You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do you "Document" your training?
- Thread starter MarkCO
- Start date
I would suggest that the more documentation found about your training level, the higher the standard you could be held. Law enforcement agencies keep meticulous records of their officers training, not for the officers benefit but to lesson the liability of that officers agency in the event of a critical incident.
I would suggest that the more documentation found about your training level, the higher the standard you could be held. Law enforcement agencies keep meticulous records of their officers training, not for the officers benefit but to lesson the liability of that officers agency in the event of a critical incident.
By this logic we shouldn't have any training as no one could hold us accountable. I don't agree. I also don't agree that the sole reason agencies have their officers receive training is to remove themselves from liability and not to improve their abilities.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
By this logic we shouldn't have any training as no one could hold us accountable
Nope, not what I am saying and yes logically documentation should work in your favor but we are far from a logical society and the judicial system is no different. Documentation that should show you to be a reasonable, responsible citizen, which it very well could do, can also become documentation portraying you to be a planning, bloodthirsty vigilante that has just been biding their time for a moment like this.
I also don't agree that the sole reason agencies have their officers receive training is to remove themselves from liability and not to improve their abilities.
Record keeping serves two purposes, agency liability and POST requirements. The training itself is to improve their abilities.
I mentioned the possibility of documentation being used against you in the very first response of this thread. It's nothing I'm not aware of. Many things we do, including being in possession of a gun in the first place, could be used against us. There are two conflicts in a shooting. The shooting and then the aftermath, which may involve a trial. Having a narrative for the second part and being able to craft a story is essential.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
So good for cops, bad for "citizens. Sounds like something a liberal would come up with. If documentation reduces a LEOs liability, then it does the same for everyone else.I would suggest that the more documentation found about your training level, the higher the standard you could be held. Law enforcement agencies keep meticulous records of their officers training, not for the officers benefit but to lesson the liability of that officers agency in the event of a critical incident.
FireForged
New member
So good for cops, bad for "citizens. Sounds like something a liberal would come up with. If documentation reduces a LEOs liability, then it does the same for everyone else.
Marko.. professional LEOs are not held to a laymans standard to begin with and neither are medical professionals. Professionals are expected to have a certain knowledge base and having less can be seen as negligent. If involved in a unpleasant legal entanglement why would a citizen want to be held to a higher standard regarding their decisions or actions? I am curious
I am a huge proponent of training but I am not going to wave a flag made of training certificates or beg someone to filter my action by means of anything other than a common mans standard.
Among many reasons, LEOs generally keep records of their training because 1. There is a required standard to training which is mandated by law. 2. A person or organization can be expected to maintain a certain competence in regards to tasks they are expected ( as a matter of duty) to perform. Essentially, "I am performing a job and I know what I am doing". 3. More training generally fosters less bad decisions and higher potential to handle complex situation is a manner conducive to a positive outcome for everyone, thereby avoiding unpleasant legal entanglements and bolstering public esteem.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Rather than delete it, does everything have to be 'liberal' vs. 'conservative'?
Give it a rest, For God's sake. If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they are necessarily of one political part of the spectrum and that usage usual means you don't even know the nuances of the term.
Give it a rest, For God's sake. If someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they are necessarily of one political part of the spectrum and that usage usual means you don't even know the nuances of the term.
Mark, how in the world did you come to that conclusion with what I said? I was pointing out that documentation is an agencies CYA for an officers decision. It enables the agency to point out if the officer followed policy or didn’t in which case they (The Agency) can wash their hands of that officer for violating the documented training they had provided. I didnt suggest that it eases the burden on an officer, quite the opposite. Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving.
OldMarksman
Staff
There is one key way in which such documentation may help a civilian..
The success or failure of a defense of justification may hinge upon what the actor knew at the time. Examples: if the actor knew that experts believe that drawing a gun is prudent when the assailant is within a patellar difference, or if the actor had been made aware of objective knowledge that multiple hits would likely be required tp stop an attacker timely, evidence of that knowledge might help against criticism of his or her actions on those regards.
But that evidence would have to be documented at the time and sent, stamped, and stored sealed so hat it cannot be argued that it was fabricated ex post facto.
The success or failure of a defense of justification may hinge upon what the actor knew at the time. Examples: if the actor knew that experts believe that drawing a gun is prudent when the assailant is within a patellar difference, or if the actor had been made aware of objective knowledge that multiple hits would likely be required tp stop an attacker timely, evidence of that knowledge might help against criticism of his or her actions on those regards.
But that evidence would have to be documented at the time and sent, stamped, and stored sealed so hat it cannot be argued that it was fabricated ex post facto.
FireForged
New member
are you saying you feel like the accused has the burden to prove when he learned something? If someone doesn't believe me, doesn't it fall to them to prove that I didn't know it at the time.
if they want to make such a claim, they can.. but where is the evidence?
But that evidence would have to be documented at the time and sent, stamped, and stored sealed so hat it cannot be argued that it was fabricated ex post facto.
if they want to make such a claim, they can.. but where is the evidence?
