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

[Car Knocker]

I've long had an interest in the Tueller Drill since it originated here in Salt Lake City.

 

[TexasRifleman]

the 21 foot thing is pretty common knowledge

So if I asked my grandmother she'd know it?

That's the problem presented in the book I am reading. What is common knowledge to a woodworking expert might be totally unknown to someone else.

It's common knowledge in the shooting world, but will everyone on your jury see it that way?

That's the question presented in this book about how you prove that.

Granted the book is not state specific it's just offering some "what ifs" to think of and this one really got my attention.

 

[Ed Ames]

It is up to the prosecutor to prove, the defense to refute. Postmarked envelopes may help to refute... but they are refuting a red herring argument.

The standard (ignoring statutory standards like "vandal after dark in Tejas") is "reasonable person", not "educated person". Humans are well known as inventive and problem-solving entities... a reasonable person, when faced with a threat, can potentially work out the likelihood of danger without referencing any empirical studies or educational materials. Ergo there is no need to prove that you were following your training as a justification for your actions.

If you can produce an expert witness that says, "I've trained countless police officers that any armed person within about 20 feet can pose a mortal threat", you have demonstrated that your actions were those of a reasonable person whether or not you took those actions because of prior training.

As such it really doesn't matter when the prosecutor says you learned something unless (s)he can conclusively (beyond a reasonable doubt) prove that you learned it after the incident and are claiming otherwise. In that case they can use it to discredit your testimony. That weakens your position but may or may not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you were doing something more than defending yourself.

The flip side is that training is not a substitute for judgment. You've got to apply reasonable standards that fit the actual circumstances no matter what, and how, you have been trained. You can't just say, "I was trained to do this in the army and so I applied that training", for example, because some army training is unreasonable in civilian circumstances.

 

[Dallas239]

I think I'm just going to mail myself an empty envelope. Then if I ever have to go into court, I can fill it with helpful prior knowledge, and then seal it.

As to the Tueller drill specifically, I'd think a good defense attorney would let his client just testify that he felt threatened by the dude who was within 25' (or whatever) of him. Then he can call an expert to testify about the Tueller drill and that the accused's belief was in fact reasonable. Then your defense doesn't depend on when you knew about it.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Then your defense doesn't depend on when you knew about it.

Well in the case in the book I am reading, the jury didn't buy it and he was found guilty.

I think it was in Maryland.

The book is "The Law of Self-Defense: A Guide for the Armed Citizen"
by Andrew Branca.

Several scary stories like this is what got me to thinking about it.

 

[ctdonath]

you would bring in an expert witness such as the good Mr. Ayoob (if you can afford him)

Take his class, and he'll be your expert witness for free.

 

[mr hanky]

I am very familiar with the Tueller drill. I first learned of it in my CCW class I took from Mr. Larry Corriea. That along with many other CCW laws/issues.

Very interesting thread gents.

 

[MechAg94]

IMO, the problem with those cases is that you referred to a specific drill and are trying to present hard numbers as testimony/evidence. I think you would be better off just saying that a man can cover the across the room type distances very fast without much time to react.

I think it really depends on how you approach the case. I would hope the circumstances are not so bad that your case depends on your mailing yourself some notes.

I agree that taking the classes is a better idea. That at least you can document. Even buying a few books on Amazon would work.

 

[Ed Ames]

There is always a chance the jury won't buy ... no matter what you do or what you are selling there is always that chance... you can't necessarily say that they didn't buy it because the education wasn't documented, at least not without interviewing the jurors.

 

[takurpic]

We discussed the Tueller Drill in my concealed carry class. Good enough?