An interesting discussion on training and how it sometimes plays out in court

[Jeff White]

I don't agree with everything they said but it's food for thought from attorneys who have defended murder cases where self defense was the defense.

 

[Hartkopf]

Watching this video clearly demonstrates a person wants tips on covering up what happened.

If I get/have training it’s only because I heard in the news that the Ukraine government handed rifles out to civilians and told them to fight for their lives against the invading Russians. If Russia(more likely China) invaded America, I want to be totally ready when the government hands me a rifle! That’s why I train.

 

[Hugger-4641]

You can delete my other thread, didn't see this one before I posted. You beat me by about an hour

 

[Kleanbore]

Generalities; no explanation as to "why"; lacking in substantiation; illogical comments....

The idea that deescalation applies only to law enforcement is ludicrous.

There are a lot of things that should be said about this subject, but they are not here.

 

[starling]

I warned people years ago with all the new CCW holders with short fuses and "tactical" training that concealed carry rage (CCW equivilent to road rage) was going to become a problem in the near future. At that point all these "Trainers" would be in a position where Lawfare will pose a threat.

De-escalation tactics should be the second major focus. Only falling second to getting they heck out of there.

Probably not a good idea if you are a CCW holder to post hotshot videos on social media either where people wear swat team gear for shooting targets in a defensive scenario on a range. But hey... people tend not to think about things so its all good.

Might be a good course of action for Trainers to start refering to each other/themselves/ and their classes as Safety Instuctors/Safety course. Might not be as sexy as a word like "tactical" (or whatever) but in the long run would be the smart thing to do.

There are no shortcuts when it comes to people and bad behavior. I have had to de-escalate a lot of situations over the years in all kinds of environments where things could have gotten really bad. It pays to just keep your mouth shut, listen, and think before speaking while staying calm. Despite what people see on Youtube the last thing any rational person wants is to shoot someone and make some family members of the perp widowed or orphaned. CCW holders need to be reminded to keep things like Ego in check. If you cant walk away from a fight or arguement you probably shouldnt be carrying a firearm until you learn that discipline.

Of course if you are in a situation where you are cornered and a threat to your life comes out of nowhere and is unprovoked all this goes out the window. At that point you are just trying to survive.

 

[Kleanbore]

I warned people years ago with all the new CCW holders with short fuses and "tactical" training that concealed carry rage (CCW equivilent to road rage) was going to become a problem in the near future.

Do you believe that that has happened?

 

[bdickens]

I warned people years ago with all the new CCW holders with short fuses and "tactical" training that concealed carry rage (CCW equivilent to road rage) was going to become a problem in the near future.

Hogwash.

The antis say that every time another state contemplates a concealed carry law, any time one of them contemplates relaxing any of the restrictions and any time a state contemplates permitless carry.

So far, 41 states have shall-issue permits. 24 of them don't even require a permit. Hasn't happened yet. When should we expect it to start?

 

[starling]

People need to pay more attention I guess. Has already happened. First one that comes to mind was Curtis Reeves. That was a LE Swat team captian.

People can choose to ignore this stuff or choose to understand and learn from it. As Gun enthusiests who CC the burden is on us to set the standard.

I am far and away from being any sort of Anti BTW. You just proved my point. Ego must be kept in check and manners matter. No worries.

 

[westernrover]

I'm going to have to be of the opinion that I would personally rather have the training to allow me to effectively defend myself and/or my family in the moment and then maybe having to explain why I wanted to be prepared for this unlikely scenario to a jury of my peers later....

The thing that some people don't get is that the jury will not be your "peers" until they know what you knew at the time. The prosecution will ensure during jury selection that the jury will not consist of anyone who carries a concealed weapon and is trained to use it. There will not be any CCW holders, any IDPA shooters, any Gunsite 250 graduates. There may not even be any gun owners.

The standard by which the jury will be instructed to judge you will that of the "reasonable person." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

"The legal fiction of the reasonable person is an ideal, as nobody is perfect. Everyone has limitations, so the standard requires only that people act similarly to how "a reasonable person under the circumstances" would, as if their limitations were themselves circumstances. As such, courts require that the reasonable person be viewed as having the same limitations as the defendant."

One of the limitations a person has is what they knew at the time. Some definitions of the doctrine of the reasonable man will describe it this way: "What a reasonable and prudent person would do under the same circumstances, knowing what they knew."

