OK Legal Eagle types... let's discuss "prior knowledge"

[TexasRifleman]

Reading some self defense law books I have I see a recurring theme of "prior knowledge" of various things.

Tueller Drill for example. If you were to use that in defense of a shooting you would have to prove that you knew about it before the shooting.

If your neighbor is a PCP freak you'd have to prove you knew that before you shot him 27 times to justify the "excessive" force.

Etc.... the books have many examples.


One book suggested taking all kinds of self defense information and mailing it to yourself certified and leaving it sealed until that day (that hopefully never comes).

I've also heard that Mas Ayoob has his students do the same thing with notes from his classes.

This somehow proving your "prior knowledge" of whatever you sent yourself.

Any truth or validity to this kind of thing?

 

[Heavy Metal Hero]

That is interesting, are these details likely to make or break the case?

I mean any one who is violent can be deadly. You don't have to know he/she is a junkie to know they are going to cause you harm. You would only see the after effects.

Another question you may want to consider:
Do not attorneys/prosecuters use details like that in their cases? It isn't as if they sepcifically knew about them prior to the case.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Do not attorneys/prosecuters use details like that in their cases?

One of the books I am reading has case after case where this kind of stuff has come up.

The Tueller Drill in particular keeps coming up. The book cites several cases where someone shot a guy with a knife at 20+ feet away.

The DA of course wants to prosecute, the shooter then presents knowledge of Tueller as a defense.

In court the DA asks the shooter to prove he knew of Tueller before the shooting, not just something he heard from his defense attorney.

If you're a cop it's easy, you point to your training. If you took an LFI course maybe you can have some proof.

Would the whole "mailing stuff to yourself" work as well?

 

[JohnBT]

I know about the Tueller Drill.

Is this good enough evidence or should I write the letter?

Interesting topic.

John

 

[esq_stu]

I imagine that if this information is in your books, don't lose the books. In fact, get out a highlighter and highlight stuff and write notes in the margin.

Of course, when the police come to search your house, they'll take them away as evidence and your counsel will have to make a discovery motion just to look at them . . . so you'd better make an inventory and give it to someone you trust . . .

I have lots of SD related books on my shelf. I hope they're still there when SHTF.

And of course, make sure your lawyer knows you subscribe to this and other gun web sites. And go get some training and keep track of who your trainers were - some of them teach the stuff.

 

[Harpo]

A prosecutor could easily use such "prior knowledge" as proof you were predisposed to "shoot first, ask questions later" in that particular situation, without assessing the present risk.

It's sad, but a well prepared citizen doesn't look like a victim - and that's what juries want - a victim.

 

[buzz_knox]

That is interesting, are these details likely to make or break the case?

Absolutely. It goes to establish your level of knowledge at the time of the incident, whether your fear for your life was real and reasonably appropriate (assuming the reasonable person had the same knowledge as you), and your intentions.

A prosecutor could easily use such "prior knowledge" as proof you were predisposed to "shoot first, ask questions later" in that particular situation, without assessing the present risk.

That risk is always there, simply by the fact you were armed. Being able to establish your prior knowledge brings with it the ability to educate the jury as to what you knew and why that was important. It helps establish that the present risk was consistent with your knowledge.

Prior knowledge also comes into play when dealing with the individual facts of the case. In the shooting out west involving Fish, who asserted he was attacked by a man after defending himself from the man's dogs, the jury never heard that the man was himself armed with a screwdriver because Fish himself did not know this fact. Instead, the jury heard (erroneously and in a case of clear error) that the decedent was unarmed.

 

[El Tejon]

Depends on which state's rules of evidence we are using, Tex. Even if you could not get the notes in under a hearsay exception, you can use them to refresh your memory when you testify.

I do believe that some such method of documentation and organization to what you have learned from training is a good idea. I have a large outline on my desktop in my home office (er, I mean library, darn feds no deduction for me).

When I take a class or ready something interesting, I pull up the outline and type the good stuff in and use endnotes for the citations.

Do not know about Texas's rules. On an SD case that goes to the box, you as the shooter/defender/denfendant are likely to take the stand (as you have done the smart thing by shutting up and are not likely to have impeachables) and testify as to your prior knowledge. I would want to get them in as juries love exhibits and photos/diagrams.

If your neighbor is a PCP freak, I would: 1. call the cops (document the threat), 2. plant a "for sale" sign in your yard (attempting to avoid threat).

 

[ctdonath]

In Ayoob's case, the result is more than just mailing notes to yourself - those notes (timestamped by the government via stamp cancellation) open the way to having Ayoob himself come in and put the entire jury thru the "Judicious Use of Deadly Force" class. More than just showing that you knew X at the time, you get to take 12 clueless strangers who are about to decide your fate, and turn them into LFI graduates and make them a rarity: a jury of your peers.

 

[vt357]

Why not just have electronic copies of everything on your computer. A video of the Tueller Drill or word documents of your CCW class notes. The computer file can tell you when it was created, modified, and last accessed.

