Podcast appearances and mentions of stephen maddox

John Carl Pepe and Frank Edward Nora join me for the "Crisis on Infinite Podcasts #4" aka "The Andy Kaufman Portal". We capture synchronicities, geeking out about Andy Kaufman Lives and Stephen Maddox. Even though this is the first time ever meeting in person, we have a great rapport from knowing eachother online for the past 15 or more years! This was recorded on 7-17-2024 while I was on tour with Yachtley Crew stopping through New Jersey to play at the Mayo Performing Arts Center. This is after the show. Link to Crisis on Infinite Podcasts #3 – The Andy Kaufman Vortex Part 1 - https://open.spotify.com/episode/2Jr4qN1Z7ZlHacPYECRQaE?si=FnzAXcCST6-RiRw-oFW_Hg John Carl Pepe's Pep Talk - “Beginning a Multipart Crossover Event” - https://onsug.com/archives/35883 His new home for the Pep Talk - https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLK56qrKowHpc9LSQGselT5nNv3cNqsno3&feature=shared Frank Nora's “Crisis On Infinite Podcasts #2 - https://onsug.com/archives/35908 Our 2 part prequel -https://open.spotify.com/episode/1vxKm5T0B37FOw36RAA2U6 -and - https://open.spotify.com/episode/23n2hCGcRvaM8MIvbRgheM?si=EUSNQ_NrQYK6NZzLtnP5aA Onsug Radio Station Book link - https://www.amazon.com/Onsug-Radio-Station-Inside-Book/dp/B09HHKNZ3T/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2U9B2E5KONQX4&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.svuSsrpXdX5i1L_f4XttTw.2S8n3hyNhQuzlV2VZo-9A43XzcV2Va-SAVU_Ek8FZkc&dib_tag=se&keywords=onsug+Radio+frank+edward+nora&qid=1744838074&sprefix=onsug+radio+frank+edward+nora%2Caps%2C148&sr=8-1 Henry D. Horse fun fact - https://www.tumblr.com/henrydhorse-blog Steve Peters – https://www.stevepeters.org/experiences Stew Strauss - https://soundcloud.com/stewstrauss/tracks “Andy Kaufman Is Alive” – Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/track/0hssvYnMTwrLu2uMrd5i4t?si=59c84fecfe8e4247 Yachtley Crew – http://yachtleycrew.com "Thank You Very Much" Documentary - https://www.justwatch.com/us/movie/thank-you-very-much AndyKaufmanLives.com rabbithole - https://beacons.ai/andykaufmanlives

This week S.I. Mike talks to Stephen Maddox about SHIELD

Host Rob High is joined by CCW Safe Co-Founder Stan Campbell and Critical Response Coordinator Gary Eastridge to talk with CCW Safe member Stephen Maddox. In 2015 Stephen was forced to defend his life when attacked. He was arrested, charged with murder and was facing life in prison. CCW Safe was there for Stephen throughout his two year ordeal to prove that he acted in Self-Defense. Stephen was found not guilty by a jury in 2017. He joins us today to talk about how CCW Safe helped him both in and out of the courtroom. 

  CCW Safe CEO and Co-Founder Mike Darter sits down for a talk with CCW Safe Member Stephen Maddox. In 2015 Stephen was forced to defend himself after being attacked three times by an assailant. He was charged with Murder. CCW Safe was there for him and helped him win an acquittal at trial in 2017. In the mid 90's Mike Darter was involved in an an on duty shooting working a drug task force for the Oklahoma City Police Department. He went through a civil trial in Federal court that was dismissed. That incident was one of the principle driving factors for the creation of CCW Safe. In this conversation Mike and Stephen talk about how they have dealt with the aftermath of their incidents and things that they have learned looking back on them. For more details on both incidents you can watch each of them tell their story in their own words here: Mike's Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbQLQMV7MjM Stephen's Story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6a_xm7PplI

Join Stephen Maddox as he has a conversation with Dr. Ingrid Bacon about healthy mindsets in uncertain times. Take part in their discussion about how to face anxiety when life turns uncertain in an instant. Learn about recognising what stress level you are in. As well as the helpful reminder that playing may be a key ingredient missing in our system.

Stephen interviews freelancers/self-employed creatives and a business owner to get a different perspective on the season we are in. Tune in to hear the wisdom, advice, and encouragement from Brad Galvin (Mons Engineer, Lumineers), Stephen Pippett (Hillsong Church, Tour Director), Jeff Sandstrom (MXU), Alex Strachan (iMag Displays, Co-Owner), and Scott Ragsdale.

  Not long ago Stan Campbell and Mike Darter spoke with Marissa Alexander about the warning shot she fired that triggered a long legal battle and some substantial prison time. In this episode Don West and Shawn Vincent draw upon the conversation with Alexander to identify the lessons learned for concealed carriers.   TRANSCRIPT:  Shawn Vincent: All right. Don, what's happening. Don West: Hey, Shawn. Good to talk with you again. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. So, it was a couple of months ago that Stan Campbell and Mike Darter, founders of the CCW Safe, had a chance to talk with Marissa Alexander, who is actually someone who survived a self-defense encounter, and was prosecuted, and actually served time in prison, and is now out and she's an advocate that goes around talking about domestic violence, and gun rights, and educating people about self-defense. Don West: That's right. People may not immediately know the name Marissa Alexander, but this is one of those handful of cases coming out of Florida several years ago that get known nationwide by some other name. We know the Loud Music Case: Michael Dunn in Jacksonville. I think Marissa Alexander also was a Jacksonville, Florida case. Shawn Vincent: She was. Don West: It's known as the warning shot case. It got lots of publicity at various stages. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. Part of the reason that it became so well-known is this idea that it was a warning shot. Here's a self-defense case where nobody's killed. In fact, nobody's even harmed by the discharge of the weapon. A single shot was fired, nobody was hurt, and then you have Marissa Alexander looking at a very lengthy prison sentence for what she claimed was defending herself against an abusive husband, who she had a type of restraining order against, a contact with no violence order. Don West: Marissa had just had a baby, who's in the hospital. I think when this happened, the baby may still have been in the hospital, and she was going back to her residence for the first time in a while where her husband and her husband's children were there, sort of setting the stage for the argument that then led up to this. Shawn Vincent: Sure. She was actually nine days after giving birth to her premature baby. The baby is in the hospital. She's staying with her mother because she's got this problem with her husband, the father of that new baby. She was going back to that marital home to get some stuff that she needed, and that's where Rico Gray, that's the name of her husband at the time, now ex-husband, and his two kids encountered her there. Don West: As I recall, there was an interesting lead-in to the argument. That's not the purpose of our podcast, but as I remember, some of the discussion that Ms. Alexander was showing Mr. Gray pictures of the baby, and actually handed him phone to him to look through the pictures, and while she was in the bathroom either collecting things or washing her face or what have you, he wound up scrolling through the phone and came upon some text messages, which apparently were between Ms. Alexander and a prior husband or someone with whom he was then accusing her of ... I guess Mr. Gray was then accusing her of some infidelity and maybe even questioning the father of the child. Don West: So, one innocent step maybe even that was a nice gesture on her part. Foolish. Can you think about how these things just go from zero to 100 in a half a second? All of a sudden, Rico Gray is angry because he questions if he's the father of this child. Oh, my goodness! Shawn Vincent: Alexander described it as a “jealous rage.” Yeah. I think what she said, part of it, is that some suggestion that the child that he thought they shared might not be his or some suggestion of that. So, he went off the handle. Now, clearly, with this restraining order, this contact with no violence order, Alexander had convinced the court that there was some cause for concern here to support her allegations that this was an abusive relationship. She actually claims to Mike and Stan in her podcast with them that her premature birth was induced by some of that violence. Shawn Vincent: So, he goes into his jealous rage, and she tells the story. She's in the bathroom. He goes in, approaches her there, and chokes her or attempts to choke her in the bathroom. She struggles against him, and is able to get away. She goes out to the garage. She claims to try to escape, but she can't get out. She doesn't have her keys. The garage door won't open. She ends up getting her gun coming back inside and that's where she confronts him in the kitchen of their house. Don West: Yes. I think that she had perhaps parked the car in the garage, but then when she went back out, she couldn't get the garage door to open, but she did have a firearm in the car, a firearm for which she was issued a lawful permit to carry concealed in Florida, and then she made that fateful decision to grab the gun, and instead of coming up with some other way to get out, she elected to go back into the house, which I would have to think she would expect there to be some verbal confrontation, if nothing else, but in any event, that's exactly as described it. Don West: She went back inside, where Mr. Gray was and then go ahead and describe how she saw these things unfold. Shawn Vincent: Well, I'd say since we have the benefit of Mike and Stan's podcast, let's let her tell this part of the story from her own words. Don West: Great. Shawn Vincent: I'll play this clip. Marissa: So, let me be clear. When I left out the room, it was to get into my truck and leave. It was not to go and come. He was parked out front, and came in through the front door. My vehicle was in the garage. So, in order for me leave, I needed to go to the garage where my vehicle was parked. When I got there, not only did I not have a key, the garage door would not go up. Marissa: So, at that point because I knew that I had no other way out other than to stay in the garage, which locks from the inside out, what I needed to go do is go back in the house and I couldn't go back in in the state that I was in with the assault that took place prior to in the bathroom and not be able to protect myself. Shawn Vincent: So, that's what Marissa has to say about this. So, we'll talk about in a minute the problems that had caused her in her case when she actually left a place of relative safety or she left a place of danger to a place of more relative safety, and then reengaged. We described ourselves into the kitchen. So, she fires this shot. Shawn Vincent: Well, here's another clip where she talks about encountering him there in the kitchen. Marissa: Right. So, that was in the kitchen where he came and he confronted me. He saw me with my firearm, threatened me, and then that's when I fired my warning, my shot. He didn't see my gun and run. He didn't do that. He saw it and decided he will threaten to kill me. Shawn Vincent: She says that after he saw the gun that he wasn't initially perturbed by this that he threatened to kill her, and that's when she fires the warning shot. So, here's a couple of questions for you, Don. How about this whole idea that a threat, a verbal threat to kill somebody? Does that open a door for reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm or death? Don West: Well, sometimes it can if they have the immediate ability to carry through. So, for example, if someone's carrying a weapon of some sort, and you're not quite sure what they intend, and then they announce their intent by stating, "I'm going to kill you," and they had the immediate present ability to carry that out. If it's a gun, it can be almost at any distance. If it's a knife, it's relative close proximity. Then, sure, I would think so that they have by their own action and ability to carry it out put you in jeopardy and you would have the right to defend yourself up to and including lethal force if you reasonably and sincerely believed that the threat to your safety of great bodily harm or death was imminent. That would seem to fit. Don West: It's a little fussy and a lot more difficult to assess when the person does not apparently have a weapon. The analysis is the same even without a weapon. I'm assuming here that Mr. Gray did not have a weapon. No one's ever said that he did. He maybe physically imposing, and we know that he has a history of violence. I don't think anyone has disputed that, that there has been physical violence caused by him in the past sufficient to get a restraining order, and Ms. Alexander knew that. She knew he was capable of physical violence, but she would have to assess, and then ultimately, the police and the prosecutor and to some degree, the judge if you have an immunity hearing, and then as she did, we can talk about that later. Don West: Then a jury, whether he in fact imposed an imminent threat of great bodily harm or death and was capable at that moment and intended at that moment to carry it out. So, in roundabout way to get to your question, just because somebody says, "I'm going to kill you," even