Lawyer on retainer?

thebigsd said:

Rich,

FUD= Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt or F***** Up Disinformation? Yes, I am serious, google gave me two definitions which fit here. Which were you referring to?

Click to expand...

I usually picture the first, but both work, I guess.

KIX said:

winning..... that's a stretch.

Click to expand...

Indeed, I am not sure how anyone without an attorney is winning, but I don't really understand the context.

Until attorneys were introduced, were we gaining grounds on OC? What am I missing?

Rich B said:

- You feel openly carrying a full size firearm could be used against you in court.
-- No one has cited a single case where someone has had this used against them.

Click to expand...

This was not an open carry issue but Harold Fish was wrongfully indicted and convicted because the prosecution pointed to his carrying of a 10mm weapon with hollow point bullets was excessive and hammered it into the Grand Jury and Criminal Jury to "make Fish look like a crazed Rambo-type gun nut". IMHO I could see a prosecutor doing the same no matter what type of gun used or how it was carried but it is a case where something like gun size and ammunition type was used in court against a person claiming self defense. A juror interviewed after confirmed that the caliber and type of weapon was instrumental in arriving at a guilty verdict.

http://www.armedcitizensnetwork.org/guns-appearances-matter

“Fish was grilled about whether the Kimber 10mm was one of the ‘most powerful’ guns that he owned. [Id. 193-94]. He was questioned extensively about the hollow point bullets that he used. [Id. 194-95]. Fish was asked about the impact of a hollow point bullet upon a subject, which admittedly causes the bullet to expand. [Id. 197-98, 257-59]. He was asked about the written training materials that he received when he took a concealed weapons course. [Id. 199-200]. Fish was questioned extensively about the safety mechanism on the 10mm handgun. [Id. 201-202]. He was questioned about whether or not the gun was loaded in the automobile during his drive to northern Arizona. [Id]. None of this evidence was relevant to the self-defense issue.”

Fish did not testify at trial, but instead, the above refers to his Grand Jury testimony. The point is that the prosecutor did everything he could to make Fish look like a crazed Rambo-type gun nut–and succeeded, by the way, as he got an indictment for murder.

brk913 said:

Fish did not testify at trial, but instead, the above refers to his Grand Jury testimony. The point is that the prosecutor did everything he could to make Fish look like a crazed Rambo-type gun nut–and succeeded, by the way, as he got an indictment for murder.

Click to expand...

Yep, I am aware of these cases. But that is the entire point of the conversation at hand. The prosecutor can make up any lies they want about you if you have to defend yourself, having an attorney at the ready is only going to help you.

It should also be noted that Harold Fish is out of prison and his case is being pushed towards SCOTUS.

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/

His case is the exact perfect case to show why castle doctrine is so vital. People who act in self defense are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

I don't enjoy reading forums like this one for the purpose of debating nuances of word choice and and arguing definitions. This is the last I have to share on this. Feel free to pick apart my logic and "prove me wrong" with links to other sites. I won't be defending myself any further.

Our beliefs of what the definitions of the word advice are are apparently different. I tend to agree with this definition.

ad·vice
   /ædˈvaɪs/ Show Spelled[ad-vahys] Show IPA
noun
1.
an opinion or recommendation offered as a guide to action, conduct, etc.:

Found here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advice

I usually try to stay away from petty pedantry, but words do mean distinct things.

AGust82 said:

I'm not knocking anyone who has an attorney on retainer, you are certainly entitled to, but I would advise against it.

Click to expand...

You said you 'advise' against the practice.

So...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advise said:

advise   

verb, -vised, -vis·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to give counsel to; offer an opinion or suggestion as worth following: I advise you to be cautious.
2.
to recommend as desirable, wise, prudent, etc.: He advised secrecy.
3.
to give (a person, group, etc.) information or notice (often followed by of ): The investors were advised of the risk. They advised him that this was their final notice.

Click to expand...

Now that we have gotten the English class out of the way, I don't want to hijack this thread any further. Your arguments against having an attorney have counterpoints waiting.

Rich B said:

His case is the exact perfect case to show why castle doctrine is so vital. People who act in self defense are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

Click to expand...

Yes it is, a castle bill would surely protect us from this type of prosecutorial abuse....having to prove that you had a reasonable belief that a person was about to commit great bodily harm or death is ridiculous, the burden should be on the prosecution to prove that the "victim" was not about to commit great bodily harm or death. Fish now has the state legislature behind him, he should do OK in the end but still had to spend time in prison due to an overzealous prosecutor.

brk913 said:

Yes it is, a castle bill would surely protect us from this type of prosecutorial abuse....having to prove that you had a reasonable belief that a person was about to commit great bodily harm or death is ridiculous, the burden should be on the prosecution to prove that the "victim" was not about to commit great bodily harm or death. Fish now has the state legislature behind him, he should do OK in the end but still had to spend time in prison due to an overzealous prosecutor.

Click to expand...

Right. The Harold Fish case is not so much a lesson on what or what not to carry, but more a lesson on why we need to stay vigilant about the laws in our states.

http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/ said:

Since the attack on Harold Fish took place, but before the trial, the Arizona Legislature returned the law from "guilty until proven innocent", back to "innocent until proven guilty" in self defense cases.

Click to expand...

We had a few hundred support it in oral testimony the same day as the magazine ban (almost 350 there) and still..... did not pass.

I'm hoping to work with a rep or two to keep submitting the bill each and every year until it passes. This time around, we need to protect the intended victim from civil prosecution as well. As I said in my video testimony - criminal prosecution just isn't enough!

I will keep up the fight (can't believe it's almost time to put the gloves on again..... the winter session will be here soon enough!!!!).