 

[NukemJim]

The computer file can tell you when it was created, modified, and last accessed.

After all timestamps and dates are never wrong/altered/falsified on a computer, right?

NukemJim

 

[cyclist]

Here you all go, I had to go look it up, "Wiki-Proof"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill


I can picture this being acted out in a live courtroom setting before a jury.
Stand the "victim" up in front of the jury,
have the attacker with a rubber knife stand on the other side of the courtroom,
have the attacker rush the victim directly at the jury members,
you could even give the victim a water squirt gun with colored water to shoot with.
Should be an eye opening and heart racing presentation for the jury to see the attacker rushing directly at them with a rubber knife.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I can picture this being acted out in a live courtroom setting before a jury.

And that's exactly the case I was reading about in this book.

The judge would not let them act it out since the defendant could not show that he was aware of Tueller BEFORE the self defense incident.

Can't remember the state, the book is at home.

 

[guns&motorcycles]

This is a good idea. Aside from the Tueller Drill, what else would be important to be able to prove you had "prior knowledge" of?

 

[waterhouse]

I do know when we were going through Physical Techniques (handcuffing, baton use, OC, hand to hand, firearms use, etc.) at the academy we took some ridiculously easy tests. The kind of tests where they go over the answers on Monday-Thursday, and then right before the test on Friday. Someone asked what the point of giving the test was, if they were just going to give us all of the answers.

The reply was basically that the tests were copied and placed in our personnel folder, so that if it ever came up we could say "I learned at the academy how far away someone can be with a knife and be a deadly threat" and have documented proof.

Seems like a good idea in general. The receipt from the book you are reading which mentions it, or the time stamp on these postings, should be enough to prove you knew about it beforehand.

 

[jrfoxx]

A prosecutor could easily use such "prior knowledge" as proof you were predisposed to "shoot first, ask questions later" in that particular situation, without assessing the present risk

This was my first thougt too.If a prosecuter is trying to dig up anything he can to nail you,he could seemingly easily use this "prior knowledge" against you either way, I.E.-use it against you for not having it, or, if you do, use it as described in the quote above.Seems like if they're trying that hard to get you, this isnt going to help you either way (and conversely, may not hurt you either, as your lawyer could do the same as the prosecuter in reverse if he brings it up, basically cancelling the whole thing out).Could be wrong though,as I'm no lawyer, and the things I have personaly seen, heard, and read about going on in courts never ceases to amaze me on a regular basis, so....

 

[Jim March]

Well just in case, I'm posting to this thread. And yes, I already knew about the Tueller drill .

Think, guys: this forum has timestamps.

 

[Cosmoline]

The book cites several cases where someone shot a guy with a knife at 20+ feet away.

The DA of course wants to prosecute, the shooter then presents knowledge of Tueller as a defense.

In that case, you would bring in an expert witness such as the good Mr. Ayoob (if you can afford him) to testify that your actions were objectively reasonable and in keeping with established police and civilian practices. It would not be a good idea to try to testify on these matters yourself, for a variety of reasons. Among other things it's very rare for a defense attorney to want you to take the stand.

You can always mail crud to yourself, I suppose. But I'd actually suggest taking a formal training course. Your instructors can then be called in as both fact and expert witnesses, to testify as to what you were instructed in X class on Y date, and as experts as to why your methods were reasonable.

I have to wonder if you should move though, assuming you have a DA so anti gun he's charging people who shoot armed suspects.

 

[Chipperman]

I have practiced the Tueller drill prior to a self-defense shoot, and have this post to prove it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It also doesn't hurt to attend formal training at a school that can document when you attended and what you were taught. It also helps if they are willing to give expert testimony and have experts who can withstand the opposing side's scrutiny.

 

[Blackbeard]

Of course they could alway say that because you mailed yourself this document, that shows that you planned to shoot said crackhead and were planning your defense before the crime.

 

[AndyC]

Quote:The computer file can tell you when it was created, modified, and last accessed.

After all timestamps and dates are never wrong/altered/falsified on a computer, right?

NukemJim

A computer forensics-trained tech can spot such alterations (I'm one); second, and more importantly - how are you going to alter data once you're arrested and the computers seized?

 

[Intune]

But I am on record here saying that I never planned to shoot anyone and that if I ever had to fire it would be purely as a last resort to stop the attack and because I was in fear for my life. Btw, I too have used the Tueller drill in training.

 

[littlegator]

I've heard they are using MIM parts in the Tueller Drill during the manufacturing process now, is that true? Also, stay away from composite bits and just go with the tungsten ones, as they don't wear away as easily.

 

[gym]

I always step back if someone is in a close proximity to me and has a weapon or shows a sign that they are a combatent or just a pissed off guy, the 21 foot thing is pretty common knowledge ', not that I remembered the name of it, but have refered to it many times, as in by the way, etc. it is always beter to have more room than less Personally I think that the idea of sending yourself things like that, can be more incriminating, as it would or could imply that you were preparing, thus redying yourself for an attack, which you knew might occur or that you in someway set it in motion.