Thanks for the links. Massad is without a doubt one of the premier authorities when it comes to the use of firearms in police/tactical/defensive situations. I put more stock in what he has to say than just about anybody else.
I agree he's one of the most educated men on fire arms and law there is. In a shooting it would be worth your money to pay to have him testify on your side.
I know that if you take one of his classes he will testify for you I don't know if its free but probably at a good discount. He will change the out come of your case.
I guess I'll be the lone dissenter here on Ayoob; I hope it doesn't make me unpopular...
Not really a fan of his - although I will admit to having 1 of his books & reading some of his articles. Way too self-righteous for me; I understand he is foul-mouthed too & that would also put me off although in all fairness I haven't heard that myself. I read that in a magazine review on one of his LFI courses.
I can also remember when he was at first silent, then supportive of S&W when they signed the HUD Agreement back in 2000. I realize that he lives in the same regional area as the manufacturer, but I can remember at the time his comments seemed to me to be defensive & arrogant.
No doubt the man is very knowledgeable & talented in firearms & I respect that - but his manner puts me off.
I don't disagree with your assessment. He does come across as self righteous a lot but I DO put a lot of credence in the lessons he teaches. He really is good at giving a nice forensic analysis (from many different perspectives) of shoots. I think that this presentation style is why he is so revered in the shooting community.
Example of his self righteous coming thru? Any article containing the phrase "The defense lawyer (usually a buddy of his) and I set up the logic of the defense shooting over the course of my opening 45-60 minutes (which has been exhaustively detailed in the opening of the article); I then 'took apart' the prosecuting attorney in the next 10 minutes and the jury wasted even less time in returning a "Not Guilty" verdict" - or something along those lines. Why doesn't he describe the 10 minute disassembly of the prosecuting attorney? I want to know what questions were asked and how he countered them so quickly without becoming a hostile witness!!!!! Give me details!!! Aside from learning the basis for what HE believes constitutes a righteous shoot - described at the outset of an articles describing a shoot - it would be most helpful to know what questions or concerns the DA/Grand Jury/etc brought to trial - this is the only way we will ever understand how our elected officials (DA) operate and what their basis for investigating and prosecuting a shoot that wasn't ruled a justifiable homicide by the PD.
That being said, if I'm ever involved in a defensive shooting -DAMN RIGHT I DEFINITELY WANT HIM ON MY SIDE!!!
I ask a lawyer that I shot with some of the questions about him not covering some of these things. His reply was that the less you make these things public the better. Even though the lawyers can research old court records many do not. They just put a case together and run with it. He is not as well known outside of the shooting groups as some of us would think. Lot of the things he said about court cases and the politics involved gives better understanding as to why some cases are pushed and others dropped. Media involvement can make some of these prosecuters with political motivation get involved hoping to increase their political standings.