Free Concealed Carry Class for Fathers on Fathers Day

[JTH]

While not having to retreat may be defendable through years of court battles, and wiping out home and savings, crawling out a bathroom window, may have advantages. 

While the above list of worst-case possibilities (that are of lower likelihood considering we are talking about a home invasion situation) would indeed be bad, this is your personal choice.

And while you of course can discuss your personal choices in your classes, it should be separate from making sure the students have the correct specific information about what the law says so that they can make their own decisions.  As SFG and feralcatkillr have said---the law is extremely clear on this.  Your students need to know what the law says.

[Gumby]

You can't rely on authorities to "back you up" on anything.  The State of Nebraska did everything possible to destroy the finances, reputation, and emotional health of a guiltless friend of mine... his innocence was irrelevant.  They can file countless charges, and request numerous court hearings... they can extend filings beyond Constitutional restrictions just to run up your legal bills... they can compel your attendance in court proceedings that are summarily postponed the moment the court sessions begin... they can bankrupt you through years of attorney fees and travel costs and destroy you and your reputation with impunity.  Don't expect the courts to recognize, stop or minimize this abuse.  The State or a prosecutor can do all this and then let you go - what's left of you - because your innocence doesn't keep them from making a public example of you.

You avoid a shooting at all costs... even in the home setting.  At some point you need to decide what must be done.  Is it easier to run away from a threat in the parking lot of a mall than from the bedrooms of a split-level home with a single hallway entry and exit?  Of course!  You do what must be done... but don't be so naive as to think that the authorities will give you a hug after you defend your loved ones in a home shooting.  More likely, they'll do everything possible to make an example of you and to scare others from protecting themselves and their families.  You're likely more in jeopardy at that stage if you live in Omaha or Lincoln or some other major metro area compared to, say, Danbury NE.

Do what you need to do, legally, to protect yourself and your family as you and the Almighty see fit in any given situation.  But don't think for a moment that you won't be attacked criminally and/or civilly by the State, the County Attorney, the perp's relatives, etc... and I assume here that you're not shot by the police after they arrive at the crime scene when you have a gun in your hand or on your hip.  And don't assume anyone will agree with your legal opinion as to the righteousness of your shooting.  Obtain appropriate insurance coverage, utilize good legal counsel, keep your mouth shut when you're arrested for defending your family and pray that the State and the perp's estate don't eventually destroy you for protecting your family. 

To think that you can define upfront what you have "the right to do" is to ignore reality.  I'd say from experience you can forget relying on what a cop or sheriff has to say; after all, their required justification for the use of lethal force is far lower than that demanded of civilians.  (Just try suggesting that you were "afraid" as an excuse for killing a perp or wounding/killing a bystander; peeing your pants fear will likely save a cop from charges but you won't have a chance).  The local prosecutor will be your immediate adversary.  Remember:  There are only four Nebraska statutory rationales for the use of deadly force, even in the home setting... so you'd better be able to convincingly demonstrate that one or more of the four were applicable at the time you used your firearm:  Death, serious bodily injury, rape or kidnapping.  To authoritatively suggest that someone wanting to break through your locked door in Nebraska legally authorizes lethal interaction is foolishness - hey, maybe the poor illegal immigrant just wanted to take your wallet?  Even if your actions are entirely righteous, the State or your County Attorney might just decide to make an example of you and destroy you and your family none the less.  Good luck trying to match the authority's essentially unlimited financial and legal resources.

My point is not to dissuade you from defending yourself and your loved ones, but instead to rebuke those who would minimize and take lightly the probable legal ramifications regarding home defense shootings during break-ins.  You can't employ lethal force in the home just because you fear what might happen.... you can't employ lethal force just because someone kicks in your locked door... the events must suggest one of the four rationales for employing deadly force.  I don't like our current law, but it is what it is.

Avoid lethal interactions at all costs, short of death, rape, severe bodily injury or kidnapping.  And should you employ deadly force in your defense, may God and your NFOA brothers and sisters be with you at that time.

I'm with Gary on this topic... it is the last, last, very last action to take after all efforts to avoid deadly force have been frustrated by the perp... whether in the parking lot or in the home.

[JTH]

{snip a lot of stuff, some of which I agree with}

To think that you can define upfront what you have "the right to do" is to ignore reality. 

The law does precisely that---that is the point of the law.  Now, whether or not you have to argue it in a court of law afterward is a separate issue.  However, we ARE talking about what should be taught in an official CCW class in Nebraska---and it IS clear there.