if you accept that to be true, that is not from my perspective in and of itself enough for you to pull out a gun and shoot somebody. Shawn Vincent: In most of the cases that we've looked at, the real controversial cases usually involved armed defender who shoots an unarmed attacker. Don West: Yes, and then all of that analysis comes in to play the relative physical capacities, the knowledge of the history, the abilities of the individuals to defend themselves. There are several notable self-defense cases where juries have concluded that the armed defender was legally justified in using deadly force against an unarmed attacker. There is absolutely no requirement that the attacker be armed. Don West: However, the other analysis doesn't change. There still has to be that imminent threat of great bodily harm or death, and from ultimately the jury's perspective, all of that had to be reasonable. There's this overriding analysis that looks at the totality of the circumstances. That's a common phrase you hear in legal circles, the totality of the circumstances taking everything into account. Was the response to the threat reasonable? If so, then the jury should properly acquit. If they conclude it was not, even though there may have been a real threat, then they can justify a conviction. Shawn Vincent: Sure. On this idea of the reasonableness of the fear in the imminence of that reasonable fear, this is where we get back to what we talked about the controversy about her going into the garage and then choosing to come back into the main area of the house with the gun, right? I think that went a long way to convincing a judge in the immunity hearing, and then subsequently a jury in the trial that she wasn't that afraid of him if she's willing to go back to where he was, where she had been attacked by him before. Don West: There's that perspective how afraid was she, and I think equally important what happened in the house was effectively over at that point. There's nothing to suggest that she wasn't safe from him in the garage, at least to the extent he wasn't in the garage. She was there, she had a gun. I don't know if there was another door. I can't remember having been in a garage that didn't have a door- Shawn Vincent: A side door or something. Don West: ... as well as the garage door, a side door of some sort, but notwithstanding that had she gone out to the garage and armed herself and then tried to figure out where to go and what to do and reassess. Had he come in to the garage still angry toward her, I think that completely changes the dynamic of this. For her to arm herself, go back inside expecting to confront the person that she claimed had just threatened to kill her or was capable of and intended to harm her in some serious way, I think that changes the perspective and it puts her at a great disadvantage when the jury is trying to assess whether her actions were reasonable. Don West: There's an interesting conversation to have at some point. We should get a law enforcement officer to talk with about this, but in this use of force continuum that law enforcement are taught and to some degree a civilian use of force continuum that Mike and Stan have developed, it's an interesting notion of when you introduce a firearm into an escalating event is the introduction of the firearm an escalation or is it a deescalation? Don West: I think that it's such an interesting issue that law enforcement probably considers it a deescalation because the attempt is by- Shawn Vincent: When an officer does it? Don West: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Mm-hmm (affirmative). The goal at that point is not to shoot somebody, but simply to demonstrate that they have the superior force and the capability and hope that that modifies the behavior of the person that they're confronting. It might, but as we will know from other cases that we've had, it may be the very thing that causes the other person to go off. We can talk about other cases because we've had them where somebody displays a firearm expecting to deescalate, thinking the other person will back off, and it encourages them to get even more violent. Shawn Vincent: Sure. In the cases that we looked at, we've seen a couple where the presenting of a firearm stops the conflict cold, but more often than not, it inevitably triggers a gunfight in which somebody or both people get shot and killed. Don West: Yeah. You've just introduced fear and rage in the same mix. You're going to have a fight or flight reaction, I suspect. You're hoping for the flight of the other person, but you may very well wind up getting the fight instead. Is that what Ms. Alexander is basically saying that she made the decision. In hindsight, we can say we think it was a bad decision to go inside with the firearm. Is she saying then that once the firearm was presented, then he knew that she had it, that instead of backing off and just letting her leave as she claim was her intent, that he got further agitated and escalated his aggression toward her? Shawn Vincent: Yeah. She says that he threatens to kill her after he saw her back in the house in the kitchen with the gun. It's clear to her that he saw she was armed, and then he threatened to kill her afterwards. That's when she decides to fire the warning shot. Something I want to talk about on this point, though, that I think is going to be relevant to the CCW Safe members is: some states are stand your ground states, and some are duty to retreat states, but what we know is that in every state, there's a version of the castle doctrine, which means that in your home, there is no duty to retreat. Shawn Vincent: I think what an interesting thing comes up here is that even if you don't have a duty to retreat, if you do retreat, then leave the house or leave the immediate area of where the threat is, and then you decide to return to it with a weapon and reengage. Does that change the calculus on this a little bit? Shawn Vincent: Marissa Alexander, when she talks to Mike and Stan, argues that she never left her house. The garage was still the house. It's not a detached garage, but on the same hand, I think if the garage is different from the house, it's further away from where her attacker was. Shawn Vincent: If we look at the Zach Peters case, where the kid encountered the invaders in the kitchen, and then after he shoots them once, he goes back to his room, locks the door, and calls the police. If he had gone back out into the house and reengaged those guys, we might have a different scenario. So, what's your take on that, Don? If you've retreated from your home already, do you have a problem if you go back in to reengage? Don West: You know it's interesting. We have a partnership with Andrew Branca who wrote the book Law of Self-Defense and regularly produces video and live content on the legal aspects of self-defense, understanding what the law is and the various jurisdictions and also the basic rules of what you should do, and what you should really avoid at all cost. Don West: To distill this into a very simple statement, Andrew would say there's a huge difference between the fight coming to you and you going to the fight. He would say that if you go to the fight, you have changed the dynamic of everything, and you have put yourself in a legally vulnerable position, and that of those things to avoid, you should never go to the fight unless there's some other circumstance or factual need or other reasons why you had to do that to increase your own safety or to protect others. Don West: The notion of her from a relative position of safety to going to the fight I think puts her at a great disadvantage. Whether she would lose the right to self-defense at that point, I think that's almost a discussion that lawyers would have sitting around a coffee table or in a cocktail lounge, but the lawyers don't make the decisions of whether Marissa Alexander is guilty. The jury does. Don West: They do that by putting themselves in the position of the accused. Self-defense is pretty different than virtually any other kind of criminal defense where you are encouraging asking the jury to see what happened from the very perspective through the eyes of the person on trial, and through those eyes considering what they knew, what their background was, what their experience with this person, then all of that stuff seeing whether what happened was reasonable. Don West: I think what that really means is when a juror looks at a case like that, they're probably saying to themselves, "I get it. I understand what she was going through. Had I been in her situation, what would I have done?" If the juror says to himself or herself, "I sure wouldn't have done that," then there's an easy way for them say, "That's just not reasonable. I can believe everything she says, but I can still find that she violated a law because it's just not a reasonable for a person to act under the circumstances.” Shawn Vincent: Something that came up in the conversation with Marissa Alexander between Stan, Mike on their podcast was how often people who own a gun, they're concealed carriers or interested in home defense have a thought in their mind that they're reasonable people, and that should they ever be involved in a self-defense incident that it's going to be pretty cotton-dried, all the scenarios that they might pain for themselves and their mind of when they would need to use deadly force are clear, right? Shawn Vincent: We found in all the cases that we looked at that there are all these weird little factors whether you've misperceived a detail or you've mistaken an identity or there's these scenarios you can't imagine that complicated, right? So, here's- Don West: Right. The analysis of that is done after the fact like people in a somewhat sterile environment with all the time in the world to assess the reasonableness of the defender's conduct that probably took place in a half a second. This case, I think, more than any that we've talked about really turns on some of these little details that got lost in the media discussion that the public perception of this case is very different than what the actual facts demonstrated. Don West: We're calling this the warning shot case, for example. It's clear that Mr. Gray was not killed, and injured as you said earlier, but we also know from the physical evidence that the shot was pretty close to his head. It was shot in the room where he was in his direction. I think it went through a wall, and then ultimately into a ceiling where the claim was that it post a danger to his children, keeping in mind not her children. It was his children. So, when she went back in the house, she wasn't there to protect her children from him. Shawn Vincent: Right. They weren't there. Don West: He was there with his children. So, defense of others was not an issue. So, the people that called it a warning shot felt that it was in a sense an attempt to deescalate, to prevent him from being able to fulfill his threat to kill her. Others look at it as a miss, that this was an attempted murder and a miss, which is a completely different legal context than a warning shot. Don West: So, when I talk about little details, for example, you take a look at where the shot was fired from, where the bullet landed, and what the immediate risk was. Had that shot been 90 degrees, had it been fired into the floor of the kitchen or even into the refrigerator or someway where it was absolutely clear that it was not intended to hit him, then we have a true warning shot situation. Don West: Frankly, I think the analysis of the case changes. Certainly, the emotional impact of the case changes. Angela Corey who was the elected prosecutor in Jacksonville at the time would be far less able to stand behind a microphone and say that Marissa Alexander fired out of anger, not fear. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. Before we wrap up this section, this segment of our conversation, so she claims that she absolutely could have hit him if she wanted to. She was a licensed concealed carrier, she had trained with a gun. Her father was in the service for 27 years, and was a concealed carrier I believe in gun rights and self-defense. So, she's pretty adamant that it was a warning shot, but to your point, as a warning shot a few inches above and a few inches to the right of his head. So, there's some ambiguity there. Shawn Vincent: We talked earlier about you don't brandish your weapon. You don't defensively display a weapon unless you had been justified in using the deadly force. I think we got close enough to this where we think at that particular moment deadly force was not justified. Would you say that's right? Don West: Not to go on a side trip, but brandish is the notion of waving a gun around in a threatening way. Displaying it may be quite different than that if it's done for defensive purposes. Brandishing is a question of degree, frankly, whether it's a lawful display given the context or whether it's a crime of recklessness and threatening behavior. All of that stuff has to be analyzed exactly under the circumstances under which it arose. Don West: People that claim they displayed the gun in self-defense could wind up being arrested and prosecuted for a brandishing type offense because the prosecutor didn't buy the story or that sort of thing, but separate and apart from that, when you draw a gun and you point it in the direction of somebody, and you fire the gun, you have committed a crime right then, a very serious crime unless you have the legal justification to do that. Firing a gun is the use of deadly force. It may be arguable that displaying a gun isn't necessarily using deadly force, but certainly, there's no doubt that firing one is. Don West: Now, is there any legal difference between firing an obvious warning shot and shooting in the direction of somebody and missing? Not necessarily. The prosecutor in Ms. Alexander's case chose not to charge her with attempted murder, but they charged her with aggravated assault with the discharge of a firearm. Don West: Under Florida law, when you commit the crime of aggravated assault and pulled the trigger, you have taken a crime that is a serious crime, nonetheless, it's punished by a maximum of five years in prison. There's a three-year mandatory minimum for the aggravated assault, but when you pull the trigger and discharge it in that kind of threatening way even without the intent to kill, you now have a 20-year mandatory minimum. That's in fact what she was prosecuted for, and ultimately what she was convicted of. That's how she got the 20-year sentence, a sentence that the judge had no discretion, could not impose one day less than 20 years. Don West: Well, we'll talk more about that. I think the legal context of this case is really fascinating. I'm sorry I didn't really respond to your question, specifically, but- Shawn Vincent: Well, this wasn't a cross-examination, so you have the discretion to go off on a tangent, but to bring it around, I think we can argue and, obviously, because this is controversial, that at that moment after coming back in and reengaging with him across the kitchen unarmed that she was unjustified in shooting him at that point. Don West: Yeah. I think that's fair. That's certainly what the judge decided, and then ultimately what the jury decided. Shawn Vincent: Right, and our general rule here is that if you're unjustified in shooting someone using deadly force, you're also unjustified in either displaying the weapon in an aggressive way or firing a warning shot. Don West: Certainly, firing, and what we don't know for sure is whether the jury concluded that he didn't post an imminent threat to great bodily harm, that her claim that he was trying to kill her wasn't supported by the record. That's a possibility or that they didn't ... For all we know, they didn't agree that it was in fact a warning shot. They may very well have concluded that they thought that she just missed. The sanctity and security of the jury deliberation process unless they come forward and want to explain their thinking, they're certainly not required to. You may never know what it was that was important that pushed this thing one way or another. Shawn Vincent: Fascinating. Well, now, let's take a quick break. I want to talk next about her post-incident actions and some things that occurred immediately after this warning shot that caused her troubling her legal defense. Don West: Sounds good. Thanks, Shawn. Talk to you soon. Shawn Vincent: All right. Shawn Vincent: All right. Don, so we're talking about the Marissa Alexander case, the so-called Warning Shot Case. In our last segment, we had talked and gotten ourselves right up to the point where she fired the warning shot and Rico Gray leaves the premises. He was with his two children. They were, as Marissa Alexander explains it, at the threshold of the house on their way out when she encountered Rico Gray in her kitchen. He saw that she had a gun. She said that he threatened to kill her. She fires this so-called warning shot that was just a little above his head, and a little bit to the right, and then he leaves. Shawn Vincent: So, then here's part of it that's amazing to me, and it's a piece of her mindset perhaps. After this happens, she doesn't call the police to report it. She figured that she fired a warning shot, he left, and that was the end of it. I'm going to play a quick clip of what she said to Mike Darter and Stan Campbell in her podcast with them. Don West: Okay. Mike: So, what happened? Did somebody else call the police? Did he call the police? How did that transpire after that? Marissa: After that, he called the police. He called the police. Stan: Yeah. We talked to our members about this all the time being the first one to call 911. Us being police officers, we always state that usually the way we look at it, the one who called 911 is the victim. Is that pretty much what happened where you had the opportunity to do so or you felt that the warning shot would be enough to back him off, and you didn't need to call the police on it? Marissa: Right. So, that's basically what happened. To be honest with you, I didn't think I did anything wrong. I was in my home and nothing happened. So, I thought that that would be enough, and if he had come back, then I probably would have to, but at that point, that was my thinking. So, like you said the first one to call is apparently the victim. Shawn Vincent: So, she says, "To be honest with you, I didn't think I did anything wrong." What are your thoughts about that, Don? Don West: There's so much to unpack on that. I have to take her comment to mean that she was expressing that she indeed felt threatened, that he had expressed the intent to harm her, and that by firing the shot, she was completely legally and factually justified. So, in other words, she felt that she needed to do it in order to save herself, and that she hadn't broken any laws when she did it. I don't know how else you want to interpret a comment like that except I can offer that in many, if not most self-defense cases, certainly in all plausible self-defense cases, the person who defended and used force to defend themselves believes they didn't do anything wrong. They felt justified. That's the crux of the whole thing. That doesn't necessarily mean that you've stayed with, painted within the lines or that you're within the legal parameters and boundaries, but I think it's a common feeling that you didn't do anything wrong. You had to do what you had to do. Don West: Shawn, I think what we're leading up to, though, is the fact that she didn't call the police. So, even if she didn't feel that she did anything wrong doesn't make sense if you accept her at her word, doesn't make sense that she wouldn't call the police to explain that she was attacked in her home, that she had to display a weapon, and ultimately fire it to prevent this guy with a history of violence from making good on his threat. Go ahead. Shawn Vincent: I was going to ask, have you ever seen the show The Office, the American show with Steve Carell? Don West: Oh, sure. Shawn Vincent: Yeah. Do you remember the episode where we found out Michael Scott's in terrible debt, and somebody talks to him about the option to declare a bankruptcy and convinces him that he needs to declare bankruptcy? Then he decides that, yes, he's going to and he walks into the office and just yells out, "I declare bankruptcy." Someone has to explain to him that he can't just declare it, that it's actually a legal process. This is what I think about when I hear Marissa Alexander saying she didn't think she did anything wrong. It's like she just declared to the sky that that was self-defense. Shawn Vincent: Listening to you talk about the ramifications of that, in that feeling that you were justified, I have to look at it like this, and maybe we'll do a thought experiment. Anytime a gun is displaying in a threatening manner, discharged in a threatening manner or used to shoot somebody, I think we should assume a crime has been committed. Now, it's a question of whether that crime was justifiable or not, right? Don West: I think that's fair. Yes. We live in a community of very strict laws on the possession, ownership, and certainly the discharge of firearms. The presumption is if a gun is fired, something bad happened. Shawn Vincent: Yeah, and a self-defense claim is a legal claim. You can't just say it to make it self-defense. It makes me think. We talked about the Michael Dunn case, talked about Jacksonville, the loud music trial that Michael Dunn somehow in his mind, he tells his fiance Rhonda Rouer, "Don't worry. It was legal. It was justified. It was self-defense," as some excuse of why they would speed away from the scene of the shooting and not report it. Don West: Some of the materials in another podcasts and video series we did a while back, we talk about the aftermath of a shooting, and we talk about the reasonable responsible way to interact with law enforcement. We also talk about the importance of declaring, declaring that you acted in self-defense, that, sure, you were the person with the handgun, yes, you were the person that fired it, but that you were legally justified in doing it. Don West: Let me digress for just a moment to put this in context. When you get to trial, the prosecutor has to prove it was not self-defense, and that's true all across the country. However, until there is evidence in the record, it doesn't take a lot and it doesn't have to be all of that persuasive, but there has to be evidence in the record in support of a claim of self-defense before the judge will recognize it and give an instruction on self-defense, which allows the jury to consider it. Don West: Unless you get some of that evidence in the record, then the judge is not obliged to instruct the jury and the jury may not even be able to consider self-defense as a legal affirmative defense. So, there is a responsibility on the part of the accused to have some evidence, whether it's their statement about what happened or a witness' statement about what happened or some physical evidence that's compelling, that shows that the force that was used was in response to a threat, and therefore, there's evidence of self-defense. Don West: So, for Ms. Alexander to say, "I didn't call the police because I didn't do anything wrong," in no way puts her in a position of carrying that initial burden to demonstrate ultimately at whatever stage this case got to that she acted in self-defense. Shawn Vincent: Sure. Stan Campbell brings this up in that conversation from a police officer's perspective, whoever calls 911 first is the victim, right? So, the police come to this discharge of a firearm with only Rico Gray's side of the story. Let me play another clip from this conversation. This is from Marissa Alexander. Marissa: Well, you know somebody at some point they were contacting me on my phone, but I did not have my phone. So, once they were able to get a hold of me, and let me know that ... I believe he told them that I had barricaded myself in the house. So, that was the time from what I understand it was a call for SWAT to come out. I had no idea because I did not know where my phone was, but when I did find my phone and my sister was like, "Hey, down here," and I was like, "Okay." I took the officer's call and he asked me where I was. I told him. I told him I was going to come out. I told him I have my hands up, one hand on the black cellphone, and one up, and just don't shoot me. Shawn Vincent: So, the big thing I take out of this is that she believed Rico Gray told the cops that she had barricaded herself in the house, and that the police had considered calling the SWAT team to come. So, not only is there not a self-defense claim filed here, the police are acting as if they've got an armed deranged individual inside of this house, and they're attempting multiple times to call her on her cellphone to bring a peaceful resolution to this. That is the wrong foot to start off on when you're making a self-defense claim. Don West: Yes, I agree. I think that Ms. Alexander was probably agonizing over this for a minute even though she didn't think that she had done anything wrong. Legally, she had to have know this was messed up, and that maybe she was taking that risk like when you go to Vegas and you put everything on red or you pick on number out of 30, what is it? 36. Shawn Vincent: I don't know that. I'm a terrible gambler. Don West: Not a roulette player. You just hope that your number comes up or you hope in someways your number doesn't. I suspect that in her mind, her best outcome was probably if nobody calls the police under these circumstances and maybe she thought that because of Mr. Gray's prior history with the law and violent history with her that maybe he wouldn't either, and hope upon hope that this thing would just go away. If that's what her thinking was, then she miscalculated. Shawn Vincent: She made a bad bet. Don West: Yeah, she did. As I remember, though, some of the materials, this is a very convoluted and complicated case to sort out factually because Mr. Gray gave extensive interviews and statements. In Florida, you can do depositions in criminal cases on felony. He changed his story a lot. He was against her, and then he was in favor of her. So, factually, it was really hard to get a clear handle on it. Let's not forget that his two children were there, and I think they were both old enough to be competent witnesses, whether they were good witnesses or not, I don't know, but competent meaning that they know the difference between right and wrong. They are able to know the difference between a lie and not, that they were old enough that they could testify. Don West: I didn't read their statements exactly, but if they told the police that their dad didn't threaten to kill her, that when she came back in with the gun, the first thing