Could our training be used against us?

Training Training and Tactics
1

Pick anyone of us, especially if you are civilian. Now you are involved in a justified self defense shooting, be it in your home or in public somewhere. Is it possible that because one has taken defensive firearms classes, that the DA could persure charges or go after you for training to kill? Especially if you, in a time of stress, revert to your training and shoot two to the chest one to the head. Everybody has heard that in the movies, especially in association with “Hitman” type movies/killings. Do you guys think that if a DA that was out to make a name for themselves, they could do a little research and say "Well, here is Joe Blow, he has been to X carbine school, Y pistol school, is trigger happy, and has just been looking for the right situation to shoot someone? This would be especially true in more liberal areas of our country.

Even fighting charges could be enough to ruin a man money wise, regardless if he got off or not. I personally would err on the side of being prepared if I were in a life threatening encounter, but no one hardly ever talks about what to do and what trouble you could find yourself in after the fact.

2

A zealous prosecutor or plaintiff’s attorney can argue almost anything.

The real answer to your question is another question: If you were in court defending your actions after shooting someone, would you want to introduce evidence of your training as part of your defense?

Hopefully, the answer is yes. And hopefully, the people who trained you have their acts together and can defend what they’ve taught, too.

edited to add: And even assuming arguendo that your training can be used against you in court, the important thing is that it presumably helped you stay alive and make it to court.

3

If an ARMED Law Enforcement Officer trains, then TRAINING can never hurt you when the facts are revealed…

But there is always an a$$ DA out there… look at Nifong, for example.

Rmpl

4

Being able to point out that I participated in the same training that local LE has participated in, especially with an affidavit from an officer on the local SWAT team who was in class with me can probably only help me in an actual court setting.

Can someone attempt to use it against you? Sure.

Would I volunteer info on all the training I’ve participated in? No. Would I be scared of it if an authority figure brought it up? No.

5

You can be sued for anything. If I am ever involved in a shooting I want my training record to be unassailable. That means the resumes of my trainers need to be unassailable. So far, so good. Also why I won’t train with certain individuals/groups - I’ll leave the experimentation up to others.

6

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6

7

Regardless of the Ham Sandwich Principle, I’d call that “a good problem to have.”

8

And that is something you’ll never be able to shield against. I think people spend too much time worrying about this.

Train under reputable instructors, keep your nose clean, dont be a dumb@ss, and know the laws and mindset of YOUR OWN LOCAL AREA.

9

I think the greatest “danger” here, if indeed one exists, is the probability that a civilian shooter with no official standing (i.e. LEO, military) would be portrayed as a member of a fringe element, and that this kind of “paramilitary training” obviously left him/her spoiling for a fight. I’m not suggesting these are valid points by any means, but keep in mind how such a thing would look to a jury. If you’re in a Red State, then you probably wouldn’t have much of a problem. If you’re in a Blue State, then you had better brace for the impact.

More than anything else, though, I think the details of the actual engagement will be extremely relevant, and examined in excruciating detail. Did you attempt to give fair warning? Did you exhaust all other opportunities to avoid the use of deadly force? Did you shoot to stop the immediate threat, or continue firing well after that point (keep in mind here that if you fire 6 or 8 rounds, as a “highly trained” shooter, you won’t get very far with the “I kept firing because I was apprehensive” defense). Finally, you need to make very certain that you don’t fall into the trap of trying to use some ridiculous excuse along the lines of “my training taught me to shoot to kill” because you’re the one that the jury will see as unbalanced and dangerous.

Here in Germany, the self-defense laws are, by our standards, extreme. You must give verbal warning. You must fire – or attempt to fire – a warning shot. You must give the attacker at least some opportunity to flee. Only after these steps have been exhausted may you fire on another man with deadly force. My point is not to suggest that the German law is superior, but rather to say that it is a lot closer in philosophical terms to where you’re likely to find the mindset of the “reasonable man” that is called to sit in your jury box. So long as you remain the victim who, when threatened, offered a competent and measured defense, you have few worries – but let the prosecutor turn the tables and portay you as a willing antagonist who was only-too-glad to let things escalate before callously killing your fellow man, and you’re toast.

Where does formal training and schooling fit into all of this? I’d say that has everything to do with (a) what reasons you articulate for having taken the training – especially if it isn’t related to your profession, (b) where you were and what you were doing when you found that you were actually being faced with a threat, and (c) how proportionate your response was to that threat. Personally, I think I’d rather take an intruder down with a scattergun, and avoid the whole “assault rifle” drama, but that’s another discussion entirely.

It comes to this: having a training dossier to point to is something like having an Ace in your hand: it has the potential to greatly strengthen your position, but if you play the rest of the hand foolishly when you go “all in” in a self-defense situation, it probably isn’t going to make very much of a difference either way.

Chief

10

This type of scenario played out here in AZ a while back with a guy named Harold Fisch. (you can surely google his case)

He got convicted. The prosecutor made issue of him using a 10 millie pistol. They argued that it was a pistol more powerful than what EVEN the police carry.

I think the bottom line was that his shoot was not good… even as much as some of the AZ guys over on TOS want to paint it as good, it was borderline at best.

If you are involved in a GOOD SHOOT, none of the training or weapon type/caliber will matter. If your shoot is shaky, and you get a scumbag prosecutor, they’ll work every angle to portray you as evil.