Reference Nebraska Revised Statute 28-1409 for exact wording:  http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1409

Remember:  There are only four Nebraska statutory rationales for the use of deadly force, even in the home setting... so you'd better be able to convincingly demonstrate that one or more of the four were applicable at the time you used your firearm:  Death, serious bodily injury, rape or kidnapping.  To authoritatively suggest that someone wanting to break through your locked door in Nebraska legally authorizes lethal interaction is foolishness - hey, maybe the poor illegal immigrant just wanted to take your wallet? 

Legal opinions vary---including a large body of case law that says if you are at home, and someone breaks into your house and comes at you, then a fear for your life is reasonable.   I don't believe anyone here has said "if someone kicks open a locked door, automatically shoot them"---instead, the totality of the circumstances (in home, locked door, attacker enters knowing person is inside, etc) can give reasonable fear of death or seriously bodily harm depending on the situation.

But, the main point is still what should be taught in a CCW class.  WHAT THE LAW STATES is what should be taught in a CCW class.  While instructor opinions, discussions of actual events, etc, are useful additions sometimes (as long as they are relevant and correct), it doesn't change the fact that no matter what your personal opinion is, the class itself should clearly teach what the law says.

My point is not to dissuade you from defending yourself and your loved ones, but instead to rebuke those who would minimize and take lightly the probable legal ramifications regarding home defense shootings during break-ins.  You can't employ lethal force in the home just because you fear what might happen.... you can't employ lethal force just because someone kicks in your locked door... the events must suggest one of the four rationales for employing deadly force.  I don't like our current law, but it is what it is.

Actually, you CAN employ lethal force because of what you fear might happen.  After all, you don't have to wait until you are actually killed to employ defensive lethal force on your own behalf.

In a similar fashion, if someone kicks in your door, there are a number of circumstances in which you can legally defend yourself with lethal force.  True, if the singular and only fact is "kicked in door" then you can't---but there isn't ever a situation in which that is the only fact.

As for "rebuke those who would minimize and take lightly the probable legal ramifications"---I don't believe anyone has done that.  Instead, if you look at the thread, people have been saying "in the CCW class, you need to teach the law correctly."

Can you give an example of someone minimizing the issues?  Or taking anything lightly?

Avoid lethal interactions at all costs, short of death, rape, severe bodily injury or kidnapping.  And should you employ deadly force in your defense, may God and your NFOA brothers and sisters be with you at that time.

I'm with Gary on this topic... it is the last, last, very last action to take after all efforts to avoid deadly force have been frustrated by the perp... whether in the parking lot or in the home.

And yet, the whole point is that the law clearly differentiates your choices between being in public, and being in your own home.  As such, a CCW instructor (who is doing the job correctly) MUST explain that differentiation correctly. 

As I said before:

While the above list of worst-case possibilities (that are of lower likelihood considering we are talking about a home invasion situation) would indeed be bad, this is your personal choice.

And while you of course can discuss your personal choices in your classes, it should be separate from making sure the students have the correct specific information about what the law says so that they can make their own decisions.  As SFG and feralcatkillr have said---the law is extremely clear on this.  Your students need to know what the law says.

If you aren't teaching the law correctly, or you are saying the law but then saying "but you need to do this" then you aren't teaching the class correctly.  This does a disservice to your students.

[Gary]

I opened up my class to scrutiny by offering a free class (twice) so any one that wanted to audit my class could do so and report back here, which several people have done.

kid, Rather than pull the bark off of other peoples trees, why not expose your bark by offering a free CHP class to folks here?  I would be happy to sit through one of your classes to learn from your experience.   I will be sure to report back to the group just how good a teacher you are.

I have sat through a Bruce Swartz class, helped teach Justin Grusing classes, and sat through a Paul Larson class.  These were all concealed carry classes.  Each instructor has his own way of doing things, and presents the materials in their own way.

I would encourage each CHP instructor to sit through several CHP classes every year.  It helps see things in a different light.

[JTH]

kid, Rather than pull the bark off of other peoples trees, why not expose your bark by offering a free CHP class to folks here?  I would be happy to sit through one of your classes to learn from your experience.   I will be sure to report back to the group just how good a teacher you are.

Missing the point, Gary.  But that's okay.   This isn't about comparing classes, nor is it about who is a better teacher.  (We weren't comparing anyone to anyone else.)

Teaching the law correctly is the responsibility of the instructor.  True statement, yes? 

Oh---you might find that using non-dismissive language probably gets you better results in interpersonal communication.  For example, arguing facts and statements as opposed to calling names PROBABLY is more convincing to the vast majority of people reading.

