Welcome to brain Stuff from How Stuff Works, Pay Brain Stuff Lauren Vogel bamb here. Part of the gun control debate in America centers on whether citizens should have the right to use deadly force in self defense. Gun control advocates say tighter gun restrictions would mean fewer deadly instants, but gun rights advocates say tighter restrictions would lead to more deaths because good Samaritans wouldn't be able to use
their own guns to stop attackers. It's an intense debate, but today we're talking about the potential legal questions for such hypothetical good Samaritan defendants. What's a good legal strategy for showing that deadly force was necessary? And would that defendant have to pay for a pile of legal bills or face a possible stint in jail or worse. To
help answer those questions, there's now self defense insurance. Groups like the National Rifle Association, the US Concealed Care Association, the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, and US law Shield all offer insurance policies that protect gun owners who discharge
their weapons in self defense. The n r A unveiled its new insurance product, carry Guard, at its annual convention in April of It offers four different levels of coverage, including up to one point five million dollars for civil protection and two hundred and fifty thousand dollars for criminal defense costs. In some of these plans, the policies cover the costs to a point of attorney's fees, bail bondsman and even psychological help for just a few dollars a month.
The n r a's Carry Guard covers twenty percent of legal costs upfront if a policy holder is charged, and the outstanding eight percent is reimbursed up to the coverage limit, but only if the defendant is acquitted or the charges are dismissed. If they're found guilty, they're not eligible for anything more than the original We spoke with Andrew Bronca,
an attorney who specializes in self defense law. He said, generally speaking, when your conduct falls within the bounds of self defense, when you abide by the rules as the law sets them out, you have zero legal liability for that use of force, either criminal or civil libity. Key here, there are strict laws when it comes to self defense that gun owners must adhere to, and more on that
in a minute. When someone chooses to discharge a weapon, they may still have to hire lawyers and explain in a court of law why they did so, and that can get expensive, even if the judge of jury decides that they did everything by the book. Of course, the existence of self defense insurance is now part of the gun controlled debate. Dr Mary Anne Frank's, a professor of law at the University of Miami School of Law, is
against this type of insurance for many reasons. She wrote via email, the vast majority of self defense situations are best handled with situational awareness and non lethal force. This kind of insurance not only normalizes the use of deadly force,
but promotes it. Peter Katchenberger, an insurance expert at the University of Connecticut School of Law, told CBS News he thinks these types of self defense policies could be beneficial if they forced the gun control industry to study ways to make gun ownership and storage safer, or if providers like the n r A give dis counts on their
policies to gun owners for taking training and safety courses. Currently, the n r A does not require policy holders to take any courses before they can sign up for the carry guard policy. It's hard to come by actual statistics,
but people evidently are buying these policies. The U s c c A says that more than twenty five thousand people have signed up for THEIRS, though we couldn't find hard numbers on how many claims have been filed with any of the companies that offer these policies, and despite reaching out to the n r A and U s c c A, neither replied to ourn multiple requests for comments. So what are these rules of self defense? What's legal
and what isn't. The law in most places allows for the defense of others, Branka explains, and despite their frequency, there aren't many laws governing mass shootings, so many defensive actions could be considered within legal bounds in those situations. For people claiming self defense and situations where they are personally threatened, things are a little bit clearer. Laws vary from state to state, as do those who enforce the laws.
What seems an unlawful act to a prosecutor in Massachusetts may not be to one in Texas, but generally most states recognize a handful of conditions up to five that must be met to conduct a successful defense of self defense. Innocence, eminence, proportionality, reasonableness, and avoidance, respectively. You have to be the innocent party. The threat can't be about something in the past or future. It must be now. The amount of force you use
must match and not exceed the threat. Your conduct must be reasonable to the point that a prudent person would think it is reasonable. And in a number of states, but not all, you have a duty to retreat to avoid a deadly encounter, since most states do recognize self defense as a defense for lethal force. Kristen Brown, the co president of the pro gun Controlled Brady Campaign, thinks that these policies are a bad idea. She said, why would people need insurance for something that they are legally
entitled to. We should focus on solutions to those real problems that impact far too many families, instead of emboldening the George Zimmerman's of the world to shoot first and ask questions later, which is exactly what this insurance will do. Maybe maybe not, Bronco said, you could do everything legally correctly and face a disaster in terms of finances and emotional stress by the same token, just because you have, say defense insurance. That's not to get out of jail
free card. If your use of force was unlawful, they may pay your legal expenses put off to jail you go nonetheless, today's episode was written by John Donovan and produced by Tristan McNeil. For more on this and lots of other current topics, visit our home planet, how Stuff Works dot com