Right to Bear - real world example gone wrong?

[Flyer1015]

I’m not going to comment on this actual video. It is what it is, they are going to charge him a 2nd degree murder.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp81jX6QV4U

BUT


They did not know he would be charged with 2nd degree murder on this night of the shooting, and the RTB lawyer that was called up from the shooting client and police would not have known either.

Listen at the 11:14 mark. The talk starts about calling his RTB attorney.


The lawyer clearly states, “this may or may not be a covered incident…”


Ok, so he doesn’t know. Until it’s known otherwise, these CCW insurance products should help him. But in the very next sentence, when the police asks the RTB lawyer how to proceed…


”I’m an attorney in Colorado.” And cannot represent a person in Albuquerque, NM.



Um, what?! What good are these insurance products (like Right to Bear) if they won’t even help out the fundamental FIRST night of questioning after a shooting? If it’s found later to be unjustified, that’s different. But he is a guy who had this insurance. Called them at his time of need, only to be told the lawyer is in CO and legally cannot help you in NM.


Kinda ridiculous, no?

Every concealed carry class I’ve done, there’s always a portion where some USCCA spokesman comes in and most of the class ends up buying insurance.



The whole thing seems scammish, IMO. The more read I read the fine print, the more I realize this just isn’t worth it.



Thoughts?

[Scotty]

What's insurance? It's companies that take your money basically on a bet that you won't use it and then try to weasel their way out of paying if you do. That's how they make millions.

[turbolarry]

I'll pass on the insurance because I look at it like this;
If it's a good shoot, you're good and you don't need insurance.
If it's a bad shoot, it won't be covered and they aren't going to help you.
Either way, when you end up in court, you're better off with an experienced civil or criminal defense attorney who's local.
That's how I look at it.

[M1A Rifleman]

I'll pass on the insurance because I look at it like this;
If it's a good shoot, you're good and you don't need insurance.
If it's a bad shoot, it won't be covered and they aren't going to help you.
Either way, when you end up in court, you're better off with an experienced civil or criminal defense attorney who's local.
That's how I look at it.

I think in what you call a “good shoot” you will still be getting the shaft in a blue state. Even if you get off criminally, the family of the deceased will be supported to get you in civil court and bankrupt you. Kyle Rittenhouse was lucky, tho it still cost him $$.

[mossy]

I have a leosa included with the liability coverage, but I didn't buy the insurance for carrying and possibly using a gun. I believe those companies selling CCW insurance are ultimately scams.

As for the video, Dude was definitely in the wrong line of work.

[BAJ475]

I'll pass on the insurance because I look at it like this;
If it's a good shoot, you're good and you don't need insurance.
If it's a bad shoot, it won't be covered and they aren't going to help you.
Either way, when you end up in court, you're better off with an experienced civil or criminal defense attorney who's local.
That's how I look at it.

I think that you are missing the point. Even if it is a good shoot, you are likely to be charged in some jurisdictions. Having attorneys experienced in self-defense law may help the DA decide not to charge. And if you are charged you want a top self defense team of lawyers which will cost tens of thousands of dollars if not more than $100,000.00. Can you afford to risk that much? You should look at a recent AOR video where a gentleman in AZ was wrongfully charged because a drunk fire chief and his family lied about the situation. No shots were fired. It was a purported brandishing case where the gentleman was charged with assault with a firearm. The gentleman's original attorney was ineffective in stopping the prosecution. I am an attorney with 30+ years of experience, mainly criminal defense. After viewing this video, I am considering switching from CCW-Safe, not because I am unhappy with them but because that they will not cover incidents in the State of Washington and I live in Idaho, close to the border with Washington and carry in Washington. While I can afford what AOR and CCW-Safe charge, I cannot afford what it would cost to defend a good shoot. Yes, in over 10 years with CCW-Safe they have not paid a single cent on my behalf and that is true for nearly all of their members. But that is how insurance works. Everybody pays a small amount to cover the cost of the few who are unfortunate enough to become involved in an insured incident.

[turbolarry]

... the family of the deceased will be supported to get you in civil court and bankrupt you.

Oh yeah, it's gonna be a miserable time no matter where you're at. If there's any chance of collecting money for wrongful death, an attorney is going to bring that civil suit. And if an insurance company does send you an attorney, will that attorney really be serving you or the company paying the bill?
People can choose what ever makes them feel better. I know what I'm choosing.

[Matt P]

Likely charged in some jurisdictions? Where does this sense come from….

Are you suggesting if I use say a bat/pencil/car, and meet the reasonable person standard in its use, some jurisdictions will still charge me? Or are guns different. Use that, and all bets are off.

Can you support what you are suggesting with one example? Where an individual used lethal force (gun) and met the reasonable person standard. He did not know the person, and that person was criminally motivated to attack/rob/beat the victim. Yet, he was still charged and additionally sued in civil court. Certainly there is an example of this.

Most of us who carry, do so to defend ourselves. What I use to do so shouldn’t change my exposure to criminal charges.

i have watched that video. The victim appeared to be only trying to actively get away from the security guard.
He was hooked up pretty quick after LE got there. I imagine due to witness statements supporting the victims efforts to escape. I assume the security guard shot the guy from behind.
‘Little surprise that his insurance company washed their hands of that incident. The video does not show the initial conversation with an RTB representative. Who know’s how it was described to that person initially. Was it mentioned he was in custody? That the security guard shot and killed a shoplifter? Too little info to quickly dismiss RTB.

I believe that incident really isn’t a good example of much relative to CCW.

I also do not have any of that insurance. It has never been a consideration for me.

All just an opinion like everyone else’s in this thread.

[BAJ475]

Likely charged in some jurisdictions? Where does this sense come from….

