I think this is why Stand Your Ground laws have come about. If you’re legal to be there, you can defend yourself. Bad video I think unless you are in NJ, CA or similar state for the first scenario. Good one on the second.
Lots of gun control ideas coming through.
Wow! Three x Eight
Lesson No. 1: Call the USCCA before giving a statement to police.
I was also under the assumption that KIDNAPPING is a forcible felony!
Why do I get the distinct feeling the videos are telling us not to be there. If you don’t want to be in a deadly force situation, never leave your home!
My middle name is Lawyer. Admittedly when I practice I count my rounds, not that I’m going to swear to that 5 minutes after an encounter, lawyer and medical assistance for myself! I have every right to be checked for injuries!
I think they are more leaning to tell us: not my circus, not my monkeys. The second scenario was good I thought.
I think they mean to call the USCCA hotline first to get a lawyer. That’s actually not a bad idea I think. Call 911, call them for a lawyer then wait for everyone to show up.
What I’m comprehending through these, especially with Colion’s voice (as a social media influencer in second amendment rights and - most importantly - responsibilities added to USCCA presentations): Just because the SCOTUS has ‘loosened’ the legal discussion on the right to bear, doesn’t mean new (and less well informed longer-term) armed carriers are allowed to believe the legal climate is akin to the old & wild west. “Stand your ground” may not mean what you think it does. Use of deadly force to ‘protect’ a third party - whose surrounding circumstances you know nothing about - may not offer you legal protections should you insert yourself into a deadly force event.
All that said, exposure to detailed discussions, life event theater, and personal in-the-moment role experience can assist each of us in being not only aware of but more confident in our choices / those possible should we be in the moment and required to act to protect our own lives, those of our loved ones, and possibly in a role as a “good samaritan.”
Sorry, in these scenarios a bad guy comes in waving a weapon at EVERYONE, that includes you, means I am in as much danger as anyone there. Especially if the bad guy lets off a round. It is obvious from the video the bad guy has no good intentions. Since I am there legally as a non-threat and then am threatened, I will defend myself, good, bad or indifferent. That is the problem with the interview after the first scenario, it wasn’t covered very well if at all. More CYA by USCCA.
I agree with you, @William191; where there is a clear and present danger to life and liberty, I will do what is required to ensure me and mine go home safe and sound. If I believe someone else is at risk due to being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and I can help them and theirs get home safe and sound, I will do what I can.
Yes, USCCA is introducing ‘cover your arse’ as they are legally responsible for doing so - for them and those who seek their umbrella of coverage. And through it all, they want their customers to understand “legality” because it may differ from what the uninformed and not yet educated may believe.
But isn’t that exactly what they are trying to do in this video, educate? I would prefer for them to say in states with stand your ground….
Then say in states with a duty to retreat….
I know they can’t cover every possibility but I think they could give a passable explanation or the basics for the two most common laws.
Also in the first scenario, the “bad guy” mostly had his side to Colion, so I suspect that he hit with more than just three shots, it’s just that the vest could not record those. When shooting until the threat is neutralized, or in this instance, left the room, a shot to the back is not surprising, based on the way the “bad guy” had turned and shot. Only in the last instant did he stop shooting/pointing his firearm at Colion.
More likely, if this was real, he’d have been on the ground before he left the room. Then there would not have been 8 shots fired, nor one in the back. Those vests make it more real, but on that guy, it was like a bib. Also as his side was the part exposed to most of the shots, the vest could not record those probable landed shots to the side.
As they stated, being in that situtation, even a training simulation, is far different than watching it. Overall, I believe it was a good video as it still makes one think about that type of situation. We are still far better off being able to critique the training and learning from it than experiencing the actual event.
These are always tough situations.
If you HAVE to shoot, it is usually a split second decision, the first shot is the most critical and another split second decision if follow up shots are needed. I disagree with automatic double and triple taps, the aggressor can quickly, before anyone can stop shooting, turn and a shot hits behind the center line (in the “back”) and trouble is likely. Too many prosecutors, supported by G. Soros, are looking for any way to hang the victim. You can beat the malicious prosecution, then the fine is $50K to $250K or more and is called your legal bill.
USCCA is in business for a reason. NEVER underestimate the prosecutor.
Be a very reluctant shooter BUT shoot before you are shot! No pressure here.
Great points Frank47. Criminal charges, civil charges.
I used to work with gunshot wound victims. As the saying goes, “Rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6”. Not to mention, gunshot wounds hurt, some have told me “10 on a scale up to 10”.
Stay legal and safe friends.
My wife and I both saw this video. Was the USCCA trying to do some hind quarters covering? Was it a bit too cautious? Actually I do not think so. The USCCA covers many states and if one is in a situation involving use of their firearm you may be one anti 2A District attorney away from going to jail and court. Good example, the McCloskey’s. Missouri is a very Pro 2A state and even has Constitutional Carry, the McCloskey’s ended up in a mess of trouble. At the end of the day I think they had no other choice.
When I watched the video of the McCloskeys on their porch waving their guns around, my take was they would likely be in trouble even without the presence of a Soros-backed district attorney. My evaluation is based on having completed legal use of force training both as a USCCA CCHDF Instructor and Andrew Branca’s Law of Self Defense Instructor Program. They were both waving their guns in a threatening manner, and Mrs. McCloskey was pointing her pistol directly at the protesters with her finger on the trigger. They could have been charged with brandishing or possibly even assault by a pro-gun DA.
Training is EVERYTHING. I had forgotten their sloppy gun handling. Thank you for the correction!
Yes, that was my reaction when I first saw their video. Of course the people who went into their yard did some wrong, and one can understand that they acted inappropriately.
But as part of the larger 2A community, I cringe when I see how they handled their weapons; from safety and legal perspectives. I feel honored to be able to own. I try to learn more, in hopes I never have a poor action, as it would reflect negatively on you, the community.