she did was point it at him and fire it, and there was no actual threat, then there's a big problem with the case factually from a self-defense standpoint notwithstanding all the stuff that you and I have talked about so far. Don West: So, without her explicitly saying what her thinking was other than, "I didn't do anything wrong," I'm going to speculate and say that she thought that maybe directly involving the police wasn't in her favor and she would hope that he didn't either. As it turns out, he gave his phone to one of his kids and it was one of the kids, I think, that called 911 to initially report it. Shawn Vincent: That might be the case, but in what Alexander told Mike and Stan in their podcast was that essentially the father gave the statement to the police in the presence of the kids, then the oldest gave his statement, which essentially echoed what the father had said, and then the youngest was too young for them to really take that statement, so they didn't. They just did what the eldest son had said. Anyways, he had- Don West: Well, we've had cases and I've counseled people in cases whether they should call the police under the unique facts of their circumstances. It's not as clear as you would want it to be because sometimes you have no reason to think that the other person involved is going to call the police, no injuries, maybe no shots fired, that it happened very quickly, and that you're not sure that you want to involve the police either and start admitting that you had a gun and that you displayed it under questionable circumstances. That's a very difficult thing. Don West: On occasion, maybe from a strategic standpoint, the decision can be supported that you don't. That's pretty rare in my mind and I don't know that it's ever happened in experience when shots were actually fired at other human beings I would think. Our advice has always been get on top of that, get ahead of this because like you say, the first person to the phone is often identified by the police as the victim, and in this case, the story that the police got was the one most favorable to Mr. Gray, and then that was compounded by the lack of communication with Ms. Alexander, this notion that she was barricaded, and then by the time they actually had contact with her, this whole narrative of her being violent and armed and all of that was out there. So, she probably in some ways didn't get a fair shake in telling her side of the story. The snowball was already going down the hill at that point. Shawn Vincent: Let me play another clip, if you don't mind, from this conversation. She talks about once she surrendered to the police with her cellphone in the air walking out with her hands up what she experienced. Marissa: They "detained" me, and we just came out doing a proceeding, but they detained me and put me in a car, in the back of the car seat. I did not know that I was going to be arrested. I thought, "Well, okay. He was telling the truth. What happened?" The truth was not very helpful for me. So, yeah, I ended up ... Once I let him know I had a restraining order in place, I said, "Listen. This happened. Look it up." He did. He verified it, but essentially, it was their word against mine. Shawn Vincent: Right? So, she talks about now that she's surrendering to the police, and we've just been discussing how she surrendered to the police who have the other side's version of the story that's not kind to her, she starts talking to the police about what happened. She said, "Tell them the truth," but the truth wasn't on her side. When she says that the police detained her, she says in the way that has air quotes around it, where she feels in retrospect that she was under arrest from the beginning, even though they didn't tell her that she was. At a certain point, she realized she was in trouble. Shawn Vincent: She's not doing a great job now. She's behind the ball at getting her narrative out there once Rico Gray and his kids have already told their side of the story. Don West: I agree with that assessment. At that point, I think that probably from the very beginning that she should have taken the initiative and obviously in hindsight it's very easy when you see what this case turned out to be an absolute nightmare for her. We'll talk in another segment, I hope, about some of the legal process that she found herself in, and what was driving that, and how very, very quickly she was completely out of having any control over her life. She didn't write the laws that impacted her to the extent that she could have handled it differently at the beginning. She didn't. Don West: Then pretty soon, she was at the mercy of a very aggressive prosecutor. This became a political case. It was in the midst of other things happening in the media. This was going to trial around the time of the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin case that had started with the shooting in 2012. Don West: This turned out to be a really big deal. When we sit here at our kitchen tables or wherever we happen to be at the moment and look back on it, it's easy for us to say what might have been different. I'm not criticizing Ms. Alexander. What I'm trying to do is point out at those moments when a different decision from our perspective may have resulted in her being treated differently, the case being viewed differently and possibly even a different outcome. Shawn Vincent: Sure. That criticism is an opportunity to learn lessons from her mistakes. Before we wrap up this segment and start talking about what her legal challenge looked like, which we'll do in our next podcast episode, one thing I think is fascinating about the self-defense cases is this first encounter with law enforcement because we say that we want you to be helpful and courteous to the police. We want you to make yourself defense claim, but we also don't want you to talk about a lot of details about the case or about what your experience was before you have a chance to meet with a lawyer, and do so only with their council, right? Shawn Vincent: That's easy to say, but you and I sat with Stephen Maddox, who gave in-depth recorded testimony, interviews with police about his experience and he knew intellectually that you shouldn't talk to police, but he also felt that he was absolutely justified. He was the one who called the cops, originally, and felt like he was making his claim and supporting his decision. Shawn Vincent: So, it's one thing to say don't talk to police, but a whole other thing to now have been part of the shooting to believe you're correct to feel now the weight of law enforcement coming on you and wanting to seem like the good guy. Don West: Being in that position having been involved in a self-defense incident whether it meets the high standard ultimately, checks off all the boxes that it was legal self-defense, we're talking about those especially using deadly force where shots are fired. I think when a shot is fired, whether it's characterized as a warning shot or a miss or something in between, it fundamentally changes the nature of the case. Don West: We've had lots of cases where guns were displayed, threats may have been made, but it's a whole different category when somebody pulls the trigger. I think law enforcement looks at it differently. I think the entire criminal justice system looks at it differently because when the bullet leaves the barrel of a gun, it's death in the air. If it hits somebody, there's a high probability they will die as a result of it. Don West: When you are involved in a situation like that, you can expect that you will be considered a suspect, truly a suspect. The police don't know what happened. They're working on limited information when they respond. If you weren't the one that called the police, they have some misinformation, no doubt. Certainly, they have one-sided information and for an individual to subject themselves to the investigative process on their own without the benefit of council is a highly risky and, in my view, a foolish thing, not just because of you don't understand how the system works. People that are friendly aren't necessarily your friends, and you won't understand the meaning, the real meaning of the questions. You won't know how to modulate your answers to say what's true without saying things also that could be construed or misconstrued as harmful. Don West: Plus, you've got the trauma that you've just gone through destroying your perception and making you perhaps feel that you really, really, really need to explain yourself, but we know in the Maddox case is the perfect example that you're not going to be very good at it. Shawn Vincent: So, he is in accurate about simple things like where did he live and how many children does he have- Don West: Yes. Here's a guy- Shawn Vincent: ... that you couldn’t possibly get wrong. Don West: Super professional guy, highly educated, lots of life experience, and you wouldn't know that he's so wrong when you listen to the recording. You would think this is a guy who's telling it like it is and yet when you go back through it, and you pick out some of these things, you'll realize just how much of what his statement was was a byproduct of that traumatic experience he'd been through. Frankly, some of it was simply unreliable. The most obvious being when he got that kind of stuff wrong. Don West: So, if we're going to take Ms. Alexander's situation and try to get some lessons from it, she should have called the police. I think that's pretty evident, and maybe said as little as, "I was attacked by my husband. He threatened to kill me." Shawn Vincent: "I have a restraining order." Don West: Yes. "I had to fire a shot to keep him from killing me. Fortunately, nobody was injured, but I wanted you to know that," or what have you. Then once the investigators and the detectives get there to conduct a formal interview, you do as we've always said which you provide the basic information enough to stake your claim of self-defense, and then you acknowledge that you will continue to cooperate, but you'd like the benefit of council before a formal interview. Shawn Vincent: Law enforcement will understand that. Don West: Well, that's the law, and they do understand it. They will acknowledge or respect it. If for some reason they don't and they try to trick you or come at you a different way, then what you say should not be admitted in the court against you. That's the whole notion of Miranda Rights. Don West: Secondly, you cannot be compelled to make a statement against yourself or you can't even be compelled without court process to make any statement at all. The idea is that you have the right to make a statement or not at your choosing, and if you want to make a statement, you certainly should have the benefit of council in such a high stakes circumstance. Shawn Vincent: It's a really difficult position to be in, but I think the lesson from all this is that you have to, and this is from the first segment, too, where Marissa Alexander said she didn't really think she had done anything wrong. If there's a discharge in the firearm in self-defense, you have to assume that you've committed a crime until it can be demonstrated that it was self-defense, and that you have to interact with a police as if you're the suspect of a serious crime or else I think in our case, nine times out of 10 it's going to blow up in your face and cause you trouble down the line. Don West: I think that's fair and good advice. In this case, it wouldn't have taken much of an investigator to walk inside the house and take a look at where the bullet entered the wall and positioned the people, and immediately conclude that she fired at him. He may have been or she may have been wrong about that, but the physical evidence becomes an incredibly important part of this. Don West: Having been through a traumatic situation, self-defense shooting, you're simply not going to be presently aware of all of the things that are important, the things that you may very well need to think through carefully to be able to explain convincingly when it's time to do that. It's so easy if you decide to give a detailed statement before you've processed it and digested it and better understood what the legal issues are, what's important and what isn't for you to make a statement that you simply can't recover from. Don West: I've said this before. I'll repeat it that I've tried a lot of self-defense cases. Frankly, the ones that are the hardest to try are the ones when we have to explain what the client said to the police and why that isn't accurate or why it wasn't complete or why, frankly, it wasn't lying if it was inconsistent. Shawn Vincent: Yeah, a nightmare. Well, that's a great preface for the long legal road that Marissa Alexander faced after the shooting. So, let's call that quits for today, and our next podcast is going to be dedicated to the torturous, twisted legal odyssey that she went through after that day. Don West: Thanks, Shawn. Looking forward to it. Talk to you soon. Shawn Vincent: All right, Don.

Today, Riley and Jacob interview Stephen Maddox, a man going about his business one day when he suddenly was faced with a deadly threat and attack. Stephen thought he did everything right, and fully cooperated with authorities, but he later found himself facing multiple charges. Fortunately, he was successful in defending himself in the legal battle--others are not as fortunate sometimes. His legal case was fully funded by CCW Safe.

