Do you "Document" your training?

[MarkCO]

Thanks for the replies. I figured there was a good chance there would be opposing views.

I will tell you that as an expert, I scrutinize the documents I get in cases. But as a person who shoots and trains, I also understand that no training can completely account for everything.

Maybe one of the attorneys can answer, but I don't see a place where "sophisticated user" would detrimentally apply to a person's training. But I have had cases where that did apply to actual misuse of a firearm.

 

[OldMarksman]

On the other hand, having such documentation can't help you in any way I can imagine.

You need to rethink that one.

A defense of justification for the use of force or the threat of force will depend upon whether the triers of fact will conclude that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have done the same thing, knowing what the actor knew at the time.

Some key elements of justification are things that are taught in training. If you need help on that, let us know.

Showing that the actor did in fact know those things at the time will require the production and the admission of evidence to that effect.

Without it, the defendant's case may be seriously weakened.

Thus, not having such documentation can hurt you--or if you prefer, having it can help you.

 

[Mannlicher]

I don’t see a reason for me to document any training. It’s not required, and not needed by me or any one else for anything. God forbid We’re I ever in a self defense situation, I’d have more important things on my mind. Having, or NOT having training is not likely to be a factor with regards to any litigation resulting from an altercation.

 

[OldMarksman]

Having, or NOT having training is not likely to be a factor with regards to any litigation resulting from an altercation.

No one can speak to likelihood, but should your defense of justification fail, the consequences would be extremely serious.

That defense will spend upon evidence and the admissibility of evidence.

Proper documentation of training can be a make or break determinant on that score.

 

[Rachen]

You need to rethink that one.

A defense of justification for the use of force or the threat of force will depend upon whether the triers of fact will conclude that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have done the same thing, knowing what the actor knew at the time.

Some key elements of justification are things that are taught in training. If you need help on that, let us know.

Showing that the actor did in fact know those things at the time will require the production and the admission of evidence to that effect.

What it really is, is a double edged sword.

Everyone who takes defensive combat seriously should undergo some kind of training. There are a lot of types of training. Some are formal. Some are informal. Some are legit. Others regurgitate things from widely-available videos and charge you a fee. And then there are some who are only interested in how much $$ you can cough up. Being smart and finding the right training is key. And a lot of the formal training programs do give out things akin to martial arts belts or such.

Now, to "document" it or not? If you are looking for a job that requires or recommends such training, you will be advantaged to document it. HOWEVER, if you always wave it in the air like a big stick, you will come off like a mall ninja. If you are ever caught in a muddy situation and have to use your training, and you are perfectly justified, flaunting your "black belt" or "tin star" might not even be necessary for you to win your case.

If you are NOT justified in the use of force, AND you flaunt it around, once again, you will be portrayed as a mall ninja. Only this time, there is a court of law involved and the guys with the robes and gavels might not be too impressed with your antics. It is just like those "CCW Badges" that used to be hot topic around here and I still remember the discussions to why these things are NOT a good idea.

See how it is a double-edged sword?

 

[OldMarksman]

What it really is, is a double edged sword.

Being able to present evidence in my defense is never a double edged sword.

Everyone who takes defensive combat seriously should undergo some kind of training.

You have that one right!

Now, to "document" it or not? If you are looking for a job that requires or recommends such training, you will be advantaged to document it.

Sure.

HOWEVER, if you always wave it in the air like a big stick, you will come off like a mall ninja. If you are ever caught in a muddy situation and have to use your training, and you are perfectly justified, flaunting your "black belt" or "tin star" might not even be necessary for you to win your case.

I think I'm with you on that.

If you are NOT justified in the use of force, AND you flaunt it around, once again, you will be portrayed as a mall ninja. Only this time, there is a court of law involved and the guys with the robes and gavels might not be too impressed with your antics.

If i am not justified in my use of force, how I am "portrayed" will make no difference.

It is just like those "CCW Badges" that used to be hot topic around here and I still remember the discussions to why these things are NOT a good idea.

Entirely different subject.

See how it is a double-edged sword?

No!

Let me repeat: Being able to present evidence in my defense is never a double edged sword.

 

[Rachen]

No!

Let me repeat: Being able to present evidence in my defense is never a double edged sword.