So for example, "when a person attempts a skillful act, the "reasonable person under the circumstances" test is elevated to a standard of whether the person acted how a "reasonable professional under the circumstances" would have, whether or not that person is actually a professional, has training, or has experience. Other factors also become relevant, such as the degree to which a professional is educated (i.e., whether a specialist within the specific field, or just a general practitioner of the trade), and customary practices and general procedures of similar professionals."

So let's say you're in circumstances that call for you to perform an emergency life-saving tracheotomy. If you attempted this without any training whatsoever, your act might fairly be judged as unreasonable and negligent. On the other hand, if you had some training in field trauma as a medic and acted according to the level of skill you had at the time, then you will not be found wanting in the judgment.

Police officers are trained in the use of force and their actions go through the courts frequently:

"The "reasonable officer" standard is a method often applied to law enforcement and other armed professions to help determine if a use of force was excessive. The test is whether an appropriately trained professional, knowing what the officer knew at the time and following guidelines (such as a force continuum), would have used the same level of force or higher. If the level of force is justified, the quantity of force is usually presumed to have been necessary unless there are other factors. For example, if a trained police officer was justified in fatally shooting a suspect, the number of shots is presumed to have been necessary barring other factors, such as a reckless disregard of others' safety or that additional force was used when the suspect was no longer a threat."

The citizen who carries "emergency life-saving equipment" can also be expected to be judged in their actions according to the doctrine of the reasonable person. They will be judged based on their circumstances, including what they knew at the time. What they knew at the time includes their training, their knowledge of common custom and practice (best practices), and their specific knowledge of relevant disciplines. As armed citizens, we also need to be aware of "guidelines." Was it reasonable for us to shoot the person charging at us with a knife when they were still 7 yards away? Again, the jury does not know these things until you train them. You cannot train the jury to know what you knew at the time unless you have evidence of your training. If you don't get training, you won't have evidence of it. The more evidence you have of your training, the more you will be able to duplicate it for the jury and by the time your defense is finished, the jury will know everything that you ever learned in training for the use of firearms for self-defense. You don't just want them to learn that you learned it -- you want them to be able to learn it also so that they will truly become your "peers." Only then will they be able to judge you and your actions in reasonableness according to the circumstances evidenced in the trial and according to what you knew at the time.

Get training in first aid, in CPR, in the use of fire-extinguishers, and in the use of firearms for self-defense. Document your training. Then act according to the standard you've been trained to know that a reasonable person would act, and you will have a reasonable chance of educating and explaining your rational and reasonable actions to a jury who will then also understand why you did what you did -- why you used the fire extinguisher instead of calling the fire department and waiting for them; why you performed CPR instead of calling for an ambulance and waiting for the paramedic; and why you used any other life-saving equipment and skills -- because you were trained in their use and it was reasonable and responsible to act according to your level of training.

 

[aaaaa]

Watching this video clearly demonstrates a person wants tips on covering up what happened.

If I get/have training it’s only because I heard in the news that the Ukraine government handed rifles out to civilians and told them to fight for their lives against the invading Russians. If Russia(more likely China) invaded America, I want to be totally ready when the government hands me a rifle! That’s why I train.

But better yet, under the 2A we are supposed to already have our own rifles so we are ready to fight against the invaders. No need for a government handout gun.

 

[Jeff White]

In 2004 or 2005 Illinois finally adopted a qualification standard for all peace officers. Prior to that departments were free to adopt their own standard. Departments are still free to adopt their own standard as long as it's at least as difficult as the state standard. The state standard is so easy I don't know how anyone could fail. I went to a regional qualification shoot run by the Standards and Training Board's Mobile Training Team that was the new state standard. I scored 100%. My chief told me that I should have thrown a couple shots because I didn't want that score on my record if I was involved in a shooting. Between the Army and LE and my own addiction to training I guess I need to be really worried about what would happen if I was involved in a shooting. But I'm not. I personally don't think my training would be anything but a plus in court. Training shouldn't be a problem if you act within the law.

I do see where training by a couple of the instructors who cater to the wannabe hero/commando set could be problematic if the shooting was questionable and someone introduced video of some of their classes into evidence.

 

[starling]

In 2004 or 2005 Illinois finally adopted a qualification standard for all peace officers. Prior to that departments were free to adopt their own standard. Departments are still free to adopt their own standard as long as it's at least as difficult as the state standard. The state standard is so easy I don't know how anyone could fail. I went to a regional qualification shoot run by the Standards and Training Board's Mobile Training Team that was the new state standard. I scored 100%. My chief told me that I should have thrown a couple shots because I didn't want that score on my record if I was involved in a shooting. Between the Army and LE and my own addiction to training I guess I need to be really worried about what would happen if I was involved in a shooting. But I'm not. I personally don't think my training would be anything but a plus in court. Training shouldn't be a problem if you act within the law.

