No, only if they lose in court. Real victims won't lose.That also leads to victims having to pay their attackers. It's not as great an idea as you may think.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
No, only if they lose in court. Real victims won't lose.That also leads to victims having to pay their attackers. It's not as great an idea as you may think.
Buying a gun and insurance and researching self defense laws most certainly don't preclude someone from acting in self defense. As if someone who has a concern for their safety and takes steps to protect themselves cannot possibly have in fact faced a situation where...they need to defend themselves?
You sound like a prosecutor. Or USCCA. Looking to find and stretch the meaning of things to support a predetermined conclusion.
…
Yeah but what are they gonna do? Sue you? /sI didn't read the whole thread, so I'm not sure this has already been mentioned.
I did write about this in the last USCCA thread.
If you're charged with shooting someone, and you are also charged with something else. Let's say possession of stolen property, because the police found a plastic milk crate in the trunk of your car.
If you are found not guilty for the shooting, but guilty for any other charge, the USCCA has a clause in the contract that requires that you reimburse them for any legal fees that they have paid.
And yet her ex is the one who first started showing up with a displayed gun to custody transfers. See how messy self-defense can get? And she is still in appeal.Yes, looking up self defense laws, buying a gun, and getting defense insurance are not, on their face, reasons to doubt a self defense claim. But add in:
* the obstruction of justice by trying to get her friends to take care of her laptop while she was in jail
* she inquired with his bank about her getting his money if he died (after multiple instances of fraudulently withdrawing money from his accounts after they were separated)
* her domestic violence against him on a previous custody exchange in a parking lot (including her texting someone saying “I just knocked the s*** out of Thomas. It felt good.”)
* her statements that she’d kill him
* her text that she might be in the news soon
* that the daughter didn’t see her father do anything aggressive
* that he was seeking sole custody of their shared daughter
But yeah, totally innocent. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals seems to think she’s guilty too.
E30 3 series. Specifically, the first M3. Also the BMW 2002tiiGuns are mechanical devices and man is incapable of building perfect mechanical devices. Even my Glocks have had occasional malfunctions.
As wonderful as those cars were, they still broke now and then.E30 3 series. Specifically, the first M3. Also the BMW 2002tii
No, like all youtubers, they pay the bills with their promotions, and its a sponsored ad read. It doesn't mean they actually believe in the product. If you want to know if someone is willing to shill, just look to see if they have ever done a Raid Shadow Legends ad read - if they have - they want the money.You telling me all those 'gun-tubers' like James from TFBTV promoting their shit.. this company is a lie? "Trust me, bro.. I'm not just a youtuber, I'm a lawyer. Get USCCA" lol.
I’ll know I’ve made it in life when I start doing ad reads for RAID: Shadow Legends.No, like all youtubers, they pay the bills with their promotions, and its a sponsored ad read. It doesn't mean they actually believe in the product. If you want to know if someone is willing to shill, just look to see if they have ever done a Raid Shadow Legends ad read - if they have - they want the money.
As wonderful as those cars were, they still broke now and then.
Yeah, but at what cost?I’ll know I’ve made it in life when I start doing ad reads for RAID: Shadow Legends.
In my case, oddly enough, they were weak right from the factory. Replacement OEM springs were noticeably stiffer.Your magazine spring issue just for example - when is a good time to replace springs in often used mags? Every 5 years? 10? After running a certain amount of rounds through them?
You didn't top it off for her before she left?Here's the real question - were the breakdowns operator error? Not identifying problems via inspection before they became break downs? a 2002, whether a base, ti, or tii, was known to leave you stranded in the cold if you didn't adjust the valves as recommended. If a battery isn't tested yearly to ensure it still has sufficient cold-cranking amps, when you kill the battery attempting to start your car, is a maintenance failure or a battery failure?
Your magazine spring issue just for example - when is a good time to replace springs in often used mags? Every 5 years? 10? After running a certain amount of rounds through them?
Sometimes pre-mature wear leading to failure is a design flaw, sure, but sometimes we ignore (or are forced to deal with) common wear-and-tear items and end up getting stranded as a result. That's hardly the tool's fault.