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Here's my take. If you do have extensive training it will come out. It may be brought up at trial as this has been done at some cases. The best trainers can testify that you are not nuts (some expense entailed - they may not want expert witness fees but want travel). There is expert lawyer opinion that quality training can be used by a lawyer expert in SD issues to make a favorable presentation of you.
Training that is oriented toward 'shoot 'em' and violent, macho, posturing rhetoric may be brought up (it has been done, IIRC) to your detriment. Shoot them into the ground or Have a plan to kill everyone in the room - may not sound so good to a jury of non-aficionados.
Since my training and participation is well known, it is moot point for me.
Training that is oriented toward 'shoot 'em' and violent, macho, posturing rhetoric may be brought up (it has been done, IIRC) to your detriment. Shoot them into the ground or Have a plan to kill everyone in the room - may not sound so good to a jury of non-aficionados.
Since my training and participation is well known, it is moot point for me.
DefinitelyNotACop
New member
Well to be honest, I work in LE so I naturally have to record all of my training for court and agency purposes. However, I do think it is useful. Not only for yourself so you can see how much you have actually done, but in the event something ever comes up and you need to be able to prove you have a varying level of training in firearms. I don't think it is necessary and many people go their entire lives without any formalized training. However, it is never a bad thing to document it, especially if you work in a field where you are likely to end up in court one day.
My agency keeps my certifications on file.
As far as this comment...
"I lost a lot of respect for Mas when he shot that revolver up in the air trying to show trigger pull. careless."
That comment made me laugh. Even Gordan Ramsey burns toast on occasion. Doesn't mean he isn't a talented Chef!
As far as this comment...
"I lost a lot of respect for Mas when he shot that revolver up in the air trying to show trigger pull. careless."
That comment made me laugh. Even Gordan Ramsey burns toast on occasion. Doesn't mean he isn't a talented Chef!
OldMarksman
Staff
are you saying you feel like the accused has the burden to prove when he learned something? If someone doesn't believe me, doesn't it fall to them to prove that I didn't know it at the time.
o.But that evidence would have to be documented at the time and sent, stamped, and stored sealed so yhat it cannot be argued that it was fabricated ex post fact
if they want to make such a claim, they can.. but where is the evidence?
Unless the judge rules that the "documentation" can be objectively authenticated in a manner that it meets the rules of evidence, he or she will not allow it to be admitted, and the jurors will not even know of its existence.
Documenting and storing documents on training?
For job-related purposes: YES. Most of my professional job related training pertains to commercial driving, endorsements on commercial vehicles (airbrakes, doubles/triples, metal coil, Hazmat, etc...) I keep meticulous records on all of that, starting from when I had officially enrolled in truck-driver training. That is considered a supplement to my resume and something that I also provide as the "cherry on the cake" so to speak during recruitment to further present myself.
In shooting/defense wise, I have literally taught myself from the get-go. From when my Grand-Uncle had first taught me how to use a high-powered rifle and a bow, I have learned these skills in gradual increments. The "training programs" I have been in are exclusively demonstrations at martial arts symposiums and gun shows. I have also taught groups and classes on how to use a handgun, rifle, bow, and knives for different defensive situations. But these are not officially sanctioned programs and are more of displays and presentations during martial arts events.
If I ever have to apply for a job that involves armed security work or related, and I highly doubt it since I am a road hog, I am pretty sure I will just ask for the qualification test and show them how I can handle a weapon and shoot it accurately. No doubts at all that I can do that probably just as good or even better than guys who went through tactical this or that, not to be boastful or anything, I just spend a hell of a lot of time shooting and reloading, but ain't got no "official" paperwork.
For job-related purposes: YES. Most of my professional job related training pertains to commercial driving, endorsements on commercial vehicles (airbrakes, doubles/triples, metal coil, Hazmat, etc...) I keep meticulous records on all of that, starting from when I had officially enrolled in truck-driver training. That is considered a supplement to my resume and something that I also provide as the "cherry on the cake" so to speak during recruitment to further present myself.
In shooting/defense wise, I have literally taught myself from the get-go. From when my Grand-Uncle had first taught me how to use a high-powered rifle and a bow, I have learned these skills in gradual increments. The "training programs" I have been in are exclusively demonstrations at martial arts symposiums and gun shows. I have also taught groups and classes on how to use a handgun, rifle, bow, and knives for different defensive situations. But these are not officially sanctioned programs and are more of displays and presentations during martial arts events.
If I ever have to apply for a job that involves armed security work or related, and I highly doubt it since I am a road hog, I am pretty sure I will just ask for the qualification test and show them how I can handle a weapon and shoot it accurately. No doubts at all that I can do that probably just as good or even better than guys who went through tactical this or that, not to be boastful or anything, I just spend a hell of a lot of time shooting and reloading, but ain't got no "official" paperwork.
Last edited:
I agree with the DON'T maintain such a "resume". You may open a can of worms and allow the opposing attorney to argue 1) that you should be held to a higher standard, and/or 2) That you aren't following your training (they can ALWAYS find something you didn't do exactly as trained). On the other hand, having such documentation can't help you in any way I can imagine