I do see where training by a couple of the instructors who cater to the wannabe hero/commando set could be problematic if the shooting was questionable and someone introduced video of some of their classes into evidence.

It shouldnt be a problem but we are talking court now. Much of which is sort of a game between lawyers or those who have political agendas. Its just the way it is. Then add to that if the criminal court goes your way you may have to deal with civil court. Then there is also someones own possible personal issues of dealing with shooting/killing someone which...is kind of a thing if you are normal.

Best advice I can give is to just avoid places and people where things like this can happen and if you do have to be in that environment... get in and out while being curteous and useing good manners to others.

As much as a firearm enthusiest as I am I really dont like carrying a CCW everywhere I go. I tend to mainly do it when I am out with the kids because at that point you are more vulnerable to staying put and not fleeing an area. I also accept the fact that a WHOLE LOT of people are just going to be rude and edgy due to the stresses of life and their decisions. So I let things go and carry on.

Biggest problem for me is being out in public with my kids and some nutcase just decides to go mass shooter on a bunch of people. Outside of that a stray pitt bull getting ahold of one of my boys is my biggest fear.

 

[Jeff White]

It shouldnt be a problem but we are talking court now. Much of which is sort of a game between lawyers or those who have political agendas. Its just the way it is. Then add to that if the criminal court goes your way you may have to deal with civil court.

I've got personal experience with the courts. I can't begin to count the number of criminal cases I testified in. I don't have any experience in civil court as both times I was named in a lawsuit I was dropped from the complaint. The first time I was sued, the plaintiff sat in his attorney's office and just named police officers. Turned out I wasn't working when the incident in question occurred. The second time I was sued it was in my capacity as jail administrator and the judge dropped both the sheriff and me from the complaint because of a federal ruling that said we couldn't be sued for that type of incident simply because we were in charge.

I've answered questions about my training on the stand before. Not in a shooting case, but defense attorneys often try to call an officer's training into question. Sometimes the states attorney brings training up.

 

[bdickens]

People need to pay more attention I guess. Has already happened. First one that comes to mind was Curtis Reeves. That was a LE Swat team captian.

People can choose to ignore this stuff or choose to understand and learn from it. As Gun enthusiests who CC the burden is on us to set the standard.

I am far and away from being any sort of Anti BTW. You just proved my point. Ego must be kept in check and manners matter. No worries.

One incident does not a widespread problem make.

This sort of thing happens lawful concealed carry or not. Where is your evidence that it has increased such incidents? You have none because there isn't any.

Also, I didn't say you are an anti. I said your bogus argument is the same one they use. Reading comprehension is a thing.

 

[bdickens]

But better yet, under the 2A we are supposed to already have our own rifles so we are ready to fight against the invaders. No need for a government handout gun.

Thus driving home the point that the 2A protects the right to own "military style" small arms.

 

[starling]

One incident does not a widespread problem make.

This sort of thing happens lawful concealed carry or not. Where is your evidence that it has increased such incidents? You have none because there isn't any.

Also, I didn't say you are an anti. I said your bogus argument is the same one they use. Reading comprehension is a thing.

So are manners. No worries. Take care.

 

[entropy]

The thing that some people don't get is that the jury will not be your "peers" until they know what you knew at the time. The prosecution will ensure during jury selection that the jury will not consist of anyone who carries a concealed weapon and is trained to use it. There will not be any CCW holders, any IDPA shooters, any Gunsite 250 graduates. There may not even be any gun owners.

The standard by which the jury will be instructed to judge you will that of the "reasonable person." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person

"The legal fiction of the reasonable person is an ideal, as nobody is perfect. Everyone has limitations, so the standard requires only that people act similarly to how "a reasonable person under the circumstances" would, as if their limitations were themselves circumstances. As such, courts require that the reasonable person be viewed as having the same limitations as the defendant."

One of the limitations a person has is what they knew at the time. Some definitions of the doctrine of the reasonable man will describe it this way: "What a reasonable and prudent person would do under the same circumstances, knowing what they knew."

So for example, "when a person attempts a skillful act, the "reasonable person under the circumstances" test is elevated to a standard of whether the person acted how a "reasonable professional under the circumstances" would have, whether or not that person is actually a professional, has training, or has experience. Other factors also become relevant, such as the degree to which a professional is educated (i.e., whether a specialist within the specific field, or just a general practitioner of the trade), and customary practices and general procedures of similar professionals."

