Yeah, that’s the one.
2 Likes
Ah yes, that one
That aspect of membership is about self defense or defense of others from an imminent threat, not detaining someone or potentially killing them to avoid their escape or anything like that
Which has nothing to do with gun control laws
IIRC the word imminent is pivotal to that discussion
3 Likes
A search of that thread shows 0 results for the word insurable, uninsurable, or un-insurable, FWIW.
I’m sure there are other ways that idea could be communicated, I’m just not recalling that aspect of the discussion being put that way
It might just be the way it’s phrased, as there is a difference between the idea of a person being un-insurable vs discussing a potential hypothetical situation that is not self defense and stating that the non-self-defense act would not trigger coverage under a self defense liability insurance policy
There aren’t un-insurable people in this context (well…18+ year old US residents of the states/D.C. can all be members as long as they don’t reside in WA, NY, NJ)…but there are acts which don’t fall under the policy that members are additional insureds on.
3 Likes
One of the responses, probably one of yours as you were the second most active responder to the thread, talked about how even expressing opposing philosophy to the deadly force as a last resort philosophy could appear in court as aggressive and be used against you. Thus making a person easier to convict and less likely to be insured. This thread in particular is asking the question: Is the uscca able to deny its services after a self defense event? The answer is yes. And is there an entity that is more capable of and likely to defend a person in the court of law after a self defense event? The answer is once again yes, there is.
1 Like
Of course the answer is that no entity is required to pay for the legal defense of a person no matter what that person did.
I have seen no evidence indicating there is another entity that is more capable.
There are a lot of catches to the other entity in question. I won’t speak to them because I am not an expert on them, but, before deciding they are more capable, I suggest presenting these questions (do this for any and all you are considering, including uscca membership, ask everybody)
*What qualifies as a covered act of self defense?
*Who decides if the act is covered or not?
*What are the exclusions?
*What is paid for, for a covered act, and what are the limits? Is it 100% paid? Is it reimbursement or as incurred? Attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs/taxes, crime scene cleanup, etc?
*Is defense in both criminal and civil court covered? How much?
*Is there civil liability coverage? How much?
*Is a bail/bond expense provided? How much?
*Does it matter if the charges are misdemeanor, or felony?
*What is the coverage territory?
*Can you choose your own attorney? If not, what attorneys are you required to choose from?
*Are appeals covered?
2 Likes
It was actually about a different philosophical approach to crime and the way we react to it and the long term effects of training criminals to expect citizens to cower and hide in the interest of self preservation and safety from legal repercussions as opposed to the long term effects of training criminals to expect that they are risking their lives when committing crimes and that the U.S. constitution and the Ten Commandments protects those citizens. thou shall not kill unjustly. What that you tuber is saying is 100% accurate and there’s really no argument against that. Because it’s true. The truth is like a Lion, you don’t have to defend it. You just have to release it and it defends itself.
2 Likes
It’s not, though.
Being charged with a crime doesn’t make a criminal, being convicted does. Being charged with a crime is not itself an exclusion.
That is objectively incorrect information being presented in the video
4 Likes
He said you could be charged in an unfriendly state and if an unfriendly judge convicts, uscca could get their money back. I just heard a story from the Liberty Gal that a man was charged for having a shotgun ON HIS PROPERTY near a school and a judge convicted. It does happen that crap judges make crap decisions and according to the agreement the uscca could get whatever money they spent back upon a conviction. That is true. In that case the uscca would have taken the case and lost.
1 Like
I agree that the USCCA holds a lot of value in the “training” it offers and in the information it dispenses. I believe forums like this one are a value-added benefit.
Regarding insurance, any premiums I pay for any insurance policies have me saying in the back of my mind, “This premium doesn’t entitle me to a payment for a claim, it entitles me to an unwinnable argument with this insurance company about a claim.” Also, I hear echoes of an old truism “Insurance companies don’t write checks, they only cash 'em.” So I am a member of the USCCA since 2009 – long before they included insurance for their members – because of its non-insurance benefits.
5 Likes
That is not the training USCCA provides, that is a very clear distortion of what being situationally aware and using self-defense to protect oneself from the real threat of great bodily harm or death. One is more likely to face harm and death by staying and fighting, instead of avoiding the conflict when possible. Depending on your state, you may have a legal stance to remain, but how wise is that if one can readily leave and not have a physical confrontation?
I was in wrestling in junior high and high school. Even when one beats an opponent, you can still get hurt in the process. I can’t tell you how many times I was illegally hit or had a kid attempt to use an illegal move/hold and I suffered some type of minor injury - I was lucky, some leave the mat with broken bones, dislocated joints, etc. That was just wrestling. Now add a knife or a firearm to the mix. I would rather not be there if I had another option.
7 Likes
Obviously I disagree.
