charged with a crime is not being convicted of a crime.

As a USCCA member, you are an additional insured on the self defense liability insurance policy issued to the USCCA by the UFCIC. That coverage is for any lawful act of self defense not otherwise excluded. Being charged with a crime is not an exclusion.

There are some videos out there, like the above, by or supported by a competitor, that are flatly incorrect.


I have been verbally abused by people for sharing USCCA. 2 years those videos have been floating around and I ignored them.

Training and Good Benefits and the Training is excellent
But this is one of the reason for the painful comments
that have been thrown in my face and it is painful, but
We must move forward and above it.

Thanks to everybody’s help to move and continue the fight.

1 Like

Got any links? This goes to the heart of what I’m saying in the other thread. Isn’t a trial the place where guilt or innocence is determined? I can research all day long on the computer but that doesn’t mean I did anything. The insurer should cover until the trial is finished. Otherwise the insurer becomes the place where guilt and innocence is decided. Unless we can get a lawyer pro bono or at a reduced rate.

1 Like

It depends.

It’s unreasonable to expect that an entity will pay unlimited defense expenses, up to $100k per incident bail bond expense, etc, no matter what you did.

Likely we can all agree that if hypothetical person “John” was seen on camera getting out of his car, calmy walking across the street, quietly walking up behind a mother tying her child’s shoe, and shoots the mother in the back of the head, but then says “I feared for my life and acted in self defense”…we aren’t going to expect John’s defense expenses to be paid as incurred in full up until the final non-appealable guilty verdict.

And dare I say (I could be wrong, but…I doubt it?) there isn’t a membership out there that is going to pay for all that. Nor should there be.

Now, you might say, “but that’s obvious”. Well, there has to be something in the process to account for when people claim self defense but it very clearly was not.


Besides Attorneys On Retention in AZ, is there a similar on the east side of the Mississippi? I’ve been looking and don’t see anything unless I don’t recognize what I’m looking at.

1 Like

Most of the ones I have seen have been comments on this forum from members who used the insurance. Have seen a couple articles elsewhere but can’t remember where.

There are other insurance outfits out there but there coverage is usually lower or they don’t cover things like self defense with a weapon other than a firearm.


I’m not a lawyer and don’t portray one in the media. That said, I did spend 20+ years working as a court reporter and paid attention during those years. No insurance policy will protect you against a deliberate tort. You set fire to your house. Allstate is going to cut you off. You tell your neighbor you are going to shoot him and you do so without any provocation. No insurance policy will defend you in court. You’d better hope you qualify for the public defender. And by the way, most public defenders are much better at defending you than all but the highest priced criminal defense attorneys. Based on what I read about the lady mentioned, she committed first degree murder. No insurance will pay to defend such a charge. Had she been acquitted, they might have picked up coverage, depending on the weasel words in the contract. If you deliberately ram your car into another car in a fit of road rage your auto insurance will decline coverage and you will be left to pick up both the damage to your car and to the car you rammed. That’s real world. As to the attorney, advertising by attacking the competition, I listened to one of his rants and I disagree with him on several points. I might add that my brother was a public defender for over twenty years and I learned a few things from him in addition to my real life education. A real defense attorney will tell you the less you say to law enforcement the better your chances of staying out of prison. Sure, you might piss off the officer on scene and you might spend a couple nights making interesting new friends but that is better than 20 to life for blabbing to Officer Friendly. Also, while at it, don’t go blabbing to any of your new friends in jail about anything. They will turn on you in a flash and this may be hard to believe, but people in jail will lie. WHOA! Whodda thunk. They will lie about what you told them which is why it is better to move away and not talk to them. Well, I could go on but I hope you get the picture. The friendly cop who seems sympathetic to your case is NOT your friend. He most likely will forget anything you said that is exculpatory but will remember in great detail everything you said that puts you in prison for a long stretch.


To be fair, yes he is licensed in Hawaii and Arizona. What he does is contact a local attorney, to do the initial ground work, and then has that lawyer allow him to be admitted via “pro hac vice meaning”

“Pro hac vice is a legal term for adding an attorney to a case in a jurisdiction in which they are not licensed to practice in such a way that the attorney does not commit unauthorized practice of law. For example, an Ohio licensed attorney may practice pro hac vice in a New York case, although normally they would be engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in New York without admission to the New York Bar. In almost all U.S. jurisdictions, attorneys who practice pro hac vice must do so with a local lawyer acting as local counsel.”

Now i am not getting into is this one or that one better. I am just pointing out how they do come represent you.


Thank you!!! People need to know and understand
and not just reading. If you need help to
understand ask questions.

Once again thank you

1 Like

Good stuff thanks for sharing

1 Like

I have that service. I’m not saying ones service is wrong. But I prefer USCCA for training and the magazine, and I Prefer AOR for exactly the product is.

1 Like

A pro hac vice lawyer is not one you want defending you in a criminal firearms charge. You want someone well known to the DA and the local legal community. You want one who has the political ability to walk into the DA’s office, sit down with the prosecutor and say “Let’s talk about Anthony’s case.” That sort of thing comes from being well known and respected in the legal community, and not something a lawyer from out of town can do.