So let's say you're in circumstances that call for you to perform an emergency life-saving tracheotomy. If you attempted this without any training whatsoever, your act might fairly be judged as unreasonable and negligent. On the other hand, if you had some training in field trauma as a medic and acted according to the level of skill you had at the time, then you will not be found wanting in the judgment.

Police officers are trained in the use of force and their actions go through the courts frequently:

"The "reasonable officer" standard is a method often applied to law enforcement and other armed professions to help determine if a use of force was excessive. The test is whether an appropriately trained professional, knowing what the officer knew at the time and following guidelines (such as a force continuum), would have used the same level of force or higher. If the level of force is justified, the quantity of force is usually presumed to have been necessary unless there are other factors. For example, if a trained police officer was justified in fatally shooting a suspect, the number of shots is presumed to have been necessary barring other factors, such as a reckless disregard of others' safety or that additional force was used when the suspect was no longer a threat."

The citizen who carries "emergency life-saving equipment" can also be expected to be judged in their actions according to the doctrine of the reasonable person. They will be judged based on their circumstances, including what they knew at the time. What they knew at the time includes their training, their knowledge of common custom and practice (best practices), and their specific knowledge of relevant disciplines. As armed citizens, we also need to be aware of "guidelines." Was it reasonable for us to shoot the person charging at us with a knife when they were still 7 yards away? Again, the jury does not know these things until you train them. You cannot train the jury to know what you knew at the time unless you have evidence of your training. If you don't get training, you won't have evidence of it. The more evidence you have of your training, the more you will be able to duplicate it for the jury and by the time your defense is finished, the jury will know everything that you ever learned in training for the use of firearms for self-defense. You don't just want them to learn that you learned it -- you want them to be able to learn it also so that they will truly become your "peers." Only then will they be able to judge you and your actions in reasonableness according to the circumstances evidenced in the trial and according to what you knew at the time.

Get training in first aid, in CPR, in the use of fire-extinguishers, and in the use of firearms for self-defense. Document your training. Then act according to the standard you've been trained to know that a reasonable person would act, and you will have a reasonable chance of educating and explaining your rational and reasonable actions to a jury who will then also understand why you did what you did -- why you used the fire extinguisher instead of calling the fire department and waiting for them; why you performed CPR instead of calling for an ambulance and waiting for the paramedic; and why you used any other life-saving equipment and skills -- because you were trained in their use and it was reasonable and responsible to act according to your level of training.

Voir Dire only allows x amount of strikes to each attorney side. In MN, it is three out of the 24 initially drawn. There are other considerations each counsel has besides gun ownership or level of training. They can't always be assured of eliminating all potential jurors they don't want.

 

[westernrover]

That may be so, but you're still not going to get a jury consisting entirely of Gunsite 250 and Law of Self Defense graduates unless you can show them the evidence of what you were trained to do (not just your certificates that you were trained), and why you did what you did. You want to be able to articulate why you did what you did, and how you knew it was the right thing, the best thing to do. Your training is the most articulable material that your defense can bring into evidence to accomplish this. Without this, the jury is left to believe that you were flying by the seat of your pants and making it up as you went along. With it, they will understand why you did what you did and why it was, according to your training and to the best of your knowledge, the right thing to do and the best thing to do in accordance with the mainstream of custom and practice, that is, best practice. Not only is this the best affirmative defense against criminal murder complaints, but also against criminal and civil negligence complaints.

 

[bdickens]

So are manners. No worries. Take care.

And facts don't care about your feelings. Have a wonderful evening.

 

[Howland937]

I warned people years ago with all the new CCW holders with short fuses and "tactical" training that concealed carry rage (CCW equivilent to road rage) was going to become a problem in the near future

Whether or not that's what's happening, it's the same tired argument that's used anytime rights are at stake. "We have to ban alcohol because look what it did to this person", "We can't allow integrated restrooms because this might happen", or. "if it saves just one life"

I'm all for training and becoming proficient with the firearm(s) I may need to defend myself and/or loved ones with. I think everyone who carries or owns guns for defensive purposes should. Choosing training that mimics what LEO and military members need to do their jobs doesn't interest me. My job doesn't require me to clear rooms or apprehend bad guys.

But there's a market for it, and it wouldn't be surprising to see a defendant have to answer under oath why they felt the need for such training. It likely wouldn't matter if that training was even used at the time if the prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney can use it as a negative reflection on the defendant's character.

 

[Jeff White]

As an LE trainer I always documented the training, what was taught, lesson plans etc. What was taught in a class becomes an issue in court especially in lawsuits based on failure to adequately train.