1 Like
So the better option is to stand and fight and likely be injured or killed? Have you talked to your family that you would rather die than see them again? I have difficulty understanding that opinion. Not many people seek harm and death from a criminal encounter. I understand some risky activities, but the risk of death by a criminal, unless I had no other choice, is not one of them.
4 Likes
If you are convicted, final non appelable, you are definitively guilty. Your act was criminal, it was not self defense, and yes at that point UFCIC could seek recovery and recoupment
One wonders if you committed a crime so definitively that not even unlimited funds plus appeals could find you guilty, what entity is going to pay for that?
I suggest asking the above questions to whom you think will pay for that
1 Like
Wow man, that’s for a different thread! All of my opinions on that stuff are on other threads. Basically, don’t go looking for a fight but you don’t HAVE TO run from one according to the Constitution and the Ten Commandments. Furthermore, in certain situations doing so empowers career criminals. Literally had this argument with you and everyone else on a different thread. It’s almost like when someone brings this up certain people feel if they read it and don’t respond with the company lines they could be disqualified from the insurance or their trainer status for not responding. It’s ok! Everyone understands that people who take this training know to avoid conflict at all costs if you can. I get it. We disagree and that’s ok. Like the gentlemen said before, any insurance company has the ability to not cover its members. And if you like the training or are some kind of trainer you can continue to be a member but there are better options for legal protection and that’s what this thread is about. And for those that said they searched something and didn’t find it the word “uninsurable” was not used, it’s the conclusion I arrived at as the result of posts made to that thread that stated that those opinions I was expressing could be used against me in a court of law just like a hypothetical sign in the window that read “Don’t worry about the dog, worry about my gun.” If you read all of that God bless!
1 Like
Every company of any kind has the ability to not pay.
There is nobody that will guarantee ‘coverage’ or expenses or payments no matter what you do (not talking, like, wealthy family members personally funding you kind of thing, memberships/organizations/purchased policies/etc). Such a thing does not exist.
I strongly suggest asking the above list of questions to whomever you think will pay no matter what.
(and if you know of a membership that guarantees they will pay all of your criminal defense expenses, all of your civil defense expenses, millions of civil liability, $100k bail bond expense, and more, no matter what you do, no matter what happened, no exclusions, no recovery clause, no decision ultimately made by them or their board, etc, please post it because I will join…after I read the agreement myself to see if it’s true)
2 Likes
I am no longer a member, and I have not been for almost three years now, so that comment does not apply to me.
Yes, it is okay to disagree. I just cannot grasp why one would willingly fight and die for no good reason when a much safer option - don’t be there - exists. That has zero to do with insurance coverage. I value my life over that of a criminal’s life. I don’t want to die by their hands just because I am “allowed” to be there.
If you have a valid self-defense case and are found not guilty of whatever you were charged with, the coverage remains intact. Saying or posting comments that imply you are violent and seek to harm/kill when the opportunity arises, just means that you will more likely be convicted because you stated those are your intentions. Again, insurance has nothing to do with that. If I was on a jury, I could readily see that as a huge factor, which makes the self-defense claim more difficult to prove.
2 Likes
I said there’d be a higher probability that the other company would represent you as you are their client and not just a member and their hands aren’t tied like an insurance company’s would be. Like the video in question stated.
1 Like
I see no evidence supporting that claim.
The video in question states patently false information as its primary message.
1 Like
Edit: Unsure if I want to take us more off track, or not.
Feel free to respond, but, it really circles back to: Ask the questions (suggested list above) of everybody and you will see how the video is wrong.
1 Like
Sheesh, this is exhausting! So the old man who had a shotgun in his yard to protect himself from a neighbor who had threatened him, who also allegedly had gang affiliation, and had a “do not confront unless you have to, do to danger” note attached to his police record was found guilty for having the gun in a school zone at his house. Was that guy guilty? I would argue no, he wasn’t. So what real difference does a post or statement make? Very little.
As far as choosing my own life and well being in a safe room over defending myself, my family, and my property I say don’t take that crap from criminals if you don’t have to. You don’t have to be a hero but you don’t HAVE to run to a safe room to be safe and legally sound. That’s just a fundamental difference in our approaches. Another example I just totally disagree with is a mass shooting. I was trained by the nra to find cover in that situation until I see an opportunity to escape. Even though I have the training and equipment to stop it. To me, that’s insane. That in particular is what made me begin to question what I was being taught.
Please remember that I appreciate the beginner training the uscca and nra provided. I also very much appreciate this forum for discussion with like minded citizens. It beautiful and we need more of it. I felt I got every bit of my moneys worth for the membership I had and wanted no money back. What that video states is true and that’s what this thread is about. I’m not sure if I’ve addressed all your points. I’ve lost track.
1 Like