In this episode, Stan and Mike talk with CCW Safe Accounts Manager, David Darter.  They talk about some of the most common questions from our members and prospective members, and some of the best practices for getting help with your account.   Full Transcription below! Speaker 1: Welcome to the Inside CCW Safe podcast with founders Stan Campbell and Mike Darter. If you're forced to fight the battle for your life, CCW Safe will fight the battle for your future. Mike: Okay. All right. Peter Gordon. Mike: Hi, welcome back to the Inside CCW Safe podcast. I'm Mike Darter with CCW Safe in Oklahoma City. Here, we're with Stan Campbell. Stan Campbell: Yeah, Stan Campbell holding down Los Angeles today. Mike: You're what? Stan Campbell: I said I'm holding down Los Angeles, sorry about that. Mike: Holding down Los Angeles. I hit my little mute button to turn off all ... I'm turning off all my phones and beeps and stuff, and I accidentally hit the mute button on my computer which muted you. Mike: So, Stan man, it's been freezing here. We've been like had two school days. Stan Campbell: You said two school days? Mike: Two no school days. Stan Campbell: Oh, two no school days. Yeah, you guys have ice storms out there, right? Mike: Yeah, it's been crazy. But I think today it's supposed to get up to like 40. So, it should be pretty good. What's LA like? Stan Campbell: LA is kinda overcast. It's not that pretty, but it's no ice. I haven't seen ice over there. No ice. Mike: Good deal. Anything else going on recently we need to know about? Stan Campbell: No. I mean, we're following the ... And we will get to talk about it at a later podcast, but we're following the constitutional carry that just got passed here in Oklahoma, and that's a good thing. Mike: Yeah. I think it goes in November? Stan Campbell: Yeah. November 1st is gonna be when it pushes through. So, that's a good thing. It's always good to hear some governors willing to stand up for those who support the Second Amendment and take care of concealed carriers and such. Mike: Yeah. I didn't know that was even going through until yesterday. I know it went through last year and then the governor didn't sign it. But, cool. Mike: Well, today we got on my brother. My real brother, not my first [inaudible 00:02:23]. Mike Darter: Not a brother from another mother. Stan Campbell: They're brothers from the same mother. Brothers from the same mothers. Mike: David Gardner, he's our account manager. David, thanks for coming on. David Darter: You bet. Mike: Thank you, Dave. David Darter: Good to see you around. Mike: Did you still end up in the city as well, fighting this ice? David Darter: Yeah, I already fell yesterday. I busted my butt. Stan Campbell: That's not good. Well, what, as long as it wasn't on CCW Safe property, I'm okay with it. So get back to work, Dave. Get back to work. David Darter: That's hilarious. Stan Campbell: For those who don't know, I mean, we always talk about our support staff. You guys heard about, we had just added Justin. The usual suspects, Don and Gary, but behind the scenes, who really keeps this thing moving and who coordinates all the efforts of customer service is David Darter. He is the star really of CCW Safe because if you're not involved in a critical incident and they need our support because of an arrest or use of force to defend your life, you're dealing with just simple issues of customer service and just simple questions that you just might have if you just chose to join us without really learning about us. And David is the one who really ... He holds down that position and he does an awesome job with our customers. Stan Campbell: I really love having him in that position and being over the specialist, just coordinating all the efforts and all the help with the members in our CCW Safe family. I just wanna let you guys know, David is a rockstar. David Darter: Thank you, Stan. I appreciate that. Stan Campbell: No, it's okay. David Gardner: We take a great pride in our customer service. Stan Campbell: Yeah. That's true. And what, David, I was really trying to invest. That was the opening for Michael to list. It's obvious that there's some big brother, little brother issues going on here, where he can't give you a simple account- Mike: This is what happened. I'd just plugged in my headphones at the time he said that 'cause I didn't know if my mic was picking up you coming over the deal. So, I was like, "Maybe I'll just talk to my headphones." I'm taking them off now because it's like watching a- Stan Campbell: A Chinese movie? Mike: ... a 1970s movie. So I didn't hear what you said. Stan Campbell: That's hilarious. Mike: There you are. Now you're talking in your mouth. Stan Campbell: Yeah, we're here Michael. Mike: So yeah, he is a rockstar. Stan Campbell: Yeah, he is. Mike: He does great with our customer service, and that's one of the things that ... It's hard when you're dealing with tens of thousands of members and trying to provide good customer service for a nationwide covering. It's very hard to do that. I know that some of our competitors have the same issues that we do, but I think we handle ours very well and I think that we have a very good handler of our customer support, and a lot of it is because of David. Stan Campbell: Absolutely. David, and David sorry, we're gonna talk about you first. So David, he is the accounts manager, and of course, like I said, he's over the CCW Safe specialists who get your non-emergency calls. If I had to really do an estimate, I'd say about 98% of the calls for service are non-emergency. The 2% would be emergency calls, talking about arrest and use of force issues. Stan Campbell: So it's a lot of work. What everybody needs to understand, and let's start out with backstage, stating that, we have a great system in place, and it's a layered system. Number I, we want everyone to know that if you have account issues, absolutely send them to David. Don't call the non-emergency number if it's an account issue because, by design, we don't have them ... The contracted organization who handles our non-emergency calls, we don't have them able to have access to your accounts. And that's just to protect you guys. It's all about protecting you all from police officers here. Everything that we do, even what we desire for customer service, is so to protect you, your credit card, access, and all that. Stan Campbell: So if you guys have any account issues, please send it to david@ccwsafe.com, or support@ccwsafe.com. That way, you don't waste any time, you don't get frustrated because the non-emergency agents you can't have access or can't access your account. So you don't want to put that information out there. Stan Campbell: The other thing that I want you guys to understand is that this is a very unique business and it's a very unique service. And when people call us to get answers, it's not usually a quick one-minute phone call. We spend a lot of time with our members on the phone. I wish we could do it a little bit faster but those who call can really, and please send emails supporting my statement right now for those who have enjoyed the time and effort that we have spent with you 30 minutes to an hour, to really give you an understanding of this service, your protection, because a lot of this stuff is built in legal leads. Stan Campbell: Although our agreement is pretty cut and dry, there's still some legal leads in there; it has to be because of contractual agreements. But people usually you don't understand a lot of this stuff without lawyers. So when they called David, or when I see there's an overflow and I jump on the phone, because I oversee all of it as well: If I see there's a pending call, I'll jump on it as well and take some calls. But when we spend that time with you, please understand if we don't get back with you, we have to put it in a priority and we're getting back to you as fast as we can. So, make sure that you guys just really be patient with us. Kudos to David for spending that amount of time and giving these people a real understanding of their coverage. Stan Campbell: But before we start with David, I wanna talk about a call that I just received, because Dave is going to go over today. Not the Top 10, nor the most significant, the calls that we get most often, the frequently asked questions that come across his computer most. But before he starts, I'm gonna jump ahead of him and talk about one that I received today. Stan Campbell: One of our members who has been with us for a long time, I'll just call him Jim S., it becomes [inaudible 00:10:07] listen to this, but Jim called me and he and I, we've been ... I've been trying to give him understanding and we finally kind of got through to him today 'cause I got on the phone. Sometimes it's best to get off the computer and get on the phone. Stan Campbell: I talked to Jim about his services that he's providing for his church with a volunteer security. Please understand that we absolutely support what you guys are doing when you, as concealed carriers, are getting together, teaming up with your churches, and trying to give them some extra support beyond who they hire for security, their armed security outside or if they don't have it. Putting teams together, training together, and doing all those things. That is a noble thing that you do will be a church and it's absolutely needed. Stan Campbell: Well, Jim and I discussed today because he has one of our older plans and he's moving toward the ultimate plan, which has a special coverage for volunteers security, for churches only. So, he and his wife are moving to the ultimate plan to have that coverage because I sent him some other alternatives. Because, for us, CCW Safe, what we try to do is really cover you and give you advice and recommendations that even protect you from yourself. Stan Campbell: What I mean by that is, I already stated, and you all will agree with me, it's a great thing to defend the church, and those that go there, but please understand, if you get into a use of force, you will absolutely be a hero that first day, second day, that first week. But if you overshoot and you make a mistake while all the members of the church are running around, and you accidentally shoot an innocent person, although they will thank you initially for defending their life, please understand they will be contacted by a lawyer and they will sue you and the church for damages. It's just going to happen. It's human nature, it's the process. It's unfair, but it's just what's gonna happen. Stan Campbell: And that's the reason why Mike and myself and Kyle, the partners, decided to protect you guys a little bit with the ultimate plan because it's a dedicated million dollar civil liability coverage that will cover you for that type of incident when you're in a legitimate shooting, and you're trying to protect others or yourself and you shoot an innocent bystander. It's needed. Stan Campbell: So, I went over those things with him. I made it known. He told me that he even got permission from his pastor, who created this volunteer group. But I told him. I said, "Please protect yourself and get that in writing, because at the end of the day, when the smoke clears and they start trying to sue the church, it's gonna be every man for himself regardless of how long you guys have known each other. I mean, it's every man for himself. So, we're trying to get you guys to protect yourselves. If you are in church security, please protect yourself no matter what you think and upgrade to the ultimate plan so that you can cover yourself, because at the end of the day, that's what it's all about and that's what we care about. Stan Campbell: On that same note, I'll give this one more little tidbit before we add David in. Sorry for taking up all this time, but it is very important. The reason why it's important to go beyond your homeowner's insurance and any other insurance entity, we hire civil attorneys for you, not for CCW Safe, to protect you and your actions with that as the agenda. Other entities, homeowner's insurance, they're gonna hire lawyers associated with that insurance company to protect that company first, and you second. That makes a big difference, and that's why we open this thing up for you. Stan Campbell: Guys, please research. Research your own ... I'm not gonna tell you that. Research your homeowner's policies, make sure that they say that they cover, and it has to in its verbiage, "We cover intentional acts because, although you didn't force a shooting, it is an intentional act." If it does not say that in your policy, you are not covered no matter what your broker may try to slide to you in between the smiles and laughing. Please protect yourself, and that's what I had to say on that. Mike I'll let you jump in. Mike: No, that's great points. And we do have a lot of that. So, what do we want to do? Let's get right into it. Just for time, do you have some questions that we were gonna go over today or did you- Stan Campbell: Well, what we did was we had David pick up some of his top questions and, as he's going forward, I'll add some more, ask some more- Mike: Yeah, we can jump in. Stan Campbell: Yeah, we'll jump in. Mike: Okay. What we figured was that we would kinda get a list of our top questions, because we do get these spurts of questions too, that we get one question that starts coming in and then we get a bunch of those questions coming in. I don't know where ... Mike: (silence) Mike: ... have some that are more common than others. So we figured we'd kind of go through that, and somebody maybe who listens to our podcast, who's not a member, might be able to get some insight. Or if you're a member, you might not have full understanding