You should ask any private trainer you are considering training with if he will provide you with documentation after the class. If your training becomes an issue in court you want to be able to document what you were taught. This can be a double edged sword; if you don’t perform the way you were trained it will be used against you.

 

[Speedo66]

"Permit-less carry, it's going to be a bloodbath in the streets..."

Heard that a few times, hasn't happened. The bloodbath continues by people who couldn't even qualify for a permit.

"These new gun laws are sensible and just common sense". Unfortunately, that hasn't happened either.

If training is brought into question, what will be their thoughts on retired officers who received training continuously for 20 or more years? Will they try and make that out as a bad thing? Depending on the area, LEO's can either be respected or vilified. In the press, it's usually the latter.

 

[Howland937]

If training is brought into question, what will be their thoughts on retired officers who received training continuously for 20 or more years? Will they try and make that out as a bad thing? Depending on the area, LEO's can either be respected or vilified. In the press, it's usually the latter

It'll be brought into question and portrayed as a bad thing because "those antiquated procedures and tactics have no place in our modern, peace loving society"

 

[starling]

Whether or not that's what's happening, it's the same tired argument that's used anytime rights are at stake. "We have to ban alcohol because look what it did to this person", "We can't allow integrated restrooms because this might happen", or. "if it saves just one life"

I'm all for training and becoming proficient with the firearm(s) I may need to defend myself and/or loved ones with. I think everyone who carries or owns guns for defensive purposes should. Choosing training that mimics what LEO and military members need to do their jobs doesn't interest me. My job doesn't require me to clear rooms or apprehend bad guys.

But there's a market for it, and it wouldn't be surprising to see a defendant have to answer under oath why they felt the need for such training. It likely wouldn't matter if that training was even used at the time if the prosecutor or plaintiff's attorney can use it as a negative reflection on the defendant's character.

I dont want to "BAN" anything as criminals dont even pay attention to that nonsense. I would like people to think more about how their actions can quickly escalate and snowball into something they will regret later. I see a lot of people with short fuses out there and folks need to be aware of it on both sides. People need to chill out and learn how dangerous it can be to throw gasoline on a fire. A lot of shootings are a result of stupid disputes that get out of hand. As CCW holders we need to set the standard for temperment and resolve. Ego has no place in that ... none. Yet youtube will show you endless videos of egomaniacs and firearms handling set to crazy music for dramatic effect. Its borderline brainwashing content sometimes similar to Hollywood type content in action films. Dangerous territory there.

I Agree with you.. learn to be safe... learn to shoot.... all great stuff... In that order. I try and promote it as I love firearms and their history. If someone wants to go out and play "operator" recklessly for fun they might be better off venting that energy with an actual sport. This notion of trying to turn tactical defensive or offensive training into some sort of sport kinda blows my mind. Thats just me though. These are firearms after all not toys. I fully admit I am pretty old school when it comes to firearms handling. I teach my children the same mentality.

One thing these "expert trainers" never seem to address is how important it is as a CCW holder to know your triggers/snapping point for you as the individual. That just gets glossed right over and as someone who carries a firearm its absolutely critical to be aware of that in order to guard against making really impulsive and stupid decisions that can end up in a death outcome. Im not a shrink/psychologist but knowing your own head is kind of important. CCW carrying involves a heck of a lot more than just being able to shoot well. Any dummy can learn that stuff.

None of this stuff is aimed at you Howland937 so please dont take it that way. I just throw out things for people to think about. I think for the most part people here are all firearms enthusiests of different stages and deep down we are all on the same page. There are disagreements and such but I dont see much psychotic/sociopathic behavior here.

 

[Jeff White]

One thing these "expert trainers" never seem to address is how important it is as a CCW holder to know your triggers/snapping point for you as the individual. That just gets glossed right over and as someone who carries a firearm its absolutely critical to be aware of that in order to guard against making really impulsive and stupid decisions that can end up in a death outcome.

It's not that it's unimportant, it's that is a completely different subject then the mechanical aspects of shooting and defensive tactics. These are two separate subjects. I doubt there are any trainers out there competent to teach both subjects simultaneously. I wouldn't want to learn defensive shooting or open hand defensive tactics from the guy who taught verbal judo and I wouldn't want to learn deescalation techniques from the a firearms instructor. I absolutely agree that both are important, but expecting that in a shooting class is like going to a podiatrist for a toothache.

There is no one stop shopping when it comes to these things. The best person to teach you to shoot and handle an armed encounter probably isn't going to be the best person to teach open hand combatives or verbal judo.