I get where you are coming from. But on another thread I have brought up that in some places like China, professional, as in belted, martial artists are held up to much more responsibility than the average Joe off the street. If said martial artist gets into a confrontation where force is not needed and ends up seriously injuring the perp, the martial artist with an official belt will be prosecuted FAR more severely than Joe Sixpack if he had done the same thing.

Of course, both Black Belt and Joe S. are civilians. But because Black Belt has a black belt, the courts will see him as bearing far more weight.

I am not sure if the US has a similar way of dealing with civilian SD shootings, but lets look at it with a DRASTIC example. Note: This scenario is drastic, but is something that is well within the reality of our lives:

Scenario: Middle of a crowded outdoor shopping area. An individual brandishes something long and dark with the outlines of a semiautomatic rifle and begins waving it, yelling "You are all gonna die today! You are all gonna die today!". Repeatedly. And then he suddenly holds the very rifle-like object and aims it directly at the crowds. His hands look like they are about to go for the trigger. You happen to be standing behind him as he does this. You draw your trusty Glock 17 and fire one shot through the raging maniac's head, flooring him instantly. Threat has been nullified.

And then, it is revealed that the guy did not have an actual rifle. He was mentally ill, craved attention and had cut out a length of cardboard to resemble an AR in it's entirety and painted it to look exactly like the real thing too. Only deadly item he had on him was a kitchen knife inside his jacket. BUT even close up, no one can tell the dummy rifle apart from the real thing.

If a prosecutor was really having a bad day and hated "gun toting vigiliantes" (anti-gunner lingo), he could easily throw the book at you for shooting at someone who did not actually "open fire" on the crowds. NOW it is your turn for your defense to argue how your actions WERE justified during the moment. You are looking at freedom, or a manslaughter charge thanks to Mr. Draconian Prosecutor. Would having an official history of "tactical defensive pistol training and being a certified handgun instructor add more weight to your argument?

 

[hdwhit]

MarkCO asked:
Do you "Document" your training?

What training would you take and document?

* Conflict Resolution?
* Mediation?
* Conciliation?

As others have already posted, an extensive record of training in how to employ a firearm with greater lethality (with no corresponding training in how to avoid needing to employ the firearm in the first place) does seem to open the door to opposing counsel characterizing you as someone looking for a situation in which you could shoot. It might not occur in the criminal trial, but in the civil suit that comes afterward.

 

[OldMarksman]

Scenario: Middle of a crowded outdoor shopping area. An individual brandishes something long and dark with the outlines of a semiautomatic rifle and begins waving it, yelling "You are all gonna die today! You are all gonna die today!". Repeatedly. And then he suddenly holds the very rifle-like object and aims it directly at the crowds. His hands look like they are about to go for the trigger. You happen to be standing behind him as he does this. You draw your trusty Glock 17 and fire one shot through the raging maniac's head, flooring him instantly. ....

And then, it is revealed that the guy did not have an actual rifle. He was mentally ill, craved attention and had cut out a length of cardboard to resemble an AR in it's entirety and painted it to look exactly like the real thing too. Only deadly item he had on him was a kitchen knife inside his jacket. BUT even close up, no one can tell the dummy rifle apart from the real thing.

... a prosecutor ... could easily throw the book at you for shooting at someone who did not actually "open fire" on the crowds.

NOW it is your turn for your defense to argue how your actions WERE justified during the moment..... Would having an official history of "tactical defensive pistol training and being a certified handgun instructor add more weight to your argument?

The outcome would depend upon how the triers of fact evaluate the totality of the evidence.

That is, of the evidence that is admitted into court.

Would a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, have fired?

The determination would be influenced by arguments about how much time you had to decide, and how much time you had to act. Was your action reasonable?

The prosecutor will not have any way of reasonably judging that, nor will the jurors, without some help.

Expect both sides to bring in expert witnesses--people who know reaction times, how long it takes to draw, how long it takes from the time a decision to fire is made until the weapon is fired, reasonable expectations regarding accuracy and precision, etc..

But if your expert intends to testify that a reasonable person would draw and fire the way you did under the circumstances, even if the facts later indicated that your victim had not been a danger, the question may very well become one of did you know at the time that your action had been reasonable.

That's where the admissibility of evidence regarding your having received relevant training would become critical.

I will also argue that if you had not been trained, you should not be drawing and firing a gun in a crowd.