[Gary]

The point is, it is not about the teacher at all, it is all about the students.  What is best for them.   

If I missed your point, maybe that is because I try not to read your posts.

For everyone else,

Jack Nicolson with a fireaxe in Nebraska, chopping away at Shelly Duvals bathroom door.  Scene from The Shinning.   

 Does she have the grounds to shoot Jack to stop the deadly threat, if she has a bathroom window to crawl out of and escape into the night ?   I say infaticly no.

Is it in fact a legitimate threat if Jack has an axe, and you have a window to retreat through ?

If Jack had a gun and an axe, and could shoot you through the opening he made in the door, then could you defend yourself with deadly force ?

Lets say for a moment, a circumstance did arise where you could make the call to shoot, or retreat, and both ways would see you , in the end, in good graces with the law.  Would it be better to shoot, or retreat ? 

In my classes, I teach always walk around a fight if at all possible, never choose to walk into one. 

Always walk away fron trouble, unless the opportunity avails itself to run away, then do that. 

I know retired cops that refuse to carry, for one reason:  Not ever wanting to have a team of lawyers on speed dial for the next five years.   I know of people, in justified shootings, even while wearing a badge, who lost everything. 

Deadly force is not a last resort. Deadly force is an absolute absolute absolute last resort that will end someone else's life and also end your life as you know it.

[JTH]

If I missed your point, maybe that is because I try not to read your posts.

Obviously.

[Gunscribe]

Jack Nicolson with a fireaxe in Nebraska, chopping away at Shelly Duvals bathroom door.  Scene from The Shinning.    Does she have the grounds to shoot Jack to stop the deadly threat, if she has a bathroom window to crawl out of and escape into the night ?   I say infaticly no. Is it in fact a legitimate threat if Jack has an axe, and you have a window to retreat through ? If Jack had a gun and an axe, and could shoot you through the opening he made in the door, then could you defend yourself with deadly force ?

B.S. You are assuming several things; First that the bathroom is on the ground floor, second that the window is large enough to escape through, third there will be time to get out of the window before the door is breached and fourth the axe is not a deadly weapon.

If the bathroom is not on the first floor you are advocating shelly bail with the distinct possibility of breaking both legs in the dead of winter far from any help except the guy trying to kill her. So he goes out the front door and approaches her with the axe. Now she absolutely has no way to retreat.

Window to CRAWL out of?? How long do you suppose it would take to open the window, kick out or remove the screen/storm window and crawl out? Good advice if you are willing to take a deadly blade between the shoulder blades. In real life Jackie would have been through the door in only a few seconds. An interior door is not as sound structurally as an exterior door. The reason it took so long to breach the door in the movie is because the script called for all of that suspense and dialogue.

Because you interjected the gun you obviously do not consider the axe a deadly weapon capable of grossly killing and maiming or your assuming that Jack would not use to kill her. I would guess that you do not think that itty bitty tomahawk Mel Gibson used in the Patriot was a deadly weapon either.

I will say one thing, my classes are not based on scripted film fantasy.

In my classes, I teach always walk around a fight if at all possible, never choose to walk into one.  Always walk away fron trouble, unless the opportunity avails itself to run away, then do that. 

I think that you are assuming that everyone subject to a violent encounter is as young, agile and athletic as Shelly when the movie was made.

And you always seem leave yourself an out with "if possible", "unless" or "never choose".

Some folks do not nor will they not ever have a choice.

Tell the young man in a wheel chair he has to fall out of a two story bathroom window as a choice to not have to shoot someone.

Tell that 67 year old grandma she has time to open the window and crawl out before Jack buries that fire axe in her back.

Walk away??

Tell that to the disabled military veteran that depends on a cane or walker for mobility who is set upon by three very healthy gang-bangers.

Walk away??

Tell that to the soccer mom with a passel of kids and a cart full of groceries in the Target parking lot.

Duty to retreat is fine, but you seem to think that in microseconds the average person is mentally capable of processing multiple scenarios through their mind and physically able to act on the right one before they are set upon.

Oh I know; if possible. I can tell you that if you stand there trying to remember what movie scene this encounter most closely resembles so you will know what Speilberg wants you to do you have already lost.

I think you need to revisit "Disparity of force" and "Opportunity", "Ability" and "Jeopardy".

The first time that axe impacted that locked door Shelly was in fear of her life. Jack had the ability and opportunity to inflict death or severe bodily harm. Shelly was in jeopardy.

[Dan W]

I can tell you that if you stand there trying to remember what movie scene this encounter most closely resembles so you will know what Speilberg wants you to do you have already lost.