of everything that we do. So, let's just jump right in. Stan Campbell: Okay. Who'll be your first? David Darter: Okay. Let me start just real quick by kind of talking and following up on what you said, Stan. We try to do the best job we can. We take great pride in our customer service. We are in the midst of an upgrade to make the check out much easier right now. Stan Campbell: That's right. David Darter: And then within the next probably four to six months, we are going to be updating some of our phone systems and things like that. So, we constantly try to make it better and easier for new members to get ahold of us and we wanna answer your phone just as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, you can't have an infinite number of specialists. Stan Campbell: That's right. David Darter: So, sometimes it might take us a little bit, but we try to get used as quickly as we can, and we are doing a lot of updating that's going to make your whole experience I think much easier. So, I just wanted to throw that out there. So I think- Mike: And, on that too, there are other ways that people can can find out answers to their questions. We have a new chat that we kind of rolled out maybe six months ago. Some of that is automated; kind of takes you through. So if you ask a certain question, email support at ccwsafe.com is a good one. Sometimes, if you have a pretty simple question, if you email it, you might get an e-mail back before you would if you were to try to call in. So, we have different ways that people can get ahold of us. Stan Campbell: Absolutely. Mike: The chat, I think, has been a really get additional niche right on the website. If you go to ccwsafe.com, you'll see it pop up there. Stan Campbell: Yes. Just to piggyback what Mike's saying, hey guys, this works Central time because that's where our hub is located. We also have the West Coast times, but the West Coast Times but West Coast [inaudible 00:18:27]. So, if you do have issues that you need dealt with pretty quickly, you don't try to contact David between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in Central Time. Stan Campbell: Once again, we're trying to get ahead of any frustrations you might have or delays. David also does not work on the weekends. So, be mindful of that. If you say, "Hey, I contacted David on Friday at 10:00 p.m., you're not gonna get a response from him until Monday morning. So, please be mindful of that as well. Stan Campbell: Also, Mike did mention some of the other ways that you can gather information. A lot of people don't know that you can go to the website and you can find our frequently asked questions. Locate the frequently asked questions. I mean, there's two pages of them. So, you can get ahead of it and really study what your policy is about. Look at our terms of service. Look at the terms of service and copy that now. I mean, it too is on the website. Make sure that you go to the terms of service and have an understanding of what you actually have as coverage. Stan Campbell: But those means there, and to go along with Michael, you did mentioned the Chat function as well. We have a live chat, but a lot of the questions that you guys have can be answered on the FAQs, either in the Chat function or automated function, also has FAQs that we've seen with the live agents there. You can go there, look at the frequently asked questions on chats, look at their frequently asked questions on the website, and you actually have your answers when you put it together before having to call us. If you don't have an understanding then .... Stan Campbell: And we actually designed the chat function. It is automated initially so that it can answer simple questions. But if you ask a question a second time, please understand that the automated function is gonna state, "I'm gonna send you to a live representative." Okay? Then it sends us a message and we pick up on it. All of that's by design, like real simple stuff that it won't take us a long time to deal with. We can deal with the medium level request, and also semi-emergencies and emergencies. Stan Campbell: We're doing all this to try to keep the machine moving because at the end of the day, it's all about the emergency calls and everything else, it's not really an emergency, we can help you through. It's a non-emergency or an elevated non-emergency where you have a credit card issues, please, by all means, call David to get it taken care of. Stan Campbell: I wanted to kinda jump in and let you guys know about that so that you know those are the working hours. Don't frustrate yourself. I'll also give you a little head's up. Thursdays is the day, for some reason, that we don't have a lot of calls and e-mails. So, if you have something that can wait to Thursday, call at us Thursday. But if you try to hit us on a Monday, we're catching up on weekend stuff, non-emergencies and David is swamped on Mondays. You're probably not gonna catch him as fast on a Monday as you would on a Tuesday, and then Wednesday and Thursday. And please be mindful of that. Stan Campbell: We're trying to really assist tens of thousands of people, and just to be honest, we're still talking about hundreds a day. Let's be honest. 50 to 100 contacts a day is what we're dealing with, and these people all expect 30 minutes to an hour and it's only an eight-hour day. So, if you guys do the math, I hope you understand that. You have to just be mindful of that. Stan Campbell: Anyway, sorry. I get to talk too much, but go ahead Michael. God bless. David Darter: So, I think one of the first things that is probably one of our most frequently asked questions now, and is probably due to the political climate, the things that have been happening in some of the states. Do we cover New York? Do we cover Washington? Both of those states now have passed legislation where some of the other companies can't service members in those states. We still do. And Stan, I don't know if you wanna kind of explain the [inaudible 00:22:49] of the business. Stan Campbell: Absolutely, I will. Stan Campbell: Hey, guys. Those who are already members, kudos to you because you chose the right company. Those who are not, research, make an independent decision, and be Michael especially if you're in some of these questionable anti-gun states. Stan Campbell: David brought up New York and Washington state. We know the issues with New York. About a year ago, their governor all out, assault on, one of our competitors and also anybody associated with the Second Amendment. The reason why I say kudos to those who are members and part of our family already is the fact that we saw this coming years ago. And in 2016, 'cause we talked about it in 2015, we saw the writing on the wall. That's the importance of having people that know what they're doing and experienced in the criminal justice system, and handing handling a serious civil litigation across the nation. That's what you have in CCW Safe, and we are also leaders in the industry and forward thinkers. So we tried to get ahead of the anti-gun campaigns, and one was New York. Stan Campbell: So we saw the fact that we should not follow everyone else and attach ourselves to a traditional insurance and broker for insurance coverage backed by a foreign entity in Europe. We knew not to do that because we knew that it left you open as vulnerable to that traditional insurance industry that is regulated, while our competitors, all of our main competitors did that. They went for about a year or so, doing a really, really good job and taking their members. Stan Campbell: What I mean my good job is taking in a lot of members, but then once they got attacked, the anti-gunners, they were smart enough to attack the brokers, not the actual company. So they attacked the brokers and stated technically, 'cause this is what it comes down to, technically they are engaged in selling their illegal insurance products by teaming up with this competitor of ours. And by doing that, because they're allowing them to sell products and they're outside of the traditional regulation, it makes it illegal in that state. That's why the government sued our competitor and they exited out of New York. There's another competitor that is still not selling any additional ones but allowing its members to stay on board until their memberships expire, and then they give them a letter to say, "Now you're no longer covered in the insurance, which is a different conversation. Stan Campbell: One thing that I'm gonna fall back on again is the way that we designed our model. Our model was designed so that CCW Safe is insured through our insurance company that we own, backed by reinsurance as well. So, we have a two-layered protection for CCW Safe to help us to deal with these catastrophic events and these critical incidents in support of our benefits for our packages. Stan Campbell: So CCW Safe is the insured, we are not an insurance company. Let me say that one more time. We are not an insurance company, and we do not sell insurance policies. Our competitors do that. We are a legal service subscription plan, and we facilitate finance and coordinate all the efforts and resources associated with defending your actions in the use of force that is critical. Therefore, we are allowed to stand strong in those states because we're not doing what these other companies are doing. We are not presenting ourselves as an insurance company, nor an associate with traditional insurance product. Therefore, we are the only one standing strong in Washington State and New York. There are no other products there, just us. Stan Campbell: And there are other there other states that are doing the same thing, like California and New Jersey. So please, if you live there, pay attention to what's going on there in your legislation because they're trying to put a stop to you guys being covered as well. And then once that happens again we're going to be the only one standing strong and only ones that's going to be able they truly state that we cover everyone in 50 states. No one else in the industry is gonna be able to state that, unless they follow suit and design themselves like CCW Safe, and it takes about a year to do that. So, in that time, in the next year, we're gonna be the only organization standing strong in certain states because of the way that we're designed. Stan Campbell: You got anything to add on that, Mike? I know I said a lot. Mike: No, no. That's good. Good point. Stan Campbell: Thank you. I did my job, thank you. Mike: You did your job, and you did it well. David Darter: You did. You did it. Stan Campbell: [inaudible 00:28:28] David Darter: No, I just wanted to bring it up. That has been a very popular question. David Darter: So, one of the other questions that we get a lot of is, what is the difference between civil defense versus civil liability? So, all of our basic packages cover unlimited civil and criminal defense stemming from a self-defense incident. That covers attorneys expert witnesses, private investigators, any fees that come along; deposition fees, filing fees, trial cost, court costs, mistrials or retrials appeals, anything that has to do with your actual defense is covered unlimited on what we pay. David Darter: Now, the civil liability is a little different animal, in that your civil defense is covered while the trial is going on. After a trial, if there was a civil monetary judgment brought against you, then that's what the civil liability covers, up to $1 million dollar civil liability. And that's after a civil trial. That comes after a civil trial, and so that's what the difference is to those two. While one covers defense costs, the other one covers after a trial for any liabilities that would be brought against you. Mike: Yeah. One good point I want to bring up is, it's a dedicated one. If you have a civil liability coverage, meaning that after the trial is over and the judge says, "Okay, you're found in judgment of $1 million, if you have the civil liability protection, then that is a dedicated $1 million. So it's not a wasting policy where, if the cost of the trial was $400,000, then you have $600,000 left over. That's a wasting policy. So that's taken out of that million. Ours is the dedicated millions. So if you have $400,000 trial costs, then you still have $1 million dedicated on that civil liability policy because it's a add-on separate policy or a separate membership. So, that's just one point I wanted to make. Stan Campbell: Absolutely. Just piggybacking both of your thoughts, I want to caution everyone who hasn't made a decision to get coverage thus far. I wanna caution you to truly be careful about how some of these companies market their product. And really, at the end of the day, anybody that's watched a used car dealerships commercial or you've been up at night and, you've got, while you are punch, drunk and tired, you end up buying something from a commercial when you know you went to purchase that thing in the morning. Be cautious of the tricks that are associated even in our industry. Because some of these companies, I mean, wow, they are masterful in their marketing attempts. Stan Campbell: Some these companies spend more money on marketing than they do on their members. No, we don't. But there's a reason for that. We keep all of our resources for you guys when you need it, and of our stuff is word of mouth as well, but I want you to be careful because they use a lot of scare tactics, videos, to scare you into submission, and buying their product so that you think that the civil liability is your first fight, and it is not. Stan Campbell: I mean, if you can do any research, because part of my job is to research the industry, and in doing so, I challenge anyone listening to my voice at this time, to locate three, more than three, incidents across the nation, in the past 20 years, in which a concealed carrier has used legitimate self-defense, and has won a criminal trial, but the system allow a civil proceeding to continue and a civil suit to go through, and in that they actually lose a civil suit because, Number I, you're not gonna find too many where someone that is not or that's acquitted of the criminal charges, are not protected by the state for the civil proceedings. But you're not going to find any, unless you find it in Philadelphia. I think I found one in Philadelphia. Philadelphia is the only place that you might find one or two, where someone has won a criminal case and they lost the civil ... The civil was allowed and they lost it, and they had damages. Stan Campbell: So, I'm saying all that to say, you being sued for your use of force, if you just hit the suspect ... If you just hit the suspect, it's so small of a chance. We only deal with, to be honest with our listeners, 0.1% of our members, there are tens of thousand of them, 0.1% get involved in the deadly use of force incident. 