11

Again, this is really a difficult subject to discuss on the internet. These situations are VERY dependent on you own local area and laws. This is why I personally hardly ever give specific advise on this topic, because what is viewed or handled one way in one place, could be handled or looked upon competely the opposite elsewhere. What would be no issue for me in my city here in FL, may cause you a nightmare in your city and state, and vice versa.

12

+1

One thing that training has done is get my mind right about the when’s, where’s and why’s of lethal force. I understand Conditions White through Red, I understand avoidance, deselection and deterence, and I understand shooting to stop the threat. I also understand that the LEO’s who may arrive on scene are not my “buddies” and to let my attorney do my talking.

All of this I attribute to time and money well spent on quality professional training.

13

Anything is possible, but does it really matter? To think that NOT taking training course simply because there is a chance that it could be used against you is like worrying about a comet landing on your house.

I would much prefer to be alive (in prison) than dead. :wink:

C4

14

As much as it isn’t fair, the police will initially judge you on appearance, reactions, perceived truthfulness, and general demeanor. Ideally, you want to be viewed as a good, average, normal citizen who was faced with a bad situation despite your best efforts to avoid it. If you could be considered a “good citizen” by the average citizen, you will be better off.

If you are looked at as a fringe member of society, you will have a harder time of it. Think of it as the Sunday school teacher and baseball coach vs the biker. It’s not right but it is true.

This is obviously general advise (NOT legal advise) but a few things that may help and certainly won’t hurt are:

-avoid trouble whenever you can, even when not related to any particular incident; do the right thing always, but don’t get involved in stupid things like domestic disputes and drunk brothers-in-law; ideally, you want to be unknown to the local police when it comes to drama

-don’t hang out in questionable places or with questionable people; you are judged by who you associate with

-don’t advertise that you carry a weapon; don’t run off at the mouth about self defense issues (ie no “ya can’t be afraid to whip it out” or “if that ever happened to me, I kill that dude”—I cringe when I hear this stuff); even if you are saying it to your best friend or trying to impress your girlfriend, it can come back to haunt you

-watch what you say on the internet; it can come back to haunt you

-avoid bravado; a bunch of pictures littering your house of you dressed up with guns hanging off of you aren’t wrong but they might not be worth the risk either (remember that picture of Richard Jewel with the AR when they wrongly accused him of being the Olympic Park bomber…that was almost instant proof of guilt to the national media); skip the bumper stickers and T-shirts

-if you are ever involved in a self defense shooting don’t talk to the police beyond the basics like IDing yourself; talk to a compentent lawyer first

-be 110% honest; trying to skew things to look favorable will make you suspect instantly—this point can not be over stated—if you lie or appear to lie, you are in for major heartache

-be 110% honest with your lawyer; they need to know everything, good and bad; your lawyer doesn’t need suprises

-be honest about your training, if your lawyer decides you should discuss it; don’t underplay it and don’t overplay it

15

Great post, David. John Farnam once told me:

Don’t go to stupid places. Don’t hang out with stupid people. Don’t do stupid things.

I hear guys all the time where I work (most are hunters and have been around guns in some fashion for decades) say the most ridiculous things when it comes to using a gun for self-defence. Ironic that the psycho-gun guy (me) is the one that is the least likely to advocate whippin’ it out.

You touched on another item - I post on a local (statewide) firearms board that is pretty general overall. There is a small but vocal minority who have made it their mission in life to promote open carry in PA. It is perfectly legal to do this in PA, but when someone like me points out the potential consequences of this choice, I am absolutley excoriated by the “true patriots.” Of course the loudest are usually untrained.

16

For sure. This comes with maturity. The more mature an individual, the less he needs the world to know he is an armed individual.

-watch what you say on the internet; it can come back to haunt you

Myspace tards!

-avoid bravado; a bunch of pictures littering your house of you dressed up with guns hanging off of you aren’t wrong but they might not be worth the risk either (remember that picture of Richard Jewel with the AR when they wrongly accused him of being the Olympic Park bomber…that was almost instant proof of guilt to the national media); skip the bumper stickers and T-shirts

Another good point. There’s probably not a one of us who if our firearms were laid out on the floor for the media to photograph wouldn’t be portrayed as some sort of nut with an ARSENAL of military weapons.

17

We have a handful of those guys here in AZ. For the most part they’re good guys, but diluted if they think that open carry is going to change weak minded individuals view of armed citizens.

18

Lest we forget, this issue could just as easily be presented as evidence that you are a serious, professionally-minded shooter …

To wit: “being a student of such things, I realized that owning and using these kinds of weapons brought with it a certain moral obligation to invest in competent training, so I took the time to attend x, y and z to make me a safer, more responsible, more aware shooter.”

Again, I would still have to say that all of this depends almost entirely upon the context of the shoot. Wholeheartedly agree that David really took the X-ring on this one, though.

Chief

19

It dovetails on Chief’s last post and has been pointed out elsewhere, having training can result in one being held to a higher standard. You were trained …

Not a lawyer, haven’t stayed at a Holiday Inn express either.

Find a competent defense attorney now, one who can at least spell Use of Force. Get them on retainer. Get some good legal advise on what to do in the immediate aftermath.

The one recent homeowner / decent, normal human being shooting we had, went very well for the Victim (shooter) in the aftermath. In no small part this was because he did everything right.

20

Quoted for posterity. Especially the part in red. The second red part cant be stressed enough. Good friend of mine locally is a Circuit Court Judge, former State attorney, and private criminal defense attorney. ID yourself, explain that you want to co-operate but you want your attorney present before making ANY statements or answering any questions, and then SHUT UP.