[Gary]

We have a member that comes in to my thread, and says Bull **** because he disagrees with something. .   You BSed it, but everyone knows what you were conveying.   Then we have a admin who posts a fall down funny animated gif after your post. 

Gunscribe, your post says I assume everyone is in good health, and can easily (in my mind) quickly escape.

Not true.  I lost a leg in a train accident at 11 years old.  I know what infirmity is, because I have lived it my whole adult life.

In this instance, you do not know what you are talking about.  I suspect, that happens on occasion.

[JTH]

We have a member that comes in to my thread, and says Bull **** because he disagrees with something. .   You BSed it, but everyone knows what you were conveying.   

I say again:

Teaching the law correctly is the responsibility of the instructor.  True statement, yes?

And I'll note I'm not the first person to say that in this thread (ref:  SFG and feralcatkillr) but since you made it about me, I'll reply.

[Gary]

I am not offended by learning, I am only lightly mindful of righteous indignation and purposeful ignorance,

These videos are not verbatim Nebraska Law, however this man does pick up large fees to lecture this mindset to Nebraska audiences.  There is much to learn in his presentations.

There is us, and there is them.  To figure out who is "us", and who is "them", watch the first video. 

To pick up some greater knowledge in this subject, the second video fills in the blanks.

[ILoveCats]

A good conversation here, but it seems to be drifting in the direction of much ado about little.  The law portion of the class was very good, covering all the relevant statues one at a time while they remained up on the screen so people could mentally dissect individual clauses and words if they needed, and plenty of time allotted to let some very intelligent people in the class talk about them, and pose and discuss "what-if" scenarios.  If there was a humorous reference to Jack Nicholson it seemed to me to be designed to get the conversation going with a lighthearted analogy.

The extended conversations were a good learning tool for me, as opposed to flashing the law up on the screen and being spoken at.  I like Ayoob (and give him major style points for the theatrical "By God I'm gonna' make you SOBs wait mid-sentence because I feel like a slurp of coffee" at 36 seconds into the second video) but I'm not sure if the overly dramatic swagger is a particularly effective adult education style.  When people are brought into a well-directed and facilitated "what if" dialog, it really sets into their memory that a certain section of the law (e.g. the nuances about carrying on snowmobiles) even exists when they otherwise might forget.

[bullit]

feralcatkiller.....  The posted video is from 1991.  I've been to 3 of Ayoob's courses.  All PROFOUNDLY educational and enjoyable (theatrics a plus....).  Believe it or not, Mas is a very humble, patient educator and over-all kind person.  I know when I hosted him in Omaha in 2010, there were a number of "foibles" that occurred that many a prima donna would have been in a tizzy about.... not him....he was "cool" with it all......

[ILoveCats]

feralcatkiller.....  The posted video is from 1991.  I've been to 3 of Ayoob's courses.  All PROFOUNDLY educational and enjoyable (theatrics a plus....).  Believe it or not, Mas is a very humble, patient educator and over-all kind person.  I know when I hosted him in Omaha in 2010, there were a number of "foibles" that occurred that many a prima donna would have been in a tizzy about.... not him....he was "cool" with it all......

That's awesome.  I haven't made it all the way through the second video but found his comments about 'the truth will set you free' and being honest and forthright with authorities to be a positive and refreshing contrast to this other "don't ever talk to the police about anything" video that makes the rounds on the 'net and which I find oddly disturbing.   Maybe I'm naive but the whole attitude of not cooperating seems to only apply to "bad guys" who don't follow the rules and laws.   

[Gary]

A good conversation here, but it seems to be drifting in the direction of much ado about little.  The law portion of the class was very good, covering all the relevant statues one at a time while they remained up on the screen so people could mentally dissect individual clauses and words if they needed, and plenty of time allotted to let some very intelligent people in the class talk about them, and pose and discuss "what-if" scenarios.  If there was a humorous reference to Jack Nicholson it seemed to me to be designed to get the conversation going with a lighthearted analogy.

The extended conversations were a good learning tool for me, as opposed to flashing the law up on the screen and being spoken at.  I like Ayoob (and give him major style points for the theatrical "By God I'm gonna' make you SOBs wait mid-sentence because I feel like a slurp of coffee" at 36 seconds into the second video) but I'm not sure if the overly dramatic swagger is a particularly effective adult education style.  When people are brought into a well-directed and facilitated "what if" dialog, it really sets into their memory that a certain section of the law (e.g. the nuances about carrying on snowmobiles) even exists when they otherwise might forget.

Thanks for the thumbs up.