35 years as an attorney

Are you suggesting if I use say a bat/pencil/car, and meet the reasonable person standard in its use, some jurisdictions will still charge me? Or are guns different. Use that, and all bets are off.

Not suggesting that at all. If you cause the death of another, there is a fair chance you would be charged, regardless of the object used. The question is whether or not there is a debatable question of whether or not any of the elements of self defense are fully satisfied. And there is almost always some question.

Can you support what you are suggesting with one example? Where an individual used lethal force (gun) and met the reasonable person standard. He did not know the person, and that person was criminally motivated to attack/rob/beat the victim. Yet, he was still charged and additionally sued in civil court. Certainly there is an example of this.

OK, how about George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse. In some states if it is found to be self defense you cannot be sued civilly. You should also view the recent AOR video I mentioned.

Most of us who carry, do so to defend ourselves. What I use to do so shouldn’t change my exposure to criminal charges.

I fully agree, it shouldn't but it can. There are just too many who think that you should not have a gun to defend yourself. A long time ago I was soliciting signatures to stop Prop 63, two ladies asked what the petitions were for. When I explained what they were for, the ladies said that they did not need guns because GOD would protect them. I just smiled, knowing that if they were attacked in front of me it would not be GOD but my concealed 9mm that would protect them.

I have watched that video. The victim appeared to be only trying to actively get away from the security guard.

That is not the video I was referring to.The video is the case against Matthew Massucci. See https://attorneysforfreedom.com/high...thew-massucci/

He was hooked up pretty quick after LE got there. I imagine due to witness statements supporting the victims efforts to escape. I assume the security guard shot the guy from behind.
‘Little surprise that his insurance company washed their hands of that incident. The video does not show the initial conversation with an RTB representative. Who know’s how it was described to that person initially. Was it mentioned he was in custody? That the security guard shot and killed a shoplifter? Too little info to quickly dismiss RTB.

I believe that incident really isn’t a good example of much relative to CCW.

I also do not have any of that insurance. It has never been a consideration for me.

All just an opinion like everyone else’s in this thread.

You are entitled to your opinion and there is much I agree with. My point to everyone was, can you afford to gamble by not having some form of coverage? Of all of the plans there are only two that I would consider. CCW-Safe and AOR. One problem with AOR that I understand they will be correcting is the low limit on civil coverage.

[Matt P]

Thank you for your detailed response.

Kyle and George are not accurate examples for this area of the forum. I am not seeing a connection between those examples and the reasoning behind why most have permits. Both of those involved lethal force, but the events leading up to them created the criminal/civil exposure.
I can accept there being some questions regarding a use of force that results in serious injury of death. I can also accept that in the vast majority of cases, there was something more to it. Both individuals were known to each other. Road rage incident. A forced confrontation over either someone’s else’s statements, or other perceived wrong doing, and any other.

I thought I was clear. I wanted to see an example where a individual was charged/arrested when using lethal force as specifically relatable to CCW use. Certainly you have such given your long time exposure in this area.

‘My response to the video was aimed at the original poster’s request for thoughts. That opinion stands.

I read about the example you referenced. His handgun was secured in his center console. I could pick apart that initial interaction and readily demonstrate how many errors the victim made and created liability. If he had only called LE after the incident and when safe to do so, do you really think he would still have ended up arrested?
Who doesn’t call?
I was involved in a situation where I also had to present my defensive handgun. I immediately called LE when it was safe to do so. Obviously, if the situation is such that you are in genuine fear for your life, why wouldn’t you call. This was last year.
I have to question that individuals reasoning for having a gun in his car.
So again, that example you offer is not applicable to Californians who have to apply/pay/attend class and be permitted to carry. Arizona has constitutional carry for residents. His mindset and ease of carrying shouldn’t be compared to anyone who also does here in California.

I will agree with if you are the type of person who routinely creates liability/poor choice making, that insurance may be of limited use for you.

But, I stand by what I see consistently with CCW clients. Some of the most responsible and lawful individuals, and made up of mostly professionals. That unlike LE, we PAY to carry. We pay to carry because of our belief we must be responsible for our safety and loved ones. We refuse to be content with trusting on others to take care of us.


I understand your broad area of experience as a criminal defense attorney. Mine is simply as an instructor for 20 years or so.

[Snoopy47]

I'm of the opinion we need to have a number on speed dial in our phones at the ready.
I feel our most vulnerable moment is going to be right after the 911 call, and that next call better be to an attorney with a specialization in CCW law and practice.

The QUALITY OF THAT INITIAL CONTACT WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL SHAVE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS off the final outcome and one's overall life.

Let's put aside what insurance will or will not cover in the end. MAKE IT EASY FOR THEM TO HELP YOU WIN. Don't set up a scenario that has to be recovered from legally for mis speaking, or walking into leading questions from investigators.

This has me thinking, that maybe.............. it might be a good idea to seek out a Californian attorney with a specialization in CCW, and just pay them their minimum retainer so I can have them on speed dial at the ready. Yea, it's probably going to be costly, but it will only be once and likely good forever, but it would at the very least have a legal defense right out of the gate at the most critical moment. It might cause a costly legal defense from the outset if the case continues, but that cost is absolutely going to be less than it other wise would be trying to build a legal team after the fact, and it will allow one to manage the situation before the first draft of the police report is completed.

Last I would want to be in a situation is being on the phone with the cop and having the attorney on the other end saying ,yea dude you are on your own, have fun with the cops.

[Snoopy47]

Follow up. Watched the video. Yea, the shooter is screwed. Going away for a looooong time.

[Ewok55]

Thoughts? For the first post, insurance is not scam, but you need to be a smart consumer and understand what you are buying. I'm not thinking any are intended for getting a better deal for something like what the guy in the video did.