0.1%. Less than that, 0.1% of that, will be those involved in a civil proceeding. In the seven years that we've been doing business, and we serviced a lot of members in shooting cases, We've only had one that went to the beginnings of a civil proceeding before we were able to resource it out and to negotiate it out. We have not had anyone, and we have not had to pay out, on a civil lawsuit. Stan Campbell: And we and we do the most work out of everyone. We're the only ones with a documented use of force by one of our members that went from an allegation of murder and completed an entire murder trial with the Stephen Maddox case. We're actually sitting on two other deadly force cases that we cannot mention for confidentiality reasons. But I need you guys to know that. And challenge these companies. When they tell you, "Hey, we've got a gun for you." Or, "Hey, we've got this and that," or, "We'll give you extra two months on your service if you join us now," challenge them and say, "How much work have you done? Show me. How many members have you paid out on civil cases?" They're not gonna be able to produce anything because it just doesn't happen that often. Stan Campbell: So, you guys, be careful about that because it's really tricky in the way they bring you in. Just like Mike talked about the wasting policy. Nobody really knows what that is. They think with somebody tells them that you have $2 million of coverage, you go, "Well, my God, that's twice the amount of everybody else's coverage." Well, really it's not. They're saying, out of all of the things that you can do, all of the little elements that you can use them for and you can be resourced for, that it amounts to that. The problem is, it wastes and it takes away for every dollar that you use, and it starts off with $100,000 for a retainer if you take someone's life. That's where they turn you. Stan Campbell: You can do your own independent research on this, guys. Look at the industry, check with your local criminal defense attorneys, ask anyone that has tried cases for murder, how much do they require for a retainer. And the retainer just readily, it started working. That's not all that it cost. So, I want you guys just to be mindful of that because it's scary. Stan Campbell: This is why we're so upfront with you guys and we're so truthful. Number I, we all come from a background of servicing citizens, but we like to lead with honesty, integrity, and good character, and it stands by and it supports our core values as well. So, we give you information in support of our core values. Mike: Yes. Next up, David. David Darter: Okay. So, I think next we came out with some new plans here. It was late 2017, fourth quarter of 2017, and anybody that had plans, who'd had been a member with us longer than that, you were grandfathered in with what you had. And so, basically, pretty much what happened was they just renamed the plans and made a few changes like bond amount. David Gardner: So, if you had the military law enforcement plan, which was what it was called up until 2017, and you go to the site now, what you're gonna wanna look at is the protector plan. 'Cause the difference, one of the main differences between what you have and that protector plan is the amount of the bond. Unless you've upgraded to the $1 million bond on the old plans, you're covered for $250,000 bond and the new plans cover up to $500,000 bond on the basic plans. Mike: And David, before we go any ... Or I'm gonna let you wrap this up, then I'll talk about the bond. David Darter: Okay, all right. So, if you had the military law enforcement, you would basically wanna look at the protector plan, which is the renamed plan with some changes. If you had the annual single membership, you can look at the defender plan. And if you had the dual membership, it would be either one of the protector or defender with spouse. So, we get that a lot. You are grandfathered into those. You could keep those as long as you want. A lot of members do, but you do not have to update, upgrade, or switch to one of the new plans. Stan Campbell: Yeah, and then just to cut and jump in real quick David, hey guys, remember you're allowed the grandfather in as long as your automated payment does not stop. If you're automated payment because there's a guy that they'd have to e-mail you. But there's a guy that allowed his payment to lapse back in 2018, and back then he was on the 129 payment plan, which is our old basic. He wants to get the 129 plan again, and it's just we can't do that. I mean, if you allow your payment to continue on, then you can be grandfathered in. Stan Campbell: If it does cease and you stop it, and you try to come back later, we can't give you that. We're not selling that any longer. I mean, it doesn't even compute. We can only allow it to continue. Our computer doesn't allow us to go back to that price because it's not attached any longer. You cannot get the old plans. We know what the pricing in the old plans if you did not have it and it's not a continuous cycle. That's the point of being grandfathered in. Just to let you guys know, that that came from Mike Darter. Stan Campbell: Mike Darter wanted to take care of those who wanted to hold their pricing, but at the same time, when he explains the reason for us changing the standard, which he will do in a minute, there's a reason why we did what we did and moved away from those plans. We're trying to give you guys more protection. If you don't mind, I might just jump in real quick and handle that, and we will let David finish. Mike: Yeah. So there's two things that went into this decision. One was the Maddox trial, and one was the fact that his bail was set at $500,000 just based on the fact that there was a man that was killed and he was the shooter. Didn't really take anything into effect about the case, about that it was a self-defense case. I mean, that was just based on the fact that, "Your honor, we have one dead, we have one deceased, and this man shot him." Boom! $500,000. Mike: Again, there's another- Stan Campbell: Hey Mike, also I think that was because he lived in another county. So he lived outside that county as well, is reason why. They made that soft justification 'cause it is really weak what they used that one. Mike: All right. Yeah, it was weak. There's another article that came out on priceonomics.com, and I'll try to put this in a show notes but it was on America's peculiar bail system. It came out kind of talking about the Freddie Gray in Baltimore, and some of the other cases. And it was really a kind of a more liberal piece talking about, why is bail for murder cases so much higher than the other cases? Mike: In the bail system, you have bail starting at $1,000 or so going up to, I think it was around $55,000 for most cases, felony cases, and then, I think it went up to $250,000 for rape and sexual cases, and then murder cases, manslaughter cases, jumped to $500,000 to a million. It was basically saying that the bail system is unfair, but it's just another key piece that made us realize that if we have, in the case of Steven Maddox, he had coverage for up to a million dollars bail. If he would have got that bail set at $500,000 and would have had the standard $250,000, we might not have been able to get him out of jail. Stan Campbell: Yeah. And the reason why Mike says that is because, we would pay 10% or up to 10%, which would be 25,000, and Stephen would have had to pay 25,000, which he did not have. Mike: One of the whole things that we have to worry about, that we have to kinda moderate with our members is, keeping them in the best physical, mental, and emotional shape to prepare them for that trial. We can only do so much. If somebody is in jail and cannot get out of jail, and some people think, "Well, if I could get a bond out." Well, you might bond out. The judge may say he's not issuing any bail. And in the case of Stephen Maddox, it was 30 days later. He's gonna miss Thanksgiving with his family. Mike: We were able to get that within, I think, eight days or seven days, something. But, we have to make sure that our members stay healthy emotionally, mentally, physically to prepare them for this time. Stephen went to a two-year trial process before he even went to trial. You can see from some of the videos of Stephen, there are many days that he woke up and he didn't really want to even stick around. As far as, he just wanted to just give up. He would call our critical response coordinator, which was John Risenhoover at that time, which did a phenomenal job on that. Stan Campbell: He did. Mike: He had dietary guidelines and workout regimens for Steven. So that's why we said, "If there's a case of a self-defense case that is gonna be a murder 1 charge, a murder 2 , manslaughter, it's going to be most likely $500,000 or more. Stan Campbell: Sure. Mike: And if we can better cover our members, that's why we took our bail up to $500,000 'cause we didn't wanna have to have one of our members get stuck in a situation where, based on our terms of service, that we couldn't help them and get them out. That's another reason why, if you look at our website, our whole site ... We do three posts a week. Last week, we didn't do a podcast. We kinda took a week off because we've been re-strategizing some things. This week we're back on and every Wednesday we're gonna have a podcast, or try to I can't say that we will for sure have one, but we're gonna try to do this weekly. Mike: We've been doing weekly for the last three, four months. We also have posts every Friday from Shawn Vincent and Don Weston, in self-defense, which looks at high profile cases and what they did right, what they did wrong. We also have posts by either us, or Steve Moses, or Bob O'Connor on Mondays, and all those, if you look at our site, all those are trying to help people to avoid these situations. So, if we can help our members avoid these situations and give them examples of what should be done, and we're doing the best we can to help them mitigate the risk, that they're not gonna be in a situation that is not gonna be defendable as self-defense. So that's the whole reason why we took that. Mike: I'll put that link in the show notes, it's priceonomics.com. If you search America's peculiar bail system, you'll probably get it in a search and you can look at it. It has all the kinda statistics on that. Based on that and the fact that we had our own experience with Steven Maddox is why we took that up. Stan Campbell: That's right. I couldn't say anything better than that, Mike. That was awesome. What Mike is saying ... Like I said, we invite you guys to grandfather your plans, but our new standard, and we're trying to make this to the industry's. The standard is a $500,000 bail coverage. I think there's only one other company that has matched that standard, but that's where actually they tap out. We tap out at a million dollar bank coverage. Stan Campbell: But the reason why we do that, like Mike said, we really need you guys out of jail. It doesn't help us at all for you to stay in jail. If Steven Maddox would have, and I know you didn't hear the numbers from Michael, right? If he couldn't get out of jail, please understand that's two years in jail waiting for trial. That's not where you wanna be. And for $50 or more, and that's the reason why we made the increase to 170 now, for the defender plan, you get the $500,000 coverage. Stan Campbell: So, even all of you who are coming up on your renewal date, please do, do so thinking about how should I be covered? Or do I have? Or really, you don't have to upgrade because it's really not about the money for us. We're just trying to help you. Put $25,000 aside in a savings account so that you can match our $25,000 so we can get you out of jail. And if you don't have that, like most Americans, please allow us to take the financial burden off of you. That's it. David Darter: All right. Let's move on to the next one. On the dual plans, we have quite a few people. Lot of members getting the ultimate plan now where it automatically covers a spouse. And the question that always comes up is, where do I put my wife's name and why is she not showing up on the account? David Darter: Most likely, she's there. If you go to your ... If you log into your account, or if you're in your account, and you go to My Memberships, you'll the primary membership card, and then right next to it, you'll be able to sign a second card. Now, that second card is therefore your spouse only. That's not for a friend that lives in another town or