 

[TunnelRat]

I am not in any way a lawyer. Let me float this though. If I am dealing with the situation just described I want training. I think it will improve both my ability to survive and my ability to preserve the lives of others. To me that's factual and not really up for debate.

What I'm seeing a bunch now is the argument that if I "document" my training then the prosecution will look up that training, the details of that training, and then use those details to find flaws in my decision making and then roast me. However, what do we mean by "document"? People are describing a very active prosecution, which is certainly possible. What I'm confused about though is how such a prosecution won't find records of my training regardless. By "document" I mean that in a location in my house I have a folder with certificates from the completion of each course. This folder isn't hidden, but it isn't advertised either. I am not talking about advertising it in a public fashion. That said, any place of any repute is going to have records of me attending those classes. If the prosecution is as active as described, how are they not going to find out about those classes? Certainly someone somewhere knows I took those classes. They are not "underground".

My argument then is this. If I take training to improve my chances of surviving the encounter, then regardless of how well "documented" that training is I have to face the possibility of that training coming up in a trial, whether by me or others. To me that is mostly unavoidable.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

 

[Rachen]

That is, of the evidence that is admitted into court.

Would a reasonable person, knowing what you knew at the time, have fired?

The determination would be influenced by arguments about how much time you had to decide, and how much time you had to act. Was your action reasonable?

The prosecutor will not have any way of reasonably judging that, nor will the jurors, without some help.

Exactly. The closest thing that can be paralleled to something like this is trying to dock a moving satellite into a moving space station. There is no room for error. Not one bit. Take an action just one second too late, it might turn out to be a real assault rifle and people can already be dead or dying once that rifle activates. Act too early, and lethal force would have been used on a situation that could have only required cordoning off the area, and waiting for authorities to arrive.

Even with the best training, sometimes it is just impossible to tell if someone is being just an unhinged attention-seeker or is about to open fire with a real firearm. Such is the specter that hangs over law enforcement every day. There are plenty of "suicide by cop" cases that unfold just like this.

I will also argue that if you had not been trained, you should not be drawing and firing a gun in a crowd.

THIS+100 times. Marc McYoung specifically talked about these dangers in the section of his site that discusses defensive shooting. If the guy does have a real gun, this now becomes a gunfight. You better be prepared and able to anchor him immediately, or you are going to have bullets flying both ways. If you miss, you are going to be responsible for where that bullet hit. If it turns out that the guy did not have a real gun AND you missed your target? There is a whole world of trouble waiting for you now.

 

[MarkCO]

What training would you take and document?

* Conflict Resolution?
* Mediation?
* Conciliation?

IMHO, one of those three you listed, plus TCCC and maybe a performance driving class are good tools I'd love to be able to have everyone with a firearm be well trained in. I know that is not going to happen. I do however put some info on verbal judo, de-escalation, Stop the Bleed into the basic course I have taught for years. I also have a legal section written by an attorney and a section dealing with LE written by an LEO. I hope I give my students a foundation on which they continue to build. Over the years I have come to realize that the number who actually do so is minimal. The tools get rusty if you don't use them.

 

[Naro]

"...defense of justification for the use of force or the threat of force will depend upon whether the triers of fact will conclude that a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have done the same thing, knowing what the actor knew at the time.
Some key elements of justification are things that are taught in training."

I'd like to see some case law on where the reasonable person standard was held to be the "trained" person. So I, respectfully, think it would be a somewhat risky defense strategy to proffer the defendant's training resume. To do so seems to welcome challenges and nit-picking beyond the "reasonable person" standard. And isn't it the trier of fact, and not the testifying expert, who determines "reasonable person"?

"If you need help on that, let us know."
I'm not sure I need help just because my opinion differs from yours.

 

[OldMarksman]

"So I, respectfully, think it would be a somewhat risky defense strategy to proffer the defendant's training resume. To do so seems to welcome challenges and nit-picking beyond the "reasonable person" standard.

It isn't a matter of "strategy". It is the ability to present, and to have admitted, what may become very critical evidence.

Why do you think that trainers advise signing and dating the training material, sending it to oneself via registered mail, and storing the sealed and unopened package in a safe deposit box?

And isn't it the trier of fact, and not the testifying expert, who determines "reasonable person"?

Consider that jurors who are empaneled for a trial will likely have very little, if any, understanding of the dynamics of a use of force incident.