Here's my little story - when I was really, really, REALLY broke 5 years ago, I had to drive an entire summer adding oil to my Mercury Milan, and tap water for coolant. I kept 2 quarts of oil and 6 2-liter bottles of tap water to ensure I made it to my destination without seizing the engine. It worked fine, until my wife *had*..... *ABSOLUTELY f***ING HAD TO* go to a kids birthday party in CT. She did not check the oil, nor the coolant before taking off. That poor 3.0 liter v-6 Duratec made it 35 miles in 90 degree heat down there, and it finally seized on the way back. With zero coolant and maybe a 2 quarts of oil. And it ran once it got back to our house and I was able to give it some oil and water to drink. It ran like absolute crap, but it ran. That's a failure not to be laid at the feet of the car.
And yet her ex is the one who first started showing up with a displayed gun to custody transfers. See how messy self-defense can get? And she is still in appeal.
I told her not to go because we were only using the car for short hops, I walked to work and she had a sub 1 mile commute. It blew 2 weeks before we got our taxes and could put the money into the car.You didn't top it off for her before she left?
This is where I nerd out on things, and would measure how much force is required to push it down at various levels of travel, and compare that to known good springs, and the replacement ones. From that, you could then just test the springs and when they start softening, know to replace them before they create a problem. I'm also the guy who keeps written notes on my guns. When I took them out, approximately the number of rounds fired, their weight and brand, cleaning, changing parts, number of malfunctions and type if any, humidity, ambient air temp, where I shot them.In my case, oddly enough, they were weak right from the factory. Replacement OEM springs were noticeably stiffer.
As for cars, even well-maintained cars sometimes break, particularly as they get older.
Yes, looking up self defense laws, buying a gun, and getting defense insurance are not, on their face, reasons to doubt a self defense claim. But add in:
* the obstruction of justice by trying to get her friends to take care of her laptop while she was in jail
* she inquired with his bank about her getting his money if he died (after multiple instances of fraudulently withdrawing money from his accounts after they were separated)
* her domestic violence against him on a previous custody exchange in a parking lot (including her texting someone saying “I just knocked the s*** out of Thomas. It felt good.”)
* her statements that she’d kill him
* her text that she might be in the news soon
* that the daughter didn’t see her father do anything aggressive
* that he was seeking sole custody of their shared daughter
But yeah, totally innocent. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals seems to think she’s guilty too.
That's a red herring. We were talking about how you brought up the buying a gun, insurance, and researching self defense as if it was inculpatory to her. I don't even know the other facts of the case nor did I make a comment (or hold an opinion) as to her guilt or innocence. If buying a gun, insurance, and researching self defense laws are a sign of one's guilt, I can't imagine what would be a sign of innocence!
Yes, looking up self defense laws, buying a gun, and getting defense insurance are not, on their face, reasons to doubt a self defense claim. But add in:
* the obstruction of justice by trying to get her friends to take care of her laptop while she was in jail
* she inquired with his bank about her getting his money if he died (after multiple instances of fraudulently withdrawing money from his accounts after they were separated)
* her domestic violence against him on a previous custody exchange in a parking lot (including her texting someone saying “I just knocked the s*** out of Thomas. It felt good.”)
* her statements that she’d kill him
* her text that she might be in the news soon
* that the daughter didn’t see her father do anything aggressive
* that he was seeking sole custody of their shared daughter
But yeah, totally innocent. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals seems to think she’s guilty too.
All this was found during the trial. The problem is the insurance denied coverage BEFORE knowing all this stuff.
Ok, I didn't know that.They denied coverage after finding out she was trying to have her friends clean her laptop from jail.
Ok, I didn't know that.
That is an excellent idea. However, the legal industry would hate that. In cases where an attorney is working on a contingency fee arrangement, the attorney is putting in their own time and resources in hopes of winning a case and collecting their fee. If they lose then they are out the money they invested in the case. The last thing they would want to do would be to pay the defendant's costs on top of their own.I believe that every jury should also consider making the defendant financially whole upon acquittal whether from the state or private.
There would be a shit ton less lawfare going on if there was a good possibility of having to pay the other side's losses if you lose.