anything like that, that's for your spouse. David Darter: So, if you go to that, you'll be able to enter your spouse information and then she will be listed right there next to you. And you can look at her membership card if you like, by, I think there's a view button, or you can click on her account number that's there. But that's where you'll enter your spouse's name, and that's what that second card is for. It is for a spouse for one of the dual memberships. We have a lot of people that think that that's, "Hey can I put somebody else in there? Can I put my neighbor in there?" Whatever. That's not the case for that. It is for spouse only. You can do that under the My Membership selection under My Account on the top menu bar. Stan Campbell: That's right. David Gardner: Just like- Mike: Ultimate plan has a lot of ... If you haven't looked at that, it has a civil liability. I mean, it's our top-tier plan. It has everything available. So, if you do have a spouse, whether they just wanna be covered in the home or if they do have a permit, that would be a great plan to look at. Stan Campbell: That's right. And then also, that plan still does cover you guys for your spouse if you wanna cover her for provisional terms. She'll be covered on the provisional terms as well, but she will not be covered for civil liability. Only the primary is. Because we get that question as well. Unless you add civil liability, that's an additional $220 a year, you make the decision whether or not it's worth it. Weigh out the options of your wife. If she carries, she doesn't have as much as you do in public while you guys are together, weigh out the options whether or not you wanna pay that. We don't push that upon you. We leave it up to the member whether or not they wanna just be primary covered or not. Stan Campbell: But please understand, she is not covered, or he ... Your spouse is not covered unless you have that additional civil liability coverage. And David Darter explained that yes they do get civil defense. And although David said unlimited, sort of you guys are gonna use our words against us, what that really means is that, your defense funds are not capped for everything needed to prepare you for, or to get through trial. Because something might say there is no such thing as unlimited. There is a limit. When the trial's over, then that's over. Stan Campbell: We don't have a cut-step plan. That's one of the reasons why our defender plan, we can match against ... And that's our standard plan. Our defender plan, we can match against most companies' higher plans because we created the ultimate plan through the brilliance of Mike Darter to be the best in the nation [inaudible 00:53:59], and the most amount of benefits for the most reasonable amount of cost. So, for 4.99, you get all of that, that we give you, and it covers a lot. Stan Campbell: And people that don't understand, even those companies that they say, "You have over $2 million of coverage," but look at the coverage you have for your defense. Because if you'd only have $500,000 of coverage or less, to $250,000 of coverage, say this is worse, for your defense, when that money runs out, where do you think it's coming from? They're not gonna just say, "Hey you, I owe you. It comes from the member." So, when they say, "This is all you need," or, "You only need 20% because we're a reimbursement plan," please don't fall for that. Use your good judgment, please understand what happens in these cases, and how much money you would need. If you run out of money, if your plan runs out of money with these other companies, you're gonna pay. That's it. Stan Campbell: Now David. David Darter: Okay. All right. Next one I just wanted to touch on was credit cards. With credit cards, we have a lot of people that will have a change of address. And they change their address in their mailing address, in their profile, but because billing addresses can be different than mailing addresses, if you change your address in your profile, you'll also need to go into your billing information, which is under My Subscriptions. You can go in there. There's a Change Payment Method, you can go in and change that, and make sure you get that changed there as well. Because if you change your profile address, it does not automatically change your billing address. Stan Campbell: That's correct. David Darter: Absolutely. Stan Campbell: Yeah. The reason why they've told you guys that is because your plan is gonna fail. It is gonna fall. You went in and changed your profile, but you didn't go in and change what you need. And he's giving you that information now that let's you know, go in there and edit your credit card. Don't get mad at us because you get a failure and it has a mismatch. It's just part of the system. You need to upgrade it, just like you would at your bank. All of these need to be upgraded. And it's the same thing for us, you gotta update that information so that it doesn't fail. David Darter: And the failure is the security. Stan Campbell: Yeah, is is. David Darter: It's therefore your security. So yeah, that's just something that we don't wanna change a lot for people because they don't realize that but they can do that right there on their own account. So, I think the last thing I wanted to just touch on was our membership cards. At the end of 2017, I did a digital membership card, which is a membership card that you can download to a phone, iPhone or Android, and have it with you always on your phone. It just gives you another place to have our emergency information. David Darter: The wallet card is is not automatically sent out any longer. However, if you have to have a wallet card, then you can always request that by just sending me an email at david@ccwsafe.com, and we will send you one. But it's not an automatic thing. The digital card is a card of choice, currently. Stan Campbell: That's correct. And then, in saying that too, David, guys please remember, 'cause I know that there's some folks that either don't have a ... There's a small number of you don't have a smartphone, or you're just old school, because this is what I say all time, "I'm old school. I need something in my pocket." Even if you request one from Dave and he sends it out to you, I just wanna caution you guys again. Although we used to back when we first started ... We used to say, "Show them your CCW Safe membership card and say that you're having a lawyer on the way, we no longer do that. I mean, we put that word out a couple of years ago, that we don't want to sway a decision of a responding officer, investigator, or anyone, that you planned for this to happen. So, we don't wanna give that to them. All we need you to do is say that, "Hey, I will give you the details of this incident in the presence of my attorney, and I've already called my attorney." Stan Campbell: So, to just add another quick one before Michael closes this down, but that's also why we want you guys, don't stay on the phone with 911. Do it long enough to give them your description, that you've been attacked and you had to defend your life. You need medical and police. Get off the phone and call us. Because we do that, we tell you that for a reason. We don't want you to have to say, "Here's my card." You don't have to try to make a phone call in a police car, in front of a police car, because of the videotapes, the car cams, and anything you say in the police department as well, you don't have any expectation of privacy initially. When you make a phone call there, everything's recorded. And they wanna take you to a recorded interview room for your statement. Stan Campbell: So, please know that if you want your phone call with the lawyers to be privilege, do it prior to the officers getting there, from a safe place. Make sure that you're not in high shot of the suspect, get behind cover, and make the call. Even if there's a car or something like that. Stan Campbell: I had to add that. Sorry Mike. Mike: No, you're good. You're good. It is going on rather than an hour, so we're gonna have to turn off. Shut it down. Mike: Do we have any other questions that we wanna address today? David Gardner: I don't have any. We are constantly trying to keep questions updated on our FAQ page. So, it's always good to go look there first. I think most of our main questions that we get asked over and over are on that Frequently Asked Questions page. Stan Campbell: Hey, Mike. Can I ask? I have one more and I'll get off of it. Mike: Yeah. Stan Campbell: Just because it comes up so much. This is for those guys who really concentrate on the forums and the information they're getting about zones that say no guns. I'm gonna talk about this real quick before I have to bring it back later, 'cause I'm gonna David back. Although Dave is saying he doesn't have anything, we doesn't have time for you, he went to come back and assess for Part II. But no gun zones, if it is a felony or a misdemeanor in itself to possess a firearm at a location like a federal building et cetera, you're not covered. You're outside the scope of coverage because it's illegal to do so. You know that. Stan Campbell: If you are in a state in which it is not a misdemeanor crime to walk on to private property of someone else's, and it only becomes a crime after they tell you to leave and you refuse to do so, the crime of trespassing, if you accept that charge of trespassing you refuse to leave, you're outside of the scope of your coverage. If you agree to leave, or if they don't know that you have it and you accidentally ... Stop trying to challenge these, don't use us to challenge people. If you accidentally walk on to property and you didn't see their sign, and something happens you defend others and then they come back with a charge, and they didn't tell you to leave, we will cover you. Stan Campbell: If you will on your way out after they tell you to leave, and Al-Qaeda or ISIS comes in the front door and you handle the threat, we will cover you. So, I just want you guys to know, this is not a game for us. This is really not a Second Amendment issue. This is about using deadly force, which is not a Second Amendment issue. We're trying to protect you from yourself as well. So, please, stop trying to challenge these things and know how you're covered. Stan Campbell: Go Michael. Mike: Well, I'm just gonna say, a lot of the examples we get from people, the only answer is, "Well, that would be a challenge case and that's not what we're here for." Like Stan said, that's why we put all these case studies and stuff online, so you can see what other people have done, and what life sentences other people have gotten for what they've done, and it's just not worth it. Mike: (silence) Mike: (music)  

In this episode, Stan and Mike talk with Justin Collett, newest member to the CCW Safe Team.   Justin will be the new content manager for CCW Safe.  Justin has already been working with us on a contract basis for several years, but now will join us full time to produce and manage even more online video content.   Justin is responsible for most of the Stephen Maddox content, and really got to know who we are and what we do, as he saw first hand, behind the scenes during the filming of that content.   Here is a video sample of a cool video he did recently for DMR, LLC. https://youtu.be/R94nQz0uL_E The three talk about his background, the Maddox case, and various other topics in preparation for SHOT 2019.

In this special edition of "In Self Defense", Don West and Shawn Vincent follow up on the Stephen Maddox case.  In this episode, the two hosts interview Stephen Maddox, CCW Safe member and Mike Darter, Co-Founder and CEO of CCW Safe.   This is the first case in the industry that involved a full trial of a self defense case being charged with first degree murder.  CCW Safe defended Stephen in that trial, and ended up paying over $350k in the case.  Stephen was found not guilty after a deliberation that lasted just over one hour.   In this podcast, they talk with Stephen and give an indepth interview of the incident through the veridct of not guilty.  

Andy Kaufman intrigue w/ Stephen Maddox, celebrity guests, cosmic riffs, Jenny's story about the Surf Rodeo Incident, a message from Undies Funded Podcast, Tommy Frost A1 Superspy Theme Song, and much more! --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Irvin Maddox grew up in rural Perry, Utah practically living in his grandfather's successful restaurant, Maddox Ranch House. For 61 years, Maddox has been a staple in the Brigham City and greater Northern Utah world—a busy, always-bustling, from-scratch, meat-and-potatoes country restaurant.About 15 years ago, Irvin took the reigns from his father Stephen Maddox to run the family business and bring the Maddox restaurant into its third generation.Their single kitchen, open Tuesday through Saturday, serves over 13 THOUSAND people every single week and employs 230 people. This one kitchen supports Maddox's thriving sit-down restaurant that has been open since 1949, a drive-in that sits just 300 feet away, a pick-up window for locals to grab meals to prepare and eat at home, and an events lodge for weddings and corporate events.To put it simply, Maddox is more than a restaurant. It's a family heirloom, a Perry staple, and a classic Utah success story.Join us today on an episode of The Utah Foodie that takes us through all this and more with Maddox Ranch House owner Irvin Maddox and our host Chase Murdock.—This episode of The Utah Foodie was hosted and produced by Chase Murdock. Visit our episode archive on Ventricle Presents, and stay connected with us on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. Copyright © Ventricle Media, LLC • ventriclemedia.com