Jonathan

Don't just get an attorney but get someone with a 24 hour emergency line. From both sides of the issue, this is a good thing. Attorneys are more than happy to get in the game early...it makes the job easier later.

AGust82 said:

I'm not knocking anyone who has an attorney on retainer, you are certainly entitled to, but I would advise against it. In my opinion, it fights your defense of reasonable deny-ability. If you are involved in a sketchy defensive shooting and you end up in the defendant's chair, it may/will look bad to a jury that you were "waiting for this to happen" by having a retainer-payed lawyer.
By all means, do your homework and have a lawyer's number in your cell phone, but having a gun on your hip and a lawyer at the ready makes someone appear "trigger happy."

Click to expand...

1) The word you were looking for is "deniability", not "deny-ability", and the phrase you were looking for is "plausible deniability", not "reasonable deny-ability".

2) You have made one of the dumbest arguments against planning ahead I have ever read. Having a lawyer on retainer is no more indicative of an intent to shoot someone than wearing a seatbelt is indicative of an intent to go crash your car in a high-speed chase.

AGust82 said:

I'm not knocking anyone who has an attorney on retainer, you are certainly entitled to, but I would advise against it. In my opinion, it fights your defense of reasonable deny-ability. If you are involved in a sketchy defensive shooting and you end up in the defendant's chair, it may/will look bad to a jury that you were "waiting for this to happen" by having a retainer-payed lawyer.
By all means, do your homework and have a lawyer's number in your cell phone, but having a gun on your hip and a lawyer at the ready makes someone appear "trigger happy."

Click to expand...

(Caveat: my opinions are expressed on the basis of Virginia law, and I am not licensed in any state other than Virginia.)

Carrying a gun at all makes someone look as if he were ready to shoot and kill another human being. And if, as, and when one be charged with a crime because he did, in fact, shoot and possibly kill another human being, that fact is going to be the eight hundred pound gorilla in the room. Everybody's going to know what happened, and there isn't going to be any getting around it. The same thing applies to the Ayoob theory about modified firearms, hollow-point bullets, and such. If you go to trial because you killed someone, the big, significant fact is going to be that you killed someone. That fact is going to be what you've got to deal with; it's a horrible event and the trial will recount how horrible it is. Almost no one likes the idea of the death or wounding of another human being, because we (including all potential jurors) are by nature empathetic.

When I go to trial in a criminal case, I want my client to be able to say, "You bet I shot him, you're dern-tootin' I meant to kill him; I was right to do so, and if I had it to do over again, I'd do exactly the same thing, only a little faster. I had a reasonably held, good faith belief, that I, or another innocent person, was faced with the imminent threat of a serious bodily injury, and/or I was stopping a serious felony (rape, robbery, murder, arson, burglary) in progress. What I did was necessary, right and proper, and I thank God I had the presence of mind to be prepared for the eventuality."

The whole reason I carry a gun is because I am ready, willing, and able to take human life if necessary to avoid the kind of harm that results from criminal attacks. And here's a little known fact: fully one hundred percent of all home invasions actually take place in someone's house! If that person is not ready, willing, and able to kill, he is merely a crime-statistic in waiting.

It isn't always being fast, or even accurate that counts; it's being willing. I found out early that most men, regardless of cause or need, aren't willing; they blink an eye or draw a breath before they pull the trigger...I won't.

Click to expand...

- John Bernard Books played by John Wayne in "The Shootist".

If you're afraid of "looking bad" in a trial because you were not only "willing", but prepared, you're setting yourself up to leave the courtroom by the side door. You have to be prepared to show why you had cause to do what you did, and how being prepared saved your life, or some other necessary reason that amounts to excusable homicide. (One tangential note: don't say anything about having been in fear for your life. That's hogwash, and I don't know where it comes from, but your subjective emotional state has absolutely nothing to do with whether a shooting was legally appropriate.)

So this gets me back to the original question: should you have a pre-existing relationship with an attorney? Absolutely. If nothing else, you need to know who the good attorney is in your area who can handle a gunshot case without getting squeamish. You do need to have that person's card with you and his number in your cell phone. If possible, carry two cards, so you can give one to the cops in connection with the phrase, "I want my lawyer."

A "retainer" is a periodic payment of money to secure the lawyer's availability to you and unavailability to persons with claims adverse to yours. It does not pay for services, or require the attorney to perform services. I don't charge a retainer because I think it's nonsense. Though there was a guy I heard of in Lynchburg, VA, who had gone around to all the divorce lawyers in the region and paid them money as a "retainer" - when he filed suit against his wife for divorce, she couldn't get a lawyer because he'd "conflicted them all out".

Here's my take on the subject: if you're injured in a car accident at two o'clock in the morning, and you're rushed to the hospital for emergency surgery, you're going to get the surgeon who happens to be there at that time. And surgeons, like lawyers, plumbers, cops, and car mechanics, are like people, generally: some are really good, some are really bad, and most are average. If you had the chance, wouldn't you find the best surgeon you could to work on your innards when something bad happens? Well, now's your chance to find the best lawyer available. Pay him money for an hour's consultation if necessary, but find him and make sure he can represent you if you get charged or sued.

There's a thread with more good advice located here:

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?93581

@hef, #2 was just funny as hell!

@user, thanks for your insight.

As was my original intent simply to get the conversation going as I have an appointment to see an attorney in a couple weeks (for an hour) so I can get the lowdown. If anything, I can get my questions answered about a few of CT's "odd" laws and legal system.

At the end, I can make sure I have him available if I ever (God forbid) need his services.

It's a wee bit of cash, but I think it's worth the peace of mind.

Jonathan