by Marty Hayes, J.D.
A disturbing trend has become fashionable in the “Land of YouTube” regarding incidents of self defense. It seems that broadcasting the defender’s “story” on YouTube generates many sign-ups for the promoter’s “after self-defense service.” Generally, I think this a good thing, because from an educational standpoint, the more information in circulation about lawful self-defense incidents the better. There is, however, a BIG issue that I have not seen addressed: What about potential CIVIL claims?
Despite the rush for the publicity these incidents can garner, the possibility that the client may be sued is still a huge issue. The client is vulnerable to being sued for an intentional tort of battery if the dude lived, or wrongful death if he died and the family sues. I have not seen this concern addressed in any of the current crop of exposé videos.
In our 16-year history, the Network has identified by name exactly ONE of our members who was involved in a self-defense shooting. This was the John Daub incident we wrote about in the second half of https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/network-track-record, but we only published the report after the two-year statute of limitations for wrongful death had run its course. In my opinion, that is the only responsible way to tell a member’s story publicly.
We had another member involved in a shooting, and after assisting him, he asked me if he could be the subject of one of these videos. He wanted to share what happened during the incident and how the Network assisted him in the aftermath. We declined to do so, after pointing out to him that he was still on the hook for any civil claims. Interestingly, a video with the client discussing shooting someone WOULD likely be court admissible through the exception to the rule against hearsay because it would be a statement against interest.
Be aware that just because a prosecutor declined to press charges, that doesn’t mean the charges could not be resurrected unless a judge said so (as happened in the Hickey case reported at https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/images/brochures/Hickey_Booklet.pdf ). The ONLY time the shooter would be free to discuss what happened and not worry about the criminal case is if there had been a trial and the individual had been acquitted. Then he could not be charged again for the same act, as we saw in the Spencer Newcomer case (https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/anatomy-of-a-self-defense-shooting ). In both Newcomer’s and Hickey’s cases, although neither was a member at the time of the incident, the Network declined to publicly discuss the issue in print until the civil statute of limitations had run out.
Lastly, we must consider the societal issues involved for the individual if they publicly speak out after self defense. These days, anyone looking to hire in individual will most likely do a Google search on the person’s name and the incident will pop up in the search returns. Will a prospective employer want to hire that person who carries guns and kills other members of society? Heck, even a single guy asking a girl out on a date will likely find she knows about his gun history. These are all things to seriously consider after a self-defense incident.