You are very right there. It may well be that this was told to us as a means to limit liability. I can't recall if he cited a source for this info.
To back up what some have said here, I'll recount what was explained to me in my SDA class.
The attorney present in my class explained that the basic interpretation of the SDA was that when you utilize deadly force on behalf of another person you take on all the rights and responsibilities of that person. If that person would've been justified in using deadly force then you would be also. If they would not have been justified then you are open to prosecution.
He also provided an example. A lady who is carrying concealed is at a gas station sees a couple guys in street clothes escorting someone out of the convenience store at the gas station. While observing them, she sees that two men escorting the third possess weapons. She pulls her weapon and identifies herself and instructs the two men to release the person they are escorting.
The plain clothes men escorting the third were non-uniform agents doing a transport of an offender. Depending on circumstances, they would have been fully justified in taking her down or pressing charges for obstruction of justice. Had she fired first, she would've shot an agent of law enforcement.
That's an extreme example, but it goes to show that if you are using deadly force in any capacity you better know the WHOLE story and you can't always assume based on first appearance if you don't know specifically who the bad guy and good guy is. Another example would be stepping into the middle of a struggle or fight where potentially deadly force was involved without fully knowing the details of the conflict.
Erring on the side of only defending your family or other close relationships is simply due to the greater likelihood that you know the circumstances of those individuals much more so than you would for a random third party you see on the street.
If you screw up, your SDA instructor won't be on the hook for what happened. YOU will be based on the text in the law and NOT based on the text in any number of handouts you received in a class. This is why you have a responsibility to stay up to date on the current legal wording relevant to the SDA and not the handout or booklet you received any number of years ago or even in the current year as laws or specific wording are always subject to change. This is why the SDA handbook and any other relevant documents typically have a last revised date. Unless that date is the current date, there is a possibility that the text contained in that document is outdated to a degree.
The attorney present in my class explained that the basic interpretation of the SDA was that when you utilize deadly force on behalf of another person you take on all the rights and responsibilities of that person. If that person would've been justified in using deadly force then you would be also. If they would not have been justified then you are open to prosecution.
He also provided an example. A lady who is carrying concealed is at a gas station sees a couple guys in street clothes escorting someone out of the convenience store at the gas station. While observing them, she sees that two men escorting the third possess weapons. She pulls her weapon and identifies herself and instructs the two men to release the person they are escorting.
The plain clothes men escorting the third were non-uniform agents doing a transport of an offender. Depending on circumstances, they would have been fully justified in taking her down or pressing charges for obstruction of justice. Had she fired first, she would've shot an agent of law enforcement.
That's an extreme example, but it goes to show that if you are using deadly force in any capacity you better know the WHOLE story and you can't always assume based on first appearance if you don't know specifically who the bad guy and good guy is. Another example would be stepping into the middle of a struggle or fight where potentially deadly force was involved without fully knowing the details of the conflict.
Erring on the side of only defending your family or other close relationships is simply due to the greater likelihood that you know the circumstances of those individuals much more so than you would for a random third party you see on the street.
If you screw up, your SDA instructor won't be on the hook for what happened. YOU will be based on the text in the law and NOT based on the text in any number of handouts you received in a class. This is why you have a responsibility to stay up to date on the current legal wording relevant to the SDA and not the handout or booklet you received any number of years ago or even in the current year as laws or specific wording are always subject to change. This is why the SDA handbook and any other relevant documents typically have a last revised date. Unless that date is the current date, there is a possibility that the text contained in that document is outdated to a degree.
Thats a nice story ....someone Please show the SDA version ,I cant find it right now....