A juror may well have some inkling that drawing and firing while an assailant is at some distance from the defender would not be reasonable. Would the juror understand that waiting until the assailant is within two arms' lengths from the defender would not be reasonable, or that there is a generally accepted distance at which drawing might well be reasonable?

A juror whose only exposure to gunshot wounds has been screen fiction may really believe that one shot would be sufficient, and that firing several shots rapidly would not be reasonable.

A juror may have absolutely no understanding of the fact that a defender cannot know precisely when the assailant is no longer threat after having been shot.

A juror may be persuaded that the defender should have "tried to wound" the assailant.

The expert witness can credibly explain these things, and the fact of the training and the admissibility of the evidence may prove critical in proving that the defender had an objective basis for having believed at the time of the incident that his actions were reasonable.

I'm not sure I need help just because my opinion differs from yours.

I do not think that your opinion, as i understand it, is an informed one.

This subject has been covered at length here, in training classes, and in appellate courts. I suggest that you avail yourself of some good instruction in use of force law. Massad Ayoob would be a good source, and so would Andrew Branca.

 

[Naro]

"I do not think that your opinion, as i understand it, is an informed one.
This subject has been covered at length here, in training classes, and in appellate courts. I suggest that you avail yourself of some good instruction in use of force law. Massad Ayoob would be a good source, and so would Andrew Branca."

You have a point, although a bit condescending. I can always learn more. My 40+ years testifying as a forensic expert in state and federal courts probably doesn't entitle me to an opinion different from yours.

 

[OldMarksman]

You have a point, although a bit condescending.

I did not mean to appear condescending.

I can always learn more.

We all can.

My 40+ years testifying as a forensic expert in state and federal courts probably doesn't entitle me to an opinion different from yours.

I have not been offering my "opinion". I have been trying to explain what is taught in the better courses in use of force law.

 

[tepin]

I took Ayoob’s MAG20 class and he highly recommends taking notes to document your training and mailing the documents to yourself certified and registered via USPS so if needed at a future time, the package can be opened in the well of the court. I’m also a member of the Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network and they echo documenting training. People that carry guns will automatically be held to a higher standard. Ayoob cites a case in NY where the expert for the defense was not allowed to discuss the Tueller Drill in front of the jury because the defendant didn’t know about the Tuller Drill at the time of the shooting. Something to think about.

 

[Mannlicher]

OldMarksman

No one can speak to likelihood, but should your defense of justification fail, the consequences would be extremely serious.

That defense will spend upon evidence and the admissibility of evidence.

Proper documentation of training can be a make or break determinant on that score.

This will remain one of those nebulous questions/issues where there is not enough data or documentation to validate one side or the other. I maintain that there is no valid reason to bother with keeping training records other than for your own use. I have not seen, nor heard of, a case where such records played any part in a court situation. I'd venture to say that the vast majority of folks that have used a gun in self defense did NOT have training, were not 'gun guys', and still came out on top. Both in the encounter and in court. If it ever came to that.

 

[FireForged]

So I, respectfully, think it would be a somewhat risky defense strategy to proffer the defendant's training resume. To do so seems to welcome challenges and nit-picking beyond the "reasonable person" standard.

Training is good and I am all for training. Honestly though, there can always be a potential any particular expertise to work in favor of a desired position in court or to work against it.

I can recall an instance where a municipal officer was injured in a brawl and ultimately was assisted by a passerby who help subdue the offender. The offender claimed to have suffered some nerve damage to his hand due to improperly applied restraints ( too tight for too long and not double locked) claiming the officer was negligent and knew better. There was a big brouhaha about the officer having recently received training in the proper application of restraints and specifically the methods to guard against the potential for nerve and tissue injuries. Well guess what?! The injured Officer didn't cuff the offender, the passerby did. Guess what happened to the claim of negligence, unreasonableness, indifferece and malice once joe citizen from the tire store was to blame? It evaporated.

 

[Steve in PA]

Well, I'm currently in LE and as an instructor, I need documentation in order to keep up my certifications and in case one of my officers or myself gets involved in a shooting.

So, I keep a copy of the certificate of training/accomplishment/instructor course for my records, along with a copy of the syllabus that is being taught or instructed.

In 5 years, when I am retired, I will do the same thing for any training or classes I continue to take.