USSCA

Discussion in 'The Armory' started by Snakethat, Nov 22, 2018.

  1. Snakethat

    Snakethat forum member

    184
    9
    I was wondering how many have this insurance. It seems a bit unknown. I have carried a membership for a few years through this company. Basically if someone breaks in or show deadly force and you have to take action and defend yourself then this insurance provides attorney and financial assistance in case of civil lawsuits. Which is generally when someone goes broke even if justified in the shooting. Of course this company has to agree in that use of lethal force was appropriate. There are other companies that provide similar services.

    They also have some great discounts for members. I just recently purchased some ammo that was better than any BF deal just with the discount.

    Anyway here is the sight and you guys can check it out and see if its for you. Im just passing along. I have no other affiliation with the company other than being a happy member

    https://www.usconcealedcarry.com
     
  2. JimC

    JimC Senior Member

    1,678
    26
    I have this coverage. Like you said, the purpose of insurance is to shift the risk of financial loss elsewhere.

    I've seen people who say they don't need this because if the use of their firearm is justified then they are "protected by law" . That doesn't mean that you may not have to defend your actions in court though. And that is where the cost is.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
     
  3. Snakethat

    Snakethat forum member

    184
    9
    I read where a guy won his case for using lethal force but later on was in a civil suit. The witness accounts from the first trial changed during the civil suit. Of course they were family of the deceased
     
  4. JimC

    JimC Senior Member

    1,678
    26
    Unfortunately that happens -- the witnesses memory becomes more 'refined' as litigation moves through various phases.
     
  5. Snakethat

    Snakethat forum member

    184
    9
    As i recall the story was a man and his family (wife, and son) came home from a bike ride. The wife and son put there bikes up in the garage. However the man had bought a flashlight for his bike so he rode around the culdesac. He was on the sidewalk in the neighbor lady and her sister came over and started a verbal fight that turned physical with the two ladies punching the dad. The one ladies husband just came home and he got involved with the fight as well. He knocked the dad on the side of the head with his fish and he went down a bit daised. Keep in mind this all happened in his yard right by his mailbox. Once the man came to he drew his gun and killed the man and wounded the sister. During the trial the family of the deceased was trying to convince the court that it happened in the middle of the culdesac. Basically trying to move the scene so the man couldn't use story of protecting his wife and son. Well the trial ended and he won. Then came the civil lawsuit where they said it took place as it happened that day by his mailbox.

    This is where the law is frightening b/c they could not point out the fact the family of the deceased tried to move the scene from the mailbox to the middle of the culdesac. That testimony was not allowed during the civil lawsuit. I think thats bizarre



     
  6. JimC

    JimC Senior Member

    1,678
    26
    Prior testimony is admissible to impeach a witness. So I don't understand why it wasn't used or why the judge would have granted an objection to it. Unless it was being offered in direct testimony or for a purpose other than impeaching the witness with prior sworn statements.
     
  7. AndrewNagle

    AndrewNagle forum member

    2,864
    216
    Thanks for the link
     
    Snakethat likes this.